TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Sparrows Point LNG Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

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

LIST OF APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................vii 

LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................................viii 

LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................................................xi 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................xiii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................ES-1 

 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ ES-1 

 PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ ES-1 

 PROPOSED ACTION.......................................................................................................... ES-2

 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMENTS ........................................................................ ES-2 

 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION....................................................... ES-3 

 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...................................................................................... ES-8 

 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. ES-9 

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

 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS STATEMENT ................................................................1-2 

 1.2 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED.........................................................................................1-3 

 1.3 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.................................1-4 

1.3.1 FERC Regulatory Authority.................................................................................1-4 

1.3.2 Coast Guard Regulatory Authority ......................................................................1-4 

1.3.3 Major Acts That This Document Addresses ........................................................1-5 

 1.4 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PROCESS..................................................................1-10 

 1.5 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT..................................................................................1-13 

1.5.1 Public Scoping Process ......................................................................................1-13 

1.5.2 FERC Public Comment Process for the DEIS ...................................................1-15 

 1.6 NONJURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES ................................................................................1-16 

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ....................................................................................2-1 

 2.1 PROPOSED PROJECT FACILITIES.....................................................................................2-1 

 2.1.1 LNG Terminal......................................................................................................2-1 

2.1.1.1 Ship Unloading Facility....................................................................2-4 

2.1.1.2 LNG Storage Tanks..........................................................................2-4 

 2.1.1.3 Vaporization Systems .......................................................................2-7 

2.1.1.4 Vapor Handling System....................................................................2-7 

 2.1.1.5 Nitrogen Use.....................................................................................2-8 

 2.1.2 LNG Ships............................................................................................................2-8

2.1.2.1 LNG Shipping and Ship Design .......................................................2-8 

2.1.2.2 LNG Ship Ballasting and Ship Boiler Cooling Water Intake and 

Discharge..........................................................................................2-9 

 2.1.3 Pipeline and Associated Facilities........................................................................2-9 

 2.1.3.1 Pipeline Facilities .............................................................................2-9 

 2.1.3.2 Aboveground Facilities...................................................................2-10 

 2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................................................2-13 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 2.2.1 LNG Terminal....................................................................................................2-13 

 2.2.2 Pipeline and Associated Facilities......................................................................2-13 

2.2.2.1 Pipeline Right-of-Way and Additional Temporary Workspace .....2-14 

2.2.2.2 Access Roads and Pipeyards ..........................................................2-14 

 2.2.2.3 Aboveground Facilities...................................................................2-19 

 2.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES......................................................................................2-19 

 2.3.1 LNG Terminal....................................................................................................2-19 

2.3.1.1 Ship Docking and Unloading Facilities..........................................2-19 

2.3.1.2 LNG Storage and Process Facilities ...............................................2-20 

2.3.1.3 Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal ......................................2-22 

 2.3.2 Pipeline Facilities ...............................................................................................2-27 

2.3.2.1 General Construction Techniques...................................................2-27 

2.3.2.2 Specialized Construction Techniques.............................................2-31 

 2.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE...........................................................................................2-36 

 2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE, INSPECTION, AND 

 MITIGATION MONITORING.............................................................................................2-37 

 2.6 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES......................................................2-37 

 2.6.1 LNG Terminal....................................................................................................2-37 

 2.6.2 Pipeline Facilities ...............................................................................................2-39 

 2.7 SAFETY CONTROLS ..........................................................................................................2-39 

 2.7.1 LNG Terminal....................................................................................................2-39 

2.7.1.1 Spill Containment System ..............................................................2-40 

2.7.1.2 Fire and Hazard Detection System .................................................2-40 

2.7.1.3 Fire and Hazard Control System.....................................................2-40 

2.7.1.4 Emergency Shutdown System ........................................................2-40 

2.7.1.5 LNG Transfer Monitors and Vessel Inspections ............................2-41 

 2.7.1.6 Security Zones ................................................................................2-41 

 2.7.2 Pipeline Facilities ...............................................................................................2-42 

2.7.2.1 Corrosion Protection and Corrosion Monitoring............................2-42 

 2.7.2.2 Emergency Response Procedures...................................................2-42 

 2.8 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT ........................................................................2-42 

3.0 ALTERNATIVES...............................................................................................................................3-1 

 3.1 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES..................................................................................3-3 

3.1.1 Other Non-Renewable Fuels ................................................................................3-3 

 3.1.2 Renewable Energy Sources..................................................................................3-3 

 3.1.3 Conclusions Regarding Alternative Energy Sources ...........................................3-4 

 3.2 LNG TERMINAL ALTERNATIVES.....................................................................................3-4 

3.2.1 LNG Terminals Serving Other Target Markets ...................................................3-5 

3.2.2 LNG Terminals Serving Target Markets .............................................................3-7 

3.2.3 LNG Terminal Onshore Site Alternatives ...........................................................3-9 

3.2.4 Offshore Terminal Alternatives .........................................................................3-22 

 3.2.5 Regasification Alternatives ................................................................................3-27 

3.2.6 Conclusions of All LNG Terminal Alternatives ................................................3-29 

3.2.7 Dredging Method and Dredged Material Disposal Alternatives........................3-29 

3.2.7.1 Dredging Method Alternatives .......................................................3-29 

3.2.7.2 Comparison of Dredged Material Disposal Alternatives................3-31 

3.2.8 Conclusion of Preferred Dredged Material Disposal/Placement Method ..........3-33 

 3.3 MID-ATLANTIC EXPRESS PIPELINE ALTERNATIVES ...............................................3-33 

3.3.1 Pipeline System Alternatives .............................................................................3-33 

3.3.2 Major Route Alternatives...................................................................................3-34 

ii

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
3.3.2.1 Dundalk West Alternative ..............................................................3-35 

3.3.2.2 Western Corridor Alternative .........................................................3-38 

3.3.2.3 State Route 136 Alternative............................................................3-41 

3.3.2.4 US I-95 & Greenfield Alternative .................................................3-43 

 3.3.3 Route Variations.................................................................................................3-46 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................4-1 

 4.1 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES................................................................................................4-1 

 4.1.1 Physiographic and Geologic Setting ....................................................................4-1 

 4.1.1.1 LNG Terminal ..................................................................................4-1 

 4.1.1.2 Pipeline Facilities ............................................................................4-8 

4.1.2 Other Natural Hazards........................................................................................4-11 

 4.1.2.1 Flooding..........................................................................................4-11 

 4.1.2.2 Acid Runoff Production..................................................................4-12 

4.1.2.3 Localized Scour and Shoreline Erosion..........................................4-12 

 4.1.3 Paleontological Resources..................................................................................4-13 

 4.2 SOILS ....................................................................................................................................4-14 

4.2.1 LNG Terminal Site.............................................................................................4-14 

 4.2.1.1 Construction and Operation............................................................4-17 

4.2.2 Waterway for LNG Marine Traffic....................................................................4-18 

 4.2.3 Pipeline Route ....................................................................................................4-19 

4.2.3.1 Prime Farmland Soils .....................................................................4-22 

4.2.3.2 Potential Changes to Drainage........................................................4-22 

 4.2.3.3 Hydric Soils ....................................................................................4-23 

4.2.3.4 Compaction Potential and Mixing..................................................4-23 

 4.2.3.5 Erosion............................................................................................4-24 

4.2.3.6 Stony Rocky Soils and Shallow-to-Bedrock Soils .........................4-24 

 4.2.3.7 Revegetation Potential....................................................................4-25 

 4.2.3.8 Soil Contamination.........................................................................4-25 

 4.3 WATER RESOURCES .........................................................................................................4-28 

 4.3.1 Groundwater.......................................................................................................4-28 

4.3.1.1 Regional Groundwater Quality and Quantity .................................4-28 

4.3.1.2 Impacts along the Waterway for LNG Marine Traffic ...................4-33 

 4.3.2 Surface Water.....................................................................................................4-33 

 4.3.2.1 Watershed Description ...................................................................4-33 

 4.3.2.2 Waterbody Classifications..............................................................4-35 

 4.3.2.3 Sensitive Waterbodies ....................................................................4-36 

 4.3.2.4 Sediment .........................................................................................4-38 

4.3.2.5 Surface Water Resources Impacts and Mitigation..........................4-56 

4.3.2.6 Impacts from Operations along the Waterway for LNG Marine 

Traffic .............................................................................................4-73 

 4.4 WETLANDS .........................................................................................................................4-75 

 4.4.1 Regulatory Permits.............................................................................................4-75 

4.4.2 Wetland Types Impacted by the Proposed Project.............................................4-76 

4.4.2.1 Wetlands Located at the Proposed LNG Terminal Site and Along the 

Proposed Pipeline Route.................................................................4-79 

4.4.2.2 Waterway for LNG Marine Traffic ................................................4-82 

4.4.3 Potential Impacts of the Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline to Wetlands ................4-84 

4.4.4 Wetlands Construction and Maintenance Procedures and the Aquatic Resources 

Mitigation Plan...................................................................................................4-84 

 4.5 VEGETATION......................................................................................................................4-86 

iii

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 4.5.1 Vegetation Resources.........................................................................................4-86 

 4.5.1.1 Site Specific Impacts ......................................................................4-89 

4.5.1.2 Plant Communities of Special Concern..........................................4-89 

4.5.2 Vegetation Management Programs ....................................................................4-90 

 4.5.3 Noxious Weeds ..................................................................................................4-91 

 4.5.4 Vegetation Conclusions......................................................................................4-92 

 4.6 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC SPECIES........................................................................4-93 

 4.6.1 Terrestrial Species..............................................................................................4-93 

4.6.1.1 Sensitive Wildlife Areas.................................................................4-96 

4.6.1.2 Wildlife Resources Impacts and Mitigation ...................................4-98 

4.6.1.3 Impacts to Sensitive Wildlife Areas .............................................4-102 

 4.6.2 Aquatic Species................................................................................................4-104 

4.6.2.1 Affected Environment – Aquatic Species.....................................4-104 

4.6.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation - Aquatic Species....................................4-107 

4.6.3 Essential Fish Habitat.......................................................................................4-118 

 4.6.3.1 EFH Species Accounts .................................................................4-120 

4.6.3.2 Potential Impacts to EFH-Designated Species, Conservation 

Measures, and Mitigation Plans....................................................4-122 

 4.6.3.3 Conclusions ..................................................................................4-132 

 4.7 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ...........4-134 

4.7.1 Federally Listed or Proposed Threatened and Endangered Species.................4-134 

 4.7.1.1 Conclusions and Recommendations – Federally-Listed Species..4-157 

4.7.2 State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Other Species 

 of Concern.......................................................................................................4-158 

4.7.3 Threatened and Endangered Species Along the Marine Transit Route............4-171 

 4.8. LAND USE, RECREATION, AND VISUAL RESOURCES ............................................4-174 

 4.8.1 Land Use ..........................................................................................................4-174 

4.8.1.1 Residences and Developments .....................................................4-178 

4.8.1.2 Recreation and Public Interest Areas............................................4-187 

4.8.1.3 Conservation Easements and Agriculture.....................................4-205 

 4.8.2 Coastal Regulations..........................................................................................4-208 

4.8.2.1 Federal Coastal Zone Management Act .......................................4-208 

4.8.2.2 Maryland Critical Areas Act.........................................................4-209 

 4.8.3 Hazardous Waste Sites.....................................................................................4-211 

 4.8.4 Boating, Fishing, and Hunting .........................................................................4-214 

 4.8.4.1 Boating and Fishing......................................................................4-214 

 4.8.4.2 Waterfowl Hunting.......................................................................4-218 

 4.8.5 Visual Resources..............................................................................................4-219 

4.8.5.1 LNG Terminal and Waterway for LNG Marine Traffic...............4-219 

 4.8.5.2 Pipeline Facilities .........................................................................4-221 

 4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS..........................................................................................................4-223 

 4.9.1 Population, Economy, and Employment..........................................................4-223 

 4.9.2 Housing ............................................................................................................4-228

 4.9.3 Public Services.................................................................................................4-228 

 4.9.4 Transportation and Vessel Traffic....................................................................4-230 

 4.9.4.1 Vehicle Traffic..............................................................................4-230 

 4.9.4.2 Vessel Traffic ...............................................................................4-234 

 4.9.5 Property Values................................................................................................4-237 

 4.9.6 Tax Revenues...................................................................................................4-239 

 4.9.7 Environmental Justice ......................................................................................4-241 

 4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES................................................................................................4-249 

iv

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
4.10.1 Results of the Cultural Resource Surveys ........................................................4-249 

4.10.2 Native American and Agency Consultation.....................................................4-257 

 4.10.3 Unanticipated Discoveries................................................................................4-258 

4.10.4 Compliance with the NHPA.............................................................................4-258 

 4.11 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE .............................................................................................4-260 

 4.11.1 Air Quality .......................................................................................................4-260

 4.11.1.1 Regional Climate ..........................................................................4-260 

 4.11.1.2 Existing Air Quality......................................................................4-260 

4.11.1.3 Regulatory Requirements for Air Quality ....................................4-264 

4.11.1.4 Air Quality Impacts and Mitigation..............................................4-272 

 4.11.1.5 General Conformity Determination..............................................4-280 

4.11.1.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...........................................................4-283 

 4.11.2 Noise ................................................................................................................4-285 

 4.11.2.1 Noise Regulations.........................................................................4-286 

4.11.2.2 Existing Noise Levels...................................................................4-286 

4.11.2.3 Noise Impacts and Mitigation.......................................................4-287 

 4.12 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY...........................................................................................4-294 

 4.12.1 LNG Hazards ...................................................................................................4-295 

4.12.2 Front-End Engineering Design Review ...........................................................4-297 

4.12.3 Storage and Retention Systems........................................................................4-304 

 4.12.4 Siting Requirements .........................................................................................4-305 

 4.12.5 LNG Vessel Safety...........................................................................................4-313 

 4.12.5.1 History ..........................................................................................4-313 

 4.12.5.2 LNG Vessel Construction.............................................................4-314 

 4.12.5.3 Hazards .........................................................................................4-315 

4.12.5.4 LNG Vessel Transit to the AES LNG Terminal...........................4-321 

4.12.5.5 Requirements for LNG Operations in Chesapeake Bay and the 

Patapsco River ..............................................................................4-323 

4.12.6 Emergency Response and Evacuation Planning ..............................................4-328 

4.12.7 Conclusions on LNG Vessel Safety .................................................................4-329 

4.12.8 Terrorism and Security Issues..........................................................................4-330 

4.12.9 Pipeline Safety Standards.................................................................................4-331 

4.12.10 Pipeline Accident Data.....................................................................................4-334 

4.12.11 Impact on Public Safety ...................................................................................4-336 

 4.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.................................................................................................4-338 

 4.13.1 Geology............................................................................................................4-340 

 4.13.2 Soils..................................................................................................................4-340 

 4.13.3 Water Resources...............................................................................................4-341 

 4.13.4 Wetlands...........................................................................................................4-345 

 4.13.5 Vegetation ........................................................................................................4-346

4.13.6 Terrestrial and Aquatic Species........................................................................4-346 

4.13.7 Threatened, Endangered, and Other Special Status Species ............................4-348 

4.13.8 Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources...................................................4-348 

 4.13.9 Socioeconomics................................................................................................4-350 

 4.13.10 Cultural Resources ...........................................................................................4-351 

4.13.11 Air Quality and Noise ......................................................................................4-351 

4.13.12 Reliability and Safety.......................................................................................4-353 

4.13.13 Conclusions About Cumulative Impacts..........................................................4-354 

v

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................5-1 

 5.1 SUMMARY OF STAFF’S ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS..............................................5-1 

 5.1.1 Geology................................................................................................................5-1 

 5.1.2 Soils......................................................................................................................5-2 

 5.1.3 Water Resources...................................................................................................5-3 

 5.1.4 Wetlands...............................................................................................................5-6 

 5.1.5 Vegetation ............................................................................................................5-7 

 5.1.6 Terrestrial and Aquatic Species............................................................................5-8 

5.1.7 Threatened, Endangered and Other Special Status Species ...............................5-11 

5.1.8 Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources.....................................................5-12 

 5.1.9 Socioeconomics..................................................................................................5-15 

 5.1.10 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................5-17 

5.1.11 Air Quality and Noise ........................................................................................5-17 

5.1.12 Reliability and Safety.........................................................................................5-18 

 5.1.13 Cumulative Impacts ...........................................................................................5-19 

 5.1.14 Alternatives ........................................................................................................5-20 

 5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION............................................................5-22 

vi

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LIST OF APPENDICES 

VOLUME 1 

APPENDIX A EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR THE SPARROWS POINT LNG PROJECT...... A-1 

APPENDIX B MID-ATLANTIC EXPRESS PIPELINE – PROPOSED ROUTE MAPS............ ..B-1 

APPENDIX C TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES AND ACCESS ROADS....................... C-1 

APPENDIX D CONSOLIDATED DREDGE PLAN ...................................................................... D-1 

APPENDIX E ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT...................................................... E-1 

APPENDIX F RESIDENCES AND OTHER STRUCTURES WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE 

CONSTRUCTION WORK AREA FOR THE MID-ATLANTIC EXPRESS PIPELINE

...................................................................................................................................F-1 

APPENDIX G REFERENCES AND CONTACTS ......................................................................... G-1 

APPENDIX H LIST OF PREPARERS............................................................................................ H-1 

APPENDIX I WATERBODY CROSSINGS ...................................................................................I-1 

APPENDIX J WATERWAY SUITABILITY REPORT AND ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED 

MITIGATION MEASURES..................................................................................... J-1 

APPENDIX K WATERWAY FOR LNG MARINE TRAFFIC MAPS ......................................... K-1 

APPENDIX X KEYWORD INDEX ......................................................................... X-1 

VOLUME 2 – CD-ROM only 

APPENDIX L RESPONSE TO MARYLAND ADVISORY REPORT.......................................... L-1 

APPENDIX M PHOTO SIMULATIONS OF SPARROWS POINT FACILITY AND LNG CARRIER 

AT DOCK ............................................................................................................... M-1 

APPENDIX N PLAN FOR UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY OF HAZARDOUS WASTES OR 

CONTAMINATED SITES...................................................................................... N-1 

APPENDIX O EXOTIC AND INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL PLAN...................................... O-1 

APPENDIX P COMMENT REPONSES ........................................................................................P-1 

APPENDIX Q AQUATIC RESOURCES MITIGATION PLAN .................................................. Q-1 

APPENDIX R DRAFT GENERAL CONFORMITY DETERMINATION ................................... R-1 

APPENDIX S HDD CONTINGENCY PLAN ................................................................................S-1 

APPENDIX T ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN (ECP) WITH BMPs .................. T-1 

APPENDIX U SITE-SPECIFIC PLANS ....................................................................................... U-1 

APPENDIX V THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES PLANS .................................. V-1 

APPENDIX W SPCC PLAN ........................................................................................................... W-1 

vii

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LIST OF TABLES 

Number Table Title ..................................................................................................................................Page 

 1.3-1 Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Sparrows Point Project ..............................1-9 

 1.5-1 Primary Issues Identified and Comments Received During the Public Scoping Process and 

following the Release of the DEIS for the Sparrows Point Project..............................................1-14 

 2.1.3-1 Aboveground Pipeline Facilities ..................................................................................................2-10 

 2.2.2-1 Summary of Land Requirements Associated With Construction and Operation of the 

Pipeline and Aboveground Pipeline Facilities for the Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline ............... 2-13 

 2.2.2-2 Summary of Existing Rights-of-Way Co-located With or Paralleled by the Proposed 

Pipeline Route ............................................................................................................................. 2-18 

2.4-1 Estimated Construction Schedule.................................................................................................2-36 

 2.7.1-1 Federal Siting and Design Requirements for LNG Facilities.......................................................2-39 

3.2-1 Existing, Authorized, Proposed, and Planned LNG Terminals Considered as Alternatives..........3-5 

 3.2.3-1 Comparison of Proposed Sparrows Point LNG Site and Seven Chesapeake Bay 

Alternative Locations ...................................................................................................................3-10 

 3.2.4-1 Terminal Design Types ................................................................................................................3-23 

 3.2.7-1 COE Bucket Comparison Study Results......................................................................................3-31 

 3.3.2-1 Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With the Dundalk West 

Alternative....................................................................................................................................3-38 

3.3.2-2 Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With the Western Corridor 

Alternative....................................................................................................................................3-39 

 3.3.2-3 Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With the SR 136 Alternative ...............3-43 

 3.3.2-4 Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With the US I-95 & Greenfield 

Alternative....................................................................................................................................3-44 

 3.3.3-1 Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Variation 1..................................3-48 

 3.3.3-1B Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Variation 1B ...............................3-49 

3.3.3-1C Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Variation 1C ...............................3-50 

3.3.3-1D Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Variation 1D ...............................3-51 

 3.3.3-2 Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Variation 2..................................3-55 

 3.3.3-2A Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Variation 2A ...............................3-55 

 3.3.3-3 Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Variation 3..................................3-56 

 3.3.3-4 Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Variation 4..................................3-59 

 3.3.3-5 Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Variation 5..................................3-61 

 3.3.3-6 Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Variation 6..................................3-63 

 3.3.3-6A Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Variation 6A ...............................3-63 

 3.3.3-6B Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Variation 6B ...............................3-64 

 3.3.3-7 Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Variation 7..................................3-66 

 3.3.3-8 Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Variation 8..................................3-67 

 3.3.3-9 Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Variation 9..................................3-69 

 3.3.3-9A Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Variation 9A ...............................3-71 

 3.3.3-10 Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Variation 10................................3-73 

 3.3.3-10A Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Variation 10A .............................3-75 

 3.3.3-11 Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Variation 12A .............................3-79 

 3.3.3-12 Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Variation 12B .............................3-81 

 3.3.3-13 Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Variation 12C .............................3-82 

 3.3.3-14 Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Kirks Mill Variations A and 

B ...................................................................................................................................................3-87 

 3.3.3-15 Comparison of Romansville Road Variation A............................................................................3-90 

 3.3.3-16 Comparison of Romansville Road Variation B............................................................................3-90 

 3.3.3-17 Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Chesaco Avenue Variation .........3-92 

viii

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Number Table Title ..................................................................................................................................Page 

3.3.3-18 Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Route Variation 13 .....................3-94 

 3.3.3-19 Comparison of Mid-Atlantic Express's Proposed Route With Route Variation 14 .....................3-96 

 4.2.1-1 Analytical Results of Soil Samples Collected Within the Proposed LNG Terminal Site ............4-16 

 4.2.3-1 Soils Characteristics for the Proposed Pipeline Right-of-Way ....................................................4-20 

 4.2.3.2-1 Summary of Hydric Soils Along the Pipeline Route....................................................................4-23 

 4.2.3.5-1 Potential Shallow Bedrock Locations ..........................................................................................4-25 

 4.3.1-1 Water Supply Wells Located Within 150 Feet of the Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Route.......4-29 

 4.3.2-1 Results of June 2006 Sediment Chemical Analyses from the Sparrows Point Marine 

Sediments and Comparison to Previous Area Studies and to Marine Sediment Guidelines........4-41 

 4.3.2-2 Sorption and Affecting Factors for Metals in Sediments .............................................................4-53 

 4.3.2-3 Factors Affecting Bioavailability and Bioaccumulation of Metals..............................................4-55 

 4.3.2-4 Hydrotest Water Discharge Locations and Volumes ...................................................................4-73

 4.4.2-1 Wetlands Impacted by Construction and Operation of the Proposed Mid-Atlantic Express 

Pipeline.........................................................................................................................................4-77 

 4.4.2-2 Representative Wetland Plant Species (Listed by Wetland Type) Identified in the 

Sparrows Point LNG Terminal and Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Areas..................................4-80 

 4.4.2-3 Summary of Wetland Types Impacted by the Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline.............................4-81 

 4.6.1-1 Terrestrial Wildlife Species Representative of Terrestrial Habitats That Would be Affected 

by the Proposed Project................................................................................................................4-93 

 4.6.1-2 Locations of Maryland-Designated Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) Habitat for 

Protection of Birds Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Facilities .................................................4-97 

 4.6.2-1 Representative Game and Commercial Fish Species Known to Occur in the Proposed 

LNG Terminal Vicinity..............................................................................................................4-106 

 4.6.3-1 Fish Species for Which EFH has Been Identified and Ecologically Important Prey Species 

of Managed Finfish That Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed LNG Terminal Area and 

Along the Proposed Pipeline Route............................................................................................4-119 

 4.6.3-2 Summary of Essential Fish Habitat by Life Stage Along the LNG Vessel Marine Transit 

Route, Upper Chesapeake Bay...................................................................................................4-128 

 4.6.3-3 Summary of Essential Fish Habitat by Life Stage Along the LNG Vessel Marine Transit 

Route, Lower Chesapeake Bay ..................................................................................................4-129 

 4.6.3-4 Summary of Essential Fish Habitat by Life Stage Along the LNG Vessel Marine Transit 

Route, Offshore Region..............................................................................................................4-130 

 4.6.3-5 Key to Map Grid in Figure 4.6.31: NMFS Quadrangle Numbers And Names.........................4-132 

 4.7-1 Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species Potentially Occurring in the Project 

Area ............................................................................................................................................4-135 

4.7.1b Summary of Bog Turtle Surveys in the Project Area.................................................................4-153 

 4.7-2 State Listed Endangered and Threatened Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Area....4-159 

 4.8.1-1 Acres of Land Affected by Construction and Operation of the Mid-Atlantic Express 

Pipeline Facilities ...................................................................................................................... 4-176 

 4.8.1-2 Known Planned Residential and Commercial Developments Within 0.25 Mile of the 

Proposed Pipeline Route Construction Workspace....................................................................4-186 

 4.8.1-3 Recreational And Public Interest Areas Crossed or Within 0.25 Mile of the Proposed LNG 

Terminal Site or Pipeline Route ................................................................................................4-187 

 4.8.1-4 Parcels Containing Conservation Easements Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route ............4-206 

 4.8.2..2-1 Summary of Areas of the Project Located in Baltimore County, Within Marylands 

Designated Critical Areas...........................................................................................................4-211 

 4.8.3-1 Contaminated Sites and Landfills Crossed by or Up-gradient from the Project ........................4-212 

 4.9.1-1 Existing Socioeconomic Conditions in the Project Area ...........................................................4-225

 4.9.1-2 Local Workforce Composition by Industry Classification.........................................................4-226 

 4.9.1-3 Temporary Construction Employment Positions .....................................................................4-227 

ix

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Number Table Title ..................................................................................................................................Page 

 4.9.1-4 Permanent Employment Positions..............................................................................................4-227 

 4.9.2-1 Housing and Vacancy Rates.......................................................................................................4-228 

 4.9.3-1 Public Services ...........................................................................................................................4-229 

 4.9.4-1 Traffic During Construction.......................................................................................................4-230 

 4.9.4-2 Traffic During Operation ...........................................................................................................4-231 

 4.9.4-3 Level of Service Analysis ..........................................................................................................4-232 

 4.9.6-1 Project Construction and Operation Estimated Tax Revenue ....................................................4-240 

 4.9.7-1 Racial/Ethnic Statistics for the Terminal Site and Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

Construction Corridor ................................................................................................................4-243 

 4.9.7-2 Income and Poverty Statistics ....................................................................................................4-244 

4.9.7-3 Summary of Socioeconomic Data for LNG Terminal Project Area ..........................................4-244 

 4.10.1-2 Previously Recorded Terrestrial Archaeological Sites Within Pipeline Right-of-Way .............4-254 

 4.10.1-3 Newly Investigated Terrestrial Archaeological Sites in Pipeline Right-of-Way .......................4-255 

 4.10.1-4 Previously Recorded Terrestrial Archaeological Sites Within Pipeyard/Staging Area..............4-257 

 4.11.1-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards..................................................................................................4-260 

 4.11.1-2 Existing Ambient Air Concentrations for the Project Area........................................................4-263

 4.11.1-3 PSD Class I and Class II Increments..........................................................................................4-265 

 4.11.1-4 Estimated Emissions From LNG Terminal and Pipeline Interconnect Construction with 

Non-Jurisdictional Power Plant..................................................................................................4-273 

 4.11.1-5 Operating Emissions Summary for the Proposed Stationary Source Configurations ...............4-276 

 4.11.1-6 Operating Emissions Summary for the Proposed Mobile Sources ............................................4-277 

 4.11.1-7 Predicted Ambient Air Quality Concentrations for Worst-Case Facility Configurations..........4-280 

4.11.1-8 Greenhouse Gas Construction Emissions Summary ..................................................................4-284 

4.11.1-9 Greenhouse Gas Operating Emissions Summary.......................................................................4-285

 4.11.2-1 Noise Sensitive Areas Near the LNG Site..................................................................................4-286 

 4.11.2-2 Measured Daytime and Nighttime Noise Levels at NSAs Nearest to the LNG Site..................4-287 

 4.11.2-3 Measured Noise Levels at the Property Boundary ....................................................................4-289 

 4.11.2-4 Predicted Noise Levels at NSAs and Fenceline Locations From Pile Driving Activities..........4-290 

 4.11.2-5 Predicted Noise Levels From HDD Activities ..........................................................................4-290 

 4.11.2-6 Predicted Noise Levels (Ldn) from Construction and Maintenance Dredging..........................4-291 

 4.11.2-7 Predicted Sound Levels (Leq) From Construction and Maintenance Dredging ........................4-291 

 4.11.2-8 Predicted Noise Levels (Ldn) From LNG Terminal and Optional Power Plant .......................4-292 

 4.11.2-9 Predicted Sound Levels (Leq) From LNG Terminal and Optional Power Plant at NSAs 

and Fenceline..............................................................................................................................4-292 

 4.12.4-1 Impoundment Areas for LNG Spills ..........................................................................................4-308 

 4.12.4-2 Thermal Exclusion Zones...........................................................................................................4-309 

4.12.5.3-1 Minimum Striking Speed to Penetrate LNG Cargo Tanks.........................................................4-317 

4.12.5.3-2 LNG Spills on Water from a 140,000 m3 LNG Vessel...............................................................4-320 

 4.12.10-1 Natural Gas Service Incidents by Cause ....................................................................................4-335 

 4.12.10-2 Outside Forces Incidents by Cause (1970-1984)........................................................................4-336 

 4.12.10-3 External Corrosion by Level of Control (1970-1984)................................................................4-336 

4.12.11-1 Annual Average Fatalities-Natural Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems .........................4-337 

4.12.11-2 Nationwide Accidental Deaths...................................................................................................4-337 

 4.13-1 Existing, Approved, or Proposed Activities/Projects That Could Contribute to Cumulative 

Impacts Associated With Construction of the Sparrows Point Project .....................................4-338 

 4.13.3-1 Summary of Dredging and Marine Projects in Baltimore and Anne Arundel Counties That 

Could Contribute to Cumulative Impacts Associated With Construction of the Sparrows 

Point LNG Project......................................................................................................................4-343 

 4.13.11-1 Predicted Cumulative Ambient Air Quality Concentrations for LNG Terminal (With 

Power Plant) and Ecron Ethanol ................................................................................................4-352 

x

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LIST OF FIGURES 

Number Figure Title Page 

2.1-1 General Project Location 2-2 

2.1-2 Proposed Pipeline General Location 2-3 

2.1.1-1 Terminal Facilities Layout 2-5 

2.1.1-2 Shoreline and Related Features 2-6 

2.2.1-1 Property and Associated Dredge and Temporary Work Space Areas 2-11 

2.2.1-2 Dredge Material Recycling Facility Plan 2-12 

2.2.2.1-1 Typical Right-of-way Cross-Section Adjacent to Foreign Pipeline 2-15 

2.2.2.1-2 Typical Right-of-way Cross-Section with Topsoil Segregation 2-16 

2.2.2.1-3 Typical Pipeline Construction Right-of-way Within BG&E Right-of-way 2.17 

2.3.1.3-1 Proposed Dredging Area 2-23 

2.3.2-1 Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence 2-28 

3.2.3-1 Alternative LNG Terminal Locations 3-11 

3.2.3-2 Proposed LNG Terminal 3-12 

3.2.3-3 Cove Point - LNG Terminal Site Alternative 3-13 

3.2.3-4 Calvert Cliffs - LNG Terminal Site Alternative 3-14 

3.2.3-5 Greenbury Point - LNG Terminal Site Alternative 3-15 

3.2.3-6 Fishing Point - LNG Terminal Site Alternative 3-16 

3.2.3-7 Swan Creek - LNG Terminal Site Alternative 3-17 

3.2.3-8 Kent Island - LNG Terminal Site Alternative 3-18 

3.2.3-9 Mittal Steel - LNG Terminal Site Alternative 3-19 

3.3.2-1 Major Route Alternatives 3-36 

3.3.2.1-1 Dundalk West Route Alternative 3-37 

3.3.2.2-1 Western Corridor Route Alternative 3-40 

3.3.2.3-1 S.R. 136 Route Alternative 3-42 

3.3.2.4-1 U.S. I-95 Greenfield Alternative 3-45 

3.3.3-1 Route Variations 1, 1B, 2, 2A 3-47 

3.3.3-1A Route Variation 1C 3-53 

3.3.3-1B Route Variation 1D 3-54 

3.3.3-2 Route Variation 3 3-57 

3.3.3-3 Route Variation 4 3-58 

3.3.3-4 Route Variation 5 3-60 

3.3.3-5 Route Variation 6 3-62 

3.3.3-6 Route Variations 6A and 6B 3-65 

3.3.3-7 Route Variations 7 and 8 3-68 

3.3.3-8 Route Variation 9 3-70 

3.3.3-8A Route Variation 9A 3-72 

3.3.3-9 Route Variation 10 3-74 

3.3.3-9A Route Variation 10A 3-76 

3.3.3-10 Route Variation 11 3-78 

3.3.3-11 Route Variations 12A and 12B 3-80 

3.3.3-12 Route Variation 12C 3-85 

3.3.3-13 Kirks Mill Variations 3-88 

3.3.3-13A Kirks Mill Variation A 3-89 

3.3.3-14 Romansville Road Variations A and B 3-91 

3.3.3-15 Chesaco Avenue Variation 3-93 

3.3.3-16 Variation 13 3-95 

xi

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
xii

Number Figure Title Page 

3.3.3-17 Variation 14 3-97 

4.2.1-1 Soil Investigation Sample Locations 4-15 

4.3.2.4-1 Vibracore Sediment Sampling Locations 4-40 

4.3.2.4-2 Sediment Analytical Results - Shallow Samples, June 2006 4-44 

4.3.2.4-3 Sediment Analytical Results - Intermediate Depth Samples, June 2006 4-45 

4.3.2.4-4 Sediment Analytical Results - Deep Samples, June 2006 4-46 

4.3.2.4-5 Sediment Analytical Results - Shallow Samples, August 2007 4-50 

4.3.2.4-6 Sediment Analytical Results - Intermediate Depth Samples, August 2007 4-51 

4.3.2.4-7 Sediment Analytical Results - Deep Samples, August 2007 4-52 

4.3.2.5-1 Sediment Transport Model: Accumulated Sediment Deposition, for 12.5 days 

after Tug Propeller Wash Re-Suspension of Sediments 

4-59 

4.6.1-1 Historic Waterfowl Concentration Areas and Licensed Offshore Blinds 4-95 

4.6.3-1 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Along the LNG Vessel Marine Transit Route 4-131 

4.9.7-1 Proposed LNG Terminal Location and Surrounding Communities 4-242 

4.11.2-1 Location Map for Noise Sensitive Areas (NSA’s) Near the Proposed 

Sparrows Point LNG Terminal 

4-288 

4.12.4-1 Thermal Exclusion Zones 4-310 

4.12.4-2 Vapor Dispersion Exclusion Zone 4-312 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 

ABSG ABSG Consulting Inc. 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

AES AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC 

AET apparent effects threshold 

AMSC Area Maritime Security Committee 

ANSI American National Standards Institute 

APE area of potential effect 

API American Petroleum Institute 

AQCRs Air quality control regions 

ARMP Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fishery Commission 

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

ATWS additional temporary workspaces 

AWOIS Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System 

BA biological assessment 

BACT best available control technology 

Bcfd billion cubic feet per day 

BGE Baltimore Gas & Electric Company 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BOG boil-off-gas 

BSC Bethlehem Steel Corporation 

BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics 

Btu British thermal unit 

BWI Barletta Willis Inc. – current owners of the Sparrows Point Shipyard and 

owners of the proposed LNG Terminal site 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAAA 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments 

CAROW Controlled Access Rights-of-Way 

CCNPP Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 

CDC certain dangerous cargo 

CDP Consolidated Dredge Plan 

CEII critical energy infrastructure information 

CEMS continuous emissions monitoring system 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 

Certificate Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

cfm cubic feet per minute 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CFRA Coastal Facilities Review Act 

CIS close interval surveys 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide

xiii

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

Coast Guard U.S. Coast Guard 

COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Columbia Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation 

COMAR Code of Maryland Regulations 

Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

COTP Captain of the Port (U.S. Coast Guard) 

CPT Cone Penetration Test 

CR Conservation Recommendation (by NMFS) 

CR6+ hexavalent chromium 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CY cubic yards 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 

CZMP Coastal Zone Management Program 

dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

DHMH Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene 

DMCF Dredged Material Containment Facilities 

DMPA dredged material placement area 

DMRF dredged material recycling facility 

DOD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOJ U.S. Justice Department 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

Dth/d dekatherms per day 

DWPA Deepwater Port Act 

ECMR Program Environmental Compliance Monitoring and Reporting Program 

ECP Environmental Construction Plan 

EFH essential fish habitat 

EI Environmental Inspector 

EIA U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EMS Emergency Medical Service 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERC emergency release coupling 

ERP Emergency Response Plan 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESD emergency shutdown 

Excelerate Excelerate Energy, L.L.C. 

FCA Maryland Forest Conservation Act 

FCP Forest Conservation Plan 

FEED Front-end Engineering Design 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FPC Federal Power Commission 

FMSC Federal MARSEC Coordinator 

xiv

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

FSD Forest Stand Delineation 

FSO Facility Security Officer 

FSRU Floating, storage, and regasification units 

FTU Formazin Turbidity Units 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

g gravity 

g/ml grams per milliliter 

GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office 

GBS gravity based structure 

GCA General Conformity Analysis 

GES Groundwater & Environmental Services 

GH natural gas-fired heaters 

GI gastrointestinal 

gpm gallons per minute 

GPS Global Positioning System 

Gulf Gateway Gulf Gateway Energy Bridge 

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

HCAs high consequence areas 

HDD horizontal directional drill 

HNI Highway Needs Inventory 

HP high pressure 

hp horsepower 

HPA Habitat Protection Area 

HTF heat transfer fluid 

HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

IBA Important Bird Area 

IBC International Building Code 

IDA Intensely Developed Area 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

INGAA Interstate Natural Gas Association of America 

IP intermediate pressure 

km kilometers 

Koc organic carbon partition coefficient 

kPa kilopascals 

kV kilovolt 

LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 

lb/kWh pounds per kilowatt hour 

lb/MMBtu pound per MMBtu 

LDA Limited Development Area 

Ldn day-night sound level 

Leq equivalent sound level 

Leq(24) 24-hour equivalent sound level 

LFL lower flammable limit 

LHG liquid hazardous gas 

LNG liquefied natural gas 

LOI Letter of Intent 

xv

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

LOR Letter of Recommendation 

LOS Level of Service 

LP low pressure 

LUST leaking underground storage tank 

m3

 cubic meters 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

MAOP maximum allowable operating pressure 

MAFMC Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

MAPA Old Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad 

MARAD Maritime Administration of the DOT 

MARSEC Homeland Security and Coast Guard Marine Security 

MCE Maximum Considered Earthquake 

MCS Management Classification System 

MCY million cubic yards 

MDE Maryland Department of the Environment 

MDNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

MDOT Maryland Department of Transportation 

MD-SHPO Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer 

Memorandum Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation Facilities 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

MHHW Mean Higher High Water 

MHT Maryland Historic Trust 

Mid-Atlantic Express Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C. 

MIHP Maryland Inventory of Historic Places 

MLLW Mean Lower Low Water 

MLV mainline valve 

MMcf million cubic feet 

MMcfd million cubic feet per day 

MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity 

MP milepost 

MPSC Maryland Public Service Commission 

MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

msl mean sea level 

MSO Marine Safety Office 

MSSA Maryland Saltwater Sport Fisherman’s Association 

MSU Marine Safety Unit 

MTA Maryland Transportation Authority 

MTBE Methyl tert-butyl ether 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

NDE nondestructive examination 

NEHRP National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NFPA National Fire Protection Association 

NFRAP No Further Remedial Action Planned 

xvi

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ng/g nanograms/gram 

NGA Natural Gas Act 

NGS National Geodetic Survey 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NNSR Nonattainment New Source Review 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOI Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Proposed Sparrows Point LNG and Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

Northeast Gateway Northeast Gateway Energy Bridge 

NOx nitrogen oxides 

NPC National Petroleum Council 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPL National Priority List 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NSA noise sensitive area 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NSR New Source Review 

NTWSSC Nontidal Wetland of Special State Concern 

NVIC 05-05 Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular – Guidance on Assessing the 

Suitability of a Waterway for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Marine 

Traffic

NWI National Wetland Inventory 

NWR National Wildlife Refuges 

O3 ozone 

OBE Operating Basis Earthquake 

OCRM NOAA Office of Coast and Ocean Resource Management 

OEP FERC’s Office of Energy Projects 

OPS Office of Pipeline Safety 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PA Programmatic Agreement 

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 

PA-SHPO Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer 

PAX Patuxent River Naval Air Station 

Pb lead 

PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls 

PDCNR Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

PDEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

PDM processed dredged material 

PEL Probable Effects Level 

PERC powered emergency release coupling 

PFBC Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 

pg/L picograms per liter 

PGA peak ground acceleration 

xvii

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

PHEL potentially highly erodible land 

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

PHPCP Pipeline Hydrotesting and Pre-Commissioning Plan

Plan Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan 

PM particulate matter

PM10 particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less 

PM25 particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less 

PNDI Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory 

POB Port of Baltimore 

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

ppm parts per million 

ppmdv parts per million dry volume 

ppt part-per trillion 

Procedures Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

psig pounds per square inch gauge 

PSM Process Safety Management 

PTE potential to emit 

PVC polyvinyl chloride 

Quest Quest Consultants, Inc. 

RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology 

RCA Resource Conservation Area 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RMP risk management plan 

RNA Regulated Navigation Area 

ROW right-of-way 

RPT rapid phase transition 

RSPA Research and Special Programs Administration (DOT) 

Sandia Report Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied 

Natural Gas (LNG) Spill Over Water

SAV submerged aquatic vegetation 

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 

scfm standard cubic feet per minute 

SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction 

SCV submerged combustion vaporizers 

sf square feet 

SHA State Highway Administration 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIGTTO Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators 

SIL significant impact level 

SIP state implementation plan 

SNG Southern Natural Gas Company 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 

SONRIS Strategic Online Natural Resource Information System 

SPCC Plans Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plans 

xviii

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

xix

SPMS special purpose monitoring stations 

SPS SPS Limited Partnership LLLP 

SPT Standard Penetration Test 

SQuiRT Screening Quick Reference Tables 

SR State Route 

SRBC Susquehanna River Basin Commission 

SSBP site-specific blasting plan 

SSE Safe Shutdown Earthquake 

SSTL Site Specific Target Level 

SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Information 

STATSGO State Soil Geographic Information 

STL buoy submerged turret loading buoy 

STV Shell and Tube Vaporization 

SVOC semi volatile organic compound 

sw solid waste 

SWAs Solid Waste Acceptance Facilities 

SWL Solid Waste Landfill 

TEL Threshold Effects Level 

TETCO Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation 

TMP Transit Management Plan 

TNT trinitrotoluene 

TOC Total Organic Carbon 

TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons 

tpy tons per year 

Transco Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporation 

Trunkline Gas CMS Trunkline Gas Company, L.L.C. 

TSP total suspended particulate 

TSS Traffic Separation Scheme 

USC United States Code 

USCG U.S. Coast Guard 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

uV ultraviolet 

VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program 

VDEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

VIMS Virginia Institute of Marine Science 

VOC volatile organic compound 

VOL volatile organic liquid 

WEG wind erodibility group 

WRAW Waterway Risk Assessment Workshop 

WSA waterway sustainability assessment 

WSR Waterway Suitability Report 

Yd3

 cubic yards 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX A 

FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX A 

FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A - 1 

Federal Government – Elected Officials

U.S. Congressman Ben Cardin, 3rd District, MD 

U.S. Senator Robert P. Casey 

U.S. Congressman Jim Gerlach, 6th District, DC 

U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, MD 

U.S. Senator John Rafferty, PA 

U.S. Congressman C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, DC 

U.S. Senator Arlen Specter, PA 

U.S. Senator Norman R. Stone, Jr., MD 

Bill Tighe, Legislative Director, US Representative 

Jim Gerlach's Office, PA 

Federal Agencies

Kathy Anderson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Baltimore District, MD 

Melanie Anderson, RMC Inc., NAVAIR, MD 

William Arguto, Team Leader (NEPA), U.S. EPA 

Region 3, PA 

Lowell Bahner, Director, NOAA Chesapeake Bay 

Office, MD 

Frank Blaha, U.S. Coast Guard, OH 

Amy Beach, Lieutenant Commander, Chief of 

Waterways Management Division, Department 

of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, MD 

Julie Crocker, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Protected Resources Division, MA 

Alex Dankanich, Department of Transportation/ 

PHMSA Eastern Region, DC 

Joseph DaVia, Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Baltimore District, MD 

Michael F. Green, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Philadelphia District, PA 

William Gute, Eastern Regional Director, Pipeline 

and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, DC 

Kevin Haggerty, Manager of Obstruction 

Evaluation Service, Federal Aviation 

Administration, DC 

Rebecca Hanmer, Director, U.S. EPA, Region 3, 

MD 

Robert H. Herbert, Jr., Environmental Officer, HUD 

Baltimore Office, MD 

Vance Hobbs, Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Baltimore District, MD 

Chris Jarboe, NAVAIR Ranges Sustainability 

Office, MD 

Frank Keel, Eastern Regional Director, Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, TN 

Blaine Keener, Department of 

Transportation/PHMSA/OPS, DC 

Brian Kelley, Captain, Captain of the Port, 

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast 

Guard, MD 

Kristen Koyama, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Northeast Regional Office, MA 

Thomas P. Lewis, U.S. Naval Facilities 

Engineering, DC 

Kevin Magerr, U.S. EPA Region 3, PA 

Paul E. Mason, Assistant Chief of Staff, 

Department of Defense, VA 

Cecile Myrick, Essex Middle River Chamber of 

Commerce, MD 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

MD 

John Nichols, Fishery Biologist, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation 

District, MD 

Nicole Pak, Commander, Navy Installations, DC 

Peter Potochney, Director, Office of the Deputy 

Under Secretary of Defense, DC 

Jeff Smith, National Marine Fisheries, MD 

Curtis Springer, Captain, Coast Guard Activities 

Baltimore, MD 

Patrick Trapp, Captain, Captain of the Port, 

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast 

Guard, MD 

Robert Uhrich, Office of the Assistant Secretary of 

the Navy, DC 

Ruth Ann Weidel, U.S. Coast Guard, VA 

John Wolflin, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, MD, 

NOAA NEPA Coordinator, NOAA, MD 

Bob Zepp, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MD 

State of Maryland Agencies and Elected 

Officials

Clarence Bishop, Chief of Staff, Office of the 

Mayor, MD 

Joseph Boteler, Delegate, MD 

Eric Bromwell, Delegate, MD 

Michael Busch, Delegate, MD 

David Carroll, Director, DEPRM, MD 

Dereck Davis, Delegate, MD 

George Della, Senator, MD 

Don Dwyer, Delegate, MD 

Elder A. Ghigiarelli, Jr., Maryland Department of 

the Environment, MD 

Dave Goshorn, MD Dept of Natural Resources, 

MD 

Peter Hammen, Delegate, MD 

Rebecca Hanmer, Director, Chesapeake Bay 

Program Office, MD 

Bob Hannon, Assistant Secretary, MD Dept of 

Business & Econ Development, MD 

Andrew Harris, Senator, MD 

Michael G. Hibb, Aberdeen City Council, MD 

Rick Impallaria, Delegate, MD 

Nancy Jacobs, Senator, MD 

JB Jennings, Delegate, MD 

Katherine Klausmeier, Senator, MD 

Carolyn Krysiak, Delegate, MD 

Pat McDonough, Delegate, MD 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX A 

FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A - 2 

Brian McHale, Delegate, MD 

Bruce Michael, Director Resource Assessment 

Services, Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources, MD 

Thomas Middleton, Senator, MD 

Joseph Minnick, Delegate, MD 

John Nichols, Supervisor, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, MD 

Wayne Norman, Delegate, MD 

John Olszerski Jr., Delegat, MD 

Martin O’Malley, Governor, MD 

John Olszewski, Councilman, MD 

Stephen Pattison, Assistant Secretary, MD 

Department of the Environment, MD 

Jim Ports, Deputy Secretary, MD Department of 

Transportation, MD 

David Rudolph, Delegate, MD 

Dennis Schrader, Director, Governor's Homeland 

Security Office, MD 

Doug Simmons, Deputy Administrator, MD State 

Highway Administration, MD 

Scott Smith, Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources, MD 

Norman Stone Jr., Senator, MD 

Thomas V. Mike Miller, Senator, MD 

Jospeh C. Waggoner, Deputy Executive Secretary, 

MD Transportation Authority, MD 

Michael Weir, Delegate, MD 

Malcolm D. Woolf, Director, MD Energy 

Administration, MD 

State of Pennsylvania Agencies and Elected 

Officials

Gibson Armstrong, State Senator, 13th District of 

Pennsylvania, PA 

Frederick Carlson, Director of Policy, Pennsylvania 

Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, PA 

Becky Corbin, Aide, PA Representative Curt 

Schroder's Office, PA 

Greg Czarnecki, Director, Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources, PA 

Arthur Hershey, State Representative, PA 

James Leigey, Endangered and Threatened 

Species Coordinator, Pennsylvania Game 

Commission, Division of Environmental 

Planning & Habitat Protection, PA 

Ken Moore, Aide, PA Representative Chris Ross's 

Office, PA 

Dominic Oileggi, State Senator, 9th District of 

Pennsylvania, PA 

John C. Rafferty, Jr., State Senator, 44th District of 

Pennsylvania, PA 

Edward G. Rendell, Governor, PA 

Christopher Ross, State Representative, PA 

Curt Schroder, State Representative, PA 

Danielle Shellenberger, Environmental Planner, 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 

Bureau of Design, PA 

Joe Sherrick, Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection, PA 

Tom Shervinskie, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 

Commission, PA 

Paul Swartz, Executive Director, Susquehanna 

River Basin Commission, PA 

Maryland Local Governments and Elected 

Officials

M. Kathleen Broadwater, Deputy Executive 

Director, MD Port Administration, MD 

Robert B. Cooper, Director, Harford County 

Department of Public Works, MD 

Richard Green, Captain, Baltimore Co. Fire 

Department, MD 

Roxanne Lynch, Harford County Government, MD 

Patricia Pudelkewicz, Harford County Department 

of Planning & Zoning, MD 

Pennsylvania Local Governments and Elected 

Officials

Lauri Ahlskog, Planner, Lancaster County Planning 

Commission, PA 

Carol Aichele, Commissioner, Chester County 

Commissioners, PA 

Glenn Aument, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, 

Fulton Township, PA 

Mike Brownell, Chief Water Resources 

Management, Susquehanna River Basin 

Commission, PA 

Charlene Christy, Assistant to Comm. 

Shellenberger, Lancaster County 

Commissioners, PA 

Carrie Conwell, Environmental/Open Space 

Planner, Chester County Planning 

Commission, PA 

Jane Daggett, Secretary/Treasurer, Upper Oxford 

Township, PA 

Margaret Decarolis, Secretary/Treasurer, Little 

Britain Township, PA 

Marty Detering, Supervisor Chair, Londonderry 

Township, PA 

Andrew Dinniman, Commissioner, Chester County 

Commissioners, PA 

Charles Fleischmann, Township Supervisor, Upper 

Oxford Township, PA 

Bill Fulton, Director, Chester County Planning 

Commission, PA 

Margaret Gordon, Secretary/Treasurer, Fulton 

Township, PA 

Marcy Gregory, Assistant to Comm Aichele, 

Chester County Commissioners, PA 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX A 

FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A - 3 

Dan Greig, District Manager, Chester County 

Conservation District, PA 

Doug Hanley, Township Manager, Uwchlan 

Township, PA 

Mike Heckman, Director of Public Works, Upper 

Uwchlan Township, PA 

Molly Henderson, Commissioner, Lancaster 

County Commissioners, PA 

Ken Hershey, Township Supervisor, Lower Oxford 

Township, PA 

Jack Hines, Jr, Township Manager, West Bradford 

Township, PA 

Denny Howell, Supervisor, East Fallowfield 

Township, PA 

Ron Kepler, Township Supervisor, Lower Oxford 

Township, PA 

Joy Lauback, Assistant to Comm Henderson, 

Lancaster County Commissioners, PA 

Jack Law, Public Works Director, Downingtown 

Borough, PA 

Dan Lerch, Emergency Manager, Chester County 

DES, PA 

Ruth Libby, Secretary/Treasurer, Lower Oxford 

Township, PA 

Donald Mancini, Commissioner, Chester County 

Commissioners, PA 

Denise Miller, Secretary, East Fallowfield 

Township, PA 

Patricia Montgomery, Secretary/Treasurer, 

Highland Township, PA 

Lynda Phiel, Secretary, Uwchlan Township, PA 

Scott Piersol, Township Manager, East 

Brandywine Township, PA 

Gregory Prowant, Township Manager, Caln 

Township, PA 

John Roughan, Jr, Township Manager, Upper 

Uwchlan Township, PA 

Marilyn Sachs, Assistant to Comm Schaub, 

Lancaster County Commissioners, PA 

Pete Schaub, Commissioner, Lancaster County 

Commissioners, PA 

Dick Shellenberger, Commissioner, Lancaster 

County Commissioners, PA 

Patrick Starr, Vice President, Southeast Region, 

PA Environmental Council, PA 

Mark Stivers, Planner, Lancaster County Planning 

Commission, PA 

Stephen Sullins, Township Manager, Downingtown 

Borough, PA 

Vince Visoskas, Assistant Township Manager, 

West Bradford Township, PA 

Shirley Walton, Secretary/Treasurer, West 

Marlborough Township, PA 

Aaron Ward, Erosion Control Technician, 

Lancaster County Conservation District, PA 

Jim Wendelgass, Township Manager, West 

Vincent Township, PA 

Charlotte Wrigley, Secretary, Londonderry 

Township, PA 

Libraries and Newspapers

Chester County Library, PA 

Daily Local News, PA 

Free Library of Philadelphia, PA 

Joe Giordano, Reporter, The Dundalk Eagle, MD 

Harford County Public Library, MD 

Oxford Library, PA 

North Point Library, MD 

John Rossomando, Daily Local News, PA 

Native Americans

Sheree Bonaparte, Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officer, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe 

Robin Dushane, Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officer, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 

Tamara Francis, NAGPRA/Cultural Preservation 

Director, Delaware Nation of Oklahoma 

Clint C. Halftown, Chief, Cayuga Nation 

Rebecca A. Hawkins, Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officer, Shawnee Tribe 

Leo R. Henry, Chief, Tuscarora Nation 

Karen Kaniatobe, Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officer, Abbsentee–Shawnee Tribe of 

Oklahoma 

Irving Powless Jr., Chief, Onondaga Indian Nation 

Paul Spicer, Chief, Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of 

Oklahoma 

Sherry White, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, 

Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of 

Mohican Indians 

Intervenors

David S. Abbott, Director of Joint Ventures, Texas 

Eastern Transmission, LP, TX 

Ronnie Adams, Legislative Liasion, Maryland 

Waterfowlers Association, MD 

Allan W. Anderson, Jr., Esquire, Honeywell 

International, Inc., DC 

Ron Belbot, Utilities Manager, ISG Sparrows Point, 

LLC, MD 

John E. Beverungen, County Attorney, Baltimore 

County, MD 

Brent A. Bolea, Assistant Attorney General, 

Maryland Energy Administration, MD 

James G. Busch, BP Energy Company, TX 

Michael Cathey, Shell NA LNG LLC, TX 

Marcy F. Collins, Associate General Council, 

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, TX 

Diana Dascalu, Staff Attorney, Chesapeake 

Climate Action Network 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX A 

FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A - 4 

Michael Evans, Staff Attorney, Shell Trading Gas & 

Power, TX 

Anastasia Filopoulos, Esquire, Byers Commercial, 

LP, PA 

Bart S. Fisher, Counsel, LNG Opposition Team, 

DC 

Daniel P. Gahagan, Division General Counsel, 

Baltimore Gas & Electric Company, MD 

Fredric J. George, Lead Attorney, NiSource 

Corporate Services, WV 

Kristin E. Gibbs, David L. Wochner, Michael W. 

Brooks, Esquires, Statoil Natural Gas LLC, DC 

Demonica D. Gladney, ExxonMobil Gas & Power 

Marketing, TX 

Edward J. Greene, Esquire, Byers Commercial, 

LP, PA 

Gary E. Guy, Senior Counsel, Baltimore Gas and 

Electric Company, MD 

Paulette Hammond, President, Maryland 

Conservation Council, MD 

M. Brent Hare, Assistant Attorney General, 

Maryland Energy Administration, MD 

Stephen A. Hatridge, Senior Counsel, 

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, 

TX 

Christopher Heywood, Legal Counsel, Statoil 

Natural Gas LLC, CT 

A. Karen Hill, Vice President Federal Regulatory 

Affairs, Exelon Corporation, DC 

Frederick H. Hoover, Esquire, Maryland 

Conservation Council Inc., MD 

Steven J. Kalish, Esquire, Consolidated Company 

of New York, NY 

Steven J. Kalish, Esquire, Philadelphia Gas Works, 

PA 

Richard S. Kalmas, Sourcing Manager, Electric, 

Mittal Steel USA, Inc., IN 

Frederick T. Kolb, BP America Inc., TX 

Kurt L. Krieger, Assistant General Counsel, 

NiSource Corporate Services, WV 

Jason F. Lief, Esquire, BP America, Inc., TX 

Michael P. Malloy, Jr., Esquire, The Hankin Group, 

PA 

Brian McCarthy, Esquire, Mittal Steel USA, Inc., IL 

Richard McLean, Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources, Power Plant Research Program, 

MD 

Stuart Nachmias, Director, Energy Markets Policy 

Group, Consolidated Edison Company of New 

York, Inc., NY 

Carol A. Nichols, ExxonMobil Gas & Power 

Marketing Company, TX 

Ernest S. Nichols, Esquire, for Joseph and 

Deborah Opdyke, MD 

Michael Petit, Weaver's Cove Energy LLC, MA 

Jan Roberts, Marketing Services Consultant, 

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, 

TX 

H. Alfred Ryan, Assistant General Counsel, Exelon 

Corporation, PA 

Paul Savage, Consolidated Edison Company of 

New York, Inc., NY 

Joseph F.Stengel, Philadelphia Gas Works, PA 

Gregory J. Stunder, Esquire, Philadelphia Gas 

Works, PA 

Kevin M. Sweeney, Esquire, ExxonMobil Gas & 

Power Marketing Company, TX 

Sharon R. Theodore, Manager of Regulatory 

Affairs, Columbia Gas Transmission 

Commission, DC 

David L. Wochner, Esquire, Sutherland, Asbill & 

Brennan, LLP, DC 

Maryland Landowners and Other Interested 

Parties

Linn Abrams, MD 

Jenn Aiosa, Staff Scientist, Chesapeake Bay 

Foundation, MD 

John R. Alexander, MD 

Debbie Allen, MD 

Ralph L. and Linda E. Allen, MD 

Frances J. Allmond, MD 

F.R. "Andy" Anderson, MD 

Harry Argentino, MD 

Tim Armacost, MD 

Joyce Atherton, MD 

Jim Bachmann, MD 

Blair Baltus, MD 

Wanda Barmes, MD 

Laura Barnhardt, Reporter, The Baltimore Sun, MD 

David C. and Sherry Ann Simms Barringer, MD 

Pat Barth, MD 

Karen Bayne, MD 

Sharon Beazley, LNG Opposition Team, MD 

Jeff Becker, MD 

Bill Beddow, MD 

John W. Bedell Sr., MD 

Kelly Bedsaul, MD 

Ruth Bergstrom. MD 

D. Berzellini, MD 

Dr. Barry A. Bodt, MD 

Paul M. Brabson, MD 

Jan Bracken, MD 

Earl Bradley, Anne Arundel Group, Sierra Club, 

MD 

Denise & Jonathan Brans, MD 

Winfie & Lillian Brauel, MD 

Dr. Kay Brawley, Director, Chesapeake Bay Yacht 

Clubs Association, MD 

Amanda Brenner, MD 

Bruce R. Sr. and Angela Breton, MD 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX A 

FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A - 5 

Cheryl Brooks, MD 

Dunbar Brooks, MD 

Michael Brooks, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, 

LLP, DC 

Adrienne J. Brown, MD 

Cassandra Browning, MD 

Morita Bruce, MD 

Jeanette Budny, MD 

Gerald and Kathleen P. Bulmash, MD 

Steve Bunker, Legislative Director,The Nature 

Conservancy, MD 

Linda Buraczynski, MD 

Raymond Burgan II, MD 

Shane Burge, Evangelical Methodist Church, MD 

William Burton, MD 

David S. and Trescott Bushall, MD 

Elizabeth M. Bussard, MD 

Betty Byrne, MD 

Vincent F. & Colleen M. Carlin, MD 

Terry Capps, MD 

Diane Carliner, East County Times, MD 

Kim Carrigan, MD 

John & Vivian Carrington, MD 

Sarah D. Cassilly, MD 

Rick Chadsey, The Home Sales Company, MD 

John Chaney, MD 

Chapolini Associates, MD 

Robin Chester, MD 

Vera L. Christian, MD 

Joe Clark, MD 

Ernest Clinton, MD 

Harris Cobb, MD 

Dave Conover, MD 

Jeffrey Conti, MD 

Rita Conway, MD 

Ruth Cook, MD 

Connie Cope, MD 

James Cope, MD 

Art Cox, Anchor Bay 'East' Marina, MD 

John Cremen, MD 

John & Toni Crunkleton, MD 

Lee & Bob Crush, MD 

Karen Cruz, MD 

Andrew T. & WF Cummings, MD 

Margaret Cummins, MD 

Leslie V. Cunningham, MD 

Joyce Curbean, MD 

Jennifer Dallaire, MD 

John H. Davids, MD 

Maureen Davis, MD 

Chantelle Deane, MD 

Nicole Deane, MD 

Jeannie Deans, MD 

Deep Run Properties, LLC, MD 

Rupert Denney, President, Maryland Maritime 

Association, MD 

Louis Depazzo, MD 

Craig DeRan, MD 

Mary DiLegse, MD 

Glenn A. and Lisa L. Doering, MD 

Russell Donnelly, MD 

Suzanne Donnelly, MD 

Barbara W. Ehlers, MD 

J. Eugene and Evelyn L. Dowell, MD 

Phyllis Elaine Driscoll, MD 

Andy Dudek, Jr., MD 

Dundalk Optimist Foundation Inc., MD 

Donald Lee and WF Edwards, MD 

Shanita Elams, MD 

Manuel Eldridge, MD 

Hallie Emahizer, MD 

Joyce & Andrew Engle, MD 

Larry English, MD 

Maxine Erickson, MD 

Ed Evans, MD 

Kathryn Evans, MD 

Donna Evers-Southard, MD 

Fran Flanigan, Respresentative, Patapsco/Back 

River Tributary Strategy Team, MD 

 David Fang, MD 

Charles M. Farley, MD 

Farm Creek LLC, MD 

Lynn & Tom Faulkner, MD 

Cathy Feeheley, MD 

Danny Earl Felty, MD 

Michael F. and Claire D. Finn, MD 

Tim Fisher, MD 

Fran Flanigan, Representative, Patapsco/Back 

River Tributary Strategy Team, MD 

John M. Flenner, MD 

Dwight Fowler, MD 

J.B. Fowler, MD 

Chuck Fox, Policy Officer, The Pew Charitable 

Trust, DC 

Charles Seay and Francine Clinton, MD 

J. Patrick and Janet D. Frank 

Robert H. Frank, MD 

Sue Freeman, MD 

Henry Fryza, MD 

Samuel Gallo, MD 

Samuel Gallo, MD 

Glenn & Nancy Gealy, MD 

Charles & Sherry Gerben, MD 

Jim Gerleve, Camp Conowingo Leader, Girl Scouts 

of Central Maryland, MD 

Zack Germroth, MD 

David Louis L. al Gesswein, MD 

Carolyn Gillum, MD 

Robert Glenn, Executive Director, Coastal 

Conservation Association, MD 

Proceso G. & Charry L. Glorioso, MD 

Kay L. Gorrera, MD 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX A 

FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A - 6 

Sandy Goslin, MD 

Elmer Gover, MD 

Doris Graeme, MD 

Alfred E. Grassa, MD 

Muriel L. Gray, MD 

Pam Green, MD 

Harold Gribble, MD 

Alberta Griffin, MD 

Christina J. Grigorian, MD 

Linda Grinath, MD 

Sharon A. Grosscup, MD 

Loretta Grynkiewicz, MD 

Guido Guarnaccia, MD 

Angela Hall, MD 

Brenda Hall, MD 

Mark C. and Christine C. Halliwell, MD 

Marian P. Halsey, MD 

Rhonda Hamel, MD 

Wade Hamel, MD 

Emory Hamilton, Mandalay Associates, TX 

Paulette Hammond, President, Maryland 

Conservation Council, MD 

James B. Hanna, MD 

Lora Hardbarger, MD 

Michael G. and Bonnie B. Harrington, MD 

Terry Harris, League of Environmental Voters, MD 

Deborah Harrison, MD 

John F. and Kathleen M. Harvey, MD 

Steven P. and Karyn A. Harvey,MD 

Linda Heilman, MD 

Chris Heisey, MD 

Joseph Hellner, MD 

Ron Henry, Greater Baltimore Group, Sierra Club, 

MD 

Ron Henry, MD 

Carolyn Hicks, MD 

Dave Hipsley, MD 

Pat Hipsley, MD 

Sheri Hipsley, MD 

Rob & Cherrill Hoerr, MD 

Daniel Hohman, MD 

Jay and Starr Holstein, MD 

David Hood, MD 

Glenn Hooper, MD 

Joan M. Hooper, MD 

Douglas Hott, Jr., MD 

Jennifer Howard, MD 

Linda Howard, MD 

Rosemary Howard, MD 

Jane Howe, MD 

Elton V. Howell, MD 

John Howley, MD 

Ed Hughes, MD 

Joanne Hullihen, MD 

Martha W. Hunt, MD 

Joanne Hutchins, MD 

Andrew C. and Cindy M. Edmonds Hutton, MD 

Donna Ichniowski, MD 

Frank Ingellis, MD 

William & Carla Ison, MD 

Wendy Ison, MD 

Linnwood N. Jackson, Turner Station, MD 

Shane Jacobus, MD 

Carl James, MD 

Jerry Jeffers, MD 

Keith & Nora Jenell, Harford County Public 

Schools, MD 

Elizabeth Joesting, MD 

Carolyn Jones, MD 

David Jones, MD 

Ken Jorgenson, MD 

Barry Joxwick, MD 

Kelly M. and Leah A. Jubb, MD 

Peter Kahl, MD 

Monte Kamp, Honeygo Run Reclamation Center, 

MD 

Becky Karatzas, MD 

Melvin Kaukeinen, MD 

Howard Keatts, MD 

Albert A. Kennedy, Jr., Treasurer, Devonshire 2 

Condominium Association, MD 

Barbara Kenney, MD 

Joseph and Carol Ann Kennish, MD 

Suzan Kerpetenoglu, MD 

Howard King, Coordinator, MD Tidal Fisheries 

Commission, MD 

Howard King, Coordinator, Maryland Tidal 

Fisheries Commission, MD 

Janette King, MD 

William King, MD 

Kingsville Community Alliance, MD 

Stephanie Klasch, MD 

June Knoerlein, MD 

Norman Knoerlein, MD 

William H. Knott, Apple O Development, MD 

Leo Kodetsky, MD 

Rebecca Kolberg, Venice Civic Association, MD 

Stan Kollar, Harford Community College, MD 

Eric Kolstrom, MD 

Louis Konopacki, MD 

Anthony Kopecni, MD 

Martha Kratz, MD 

Gena Krieger, MD 

Frederick L. Kuehl, MD 

Albert Kuhan, MD 

William Kumm, MD 

Richard & Patricia Kusik, MD 

Alton Lacks, MD 

William and Linda S. Lammerle, MD 

Jennifer Lawrence, MD 

Brad Lear, MD 

David James Lee, MD 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX A 

FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A - 7 

Michael F. Lehnhoff, MD 

Susie & Ernest Lewis, MD 

Michael & Pat Liberatore, MD 

B. Thomas Lilley, Jr., MD 

Gary Lipsky, MD 

Susan Loyd, MD 

Donna Lukas, MD 

Robert & Sharon Lynch, MD 

Lynhurst Property LLC, MD 

Nick Madigan, Reporter, The Baltimore Sun, MD 

Maria Magardo, MD 

Daniel Mance, MD 

Christine Marotta, MD 

Mary A. Marston, MD 

Frances C. Martins, MD 

George Maschrzak, MD 

Alice Mason, MD 

Greg Massoni, MD 

Guy Matricciani, MD 

Tim McAleese, MD 

Carolyn McArthur, MD 

Lee McClelland, MD 

Sarah McCullough, MD 

Lee McDaniel, Deer Creek Scenic River Advisory 

Board, 

Mary & Dennis McCully, MD 

Norris McDonald, MD 

Sean McEvoy, MD 

Michael P. McFadden, MD 

Karen McGullam, MD 

Charles E. McMahon, Nottingham Properties, INC., 

MD 

William T. McMahon, MD 

Michael P. McVey, MD 

Merritt Properties, LLC, MD 

Bonnie Metheny, MD 

Dave Mezzanotte, MD 

Deborah Mickey, MD 

Middle River Assembly of God, MD 

Mary E. Miles, MD 

Dennis & Debra Miller, MD 

Mitchell L. Miller, MD 

Sherry Miller, MD 

Joseph T. Miltes, MD 

Thomas R. Minego, Sr., MD 

Timothy W. Mitchum, MD 

Connie Monroe, MD 

Annette Moore, MD 

Thomas L. Mroz, T & J Realty, LLC, MD 

Bernadette Mullen, MD 

Lisa Murdock, MD 

Steve & Joan Murphy, MD 

William Murphy, MD 

Bill Neibuhr, MD 

Eric Neilson, President, Association of MD Pilots, 

MD 

Tom Nelson, MD 

New North Point Company Inc., MD 

Jackie Nickel, MD 

Lou & Paula Nickles, MD 

Frank Niner, Dundalk Farms, MD 

Michael W. Nixon, MD 

North Point Road General Partnership, MD 

Francis Nuedling, MD 

Crossan O'Donovan, MD 

Dianne Olinger & Jane Walker, MD 

Omalley Mulch Inc., MD 

Rich Novotney, Executive Director, Maryland 

Saltwater Sportfishermen’s Association, MD 

Frances Omond, MD 

Liam and Debbie O’Rourke, MD 

Ed Osann, Maryland Representative, Natural 

Resource Defense Council, DC 

Bob O'Toole, MD 

Alexander Pappas, MD 

Leo F. Partridge, MD 

Anthony R. and Ann J. Paszkiewicz, MD 

Gregory Paszkiewicz, MD 

Dorothy Pedrick, MD 

Bill Pencek, Maryland Office of Tourism, MD 

Carl Persiani, MD 

Josephine Petree, MD 

John Polek, MD 

Gloria J. Porter, MD 

Tom Powers, MD 

Edward Presberry, Estate of, MD 

Charles Paul and WF Price, MD 

Susan Quinn, MD 

Michael & Dawn Quinn, MD 

Cliff Rariff, MD 

Thomas C. Reed, MD 

Peter Reid, MD 

Tim Reilly, MD 

Henry W. and Nancy L. Robinson, MD 

Helen Rodowski, MD 

Robert G. and Cheryl D. Roettger, MD 

Bob Roettger, MD 

Jili Rogers, MD 

Judy Rose, MD 

Mac Williams & Rose Shaffer, MD 

Allen and Joyce Rosenbalm, MD 

Jade Ross, MD 

Rupert Rossetty, MD 

Brenda Russell, MD 

Brenda Russell, MD 

Queenesther Russell, MD 

Timothy M. Rye, MD 

Robert Sawyer, MD 

Richard Saylor, MD 

Robert C. and Teresa Scheler, MD 

John & Evelyn Schmidt, MD 

Ronald J. and Linda M. Schott, MD 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX A 

FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A - 8 

Jacob R. Schroll, MD 

William B. and Bernard J. Schwartz Trust, MD 

Dr. Dred and Katherine Scott, MD 

Caroline Seamon, MD 

Scott N. and Ruth M. Sebring, MD 

Marian & Jim Seveeney, MD 

Phyllis Seward, MD 

Gail Shepherd, MD 

Marcy Sherry, MD 

Alicia Shope, MD 

Gloria & Rich Siekierski, MD 

Larry Silverman, MD 

Mr. & Mrs. Vincent Silvestri, MD 

Larry Simms, President, Maryland Watermen’s 

Association, MD 

Thomas R. Simonton, MD 

Steven Sizemore, MD 

Sleepy Hollow Woods Inc., MD 

Chalmer & Mona Smith, MD 

Nancy L. Sommar, MD 

Mr. & Mrs. Russ Spangler, MD 

Irene Spatafore, MD 

Mary Spidell, MD 

Mary Spidell, MD 

Harold Sprugeon, MD 

Toloria Sprvell, MD 

Harold A. and WF Spurgeon, MD 

Lloyd Martin Jr. and Christine Louise St Ours, MD 

Albert Stack, MD 

Matt Stack, MD 

Adam Starn, MD 

State of MD State Roads (I-695) 58791 R/W 

District 4, MD 

Darlene Stauch, MD 

Donald Steinhice, MD 

Bernadette Stokes, MD 

Wilt Strong, MD 

Douglas Suess, MD 

Sarah D. Swahn, MD 

James P. Sweeney, MD 

Anthony Szlachetka, MD 

Francis Taylor, MD 

Lauren Taylor, MD 

Doris Taylor, MD 

Richard Taylor, MD 

Keith & Nora Taylor, MD 

Patricia Thach, MD 

David & Dawn Teel, MD 

Patricia Thach, MD 

Dawn Thiess, MD 

Sharon Thommen, MD 

Shirley Thommen, MD 

Maxine Thompson, MD 

Michael P. Thompson, MD 

John Nicholas Thrappas, MD 

Diane Tobin, MD 

Connie Tomko, MD 

James Truzkowski, MD 

Val Twanmoh, MD 

George Twigg, MD 

Karensa E. and Stephen E. Uhrig, MD 

Jeff Utain, MD 

Jeffrey Vasold, MD 

J. Vaughan, MD 

Norma Vest, VA 

Michael Vivirito, MD 

Steve Wagner, MD 

Larry Walsh, MD 

Lee Walker-Oxenham, Patapsco Riverkeeper, MD 

Sandy Waszelevk, MD 

Margaret Watkins, MD 

Paul Watson, MD 

Janet Werner, MD 

Maurish A. White, MD 

Robert R. White, MD 

Catherine Wilkes, MD 

Paul M. and Elyse Wilkinson, MD 

Bill Willard, MD 

Patricia Williams, MD 

Wilmington Trail Club, DE 

Lorliss T. Wilson, MD 

Kent Winnely, MD 

Martha Winston, MD 

George T. Wise III, MD 

Ralph T. Witt, Jr., MD 

Hank Wolinski, MD 

Victoria Woodward, Executive Director, Safe 

Waters in Maryland, MD 

Tessa P. Worsham, MD 

Linda Wright, MD 

Harry Wujek, MD 

Joseph Wyatt, MD 

Samuel Wynn, MD 

Annette & Phil Young, Youngs Boat Yard, Inc., MD 

Ruth Ann Young, MD 

John Zafia, MD 

Edward J. Zaledonis, MD 

Pennsylvania Landowners and Other Interested 

Parties

301 Park Road LLC, PA 

Laurie and Bruce Abele, PA 

Anders Afelt, Pesident, Octoraro Watershed 

Association, PA 

Harris Aller, PA 

Matthew Snyder and Amy Auker, PA 

Donald Andisik, PA 

Beth Arnold, Conservationist, Chester Co. 

Conservation District, PA 

Margaret Bakus, PA 

Michael and Michele Banis, PA 

David J. and Dorothy A. Barnes, PA 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX A 

FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A - 9 

Bentley Systems Inc., PA 

John and Dani Best, PA 

Beth Israel Congregation, PA 

Robert M. Sr. and Linda M. Borcky, PA 

Charles J. and Kathleen M. Booth, PA 

Barton K. and Carol L. Bower, PA 

JL Bowers, PA 

George J. Brabson, PA 

Martin OAS Brabson, PA 

Robert L. and Kathleen M. Braccio, PA 

Jason T. Brady, PA 

James B. III Bullitt and Susan T. Barrett Bullitt, PA 

Al Buzzard, PA 

Anthony P. and Kathleen K. Caligiuri, PA 

Jay Carroll, PA 

David M. and Dawn E. Cassel, PA 

Marie E. and Vincent J. Sr. Cavacini, PA 

Richard and Vicky Channell, PA 

Chester County Department of Open Space 

Preservation 

Chester County Development Council, PA 

John Alexander Churchman, PA 

Joseph Civis, PA 

Tracey Clark, PA 

Edward E. Clayton, Jr., PA 

Thomas B. and Gina D. Cliggett, PA 

Michael J. and Roseanne J. Colarusso, PA 

JE Cook, PA 

Jospeh N. II & Karen L. Cook, PA 

Dennis M. Corkery, PA 

Rich Coster, PA 

County of Chester, PA 

Paula Coyne, PA 

Gladys S. Craig, PA 

Gayle Lynn Criswell, Urban Team Leader, Chester 

County Conservation District, PA 

Joan Deen, PA 

Theodore L. and Lisa K. Diewald, PA 

Michael and Owsley Dignazio, PA 

Al Dimatteo, PA 

Edward A. and Priscille Dolor, PA 

Downing Forge HOA, PA 

Downing Ridge Homeowners Association Inc., PA 

Gale E. and Mary L. Drake, PA 

Dee Durham, Executive Director, Safety, 

Argiculture, Villages & Environment, PA 

Andrew P. and Ann G. Durkin, PA 

Matthew Ehrhart, Executive Director, PA 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, PA 

Barry Einsig, HOA President, Bradford Glen 

Homeowners Association, PA 

Brian D. and Julienne L. Estelle, PA 

Vernon Evans, PA 

Vernon E. Evans, PA 

Sheri Evans-Stanton, Dir of Environmental 

Management Center, Brandywine 

Conservancy, Environmental Management 

Center, PA 

Edward Farber, Supervisor, Gas Control, PPL Gas 

Utilities Corp., PA 

Petrick Fasano, Octoraro Watershed Association, 

PA 

Lynda Farrtu, PA 

Lorenzo B. and Mary Anne Fazio, PA 

FedEx National Ltl. Inc., PA 

Suzy and Brian Fenimore, PA 

Blair E. and Patricia E. Fleischman, PA 

Linda G. and Scott E. Foster, PA 

James K. and Cheryl D. Fulginiti, PA 

Theresa R. Gallagher, PA 

Lisa Gallick, PA 

John Goodall, PA 

Darryl S. Goldsborough, PA 

Bobby L. and Patricia A. Gotschall, PA 

Russell A. and Lynne A. Grasso, PA 

Theodore Greisser, PA 

Cherry Grubb, PA 

Robert W. and Catherine M. Hankes, PA 

Hankin Enterprises LTD, PA 

Hankin Group, PA 

Eileen M. and Robert S. Harvey, PA 

Robert & Stefanie Harvey, PA 

Brian Heher, PA 

John F. and Doris L. Heher, PA 

Michael Helfrich, River Keeper, Susquehanna 

River Keeper, PA 

William Hendricks, PA 

Patricia Heron, PA 

Gerald Hess, PA 

William E. Hess, Jr., PA 

David and Susan Hetrick, PA 

David A. Hetzel Trust et al, Hetzel Family 

Revocable Trust, PA 

Charles R. & Eleanor J. Hilaman, PA 

John Hoekstra, Watershed Director, Green Valleys 

Association, PA 

Bradford R. and Doris M. Hutchinson, PA 

Joseph W. Inslee, PA 

Douglas L. and Denise James, PA 

Francis G. & Regina E. Jaros, PA 

Patrick McCaffrey and Jennifer Borkowski, PA 

Robert C. and Cynthia A. Johnstone, PA 

Walter G. and Doris M. Jones, PA 

William C. Jones, Jr., PA 

Blair E. and Patricia E. Keith, PA 

Anup and Reemtu Kharode, PA 

Saad and Taoufik Zoulaikha Khattabi et al, PA 

Edward A. Korab, PA 

John K. Diliberto and Kimberly L. Haas, PA 

Peter Klose, Green Valleys Association, PA 

Robert P. and Dulce F. Koolen, PA 

Walter and Mary Alice Kottmeyer, PA 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX A 

FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A - 10 

Drew W. and Stephanie A. Krapf, PA 

Bill Kunze, State Director, The Nature 

Conservancy, PA 

Timothy J. Laconis, PA 

Matthew and Stacey Lannen, PA 

Greg H. and Kathleen K. Libby, PA 

Charles Lobb, PA 

Jay P. Loucks and Eleanor S. Narum, PA 

Jeff and Mary Loughlin, PA 

Paul G. Lucas, PA 

Daniel J. and Simone Luminello, PA 

Matthew Matell and Lyla J. Kaplan, PA 

Zhen-Quiang and Lin Ma, PA 

Earl C. and Mary E. Macomber, PA 

Anthony and Amanda Marchese, PA 

Scott R. and Kerstin R. Marcum, PA 

Michael J. and Vicki L. Maristch, PA 

George B. and Kathleen Marker, PA 

Ed Markowski, PA 

Linda Wertz Marlin, PA 

Bruce and Susan Marshall, PA 

David Masur, Director, Penn Environment, PA 

Dwayne L. and Pamela G. May, PA 

Roberto M. and Bonnie L. Mazzaferro, PA 

Tim & Maureen McAleese, PA 

Beth McConnell, State Director, Penn PIRG, PA 

Robert McHyh, PA 

Steve McNaughton, PA 

McQueen, PA 

Thomas R. and Carrie L. McQueen, PA 

William F. McQueen, PA 

Frank A. and Kathleen Menichini, PA 

Howard and Terri Meyers, PA 

Wendy Miles, PA 

Samuel F. and Lydia F. Miller, PA 

David C. Moore, PA 

Edward J. & Regina A. Moorehead, PA 

James S. and Mary A. Morris, PA 

Sandy Moser, PA 

James F. and Mary E. Murray, PA 

Richard Napoliello, PA 

Nawalinski, PA 

Robert T. and Carol A. Nelson, PA 

Eric J. Nicodemus and Christine R. Bludis, PA 

William J. and Loredana Niemier, PA 

Dr. Julia A. Norton and Eric J. Newman, PA 

Glenda Oakes, PA 

Mark D. and Kelly M. Odorisio, PA 

Richard Opem, PA 

James F. and Ruth R. Osborn, PA 

Christina Osborne, PA 

Michael R. Palombo, PA 

Leonard and Patricia Palys, PA 

Dennis M. and Mary C. Patrick, PA 

Peco Energy Co., PA 

PENN DOT, PA 

Glenn and Theresa Perri, PA 

Edwin and Nancy W. Pettdemange, PA 

Pine Hill Associates, Inc., PA 

Franklin L. and Jean Ann Piper, PA 

Nancy Pollack, PA 

Dodie S. Preston, PA 

Pulte Homes, PA 

Morris Quigg, Director of Properties, Girl Scouts of 

Eastern Pennsylvania, PA 

Emily Randle, PA 

Millard T. and Agnes G. Reeder, PA 

Martin C. Jr. and Herschella K. Reynolds, PA 

Rick Rohrbach, PA 

Stephen P. and Lisa A. Rosenzweig, PA 

Gwyn Rowland, Program Director, PA 

Environmental Council, PA 

Mary Rutherford, PA 

Daniel Sagherian, PA 

Jeffery Samsel, PA 

Debbie & John Sanville, PA 

Dumas and Mary Sapp, PA 

Rikki M. and Jesse D. Saunders, PA 

Jeff Schmidt, Executive Director, Sierra Club of PA 

Chapter, PA 

John Schmidt, PA 

Tom Sexton, State Director, Rails to Trails 

Conservancy of PA, PA 

Walter W. Jr. and Deborah B. Simcox, PA 

Timothy Smedick, Executive Director, Historic 

Preservation Trust of Lancaster County, PA 

John D. Smith and Antoine Minyone-Smith, PA 

Kristin Smith, The Nature Conservancy, PA 

Robert R. and Randy R. Smullen, PA 

Robert W. and Joanie R. Solts, PA 

H. Robert and Ann C. Solway, PA 

Keith Solway, PA 

James T. and Cheryl C. Spaulding, PA 

Rodney Stark, Exelon, Real Estate & Facilities, PA 

Kenneth L. and Sandra M. Steiner, PA 

Amos Stoltzfoos, PA 

Isaac F. & Malinda B. Stoltzfus, PA 

Robert Struble, Jr, Executive Director, Brandywine 

Valley Association, PA 

Bob Supplee, PA 

Christopher A. and Rhonda L. Supplee, PA 

George H. Jr. and Robin K. Supplee, PA 

George H. Sr. and Barbara W. Supplee, PA 

Jack Supplee, PA 

John P. and Judith M. Supplee, PA 

Peter R. Supplee, PA 

Richard P. and Jean L. Supplee, PA 

Shane Supplee, PA 

Helen Sutter, PA 

David and Mary A. Sweeney, PA 

Meg Sweeney, PA 

The Cutler Group Inc., PA 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX A 

FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A - 11 

Toll Brothers, Inc., PA 

Patricia Tomes, Program Coordinator, Rails to 

Trails Conservancy of PA, PA 

Lynn C. Trabbold, PA 

Kevin J. and Elizabeth Traynor, PA 

Joseph Scott Trigo, PA 

Chris Trostle, Air Quality Program Specialist, PA 

Department of Environmental Protection, PA 

Brian S. Trout, PA 

Trust BTR, PA 

Harriett Tupitza, PA 

Upper Uwchlan Township, PA 

United Sports Training Center, PA 

William C. III and Alice J. Vache, PA 

Lisa Joan Van Houten, PA 

Stephen Charles and Maryanne Wallace, PA 

Edward J. and Karen E. Walsh, PA 

Trevor D. and Cathryn C. Weiss, PA 

West Bradford Township, PA 

Richard Whiteford, Sierra Club, PA 

Richard A. Jr. and Debra L. Whiting, PA 

David N. and Harriet A. Whittaker, PA 

Bob Williams, Legislative Director, Chesapeake 

Bay Yacht Clubs Association, PA 

Bob Williams, Chester County Parks & Recreation, 

PA 

Jeffrey O. and Tammy Sue Wood, PA 

Leon J. and Maureen Zola, PA 

Richard W. and Jo D. Worthington, PA 

Damian Zampogna, Geologist, Susquehanna River 

Basin Commission, PA 

Melody Zullinger, Director, PA Federation of 

Sportsmen Clubs, PA 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
B - 1 

APPENDIX B 

MID-ATLANTIC EXPRESS PIPELINE – PROPOSED ROUTE MAPS 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Figure B-1

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
See sections 3.3.3,

figure 3.3.3-1, for

route variations

recommended by

FERC staff in

this FEIS.

Figure B-2

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
See section 3.3.3.,

figure 3.3.3.-1,

3.3.3.-1A and 3.3.3.-1B

recommended by

FERC staff in this FEIS.

Figure B-3

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
See section 3.3.3,

figure 3.3.3-15,

for route variations

recommended by

FERC staff in

this FEIS.

Figure B-4

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Figure B-5

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Figure B-6

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Figure B-7

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Figure B-8

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Figure B-9

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Figure B-10

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Figure B-11

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Figure B-12

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Figure B-13

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Figure B-14

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

See section 3.3.3, figure 3.3.3-5 and 3.3.3-6

for route variations

recommended by FERC staff in this FEIS.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Figure B-15

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Figure B-16

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Figure B-17

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Figure B-18

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Figure B-19

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Figure B-20

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Figure B-21

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Figure B-22

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Figure B-23

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
See section 3.3.3,

figure 3.3.3-16,

for route variations

recommended by

FERC staff in

this FEIS.

Figure B-24

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Figure B-25

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Figure B-26

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Figure B-27

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
See section 3.3.3,

figure 3.3.3-14,

for route variations

recommended by

FERC staff in

this FEIS.

Figure B-28

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Figure B-29

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
See section 3.3.3,

figure 3.3.3-17,

for route variations

recommended by

FERC staff in

this FEIS.

Figure B-30

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
See section 3.3.3,

figure 3.3.3-17,

for route variations

recommended by

FERC staff in

this FEIS.

See section 3.3.3,

figure 3.3.3-11 and

figure 3.3.3-12,

for route variations

recommended by

FERC staff in

this FEIS.

Figure B-31

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
See section 3.3.3,

figure 3.3.3-11 and

figure 3.3.3-12,

for route variations

recommended by

FERC staff in

this FEIS.

Figure B-32

Mid - Atlantic Express Pipeline Z Proposed Route

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
C - 1 

APPENDIX C 

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES AND ACCESS ROADS 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
C - 2 

TABLE C-1 

 Additional Temporary Workspaces for the Mid Atlantic Express Pipeline Project 

County, 

State 

Facility or 

Milepost 1 Dimensions(feet) Acres Existing Land Use Use of Temporary Extra Workspace 

 

Baltimore, MD 0.71 90 x 150 0.24 Industrial/Commercial Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 0.72 50 x 235 0.25 Industrial/Commercial Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 0.78 104 x 181 0.41 Industrial/Commercial Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 0.78 25 x 200 0.10 Industrial/Commercial Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 1.49 70 x 150 0.41 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 1.50 50 x 200 0.24 Industrial/Commercial Wetland Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 1.63 120 x 200 0.41 Industrial/Commercial Wetland Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 1.71 120 x 100 0.22 Industrial/Commercial Congested Area 

Baltimore, MD 1.93 50 x 200 0.26 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 1.99 50 x 200 0.26 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 2.32 100 x 550 1.11 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 2.40 50 x 300 0.41 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 2.85 50 x 200 0.23 Industrial/Commercial Railroad Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 2.91 50 x 200 0.22 Industrial/Commercial Railroad Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 3.02 25 x 200 0.08 Industrial/Commercial Railroad Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 3.03 25 x 200 0.12 Industrial/Commercial Railroad Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 3.07 50 x 200 0.28 Industrial/Commercial Railroad Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 3.45 25 x 150 0.07 Industrial/Commercial Railroad Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 3.47 50 x 200 0.32 Industrial/Commercial Railroad Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 3.54 50 x 200 0.24 Industrial/Commercial Railroad Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 3.65 50 x 200 0.23 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 3.66 50 x 150 0.17 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 3.72 25 x 150 0.09 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 3.73 25 x 200 0.11 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 4.28 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Wetland Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 4.99 25 x 200 0.11 Forest Wetland Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 5.11 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 5.57 50 x 200 0.22 Forest Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 5.64 88 x 350 0.81 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 5.87 25 x 400 0.22 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 5.96 50 x 200 0.29 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 6.39 25 x 200 0.11 Forest Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 6.43 50 x 200 0.25 Residential Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 6.43 25 x 200 0.12 Residential Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 6.61 50 x 150 0.17 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 6.65 25 x 400 0.41 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 6.81 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 6.89 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 6.98 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 7.05 50 x 200 0.25 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 7.17 50 x 100 0.11 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 7.21 50 x 275 0.31 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 7.48 50 x 200 0.23 Industrial/Commercial Railroad Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 7.58 50 x 150 0.17 Industrial/Commercial Railroad Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 7.78 50 x 300 0.30 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 7.84 50 x 150 0.15 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 7.84 50 x 200 0.25 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 7.90 50 x 250 0.29 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 7.99 50 x 220 0.50 Industrial/Commercial Congested Area 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
C - 3 

TABLE C-1 

 Additional Temporary Workspaces for the Mid Atlantic Express Pipeline Project 

County, 

State 

Facility or 

Milepost 1 Dimensions(feet) Acres Existing Land Use Use of Temporary 

Extra Workspace 

Baltimore, MD 8.01 100 x 190 0.44 Industrial/Commercial Congested Area 

Baltimore, MD 8.04 125 x 275 0.79 Industrial/Commercial Congested Area 

Baltimore, MD 8.11 125 x 100 0.33 Industrial/Commercial Congested Area 

Baltimore, MD 8.26 50 x 1500 1.82 Industrial/Commercial HDD 

Baltimore, MD 8.56 250 x 250 1.43 Industrial/Commercial HDD – Back River 

Baltimore, MD 8.79 205 x 250 1.43 Industrial/Commercial HDD – Back River 

Baltimore, MD 8.84 25 x 200 0.13 Industrial/Commercial HDD 

Baltimore, MD 8.89 25 x 200 0.12 Industrial/Commercial HDD 

Baltimore, MD 8.89 50 x 200 0.21 Industrial/Commercial Railroad Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 9.07 50 x 150 0.17 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 9.11 25 x 200 0.11 Forest Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 9.12 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 9.68 25 x 200 0.11 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 9.70 50 x 150 0.19 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 9.78 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Wetland Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 9.84 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 9.89 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 10.20 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Wetland Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 10.32 50 x 200 0.23 Industrial/Commercial Wetland Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 10.37 50 x 150 0.18 Industrial/Commercial Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 10.43 50 x 200 0.23 Industrial/Commercial Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 10.66 50 x 200 0.21 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 10.68 50 x 175 0.31 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 10.70 50 x 115 0.02 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 10.78 100 x 200 0.60 Forest Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 10.78 50 x 200 0.25 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 11.07 50 x 200 0.21 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 11.11 50 x 245 0.23 Residential Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 11.19 50 x 310 0.33 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 11.32 50 x 50 0.07 Forest Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 11.49 50 x 200 0.23 Industrial/Commercial Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 11.60 50 x 200 0.23 Industrial/Commercial Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 11.84 50 x 100 0.11 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 11.89 50 x 110 0.06 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 11.91 70 x 100 0.12 Industrial/Commercial Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 12.05 85 x 250 0.52 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 12.08 25 x 100 0.05 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 12.12 25 x 200 0.12 Residential Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 12.12 25 x 200 0.12 Residential Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 12.82 25 x 200 0.12 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 12.84 25 x 100 0.06 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 12.87 25 x 100 0.06 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 12.88 25 x 100 0.06 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 13.04 25 x 200 0.11 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 13.08 25 x 4500 2.49 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Baltimore, MD 13.12 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Congested Area 

Baltimore, MD 13.32 25 x 100 0.06 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 13.36 25 x 100 0.06 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 13.91 50 x 200 0.19 Open Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 13.91 25 x 200 0.08 Open Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 13.94 25 x 200 0.11 Open Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 13.94 50 x 200 0.23 Open Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 13.98 25 x 1200 0.66 Open Top Soil Segregation 

Baltimore, MD 14.21 50 x 200 0.22 Open Road Crossing 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
C - 4 

TABLE C-1 

 Additional Temporary Workspaces for the Mid Atlantic Express Pipeline Project 

County, 

State 

Facility or 

Milepost 1 Dimensions(feet) Acres Existing Land Use Use of Temporary 

Extra Workspace 

Baltimore, MD 14.21 25 x 200 0.11 Open Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 14.26 50 x 200 0.23 Open Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 14.26 25 x 200 0.11 Open Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 14.33 50 x 100 0.11 Open Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 14.34 50 x 200 0.21 Open Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 14.40 50 x 200 0.24 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 14.40 25 x 200 0.13 Open Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 14.86 50 x 100 0.11 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 14.87 25 x 50 0.03 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 14.90 25 x 150 0.09 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 14.90 25 x 100 0.06 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 14.95 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 14.95 25 x 200 0.11 Open Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 15.02 25 x 150 0.09 Open Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 15.02 50 x 200 0.20 Open Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 15.07 50 x 100 0.12 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 15.12 50 x 200 0.17 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 15.43 25 x 200 0.11 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 15.43 25 x 200 0.11 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 15.51 50 x 100 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 15.52 25 x 250 0.14 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 15.58 50 x 175 0.21 Forest Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 15.81 50 x 100 0.11 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 15.87 50 x 200 0.20 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 15.88 50 x 200 0.30 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 15.95 25 x 180 0.10 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 15.97 25 x 150 0.18 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 16.06 50 x 285 0.27 Forest Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 16.13 50 x 265 0.35 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 16.46 50 x 100 0.11 Open Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 16.50 50 x 100 0.11 Open Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 16.67 25 x 100 0.06 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 16.82 50 x 200 0.23 Residential Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 16.90 50 x 200 0.17 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 17.05 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Railroad Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 17.12 50 x 250 0.31 Forest Railroad Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 17.15 50 x 200 0.21 Forest Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 17.51 50 x 200 0.26 Open Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 17.55 25 x 100 0.06 Open Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 17.56 50 x 200 0.25 Residential Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 17.64 50 x 200 0.21 Residential Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 17.68 50 x 200 0.24 Residential Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 17.83 25 x 200 0.12 Residential Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 17.89 25 x 450 0.26 Residential Congested Area/TSS 

Baltimore, MD 17.98 25 x 400 0.24 Residential Congested Area/TSS 

Baltimore, MD 18.07 25 x 150 0.09 Residential Congested Area/TSS 

Baltimore, MD 18.12 25 x 200 0.11 Forest Congested Area 

Baltimore, MD 18.12 25 x 200 0.09 Residential Congested Area/TSS 

Baltimore, MD 18.22 50 x 200 0.24 Forest Slope and Stream 

Baltimore, MD 18.23 25 x 200 0.12 Forest Slope and Stream 

Baltimore, MD 18.30 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Slope and Stream 

Baltimore, MD 18.31 25 x 200 0.12 Forest Slope and Stream 

Baltimore, MD 18.58 50 x 200 0.22 Open Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 18.61 25 x 200 0.12 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
C - 5 

TABLE C-1 

 Additional Temporary Workspaces for the Mid Atlantic Express Pipeline Project 

County, 

State 

Facility or 

Milepost 1 Dimensions(feet) Acres Existing Land Use Use of Temporary 

Extra Workspace 

Baltimore, MD 18.61 50 x 150 0.18 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 18.64 25 x 550 0.32 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Baltimore, MD 18.74 50 x 200 0.24 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 18.74 25 x 200 0.11 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 18.85 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 18.85 50 x 200 0.28 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 18.92 25 x 925 0.54 Open Top Soil Segregation 

Baltimore, MD 19.13 25 x 150 0.12 Open Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 19.14 25 x 100 0.06 Open Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 19.24 25 x 150 0.09 Forest Wetland Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 19.27 50 x 150 0.17 Open Wetland Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 19.47 25 x 970 0.56 Forest Top Soil Segregation 

Baltimore, MD 19.70 50 x 200 0.23 Residential Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 19.71 25 x 200 0.12 Open Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 19.74 25 x 200 0.11 Open Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 19.75 50 x 200 0.21 Residential Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 20.38 50 x 125 0.16 Open Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 20.41 50 x 150 0.16 Open Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 20.58 50 x 200 0.27 Open Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 20.73 50 x 200 0.24 Open Stream Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 20.90 50 x 150 0.16 Residential Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 20.94 50 x 150 0.18 Residential Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 21.17 50 x 200 0.23 Open Wetland Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 21.26 50 x 200 0.23 Open Wetland Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 21.30 25 x 665 0.38 Open Top Soil Segregation 

Baltimore, MD 21.43 50 x 200 0.24 Open Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 21.47 50 x 200 0.22 Open Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 21.51 25 x 860 0.49 Open Top Soil Segregation 

Baltimore, MD 21.68 50 x 200 0.19 Open Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 21.71 50 x 200 0.22 Forest Road Crossing 

Baltimore, MD 21.72 25 x 1035 0.59 Forest Top Soil Segregation 

Baltimore, MD 22.17 50 x 200 0.23 Open Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 22.31 50 x 200 0.23 Open Wetland Crossing 

Harford, MD 23.02 50 x 200 0.23 Open Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 23.06 50 x 250 0.31 Open Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 23.08 25 x 200 0.12 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 23.26 50 x 200 0.23 Open Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 23.31 50 x 300 0.37 Open Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 23.39 50 x 100 0.17 Open Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 23.44 50 x 200 0.20 Open Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 23.69 25 x 570 0.32 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 23.80 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 23.93 25 x 1120 0.67 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 24.08 25 x 900 0.52 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 24.10 50 x 200 0.20 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 24.16 50 x 200 0.26 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 24.21 25 x 1730 0.99 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 24.28 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 24.54 50 x 200 0.27 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 24.59 25 x 150 0.08 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 24.66 50 x 250 0.36 Open Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 24.82 50 x 250 0.22 Open Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 24.83 50 x 100 0.14 Open Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 24.87 25 x 200 0.11 Open Road Crossing 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
C - 6 

TABLE C-1 

 Additional Temporary Workspaces for the Mid Atlantic Express Pipeline Project 

County, 

State 

Facility or 

Milepost 1 Dimensions(feet) Acres Existing Land Use Use of Temporary 

Extra Workspace 

Harford, MD 25.06 25 x 960 0.55 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 25.25 50 x 457 0.53 Open Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 25.35 25 x 150 0.09 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 25.41 50 x 200 0.24 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 25.50 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 25.54 25 x 1100 0.62 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 25.70 50 x 200 0.24 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 25.76 50 x 180 0.19 Open Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 25.81 50 x 200 0.21 Open Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 26.15 25 x 1340 0.78 Residential Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 26.64 25 x 590 0.32 Residential Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 26.72 25 x 200 0.08 Residential Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 26.76 50 x 200 0.32 Residential Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 26.80 25 x 530 0.30 Open Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 26.94 50 x 200 0.21 Forest Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 26.96 50 x 200 0.21 Open Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 27.01 50 x 200 0.24 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 27.15 50 x 110 0.09 Open Cross Over 

Harford, MD 27.20 25 x 1850 1.08 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 27.42 50 x 200 0.23 Open Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 27.48 50 x 200 0.23 Open Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 27.86 25 x 1300 0.73 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 28.12 50 x 200 0.21 Open Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 28.17 50 x 150 0.17 Open Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 28.36 50 x 100 0.11 Open Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 28.40 25 x 165 0.09 Open Congested Area 

Harford, MD 28.58 50 x 200 0.24 Open Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 28.62 50 x 50 0.05 Open Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 28.66 50 x 200 0.23 Open Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 28.70 25 x 1420 0.82 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 29.11 25 x 700 0.40 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 29.24 50 x 100 0.13 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 29.28 50 x 100 0.13 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 29.32 25 x 425 0.26 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 29.34 50 x 200 0.21 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 29.38 50 x 200 0.19 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 29.41 25 x 1250 0.70 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 29.69 50 x 100 0.12 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 29.73 50 x 100 0.11 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 29.83 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 29.87 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 29.90 25 x 1950 1.12 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 30.23 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 30.28 25 x 640 0.38 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 30.28 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 30.55 25 x 200 0.11 Open Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 30.56 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 30.62 25 x 80 0.02 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 30.64 25 x 200 0.11 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 30.72 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 30.82 25 x 200 0.11 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 30.82 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 30.98 50 x 200 0.20 Forest Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 30.98 50 x 200 0.21 Open Road Crossing 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
C - 7 

TABLE C-1 

 Additional Temporary Workspaces for the Mid Atlantic Express Pipeline Project 

County, 

State 

Facility or 

Milepost 1 Dimensions(feet) Acres Existing Land Use Use of Temporary 

Extra Workspace 

Harford, MD 31.02 50 x 100 0.13 Forest Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 31.02 50 x 100 0.11 Open Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 31.07 50 x 200 0.21 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 31.08 50 x 100 0.14 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 31.11 25 x 620 0.36 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 31.18 50 x 200 0.19 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 31.27 25 x 1360 0.78 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 31.57 25 x 450 0.27 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 31.63 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 31.72 50 x 200 0.25 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 31.76 25 x 575 0.33 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 31.90 25 x 1130 0.65 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 32.13 50 x 200 0.23 Open Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 32.37 50 x 100 0.12 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 32.41 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 32.46 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 32.50 25 x 2350 1.31 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 32.93 50 x 100 0.25 Agriculture Cross Over 

Harford, MD 32.94 50 x 100 0.27 Agriculture Cross Over 

Harford, MD 33.00 25 x 700 0.40 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 33.28 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 33.33 50 x 220 0.22 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 33.39 50 x 200 0.24 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 33.43 25 x 1100 0.64 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 33.67 25 x 735 0.40 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 33.80 50 x 100 0.11 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 33.86 25 x 1350 0.75 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 34.12 50 x 100 0.22 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 34.14 50 x 150 0.23 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 34.22 25 x 900 0.51 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 34.39 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 34.50 50 x 300 0.34 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 34.58 25 x 715 0.33 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 34.73 25 x 500 0.29 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 34.83 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 34.90 50 x 300 0.36 Agriculture Pasture/Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 35.00 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 35.04 25 x 1000 0.58 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 35.23 50 x 50 0.09 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 35.26 50 x 200 0.36 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 35.27 50 x 100 0.28 Agriculture Cross Over 

Harford, MD 35.35 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 35.45 25 x 200 0.11 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 35.75 25 x 500 0.28 Residential Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 35.95 50 x 200 0.24 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 36.07 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 36.37 50 x 200 0.24 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 36.43 50 x 200 0.24 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 36.49 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 36.54 50 x 100 0.14 Forest Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 36.57 50 x 200 0.27 Forest Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 36.87 25 x 250 0.14 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 36.87 50 x 200 0.17 Agriculture Stream and Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 36.91 40 x 150 0.23 Forest Road Crossing 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
C - 8 

TABLE C-1 

 Additional Temporary Workspaces for the Mid Atlantic Express Pipeline Project 

County, 

State 

Facility or 

Milepost 1 Dimensions(feet) Acres Existing Land Use Use of Temporary 

Extra Workspace 

Harford, MD 36.98 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 37.13 25 x 1250 0.72 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 37.63 50 x 200 0.25 Forest Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 37.68 50 x 200 0.20 Forest Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 37.80 50 x 200 0.22 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 37.88 25 x 200 0.18 Residential Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 37.92 25 x 200 0.21 Residential Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 38.13 25 x 200 0.11 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 38.14 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 38.23 50 x 100 0.11 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 38.27 25 x 130 0.08 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 38.28 50 x 100 0.13 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 38.35 50 x 200 0.24 Forest Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 38.39 50 x 320 0.29 Forest Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 38.40 50 x 250 0.18 Residential Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 38.67 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 38.76 50 x 300 0.35 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 38.82 25 x 825 0.46 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 38.96 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 39.05 50 x 485 0.57 Open Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 39.16 50 x 200 0.23 Open Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 39.20 25 x 375 0.21 Open Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 39.27 50 x 220 0.18 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 39.28 50 x 130 0.21 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 39.32 50 x 200 0.26 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 39.41 25 x 175 0.09 Residential Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 39.46 25 x 325 0.20 Residential Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 39.63 25 x 250 0.14 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 39.74 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Wetland Crossing 

Harford, MD 40.00 25 x 600 0.35 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 40.06 50 x 200 0.24 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 40.13 50 x 125 0.14 Industrial/commercial MLV Site (existing) 

Harford, MD 40.30 50 x 150 0.19 Residential Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 40.35 50 x 70 0.07 Residential Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 40.38 50 x 135 0.07 Residential Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 40.42 50 x 100 0.09 Residential Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 40.92 50 x 100 0.24 Agriculture Cross Over 

Harford, MD 40.93 50 x 100 0.24 Agriculture Cross Over 

Harford, MD 41.17 120 x 150 0.54 Residential Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 41.20 25 x 100 0.11 Residential Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 41.27 25 x 730 0.42 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 41.27 25 x 100 0.06 Agriculture Congested Area 

Harford, MD 41.56 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Wetland Crossing 

Harford, MD 41.89 50 x 200 0.24 Forest Wetland Crossing 

Harford, MD 42.38 50 x 175 0.14 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 42.42 50 x 200 0.26 Residential Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 42.46 25 x 600 0.33 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Harford, MD 42.57 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 42.64 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 42.84 50 x 200 0.41 Forest Cross Over 

Harford, MD 42.84 50 x 200 0.39 Residential Cross Over 

Harford, MD 43.06 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 43.10 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 43.19 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
C - 9 

TABLE C-1 

 Additional Temporary Workspaces for the Mid Atlantic Express Pipeline Project 

County, 

State 

Facility or 

Milepost 1 Dimensions(feet) Acres Existing Land Use Use of Temporary 

Extra Workspace 

Harford, MD 43.27 50 x 300 0.34 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Harford, MD 43.39 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 43.44 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 43.57 50 x 200 0.22 Open Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 43.61 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Road Crossing 

Harford, MD 43.66 250 x 250 1.35 Forest HDD Site – Susquehanna 

R. 

Cecil, MD 44.60 250 x 300 1.86 Forest HDD Site – Susquehanna 

R. 

Cecil, MD 44.68 100 x 2650 6.10 Forest HDD Pull Back Strings 

Cecil, MD 45.19 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Cecil, MD 45.30 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Cecil, MD 45.48 50 x 200 0.25 Forest Stream Crossing 

Cecil, MD 45.55 50 x 200 0.24 Forest Stream Crossing 

Cecil, MD 45.63 25 x 775 0.44 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Cecil, MD 45.80 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Road Crossing 

Cecil, MD 45.85 50 x 200 0.22 Residential Road Crossing 

Cecil, MD 45.93 25 x 1200 0.75 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Cecil, MD 46.18 50 x 175 0.20 Forest Road Crossing 

Cecil, MD 46.22 25 x 200 0.12 Forest Road Crossing 

Cecil, MD 46.60 50 x 100 0.24 Forest Cross Over 

Cecil, MD 46.60 50 x 100 0.25 Forest Cross Over 

Cecil, MD 46.70 25 x 1375 0.88 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Cecil, MD 46.96 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Wetland Crossing 

Cecil, MD 47.07 50 x 250 0.29 Agriculture Wetland Crossing 

Cecil, MD 47.46 50 x 300 0.34 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Cecil, MD 47.52 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Cecil, MD 47.56 25 x 1850 1.05 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Cecil, MD 47.89 50 x 200 0.25 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Cecil, MD 47.93 50 x 200 0.28 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Cecil, MD 47.96 25 x 1130 0.66 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Cecil, MD 48.18 50 x 250 0.26 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 48.23 50 x 250 0.29 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 48.27 25 x 1550 0.84 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Lancaster, PA 49.29 50 x 210 0.23 Forest MLV/Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 49.33 50 x 250 0.30 Forest Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 49.44 50 x 275 0.32 Forest Stream Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 49.54 50 x 290 0.33 Open Side Slope and Stream 

Lancaster, PA 49.77 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream and Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 49.84 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 49.90 25 x 90 0.05 Open Top Soil Segregation 

Lancaster, PA 49.92 50 x 200 0.24 Open Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 49.97 50 x 200 0.22 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 50.00 25 x 800 0.47 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Lancaster, PA 50.33 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 50.37 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 50.41 25 x 450 0.26 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Lancaster, PA 50.53 50 x 200 0.25 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 50.57 25 x 125 0.08 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Lancaster, PA 50.59 50 x 200 0.22 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 50.83 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 50.91 50 x 200 0.24 Forest Stream Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 50.99 50 x 475 0.47 Open Congested Area/TSS 

Lancaster, PA 51.05 50 x 200 0.18 Open Congested Area/TSS 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
C - 10 

TABLE C-1 

 Additional Temporary Workspaces for the Mid Atlantic Express Pipeline Project 

County, 

State 

Facility or 

Milepost 1 Dimensions(feet) Acres Existing Land Use Use of Temporary 

Extra Workspace 

Lancaster, PA 51.09 25 x 425 0.27 Open Top Soil Segregation 

Lancaster, PA 51.17 25 x 200 0.12 Forest Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 51.17 25 x 200 0.10 Residential Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 51.22 25 x 1350 0.76 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Lancaster, PA 51.24 25 x 200 0.11 Forest Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 51.47 50 x 350 0.39 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 51.59 50 x 50 0.06 Forest Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 51.59 25 x 50 0.03 Forest Top Soil Segregation 

Lancaster, PA 51.61 50 x 250 0.29 Forest Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 51.66 25 x 750 0.40 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Lancaster, PA 51.80 50 x 150 0.19 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 51.85 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 51.89 25 x 300 0.17 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Lancaster, PA 51.93 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 52.02 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 52.14 25 x 435 0.25 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Lancaster, PA 52.23 50 x 200 0.24 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 52.27 205 x 260 0.28 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 52.31 100 x 200 0.31 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 52.38 25 x 1675 0.94 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Lancaster, PA 52.70 50 x 200 0.29 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 52.75 50 x 200 0.17 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 52.78 25 x 625 0.36 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Lancaster, PA 52.99 25 x 285 0.16 Residential Top Soil Segregation 

Lancaster, PA 52.99 50 x 285 0.32 Residential Congested Area 

Lancaster, PA 53.11 25 x 160 0.09 Residential Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 53.17 75 x 250 0.44 Residential Congested Area 

Lancaster, PA 53.21 25 x 225 0.13 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Lancaster, PA 53.36 25 x 750 0.42 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Lancaster, PA 53.65 100 x 180 0.36 Residential Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 53.70 50 x 750 0.87 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 53.78 50 x 340 0.20 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 53.88 50 x 200 0.18 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 53.94 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 53.98 25 x 1320 0.73 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Lancaster, PA 54.23 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 54.27 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 54.31 25 x 1100 0.57 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Lancaster, PA 54.40 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 54.50 50 x 200 0.22 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 54.55 50 x 100 0.11 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 54.58 50 x 200 0.21 Forest Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 54.59 50 x 180 0.16 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 54.71 50 x 100 0.11 Forest Stream Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 54.78 50 x 150 0.17 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 54.83 50 x 100 0.12 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 54.94 25 x 2450 1.40 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Lancaster, PA 55.52 25 x 1050 0.62 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Lancaster, PA 55.81 50 x 100 0.25 Open Cross Over 

Lancaster, PA 55.81 50 x 100 0.23 Open Cross Over 

Lancaster, PA 55.85 25 x 200 0.09 Open Top Soil Segregation 

Lancaster, PA 55.93 25 x 150 0.09 Open Top Soil Segregation 

Lancaster, PA 55.96 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 56.02 50 x 200 0.21 Forest Stream Crossing 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
C - 11 

TABLE C-1 

 Additional Temporary Workspaces for the Mid Atlantic Express Pipeline Project 

County, 

State 

Facility or 

Milepost 1 Dimensions(feet) Acres Existing Land Use Use of Temporary 

Extra Workspace 

Chester, PA 56.25 100 x 200 0.45 Forest Stream Crossing 

Lancaster, PA 56.32 100 x 200 0.49 Open Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 56.37 25 x 100 0.06 Open Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 56.39 50 x 200 0.24 Open Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 56.55 25 x 1450 0.81 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 56.55 25 x 100 0.08 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 56.87 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 56.94 50 x 238 0.25 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 56.99 50 x 200 0.24 Open Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 57.03 25 x 640 0.37 Open Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 57.67 25 x 400 0.20 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 57.81 25 x 300 0.16 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 57.86 50 x 200 0.20 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 57.90 50 x 350 0.53 Agriculture Cross Over/Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 57.95 50 x 100 0.24 Forest Cross Over 

Chester, PA 58.02 50 x 200 0.24 Forest Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 58.10 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 58.17 25 x 375 0.22 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 58.40 25 x 1750 0.98 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 58.73 50 x 200 0.22 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 58.77 50 x 200 0.25 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 58.80 25 x 3675 2.18 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 59.54 25 x 1300 0.72 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 59.78 50 x 330 0.31 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 59.83 25 x 100 0.04 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 59.86 50 x 175 0.22 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 59.90 25 x 3700 2.12 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 60.60 50 x 200 0.30 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 60.65 50 x 390 0.38 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 60.72 50 x 200 0.20 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 60.76 25 x 1750 1.01 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 61.09 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 61.21 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 61.25 25 x 1425 0.81 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 61.52 50 x 200 0.21 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 61.56 50 x 200 0.24 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 61.72 50 x 200 0.29 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 61.77 50 x 140 0.11 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 61.84 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 61.88 25 x 2375 1.36 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 62.33 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Wetland Crossing 

Chester, PA 62.40 50 x 160 0.18 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 62.46 50 x 100 0.12 Agriculture Cross Over 

Chester, PA 62.47 25 x 850 0.48 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 62.63 50 x 200 0.19 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 62.68 50 x 200 0.24 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 62.71 25 x 1125 0.65 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 62.92 50 x 100 0.10 Agriculture Wetland Crossing 

Chester, PA 63.02 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Wetland Crossing 

Chester, PA 63.06 25 x 1550 1.02 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 63.34 50 x 200 0.13 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 63.35 50 x 100 0.24 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 63.39 50 x 200 0.18 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 63.42 25 x 2500 1.53 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
C - 12 

TABLE C-1 

 Additional Temporary Workspaces for the Mid Atlantic Express Pipeline Project 

County, 

State 

Facility or 

Milepost 1 Dimensions(feet) Acres Existing Land Use Use of Temporary 

Extra Workspace 

Chester, PA 63.89 50 x 200 0.24 Agriculture Wetland Crossing 

Chester, PA 64.06 50 x 195 0.24 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 64.15 25 x 150 0.10 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 64.18 50 x 160 0.17 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 64.28 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 64.32 25 x 2400 1.38 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 64.78 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 64.83 50 x 430 0.54 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 64.93 50 x 200 0.24 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 64.96 25 x 800 0.47 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 65.10 50 x 200 0.19 Agriculture Wetland Crossing 

Chester, PA 65.21 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Wetland Crossing 

Chester, PA 65.25 25 x 750 0.43 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 65.44 25 x 1225 0.68 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 65.45 50 x 200 0.17 Agriculture Cross Over 

Chester, PA 65.67 50 x 200 0.28 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 65.72 50 x 200 0.16 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 65.76 25 x 1200 0.65 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 65.98 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 66.04 50 x 200 0.25 Forest Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 66.08 25 x 500 0.29 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 66.18 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 66.32 50 x 250 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 66.42 50 x 200 0.21 Forest Cross Over 

Chester, PA 66.46 50 x 100 0.10 Residential Cross Over 

Chester, PA 66.52 50 x 200 0.23 Residential Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 66.56 25 x 200 0.12 Industrial/Commercial Congested Area 

Chester, PA 66.70 25 x 1100 0.64 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 66.91 50 x 200 0.22 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 66.95 50 x 200 0.25 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 67.00 25 x 450 0.24 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 67.08 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 67.16 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 67.20 25 x 1200 0.66 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 67.43 50 x 200 0.26 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 67.49 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 67.53 25 x 950 0.53 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 67.70 50 x 180 0.31 Agriculture Cross Over 

Chester, PA 67.70 50 x 100 0.25 Agriculture Cross Over 

Chester, PA 67.77 50 x 175 0.34 Agriculture Cross Over 

Chester, PA 67.77 50 x 100 0.23 Agriculture Cross Over 

Chester, PA 67.90 25 x 1250 0.71 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 68.33 25 x 4075 2.42 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 69.22 50 x 200 0.28 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 69.29 50 x 150 0.16 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 69.33 50 x 200 0.15 Forest Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 69.38 25 x 1225 0.70 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 69.61 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 69.67 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 69.71 25 x 360 0.20 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 69.79 25 x 400 0.23 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 69.87 50 x 200 0.21 Agriculture Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 69.93 50 x 200 0.16 Forest Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 70.08 25 x 1150 0.66 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
C - 13 

TABLE C-1 

 Additional Temporary Workspaces for the Mid Atlantic Express Pipeline Project 

County, 

State 

Facility or 

Milepost 1 Dimensions(feet) Acres Existing Land Use Use of Temporary 

Extra Workspace 

Chester, PA 70.38 50 x 200 0.22 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 70.38 25 x 1425 0.86 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 70.62 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 70.66 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 70.70 25 x 2800 1.60 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 71.23 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 71.27 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 71.50 25 x 3300 1.77 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 72.16 50 x 250 0.30 Forest Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 72.23 50 x 250 0.29 Forest Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 72.29 25 x 1150 0.67 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 72.75 25 x 425 0.24 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 72.83 50 x 200 0.19 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 72.88 25 x 232 0.30 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 72.94 50 x 157 0.15 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 72.95 25 x 650 0.36 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 73.13 25 x 600 0.38 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 73.30 25 x 500 0.28 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 73.56 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 73.68 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 73.90 25 x 1250 0.72 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 74.14 50 x 200 0.22 Forest Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 74.18 50 x 100 0.13 Residential Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 74.22 50 x 170 0.19 Open Railroad and Stream 

Crossing 

Chester, PA 74.28 25 x 200 0.11 Forest Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 74.34 50 x 300 0.34 Forest Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 75.08 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 75.17 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Pipeline Crossing 

Chester, PA 75.26 50 x 200 0.20 Forest Cross Over 

Chester, PA 75.26 50 x 300 0.31 Forest Cross Over 

Chester, PA 75.53 50 x 100 0.10 Residential Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 75.55 50 x 200 0.24 Forest Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 75.59 25 x 300 0.17 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 75.94 50 x 200 0.24 Residential Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 75.98 50 x 200 0.24 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 76.02 25 x 325 0.18 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 76.30 25 x 100 0.06 Forest Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 76.40 50 x 100 0.26 Forest Cross Over 

Chester, PA 76.41 50 x 100 0.21 Forest Cross Over 

Chester, PA 76.49 50 x 200 0.25 Forest Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 76.54 50 x 300 0.32 Forest Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 76.97 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 77.02 50 x 54 0.06 Forest Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 77.04 50 x 100 0.19 Forest Cross Over 

Chester, PA 77.07 95 x 190 0.12 Forest Cross Over 

Chester, PA 77.13 50 x 150 0.17 Forest Congested Area 

Chester, PA 77.21 50 x 100 0.22 Forest Cross Over 

Chester, PA 77.22 50 x 58 0.13 Forest Cross Over 

Chester, PA 77.32 50 x 150 0.16 Forest Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 77.41 25 x 100 0.06 Forest Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 77.48 50 x 150 0.19 Forest Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 77.61 50 x 300 0.27 Residential Congested Area 

Chester, PA 77.69 50 x 150 0.14 Residential Cross Over 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
C - 14 

TABLE C-1 

 Additional Temporary Workspaces for the Mid Atlantic Express Pipeline Project 

County, 

State 

Facility or 

Milepost 1 Dimensions(feet) Acres Existing Land Use Use of Temporary 

Extra Workspace 

Chester, PA 77.73 50 x 75 0.08 Residential Cross Over 

Chester, PA 77.75 50 x 200 0.23 Residential Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 77.93 50 x 100 0.23 Residential Cross Over 

Chester, PA 77.93 50 x 100 0.22 Residential Cross Over 

Chester, PA 78.08 50 x 150 0.15 Residential Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 78.10 50 x 150 0.16 Forest Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 78.15 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 78.29 50 x 100 0.27 Forest Cross Over 

Chester, PA 78.30 50 x 100 0.26 Forest Cross Over 

Chester, PA 78.65 50 x 100 0.20 Forest Cross Over 

Chester, PA 78.66 50 x 100 0.15 Forest Cross Over 

Chester, PA 78.75 50 x 200 0.19 Forest Congested Area 

Chester, PA 78.89 50 x 200 0.23 Residential Congested Area 

Chester, PA 78.96 75 x 75 0.13 Industrial/Commercial Congested Area 

Chester, PA 79.03 100 x 100 0.25 Industrial/Commercial Railroad Crossing 

Chester, PA 79.10 50 x 100 0.09 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 79.13 50 x 100 0.10 Industrial/Commercial Congested Area 

Chester, PA 79.17 50 x 200 0.23 Industrial/Commercial Wetland Crossing 

Chester, PA 79.37 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Wetland Crossing 

Chester, PA 79.63 50 x 150 0.17 Forest Congested Area 

Chester, PA 79.65 50 x 200 0.18 Open Congested Area 

Chester, PA 79.74 50 x 120 0.38 Residential Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 79.77 50 x 150 0.17 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 79.82 25 x 2000 1.11 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 80.20 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 80.23 50 x 200 0.23 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 80.34 50 x 200 0.25 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 80.41 50 x 250 0.27 Residential Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 80.42 50 x 200 0.24 Residential Cross Over 

Chester, PA 80.61 50 x 100 0.11 Residential Congested Area 

Chester, PA 80.73 50 x 200 0.23 Residential Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 80.79 50 x 200 0.23 Residential Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 81.12 50 x 200 0.23 Residential MLV/Congested Area 

Chester, PA 81.21 150 x 150 0.24 Residential Congested Area 

Chester, PA 81.56 50 x 100 0.24 Residential Cross Over 

Chester, PA 81.57 50 x 70 0.07 Residential Cross Over 

Chester, PA 81.71 25 x 2200 1.27 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 82.13 50 x 200 0.13 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 82.14 50 x 140 0.07 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 82.20 50 x 140 0.18 Open Wetland Crossing 

Chester, PA 82.23 50 x 150 0.17 Open Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 82.49 50 x 125 0.14 Forest Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 82.55 50 x 225 0.32 Forest Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 82.60 50 x 200 0.24 Forest Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 82.85 50 x 200 0.23 Forest Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 82.93 50 x 230 0.38 Forest MLV/Congested Area 

Chester, PA 83.10 150 x 75 0.12 Residential Congested Area 

Chester, PA 83.36 50 x 150 0.11 Residential Congested Area 

Chester, PA 83.38 50 x 100 0.28 Residential Cross Over 

Chester, PA 83.40 50 x 70 0.12 Residential Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 83.50 50 x 100 0.56 Residential Cross Over 

Chester, PA 83.52 50 x 100 0.20 Residential Cross Over 

Chester, PA 83.58 25 x 350 0.14 Residential Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 83.73 25 x 1400 0.82 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
C - 15 

TABLE C-1 

 Additional Temporary Workspaces for the Mid Atlantic Express Pipeline Project 

County, 

State 

Facility or 

Milepost 1 Dimensions(feet) Acres Existing Land Use Use of Temporary 

Extra Workspace 

Chester, PA 84.00 50 x 200 0.24 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 84.05 50 x 200 0.18 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 84.36 25 x 100 0.06 Residential Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 84.40 25 x 100 0.06 Residential Stream Crossing 

Chester, PA 84.44 25 x 200 0.11 Residential Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 84.44 25 x 200 0.12 Residential Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 84.48 25 x 220 0.15 Residential Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 84.58 25 x 350 0.20 Residential Congested Area 

Chester, PA 84.67 25 x 300 0.16 Agriculture Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 84.91 50 x 100 0.28 Open Cross Over 

Chester, PA 84.92 50 x 100 0.26 Open Cross Over 

Chester, PA 85.08 50 x 325 0.46 Agriculture Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 85.19 50 x 100 0.10 Residential Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 85.31 50 x 245 0.28 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 85.35 50 x 100 0.13 Residential Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 85.52 25 x 250 0.14 Industrial/Commercial Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 85.59 50 x 85 0.07 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 85.60 25 x 100 0.06 Industrial/Commercial Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 85.62 50 x 200 0.18 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 85.64 25 x 1125 0.57 Industrial/Commercial Top Soil Segregation 

Chester, PA 85.85 50 x 200 0.28 Residential Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 85.87 50 x 75 0.09 Residential Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 86.05 50 x 200 0.24 Residential Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 86.10 38 x 300 0.24 Open Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 86.20 38 x 300 0.25 Industrial/Commercial Wetland Crossing 

Chester, PA 86.46 100 x 170 0.22 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 86.52 95 x 200 0.21 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 86.65 50 x 200 0.20 Industrial/Commercial Congested Area 

Chester, PA 86.78 50 x 200 0.23 Open Wetland Crossing 

Chester, PA 86.94 50 x 250 0.34 Open Wetland Crossing 

Chester, PA 87.01 50 x 200 0.23 Open Wetland Crossing 

Chester, PA 87.07 50 x 200 0.23 Open Wetland Crossing 

Chester, PA 87.15 50 x 200 0.23 Open Wetland Crossing 

Chester, PA 87.37 50 x 500 0.62 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

Chester, PA 87.45 50 x 300 0.32 Industrial/Commercial Road Crossing 

TOTAL 254.53 

_______________ 

1 AES has not proposed additional temporary workspace associated with aboveground facilities. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
C - 16 

TABLE C-2 

Temporary Pipeyards, Contractor Yards, and Staging Areas for the Sparrows Point LNG and Mid-Atlantic 

Express Pipeline Projects 

County, State Milepost Description Size (acres) Existing Land Use 

LNG Terminal Site 

Baltimore/MD 0 Laydown Areas 20 Industrial 

Baltimore/MD 0 Recycling Facilities 15 Industrial 

SUBTOTAL – LNG 

Terminal 35 

Mid-Atlantic Express 

Pipeline 

Baltimore/MD 0.90 Contractor Yard 46.95 Industrial 

Baltimore/MD 3.75 Pipe Yard/Rail Siding 15.65 Industrial 

Baltimore/MD 4.67 Laydown Area 3.25 Industrial 

Baltimore/MD 5.11 Laydown Area 1.56 Commercial 

Baltimore/MD 16.19 Laydown Area/ 

Contractor Yard 0.11 Commercial 

Baltimore/MD 16.22 Laydown Area 2.55 Commercial 

Baltimore/MD 17.42 Contractor Yard/ 

Laydown Area 12.56 Open 

Baltimore/MD 18.40 Laydown Area 3.17 Open 

Baltimore/MD 18.80 Contractor Yard/ 

Laydown Area 24.72 Agriculture 

Harford/MD 38.03 Laydown Area 4.43 Open 

Harford/MD 39.15 Laydown Area 21.34 Agriculture 

Cecil/MD 44.63 Contractor Yard/ 

Laydown Area 2.67 Open 

Cecil/MD 45.01 Contractor Yard/ 

Laydown Area 2.19 Open 

Cecil/MD 47.52 Laydown Area 30.03 Open 

Cecil/MD 47.85 Laydown Area 17.86 Agriculture 

Lancaster/PA 51.05 2.19 Open 

Chester/PA 66.52 Laydown Area 2.07 Industrial 

Chester/PA 74.78 Contractor Yard/ 

Laydown Area 23.60 Agriculture 

Chester/PA 79.93 Contractor Yard/ 

Laydown Area 36.20 Agriculture 

Chester/PA 81.93 Contractor Yard/ 

Laydown Area 6.70 Open 

Chester/PA 83.56 Laydown Area 8.30 Agriculture 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
C - 17 

TABLE C-2 

Temporary Pipeyards, Contractor Yards, and Staging Areas for the Sparrows Point LNG and Mid-Atlantic 

Express Pipeline Projects 

County, State Milepost Description Size (acres) Existing Land Use 

Chester/PA 85.05 Contractor Yard/ 

Laydown Area 10.17 Agriculture 

Chester/PA 85.08 Contractor Yard/ 

Laydown Area 3.50 Agriculture 

Chester/PA 87.06 Contractor Yard/ 

Laydown Area 6.50 Open 

Chester/PA 87.57 Contractor Yard/ 

Laydown Area 26.71 Agriculture 

SUBTOTAL - Pipeline 314.98 

TOTAL 349.98 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
C - 18 

TABLE C-3 

Access Roads for the Proposed Sparrow Point LNG and Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Projects 

Approximate 

Milepost Reason Road Needed 

Length 

(Feet) 

Area 

(Acres) Existing Land Use 

Existing Road 

Surface 1/ 

Proposed 

Improvements 

LNG Terminal Site 

No new access roads are proposed for the LNG terminal facility; existing access to the site will be used. 

SUBTOTALS 0 0.00 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline – Right-of-Way 

All roads used to access the pipeline facilities are 25-foot-wide temporary access roads. 

MARYLAND 

1.39 General ROW Access 4,493 2.58 Industrial/Commercial Paved None 

2.45 General ROW Access/I-695 

Bore Site 

4,313 2.48 Industrial/Commercial Paved/Gravel Add Gravel 

2.55 General ROW Access/I-695 

Bore Site 

583 0.33 Industrial/Commercial New/Gravel Add Gravel 

3.40 General ROW Access 208 0.12 Industrial/Commercial Paved/New Grade/Add Gravel 

3.73 General ROW Access/I-695 

Bore Site 

407 0.23 Industrial/Commercial New Grade/Add Gravel 

4.69 Wetlands and General ROW 

Access 

62 0.04 Forest New Grade/Add Gravel 

4.74 Wetlands and General ROW 

Access 

1,944 1.12 Industrial/Commercial Paved Add Gravel 

7.60 I-695 and RR Bore Sites 4,376 2.51 Industrial/Commercial Paved/Gravel Grade/Add Gravel 

8.52 Back River HDD Site 3,707 2.13 Industrial/Commercial Gravel/Paved Add Gravel 

10.49 General ROW Access/I-695 

Bore Site 

917 0.53 Industrial/Commercial Paved/Gravel Grade/Add Gravel 

12.13 General ROW Access 112 0.06 Residential Gravel Grade/Add Gravel 

14.40 Access to Whitemarsh Run-1 

Crossing 

47 0.03 Open Gravel Grade/Add Gravel 

14.42 Access to Whitemarsh Run-1 

Crossing 

1,168 0.67 Open Gravel Grade/Add Gravel 

14.42 Access to Whitemarsh Run-1 

Crossing 

657 0.38 Open Gravel Grade/Add Gravel 

14.90 General ROW Access/Hwy 

43 Bore Site 

129 0.07 Forest Gravel Add Gravel 

15.02 General ROW Access/Hwy 

43 Bore Site 

763 0.44 Forest Gravel Add Gravel 

15.97 General ROW Access/Hwy 

41 Bore Site 

62 0.04 Residential New None 

17.09 General ROW Access/RR 

Bore Site 

740 0.42 Forest Gravel Grade/Add Gravel 

17.44 General ROW Access 403 0.23 Industrial/Commercial Paved None 

18.78 General ROW Access/I-95 

Bore Site 

503 0.29 Agriculture Gravel Grade/Add Gravel 

18.85 General ROW Access/I-95 

Bore Site 

633 0.36 Agriculture New Grade/Add Gravel 

31.57 General ROW Access 790 0.45 Agriculture Gravel/New Grade/Add Gravel 

32.96 General ROW Access 1,366 0.78 Residential Paved None 

33.49 General ROW Access 2,058 1.18 Agriculture Gravel/Paved Add Gravel 

33.66 General ROW Access 870 0.50 Agriculture Gravel Add Gravel 

34.40 General ROW Access 553 0.32 Agriculture Gravel Add Gravel 

35.50 Access for Deer Creek 

Crossing 

652 0.37 Residential Gravel/Paved Add Gravel 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
C - 19 

TABLE C-3 

Access Roads for the Proposed Sparrow Point LNG and Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Projects 

Approximate 

Milepost Reason Road Needed 

Length 

(Feet) 

Area 

(Acres) Existing Land Use 

Existing Road 

Surface 1/ 

Proposed 

Improvements 

37.42 General ROW Access 323 0.19 Agriculture Gravel Add Gravel 

37.66 General ROW Access 1,936 1.11 Residential 

Crosses unnamed 

tributary of Deer 

Creek 

Gravel Grade/Add Gravel 

39.63 General ROW Access 257 0.15 Agriculture Gravel Add Gravel 

40.95 General ROW Access 312 0.18 Residential Gravel Add Gravel 

42.71 General ROW Access 390 0.22 Residential Gravel Grade/Add Gravel 

42.94 General ROW Access 523 0.30 Residential Paved None 

43.10 General ROW Access 528 0.30 Agriculture Gravel Add Gravel 

43.72 Access to Susquehanna 

HDD Site 

248 0.14 Residential/Forest Gravel/New Grade/Add Gravel 

44.70 Access to Susquehanna 

HDD Site 

3,107 1.78 Camp/Open Gravel Add Gravel 

45.05 General ROW Access 1,935 1.11 Camp/Forest Gravel/Dirt Add Gravel 

45.44 General ROW Access 392 0.22 Forest New Grade/Add Gravel 

45.68 General ROW Access 943 0.54 Agriculture Gravel Add Gravel 

46.55 General ROW Access 844 0.48 Utility ROW Paved None 

47.34 General ROW Access 907 0.52 Utility ROW Gravel Add Gravel 

47.70 General ROW Access 633 0.36 Agriculture Gravel Add Gravel 

PENNSYLVANIA 

48.56 General ROW Access 112 0.06 Agriculture New Grade/Add Gravel 

48.92 General ROW Access 117 0.07 Forest Two-Track Grade/Add Gravel 

49.55 Access to waterbody and 

side hill area 

865 0.50 Forest/Open New Grade/Add Gravel 

51.01 General ROW Access 964 0.55 Forest Gravel Add Gravel 

51.95 General ROW Access 600 0.34 Agriculture Gravel Grade/Add Gravel 

52.28 General ROW Access 160 0.09 Agriculture Gravel Add Gravel 

53.64 General ROW Access 99 0.06 Residential Gravel Add Gravel 

55.84 General ROW Access 1,178 0.68 Agriculture Gravel Add Gravel 

56.16 General ROW 

Access/Octoraro Creek 

1,690 0.97 Agriculture Gravel Add Gravel 

57.17 General ROW Access 20 0.01 Agriculture Gravel Add Gravel 

58.45 General ROW Access 1,586 0.91 Agriculture Gravel Add Gravel 

60.23 General ROW Access 603 0.35 Agriculture Two-Track Grade/Add Gravel 

62.06 General ROW Access 930 0.53 Agriculture Gravel Add Gravel 

62.34 General ROW Access 1,679 0.96 Agriculture Gravel Grade/Add Gravel 

65.12 General ROW Access 337 0.19 Commercial Paved None 

66.20 General ROW Access 1,467 0.84 Agriculture Gravel Grade/Add Gravel 

66.93 General ROW Access 53 0.03 Agriculture Gravel Add Gravel 

67.42 General ROW Access 209 0.12 Residential Gravel Add Gravel 

68.33 General ROW Access 2,341 1.34 Agriculture Gravel Add Gravel 

69.67 General ROW Access 245 0.14 Agriculture New Grade/Add Gravel 

72.74 General ROW Access 644 0.37 Residential Gravel Add Gravel 

73.11 General ROW Access 24 0.01 Residential Paved None 

74.74 General ROW Access 1,798 1.03 Agriculture Gravel Add Gravel 

78.46 General ROW Access 128 0.07 Residential Gravel Add Gravel 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
C - 20 

TABLE C-3 

Access Roads for the Proposed Sparrow Point LNG and Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Projects 

Approximate 

Milepost Reason Road Needed 

Length 

(Feet) 

Area 

(Acres) Existing Land Use 

Existing Road 

Surface 1/ 

Proposed 

Improvements 

78.98 General ROW Access 

between RR bores 

1,363 0.78 Commercial Paved None 

84.65 General ROW Access 1,278 0.73 Residential 

Crosses unnamed 

tributary of Marsh 

Creek Lake 

Gravel/New Grade/Add Gravel 

86.93 General ROW Access 2,790 1.60 Commercial Gravel Add Gravel 

87.22 General ROW Access 6,67 0.38 Commercial Gravel Add Gravel 

 

SUBTOTALS – RIGHT-OF-WAY 69,741 39.97 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline – Aboveground Facilities 

All roads used to access the aboveground pipeline facilities are 25-foot-wide permanent access roads. 

9.87 MLV-1 (Todds Lane) 56 0.03 Utility ROW New Grade/Add Gravel 

19.75 MLV-2 (Bradshaw Road) 170 0.10 Utility ROW/Lawn New Grade/Add Gravel 

29.41 MLV-3 (Rockspring Church 

Road) 

50 0.03 Utility ROW/Ag New Grade/Add Gravel 

39.34 MLV-4 (Hwy 440 - Dublin 

Road) 

37 0.02 Utility ROW New Grade/Add Gravel 

49.30 MLV-5 (Cedar Hill Road) 142 0.08 Residential Paved/New Grade/Add Gravel 

59.20 MLV-6 (Jackson School 

Road) 

1,754 1.01 Agricultural Gravel/New Grade/Add Gravel 

69.26 MLV-7 (Doe Run) 100 0.06 Residential Paved/New Grade/Add Gravel 

78.10 MLV-8 (Poorhouse Road) 100 0.06 Utility ROW New Grade/Add Gravel 

 

SUBTOTALS – ABOVEGROUND FACILITIES 2,409 1.39 

 

TOTALS 72,150 41.36 

____________ 

1. Existing Road Surface: "New" indicates a new access road will be installed; two descriptors indicate that there are different exiting 

conditions on different portions of the access road. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008

File [APPENDIX_D_Consolidated_Dredge_Plan.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this 

file in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you 

continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please 

contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, 

weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
APPENDIX E

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
E - i

Maine Office:

451 Presumpscot Street

Portland, Maine 04103

New York Office:

10 Lafayette Square

Suite 1601

Buffalo, New York 14203

Pennsylvania Office:

134 Broad Street

Stroudsburg,

Pennsylvania 18360

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

ASSESSMENT WITH

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

ON NON EFH-DESIGNATED

SPECIES

Prepared for:

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Baltimore, Maryland

Prepared by:

Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Portland, Maine

Christian Soucier, Ph.D., Principal Investigator

JANUARY 2007

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - ii Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................2

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..............................................................................................4

2.1 PROJECT AREA .............................................................................................................4

2.2 PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................................................................5

2.3 BENEFITS.......................................................................................................................8

2.4 NEED AND ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................8

3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT..........................................................................................9

3.1 SEDIMENTS ..................................................................................................................10

3.2 WATER QUALITY ........................................................................................................11

4.0 SPECIES OVERVIEWS.................................................................................................12

4.1 EFH-DESIGNATED SPECIES........................................................................................12

4.2 NON EFH-DESIGNATED FISH AND CRUSTACEANS.....................................................37

4.3 PREY SPECIES..............................................................................................................42

5.0 IMPACTS.........................................................................................................................44

5.1 HABITAT IMPACTS ......................................................................................................44

5.2 DIRECT IMPACTS ........................................................................................................46

5.3 INDIRECT IMPACTS .....................................................................................................52

5.4 CUMULATIVE AND SYNERGISTIC IMPACTS ................................................................53

6.0 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................54

7.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................55

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - iii Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

TABLE 1. EFH DESIGNATED FISH AND INVERTEBRATE SPECIES AND LIFE HISTORY STAGES IN THE

PROJECT AREA (USACE 2006; USDOC 1999A, 1999B; AND SAMFC 1998).......14

TABLE 2. SNAPPER-GROUPER SPECIES LIST AS DEFINED BY SAMFC AND

COMMERCIAL/RECREATIONAL DESIGNATIONS .....................................................23

TABLE 3. TRAWL CATCH ABUNDANCE, JUNE AND OCTOBER 2006 SAMPLING.........................37

TABLE 4. PREY SPECIES FOR EFH-DESIGNATED FISH SPECIES AND LIFE HISTORY STAGES LIKELY

TO OCCUPY THE PROJECT AREA............................................................................42

TABLE 5. POTENTIAL IMPACTS FOR EFH-DESIGNATED SPECIES AND LIFE HISTORY STAGES IN

THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA. .............................................................................47

TABLE 6. POTENTIAL IMPACTS FOR NON-EFH DESIGNATED SPECIES WITH COMMERCIAL AND/OR

RECREATIONAL VALUE IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT TERMINAL AREA. ..............51

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - iv Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

FIGURE 1. PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATION ..................................................................................3

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - v Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc

LIST OF ACRONYM AND ABBREVIATIONS

°C degree Celsius

% percent saturation

μS/cm microseimens per centimeter

AET Apparent Effects Thresholds

bbl barrel

bcsfd billion cubic standard feet of natural gas per day

BSC Bethlehem Steel Corporation

BTU British thermal unit

councils regional fishery management councils

DMRF dredged material recycling facility

DO Dissolved Oxygen

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EIA Energy Information Administration

ft feet

HAPC Habitat Areas of Particular Concern

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas

m meter

m

3

cubic meter

mcy million cubic yards

MFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

mg/l milligrams per liter

NMFS National Marine Fishery Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NTU nephelometric turbidity unit

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PDM processed dredged material

PEL Probable Effects Level

PIANC Permanent International Association Navigation

ppt parts per thousand

SAV submerged aquatic vegetation

SIGTTO Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operations

SQuIRT Screening Quick Reference Table

TEL Threshold Effects Level

TMDL total maximum daily load

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USDOC U.S. Department of Commerce

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

VIMS Virginia Institute of Marine Science

VOC volatile organic compound

YOY young-of-the-year

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 2 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC (Sparrows Point LNG) proposes to construct, own, and operate a

new liquefied natural gas (LNG) import, storage, and regasification terminal (LNG Terminal) at the

Sparrows Point Industrial Complex situated on the Sparrows Point peninsula east of the Port of

Baltimore in Maryland. LNG will be delivered to the LNG Terminal via LNG marine traffic,

offloaded from these ships to shoreside storage tanks, regasified on the LNG Terminal site (Terminal

Site), and transported to consumers via pipeline. The LNG Terminal will have a regasification

capacity of 1.5 billion standard cubic feet of natural gas per day (bscfd), with potential to expand to

2.25 bscfd. Regasified natural gas will be delivered to markets in the Mid-Atlantic Region and

northern portions of the South Atlantic Region, through an approximately 88-mile, 30-inch outside

diameter natural gas pipeline (Pipeline) to be constructed and operated by Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

(Mid-Atlantic Express). The Pipeline will extend from the LNG Terminal to interconnections with

existing natural gas pipeline systems near Eagle, Pennsylvania. Together, the LNG Terminal and

Pipeline projects are referred to as the Sparrows Point Project or Project. Both Sparrows Point LNG

and Mid-Atlantic Express (hereinafter collectively referred to as AES) are subsidiaries of The AES

Corporation.

The Project footprint is located in the counties of Baltimore, Harford and Cecil in Maryland, and in

the counties of Lancaster and Chester in Pennsylvania. The Terminal Site, which is located entirely

within Baltimore County, is a parcel located within a former shipyard. The route proposed for the

Pipeline (Pipeline Route), which crosses all of the listed counties, includes industrial, commercial,

agricultural, and residential lands. Together, the Terminal Site and the Pipeline Route comprise the

Project Area.

As described in Section 1.10 of Resource Report 1, General Project Description, The AES

Corporation is considering the possibility of building a combined cycle cogeneration power plant

(Power Plant) on the Terminal Site. The Power Plant would be configured with one F-Class

combustion gas turbine, one steam turbine, and associated auxiliaries. It would operate only on

natural gas and would produce approximately 300 megawatts (MW) of clean electric power within an

area of high energy demand. The Power Plant would be connected to the local utility electric system

via an overhead transmission line.

In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA)

and in response to the National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS) letter dated May 23, 2006, this

assessment identifies the potential impacts on essential fish habitat (EFH) of the proposed Sparrows

Point LNG Terminal Project.

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

several new mandates for the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC) National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NMFS, regional fishery management councils (councils), and

other federal agencies to identify and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat.

Although the concept of EFH is similar to “critical habitat” under the Endangered Species Act of

1973, measures recommended to protect EFH are advisory, rather than prescriptive.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 3 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Figure 1. Project Location.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 4 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

The councils, with assistance from NMFS, are required to delineate “essential fish habitat” for all

managed species. EFH is defined as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning,

breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” The regulations further clarify EFH by defining “waters”

to include aquatic areas that are used by fish (either currently or historically) and their associated

physical, chemical, and biological properties; “substrate” includes sediment, hard bottom, and

structures underlying the water; and, areas used for “spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth to

maturity” to cover a species’ full life cycle. Prey species are defined as being food sources for one or

more designated fish species; the presence of adequate prey is one of the biological properties that

can make a habitat EFH-designated.

Federal agencies that fund, permit, or carry out activities that may impact EFH adversely are required

to consult with NMFS regarding the potential effects of their actions on EFH. According to USDOC

(1999a), the contents of an EFH assessment should include:

• A description of the proposed action;

• An analysis of the effects (including cumulative) of the proposed action on EFH, the

managed fish species, and major prey species;

• The federal agency’s views regarding the effects of the action on EFH; and,

• Proposed mitigation, if applicable.

This EFH assessment includes:

• A description of proposed construction activity in the Chesapeake Bay;

• A description of the existing environment;

• A listing of EFH-designated species for the Sparrows Point LNG Terminal Project Area;

• Information relating to the habitat suitability and relative abundance of EFH-designated

species, with life history stages, in the Sparrows Point LNG Terminal Project Area;

• A summary of the diets of EFH-designated species (e.g., prey species) in the Sparrows

Point LNG Terminal Project Area;

• An analysis of the potential impacts of project activities on EFH-designated species and

species of special interest in the Sparrows Point LNG Terminal Project Area; and,

• An analysis of the potential indirect, cumulative, and synergistic impacts of project

activities on EFH-designated species and species of special interest in the Sparrows Point

LNG Terminal Project Area of the Chesapeake Bay.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT AREA

The Sparrows Point LNG Terminal will be located on an approximately 80-acre parcel within the

existing Sparrows Point Industrial Complex located in Baltimore County, Maryland. Approximately

45 acres of the site is upland area and the remainder is a nearshore riparian rights area. Previously,

the site was owned and operated by Bethlehem Steel Corporation (BSC) as a steel manufacturing and

shipbuilding facility. The Sparrows Point Shipyard is situated on a promontory that extends into the

Chesapeake Bay east of the Port of Baltimore. More specifically, the Sparrows Point LNG Terminal

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 5 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Site is located on the marine channel adjacent to the Fort McHenry channel, near the confluence of

the Fort McHenry Channel and the Brewerton Angle.

The approximately 80-acre project site consists of a parcel of land located between an existing

graving dock (southern boundary) and a floating dry dock (northern boundary). The water’s edge is

on the western boundary of the project site, and the eastern boundary extends just beyond the existing

fabrication building located on the property. The project site was owned previously by the BSC, and

was used for steel manufacturing and shipbuilding. Currently, the project site is used to store scrap

metal and to perform some light industrial maintenance work and warehousing.

The proposed LNG Terminal will include a marine terminal consisting of a pier with berthing areas

on both sides, LNG unloading equipment, a LNG storage facility, vaporization and vapor handling

systems, a gas send-out system, and administrative and support buildings. The marine terminal will

be located on the Patapsco River just off of the Brewerton Channel, adjacent to the existing graving

dock at the Sparrows Point Shipyard. The western edge of the project parcel will be sheet-piled and

the berth will be located approximately 75 feet (ft) west of this bulkhead.

2.2 PROPOSED ACTION

In order to support berthing operations at the facility, AES will need to deepen and widen the existing

marine channel to a depth of approximately 45 ft and width of approximately 440 ft. Additionally,

AES will dredge a turning basin to allow ships to be turned under tug support and berthed at the

marine terminal bow out. The turning basin will be approximately 1,640 ft in diameter. The areas

adjacent to each of the berths will also be dredged to a depth of approximately 45 ft. Total dredge

quantity is expected to be from 2.5 to 4 million cubic yards (mcy).

The LNG berths will be designed to accommodate the dimensional characteristics of the majority of

existing LNG tankers with storage capacities in excess of 786,225 barrels (bbl) or 125,000 cubic

meters (m3). The marine facility will also be designed to accommodate proposed LNG tankers with a

capacity of up to 1,364,891 bbl (217,000 m3). Normally, the LNG carriers will arrive at the pier

loaded and will leave in ballast condition.

A new shoreward bulkhead line will also be established to straighten out the waterfront in the

proposed LNG Terminal area. A description of the individual components for the proposed LNG

terminal is provided below.

2.2.1 LNG Finger Pier/Access Trestle for Vehicles and a Pipeway

Access between land and the unloading platform will be provided by a pile-supported trestle. The

steel pipe piles will support a pre-cast/cast-in-place concrete superstructure that will serve as a

roadway and a pipeway. The superstructure will consist of pre-cast concrete pile caps placed on top

of the steel pipe piles. A concrete deck structure consisting of pre-stressed, pre-cast concrete planks,

with a cast-in-place concrete topping will span between the pile caps. A concrete spillway will be

installed beneath the piping as part of the pipeway structure, and the trestle will be sloped to the

shoreline to provide for equipment access and collection of any LNG leaks or spills. The unloading

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 6 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

platform will be located at the end of the trestle. A single LNG berth will be located on both the

north and south sides of the finger pier.

2.2.2 Turning Basin and Entrance Channel

To support the proposed marine terminal operations, an approach channel and turning basin will be

constructed by expanding existing channels through dredging. The Sparrows Point LNG terminal

turning basin and approach channel will provide an access point for approaching LNG carriers from

the existing Brewerton Channel to the southeast. LNG carriers transiting to the proposed marine

terminal will do so under active tractor tug escort. The speed of an incoming LNG carrier will be

reduced gradually during its transit of the Brewerton Channel until the ship is brought to full stop at

the entrance of the approach channel to the marine terminal. The tug boats will then assist the ship to

turn into the approach channel. The incoming vessel will transit the approach channel again under

active tractor tug control. The LNG carrier will be brought to full stop in the approach channel, and

will be turned and berthed with tug assistance at either berth with bow pointing out. The departure

procedures for LNG carriers will be similar to the incoming transiting LNG carriers as described

above, except that the outgoing vessels will not be turned in the turning basin.

Preliminary layout of the approach channel and turning basin has been formulated using the

following considerations:

• LNG tanker vessel design capacities and size (including anticipated future generations of

vessel designs not currently in service) expected to call at the terminal.

• Channel design guidance references (Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal

Operations [SIGTTO] 1997) and Permanent International Association Navigation Congress

[PIANC] 1997) for use in calculating the minimum channel width (such as vessel speed, wind

speed and direction, current speed and direction, wave height, period, and direction,

navigation aid, type of seabed, channel depth, type of side slopes, and hazard level of cargo).

• Factors and guidance reference information (SIGTTO 1997) affecting channel depth design

(including vessel design draft, vertical ship motion due to wave action, squat, keel clearance,

and water density effects).

Based on the above considerations, the approach channel preliminary layout is approximately 45 ft

deep and 440 ft wide. The proposed turning circle has a 1,640-foot diameter, also with a nominal

water depth of 45 ft, to allow the turning of all fully-loaded LNG carriers with tug assistance. The

final geometry and layout of the approach channel and turning basin is determined through fast-time

and real-time simulation studies, which are conducted in close collaboration with the local pilot

association.

The area to be used for LNG vessel approach and maneuvering has been dredged in the past and

maintains a permit issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Water

Quality Certification from the State of Maryland to perform dredging using hydraulic or mechanical

techniques. Dredging is allowed under existing permit for maintenance and waterfront operations to

a depth of 39 ft in approximately the same area as proposed for the Sparrows Point LNG terminal

project.

An estimated 3.0 to 4.5 million cubic yards (mcy) of material may be removed through dredging of

the approach channel, turning basin, and berths. Dredging within the project limits is anticipated to

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 7 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

begin in the berthing area, and progress towards the outer channel to allow for earlier commencement

of pier/dock construction operations. Depending on the bathymetric configuration of this area at the

time of project construction, actual volume to be dredged and material handling requirements may be

less than currently envisioned. However, the proposed approach has been developed to anticipate

dredge operations consistent with this location’s dredge approvals and remaining volumes needed for

LNG terminal development. The project has also allowed for methods that may be needed if dredge

volumes are greater and/or environmental quality of dredge material in sections of the dredge area are

degraded relative to currently permitted dredge materials. AES will follow procedures for dredge

performance consistent with recent past dredge approvals for this location, updated based on data

collected for this project.

The approach channel expansions will be performed primarily by use of mechanical clamshell dredge

or an environmental bucket technology if required, with some limited areas near shore excavated by

backhoe dredge. Conventional mechanical dredge techniques will be used, or if chemical analyses

obtained for dredge planning indicate sediment quality is degraded more significantly than is allowed

by current dredge permits, environmental dredge bucket removal or an equivalent would be used.

The material dredged will be managed at an on-shore dredge material recycling facility that will be

developed for this project and ultimately disposed of at an appropriate, off-site upland location.

2.2.3 Dredged Material Recycling Facility

As part of the project construction phase, AES will construct a dredged material processing facility

adjacent to the existing waterway at the Sparrows Point Facility. This phase will precede actual

dredging operations.

The initial step in processing is the reduction of the water content of the dredged sediments. The

proposed dewatering process would involve dewatering of loaded barges at the dredging site or the

dredge material recycling facility (DMRF). The proposed 10,000 cubic yards per day DMRF will

occupy approximately five acres of the 15 acres of upland property located immediately to the south

of the Terminal Site (see Figure 1C-3 in Appendix C of Resource Report 1, General Project

Description). Loaded scows would be allowed to settle so that the free-liquid portion would be

visibly free of suspended sediments prior to pumping the decant water to the cargo area of a

dedicated dewatering barge. After settling, the decant water from dewatered dredged material at the

processing facility will pass through a settling tank system and be filtered prior to discharge back to

the harbor. Chemical and physical analysis will be conducted on the decant water in accordance with

a MDE Water Management Program Individual Permit for Industrial Water Discharge that will be

issued for the DMRF. Threshold values for discharge will be set forth in that permit. Alternately,

after the initial barge settling period, portable pumps will be utilized to pump the water to land based

tanks (i.e. frac tanks) for additional settling. Following this secondary settling, the water will be

filtered and discharged under applicable permit conditions.

Following processing, the processed dredged material (PDM) will be transported via onsite trucks to

the designated stockpile/staging area of the Sparrows Point site. At the stockpile area, the trucks will

deposit the PDM material into the designated staging area within the permitted temporary storage

site. The PDM will be placed using hydraulic excavators, bulldozers and vibratory compactors into

large stockpiles for temporary storage in inventory until the material is sold for beneficial use. The

PDM will be trans-loaded by wheel loaders or hydraulic excavators into over road trucks for off-site

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 8 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

shipment to ultimate destination sites. The processed dredged material will be transported off-site at

an anticipated rate of approximately 5,000 cubic yards per day.

Other potential options for management of dredged material include off-site disposal, open ocean

disposal at approved off-shore locations, and upland fill sites. These options also depend on chemical

makeup of the dredged material, approvals from applicable agencies and, in some cases, approval by

the receiving facility(s). Currently, none of these alternatives are considered to be viable as the

recycling alternative, and they are not as consistent with Port of Baltimore long-term goals for

management of dredged material as the proposed recycling option.

2.3 BENEFITS

In addition to serving the Mid-Atlantic energy market, the Sparrows Point Project will serve sections

of the south Atlantic market, specifically focusing on the Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, DC

markets. Because of its location, the Sparrows Point Project will be a more efficient supplier of gas

to its target markets than gas suppliers in the Gulf of Mexico. The result will be a reduction in the

“basis” in the Sparrows Point Project’s market. Thus, the Sparrows Point Project will serve a need

for additional natural gas (discussed below in Section 2.4) by providing the market with a new supply

of reliable, competitively priced LNG.

2.4 NEED AND ALTERNATIVES

Energy demand in the United States continues to grow at a relatively constant pace. According to the

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (EIA 2006), total energy consumption in the United

States is projected to increase from the 100 quadrillion British thermal units (BTU) used in 2004 to

the projected use of 127 quadrillion BTU per year in 2025 (an increase of 27%). The projected

growth in energy demand (from present to 2025) will vary by fuel type. For example, demand for

coal and petroleum are expected to increase, with coal expecting a steep increase after 2020.

Demand for natural gas is expected to continue with strong growth to 2020, after which it is expected

to level off.

Most importantly, natural gas has increasingly become the fuel of choice in the United States. There

are a number of underlying conditions that characterize the U.S. gas market’s supply and demand,

including:

• Increased gas demand driven by 200 gigawatts of gas-fired generation investment since 1999

with limited amounts of alternative fuel capability;

• Declining domestic gas production throughout the lower 48 states and offshore;

• Increased gas imports from Canada nearing current maximum capacity;

• Decreased gas supply deliverability in the current transmission infrastructure;

• Curtailment of demand destruction that began during the sustained high price environment;

and,

• Stabilization of gas demand due to the rebound in the U.S. economy beginning in 2003.

These conditions have led to supply constraints and a steadily increasing gas price floor, well above

pre-2000 historical levels of below $3/thousand cubic feet The North American natural gas industry

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 9 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

is facing a critical period over the next ten to fifteen years, where increased supply availability will be

essential. Moreover, with continuing worldwide gas demand, the balance between natural gas supply

and demand will likely continue to tighten leading to sustained and higher prices unless new sources

of natural gas supply, including LNG, are developed and delivered to the market via import terminals

and associated pipeline facilities.

The need for incremental sources of natural gas supply to meet growing demand is particularly acute

in the Mid-Atlantic and surrounding regions of the United States. The EIA is forecasting significant

natural gas growth in the Mid-Atlantic region for the 15-year period from 2005 to 2020 (EIA 2006).

Other alternate fuel types (such as coal and oil) are not as environmentally benign as natural gas and

are short-term viable alternatives to meet the growing demand for energy in the region. Compared

with fuel oil or coal, natural gas is a relatively clean and efficient fuel that can reduce relative impacts

on air quality (e.g., reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and carbon

dioxide) and generate the same amount of electricity.

The contribution of renewable fuels to the U.S. electricity supply mix remains relatively small as

reported in the EIA’s Annual Energy outlook for 2006 (EIA 2006). Although conventional

hydropower remains the largest projected source of renewable generation through 2030, a lack of

untapped large-scale sites, coupled with environmental concerns, limits its growth; its projected share

of total generation falls from 6.8 percent in 2004 to 5.1 percent in 2030 (EIA 2006). While wind

generation will be among the leaders in renewable energy generation, the anticipated expansion over

current capacity will only increase by a modest 0.4 percent of total generation in 2004 to 1.1 percent

in 2030 (EIA 2006). Energy from wind power, while important to the overall energy mix, is not

projected to grow significantly to be a commercially viable alternative to the Project. Additionally,

energy from nuclear power is not a commercially viable substitute able to replace or significantly

offset the demand for natural gas over the next 20 years (EIA 2006).

While several LNG terminals have been proposed in the Northeast United States, most of these

terminals are substantially north or south of the proposed Sparrows Point Project. Therefore, they

would not serve the intended market need. While two other projects could potentially serve a portion

of the mid-Atlantic Market (the Crown Landing and Cove Point expansion project) by 2020, AES

forecasts that the Mid-Atlantic region would have sufficient demand to not only absorb the Sparrows

Point volume but also the Crown Landing volume, the Cove Point expansion, and still require

additional other supply.

For these reasons, there is no viable alternative to the Sparrows Point Project.

3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

The Baltimore Harbor watershed is located to the east of Baltimore City, and includes numerous

small tributaries to the north side of the Patapsco River. The tributaries drain to tidal estuaries. The

watershed is entirely within the Maryland coastal plain and streams tend to be short and tidally

influenced. Many streams in the industrial area have been channelized and the natural drainage

pattern has been altered (e.g., cooling water for BSC is withdrawn from Jones Creek and discharged

to Bear Creek). It is estimated that 60% of the freshwater in the harbor originates from Patapsco

River (Maryland Department of the Environment [MDE] 2004).

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 10 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

The Patapsco River estuary is highly developed and is mainly urban residential, commercial, and

industrial. A large wastewater treatment plant owned by the City of Baltimore discharges into the

middle tidal region of the Patapsco (MDE 2004).

No Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) are known to occur within the proposed Project

Terminal Area but several may occur along potential vessel transit routes (although these routes have

not been determined as of yet and will most likely depend on fluctuating factors such as weather and

market trends). All but one of these areas can be found of the south Atlantic coasts of North and

South Carolina; specifically within the areas of The Point, 10 Fathom Ledge, Big Rock, Georgetown

Hole, the Charleston Bump Complex, and in areas adjacent to the Outer Banks, Cape Hatteras, and

the Ocracoke Islands (NMFS 2006b; SAMFC 1998). The remaining HAPC has been identified in the

lower region of Chesapeake Bay and is thought to be used by sandbar sharks as nursery and pupping

grounds (NMFS 2006b). The nearest submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) location recently reported

by Orth et al. (2005) was approximately three miles south of the Project Area on the western side of

the Patapsco River in Stony Creek. Older records suggest a similar lack of SAV historically within

three miles of the Project Area (Orth et al. 1994). Field surveys performed by AES in June 2006

confirmed the absence of SAV within the Project footprint, and no SAV was located within

approximately two miles of the Project Area.

3.1 SEDIMENTS

During the past several years, extensive studies have been conducted on the levels of metals, mercury

and organic contaminants in Baltimore Harbor sediments (Ashley and Baker 1999; McGee et al.

1999; Mason and Lawrence 1999). Large spatial gradients in contaminant levels in the sediments

due to relatively poor mixing result in contaminant "hot spots" near storm water outfalls and

industrial areas. Elevated levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and metals are found

around Sparrows Point, historically the site of intensive coal coking and steel production.

Organochlorines, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), are elevated adjacent to storm water

outfalls. Forty percent of the sites within the Baltimore Harbor have PCB levels that exceed the

"effects range-medium" value of Long et al. (1995). Survival of the estuarine amphipod

Leptocheirus plumulosus was reduced in seven of twenty-five Baltimore Harbor sediment sites

studied by McGee et al. (1999). Toxicity at monitoring stations in Bear and Colgate Creeks may

have been due to sediment-associated metals, while sediment toxicity in the Inner Harbor was likely

due to both metals and organic contaminants (PAH).

In June 2006, AES collected sediment samples from a floating barge using a vibracore sampler at

three (3) depths identified as “shallow” (0–2 feet below the sediment surface), “intermediate” (depths

greater than two (2) feet below the sediment surface but less than the anticipated depth of dredging)

and “deep” (depths at approximately 40 feet below the sediment surface). Shallow and intermediate

samples were assumed to be representative of the sediment that would be removed as part of the

proposed channel dredging and deep samples were assumed to be representative of the channel that

would be exposed to the benthic environment after the completion of dredging operations. Fifteen

(15) sediment samples were collected for off-site laboratory analysis: eight (8) shallow, three (3)

intermediate, and four (4) deep. Each sample was submitted to an on-shore laboratory for the

analysis of organic and inorganic parameters in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 11 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Agency (USEPA) promulgated methods. Analyzed parameters included volatile organic compounds

(VOCs), semi-VOCs, chlorinated pesticides, PCBs, priority pollutant metals, cyanide, total organic

carbon, tributyl tin, and hexavalent chromium.

To evaluate the results of the laboratory analyses, the reported data were compared to the NOAA’s

Screening Quick Reference Tables (SQuIRT), updated September 1999. The SQuIRT reference

cards were developed by NOAA to identify levels of contaminants that could potentially impact to

coastal resources and habitats. For this evaluation, the marine sediment criteria were used for

comparison of the AES Sparrows Point sediment samples. The marine sediment criteria are defined

over a range of potential toxicity to biological resources as the Threshold Effects Level (TEL) (the

level below which no observable adverse effects are anticipated), the Probable Effects Level (PEL)

(the level where observable adverse effects are frequently expected) and the Apparent Effects

Thresholds (AET) (the level above which adverse effects are always expected).

PAHs were detected in each of the sediment samples collected from the “shallow” and “intermediate”

sampling depths. The “shallow” sediment samples generally exhibited concentrations of PAHs that

exceeded the AET, indicating that adverse effects to biological resources were expected from

interaction with these sediments. The “intermediate” sample PAH concentrations generally exceeded

TEL but fell below the PEL indicating that observable adverse impacts to biological resources from

exposure to these sediments were likely.

Elevated levels of several PPL metals were also detected in the “shallow” and “intermediate” samples

collected. Generally, the concentrations of PPL metals fell above the TEL but below the AET and

with two notable exceptions. Concentrations of lead and zinc exceeded the AET in each “shallow”

sample indicating that adverse effects to biological resources would always be expected due to the

presence of these contaminants. These data indicate that the removal of the “shallow” and some of

the “intermediate” sediment during dredging operations should reduce potential contaminant impacts

to biological resources in the areas tested.

Generally, the results of the “deep” sediment samples fell below the TEL indicating that no

observable adverse effects are anticipated from interaction with these sediments. One parameter of

interest, benzo (a) pyrene was detected at a concentration greater than the TEL but below the AET,

indicating that observable adverse effects could be expected. The results of the “deep” samples

collected and analyzed indicate that no observable adverse effects are likely for biological resources

that could be exposed to these sediments after dredging.

3.2 WATER QUALITY

The Maryland 2004 303(d) List contains basins and sub-basins that have measured water quality

impairment. The tidal portion of Baltimore Harbor, including the Patapsco River, is on the list with

the following impairments: poor biological community, nutrients, sediments, and PCBs in sediments

(MDE 2004).

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 12 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Water quality in Baltimore Harbor is impaired by several compounds and metals including PCBs,

chromium, zinc, lead, mercury, nickel, copper, cyanide and chlordane. According to the 2002 305(b)

report (MDE 2002), chlordane, PCBs, metal, low dissolved oxygen, and bacteria in the tidal waters of

Baltimore Harbor were attributed to industrial and municipal discharges, nonpoint sources, poor tidal

flushing, and unknown sources. Fish consumption advisories were issued in 1986 and expanded in

2001 for Chlordane, PCBs, and dieldrin.

Baltimore Harbor is also classified as Category 3, a pristine or sensitive watershed in need of

protection because of failing indicators such as high phosphorus and nitrogen loadings, poor SAV

abundance and habitat index, poor tidal benthic index of biotic integrity, high percent impervious

surface, and high population density (MDE 2004). A total maximum daily load (TMDL) study was

completed for Chlordane in the Baltimore Harbor (MDE 2001). Chlordane is a broad-spectrum

pesticide that was used from 1940s until 1988, at which point it was banned. Since chlordane is found

in fish tissue here, MDE issued a fish consumption advisory for this waterway.

In June and October 2006, AES collected water quality data at 46 stations in the Project Area (26

stations in June and an additional 20 stations in October). At each station, water quality data were

collected near the surface, in mid-water column and near the bottom (only surface readings were

collected at 10 of the 44 stations that were sampled during the October effort). The water quality data

included pH, temperature in degrees Celsius (°C), dissolved oxygen as milligrams per liter (mg/l) and

percent saturation (%), salinity in parts per thousand (ppt), conductivity in microseimens per

centimeter (μS/cm), and turbidity in nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). Data were collected with a

YSI model 6920 meter.

The water quality results from these sampling events were similar to previous studies of the relatively

well-studied harbor (e.g., Dail et al. 1998; Hall et al. 2002; Maryland Department of National

Resources [MDDNR] 2005) and indicated that dissolved oxygen, particularly at depths lower in the

water column, was frequently recorded at levels low enough to inhibit biological productivity (e.g.,

approximately 2.0 mg/L) during the June effort, with a substantial increase to over 5.0 mg/l during

the October effort. Water quality results also indicated that water temperatures were typically warm

(averaging approximately 25°C in June and 18°C in October) and had salinities at typically low

levels (approximately 7–8 ppt) for this mesohaline system.

4.0 SPECIES OVERVIEWS

This section describes the habitat requirements of the EFH-designated species, non-EFH designated

fish and shellfish species (with special focus placed on those most likely to occur within the proposed

Project construction area [Project Terminal Area]), and rare and endangered species that potentially

occur within the proposed Project Area. Specifically, Section 4.1 provides individual species

assessments of EFH-designated species, and Section 4.2 provides individual species assessments of

non-EFH designated fish and shellfish species.

4.1 EFH-DESIGNATED SPECIES

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 13 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

A summary EFH designations specific to the Patapsco River does not exist at this time but

consultation with local NMFS staff indicates that the Chester River estuary in Kent and Queen

Anne’s County on Maryland’s Eastern Shore could be used as proxy data in the preparation of the

EFH assessment for the proposed Terminal Site (NMFS 2006a). However, documentation regarding

EFH and HAPC along the proposed vessel traffic routes does exist. Although U.S. Territorial Waters

extend to some 200 miles offshore, information regarding EFH and HAPC designations along

possible vessel traffic routes extends to a maximum of approximately 135 miles seaward and will be

the focus of this discussion. EFH and HAPC designations for coastal finfish and shellfish species in

this area were based on information compiled by the New England Fisheries Management Council,

the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council, the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council,

and the Highly Migratory Species Division of the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Available information on life history and habitat requirements for each EFH-designated species is

summarized in this section, along with relevant survey information. Primary reference sources are

cited once, at the beginning of each summary. For most species, the primary source was one of a

series of EFH source documents prepared by the NMFS in 1999. Designated life history stages

(eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults for finfish and juveniles and adults for sharks) for the 10 minute x

10 minute “square” of latitude and longitude that includes the proposed Project Area are identified at

the beginning of each species assessment and in Table 1.

Conclusions regarding the likelihood of occurrence of each species and life history stage in the

proposed Project Area are presented at the end of each species assessment. In reaching these

conclusions, emphasis was given to the depth, water quality, and bottom substrate preferences of each

individual species. Another important factor is whether the dominant bottom sediments in the

proposed Project Area provide suitable habitat for invertebrates that are preyed upon by bottom

feeding EFH species. Available information on feeding habits of EFH-designated species and on

benthic resources in the proposed Project Area is presented in Section 4.4 of this EFH assessment

report.

A previous EFH assessment conducted by USACE and performed in part for this area of the Patapsco

indicated that, of the species listed in Table 1, only juvenile and adult summer flounder and juvenile

and adult bluefish were likely to occur in the proposed Terminal Site (USACE 2006). Additional

sampling performed in support of that EFH assessment further confirmed those conclusions as the

sampling resulted in the capture of bluefish and summer flounder (USACE 2006).

A total of 99 bony finfish (this estimate includes 26 species in addition to the snapper-grouper

complex that is recognized as such by SAFMC [1998] and is comprised of 73 species), 13 shark/skate

species, and 5 invertebrate species, are currently designated as EFH species in both the proposed

Project Terminal Site and the area that encompasses proposed vessel routes within U.S Territorial

Waters (Table 1). Each EFH-designated species and the corresponding designated life stages are

presented in Table 1.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 14 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Table 1. EFH Designated Fish and Invertebrate Species and Life History Stages in the Project

Area (USACE 2006; USDOC 1999a, 1999b; and SAFMC 1998).

Species Eggs Larvae Juveniles Adults

Fish Species E L J A

Albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) X

Atlantic butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) X X X X

Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) X X

Atlantic sea herring (Clupea harengus) X X

Black sea bass (Centropristus striata) X X X

Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) X X

Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) X X X X

Cero (Scomberomorus regalis) X X

Cobia (Rachycentron canadum) X X X X

Dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus ) HAPC HAPC HAPC HAPC

King mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) X X X X

Little tunny (Euthynnus alletteratus) X X

Monkfish (Lophius americanus) X X X

Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) HAPC HAPC HAPC HAPC

Red hake (Urophycis chuss) X X X X

Scup (Stenotomus chrysops) X X

Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) X

Snapper-grouper complex (73 species)* HAPC HAPC HAPC HAPC

Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus) X X X X

Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) X X X X

Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) X

Whiting (Merluccius bilinearis) X X

Windowpane (Scophthalmus aquosus) X X X X

Winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) X X

Witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) X X

Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) X X

Yellowtail flounder (Pleuronectes ferruginea) X

Invertebrate Species E L J A

Long finned squid (Loligo pealei) X X

Ocean quahog (Artica islandica) X X

Rock shrimp (Sicyonia brevirostris) X X X X

Royal shrimp (Pleoticus robustus) X X X X

Surf clam (Spisula solidissima) X X

Shark Species E L J A

Atlantic sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae) X

Blue shark (Prionace gluaca) X

Dusky shark (Carcharinus obscurus) X

Sandbar shark (Carcharinus plumbeus) HAPC HAPC

Sand tiger shark (Carcharius taurus) X X

Scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini) X

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 15 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Species Eggs Larvae Juveniles Adults

Fish Species E L J A

Shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrhincus) X X

Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) X X

Tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvieri) X X

Skate Species E L J A

Clearnose skate (Raja eglanteria) X X

Little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) X X

Rosette Skate (Leucoraja garmani virginica) X

Winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) X X

* The snapper-grouper complex is treated as a grouped species as defined by the SAMFC (1998).

Key:

E = eggs

L = larvae

J = juveniles

A = adults

AES conducted two fish-sampling studies in the Project Area in June and October of 2006. The

study consisted of towing a 30-foot otter-trawl from a research vessel at a speed of approximately 1.7

to 2.2 knots for a straight-line distance of approximately 0.33 nautical miles; the tow time for each

trawl was 10 minutes. Two of the species listed in Table 1, bluefish and summer flounder, were

recovered during the course of this study.

4.1.1 Fish Species

Albacore Tuna (Thunnus alalunga): Juveniles

Primary Source: USDOC 1999b

Albacore is a circumglobal, epipelagic, and oceanic species. Juveniles and subadults prefer surface

waters off the coast of the Mid-Atlantic Bight with a temperature preference between 16 and 19°C,

although larger individuals have a wider depth and temperature range (between 14 to 25°C). This

species tends to aggregate near temperature discontinuities and migrate within water masses.

However, this species does not seem to cross temperature and oxygen boundaries, as it does not

tolerate oxygen levels lower than 2 milligrams per liter (mg/l). This species may also be associated

with floating objects, including Sargassum weed.

Project Area: Albacore tuna are highly migratory and pelagic, and may pass through the Project Area

to feed during their annual migration.

Atlantic Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus): All Stages

Primary Source: Cross et al. (1999)

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 16 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Butterfish are fast-growing, short-lived, pelagic fish that form loose schools, often near the surface.

Eggs and larvae are pelagic and common in the high salinity zones of some estuaries in southern New

England and the Middle Atlantic Bight and in the mixing zone in Chesapeake Bay. Additionally,

eggs have a temperature preference between 12 to 23°C and larvae have a temperature preference

between 4 to 28°C.

Juvenile and adult butterfish are pelagic that form loose schools, often near the surface. They are

eurythermal with a temperature preference between 4 and 22°C and can tolerate a range of salinities

with preferences between 5 to 32 ppt. They are frequently found over sand, mud, and mixed

substrates.

Project Area: All stages of the butterfish are expected to be found in the Project Area.

Atlantic Mackerel (Scomber scombrus): Juveniles and Adults

Primary source: Studholme et al. (1999)

Atlantic mackerel are found in deep water during winter on the continental shelf from Sable Island

Bank (Canada) to Chesapeake Bay and move inshore and northeast during the spring. This pattern is

reversed in the fall. Juveniles are typically collected from shore to 1,050 ft and in temperatures

between 4 and 22°C. Adults are typically collected from shore to 1,250 ft and in temperatures

between 4 and 16°C.

Project Area: Atlantic mackerel is a migratory species and can be expected to occur in the oceanic

side of the Project Area, from nearshore to the open ocean.

Atlantic Sea Herring (Clupea harengus): Juveniles and Adults

Primary Source: Reid et al. (1999)

Adult Atlantic sea herring migrate south into southern New England and mid-Atlantic shelf waters in

the winter after spawning in the Gulf of Maine, on Georges Bank, and Nantucket Shoals. Juvenile

and adult herring are abundant in coastal and mid-shelf waters from southern New England to Cape

Hatteras in the winter and spring. In the spring, adults return north, but juveniles do not undertake

coastal migrations.

Project Area: Atlantic herring are pelagic species and can be expected to occupy the water column in

the open ocean portion of the Project Area.

Black Sea Bass (Centropristis striata): Larvae, Juveniles and Adults

Primary Source: Steimle et al. (1999a)

Black sea bass are usually strongly associated with structured, sheltering habitats such as reefs and

wrecks. When larvae reach 10 to 16 mm total length (TL), they tend to settle and become demersal

on structured inshore habitat such as sponge beds. In the Mid-Atlantic Bight, recently settled

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 17 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

juveniles move into coastal estuarine nursery areas between July and September. The estuarine

nursery habitat of young-of-year (YOY) black sea bass is relatively shallow, hard bottom with some

kind of natural or man-made structure including amphipod tubes, eelgrass, sponges, and shellfish

beds with salinities above 8 ppt. Black sea bass do not tolerate cold inshore winter conditions.

Following an overwintering period presumably spent on the continental shelf, older juveniles return

to inshore estuaries in late spring and early summer. They are uncommon in open, unvegetated,

sandy intertidal flats or beaches. Like juveniles, adult sea bass are very structure oriented, especially

during their summer coastal residency. Unlike juveniles, adults only enter larger estuaries and are

most abundant along the outer Atlantic coast. Larger fish tend to be found in deeper water than

smaller fish.

Project Area: Black sea bass are expected to occupy the Project Area. However, due to the strong

association of this species with three-dimensional structures, the likelihood of this species being

present within vessel traffic lanes will be very low.

Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus thynnus): Juveniles and Adults

Primary Source: Colette and Nauen (1983)

This is a very large, highly migratory species. In the western North Atlantic, bluefin tuna migrate

seasonally from spring spawning grounds in the Gulf of Mexico to summer feeding grounds off the

northeast U.S. coast (USDOC 1999b). Distributions are probably constrained by the 12°C isotherm.

Although essentially an oceanic species, bluefin tuna often occur over the continental shelf and in

embayments, particularly during the summer months when they feed actively on herring, mackerel,

and squids. They are often found in mixed schools with skipjack tuna of the same size (Tiews 1963).

Larvae are generally retained in the Gulf of Mexico until they grow into juveniles. In June, YOY

move to juvenile habitats thought to be located over the shelf around 34° and 41° N in the summer

and further offshore in the winter (USDOC 1999b). Juveniles migrate to nursery areas located

between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and Cape Cod, Massachusetts (Mather et al. 1995).

Project Area: Due to the strong migratory and epipelagic nature of this species, juvenile and adult

bluefin tuna may pass through the Project Area to feed during the migration.

Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix): All Stages

Primary Source: Shepherd and Packer (2006)

Bluefish spawn offshore in open ocean waters. Spawning generally occurs offshore near the edge of

the continental shelf. Eggs are not known to occur in estuarine waters, and larvae are only rarely

collected in estuaries. Generally, bluefish eggs and larvae are collected in spring and summer in

temperatures greater than 18

oC and in water with salinities above 31 ppt.

Juvenile bluefish move inshore in early- to mid-June, arriving when temperatures reach

approximately 20°C. Juveniles are typically found near shorelines, including the surf zone, during

the day and in open waters at night. However, it is presently unknown if bluefish are estuarine

dependent since the distribution of juveniles over the continental shelf has not been described. Like

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 18 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

adults, they are active swimmers and feed on small forage fishes, which are commonly found in

nearshore habitats. They remain inshore in water temperatures up to 30°C and return to the

continental shelf in the fall when water temperatures reach approximately 15°C. Juvenile bluefish

are associated mostly with sand, but are also found over silt and clay bottom substrates. They usually

occur in waters with salinities of 23–33 ppt, but can tolerate salinities as low as 3 ppt. Adults are

generally oceanic but are found nearshore as well as offshore. Adults usually prefer warm water (at

least 14 to 16°C) and full salinity.

Project Area: Based on their range of habitat utilization, YOY juvenile bluefish prefer coastal

embayments and estuaries in the summer and can be expected to occupy the water column throughout

the Project Area. Adults are typically pelagic and would occupy the open ocean portion of the

Project Area.

Cero (Scomberomorus regalis): Juveniles and Adults

Primary Source: Collette and Nauen (1983) and NMFS (1999)

Spawning of cero or king mackerel takes place May through September with peaks in July and

August. Batch spawning takes place in tropical and subtropical waters, frequently inshore. The eggs

are pelagic and hatch into planktonic larvae. The cero is involved in migrations along the western

Atlantic coast. With increasing water temperatures, Cero move northward from Florida to Rhode

Island between late February and July, and migrate back in the fall. Cero have been reported to

migrate along the western Atlantic coast in large schools; however, there appears to be a resident

population in the southern Atlantic states (Georgia and Florida) as this species is available to sport

fishers year round. The diet of these fish primarily consists of fishes and to a lesser extent penaeid

shrimp and cephalopods. The fishes that make up the bulk of their diet are small schooling clupeids

(e.g., menhaden, alewives, thread herring, and anchovies).

Cero mackerel are important both commercially and recreationally and are a valued sport fish year

round in mid to south-Atlantic states.

Project Area: Cero is a pelagic species and can be expected to occupy the water column in the open

ocean portion of the Project Area.

Cobia (Rachycentron canadum): All Stages

Primary Sources: Richards (1967), National Audubon Society (1983), and Chesapeake Bay Program

(2006)

Cobia is a southern species that overwinters near the Florida Keys and migrates in the spring and

summer to the mid-Atlantic to spawn. Juveniles and adults rarely are found as far north as

Massachusetts and occasionally are present in the deeper waters of Chesapeake Bay in the summer.

Cobia are caught by sports fishermen as far north in the Chesapeake as the mouth of the Potomac

River. This warm-water species prefers temperatures from 20-30°C. Cobia spawn in estuarine and

offshore areas, including near the mouth of the Chesapeake and offshore from mid-June to midAugust. Eggs and larvae generally are not found in lower salinity portions of estuaries.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 19 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Project Area: Cobia are pelagic, warm water species. An occasional adult or juvenile cobia may

occur in the water column of the Project Area during the summer. Juveniles and adults can also be

expected to occupy the nearshore portion of the Project Area.

Dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus): All Stages

Primary Sources: Gibbs and Collette (1959) and Oceanic Institute (1993)

The common dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) is an oceanic pelagic fish found worldwide in

tropical and subtropical waters. Males and females are sexually mature in their first year, usually by

4-5 months old. Spawning can occur at body lengths of 20 cm and occurs offshore, some near the

continetal shelf or in areas above 24oC. Females may spawn two to three times per year, and produce

between 80,000 and 1,000,000 eggs per event. Larvae are found all year, with greater numbers

detected in spring and fall. Larvae are most abundant at depths greater than 50 m at water

temperatures of above 24oC and a salinity of 33 ppt and above. This species prefer a DO of 6 mg/L

and is very sensitive to low DO. Juveniles have been observed inshore but majority are seen offshore

in temperatures of 26-34oC. Early juveniles often show signs of distress at DO levels less than 5.5

mg/L.

Adult populations of the mid-Atlantic are generally highest in the summer due to their seasonal northsouth migrations. The northern distributional limit is the 20oC isotherm and can be found in oceanic

salinities.

Project Area: Dolphinfish are a pelagic species and can be expected to occupy the water column in

the open ocean portion of the Project Area. Larger aggregations of dolphinfish are likely to be found

of the coasts of North and South Carolina where HAPC has been identified for this species in the

following areas: The Point, 10 Fathom Ledge, Big Rock, Georgetown Hole, and the Charlestown

Bump Complex.

King and Spanish Mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla and S. maculatus): All Stages

Primary Sources: Godcharles and Murphy (1986), Collette and Nauen (1983)

King and Spanish mackerels are highly migratory epipelagic, neritic fish that migrate north from

Florida as far as the Gulf of Maine in the summer and fall. King mackerel spawn in coastal waters of

the Gulf of Mexico and off the south Atlantic coast. In the south Atlantic, king mackerel larvae have

been taken at surface salinities ranging from 30 to 37 ppt and temperatures ranging from 22 to 28°C.

King mackerel larvae are typically found near or off the continental shelf and near the Gulf Stream.

Spanish mackerel spawn in mid-June in the lower part of Chesapeake Bay. Spawning typically

occurs at night when water temperature drops below 26°C. Spanish mackerel larvae have been

collected in waters as shallow as 30 ft and as deep as 300 ft. Some juvenile Spanish mackerel use

estuaries as nursery grounds, but most stay nearshore in open-beach waters.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 20 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

In general, temperature and salinity are believed to be the most important factors governing the

distribution of the king and Spanish mackerels. Their northern range limit is in the vicinity of Block

Island, Rhode Island. Water temperatures ranging from 21 to 27°C are preferred by Spanish

mackerel and this species is rarely observed in waters cooler than 18°C. All life stages of king and

Spanish mackerel usually inhabit waters with salinities of 32 to 36 ppt. Spanish mackerel usually

avoid freshwater or low salinities near the mouth of rivers.

Project Area: Due to the migratory, epipelagic nature, and habitat preferences of the king and

Spanish mackerels, a few adult king and Spanish mackerels may pass through the Project Area to

feed during their annual northward migration and when they return south in the fall. The occurrence

of early life stages of these species would be rare in the Project Area.

Little Tunny (Euthynnus alletteratus): Juveniles and Adults

Primary Source: NMFS 2006c

Spawning occurs in April through November in the eastern and western Atlantic Ocean and, while in

the Mediterranean Sea, spawning takes place from late spring through summer. Little tunny spawn

outside the continental shelf region in water of at least 25°C, where females release as many as

1,750,000 eggs in multiple batches when they reach a length of 31 inches or 14 pounds. The males

release sperm, fertilizing the eggs in the water column. These fertilized eggs are pelagic, spherical,

and transparent.

Found in tropical and subtropical waters on both sides of the Atlantic, including the Mediterranean,

Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico, the little tunny often forms large, elliptical schools, which cover up

to two miles on the long axis. Individuals of the species rarely live over 5 years. Little tunny feed

mostly on small crustaceans, squid and small fishes.

Project Area: Due to the migratory and epipelagic nature of this species, little tunny can be expected

to occupy the water column in the open ocean portion of the Project Area.

Monkfish (Lophius americanus): Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles

Primary Source: Steimle et al. (1999b)

Spawning locations are not well known but are thought to be on inshore shoals (depths generally

greater than 50 ft) to offshore Southern New England, Mid-Atlantic Bight, and Gulf of Maine shelf

waters. Monkfish eggs are shed within buoyant, ribbon-like, non-adhesive mucoid veils or rafts.

Larvae have been collected in offshore waters in the Mid-Atlantic Bight during March to April.

Some larvae have been collected on the continental shelf at depths of 60 to 90 ft in May to July; after

July, none have been observed in depths less than 90 ft. Larvae have been found off southern New

Jersey, south of Long Island, in the New York Bight at depths of 30 to 300 ft, and off South New

England.

Adults in the MAB migrate inshore in late winter–spring and move back offshore in summer and fall,

probably to avoid warmer inshore water. Neither juveniles nor adults are caught in bottom

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 21 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

temperatures greater than 15°C or depths less than 50 ft. Juvenile and adult monkfish caught in a

bottom trawl survey in Narragansett Bay conducted four times a year during 1990 through 1996 were

almost completely restricted to depths of more than 90 ft.

Project Area: Based on their range of habitat utilization, a few monkfish larvae may be found in

surface waters in the Project Area in June and July. Eggs may occur in surface waters of the Project

Area as well, probably during a more extended period of time.

Red Drum (Sciaenops ocellatus): All Stages

Primary Source: Buckley (1984) and Reagan (1985)

The red drum is an estuarine-dependent species found along the Atlantic coast and in the Gulf of

Mexico. Adults are euryhaline and eurythermal and have been found to be most abundant at

salinities of 30 to 35 ppt and observed in water temperatures ranging from 2 to 33°C. Spawning of

red drum in the mid- and south Atlantic typically occurs from mid-August and extends to late

September. It is speculated that red drum in the Atlantic coast spawn in nearshore waters adjacent to

channels and passes, similar to those on the Gulf coast. Salinity is an important factor in hatching

success. Eggs float at salinities greater than 25 ppt and sink at lower salinities, which could lead to

clumping, respiratory stress, and mortality. It has been postulated that eggs and larvae are

transported by deep subsurface currents of high-density water in Chesapeake Bay. Larvae occupy

either vegetated or unvegetated bottoms in estuaries. Temperature is an important factor as larvae

develop. At water temperatures below 20°C, larvae may be unable to make the transition to active

feeding. Juveniles are also both euryhaline and eurythermal. They have been found at salinities of 0

to 50 ppt and water temperatures ranging from 13 to 28°C. Yearling juveniles live in protected

waters with little wave action. At the end of the first year, they move into deeper bays or marine

littoral areas during cold weather and then migrate back into the estuary during the spring.

Project Area: Due to the habitat preference of the red drum, larvae and juveniles may be present

throughout the Project Area with a concentration in or around coastal inlets. However, eggs and

adults would be rare in the Project Area.

Red Hake (Urophycis chuss): All Stages

Primary Source: Steimle et al. (1999c)

The red hake occurs in continental waters from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the mid-Atlantic States

(Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). Red hake spawn offshore in the mid-Atlantic Bight in the summer,

primarily in southern New England. The distribution of eggs is unknown because they cannot be

distinguished from other hakes. However, EFH for eggs is defined as surface temperatures less than

10°C and salinity less than 25 ppt. Larvae dominate the summer ichthyoplankton in the mid-Atlantic

Bight and are most abundant on the mid- and outer-continental shelf. Red hake larvae prefer

temperatures of 8 to 23°C and depths less than 200 m. Larvae typically settle to the bottom in the fall

and need shelter. Juveniles seek shelter and commonly associate with scallops, surf clam shells, and

seabed depressions. Juveniles prefer depths from less than 395 ft to the low tide line and

temperatures between 2 to 22°C. Adults prefer depths from 100 to 425 ft and temperatures between 2

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 22 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

to 22°C. Adults are typically associated with sand-mud bottom in holes and depressions. Both

juveniles and adults make seasonal migrations in response to changes in water temperatures.

Project Area: Hake eggs (including eggs of other species besides red hake) are common in the

Project Area from May to November, but red hake larvae are less likely to occupy shallow coastal

waters. Juvenile and adult red hake are attracted to deeper, cooler water in the shipping channels, and

thus can be expected to occupy the Project Area throughout the year.

Scup (Stenotomus chrysops): Juveniles and Adults

Primary Source: Steimle et al. (1999d)

YOY juveniles are commonly found from the intertidal zone to depths of about 100 ft in portions of

bays and estuaries where salinities are above 15 ppt. Juvenile scup appear to use a variety of coastal

intertidal and subtidal sedimentary habitats during their seasonal inshore residency, including sand,

mud, mussel beds, and eelgrass beds. Adults move inshore during early May and June between Long

Island and Delaware Bay. Adults are found inside bays and sounds, but like juveniles, do not

penetrate low salinity areas. Adults are often observed or caught over soft, sandy bottoms and in or

near structured habitats, such as, rocky ledges, wrecks, artificial reefs, and mussel beds. Adults move

offshore once water temperatures fall below 7.5 to 10°C in the fall.

Project Area: Juvenile and adult scup are known to occupy sandy bottom areas, but are more likely

to occur on the shallower sandy shoal areas of the Project Area. Based on their range of habitat

utilization, juvenile and adult scup are expected to occupy the Project Area during the spring and

summer months.

Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis): Adults

Primary Source: Colette and Nauen (1983)

Skipjack tuna are highly migratory, circumglobal pelagic fish that inhabit tropical and warmtemperate waters and are generally limited by the 15°C isotherm. Skipjack tuna are often found in

mixed schools with bluefin tuna of the same size. Like bluefin tuna, skipjack tuna often occur over

the continental shelf and in embayments, particularly during the summer months when they feed

actively on herring, mackerel, and squid. In the Mid-Atlantic Bight, adults typically occur in pelagic

waters where water temperatures range from 20 to 31°C.

Project Area: Skipjack tuna are highly migratory and pelagic, and may pass through the Project Area

to feed during their annual migration.

Snapper-Grouper Complex (73 species) : All Stages

Primary Source: SAFMC (1998)

The snapper-grouper complex consists of 10 families and 73 species and is recognized, managed, and

is EFH-HAPC designated by the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. For assessment

purposes, this complex of species is grouped and treated as one species designation since snapperDocument Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 23 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

grouper habitat usually contains multiple species that are listed within the complex (Table 2), a

majority of which often exhibit similar life strategies.

Snapper-grouper complex individuals use different habitats – both benthic and pelagic – during

different life stages. These species share an association with coral or hard bottom structures during

part of their life cycle and all contribute to an interrelated reef fishery ecosystem. The planktonic

larval stage generally lives in the water column feeding on zooplankton. Juveniles and adults tend to

occupy areas near the ocean floor, often near hard structures with moderate to high relief, such as

reefs, rocky bottoms, caves and ledges, and outcroppings. However, the juveniles of some species

may occupy seagrass beds, mangroves, lagoons, and bays. Furthermore, individuals may migrate to

different habitats across the shelf diurnally and seasonally.

Spawning regimens also exhibits temporal, spatial, and behavioral variability, though some patterns

have emerged. For example, spawning generally occurs over one or two months in the winter, but

spawning can occur year-round with more than two significant peaks during the year. Spatially,

different species use shelf edge environments with moderate to high structural relief, while other

species appear to use shallow areas. Furthermore, spawning occurs both in large aggregations and in

pairs.

Spawning sites are clearly an important component of essential fish habitat. While specific data on

spawning sites are limited, some specific sites have been identified for certain species.

Project Area: Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) for the snapper-grouper complex are

known to occur along the south Atlantic coasts of North and South Carolina. Potential vessel transit

routes (although these routes have not been determined as of yet) may traverse these areas on their

approach and departure from the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. The areas that have been specifically

identified as snapper-grouper complex EFH-HAPC are The Point, 10 Fathom Ledge, Big Rock,

Georgetown Hole, and the Charleston Bump Complex.

Table 2. Snapper-Grouper Species List as Defined by SAFMC and Commercial/Recreational

Designations

Common Name Scientific Name

Commercially

Important

Recreationally

Important

MARINE

Almaco jack Seriola rivoliana x x

Atlantic spadefish Chaetodipterus faber x x

Banded rudderfish Seriola zonata x x

Bank sea bass Centropristis ocyurus x x

Bar jack Caranx ruber

Black grouper Mycteroperca bonaci x x

Black margate Anisotremus surinamensis x

Black sea bass Centropristis striata x x

Black snapper Apsilus dentatus x

Blackfin snappper Lutjanus buccanella x

Blue runner Caranx crysos

Blueline tilefish Caulolatilus microps x

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 24 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Common Name Scientific Name

Commercially

Important

Recreationally

Important

MARINE

Bluestripe grunt Haemulon sciurus x

Coney Epinephelus fulvus x

Cottonwick grunt Haemulon melanurum

Crevalle jack Caranx hippos

Cubera snapper Lutjanus cyanopterus x x

Dog snapper Lutjanus jocu x

French grunt Haemulon flavolineatum x

Gag grouper Mycteroperca microlepis x

Golden tilefish Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps x

Goliath grouper (jewfish) Epinephelus itajara

Grass porgy Calamus arctifrons

Gray snapper Lutjanus griseus x x

Gray triggerfish Balistes capriscus x x

Graysby Epinephelus cruentatus x

Greater amberjack Seriola dumerili x x

Hogfish Lachnolaimus maximus x x

Jolthead porgy Calamus bajonado x

Knobbed porgy Calamus nodosus x

Lane snapper Lutjanus synagris x x

Lesser amberjack Seriola fasciata x

Longspine porgy Stenotomus caprinus

Mahogany snapper Lutjanus mahogoni x

Margate Haemulon album x

Misty grouper Epinephelus mystacinus x

Mutton snapper Lutjanus analis x x

Nassau grouper Epinephelus striatus x

Ocean triggerfish Canthidermis sufflamen x

Porkfish Anisotremus virginicus

Puddingwife Halichoeres x

Queen snapper Etelis oculatus x

Queen triggerfish Balistes vetula x

Red grouper Epinephelus morio x

Red hind Epinephelus guttatus x

Red porgy Pagrus pagrus x x

Red snapper Lutjanus campechanus x x

Rock sea bass Centropristis philadelphica x

Sailors choice Haemulon parra

Sand tilefish Malacanthus plumieri

Saucereye porgy Calamus calamus x

Scamp Mycteroperca phenax x

Schoolmaster Lutjanus apodus x

Scup Stenotomus chrysops x x

Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus x x

Silk snapper Lutjanus vivanus x x

Smallmouth grunt Haemulon chrysargyreum

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 25 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Common Name Scientific Name

Commercially

Important

Recreationally

Important

MARINE

Snowy grouper Epinephelus niveatus x x

Spanish grunt Haemulon macrostomum

Speckled hind Epinephelus drummondhayi x x

Tiger grouper Mycteroperca tigris x

Tomtate Haemulon aurolineatum x x

Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens x x

Warsaw grouper Epinephelus nigritus x x

White grunt Haemulon plumieri x x

Whiteboned porgy Calamus leucosteus x x

Wreckfish Polyprion americanus x

Yellow jack Caranx bartholomaei x x

Yellowedge grouper Epinephelus flavolimbatus

Yellowfin grouper Mycteroperca venenosa

Yellowmouth grouper Mycteroperca interstilitialis x

Yellowtail snapper Ocyrus chrysurus x

Note : SAFMC reports that 73 species compose the snapper-grouper complex although only 72 could

be found in their source documents.

Summer Flounder (Paralichthys dentatus): All Stages

Primary Source: Packer et al. (1999)

Summer flounder are distributed from the eastern portion of Georges Bank to South Carolina and

Florida, but are most abundant south of Cape Cod (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). This species

exhibits strong inshore-offshore movements. Summer Flounder eggs are pelagic and buoyant with

the highest concentrations being found within nine miles of the shore of New Jersey and New York.

Eggs are most abundant in the fall months between depths of 100 to 230 ft. Summer flounder larvae

are most abundant 12 to 50 mi from shore at depths of 100 to 230 ft in the northern part of the midAtlantic Bight from September to February. Planktonic larvae and post-larvae derived from offshore

fall and winter spawning migrate inshore from October to May, entering coastal and estuarine nursery

areas to complete transformation.

Summer flounder exhibit strong inshore–offshore movements. Adults and juveniles typically move

offshore in the fall and remain there through the winter. Adults and juveniles occupy shallow coastal

and estuarine waters during spring and summer. Some juveniles remain inshore for an entire year

before migrating offshore, while others move offshore in the fall and return the following spring.

Juvenile summer flounder utilize several different estuarine habitats such as marsh creeks, seagrass

beds, mud flats, and open bay areas, but are not found in areas with pollution issues that lack food

sources or that lack sufficient water circulation. Juveniles are sometimes found in Chesapeake Bay,

with YOY found in tidal creeks with salinities greater than 15 ppt but more abundant in higher

salinity systems. As long as other conditions are favorable, substrate preferences and prey

availability are the most important factors affecting distribution. Some studies indicate that juveniles

prefer mixed or sandy substrates; others show that mud and vegetated habitats are used. Adults are

reported to prefer sandy habitats, but can be found in a variety of habitats with both mud and sand

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 26 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

substrates. Spawning occurs in open ocean areas as fish are moving to their offshore wintering areas.

Eggs and larvae are found in offshore waters, particularly in fall (eggs) and winter (larvae) months.

Project Area: Based on the habitat preference of this species, the buoyant eggs are expected to occur

in the Project Area. Eggs and larvae may be common within the oceanic portion of the Project Area.

Juvenile and adult summer flounder would be common throughout the lower potions of the

Chesapeake Bay, but less so in the Project Terminal Area. However, given their association with

sandy substrates and the fact that they feed on a variety of bottom-dwelling invertebrates and fish

species that occupy the Project Area, transitory individuals can be expected to occupy the Project

Area during the summer months.

Swordfish (Xiphias gladius): Juveniles

Primary Source: USDOC (1999b)

Swordfish are epipelagic to mesopelagic. This species is circumglobal, ranging through tropical,

temperate, and sometimes cold-water regions. Their optimum temperature range is believed to be 18

to 22°C, but they will dive into 5 to 10°C waters at depths of up to 2130 ft. This species also migrate

diurnally, coming to the surface at night. Specifically, two different migration patterns have been

observed: swordfish in neritic (shallow, near-coastal) waters of the northwest Atlantic were found in

bottom waters during the day and moved to offshore surface waters at night. Swordfish in oceanic

waters migrated vertically from a daytime depth of 1640 to 295 ft at night. Juveniles are typically

found in pelagic waters warmer than 18°C from the surface to a depth of 1640 ft.

Project Area: Swordfish are highly migratory and pelagic, and may pass through the Project Area to

feed during their annual migration.

Whiting (Merluccius bilinearis): Larvae and Juveniles

Primary Source: Morse et al. (1999)

Whiting, or silver hake, spawn on the outer continental shelf. Eggs and larvae are distributed in mid

and outer shelf waters, but not in coastal waters. Significant egg production occurs during May to

October, with a peak in August. Primary spawning grounds apparently occur between Cape Cod and

Montauk Point, New York, on the southeastern slope of Georges Bank, and in Massachusetts Bay.

Juveniles are common during spring and summer in relatively shallow waters in Southern New

England and south of Long Island. Coastal waters off New Jersey, Long Island, and Rhode Island are

centers of abundance in the fall. Adults occupy bottom habitats of all substrate types. In general,

adults prefer depths between 100 to 1,000 ft and water temperatures below 21°C.

Juvenile whiting are primarily caught at depths greater than 30 ft and prefer high DO concentrations

(10 to 11 mg/l), high salinities (greater than 27 ppt), and a wide range of temperatures (3 to 23°C).

Juveniles are present in the New York Bight at all times of year and adults are mostly restricted to the

colder months (winter and spring). Juveniles prefer shallower water (80 to 250 ft) during the fall and

deeper water (greater than 500 ft) in the spring, while adults prefer depths greater than 150 ft in the

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 27 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

fall and greater than 400 ft in the spring. Eggs and larvae are primarily restricted to mid and outer

continental shelf waters.

Project Area: Based on their range of habitat utilization, juvenile whiting can be expected to occupy

the Project Area throughout the year and adults in the winter and spring. Larvae typically occur in

deeper water, and therefore are not likely to be found within the Project Area in significant numbers.

Windowpane (Scophthalmus aquosus): All Stages

Primary Source: Chang et al. (1999)

Windowpane are a shallow water mid- and inner-shelf species found primarily between Georges

Bank and Cape Hatteras on fine sandy sediment. Spawning occurs on inner shelf waters, including

many coastal bays and sounds, and on Georges Bank. Juveniles and adults are similarly distributed.

They are found in most bays and estuaries south of Cape Cod throughout the year at a wide range of

depths (less than 5 to 130 ft), bottom temperatures (3 to 12°C in the spring and 9 to 12°C in the fall),

and salinities (5.5 to 36 ppt). Juveniles that settle in shallow inshore waters move to deeper offshore

waters as they grow. Adults occur primarily on sand substrates off southern New England and midAtlantic Bight. Spawning occurs primarily in offshore areas but may occur in high salinity portions

of estuaries as well. Larvae are found primarily in continental shelf waters in the autumn. Although

in general larvae may be present in high salinity estuarine areas in the spring, they are considered rare

in Chesapeake Bay. Eggs have not been recorded in Chesapeake Bay.

Project Area: Based on the habitat utilization of this species, juvenile and adult windowpane would

be rare throughout the Project Area. Similar to the summer flounder, occasional transients can be

expected to occupy the Project Area during the summer months. Eggs and larvae would not be

anticipated to be present in the Project Area.

Winter Flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus): Juveniles and Adults

Primary Source: Pereira et al. (1999)

Winter flounder spawning occurs from late winter through early spring, peaking south of Cape Cod

in February and March. Recently settled YOY juveniles are found close to spawning grounds and in

high concentrations in depositional areas with low current speeds. YOY juveniles migrate very little

in the first summer, move to deeper water in the fall, and remain in deeper cooler water for much of

the following year. Habitat utilization by YOY is not consistent across habitat types and is highly

variable among systems and from year to year. Several field and lab studies suggest a “preference”

for muddy/fine sediment substrates where they are most likely to have been deposited by currents.

Adult winter flounder prefer temperatures of 12 to 15°C, DO concentrations greater than 2.9 mg/l,

and salinities above 22 ppt, although they have been shown to survive at salinities as low as 15 ppt.

Mature adults are found in very shallow waters during the spawning season.

Project Area: Due to their range of habitat utilization, juveniles and adults can be expected to be

common in the Project Area throughout the year.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 28 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Witch Flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus): Eggs and Larvae

Primary Source: Luca et al. (1999)

Witch flounder inhabit continental shelf waters as deep as 4,920 ft. Adults inhabit mud and clay

substrates, or mud and clay mixed with sand, but rarely on sand. Spawning occurs from shore to the

outer continental shelf, primarily at depths of 330 to 525 ft, from March through October, but peaks

in the Mid-Atlantic Bight between May and June. Eggs are laid at or near the bottom, but rise into

the water column where subsequent egg and larval development occurs. Larvae remain in the water

column for a long time, from four to six months to a year. Offshore larval surveys indicate that larval

witch flounder are evenly distributed over the continental shelf from Cape Hatteras to southwest

Nova Scotia. Larvae are present in the New York Bight from May to July, primarily in deep water

(165 to 300 ft).

Project Area: Based on the habitat requirements of eggs and larval witch flounder, they are expected

to occupy the offshore water column portion of the Project Area.

Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacares): Juveniles and Adults

Primary Source: USDOC (1999b)

Yellowfin tuna is an epipelagic, oceanic species. This species is circumglobal, typically found in

tropical and temperate waters ranging from 18 to 31°C. Similar to all other tuna species, yellowfin

tuna is a known schooling species, with juveniles found in schools at the surface, mixing with

skipjack and bigeye tuna. Adults have the same habitat preference as the juveniles and can be found

in pelagic waters from the surface to 330 ft deep.

Project Area: Yellowfin tuna are highly migratory and pelagic, and may pass through the Project

Area to feed during their annual migration.

Yellowtail Flounder (Limanda ferruginea): Larvae

Primary Source: Johnson et al. (1999)

Yellowtail flounder occupy continental shelf waters on the Atlantic coast between depths of 35 and

1,200 ft, but are more common in depths less than 330 ft. Larvae have been collected at depths of 35

to 100 ft in April and 100 to 300 ft during May to September. Larvae are present in the New York

Bight from April to July.

Project Area: Based on their range of habitat utilization, yellowtail flounder larvae are expected to

occur in the Project Area during spring and summer.

4.1.2 Invertebrate Species

Long-Finned Squid (Loligo pealei): Juveniles and Adults

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 29 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Primary Source: Cargnelli et al. (1999a)

Long-finned inshore squid are a pelagic schooling species that can be found in continental shelf and

slope waters from Newfoundland to the Gulf of Venezuela. Juveniles inhabit the upper 10 m of the

water column over water 165 to 490 ft deep on continental shelf. Juveniles are typically found in

coastal inshore waters in spring/fall while migrating to offshore waters in winter. Juveniles have a

temperature preference of 10 to 26°C and salinities of 31.5 to 34.0 ppt. Adult long-finned inshore

squid inhabit the continental shelf and upper continental shelf slop to depths of 400 m. Adults are

typically found over mud or sandy mud bottoms, and have been found at surface temperatures

ranging from 9 to 21°C and bottom temperatures ranging from 8 to 16°C.

Project Area: Based on their range of habitat utilization, juveniles and adults can be expected to

occur in the Project Area.

Ocean Quahog (Arctica islandica): Juveniles and Adults

Primary Source: Cargnelli et al. (1999b)

Ocean quahogs are extremely slow-growing and long-lived, distributed on the continental shelf from

Newfoundland to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. The inshore limit of their distribution appears to be

defined by the 16

oC bottom isotherm in the summer months. Juveniles are typically found offshore

in sandy substrates, but may survive in muddy intertidal environments if protected from predators.

Juveniles in the Mid-Atlantic Bight have a temperature preference of 1 to 12

oC, depth of 150 to 250

ft, and salinities of 32 to 34 ppt. Adults usually are found in dense beds over level bottoms, just

below the surface of the sediment, ranging from medium to fine grain sand. Adults have a

temperature preference of 6 to 16

oC, depth of 150 to 200 ft, and oceanic salinities. Adults are also

capable of surviving low DO levels by burrowing into the sand and respire anaerobically for up to

seven days.

Project Area: Based on their range of habitat utilization, juveniles and adults are expected to occur in

the Project Area. However, they would be limited to the bottom of the offshore ocean with little to

no impact.

Rock Shrimp (Sicyonia brevirostris): All Stages

Primary Source: SAFMC (1998)

Rock shrimp occur in terrigenous and biogenic fine to medium sand substrate habitats with small

patches of silt and clay. They also utilize coral and hard bottom habitats, but are found only

sporadically in areas with mud substrates. Rock shrimp are distributed along the Atlantic Coast from

Virginia to Florida, south to Cuba and the Bahamas, and in the Gulf of Mexico. These bottom

feeders inhabit waters ranging from 60 to 600 ft in depth with the highest concentrations occurring

between 80 and 215 ft.

Rock shrimp generally spawn from November to January with females spawning three or more times

in a season, often coinciding with the full moon. Larvae can be found year round without regard for

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 30 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

temperature, salinity, depth, or moon phase. The Florida coast shelf current systems are essential for

keeping larvae on the Florida coast and for transporting them onshore, while the Gulf Stream is

essential for dispersing the larvae.

Project Area: Based on their range of habitat utilization, all life stages can be expected to occur in

deepwaters of the Project Area. However, similar to other substrate-dwelling invertebrates, most

individuals would be limited to the bottom of the offshore ocean and suffer little or no impact.

Royal Red Shrimp (Pleoticus robustus): All Stages

Primary Source: SAFMC (1998)

Royal red shrimp are usually found in waters over blue/black mud, sand, muddy sand, or white

calcareous mud. They are distributed throughout the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic from Cape

Cod to French Guinea. Royal red shrimp inhabit waters of the upper continental slope from depths of

590 to 2,400 ft, but they are most commonly found between 820 and 1,560 ft.

Essential fish habitat for royal red shrimp also includes the Gulf Stream, because it disperses royal

red shrimp larvae.

Project Area: Based on their range of habitat utilization, all life stages can be expected to occur in

deepwaters of the Project Area. However, similar to other substrate-dwelling invertebrates, most

individuals would be limited to the bottom of the offshore ocean and suffer little or no impact.

Surf Clam (Spisula solidissima): Juveniles and Adults

Primary Source: Cargnelli et al. (1999c)

The greatest concentration of Atlantic surf clam is usually found in well-sorted, medium sand, but

they may also occur in fine sand and silty-fine sand. Atlantic surf clam is distributed in western

North Atlantic continental shelf waters from the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence to Cape Hatteras,

North Carolina. Atlantic surf clam can inhibit waters from the surf zone to a depth of 420 ft. Along

Long Island and New Jersey waters, the highest concentrations occur at less than 60 ft. The preferred

temperature range is between 1 to 25

oC with spawning occurring in temperatures greater than 15oC.

In New Jersey, spawning occurs from late June to early August and may begin as early as late May or

early June in inshore waters.

Atlantic surf clams are typically found in salinities higher than 28 ppt, but are capable of surviving

salinities as low as 12.5 ppt for a period of two days. Studies have found severe hypoxic events (DO

less than 3 parts per million [ppm]) in New Jersey killing Atlantic surf clam. Positive hypoxia effects

include the decimation of Atlantic surf clam predators, would allow successful recruitment of

recently settled clams. Currently, there is minimal information on the effects of currents on Atlantic

surf clam, particularly on feeding and bedload transport of small clams. The dynamic environments

in which Atlantic surf clam live may substantially affect flux of food and population distribution

where oceanic storms can displace adults a considerable distance from their burrows.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 31 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Project Area: Based on their range of habitat utilization, juveniles and adults can be expected to

occur in the Project Area. However, similar to the ocean quahog, juveniles and adults would be

limited to the bottom of the offshore ocean with little to no impact.

4.1.3 Shark Species

Atlantic Sharpnose Shark (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae): Adults

Primary Source: USDOC (1999b)

The Atlantic sharpnose shark is a small coastal species, inhibiting the waters of the northeast coast of

North America. This species is a common year-round resident of the South Atlantic Bight and can be

found in schools of uniform size and sex. Adults prefer temperature between 20 to 30°C and salinity

between 21 to 35 ppt.

Project Area: Based on their range of habitat utilization, adults can be expected to occur in the

nearshore portions of the Project Area.

Blue Shark (Prionace gluaca): Adults

Primary Source: USDOC (1999b)

Blue shark is an oceanic-epipelagic, fringe-littoral, cosmopolitan species, occurring throughout the

tropical, subtropical, and temperate open waters (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). Atlantic blue sharks

are highly migratory with a regular clockwise trans-Atlantic migration route following the warm Gulf

Stream waters. The general range of blue shark is from Argentina to Newfoundland in the western

Atlantic. The temperature preference of blue shark is between 7 to 18°C.

Project Area: Based on their range of habitat utilization, blue shark may pass through the Project

Area to feed during their annual migration.

Dusky Shark (Carcharinus obscurus): Juveniles

Primary Source: Compagno (1984) and USDOC (1999b)

The dusky shark is a coastal-pelagic, inshore and offshore warm-temperate and tropical species found

in the continental insular shelves and oceanic waters. Lateral range of dusky shark is close inshore in

the surf zone to well out to sea, and a depth preference from the surface to 1,310 ft deep. Adults do

not prefer areas with reduced salinities and tend to avoid estuaries. (Compagno 1984). In the

western Atlantic, dusky sharks are highly migratory with a geographical range from Nova Scotia to

Cuba (including the northern Gulf of Mexico).

Male dusky sharks attain sexual maturity at 231 (cm) (fork length) and 19 years of age, while females

mature at 235 cm (fork length) and 21 years (Natanson et al. 1995). Dusky sharks are viviparous

with a yolk-sac placenta. In the western Atlantic, young per litter ranges from six to 10 per brood

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 32 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

(Knickle 2002a). Females move inshore to drop the young and then depart the nursery area shortly

after. Pups measure 85-100 cm TL at birth (Castro 1983).

Project Area: Although migratory and pelagic, dusky sharks spawn in nearshore water, and therefore

juveniles are expected to occur in the Project Area.

Sandbar Shark (Carcharinus plumbeus): Juveniles and Adults

Primary Source: Compagno (1984) and USDOC (1999b)

The sandbar shark is an abundant, coastal-pelagic shark of temperate and tropical waters that occurs

inshore and offshore. It is found on continental and insular shelves and is common at bay mouths, in

harbors, inside shallow muddy or sandy bays, and at river mouths, but tends to avoid sandy beaches

and the surf zone. Sandbar sharks migrate north and south along the Atlantic coast, reaching as far

north as Massachusetts in the summer. Sandbar sharks bear live young in shallow Atlantic coastal

waters between Great Bay, New Jersey, and Cape Canaveral, Florida. The young inhabit shallow

coastal nursery grounds during the summer and move offshore into deeper, warmer water in winter.

Late juveniles and adults occupy coastal waters as far north as southern New England and Long

Island.

Sandbar sharks are viviparous where the embryos are nourished via a placenta sac. Mating occurs in

the spring or early summer (May-June) and pups are born from June through August. Litter size

varies by region and dependent upon the size of the mother. Sandbar sharks bear live young in

shallow bays and estuaries of the east-central U.S. from Delaware to North Carolina. The young

inhabit shallow coastal nursery grounds until late fall and move southward and further offshore in the

winter and return to the nursery ground during the summer months. This movement between shallow

coastal waters and warmer, deeper waters may continue for a period of up to five years (Knickle

2002b).

Project Area: Sandbar sharks are migratory and coastal-pelagic species. The Project Area is a

potential nursery ground for this species and has HAPC status. Late juvenile and adult sandbar

sharks may also occupy the nearshore coastal waters of the Project Area.

Sand Tiger Shark (Caracharius taurus): Juvenile and Adults

Primary Source: Compagno 2002

Sand tiger shark is a tropical to warm-temperate, inshore to offshore, and littoral to deepwater

species. Sand tiger sharks occur in continental and insular waters from the outer shelves and down

the slopes to seamounts, possibly 5,250 ft deep. Occasional species have been observed to come into

the tide line along beaches or enter mouths of rivers (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). They may also

be found in shallow bays and around coral reefs. The general range of sand tiger shark is from Brazil

to Maine in western Atlantic. Sand tiger sharks have been observed hovering motionless just above

the seabed in or near deep sandy bottom gutters or rocky caves, usually in the vicinity of inshore

rocky reefs and islands.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 33 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Although female sand tiger shark may produce up to 17,000 eggs, only two embryos develop (one in

each oviduct). The embryos are hatched within the mother and retained there until the resultant

young are ready for independent existence. The embryos are oviphagous (egg-eating) and nourished

by feeding on unfertilized eggs. Pregnant females captured near Woods Hole, Massachusetts

contained only eggs, thus making it likely that juvenile species in southern New England have come

from a more southerly birthplace. Females mature and reproduce at eight years of age while males

mature and reproduce at four to five years of age.

Project Area: Based on their range of habitat utilization, juvenile and adult sand tiger sharks can be

expected to occupy the water column in the oceanic section of the Project Area.

Scalloped Hammerhead Shark (Sphryna lewini): Juveniles

Primary Source: USDOC (1999b)

The scalloped hammerhead shark is a very common, large, schooling species, commonly associated

with warm waters. This species has been found in coastal regions, appearing in shallow waters such

as estuaries and inlets. Vertical movement of this species is from the surface down to a depth of

approximately 900 ft. Specifically, early juveniles are typically associated with shallow coastal

waters of the South Atlantic Bight and late juveniles are typically associated with shallow coastal

waters of the U.S. Atlantic seaboard from the shoreline to the 660 ft isobath.

Project Area: Based on the habitat requirements of juvenile scalloped hammerhead shark, this

species may occur in the nearshore waters of the Project Area.

Shortfin Mako Shark (Isurus oxyrhincus): Juveniles and Adults

Primary Source: Compagno (2002) and USDOC (1999b)

The shortfin mako shark is a common, extremely active, highly migratory, offshore littoral and

epipelagic species found in tropical and warm temperate seas. Its geographical range in the western

Atlantic is from the Gulf of Maine to southern Brazil and possibly northern Argentina. Shortfin

mako shark have a depth variance from the surface down to at least 1,640 ft. It occurs well offshore

but penetrates the inshore littoral just off the surf zone in places where the continental shelves are

very narrow. This species prefers clear water to turbid water and have a temperature range between

17 to 22°C. Juveniles tend to stay near the surface above 65 ft and in waters 20 to 21°C and avoid

the thermocline and cold deeper waters. Juveniles tend to use the offshore continental waters as

nursery areas. Shortfin mako shark is ovoviviparous, producing litters of young ranging from four to

25 per brood and measuring between 60 and 70 cm at birth. Both sexes reach sexual maturity

between ages of four to six years. Birth occurs mostly in late winter to midsummer. This species is

an oceanic species at the top of the food chain, feeding on fast-moving fishes such as swordfish, tuna,

and other sharks.

Project Area: Based on habitat requirements of this species, they are expected to occur in the

offshore portion of the Project Area.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 34 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Spiny Dogfish (Squalus acanthias): Juveniles and Adults

Primary Source: McMillan and Morse (1999) and Bigelow and Schroeder (1953)

The spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias is a highly migratory coastal squaloid shark with a

circumboreal distribution. S. acanthias has been recorded as the most abundant shark in the western

North Atlantic. The range of the spiny dogfish extends from Labrador to Florida, but is most

abundant from Nova Scotia to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Adults migrate northward in the spring

and summer and southward in the fall and winter. Fish that spend the summer north of Cape Cod

move south to Long Island in the fall and as far south as North Carolina in the winter. Seasonal

inshore-offshore movements and coastal migrations are related to water temperature. Generally,

spiny dogfish spend the summers in inshore waters and overwinter in deeper offshore waters. They

are usually epibenthic, but occupy pelagic zones as well. They can be found from nearshore shallows

to offshore shelf waters up to depths of 2,950 ft and are tolerant of a wide range of water

temperatures (1 to 22°C). Dogfish prefer oceanic salinities (30 to 34 ppt).

Adult spiny dogfish fertilization occurs internally and is ovoviviparous. The gestation period

averages 18–22 months. Parturition generally takes place offshore in the winter yielding litters

averaging six to seven pups but have been recorded as high as 15.

In the spring, juveniles and adults occur in deeper, generally warmer waters on the outer shelf from

North Carolina to Georges Bank. In the fall, they occur in the shallower, moderately warm waters

from mid to north Atlantic. Dogfish are rare transient visitors to estuaries since they prefer higher

salinities.

Project Area: Given the life history and habitat preferences, juvenile and adult spiny dogfish may

occur within the Project Area.

Tiger Shark (Galeocerdo cuvieri): Juveniles and Adults

Primary Source: Compagno (1984) and USDOC (1999b)

Tiger sharks inhabit warm waters in both deep oceanic and shallow coastal regions (Castro 1983).

Tiger sharks have a tolerance for different marine habitats, but prefer turbid waters in coastal areas

(Compagno 1984). Tiger sharks commonly are found in river estuaries, harbors, and other inlets

where runoff from the land may attract a high number of prey items (Knickle 2002c). Shallow areas

around large island chains and oceanic islands including lagoons are also part of tiger sharks’ natural

environment. Depth preference of this species is from the surface to depths of 350 m (Knickle

2002c). This species undergoes seasonal migrations, moving into temperate waters from the tropics

during the warmer months and returning during the winter months. It is a very large species,

reaching 550 cm TL and 900 kg. Tiger sharks are ovoviviparous, producing large litters of young

ranging from 10 to 80 per brood and measuring between 50 and 85 cm TL at birth. In the northern

hemisphere, mating usually takes place between March and May and the young are born between

April and June of the following year.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 35 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Project Area: Based on habitat requirements of the tiger shark, this species may occur in the offshore

portion of the Project Area during migration.

4.1.4 Skate Species

Clearnose Skate (Raja eglanteria): Juveniles and Adults

Primary Source: Packer et al. (2003a)

The clearnose skate is found on soft bottoms along the continental shelf, but also occurs on rocky or

gravelly bottoms. In general, clearnose skate are inshore along the continental shelf during the spring

and early summer, moving offshore and south during autumn and early winter as water temperatures

cool. In Chesapeake Bay, juvenile and adult clearnose skate have been found in all seasons but are

more abundant from spring until December. During surveys of the Chesapeake Bight, clearnose

skate was more abundant in shallow water during spring and summer than during autumn and winter

and was more abundant in the Bight during the summer and autumn than in the winter and spring. In

the 1988 to 1999 Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) trawl surveys, the most common

catches of juvenile and adult clearnose skates occurred in water temperatures between 8 to 24°C near

the Bay mouth, but were present throughout the Bay, rarely in tributaries. Result of the VIMS

surveys also showed a strong correlation with salinity as 85% of the catch was captured at salinities

greater than or equal to 22 ppt. The depth of capture ranged from 3 to 100 ft, with the most common

depths ranging between 9 and 50 ft.

North of Cape Hatteras, spawning occurs in the spring and summer. Eggs are deposited in sandy or

muddy flats. Young skates may follow large objects (such as adults). Eggs would likely be present

in the lower part of the Chesapeake where higher salinities occur.

Project Area: Based on the habitat utilization of this species, occurrences of juvenile and adult

clearnose skates would be rare throughout the Project Area, although occasional transient individuals

can be expected to occupy the Project Area during the summer months.

Little Skate (Leucoraja erinacea): Juveniles and Adults

Primary Source: Packer et al. (2003b)

Little skate are generally found on sandy or gravelly bottoms, but also occur on mud. The species

generally makes no extensive migrations, though when it occurs in inshore areas they may move

between inshore and offshore areas with seasonal temperature changes. This species is known to

remain buried in depressions during the day and are more active at night. Overall depth preference of

this species is 1 to 450 ft with a water temperature range between 2 to 15°C. Bottom trawls

conducted by NMFS from the Gulf of Maine to Cape Hatteras from 1963-2002 resulted in juveniles

most commonly found between 8 and 16°C and salinities at 32-33 ppt. Results from these trawls

indicated that adults were most commonly found between 4 and 16°C in the spring and 9 and 14°C in

the fall, and salinities at 32-33 ppt. Little skate have been found in the lower part of Chesapeake Bay,

particularly around the bay mouth in higher salinity waters. This species has been observed to leave

some estuaries for deeper water during warmer months.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 36 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Eggs are generally deposited in sandy bottoms, usually at depths less than 330 ft. Pregnant little

skate occur year-round, but spawning peaks may occur in October and May. Eggs would likely be

present in the lower part of the Chesapeake where higher salinities occur.

Project Area: Based on the habitat utilization of this species, juvenile and adult little skates would be

rare throughout the Project Area, although an occasional passing individual could occur within the

Project Area during the spring and fall months.

Rosette Skate (Leucoraja garmani virginica): Juveniles

Primary Source: Packer et al. (2003c)

Rosette skate is typically found on soft bottoms, including sand to mud bottoms, mud with echinoid

and ophiuroid fragments, and shell and pterpod ooze. It occurs in depths from 100 to 1,740 ft, but is

most common between 240 and 900 ft. In the Chesapeake Bight, rosette skate are typically found in

depths between 100 and 640 ft, generally at depth greater than 240 ft and appears to have a shoreward

movement during the summer. In the Chesapeake Bight, rosette skate has a temperature range

between 6 to 17°C, with a preference between 9 to 13°C, and a salinity range between 31 to 36 ppt,

with a preference between 35 to 36 ppt.

Project Area: Based on the habitat utilization of this species, juveniles would occur within the deep

waters of the offshore Project Area.

Winter Skate (Leucoraja ocellata): Juveniles and Adults

Primary Source: Packer et al. (2003d)

Similar to the little skate, winter skate are generally found on sandy or gravelly bottoms, but also

occur in mud. This species remains buried in depressions during the day and are most active at night.

Juvenile and adults winter skates have been caught at depths ranging from shoreline to 1,215 ft,

although most abundant at less than 365 ft. This species has been captured over a water temperature

range of -1.2 to 19°C. During the winter months, captures off the coast of the mid-Atlantic typically

occur when water temperatures range from 10 to 12°C. Winter skate are found in saline waters, with

adults in water with salinities greater than 30 ppt and juveniles found in slightly less saline waters,

generally around 25 to 30 ppt. Winter skate have been reported from the Chesapeake from December

to April in lower parts of the Bay with higher salinities.

Females with developed egg cases are found in summer and fall, though reproduction may possibly

occur throughout the year. Eggs are deposited in sandy or muddy flats.

Project Area: Based on the habitat utilization of this species, juvenile and adult little skates would be

rare throughout the Project Area, although an occasional passing individual could occur within the

Project Area during the winter months.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 37 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

4.2 NON EFH-DESIGNATED FISH AND CRUSTACEANS

This section provides information on life history and habitat requirements for important recreational

and commercial, non EFH-designated species that may occur within the proposed Project Terminal

Site since this area is most likely to be directly impacted by the proposed construction and the

additional areas (i.e., the vessel transit routes beginning at the demarcation of U.S. Territorial Waters

and continuing inland to Chesapeake Bay), are not likely to be significantly affected by the increase

in ship traffic as the majority of routes that will be traveled are over deep water. For this reason, the

focus of further non EFH-designated-species discussion will be placed on non EFH-designated

species that are most likely to occur within the Terminal Site of the propose Project Area and not

along prospective vessel transit routes.

Unlike the EFH-designated species, no life stages of importance have been designated for the non

EFH-designated species, and therefore each species assessment addresses all life stages of that

particular species. Conclusions regarding the likelihood of occurrence of each species and life

history stage in the Project Area are presented at the end of each species assessment. These species

includes striped bass (Morone saxatilis), blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), horseshoe crab (Limulus

polyphemus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulates), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), alewife

(Alosa pseudoharengus), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), American eel (Anguilla rostrata),

yellow perch (Perca flavescens), and white perch (Morone americana). Similar to the treatment of

EFH-designated species in Section 4.1, primary reference sources are cited once, at the beginning of

each summary. Available information on feeding habits of EFH-designated species and on benthic

resources in the Project Terminal Area is presented in the Section 4.4 of this EFH assessment report.

During the fish sampling survey conducted by AES in June and October of 2006, a total of 13 species

were captured in the proposed Project Terminal Area, with white perch being the most dominant in

both abundance and biomass. Table 2 provides the results of that survey.

Table 3. Trawl Catch Abundance, June and October 2006 Sampling.

Common Name Scientific Name Total

(number)

Percent

of Total

Total

(grams)

Percent

of Total

June

White perch Morone americana 390 84 15,563 88

Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus 42 9 976 6

Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 19 4 368 2

Striped bass Morone saxatilis 6 1 162 1

Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus 3 < 1 105 1

Blue crab Callinectes sapidus 2 < 1 450 2

Total: 462 100 100

October

White perch Morone americana 158 44 4,705 32

Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 114 32 3,921 27

Bay Anchovy Anchoa mitchilli 32 9 47 < 1

Blue crab Callinectes sapidus 30 8 4,448 30

Weakfish Cynoscion regalis 8 2 110 < 1

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 38 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Common Name Scientific Name Total

(number)

Percent

of Total

Total

(grams)

Percent

of Total

Summer Flounder Paralichthys dentatus 5 1 1,048 7

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus 3 < 1 61 < 1

Florida Pompano Trachinotus carolinus 3 < 1 53 < 1

Striped Bass Morone saxatilis 3 < 1 240 2

Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix 2 < 1 82 < 1

Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 1 < 1 20 < 1

Total: 359 100 14,735 100

Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis)

Primary Source: Fay et al. (1983)

Striped bass is a “generalist” species in that it can tolerate a variety of environmental conditions and

eat a variety of organisms. The mid-Atlantic distribution ranges from Cape Hatteras to the St.

Lawrence River, Canada. However, there are distinct populations associated with the Roanoke River,

Chesapeake Bay, Delaware River and the Hudson River. Striped bass are an anadromous species,

spawning once a year in fresh or nearly fresh water. Spawning for the mid-Atlantic region takes

place primarily in April, May and June. Striped bass eggs tolerate temperatures of 14 to 23°C, and

larvae tolerate temperatures of 10 to 24°C. Larvae generally stay in or near the area spawned.

Juvenile striped bass tolerate temperatures of 10 to 27°C and tend to remain in the river or estuarine

habitat where they were spawned. Adult striped bass tolerate temperatures of 0 to 30°C. Striped bass

are opportunistic carnivores with a diet that may consist of a mix of fish and various invertebrates. A

study of the mid-Atlantic stocks found that as their size increases, striped bass diet evolves from

invertebrates, to a mixture of fish and invertebrates, and then to a diet of primarily fish with various

invertebrates also consumed.

Project Area: Striped bass eggs and larvae are unlikely to be found in the Project Area since they are

spawned in fresh to nearly fresh water and the larvae stay in the area of spawning. Juvenile striped

bass also tend to remain in the spawning habitat but may use nearshore areas as a foraging area. Both

juvenile and adult stripped bass are likely to occupy the Project Area since the Chesapeake Bay serve

as an important nursery and forage area.

Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus)

Primary Source: Hill et al. (1989)

The blue crab is found in coastal waters from Massachusetts to South America. Its primary habitat is

in bays and brackish estuaries. Substrate preference varies with life stage. Areas with SAV and soft

sediments are important for juvenile crabs, which use the vegetation as refuge from predation. Adult

crabs prefer harder substrates such as sand, rock, or mud bottoms. Mating takes place primarily in

relatively low salinity waters in upper portions of estuaries and lower portions of rivers. After

mating, females migrate to high salinity waters in lower estuaries, sounds and nearshore spawning

areas. Juveniles then migrate to shallower, low salinity waters where they grow and mature. Blue

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 39 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

crabs are predators of commercially important clams and oysters, and serve as food for commercially

important species such as striped bass.

Project Area: Based on their range of habitat utilization and availability of food sources, all life

stages of blue crab are expected to occur in the Project Area.

Atlantic Horseshoe Crab (Limulus polyphemus)

Primary Source: Atlantic States Marine Fishery Commission (1998)

The horseshoe crab is a benthic arthropod that utilizes both estuarine and continental shelf habitats.

They are not a true “crab” and are classified in their own class (Merostomata), which is more closely

related to arachnids. Horseshoe crabs range from the Yucatan peninsula to northern Maine but are

most abundant between Virginia and New Jersey. The NMFS bottom trawl surveys from 1963-2002

show that 74 percent of the horseshoe crabs caught were in waters shallower than 66 ft. Horseshoe

crabs are ecological generalists that can survive in a range of environmental conditions. Studies

report that adult horseshoe crabs migrate from deep bay waters and the Atlantic continental shelf to

spawn on intertidal sandy beaches. Spawning generally occurs from March to July. Eggs are laid in

the sediment and hatch approximately 14 to 30 days after fertilization. Larvae may over-winter in the

sediment but when they emerge they generally settle in shallow water areas to molt. Juvenile

horseshoe crabs usually spend the first two years on intertidal flats near the breeding beaches. Older

individuals move out of intertidal areas to a few miles offshore, but some remain in intertidal areas

year round.

Larvae feed on a variety of small polychaetes and nematodes. Juvenile and adults horseshoe crabs

feed primarily on mollusks including various clams and blue mussels, but will prey on a wide variety

of benthic organisms.

Project Area: Based on their range of habitat utilization and availability of food sources, horseshoe

crabs are expected to occur in the Project Area.

Atlantic Croaker (Micropoqonias undulatus)

Primary Source: Diaz and Onuf (1985)

The Atlantic croaker spawns in the fall in marine waters. Spawning grounds are not clearly defined

and can range from the mouths of estuaries to continental shelf depth of at least 175 ft. Croaker eggs

are pelagic, and upon hatching, the larvae and postlarvae move into estuaries. It has been postulated

that larvae transport into the estuarine nursery grounds is from a combination of both passive current

transport and active swimming. Once recruited from nearshore marine waters in the fall and winter,

larvae move up the estuary to areas of brackish water and transition into juveniles. Juveniles take up

residence in the estuarine nursery area and are common in tidal riverine habitats. It has been reported

that due to the daily fluctuations of water level increase, juveniles in the Chesapeake Bay avoid

shallow areas and are concentrated in the deep, main channels of the estuaries.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 40 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Croaker can tolerate a wide range of temperatures with juveniles caught in water temperatures

ranging from 0 to 36°C. In general, the early life stages of the croaker are most tolerant to cold, and

adults are the least cold tolerant. This species also has a wide range of salinity tolerance and has been

found in salinities ranging from 0 to 70 ppt, with a salinity preference of 0.5 to 18 ppt. This species

prefers bare, soft muddy bottoms with areas that are covered with large quantities of detritus.

Project Area: Based on their range of habitat utilization and availability of food sources, Atlantic

croaker are expected to occur in the Project Area.

Spot (Micropogonias undulatus)

Primary Source: Phillips et al. (1989)

Most spot spawn offshore over the outer continental shelf, from October to March. However, some

spot have been observed to spawn inshore. Spot larvae are most dense in mid-water and at the

bottom during the day and appear to migrate to the surface at night. It has been postulated that

postlarvae spot are transported inshore by the water currents and from the incoming flood tide. In the

Chesapeake Bay, young spot remain in the estuaries until September or October, and then migrate out

of the estuary to the open ocean. The temperature preference of spot ranges between 8 to 31°C. This

species has been found at salinities ranging from 0 to 60 ppt, with a preference of 16 ppt or greater.

Project Area: Based on their range of habitat utilization and availability of food sources, larval and

juvenile spot are expected to occur in the Project Area, while eggs and adults would be rare

throughout the Project Area.

Alewife and Blueback Herring (Alosa pseudoharengus and A. aestivalis)

Primary Source: Mullen et al. (1986) and Pardue (1983)

Alewife and blueback herring (river herring) make spawning runs up all or nearly all streams with

access to lakes, ponds, and backwaters. River herring spawn once a year in spring or early summer in

fresh or brackish water. Alewife select a wide variety of spawning sites, using standing water and

oxbows, as well as mid-river sites, where blueback herring prefer to spawn in fast currents over hard

substrate. Eggs of river herring are initially demersal and adhesive in still water, but pelagic in

running water. After water-hardening, all eggs become pelagic and lose their adhesive properties.

Juveniles may remain in the lower ends of the rivers where spawning occurred, with some seasonal

(summer and fall) migration. In most Atlantic coast populations, juvenile river herring emigrate from

freshwater-estuarine areas between June and November of their first year. River herring larvae in the

Chesapeake Bay apparently remain near or slightly downstream of presumed spawning areas, with a

preferred water temperature range of 10.5 to 26.3°C and salinity of less than 12 ppt. Water

temperature preference of juvenile river herring ranged between 11.5 to 32°C and a salinity

preference of 29 to 32 ppt.

Project Area: Based on their range of habitat utilization, adult river herrings are expected to migrate

through the Project Area (to their spawning beds) prior to spawning season. Eggs and larvae tend to

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 41 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

remain near the spawning area and therefore would be rare in the Project Area. Juveniles are

expected to occur in the Project Area.

American Eel (Anguilla rostrata)

Primary Source: Facey and Van Den Avyle (1986)

The American eel is catadromous. It spends most of its life in rivers, freshwater lakes, and estuaries,

but returns to the sea to spawn. Spawning occurs in the Sargasso Sea as early as February and may

continue at least till April. Larval eels are transported from the spawning grounds to the eastern

Atlantic seaboard by the Antilles Current, Florida Current, and the Gulf Stream. Once there, larval

eels begin migrating upstream. Most larval eels move into coastal areas, estuaries, and up freshwater

rivers in late winter or early spring. Male juvenile and adult eels tend to be more abundant in

estuaries than in upriver areas. Due to the broad geographic range and diverse habitats, American eel

has a flexible and broad range of temperature and salinity requirements. Larvae have been found in

temperatures as low as –0.8°C while the preferred water temperature range of juveniles and adults

ranged between 6 to 30°C. Post-larval eels tend to be bottom dwellers and hide in burrows, tubes,

snags, plant masses, other types of shelter, or the substrate itself. Flow alteration in estuaries can

affect upstream migration of small eels. Similarly, tide and time of day can also play a role in

limiting movement up tidal creeks.

Project Area: Based on their range of habitat utilization, adult eels are expected to migrate through

the Project Area (to their spawning beds) prior to spawning season. Eggs will not be present in the

Project Area. Larval and juveniles are expected to occur in the Project Area during their migration

upriver.

Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens)

Primary Source: Krieger et al. (1983)

This species is predominantly a freshwater species, although it has been found in brackish water at

river mouths (up to 13 ppt) in the Chesapeake Bay. This species is frequently associated with

shoreline (littoral) areas in lakes and reservoirs where there are moderate amount of vegetation

present. This species require freshwater for spawning and spawning migrations begin from deep

water into tributaries, lake shallows, or low velocity areas of rivers from April to June when water

temperature reach 7 to 13°C. The preferred water temperature of adults ranges from 17.6 to 25°C.

Habitat requirements of juveniles are similar to those of adults, with a preferred water temperature

range of 20 to 23°C.

Project Area: Based on their range of habitat utilization, eggs and larvae will not be present in the

Project Area. Juveniles and adults may be present, but would be very rare throughout the Project

Area.

White Perch (Morone americana)

Primary Source: Stanley and Danie (1983)

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 42 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

White perch are ubiquitous in estuaries and freshwater ecosystems, preferring substrates with fairly

level bottoms composed of compact silt, mud, clay, or sand. White perch species spawn in estuaries,

rivers, lakes, and marshes, typically in freshwater but may occur in brackish water at salinities up to

4.2 ppt. Preferred spawning habitats encompass a range of environmental conditions, including

waters that are tidal and nontidal, clear or turbid, fast or slow. Eggs are demersal and usually attach

singly to detritus, although thin sheets occasionally occur. The preferred water temperature for white

perch eggs ranges between 15 and 20°C. Newly hatched larvae remain in the general spawning area

during the first couple of weeks. As larvae grow, they alternatively swim vertically or sink,

exhibiting an increase in demersal preference. Larvae have a similar temperature tolerance as eggs,

with a salinity tolerance of up to 3 to 5 ppt. The inshore zones of estuaries and creeks are nursery

grounds for white perch, where juveniles have been observed to remain there for up to a year.

Juveniles also exhibit a preference for demersal habitat, and occasionally migrate to offshore waters

during the day, but return to the protected beach and shoal areas at night and during rough waters.

Adults show similar seasonal movements, catalyzed by temperature. The preferred water

temperature of juveniles and adults ranges from 2.0 to 32.5°C, with a salinity tolerance ranging from

fresh to sea water.

Project Area: Eggs and larvae would be rare throughout the Project Area. However, juveniles and

adults would be common year-round through the Project Area. During the June 2006 fish survey,

white perch were by far the most common species caught in terms of individuals and biomass,

accounting for nearly 90% of biomass collected.

4.3 PREY SPECIES

Principal prey items for EFH-designated species, identified as probable occupants of the proposed

Project Area, are listed in Table 4. Adults and juveniles with different diets are listed separately.

Of the 27 EFH-designated bony-fish species identified (including the snapper-grouper complex), 13

exhibit both pelagic and benthic feeding preferences during there juvenile and adult stages, 10 exhibit

preferences for pelagic prey species, and four prefer feeding on benthos. Of the 13 EFH-designated

shark/skate species identified, five exhibit both pelagic and benthic feeding preferences during there

juvenile and adult stages, four exhibit preferences for pelagic prey species, and four prefer a benthic

feeding strategy.

The non EFH-designated fish and shellfish assessed in this report (those that are most likely to occur

in the Project Terminal Site Area) all feed on benthic and infaunal organisms. Juvenile striped bass,

as noted above, have diets that include various benthic and infaunal organisms, but adults of these

species primarily feed on fish. Blue crabs forage on the benthos and have diets that consist mainly of

benthic invertebrates.

Table 4. Prey Species for EFH-Designated Fish Species and Life History Stages Likely To

Occupy the Project Area.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 43 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Species Zone* Principal Prey

FISH

Albacore tuna BP Fish, crustaceans, and squid

Atlantic butterfish P Adults feed mainly on jellyfish; juveniles feed primarily on plankton

Atlantic mackerel BP Zooplankton, small fish, benthic and planktonic crustaceans, and

mollusks

Atlantic sea herring BP Juveniles eat small planktonic copepods; adults consume planktonic and

benthic crustaceans, some fish, and planktonic invertebrates

Black sea bass BP Finfish and benthic crustaceans

Bluefin tuna P Small schooling fishes and benthic crustaceans; juveniles also eat octopi

Bluefish BP Fish, benthic and planktonic crustaceans, and cephalopods

Cero P Both juveniles and adults eat fish; adults also eat cephalopods and shrimp

Cobia BP Both juveniles and adults eat fish; while adults also eat crabs and squid

Dolphinfish BP Fish, cephalopods, zooplankton, crustaceans, and squid

King mackerel P Fish, penaeid shrimp, and squid

Little tunny BP Crustaceans, fish, squids, heteropods and tunicates; while juveniles

mostly eat fish, and planktonic and benthic crustaceans

Monkfish P Fish

Red drum BP Fish, benthic crustaceans, shrimp, and mollusks

Red hake BP Shrimp, amphipods and other crustaceans, squid, herring, flatfish,

mackerel, etc.

Scup BP Amphipods, worms, sand dollars, and squid

Skipjack P Benthic and planktonic crustaceans, fish, cephalopods, and mollusks

Snapper-grouper

complex (73

species)

P Fish and large invertebrates

Spanish mackerel P Small fish (clupeoids and anchovies), crustaceans, penaeoid shrimp, and

cephalopods

Summer flounder BP Benthic and planktonic crustaceans, bivalves, mollusks, marine worms,

and finfish

Swordfish P Fish, crustaceans, and squid

Whiting BP Both juveniles and adults eat fish and squid; juveniles also eat shrimp

and euphausiids

Windowpane B Fish, small crustaceans, zooplankton, and zoobenthos

Winter flounder B Shrimp, amphipods, crabs, sea urchins, and snails

Witch flounder B Both juveniles and adults eat bivalves and planktonic crustaceans; while

adults also consume benthic crustaceans, polychaetes, and brittle stars

Yellowfin tuna P Fish, crabs and shrimp, squid, mollusks, and planktonic crustaceans

Yellowtail flounder B Polychaete worms and amphipods, echinoderms, shrimp, isopods and

other crustaceans and occasionally fish

SHARKS/SKATES

Atlantic sharpnose

shark

BP Fish, shrimp, crabs, worms, and mollusks segmented worms and

mollusks

Blue shark BP Fish, sharks, squid, pelagic red crabs, shrimp, cetacean carrion, sea birds,

and garbage

Clearnose skate B Decapod crustaceans, bivalves, polychaetes, squid and fish

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 44 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Species Zone* Principal Prey

Dusky shark BP Fish, sharks, skates, rays, cephalopods, gastropods, crustaceans, carrion,

and inorganic objects; NOTE: is it spelled Carcharinus

Little skate B Primarily scallops

Rosette skate B Decapod crustaceans, amphipods, polychaetes, squid, and fish

Sand tiger shark BP Fish, sharks, rays, squid, crabs, and lobsters

Sandbar shark P Fish, sharks, cephalopods, shrimp, rays, and gastropods

Scalloped

hammerhead shark

P Fish, cephalopods, lobsters, shrimp, crabs, sharks, and rays

Shortfin mako shark P Fish, sharks, cephalopods, billfish, and cetaceans

Spiny dogfish BP Fish, mollusks, crustaceans, and other invertebrates; NOTE they call it

piked dogfish

Tiger shark P Sharks, rays, fish, marine mammals, tortoises, seabirds, sea snakes,

squid, gastropods, crustaceans, detritus porpoises, whales, sea turtles,

cephalopods, domestic animals and humans

Winter skate B Fish, crabs, shrimp, bivalves, and marine worms

*B=Benthic, BP=Benthic & Pelagic, P=Pelagic

Source: Froese and Pauly (2006).

5.0 IMPACTS

This section identifies the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed Project on

the relevant life history stages of EFH-designated species, their habitats, and their prey species. It

also addresses potential impacts to non EFH-designated species that have important commercial

and/or recreational value (as explained previously, this discussion is limited to species that may occur

within the Project Terminal Site Area) and endangered and/or rare species, their habitat, and their

potential prey species that may occur in the Project Area. Significant impacts are not anticipated for

the majority of species and life history stages. Table 5 identifies potential direct and indirect impacts

for each EFH-designated species. Table 6 identifies potential direct and indirect impacts for each non

EFH-designated species with important commercial and/or recreational value in the Project Terminal

Area.

In regard to the Terminal Site, there will be temporary impacts to the habitat and associated prey

species for the duration of the Project. However, since the Project Terminal Site Area is a small

portion of this type of habitat in the region, the overall impact on the affected species will be

minimal. In regard to prospective vessel transit routes, no direct or indirect impacts to habitat are

expected (although some mortality to individuals may occur) given the overall depth of the water that

will most likely be traversed by LNG carriers, provided they adhere to United States Coast Guard

navigation rules and obey the Traffic Separation Scheme that has been implemented for Chesapeake

Bay (Pearson et al. 1989).

5.1 HABITAT IMPACTS

As discussed previously, no HAPC’s are known to occur within the proposed Project Terminal Area

but several may occur along potential vessel transit routes (although these routes have not been

determined as of yet and will most likely depend on fluctuating factors such as weather and market

trends). All but one of these areas can be found on the south Atlantic coasts of North and South

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 45 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Carolina; specifically within the areas of The Point, 10 Fathom Ledge, Big Rock, Georgetown Hole,

the Charleston Bump Complex, and in areas adjacent to the Outer Banks, Cape Hatteras, and the

Ocracoke Islands (NMFS 2006b; SAMFC 1998). The remaining HAPC has been identified in the

lower region of Chesapeake Bay and is thought to be used as nursery and pupping grounds by

sandbar sharks (NMFS 2006b). No direct or indirect impacts to habitat are expected given the overall

depth of the water that will most likely be traversed by LNG carriers and that no ballast will be

released or drawn while in transit. Furthermore, a survey for SAV resulted in no locations where

SAV was present in the Project Terminal Area, or in potential locations within approximately two

miles of the Project Area. The results of this survey are supported by additional surveys that have

been completed recently (Orth et al. 2005).

The proposed Project also involves the extraction of sediment from an area that has been dredged in

the past; no new areas will be dredged. Existing habitat in this area is likely already impaired due to

the presence of contaminants and relatively low dissolved oxygen levels in the water column.

Material will be removed from the Project Area using a mechanical clamshell dredge, unless

sediment testing and/or permitting indicates that a different extraction method—such as the use of an

environmental bucket—is warranted. Material will be placed onto barges and transferred to an

upland location for processing. The final dredged material disposal site will be an appropriate upland

location, so no fish species or habitat impacts are anticipated as a result of disposal activities.

Dredging production is expected to be up to 12,000 cubic yards per day and last approximately 24

months. It is anticipated that ten (10) to fourteen (14) 1,500 to 3,500-cubic yard work scows will be

assigned to the project for dredged material transport. All scows and containers will be of solid hull

construction and will be completely sealed and watertight in order to avoid any release of dredge

material.

Note that the area to be used for LNG vessel approach and maneuvering has been dredged in the past

and maintains a permit issued by the USACE and Water Quality Certification from the State of

Maryland to perform dredging using hydraulic or mechanical techniques. Dredging is allowed under

existing permit for maintenance and waterfront operations to a depth of less than 39 ft across

approximately the same area as would be developed for the Sparrows Point LNG terminal project.

5.1.1 Hydrodynamic Changes

Changes to the circulation of the Patapsco River are not anticipated as a result of this project.

Changes to the bottom topography are anticipated in the areas to be dredged, but are insignificant

relative to the remaining portions of the estuary which would be untouched.

5.1.2 Water Quality

Water quality data recorded by AES in 2006 are similar to data collected during previous studies of

the relatively well-studied harbor (e.g., Dail et al. 1998; Hall et al. 2002; MDDNR 2005). Previous

records suggest that the quality of water found within and around the proposed Project Area is

severely degraded and it is unlikely that the proposed construction will cause any additional long

term impacts, although short term impacts such as elevations in turbulence, turbidity, nutrients, and

wave action are likely to occur in the water column as a result of dredging and vessel transit.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 46 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Physical bottom disturbances attributed to dredge operation or propeller turbulence may decrease

oxygen availability and increase internal nutrient loading and phytoplankton productivity, ultimately

impacting water quality (Riemann and Hoffmann 1991). Additionally, any contaminants residing in

the sediment may be disrupted during the course of these events and become resuspended and

contribute further to a decrease in overall water quality (Savino et al. 1994). Federal and state

permitting will likely include conditions intended to address these issues, and therefore no significant

water quality impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed Project.

5.2 DIRECT IMPACTS

There are potential direct impacts that could affect EFH-designated species, non EFH-designated

commercially and/or recreational important fish and shellfish species that are in the Project Area. For

those species expected to occur along the proposed vessel transit route, mortality associated with ship

movements and operations (such as propeller wash) may be expected for coastal pelagic and highly

migratory species whose egg and larval stages are planktonic (Holland 1986; Nielsen et al. 1986;

Pearson et al. 1989); although little or no direct impact is expected for the juvenile and adult stages of

these species given their mobility. Additionally, no direct or indirect impacts to benthic habitat or

bottom-dwelling finfish are expected as the potential LNG carrier routes will likely traverse very

deep waters. The potential direct impact of the dredging operation to invertebrates and fishes near or

associated with the benthic environment is mortality resulting from capture or displacement by the

dredging apparatus. However, rates of capture or displacement of EFH-designated fish are likely to

be quite limited, and overall species impact should be minimal (Table 5; Newell et al. 1998).

Dredging in the Project Terminal Site Area would also cause the mortality of any juvenile EFHdesignated bottom fish and shellfish that are removed from the bottom along with sediment. This

type of direct impact is expected to be primarily limited to small, juvenile windowpane and summer

flounder. The overall mortalities of an individual finfish species would likely be quite limited, since

these fish species are likely rare, transient visitors to the Terminal Site and most fish are capable of

avoiding the dredge as it approaches (Table 5). Additionally, these two species are more commonly

associated with sandy substrate, whereas the majority of the substrate that would be dredged is made

mostly of silty material (Nielsen et al. 1986; Newell et al. 1998).

None of the other EFH-designated fish species or life history stages that are likely to occupy the

Project Terminal Site Area are at risk because they are either pelagic species or adult demersal

species (of which, only juveniles are at risk).

Non EFH-designated species such as striped bass have important recreational and commercial value

in this region. Adult striped bass are unlikely to be directly affected by the dredging, as they would

likely avoid the disturbance (Table 6; Peddicord and McFarland 1978). Juvenile striped bass likely

forage in this area and may also be displaced by the dredge if they are in the immediate area of the

dredging. Similarly, juvenile spot, adult or juvenile white perch, adult or juvenile yellow perch, or

Atlantic croaker could be displaced by the dredge if they are in the immediate area during dredge

operations. The Project Terminal Site Area is, however, a very small portion of the habitat used as a

nursery and foraging area for these species, so the overall impacts on these populations as a result of

the dredging will be minimal (Table 6). American eel, alewives, and blueback herring are

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 47 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

predominantly found in the Project Area only as transitory species, and therefore are not likely to be

significantly impacted by dredging operations.

Table 5. Potential Impacts for EFH-Designated Species and Life History Stages in the

Proposed Project Area.

Species Stage Potential Impacts

Fish TS = Terminal Site / VR = Vessel Transit Route

Albacore tuna Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Eggs VR: Pelagic – may be impacted by vessel passage.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Larvae VR: Pelagic – may be impacted by vessel passage.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Atlantic butterfish

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Atlantic mackerel

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Atlantic sea herring

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Larvae VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Black sea bass

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Bluefin tuna

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Eggs VR: Pelagic – may be impacted by vessel passage.

TS: No impact; eggs are not found in estuarine waters.

Larvae VR: Pelagic – may be impacted by vessel passage.

TS: No significant impact; larvae are rare in estuarine waters.

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Temporary displacement of fish and their prey (forage fish). No

significant impact.

Bluefish

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: No significant impact.

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Cero

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 48 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Species Stage Potential Impacts

Fish TS = Terminal Site / VR = Vessel Transit Route

Eggs VR: Pelagic – may be impacted by vessel passage.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Larvae VR: Pelagic – may be impacted by vessel passage.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Cobia

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Transient, rare pelagic species. No significant impact.

Eggs VR: Pelagic – may be impacted by vessel passage.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Larvae VR: Pelagic – may be impacted by vessel passage.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Dolphinfish

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Eggs VR: Surface distribution – likely to be impacted by vessel traffic.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Larvae VR: Surface distribution – likely to be impacted by vessel traffic.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

King mackerel

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Transient, rare pelagic species. No significant impact.

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Little tunny

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Eggs VR: Pelagic – may be impacted by vessel passage.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Larvae VR: Pelagic – may be impacted by vessel passage.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Monkfish

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Eggs VR: Pelagic – may be impacted by vessel passage.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Larvae VR: May be impacted by vessel traffic around coastal inlets.

TS: No significant impact.

Juveniles VR: May be impacted by vessel traffic around coastal inlets.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Red drum

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area because of low salinities.

Eggs VR: Pelagic – may be impacted by vessel passage to/from the north.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Larvae VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Red hake

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 49 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Species Stage Potential Impacts

Fish TS = Terminal Site / VR = Vessel Transit Route

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Scup

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Skipjack tuna Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Eggs VR: HAPC; Demersal – no impact likely from vessel traffic.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Larvae VR: HAPC; Pelagic – may be impacted by vessel passage.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles VR: HAPC; no significant impact likely due to habitat depth.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Snapper-grouper

complex

Adults VR: HAPC; no significant impact likely due to habitat depth.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Eggs VR: Pelagic – may be impacted by vessel passage.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Larvae VR: Pelagic – may be impacted by vessel passage.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Spanish mackerel

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Transient, rare pelagic species. No significant impact.

Eggs VR: Pelagic – may be impacted by vessel passage during Dec-Jan.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Larvae VR: Pelagic – may be impacted by vessel passage.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Loss of benthic infaunal prey organisms would have minimal

impact because fish also feed on pelagic prey organisms.

Summer flounder

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Loss of benthic infaunal prey organisms would have minimal

impact because fish also feed on pelagic prey organisms and

larger, more mobile benthic epifauna (e.g., crabs).

Swordfish Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Whiting

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Eggs VR: Pelagic – may be impacted by vessel passage during May-Aug.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Windowpane

Larvae VR: Pelagic – may be impacted by vessel passage.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 50 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Species Stage Potential Impacts

Fish TS = Terminal Site / VR = Vessel Transit Route

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Smaller YOY juveniles vulnerable to mortality/displacement

from dredge. No significant impact from loss of benthic infaunal

species because primary prey are more mobile epifaunal species.

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: No significant impact from loss of benthic infaunal species

because primary prey are more mobile epifaunal species.

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: No significant impact from loss of benthic infaunal species

because primary prey are more mobile epifaunal species.

Winter flounder

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: No significant impact from loss of benthic infaunal species

because primary prey are more mobile epifaunal species.

Eggs VR: Pelagic – may be impacted by vessel passage.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Witch flounder

Larvae VR: Pelagic – may be impacted by vessel passage.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Yellowfin tuna

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Yellowtail flounder Larvae VR: Pelagic – may be impacted by vessel passage.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

SHARKS/SKATES

Atlantic sharpnose

shark

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Blue shark Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: No significant impact.

Clearnose skate

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: No significant impact.

Dusky shark Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: No significant impact.

Little skate

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: No significant impact.

Rosette skate Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Sand tiger shark Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles VR: HAPC; Pelagic – may be impacted by vessel passage.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Sandbar shark

Adults VR: HAPC; Pelagic – may be impacted by vessel passage.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 51 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Species Stage Potential Impacts

Fish TS = Terminal Site / VR = Vessel Transit Route

Scalloped

hammerhead shark

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Shortfin mako shark

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Spiny dogfish

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Tiger shark

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: No significant impact.

Winter skate

Adults VR: No significant impact from vessel traffic likely to occur.

TS: No significant impact.

Table 6. Potential Impacts for Non-EFH Designated Species with Commercial and/or

Recreational Value in the Proposed Project Terminal Area.

Species Stage Potential Impacts

Eggs No significant impact.

Larvae No significant impact.

Juveniles Smaller juveniles vulnerable to displacement from dredge. Loss of

benthic prey species.

Striped Bass

Adults Loss of benthic prey would have minimal impact; fish also feed on

pelagic prey organisms and larger, mobile benthic epifauna.

Eggs Eggs attached to females would be lost if crab is removed by dredge.

Larvae No significant impacts.

Juveniles Juveniles are susceptible to mortality from dredge.

Blue Crab

Adults Loss of infaunal prey species. Dredge could cause mortality but crabs

are likely to avoid it.

Eggs No significant impact.

Larvae No significant impact.

Juveniles Vulnerable to displacement from dredge activities.

Atlantic croaker

Adults Displacement from dredge activities.

Eggs Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Larvae No significant impact.

Juveniles Vulnerable to displacement from dredge activities.

Spot

Adults Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Eggs No significant impact.

Larvae No significant impact.

Juveniles Older Juveniles could be removed by dredge. Loss of infaunal prey

species.

Atlantic Horseshoe

Crab

Adults Dredge could cause mortality. Loss of infaunal prey species.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 52 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Species Stage Potential Impacts

Eggs Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Larvae Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles No significant impact, as transitory in Project Area.

Alewife/Blueback

herring

Adults No significant impact, as transitory in Project Area.

Eggs Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Larvae Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles No significant impact, as transitory in Project Area.

American Eel

Adults No significant impact, as transitory in Project Area.

Eggs Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Larvae Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles No significant impact, as only rarely occurs in Project Area.

Yellow Perch

Adults No significant impact, as only rarely occurs in Project Area.

Eggs Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Larvae Unlikely to occur in Project Area.

Juveniles Vulnerable to displacement by dredging activities.

White Perch

Adults Vulnerable to displacement by dredging activities.

The blue crab is a non EFH-designated but commercially important crustacean species found in the

Project Area. Both blue crab juveniles and adults forage along the bottom, so some degree of

mortality within these two life stages is expected to occur as a result of dredging. An investigation

for the NY & NJ Harbor Navigation Study (USACE 1999) suggested that blue crabs prefer shoals

and shallower areas and may not be that common in the deeper channel of the Project Area. Adult

blue crabs are extremely mobile and are likely able to avoid a slow moving dredge. Juvenile blue

crabs are more likely to be removed by the dredge. The overall direct impact to the blue crab

population as a result of the proposed dredging is expected to be small (Table 6). Following similar

reasoning, the overall direct impact to horseshoe crabs is also anticipated to be insignificant.

Significant increases in sedimentation and turbidity could potentially lead to gill abrasion and cause

suffocation to fish species in the Project Area as well as hinder predation efficiency by visually

limiting feeding fish at or adjacent to the Project Area.

5.3 INDIRECT IMPACTS

No significant indirect impacts would likely result from the increase in vessel traffic along the

potential transit routes. The most significant impact of dredging on EFH in the Patapsco River would

be the indirect effects caused by the removal of benthic infaunal prey organisms, and some epifaunal

prey organisms, for bottom-feeding EFH-designated species and non EFH-designated species that

have important commercial and or recreational value. Any benthic organism that lives within the

sediment (infauna) and the smaller, less motile organisms that live on top of the bottom substrate

(epifauna) and are not capable of avoiding the dredge, would be pumped aboard the dredge vessel

with the sand.

The negative effects of prey removal are temporary, lasting only as long as it takes for benthic

invertebrates to re-colonize the bottom. Larvae of re-colonizing invertebrate species would be

readily available from adult populations that inhabit the areas on either side of the channel.

Therefore, while there would be an immediate loss of some prey resources to some bottom feeding

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 53 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

EFH-designated species and some non EFH-designated species with commercial and/or recreational

value, the overall indirect impact of the dredging on the prey organisms of these species will be small

as re-colonization would take place shortly after, perhaps within months as reported in other studies

of dredged areas (Reish 1979 and Pagliai et al. 1985)

The temporary loss of benthic prey resources caused by dredging would not have any serious adverse

effects on EFH for any species that feeds primarily on more motile epifaunal organisms or fish, since

these organisms would re-occupy the dredged area almost immediately after material was removed.

For this reason, most of the EFH species and non EFH-designated but commercially and/or

recreationally important species in the Project Area would probably continue to feed there even after

the dredge passed through (Tables 4 and 5).

Any bottom-feeding finfish that had trouble finding sufficient prey in the Channel following dredging

would simply re-locate to the adjacent shoal water areas or to an unaffected portion of the Channel to

feed. Any pelagic piscivorous (fish-feeding) species might leave the immediate area where the

dredge was operating because of the noise it produces, but would resume feeding as soon as the

dredge leaves and forage fish re-occupy the area.

5.4 CUMULATIVE AND SYNERGISTIC IMPACTS

A cumulative impact is defined in 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7 as:

The impact on the environment which results from incremental impact of the action when

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what

agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts can

result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period

of time.

A possible cumulative and/or synergistic impact associated with the proposed increase in vessel

traffic (and associated transit routes) could result inasmuch that an overall increase in

ocean/bay/harbor traffic may increase the mortality rate of planktonic eggs and larvae (Holland 1986;

Nielsen et al. 1986; Pearson et al. 1989). It is not yet (and may never be) known if the relationship

between traffic and mortality would be linear or exponential with the latter of which being the least

desirable. With respect to the Terminal Site construction component, a cumulative and/or synergistic

impact could result if effects arising from dredging are combined with impacts of other nearby

dredging projects, if any, to cause a greater impact than the additive effect of each individual impact.

If a dredging event occurs adjacent to the Project site, the re-colonization rate of the newly dredged

site might be slower due to the disturbed state of the Project site. Also, dredging near the Project site

may diminish the rate at which re-colonization of the Project site occurs. However, other dredging

projects in the Project vicinity are periodic and would likely enable re-colonization to occur.

Synergistic effects associated with water quality changes due to resuspension of sediment are not

expected to occur. Resuspended sediment is expected to rapidly settle, and currents in this area

would rapidly disperse suspended sediments that remain in the water column. Therefore, the

cumulative and synergistic impacts associated with this project are expected to be minimal.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 54 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

6.0 CONCLUSION

This assessment concludes that, overall, potential adverse impacts to EFH-designated species and

EFH in the Project Area will be minimal. Most EFH-designated species are highly mobile and will

not be impacted by ship movements along potential transit routes. In regard to the dredging

component of the proposed Project, most EFH-designated species feed on more motile epifaunal

organisms or on small forage fish and would not be seriously affected by temporary construction

impacts. For any bottom-feeding EFH species, the impact of dredging on local forage habitat area

would be temporary, lasting only until the dredged area is re-colonized by new benthic organisms, a

process that is expected to take less than a year. For these reasons, we conclude that the proposed

increase in vessel traffic and proposed dredging of Baltimore Harbor in the Project Area will not

cause adverse effects to EFH-designated species and EFH, thereby alleviating the need for mitigation

measures.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 55 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

7.0 REFERENCES

Ashley, J.T.F., and J.E. Baker. 1999. Hydrophobic organic contaminants in surficial sediments of

Baltimore Harbor: inventories and sources. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

18:838-849.

Atlantic States Marine Fishery Commission. 1998. Interstate Fishery Management Plan for

Horseshoe Crab. Fisheries Management Report .No. 32. 52 p.

Bigelow, H.B., and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. Fishery Bulletin of the Fish

and Wildlife Service, Bulletin 74, Volume 53. Washington, D.C.

Buckley, J. 1984. Habitat suitability index models: larval and juvenile red drum. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-82/10.74. 15 p.

Cargnelli, L.M., S.J. Griesbach, C. McBride, C.A. Zetlin, and W.M. Morse. 1999a. Essential fish

habitat source document: longfin inshore squid, Loligo pealeii, life history and habitat

characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-146. U.S. Department of

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fishery

Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. 27 p.

Cargnelli, L.M., S.J. Griesbach, D.B. Packer, and E. Weissberger. 1999b. Essential fish habitat

source document: ocean quahog, Arctica islandica, life history and habitat characteristics.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-148. U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast

Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. 11 p.

Cargnelli, L.M., S.J. Griesbach, D.B. Packer, and E. Weissberger. 1999c. Essential fish habitat

source document: Atlantic surfclam, Spisula solidissima, life history and habitat

characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-142. U.S. Department of

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fishery

Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. 13 p.

Castro, J.I. 1983. The sharks of North American waters. Texas A&M University Press,College

Station, Texas. 180 p.

Chang S., P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, and W.W. Morse. 1999. Essential fish habitat source

document: windowpane, Scophthalmus aquosus, life history and habitat characteristics.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-137. U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast

Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. 32 p.

Chesapeake Bay Program. 2006. Cobia, General Information.

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/info/cobia.cfm (Retrieved August 2006).

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 56 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Collette, B.B., and C.E. Nauen. 1983. FAO species catalogue. Scombrids of the world. An

annotated and illustrated catalogue of tunas, mackerels, bonitos and related species known to

date. FAO Fish Synopsis 125(2):137 p.

Compagno, L.J.V. 1984. FAO species catalogue. Sharks of the world. An annotated and illustrated

catalogue of shark species known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 125, Vol. 4, Part 1

(Hexanchiformes to Lamniformes) and Part 2 (Carchariniformes). United Nations Fisheries

and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. 655 p.

Compagno, L.J.V. 2002. Sharks of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark

species known to date. Bullhead, mackerel and carpet sharks (Heterodontiformes,

Lamniformes and Orectolobiformes). FAO Species Catalogue for Fishery Purposes 1(2):269

p.

Cross, J.N., C.A. Zetlin, P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, and C. McBride. 1999. Essential fish habitat

source document: butterfish, Peprilus triacanthus, life history and habitat characteristics.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-145. U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast

Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. 42 p.

Dail, H.M., P.F. Kazyak, D.M. Boward, S.A. Stranko. 1998. Patapsco River Basin, Environmental

Assessment of Stream Conditions. Annapolis, MD: Maryland Department of Natural

Resources, Resource Assessment Service. 30 p (plus appendices).

Diaz, R.J. and C.P. Onuf. 1985. Habitat suitability index models: juvenile Atlantic croaker (revised).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 82(10.98). 23 p.

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2006. Annual Energy Outlook 2006 with Projections to

2030. Report #:DOE/EIA-0383(2006). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy,

Energy Information Administration. 129 p (plus appendices).

Facey, D.E. and M.J. Van Den Avyle. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental

requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (North Atlantic) -- American eel. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 82(11.74). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL82-4. 28 p.

Fay, C.W., R.J. Neves, and G.B. Garland. 1983. Species profiles: life histories and environmental

requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) – striped bass. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Biological Report 82(11.8). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4,

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 36 p.

Froese, R., and D. Pauly, eds. 2006. FishBase (06/2006). www.fishbase.org (Retrieved November

28 and 29, 2006).

Gibbs, R.H., Jr., and B.B. Collette. 1959. On the identification, distribution and biology of the dolphins,

Coryphaena hippurus and C. equiselis. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Caribb. 9(2):117-152.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 57 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Godcharles, M.F. and M.D. Murphy. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental

requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (south Florida) – king mackerel and Spanish

mackerel. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 82(11.58). U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, TR EL-82-4, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 18 p.

Hill, J., D.L. Fowler, and M.J. Van Den Avyle. 1989. Species profiles: life histories and

environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) -- blue crab.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 82(11.100). U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, TR EL-82-4, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 18 p.

Hall, L.W., R. D. Anderson, R. W. Alden III. 2002. A Ten Year Summary of Concurrent Ambient

Water Column and Sediment Toxicity Tests in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: 1990–1999.

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 76(3):311–352.

Holland, LE. 1986. Effects of Barge Traffic on Distribution and Survival of Ichthyoplankton and

Small Fishes in the Upper Mississippi River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society

(TAFSAI) 115(1):162-165.

Johnson, D.L., W.W. Morse, P.L. Berrien, and J.J. Vitaliano. 1999. Essential fish habitat source

document: yellowtail flounder, Limanda ferruginea, life history and habitat characteristics.

NOAA Technical Memorandum MNFS-NE-140. U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast

Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. 29 p.

Knickle, C. 2002a. Description of dusky shark – Carcharhinus obscurus.

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/duskyshark/duskyshark.html (Retrieved

November 6, 2006).

Knickle, C. 2002b. Description of sandbar shark – Carcharhinus plumbeus.

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/Sandbarshark/sandbarshark.htm (Retrieved

November 6, 2006)..

Knickle, C. 2002c. Description of tiger shark – Galeocerdo cuvier.

http://www.flmnh.efl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/Tigershark/tigershark.htm (Retrieved

November 6, 2006)..

Krieger, D.A., J.W. Terrell, and P.C. Nelson. 1983. Habitat suitability information: yellow perch.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-83/10.55. 37 p.

Long, E. R., D. D. MacDonald, S. L. Smith, and F. D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological

effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments.

Environmental Management 19:81-87.

Luca, M.C., S.J. Griesbach, D.B. Packer, P.L. Berrien, W.W. Morse, and D.L. Johnson. 1999.

Essential fish habitat source document: witch flounder, Glyptocephalus cynoglossus, life

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 58 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

history and habitat characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-139. U.S.

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National

Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. 29 p.

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2004. Maryland’s 2004 Section 303(d) List.

http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/TMDL/Maryland%20303%20dlist/fin

al_2004_303dlist.asp (Retrieved January 9, 2006)..

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2002. Maryland Final Integrated 303(d) List.

http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/TMDL/Maryland%20303%20dlist/20

02_303d_list.asp (Retrieved January 9, 2006).

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2001. TMDL for Chlordane in the Baltimore

Harbor, Baltimore City, MD.

http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/TMDL/ApprovedFinalTMDL/tmdl_ba

ltoharbor.asp (Retrieved January 9, 2006).

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDDNR). 2005. Maryland Department of Natural

Resources Water Quality Status and Trends Database.

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/tribstrat/patapsco/pb_status_trends.html (Retrieved January 9,

2006).

Mason, R.P. and A.L. Lawrence. 1999. Concentration, distribution, and bioavailability of mercury

and methylmercury in sediments of Baltimore Harbor and Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, USA.

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18:2438-2447.

Mather, F.J., J.M. Mason, and A.C. Jones. 1995. Historical document: life history and fisheries of

Atlantic bluefin tuna. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-370. 165 p.

McGee, B.L., D.J. Fisher, L.T. Yonkos, G.P. Ziegler, S. Turley. 1999. Assessment of sediment

contamination, acute toxicity, and population viability of the estuarine amphipod

Leptocheirus plumulosus in Baltimore Harbor, Maryland, USA. Environmental Toxicology

and Chemistry 18:2151-2160.

McMillan, D.G. and W.W. Morse. 1999. Essential fish habitat source document: Spiny Dogfish,

Squalus acanthius, life history and habitat characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum

NMFS-NE-150. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center,

Woods Hole, MA. 19 p.

Morse, W. W., D. L. Johnson, P. L. Berrien, and S. J. Wilk. 1999. Essential fish habitat source

document: Silver Hake, Merluccius bilinearis, life history and habitat characteristics. NOAA

Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-135. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries

Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. 42 p.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 59 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Mullen, D.M., C.W. Fay, and J.R. Moring. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental

requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (North Atlantic) -- alewife/blueback herring.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 82(11.56). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

TR EL-82-4. 21 p.

Natanson, L.J., J.G. Casey, and N.E. Kohler. 1995. Age and growth estimates for the dusky shark,

Carcharhinus obscurus, in the western North Atlantic ocean. Fishery Bulletin 93:116-126.

National Audubon Society. 1983. Field Guide to North American Fishes, Whales and Dolphins.

Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, NY. 848 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006a. Correspondence on May 23, 2006 between J. Nichols,

National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation Division, and Matthew Stetter,

Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006b. Final Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species

Fishery Management Plan. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National

Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species

Management Division, Silver Spring, MD. Public Document. 1600 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006c. Panama City Laboratory. Fish Habitat Program and

Essential Fish Habitat Matrices. http://www.sefscpanamalab.noaa.gov/ (Retrieved

November 22, 2006).

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2001. Information provided by Karen Greene, U.S. National

Marine Fishery Service, Habitat Conservation Division, James J. Howard Marine Sciences

Laboratory, Highlands, New Jersey.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance. U.S.

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric administration, National

Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Habitat Conservation, Silver Spring, Maryland.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1993. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation –

Biological Opinion for Port Newark/Port Elizabeth Dredging and Ocean Disposal at the Mud

Dump Site. 56 p.

Newell, R. C. and L. J. Seiderer. 1999. The impact of dredging works in coastal waters: a review of

the sensitivity to disturbance and subsequent recovery of biological resources on the sea bed.

Oceanography and Marine Biology 36:127-178.

Nielsen, L.A., R.J. Sheehan, and D.J. Orth. 1986. Impacts of navigation on riverine fish production

in the United States. Polskie Archiwum Hydrobiologii/Polish Archives of Hydrobiology

33(3/4):277-294.

Oceanic Institute. 1993. Technical manual for culture of mahimahi (Coryphaena hippurus) at the

Oceanic Institute. Oceanic Institute, Honolulu, HI. 77 p.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 60 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Orth, R. J., D. J. Wilcox, L. S. Nagey, A. L. Owens, J. R. Whiting, and A. K. Kenne. 2005. 2004

Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Bays.

VIMS Special Scientific Report Number 146. Final report to U.S. EPA, Chesapeake Bay

Program, Annapolis MD. Grant No.CB973013-01-0. http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav04

(Retrieved January 4, 2006)

Orth, R.J., J.F. Nowak, G.F. Anderson, D.J. Wilcox, J.R. Whiting, and L.S. Nagey. Distribution of

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay

– 1994. 1994. Final Report to U.S. EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis MD. Grant

No. CB003909-03. http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav94/ (Retrieved January 4, 2006)

Packer, D.B., C.A. Zetlin, and J.J. Vitaliano. 2003a. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document:

Clearnose Skate, Raja eglanteria, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-NE-174. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Northeast Fisheries Science

Center: Woods Hole, MA. 50 p.

Packer, D.B., C.A. Zetlin, and J.J. Vitaliano. . 2003b. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document:

Little Skate, Leucoraja erinacea, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-NE-175. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Northeast Fisheries Science

Center: Woods Hole, MA. 66 p.

Packer, D.B., C.A. Zetlin, and J.J. Vitaliano. 2003c. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document:

Rosette Skate, Leucoraja garmani virginica, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA

Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-176. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Northeast Fisheries

Science Center: Woods Hole, MA. 17 p.

Packer, D.B., C.A. Zetlin, and J.J. Vitaliano. 2003d. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document:

Winter Skate, Leucoraja ocellata, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-NE-179. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Northeast Fisheries Science

Center: Woods Hole, MA. 57 p.

Packer, D.B., S.J. Griesbach, P.L. Berrien, C.A. Zetlin, D.L. Johnson, and W.W. Morse. 1999.

Essential fish habitat source document: summer flounder, Paralichthys dentatus, life history

and habitat characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-151. U.S.

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National

Marine Fisheries Service. Northeast Fisheries Science Center: Woods Hole, MA. 88 p.

Pagliai, M.B., Varriale, A.M.C., Crema, R., Galletti, M.C. and R.V. Zunarelli. 1985. Environmental

impact of extensive dredging in a coastal marine area. Marine Pollution Bulletin 16(12):483-

488.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 61 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Pardue, G.B. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: alewife and blueback herring. U.S.

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.58. 22 p.

Pereira, J.J., R. Goldberg, J.J. Ziskowski, P.L. Berrien, W.W. Morse, and D.L. Johnson. 1999.

Essential fish habitat source document: winter flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus, life

listory and habitat characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-138. U.S.

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National

Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. 39 p.

Pearson, W.D., K.J. Killgore, B.S. Payne, and A.C. Miller. 1989. Environmental Impact Research

Program: Environmental Effects of Navigation Traffic: Studies on Fish Eggs and Larvae.

Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Vicksburg Ms Environmental Lab.

Peddicord, R.K., and V.A. McFarland. 1978. Effects of Suspended Dredged Material on Aquatic

Animals. United States Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,

Mississippi, Technical Report D-78-29. 115 p.

Permanent International Association Navigation Congress (PIANC). 1997. PIANC Approach

Channels.

Phillips, J.M., M.T. Huish, J.H. Kerby, and D.P. Moran. 1989. Species profiles: life histories and

environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) -- spot. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 82(11.98). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR

EL-82-4. 13 p.

Reagan, R.E. 1985. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes

and invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico) -- red drum. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological

Report 82(11.36). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 16 p.

Reid, R.N., L.M. Cargnelli, S.J. Griesbach, D.B. Packer, D.L. Johnson, C.A. Zetlin, W.W. Morse,

and P.L. Berrien. 1999. Essential fish habitat source document: Atlantic herring, Clupea

harengus, life history and habitat characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE126. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. 48

p.

Reish, D.J. 1979. In: C.W. Hart and S.L.H. Fuller, Jr., eds. Pollution Ecology of Estuarine

Invertebrates. Bristle Worms. Academic Press. New York. p 77-125.

Richards, C.E. 1967. Age, growth and fecundity of the cobia, Rachycentron canadum, from the

Chesapeake Bay and adjacent Mid-Atlantic waters. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 96:343-350.

Riemann, B. and Hoffman, E. 1991. Ecological Consequences of Dredging and Bottom Trawling in

the Limfjord, Denmark. Marine Ecology Progress Series MESEDT 69(1/2):171-178.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 62 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Savino, J.F., M.A. Blouin, B.M. Davis, P.L. Hudson, T.N. Todd, and G.W. Fleischer. 1994. Effects

of pulsed turbidity and vessel traffic on lake herring eggs and larvae. Journal of Great Lakes

Research 20(2):366-376.

Shepherd, G.R. and D.B. Packer. 2006. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Bluefish,

Pomatomus saltatrix, Life History and Habitat Characteristics, Second Edition. NOAA

Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-198. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries

Science Center: Woods Hole, MA. 83 p (plus appendices).

Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operations (SIGTTO). 1997. Site Selection and

Design for LNG Ports and Jetties.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 1998. Final habitat plan for the south

Atlantic region: Essential Fish Habitat requirements for fishery management plans of the

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (the shrimp fishery management plan, the red

drum fishery management plan, the snapper-grouper fishery management plan, the coastal

migratory pelagics fishery management plan, the golden crab fishery management plan, the

spiny lobster fishery management plan, the coral, coral reefs, and live/hard bottom habitat

fishery management plan, the sargassum habitat fishery management plan, and the calico

scallop fishery management plan). Charleston, SC: NMFS/NOAA contract numbers

NA77FC0002 and NA87FC0004. 457 p.

Stanley, J.G. and D.S. Danie. 1983. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements

of coastal fishes and invertebrates (North Atlantic) -- white perch. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Division of Biological Services, FWS/OBS-82/11.7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

TR EL-82-4. 12 p.

Steimle, F.W., C.A. Zetlin, P.L. Berrien, and S. Chang. 1999a. Essential fish habitat source

document: black sea bass, Centropristis striata, life history and habitat characteristics. NOAA

Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-143. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries

Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. 42 p.

Steimle, F.W., W.W. Morse, and D.L. Johnson. 1999b. Essential fish habitat source document:

goosefish, Lophius americanus, life history and habitat characteristics. NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-NE-127. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science

Center, Woods Hole, MA. 31 p.

Steimle, F.W., W.W. Morse, P.L. Berrien, and D.L. Johnson. 1999c. Essential fish habitat source

document: red hake, Urophycis chuss, life history and habitat characteristics. NOAA

Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-133. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries

Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. 34 p.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Prepared for: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC E - 63 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

By: Northern Ecological Associates, Inc.

Steimle, F.W., C.A. Zetlin, P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, and S. Chang. 1999d. Essential fish habitat

source document: scup, Stenotomus chrysops, life history and habitat characteristics. NOAA

Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-149. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries

Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. 39 p.

Studholme, A.L., D.B. Packer, P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, C.A. Zetlin, and W.W. Morse 1999.

Essential fish habitat source document: Atlantic mackerel, Scomber scombrus, life listory and

habitat characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NE-141. U.S. Department

of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries

Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. 35 p.

Tiews, K. 1963. Synopsis of biological data on the bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus (Linnaeus) 1758

(Atlantic and Mediterranean). Pages 422-481 in: H. Rosa Jr. ed. Proceedings of the World

Scientific Meeting on the Biology of Tunas and Related Species. FAO Fisheries Reports No.

6 (2).

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2006. Appendix D—Essential Fish Habitat

Assessment—of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Masonville Dredged

Material Containment Facility, Baltimore Harbor Maryland. p D1-D22.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). . 1999. New York and New Jersey Harbor

Navigation Study. Biological Monitoring Program. USACE, New York District.

United States Department of Commerce (USDOC). 1999a. Guide to essential fish habitat

designations in the Northeastern United States. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional

Office, Gloucester, MA. http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/webintro.html (Retrieved October 10,

2006)

United States Department of Commerce (USDOC). 1999b. Final Fishery Management Plan for

Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks. Vol. II, Chapter 6: Highly Migratory Species (HMS)

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Provisions. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, Silver Spring, MD. 302 p.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
F - 1 

APPENDIX F 

RESIDENCES AND OTHER STRUCTURES WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE CONSTRUCTION 

WORK AREA FOR THE MID-ATLANTIC EXPRESS PIPELINE 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
F - 2 

TABLE F-1 

EXISTNG RESIDENCES AND BUILDINGS WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORKSPACE 

County/St

ate 

Mile 

Post 

Tract 

Number

Residence / 

Structure 

Direction 

from 

Pipeline 

Centerline 

Distance from 

Construction 

Workspace (feet)

Distance from 

Proposed Pipeline 

Centerline (feet) 

Proposed 

Mitigation

* 

Baltimore/

MD 0.53 2 Industrial West 33 90 1 

Baltimore/

MD 1.20 9 Industrial South 25 75 1 

Baltimore/

MD 3.27 35 Industrial East 23 63 1 

Baltimore/

MD 5.60 80.1 Residence North 33 108 1 

Baltimore/

MD 5.95 89 Residence North 16 66 2

Baltimore/

MD 6.65 99 Industrial North 5 36 2

Baltimore/

MD 8.00 8114.2 Industrial West 5 130 1 

Baltimore/

MD 8.84 124.3 Industrial East 44 124 1 

Baltimore/

MD 9.02 127 Industrial West 17 34 2

Baltimore/

MD 11.09 152.1 Residence Southeast Adjacent 65 2 

Baltimore/

MD 11.09 153.2 Garage Northwest 45 95 1 

Baltimore/

MD 11.13 157 Residence Northwest 35 75 1 

Baltimore/

MD 11.14 158.1 Industrial East 44 89 1 

Baltimore/

MD 11.16 158 Residence Northwest 45 95 1 

Baltimore/

MD 11.48 168 Industrial Northwest 45 145 1 

Baltimore/

MD 11.62 171 Industrial Northwest Adjacent 90 1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
F - 3 

TABLE F-1 

EXISTNG RESIDENCES AND BUILDINGS WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORKSPACE 

County/St

ate 

Mile 

Post 

Tract 

Number

Residence / 

Structure 

Direction 

from 

Pipeline 

Centerline 

Distance from 

Construction 

Workspace (feet)

Distance from 

Proposed Pipeline 

Centerline (feet) 

Proposed 

Mitigation

* 

Baltimore/

MD 12.19 181.4 Residence Southeast 45 70 1 

Baltimore/

MD 12.21 181.5 Residence Southeast 45 70 1 

Baltimore/

MD 12.32 181.6 Residence Southeast 45 70 1 

Baltimore/

MD 12.34 181.7 Residence Southeast 45 70 1 

Baltimore/

MD 12.37 181.8 Residence Southeast 45 70 1 

Baltimore/

MD 12.39 181.9 Residence Southeast 45 70 1 

Baltimore/

MD 12.42 182.2 Residence Southeast 45 70 1 

Baltimore/

MD 12.45 182.3 Residence Southeast 45 70 1 

Baltimore/

MD 12.47 182.4 Residence Southeast 45 70 1 

Baltimore/

MD 12.56 182.5 Residence Southeast 45 70 1 

Baltimore/

MD 13.05 8185.6 Residential Shed Southeast Inside 15 1 

Baltimore/

MD 13.09 190

First Church of 

God of Middle 

River Inc. 

Northwest 45 105 1 

Baltimore/

MD 13.10 189.1 Garage Southeast 10 55 1 

Baltimore/

MD 13.13 

Middle River 

Assembly Of 

God 

Southeast 25 70 1 

Baltimore/

MD 13.91 204 Residence West 25 85 2

Baltimore/

MD 13.92 204 Residence East 25 90 2

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
F - 4 

TABLE F-1 

EXISTNG RESIDENCES AND BUILDINGS WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORKSPACE 

County/St

ate 

Mile 

Post 

Tract 

Number

Residence / 

Structure 

Direction 

from 

Pipeline 

Centerline 

Distance from 

Construction 

Workspace (feet)

Distance from 

Proposed Pipeline 

Centerline (feet) 

Proposed 

Mitigation

* 

Baltimore/

MD 13.92 204 Residence West 40 90 2

Baltimore/

MD 13.93 204 Residence West 40 90 1 

Baltimore/

MD 13.94 204 Residence East 45 110 2

Baltimore/

MD 13.95 204 Residence East 25 75 2

Baltimore/

MD 13.95 204 Residence West 25 70 2

Baltimore/

MD 13.96 204 Residence West 25 90 2

Baltimore/

MD 13.97 204 Residence East 25 75 2

Baltimore/

MD 13.98 204 Residence West 25 90 2

Baltimore/

MD 13.99 204 Residence East 25 75 2

Baltimore/

MD 14.02 204 Residence East 25 75 2

Baltimore/

MD 14.05 204 Residence East 40 90 1 

Baltimore/

MD 14.05 204 Residence West 40 90 1 

Baltimore/

MD 14.07 204 Residence East 35 85 1 

Baltimore/

MD 14.10 204 Residence East 25 75 2

Baltimore/

MD 14.11 204 Residence West 45 95 1 

Baltimore/

MD 14.15 204 Residence West 35 85 1 

Baltimore/ 16.85 256 Residence West 20 85 2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
F - 5 

TABLE F-1 

EXISTNG RESIDENCES AND BUILDINGS WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORKSPACE 

County/St

ate 

Mile 

Post 

Tract 

Number

Residence / 

Structure 

Direction 

from 

Pipeline 

Centerline 

Distance from 

Construction 

Workspace (feet)

Distance from 

Proposed Pipeline 

Centerline (feet) 

Proposed 

Mitigation

* 

MD 

Baltimore/

MD 17.56 267 Residence West 35 110 1 

Baltimore/

MD 17.64 269 Residence West 35 65 1 

Baltimore/

MD 17.74 275 Residence West 30 80 1 

Baltimore/

MD 17.80 276.1 Residence West 30 80 1 

Baltimore/

MD 17.85 276 Residence East 18 55 2

Baltimore/

MD 17.97 8277.4 Residence West 45 95 1 

Baltimore/

MD 18.06 279 Residence East 25 70 2 

Baltimore/

MD 18.08 284 Residence East 45 85 1 

Baltimore/

MD 18.08 286 Residence West 30 80 2 

Baltimore/

MD 18.15 285 Residence East 45 85 1 

Baltimore/

MD 19.63 307 Residence West TBD TBD TBD 

Baltimore/

MD 20.84 326.1 Residence East 30 70 1 

Baltimore/

MD 20.90 327.1 Residence East 25 73 2

Baltimore/

MD 20.94 328.1 Residence East 30 80 1 

Baltimore/

MD 21.15 333.1 Residence East 35 85 1 

Harford/M

D 23.03 362 Residence East 25 60 2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
F - 6 

TABLE F-1 

EXISTNG RESIDENCES AND BUILDINGS WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORKSPACE 

County/St

ate 

Mile 

Post 

Tract 

Number

Residence / 

Structure 

Direction 

from 

Pipeline 

Centerline 

Distance from 

Construction 

Workspace (feet)

Distance from 

Proposed Pipeline 

Centerline (feet) 

Proposed 

Mitigation

* 

Harford/M

D 23.07 365 Residence East 11 62 2 

Harford/M

D 23.21 366 Residential Shed East Inside 45 NA

Harford/M

D 23.27 367 Residential Shed East Inside 45 NA

Harford/M

D 23.37 371.1 Industrial West 33 120 1 

Harford/M

D 23.44 372.1 Industrial West 25 75 2

Harford/M

D 24.88 381 Residence East 25 65 2

Harford/M

D 26.37 398 Residence West 35 100 1 

Harford/M

D 26.53 398.2 Residence West 35 85 1 

Harford/M

D 26.72 403.2 Residence West 25 120 2 

Harford/M

D 26.73 403.1 Residence East 25 50 2

Harford/M

D 26.78 406.1 Residence East 25 115 2 

Harford/M

D 26.80 408.1 Garage West Adjacent 50 1 

Harford/M

D 26.80 407.1 Residence East 35 140 1 

Harford/M

D 26.90 421 Residence West 40 70 1 

Harford/M

D 28.41 431 Residence West 7 32 2 

Harford/M

D 28.69 438 Residence West 30 80 1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
F - 7 

TABLE F-1 

EXISTNG RESIDENCES AND BUILDINGS WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORKSPACE 

County/St

ate 

Mile 

Post 

Tract 

Number

Residence / 

Structure 

Direction 

from 

Pipeline 

Centerline 

Distance from 

Construction 

Workspace (feet)

Distance from 

Proposed Pipeline 

Centerline (feet) 

Proposed 

Mitigation

* 

Harford/M

D 30.40 454 Residence -

outbuilding West 12 45 2, TBD

Harford/M

D 34.97 499 Residence South 45 95 1 

Harford/M

D 35.07 502 Agriculture --

Barn South 45 118 2

Harford/M

D 35.20 507 Residence South 25 70 2 

Harford/M

D 35.33 510 Garage Southeast Inside 55 TBD 

Harford/M

D 35.46 513 Residence North 25 100 2

Harford/M

D 35.49 514 Residence North 6 31 2 

Harford/M

D 35.50 515 Residence South 17 42 2 

Harford/M

D 36.11 530 Residence North 25 85 2 

Harford/M

D 36.46 534 Residence South 25 50 1 

Harford/M

D 37.75 557 Residence North 11 33 2

Harford/M

D 38.55 572.1 Residence South 25 75 2 

Harford/M

D 38.82 575 Agriculture North 30 60 1 

Harford/M

D 39.46 582 Garage North 5 30 2

Harford/M

D 39.46 582 Residence North 30 105 1 

Harford/M

D 40.11 589 Garage North 12 62 NA

Harford/M 40.11 589 Garage North 12 62 1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
F - 8 

TABLE F-1 

EXISTNG RESIDENCES AND BUILDINGS WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORKSPACE 

County/St

ate 

Mile 

Post 

Tract 

Number

Residence / 

Structure 

Direction 

from 

Pipeline 

Centerline 

Distance from 

Construction 

Workspace (feet)

Distance from 

Proposed Pipeline 

Centerline (feet) 

Proposed 

Mitigation

* 

D 

Harford/M

D 40.13 588.2 Commercial South 10 35 2

Harford/M

D 40.32 590.1 Residence South 15 40 2 

Harford/M

D 40.34 593.1 Residence South 25 75 2

Harford/M

D 40.37 594.1 Residence South 25 75 2 

Harford/M

D 40.45 597.1 Residence South 17 45 2 

Harford/M

D 42.34 622 Industrial Southeast 45 95 1 

Harford/M

D 42.43 628 Residence Southeast 40 140 1 

Harford/M

D 42.45 628 Residence Southeast Inside 2 2

Harford/M

D 42.69 630 Residence North 25 45 2 

Harford/M

D 42.71 630 Residence South 15 55 2

Harford/M

D 42.91 636 Residence North 25 85 2 

Harford/M

D 42.93 636 Residence North 12 48 2 

Harford/M

D 43.45 649 Residence Southeast 5 30 2 

Cecil/MD 45.91 669 Residence Northwest 45 70 1 

Cecil/MD 46.26 672 Residence North 25 95 1

Cecil/MD 46.42 676 Residence Northwest 16 56 2 

Lancaster/

PA 53.09 756.1 Residence Northwest 10 35 2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
F - 9 

TABLE F-1 

EXISTNG RESIDENCES AND BUILDINGS WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORKSPACE 

County/St

ate 

Mile 

Post 

Tract 

Number

Residence / 

Structure 

Direction 

from 

Pipeline 

Centerline 

Distance from 

Construction 

Workspace (feet)

Distance from 

Proposed Pipeline 

Centerline (feet) 

Proposed 

Mitigation

* 

Lancaster/

PA 53.12 758.1 Residence Northwest 25 75 2 

Lancaster/

PA 53.12 759 Residence Southeast 30 55 1 

Chester/PA 56.35 798 Commercial Northwest Inside 50 2

Chester/PA 58.75 817.2 Commercial North 23 48 1 

Chester/PA 64.12 862 Residence South 25 65 2 

Chester/PA 64.94 871 Residence North 25 50 2

Chester/PA 66.48 881 Residence West 25 60 2 

Chester/PA 66.55 883 Residence Northwest 30 105 1 

Chester/PA 70.39 909 Commercial Northwest 20 45 1 

Chester/PA 70.65 912 Residence South 45 170 1 

Chester/PA 72.86 925.1 Commercial North 26 51 1 

Chester/PA 75.33 950 Residence West 31 56 1 

Chester/PA 75.4 968.1 Residence North 30 55 1 

Chester/PA 75.47 969.1 Residence Northwest 50 75 1 

Chester/PA 76.13 981 Agriculture Northwest Inside 25 TBD 

Chester/PA 76.21 981.2 Residence Northwest 16 66 2 

Chester/PA 77.05 993 Residence East 15 40 2

Chester/PA 77.16 990.1 Residence West 3 15 2 

Chester/PA 77.17 1001.1 Residence East 15 50 2 

Chester/PA 77.19 1003.2 Residence West 3 16 2 

Chester/PA 77.20 1004.1 Residence East 15 45 2 

Chester/PA 77.53 1012.1 Residence East 34 97 1 

Chester/PA 77.54 1013.1 Residence East 20 40 2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
F - 10 

TABLE F-1 

EXISTNG RESIDENCES AND BUILDINGS WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORKSPACE 

County/St

ate 

Mile 

Post 

Tract 

Number

Residence / 

Structure 

Direction 

from 

Pipeline 

Centerline 

Distance from 

Construction 

Workspace (feet)

Distance from 

Proposed Pipeline 

Centerline (feet) 

Proposed 

Mitigation

* 

Chester/PA 77.55 1014.1 Residence East 25 50 2 

Chester/PA 77.56 1015.1 Residence East 25 50 2 

Chester/PA 77.58 1017.1 Residence East 30 108 1

Chester/PA 77.60 1018.1 Residence East 30 40 1 

Chester/PA 77.61 1019.1 Residence East 30 37 2 

Chester/PA 77.62 1020.1 Residence East 15 50 2 

Chester/PA 77.63 1021.1 Residence East 40 110 2 

Chester/PA 77.67 9023.1 Residence East 35 125 1 

Chester/PA 77.67 1023.1 Residence East 30 65 1

Chester/PA 77.68 1024.1 Residence East 12 55 2 

Chester/PA 77.69 1025.1 Residence East 25 88 2 

Chester/PA 77.70 1026.1 Residence East 35 115 1 

Chester/PA 77.71 1027.1 Residence West 25 60 2 

Chester/PA 77.72 1029.1 Residence West 25 100 2 

Chester/PA 77.76 1031.1 Residence East 40 65 1

Chester/PA 77.82 1034.1 Residence East 40 65 1

Chester/PA 78.08 1049 Residence East 10 27 2

Chester/PA 78.47 1058 Residence East 45 70 1 

Chester/PA 78.49 1059 Residence West 25 55 2

Chester/PA 78.83 1071.1 Residence West 20 42 2

Chester/PA 78.84 1072.1 Residence East 10 33 2 

Chester/PA 78.89 1076.1 Residence East 25 50 2 

Chester/PA 78.89 1075.1 Residence West 48 73 1 

Chester/PA 79.00 1076 Commercial East Inside 15 1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
F - 11 

TABLE F-1 

EXISTNG RESIDENCES AND BUILDINGS WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORKSPACE 

County/St

ate 

Mile 

Post 

Tract 

Number

Residence / 

Structure 

Direction 

from 

Pipeline 

Centerline 

Distance from 

Construction 

Workspace (feet)

Distance from 

Proposed Pipeline 

Centerline (feet) 

Proposed 

Mitigation

* 

Chester/PA 79.11 1078.1 Commercial West 20 45 1 

Chester/PA 79.12 1079.1 Commercial East Adjacent 50 2

Chester/PA 79.16 1080.1 Commercial East Adjacent 25 2

Chester/PA 79.80 1109 Daycare East 35 60 2

Chester/PA 80.33 1133.2 Residence East 42 67 1 

Chester/PA 80.50 1135 Residence West 10 18 2 

Chester/PA 80.56 1136 Residence East 30 55 1 

Chester/PA 80.60 1140 Residence West 33 83 1 

Chester/PA 81.06 1150 Residence South 45 95 1 

Chester/PA 81.15 1153 Commercial East 28 53 1 

Chester/PA 81.17 1154 Residence West 10 35 2 

Chester/PA 81.21 1157 Residence West 15 65 2 

Chester/PA 81.28 1159 Residence West 12 35 2

Chester/PA 81.33 1162 Residence East 45 70 1 

Chester/PA 81.38 1164 Residence West 15 25 2 

Chester/PA 81.60 1171 Residence West 25 70 2

Chester/PA 81.63 1172 Residence West 30 55 1 

Chester/PA 83.03 1200 Residence East 19 40 2 

Chester/PA 83.08 1204 Residence East 12 35 2 

Chester/PA 83.10 1205 Residence West 35 60 1 

Chester/PA 83.16 1206 Residence West 30 70 1 

Chester/PA 83.18 1210 Residence West 25 65 2 

Chester/PA 83.22 1211 Residence West 30 70 1 

Chester/PA 83.24 1213 Residence West 25 65 2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
F - 12 

TABLE F-1 

EXISTNG RESIDENCES AND BUILDINGS WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORKSPACE 

County/St

ate 

Mile 

Post 

Tract 

Number

Residence / 

Structure 

Direction 

from 

Pipeline 

Centerline 

Distance from 

Construction 

Workspace (feet)

Distance from 

Proposed Pipeline 

Centerline (feet) 

Proposed 

Mitigation

* 

Chester/PA 83.26 1215 Residence East 45 70 1 

Chester/PA 83.34 1219 Residence West 35 75 1 

Chester/PA 83.39 1220 Residence East 15 50 2 

Chester/PA 83.41 1220.1 Residence West 25 55 2 

Chester/PA 83.45 1222 Residence West 13 42 2 

Chester/PA 83.54 1225 Residence East 35 110 1

Chester/PA 83.55 1225.1 Residence West 50 90 1 

Chester/PA 84.30 1239 Residence East 16 42 2 

Chester/PA 84.31 1241 Residence West 35 60 1

Chester/PA 84.35 1242 Residence West 40 65 1 

Chester/PA 84.36 1243 Residence East 25 75 2 

Chester/PA 84.45 1244 Residence East 25 70 2 

Chester/PA 84.46 1245 Residence West 42 92 1 

Chester/PA 84.61 1251 Residence East 30 105 1 

Chester/PA 85.29 1263

Residence, 

recently zoned 

commercial

West 25 90 2

Chester/PA 85.35 1267.2 Residence West 30 70 1 

Chester/PA 85.47 1260.1 Windsor Baptist 

Church West 5 43 1 

Chester/PA 85.49 1258.1 Commercial Northwest 12 37 2 

Chester/PA 85.52 1259.1 School Northwest Adjacent 25 2 

Chester/PA 85.58 1260.1 Commercial East 15 40 1 

Chester/PA 85.59 1260.1 Residence East 40 65 2 

Chester/PA 85.78 1261.5 Residence Northwest 40 65 1 

Chester/PA 86.54 1293 Commercial East 15 95 1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
F - 13 

TABLE F-1 

EXISTNG RESIDENCES AND BUILDINGS WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORKSPACE 

County/St

ate 

Mile 

Post 

Tract 

Number

Residence / 

Structure 

Direction 

from 

Pipeline 

Centerline 

Distance from 

Construction 

Workspace (feet)

Distance from 

Proposed Pipeline 

Centerline (feet) 

Proposed 

Mitigation

* 

________________ 

Proposed Mitigation: 

1/ A combination of one or more items below (A-E) based on consultation with landowners and subject to final pipeline design. 

A/ Avoid removal of mature trees and landscaping within the edge of the construction workspace unless necessary for the safe 

operation of construction equipment. 

B/ Restore all lawn areas and landscaping within the construction workspace, consistent with the Commission’s Recommended 

Plan, immediately after backfilling the trench. 

C/ Reduce the construction workspace such that a minimum of 10 feet between the resident/building and the construction 

workspace is maintained for a distance of 100 feet on either side of each structure. 

D/ Install safety fencing along the construction workspace adjacent to each structure for a distance of 100 feet on either side of 

the residence/building, to ensure that construction equipment and materials, including the spoil pile, remain within the construction 

workspace. 

E/ Maintain safety fencing throughout open trench phases of pipe installation. 

2/ See site-specific plan. 

TBD = Route under further review. Areas not surveyed or subject to planning with property owner. 

Adjacent = This indicates that the structure is located adjacent to the construction workspace. 

Inside = This indicates that a portion on the structure falls within the workspace. This includes areas not yet surveyed, areas

where construction is already restricted and/or structures which are not residences and may not be avoidable. e.g. Sheds may be 

relocated. 

3/ Routed around. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX G 

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
G - 2 

APPENDIX G 

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS 

Able, K.W. and M.P. Fahay. 1998. The first year in the life of estuarine fishes in the Middle Atlantic Bight. 

Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. 342 pp. 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2005a. Toxicological Profile for Arsenic. U.S. 

Public Health Service, ATSDR, Atlanta, GA. 

Alsop, F.J. 2001. Birds of North America Eastern Region. DK Publishing: New York, NY. 

ACS (American Cetacean Society). 2007. Species Fact Sheets. Available at: 

http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/index.html. 

ACS (American Cetacean Society). 2008. Available at: 

http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/SeiBrydesWhales.htm. 

American Society of Civil Engineers. 2005. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, 

2005. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 7-05). 

APL (Advanced Production and Loading). 2006. Brief Presentation of Submerged Turret Loading (STMTM). 

Available online at http://www.apl.no/APLWeb/Templates/Level2Page.aspx?id=454. 

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). No date. Managed Species. Available at: 

http://www.asmfc.org/managedSpecies.htm. 

ATSDR . 1992. Toxicological Profile for Barium. U.S. Public Health Service, ATSDR, Atlanta, GA. 

ATSDR . 2003. Toxicological Profile for Copper U.S. Public Health Service, ATSDR, Atlanta, GA. 

ATSDR. 1990. Toxicological Profile for Silver. U.S. Public Health Service, ATSDR, Atlanta, GA. 

ATSDR. 1993. Toxicological Profile for Cadmium. U.S. Public Health Service, ATSDR, Atlanta, GA. 

ATSDR. 1995. Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). U.S. Public Health 

Service, ATSDR, Atlanta, GA. 

ATSDR. 1999. Toxicological Profile for Mercury. U.S. Public Health Service, ATSDR, Atlanta, GA. 

ATSDR. 2000. Toxicological Profile for Chromium U.S. Public Health Service, ATSDR, Atlanta, GA. 

ATSDR. 2004. Toxicological Profile for Selenium U.S. Public Health Service, ATSDR, Atlanta, GA. 

ATSDR. 2005b. Toxicological Profile for Lead. U.S. Public Health Service, ATSDR, Atlanta, GA. 

ATSDR. 2005c. Toxicological Profile for Nickel. U.S. Public Health Service, ATSDR, Atlanta, GA. 

ATSDR. 2005d. Toxicological Profile for Zinc. U.S. Public Health Service, ATSDR, Atlanta, GA. 

Auer, N.A. 1982. Identification of Larval Fishes of the Great Lakes Basin with Emphasis on the Lake 

Michigan Drainage. Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Ann Arbor, MI. Special Publication 82-3. 

744 pp. 

Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB). 2006. Forensic Identification of Aviation Bird Strikes in 

Australia. Aviation Safety Research Grant – B2005-0117 Final. June 2006, 38pp. 

Baltimore City Department of Planning. 2006. Letter from BCDP to Northern Ecological Associates. July 

24, 2006. 

Baltimore County Chamber of Commerce. 2007. Available at: 

http://www.baltimorecountymd.gov/Agencies/economicdev/gateway/countygov/firepolice.html. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
G - 3 

Baltimore County. 2006. 1998 Baltimore County Zoning Regulations Edition, v15 Updated 02-15-2006. 

Batinsey, J. 1997. New Jersey Light Pollution Study Commission Recommendations. International Dark-Sky 

Association – Information Sheet 121. April 1997. 

Baumann, P.C. and J.C. Harshbarger. 1995. Decline in liver neoplasms in wild brown bullhead catfish after 

coking plant closes and environmental PAHs plummet. Environmental Health Perspectives 103:168-

170. 

BCDRP (Baltimore County Department of Recreation and Parks). 2007. Email from Mike Jankiewicz, 

Community Supervisor II, Baltimore County Department of Recreation and Parks, Dundalk/Eastfield 

Recreation Council, to Phil Perhamus, AMEC. March 2, 2007. 

Blais, D.P., and D.L., Simpson. 1997. The effects of a buried natural gas pipeline on water quality, stream 

habitat, and biotic populations within high quality coldwater streams in upstate New York. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium, Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way 

Management, February 24-26, 1997, New Orleans, Louisiana. Abstract available at: 

http://www.rights-of-way-env.com/abstracts_6/57.htm. 

Bourbon Offshore. 2006. Specification Brochure for Model Nemed 70 Metric Ton Bollard Stern Drive Tug. 

(http://bourbon-online.com/media/offshore/tug/nemed-72-mt-bp.pdf). Marseille, France. 

Boyd, S.E., K.M. Cooper, D.S. Limpenny, R. Kilbride, H.L. Rees, M.P. Dearnaley, J. Stevenson, W.J. 

Meadows, and C.D. Morris. 2004. Assessment of the Re-Habilitation of the Seabed Following 

Marine Aggregate Dredging. Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), 

Science Series Technical Report No. 121. Available at: 

http://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/techrep/tech121.pdf. 

Buchman, M. 1999. NOAA SQuiRTs: Screening Quick Reference Tables (updated September 1999). 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Hazmat Report 99-1. 

Burke, V.J., S.J. Morreale, and E.A. Standora. 1990. Comparisons of Diet and Growth of Kemp’s Ridley and 

Loggerhead Turtles from the Northeastern U.S. In: Richardson, T.H., J.I. Richardson, and M. 

Donnelly (Compilers). Proceedings of the 10th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and 

Biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-278:135. 

Butler, K.R. 1998. Coastal Protection of Sea Turtles in Florida. Florida State University Journal of Land Use 

& Environmental Law. 

Cain, J.W., D.M. Queheillalt, M.L. Morrison, and K. Christopherson. 2004. Bird Habitat Use and BirdAircraft Strikes at Beale Air Force Base, California. Transactions of the Western Section of the 

Wildlife Society, 40:90-100. 

Carson, A. 2006. Study for AES Sparrows Point LNG, L.L.C. O’Brien Realty, Solomons, Maryland 19 

December, 2006. 

CBP (Chesapeake Bay Program). 2003a. Bluefish. Available at: 

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/info/bluefish.cfm. 

CBP. 2003b. Summer Flounder. Available at: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/info/summer_flounder.cfm.

CBP. 2003c. American Shad . Available at: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/info/american_shad.cfm.

CBP. 2004a. Estuarine wetlands (tidal). Available at: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/info/estwet.html. 

CBP. 2004b. Bald Eagle. Available at: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/bald_eagle.htm. 

CBP. 2004c. Shortnose Sturgeon. Available at: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/shortnosesturgeon.htm. 

CBP. 2006a. Bay Grasses. Available at: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/info/baygras.cfm#SAV%20Decline. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
G - 4 

CBP. 2006b. Atlantic Sturgeon. Available at: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/info/atlantic_sturgeon.cfm. 

Cecil County Department of Emergency Services Administrator. 2007. Communication with Kent Morton, 

AES. 2007. 

Cecil County Health Department. 2005. Letter from Rachel Burbey, Environmental Health Services, Cecil 

Health Department, Elkton, MD on January 4, 2005 to Gilda Anderson, Rock Springs Commodities, 

Rising Sun, MD. 

Chapman, P.M., J. Downie, A. Maynard, and L.A. Taylor. 1996. Coal and deodorizer residues in marine 

sediments - contaminants or pollutants? Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 15:638-642. 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 2004. A Citizen’s Guide to the Critical Area Program in Maryland. Available 

at: http://www.cbf.org/site/DocServer/Critical_Area.pdf?docID=4843. 

City of Baltimore Department of Planning. 2002. Critical Area Management Program Manual (2002 Edition). 

Available at: http://www.ci.baltimore.md.us/government/planning/images/criticalarea.pdf. 

Clark and Nieves. 1993. An Interregional Hedonic Analysis of Noxious Facility Impacts on Local Wages 

and Property Values. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. Academic Press. 

Clawson, Richard L. 1987. Indiana bats: Down for the Count. BATS. Vol 5, No 2:3-5 Available at: 

http://www.batcon.org/batsmag/v5n2-4.html. 

]U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard). 2006. Final Environmental Impact Statement and MEPA Final 

Environmental Impact Report for Neptune, L.L.C. Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Port License 

Application. (USCG 2004-22611; MEPA EOEA Number 13641.) 

U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard). 2007. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Calypso LNG 

Deepwater Port License Application. (USCG CG-3PSO-5, 202-372-1454.) Prepared in conjunction 

with Maritime Administration. U.S. Coast Guard. 

Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.23.06.01 Areas Designated as Nontidal Wetlands of Special 

State Concern. Available at: http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/26/26.23.06.01.htm. 

Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR). Title 26 Subtitle 02 Chapter 03 Control of Noise Pollution. 

COE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1983. Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal. EM 1110-3-5025. 

COE. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, Environmental 

Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

COE. 1988b. Visual Resources Assessment Procedures for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the 

Army Waterways Experiment Station. 

COE. 1997. Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels, Maryland and Virginia. Integrated Feasibility 

Report and Environmental Impact Statement. March 1997. 

COE. 2001a. Dredge Bucket Comparison Demonstration at Boston Harbor, March 2001, Publication No. 

ERDC/CHL CHETN-VI35. Available at: 

http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/library/publications/chetn/pdf/chetn-vi-35.pdf. 

COE. 2001b. Department of the Army Programmatic General Permit State of Maryland. 

www.nab.usace.army.mil/regulatory/news/mdspgp-2/finalmid-ptmonitoringreport.pdf. 

COE. 2006. Appendix D – Essential Fish Habitat Assessment – of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Masonville Dredged Material Containment Facility, Baltimore Harbor, Maryland: D1-D22. 

COE. 2007. Tiered Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Masonville Dredged Material 

Containment Facility. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District. Available at: 

http://www.nab.usace.army.mil/Regulatory/PublicNotice/Masonville/content.htm. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
G - 5 

COE. 2008. General Permit Verifications/Issued Individual Permits, Denials & Appeals. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Baltimore District. Available at: 

http://www.nab.usace.army.mil/Regulatory/Permit/tracking.htm. 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). 2000. Office of Water 

Management, Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program Manual. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater 

Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31, Washington, D.C. 131 pp. 

Critical Areas Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays (CAC). 2000. A Guide to the 

Conservation of Forest Interior Dwelling Birds in the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area. Critical Area 

Commission (CAC) for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays, Annapolis, Maryland. June 2000. 

Available at: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/criticalarea/tweetyjune_2000.pdf. 

Cronin, E. 1971. A Biological Study of Baltimore Harbor. Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of 

Maryland, Solomons, MD. 

Davidson, Jane L. S. No date 1. National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for John Hanna Farm. 

On file at PA-SHPO, Harrisburg. 

Davidson, Jane L. S. No date 2. National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for Mortonville 

Bridge. On file at PA-SHPO, Harrisburg. 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). 1998. Watershed 

Assessment Report 305(b) – Christiana River. Available at: 

www.dnrec.state.de.us/water/305breport.html. 

Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC). 2007. Southeastern Pennsylvania Groundwater Protected Area. 

Available at: www.state.nj.us/drbc/pagwpa.htm and www.state.nj.us/drbc/segwpa.htm. 

Derrick, P.K. and J. McKee. 2001. Dioxin in sediments from the Upper Chesapeake Bay. Society of 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 22nd Annual Meeting, Baltimore, Maryland. November 

2001. 

Dexter, M. 2004. Letter Edward M. Dexter, Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD on 

March 19, 2004 to Wayne Coverdale, Green Power Energy Holdings Corporation, Wilmington, NC. 

DOE. (U. S. Department of Energy). 2007. Top Ten Utility Green Power Programs. 

http://apps3.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/resources/tables/topten.shtml. Updated in December 2007. 

Dove, C., M. Heacker, and L. Weigt. 2003. Bird Strike DNA. Flying Safety Magazine, September 1, 2003. 

Available at: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-109404463.html. 

Dragun, J. 1998. The Soil Chemistry of Hazardous Materials, 2nd Edition. Amherst Scientific Publishers, 

Amherst, MA. 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1985. Registered Toxic Study. Chemical and Physical 

Analysis of Sediments from the Marine Channel and Associated Berths and Turning Basin. February 

1985. 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 2007. Entrainment and Impingement Sampling at the H.A. 

Wagner Generating Station Interim Report. Prepared for Constellation Generation Group. Provided 

by Maryland Department of Environment. 9 pp. plus appendices. 

EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2005. Annual Energy Outlook. Available online at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/gas.html. 

EIA. 2006. Annual Energy Outlook 2006 with Projections to 2030. Available at: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo06/index.html. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
G - 6 

EIA. 2007. Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030. Available online at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2007).pdf. 

Eisler, R. 2000. Handbook of Chemical Risk Assessment. Health Hazards to Humans, Plants, and Animals. 

Volumes 1-3. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 

EnviroTrac Environmental Services. 2006. Quarterly Monitoring Report for the Shell Service Station, 10728 

Paluski Highway, White Marsh, MD. June 30, 2006. 

EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, 

Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. Publication NTID300.1. Washington, D.C. 

EPA. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare 

with an Adequate Margin of Safety, EPA-550/9-74-004. Office of Noise Abatement and Control, 

Washington, D.C. 

EPA. 1985. Chemical, Physical, and Biological Properties of Compounds Present at Hazardous Waste Sites. 

PB89-132203. 

EPA. 2001. Maryland Agriculture and Your Watershed. EPA/903/R-00/009. 

EPA. 2004. Total Maximum Daily Loads (2004 Section 303(d) List Fact Sheet for Maryland). Available at: 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/waters_list.control?state=MD&wbtype=BAY%2FESTUARY. 

EPA. 2006a. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/air/data/. 

EPA. 2006b. Pesticides: Endangered Species Protection Program Harford County, Maryland. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/espp/maryland/harford.htm. 

EPA. 2006c. 68th Street Dump. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/sites/MDD980918387/index.htm. 

EPA. 2006d. Cooling Water Intake Structures – CWA 316(b): Phase II –Large Existing Electric Generating 

Plants. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/316b/phase2/casestudy/. 

EPA. 2007a. Designated Sole Source Aquifers in EPA Region III. District of Columbia, Delaware, 

Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sourcewater/pubs/qrg_ssamap_reg3.pdf. 

EPA. 2007b. Section 303d List Fact Sheet for Chester-Sassafras Watershed. Available at: 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/huc_rept.control?p_huc=02060002&p_huc_desc=CHESTERSASSAFRAS. 

EPA. 2007c. Section 303d List Fact Sheet for Gunpowder-Patapsco Watershed. Available at: 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/huc_rept.control?p_huc=02060003&p_huc_desc=GUNPOWDERPATAPSCO.

EPA. 2008. Strasburg Landfill. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/sites/PAD000441337/index.htm. 

EPA and COE. 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal Testing Manual. EPA 

503/8-91/001. 

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1996. Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map - Baltimore 

County, Maryland Q3 Flood Data. http://www.msgic.state.md.us. 

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2004. Tractebel Calypso Pipeline Project Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Docket No. CP01-409-000. Office of Energy Projects. 

Washington, DC. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
G - 7 

Festa, P.J. 1977. Observations on the summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) sport fishery in Great Bay, 

N.J. during summer of 1976 in reference to anoxic water conditions. Appendix VII. In: Oxygen 

depletion and associated environmental disturbances in the Middle Atlantic Bight in 1976. p. 463-

471. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Northeast Fish. Cent. Sandy Hook Lab. Tech. Ser. Rep. 3. 

FirstSearch Technology Corporation. 2006. Environmental FirstSearchTM Report, Target Property: Sparrows 

Point MD 21219, Linear Type Project. June 15, 2006. 

FWS (United States Fish & Wildlife Service). No date. Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReoprt.do?spcode=A000. 

FWS. 1970. Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Recovery Plan. Federal Register, December 2, 1970. 

FWS. 1983. Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/recovery/be_n_recplan.pdf. 

FWS. 2001. Bog Turtle Recovery Plan. Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/010515.pdf. 

FWS. 2002. Migratory Bird Mortality [Fact Sheet]. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA. 

Available at: www.fws.gov/birds/mortality-fact-sheet.pdf. 

FWS. 2006a. Letter from Mary Ratnaswamy, Program Supervisor, Threatened and Endangered Species, 

FWS, Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Annapolis, Maryland to Matthew Stetter, Northern Ecological 

Associates. August 15, 2006. 

FWS. 2006b. Bald Eagle Soaring to Recovery. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/baldeagl.htm. 

FWS. 2007a. Phone conversation between Andy Moser (FWS Chesapeake Bay Field Office) and Noelle 

Ronan (Northern Ecological Associates) March 23, 2007. 

FWS. 2007b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plant; Removing the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 

States from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register, vol 72, No. 130. pp. 

37346-37372. July 9, 2007. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/BaldEagle/baldeaglefinaldelisting.pdf. 

FWS. 2007c. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/BaldEagle/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf. 

FWS. 2007d. Letter to FWS Chesapeake Bay Field Office from Northern Ecological Associates. January 25, 

2007. 

FWS. 2007e. Email correspondence from Andy Moser (FWS Chesapeake Bay Fish Office) to Harlan 

Locking (Northern Ecological Associates), March 26, 2007. 

FWS. 2008a. Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/pdf/endspecies/fact_sheets/tiger%20beetle.pdf. 

FWS. 2008b. Letter from Karen L.Mayne (Supervisor, Virginia Field Office) to Matthew Stetter (Tetra 

Tech). September 29, 2008. 

Girl Scouts of Central Maryland. No date. Resident Camp - Camp Conowingo. Available at: 

http://www.gscm.org/camp/CampConowingo.html. 

Glaholt, R.G., M. Nunas, and S. Ong. 2000. An investigation into the influence of marine pipelines and 

cables on benthic ecology and biodiversity. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on 

Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management, September 9-13, 2000, Calgary, Alberta, 

Canada. Abstract available at: 

http://www.rights-of-way-env.com/abstracts_7/Section%2012%20-%2008.htm. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
G - 8 

Grasso-Knight, G. and M. Waddington. 2000. Bird Collisions with Windows on Swarthmore Campus. 

Spring 2000 report. Available at: http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/es/birdcollisions.html. 

Groundwater & Environmental Services, Inc. 2004. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment. Prepared for 

Sunoco, Inc. July 30, 2004.Harford County Department of Parks and Recreation. 2006. Ma and Pa 

Heritage Corridor Available at: http://www.harfordcountymd.gov/parks_rec/ma_pa_corridor.htm. 

Guerra-Garcia, J.M., J. Corzo, and J.C. Garcia-Gomez. 2003. Short-Term Benthic Recolonization after 

Dredging in the Harbour of Cueta, North Africa. Marine Ecology, 24(3):217-229. 

GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc. 2005. Final Draft Phase II Environmental Site Assessment SPS LLLP (SPS) 

Sparrows Point Shipyard Property. 

Hain, J.H.W. 1998. North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalena glacialis): Western North Atlantic Stock. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS NE 116. U.S. Atlantic Marine Mammal Stock Assessments - 1998. 

Available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/tm/tm116/5.pdf. 

Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2007. Preliminary Geotechnical Report on AES Sparrows Point. Appendix J.1 of 

Resource Report 13 – Engineering and Design Materia, filed with FERC by AES in Docket No. CP07-

62-000, January 8, 2007. 

Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2008Y. Letter to NMFS (John Nichols) from Haley & Aldrich, Inc. (Robert Young). 

May 23, 2008. 

Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2008X. Letter to MDNR (Richard Mclean) from Haley & Aldrich, Inc. (Robert 

Young). May 16, 2008. 

Hansen, J.L., E. Benson, and D. Hagen. 2006. Environmental Hazards and Residential Property Values: 

Evidence from a Major Pipeline Event. Land Economics 82(2):529-541. 

Harford County Department of Planning and Zoning. 2006. Letter from Patricia Pudelkewicz, Chief, GIS and 

Environmental Planning, Harford County Department of Planning and Zoning, Bel Air, Maryland to 

Matthew Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates, Inc. July 26, 2006. 

Harford County Department of Planning & Zoning. 2007. Email from Patricia Pudelkewicz (Chief, GIS and 

Environmental Planning, Harford County Department of Planning and Zoning, Bel Air, Maryland) to 

Phil Perhamus (AMEC). October 23, 2007. 

Harford County Department of Public Works. 2006. Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Report 

prepared for the Division of Environmental Affairs. July 18, 2006. 

Herbes, S.E. 1981. Rates of microbial transformation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in water and 

sediments in the vicinity of a coal-coking wastewater discharge. Applied Environmental 

Microbiology 41:20-28. 

Hindman, L., B. Harvey, and D. Webster. No date. Migratory Game Birds. Available at: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/gpar/gpmgb.pdf. 

Hocutt, C.H., and J.R. Stauffer. 1975. Influence of Gradient on the Distribution of Fishes in Conowingo 

Creek, Maryland and Pennsylvania. Chesapeake Science 16(1):143-147. Available at: 

http://estuariesandcoasts.org/cdrom/CPSC1975_16_2_143_147.pdf. 

Howard, P.H. 1991. Handbook of Environmental Degradation Rates. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 

Howell, Rebecca. 2006. Determination of Eligibility Report for the Sparrows Point Shipyard, Sparrows Point, 

Baltimore County, Maryland. The Ottery Group, Inc., Silver Spring, MD. 

HSUS (Humane Society of the United States). 2007. Right Whales. Available at: 

http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/a_closer_look_at_marine_mammals/right_whales/

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
G - 9 

ICF Consulting, 2006. Current Methodologies and Best Practices in Preparing Port Emission Inventories. 

Final Report prepared for EPA Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation. Fairfax, VA. January 5, 

2006. 

IMO (International Maritime Organization). 1974 as amended. International Convention for the Safety of 

Life at Sea (SOLAS), as amended by the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code. 

Available at: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/contents.asp?topic_id=257&doc_id=647. 

IMO. 1993. International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in 

Bulk (IGC Code). Also incorporates amendments adopted by the Maritime Safety Committee at its 

sixty-first session (December 1992) by resolution MSC.30(61).; a supplement containing amendments 

adopted by resolutions MSC.32(63) on 23 May 1994 and MSC.59(67) on 5 December 1996 is 

included. International Maritime Organization, London, United Kingdom. 

IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2007. "Conventions - Ballast Water Management" and 

"Summary of Conventions" web pages. http://www.imo.org/. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”), 2006. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas 

Inventories, Volume 2 (Energy), Chapter 2 (Stationary Combustion) and Chapter 3 (Mobile 

Combustion). 

http:// www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol2.html

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). 2001. Seminar on Bird Hazards, Environmental Protection 

and Land Use at Airports for the NAM/CAR/SAM Regions. April 24-27, 2001, Miami, FL. 

Irwin, R.J., M. VanMouwerik, L. Stevens, M.D. Seese, and W. Basham. 1997. Environmental Contaminants 

Encyclopedia. National Park Service, Water Resources Division, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Jackson, Janet. ND. National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for Kirks Mill Historic District. 

On file at PA-SHPO, Harrisburg. 

Kenny, A.J. and H.L. Rees. 1994. The Effects of Marine Gravel Extraction on the Macrobenthos: Early PostDredging Recolonisation. Marine Pollution Bulletin 28(7):442-447. 

Kenny, A.J. and H.L. Rees. 1996. The Effects of Marine Gravel Extraction on the Macrobenthos: Results 2 

Years Post-Dredging. Marine Pollution Bulletin 32(8/9):615-622. 

Kenny, A.J., H.L. Rees, J. Greening, and S. Campbell. 1998. The Effects of Gravel Extraction on the 

Macrobenthos at an Experimental Dredge Site off North Norfolk, UK. (Results 3 Years PostDredging). ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) CM 1998 14:1-8. 

Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bull. 101: 60-62. Available at: 

http://www.birdscreen.com/PDF/KlemCollisions1989.pdf. 

Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: Mortality and prevention. Journal of Field 

Ornithology 61(1):120-128 Available at: 

http://www.birdscreen.com/PDF/Klem_AFO_Collisions1990.pdf. 

Kriebel, D., W. Seelig, and C. Judge. 2003. Development of a Unified Description of Ship-Generated Waves. 

Proceedings PIANC Annual Meeting. Portland, Oregon. October 2003. Available at: 

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/PIANC/Presentations/portland_proceedings_presentations/PassingShi

psWkshp.pdf. 

Krieger, D.A., J.W. Terrell, and P.C. Nelson. 1983. Habitat suitability information: yellow perch. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-83/10.55. 37pp. 

Laist, D.W., A.R. Knowlton, J.G. Mead, A.S. Collet, M. Podesta. 2001. Collisions Between Ships and 

Whales. Marine Mammal Science 17(1):35-75. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
G - 10 

Lancaster County Planning Commission (LCPC). 2008. Letter to FERC (Kimberly Bose) from LCPC (James 

.Cowehy). June 16, 2008. 

Landschoot, P. 1997. Erosion Control & Conservation Plantings on Noncropland. The Pennsylvania State 

University, College of Agricultural Sciences. Available at: 

http://cropsoil.psu.edu/extension/ct/uc150.pdf. 

Lindsey, B.D., Breen, K.J., Bilger, M.D., and Brightbill, R.A. 1998. Water Quality in the Lower 

Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1992-95 (updated April 2, 1998). U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1168. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1168/. 

Lippson, A.J. 1973. The Chesapeake Bay in Maryland: An Atlas of Natural Resources. The Johns Hopkins 

University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 

Locking, B.L., and S. Eldridge. 2007a. Addendum Phase I Archaeological Survey Report: Sparrows Point 

LNG/Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project Cecil, Harford and Baltimore Counties, Maryland Docket 

#: PF06-22-000. Northern Ecological Associates, Inc., Buffalo, NY. 

Locking, B.L., S. Eldridge, A.R. Kuder, and H.J. Dafoe. 2006a. Phase I Archaeological Survey Report: 

Sparrows Point LNG/Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project Cecil, Harford and Baltimore Counties, 

Maryland Docket #: PF06-22-000. Northern Ecological Associates, Inc. Buffalo, NY. 

Locking, B.L., S. Eldridge, A.R. Kuder, and H.J. Dafoe. 2006b. Phase I Archaeological Survey Report: 

Sparrows Point LNG/Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project Chester and Lancaster Counties, 

Pennsylvania Docket #: PF06-22-000 (ER 06-2341-042-A). Northern Ecological Associates, Inc. 

Buffalo, NY. 

Longcore, T. and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological Light Pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 

2(4):191-198. 

Malakoff, D. 2004. Clear and Present Danger. Audubon 106(1):65-68, March 2004. Available at: 

http://audubonmagazine.org/features0403/alert.html. 

Manville, A. M. II. 2000. The ABCs of avoiding bird collisions at communication towers: the next steps. 

Proceedings of the Avian Interactions Workshop, December 2, 1999, Charleston, SC. Electric Power 

Research Institute (in press). Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/towers/abcs.html. 

Maryland Forest, Park and Wildlife Service. 1989. Old Growth Forest Ecosystems. Maryland Department of 

Natural Resources, Baltimore. 

Maryland Geological Survey. 1977. Middle River Quadrangle Geology. 

Maryland Geological Survey. 1979. Baltimore East Quadrangle Geology. 

Maryland Geological Survey. 2001. Physiographic Provinces and their Subdivisions in Maryland. Available 

at: http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/brochures/mdgeology.html. 

Maryland Geological Survey. 2003. Earthquakes and Maryland. 

Maryland Historical Trust. 2008. Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties. Available at: 

http://www.marylandhistoricaltrust.net/mdinven.html. 

Maryland Waste Management Administration. 1985. Preliminary Assessment of Buck Steel Drum, 

Baltimore, Maryland. Prepared for the EPA June 1985. 

Maryland Waterfowlers Association. 2008. Letter from Maryland Waterfowlers Association (Ronnie Adams) 

to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Kimberley Bose, Secretary). May 22, 2008. 

Mason Dixon Trail System, Inc. 2006. The Mason Dixon Trail System Available at: 

http://www.masondixontrail.org/. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
G - 11 

Mason, R.P., and Lawrence, A.L. 1999. Concentration distribution and bioavailability of mercury and 

methylmercury in sediments of Baltimore Harbor and Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, USA. Environ. 

Toxicol. Chem. 18 (11), 2438–2447. 

McCauley, J.E., R.A. Parr, and D.R. Hancock. 1977. Benthic Infauna and Maintenance Dredging: A Case 

Study. Water Research 11:233-242. 

McCluskey, J.J., and G.C. Rausser. 2001. Estimation of Perceived Risk and Its Effect on Property Values. 

Land Economics 77(1):42-55. 

MDE (Maryland Department of the Environment). 1988. Preliminary Assessment of Leo J. McCourt Dump 

Baltimore County, Maryland. Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Administration. Prepared for 

the EPA. December 1, 1988. 

MDE. 1990. Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Administration. Prepared for the EPA, October 1990. 

MDE. 1997. Registered Toxic Study: Spatial Mapping of Sedimentary Contaminants in the Baltimore 

Harbor/Patapsco River/Back River System. August 1997. 

MDE. 2003. Delineated Wellhead Protection areas for Public Water Systems in Maryland by Water Supply 

Program. 

MDE. 2005. COMAR 26.08.02.07. Stream Segment Classifications. Available at: 

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/26/26.08.02.07.htm. 

MDE. 2006. For the Record, Volume II, Number 6, October, 2006. Available at: 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/ResearchCenter/Publications/General/eMDE/vol2no6/fortherecord.asp. 

MDE. 2006b. Total Maximum Daily Loads of Nitrogen and Phosphorus for the Baltimore Harbor in Anne 

Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll and Howard Counties and Baltimore City, Maryland. Submitted to 

Watershed Protection Division, EPA, Region III. December 2006. 

MDE. 2007c. 303d list. Available at: 

 http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/waterprograms/tmdl/maryland%20303%20dlist/index.asp. 

MDE. 2007d. BataviaLandfill, Baltimore, Maryland. Available at: 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/brownfields/batavia.pdf. 

MDE. 2007e. MDE Fish Consumption Advisory – Guidelines for Recreationally Caught Fish Species in 

Maryland. Available at: 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/CitizensInfoCenter/FishandShellfish/home/index.asp. 

MDE. 2007a. Water Quality Maps - Patapsco and Back Rivers Tributary Strategy Basin. Available at: 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/Water/HB1141/Map_WQ_Patback.asp. 

MDE. 2007b. Water Quality Standards. Available at: 

 http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/TMDL/wqstandards/index.asp. 

MDNR (Maryland Department Natural Resources). 2003. Chesapeake 2000, “The Renewed Bay 

Agreement.” Available at: http://dnrweb.dnr.state.md.us/bay/res_protect/c2k. 

MDNR. 2003b. Potential Habitat for Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS). Available at: 

http://www.marylandgis.net/metadataexplorer/full_metadata.jsp?docId=%7BD0F00456-D19B-425A8A5F-96FC5FD18185%7D&loggedIn=false. 

MDNR Wildlife Heritage Service. 2006. Letter from MDNR-WHS to Northern Ecological Associates. June 

23, 2006. 

MDNR. No date. Fishing.[Gunpowder Falls information.] Available at: 

 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/outdooradventures/fishgunpowder3.html. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
G - 12 

MDNR. 2004a. Natural Communities – Serpentine Grasslands. Available at: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/serpentine.asp. 

MDNR. 2004b. The Maryland Darter. MDNR Wildlife Heritage Service. Available at: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/mddarter.asp. 

MDNR 2005a. Maryland Tributary Strategy Patapsco/Back Basin Summary Report for 1985-2003 Data. 

Prepared by the Chesapeake Bay Program Tidal Monitoring and Analysis Workgroup. 

MDNR. 2005b. Forest Conservation Act. Available at: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/programapps/newFCA.asp. 

MDNR. 2006a. Indiana bat. Available at: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/rteindianabat.asp. 

MDNR. 2006b. Letter from Ray Dintaman, Director, MDNR Environmental Review Unit to Matthew Stetter, 

Northern Ecological Associates. October 27, 2006. 

MDNR. 2006c. Letter from Lori Byrne, Environmental Review Coordinator, MDNR Wildlife Heritage 

Service to Matthew Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates. June 23, 2006. 

MDNR. 2007a. Letter from Lori Byrne, Environmental Review Coordinator, MDNR Wildlife Heritage 

Service to Matthew Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates. April 3, 2007. 

MDNR. 2007d. Telephone communication between Glen Therres (MDNR) and Nicole Abel (AMEC). April 

16, 2007. 

MDNR. 2007e. Telephone communication between Lori Byrne (MDNR) and Phil Perhamus (AMEC). July 

16, 2007. 

MDNR, 2007f. Telephone communication between Glenn Therres (MDNR) and Phil Perhamus (AMEC). 

October 23, 2007. 

MDNR 2007g. Email from M. Honeczy (MDNR Forest Service, State Forest Conservation Program 

Coordinator) to Bob Honig, AMEC Paragon, February 9, 2007. 

MDNR. 2008a. Letter from MDNR Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment Division (William Romano) to MDNR 

Environmental Review Unit (Greg Golden). June 5, 2008. 

MDNR 2008b. Email correspondence from Greg Golden (MDNR) to Robert Young (Haley & Aldrich, Inc.). 

June 16, 2008. (e=V) 

MDNR. 2008c. Letter from MDNR (Lori Byrne) to AMEC (Bob Honig). June 23, 2008. (b=Y) 

MDNR. 2008d. Telephone communication with MDNR (Lena Pajewska) and AMEC (Bob Honig). July 3, 

2008. 

MDNR. 2008e. Email from MDNR (Larry Hindman) to AMEC (Bob Honig). July 8, 2008. (c=Z) 

MDNR. 2008f. Email from MDNR (Larry Hindman) to AMEC (Nicole Wiefling). October 1, 2008. 

MDNR. 2008g. Telephone communication between MDNR (Roland Limpert) and AMEC (Nicole Wiefling). 

October 2, 2008. 

MDNR. 2008h. Letter from MDNR (Lori Bryne) and AMEC (Nikki Wiefling). October 3, 2008. 

MDNR. 2008i. Official Maryland state records. Available at: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/fishingreport/record.html. 

Mosher, James. 2006. "Ethanol beats liquid natural gas, says chairman of Baltimore County." The 

[Baltimore] Daily Record, September 12, 2006. Available at: 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20060912/ai_n16719592. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
G - 13 

Mullen, D.M., C.W. Fay, and J.R. Moring. 1986. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental 

Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (North Atlantic) -- Alewife/Blueback Herring. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 82(11.56). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 

21 pp. 

Musick, J.A. 1988. The Sea Turtles of Virginia, Second Revised Edition. Virginia Sea Grant Program, 

Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, Gloucester Point, Virginia. 20pp. 

National Audubon Society. 2008. Audubon Pennsylvania Birds Conservation: The Important Bird Area 

Program in Pennsylvania. Available at: http://pa.audubon.org/iba/maps.html. 

National Climatic Data Center. 2002. Monthly Station Normals of Temperature, Precipitation, and Heating 

and Cooling Degree Days 1971-2000, Climatography of the United States No. 81, Maryland (18). 

Naval District Washington. 2007. Communications between R. Yuill (AMEC Paragon) and Lieutenant M. 

Coy, Regional Port Operations Officer (Naval District Washington) regarding Naval operations at 

Annapolis and the Port of Baltimore. March 5, 2007. 

Near, T.J., and M.F. Bernard. 2004. Rapid Allopatric Speciation in Logperch Darters (Percidae: Percina). 

Evolution 58:2798-2808. 

NEFMC (New England Fishery Management Council). 2003. Final Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the 

Northeast Skate Complex. Section 4.6, Essential Fish Habitat. Available at: 

http://www.nefmc.org/skates/fmp/skate_final_fmp_sec3.PDF. 

Newell, R.C., L.J. Seiderer, and D.R. Hitchcock. 1998. The Impact of Dredging Works in Coastal Waters: A 

Review of the Sensitivity to Disturbance and Subsequent Recovery of Biological Resources in the Sea 

Bed. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review. 36:127-178. 

Newell, T.L. 1999. "Myotis sodalis," Indiana bat. Animal Diversity Web, University of Michigan Museum of 

Zoology. Available at: http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Myotis_sodalis.html. 

The News Journal. 2008. LNG Terminal on Delaware Shelved. Article by Jeff Montgomery. October 9, 

2008. Available at: https://amaccess.amec.com/exchweb/bin/,DanaInfo=att1-vwowa1.am.int.amec.com+redir.asp?URL=http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20081009/BUSINES

S/810090364/1003. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). No date. Guide to Essential Fish Habitat Designations in the 

Northeastern United States. Available at: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/webintro.html. 

NMFS. 1991. Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale. National Marine Fisheries Service Humpback Whale 

Recovery Team, Silver Spring, MD. Available at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/whale_humpback.pdf. 

NMFS. 1992. Recovery Plan for Leatherback Turtles in the U.S. Carribean, Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 

NMFS. 1994. Designated Critical Habitat; Northern Right Whale. 50 CFR Part 226, Docket No. 930363-

4145, I.D. 012793BJ. 

NMFS. 1999. Guide to Essential Fish Habitat Designations in the Northeastern United States, Volume V: 

Maryland to Virginia. NOAA/NMFS Habitat Conservation Division. 

NMFS. 2001. Information provided by Karen Greene, U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Conservation 

Division, James J. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory, Highlands, New Jersey. As referenced in: 

NEA. 2007. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment with Additional Information on Non EFH-Designated 

Species. Prepared for AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC by Northern Ecological Associates, Inc., 

Portland, ME. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
G - 14 

NMFS. 2005a. Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report (SAR) for Cetaceans. Available at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm#largewhales. 

NMFS. 2005b. Channel Islands: Humpback Whale. Available at: 

http://www8.nos.noaa.gov/onms/park/Parks/SpeciesCard.aspx?refID=1&CreatureID=20&pID=3. 

NMFS. 2005c. Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report (SAR) for the Humpback Whale Gulf of Maine 

Stock. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ao2005whhb-gme.pdf. 

NMFS. 2006a. Letter from John Nichols, NMFS-Habitat Conservation Division, Annapolis, Maryland to 

Matthew Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates. May 23, 2006. 

NMFS. 2006b. Draft Recovery Plan for the Fin Whale. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, 

MD. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/draft_finwhale.pdf. 

NMFS. 2006c. Draft Recovery Plan for the Sperm Whale. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, 

MD. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/draft_spermwhale.pdf. 

NMFS. 2006d. Proposed Rule to Implement Speed Restrictions to Reduce the Threat of Ship Collisions with 

North Atlantic Right Whales. Federal Register 71(122):36299-36313. June 26, 2006. Available at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/fr/fr71-36299.pdf. 

NMFS. 2006e. Letter from M.A. Colligan, National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, Massachusetts to 

M. Stetter, Northern Ecological Associates, Inc., Fredonia, New York. May 3, 2006. 

NMFS. 2006f. Email from Julie Crocker (NMFS, Gloucester, Massachusetts) to Noelle Ronan (Northern 

Ecological Associates), November 28, 2006. 

NMFS. 2006g. Telephone communication between Kristin Koyama (NMFS, Gloucester, Massachusetts) and 

Matthew Stetter (Northern Ecological Associates), October 5, 2006. 

NMFS. 2006h. Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions (revised March 23, 2006). 

Available at: 

http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/regulatory/assets/docs/species/inwater/inwaterWorkSeaTurtle032306.pdf. 

NMFS. 2007a. Telephone communication between John Nichols (NMFS, Annapolis, Maryland) and Robert 

Honig (AMEC), Richard Yuill (AMEC), Phil Perhamus (AMEC), and Joanne Wachholder (FERC). 

January 30, 2007. 

NMFS. 2007b. Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report (SAR) for the Sei Whale Novi Scotia Stock. 

Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ao2007whse-ns.pdf. 

NMFS. 2008a. Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures and Reporting for Mariners, NOAA Fisheries Service, 

Southeast Region (revised February 2008). NMFS Southeast Region, St. Petersburg, FL. Available 

at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdf/Vessel%20Strike%20Avoidance%20February%202008.pdf. 

NMFS. 2008b. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/seiwhale.htm#more. 

NMFS. 2008c. Telephone communication between NMFS (John Nichols) and AMEC (Nicole Wiefling). 

October 16, 2008. 

NMFS. 2008d. Final Rule to Implement Speed Restrictions to Reduce the Threat of Ship Collisions with 

North Atlantic Right Whales. Federal Register 73(198):60173-60191. October 10, 2008. Available 

at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/fr/fr73-60173.pdf. 

NMFS. 2008e. Email correspondence from Kristen Koyama (Ship Strike Coordinator, NMFS Northeast 

Regional Office, Protected Resources Division) to Bob Honig (AMEC). November 10, 2008. 

NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2008. Least Tern Fact Sheet. 

Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7094.html. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
G - 15 

O’Dell, J., J. Gabor, and R. Dintaman. 1975. Survey of Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas. Completion 

Report, Project AFC-8 for: Upper Chesapeake Bay Drainage. Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources, Fisheries Administration, Annapolis, Maryland. 

O'Connell, T. 1998. Glass windows and bird deaths. In Proceedings of the North American Ornithological 

Conference, April 8, 1998, St. Louis, Missouri. 

Olear, M. 2003. Sidebar: On Observing the Chesapeake’s Eagles. ZooGoer July/August 2003. Available at: 

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/publications/zoogoer/2003/4/EagleViewsTable.cfm. 

OLI (Ocean Life Institute). 2004. Right Whales. Available at: 

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/OLI/currenttopics/ct_rightwhales.htm. 

Opler, P. A., H. Pavulaan, R. E. Stanford, and M. Pogue, coordinators. 2006. Butterflies and Moths of North 

America, Species Detail: Regal Fritillary. Bozeman, Montana: Mountain Prairie Information Node. 

Available at: http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/species?l=1677. 

The Oregonian. 2008. BP Freezes Plans for LNG Terminal. Article by Paul Dobson and Tina Seeley, 

Bloombberg News. Available at: 

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/1223598326108030.xml&coll=7.

Orth, R. J., D. J. Wilcox, L. S. Nagey, A. L. Owens, J. R. Whiting, and A. K. Kenne. 2005. 2004 Distribution 

of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Bays. Virginia Institute of 

Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. Special Scientific Report 

Number 146. Available at: http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav04. 

Orth, R. J., D. J. Wilcox, L. S. Nagey, A. L. Owens, J. R. Whiting, and A. K. Kenne. 2006. 2005 Distribution 

of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, 

College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. Special Scientific Report Number 147. 

Available at: http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav05/index.html. 

Packer, D.B., S.J. Griesbach., P.L. Berrien, C.A. Zetlin, D.L. Johnson, and W.W. Morse. 1999. Essential Fish 

Habitat Source Document: Summer Flounder, Paralichthys dentatus, Life History and Habitat 

Characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-151. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast 

Fisheries Science Center: Woods Hole, MA. Available at: 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/tm/tm151/. 

Page, L.M., and B.M. Burr. 1991. A Field Guide to Fresh Water Fishes. Houghton Mifflin Company: New 

York, NY.

Paine, M.D., P.M. Chapman, P.J. Allard, M.H. Murdoch, and D. Minifie. 1996. Limited bioavailability of 

sediment PAH near an aluminum smelter: contamination does not equal effects. Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry 15:2003-2018. 

Parfomak, P.W. 2003. Liquefied Natural Gas Infrastructure Security: Background and Issues for Congress. 

Congressional Research Service Report for Congress. September 9, 2003. Available at: 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/documents/2003-09_LNG_INFRASTRUCTURE_SECURITY.PDF. 

PGC. 2008. Telephone communication with PGC (John Morgan) and AMEC (Nikki Wiefling). November 10, 

2008 

PDCNR (Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources). 1980. Maps 1 and 7 – Geologic 

Map of Pennsylvania. 

PDCNR. 1993. Open File Report 9301 - Sinkholes and Karst-related Features of Chester County, 

Pennsylvania. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
G - 16 

PDCNR. 1997. Keystone Notes: Bog Turtle. Available at: 

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/wrcf/keynotes/bogfact.htm. 

PDCNR. 2005b. Open File Report Open File General Geology Report 05-01.0, Precambrian Basement Map 

of the Appalachian Basin and Piedmont Province in Pennsylvania. 

PDCNR. 2006a. Pennsylvania Scenic Rivers Program. Available at: 

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/brc/rivers/scenicrivers/locationmap.aspx. 

PDCNR. 2007. Letter from PDCNR to Northern Ecological Associates. February 6, 2007. 

PDCNR. No date. Natural openings: barrens. Available at: 

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/wlhabitat/farmlands/barrens.aspx. 

PADEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection). 2005. Joint Permit Application Instructions 

for a Pennsylvania Water Obstruction and Encroachment Permit Application and a USACOE Section 

404 Permit Application. Report 3930-PM-WM0036. 

PDEP. 2006. EMAP. Available at: http://www.emappa.dep.state.pa.us/emappa/viewer.htm. (Search 

included PAWGIS Well Water Inventory at a scale factor of 7.99.) 

PDEP. 2007. Chapter 105 Water Obstruction & Encroachment General Permits. Available at: 

http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=3&q=461114. 

PDEP. 2007. Stream Designation Evaluations. Available at: 

http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/watersupply/cwp/view.asp?a=1261&q=449207&watersupplyNav=|301

84|&watersupplyNav=|30184|.

PDEP. 2008. Office of Environmental Advocate, Environmental Justice Areas of Pennsylvania. Available at: 

http://depweb.state.pa.us/environadvocate/site/default.asp) 

Pelletier, J.B., T.J. Nowak, and M.R. Williams. 2006. Phase I Marine Archaeological Remote Sensing Survey 

of a 600.0 x 300.0 ft (182.9 x 91.4 m) Turning Basin Area of the Sparrows Point LNG Dock and 

Facility Project, Baltimore Harbor, Baltimore County, Maryland. R. Christopher Goodwin & 

Associates, Inc. Frederick, Maryland. 

Pennsylvania Geological Survey – Alexander, S.S., Cakir, R., Doden, A.G., Gold, D.P., and Root, S.I. 

(compilers). 2005a. Basement Depth and Related Geospatial Database for Pennsylvania: 

Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th ser., Open-File General Geology Report 05-01.0. Available at: 

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/openfile/basementmap.aspx. 

Pennsylvania Geological Survey – Wiswall, C.G.]. 2005. Bedrock Geologic Map of the Unionville 

Quadrangle, Chester County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th ser., Open-File 

Report OFBM 05–03.0, 15 p., Portable Document Format (PDF). Available at: 

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/openfile/unionv.aspx. 

Pepper, G. and K. Shah. 2004. Engineering Considerations in Siting and Design of Offshore LNG Terminals. 

Presented Paper at California State Lands Commission’s Prevention First 2004 Symposium. 

Available online at: 

http://www.slc.ca.gov/Division_Pages/MFD/MFD%20PREVENTION%20FIRST/Prevention%20First

/Marine%20Terminal%20Engineering%20Issues/shah%20paper.pdf. 

PFBC (Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission). 2006. Letter from PFBC to Northern Ecological 

Associates. May 26, 2006. 

PGC (Pennsylvania Game Commission). 2003. Indiana Bat. Available at: 

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=486&q=152617. 

PGC. 2008. Voice message left by John Morgan (PGC Southeast Region Office) to Nicole Wiefling (AMEC 

Earth & Environmental), November 7, 2008. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
G - 17 

PNHP (Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program). 2007. Natural community types (updated January 2007). 

Available at: http://www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us/community.aspx. 

Rabon, Jr., D.R., S.A. Johnson, R. Boettcher, M. Dodd, M. Lyons, S. Murphy, S. Ramsey, S. Roff, and K. 

Stewart. 2003. Confirmed Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Nests from North Carolina, 

with a Summary of Leatherback Nesting Activities North of Florida. Marine Turtle 

Newsletter 101:4-8. 

Raesly, R. 2008. Telephone communication with Dr. Richard Raesly (Frostburg State University) and Ms. 

Nicole Wiefling (AMEC). August 4, 2008. 

Real Estate Counseling Group of Connecticut, Inc. (RECG). 1995. Anticipated Price Effect on Single-Family 

Residential Properties Associated with Proximity to LNG Storage Facilities. Prepared for Granite 

State Gas. 

Reed, C. 1986. Floras of the serpentinite formations of eastern North America. Contributions to the Reed 

Herbarium No. 30, Baltimore, Maryland. 858 pp. 

Rich, A.C., D.S. Dobkin, and L.J. Niles. 1994. Defining forest fragmentation by corridor width: the influence 

of narrow forest-dividing corridors on forest-nesting birds in southern New Jersey. Conservation 

Biology 8:1109-21. 

Richardson, J.W., C. R. Greene, C. I. Malme, and D. H. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. 

Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 576 pp. 

Salmon, M. 2003. Artificial Night Lighting and Sea Turtles. Biologist 50(4):163-168. 

Schlekat, C., P.R. Dowdle, B-G. Lee, S. Luoma, R.S. Oremland. 2000. Bioavailability of Particle-Associated 

Se to the Bivalve Potamocorbula amurensis. Environmental Science and Technology 34 (21):4504-

4510. 

SESTECH Environmental. 2003. Draft Site Closure Report. March 2003. 

Shepherd, G.R., and D.B. Packer. 2006. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Bluefish, Pomatomus 

saltatrix, Life History and Habitat Characteristics, Second Edition. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-NE-198. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. Available 

at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/tm/tm198/. 

Shoop, C.R. and R.D. Kenney. 1992. Seasonal Distributions and Abundance of Loggerhead and Leatherback 

Sea Turtles in Waters of the Northeastern United States. Herpetological Monographs 6.43-67. 

Smithsonian Institution. No date. Serpentine areas of North America (map). Available at: 

http://www.nmnh.si.edu/botany/projects/cpd/na/map5.htm. 

Stanley, J.G. and D.S. Danie. 1983. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal 

fishes and invertebrates (North Atlantic) -- white perch. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of 

Biological Services, FWS/OBS-82/11.7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 12pp. 

Stroud Center (The Conservation Fund). 2007. A Report on the State of the Schuylkill River Watershed. 

Available at: http://www.schuylkillreport.org/ 

Swearingen, J., K., Reshetiloff, B. Slattery, and S. Zwicker. 2002. Plant Invaders of Mid-Atlantic Natural 

Areas. National Park Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 82 pp. Available 

at: http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/pubs/midatlantic/. 

The Nature Conservancy. 2007. State-Line Serpentine Barrens. Available at: 

http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/pennsylvania/preserves/art1594.html. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
G - 18 

TORP. 2006. TORP Terminal LP, Bienville Offshore Energy Terminal LNG Deepwater Port License 

Application. Available online at http://dms.dot.gov/. (Docket Number 24644.) 

Touart, Paul. 1978. Maryland Historic Sites Inventory for CE-864, Bell Manor/Shadowbrook. Available at: 

http://www.mdihp.net/cfm/dsp_display.cfm?next_image=6. 

Trapp, H., and M.A. Horn. 1997. Ground Water Atlas of the United States: Delaware, Maryland, New 

Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia. US Geological Survey Report 

HA730-L. 

US Census Bureau, Census. 2000. American FactFinder. Available at: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. Update of Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission 

Factors for On-Highway Vehicles (EPA420-P-04-016, 2004). EPA Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, Assessment and Standards Division. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008. Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) 

Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5), 96 Fed. Reg. 28321 (May 16, 

2008). 

US Navy, Patuxent River Naval Air Station (PAX). 2007. Communications between R. Yuill (AMEC 

Paragon) and C. Jarboe (PAX) regarding Naval operations in Surface Danger Zones in Chesapeake 

Bay. March 2, 2007. 

USDA. 1976. Soil Survey of Baltimore County, Maryland. 

USDA/NRCS (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service ). 1994a. 

State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) database for Maryland. 

USDA/NRCS. 1994b. State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) database for Pennsylvania. 

USDA/NRCS. 2005. Chester-Sassafras Watershed. Available at: 

http://www.md.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/csp/2005/chester.html. 

USDA/NRCS. 2005a. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Baltimore County, Maryland. 

USDA/NRCS. 2006a. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Maryland and Pennsylvania. 

Available at: http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/ssurgo/. 

USDA/NRCS. 2006b. State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) Database for Maryland and Pennsylvania. 

(http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/statsgo/). 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) – written by Jonathan W. 1997. Digital Compilation of Landslide Overview 

Map of the Conterminous United States by Dorothy H. Radbruch-Hall, Roger B. Colton, William E. 

Davies, Ivo Lucchitta, Betty A. Skipp, and David J. Varnes, 1982. USGS Open File Report 97-289. 

Available at: http://landslides.usgs.gov/learning/nationalmap/. 

USGS. 1998. Principal Aquifers, National Atlas of the United States Of America, compiled by James Miller. 

USGS. 2000. National Hydrography Dataset. Available at: http://nhd.usgs.gov. 

USGS. 2001. A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data. Available at: 

http://landcover.usgs.gov/pdf/anderson.pdf. 

USGS. 2002. National Seismic Hazard Maps. Available at: 

 http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/products_data/index.php. 

USGS. 2007. Water Fact Sheet: Lower Susquehanna River. Available at: 

http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/ne/lsus/lsus_factsheet.html. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
G - 19 

USGS, International Code Council. 2003. International Building Code Figures 1615(2) and 1615(1). 

Valente, R. 2003. The Role of Seafloor Characterization and Benthic Habitat Mapping in Dredged Material 

Management: A Review. Prepared for NOAA Coastal Services Center, Charleston, SC. SAIC Report 

No. 621. 

Varga, C., A. Monoki, and B. Barsony. 2006. Bird-Protection Walls: An Innovative Way to Prevent Bird 

Strikes? In: Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Eds. 

Irwin, C.L., Garrett, P., McDermott, K.P. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North 

Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC: pp.565-568. 

Vinkour, W.S., and J.P. Shubert. 1987. Effects of gas pipeline construction on the aquatic ecosystem of 

Canada Creek, Presque Isle County, MI. Gas Res. Inst. Rep. GRI-87-0027. 

WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources). 2006. Regal Fritillary. Available at: 

http://dnr.wi.gov/ORG/LAND/ER/invertebrates/butterflies_moths/regalfrit.htm. 

Wedepohl, K.H. 1960. Spurenanalytische Untersuchungen an Tiefseetonen aus dem Atlantik : Ein Beitrag 

zur Deutung der geochemischen Sonderstellung von pelagischen Tonen. Geochimica et 

Cosmochimica Acta. Vol. 18: 200-231. 

Weeks, Christopher. 1992. National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for Lower Deer Creek 

Valley Historic District. On file at MD-SHPO. 

Werner, R.G. 2004. A Field Guide to the Freshwater Fishes of the Northeastern United States. Syracuse 

University Press: Syracuse, NY. 

Weston, R.W. 1998. Final Hazard Ranking System, 68th Street Dump Industrial Enterprises. Roy W. 

Weston, Inc., prepared for the EPA. December 9, 1998. 

Wolf, Martha Leigh. 1984. National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for Doe Run Village 

Historic District. On file at PA-SHPO, Harrisburg. 

Wolter, C., and R. Arlinghaus. 2003. Navigation impacts on freshwater fish assemblages: the ecological 

relevance of swimming performance. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 13:63-89. 

Youd, T.L., and I.M. Idriss. 2001. Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER 

and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. Journal of 

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 127(4):297-313. Abstract available at: 

http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?0101447. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX H 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
H-1

APPENDIX H 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Wachholder, Joanne – Project Manager, Introduction, Description of Facilities, Water 

Resources, Vegetation, Wetlands, and Cumulative Impacts 

M.S., Crop and Soil Sciences/Environmental Toxicology, 1997, Michigan State University 

B.S., Environmental Biology, 1994, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point 

Kochhar, Medha – Assistant Project Manager, Vegetation, Wildlife, and Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

Ph.D., Plant Ecology, 1974, North Carolina State University 

M.S., Botany, 1968, B.I.T.S., Pilani, India 

B.S., Biology and Chemistry, 1966, University of Delhi 

Jacaman, Kandilarya – Assistant Project Manager, Reliability and Safety 

M.E. Environmental Engineering/Project Management, 2006, University of Maryland, 

College Park 

B.S. Chemical Engineering, 2003, University of Maryland, College Park 

Boren, Douglas – Wetlands and Water Resources 

B.S., Biological Sciences (Marine Biology), 2002, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia 

Busch, Steven – Reliability and Safety 

M.E., Environmental Engineering, 2003, University of Maryland, College Park 

B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 1999, University of Maryland, College Park 

Button, Van – Cultural Resources and Socioeconomics 

M.A., Anthropology, 1976, University of Arizona 

B.A., Anthropology, 1973, Reed College 

Manco, Magdalene – Air Quality and Noise, Pipeline Safety 

B.S., Environmental Systems Engineering, 2004, The Pennsylvania State University 

Peconom, John – Wetlands, Vegetation, Wildlife, Threatened and Endangered Species 

B.S., Environmental Biology and Management, 2000, University of California at Davis 

Polit, Juan – Soils, Geology 

M.S., Forest Ecology, 1992, University of Illinois 

B.S., Forestry, 1989, University of Illinois 

Turner, Laura – Alternatives, Land Use 

B.S., Geology, 1974, Indiana University 

Turpin, Terry – Reliability and Safety 

B.S., Civil Engineering, 1992, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
H-2

White, Sentho – Reliability and Safety 

M.S., Environmental Engineering, 2001, Johns Hopkins University 

B.S., Civil Engineering, 2000, Georgia Institute of Technology 

AMEC Paragon and AMEC Earth & Environmental

Yuill, Richard – Project Manager, Description of Facilities, Dredging and Sediments, 

Alternatives, Cumulative Impacts 

Ph.D., Biology, 1991, Rice University 

M.S., Biological Oceanography, 1973, Texas A&M University 

B.A., Biology, 1971, Austin College 

Honig, Robert – Deputy Project Manager, Vegetation, Wildlife, Threatened and Endangered 

Species, Wetlands 

M.S., Zoology, 1979, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University 

B.A., Biology, 1975, University of Pennsylvania 

Barth, Peter – Geology 

M.E.R, Energy Resources, 1991, University of Pittsburgh, School of Engineering 

M.A., Environmental Geology, 1974, West Virginia University 

B.S., Geology, 1971, Marshall University 

Blumhardt, Jill – Soils 

B.S., Geology, 1996, Temple University 

Chan, Pamela – Land Use, Socioeconomics and Appendix P 

B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 1980, The Pennsylvania State University 

Foster, Patricia – Appendix P, Executive Summary and Project Description 

B.A., Biology, 1998, Colby College 

French, Michael – Cultural Resources 

M.A., Archaeology, 1998, University of Kentucky 

B.A., Anthropology, 1992, University of Arkansas 

Gneiding, Laurie – Water Resources, Wetlands 

M.S., Environmental Toxicology, 1984, New Jersey Institute of Technology 

B.A., Biology, 1978, William Paterson College 

Harman, Charles – Water Resources 

M.A., Biology, 1986, Southwest Texas State University 

B.S., Wildlife Ecology, 1977, Texas A&M University 

Harrington, Jeffrey – Air Quality and Noise 

M.S., Civil Engineering, 1988, Carnegie Mellon University 

B.S., Chemical Engineering, 1984, Stanford University 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
H-3

Johnston, Justin – Essential Fish Habitat and Fisheries Biology 

B.S., Biology, 2000, Central Michigan University 

M.S., Biology, 2004, Central Michigan University 

Martin, Maurice – Environmental Justice 

M.S., Environmental Management and Industrial Hygiene, 2002, University of Oklahoma 

B.S., Zoology, 1996, University of Oklahoma 

Meek, Kristin – Land Use, Visual Resources, Socioeconomics, Land Transportation 

B.S., Civil and Environmental Engineering, 1997, Marquette University 

Mock, Brandy – Stakeholder Involvement, References, Stakeholder List 

B.A., German, 1998, Hillsdale College 

Modica, Lysa – Air Quality and Noise 

M.S., Meteorology, 1983, Pennsylvania State University 

B.S., Meteorology, 1981, State University of New York, Brockport 

Perhamus, Phil – Vegetation and Wildlife 

Graduate Studies, Environmental Science, 1990-1994, Rutgers University 

B.S., Ecology, 1990, Unity College 

Ransbottom, Daniel – Alternatives 

B.S., Civil Engineering, 1976, University of Michigan

Toombs, Denise – Socioeconomics 

M.S., Resource Systems and Policy Design, 1984, Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth 

College 

B.A., Environmental Studies, 1982, Pomona College 

Wiefling, Nicole – Threatened and Endangered Species, Wildlife 

B.S., Biology, 2005, Gannon University 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
I - 1 

APPENDIX I 

WATERBODY CROSSINGS 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
I - 2 

APPENDIX I 

Perennial and Intermittent Waterbodies Crossed by the Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

MP Name Type 

Crossing 

Width (ft) 

Linear 

Impact 

(ft) 

Area of 

Construction 

Impact (ac) 

Crossing 

Method b/ 

Seasonal 

Restriction d/ 

30

Wat

Cla

Baltimore Co., Maryland 

0.75 Humphrey Creek/Canal Water Treatment Facility Perennial 112 50 0.13 2B none 4.79 Unnamed tributary to Bread and Cheese Creek Intermittent 5 50 0.01 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 4.85 Unnamed tributary to Bread and Cheese Creek Intermittent 5 50 0.01 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 6.86 Bread and Cheese Creek Perennial 18 29 0.01 1 March 1 – May 31 7.03 unnamed tributary to Bread and Cheese Creek Perennial 6 120 0.02 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 

7.2 unnamed tributary to Bread and Cheese Creek Intermittent 5 65 0.01 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 

7.27 unnamed tributary to Bread and Cheese Creek Intermittent 4 76 0.01 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 

7.4 unnamed tributary to Bread and Cheese Creek Perennial 4 78 0.01 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 

7.97 Branch of Back River Perennial 18 79 0.03 2A or 2B March 1 – June 15 MD 

8.6 unnamed tributary to Branch of Back River Intermittent 10 0 0 NA March 1 – June 15 MD 

8.71 Back River Perennial 260 0 0 4 March 1 – June 15 MD 9.77 unnamed tributary to Northeast Creek Perennial 6 89 0.01 2A or 2B March 1 – June 15 

10.27 unnamed tributary to Northeast Creek Perennial 10 51 0.01 2A or 2B March 1 – June 15 10.42 unnamed tributary to Northeast Creek Perennial 18 77 0.03 3 March 1 – June 15 11.17 Stemmers Run Perennial 15 78 0.03 3 March 1 – June 15 11.21 unnamed tributary to Stemmers Run Intermittent 4 99 0.01 1 March 1 – June 15 

11.3 unnamed tributary to Brien Run Intermittent 4 0 0 NA March 1 – June 15 

11.53 Brien Run - 1 Perennial 12 149 0.04 3 March 1 – June 15 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
I - 3 

APPENDIX I 

Perennial and Intermittent Waterbodies Crossed by the Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

MP Name Type 

Crossing 

Width (ft) 

Linear 

Impact 

(ft) 

Area of 

Construction 

Impact (ac) 

Crossing 

Method b/ 

Seasonal 

Restriction d/ 

30

Wat

Cla

11.6 Brien Run - 2 Perennial 12 153 0.04 3 March 1 – June 15 

12.87 unnamed tributary to Brien Run - 2 Perennial 8 90 0.02 2A or 2B March 1 – June 15 13.35 unnamed tributary to White Marsh Run - 1 Intermittent 1 82 0 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 

14.2 unnamed tributary to White Marsh Run - 1 Perennial 5 0 0 NA March 1 – May 31 

14.38 White Marsh Run - 1 Perennial 80 68 0.13 3, 4 

*

March 1 – June 15 

14.8 unnamed tributary to White Marsh Run - 1 Perennial 24 0 0 NA March 1 – May 31 14.9 unnamed tributary to White Marsh Run - 1 Perennial 30 93 0.06 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 

15.09 White Marsh Run - 2 Perennial 25 105 0.06 3 March 1 – May 31 

15.5 White Marsh Run - 3 Perennial 50 75 0.09 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 

15.57 unnamed tributary to White Marsh Run – 3 Intermittent 8 77 0.01 1 March 1 – May 31 15.81 unnamed tributary to White Marsh Run – 3 Perennial 4 96 0.01 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 16.48 unnamed tributary to White Marsh Run – 3 Intermittent 6 82 0.01 1 March 1 – May 31 16.69 unnamed tributary to White Marsh Run – 3 Perennial 7 91 0.01 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 16.87 unnamed tributary to White Marsh Run – 3 Intermittent 4 118 0.01 1 March 1 – May 31 16.88 unnamed tributary to White Marsh Run – 3 Perennial 4 125 0.01 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 17.11 unnamed tributary to White Marsh Run – 3 Intermittent 7 73 0.01 1 March 1 – May 31 17.14 unnamed tributary to White Marsh Run – 3 Intermittent 7 87 0.01 1 March 1 – May 31 18.28 Gunpowder Falls Perennial 90 75 0.15 5 March 1 – June 15 19.18 unnamed tributary to Gunpowder Falls Perennial 8 44 0.01 2A or 2B March 1 – June 15 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
I - 4 

APPENDIX I 

Perennial and Intermittent Waterbodies Crossed by the Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

MP Name Type 

Crossing 

Width (ft) 

Linear 

Impact 

(ft) 

Area of 

Construction 

Impact (ac) 

Crossing 

Method b/ 

Seasonal 

Restriction d/ 

30

Wat

Cla

19.2 unnamed tributary to Gunpowder Falls Perennial 12 155 0.04 2A or 2B March 1 – June 15 

20.64 unnamed tributary to Gunpowder Falls Perennial 16 121 0.04 2A or 2B March 1 – June 15 20.68 unnamed tributary to Little Gunpowder Falls Perennial 6 146 0.02 2A or 2B October 1 – April 30 21.23 unnamed tributary to Little Gunpowder Falls Perennial 16 112 0.04 2A or 2B October 1 – April 30 22.22 Little Gunpowder Falls Perennial 51 0 0 4 October 1 – April 30 

Harford Co., Maryland 

23.39 Wildcat Branch Perennial 8 89 0.02 2A or 2B October 1 – April 30 23.89 unnamed tributary to Wildcat Branch Perennial 4 171 0.02 2A or 2B October 1 – April 30 24.96 unnamed tributary to Elbow Brook Intermittent 9 54 0.01 1 March 1 – May 31 25.34 unnamed tributary to Elbow Brook Perennial 4 172 0.02 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 25.36 Elbow Brook - 1 Perennial 11 94 0.02 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 25.49 Elbow Brook - 2 Perennial 11 204 0.05 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 25.92 unnamed tributary to Elbow Brook - 2 Perennial 9 0 0 NA March 1 – May 31 27.01 unnamed tributary to Winters Run Intermittent 5 80 0.01 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 MD 27.47 Winters Run Perennial 44 90 0.09 3, 4

*

March 1 – May 31 MD 

28.16 Long Branch - 1 Perennial 24 73 0.04 3 March 1 – May 31 28.22 Long Branch - 2 Intermittent 5 88 0.01 3 March 1 – May 31 28.35 unnamed tributary to Long Branch - 2 Perennial 9 70 0.01 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 28.63 unnamed tributary to Long Branch - 2 Perennial 6 79 0.01 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 29.28 unnamed tributary to Long Branch - 2 Perennial 5 84 0.01 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
I - 5 

APPENDIX I 

Perennial and Intermittent Waterbodies Crossed by the Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

MP Name Type 

Crossing 

Width (ft) 

Linear 

Impact 

(ft) 

Area of 

Construction 

Impact (ac) 

Crossing 

Method b/ 

Seasonal 

Restriction d/ 

30

Wat

Cla

29.73 unnamed tributary to Long Branch - 2 Perennial 5 100 0.01 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 30.61 unnamed tributary to Stirrup Run Perennial 5 120 0.01 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 30.71 unnamed tributary to Stirrup Run Perennial 5 76 0.01 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 

30.8 unnamed tributary to Stirrup Run Perennial 6 17 0 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 30.8 unnamed tributary to Stirrup Run Intermittent 5 81 0.01 1 March 1 – May 31 

30.84 unnamed tributary to Stirrup Run Perennial 5 148 0.02 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 31.06 unnamed tributary to Stirrup Run Intermittent 6 80 0.01 1 March 1 – May 31 31.67 Stirrup Run Perennial 7 125 0.02 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 31.71 unnamed tributary to Stirrup Run Perennial 3 61 0 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 31.88 unnamed tributary to Stirrup Run Perennial 6 10 0 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 32.13 unnamed tributary to Stirrup Run Intermittent 6 77 0.01 1 March 1 – May 31 32.39 unnamed tributary to Stirrup Run Perennial 5 90 0.01 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 33.32 unnamed tributary to Deer Creek Perennial 8 150 0.03 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 MD 33.36 unnamed tributary to Deer Creek Intermittent 5 77 0.01 1 March 1 – May 31 MD 

33.8 unnamed tributary to Deer Creek Perennial 6 169 0.02 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 MD 

34.41 unnamed tributary to Deer Creek Intermittent 3 0 0 NA March 1 – May 31 MD 34.48 unnamed tributary to Deer Creek Intermittent 6 81 0.01 1 March 1 – May 31 MD 34.88 unnamed tributary to Deer Intermittent 3 50 0 1 March 1 – May 31 MD 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
I - 6 

APPENDIX I 

Perennial and Intermittent Waterbodies Crossed by the Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

MP Name Type 

Crossing 

Width (ft) 

Linear 

Impact 

(ft) 

Area of 

Construction 

Impact (ac) 

Crossing 

Method b/ 

Seasonal 

Restriction d/ 

30

Wat

Cla

Creek 

35.54 Deer Creek Perennial 100 75 0.17 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 MD 35.99 unnamed tributary to Deer Creek Perennial 5 96 0.01 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 MD 36.07 unnamed tributary to Deer Creek Intermittent 5 163 0.02 1 March 1 – May 31 MD 

37.5 unnamed tributary to Deer Creek Perennial 5 113 0.01 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 MD 

38.12 unnamed tributary to Deer Creek Intermittent 1 0 0 NA March 1 – May 31 MD 38.13 unnamed tributary to Deer Creek Intermittent 4 79 0.01 1 March 1 – May 31 MD 38.22 unnamed tributary to Deer Creek Intermittent 6 72 0.01 1 March 1 – May 31 MD 38.26 unnamed tributary to Deer Creek Intermittent 8 90 0.02 1 March 1 – May 31 MD 38.31 unnamed tributary to Deer Creek Intermittent 6 0 0 NA March 1 – May 31 MD 

38.7 unnamed tributary to Deer Creek Intermittent 6 125 0.02 1 March 1 – May 31 MD 

38.73 unnamed tributary to Deer Creek Intermittent 3 77 0.01 1 March 1 – May 31 MD 38.75 unnamed tributary to Deer Creek Perennial 6 170 0.02 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 MD 39.06 unnamed tributary to Deer Creek Perennial 6 84 0.01 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 MD 39.16 unnamed tributary to Deer Creek Perennial 6 74 0.01 2A or 2B March 1 – May 31 MD 39.78 unnamed tributary to Deer Creek Intermittent 4 84 0.01 1 March 1 – May 31 MD 41.79 Peddler Run Perennial 12 78 0.02 2A or 2B March 1 – June 15 42.61 Peddler Run Perennial 13 100 0.03 2A or 2B March 1 – June 15 43.25 Peddler Run Perennial 4 78 0.01 2A or 2B March 1 – June 15 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
I - 7 

APPENDIX I 

Perennial and Intermittent Waterbodies Crossed by the Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

MP Name Type 

Crossing 

Width (ft) 

Linear 

Impact 

(ft) 

Area of 

Construction 

Impact (ac) 

Crossing 

Method b/ 

Seasonal 

Restriction d/ 

30

Wat

Cla

43.63 Peddler Run Perennial 14 78 0.03 2A or 2B March 1 – June 15 

Cecil Co., Maryland 

44.23 Susquehanna River Perennial 3115.2 0 0 4 March 1 – June 15 M45.23 unnamed tributary to Conowingo Creek Intermittent 12 0 0 NA March 1 – June 15 45.24 unnamed tributary to Conowingo Creek Intermittent 10 0 0 NA March 1 – June 15 45.27 Conowingo Creek Perennial 30 118 0.08 2B March 1 – June 15 45.54 unnamed tributary to Conowingo Creek Perennial 20 78 0.04 3 March 1 – June 15 46.17 unnamed outflow for wetland 670WA1 Intermittent 1 63 0 1 March 1 – June 15 47.15 unnamed tributary to Conowingo Creek Perennial 8 90 0.02 2A or 2B March 1 – June 15 

Lancaster Co., Pennsylvania 

49.5 unnamed tributary to Octoraro Creek Perennial 6 117 0.02 2A or 2B none 

49.72 unnamed tributary to Octoraro Creek Perennial 10 84 0.02 2A or 2B none 50.36 unnamed tributary to Reynolds Run Perennial 8 80 0.01 2A or 2B none 50.88 unnamed tributary to Reynolds Run Perennial 25 70 0.04 3 none 50.89 unnamed tributary to Reynolds Run Intermittent 5 81 0.01 2A or 2B none 50.89 unnamed tributary to Reynolds Run Intermittent 5 0 0 NA none 51.59 Reynolds Run Perennial 20 0 0 NA none 

51.6 unnamed tributary to Reynolds Run Perennial 25 72 0.04 2A or 2B none 

51.96 Reynolds Run Intermittent 6 111 0.02 1 none 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
I - 8 

APPENDIX I 

Perennial and Intermittent Waterbodies Crossed by the Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

MP Name Type 

Crossing 

Width (ft) 

Linear 

Impact 

(ft) 

Area of 

Construction 

Impact (ac) 

Crossing 

Method b/ 

Seasonal 

Restriction d/ 

30

Wat

Cla

53.32 unnamed tributary to Octoraro Creek Intermittent 2 79 0 1 none 53.93 unnamed tributary to Octoraro Creek Perennial 12 77 0.02 3 none 54.57 unnamed tributary to Octoraro Creek Perennial 2 95 0 2A or 2B none 54.77 Reynolds Run Perennial 6 55 0.01 2A or 2B none 54.82 Reynolds Run Perennial 20 77 0.04 2A or 2B none 55.47 McCreary Run Perennial 10 78 0.02 2A or 2B none 56.01 unnamed tributary to Octoraro Creek Perennial 6 79 0.01 2A or 2B none 

Lancaster/Chester Co., Pennsylvania 

56.31 Octoraro Creek Perennial 70 77 0.12 2B, 4

*

March 1 – June 15 

Chester Co., Pennsylvania 

56.93 Tweed Creek Perennial 40 78 0.07 2A or 2B none 58.09 Leech Run Perennial 60 103 0.14 2A or 2B none 61.17 unnamed tributary to Muddy Run Perennial 1 41 0 2A or 2B none 61.18 unnamed tributary to Muddy Run Intermittent 1 86 0 1 none 61.18 unnamed tributary to Muddy Run Perennial 10 86 0.02 2A or 2B none 61.19 unnamed tributary to Muddy Run Perennial 4 32 0 2A or 2B none 62.34 unnamed tributary to Muddy Run Intermittent 4 0 0 NA none 62.44 unnamed tributary to Muddy Run Perennial 10 86 0.02 2A or 2B none 62.92 unnamed tributary to Rattlesnake Run Perennial 8 100 0.02 2A or 2B none 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
I - 9 

APPENDIX I 

Perennial and Intermittent Waterbodies Crossed by the Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

MP Name Type 

Crossing 

Width (ft) 

Linear 

Impact 

(ft) 

Area of 

Construction 

Impact (ac) 

Crossing 

Method b/ 

Seasonal 

Restriction d/ 

30

Wat

Cla

63.93 unnamed tributary to East Elk Creek Perennial 2 116 0.01 2A or 2B none 64.04 unnamed tributary to East Elk Creek Intermittent 3 29 0 1 none 64.16 unnamed tributary to East Elk Creek Intermittent 4 0 0 NA none 64.17 unnamed tributary to East Elk Creek Intermittent 3 0 0 NA none 64.24 unnamed tributary to East Elk Creek Intermittent 2 53 0 1 none 64.25 unnamed tributary to East Elk Creek Intermittent 3 86 0.01 1 none 64.27 unnamed tributary to East Elk Creek Intermittent 10 80 0.02 1 none 64.77 unnamed tributary to East Elk Creek Intermittent 5 50 0.01 2A or 2B none 65.13 unnamed tributary to East Elk Creek Intermittent 4 64 0.01 1 none 66.02 unnamed tributary to Doe Run Intermittent 4 78 0.01 1 none P66.24 unnamed tributary to Doe Run Perennial 4 88 0.01 2A or 2B none P66.25 unnamed tributary to Doe Run Perennial 4 102 0.01 2A or 2B none P66.46 unnamed tributary to Doe Run Intermittent 2 54 0 1 none P67.15 unnamed tributary to Doe Run Perennial 6 87 0.01 2A or 2B none P67.48 unnamed tributary to Doe Run Perennial 8 77 0.01 2A or 2B none P69.28 Doe Run Perennial 35 50 0.04 2A or 2B none P69.88 unnamed tributary to Doe Run Perennial 6 62 0.01 2A or 2B none P69.92 unnamed tributary to Doe Run Perennial 8 75 0.01 2A or 2B none P70.35 unnamed tributary to Doe Run Intermittent 5 157 0.02 1 none P70.52 unnamed tributary to Buck Run Perennial 5 105 0.01 2A or 2B none PA 71.38 unnamed tributary to Buck Run Intermittent 6 122 0.02 TBD none PA 

71.4 unnamed tributary to Buck Run Intermittent 6 76 0.01 TBD none PA 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
I - 10 

APPENDIX I 

Perennial and Intermittent Waterbodies Crossed by the Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

MP Name Type 

Crossing 

Width (ft) 

Linear 

Impact 

(ft) 

Area of 

Construction 

Impact (ac) 

Crossing 

Method b/ 

Seasonal 

Restriction d/ 

30

Wat

Cla

72.14 Buck Run Perennial 50 78 0.09 3 March 1 – June 15 PA 73.61 unnamed tributary to Doe Run Perennial 6 151 0.02 2A or 2B none PA 73.62 unnamed tributary to Doe Run Perennial 6 45 0.01 2A or 2B none PA 74.19 West Branch Brandywine Creek Perennial 70 75 0.12 3 March 1 – June 15 PA 74.38 unnamed tributary to Brandywine Creek Intermittent 3 115 0.01 1 none PA 75.14 unnamed tributary to Brandywine Creek Perennial 6 103 0.01 2A or 2B none PA 75.17 unnamed tributary to Brandywine Creek Perennial 7 99 0.02 2A or 2B none PA 75.57 unnamed tributary to Broad Run Intermittent 2 64 0 TBD none PA 76.45 unnamed tributary to Broad Run Intermittent 10 370 0.08 TBD none PA 76.54 Broad Run Intermittent 6 88 0.01 1 none PA 77.19 unnamed tributary to Broad Run Perennial 12 0 0 NA none PA 77.27 unnamed tributary to Broad Run Perennial 16 97 0.04 3 none PA 77.49 unnamed tributary to Broad Run Perennial 12 109 0.03 2A or 2B none PA 78.14 unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek Intermittent 5 40 0 2A or 2B none PA 79.35 unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek Perennial 5 83 0.01 2A or 2B none PA 79.37 Beaver Creek Intermittent 5 90 0.01 2A or 2B none PA 79.61 Beaver Creek Intermittent 5 75 0.01 2A or 2B none PA 82.19 Unnamed tributary to East Branch Brandywine Creek Perennial 6 55 0.01 2A or 2B none PA 82.31 East Branch Brandywine Creek Perennial 75 18 0.03 3 March 1 – June 15 PA 82.58 Shamona Perennial 35 75 0 NA none 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
I - 11 

APPENDIX I 

Perennial and Intermittent Waterbodies Crossed by the Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

MP Name Type 

Crossing 

Width (ft) 

Linear 

Impact 

(ft) 

Area of 

Construction 

Impact (ac) 

Crossing 

Method b/ 

Seasonal 

Restriction d/ 

30

Wat

Cla

83.49 unnamed tributary to Marsh Creek Lake Intermittent 4 89 0.01 1 none 84.39 unnamed tributary to Marsh Creek Lake Perennial 15 75 0.03 2A or 2B none 84.85 unnamed tributary to Marsh Creek Lake Perennial 8 75 0.01 2A or 2B none 

Total 14002 4.07 _____________________________ NOTES: NE = Not Established NA = Not Applicable a/ State 303(d) List – Water Quality Classes (definitions provided only for classes that appear in the table)

Maryland 

2 = Includes surface waters that are meeting some standards and have insufficient information to determine attainment of other standards. 

3 = Includes surface waters that have insufficient quantity (Category 3a) or quality (Category 3b) data information to determine waterbody attain4a = Includes surface waters that are still impaired but have TMDL that has been complete or submitted to EPA. 5 = Historically known as the 303 (d) List and includes waterbodies that may require a TMDL. 

Pennsylvania 

2 = Waters where some, but not all, designated users are met. Attainment status of the remaining designated uses is unknown because data a3 = Waters for which there are insufficient or not data and information to determine, consistent with the State's listing methodology, if designated 4 = Waters impaired for one or more designated use but not needing a TMDL. States may place these waters in of the follower three subcatego4A = TMDL has been completed. 4C = Not impaired by a pollutant. 5 = Waters impaired for one or more designated uses by any pollutant. Category 5 includes waters shown to be impaired as the result of biologi

b/ Crossing Type (also see figures of crossing methods in Mid-Atlantic Express’s ECP, Appendix T, BMPs) 

1=Intermittent minor waterbody – wet open cut (See Appendix T, BMPs, figure 19) 2A=Dry flumed open cut crossing (See Appendix T, BMPs, figure 18) 2B=Dam & pump open cut crossing (See Appendix T, BMPs, figure 17) 3=Intermediate wet open cut (See Appendix T, BMPs, figure 19) 4=Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD); * crossings with star have FERC recommendation to use HDD method. For HDD crossings incorporated b

columns “Linear impact” and “Area of construction” within the waterbody are shown as “0”. This indicates that surface disturbance of the wause of the HDD method of pipeline installation.

5 = cofferdam, possibly in combination with a flume (See Appendix T, BMPs, figure 18a) 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
I - 12 

APPENDIX I 

Perennial and Intermittent Waterbodies Crossed by the Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

MP Name Type 

Crossing 

Width (ft) 

Linear 

Impact 

(ft) 

Area of 

Construction 

Impact (ac) 

Crossing 

Method b/ 

Seasonal 

Restriction d/ 

30

Wat

Cla

c/ State Water Quality Classification (Fisheries): 

Maryland

I=Water Contact Recreation and Protection of Aquatic Life I-P=Water Contract Recreation, Protection of Aquatic Life and Public Water Supply III=Natural Trout Waters III-P=Natural Trout Waters and Public Water Supply IV=Recreational Trout Waters IV-P=Recreational Trout Waters and Public Water Supply 

Pennsylvania 

TSF=Trout Stocking CWF=Cold Water Fisheries WWF = Warm Water Fisheries HQ=High Quality Waters EV=Exceptional Value Waters 

d/ Seasonal restrictions, i.e. time when stream-crossing construction is prohibited, are based upon consultation with Maryland Department of Natura

Pennsylvania Fish and Boating Commission (PFBC), or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as appropriate. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX J

WATERWAY SUITABILITY REPORT AND

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
20081024-4003 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/24/2008

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
20081024-4003 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/24/2008

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
1

AES Sparrow’s Point Project 

Additional Risk Mitigation Measures 

 for the 

Allision with Bay Bridge Scenario 

Revised 19 June 2008 

1. Background: 

a. Allision with the William Preston Lane, Jr., Memorial Bridge (Bay Bridge) 

Scenario. This scenario deals with a loaded (not in heel) LNG vessel accidentally 

alliding with the Bay Bridge resulting in the penetration of the vessel’s double 

hull tanks and the release of LNG cargo. The Bay Bridge was identified as 

critical infrastructure by the COTP Baltimore. 

b. The Waterway Suitability Assessment (WSA) recommends Level 3 Protection for 

the “Allision with the Bay Bridge” scenario. Level 3 protection requires 

“Asset(s) on standby for immediate initial response if unsafe conditions develop.” 

c. Section 7.3, recommendation #6 of the WSA proposes the following Risk 

Mitigation Measures (RMMs) to meet the Level 3 protection standard: 

“It is recommended that AES be required to contract with a 

commercial tug with firefighting capability to proceed to the vicinity 

of the bay Bridge for each inbound LNG transit in the summer. The 

tug is to be available for immediate response should an incident occur 

while a ship is transiting through areas of heavy boating concentration 

and under the Bay Bridge. The tug would follow the ship north to 

assist with the tug escort along Brewerton Channel.” 

d. The Coast Guard is requiring Level 4 protection for this scenario. Level 4 

protection requires “Asset(s) on-scene to deter safety lapses, unsafe acts, and 

correct safety violations. Response assets standing-by to control ship if 

necessary.” 

2. Discussion 

a. Additional RMMS must be developed to meet the level 4 standard. The key 

difference between Level 3 and Level 4 protection is that under Level 3 assets are 

on standby for immediate response while under Level 4 the assets must be onscene. In addition level 4 is a more proactive safety level in that the assets must 

be able to deter safety lapses rather than waiting for the unsafe condition to show 

itself. 

20081024-4003 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/24/2008

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
2

b. Additional RMMS for this scenario could include both additional safety 

procedures and expanded on-scene availability of a capable tug as an LNG vessel 

transits under the Bay Bridge. 

c. The WSA recommended that a commercial tug be available for immediate 

response during the summer months based on the increased boating levels during 

the summer months. To meet the level 4 standard a commercial tug should meet 

all arriving LNG vessels at the Bay Bridge. This would provide response assets 

standing-by to control the ship if necessary. The participants of the Risk 

Assessment workshop conducted for the WSA discussed at length the advantages 

and disadvantages of tethering the tug to the inbound LNG vessel. The consensus 

of the working group, particularly Captain Eric Nielsen was that the tug should 

not normally be tethered. 

d. A safety procedure which would lower or eliminate the risk of an accident would 

be for each arriving LNG vessel to conduct safety checks of their steering and 

propulsion prior to transiting under the Bay Bridge. The intent would be to 

reduce the likelihood of the vessel experiencing a steering or power failure as it 

approached and transited under the bridge. The vessel would be required to report 

completion of these safety checks to the Escort Commander prior to transiting 

under the bridge. The Escort Commander would thus serve as an additional onscene asset deterring safety lapses, unsafe acts and correcting safety violations. 

e. Another safety procedure which would lower or eliminate the risk of an accident 

would be for each arriving LNG vessel to confirm with the Escort Commander 

that the on-scene weather conditions (wind & visibility) meet the standards 

established in the Transit Management Plan. 

3. Recommended additional RMMs 

a. The following additional RMMs are recommended to meet the Coast Guard 

required Level 4 protection standard: 

(1) AES shall provide a 70 ton bollard pull commercial tractor tug, 

with ABS Class 1 firefighting capability, to proceed to the 

vicinity of the Bay Bridge for all loaded (not in heel) LNG vessel 

transits. The tug shall be standing by to assist the LNG vessel if 

an incident occurs while the ship is approaching and transiting 

under the Bay Bridge. The tug will normally tether to the LNG 

vessel although the final decision will be left to the Maryland 

Pilot on scene. All loaded LNG vessels intending to transit 

under the Bay Bridge shall complete the steering and propulsion 

tests identified in 33 CFR 164.25. Upon completion of the tests, 

the ship’s Captain or the Pilot shall inform the Escort 

Commander via radio of the 

20081024-4003 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/24/2008

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
3

successful tests. The results of the tests shall also be entered in 

the ship’s official logbook prior to approaching the Bridge. 

(2) The Pilot or ship’s Captain shall confirm via direct radio 

communication with the Escort Commander that the on-scene 

weather conditions (wind and visibility) are within the limits 

defined in the Transit Management Plan. 

b. The MTA’s video surveillance system should be monitored for problems. 

c. Reduce vessel speed while approaching/transiting under the Bay Bridge. 

4. Regulated Navigation Area 

a. AES understands that some of the recommended traffic management 

recommendations, including the requirement that loaded LNG ships must 

complete the steering and propulsion tests identified in 33 CFR 164.25 and report 

the results of the tests to the Escort Commander before passing under the bay 

Bridge, may require Sector Baltimore to develop a Regulated Navigation Area 

(RNA) covering the impacted waters. 

20081024-4003 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/24/2008

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
1

AES Sparrow’s Point Project 

Additional Risk Mitigation Measures 

 for the 

Cargo Handling Mishap Under the Bay Bridge Scenario 

Revised 19 June 2008 

1. Background: 

a. Cargo Handling Mishap Under the Bay Bridge. This scenario deals with a loaded 

(not in heel) LNG vessel venting LNG gas while transiting under the Bay Bridge. 

The Bay Bridge is identified as critical infrastructure by the COTP Baltimore. 

The concern is for the structural integrity of the bridge and the safety of persons 

crossing the bridge at the time of the cargo release. 

b. The Waterway Suitability Assessment (WSA) recommends Level 1 Protection for 

the “Cargo Handling Mishap Under the Bay Bridge” scenario. Level 1 protection 

requires “General waterway management policies/procedures to reduce the risk of 

an accident.” 

c. The Coast Guard is requiring Level 4 protection for this scenario. Level 4 

Protection requires “Asset(s) on-scene to deter safety lapses, unsafe acts, and 

correct safety violations. Response assets standing-by to control ship if 

necessary.” 

2. Discussion 

a. Each shipboard LNG cargo tank must be fitted with at least two pressure relief 

valves as a safety measure to ensure that the pressure within the tank does not 

exceed a design limit. 

. 

b. LNG vessels must also have at least one high pressure alarm that: 

(1) Actuates before the pressure in any cargo tank exceeds the maximum 

pressure specially approved by the Commandant (CG-5222); and 

(2) Actuates an audible and visual alarm at the cargo control station, and a 

remote group alarm in the wheelhouse. 

c. The “Chesapeake Bay Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Operations Management 

Plan” requires that, “Under normal operating conditions, a vessel in U.S. 

territorial waters shall not vent cargo vapors to the atmosphere as a means of 

pressure or temperature control. Should emergency venting become necessary, 

the Master of an LNG vessel shall immediately notify the cognizant COTP. This 

notification shall include their location, the amount vented, the reason for 

emergency venting, and the wind velocity and direction at the time of venting.”1

 

20081024-4003 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/24/2008

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
2

d. Because venting of LNG cargo vapors is already forbidden within U.S. territorial 

waters, additional Risk Mitigation Measures are needed to ensure that : 

(1) The prohibition of venting is acknowledged by each arriving LNG vessel, 

and 

(2) Procedures are established to ensure that the vapor pressures in each cargo 

tank are checked prior to the vessel approaching the Bay Bridge to ensure 

they are within normal operating range. 

e. The Escort Commander could serve as the “on-scene asset” to deter safety lapses, 

unsafe acts and correct safety violations as required under Level 4 Protection by 

requiring the ship’s Master or the Maryland Pilot onboard to report to the Escort 

Commander: 

(1) The highest pressure in the vessel’s cargo tanks, 

(2) The normal operating pressure range for the tanks, and 

(3) The pressure settings on the safety valves, 

prior to transiting under the bridge. 

f. The opening of an LNG vessel cargo tank safety valve has no impact on the 

operation or control of the vessel; therefore, there is no need for “specific 

response assets to be standing by to control the ship” as outlined under Level 4 

Protection. 

3. Recommended additional RMMs 

a. The following additional RMMs are recommended to meet the Coast Guard 

required Level 4 protection standard: 

(1) All loaded LNG vessels intending to transit under the Bay Bridge 

shall confirm that the pressure in each of the cargo tanks is 

within normal operating range and that there is no reason to 

suspect that one of the cargo tank pressure relief valves may 

open while the vessel is approaching or transiting under the Bay 

Bridge. 

(2) The ship’s Captain or the Maryland Pilot onboard the vessel shall 

inform the Escort Commander via radio that all cargo tank 

pressures are within normal operating range and the pressure 

settings of the safety valves. The pressures shall also be entered 

in the ship’s official logbook prior to approaching the Bridge. 

(3) The vessel may not approach the Bay Bridge until permission is 

granted by the Escort patrol Commander. 

20081024-4003 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/24/2008

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
3

4. Regulated Navigation Area 

a. AES understands that some of the recommendations, including the 

requirement that all loaded LNG vessels intending to transit under the Bay 

Bridge shall confirm that the pressure in each of the cargo tanks is within 

normal operating range prior to transiting under the Bay Bridge, may 

require Sector Baltimore to develop a Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) 

covering the impacted waters 

 

1

 Chesapeake Bay Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Operations Management Plan. Page 6. 

20081024-4003 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/24/2008

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Enclosures (3) through (8) contain Sensitive Security 

Information controlled under Title 49, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 1520. Parties that that can demonstrate a 

“need to know,” as defined in 49 CFR 1520, should contact 

the cognizant Captain of the Port to request these materials. 

20081024-4003 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/24/2008

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Content(s)

2008-10-24 USCG to AES Letter.PDF.....................................1-9

20081024-4003 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/24/2008

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX K 

WATERWAY FOR LNG MARINE TRAFFIC MAPS 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
H:\AES\SparrowsPoint_MD\Task1\MXD\4-12-3-1.mxd

Figure 4.12-3

Environmental Resources Along

Expanded LNG Transit Route

Sheet 1 of 9

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
H:\AES\SparrowsPoint_MD\Task1\MXD\4-12-3-2.mxd

Figure 4.12-3

Environmental Resources Along

Expanded LNG Transit Route

Sheet 2 of 9

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
H:\AES\SparrowsPoint_MD\Task1\MXD\4-12-3-3.mxd

Figure 4.12-3

Environmental Resources Along

Expanded LNG Transit Route

Sheet 3 of 9

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
H:\AES\SparrowsPoint_MD\Task1\MXD\4-12-3-4.mxd

Figure 4.12-3

Environmental Resources Along

Expanded LNG Transit Route

Sheet 4 of 9

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
H:\AES\SparrowsPoint_MD\Task1\MXD\4-12-3-5.mxd

Figure 4.12-3

Environmental Resources Along

Expanded LNG Transit Route

Sheet 5 of 9

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
H:\AES\SparrowsPoint_MD\Task1\MXD\4-12-3-6.mxd

Figure 4.12-3

Environmental Resources Along

Expanded LNG Transit Route

Sheet 6 of 9

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
H:\AES\SparrowsPoint_MD\Task1\MXD\4-12-3-7.mxd

Figure 4.12-3

Environmental Resources Along

Expanded LNG Transit Route

Sheet 7 of 9

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
H:\AES\SparrowsPoint_MD\Task1\MXD\4-12-3-8.mxd

Figure 4.12-3

Environmental Resources Along

Expanded LNG Transit Route

Sheet 8 of 9

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
H:\AES\SparrowsPoint_MD\Task1\MXD\4-12-3-9.mxd

Figure 4.12-3

Environmental Resources Along

Expanded LNG Transit Route

Sheet 9 of 9

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
H:\AES\SparrowsPoint_MD\Task1\MXD\4-12-4-1.mxd

Figure 4.12-4

Environmental Resources Along

Expanded LNG Transit Route

Sheet 1 of 9

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
H:\AES\SparrowsPoint_MD\Task1\MXD\4-12-4-2.mxd

Figure 4.12-4

Environmental Resources Along

Expanded LNG Transit Route

Sheet 2 of 9

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
H:\AES\SparrowsPoint_MD\Task1\MXD\4-12-4-3.mxd

Figure 4.12-4

Environmental Resources Along

Expanded LNG Transit Route

Sheet 3 of 9

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
H:\AES\SparrowsPoint_MD\Task1\MXD\4-12-4-4.mxd

Figure 4.12-4

Environmental Resources Along

Expanded LNG Transit Route

Sheet 4 of 9

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
H:\AES\SparrowsPoint_MD\Task1\MXD\4-12-4-5.mxd

Figure 4.12-4

Environmental Resources Along

Expanded LNG Transit Route

Sheet 5 of 9

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
H:\AES\SparrowsPoint_MD\Task1\MXD\4-12-4-6.mxd

Figure 4.12-4

Environmental Resources Along

Expanded LNG Transit Route

Sheet 6 of 9

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
H:\AES\SparrowsPoint_MD\Task1\MXD\4-12-4-7.mxd

Figure 4.12-4

Environmental Resources Along

Expanded LNG Transit Route

Sheet 7 of 9

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
H:\AES\SparrowsPoint_MD\Task1\MXD\4-12-4-8.mxd

Figure 4.12-4

Environmental Resources Along

Expanded LNG Transit Route

Sheet 8 of 9

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
H:\AES\SparrowsPoint_MD\Task1\MXD\4-12-4-9.mxd

Figure 4.12-4

Environmental Resources Along

Expanded LNG Transit Route

Sheet 9 of 9

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX L

RESPONSE OF THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

TO THE

"STATE OF MARYLAND ADVISORY REPORT:

A RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED AES SPARROWS POINT LNG PROJECT"

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
L- 1

APPENDIX L

Response of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

to the

"State of Maryland Advisory Report:

A Response to the Proposed AES Sparrows Point LNG Project"

The Natural Gas Act (NGA), as modified by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), requires that the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) consult with the state in which an LNG

terminal is proposed regarding state and local safety matters. The State of Maryland Governor's office

designated the Power Plant Research Program (PPRP) of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources

(MDNR) to be the lead agency for the purpose of coordinating with FERC throughout the AES Sparrows Point

LNG project.

PPRP submitted the "State of Maryland Advisory Report: A Response to the Proposed AES Sparrows

Point LNG Project" (Advisory Report) to FERC on February 7, 2007. The report addressed state and local

considerations for the Project and included comments from MDNR, the Maryland Department of Agriculture

(MDA), the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), the Maryland Department of Business and

Economic Development (MDBED), the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), the Maryland

Department of Planning (MDP), the Maryland Energy Administration (MEA), and the Maryland Port

Administration (MPA), as well as comments of several local governmental entities (Baltimore County,

Harford County, and the Coastal States Organization).

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. This Appendix provides FERC’s response to the Advisory

Report for the Sparrows Point Project.

The Advisory Report identified the following key categories of potential concerns:

• SAFETY CONCERNS

o Overall Concerns

o Onsite Concerns

o Off-Site Concerns

o Emergency Response

o Remote Siting

• ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

o Water Use and Quality

o Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation

o Cultural Resources

o Socioeconomics

o Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics

o Air and Noise Quality

• OTHER CONCERNS

o Coastal Facilities Review Act

o Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Act

The “Safety Concerns” section of the Advisory Report provides a general summary of the comments

of the State of Maryland.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
L -2

The Advisory Report includes both general and specific safety matters that the State of Maryland

requested be included in FERC’s review of the Sparrows Point application. In addition, the Advisory Report

addresses non-safety-related issues, many of which are within the scope of FERC’s environmental review.

FERC’s specific responses to the concerns raised are presented in tabular format in Table L-1 in the order of

the issues presented in the report. Where appropriate, the response identifies the section of the environmental

impact statement (EIS) where information on the issue of concern is addressed.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
L-3

Table L-1

FERC’s Responses to Concerns Presented in the

State of Maryland Advisory Report on the Sparrows Point LNG Project

Topic Issue Response a

SAFETY CONCERNSOverall Concerns Maryland’s risk study of the project concluded that

the project lays within an ALARP (as low as

reasonably practicable) region, when individual and

societal risks are considered. Therefore, the applicant

should demonstrate that they have considered and

implemental all reductions to risk in the design and

construction of the facility that are not

disproportionate to the cost of those measures.

Section 4.12 addresses reliability and sa

associated with the Project. The Coast 

Suitability Report (WSR) for the waterw

traffic is attached as Appendix J. The C

require that AES develop additional Ri

Measures (RRMs) before the waterway for LNG marine traffic to the Port of B

By its proposed conditions for final des

facility, the FERC would require that A

reduction features in the final design of 

before issuing a Notice to Proceed.

Applicant proposes a 20-acre site north of the LNG

facility that would be used during construction for a

staging area and possibly for temporary placement of

Processed Dredge Material. This 20-acre parcel is

also designated as the proposed site for an ethanol

plant proposed by Ecron. Show alternate plans for the

placement of this 20-acre staging area if the ethanol

plant goes forward.

AES has received preliminary approval 

owner of the 226-acre shipyard propert

acres of the shipyard property for temp

laydown and a storage yard should the 

construction preclude AES's use of that 

section 4.8.2.1 of the EIS).

Onsite Concerns The separation of the Security Building/Control Room

from the high pressure methane [natural gas] metering

facility is questioned.

Section 4.12 addresses reliability and sa

associated with the Project. The DOT h

authority to promulgate and enforce saf

standards over the onshore LNG facilitilast valve immediately before the LNG 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
L-4

Topic Issue Response a

Tank Containment In the event of an inner tank failure having potential to

affect the containment integrity of the outer tank, then

the design should allow for additional impounding

area that otherwise satisfies NFPA 59A, section

5.2.1.1.

AES would comply with all applicable 

59A as per FERC staff review. See sec

Jetty & Marine Aspects The proposed configuration of two LNG ships being

at berth during offloading of one vessel could form a

semi-confined volume in which vaporized methane (in

the case of LNG released between the two ships)

could collect prior to ignition.

In section 4.12.1, the DEIS states “Alth

explosive as it is normally transported a

gas vapors (primarily methane) can exp

within a confined space, such as a build

ignited.”

Offsite Concerns Proximity to Mittal Steel blast furnace gives concern

from standpoint of workforce congestion and multiple

ignition sources for dispersing flammable gas.

This comment is addressed in section 4

FERC staff calculated that the vapor ex

extend approximately 361 feet from the 

and would not extend beyond the site p

Potential neighboring ethanol plant (proposed by

Ecron), within approximately 850 yards of the

Sparrows Point LNG facility boundary, poses another

source of employment and potential risk to workers

from vapor cloud release and flash fire.

Addressed in section 4.12.4 of the EIS.

Address how a pipeline would cross major grades or

waterways within State rights-of-way. There is a

concern for pipelines on bridges as potential terrorist

targets.

AES does not propose “pipelines on bri

technique; see section 2.3.2 for informa

construction methods. All pipeline seg

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
L-5

Topic Issue Response a

Indicate how the Emergency Response Plan would

establish or enhance warning process and citizen/State

employee communications at:

a) the Bay Bridge;

b) Francis Scott Key Bridge; and

c) Sandy Point State Park.

Applicant should provide funding to implement and

operate such communication systems.

Section 4.12.6 discussion emergency reevacuation planning for the Project. Th

developed must address communication

officials and address potential hazard ar

route. Section 4.9.3 indicates that as pa

ERP “AES and the appropriate respons

would determine resources required to 

if any, and allocate payment responsibi

resources.” AES expects to fully fund a

including both equipment and services, 

necessitated solely as a result of the conoperation of the project.”

Emergency Response The State of Maryland has significant concerns with

respect to emergency response resources and

capabilities in the event of a significant LNG release.

Specifically:

a) the LNG site is a peninsula which has limited

roadways for ingress and egress points for an

emergency.

b) significant portions of the surrounding populations

communicate in languages other than English,

potentially leading to difficulties in communications

during an emergency.

c) there are a number of schools and religious

establishments in the vicinity of the proposed facility,

increasing potential numbers of individuals present

during an emergency evacuation.

d) concern with the adequacy of local emergency

equipment and training to respond to an emergency at

the LNG facility.

This comment is addressed in section 4

this section it is recommended that AES 

Emergency Response Plan (including ecoordinate procedures with the U. S. Co

county, and local emergency planning gdepartments; state and local law enforc

appropriate federal agencies. The Plan 

include communications with appropria

emergency response agencies, and resid

users within areas of potential hazard a

and evacuation routes/methods for resid

use areas that are within any transient h

route of the LNG marine transit.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
L-6

Topic Issue Response aRemote Siting The State of Maryland indicates that the relatively

small land parcel (of the LNG facility) and the

location of the Sparrows Point site does not meet the

State’s concept of “Remote Siting” as addressed by

the Natural Gas Act.

The Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 directe

Transportation to issue minimum safety 

determining the location, design, install

initial inspection, and initial testing of afacility. Section 6(d) of the Pipeline Sa

several factors to consider in prescribin

“(F) the need to encourage remote sitin

On January 30, 1980, DOT issued the f

established Federal Safety Standards fo

Part 193.2057 requires the establishmen

exclusion zones around the facility and 

requires flammable vapor exclusion zon

people who live or work near the facilit

that the safety advantages of “remote si

essentially obtained by compliance with 

provisions, but without incurring such p

as poor positioning relative to existing pmarkets, or navigational needs.

The thermal exclusion zone is addresse

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
L-7

Topic Issue Response aENVIRONMENTAL

CONCERNS

Water Use and Quality

Dredging Clarify the apparent discrepancy in volume of material

to be dredged: a) approximately 4 MMcy; b) 2.6

MMcy for disposal site yet to be determined. Identify

reasonable, affordable and viable alternative disposal

options for excess dredged material.

AES has clarified the amount of dredgi

the 404 application to the COE. (See se

EIS). Maryland misinterpreted the stat

in which AES was referring to dredging 

Willis. Section 4.3.2.5 includes a recom

provide a comprehensive Dredged Mat

which includes alternatives for material 

Address if the AES proposal would affect the ability

of the Maryland Port Administration (MPA) to locatea future Dredged Material Containment Facility

(DMCF) at the Sparrows Point peninsula. The

Sparrows Point location is currently the only site

identified by the DMMP Harbor that can meet the

2013 deadline [time when current dredged material

placement area capacity is exceeded] and the capacity

needs.

The potential future alternative uses of 

surrounding shipyard areas are not with

the FERC to review and are not relevan

concern under the NGA.

PCB Levels The PCB analytical method used by AES is not

sensitive enough to estimate PCB toxicity. Additional

sediment and elutriate testing using congener-specific

methods should be performed. Maryland proposed a

series of PCB quantifications to be performed by

AES.

AES has performed additional sedimen

by the COE and MDNR during their re

applications for dredging. Section 4.3.2

information regarding a range of sedim

potential dredge area and notes “[b]ased 

these analytical results by the COE and 

process may impose conditions on the dtheir opinion, conditions are warranted environment or to protect human health

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
L-8

Topic Issue Response a

Permitting Any withdrawal of water from a Maryland water body

(for hydrostatic testing or other purpose) will require

an appropriation permit from MDE in accordance with

COMAR 26.17.06.

This comment is addressed in Section 4

Maryland would like to impose the limit to the

through screen intake velocity to less than 0.5 ft/s for

intake of any water for the project.

See sections 4.3.2.8 and 4.6.2.2. For H

DEIS states that “Screen intakes would 

wedgewire screen and the intake veloci

to 0.5 feet per second with a flow rate o

1,200 to 3,600 gpm.” For Ballast Wate

states that “Since AES does not own or 

the LNG vessels that would deliver pro

terminal, AES cannot commit that balla

screened through 2 mm mesh screens a

of less than 0.5 fps would be maintaine

would recommend these restrictions to 

operators.”

Fish, Wildlife and

Vegetation

In the vicinity of the LNG terminal location, the piers

that would be demolished/removed may include the

removal of species associated with this hard substrate.

Maryland disagrees with AES statement that the

removal of the piers may result in positive benefit to

the benthic community.

A statement about the existing piers pro

habitat is found in section 4.6.2.1. FER

agree with the AES statement that remo

result in a positive benefit to the benthi

this statement is not in the DEIS.

The marine exclusion zone that will be imposed by the

US Coast Guard to ensure safety of the LNG vessels

will negatively impact recreational boaters.

This comment is addressed in sections 

the DEIS.

AES has reported the occurrence of zebra mussels in

the area of the terminal. According to Maryland, this

is in error, since zebra mussels are only found in

freshwater and have not been documented in the

estuarine waters of the Baltimore Harbor and vicinity.

Zebra mussels are not referred to in the 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
L-9

Topic Issue Response a

Coordination with the Department of Natural

Resources Wildlife and [sic] Heritage Division for any

disturbance to threatened or endangered species in

habitats that are inside Critical Areas.

Section 4.8.3.2 discusses the Maryland 

recommendation is included that AES c

appropriate state/local agencies to prepManagement Plan" that would provide 

minimization of impacts to Critical Are

Project. Potential impacts to be conside

include habitat for threatened or endang

would require coordination with the MD

Heritage Division.

AES has consulted with MDNR's Wild

with regard to potential impacts on Mar

threatened and endangered species. En

threatened species are addressed in sect

information in that section was obtained 

consultation with MDNR's Wildlife He

Mitigation required for any clearing of designated

Forest Interior Dwelling Bird (FID) [sic] habitat by

creation of new FIDs [sic] habitat.

FIDS habitat is addressed in Section 4.6

Species. We are recommending that M

consult with appropriate FIDS habitat m

in Maryland and file with FERC the res

consultation, including any agency-requ

mitigation plans.

Cultural Resources Potential impacts to the Sparrows Point Shipyard

Historic District if designated a National Historic

District should be considered.

Section 4.10.1 of the EIS addresses pot

Sparrows Point Shipyard; consultation 

MHT to develop an appropriate mitigat

adverse impacts to the shipyard is ongo

the NHPA (16 USC 470) requires the F

account the effects of its undertakings (

of a Certificate) on properties listed, or 

on the NRHP and to provide the ACHP 

comment on its undertakings. AES and 

Express, as non-federal parties, are assi

meeting its obligations under Section 1

implementing regulations at 36 CFR 80

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
L-10

Topic Issue Response aSocioeconomics

Marine Impacts Use of the Sparrows Point Shipyard for an LNG

terminal may not be the best use in terms of economic

development.

This is not a safety concern. The consi

proposed Project with local and regionais addressed in part through Maryland’s and is also discussed in section 4.9.7. S

proposed development at the terminal sconsistent with existing use and long-ra

for the area. Plans for the terminal site 

negative impact on these proposed plan

efforts included in Dundalk, A Second C

Similarly, construction and operation owould have no negative impacts on the 

redevelopment and revitalization conce

Turner Station Community Conservatio

Baltimore County Master Plan identifie

industrial for purposes of land use, an a

employment for development policy pu

LNG vessel security zones will impede free

movement of marine traffic, lead to economic losses

at the Port of Baltimore; impacts to commercial and

recreational water uses.

See sections 4.8.5.2 and 4.9.4.2 for disc

potential impacts to the Port of Baltimo

FERC recommends that AES continue 

the Port of Baltimore and other major s

commercial and recreational fishing int

transit route and develop specific opera

communication guidelines to address an

regarding impacts to these interests alon

and within the Port of Baltimore.

Land Impacts Traffic impact study incomplete. See section 4.9.4.1 for updated traffic s

Real estate value study questions. See section 4.9.5 for discussion regardi

to real estate values. Several studies re

significant effect on property values. A

study of real estate values in vicinity of 

directly applicable to the AES project.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
L-11

Topic Issue Response a

Public services must be maintained when roads

temporarily closed for pipeline construction activities,

needs to be specifically addressed in emergency

services routing plans.

Section 2.3.2.2 discusses construction o

roads. Where pipeline construction act

within public roadways, provisions wou

appropriate signage and, when necessar

or other traffic control measures would 

allow safe traffic flow (including for em

during construction. Such measures wo

with state and local regulations and in a

of-way agreements with the entity that 

transportation easement. Also see secti

Turner Station is an economically distressed

community.

Section 4.9.7 addresses Environmental 

associated with the Project, including p

the Turner Station community. The me

income for Turner Station is $28,324, w

the median income values reported for 

and the State of Maryland. Turner Stat

environmental justice area based on its 

(US Census Bureau 2000). FERC find

of the proposed terminal facility develo

disproportionately or otherwise result in 

health or environmental effects on mino

communities or Native American progr

Land Use, Recreation,

and Aesthetics

Terminal Concerns Various issued also addressed under other headings. As noted elsewhere.

Storm water runoff at the terminal site will need to

comply with requirements under Coastal Zone

Management program.

Stormwater is addressed in section 4

with Coastal Zone Management Ar

redirection of the process area stormw

an approximate 50% reduction of storm

the Patapsco River.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
L-12

Topic Issue Response a

Pipeline Concerns Use of highway rights-of-way for pipeline; SHA

engineers need to review detailed engineering plans;

alternative alignments; conflicts with expansion plans;

permits required.

Alternative alignments to address p

highways discussed in section 3.3. 

pipeline construction with planned 

discussed in section 4.9.4.1. FERC re

Atlantic Express continue to cons

Department of Transportation, SHA 

Secretary prior to the end of the DEIS 

results of any additional consultation

results of SHA’s review of the M

application for exceptions. Constr

crossing of the roadways would incl

similar means that would minimize tra

Atlantic Express would work with the 

to submit applications for road c

necessary, for all proposed road cross

mitigation measures are in place for fu

as requested by the agencies.

Railroad crossings and potential service interruptions. Section 4.9.4.1 addresses pipeline 

crossings. We do not anticipate 

operation would interfere with operatio

Mitigation for clearing within Critical Area, should be

coordinated with local governments.

Section 4.8.3.2 addresses the Maryland 

FERC recommends that Mid-Atlantic E

appropriate state/local agencies to prepManagement Plan" that would provide 

minimization of impacts to the Critical would address all applicable requireme

mitigation for clearing.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
L-13

Topic Issue Response a

Storm water runoff along pipeline route within

Coastal Zone will need to comply with requirements

under Coastal Zone Management program.

Water quality impacts from pipelin

operation are addressed in section 

stormwater impacts. Mid-Atlantic Exp

ECP. This plan includes requirement

planning, environmental inspection, co

waterbody and wetland crossings, stre

sediment and erosion control, restor

and post-construction maintenance. It i

handle stormwater and to protect wate

from accidental spills of fuels or haz

addition, Mid-Atlantic Express wo

measures contained in its SPCC Plan. 

Coastal Zone Management Program is 

4.8.3. FERC recommends that AE

Express file documentation with 

concurrence from the MDE that the 

with the Maryland Coastal Zone Mana

construction.

Potential impacts to lands in the Maryland

Agricultural Land preservation Foundation and Rural

Legacy Program conservation easements; impacts to

existing residential areas and close proximity to

schools. Mitigation plans are generic.

Section 4.8.5.1 addresses impacts to de

and public interest areas, including con

schools, churches and public use proper

addresses existing and planned residenc

along the pipeline route. Section 3.3 ad

alternative routes for segments in dense

FERC recommends Mid-Atlantic Expre

specific plans for pipeline crossings of 

schools, churches and public use proper

planned residences and developments.

Air and Noise Quality

Air Draft General

Conformity

Applicant needs to specify plan to acquire necessary

emission offsets.

Plans to acquire offsets will be reviewe

permitting process.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
L-14

Topic Issue Response a

SIP conformity issues related to transport of ozone. General Conformity is addressed in sec

section FERC recommends that AES pr

including full air quality analysis identi

requirements needed to demonstrate co

applicable State Implementation Plan (S

information documenting how the proje

demonstrate conformity in accordance and other information to enable FERC 

conformity evaluation.

Vehicle emissions associated with construction and

operation.

Section 4.11.1.4 discusses emissions as

construction and operation, including v

FERC recommends measures be implem

emissions during construction.

Exhaust velocities in Resource Report 9 appear to be

high.

AES provided revised data which is the 

modeling results presented in section 4

will require air permits for construction 

Air Permitting Applicant should address LAER for emissions from

ship unloading activities.

Section 4.11.1.4 addresses air quality im

emissions from LNG vessels at berth. L

will apply to the LNG terminal and opt

Cumulative impact analysis for air quality should

consider emissions from ethanol production plant

proposed within Sparrows Point Industrial complex.

See section 4.13.11 for a discussion of 

quality impacts which addresses the pro

production plant.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
L-15

Topic Issue Response a

Other Air Compliance Additional air compliance issues including availability

of NOx allowances; mitigation of PM emissions from

construction sources; compliance with NAAQS for

PM 2.5 and PSD increments for PM 10; and use of

latest version of air impact modeling software.

Air quality is addressed in section 4.11

information on regulatory requirements

and mitigation. FERC has recommend

additional information to support FERC

Conformity Determination (see section 

in section 4.11.1.3, the proposed projec

subject to a variety of federal, state, and 

pertaining to the construction or operati

sources. The MDE, PDEP, and VDEQ 

jurisdiction over air emissions produced 

project in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and 

respectively. Each agency enforces its 

well as EPA’s federal requirements. A 

compliance issues will be conducted th

the various air permit applications and 

requested information from AES.

Noise Quality Noise impacts associated with construction of the

pipeline within 50 feet of a residence is expected to

exceed state of Maryland noise limits for construction.

Directional drilling activities on a 24-hour continuous

basis will result in an exceedance of FERC’s 24-hour

day-night average noise limit of 55 dBA. The State of

Maryland recommends that the noise mitigation

measures that the applicant lists on pages 12-13 of

Resource Report 9 be incorporated as requirements of

any approval to construct and operate the Project.

Section 4.11.2.3 discusses noise impact

and operation of the Project and identifincorporated.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
L-16

Topic Issue Response aOTHER CONCERNSCoastal Facilities

Review Act

Application from AES for State Coastal Facilities

Review Act (CFRA) permit received by MDE on

January 9, 2007.

This statement is present in section 4.8.

Zone Management Act

The following State permits/approvals required for the

LNG facility will be processed as part of the CFRA

permit application:

• Tidal Wetlands License

• Nontidal Wetlands and Waterways Permit

• Air Quality Permits, and

• State Water Appropriations Permit and State

Discharge Permit

The federal permit approvals and consistency

determinations that will be addressed through the

CFRA process include:

• Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality

Certification for Section 404 permits, and

• Federal Consistency determination, for Section

307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act.

• Tidal Wetlands License is addresse

• Nontidal Wetlands and Waterways 

in section 4.4.1

• Air Quality Permits addressed in se

• State Water Appropriations Permit 

Permit addressed in section 4.3.2.8

• CWA Section 401 Water Quality C

Section 404 permits is addressed in 

• Federal Consistency determination 

the Coastal Zone Management Act 

section 4.8.3.1

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
L-17

Topic Issue Response aChesapeake Bay

Critical Area Act

Specific uses prohibited within the boundaries of the

Critical Area, which is a minimum of 1,000 feet

landward of from tidal waters.

Critical Areas are discussed in section 

and 4.8.3.2. Adverse impacts to Critica

managed by local governments which 

implementing the measures needed to 

conserve plant and animal habitat, an

development. The means by which th

through permitting or management p

mitigation and restoration. FERC re

Atlantic Express consult with ap

agencies to prepare a "Critical Area M

would provide for avoidance and/or mi

to those Critical Areas.

The Chesapeake Critical Area Commission must

approve local programs. On January 16, 2007 Bill

No. 9.07 was introduced into the Baltimore County

Council prohibiting the establishment or expansion of

a LNG facility in the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area of

Baltimore County. The measure received final

approval by the Council and was signed into law onFebruary 5, 2007. The prohibition has also been

included in the Baltimore County Zoning Regulations.

On June 6, 2007, the Chesapeake Critical Area

Commission approved Baltimore County’s

amendment to its critical area regulations.

The federal courts are currently reviewi

to address this issue.

a. Sections listed are the relevant sections of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sparrows Point LNG Project.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
M - 1

APPENDIX M

VISUAL CHANGE IN THE LANDSCAPE VIEW OF THE PROPOSED

LNG TERMINAL AS VIEWED FROM FOUR LOCATIONS

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX N

PLAN FOR UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY OF HAZARDOUS WASTES OR

CONTAMINATED SITES

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
N - 1

Plan for the Unanticipated Discovery of Hazardous Wastes or Contaminated Sites

Contaminated soils associated with these or other, undocumented hazardous waste sites could be

encountered during construction of the proposed pipeline facilities. If hazardous wastes or other

forms of contamination, as defined in applicable federal, state and local regulations and

guidelines, are encountered during construction of the Project, AES would implement the Plan for

the Unanticipated Discovery of Hazardous Wastes or Contaminated Sites. The procedures

described below would be used to determine the extent, nature, and disposition of suspected

contamination in areas which will impact construction. The intent of these procedures is to

mitigate unanticipated impacts from contaminated media during construction activities. This plan

for management and handling of contaminated media encountered during construction includes

the following:

o Excavation or subsurface activities;

o Contaminated media classification;

o Contaminated material handling requirements; and

o Dewatering and sedimentation control.

Potentially contaminated soil, material and/or groundwater may be encountered during

excavation, dewatering or other project construction activities. During these activities, AES

would designate Environmental Inspectors to monitor the construction process. The

Environmental Inspectors will be responsible for ensuring that the contractor manages project

related materials (i.e., soil, groundwater, drilling muds, etc.) in accordance with federal, state,

local regulations and project permitted conditions. In the event that the discovery of hazardous

wastes or contaminated sites occurs, AES would perform the following steps:

o Cordon off or otherwise restrict access to the suspected area;

o Notify the Environmental Inspectors and construction manager;

o Notify the landowner(s) of the subjected parcel(s); and

o Consult with appropriate local, state or federal regulatory agencies (as appropriate) with

respect to the management and/or disposal of contaminated media.

During excavation or HDD activities AES would perform the following tasks if known or

suspected environmental contaminants are identified:

• Observe excavation or HDD activities for visual or olfactory evidence of

contamination.

• Ensure that contaminated material is excavated in the presence of the Environmental

Inspectors, allowing sampling of excavated material and/or in-situ material at the

excavation limits.

• If contaminated material is identified during HDD activities, contaminated media will

be segregated as directed by the Environmental Inspector in accordance with

procedures for handling contaminated media.

• Contaminated material will not be mixed with uncontaminated material while

excavating, handling, or stockpiling. If encountered and feasible, AES will direct

haul contaminated material from the project site and dispose of the material at an

agency-permitted disposal site.

• Backfilling of excavations or HDD borings will not be allowed without approval of

the AES Environmental Inspector.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
N - 2

• If extraction or discharge of groundwater is necessary, AES will obtain necessary

permits or comply with existing project permit conditions from local, State and

Federal agencies with respect to withdrawal, management and discharge of

groundwater. AES will arrange for collection of effluent samples, chemical analysis,

and reporting of data to the local Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTW), State

and Federal agencies in accordance with permit requirements.

• Equipment used in contaminated work areas will be decontaminated prior to working

in other areas, as directed by the AES Environmental Inspectors.

• Control measures to minimize airborne dust and prohibit rainfall from collecting in

open excavations will be implemented at known or identified contaminated sites.

• Periodic inspections of equipment for leakage of fluids in accordance with the project

Spill Prevention and Pollution Control (SPCC) Plan will be conducted to ensure areas

are not being contaminated by equipment or project operations.

The construction contractor, under the supervision of the AES Environmental Manager and

Inspectors, would identify where to stockpile or how to store suspected contaminated materials

including excavated spoils, accumulated HDD spoils or mud, or collected contaminated water.

An Environmental Inspector would ensure that excavated materials, in particular contaminated

material, is managed appropriately so as not to further spread environmental contaminants.

Classifications such as uncontaminated material, non-hazardous contaminated material or

hazardous materials will be utilized. These material categories will be confirmed by chemical

laboratory testing and appropriately managed in accordance with this plan. Materials will be

managed in the interim period between detection or identification of suspect environmentally

impaired media and receipt of analytical results (and ultimately disposal) in accordance with all

applicable Federal, State, County, and local government guidelines and regulations.

Where applicable, the construction contractor would be required to observe the following general

provisions, which may be subject to alterations based on site conditions to allow safe working

conditions in performance of the work.

• Allow Environmental Inspectors to monitor material to determine requirements for

handling and testing, along with disposition requirements for off-site disposal or

treatment.

• Segregate excavated material based on field screening performed by the

Environmental Inspectors during excavation. Direct haul excavated contaminated

material off-site and avoid stockpiling of excavated contaminated material on-site

whenever possible.

• Not remove regulated material from the site for disposal or treatment without an

approval for off-site disposal at a permitted landfill, or a USEPA Hazardous Waste

Manifest for off-site disposal or treatment of hazardous waste.

• Maintain project documentation with accurate records of environmental conditions

within the project work area, material tracking and disposal transportation manifests,

and disposal certification. Documentation may include daily and monthly status

reports or minutes of meetings.

• Suspend work in the area and notify the AES Environmental Inspectors if the

presence of potentially hazardous conditions is evident. These conditions include, but

are not limited to, buried containers, drums or tanks, or explosive conditions due to

contaminated vapors. Secure the area in order to restrict access until the conditions

can be resolved.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
N - 3

• Observe appropriate provisions when transporting excavated material, including

handling material within established right-of-way limits, cleaning any material from

public streets, covering all trucks during material handling, and transporting

contaminated material in accordance with applicable agency Solid Waste and

Hazardous Waste Regulations.

• Observe appropriate provisions when stockpiling excavated material, including:

avoid soil stockpiles whenever possible by direct hauling of excavated materials offsite for disposal; managing site grades to facilitate surface drainage; and prevent dust

and leaching from stockpiles (by covering and utilizing temporary berms or silt fence

barriers). The Environmental Inspectors will routinely inspect stockpiles during

construction and record inspection observations in a log book.

• Stockpiled materials classified as hazardous waste will be appropriately handled by

storing the excavated material in containers, tanks, or a containment building, in

accordance with state agency and RCRA provisions for the less-than-90-day storage

permit exemption (40 CFR 262.34).

Design and operation of the dewatering systems, including treatment if necessary, would be

completed by AES’ contractor. The dewatering systems will be designed to limit migration of

potentially contaminated groundwater. AES’s contractor will prevent erosion or sedimentation

from stockpiled material or other construction areas, obtain all required treatment and discharge

permits (in accordance with Federal, State and local POTW requirements), and arrange for

sampling and analysis of water, as required by permit conditions.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 

APPENDIX O

EXOTIC AND INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL PLAN

O-1

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES SPARROWS POINT LNG, LLC 

AND 

MID-ATLANTIC EXPRESS, LLC 

LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT 

EXOTIC AND INVASIVE SPECIES 

CONTROL PLAN 

 (DRAFT) 

JULY 2007 

O-2

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG Project Exotic and Invasive Species Control Plan

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................O-4

2.0 EXOTIC AND INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL PLAN ................................................O-5

2.1 Identification of Existing Infestations....................................................O-5

2.2 Minimization of Impacts............................................................................O-5

 2.3 Physical Control and Eradication Methods ............................................................O-6 

 2.4 Chemical Control and Eradication Methods...........................................................O-7

 3.0 LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................... O-8

 

O-3

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC (Sparrows Point LNG) proposes to construct, own, and operate 

a new liquefied natural gas (LNG) import, storage, and regasification terminal (LNG Terminal) 

at the Sparrows Point Industrial Complex situated on the Sparrows Point peninsula east of the 

Port of Baltimore in Maryland. LNG will be delivered to the LNG Terminal via LNG marine 

traffic, offloaded from these ships to shoreside storage tanks, regasified on the LNG Terminal 

site (Terminal Site), and transported to consumers via pipeline. 

The Project footprint is located in the counties of Baltimore, Harford and Cecil in Maryland, and 

in the counties of Lancaster and Chester in Pennsylvania. The Terminal Site, which is located 

entirely within Baltimore County, is a parcel located within a former shipyard. The route 

proposed for the Pipeline (Pipeline Route), which crosses all of the listed counties, includes 

industrial, commercial, agricultural, and residential lands. Together, the Terminal Site and the 

Pipeline Route comprise the Project Area. 

The linear nature of the Project may provide exposed topsoil for potential recruitment of exotic 

and invasive species and the potential exists for equipment to bring in and inadvertently 

introduce invasive species to areas without existing infestations. In order to counteract this 

potential introduction, AES will implement the following strategies as well as several industryaccepted measures for controlling exotic and invasive species. 

O-4

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
2.0 EXOTIC AND INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL PLAN 

2.1 IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING INFESTATIONS

Prior to the initiation of construction, AES will perform a review of existing environmental data 

and conduct a walkover of the proposed right-of-way to identify wetlands and other areas that 

contain populations of exotic and invasive species. Field teams will photo-document the 

presence of these populations and characterize the general condition and density of the 

population. This information will be used to identify areas that are not infested and thus subject 

to the invasive species control plan, as well as those areas that are already infested and will not 

require control measures. 

2.2 MINIMIZATION OF IMPACT

 

The first strategy will be to minimize the introduction of species, which were not documented in 

the pipeline corridor during pre-construction environmental surveys. To accomplish this, AES is 

requiring all contractor equipment to be washed before arriving at the job site or contractor 

yards. 

The second strategy will involve monitoring and selective spot treatment/eradication of any 

exotic and invasive species encountered in construction. AES proposes to monitor the ROW for 

the first 3-5 years, as part of the annual FERC-required revegetation-monitoring program, to 

allow for early detection of exotic and invasive species infestation. If species or colonies of 

species are documented in numbers and/or percentage of ground cover, which are significantly 

different from existing nearby off ROW locations, AES will conduct spot eradication of those 

species. Eradication and control could include physical methods (e.g., hand pulling, grubbing, 

girdling, mowing, or cutting) or chemical methods (e.g., application of herbicides) as necessary 

(discussed in sections 2.1 and 2.2). 

Additional control measures that will be used to minimize introduction and spread of exotic and 

invasive species include: 

• Follow FERC’s Plan and Procedures to assure that sediment movement and the 

associated movement of non-native seeds into newly disturbed soils are minimized. 

• Use construction techniques along the pipeline route that minimize the time that bare soil 

is exposed and, therefore, minimize the opportunity for exotic species to become 

established. 

• In wetland construction areas where practicable, remove topsoil from the excavation 

areas and store it to the side for replacement once the construction is complete. This will 

minimize the introduction of non-native species and maintain the native plant seed bank. 

• Sow a quick growing cover crop (such as annual ryegrass) in wetlands and along all 

exposed soil surfaces within a short time to assure that a suitable growing substrate for 

exotic or invasive species is not available for long periods of time. 

O-5

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
2.3 PHYSICAL CONTROL AND ERADICATION METHODS 

Hand Pulling and Grubbing

This method will be most appropriate for small initial populations of Japanese barberry, Asiatic 

bittersweet, tartarian honeysuckle, purple loosestrife, common reed, Japanese knotweed, 

European buckthorn, glossy buckthorn, and poison ivy, at the early stage of infestation (Plant 

Conservation Alliance 2000). Using a small digging tool and/or gloved hand, the entire plant 

shall be removed including all roots, runners and mature fruit. Some plants may be hand-pulled 

depending on the maturity of the plant and soil conditions. Care will be taken to attempt to 

remove the entire root system to prevent re-sprouting (Tennessee 1997), and to avoid excess 

disturbance to soil to minimize the release of seeds stored in soil (Plant Conservation Alliance 

2000). The uprooted plant materials shall then be bagged and disposed of in an appropriate 

container or approved offsite location to prevent re-introduction into the wetland (Tennessee 

1997 and Plant Conservation Alliance 2000). 

Girdling

For several invasive species (e.g., European and glossy buckthorn, and Japanese barberry), 

girdling will be used for small populations of mature plants where grubbing would be prohibitive 

due to the diameter of the stems and extent of root growth. Girdling involves removing a twoinch wide strip of bark and cambium around the entire stem (Kyker-Snowman 2002). There are 

several advantages of girdling: it can be done year round, does not disrupt the soil, and does not 

adversely affect wetlands (Converse 2002). It is not expected that plants will become established 

to the size that would require girdling as a means of control. 

Mowing

Mowing has been found to be an effective control method for several populations of invasive 

species. Weekly mowing has been found to be effective for Asiatic bittersweet, however less 

frequent mowing (e.g., two to three times per year) has been found to stimulate root suckering 

(Dreyer 2002). Also, mowing three to six times per growing season for two to four years has 

been found to be effective at controlling multiflora rose (Plant Conservation Alliance 2000). For 

Russian olive, mowing and brush removal has been an effective control method (Plant 

Conservation Alliance 2000). 

Cutting

For larger populations of invasive species (e.g., all species), eradication can be achieved via 

cutting and removal of seed heads, prior to herbicide application. Cutting will be done close to 

the ground, and all plant parts will be disposed of in an approved offsite location. In particular, 

seed heads and/or fruits will be bagged prior to removal to prevent unnecessary spread of 

reproductive materials. For populations of Asiatic bittersweet (Plant Conservation Alliance 

2000), Russian olive (Sather and Eckardt 2002), purple loosestrife (Tu 2000), and common reed 

(Tu 2000 and Martin 2001) cutting and herbicide application will be focused around the fall 

O-6

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 

wOen plants are actively translocating nutrients to their roots. For the buckthorns, cutting and 

herbicide application should be done in spring and fall to be most effective (Converse 2002). 

For other invasive species, the timing of cutting and herbicide application was not specifically 

noted. 

2.4 CHEMICAL CONTROL AND ERADICATION METHODS 

Herbicides

Herbicides may be used alone or in conjunction with cutting of invasive plant stems. Using a 

backpack-type sprayer, foliar or spot application of herbicides may be used for larger infestations 

or for when the entire root system cannot be removed using the grubbing method. Herbicides 

approved for use in wetland environments, such as glyphosate (Rodeo), may be applied to 

eliminate re-sprouting. Foliar application of glyphosate has been found to be effective in 

eradicating small populations of Russian olive (Sather and Eckardt 2002). Biannual (summer 

and fall) application of herbicides has been found to be effective in eradicating purple loosestrife 

(Plant Conservation Alliance 2000) and buckthorn (Converse 2002) populations. The stemcutting and herbicide (i.e., glyphosate) application has been found effective for all populations of 

invasive species found along the ROW except one, Asiatic bittersweet. For all other species, 

glyphosate is an effective herbicide. Cut stems or remaining roots are hand painted or sprayed 

with herbicide to prevent regrowth. Special care shall be taken when using herbicides to avoid 

overspray or application to adjacent native species. 

O-7

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
3.0 LITERATURE CITED 

Converse, C.K. 2002. The Nature Conservancy Element Stewardship Abstract for Rhamnus 

cathartica, Rhamnus frangula (syn. Frangula alnus). The Nature Conservancy 

Wildland Invasive Species Team, Arlington, VA. 

http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/index.html. Updated March 2002. 

Dreyer, G.D. 2002. The Nature Conservancy Element Stewardship Abstract for Celastrus 

orbiculata. The Nature Conservancy Wildland Invasive Species Team, Arlington, 

VA. http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/index.html. Updated March 2002. 

Kyker-Snowman, T. 2002. Alien Invasions and the Protection of Native Diversity on 

Massachusetts Woodlots. Woodland Steward, Massachusetts Forestry Association. 

http://www.massforesters.org/invasives.htm. Updated May 11, 2002. 

Martin, T. 2001. A Success Story: Phragmites control at Kampoosa Bog, Massachusetts. 

The Nature Conservancy Wildland Invasive Species Program. 

http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/success/ma001.html. Updated March 2002. 

Plant Conservation Alliance. 2000. Alien Plant Invaders of Natural Areas. Plant 

Conservation Alliance Alien Plant Working Group, Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, D.C. http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/factmain.htm. Updated July 11, 

2000. 

Sather, N., and N. Eckardt. 2002. The Nature Conservancy Element Stewardship Abstract 

for Elaeagnus umbellata. The Nature Conservancy Wildland Invasive Species Team, 

Arlington, VA. http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/index.html. Updated March 2002. 

Tennessee Exotic Plant Management Manual, April 1997. 

http://www.exoticpestplantcouncil.org/states/doc.cfm?id=469

Tu, M. 2000. Techniques from TNC Stewards for the eradication of Lythrum salicaria

(purple loosestrife) and Phragmites australis (common reed/Phrag) in wetlands. The 

Nature Conservancy Wildland Invasive Species Program, Department of Vegetable 

Crops and Weed Science, University of California at Davis. 

O-8

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

Exotic and Invasive Species Control Plan 

Mid Atlantic Express Pipeline 

August 2008 

EXOTIC AND INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL PLAN

FOR WETLANDS ALONG THE PIPELINE ROUTE

AES MID-ATLANTIC EXPRESS PIPELINE

AUGUST 2008

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008

DR6 Attachment INFO8
Sparrows Point Project 

Exotic and Invasive Species Control Plan 

Mid Atlantic Express Pipeline 

August 2008 

EXOTIC AND INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL PLAN FOR WETLANDS ALONG THE PIPELINE 

ROUTE

INTRODUCTION: 

The intention of this control plan is to provide awareness of the issue and foster early detection so 

land managers can implement management actions to prevent exotic and invasive species from 

becoming established and/or spreading. The measures outlined in this plan are intended to 

supplement the restoration and maintenance measures described in the AES Environmental 

Construction Plan. 

CONTROL STRATEGY: 

The construction process may provide exposed topsoil for potential recruitment of exotic and 

invasive species and the potential exists for equipment to introduce exotic and invasive species. 

In order to mitigate this potential introduction, AES will implement an exotic and invasive 

species control strategy involving a three step process: 

• The first is to identify exotic and invasive species infestations during pre-construction 

flagging of the delineated wetlands. If infestations are identified, AES will segregate the 

vegetative material and infested topsoil for disposal off site. 

• The second is to minimize introduction of exotic and invasive species. AES will require 

the contractor to wash equipment before introduction to the construction area for the first 

time. Water and materials captured from the washing will be contained on site and be 

properly disposed off site. During construction, AES will use construction techniques 

that minimize the time that bare soil is exposed and, therefore, minimize the opportunity 

for exotic species to become established. In addition, AES will follow the FERC 

Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures, which include 

segregation of topsoil from the trench and immediately restoring the topsoil back to its 

original location once backfilling the trench is complete, if the area is not inundated or 

soils are saturated. This will maintain the native plant seed bank. AES will sow a cover 

crop, using a native wetland seed mix, along all exposed soil surfaces within a short time 

from completing construction to assure that a suitable growing substrate for exotic or 

invasive species is not available for long periods of time. 

• The third and final is to monitor the wetlands for invasive species. The wetlands will be 

monitored for a period of 3 years to allow for early detection and eradication of exotic 

and invasive species. If exotic or invasive species are found in areas not previously 

identified and in numbers that are substantially higher from the surrounding undisturbed 

areas, AES will conduct spot control activities eradication. Control activities will involve 

hand removal and/or application of herbicides of infestations. 

METHODS FOR ERADICATION: 

In areas where exotic or invasive species are found in areas not previously identified and in 

numbers that are substantially higher from the surrounding undisturbed areas, AES will utilize 

eradication methods. Methods used to eradicate exotic and invasive species found in wetlands 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008

DR6 Attachment INFO8
Sparrows Point Project 

Exotic and Invasive Species Control Plan 

Mid Atlantic Express Pipeline 

August 2008 

following restoration of the right-of-way (ROW) will include a two-phased approach including 

physical methods (e.g., grubbing, girdling, mowing or cutting) and/or chemical methods (e.g., 

application of herbicides) as necessary. 

The uprooted plant materials shall then be bagged and disposed of in an appropriate container or 

approved offsite location to prevent re-introduction into the wetland 

Herbicides approved for use in wetlands may be used alone or in conjunction with cutting of 

invasive plant stems. Using a backpack-type sprayer, foliar or spot application of herbicides may 

be used for larger infestations or for when the entire root system cannot be removed using the 

grubbing method. 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008

DR6 Attachment INFO8
APPENDIX P 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued 

the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed AES Sparrows Point 

LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project in April 2008. 650 copies of the draft EIS were 

mailed to interested parties, including federal, state and local officials and agencies, 

special interest groups, parties to the proceeding, area libraries and newspapers, and 

individuals and affected landowners. The FERC’s Notice of Availability of the draft EIS 

was issued on April 25, 2008, which initiated the formal pubic comment period which 

extended from the date of issue through June 16, 2008. During the draft EIS comment 

period, the FERC and the COE conducted public meetings/public hearings, respectively 

in Baltimore (June 9) and Edgewood (June 12), Maryland and Downingtown (June 11), 

Pennsylvania. The public comment meetings provided interested groups and individuals 

the opportunity to present oral and written comments on FERC staff’s analysis of the 

environmental impacts of the proposed Project as described in the draft EIS. At the 

public comment meetings, we stated that we would accept written comments throughout 

the period when the final EIS was being prepared. 

We received written comments on the draft EIS throughout the period from 

issuance of the draft EIS to preparation of the final EIS and considered each of the 

comments received between April 25, 2008 and October 14, 2008 in preparing the final 

EIS. All written comments received on the draft EIS and the transcripts of the public 

comment meetings on the draft EIS are part of the public record for the Project and are 

available in the Project docket (CP07-062, CP07-063, CP07-064 and CP07-065). 

This appendix consists of the following two main sections: 

• Section P1 provides an index of comment letters received on the AES Sparrows 

Point Project as well as each individual comment letter received with comments 

identified and FERC’s response to each comment; and 

• Section P2 contains an index of persons that provided oral comments during 

each of the public comment meetings held on the draft EIS and a summary of 

each individuals comments and FERC’s response to each comment. 

P-1

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Table P1-1 presents a list of the written comments we received specific to the 

AES Sparrows Point LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project draft EIS, including the name of 

the commenter, and the identification number we assigned to each comment letter. 

Table P1-1 is sorted alphabetically by last name. 

All comment letters received are reproduced in this appendix with specific 

comments identified and numbered. Our response to each numbered comment is 

presented opposite the comment. 

All attachments to letters including reports, maps, articles, comment letters from 

others, and other documents were read and considered in the development of this EIS. If 

the attachment was specific to the draft EIS, it is included with the letter and we have 

responded to comments identified. If the attachment was not specific to the draft EIS, it 

was not reproduced in this appendix. If the attachment was a duplicate of a letter we 

responded to separately in this section of the appendix, we did not include it with the 

comment letter or duplicate our responses. However, original letters and attachments 

are located in the docket at http://www.ferc.gov under “E-library.” 

Table P1-1. Index of Comment Letters Received 

Accession No. 

Commenter 

No. First Name(s) Last Name(s) 

Page 

Number 

20080610-0257 FA1 Robert H., Jr. Herbert P1-1 

20080616-5031 FA2 Michael T. Chezik P1-3 

20080616-5092 FA3 Rodney F., 

Patricia A. 

Weiher, 

Kurkul P1-5 

20080624-0224 FA4 Margaret E. Gaffney-Smith P1-18 

20080626-0014 FA5 William J. Hoffman P1-22 

20080709-0062 FA6 Robert H., Jr. Herbert P1-33 

20080812-4010 FA7 David Densmore P1-36 

20080814-0113 FA8 Joseph P. DaVia P1-40 

20080515-5039 SA1 Todd Schaible P1-52 

20080613-5004 SA2 Greg Podniesinski P1-53 

20080616-5079 SA3 Bruce Michael P1-55 

20080619-0076 SA4 James R. Leigey P1-114 

20080619-0090 SA5 Linda C. Janey P1-117 

20080619-0054 SA6 James Newbold P1-119 

20080624-0238 SA7 Linda C. Janey P1-120 

20080805-0108 SA8 Elizabeth J. Cole P1-124 

20080922-0064 SA9 David W. Edgerley P1-133 

20081008-4002 SA10 Roger W. Kirchen P1-138 

20080627-0119 SE1 John A., Jr. Olszewski P1-139 

20080627-0119 SE2 John, Sr. Olszewski P1-143 

20080610-5049 LA1 David A. C. Carroll P1-145 

20080613-5049 LA2 Joseph A. "Jay" 

for Mary L. 

Doyle 

Harvey P1-158 

20080616-5067 LA3 James R. Cowhey P1-159 

P-2

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Table P1-1. Index of Comment Letters Received (continued) 

Accession No. 

Commenter 

No. First Name(s) Last Name(s) 

Page 

Number 

20080616-5089 LA4 Ronald T. Bailey P1-164 

20080616-5096 LA5 Janet L. Bowers P1-185 

20080619-0057 LA6 John J., Jr. Roughan P1-192 

20080703-5034 LA7 Paula Latta Coyne P1-193 

20080710-0108 LA8 Brian P. MacEwen P1-194 

20080610-0250 LA9 John J., Jr. Roughan P1-195 

20080627-0119 LA10 Daniel Greig P1-196 

20080627-0119 LA11 Marge, 

Mary 

Huggins, 

Rosso P1-197 

20080627-0119 LA12 Joseph P. Licata P1-199 

20080924-5034 LA13 Margaret D. DeCarolis P1-200 

20081002-5038 LA14 John J., Jr. Roughan P1-202 

20080522-5063 OC1 Ronnie Adams P1-203 

20080612-5046 OC2 Norris McDonald P1-208 

20080612-5069 OC3 Norris McDonald P1-210 

20080616-5018 OC4 Dr. Kay, 

Coles 

Brawley 

Marsh P1-214 

20080616-0058 OC5 Russell S. Donnelly P1-218 

20080616-5043 OC6 

Steven and 

Joanne, 

Robert and Amy 

McNaughton, 

McHugh P1-231 

20080616-5119 OC7 Alison, 

Beth L. 

Prost, 

McGee P1-234 

20080617-5001 OC8 Michael R. Helfrich P1-236 

20080617-5007 OC9 Dunbar Brooks P1-238 

20080617-5009 OC10 Richard J. Guarini P1-242 

20080617-5176 OC11 Sherri Evans-Stanton P1-244 

20080619-0051 OC12 Rupert Denney P1-249 

20080624-0235 OC13 Patricia A. Dash P1-251 

20080627-0119 OC14 Dunbar Brooks P1-253 

20080627-0119 OC15 Carolyn A. Jones P1-256 

20080627-0119 OC16 Kirks Mill Historic 

District P1-260 

20080627-0119 OC17 Matthew Jones P1-262 

20080627-0119 OC18 Lisa Van Houten P1-264 

20080627-0119 OC19 Dr. Dred Scott P1-266 

20080627-0119 OC20 William H. Kumm P1-267 

20080627-0119 OC21 Ron Henry P1-269 

20080701-0016 OC22 Rick Chadsey P1-272 

20080710-0126 OC23 Rupert Denney P1-285 

20080915-0170 OC24 Sidney W. Beddow, II P1-289 

20080924-5029 OC25 Ronnie Adams P1-292 

20081014-5039 OC26 Sherri Evans-Stanton P1-295 

P-3

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Table P1-1. Index of Comment Letters Received (continued) 

Accession No. 

Commenter 

No. First Name(s) Last Name(s) 

Page 

Number 

20081021-0209 OC27 Rick Chadsey P1-300 

20081030-5046 OC28 Lisa Van Houten P1-308 

20080516-0102 IN1 Larry and Shirley Smoose P1-311 

20080605-5017 IN2 Robert Sheperd P1-312 

20080610-5001 IN3 Sabrina A. Burkindine P1-313 

20080612-5000 IN4 Adam Udell P1-314 

20080613-5007 IN5 Eric, 

Julie 

Newman, 

Norton P1-315 

20080613-5126 IN6 Pamela Green P1-317 

20080616-5008 IN7 Lisa and Joseph Gallick P1-318 

20080616-5014 IN8 Joyce Engle P1-321 

20080616-5015 IN9 Sheri Hipsley P1-322 

20080616-5027 IN10 Judy Rose P1-323 

20080616-5039 IN11 Marsha A. Dalton P1-329 

20080616-5038 IN12 Richard J. and 

Victoria S. Channell P1-330 

20080616-5047 IN13 James B. III, 

Susan T. 

Bullitt, 

Barrett-Bullitt P1-340 

20080616-5051 IN14 Steven and Joanne McNaughton P1-345 

20080617-5018 IN15 Brian Fenimore P1-349 

20080617-5077 IN16 Peter D. Deen P1-351 

20080618-5010 IN17 Lisa Van Houston 

(Van Houten) P1-352 

20080619-0008 IN18 William E. Murphy P1-363 

20080619-0055 IN19 Nancy and Cliff Pollack P1-365 

20080619-0061 IN20 Thomas Sumeson P1-367 

20080620-0035 IN21 Elizabeth A. Anan P1-368 

20080620-0036 IN22 Carolyn McArthur P1-369 

20080623-0003 IN23 Andrew Durkin P1-371 

20080623-0002 IN24 Elizabeth A. Anan P1-380 

20080623-0008 IN25 Rick and Diane MacDougall P1-381 

20080623-0010 IN26 Richard J. and 

Victoria S. Channell P1-383 

20080623-0011 IN27 Jean MacDougall P1-387 

20080623-0009 IN28 Caitlin MacDougall P1-389 

20080625-5006 IN29 Tim McAleese P1-391 

20080625-0132 IN30 Guido Guarnaccia P1-392 

20080625-0131 IN31 Dawn Cassel P1-403 

20080701-5048 IN32 Rev. Mitchell L. Miller P1-404 

20080718-0211 IN33 Mary Jo Kovic P1-406 

20080627-0119 IN34 Caroline Seamon P1-407 

P-4

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Table P1-1. Index of Comment Letters Received (continued) 

Accession No. 

Commenter 

No. First Name(s) Last Name(s) 

Page 

Number 

20080627-0119 IN35 Dan Zorn P1-409 

20080627-0119 IN36 Donald E. Milsten P1-411 

20080627-0119 IN37 Liam O'Rourke P1-413 

20080627-0119 IN38 Rupert Rossetti P1-414 

20080627-0119 IN39 Jeff Pipov P1-417 

20080627-0119 IN40 Terri and Howard Meyers P1-418 

20080627-0119 IN41 David E. Conover P1-419 

20080627-0119 IN42 Donna Ichniowski P1-422 

20080627-0119 IN43 Deborah Harrison P1-425 

20080925-0074 IN44 Jesse D. and Rikki 

M. Saunders P1-426 

20080627-0119 IN45 Tim Rye P1-428 

20080627-0119 IN46 Author Unknown Author Unknown P1-429 

20080627-0119 IN47 Mary DeLezze P1-431 

20080627-0119 IN48 Tom Nelson P1-432 

20080627-0119 IN49 Brenda Wilson P1-433 

20080627-0119 IN50 Robert Resau P1-435 

20080627-0119 IN51 Alan and Denise Anthony P1-436 

20080627-0119 IN52 Linn Marie Abrams P1-437 

20080627-0119 IN53 Loretta L. Grynkiewicz P1-438 

20080627-0119 IN54 Crossan O'Donovan P1-439 

20080627-0119 IN55 Matthew Smith P1-440 

20080627-0119 IN56 Carolyn P. Ducan P1-441 

20080627-0119 IN57 Ruth E. Coole P1-443 

20080627-0119 IN58 Barbara Kenny P1-444 

20080627-0119 IN59 Julius, Jr. Fischer P1-445 

20080627-0119 IN60 Dorothy A. Matz P1-447 

20080627-0119 IN61 Blair W. Fleischmann P1-449 

20080813-5034 IN62 Christi Osborne P1-450 

20080822-0039 IN63 Blair W. Fleischmann P1-452 

20080829-5033 IN64 Andrew Durkin P1-453 

20080827-5017 IN65 Eric Newman P1-455 

20080904-0532 IN66 Edward P. Fitts P1-456 

20080911-5005 IN67 Richard J. and 

Victoria S. Channell P1-457 

20080911-0136 IN68 William V. Munton P1-461 

20080916-5082 IN69 James B. III, 

Susan T. 

Bullitt 

Barrett-Bullitt P1-463 

20080929-0074 IN70 Rita A. Conway P1-464 

20081006-0077 IN71 Rita A. Conway P1-465 

P-5

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
P-6

Table P1-1. Index of Comment Letters Received (continued) 

Accession No. 

Commenter 

No. First Name(s) Last Name(s) 

Page 

Number 

20081006-5054 IN72 Richard J. and 

Victoria S. Channell P1-466 

20080619-0108 AES1 Christopher Diez P1-467 

Commenter Identification: 

AES = Applicant / AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC 

FA = Federal Agency 

SA = State Agency 

SE = State Elected Official 

LA = Local Agency 

LE = Local Elected Official 

OC = Organization or Company 

IN = Individual 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Table P2-1. Index of Comments Received at Public Comment Meetings 

Page Number 

Baltimore, Maryland – June 9, 2008 

Jim Smith P2-1 

John Griffin P2-3 

Barbara Mikulski P2-6 

Irene Spatafore P2-7 

Rupert Denney P2-7 

Donna Roberts P2-8 

Richard Muth P2-10 

David Carroll P2-11 

Mary Harvey P2-12 

Frank Holden P2-12 

Norris McDonald P2-13 

Phyllis Seward P2-14 

Mark Hubbard P2-15 

Joseph Minnick P2-17 

John Olszewski P2-17 

Dutch Ruppersberger P2-18 

Maxine Thompson P2-20 

Phyllis Elaine Driscoll P2-21 

Linwood N. Jackson P2-21 

Norman R. Stone, Jr. P2-22 

John Olszewski, Jr. P2-24 

Benjamin L. Cardin P2-26 

David Jones P2-27 

Matt Jones P2-28 

John Polek P2-28 

Russell Donnelly P2-29 

Pat McDonough P2-30 

Buddy Cefalu P2-31 

Donald Milsten P2-31 

Carolyn Jones P2-31 

Guido Guarnaccia P2-34 

John Truszkowski P2-34 

Frank Buddy Howard P2-35 

Ernie Greclo P2-35 

Tom Powers P2-36 

P-7

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Table P2-1. Index of Comments Received at Public Comment Meetings 

Baltimore Maryland – June 9, 2008 continued 

Terry Rosso P2-36 

Rebecca Kolberg P2-37 

Russ Spangler P2-37 

Ron Henry P2-38 

Erin Garrigan P2-38 

Mike Vivirito P2-40 

Dennis McCartney P2-41 

Terry Ratcliff P2-41 

Tom Nelson P2-41 

Dunbar Brooks P2-41 

Fred Thiess P2-43 

John Romecki P2-44 

Alexander Pappas P2-45 

Thomas Suneson P2-45 

Rick Chadsey P2-45 

Larry Silverman P2-46 

Andrew Fellows P2-47 

Downingtown, Pennsylvania – June 11, 2008 

Matthew Jones P2-48 

Rupert Rossetti P2-49 

James Bullitt P2-52 

Jeffrey Piper P2-54 

Russell Donnelly P2-55 

Lisa Van Houten P2-60 

Joan Deen P2-62 

Dan Shanor P2-64 

David Sweeny P2-66 

Teri Dignazio P2-67 

Eric Newman P2-68 

John Goodall P2-69 

Dan Shanor P2-71 

Russell Donnelly P2-71 

Sue Bullitt P2-72 

Lisa Van Houten P2-72 

Paula Latta Coyne P2-74 

Joe Civis P2-74 

Dan Shanor P2-75 

P-8

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Table P2-1. Index of Comments Received at Public Comment Meetings 

James Bullitt P2-75 

Audience P2-76 

Lisa Van Houten P2-76 

Audience P2-76 

Lisa Van Houten P2-76 

Russell Donnelly P2-77 

Edgewood, Maryland – June 12, 2008 

Guido Guarnaccia P2-78 

Frank Holden P2-79 

Valerie Twanmoh P2-81 

Linwood Jackson P2-84 

Donna Ichniowski P2-85 

Pat McDonough P2-87 

Ron Henry P2-89 

William H. Kumm P2-90 

Peter Reid P2-91 

Heather Cambell P2-91 

Ronnie Adams P2-93 

Roxanne Lynch P2-95 

Harry Argentino P2-96 

Tony Paszkiewicz P2-96 

Deborah Mance P2-98 

Russell Donnelly P2-99 

Roman Ratych P2-101 

Linda Heilman P2-101 

Kelsey Paszkiavicz P2-102 

Marian Sweeny P2-103 

Lee Crush P2-104 

Matthew Jones P2-104 

Harold Spurgeon P2-106 

Adrienne Brown P2-107 

James Olgastowski P2-107 

Christine Heisey P2-108 

Carolyn Hicks P2-109 

Larry Silverman P2-110 

Caroline Seamon P2-111 

Louis Knopacki P2-111 

Amy Woolf P2-112 

P-9

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
P-10

Table P2-1. Index of Comments Received at Public Comment Meetings 

Edgewood, Maryland – June 12, 2008 continued

Russell Donnelly P2-112 

Linwood N. Jackson P2-113 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Section P3 

Comment Letters Received in Response to FERC’s October 29, 2008 Notice to 

Landowners Regarding New Route Variations 6B, 10A, 12C, Kirks Mill Variation A, 

Romansville Road Variation B, 13, 14, and Chesaco Avenue Variation 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Table P3-1. Summary of FERC’s Review of Comment Letters Received in Response to FERC’s October 29, 2008 

Regarding New Route Variations 6B, 10A, 12C, Kirks Mill Variation A, Romansville Road Variation B, 13, 14, an

Variation 

Name of 

Commenter 

Accession No. Summary of Comments 

Richard J. and Victoria S. Channell 

20081008-5052; 20081021-5048; 20081027-5031; 20081107-5035; 20081120-5015 

20081008-5052 - Mr. and Mrs. Channel state that the AES October 6th

filing did not properly identify the number of residences within 50 feet of the workspace. They also indicated that the SSP for MP 84.45 has unacceptable impacts to trees, sidewalks, wetlands, and wells. Mr. and Mrs. Channell have attached a map to this letter showing their modification to Variation 12C to reduce impacts. They have requested that FERC require AES to conduct geological analysis on the well locations/depths in comparison to the HDD location/depth along Variation 12C. They feel that a modified Variation 12C is the best route. 20081021-5048 - Mr. and Mrs. Channel state that the AES October 6thfiling did not properly identify the number of residences within 50 feet of the workspace as well as impacted wetlands along the proposed route. Mr. and Mrs. Channell believe that privileged information should be public so that true impacts can be looked at. They looked aan alignment sheet from April of 2007 and believe that the impacts shown should not be permitted. Mr. and Mrs. Channell indicated that impacts to wells along Variation 12C can be avoided or connected to public water mains. Information about route Variation 12C impacts provided by AES are unsubstantiated. Homeowners within 25’ of the construction work space have not received their SSPs. Statements made by AES in their October 16th filing are incorrect. 

20081027-5031 - Mr. and Mrs. Channell request on-site detailed analysis of areas by impartial party to substantiate claims. 20081107-5035 - Mr. and Mrs. Channell saw the letter regarding the new route variations in the eLibrary, but have not received this letter in the mail. They are concerned that landowners that will be affected by the route variations will not receive this information or will not have enough time to submit comments. 

P-11

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
P-12

Table P3-1. Summary of FERC’s Review of Comment Letters Received in Response to FERC’s October 29, 2008 

Regarding New Route Variations 6B, 10A, 12C, Kirks Mill Variation A, Romansville Road Variation B, 13, 14, an

Variation (Continued) 

Name of 

Commenter 

Accession No. Summary of Comments 

Richard J. and Victoria S. Channell (Continued) 

20081008-5052; 20081021-5048; 20081027-5031; 20081107-5035; 20081120-5015 

20081120-5015 - Mr. and Mrs. Channell disagree with the letters submitted by Mr. Roughan (accession number 20081117-5075), Bentley Systems (accession number 20081119-5075) and Donald 

Knorr (accession number 20081118-5005). The Channell’s request that HDD be used for Forested Area B along Variation 12C as it is for Forest Area A. They also state that if there is a concern for the trees and wetland in Forest Area B, the Sunoco route could be followed into Hickory Park. 

Andrew Durkin 20081010-5003; 

20081024-5020 

20081010-5003- Mr. Durkin indicated that Variations 12A-C will have more impacts than the proposed route. He has also expressed concerns regarding the proximity of the route variations to existing homes, the increased care that must be taken to cross over existing pipelines, the complexity of the waterbody crossings, the increased wetland and forest impacts, reduction in property values, safety concerns, impacts to the Lake Ridge disposal area, residential septic systems, wells, drinking water, and utilities along the route variations. Mr. Durkin has indicated that the proposed route should be selected for construction. 20081024-5020 - Mr. Durkin identified the costs associated with extending the existing water main to his property. Mr. Durkin cites concerns with regards to impacts to old trees by the pipeline alternative and water main extension, impacts to his front yard for the water main extension including digging it up, removal of a section of a 200+ year old stone wall and property value. Mr. Durkin also states that the water main extension would require access to public right-ofway (20 foot perpetual easement and 10 foot exclusively for AQUA) and that there would be potential road construction impacts along W. Township Line Road from the water main extension (13 homes, 4 culde-sacs, 1 elementary school and 1 business park). 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Table P3-1. Summary of FERC’s Review of Comment Letters Received in Response to FERC’s October 29, 2008 

Regarding New Route Variations 6B, 10A, 12C, Kirks Mill Variation A, Romansville Road Variation B, 13, 14, an

Variation (Continued) 

Name of 

Commenter 

Accession No. Summary of Comments 

Theresa R. Gallagher 20081027-5032 Ms. Gallagher cites that if Variation B, Alternative 1 is implemented 

construction activities and drilling operations would make Evergreen 

Drive inaccessible and would create noise, vibration, dust and debris. She also cites concerns about impacts to mature trees and associated 

habitat, storm water runoff on properties that slope away from the road, and current wells and septic systems. 

Martin C. and Herschella K. Reynolds 

20081029-0269 Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds do not approve of the original pipeline route 

and feel that shifting the route to the east would still impact hundreds of feet of hardwood trees. They have proposed a different route variation that they discussed with AES on August 8, 2008. 

Edward A. Dolor 20081104-5058 Mr. Dolor indicated that the proposed Kirks Mill Variation A would put 

the pipeline through his property, which is zoned agricultural land with livestock. Mr. Dolor cites concerns with regards to the impact of construction on his livestock. Mr. Dolor also indicated that the area identified as old growth trees has been timbered within the last ten years. 

The Inslee Family 20081107-5034 The Inslee Family states that they are concerned about the method 

that will be used to construct the pipeline. They state that their land is heavily wooded and requests that FERC consider using a method of construction that would minimize surface clearing/disturbance to cross Brandywine Creek and their property to avoid disturbance of their land and the creek. They also request clarification as to how new Variation 14 would be constructed. 

P-13

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Table P3-1. Summary of FERC’s Review of Comment Letters Received in Response to FERC’s October 29, 2008 

Regarding New Route Variations 6B, 10A, 12C, Kirks Mill Variation A, Romansville Road Variation B, 13, 14, an

Variation (Continued) 

Name of 

Commenter 

Accession No. Summary of Comments 

Michael and Bonnie Harrington 

20081112-5007 Mr. and Mrs. Harrington have indicated that Variation 6B will have a 

severe impact on the private forested land that has been zoned for forest conservation in the Mine Branch Road/Whispering Pines community and the wildlife that the inhabits it. They state that Variation 6B will also impact mine branch road and the lawns, driveways and wooded areas on three properties and a well on one of these properties. They would like FERC to consider the proposed route. The residents of Mine Branch Road/Whispering Pines Community are requesting a community meeting with FERC and MidAtlantic Express. 

Bruce and Angela Breton 

20081112-5051 Mr. and Mrs. Brenton feel that the 21 day comment period for the new 

route variations is too short. They have expressed concern for the impacts Variation 6B will have to forested areas, streams, wildlife, personal property, utilities and accessibility. The Mine Branch Road/Whispering Pines community is required to maintain conservation buffers and Variation 6B will compromise this. Mr. and Mrs. Brenton are also concerned that the pipeline will be located less than 75 feet from their house and will directly impact their well. They have requested a community meeting with FERC and Mid-Atlantic Express. 

Walter W. Jr. and Deborah B. Simcox 

20081113-0023 Mr. and Mrs. Simcox cite that the wells in this area are pocket style 

water systems, not large underground water systems, that are only 80 to 100 feet deep. During the construction of homes south of Evergreen Lane, silt got into their well and clogged their water filters and they are concerned this project will do the same. Mr. and Mrs. Simcox expressed concern that the route variation will run between 28 to 42 feet from their well and 15 feet from their septic system. 

P-14

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Table P3-1. Summary of FERC’s Review of Comment Letters Received in Response to FERC’s October 29, 2008 

Regarding New Route Variations 6B, 10A, 12C, Kirks Mill Variation A, Romansville Road Variation B, 13, 14, an

Variation (Continued) 

Name of 

Commenter 

Accession No. Summary of Comments 

Mark Halliwell 20081117-0075 and 

20081119-0031 

Mr. Halliwell states that route Variation 6B would traverse through a 

forested area, cross power and phone lines and a private driveway that is the only ingress and egress for residents on Mine Branch RoadMr. Halliwell also states that this area of Harford County is a wildlife refuge surrounded by farms. Mr. Halliwell states that cutting down a swath of 100 foot wide trees across his front yard would create an eyesore and would cause soil erosion, which would wash into the existing fish laden pond. With regard to Mine Branch Road, Mr. Halliwell states that Mine Branch Road is a tree lined, one lane (approximately 12 feet in width) road with gulleys on both sides. Further, he states that in the event of an emergency, emergency personnel would not be able to provide timely assistance. Mr. Halliwelwould prefer the pipeline be routed through his backyard within the existing right-of-way as no trees would be required to be removed, no roadway would be blocked, no ponds polluted and no soil erosion or blight would occur. Finally, Mr. Halliwell notes that the original route would only impact the first house at St. Ann’s at a distance of 75 feet as the rest of the houses sit back 300 feet from the right-of-way and that the original route would not require the removal of any trees. 

P-15

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Table P3-1. Summary of FERC’s Review of Comment Letters Received in Response to FERC’s October 29, 2008 

Regarding New Route Variations 6B, 10A, 12C, Kirks Mill Variation A, Romansville Road Variation B, 13, 14, an

Variation (Continued) 

Name of 

Commenter 

Accession No. Summary of Comments 

Thomas R. and Jennie R. McQueen 

20081117-0076 Mr. and Mrs. McQueen state that there is sufficient open land to 

reconfigure a variation that would not affect the lands shown in route Variation 13. They state that there are existing pipeline rights-of-way on their property which do not affect tillable ground or housing, which should be used (pipeline and/or rights-of-way). Mr. and Mrs. McQueen state that they invested thousands of dollars (subdivision and perc test expenses) in the building lots along Ewing Road that would be impacted by route Variation 13 and that one of the lots would be rendered useless and unsuitable for building a home as a result of route Variation 13. They further state that the land behind the farm house is not appropriate as that land is enrolled in the farm preservation plan, has good soil for farming, and is close to the farm outbuildings and home potentially impacting underground fuel tanks. Finally, Mr. and Mrs. McQueen suggest that the pipeline could be routed near the existing pipeline in front of the barn and house pending Bog Turtle habitat. 

Richard W. Hesselbacher, Downing Forge Home Owners Association 

20081117-0079 Mr. Hesselbacher notes that route Variation 10A at approximate 

MP80.70 would be proximate to an existing pipeline. He states that the installation of the previous pipeline(s) resulted in defoliation and that soils were not adequately stabilized, which caused flooding and silt damage to Downing Forge homes to the south. Mr. Hesselbacher requested assurance and a documented plan that would guarantee that this problem would not happen again. Further Mr. Hesselbacher notes that a portion of route Variation 10A, approximately 300 feet from MP80.70 would traverse a forested area with steep slopes and a small stream on Downing Forge property. He states that Downing Forge would require a site-specific plan for the stream and a documented plan that would identify measures to minimize impacts to woodlands on the slope and re-stabilization measures. 

P-16

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Table P3-1. Summary of FERC’s Review of Comment Letters Received in Response to FERC’s October 29, 2008 

Regarding New Route Variations 6B, 10A, 12C, Kirks Mill Variation A, Romansville Road Variation B, 13, 14, an

Variation (Continued) 

Name of 

Commenter 

Accession No. Summary of Comments 

Lorenzo B. Fazio 20081117-5033 Mr. Fazio states that route Variation 13 would avoid wetland #859WA3 

(MP63.69 to 64.19), however, the Columbia Gas pipeline goes through this wetland and the wetland has been restored in accordance with FERC’s Plan and Procedures and that restoration measures implemented have ensured the habitat is suitable for Bog Turtles. Mr. Fazio further states that an unnamed/unnumbered wetlands exists on his property that has been found to contain the ideal habitat to support Bog Turtles. He states that if a route variation must be identified, he suggests an alternate route variation that starts at and follows route Variation 13 at MP63.69 to the south east corner of lot #859.1, proceeds straight across Ewing Road, enters the Neil King farm, which is preserved under a conservation easement, parallel the Neil King farm property line to a point past the commenter’s property (lot #8864)then turn east/south-east paralleling the Neil King property line and intersect the existing pipeline at approximate MP64.4. Mr. Fazio states that by routing the pipeline on preserved land, no wetlands or housing lots would be crossed. Further, he states that this alternate route would avoid wetland #859WA3, the unnamed/unnumbered wetland on his property and all building lots. 

Kenneth L. Steiner 20081117-5046 Mr. Steiner states that Kirks Mill Variation A would disrupt the existing 

ground surface and underground water flow process including a change to the path and quantity of water flowing to the existing detention basin, the areas downstream of the water detention basin, and an increase in soil erosion. He also states that the pipeline could have a negative impact on his farmland. Additionally, Mr. Steiner states that the original route should be safe for the existing historical structures. He also states that the structure closest to the original 

route (approximately 100 to 150 feet) is not historic as only the foundation is original and its construction started a year after the original pipeline route was publicly announced. Mr. Steiner states that the historic structures along the original path are located beyond the safe distance from the pipeline (approximately 300 to 500 feet). 

P-17

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Table P3-1. Summary of FERC’s Review of Comment Letters Received in Response to FERC’s October 29, 2008 

Regarding New Route Variations 6B, 10A, 12C, Kirks Mill Variation A, Romansville Road Variation B, 13, 14, an

Variation (Continued) 

Name of 

Commenter 

Accession No. Summary of Comments 

John J. Roughan, Jr., Upper Uwchlan Township, Township Manager 

20081117-5075 Upper Uwchlan Township Manager, Mr. John Roughan states that the 

township opposes any re-route scenarios, especially route Variation 12C, which would impact the Lakeridge Wastewater Disposal Field. Township Manager Roughan states that the loss of any disposal capacity would have, “serious, long-term consequences for those residences serviced by this facility, which could result in rendering the residences uninhabitable due to lack of wastewater treatment/disposal availability.” 

The Hankin Group (Conestoga-Rovers & Associates) 

20081118-5005 Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (CRA) submitted this letter on behalf 

of the Hankin Group. The Hankin Group is opposed to Variation 12C because of the potential impacts to the wastewater treatment plant, 

mature forest, residential lands, and industrial/commercial development. CRA and the Hankin Group note that the proposed route is consistent with the FERC siting requirements and would be located along an existing right-of-way. CRA and the Hankin Group note that Variation 12C would have impacts on wetlands, water resources, wildlife, native vegetation, and recreation. 

Carrie L. Whiteside 20081118-5076 Ms. Whiteside states that there is sufficient open land to reconfigure a 

variation that would not affect the lands shown in route Variation 13. She states that there are existing pipeline rights-of-way that should be used (pipeline and/or rights-of-way). Ms. Whiteside further states that thousands of dollars for subdivision and perc tests have been invested in the building lots along Ewing Road and that one of the lots would be rendered useless and unsuitable for building a home as a result of route Variation 13. Finally, Ms. Whiteside suggests that the pipeline could be routed in front of her grandparent’s house and barn, near the existing pipeline, pending Bog Turtle habitat. 

P-18

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Table P3-1. Summary of FERC’s Review of Comment Letters Received in Response to FERC’s October 29, 2008 

Regarding New Route Variations 6B, 10A, 12C, Kirks Mill Variation A, Romansville Road Variation B, 13, 14, an

Variation (Continued) 

Name of 

Commenter 

Accession No. Summary of Comments 

Franklin L. and Jean Ann Piper 

20081119-0029 Mr. and Mrs. Piper are concerned that the Romansville Road Variation 

B would impact the development of their land causing financial loss and would affect two wells that supply water to the property. 

The Residents of the Mine Branch Road/Whispering Pines Community 

200081119-0030 The residents of the Whispering Pines Community are concerned that 

Variation 6B would impact there properties by creating a new deforested right-of-way; impact wildlife including the endangered Bog Turtle; and limit access to there homes by using the common driveway for access. They believe that they should be given the same consideration as the St. Anne’s community and requested a community meeting with FERC and Mid-Atlantic Express. 

Nancy and Cliff Pollack 

20081119-0311 Mr. and Mrs. Pollack are concerned about impacts to their property by 

the proposed pipeline. It will impact mature trees and limit access to there home. Also, they are opposed to the MLBV that is proposed for the adjacent property. They request that they be provided a site specific plan for their property and that FERC strongly considers Variation 12C. 

Matthew J. and Deborah W. Helak 

20081119-5027 Mr. and Mrs. Helak state that the site-specific plan drawings for their 

property are not to scale, their residence falls within 15 feet of the proposed work space, their children’s swing set fall within the construction workspace, the pipeline would cross the edge of a wetland and a designated stream, wetland vegetation including at least 12 mature trees would need to be removed, there are already 3 existing pipelines that run through their property that may need to be crossed, and the pipeline would only partially use existing pipeline right-of-ways on their property requiring negotiation of a new right-ofway. They also state that AES lacks communication with landowners and they agree with the comments made by the Channell’s (accession number 20081021-5048) and has asked that FERC take into consideration the impacts to homeowners, recreational lands and wetlands in evaluation of Variation 12C. 

P-19

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Table P3-1. Summary of FERC’s Review of Comment Letters Received in Response to FERC’s October 29, 2008 

Regarding New Route Variations 6B, 10A, 12C, Kirks Mill Variation A, Romansville Road Variation B, 13, 14, an

Variation (Continued) 

Name of 

Commenter 

Accession No. Summary of Comments 

Bentley Systems Incorporated 

20081119-5075 Bentley Systems Incorporated states that Variation 12C will negatively 

impact the environment and business growth. Variation 12C runs through a undeveloped lot on Bentley Systems property, on which Bentley is considering to build an office building to meet their employee growth needs. If the pipeline is built through this undeveloped lot, a mandatory set back would be required for the new office building which would affect the grading of the property and reduce the available land designated for the parking lot. 

Glenn and Lisa Doering 

20081119-5115 Mr. and Mrs. Doering state that Variation 6B has the same if not 

greater environmental impacts as Variation 6A. Variation 6B would impact a 100 foot strip of forest and create a second pipeline right-ofway on two different properties and destroy the front yard of another. They state that Variation 6 would have fewer environmental impacts than Variations 6A and 6B since it crosses open field and less forested areas. They also state that the original proposed route should be selected since it would have fewer impacts than the variations. 

Theresa R. Gallagher 20081120-5013 Ms. Gallagher reiterates her previously submitted letter (accession 

number 20081027-5032) stating that the Romansville Road Variation 

A would impact mature vegetation, wildlife habitat, drinking wells, and septic systems and increase stormwater runoff. She states that Variation B would eliminate many of these impacts since it crosses 

through rural land. Ms. Gallagher requests that FERC ensure that all environmental issues, including environmental justice, are resolved 

and all appropriate permits are obtained before final project approval is granted. 

Lisa and Joseph K. Gallick 

20081120-5016 Mr. and Mrs. Gallick support Variation 12C and express concern for 

their property value and children’s safety if the original proposed route is selected. They also state that their underground irrigation system 

will have to be reconstructed if the original proposed route is selected. 

P-20

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Table P3-1. Summary of FERC’s Review of Comment Letters Received in Response to FERC’s October 29, 2008 

Regarding New Route Variations 6B, 10A, 12C, Kirks Mill Variation A, Romansville Road Variation B, 13, 14, an

Variation (Continued) 

Name of 

Commenter 

Accession No. Summary of Comments 

Eric Newman 20081120-5026 and 

20081120-5031 

Mr. Newman requests that the original proposed route be selected. Mr. Newman states that Variation 12C, as described, could be inaccurate and requests that a site specific drawing be provided so that he can accurately assess the impacts on his property. Variation 12C appears to bisect his septic field, runs within 25 feet of his house and may impact his well. He also discusses the costs associated with hooking up to the public water utilities. 

Kathleen and George Marker 

20081121-0027 Mr. and Mrs. Marker state that the Kirks Mill Variation A will affect their 

fence line, property value, and could impact their septic system and 

pool. They state that their horses would need to be boarded at a separate facility during construction, which would create a financial burden. The Marker’s also state that construction activities would disturb an elderly family member that lives in their house. The Marker’s supports the original proposed route and disagree that it would impact historic buildings or old growth trees as stated since there is already an existing pipeline along this route. 

Lloyd and Christine St. Ours 

20081121-0030 Mr. and Mrs. St. Ours state that Variation 6B will have disastrous 

impacts on the environment, their community, and landowners. The St. Ours state that Variation 6B would require the removal of thousands of trees within a forest conservation area and compromise the conservation buffers that the community is required to maintain. They also state that their community has a single lane access road which would be impacted if Variation 6B is constructed, presenting a 

safety issue. The St. Ours request a community meeting with FERC, Mid-Atlantic Express and the residences of Mine Branch 

Road/Whispering Pines community to discuss these impacts. 

Peter Kahl and Family 

20081121-0034 Mr. Kahl states that his property on Mine Branch Road is designated 

Land Preservation by Harford County. He also stated that route Variation 6B would have impacts on wildlife, forestry and people. Mr. 

Kahl states that Variation 6B crosses through bog turtle habitat and requests a meeting with FERC and Mid-Atlantic Express to develop 

another route that would reduce the impacts discussed above. 

P-21

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Table P3-1. Summary of FERC’s Review of Comment Letters Received in Response to FERC’s October 29, 2008 

Regarding New Route Variations 6B, 10A, 12C, Kirks Mill Variation A, Romansville Road Variation B, 13, 14, an

Variation (Continued) 

Name of 

Commenter 

Accession No. Summary of Comments 

Kelly and Leah Jubb 20081121-0137 The Jubb’s state that Variation 6B will cause soil erosion behind their 

barn, contaminate springs that supply drinking water for their livestockand impact their existing fish-stocked pond approved by soil conservation for their livestock, which ultimately drains into Deer Creek and the Chesapeake Bay. The Jubb’s note that they are installing a geo-thermal ground loop system for their heating and aircondition on the back part of their property that would potentially be impacted by construction. They also state that an existing hedge row provides privacy screening and a noise buffer to Route 543 as well as habitat for several species of wildlife. The Jubb’s request an opportunity for fair negotiations and the opportunity to express their concerns, similar to that which was afforded the St. Anne’s community

P-22

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Section P1 

Comment Letters 

 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Federal Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA1- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Robert H. Herbert, Jr., Environmental Officer 

 P1-1 

FA1-1 Thank you for your comments 

involvement in reviewing the penvironmental impacts of the 

FA1-2 Section 4.12.4 Thermal Exclu

been updated to address this 

FA1-3 Please see response to comm

 FA1-2 

 FA1-3

 FA1-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA1- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Robert H. Herbert, Jr., Environmental Officer 

 P1-2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA2 – United States Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, Office of Environmental Policy and Com

Pennsylvania, Michael T. Chezik, Regional Environmental Officer 

 P1-3 

FA2-1 Please see letter FA7. FA2-2 Section 4.1.1.1 has been upd

citations for USGS National Smaps and probabilistic seismiassessments. Appendix G hato include these citations. 

FA2-3 Appendix G has been update

link. 

 F

A2-1 

F

A2-2 

F

A2-3 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA2 – United States Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, Office of Environmental Policy and Com

Pennsylvania, Michael T. Chezik, Regional Environmental Officer 

 P1-4 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA3 - United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Nati

Service (NMFS), Rodney F. Weiher, Ph.D., NOAA NEPA Coordinator and Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administ

 P1-5 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA3 - United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Nati

Service (NMFS), Rodney F. Weiher, Ph.D., NOAA NEPA Coordinator and Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administ

 P1-6 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA3 - United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Nati

Service (NMFS), Rodney F. Weiher, Ph.D., NOAA NEPA Coordinator and Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administ

 P1-7 

FA3-1 Comment noted. F

A3-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA3 - United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Nati

Service (NMFS), Rodney F. Weiher, Ph.D., NOAA NEPA Coordinator and Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administ

 P1-8 

FA3-2 We agree. However, the area 

fixed by the limits needed to sLNG vessels, with tug assist, approach channel and the turmaneuver the vessels to the uWe believe the applicant has minimum dredging dimensionallow for safe maneuvering of also agree that the new deepeexacerbate the situation of low oxygen in the deep channels summer months. See revised LNG Terminal Construction, D

FA3-3 Since the time that the DEIS w

ArcelorMittal reached agreemsteel mill site and facilities to OAES has approached OAO Setimes, but has not been able tSeverstal in any meaningful dSection 3.2.3 has been revisediscussion on the Mittal Steel 

FA3-4 AES has agreed to incorporat

conservation recommendationSee section 4.6.3.2 LNG Term

F

A3-4 

F

A3-2 

F

A3-3 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA3 - United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Nati

Service (NMFS), Rodney F. Weiher, Ph.D., NOAA NEPA Coordinator and Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administ

 P1-9 

FA3-5 AES has agreed to incorporat

conservation recommendationsection 4.6.3.2 LNG Terminal

FA3-6 AES has agreed to incorporat

conservation recommendation 4.6.3.2 LNG Terminal. 

F

A3-5 

 F

A3-6 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA3 - United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Nati

Service (NMFS), Rodney F. Weiher, Ph.D., NOAA NEPA Coordinator and Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administ

 P1-10 

FA3-7 Comment noted. FA3-8 We have evaluated the feasib

the streams listed in EFH conrecommendations #8 and 9 usection 4.3.2.5 Pipeline ConsOperation, HDD and Dry CrosFERC’s Additional Analysis. 

 F

A3-7 

 F

A3-8 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA3 - United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Nati

Service (NMFS), Rodney F. Weiher, Ph.D., NOAA NEPA Coordinator and Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administ

 P1-11 

FA3-9 AES has agreed to incorporat

conservation recommendation section 4.6.3.2 Pipeline. 

FA3-10 AES has agreed to incorporat

conservation recommendation section 4.6.3.2 Pipeline.

FA3-11 AES’s HDD Monitoring and C

(see appendix S) indicates thaand profile drawing would be accurately define the operatioorder to minimize the potentiaThe profile drawing would estentrance and exit angles, the of the pipe, and the minimum curvature to avoid overstressithe length of the pull. As the progresses, the contractor wocontinuously plotting the actuaagainst the proposed pipe procover requirements and targewould be achieved. See sectfurther details. 

F

A3-9 

F

A3-11 

F

A3-10 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA3 - United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Nati

Service (NMFS), Rodney F. Weiher, Ph.D., NOAA NEPA Coordinator and Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administ

 P1-12 

FA3-12 Comment noted. FA3-13 AES has agreed to incorporat

conservation recommendation section 4.6.3.2 Pipeline.

FA3-14 In accordance with your EFH 

recommendation #14 we have in section 4.5.3 that Mid-Atlanits finalized Exotic and InvasivControl Plan, developed in cothe appropriate agencies for rapproval by the Director of OEconstruction. See revised sec4.6.3.2 Pipeline.

FA3-15 In accordance with your EFH 

recommendation #15 we have in section 4.5.3 that Mid-Atlanits finalized Exotic and InvasivControl Plan, developed in cothe appropriate agencies for rapproval by the Director of OEconstruction. See revised sec4.6.3.2 Pipeline.

FA3-16 Comment noted. FA3-17 All 15 of your EFH conservati

recommendations have been section 4.6.3.2 LNG Terminal 

Pipeline. Please see responsFA3-3 through FA3-15 regardconservation recommendation

F

A3-16 

F

A3-12 

FA3-14 

F

A3-13 

F

A3-15 

F

A3-17 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA3 - United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Nati

Service (NMFS), Rodney F. Weiher, Ph.D., NOAA NEPA Coordinator and Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administ

 P1-13 

FA3-18 Comment noted. FA3-19 See revised section 4.7.1. 

F

A3-18 

 F

A3-19 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA3 - United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Nati

Service (NMFS), Rodney F. Weiher, Ph.D., NOAA NEPA Coordinator and Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administ

 P1-14 

FA3-20 We have incorporated your re

See revised section 4.7.1. 

FA3-21 See revised section 4.7.1. FA3-22 Section 4.7.1 has been revise

information. 

FA3-23 See revised section 4.7.1. 

F

A3-20 

F

A3-21 

F

A3-23 

F

A3-22 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA3 - United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Nati

Service (NMFS), Rodney F. Weiher, Ph.D., NOAA NEPA Coordinator and Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administ

 P1-15 

FA3-24 See revised section 4.7.1. FA3-25 Comment noted. FA3-26 See revised section 4.7.1. FA3-27 The information we have prov

4.9.4.2 for existing ship traffic Baltimore (POB) is the best inhave available. We do not hanumbers for vessels entering as a whole. However, the PObusier destinations for deep dentering Chesapeake Bay, aloNews and Hampton Roads in upon 2005 shipping data for tvessels, the incremental ship attributable to the Project (120 per year) would amount to 5 tcurrent shipping traffic to POBinformation, the incremental invessels entering Chesapeake Project would be some percethan 5%. 

 F

A3-24 

F

A3-27 

 F

A3-26 

F

A3-25 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA3 - United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Nati

Service (NMFS), Rodney F. Weiher, Ph.D., NOAA NEPA Coordinator and Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administ

 P1-16 

FA3-28 We have incorporated your re

action. See revised sections 

F

A3-28 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA3 - United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Nati

Service (NMFS), Rodney F. Weiher, Ph.D., NOAA NEPA Coordinator and Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administ

 P1-17 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA4 – Department of the Army, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Margaret E. Gaffney-Smith, C

Branch 

 P1-18 

FA4-1a Comment noted. The FEIS is 

document. NEPA does not reFEIS recommend the least endamaging practicable alternatCOE requirement. NEPA req"agency's preferred alternativalternative which the agency fulfill its statutory mission and giving consideration to econoenvironmental, technical and concept of the "agency's prefeis different from the "environmpreferable alternative”. 

FA4-1b Section 3.2.3 contains an upd

on the Mittal Steel site alterna

 FA4-1a 

 F

A4-1b 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA4 – Department of the Army, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Margaret E. Gaffney-Smith, C

Branch 

 P1-19 

FA4-1c Please see response to commFA4-2 See section 2.3.1.3 Dredged 

Handling/Disposal for additionhow AES would test material with various categories of endalso provided the tests by whgraded for delivering PDM to landfills in Virginia (see Acces20080903-4004 Text of RespAttachment GEN8). In order markets for innovative uses ohas to be able to run tests on it is unreasonable to expect thwould have a final list of end-uhave permission to dredge the build the Dredge Material Rec

FA4-3 Comment noted. FA4-4 FERC, in its standard procedu

pipelines, has to condition the include compliance with these release of the FEIS, but beforapplicant with a “Notice to Promany properties are not acceapplicant prior to receiving a Cfinal biological surveys to comEndangered Species Act and surveys to comply with the NaPreservation Act would be coFEIS is released, but prior to FERC handles these issues bconditions on the Certificate – must be met prior to FERC’s iauthorization to begin constru

 FA4-1c 

 FA4-2 

 FA4-3  FA4-4 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA4 – Department of the Army, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Margaret E. Gaffney-Smith, C

Branch 

 P1-20 

FA4-5 FERC has made all of the AE

DEIS conditions available to tthe Docket. Additionally, FERwith members of the public rethe pipeline route issues that unresolved at the writing of thWhile the vast majority of impidentified and necessary mitigdescribed, additional post-autand studies would serve to reto address site-specific circumconstruction, once the applicaaccess to certain land parcels surveys. 

FA4-6 Mid-Atlantic Express evaluate

each of these streams and weAtlantic Express’s evaluations on the Docket under Accessio4004. Additionally, FERC conadditional analysis. See sectand Dry Crossings and FERCAnalysis. Appendix I, table I call waterbodies crossed and tmethod. Section 4.4.2.1 UniqWetlands identifies all NTWSScrossed by HDD. 

FA4-7 Table C-2 in appendix C lists 

access roads that would be uconstruction of the pipeline. Adepicted on figures B1 througappendix B. 

 FA4-5 

 FA4-6 

 FA4-7 

 FA4-8 

 FA4-9 

FA4-10 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA4 – Department of the Army, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Margaret E. Gaffney-Smith, C

Branch 

 P1-21 

FA4-8 At the release of this FEIS, AE

Atlantic Express have not submitigation plans to the FERC. submitted an Aquatic ResourcPlan (see appendix Q), and is reviewing this plan with the Cagencies. These stream mitigbe submitted and accepted by state approving agencies, as 

FA4-9 “Dry crossings” could be acco

crossing streams with no flowthe dry after the streambed hameans of dam and pump metmethod; or by trenchless methor horizontal bore). Drawings waterbody crossings were proECP included in the FEIS as a

FA4-10 Comment noted. Section 2.6

updated to clarify that sedimemaintenance dredged materiarequired. 

FA4-11 As stated in section 4.12.5.5, 

has determined in its WSR thChesapeake Bay would be sutraffic if measures were impleresponsibly manage navigatiosecurity risks. Unless the reqto ensure safe and secure opplace and serving their intendneither the Commission nor thwould allow operation of the pThe WSR is included in appenFEIS. 

 FA4-11 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA5 – United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, William J. Hoffman, Associate Director, Office 

Programs 

 P1-22 

FA5-1 Additional information has bee

since issuance of the DEIS. Wdisclosed the potential impactthe Project, as it was proposeapplicants. If certain project cappear to result in significant impacts, we have imposed mimeasures to lessen said imparesponse to comment FA4-5. 

 FA5-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA5 – United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, William J. Hoffman, Associate Director, Office 

Programs 

 P1-23 

FA5-2 See response to comment FA

impractical, and sometimes imcomplete all studies and devenecessary to successfully mitaspects of a natural gas projeissuance of a Commission ordthe extent possible the scope authorization. In addition, maauthorization conditions requiplans and surveys are necessapplicant cannot gain access parcels to complete the surveuse of eminent domain. Lastlwe have recommended would Commission to ensure complistatutory and regulatory requiverify that the required mitigatare implemented at the approthe Project. 

FA5-3 Section 3.2.3 contains an upd

of the Mittal Steel site alternat

FA5-4 See revised sections 2.3.1.3, 

4.3.2.5, which contain new infdredging aspects. Since the rDEIS, AES has committed to environmental bucket to dredgsurface sediments, amounting approximately 810,000 CY or dredging total. This commitmthe appropriate sections ment

 F

A5-2 

 F

A5-3 

 F

A5-4 

 F

A5-5 

 F

A5-6 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA5 – United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, William J. Hoffman, Associate Director, Office 

Programs 

 P1-24 

FA5-5 AES has provided a Consolid

(see appendix D of the FEIS)addresses the treatment or prdredged material and the testapplied to qualify the PDM for uses. Also see section 2.3.1.Material Handling/Disposal fothe chemical tests that would the PDM to qualify for a given 

FA5-6 Comment noted. FA5-7 While AES has not identified t

for the PDM, it has delineated recycling facility would qualify end uses, and AES has delinePDM would be qualified to be final end point, if innovative uspractical. See the Consolidat(appendix D of the FEIS) and 

FA5-8 See section 2.3.1.3. FA5-9 See section 2.3.1.3. FA5-10 The Consolidated Dredge Pla

the FEIS as appendix D. 

FA5-11 Comment noted. FERC woul

and MDE on how the NPDES handled for the LNG terminal 

 F

A5-7 

 F

A5-8 

 F

A5-9 

 F

A5-10 

 F

A5-11 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA5 – United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, William J. Hoffman, Associate Director, Office 

Programs 

 P1-25 

FA5-12 The Dredging Management P

replaced with the Consolidate(CDP) which is located in appFEIS. The CDP states oversiwould be separated and transconcrete debris storage bunkedebris would be recycled or dpermitted facility. Pappy's LaAvenue, Joppa, MD 21085 is CDP as a specific landfill that dispose of the oversized mate

FA5-13 Please see response to commFA5-14 Within the COE 404 permit, A

required to retest the dredge mcontaminants for each maintecycle. The allowable disposawhether through treatment by through other disposal, would comply with COE permit cond

FA5-15 The acres of wetland impacte

permanently (both in the DEIS FEIS) includes the wetland imentire pipeline length. The popipeline that have not been fiehave included a wetlands assNWI maps, USGS topographisensing data and desktop anasection 4.4.2). We consider ttotals to be conservatively higlinear projects, the final acreadetermined when AES receivesurvey the entire line. 

 F

A5-12 

 F

A5-13 

 F

A5-14 

 F

A5-15 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA5 – United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, William J. Hoffman, Associate Director, Office 

Programs 

 P1-26 

FA5-16 Potential impacts to threatene

endangered species associatNTWSSC wetlands (see secti22.23 would be minimized by as described in section 4.4.2.NTWSSC runs parallel to the way from MP 46.45 to 46.63 aapproximately 130 feet to the Preliminary field assessments wetlands have been conducteand MDE in May 2008. The acomment on the NTWSSC at the MDE indicated that they wthe Maryland Natural Heritage why the wetland at MP 46.45 an existing maintained right-oclassified as a NTWSSC. Poboth of these wetlands would these agencies which may increcommendation of mitigative 

FA5-17 Comment noted. In section 4

recommend AES file an amenContaminated Soils Managemthe Secretary. As noted, the should be developed in consuappropriate agencies and additems and details listed in our recommendation. 

FA5-18 Comment noted. We have inc

the FEIS as appendix T. 

FA5-19 Comment noted. See the rev

assessments of using HDD testream crossings in section 4

FA5-20 The ARMP is included in the 

Q. 

 F

A5-16 

 F

A5-17 

 F

A5-18 

 F

A5-19 

 F

A5-20 

 F

A5-21 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA5 – United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, William J. Hoffman, Associate Director, Office 

Programs 

 P1-27 

FA5-21 A draft General Conformity De

the Project was issued for pubOctober 2, 2008. The commedraft General Conformity Deteon November 3, 2008. Sectiobeen updated to include informdraft General Conformity Detediscusses comments received

FA5-22 A discussion of EPA’s PM2.5 N

implementation rule and the Pcompliance with these requireprovided in section 4.11.1.3. 

FA5-23 The air construction permit ap

under FERC’s jurisdiction. Mmay require this individually uauthority. 

FA5-24 In section 4.7.1, we recomme

the start of construction AES turtle surveys during the 2009 season at all previously unsurfile the results of these surveySecretary. We also recommeconsult with FWS, MDNR, andevelop a bog turtle managemincludes agency recommendamitigation measures. The finawould take into account the returtle surveys; therefore the pfinalized until the bog turtle sucompleted. 

FA5-25 See revised table 1.3-1 and th

section 4.3.2.5 Dredging. 

 FA5-22 

 FA5-23 

 FA5-24  FA5-25 

 FA5-26 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA5 – United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, William J. Hoffman, Associate Director, Office 

Programs 

 P1-28 

FA5-26 This is already a facet of the P

examines all ATWs to make sare not unnecessarily located riparian area. 

FA5-27 Comment noted. This is a pa

selection of Third Party monitEnvironmental Inspectors are standards in all appropriate emonitoring to ensure complianenvironmental permits associconstruction of the Project. 

FA5-28 See revisions to section 4.9.7FA5-29 Table 4.9.7-1 has been revise

estimated median household 

FA5-30 We performed an Environmen

analysis and identified the Tulocated approximately 1.1 milterminal site. With respect to route, environmental impacts proposed pipeline constructiotemporary and would affect areceptors equally; no single ejustice area or community wodisproportionately affected. Ndetrimental impacts would occthe proposed pipeline would ndisproportionately adverse huenvironmental effects on minoincome communities or Native programs. 

 F

A5-27 

 F

A5-28 

 F

A5-32 

 F

A5-29 

 F

A5-30 

 F

A5-31 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA5 – United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, William J. Hoffman, Associate Director, Office 

Programs 

 P1-29 

FA5-31 Turner Station is a community 

greater Dundalk community. Atlantic Express hosted two oDundalk. We received public Turner Station from the AfricaEnvironmental Association (Oand those of the Turner StatioCorporation (OC9 and OC14)responses to those commentssections 4.9.7, 1.4 and 1.5. 

FA5-32 As part of the draft General C

determination, the applicant hto demonstrate conformity usmeasures including SCR, low diesel particulate filters. The aproposed for three tugs to be terminal related ship assist opequipped with EPA Tier 2 stanminimum and fueled with ultrafuel (0.0015% sulfur). See alsFA5-33, 34, 35. 

FA5-33 The LNG ships are not U.S. fl

therefore, are not under FERCHowever, as part of the draft GConformity determination, the committed to all LNG ships usof 1.5% sulfur fuel while operawaters. 

FA5-34 AES analyzed the potential fo

LNG ships while at berth at thits April 5, 2007 response to a raised by the State of MarylanFERC’s March 23, 2007 Data option was not considered feaand economic reasons. 

 FA5-33  FA5-34  FA5-38 

 FA5-35 

 FA5-36 

 FA5-37 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA5 – United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, William J. Hoffman, Associate Director, Office 

Programs 

 P1-30 

FA5-35 The Coast Guard’s Captain of 

authority to impose speed resFERC. 

FA5-36 Please see response to commFA5-37 Appendix O includes AES’s D

Invasive Species Control Planyou describe are included in tadditional measures requesteagencies would be included in 

FA5-38 Please see response to comm

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA5 – United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, William J. Hoffman, Associate Director, Office 

Programs 

 P1-31 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA5 – United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, William J. Hoffman, Associate Director, Office 

Programs 

 P1-32 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA6 – U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Robert H. Herbert Jr., Environmental Officer 

 P1-33 

FA6-1 Section 4.12.4 has been upda

this comment. 

FA6-2 Section 4.12.4 has been upda

this comment. 

FA6-3 Section 4.12.4 has been upda

this comment. 

 FA6-1 

 FA6-2  FA6-3 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA6 – U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Robert H. Herbert Jr., Environmental Officer 

 P1-34 

FA6-4 Please see response to comm

through FA6-3 and letter FA1

 FA6-4

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA6 – U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Robert H. Herbert Jr., Environmental Officer 

 P1-35 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA7 – United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Pennsylvania Field Office, Dav

Supervisor 

 P1-36 

FA7-1 See revised section 4.7.2 for 

revised section 4.7.1 for Indiadarter and bog turtle. 

FA7-2 We have incorporated your co

revised section 4.7.1 of the FE

 F

A7-1 

 F

A7-2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA7 – United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Pennsylvania Field Office, Dav

Supervisor 

 P1-37 

FA7-3 See revised section 4.7.1 of thFA7-4 See revised section 4.7.1 of thFA7-5 See revised section 4.7.1 of th

 F

A7-3 

 F

A7-4 

 F

A7-5 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA7 – United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Pennsylvania Field Office, Dav

Supervisor 

 P1-38 

FA7-6 See revised section 4.7.1 of thFA7-7 See revised section 4.7.1 of thFA7-8 See revised section 4.7.1 of thFA7-9 We have incorporated your co

revised section 4.7.1 of the FE

FA7-10 Section 4.7.1 of the FEIS has 

include a discussion on FWSto a determination on impacts We have determined thapipeline may affect the fedturtle. We will continue tapplicants and FWS to supplnecessary for updating determination of effect, Express continues to verifand/or absence of this speciewe recommend, Mid-Atlantic bog turtle survey reports inclusurveys performed during the survey season (April 15 to Juall previously unsurveyed sibog turtle habitat, and survwhere FWS recommends rebog turtle management placonsultation with FWS, MDNincludes agency recommemeasures. We are also recomconstruction occur until consFWS and NMFS has been cowe have recommended Rouand 14 (see section 3.3.3).

 F

A7-6 

 F

A7-7 

 F

A7-8 

 F

A7-9 

 F

A7-10 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA7 – United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Pennsylvania Field Office, Dav

Supervisor 

 P1-39 

FA7-11 See revised section 4.7.2 of thFA7-12 See revised section 4.7.1 for 

Indiana bat. 

 F

A7-11 

 F

A7-12 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA8 – Department of the Army, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Joseph P. DaVia, Chief, Mary

Northern 

 P1-40 

FA8-1 Thank you for your additional 

DEIS. We forwarded your coapplicants on August 12, 2008 that they provide the requestedirectly to the COE in order foyour permit review. Also, see FA4 regarding your June 16, 

 FA8-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA8 – Department of the Army, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Joseph P. DaVia, Chief, Mary

Northern 

 P1-41 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA8 – Department of the Army, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Joseph P. DaVia, Chief, Mary

Northern 

 P1-42 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA8 – Department of the Army, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Joseph P. DaVia, Chief, Mary

Northern 

 P1-43 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA8 – Department of the Army, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Joseph P. DaVia, Chief, Mary

Northern 

 P1-44 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA8 – Department of the Army, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Joseph P. DaVia, Chief, Mary

Northern 

 P1-45 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA8 – Department of the Army, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Joseph P. DaVia, Chief, Mary

Northern 

 P1-46 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA8 – Department of the Army, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Joseph P. DaVia, Chief, Mary

Northern 

 P1-47 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA8 – Department of the Army, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Joseph P. DaVia, Chief, Mary

Northern 

 P1-48 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA8 – Department of the Army, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Joseph P. DaVia, Chief, Mary

Northern 

 P1-49 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA8 – Department of the Army, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Joseph P. DaVia, Chief, Mary

Northern 

 P1-50 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FA8 – Department of the Army, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Joseph P. DaVia, Chief, Mary

Northern 

 P1-51 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

State Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA1 - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Southeast Regional Office, Dams and Waterways 

Schaible, Water Pollution Biologist Supervisor, Wetland Biologists Work Unit 

 P1-52 

SA1-1 The PDEP Chapter 105 permit has 

added to table 1.3-1, table of Major Approvals, and Consultations. 

SA1-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA2 - Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Office of Conservation Science, Greg 

Manager, Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program 

 P1-53 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA2 - Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Office of Conservation Science, Greg 

Manager, Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program 

 P1-54 

SA2-1 The 47 occurrences of species of sp

concern, one rare plant community two rare terrestrial invertebrates idePNDI staff are discussed in section FEIS. 

SA2-2 We have addressed this comment i

4.5.1 Pipeline Facilities. 

SA2-3 We have added a recommendation 

4.8.1.2 that the Park Manager be no

hours prior to any blasting within 5 mMarsh Creek State Park and dam. 

SA2-4 Section 4.8.1.2 contains a discussio

designated Scenic River Systems in Pennsylvania. In section 4.3.2.5 of we recommend that Mid-Atlantic Excommit to crossing Octoraro Creek 56.31 by HDD unless the Chester WAuthority objects to the HDD designAdditionally, in section 4.8.1.2, we rMid-Atlantic Express develop, in conwith the PDCNR, the Octoraro CreeWatershed Association, CCPRD, PFthe Brandywine Conservancy, consand mitigation plans for the Octoraro (MP 56.31) and each of the four crothe Brandywine Creek system (i.e., 74.25, 76.54, and 82.31) and file the the Secretary for review and written by the Director of OEP. 

 SA2-1 

SA2-2 

SA2-3 

 SA2-4 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-55 State Age

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-56 State Age

 SA3-G1 FERC has made all of the AES responses 

conditions available to the public through tPlease see response to comment FA5-2. 

 SA3-G2 Thank you for your offer of information. A

the applicant have continued to be posted review on the Docket. All written and oral received on the DEIS prior to the FEIS bethe printer were considered and evaluated preparation of the FEIS. 

SA3-G1 

 SA3-G2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-57 State Age

 SA3-1 Sections 4.6.2.2 and 4.6.3.2 of the FEIS in

additional discussion of the impacts of pile the proposed monitoring and mitigation mbe employed. AES is obligated to comply laws and regulations regarding fish kills ancompensation. AES has committed to moduring pile driving and has committed to “stechnique during sheet pile driving activitiesection 4.6.3.2, FERC has recommended develop a construction plan for the unloadand incorporate NMFS comments on the uexisting pilings and any recommended mitmeasures, including pressure and sound wmitigation. FERC would require that AES recommendations of the NMFS regarding reduce impacts from pressure and sound addition, in a comment letter to the FERCAccession No. 20080616-5092) has recomthat if AES uses hollow steel piles exceeddiameter, that AES develop a detailed promitigation shock waves during pile driving FERC has included this recommendation (see section 4.6.3.2 of the FEIS). Any reqthe State makes for state permits or licensobligate the applicant. 

 SA3-2 FERC statements regarding significance o

imply that FERC or other agency or state are followed and that FERC conditions of Certificate are enforced. Recommended mmeasures are designed to reduce/minimizimpacts to wildlife. The MDNR would conincluded in consultation regarding all permprocesses covered by state laws or regula

 SA3-1 

 SA3-2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-58 State Age

 SA3-3 We have revised the Executive Summary 

that on June 26, 2008, the Secretary of Codetermined that the Project is consistent wobjectives of the CZMA. 

 SA3-4 Statements relating to Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) forecasting in section FEIS have been updated. Regarding the EIA Natural Gas Forecasts Contain SysteErrors,” if we take the message of the articvalue, the overall point of the article is thaforecasts are too optimistic, i.e. that well-hof natural gas are higher than projections domestic production of natural gas is overThus, the demand for natural gas in the Ushould continue the trend of supply being demand with the result that natural gas womore to the consumer. This does not negfor additional sources of natural gas, but rreconfirms the need. 

 SA3-5 Table 1.3-1 has been modified. However

column also indicates that the Secretary ohas upheld AES’s appeal that the Project with the Coastal Zone Management Plan, US Court of Appeal has remanded a loweregarding the CZM provisions of the CounBaltimore. Also, please see response to SA3-3. The Stormwater Management Plan and otand local approvals would be addressed bTable 1.3-1 is reserved for major federal a

permits and approvals. Scenic rivers are discussed in section 4.8Status Waterbodies. 

 SA3-3  SA3-4 

 SA3-5 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-59 State Age

 SA3-6 The FERC’s NEPA document is not the de

the record for the proceeding. The Dockethrough eLibrary, includes all correspondeto the Project for use by the public and by local agencies. In addition, all written and comments received on the DEIS prior to thbeing sent to the printer were considered evaluated in the preparation of this FEIS. 

 SA3-7 The Project would modify approximately 1

Baltimore Harbor bottom, but a substantiathis area is already channelized or modifieprevious channels and ship basins. The 1would indeed be a modified bay bottom, asupport different, and typically less-diverscommunities and fish communities. Also, addressed dissolved oxygen impacts due in sections 4.6.2.2 and 4.3.2.5 of the FEISinability of the Baltimore Harbor to achieve compliance for DO standards is parallel to widespread problem for harbors and chanareas across the nation. The DO issue is limited to the issue of channelization or wabut also linked to the nutrification of the ensystem due to point source and non-point nutrients and other chemicals. The solvinissue and the achieving of the TMDL for nbeyond the scope of this EIS. However, tachievability of the TMDL would be a factothe COE and the EPA permit the proposeand channelization of the Project through 404 permit process and whether these agrequire mitigation or compensation for the this Project. 

 SA3-6 

 SA3-7 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-60 State Age

 SA3-8 During the section 404 permit process, the 

EPA would be responsible for assessing if potential increase in nitrogen and phosphogenerated by dredging would be a significand whether the dredging could result in salgal blooms and lower dissolved oxygen. 

 SA3-8 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-61 State Age

 SA3-9 We may disagree on the definition of “limit

“local.” To the FERC limited indicates an not permanent and has impacts limited to the system that is being affected. This Praffect a limited portion of the Patapsco Rivwhich is limited portion of the Chesapeake system. Although the actions of this Projeintense locally, and for a substantial time days per year for 2 years) these actions alocalized. “Local” to FERC means local psystem such as the Patapsco River estuaaffected by increased turbidity during dredexample, is typically measured in tens to hfeet. We see the impacts of this plume as because it would not impact the opposite bank of the mouth of Bear Creek, which is approximately 3,400 feet across. Althougturbidity plume from dredging may be unsoccupants in boats in proximity to the dredactivities (several hundred feet), the turbidwould be no different than other dredging the harbor for maintenance dredging or crnew boat basins or slips in the harbor. Muor turbidity plumes, are also created naturrainfall and river runoff, and after storms wshorelines are eroded or shallow sedimendisturbed by wave action. 

 SA3-10 Admixtures are discussed in the Consolid

Plan (see appendix D) and section 2 of th

SA3-9 

 SA3-10  SA3-11 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-62 State Age

 SA3-11 Section 2.3.1.3 of the FEIS has been revis

discuss the ultimate disposal of the PDM, attempts to use the material in a beneficiafails. We feel that the scenario discussed the “worst case” disposal option in view of of PDM on the highways, and associated emissions. This option is now discussed aevaluated in sections 4.3.2.5, 4.9.4.1 and impacts discussion of the FEIS. 

 SA3-12 See section 2.3.2.2 Wetland Crossings.  SA3-13 “Horizontal bores” referred to in the sectio

Roads and Railroads are not the same as directional drills (HDD). Typically, horizonwould be used at all railroad crossings and not most, hard-top public roads. The decihorizontal bore versus open cut for roads function of the crossing permits obtained bAtlantic Express at the state, county or locHDDs are discussed in greater detail in se4.3.2.5. 

 SA3-14 Section 3.1.1 has been revised to acknow

statement. 

 SA3-15 FERC does not dispute that renewable en

attractive and desirable alternative to burnfuels for energy. However, all current indithat over the next several decades, even aincreased use of renewable energy sourceenergy demands of the Mid-Atlantic region be met by existing domestic sources of foand specifically cleaner burning fossil fuelnatural gas. 

SA3-12 

SA3-13 

SA3-14 

SA3-15 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-63 State Age

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-64 State Age

 SA3-16 As part of the NEPA process we are requi

consider reasonable alternatives to the prProject, but we are not required nor empofind the most cost effective way of deliverithe region or the nation. The U.S. markethe consumers make those decisions and the way the consumer selects their source and how they use it. 

 SA3-16 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-65 State Age

 SA3-17 The sale of Mittal Steel Sparrows Point fa

Severstal has been completed in 2008. S3.2.3 for updated information on the Mittaalternative site for the LNG facility. 

 SA3-18 Thank you for your comment, see section 

Terminal for an updated discussion of dretechniques. 

 SA3-17 

 SA3-18 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-66 State Age

 SA3-19 Thank you for your comment, see section 

an updated discussion of disposal techniq

 SA3-20 Thank you for your comment. See section 

updated discussions of crossing DNR landalternatives are discussed in section 3.3.2 

SA3-21 Section 3.3.2.3 of the FEIS has been revis

 SA3-19  SA3-20  SA3-21 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-67 State Age

 SA3-22 The preferred route is the proposed route 

recommended route variations. Section 3contains a discussion on route variations. 4.4 for impacts to wetlands and 4.3 for impstreams. 

 SA3-23 Comment noted. See revisions to pipeline 

in section 3.3.3 for the sections of the pipethe exceptions to SHA’s Utility Policy were 

 SA3-24 Variation 4 was not incorporated by the ap

by FERC. Therefore, the segment of the may affect Maryland Transportation Authoright-of-way is not part of the Project. 

 SA3-25 Thank you for your comment. 

SA3-22 

SA3-23 

SA3-24 

SA3-25 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-68 State Age

SA3-26 Thank you for your comment. Surface wa

classifications are codified by state regulaagencies. Any surface water classification needs to be made by the responsible state agency. 

SA3-27 See section 4.3.2.5. SA3-28 See sections 2.3.1.3 Dredged Material 

Handling/Disposal and 4.3.2.5 of the FEISusers/buyers of the PDM would not be knomonths before final use/disposal. In the Fdiscuss the “worst case” outcome – that Adisposal capacity at commercial landfills. revised the potential disposal method in s4.3.2.5 of the FEIS. Please also see respcomment FA4-2. 

SA3-29 These issues are addressed in the CDP (s

appendix D). 

SA3-27 

SA3-26 

SA3-28 

 SA3-29 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-69 State Age

SA3-30 See section 4.3.2.5 for a discussion of dis

oxygen. Other mitigation measures are prConsolidated Dredge Plan (appendix D). 

SA3-31 See FEIS sections 4.3.2.6 and 4.6.2.2 Ba

Impacts. 

SA3-32 Thank you for your comment. Section 4.3

been revised to address the illegality of “pwash” or “prop-dredging”. In comments from MDNR, we have noted “propeller wash” or “prop-dredging” activitreferenced in Maryland’s Tidal Wetland reare prohibited in Maryland. If the Project icertificated by FERC, AES would be requicomply with this state regulation. 

SA3-33 This could be a condition of AES’s NPDES 

this permit is not under the control or authFERC. See table 1.3-1 for major permits section 4.3.2.5. 

 SA3-31 

 SA3-30 

 SA3-32 

 SA3-33 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-70 State Age

 SA3-34 Comment noted. See revisions in section 

the FEIS. 

SA3-35 Mid-Atlantic Express’s ECP (appendix T) 

of FERC’s Plan and Procedures requiremstream bed and bank restoration. If these are rigorously enforced, the impacts to strpipeline crossing would be temporary and FERC monitors would inspect final stream to ensure compliance with stream crossinrestoration procedures. 

SA3-36 Mid-Atlantic Express has committed to cro

Gunpowder Falls using HDD. See section HDD and Dry Crossings. Per your recomwe are requiring that AES evaluate the feausing the HDD method at Wild Cat Branch nontidal) and consult with MDE. See sectUnique and Sensitive Wetlands and appe

SA3-37a Comment Noted. This requirement in the 

to ensure AES consultation with federal agregarding federally managed or protected Note that stream crossing restrictions for Dand other Maryland streams and rivers are in appendix I under the column “Seasonal Restrictions.” The indicated restrictions aof AES consultation with MDNR and other agencies in Maryland and Pennsylvania. 

SA3-37b We have evaluated the feasibility of cross

Creek using HDD. We do not feel that HDpracticable option at this location. See seHDD and Dry Crossings. 

 SA3-35 

 SA3-34 

 SA3-36 

 SA3-37a 

 SA3-38 

 SA3-37b 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-71 State Age

SA3-38 Comments noted. See revisions in section 

FEIS. 

SA3-39 AES/MAE has committed to wetlands miti

addition to wetlands restoration in its ARMsubmitted June 16, 2008 (see Accession 20080618-0018, Response D47-B). Note was also sent to MDNR and MDE, by AES list of the letter dated June 16, 2008. We reviewed AES’ draft ARMP. AES has filed ARMP on September 2, 2008. This versioreviewed by the COE and other agencies. wetlands mitigation plan for the Project woupon the review of the ARMP by the COEMDNR, and PCDNR during the developmfinal 404 permit.

SA3-40 Comment noted. As AES has indicated to 

HDD crossing of NTWSSC at MP 22.22 – technically feasible. FERC would concur twetland crossing should be accomplished See the revised section 4.4.2.1. 

SA3-41 Please see response to comment SA3-39

may respond with comments on the ARMP AES and should copy FERC and COE. Cconsider comments on the ARMP any tim404 permit process, which includes consuMDE. FERC would consider any commenARMP during the development of the appImplementation Plan (if the Project is apprCommission). 

SA3-41 

 SA3-40 

SA3-39 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-72 State Age

SA3-42 Please see response to comment SA3-39

MDNR may provide the Critical Area Comthe Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bayopportunity to review the ARMP, as they sappropriate. 

SA3-43 Comment noted. This is a state permit iss

FERC would agree that AES should comprecommendation during the State permitti

SA3-44 Wintering Waterfowl Concentrations are a

the revised section 4.6.1 of the FEIS.

SA3-45 FERC does not disagree that the area to b

may support blue crab to some extent. Thof modification of the bay bottom by the prdredging is a matter of degree, i.e. areas talready within the existing channel or boat would be deeper, but may not change drabottom fauna, nor in use by fish and crabsare currently shallow (< 10-ft) and that are 20 – 45-ft, may be substantially altered in fauna and in utilization by fish and crabs. 4.6.2. 

SA3-46 Comment noted. Mitigation by restoration 

submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) is rethe COE. 

SA3-47 Comment noted. 

SA3-44 

SA3-43 

SA3-42 

SA3-47 

SA3-46 

SA3-45 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-73 State Age

SA3-48 In section 4.6.2.2 of the FEIS, we recomm

"AES continue to consult with NMFS, MDNASMFC on the potential for depressed disoxygen in the Patapsco River due to its drmaintenance of the ship channel. 

 SA3-49 We have modified the consultation recom

to include MDNR. See section 4.6.2 

SA3-50 AES has incorporated seasonal restriction

stream work, including the proposed dredprotect anadromous fish species into its fiSee section 4.6.2.2, Pipeline Construction Operation and appendix Q. In section 4.4FEIS, we recommended that, Mid-Atlantic this final ARMP developed in consultation NMFS, FWS, EPA, MDE, and PDEP with Secretary." 

SA3-51 See section 4.6.2.2, Pipeline Construction 

Operation of the FEIS. 

 SA3-51 

 SA3-48 

 SA3-49 

 SA3-50 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-74 State Age

 SA3-52 See section 4.6.2.2, Pipeline Construction 

Operation of the FEIS. 

SA3-53 We agree that absence of a resource doe

an applicant to degrade water quality. Hoactions that are allowed by permit authorizas dredging activity permitted under a Secpermit with the COE allows reasonable acwhich do not exceed state water quality stFERC cannot condition an approval conceresource, such as SAV, that may potentiathis area in the future. For the cumulative dredging, see section 4.13.3. 

SA3-54 The MDNR would be consulted regarding 

rare, threatened and endangered species start of construction for this Project. See s

 SA3-55 See table 4.7-2 in section 4.7 for Serpenti

See comment under the title of table 4.7-2 the state listed status of federally listed spBog Turtle is already listed on table 4.7-1 federal and state status hence we did not table 4.7-2. 

 SA3-53 

 SA3-52 

 SA3-55 

 SA3-54 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-75 State Age

 SA3-56 See section 4.7.1 of the FEIS. AES comp

I surveys for 31 additional areas (including sites identified by MDNR) identified as potturtle habitat during the fall of 2008. 

 SA3-56 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-76 State Age

 SA3-57 See revised section 4.7.1.  SA3-58 Thank you for the information. If the Proje

approved AES would be required to compappropriate permits. 

 SA3-59 Please see response to comment SA3-3.  SA3-60 Comment noted. Mid-Atlantic Express is r

for obtaining all applicable permits and ap

 SA3-57  SA3-59 

 SA3-58 

 SA3-60 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-77 State Age

SA3-61 Threatened and endangered species iden

DNR Wildlife and Heritage Service scopindiscussed in section 4.7. AES conducted surveys for state listed endangered, threaspecial concern plant species during SeptOctober of 2008. The results of these surpreviously conducted surveys are summasection 4.7. We recommended that AES MDNR to develop mitigation plans for the species identified during the surveys. 

SA3-62 See section 4.8.1.2 Waterway for LNG Ma

for a discussion of the Captain John Smith Historic Water Trail. 

 SA3-63 Thank you for the information.  SA3-64 Thank you for the information. 

SA3-61 

SA3-62 

 SA3-63 

SA3-64 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-78 State Age

 SA3-65 Thank you for the information.  SA3-66 Thank you for the information. 

 SA3-65 

 SA3-66 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-79 State Age

SA3-67 Table 4.8.1-4 in the FEIS includes Deer C

Legacy Program Lands. The sources seaincluded the Rural Legacy Programs, statand conservancy organizations. 

 SA3-68 Comment noted. 

SA3-69 FERC recognizes that there are numerous 

local permits for construction that are not the EIS document. This does not imply thMid-Atlantic Express would not have to cothese state and local regulations and permPermitting for oversize vehicles is a good a permit that would be necessary during thconstruction phase. However, the obtainipermit does not affect our ability to assess environmental impact of this Project, and within the scope of this EIS. 

SA3-70 Comment noted. The volume of truck traf

DMRF and the potential load on the existiinfrastructure is discussed in section 4.9.4specifically in Level of Service Analysis an4.9.4-3 of the FEIS. The air emissions thaassociated with these trucks and the impaquality are included in the discussion in se4.11.1.5 General Conformity of the FEIS. 

SA3-71 Section 4.9.4.1 includes reference to disc

between AES and MTA. Mid-Atlantic Expwork with the appropriate agency for each road that would be impacted. 

 SA3-67 

 SA3-68 

 SA3-69 

 SA3-70 

 SA3-71 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-80 State Age

SA3-72 Comment noted. The applicant has been 

produce alignment sheets that address thdenial of longitudinal encroachment along FEIS has re-assessed impacts along this the pipeline right-of-way. 

SA3-73 The CPSG Brandon Shores Power Plant i

FGD unit (wet gas scrubber) which is expecomplete in the first quarter of 2010. CPSoperations currently generate 618 barge tand the operation of the FGD unit is expecanother 772 barge trips per year, for a totatrips per year, or 26 to 27 transits per weeanticipates that the LNG terminal would reapproximately two to three ships per weekTherefore, of the 26 to 27 weekly transits with CPSG operations, 2 to 3 could be impdelays of up to 45 minutes due to the safezone for loaded LNG ships. To minimize transits, we recommend that CPSG and Atogether during development of the TransManagement Plan to coordinate mutual scmarine traffic in the Brewerton Channel. 

SA3-74 Potential impacts to commercial shipping, 

cruise ships, are addressed in section 4.9

 SA3-74  SA3-73 

 SA3-72 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-81 State Age

 SA3-75 Comment noted.  SA3-76 Table 4.9.7.1 in section 4.9.7 in the FEIS 

updated with the 2006 data. 

SA3-77 In accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.6(a) 

FERC has informed the Advisory Council Preservation of the Project’s potential effehistoric properties. We have also submitteProgrammatic Agreement (PA) for review SHPOs, ACHP, and AES. The draft PA omeasures that would be taken to complete appropriate studies to identify project adveto historic properties as well as procedureand/or mitigate project adverse effects. 

 SA3-77  SA3-76  SA3-75 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-82 State Age

SA3-78 A discussion of EPA’s PM2.5 NSR implem

rule and the Project’s compliance with therequirements is provided in section 4.11.1

 SA3-79 Table 4.11.1-4 has been renumbered to 

the FEIS. 

SA3-80 Table 4.11.1-4 has been moved from sect

to 4.11.1.4 in the FEIS. 

 SA3-81 See section 4.11.1.3.  SA3-82 Table 4.11.1-4 has been renumbered to 4

the FEIS. 

SA3-83 Table 4.11.1-4 is a summary table and the 

summary document, and therefore, these to include the detailed breakdown of all emdetailed breakdown of construction emissand emission factors are included in appeResource Report 9 (dated August 25, 200Construction emissions presented in table include emissions from the construction of power plant. Assumptions used have beein the text in section 4.11.1.4. 

 SA3-80 

 SA3-79 

 SA3-78 

 SA3-83 

 SA3-82 

 SA3-81 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-83 State Age

 SA3-84 Greenhouse gas emissions for the Projec

included in section 4.11.1.6 of the FEIS. 

 SA3-85 Information on capacity factors for the LNG 

included in section 4.11.1.4. In addition, information on marine mobile emissions hincluded in table 4.11.1-6. Detailed informequipment capacity and activity factors for of the Project are included in appendix 9A Resource Report 9 (dated August 25, 200

 SA3-86 Section 4.11.1.4 of the FEIS has been 

include emissions for potential leaks pipeline during normal operations. 

 SA3-87 Section 4.11.1.3 of the FEIS has been 

clarify that the ammonia to be used for co

emissions would be aqueous ammconcentration of 19 percent or lessinformation on ammonia emissions for thincluded in appendix 9A to Resource ReAugust 25, 2008). 

 SA3-88 The FEIS is a summary document. Howe

information on the air quality modeling presented in appendix 9A to Resourc(dated August 25, 2008) and the Project d

 SA3-89 If the applicant chooses to construct the o

power plant, MDE has the authority to reqpermitting requirements, including incremeconsumption and significant monitoring coanalyses. 

 SA3-89 

 SA3-85 

 SA3-84 

 SA3-88 

SA3-87 

 SA3-86 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-84 State Age

 SA3-90 Section 4.11.1.5 of the FEIS has been upd

reflect MDE’s 8-hour ozone SIP submittal draft general conformity determination for was issued by FERC on October 2, 2008 real mitigation measures. 

 SA3-91 Section 4.11.2 of the FEIS has been upda

that the noise modeling was based on woambient conditions and the worst-case nogenerating activities (pile driving activitiesimpacts from pile driving activities would bthe State of Maryland noise threshold for dconstruction activities and are exempt bethours of 8 am and 5 pm. Pile driving wouconducted during night-time hours. Details noise modeling have been provided as apto Resource Report 9. 

 SA3-90 

SA3-91 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-85 State Age

 SA3-92 Section 5.2 Recommendation 7 of the FE

requirement for an environmental complaprocedure for identification and relandowner environmental concerns. provides the Director of OEP the authoristop work order. 

SA3-93 Table 4.11.2-6 has been relabeled to refle

noise impacts are for construction and madredging, and not operations. 

SA3-94 Table 4.11.2-8 provides the combined exi

ambient and modeled noise impacts for th

SA3-95 The LNG terminal would emit a constant n

equal level day or night. The constant noiwould be below Maryland’s daytime and nlevels. The State of Maryland’s comment acknowledged, however, including the optplant in the noise analysis allows FERC to potential cumulative worst-case impacts. 

SA3-96 As stated in section 4.12.1, the primary ha

public from an LNG spill on land or on watfrom dispersion of flammable vapors or froheat generated by a pool fire. Consequenassessments related to these hazards are in the exclusion zone discussion in section the marine spill modeling discussion in se4.12.5.3. 

 SA3-93 

 SA3-94 

 SA3-95  SA3-92  SA3-96 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-86 State Age

SA3-97 As discussed in section 4.12.3, the floodw

volumetric capacity was verified to contain tank's maximum liquid capacity. 

 SA3-98 AES would be required to develop an Eme

Response Plan (ERP) and coordinate prothe Coast Guard; state, county, and local planning groups; fire departments; state aenforcement; and appropriate federal ageagree that MDTA should be consulted in dof the ERP and any plans required by the Guard. 

SA3-99 In comments to the DEIS, AES has stated 

would make the appropriate arrangements additional resources needed to satisfy the Guard's recommendations for LNG ship trassociated with the Project. 

 SA3-98  SA3-99  SA3-97 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-87 State Age

SA3-100 Development of the Transit Management 

required by the U.S. Coast Guard would tyoccur after issuance of a FERC authorizatCommission specifies the proposed Projein the public interest. The other specific rimeasures required by the U.S. Coast Guain the WSR, included as appendix J of the U.S. Coast Guard's Letter of Recommendissued pursuant to 33 CFR 127, would spadditional risk mitigation measures requireCaptain of the Port. 

 SA3-101 Please see response to comment SA3-98 SA3-102 Please see response to comment SA3-98 SA3-103 In accordance with the Energy Policy Act 

AES would be required to develop an EmeResponse Plan in consultation with the Coand state and local agencies. 

 SA3-104 Please see response to comment SA3-98 SA3-105 Public safety issues related to the LNG te

considered during both the engineering reby FERC staff and the U.S. Coast Guard's suitability assessment process. The resulreviews are provided in section 4.12. The provides 55 recommendations to ensure tterminal would be constructed and operatmanner that does not impact public safety

 SA3-106 AES has demonstrated all equipment and 

would comply with the spacing requiremen59A (2001 edition). 

SA3-102 

SA3-101 SA3-100 

SA3-105 

SA3-104 

SA3-103 

SA3-106 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-88 State Age

 SA3-107 The determination for those species that r

further surveys (i.e. bog turtle and Indiana been revised to "may effect" in section 4.7 FEIS. Once surveys and agency consultacompleted, a final determination for these would be made. As noted in section 4.7, Express may not proceed with constructioFERC staff has completed any necessary consultations with the appropriate agencie

 SA3-108 Please see response to comment SA3-33 SA3-109 We have recommended that Mid-Atlantic 

consult with landowners to develop mitigameasures for impacts on protected resour

SA3-109 SA3-107 SA3-108 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-89 State Age

 SA3-110 Comment noted.  SA3-111 FERC has made all of the AES responses 

conditions available to the agencies and ththrough the Docket. Any items requiring rState of Maryland agencies were also prodirectly to these agencies by the applicantCommission would ensure compliance witstatutory and regulatory requirements and the required mitigation measures are implthe appropriate points in the Project. Plearesponse to comments FA5-1 and FA5-2. 

SA3-111 SA3-110 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-90 State Age

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-91 State Age

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-92 State Age

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-93 State Age

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-94 State Age

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-95 State Age

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-96 State Age

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-97 State Age

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-98 State Age

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-99 State Age

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-100 State Ag

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-101 State Ag

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-102 State Ag

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-103 State Ag

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-104 State Ag

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-105 State Ag

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-106 State Ag

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-107 State Ag

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-108 State Ag

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-109 State Ag

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-110 State Ag

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-111 State Ag

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-112 State Ag

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA3 - Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Bruce Michael, Director 

 P1-113 State Ag

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA4 – Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Game Commission, James R. Leigey 

 P1-114 

SA4-1 SA4-1 Thank you for your comments. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA4 – Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Game Commission, James R. Leigey 

 P1-115 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA4 – Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Game Commission, James R. Leigey 

 P1-116 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA5 - Maryland Department of Planning, Linda C. Janey, J.D., Assistant Secretary for Clearinghouse and Comm

 P1-117 

SA5-1 The applicants provided additional d

June, 2008. FERC has made all of responses to DEIS conditions availapublic through the Docket at http://elibrary.ferc.gov (Docket #CP0

CP07-63, CP07-64 and CP07-65). responses to comments FA5-1 and 

SA5-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA5 - Maryland Department of Planning, Linda C. Janey, J.D., Assistant Secretary for Clearinghouse and Comm

 P1-118 

SA5-2 We have made the requested revisi

A draft Programmatic Agreement foof historic properties has been submMaryland State Historic Preservatioand other consulting parties. We anthat the Programmatic Agreement wexecuted prior to the Commission mdecision on the certification of the P

SA5-3 Comment noted. SA5-4 Comment noted. 

SA5-2 

SA5-3 

SA5-4 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA6 - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Southeast Regional Office, James Newbold, P.E.

Watershed Management 

 P1-119 

SA6-1 Thank you for your review and com

Table 1.3-1, table of Major Permits, and Consultations, has been updateinclude 401 Water Quality Certificatto completion of PADEP’s Chapter Application process). 

SA6-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA7 - Maryland Department of Planning, Linda C. Janey, J.D., Assistant Secretary for Clearinghouse and Comm

 P1-120 

SA7-1 Comment noted. SA7-2 The applicants provided additional d

June, 2008. FERC has made all of responses to DEIS conditions availapublic through the Docket at http://elibrary.ferc.gov (Docket #CP0

CP07-63, CP07-64 and CP07-65). responses to comments FA5-1 and 

SA7-1 

SA7-2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA7 - Maryland Department of Planning, Linda C. Janey, J.D., Assistant Secretary for Clearinghouse and Comm

 P1-121 

SA7-3 The CDP has been updated and is 

appendix D in the FEIS. 

SA7-4 Details regarding disposal of PDM a

provided in section 4.3.2.5 and the C

SA7-5 Safety issues, including potential fo

attacks, related to the offshore, onspipeline components of the Project wconsidered during both the engineedone by FERC staff and the Coast Gwaterway suitability assessment proresults of these reviews are provide4.12. 

SA7-6 Section 4.9.4.1 contains discussions 

potential impacts associated with veduring construction and operation adiscussion on roadway and highway construction impacts. 

SA7-7 AES is required to prepare a Spill P

Control and Countermeasures Plan prevent groundwater contaminationSPCC Plan would be finalized followcompletion of the final Project desigselection of a construction contractoapplicant’s draft SPCC Plan is contaappendix W. AES would conduct sogroundwater sampling as discussed 4.3.1.1. 

SA7-8 See sections 4.8.1 and 4.9.7 of the 

 SA7-3 

 through 

 SA7-13 

SA7-14 through SA7-17 

 SA7-18 

 SA7-19 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA7 - Maryland Department of Planning, Linda C. Janey, J.D., Assistant Secretary for Clearinghouse and Comm

 P1-122 

SA7-9 FERC has made all of the AES resp

DEIS conditions available to the pubthe Docket at http://elibrary.ferc.gov 

#CP07-62, CP07-63, CP07-64 and See response to comment FA4-5. 

SA7-10 As indicated in the WSR, (see appe

requests for copies of the material udeveloping the Coast Guard’s prelimdetermination on the suitability of thshould be made to the Coast Guard

SA7-11 Details regarding disposal of PDM a

provided in section 4.3.2.5 and the C

SA7-12 See revised HUD comment letter FASA7-13 The proposed facility must comply w

safety standards in 49 CFR 193 speshore LNG facilities. Specifically, thwould have to comply with 49 CFR which requests coordination with aplocal officials in preparation of an emevacuation plan. 

SA7-14 We are unsure of what you mean by 

The FERC as the lead federal agenprepared a DEIS and this FEIS in cowith the requirements of NEPA, the regulations for implementing NEPA, FERC’s regulations implementing Nwritten and oral comments received DEIS prior to the FEIS being sent to were considered and evaluated in thpreparation of this FEIS. Notificatiopublic involvement activities are furtdiscussed in sections 1.4 and 1.5. Sresponse to comment IN10-16. 

SA7-20 

SA7-21 

SA7-22 

SA7-23 

SA7-24 

SA7-25 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA7 - Maryland Department of Planning, Linda C. Janey, J.D., Assistant Secretary for Clearinghouse and Comm

 P1-123 

SA7-15 The proposed design complies with 

siting standards contained in 49 CF

SA7-16 Section 3.2 contains a discussion o

alternative locations for the LNG ter

SA7-17 FERC has made all of the AES resp

DEIS conditions available to the pubthe Docket. See response to comm

SA7-18 Thank you for the information. SA7-19 See sections 3 and 4 of the FEIS an

response to comment SA7-7. 

SA7-20 Comment noted. SA7-21 Comment noted. SA7-22 Please see response to comment SSA7-23 Please see response to comment SSA7-24 Comment noted. SA7-25 Thank you for your comment. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA8 – Maryland Department of Planning, Maryland Historical Trust, Elizabeth J. Cole, Administrator, Project Re

 P1-124 

SA8-1 Comment noted. SA8-2 Comment noted. 

S

A8-1 

S

A8-2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA8 – Maryland Department of Planning, Maryland Historical Trust, Elizabeth J. Cole, Administrator, Project Re

 P1-125 

SA8-3 Comment noted. SA8-4 Surveys to identify historic districts a

aboveground historic properties havbeen completed. Copies of the repodocumenting these investigations wprovided to the MD-SHPO. 

SA8-5 Please see response to comment S

S

A8-3 

S

A8-4 

S

A8-5 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA8 – Maryland Department of Planning, Maryland Historical Trust, Elizabeth J. Cole, Administrator, Project Re

 P1-126 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA8 – Maryland Department of Planning, Maryland Historical Trust, Elizabeth J. Cole, Administrator, Project Re

 P1-127 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA8 – Maryland Department of Planning, Maryland Historical Trust, Elizabeth J. Cole, Administrator, Project Re

 P1-128 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA8 – Maryland Department of Planning, Maryland Historical Trust, Elizabeth J. Cole, Administrator, Project Re

 P1-129 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA8 – Maryland Department of Planning, Maryland Historical Trust, Elizabeth J. Cole, Administrator, Project Re

 P1-130 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA8 – Maryland Department of Planning, Maryland Historical Trust, Elizabeth J. Cole, Administrator, Project Re

 P1-131 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA8 – Maryland Department of Planning, Maryland Historical Trust, Elizabeth J. Cole, Administrator, Project Re

 P1-132 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA9 – Maryland Department of Business & Economic Development, David W. Edgerley, Secretary 

 P1-133 

SA9-1 The applicant conducted archae

surveys of the Project area and archaeological sites directly assthe War of 1812. The applicant conducting surveys of abovegrostructures and other historic prodetermine what impacts, if any, would have on them. An assessproposed Project's viewshed wothat investigation. 

SA9-2 The AES Sparrows Point LNG P

not preclude development at the Point Shipyard. 

 S

A9-1 

 S

A9-2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA9 – Maryland Department of Business & Economic Development, David W. Edgerley, Secretary 

 P1-134 

SA9-3 Comment Noted. As discussed 

4.8.1.2, the pipeline would cross Spangled Banner National Histo(SSBNHT) at MP 2.0, in an area the SSBNHT and the pipeline w695. Based on information provNational Park Service (NPS), it that the SSBNHT would be a drthis area. Construction and opepipeline would not have an impaof the SSBNHT as a driving rou

SA9-4 The AES Sparrows Point LNG P

other industrial project on Sparrwould interfere with the Marylanof Tourism’s ability to develop a management plan (CoMP) for thSpangled Banner Byway. 

SA9-5 Comment noted. SA9-6 The applicant is currently consu

MD-SHPO to determine the affeof the proposed Project. The apwould assess the potential for aimpacts the Project would have properties within its viewshed. understanding that the Project awithin the Ft. McHenry viewshe

SA9-7 Marine archaeology was perform

applicant for the dredging area any shipwrecks. 

 S

A9-3 

 S

A9-4 

 S

A9-5 

 S

A9-6 

 S

A9-7 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA9 – Maryland Department of Business & Economic Development, David W. Edgerley, Secretary 

 P1-135 

SA9-8 Based on the current project sc

proposed dredging and construLNG terminal would be completAs a result, dredging and constrnot overlap with the core bicent(2012-2015) and would not resunegative economic or educationEnvironmental impacts associatproposed dredging and construdiscussed in sections 4.3.2.5 Dr

2.3.1.3. 

SA9-9 FERC cannot control, nor plan f

projects that have not been annFERC would consider the findinin its determination of whether tshould be approved. A final apponly be granted if, after consideenvironmental and non-environmthe FERC finds that the proposethe public interest. 

 S

A9-8 

 S

A9-9 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA9 – Maryland Department of Business & Economic Development, David W. Edgerley, Secretary 

 P1-136 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA9 – Maryland Department of Business & Economic Development, David W. Edgerley, Secretary 

 P1-137 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SA10 – Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Historic Resources, Roger W. Kirchen, Archaeologist, Office 

Compliance 

 P1-138 

SA10-1 Thank you for your comments. SA10-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

State Elected Officials 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SE1 – The Maryland House of Delegates, Delegate John A. Olszewski, Jr. 

P1-139 

SE1-1 Comment noted. SE1-2 The FERC as the lead federal agen

and this FEIS in compliance with the NEPA, the CEQ regulations for impand the FERC’s regulations implemSection 4 of the FEIS contains the eanalysis completed for the Project acontains FERC staff’s conclusions arecommendations. 

SE1-3 Impacts to these resources have be

are discussed in Section 4 (Environthe FEIS. The FERC as the lead feprepared a DEIS and this FEIS in corequirements of NEPA, the CEQ regimplementing NEPA, and the FERCimplementing NEPA. 

SE1-4 Environmental Justice and the comm

Station are discussed in section 4.9terminal location lies within an existwhich heavy industry manufacturing exist and function. Development of consistent with existing developmenrepresent a new or inconsistent devrespect to existing environmental cothe construction nor the operation odisproportionately result in adverse environmental effect on minority or communities. 

SE1-1 SE1-2 SE1-3 SE1-4 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SE1 – The Maryland House of Delegates, Delegate John A. Olszewski, Jr. 

P1-140 

SE1-5 As discussed in section 4.12.5.3, th

criteria developed by Sandia to defithe hazard zones to assess the poteassociated with an LNG vessel. ThSandia Report should not be misconareas, but rather identify the level of needed to protect the public and infThe exclusion zones associated witnot extend beyond land owned by SPartnership LLP (the owner of the te

SE1-6 The Waterway Suitability Report (W

transportation of LNG from entrance waters through its transit to and from facility, including operations at the Linterface. Issues related to navigatiosecurity introduced by the proposed considered and addressed in the Wincluded in appendix J of the FEIS. 

SE1-7 Please see response to comment INSE1-8 The impacts of a release on marine 

have been analyzed and documente(sections 4.5.1, 4.6.2, 4.6.3, 4.8.4.1 

Cumulative impacts are discussed i

SE1-9 The LNG tankers associated with th

pass under the Francis Scott Key BLNG carriers under the William PresMemorial Bridge was examined by tduring review of the waterway suitaconclusions of that analysis are presincluded in appendix J and discusse4.12.5.5. 

SE1-6 

SE1-7 

SE1-8 

SE1-10 

SE1-5 

SE1-9 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SE1 – The Maryland House of Delegates, Delegate John A. Olszewski, Jr. 

P1-141 

SE1-10 Section 3, Alternatives provides an 

related to the issue of LNG facility sconsideration given to the location onatural gas pipeline systems. 

SE1-11 The WSR provided by the Coast Gu

specific levels of protection that musorder to manage LNG traffic in the wthe required measures to ensure saoperations were in place and servinpurpose, neither the Commission nowould allow operation of the propos

SE1-12 The use of eminent domain is speci

the appropriate easement for the sitof facilities. If an easement cannot 

the landowner and a project has beeCommission, the Certificate Holder eminent domain granted to it under NGA to obtain the right-of-way and workspaces identified in the Certific

SE1-13 We agree that quality of life impacts 

subject to quantification. They are heach individual. Throughout our extwe have been made aware of and hmany individuals’ concerns for their have developed almost 200 specific measures designed to ensure the Penvironmental, safety, and regulatominimize the negative impacts to thenvironment. 

SE1-11 

SE1-12 

SE1-13 

SE1-14 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SE1 – The Maryland House of Delegates, Delegate John A. Olszewski, Jr. 

P1-142 

SE1-14 Dredging impacts and specific meas

and mitigate these potential impacts detail in sections 4.3.2.4 and 4.3.2.5

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SE2 – Councilman John Olszewski, Sr. 

P1-143 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SE2 – Councilman John Olszewski, Sr. 

P1-144 

SE2-1 An evaluation of a range of alternati

contained in section 3 of the FEIS. safety concerns are analyzed and a4.12. Section 4 contains the envirocompleted for the Project. 

 SE2-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Local Agencies 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA1 – Baltimore County, Maryland, David A. C. Carroll, Director of Sustainability

 P1-145 

LA1-1 Section 4.3.2.5 contains a discu

project dredging. Safety is discsection 4.12. LNG vessel safety in section 4.12.5. We do not beinformation must be included or recommendations met prior to isFEIS to understand the environof the Project and fulfill the requNEPA. Please see responses tFA4-5 and FA5-2. 

LA1-2 All analyses and responses filed 

Applicant and reviews and comagencies are publicly available http://elibrary.ferc.gov (Docket #

CP07-63, CP07-64 and CP07-6is constantly expanding as new becomes available. All informatapplicant, as well as comments public, have been reviewed and FERC staff and incorporated intapplicable. We continue to incoinformation up until the time the print. Please see responses to FA4-5 and FA5-2. 

 LA1-1  LA1-2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA1 – Baltimore County, Maryland, David A. C. Carroll, Director of Sustainability

 P1-146 

LA1-3 FERC staff developed this FEIS 

with the requirements of NEPA; Environmental Quality regulatioimplementing NEPA; and the FEimplementing regulations. The efforts were undertaken with the and assistance of the Coast GuEPA, and PDCNR. The purposto inform the FERC decision-mapublic, and other permitting agepotential adverse and beneficiaimpacts associated with the proand its alternatives, and to recopractical, reasonable, and appromitigation measures that would adverse impacts to the extent p

LA1-4 We have repeatedly encourage

to encourage informed commencontents of the public docket. Aresponse to comment LA1-2. 

LA1-5 As stated in section 4.12.5.3, th

used the criteria developed by SLaboratories to define the outer hazard zones for assessing potassociated with the Project. Recopies of the material used in dCoast Guard's preliminary deterthe suitability of the waterway sto the Coast Guard as indicated (see appendix J). 

 LA1-3 

 LA1-4 

 LA1-5 

 LA1-6 

 LA1-7 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA1 – Baltimore County, Maryland, David A. C. Carroll, Director of Sustainability

 P1-147 

LA1-6 The WSR provided by the Coas

based on specific levels of protebe provided in order to manage traffic in the waterway. The resto implement these measures wattributed to specific port stakehagencies. Unless the required mensure safe and secure operatioplace and serving their intended neither the Commission nor the would allow operation of the pro

LA1-7 The design, construction, and o

requirements for the Project are 33 CFR Parts 103 to 105, 33 CFand 49 CFR Part 193. Although regulations do not require the upublications, the design factors procedures described in the SIGInformation Paper No. 14, “Site Design For LNG Ports and Jetticonsistent with the safety and sconcepts considered during pro

LA1-8 

LA1-9 

LA1-9a 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA1 – Baltimore County, Maryland, David A. C. Carroll, Director of Sustainability

 P1-148 

LA1-8 On June 26, 2008 the U.S. Sec

Commerce issued the Decision to override the State of Marylanto the Project’s consistency with Zone Management Act (CZMA)4.8.2.1 contains a discussion on consistency determination for thFacilities Review Act (CFRA) apfor the Project as required by thCoastal Zone Management Plan All necessary state and federal approvals would be required to before the Project can be constlist of major permits and approv1.3-1. 

LA1-9 Section 3.0 of the FEIS contains 

analyses completed for the Projother alternative energy sourcesTerminal alternatives and pipeli(system alternatives, major routand route variations). 

LA1-9a We take all concerns seriously. 

your comments and your involvreviewing the potential environmof the Project. 

LA1-10 Please see response to comme

 LA1-10 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA1 – Baltimore County, Maryland, David A. C. Carroll, Director of Sustainability

 P1-149 

LA1-11 As discussed in section 4.3.2.5, 

in the Consolidated Dredge Plamitigation measures would be uthat water quality impacts would In softer, surface sediments, an bucket would be used concurreand controlled lowering speeds and scows and containers woulhull construction and completely water tight to avoid release of dAdditionally, a water quality samwould be instituted within a 100upstream and downstream of thdredge area. Sampling would bprior to, during, and 30 days poactivities. Results would be subwithin 120 days of the completioactivities. 

LA1-12 The Consolidated Dredge Plan 

has been amended to include ainformation with regard to dewacontaminant testing. 

LA1-13 Table 4.9.4-1 contains a summa

traffic related to the DMRF. Air from trucks were provided in Re9, appendix 9A. The ConsolidaPlan discusses traffic impacts apossibility of alternative offsite tPDM by rail or a combination of 

 LA1-11  LA1-12 

 LA1-13 

 LA1-14 

 LA1-15  LA1-16  LA1-17  LA1-18 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA1 – Baltimore County, Maryland, David A. C. Carroll, Director of Sustainability

 P1-150 

LA1-14 Gravity dewatering is considere

adequate for this process and nmaterials are necessary to aid iPlease see response to comme

LA1-15 AES has amended its Consolida

Plan to include additional informregard to dredging (see append

LA1-16 Please see response to commeLA1-17 Comment noted. LA1-18 Comment noted. AES must com

appropriate regulations. 

LA1-19 Please see response to commeLA1-20 Please see response to comme

 LA1-19 

 LA1-20 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA1 – Baltimore County, Maryland, David A. C. Carroll, Director of Sustainability

 P1-151 

LA1-21 Section 4.12.4 has been update

this comment. 

 LA1-21 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA1 – Baltimore County, Maryland, David A. C. Carroll, Director of Sustainability

 P1-152 

LA1-22 In HUD’s July 3, 2008 letter, HU

that the proposed LNG facility is Acceptable Separation Distance HUD assisted housing projects Station, Center Place and St. LuApartments). Reliability and safdiscussed in section 4.12 of this 

LA1-22 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA1 – Baltimore County, Maryland, David A. C. Carroll, Director of Sustainability

 P1-153 

LA1-23 The hazards associated with LN

presented in sections 4.12.1 anThe safety and security review pFERC staff and the Coast Guardiscussed in section 4.12 includhazards. In addition, the LNG swould be heavily insulated, closatmospheric pressure, and equipressure relief devices. These are not susceptible to explosion or rupturing. Unlike highway or railroad scenspill at the facility would be direcimpoundments and contained. minimize the potential for off-sitimpoundments must be located with the federal regulations undOur analysis of the proposed dediscussed in section 4.12.2. As discussed in section 4.12.5.3Guard used the criteria developNational Laboratories to define of the hazard zones for assessirisks associated with the Projecmeasures required for safe and operations were in place and seintended purpose (see the CoasWSR in appendix J), neither the nor the Coast Guard would allow the proposed facility. 

LA1-23 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA1 – Baltimore County, Maryland, David A. C. Carroll, Director of Sustainability

 P1-154 

LA1-24 LA1-24 Please see response to comme

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA1 – Baltimore County, Maryland, David A. C. Carroll, Director of Sustainability

 P1-155 

LA1-25 Please see response to commeLA1-26 Please see response to comme

LA1-26 

 LA1-25 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA1 – Baltimore County, Maryland, David A. C. Carroll, Director of Sustainability

 P1-156 

LA1-27 Please see response to comme

LA1-27 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA1 – Baltimore County, Maryland, David A. C. Carroll, Director of Sustainability

 P1-157 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA2 - Baltimore County Government, Office of Community Conservation, Joseph A. “Jay” Doyle for Mary L. Har

 P1-158 

LA2-1 Please see response to commeLA2-2 Please see response to commeLA2-3 Please see response to comme

LA2-1 LA2-2 

LA2-3 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA3 - Lancaster County Planning Commission, James R. Cowhey, AICP, Executive Director 

 P1-159 

LA3-GC1 We have reviewed and analyze

Energy Outlook 2008 developed Information Administration (EIAprojections are based on results National Energy Modeling Syste1.2 has been updated to include on EIA’s Annual Energy Outloo

 LA3-GC1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA3 - Lancaster County Planning Commission, James R. Cowhey, AICP, Executive Director 

 P1-160 

LA3-GC2 FERC agrees with the Lancaste

Planning Commission relative to with state and local (county and laws, ordinances and plans to mprevent impacts. In most cases Express must abide by state anand ordinances, but the FERC hauthority on the siting and constProject. We considered commeand local agencies in preparing developing our recommended mmeasures. State and local agenrequest realignment or alternativprocedures through their permitprocedures. Any non-federal peapprovals with requirements in FERC’s Order may be preempteCertificate. See section 1.3 for discussion on compliance with papprovals and regulatory requir

LA3-DC1 All public and private water sup

required to be identified prior to and would be protected as discusection 4.3.1.1 of the FEIS. Sewould also be protected, as discsection 4.8.1.1. Please see rescomment IN5-2. 

LA3-DC2 Thank you for this additional inf

Information regarding groundwasupplies was requested from PASRBC in August 2008. Please to comment LA3-DC1. 

 LA3-GC2 

 LA3-DC1  LA3-DC2  LA3-DC3 

 LA3-DC4 

 LA3-DC5 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA3 - Lancaster County Planning Commission, James R. Cowhey, AICP, Executive Director 

 P1-161 

LA3-DC3 Comment noted. However, rest

former condition or to pre-existinmandated by the COE. 

LA3-DC4 "Prime farmland" is a designatio

the U.S. Department of Agricultthat has the best combination ochemical characteristics for prodfeed, forage, fiber, and oilseed calso available for these uses." Tfarmland" designation does not indicate current agricultural use intended to correspond to acreacurrently farmed land. Acreage land is shown in table 4.8.1-4. Wrecommending that Mid- Atlantidevelop an Agricultural Impact Mfor agricultural lands. We believAtlantic Express's ECP and our measures would adequately proand that all but 0.17 acres of farrevert to its pre-project use aftecomplete. 

LA3-DC5 Comment noted. See section 4

discussion of the AES Septic SyContingency Plan. 

LA3-DC6 See sections 4.5.1.2 and 4.7.2 f

of serpentine barrens. 

LA3-DC7 Comment noted. 

 LA3-DC6  LA3-DC7 

 LA3-DC8 

 LA3-DC9 

 LA3- DC10a  LA3- DC10b 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA3 - Lancaster County Planning Commission, James R. Cowhey, AICP, Executive Director 

 P1-162 

LA3-DC8 Comment noted. AES’s ECP, a

the FEIS, in the Procedures secthat AES would, “Consult with thland management or state agenproject specific restoration planrestoration plan should include re-establishing herbaceous andspecies, controlling the invasion undesirable exotic species ... athe success of the revegetation control efforts.” 

LA3-DC9 Comment noted. FERC has wo

applicant to avoid forest fragmethroughout the development of troute and the evaluation of rout

LA3-DC10a See section 4.10 for discussion 

resource impacts, consideration variations and ongoing consultaand minimize possible impacts tHistoric District and other histor

LA3-DC10b Please see response to commeLA3-DC10c Please see response to commeLA3-DC10d Please see response to commeLA3-DC10e The final archaeological and cu

plans must be provided to and rSHPOs and approved before thbe constructed. 

LA3-10c LA3-10d LA3-10e 

 LA3-R

A1

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA3 - Lancaster County Planning Commission, James R. Cowhey, AICP, Executive Director 

 P1-163 

LA3-RA1 All analyses and responses filed 

Applicant and reviews and comagencies are publicly available http://elibrary.ferc.gov (Docket #

CP07-63, CP07-64 and CP07-6is constantly expanding as new becomes available. All written acomments received prior to the sent to the printer were consideevaluated in the preparation of t

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA4 - The County of Chester Planning Commission, Ronald T. Bailey, AICP, Secretary 

 P1-164 

LA4-A1 We generally disagree. Installation 

approved by the Commission, would temporary disturbances during the cphase. However, long-term impacts Landscapes would be negligible. Oremain open space and no agricultulost over the entire length of the pipe0.15 acre at one mainline valve site for a permanent access road. In adrestrictions that would prohibit certathe permanent pipeline right-of-way erecting structures) would ensure thcorridor would not be lost as open sforested areas in the permanent righnot be allowed to revert to their pre-state, these lands would remain funspace. Furthermore, impacts to opeincluding the rural landscape, agricunatural resources — have been mindesign (e.g., routing) and would be by the implementation of required mdescribed throughout section 4 of thMid-Atlantic Express is obligated to applicable federal and state permits of the FEIS) and implement any addrequired by those permits. 

 LA4-

A1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA4 - The County of Chester Planning Commission, Ronald T. Bailey, AICP, Secretary 

 P1-165 

LA4-B1 Required mitigation to minimize the 

term impacts to waterbodies is desc4.3.2.5. 

LA4-B2 As proposed, the pipeline would par

Williams/Transco replacement projeapproximate MPs 80.9 - 81.1. Howvariation 10A would further move thof-way from the area (see section 3The proposed pipeline would be desconstructed to consider all existing cthe route. 

LA4-B3 Any disturbances of streams during 

of the pipeline would be temporary. measures for stream and wetland dwould be mitigated as outlined in seand the HDD Plan (appendix S). Secomment LA4-B4. 

LA4-B4 Mid-Atlantic Express has incorporat

measures to reduce environmental routing and design of the proposed response to comments and agency addition, FERC staff have made numrecommendations in this FEIS to furenvironmental impacts (see section mitigation measures address a wide impacts, among them impacts relevpolicies of Landscapes (Chester Cocomprehensive plan) and Watershe

resources element of Landscapes). concerns raised by CCPC are addre

LA4-B5 See section 4.8.1. 

 LA4-B2 

 LA4-B5 

 LA4-B1 

 LA4-B3 

 LA4-B4 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA4 - The County of Chester Planning Commission, Ronald T. Bailey, AICP, Secretary 

 P1-166 

LA4-B6 Comment noted. We believe that th

mitigation measures proposed by A(appendix T), as well as measures rFERC staff, would serve to mitigate resource areas identified in this com

 LA4-B6 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA4 - The County of Chester Planning Commission, Ronald T. Bailey, AICP, Secretary 

 P1-167 

LA4-C1 Section 4.8.1.1 and 5.2 have been u

require site-specific plans for all resfeet of a construction workspace. 

LA4-C2 We have added text addressing eco

hydrological issues in riparian zones Executive Summary and section 5. addressed in detail in sections 4.6.3

LA4-C3 Please see discussion in section 4.1

and consideration given to minimize historic properties. 

LA4-C4 The various agency consultation/pe

processes make the applicant awarperiods after which the applicant mushould project activities not yet com

LA4-C5 Mid-Atlantic Express has committed 

with all water flow management regSee revised section 4.3.2.5. 

LA4-C1 

LA4-C2 LA4-C3 

LA4-C4 LA4-C5 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA4 - The County of Chester Planning Commission, Ronald T. Bailey, AICP, Secretary 

 P1-168 

LA4-C6 Please see response to comment L

interaction with the Transco project. 

LA4-C7 See the applicant's alignment sheet

with figures 2.2.2.1-1 and 2.2.2.1-2. 

LA4-C8 Unless specified otherwise in a site-

(e.g., for residences), Mid-Atlantic E(appendix T) discusses standards foand allows for natural regrowth, rathfor tree planting, of trees in portions workspace that were wooded prior tAES indicated in its July 9, 2008 meChester County agencies that it wouPADEP and would discuss tree imppotential for replanting. 

LA4-C9 The feasibility of HDD was evaluate

crossings and the appropriate areas identified. We have recommended that Mid-Atlantic Express coordinate crossings with CCCD and CCWRA, agencies. We have also recommen4.8.1.2 that Mid-Atlantic Express coCCPRD, BMPs to best minimize imBrandywine Creek and Struble Trail county-owned property. 

LA4-C10 See response to comment LA4-C9. LA4-C11 See section 4.9.1. The web page n

provide the site-specific information to assess population within 220 yard

 LA4-C6  LA4-C7  LA4-C8 

 LA4-C9 

LA4-C10 LA4-C11 

LA4-C12 LA4-C13 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA4 - The County of Chester Planning Commission, Ronald T. Bailey, AICP, Secretary 

 P1-169 

LA4-C12 As discussed in section 4.12.9, AES 

required to develop emergency planunder 49 CFR 192.615, which would establishing and maintaining adequcommunication with appropriate fireother public officials. 

LA4-C13 Comment noted. 

LA4-C14 These boxes were inadvertently left 

in error, and what appears to be an way is an incorrect artifact of map ehave been corrected in the FEIS. 

LA4-C15 Comment noted. LA4-C16 Please see response to comment LLA4-C17 Upper Uwchlan Township does not 

either of these route variations and preference for an alternative route in (see comments LA8-1 and LA11-1). 

LA4-C18 Comment noted. The USGS topo m

potentially out-of-date, are the most maps available from the USGS. 

LA4-C19 Mid-Atlantic Express is obligated to 

applicable federal and state permits of the FEIS) and implement any addrequired by those permits. 

LA4-C14 

LA4-C16 

LA4-C18 LA4-C15 

LA4-C17 

LA4-C22 

LA4-C20 

LA4-C19 LA4-C21 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA4 - The County of Chester Planning Commission, Ronald T. Bailey, AICP, Secretary 

 P1-170 

LA4-C20 Section 4.1.1.2 discusses potential 

any blasting that may be necessarylandowners prior to blasting, coordinlandowners for pre- and post-blastinacquisition of all required permits (inmunicipalities). Also see response C9. 

LA4-C21 See response to comment LA4-C20

LA4-C22 Please see response to comment LLA4-C23 The pipeline would pass near, but w

through the landfill. Table 4.8.3-1 hto reflect the correct information. 

LA4-C24 Mid-Atlantic Express would consult 

appropriate water suppliers and watagencies. See revised section 4.3.1

LA4-C25 Section 4.3.2.5, Pipeline Constructio

Operations was amended to include regulatory agencies. 

LA4-C26a Please see response to comment L

LA4-C24 

LA4-C25 

 LA4-C26a 

LA4-C23 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA4 - The County of Chester Planning Commission, Ronald T. Bailey, AICP, Secretary 

 P1-171 

LA4-C26b Please see response to comment L

LA4-C27 Please see response to comments 

LA4-9. This requirement would enswith the Chesapeake Bay Tributarieprepared by PDEP. 

LA4-C28 Please see response to comment LLA4-C29 Hydrostatic test water for the pipelin

Susquehanna River (Pipeline Test Sbe withdrawn from the Susquehannsection 4.3.2.5). Rather than being directly back to the Susquehanna Rwater from Pipeline Test Section #1 pumped into the pipeline south of thRiver (Pipeline Test Section #2) aloadditional 100,000 gallons from the River for the second test volume. Atest, water from Pipeline Test Sectiodischarged to a well-vegetated site drainage basin of withdrawal) on the the Susquehanna River, eventually into the river, the original source of tThese discharges are summarized 

LA4-C30 Comment noted; however, the regu

wetland boundaries in Pennsylvania jurisdiction of the COE and PDEP. 

 LA4-C26b 

LA4-C27 LA4-C28 

LA4-C29 

LA4-C30 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA4 - The County of Chester Planning Commission, Ronald T. Bailey, AICP, Secretary 

 P1-172 

LA4-C31 These issues and required mitigatio

in sections 4.3.2.5, 4.4, and 4.7.2. Aresponse to comment LA4-A1. 

LA4-C32 AES provided the CCPC with the re

July 25, 2008. Additionally, alignmedepicting wetlands and waterbodies (1 inch = 500 feet) are available on at accession numbers 20070405-4020080903-4004. 

LA4-C33 Mid-Atlantic Express must obtain a 

COE prior to construction of this Prosection 4.4. 

LA4-C34 See response to LA4-C9. Mid-Atlan

consulted with Chester County agen2008. 

LA4-C35 Right-of-way widths have been esta

accommodate the needs of construcconsideration of minimizing impacts resources, including woodlands, whmaintenance of a safe working envidescribed in section 4.5.1, wooded temporary construction right-of-way construction would be allowed to revthese lands would be subject to a lonot permanent, vegetation structure indicated in its July 9, 2008 meeting County agencies that it would meet and would discuss tree impacts and replanting. 

LA4-C36 Comment noted. 

LA4-C31 

LA4-C32 LA4-C33 LA4-C34 

LA4-C35 LA4-C37 

LA4-C36 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA4 - The County of Chester Planning Commission, Ronald T. Bailey, AICP, Secretary 

 P1-173 

LA4-C37 The purpose of table 4.6.1-1 is to pr

overview of representative wildlife oscale, not for site-specific analysis ospecies of concern. State-listed speare addressed in section 4.7.2. 

LA4-C38 Please see response to comment L

the Commission authorize the Projerelieve Mid-Atlantic Express of its obobtain all applicable permits and apcomply with the requirements of sucapprovals. Construction of the proposed Mid-Apipeline is currently estimated to occConstruction of the Transco Sentinescheduled for 2009. Therefore, contwo pipelines is not scheduled for thtimeframe, but may occur in the sam

LA4-C39 Please see response to comment LLA4-C40 State-listed threatened and endang

other species of concern, including requirements, are addressed in sec

LA4-C41 The FEIS is not the depository of al

for the proposed Project. All suppodocumentation and consultation resmaintained in FERC's eLibrary. Infostatus of agency clearances and anrecommendations on how Mid-Atlanshould proceed can be found in the individual species in section 4.7. 

LA4-C42 Please see response to comment L

LA4-C38 

LA4-C39 

LA4-C40 

LA4-C44 

LA4-C42 

LA4-C41 LA4-C43 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA4 - The County of Chester Planning Commission, Ronald T. Bailey, AICP, Secretary 

 P1-174 

LA4-C43 Mid-Atlantic Express has consulted 

regarding this issue. See revised se

LA4-C44 Comment noted. LA4-C45 Comment noted. LA4-C46 The additional 25 feet is temporary 

not be part of the 50-foot-wide permway. This is noted in section 4.8.1 amore detail in the text and figures of 

LA4-C47 Text indicating the source of the lan

information has been added in a foo4.8.1-1. 

LA4-C48 None of the rights-of-way that would 

the proposed pipeline are owned or Atlantic Express. The applicants woto obtain an easement for the pipelilandowner through negotiation or em

LA4-C49 Please see response to comments 

C22. 

LA4-C50 Comment noted. Please see respo

LA4-C8. 

LA4-C49 

LA4-C48 

LA4-C50 

LA4-C47 LA4-C46 

 LA4-C45 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA4 - The County of Chester Planning Commission, Ronald T. Bailey, AICP, Secretary 

 P1-175 

LA4-C51 Mid-Atlantic Express provided upda

CCPC and other Chester County ag25, 2008. 

LA4-C52 The table of existing residences and 

50 feet of the construction workspacincludes the county for each structu

LA4-C53 See section 4.8.1.1 Septic SystemsLA4-C54 Comments noted. LA4-C55 Please see response to comment LLA4-C56 See section 4.8.1.2 and table 4.8.1-

State Park would not be affected by 

LA4-C51 

LA4-C53 

LA4-C54 

LA4-C52 

LA4-C56 

LA4-C55 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA4 - The County of Chester Planning Commission, Ronald T. Bailey, AICP, Secretary 

 P1-176 

LA4-C57 The appropriate Chester County ag

conservancy groups would be involveasement negotiations and the mitigspecified in the agreements. Please comment LA4-A1. 

LA4-C58 Comment noted. LA4-C59 Comment noted. LA4-C60 In section 4.8.1.2 Special Status Wa

have recommended that Mid-Atlantidevelop site-specific plans for the crOctoraro Creek and the Brandywine CCPC and CCWRA would be includdiscussions regarding the Octoraro Brandywine Creek. 

LA4-C61 See response to comments LA4-A1 LA4-C62 We have added a recommendation 

for Mid-Atlantic Express to coordinaCCPRD and PFBC to ensure measensure proper notification and safetboaters, fishermen, and other recreBrandywine Creek. 

LA4-C57  LA4-C61 

LA4-C60 

LA4-C62 

LA4-C58 

LA4-C59 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA4 - The County of Chester Planning Commission, Ronald T. Bailey, AICP, Secretary 

 P1-177 

LA4-C63 Comment noted. See section 4.8.5LA4-C64 Response to pipeline emergencies, 

establishing and maintaining liaison emergency response entities, is add4.12.9. 

LA4-C65 Road crossings — including require

measures, litigation for traffic disrup

recommendation that Mid-Atlantic Esite-specific traffic and safety plans in section 4.9.4.1. 

LA4-C66 Railroad crossings, including the ne

Atlantic Express to comply with statregulations, are addressed in sectio

LA4-C67 Please see response to comment LLA4-C68 Minimal air emissions would be gen

pipeline during normal operation. Epossible leaks in the valves and flanpipeline and miscellaneous venting be comprised on natural gas compoand methane). Assuming all of the emethane, from leaks and miscellaneestimated to be 0.21 tpy methane. 

LA4-C63 LA4-C67 LA4-C65 

LA4-C66 

LA4-C64 

LA4-C68 

LA4-C69 

LA4-C70 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA4 - The County of Chester Planning Commission, Ronald T. Bailey, AICP, Secretary 

 P1-178 

LA4-C69 The construction activities would ca

increases in ambient noise levels, thwhich would occur during the daytimsections 2.3.2.1 and 4.11.2 for addit

LA4-C70 Mid-Atlantic Express must comply w

safety standards established by DOalso act as DOT’s agent to inspect iwithin its boundaries; however, the responsible for enforcement action. the states have either 5(a) certificatagreements, while nine states act aagents. Maryland, Pennsylvania, an5(a) certifications. Also see our rescomment LA4-C64. 

LA4-C71 Comment noted. See response to c

AES indicated in its July 9, 2008 meChester County agencies that it woucounty regarding native plant suppli

LA4-C72 Mid-Atlantic Express provided upda

materials to CCPC, CCPR, and CCW2008. 

LA4-C73 

 LA4-C71 

LA4-C75 

LA4-C72 

LA4-C74 

LA4-C78 LA4-C76 

 LA4-C79 

 LA4-C77 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA4 - The County of Chester Planning Commission, Ronald T. Bailey, AICP, Secretary 

 P1-179 

LA4-C73 Comment noted. Items sent from th

be acquired from AES directly. FERnotification requirements can be foupage 2-1 of FERC's Guidance ManuEnvironmental Report Preparation ahttp://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/eFERC's citizen's guide, An InterstatFacility on My Land? What Do I Neeavailable at http://www.ferc.gov/for-cguides.asp. 

LA4-C74 The noted Chester County agencies 

these reports directly from Mid-Atlanrecommendation that Mid-Atlantic Eweekly status reports requires that MExpress provide these to other agenrequest. 

LA4-C75 Mid-Atlantic Express provided upda

materials to CCPC, CCPR, and CCW2008. If the Project is certificated, tproject maps can be requested direapplicants. 

LA4-C76 Comment noted. LA4-C77 Comment noted. LA4-C78 Comment noted. LA4-C79 Comment noted. LA4-C80 Comment noted. LA4-C81 Comment noted. LA4-C82 Comment noted. 

LA4-C80 

LA4-C83 LA4-C81 

LA4-C84 

LA4-C82 

LA4-C85 

LA4-C88 LA4-C86 LA4-C89 LA4-C87 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA4 - The County of Chester Planning Commission, Ronald T. Bailey, AICP, Secretary 

 P1-180 

LA4-C83 Comment noted. LA4-C84 Comment noted. LA4-C85 Comment noted. LA4-C86 Comment noted. LA4-C87 Comment noted. 

LA4-C88 Comment noted. LA4-C89 Comment noted. 

LA4-C90 Comment noted. LA4-C91 See section 4.8.1.2 Parks and CamLA4-C92 Comment noted. LA4-C93 Please see response to comment LLA4-C94 Comment noted. LA4-C95 Comment noted. LA4-C96 Comment noted. 

LA4-C93 

LA4-C94 

LA4-C92 

LA4-C95 

LA4-C91 

LA4-C96 

LA4-C90 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA4 - The County of Chester Planning Commission, Ronald T. Bailey, AICP, Secretary 

 P1-181 

LA4-C97 Comment noted. LA4-C98 Comment noted. LA4-D1 The applicants would be required to 

entities that have utilities within the way during the design of the pipelin

LA4-D2 Please see response to comment L

agreed to consult with all water intato construction. 

LA4-D3 Karst topography is addressed in seLA4-D4 See section 4.8.1.3. LA4-D5 Impacts to groundwater resources a

discussed in section 4.3.1.1. 

LA4-C97 LA4-C98 

 LA4-D1  LA4-D5 

 LA4-D3 

 LA4-D4 

 LA4-D2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA4 - The County of Chester Planning Commission, Ronald T. Bailey, AICP, Secretary 

 P1-182 

LA4-D6 See response to comment LA4-C38 

interaction with the Transco project. 

LA4-D7 Please see response to comment LLA4-D8 Amish landowners would have acce

information provided via local newspnotice mailings, FERC notice mailinagent visits. 

LA4-D9 CCPC may acquire this information 

Atlantic Express during its consultatagency. 

LA4-D10 Vegetation monitoring is discussed 

Express’s ECP (appendix T) and in 4.5 of the FEIS. 

LA4-D6 

 LA4-D8 

LA4-D7 

 LA4-D9 LA4-D10 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA4 - The County of Chester Planning Commission, Ronald T. Bailey, AICP, Secretary 

 P1-183 

LA4-D11 Comment noted. LA4-D12 The requested work session was he

offices in West Chester, Pennsylvan2008. 

LA4-D11 

LA4-D12 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA4 - The County of Chester Planning Commission, Ronald T. Bailey, AICP, Secretary 

 P1-184 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA5 - The County of Chester, Chester County Water Resources Authority (CCWRA), Chester County, Pennsylv

Bowers, P.G., Executive Director

 P1-185 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA5 - The County of Chester, Chester County Water Resources Authority (CCWRA), Chester County, Pennsylv

Bowers, P.G., Executive Director

 P1-186 

LA5-1 Please see response to commeLA5-2 Comment noted. Please see re

comments in letter LA4. 

LA5-3 Comment noted. Please see re

comments in letter LA4. 

LA5-4 Please see response to commeLA5-5 Please see response to commeLA5-6 Please see response to commeLA5-7 Comment noted. 

LA5-1 

LA5-2 

LA5-4 

LA5-3 

LA5-5 LA5-6 LA5-7 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA5 - The County of Chester, Chester County Water Resources Authority (CCWRA), Chester County, Pennsylv

Bowers, P.G., Executive Director

 P1-187 

LA5-8 AES has committed to working 

Williams/Transco wherever theioverlap. Please see response tLA4-B2. 

LA5-9 Please see responses to comm

and LA4-C32. 

LA5-10 See section 4.3.2.5 for a revised 

analysis. 

LA5-11 Section 4.1.2.1 discusses Mid-A

Express’ intention to conduct evflooding impacts associated with wetland crossings during the dephase. The recommendations mCCWRA with regards to useful conduct these evaluations are n

LA5-12 Section 4.3.2.5 discusses additi

conducted by FERC which indicalternative crossing methods, inis technically feasible at Octorar56.31. With regards to East Braat MP 82.31 and West BrandywMP 74.19, seasonal restrictions implemented to minimize stream section 4.3.2.5 for additional disregarding Brandywine Creek cro

 LA5-8 

 LA5-9 

 LA5-10 

LA5-11 

 LA5-12 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA5 - The County of Chester, Chester County Water Resources Authority (CCWRA), Chester County, Pennsylv

Bowers, P.G., Executive Director

 P1-188 

LA5-13 Spoil storage would be in comp

Atlantic Express’s ECP (appendminimize impacts from construc

LA5-14 Mid-Atlantic Express’s ECP incl

(see appendix T, figures 21 and stabilization. The COE would aadequate bank restoration throuprocess. 

LA5-15 Comment noted. LA5-16 Comment noted. See revised sLA5-17 See revised section 4.3.2.3. LA5-18 See revised section 4.3.2.3. LA5-19 Please see response to comme

LA5-13 

 LA5-14 

LA5-15 

 LA5-16 

 LA5-17 

 LA5-18 

LA5-19 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA5 - The County of Chester, Chester County Water Resources Authority (CCWRA), Chester County, Pennsylv

Bowers, P.G., Executive Director

 P1-189 

LA5-20 Please see response to commeLA5-21 Please see response to comme

Also, see section 4.3.1 for a dismonitoring. 

LA5-22 All septic systems would be req

identified prior to construction aprotected, as discussed in sectithe EIS. 

LA5-23 Please see response to commeLA5-24 Comment noted. Please see re

comment LA4-C35. 

LA5-25 Any plan would be approved pri

construction. 

LA5-26 Please see response to comme

LA5-27 This is consistent with Mid-Atlan

ECP (see appendix T). 

 LA5-27 

LA5-20 

 LA5-21 

LA5-22 

 LA5-23 

 LA5-24 

LA5-25 

 LA5-26 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA5 - The County of Chester, Chester County Water Resources Authority (CCWRA), Chester County, Pennsylv

Bowers, P.G., Executive Director

 P1-190 

LA5-28 BMPs to minimize construction 

water quality are included in the ECP (see appendix T). 

LA5-29 Water supply withdrawals are d

section 4.3.2.3. Mid-Atlantic Exindicated that it would consult wsuppliers prior to constructing nsupplies. 

LA5-30 The hydrostatic test plan prepar

indicated that they would coordiSusquehanna River Basin Comhydrostatic test water would be Chester County. See section 4Hydrostatic Testing. 

LA5-31 Hydrostatic test water would be 

well vegetated uplands near the and not directly into the waterbotable 4.3.2-4. 

LA5-28 

 LA5-29 

 LA5-31 

 LA5-30 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA5 - The County of Chester, Chester County Water Resources Authority (CCWRA), Chester County, Pennsylv

Bowers, P.G., Executive Director

 P1-191 

LA5-32 Easement negotiations are betw

company and the landowner or the land management agency. 

LA5-33 See section 4.8.1.3. LA5-34 Comment noted. LA5-35 Agency comments would be inc

development of plans prior to co

LA5-32 

 LA5-33  LA5-35 

 L

A5-34 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA6 - Upper Uwchlan Township, Board of Supervisors, John J. Roughan, Jr., Township Manager 

 P1-192 

LA6-1 Thank you for your comment an

involvement in reviewing the Pr

LA6-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA7 - East Fallowfield Township, East Fallowfield Historical Commission, Paula Latta Coyne, Chairman 

 P1-193 

LA7-1 See section 4.10 for discussion 

resource impacts, and ongoing avoid and minimize possible imJohn Hanna Farm, SchoolhouseBridge, and other historic prope

LA7-2 Comment noted. Please see res

comment LA7-1. 

 LA7-1 

 LA7-2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA8 – Chester Water Authority, Brian P. MacEwen, P.E., Director of Engineering 

 P1-194 

LA8-1 Site-specific plans have been p

contained on the docket under a20080616-4003 and Attachmenaccession no. 20080616-4017. 

 LA8-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA9 - Upper Uwchlan Township, John J. Roughan, Jr., Township Manager 

 P1-195 

LA9-1 Please see response to commeLA9-2 Comment noted. Section 3.3.3 

revised to reflect this. LA9-2 

LA9-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA10 - Chester County Conservation District, Daniel Greig 

 P1-196 

LA10-1 Impacts to farmland would be te

mitigated as discussed in sectio4.8.1.3. In section 4.8.1.3 we arecommending that Mid-Atlantic develop an Agricultural Impact Mfor agricultural lands. 

 LA10-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA11 – Anne Arundel County Council for the Environment Inc., Marge Huggins, President and Mary Rosso, Sec

 P1-197 

LA11-1 Comment noted. Environmenta

analyzed and discussed in sect

LA11-2 The federal and state agency da

identified 22 hazardous, potentiand solid waste sites within 0.25 LNG terminal site and 0.25 mile proposed pipeline route. Sectiocontains discussions on the hazsites identified with 0.25 mile of Section 4.2.1 contains a discusscontamination at the LNG termiSection 4.2.3.8 contains additioon hazardous waste sites identiproposed pipeline route. For a ozone attainment status see seSections 4.13.2 and 4.13.11 condiscussions on cumulative impaand air, respectively. 

 LA11-2 

 LA11-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA11 – Anne Arundel County Council for the Environment Inc., Marge Huggins, President and Mary Rosso, Sec

 P1-198 

LA11-3 Section 4.9.7 contains an updat

environmental justice analysis fThe FERC as the lead federal aprepared this FEIS in compliancrequirements of NEPA, the CEQ for implementing NEPA, and the regulations implementing NEPA

 LA11-3 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA12 - Harford County Public Schools, Joseph P Licata, Chief of Administration 

 P1-199 

LA12-1 Thank you for your comment an

in reviewing the Project. 

LA12-2 Pipeline safety is discussed in s

 LA12-1  LA12-2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA13 – Little Britain Township, Board of Supervisors, Margaret D. DeCarolis, Secretary/Treasurer 

 P1-200 

LA13-1 Prime farmland soils, hydric soi

potential, erosion, stony rocky sshallow-to-bedrock soils, and repotential are discussed in sectio4.8.1.3 contains a discussion on impacts and mitigation measurerecommending that Mid-Atlantic prepare an Agricultural Impact Mfor agricultural lands. 

LA13-2 Pipeline operation safety is disc

section 4.12.9. Section 4.8.1.1 cdiscussion on impacts associateconstruction close to residences measures that would be employ

LA13-3 See section 4.10 for discussion 

resource impacts, and ongoing avoid and minimize possible improperties. 

LA13-4 Please see response to commeLA13-5 Section 4.3.2.5 contains a discu

pipeline construction and operaand mitigation measures assocsurface water resources includincrossings. For a discussion on see sections 4.6 and 4.7. 

LA13-1 

 throu

gh 

LA13-5 

LA13-6 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA13 – Little Britain Township, Board of Supervisors, Margaret D. DeCarolis, Secretary/Treasurer 

 P1-201 

LA13-6 We appreciate all comments rec

DEIS. All written and oral commprior to the FEIS being sent to tconsidered and evaluated in the this FEIS. We address written acomments by responding to all within the scope of this FEIS. Ainformation is available in the PPlease see response to comme

LA13-7 Comments noted. See commen

and LA4. 

LA13-8 The FERC as the lead federal a

prepared this FEIS in compliancrequirements of NEPA, the CEQ for implementing NEPA, and the regulations implementing NEPAand oral comments received ducomment period were seriously The FERC would consider the fFEIS in its determination of wheProject should be approved. A would only be granted if, after cboth environmental and non-envissues, the FERC finds that the Project is in the public interest. 

LA13-7 

LA13-8 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LA14 – Upper Uwchlan Township, John J. Roughan, Jr, Township Manager 

 P1-202 

LA14-1 Thank you for the additional info

have considered this in an analyalternatives in the area. See seour revised analysis. 

LA14-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Organizations and Companies 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC1 - Maryland Waterfowls Association, Ronnie Adams, Legislative Liason 

P1-203 Organiza

OC1-1 Thank you for the additional info

revised text in sections 4.6.1 anregard to the potential for impacresources. 

OC1-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC1 - Maryland Waterfowls Association, Ronnie Adams, Legislative Liason 

P1-204 Organiza

OC1-2 Wintering waterfowl are discuss

4.6.1, Waterway for LNG Marine Protection of Historic Waterfowl Areas under the Critical Area Acin section 4.8.2.2. 

OC1-3 These species have been adde

4.6.1 of the FEIS. 

OC1-2 OC1-3 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC1 - Maryland Waterfowls Association, Ronnie Adams, Legislative Liason 

P1-205 Organiza

OC1-4 Section 4.8.4.2 has been revise

the new information you have p

OC1-5 Please see response to comme

OC1-4 

OC1-5 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC1 - Maryland Waterfowls Association, Ronnie Adams, Legislative Liason 

P1-206 Organiza

OC1-6 Please see response to comme

IN25-1. 

OC1-7 Thank you for the additional info

have corrected this error. See sfor a discussion of impacts to whunting. 

OC1-8 Section 4.6.1 addresses potenti

waterfowl. Section 4.8.4.2 addreto waterfowl hunting. Section 4addresses potential socioeconodue to loss of hunting opportuni

OC1-9 Section 4.8.4.1 discusses poten

general recreation, specifically aimpacts on boating. 

OC1-6 

OC1-7 

OC1-8 

OC1-9 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC1 - Maryland Waterfowls Association, Ronnie Adams, Legislative Liason 

P1-207 Organiza

OC1-10 See recommendation for further 

correspondence with MDNR to to minimize impacts to waterfowareas in section 4.6.1.2. 

OC1-10 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC2 - African American Environmentalist Association, Norris McDonald, Founder and President

P1-208 Organiza

OC2-1 Section 4.9.7 identifies environm

communities and analyzes impathe LNG Terminal, waterway for traffic, and pipeline. 

OC2-2 While the proposed terminal an

power plant would be additional pollution in the local area, ambieresulting from the operation of thave been evaluated in section General Conformity, the Project emissions and would not have simpacts. In addition, the Projecrequired to obtain state construcoperating permits, under which, the ambient impacts analysis wwith state and federal ambient astandards. 

OC2-3 The Project would be constructe

operated in compliance with all federal, state and local water re

OC2-4 Construction or operation of the 

facilities would not necessitate tany residents. Section 4.9.7 adEnvironmental Justice issues. 

OC2-5 Comment noted. Section 4.9.7 a

Environmental Justice issues. 

OC2-6 We believe insurance rates wou

affected. 

OC2-7 Negotiating for additional amen

developed between the commuapplicant. 

OC2-8 Please see response to comme

OC2-1 

 OC2-2  through  OC2-8 

OC2-9 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC2 - African American Environmentalist Association, Norris McDonald, Founder and President

P1-209 Organiza

OC2-9 Please see response to commeOC2-10 Comment noted. OC2-11 Cumulative impacts are discuss

4.13 of the FEIS. 

OC2-12 Please see response to commeOC2-13 Please see response to commeOC2-14 Please see response to commeOC2-15 Please see response to commeOC2-16 Please see response to commeOC2-17 Please see response to comme

OC2-10 

OC2-11

OC2-12 

OC2-13 

OC2-14 

OC2-15 

OC2-16 

OC2-17 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC3 - African American Environmentalist Association, Norris McDonald, President 

P1-210 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC3 - African American Environmentalist Association, Norris McDonald, President 

P1-211 Organiza

OC3-1 Please see response to comme

through OC2-8. 

OC3-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC3 - African American Environmentalist Association, Norris McDonald, President 

P1-212 Organiza

OC3-2 The ambient impact analys

4.11.1.4 adds pollutant spebackground concentrations (other existing pollution soupredicted impacts of the SProject, accounting for pollutiosources in the area. In ad4.13.11 contains a cumulative of the Sparrows Point Project aEthanol Plant that would noaccounted for in current monitoconcentrations. The results oalso show that the Project woustate and federal ambient air quMDE would also require a simanalysis as part of the requirements for the Project. 

OC3-3 See revised section 4.9.7 for an 

discussion on environmental jusCumulative Impacts are discuss4.13 of the FEIS. 

OC3-2 

OC3-3 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC3 - African American Environmentalist Association, Norris McDonald, President 

P1-213 Organiza

OC3-4 Please see response to comme

through OC2-18. 

OC3-4 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC4 - Chesapeake Bay Yacht Clubs Association, Dr. Kay Brawley, CBYCA Director, MD State Legislation and 

Commodore

P1-214 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC4 - Chesapeake Bay Yacht Clubs Association, Dr. Kay Brawley, CBYCA Director, MD State Legislation and 

Commodore

P1-215 Organiza

OC4-1 Please see response to commeOC4-2 The environmental analysis con

the FEIS has been performed in accordance of NEPA and NGA 

OC4-3 A detailed discussion with regar

locations for placement of the Lcan be found in section 3.2 of th

OC4-4 Comment noted. 

OC4-1 

OC4-2 

OC4-3 

OC4-4 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC4 - Chesapeake Bay Yacht Clubs Association, Dr. Kay Brawley, CBYCA Director, MD State Legislation and 

Commodore

P1-216 Organiza

OC4-5 Please see response to comme

shore alternatives have been spaddressed in section 3.2.4. 

OC4-6 The proposed design would com

federal siting standards under 4including requirements for calcuheat and flammable vapor dispe

OC4-7 Please see response to comme

SE1-14. 

OC4-5 

OC4-6 

OC4-7

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC4 - Chesapeake Bay Yacht Clubs Association, Dr. Kay Brawley, CBYCA Director, MD State Legislation and 

Commodore

P1-217 Organiza

OC4-8 Major permits, including those n

necessary for the Project are lis1.3-1 of the FEIS. 

OC4-9 Operation of the Sparrows Poin

would require air quality permits Maryland Department of the En(MDE). Air quality requirements any emissions from the LNG traand the Project would be requirdemonstrate compliance with thMaryland and federal air quality MDE further protects the public sources to comply with their toxregulations. Table 1.3-1 containof major permits, approvals and required for the Project. Additio4.11.1.4 evaluated all sources oincluding hazardous air pollutan

OC4-10 The opportunity for qualified par

request/obtain cooperating statuto this FEIS has been provided with NEPA. 

OC4-11 Potential socioeconomic impact

discussed in detail in section 4.9

OC4-12 Please see response to comme

OC4-8 

OC4-9 

OC4-11 

OC4-12 

OC4-10 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC5 - LNG Opposition Team, Russell S. Donnelly, Environmental Coordinator

P1-218 Organiza

Comment noted. We have revised our coimpacts that would be considered signific“Executive Summary” and section 5.0. Please see response to comment OC5-1Please see response to comment OC5-1Please see response to comment OC5-1

 .

OC5-1

OC5-2

OC5-3

OC5-4 OC5-4

OC5-3

OC5-2

OC5-1

 .

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC5 - LNG Opposition Team, Russell S. Donnelly, Environmental Coordinator

P1-219 Organiza

 .

OC5-7

OC5-8

OC5-9

OC5-6

OC5-5

OC5-10

OC5-11

OC5-12

OC5-8

OC5-7

OC5-6

OC5-5

OC5-9

Section 4.8.4.1 and 4.9.4.2 contain discucommercial boating and fishing. Exclusion zone calculations for the on-shFERC staff in accordance with the proce

As stated in section 4.12.5.3, the Coast Gdeveloped by Sandia National Laboratorthe hazard zones for accessing potential Project. The site-specific exclusion zone calculat4.12.4 are centered on the proposed spilcriteria regarding site property lines as spSection 4.12.5.3 discusses the hazards aLNG vessel which includes defining the zwith a spill from an LNG carrier, the distathermal flux levels of these zones, and wincluded in each zone. Comment noted. Please see response to comment OC5-8Comment noted. NEPA requires that envassessed for projects considered major fthe Project would comply with the Clean receives favorable permits associated wistorm water discharge, and NPDES for dfacility. The Project is not affected by anSubstance Control Act. The EIS discusses the potential power pfacility, which means FERC is stating thajurisdiction. But because of the potential plant in addition to the LNG terminal, we developing the General Conformity Deteair and emission impacts. The Maryland likely the authority in deciding whether or plant. 

OC5-10

OC5-11

OC5-12

 .

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC5 - LNG Opposition Team, Russell S. Donnelly, Environmental Coordinator

P1-220 Organiza

OC5-18

OC5-17

OC5-16

OC5-13

OC5-14

OC5-15

Please see response to comment OC5-1The Project has received a CZM consisteaction of the Secretary of Commerce ruliThe Commission carefully weighs the enproposal in front of them. The Commissiproposals, and recommends mitigation mor further reduce the impacts to lessen thCommission approves the proposal, AES authorization, with conditions imposed, oresponsible for complying with the terms while FERC staff would be responsible focompliance with conditions during constrPlease see response to comments OC5-Please see response to comments OC5-

OC5-18 Offshore LNG terminal alternatives are d

OC5-17

OC5-16

OC5-15

OC5-14

OC5-13

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC5 - LNG Opposition Team, Russell S. Donnelly, Environmental Coordinator

P1-221 Organiza

 .

AES would be required to install appropremergency shutdown systems should the power plant be constructed within the site Comment noted. Please see response tThe proposed pipeline does terminate in However, if the Project is approved and cinterconnections with other existing natugas to new customers in the Mid-Atlantic Virginia, New Jersey and Delaware. All sediment sampling was conducted in MDNR regulations/guidance using a MarAnalytical results were compared to reguSQuiRTs) and have been reviewed by U

OC5-19

OC5-20

OC5-21

OC5-22 OC5-22

OC5-21

OC5-20

OC5-19

 .

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC5 - LNG Opposition Team, Russell S. Donnelly, Environmental Coordinator

P1-222 Organiza

As stated in section 4.3.2.5, stormwater dconstruction site are covered under MaryConstruction Activities (COMAR 26.08.04dredged sediments would be pumped to and passed through a settling tank and fwould be collected and undergo chemicadetermine if any chemical residual in the values set forth in the USEPA/MDE dischexceeds Federal, State, and/or local stanonsite/offsite treatment and disposal will water would be treated to meet applicablstandards prior to discharge. Offsite dispPOTW, where it would be treated prior to that would be able to accept and treat the FERC is the lead agency pursuant to NEother federal cooperating agencies who afederal authorizations for the AES proposthroughout this NEPA process, and woulapproved for construction and operation. Comment noted. As discussed in the Consolidated Dredge contaminated sediments would be solidifleaching of materials. This procedure is and state agencies for remediation of hasolidification and stabilization removes thinhalation, ingestion, dermal contact) throremoves toxicity by negating bioavailabilchemical for systemic circulation within thexposure or toxicity to the organism, therAppendix B of the CDP provides potentiaPlease see response to comment OC5-2Please see response to comment OC5-1

OC5-23

OC5-24

OC5-25

OC5-26

OC5-27

OC5-28

OC5-29

OC5-28

OC5-27

OC5-26

OC5-25

OC5-24

OC5-23

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC5 - LNG Opposition Team, Russell S. Donnelly, Environmental Coordinator

P1-223 Organiza

If approved, the applicants are liable for apermitting agencies/agencies with federaresponsibilities, if an action is found to be and conditions of permit approvals. Section 2.3.2.1 has been updated to inclvegetation disposal. Mid-Atlantic Expresfederal, state and local regulations. The final determination as to whether Huwaterbody or wetland would be made by state agency. The Project has correctly potentially-regulated areas which are to bappropriate agency(ies) as indicated in sThe appropriate agencies are cooperatinEIS to ensure compliance with provisions Comment noted. We agree that they are resources that deserve discussions on th4.2 and 4.4. The MDE, PDEP, EPA and COE would owetlands and waterbodies regulated by tresponse to comment OC5-32. The determination as to the extent and mregulated areas will be made by the apprbased on their review of the final ARMP AES as indicated in section 4.4.4. The use of timber matting (see section 2vehicular equipment is a commonly-accevarious state regulatory agencies in the eannual ryegrass (see section 2.3.2.2) as wetlands mitigation is a commonly-used restoration. 

OC5-30

OC5-31

OC5-32

OC5-33

OC5-34

OC5-35

OC5-36 OC5-36

OC5-35

OC5-34

OC5-33

OC5-32

OC5-31

OC5-30

OC5-29

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC5 - LNG Opposition Team, Russell S. Donnelly, Environmental Coordinator

P1-224 Organiza

Please see response to comment OC5-1See section 2.5 for a description of FERCSection 2.1.2.1 has been revised to reflerequired within the WSR. As stated in the WSR (see appendix J), usecurity zone would be implemented arothe Chesapeake Bay (see section 4.12.5would be implemented around an LNG vterminal, as well as around the LNG termnot present (see section 4.12.5.5). Mid-Atlantic Express has requested blansystem expansions in CP07-64 and CP0F. If authorized, the company could do mcertain cost limit, and would need to comstandard conditions in section 157.206(bPlease see response to comment OC5-1Dominion Cove Point's LNG expansion is by its customers. Also please see respoPlease see response to comment OC5-4Please see response to comment OC5-4Comment noted. However, currently hydenergy in the US. See discussion of renIn the DEIS, regarding the wetland in quewetland was incorrectly listed in the table Variation 2A, when it occurs along the orthe variation. See section 3.3.3 Route V

and table. 

OC5-37

OC5-38

OC5-39

OC5-40

OC5-41

OC5-42

OC5-43

OC5-44

OC5-45

OC5-46

OC5-47

OC5-47

OC5-46

OC5-45

OC5-44

OC5-43

OC5-42

OC5-41

OC5-40

OC5-39

OC5-38

OC5-37

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC5 - LNG Opposition Team, Russell S. Donnelly, Environmental Coordinator

P1-225 Organiza

The apparent “zig-zag” route adapted by along developed utility corridors, but to min order to reduce impacts to one environSometimes the feature avoided is a residarea, or a park; other times it is a wetland avoidance was either initiated or encourapattern is common for placement of any such as Maryland or Pennsylvania. We are not familiar with the term “Class 5 commenter is suggesting that there is an the site area that generated a Magnitude not correct. The largest recorded earthqMaryland was a Magnitude 3.7 event in 1MD, approximately 22 miles to the NNW to the U.S.G.S. and the Maryland Geologactive faults under or anywhere near the Deaggregation of the probabilistic seismiS. indicates that local moderate magnitudcontribute most of the earthquake hazard earthquakes are not associated with any source zone but instead are based on the moderate earthquake can occur anywhethe design of the LNG facility would be bearthquake of approximately M 5.0-5.5 osite. Further geotechnical investigations and aestablish the final design criteria for the psettlements, and other seismic design loaBuried remnants of earlier structures on tlikely complicate the site preparation procengineering. The FERC's final design rethat adequate final foundation design crittest pilings achieve the required capacitiefoundation construction. OC5-59

OC5-50

OC5-48

OC5-49

OC5-52

OC5-51

OC5-53

OC5-58

OC5-57

OC5-54

OC5-55

OC5-56

OC5-48

OC5-49

OC5-50

OC5-51

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC5 - LNG Opposition Team, Russell S. Donnelly, Environmental Coordinator

P1-226 Organiza

Construction within the 100-year floodplaappropriate municipal, county, state, and and regulations for building in floodplains4.12.2, certain critical equipment at the Lto at least 10 feet NAVD88. The Federal Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate M(Zone “B”) flood limits do not encroach o(FEMA, 1996). If the 500-year flood limitthen the 100-year limits will not affect the Comment noted. Blasting would be conducted in accordanrequirements, and is not unusual in consas pipelines. Prior to initiating blasting aspecific Project Blasting Plan with the Sewritten approval of the Director of OEP. Comment noted. AES and Mid-Atlantic Eresponsible for repairing or replacing westructures damaged by construction. FERC staff's conclusions and recommenof the EIS. The measures are intended timpacts overall of constructing the Projecto comment OC5-1. Prior to construction, AES would file an aContaminated Soils Management Plan” wdeveloped in consultation with the approEPA, COE, and MDE. With the agencies would ensure AES' disposal of dredge mfederal and state laws regarding disposaapplicable agencies would monitor during with the plan and permitting requirementPlease see response to comment OC5-5Environmental inspectors have stop-activfossils or archaeological resources are fo

OC5-60

OC5-61

OC5-62

OC5-63

OC5-64

OC5-65

OC5-66

OC5-67

OC5-59

OC5-57

OC5-56

OC5-55

OC5-54

OC5-53

OC5-52

OC5-58

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC5 - LNG Opposition Team, Russell S. Donnelly, Environmental Coordinator

P1-227 Organiza

Spill effects on biological resources are dand 4.7. As discussed in section 4.3.2.5, and in thmitigation measures would be used to enwould be minimized. In softer, surface sbucket would be used concurrent with respeeds for the crane, and scows and conconstructing and completely sealed and dredge material. Additionally, a water qube instituted within a 1000-ft limit upstreaproposed dredge area. Sampling would and 30 days post-dredging activities. ReACOE within 120 days of the completion Prior to crossing the Back River, AES woand written approval by the Director of Oresults of sediment quality testing at the crossing, an assessment of the risk to creither HDD or open-cut crossing methodplan for this location that minimizes distumentioned contaminants. Please see resImpacts to groundwater are discussed in 

Resources Impacts and Mitigation. Impacts to groundwater are discussed in Resources Impacts and Mitigation. Contaminants in Baltimore Harbor are diMany chemicals may be found in environsediments); however, if the concentrationState criteria/guidelines or risk-based critare considered acceptable by the regulat

OC5-70

OC5-69

OC5-68

OC5-71

OC5-72

OC5-66

OC5-65

OC5-64

OC5-63

OC5-62

OC5-61

OC5-60

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC5 - LNG Opposition Team, Russell S. Donnelly, Environmental Coordinator

P1-228 Organiza

Chemical analyses of environmental methat particular moment. As discussed in constituents may be partitioned or transpthe sediments (or other environmental mthe water column (including groundwaterNeither chemical concentrations nor checonstant in the natural environment. Addwind erosion, volatilization, currents, tidehave moved soils/sediments. As discussed in section 4.3.2.4, physical bulk density. The results of those analyscomposed of clay particles rather than sathe most recent (2007) sediment samplehydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biall of which readily adsorbed to soils. Please see response to comment OC5-6Comment noted. The MDE would ensure regulations and required studies. Comment noted. The EPA and MDE womethodologies are consistent with others considering issuance of any permits for tComment noted. Please see response to comment OC5-6Please see response to comment OC5-6Please see response to comment OC5-6Comment noted. According to Mr. John Nichols from NOARich Takacs, a member of the NOAA reslonger oysters present at the Fort Carrolcommunication between Nikki Wiefling (A(NOAA) on September. 29, 2008.) 

OC5-73

OC5-74

OC5-75

OC5-76

OC5-77

OC5-78

OC5-79

OC5-80

OC5-81

OC5-82

OC5-73

OC5-75

OC5-74

OC5-76

OC5-77

OC5-72

OC5-71

OC5-70

OC5-69

OC5-68

 OC5-67

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC5 - LNG Opposition Team, Russell S. Donnelly, Environmental Coordinator

P1-229 Organiza

Comment noted. If FERC authorizes the responsible for securing the appropriate allowed to proceed with dredging activitiePlease see response to comment OC5-7Although AES would not own the vessels proposed terminal, the owner of the vessresponsible for compliance with maritime Safety issues, including potential for terroffshore, onshore, and pipeline componeconsidered during both the engineering rthe U.S. Coast Guard's waterway suitabresults of these reviews are provided in sThe existing regulations on LNG carrier ounder 33 CFR 165.500 do not allow entrzone. Establishment and control of safejurisdiction of the Coast Guard, which haestablish a Regulated Navigation Area wmaintaining a minimum safe speed to enWe disagree with the commenter's interpthis section. The conclusion in this sectiboating says “the effect of LNG carrier trevents would be minor and occasional bthe Project.” It does not say “the impacts permanent.” See section 4.6.1 for a discussion of imphabitats. A discussion of impacts to watsection 4.8.4.2. The statistics reported in section 4.12 rebeen compiled by DOT over many yearscompiles and reports pipeline accidents, determined solely by DOT, and is not inf

OC5-83

OC5-84

OC5-85

OC5-86

OC5-85

OC5-84

OC5-83

OC5-82OC5-81

OC5-80

OC5-79

OC5-87

OC5-78

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC5 - LNG Opposition Team, Russell S. Donnelly, Environmental Coordinator

P1-230 Organiza

Comment noted. The EIS is not a decisi

the EIS is to disclose the impacts to the Commissioners in considering the impacoperating the Project. Also see responsThe commenters attached additional comfiled in the record previously and were aTherefore, we will not readdress them he

OC5-87

OC5-86

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC6 - M&MDP, Steven and Joanne McNaughton & Robert and Amy McHugh 

P1-231 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC6 - M&MDP, Steven and Joanne McNaughton & Robert and Amy McHugh 

P1-232 Organiza

OC6-1 These concerns were taken into 

in our review of route variation 1revised section 3.3.3 of the FEIS

OC6-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC6 - M&MDP, Steven and Joanne McNaughton & Robert and Amy McHugh 

P1-233 Organiza

OC6-2 OC6-2 Thank you for this additional inf

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC7 - Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Alison Prost and Beth L. McGee, Ph.D., Senior Water Quality Scientist 

P1-234 Organiza

OC7-1 The impacts to surface water qu

dredging are discussed in sectioThese impacts are largely templocalized to the near vicinity of tactivity. The re-suspension of cosediments would be minimized of prescribed dredging methods engineering controls to minimize movement of sediment out of tharea. Proposed dredging activitstill need to be reviewed and apCOE, MDE, EPA and FERC, wiMDNR, FWS and NMFS. This rinclude an evaluation for the pochemical constituents to pose aand human health risk. 

OC7-2 See response to comment OC7OC7-3 The impacts to surface water qu

dredging are discussed in sectioTurbidity would be minimized by BMP’s such as complying with srestrictions set by the COE, and use of environmental dredge bupotential impacts to aquatic biotdiscussed in sections 4.6.2.2 anand solution chemistry of variouconstituents are discussed in seProposed dredging activities woneed to be reviewed and approvunder the provisions of the Clea

OC7-4 The re-suspension of sediments 

the tugs is already occurring in tthe terminal area from existing ssuspension of sediment for 7 to considered to be a long-term exaquatic organisms. The remaindcomment is noted. 

OC7-1 OC7-2 

OC7-3 

OC7-4 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC7 - Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Alison Prost and Beth L. McGee, Ph.D., Senior Water Quality Scientist 

P1-235 Organiza

OC7-5 Measures proposed to minimize 

surface water quality are discus4.3.2.5. 

OC7-6 Comments noted. 

OC7-5 

OC7-6 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC8 - Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Inc., Michael R. Helfrich, Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper 

P1-236 Organiza

OC8-1 Comment noted. Please see re

comment FA5-1. 

OC8-2 Impacts associated with the Pro

proposed, have been analyzed and addressed in the FEIS. 

OC8-1 

OC8-2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC8 - Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Inc., Michael R. Helfrich, Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper 

P1-237 Organiza

OC8-3 OC8-3 Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC9 – Turner Station Development Corporation, Dunbar Brooks, Chairman 

P1-238 Organiza

OC9-1 Please see response to comme

FA5-2. The FEIS, and the analyconditions contained therein havprepared without prejudice and accordance with NEPA and NGIdentifying and recommending smitigation measures, as necessminimize environmental impacts part of the FEIS. 

OC9-2 Please see response to commeOC9-3 Thank you for the additional info

errors noted in this comment hacorrected in the FEIS. 

OC9-1 OC9-2 

OC9-3 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC9 – Turner Station Development Corporation, Dunbar Brooks, Chairman 

P1-239 Organiza

OC9-4 Section 4.9.7 addresses Enviro

issues and has been revised to additional data. Section 4.13 adcumulative impacts. 

OC9-5 Comment noted. The identified 

been corrected. 

OC9-6 As discussed in section 4.12.5.3

Guard used criteria developed bdefine the outer limits of the hazassess the potential risks assocLNG vessel. The zones in the Sshould not be misconstrued as but rather are used to identify thsecurity measures needed to prand infrastructure. 

OC9-7 We believe the security measur

the Coast Guard during transit owould be sufficient to safeguard and mitigate the risks to the secLNG terminal and LNG vesselsPublic safety issues related to thterminal were considered during engineering review done by FERthe U.S. Coast Guard's waterwaassessment process. The resureviews are provided in section 5.2 of the FEIS provides over 50 recommendations to ensure thaterminal would be constructed aa manner that does not impact p

OC9-4 OC9-5 

OC9-6 

OC9-7 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC9 – Turner Station Development Corporation, Dunbar Brooks, Chairman 

P1-240 Organiza

OC9-8 As discussed in section 4.12.6, 

required to provide a Cost Sharwould identify the mechanisms project-related security/emergenmanagement costs that would bstate and local agencies. Any Cassets required to implement thmanagement measures would bthe Coast Guard. In comments AES has stated that they would appropriate arrangements to paresources needed to satisfy the recommendations for LNG ship associated with the Project. 

OC9-9 The maximum frequency of ship 

more dependent on facility throuvessel payload. As stated in the Point Letter of Intent to the Coaproposed Project would expect average of three LNG vessels pone LNG vessel every two to thImpacts associated with this freis valid for the entire range of sh(127,500- to 217,000-m3) descrapplicant, have been described 

OC9-10 As described in the WSR (see a

AES must complete a site-specfor larger ships with approval froprior to receiving LNG vessels l148,000 m3. If the COTP deteradditional resources are requireoriginal requirements in the WSbe required to comply. 

OC9-8 

OC9-9 

OC9-10 

OC9-11 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC9 – Turner Station Development Corporation, Dunbar Brooks, Chairman 

P1-241 Organiza

OC9-11 Section 4.9.5 addresses proper

Section 4.13.8 addresses cumuassociated with hazardous mate

OC9-12 In accordance with the Energy P

2005, AES would be required to Emergency Response Plan in cthe Coast Guard and state and Details of the minimum requiremplan would include are discusse4.12.6. AES would be required this plan for approval by FERC authorization to construct the pr

OC9-13 Please see response to comme

OC9-12 

OC9-13 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC10 – The Hankin Group, Richard J. Guarini, Executive Vice-President 

P1-242 Organiza

OC10-1 Pipeline alternatives are discuss

3.3. Specifically, route variationaddressed in section 3.3.3. 

OC10-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC10 – The Hankin Group, Richard J. Guarini, Executive Vice-President 

P1-243 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC11 – Brandywine Conservancy, Sherri Evans-Stanton, Director, Environmental Management Center 

P1-244 Organiza

OC11-1 Issues associated with conserva

easements are addressed in se

OC11-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC11 – Brandywine Conservancy, Sherri Evans-Stanton, Director, Environmental Management Center 

P1-245 Organiza

OC11-2 Section 4.8.1.3 addresses the p

crossing of lands under conserveasements, including lands undBrandywine Conservancy. 

OC11-3 Impacts to agricultural lands are 

section 4.8.1.3. 

OC11-4 Section 4.8.1.3 addresses the p

crossing of lands under conserveasements, including lands undBrandywine Conservancy. Impresources can be found in the fosections: soils in section 4.2, wesection 4.4, streams in section 4groundwater in section 4.3, fore4.5, and wildlife in sections 4.6 

OC11-5 Thank you for the information. OC11-6 Thank you for the information. OC11-7 Additional workspace is necess

construction in some areas. 

OC11-8 Enlarging pipeline easements d

necessarily adversely impact pragree that expanding rows in foan adverse impact. 

OC11-2 

OC11-5 OC11-6 

OC11-7 

OC11-3 

OC11-8 OC11-4 OC11-9 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC11 – Brandywine Conservancy, Sherri Evans-Stanton, Director, Environmental Management Center 

P1-246 Organiza

OC11-9 Mid-Atlantic Express’s construc

permanent rights-of-way overlap rights-of-way for approximately Maryland and 33 miles in Pennstable 2.2.2-2. 

OC11-10 Mitigation of impacts at waterbo

discussed in section 4.3.2.5. 

OC11-11 Section 4.3.2.5 Pipeline Constru

Operation contains a discussion which feasibility studies have beFor a complete listing of stream Appendix I, table I. 

OC11-12 Sedimentation impacts would b

Mitigation measures to be implewaterbody crossings are discus4.3.2.5. 

OC11-13 See revised headings in append

the footnote for 303D list colum

OC11-14 Thank you for the information. OC11-15 Comment noted. OC11-16 In section 4.4.4 we recommend

Atlantic Express revise its ExotiSpecies Control Plan, ARMP anmonitoring the success of all afffor a period of at least five years

OC11-17 We have added a recommenda

4.8.1.2 for Mid-Atlantic Express the Brandywine Conservancy foCreek and all crossings in the BCreek system. 

OC11-10 

OC11-14 

OC11-12 OC11-13 OC11-15 OC11-16 OC11-17 OC11-18 OC11-11 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC11 – Brandywine Conservancy, Sherri Evans-Stanton, Director, Environmental Management Center 

P1-247 Organiza

OC11-18 The PDEP and COE would revi

impacts and have the authority mitigation for unavoidable impabe consistent with the CEQ RegImplementing the Procedural PrNEPA, as described in section 4Regarding the 16.57 miles of webe ground-truthed, Mid-Atlantic actively working towards obtainaccess agreements to examine wetlands, which would also be sexamined by the PDEP and CO

OC11-19 As noted in section 4.7., Mid-At

may not proceed until FERC stacompleted any necessary consuincluding those regarding the boFWS. Mid-Atlantic Express is cclosely with FWS, MDNR, and Pturtle survey and mitigation effosection 4.7.1. for details. We harecommended route variations tbog turtle habitat. See section 3

OC11-20 See section 4.5 for impacts to v

forested areas, 4.6.1 for impactwildlife and 4.7 for impacts to thendangered species. The SerpeImportant Bird Area is discusse4.6.1.1 and 4.6.1.3. We have rethat Mid-Atlantic Express consuregarding mitigation measures tBird Area. 

OC11-21 Section 3.3.1 addresses pipelin

alternatives. 

OC11-22 Comment noted. 

OC11-20 OC11-21 

OC11-19 

OC11-22 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC11 – Brandywine Conservancy, Sherri Evans-Stanton, Director, Environmental Management Center 

P1-248 Organiza

OC11-23 FERC staff's recommendations 

that, should the Commission apProject, all required studies and would be completed prior to FEof approval to proceed with con

OC11-23 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC12 – The Maryland Maritime Association, Rupert Denney 

P1-249 Organiza

OC12-1 Comment noted. OC12-2 Comment noted. OC12-3 Comment noted. OC12-4 Comment noted. 

OC12-1 OC12-2 OC12-3 OC12-4 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC12 – The Maryland Maritime Association, Rupert Denney 

P1-250 Organiza

OC12-5 Comment noted. OC12-6 Comment noted. OC12-7 Comment noted. 

OC12-5 OC12-6 OC12-7 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC13 – Girl Scouts of Central Maryland, Patricia A. Dash, Senior Vice President 

P1-251 Organiza

OC13-1 Your comments were received i

manner, and have been considedevelopment of the FEIS. 

OC13-2 Comment noted. OC13-3 Comment noted. 

OC13-1 OC13-3 OC13-2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC13 – Girl Scouts of Central Maryland, Patricia A. Dash, Senior Vice President 

P1-252 Organiza

OC13-4 Section 4.8.1.2 contains a discu

impacts to the Girl Scout Campimpact to the Girl Scout Camp wfrom implementation of a HDD aSusquehanna River. A HDD prmost environmentally sound mecrossing this important and senswaterway. We have added a recto section 4.8.1.2 that Mid-Atlandevelop a site-specific plan for tcamp. In addition, AES has agrthe width of the permanent easefeet along the opposite side of tGas Transmission shared easeallowing for an additional 15 feereverted back to Girl Scout use. 

OC13-5 Comment noted. 

OC13-5 

OC13-4 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC14 – Turner Station Development Corporation, Dunbar Brooks, Chairman 

P1-253 Organiza

OC14-1 Please see response to commeOC14-2 Please see response to commeOC14-3 Please see response to comme

OC14-2 

OC14-1 

OC14-3 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC14 – Turner Station Development Corporation, Dunbar Brooks, Chairman 

P1-254 Organiza

OC14-4 Please see response to comme

OC9-7. 

OC14-5 Please see response to commeOC14-6 Please see response to commeOC14-7 Please see response to comme

OC14-4 

OC14-6 

OC14-5 OC14-7 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC14 – Turner Station Development Corporation, Dunbar Brooks, Chairman 

P1-255 Organiza

OC14-8 Please see response to commeOC14-9 Please see response to comme

and SE1-14. Potential impacts waters are addressed in detail i4.3.2. 

OC14-8 

OC14-9 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC15 – Greater Dundalk Alliance, Carolyn A. Jones, President 

P1-256 Organiza

OC15-1 The proposed design complies 

siting standards contained in 49 The exclusion zones associated Project would not extend beyonby SPS Limited Partnership LLP the terminal site). 

OC15-2 As discussed in section 1.2, this 

indeed intended to benefit the SRegion, including Maryland. PoSocioeconomic impacts are addsection 4.9. 

OC15-3 As discussed in section 4.3.2.5 

(appendix D), mitigation measuused to ensure that water qualitwould be minimized. In softer, ssediments, an environmental buused concurrent with reduced alowering speeds for the crane, acontainers would be solid hull ccompletely sealed and water tigrelease of dredge material. Addwater quality sampling program instituted within a 1000-ft limit udownstream of the proposed drSampling would be conducted pand 30 days post-dredging activwould be submitted to ACOE wof the completion of dredging ac

OC15-1 

OC15-2 

OC15-3 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC15 – Greater Dundalk Alliance, Carolyn A. Jones, President 

P1-257 Organiza

OC15-4 Section 4.5 discusses potential 

vegetation resources. Proper imof the Mid-Atlantic Express ECP tree clearing and right-of-way reappropriate. Construction debriallowed to be buried in place. Dconstruction debris (i.e., rock, tialso be subject to landowner pr

OC15-5 Comment noted. OC15-6 FERC relies on the authority tha

the Federal Clean Air Act for asproject meets air quality standaDepartment of the Environment evaluates all applicable air qualboth the six criteria pollutants andefined toxic air pollutants. See for additional information. 

OC15-7 Reliability and Safety is address

section 4.12. 

OC15-4 

OC15-5 

OC15-6 

OC15-7 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC15 – Greater Dundalk Alliance, Carolyn A. Jones, President 

P1-258 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC15 – Greater Dundalk Alliance, Carolyn A. Jones, President 

P1-259 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC16 – Kirks Mill Historic District, Little Britain Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania 

P1-260 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC16 – Kirks Mill Historic District, Little Britain Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania 

P1-261 Organiza

OC16-1 See section 4.10 for a discussio

resource impacts, and ongoing avoid and minimize possible imKirks Mill Historic District. 

OC16-2 Please see response to commeOC16-3 Comment noted. Please see res

comment OC16-1. 

OC16-1 OC16-3 OC16-2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC17 – LNG Opposition Team, Matthew Jones 

P1-262 Organiza

OC17-1 Safety issues, including potentia

attacks, related to the offshore, pipeline components of the Projconsidered during both the engidone by FERC staff and the U.SGuard's waterway suitability assprocess. The results of these reprovided in section 4.12. 

OC17-2 Please see response to comme

SE1-14. 

OC17-3 As detailed in the FEIS, there h

evidence provided or analyzed tthe assertion LNG Vessel traffic a significant negative financial imPort of Baltimore. To the contraorganizations such as the MaryAssociation, who represents the the “customers” of the Port; the ship operators, and the ship agecommented in support of the AE(see OC12 and OC23). 

OC17-4 The Coast Guard has determine

that the Chesapeake Bay would LNG marine traffic if measures wimplemented to responsibly manavigation, safety, and security conditions are described in the Wsection 4.12.5.5 and appendix J

OC17-5 As discussed in section 1.2, this 

indeed intended to benefit the SRegion, including Maryland. Thproposed for the LNG site is conlocal zoning plans. Please also to comments OC9-8 and OC17-

OC17-1 

OC17-3 

OC17-2 OC17-5 

OC17-4 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC17 – LNG Opposition Team, Matthew Jones 

P1-263 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC18 – Victoria Crossing at Bradford Glen HOA, Lisa Van Houten 

P1-264 Organiza

OC18-1 Please see response to commeOC18-2 Please see response to commeOC18-3 Please see response to commeOC18-4 Please see response to commeOC18-5 Please see response to commeOC18-6 Please see response to commeOC18-7 Please see response to commeOC18-8 Please see response to commeOC18-9 Please see response to commeOC18-10 Please see response to comme

OC18-1 

OC18-3 

OC18-2 

OC18-4 OC18-6 OC18-5 

OC18-10 

OC18-9 OC18-7 OC18-8 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC18 – Victoria Crossing at Bradford Glen HOA, Lisa Van Houten 

P1-265 Organiza

OC18-11 Please see response to commeOC18-12 Please see response to commeOC18-13 Please see response to commeOC18-14 Please see response to commeOC18-15 Please see response to commeOC18-16 Please see response to commeOC18-17 Please see response to commeOC18-18 Please see response to commeOC18-19 Please see response to comme

OC18-11 

OC18-12 

OC18-14 

OC18-16 

OC18-15 OC18-13 OC18-19 OC18-17 OC18-18 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC19 – St. Matthew UMC in Turner Station, Dr. Dred Scott, Pastor 

P1-266 Organiza

OC19-1 Comment noted. OC19-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC20 – Arctic Energies LTD, William H. Kumm, P.E., President 

P1-267 Organiza

OC20-1 LNG has been safely handled a

100 existing LNG facilities in the several decades. 

OC20-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC20 – Arctic Energies LTD, William H. Kumm, P.E., President 

P1-268 Organiza

OC20-2 Comment noted. OC20-3 Comment noted. FERC review

applications before the Commis

OC20-3 OC20-2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC21 – Sierra Club, Maryland Chapter and the Greater Baltimore Group Sierra Club, Ron Henry, Chairman 

P1-269 Organiza

OC21-1 OC21-1 Please see response to comme

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC21 – Sierra Club, Maryland Chapter and the Greater Baltimore Group Sierra Club, Ron Henry, Chairman 

P1-270 Organiza

OC21-2 Section 4.3 contains a discussio

impacts. 

OC21-3 The Commission considers it to 

effective and efficient for the deplans such as the ERP to occur Commission has determined whis consistent with the public inteProject is determined to be in thinterest, authorization to commeconstruction would not be issuerecommendations requiring preapproval have been satisfied, wappropriate agencies. 

OC21-2 

OC21-3 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC21 – Sierra Club, Maryland Chapter and the Greater Baltimore Group Sierra Club, Ron Henry, Chairman 

P1-271 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC22 – Chadsey Development Services, LLC, Rick Chadsey, P.E., President 

P1-272 Organiza

OC22-1 Your plans have been included 

discussion in section 4.8.1.1. Pimpacts to property values are asection 4.9.5. 

OC22-2 The pipeline is proposed to be p

the existing right-of-way and shdevelopment outside of the righThere is no required setback for other than remaining outside of wide permanent right-of-way. Pimpacts to existing and planned from construction and operation are addressed in section 4.8.1.1

OC22-3 The Project does not include an

stations. The maximum allowabpressure of the pipeline is 2080 

OC22-1 

OC22-3 

OC22-2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC22 – Chadsey Development Services, LLC, Rick Chadsey, P.E., President 

P1-273 Organiza

OC22-4 Please see response to comme

The distances to the houses woDOT safety regulations. 

OC22-5 See section 2.1.3.2 for a projec

There are no aboveground facilin this portion of the Project. 

OC22-6 Please see response to comme

Appendix F lists existing residenfeet of the construction right-of-w

OC22-7 Pipeline safety is discussed in sOC22-8 This is beyond the scope of this 

seller’s responsibility to comply regarding disclosure of utility rigPotential impacts to property vaaddressed in section 4.9.5. 

OC22-4 

OC22-6 

OC22-5 

OC22-8 

OC22-7 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC22 – Chadsey Development Services, LLC, Rick Chadsey, P.E., President 

P1-274 Organiza

OC22-9 Section 3.2 contains a discussio

alternatives. 

OC22-10 Lots would not be lost from dev

to the proposed Project. Potentexisting and planned developmeconstruction and operation of thaddressed in section 4.8.1.1. Pimpacts to property values are asection 4.9.5. However, you malegal counsel action you see fit. 

OC22-9 

OC22-10 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC22 – Chadsey Development Services, LLC, Rick Chadsey, P.E., President 

P1-275 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC22 – Chadsey Development Services, LLC, Rick Chadsey, P.E., President 

P1-276 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC22 – Chadsey Development Services, LLC, Rick Chadsey, P.E., President 

P1-277 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC22 – Chadsey Development Services, LLC, Rick Chadsey, P.E., President 

P1-278 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC22 – Chadsey Development Services, LLC, Rick Chadsey, P.E., President 

P1-279 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC22 – Chadsey Development Services, LLC, Rick Chadsey, P.E., President 

P1-280 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC22 – Chadsey Development Services, LLC, Rick Chadsey, P.E., President 

P1-281 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC22 – Chadsey Development Services, LLC, Rick Chadsey, P.E., President 

P1-282 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC22 – Chadsey Development Services, LLC, Rick Chadsey, P.E., President 

P1-283 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC22 – Chadsey Development Services, LLC, Rick Chadsey, P.E., President 

P1-284 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC23 – The Maryland Maritime Association, Rupert Denney 

P1-285 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC23 – The Maryland Maritime Association, Rupert Denney 

P1-286 Organiza

OC23-1 Please see response to commeOC23-2 Please see response to commeOC23-3 Please see response to commeOC23-4 Please see response to comme

OC23-1 OC23-2 

OC23-3 OC23-4 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC23 – The Maryland Maritime Association, Rupert Denney 

P1-287 Organiza

OC23-5 Comment noted. OC23-6 Comment noted. OC23-7 Comment noted. OC23-8 These types of issues would be 

during development of the Coasrequired Transit Management P

OC23-9 The Coast Guard has indicated 

security zones would apply to lovessels operating on the Chesastated in the WSR (see appendreason an LNG vessel must caramount (beyond the heel) of caoutbound transit, all security merecommended during inbound talso be undertaken during the voutbound transit. 

OC23-10 Comment noted. OC23-11 Comment noted. 

OC23-5 OC23-6 OC23-8 OC23-7 

OC23-9 

OC23-10 OC23-11 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC23 – The Maryland Maritime Association, Rupert Denney 

P1-288 Organiza

OC23-12 Comment noted. OC23-13 Comment noted. OC23-14 Comment noted. 

OC23-13 OC23-12 OC23-14 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC24 – Saint Anne Community Association, Sidney W. Beddow, II, President 

P1-289 Organiza

OC24-1 See revised section 3.3.3 for dis

route variations 6a and 6b. 

OC24-2 Potential impacts to property va

addressed in section 4.9.5. 

OC24-3 Please see response to comme

OC24-1 

OC24-2 

OC24-3 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC24 – Saint Anne Community Association, Sidney W. Beddow, II, President 

P1-290 Organiza

OC24-4 OC24-4 Please see response to comme

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC24 – Saint Anne Community Association, Sidney W. Beddow, II, President 

P1-291 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC25 – Maryland Waterfowlers Association, Ronnie Adams, Legislative Liaison 

P1-292 Organiza

OC25-1 Comment noted. OC25-2 Comment noted. OC25-3 Please see response to comme

OC25-1 

OC25-2 

OC25-3 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC25 – Maryland Waterfowlers Association, Ronnie Adams, Legislative Liaison 

P1-293 Organiza

OC25-4 See revised section 4.6.1 under 

for LNG Marine Traffic subsectiFigure 4.6-1 in section 4.6.1 depwaterfowl and concentration anbased on information provided b

OC25-5 The information you have provid

included in our analysis. Please to comments FA5-1 and FA5-2. and the analysis and conditions therein have been prepared withand in strict accordance with NEregulations. 

OC25-4 OC25-5 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC25 – Maryland Waterfowlers Association, Ronnie Adams, Legislative Liaison 

P1-294 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC26 – Brandywine Conservancy, Sherri Evans-Stanton, Director, Environmental Management Center 

P1-295 Organiza

OC26-GC1 Please see responses to comm

OC11. 

OC26-SR1 In section 4.8.1.3 we recommen

Atlantic Express consult with lanproperties with conservation eaorder to develop measures to mon protected resources. 

OC26-SR2 Please see response to commeOC26-SR3 FERC recognizes Brandywine C

legal interest on conservation-esection 4.8.1.3 we recommend Express identify all properties wconservation easements, identifeasement and consult with landdevelop measures to mitigate improtected resources. This would persons or entities having legal land. 

OC26-GC1 

OC26-SR3 

OC26-SR1 

OC26-SR2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC26 – Brandywine Conservancy, Sherri Evans-Stanton, Director, Environmental Management Center 

P1-296 Organiza

OC26-SR4 The width of the permanent eas

be negotiated between Mid-Atlaand the landowners. If BrandywConservancy has a legal interesconservation eased land, it is thof the landowner to include BranConservancy in the negotiation. 

OC26-SR5 In section 4.8.1.3 we recommen

Atlantic Express develop an AgImpact Mitigation Plan with comstate and county agricultural ag

OC26-SR6 Please see response to commeOC26-SR7 AES conducted additional surve

listed endangered, threatened aconcern plant species during SeOctober of 2008. The results of and all previously conducted susummarized in section 4.7. MidExpress conducted surveys duryear designated by PDCNR. 

OC26-SR8 Please see response to commeOC26-SR9 Please see response to comme

OC26-SR4 

OC26-SR5 

OC26-SR6 OC26-SR7 OC26-SR8 

OC26-SR9 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC26 – Brandywine Conservancy, Sherri Evans-Stanton, Director, Environmental Management Center 

P1-297 Organiza

OC26-GC2 All written and oral comments re

the public comment period and development of the FEIS have bconsidered and evaluated in the this FEIS. The FERC as the leaagency prepared a DEIS and thcompliance with the requirementhe CEQ regulations for implemand the FERC’s regulations impNEPA. 

OC26-GC3 All site-specific plans are availa

landowners through the means comment. Please contact Mid-AExpress directly for information your property. 

OC26-GC4 FERC has reviewed and evalua

information submitted by the apagencies and the public on the incorporated the information into Please see response to commeand OC26-GC3. 

OC26-GC5 Eminent domain may be used p

the NGA if a negotiated agreemeasement cannot be reached. AAtlantic Express sent notices to and residences within 0.5 miles proposed LNG terminal, Native Tribes and property owners alonproposed pipeline route. As new variations were identified and evlandowners and residents were route variations. Please contacfor information pertaining to you

OC26-GC2 OC26-GC3 

OC26-GC4 

OC26-GC5 OC26-GC6 

OC26-GC7 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC26 – Brandywine Conservancy, Sherri Evans-Stanton, Director, Environmental Management Center 

P1-298 Organiza

OC26-GC6 FERC is required to review the 

LNG Terminals that are onshore waters and interstate pipelines, location and number of applicatapproved or rejected. 

OC26-GC7 The applicant’s filed application

FERC in accordance with Sectio7(c) of the NGA. See OC26-GCGC2. Please see Energy Policy This is beyond the scope of this 

OC26-GC8 Please see response to comme

OC26-GC8

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC26 – Brandywine Conservancy, Sherri Evans-Stanton, Director, Environmental Management Center 

P1-299 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC27 – Chadsey Development Services, LLC, Rick Chadsey, PE, President 

P1-300 Organiza

OC27-1 Please see comment letter OC2

does not respond to comment leindividually. All written and oral received on the DEIS prior to thsent to the printer were consideevaluated in the preparation of tare included, with responses, in 

OC27-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC27 – Chadsey Development Services, LLC, Rick Chadsey, PE, President 

P1-301 Organiza

OC27-2 Please see comment letter OC2

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC27 – Chadsey Development Services, LLC, Rick Chadsey, PE, President 

P1-302 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC27 – Chadsey Development Services, LLC, Rick Chadsey, PE, President 

P1-303 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC27 – Chadsey Development Services, LLC, Rick Chadsey, PE, President 

P1-304 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC27 – Chadsey Development Services, LLC, Rick Chadsey, PE, President 

P1-305 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC27 – Chadsey Development Services, LLC, Rick Chadsey, PE, President 

P1-306 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC27 – Chadsey Development Services, LLC, Rick Chadsey, PE, President 

P1-307 Organiza

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC28 – Bradford Glen HOA, Lisa Van Houten, Board Member 

P1-308 Organiza

OC28-1 Thank you for the additional infoOC28-2 Comment noted. See recomme

regarding HOA property in secti

OC28-3 Thank you for this additional inf

information has been incorporatanalysis in Section 4.8.1.1. 

OC28-1 OC28-2OC28-3

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC28 – Bradford Glen HOA, Lisa Van Houten, Board Member 

P1-309 Organiza

OC28-4 Mid-Atlantic Express would be r

prepare SSPs that correctly ideproperty lines and easements. 

OC28-5 See response to OC28-4. The 

request additional site detail durof the SSPs and easement neg

OC28-6 Valve locations are determined 

with DOT regulations. You may Mid-Atlantic Express your prefeadditional valves during easemenegotiations. 

OC28-7 See revised Section 3.3.3. 

OC28-4 OC28-5 

OC28-6

OC28-7

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
OC28 – Bradford Glen HOA, Lisa Van Houten, Board Member 

P1-310 Organiza

OC28-8 Thank you for the additional infoOC28-9 See revised section 3.3.3 and s

for additional mitigation measur

OC28-9 

OC28-8 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

Individuals 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN1 – Larry and Shirley Smoose 

P1-311 

IN1-1 See section 4.9.5 of the FEIS for 

property values. 

IN1-2 Impacts and mitigation measure

near water wells are described of the FEIS. Mid-Atlantic Exprewith state and local regulations aa SPCC Plan to minimize and impacts to groundwater. MeasurSPCC Plan would include pre- & monitoring of existing drinking w150 feet of the construction rigpipeline were to leak, natural gthan air, would travel up through into the atmosphere, rather than groundwater sources. 

IN1-3 We do not expect any disruption o

service due to pipeline constructioExpress would be responsible if aoccurs. 

 IN1-1 

 IN1-2 

 IN1-3 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN2 - Robert Sheperd 

P1-312 

 IN2-1 IN2-1 Please see response to comment 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN3 - Sabrina A. Burkindine 

P1-313 

IN3-1 AES would have to adhere to all a

state and local standards as well that may be attached to the FERC other agency permits and approvaapproved/issued. An environmencompleted for the Project by FERcontained in section 4 of the FEISenvironmental analysis addresses community resources and the env

IN3-2 Section 2.3.1.3 discusses project 

requirements. 

IN3-3 Thank you for your comment. IN3-4 The Coast Guard is responsible fo

of Recommendation as to the suitwaterway for LNG marine traffic. the FEIS further discusses the Coregulatory authority. 

IN3-5 Table 4.9.1-4 in the FEIS estimate

employment associated with the oLNG terminal, power plant and pippermanent employees. 

IN3-6 As stated in section 1.2 of the FEI

would provide additional natural gthe needs of Maryland and the miAs discussed in section 1.6, the pnonjurisdictional facility under FER

IN3-7 Estimated tax revenue from const

operation of the Project are summ4.9.6-1 of the FEIS. 

 IN3-1  through  IN3-7 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN4 - Adam Udell 

P1-314 

IN4-1 Section 3.1 of the FEIS evaluate

alternatives to the proposed Proalternatives analyses compared impacts and concluded that that projects, singly or in concert, coprojected energy needs of the taThese alternatives encompass renewable fuels, renewable eneenergy conservation. 

IN4-2 Section 3.3.3 of the FEIS descr

that have been considered in orminimize impacts along the pipe

IN4-3 Property values are discussed i

the FEIS. 

 IN4-1  IN4-2  IN4-3 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN5 – Eric Newman and Julie Norton 

P1-315 

IN5-1 The pipeline would not be autho

or under any occupied residencsite-specific construction plan wall properties less than 50 feet fconstruction right-of-way. See sdiscussion of route variations 12

IN5-2 Section 4.3.1.1 contains a discu

private water supply wells. We section 4.3.1.1 that prior to the sMid-Atlantic Express identify all feet of the construction work arethat a potable water well is damconstruction activities, Mid-Atlanagreed to provide a temporary sAdditionally, Mid-Atlantic Expresresponsible for the repair/replaccapacity) of any potable water sby construction activities. Septidiscussed in section 4.8.1.1 of tAtlantic Express’ Septic System contains details regarding the sttaken to avoid disturbance to semitigate for damage to septic syrestore/replace septic systems. 

IN5-3 Please see response to commeIN5-4 Comment noted. See IN5-2 anIN5-5 Comment noted. Normal pipelin

activities would not result in an services. Prior to and during coAtlantic Express would consult wproviders. Any damage to existbe repaired to pre-construction 

 IN5-1  through  IN5-6 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN5 – Eric Newman and Julie Norton 

P1-316 

IN5-6 See section 3.3.3 for final discu

12A, 12B, and 12C. Section 4.9.5 contains a discussvalues. 

IN5-7 Please see response to comme

3. 

IN5-8 Thank you for the information. 

 IN5-8 

 IN5-7 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN6 – Pamela Green 

P1-317 

IN6-1 Section 4.3.2.4 contains discuss

sampling and analyses, and fate contaminants in the marine env4.3.2.5 and the Consolidated Dr(appendix D) contain discussiondredging. Impacts and mitigatioresources are summarized in seImpacts on aquatic species resuterminal dredging are discussed 

IN6-2 Property values are discussed i

the FEIS. 

IN6-3 All written and oral comments re

public comment period were coevaluated in the preparation of tLandowner concerns have been responding to all comments withFEIS. 

IN6-4 Section 4.11.1.4 of the FEIS de

impacts and mitigation. 

IN6-5 Comment noted. 

 IN6-2

 IN6-3  IN6-5 

 IN6-4 

 IN6-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN7 – Lisa and Joseph Gallick 

P1-318 

IN7-1 Thank you for the information. S

3.3.3 for a discussion of route varea. 

IN7-2 Please see response to commeIN7-3 Comment noted. IN7-4 Comment noted. 

 IN7-3  IN7-4  IN7-1 

 IN7-2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN7 – Lisa and Joseph Gallick 

P1-319 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN7 – Lisa and Joseph Gallick 

P1-320 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN8 – Joyce Engle 

P1-321 

IN8-1 Safety issues, including potentia

attacks, related to the offshore, pipeline components of the Projconsidered during both the engidone by FERC staff and the U.Swaterway suitability assessmenresults of these reviews are pro4.12. 

IN8-2 Project construction and operat

impacts are discussed in sectio

IN8-3 Please see response to commeIN8-4 See IN6-1. IN8-5 FERC is required to review the 

LNG terminals that are onshore irrespective of location and numreceived, approved or rejected. 

IN8-6 All dredged material would be h

disposed of in accordance with federal, state and local laws and 

 IN8-1 

 IN8-2 

 IN8-3 

 IN8-4 

 IN8-5  IN8-6 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN9 – Sheri Hipsley 

P1-322 

IN9-1 Section 4.9 of the FEIS describe

project impacts to social and ecthe Project area. 

IN9-2 Please see response to commeIN9-3 Sections 4.8.4.1 and 4.9.4.2 of 

discussions on potential impacts recreational fishing, shipping an

IN9-4 Table 4.9.1-4 in the FEIS estima

employment associated with the LNG terminal, power plant and tax revenue from construction aProject are summarized in table FEIS. As noted in section 1.2 of Project would provide additionato meet the needs of Maryland aregion. 

IN9-5 Property values are discussed i

the FEIS. 

 IN9-1 

 IN9-2 

 IN9-3 

IN9-4 

IN9-5 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN10 – Judy Rose 

P1-323 

IN10-1 We are required to review the P

by the applicant. We also look proposal. 

IN10-2 FERC is required to review the 

construction and operation of LNand interstate natural gas transmirrespective of location and numreceived, approved or rejected. action before FERC is to considSection 3 authorization for an LBaltimore County, Maryland and Atlantic Express a Section 7 Ce88-mile, 30-inch diameter interspipeline. AES and Mid-Atlantic applied concurrently to the COE Permit pursuant to Section 404 Act and Section 10 of the Rivers of 1899 for dredging and structunavigable water of the United Sdischarge of dredged, excavateinto waters of the United Statesjurisdictional wetlands. Please see response to comme

IN10-3 Section 3 of the FEIS contains t

analyses completed for the Projalternative energy sources, LNG alternatives and pipeline alternaalternatives, major route alternavariations). 

IN10-4 An environmental analysis was 

Project by FERC and is containthe FEIS and includes discussiopopulated and environmentally 

IN10-1 IN10-2 

 IN10-3 

 IN10-4 

 IN10-5  IN10-6 

 IN10-7 

 IN10-8 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN10 – Judy Rose 

P1-324 

IN10-5 As stated in section 4.12.5.5, th

preliminarily determined the meto responsibly manage LNG carthe waterway. Unless the requiensure safe and secure operatioand serving their intended purpoCommission nor the Coast Guaoperation of the proposed facilit

IN10-6 AES and Mid-Atlantic Express’ f

beyond the scope of this FEIS. 

IN10-7 Please see response to commeIN10-8 Section 4 details potential impa

topics of concern to the commemitigation measures for the Proj

IN10-9 The FERC would consider the f

in its determination of whether tbe approved. A final approval wgranted if, after consideration of and non-environmental issues, the proposed Project is in the puEminent domain may be used pthe NGA if a negotiated agreemeasement cannot be reached. 

IN10-10 Please see response to comme

 IN10-9  IN10-10  through  IN10-15 

 IN10-16 

 IN10-17 

 IN10-18 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN10 – Judy Rose 

P1-325 

IN10-11 AES would have to adhere to al

state, and local regulations and as any conditions that may be aFERC Certificate and other ageapprovals if approved/issued.  FERC would implement aparty Environmental CompliancReporting Program. See sectiofor additional information on envcompliance, inspection and mitiAdditionally, other federal and salso conduct oversight and inspdeem necessary. After construthe FERC would continue to coninspection and monitoring of the  The FERC is responsible request for the abandonment of gas pipelines (including the Midpipeline). Such a request would separate environmental review. 

IN10-12 The purpose of the Project wou

natural gas supplies to the Mid-Atlantic region to meet the incredemands in this region of the Uit is true that the applicants have specific customers in Maryland, pipeline would supply existing pdelivery points throughout the sAtlantic states and the Northeasadded to the U.S. pipeline systeproposed AES LNG Terminal is enhancement to all served by thcustomers in Maryland, and is a diversification and supplement tenergy supply. Socio-economic discussed in section 4.9. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN10 – Judy Rose 

P1-326 

IN10-13 As stated in section 4.12, the FE

and DOT share regulatory authodesign, construction and operatterminals. All three agencies wto ensure safety and security iss

IN10-14 Section 1.2 of the FEIS contains 

project Purpose and Need. AnaTerminal Alternatives and Mid-APipeline Alternatives are containand 3.3, respectively. 

IN10-15 Please see response to commeIN10-16 In May 2006, FERC issued a NO

which marked the start of the pestakeholders to prepare written Project for consideration and incThe NOI was sent to 2,750 interincluding federal, state and locarepresentatives; conservation oresidents within 0.5 mile of the pterminal; Native American Tribealong the proposed pipeline roulibraries and newspapers. FER500 comments on the Project wconsidered in the preparation of Written and oral comments on tsought from federal, state, and officials; public interest groups; companies; individuals and affeand parties to this proceeding. distribution list for the DEIS can appendix A of the DEIS availabhttp://elibrary.ferc.gov (Docket #

63, CP07-64 and CP07-65). Alcomments received on the DEIS 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN10 – Judy Rose 

P1-327 

IN10-16 (Cont.) 

comment period were considerethe preparation of this FEIS. Noinvolvement activities are furthesection 1.5. The draft and final EIS efforts wthe participation and assistance Guard, COE, EPA, and PDCNRlead federal agency prepared a in compliance with the requiremCEQ regulations for implementiFERC’s regulations implementin

IN10-17 Sections 4.8.4.1 and 4.9.4.2 of 

discussions on potential impacts recreational boating and fishingSection 4.3.2.1 of the FEIS coneach watershed encountered by any impairments to the watersh4.3.2.4 contains discussions on and analyses, and fate and trancontaminants in the marine env4.3.2.5 contains a discussion on and summarizes potential surfaimpacts and mitigation. AES anapplied to the COE for an Indiviproposed dredging and structurnavigable waters of the United Sdischarge of dredged, excavatematerial into the waters of the Uincluding jurisdictional wetlandswhether to issue the Individual Cbe based on an evaluation of thincluding cumulative impacts, of Project on the public interest. Aadhere to all applicable federal, standards as well as any condit

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN10 – Judy Rose 

P1-328 

IN10-17 (Cont.) 

attached to the FERC Certificatpermits and approvals if approvPotential impacts to surface wathe LNG terminal operations are section 4.3.2.6. 

IN10-18 Please see response to comme

attempt to reach all interested pnotices to local, county, and staelected officials, libraries, and nthat these groups would notify tpopulation. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN11 – Marsha A. Dalton 

P1-329 

IN11-1 Please see response to commeIN11-2 Please see response to commeIN11-3 Please see response to commeIN11-4 Section 4 details potential impa

resources and required mitigatioSection 4.9.5 contains discussioimpacts to property values near and along the pipeline right-of-w

IN11-5 Please see response to commeIN11-6 Please see response to comme

 IN11-1  through  IN11-6 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN12 – Richard J. and Victoria S. Channell 

P1-330 

IN12-1 Comment noted. IN12-2 Section 3.3.3 has been updated 

information obtained and the roconsidered and evaluated. See discussion of route variation 12B

IN12-3 Section 3.3.3 has been updated 

information obtained/provided fo12B. 

IN12-4 See section 3.3.3 Route for a di

variations considered and a comproposed route and the variatio

IN12-1 

IN12-2 

IN12-4 

IN12-3 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN12 – Richard J. and Victoria S. Channell 

P1-331 

IN12-5 Thank you for providing the atta

Section 3.3.3 has been updated information obtained. 

IN12-6 Please see response to commeIN12-7 Please see response to commeIN12-8 Comment noted. IN12-9 Comment noted. IN12-10 See section 3.3.3 for a discussi

variations. 

IN12-11 See section 3.3.3 for a discussi

variations. 

IN12-12 Comment noted. IN12-13 FERC has considered these mo

variation 12B. Section 3.3.3 hainclude these proposed modifica

IN12-14 Thank you for providing the attaIN12-15 Thank you for providing the atta

Section 3.3.3 has been updated information obtained. 

IN12-5 

IN12-6 

IN12-7 

IN12-8 

IN12-9 

 IN12-10 

 IN12-11 

 IN12-12 

 IN12-13 

 IN12-14 

 IN12-15 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN12 – Richard J. and Victoria S. Channell 

P1-332 

IN12-16 FERC has considered these mo

variation 12B. Section 3.3.3 hainclude these proposed modifica

IN12-17 FERC has considered these mo

variation 12B. Section 3.3.3 hainclude these proposed modifica

IN12-18 FERC has considered these mo

variation 12B. Section 3.3.3 hainclude these proposed modifica

IN12-19 Thank you for the information. IN12-20 Thank you for the information. IN12-21 Thank you for your comment an

 IN12-16 

 IN12-17 

 IN12-18 

 IN12-20 

 IN12-21 

 IN12-19 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN12 – Richard J. and Victoria S. Channell 

P1-333 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN12 – Richard J. and Victoria S. Channell 

P1-334 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN12 – Richard J. and Victoria S. Channell 

P1-335 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN12 – Richard J. and Victoria S. Channell 

P1-336 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN12 – Richard J. and Victoria S. Channell 

P1-337 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN12 – Richard J. and Victoria S. Channell 

P1-338 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN12 – Richard J. and Victoria S. Channell 

P1-339 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN13 - James B. Bullitt, III and Susan T. Barrett-Bullitt 

P1-340 

IN13-1 The purpose of the EIS is to doc

environmental impacts of the pr

IN13-2 Please see response to commeIN13-3 See section 3.3 and section 3.1

consideration of route variations consultation to avoid and minimimpacts to the Kirks Mill Historic 

IN13-4 Comment noted. Please see res

IN13-3. 

IN13-5 Comment noted. Please see res

IN13-3. 

IN13-6 See discussion in section 3.3 an

regarding consideration of route ongoing consultation to avoid anpossible impacts to the Kirks Mi

 IN13-1 

 IN13-2 

 IN13-4 

 IN13-3 

 IN13-6 

 IN13-5 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN13 - James B. Bullitt, III and Susan T. Barrett-Bullitt 

P1-341 

IN13-7 Comment noted. See IN13-3. IN13-8 Comment noted. IN13-9 Comment noted. IN13-10 We considered, but did not reco

variation that would reroute the Octoraro by following the existintransmission line right-of-way arHistoric District. An analysis of is contained in section 3.3.3. 

IN13-11 See section 4.8.1.3. IN13-12 Potential impacts on groundwat

are discussed in section 4.3.1.1surveys completed by Mid-AtlanUSGS National Hydrography Da2000), no springs occur within 1proposed construction right-of-wFERC staff recommended that pMid-Atlantic Express file with thlocations by milepost of all sprin150 feet of construction areas. identified that construction activMid-Atlantic Express would treawaterbody and avoid or minimizfollowing its Procedures, which measures as maintaining water erosion control devices, equipmculverts, as appropriate. In addof trench plugs would prevent walong the pipeline. 

IN13-7 

IN13-9 

IN13-10 

IN13-11 

IN13-12 

IN13-13 

IN13-14 

 IN13-15 

IN13-8 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN13 - James B. Bullitt, III and Susan T. Barrett-Bullitt 

P1-342 

IN13-13 We agree that appropriate comm

extremely important. Mid-Atlanrequired to consult with agencieregarding pipeline location and specific properties in order to neagreements. 

IN13-14 FERC requires Mid-Atlantic Exp

permission and coordinate with access. We have discussed thiAtlantic Express. If someone is without your permission or legawithin your right to contact local 

IN13-15 Wetlands and open water deline

discussed in section 4.4. Mid-Aidentified all wetlands and open pipeline route. 

IN13-16 Section 4.7 addresses threaten

other special status species. As 2, Eastern Blue-eye Grass (Sisyatlanticum) is an endangered spPennsylvania. In accordance wrequest, a survey for Eastern Bcompleted in May and June 200was not found within the Project 

IN13-17 All publicly available information 

FERC docket, available at http:/

(Docket #CP07-62, CP07-63, C65). Please contact Mid-Atlantifor information specific to your p

IN13-17 

IN13-18 

IN13-16 

IN13-19 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN13 - James B. Bullitt, III and Susan T. Barrett-Bullitt 

P1-343 

IN13-18 Please see response to commeIN13-19 We appreciate your interest in b

review of this Project. Mid-Atlanpipeline proposed route maps aappendix B. Route variation masection 3.3.3. 

IN13-20 Pipeline safety is discussed in s

Comment noted. See IN13-3. 

IN13-21 Comment noted. IN13-22 Pipeline safety is discussed in s

described in section 4.12, DOT provide pipeline safety under titChapter 601. PHMSA OPS admnational regulatory program to etransportation of natural gas anmaterials by pipeline. Mid-Atlancomply with all pipeline safety soperational requirements. Secta discussion on earthquakes aloroute. 

IN13-23 Pipeline safety is discussed in sIN13-24 Please see response to commeIN13-25 Comment noted. 

IN13-20 

IN13-23 

IN13-21 

IN13-22 IN13-25 

IN13-24 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN13 - James B. Bullitt, III and Susan T. Barrett-Bullitt 

P1-344 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN14 - Steven and Joanne McNaughton 

P1-345 

IN14-1 Comment noted. IN14-2 We have updated the discussio

12A in section 3.3.3. 

IN14-3 Pipeline safety is discussed in s

4.12.10 and 4.12.11. 

IN14-4 Section 4.8.1.1 contains a discu

associated with construction cloand mitigation measures that wSection 4.12.9 of the FEIS addrsafety standards and section 4.discussion on public safety. 

IN14-1 

IN14-2 IN14-3 

IN14-4 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN14 - Steven and Joanne McNaughton 

P1-346 

IN14-5 Comment noted. IN14-6 See revised discussion of pipeli

in section 3.3.3. 

IN14-7 Comment noted. IN14-8 Comment noted. 

 IN14-5  IN14-6 

 IN14-7

 IN14-8 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN14 - Steven and Joanne McNaughton 

P1-347 

IN14-9 Thank you for the information. IN14-10 Comment noted. IN14-11 Comment noted. IN14-12 Comment noted. IN14-13 Please see response to commeIN14-14 Please see response to commeIN14-15 Please see response to comme

 IN14-9  IN14-10 

 IN14-11 

 IN14-12 

 IN14-13 

 IN14-14 

 IN14-15 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN14 - Steven and Joanne McNaughton 

P1-348 

IN14-16 Comments noted. IN14-17 Comment noted. See section 3

 IN14-16  IN14-17 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
P1-349 Individuals

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN15 - Brian Fenimore 

P1-349 

IN15-1 Appendix U includes the site-sp

Mid-Atlantic Express provided laresidences within 25 feet of conwith site-specific plans. Please Express directly for information property. 

IN15-2 FEIS section 4.8.1 discusses ex

pipeline facilities. Pipeline consdiscussed in section 2.3.2. 

IN15-3 Please see response to commeIN15-4 Please see response to commeIN15-5 Please see response to commeIN15-6 Please see response to comme

IN15-1 

IN15-2 

IN15-3 

IN15-4 IN15-5 IN15-6 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN15 - Brian Fenimore 

P1-350 

IN15-7 Please see response to commeIN15-8 Please see response to commeIN15-9 Please see response to commeIN15-10 Specific restoration methods in 

be discussed as part of the eas

IN15-11 Please see response to commeIN15-12 Please see response to commeIN15-13 Please see response to commeIN15-14 The plans and mitigation measu

FERC are summarized in sectioCopies of many of these plans aappendices to the FEIS. 

IN15-15 Anticipated impacts to wetlands 

construction are discussed in seProper implementation of the Mwill serve to minimize impacts owell as compliance with associapermit requirements (e.g., COE issued 401 Water Quality Certifanticipated impacts to terrestriain section 4.6.1. 

 IN15-8  IN15-7 

 IN15-13 

 IN15-14  IN15-15 

 IN15-9 

 IN15-10  IN15-11  IN15-12 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN16 - Peter D. Deen 

P1-351 

IN16-1 LNG and pipeline safety and se

addressed in section 4.12 of the impacts to the environment are section 4.0. 

IN16-1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN17 – Lisa Van Houston (Van Houten) 

P1-352 

IN17-1 All comments received previous

reviewed and addressed with eq

IN17-2 Site-specific residential plans ar

Appendix U of the FEIS. Commclose of the comment period are Docket for the project. All writtecomments received prior to the the printer were considered and preparation of this FEIS. 

IN17-1 IN17-2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN17 – Lisa Van Houston (Van Houten) 

P1-353 

IN17-3.1 Site-specific residential plans ar

Appendix U of the FEIS. These to include several items, such aand scale, which were not proviof these plans. Some utilities mbe identified until final surveys asection 4.8.2. 

IN17-3.2 Please see response to commeIN17-3.3 Please see response to commeIN17-3.4 Revised plans for crossing Victo

property were filed in the Docke2008. The plans include additiodesign and construction techniqimpacts to HOA property. Prior Mid-Atlantic Express would be rconstruction alignment sheets thdetails you are requesting. Adddetails can be discussed during negotiations between the applic

IN17-3.5 Mid-Atlantic Express must adhe

regarding silt-fence placement alocal/state E&S permitting cond2.3.2 discusses specialized contechniques in residential areas. 

IN17-3.6 An EI is only required by FERC 

project’s construction and restoTherefore, annual registration sgiven the short duration of the p

IN17-3.7 See revised discussion in sectio

recommendation regarding conHOA prior to construction. 

IN17-3.3

IN17-3.8 

IN17-3.6 

IN17-3.13 

IN17-3.14 IN17-3.12 

IN17-3.2 

IN17-3.1 

IN17-3.4 

IN17-3.5 

IN17-3.7 

IN17-3.11 

IN17-3.10 

IN17-3.9 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN17 – Lisa Van Houston (Van Houten) 

P1-354 

IN17-3.8 Please see response to commeIN17-3.9 Comment noted. IN17-3.10 Comment noted. 

IN17-3.11 The HOA may include these me

easement negotiations. 

IN17-3.12 Mid-Atlantic Express’s ECP req

inspections of all disturbed areasecond growing seasons to deteof revegetation. In addition, The shall file with the Secretary quadocumenting problems, includinby the landowner, and correctivat least 2 years following constr

IN17-3.13 We disagree that the use of HD

reduce environmental impacts. streams using HDD method woextra workspaces at both the enand would require pipe laydown increase vegetation clearing. Winstallation of erosion control mestorm drain would minimize run

IN17-4 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN17 – Lisa Van Houston (Van Houten) 

P1-355 

IN17-3.14 The proposed pipeline would no

Columbia mainline. The “mainliconnecting a new pipe joint to thpipe that would already be instasee figure 2.3.2-1. The “secureinstalled on the end of the pipelprevent damage to the pipe or iIn most cases, the pipe segmenthe next day. Section 2.3.2 destechniques in residential areas. 

IN17-4 Should a certificate be issued, a

inspection and monitoring progrimplemented to ensure all condCertificate and other requiremenauthorizing federal, state and lomet. If an environmental issue landowner should first contact Mto address and resolve the issuis not satisfied, he or she may cCommission’s enforcement hotlrecommended that Mid-Atlantic environmental complaint resolutmail them to affected landownewould address construction-relaencountered for 3 years followinproject. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN17 – Lisa Van Houston (Van Houten) 

P1-356 

IN17-5 Section 4.12.9 addresses Pipeli

Standards. OPS regulations do technologies in order to achieve performance standards. 

IN17-5 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN17 – Lisa Van Houston (Van Houten) 

P1-357 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN17 – Lisa Van Houston (Van Houten) 

P1-358 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN17 – Lisa Van Houston (Van Houten) 

P1-359 

IN17-6.1 FERC has recommended Mid-A

develop a site specific plan for tCrossing HOA “common area” ithe HOA. 

IN17-6.2 There is no evidence to support 

cross-overs is an unsafe practiccross-overs are below-grade whlooping pipeline will cross (typicextant pipeline in order to accesthe easement. Cross-overs are with “aerial crossings” where the ground. 

IN17-6.3 Section 3.3.1 addresses pipelin

alternatives, including the existiSystem - which does not have stransport the volumes proposed Express. Regardless, an incremthe diameter of the pipeline wouworkspace/easement needs for type of equipment and construcidentical. 

IN17-6.4 See response IN17-6.3. IN17-6.5 All analyses and responses filed 

and reviews and comments by opublicly available at http://elibra

#CP07-62, CP07-63, CP07-64 adocket is constantly expanding becomes available. All written areceived during the formal publiand later have been considered the preparation of this FEIS. 

IN17-6.2 

IN17-6.1 IN17-6.7 

IN17-7.1 

IN17-6.4 

IN17-6.3 

IN17-6.6 

IN17-6.5 

IN17-7.2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN17 – Lisa Van Houston (Van Houten) 

P1-360 

IN17-6.6 Table F has been updated to in

and other structures within 50 feconstruction work area for the proute. 

IN17-6.7 Comment noted. IN17-7.1 The alternatives analysis contai

identifies and discusses the pipalternatives and route variations Project. 

IN17-7.2 Comment noted. Section 3.3.3 

discussion on route variation 9. 

IN17-7.3 The ownership does not affect h

protected. 

IN17-7.4 Section 4.2.3 indicates that ther

segregation of topsoil. 

IN17-7.5 Comments noted. Sections 4.9.

adequately address property varevenues. 

IN17-7.6 Comment noted. See comment 

Forest Stand Delineation, ForesPlan, and Exotic Invasive SpeciMaryland-specific regulatory req

IN17-7.7 The text is not assumptive and 

descriptive. 

IN17-7.8 Requirement only relevant if a CIN17-7.9 Comments noted. Current text 

written are appropriate. 

IN17-7.5 IN17-7.4 

IN17-7.7 

IN17-7.6 

IN17-7.9 IN17-7.8 

IN17-7.12 

IN17-7.10 

IN17-7.11 

IN17-7.3 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN17 – Lisa Van Houston (Van Houten) 

P1-361 

IN17-7.10 Text adequately descriptive. IN17-7.11 Current text is appropriate. IN17-7.12 Current text is adequately inclusIN17-7.13 Condition in section 4.8.2, along 

residential construction requiremMid-Atlantic Express are adequ

IN17-7.14 Notification was based on lando

the proposed pipeline and not th

IN17-7.15 Please see response to commeIN17-7.16 Section 4.8.1 addresses impact

Planned Residences and Develproposed pipeline route, includispecific plans for crossings of inare recommended to be develowith property owners. 

IN17-7.17 This is beyond the scope of FERIN17-7.18 Conditions as drafted are approIN17-7.19 Comment noted. IN17-7.20 Please see response to comme

is the dominant land use type a

IN17-7.21 Section 4.8.1 of the FEIS recom

Atlantic provides site specific plresidence within 50’ of the pipel

IN17-7.22 

IN17-7.21 

IN17-7.13 

IN17-7.15 

IN17-7.14 

IN17-7.17 

IN17-7.16 

IN17-7.19 

IN17-7.18 IN17-7.20 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN17 – Lisa Van Houston (Van Houten) 

P1-362 

IN17-7.22 Comment noted. Table footnote

designated by PDEP. Surface wclassifications and sensitive watdiscussed in section 4.3.2. 

IN17-7.23 Annual ryegrass was selected a

persistent cover crop. Invasive monitored for a period of 3-5 yemonitoring entity will be selecte

IN17-7.23 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN18 - William E. Murphy 

P1-363 

IN18-1 Anticipated impacts to the envir

addressed in section 4.0 of the sediment sample collection, anadiscussion of potential impacts section 4.3.2 of the FEIS. 

IN18-2 Potential project impacts to prop

described in section 4.9.5 of the 

IN18-1 

IN18-2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN18 - William E. Murphy 

P1-364 

IN18-3 Please see response to comme

IN18-3 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN19 - Nancy and Cliff Pollack 

P1-365 

IN19-1 Section 3.1 of the FEIS descri

and energy sources considerediscusses Pipeline System Altspecifically addresses the Col

IN19-2 Section 3.3 of the FEIS descri

alternatives and variations und

IN19-3 AES has committed to moving 

84.65 away from the houses aTail Circle and closer to the PeTurnpike. 

IN19-1 

IN19-2 

IN19-3 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN19 - Nancy and Cliff Pollack 

P1-366 

IN19-4 Section 4.12 of the FEIS desc

reliability and safety. Section addresses terrorism and secu

IN19-4 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN20 - Thomas Sumeson 

P1-367 

IN20-1 As discussed in section 4.12.8, 

to provide a 96-hour advance nship manifest to the Coast Guar

IN20-2 There is no federal mandate req

U.S. mariners on LNG vessels cshore or on-shore facilities. Arruse of U.S. mariners has develovoluntary agreements between Administration and the on-shore 

IN20-1 IN20-2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN21 - Elizabeth A. Anan 

P1-368 

IN21-1 Please see response to commeIN21-2 Section 4.8.4 contains discussio

fishing and waterfowl hunting. 

IN21-3 Section 4.9 of the FEIS describe

impacts to the social and econoarea; section 4.9.4 specifically dtransportation and vessel trafficand cargo ships. 

IN21-1 

IN21-2 

IN21-3 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN22 - Carolyn McArthur 

P1-369 

IN22-1 The proposed design complies 

standards contained in 49 CFR zones associated with the Projebeyond land owned by SPS LimLLP (the owner of the terminal s

IN22-2 As discussed in section 4.12.6, 

required to develop an EmergenThe plan would be developed in the Coast Guard, state, county, emergency planning groups, fire law enforcement agencies. Unlmeasures to ensure safe and sewere in place and serving their neither the Commission nor the allow operation of the proposed 

IN22-3 Alternatives to the proposed ter

described in detail in section 3.2 

IN22-1 IN22-2 IN22-3 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN22 - Carolyn McArthur 

P1-370 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN23 – Andrew Durkin 

P1-371 

IN23-1 See revised section 3.3.3 for 

route variations considered a

IN23-2 All written and oral comment

the public comment period wand evaluated in the prepara

IN23-3 Comment noted. 

IN23-1 IN23-2 IN23-3 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN23 – Andrew Durkin 

P1-372 

IN23-4 Comments noted. Section 3

Variation 12 contains discusvariations evaluated in this a11, Table 3.3.3-12, and Tabla comparison of route variat12C and the proposed route

IN23-5 Comment noted. IN23-6 Comment noted. IN23-7 We do not have information 

optic cables are housed withColumbia Gas Pipeline. Fiboften run adjacent to existing is also known that portions ocontain fiber optic cables. Tneed for conducting an alterpresented in section 3.0. 

 IN23-4 

IN23-5 

IN23-6 

IN23-7 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN23 – Andrew Durkin 

P1-373 

IN23-8 Comment noted. IN23-9 Comment noted. The purpo

conducting an alternatives apresented in section 3.0. 

IN23-10 Comment noted. The purpo

conducting an alternatives apresented in section 3.0. 

IN23-8 

IN23-9 

IN23-10 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN23 – Andrew Durkin 

P1-374 

IN23-11 Comment noted. The purpo

conducting an alternatives apresented in section 3.0. 

IN23-12 Comment noted. The purpo

conducting an alternatives apresented in section 3.0. 

IN23-13 Comment noted. The purpo

conducting an alternatives apresented in section 3.0. 

IN23-12 

IN23-13 

IN23-11 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN23 – Andrew Durkin 

P1-375 

IN23-14 Comment noted. The purpo

conducting an alternatives apresented in section 3.0. 

IN23-15 Comment noted. IN23-16 Comment noted. 

IN23-15 

IN23-16 

IN23-14 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN23 – Andrew Durkin 

P1-376 

IN23-17 Comment noted. 

IN23-18 IN23-18 Comment noted. 

IN23-17 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN23 – Andrew Durkin 

P1-377 

IN23-19 Comments noted. IN23-19 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN23 – Andrew Durkin 

P1-378 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN23 – Andrew Durkin 

P1-379 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN24 - Elizabeth A. Anan 

P1-380 

IN24-1 Please see response to commeIN24-2 Section 4.8.4. contains discussi

fishing and waterfowl hunting. 

IN24-3 Section 4.9 of the FEIS describe

impacts to the social and econoarea; section 4.9.4 specifically dtransportation and vessel trafficand cargo ships. 

IN24-1 

IN24-2 

IN24-3 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN25 - Rick and Diane MacDougall 

P1-381 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN25 - Rick and Diane MacDougall 

P1-382 

IN25-1 AES would employ an environm

digging all of the soft sediment. bucket would be equipped with overlapping seals at the jaws, apositioned at the vent openings loss of sediment during transpocolumn and into the hopper scoenvironmental bucket would alsa sensor to ensure complete buhoisting. The use of these and regard to dredging would serve temporary and localized anticipa

IN25-2 We address Turners Station in t

Justice discussion in Section 4.

IN25-3 Section 4.0 of the FEIS describe

environment. Specifically, sectianalyze impacts to vegetation arespectively. 

IN25-4 Section 4.8.4 addresses boating 

IN25-1 

IN25-2 

IN25-3 IN25-4 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN26 – Richard J. and Victoria S. Channell 

P1-383 

IN26-1 See section 3.3.3 Route Varia

updated discussion on pipelin

IN26-2 Comment noted. IN26-3 Comment noted. IN26-4 Comment noted. IN26-5 Comment noted. See section 

discussion about construction within 50’ of the construction 

IN26-6 Comment noted. 

IN26-1 

IN26-2 IN26-3 IN26-4 IN26-5 

IN26-6 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN26 – Richard J. and Victoria S. Channell 

P1-384 

IN26-7 Comment noted. IN26-8 Comment noted. IN26-9 Comment noted. IN26-10 Comment noted. 

IN26-7 

IN26-8 

IN26-9 

IN26-10 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN26 – Richard J. and Victoria S. Channell 

P1-385 

IN26-11 IN26-11 Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
IN26 – Richard J. and Victoria S. Channell 

P1-386 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008

File [Appendix_P-DEIS_Comments&Responses(8)-Indivs27-72.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: 

File not found)
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 

AES 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-467 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-468 

The Executive Summary has been updatregarding AES's public outreach efforts ameetings on the DEIS and the pipeline roevaluation visits. 

AES1-ES-1 AES1-ES-1

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-469 

FERC staff's determinations are based oComment noted. Comment noted. Section 2.7.1.6 has been updated. 

AES1- 

ES-2b

AES1-ES-2

AES1- 

ES-2c

AES1-ES-2

AES1- 

ES-2a AES1-ES-2a

AES1-ES-2b

AES1-ES-2c

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-470 

Comment noted. See revised section 2.6The FEIS has been updated to include a correspondence between the Coast GuaPlease see updated section 4.12.5.5. 

AES1-ES-4 Comment Noted. 

AES1-ES-3

AES1-ES-2d AES1-ES-2d

AES1-ES-3

AES1-ES-4

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-471 

The FEIS has been updated to consisten"Sparrows Point Project" and "Project." Section 1.2 has been updated to reflect tinterconnections with facilities of LDC's aComment noted. See revised section 2.6Sections 4.12.5.4 and 4.12.5.5 include diManagement Plan to be developed by AECoast Guard and participating agencies. 

AES1-1-1

AES1-1-4

AES1-1-3

AES1-1-2

AES1-1-1

AES1-1-2

AES1-1-3

AES1-1-4

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-472 

Comment noted. Please see response to Please see response to comment AES1-Comment noted. Section 1.4 has been updated to include public outreach efforts. 

AES1-1-5

AES1-1-4c

AES1-1-4b

AES1-1-4a AES1-1-4a

AES1-1-4b

AES1-1-4c

AES1-1-5

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-473 

Section 2.3.1.2 subsection Storage Tank updated to state, "The tanks would be supile cap." See updated section 2.7.1.3. The FEIS has been updated to reflect the AES would be required to comply with the 

AES1-2-1

AES1-2-2

AES1-2-3

AES1-2-4

AES1-2-1

AES1-2-2

AES1-2-3

AES1-2-4

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-474 

AES1-2-4a

AES1-3-2

AES1-3-1

See AES1-ES-2c, AES1-4-64 and AES1-Comment noted. Table 3.2-1 has been updated to reflect tincluded in the table at the time this FEIS 

AES1-3-1

AES1-3-2

AES1-2-4a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-475 

AES1-3-3

AES1-3-6

AES1-3-4

AES1-3-5

AES1-3-3

AES1-3-4

AES1-3-5

AES1-3-6

Comment noted. The text of the FEIS has been updated frregasification facility. Section 3.2.3 has been updated to reflect Mittal Steel property by OAO Severstal. Comment noted.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-476 

Section 3.2.5 of the FEIS has been updareference as noted. FERC appreciates AES' commitment to u(or equivalent). FERC staff have consultCOE is the authorizing agency under SecHarbors Act of 1899 for work (including dover, or under navigable waters and undeClean Water Act of 1972 for the discharg(including filling and grading activities) int(including jurisdictional wetlands). In addapplicable federal, state and local laws, rAES would have to adhere to any conditithe COE permit approved/issued. 

AES1-3-7

AES1-3-8

AES1-3-7

AES1-3-8

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-477 

AES1-3-10

AES1-3-9

AES1-3-11

AES1-3-12

In appendix B of its comments on the DEAccession No. 20080616-5079) has indic

Highway Administration (SHA) has denieexception to the SHA Utilities Policy. See Please see response to comment AES1-See updated figures 3.3.3-5, 3.3.3-8 and This typographical error in section 3.3.3 h

AES1-3-9

AES1-3-10

AES1-3-11

AES1-3-12

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-478 

Groundwater levels detected in boreholegroundwater. All sections of the FEIS that contain discu

dock have been updated to reflect its actSection 4.1.1.1 subsection Flooding and updated. The reference made to M.A.E. in section has been changed to Mid-Atlantic ExpresSection 4.1.1.2 subsection Landslides hasuggested modification. 

AES1-4-2

AES1-4-1

AES1-4-5

AES1-4-4

AES1-4-3

AES1-4-5

AES1-4-4

AES1-4-3

AES1-4-2

AES1-4-1

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-479 

See revised section 4.1.1.2 subsection KSubsidence. See the revised text in section 4.2.1. 

AES1-4-6

AES1-4-7 AES1-4-7

AES1-4-6

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-480 

Comment noted. See revised text in section 4.2.1.1. See revised text in section 4.2.1.1. Section 4.2.2 has been revised. The revioverall meaning and purpose of the stateThe percentage of the Mid-Atlantic ExpreBelts-Croom-Leonardtown soil series has See updated table 4.2.3-1. See updated table 4.2.3-1. 

AES1-4-8

AES1-4-12

AES1-4-11

AES1-4-10

AES1-4-8b

AES1-4-8a

AES1-4-9

AES1-4-8

AES1-4-8a

AES1-4-8b

AES1-4-9

AES1-4-10

AES1-4-11

AES1-4-12

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-481 

AES1-4-13

AES1-4-14

AES1-4-15

AES1-4-16

AES1-4-17

See updated table 4.2.3-1. Section 4.2.3.1 has been revised as follopermanently impact about 0.2 acre of sofarmland or farmland of statewide importSection 4.2.3 subsection Compaction Poupdated to reflect AES's commitment to tmeasures to mitigate any soil compaction from construction of the pipeline. As a resection has been revised to read, "Thus tcompaction would be minimized or mitigaComment noted. 

AES1-4-17 Comment noted. 

AES1-4-16

AES1-4-15

AES1-4-14

AES1-4-13

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-482 

AES1-4-20

AES1-4-19

AES1-4-18 Section 4.3.2.3 has been updated to inclu

Plan. Section 4.3.2.4 has been updated. 

AES1-4-20 Section 4.3.2.4 has been updated. 

AES1-4-19

AES1-4-18

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-483 

The bullet pertaining to tributyl tin in sectiChemical Analysis, June 2006 Samples - updated to identify the sample location (Hplanned dredge area. See revised figure 4.3.2.4-2. Comment noted. 

AES1-4-22

AES1-4-21

AES1-4-23

AES1-4-21

AES1-4-22

AES1-4-23

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-484 

Comment noted. Please see response to See revised section 4.3.2.5. FERC has reviewed and analyzed the infresponses to the MDNR filed with the FE4.6.2.2. Comment noted. 

AES1-4-24

AES1- 

4-25b

AES1-4-25a

AES1-4-25

AES1-4-25a

AES1-4-25b

AES1-4-25

AES1-4-24

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-485 

Comment noted. Comment noted. The approximate amount of dredge matehas been updated from 7,613 to 10,000 CThe description of the DMRF in section 4that described by the applicant. 

AES1-4-27a

AES1-4-27

AES1- 

4-26a

AES1-4-26

AES1-4-27a

AES1-4-27

AES1-4-26a

AES1-4-26

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-486 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-487 

Comment noted. Comment noted. Comment noted. 

AES1-4-28

AES1-4-28a

AES1-4-28b

AES1-4-28a

AES1-4-28b

AES1-4-28

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-488 

Comment noted. Commented noted. See revised section Comment noted. 

AES1-4-28c

AES1-4-28d

AES1-4-29

AES1-4-28c

AES1-4-28d

AES1-4-29

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-489 

Comment noted. See revised section 4.3.2.6. Section 4.3.2.5 subsection Pipeline Hydroreflect information provided AES during it

AES1-4-30

AES1-4-31

AES1-4-32 AES1-4-32

AES1-4-31

AES1-4-30

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-490 

Section 4.4.2.2 has been updated based provided by the applicant in data responsPlease see response to comment AES1-We have updated section 4.6.1.2 to refleSee revised section 4.6.3.2. 

AES1-4-33

AES1-4-34

AES1-4-35

AES1-4-36 AES1-4-36

AES1-4-35

AES1-4-34

AES1-4-33

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-491 

AES1-4-39

AES1-4-40

AES1-4-38

AES1-4-37

We have modified the table to reflect thisWe have modified the table to reflect thisTable 4.7-2 has been updated to reflect texception of Umbrella Magnolia. Based applicant, a site visit was conducted for U2007 in the area identified by PDCNR. It Umbrella Magnolia was not present due textensive disturbance. (November 14, 20No. 20081114-5112). While whales certainly could submerge asome may be unable to do so. Thereforebut have modified the language to descriexplicitly. 

AES1-4-40

AES1-4-39

AES1-4-38

AES1-4-37

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-492 

AES1-4-41

AES1-4-43

AES1-4-45

AES1-4-42

AES1-4-44

AES1-4-46

The text has been updated to correct for tWe have modified the text to correct for thSee section 4.7.2. The text has been updated to correct for tSection 4.7.2 has been updated to includComment noted. 

AES1-4-41

AES1-4-42

AES1-4-43

AES1-4-44

AES1-4-45

AES1-4-46

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-493 

The entire Expanded Waterway for LNG included in the FEIS analysis. We have modified the text to reflect this. A punctuation mark has been added to th

We have modified the text to reflect this (

AES1-4-48

AES1-4-47

AES1-4-50

AES1-4-49

AES1-4-50

AES1-4-49

AES1-4-48

AES1-4-47

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-494 

We have modified the text to reflect this (We have modified the text to reflect this (As appropriate, the text of the FEIS, inclubeen updated to reflect the status of the Eoption (i.e. It was not renewed by Barletta terminating the lease option agreement wComment noted. See response to commFERC understands that Mid-Atlantic Exprdesign stage and recognizes that Mid-Atlresidence located within 25 feet or less oway with a preliminary site-specific plan. provide individual site-specific residential residence located within 50 feet of constrprovide the owner one month to review aSee section 4.8.1.1. 

AES1-4-51

AES1-4-52

AES1-4-53

AES1- 

4-53a

AES1-4-54

AES1-4-54

AES1-4-53a

AES1-4-53

AES1-4-52

AES1-4-51

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-495 

FERC is in receipt of the Secretary of CoFindings on the AES consistency appeal. updated to reflect the Secretary of CommBecause all of the equipment that will be operation has not yet been determined, thnot agree that deeper draft and/or recreaimpacted or that there would only be limitadvised to use caution when transiting thdredging operations. See section 4.8.4. 

AES1-4-56

AES1-4-55

AES1-4-56

AES1-4-55

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-496 

FERC notes that actual vessel speeds woPilots and the Coast Guard in accordance The Coast Guard disagrees with AES's sdo not operate in the shipping channel. It that fishing vessels routinely operate in thThe provisions in 33, CFR, §165.503 whiat minimum safe navigation speeds to apLNG carrier are applicable within the COTAlthough, similar provisions are not curre

security zone regulations specified in 33, Baltimore Zone, the COTP Sector Baltimowould be to also establish a similar Regu33, CRF, §165.500. As stated in the WSCOTP would be required to enter the safeLNG carrier transiting to the proposed LN

AES1-4-57a

AES1-4-57

AES1-4-57b AES1-4-57b

AES1-4-57a

AES1-4-57

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-497 

Section 4.8.4.1 has been updated to clarrestrictions would only apply to loaded LNdisagrees with AES's impact time analysensures that other vessels are outside of advance of an LNG vessel to ensure the vessel. At the present time, the Coast Gexceptions for any vessel to be within the vessel is traveling to Cove Point. Additiovessel speeds would be determined by thin accordance with the TMP. As a resultaccurate. Section 4.8.4.1 has been updated to incluand boater notification. See response to comment AES1-4-57b. Comment noted. 

AES1- 

4-58

AES1- 

4-57d

AES1- 4-57c

AES1- 

4-59

AES1-4-57c

AES1-4-57d

AES1-4-58

AES1-4-59

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-498 

Section 4.8.4.1 has been revised to clarifimpacts to recreational boaters based on proximity to Bear Creek. 

AES1-4-61 The Coast Guard concurs with AES on th

AES1-4-60 AES1-4-60

AES1-4-61

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-499 

Comment noted. See response to commThe Coast Guard concurs with AES that to all vessels. 

AES1- 

4-61a

AES1-4-62

AES1-4-61a

AES1-4-62

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-500 

The FERC and Coast Guard do not concresponses to comments AES1-4-57b and Section 4.8.4.1 has been updated to clarirestrictions would only apply to loaded LN

AES1-4-63

AES1-4-64

AES1-4-63

AES1-4-64

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-501 

Comment noted. See responses to comments AES1-4-57b See response to comment AES1-4-57c. updated to reflect development of securitenforcement procedures as part of the TM

AES1-4-66

AES1-4-65

AES1-4-67

AES1-4-65

AES1-4-66

AES1-4-67

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-502 

Section 1.4 has been updated to include public outreach efforts. Section 4.8.4.1 has been updated to reflewould contain steps to avoid conflict with events and that the TMP would be develoWSR. 

AES1-4-68

AES1-4-69 AES1-4-69

AES1-4-68

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-503 

Section 4.8.5.1 has been modified to reflPlease see response to comment AES1-Section 4.8.5.2 has been modified to refl

AES1-4-70

AES1-4-71

AES1-4-72 AES1-4-72

AES1-4-71

AES1-4-70

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-504 

Section 4.9.1 has been revised to reflect Section 4.9.3 has been revised to reflect Section 4.9.4.1 of the FEIS includes a stadecision has not yet been made by AES and operation of the power plant. Section 4.9.4.1 has been updated to inclSparrows Point historic workforce and thPlan. 

AES1-4-75

AES1-4-74

AES1-4-73

AES1-4-76 AES1-4-76

AES1-4-75

AES1-4-74

AES1-4-73

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-505 

Section 4.9.4.2 has been modified to add

AES1-4-78 Section 4.9.4.2 has been modified to add

AES1-4-77 AES1-4-77

AES1-4-78

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-506 

Section 4.9.5 has been modified to reflecSection 4.9.5 has been modified to addre

AES1-4-79

AES1-4-80 AES1-4-80

AES1-4-79

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-507 

Section 4.9.5 has been modified to addreSection 4.9.5 has been modified to addreSection 4.9.7 has been updated to includand Mid-Atlantic Express's public outreac

AES1-4-81

AES1-4-83

AES1-4-82

AES1-4-83

AES1-4-82

AES1-4-81

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-508 

Section 4.9.7 has been updated to reflect written notification. Text in section 4.9.7 has been updated to selection. “BSC” has been defined in the table of acSection 4.10.1 has been updated to refle

AES1-4-84

AES1-4-85

AES1-4-86

AES1- 

4-86a

AES1-4-84

AES1-4-85

AES1-4-86

AES1-4-86a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-509 

We have moved the table to the correct sComment noted. Table 4.11.1-1 in section 4.11.1.1 has berecent AAQS listings. 

AES1-4-90 Section 4.11.1 has been updated to inclu

AES1-4-89

AES1-4-88

AES1-4-87

AES1-4-88

AES1-4-90

AES1-4-89

AES1-4-87

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-510 

Section 4.11.1 has been updated to reflemaintenance and attainment counties. Section 4.11.1 has been updated to refle

AES1-4-92

AES1-4-91

AES1-4-92

AES1-4-91

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-511 

Section 4.11.1 has been updated to refle

Section 4.11.1 has been updated to make table. Table 4.11.1-4 has been updated and moReference to Subpart DDDD in section 4

AES1-4-93

AES1-4-94

AES1-4-95

AES1-4-96 AES1-4-96

AES1-4-95

AES1-4-94

AES1-4-93

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-512 

Section 4.11.1.3 has been updated based Conformity determination. Section 4.11.1.4 has been updated to rea

AES1-4-97

AES1-4-98 AES1-4-98

AES1-4-97

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-513 

Section 4.11.1.4 has been updated to covehicle traffic. Ecron Ethanol is still included in the analexpiration date has been included in the Section 4.11.1.4 has been revised to reflsulfur limit of 0.05%.  Section 4.11.2.3 has been updated. 

AES1- 

4-99

AES1- 

4-100

AES1- 

4-102

AES1- 

4-101

AES1-4-102

AES1-4-101

AES1-4-100

AES1-4-99

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-514 

Section 4.12.4 has been revised to corre737 ft to coincide with table 4.12.4-2. The oval storage tanks depicted in figure to a printing error. The figure has been cThe flammable vapor dispersion zone camaximum design send-out rate of 1.595 application, with two in-tank pumps operashould decide to install additional pump(sseparate application would need to be filereview and approval. Section 4.12.5.2 has been updated. The provisions in 33, CFR, §165.503 whiat minimum safe navigation speeds to apLNG carrier are applicable within the COAlthough, similar provisions are not curresecurity zone regulations specified in 33, Baltimore Zone, the COTP Sector Baltimwould be to also establish a similar Regu33, CRF, §165.500. As stated in the WCOTP would be required to enter the safLNG carrier transiting to the proposed LN

AES1- 

4-103

AES1- 

4-104

AES1- 

4-105

AES1- 

4-106

AES1- 

4-107

AES1-4-103

AES1-4-104

AES1-4-105

AES1-4-106

AES1-4-107

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-515 

Please see updated section 4.12.5.5. See response to AES1-4-107. Section 4.12.6 has been updated to inclumake arrangements to pay for any additisatisfy the Coast Guard's recommendatiocarrier transit within the Chesapeake Bay

AES1- 

4-109

AES1- 

4-108

AES1- 

4-110

AES1-4-109

AES1-4-110

AES1-4-108

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-516 

See revised section 4.13. Please see response to comment AES1-Please see response to comment AES1-This sentence has been revised for clarifWe have modified the text to reflect this. Please see response to comment AES1-

AES1- 

4-111

AES1- 

4-112

AES1- 

4-114

AES1- 

4-113

AES1- 

4-116

AES1- 

4-115

AES1-4-116

AES1-4-115

AES1-4-114

AES1-4-113

AES1-4-112

AES1-4-111

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-517 

Comment noted. Comment noted. Comment noted. Also see response to c

AES1- 4-117

AES1- 

4-116b

AES1- 

4-116a

AES1-4-117

AES1-4-116b

AES1-4-116a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-518 

See revised section 4.13. See revised section 4.13. See revised section 4.13. See revised section 4.13. Please see updated section 4.12.5.5. 

AES1- 

4-119

AES1- 

4-120

AES1- 

4-118

AES1- 

4-121

AES1- 

4-122

AES1-4-118

AES1-4-119

AES1-4-120

AES1-4-121

AES1-4-122

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-519 

Section 4.12.4 has been updated. Section 4.12.4 has been updated. 

AES1- 

4-122a

AES1- 

4-122b

AES1-4-122a

AES1-4-122b

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-520 

We recognize that AES has correspondeagencies besides the FERC. We have utappropriate in this FEIS. We also recogniinteract with AES and send comments to permit processing reviews. Comment noted. 

AES1-5-2

AES1-5-1

AES1-5-2

AES1-5-1

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-521 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-522 

See revised section 4.3.2.5. Section 5.1.3 has been updated to includthe applicant. The FEIS has been updated based on inf

AES1-5-3

AES1- 

5-2a

AES1-5-4

AES1-5-2a

AES1-5-3

AES1-5-4

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-523 

Please see response to comment AES1-Comment noted. FERC is in receipt of the Secretary of CoFindings on the AES consistency appealupdated to reflect the Secretary of CommFindings. Comment noted. 

AES1-5-6

AES1-5-5

AES1-5-4a

AES1-5-7 AES1-5-7

AES1-5-6

AES1-5-5

AES1-5-4a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-524 

This recommendation is in accordance wPolicy Act of 2005, which states that in anterminal, the Commission shall require thdevelop an emergency response plan. Aterminals do not include any pipelines suCommission under Section 7 of the NGApipeline are subject to DOT regulations uText has been updated. 

AES1-5-8a

AES1-5-8 AES1-5-8

AES1-5-8a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-525 

If the Commission authorizes the propoaddressed in the Implementation Plan rrecommendation number 6. In the evenrequire no revision, there would be no ninformation. However, should design chFERC staff recommendations affect the information, revisions to design drawingbe filed in accordance with recommendaPlease see response to comment AES1Please see response to comment AES1

AES1-5-11

AES1-5-10

AES1-5-9

AES1-5-10

AES1-5-9

AES1-5-11

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-526 

Please see response to comment AES1-Please see response to comment AES1-Please see response to comment AES1-

AES1-5-12

AES1-5-13

AES1-5-14

AES1-5-12

AES1-5-13

AES1-5-14

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-527 

Section 5.2 has been updated to reflect tComment noted. 

AES1-5-15

AES1- 5-15a

AES1-5-15

AES1-5-15a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-528 

Comment noted. Comment noted. Comment noted. Comment noted. 

AES1- 

5-15c

AES1- 

5-15b

AES1- 

5-15d

AES1- 

5-15e

AES1-5-15c

AES1-5-15e

AES1-5-15d

AES1-5-15b

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-529 

Comment noted. Comment noted. Comment noted. Comment noted. Comment noted. Comment noted. 

AES1- 

5-15i

AES1- 

5-15h

AES1- 

5-15g

AES1- 

5-15f

AES1- 

5-15j

AES1- 

5-15k

AES1-5-15f

AES1-5-15g

AES1-5-15h

AES1-5-15i

AES1-5-15j

AES1-5-15k

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-530 

Comment noted. The FEIS has been updated to remove nComment noted. Comment noted. 

AES1- 5-15n

AES1- 

5-15m

AES1- 

5-15o

AES1- 

5-15l AES1-5-15l

AES1-5-15m

AES1-5-15n

AES1-5-15o

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-531 

Comment noted. Comment noted. Comment noted. Comment noted. Comment noted. 

AES1- 

5-15p

AES1- 

5-15q

AES1- 

5-15r

AES1- 

5-15s

AES1- 

5-15t

AES1-5-15p

AES1-5-15q

AES1-5-15r

AES1-5-15s

AES1-5-15t

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-532 

Comment noted. Comment noted. Comment noted. Comment noted. 

AES1- 

5-15u

AES1- 

5-15x

AES1- 

5-15w

AES1- 

5-15v

AES1-5-15x

AES1-5-15w

AES1-5-15v

AES1-5-15u

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-533 

Comment noted. Comment noted. Comment noted. Comment noted. 

AES1- 

5-15y

AES1- 

5-15bb

AES1- 

5-15aa

AES1- 

5-15z

AES1-5-15bb

AES1-5-15aa

AES1-5-15z

AES1-5-15y

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-534 

Comment noted. Comment noted. Comment noted. Specifying that the equipment for low preless than the design pressure of the pipiequipment will not be subjected to unsaftightness testing of the connecting piping

AES1- 

5-15cc

AES1- 

5-15dd

AES1- 

5-15ee

AES1-5-16

AES1-5-15cc

AES1-5-15dd

AES1-5-15ee

AES1-5-16

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-535 

The intent of the recommendation is to enwould be in place to prevent LNG from insystem. Past operational experience at Lexcessive liquid buildup in drain drums casystems. We believe that provisions should be provthe storage tanks to ensure that the capadrum would not be exceeded. The low point drain drum would receive LAlthough the system would have provisio

equipment on high high liquid level in the features have been provided to prevent Lvapor system piping. 

AES1-5-17

AES1-5-18

AES1-5-19

AES1-5-17

AES1-5-18

AES1-5-19

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-536 

There are no provisions to isolate each insuction header. The recommendation wibe reevaluated during the Implementation Project is approved. This recommendation will remain in the Fduring the IP review if the Project is approPlease see response to comment AES1-The recommendation is for a shutoff valvshutdown system on the suction and disc

AES1-5-23

AES1-5-22

AES1-5-21

AES1-5-20

AES1-5-23

AES1-5-22

AES1-5-21

AES1-5-20

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-537 

The intent of the recommendation is to be when the tank is isolated from the rest of recommendation will remain in the FEIS, the IP review if the Project is approved. 

AES1-5-24 AES1-5-24

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-538 

This recommendation will remain in the Fduring the IP review if the Project is apprWe believe that use of schedule 160 for nipples in LNG service greatly minimizes damage to which small bore piping may recommendation will remain in the FEISduring the IP review if the Project is apprThis recommendation has been removed 

AES1-5-25

AES1-5-26

AES1-5-27

AES1-5-26

AES1-5-27

AES1-5-25

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-539 

AES1-5-28 AES1-5-28 Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-540 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-541 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-542 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-543 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-544 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-545 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-546 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-547 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-548 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-549 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-550 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-551 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-552 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-553 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-554 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-555 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-556 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-557 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-558 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-559 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-560 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-561 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES1 - AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C., Christopher Diez, Project Manager

P1-562 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Section P2 

Public Comment Meetings on the Draft EIS 

Comment Responses 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-1

On June 9, 2008, a public meeting was held in Baltimore, Maryland at the Patapsco High School. The following t

commenters and summarizes their comments. A complete transcript of the proceedings is available at http://elibr

#CP07-62, CP07-63, CP07-64 and CP07-65). 

Table P2-1 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

Jim Smith, Baltimore County Executive 

BM1 

 BM1-1 (18) 4-11 The commenter stated that the 

Waterway Suitability Report should not be classified. 

The public versioSee appendix J. 

 BM1-2 (17) 19-23 The commenter states that the 

people do not get to review AES’s responses to issues raised by FERC in the DEIS. 

All analyses and Applicant and revother agencies ahttp://elibrary.ferc

CP07-63, CP07-docket is constaninformation becorepeatedly encouencourage ongoicontents of the pbelieve all recomprior to issuance environmental imthe requirements conditions in the before related co

 BM1-3 (17) 24 - (18) 1-3 The commenter stated that they 

believe the comment period is not long enough and the public will not get a chance to evaluate AES’s information. 

All relevant informdiscussed in the proceeding can rFERC Order and review. Please acomment BM1-2

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-2

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM1-4 (18) 4-11 The commenter stated that the 

Water Suitability Report should not be classified. 

As stated in sectGuard used the cNational Laboratof the hazard zonrisks associated for copies of matCoast Guard’s prthe suitability of tmade to the CoaWSR (see appen

 BM1-5 (18) 16-21 The commenter stated that security 

plan should not include resources from Baltimore County. 

The WSR providbased on specific must be provided marine traffic in trequired to implenot attributed to sagencies. 

 BM1-6 (18) 22-25; 

(19) 1-9 

The commenter states that security perimeter and exclusion zone is not adequate. 

The design, consrequirements for 33 CFR Parts 10and 49 CFR Part regulations do nopublications, the procedures descInformation PapeDesign For LNG consistent with thconcepts conside

 BM1-7 (19) 10 -15 The commenter notes that 

Maryland has amended its Coastal Management Program to prohibit LNG terminals in the Chesapeake Bay. 

Please see respo

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-3

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM1-8 (19) 16-21 The commenter further notes that 

the amendment is under review by NOAA. 

Please see respo

 BM1-9 (19) 22-25 - 

(20) 1-8 

The commenter states that FERC should look at offshore alternatives. 

Comment noted. discussed in sec

John Griffin, Secretary Maryland DNR 

BM2 

 BM2-1 (21) 13 The commenter is concerned about 

the safety of the Project. 

Safety issues, incattacks, related tpipeline componeconsidered durinreview done by FCoast Guard's wassessment procreviews are prov

 BM2-2 (21) 14 The commenter stated they are 

concerned for the Maryland environment and Chesapeake Bay. 

This FEIS addresimpacts and mitigrecommended. 

 BM2-3 (21) 15-16 The commenter stated a concern 

for the state economy. 

See section 4.9. 

 BM2-4 (22) 4-21 The commenter stated that the 

information requested from AES should have been included in the DEIS. 

All information avincluded in the Dupdated based oobtained upon fuSee also respons

 BM2-5 (22) 22-24 The commenter questions if the 

public will have the opportunity to comment on the information requested. 

Please see respoand BM1-3. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-4

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM2-6 (23) 2-4 The commenter requested a 

supplemental EIS be issued. 

It is impractical, acomplete all studnecessary to sucaspects of a natuissuance of a Codescribed in the of impacts have bnecessary mitigaadditional post-astudies would seaddress site-speconstruction. In authorization conplans and surveyAES/Mid-Atlantic to certain land pasurveys without tLastly, the conditenable the Commwith all statutory and verify that thmeasures are impoints in the Proj

 BM2-7 (23) 6-8 The commenter is concerned with 

the safety of the Project and the proximity to adjacent communities. 

Reliability and sa4.12. 

 BM2-8 (23) 11-13 The commenter is concerned about 

environmental justice. 

Comment noted. discussed in sec

 BM2-9 (23) 16-19 The commenter noted that there is 

no dredged material placement plan. 

The applicant’s C(CDP) is containe

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-5

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM2-10 (23) 20-22 The commenter stated that 

dredging would impact water quality of the Patapsco. 

As discussed in sin the Consolidatmeasures would quality impacts wsurface sedimenwould be used cocontrolled lowerinscows and contaconstruction and tight to avoid releAdditionally, a wawould be instituteupstream and dodredge area. Saprior to, during, aactivities. ResultCOE within 120 ddredging activitie

 BM2-11 (23-24) 24-26, 1 The commenter stated that they are 

concerned about the pipeline impact on public lands. 

The crossing of psection 4.8.1.2. 

 BM2-12 (24) 6-9 The commenter stated that the 

exclusion zone will impact boating traffic. 

The FEIS has cothe exclusion zonthe number of shweek. See sectio

 BM2-13 (24) 14-16 The commenter stated that they 

were concerned about environmental justice. 

Environmental ju4.9.7. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-6

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

Barbara Mikulski, Senator BM3  BM3-1 (25) 6-10 The commenter was concerned 

about how the mitigation measures will be enforced. 

All mitigation conFERC order wouand FERC inspeverify compliancehalt construction if mitigation viola

 BM3-2 (25) 11-16 The commenter would like a 

response to her concerns of safety and environmental impacts. 

We take all concand oral commencomment period development of tconsidered and eof this FEIS. Rescontained in appplease see FERC17, and August 6contained in the 20080707-0032, 20080813-0283. 

 BM3-3 (25) 17-20 The commenter stated concerns 

over dredged material disposal. 

The disposal of tmaterial is discusDredge Plan, locFEIS. 

 BM3-4 (26) 1-6 The commenter stated concerns 

over existing homes and utilities as well as impacts to schools and parks. 

Existing homes iutilities are discuWells are discussschools and park4.8.1.2. 

 BM3-5 (26) 9-10 The commenter noted that 

Maryland has denied coastal zone consistency. 

Please see respo

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-7

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM3-6 (26) 15-17 The commenter is concerned about 

the water quality impacts to the Chesapeake Bay. 

Water resources discussed in sec

Irene Spatafore BM4  BM4-1 (27) 9-11 The commenter stated a concern 

about the impacts of dredging. 

Section 4.3.2.5 cproject dredging. sediment samplinand transport of cenvironment. A Cincluded in appe

 BM4-2 (27) 12-13 The commenter stated concerns for 

future generations. 

Comment noted. 

 BM4-3 (27) 20-21 The commenter is concerned that 

Maryland will not receive any benefit. 

While it is true thidentified specific proposed pipelinpipelines which hthroughout the soand the Northeaswould be added from the proposesupply enhancemsystem including would be a diversour nation’s enerimpacts are discuneed is discusse

Rupert Denney President, Maryland Maritime Association 

BM5 

 BM5-1 (28) 10-14 The commenter stated that the 

docking of the LNG tankers will be quicker than the current vessels. 

Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-8

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM5-2 (28) 23-25 The commenter noted that docking 

will take 90 minutes, three times a week. 

Comment noted. 

 BM5-3 (29) 2-3 The commenter noted that superior 

tugs will benefit entire port. 

Comment noted. 

 BM5-4 (29) 23-25 The commenter noted small 

impacts to recreational boating. 

Impacts to recreain section 4.8.4.1

Donna Roberts, Resident, Baltimore, MD 

BM6 

 BM6-1 (30) 23-25 The commenter noted impacts to 

recreational activities on the Bay. 

Recreation and pdiscussed in secand hunting are d

 BM6-2 (31) 2-3 The commenter states that there 

will be impacts to wetlands. 

Wetlands are dis

 BM6-3 (31) 5-8 The commenter is concerned about 

dredging impacts, specifically chromium. 

Chromium has bsediments; howehave been outlinsection 4.3.2.5 aPlan included in 

 BM6-4 (31) 9-10 The commenter is concerned about 

water rights. 

Water resources 

 BM6-5 (31) 11-13 The commenter is concerned about 

the jobs the Project will contribute to the area. 

Employment is d

 BM6-6 (31) 16-17 The commenter is concerned about 

businesses in the area. 

Socio-economic section 4.9. 

 BM6-7 (31) 20 The commenter is concerned about 

environmental justice 

Environmental Ju4.9.7. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-9

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM6-8 (31) 22-23 The commenter is concerned about 

eminent domain. 

While FERC’s auof the Natural Gadomain authoritydetermined by a negotiated agreean easement can

 BM6-9 (32) 2-7 The commenter is concerned about 

the Project’s impact on home sales and property values. 

See section 4.9.5

 BM6-10 (32) 7-9 The commenter questions the site 

selected for the Project. 

Alternatives to thsection 3.2 of the 

 BM6-11 (32) 10-13 The commenter states an 

alternative location off shore. 

Please see respo

 BM6-12 (32) 16-18 The commenter is concerned about 

dependence on foreign energy sources. 

Comment noted. 

 BM6-13 (32) 25 - (33) 1 The commenter notes a lack of 

public consideration for the Project. 

All written and orthe formal public were considered preparation of thiconcerns have bresponding to all of this FEIS. See BM1-3 and BM3-

 BM6-14 (33) 3 The commenter proposed windmills 

as an alternative. 

Alternative energsection 3.1. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-10

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

Richard Muth, Baltimore Emergency Management Agency 

BM7 

 BM7-1 (33) 25 - (34) 1-3 The commenter is concerned over 

safety of the terminal location adjacent to densely populated areas. 

Based on the sitepresented in secdesign complies standards specifcontained in 49 Czones associated extend beyond laPartnership LLP site). 

 BM7-2 (34) 4-10 The commenter notes safety 

concerns of the LNG vessels traveling up the Chesapeake Bay. 

As stated in sectGuard has prelimmeasures necesLNG carrier operUnless the requirand secure operaserving their inteCommission nor allow operation o

 BM7-3 (34)10-11 The commenter is concerned about 

inadequate resources to control an LNG emergency event. 

As discussed in srequired to develPlan. The plan wconsultation with county, and locafire departments agencies. Unlesensure safe and place and serving neither the Commwould allow oper

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-11

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM7-4 (34) 14-25 The commenter is concerned about 

safety of the LNG facility. 

Please see respo

 BM7-5 (35)1-5 The commenter is concerned about 

safety of the LNG vessels. 

Please see respo

David Carroll, Director of Sustainability, Baltimore County 

BM8 

 BM8-1 (36) 1-4; 

(36) 4-6 

The commenter is concerned about dredging impacts. 

The disposal of tmaterial is discusDredge Plan, loc

 BM8-2 (36) 10-12 The commenter is concerned about 

transportation impacts due to transportation of dredged material. 

Please see respo

 BM8-3 (36) 13-15 The commenter states a concern 

about dredged material disposal. 

The ultimate dispdependent on the which would be dDetails are providDredge Plan loca

 BM8-4 (36) 16-18 The commenter is concerned about 

future dredging activities. 

Please see respo

 BM8-5 (36) 19-20 The commenter is concerned about 

dredged material disposal sites. 

Please see respo

 BM8-6 (36) 22-23 The commenter noted a lack of 

information of maintenance dredging in the DEIS. 

Section 4.3.2.5 hmore detailed infmaintenance dre

 BM8-7 (36) 24-25 The commenter is concerned about 

voluntary cleanup at the site. 

Comment noted. 

 BM8-8 (37) 1-2 The commenter questions whether 

the Project should move forward. 

Comment noted. 

 BM8-9 (37) 10-12 The commenter noted that site 

should not be removed from voluntary cleanup list. 

Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-12

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

Mary Harvey, Director, Baltimore County Office of Community Conservation 

BM9 

 BM9-1 (38) 19-25; 

(39) 1-4, 8-10 

The commenter noted that HUD is being asked to comment on the Project. The commenter also notes the siting of HUD-assisted projects near the LNG facility and the HUD siting requirements. 

FERC has receivDepartment of HDevelopment (HUfrom HUD, they sthe vicinity of the located at an acc(ASD). 

 BM9-2 (39) 14-16 The commenter notes response 

time for reply 

Comment noted. 

 BM9-3 (39) 19-21 The commenter states concerns 

about environmental justice. 

See section 4.9.7

 BM9-4 (40) 1-2 The commenter is concerned about 

Community revitalization around LNG facility. 

See section 4.9. 

Frank Holden, Maryland Saltwater Sport Fishermen’s Association 

BM10 

 BM10-1 (40) 17-18 The commenter is concerned about 

safety. 

Please see respo

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-13

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM10-2 (41) 12-13 The commenter questions the costs 

and benefits of the Project. 

Depending upon qualitatively or quassessed the imphuman environmcompleted in comrequirements of Nfor implementing regulations impledeveloped almosmeasures designmeets current enregulatory standaimpacts to the naenvironment. Sediscussion on LNSafety 

 BM10-3 (41) 20-25 The commenter states a concern 

over impacts to recreational boating. 

Recreational boa4.8.4.1. 

 BM10-4 (42) 7-9 The commenter notes impacts from 

dredging. 

Please see respo

Norris McDonald, President, African American Environmental Association 

BM11 

 BM11-1 (43) 24-25; 

(44) 1-5 

The commenter is concerned that the DEIS does not address environmental justice. 

Please see letter4.9.7. 

 BM11-2 (44) 6-18 The commenter is concerned with 

cumulative impacts with the addition of another hazardous facility. 

Cumulative impa4.13. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-14

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM11-3 (45) 2-4 The commenter noted that the state 

will issue air and water permits. 

Comment noted. 

 BM11-4 (45) 13-16 The commenter stated that 

ownership of the facility and pipeline should be by AfricanAmericans. 

Please see letter

 BM11-5 (45) 19-21 The commenter noted that 

residents should be bought out. 

Please see letter

 BM11-6 (45) 24-25 The commenter states that AES 

should build a community center. 

Please see letter

Phyllis Seward, Resident of Turner Station 

BM12 

 BM12-1 (47) 7-9 The commenter is concerned about 

safety. 

Please see respo

 BM12-2 (48) 1-4 The commenter noted interest in 

the type of employment that will be created by the Project. 

Employment is d

 BM12-3 (48) 12-15 The commenter is concerned about 

the lack of available emergency response resources and funding. 

As discussed in sEmergency Respinclude a Cost Sspecify what AES cost of state and security and emefacility and LNG DEIS, AES has sthe appropriate aadditional resourCoast Guard's reLNG ship transits 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-15

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

Mark Hubbard, Interim Director, Baltimore County’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, Assistant Fire Chief, Baltimore County Fire Dept. 

BM13 

 BM13-1 (50) 9-11 The commenter noted that 

Baltimore County is reducing the amount of hazards in the county. 

Comment noted. 

 BM13-2 (50) 14-15 The commenter stated a concern 

about safety. 

Please see respo

 BM13-3 (50) 16-17 The commenter stated that the 

Project would stress the emergency response system. 

Please see respo

 BM13-4 (50) 21-22 The commenter noted that 35,000 

Baltimore County residents live within three miles of this facility. 

Please see respo

 BM13-5 (51) 2-5 The commenter stated safety and 

evacuation issues. 

AES would be reEmergency Respcoordinate an emwith the Coast Gemergency plannstate and local laappropriate federequired to compFERC prior to auproposed facility. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-16

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM13-6 (51) 9-10 The commenter stated LNG vessel 

safety issues. 

The hazards asspresented in secThe safety and sFERC staff and tdiscussed in sechazards. 

 BM13-7 (51) 11-12 The commenter noted safety 

issues. 

Section 4.12.1 of issue of the enerexplosive potenti

 BM13-8 (51) 13-14 The commenter noted safety 

issues. 

Please see respo

 BM13-9 (51) 18-20 The commenter noted safety and 

evacuation issues. 

Unlike highway oLNG spill at the fon-site impoundmorder to minimize impact, these imin accordance wiunder 49 CFR 19proposed design 4.12.4. As discussed in sGuard used the cNational Laboratof the hazard zonrisks associated measures requireoperations were intended purpose WSR in appendix nor the Coast Guthe proposed fac

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-17

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM13-10 (51) 22-23 The commenter noted safety 

issues. 

The WSR providbased on specific must be provided marine traffic in trequired to implenot attributed to sagencies. Unlesensure safe and place and serving neither the Commwould allow oper

 BM13-11 (51) 24-25 The commenter noted security 

issues for the facility. 

Please see respo

Joseph Minnick, Member, House of Delegates, Maryland 

BM14 

 BM14-1 (53) 22-25; 

(54) 1-2 

The commenter stated a concern over where dredged material will be disposed of. 

The Consolidated discusses dispos

 BM14-2 (53) 4-5 The commenter stated that no 

information on disposal location has been provided. 

Please see respoand BM8-3. 

 BM14-3 (53) 7 The commenter noted a concern 

over dredging impacts. 

Please see respo

 BM14-4 (54) 10-12 The commenter stated that Project 

will affect cleanup of Chesapeake Bay. 

Water resources 

John Olszewski, Sr., Member County Council, District 7 

BM15 

 BM15-1 (55) 2-4 The commenter questioned the 

safety of the LNG vessels. 

Please see respo

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-18

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM15-2 (55) 9-11 The commenter stated a concern 

over responsibility for an accident. 

As stated in sectGuard, and DOT over the siting, doperation of LNG agencies work in safety and secur

 BM15-3 (56) 4-21 The commenter questioned 

whether the public’s comments were being considered. 

Please see respoand BM1-3. 

 BM15-4 (57) 8-10 The commenter questioned the 

cost of the Project on the communities. 

The impacts of thcommunity and ethroughout sectio

 BM15-5 (57) 14-16 The commenter noted a general 

concern over environmental and safety impacts. 

Environmental isthroughout sectiodiscussed specif

 BM15-6 (57) 23-24 The commenter states concern 

over environmental justice. 

See section 4.9.7 

Dutch Ruppersberger, U.S. Representative 

BM16 

 BM16-1 (59) 3-6 The commenter noted a general 

concern for safety and environment. 

Please see respo

 BM16-2 (59) 9-12 The commenter stated that the site 

is not suitable for the Project. 

Comment noted. 

 BM16-3 (59) 20-22 The commenter stated a concern 

for environmental justice. 

Environmental Ju4.9.7. 

 BM16-4 (59) 23-25; 

(60) 1 

The commenter noted a concern for environmental justice. 

 Environmental J4.9.7. 

 BM16-5 (60) 3 - (61) 13 The commenter stated concerns 

over safety at the facility. 

Please see respo

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-19

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM16-6 (60) 6-10; 

(60) 14-15; (60) 23-25 

The commenter noted that the LNG vessels would have to travel up the Chesapeake Bay and under several bridges. The commenter expresses concern for an accident or attack near these bridges. According to the DEIS and the Water Suitability Report, the commenter feels that the Project needs to address several issues before being considered. 

See section 4.12section 4.12.5.5 requirements for 

 BM16-7 (61) 1-6 The commenter stated that there 

are more suitable locations for the facility. 

Alternative sites discussed in sec

 BM16-8 (61) 8-9 The commenter stated that the 

Coast Guard noted that there was a lack of a Safety and Security Plan. 

Safety controls aand Reliability ansection 4.12. SeBM13-5. 

 BM16-9 (61) 14-17 The commenter stated that 

Maryland would not get any of the benefit from the Project but would be paying for the security of the facility. 

Please see respo

 BM16-10 (61) 14-24 The commenter noted that AES 

expects Maryland residents’ taxes to fund the Project, including Coast Guard resources for security, without providing the residents with any benefits from the Project. 

Please see respoand BM12-3. 

 BM16-11 (62) 3-5 The commenter noted that AES 

must meet several mitigation measures. 

Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-20

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM16-12 (62) 8-9 The commenter noted that the site 

is not appropriate for the facility. 

Comment noted. 

 BM16-13 (62) 17-19 The commenter noted that there is 

nothing living at the site because of pollution. 

Comment noted. 

 BM16-14 (62) 17-19 The commenter stated that there 

will be impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat. 

Impacts to surfacsection 4.3 and h

Maxine Thompson, Resident of Turner Station 

BM17 

 BM17-1 (64) 11 The commenter stated concern 

over environmental justice and the lack of information on Turner Station in the DEIS. 

See section 4.9.7

 BM17-2 (64) 13-16 The commenter noted that AES has 

tried to convince Turner Station residence of Project benefits. 

Comment noted. 

 BM17-3 (65) 5-8 The commenter is concerned about 

environmental justice. 

Environmental Ju4.9.7. 

 BM17-4 (65) 9-14 The commenter is concerned about 

safety at the LNG facility. 

Please see respo

 BM17-5 (65) 16-18 The commenter stated a concern 

over property values. 

Property values aof the FEIS. 

 BM17-6 (65) 21-22 The commenter noted a concern 

about insurance coverage. 

See section 4.9 o

 BM17-7 (66) 2-5 The commenter stated that Turner 

Station should be addressed in the FEIS. 

Turner Station is the FEIS. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-21

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

Phyllis Elaine Driscoll, Resident of Baltimore 

BM18 

 BM18-1 (66) 16 The commenter noted that there 

would be an impact on large populations surrounding the site. 

Impacts to the posite are discusse

 BM18-2 (66) 18-20 The commenter is concerned about 

safety at the LNG facility. 

Section 4.12.1 of issue of the enerexplosive potenti

 BM18-3 (66) 23-25 The commenter is concerned over 

impacts to the Chesapeake Bay. 

See section 4.3 a

 BM18-4 (66) 25 – (67) 2 The commenter stated that the 

families in the surrounding communities should be taken into consideration. 

The FEIS has evnatural and humaof terminal site. W200 mitigation mthe Project meets safety, and regulthe negative imphuman environm

Linwood N. Jackson, Resident of Turner Station 

BM19 

 BM19-1 (67) 14-16 The commenter noted the pollution 

at the site. 

Pollutants presendiscussed in sec

 BM19-2 (67) 19-22 The commenter noted the 

unfavorable soil conditions at the site. 

Soils present at tdiscussed in sec

 BM19-3 (68) 2-4 The commenter stated difficulty 

with berthing ships at the site in the past. 

The safety issues discussed in sec

 BM19-4 (68) 11-14 The commenter noted that 

construction of Key Bridge impacted Turner Station. 

Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-22

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

Norman R. Stone, Jr., Senator, 6th District, Maryland 

BM20 

 BM20-1 (71) 8-12 The commenter noted that there 

are several strategic areas along the Bay that the LNG vessels must pass. 

Please see respo

 BM20-2 (71) 8-10 The commenter noted safety 

concerns at the adjacent steel mill which employs 2300. 

Please see respo

 BM20-3 (72) 1-3 The commenter stated a concern 

for dredging impacts. 

Dredging impacts 4.3, 4.6.2, 4.6.3 aDredge Plan in a

 BM20-4 (72) 13-17 The commenter stated that the Bay 

is listed as impaired and the dredging would cause more damage to the area. 

See response to section 4.3. 

 BM20-5 (72) 23-25; 

(73) 1-5 

The commenter noted that previous dredging has caused fish kills and environmental pollution. 

The impact of drediscussed in sec

 BM20-6 (73) 9-11 The commenter stated that there is 

a no further dredging order from agencies in the area surrounding Sparrows point. 

Comment noted. 

 BM20-7 (73) 23-25 The commenter noted that the 

stormwater runoff will be diverted to the Baltimore County Sewer system. 

Mid-Atlantic Expr(appendix T) whisediment and eroExpress would daccordance with requirements. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-23

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM20-8 (74) 1-2 The commenter noted that the soil 

analysis shows toxins present. 

Soil pollutants arsoil particles therpretreatment prothe FEIS. 

 BM20-9 (74) 20-22 The commenter stated a concern 

over clear cutting the construction right-of-way for the pipeline. 

A 50-foot-wide pebe maintained anImpacts to vegetsection 4.5.1 of t

 BM20-10 (74) 23-25 The commenter noted that Blasting 

and clear cutting was never discussed in scoping meetings. 

Comment noted. discussed in secdiscussed in sec4.1.1.2 Blasting. 

 BM20-11 (75) 1-3 The commenter stated that she 

disagreed with the granting of eminent domain to AES. 

Please see respo

 BM20-12 (75) 8-23 The commenter disagrees with the 

DEIS that there will be minimal environmental impacts. 

We have developmitigation measuthe Project meets safety, and regulthe negative imphuman environmimpacts are discuconclusions are d

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-24

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM20-13 (75) 24-25; 

(76) 1-7 

The commenter is concerned that the construction right-of-way will not be replanted with trees and construction debris will be burned on the ROW. 

In order to approthe pipeline, the the pipeline woulInspection and pbe conducted in 192. The permaallowed to revegevegetation. Mainright-of-way wouSee section 2.6.2Section 2.3.2.1 invegetation disposwould comply witregulations. 

 BM20-14 (76) 8-10 The commenter is concerned about 

construction in wetlands. 

The use of timbeareas (section 2.and widely-accepminimizing wetla

 BM20-15 (76) 11-15 The commenter stated that he 

disagrees with the revegetation plan within wetlands. 

Annual rye is comrestorations to prvegetative cover are becoming es

John Olszewski, Jr., Resident, Dundalk, MD 

BM21 

 BM21-1 (77) 14-15 The commenter stated that he 

disagrees with the DEIS’s statement that the Project will have no adverse environmental impact. 

We acknowledge be adversely affeconclusions reaccompliance with recommendation

 BM21-2 (77) 19-21 The commenter noted that several 

sensitive areas will be impacted. 

Please see respo

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-25

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM21-3 (78) 3-5 The commenter noted that the LNG 

vessels will be within one mile of Water’s Edge and Turner Station. 

Comment noted. 

 BM21-4 (78) 7-8 The commenter raised concerns 

over environmental justice. 

Environmental Ju4.9.7. 

 BM21-5 (78) 11-12 The commenter noted safety 

concerns because of its close proximity to the steel mill. 

See response to and 3,000 BTU/ft

from the storage the property line east onto land owPartnership, LLCfurnace is located zones. 

 BM21-6 (78) 14-16 The commenter noted safety 

protocols for LNG vessels. 

Safety controls aand Reliability ansection 4.12. 

 BM21-7 (78) 18-20 The commenter noted safety 

protocols for LNG vessels. 

As discussed in sBroadcast Noticewould be transmthe public of eacsecurity zone. Aany Coast Guard provide a further notification. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-26

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM21-8 (78) 24-25 The commenter noted that the 

Project will impact quality of life. 

We agree that qureadily subject to highly subjective Throughout our ehave been made considered many their quality of lifealmost 200 specdesigned to ensuenvironmental, sstandards to minand human envir

 BM21-9 (79) 5-11 The commenter noted concerns 

about the public comments being considered against the Project. 

All written and orto printing the FEevaluated in the 

Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Senator for Maryland 

BM22 

 BM22-1 (79) 22-24 The commenter noted that he 

disagrees with the DEIS’s findings of no safety or environmental concerns. 

Comment noted. 

 BM22-2 (79) 25 – (80) 2 The commenter stated that the 

DEIS ignored concerns raised by the state, county and residents. 

All written and orthe public commeand evaluated in Landowner concby responding to scope of this FEI

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-27

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM22-3 (80) 3-8 The commenter noted that the 

DEIS had too many mitigation measures that need to be incorporated. 

If certain project in significant envimposed mitigatioimpacts. The corecommended wto ensure compliregulatory requirerequired mitigatioimplemented at tProject. 

David Jones, Resident, Perry Hall 

BM23 

 BM23-1 (81) 16-18 The commenter stated concerns for 

fish and wildlife. 

Aquatic and terrein section 4.6. 

 BM23-2 (81) 24-25 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the site selection. 

Alternative sites 

 BM23-3 (82) 12-13 The commenter requested 

information as to the funding of the FERC. 

FERC is a goverby fees recoverecompanies. 

 BM23-4 (82) 17-19 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the expenses for police and firefighters. 

To address any pthose agencies frthe FERC, under requires an appliSharing Plan in tdescription of anto these agencieEmergency RespPlanning. 

 BM23-5 (82) 24-25 The commenter states that there 

will be no benefit to the public. 

Please see respo

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-28

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

Matt Jones, Resident, 128 Creekview Court, Street, MD 

BM24 

 BM24-1 (85) 4-23 The commenter stated that AES is 

a “funder” of the FERC. 

FERC is a goverby fees recoverecompanies. 

John Polek, Resident, 1606 Sandy Hollow Circle, Baltimore, MD 

BM25 

 BM25-1 (87) 13-25; 

(88) 1 

The commenter stated concerns regarding impacts to recreational boating and marinas. 

Recreational Boa4.8.4.1 Property section 4.9.5. 

 BM25-2 (88) 2-4 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding impacts to Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas. 

Surface waters a

 BM25-3 (88) 4-9 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the burden on the Coast Guard, Department of Natural Resources, and Baltimore County police agencies due to increased security requirements. 

Please see respo

 BM25-4 (88) 10-23 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the perception of recreational boating in Baltimore and Maryland due to the presence of Coast Guard escorts and gunboats. 

Please see respo

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-29

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

Russell Donnelly, Environmental Coordinator LNG Opposition Team 

BM26 

 BM26-1 (89) 16-21 The commenter stated concerns for 

environmental damage, loss of critical areas, wetlands, woodlands and private property. 

Surface waters aWetlands are disExisting residenc4.8.1.1. 

 BM26-2 (89) 22-23 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding terrorism. 

Please see respo

 BM26-3 (89) 24-25 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding what can best be described as “abuse of power.” 

The comments aFEIS. 

 BM26-4 (90) 3-5 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding property values and insurance. 

Property values ain section 4.9.5. 

 BM26-5 (90) 7-25 The commenter stated several 

concerns associated with dredging. 

See revised sectcontains discusssediment samplinand transport of cenvironment. This included in app

 BM26-6 (91) 1-12 The commenter stated concerns 

with regard to the Project’s impacts to a federally funded Fort Carroll Oyster bed restoration project less than 1,500 feet from the dredge area. 

See section 4.6.2discussion of the Restoration Proje

 BM26-7 (91) 18-20 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the size of the pipeline right-of-way. 

The construction feet wide and 10areas. The perm50 feet wide. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-30

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM26-8 (91) 22-25; 

(92) 1-2 

The commenter stated concerns that the Coast Guard cannot provide suitable protection. 

Please see respo

Pat McDonough, 120 Riverform Road, Member, Maryland House of Delegates Representing Eastern Baltimore and Harford Counties 

BM27 

 BM27-1 (93) 1-2 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding Coast Guard’s comment that they do not have the assets to do this job. The commenter also stated concerns regarding the burden on taxpayers. 

As discussed in srequired to providwould identify the project-related semanagement cosstate and local agassets required tmanagement methe Coast GuardAES has stated tappropriate arranadditional resourCoast Guard's reLNG ship transits 

 BM27-2 (93) 15-23 The commenter stated that the 

Project would not benefit the residence of the State of Maryland or help the U.S. become energy independent. 

Please see respo

 BM27-3 (94) 4-5 The commenter stated that an 

energy power generator has not been built in the Maryland in more than 20 years. 

Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-31

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

Buddy Cefalu, International Ironworkers Union of the Mid-Atlantic States; V.P. Baltimore Building Trades 

BM28 

 BM28-1 (95) 16-20 The commenter stated support for 

the Project based upon temporary and permanent jobs. 

Comment noted. 

 BM28-2 (95) 21-24 The commenter stated support for 

the Project because it provides a means of alternative fuel. 

Comment noted. 

 BM28-3 (96) 11-13 The commenter stated support for 

the Project because it can be accomplished safely. 

Safety controls aand Reliability ansection 4.12. 

Donald Milsten, Energy Consultant, Baltimore County, MD 

BM29 

 BM29-1 (96) 23-25 

(97) 1-25 

The commenter stated many economic factors involved in costs of natural gas. 

Comments noted 

 BM29-2 (98) 5-17 The commenter stated that a new 

natural gas facility would help relieve the current insufficient natural gas capacity. 

Comment noted. 

Carolyn Jones, President of Greater Dundalk Alliance, 3016 Dunmore Road, Dundalk, MD 

BM30 

 BM30-1 (98) 25 The commenter stated that the 

capacity at Cove Point is being doubled, and there does not seem to be a need for this project. 

Alternatives are dSee also section 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-32

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM30-2 (99) 9-11 The commenter stated that the 

construction jobs are short-term. 

Employment is d

 BM30-3 (99) 11-13 The commenter stated concerns 

that the Project will cause other corporations not to expand, or come to Baltimore County. 

Socioeconomics 

 BM30-4 (99) 13-14 The commenter expressed 

concerns that the Project is designed to meet minimal standards. 

FERC is preparinProject meets the environment. Rediscussed in sec

 BM30-5 (99) 15-19 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the impacts of dredging, especially in relation to restoration projects funded by state and federal governments. 

Surface waters aThe Consolidated appendix D of the 

 BM30-6 (99) 20-25 The commenter stated that only 69 

of the known and documented 103 toxins in the dredging location are addressed in the EIS. 

The FEIS reportein laboratory anacollected from vastudy area. Also comment BM2-1

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-33

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM30-7 (100) 1-4 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the reuse of contaminated sediments. 

As discussed in tPlan (appendix Dsediments would to prevent leachiprocedure is widestate agencies fomaterials as solidremoves the poteinhalation, ingestphysical binding negating bioavailthe chemical for the organism). If organism, there i

 BM30-8 (100) 5-7 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding impacts to crabs and birds. 

Wildlife is discus

 BM30-9 (100) 7-10 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the burial of trees cleared from the pipeline right-of-way in sediment 200-feet deep. 

There are no plaDisposal of vege2.3.2.1. 

 BM30-10 (100) 13-15 The commenter stated that the 

“consent decree” for Sparrows Point has yet to be properly addressed by the government agencies. 

The Project woulof the consent de

 BM30-11 (100) 15-17 The commenter stated that the 

cancer rate in the area is 14%, wile national average is 7%. 

Comment noted. 

 BM30-12 (100) 21-25; 

(101) 1-4 

The commenter stated concerns regarding impacts to property rights and values, and insurance. 

Property values a4.9.5. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-34

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM30-13 (101) 6-10 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the effect on Maryland's bond rating. 

Socioeconomics 

 BM30-14 (101) 12-13 The commenter stated that AES is 

currently paying claims in California and the Dominican Republic for its operations. 

This comment is FEIS. We note treviewed by the astate and federal 

Guido Guarnaccia, LNG Opposition Team 

BM31 

 BM31-1 (102) 5-25 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding terrorism, and that an explosion on an LNG tanker would be the equivalent of 55 Hiroshima bombs. 

This is not accuracomment BM18-

 BM31-2 (103) 3-9 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding impacts to waterbodies. 

Waterbody crossSee also section 

 BM31-3 (103) 10-21 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding hazardous waste and existing Superfund sites in the Project area. 

See section 4.8.3

 BM31-4 (103) 22-25; 

(104) 1-9 

The commenter stated concerns regarding “variation 4” and the resultant safety concerns. 

Route alternative3.3.3. Pipeline sa4.12.9. 

John Truszkowski, Resident, 4226 Rivers Edge Way, Baltimore, MD 

BM32 

 BM32-1 (105) 2-4 The commenter stated that Corps 

of Engineers has not commented on the Project. 

The COE is a codevelopment of ton the Project. 

 BM32-2 (105) 6-8 The commenter stated that the 

Coast Guard should present information of the security risks. 

Please see respo

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-35

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM32-3 (105) 13-16 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the safety of his home in the event of an explosion. 

Pipeline safety stsection 4.12.9. 

 BM32-4 (105) 18-25 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding impacts to the Beltway. 

Traffic impacts froperation of the Lin section 4.9.4.1

 BM32-5 (106) 1-4 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the effectiveness of automatic shutoff valves in the event of a pipe rupture. 

Pipeline safety stsection 4.12.9. 

Frank Buddy Howard, Resident, 2331 Serals Road, Dundalk, MD 

BM33 

 BM33-1 (106) 13-18 The commenter described what 

was termed a “minor” explosion approximately 30 years ago that “knocked out” 500 cars. The commenter expressed concerns as to the intensity of an LNG explosion. 

Please see respo

 BM33-2 (106) 23-24 The commenter stated that AES 

previously stated it would not build the Project if the public didn’t want it. 

Comment noted. 

Ernie Greclo, President, Metropolitan Baltimore Council of the AFL-CIO Unions 

BM34 

 BM34-1 (107) 24-25; 

(108) 1-25; (109) 1-2 

The commenter stated support for the Project due to short term and long term jobs. 

Employment is d

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-36

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

Tom Powers, Resident, Essex, MD Board Member, Chesapeake Bay Yacht Club Association 

BM35 

 BM35-1 (109) 17 The commenter stated concern 

regarding dredging. 

The Consolidated appendix D of the 

 BM35-2 (109) 19-25; 

(110) 1-7 

The commenter stated several concerns regarding the impact of LNG tankers to existing port operations. 

Vessel traffic is d

 BM35-3 (110) 12-13 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the loss of jobs. 

Employment is d

Terry Rosso, Resident, 208 Waterfountain Court, Glen Burnie, MD 

BM36 

 BM36-1 (111) 4-25 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding contaminated sediments, the lack of detailed information in the Environmental Justice section of the EIS, and the concerns regarding a nearby asphalt plant. 

Existing conditiondescribed in the The impact of the other projects in section 4.13, CumEnvironmental Jurevised. See sec

 BM36-2 (112) 1-18 The commenter stated that the 

Project would not comply with the intent of Environmental Justice. 

Environmental Ju4.9.7. 

 BM36-3 (112) 20-22 The commenter stated that the 

Project area has had many environmentally detrimental accidents, and another hazardous operation should not be permitted. 

Cumulative Impa4.13. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-37

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

Rebecca Kolberg, Resident, 7605 Bay Street, Pasadena, MD 

BM37 

 BM37-1 (113) 7-15 The commenter stated that there 

are many small communities that are not aware of the Project. 

A public notice wwebsite and mailProject mailing lisof circulation in thin accordance wiEngineers regulaposted in severa1.4 contains a disinvolvement proc

 BM37-2 (113) 16-22 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding impacts to recreational boating. 

Impacts to recreaare discussed in 

 BM37-3 (113) 23-25; 

(114) 1-12 

The commenter stated concerns regarding the Patapsco River, and requested that the Army Corps mandate dissolved oxygen mitigation measures. 

Impacts on surfaoxygen are discu

Russ Spangler, Board Member, Maryland Watermans Association 

BM38 

 BM38-1 (115) 1-4 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding impacts of LNG tanker traffic to crab fishing. 

Boating and fishi4.8.4.1. 

 BM38-2 (115) 7-12 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding wakes from the LNG tankers. 

Wakes from the anticipated to be currently using thof Baltimore. 

 BM38-3 (115) 14-17 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding large vessels running aground. 

See section 4.12

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-38

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM38-4 (115) 18-23 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding LNG tanker traffic on other large vessels. 

Vessel Traffic is 

 BM38-5 (116) 1-2 The commenter stated that a 

“handful” of jobs is not worth impacts to a “way of life.” 

Employment is d

 BM38-6 (116) 3-4 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding impacts to commercial fishing. 

See section 4.9.3Shipping, Fishing

 BM38-7 (116) 8-19 The commenter stated that the 

LNG facility should be located along the coastline. 

Alternative sites 

Ron Henry, Chair of the Greater Baltimore Group and the Maryland Chapter of the Sierra Club 

BM39 

 BM39-1 (120) 1-19 The commenter outlined several 

possible ignition sources that could threaten the Project, as well as specific effects to the ship channel and Bay Bridge. 

Safety controls aand Reliability ansection 4.12. 

 BM39-2 (120) 20-25 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding dredging. 

The Consolidated appendix D of the 

 BM39-3 (121) 7-19 The commenter stated that the 

FERC appears to be too lenient to AES with regard to submittal of supporting documentation. 

All required inforbefore approvals be issued. 

Erin Garrigan, Girl Scout, Sparrows Point, Maryland 

BM40 

 BM40-1 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding recreational boating and crabbing. 

Impacts to recreaare discussed in Recreation. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-39

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM40-2 (122) 11-23 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding several recreational areas, including parks and the Sparrows Point Country Club. 

Parks and golf cosection 4.8.1.2. 

 BM40-3 (122) 23 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding safety. 

Public safety issuterminal were coengineering reviethe U.S. Coast Gassessment procreviews are provFEIS provides 55 that the LNG termand operated in a impact public saf

 BM40-4 (122) 24-25 The commenter stated concerns for 

future veterans living at the renovated Fort Howard VA. 

The Fort Howard located greater thproposed LNG tenot included in se

 BM40-5 (123) 5-6 The commenter suggested shipping 

the gas directly to Pennsylvania. 

Alternatives are d

 BM40-6 (123) 8-10 The commenter stated a concern 

regarding the need for siting of the facility in her community. 

Need is discusse

 BM40-7 (123) 17 The commenter stated her support 

for jobs finding alternative sources for safer energy, and that the long term jobs should take precedence over short term jobs. 

Employment is dAlso please see 3. 

 BM40-8 (123) 19-20 The commenter expressed concern 

for the safety of the Francis Scott Key Bridge. 

See section 4.12

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-40

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

Mike Vivirito, President, Bowleys Quarters Improvement Association 

BM41 

 BM41-1 (124) 9-16 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding an explosion at the facility. 

Please see respoand BM18-2. 

 BM41-2 (124) 23-25; 

(125) 1 

The commenter stated concerns regarding fishing and boating. 

Impacts to recreaare discussed in 

 BM41-3 (125) 2-11 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the impacts of LNG tanker traffic. 

Vessel Traffic is Impacts to boatinin section 4.8.4.1

 BM41-4 (125) 13-14 The commenter stated that 50 jobs 

is not worth the long term effects. 

Please see respo

 BM41-5 (125) 21-25 The commenter stated that there 

has been some improvement to water quality in Chesapeake Bay. 

Comment noted. 

 BM41-6 (126) 2-11 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding dredging, especially the need for continual dredging. 

Section 4.3.2.5 cproject dredging. discussions on sanalyses, and fatcontaminants in tConsolidated Dreappendix D of the 

 BM41-7 (126) 12-21 The commenter stated that Fort 

Howard has plans for redevelopment and the Project would affect it adversely. 

Please see respo

 BM41-8 (126) 22-25; 

(127) 1-2 

The commenter stated that AES does not have a good safety background. 

Comment noted. would be reviewecounty, state and 

 BM41-9 (127) 16-18 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding decreased property values. 

Property values a4.9.5. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-41

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

Dennis McCartney, Resident, 8452 Cavanaugh Road, Dundalk, MD 

BM42 

 BM42-1 (129) 12-25; 

(130) 1-25; (131) 1-25; (132) 1-17, 21-22 

The commenter offered a broad overview of several landmarks and their proximity to the Project, and the likely environmental consequences to them. The commenter stated concerns regarding dredging as well. 

Impacts to land udiscussed in seccontains discussand analyses, ancontaminants in tSection 4.3.2.5 aPlan (appendix Dproject dredging. use properties ar4.8.5.1. 

Terry Ratcliff, Resident, Dundalk, MD 

BM43 

 BM43-1 (134) 4-12 The commenter stated opposition 

to the Project. 

Comment noted. 

Tom Nelson, Resident, 2615 North Green Ave., Sparrows Point, MD 

BM44 

 BM44-1 (134) 23-25; 

(135) 1-7 

The commenter stated he will protest the Project. 

Comment noted. 

Dunbar Brooks, Resident, 102 East Ave., Turner Station, MD, Representing the Turner Station Development Corp. and the Turner Station Community Conservation Team 

BM45 

 BM45-1 (135) 17-19 The commenter stated opposition 

to the Project. 

Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-42

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM45-2 (136) 1-11 The commenter stated that it 

appears that by providing over 151 recommendations, the FERC has compromised objectivity. 

We have developmitigation measumeets current enregulatory standaimpacts to the naenvironment. 

 BM45-3 (136) 9-11 The commenter states an opinion 

that FERC researchers have mischaracterized Turner Station in the environmental justice section 4, page 4-87. 

Please see respo

 BM45-4 (136) 20-24 The commenter states an opinion 

that misinformation on Turner Station was supplied by the FERC to the State of Maryland. 

Please see respo

 BM45-5 (137) 1-3 The commenter stated concern 

over the lengthy exclusion zone distances provided in the DEIS based on new information in studies. 

Exclusion zone cfacility were perfoaccordance with CFR 193. As staCoast Guard useSandia National outer limits of the potential risks as

 BM45-6 (137) 6-12 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding Turner Station being within Exclusion Zones 2 and 3, which can cause serious injury in event of a catastrophic event or events. 

As discussed in sGuard used critedefine the outer lassess the potenLNG vessel. The should not be mibut rather are ussecurity measurepublic and infrast

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-43

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM45-7 (137) 15-17, 22-24 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding terrorism. 

Please see respo

 BM45-8 (138) 2-10 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the implementation of the Waterway Suitability Report as developed by the Coast Guard. 

Please see respo

 BM45-9 (138) 11-20 The commenter stated that local 

monies will likely be necessary to help fund the Project. 

As discussed in srequired to providwould identify the project-related semanagement cosstate and local agassets required tmanagement methe Coast GuardAES has stated tappropriate arranadditional resourCoast Guard's reship transits asso

 BM45-10 (138) 18-25 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding property values. 

Property values a4.9.5. 

 BM45-11 (139) 3-5 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the emergency management and evacuation plan. 

Please see respo

Fred Thiess, LNG Opposition Team 

BM46 

 BM46-1 (140) 3-4 The commenter stated broad 

opposition to the Project. 

Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-44

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM46-2 (140) 13-25; 

(141) 1-5 

The commenter stated concerns regarding dredging and fish contamination. 

Section 4.3.2.5 cproject dredging, analyses, and fatcontaminants in tConsolidated Dreappendix D of the 

 BM46-3 (141) 6-19 The commenter stated several 

issues relating to vessel traffic and bridge closures, especially turnaround requirements and the likelihood to close off Bear Creek. 

Passage of LNG Preston Lane Jr. examined by the of the waterway sof that analysis aincluded in appesection 4.12.5.5. 

John Romecki, Resident, 18 Midway Avenue, Baltimore, MD 

BM47 

 BM47-1 (142) 4-11 The commenter stated that he was 

unable to build a garage due to his property being within 1,000 yards of water. 

AES is required tlocal permits for facility. 

 BM47-2 (142) 14-24 The commenter stated that the 

water is currently polluted, and that dredging will worsen conditions. 

Section 4.3.2.5 cproject dredging. discussion on seanalyses, and fatcontaminants in tConsolidated Dreappendix D of the 

 BM47-3 (143) 1-3 The commenter noted the proximity 

of the Project to Fort McHenry. 

Fort McHenry is of Potential Effec

 BM47-4 (143) 4-20 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding recreational fishing and crabbing. 

Impacts to recreaare discussed in 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-45

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

Alexander Pappas, Resident, 7613 Chestnut Ave., Fort Howard, MD 

BM48 

 BM48-1 (144) 18-25 The commenter stated that the 

Project is not in the public’s best interest. 

Comment noted. 

Thomas Suneson, Member, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association 

BM49 

 BM49-1 (145) 17-25; 

(146) 1-11; (147) 7-10 

The commenter stated concerns regarding security. The commenter also stated concerns that the crew of LNG ships should also have Americans. 

As discussed in srequired to providnotification with a Guard. There is the use of U.S. mcalling on near-sArrangements fohave developed between the U.Sthe on-shore faci

Rick Chadsey, landowner BM50  BM50-1 (147) 20-25 The commenter has 322 building 

lots that abut the proposed pipeline right-of-way, and he was not aware of the Environmental Impact Statement. 

A formal notice wRegister on April the draft EIS was mailed to individudistribution list prFERC regulationaffected and abuinformed. We try individuals, but srecords are outdaexpect the applicpossible in identi

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-46

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

 BM50-2 (149) 2-3 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the “take” of portions of his properties. 

Section 4.9.5 conproperty value ineasements on la(construction) anright-of-way. Midcompensate the and the temporause. Section 4.8impacts associatresidences and mwould be employ

 BM50-3 (149) 9-17 The commenter stated that the 

application process for the Project appears to be proceeding more rapidly than typical applications. 

There are a multapplication review agencies. The pconsistent with onature. 

Larry Silverman, Environmental Lawyer, Takoma Park, MD 

BM51 

 BM51-1 (152) 4-25; 

(153) 1-25; (154) 1-25; (155) 1-13 

The commenter stated his opinion that the Coast Guard does not have the appropriate assets. 

As stated in sectGuard has prelimmeasures necesLNG carrier operUnless the requirand secure operaserving their inteCommission nor allow operation o

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Baltimore, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-47

Table P2-1 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Baltimore, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

Andy Fellows, Chesapeake Regional Director for (inaudible) Water Action 

BM52 

 BM52-1 (157) 2 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding dredging. 

Section 4.3.2.5 cproject dredging. discussions on sanalyses, and fatcontaminants in tConsolidated Dreappendix D of the 

 BM52-2 (157) 11-16 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding environmental justice. 

Environmental Ju4.9.7. 

 BM52-3 (157) 18-23 The commenter reiterated his 

concerns regarding dredging. 

Please see respo

 BM52-4 (157) 24-25; 

(158) 1 

The commenter stated concerns regarding terrorism. 

Please see respo

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-48

On June 11, 2008, a public meeting was held in Downingtown, Pennsylvania at the East Brandywine Fire Hall. T

identifies the commenters and summarizes their comments. A complete transcript of the proceedings is available http://elibrary.ferc.gov (Docket #CP07-62, CP07-63, CP07-64 and CP07-65). 

Table P2-2 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

Matthew Jones, 128 Creekview Court, MD DT1  DT1-1 (16) 6-7 

The commenter stated that the pipeline would come very close to his home. 

Impacts to existing in section 4.8.1.1 owithin 25 feet of thAES would developlans. 

 DT1-2 (16) 20-21 

The commenter is worried about the impact on property during construction of the pipeline. 

Impacts to existing in section 4.8.1.1would be temporaexpected to last mone location for respecific plan. 

 DT1-3 (16) 22-23 

The commenter is worried about the effects the pipeline would have on agricultural land. 

Impacts to agricultsection 4.8.1.3. 

 DT1-4 (16) 23-24 

The commenter is worried about the affects the pipeline would have on property values and insurance rates. 

Property values adiscussed in sectio

 DT1-5 (17) 5-6 

The commenter is concerned about the safety of the pipeline. Safety is discussed 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-49

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT1-6 (17) 11-13 

The commenter is concerned that eminent domain for this pipeline is not in the best interest of the community, and that it usually precedes construction of significant undesirable projects. 

Comment noted. Wunder Section 7 of convey eminent terms would be decourt if a negotiareached or an established. 

 DT1-7 (18) 9-13 

The commenter noted that the LNG Opposition Team has offered AES several alternatives to the Project’s location. 

Section 3.0 evaluafor design and cconsidered all altepublic as well as th

 DT1-8 (19) 3-4 

Commenter stated that the communities in Pennsylvania and Maryland are all against the proposed Project. Comment noted. 

 DT1-9 (20) 1-6 

The commenter is concerned about the safety of the LNG facility. Please see respon

Rupert Rossetti, 215 Dr. Jack Road, Port Deposit, MD; Appointee to MD Tributary Strategy Team DT2  DT2-1 (21) 23-24 

The commenter is concerned that the LNG facility, pipeline, and the proposed turning basin that is to be dredged would have a negative impact on the areas water quality. 

Impacts on water quality, are discuss

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-50

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT2-2 (22) 10-13 

Commenter notes that a large proportion of the overall pipeline waterbody crossings would occur in the Octoraro Creek watershed. 

Appendix I lists tributary waterbody 15% of all waterbodwould affect Otributaries. 

 DT2-3 (22) 14-16 

The commenter is concerned about the impact to migrating (anadromous) fish spawning habitat in the Octoraro Creek watershed. 

Section 4.3.2.5 Hcontains discussrestriction that cros(and other anadrobe restricted from 15 to avoid the aperiod. 

 DT2-4 (22) 17-24 

The commenter points out that the Octoraro is a Pennsylvania scenic river, and that there would be visual impacts from the widening of right-of-ways needed at waterbody crossings. Commenter also states that damming of the mainstream would temporarily impact boating and fishing during construction. The commenter believes MidAtlantic Express should be required to consult with the Octoraro Watershed Association about the 26 waterbody crossings within the watershed. 

Section 4.8.1.2 Spcontains a recomExpress to consult Octoraro Creek Wdevelop constructminimizing tree cleand to maintain 4.8.5.2 addresDiscussions regaOctoraro Watershwith NMFS, MDNAuthority. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-51

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT2-5 (23) 2-7 

The commenter is interested in how stream crossings would be accomplished, and that the dam and pump method be considered at a minimum. The commenter is concerned why the Octoraro and Deer Creeks were not evaluated or recommended for HDD crossing. 

See discussion in Dry Crossings abothe pipeline would perpendicular angHDD crossings of O

 DT2-6 (23) 19-21 

The commenter believes that AES should be required to consult with the FWS and NMFS. 

As the lead agenccomply with SectSpecies Act of 19Stevens FisherManagement AcMammal Protection of the National (HNPA), and SectiManagement AcCompliance with consultation with sFWS and NMFSadditional informati

 DT2-7 (24) 4-5 

The commenter states that the crossing of any waterbodies within the watershed can adversely affect the water quality in the mainstem. The commenter notes that there is a threat to the water supply in the Octoraro Reservoir from construction. 

Impacts on water section 4.3.2.5. discussion of waExpress would bsurface water protin its Environm(appendix T), whiPollution PreventioSpill PreventCountermeasures and is included in a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-52

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT2-8 (24) 20-24 

The commenter noted that the Project would have impacts to waterbodies, wetlands, critical areas, wildlife, historical sites and private landowners, as well as LNG facility impacts at Turner Station, Edgemere and Dundalk. 

Sections 4.3, 4.4, 4discussions of impameasures for these communities. 

 DT2-9 (25) 2-3 

The commenter does not agree with FERC’s conclusion that there would be no adverse environmental impacts from the Project. 

We acknowledge tbe adversely affecconclusions reachcompliance wrecommendations 

James Bullitt 231 Brabson Road, Nottingham, PA DT3  DT3-1 (26) 2-4 

The commenter is concerned about the impacts that the pipeline would have on water quality of high quality tributaries within the Octoraro watershed, including Reynolds Run. Please see respon

 DT3-2 (26) 5-8 

Commenter is concerned that the Project’s size would negatively impact the environment, aesthetic value of communities, and landowners’ use and enjoyment of their properties. 

We acknowledge tbe adversely affect5.1 discusses FEProject’s environme

 DT3-3 (26) 13-14 

The commenter objects to the pipeline running through the Kirks Mill Historic District. 

Section 3.3.3 recommended routKirks Mill Historic D

 DT3-4 (26) 17-18 

The commenter notes the proposed pipeline runs between two historical homes. 

Comment noted. DT3-3. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-53

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT3-5 (26) 19-21 

The commenter notes that the pipeline would affect the Old Mill Pond within the Kirks Mill Historic District that he believes is a wetland. 

Wetlands and wataffected by the section 4.3 and comment DT3-3. 

 DT3-6 (26) 22-23 

The commenter notes that there are several potential historic archaeological sites that the pipeline would affect. 

Section 4.10 contacultural resourcesHistoric District. SDT3-3. 

 DT3-7 (27) 4-6 

The commenter believes that the pipeline route needs to be defined though the historic district. Please see respon

 DT3-8 (27) 9-11 

Commenter is concerned about the affects the pipeline would have on tax breaks to property in Clean and Green program. 

Section 4.8.1.3 disconservation easem

 DT3-9 (27) 12-14 

Commenter is concerned about clean and green property and also the development of hardwood tree stands on his property. 

Section 4.8.1.3 disconservation easem

 DT3-10 (27) 15-18 

The commenter would like MidAtlantic Express to contact them prior to coming on their property, and feels that there is a lack of communication from Mid-Atlantic Express. 

Comment noted. requirement to provplans, for review awithin 50 feet of work areas. Secrecommended landprocedure. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-54

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

Jeffery Piper 1423 Glenside Road (Parents 1209 Romansville Road, Coatesville) DT4  DT4-1 (28) 19-21 

The commenter believes that the pipeline would cross Broad Run Creek, which he believes is recognized as a pristine environmental creek. 

Section 4.3.2.3 disas a Pennsylvawaterbody due to e

 DT4-2 (28) 22 - (29) 2 

The commenter would like MidAtlantic to provide liability insurance before they survey property. 

The landowner anwould be expected obtaining survey ac

 DT4-3 (29) 8-9 

The commenter is concerned about the pipelines affect on hardwood stands. 

Section 4.8.1.3 disresources and impacts to vegetati

 DT4-4 (29) 11-12 

The commenter is concerned that the pipeline will affect agricultural land (hayfield) on his parent’s property. 

Section 4.8.1.3 cimpacts to agricultadded requirement Impacts Mitigation crossed by the pro

 DT4-5 (29) 13-15 

The commenter is concerned the pipeline will destroy a well that is currently being used. The commenter noted that the pipeline will affect springs that feed Broad Run Creek and that Mid-Atlantic would not repair damage done by construction. 

Section 4.3.1.1 drequirement to idenof the initial propway, and FERC’s mitigation requirem

 DT4-6 (30) 11-12 

The commenter believes that this additional pipeline will have a negative impact on property values. 

Property values 4.9.5. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-55

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT4-7 (30) 13-14 

The commenter notes that there is a Federal Aviation Administration radar station rightof-way on the farm. Comment noted. 

 DT4-8 (30) 19-21 

The commenter is concerned that the impacts to farmland will affect income for parent’s farm and asked about compensation. 

Impacts to agricultsection 4.8.1.3. would either be landowner and appa condemnation prcourt. 

 DT4-9 (31) 1-3 

The commenter states that 2 acres of farm land will be affected on his parent’s property and will decrease the value of land. 

Agricultural land farmed after ccompleted. Propesection 4.9.5. 

 DT4-10 (31) 5-7 

Commenter is concerned that he will loose income from trees that will be cleared as a result of pipeline construction. 

Section 4.8.1.3 hamore discussion on 

 DT4-11 (31) 9-10 

Commenter states that vegetation and wildlife will be affected by pipeline construction. 

Vegetation is discwildlife is discussed 

 DT4-12 (31) 19-20 

The commenter is concerned about safety from a terrorist attack on the LNG facility and pipeline. 

Section 4.12 contaLNG and pipeline s

Russell Donnelly, Representing LNG Opposition Team, Environmental Coordinator DT5  DT5-1 (32) 9-11 

The commenter is concerned that there are no conclusions drawn to any of the aspects of the Project. Conclusions are dis

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-56

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT5-2 (32) 13-15 

The commenter does not believe that all the concerns have been answered in the EIS and believes that a permit will be issued without answers. 

FERC staff is recobe included in tProject should the an approval is wara timing requiremeinformation must be 

 DT5-3 (32) 18-19 

Commenter believes that this does not adhere to the FERC process. Comment noted. 

 DT5-4 (32) 21-22 

The commenter believes that AES should not be endowed or afforded U.S. Government authoritative power. 

While FERC’s authof the Natural Gas domain authority, sdetermined by a stanegotiated agreeman easement canno

 DT5-5 (33) 2-5 

The commenter would like a discussion on the 100 year flood plain that the terminal sits in, but was not discussed in the DEIS. 

Construction withiwould be regulamunicipal, county, codes, laws, and floodplains. As incertain critical equwould be elevated The Federal Emerg(FEMA) Flood Insuthe 500-year (Zonencroach onto th(FEMA, 1996). If tnot encroach on tlimits would not affe

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-57

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT5-6 (33) 6-12 

The commenter believes that there cannot be minimal impacts if the Project were constructed. 

Conclusions for thsection 5.1. 

 DT5-7 (33) 14-16 

The commenter believes that FERC’s determination is based on AES’s data. 

The Commission’s sources for its defrom the applicantstate and local agresearch, and inpu

 DT5-8 (33) 17-19 

The commenter would like the terms ‘minimal’ and ‘significant’ defined. 

Depending upon staff qualitatively appropriate, assesnatural and human has been completrequirements of Nfor implementing regulations implem

 DT5-9 (33) 20-24 

The commenter stated that impacts to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed would exceed limitations of regulations. 

Impacts on water section 4.3. Poteby Federal and prior to issuanauthorizations to co

 DT5-10 

(33) 25; (34) 3, 4-8 

The commenter stated that the Project would impact the estuary ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay, and in particular, degrade the already severely impaired water quality within the Bay. 

As stated in the impact the Chesascope of and mitimpacts are discus4.3.2.6. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-58

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT5-11 (34) 10-16 

The commenter is concerned that blasting was never mentioned before the issuance of the DEIS. 

Specific areas foidentified until conwould not be done site specific Blastinby the Commissionsections 2.3.1.3 an

 DT5-12 (34) 16-19 

The commenter states that they would like to know AES’s limit of liability for damage done to wells, septic systems and structures during construction of the Project. 

Section 4.3.1.1 cpublic and private recommended in Atlantic Express idfeet of the construevent that a potablconstruction activihas agreed to provwater. Additionawould be repair/replacement any potable wateconstruction actividiscussed in sectExpress’ Septic Scontains details would be taken to systems; mitigate systems; and resto

 DT5-13 (34) 20-24 

The commenter states that the dredging will have a devastating impact on NOAA Project 64, which is for the restoration of Maryland's native oyster. 

Revised section 4

discussion of thRestoration Project

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-59

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT5-14 (35) 1-5 

The commenter is concerned that the suspension of toxic sediment during dredging would kill the oysters. Please see respon

 DT5-15 (35) 7-11, 17-18 

The commenter believes that the suspension of toxic sediments during dredging is classified as a criminal offense under several areas of federal, state and local law. The commenter states that any attempt to execute this Project would be in direct violation of Maryland state law. 

Disposal of dreconducted in compstate permits and has been completrequirements of Nfor implementing regulations implediscussed in sectio

the Consolidated Dmitigation measurethat water quaminimized. In sofenvironmental buconcurrent with lowering speeds focontainers would and completely savoid release of drea water quality sainstituted within a downstream of thSampling would be and 30 days post-dwould be submitted Engineers within 1of dredging activitie

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-60

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT5-16 (35) 12-16 

The commenter states that AES cannot dredge at Sparrows Point because AES is not registered in Baltimore City. 

The authorization Sparrows Point woU.S. Army Corps o

 DT5-17 (35) 20-24 

The commenter states that bird colonies at Fort Carroll are closer than 1.5 miles that is stated in the DEIS. 

Thank you for the iMaryland Departm(MDNR) confirmecolonies within the are located over 0area. The MDNR waterbird colonies by observing a 0.colony on which prohibited. Since outside of the 0.2impacts to these nSee sections 4.6.1

 DT5-18 (35) 25 - (36) 1 

The commenter states that the AES Project will have detrimental effects to the colonies if built. Please see respon

Lisa Van Houten, 1608 Renee Lane, Downingtown, PA, Representing the Homeowners Association of Victoria Crossing DT6  DT6-1 (36) 12-16 

The commenter states that the neighborhood homeowners association would like site specific consultations about pipeline route. 

Section 4.8.1.1 coMid-Atlantic Exprresidential plans, fresidents within 5construction work a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-61

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT6-2 (36) 17-25 

The commenter is interested in documentation about pipeline safety with respect to degradation and multiple pipeline crossovers. 

Pipeline safety and section 4.12. 

 DT6-3 (37) 2-3 

The commenter states that there are already 2 Columbia gas lines that are not at full capacity and questions why they cannot be used. 

Section 3.3 disalternatives to acpurpose and need. 

 DT6-4 (37) 9-13 

The commenter would like to know if there is a chemical incompatibility of the LNG with the current lines and what it would take to treat it. 

The LNG stored agasified before beipipeline. 

 DT6-5 (37) 17-19 

The commenter states that there should be an additional public hearing. 

The Commission’s remains an open ewould receive cothroughout preparaCommission’s reviean additional site v2008. 

 DT6-6 (37) 2-6 

The commenter states that homes affected by the Project should be identified in the EIS. 

Existing residence4.8.1.1 and a list of the construction appendix F. 

 DT6-7 (38) 3-6 

The commenter states that maps in EIS should use satellite imagery. Comment noted. 

 DT6-8 (38) 9-15 

The commenter states that the homeowners association proposed a route alternative that is not included in the EIS. 

Section 3.3 of the include all propose

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-62

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT6-9 (38) 21 - (39) 1 

The commenter states that table I is confusing. 

Footnote a in table state stream cPennsylvania) ratProject does not streams. Only stcrossed by the Prfootnote. State strPDEP in Pennsylva

 DT6-10 (39) 2-3 

The commenter states the classification 4B is missing from table I. 

There is a state however, no wacrossed are classifclassification codewere included in ta

 DT6-11 (39) 4-7 

The commenter noted that she could not interpret table I, Category 5. 

Comment noted. 

 DT6-12 (39) 10-12 

The commenter states that more affirmative language should be used to replace recommendations. 

Recommendations FERC staff recommrequired conditions Certificate. AES wapplicable federal, regulations and staconditions that may Certificate and otheapprovals if approv

Joan Deen, 350 Brown Road, Nottingham, PA DT7  DT7-1 (40) 15 - (41) 2 

The commenter noted that the Crown Landing LNG project was denied the coastal zone permit but is still listed in table 3.2-1. Table 3.2-1 has be

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-63

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT7-2 (41) 14-15 

The commenter states that the Project will further our dependence on foreign oil. 

Alternative energy section 3.1 and pro

 DT7-3 (41) 16-18 

The commenter states that the LNG vessels will disrupt peoples’ use of the Bay. 

Section 4.8.4.1 diwith recreational boating conflicts athe Coast Guard. 

 DT7-4 (41) 18-19 

The commenter is concerned that dredging is going to destroy the federally-funded native oyster restoration project. Please see respon

 DT7-5 (41) 21-23 

The commenter is concerned about the safety of the terminal and pipeline. Please see respon

 DT7-6 (42) 2-8 

The commenter is concerned about the crossing of the Kirks Mill Historic District by the pipeline, and questions why consultations with the PA State Historic Preservation Office and other concerned parties were not included in the DEIS. 

The Kirks Mill HistNational Register odiscussed in secdiscusses consultaSection 3.3.3 recommended routKirks Mill Historic D

 DT7-7 (42) 16-19 

The commenter believes that the recommendations under Section 4.10.4, should be completed before a permit is issued. 

Please see respoand DT6-12. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-64

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT7-8 (43) 21 - (44) 2 

The commenter states that all the information should be presented before the application is approved. 

All analyses and Applicant and revieagencies are http://elibrary.ferc.g

CP07-63, CP07-6docket is constainformation becomrepeatedly encouencourage informeof the public dockrecommendations issuance of the environmental impathe requirements o

Dan Shanor, 27 Kingpin Road, Nottingham, PA DT8  DT8-1 (44) 18-21 

The commenter states that this Project is all about money. Comment noted. 

 DT8-2 (45) 3-4 

The commenter states that Lancaster County has the lowest per capita income along the pipeline. 

Socioeconomics is the FEIS. 

 DT8-3 (45) 7-23 

The commenter states that his local representative is not doing anything to fight the Project. 

This comment is EIS.

 DT8-4 (46) 6-8 

The commenter stated that the EIS does not address the impact to the psyche of people affected by the Project. Please see respon

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-65

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT8-5 (46) 20-22 

The commenter states that money to review this Project should be redirected to alternative energy sources. 

FERC is required filed with the Copipelines and LNG or in state waters number of applicatrejected. 

 DT8-6 (47) 2-24 

The commenter states that the demand for LNG has decreased and the Project is not needed. 

The purpose and discussed in sectio

 DT8-7 (49) 12-18 

The commenter stated that the original plan to place the terminal closer to Philadelphia was denied by the coast Guard because of safety concerns. 

Federal requiremediscussed in sectio

 DT8-8 (50) 3-4 

The commenter stated that there is a concern over the safety of LNG vessels. 

LNG hazards are dof the FEIS. 

 DT8-9 (50) 6-14 

The commenter states that the Coast Guard is responsible for the LNG vessel from its entrance into U.S. waters until it is docked at the terminal. 

The Coast Guard facilities that affect port areas and nCoast Guard is resto navigation safesafety standards, athe safety of facilitor adjacent to navivalve immediately The Coast Guard security plan reviewverification and simanagement of vethe LNG facility. discussion on the authority. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-66

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT8-10 (51) 5-7 

The commenter states that he would never buy property along a natural gas pipeline. Comment noted. 

 DT8-11 (51) 10-14 

Commenter states that the Cove Point LNG facility was recently expanded. 

See section 3.2.1, 3.2.3 for a discuanalysis which insection 4.13 for analysis. 

 DT8-12 (51) 23-25 

The commenter states that a permit cannot be granted unless the exact location of the pipeline is known. 

The filed route Express is the roualong with route vFERC staff. Any cneed to be submCommission. 

 DT8-13 (52) 2-4 

The commenter stated concern over additional pipelines along the right-of-way in the future. 

Any plans for fusubject to their own permitting. 

 DT8-14 (52) 17-20 

The commenter states that using existing energy sources would be more beneficial than this Project. 

See section 3.1 fodiscussing existing non-renewable fuesources. 

David Sweeny, 315 Rock Raymond Road, Downingtown, PA DT9  DT9-1 (53) 18-20 

The commenter stated that previous pipeline caused damage to area. Comment noted. 

 DT9-2 (53) 21-23 

The commenter states that he would like to know the depth of the pipeline. 

The depth of the psoil conditions anconditions the DOT a minimum of 30Pipeline safety is d

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-67

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT9-3 (53) 24 - (54) 1 

The commenter would like to know where the dredged material will be disposed of and if it is toxic. 

Details of the dreand disposal are iPlan found in appe

 DT9-4 (54) 2-8 

The commenter believes that we need to look into alternative fuels and not foreign sources of energy. 

Section 3.1 of the alternatives to the alternatives encomfuels, renewable econservation. 

 DT9-5 (54) 14-15 

The commenter is concerned that opposition to the Project is not being taken into account. 

We take all conceand oral comments comment period aand evaluated in thConcerns have responding to all cof this FEIS. 

Teri Dignazio, located at mile markers 56.99-57.77 DT10  DT10-1 (55) 7-10 

The commenter was concerned about missing satellite images on the FERC DEIS CD-ROM. Comment noted. 

 DT10-2 (55) 16-18 

The commenter stated that they could not determine mile markers on maps. 

Comment noted. the maps included 

 DT10-3 (55) 19 - (56) 4 

The commenter believes that information about the pipeline on his property is inaccurate. 

We encourage additional informatthey feel a descriProject is approveddiscrepancies with easement negotiat

 DT10-4 (56) 9-17 

The commenter states that he is nervous about the Project and believes there is a larger agenda. 

Comment noted. Pcomment SE1-13. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-68

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT10-5 (56) 21-23 

The commenter is concerned about the mitigation for timber cut along the pipeline route. 

Easement agreemAES and the landcover easement agof vegetation clear2.3.2.1, section 2section 4.8.1.3. 

 DT10-6 (57) 1-12 

The commenter stated that they would like the mitigation of forest land to include the replacement of trees by circumference. 

Easement agreemAES and the landcover easement agof vegetation clear2.3.2.1, section 2section 4.8.1.3. 

 DT10-7 (57) 13-15 

The commenter is concerned about impacts to the tree canopy, especially along Tweed Run. 

Impacts to watvegetation around discussed in sectio

 DT10-8 (57) 21-24 

The commenter would like to know what the definition of ‘densely populated’ is, and if “smart pigs” would be used over the entire pipeline. 

Population density safety is determineare discussed in Corrosion monitoripigs”) would be standards in 49 CF

Eric Newman, 316 Lyndon Drive, Upper Uwchlan DT11  DT11-1 (58) 20-21 

The commenter stated that he just received notification of the Project. 

Please see respoBased on additionalandowners have b

 DT11-2 (58) 25 – (59) 1 

The commenter stated that the pipeline route runs directly through his house. 

Affects to existing rsection 4.8.1.1. Tauthorized to go occupied residencspecific constructiofor all properties lconstruction right-o

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-69

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT11-3 (59) 2-5 

The commenter stated that the pipeline would affect his well and septic system. 

Affects to existing systems, are discWells are discusseFEIS. 

 DT11-4 (59) 9-12 

The commenter is concerned about a wastewater runoff basin and wetland that would be affected by the pipeline. 

Surface water resmitigation are found 

 DT11-5 (59) 14-18 

The commenter stated that the pipeline would affect cable, electric and public water service if the pipeline was routed on his property. 

Section 4.8.1.1 disutilities for private r

John Goodall, Brandywine Conservancy DT12  DT12-1 (60) 20-25 

The commenter is concerned about 250 acres of land that is under conservation easements granted to the Brandywine Conservancy that would be affected by the pipeline. 

Conservation eassection 4.8.1.3. 

 DT12-2 (61) 1-7 

The commenter states that the purpose of the easements are to maintain the land in its undeveloped state. 

Conservation eassection 4.8.1.3. 

 DT12-3 (61) 7-8 

The commenter is concerned that the pipeline will adversely affect area that is designated by the Audubon as an important bird habitat area. 

The proposed pipeBarrens IBA (Site have recommendePGC regarding thprior to the start of sections 4.6.1.1 an

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-70

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT12-4 (61) 9-12 

The commenter is concerned about the 90 acres of conservation easement land that will be affected by the pipeline. 

Conservation eassection 4.8.1.3. 

 DT12-5 (61) 20-24 

The commenter stated that the permanent right-of-way will increase in size and is not consistent with the terms of the easements. 

Conservation eassection 4.8.1.3. Treturn to its former the exception of po

 DT12-6 (62) 6-12 

The commenter states that the proposed activities within the conservation easements would need to be reviewed for consistency with the easement purposes. 

Conservation eassection 4.8.1.3. 

 DT12-7 (62) 19-24 

The commenter states that there are more stream crossings than are listed in the Brandywine River System. 

Water resources aand a list of watappendix I. 

 DT12-8 (62) 25 - 63 (5) 

The commenter supports the use of third party environmental inspectors. Comment noted. 

 DT12-9 (63) 6-8 

The commenter supports Pennsylvania and Chester County oversight of environmental impacts. Comment noted. 

 DT12-10 (63) 11-13 

The commenter states that the Federal government should encourage the development of alternative sources of energy. Comment noted. S

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-71

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT12-11 (63) 16-17 

The commenter states that the Columbia gas pipeline should be used to capacity before any new pipelines are built. 

It is our understanpipeline would not the volumes of natProject. 

 DT12-12 (63) 18-20 

The commenter states that building new pipelines should be used as a last resort to address energy needs. Comment noted. S

Dan Shanor, 27 Kingpin Road, Nottingham, PA DT13  DT13-1 (64) 8-9 

The commenter stated that the Coast Guard does not have the resources to handle the addition of LNG tankers in the Bay. Please see respon

Russell Donnelly, Representing LNG Opposition Team, Environmental Coordinator, 2114 Oak Road, Sparrows Point, MD DT14  DT14-1 (65) 21 – (66) 2 

The commenter stated that there would be an impact to the commercial and recreational use of the Chesapeake Bay. 

See sections 4.8.1Commercial ShippHunting. 

 DT14-2 (66) 2-3 

The commenter states that AES is being given power of authority reserved for federal and state agencies. 

AES receives no the FERC certificat

 DT14-3 (66) 4-15 

The Commenter stated that the LNG vessels will delay cargo and cruise ships and will cost the port of Baltimore money. 

The socioeconomiLNG vessel transi4.9.4.2. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-72

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

Sue Bullitt, 231 Brabson Road, Nottingham, Little Britain DT15  DT15-1 (66) 24 - (67) 3 

The commenter stated that she did not receive any information about environmental and Archaeological surveys done in the Kirks Mill Historic District. 

See section 3.3 3.10 (Cultural consideration of roconsultation to avimpacts to the Kirks 

 DT15-2 (67) 8-9 

The commenter stated that there are more species in the area than were included in the EIS. 

Wildlife is discussFEIS. 

 DT15-3 (67) 15-19 

The commenter stated that she is unaware of how the surveys are completed. 

The applicants msensitive resourceminimize potential 

 DT15-4 (67) 20-21 

The commenter would like to have a copy of the survey report for her property. 

All publicly availabon the FERC http://elibrary.ferc.g

CP07-63, CP07-64 contact Mid-Atlaninformation specific 

Lisa Van Houten, 1608 Renee Lane, Downingtown, PA, Representing the Homeowners Association of Victoria Crossing DT16  DT16-1 (68) 3-6 

The commenter would like to know who the owner of the commercial well is at MP 77.6. 

The owner of the Water Company. 

 DT16-2 (68) 7-9 

The commenter states that she believes the word negative should be added to cumulative impacts. Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-73

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT16-3 (68) 10-12 

The commenter states that there is no justification for benefit to personal income on a project like this. Comment noted. 

 DT16-4 (68) 13-16 

The commenter questions how homeowner tax burden will be decreased by the Project. See section 4.9.6. 

 DT16-5 (68) 17-19 

The commenter asked if there was any landowner approval. 

AES should negoticompensation /mproperty. 

 DT16-6 (68) 20-23 

The commenter stated there were not site specific plans as stated in table F-1. 

The FEIS has beeplans for residencconstruction work s

 DT16-7 (68) 24-25 

The commenter questioned what “adjacent” referred to. 

“Adjacent” refers tthat are not directly 

workspace, but are construction work s

 DT16-8 (69) 3-4 

The commenter stated they were unsure of what the proposed mitigation was for the residences in table F-1. 

The forms of combinations are aof table F-1. 

 DT16-9 (69) 5-8 

The commenter stated that the association should be consulted on any common land the pipeline will cross. 

Common land woassociation/agency maintaining the lan

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-74

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT16-10 (69) 9-19 

The commenter stated that floodplains of streams are not addressed in table I. 

Authorization of wabe issued by COE their review of the Pinclude their verificwidth estimate. The Waterway and Regulations require waterway or its flooflooding at upstreaproperties. The pipcause flooding. 

Paula Latta Coyne, 3111 Darun Church Road, East Fallowfield, PA DT17  DT17-1 (70) 2-3 

The commenter stated that the period for public comments is short. 

The comment peconsistent with othconsider all comfinalizing the EIS. 

 DT17-2 (70) 18-20 

The commenter was concerned that there was only one public meeting in Pennsylvania. 

The pipeline is apwith about 48 milemile in Maryland. were selected to interested parties Additional site Pennsylvania in Au

Joe Civis, 1022 Wilshires Way, Downingtown PA DT18  DT18-1 (71) 16 

The commenter is concerned of the proximity of the pipeline to his house. 

Impacts to existing in section 4.8.1.1. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-75

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT18-2 (71) 17-18 

The commenter stated that he was not notified of a public meeting about the Project. 

Every reasonable contact all affected interested land owagencies, and libra

 DT18-3 (71) 20-23 

The commenter request a copy of the DEIS and to be put on the mailing list. 

FERC (Ms. Wachwith a CD of Downingtown, PA Mr. Civis was also 

Dan Shanor, 27 Kingpin Road, Nottingham, PA DT19  DT19-1 (72) 19-22 

The commenter was stating that everyone within a half mile of the pipeline should have been notified. 

FERC regulations affected and ainformed. See resp

 DT19-2 (73) 3-4, 6-7 

The commenter asked if there was any public notification of the meeting and who is responsible for it. Please see respon

Mr. Bullitt DT20  DT20-1 (74) 12-15 

The commenter stated that numerous people have not received mailings about the Project. 

FERC regulations affected and ainformed. We try individuals, but sorecords are outdexpect the applicpossible in identifyi

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-76

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

Audience DT21  DT21-1 (74) 16 

The commenter stated that the list of landowners is outdated. 

Comment noted. DT20-1. 

Lisa Van Houten, 1608 Renee Lane, Downington, PA, Representing the Homeowners Association of Victoria Crossing DT22  DT22-1 (74) 22-25 

The commenter stated that she believed that every homeowner within 300 feet of the centerline should have been notified. Please see respon

Audience DT23  DT23-1 (75) 22-24 

The commenter stated that newspaper circulations have declined in the area so fewer people were aware of the meeting. Comment noted. 

Lisa Van Houten, 1608 Renee Lane, Downingtown, PA, Representing the Homeowners Association of Victoria Crossing DT24  DT24-1 (81) 23-25 

The commenter asked if there was a minimum safe distance for pipeline crossovers. 

The minimum seregulations is one f

 DT24-2 (82) 13-16 

The commenter is concerned about the safety of the pipeline that is only 30 inches underground. 

Depth of cover wouregulations. See s

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Downingtown, PA Public Comment Meeting P2-77

Table P2-2 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Downingtown, Pennsylvania Public Comment Meeting on th

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 DT24-3 (82) 18 – (83) 5 

The commenter is concerned about the depth of the pipeline at a crossover of an older pipe and potential for the pipeline to sag at the crossover. 

Pipeline crossoveractivities and wcompliance with aregulations. 

Russell Donnelly, 2114 Oak Road DT25  DT25-1 (84) 1-10 

The commenter stated that they have proposed an offshore alternative to AES for the terminal site. 

Section 3.1 of the alternatives to the alternatives encomfuels, renewable econservation. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-78

On June 12, 2008, a public meeting was held in Edgewood, Maryland at the Richlin Ballroom. The following trancommenters and summarizes their comments. A complete transcript of the proceedings is available at http://elibr

#CP07-62, CP07-63, CP07-64 and CP07-65). 

Table P2-3 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the 

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of Comment 

in Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment 

Guido Guarnaccia, LNG Opposition Team 

EW1 

 EW1-1 (16) 3-14, 19-25; 

(17) 1-12, 18-25; (18) 1-2 

The commenter stated several concerns regarding security and safety. 

Please see respoand IN22-2. 

 EW1-2 (16)15-18 The commenter stated that the 

Coast Guard has determined that Chesapeake Bay is not currently suitable for this type of facility. 

The WSR stated could be made smeasures provida discussion on tadditional recomare contained in 

 EW1-3 (17) 13-17 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the proposed LNG volume versus the Coast Guard’s allowable limits. 

The Coast Guard the cargo size of 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-79

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW1-4 (17) 14-16 The commenter stated that the 

Coast Guard has limits to 148,000 m3 vessels, AES has demanded 

217,000 m3. 

As stated in sectithe WSR, the Coarestriction on the allowed to transit m3 until a site-spe

larger LNG carrieCoast Guard COT

 EW1-5 (17) 18-20 The commenter stated that the 

Coast Guard has established a hundred yard radius security zone. AES says it wants 300 yards. 

Please see respo

Frank Holden, 315 Margaret Avenue, Essex, MD, Maryland Salt Water Sport Fishermen’s Association 

EW2 

 EW2-1 (18) 20 – (19) 3 The commenter stated several 

concerns regarding security and safety. 

Section 4.12.1 of issue of energy cexplosive potentia

 EW2-2 (19) 6-9 The commenter stated concerns 

for recreational and fishing vessels. 

Please see respo

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-80

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW2-3 (19) 11-12 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the environmental impacts of heavy metals and other pollutants that will be disturbed during dredging. 

Please see respo

 EW2-4 (19) 12-16 U.S. Coast Guard has expressed 

inability to safeguard ships in such a busy port. 

Please see respo

 EW2-5 (19) 17-23 500 yard security area is much 

smaller than in practice, ships chase others out at much farther distances than that. 

Please see respo

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-81

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

Valerie Twanmoh, 2421 Haddon Hurst Court, Fallston - Speaking in part as Special Assistant to Senator Barbara Mikulski 

EW3 

 EW3-1 (21) 23-25; 

(22) 1-2 

The commenter stated the concerns of Senator Mikulski

regarding the ability of the FERC to oversee the implementation and management of the mitigation measures outlined in the DEIS. 

Please see the Cthe public record 

(Docket #CP07-6CP07-65) dated 37/3/2008 and 7/1the Senator’s letteMitigation measuthe Certificate woconfirmed by FERimplement and mEnvironmental CoReporting PrograFEIS for additionaenvironmental comitigation monitofederal and state oversight and insnecessary. After would continue to inspection and m

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-82

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW3-2 (22) 5-11 The commenter stated the 

concerns of Senator Mikulski regarding the pipeline route through urban and suburban communities, and the destruction of homes, schools, wells and septic systems. 

Project constructiimpacts on resideindustrial / commassessed and are The pipeline wouthrough or under structure. Impactfor construction ndescribed in sectsystems are discuthe FEIS. 

 EW3-3 (22) 10-11 The commenter stated the 

concerns of Senator Mikulski regarding the pipeline’s impacts to state parks and other recreation areas. 

Impacts and mitiginterest and recrein section 4.8.1.2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-83

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW3-4 (22) 15-16 The commenter stated the 

concerns of Senator Mikulski regarding safety and security, and concerns that several of the Senator’s previous information requests have not been addressed thus far. 

As discussed in sbe required to deResponse Plan (Eevacuation). The in consultation wicounty, and local groups, fire depaenforcement ageinclude a Cost-Shmechanisms for fsecurity/emergenwould be imposed agencies. In comhas stated that thappropriate arranadditional resourcCoast Guard's reLNG ship transits Project. 

 EW3-5 (23) 11-24 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the pipeline’s proximity to public schools, recreational fields, the Deer Creek watershed, Rock State Park, the County 4-H camp, the historic village of Berkeley, historic Hosanna School, historic Jerusalem Mill, Harford Glen and the Harford County Equestrian Center. 

Pipeline safety is 4.12.9. Impacts odiscussed in sectschools are discuYouth’s Benefit E(mentioned by the greater than 0.25 pipeline route. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-84

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW3-6 (23) 25 - (24) 1-6 Commenter stated that safety 

concerns that were raised before have yet to be adequately addressed by the applicant. 

All analyses and Applicant and revother agencies arhttp://elibrary.ferc

CP07-63, CP07-6docket is constaninformation becomand oral commenformal public comwere considered preparation of this 

Linwood Jackson, 621 New Pittsburgh Avenue, Turner Station 

EW4 

 EW4-1 (24) 15-25; 

(25) 1-15 

The commenter expressed concerns regarding many hazardous materials known to be at the proposed LNG site, and outlined the many products that used to be manufactured at the site. 

Comment noted. agency database hazardous, potenwaste sites within terminal site and route. Section 4.8the hazardous wa0.25 mile of the Pcontains a discusat the LNG termindiscusses sedimeof contaminants iSection 4.3.2.5 coproject dredging. Plan is included i

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-85

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW4-2 (25) 16-25; 

(26) 1-11 

The commenter noted that the proposed LNG site contains contaminated soils from many sources. 

Section 4.2.1 concontamination at 

 EW4-3 (27) 3-13 The commenter stated that the 

proposed LNG site is located on a peninsula, with only two roads available for evacuation off the peninsula. The commenter also stated that the proposed emergency whistles to warn of an emergency would not be sufficient. 

Please see respo

Donna Ichniowski, 128 Creek View Court, Street, MD 

EW5 

 EW5-1 (29) 10-15 The commenter described an 

explosion of a blast furnace at Bethlehem Steel many years ago that was felt throughout Dundalk. 

Comment noted. 

 EW5-2 (29) 18-19 The commenter stated that the 

proposed LNG site is fill material. 

The geology, soiland engineering aProject are discusand 4.12, respect

 EW5-3 (29) 22-25; 

(30) 1-2 

The commenter stated the proposed LNG site is contaminated. 

Section 4.2.1 concontamination at 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-86

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW5-4 (30) 3-25; 

(31) 1-16; (32) 5-13 

The commenter stated concerns about the large (3.7 million cubic yards, plus future dredging requirements) amount of dredge material, as well as the contaminated nature of that dredge material. The commenter stated concerns regarding the disposal and/or decontamination of the dredge material. 

Section 4.3.2.4 dsampling and anathe marine envirocontains discussiThe Consolidated in appendix D of tconclusions, recomitigation measusection 5. 

 EW5-5 (31) 16-24 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the truck and railroad traffic resulting from the transport of dredge material. 

Information pertadredge material tConsolidated Dreappendix D of the 

 EW5-6 (31) 25; 

(32) 1-4 

The commenter stated concerns regarding pollution from trucks and trains transporting dredge material. 

Please see respo

 EW5-7 (32) 15-18 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the Securities and Exchange Commission report regarding the level of AES’s debt. 

This comment is EIS.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-87

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

Pat McDonough, Member of the House of Delegates, Representing Harford County 

EW6 

 EW6-1 (33) 3-6, 10-13 The commenter stated that this is 

the first port or terminal that this company is constructing that requires LNG ships to travel 150 miles inland on inland waterways. 

Comment noted. 

 EW6-2 (33) 19-24 The commenter stated that those 

responsible for security do not have experience with a project sited geographically similar to the proposed Project. 

Currently in the Uoperating LNG imCoast Guard has accordance with TSee section 4.12.

 EW6-3 (33) 25; 

(34) 1-7 

The commenter stated concerns regarding the safety and security of the pipeline component of the Project, as well as the proximity to schools. 

Pipeline safety is 4.12.9 and land umeasures are dis

 EW6-4 (34) 13-14 The commenter stated that 

neither Maryland nor the U.S. would benefit from the Project. 

Please see respo

 EW6-5 (34) 16-19 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the disturbance of the material planned for dredging. 

Section 4.3.2.4 dsampling and anathe marine envirocontains discussiThe Consolidated in appendix D of t

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-88

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW6-6 (34) 20-24 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the traffic resulting from the transport of dredge material. 

Please see respo

 EW6-7 (35) 8-11 The commenter stated that the 

Project would be dependent upon foreign energy. 

Section 3.1 of the of alternatives to These alternativerenewable fuels, and energy conseanalyses comparand concluded thsingly or in conceprojected energy markets. As discLNG could be shisources around th

 EW6-8 (35) 14-22 The commenter stated that it 

would be more beneficial for the economy if natural gas was from U.S. sources which would create more U.S. jobs, versus 385 jobs and 55 permanent jobs to support the proposed Project. 

Comment noted. comment EW6-7. not preclude loca

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-89

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

Ron Henry. Chair of Greater Baltimore Group, Chair of MD Chapter of Sierra Club and Harford County Resident 

EW7 

 EW7-1 (36) 22-23 The commenter reiterated his 

past concerns regarding safety and security. 

Please see respo

 EW7-2 (37) 2-20 The commenter stated that 

available data regarding safety were inadequate. 

Comment noted. 

 EW7-3 (38) 13-14 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the proximity of the pipeline to schools and residences. 

Pipeline safety is 4.12.9. Land use measures are disincluding existing and developmentschools in section 

 EW7-4 (38) 16-18 The commenter stated 

disagreement with environmental impacts being considered minimal or low. 

We acknowledge would be adverseThe conclusions include compliancrecommendations FERC staff’s concand mitigation me

 EW7-5 (38) 22-24 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding safety and security, as well as environmental impacts to Chesapeake Bay. 

Section 2.7.1 conterminal safety coreliability is discusEnvironmental imsection 4 of the E

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-90

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW7-6 (39) 3-5 In relation to the proposed 

dredging of contaminated sediments, the commenter stated the applicability of a past “Superfund” cleanup of the late 1980s. 

Please see respo

 EW7-7 (39) 9-15 The commenter stated that 

innovative techniques with yet-tobe developed studies and analytical methods of approaching the various problems should have already been done. 

Please see respo

William Kumm EW8  EW8-1 (41) 6-9 The commenter stated that the 

LNG tankers would be fueled by oil, which would cause pollution. 

Section 4.11.1 andiscussion on air vessel transit and security and esco

 EW8-2 (41) 11-20 The commenter offered 

suggestions to utilize hydrogen as a fuel source, and to utilize solarenergy-manufactured ammonia to transport the hydrogen. 

Comment noted. evaluates a varieproposed Projectencompass other renewable energy conservation. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-91

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

Peter Reid, 2407 Taylor Avenue, Parkville MD, Maryland Salt Water Sport Fishermen’s Association 

EW9 

 EW9-1 (42) 3-12 The commenter stated that the 

concerns of the previous commenters need to be considered and addressed. 

Comments all not

Heather Cambell on behalf of Senator Ben Cardin and Congressman Ruppersberger 

EW10 

 EW10-1 (42) 14 – (43) 9 The commenter stated that 

Senator Cardin continues to have concerns about safety, security and environmental impacts. The Senator stated in a letter that 151 mitigation measures outlined in the DEIS to limit the Project's environmental impact are too many. 

We believe the Eenvironmental imthat our recommewould reduce envsignificant levels. contains the envicompleted for the and safety in sectcontains FERC Srecommendations

 EW10-2 (43) 15-17 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the proximity of the pipeline to the Fallston High and Middle Schools. 

Pipeline safety is 4.12.9. Land use measures are disincluding schools 

 EW10-3 (43) 17-20 The commenter stated that none 

of the residents of Harford and the Baltimore area would see any benefits from the Project. 

Please see respoEstimated tax revdiscussed in sect

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-92

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW10-4 (43) 21-23 The commenter stated that the 

region is recovering from an MTBE spill in the drinking water, and a proposed pipeline could pose an additional threat to the region's drinking water. 

Natural gas, beinmigrate down to ga spill. Impacts to water, including ddiscussed in sect

 EW10-5 (43) 24-25; 

(44) 1 

The commenter stated concerns that the pipeline would impact 18 private wells. 

Section 4.3.1.1 copublic and private including a recomstart of constructifile with the Secrewater wells within construction righta potable water wconstruction activhas agreed to proof water. Additionwould be responsrepair/replacemeany potable wateconstruction activrecommended thathe pipeline facilitExpress file a repidentifying all watdamaged by conswere repaired. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-93

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW10-6 (44) 4-8 The commenter outlined 

Congressman Ruppersberger’s concerns regarding safety and the pipeline’s impacts to Interstate 695, residential areas, schools and wetlands. 

Existing and PlanDevelopments ar4.8.1.1. RecreatiAreas including ssection 4.8.1.2. Imeasures on wetsection 4.4. Reliadiscussed in sect

Ronnie Adams, Harford County Resident 

EW11 

 EW11-1 (44) 20-23 The commenter stated that 

Sparrows Point was originally an orchard and a farm, and remains a “premiere” waterfowling area. 

Comment noted. in section 4.6.1 a

 EW11-2 (45) 1 The commenter briefly reiterated 

previous safety considerations. 

Reliability and sasection 4.12. 

 EW11-3 (45) 3-4 The commenter stated concerns 

for conservation, environment, recreation, culture and social issues that the terminal will directly impact. 

Section 4 of the Fenvironmental anProject. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-94

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW11-4 (45) 5-10 The commenter stated that the 

area is a historic waterfowl concentration area, designated by the Maryland Department of Environment and by the MDNR, and is afforded protections under the Coastal Area Management policies, as well as protections under the migratory species of the U.S. Government. 

See revised sectiPlease also see rOC1-2. 

 EW11-5 (45) 14-19 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding dredging impacts and water depth increases to waterfowl feeding. 

See revised sectiLNG Marine Traff

 EW11-6 (45) 20-21 The commenter stated that 

citizens of Maryland would not benefit from the Project. 

Please see respo

 EW11-7 (45) 24 - (46) 4 The commenter stated that there 

would be detrimental effects on at least 12 different species of waterfowl. 

Section 4.6.1 WaTraffic and table 4to include waterfoMDNR and MarylAssociation. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-95

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

Roxanne Lynch, Director of Government Community Relations, Harford County, Representing County Executive Dave Craig 

EW12 

 EW12-1 (47) 5-7 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the pipeline’s impacts at 36 stream crossings in the Deer Creek Watershed. 

Section 4.3.2.5 dto stream crossinlist of all waterbodS presents the HDContingency Plan

 EW12-2 (47) 8-11 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the clearing of forests and the resultant impacts to water bodies. 

Vegetation clearincrossings is discuSurface Water ReMitigation, and imare discussed in s

 EW12-3 (47) 13-15 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding impacts to 18 private wells and 39 residences. 

Groundwater impdiscussed in sectimpacts and mitigdiscussed in sectand planned residin section 4.8.1.1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-96

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW12-4 (47) 17-25; 

(48) 1-3 

The commenter stated that there would be cumulative impacts resulting from the Project and a permitted landfill operation, which is scheduled to begin in 2008. The landfill operations will involve blasting near the proposed Project, and is scheduled to continue for 10 years. 

Section 4.13 discWe have found nin Harford County the proposed pipe

Harry Argentino, Harford County Resident 

EW13 

 EW13-1 (48) 13-21 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding impacts to forests necessary to create the pipeline. 

Impacts to forestesection 4.5. 

Tony Paszkiwicz, 1801 Peachtree Court, Fallston 

EW14 

 EW14-1 (49) 7-8 The commenter stated that the 

development of newer, cleaner, and renewable energy sources needs to be pursued. 

Section 3.1 of the of alternatives to These alternativerenewable fuels, and energy conse

 EW14-2 (49) 10-11 The commenter stated that the 

Project would keep the U.S. dependent upon foreign sources. 

Please see respo

 EW14-3 (49) 16-21 The commenter stated political 

conflicts of interest, and impacts to low-income residential areas. 

Environmental Jusection 4.9.7. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-97

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW14-4 (50) 4-6 The commenter stated that the 

FERC has held only a few public hearings, but has held over 83 closed door sessions with oil executives and lobbyists. 

The EIS has been with NEPA, the Cimplementing NEregulations for imwritten and oral cthe public commeconsidered and eof this FEIS. Conaddressed by reswithin the scope o

 EW14-5 (50) 12-13 The commenter stated concerns 

for safety along the pipeline. 

Pipeline safety is 4.12.9, section 4.4.12.11. 

 EW14-6 (50) 15-23 The commenter stated that AES 

is not an environmentally responsible company. 

Comment noted. would be reviewecounty, state and 

 EW14-7 The commenter stated that AES 

will abandon the plant in 25 years, and it will take 25 to 150 years for the damage to be repaired, if ever. 

AES states that thplant is 25 years, be updated and cdismantled. 

 EW14-8 (50) 24 – (51) 1 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the loss of private property. 

Comment noted. authorization undGas Act would coauthority, specific determined by a snegotiated agreean easement can

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-98

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW14-9 (51) 5 The commenter stated concerns 

for Chesapeake Bay. 

Comment noted. 

Deborah Mance, Representing Saint Anne Community, Northern Harford County 

EW15 

 EW15-1 (52) 4-18 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding impacts to 10 of 49 residences in what realtors call a “highly desirable” community resulting in property value decreases throughout the community. 

FERC has recomExpress include vplans for the pipethe impact to this 

 EW15-2 (53) 4-9 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding impacts to wetlands, streams, woodlands and natural wildlife areas. 

Please see respo

 EW15-3 (53) 17-19 The commenter stated that the 

FERC needs to consider Alternate 6 as described in the EIS. 

Please see respo

 EW15-4 (53) 21-23 The commenter stated concerns 

for environmental impact on water body crossings, forested areas. 

Please see respo

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-99

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW15-5 (53) 25 - (54) 2 The commenter stated that there 

isn’t any public or political support for the Project. 

Comment noted. 

Russell Donnelly Environmental Coordinator for LNG Opposition Team 

EW16 

 EW16-1 (54) 22-25; 

(55) 1-25 

The commenter stated that past and very recent studies have shown that the sediments in Baltimore Harbor are contaminated and there are high concentrations of the protozoan “acanthamoeba” at Sparrows Point, and that the entire harbor was zoned into highly, moderately low, and slightly toxic zones. 

Please see respo

 EW16-2 (56) 3-10 The commenter stated that the 

public safety distance is, as of February 2007, 2500 meters, which puts the public at risk. 

Reliability and Sasection 4.12. 

 EW16-3 (56) 15-20 The commenter stated the 

proximity of the Maryland Transportation Authority Headquarters and Severstal corporation (a “flame source”), Turners Station residents and Edgemere residents, to the Project. 

Please see respo

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-100

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW16-4 (56) 24 - (57) 1 The commenter stated that the 

proposed facility would be in violation of NFPA 59A (2001) due to proximity to a planned ethanol plant (construction slated for 1/09), less than 3,000 feet from the proposed Project. 

Please see respo

 EW16-5 (57) 19-23 The commenter stated that it is 

against Maryland law to utilize contaminated material (dredge spoils) for beneficial reuse. 

As discussed in tPlan (appendix D

recycling program supportive of the Dredged Material which was renewMaterial Managemother things, the Apreferences for thmaterials from the portion of Chesapof preferences inc(recycling). 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-101

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

Dr. Roman Ratych, 2833 Cross Country Court, Fallston MD, Representing Greater Fallston Association 

EW17 

 EW17-1 (58) 7-25; 

(59) 1-11 

The commenter stated concerns that Fallston is subject to many environmental risks from existing energy projects (gas and nuclear), leaking underground storage tanks, a leaking underground petroleum aqueduct, and military operations nearby. And has experienced the first and second largest Maryland environmental disasters, and that the FERC must consider the cumulative risks. 

Cumulative impacsection 4.13. 

Linda Heilman 122 Sturbridge Road, Fallston, MD 

EW18 

 EW18-1 (60) 1-2 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the proximity of the pipeline to her property. 

Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-102

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW18-2 (60) 1-3 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the disturbance of toxic chemicals at Bethlehem Steel. 

The Consolidated appendix D of the 

 EW18-3 (60) 8-20 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the disposal of vegetative material by landfill and onsite, or through windfall burns at the corner of the rights-of-way. The commenter also stated concerns regarding changes to drainage, the flooding, and the impact on private wells and septic systems. 

Section 2.3.2.1 inExpress would divegetation in accoordinances at appMarketable timbewould be managelandowners’ agremay be given bacas timber matting properly disposed Impacts to wells a4.3.1.1. Impacts septic fields are d4.8.1.1. 

Kelsey Paszkiavicz, 1801 Peachtree Court, Baltimore, MD, (Fallston High School Student) 

EW19 

 EW19-1 (61) 9-22 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding evacuation from the Fallston Middle and High Schools, due to current overcrowded conditions, as well as concerns for the containment of a fire at the Project. 

Safety controls arand safety and resection 4.12. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-103

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW19-2 (62) 1-2 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding impacts to wells. 

Impacts on wells 4.3.1.1. 

 EW19-3 (62) 4-10 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the devaluation of his property. 

Possible effects odiscussed in sect

 EW19-4 (62) 10-15 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding impacts to wildlife. 

Impacts to wildlife 

 EW19-5 (62) 17-25; 

(63) 1-5 

The commenter stated concerns regarding the impacts to the blue crab population, which is currently at risk, from the dredging. 

Impacts to aquatisection 4.6.2. The Plan is located in 

 EW19-6 (63) 9-12 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding safety and questions the need for the Project if it is just to provide profit to AES. 

Safety is discussepurpose and need discussed in sect

Marian Sweeny, 1112 Sturbridge Road Fallston, MD 

EW20 

 EW20-1 (63) 23-25; 

(64) 1-8 

The commenter stated concerns regarding impacts to property values. 

Possible effects odiscussed in sect

 EW20-2 (64) 10-14 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding future upgrades to septic systems and new well installations. 

Please see respo

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-104

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW20-3 (64) 22-23 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the take of property and the payment of taxes on the rightof-way land. 

Please see respoand BM6-8. 

 EW20-4 (64) 24-25 The commenter stated concerns 

for safety and security. 

Safety controls arand safety and resection 4.12. 

Lee Crush EW21  EW21-1 (65) 22-24 The commenter stated the need 

to pursue alternative energy sources. 

Section 3.1 of the of alternatives to These alternativerenewable fuels, and energy conse

Matt Jones 128 Creekview Court, Street, MD 

EW22 

 EW22-1 (67) 24-25 The commenter reiterated the 

concerns of commenter EW15. 

Please see respo

 EW22-2 (68) 21 – (69) 1 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding impacts to wells. 

Private wells are 4.3.1.1. 

 EW22-3 (69) 3 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding insurance rates. 

Section 4.9.5 indiadvisors consulteprojects reviewed that LNG terminainfrastructure do homeowner insur

 EW22-4 (69) 4-6 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding property values. 

Property values a4.9.5. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-105

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW22-5 (69) 11 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the payment of taxes along the Project. 

Section 4.9.5 indican appeal an asproperty taxation agency. 

 EW22-6 (70) 16-19 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the applicability of eminent domain for a private, forprofit company. 

Please see respo

 EW22-7 (71) 11-15 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding impacts to specific schools, churches and hospitals along the proposed route and route variation 4. 

Neither the proporoute variation 4 wSquare Hospital pand Rossville Bouwould move away avoid a structure. between the strucEssex Communitwould be within abuilding and the sare discussed in schurches and hossection 4.8.1.2. 

 EW22-8 (71) 17-21 The commenter stated concerns 

that the Coast Guard cannot offer suitable protection. 

The Coast Guard their WSR in ordeapproved by them

 EW22-9 (71) 23-25 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding fire. 

Reliability and sasection 4.12. 

 EW22-10 (72) 6-10 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding dredging. 

The Consolidated appendix D. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-106

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW22-11 (72) 10-14 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the cost to Maryland residents each time the LNG tankers arrive. 

Comment noted. 

 EW22-12 (72) 15-20 The commenter stated that AES, 

as of December 31, 2007, had approximately $18 billion of outstanding debt. 

This comment is EIS. 

Harold Spurgeon 1303 Malus Court, Fallston 

EW23 

 EW23-1 (74) 10-12 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding direct impact to his home. 

The pipeline wouthrough or under structure. A site-would be required than 25 feet from way. These planU. 

 EW23-2 (74) 23-25 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding safety. 

Reliability and sasection 4.12. 

 EW23-3 (74) 10-14 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding impacts to Winter Run, the water supply for the City of Bel Air. 

Please see respo

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-107

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW23-4 (75) 22-25; 

(76) 1-8 

The commenter stated that a portion of the pipeline will be colocated in an electric line right-ofway which is being considered for additional electric lines. 

Identification of upotential impacts construction of thsection 2.3.2 of thproposed pipeline electric transmissExpress would mclearances betwepipeline constructAtlantic Express wexisting utility proconstruction. Any would be repaired better conditions. 

 EW23-5 (76) 9-11 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding corrosion. 

Corrosion protectdiscussed in sect

 EW23-6 (76) 18-25; 

(77) 1-15 

The commenter stated concerns regarding the need for the Project. 

Purpose and nee1.2 

Adrienne Brown & James Olgastowski (ph.), 11901 Caspian Road, Kingsville, MD 

EW24 

 EW24-1 (79) 10 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding terrorism. 

Reliability and sasection 4.12. 

 EW24-2 (79) 10 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding property values. 

Please see respo

 EW24-3 (80) 1-2 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding corrosion. 

Corrosion protectdiscussed in sect

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-108

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW24-4 (80) 9-11 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding emergency response to terrorism. 

Reliability and sasection 4.12. Safein section 2.7. 

 EW24-5 (80) 5-7 The commenter questioned the 

benefit of the four years of construction related jobs the Project would provide versus the threat of terrorism. 

Comment noted. 

Christone Heisey, 1805 Brickhouse Lane, Fallston 

EW25 

 EW25-1 (81) 4-5 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the proximity of the Project to schools, and the poor evacuation routes in an emergency. 

Please see respo

 EW25-2 (81) 12-15 The commenter stated general 

concerns for the route of the pipeline, and specifically the impacts to the Maryland and Pennsylvania trail. 

There would be nrecreational portiois discussed in se

 EW25-3 (81) 20-25 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding property loss, as well as the impacts during construction. 

Property values a4.9.5. Constructioin section 2.0. 

 EW25-4 (82) 5-9 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding dredging. 

The Consolidated appendix D. 

 EW25-5 (82) 12-18 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the impacts to the crab population. 

Impacts to aquatidiscussed in sect

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-109

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW25-6 (80) 9-11 The commenter stated there is no 

way local emergency response entities could mitigate an accident or an act of terror. 

Please see respo

Carolyn Hicks EW26  EW26-1 (83) 12-14 The commenter stated strong 

opposition to the Project by elected officials. 

Comment noted. 

 EW26-2 (83) 19- (84) 5 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the proximity of the Project to schools. 

Parks and school4.8.1.2. Youth’s is located greater proposed pipeline 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-110

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

Larry Silverman, Environmental Attorney of Washington D.C. Bar, 7308 Birch Avenue, Takoma Park, MD. Chair of Montgomery County Water Quality Advisory Group, President of Patuxent River Keeper 

EW27 

 EW27-1 (85) 7- 19 The commenter stated that 

Commander Penoyer of the Coast Guard acknowledged that the Coast Guard at this time does not have the resources to provide safety to this facility at Sparrows Point. 

Please see respo

 EW27-2 (85) 19 - (86)7 The commenter stated that the 

Office of Pipeline Safety cannot assure protection for the current amount of pipelines under its jurisdiction. 

Comment noted. 

 EW27-3 (86) 15-17 The commenter wanted to 

understand the physical state of the gas as it is transported in the pipeline. 

The gas would be terminal and then pipeline. 

 EW27-4 (88) 1-2 The commenter questioned 

whether the cost was worth the environmental impacts. 

Purpose and Nee1.2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-111

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW27-5 (88) 14-24 The commenter stated the roles 

of the EPA and HUD in the decision making process. 

Comment Noted. letters are FA5 anrespectively. 

Caroline Seamon, 8004 Yellowstone Road, Kingsville, MD 

EW28 

 EW28-1 (90) 11-12 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding her property’s proximity to the BG&E right-of-way, and the cumulative impacts of co-locating a pipeline with the electric line. 

Please see respo

Louis Knopacki, 123 Bayside Drive, near Bear Creek 

EW29 

 EW29-1 (91) 24-25; 

(92) 1-12 

The commenter stated concerns regarding disturbance of sediments by propellers. 

The impacts of prwere modeled an2006 as the "Spa- Propeller Wash 

 EW29-2 (92) 14 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding terrorism. 

Please see respo

 EW29-3 (92) 21 - (93) 3 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding an explosion and 10 fires at Sparrows Point in one week in May, 2008. The commenter believes more fires occur there that are not made public. 

Comment noted. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-112

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

Amy Woolf, 1301 Malus Court, Fallston 

EW30 

 EW30-1 (93) 11-13 The commenter had several 

comments that can best be categorized in Purpose and Need and Environmental Justice. 

We have developmeasures designmeets current envregulatory standanegative impacts environment. Endiscussed in sect

Russell Donnelly Environmental Coordinator for LNG Opposition Team 

EW31 

 EW31-1 (93) 24-25 The commenter requested the 

FERC to deny all permits. 

The FERC would this FEIS in its deProject should be approval would oconsideration and environmental anissues, the FERC Project is in the pof the FEIS contaFERC’s regulatorfederal and state consultations reqtable 1.3-1. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Edgewood, MD Public Comment Meeting P2-113

Table P2-3 (continued) 

Summary of the Transcript from the Edgewood, Maryland Public Comment Meeting on the D

Name Comment 

No. 

Location of 

Comment in 

Transcript (Page) 

Lines 

Summary of Comment R

 EW31-2 (94) 6-7 The commenter stated that the 

LNG site is located on a geologic fault. 

According to the Geological Survefaults under or anplant site. Please comment OC5-49 requirements as d4.1.1.1. 

 EW31-3 (94) 9-18 The commenter stated that the 

LNG site is fill material and unstable to build on. 

Please see respo50 and OC5-51. discussion of geodiscussion of soil

 EW31-4 (94) 19- (95) 5 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding “liquefication,” and that Bethlehem Steel has experienced problems at the site. 

Please see respo50 and OC5-51. requirements are 4.1.1.1. 

Linwood Jackson, 611 Pittsburgh Avenue 

EW32 

 EW32-1 (95) 22-23 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding the equipment needed to extinguish a fire. 

Comment noted. discussed in sect

 EW32-2 (96) 1 The commenter stated concerns 

regarding evacuation from the peninsula. 

Please see respo

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX Q

AQUATIC RESOURCES MITIGATION PLAN

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

September 2008 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

AES Sparrows Point LNG Terminal & Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Project Description 1

1.2 Project Filings to Date 2

2 SITE SETTING 4

2.1 Offshore Aquatic Resources 4

2.2 Watersheds 8

2.3 Soils 9

2.4 Wetland Survey & Results 10

2.5 Waterbody Survey & Results 11

2.6 Routing Studies & Impact Avoidance 11

2.6.1 Route Alternatives 12

3 OFFSHORE AQUATIC RESOURCES IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 13

3.1 Dredging 13

3.1.1 Potential Impacts 14

3.1.2 Mitigation Strategy 15

3.2 Bulkhead Construction 18

3.2.1 Potential Impacts 18

3.2.2 Mitigation Strategy 20

3.3 Pile Driving 20

3.3.1 Potential Impacts 20

3.3.2 Mitigation Strategy 20

4 WETLAND & WATERBODY CROSSING CONSTRUCTION AND 

RESTORATION 22

4.1 Wetland Construction Procedures 22

4.2 Wetland Restoration 23

4.3 Waterbody Crossing Construction Procedures 23

4.4 Waterbody Crossing Restoration 26

5 WETLAND MITIGATION 27

5.1 Mitigation Approach 27

5.2 Temporary & Permanent Impacts 27

5.3 Compensation 28

5.3.1 On-site In-kind restoration or creation 29

5.3.2 Off-site in sub-watershed in-kind restoration or creation 29

5.3.3 Off-site, in watershed in-kind restoration or creation 29

5.3.4 Wetland Mitigation Bank 30

5.4 Compensatory Mitigation Projects 30

6 REGULATORY CONSULTATION 31

6.1 Development of Detailed Site Mitigation Plans 31

6.2 Monitoring and Reporting 32

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(continued) 

ii 

6.3 Performance Standards and Development of Performance Plans 32

7 PLAN SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 33

REFERENCES 34

TABLES 

FIGURES 

APPENDIX A – Best Management Practices 

APPENDIX B – Environmental Construction Plan 

APPENDIX C – Site Specific Construction Plans 

APPENDIX D – DRAFT Sea Turtle Monitoring Training Program 

APPENDIX E – Bog Turtle Management Plan 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

1 

1 INTRODUCTION 

This DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan (“ARMP”) describes impacts on wetlands, 

waterbodies, essential fish habitat (“EFH”), and other aquatic resources resulting from the 

construction of the AES Sparrows Point LNG and Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Projects. The 

compensatory mitigation guidelines and standards utilized in development of this ARMP 

emphasize use of best available science, promote innovation, and focus on results. AES has 

designed the Project to adhere to the “mitigation sequence” of “avoid, minimize, and 

compensate.” AES focused its efforts with respect to both the LNG Terminal and the Pipeline 

Route to first avoid sensitive resources, then to minimize impacts, and then to compensate for 

unavoidable impacts. This ARMP addresses specific restoration, mitigation, and monitoring 

measures that will be employed by AES to mitigate for the unavoidable impacts. In all cases, it 

is the intent of this ARMP to identify and summarize the major actions producing impacts on 

the aquatic environment (such as dredging, pile driving, bulkhead building, wetlands crossings, 

stream crossing), describe the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that will be 

implemented, and then describe how each measure will be monitored for success. 

1.1 Project Description 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC (“Sparrows Point LNG”) proposes to construct, own, and 

operate a new liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) import, storage, and regasification terminal (“LNG 

Terminal”) at the Sparrows Point Industrial Complex situated on the Sparrows Point peninsula 

east of the Port of Baltimore in Maryland. LNG will be delivered to the LNG Terminal by LNG 

marine vessels, offloaded from these vessels to shoreside storage tanks, regasified to natural gas 

on the LNG Terminal site (“Terminal Site”), and the regasified natural gas transported to 

consumers by pipeline. The LNG Terminal will have a regasification capacity of 1.5 billion 

standard cubic feet of natural gas per day (“bscfd”), with the potential to expand to 2.25 bscfd. 

Regasified natural gas will be delivered to markets in the Mid-Atlantic Region and northern 

portions of the South Atlantic Region through an approximately 88-mile, 30-inch outside 

diameter interstate natural gas pipeline (“Pipeline”) to be constructed and operated by MidAtlantic Express, L.L.C. (“Mid-Atlantic Express”). The Pipeline will extend from the LNG 

Terminal to points of interconnection with existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems near 

Eagle, Pennsylvania. Together the LNG Terminal and Pipeline projects are referred to as the 

Sparrows Point Project or Project. Both Sparrows Point LNG and Mid-Atlantic Express 

(hereinafter collectively referred to as “AES”) are subsidiaries of The AES Corporation.

The Project footprint is located in the counties of Baltimore, Harford, and Cecil in Maryland 

and the counties of Lancaster and Chester in Pennsylvania. The Terminal Site, which is located 

entirely within Baltimore County, is a parcel located within a former shipyard. The route 

proposed for the Pipeline (“Pipeline Route”), which crosses all of the listed counties, includes 

industrial, commercial, agricultural, and residential lands. Together, the Terminal Site and the 

Pipeline Route comprise the Project Area. 

Construction of the LNG Terminal will include widening and deepening the existing approach 

channel leading off of the Brewerton Channel and creating a turning basin immediately offshore 

of the Terminal Site to accommodate the ships expected to deliver LNG at the LNG Terminal. 

This document provides a conceptual aquatic resources/wetland mitigation plan to compensate 

for permanent losses of forested wetland with in the right-of-way (“ROW”) of the Sparrows 

Point LNG Terminal/Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Projects (“Project”). 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

2 

1.2 Project Filings to Date 

Filings, which will be used throughout the life of the Project unless otherwise changed in 

accordance with appropriate regulations, include, but are not limited to, the following: 

Major Permits, Approvals and Consultations for the 

AES Sparrows Point Dredging Project 

AGENCY PERMIT APPLICATION/DATE REQUEST RESPONSE FILING DATE 

PROJECT PERMITS 

AES’s Application for Certificate of Public Convenience 

and Necessity 

January 2007 

AES’s Responses to the FERC’s March 16, 2007 

Environmental Information Request 

April 2007 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) 

AES’s Responses to the FERC’s July 11, 2007 

Environmental Information Request 

July 2007 

AES’s Application for Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 

404 dredge or fill permit (issued jointly with MDE) and 

Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 authorization 

Note: CWA Section 401 – Done by MDE 

January 2007 

REVISED - AES Application for Clean Water Act 

(CWA) Section 404 dredge or fill permit (issued jointly 

with MDE) and Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 

authorization 

April 2007 

AES’s responses to Minutes from the Meeting on 

Dredging /Dredged Material Disposal with FERC, the 

ACOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(“EPA”) and Maryland Department of Environment 

(“MDE”) that were posted to the FERC website on June 

12, 2007. 

June 2007 

AES’s Responses to the ACOE Data Request dated July 

6, 2007 

July 2007 

Report on AES Sparrows Point August 2007 Sediment 

Sampling and Results submitted to ACOE 

September 2007 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(ACOE) 

Addendum to Report on AES Sparrows Point August 

2007 Sediment Sampling and Results submitted to ACOE 

October 2007 

AES’s Application to MDE under the Maryland Coastal 

Facilities Review Act (“CFRA”) 

January 2007 

AES’s Responses to MDE’s May 7, 2007 Data Request May 2007 

Maryland Department of 

Environment (“MDE”) 

AES’s Responses to MDE’s August 15, 2007 Data 

Request 2 

August 2007 

DREDGING OPERATIONS PERMITS 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

3 

Major Permits, Approvals and Consultations for the 

AES Sparrows Point Dredging Project 

AGENCY PERMIT APPLICATION/DATE REQUEST RESPONSE FILING DATE 

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers/ Maryland 

Department of Environment 

Joint Federal State Permit for Alternation of a Tidal 

Wetland in Maryland 

Included as part of 

January ACOE 

Section 404/10 

Permit Application 

and MDE CFRA 

Applications in 

January 2007 

DREDGED MATERIAL PROCESSING FACILITY PERMITS 

General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated 

with Construction Activities 

Included as part of 

AES’s MDE 

CFRA 

Applications in 

January 2007 

State Water Quality Certificate Included as part of 

AES’s MDE 

CFRA 

Applications in 

January 2007 

Maryland Department of 

Environment 

Air Quality Permit to Construct Included as part of 

AES’s MDE 

CFRA 

Applications in 

January 2007 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

4 

2 SITE SETTING 

This section will provide an overview of sediment and water quality in the vicinity of the 

proposed LNG Terminal and natural gas pipeline. The summary of information below taken 

from various documents filed by AES in its permit applications includes sediment description, 

water quality analysis, aquatic species, habitat descriptions and other pertinent background 

information. 

2.1 Offshore Aquatic Resources 

2.1.1 Sediment Quality 

As described in the AES Dredge Materials Management Plan, AES reviewed information from 

the various federal, state, and local environmental databases using the electronic database 

service First Search. Maryland has listed Baltimore Harbor and the Patapsco River as 

"impaired," because of excess contaminants, sediments or nutrients, or all three. In spring of 

2002, researchers from the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science 

(“UMCES”) analyzed sediment samples from locations throughout Baltimore Harbor, and used 

the data to create a map of contaminant locations and concentrations. Below is a summary of 

identified chemical hotspots, including concentrations of various organic compounds and heavy 

metals. This study also found throughout the Harbor persistent levels of chlordane. The 

organic and heavy metal compounds detected in the UMCES analysis include: 

  Polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) and poly aromatic hydrocarbons (“PAHs”) 

appeared in high concentrations in the Inner Harbor, which is reported to reflect the 

influence of stormwater runoff carried to the Harbor from Jones Falls. PAHs were 

reported in the references as elevated in sediment on the southern shore of Sparrows 

Point, and in Bear Creek sediments, probably due to heavy industry in these areas. PCB 

concentrations were reported as elevated in Bear Creek and Curtis Creek, relative to 

other sites along the Patapsco River. 

  Zinc and chromium were reported as elevated in Bear Creek and at several sites in 

Northwest Branch. 

  Nickel exhibited high values at 70 percent of the sites sampled across the area. 

  Mercury was reported as highest at the entrance to the Inner Harbor, likely due to 

stormwater runoff; high concentrations also occurred in Curtis Creek, Bear Creek, and 

Back River. 

  Copper was highest in Northwest Branch and Curtis Creek. 

Water flow in the area of the Sparrows Point peninsula is primarily influenced by Patapsco 

River input from the west and Bear Creek input from the north. The confluence of the two 

waterbodies is located north and west of the Terminal Site, and the combined surface water flow 

generally carries surface water and entrained sediment into and past the western shores of the 

Sparrows Point peninsula. In addition, a low tidal range (approximately ± two feet) introduces 

some flux contrary to the river/creek flows (i.e., incoming tide will somewhat offset outgoing 

river and/or creek flow). Thus, inputs of compounds of concern from urban sources will, in 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

5 

general, always flow toward the main portions of the Chesapeake Bay. The chemical nature of 

different compounds of concern, and geochemical interactions as they affect environmental 

migration within the system, are further described below. 

The Baltimore Harbor system, including the Patapsco River estuary, is surrounded by the 

Baltimore metropolitan region. During the past several years, extensive studies have been 

conducted of the levels of metals, mercury, and organic contaminants in Baltimore Harbor 

sediments (Ashley and Baker, 1999; McGee et al.; 1999; Mason and Lawrence; 1999) and 

surface waters (Bamford et al.; 1999).1

 These studies showed large spatial gradients in 

contaminant levels in the sediments due to relatively poor mixing that resulted in areas near 

storm water outfalls and industrial areas where contaminant concentrations were higher than in 

other areas where better mixing occurs. For example, elevated levels of PAHs and metals were 

indicated to be found around Sparrows Point, which historically has been the site of intensive 

coal coking and steel production. (CERP, 2002) 

Organochlorine compounds, including PCBs, were shown to be at elevated levels adjacent to 

Harbor storm water outfalls. Forty percent of the sites characterized within the Baltimore 

Harbor have PCB levels that exceed the "effects range-medium" value of Long, et al. (1995). 

Survival of the estuarine amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus was reduced in seven of twentyfive Baltimore Harbor sediment sites studied by McGee et al. (1999). Further, the reported 

toxicity of sediment at monitoring stations in Bear and Colgate Creeks was determined to 

potentially have been due to sediment-associated metals, while sediment toxicity in the Inner 

Harbor was likely due to both metals and organic contaminants (PAHs). 

AES performed two site specific sediment sampling events in June 2006 and August 2007. A 

comparison of the June 2006 and August 2007 vibracore sampling event data shows that the 

data collected from the August 2007 event directly correlates to the information presented to the 

ACOE, Maryland Department of Natural Resources (“MDNR”), MDE, and FERC in the 

various permit application materials submitted to those agencies in January 2007. Specifically, 

the PAHs and metals detected during the August 2007 event are within the same range of those 

constituents detected during the June 2006 sampling event as well as other historical dredge 

projects conducted in the Chesapeake Bay Area. The additional sampling performed by AES at 

the request of the ACOE confirms and further substantiates that the original classification of the 

sediment quality by AES in the proposed dredge area is accurate and comprehensive as 

presented in the Resource Report 2, Water Use and Quality, of the FERC Filing in January 

2007. 

In summary, the data illustrates that the highest concentrations of chemical constituents, 

primarily semi-volatile PAHs and heavy metals, are found in the shallow, fine-grained 

sediments with high organic carbon content that accumulate in low-energy depositional areas 

that tend to be close to the shore. Constituent concentrations generally decrease with depth at 

all locations, and decrease with distance from shore. The depth range of sediments with 

elevated constituent concentrations also appears to decrease further away from the shore, 

consistent with net import and deposition of fine-grained sediments close to the shore, rather 

than net scour and export of these sediments. 

 

1

 Other historical studies have been performed for the general areas surrounding the Terminal Site. Focus 

is given to the referenced studies due to the closer proximity in time and applicability of location as 

compared to those other studies. Site-specific testing, described in Resource Report 2, Water Use and 

Quality, Section 2.4.3.2, was conducted by AES to confirm the results of the referenced studies. 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

6 

The results indicate that the removal of the shallow and some of the intermediate sediment 

during dredging operations will improve overall bottom sediment conditions in the areas where 

dredging is planned. 

2.1.2 Marine Biota 

Additionally, as discussed in the FERC filing, specifically, Resource Report 2, Water Use and 

Quality, Section 2.4.8.2, and in Resource Report 3, Vegetation and Wildlife, Sections 3.3.2, 

3.3.3, and 3.4.3, as well as in Resource Report 3, Appendix 3B, Essential Fish Habitat Report, 

and Appendix 3A, Aquatic Finfish/Epibenthic Invertebrate Sampling Data Report, there is no 

submerged aquatic vegetation (“SAV”) located within approximately two miles of the LNG 

Terminal and no negative impacts to SAV along the proposed LNG marine traffic transit routes 

are expected as no SAV beds have been documented along the proposed ship transit route. The 

closest SAV location recently reported by Orth et al. (2005) was approximately three miles 

south of the LNG Terminal on the western side of the Patapsco River in Stony Creek. Older 

records suggest a similar lack of SAV historically within three miles of the LNG Terminal (Orth 

et al. 1994). All dredging associated with the Project will occur within approximately one mile 

of the Terminal Site. 

As reported in Resource Report 3, Vegetation and Wildlife, Appendix A, marine field surveys 

were performed by AES between June 27 and June 30, 2006 that confirmed the absence of SAV 

within approximately two miles of the LNG Terminal. The presence or absence of SAV beds 

was determined by evaluating a series of transects located within and adjacent to the proposed 

footprint of the LNG Terminal, and extending radially approximately two miles into the 

Patapsco River estuary. Furthermore, sample locations surveyed outside of the proposed LNG 

Terminal footprint, but in the general vicinity of the LNG Terminal, included the eastern side of 

the Patapsco River. Sampling consisted of visual observations and the towing of a small chain 

for approximately 0.3 nm per transect at a speed of approximately two knots. At the completion 

of each transect, any vegetation collected was identified to the species level. 

As discussed in the FERC filing, specifically, Resource Report 2, Water Use and Quality, 

Section 2.4.8.2, and in Resource Report 3, Vegetation and Wildlife, Sections 3.3.2, 3.3.3, and 

3.4.3, as well as in Resource Report 3, Vegetation and Wildlife, Appendix 3B, Essential Fish 

Habitat Report, and Appendix 3A, Aquatic Finfish/Epibenthic Invertebrate Sampling Data 

Report, there is little in the way of non-transitory animal species in the vicinity of the Terminal 

Site. The species that do exist, the polychaete, Streblospio benedicti (which was present in high 

numbers due to its affinity and association with high pollution levels), barnacles (subclass 

Cirripedia), fan worms (Sabella spp.), and zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), were the 

most abundant. These species, and species that use the non-transitory species as a source of 

food, are unlikely to suffer negative impacts as recolonization rates for the non-transitory 

species are both rapid and high. 

AES evaluated the potential for siltation from dredging and impact on resources in the general 

area of the LNG Terminal. The Fort Carroll oyster reef restoration project, or Project 64, is an 

education-based oyster reef restoration project on upper Chesapeake Bay oysters (NOAA 2006) 

that is located about 1,500 feet away from the closest area proposed to be dredged (West 

Northwest from the approach channel). Multiple studies (Borrowman (2006), Dredge Research, 

Ltd. (2003), Tubman & Corson (2000) and Collins (1995)) have reported turbidity plumes from 

dredging activities, including dredging from clamshell, hydraulic, and hopper dredging within 

soft sediments are highest within the dredge site and decrease with distance away from the site. 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

7 

These studies furthermore determined that at a distance of about 400 meters (1,200 feet) or 

greater away from the dredge site, turbidity levels were generally negligible and had little to no 

impact on oyster bed survival and growth (Kennedy and Breisch 1981). Given that the closest 

point of any dredging activity to the oyster restoration site is at least 1,500 feet away from the 

dredging site, it is anticipated that there will be no negative impacts on the Fort Carroll oyster 

restoration project. As such, the underwater aquatic resources are not of concern as submerged 

aquatic vegetation was not identified and the impact area will not affect biotal communities. In 

addition, during a call on August 21, 2008, Mr. John Nichols of NFMS indicated he had spoken 

with the NOAA restoration project staff who indicated there were no remaining oysters at the 

Fort Carroll oyster restoration site. This additional information makes it entirely certain that 

the Fort Carroll oyster restoration project will not be impacted by the Project, i.e., there are no 

oysters left to impact. 

2.1.3 Shoreline Environment 

A king pile steel sheet pile bulkhead will be installed along the western limits of the upland 

facility. The steel sheets will be driven with either a vibratory or impact pile driving hammer. 

Where accessible, the piles will be driven from a land based rig. In locations where access is 

from the waterside only, the piles will be driven by a rig based on a floating construction barge. 

The barge can be anchored into location with spud piles to provide a stable working area. 

Templates will be used to ensure that the sheet piles are driven in the proper location and that 

plumbness is maintained within acceptable limits. 

Demolition of selected structures at the existing Terminal Site will be needed to prepare the site 

for construction. The shipyard formerly consisted of 10 slips used for ship construction 

and/repair. Slips No. 1 through No. 5 are demolished and the area they occupied is at a 

common grade. Portions of the remaining slips (No. 6 through 10) are used for hauling out and 

dismantling barges. 

As described in Section 1.3.3.1 of Resource Report 1, General Project Description, for 

development of the LNG Terminal, the remaining slip structures on shore will be demolished 

and the associated area leveled to the site’s common grade. Portions of existing finger piers and 

low-level relieving platforms that lie along the waterline of the new bulkhead alignment will be 

removed as may be required for facility construction. To the extent removal may be needed, 

biologic evaluation of existing finger pier and relieving platform elements has been performed 

and does not indicate the elements provide significant substrate for benthic, encrusting or 

pelagic communities (see below within this Section 2.4.8.2). The LNG Terminal will make use 

of an existing pier located at the northern end of the Terminal Site. The existing pier will be 

modified to accommodate mooring of LNG ships. The modifications will consist of repairing 

existing piles, resurfacing the deck, and building an unloading platform and pipe trestle on top 

of the pier. 

The pier will have two berths, one on the north side of the pier and the other on the south side. 

The main components of the marine facilities at the Terminal Site will include the following: 

  An existing finger pier that will support an elevated pipeway and spill 

containment system, an elevated unloading platform and gangways; the pier 

will also support the mooring of the LNG ships and provide a roadway to the 

loading platform area; 

  Dredged areas for ship access; 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

8 

  Aids to navigation; 

  A retractable security barrier; and 

  Mechanical systems. 

Data for the three largest Maryland commercial fisheries (Blue Claw, Oyster, and Striped Bass) 

were available through the Maryland Commercial Fisheries Annual Landings Data Set (MDNR 

2005a) that were pertinent to the proposed Project Area (Patapsco River and the north-central 

Chesapeake Bay) and are summarized below by fishery and total annual landings in pounds. 

  Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus): 2004 total landings of 31,987,749 pounds with 

0.002 percent (48,417 pounds) of total catch harvested in Patapsco River. 

  Atlantic Oyster (Crassotrea virginica): 2004 total landings of 63,057 pounds 

with 0.03 percent (1,956 pounds) of total catch harvested in north-central 

Chesapeake Bay region (not part of proposed project area). 

  Striped bass (Morone saxatilis): 2004 total landings of 1,924,470 pounds with 

0.003 percent (5,659 pounds) of total catch harvested in Patapsco River. 

Currently, the Patapsco River, including Baltimore Harbor, has been closed indefinitely to 

shellfish harvest; therefore, the proposed pier demolition will pose no immediate impact on the 

harvesting of any shell-fisheries within or adjacent to the Project Area. Commercial harvest of 

migratory species such as blue crab and striped bass is minimal in the Patapsco, accounting for 

only 0.002 percent and 0.003 percent, respectively, of the total harvest for the State of 

Maryland. Because any resulting impact from the proposed demolition will be temporary, and 

time of year constraints may be imposed (if deemed necessary), it is unlikely that any harvesting 

of these fisheries occurring within or adjacent to the proposed Project Area will be negatively 

impacted. Additionally, multiple species of herring and shad, yellow perch, white perch, and 

American eel, are of commercial and recreational importance within the Chesapeake Bay 

system. Similar to striped bass, these species are highly mobile and migratory and will most 

likely not suffer any negative impact as a result of the proposed pier demolition, especially 

because species migration schedules will be factored into the proposed demolition timeline. 

2.2 Watersheds 

The Project is located within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed based on data provided from the 

EPA, MDNR, and Pennsylvania Watersheds Data System. The Chesapeake Bay Basin 

encompasses 64,000 square miles of land and is the largest watershed on the eastern seaboard of 

North America. The Bay basin includes parts of six states (Maryland, Virginia, New York, 

Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Delaware) and the District of Columbia. An estimated 94 

percent of the land in Maryland drains to the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland derives a significant 

economic benefit from the Chesapeake Bay, including income from the harvesting of fish and 

shellfish, commercial shipping, and recreational boating. 

A large watershed like the Chesapeake Bay Watershed is composed of numerous subwatersheds that are drained by tributary streams and rivers. The Project is located within five 

sub-watersheds: the Lower Susquehanna Basin (HUC 02030506), Schuylkill Basin (HUC 

02040203), Brandywine-Christina Basin (HUC 02040205), Chester-Sassafras Basin (HUC 

02060002), and the Gunpowder-Patapsco Basin (HUC 02060003) as shown on Figure 2-1. 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

9 

2.3 Soils 

Soils crossed by the Project were determined by soils survey data available from the United 

States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) and Natural Resource Conservation Service. 

Electronic data was utilized from (“NRCS”) State Soil Geographic (“STATSGO”) and Soil 

Survey Geographic (“SSURGO”) information. 

Based on the STATSGO database, the soil associations traversed by the Pipeline are shown on 

Figure 2-2, and are summarized by characteristics as follows (along with associated Map Unit 

ID for each state in parentheses): 

  Othello-Elkton-Mattapex (MD005): This association consists of moderately well 

drained and poorly drained fine-silty, mixed soils that are nearly level or are gently 

sloping. These soils are deep and have moderately slow to slow permeability. Soil 

acidity is strongly acidic to extremely acidic unless limed (USDA 1994a). 

  Sunnyside-Christiana-Muirkirk (MD007): This association consists of very deep, well 

drained to somewhat excessively drained, moderately slow to slowly permeable soils on 

uplands. These soils have slopes from zero to fifty percent and are well drained to 

somewhat excessively drained. Most of this association lies in wooded or idle fields 

(USDA 1994a). 

  Beltsville-Croom-Leonardtown (MD002): This association consists of deep to very 

deep soils which range in drainage from poor to well drained and have variable 

permeability. These soils are found in coastal plains and uplands. Slopes range from 

nearly level to moderately sloping. Most of the association is not used as cropland and 

there is high erosion potential for much of this association (USDA 1994a). 

  Neshaminy-Lehigh-Glenelg (MD029): Soils in this association are deep to very deep 

and well drained to somewhat poorly drained fine-loamy. Permeability is moderately 

slow to slow. This association ranges from forested and very stony to cultivated soils. 

Soils are nearly level to steep. Most of this association has high erosion potential 

(USDA 1994a). 

  Manor-Glenelg-Chester (MD011): This association consists of deep to very deep, steep 

to gently sloping, somewhat excessively drained and well drained soils. This 

association occurs on hilly uplands. Most of this association has high erosion potential. 

Most of the soils are used for farming and a limited amount for pasture (USDA 1994a). 

  Chrome-Conowingo-Neshaminy (MD030, PA086): Soils in this association are 

moderately deep to very deep, somewhat poorly drained to well drained soils. Much of 

this association has high erosion potential. This association consists of nearly level to 

moderately sloping soils in well dissected uplands. Much of this association is used for 

farming and pasture. Other areas are wooded or used for urban and suburban 

communities (USDA 1994a,b). 

  Chester-Glenelg-Manor (PA061): This association consists of deep to very deep, gently 

sloping to steep soils. These soils are well drained to excessively drained. Most of the 

land area is used as cropland and to a limited extent, pasture. There is a high potential 

of erosion for approximately fifty percent of the association (USDA 1994b). 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

10 

  Hagerstown-Duffield-Clarksburg (PA058): This association consists of deep and very 

deep, well drained soils with moderate permeability. Some areas are less well drained 

with slow to moderately slow permeability. These soils weathered mostly from 

limestone. Most of this association is used as cropland or pasture (USDA 1994b). 

  Edgemont-Highfield-Buchanan (PA066): This association consists of deep and very 

deep, well drained soils. These soils formed from light colored rocks, notably quartzite. 

They have moderate to moderately rapid permeability. This association is located on 

sloping to steep hills, ridges, and valleys and can be stony. Land use is a mixture of 

wooded areas and cleared areas for crops and orchards (USDA 1994b). 

2.4 Wetland Surveys & Results 

The ACOE and EPA jointly define wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by 

surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that in normal 

circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil 

conditions.” For an area to be defined as a jurisdictional wetland, it must, under normal 

circumstances, possess positive indicators of each of three parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, 

wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and 

similar areas. 

Environmental field surveys were conducted between May 18 and October 10, 2006 along the 

proposed Pipeline Route. Approximately 71 miles of the total 87.57 miles of the proposed 

Pipeline Route were accessible and field surveyed for wetlands and water resources. 

Field wetland delineation methodology was based on the ACOE 1987 Wetland Delineation 

Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and classified according to the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979). Survey included an 

area 150 feet wide generally centered on the proposed Pipeline centerline, and within 100 feet 

of the boundary of aboveground facility and pipe yard/staging areas. 

Wetlands were identified using a hierarchy of sources to produce the most accurate and 

comprehensive wetlands inventory possible. Prior to performance of environmental field 

surveys, the Project Area was evaluated in relation to USFWS, National Wetlands Inventory 

(“NWI”) maps. Wetland types and locations were noted and compared with recent aerial 

photography. AES also obtained soils surveys for the Project Area from the USDA, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service in Harford and Cecil Counties, Maryland, and Lancaster and 

Chester Counties, Pennsylvania. Table 2-1 lists the wetlands crossed by or adjacent to the 

proposed Project in the accessible areas surveyed. 

In general, the Pipeline crosses the majority of the major palustrine wetland types, along with a 

small amount of estuarine wetland at the southern terminus. Palustrine wetland areas were the 

dominant type encountered across the Pipeline Route and included several types of emergent 

(PEM) , scrub-shrub (PSS) , and forested wetlands (PFO), including open water marshes, semiopen emergent marshes, emergent marshes, herbaceous wet meadows, shrub-emergent 

meadows, wooded swamps, and floodplain forests. 

Open aquatic marshes are dominated by arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia), arrow arum (Peltandra 

virginica), narrow-leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) and broad-leaf cattail (Typha latifolia). 

Semi-open emergent marshes and emergent marshes areas are dominated by awl sedge (Carex 

stipata), tussock sedge (Carex stricta), lurid sedge (Carex lurida), fringed sedge (Carex 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

11 

crinata), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), creeping spike rush (Eleocharis acicularis), soft rush 

(Juncus effuses), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), fowl meadow grass (Poa palustris), 

woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), manna grass (Glyceria striata), eastern joe-pye weed 

(Eupatoriadelphus dubius), New England aster (Aster novae-angliae), boneset (Eupatorium 

perfoliatum), blueflag iris (Iris versicolor), sweetflag (Acorus calamus), sensitive fern (Onoclea 

sensibilis), and cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea). 

Shrub emergent marshes are dominated by similar species found in emergent marsh areas with 

the addition of a strong woody shrub component. Dominant shrub species within these areas 

include silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), winterberry (Ilex verticillata), common elderberry 

(Sambucus canadense), speckled alder (Alnus rugosa), swamp rose (Rosa palustris), and 

buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis). 

Wooded swamps and floodplain forests encountered are typically forested wetlands with a 

strong shrub component. Dominant species include red maple (Acer rubrum), American elm 

(Ulmus americana), pin oak (Quercus palustris), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black 

gum (Nyssa sylvatica), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), arrowwood viburnum (Viburnum

dentatum), witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), highbush blueberry (Vaccinum corymbosum), 

winterberry (Ilex verticillata), and silky dogwood (Cornus amomum). 

Estuarine wetlands encountered across the route included intertidal emergent wetlands and 

scrub-shrub wetlands. Intertidal emergent wetland habitats are dominated by common reed 

(Phragmites australis). Scrub-shrub wetlands are typically dominated by common reed, 

groundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia) and marsh elder (Iva frutescens). 

2.5 Waterbody Surveys & Results 

An assessment of surface water resources was conducted for the Project Area through field 

reconnaissance and review of available maps and reference materials. Referenced materials 

include United States Geological Survey (“USGS”) Topographic Maps, the MDE surface 

waters database, and the PDEP eMapPA v.4.0 web-based mapping application. This technical 

information was used in conjunction with field data to identify and characterize the surface 

waterbodies summarized on Table 2-2. 

2.6 Routing Studies & Impact Avoidance 

The proposed Pipeline Route generally parallels rights-of-way for existing highways, overhead 

electric transmission lines, and pipelines. In considering alternatives to the proposed Project to 

determine whether it might be possible to reduce the human and environmental impacts, AES 

evaluated alternative routes for placement of the Pipeline. Alternatives that were considered 

include four major route alternatives and numerous route variations. Figure 2-3 identifies the 

location of the proposed route for the Pipeline. As proposed, the route consists of four main 

segments: 

  The proposed route exits the former Sparrows Point Shipyard and steel mill property 

and travels north to northeast for approximately two miles (MP 0.0 to 2.0); 

  For approximately six miles (MP 2.0 to 8.0), the proposed route follows Route I-695 in 

a north and northwest direction, except for minor deviations necessary to avoid 

highway interchanges (sections of this route will require coordination with Maryland 

Department of Transportation (“MDOT”) for scheduling of safety vehicles to support 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

12 

crossing activities. Due to the length and coordination required for these limited 

sections, less than 3 miles, AES does not anticipate that this will lead to any delays in 

construction or potential impacts to overall Pipeline completion); 

  Near the Back River crossing, the proposed route heads north to northeast and follows a 

BG&E overhead transmission corridor for approximately 24.5 miles (MP 8.0 to 32.5); 

and 

  At the intersection with the right-of-way (“ROW”) for an existing Columbia pipeline, 

the proposed route heads northeast and generally parallels the existing pipeline ROW 

for approximately 54 miles (MP 32.5 to 87.6) to its terminus near Eagle, Pennsylvania. 

2.6.1 Route Alternatives 

AES assessed each route alternative using a 100-foot wide corridor centered on the proposed 

alignment for the majority of the constraints. The analysis was conducted using existing 

resource information available on USGS 7.5-minute series topographic quadrangle maps; 

Maryland Geographic Information System (“GIS”) data layers; other available federal, state, 

and county resource maps; recent high resolution aerial photography; and unmapped data. The 

analysis focused on an evaluation of route length, feasibility of using existing corridors, extent 

of crossing existing transportation features, the presence of wetlands and waterbodies, 

threatened and endangered species and significant habitat, land uses and vegetation cover types, 

the presence of Federal and states lands, and several other special land uses. The major route 

alternatives are summarized on Figure 2-4. A tabular summary of this analysis is included 

within Table 2-3. 

Using the standard screening criteria specified by the Commission in its guidance, AES 

identified four major route alternatives to the proposed route, which - as in the case of its 

proposed route - included following existing ROW and greenfield construction. 

As described in Resource Report 10, Alternatives, four pipeline system alternatives to the 

proposed Pipeline were evaluated, none of which is considered to be a viable alternative. In 

accordance with conventional pipeline routing principles, collocation with existing utility 

corridors to the maximum extent possible was the primary routing strategy. The primary 

strategy was supplemented by evaluation of a range of environmental, engineering, and socioeconomic variables. 

Additionally, through the FERC DEIS review process, AES has continued to evaluate additional 

route variations and alternative construction techniques as requested by FERC, other agencies 

and affected landowners. 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

13 

3 OFFSHORE AQUATIC RESOURCES IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 

3.1 Dredging Operations 

Dredge equipment and support vessels (tugs and fuel tenders) will be mobilized to the Terminal 

Site along with aboveground storage tanks for fuel oil storage during the initial stages of site 

preparation. The fuel storage tanks will arrive in a ready for placement condition and will be 

installed and secured according to manufacturer’s recommendation. 

Construction of the LNG Terminal will include widening and deepening the existing approach 

channel and turning basin offshore of the Terminal Site to accommodate the LNG ships 

expected at the LNG Terminal, which will be larger than the ships that have utilized the existing 

shipyard, floating dry dock and graving yard/coal channel (south of the proposed Terminal Site) 

to date. 

The Brewerton Channel, the existing approach channel, and certain areas offshore of the 

proposed Terminal Site, have been dredged in the past and currently are the subject of dredging 

permits issued by the ACOE and a Water Quality Certification from the State of Maryland, 

allowing the performance of dredging using either hydraulic or mechanical techniques. 

Dredging of the approach channel and areas offshore of the proposed Terminal Site is allowed 

under these existing permits for maintenance and waterfront operations, to a depth of 39 feet 

below MLLW. In addition, on May 6, 2005, the ACOE issued the BWI Permit that specifically 

allowed the following: 

  Mechanical or hydraulic dredging of a channel, turning basin, and berthing areas to -39 

feet MLLW; 

  Placement of approximately 600,000 cubic yards (“CY”) of dredge material at the HartMiller Island disposal site; and 

  Installation of sheet piling and construction of fendering systems. 

The permit also approved a subsequent phase, consisting of the deposit of approximately 2.6 

million CY of dredge material at disposal sites yet to be determined. The near-shore dredging 

approved under the BWI Permit overlaps almost entirely the near-shore dredging proposed by 

AES. 

As described above, actual volume to be dredged and material handling requirements may be 

less than discussed by this Consolidated Dredge Plan depending on bathymetric configuration 

of this area at the time of LNG Terminal construction. The approach envisioned here has been 

developed to anticipate dredge operations based on current bathymetry (i.e., bathymetry as of 

January 2007). AES has also allowed for methods that may be needed if dredge volumes are 

greater than projected, and/or if the environmental quality of dredge material in sections of the 

dredge area is degraded relative to currently permitted dredge materials. AES will follow 

procedures for dredge performance consistent with recent past dredge approvals for this 

location, as updated based on data collected for this project. AES has analyzed the existing 

sediment conditions in the proposed dredge area. Additionally, AES has evaluated past dredge 

practices, recently approved dredge permits (including the BWI Permit and other permits issued 

for activities in the Port of Baltimore), existing dredge technology, anticipated impacts, and 

proposed mitigation strategies, as described in Section 2.4.8 of Resource Report 2, Water Use 

and Quality, of the FERC filing. 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

14 

The approach channel expansions will be performed primarily by use of mechanical clamshell 

dredge, with some limited areas near shore excavated by backhoe dredge. 

3.1.1 Potential Impacts 

3.1.1.1 Contaminated Sediments and Turbidity 

For the reasons discussed in more detail in Section 3.4 of the AES Consolidated Dredge Plan, 

AES intends to use conventional mechanical dredge techniques because chemical analyses 

obtained for dredge planning indicate sediment quality is not any more degraded than is allowed 

by current dredge permits both in the immediate area proposed to be dredged and in other areas 

of the Port of Baltimore where conditions are more impaired. 

Dredging will be conducted utilizing a mechanical (clamshell) dredge or environmental bucket, 

where feasible, rather than by hydraulic means. A directional GPS will be used to locate the 

channel limits and to identify shoaled areas. Sediment will be removed to the design depth of 

45 feet below MLLW. Computer-controlled recording software will track the progress of the 

dredging and will ensure complete coverage of the area to be dredged. 

Information concerning short-term and long-term impacts on water quality and aquatic biota 

associated with the dredging proposed by AES, including substantiation that the dredging will 

improve conditions for water circulation and dissolved oxygen levels, is presented below. 

3.1.1.2 Predicted Short-Term Impacts to Water Quality and Aquatic Biota 

The potential short-term impacts to water quality from dredging activities typically involve the 

following: 

  Turbidity; and 

  Resuspension of contaminants sorbed to sediment particles. 

The potential short-term impacts to aquatic biota typically include the following: 

  Disturbance/removal of established sediment habitat; 

  Disturbance/removal of established benthic macroinvertebrate communities; 

  Disturbance/loss of aquatic vegetation; 

  Disturbance/degradation of nearby habitat through transport and sedimentation of 

suspended particles; and 

  Disruption of migration/foraging by fish. 

3.1.1.3 Dissolved Oxygen 

MDE has recently completed a nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load (“TMDL”) for Baltimore 

Harbor and determined that water quality standards for dissolved oxygen (“DO”) were not 

achievable. This is a consequence of excessive nutrients and the inability of the bottom waters 

to mix with the upper layers where atmospheric oxygen and algal-generated oxygen can 

replenish losses of oxygen associated with bacterial decomposition of organic matter. Even with 

the removal of all human impacts, the navigation channel cannot achieve dissolved oxygen 

standards because of a lack of mixing caused by the configuration of the channel (its relative 

depth) and the high-density saline waters entering along the channel bottom from the 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

15 

Chesapeake Bay2

. Accordingly, there are no additional impacts expected to occur as a result of 

AES’s dredging of an additional 118 acres of Baltimore Harbor bottom vis-à-vis dissolved 

oxygen as that area has no potential for supporting aquatic life. 

While the existing relatively shallow bottom is restricted in quality by contaminants and low 

oxygen caused by excessive nutrients (as a reference, the long-term mean bottom dissolved 

oxygen concentration at the MDNR’s monitoring station near the Key Bridge (WT5.1) is below 

5 mg/L (the State standard) between April and October and less than 1 mg/L from June through 

August), the TMDL has been prepared for the entire Harbor and is serving as the foundation of 

a plan to restore the aquatic life through reductions in nutrient and other contaminant loadings 

from both point and non-point sources. AES has evaluated the potential impact of surface water 

run-off from the site has developed a strategy to reduce stormwater flow to a level 50% less 

than current conditions as further described in section 3.1.2.2 of this document. 

3.1.1.4 Sea Turtles 

Based on correspondence from the NMFS dated May 3, 2006, several species of sea turtles are 

known to be present in the Chesapeake Bay from April 1 through November 30 each year. 

However, as noted in Resource Report 3, Vegetation and Wildlife, negative impacts to marine 

mammals or reptiles are not anticipated to occur within the proposed Terminal Site, as sightings 

or captures of these animals are rare in that area. Moreover, marine reptiles such as turtles 

prefer habitat that is primarily composed of submerged aquatic vegetation (“SAV”), which is 

notably absent within the vicinity of the Terminal Site, making any long-term occupation 

improbable. As such AES does not anticipate the need for seasonal construction restrictions in 

the vicinity of the dredge area. However, per correspondence with NMFS AES will be proactive 

and implement additional protective measures outlines in Section 3.1.2.3. 

3.1.2 Mitigation Strategy 

3.1.2.1 Contaminated Sediments and Turbidity 

As noted above, there is no SAV in the area proposed to be dredged by AES; thus, there will be 

no direct impacts to this resource due to disturbance/removal or disturbance/loss. 

To minimize potential transport and sedimentation impacts to water quality and aquatic biota to 

the greatest extent feasible, AES has proposed to make use of techniques that will greatly 

reduce the release of suspended sediments into the water column within and adjacent to the 

construction site. For the dredging proposed by AES, both the recent extensive 

characterizations performed by AES, including elutriate testing, and background data indicate 

that the dredging will encounter both recently deposited (Holocene) sediments as well as 

underlying “native” sand materials that are not expected to negatively impact the environment 

or human health, with the exception of select locations in the dredge area that have exhibited 

concentrations of contaminants at levels above the established PEL. Dredging will be 

conducted utilizing a mechanical (clamshell) dredge or an environmental bucket, as noted 

below, rather than by hydraulic means. 

 

2

 Letter from MDNR to FERC dated June 16, 2008 entitled: “Docket Nos. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, 

CP07-64-000 and CP07-65-000 – Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for 

the proposed AES Sparrows Point LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project”. 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

16 

Due to contaminated sediment concerns, AES will employ an environmental bucket for digging 

soft sediment. An estimated 810,000 CY of silt material would be dredged utilizing the 

environmental bucket. The environmental bucket will be constructed with sealing gaskets or 

overlapping seals at the jaws, and seals or flaps positioned at the vent openings to minimize the 

loss of sediment during transport through the water column and into the hopper scow. The 

environmental bucket will also be equipped with a sensor to ensure complete bucket closure 

prior to hoisting. 

The bucket hoist speed will be limited to 2 feet per second to limit introduction of sediment into 

the water column. The bucket will be lifted in a continuous motion through the water column 

and into the hopper scow. The dredge bucket will be lowered to the level of the gunwales prior 

to opening to reduce potential to reintroduce sediment to the water body. No barge overflow 

will be allowed. 

The remaining volume of dredged material (underlying sand and clay deposits) will be dredged 

using conventional “hard-digging” buckets. AES will not employ silt curtains during dredging 

operations. 

A directional GPS will be used to locate the channel limits and to identify shoaled areas. 

Sediment will be removed to the design depth of 45 feet below MLLW. Computer-controlled 

recording software will track the progress of the dredging and will ensure complete coverage of 

the area to be dredged. 

Note that these supplemental mitigation techniques have not been used by dredge operations at 

this same location and nearby areas in past ACOE and Maryland permitted dredging; therefore, 

the proposed dredging will be taking control steps beyond those used with other projects here in 

the past. 

Water quality impacts associated with suspended sediment are also possible if contaminants 

preferentially leach to the water column from exposed contaminated dredge material. Elutriate 

testing of sediment to be dredged was performed as described above. This testing has shown 

that minimal water quality impacts may be possible from only two heavy metal contaminants 

that were detected slightly above water quality standards. This indicates that very limited 

impacts may be possible in the short term; i.e., the time frame during dredging when sediment is 

actively disturbed and contaminated sediment may dynamically come in contact with the water 

column. One additional potential water quality impact was the detection of tributyltin in one 

sample (HA-123 shallow interval) where the exceedance was 1 part per billion. The soft 

sediments at this shallow location will be removed utilizing the environmental bucket as 

desribed above which will furter reduce the potential of sediment re-suspension. Because the 

tributyltin was not detected in the deep elutriate sample interval at this location (14-16 feet), the 

removal of the shallow sediments during dredging operations will improve bottom sediment 

conditions by eliminating the possibility of remobilization. Once dredging is complete in an 

area, suspended sediment resettles, re-equilibrates with sediment pore water, and the potential 

for release of contaminants that may remain to the pore water becomes limited. Thus, no other 

short and no long term water quality impacts would be anticipated. 

Disturbance and degradation (through transport and sedimentation of suspended particles) of 

established benthic habitat and invertebrate communities is unavoidable in any dredging 

operation, whether intended for navigational or remedial purposes. The Maryland Department 

of the Environment (2004) has determined that “Navigation Channel” status is applicable to the 

dredged portions of the river extending from the mouth of the Patapsco River (confluence with 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

17 

Chesapeake Bay) to Curtis Bay and Creek, and the Middle and Northwest Branches. A 

“Navigation Channel” designation acknowledges the instability of the benthic community 

within outer and inner deep-dredged channel areas due to the historic dredging activities 

associated with the Harbor. In such areas, opportunistic species generally comprise the benthic 

community. New disturbances in areas such as proposed to be dredged by AES, i.e., those 

designated as a “Navigation Channel” because they are unstable and periodically disturbed, will 

result in recolonization by the same type of opportunistic species as existed immediately prior to 

the disturbance. Where recolonization of disturbed areas occurs, it would take place within 

short timeframes. The techniques described above for minimization of suspended particles will 

ensure that even these expected short term impacts are reduced to the greatest extent feasible. 

It is anticipated that there will be no negative sedimentation impacts in areas located more than 

1,200 feet from the dredge activities, and impacts that may exist would diminish with distance 

from the dredge activities. Importantly, the Fort Carroll oyster restoration project that is located 

about 1,500 feet away from the closest area proposed to be dredged (west northwest from the 

approach channel) would not be impacted by the dredging proposed by AES. In this regard, 

consultation with NMFS is ongoing and AES has requested the concurrence of NMFS regarding 

the lack of anticipated impacts associated with the proposed dredging activity on the Fort 

Carroll oyster reef restoration project. In a call on August 21, 2008, Mr. John Nichols of NFMS 

indicated he had spoken with the NOAA restoration project staff who indicated there we no 

remaining oysters at the Fort Carroll oyster restoration site, therefore the Fort Carroll oyster 

restoration project will not be impacted by the project. 

Finally, construction will be scheduled such that short-term impacts to fish known to migrate 

through these waterways should be minimal. AES is in going consultations with NFMS 

regarding potential seasonal construction windows for the dredge project.

3.1.2.2 Dissolved Oxygen 

AES has initiated consultations with both MDE and MDNR regarding the potential for impacts 

on DO as a result of the proposed dredging activities. The factors that influence seasonal 

hypoxia/anoxia conditions are geographically large and well beyond the scope of the dredging 

proposed for the Project. AES does not anticipate that the Project will have a noticeable long 

term incremental effect on the occurrence of seasonal anoxia/hypoxia, but at worst may change 

the shape of the local area where these conditions occur. The dredge activities will not change 

the circulation patterns up the Chesapeake that contribute to the occurrence of hypoxic and 

anoxic conditions; nor will the dredge activities negatively affect the inflow of nutrients from 

the Patapsco watershed that contribute to elevated suspended sediment or organic input. 

The Sparrows Point Shipyard and Industrial Complex (“BWI”), located on the Patapsco River 

(a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay), has a decades-long history as a working maritime industrial 

site. The site consists of several warehouses, an electrical shop, sheet metal shop, fabrication 

shop, paint shop, pipe shop, scrap processing yard, four piers several slipways and a graving 

dock. The facility is used for shipbuilding, repair, retrofit and decommissioning. The BWI 

Sparrows LLC shipyard currently holds a discharge permit under the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”), State Discharge Permit No. 97-DP-0398 (NPDES 

Permit MD0001180), which was reissued on 30 August 2006. The permit is for discharge of 

non-contact ballast waters, storm water, steam condensate, and air conditioning condensate. 

The facility discharges these waste waters through 17 outfalls to the waters of the State. BWI 

also discharges storm water runoff from “non-process” areas, including the 45 acres of upland 

proposed for use by AES, directly to the Patapsco River, in accordance with their permit 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

18 

conditions. 

The AES Sparrows Point LNG Terminal will occupy approximately 45 acres of upland area on 

the BWI site. Approximately 50 percent of the site will categorized as process area in which the 

associated storm water runoff will be collected and treated on site prior to discharge to the 

POTW. The redirection of the process area storm water runoff will result an approximately 50 

percent reduction in storm water currently being discharged to the Patapsco River. This will 

significantly reduce localized runoff which may contribute to seasonal hypoxic and anoxic 

conditions. 

Additionally, the occurrence of low DO is both a natural and man-exacerbated condition of the 

Chesapeake and its major tributaries and is influenced by many factors (basin configuration in 

the bay and tributaries, water stratification from both temperature and salinity, inputs associated 

with runoff like agricultural nutrients and suspended sediment, wind driven mixing, etc.). 

Currently no standards exist for mitigation of DO impacts. AES has committed to continue to 

work with MDE and MDNR to address this issue and come to a mutually agreeable mitigation 

strategy through the State of Maryland permitting process. 

3.1.2.3 Sea Turtles 

As a protective measure during operations, AES will incorporate the NMFS’s 2006 “Sea Turtle 

and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions” into its LNG Fuel Supply Agreement. 

As a preventative measure, for construction/dredging in areas identified as being sensitive for 

the presence of sea turtles, a sea turtle monitoring plan will implemented from April 1 through 

November 30. AES has committed to develop a NMFS-approved training program to qualify 

persons to be endangered species observers. Observation personnel will be trained on how to 

recognize sea turtles as well as avoidance, record keeping and notification measures. AES has 

requesting the assistance of NFMS to identify any additional guidance documents that would be 

helpful or preferred for use in the development of the sea turtle monitoring training program. A 

draft outline of the proposed AES sea turtle monitoring training program was submitted to 

NMFS for review in June 2008 and is included as Appendix D. AES will continue to work with 

NMFS to establish a satisfactory training program. The final training program will be 

completed and filed with FERC at least 90-days prior to initiation of dredging activities. 

Implementation of these monitoring measures will ensure impacts to sea turtles are avoided. 

3.2 Bulkhead Construction 

3.2.1 Potential Impacts 

A king pile steel sheet pile bulkhead will be installed along the western limits of the upland 

facility. The steel sheets will be driven with either a vibratory or impact pile driving hammer. 

Where accessible, the piles will be driven from a land based rig. In locations where access is 

from the waterside only, the piles will be driven by a rig based on a floating construction barge. 

The barge can be anchored into location with spud piles to provide a stable working area. 

Templates will be used to ensure that the sheet piles are driven in the proper location and that 

plumbness is maintained within acceptable limits. 

This construction phase will result in temporarily increased turbidity levels, as sheet piles and 

associated structures are constructed on land. The construction plan will incorporate available 

methods for minimizing and/or monitoring the scale of these disturbances. These will include 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

19 

use of best management practices for minimizing/localizing turbidity (e.g., limiting need for 

construction vessels that may suspend shallow sediments with propeller wash), and by limiting 

bottom-disturbing activities to seasonal windows when these activities would cause the least 

impact to natural communities. AES is in going consultations with NFMS regarding potential 

seasonal construction windows for the dredge project. Potential impacts to and mitigation 

measures for marine biota resulting from construction and operation of the LNG Terminal are 

discussed in Section 3.3.3.1 of Resource Report 3, Fish, Wildlife and Vegetation. 

Demolition of selected structures at the existing Sparrows Point site will be needed to prepare 

the site for construction. The shipyard formerly consisted of ten slips used for ship construction 

and/repair. Slips No. 1 through No. 5 are demolished and the area they occupied is at a 

common grade. Portions of the remaining slips (No. 6 through 10) are used for hauling out and 

dismantling barges. 

As described in Section 1.3.3.1 of Resource Report 1, General Project Description, for 

development of the LNG Terminal, the remaining slip structures on shore will be demolished 

and the associated area leveled to the site’s common grade. Portions of existing finger piers and 

low-level relieving platforms that lie along the waterline of the new bulkhead alignment will be 

removed as may be required for facility construction. To the extent removal may be needed, 

biologic evaluation of existing finger pier and relieving platform elements has been performed 

and does not indicate the elements provide significant substrate for benthic, encrusting or 

pelagic communities. The LNG Terminal will make use of an existing pier located at the 

northern end of the Terminal Site. The existing pier will be modified to accommodate mooring 

of LNG ships. The modifications will consist of repairing existing piles, resurfacing the deck, 

and building an unloading platform and pipe trestle on top of the pier. 

The pier will have two berths, one on the north side of the pier and the other on the south side. 

The main components of the marine facilities at the Terminal Site will include the following: 

  An existing finger pier that will support an elevated pipeway and spill 

containment system, an elevated unloading platform and gangways; the pier 

will also support the mooring of the LNG ships and provide a roadway to the 

loading platform area; 

  Dredged areas for ship access; 

  Aids to navigation; 

  A retractable security barrier; and 

  Mechanical systems. 

This demolition will impact previously disturbed marine bottom. Specifically, during 

construction of the LNG pier, AES will install a sheet pile bulk head wall to establish a new 

vertical edge of the shoreline. During this process approximately 44,733 square feet of 

materials will be dredged to create new bottom area on the water ward side of the bulkhead. 

The bulkhead wall will continue south of the pier structure, which will result in removal of 

additional land features on the water ward side of the bulkhead, and the creation of 

approximately 22,202 square feet of new marine bottom area. To the south of the berthing area 

a sheet pile wall will be driven to a depth of approximately 45 feet to create a vertical structure, 

so that the landward side can be filled to the proposed final grade of the site. The alignment of 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

20 

the proposed bulkhead will be coincident with the existing waters edge and, therefore, there will 

be no additional impacts to the marine bottom. 

3.2.2 Mitigation Strategy 

During installation of the sheet pile bulkhead, AES will install, as required, silt curtains in the 

shallow water area, to prevent sedimentation impacts in the area of construction. AES 

anticipates this construction will take approximately six months to complete. Based on the 

biological surveys performed, as described in Resource Report 3, Vegetation and Wildlife, there 

is no submerged aquatic vegetation and benthic biota are not located in the immediate vicinity 

of the construction area. Additionally, all filling activities will be conducted on the landward 

side of the sheet pile wall, resulting in no filling of marine areas. Potential impacts and 

mitigation measures from installation of the king sheet pile bulkhead are addressed below in 

Section 3.3. 

3.3 Pile Driving 

3.3.1 Potential Impacts 

Impacts to fish from sound or pressure waves resulting from demolition/construction noise are 

possible, but unlikely. Changes in ambient water pressure during pile driving could have 

negative impacts on finfish species with gas-filled swim bladders that are in near-proximity to 

the proposed Project Area during demolition/construction activities. For aquatic species, risk of 

injury or mortality resulting from noise is generally related to the effects of rapid pressure 

changes, especially on gas-filled spaces in the animal’s body (Carlson et al 2005). The main 

sensory organ used by fish to detect low-frequency (less than 100 Hz) waterborne signals is the 

lateral-line. The lateral-line organ is mostly involved in processing acoustic signals when the 

source is within a few body lengths of the fish. Otoliths located within the skull of the fish are 

sensitive to vibration rather than sound pressure. In fish species that contain gas-filled swim 

bladders, pressure waves are converted to vibrations via the swim bladder and are transferred to 

the otoliths, allowing the fish to detect both sound and vibration. High energy waves that may 

result from demolition activities may disturb these sensory systems; however, this is unlikely in 

the case of finfish species with swim bladders that are reduced or altogether absent (demersal 

species such as flounder typically do not have swim bladders and tend to be less susceptible to 

blast impacts) (ACOE 2004; Popper and Clark 1976). Field tests have shown the weight of the 

charge and distance from the detonation or distance from pile driving are the most important 

factors affecting the extent of injury and mortality to local finfish, although water depth, 

substrate, depth of the fish, and size and species of fish are also important (ACOE 2004; Keevin 

and Hempen 1997; Wiley et al. 1981; Teleki and Chamberlain 1978). However, during 

previous sampling efforts of the proposed Project Area, minimal numbers of finfish were 

collected within 50 meters of the finger piers. Additionally, a pier inspection involving divers 

equipped with self-contained underway breathing apparatus and underwater video indicated that 

no finfish were present in or around the finger piers surveyed, therefore decreasing the potential 

for negative effects of construction related noise and pressure emissions on local fish. These 

measures will also be protective of sea turtles which may be present in the vicinity of the dredge 

project. 

3.3.2 Mitigation Strategy 

In order to provide protection to aquatic species (fin-fish, sea turtles, etc) near the Terminal Site 

by allowing them to vacate the area, AES will adopt and implement NOAA’s recommended 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

21 

measure of a “soft start up” technique during sheet pile driving activities for bulkhead 

construction. 

By implementing the ‘‘soft start’’ practice, pile driving would be initiated at an energy level less 

than full capacity (i.e., approximately 40 to 60 percent energy levels) for a one to two minute 

period before gradually escalating to full capacity. This would encourage marine life in the area 

to vacate the construction zone without causing harm. During the final construction design 

phase, AES will also investigate the need for other protective measures such as installation of 

silt curtains and fish netting to keep fish from entering the immediate work area and use of 

bubble curtains to further mitigate impacts from pressures waves associated with the sheet pile 

driving for construction of the bulkhead. During final construction design, AES will investigate 

the potential underwater noise levels associated with the sheet pile driving activities and 

determine the precise mitigation measures necessary, which may include any one or 

combination of techniques described above. 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

22 

4 WETLAND & WATERBODY CROSSING CONSTRUCTION AND 

RESTORATION 

In general, impacts to wetland vegetation resulting from the proposed Pipeline will be minimal 

and temporary in nature. The majority of the impacts will occur in forested wetlands because 

Pipeline installation will require the removal of trees and shrubs. Permanent impacts will occur 

within the permanent ROW, where the wetlands will be maintained for the life of the Pipeline 

as emergent/scrub-shrub communities. The following construction and mitigation procedures 

will minimize impacts to wetlands during Pipeline construction and restoration. AES has 

performed an evaluation of the potential Bog Turtle habitat along the project route and has 

attempted to avoid Bog Turtle habitat to the maximum extent practicable. Should the project 

work area be in the vicinity of known Bog Turtle habitat, AES will implement the Bog Turtle 

Management Plan included in Appendix E. 

4.1 Wetland Construction Procedures 

The construction technique used to cross wetlands with stable, unsaturated soils at the time of 

construction will be similar to those used in dry upland areas. Soils may be dry and stable 

enough to support equipment without additional timber mat and/or rip-rap equipment support, 

and pipe may be strung along the ROW on skids through the wetland. Construction procedures 

will adhere to Best Management Practice (“BMP”) Drawings located in Appendix A and will 

include, but are not limited to, conventional wetland crossing and the push-pull staging 

methods. 

AES will ensure that construction-related impacts to wetlands are kept to a minimum and will 

adhere to the following wetland crossing procedures which are based on the Commission’s 

Wetland and Waterbody Construction Procedures: 

  Vegetation will be cut off at ground level, leaving existing root systems intact, and the 

cut vegetation will be removed from the wetlands for disposal. 

  Pulling of tree stumps and grading activities will be limited to that area directly over the 

trench, and to a lesser extent, to the work or travel area. Where, in the judgment of the 

Chief Inspector or Environmental Inspector, construction safety would be 

compromised, stumps will be pulled in the workspace outside of the trench line. 

  AES will attempt to use no more than two layers of timber rip-rap or prefabricated 

timber mats within the work area to stabilize the ROW. 

  All corduroy pads, prefabricated equipment pads, and geotextile fabric overlain with 

gravel will be removed upon completion of construction. 

  The top 12 inches of topsoil from the trench will be segregated and then returned to its 

original position on top of the trench, except in areas where tree roots and stumps, 

standing water, or saturated soils prevent this. 

  Sediment barriers will be installed and maintained at the edge of all wetlands until 

upslope ROW revegetation is completed. Permanent slope breakers will be installed at 

the base of all slopes adjacent to wetlands. 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

23 

  Permanent trench breakers will be installed at the point where the trench enters and 

exits the wetland to help preserve the wetland's hydrologic characteristics and to control 

sediment discharges into the wetlands. 

  Backfilling of the trench within the wetlands will be performed in such a manner that 

excess backfill will not be mounded, and that the wetlands will be returned, to the 

extent possible, to original contours and flow patterns. 

  Excess fill material resulting from trench excavation and backfilling must not be 

discharged or otherwise disposed of in waters of the United States and jurisdictional 

wetlands. 

  Due to relatively deep soils traversed along much of the Project Area, shallow bedrock 

conditions are not expected to be common. This is particularly the case with wetlands 

that typically occur in low lying areas and floodplains with deep soils. In the event that 

bedrock occurs near to the surface in wetlands, AES will minimize impacts by using 

construction BMPs for shallow bedrock areas, including use of rippers, back-hoe 

mounted hammers, and blasting where necessary. 

4.2 Wetland Restoration 

On-site restoration will be implemented for all wetlands temporarily impacted by the Project. 

Wetland crossing areas will be returned to approximate pre-existing contours within 48 hours of 

backfilling the trench. Work mats, wood mats, and other construction materials will be 

removed from the ROW. Restoration activities will take place as weather permits immediately 

after construction so to not prolong any temporary or permanent impact to wetland areas. AES 

will perform restoration activities in accordance with FERC permits and environmental 

inspection standards. 

In general re-vegetation of most wetland areas disturbed during construction should occur 

naturally as roots will remain undisturbed by construction. Tree canopy and vegetation in 

temporary workspace should be allowed to re-establish naturally post-construction. Mowing 

will be restricted within the ROW in wetland areas; instead they will be maintained by handtrimming. Scrub-shrub vegetation should be able to re-establish within the 50-foot ROW and 

will be limited to 15 feet in height. 

Wetlands will be stabilized with annual ryegrass, allowing the wetland’s native seed and 

rhizomes (contained in the topsoil) to reestablish dominance over time. No lime, fertilizer, or 

mulch will be applied in wetlands. If revegetation is not successful at the end of a three year 

monitoring period, AES will develop and implement (in consultation with a professional 

wetland ecologist) a remedial revegetation plan, including, but not limited to the use of a native 

wetland seed mix 

4.3 Waterbody Crossing Construction Procedures 

The 177 waterbodies identified during field reconnaissance, including perennial, intermittent 

and ephemeral streams, will be crossed during construction using one of the crossing methods 

described below. The selected method will provide the least disturbance and most expedient 

crossing to minimize overall impact. The crossing methods below are further described in 

Appendix B - Environmental Construction Plan (ECP) and Appendix A - Best Management 

Practice (BMP) Drawings. The ECP and BMPs were developed by AES based on the FERC’s 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

24 

requirements in the Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (January 

17, 2003). Crossing methods for each of the waterbodies are indicated on Table 2-2 and 

crossing plans for select crossing locations are included in Appendix C – Site Specific 

Construction Plan (SCP). The Pipeline Route will include two major waterbody crossings -- the 

Susquehanna River and the Back River. 

  Horizontal Directional Drilling (“HDD”). For this type of crossing, a specialized drill 

rig is used to advance a shallow-angled borehole below the stream to be crossed and, 

using a telemetry guidance system, the borehole is “steered” beneath the stream and 

then back to the ground surface. The hole is then reamed to a size adequate for the pipe 

to pass through, and the pipeline is then pulled back through the borehole. This method 

provides the maximum protection to surface waterbodies. In areas requiring additional 

geologic data for construction design, including HDD crossings, geotechnical studies 

will be completed prior to construction. The results of these investigations will be filed 

with FERC when available. Following these investigations, AES will develop specific 

details regarding HDD crossings, including entry and exit pit locations and size, sitespecific plans (to scale) with areas of disturbance, and contingency mitigation measures 

to contain and clean up inadvertent release of drilling mud (in the unlikely event that an 

inadvertent release of drilling mud occurs). 

  Conventional Bore. A conventional bored crossing requires the excavation of bore pits 

on each side of the stream being crossed. Drilling equipment is used to install a 

horizontal borehole from one bore pit to the other. The pipe is then pulled through the 

borehole. For a general description of the conventional bore crossing method see BMP 

Drawing Number 14. This method is commonly used where open cut trenching is 

impractical or undesirable. Use of a bored crossing should not be time-restricted 

because it involves no work within or impact to the streambed or stream banks. 

  Dam & Pump Crossing Method. This method may be used in situations where pumps 

are able to adequately transfer water around the work area and there are no concerns 

about sensitive species passage. The dam and pump crossing method ensures stream 

flow is maintained. Potential water quality impacts are minimized or avoided by 

screening pump intakes and preventing streambed scour at the pump discharge by 

utilizing an energy dissipater (see BMP Drawing Number 17, Appendix A). 

  Flume Stream Crossing Method. This method requires installation of a flume pipe to 

convey water across the trench and a diversion structure to funnel water into the flume 

pipe(s). The flume crossing method ensures stream flow is maintained. This method 

may be used in situations where there are concerns about sensitive species passage. 

Water quality impacts are minimized because trench spoil does not come into contact 

with stream water and therefore stream sediment is not mobilized (see BMP Drawing 

Number 16, Appendix A). 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

25 

  Dry Non-Specified Crossing. This crossing method designation means that either dam 

and pump crossing method or the flume crossing method will be utilized, and the 

selection will be determined in the field at the time of crossing by the contractor and 

AES’s environmental inspector. 

  Multi-Flume Method. This crossing method may be implemented where stream flow is 

too high to be accommodated by a single flume. Similar to the flume crossing method, 

in which a single flume pipe is installed to convey water across the trench, the multiflume crossing method utilizes several flumes in areas of high flow. Water quality 

impacts are minimized by limiting trench spoil contact with stream water. All in-stream 

pipe fabrication is completed prior to stream ditching to minimize duration of stream 

diversion. In-stream pipe is installed at least five feet below the designed drain bottom. 

4.4 Seasonal Construction Restrictions 

To the greatest extent practicable, the construction method utilized for each waterbody crossing 

will be compatible with the environmental sensitivity and physical characteristics of each 

waterbody. Construction and restoration at waterbody crossings will be completed as quickly as 

practicable and in accordance with the FERC’s time limits, where applicable, unless additional 

time is expressly permitted by federal and state agencies, or unforeseen circumstances (e.g., 

inclement weather) should dictate otherwise. Short construction time frames will limit the 

spatial and temporal extent of sedimentation and turbidity impacts on fish, other in-stream biota 

and aquatic habitat. 

Based on prior consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) and National 

Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”), AES has developed seasonal construction restrictions to 

protect spawning fish in sensitive waterbodies. AES evaluated crossing restrictions for Back 

River, Little Gunpowder Falls, Susquehanna River, Deer Creek, White Marsh Run, Octoraro 

Creek, Buck Run, East Branch Brandywine Creek and West Branch Brandywine Creek. The 

seasonal construction restrictions are listed below in Table 1. AES has consulted with various 

agencies including FERC, ACOE, NMFS, NOAA, MDNR, MDE, and PADEP regarding the 

potential impacts of project construction on seasonal spawning/migratory periods for 

anadromous fish. Based on consultations with these agencies AES will implement the seasonal 

restrictions below: 

Table 1: 

Seasonal Construction Restrictions 

Waterbody Construction Excluded 

Big Gunpowder Falls 15-Feb 14-Jun 

Susquehanna River 21-Apr 15-Jun 

Deer Creek 15-Feb 14-Jun 

White Marsh Run 15-Feb 14-Jun 

Moores Run 15-Feb 14-Jun 

Octoraro Creek 15-Feb 14-Jun

Stemmers Run 15-Feb 15-Jun

 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

26 

4.5 Waterbody Crossing Restoration 

Restoration activities associated with all stream crossings will be performed after completion of 

Pipeline installation in accordance with the ECP, Appendix B. Channel stability is not 

perceived as a construction or restoration problem at any of the surface crossing locations 

observed to date. During clearing operations, vegetative strips will be maintained along the 

bank of the waterbody as shown in BMPs 21 and 22. Trees will be cut flush with the surface, 

but no stumps or roots will be removed. The length of actual, temporary bank disturbance will 

be limited to the width of excavation necessary to place fabricated pipe in the crossing 

(typically less than 10 feet). Native stone will be used to the extent possible during stream 

crossing restoration and stabilization. During the operational phase, native plant species, with 

the exception of deep rooting trees, will be allowed to reestablish along the banks of the 

waterbody. The bank conditions will be inspected twice annually during the operational phase 

of the Project. AES will address any evidence of bank instability caused by Pipeline 

construction or that poses a threat to the Pipeline in accordance with the ECP, Appendix B. 

Hydrostatic Testing 

AES will be required to perform hydrostatic static of both the Proposed LNG Tanks and 

the natural gas pipeline. AES has developed the Hydrotesting and Pre-Commissioning 

Plan included as Appendix F to this document which documents sources of hydrostatic 

test water, potential impacts and mitigation measures. Additionally, based on a request 

from NMFS, AES has that where practicable, the water withdrawals from the 

Susquehanna River will be avoided from April 21 through June 15, during the 

approximate period of Conowingo Dam fish lift operation and potential anadromous 

fish spawning in the Conowingo Pool.

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

27 

5 WETLAND MITIGATION 

5.1 Mitigation Approach 

On April 10, 2008, a Final Rule was published in the Federal Register by the EPA and the 

ACOE that introduced new standards to promote no net loss of wetlands by improving wetland 

restoration and protection policies, increasing the effective use of wetland mitigation banks and 

strengthening the requirements for the use of in-lieu fee mitigation (Federal Register / Vol. 73, 

No. 70 / Thursday, April 10, 2008 / Rules and Regulations). These new wetlands compensatory 

mitigation standards emphasize best available science, promote innovation and focus on results. 

AES has designed the Project in accordance with the intent of the newly published rule to 

adhere to the “mitigation sequence” of “avoid, minimize and compensate”. As described in 

section 2.6, AES focused the project routing to first avoid sensitive resources then to minimize

impacts, and then to compensate for unavoidable impacts.

The total number of wetlands crossed is presented in Table 2-1. As described in Resource 

Report 10, Alternatives, during the Project route selection, AES avoided or minimized impacts 

to wetlands to the extent practicable. Wetland areas are temporarily impacted by construction 

activities within the ROW and within additional temporary workspace areas (“ATWS”). Onsite restoration will be implemented for all wetlands temporarily impacted by the project. 

Wetland crossing areas will be returned to pre-existing contours within 48hrs of backfilling the 

trench. A summary of impacts, both temporary and permanent is included in Section 4.1 

5.2 Temporary & Permanent Impacts 

Temporary impacts to wetlands have been minimized to the maximum extend practicable 

through route selection and development and implementation of appropriate construction 

techniques as described in Section 3.3. Restoration activities will take place as weather permits 

immediately after construction so to not prolong any temporary or permanent impact to wetland 

areas. AES will perform restoration activities in accordance with FERC permits and 

environmental inspection standards. 

In general, re-vegetation of most wetland areas disturbed during construction should occur 

naturally as roots will remain undisturbed by construction. Tree canopy and vegetation in 

temporary workspace should be allowed to re-establish naturally post-construction. Mowing 

will be restricted within the ROW in wetland areas; instead they will be maintained by handtrimming. 

Permanent impacts to wetland areas occur in forested wetland areas that will be converted to 

other wetland types (palustrine emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands). Forested wetlands affected 

by construction are considered a permanent impact as they take several years to “re-establish” 

and the tree height of the wetland area along the ROW will be restricted to 15 feet in height. 

Emergent and Scrub-shrub type communities tend to come back in fewer growing seasons. 

AES will compensate for these permanent wetland losses according to state mitigation 

guidance. 

A total of 23.75 acres of wetlands will be impacted by construction of the Project. The 

temporary impacts will affect 19.31 acres while permanent impacts have been limited to 4.44

acres. Permanent and temporary impact by cover type is shown in the table below: 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

28 

Maryland Pennsylvania 

Wetland 

Cover Type a

Temporary 

(acres) 

Permanent 

(acres) 

Temporary 

(acres) 

Permanent 

(acres) 

PEM 5.2 0 1.9 0 

PEM/PFO 2.65 1.12 0.66 0.44 

PEM/PSS 1.13 0 0.02 0 

PSS 0.05 0 0.08 0 

PFO 5.53 2.1 1.47 0.6 

PFO/PEM 0.16 0.04 0.36 0.14 

POW/PEM 0.03 0 0.07 0 

Project Total 14.75 3.26 4.56 1.18 

AES proposes to mitigate areas of temporary impact through restoration of the affected areas at 

a 1:1 ration according to FERC Wetland and Waterbody Construction Procedures as described 

3.1 and 3.2. AES will mitigate for the permanent conversation of forested wetland to emergent 

and scrub-shrub wetland through implementation of compensatory mitigation projects to offset 

the 4.44 acres of permanent wetland type conversion. 

5.3 Compensation 

Under 40 CFR 230, the ACOE reviews proposals using a "sequencing" procedure: avoidance, 

minimization, and, finally, compensation for unavoidable impacts. 

AES will compensate for temporary impacts to wetlands through restoration and for permanent 

impacts through compensatory mitigation. The goal of the wetland mitigation program is to 

ensure no net loss of wetland functional value for the wetlands affected by construction of the 

Project. Approximately 4.44 acres will require some sort of compensatory mitigation AES has 

reviewed the Maryland Compensatory Mitigation Guidance dated August 1994 as well as the 

recent Final Rule published in the Federal Register and from the mitigation ratio present on the 

MDE Wetland Mitigation website3

. A breakdown of Project impacts and proposed 

compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts is presented below. 

Wetland 

Cover Type a

Replacement 

Ratio 

(acres) 

Permanent 

MD 

(acres) 

Permanent 

PA 

(acres) 

Mitigation 

Proposed 

MD 

(acres) 

Mitigation 

Proposed PA

(acres) 

PEM 1:1 0 0 0 0 

PEM/PFO 2:1 1.12 0.44 2.24 .88 

PEM/PSS 2:1 0 0 0 0 

PSS 2:1 0 0 0 0 

PFO 2:1 2.1 0.6 4.2 1.2 

PFO/PEM 2:1 0.04 0.14 .08 .28 

POW/PEM 1:1 0 0 0 0 

Project Total 3.26 1.18 6.52 2.36 

 

3 http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/Wetlands_Waterways/regulations/mitigation.asp accessed 

on August 21, 2008 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

29 

To further understand wetland impact by region, AES has refined the total impacts to wetland 

systems based on the watershed sub-basin in which they occur. Permanent wetland impacts to 

wetland systems will occur within five sub-basins of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed as shown 

in the table below: 

Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

Sub-Basin Permanent Impact (acres) 

Gunpowder-Patapsco Basin 1.85 

Lower Susquehanna Basin 1.41 

Chester-Sassafras Basin .55 

Brandywine-Christina Basin .43 

Schuylkill Basin .2 

Total Impact 4.44 acres 

Compensatory mitigation can be carried out through four methods: the restoration of a 

previously-existing wetland or other aquatic site, the enhancement of an existing aquatic site’s 

functions, the establishment (i.e., creation) of a new aquatic site, or the preservation of an 

existing aquatic site. There are multiple mechanisms for providing compensatory mitigation 

including habitat restoration or creation, mitigation banks and in-lieu fee mitigation. Based on 

the recent guidance published by EPA and ACOE, AES has focused the proposed mitigation 

strategy on habitat restoration or creation and mitigation banks. In-lieu fee mitigation is not a 

proposed form of compensatory mitigation for the Project impacts. AES has establish a 

mitigation hierarchy where mitigation projects will be identified with the priority focused on 

on-site mitigation, then off-site in sub-watershed mitigation, then off-site in watershed 

mitigation and finally wetland mitigation banking. 

5.3.1 On-site In-kind restoration or creation 

As described in Section 3 above, AES will mitigate for temporary impacts associated with 

Project construction through on-site in kind wetland restoration. These wetlands will be 

restored to their original state following installation of the pipeline. Where practical, AES will 

attempt to conduct habitat restoration of creation project at areas adjacent to or contiguous to 

project permanent impacts. 

5.3.2 Off-site in sub-watershed in-kind restoration or creation 

When on-site mitigation is not practical, AES will attempt to perform off-site mitigation 

projects within the sub-watershed where the permanent impacts will occur. Each of the subwatersheds and total permanent impacts are presented in Section 4.3. Offsite mitigation 

projects could include enhancement of existing wetland areas or creation of new wetland 

habitat. 

5.3.3 Off-site, in watershed in-kind restoration or creation 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

30 

If mitigation projects are not viable within the same sub-watershed as the impact, AES will 

attempt to perform off-site mitigation within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

5.3.4 Wetland Mitigation Bank 

If it is determined through consultations with ACOE and MDE that the preferred method for 

mitigation would be investment in a mitigation bank with ongoing restoration and creation 

projects, then AES will coordinate with ACOE and MDE to identify an appropriate mitigation 

bank or multiple banks as well as to identify the appropriate compensatory mitigation amount. 

5.4 Compensatory Mitigation Projects 

Whether compensatory mitigation is on-site, off-site, in-kind, or out-of-kind, AES will ensure 

the mitigation project meets the following criteria: 

  Is sustainable in the context of adjacent land uses; 

  Is sustainable in the context of natural processes, particularly with respect to hydrology; 

  Has little or no adverse impacts on the environment. 

  Includes good stewardship and long-term protection provisions (e.g., financial 

assurances, site protection mechanisms, monitoring and contingency provisions, etc.); 

and, 

  Has clear goals, with specifically defined measurable performance standards, in order to 

ensure mitigation effectiveness. 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

31 

6 REGULATORY CONSULTATION 

6.1 Development of Detailed Site Mitigation Plans 

AES has consulted with ACOE, MDE, and various Pennsylvania regulatory agencies 

throughout the permitting process and will continue to work with the appropriate agencies to 

develop detailed site specific mitigation plans as Project permits are issued with specific 

requirements for mitigation planning. 

AES initiated additional consultations with the ACOE, NMFS, FWS, EPA, MDE, and PDEP 

regarding the AES Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan (“ARMP”) in a letter dated May 12, 

2008. Based on comments received from FERC, AES has updated the plan and submitted a 

revised copy to FERC, COE, MDE, MDNR, PA DEP, PFBC, PDCNR, CCCD, CCPC and 

Lancaster County Planning Commission for review and comment on August 29, 2008. AES 

will follow up with each agency and update the plan as required based on the ongoing 

consultation process. 

Additionally based on consultations with NMFS, AES has included the requested seasonal 

restrictions for select waterbody crossings, hydrostatic test water intake and discharge as well as 

included NMFS’s requested soft start up procedures for installation of the sheet pile bulkhead 

and onshore pile driving activities. AES is still engaged in ongoing consultations with NFMS 

regarding the Draft Vessel Strike Avoidance Plan and the Sea Turtle Monitoring Training 

Program. 

AES Representatives met with PA DEP – Chester County on July 10, 2008 to discuss the 

wetland and waterbody crossings in Chester County and the permitting process. PA DEP 

provided guidance on the information they require as part of the permitting process and 

requested AES provide them updated information once the RT&E surveys in Chester County 

were complete. When the materials are complete AES will draft the submission for PA DEP 

and continue the consultation process. 

AES had continued consultations with Chester County Planning Commission, Chester County 

Water Resources Authority, Chester County Parks and Recreation and initiated consultations 

with Chester County Conservation District regarding the proposed project and potential impacts 

and mitigation measures. 

AES received an e-mail from Greg Golden of MDNR on June 16, 2008 that raise additional 

concerns relative to dissolved oxygen and identified potential local contacts that may need to be 

involved in final mitigation planning. AES has continued ongoing consultations with MDNR 

through telephone conversations with Mr. Bruce Michael. AES has addressed the concerns 

raised in MDNR’s June 16, 2008 letter to the FERC with comments on the DEIS in the revised 

ARMP. AES indicated to Mr. Michael that the ARMP was being revised to address multiple 

issues raised by FERC and other contributing agencies and when complete would be sent to his 

attention for review by his staff. Once their review is complete AES has committed to holding a 

meeting with MDNR, currently anticipated late September/early October, to review the plan and 

begin discussions regard specific mitigation strategies. 

AES has been working with the COE to perform Jurisdictional Determinations and filed 

evaluations of wetland delineations throughout the Spring and Summer 2008 survey season. 

AES is currently awaiting confirmation from COE when they can return to the field to review 

the remaining wetland areas. Based on the review conducted date some new wetland areas were 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

32 

identified and wetland boundaries modified. AES held a conference call with representatives of 

the COE on Tuesday August 26, 2008. During this call AES discussed the Draft ARMP with 

Ms. Kathy Anderson and Mr. Joe DaVia of the COE. AES explained the intent of the plan as 

tool to begin discussions regarding the final mitigation that will be required as part of the 

project. The COE representatives indicated that they understand the intent of the plan and are 

willing to continue to work with AES to develop a mitigation plan that will meet their 

requirements. COE referenced the new rule regarding mitigation that requires site specific 

mitigation plans to be completed prior to permit issuance. The AES project submitted its permit 

applications before the promulgation of the final rule and would therefore be “grandfathered” 

under the previous regulations; however Ms. Anderson indicated she wants to see as much 

detail as possible regarding site specific mitigation and would prefer if AES complied with the 

new rule. AES acknowledged the request and committed to review the rule and consider it 

when revising the Draft ARMP. AES expects that it will continue to receive comments as the 

Project moves forward and other issues arise or are resolved. 

6.2 Monitoring and Reporting 

Monitoring activities may include, but are not limited to, evaluation of surface water and ground 

water elevations, integrity of inlet/outlet structures, plant health, presence of invasive species, 

and vegetation ground cover. 

Newly created and restored sites will be monitored and progress will be recorded and reported 

annually and submitted to the ACOE, MDE, and Pennsylvania regulatory agencies, as required, 

for the first five years following the first growing season. 

Wetland restoration within the ROW will be monitored and recorded annually for three years 

post-construction or until wetland restoration is deemed successful. A report will be filed with 

FERC documenting the status of the wetland restoration activities, including problems 

encountered and percent cover achieved. 

6.3 Performance Standards and Development of Performance Plans 

According to the FERC guidelines, wetland restoration will be considered successful if the 

cover of herbaceous and/or woody species is at least 80 percent of the type, density, and 

distribution of the vegetation in adjacent wetland areas not disturbed by construction. If 

revegetation is not successful after three years for a non forested wetlands and ten years for a 

forested wetland, a remedial investigation plan will be developed in consultation with a 

professional wetland ecologist and submitted to the agencies. 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

33 

7 PLAN SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

It is AES’s intention to avoid impacts to aquatic resources, to minimize those impacts where 

avoidance is impossible or impractical, and then compensate for those unavoidable impacts. 

AES has proposed compensatory mitigation at the ratios presented in this Aquatic Resource 

Mitigation Plan to offset the unavoidable permanent impacts from the Project. Through routing 

and selection of construction techniques, AES has minimized the total impact permanent impact 

of the project to the conversion of less than 4.5 acres of forested wetland to emergent or scrubshrub wetland. These impacts will be compensated for in accordance with the Plan and 

procedures described above. The final mitigation measures and detailed site-specific mitigation 

plans will be developed through continued consultations with the ACOE, MDE, and various 

Pennsylvania regulatory agencies to ensure the goals of each program are met and that there is 

not net loss of wetland habitat or functional value.

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG 

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline 

DRAFT Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan 

September 2008 

34 

REFERENCES 

C:\Documents and Settings\rty\Desktop\DRAFT ARMP August 2008.doc 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX A 

Best Management Practices 

(Documents Originally Included as Appendix 2B1 of Resource Report 2, will be included in the 

Final Version of the Document) 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX B 

Environmental Construction Plan 

(Document Originally Included as Appendix A of Resource Report 2, will be included in the Final 

Version of the Document) 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX C 

Site Specific Crossing Methods 

(Documents Originally Included as Appendix 2B2 of Resource Report 2, will be included in the 

Final Version of the Document) 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX D 

DRAFT Sea Turtle Monitoring Program 

(Documents will be included in the Final Version of the Document) 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX E 

Bog Turtle Management Plan 

(Documents will be included in the Final Version of the Document) 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX E 

Hydrotesting and Pre-Commissioning Plan 

 (Documents will be included in the Final Version of the Document) 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment GEN12a

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX R 

DRAFT GENERAL CONFORMITY DETERMINATION 

FOR MARYLAND AND PENNSYLVANIA 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
September 2008

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC and CP07-63-000 

Sparrows Point 

LNG Terminal 

and Pipeline Project 

Draft General Conformity Determination 

for Maryland and Pennsylvania 

Fede

Regul

Com

r

m

al Energy

atory

ission

Office of 

Energy Projects

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 

In Reply Refer To: 

OEP/DG2E/Gas Branch 2 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and 

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC 

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, 

 

TO THE PARTY ADDRESSED: 

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

has prepared this Draft General Conformity Determination to assess the potential air 

quality impacts associated with the construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas 

(LNG) import terminal and natural gas pipeline proposed by AES Sparrows Point LNG, 

LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC, collectively referred to as AES, in the abovereferenced dockets. 

 This Draft General Conformity Determination was prepared to satisfy the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

Comment Procedures

Any person wishing to comment on this Draft General Conformity Determination 

may do so. To ensure consideration of your comments in the Final General Conformity 

Determination, it is important that we receive your comments before the date specified 

below. For your convenience, there are three methods in which you can use to submit 

your comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the project docket 

numbers Docket No. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000 with your submission. The docket 

number can be found on the front of this notice. The Commission strongly encourages 

electronic filing of any comments on this Draft General Conformity Determination

and has dedicated eFiling expert staff available to assist you at 202-502-8258 or 

efiling@ferc.gov. 

1. You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick Comment

feature, which is located on the Commission's internet website at 

http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. A Quick 

Comment is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only 

comments on a project; 

2. You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, 

which is located on the Commission's internet website at 

http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. FERC’s 

eFiling involves preparing your submission in the same manner as you 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 

would if filing on paper, and then saving the file on your computer’s hard 

drive. You will attach that file as your submission. New eFiling users must 

first create an account by clicking on “Sign up” or “eRegister.” You will 

be asked to select the type of filing you are making. A comment on a 

particular project is considered a “Comment on a Filing”; or 

3. You may file your comments via mail to the Commission by sending an 

original and two copies of your letter to: 

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First St., N.E., Room 1A 

Washington, DC 20426 

• Reference Docket Nos. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, and 

CP07-65-000 on the original and both copies; 

• Label one copy of your comments for the attention of Gas Branch 2; 

PJ11.2; and; 

• Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, 

DC on or before October 27, 2008. 

 After all comments are reviewed, the staff will publish and distribute a Final 

General Conformity Determination for the Project. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 

CONTENTS 

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

2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND......................................................................................... 2 

3.0 REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................................. 2 

4.0 PROCESS................................................................................................................................ 3 

5.0 APPLICABILITY ................................................................................................................... 3 

6.0 GENERAL CONFORMITY DETERMINATION – MARYLAND.................................... 14 

6.1 CONSISTENCY WITH RELEVANT MARYLAND SIP REQUIREMENTS.............14 

6.2 MARYLAND EMISSION BUDGET AND PROJECT EMISSION OFFSETS ...........16 

7.0 GENERAL CONFORMITY DETERMINATION – PENNSYLVANIA............................ 30 

7.1 CONSISTENCY WITH RELEVANT PENNSYLVANIA SIP REQUIREMENTS.....30 

7.2 PENNSYLVANIA EMISSION BUDGET AND PROJECT EMISSION OFFSETS ...31 

Appendix A Listing of Construction Equipment Mitigation Commitments 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

1.0 Introduction 

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC (“Sparrows Point LNG”) filed an application in January 2007 

with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) seeking all of the necessary 

authorizations pursuant to the Natural Gas Act to construct, own, and operate a new liquefied 

natural gas (LNG) import, storage, and regasification terminal (“LNG Terminal”) at the 

Sparrows Point Industrial Complex situated on the Sparrows Point Peninsula east of the Port of 

Baltimore in Maryland. As proposed, LNG would be delivered to the LNG Terminal via LNG 

marine traffic, offloaded from these ships to shoreside storage tanks, regasified on the LNG 

Terminal site (“Terminal Site”), and transported to consumers via pipeline. The LNG Terminal 

would have a regasification capacity of 1.5 billion standard cubic feet of natural gas per day 

(“bscfd”), with potential to expand to 2.25 bscfd. Regasified natural gas would be delivered to 

markets in the Mid-Atlantic Region and northern portions of the South Atlantic Region through 

an approximately 88-mile-long, 30-inch outside diameter natural gas pipeline (“Pipeline”) to be 

constructed and operated by Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC (“Mid-Atlantic Express”). Mid-Atlantic 

Express also filed an application with FERC in January 2007. The Pipeline would extend from 

the LNG Terminal to interconnections with existing interstate natural gas pipeline systems near 

Eagle, Pennsylvania. Together, the LNG Terminal and Pipeline projects are referred to as the 

Sparrows Point Project or Project. Both Sparrows Point LNG and Mid-Atlantic Express 

(hereinafter collectively referred to as “AES”) are subsidiaries of The AES Corporation. 

As described in the applications to FERC, AES is also considering the possibility of constructing 

and operating a combined-cycle cogeneration power plant (“Power Plant”) on the Terminal Site. 

The Power Plant would not be subject to FERC jurisdiction under the NGA, but it would be 

considered a related action to the LNG Terminal and Pipeline. Therefore, this draft General 

Conformity Determination evaluates both scenarios. 

The Project footprint is located in Baltimore, Harford, and Cecil Counties, Maryland, and in 

portions of Lancaster and Chester Counties, Pennsylvania. The Terminal Site, which is located 

entirely within Baltimore County, is a parcel located within a former shipyard. The route 

proposed for the Pipeline (“Pipeline Route”), which crosses all of the listed counties, includes 

industrial, commercial, agricultural, and residential lands. Together, the Terminal Site and the 

Pipeline Route comprise the Project Area. The LNG ship transit would take place through State 

of Maryland and State of Virginia waters. Ship transit routes would traverse Baltimore, Anne 

Arundel, Queen Anne’s, Somerset, St. Mary’s, Dorchester, and Talbot counties in Maryland and 

York County, Poquoson City, Northampton County, Accomack County, and Virginia Beach City 

in Virginia. Processed dredge material (“PDM”) would potentially be hauled to a disposal site in 

Virginia. Potential truck transit routes used to haul PDM from dredging activities during the 

LNG Terminal construction phase and periodically during the operating phase for dredge 

maintenance activities would traverse Baltimore, Anne Arundel, and Prince George’s Counties 

in Maryland; the District of Columbia; and Fairfax and Prince William Counties in Virginia to 

disposal sites located in Virginia. 

Portions of the Project subject to General Conformity review would be undertaken in Air Quality 

Control Regions in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia that have been designated moderate or 

marginal ozone non-attainment areas or maintenance areas with respect to the 8-hour ozone 

1

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

standard or areas designated as non-attainment for PM2.5. If the emissions associated with the 

Project would exceed the applicability thresholds for Maryland (set by the Maryland Department 

of the Environment (“MDE”)), Virginia (set by the Virginia Department of Environmental 

Quality (“VADEQ”)) and Pennsylvania (set by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection (“PDEP”)) under the General Conformity Rule, separate General Conformity 

Determinations would be required for each affected state. 

2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) promulgated the General Conformity Rule 

on November 30, 1993, in Volume 58 of the Federal Register (“FR”) Page 63214 (58 FR 63214) 

to implement the conformity provision of Title I, section 176(c)(1) of the CAA. Section 

176(c)(1) requires that the federal government not engage, support, or provide financial 

assistance for permit or license, or approve any activity that fails to conform to an approved 

CAA implementation plan. 

The General Conformity Rule is codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) 

Part 51, Subpart W and Part 93, Subpart B, “Determining Conformity of General Federal 

Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans” (“General Conformity Rule”). The General 

Conformity Rule applies to all federal actions, except programs and projects that require funds or 

approval from the U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”), the Federal Highway 

Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, or the Metropolitan Planning Organization. 

In lieu of a conformity analysis, these latter types of programs and projects must comply with the 

Transportation Conformity Rule promulgated by DOT on November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62197). 

3.0 REQUIREMENTS 

As defined in the CAA, Title I, section 176(c)(1), conformity means to uphold air quality goals 

through reduction or elimination of NAAQS violations to achieve attainment with NAAQS 

standards. Accordingly, a proposed action or activity achieves conformity if the associated or 

pollutant emissions would not: 

• Cause or contribute to new violations of any NAAQS in any area; 

• Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any NAAQS; or 

• Delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or interim emission reductions. 

The General Conformity Rule establishes conformity in coordination with and as part of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) environmental review process. The General 

Conformity Rule affects air pollutant emissions associated with actions that are federally funded, 

licensed, permitted, or approved, and ensures emissions do not contribute to air quality 

degradation or prevent the achievement of state and federal air quality goals. In short, General 

Conformity, if applicable, refers to the process to evaluate plans, programs, and projects to 

determine and demonstrate that they satisfy the requirements of the CAA and applicable State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). 

2

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

4.0 PROCESS 

The process to determine conformity for a proposed action involves two steps: applicability and 

determination. Applicability is an assessment of whether a proposed action is subject to the 

General Conformity Rule. If the General Conformity Rule is applicable for the proposed action, 

then a General Conformity Determination may be required. The determination process is an 

assessment of whether the proposed action conforms to the applicable implementation plan. 

An applicability evaluation is required for any action that is federally funded, licensed, 

permitted, or approved where the total direct and indirect emissions for criteria pollutants in a 

nonattainment or maintenance area exceed the rates listed specified in Title 40 CFR 58.853(b)(1) 

and (2) and identified in Section 5.0 below. If emissions exceed these rates, or if the emissions 

are determined to be regionally significant, then a General Conformity Determination is required. 

A proposed action is considered regionally significant if the total direct and indirect emissions 

for any criteria pollutant represent 10 percent or more of a nonattainment or maintenance area 

emissions inventory for that pollutant. The General Conformity Determination process does not 

apply to a new source or existing source modification that is subject to New Source Review 

(NSR). 

If the General Conformity Rule is determined to be applicable for the proposed action, an 

evaluation must be performed to determine if the action conforms to the SIP. Positive 

conformity can be shown through state emission budgets, emission offsets, and/or air quality 

models, or any combination of these. 

5.0 APPLICABILITY 

The General Conformity Rule applies only to actions in a NAAQS nonattainment or 

maintenance area. Applicability is based on direct and indirect emissions from the proposed 

Project. As noted above, the Project footprint is located in the counties of Baltimore, Harford, 

and Cecil in Maryland, and in the counties of Lancaster and Chester in Pennsylvania (“Project 

Counties”). LNG ships and PDM haul trucks associated with the LNG Terminal would also 

transit through other Maryland and Virginia counties. Table 5.1 provides a list of the Project 

Counties and their attainment status. The applicability thresholds apply to each air quality 

control region (AQCR) within nonattainment or maintenance areas individually. Pollutants of 

particular concern in these areas are ozone and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). 

TABLE 5.1 

NAAQS Status of Air Quality Control Regions 

Location State AQCR NAAQS Status 

Sparrows Point LNG 

Terminal – Baltimore, MD MD (Metro. Baltimore Intrastate – 115) Nonattainment Ozone, PM2.5

Mid-Atlantic Express 

Pipeline – Baltimore + 

Harford Cos., MD portion 

MD (Metro. Baltimore Intrastate – 

115); Nonattainment Ozone, PM2.5

3

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

4

TABLE 5.1 

NAAQS Status of Air Quality Control Regions 

Location State AQCR NAAQS Status 

Mid-Atlantic Express 

Pipeline – Cecil Co., MD + 

Chester Co., PA portion 

MD + PA 

(Philadelphia-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE 

Interstate AQCR) 

Nonattainment Ozone 

Mid-Atlantic Express 

Pipeline – Chester Co., PA 

portion 

PA (Philadelphia-Wilmington, 

PA-NJ-DE Interstate AQCR) Nonattainment PM2.5

Mid-Atlantic Express 

Pipeline – Lancaster Co., 

PA portion 

PA Lancaster Co., PA (196) Nonattainment Ozone, PM2.5

MD Baltimore, Anne Arundel 

(115) LNG Ship Transit routes in Nonattainment Ozone, PM2.5

MD 

MD Queen Anne’s (114) Maintenance Area Ozone 

LNG Ship Transit routes in 

VA VA 

(Norfolk-Virginia BeachNewport News (Hampton 

Roads) (223) 

Maintenance Area Ozone 

MD Baltimore, Anne Arundel 

(115) Nonattainment Ozone, PM2.5 PDM haul truck transit 

routes in MD, Washington, 

D.C. and VA MD, D.C., 

VA 

(Washington, DC-MD-VA – 

047) Nonattainment Ozone, PM2.5

The affected counties from ship transit were identified by comparing the LNG ship transit route, 

as determined through the Waterway Suitability Assessment (WSA) issued by the U.S. Coast 

Guard, to county boundaries along the route. Emissions were directly allocated to each county 

along the route according to the length of the transit route located within the county as shown in 

Table 5-2. 

TABLE 5.2 

NAAQS Status of Counties Along LNG Ship Transit Route to LNG Terminal 

County or City State 

LNG Ship 

Transit 

Route 

Segment, 

South to 

North 

Ship 

Transit 

Route 

Mileage 

8-hr O3

Attainment 

Status 

PM2.5 

Attainment 

Status 

Virginia Beach City VA 1 9.92 Maintenance Attainment 

Northampton Co. VA 2 31.03 Attainment Attainment 

Poquoson City VA 3 4.78 Maintenance Attainment 

York Co. VA 4 3.19 Maintenance Attainment 

Accomack Co. VA 5 28.73 Attainment Attainment 

Somerset Co. MD 6 8.08 Attainment Attainment 

St. Mary’s Co. MD 7 6.47 Attainment Attainment 

Dorchester Co. MD 8 33.98 Attainment Attainment 

Talbot Co. MD 9 16.16 Attainment Attainment 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

5

TABLE 5.2 

NAAQS Status of Counties Along LNG Ship Transit Route to LNG Terminal 

Queen Anne’s Co. MD 10 10.34 Maintenance Attainment 

Anne Arundel Co. MD 11 17.11 Nonattainment Nonattainment 

Baltimore Co. MD 12 5.90 Nonattainment Nonattainment 

Similarly, potential truck transit routes used to haul PDM from dredging activities during the 

LNG Terminal construction phase and periodically during the operating phase for dredge 

maintenance activities would traverse several attainment, nonattainment, and maintenance 

counties. Nonattainment and maintenance counties that would be traversed by the PDM haul 

trucks include: Baltimore, Anne Arundel, and Prince George’s Counties in Maryland; the District 

of Columbia; and Fairfax and Prince William Counties in Virginia to disposal sites located in 

Virginia. Each of these counties is designated as moderate nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard and as nonattainment for PM2.5. All other counties in Virginia along the potential PDM 

haul truck routes are designated as attainment for all pollutants. 

The General Conformity applicability threshold for ozone precursors for an area in either 

moderate or basic ozone nonattainment within an ozone transport region (“OTR”) or in a 

maintenance area is 50 tons per year (TPY) of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 100 TPY 

of nitrogen oxides (NOX). The applicability threshold for PM2.5 nonattainment areas is 100 TPY 

of PM2.5 or SO2 emissions. In addition, pending development of SIP revisions for PM2.5

attainment, precursor emissions of NOX (unless determined not to be a significant precursor) and 

VOC or ammonia (NH3) (if determined to be significant precursors) may also need to be 

compared to a 100 TPY applicability threshold. 

Construction and vessel activity (including PDM emissions for the proposed Project were 

estimated as a product of engine size (horsepower), engine-specific emission factors, operating 

load factors, transient adjustment factors, deterioration factors and the estimated hours of 

equipment operation, in accordance with the calculation methodology in EPA’s NONROAD 

model. Indirect emissions from on-road mobile sources were estimated based on the 

methodology and emission factors from the EPA MOBILE6 model. LNG ship, assist tugs, and 

security boat emissions for the operating phase of the Project were estimated based on emission 

factors and operating assumptions for a mix of vessel types, engine technologies and fuels to 

conservatively represent roundtrip operation in state waters potentially affected by the Project. 

Documentation of all assumptions and emissions calculations are provided in Appendix 9A to 

Resource Report 9 of the applications to the FERC. 

Table 5.3 summarizes emissions calculations for NOX, VOC, PM2.5, SO2, and NH3 emissions 

during all Project years in nonattainment and maintenance areas in Maryland, Pennsylvania and 

Virginia. Emissions in Table 5.3 do not account for any additional mitigation measures beyond 

air quality regualtions. 

Based on comparison of estimated emissions in Project nonattainment and maintenance areas to 

the applicability thresholds, NOX emissions in Maryland AQCR 115 during both the construction 

phase (2009 through 2011) and operating phase (2012 and after) are estimated to exceed the 100 

TPY NOX applicability threshold. In Chester County, Pennsylvania (Philadelphia-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE Interstate AQCR), NOX emissions during the construction phase 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

6

(in 2010) are estimated to exceed the applicability threshold. Also, in Chester County, 

Pennsylvania (Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE Interstate AQCR), which is nonattainment 

for PM2.5, NOX precursor emissions are estimated to exceed the applicability threshold in 2010. 

For all other AQCRs and all other Project years, emissions of ozone precursors NOX and VOC, 

PM2.5, and PM2.5 precursors are not estimated to exceed any of the applicability thresholds. 

Table 5.4 summarizes the same analysis as presented in Table 5.3, but includes the additional 

construction and indirect emissions associated with construction of the nonjurisdictional Power 

Plant at the Terminal Site. This analysis demonstrates that the conclusions of the conformity 

applicability analysis would not be changed as a result of construction of the Power Plant if the 

nonjurisdictional emissions were included, i.e., the Project triggers the conformity applicability 

thresholds for ozone precursor NOX emissions during all Project years in Maryland AQCR 115 

and for ozone and PM2.5 precursor NOX emissions in Chester County, Pennsylvania for 

construction year 2010. 

Although ozone and PM2.5 precursor emissions are lower than applicability thresholds in the 

majority of the construction and operating years in Project-affected nonattainment and 

maintenance areas, the General Conformity applicability analysis must also consider whether 

total direct and indirect emissions from a federal action are regionally significant, i.e., whether 

such emissions represent 10 percent or more of the total annual emissions inventory of that 

pollutant for the nonattainment or maintenance area. Based on the estimated emissions 

summarized in Tables 5.3 and 5.4, even for the worst-case assumptions involving construction of 

the nonjurisdictional Power Plant, NOX, VOC, PM2.5, and SO2 emissions from the Project in all 

Project years are estimated to be significantly less than 10 percent of the 2001 emissions 

inventory for the affected AQCRs1. The 2001 emissions inventory by Project-affected AQCR is 

summarized in Table 5.5. Table 5.6 summarizes Project emissions as a percentage of the 2001 

emissions inventory by AQCR. Based on the results of this analysis, emissions from the Project 

would not be regionally significant and the General Conformity requirements do not apply to 

emissions from the Project in nonattainment or maintenance areas where estimated Project 

emissions are less than the applicability thresholds. 

Because none of the exemptions listed in 40 CFR 51.853(c), (d) or (e) are applicable to the 

Project (other than the portion of the LNG Terminal operations subject to NSR permitting) and 

the Project is not presumed to conform in accordance with the requirements and procedures in 40 

CFR 51.853(f)-(h), a General Conformity Determination is required for those Project-related 

emissions and the nonattainment areas identified. 

Because emissions resulting from the Project in nonattainment areas exceed the applicability 

thresholds in Maryland and Pennsylvania, a Draft General Conformity Determination has been 

prepared for each of these states. It should also be noted that SIPs demonstrating attainment with 

 

1

 Most recent available county emissions inventory data available from U.S. EPA AirData website 

(http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html). Regional significance analysis would be updated pending availability of 

more recent county emissions inventory data. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

Table 5.3 

Total Project Annual Emissions (TPY) Within All Project Areas – No Mitigation 

(without Power Plant) 

Phila.-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA-NJMD-DE Interstate AQCR Washington, DC-MD-VA AQCR Baltimore, Harford and Anne Arundel 

Counties, 

MD 

(Metro. 

Baltimore 

Intrastate 

AQCR 

115) 

Cecil 

Co., 

MD 

Chester 

Co., PA 

Total 

NA 

area 

Chester Co., 

PA (PhilaWilmington, 

PA-NJ-DE 

Interstate 

AQCR) 

Lancaster 

Co., PA 

(AQCR 

196) 

Kent & 

Queen 

Anne's 

Cos. 

(AQCR 

114) 

Calvert 

and 

Prince 

George's 

Cos., 

MD 

Wash., 

D.C. 

Fairfax 

and Prince 

Williams 

Cos., VA 

Total 

Wash., 

DC-MD

VA 

AQCR 

Year 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA O3 NA PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3

Maint. 

Area 

O3 + 

PM2.5b

NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5b

NA 

NOx Emissions 

2009 364.5 17.2 14.2 39.3 70.8 2010 756.1 61.5 223.6 285.0 223.6 57.0 20.6 17.1 47.2 84.9 2011 212.9 3.1 29.1 32.2 29.1 7.4 8.7 7.1 19.7 35.5 

2012a 129.3 19.7 1.5 1.2 3.4 6.1 

2013 + later 194.0 29.6 2.2 1.9 5.1 9.2 

VOC Emissions 

2009 28.8 2.1 1.8 4.8 8.7 2010 63.6 5.7 22.2 27.9 22.2 5.7 2.5 2.1 5.8 10.4 2011 18.3 0.3 3.1 3.5 3.1 0.8 1.1 0.9 2.4 4.3 

2012a 9.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.4 1.1 

2013 + later 13.8 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.6 1.1 

PM2.5 Emissions 

2009 26.2 0.4 0.3 0.9 1.7 2010 50.2 3.9 15.9 19.8 15.9 4.0 0.5 0.4 1.1 2.0 2011 14.5 0.2 2.0 2.2 2.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.8 

2012a 6.9 1.2 0.0 0.03 0.1 0.1 

7

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

8

Table 5.3 

Total Project Annual Emissions (TPY) Within All Project Areas – No Mitigation 

(without Power Plant) 

Phila.-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA-NJMD-DE Interstate AQCR Washington, DC-MD-VA AQCR Baltimore, Harford and Anne Arundel 

Counties, 

MD 

(Metro. 

Baltimore 

Intrastate 

AQCR 

115) 

Cecil 

Co., 

MD 

Chester 

Co., PA 

Total 

NA 

area 

Chester Co., 

PA (PhilaWilmington, 

PA-NJ-DE 

Interstate 

AQCR) 

Lancaster 

Co., PA 

(AQCR 

196) 

Kent & 

Queen 

Anne's 

Cos. 

(AQCR 

114) 

Calvert 

and 

Prince 

George's 

Cos., 

MD 

Wash., 

D.C. 

Fairfax 

and Prince 

Williams 

Cos., VA 

Total 

Wash., 

DC-MD

VA 

AQCR 

Year 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA O3 NA PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3

Maint. 

Area 

O3 + 

PM2.5b

NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5b

NA 

2013 + later 10.4 1.8 0.1 0.04 0.1 0.2 

SOx Emissions 

2009 6.1 2010 13.7 1.2 4.5 5.7 4.5 1.1 2011 6.3 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1 

2012a 32.3 13.4 

2013 + later 48.4 20.2 

NH3 Emissions 

2009 1.5 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.15 2010 1.4 0.08 0.41 0.49 0.41 0.10 0.05 0.04 0.10 0.18 2011 0.6 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.08 

2012a 1.7 0.23 0.00 0.003 0.01 0.01 

2013 + later 2.5 0.34 0.00 0.004 0.01 0.02 

a. AES anticipates commercial operation to begin 1/1/2012 at partial (1/3) capacity. Full capacity operation is anticipated to begin 6/1

b. Calvert Co., MD is attainment for PM2.5. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

Table 5.4 

Total Project Annual Emissions (TPY) Within All Project Areas – No Mitigation 

(with Power Plant) 

Phila.-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA-NJMD-DE Interstate AQCR Washington, DC-MD-VA AQCR Baltimore, Harford and Anne Arundel 

Counties, 

MD 

(Metro. 

Baltimore 

Intrastate 

AQCR 

115) 

Cecil 

Co., 

MD 

Chester 

Co., PA 

Total 

NA 

area 

Chester Co., 

PA (PhilaWilmington, 

PA-NJ-DE 

Interstate 

AQCR) 

Lancaster 

Co., PA 

(AQCR 

196) 

Kent & 

Queen 

Anne's 

Cos. 

(AQCR 

114) 

Calvert 

and 

Prince 

George's 

Cos., 

MD 

Wash., 

D.C. 

Fairfax 

and Prince 

Williams 

Cos., VA 

Total 

Wash., 

DC-MD

VA 

AQCR 

Year 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA O3 NA PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3

Maint. 

Area 

O3 + 

PM2.5b

NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5b

NA 

NOx Emissions 

2009 399.9 17.2 14.2 39.3 70.8 2010 803.6 61.5 223.6 285.0 223.6 57.0 20.6 17.1 47.2 84.9 2011 219.4 3.1 29.1 32.2 29.1 7.4 8.7 7.1 19.7 35.5 

2012a 129.3 19.7 1.5 1.2 3.4 6.1 

2013 + later 194.0 29.6 2.2 1.9 5.1 9.2 

VOC Emissions 

2009 33.7 2.1 1.8 4.8 8.7 2010 70.1 5.7 22.2 27.9 22.2 5.7 2.5 2.1 5.8 10.4 2011 19.5 0.3 3.1 3.5 3.1 0.8 1.1 0.9 2.4 4.3 

2012a 9.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.4 1.1 

2013 + later 13.8 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.6 1.1 

PM2.5 Emissions 

2009 28.8 0.4 0.3 0.9 1.7 2010 53.3 3.9 15.9 19.8 15.9 4.0 0.5 0.4 1.1 2.0 2011 15.0 0.2 2.0 2.2 2.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.8 

2012a 6.9 1.2 0.0 0.03 0.1 0.1 

9

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

10

Table 5.4 

Total Project Annual Emissions (TPY) Within All Project Areas – No Mitigation 

(with Power Plant) 

Phila.-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA-NJMD-DE Interstate AQCR Washington, DC-MD-VA AQCR Baltimore, Harford and Anne Arundel 

Counties, 

MD 

(Metro. 

Baltimore 

Intrastate 

AQCR 

115) 

Cecil 

Co., 

MD 

Chester 

Co., PA 

Total 

NA 

area 

Chester Co., 

PA (PhilaWilmington, 

PA-NJ-DE 

Interstate 

AQCR) 

Lancaster 

Co., PA 

(AQCR 

196) 

Kent & 

Queen 

Anne's 

Cos. 

(AQCR 

114) 

Calvert 

and 

Prince 

George's 

Cos., 

MD 

Wash., 

D.C. 

Fairfax 

and Prince 

Williams 

Cos., VA 

Total 

Wash., 

DC-MD

VA 

AQCR 

Year 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA O3 NA PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3

Maint. 

Area 

O3 + 

PM2.5b

NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5b

NA 

2013 + later 10.4 1.8 0.1 0.04 0.1 0.2 

SOx Emissions 

2009 6.8 2010 14.5 1.2 4.5 5.7 4.5 1.1 2011 6.4 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1 

2012a 32.3 13.4 

2013 + later 48.4 20.2 

NH3 Emissions 

2009 1.6 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.15 2010 1.5 0.08 0.41 0.49 0.41 0.10 0.05 0.04 0.10 0.18 2011 0.7 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.08 

2012a 1.7 0.23 0.00 0.003 0.01 0.01 

2013 + later 2.5 0.34 0.00 0.004 0.01 0.02 

a. AES anticipates commercial operation to begin 1/1/2012 at partial (1/3) capacity. Full capacity operation is anticipated to begin 6/1

b. Calvert Co., MD is attainment for PM2.5. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

Table 5.5 

2001 Nonattainment Area Emission Inventory - All Sources (TPY) 

source: http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html 

Phila.-Wilmington-Atlantic 

City, PA-NJ-MD-DE Interstate 

AQCR Washington, DC-MD-V

Baltimore, 

Harford 

and Anne 

Arundel 

Counties, 

MD 

(Metro. 

Baltimore 

Intrastate 

AQCR 

115) 

Cecil Co., 

MD 

Chester 

Co., 

PA 

Total 

NA 

area 

Chester Co.,

PA 

(PhilaWilmington, 

PA-NJ-DE 

Interstate 

AQCR) 

Lancaster 

Co., 

PA 

(AQCR 

196) 

Kent & 

Queen 

Anne's 

Cos. 

(AQCR 

114) 

Calvert 

and 

Prince 

George's 

Cos., 

MD 

Washington, 

D.C. 

Fairfa

and 

Princ

Willia

Cos.

VA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA O3 NA PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3

Maint. 

Area 

O3 + 

PM2.5c

NA 

O3 + PM2.5 

NA 

O3 + 

PM2

NA 

NOx 88,841 5,502 16,909 22,411 16,909 20,902 3,158 37,843 14,823 49,35VOC 53,010 4,441 17,699 22,140 17,699 27,385 4,477 28,215 17,755 47,69PM2.5 17,106 5,004 6,785 1,532 8,516 2,563 6,67SOx 116,104 11,391 10,786 656 45,460 8,200 25,98NH3 3,475 2,220 17,081 1,829 1,247 1,384 1,654 

11

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

Table 5.6 

Annual Emissions within Nonattainment Areas as Percentage of 2001 Emission Inven

Phila.-Wilmington-Atlantic 

City, PA-NJ-MD-DE Interstate 

AQCR Washington, DC-MD

Baltimore, 

Harford 

and Anne 

Arundel 

Counties, 

MD 

(Metro. 

Baltimore 

Intrastate 

AQCR 

115) 

Cecil Co., 

MD 

Chester 

Co., 

PA 

Total 

NA 

area 

Chester Co.,

PA 

(PhilaWilmington, 

PA-NJ-DE 

Interstate 

AQCR) 

Lancaster 

Co., 

PA 

(AQCR 

196) 

Kent & 

Queen 

Anne's 

Cos. 

(AQCR 

114) 

Calvert 

and 

Prince 

George's 

Cos., 

MD 

Washington, 

D.C. 

Fa

a

Pr

Wil

C

V

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA O3 NA PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3

Maint. 

Area 

O3 + 

PM2.5c

NA 

O3 + PM2.5 

NA 

O

PM

N

NOx Emissions 

2009 0.45% 0.05% 0.10% 0.2010 0.90% 1.12% 1.32% 1.27% 1.32% 0.27% 0.05% 0.12% 0.2011 0.25% 0.06% 0.17% 0.14% 0.17% 0.04% 0.02% 0.05% 0.

2012a 0.15% 0.63% 0.004% 0.01% 0.

2013 + later 0.22% 0.94% 0.01% 0.01% 0.

VOC Emissions 

2009 0.06% 0.01% 0.01% 0.2010 0.13% 0.13% 0.13% 0.13% 0.13% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 0.2011 0.04% 0.01% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.003% 0.004% 0.00% 0.

2012a 0.02% 0.01% 0.002% 0.001% 0.0

2013 + later 0.03% 0.02% 0.001% 0.001% 0.0

PM2.5 Emissions 

2009 0.17% b b b b 0.005% 0.01% 0.2010 0.31% b b b 0.32% 0.06% b 0.01% 0.02% 0.2011 0.09% b b b 0.04% 0.008% b 0.002% 0.01% 0.

2012a 0.04% b b b b 0.0004% 0.001% 0.0

12

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

13

Table 5.6 

Annual Emissions within Nonattainment Areas as Percentage of 2001 Emission Inven

Phila.-Wilmington-Atlantic 

City, PA-NJ-MD-DE Interstate 

AQCR Washington, DC-MD

Baltimore, 

Harford 

and Anne 

Arundel 

Counties, 

MD 

(Metro. 

Baltimore 

Intrastate 

AQCR 

115) 

Cecil Co., 

MD 

Chester 

Co., 

PA 

Total 

NA 

area 

Chester Co.,

PA 

(PhilaWilmington, 

PA-NJ-DE 

Interstate 

AQCR) 

Lancaster 

Co., 

PA 

(AQCR 

196) 

Kent & 

Queen 

Anne's 

Cos. 

(AQCR 

114) 

Calvert 

and 

Prince 

George's 

Cos., 

MD 

Washington, 

D.C. 

Fa

a

Pr

Wil

C

V

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA O3 NA PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3

Maint. 

Area 

O3 + 

PM2.5c

NA 

O3 + PM2.5 

NA 

O

PM

N

2013 + later 0.06% b b b b 0.001% 0.002% 0.0

SOx Emissions 

2009 0.01% b b b b 2010 0.01% b b b 0.04% 0.01% b 2011 0.01% b b b 0.005% 0.001% b 

2012a 0.03% b b b b 

2013 + later 0.04% b b b b 

NH3 Emissions 

2009 0.04% b b b b 0.003% 0.002% 0.2010 0.04% b b b 0.02% 0.0006% b 0.004% 0.003% 0.2011 0.02% b b b 0.003% 0.0001% b 0.002% 0.001% 0.0

2012a 0.05% b b b b 0.0003% 0.0002% 0.0

2013 + later 0.07% b b b b 0.0004% 0.0003% 0.0

a. AES anticipates commercial operation to begin 1/1/2012 at partial capacity. Full capacity operation is anticipb. Area in attainment with respective AAQS. c. Calvert Co., MD is attainment for PM2.5. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

the 8-hour standard have been submitted to the EPA for approval (MDE submitted its 8-hour 

ozone SIP to EPA on June 15, 2007 and PDEP submitted its SIP on August 29, 2007) and both 

states are waiting for EPA SIP approval. Therefore, this General Conformity Determination is 

based on the SIPs developed for the 1-hour ozone standard currently in place. 

6.0 GENERAL CONFORMITY DETERMINATION – MARYLAND 

Based on the data in Tables 5.3 and 5.4, the anticipated NOx emissions associated with 

construction of the various Project facilities and indirect emissions from operation of the Project, 

primarily from marine vessel activities, exceed the applicability threshold for ozone and PM2.5

precursor NOX emissions in the Metropolitan Baltimore Intrastate AQCR 115. In addition, 

ozone precursor NOX emissions are anticipated to exceed applicability threshold during 

construction of the Project in 2010 in the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MDDE Interstate AQCR (which includes Cecil County, Maryland and Chester County, 

Pennsylvania) along the Pipeline Route. Therefore a General Conformity Determination is 

required in both of these AQCRs. 

The criteria for determining conformity are provided in 40 CFR 51.858. An action would be 

determined to conform for a specific pollutant if it meets the requirements of § 51.858(c) and any 

of the applicable requirements in § 51.858(a)(1) through (5). Sectopm 51.858(c) requires the 

total of direct and indirect emissions from the action be in compliance with all relevant 

requirements and milestones contained in the applicable SIP. Section 51.858(a)(1) through (5) 

provide a number of pollutant- and state-specific options for demonstrating conformity. The 

demonstration of compliance with the Maryland SIP requirements, in accordance with § 

51.858(c), is provided in this document at Section 6.1, and an analysis of the option the Project 

would use to demonstrate conformity under § 51.828(a) is documented in Section 6.2 of this 

document. 

6.1 CONSISTENCY WITH RELEVANT MARYLAND SIP REQUIREMENTS 

The emission control measures and regulations included in the Maryland SIP that may apply to 

the Project construction activities, operating facilities and related vessel activities are listed in 

Table 6.1. 

TABLE 6.1 

Control Measures in Maryland Ozone and PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas 

Emission Control Measure Type 

Potential Applicability to the 

Sparrows Point Project 

Construction Activities, Facilities 

and Vessels 

Motor Vehicle Inspection State rule Delivery and commuter vehicles 

Clean-Fuel Fleets State rule Delivery and commuter vehicles 

Control of Particulate Matter from Materials 

Handling and Construction State rule Construction equipment and dredged 

material processing 

14

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

15

TABLE 6.1 

Control Measures in Maryland Ozone and PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas 

Emission Control Measure Type 

Potential Applicability to the 

Sparrows Point Project 

Construction Activities, Facilities 

and Vessels 

Visible Emission Standards State rule Visible emissions from stationary 

sources 

National LEV Program Federal rule Construction equipment 

Alternate Fuel Incentive Program Federal rule Construction equipment 

Federal Non-road Heavy Duty Diesel Engines Federal rule Construction equipment 

Federal Marine Engines Federal rule 

Tug and security boat engines. (LNG 

ships are not US-flagged and are not 

subject to the Federal rule). 

NOx SIP Call EPA requirement All project emissions 

Several of the regulations identified in Table 6.1 would indirectly affect the emissions from the 

proposed Project through implementation of new standards for refineries and engine 

manufacturers. These regulations include the heavy duty non-road diesel engine rule and the 

federal marine engine rule. AES would use construction equipment powered by diesel engines 

during construction of the facilities subject to these federal programs. Implementation and 

compliance with these programs would be required by the engine manufacturers, not AES. 

Therefore, it is assumed that the Project would be in compliance with these regulations. The 

MDE has implemented NOx and VOC emission requirements for stationary sources that include 

emissions trade programs and reasonably available control technology (“RACT”) requirements. 

As discussed below, AES would commit to additional control and mitigation measures that 

would be implemented during construction and operation of the Project. These control and 

mitigation measures are in addition to any emissions reduction requirements under the applicable 

federal and state air quality regulations. AES would commit to include the following mitigation 

measures (see Appendix A for specific construction equipment commitments and other 

assumptions): 

Construction Phase Mitigation

• Commitment that 89 percent of diesel engine-powered Pipeline and LNG terminal 

construction equipment will meet EPA Non-road Tier 1 standards or better; 

• Commitment to retrofit 19 percent of diesel construction equipment used in LNG 

Terminal construction and pier rehabilitation with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and 

diesel particulate filters (DPF); and 

Operating Phase Mitigation

• Commitment for three (3) tugs to be used in LNG Terminal-related LNG ship assist 

operations to be equipped with new engines meeting, at a minimum, EPA Tier 2 

standards applicable to non-road marine engines and fueled with ultra-low sulfur diesel 

(ULSD - 0.0015%) fuel; and 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

• Commitment for all LNG ships to use maximum of 1.5% sulfur fuel while operating in 

U.S. waters. 

Table 6.2 summarizes estimates of NOX, VOC, PM2.5, SO2, and NH3 emissions without the 

nonjuristictional power plant during all Project years in nonattainment and maintenance areas in 

Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia accounting for proposed mitigation measures. The 

resulting emissions reductions from proposed mitigation measures are summarized in Table 6.3. 

Similarly, Table 6.4 summarizes estimates of NOX, VOC, PM2.5, SO2, and NH3 emissions 

during all Project years in nonattainment and maintenance areas in Maryland, Pennsylvania and 

Virginia with the nonjuristional power plant accounting for proposed mitigation measures. The 

resulting emissions reductions from proposed mitigation measures for this scenario are 

summarized in Table 6.5. 

As shown in Tables 6.3 and 6.5, these mitigation commitments are estimated to reduce total 

Project NOX emissions in the worst-case construction year (2010) by 343 to 358 tons per year, 

VOC emissions by 67 to 69 tons per year and PM2.5 emissions by 38 to 39 tons per year, for the 

cases without and with the optional Power Plant, respectively. During the operating phase, 

mitigation measures are estimated to reduce total Project NOX emissions by 22 tons per year, 

VOC emissions by 7.8 tons per year and SO2 emissions by 111 tons per year in the first full 

operating year of the LNG Terminal. As described below in Section 7, the construction 

emissions in Chester County, Pennsylvania would be accounted for in Pennsylvania’s existing 

SIP. Therefore, only the Maryland portion of emissions in the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJDE Interstate AQCR need to be offset. 

AES is continuing to evaluate further mitigation options that have not been reflected in the 

updated calculations. For example, AES is evaluating the feasibility of retrofitting additional 

tugs used in the Baltimore harbor area for non-AES related activities with selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) and diesel particulate filters (DPF) and obtaining commitments from the tug 

operators for exclusive use of ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel. AES is also evaluating the 

feasibility of implementing emissions reductions at another AES-owned stationary source. 

Should any element of the Project or additional mitigation measures significantly change the 

emissions calculations for the Project, AES would revise and resubmit its calculations to the 

Commission. 

6.2 MARYLAND EMISSION BUDGET AND PROJECT EMISSION OFFSETS 

In addition to meeting the requirements in § 51.858(c) for demonstrating compliance or 

consistency with the applicable SIP, the Project must meet one of the applicable requirements in 

§ 51.858(a)(1) through (5) for each pollutant subject to conformity. An analysis of the 

applicability of each of the compliance options to Project emissions subject to conformity 

determination in MD is presented in the following paragraphs along with documentation of the 

rationale for the selected compliance option. 

1. § 51.858(a)(1) - For any criteria pollutant, the total of direct and indirect emissions 

from the action are specifically identified and accounted for in the applicable SIP's 

attainment or maintenance demonstration.

16

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

17

This conformity option is not applicable. Emissions from the Project are not 

specifically identified and accounted for in the applicable SIP. 

2. § 51.858(a)(2) - For ozone or nitrogen dioxide, the total of direct and indirect 

emissions from the action are fully offset within the same nonattainment or 

maintenance area through a revision to the applicable SIP or a similarly enforceable 

measure that effects emission reductions so that there is no net increase in emissions 

of that pollutant.

Table 6.2 identifies the total annual quantities of NOX offsets that would be required 

for emissions from the Project within the metropolitan Baltimore intrastate air quality 

control region, taking into consideration reductions in actual emissions that would be 

achieved through implementation of certain air quality mitigation measures or 

projects, as discussed in Section 6.1. AES has been informed by the Commission 

staff that the emissions reductions to be achieved through implementation of certain 

air quality mitigation measures or projects would be included in the general federal 

conformity statement for the Project. 

Pennsylvania and Maryland have a reciprocity agreement in place that permits trading 

of emission reduction credits (ERCs) between the two states. ERCs may be traded 

within the same non-attainment area even though the non-attainment area may span 

both Maryland and Pennsylvania. In addition, ERCs may be transferred from a nonattainment area with a more severe classification to one with a lower (e.g., cleaner) 

non-attainment classification. Therefore NOx ERCs generated in Buck’s, Chester, 

Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia counties (located in Pennsylvania) that are 

located in the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE Interstate Non-attainment area 

can be used to offset the 2010 NOx emissions in Cecil County, MD from the pipeline 

construction without the need for additional modeling demonstrations because Cecil 

County is in the same non-attainment area as these counties. 

Based on discussions with MDE, ERCs from the Baltimore non-attainment area may 

also be used to offset emissions in Cecil County. However, AES would have to 

submit modeling to EPA to demonstrate that the air quality in the two different nonattainment areas are connected. MDE recently conducted modeling in support of 

their 8-hour ozone SIP, and has indicated that this analysis may be sufficient for using 

Baltimore ERCs for Cecil County offsets or for using Philadelphia area ERCs to 

offset emissions in Baltimore. 

AES has consulted with MDE, PDEP, and several trading brokerage firms and has 

indicated that NOx ERCs are currently not available in either the Baltimore or 

Philadelphia non-attainment areas to cover the amount required under general 

conformity. However, sufficient NOx ERCs could potentially be pieced together 

from the two non-attainment areas to meet the long-term offset requirement of both 

the construction and operating phases of the project (approximately 175 tons NOx). 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

Table 6.2 

Total Project Annual Emissions (TPY) With Mitigation Within All Project Areas 

(without Power Plant) 

Phila.-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA-NJMD-DE Interstate AQCR Washington, DC-MD-VA AQCR Baltimore, Harford and Anne Arundel 

Counties, 

MD 

(Metro. 

Baltimore 

Intrastate 

AQCR 

115) 

Cecil 

Co., 

MD 

Chester 

Co., PA 

Total 

NA 

area 

Chester Co., 

PA (PhilaWilmington, 

PA-NJ-DE 

Interstate 

AQCR) 

Lancaster 

Co., PA 

(AQCR 

196) 

Kent & 

Queen 

Anne's 

Cos. 

(AQCR 

114) 

Calvert 

and 

Prince 

George's 

Cos., 

MD 

Wash., 

D.C. 

Fairfax 

and Prince 

Williams 

Cos., VA 

Total 

Wash., 

DC-MD

VA 

AQCR 

Year 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA O3 NA PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3

Maint. 

Area 

O3 + 

PM2.5b

NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5b

NA 

NOx Emissions 

2009 297.2 17.2 14.2 39.3 70.8 2010 595.4 45.2 157.1 202.3 157.1 40.0 20.6 17.1 47.2 84.9 2011 173.8 2.2 20.8 23.0 20.8 5.3 8.7 7.1 19.7 35.5 

2012a 114.6 19.9 1.5 1.2 3.4 6.1 

2013 + later 171.9 29.8 2.2 1.9 5.1 9.2 

VOC Emissions 

2009 17.6 2.1 1.8 4.8 8.7 2010 33.4 2.5 8.7 11.2 8.7 2.2 2.5 2.1 5.8 10.4 2011 11.3 0.2 1.5 1.6 1.5 0.4 1.1 0.9 2.4 4.3 

2012a 9.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.4 1.1 

2013 + later 13.8 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.6 1.1 

PM2.5 Emissions 

2009 19.5 0.4 0.3 0.9 1.7 2010 33.0 2.1 8.4 10.4 8.4 2.1 0.5 0.4 1.1 2.0 2011 10.3 0.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.8 

2012a 5.6 1.0 0.0 0.03 0.1 0.1 

2013 + later 8.4 1.4 0.1 0.04 0.1 0.2 

18

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

19

Table 6.2 

Total Project Annual Emissions (TPY) With Mitigation Within All Project Areas 

(without Power Plant) 

Phila.-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA-NJMD-DE Interstate AQCR Washington, DC-MD-VA AQCR Baltimore, Harford and Anne Arundel 

Counties, 

MD 

(Metro. 

Baltimore 

Intrastate 

AQCR 

115) 

Cecil 

Co., 

MD 

Chester 

Co., PA 

Total 

NA 

area 

Chester Co., 

PA (PhilaWilmington, 

PA-NJ-DE 

Interstate 

AQCR) 

Lancaster 

Co., PA 

(AQCR 

196) 

Kent & 

Queen 

Anne's 

Cos. 

(AQCR 

114) 

Calvert 

and 

Prince 

George's 

Cos., 

MD 

Wash., 

D.C. 

Fairfax 

and Prince 

Williams 

Cos., VA 

Total 

Wash., 

DC-MD

VA 

AQCR 

Year 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA O3 NA PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3

Maint. 

Area 

O3 + 

PM2.5b

NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5b

NA 

SOx Emissions 

2009 6.1 2010 13.7 1.2 4.5 5.7 4.5 1.1 2011 6.3 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1 

2012a 22.9 9.6 

2013 + later 34.3 14.4 

NH3 Emissions 

2009 1.4 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.15 2010 1.3 0.06 0.31 0.36 0.31 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.10 0.18 2011 0.6 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.08 

2012a 1.7 0.23 0.00 0.003 0.01 0.01 

2013 + later 2.5 0.34 0.00 0.004 0.01 0.02 

a. AES anticipates commercial operation to begin 1/1/2012 at partial (1/3) capacity. Full capacity operation is anticipated to begin 6/1

b. Calvert Co., MD is attainment for PM2.5. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

Table 6.3 

Emission Reductions from Mitigation Measures 

(Without Power Plant)

Phila.-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA-NJMD-DE Interstate AQCR Washington, DC-MD-VA AQCR Baltimore, Harford and Anne Arundel 

Counties, 

MD 

(Metro. 

Baltimore 

Intrastate 

AQCR 

115) 

Cecil 

Co., 

MD 

Chester 

Co., PA 

Total 

NA 

area 

Chester Co., 

PA (PhilaWilmington, 

PA-NJ-DE 

Interstate 

AQCR) 

Lancaster 

Co., PA 

(AQCR 

196) 

Kent & 

Queen 

Anne's 

Cos. 

(AQCR 

114) 

Calvert 

and 

Prince 

George's 

Cos., 

MD 

Wash., 

D.C. 

Fairfax 

and Prince 

Williams 

Cos., VA 

Total 

Wash., 

DC-MD

VA 

AQCR 

Year 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA O3 NA PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3

Maint. 

Area 

O3 + 

PM2.5b

NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5b

NA 

NOx Emissions 

2009 67.3 0 0 0 0 2010 160.7 16.3 66.5 82.7 66.5 17.0 0 0 0 0 2011 39.1 0.9 8.3 9.2 8.3 2.1 0 0 0 0 

2012a 14.7 -0.2 0 0 0 0 

2013 + later 22.1 -0.2 0 0 0 0 

VOC Emissions 

2009 11.2 0 0 0 0 2010 30.2 3.2 13.5 16.7 13.5 3.5 0 0 0 0 2011 7.0 0.1 1.6 1.9 1.6 0.4 0 0 0 0 

2012a 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2013 + later 0 0 0 0 0 0 

PM2.5 Emissions 

2009 6.7 0 0 0 0 2010 17.2 1.8 7.5 9.4 7.5 1.9 0 0 0 0 2011 4.2 0.1 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.2 0 0 0 0 

2012a 1.3 0.2 0 0 0 0 

20

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

21

Table 6.3 

Emission Reductions from Mitigation Measures 

(Without Power Plant)

Phila.-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA-NJMD-DE Interstate AQCR Washington, DC-MD-VA AQCR Baltimore, Harford and Anne Arundel 

Counties, 

MD 

(Metro. 

Baltimore 

Intrastate 

AQCR 

115) 

Cecil 

Co., 

MD 

Chester 

Co., PA 

Total 

NA 

area 

Chester Co., 

PA (PhilaWilmington, 

PA-NJ-DE 

Interstate 

AQCR) 

Lancaster 

Co., PA 

(AQCR 

196) 

Kent & 

Queen 

Anne's 

Cos. 

(AQCR 

114) 

Calvert 

and 

Prince 

George's 

Cos., 

MD 

Wash., 

D.C. 

Fairfax 

and Prince 

Williams 

Cos., VA 

Total 

Wash., 

DC-MD

VA 

AQCR 

Year 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA O3 NA PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3

Maint. 

Area 

O3 + 

PM2.5b

NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5b

NA 

2013 + later 2.0 0.4 0 0 0 0 

SOx Emissions 

2009 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2012a 9.4 3.8 

2013 + later 14.1 5.8 

NH3 Emissions 

2009 0.1 0 0 0 0 2010 0.1 0.02 0.1 0.18 0.1 0.02 0 0 0 0 2011 0 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 

2012a 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2013 + later 0 0. 0 0 0 0 

a. AES anticipates commercial operation to begin 1/1/2012 at partial (1/3) capacity. Full capacity operation is anticipated to begin 6/1

b. Calvert Co., MD is attainment for PM2.5. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

Table 6.4 

Total Project Annual Emissions (TPY) With Mitigation Within All Project Areas 

(with Power Plant) 

Phila.-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA-NJMD-DE Interstate AQCR Washington, DC-MD-VA AQCR Baltimore, Harford and Anne Arundel 

Counties, 

MD 

(Metro. 

Baltimore 

Intrastate 

AQCR 

115) 

Cecil 

Co., 

MD 

Chester 

Co., PA 

Total 

NA 

area 

Chester Co., 

PA (PhilaWilmington, 

PA-NJ-DE 

Interstate 

AQCR) 

Lancaster 

Co., PA 

(AQCR 

196) 

Kent & 

Queen 

Anne's 

Cos. 

(AQCR 

114) 

Calvert 

and 

Prince 

George's 

Cos., 

MD 

Wash., 

D.C. 

Fairfax 

and Prince 

Williams 

Cos., VA 

Total 

Wash., 

DC-MD

VA 

AQCR 

Year 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA O3 NA PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3

Maint. 

Area 

O3 + 

PM2.5b

NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5b

NA 

NOx Emissions 

2009 318.8 17.2 14.2 39.3 70.8 2010 628.3 45.2 157.1 202.3 157.1 40.0 20.6 17.1 47.2 84.9 2011 178.3 2.2 20.8 23.0 20.8 5.3 8.7 7.1 19.7 35.5 

2012a 114.6 19.9 1.5 1.2 3.4 6.1 

2013 + later 171.9 29.8 2.2 1.9 5.1 9.2 

VOC Emissions 

2009 20.9 2.1 1.8 4.8 8.7 2010 38.2 2.5 8.7 11.2 8.7 2.2 2.5 2.1 5.8 10.4 2011 12.3 0.2 1.5 1.6 1.5 0.4 1.1 0.9 2.4 4.3 

2012a 9.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.4 1.1 

2013 + later 13.8 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.6 1.1 

PM2.5 Emissions 

2009 21.0 0.4 0.3 0.9 1.7 2010 35.0 2.1 8.4 10.4 8.4 2.1 0.5 0.4 1.1 2.0 2011 10.7 0.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.8 

2012a 5.6 1.0 0.0 0.03 0.1 0.1 

2013 + later 8.4 1.4 0.1 0.04 0.1 0.2 

22

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

23

Table 6.4 

Total Project Annual Emissions (TPY) With Mitigation Within All Project Areas 

(with Power Plant) 

Phila.-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA-NJMD-DE Interstate AQCR Washington, DC-MD-VA AQCR Baltimore, Harford and Anne Arundel 

Counties, 

MD 

(Metro. 

Baltimore 

Intrastate 

AQCR 

115) 

Cecil 

Co., 

MD 

Chester 

Co., PA 

Total 

NA 

area 

Chester Co., 

PA (PhilaWilmington, 

PA-NJ-DE 

Interstate 

AQCR) 

Lancaster 

Co., PA 

(AQCR 

196) 

Kent & 

Queen 

Anne's 

Cos. 

(AQCR 

114) 

Calvert 

and 

Prince 

George's 

Cos., 

MD 

Wash., 

D.C. 

Fairfax 

and Prince 

Williams 

Cos., VA 

Total 

Wash., 

DC-MD

VA 

AQCR 

Year 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA O3 NA PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3

Maint. 

Area 

O3 + 

PM2.5b

NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5b

NA 

SOx Emissions 

2009 6.8 2010 14.5 1.2 4.5 5.7 4.5 1.1 2011 6.4 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1 

2012a 22.9 9.6 

2013 + later 34.3 14.4 

NH3 Emissions 

2009 1.5 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.15 2010 1.4 0.06 0.31 0.36 0.31 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.10 0.18 2011 0.6 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.08 

2012a 1.7 0.23 0.00 0.003 0.01 0.01 

2013 + later 2.5 0.34 0.00 0.004 0.01 0.02 

a. AES anticipates commercial operation to begin 1/1/2012 at partial (1/3) capacity. Full capacity operation is anticipated to begin 6/1

b. Calvert Co., MD is attainment for PM2.5. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

Table 6.5 

Emission Reductions from Mitigation Measures 

(Without Power Plant)

Phila.-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA-NJMD-DE Interstate AQCR Washington, DC-MD-VA AQCR Baltimore, Harford and Anne Arundel 

Counties, 

MD 

(Metro. 

Baltimore 

Intrastate 

AQCR 

115) 

Cecil 

Co., 

MD 

Chester 

Co., PA 

Total 

NA 

area 

Chester Co., 

PA (PhilaWilmington, 

PA-NJ-DE 

Interstate 

AQCR) 

Lancaster 

Co., PA 

(AQCR 

196) 

Kent & 

Queen 

Anne's 

Cos. 

(AQCR 

114) 

Calvert 

and 

Prince 

George's 

Cos., 

MD 

Wash., 

D.C. 

Fairfax 

and Prince 

Williams 

Cos., VA 

Total 

Wash., 

DC-MD

VA 

AQCR 

Year 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA O3 NA PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3

Maint. 

Area 

O3 + 

PM2.5b

NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5b

NA 

NOx Emissions 

2009 81.1 0 0 0 0 2010 175.3 16.3 66.5 82.7 66.5 17.0 0 0 0 0 2011 41.1 0.9 8.3 9.2 8.3 2.1 0 0 0 0 

2012a 14.7 -0.2 0 0 0 0 

2013 + later 22.1 -0.2 0 0 0 0 

VOC Emissions 

2009 12.8 0 0 0 0 2010 31.9 3.2 13.5 16.7 13.5 3.5 0 0 0 0 2011 7.2 0.1 1.6 1.9 1.6 0.4 0 0 0 0 

2012a 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2013 + later 0 0 0 0 0 0 

PM2.5 Emissions 

2009 7.8 0 0 0 0 2010 18.3 1.8 7.5 9.4 7.5 1.9 0 0 0 0 2011 4.3 0.1 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.2 0 0 0 0 

2012a 1.3 0.2 0 0 0 0 

2013 + later 2.0 0.4 0 0 0 0 

24

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

25

Table 6.5 

Emission Reductions from Mitigation Measures 

(Without Power Plant)

Phila.-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA-NJMD-DE Interstate AQCR Washington, DC-MD-VA AQCR Baltimore, Harford and Anne Arundel 

Counties, 

MD 

(Metro. 

Baltimore 

Intrastate 

AQCR 

115) 

Cecil 

Co., 

MD 

Chester 

Co., PA 

Total 

NA 

area 

Chester Co., 

PA (PhilaWilmington, 

PA-NJ-DE 

Interstate 

AQCR) 

Lancaster 

Co., PA 

(AQCR 

196) 

Kent & 

Queen 

Anne's 

Cos. 

(AQCR 

114) 

Calvert 

and 

Prince 

George's 

Cos., 

MD 

Wash., 

D.C. 

Fairfax 

and Prince 

Williams 

Cos., VA 

Total 

Wash., 

DC-MD

VA 

AQCR 

Year 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA O3 NA PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3

Maint. 

Area 

O3 + 

PM2.5b

NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 

NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5 NA 

O3 + 

PM2.5b

NA 

SOx Emissions 

2009 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2012a 9.4 3.8 

2013 + later 14.1 5.8 

NH3 Emissions 

2009 0.1 0 0 0 0 2010 0.1 0.02 0.1 0.18 0.1 0.02 0 0 0 0 2011 0 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 

2012a 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2013 + later 0 0. 0 0 0 0 

a. AES anticipates commercial operation to begin 1/1/2012 at partial (1/3) capacity. Full capacity operation is anticipated to begin 6/1

b. Calvert Co., MD is attainment for PM2.5. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

Another offset strategy for the project offset requirements suggested by MDE is the 

substitution of VOC ERCs for NOx ERCs. EPA Region III has approved a VOC 

ERC for NOx ERC substitution in at least one non-attainment New Source Review 

(NSR) permitting project in Maryland at a ratio of 1.3 tons of VOC for each ton of 

NOx. MDE, PDEP, and trading brokers have all indicated that sufficient VOC ERCs 

are available to meet the Project ERC requirements on a year-by-year basis. 

Based on the discussion above, AES must commit to a combination of the following 

ERC options for general conformity compliance, subject to final approval from EPA, 

MDE, and PDEP: 

1. NOx ERCs from the Baltimore non-attainment area; 

2. NOx ERCs from the Philadelphia non-attainment area; 

3. VOC ERCs from the Baltimore non-attainment area at an approved VOC to 

NOx ratio; and/or 

4. VOC ERCs from the Philadelphia non-attainment area at an approved VOC to 

NOx ratio. 

3. § 51.858(a)(3) - For any criteria pollutant, except ozone and nitrogen dioxide, the 

total of direct and indirect emissions from the action meet the requirements: 

(i) Specified in paragraph (b) of this section, based on areawide air quality 

modeling analysis and local air quality modeling analysis; or 

(ii) Meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(5) of this section and, for local 

air quality modeling analysis, the requirement of paragraph (b) of this 

section;

This conformity option is not applicable. The only emissions from the Project subject 

to general conformity are nitrogen dioxide, both as ozone and PM2.5 precursors. 

4. § 51.858(a)(4) - For CO or PM–10— 

(i) Where the State agency primarily responsible for the applicable SIP 

determines that an areawide air quality modeling analysis is not needed, 

the total of direct and indirect emissions from the action meet the 

requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section, based on local air 

quality modeling analysis; or 

(ii) Where the State agency primarily responsible for the applicable SIP 

determines that an areawide air quality modeling analysis is appropriate 

and that a local air quality modeling analysis is not needed, the total of 

direct and indirect emissions from the action meet the requirements 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section, based on areawide modeling, or 

meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(5) of this section.

This conformity option is not applicable. The only emissions from the Project subject 

to general conformity are nitrogen dioxide, both as ozone and PM2.5 precursors. 

26

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

5. § 51.858(a)(5) - For ozone or nitrogen dioxide, and for purposes of paragraphs 

(a)(3)(ii) and (a)(4)(ii) of this section, each portion of the action or the action as a 

whole meets any of the following requirements: 

(i) Where EPA has approved a revision to an area's attainment or 

maintenance demonstration after 1990 and the State makes a 

determination as provided in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(A) of this section or 

where the State makes a commitment as provided in paragraph 

(a)(5)(i)(B) of this section: 

(A) The total of direct and indirect emissions from the action (or 

portion thereof) is determined and documented by the State agency 

primarily responsible for the applicable SIP to result in a level of 

emissions which, together with all other emissions in the 

nonattainment (or maintenance) area, would not exceed the 

emissions budgets specified in the applicable SIP; 

(B) The total of direct and indirect emissions from the action (or 

portion thereof) is determined by the State agency responsible for 

the applicable SIP to result in a level of emissions which, together 

with all other emissions in the nonattainment (or maintenance) 

area, would exceed an emissions budget specified in the applicable 

SIP and the State Governor or the Governor's designee for SIP 

actions makes a written commitment to EPA which includes the 

following: 

( 1 ) A specific schedule for adoption and submittal of a revision to 

the SIP which would achieve the needed emission reductions prior 

to the time emissions from the Federal action would occur; 

( 2 ) Identification of specific measures for incorporation into the 

SIP which would result in a level of emissions which, together with 

all other emissions in the nonattainment or maintenance area, 

would not exceed any emissions budget specified in the applicable 

SIP; 

( 3 ) A demonstration that all existing applicable SIP requirements 

are being implemented in the area for the pollutants affected by the 

Federal action, and that local authority to implement additional 

requirements has been fully pursued; 

( 4 ) A determination that the responsible Federal agencies have 

required all reasonable mitigation measures associated with their 

action; and 

( 5 ) Written documentation including all air quality analyses 

supporting the conformity determination; 

(C) Where a Federal agency made a conformity determination based 

on a State commitment under paragraph (a)(5)(i)(B) of this section, 

such a State commitment is automatically deemed a call for a SIP 

revision by EPA under section 110(k)(5) of the Act, effective on the 

date of the Federal conformity determination and requiring 

response within 18 months or any shorter time within which the 

State commits to revise the applicable SIP; 

27

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

On June 2, 2008, AES participated in a telephone conference with FERC Staff and 

representatives of MDE and Maryland Department of Natural Resources (“MDNR”) 

to discuss the scope and timing of the draft and final general federal conformity 

statements to be issued for the project, as well as certain aspects of the methodology 

required to complete the conformity analysis. During that telephone conference, 

MDE advised that AES would not be able to pursue a determination from the State 

that the ozone and PM2.5 precursor NOX emissions from the proposed action, together 

with all other actions within the affected Maryland nonattainment areas, would fit 

within the SIP budget. MDE explained that the emissions budgets included in the SIP 

currently in effect were developed by MDE to include emissions from those future 

projects that had been identified as of the date the most recent SIP revision was 

submitted to U.S. EPA for approval. Because the ozone and NO2 emissions 

associated with the project were not included in Maryland’s 2002 SIP revision, MDE 

indicated that it would not be able to make a determination that these emissions from 

the project would fit within the current SIP budget. Accordingly, AES and MidAtlantic Express do not plan to seek a determination from the State of Maryland 

under Sections 51.858(a)(5)(i)(A) and 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) of the general federal 

conformity regulations. 

Instead, as discussed above, AES plans to obtain offsets for the total ozone and PM2.5

precursor NOX emissions from the Project that would occur within the metropolitan 

Baltimore intrastate air quality control region (AQCR 115), in accordance with 40 

C.F.R. §§ 51.858(a)(2). In addition, AES would commit to obtaining offsets for the 

total ozone precursor NOX emissions that would occur in 2010 from construction of 

the Pipeline in the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE Interstate 

AQCR either from within the same AQCR, from AQCR 115, or from a combination 

of locations within both AQCRs. 

Section 51.858(a)(5)(ii), (iv) and (v) are not applicable to the Project, and Section 

51.858(a)(5)(iii) is identical to Section 51.858(a)(2). 

AES is still in the process of developing a specific plan to offset the proposed Project NOX

emissions every year they are predicted to exceed the applicable thresholds established by the 

General Conformity Rule. The emissions offset plan has identified specific reduction measures 

to generate emissions offsets that are contemporaneous with applicable Project emissions. 

Emissions offsets, as defined in 40 CFR §51.852, are quantifiable reductions, consistent with the 

applicable SIP attainment and reasonable further progress demonstrations, surplus to reductions 

required by, and credited to, other applicable SIP provisions, enforceable at both the state and 

federal levels, and permanent within the timeframe specified by the program. Table 6.6 

summarizes the year-by-year portion of the Project emissions that would be offset by AES 

through the Maryland and Pennsylvania offset purchase program. NOx offsets would be required 

for construction beginning in 2009 and for operation beginning in 2012. 

Table 6.6 does not include NOX emissions due to operation of LNG Terminal stationary sources, 

including emissions from unloading LNG. Stationary source ozone precursor emissions are 

authorized through the federal NSR and permit programs and therefore are evaluated separately 

through the state program. 

28

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

TABLE 6.6 

Project Emissions Offsets in MD 

Ozone and PM2.5 Precursor Nitrogen Oxides Offsets 

Year 

Offset 

Amount 

Without 

Power 

Plant 

(tons)

Offset 

Amount 

With 

Power 

Plant 

(tons) Note 

2009 297.2 318.8 

Emissions from construction equipment, marine vessels and commuter and 

delivery vehicles in Baltimore, Harford and Anne Arundel Counties, MD 

(Metro. Baltimore Intrastate AQCR 115)

2010 595.4 628.3 

Emissions from construction equipment, marine vessels and commuter and 

delivery vehicles in Baltimore, Harford and Anne Arundel Counties, MD 

(Metro. Baltimore Intrastate AQCR 115)

2011 173.8 178.3 

Emissions from construction equipment, marine vessels and commuter and 

delivery vehicles in Baltimore, Harford and Anne Arundel Counties, MD 

(Metro. Baltimore Intrastate AQCR 115)

2012 114.6 114.6 

Emissions from LNG Terminal operations marine vessels and commuter and 

delivery vehicles in Baltimore and Anne Arundel Counties, MD (Metro. 

Baltimore Intrastate AQCR 115) 

2013 and later 

years 

171.9 171.9 

Emissions from LNG Terminal operations marine vessels and commuter and 

delivery vehicles in Baltimore and Anne Arundel Counties, MD (Metro. 

Baltimore Intrastate AQCR 115) 

Ozone Precursor Nitrogen Oxides Offsets 

Year 

Offset 

Amount 

Without 

Power 

Plant 

(tons) 

Offset 

Amount 

With 

Power 

Plant 

(tons) Note 

2010 202.3 202.3 

Emissions from construction equipment, commuter and delivery vehicles in 

Cecil Co., MD + Chester Co., PA (Phila.-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJMD-DE Interstate AQCR) 

29

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

7.0 GENERAL CONFORMITY DETERMINATION – PENNSYLVANIA 

Based on the data provided in Tables 6.2 through 6.5, the anticipated total direct and indirect 

NOx emissions associated with construction of Pipeline segments in Chester County, 

Pennsylvania exceed the applicability threshold for PM2.5 precursor NOX emissions in the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE Interstate AQCR and ozone precursor NOX emissions in 

the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE Interstate AQCR (only in 2010). 

Therefore, a General Conformity Determination for NOx is required in both of these AQCRs. 

The criteria for determining conformity are provided in 40 CFR 51.858. An action would be 

determined to conform for a specific pollutant if it meets the requirements of § 51.858(c) and any 

of the applicable requirements in § 51.858(a)(1) through (5). Section 51.858(c) requires the total 

of direct and indirect emissions from the action be in compliance with all relevant requirements 

and milestones contained in the applicable SIP. Section 51.858(a)(1) through (5) provide a 

number of pollutant- and state-specific options for demonstrating conformity. The 

demonstration of compliance with the Pennsylvania SIP requirements, in accordance with § 

51.858(c), is provided in Section 7.1 of this document, and an analysis of the option the Project 

would use to demonstrate conformity under § 51.828(a) is in Section 7.2 of this document. 

7.1 CONSISTENCY WITH RELEVANT PENNSYLVANIA SIP REQUIREMENTS 

The emission control measures and regulations included in the Pennsylvania SIP that may apply 

to the Project construction activities are listed in Table 7.1. 

TA BLE 7.1 

Control Measures in Pennsylvania Ozone and PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas 

Emission Control Measure Type 

Potential Applicability to the 

Sparrows Point Project 

Construction Activities, Facilities 

and Vessels 

Motor Vehicle Inspection State rule Delivery and commuter vehicles 

Clean-Fuel Fleets State rule Delivery and commuter vehicles 

National LEV Program Federal rule Construction equipment 

Alternate Fuel Incentive Program Federal rule Construction equipment 

Federal Non-road Heavy Duty Diesel Engines Federal rule Construction equipment 

Several of the regulations identified in Table 7.1 indirectly would affect the emissions from the 

proposed Project through implementation of new standards for refineries and engine 

manufacturers. These regulations include the heavy duty non-road diesel engine rule. AES 

would use construction equipment powered by diesel engines during construction of the facilities 

subject to these federal programs. Implementation and compliance with these programs would 

be required by the engine manufacturers, not AES. Therefore, it is assumed that the Project 

would comply with these regulations. The PDEP has implemented NOx and VOC emission 

requirements for stationary sources that include emissions trade programs and RACT 

requirements. 

30

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

As discussed in Section 6.0 of this analysis, AES would commit to additional control and 

mitigation measures that would be implemented during construction and operation of the Project. 

The emissions reductions that would be achieved through implementation of these control and 

mitigation measures are in addition to any such reductions required under applicable federal and 

state air quality regulations. AES would commit to specify that 96 percent of diesel enginepowered Pipeline construction equipment will meet EPA Non-road Tier 1 standards. 

With respect to Pennsylvania-specific reductions, Tables 6.3 and 6.5 show these mitigation 

commitments are estimated to reduce NOX emissions in Chester and Lancaster Counties in 2010 

by 83.5 tons per year compared to the base case without mitigation. AES is continuing to 

evaluate further mitigation options that have not been reflected in the mitigated emissions 

calculations. For example, AES is evaluating the feasibility of implementing emissions 

reductions at another AES-owned stationary source. 

Should any element of the Project or additional mitigation measures change Project emissions 

substantially, AES would revise and resubmit revised calculations. 

7.2 PENNSYLVANIA EMISSION BUDGET AND PROJECT EMISSION OFFSETS 

In addition to meeting the requirements in § 51.858(c) for demonstrating compliance or 

consistency with the applicable SIP, the Project must meet one of the applicable requirements in 

§ 51.858(a)(1) through (5) for each pollutant subject to conformity. An analysis of the 

applicability of each of the compliance options to the Project emissions that are subject to a 

conformity determination in Pennsylvania is presented in this section, along with documentation 

of the rationale for the selected compliance option. 

1. § 51.858(a)(1) - For any criteria pollutant, the total of direct and indirect emissions 

from the action are specifically identified and accounted for in the applicable SIP's 

attainment or maintenance demonstration.

This conformity option is not applicable. Based on AES’s discussion with PDEP 

staff, emissions from the Project are not specifically identified and accounted for in 

the applicable SIP. 

2. § 51.858(a)(2) - For ozone or nitrogen dioxide, the total of direct and indirect 

emissions from the action are fully offset within the same nonattainment or 

maintenance area through a revision to the applicable SIP or a similarly enforceable 

measure that effects emission reductions so that there is no net increase in emissions 

of that pollutant.

Based on discussions with PDEP staff and pending a PDEP determination under § 

51.858(a)(5)(i)(A) that the total of direct and indirect emissions from the portion of 

the Project in Chester County would not exceed the emissions budgets specified in 

the applicable SIP, AES would not need to obtain offsets for the total ozone and 

PM2.5 precursor NOX emissions that would occur within Chester County. 

31

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

3. § 51.858(a)(3) - For any criteria pollutant, except ozone and nitrogen dioxide, the 

total of direct and indirect emissions from the action meet the requirements: 

(ii) Specified in paragraph (b) of this section, based on areawide air quality 

modeling analysis and local air quality modeling analysis; or 

(iii) Meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(5) of this section and, for local 

air quality modeling analysis, the requirement of paragraph (b) of this 

section;

This conformity option is not applicable. The only emissions from the Project in 

Pennsylvania subject to general conformity are nitrogen dioxide, both as ozone and 

PM2.5 precursors. 

4. § 51.858(a)(4) - For CO or PM–10— 

(iv) Where the State agency primarily responsible for the applicable SIP 

determines that an areawide air quality modeling analysis is not needed, 

the total of direct and indirect emissions from the action meet the 

requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section, based on local air 

quality modeling analysis; or 

(v) Where the State agency primarily responsible for the applicable SIP 

determines that an areawide air quality modeling analysis is appropriate 

and that a local air quality modeling analysis is not needed, the total of 

direct and indirect emissions from the action meet the requirements 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section, based on areawide modeling, or 

meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(5) of this section.

This conformity option is not applicable. The only emissions from the Project subject 

to general conformity are nitrogen dioxide, both as ozone and PM2.5 precursors. 

5. § 51.858(a)(5) - For ozone or nitrogen dioxide, and for purposes of paragraphs 

(a)(3)(ii) and (a)(4)(ii) of this section, each portion of the action or the action as a 

whole meets any of the following requirements: 

(vi) Where EPA has approved a revision to an area's attainment or 

maintenance demonstration after 1990 and the State makes a 

determination as provided in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(A) of this section or 

where the State makes a commitment as provided in paragraph 

(a)(5)(i)(B) of this section: 

(A) The total of direct and indirect emissions from the action (or 

portion thereof) is determined and documented by the State agency 

primarily responsible for the applicable SIP to result in a level of 

emissions which, together with all other emissions in the 

nonattainment (or maintenance) area, would not exceed the 

emissions budgets specified in the applicable SIP; 

(B) The total of direct and indirect emissions from the action (or 

portion thereof) is determined by the State agency responsible for 

the applicable SIP to result in a level of emissions which, together 

32

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

with all other emissions in the nonattainment (or maintenance) 

area, would exceed an emissions budget specified in the applicable 

SIP and the State Governor or the Governor's designee for SIP 

actions makes a written commitment to EPA which includes the 

following: 

( 1 ) A specific schedule for adoption and submittal of a revision to 

the SIP which would achieve the needed emission reductions prior 

to the time emissions from the Federal action would occur; 

( 2 ) Identification of specific measures for incorporation into the 

SIP which would result in a level of emissions which, together with 

all other emissions in the nonattainment or maintenance area, 

would not exceed any emissions budget specified in the applicable 

SIP; 

( 3 ) A demonstration that all existing applicable SIP requirements 

are being implemented in the area for the pollutants affected by the 

Federal action, and that local authority to implement additional 

requirements has been fully pursued; 

( 4 ) A determination that the responsible Federal agencies have 

required all reasonable mitigation measures associated with their 

action; and 

( 5 ) Written documentation including all air quality analyses 

supporting the conformity determination; 

(C) Where a Federal agency made a conformity determination based 

on a State commitment under paragraph (a)(5)(i)(B) of this section, 

such a State commitment is automatically deemed a call for a SIP 

revision by EPA under section 110(k)(5) of the Act, effective on the 

date of the Federal conformity determination and requiring 

response within 18 months or any shorter time within which the 

State commits to revise the applicable SIP; 

AES participated in a telephone conference on June 13, 2008 and several follow-up 

calls with PDEP staff to discuss the feasibility of obtaining a state determination 

under Subsection (A) of the general federal conformity regulations for ozone and 

PM2.5 precursor NO2 emissions associated with construction of the Pipeline in 

Pennsylvania. Based on these discussions, the total of direct and indirect emissions 

from the portion of the Project in Chester County would not exceed the emissions 

budgets specified in the applicable SIP, and PDEP staff advised that a determination 

under § 51.858(a)(5)(i)(A) would be feasible based on the following demonstrations: 

a. The nonroad construction equipment population associated with the pipeline 

construction spread in Chester County would be a small percentage of the 

county population of such construction equipment included in the applicable 

SIP; and 

b. On-road vehicles associated with AES pipeline construction activities in 

Chester County would represent a small percentage of the daily vehicle miles 

33

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

travelled or emissions associated with the same class of on-road vehicles 

included within Chester County. 

Compliance with both of these criteria is documented in Tables 7.2 and 7.3. Table 

7.2 documents that the nonroad construction equipment population associated with 

construction of the AES pipeline in Chester County is about 4 percent of the total 

county population included in the applicable SIP for the same categories of 

construction equipment, as provided by PDEP staff. Table 7.3 shows that the vehicle 

miles travelled by on-road vehicles associated with AES pipeline construction 

activities in Chester County are less than 0.1 percent of vehicle miles travelled in 

Chester County by the same vehicle classifications. Therefore, sufficient 

documentation has been provided for PDEP to make a conformity determination in 

accordance with § 51.858(a)(5)(i)(A). 

§ 51.858(a)(5)(ii), (iv) and (v) are not applicable to the Project and § 51.858(a)(5)(iii) 

is identical to § 51.858(a)(2). 

TABLE 7.2 

Comparison of AES Pipeline Nonroad Construction Equipment Population in 

Chester County with Total Chester County Construction Equipment 

Population

Equipment 

No. of Units 

AES Pipeline 

Construction 

in Chester 

County 

Equipment 

Population in 

Chester County 

in 2005 with 

Growth in SIPa

% Project / 

Chester Co. 

Cranes 2 188 1% 

Trackhoes 13 573 2% 

Fuel trucks+dump trucks 4 32 13% 

Trenching Machines 2 97 2% 

Crawlers/Dozers 19 547 3% 

Motor Graders 4 134 3% 

Road Bore Machines 4 15 27% 

Welding rigs 31 209 15% 

Pumps 2 128 2% 

Total 81 1923 4% a

 Chester Co. construction equipment population data provided by PDEP. 

34

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

35

TABLE 7.3 

Comparison of On-road Vehicles Associated With AES Pipeline Construction Activities in Chester County 

with Total Estimated Chester County On-road Vehicle Daily Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) By Same 

Vehicle Types 

Vehicle Type 

Vehicle Trips 

per Day 

Round Trip 

Miles Within 

Chester Co. 

Daily Project 

VMT Within 

Chester Co. 

Daily 

Total 

VMT 

Within 

Chester 

Co.b

% Project 

/ Chester 

Co. 

Spoils Haul Trucks (HDDV8) 16 20 320 

Supplies Trucks, port to 

laydown yards (HDDV8) 16 20 320 

Supplies Trucks, laydown 

yards to pipe trenches 

(HDDV8) 15 20 300 

Total HDDV8A and B 

Vehicles 47 60 940 608,787 0.15% 

Workers Commuting (LDGV) 80 30 2,400 5,365,896 0.04% 

Workers Commuting 

(LDGT34) 80 30 2,400 1,761,394 0.14% 

Total 5,740 7,736,076 0.07% 

b

 Chester Co. daily VMTs for applicable vehicle types estimated from statewide total daily VMTs 

(provided by PDEP) by multiplying statewide daily VMTs for each vehicle type by 4%. 4% factor 

was estimated from PA DOT document "Pennsylvania Highway Statistics, Bureau of Planning and 

Research 2006 Highway Data", PUB 600 (1-.08), by dividing Chester Co. DVMT by t 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

Appendix A 

Listing of Construction Equipment Mitigation Commitments 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

Appendix A 

Construction Equipment Mitigation Commitments 

Construction Equipment 

No. of 

Units 

Bhp 

each 

Mitigation 

Commitments 

No. of 

Units 

Meeting 

EPA 

Tier 1 

% of 

Units 

Meeting 

EPA 

Tier 1 

% BHp 

Meeting 

EPA 

Tier 1 

No. of Unit

w/ SCR+ 

DPF 

HDD spreads (each of 2 spreads) 

HDD engine 1 450 Pre-Tier 1 Aux. Generator 1 503 EPA Tier 1 Standards Crane 1 200 EPA Tier 1 Standards Pump 2 200 Pre-Tier 1 Welding Rig 3 10 EPA Tier 1 Standards Crawlers 3 500 EPA Tier 1 Standards 3/4 ton pickups 5 250 EPA Tier 1 Standards 

TOTAL 16 4333 13 81% 80% 0 

Pipeline construction spreads (each of 2 spreads) 

Cranes 2 200 EPA Tier 1 Standards Trackhoes 13 140 EPA Tier 1 Standards Fuel trucks 2 400 EPA Tier 1 Standards Trenching Machines 2 200 EPA Tier 1 Standards 3/4 ton pickups 53 250 EPA Tier 1 Standards Welding rigs 31 10 EPA Tier 1 Standards Crawlers/Dozers 19 500 EPA Tier 1 Standards Dump Trucks 2 400 EPA Tier 1 Standards Motor Graders 4 200 EPA Tier 1 Standards Pumps 2 150 Pre-Tier 1 Road Bore Machines 4 125 Pre-Tier 1 Pipe Haul Trucks 16 500 EPA Tier 1 Standards 

TOTAL 150 36880 144 96% 98% 0 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

Appendix A 

Construction Equipment Mitigation Commitments 

Construction Equipment 

No. of 

Units 

Bhp 

each 

Mitigation 

Commitments 

No. of 

Units 

Meeting 

EPA 

Tier 1 

% of 

Units 

Meeting 

EPA 

Tier 1 

% BHp 

Meeting 

EPA 

Tier 1 

No. of Unit

w/ SCR+ 

DPF 

LNG Terminal Onshore Construction Activities 

Crane-M.888 Crawler 1 350 Pre-Tier 1 15 Ton Picker 2 150 Pre-Tier 1 w/ SCR + DPF 60 Ton Crane 1 290 Pre-Tier 1 

Backhoe 3 150 Pre-Tier 1 w/ SCR + DPF 

450 Dozer 1 150 Pre-Tier 1 w/ SCR + DPF D6 Dozer 1 350 Pre-Tier 1 w/ SCR + DPF Front End Loader 1 150 Pre-Tier 1 w/ SCR + DPF Bobcat 1 150 EPA Tier 1 Standards Cat 225 TrackHoe 1 520 EPA Tier 1 Standards Compactor 2 300 EPA Tier 1 Standards Pulvimixer Cat 1 300 EPA Tier 1 Standards Roller 1 300 EPA Tier 1 Standards Scrapers 1 350 EPA Tier 1 Standards Asphalt Paver 1 65 EPA Tier 1 Standards Tandem Truck 1 200 EPA Tier 1 Standards Stake Bed 1 200 EPA Tier 1 Standards Water Truck 1 200 EPA Tier 1 Standards Pickup 150 5 200 EPA Tier 1 Standards Dump Truck 12/14 4 340 EPA Tier 1 Standards Fuel Truck 1 200 EPA Tier 1 Standards Forklift 8000 lbs. 2 75 EPA Tier 1 Standards Diesel Welder 2 55 EPA Tier 1 Standards Generator 2 55 EPA Tier 1 Standards Air Compressor 0 55 EPA Tier 1 Standards 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

Appendix A 

Construction Equipment Mitigation Commitments 

Construction Equipment 

No. of 

Units 

Bhp 

each 

Mitigation 

Commitments 

No. of 

Units 

Meeting 

EPA 

Tier 1 

% of 

Units 

Meeting 

EPA 

Tier 1 

% BHp 

Meeting 

EPA 

Tier 1 

No. of Unit

w/ SCR+ 

DPF 

Pump 4" & 6" 2 55 EPA Tier 1 Standards Man Lifts 2 50 EPA Tier 1 Standards Light Tower 1 50 EPA Tier 1 Standards Pile Drivers 2 350 EPA Tier 1 Standards Concrete Pump Truck 1 500 EPA Tier 1 Standards 

TOTAL 45 9315 35 78% 78% 8 

Pier Rehabilitation 

400 Amp Welder 3 30 EPA Tier 1 Standards 

Air Compressor 2 275 EPA Tier 1 Standards 

35 Ton Crane 1 234 EPA Tier 1 Standards 

GVW Truck 1 340 EPA Tier 1 Standards 20 kW Generator 1 28 EPA Tier 1 Standards 

Backhoe 1 77 EPA Tier 1 Standards 

Dump Truck 1 325 EPA Tier 1 Standards 

Concrete Pump Truck 1 350 EPA Tier 1 Standards 

Excavator 1 137 EPA Tier 1 Standards TOTAL 12 2131 12 100% 100% 0 

Dredging Onshore Start-up Construction Activities 

Cranes 1 400 EPA Tier 1 Standards Backhoes 1 85 EPA Tier 1 Standards Dozers 2 185 EPA Tier 1 Standards Excavators 2 225 EPA Tier 1 Standards Loaders 1 300 EPA Tier 1 Standards Trucks 2 355 EPA Tier 1 Standards Graders 1 215 EPA Tier 1 Standards 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

Appendix A 

Construction Equipment Mitigation Commitments 

Construction Equipment 

No. of 

Units 

Bhp 

each 

Mitigation 

Commitments 

No. of 

Units 

Meeting 

EPA 

Tier 1 

% of 

Units 

Meeting 

EPA 

Tier 1 

% BHp 

Meeting 

EPA 

Tier 1 

No. of Unit

w/ SCR+ 

DPF 

Skid Steers 1 80 EPA Tier 1 Standards 

TOTAL 11 2610 11 100% 100% 0 

Dredging Onshore Process 

Water Trucks 2 300 Pre-Tier 1 Backhoes 2 85 EPA Tier 1 Standards Dozers 2 185 EPA Tier 1 Standards Excavators 6 225 EPA Tier 1 Standards Loaders 4 300 EPA Tier 1 Standards Trucks 6 355 EPA Tier 1 Standards Sweepers 1 200 EPA Tier 1 Standards Skid Steers 2 80 EPA Tier 1 Standards 

TOTAL 25 6180 23 92% 90% 0 

Power Plant Onshore Construction Activities 

Crane-M.888 Crawler 1 350 Pre-Tier 1 15 Ton Picker 1 150 Pre-Tier 1 w/ SCR + DPF 60 Ton Crane 1 290 Pre-Tier 1 

Backhoe 2 150 Pre-Tier 1 w/ SCR + DPF 

450 Dozer 1 150 Pre-Tier 1 w/ SCR + DPF D6 Dozer 1 350 Pre-Tier 1 w/ SCR + DPF Front End Loader 1 150 Pre-Tier 1 w/ SCR + DPF Bobcat 1 150 EPA Tier 1 Standards Cat 225 TrackHoe 1 520 EPA Tier 1 Standards Compactor 1 300 EPA Tier 1 Standards Pulvimixer Cat 0 300 EPA Tier 1 Standards Roller 1 300 EPA Tier 1 Standards 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

Appendix A 

Construction Equipment Mitigation Commitments 

Construction Equipment 

No. of 

Units 

Bhp 

each 

Mitigation 

Commitments 

No. of 

Units 

Meeting 

EPA 

Tier 1 

% of 

Units 

Meeting 

EPA 

Tier 1 

% BHp 

Meeting 

EPA 

Tier 1 

No. of Unit

w/ SCR+ 

DPF 

Scrapers 0 350 EPA Tier 1 Standards Asphalt Paver 1 65 EPA Tier 1 Standards Tandem Truck 1 200 EPA Tier 1 Standards Stake Bed 1 200 EPA Tier 1 Standards Water Truck 1 200 EPA Tier 1 Standards Pickup 150 2 200 EPA Tier 1 Standards Dump Truck 12/14 1 340 EPA Tier 1 Standards Fuel Truck 1 200 EPA Tier 1 Standards Forklift 8000 lbs. 1 75 EPA Tier 1 Standards Diesel Welder 1 55 EPA Tier 1 Standards Generator 1 55 EPA Tier 1 Standards Air Compressor 1 55 EPA Tier 1 Standards Pump 4" & 6" 1 55 EPA Tier 1 Standards Man Lifts 1 50 EPA Tier 1 Standards Light Tower 0 50 EPA Tier 1 Standards Pile Drivers 1 350 EPA Tier 1 Standards Concrete Pump Truck 1 500 EPA Tier 1 Standards 

TOTAL 28 5810 20 71% 70% 6 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

Appendix A 

Summary of Construction Equipment Mitigation Commitments 

Total 

No. of 

Units 

Total 

BHp 

No. of Units 

Meeting 

EPA Tier 1 

% of Units 

Meeting 

EPA Tier 1 

% BHp 

Meeting 

EPA Tier 1 

No. of 

Units w/ 

SCR+ 

DPF 

Total Project 453 108472 415 92% 93% 14 Total in MD 303 71592 271 89% 90% 14  MD LNG Terminal + Power Plant 73 15125 55 75% 75% 14 Total in PA 150 36880 144 96% 98% 0 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX S

HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL MONITORING

AND CONTINGENCY PLAN

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
MAE Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan

MID-ATLANTIC EXPRESS LLC

MID-ATLANTIC EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT

Horizontal Directional Drill Monitoring and Contingency Plan

January 2007

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
MAE Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan

January 2007

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION 1

1.01 Purpose and Scope 1

II. HDD INSTALLATION PROCESS AND SEGMENT ALIGNMENTS 3

2.01 HDD Installation Process 3

2.02 HDD Segment Alignments 8

A. Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Route 8

B. Proposed HDD Locations 9

III. HDD MONITORING PROGRAM 14

3.01 General 14

3.02 Monitoring Responsibilities of the Environmental Inspectors 14

3.03 Monitoring of HDD Segments 14

IV. CONTINGENCY PLAN AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS 16

4.01 General 16

4.02 Drilling Fluid Releases 17

A. HDD Land Segments 17

4.03 Equipment Failure 17

V. ABANDONMENT 19

VI. NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING PROCEDURES 20

6.01 Notifications 20

6.02 Reporting 20

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A – Proposed Susquehanna HDD Crossing Layout

Attachment B – Proposed Back River HDD Crossing Layout

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
MAE Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan

January 2007

1

I. INTRODUCTION

1.01 Purpose and Scope

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC (Sparrows Point LNG) proposes to construct, own, and operate

a new liquefied natural gas (LNG) import, storage, and regasification terminal (LNG Terminal)

at the Sparrows Point Industrial Complex situated on the Sparrows Point peninsula east of the

Port of Baltimore in Maryland. LNG will be delivered to the LNG Terminal via LNG marine

traffic, offloaded from these ships to shoreside storage tanks, regasified on the LNG Terminal

site (Terminal Site), and transported to consumers via pipeline. The LNG Terminal will have a

regasification capacity of 1.5 billion standard cubic feet of natural gas per day (bscfd), with

potential to expand to 2.25 bscfd. Regasified natural gas will be delivered to markets in the

Mid-Atlantic Region and northern portions of the South Atlantic Region, through an

approximately 88-mile, 30-inch outside diameter natural gas pipeline (Pipeline) to be

constructed and operated by Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC (Mid-Atlantic Express). The Pipeline

will extend from the LNG Terminal to interconnections with existing natural gas pipeline

systems near Eagle, Pennsylvania. Together, the LNG Terminal and Pipeline projects are

referred to as the Sparrows Point Project or Project. Both Sparrows Point LNG and MidAtlantic Express (hereinafter collectively referred to as AES) are subsidiaries of The AES

Corporation.

The Project footprint is located in the counties of Baltimore, Harford and Cecil in Maryland,

and in the counties of Lancaster and Chester in Pennsylvania. The Terminal Site, which is

located entirely within Baltimore County, is a parcel located within a former shipyard. The

route proposed for the Pipeline (Pipeline Route), which crosses all of the listed counties,

includes industrial, commercial, agricultural, and residential lands. Together, the Terminal Site

and the Pipeline Route comprise the Project Area.

The pipeline will cross 177 water bodies as identified during field reconnaissance, including

perennial, intermittent and ephemeral streams, using one of the crossing methods described in

Resource Report 2, Water Use and Quality. The crossing method selected will be the method

that provides the least disturbance and most expedient crossing to minimize overall impact.

Crossing methods for each of the water bodies are indicated on Table 2.4-1 of Resource Report

2, Water Use and Quality.

Specific crossings are planned as horizontal directional drill (HDD) crossings; however, specific

geotechnical design investigations and engineering reviews are needed to assess feasibility of

such HDD crossings. In addition, the National Marine Fisheries Service has requested

evaluation of HDD crossing at limited additional locations (e.g., Gunpowder Falls, Deer Creek,

and the Octoraro River). The investigations of Back River and the Susquehanna, as well as

evaluation of HDD crossing at the remaining locations, are further described below.

The HDD technique is an established trenchless technology that is commonly used to install

pipelines and other buried utilities with minimum environmental and construction-related

impacts. This HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan establishes specific procedures for

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
MAE Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan

January 2007

2

monitoring HDD operations in order to minimize potential environmental impacts, such as

impacts from unexpected releases of drilling fluid (bentonite slurry) for various waterbody and

land crossings during construction of the Project.

This HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan includes a description of the following:

 HDD Overview;

 Monitoring;

 Contingency Plan and Corrective Actions;

 Abandonment;

 Notification procedures.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
MAE Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan

January 2007

3

II. HDD INSTALLATION PROCESS AND SEGMENT ALIGNMENTS

2.01 HDD Installation Process

HDD involves drilling a continuous borehole beneath surface obstacles, and then pulling

pipeline or other utility components through the underground borehole, leaving the surface

undisturbed. HDD construction methods generally includes three stages: pilot hole directional

drill, reaming of the pilot hole and pull back of the pipe materials through the reamed drill hole.

The HDD installation design will be included in the Project design. Site specific conditions for

each HDD segment will be incorporated from the geotechnical design investigation program.

The HDD pilot hole directional control is achieved by using a non-rotating drill string with an

asymmetrical leading edge. Figure 2-1 presents the typical pilot hole drilling process. The

asymmetry of the edge creates a steering bias, while the non-rotating aspect of the drill string

allows the steering bias to be held in a specific position during advancement. If a directional

heading change is required, the drill string is rotated such that the direction of the steering bias

is the same as the desired directional change. The direction of this bias is referred to as the tool

face. Advancement in a straight direction without directional bias is achieved by a series of

offsetting tool face positions. The drill string may also be continually rotated where directional

bias is not required. Leading edge asymmetry can be accomplished by several methods, such as

an angular offset built into the tool face.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
MAE Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan

January 2007

4

Figure 2-1

Typical Pilot Hole Drilling

Other equipment or techniques utilized for creating directional control during HDD include

jetting head (commonly utilized in soft soils) or downhole motors. The HDD directional

control for other methods is generally the same as using an asymmetrical leading edge tool face

with a non-rotating drill string. Control of the steering bias for the HDD equipment is

performed by adjustments (rotation) of the drill string. In some instances, a wash pipe may be

utilized, rotating concentrically over the non-rotating drill string. A wash pipe prevents sticking

of the steerable string, allows the tool face to be oriented freely and allows stabilization of the

pilot hole in case it becomes necessary to remove the drill string.

The path of the HDD pilot hole is monitored during drilling by collecting periodic

measurements of the inclination and azimuth of the leading edge. These measurements are

collected with an instrument probe inserted at the drill collar, as close as possible to the tool

face, and connected to surface monitoring equipment by a wire within the drill string (the

combination of the tool face, mud motor, survey probe, non-magnetic collar and other leading

edge equipment is referred to as the bottom hole assembly). These readings and calculated

linear measurements of the drill string are utilized to calculate the horizontal and vertical

coordinates along the pilot hole. Azimuth readings are collected from the earth’s magnetic field

and may be subject to interference from downhole drill tools, drill string pipe, wash pipe or

magnetic fields created by adjacent structures. Therefore, the probe must be inserted in a nonmagnetic collar and positioned in the drill string to isolate from downhole tools and pipe.

Additionally, the pilot hole may be monitored using a surface monitoring system. Surface

monitoring systems determine the location of probe downhole by collecting measurements from

a grid or points at the surface. These systems utilize a surface coil of known location to induce

a magnetic field. Measurements are collected from the surface as the probe senses its location

relative to the induced magnetic field.

The pilot hole is reamed to larger diameter using reaming tools, which typically consist of a

circular array of cutters and drilling fluid jets, as shown in Figure 2-2. Reaming may be

performed by attaching a reaming tool to the drill string at the exit location and drawing the

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
MAE Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan

January 2007

5

tools back to the drill rig. Drill pipe is added behind the pre-reaming tools to ensure a string of

pipe is always maintained in the drill hole. Reaming may also be performed from the drill entry

point, thrusting the reaming tools from the drill rig towards the exit point.

Figure 2-2

Typical Reaming Process

Upon completion of reaming the drill hole to necessary diameter, pipe installation is

accomplished by attaching prefabricated pipeline materials behind the reaming assembly at the

drill exit location and pulling the assembly back through the drilled hole. A swivel is utilized to

connect the pull pipe section to the reaming assembly to minimize torsion transmitted to the

pipe as shown in Figure 2-3.

Figure 2-3

Typical Pullback Process

The drill cuttings generated from the drilling operations will be stockpiled in water-tight

containers at locations in the uplands in a manner that prevents their release into the water or

surrounding area. At the completion of the drilling operations, remaining materials shall be

dried at an upland location either on-site or off-site, and then transported to an authorized

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
MAE Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan

January 2007

6

upland landfill for disposal. No discharge of water or drill cuttings to waters of the State will be

allowed during stock piling, drying, and transportation. Copies of the authorized landfill

disposal receipts will be submitted to FERC and local regulatory agencies, as required.

The method can have other off-setting impacts at the construction area around the feature being

crossed. However, these off-setting impacts are typically temporary. During HDD operations,

fluid pressures can build up within the borehole, potentially resulting in hydraulic fracturing and

subsequent migration of drilling fluids to the surface defined as “frac-out”. Potential off-setting

impacts include the greater area required for set-up and operations at both ends of the drill hole;

the round-the-clock operation of the drill rig during construction of the crossing and associated

noise; and the potential for frac-out of the drilling fluid. The two primary factors affecting

hydraulic fracturing in soil are borehole pressure and depth of cover. When the pressure in the

borehole exceeds the strength of the surrounding strata, a potential frac-out condition occurs.

Based on these potential off-setting factors, the use of HDD for these specific crossings will

continue to be evaluated against possible other crossing techniques.

Prior to the final design of the plan and profile drawings and the start of construction, soil core

samples will be taken on both sides of the crossing and selected locations along the crossing to

evaluate rock, sand, or soil conditions. Following the analysis of the subsurface conditions, the

drill site will be surveyed to determine and stake the drilling entrance and exit points. A final

drill plan and profile drawing will then be generated to accurately define the operation. The

profile drawing will establish the entrance and exit angles, the maximum depth of the pipe, and

the minimum radius of curvature to avoid overstressing the pipe, and the length of the pull.

During the drilling, reaming, and pullback process, the contractor will maintain control of the

drilling mud to make sure that no drilling mud enters the waterbody, any tributaries, or stream

beds. The contractor will provide all onsite materials and equipment required to contain and

clean up drilling mud releases and will have full time qualified personnel on site cleanup any

accidental releases of drilling mud as further described in Section V. Additionally, in order to

avoid spills of fuels, lubricants and other materials the construction contractor will operate in

accordance with the MAE Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan. Restoration and

Revegetation will be conducted in accordance with the MAE Environmental Construction Plan.

These documents are included as Appendix 2C and Appendix 2A, respectively, of Resource

Report 2, Water Use and Quality.

The drill rig side will typically require a workspace of approximately 150 ft. x 150 ft and will

contain the following equipment as shown in Figure 2-4:

 Drilling rig unit

 Power generation unit

 Drilling pipe storage

 Water pump and water piping

 Bentonite storage

 Slurry mixing tank

 Slurry pump

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
MAE Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan

January 2007

7

 Drill cuttings separation equipment

 Entry point slurry containment pit

 Cuttings settlement pit

 Offices and storage

A work space of approximately 150ft. x 150 ft. is typically necessary at the exit point for the

equipment listed below:

 Cuttings settlement pit

 Exit point slurry containment pit

 Drill pipe storage

 Miscellaneous equipment and storage

An additional work space of 50 ft. wide x the lengths of each pipe section is required for the

following:

 30” pipe sections)

 Pipe rollers

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
MAE Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan

January 2007

8

Figure 2-4

Typical HDD Entry Site Layout

The pipe size to be installed in the bore is 30” OD. The pipe will have FBE fusion bond epoxy

(FBE) coating, DFT 20 mil. Because of the potential exposure to solid rock, the pipe will have

an additional coating of epoxy based polymer concrete as required, DFT 40 mils thickness.

Girth welds at field joints will be coated with FBE powder, minimum 25 mil thickness.

2.02 HDD Segment Alignments

A. Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Route

The Pipeline will extend from the LNG Terminal to proposed interconnections with the existing

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (“Columbia”), Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line

Corporation (“Transco”) and Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation (“TETCO”) interstate

pipeline systems near Eagle, Pennsylvania. The proposed Pipeline Route generally parallels

existing ROW for highways, overhead electric transmission lines and pipelines. More

specifically it:

 Exits the former Sparrows Point Shipyard and steel mill property, north to northeast, for

approximately 2 miles (MP 0.0 to 2.0);

 Follows Route I-695 with the exception of minor divergences (to avoid interchanges)

north and northwest for approximately 6 miles (MP 2.0 to 8.0);

 Near the Back Creek crossing, turns north to northeast and follows a BG&E overhead

transmission corridor for approximately 24.5 miles (MP 8.0 to 32.5); and

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
MAE Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan

January 2007

9

 At an intersection with the right-of-way for an existing Columbia pipeline, turns

northeast and generally parallels the existing pipeline corridor for approximately 54

miles (MP 32.5 to 87.6) to its terminus near Eagle, Pennsylvania.

B. Proposed HDD Locations

MAE has evaluated selected critical water bodies for crossing using the HDD method,

consistent with the request by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), including:

 Back River

 Gunpowder Falls

 Deer Creek

 Susquehanna River

 Octoraro River

In each case, use of the HDD method provides potential advantages to crossing the water bodies

for the following reasons:

 It is the method most likely to have no impact on water quality or flow during

construction.

 It offers the maximum depth of cover under obstacles thereby offering greater

protection over the Pipeline than other typical crossing methods.

 It does not disturb surface features (vegetation, stream banks, etc.) during or after

construction.

Currently, MAE believes that the HDD crossing method is the appropriate method to be used

for the Back River and Susquehanna River crossings. MAE believes that the Gunpowder Falls,

Deer Creek and Octoraro River crossings can be performed utilizing other techniques as

described in Resource Report 2, Water Use and Quality.

It is estimated that the horizontal distances for each of the directional crossings will be as listed

in Table 2-1 from an entry point on one bank to an exit point on the other bank. The drilling rig

spread will be located on the one bank and the pipe fabrication and pullback spread will be

located on the other bank. The contractor will provide Bentonite clay mixed with water for the

drilling fluid and will mobilize the drilling equipment, erect the drilling rig, drill the hole, ream

the hole as necessary, and pullback the pre-fabricated pipe section in the proposed horizontal

drilled crossing. As the drilling operation progresses, the contractor will be continuously

plotting the actual pipe profile against the proposed pipe profile to ensure cover requirements

and target exit points will be achieved

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
MAE Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan

January 2007

10

Table 2-1

Proposed HDD Crossings

Water Crossing Waterbody

Width

at

Crossin

g

Waterbody

Crossin

g

Classifi

cation

Approximate

HDD

Distance

Pipe Laydown

Length

Susquehanna

River

3200 ft. Major 5120 ft 2600 ft

Back River TBD Intermediate 1056 ft 1300 ft

Note:

"Minor Waterbody"

includes waterbodies less than or equal to 10 feet wide at the water's edge at the

time of crossing.

"Intermediate Waterbody"

includes waterbodies greater than 10 feet wide but less than 100 feet wide at the

water's edge at the time of crossing.

"Major Waterbody"

includes waterbodies greater than 100 feet wide at the water's edge at the time of

crossing.

TBD Indicates exact width at crossing to be determined during engineering survey

B.1. Susquehanna River Crossing

B.1.a Susquehanna River preferred crossing method:

At the Susquehanna River, due to a lack of workspace on the pullback (east) side it will be

necessary for at least two pipe sections of approximately 2,560 feet in length each to be prefabricated and pulled. These pre-fabricated pipe sections will be welded, 100% x-ray inspected,

weld repairs performed as required, field joints coated, and the pipe section shall be

hydrostatically tested prior to pulling. The first pipe section will then be pulled into the bore

hole. High volumes of drilling mud will be continuously circulated after pulling is terminated

and then the second pre-fabricated pipe section will be welded to the tail end of the first pipe

section, x-rayed, and field joint coating applied. Total estimated time for welding, welding

inspection, and field joint coating will take approximately 4 hours. Drilling mud will then be

continuously recirculated until the second pipe section has been pulled.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
MAE Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan

January 2007

11

The Susquehanna River Crossing represents one of two major water body crossings (i.e.

crossing width greater than 100 feet). As such MAE has developed a contingency crossing plan

as described below. Site specific drawings showing the proposed HDD alignment, work areas,

and additional temporary workspaces for the HDD Crossings are included as Attachment A.

MAE will provide copies of local permits received for the HDD at the Susquehanna River when

they are received.

B.1.b Susquehanna Crossing Contingency Plan

If a pipeline crossing of the Susquehanna River is not feasible using the horizontal directional

drill method, an alternate method of crossing the river must be selected. As an alternate the

pipeline will be laid in the river bottom. The river, at the point of crossing, is approximately

3,200 feet wide. The river is approximately 70 feet deep with a solid rock bottom covered with

large boulders. The rock bottom is covered with a layer of soft silt deposits varying in thickness

from 10 to 25 feet.

The proposed 30-inch pipeline crossing will be placed on crushed stone supports spaced across

the river bottom approximately 80 feet apart. The crushed stone will be placed on the riverbed

through a series of controlled pours through a fall pipe from a barge into forms set on the

riverbed. The crushed stone will allowed to settle through the silt deposits to the rock bottom.

The crushed stone will settle to the rock bottom and form a support structure at the desired level

to provide support for the pipeline. Each support will be approximately 5 feet by 15 feet.

Approximately 10,000 cu. yds. of crushed stone will be used to create these supports. An

additional 1,000 cu. yds. of crushed stone will be placed by the same process to provide a

minimum of 2 foot coverage over the pipe which will be used as cover for pipeline protection

and for shoreline stabilization.

Pipeline construction on the banks approaching the river will be by the conventional method

and will require new right-of-way. Approximately 2 acres of trees on both banks will be

cleared to create the 75 foot construction right-of-way. An additional 2 acres of trees will be

cleared to create the staging area for the river crossing operation. MAE will perform

construction activities in accordance with the Environmental Construction Plan included as

Appendix 2A to Resource Report 2, Water Use and Quality which is based on FERC’s Wetland

and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (January 17, 2003 Version), and

consultations with the MDE, PDEP, MDNR, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, as well as

county conservationists in both Pennsylvania and Maryland, in order to address local concerns

and practices regarding erosion and sediment control in the plan. The right-of-way will be

maintained at 50 feet following construction. Some grading may be required to create the

staging area. Following construction the area will be restored in accordance with the

Environmental Construction Plan included as Appendix 2A to Resource Report 2, Water Use

and Quality. Construction operations will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of

the MAE Spill Prevention, Countermeasures and Control (SPCC) Plan, included as Appendix

2C to Resource Report 2, Water Use and Quality, which describes the measures to be

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
MAE Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan

January 2007

12

implemented to avoid or minimize the potential for significant leaks or spills of petroleum

products or other hazardous materials that may occur in the Project Area.

Concrete coated pipe will be welded together in the staging area and the fabricated pipeline

string will be floated onto the river. Once the pipeline has been extended to reach the opposite

shore it will be lowered in a controlled manner to rest over the crushed stone supports. The

pipeline is 30” OD, 1.125”wt pipe with 2” of concrete coating and has a negative buoyancy. As

the pipe is reeled off the barge it will naturally sink to the bottom displacing silt and come to

rest on the gravel supports. Because of the negative buoyancy there will be no need to flood the

pipe.

Pipeline construction on the east bank will require the installation of a conventional bore

beneath the railroad track and Manor road. A bore pit will be required on both sides of the

railroad and Manor road. The bore pit on the east side will have to be shored. The west side

bore pit will require the placement of a steel structured caisson. Estimated caisson size is

approximately 50 feet x 125 feet length. Estimate length of the bore is 200 feet. The bore pipe

consists of FBE coated and concrete coated pipe welded together in the staging area on the east

bank. After the water is pumped out of the new constructed caisson and discharged in

accordance with applicable project permits, a crane will lower a conventional boring machine

into the caisson (west bore pit). Cranes will be used to lower pipeline construction equipment

into the east bore pit. The bore operation will be from west to east and the pipe will be pulled

from the east to west. Welded tie-ins will be made to tie-in the installed bore pipe to the river

pipe and land pipe. The construction of the entire Susquehanna River crossing will require

approximately 100 personnel and 6 months to complete.

The contractor will have warning vessels upstream and downstream of construction activity and

communications set up with the appropriate regulatory agencies during construction to regulate

river traffic.

B.2. Back River Crossing:

B.2.a. Back River Preferred Crossing Method:

The preferred crossing method for Back River is by HDD. At Back River, the pullback side of

the HDD will have one pipe section of approximately 1056 feet in length to be pre-fabricated,

tested and pulled. This pipe section will be welded, 100% x-ray inspected, weld repairs

performed as required, field joints shall then be coated, and the pipe section shall be

hydrostatically tested prior to pulling. Drilling mud will then be continuously recirculated until

the pipe section has been pulled. Site specific drawings showing the proposed HDD alignment,

work areas, and additional temporary workspaces for the HDD Crossings are included as

Attachment B. MAE will provide copies of local permits received for the HDD at the Back

River when they are received.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
MAE Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan

January 2007

13

B.2.b. Back River Crossing Contingency Plan:

If a pipeline crossing of Back River is not feasible using the horizontal directional drill method,

an alternate method of crossing the river must be selected. As an alternate the pipeline will be

laid in the river bottom. The ditch for the pipe will be dredged using a bucket type excavator

located on a barge. The dredge spoil will be disposed of by redepositing the soil in the trench

over the pipe. It is estimated that approximately 530 cu. yds. of material will be removed for the

entire ditchline.

Following the dredging process the pipe will be laid in the new ditch. A pipe lay barge will

follow the dredge to lower pipe into the ditch immediately following excavation. The pipe will

be welded, radiographically inspected, and each field joint coated on the barge prior to lowering

into the water. Estimated construction progress is 400 – 500 ft./ 24 hour day. All pipe joints will

be FBE coated and concrete coated for additional weight. Field joints shall be FBE coated.

Once the soils are placed back over the installed pipe, no further mechanical movement of the

spoil in the ditch is needed following the pipe lay. The ditch will smooth and close up naturally

due to river currents.

For safety purposes, the contractor will have warning vessels upstream and downstream of

construction activity and communications set up with the appropriate regulatory agencies during

construction to monitor and regulate river traffic in the area of the crossing.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
MAE Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan

January 2007

14

III. HDD MONITORING PROGRAM

3.01 General

Monitoring for potential drilling fluid release or frac-out will occur throughout the HDD

processes to ensure that any potential impacts to the environment is avoided and/or minimized.

3.02 Monitoring Responsibilities of the Environmental Inspectors

The responsibilities of the Environmental Inspectors relative to monitoring the HDD operations

will be:

 Monitor for evidence of other potential environmental impacts;

 Monitor pipestring assembly and pull-back operations;

 Monitor the demobilization of drilling equipment; and,

 Ensure Contractor compliance with Project Permits.

Environmental Inspectors will also oversee the transfer of the drill cuttings, circulation fluids

and any other wastes generated during HDD operations to an appropriate vehicle for

transportation to an authorized upland disposal site.

Environmental Inspectors will monitor all phases of the HDD process to ensure adherence to the

Project environmental plans and to identify and respond appropriately to any incidences of

drilling fluid frac-out.

The monitoring program for the HDD Segments is described below.

3.03 Monitoring of HDD Segments

The drilling operations for the HDD crossings along the route will include the three locations

described above. Monitoring procedures during drilling operations will include:

 Continuous examination of drilling fluid pressures and return flows;

 Inspection along the drill path by an Environmental Inspector from roadways and

developed land where appropriate and on foot or from a small boat for water crossings.

 If a frac-out is detected during wetland or water crossings, the drill operators will

perform the contingency measures as described below in Section IV. (Contingency Plan

and Corrective Actions).

Monitoring for the HDD segments will be from the following locations:

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
MAE Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan

January 2007

15

 For the HDD segment under the Susquehanna River and Back River, Environmental

Inspectors will patrol the waterway by boat to visually inspect for drilling fluid releases.

 For the HDD segment under the remaining crossings, Environmental Inspectors will be

on foot on access ways and developed lands that provide a clear view of the crossing

area to visually inspect for drilling fluid releases.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
MAE Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan

January 2007

16

IV. CONTINGENCY PLAN AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

4.01 General

A number of scenarios that could occur during HDD operations have been identified and

appropriate corrective measures have been prepared. A list of unlikely but possible incidents

that could occur during HDD operations is as follows:

 Drilling fluid releases, or other loss of drilling fluid into the aquatic environment;

 Failure during reaming;

 Breakage of the drill bit;

 Failure of the drill head guidance and positioning system;

 Failure of the HDD;

 Failure of pipeline pull-in (pipe-stick during pull-back);

The Chain-of-Command for communicating and implementing corrective actions in response to

releases or other problem conditions is summarized below.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
MAE Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan

January 2007

17

4.02 Drilling Fluid Releases

If one or more of the above events causes a release of drilling fluid within any wetland or

waterbody, the following measures will be implemented to stop or minimize the release and to

clean it up:

A. HDD Land Segments

Should a release of drilling materials occur on land that can be accessed without impact to

wetlands, barriers (i.e. hay bales, sand bags, silt fences, etc.) will be placed by hand

immediately or berms will be constructed around the site to contain the release. Collected or

contained drilling fluids will be removed by pump or vacuum truck positioned landward of any

waterbody system so as not to disturb any wildlife habitat. The drill operators will perform the

following contingency measures as necessary to stop discharges of drilling fluids:

 Decrease the drilling fluid circulation pressures;

 Size the drill hole to remove blockages (i.e. cleaning the drill hole to remove potential

blockages, thereby allowing the fluid to flow within the drill hole and not into the

geologic formation);

 Thicken the drilling fluid properties by adding bentonite pellets; and

 If necessary, make adjustments to the drilling alignment.

If necessary, the Environmental Inspector will require that the drilling operations be reduced or

suspended so that the extent of the release can be assessed and corrective actions, if any are

required, can be implemented.

Containment equipment including earth moving equipment, portable pumps, hay bales, silt

fencing, etc. will be readily available and stored at the drilling sites. If a release impacts a

surface water body or wetland the reporting procedures referenced in Section VI will be

followed. If the amount of an upland release does not allow practical collection, the affected

area will be diluted with fresh water and allowed to dry.

The drill cuttings generated from the drilling operations will be stockpiled in water-tight

containers at upland locations in a manner that prevents their release into the waters of the State.

Excess drilling fluid and cuttings will be transported to an authorized disposal site. No

discharge of water or drill cutting to the waters of the State will be allowed from HDD

operations.

4.03 Equipment Failure

In general, if there is a failure of part of the equipment such as the drill bit or drill head

guidance system, the HDD operations will be suspended if continued operation would pose a

risk of releasing drilling fluid at levels that exceed the applicable permit conditions. For a

malfunction involving the drill head, the drill string will be withdrawn and the drill head

repaired or replaced.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
MAE Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan

January 2007

18

If the pipe becomes stuck during pull-back, efforts will be made to restart the movement by

adding additional drilling fluid or by reaming ahead of the pipe or by using a hydraulic hammer.

If the pipe has only been pulled part of the way into the hole, it may be possible to recover the

pipe from the entry point. If the pipe becomes irretrievably jammed, the measures described in

Section V abandon the original hole and redrill a new one will be implemented.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
MAE Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan

January 2007

19

V. ABANDONMENT

If corrective actions do not prevent or control unacceptable releases of drilling fluid from

occurring into the waterbody, Mid-Atlantic Express may opt to redrill the hole along a different

alignment. The HDD borehole would not simply be abandoned completely if difficulties were

encountered during drilling or reaming of the borehole, or during pipe pullback operations. In

fact, complete abandonment of an HDD borehole rarely occurs within the industry. Instead,

prior to abandoning a borehole, the HDD contractor would implement remedial measures to

attempt to resolve the problems without the need for abandonment of the borehole. However, if

problems with the borehole or section of the borehole could not be resolved, the affected section

of the borehole would be filled with grout, consisting of non-toxic, non-hazardous materials, to

preclude communication between nearby boreholes. The following procedures will be

implemented to abandon the drill hole:

 The method for sealing the abandoned drill hole is to pump thickened drilling fluid into

the hole as the drill assembly is extracted, and using enviro plug to create a cap.

 Closer to the surface at drilling locations (within approximately 10 feet of the HDD

entrance), a soil cap will be installed by filling with soil extracted during construction

of the pit and berms.

 The borehole entry location for HDD Segments will be graded and seeded by the

contractor to its original grade and condition after the drill hole has been abandoned.

 The contractor will drill a second pilot hole beginning near the initial entry point along

a track that parallels the initial borehole.

A root cause analysis of the failed HDD will be conducted in order to minimize the risk of

subsequent failure. The root cause analysis will guide the development of potential alternatives

for the drilling plan.

Depending on the cause of a failure, it would be preferable to continue to use the partially

drilled Pilot Hole already underway, and simply redirect the drilling deeper or laterally around

the cause of the failure, if possible, rather than initiate a secondary Pilot Hole.

If the cause(s) of the failure indicate that a completely new, “secondary” Pilot Hole is

necessary, the separation distance required will depend entirely upon the cause of the failure.

Mid-Atlantic Express anticipates that only the drill alignment between the original entry point

and exit point will be adjusted deeper or laterally such that no additional work areas will be

required. Prior to the initiation of a completely new “secondary” Pilot Hole, a modification

must be authorized by the appropriate agencies.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
MAE Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan

January 2007

20

VI. NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING PROCEDURES

6.01 Notifications

Upon visual detection of an inadvertent release of drilling fluids the Environmental Inspector

will contact the drilling engineer. The location and time of the start of the release will be

recorded. The drilling engineer will note the drilling fluid pressures and return flows for

indication of volume lost during release. Upon identification of a situation that has the potential

to exceed applicable permit conditions or cause significant harm to the environment, the

Environmental Inspector will inform the Environmental Manager, who will notify the

appropriate regulatory agencies.

Corrective action and mitigation steps will be implemented in accordance with Section IV

above.

6.02 Reporting

The construction monitoring team will produce a series of reports detailing field observations,

construction progress, and environmental monitoring results. This will include a weekly report

summarizing environmental monitoring results and a summary report at the end of the HDD

operations.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
MAE Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan

ATTACHMENT A

“Waterbody Crossing Susquehanna River HDD”, for Proposed

Susquehanna HDD Crossing Layout

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008 Attachment D14-B
MAE Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express Pipeline Project

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan

ATTACHMENT B

“Waterbody Crossing Back River HDD”, for Proposed Back River HDD

Crossing Layout

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008

Attachment D14-B
APPENDIX T 

ECP Part 1 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Sparrows Point Project 

Environmental Construction Plan 

Based on: 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan 

and 

FERC Wetland and Waterbody Construction 

and Mitigation Procedures 

Bold text indicates additions or modifications to the FERC’s Plan 

and Procedures based on: 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

 Office of Water Management 

Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program Manual, April 15, 2000 

and 

Maryland Department of the Environment 

 Water Management and Administration 

Maryland Standards and Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, 1994 

____ 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LIST OF FIGURES 

 NO. DESCRIPTION

1 Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence 

2 Typical Construction Right-of-Way Cross Sections 

3 ROW Topsoil Segregation Techniques 

4 Temporary Road Entrance – Rock Pads 

5 Temporary Road Entrance – Terra Mats 

6 Interceptor Diversion Typical Details 

7 Filter Fence Typical Details 

8 Reinforced Silt Fence 

9 Baled Straw Filter Detail 

10 Rock Filter Outlet 

11 Trench Breaker Typical Details 

12 Runoff Ditch 

13 Typical Paved Road Crossing Control Measures (Open Cut) 

14 Typical Paved Road Crossing Measures (Bored) 

15 Typical Equipment Crossing (Timber Mat Bridge) 

16 Typical Equipment Crossing (Rock/Flume) 

17 Typical Dam and Pump Stream Crossing 

18 Typical Flumed Stream Crossing 

18a Typical Details Cofferdam Crossing 

19 Typical Open Cut Stream Crossing 

20 Dewatering Filter Bag Typical Details 

21 Streambank Stabilization (Erosion Control Fabric) Typical Details 

22 Streambank Stabilization (Rip Rap) Typical Details 

23 Typical Wetland Crossing (Conventional) 

24 Typical Wetland Crossing (Push Pull) 

25 Pipe Test Energy Dissipater 

26 Typical Construction Techniques in Residential Areas 

27 Typical Construction Techniques in Restricted Residential Areas 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FERC Plan

TOC

FERC UPLAND EROSION CONTROL, REVEGETATION, AND 

MAINTENANCE PLAN (1/17/2003 Version) 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. APPLICABILITY ...............................................................................................................................................1

II. SUPERVISION AND INSPECTION ............................................................................................................2

A. ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION.............................................................................................................2

B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS ..................................................................2

III. PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING ............................................................................................................4

A. CONSTRUCTION WORK AREAS..............................................................................................................4

B. DRAIN TILE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS.............................................................................................4

C. GRAZING DEFERMENT ............................................................................................................................4

D. ROAD CROSSINGS AND ACCESS POINTS .............................................................................................4

E. DISPOSAL PLANNING...............................................................................................................................5

F. AGENCY COORDINATION .......................................................................................................................5

G. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN ...............................................................................5

IV. INSTALLATION.............................................................................................................................................5

A. APPROVED AREAS OF DISTURBANCE..................................................................................................5

B. TOPSOIL SEGREGATION..........................................................................................................................6

C. DRAIN TILES...............................................................................................................................................7

D. IRRIGATION................................................................................................................................................7

E. ROAD CROSSINGS AND ACCESS POINTS .............................................................................................8

F. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL.........................................................................................................8

1. Temporary Slope Breakers (see figure Plan-3) ............................................................................................8

2. Sediment Barriers..........................................................................................................................................9

3. Mulch.............................................................................................................................................................9

V. RESTORATION............................................................................................................................................10

A. CLEANUP...................................................................................................................................................10

B. PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL DEVICES......................................................................................11

1. Trench Breakers (see figure Plan-6)...........................................................................................................11

2. Permanent Slope Breakers (see figure Plan-3)...........................................................................................12

C. SOIL COMPACTION MITIGATION ........................................................................................................13

D. REVEGETATION.......................................................................................................................................13

1. General........................................................................................................................................................13

2. Soil Additives...............................................................................................................................................14

3. Seeding Requirements..................................................................................................................................14

VI. OFF-ROAD VEHICLE CONTROL............................................................................................................15

VII. POST-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................................15

A. MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE....................................................................................................15

B. REPORTING...............................................................................................................................................16

Proposed additions or modifications presented within text in bold – based on Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection, Office of Water Management, Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program Manual, April 

15, 2000 and Maryland Department of the Environment, Water Management and Administration, Maryland Standards and 

Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, 1994.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FERC Plan

Page 1

FERC’s UPLAND EROSION CONTROL, REVEGETATION, 

AND MAINTENANCE PLAN (1/17/2003 Version) 

I. APPLICABILITY

A. The intent of this Plan is to assist applicants by identifying baseline mitigation 

measures for minimizing erosion and enhancing revegetation. The project 

sponsors should specify in their applications for a FERC Certificate (Certificate) 

any individual measures in this Plan they consider unnecessary, technically 

infeasible, or unsuitable due to local conditions and to fully describe any 

alternative measures they would use. Applicants should also explain how those 

alternative measures would achieve a comparable level of mitigation. 

Once a project is certificated, further changes can be approved. Any such 

changes from the measures in this Plan (or the applicant’s approved plan) will be 

approved by the Director of the Office of Energy Projects (Director), upon the 

applicant’s written request, if the Director agrees that an alternative measure: 

1. provides equal or better environmental protection; 

2. is necessary because a portion of this Plan is infeasible or unworkable 

based on project-specific conditions; or 

3. is specifically required in writing by another Federal, state, or Native 

American land management agency for the portion of the project on its 

land or under its jurisdiction. 

Any requirements in this Plan to file material with the Secretary of the FERC 

(Secretary) do not apply to projects undertaken under the provisions of the 

blanket certificate program. This exemption does not apply to a request for 

alternative measures. 

Project-related impacts on wetland and waterbody systems are addressed in the 

staff’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

(Procedures). 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FERC Plan

Page 2

II. SUPERVISION AND INSPECTION

A. ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION 

1. At least one Environmental Inspector is required for each construction 

spread during construction and restoration (as defined by section V). The 

number and experience of Environmental Inspectors assigned to each 

construction spread should be appropriate for the length of the 

construction spread and the number/significance of resources affected. 

2. Environmental Inspectors shall have peer status with all other activity 

inspectors. 

3. Environmental Inspectors shall have the authority to stop activities that 

violate the environmental conditions of the Certificate, state and Federal 

environmental permit conditions, or landowner requirements; and to order 

appropriate corrective action. 

B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS 

At a minimum, the Environmental Inspector(s) shall be responsible for: 

1. Ensuring compliance with the requirements of this Plan, the Procedures, 

the environmental conditions of the Certificate authorization, the 

mitigation measures proposed by the applicant (as approved and/or 

modified by the Certificate), other environmental permits and approvals, 

and environmental requirements in landowner easement agreements. 

2. Identifying, documenting, and overseeing corrective actions, as necessary 

to bring an activity back into compliance; 

3. Verifying that the limits of authorized construction work areas and 

locations of access roads are properly marked before clearing; 

4. Verifying the location of signs and highly visible flagging marking the 

boundaries of sensitive resource areas, waterbodies, wetlands, or areas 

with special requirements along the construction work area; 

5. Identifying erosion/sediment control and soil stabilization needs in all 

areas; 

6. Ensuring that the location of dewatering structures and slope breakers will 

not direct water into known cultural resources sites or locations of 

sensitive species; 

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FERC Plan

Page 3

7. Verifying that trench dewatering activities do not result in the deposition 

of sand, silt, and/or sediment near the point of discharge into a wetland or 

waterbody. If such deposition is occurring, the dewatering activity shall 

be stopped and the design of the discharge shall be changed to prevent 

reoccurrence; 

8. Ensuring that subsoil and topsoil are tested in agricultural and residential 

areas to measure compaction and determine the need for corrective action; 

9. Advising the Chief Construction Inspector when conditions (such as wet 

weather) make it advisable to restrict construction activities to avoid 

excessive rutting; 

10. Ensuring restoration of contours and topsoil; 

11. Verifying that the soils imported for agricultural or residential use have 

been certified as free of noxious weeds and soil pests, unless otherwise 

approved by the landowner; 

12. Determining the need for and ensuring that erosion controls are properly 

installed, as necessary to prevent sediment flow into wetlands, 

waterbodies, sensitive areas, and onto roads; 

13. Inspecting and ensuring the maintenance of temporary erosion control 

measures at least: 

a. on a daily basis in areas of active construction or equipment 

operation; 

b. on a weekly basis in areas with no construction or equipment 

operation; and 

c. within 24 hours of each 0.5 inch of rainfall; 

14. Ensuring the repair of all ineffective temporary erosion control measures 

within 24 hours of identification; 

15. Keeping records of compliance with the environmental conditions of the 

FERC certificate, and the mitigation measures proposed by the project 

sponsor in the application submitted to the FERC, and other Federal or 

state environmental permits during active construction and restoration; 

and 

16. Identifying areas that should be given special attention to ensure 

stabilization and restoration after the construction phase; 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FERC Plan

Page 4

III. PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING

The project sponsor shall do the following before construction: 

A. CONSTRUCTION WORK AREAS 

1. Identify all construction work areas (e.g., construction right-of-way, extra 

work space areas, pipe storage and contractor yards, borrow and disposal 

areas, access roads, etc.) that would be needed for safe construction. The 

project sponsor must ensure that appropriate cultural resources and 

biological surveys have been conducted. 

2. Project sponsors are encouraged to consider expanding any required 

cultural resources and endangered species surveys in anticipation of the 

need for activities outside of certificated work areas. 

B. DRAIN TILE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS 

1. Attempt to locate existing drain tiles and irrigation systems. 

2. Contact landowners and local soil conservation authorities to determine 

the locations of future drain tiles that are likely to be installed within 3 

years of the authorized construction. 

3. Develop procedures for constructing through drain-tiled areas, 

maintaining irrigation systems during construction, and repairing drain 

tiles and irrigation systems after construction. 

4. Engage qualified drain tile specialists, as needed to conduct or monitor 

repairs to drain tile systems affected by construction. Use drain tile 

specialists from the project area, if available. 

C. GRAZING DEFERMENT 

Develop grazing deferment plans with willing landowners, grazing permittees, 

and land management agencies to minimize grazing disturbance of revegetation 

efforts. 

D. ROAD CROSSINGS AND ACCESS POINTS 

Plan for safe and accessible conditions at all roadway crossings and 

access points during construction and restoration. See Figures 13 and 

14 for Typical Paved Road Crossing Control Measures (Open Cut 

and Bored). 

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FERC Plan

Page 5

E. DISPOSAL PLANNING 

Determine methods and locations for the disposal of construction debris (e.g., 

timber, slash, mats, garbage, drilling fluids, excess rock, etc). Off-site disposal in 

other than commercially operated disposal locations is subject to compliance with 

all applicable survey, landowner permission, and mitigation requirements. 

F. AGENCY COORDINATION 

The project sponsor must coordinate with the appropriate local, state, and Federal 

agencies as outlined in this Plan and in the Certificate. 

1. Obtain written recommendations from the local soil conservation 

authorities or land management agencies regarding permanent erosion 

control and revegetation specifications. 

2. Develop specific procedures in coordination with the appropriate agency 

to prevent the introduction or spread of noxious weeds and soil pests 

resulting from construction and restoration activities. 

G. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN 

Make available on each construction spread the Stormwater Pollution Prevention 

Plan prepared for compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 

National Stormwater Program General Permit requirements. 

IV. INSTALLATION

A. APPROVED AREAS OF DISTURBANCE 

1. Project-related ground disturbance shall be limited to the construction 

right-of-way, extra work space areas, pipe storage yards, borrow and 

disposal areas, access roads, and other areas approved in the Certificate. 

Any project-related ground disturbing activities outside these Certificated 

areas, except those needed to comply with the Plan and Procedures (e.g., 

slope breakers, energy-dissipating devices, dewatering structures, drain 

tile system repairs) will require prior Director approval. All construction 

or restoration activities outside of the Certificated areas are subject to all 

applicable survey and mitigation requirements. 

Construction of a natural gas pipeline consists of distinct phases: 

clearing, grading, ditching, lowering-in, backfilling, hydrostatic testing 

and restoration, as shown in Figure 1. 

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FERC Plan

Page 6

2. The construction right-of-way width for a project shall not exceed 75 feet 

or that described in the FERC application unless otherwise modified by a 

Certificate condition. However, in limited, non-wetland areas, this 

construction right-of-way width may be expanded by up to 25 feet without 

Director approval to accommodate full construction right-of-way topsoil 

segregation and to ensure safe construction where topographic conditions 

(such as side-slopes) or soil limitations require it. Twenty-five feet of 

extra construction right-of-way width may also be used in limited, nonwetland or non-forested areas for truck turn-arounds where no reasonable 

alternative access exists. 

Figures 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d are typical ROW configurations showing how 

construction activities will be organized within the construction right-ofway. 

Project use of these additional limited areas is subject to landowner 

approval and compliance with all applicable survey and mitigation 

requirements. When such additional areas are used, each one should be 

identified and the need explained in the weekly or biweekly construction 

reports to the FERC, if required. The following material should be 

included in the reports: 

a. the location of each additional area by station number and 

reference to a previously filed alignment sheet, or updated 

alignment sheets showing the additional areas; 

b. identification of where the Commission's records contain evidence 

that the additional areas were previously surveyed; and 

c. a statement that landowner approval has been obtained and is 

available in project files. 

Prior written approval of the Director is required when the Certificated 

construction right-of-way width would be expanded by more than 25 feet. 

B. TOPSOIL SEGREGATION 

Figure 3 shows the typical construction right-of-way configuration during 

topsoil segregation. 

1. Unless the landowner or land management agency specifically approves 

otherwise, prevent the mixing of topsoil with subsoil by stripping topsoil 

from either the full work area or from the trench and subsoil storage area 

(ditch plus spoil side method) in: 

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FERC Plan

Page 7

a. actively cultivated or rotated croplands and pastures ; 

b. residential areas; 

c. hayfields; and 

d. other areas at the landowner's or land managing agency’s request. 

2. In residential areas importation of topsoil is an acceptable alternative to 

topsoil segregation. 

3. In deep soils (more than 12 inches of topsoil), segregate at least 12 inches 

of topsoil. In soils with less than 12 inches of topsoil make every effort to 

segregate the entire topsoil layer. 

4. Where topsoil segregation is required, maintain separation of salvaged 

topsoil and subsoil throughout all construction activities. 

5. Segregated topsoil may not be used for padding the pipe. 

C. DRAIN TILES 

1. Mark locations of drain tiles damaged during construction. 

2. Probe all drainage tile systems within the area of disturbance to check for 

damage. 

3. Repair damaged drain tiles to their original or better condition. Do not use 

filter-covered drain tiles unless the local soil conservation authorities and 

the landowner agree. Use qualified specialists for testing and repairs. 

4. For new pipelines in areas where drain tiles exist or are planned, ensure 

that the depth of cover over the pipeline is sufficient to avoid interference 

with drain tile systems. For adjacent pipeline loops in agricultural areas, 

install the new pipeline with at least the same depth of cover as the 

existing pipeline(s). 

D. IRRIGATION 

Maintain water flow in crop irrigation systems, unless shutoff is coordinated with 

affected parties. 

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FERC Plan

Page 8

E. ROAD CROSSINGS AND ACCESS POINTS 

Figures 4 and 5 show typical temporary entrance pads (rock pads and 

terra/tire mats) used where the right-of-way crosses roads to minimize the 

tracking of mud onto public roadways. 

1. Maintain safe and accessible conditions at all road crossings and access 

points during construction. 

2. If crushed stone access pads are used in residential, or active agricultural 

areas, place the stone on synthetic fabric to facilitate removal. 

F. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL 

Figures 6 through 11 show typical erosion control devices used during clearing, 

grading, and ditching phases of construction (i.e., Diversion Ditches [Water 

Bars/Slope Breakers], Filter [Silt] Fence, Reinforced Silt Fence, Hay Bales, 

Rock Filter Outlet, and Runoff Ditch. 

Install temporary erosion controls immediately after initial disturbance of the soil. 

Temporary erosion controls must be properly maintained throughout construction 

(on a daily basis) and reinstalled as necessary (such as after backfilling of the 

trench) until replaced by permanent erosion controls or restoration is complete. 

1. Temporary Slope Breakers/Diversion Ditches (see Figure 6)

a. Temporary slope breakers are intended to reduce runoff velocity 

and divert water off the construction right-of-way. Temporary 

slope breakers may be constructed of materials such as soil, silt 

fence, staked hay or straw bales, or sand bags. 

b. Install temporary slope breakers on all disturbed areas, as 

necessary to avoid excessive erosion. Temporary slope breakers 

must be installed on slopes greater than 5 percent where the base 

of the slope is less than 50 feet from waterbody, wetland, and road 

crossings at the following spacing (closer spacing should be used if 

necessary): 

 Slope (%) Spacing (feet)

5 - 15 300 

>15 - 30 200 

 >30 100 

c. Direct the outfall of each temporary slope breaker to a stable, well 

vegetated area or construct an energy-dissipating device at the end 

of the slope breaker and off the construction right-of-way. 

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FERC Plan

Page 9

d. Position the outfall of each temporary slope breaker to prevent 

sediment discharge into wetlands, waterbodies, or other sensitive 

resources. 

2. Sediment Barriers (see Figures 7, 8, 9, and 10)

a. Sediment barriers are intended to stop the flow of sediments and to 

prevent the deposition of sediments into sensitive resources. They 

may be constructed of materials such as silt fence, staked hay or 

straw bales, compacted earth (e.g., driveable berms across 

travelways), sand bags, or other appropriate materials. 

b. At a minimum, install and maintain temporary sediment barriers 

across the entire construction right-of-way at the base of slopes 

greater than 5 percent where the base of the slope is less than 50 

feet from a waterbody, wetland, or road crossing until revegetation 

is successful as defined in this Plan. Leave adequate room between 

the base of the slope and the sediment barrier to accommodate 

ponding of water and sediment deposition. 

c. Where wetlands or waterbodies are adjacent to and downslope of 

construction work areas, install sediment barriers along the edge of 

these areas, as necessary to prevent sediment flow into the wetland 

or waterbody. 

d. If any section of silt fence or straw bale barrier has been 

undermined or topped, install a rock filter outlet to replace the 

section (see Figure 10). 

3. Mulch 

a. Apply mulch on all slopes (except in actively cultivated cropland) 

concurrent with or immediately after seeding, where necessary to 

stabilize the soil surface and to reduce wind and water erosion. 

Spread mulch uniformly over the area to cover at least 75 percent 

of the ground surface at a rate of 2 tons/acre of straw or its 

equivalent, unless the local soil conservation authority, landowner, 

or land managing agency approves otherwise in writing. 

b. Mulch can consist of weed-free straw or hay, wood fiber 

hydromulch, erosion control fabric, or some functional equivalent. 

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FERC Plan

Page 10

c. Mulch before seeding if: 

(1) final grading and installation of permanent erosion control 

measures, will not be completed in an area within 20 days 

after the trench in that area is backfilled (10 days in 

residential areas), as required in section V.A.1; or 

(2) construction or restoration activity is interrupted for 

extended periods, such as when seeding cannot be 

completed due to seeding period restrictions. 

d. If mulching before seeding, increase mulch application on all 

slopes within 100 feet of waterbodies and wetlands to a rate of 3 

tons/acre of straw or equivalent. 

e. If wood chips are used as mulch, do not use more than 1 ton/acre 

and add the equivalent of 11 lbs/acre available nitrogen (at least 50 

percent of which is slow release). 

 

f. Ensure that mulch is adequately anchored to minimize loss due to 

wind and water. 

g. When anchoring with liquid mulch binders, use rates recommended 

by the manufacturer. Do not use liquid mulch binders within 100 

feet of wetlands or waterbodies. 

h. Install erosion control fabric on waterbody banks at the time of final 

bank recontouring. Anchor the erosion control fabric with pegs, 

staples or other appropriate devices. 

V. RESTORATION

A. CLEANUP 

1. Commence cleanup operations immediately following backfill operations. 

Complete final grading, topsoil replacement, and installation of permanent 

erosion control structures within 20 days after backfilling the trench (10 

days in residential areas). If seasonal or other weather conditions prevent 

compliance with these time frames, maintain temporary erosion controls 

(temporary slope breakers and sediment barriers) until conditions allow 

completion of cleanup. 

The project sponsor should file with the Secretary for the review and 

written approval of the Director, a winterization plan if construction will 

continue into the winter season when conditions could delay successful 

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FERC Plan

Page 11

decompaction, topsoil replacement, or seeding until the following spring. 

2. A travel lane may be left open temporarily to allow access by construction 

traffic if the temporary erosion control structures are installed as specified 

in section IV.F. and inspected and maintained as specified in sections 

II.B.12 through 14. When access is no longer required the travel lane 

must be removed and the right-of-way restored. 

3. Rock excavated from the trench may be used to backfill the trench only to 

the top of the existing bedrock profile. Rock that is not returned to the 

trench should be considered construction debris, unless approved for use 

as mulch or for some other use on the construction work areas by the 

landowner or land managing agency. 

4. Remove excess rock from at least the top 12 inches of soil in all actively 

cultivated or rotated cropland and pastures, hayfields, and residential 

areas, as well as other areas at the landowner's request. The size, density, 

and distribution of rock on the construction work area should be similar to 

adjacent areas not disturbed by construction. The landowner may approve 

other provisions in writing. 

5. Grade the construction right-of-way to restore pre-construction contours 

and leave the soil in the proper condition for planting. 

6. Remove construction debris from all construction work areas unless the 

landowner or land managing agency approves otherwise. 

7. Remove temporary sediment barriers when replaced by permanent erosion 

control measures or when revegetation is successful. 

B. PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL DEVICES 

1. Trench Breakers (see Figure 11)

a. Trench breakers are intended to slow the flow of subsurface water 

along the trench. Trench breakers may be constructed of materials 

such as sand bags or polyurethane foam. Do not use topsoil in 

trench breakers. 

b. An engineer or similarly qualified professional shall determine the 

need for and spacing of trench breakers. Otherwise, trench 

breakers shall be installed at the same spacing as and upslope of 

permanent slope breakers. 

c. In agricultural fields and residential areas where slope breakers are 

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FERC Plan

Page 12

not typically required, install trench breakers at the same spacing 

as if permanent slope breakers were required. 

d. At a minimum, install a trench breaker at the base of slopes greater 

than 5 percent where the base of the slope is less than 50 feet from 

a waterbody or wetland and where needed to avoid draining a 

waterbody or wetland. 

2. Permanent Slope Breakers/Diversion Ditches (see Figure 6)

a. Permanent slope breakers are intended to reduce runoff velocity, 

divert water off the construction right-of-way, and prevent 

sediment deposition into sensitive resources. Permanent slope 

breakers may be constructed of materials such as soil, sand bags, or 

some functional equivalent. 

b. Construct and maintain permanent slope breakers in all areas, 

except cultivated areas and lawns, using spacing recommendations 

obtained from the local soil conservation authority or land 

managing agency. 

In the absence of written recommendations, use the following 

spacing unless closer spacing is necessary to avoid excessive 

erosion on the construction right-of-way: 

 Slope (%) Spacing (feet)

5 - 15 300 

>15 - 30 200 

 >30 100 

Note: Pennsylvania erosion control specifications call for closer 

spacing for permanent slope breakers, as indicated on Figure 

6: 

 Slope (%) Spacing (feet)

5 - 15 150 

>15 - 30 100 

 >30 50 

c. Construct slope breakers to divert surface flow to a stable area 

without causing water to pool or erode behind the breaker. In the 

absence of a stable area, construct appropriate energy-dissipating 

devices at the end of the breaker. 

d. Slope breakers may extend slightly (about 4 feet) beyond the edge 

of the construction right-of-way to effectively drain water off the 

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FERC Plan

Page 13

disturbed area. Where slope breakers extend beyond the edge of 

the construction right-of-way, they are subject to compliance with 

all applicable survey requirements. 

e. Runoff ditches also may be used to reduce the velocity of 

surface water runoff (see Figure 12). 

C. SOIL COMPACTION MITIGATION 

1. Test topsoil and subsoil for compaction at regular intervals in agricultural 

and residential areas disturbed by construction activities. Conduct tests on 

the same soil type under similar moisture conditions in undisturbed areas 

to approximate preconstruction conditions. Use penetrometers or other 

appropriate devices to conduct tests. 

2. Plow severely compacted agricultural areas with a paraplow or other deep 

tillage implement. In areas where topsoil has been segregated, plow the 

subsoil before replacing the segregated topsoil. 

Alternatively, make arrangements with the landowner to plant and plow 

under a "green manure" crop, such as alfalfa, to decrease soil bulk density 

and improve soil structure. If subsequent construction and cleanup 

activities result in further compaction, conduct additional tilling. 

3. Perform appropriate soil compaction mitigation in severely compacted 

residential areas. 

D. REVEGETATION 

1. General 

a. The project sponsor is responsible for ensuring successful 

revegetation of soils disturbed by project-related activities, except 

as noted in section V.D.1.b. 

b. Restore all turf, ornamental shrubs, and specialized landscaping in 

accordance with the landowner's request, or compensate the 

landowner. Restoration work must be performed by personnel 

familiar with local horticultural and turf establishment practices. 

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FERC Plan

Page 14

2. Soil Additives 

Fertilize and add soil pH modifiers in accordance with written 

recommendations obtained from the local soil conservation authority, land 

management agencies, or landowner. Incorporate recommended soil pH 

modifier and fertilizer into the top 2 inches of soil as soon as possible after 

application. 

3. Seeding Requirements 

a. Prepare a seedbed in disturbed areas to a depth of 3 to 4 inches 

using appropriate equipment to provide a firm seedbed. When 

hydroseeding, scarify the seedbed to facilitate lodging and 

germination of seed. 

b. Seed disturbed areas in accordance with written recommendations 

for seed mixes, rates, and dates obtained from the local soil 

conservation authority or the request of the landowner or land 

management agency. Seeding is not required in actively cultivated 

croplands unless requested by the landowner. 

See Attachment A for proposed seed mixes.

c. Perform seeding of permanent vegetation within the recommended 

seeding dates. If seeding cannot be done within those dates, use 

appropriate temporary erosion control measures discussed in 

section IV.F. and perform seeding of permanent vegetation at the 

beginning of the next recommended seeding season. Lawns may 

be seeded on a schedule established with the landowner. 

d. In the absence of written recommendations from the local soil 

conservation authorities, seed all disturbed soils within 6 working 

days of final grading, weather and soil conditions permitting, 

subject to the specifications in section V.D.3.a-c. 

e. Base seeding rates on Pure Live Seed. Use seed within 12 months 

of seed testing. 

f. Treat legume seed with an inoculant specific to the species using 

the manufacturer’s recommended rate of inoculant appropriate for 

the seeding method (broadcast, drill, or hydro). 

g. In the absence of written recommendations from the local soil 

conservation authorities, landowner, or land managing agency to 

the contrary, a seed drill equipped with a cultipacker is preferred 

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FERC Plan

Page 15

for seed application. 

Broadcast or hydroseeding can be used in lieu of drilling at double 

the recommended seeding rates. Where seed is broadcast, firm the 

seedbed with a cultipacker or roller after seeding. In rocky soils or 

where site conditions may limit the effectiveness of this equipment, 

other alternatives may be appropriate (e.g., use of a chain drag) to 

lightly cover seed after application, as approved by the 

Environmental Inspector. 

VI. OFF-ROAD VEHICLE CONTROL

To each owner or manager of forested lands offer to install and maintain measures to 

control unauthorized vehicle access to the right-of-way. These measures may include: 

A. Signs; 

B. Fences with locking gates; 

C. Slash and timber barriers, pipe barriers, or a line of boulders across the right-ofway; and 

D. Conifers or other appropriate trees/or shrubs across the right-of-way. 

VII. POST-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

A. MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE 

1. Conduct follow-up inspections of all disturbed areas after the first and 

second growing seasons to determine the success of revegetation. 

2. Revegetation in non-agricultural areas shall be considered successful if 

upon visual survey the density and cover of non-nuisance vegetation are 

similar in density and cover to adjacent undisturbed lands. In agricultural 

areas, revegetation shall be considered successful if crop yields are similar 

to adjacent undisturbed portions of the same field. 

Continue revegetation efforts until revegetation is 

successful.

3. Monitor and correct problems with drainage and irrigation systems 

resulting from pipeline construction in active agricultural areas until 

restoration is successful. 

4. Restoration shall be considered successful if the right-of-way surface 

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FERC Plan

Page 16

condition is similar to adjacent undisturbed lands, construction debris is 

removed (unless requested otherwise by the land owner or land managing 

agency), revegetation is successful, and proper drainage has been restored. 

5. Routine vegetation maintenance clearing shall not be done more 

frequently than every 3 years. However, to facilitate periodic corrosion 

and leak surveys, a corridor not exceeding 10 feet in width centered on the 

pipeline may be maintained annually in a herbaceous state. In no case 

shall routine vegetation maintenance clearing occur between April 15 and 

August 1 of any year. 

6. Efforts to control unauthorized off-road vehicle use, in cooperation with 

the landowner, shall continue throughout the life of the project. Maintain 

signs, gates, and vehicle trails as necessary. 

B. REPORTING 

1. The project sponsor shall maintain records that identify by milepost: 

a. method of application, application rate, and type of fertilizer, pH 

modifying agent, seed, and mulch used; 

b. acreage treated; 

c. dates of backfilling and seeding; 

d. names of landowners requesting special seeding treatment and a 

description of the follow-up actions; and 

e. any problem areas and how they were addressed. 

2. The project sponsor shall file with the Secretary quarterly activity reports 

documenting problems, including those identified by the landowner, and 

corrective actions taken for at least 2 years following construction. 

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Condensed

by 0.15 pt

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
FERC’s WETLAND AND WATERBODY CONSTRUCTION AND 

MITIGATION PROCEDURES (1/17/2003 Version) 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. APPLICABILITY ...............................................................................................................................................1

II. PRECONSTRUCTION FILING ...................................................................................................................2

III. ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS ............................................................................................................3

IV. PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING ............................................................................................................3

V. WATERBODY CROSSINGS ........................................................................................................................5

A. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND PERMITS .....................................................................................5

B. INSTALLATION..........................................................................................................................................5

1. Time Window for Construction......................................................................................................................5

2. Extra Work Areas ..........................................................................................................................................5

3. General Crossing Procedures.......................................................................................................................6

4. Spoil Pile Placement and Control .................................................................................................................6

5. Equipment Bridges ........................................................................................................................................7

6. Dry-Ditch Crossing Methods.........................................................................................................................8

7. Crossings of Minor Waterbodies (see figure Proc-8)....................................................................................9

8. Crossings of Intermediate Waterbodies.......................................................................................................10

9. Crossings of Major Waterbodies.................................................................................................................10

10. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control..............................................................................................10

11. Trench Dewatering ..................................................................................................................................11

C. RESTORATION .........................................................................................................................................11

D. POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................12

VI. WETLAND CROSSINGS ............................................................................................................................13

A. GENERAL ..................................................................................................................................................13

B. INSTALLATION........................................................................................................................................14

1. Extra Work Areas and Access Roads...........................................................................................................14

2. Crossing Procedures ...................................................................................................................................15

3. Temporary Sediment Control ......................................................................................................................16

4. Trench Dewatering......................................................................................................................................17

C. RESTORATION .........................................................................................................................................17

D. POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................18

VII. HYDROSTATIC TESTING.........................................................................................................................19

A. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND PERMITS ...................................................................................19

B. GENERAL ..................................................................................................................................................19

C. INTAKE SOURCE AND RATE .................................................................................................................19

D. DISCHARGE LOCATION, METHOD, AND RATE.................................................................................20

Proposed additions or modifications presented within text in bold – based on Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Water Management, Erosion and Sediment Pollution 

Control Program Manual, April 15, 2000 and Maryland Department of the Environment, Water Management 

and Administration, Maryland Standards and Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, 1994. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 FERC Procedures

Page 1

FERC’s WETLAND AND WATERBODY CONSTRUCTION AND 

MITIGATION PROCEDURES (1/17/2003 Version) 

I. APPLICABILITY

A. The intent of these Procedures is to assist applicants by identifying baseline 

mitigation measures for minimizing the extent and duration of project-related 

disturbance on wetlands and waterbodies. The project sponsors should specify in 

their applications for a FERC Certificate (Certificate) any individual measures in 

these Procedures they consider unnecessary, technically infeasible, or unsuitable 

due to local conditions and to fully describe any alternative measures they would 

use. Applicants should also explain how those alternative measures would 

achieve a comparable level of mitigation. 

Once a project is certificated, further changes can be approved. Any such 

changes from the measures in these Procedures (or the applicant’s approved 

procedures) will be approved by the Director of the Office of Energy Projects 

(Director), upon the applicant’s written request, if the Director agrees that an 

alternative measure: 

1. provides equal or better environmental protection; 

2. is necessary because a portion of these Procedures is infeasible or 

unworkable based on project-specific conditions; or 

3. is specifically required in writing by another Federal, state, or Native 

American land management agency for the portion of the project on its 

land or under its jurisdiction. 

Any requirements in these Procedures to file material with the Secretary of the 

FERC (Secretary) do not apply to projects undertaken under the provisions of the 

blanket certificate program. This exemption does not apply to a request for 

alternative measures. 

Project-related impacts on non-wetland areas are addressed in the staff’s Upland 

Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan). 

B. DEFINITIONS 

1. "Waterbody" includes any natural or artificial stream, river, or drainage 

with perceptible flow at the time of crossing, and other permanent 

waterbodies such as ponds and lakes: 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 FERC Procedures

Page 2

a. "minor waterbody" includes all waterbodies less than or equal to 

10 feet wide at the water's edge at the time of construction; 

b. "intermediate waterbody" includes all waterbodies greater than 10 

feet wide but less than or equal to 100 feet wide at the water's edge 

at the time of construction; and 

c. "major waterbody" includes all waterbodies greater than 100 feet 

wide at the water's edge at the time of construction. 

2. "Wetland" includes any area that is not in actively cultivated or rotated 

cropland and that satisfies the requirements of the current Federal 

methodology for identifying and delineating wetlands. 

 

II. PRECONSTRUCTION FILING

A. The following information shall be filed with the Secretary prior to the beginning 

of construction: 

1. the hydrostatic testing information specified in section VII.B.3. and a 

wetland delineation report as described in section VI.A.1., if applicable; 

and 

2. a schedule identifying when trenching or blasting would occur within each 

waterbody greater than 10 feet wide, or within any designated coldwater 

fishery. The project sponsor shall revise the schedule as necessary to 

provide FERC staff at least 14 days advance notice. Changes within this 

last 14-day period must provide for at least 48 hours advance notice. 

B. The following site-specific construction plans required by these Procedures must 

be filed with the Secretary for the review and written approval by the Director: 

1. plans for extra work areas that would be closer than 50 feet from a 

waterbody or wetland; 

2. plans for major waterbody crossings; 

3. plans for the use of a construction right-of-way greater than 75 feet wide 

in wetlands; and 

4. plans for horizontal directional drill (HDD) "crossings" of wetlands or 

waterbodies. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 FERC Procedures

Page 3

III. ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS

A. At least one Environmental Inspector having knowledge of the wetland and 

waterbody conditions in the project area is required for each construction spread. 

The number and experience of Environmental Inspectors assigned to each 

construction spread should be appropriate for the length of the construction 

spread and the number/significance of resources affected. 

B. The Environmental Inspector's responsibilities are outlined in the Upland Erosion 

Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan). 

IV. PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING

A. A copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for 

compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National 

Stormwater Program General Permit requirements must be available in the field 

on each construction spread. The SWPPP shall contain Spill Prevention and 

Response Procedures that meet the requirements of state and Federal agencies. 

1. It shall be the responsibility of the project sponsor and its contractors to 

structure their operations in a manner that reduces the risk of spills or the 

accidental exposure of fuels or hazardous materials to waterbodies or 

wetlands. The project sponsor and its contractors must, at a minimum, 

ensure that: 

a. all employees handling fuels and other hazardous materials are 

properly trained; 

b. all equipment is in good operating order and inspected on a regular 

basis; 

c. fuel trucks transporting fuel to on-site equipment travel only on 

approved access roads; 

d. all equipment is parked overnight and/or fueled at least 100 feet 

from a waterbody or in an upland area at least 100 feet from a 

wetland boundary. These activities can occur closer only if the 

Environmental Inspector finds, in advance, no reasonable 

alternative and the project sponsor and its contractors have taken 

appropriate steps (including secondary containment structures) to 

prevent spills and provide for prompt cleanup in the event of a 

spill; 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 FERC Procedures

Page 4

e. hazardous materials, including chemicals, fuels, and lubricating 

oils, are not stored within 100 feet of a wetland, waterbody, or 

designated municipal watershed area, unless the location is 

designated for such use by an appropriate governmental authority. 

This applies to storage of these materials and does not apply to 

normal operation or use of equipment in these areas; and 

f. concrete coating activities are not performed within 100 feet of a 

wetland or waterbody boundary, unless the location is an existing 

industrial site designated for such use. 

2. The project sponsor and its contractors must structure their operations in a 

manner that provides for the prompt and effective cleanup of spills of fuel 

and other hazardous materials. At a minimum, the project sponsor and its 

contractors must: 

a. ensure that each construction crew (including cleanup crews) has 

on hand sufficient supplies of absorbent and barrier materials to 

allow the rapid containment and recovery of spilled materials and 

knows the procedure for reporting spills; 

b. ensure that each construction crew has on hand sufficient tools and 

material to stop leaks; 

c. know the contact names and telephone numbers for all local, state, 

and Federal agencies (including, if necessary, the U. S. Coast 

Guard and the National Response Center) that must be notified of a 

spill; and 

d. follow the requirements of those agencies in cleaning up the spill, 

in excavating and disposing of soils or other materials 

contaminated by a spill, and in collecting and disposing of waste 

generated during spill cleanup. 

B. AGENCY COORDINATION 

The project sponsor must coordinate with the appropriate local, state, and Federal 

agencies as outlined in these Procedures and in the Certificate. 

 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 FERC Procedures

Page 5

V. WATERBODY CROSSINGS

A. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND PERMITS 

1. Apply to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), or its delegated 

agency, for the appropriate wetland and waterbody crossing permits. 

2. Provide written notification to authorities responsible for potable surface 

water supply intakes located within 3 miles downstream of the crossing at 

least 1 week before beginning work in the waterbody, or as otherwise 

specified by that authority. 

3. Apply for state-issued waterbody crossing permits and obtain individual 

or generic section 401 water quality certification or waiver. 

4. Notify appropriate state authorities at least 48 hours before beginning 

trenching or blasting within the waterbody, or as specified in state permits. 

B. INSTALLATION 

1. Time Window for Construction 

Unless expressly permitted or further restricted by the appropriate state 

agency in writing on a site-specific basis, instream work, except that 

required to install or remove equipment bridges, must occur during the 

following time windows: 

a. coldwater fisheries - June 1 through September 30; and 

b. coolwater and warmwater fisheries - June 1 through November 30. 

2. Extra Work Areas 

a. Locate all extra work areas (such as staging areas and additional 

spoil storage areas) at least 50 feet away from water’s edge, except 

where the adjacent upland consists of actively cultivated or rotated 

cropland or other disturbed land. 

b. The project sponsor shall file with the Secretary for review and 

written approval by the Director, a site-specific construction plan 

for each extra work area with a less than 50-foot setback from the 

water's edge, (except where the adjacent upland consists of 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 FERC Procedures

Page 6

actively cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed land) and 

a site-specific explanation of the conditions that will not permit a 

50-foot setback. 

c. Limit clearing of vegetation between extra work areas and the edge 

of the waterbody to the certificated construction right-of-way. 

d. Limit the size of extra work areas to the minimum needed to 

construct the waterbody crossing. 

3. General Crossing Procedures 

a. Comply with the COE, or its delegated agency, permit terms and 

conditions. 

b. Construct crossings as close to perpendicular to the axis of the 

waterbody channel as engineering and routing conditions permit. 

c. If the pipeline parallels a waterbody, attempt to maintain at least 

15 feet of undisturbed vegetation between the waterbody (and any 

adjacent wetland) and the construction right-of-way. 

d. Where waterbodies meander or have multiple channels, route the 

pipeline to minimize the number of waterbody crossings. 

e. Maintain adequate flow rates to protect aquatic life, and prevent 

the interruption of existing downstream uses. 

f. Waterbody buffers (extra work area setbacks, refueling 

restrictions, etc.) must be clearly marked in the field with signs 

and/or highly visible flagging until construction-related ground 

disturbing activities are complete. 

4. Spoil Pile Placement and Control 

a. All spoil from minor and intermediate waterbody crossings, and 

upland spoil from major waterbody crossings, must be placed in 

the construction right-of-way at least 10 feet from the water's edge 

or in additional extra work areas as described in section V.B.2. 

b. Use sediment barriers to prevent the flow of spoil or heavily siltladen water into any waterbody. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 FERC Procedures

Page 7

5. Equipment Bridges 

a. Only clearing equipment and equipment necessary for installation 

of equipment bridges may cross waterbodies prior to bridge 

installation. Limit the number of such crossings of each waterbody 

to one per piece of clearing equipment. 

b. Construct equipment bridges to maintain unrestricted flow and to 

prevent soil from entering the waterbody. Examples of such 

bridges include: 

(1) equipment pads and culvert(s) (see Figure 15); 

(2) equipment pads or railroad car bridges without culverts (see 

Figure 15); 

(3) clean rock fill and culvert(s) (see Figure 16); and 

(4) flexi-float or portable bridges. 

Additional options for equipment bridges may be utilized that 

achieve the performance objectives noted above. Do not use soil 

to construct or stabilize equipment bridges. 

c. Design and maintain each equipment bridge to withstand and pass 

the highest flow expected to occur while the bridge is in place. 

Align culverts to prevent bank erosion or streambed scour. If 

necessary, install energy dissipating devices downstream of the 

culverts. 

d. Design and maintain equipment bridges to prevent soil from 

entering the waterbody. 

e. Remove equipment bridges as soon as possible after permanent 

seeding unless the COE, or its delegated agency, authorizes it as a 

permanent bridge. 

f. If there will be more than 1 month between final cleanup and the 

beginning of permanent seeding and reasonable alternative access 

to the right-of-way is available, remove equipment bridges as soon 

as possible after final cleanup. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 FERC Procedures

Page 8

6. Dry-Ditch Crossing Methods 

a. Unless approved otherwise by the appropriate state agency, install the 

pipeline using one of the dry-ditch methods outlined below for 

crossings of waterbodies up to 30 feet wide (at the water's edge at the 

time of construction) that are state-designated as either coldwater or 

significant coolwater or warmwater fisheries. 

b. Dam and Pump (see Figure 17)

(1) The dam-and-pump method may be used without prior 

approval for crossings of waterbodies where pumps can 

adequately transfer streamflow volumes around the work 

area, and there are no concerns about sensitive species 

passage. 

(2) Implementation of the dam-and-pump crossing method 

must meet the following performance criteria: 

(i) use sufficient pumps, including on-site backup 

pumps, to maintain downstream flows; 

(ii) construct dams with materials that prevent sediment 

and other pollutants from entering the waterbody 

(e.g., sandbags or clean gravel with plastic liner); 

(iii) screen pump intakes; 

(iv) prevent streambed scour at pump discharge; and 

(v) monitor the dam and pumps to ensure proper 

operation throughout the waterbody crossing. 

c. Flume Crossing (see Figure 18)

The flume crossing method requires implementation of the 

following steps: 

(1) install flume pipe after blasting (if necessary), but before 

any trenching; 

(2) use sand bag or sand bag and plastic sheeting diversion 

structure or equivalent to develop an effective seal and to 

divert stream flow through the flume pipe (some 

modifications to the stream bottom may be required in to 

achieve an effective seal); 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 FERC Procedures

Page 9

(3) properly align flume pipe(s) to prevent bank erosion and 

streambed scour; 

(4) do not remove flume pipe during trenching, pipelaying, or 

backfilling activities, or initial streambed restoration 

efforts; and 

(5) remove all flume pipes and dams that are not also part of 

the equipment bridge as soon as final cleanup of the stream 

bed and bank is complete. 

d. Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) (see separate site specific 

drawings, as applicable)

To the extent they were not provided as part of the pre-certification 

process, for each waterbody or wetland that would be crossed 

using the HDD method, provide a plan that includes: 

(1) site-specific construction diagrams that show the location 

of mud pits, pipe assembly areas, and all areas to be 

disturbed or cleared for construction; 

(2) a description of how an inadvertent release of drilling mud 

would be contained and cleaned up; and 

(3) a contingency plan for crossing the waterbody or wetland 

in the event the directional drill is unsuccessful and how 

the abandoned drill hole would be sealed, if necessary. 

7. Crossings of Minor Waterbodies 

Where a dry-ditch crossing is not required, minor 

waterbodies may be crossed using the open-cut crossing 

method (see Figure 19), with the following restrictions: 

a. except for blasting and other rock breaking measures, complete 

instream construction activities (including trenching, pipe 

installation, backfill, and restoration of the streambed contours) 

within 24 hours. Streambanks and unconsolidated streambeds may 

require additional restoration after this period; 

b. limit use of equipment operating in the waterbody to that needed to 

construct the crossing; and

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 FERC Procedures

Page 10

 c. equipment bridges are not required at minor waterbodies that do 

not have a state-designated fishery classification (e.g., agricultural 

or intermittent drainage ditches). However, if an equipment bridge 

is used it must be constructed as described in section V.B.5. 

8. Crossings of Intermediate Waterbodies 

Where a dry-ditch crossing is not required, intermediate waterbodies may 

be crossed using the open-cut crossing method (see Figure 19), with the 

following restrictions: 

a. complete instream construction activities (not including blasting 

and other rock breaking measures) within 48 hours, unless sitespecific conditions make completion within 48 hours infeasible; 

b. limit use of equipment operating in the waterbody to that needed to 

construct the crossing; and 

c. all other construction equipment must cross on an equipment 

bridge as specified in section V.B.5. 

9. Crossings of Major Waterbodies 

Before construction, the project sponsor shall file with the 

Secretary for the review and written approval by the 

Director a detailed, site-specific construction plan and 

scaled drawings identifying all areas to be disturbed by 

construction for each major waterbody crossing (the scaled 

drawings are not required for any offshore portions of 

pipeline projects). This plan should be developed in 

consultation with the appropriate state and Federal agencies 

and should include extra work areas, spoil storage areas, 

sediment control structures, etc., as well as mitigation for 

navigational issues. 

The Environmental Inspector may adjust the final 

placement of the erosion and sediment control structures in 

the field to maximize effectiveness. 

10. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 FERC Procedures

Page 11

Install sediment barriers (as defined in section IV.F.2.a. of the Plan, see 

Figures 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10) immediately after initial disturbance of the 

waterbody or adjacent upland. Sediment barriers must be properly 

maintained throughout construction and reinstalled as necessary (such as 

after backfilling of the trench) until replaced by permanent erosion 

controls or restoration of adjacent upland areas is complete. Temporary 

erosion and sediment control measures are addressed in more detail in the 

Plan; however, the following specific measures must be implemented at 

stream crossings: 

a. install sediment barriers across the entire construction right-of-way 

at all waterbody crossings, where necessary to prevent the flow of 

sediments into the waterbody. Removable sediment barriers (or 

driveable berms) must be installed across the travel lane. These 

removable sediment barriers can be removed during the 

construction day, but must be re-installed after construction has 

stopped for the day and/or when heavy precipitation is imminent; 

b. where waterbodies are adjacent to the construction right-of-way, 

install sediment barriers along the edge of the construction rightof-way as necessary to contain spoil and sediment within the 

construction right-of-way; and 

c. use trench plugs at all waterbody crossings, as necessary, to 

prevent diversion of water into upland portions of the pipeline 

trench and to keep any accumulated trench water out of the 

waterbody. 

11. Trench Dewatering 

Dewater the trench (either on or off the construction right-of-way) in a 

manner that does not cause erosion and does not result in heavily siltladen water flowing into any waterbody. Remove the dewatering 

structures as soon as possible after the completion of dewatering activities. 

See Figure 20 for details on Filter Bag dewatering structures. 

C. RESTORATION 

See Figures 21 and 22 for streambank restoration/stabilization measures 

involving erosion control fabric and rip rap. 

1. Use clean gravel or native cobbles for the upper 1 foot of trench backfill in 

all waterbodies that contain coldwater fisheries. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 FERC Procedures

Page 12

2. For open-cut crossings, stabilize waterbody banks and install temporary 

sediment barriers within 24 hours of completing instream construction 

activities. For dry-ditch crossings, complete streambed and bank 

stabilization before returning flow to the waterbody channel. 

 

3. Return all waterbody banks to preconstruction contours or to a stable 

angle of repose as approved by the Environmental Inspector. 

4. Application of riprap for bank stabilization must comply with COE, or its 

delegated agency, permit terms and conditions. 

5. Unless otherwise specified by state permit, limit the use of riprap to areas 

where flow conditions preclude effective vegetative stabilization 

techniques such as seeding and erosion control fabric.

6. Revegetate disturbed riparian areas with conservation grasses and legumes 

or native plant species, preferably woody species. 

7. Install a permanent slope breaker across the construction right-of-way at 

the base of slopes greater than 5 percent that are less than 50 feet from the 

waterbody, or as needed to prevent sediment transport into the waterbody. 

 In addition, install sediment barriers as outlined in the Plan. 

In some areas, with the approval of the Environmental Inspector, an 

earthen berm may be suitable as a sediment barrier adjacent to the 

waterbody. 

8. Sections V.C.3. through V.C.6. above also apply to those perennial or 

intermittent streams not flowing at the time of construction. 

D. POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE 

1. Limit vegetation maintenance adjacent to waterbodies to allow a riparian 

strip at least 25 feet wide, as measured from the waterbody's mean high 

water mark, to permanently revegetate with native plant species across the 

entire construction right-of-way. However, to facilitate periodic pipeline 

corrosion/leak surveys, a corridor centered on the pipeline and up to 10 

feet wide may be maintained in a herbaceous state. In addition, trees that 

are located within 15 feet of the pipeline that are greater than 15 feet in 

height may be cut and removed from the permanent right-of-way. 

2. Do not use herbicides or pesticides in or within 100 feet of a waterbody 

except as allowed by the appropriate land management or state agency. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 FERC Procedures

Page 13

VI. WETLAND CROSSINGS

A. GENERAL 

1. The project sponsor shall conduct a wetland delineation using the current 

Federal methodology and file a wetland delineation report with the 

Secretary before construction. This report shall identify: 

a. by milepost all wetlands that would be affected;

b. the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) classification for each 

wetland; 

c. the crossing length of each wetland in feet; and 

d. the area of permanent and temporary disturbance that would occur 

in each wetland by NWI classification type. 

The requirements outlined in this section do not apply to wetlands in 

actively cultivated or rotated cropland. Standard upland protective 

measures, including workspace and topsoiling requirements, apply to 

these agricultural wetlands. 

2. Route the pipeline to avoid wetland areas to the maximum extent possible. 

If a wetland cannot be avoided or crossed by following an existing rightof-way, route the new pipeline in a manner that minimizes disturbance to 

wetlands. Where looping an existing pipeline, overlap the existing 

pipeline right-of-way with the new construction right-of-way. In addition, 

locate the loop line no more than 25 feet away from the existing pipeline 

unless site-specific constraints would adversely affect the stability of the 

existing pipeline. 

3. Limit the width of the construction right-of-way to 75 feet or less. Prior 

written approval of the Director is required where topographic conditions 

or soil limitations require that the construction right-of-way width within 

the boundaries of a federally delineated wetland be expanded beyond 75 

feet. Early in the planning process the project sponsor is encouraged to 

identify site-specific areas where existing soils lack adequate unconfined 

compressive strength that would result in excessively wide ditches and/or 

difficult to contain spoil piles. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 FERC Procedures

Page 14

4. Wetland boundaries and buffers must be clearly marked in the field with 

signs and/or highly visible flagging until construction-related ground 

disturbing activities are complete. 

5. Implement the measures of sections V. and VI. in the event a waterbody 

crossing is located within or adjacent to a wetland crossing. If all 

measures of sections V. and VI. cannot be met, the project sponsor must 

file with the Secretary a site-specific crossing plan for review and written 

approval by the Director before construction. This crossing plan shall 

address at a minimum: 

a. spoil control; 

b. equipment bridges; 

c. restoration of waterbody banks and wetland hydrology; 

d. timing of the waterbody crossing; 

e. method of crossing; and 

f. size and location of all extra work areas. 

6. Do not locate aboveground facilities in any wetland, except where the 

location of such facilities outside of wetlands would prohibit compliance 

with U.S. Department of Transportation regulations. 

B. INSTALLATION 

1. Extra Work Areas and Access Roads 

a. Locate all extra work areas (such as staging areas and additional 

spoil storage areas) at least 50 feet away from wetland boundaries, 

except where the adjacent upland consists of actively cultivated or 

rotated cropland or other disturbed land. 

b. The project sponsor shall file with the Secretary for review and 

written approval by the Director, a site-specific construction plan 

for each extra work area with a less than 50-foot setback from 

wetland boundaries (except where adjacent upland consists of 

actively cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed land) and 

a site-specific explanation of the conditions that will not permit a 

50-foot setback. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 FERC Procedures

Page 15

c. Limit clearing of vegetation between extra work areas and the edge 

of the wetland to the certificated construction right-of-way. 

d. The construction right-of-way may be used for access when the 

wetland soil is firm enough to avoid rutting or the construction 

right-of-way has been appropriately stabilized to avoid rutting 

(e.g., with timber riprap, prefabricated equipment mats, or terra 

mats). 

In wetlands that cannot be appropriately stabilized, all construction 

equipment other than that needed to install the wetland crossing 

shall use access roads located in upland areas. Where access roads 

in upland areas do not provide reasonable access, limit all other 

construction equipment to one pass through the wetland using the 

construction right-of-way. 

e. The only access roads, other than the construction right-of-way, 

that can be used in wetlands without Director approval, are those 

existing roads that can be used with no modification and no impact 

on the wetland. 

2. Crossing Procedures 

Figures 23 and 24 show typical “conventional” and “push pull” 

wetland crossing procedures. 

a. Comply with COE, or its delegated agency, permit terms and 

conditions.

b. Assemble the pipeline in an upland area unless the wetland is dry 

enough to adequately support skids and pipe. 

c. Use "push-pull" or "float" techniques to place the pipe in the 

trench where water and other site conditions allow. (See Figure 

24.)

d. Minimize the length of time that topsoil is segregated and the 

trench is open. 

e. Limit construction equipment operating in wetland areas to that 

needed to clear the construction right-of-way, dig the trench, 

fabricate and install the pipeline, backfill the trench, and restore 

the construction right-of-way. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 FERC Procedures

Page 16

f. Cut vegetation just aboveground level, leaving existing root 

systems in place, and remove it from the wetland for disposal. 

g. Limit pulling of tree stumps and grading activities to directly over 

the trenchline. Do not grade or remove stumps or root systems 

from the rest of the construction right-of-way in wetlands unless 

the Chief Inspector and Environmental Inspector determine that 

safety-related construction constraints require grading or the 

removal of tree stumps from under the working side of the 

construction right-of-way. 

h. Segregate the top 1 foot of topsoil from the area disturbed by 

trenching, except in areas where standing water is present or soils 

are saturated or frozen. Immediately after backfilling is complete, 

restore the segregated topsoil to its original location. 

i. Do not use rock, soil imported from outside the wetland, tree 

stumps, or brush riprap to support equipment on the construction 

right-of-way. 

j. If standing water or saturated soils are present, or if construction 

equipment causes ruts or mixing of the topsoil and subsoil in 

wetlands, use low-ground-weight construction equipment, or 

operate normal equipment on timber riprap, prefabricated 

equipment mats, or terra mats. 

k. Do not cut trees outside of the approved construction work area to 

obtain timber for riprap or equipment mats. 

l. Attempt to use no more than two layers of timber riprap to support 

equipment on the construction right-of-way. 

m. Remove all project-related material used to support equipment on 

the construction right-of-way upon completion of construction. 

3. Temporary Sediment Control 

Install sediment barriers (as defined in section IV.F.2.a. of the Plan, see 

Figures 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10) immediately after initial disturbance of the 

wetland or adjacent upland. Sediment barriers must be properly 

maintained throughout construction and reinstalled as necessary (such as 

after backfilling of the trench). Except as noted below in section 

VI.B.3.c., maintain sediment barriers until replaced by permanent erosion 

controls or restoration of adjacent upland areas is complete. Temporary 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 FERC Procedures

Page 17

erosion and sediment control measures are addressed in more detail in the 

Plan. 

a. Install sediment barriers across the entire construction right-of-way 

immediately upslope of the wetland boundary at all wetland 

crossings where necessary to prevent sediment flow into the 

wetland. 

b. Where wetlands are adjacent to the construction right-of-way and 

the right-of-way slopes toward the wetland, install sediment 

barriers along the edge of the construction right-of-way as 

necessary to prevent sediment flow into the wetland. 

c. Install sediment barriers along the edge of the construction rightof-way as necessary to contain spoil and sediment within the 

construction right-of-way through wetlands. Remove these 

sediment barriers during right-of-way cleanup. 

4. Trench Dewatering 

Dewater the trench (either on or off the construction right-of-way) in a 

manner that does not cause erosion and does not result in heavily siltladen water flowing into any wetland. Remove the dewatering structures 

as soon as possible after the completion of dewatering activities. 

See Figure 20 for details on Filter Bag dewatering structures.

C. RESTORATION 

1. Where the pipeline trench may drain a wetland, construct trench breakers 

and/or seal the trench bottom as necessary to maintain the original wetland 

hydrology. See Figure 11 for trench breaker typical details.

2. For each wetland crossed, install a trench breaker at the base of slopes 

near the boundary between the wetland and adjacent upland areas. Install 

a permanent slope breaker across the construction right-of-way at the base 

of a slope(s) greater than 5 percent where the base of the slope is less than 

50 feet from the wetland, or as needed to prevent sediment transport into 

the wetland. In addition, install sediment barriers as outlined in the Plan. 

In some areas, with the approval of the Environmental Inspector, an 

earthen berm may be suitable as a sediment barrier adjacent to the 

wetland. 

3. Do not use fertilizer, lime, or mulch unless required in writing by the 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 FERC Procedures

Page 18

appropriate land management or state agency. 

4. Consult with the appropriate land management or state agency to develop 

a project-specific wetland restoration plan. The restoration plan should 

include measures for re-establishing herbaceous and/or woody species, 

controlling the invasion and spread of undesirable exotic species (e.g., 

purple loosestrife and phragmites), and monitoring the success of the 

revegetation and weed control efforts. Provide this plan to the FERC staff 

upon request. 

5. Until a project-specific wetland restoration plan is developed and/or 

implemented, temporarily revegetate the construction right-of-way with 

annual ryegrass at a rate of 40 pounds/acre (unless standing water is 

present). 

6. Ensure that all disturbed areas successfully revegetate with wetland 

herbaceous and/or woody plant species. 

7. Remove temporary sediment barriers located at the boundary between 

wetland and adjacent upland areas after upland revegetation and 

stabilization of adjacent upland areas are judged to be successful as 

specified in section VII.A.5. of the Plan. 

D. POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE 

1. Do not conduct vegetation maintenance over the full width of the 

permanent right-of-way in wetlands. However, to facilitate periodic 

pipeline corrosion/leak surveys, a corridor centered on the pipeline and up 

to 10 feet wide may be maintained in a herbaceous state. In addition, trees 

within 15 feet of the pipeline that are greater than 15 feet in height may be 

selectively cut and removed from the permanent right-of-way. 

2. Do not use herbicides or pesticides in or within 100 feet of a wetland, 

except as allowed by the appropriate land management agency or state 

agency. 

3. Monitor and record the success of wetland revegetation annually for the 

first 3 years after construction or until wetland revegetation is successful. 

At the end of 3 years after construction, file a report with the Secretary 

identifying the status of the wetland revegetation efforts. Include the 

percent cover achieved and problem areas (weed invasion issues, poor 

revegetation, etc.). Continue to file a report annually until wetland 

revegetation is successful. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 FERC Procedures

Page 19

4. Wetland revegetation shall be considered successful if the cover of 

herbaceous and/or woody species is at least 80 percent of the type, 

density, and distribution of the vegetation in adjacent wetland areas that 

were not disturbed by construction. If revegetation is not successful at the 

end of 3 years, develop and implement (in consultation with a professional 

wetland ecologist) a remedial revegetation plan to actively revegetate the 

wetland. Continue revegetation efforts until wetland revegetation is 

successful. 

VII. HYDROSTATIC TESTING

A. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND PERMITS 

1. Apply for state-issued water withdrawal permits, as required. 

2. Apply for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or 

state-issued discharge permits, as required. 

3. Notify appropriate state agencies of intent to use specific sources at least 

48 hours before testing activities unless they waive this requirement in 

writing. 

B. GENERAL 

1. Perform 100 percent radiographic inspection of all pipeline section welds 

or hydrotest the pipeline sections, before installation under waterbodies or 

wetlands. 

2. If pumps used for hydrostatic testing are within 100 feet of any waterbody 

or wetland, address the operation and refueling of these pumps in the 

project’s Spill Prevention and Response Procedures. 

3. The project sponsor shall file with the Secretary before construction a list 

identifying the location of all waterbodies proposed for use as a 

hydrostatic test water source or discharge location. 

C. INTAKE SOURCE AND RATE 

1. Screen the intake hose to prevent entrainment of fish. 

2. Do not use state-designated exceptional value waters, waterbodies which 

provide habitat for federally listed threatened or endangered species, or 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 FERC Procedures

Page 20

waterbodies designated as public water supplies, unless appropriate 

Federal, state, and/or local permitting agencies grant written permission. 

3. Maintain adequate flow rates to protect aquatic life, provide for all 

waterbody uses, and provide for downstream withdrawals of water by 

existing users. 

4. Locate hydrostatic test manifolds outside wetlands and riparian areas to 

the maximum extent practicable. 

D. DISCHARGE LOCATION, METHOD, AND RATE 

1. Regulate discharge rate, use energy dissipation device(s), and install 

sediment barriers, as necessary, to prevent erosion, streambed scour, 

suspension of sediments, or excessive streamflow (see Figure 25). 

2. Do not discharge into state-designated exceptional value waters, 

waterbodies which provide habitat for federally listed threatened or 

endangered species, or waterbodies designated as public water supplies, 

unless appropriate Federal, state, and local permitting agencies grant 

written permission. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 ATTACHMENT A

Page 1

ATTACHMENT A

SEED MIXES 

(as recommended in: 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Water 

Management, Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program Manual, April 15, 2000) 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 ATTACHMENT A

Page 2

SEED MIXES 

The following recommended seed mixes for utility rights-of-way were obtained from “Erosion 

Control & Conservation Plantings on Noncropland,” (1997, Penn State College of Agricultural 

Sciences). 

Temporary Seed Mix (for temporary stabilization of areas where additional soil 

disturbance is anticipated): 

Species Rate 

Annual ryegrass 40 pounds per acre 

Hay or Straw Mulch 3 tons per acre 

Permanent Seed Mixes:

Well Drained Areas: 

Species Rate (pounds per acre, based on pure live seed) 

Annual ryegrass 

Crownvetch 

Tall fescue or perennial ryegrass 

10 

10 

20 

OR 

Annual ryegrass 

Flatpea 

Tall fescue or perennial ryegrass 

10 

20 

20 

Variable Drainage Areas (i.e., where well drained soils and poorly drained soils are 

intermingled): 

Species Rate (pounds per acre, based on pure live seed) 

Annual ryegrass 

Birdsfoot trefoil 

Tall fescue 

10 

6 

30 

OR 

Annual ryegrass 

Birdsfoot trefoil 

Crownvetch 

Tall fescue 

10 

6 

10 

20 

Well Drained Areas for Grazing/Hay: 

Species Rate (pounds per acre, based on pure live seed) 

Annual ryegrass 

PLUS: 

a) Tall fescue or fine fescue 

OR 

b) Kentucky bluegrass and 

 Redtop (3 lbs/ac) 

OR 

c) Perennial ryegrass 

10 

60 (tall fescue) or 25 (fine fescue) 

25 

3 

15 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
 ATTACHMENT A

Page 3

Wetlands: 

Species Rate 

Annual ryegrass 40 pounds per acre 

Recommended seeding dates: Before August 15 for legumes (require 10-12 weeks to become 

hardy). For better success after this time, select legume seedlots with high content (30% to 35%) 

of hard seed. 

Liming and Fertilization: Lime and fertilize in accordance with soil test recommendations. 

If soil test results are not available, apply at least 6 tons of agricultural grade limestone and 

100-200-200 (100 lbs N, 200 lb P205, and 200 lbs K20) per acre. Do not apply lime or 

fertilizer in wetlands or waterbodies. 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX T 

BMP Part 2 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
APPENDIX U 

SITE-SPECIFIC PLANS 

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
1. In s ta ll sa fe ty fe n c e a lo n g e d g e o f w o rk sp a c e a n d 10 0 ’ e ith e r s id e o f e x istin g

d riv e w a y

2 . P re p a re a c c e ss a n d e sta b lish e n v iro n m e n ta l p ro te c tio n d e v ic e s in a c c o rd a n c e w ith

B e s t M a n a g e m e n t P ra c tic e s

3 . S e g re g a te to p -s o il w ith in b o u n d a rie s o f w o rk sp a c e if re q u ire d

4 . C o n stru c t d riv e w a y d ra g -se c tio n

5 . W o rk c lo se ly w ith g ra n to r a n d te n a n t if a p p lic a b le , to sc h e d u le tim e fo r d riv e w a y

e x c a v a tio n a n d ste e l p la tin g a s re q u ire d

6 . E x c a v a te d riv e

a . If ste e l p la tin g is re q u ire d in s ta ll a n d se c u re a t th is tim e

7 . In s ta ll d ra g -se c tio n a c ro s s e x is tin g d riv e w a y in s ta ll a n d se c u re te m p o ra ry c a p s o n

e a c h e n d o f d riv e w a y d ra g -se c tio n

8 . Im m e d ia te ly re -e sta b lish e x is tin g d riv e w a y u p o n fin a l in sp e c tio n a p p ro v a l. A ll

c o m p a c tio n s h a ll b e p e rfo rm e d in a c c o rd a n c e w ith M id -A tla n tic S p e c ific a tio n s

fo r C o n s tru c tio n

9 . Im m e d ia te ly b a c k fill d itc h fo r 15 ’ e ith e r sid e o f d riv e w a y le a v in g o p e n d itc h o n

e ith e r sid e o f d riv e w a y fo r fu tu re tie -in to m a in lin e c o n s tru c tio n .

10 . In s ta ll a n d se c u re te m p o ra ry c a p s o n e ith e r sid e o f d riv e w a y

11. In s ta ll sa fe ty fe n c e e n tire ly a ro u n d o p e n d itc h

12 . R e m o v e s a fe ty fe n c e a lo n g e d g e o f w o rk sp a c e a n d re lo c a te a lo n g e d g e o f a c c e ss

a re a fo r m a in lin e c o n stru c tio n .

13 . Im p le m e n t S p a rro w s P o in t P ro je c t E n v iro n m e n ta l C o n stru c tio n P la n - in c lu d in g

F E R C Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

14 . E s ta b lish a n d m a in ta in a c c e ss fo r m a in lin e c o n stru c tio n in g re ss /e g re ss

15 . U p o n c o m p le tio n o f a ll c o n s tru c tio n a c tiv itie s a n d d u rin g fin a l re sto ra tio n

im m e d ia te ly re s to re e ffe c te d a re a s.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Attachment D62e3

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
1. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

2. Construct drag-section #1

3. Excavate ditch, install drag-section #1 (ditch shall not be excavated until dragsection is complete and ready for installation)

4. Immediately back fill ditch upon req uired inspection approvals and restore park ing

area leaving an excavated location for tie-in with regards to mainline construction

and drag section #2

5 . Construct drag-section #2

6 . Excavate ditch, install drag-section #2 and tie in to drag section #1

7 . Immediately back fill ditch upon req uired inspection approvals and restore park ing

area leaving an excavated location for tie-in with regards to mainline construction

8 . Install safety fence around perimeter of excavated locations for mainline

construction tie-in

9 . Except area req uired for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all park ing areas within construction work area consistent with

req uirements of the plan

10 . Implement S parrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

F ER C Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

11. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

12. U pon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

N ote: Mid-A tlantic Express shall implement the ditch excavation and back fill procedures

outlined here into the contract T erms and Conditions

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to structure

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Excavate bore pit and receiving pit

5. Bore parking area and drive

6. Install temporary secured caps

7. Backfill bore pits immediately upon installation and required inspection approvals

8 . Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

9 . R emove safety fence along edge of workspace and restore work area to original

condition leaving access area for remaining construction activities (access area(s)

shall be restored to original condition upon final tie-ins and subsequent clean-up)

10 . Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

re-establish top soil and landscaping within construction work area (Secure top

soil dedicated for access area replacement upon final clean-up)

11. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental C onstruction Plan – including

F ER C Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

12. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress, once no

longer required, immediately restore affected areas

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 13.91

BALTIMORE MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL - TRACT 204

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Install road bore

5. Construct drag-section

6. Excavate ditch, install drag-section and tie-in to road bore pipe (ditch shall not be

excavated until drag-section is complete and ready for installation)

7. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

8. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

9. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

10. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

11. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

12. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

13. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 13.92(E)

BALTIMORE MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL - TRACT 204

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Install road bore

5. Construct drag-section

6. Excavate ditch, install drag-section and tie-in to road bore pipe (ditch shall not be

excavated until drag-section is complete and ready for installation)

7. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

8. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

9. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

10. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

11. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

12. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

13. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 13.92(W )

BALTIMORE MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL - TRACT 204

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Install road bore

5. Construct drag-section

6. Excavate ditch, install drag-section and tie-in to road bore pipe (ditch shall not be

excavated until drag-section is complete and ready for installation)

7. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

8. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

9. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

10. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

11. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

12. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

13. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 13.94(E)

BALTIMORE MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL - TRACT 204

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Install road bore

5. Construct drag-section

6. Excavate ditch, install drag-section and tie-in to road bore pipe (ditch shall not be

excavated until drag-section is complete and ready for installation)

7. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

8. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

9. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

10. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

11. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

12. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

13. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 13.95(E)

BALTIMORE MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL - TRACT 204

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Install road bore

5. Construct drag-section

6. Excavate ditch, install drag-section and tie-in to road bore pipe (ditch shall not be

excavated until drag-section is complete and ready for installation)

7. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

8. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

9. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

10. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

11. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

12. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

13. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 13.95(W )

BALTIMORE MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL - TRACT 204

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Install road bore

5. Construct drag-section

6. Excavate ditch, install drag-section and tie-in to road bore pipe (ditch shall not be

excavated until drag-section is complete and ready for installation)

7. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

8. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

9. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

10. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

11. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

12. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

13. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 13.96(W )

BALTIMORE MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL - TRACT 204

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Install road bore

5. Construct drag-section

6. Excavate ditch, install drag-section and tie-in to road bore pipe (ditch shall not be

excavated until drag-section is complete and ready for installation)

7. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

8. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

9. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

10. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

11. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

12. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

13. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 13.97(E)

BALTIMORE MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL - TRACT 204

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Construct drag-section

5. Excavate ditch, install drag-section (ditch shall not be excavated until dragsection is complete and ready for installation)

6. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

7. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

8. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

9. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

10. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

11. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

12. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 13.98(W )

BALTIMORE MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL - TRACT 204

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Construct drag-section

5. Excavate ditch, install drag-section (ditch shall not be excavated until dragsection is complete and ready for installation)

6. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

7. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

8. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

9. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

10. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

11. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

12. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 13.99(E)

BALTIMORE MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL - TRACT 204

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Construct drag-section

5. Excavate ditch, install drag-section (ditch shall not be excavated until dragsection is complete and ready for installation)

6. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

7. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

8. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

9. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

10. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

11. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

12. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 14.02(E)

BALTIMORE MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL - TRACT 204

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Construct drag-section

5. Excavate ditch, install drag-section (ditch shall not be excavated until dragsection is complete and ready for installation)

6. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

7. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

8. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

9. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

10. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

11. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

12. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 14.10(E)

BALTIMORE MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL - TRACT 204

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Construct drag-section

5. Excavate ditch, install drag-section (ditch shall not be excavated until dragsection is complete and ready for installation)

6. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

7. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

8. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

9. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

10. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

11. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

12. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 16.85

BALTIMORE,MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL - TRACT 256

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Install road bore

5. Construct drag-section

6. Excavate ditch, install drag-section and tie-in to road bore pipe (ditch shall not be

excavated until drag-section is complete and ready for installation)

7. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

8. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

9. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

10. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

11. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

12. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

13. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 17.85

BALTIMORE,MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL - TRACT 276

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Install road bore

5. Construct drag-section

6. Excavate ditch, install drag-section and tie-in to road bore pipe (ditch shall not be

excavated until drag-section is complete and ready for installation)

7. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

8. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

9. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

10. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

11. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

12. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

13. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 18.06

BALTIMORE,MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL - TRACT 279

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Install road bore

5. Construct drag-section

6. Excavate ditch, install drag-section and tie-in to road bore pipe (ditch shall not be

excavated until drag-section is complete and ready for installation)

7. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

8. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

9. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

10. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

11. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

12. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

13. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 18.08

BALTIMORE,MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL - TRACT 286

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

4)ALL PROPERTIE BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Install road bore

5. Construct drag-section

6. Excavate ditch, install drag-section and tie-in to road bore pipe (ditch shall not be

excavated until drag-section is complete and ready for installation)

7. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

8. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

9. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

10. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

11. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

12. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

13. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008 Attachment D69
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

Attachment LURA40b

10-10-08

20081010-5089 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/10/2008 3:20:51 PM

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL -TRACT327.1

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTSARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONSOR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONSW ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Construct drag-section

5. Excavate ditch, install drag-section (ditch shall not be excavated until dragsection is complete and ready for installation)

6. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

7. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

8. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

9. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

10. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

11. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

12. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST20.9

BALTIMORE MARYLAND

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIESARE APPROXIMATE.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST23.03

HARFORD MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL -TRACT362

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTSARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONSOR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONSW ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Construct drag-section

5. Excavate ditch, install drag-section (ditch shall not be excavated until dragsection is complete and ready for installation)

6. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

7. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

8. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

9. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

10. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

11. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

12. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIESARE APPROXIMATE.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to structure for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of structure

2. Work with Grantor to have crates and other miscellaneous items moved to a safe

and secure location

3. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

4. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

5. Establish and install road bore

6. Construct drag-section

7. Excavate ditch, install drag-section and tie-in to road bore pipe (ditch shall not be

excavated until drag-section is complete and ready for installation)

8. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

9 . Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

10. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan if applicable (Secure top soil dedicated for access

area replacement upon final clean-up)

11. R emove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

12. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

F ER C Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

13. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

14. U pon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST24.88

HARFORD MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL -TRACT381

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTSARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONSOR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONSW ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Construct drag-section

5. Excavate ditch, install drag-section (ditch shall not be excavated until dragsection is complete and ready for installation)

6. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

7. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

8. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

9. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

10. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

11. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

12. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIESARE APPROXIMATE .

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST26.72

HARFORD MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL -TRACT403.2

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTSARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONSOR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONSW ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIESARE APPROXIMATE.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Install road bore

5. Construct drag-section

6. Excavate ditch, install drag-section and tie-in to road bore pipe (ditch shall not be

excavated until drag-section is complete and ready for installation)

7. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

8. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

9. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

10. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

11. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

12. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

13. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST26.73

HARFORD MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL -TRACT403.1

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTSARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONSOR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONSW ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIESARE APPROXIMATE.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Install road bore

5. Construct drag-section

6. Excavate ditch, install drag-section and tie-in to road bore pipe (ditch shall not be

excavated until drag-section is complete and ready for installation)

7. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

8. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

9. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

10. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

11. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

12. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

13. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST26.78

HARFORD MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL -TRACT406.1

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTSARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONSOR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONSW ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Construct drag-section

5. Excavate ditch, install drag-section (ditch shall not be excavated until dragsection is complete and ready for installation)

6. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

7. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

8. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

9. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

10. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

11. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

12. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIESARE APPROXIMATE.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 28.41

HARFORD MARYLAND

R/S: RESIDENTIAL - TRACT 431

LEGEND

NOTE: 1) ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

WIDE, 25' ON EITHER SIDE OF PIPELINE.

2) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOWNER DISCUSSIONS WILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3) ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERWISE NOTED.

000

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence and 100’ either side of existing

driveway

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Construct drag-section

5. Excavate ditch, install drag-section and tie-in to road bore pipe (ditch shall not be

excavated until drag-section is complete and ready for installation)

6. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals leaving sufficient room for driveway crossing tie-in (Note:

Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch excavation and backfill

procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and Conditions)

7. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

8. Construct driveway drag-section if crossing will require more than a single joint

of pipe

9. Work closely with grantor and tenant , if applicable, to schedule time for

driveway excavation and steel plating as required

10. Excavate drive

a. If steel plating is required install and secure at this time

11. Install drag-section across existing driveway tie-in to existing drag section install

and secure temporary cap on opposite end of driveway drag-section

12. Immediately re-establish existing driveway upon final inspection approval. All

compaction shall be performed in accordance with Mid-Atlantic Specifications

for Construction

13. Immediately backfill ditch on either side of driveway (Note: Mid-Atlantic

Express shall implement the ditch excavation and backfill procedures outlined

here into the contract Terms and Conditions)

14. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

15. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

16. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

17. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

18. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

19. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment LURA40

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 30.40

HARFORD MARYLAND

R/S: RESIDENTIAL - TRACT 454

LEGEND

NOTE: 1) ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

WIDE, 25' ON EITHER SIDE OF PIPELINE.

2) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOWNER DISCUSSIONS WILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3) ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERWISE NOTED.

000

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Install matting over underground utilities as required

5. Install road bore

6. Construct drag-section

7. Excavate ditch, install drag-section and tie-in to road bore pipe (ditch shall not be

excavated until drag-section is complete and ready for installation)

8. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

9. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

10. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

11. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

12. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

13. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

14. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment LURA40

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
1. In s ta ll s a f e t y f e n c e a lo n g e d g e o f w o rk s p a c e a n d 10 0 ’ e ith e r s id e o f e x is tin g

d riv e w a y

2 . P r e p a r e a c c e s s a n d e s ta b lis h e n v ir o n m e n ta l p ro te c t io n d e v ic e s in a c c o r d a n c e w ith

B e s t M a n a g e m e n t P r a c tic e s

3 . S e g r e g a te to p - s o il w ith in b o u n d a r ie s o f w o rk s p a c e if re q u ir e d

4 . In s ta ll m a ttin g o v e r u n d e r g r o u n d u tilitie s a s re q u ir e d

5 . C o n s tr u c t d riv e w a y d r a g - s e c t io n if c r o s s in g w ill re q u ir e m o re th a n a s in g le j o in t

o f p ip e

6 . W o r k c lo se ly w ith g r a n to r a n d t e n a n t , if a p p lic a b le , to sc h e d u le tim e f o r

d riv e w a y e x c a v a tio n a n d ste e l p la tin g a s r e q u ire d

7 . E x c a v a te d r iv e

a . If s te e l p la tin g is r e q u ire d in s ta ll a n d s e c u r e a t th is tim e

8 . In s ta ll d r a g -s e c tio n a c r o s s e x istin g d riv e w a y in s ta ll a n d s e c u r e te m p o ra ry c a p s o n

e a c h e n d o f d riv e w a y d ra g -s e c tio n

9 . Im m e d ia te ly r e - e s ta b lis h e x is tin g d riv e w a y u p o n f in a l in s p e c tio n a p p ro v a l. A ll

c o m p a c tio n s h a ll b e p e rf o rm e d in a c c o r d a n c e w ith M id -A tla n tic S p e c if ic a tio n s

fo r C o n s tru c tio n

10 . Im m e d ia te ly b a c k f ill d itc h o n e ith e r s id e o f d riv e w a y (N o te : M id - A tla n tic

E x p r e s s s h a ll im p le m e n t th e d itc h e x c a v a tio n a n d b a c k f ill p ro c e d u r e s o u tlin e d

h e re in to th e c o n tr a c t T e r m s a n d C o n d itio n s )

11. In s ta ll te m p o r a r y a b o v e g ro u n d m a rk e r a t e n d o f d r a g s e c tio n f o r m a i n lin e

c o n s tr u c tio n tie - in

12 . E x c e p t a re a re q u ire d fo r co n tin u e d a c ce s s fo r m a in lin e c o n stru c tio n , im m e d iate ly

re sto re a ll la w n a re a s a n d la n d sc a p in g w ith in c o n s tru c tio n w o rk a re a c o n s iste n t

w ith re q u ire m e n ts o f th e p la n (S e c u re to p s o il d e d ic a te d fo r a c c es s a re a

re p la c e m e n t u p o n fin a l c le a n -u p )

13 . R e m o v e s a fety fe n c e a lo n g e d g e o f w o rk s p a c e a n d re lo c a te a lo n g e d g e o f a c ce ss

a re a fo r m a in lin e c o n s tru c tio n .

14 . Im p le m e n t S p a rro w s P o in t P ro je c t E n v iro n m e n ta l C o n s tru c tio n P la n - in c lu d in g

F E R C Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

15 . E s ta b lish a n d m a in ta in a cc e s s fo r m a in lin e c o n stru c tio n in g re s s /e g re ss

16 . U p o n c o m p le tio n o f a ll c o n s tru c tio n a ctiv itie s a n d d u rin g fin a l re s to ra tio n

im m e d ia te ly re s to re e ffe cte d a re a s .

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST35.2

HARFORD MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL -TRACT507

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTSARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONSOR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONSW ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIESARE APPROXIMATE.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Install road bore

5. Construct drag-section

6. Excavate ditch, install drag-section and tie-in to road bore pipe (ditch shall not be

excavated until drag-section is complete and ready for installation)

7. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

8. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

9. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

10. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

11. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

12. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

13. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST35.46

HARFORD MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL -TRACT513

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTSARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONSOR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONSW ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Construct drag-section

5. Excavate ditch, install drag-section (ditch shall not be excavated until dragsection is complete and ready for installation)

6. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

7. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

8. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

9. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

10. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

11. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

12. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIESARE APPROXIMATE.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 35.49

HARFORD MARYLAND

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Excavate and install creek crossing in accordance with appropriate crossing

method and install steel plate over roadway

4. Construct drag-section

5. Excavate ditch, install drag-section and tie-in to creek crossing pipe (ditch shall

not be excavated until drag-section is complete and ready for installation)

6. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

7. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

LEGEND

R/S: RESIDENTIAL - TRACT 514

000

8. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

9. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

10. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

11. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

12. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

13. Minimized cut of Vegetation adjacent to Stream per BMP.

NOTE: 1) ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

WIDE, 25' ON EITHER SIDE OF PIPELINE.

2) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOWNER DISCUSSIONS WILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3) ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERWISE NOTED.

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment LURA40

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Attachment D62e3

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST36.11

HARFORD MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL -TRACT530

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTSARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OFPIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONSOR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONSW ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIESARE APPROXIMATE.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Install road bore

5. Construct drag-section

6. Excavate ditch, install drag-section and tie-in to road bore pipe (ditch shall not be

excavated until drag-section is complete and ready for installation)

7. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

8. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

9. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

10. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

11. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

12. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

13. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 37.75

HARFORD MARYLAND

R/S: RESIDENTIAL - TRACT 557

LEGEND

NOTE: 1) ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

WIDE, 25' ON EITHER SIDE OF PIPELINE.

2) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOWNER DISCUSSIONS WILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3) ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERWISE NOTED.

000

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence and along driveway as required.

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Install matting over underground utilities as required

5. Construct driveway drag-section if crossing will require more than a single joint

of pipe

6. Work closely with grantor and tenant , if applicable, to schedule time for

driveway excavation and steel plating as required

7. Excavate drive

a. If steel plating is required install and secure at this time

8. Install drag-section across existing driveway install and secure temporary caps on

each end of driveway drag-section

9. Immediately re-establish existing driveway upon final inspection approval. All

compaction shall be performed in accordance with Mid-Atlantic Specifications

for Construction

10. Immediately backfill ditch on either side of driveway (Note: Mid-Atlantic

Express shall implement the ditch excavation and backfill procedures outlined

here into the contract Terms and Conditions)

11. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

12. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

13. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

14. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

15. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

16. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment LURA40

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 38.55

HARFORD MARYLAND

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL -TRACT 572.1

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OF PIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Install road bore

5. Construct drag-section

6. Excavate ditch, install drag-section and tie-in to road bore pipe (ditch shall not be

excavated until drag-section is complete and ready for installation)

7. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

8. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

9. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

10. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

11. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

12. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

13. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
1. In sta ll s a fe ty fe n c e a lo n g e d g e o f w o rk s p a c e a n d 10 0 ’ e ith e r s id e o f e x istin g

d riv e w a y

2 . P re p a re a c c e ss a n d e s ta b lish e n v iro n m e n ta l p ro te c tio n d e v ic e s in a c c o rd a n c e w ith

B e s t M a n a g e m e n t P ra c tic e s

3 . S e g re g a te to p -so il w ith in b o u n d a rie s o f w o rk sp a c e if re q u ire d

4 . In sta ll m a ttin g o v e r u n d e rg ro u n d u tilitie s a s re q u ire d

5 . C o n s tru c t d riv e w a y d ra g -se c tio n if c ro ss in g w ill re q u ire m o re th a n a s in g le jo in t

o f p ip e

6 . W o rk c lo s e ly w ith g ra n to r a n d te n a n t , if a p p lic a b le , to s c h e d u le tim e fo r

d riv e w a y e x c a v a tio n a n d s te e l p la tin g a s re q u ire d

7 . E x c a v a te d riv e

a . If ste e l p la tin g is re q u ire d in s ta ll a n d se c u re a t th is tim e

8 . In sta ll d ra g -se c tio n a c ro s s e x istin g d riv e w a y in sta ll a n d s e c u re te m p o ra ry c a p s o n

e a c h e n d o f d riv e w a y d ra g -s e c tio n

9 . Im m e d ia te ly re -e sta b lis h e x is tin g d riv e w a y u p o n fin a l in s p e c tio n a p p ro v a l. A ll

c o m p a c tio n sh a ll b e p e rfo rm e d in a c c o rd a n c e w ith M id -A tla n tic S p e c ific a tio n s

fo r C o n s tru c tio n

10 . Im m e d ia te ly b a c k fill d itc h o n e ith e r s id e o f d riv e w a y (N o te : M id -A tla n tic

E x p re s s sh a ll im p le m e n t th e d itc h e x c a v a tio n a n d b a c k fill p ro c e d u re s o u tlin e d

h e re in to th e c o n tra c t T e rm s a n d C o n d itio n s )

11. In s ta ll te m p o ra ry a b o v e g ro u n d m a rk e r a t e n d o f d ra g se c tio n fo r m a in lin e

c o n stru c tio n tie -in

12 . E x c e p t a re a re q u ire d fo r c o n tin u e d a c c e ss fo r m a in lin e c o n stru c tio n , im m e d ia te ly

re sto re a ll la w n a re a s a n d la n d s c a p in g w ith in c o n stru c tio n w o rk a re a c o n s is te n t

w ith re q u ire m e n ts o f th e p la n (S e c u re to p s o il d e d ic a te d fo r a c c e s s a re a

re p la c e m e n t u p o n fin a l c le a n -u p )

13 . R e m o v e sa fe ty fe n c e a lo n g e d g e o f w o rk sp a c e a n d re lo c a te a lo n g e d g e o f a c c e ss

a re a fo r m a in lin e c o n stru c tio n .

14 . Im p le m e n t S p a rro w s P o in t P ro je c t E n v iro n m e n ta l C o n stru c tio n P la n - in c lu d in g

F E R C Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

15 . E s ta b lish a n d m a in ta in a c c e s s fo r m a in lin e c o n stru c tio n in g re ss /e g re ss

16 . U p o n c o m p le tio n o f a ll c o n s tru c tio n a c tiv itie s a n d d u rin g fin a l re s to ra tio n

im m e d ia te ly re sto re e ffe c te d a re a s .

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008 Attachment D19
1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residences for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devicesin accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Install matting over underground utilities as required

5. Excavate ditch for approximately 60’

6. Install pipe using “stove pipe’ method in open ditch. When placed and tied into

previous pipe joint and when weld is half complete, excavate an additional 60’

7. Immediately backfill ditch upon required inspection approvals leaving no more

than three segments of pipeline exposed at any time while maintaining

appropriate safety precautions and complying with all safety regulations. (Note:

Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch excavation and backfill

procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and Conditions)

8 . Install temporary above ground marker at end of constructed section for mainline

construction tie-in

9 . Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

10. R emove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

11. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

F ER C Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

12. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

13. U pon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 40.32

HARFORD MARYLAND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL -TRACT 590.1

LEGEND

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OF PIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

000

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Construct drag-section

5. Excavate ditch, install drag-section (ditch shall not be excavated until dragsection is complete and ready for installation)

6. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

7. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

8. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

9. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

10. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

11. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

12. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 40.34

HARFORD MARYLAND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL -TRACT 593.1

LEGEND

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OF PIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

000

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Construct drag-section

5. Excavate ditch, install drag-section (ditch shall not be excavated until dragsection is complete and ready for installation)

6. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

7. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

8. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

9. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

10. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

11. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

12. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 40.37

HARFORD MARYLAND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL -TRACT 594.1

LEGEND

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OF PIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

000

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Construct drag-section

5. Excavate ditch, install drag-section (ditch shall not be excavated until dragsection is complete and ready for installation)

6. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

7. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

8. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

9. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

10. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

11. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

12. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 40.45

HARFORD MARYLAND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL -TRACT 597.1

LEGEND

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OF PIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

000

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Install road bore

5. Construct drag-section

6. Excavate ditch, install drag-section and tie-in to road bore pipe (ditch shall not be

excavated until drag-section is complete and ready for installation)

7. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

8. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

9. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

10. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

11. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

12. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

13. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Attachment D62e3

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 42.69& 42.71

HARFORD MARYLAND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL -TRACT 630

LEGEND

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OF PIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

000

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence and along driveway as required.

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Install matting over underground utilities as required

5. Construct driveway drag-section if crossing will require more than a single joint

of pipe

6. W ork closely with grantor and tenant , if applicable, to schedule time for

driveway excavation and steel plating as required

7. Excavate drive

a. If steel plating is required install and secure at this time

8. Install drag-section across existing driveway install and secure temporary caps on

each end of driveway drag-section

9. Immediately re-establish existing driveway upon final inspection approval. All

compaction shall be performed in accordance with Mid-Atlantic Specifications

for Construction

10. Immediately backfill ditch on either side of driveway (Note: Mid-Atlantic

Express shall implement the ditch excavation and backfill procedures outlined

here into the contract Terms and Conditions)

11. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

12. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

13. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

14. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

15. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

16. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 42.91

HARFORD MARYLAND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL -TRACT 636

LEGEND

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OF PIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

000

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Construct drag-section

5. Excavate ditch, install drag-section (ditch shall not be excavated until dragsection is complete and ready for installation)

6. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

7. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

8. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

9. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

10. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

11. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

12. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Attachment D62e3

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Mid Atlantic Express (MAE) construction activities will be constrained within the confines of the work area highlighted in blue as shown in the

above plan view. The Additional Temporary Work Space (ATWS) is required for the construction of two separate pipe pull strings that are to be

installed using Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) for the crossing of the Susquehanna River.

The HDD and mainline construction will occur at two separate times. The HDD operations including the clearing and grading of the ATWS, the

construction of two separate pull strings, and the subsequent pull and installation across the Susquehanna River will take place in advance of

mainline construction. After the pipe is successfully installed within the Susquehanna River, the mainline construction will occur. The timing

between the two separate operations, the HDD and mainline construction, is not defined at this time.

MAE shall ensure all ingress and egress to the construction work areas will be restricted to the existing access roads that are defined within the above

plan view. No additional clearing, tree cutting or disturbances will be required other that what is identified within the construction work limits.

Prior to any construction activity the contractor shall establish environmental protection devices in accordance with Best Management Practices.

MAE will implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including the FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and

Maintenance Plan.

With consideration to the camp users and the camp facilities, the direct work areas for the HDD and mainline construction identified above do not

directly impact any facility or camp user area thus all camp facility areas would be safely open at all times.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 46.42

CECIL, MARYLAND

R/S: RESIDENTIAL - TRACT 676

LEGEND

NOTE: 1) ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

WIDE, 25' ON EITHER SIDE OF PIPELINE.

2) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOWNER DISCUSSIONS WILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3) ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERWISE NOTED.

000

Mid-Atlantic Express (MAE) would reimburse the effected Grantor/Property Owner

the cost for dismantling the above ground pool currently within the confines of the

proposed MAE permanent pipeline Right-of-Way (ROW) and relocating the same

pool outside of the limits of the proposed permanent ROW. In addition, MAE would

perform the following construction mitigation plan:

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Construct drag-section

5. Excavate ditch and install drag-section (ditch shall not be excavated until dragsection is complete and ready for installation)

6. Install and secure temporary caps and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

7. Install temporary above ground marker(s) at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

8. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

9. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

10. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

11. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

12. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC

Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC

Docket Nos. CP07-62-000 and CP07-63-000

DR6 Attachment LURA40

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
LEGEND

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OF PIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 53.09

LANCASTER,PENNSYLVANIA

R/S:RESIDENTIAL -TRACT 756.1

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Install road bore

5. Construct drag-section

6. Excavate ditch, install drag-section and tie-in to road bore pipe (ditch shall not be

excavated until drag-section is complete and ready for installation)

7. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

8. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

9. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

10. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

11. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

12. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

13. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN

MILE POST 53.12

LANCASTER,PENNSYLVANIA

LEGEND

R/S:RESIDENTIAL -TRACT 758.1

000

NOTE: 1)ALL PERMANENT EASEMENTS ARE 50 FT.

W IDE,25'ON EITHER SIDE OF PIPELINE.

2)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GATHERED DURING

EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT

LANDOW NER DISCUSSIONS W ILL BE INTEGRATED

AS APPROPRIATE.

3)ALL VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED UNLESS

OTHERW ISE NOTED.

1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Construct drag-section

5. Excavate ditch, install drag-section (ditch shall not be excavated until dragsection is complete and ready for installation)

6. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

7. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

8. Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

9. Remove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

10. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

11. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

12. Upon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

4)ALL PROPERTY BOUNDARY ARE APPROXIMATE

LOCATION.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
1. Install safety fence along edge of workspace and adjacent to residence for a

distance of 100 feet on either side of residence

2. Prepare access and establish environmental protection devices in accordance with

Best Management Practices

3. Segregate top-soil within boundaries of workspace if required

4. Install road bore

5. Construct drag-section

6. Excavate ditch, install drag-section and tie-in to road bore pipe (ditch shall not be

excavated until drag-section is complete and ready for installation)

7. Install and secure temporary cap and immediately backfill ditch upon required

inspection approvals (Note: Mid-Atlantic Express shall implement the ditch

excavation and backfill procedures outlined here into the contract Terms and

Conditions)

8. Install temporary above ground marker at end of drag section for mainline

construction tie-in

9 . Except area required for continued access for mainline construction, immediately

restore all lawn areas and landscaping within construction work area consistent

with requirements of the plan (Secure top soil dedicated for access area

replacement upon final clean-up)

10. R emove safety fence along edge of workspace and relocate along edge of access

area for mainline construction.

11. Implement Sparrows Point Project Environmental Construction Plan - including

F ER C Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

12. Establish and maintain access for mainline construction ingress/egress

13. U pon completion of all construction activities and during final restoration

immediately restore effected areas.

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008

File [Appendix_U-SSPs_MPs56-77.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008

File [Appendix_U-SSPs_MPs78-83.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008

File [Appendix_U-SSPs_MPs83-86.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008

File [APPENDIX_V_T&E_Species_Plans.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008

File [APPENDIX_W_SPCC_Plan.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008

File [APPENDIX_X_Keyword_Index.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008

File [Cover_Letter_Letter_to_the_Parties.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not 

found)
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008

File [Executive_Summary.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008

File [Report_Cover_and_Spine.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008

File [Section_1_Introduction.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008

File [Section_2_Project_Description.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008

File [Section_3_Alternatives&RtVariations.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not 

found)
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008

File [Section_4_Environmental_Analysis.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008

File [Section_5_Conclusions.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File not found)
Document Content(s)

Table_of_Contents.PDF.....................................................1

APPENDIX_A_Distribution_List.PDF.........................................20

APPENDIX_B_Project_Maps.PDF..............................................32

APPENDIX_C_Extra_Workspaces.PDF..........................................65

APPENDIX_D_Consolidated_Dredge_Plan.PDF..................................85

APPENDIX_E_EFH_Report.PDF................................................86

APPENDIX_F_Residences_within_50_feet.PDF................................154

APPENDIX_G_References.PDF...............................................167

APPENDIX_H _List_of_Preparers.PDF.......................................186

APPENDIX_I _Waterbody_Crossings.PDF.....................................190

APPENDIX_J_Waterway_Suitability_Report.PDF..............................202

APPENDIX_K_Waterway_for_LNG_Marine_Traffic_Maps.PDF ....................220

APPENDIX_L_Response_to_MD_Advisory_Report.PDF...........................257

APPENDIX_M_Visual_Change_of_LNG_Terminal.PDF............................275

APPENDIX_N_UnanticDiscov_of_Haz_Waste.PDF ..............................284

APPENDIX_O_Exotic_and_Invasive_Species_Control_Plan.PDF.................288

Appendix_P-DEIS_Comments&Responses(1)-Intro&Summary.PDF.................299

Appendix_P-DEIS_Comments&Responses(2)-FederalAgencies.PDF...............323

Appendix_P-DEIS_Comments&Responses(3)-StateAgencies.PDF.................376

Appendix_P-DEIS_Comments&Responses(4)-LocalAgencies.PDF.................471

Appendix_P-DEIS_Comments&Responses(5)-Orgs&Comp1-14.PDF.................530

Appendix_P-DEIS_Comments&Responses(6)-Orgs&Comp15-28.PDF ...............584

Appendix_P-DEIS_Comments&Responses(7)-Indivs1-26.PDF....................639

Appendix_P-DEIS_Comments&Responses(8)-Indivs27-72.PDF ..................717

Appendix_P-DEIS_Comments&Responses(9)-AES.PDF...........................718

Appendix_P-DEIS_Comments&Responses(10)-PublMtgs.PDF ....................815

APPENDIX_Q_DRAFT_ARMP.PDF...............................................929

APPENDIX_R_Draft_General_Conformity.PDF.................................973

APPENDIX_S_HDD_Contingency_Plan.PDF....................................1020

APPENDIX_T_ECP_and_BMPs.PDF............................................1047

Appendix_U-SSPs_MPs0-17.PDF............................................1123

Appendix_U-SSPs_MPs18-35.PDF...........................................1142

Appendix_U-SSPs_MPs35-56.PDF...........................................1160

Appendix_U-SSPs_MPs56-77.PDF...........................................1181

Appendix_U-SSPs_MPs78-83.PDF...........................................1182

Appendix_U-SSPs_MPs83-86.PDF...........................................1183

APPENDIX_V_T&E_Species_Plans.PDF.......................................1184

APPENDIX_W_SPCC_Plan.PDF...............................................1185

APPENDIX_X_Keyword_Index.PDF...........................................1186

Cover_Letter_Letter_to_the_Parties.PDF.................................1187

Executive_Summary.PDF..................................................1188

Report_Cover_and_Spine.PDF.............................................1189

Section_1_Introduction.PDF.............................................1190

Section_2_Project_Description.PDF......................................1191

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008
Section_3_Alternatives&RtVariations.PDF................................1192

Section_4_Environmental_Analysis.PDF ..................................1193

Section_5_Conclusions.PDF..............................................1194

Document Accession #: 20081205-4000 Filed Date: 12/05/2008