Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway Chalk Point Substation to Indian River ...

Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway 

Chalk Point Substation to Indian River Substation 

Volume II – Environmental Analysis of 

Chalk Point Substation to Maryland/Delaware State Line 

Prepared for: 

and 

Prepared by: 

April 13, 2011

Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway Environmental Review Document 

Chalk Point Substation to Indian River Substation Volume II – Environmental Analysis of 

April 13, 2011 Chalk Point Substation to MD/DE State Line 

This page intentionally left blank.




TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xi 

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... xiv 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................xv 

1.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 1-1 

1.1 GEOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 1-2 

1.1.1 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................. 1-2 

1.1.1.1 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................... 1-5 

1.1.1.1.1 Oil and Natural Gas Fields ....................................................................... 1-5 

1.1.1.1.2 Coal Mines ............................................................................................... 1-5 

1.1.1.1.3 Sand and Gravel Mines ............................................................................ 1-5 

1.1.1.2 Paleontological Resources ............................................................................. 1-7 

1.1.1.3 Geologic Hazards ........................................................................................... 1-8 

1.1.1.3.1 Seismicity and Faults ............................................................................... 1-8 

1.1.1.3.2 Soil Liquefaction ...................................................................................... 1-8 

1.1.1.3.3 Slope Failures and Landslides ................................................................. 1-9 

1.1.1.3.4 Ground Subsidence .................................................................................. 1-9 

1.1.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation ......................................................................... 1-9 

1.1.2.1 Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter .............................................. 1-9 

1.1.2.1.1 Mineral Resources ................................................................................... 1-9 

1.1.2.1.2 Paleontological Resources ....................................................................... 1-9 

1.1.2.1.3 Geologic Hazards ................................................................................... 1-10 

1.1.2.2 Chestnut Converter ...................................................................................... 1-10 

1.1.2.2.1 Mineral Resources ................................................................................. 1-10 

1.1.2.2.2 Paleontological Resources ..................................................................... 1-10 


1.1.2.3 Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing ........................................... 1-10 




1.1.2.4 Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter ........................................... 1-11 




1.1.2.5 Gateway Converter ...................................................................................... 1-12 




1.1.2.6 Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line ................................ 1-12 


i






1.1.3 References .......................................................................................................... 1-13 

1.2 SOILS AND SEDIMENTS ........................................................................................ 1-15 

1.2.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................ 1-15 

1.2.1.1 Description of Potential Soil Limitations .................................................... 1-28 

1.2.1.1.1 Erosion Potential .................................................................................... 1-29 

1.2.1.1.2 Compaction and Rutting Potential ......................................................... 1-29 

1.2.1.1.3 Prime Farmland ...................................................................................... 1-29 

1.2.1.1.4 Hydric Soils ........................................................................................... 1-30 

1.2.1.2 Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter ............................................ 1-30 




1.2.1.2.4 Hydric Soils ........................................................................................... 1-31 





1.2.1.3.4 Hydric Soils ........................................................................................... 1-33 





1.2.1.4.4 Hydric Soils ........................................................................................... 1-35 





1.2.1.5.4 Hydric Soils ........................................................................................... 1-38 





1.2.1.6.4 Hydric Soils ........................................................................................... 1-40 

1.2.1.7 Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line Transmission 

Line .............................................................................................................. 1-40 




1.2.1.7.4 Hydric Soils ........................................................................................... 1-41 

1.2.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation ....................................................................... 1-41 





ii




1.2.2.4.1 Sediments (Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River) ............................... 1-43 

1.2.2.4.2 Soils (Onshore) ...................................................................................... 1-43 



1.2.3 References .......................................................................................................... 1-45 

1.3 WATER RESOURCES .............................................................................................. 1-46 

1.3.1 Groundwater ...................................................................................................... 1-46 

1.3.2 Surface Water ..................................................................................................... 1-46 



1.3.3.1.1 Groundwater .......................................................................................... 1-47 

1.3.3.1.2 Surface Water ......................................................................................... 1-48 

1.3.3.1.3 Tributary Strategy Area ......................................................................... 1-51 


1.3.3.2.1 Groundwater .......................................................................................... 1-51 

1.3.3.2.2 Surface Water ......................................................................................... 1-51 



1.3.3.3.1 Groundwater .......................................................................................... 1-53 

1.3.3.3.2 Surface Water ......................................................................................... 1-53 



1.3.3.4.1 Groundwater .......................................................................................... 1-55 

1.3.3.4.2 Surface Water ......................................................................................... 1-55 

1.3.3.4.3 Nationwide Rivers Inventory ................................................................. 1-59 


1.3.3.5.1 Groundwater .......................................................................................... 1-60 

1.3.3.5.2 Surface Water ......................................................................................... 1-60 



1.3.3.6.1 Groundwater .......................................................................................... 1-61 

1.3.3.6.2 Surface Water ......................................................................................... 1-61 




1.3.4.1.1 Groundwater .......................................................................................... 1-63 

1.3.4.1.2 Surface Water ......................................................................................... 1-63 


1.3.4.2.1 Groundwater .......................................................................................... 1-66 

1.3.4.2.2 Surface Water ......................................................................................... 1-66 


1.3.4.3.1 Groundwater .......................................................................................... 1-67 

1.3.4.3.2 Surface Water ......................................................................................... 1-67 


1.3.4.4.1 Groundwater .......................................................................................... 1-68 

1.3.4.4.2 Surface Water ......................................................................................... 1-69 

iii





1.3.4.5.1 Groundwater .......................................................................................... 1-71 

1.3.4.5.2 Surface Water ......................................................................................... 1-72 


1.3.4.6.1 Groundwater .......................................................................................... 1-72 

1.3.4.6.2 Surface Water ......................................................................................... 1-72 

1.3.5 References .......................................................................................................... 1-73 

1.4 WETLANDS............................................................................................................... 1-76 

1.4.1 Special Wetland Management Areas ................................................................. 1-76 

1.4.1.1 Wetlands of Special State Concern .............................................................. 1-77 

1.4.2 Existing Environment ........................................................................................ 1-77 





1.4.2.4.1 Wetlands of Special State Concern ........................................................ 1-85 








1.4.3.4.1 Wetlands of Special State Concern ........................................................ 1-92 



1.4.4 References .......................................................................................................... 1-93 

1.5 VEGETATION ........................................................................................................... 1-94 

1.5.1 Special Management Areas ................................................................................ 1-94 

1.5.1.1 Green Infrastructure ..................................................................................... 1-94 

1.5.1.2 Chesapeake Bay Critical Area ..................................................................... 1-95 

1.5.1.3 Rural Legacy Area and Rural Legacy Conservation Easements ................. 1-95 

1.5.1.4 Chesapeake Forest Lands ............................................................................. 1-95 

1.5.1.5 Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program ............................................. 1-96 

1.5.1.6 Agricultural Land Preservation Easements and Districts ............................ 1-96 

1.5.1.7 Forested Lands under the Maryland Forest Conservation Act .................... 1-96 



1.5.2.1.1 Special Management Areas .................................................................... 1-98 


1.5.2.2.1 Special Management Areas .................................................................. 1-100 

1.5.2.3 Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing ......................................... 1-100 


1.5.2.4 Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter ......................................... 1-101 


1.5.2.5 Gateway Converter .................................................................................... 1-103 

iv





1.5.2.6 Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line .............................. 1-104 


1.5.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation ..................................................................... 1-105 

1.5.3.1 Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter .......................................... 1-105 


1.5.3.2 Chestnut Converter .................................................................................... 1-107 









Line ............................................................................................................ 1-115 


1.5.4 References ........................................................................................................ 1-116 

1.6 WILDLIFE ................................................................................................................ 1-118 

1.6.1 Special Management Areas, Habitat, or Species ............................................. 1-120 

1.6.1.1 Forest Interior Dwelling Bird Species ....................................................... 1-120 

1.6.1.1.1 Colonial Nesting Birds ......................................................................... 1-120 

1.6.1.1.2 Waterfowl Staging Areas ..................................................................... 1-120 

1.6.1.1.3 Bald Eagle Nest Sites ........................................................................... 1-120 

1.6.1.1.4 Sensitive Species Project Review Area ............................................... 1-121 

1.6.1.1.5 Targeted Ecological Area (TEA) ......................................................... 1-121 

1.6.1.1.6 MDNR-Chesapeake Forest .................................................................. 1-121 

1.6.2 Existing Environment ...................................................................................... 1-121 


1.6.2.1.1 Special Habitat and Wildlife Species ................................................... 1-122 

















v











1.6.4 References ........................................................................................................ 1-137 

1.7 FISHERIES ............................................................................................................... 1-139 

1.7.1 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................... 1-141 


1.7.1.1.1 Oyster and Clam Bars .......................................................................... 1-141 

1.7.1.1.2 Commercial and Recreational Fish Species ......................................... 1-141 

1.7.1.1.3 Anadromous and Catadromous Fish Species ....................................... 1-142 

1.7.1.1.4 Essential Fish Habitat .......................................................................... 1-142 










1.7.2.1.1 Oysters ................................................................................................. 1-145 

1.7.2.1.2 Commercial and Recreational Fish Species ......................................... 1-145 


1.7.2.1.4 Essential Fish Habitat .......................................................................... 1-145 








1.7.3 References ........................................................................................................ 1-149 

1.8 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES .................................................. 1-152 

1.8.1 Federally-Protected Species ............................................................................. 1-152 

1.8.1.1 Delmarva Fox Squirrel ............................................................................... 1-153 

1.8.1.1.1 Potential Impacts and Mitigation on Delmarva Fox Squirrel .............. 1-156 

1.8.1.2 Sturgeon ..................................................................................................... 1-158 

1.8.1.2.1 Potential Impacts and Mitigation on Sturgeon..................................... 1-159 

1.8.2 State-Protected Species .................................................................................... 1-161 

1.8.3 State-Protected Plant Species Summary .......................................................... 1-174 

1.8.4 Chalk Point to Chestnut Converter State-Protected Plant Species .................. 1-174 

1.8.5 Chestnut Converter State-Protected Plant Species. ......................................... 1-175 

vi




1.8.6 Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing State-Protected Plant 

Species ............................................................................................................. 1-175 

1.8.7 Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter State-Protected Plant 

Species ............................................................................................................. 1-175 

1.8.8 Gateway Converter State-Protected Plant Species .......................................... 1-175 

1.8.9 Gateway Converter to State Line State-Protected Plant Species ..................... 1-175 

1.8.10 References ........................................................................................................ 1-176 

1.9 LAND USE ............................................................................................................... 1-178 


1.9.1.1 Existing Land Cover Types ....................................................................... 1-178 

1.9.1.1.1 Transmission Lines .............................................................................. 1-178 

1.9.1.1.2 Open and Agricultural Lands ............................................................... 1-179 

1.9.1.1.3 Forested Land....................................................................................... 1-179 

1.9.1.1.4 Open Water .......................................................................................... 1-180 

1.9.1.1.5 Developed Lands ................................................................................. 1-180 

1.9.1.2 Recreational Boating .................................................................................. 1-180 

1.9.1.3 Recreational Fishing .................................................................................. 1-181 

1.9.1.4 Commercial Fishing ................................................................................... 1-186 

1.9.1.5 Residential and Planned Development ...................................................... 1-188 

1.9.1.6 Recreation and Special Interest Areas ....................................................... 1-190 

1.9.1.7 Maryland’s Smart Growth Program ........................................................... 1-193 

1.9.1.8 Visual Resources ........................................................................................ 1-193 

1.9.1.8.1 Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter .................................... 1-194 

1.9.1.8.2 Chestnut Converter .............................................................................. 1-194 

1.9.1.8.3 Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing ................................... 1-195 

1.9.1.8.4 Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter ................................... 1-195 

1.9.1.8.5 Gateway Converter .............................................................................. 1-195 

1.9.1.8.6 Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line ........................ 1-195 



1.9.2.1.1 General Land Use ................................................................................ 1-196 


1.9.2.1.3 Forested Lands ..................................................................................... 1-197 

1.9.2.1.4 Open Water .......................................................................................... 1-197 


1.9.2.1.6 Recreational Boating ............................................................................ 1-198 

1.9.2.1.7 Recreational Fishing ............................................................................ 1-198 

1.9.2.1.8 Commercial Fishing ............................................................................. 1-199 

1.9.2.1.9 Residential and Planned Development ................................................ 1-199 

1.9.2.1.10 Recreational and Special Interest Areas .............................................. 1-200 

1.9.2.1.11 Maryland’s Smart Growth Program ..................................................... 1-200 

1.9.2.1.12 Visual Resources .................................................................................. 1-200 





vii




1.9.2.2.4 Open Water .......................................................................................... 1-203 







1.9.2.3.3 Open Water .......................................................................................... 1-205 










1.9.2.4.4 Open Water .......................................................................................... 1-208 


1.9.2.4.6 Recreational Boating ............................................................................ 1-209 

1.9.2.4.7 Recreational Fishing ............................................................................ 1-209 

1.9.2.4.8 Commercial Fishing ............................................................................. 1-209 

1.9.2.4.9 Residential and Planned Developments ............................................... 1-210 








1.9.2.5.4 Open Water .......................................................................................... 1-213 









1.9.2.6.4 Open Water .......................................................................................... 1-215 






1.9.3 References ........................................................................................................ 1-217 

viii




1.10 SOCIOECONOMICS ............................................................................................... 1-219 


1.10.1.1 Population .................................................................................................. 1-219 

1.10.1.2 Employment ............................................................................................... 1-221 

1.10.1.3 Economy and Tax Revenues ...................................................................... 1-221 

1.10.1.4 Local Service Providers ............................................................................. 1-222 

1.10.1.5 Transportation ............................................................................................ 1-222 

1.10.1.5.1 Ground Transportation ......................................................................... 1-222 

1.10.1.5.2 Marine Transportation ......................................................................... 1-223 

1.10.1.6 Housing ...................................................................................................... 1-227 

1.10.1.7 Recreational Fisheries ................................................................................ 1-228 

1.10.1.8 Commercial Fisheries ................................................................................ 1-231 

1.10.1.9 Tourism ...................................................................................................... 1-236 

1.10.1.10 Environmental Justice ................................................................................ 1-237 


1.10.2.1 Employment ............................................................................................... 1-240 

1.10.2.2 Economy and Tax Revenues ...................................................................... 1-241 

1.10.2.3 Local Service Providers ............................................................................. 1-241 

1.10.2.4 Transportation ............................................................................................ 1-242 

1.10.2.4.1 Ground Transportation ......................................................................... 1-242 

1.10.2.4.2 Marine Transportation ......................................................................... 1-242 

1.10.2.5 Housing ...................................................................................................... 1-243 

1.10.2.6 Recreational Fisheries ................................................................................ 1-244 

1.10.2.7 Commercial Fisheries ................................................................................ 1-244 

1.10.2.8 Tourism ...................................................................................................... 1-244 

1.10.2.9 Environmental Justice ................................................................................ 1-244 

1.10.3 References ........................................................................................................ 1-245 

1.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 1-248 

1.11.1 Agency Consultation and Scope of Work ........................................................ 1-248 

1.11.2 Study Area and Technical Reports for Cultural Resources ............................. 1-248 

1.11.3 Historic Sites .................................................................................................... 1-251 

1.11.3.1 Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties ................................................ 1-251 

1.11.3.2 National Register of Historic Places .......................................................... 1-251 

1.11.3.3 Local (County) Historic Preservation Ordinances ..................................... 1-252 

1.11.3.4 Maryland Historical Trust Easements ........................................................ 1-252 

1.11.3.5 Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail .......................... 1-252 

1.11.3.6 Heart of Chesapeake Country, Lower Eastern Shore, and Southern 

Maryland Heritage Areas ........................................................................... 1-253 

1.11.4 Native American Sites of Religious and Cultural Significance and 

Consultation ..................................................................................................... 1-253 

1.11.5 Cultural Resource Survey Results ................................................................... 1-253 

1.11.5.1 Previously Identified Archaeological Resources ....................................... 1-253 




ix




1.11.5.1.4 Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Transmission 

Line ...................................................................................................... 1-254 



1.11.5.2 Previously Identified Architectural Resources .......................................... 1-256 







1.11.6 Potential Project Effects to Historic Sites ........................................................ 1-257 

1.11.6.1 Effects to Archaeological Resources ......................................................... 1-257 







1.11.6.2 Effects to Architectural Resources ............................................................. 1-259 

1.11.6.2.1 Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter Transmission Line ..... 1-259 


1.11.6.2.3 Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing Transmission 

Line ...................................................................................................... 1-260 

1.11.6.2.4 Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Transmission 

Line ...................................................................................................... 1-260 


1.11.6.2.6 Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware Line ................................. 1-260 


1.11.8 References ........................................................................................................ 1-261 

1.12 AIR QUALITY ......................................................................................................... 1-264 




1.12.1.3 Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing Transmission Line .......... 1-266 

1.12.1.4 Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Transmission Line .......... 1-266 



Line ............................................................................................................ 1-266 

1.12.2 Project Impacts and Mitigation ........................................................................ 1-267 

1.12.2.1 Chalk Point Substation to the Chestnut Converter .................................... 1-267 






x




1.12.3 References ........................................................................................................ 1-269 

1.13 NOISE ....................................................................................................................... 1-271 








1.13.2 Project Impacts and Mitigation ........................................................................ 1-272 







1.13.2.7 Operational Noise ...................................................................................... 1-274 

1.14 ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS ................................................................. 1-276 

1.14.1 Available State, National and International Guidelines for EMF .................... 1-276 


1.14.3 Potential Environmental Impacts ..................................................................... 1-276 

LIST OF TABLES 

Number Title Page 

Table 1.1-1 Physiographic Regions, Districts, and Areas Crossed by the 

Proposed Project Right-of-Way ..................................................................... 1-4 

Table 1.1-2 Mineral Resource Extraction Sites near the Project Area .............................. 1-7 

Table 1.2-1 Soil Series Within the Project Right-of-Way and Project Boundaries ........ 1-15 

Table 1.2-2 Soil Limitations of Soil Map Units to be Disturbed within the Project 

Right-of-Way Associated with the Chalk Point Substation to 

Chestnut Converter ...................................................................................... 1-30 

Table 1.2-3 Soil Limitations of Soil Map Units to be Disturbed within the 

Vicinity of the Chestnut Converter .............................................................. 1-31 


Right-of-Way Associated with the Chestnut Converter to Western 

Shore Landing .............................................................................................. 1-33 


Right-of-Way Associated with the Western Shore Landing to 

Gateway Converter ...................................................................................... 1-36 

Table 1.2-6 Soil Limitations of Soil Map Units to be Disturbed in the Vicinity of 

the Gateway Converter ................................................................................ 1-39 


Right-of-Way Associated with the Gateway Converter to 

Maryland/Delaware State Line .................................................................... 1-40 

xi




Table 1.3-1 Depth to Water for Aquifers Utilized near the Proposed Project Sites 

and Alignment (McGreevy and Wheeler 2010) ........................................... 1-47 

Table 1.3-2 Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter Waterbodies Crossed 

by the Project Right-of-Way ........................................................................ 1-49 

Table 1.3-3 Waterbodies Present Within the Chestnut Converter Property 

Boundary ...................................................................................................... 1-52 

Table 1.3-4 Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing Waterbodies Crossed 

by the Project Right-of-Way ....................................................................... 1-54 

Table 1.3-5 Waterbodies Crossed by the Western Shore Landing to Gateway 

Converter...................................................................................................... 1-56 

Table 1.3-6 Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line Waterbodies ........... 1-62 

Table 1.4-1 Summary of Wetland and Wetland Buffers Within the Chalk Point 

Substation to Chestnut Converter Component ............................................. 1-78 

Table 1.4-2 Summary of Wetland and Wetland Buffers Within the Chestnut 

Converter Component .................................................................................. 1-80 

Table 1.4-3 Summary of Wetland and Wetland Buffers Within the Chestnut 

Converter to Western Shore Landing Component ....................................... 1-82 

Table 1.4-4 Summary of Wetland and Wetland Buffers Within the Western 

Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Component ...................................... 1-84 

Table 1.4-5 Summary of Wetland and Wetland Buffers Within the Gateway 

Converter Component .................................................................................. 1-86 

Table 1.4-6 Summary of Wetland and Wetland Buffers Within the Gateway 

Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line Component ........................... 1-88 

Table 1.5-1 Vegetation Within the Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter 

Component ................................................................................................... 1-97 

Table 1.5-2 Vegetation Within the Chestnut Converter Component .............................. 1-99 

Table 1.5-3 Vegetation Within the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing 

Component ................................................................................................. 1-100 

Table 1.5-4 Vegetation Within the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter 

Component ................................................................................................. 1-102 

Table 1.5-5 Vegetation Within the Gateway Converter Component ............................ 1-103 

Table 1.5-6 Vegetation Within the Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware 

State Line Component................................................................................ 1-104 

Table 1.5-7 Size Classes of Forested Lands Cleared within the Chalk Point to 

Chestnut Converter Component ................................................................. 1-106 

Table 1.5-8 Size Classes of Forested Lands Cleared within the Chestnut 

Converter Component ................................................................................ 1-108 

Table 1.5-9 Size Class of Forested Lands Cleared within the Chestnut Converter 

to Western Shore Landing Component ...................................................... 1-110 

Table 1.5-10 Size Class of Forested Lands Cleared within the Eastern Shore 

Landing to Gateway Converter Component .............................................. 1-112 

Table 1.6-1 Typical Wildlife Species Potentially Present in the Project Area 

and/or Project Components ........................................................................ 1-118 

Table 1.7-1 Typical Fish Species Potentially Present in the Proposed Project 

Area ............................................................................................................ 1-140 

xii




Table 1.8-1 Federally-Protected Species Identified as Potentially Occurring in 

the Project Area.......................................................................................... 1-154 

Table 1.8-2 State-Protected Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Area ........... 1-162 

Table 1.9-1 Maryland Annual Recreational Fishing License Statistics ........................ 1-182 

Table 1.9-2 Recreational Fishing Licenses in 2010 ...................................................... 1-183 

Table 1.9-3 Maryland Freshwater Recreational Fishermen Counts by County ............ 1-184 

Table 1.9-4 Maryland Saltwater Recreational Fishermen Counts by County ............... 1-184 

Table 1.9-5 Maryland Recreational Fishing Licenses by County and Type 

in 2010 ....................................................................................................... 1-185 

Table 1.9-6 Maryland Freshwater Recreational Fishermen Counts by County ............ 1-186 

Table 1.9-7 Maryland Saltwater Recreational Fishermen Counts by County ............... 1-186 

Table 1.9-8 Patuxent River Commercial Fishing Licenses ........................................... 1-187 

Table 1.9-9 Nanticoke River Commercial Fishing License Sales 2005-2009 .............. 1-188 

Table 1.9-10 Structures Near the Project Area ................................................................ 1-189 

Table 1.9-11 Special Interest Areas in the Project Area ................................................. 1-190 

Table 1.9-12 Impacts to Land Use Types in the Chalk Point Substation to 

Chestnut Converter Component Area (Acres) ........................................... 1-196 

Table 1.9-13 Impacts to Land Use Types in the Chestnut Converter Component 

Area (Acres) ............................................................................................... 1-203 

Table 1.9-14 Impacts to Land Use Types in the Chestnut Converter to Western 

Shore Landing Component Area (Acres) .................................................. 1-205 

Table 1.9-15 Impacts to Land Use Types in the Western Shore Landing to 

Gateway Converter Component Area (Acres) ........................................... 1-207 

Table 1.9-16 Impacts to Land Use Types in the Gateway Converter Component 

Area (Acres) ............................................................................................... 1-213 

Table 1.9-17 Impacts to Land Use Types in the Gateway Converter to 

Maryland/Delaware State Line Component Area (Acres) ......................... 1-215 

Table 1.10-1 Existing Socioeconomic Conditions .......................................................... 1-220 

Table 1.10-2 Racial/Ethnic Estimates of Populations in Counties Crossed by the 

Proposed Project (in percent) ..................................................................... 1-220 

Table 1.10-3 AADT for Road Crossed by the Transmission Line .................................. 1-222 

Table 1.10-4 Patuxent River Commodities Shipped in Short Tons from 2006 to 

2009............................................................................................................ 1-223 

Table 1.10-5 Patuxent River Trips by Draft from 2006 to 2008. .................................... 1-224 

Table 1.10-6 Patuxent River Trips by Month for 2008 ................................................... 1-225 

Table 1.10-7 Trips per Month on Nanticoke River 2008 ................................................ 1-226 

Table 1.10-8 Trips on Nanticoke River 2006-2008 ........................................................ 1-226 

Table 1.10-9 Commodities Shipped on Nanticoke River 2006-2009 ............................. 1-227 

Table 1.10-10 Temporary Accommodations Available in the Project Area ..................... 1-228 

Table 1.10-11 Value of Recreational Fishing Landings in and near the Patuxent 

River for 2009 in 2010 US Dollars ............................................................ 1-229 

Table 1.10-12 Detailed Recreational Landings Statistics for Areas in the Nanticoke 

River in 2009.............................................................................................. 1-232 

Table 1.10-13 2009 Monthly Commercial Harvest by Species for the Patuxent 

River ........................................................................................................... 1-233 

Table 1.10-14 Monthly Landings for the Nanticoke River in 2009 .................................. 1-235 

xiii




Table 1.10-15 Racial/Ethnic Estimates of Populations in Census Tracts Crossed by 

the Proposed Project (in percent) ............................................................... 1-238 

Table 1.10-16 Economic Statistics for Census Tracts Crossed by the Proposed 

Project ........................................................................................................ 1-239 

Table 1.10-17 Maximum Potential Population Increase ................................................... 1-240 

Table 1.12-1 Air Quality Pollutants for which Project Counties are Designated In 

Non Attainment .......................................................................................... 1-265 

Table 1.12-2 Air Quality Pollutants for which the Project County is Designated In 

Non Attainment .......................................................................................... 1-266 

Summary Table Summary of Impacts from Construction and Operation of the Proposed 

Project in Maryland.................................................................................... 1-277 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Number Title Page 

Figure 1.1-1 Physiographic Regions................................................................................... 1-3 

Figure 1.1-2 Approximate Locations of Mining Sites ........................................................ 1-6 

Figure 1.9-1 Current and Simulated Viewshed of the Patuxent River ........................... 1-202 

Figure 1.10-1 Recreational Fishing Data – NMFS Survey Locations for the Chalk 

Point Substation to Chestnut Converter Project Component ..................... 1-230 

Figure 1.10-2 Recreational Fishing Data – NMFS Survey Locations for the 

Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Project Component ......... 1-233 

xiv




AADT annual average daily traffic 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

BGE Baltimore Gas and Electric Company 

BMP Best Management Practices 

CAC Citizens Advisory Council 

CBP Chesapeake Bay Program 

COMAR Code of Maryland Regulations 

Commission Maryland Public Service Commission 

Company Potomac Electric Power Company, Delmarva Power & Light Company, and 

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company 

CPCN Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 

dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale 

DBH diameter at breast height 

DC direct current 

DOE Department of Energy 

DPL Delmarva Power & Light Company 

DPU Distinct Population Unit 

EFH essential fish habitat 

ELMRD Estuarine Living Marine Resources Database 

EMF electromagnetic fields 

ERD Environmental Review Document 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FCA Forest Conservation Act 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FIDS Forest Interior Dwelling Species 

FMC Fishery Management Council 

FSD Forest Stand Delineation 

HAPC Habitats of Particular Concern 

HDD horizontal directional drilling 

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code 

ICNIRP International Committee on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection 

IDA Intensely Developed Area 

IVMP Integrated Vegetation Management Plan 

xv




LDA Limited Development Area 

MALPF Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation 

MAPP Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway 

MBSS Maryland Biological Stream Survey 

MCL maximum contaminant level 

MDE Maryland Department of the Environment 

MDNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

MDP Maryland Department of Planning 

mG milligauss 

MGS Maryland Geological Survey 

MHT Maryland Historic Trust 

MIHP Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties 

MNCPPC Maryland-National Capitol Park and Planning Commission 

MNHC Maryland Natural Heritage Commission 

MOT Maintenance of Traffic 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

NHT National Historic Trail 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NNSR Non-Attainment New Source Review 

Nox nitrogen oxides 

NPS National Park Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NRI Nationwide Rivers Inventory 

NWI National Wetland Inventory 

ORV Outstandingly Remarkable Values 

PCE tetrachloroethylene 

PEL Probable Effects Level 

PEM palustrine emergent 

Pepco Potomac Electric Power Company 

PFA Priority Funding Area 

PFO palustrine forested 

PM particulate matter 

PM2.5 

fine particulate matter 

xvi




PPRP Power Plant Research Program 

ppt parts per thousand 

Project Chalk Point Substation to Maryland/Delaware State Line Project 

PSC Public Service Commission 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

PSS palustrine scrub-shrub 

RCA Resource Conservation Area 

Recovery Plan Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Plan 

RTE rare, threatened, and endangered 

SAV submerged aquatic vegetation 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SSPRA Sensitive Species Project Review Areas 

SVOC semi-volatile organic compound 

TEA Targeted Ecological Area 

TMDL total maximum daily load 

TSS total suspended solids 

TVMP Transmission Vegetation Management Program 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USDA-NRCS United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

VIMS Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences 

VOC volatile organic compounds 

WIP watershed implementation plan 

WSSC Wetland of Special State Concern 

xvii




This page intentionally left blank.




1.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

The discussion of the existing environment for the resources in Volume II is based on data collected from 

field surveys along all project landward components in Maryland (between Chalk Point Substation and 

the Maryland/Delaware State Line) and incorporates the latest modifications to the route and converter 

stations based on the results of the field surveys and modifications to engineering and design. A 

discussion of existing resources and impacts for the Chesapeake Bay Crossing and Maryland/Delaware 

State Line to Indian River are included in Volumes III and IV, respectively. As a result, the existing 

environment and impacts presented in Volume II differs slightly from those presented in the alternatives 

analysis in Volume I, Section 3.0. As discussed in Volume I, Section 3.2, the alternatives analysis is 

based on publically available information, impacts are defined as the resources present (i.e., existing 

environment), and the proposed right-of-way for the Chalk to Gateway portions reflects the alignment in 

October 2010 when the alternatives analysis for these portions of the project was completed. This use of 

consistent environmental data, and comparable engineering information and component boundaries and 

elements, allow the Company to conduct relevant “apples to apples” comparisons between alternatives. 

1-1




1.1 GEOLOGY 

This section provides information on the geological resources associated with the installation and 

operation of the Chalk Point Substation to Maryland/Delaware State Line Project (Project) in Prince 

George’s, Calvert, Dorchester and Wicomico Counties, Maryland. Geological resources reviewed 

include the geologic and topographic setting, mineral resources, and geologic hazards that might exist at 

the converter stations and along the transmission line route. Existing conditions are addressed first in 

Section 1.1.1 followed by an analysis of potential Project impacts to those resources in Section 1.1.2. 

1.1.1 Existing Conditions 

The Project is located within Maryland and is classified as within the Embayed Section of the Coastal 

Plain Physiographic Province. The Coastal Plain is a seaward sloping plain extending from Cape Cod, 

Massachusetts to the southern tip of Florida. In Maryland, it consists of a fairly flat to moderately rolling 

upland and a flatter lowland. The eastern boundary of the Coastal Plain is sea level, as it includes 

shorelines of the major estuaries and the Atlantic Ocean. The western boundary extends into central 

Maryland well northwest of the proposed Project area. The Coastal Plain is underlain with an eastward 

thickening clastic wedge of gently southeast-dipping sediments overlying crystalline basement rocks. 

These sediments are mostly unconsolidated sand, gravel, silt, and clay of both terrigenous and marine 

origin. The Embayed Section of the Coastal Plain is characterized by estuaries and embayments 

attributed to the drowning of river mouths and formation of barrier islands associated with post-glacial 

sea-level rise. 

Within this physiographic province and section, the Project crosses four physiographic regions: Western 

Shore Lowland Region, Western Shore Upland Region, Delmarva Peninsula Region, and Chesapeake 

Bay Estuary Region (Figure 1.1-1). The Western Shore Lowland Region is comprised of a series of low 

(generally below 50 feet in elevation) and flat fluvial and estuarine terraces, beaches, and drowned river 

mouths that fringe the Western Shore Uplands. This Region extends some distance up the valley of the 

Patuxent River. Sediments underlying this region are generally quartzoses and, silt, clay, and gravel. 

Gravels may be quartz, quartzitic, or lithic (e.g., granitic rocks from the Piedmont). The Project is located 

within the Patuxent Estuaries and Lowlands District of this region, which is characterized as a broad, flatbottomed 

valley flanked by fluvial-estuarine terraces (Reger and Cleaves 2008). A summary of the 

physiographic regions, districts, and areas crossed by the existing Project right-of-way is provided in 

Table 1.1-1. 

The Western Shore Upland Region extends from the fall line towards the estuary; the boundary is the 

base of the usually prominent slope transition to the Western Shore Lowlands (roughly at an elevation of 

40 feet). A flat to rolling upland surface underlain by Cretaceous to Pliocene sediments, the region has 

markedly higher elevations and greater relief than the Eastern Shore. Fluvial and estuarine terraces flank 

the major drainages, most notably the Patuxent River. The Project is located within the Prince Frederick 

Knobby Upland District of this region, which consists of moderately to well-dissected uplands with 

numerous hillocks between the Patuxent and Chesapeake watersheds. Within this district, the Project is 

in the vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs Area but the Project does not contain cliffs, characterized by high 

cliffs in an eroding shoreline made up of mainly Miocene strata. Cliff retreat here is primarily by mass 

wasting. There is little or no beach along nearly the entire length of the cliffs. 

1-2

Lowland 

Section 

FREDERICK 

FAIRFAX 

MONTGOMERY 

VIRGINIA 

KING GEORGE 

CARROLL HARFORD 

MARYLAND 

DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA 

CHARLES 

Upland Section 

HOWARD 

PRINCE GEORGE'S 

Western Shore 

Upland Region 

BALTIMORE 

ANNE ARUNDEL 

Chalk Point 

Substation 

") 

ST. MARY'S 

BALTIMORE CITY 

CALVERT 

CHESAPEAKE BAY 

(CHESAPEAKE 

ESTUARY REGION) 

"J 

Western Shore Lowlands Region 

Chestnut 

Converter 

TALBOT 

DORCHESTER 

KENT 

CECIL 

QUEEN ANNE'S 

Delmarva 

Peninsula 

Region 

0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles 

CAROLINE 

Choptank River 

"S ") 

Station 

"J 

NEW CASTLE 

Gateway 

Converter WICOMICO 

0 10 20 30 40 50 Nautical Miles 

Legend 

Figure 1.1-1 

KENT 

DELAWARE 

"J Converter Station 

") Ê 

Mid Atlantic Power 

Pathway 

Physiographic 

Regions 


This map and all data contained 

within are supplied as is with no 

warranty. Cardno ENTRIX expressly 

disclaims responsibility for damages Chalk Point Substation to For Chestnut All Routes ConverterWestern 

Shore Lowlands Region 

or liability from any claims that may 

arise out of the use or misuse of this Chestnut Converter to Western Aerial Shore Segment Landing Western Shore Uplands Regions 

map. It is the sole responsibility of the 

user to determine if the data on this Western Shore Landing to Gateway Underground Converter Segment Upland Section 

map meets the user’s needs. This 

map was not created as survey "S Transition data, Station Gateway Converter to MD/DE Underwater State Line Segment Lowland Section 

nor should it be used as such. It is the 

user’s responsibility to obtain proper MD/DE State Line to Mission Converter 

Delmarva Peninsula Region 

survey data, prepared by a licensed 

surveyor, where required by law. 

Mission Converter to Indian 

Note: 

River 

The 


Chesapeake Estuary Physiographic Region 

boundary corresponds to the boundary of the Chesapeake Bay. 

SUSSEX 

SALEM 

NEW JERSEY 

"J 

CUMBERLAND 

DELAWARE 

BAY 

Indian 



Mission 

Converter 

WORCESTER 

10 Corporate Circle, Suite 300 

New Castle, DE 19720 

www.cardnoentrix.com 

GLOUCESTER 

ph. (302) 395-1919 

fx (302) 395-1920 

Date: April 4, 2011




Table 1.1-1 

Physiographic Regions, Districts, and Areas Crossed by the 

Proposed Project Right-of-Way 

Physiographic Region Physiographic District Project Segment 

Western Shore Lowland 

Region 

Western Shore Upland 

Region 

Chesapeake Bay Estuary 

Region a 

Patuxent Estuaries and 

Lowlands 

Prince Frederick Knobby 

Upland District (including the 

Calvert Cliffs Area) 

Delmarva Peninsula Region Princess Anne Lowland 

District (including the 

Nanticoke River Area) 

Salisbury Plain District 

1-4 

Chalk Point Substation to 

Chestnut Converter 


Chestnut Converter, Calvert 

Converter Station, Calvert 

Converter Station to Western 

Shore Landing 

NA Western Shore Landing to 

Gateway Converter 

a The Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River crossings are discussed in detail in Volume III. 

Western Shore Landing to 

Gateway Converter, Gateway 

Converter, Choptank River 

Landfall to MD/DE Stateline 

The Delmarva Peninsula Region’s northern boundary in Maryland is the Elk River; the boundary extends 

east and south into Delaware and Virginia respectively with the remaining boundaries along the Atlantic 

shoreline on the southeast and the Chesapeake Estuary Bay Region on the west. This large peninsula 

separates the Chesapeake Bay and the Delaware Bay Atlantic drainages and has grown southward by 

accretion during the Neocene period. Sediments underlying this region are generally unconsolidated 

sands, silts, clays, pebbles, and cobbles. Within this district, the Project crosses the Princess Anne 

Lowland District and the Salisbury Plain District. The Princess Anne Lowland District is a lowland plain 

of very low relief, including the Nanticoke River Area. The Nanticoke River Area is characterized as 

largely swamp and marsh occupying the Nanticoke River floodplain. The Salisbury Plain District is a 

broad lowland plain, little modified by erosion, with widespread Aeolian sand sheets and low-amplitude 

sand dunes, fluvial sands, and marine back-barrier and lagoon mud (Reger and Cleaves 2008). 

The Chesapeake Bay Estuary Region consists of drowned river valleys of the Susquehanna and Potomac 

Rivers that resulted from the post-glacial sea-level rise and connects the Delmarva Peninsula region to the 

Western Shore Uplands Region. The boundary of the Chesapeake Estuary Region generally follows the 

shoreline of the mainland on both sides of the bay, and where islands and river mouths occur; the 

boundary is arbitrarily adjusted to exclude most islands, drowned river mouths, and sounds from this 

region. This region includes Chesapeake Bay as well as the sediments and features on the bay bottom, 

which include unconsolidated sands, silts, and clays. 

The gravel, sand, and clay underlying the counties crossed by the existing Project right-of-way represent 

the primary mineral resources of the area, which are used as aggregate materials in the construction 

industry (Maryland Geological Survey [MGS] 1981). Small deposits of iron ore were of historical use. 

Numerous aquifers create a plentiful supply of groundwater (MGS 1981).




1.1.1.1 Mineral Resources 

1.1.1.1.1 Oil and Natural Gas Fields 

There are no oil fields in Maryland. Natural gas is present in western Maryland and there are multiple gas 

storage wells and gas production wells in this western region, specifically in Garrett and Allegany 

Counties (Maryland Department of the Environment [MDE] 2006a). No oil/natural gas fields or 

extraction sites were identified in Prince George’s, Calvert, Dorchester, or Wicomico Counties, 

Maryland, based on review of aerial photographs, United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic 

maps, and state and federal online resources. 

1.1.1.1.2 Coal Mines 

Maryland’s western counties intercept the large coal fields in the Appalachian Mountains. No coal fields 

or mines are located in or near the Project in Prince George’s, Calvert, Dorchester, or Wicomico 

Counties, Maryland, based on review of aerial photographs, USGS topographic maps, and state and 

federal online resources. The nearest coal fields are located near Doswell, Virginia, approximately 65 

miles south-southwest of the nearest portion of the Project (National Atlas 2009). 

1.1.1.1.3 Sand and Gravel Mines 

Mineral resource mining in Prince George’s, Calvert, Dorchester, and Wicomico Counties Maryland 

primarily consists of sand and gravel mines (USGS 2005). There are several non-coal surface mines in 

Prince George’s, Calvert, Dorchester, and Wicomico Counties (MDE 2006b, 2006c, 2006d, 2010). Most 

of these are clustered in areas remote from the existing Project right-of way. However, one private sand 

and gravel mine is located adjacent to the existing Project right-of-way in Calvert County (Table 1.1-2, 

Figure 1.1-2). This mine is located to the northeast of the intersection of Barstow Road and Buena Vista 

Road (near MP CPCC 4.4) (MDE 2006b). Based on publicly available permit information, the mine 

(permit #93-sp-0437) belongs to Morgan E. Russell, Inc. and extends to within approximately 180 feet 

from the southern boundary of the existing right-of-way that the Project proposes to use. The next closest 

mines located near the Project are two sand and gravel mines located approximately 0.7 mile from the 

Chestnut Converter location (Table 1.1-2, Figure 1.1-2). These mines are the Sixes Road Pit #2 mine 

(permit 90-sp-0357-A) and the Sixes Road Pit #3 (permit 01-sp-0578). The closest existing mine located 

in Wicomico County is approximately 0.8 mile away from the proposed Project right-of-way (Table 1.1- 

2, Figure 1.1-2). The mine is owned by Howard Sand and Gravel Inc. (Permit 77-sp-0094). These and 

any other permitted mines would not be accessed through the proposed Project right-of-way, which is 

owned by the Company, and should not be affected by construction or operation of the Project. No other 

active surface mining or quarry operations were identified within 1.0 mile of the existing Project area. 

1-5

XY 

XY 

XY 

PRINCE 

GEORGE'S 

") 

!( 

CHESAPEAKE BEACH 

CALVERT 

Chalk Point 


CHARLES 

XY XY 

XY XYXYXY 

PATUXENT RIVER 

"J 

#* 

!( 

BROOMES ISLAND 

ST. MARY'S 

Chestnut 

Converter 

Western Shore 

Landing 

XY 

XY 

CHESAPEAKE 

BAY 

LITTLE CHOPTANK 

RIVER 

!( 

MADISON 

XY 

CHOPTANK 

!( 

CAMBRIDGE 

TALBOT 

RIVER 

DORCHESTER 

0 5 10 15 20 Miles 

0 5 10 15 20 Nautical Miles 

Legend 




disclaims responsibility for damages 

or liability from any claims that may "J Converter Station 

arise out of the use or misuse of this 


user to determine if the ") data on this 


map was not created as survey data, 

nor should it be used as such. It is 

the user’s responsibility to obtain 

proper survey data, prepared by a 

licensed surveyor, where required by 

law. 


For All Routes 

#* Western Shore Landing 

Aerial Segment 

Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter 

Underground Segment 

"S Transition Station Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing 

Underwater Segment 

XY Mine Site 

Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter 

Gateway Converter to MD/DE State Line 

XY 

XY 

"S 

Figure 1.1-2 

XY 

!( 

HURLOCK 

Mid Atlantic Power Pathway 

Approximate Locations of 

Mining Sites 

CAROLINE 

XY XY 

XY 

XY 


Station XYXY 

NANTICOKE 

RIVER 

!( 

VIENNA 

"J 

Gateway XY 

Converter 

WICOMICO 

SOMERSET 

Ê10 Corporate Circle, Suite 300 


DE 

XY XY XY 


XY 

ph. (302) 395-1919 

fx (302) 395-1920 

Date: March 31, 2011 

XYXY




Table 1.1-2 

Mineral Resource Extraction Sites near the Project Area 

Facility Type County, State 

1-7 

Distance from 

Project (miles) Operational Status 

Sand and gravel mine Calvert, Maryland 0.03 Active 

Sand and gravel mine Calvert. Maryland 0.70 Active 

Sand and gravel mine Calvert, Maryland 0.70 Active 

Sand and gravel mine Wicomico, Maryland 0.80 Active 

Source: MDE 2006b, MDE 2006c, MDE 2006d 

1.1.1.2 Paleontological Resources 

Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of prehistoric plants and animals, as well as the 

impressions left in rock or other materials of the forms and activities of such organisms. Sediments 

deposited in post-Pleistocene time (less than 10,000 years ago) are generally unlikely to contain fossils of 

paleontological interest and are considered non-sensitive areas. Older sediments and rock units vary 

considerably in fossil content with the probability of fossil presence and discovery defined by the 

geographic distribution and exposure of specific sedimentary units that have been uplifted, distorted, 

altered, and exposed during the course of geological history. 

There are no known sensitive paleontological resource areas within the Project area. However, geologic 

formations similar to those being crossed by the Project are known to contain terrestrial and marine 

fossils. Vertebrate fossils are relatively rare and locations containing these fossils are more likely to be 

scientifically significant than those containing invertebrate or plant fossils. In areas where bedrock is 

exposed, fossils may be visible and/or accessible, especially in sedimentary rocks from the Cretaceous 

period. At least 12 species of dinosaurs are known to have occurred in Maryland, and their fossils are 

found in rocks of the Cretaceous period; however, these formations would not be crossed by the Project 

(MGS 2007a). 

Early Quaternary deposits, which would be crossed in eastern Prince George’s County, Maryland, have 

yielded fossils of mastodon teeth, clams, oysters, and snails (Paleontology Portal 2008a). Tertiary 

deposits, such as those which comprise most of the area that would be crossed by the Project in Calvert 

County are known to contain a high diversity (i.e., greater than 600 species) of invertebrates 

(Paleontology Portal 2008b). Vertebrate fossils are also common in formations from this period and 

include marine mammals, sharks, rays, sea birds, turtles, tortoises, and crocodiles (Paleontology Portal 

2008b). The western shore of the Chesapeake Bay at Calvert Cliffs State Park is a well-known fossilbearing 

site with exposed Miocene marine sediments (MGS 2007b, Wallace no date). Over 600 species 

have been identified including mollusks, whales and other marine mammals, sharks and rays, birds, 

marine turtles, tortoises, crocodiles, tapirs, mastodons, rhinoceros, horses and dogs (MGS 2007b). This 

site is located approximately seven miles southeast relative to the nearest portion of the Project. Early 

Quaternary deposits, which would be crossed in Wicomico County, have yielded fossils of mastodon 

teeth, clams, oysters, and snails (Paleontology Portal 2008a).




1.1.1.3 Geologic Hazards 

Geologic hazards in the region crossed by the Project are minor and include areas of low to moderate 

seismic activity and low incidence of landslides. Karst terrain and areas with the potential for ground 

failure due to subsidence, slumping, and landslides are not common in the Project area. Volcanism is not 

relevant to the region surrounding the Project and is not evaluated here (National Atlas 2009). 

1.1.1.3.1 Seismicity and Faults 

Seismicity refers to the geographic and historical distribution of earthquakes. Faults are fractures in rock 

that provide evidence of past geologic movement. Earthquakes are caused by stress building up along a 

fault until a critical limit is reached and the stress is released through sudden movement along the fault, 

causing energy to radiate from the fault in traveling ground waves. Hazards associated with seismicity 

and faulting include ground shaking, surface rupture of faults, and offset along normal, reverse, or strikeslip 

faults. Faulting can be hazardous to linear, rigid structures such as bridges and pipelines, since the 

ground could move in differing distances or directions at the fault. 

Seismic activity can be described in terms of magnitude and intensity, where magnitude characterizes the 

total energy released, and intensity describes impacts on a site-specific basis. The magnitude of a seismic 

event is most commonly measured by the Richter Magnitude Scale, where the magnitude of the event is 

expressed in whole numbers and decimals. The scale runs from a 1.0 to 8.0+, with 5.0 being considered a 

moderate event; 6.0 a strong event; 7.0 a major earthquake; and a devastating earthquake exceeding 8.0. 

Events with a magnitude less than 3.5 are generally considered imperceptible to most persons and in most 

situations. 

Earthquakes do occur in Maryland; however, the seismic risk is considered low. The epicenter of 61 

earthquakes has been documented in Maryland from 1756 through 2003. All of these were low intensity, 

low magnitude earthquakes; the maximum magnitude was 3.7 on the Richter Magnitude Scale and most 

were less than 3.0. The most recent was a magnitude 3.6 on July 16, 2010 centered approximately 54 

miles north-northwest of the Project area near Rockville, Maryland. Additional earthquakes originating 

in neighboring states can also occasionally be felt in Maryland. 

In general, Maryland is part of a seismically quiet zone (MGS 2007c). Seismic risk maps by the USGS 

and the MGS indicated low seismic risk (MGS 2007c; Peterson et. al., 2008; USGS 2007). The MGS 

map characterizes “all but the northeastern corner of the state as a ‘region of negligible seismicity with 

very low probability of collapse of the structure.’” Similarly, the entire Project area is located in an area 

classified by the Uniform Building Code as Seismic Zone 1 where earthquake activity is considered to be 

minor (U.S. Army Corp of Engineers [USACE] 1995). 

Based on the linear distance from active fault zones and the overall geologic setting of the Project area in 

Maryland, the geologic hazard associated with seismicity and faulting is not considered to be a significant 

risk. 

1.1.1.3.2 Soil Liquefaction 

Soil liquefaction is a condition that occurs when loose, cohesionless, saturated soil (usually well-sorted 

sand) is subjected to vibration or shock waves. During liquefaction, pore water inhibits grain-to-grain 

contact, and the strength of the soil is greatly reduced such that the soil may act like a viscous liquid with 

the ability to move and flow. Soil liquefaction can lead to landslides and earthflows, movement or failure 

of foundations and footings, and mobility of buried objects. 

1-8




Upland soils in the Project area are generally sandy or silty loam (Section 1.3) and therefore are not a risk 

for liquefaction. This risk is decreased further because the seismic risk is low within the Project area. 

1.1.1.3.3 Slope Failures and Landslides 

Landslides are the movement of soil, rock, and/or vegetation down sloped terrain. Landslides are 

typically caused by or associated with earthquakes, heavy precipitation or floods. Landslides are rare in 

Maryland and those that do occur are generally in the mountainous regions of western portion of the state 

(MEMA 2008). Radbruch-Hall et al (1982) developed a map of the United States which depicts landslide 

incidence (number of landslides) as map units classified as high, moderate, and low landslide incidence 

through the evaluation of geologic formations or groups of formations. The entire Project area would 

cross areas of low incidence of landslides, where less than 1.5 percent of the area is involved in 

landsliding (Radbruch-Hall et al 1982). 

1.1.1.3.4 Ground Subsidence 

Ground subsidence is generally associated with karst formations. Karst features such as sinkholes, caves, 

and caverns can form as a result of the long term action of groundwater on soluble carbonate rocks (e.g., 

limestone, marble, and dolomite), resulting in ground surface failure. No areas containing karst features 

or subsidence would be crossed by the Project (National Atlas 2009). 

1.1.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 

1.1.2.1 Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter 

Construction and operation of this Project component would be completed on land within the existing 

cleared and maintained rights-of-way and the transmission line would replace existing structures with 

new structures as described in Volume I, Section 2.0. 

1.1.2.1.1 Mineral Resources 

One private sand and gravel mine is located adjacent to the existing Project right-of-way (approximately 

160 feet away); however, the mine is not accessed through the existing Project right-of-way and no 

temporary or permanent impacts are anticipated. The Company owns an existing right-of-way agreement 

in this area. All other surface mines are located far enough away that no impacts to their operations are 

expected. No oil, natural gas, or coal fields or extraction sites were identified within 0.25 mile of the 

Project site in Calvert County, based on review of aerial photographs, USGS topographic maps, and state 

and federal online resources. Therefore, the installation and operation of the aerial line for this segment is 

not expected to have any impact on exploitable fossil fuel resources or future field development. 

1.1.2.1.2 Paleontological Resources 

As discussed in Section 1.1.1.2, there are no known sensitive paleontological resource areas within the 

Project area; however, geologic formations similar to those being crossed by the Project are known to 

contain terrestrial and marine fossils. Should paleontological resources be encountered during 

construction, a paleontologist would be consulted to determine the nature and significance of the 

resources, and if warranted, to make recommendations for mitigation. 

1-9




1.1.2.1.3 Geologic Hazards 

Geologic hazards can present some risk to the integrity of electrical transmission lines. For the Project, 

geologic hazards (i.e., seismicity and faults, soil liquefaction, slope failures and landslides, and ground 

subsidence) are not expected to pose significant risks. Potential impacts to the Project from these risks 

would be minimized or avoided. The aerial transmission lines would be designed and constructed in 

accordance with the applicable industry, federal and state regulations, which take into account these 

potential geologic hazards. 

1.1.2.2 Chestnut Converter 

Construction and operation of the proposed Chestnut Converter would be completed on land adjacent to 

the existing Project right-of-way as described in Volume I, Section 2.0. 


No sand and gravel mines were identified within 0.25 miles of the Project site. Additionally, no oil, 

natural gas, or coal fields or extraction sites were identified within 0.25 mile of the Project site, based on 

review of aerial photographs, USGS topographic maps, and state and federal online resources. Therefore, 

the Project is not expected to have any impact on exploitable mineral resources including fossil fuel 

resources or future field development. 


As discussed previously, there are no known sensitive paleontological resource areas within the Project 

area. Construction of the converter station and switching station could possibly encounter paleontological 

resources. Should paleontological resources be encountered during construction, a paleontologist would 

be consulted to determine the nature and significance of the resources, and if warranted, to make 

recommendations for mitigation. 


The new converter station and switching station would be designed and constructed in accordance with 

the applicable industry, federal and state regulations. Under these regulations, the structure’s foundation 

would be designed and constructed to provide adequate protection from washouts, floods, unstable soils, 

landslides, or other geologic hazards that may cause structure foundations to move or to sustain abnormal 

loads. 

1.1.2.3 Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing 

Construction and operation of this Project component would be completed on land and installed 

underground as described in Volume I, Section 2.0. 


As discussed previously, there are no sand or gravel mines; or oil, natural gas, or coal fields or extraction 

sites within 0.25 miles of the Project area. Impacts to mineral resources from the construction of the 

underground components would not be expected. 

1-10





As discussed for the previous Project components, no known sensitive paleontological resource areas are 

located within the Project area; however, geologic formations similar to those being crossed by the 

Project are known to contain terrestrial and marine fossils. It is possible but unlikely that the trenching or 

drilling associated with underground installation of the transmission lines could encounter paleontological 

resources. Should paleontological resources be encountered during construction, a paleontologist would 

be consulted to determine the nature and significance of the resources, and if warranted, to make 

recommendations for mitigation. 


Geologic hazards can present some risk to the integrity of underground electrical transmission lines. For 

the Project, geologic hazards (i.e., seismicity and faults, soil liquefaction, slope failures and landslides, 

and ground subsidence) are not expected to pose significant risks. Potential impacts to the Project from 

these risks would be minimized or avoided. The underground transmission lines would be designed and 

constructed in accordance with the applicable industry, federal and state regulations, which take into 

account these potential geologic hazards. 

1.1.2.4 Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter 

With the exception of the Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River crossings, construction and operation of 

the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter segment would be completed on land as described in 

Volume I, Section 2.0. This segment would also include construction of the Choptank River Station. The 

Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River crossings are discussed in detail in Volume III. 


As discussed previously, there are no sand or gravel mines; or oil, natural gas, or coal fields or extraction 

sites within 0.25 miles of the Project area. Impacts to mineral resources from the construction of the 

underground transmission line, aerial transmission line, and the transition station would not be expected. 



Project area; however, geologic formations similar to those being crossed by the Project are known to 

contain terrestrial and marine fossils. The depth of soil cover would generally preclude interaction with 

these formations during vegetation clearing and construction and maintenance of the Project right-of-way. 

However, a potential impact is associated with the submarine crossing of the Chesapeake Bay and 

Choptank River, underground installation of one mile of transmission line, construction of the Choptank 

River Station, and approximately 14 miles of aerial transmission line. Project-related disturbance of soils 

and/or sediments could encounter paleontological resources. Should paleontological resources be 

encountered during construction, a paleontologist would be consulted to determine the nature and 

significance of the resources, and if warranted, to make recommendations for mitigation. The 

Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River crossings are discussed in detail in Volume III. 

1-11





The underwater transmission line crossing the Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River and the underground 

segment and new structures for aerial spans on land would be designed and constructed in accordance 

with the applicable industry federal and state regulations. Under these regulations, each structure 

foundation would be designed and constructed to provide adequate protection from washouts, floods, 

unstable soils, landslides, or other geologic hazards that may cause structure foundations to move or to 

sustain abnormal loads. The Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River crossings are discussed in detail in 

Volume III. 

1.1.2.5 Gateway Converter 

Construction and operation of the Gateway Converter would be completed on land adjacent to the 

existing Project right-of-way as described in Volume I, Section 2.0. 


As with the other Project components discussed previously, due to the lack of current exploitable mineral 

resources in the Project area, impacts to mineral resources from the construction of the Gateway 

Converter would not be expected. 



Project area. However, construction of the converter station and switching station would permanently 

impact an amount of soil, to be determined after the engineering design is complete. It is possible but 

unlikely that construction-related disturbance of soils would encounter paleontological resources. Should 

paleontological resources be encountered during construction, a paleontologist would be consulted to 

determine the nature and significance of the resources, and if warranted, to make recommendations for 

mitigation. 


The new converter station and switching station would be designed and constructed in accordance with 

the applicable industry, federal and state regulations. Under these regulations, the structure’s foundation 

would be designed and constructed to provide adequate protection from washouts, floods, unstable soils, 

landslides, or other geologic hazards that may cause structure foundations to move or to sustain abnormal 

loads. 

1.1.2.6 Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line 

Construction and operation of this Project component would be completed on land within the existing 

cleared and maintained rights-of-way and the transmission line would replace existing structures with 

new structures as described in Volume I, Section 2.0. 


No sand and gravel mines were identified within 0.25 miles of the Project area. Additionally, no oil, 

natural gas, or coal fields or extraction sites were identified within 0.25 mile of the Project area. 

1-12




Therefore, the Project is not expected to have any impact on exploitable mineral resources including fossil 

fuel resources or future field development. 


As discussed for the other Project components, there are no known sensitive paleontological resource 

areas within the Project area; however, geologic formations similar to those being crossed by the Project 

are known to contain terrestrial and marine fossils. The depth of soil cover would generally preclude 

interaction with these formations during vegetation clearing and maintenance of the existing Project rightof-way. 

Therefore, it is unlikely that construction and operation of the Project would result in significant 

impacts to paleontological resources. 

Installation of new structures associated with the aerial transmission line would permanently impact 

sediment and soil. It is possible but unlikely that piles driven into the soils and/or sediments could 

encounter paleontological resources. Should paleontological resources be encountered during 

construction, a paleontologist would be consulted to determine the nature and significance of the 

resources, and if warranted, to make recommendations for mitigation. 


The new structures would be designed and constructed in accordance with the applicable industry, federal 

and state regulations. Under these regulations, each structure foundation would be designed and 

constructed to provide adequate protection from washouts, floods, unstable soils, landslides, or other 

geologic hazards that may cause structure foundations to move or to sustain abnormal loads. 

1.1.3 References 

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2006a. Mining in Maryland. Available at: 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/MiningInMaryland/mapping/index.asp. 

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2006b. Calvert County Surface Mines. Available at: 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/mining/surfaceminelocations/Calvert_co.pdf. 

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2006c. Wicomico County Surface Mines. Available at: 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/mining/surfaceminelocations/Wicomico_co.pdf. 

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2006d. Dorchester County Surface Mines. Available 

at: 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/mining/surfaceminelocations/Dorchester_co.pdf. 

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2010. Prince George’s County Surface Mines. 

Available at: 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/mining/surfaceminelocations/prince_georges_co.pd 

f. 

Maryland Emergency Management Agency (MEMA). 2008. Available at: 

http://www.mema.state.md.us/MEMA/content_page.jsp?TOPICID=othernds. 

Maryland Geological Survey (MGS). 1968. Generalized Geologic Map of Maryland. Available at: 

http://www.mgs.md.gov/coastal/maps/g2.html. 

1-13




Maryland Geological Survey (MGS). 1981. A Brief Description of the Geology of Maryland. Available 

at: http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/brochures/mdgeology.html. 

Maryland Geological Survey (MGS). 2007a. Maryland’s Dinosaurs. Available at: 

http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/features/mddino.html. 

Maryland Geological Survey (MGS). 2007b. Calvert Cliffs, Maryland. Available at: 

http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/brochures/ccliffs.html. 

Maryland Geological Survey (MGS). 2007c. Earthquakes and Maryland. Available at: 

http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/brochures/earthquake.html. 

National Atlas.gov. 2009. National Atlas of the United States. Available at: 

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/. 

Paleontology Portal. 2008a. The Quaternary in Maryland, US. Available at: 

http://www.paleoportal.org/index.php?globalnav=time_space&sectionnav=state&state_id=27&pe 

riod_id=7. 

Paleontology Portal. 2008b. The Tertiary in Maryland, US. Available at: 

http://www.paleoportal.org/index.php?globalnav=time_space&sectionnav=state&state_id=27&pe 

riod_id=8. 

Peterson, M.D., A.D. Frankel, S.C. Harmsen, C.S. Mueller, K.M. Haller, R.L, Wheeler, R.L. Wesson, Y. 

Zeng, O.S. Boyd, D.M. Perkins, N. Luco, E.H. Field, C.J. Wills, and K.S. Rukstales. 2008. 

Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps. United 

States Geological Survey Open File Report 2008-1128. Available at: 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1128/. 

Radbruch-Hall, D.H, R.B. Colton, W.E. Davies, I. Lucchitta, B.A. Skipp, and D.J. Varnes. 1982. United 

States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1183: Landslide Overview Map Of The 

Conterminous United States. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1183/pp1183.html. 

Reger, J.P. and E.T. Cleaves. 2008. Draft Physiographic Map of Maryland and Explanatory Text for the 

Physiographic Map of Maryland. Maryland Geographic Society Open File Report 08-03-01. 

Available at: http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/internet.html. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1995. Engineering and Design: Earthquake Design and 

Evaluation For Civil Works Projects. Available at: http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/engregs/er1110-2-1806/. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2005. 2005 Minerals Yearbook: The Mineral Industry of Maryland. 

Available at: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/2005/myb2-2005-md.pdf. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007. Maryland Earthquake Information. 

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states.php?region=Maryland. 

Wallace, L.A. No Date. Fossils of Calvert Cliffs. Available at: http://calvert-county.com/fossils.htm. 

1-14




1.2 SOILS AND SEDIMENTS 

This section provides information on the soil resources associated with the installation and operation of 

the Project in Prince George’s, Calvert, Dorchester and Wicomico Counties, Maryland. Soil resources 

reviewed include the existing conditions, soil types, and soil limitations occurring at the converter stations 

and along the transmission line route. Existing conditions are addressed first in Section 1.2.1 followed by 

an analysis of potential Project impacts to those resources in Section 1.2.2. 


Fifty-five types of soil (soil series) and water are located within the Project boundaries and right-of-way. 

The Project soils information presented in this Environmental Review Document (ERD) is based 

primarily on Soils Data Mart data obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, of the 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA-NRCS 2010). Table 1.2-1 provides a summary 

description for each soil series that occurs within the Project components from the Chalk Point Substation 

to the Maryland/Delaware state border. Note that soils are often mapped as combinations of multiple 

series (e.g., KgB – Klej-Galloway complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes). The composition of the specific soils 

within the extent of each of the six sub-Project components is provided following this initial summary. 

Actual soil conditions at any location may vary from the generalized soil types/complexes mapped. 

Table 1.2-1 

Soil Series Within the Project Right-of-Way and Project Boundaries 

Soil Series Description 

Adelphia The Adelphia series consists of deep moderately well drained or somewhat poorly 

drained soils on uplands. They formed in acid Coastal Plain deposits containing 

glauconite. Typically, they have a fine sandy loam surface layer 14 inches thick. The 

subsoil from 14 to 30 inches is mottled olive brown sandy clay loam. It contains 10 to 

40 percent glauconite. The substratum from 30 to 60 inches is olive gray and yellowish 

brown sandy loam and loamy sand. The parent material consists of glauconite bearing 

loamy fluviomarine deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. 

The natural drainage class is moderately well drained. Water movement in the most 

restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. 

Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone 

of water saturation is at 24 inches during February. Organic matter content in the surface 

horizon is about 5 percent. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. 

Askecksy The Askecksy series consists of poorly drained, level soils of the Mid-Atlantic Coastal 

Plain. In a representative profile, the surface layer is very dark grayish brown and 

grayish brown loamy sand to a depth of 8 inches. The underlying layers are light gray 

and gray loamy sand or sand to a depth of 72 inches. This soil is poorly drained. The 

slowest permeability within 60 inches is rapid. Available water capacity is moderate and 

shrink swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The top of the 

seasonal high water table is at 6 inches. There are no saline horizons. This component is 

a hydric soil. 

1-15




Table 1.2-1 (continued) 



Beltsville The Beltsville series consists of deep moderately well-drained soils on uplands. They 

formed in Coastal Plain sediments. Typically, these soils have grayish-brown and light 

olive brown silt loam surface layers to a depth of 9 inches. The subsoil from 9 to 25 

inches is yellowish-brown silt loam and silty clay loam. From 25 to 50 inches is a very 

firm and brittle silty clay loam fragipan. The substratum from 50 to 72 inches is very 

pale brown gravelly sandy loam. The parent material consists of silty eolian deposits 

over loamy fluviomarine deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer, fragipan, is 20 to 40 

inches. The natural drainage class is moderately well drained. Water movement in the 

most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. 


of water saturation is at 24 inches during January, February, March, April, and 

December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. This soil 

does not meet hydric criteria. 

Berryland The Berryland series consists of deep very poorly drained soils on uplands. They formed 

in Coastal Plain sediments. Typically these soils have a black sand surface layer 10 

inches thick over 2 inches of gray sand. The subsoil from 12 to 20 inches is firm and 

weakly cemented dark reddish brown loamy sand. From 20 to 30 inches the subsoil is 

dark gray loose sand. The substratum from 30 to 72 inches is grayish brown stratified 

loose sand. This soil is very poorly drained. The slowest permeability within 60 inches 

is moderately rapid to rapid. Available water capacity is very high and shrink swell 

potential is low. This soil is rarely flooded and is not ponded. The top of the seasonal 

high water table is at 0 inches. There are no saline horizons. This component is a hydric 

soil. Berryland, drained – The soil is not flooded and is rarely ponded. The top of the 

seasonal high water table is at 5 inches. Berryland, undrained – The soil is not flooded 

and is frequently ponded. The top of the seasonal high water table is at 2 inches. 

Butlertown The Butlertown series consists of deep well drained to moderately well drained soils on 

uplands. They formed in Coastal Plain sediments. Typically these soils have a dark 

grayish brown silt loam surface layer 10 inches thick. The subsoil from 10 to 34 inches 

is light yellowish brown and yellowish brown silt loam. A firm and brittle fragipan from 

34 to 49 inches is mottled yellowish brown silt loam. The substratum from 49 to 60 

inches is mottled yellowish brown silt loam. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater 

than 60 inches. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. 

Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is 

not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 36 inches during 

February and March. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. 

This soil does not meet hydric criteria. 

Cedartown The Cedartown series consists of very deep somewhat excessively drained soils on 

uplands of the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain. They formed in sandy alluvial and marine 

sediments. Typically, these soils have a dark brown loamy sand surface from 0 to 6 

inches. The subsurface from 6 to 14 inches is light yellowish brown sand. The subsoil 

from 14 to 30 inches is strong brown loamy sand. The substratum from 30 to 42 inches 

is strong brown loamy sand, brownish yellow sand from 42 to 54 inches, mottled 

yellowish brown sand from 54 to 64 inches, and mottled gray fine sandy loam from 64 

to 72 inches. This soil is somewhat excessively drained. This soil is not flooded and is 

not ponded. The top of the seasonal high water table is at 45 to 57 inches. There are no 

saline horizons. This component is not a hydric soil. 

1-16







Collington The Collington series consists of deep well drained soils on uplands. They formed in 

coastal plain sediments containing moderate amounts of glauconite. Typically these 

soils have a dark brown sandy loam surface layer 11 inches thick over 2 inches of brown 

sandy loam. The dark brown subsoil from 13 to 29 inches is sandy clay loam and from 

29 to 32 inches is sandy loam. The dark brown substratum from 32 to 44 inches is sandy 

loam and from 44 to 80 inches is loose sand. The parent material consists of glauconite 

bearing loamy fluviomarine deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 

inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most 

restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. 

Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone 

of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface 


Dodon The Dodon series consists of very deep moderately well drained soils on dissected 

uplands. The formed in loamy marine deposits of Miocene age that contain 

diatomaceous earth. The sand fraction is predominantly very fine and fine sand. These 

soils have a very dark grayish brown very fine sandy loam surface layer and a light olive 

brown very fine sandy loam subsurface layer. The upper subsoil to a depth of 26 inches 

is dark yellowish brown sandy clay loam with strong brown iron masses and very pale 

brown iron depletions. The subsoil from 26 to 56 inches is yellowish brown and light 

olive brown loam with strong brown iron masses and light gray iron depletions. The 

subsoil from 56 to 73 inches is light gray loam with iron masses in shades of brown and 

iron depletions in shades of gray. The parent material consists of loamy fluviomarine 

deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage 

class is moderately well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is 

moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell potential 

is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 

24 inches during February. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 4 

percent. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. 

Elkton The Elkton series consists of very deep poorly drained soils formed in loamy (silty)/ 

clayey deposits of the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain. They are on lowlands, depressions, 

and ancient floodplains. Typically the surface layer is dark olive gray silt loam 1 inch 

thick. The subsurface layer is gray silt loam 9 inches thick. The subsoil from 10 to 14 

inches is gray silty clay loam with prominent mottles. The substratum from 40 to 65 

inches is gray very fine sandy loam. This soil is poorly drained. The slowest 

permeability within 60 inches is slow. Available water capacity is very high and shrink 

swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The top of the seasonal 

high water table is at 6 inches. There are no saline horizons. This component is a hydric 

soil. 

Eroded land Eroded land consists of very deep well-drained soils on uplands. They formed in marine 

or alluvial Coastal Plain sediments. Typically, these soils have a brown sandy loam 

surface layer, 9 inches thick. The subsoil, from 9 to 21 inches, is yellowish-brown loam, 

from 21 to 32 inches, is brown sandy clay loam, and, from 32 to 40 inches, is strong 

brown sandy loam. The substratum, from 40 to 52 inches, is strong brown gravelly 

sandy loam and, from 52 to 70 inches, is brownish-yellow loamy sand. 

1-17







Evesboro The Evesboro series consists of very deep excessively drained soils on uplands. They 

formed in acid sandy Coastal Plain sediments. Typically these soils have a grayish 

brown sand surface layer 3 inches thick and a yellowish brown sand layer from 3 to 16 

inches. The subsoil between 16 to 30 inches is yellowish brown sand. The substratum 

from 30 to 72 inches is loose yellowish brown sand. This soil is excessively drained. 

The slowest permeability within 60 inches is moderately rapid. Available water capacity 

is very high and shrink swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. 

The water table is deeper than 6 feet. There are no saline horizons. This component is 

not a hydric soil. 

Fallsington The Fallsington series consists of very deep poorly drained soils on upland flats and in 

depressions. They formed in stratified Coastal Plain sediments of marine or alluvial 

origin. Typically these soils have a dark gray sandy loam surface layer 10 inches thick. 

The subsoil, from 10 to 40 inches is mottled gray sandy clay loam to 32 inches and 

mottled light gray loamy sand to 40 inches. The substratum is stratified light gray sandy 

clay loam and sand. This soil is poorly drained. The slowest permeability within 60 

inches is moderately slow. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately 

high for the ‘Fallsington, drained’ and ‘Fallsington, undrained’ components. Available 

water capacity is very high and shrink swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded and 

is not ponded. The top of the seasonal high water table is at 6 inches. The soil for the 

‘Fallsington, drained’ component is rarely ponded, and the top of the seasonal high 

water table is at 14 inches. The soil for the ‘Fallsington, undrained’ component is 

occasionally ponded, and the top of the seasonal high water table is at 5 inches. There 

are no saline horizons. This component is a hydric soil. 

Fine-loamy Aquic 

Paleudults 

No information available. 

Fluvaquents The Fluvaquents series consists of very deep nearly level, poorly drained soils on long 

narrow floodplains. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. 

Permeability is moderate and available water holding capacity is low. Water movement 

in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches 

is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is frequently flooded. It is not 

ponded. The top of the seasonal high water table is at 6 inches. Organic matter content 

in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. This soil meets hydric criteria. 

Fort Mott The Fort Mott series consists of very deep well drained soils on uplands. They formed in 

acid moderately coarse textured Coastal Plain sediments. Typically these soils have a 

loamy sand surface layer about 30 inches thick. The top 8 inches is dark grayish brown 

loose loamy sand and the lower part from 8 to 30 inches is yellowish brown loose loamy 

sand. The subsoil from 30 to 49 inches is yellowish brown sandy loam. The substratum 

from 49 to 65 inches is strong brown loose loamy sand. This component is greater than 

60 inches thick. Permeability is moderate, and available water holding capacity is 

medium. A water table when present is greater than 6 feet. This soil is not flooded and is 

not ponded. This component is not a hydric soil. 

1-18







Galestown The Galestown series consists of very deep somewhat excessively drained soils on 

uplands. They formed in marine, eolian, and alluvial sediments. Typically these soils 

have a dark brown loamy sand surface layer 11 inches thick. The subsoil from 11 to 29 

inches is yellowish brown loamy sand, and from 29 to 40 inches is strong brown loamy 

sand. The substratum from 40 to 65 inches is brownish yellow sand. This component is 

greater than 60 inches thick. Permeability is rapid, and available water holding capacity 

is low. A water table when present is greater than 6 feet. This soil is not flooded and is 

not ponded. This component is not a hydric soil. 

Galloway This component is on flats, uplands. The parent material consists of sandy eolian 

deposits and/or fluviomarine sediments. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 

60 inches. This soil is moderately well drained. The slowest permeability within 60 

inches is rapid. Available water capacity to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell 

potential is low. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The top of the seasonal high 

water table is at 24 inches. There are no saline horizons. This component is not a hydric 

soil. 

Gravel and borrow pits Gravel pits are open excavations from which soil and gravel have been removed, 

exposing the gravelly material. 

Hambrook This component is on flats, uplands. The parent material consists of loamy fluviomarine 

sediments. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural 

drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is 

moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell 

potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water 

saturation is at 45 inches during January. Organic matter content in the surface horizon 

is about 2 percent. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. 

Hammonton The Hammonton series consists of very deep moderately well drained soils on uplands. 

They formed in acid moderately coarse textured Coastal Plain sediments. Typically 

these soils have a very dark grayish brown loamy sand surface layer 8 inches thick and a 

yellowish brown loamy sand subsurface layer from 8 to 18 inches. The subsoil between 

18 to 36 inches is mottled yellowish brown sandy loam. The substratum from 36 to 60 

inches is loose brownish yellow sand. This component is on flats, uplands. The parent 

material consists of loamy fluviomarine sediments. Depth to a root restrictive layer is 

greater than 60 inches. This soil is moderately well drained. The slowest permeability 

within 60 inches is moderate to moderately rapid. Available water capacity is very high 

and shrink swell potential is low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. This 

soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The top of the seasonal high water table is at 24 to 

30 inches. There are no saline horizons. This component is not a hydric soil. 

1-19







Howell The Howell series consists of deep well drained soils on uplands. They formed in 

Coastal Plain sediments. Typically, these soils have a dark yellowish-brown fine sandy 

loam surface layer 8 inches thick. The subsoil from 8 to 14 inches is strong brown sandy 

clay loam, from 14 to 24 inches is strong brown clay loam, from 24 to 37 inches is 

mottled strong brown clay, and from 37 to 46 inches is mottled pale olive clay. The 

substratum from 46 to 60 inches is pale olive clay. Depth to a root restrictive layer is 

greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water movement in 

the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is 

high. Shrink-swell potential is moderate. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A 

seasonal zone of water saturation is at 48 inches during January, February, March, April, 

May, November, and December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 

2 percent. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. 

Hurlock The Hurlock series consists of very deep poorly drained soils formed in alluvial or 

marine sediments of the Atlantic Coastal Plain. They are on low-lying uplands and 

broad depressions. Typically the surface layer is black sandy loam 3 inches thick. The 

subsurface layer is gray sandy loam 7 inches thick. The subsoil from 10 to 25 inches is 

gray sandy loam and light brownish gray loamy sand. The substratum from 25 to 60 

inches is light gray sand and gray loamy sand. From 60 to 66 inches, it is stratified silt 

loam and very fine sandy loam. This soil is poorly drained. The slowest permeability 

within 60 inches is very slow. The slowest permeability within 60 inches for the 

‘Hurlock, drained’ and ‘Hurlock, undrained’ components is moderate. Available water 

capacity is very high and shrink swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded and is not 

ponded. The ‘Hurlock, drained’ component is rarely ponded, and the ‘Hurlock, 

undrained’ component is occasionally ponded. The top of the seasonal high water table 

is at 6 inches (Hurlock), 5 inches (Hurlock, undrained), or 14 inches (Hurlock, drained). 

There are no saline horizons. This component is a hydric soil. 

Indiantown The Indiantown series consists of very deep very poorly drained soils on nearly level 

flood plains of the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain. They formed in loamy fluvial sediments 

overlying sandy alluvial and marine sediments. Typically, these soils have a very dark 

brown mucky silt loam surface from 0 to 13 inches, and black mucky loam subsurface 

from 13 to 25 inches. The substratum is a grayish-brown sand from 25 to 41 inches and 

dark grayish brown loamy sand and sand from 41 to 72 inches. The substratum has 

black organic stains. This soil is very poorly drained. The slowest permeability within 

60 inches is moderate. Available water capacity is very high and shrink swell potential 

is low. This soil is frequently flooded and is not ponded. The top of the seasonal high 

water table is at 0 inches. There are no saline horizons. This component is a hydric soil. 

1-20







Ingleside The Ingleside series consists of very deep well drained soils formed in alluvial or marine 

sediments of the Atlantic Coastal Plain. They are on uplands and slight depressions. 

Typically the surface layer is dark brown loamy sand 10 inches thick. The subsurface 

layer is brown sandy loam 5 inches thick. The subsoil from 15 to 43 inches is dark 

yellowish brown, strong brown sandy loam. The substratum from 43 to 56 inches is 

yellowish brown loamy sand and from 56 to 72 inches is mottled pale brown silt loam. 

The parent material consists of loamy eolian deposits and/or fluviomarine sediments. 

Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is 

well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available 

water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not 

flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 45 inches during 

January. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 1 percent. This soil does 

not meet hydric criteria. 

Issue The Issue series consists of deep moderately well drained nearly level soils on flood 

plains. In a representative profile the surface layer is a brown fine sandy loam 13 inches 

thick. The next layer, 9 inches thick, is a light yellowish brown fine sandy loam mottled 

with strong brown and grayish brown. This layer has thin strata of loamy sand. The next 

layer to 60 inches is a coarsely mottled gray and yellowish brown sandy loam with 

lenses of loamy sand and loam. The parent material consists of loamy alluvium. Depth 

to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is 

somewhat poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately 

high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This 

soil is occasionally flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 14 

inches during January, February, March, April, and December. Organic matter content 

in the surface horizon is about 5 percent. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. 

Klej The Klej series consists of very deep moderately well and somewhat poorly drained 

soils on uplands. They formed in coarse-textured Coastal Plain sediments. Typically, 

these soils have a loamy sand surface layer, 9 inches thick, that is grayish-brown in the 

upper part and light brownish-gray in the lower part. The subsoil from 9 to 39 inches is 

olive yellow loamy sand. The substratum 39 to 47 inches is light brownish gray sand. 

The 2C horizon from 47 to 60 inches is light gray sandy loam. This soil is somewhat 

poorly drained. Available water capacity is high to very high and shrink swell potential 

is low. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The top of the seasonal high water 

table is at 12 to 18 inches. There are no saline horizons. This component is not a hydric 

soil. 

Longmarsh This component is found on flood plains and coastal plains. The parent material consists 

of loamy alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural 

drainage class is very poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is 

moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell 

potential is low. This soil is frequently flooded. It is frequently ponded. A seasonal zone 

of water saturation is at 5 inches year-round. Organic matter content in the surface 

horizon is about 68 percent. This soil meets hydric criteria. 

1-21







Manahawkin The Manahawkin series consists of very deep very poorly drained soils formed in 

organic deposits, over sand and gravel. This component is on coastal plains and swamps. 

Typically, they have a black surface and subsurface layer of highly decomposed organic 

material, 39 inches thick. The substratum to a depth of 60 inches is gray sand. 

Manahawkin soils are in low positions in back swamps, lake basins, and along fresh 

water channels as they open to tide water. The parent material consists of organic, 

woody material over sandy alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 

inches. The natural drainage class is very poorly drained. Water movement in the most 

restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is very high. 

Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is frequently flooded. It is frequently ponded. A 

seasonal zone of water saturation is at 2 inches during January, February, March, April, 

May, June, July, August, September, October, November, and December. Organic 

matter content in the surface horizon is about 68 percent. Non-irrigated land capability 

classification is 7w. This soil meets hydric criteria. 

Marr The Marr series consists of deep well drained soils on uplands. They formed in Coastal 

Plain sediments. Typically, these soils have a dark brown fine sandy loam surface layer, 

6 inches thick. The subsoil from 6 to 12 inches is brown very fine sandy loam, from 12 

to 22 inches is strong brown sandy clay loam, and from 22 to 34 inches is strong brown 

heavy sandy clay loam. The substratum from 34 to 60 inches is brownish-yellow and 

reddish-yellow fine sandy loam. The parent material consists of loamy fluviomarine 

deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage 

class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. 

Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is 

not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 

inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. This soil does 


Matapeake The Matapeake series consists of very deep well-drained soils on Coastal Plain uplands. 

They formed in a silty mantle and the underlying sandy sediments. Typically, these soils 

have grayish-brown and light yellowish-brown silt loam surface layers to a depth of 11 

inches. The subsoil, from 11 to 34 inches, is yellowish-brown and strong brown silt 

loam. From 34 to 38 inches, the subsoil is strong brown sandy loam. The substratum 

layers, from 38 to 62 inches, are light yellowish-brown sandy loam and pale yellow 

loamy sand. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. Water movement 

in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches 

is high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is 

no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the 

surface horizon is about 2 percent. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. 

1-22







Mattapex The Mattapex series consists of very deep moderately well drained soils formed in silty 

sediments overlying coarser sediments of marine or alluvial origin. Typically, these soils 

have a dark grayish-brown loam surface layer, 11 inches thick. The subsoil from 11 to 

15 inches is brown loam, from 15 to 26 inches is yellowish-brown silty clay loam, and 

from 26 to 36 inches is mottled light live brown silty clay loam. The mottled substratum 

from 36 to 60 inches is yellowish-brown fine sandy loam. Depth to a root restrictive 

layer is greater than 60 inches. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is 

moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell potential 


27 inches during January, February, March, April. Organic matter content in the surface 


Mispillion The Mispillion component is found on tidal marshes and coastal plains. The parent 

material consists of herbaceous organic material over silty estuarine sediments. Depth to 

a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is very poorly 

drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available 

water to a depth of 60 inches is very high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is very 

frequently flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 2 inches 

year-round. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 77 percent. This soil 

meets hydric criteria. The soil has a strongly saline horizon within 30 inches of the soil 

surface. The soil has a moderately sodic horizon within 30 inches of the soil surface. 

Mixed alluvial land Mixed alluvial land consists of soil materials washed from uplands and deposited on 

flood plains and along drainageways. This material ranges from sand and gravel to silt 

and clay. 

Mullica The Mullica series consists of very deep very poorly drained soils on flats and in 

depressions. They formed in Coastal Plain sediments. Typically, these soils have a 

black sandy loam surface layer 10 inches thick. The subsoil from 18 to 28 inches is 

mottled gray sandy loam. The substratum from 28 to 60 inches is gray or grayish brown 

gravelly sand or sand. This component is on uplands, flats. The parent material consists 

of sandy and loamy fluviomarine sediments. This soil is very poorly drained. The 

slowest permeability within 60 inches is moderate to moderately rapid. Available water 

capacity is high to very high and shrink swell potential is low. This soil is rarely flooded 

and is not ponded. Mullica, drained component is not flooded and rarely ponded; 

Mullica, undrained component is not flooded and frequently ponded. The top of the 

seasonal high water table is at 2 to 5 inches. There are no saline horizons. It is in 

nonirrigated land capability class 4w. This component is a hydric soil. 

Nanticoke The Nanticoke series consists of very deep very poorly drained soils formed in high n 

value loamy estuarine deposits of the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain. They are on fresh 

water marshes along tidally influenced rivers and creeks. Typically the surface layer is 

black silt loam 10 inches thick. The subsurface layer is dark greenish gray silt loam 14 

inches thick. The substratum from 24 to 80 inches is dark greenish gray silty clay loam. 

Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a 

depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is frequently flooded. 

It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 0 inches year-round. This soil 

meets hydric criteria. 

1-23







Ochlockonee The Ochlocknee series consists of very deep well drained soils on flood plains. 

Typically, the surface layer is brown sandy loam about 6 inches thick. The substratum is 

a brown fine sandy loam layer about 31 inches thick. This in turn is over a dark brown 

very fine sandy loam layer about 7 inches thick which is over dark yellowish brown 

loamy fine sand about 18 inches thick. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 

inches. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available 

water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is 

rarely flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 48 inches 

during January, February, March, April, and December. This soil does not meet hydric 

criteria. 

Othello The Othello series consists of very deep poorly drained soils on uplands. They formed in 

silty material underlain by coarser sediment. Typically, these soils have a dark grayishbrown 

silt loam surface, 9 inches thick. The subsoil between 9 and 18 inches is light 

olive gray silty clay loam with prominent yellowish-brown mottles and between 18 and 

29 inches is light gray, silty clay loam with prominent yellowish-brown mottles. A 

mottled gray sandy loam substrata grades into a light gray loamy sand below 29 inches. 

Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. Water movement in the most 

restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. 


of water saturation is at 6 inches during January, February, March, April, and May. 

Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. This soil meets hydric 

criteria. 

Piccowaxen The Piccowaxen component is found on terraces, fluviomarine terraces. The parent 

material consists of silty and loamy fluviomarine deposits. Depth to a root restrictive 

layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat poorly drained. 

Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a 

depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is 

rarely ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 12 inches during February. 

Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. This soil does not meet 

hydric criteria. 

Pone The Pone series consists of very deep, very poorly drained soils formed in organic 

deposits overlying alluvial or marine sediments of the Atlantic Coastal Plain. They are 

found on low-lying uplands and closed depressions. Typically the surface layer is black 

mucky loam 14 inches thick. The subsoil from 14 to 37 is grayish brown sandy loam 

and light gray loamy sand. The substratum from 37 to 47 is gray sand. From 47 to 69 

inches it is gray silt loam. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The 

natural drainage class is very poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive 

layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential 


0 inches during January, February, March, April, May, June, and December. Organic 

matter content in the surface horizon is about 9 percent. This soil meets hydric criteria. 

1-24







Potobac The Potobac series consists of very deep poorly drained soils located on flood plains of 

the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain. They formed in loamy fluvial sediments overlying sandy 

sediments. Typically these soils have dark brown silt loam surface 3 inches thick. The 

subsurface is mottled dark grayish brown silt loam 17 inches thick. The substratum is 

mottled and is dark gray and grayish brown sandy loam then stratified sand down to 72 

inches. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. Water movement in the 

most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is 

moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is frequently flooded. It is frequently 

ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 5 inches during January, February, 

March, April, and December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 5 

percent. This soil meets hydric criteria. 

Puckum The Puckum series consists of very deep very poorly drained soils formed in organic 

materials from woody deposits of the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain. They are on 

freshwater swamps of broad floodplains. Typically the surface layer is very dark brown 

mucky-peat four inches thick. The substratum to 80 inches is very dark brown and dark 

brown muck and mucky peat. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. 

Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 

inches is very high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is frequently flooded. It is 

frequently ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 5 inches year-round. 

Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 75 percent. This soil meets hydric 

criteria. 

Rosedale The Rosedale series consists of nearly level and gently sloping well drained soils on 

Coastal Plain uplands. In a representative profile the surface layer is grayish brown 

loamy sand about 8 inches thick. The subsurface layer is light yellowish brown loamy 

sand about 16 inches thick. The subsoil, to a depth of 54 inches, is yellowish brown 

sandy loam. The substratum is very pale brown sand or is stratified with finer textured 

layers. Gray, yellow and red mottles occur below a depth of 48 inches. This soil is well 

drained. The slowest permeability within 60 inches is moderately slow. Available water 

capacity is very high and shrink swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded and is not 

ponded. The top of the seasonal high water table is at 60 inches. There are no saline 

horizons. This component is not a hydric soil. 

Rumford Soils of the Rumford series are very deep well drained or somewhat excessively drained. 

They are on Coastal Plain uplands and stream terraces and formed in stratified coastal 

plain sediments. Typically these soils have a loamy fine sand surface layer 17 inches 

thick. It is brown in the upper 8 inches and pale brown in lower 9 inches. The subsoil 

from 17 to 32 inches is brown fine sandy loam and from 32 to 37 inches is strong brown 

fine sandy loam. The substratum from 37 to 60 inches is mottled fine sand. Depth to a 

root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. Water movement in the most restrictive 

layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell potential is 

low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation 

within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 1 

percent. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. 

1-25







Runclint The Runclint series consists of very deep excessively drained soils on uplands and 

alluvial terraces. They formed in unconsolidated sandy alluvial and marine sediments. 

Typically these soils have a dark brown surface layer 9 inches thick and a subsurface 

layer from 9 to 22 inches of yellowish brown sand. The subsoil between 22 and 40 

inches is yellowish red sand. The substratum from 40 to 60 inches is yellowish brown 

sand. From 60 to 72 inches it is mottled stratified sand through sandy clay loam. This 

soil is excessively drained. The slowest permeability within 60 inches is moderate. 

Available water capacity is moderate to high and shrink swell potential is low. This soil 

is not flooded and is not ponded. The top of the seasonal high water table is at 45 to 60 

inches. There are no saline horizons. This component is not a hydric soil. 

Sassafras The Sassafras series consists of deep well-drained soils on uplands. They formed in 

marine or alluvial Coastal Plain sediments. Typically, these soils have a brown gravelly 

sandy loam surface layer, 9 inches thick. The subsoil, from 9 to 21 inches, is yellowishbrown 

loam, from 21 to 32 inches, is brown sandy clay loam, and, from 32 to 40 in., is 

strong brown sandy loam. The substratum, from 40 to 52 inches, is strong brown 

gravelly sandy loam and, from 52 to 70 in., is brownish-yellow loamy sand. Depth to a 

root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. Water movement in the most restrictive 

layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrinkswell 

potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of 

water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface 


Sunken The Sunken series consists of very deep very poorly drained soils formed in loamy 

eolian or alluvial deposits overlying sandy sediments of the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain. 

They are on submerging uplands along tidal bays and rivers. Typically, the surface is 

dark brown mucky silt loam 6 inches thick. The subsurface layer is light gray silt loam 

to 18 inches. The subsoil is light gray silty clay loam to 38 inches. The substratum from 

38 to 72 inches is gray very fine sandy loam and light olive gray fine sand. This 

component is on flats, lowlands, submerged upland tidal marshes. The parent material 

consists of silty eolian deposits over fluviomarine sediments. Depth to a root restrictive 

layer is greater than 60 inches. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is 

moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is very high. Shrink-swell 

potential is low. This soil is occasionally flooded. It is occasionally ponded. A seasonal 

zone of water saturation is at 5 inches year-round. Organic matter content in the surface 

horizon is about 66 percent. This soil meets hydric criteria. The soil has a moderately 

saline horizon within 30 inches of the soil surface. The soil has a moderately sodic 

horizon within 30 inches of the soil surface. 

Tidal Marsh Tidal Marsh consists of very deep very poorly drained soils on tidal flats subject to 

inundation by salt water twice daily. They formed in organic material 16 to 51 inches 

thick over loamy mineral deposits. Salt content in the soil ranges from 1,000 to 40,000 

parts per million. Typically, the layers from 0 to 48 inches are very dark gray and dark 

olive gray hemic materials. The substratum from 48 to 99 inches is very dark gray silt 

loam. 

1-26







Transquaking The Transquaking series consists of very deep very poorly drained soils formed in thick 

organic deposits overlying high n value loamy mineral sediments of the Mid-Atlantic 

Coastal Plain. They are on brackish estuarine marshes along tidally influenced rivers 

and creeks. Typically the surface layer is very dark brown peat 9 inches thick. The 

subsurface layer is black mucky peat to 22 inches. The upper substratum from 22 to 65 

inches is very dark gray mucky peat and muck. The lower substratum to 80 inches is 

very dark gray silty clay. The parent material consists of herbaceous organic material 

over estuarine sediments. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. 

Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a 

depth of 60 inches is very high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is very 

frequently flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 2 inches 

year-round. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 68 percent. This soil 

meets hydric criteria. The soil has a strongly saline horizon within 30 inches of the soil 

surface. The soil has a moderately sodic horizon within 30 inches of the soil surface. 

Udorthents The Udorthents series soils are located very deep nearly level to steep areas of mostly 

loamy materials placed on soils to provide sites for buildings, roads, recreational 

facilities and other uses. The thickness of the fill material is quite variable but is always 

more than 20 inches. The drainage class of the soils is variable. The parent material 

consists of fluviomarine deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 

inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most 

restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. 


of water saturation is at 45 inches during January. Organic matter content in the surface 


Urban land Urban land is land mostly covered by streets, parking lots, buildings, and other 

structures of urban areas. 

Water Ponds or lakes, streams, reservoirs, bays or gulfs, and estuaries. 

Westphalia The Westphalia series consists of deep well drained soils on uplands. They formed in 

Coastal Plain sediments. Typically, these soils have a dark grayish-brown and 

yellowish-brown fine sandy loam surface layer, 10 inches thick. The subsoil from 10 to 

18 inches is strong brown heavy fine sandy loam and from 18 to 28 inches is brownishyellow 

loamy fine sand. The substratum from 28 to 72 inches is pale yellow fine sand 

and loamy fine sand. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. Water 

movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 

60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not 

ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter 

content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. 

1-27







Wist The Wist series consists of deep well drained soils on uplands. They formed in Coastal 

Plain sediments containing moderate amounts of glauconite. Typically these soils have a 

dark brown sandy loam surface layer 11 inches thick over 2 inches of brown sandy 

loam. The dark brown subsoil from 13 to 29 inches is sandy clay loam and from 29 to 

32 inches is sandy loam. The dark brown substratum from 32 to 44 inches is sandy loam 

and from 44 to 80 inches is loose sand. The parent material consists of glauconite 

bearing loamy fluviomarine deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 

inches. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available 

water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not 

flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 45 inches during 

January. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. This soil does 


Woodstown The Woodstown series consists of deep, moderately well-drained soils on uplands and 

terraces. They formed in marine and alluvial Coastal Plain sediments. Typically, these 

soils have a dark grayish-brown sandy loam surface layer 7 inches thick and a 

subsurface layer from 7 to 11 inches of light yellowish-brown sandy loam. The light 

olive brown sandy clay loam subsoil, from 11 to 29 inches, is mottled in the lower part. 

The substratum layers from 29 to 70 inches are sandy loam and loamy sand. This soil is 

moderately well drained. The slowest permeability within 60 inches is moderately slow. 

Available water capacity is very high and shrink swell potential is low. This soil is not 

flooded and is not ponded. The top of the seasonal high water table is at 30 inches. 

There are no saline horizons. This component is not a hydric soil. 

Zekiah The Zekiah series consists of very deep poorly drained soils located on flood plains of 

the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain. They formed in loamy fluvial sediments overlying sandy 

sediments. Typically these soils have dark brown silt loam surface 3 inches thick. The 

subsurface is mottled dark grayish brown silt loam 17 inches thick. The substratum is 

mottled and is dark gray and grayish brown sandy loam then stratified sand down to 72 

inches. The parent material consists of loamy alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer 

is greater than 60 inches. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately 

high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This 

soil is frequently flooded. It is frequently ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is 

at 5 inches year-round. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. 

This soil meets hydric criteria. 

1.2.1.1 Description of Potential Soil Limitations 

Some soil types have characteristics (e.g., erosion potential, hydric soils, compaction potential) that make 

them more susceptible to certain impacts or that make them valuable for specific purposes (e.g., 

farmland). These various “soil limitations” are discussed for each of the Project components in the 

following sections. In addition, Tables 1.2-2 through 1.2-7, respectively, present the known soil 

limitations of the soil map units for each Project component. Note that the acreages presented in the 

tables below are estimates based on projected disturbance areas and available soil mapping data (USDA- 

NRCS 2010). The actual soil conditions at a given location might vary from the generalized soil mapping 

presented by this data. Potential impacts discussed below are limited only to those areas where there 

would be temporary and/or permanent ground disturbance [construction entrances, tower foundations, 

1-28




buildings, trenching for underground installation (and the associated roads), manholes, etc.]. The 

subsections following the tables provide brief discussions of these soil limitations relevant to these 

portions of the Project right-of-way that would be disturbed. The “Soil Unit Composition” column in 

these tables lists the soil series which represent at least 10 percent of the indicated map unit; soil series 

which represent less than 10 percent of the map unit are not listed. 

1.2.1.1.1 Erosion Potential 

The potential erosion of soil can be a concern whenever vegetation is removed as a result of clearing and 

grading activities. Concern is increased further if the vegetation is slow to become re-established. 

However, leaving root systems in place as the Company has proposed, where practical, would tend to 

limit erosion and promote revegetation along with re-seeding. The “Erosion Potential” column of Tables 

1.2-2 through 1.2-7 presents the water-related erosion potential and the wind-related erosion potential, 

respectively. The water-related erosion potential (“Slight”, “Moderate”, “Severe”, or “Very Severe”) is 

based on slope and on the soil erodibility. The wind erodibility group (1 to 8, with 1 indicating highly 

erodible soils and 8 indicating soils not susceptible to wind erosion) indicates the soil’s susceptibility to 

blowing by wind in cultivated areas. 

1.2.1.1.2 Compaction and Rutting Potential 

Soil rutting and compaction can occur in response to the pressure exerted by the weight of the 

construction equipment that would be used to perform the underground or aerial installation of 

transmission lines and construction of new converter stations. Soil compaction increases soil density by 

packing the particles closer together, decreasing pore spaces in the soil, reducing soil porosity, and 

decreasing water and air movement into and through the soil. The result is poor soil aeration, poor root 

penetration, limited water movement, and reduced activity of soil organisms involved in nutrient cycling. 

Soil compaction can also increase surface water runoff which may lead to soil erosion and increased 

sedimentation in the watershed. Rutting and compaction of soils is more likely when the soils are moist 

or wet. The potential risk for compaction is also influenced by soil texture, with fine texture soils having 

higher compaction potential than coarse textured soils; soils with greater than 70 percent fragments have 

very low potential for compaction. 

The information presented in the “Compaction Potential” column of Tables 1.2-2 through 1.2-7 is the 

USDA-NRCS soil rutting hazard, stated as “Slight” (the soil is subject to little or no rutting), “Moderate” 

(rutting is likely), or “Severe” (ruts form readily). The rutting hazard and compaction potential for soils 

correspond well with one another; therefore, the rutting hazard information presented there also indicates 

the degree to which soil compaction can be considered a potential limitation for the indicated soil map 

units. 

1.2.1.1.3 Prime Farmland 

There are four USDA-NRCS classifications for farmland soils: prime farmland, farmland of statewide 

importance, farmland of local importance, and unique farmland. USDA-NRCS defines prime farmland as 

“land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, 

forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and that is available for these uses.” The designation of prime farmland is 

generally independent of the current land use, but it cannot be applied to areas of water or urban or builtup 

land. Areas designated as “farmland of statewide importance” are nearly prime farmland that 

economically produces high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming 

methods. Farmland classifications for the soil map units in the Project area are listed in Tables 1.2-2 

through 1.2-7. 

1-29




1.2.1.1.4 Hydric Soils 

Hydric soils are defined as those that are sufficiently wet in the upper portion to develop anaerobic 

conditions during the growing season. The “Hydric Soils” column of Tables 1.2-2 through 1.2-7 indicates 

which soil series (if any) are associated with hydric soils in that map unit, or “None” if the map unit does 

not contain any significant area of hydric soils. The land formations associated with the identified hydric 

soils (e.g., depressions or flood plains) are also listed in the table. If the relevant soil series contributes 

less than 10 percent of the map unit (and is therefore not included in the “Soil Map Unit Composition” 

column), the appropriate percentage is also listed; otherwise, only the soil series name is provided since 

the relevant percentage was provided already. In general, the hydric soils are likely to be found in the 

delineated wetlands within the Project area. Wetlands are addressed in Section 1.4. 


Table 1.2-2 summarizes the relevant soil limitations for the portion of the Project right-of-way associated 

with the Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter Transmission Line that would be disturbed. 

Table 1.2-2 

Soil Limitations of Soil Map Units to be Disturbed within the Project Right-of-Way Associated with 

the Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter 

Map Unit 

ReD: 

Rumford- 

Evesboro 

gravelly 

loamy 

sands, 12 to 

20% slopes 

SrE 

Sassafrass 

and 

Westphalia 

soils, steep 

a 

b 

c 

d 

e 

Extent 

(acres) 

Soil Map Unit 

Composition a 

0.01 components: 

Evesboro (50%) 

Rumford (50%) 


Sassafrass (60%) 

Westphalia (40%) 

Erosion 

Potential b 

components: 

Severe/2 

Severe/3 

components: 

Severe/2 

Severe/3 

Values represent the acreage within the estimated areas of disturbance. 

1-30 

Compaction 

Potential c 

components: 

Moderate 

Severe 

components: 

Moderate 

Severe 

Prime 

Farmland Hydric Soils d 

None None 

None None 

Only the soil series which represent at least 10 percent of the indicated map unit are presented; soil series which represent less than 10 

percent of that map unit are not listed. 

The water-related erosion potential is listed as ‘Slight’, ‘Moderate’, or ‘Severe’. The wind erodibility is listed as a number from 1 to 8 (1 

indicates highly erodible soils; 8 indicates soils not susceptible to wind erosion). 

Compaction potential is represented by the USDA-NRCS soil rutting hazard, listed as ‘Slight’, ‘Moderate’, or ‘Severe’. 

Any components indicated as hydric soils are listed, with the relevant land formation. Minor soils (those representing less than 10 percent 

of the map unit) are listed with the relevant component percentage. 


As indicated in Table 1.2-2, approximately 0.1 acre of this segment of the Project right-of-way that is 

proposed for disturbance is estimated to have soils with high (severe) water-related erosion potential.




Approximately 0.1 acre has soil map units having a significant susceptibility to wind erosion if vegetation 

is removed (indicated by a low wind erodibility group number: 1 or 2). 


No areas of this segment of the Project right-of way that would be disturbed are associated with moderate 

(no severe component) compaction/rutting potential, and approximately 0.1 acre is associated with 

moderate to severe soil compaction/rutting potential. 


No areas classified as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or soils conditionally classified 

as prime farmland (if drained or irrigated) would be disturbed in this segment of the Project right-of way. 


No soils classified as hydric soils would be disturbed in this segment of the Project right-of way. 


Table 1.2-3 summarizes the relevant soil limitations for the portion of the Project site that would be 

disturbed at the Chestnut Converter. The subsections following the table provide brief discussions of 

these soil limitations. 

Table 1.2-3 

Soil Limitations of Soil Map Units to be Disturbed within the Vicinity of the Chestnut Converter 

Map Unit 

ErE: Eroded 

land, steep 

MnA: 

Matapeake silt 

loam, 0 to 2% 

slopes 

MnB2: 


loam, 2 to 5% 

slopes, 

moderately 

eroded 

MnC3: 


loam, 5 to 

10% slopes, 

severely 

eroded 

Extent 

(acres) 

Soil Map Unit 

Composition a 


Eroded land (100%) 


Matapeake (100%) 





Erosion 

Potential b 

components: 

Severe/3 

components: 

Slight/5 

components: 

Moderate/5 

components: 

Moderate/5 

1-31 

Compaction 

Potential c 

components: 

Moderate 

components: 

Severe 

components: 

Severe 

components: 

Severe 

Prime 


None None 

All areas 

are prime 

farmland 

All areas 

are prime 

farmland 

None 

None 

None None





Soil Limitations of Soil Map Units to be Disturbed within the Vicinity of the Chestnut Converter 

Map Unit 

My: Mixed 

alluvial land 

ShC3: 

Sassafras fine 

sandy loam, 5 

to 10% slopes, 

severely 

eroded 

SrE: Sassafras 

and 

Westphalia 

soils, steep 

a 

b 

c 

d 

e 

Extent 

(acres) 

Soil Map Unit 

Composition a 


Mixed alluvial land 

(100%) 


Sassafras (100%) 


Sassafras (60%) 

Westphalia (40%) 

Erosion 

Potential b 

components: 

Slight/6 

components: 

Slight/3 

components: 

Severe/3 

Severe/3 

1-32 

Compaction 

Potential c 

components: 

Severe 

components: 

Moderate 

components: 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Prime 


None Mixed alluvial 

land (flood 

plains) 

None None 

None None 



The water-related erosion potential is listed as ‘Slight’, ‘Moderate’, or ‘Severe’. The wind erodibility is listed as a number from 1 to 8 

(1 indicates highly erodible soils; 8 indicates soils not susceptible to wind erosion). 




NA – Not available. The final engineering and design has not been completed for this segment of the Project. 


As indicated in Table 1.2-3, approximately 9.0 acres of area that would be disturbed are associated with 

high (severe) water-related erosion potential, and no areas are associated with significant susceptibility to 

wind erosion if vegetation is removed (indicated by a low wind erodibility group number: 1 or 2). 


Table 1.2-3 indicates three soil map units totaling 9.1 acres located in the disturbed area of the Chestnut 

Converter are associated with moderate (no severe component) compaction/rutting potential and four 

units totaling 28.6 acres are associated with severe soil compaction/rutting potential. 


Two soil map units totaling 23.5 acres that would be disturbed at the Chestnut Converter area are 

classified as prime farmland. There are no soils conditionally classified as prime farmland (if drained or 

irrigated), and no soils are classified as farmland of statewide importance at the proposed site.





One soil map unit totaling 1.6 acres that would be disturbed at the Chestnut Converter is composed of 

hydric soils. 


Table 1.2-4 summarizes the relevant soil limitations for the portion of the Project right-of-way that would 

be disturbed associated with the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing. Note that the acreages 

presented in the table are estimates based on available soil mapping data (USDA-NRCS 2010). The 

actual soil conditions at a given location might vary from the generalized soil mapping presented by this 

data. The subsections following the table provide brief discussions of the soil limitations relevant to the 

disturbed portion of the Project right-of-way. 

Table 1.2-4 


the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing 

Map Unit 

Extent 

(acres) a 

Soil Map Unit 

Composition b 

Co: Coastal beaches 0.3 components: 

ErE: Eroded land, 

steep 

EvC: Evesboro loamy 

sand, 6 to 12% slopes 

EvE: Evesboro loamy 

sand, 12 to 35% 

slopes 

HoB2: Howell fine 

sandy loam, 2 to 6% 

slopes, moderately 

eroded 

HwB2: Howell silt 

loam, 2 to 6% slopes, 

moderately eroded 

MnB2: Matapeake silt 

loam, 2 to 5% slopes, 


Coastal 

beaches 

(100%) 


Eroded land 

(100%) 


Evesboro 

(100%) 


Evesboro 

(100%) 


Howell (100%) 


Howell (100%) 


Matapeake 

(100%) 

Erosion 

Potential c 

components: 

Slight/1 

components: 

Severe/3 

components: 

Moderate/2 

components: 

Severe/2 

components: 

Moderate/5 

components: 

Moderate/5 

components: 

Moderate/5 

1-33 

Compaction 

Potential d 

components: 

Moderate 

components: 

Moderate 

components: 

Moderate 

components: 

Moderate 

components: 

Moderate 

components: 

Severe 

components: 

Severe 

Prime 

Farmland 

Hydric 

Soils e 

None Coastal 

beaches 

(beaches) 

None None 

None None 

None None 

All areas 

are prime 

farmland 

All areas 

are prime 

farmland 

All areas 

are prime 

farmland 

None 

None 

None







Map Unit 

My: Mixed alluvial 

land 

OcB: Ochlockonee 

fine sandy loam, local 

alluvium, 2 to 5% 

slopes 

ReB: Rumford – 

Evesboro gravelly 

loamy sands, 2 to 6% 

slopes 

ReC: Rumford- 


loamy sands, 6 to 

12% slopes 

ReD: Rumford- 


loamy sands, 12 to 

20% slopes 

SaB2: Sassafras 

loamy fine sand, 2 to 

5% slopes, 


ShB2: Sassafras fine 


slopes, moderately 

eroded 

ShC3: Sassafras fine 


slopes, severely 

eroded 

SrE: Sassafras and 

Westphalia soils, 

steep 

Extent 

(acres) a 

Soil Map Unit 

Composition b 


Mixed alluvial 

land (100%) 


Ochlockonee 

(100%) 


Rumford (70%) 

Evesboro 

(30%) 


Rumford (60%) 

Evesboro 

(40%) 


Evesboro 

(50%) 

Rumford (50%) 


Sassafras 

(100%) 


Sassafras 

(100%) 


Sassafras 

(10%) 


Sassafras 

(60%) 

Westphalia 

(40%) 

Erosion 

Potential c 

components: 

Slight/6 

components: 

Slight/3 

components: 

Slight/2 

Slight/not 

rated 

components: 

Moderate/3 

Moderate/2 

components: 

Severe/2 

Severe/3 

components: 

Moderate/2 

components: 

Moderate/3 

components: 

Moderate/3 

components: 

Severe/3 

Severe/3 

1-34 

Compaction 

Potential d 

components: 

Severe 

components: 

Moderate 

components: 

Moderate 

components: 

Severe 

Moderate 

components: 

Moderate 

Severe 

components: 

Severe 

components: 

Moderate 

components: 

Moderate 

components: 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Prime 

Farmland 

Hydric 

Soils e 

None Mixed 

alluvial land 

(flood 

plains) 

All areas 

are prime 

farmland 

Farmland 

of 

statewide 

importance 

None 

None 

None None 

None None 

Farmland 

of 

statewide 

importance 

All areas 

are prime 

farmland 

None 

None 

None None 

None None







Map Unit 

WaD3: Westphalia 

fine sandy loam, 12 to 

20% slopes severely 

eroded 

a 

b 

c 

d 

e 

Extent 

(acres) a 

Soil Map Unit 

Composition b 


Westphalia 

(100%) 

Values represent only the disturbed area of the Project right-of-way. 

Erosion 

Potential c 

components: 

Severe/3 

1-35 

Compaction 

Potential d 

components: 

Moderate 

Prime 

Farmland 

None None 



The water-related erosion potential is listed as ‘Slight’, ‘Moderate’, or ‘Severe’. The wind erodibility is listed as a number from 1 to 8 

(1 indicates highly erodible soils; 8 indicates soils not susceptible to wind erosion). 


Hydric 

Soils e 

Any components indicated as hydric soils are listed, with the relevant land formation. Minor soils (those representing less than 10 percent of 

the map unit) are listed with the relevant component percentage. 


As indicated in Table 1.2-4, approximately 5.4 acres of the disturbed Project right-of-way associated with 

the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing have soils with high (severe) water-related erosion 

potential. Approximately 2.9 acres of this same area have soil units which are significantly susceptible to 

wind erosion if vegetation is removed (indicated by a low wind erodibility group number: 1 or 2). 


Approximately 7.6 acres of the disturbed Project right-of-way associated with the Chestnut Converter to 

Western Shore Landing is associated with moderate (with no severe component) compaction/rutting 

potential, and approximately 2.6 acres are associated with moderate to severe soil compaction/rutting 

potential. 


A total of approximately 0.8 acres of this portion of the disturbed Project right-of-way are classified as 

prime farmland, and 0.2 acres are classified as farmland of statewide importance. 


A total of approximately 1.5 acres of this portion of the disturbed Project right-of-way soil map units are 

composed entirely or almost entirely of hydric soils (85 percent or more). 



with the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter that would be disturbed. Note that the acreages 

presented in the table are estimates based on current Project design and available soil mapping data




(USDA-NRCS 2010). The actual soil conditions at a given location might vary from the generalized soil 

mapping presented by this data. The subsections following the table provide brief discussions of the soil 

limitations listed in Table 1.2-5. Sediments in the Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River are discussed in 

more detail in Volume III. 

Table 1.2-5 


the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter 

Map Unit 

Extent 

(acres) a 

Soil Map Unit 

Composition b 

6: Elkton loam 0.02 components: 

10: Fallsington 

sandy loam 

12A:Fort Mott 

loamy sand, 0 to 

2% slopes 

12B: Fort Mott 


5% slopes 

14B: Galestown 


5% slopes 

16: Hammonton 

sandy loam e 

18: Hurlock 

sandy loam e 

19A: Ingleside 

sandy loam, 0 to 

2% slopes e 

19B: Ingleside 


5% slopes e 

Elkton (80%) 


Fallsington 

(80%) 


Fort Mott 

(100%) 


Fort Mott 

(100%) 


Galestown 

(100%) 


Hammonton 

(100%) 


Hurlock (80%) 


Ingleside 

(100%) 


Ingleside 

(100%) 

Erosion 

Potential c 

components: 

Slight/5 

components: 

Slight/5 

components: 

Slight/2 

components: 

Slight/2 

components: 

Slight/2 

components: 

Slight/3 

components: 

Slight/3 

components: 

Slight/3 

components: 

Slight/3 

1-36 

Compaction 

Potential d 

components: 

Severe 

components: 

Severe 

components: 

Moderate 

components: 

Moderate 

components: 

Moderate 

components: 

Moderate 

components: 

Moderate 

components: 

Moderate 

components: 

Moderate 

Prime 

Farmland Hydric Soils e 

Farmland 

of 

statewide 

importance 

Farmland 

of 

statewide 

importance 

Prime 

farmland if 

irrigated 

Prime 

farmland if 

irrigated 

Farmland 

of 

statewide 

importance 

All areas 

are prime 

farmland 

Farmland 

of 

statewide 

importance 

All areas 

are prime 

farmland 

All areas 

are prime 

farmland 

Elkton (flats); 

Fallsington (5%, 

flats); Othello 

(5%, flats) 

Fallsington 

(flats); Hurlock 

(5%, flats); 

Othello (5%, 

flats); Pone (5%, 

depressions) 

None 

None 

None 

None 

Hurlock (flats); 

Pone (5%, flats); 


flats) 

None 

None







Map Unit 

21: Klej- 


complex 

28: Pone mucky 

sandy loam 

29: Pone mucky 

loam 

Extent 

(acres) a 

Soil Map Unit 

Composition b 


Klej (40%) 


(30%) 


Pone (80%) 


Pone (80%) 

34: Udorthents 0.01 components: 

36A: 

Woodstown 


2% slopes 

36B: 



5% slopes 

KgB: Klej- 

Galloway 

complex, 0 to 

5% slopes 

Udorthents 

(90%) 



(80%) 



(80%) 


Klej (45%) 

Galloway 

(35%) 

W: Water 0.01 components: 

Water (100%) 

Erosion 

Potential c 

components: 

Slight/2 

Slight/2 

components: 

Slight/8 

components: 

Slight/5 

components: 

Moderate/2 

components: 

Slight/3 

components: 

Moderate/3 

components: 

Slight/2 

Slight/2 

components: 

Not rated/– 

1-37 

Compaction 

Potential d 

components: 

Moderate 

Moderate 

components: 

Moderate 

components: 

Moderate 

components: 

Moderate 

components: 

Moderate 

components: 

Severe 

components: 

Moderate 

Moderate 

components: 

Not rated 

Prime 


Farmland 

of 

statewide 

importance 

Farmland 

of 

statewide 

importance 

Farmland 

of 

statewide 

importance 


flats); Hurlock 

(5%, flats); Pone 

(5%, 

depressions) 

Pone (flats); 



(5%, flats) 

Pone (flats); 



(5%, flats) 

None Unnamed soils 

(5%, 

depressions) 

All areas 

are prime 

farmland 

All areas 

are prime 

farmland 

Farmland 

of 

statewide 

importance 

None None 


depressions); 

Hurlock (5%, 

depressions); 

Pone (5%, 

depressions) 


depressions); 

Hurlock (5%, 

depressions); 

Pone (5%, 

depressions) 

Berryland (5%, 

depressions); 

Hurlock (5%, 

flats)







a 

b 

c 

d 

e 

Values represent the acreage within the entire Project right-of-way. 






Any components indicated as hydric soils are listed, with the relevant land formation. Minor soils (those representing less than 10 percent of 

the map unit) are listed with the relevant component percentage. 


As indicated in Table 1.2-5, no areas of this segment of the Project right-of-way that would be disturbed 

have soil map units with one or more major components associated with high (severe or very severe) 

water-related erosion potential. Approximately 1.0 acre have soil map units where at least 10 percent is a 

soil series having a significant susceptibility to wind erosion if vegetation is removed (indicated by a low 

wind erodibility group number: 1 or 2). 


Approximately 8.2 acres of this segment of the Project right-of-way that would be disturbed are 

associated with moderate (no severe component) compaction/rutting potential, and approximately 0.8 acre 

are associated with moderate to severe soil compaction/rutting potential. 


A total of approximately 4.7 acres of this segment of the Project right-of-way that would be disturbed are 

classified as prime farmland, approximately 0.4 acre are conditionally classified as prime farmland (if 

drained or irrigated), and approximately 4.0 acres are classified as farmland of statewide importance. 


A total of approximately 3.4 acres of the soil map units of this segment of the Project right-of-way that 

would be disturbed are composed entirely or almost entirely of areas classified as hydric soils (85 percent 

or more), and approximately 1.3 acres represents soil units which contain inclusions of hydric soils (i.e., 5 

to 15 percent hydric soils). 


Table 1.2-6 summarizes the relevant soil limitations for soil units in the portion of the Project site at the 

Gateway Converter that would be disturbed. The subsections following the table provide brief 

discussions of the soil limitations associated with the listed soil units. 

1-38




Table 1.2-6 

Soil Limitations of Soil Map Units to be Disturbed in the Vicinity of the Gateway Converter 

Map Unit 

AsA: 

Askecky 

loamy sand, 

0 to 2% 

slopes 

KgB: Klej- 

Galloway 

complex, 0 

to 5% slopes 

RuA: 

Runclint 

loamy sand, 

0 to 2% 

slopes 

RwB: 

Runclint- 

Cedartown 

complex, 2 

to 5% slopes 

a 

b 

c 

d 

Extent 

(acres) 

Soil Unit 

Composition a 


Askecksy, 

undrained (45%) 

Askecksy, 

drained (30%) 

Hurlock (10%) 


Klej (45%) 

Galloway (35%) 


Runclint (75%) 

Evesboro (10%) 


Runclint (45%) 

Cedartown (40%) 

Erosion 

Potential b 

components: 

Slight/5 

Slight/2 

Not rated/– 

components: 

Slight/2 

Slight/2 

components: 

Slight/2 

Not rated/– 

components: 

Slight/1 

Slight/1 

1-39 

Compaction 

Potential c 

components: 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Not rated 

components: 

Moderate 

Moderate 

components: 

Moderate 

Not rated 

components: 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Prime 


None Askecksy, 

undrained 

(flats); 

Askecksy, 

drained (flats); 

Hurlock (flats); 

Mullica (5%, 

depressions) 

Farmland of 

statewide 

importance 

Berryland (5%, 

depressions); 

Hurlock (5%, 

flats) 

None Hurlock (5%) 

(depressions) 

None None 









As indicated in Table 1.2-6, none of the map units occurring in this segment of the Project site that would 

be disturbed have soil map units with high (severe or very severe) water-related erosion potential. All 

four of the soil map units totaling 15.1 acres include a major constituent having a significant susceptibility 

to wind erosion if vegetation is removed (indicated by a low wind erodibility group number: 1 or 2). 


All four of the soil map units totaling 15.1 acres potentially affected by disturbance in this segment of the 

Project are associated with moderate compaction/rutting potential; none are associated with severe soil 

compaction/rutting potential.





No soil map units within this segment of the Project site that would be disturbed are classified as either 

prime farmland or classified as prime farmland if drained. One unit totaling 6.6 acres is classified as 

farmland of statewide importance. 


One soil map unit totaling 1.4 acres listed for this segment of the Project that would be disturbed is 

composed entirely or almost entirely of areas classified as hydric soils (85 percent or more), and two soil 

map units totaling 13.6 acres contain inclusions of hydric soils (i.e., 5 to 10 percent hydric soils). 

1.2.1.7 Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line Transmission Line 


with the transmission line from the Gateway Converter to the Maryland/Delaware state line. Note that the 

acreages presented in the table are estimates based on current Project design and available soil mapping 

data (USDA-NRCS 2010). The actual soil conditions at a given location might vary from the generalized 

soil mapping presented by this data. The subsections following the table provide brief discussions of the 

soil limitations associated with the soil units crossed in this segment of the Project. 

Table 1.2-7 


the Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line 

Map Unit 

AsA: Askecky 


2% slopes 

HvA: Hurlock 


2% slopes 

a 

b 

c 

d 

e 

Extent 

(acres) a 

Soil Map Unit 

Composition b 


Askecksy, 


Askecksy, 

drained (30%) 

Hurlock (10%) 


Hurlock, 


Hurlock, drained 

(40%) 

Erosion 

Potential c 

components: 

Slight/5 

Slight/2 

Not rated/– 

components: 

Slight/5 

Slight/3 

Values represent the acreage to be disturbed within the Project right-of-way. 

1-40 

Compaction 

Potential d 

components: 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Not rated 

components: 

Severe 

Moderate 

Prime 


None Askecksy, 

undrained 

(flats); 

Askecksy, 


Hurlock 

(flats); 

Mullica (5%, 

depressions) 

Farmland 

of 

statewide 

importance 

Hurlock, 


Hurlock, 

undrained 

(flats); 

Mullica (5%, 

depressions) 







of the map unit) are listed with the relevant component percentage.





As indicated in Table 1.2-7, no soil map units in this segment of the Project right-of-way that would be 

disturbed have major components associated with high (severe or very severe) water-related erosion 

potential. Approximately 0.01 acre has soil map units where at least 10 percent is a soil series having a 

significant susceptibility to wind erosion if vegetation is removed (indicated by a low wind erodibility 

group number: 1 or 2). 


Approximately 0.01 acre of this segment of the Project right-of-way that would be disturbed is associated 

with moderate (no severe component) compaction/rutting potential, and approximately 0.01 acre is 

associated with moderate to severe soil compaction/rutting potential. 


No soil map units in this segment of the Project right-of-way that would be disturbed are classified as 

prime farmland or are conditionally classified as prime farmland (if drained or irrigated). Approximately 

0.01 acre is classified as farmland of statewide importance. 


A total of approximately 0.01 acre of the soil map units of this segment of the Project right-of-way that 

would be disturbed are composed entirely or almost entirely of areas classified as hydric soils (85 percent 

or more). No other areas of soil units which contain inclusions of hydric soils (i.e., 5 to 10 percent hydric 

soils) would be affected. 


This section summarizes the potential concerns of work-related impacts to the soils and sediments within 

the Project area. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project, such as clearing, grading, 

trenching, and backfilling, have the potential to affect soil resources through multiple mechanisms. 

During construction, the Company’s construction contractor would obtain applicable County approvals 

for Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize 

soil erosion and the potential for spills and manage the storage and use of materials for spill prevention. 

The Construction Management plan would include a section on the management of hazardous materials, 

such as fuels, lubricants, coolants, and herbicides that would be used during construction and 

maintenance. 

Specific mitigation measures that are designed to address potential work-related impacts for the six 

Project segments are discussed in the following sections. 


This segment of the Project involves the construction and maintenance in (based on current design; 

subject to change) existing right-of-way for the installation of 500 kV aerial transmission lines connecting 

the Chalk Point Substation to the Chestnut Converter as described in Volume I, Section 2.0. 

Transmission line installation would first require the clearing of incompatible vegetation (e.g., forested 

areas) in the area of the Project right-of-way and in the areas required for equipment staging. Vegetation 

removal in this segment of the Project (if needed) would be minimal since the expansion would occur 

1-41




within existing right-of-way. Details of the vegetation removal process and efforts to minimize impacts 

to the affected areas have been described previously in Volume I. West of the Patuxent River, vegetation 

would be cut above the soil surface in order to minimize disturbance of roots, minimize potential soil 

disturbance (thus minimizing erosion), and minimize the time required for natural re-growth of the 

vegetation after completion of the Project. Following construction, all disturbed areas would be finish 

graded as closely as possible to preconstruction contours. Re-vegetation, if needed, would use native, 

non-invasive plant species, in accordance with approved plans. 

Potential temporary and short term impacts to soils in this segment may include sediment mobilization 

from construction of the new structures and tree/vegetation clearing. However, these impacts would be 

minimized by the use of a variety of best management practices to limit soil disturbance and migration. 

Erosion from disturbed soil near the new structure footings would be minimized by the use of standard 

erosion control measures. Erosion from disturbed soil near the trenches would be minimized by the use 

of best management practices through Soil Erosion and Sediment Control or Forest Harvest Plans. 

Movement of loose soil spread across the existing Project right-of-way (limited to non-regulated areas) 

would be minimized by placement off of steep slopes; best management practices would be used as 

necessary to prevent movement of the loose soil off-site. Soils may also be transported off-site for 

disposal. Temporary mats for trucks and construction equipment would be used for wetland crossings to 

minimize soil disturbance and compaction and maintain wetland and riparian root systems to promote 

regrowth or revegetation. 

In areas where tree/vegetation clearing would occur (west of the Patuxent River), the Company and its 

contractors would utilize methods such as leaving cleared stumps and root systems in place to avoid soil 

disturbance, which would reduce the risks of erosion. Temporary matting will be utilized in equipment 

staging areas to minimize the potential for soil disturbance. Whenever an access road or entrance to the 

existing Project right-of-way intersects any paved public roadway, stabilized construction entrances or 

other measures would be implemented to prevent the tracking or flowing of soil or sediment onto the 

public road as necessary and as allowed. This would minimize any sediment effects that might elevate 

sediment levels in stormwater runoff. 


Construction activities at the Chestnut Converter would begin with the clearing of vegetation and other 

construction obstructions, followed by grading and reinforcement of the site to meet the engineering 

requirements of the converter station and switchyard construction. The description of the construction 

features and needed land (within a fenced area) is presented in Volume I, Section 2.0. There would be 

significant soil movement and temporary stock piling of soil associated with the construction activities. 

All construction and restoration would be integrated into the permanent stormwater management system 

as discussed in Volume I, Section 2.3.5.1. Erosion would be controlled through use of erosion control 

devices and standard best management practices in compliance with local and state requirements. 

Erosion from disturbed soil near the cable troughs would be minimized by the use of best management 

practices through Soil Erosion and Sediment Control or Forest Harvest Plans. Temporary and short-term 

indirect impacts to soils would result from land disturbance associated with construction of the new 

converter station and switching station and tree/vegetation clearing. However, these impacts would be 

minimized by the use of a variety of measures to limit soil disturbance and migration. Movement of loose 

soil spread across the existing Project site (limited to non-regulated areas) would be minimized by 

placement away from steep slopes; BMPs would be used as necessary to prevent movement of the loose 

soil. Soils may also be transported off-site for disposal. Some soils would be permanently impacted by 

the construction of buildings, roads, and other structures. Areas not affected by permanent structures or 

facilities would be stabilized by the re-establishment of vegetation. 

1-42





Work in this segment would include installation of underground transmission line through HDD, 

trenching and in an underground duct bank. The construction methods and land requirements are 

described in Volume I, Section 2.0. Soils excavated during the trenching activities would be stored 

temporarily and returned to the cable trough to surface level or slightly higher following placement of the 

conduit. Temporary and short term impacts to soils related to Project construction may result from 

sediment mobilization from construction of the underground transmission circuits and pre-cast concrete 

splicing vaults, tree/vegetation clearing, and road construction. However, these impacts would be 

minimized by the use of a variety of measures to limit soil disturbance and migration. Although they 

involve different underground installation techniques, both direct burial and installation within a duct 

bank involve excavation and backfill of soil and potential impacts would be prevented or minimized 

through similar means. Erosion from disturbed soil near the cable troughs would be minimized by the use 

of BMPs. Excess soils would be removed from the site. Movement of loose soil spread across the 

existing Project right-of-way (limited to non-regulated areas) would be minimized by placement away 

from steep slopes. Soils may also be transported off-site for disposal. The re-establishment of vegetation, 

where applicable, would stabilize soils in this segment following construction. 


1.2.2.4.1 Sediments (Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River) 

A portion of this segment of the Project involves the installation of two new submarine cable circuits 

within the bed of Chesapeake Bay and a portion of the Choptank River. This crossing is discussed in 

detail in Volume III. 

1.2.2.4.2 Soils (Onshore) 

The onshore portion of this segment would be composed of three distinct sections: underground, the 

Choptank River Station, and an aerially spanned segment as described in Volume I, Section 2.0. 

The point of landfall and initial passage across land following landfall would be accomplished using the 

duct bank method. Details of the underground transmission line installation are provided in Volume I. 

Soils excavated during the trenching activities would be stored temporarily and returned to the cable 

trough to surface level or slightly higher following placement of the conduit. Excess soils would be 

removed from the site. Temporary and short term impacts to soils related to Project construction may 

include sediment mobilization from construction of the underground transmission circuits and 

tree/vegetation clearing. However, these impacts would be minimized by the use of a variety of measures 

to limit soil disturbance and migration. Erosion from disturbed soil near the cable trough would be 

minimized by the use of BMPs through Soil Erosion and Sediment Control or Forest Harvest Plans. 

Movement of loose soil spread across the existing Project right-of-way would be minimized by placement 

away from steep slopes. The re-establishment of vegetation, where applicable, would stabilize soils in 

this segment. 

The current Project design includes the construction of the Choptank River Station at the point of 

transition from underground conduit to aerial transmission line. Details of the station design and 

construction are provided in Volume I. The feature would be composed of a small, modular building to 

house communication and control equipment within a fenced area. Construction activities in this area 

would begin with the clearing of vegetation and other construction obstructions, followed by grading and 

1-43




reinforcement of the site to meet the engineering requirements of the transition station. The soils in this 

area would be converted to industrial/commercial land. 

The remaining portion of this segment of the Project would be aerial transmission lines. Construction in 

this segment would begin with vegetation clearing for the structure foundations, transmission line rightof-way, 

and temporary access roads and work staging areas. Potential temporary and short term impacts 

to soils in this segment may result from sediment mobilization from construction of the new structures 

and tree/vegetation clearing. However, these impacts would be minimized by the use of best management 

practices to limit soil disturbance and migration. Erosion from disturbed soil near the new structure 

footings would be minimized by the use of standard erosion control measures. Movement of loose soil 

spread across the existing Project right-of-way (limited to non-regulated areas) would be minimized by 

placement off of steep slopes; BMPs would be used as necessary to prevent movement of the loose soil 

off site. Soils may also be transported off-site for disposal. Temporary mats for trucks and construction 

equipment would be used for wetland crossings to minimize soil disturbance and compaction and 

maintain wetland and riparian root systems to promote regrowth or revegetation. 

In areas where tree/vegetation clearing would occur, the Company and its contractors would utilize 

methods such as leaving cleared stumps and root systems in place to avoid soil disturbance, which would 

reduce the risks of erosion. Soil disturbance is not expected in staging areas for heavy materials. 

Whenever an access road or entrance to the existing Project right-of-way intersects any paved public 

roadway, measures would be taken to prevent the tracking or flowing of soil or sediment onto the public 

road as necessary and as allowed. This would minimize any sediment effects that would elevate sediment 

levels in stormwater runoff. 


This component of the Project relates to construction and operation of the Gateway Converter. 

Construction activities would begin with the clearing of vegetation and other construction obstructions, 

followed by grading and reinforcement of the site to meet the engineering requirements of the converter 

station and switchyard construction as described in Volume I, Section 2.0. As much as possible, 

vegetation in areas not permanently affected by the Gateway Converter construction would be cut above 

the soil surface if needed in order to minimize disturbance of roots and to minimize potential soil erosion. 

Temporary and short term indirect impacts to soils from land disturbance would be associated with 

construction of the new converter station and switching station and tree/vegetation clearing. However, 

these impacts would be minimized by the use of a variety of measures to limit soil disturbance and 

migration. All construction and restoration would be integrated into the permanent stormwater 

management system. Erosion from disturbed soil near the new converter station would be minimized by 

the use of standard erosion control measures. Erosion from disturbed soil near the trenches would be 

minimized by the use of BMPs through Soil Erosion and Sediment Control or Forest Harvest Plans. 

Movement of loose soil spread across the existing Project site (limited to non-regulated areas) would be 

minimized by placement away from steep slopes; BMPs would be used as necessary to prevent movement 

of the loose soil. Soils may also be transported off-site for disposal. Some soils would be permanently 

impacted by the construction of buildings, roads, and other structures. Areas not affected by permanent 

structures or facilities would be stabilized by the re-establishment of vegetation. 


Work within this segment of the Project right-of-way would involve construction of aerial transmission 

lines as described in Volume I, Section 2.0. Construction in this segment would begin with grading of the 

transmission line right-of-way, temporary access roads, and work staging areas. Natural drainage patterns 

1-44




would be preserved to the maximum possible extent. Soils from new foundations will be used to backfill 

voids created from removing old pole structures, spread in non regulated areas of the project right of way 

or taken off site for disposal. 

Potential temporary and short term impacts to soils in this segment may include sediment mobilization 

from construction of the new structures. However, these impacts would be minimized by the use of a 

variety of best management practices to limit soil disturbance and migration. Erosion from disturbed soil 

near the new structure footings would be minimized by the use of standard erosion control measures. 

Erosion from disturbed soil near the trenches would be minimized by the use of BMPs through Soil 

Erosion and Sediment Control or Forest Harvest Plans. Movement of loose soil spread across the existing 

Project right-of-way (limited to non-regulated areas) would be minimized by placement off of steep 

slopes; BMPs would be used as necessary to prevent movement of the loose soil off site. Soils may also 

be transported off-site for disposal. Temporary mats for trucks and construction equipment would be 

used for wetland crossings to minimize soil disturbance and compaction and maintain wetland and 

riparian root systems to promote regrowth or revegetation. 

Soil disturbance is not expected in staging areas for heavy materials. Last, whenever an access road or 

entrance to the existing Project right-of-way intersects any paved public roadway, measures would be 

taken to prevent the tracking or flowing of soil or sediment onto the public road as necessary and as 

allowed. This would minimize any sediment effects that would elevate sediment levels in stormwater 

runoff. 

Following installation of the aerial transmission line, areas within the right-of-way of the aerial 

transmission line would be allowed to continue agricultural use or to return to the natural herbaceous and 

scrub-shrub communities. 


United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2010. 

Soil Data Mart. Available at: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/. 

1-45




1.3 WATER RESOURCES 

This section provides information on the water resources associated with the installation and operation of 

the Project in Prince George’s, Calvert, Dorchester and Wicomico Counties, Maryland. Water resources 

reviewed include the existing conditions for surface water and groundwater occurring at the converter 

stations and along the transmission line route. Existing conditions are addressed first in Section 1.3.3 

followed by an analysis of potential Project impacts to those resources in Section 1.3.4. 

1.3.1 Groundwater 

The Project is located in the Coastal Plain of Maryland. The Coastal Plain is a large flat, alluvial region 

extending from the Atlantic Ocean inland to the hilly piedmont region. The Project would be located in 

an area of the Atlantic Coastal Plain that is underlain by wedge-shaped layers of sand and gravel with silt 

and clay layers that form multiple confined aquifers. Sediments containing the aquifers tend to increase 

in depth as one moves south and east along the Coastal Plain, with sediment depths reaching 8,000 feet in 

southeastern Maryland (McGreevy and Wheeler 2010). On the Eastern Shore, community and individual 

wells commonly use the surficial unconfined Columbia aquifer. 

In Southern Maryland, groundwater supplies almost all of the population’s drinking water needs 

(MDEWSP 2008). The Maryland Department of the Environment’s 2007 Groundwater Protection 

Program Annual Report notes that “about half of the Marylanders using groundwater for drinking obtain 

water from a well that they own while the other half obtain their drinking water from public water 

supplies that use groundwater” (MDEWSP 2008). 

Groundwater quality in the State is considered generally good (MDEWSP 2007) and is the primary 

source of drinking water for the population living in the area around the Project (Soeder 2007). Table 

1.3-1 identifies the general depth to water for most of the aquifers used by communities near the Project 

alignment and the water quality issues associated with each (McGreevy and Wheeler 2010). 

The quantity of water in many of the Coastal Plain aquifers, especially the Aquia and Magothy, is 

currently being impacted due to groundwater withdrawals. The Maryland Water Supply Program notes 

that water levels have been steadily declining in the Aquia, Piney Point, Magothy and Patapsco aquifers 

that are used heavily on the Coastal Plain. In Wicomico County the Manokin Aquifer is being drawn 

down by withdrawals and some wells actually went dry in 2007 (City of Salisbury Comprehensive Plan 

2009). The USGS notes that “long-term water levels commonly show significant declines over several 

decades, which are attributed to groundwater withdrawals” (Soeder 2007). The MGS has begun a longterm 

study of groundwater levels in the coastal plain aquifers. The MGS is continuing to develop a model 

that can be used to predict and manage the effects of ongoing groundwater withdrawals on aquifer 

conditions over time. 

1.3.2 Surface Water 

The existing Project right-of-way crosses ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial surface waters in three 

major tributary basins: Lower Western Shore, Choptank River, and Lower Eastern Shore. Within these 

major basins the Project crosses through the West Chesapeake Bay, Lower Chesapeake Bay, Lower 

Choptank River, Transquaking River, and Nanticoke River watersheds. The waterbodies that would be 

crossed by the Project in each of these basins are listed in Tables 1.3-2 through 1.3-6. 

1-46






1.3.3.1.1 Groundwater 

This portion of the Project extends from the western edge of the Patuxent River at Chalk Point in Prince 

George’s County, across the river, and then across Calvert County to the Chestnut Converter near Port 

Republic. 

Table 1.3-1 

Depth to Water for Aquifers Utilized near the Proposed Project Sites and Alignment 

(McGreevy and Wheeler 2010) 

Aquifer 

Columbia Aquifer (also called 

Salisbury Formation or 

Salisbury Aquifer) usually 

unconfined surficial aquifer in 

Project area 

Chesapeake Group Aquifers: 

Cheswold, Federalsburg, 

Frederica, Manokin, Ocean 

City, Pocomoke 

Depth to Aquifer 

(below land 

surface in feet) Remarks a 

20-150 (0 to 100 

on Eastern Shore) 

1-47 

Locally elevated iron 

concentrations >0.3 mg/l. 

Nitrate contamination in some 

areas 

90-500 Locally elevated iron 

concentrations >0.3 mg/l. 

Hard water (exceeds 120 mg/l of 

calcium) 

Aquia Aquifer 50-600 Iron >0.3 mg/l in some areas. 

Piney Point and Nanjemoy 

Aquifers 

Locally elevated levels of radon 

and arsenic. 

Areas of elevated salinities from 

Chesapeake Bay. 

150-550 Hard water (exceeds 120 mg/l of 

calcium) 

Magothy Aquifer 100-900 Iron concentration can be >0.3 

mg/l 

Potomac Group Aquifers: 

Patapsco, Patuxent, and 

Potomac 

pH 0.3 

mg/l 

a Elevated salinity can be present in all aquifers depending on local conditions and depth. 

pH




Based on publicly available information, water systems in Calvert County use wells installed in the 

Aquia, Piney Point, and Magothy Aquifers (MDEWSP 2005a). The top of these aquifers is closest to the 

surface in the northern portion of the County and increases in distance from the surface as you move 

southward (MDEWSP 2005a). 

In the area near the Project, arsenic concentrations (naturally occurring) above the federal drinking water 

standard have been observed in the Aquia and Piney Point aquifers (MDEWSP 2007). Because of the 

elevated arsenic levels in the Aquia aquifer, Calvert County plans to begin withdrawing water from the 

deeper Patapsco aquifers (Drummond 2007). A water quality testing well was installed at the Chalk Point 

power plant in 2006 to provide data for previously unsampled portions of the Patuxent aquifer (MDEWSP 

2007). 

1.3.3.1.2 Surface Water 

The proposed Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter Project segment begins in the Patuxent River 

lower watershed (MDE Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 02131101) within the Patuxent River tributary 

strategy area and extends into the West Chesapeake Bay Watershed (MDE HUC 02131005) within the 

Lower Western Shore tributary strategy area. Waterbodies crossed by the proposed Project are listed in 

Table 1.3-2 based on field wetland delineations completed by the Company from 2009 to 2011. 

Water Quality 

Waterbodies in the Lower Patuxent River Basin crossed by the existing Project right-of-way and 

potentially affected by the proposed Project, as determined during wetland delineations completed by the 

Company in 2009 through 2011, are listed in Table 1.3-2. The table includes any special designations or 

impairments of these waterbodies as well. Impaired waters are those that do not meet water-quality 

standards for their designated uses, such as recreation, fishing, or aquatic habitat. 

The Patuxent River is a major tributary to the Chesapeake Bay that supports commercial and recreational 

fisheries. The Patuxent River is brackish at the location of the Project, with salinities generally ranging 

from 2 to 10 (parts per thousand) ppt depending upon the season. The Lower Patuxent River is currently 

considered impaired by elevated PCB, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, total suspended solids (TSS), and 

estuarine bioassessment results (MDE 2008a). 

All first through fourth order streams in the Western Chesapeake Bay watershed are considered impaired 

based on poor benthic and fish assessment results (MDE 2008b). The specific sources of the impairment 

have not been identified; however, conditions in the waterbodies are not adequately supporting aquatic 

life or fish. 

1-48




Table 1.3-2 


Waterbodies Crossed by the Project Right-of-Way 

Waterbody Special Designation Impact Type 

Lower Patuxent River Basin 

Patuxent River, 

(WC-004) Tidal 

Ramsey Creek 

(WC-007), Tidal 

Unnamed 

Tributary to Mill 

Creek (WC-014), 

Non-tidal 

Unnamed 


Creek (WC-015), 

Non-tidal 

Impaired by PCB in fish tissues. 

Elevated PCBs are impacting fish. 

Impaired by total nitrogen. Elevated 

nitrogen is impacting seasonal deep 

water fish and shellfish. 

Impaired by total phosphorus. 

Elevated phosphorus is impacting 

open water fish and shellfish and 

seasonal deep water fish and 

shellfish. 

Impaired by TSS. Elevated TSS is 

impacting seasonal shallow water 

submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). 

Impaired designation due to estuarine 

bioassessments. Conditions are not 

adequately supporting aquatic life and 

wildlife. 

First through fourth order streams in 

this basin are considered water 

quality impaired due to poor benthic 

and fish assessments. Conditions are 

not adequately supporting aquatic life 

and wildlife. 






and wildlife. 






and wildlife. 

1-49 

Permanent – Four 

structure 

foundations 

Temporary - 

Bridging 

Temporary - 

Bridging 

Temporary - 

Bridging 

Width / Area 

Impacted 

0.0024 acre 

total 

6.4 feet / 0.002 

acre 

2.9 feet / 0.001 

acre 

3.2 feet / 0.001 

acre






Waterbodies Crossed by the Project Right-of-Way 


Lower Patuxent River Basin 

Unnamed 


Creek (WC- 

015B), Non-tidal 

Unnamed 

Tributary to 

Ramsey Creek 

(WC-024), Nontidal 

West Chesapeake Bay 

Unnamed 


Sullivan Creek 


Unnamed 


Parker’s Creek 


Unnamed 


Parker’s Creek 







and wildlife. 






and wildlife. 






and wildlife. 






and wildlife. 






and wildlife. 

Note: 

All of these streams would be crossed via aerial spanning. 

1-50 

Temporary - 

Bridging 

Temporary - 

Bridging 

Temporary - 

Bridging 

Temporary - 

Bridging 

Temporary - 

Bridging 

Width / Area 

Impacted 

4.8 feet / 0.002 

acre 

2.2 feet / 0.001 

acre 

6.3 feet / 0.002 

acre 

9.7 feet / 0.003 

acre 

6.4 feet / 0.002 

acre 

Maryland’s Antidegradation Policy designates and protects waterbodies with water quality that meets or 

exceeds the conditions necessary to support the waterbody’s designated uses (MDE 2010a). Waters are




considered “High Quality Waters/Tier II” when they exceed the conditions necessary to support their 

designated uses, but the proposed Project does not cross any of these designated waters. Code of 

Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.08.02.04-1A requires that an antidegradation review be performed 

for new or proposed amendments to county water and sewer plans and for new or amended discharge 

permits to assure consistency with antidegradation requirements. No Tier II waters are crossed by the 

Project right-of-way (MDE 2010b). 

According to the Maryland Stream Use Designations, COMAR 26.08.02.08, there are no public water 

supply surface waters near the Project area. 

1.3.3.1.3 Tributary Strategy Area 

The Patuxent River tributary strategy area is a watershed that drains approximately 900 square miles of 

land including portions of Anne Arundel, Calvert, Charles, Howard, Montgomery, Prince George’s, and 

St. Mary’s Counties. This watershed is impacted by nutrient pollution, and further contributes to nutrient 

pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. In this watershed, urban non-point and point sources contribute about 

33 percent of the nutrients and agriculture is responsible for about 20 percent of the nutrients (MDNR 

2010). 

The Lower Western Shore tributary strategy area is a watershed that drains approximately 270 square 

miles of land including portions of Anne Arundel and Calvert Counties on the western shore of the 

Chesapeake Bay. This watershed is impacted by nutrient pollution, and further contributes to nutrient 

pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. In this watershed, urban non-point sources are the largest contributors 

of nutrients; with secondary contributions from point sources and septic systems (MDNR 2010). 



This component of the proposed Project is located in southeast Calvert County near Port Republic. 

Groundwater is the primary source of drinking water for the population living in the area around the 

Project (Soeder 2007). In Calvert County, arsenic concentrations (naturally occurring) above the federal 

drinking water standard have been observed in the Aquia and Piney Point aquifers (MDEWSP 2004a). 

Naturally occurring radon levels above the maximum contaminant level (MCL) proposed by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) have been observed in the Aquia, and Piney Point aquifers 

(MDEWSP 2004a, 2004b). The nearby Prince Frederick water system uses three wells in the Aquia 

aquifer (MDEWSP 2004a). These wells show elevated levels of naturally occurring arsenic and naturally 

occurring radon levels above the maximum MCL proposed by USEPA. The Saint Leonard water system, 

located approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the proposed converter station, utilizes two wells in the 

Aquia aquifer (MDEWSP 2004a). Arsenic levels are also elevated in these wells. 


The proposed Chestnut Converter is located in the West Chesapeake Bay Watershed (MDE HUC 

02131005) within the Lower Western Shore tributary strategy area. Waterbodies located within the 

property boundaries or adjacent to the proposed Chestnut Converter are listed in Table 1.3-3 based on 

wetlands delineations conducted by the Company. The Chestnut Converter site drains to the northwest 

towards Parker’s Creek. Parker’s Creek is located approximately 8,500 feet from the Converter property 

boundary. 

1-51




Table 1.3-3 

Waterbodies Present Within the Chestnut Converter Property Boundary 


Western Chesapeake Bay Basin 

WC29/19-35, 

Non-tidal 

WC29/19-38, 

Non-tidal 

WC29/19-39, 

Non-tidal 

First through fourth order streams 

in this basin are considered water 

quality impaired due to poor 

benthic and fish assessments. 

Conditions are not adequately 

supporting aquatic life and 

wildlife. 







wildlife. 







wildlife. 

1-52 

Permanent - Station 

construction 

disturbance 


construction 

disturbance 


construction 

disturbance 

Linear Feet 

Impacted / 

Area 

Impacted 

775 feet / 0.16 

acre 

30 feet / 0.007 

acre 

75 feet / 0.013 

acre 

Note: 

The exact positioning of the Chestnut Converter within the site has not been determined. Its location relative to the streams would be 

determined following the completion of final engineering design. 

Water Quality 

All first through fourth order streams in the Western Chesapeake Bay watershed are considered impaired 

based on poor benthic and fish assessment results (MDE 2008b). The specific sources of the impairment 

have not been identified; however, conditions in the waterbodies are not adequately supporting aquatic 

life or fish. 

Parker Creek and its tributaries have not been classified as Tier II waters. 



miles of land including portions of Anne Arundel and Calvert Counties on the western shore of the




Chesapeake Bay. This watershed is impacted by nutrient pollution, and further contributes to nutrient 


of nutrients; with secondary contributions from point sources and septic systems (MDNR 2010). 



This component of the proposed Project is located in southeast Calvert County and extends from the 

Chestnut Converter near Port Republic to the western shoreline of the Chesapeake Bay near Western 

Shores between Kenwood Beach and Calvert Beach. The proposed Project would be installed 

underground from the converter station to the Chesapeake Bay shoreline. 

Groundwater is the primary source of drinking water for the population living in the area around the 

Project (Soeder 2007). In Calvert County, arsenic concentrations (naturally occurring) above the federal 

drinking water standard have been observed in the Aquia and Piney Point aquifers (MDEWSP 2004a). 

Naturally occurring radon levels above the MCL proposed by USEPA have been observed in the Aquia 

and Piney Point aquifers (MDEWSP 2004a, 2004b). The nearby Prince Frederick water system uses 

three wells in the Aquia aquifer (MDEWSP 2004a). These wells show elevated levels of naturally 

occurring arsenic and radon above the MCL proposed by USEPA. The Saint Leonard water system south 

of the proposed converter station utilizes two wells in the Aquia aquifer (MDEWSP 2004a). Arsenic 

levels are also elevated in these wells. Communities along the shore of the Chesapeake Bay primarily 

provide drinking water from wells in the Piney Point aquifer. The Western Shores community has one 

well in the Piney Point aquifer (radon levels are elevated, depending on the final MCL) (MDEWSP 

2004a). The Calvert Beach Forest Trail and Decatur Street systems have a total of three wells in the 

Piney Point aquifer (with elevated radon levels, depending on the final MCL). Kenwood Beach uses two 

wells in the Piney Point aquifer (with elevated radon levels, depending on the final MCL). Scientist 

Cliffs uses two wells in the Aquia aquifer and two wells in the Nanjemoy aquifer (MDEWSP 2004a). 


The Project would be located in the West Chesapeake Bay watershed (MDE HUC 02131005) within the 

Lower Western Shore Tributary Basin. Waterbodies crossed by the proposed Project include two 

unnamed tributaries to Governor’s Run. 

Water Quality 

Impaired waters are those waters that do not meet water-quality standards for their designated uses, such 

as recreation, fishing, or aquatic habitat. All first through fourth order streams in the West Chesapeake 

Bay watershed are considered impaired based on poor benthic and fish assessment results (MDE 2008b). 

The specific sources of the impairment have not been identified, however conditions in the waterbodies 

are not adequately supporting aquatic life or fish. Table 1.3-4 lists waterbodies crossed by the proposed 

Project based on field delineations conducted by the Company in 2011 and their water quality 

designations. 

1-53




Table 1.3-4 

Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing Waterbodies Crossed by the 

Project Right-of-Way 


Western Chesapeake Bay Basin 

Unnamed 


Governor Run 

(BGE-WC43), 

Non-tidal 

Unnamed 


Governor Run 

(BGE-WC46), 

Non-tidal 

Unnamed 


Governor Run 

(BGE-WC47), 

Non-tidal 






supporting aquatic life and wildlife 






supporting aquatic life and wildlife. 







1-54 

Permanent - 

Underground 

Transmission 

Construction 

Permanent - 

Underground 

Transmission 

Construction 

Permanent - 

Underground 

Transmission 

Construction 

Note: 

All of these streams would be crossed by trenching and underground installation pending completion of engineering design. 

Linear Feet 

Impacted / 

Area Impacted 

365 feet / 0.09 

acre 

35 feet / 0.005 

acre 

275 feet / 0.05 

acre 


exceeds the conditions necessary to support the waterbody’s designated uses (MDE 2010a). Waters are 


designated uses. COMAR 26.08.02.04-1A requires that an antidegradation review be performed for new 

or proposed amendments to county water and sewer plans and for new or amended discharge permits to 

assure consistency with antidegradation requirements. No Tier II stream waters are crossed by the Project 

right-of-way (MDE 2010b). 





miles of land including portions of Anne Arundel and Calvert Counties on the western shore of the 

Chesapeake Bay. This watershed is impacted by nutrient pollution, and further contributes to nutrient





of nutrients; second to contributions from point sources and septic systems. 



The proposed Project would include the installation of submarine transmission line beneath Chesapeake 

Bay and the Choptank River in Calvert and Dorchester Counties, which is discussed in Volume III. 

Additionally, the Project would include installation of underground electric transmission line in 

Dorchester County (under Goose Creek and Highway 16) to a new transition station and new aerial 

electric transmission line in Dorchester and Wicomico Counties, Maryland. 

Groundwater is an important source of drinking water throughout Maryland. On Maryland’s Eastern 

shore, including Dorchester and Wicomico Counties in the Project area, aquifers are the primary source of 

drinking water for both private wells and public water systems (Wicomico County 2009; MDEWSP 

2004b and 2005b). The aquifers on the Eastern shore have a long history of providing high quality water 

in substantial volumes (Wicomico County 2009). 

Aquifers close to the surface beneath the proposed Project that are used for water supply include the 

Columbia, Aquia, Piney Point, Federalsburg, Patapsco, and Magothy. On the Dorchester County side of 

Chesapeake Bay the Salisbury formation (Columbia Aquifer) is the aquifer (unconfined) closest to the 

land surface and ranges from approximately zero to 100 feet below sea level (MDEWSP 2004b). The 

Aquia Aquifer is interconnected with the Chesapeake Bay in portions of Talbot County (McGreevy and 

Wheeler 2010). 

In Dorchester County, naturally occurring elevated levels of radon (Piney Point, Federalsburg, Patapsco, 

and Magothy aquifers), arsenic (Piney Point aquifer), and fluoride (Piney Point and Federalsburg 

aquifers) have been found in some public wells (MDEWSP 2004b). 

The ten community systems in Wicomico County serve about 4,000 of the County’s 84,644 people. Nine 

of the 24 community system wells are located within unconfined aquifers (Columbia aquifer) and 15 are 

located in confined aquifers (Manokin and Frederica aquifers) (MDEWSP 2005b). 

Near the proposed Project alignment in Wicomico County, the Hebron Woods community system 

provides water from the unconsolidated Columbia aquifer that is the uppermost hydrologic unit within the 

coastal plain of Maryland east of the Chesapeake Bay (MDEWSP 2005b). The City of Salisbury uses 

water from the Columbia surficial aquifer (MDEWSP 2003). Wells for the City of Salisbury have 

contained levels of nitrate greater than 50 percent of the MCL of 10 ppm since 1994. Tetrachloroethylene 

(PCE) concentrations greater than 50 percent of the MCL of 5 ppb were detected in wells between 1988 

and 1994. The wells with elevated PCE are no longer used by the City of Salisbury (MDEWSP 2003). 

Concentrations of a soil fumigant, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane, greater than 50 percent of the MCL of 

0.2 ppb were found in City of Salisbury water in 2000. 


The proposed Project would extend across the Chesapeake Bay (MDE HUC 02139998; Lower 

Chesapeake Bay watershed) and up the Choptank River (MDE HUC 02130403; Lower Choptank 

watershed). The Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River crossings are discussed in Volume III. The 

onshore portion of the Project would traverse the Lower Choptank watershed, the Transquaking River 

1-55




watershed (MDE HUC 02130308) and the Nanticoke River watershed (MDE HUC 02130305) (MDE 

1998). Waterbodies crossed by the proposed Project include Lower Chesapeake Bay, Choptank River, 

Goose Creek, Indian Creek and an unnamed tributary to Indian Creek, Transquaking River and two 

unnamed tributaries to the Transquaking River, Chicamacomico River and two unnamed tributaries to the 

Chicamacomico River, and the Nanticoke River. 

Water Quality 


as recreation, fishing, or aquatic habitat. Table 1.3-5 lists waterbodies crossed by the proposed Project 

based field delineations conducted by the Company in 2011 (Coastal Resources Inc. 2011), as well as 

their water quality designations. 

Table 1.3-5 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter 

Waterbody Water Quality Designations Impact Type 

Lower Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

Lower 

Chesapeake Bay 

Choptank River Watershed 

Elevated TSS impairing seasonal 

shallow water vegetation. 

Elevated TP and TN causing low 

dissolved oxygen levels which are 

impairing seasonal deep-channel 

refuge use, seasonal deep water fish 

and shellfish, open water fish and 

shell fish, and seasonal deepchannel 

refuge use. 

Aquatic life and wildlife is 

considered impaired due to low 

benthic index of biotic integrity 

measurements. 

Choptank River First through fourth order streams 






1-56 

Length or 

Width 

Impacted / 

Area 

Impacted 

See Volume III See Volume 

III 

See Volume III See Volume 

III







Choptank River Watershed (continued) 


(continued) 

Unnamed Ditch 

(WC56/12-10), 

Non-tidal 

The Choptank River mesohaline 

mouth 1 and 2 areas are considered 

impaired for aquatic life and 

wildlife due to benthic assessments, 

shellfishing is considered impaired 

due to elevated fecal coliform, 

fishing is considered impaired due 

to PCB in fish tissue, and open 

water fish and shellfish due to low 

dissolved oxygen concentrations 

associated with elevated TN and 

TP. 

The Choptank River mesohaline 

and oligohaline segments are 

impaired for open water fish 

resources and shellfish resources 

due to low dissolved oxygen 

concentrations associated with 

elevated TN and TP, and seasonal 

shallow water SAV due to elevated 

TSS. 

A fecal coliform TMDL was 

approved for the lower Choptank 

River in 2008. 







A fecal coliform TMDL was 

approved for Indian Creek in 2006. 

1-57 

Permanent – 

Stabilized 

Construction 

Entrance 

Length or 

Width 

Impacted / 

Area 

Impacted 

55 linear feet / 

0.004 acre







Transquaking River Watershed 

Unnamed 

Tributary 

Transquaking 

River (WC32/12- 

3), Non-tidal 

Transquaking 


1), Non-tidal 

Chicamacomico 


1), Non-tidal 

Nanticoke River Watershed 

Unnamed Ditch 

(WC44/20-2), 

Non-tidal 

Nanticoke River, 

Tidal 

Note: 


in this basin are water quality 

impaired due to poor benthic and 

fish assessments. Conditions are 

not adequately supporting aquatic 

life and wildlife. 

A nutrient TMDL was approved for 

this watershed in 2000. 


in this basin are water quality 

impaired due to poor benthic and 

fish assessments. Conditions are 

not adequately supporting aquatic 

life and wildlife. 





A TMDL is in place for fecal 

coliform from livestock for the 

Lower Nanticoke River Mesohaline 

segment. 

A TMDL is in place for fecal 

coliform from livestock for the 

Lower Nanticoke River Mesohaline 

segment. 

1-58 

Temporary - 

Bridging 

Temporary - 

Bridging 

Temporary - 

Bridging 

Temporary - 

Bridging 

Permanent – Four 

structure foundations 

(estimated) 

Length or 

Width 

Impacted / 

Area 

Impacted 

10.5 feet 

(wide) / 0.003 

acre 

18 feet (wide) 

/ 0.006 acre 


/ 0.012 acre 


/ 0,004 acre 

0.0024 acre 

total 

(estimated) 

The Chesapeake Bay, Choptank River, and mouth of Goose Creek would be crossed using a jet plow and subsea cable installation with 

access to the western and eastern shorelines provided by horizontal directional drill (see Volume III). The remainder of the waterbodies 

listed would be crossed via aerial spanning. 




designated uses. COMAR 26.08.02.04-1A requires that an antidegradation review be performed for new





assure consistency with antidegradation requirements. No Tier II stream waters are crossed by the 

existing Project right-of-way (MDE 2010b). 



As discussed in more detail in Volume III, the Chesapeake Bay is a waterbody with regional and national 

significance. It is the largest estuary in the United States and one of the most biologically productive 

(MDE 2010c). Even after years of substantial pollution reduction efforts, the Bay does not attain water 

quality standards due to sediment loading and enrichment by nitrogen and phosphorus. For that reason, 

USEPA has developed a multi-state total maximum daily load (TMDL) for the Chesapeake Bay. The 

District of Columbia and the six states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed have developed Phase I 

watershed implementation plans (WIP) and will develop subsequent plans to ensure that all pollution 

control measures that are needed to fully restore the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal rivers are in place by 

2025 (USEPA 2010). 

The proposed Project traverses the Choptank River and Lower Eastern Shore tributary strategy areas. The 

Choptank River Tributary Strategy Area drains approximately 700 square miles of land and supports over 

80 species of fish in freshwater streams and brackish rivers. The Lower Eastern Shore Tributary Strategy 

Area drains approximately 1,450 square miles. Both watersheds are impacted by nutrient pollution, and 

both further contribute to nutrient pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. Land uses in these watersheds are 

predominantly agricultural and forested, and nutrient pollution is derived primarily from agricultural 

sources. 

1.3.3.4.3 Nationwide Rivers Inventory 

The Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) is a list of river segments in the United States that are believed to 

possess one or more "outstandingly remarkable" natural or cultural values judged to be of more than local 

or regional significance. The NRI program is managed by the National Park Service (NPS). Under a 

1980 presidential directive, all federal agencies must seek to avoid or mitigate actions that would 

adversely affect one or more NRI segments. Typically, the lead federal agency or its designee would 

coordinate with the NPS regarding potential impacts to NRI-listed streams. In order to be listed on the 

NRI, a river must be free-flowing and possess one or more Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORV). 

ORVs include: scenery, recreation, geology, fish, wildlife, prehistory, history, cultural, and other values. 

The Nanticoke River, as part of the Chesapeake Bay-Rivers System, is included on the NRI that would be 

crossed by the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter segment. The Chesapeake Bay-Rivers 

System is considered “an excellent example of undeveloped rivers in a regionally unique estuarine area. 

The area in total is composed of several distinct subareas which in combination form a highly exemplary, 

productive and important river mouth estuarine system. The area is the most significant of 16 similar 

identified areas in the northeast” (NPS 2011). Its ORV values include specific qualities in the categories 

of: hydrologic, botanic, fish, wildlife, and recreation. 

1-59






This component of the proposed Project is located in northwestern Wicomico County between the 

Nanticoke River and Mardela Springs. Groundwater is the primary source of drinking water for 

individual homes and communities in Wicomico County (MDEWSP 2004b and 2005b). 

The ten community water systems in Wicomico County serve about 4,000 of the County’s 84,644 people. 

Nine of the 24 community system wells are within unconfined aquifers (Columbia aquifer) and 15 are in 

confined aquifers (Manokin and Frederica aquifers) (MDEWSP 2005b). 

Near the proposed Project converter station and switching station site, the Hebron Woods community 

system provides water from the unconsolidated Columbia aquifer that is the uppermost hydrologic unit 

within the coastal plain of Maryland east of the Chesapeake Bay (MDEWSP 2005b). The City of 

Salisbury uses water from the Columbia surficial aquifer (MDEWSP 2003). Wells for the City of 

Salisbury have contained levels of nitrate greater than 50% of the MCL of 10ppm since 1994. PCE 

concentrations greater than 50% of the MCL of 5 ppb were detected in wells between 1988 and 1994. 

The wells with elevated PCE are no longer used by the City of Salisbury (MDEWSP 2003). 

Concentrations of a soil fumigant, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane, greater than 50% of the MCL of 0.2 ppb 

were found in City of Salisbury water in 2000. 


The proposed Gateway Converter and switching station site would be located in the Nanticoke River 

watershed (MDE HUC 02130305) (MDE 1998) in Wicomico County. There are no waterbodies located 

on the proposed Project location based on field delineation conducted by the Company in 2011 (Coastal 

Resources Inc. 2011). 

Water Quality 


as recreation, fishing, or aquatic habitat. First through fourth order streams in this watershed are listed as 

impaired due to poor benthic and fish assessments. 






assure consistency with antidegradation requirements. No Tier II stream waters are crossed by the 





The proposed Project is located in the Lower Eastern Shore tributary strategy area. The Lower Eastern 

Shore Tributary Strategy Area drains approximately 1,450 square miles. This watershed is impacted by 

1-60




nutrient pollution, and further contributes to nutrient pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. Land uses in the 

watershed are predominantly agricultural and forested, and nutrient pollution is derived primarily from 

agricultural sources. 



This component of the proposed project extends from the Gateway Converter east to the Maryland/ 

Delaware State line in northwest Wicomico County. Groundwater is the primary source of drinking water 

for individual homes and communities in Wicomico County (MDEWSP 2004b and 2005b). 

The ten community water systems in Wicomico County serve about 4,000 of the County’s 84,644 people. 

Nine of the 24 community system wells are within unconfined aquifers (Columbia aquifer) and 15 are in 

confined aquifers (Manokin and Frederica aquifers) (MDEWSP 2005b). 

Near the proposed Project alignment in Wicomico County, the Hebron Woods community system 

provides water from the unconsolidated Columbia aquifer that is the uppermost hydrologic unit within the 

coastal plain of Maryland east of the Chesapeake Bay (MDEWSP 2005b). The City of Salisbury uses 

water from the Columbia surficial aquifer (MDEWSP 2003). Wells for the City of Salisbury have 

contained levels of nitrate greater than 50 percent of the MCL of 10ppm since 1994. PCE concentrations 

greater than 50 percent of the MCL of 5 ppb were detected in wells between 1988 and 1994. The wells 

with elevated PCE are no longer used by the City of Salisbury (MDEWSP 2003). Concentrations of a 

soil fumigant, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane, greater than 50% of the MCL of 0.2 ppb were found in City 

of Salisbury water in 2000. 


The proposed Project would be constructed within the existing right-of-way from the Gateway Converter 

through Wicomico County to the Maryland/Delaware State line in the Nanticoke River watershed (MDE 

HUC 02130305) (MDE 1998). Waterbodies crossed by the proposed Project include three non-tidal 

streams based on field delineation conducted by the Company in 2011 (Coastal Resources Inc. 2011). 

Water Quality 


as recreation, fishing, or aquatic habitat. Table 1.3-6 lists the waterbodies crossed by the proposed Project 

based on field delineation conducted by the Company in 2011 (Coastal Resources Inc. 2011) and their 

water quality status. First through fourth order streams in this watershed are listed as impaired due to 

poor benthic and fish assessments. 






assure consistency with antidegradation requirements. No Tier II stream watersheds are crossed by the 


1-61






Table 1.3-6 

Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line Waterbodies 


Nanticoke River Watershed 

Unnamed 


Barren Creek 

(VDL – 17), Nontidal 

Bratton Creek 

(VDL – 22), Nontidal 

Mockingbird 

Creek (VDL – 

28), Non-tidal 




and fish assessments. Conditions 

are not adequately supporting 

aquatic life and wildlife. 













Note: 

All of these streams would be crossed via aerial spanning. 


1-62 

Temporary - 

Bridging 

Temporary - 

Bridging 

Temporary - 

Bridging 

Width / Area 

Impacted 

12 feet / 0.004 

acre 

12 feet / 0.004 

acre 

2 feet / 0.001 

acre 

The proposed Project is located in the Lower Eastern Shore tributary strategy area. The Lower Eastern 

Shore Tributary Strategy Area drains approximately 1,450 square miles. This watershed is impacted by 

nutrient pollution, and further contributes to nutrient pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. Land uses in the 

watershed are predominantly agricultural and forested, and nutrient pollution is derived primarily from 

agricultural sources. 


Potential impacts to groundwater and surface water from the proposed projects are discussed in the 

following section.






There are no potential impacts to utilized groundwater supplies resulting from construction and operation 

of the Project, which is described in Volume I, Section 2.0. Depending upon the specific configuration of 

the aquifers at the Project location, and the depth of the footers, shallow aquifers could be penetrated by 

the footers for the river and/or land structures. However, penetration of the shallow aquifers, should it 

occur, is not expected to impact the quality, level, or flow of groundwater. The relatively small size of 

the footers would have minimal effects on any surficial groundwater, and aquifers used by nearby 

communities are located at least 50 feet below the ground surface and would not be impacted by Projectrelated 

disturbance. No additional impervious surfaces other than the footers for the new transmission 

structures would be added as a part of this Project, so groundwater recharge would be minimally 

impacted. The Company would manage the small amount of tree/vegetation clearing and construction of 

the new structures with best management practices. Erosion from disturbed soil would be minimized by 

the use of best management practices through Soil Erosion and Sediment Control or Forest Harvest Plans. 

These measures, which may include hand clearing in wetland areas, leaving cleared stumps and root 

systems in place, or use of temporary matting or use of low impact tires, would help prevent soil 

compaction and any resulting impacts to groundwater recharge from soil compaction at the Project 

location. Matting at wetland crossings would further minimize soil disturbance and compaction. These 

measures would help prevent any impacts to groundwater recharge near the Project location. Since very 

little ground disturbance would occur during the construction of this segment of the Project, no domestic 

or community wells would be impacted by sedimentation. 

Accidental spills and leaks of potentially hazardous materials could cause impacts to groundwater 

resources through introduction of contaminants, if the spill material seeps into the soil and groundwater. 

During construction, the Company would implement BMPs to minimize the potential for spills and 

manage the storage and use of materials for spill prevention. The Construction Management plan would 

include a section on the management of hazardous materials, such as fuels, lubricants, coolants, and 

herbicides that would be used during construction and maintenance. 


Potential Patuxent River Crossing Impacts and Mitigation 

The Project includes a crossing of the Patuxent River from Chalk Point on the western bank in Prince 

George’s County to Leitch Wharf on the eastern bank in Calvert County. The Patuxent River crossing 

currently has four single circuit structures, and the Project involves the installation of new (additional) 

single-circuit structures located upstream and parallel to the existing crossing. The base or foundation for 

each structure is installed on six pilings (approximately 2 feet in diameter). The new structures would 

permanently encumber a total of approximately 0.002 acres of the river bottom. 

As discussed in Volume I, Section 2.0, the foundations would be directly installed from barges. The 

foundations would consist of hollow, closed end piles that would be driven into the river bottoms. Once 

the piles are driven to the design depth, they would be cut off above the water line and filled with 

compacted sand up to about 30 feet from the top of the pile. Reinforcing steel and concrete would be 

placed in the top portion of each pile. The reinforcing steel would extend above the top of the pile and 

would be embedded in the pile cap. Once all piles have been installed, wood and metal forms would be 

placed around the piles to tie them together. Reinforcing steel and anchor bolts would be placed in the 

1-63




formwork and then concrete would be pumped into the form. The structure would then be bolted to the 

form. 

This construction technique would result in a limited and local disturbance of surface water sediments, 

causing a temporary and largely localized increase in TSS and turbidity. No submerged SAV cover was 

found at the location of the Patuxent River where new structures would be constructed (Virginia Institute 

of Marine Sciences [VIMS], 2009). No impacts to SAV from increased turbidity or suspended sediments 

are expected. 

Sediment samples obtained in 2008 from the north and south sides of the four existing structures in the 

Patuxent River indicated the presence of a variety of contaminants in the sediments. Contaminants 

detected in the sediments included multiple heavy metals and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) 

(e.g., polycyclic organic hydrocarbons). Although PCBs were not detected in these samples with the 

specified analytical method, they are a known contaminant in the Patuxent River sediments and may be 

present in this location at low concentrations. 

Pile driving of the type proposed for this project does not release significant amounts of sediment into the 

water column. The primary source of sediment disturbance from pile driving operations is generally 

associated with pressure waves propagating from the pile driving head through the pile, which can 

causing a brief tap in lighter surface sediments upon each hit. This “bump” each time the head hammers 

the pile would, at worst, cause lighter, finer surficial particles or the largely organic “duff” – the top 

organic detritus that lines the bottom of many areas – in the topmost surface sediment to become briefly 

re-suspended in the immediate vicinity of the pile being driven. 

Piles are typically designed for displacement of sediments, further limiting vertical movement (and 

potential re-suspension) of sediments. Such “displacement piles” are used to support structures by 

transmitting loads to the soils or sediments below. Displacement piles increase soil density and strength 

by consolidating soil. Sometimes the soil will heave at the surface, but not enough to suspend sediments. 

Driving piles using capped, hollow pipes do not disturb surface or deeper sediments except for that 

related to compressing the materials about the exterior circumference of the pipe which affords the piling 

its structural integrity. This type of piling construction also does not force deeper sediments to mix with 

surface sediments or the water column that may be associated with other piling construction techniques 

like drilled pilings might suspend sediments. Pepco is also investigating alternative pile installation 

methods through vibration or hydraulics that would further minimize the potential for suspension of 

sediments. 

Prior to commencement of construction activities in the Patuxent River, the Company will deploy bubble 

curtains around each of the proposed in-water structure foundations. Bubble curtains will be properly 

maintained during pile driving to protect fish from underwater pressure waves and to deter fish from 

approach the foundation piles as they are installed. Additionally, the Company may implement preinstallation 

“tapping” techniques as recommended by NOAA NMFS, to encourage fish to avoid the area. 

The Company is investigating alternative pile installation methods through vibration or hydraulics that 

further minimize the potential for resuspension of sediments and may eliminate the need for a turbidity 

curtain. Therefore, the use of a turbidity curtain or other similar device will be evaluated after selection 

of a construction contractor and construction method. The specific proposed construction method and 

best management practices will be provided to the Power Plant Research Program (PPRP) and MDE prior 

to construction for review once a contractor is selected. 

1-64




Because the Patuxent River is tidally influenced at the existing Project right-of-way crossing, temporary 

increases in turbidity, TSS, and other pollutants in the water column may occur both upstream and 

downstream of Project construction areas. Short term disruption of benthic inhabitants and fish would be 

expected at Project construction areas, including the areas where sediments are temporarily re-suspended. 

These matters are discussed in Section 1.7.2. 

Potential Onshore Impacts and Mitigation 

As discussed in Volume I, Section 2.0, the proposed plan on land includes adding new single circuit 

structures within the existing Project right-of-way west of the Patuxent River. Soils removed from the 

auger holes would be removed off-site or spread within the existing Project right-of-way. If spread within 

the existing Project right-of-way, soils would not be placed in waterbodies, or on steep slopes adjacent to 

water resources. No new land-based structures would be located in stream channels 

Potential temporary and short-term impacts to the eight identified waterbodies (other than the Patuxent 

River) in this segment may include sediment influxes from construction of the new structures for aerial 

spans and tree/vegetation clearing. However, these impacts would be minimized by the use of a variety 

of best management practices to limit soil disturbance and migration. Erosion from disturbed soil near 

the new structure footings would be minimized by the use of standard erosion control measures. 


would be minimized by placement off of steep slopes; BMPs would be used as necessary to prevent 

movement of the loose soil into waterbodies and wetlands. Erosion from disturbed soil would be 

minimized by the use of best management practices through Soil Erosion and Sediment Control or Forest 

Harvest Plans. Temporary mats for trucks and construction equipment would be used for wetland 

crossings to minimize soil disturbance and compaction and maintain wetland and riparian root systems to 

promote regrowth or revegetation. Bank to bank bridges would be used in all places where trucks or 

equipment cross stream beds resulting in temporary impacts as listed in Table 1.3-2. Impacts will be 

minimized to the extent practicable during the final engineering design and construction phases. 



reduce the risks of erosion and associated sediment pollution in adjacent waterbodies. Soil disturbance is 

not expected in staging areas for heavy materials as these areas would be located away from streams to 

avoid the potential for soil migration into waterbodies. Last, whenever an access road or entrance to the 

existing Project right-of-way intersects any paved public roadway, a stabilized construction entrance 

would be installed to prevent the tracking or flowing of sediment onto the public road as necessary and as 

allowed. 

Accidental spills and leaks of potentially hazardous materials could cause impacts to groundwater or 

surface water resources. The Company and its contractors would utilize measures and BMPs to minimize 

the likelihood of spills or accidental releases of hazardous materials, such as fuels, lubricants, coolants, 

and herbicides that would be used during construction of the structures and maintenance of the 

transmission line. In the event of a spill, BMPs would be used to contain and clean up the spill in order to 

prevent or minimize environmental impacts. 

Right-of-way maintenance would be performed as described in Volume I, Section 2.4.1. 

1-65






Potential impacts to groundwater from the Chestnut Converter would be minor and would be related to 

Project construction, clearing and grading, and the permanent addition of impervious surfaces for the 

converter station itself. As described in Volume I, Section 2.0, the impervious surfaces added would be 

for the new converter and switching station structures and some paved access. These facilities would 

have minimal impacts on groundwater recharge. 

Accidental spills and leaks of potentially hazardous materials during construction could cause impacts to 

groundwater resources through introduction of contaminants, if the spill material seeps into the soil and 

groundwater. During construction, the Company would implement BMPs to minimize the potential for 

spills and manage the storage and use of materials for spill prevention. The Construction Management 

plan would include a section on the management of hazardous materials, such as fuels, lubricants, 

coolants, and herbicides that would be used during construction and maintenance. Erosion from disturbed 

soil would be minimized by the use of best management practices through Soil Erosion and Sediment 

Control or Forest Harvest Plans. 

The Company would manage tree/vegetation clearing and construction of the new converter site 

infrastructure with BMPs to help prevent soil compaction and any resulting impacts to groundwater 

recharge near the Project location. The level of ground disturbance during the construction of the Project 

is not expected to cause domestic or community wells to be impacted by sedimentation. 


The construction of the Chestnut Converter, which is described in Volume I, Section 2.0, would 

permanently affect three waterbodies as described in Table 1.3-3. Impacts will be minimized to the extent 

practicable during the final engineering design and construction phases. Temporary and short term 

indirect impacts to this surface water could include sediment influxes from land disturbance associated 

with construction of the new converter station and switching station, stream bed disturbance, and 

tree/vegetation clearing. However, these impacts would be minimized by the use of a variety of measures 

to limit soil disturbance and migration. Erosion from disturbed soil would be minimized by the use of 

best management practices through Soil Erosion and Sediment Control or Forest Harvest Plans. Erosion 

from disturbed soil near the new converter station would be minimized by the use of standard erosion 

control and stormwater management measures. Movement of loose soil spread across the existing Project 

right-of-way (limited to non-regulated areas) would be minimized by placement away from steep slopes; 

BMPs would be used as necessary to prevent movement of the loose soil into this waterbodies. Bank to 

bank bridges would be used in all places where trucks would cross the stream bed. Pending final 

engineering design, there may be areas where permanent crossings will be needed and constructed. 

Accidental spills and leaks of potentially hazardous materials could cause impacts to surface water 

resources through introduction of contaminants. During construction, the Company would implement 

BMPs to minimize the potential for spills and manage the storage and use of materials for spill 

prevention. The Construction Management plan would include a section on the management of 

hazardous materials, such as fuels, lubricants, coolants, and herbicides that would be used during 

construction and maintenance. 

1-66






Minimal potential impacts to groundwater resulting from construction and operation of the Project, which 

is described in Volume I, Section 2.0, would be expected. Construction of the Project would include 

underground transmission line leaving the converter station leading to the (Baltimore Gas and Electric 

Company) BGE right-of-way as well as the direct current (DC) cables that would be direct buried in the 

BGE right-of-way, which would involve impacts to vegetation within the existing right-of-way. The 

cables would then be pulled in a duct bank under Western Shores Boulevard. Since this duct bank is 

under a roadway or adjacent to the roadway within the road right-of-way, no additional clearing would be 

necessary. Some excavation and soil disturbance would be associated with the HDD work areas as 

described in Volume I; however, the intent of the HDD is to minimize impacts to adjacent resources. 

Depending upon the specific configuration of the aquifers at the Project location, and the depth of the 

water table, the surficial aquifer could be penetrated by the underground trenches. However, penetration 

of the aquifers, should it occur, is not expected to impact the quality, level, or flow of groundwater. The 

surficial aquifer is rarely used for drinking water in Calvert County (Calvert County 2004). 

The dewatering of trenches, if necessary, during direct burial of underground transmission lines may 

temporarily lower surficial groundwater levels. Groundwater removed from the trench would be 

managed in accordance with regulatory requirements. Removal techniques such as pumping filtered water 

into a nearby stormwater management system or waterway are possible. 

New impervious surfaces added as part of this Project would include manholes or vaults installed as 

described in Volume I. Groundwater recharge would be minimally reduced. 

The Company would manage the small amount of tree/vegetation clearing and construction along the 

project area with BMPs. Erosion from disturbed soil would be minimized by the use of best management 

practices through Soil Erosion and Sediment Control or Forest Harvest Plans. These measures, which 

may include hand clearing in wetland areas, leaving cleared stumps and root systems in place except 

directly over the trench line, use of temporary matting or use of low impact tires would help prevent soil 

compaction and any resulting impacts to groundwater recharge near the Project location. Matting of 

wetland crossings would further minimize soil disturbance and compaction. These measures would help 

prevent any impacts to groundwater recharge near the Project location. 





Plan would include a section on the management of hazardous materials, such as fuels, lubricants, 

coolants, and herbicides that would be used during construction and maintenance. 


For the transmission circuit that would be directly buried, which is described in Volume I, Section 2.0, 

transmission lines (cable) would be installed within an existing utility right-of-way in two trenches using 

open cut trenching as described in Volume I. Three waterbodies, listed in Table 1.3-4 would be crossed 

by trenching in this proposed underground segment. Impacts will be minimized to the extent practicable 

1-67




through the use of best management practices during the final engineering design and construction 

phases. 

Following installation of the underground transmission lines, streams that were trenched would be 

returned to their channel as applicable and the natural streambed bottom (mud, sand, cobble) would be 

restored or replaced. 

Temporary and short term impacts to surface waters related to Project construction may include sediment 

influxes from construction of the underground transmission circuits and pre-cast concrete splicing vaults, 

stream bed disturbance, tree/vegetation clearing, and road construction. However, these impacts would 

be minimized by the use of a variety of measures to limit soil disturbance and migration. Erosion from 

disturbed soil would be minimized by the use of best management practices through Forest Harvest Plans. 

Erosion from disturbed soil near the trenches would be minimized by the use of measures called for in the 

current version of the Maryland Standards and Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control. 


would be minimized by placement away from steep slopes; BMPs would be used as necessary to prevent 

movement of the loose soil into waterbodies. Bank to bank bridges would be used in all places, when 

applicable, where trucks would cross a stream bed. 




prevention. The Construction Management plan would include a section on the management of 




As discussed in detail in Volume III, the proposed Project would include the installation of two new DC 

submarine transmission circuits across the Chesapeake Bay and up the Choptank River to a landfall 

location in Dorchester County, Maryland (Eastern Shore Landing). From there, the transmission lines 

would continue underground to the southeast side of Route 16, and then continue overhead through a new 

200-foot right-of-way in Dorchester County, ending at a new converter station in Wicomico County. This 

segment would also include construction of the Choptank River Station where the underground 

transmission line would transition to an aerial line as discussed in Volume I. 


There are minimal potential impacts to groundwater resulting from construction and operation of this 

proposed Project component, which is described in Volume I, Section 2.0. 


water table, the surficial aquifer could be penetrated by the underground trenches east of the Choptank 

River landfall or by grading at the Choptank River Station. However, penetration of the aquifers, should 

it occur, is not expected to impact the quality, level, or flow of groundwater. 

The dewatering of trenches, if necessary, during direct burial of underground transmission lines may 

temporarily lower surficial groundwater levels. Groundwater removed from the trench would be 

managed in accordance with regulatory requirements. Removal techniques such as pumping into a nearby 

sewer system or waterway are possible. 

1-68




The Company would manage the tree/vegetation clearing and construction along the existing right-of-way 

with BMPs. Erosion from disturbed soil would be minimized by the use of best management practices 

through Soil Erosion and Sediment Control or Forest Harvest Plans. These measures, which may include 

hand clearing in wetland areas, leaving cleared stumps and root systems in place except directly over the 

trench line, or use of temporary matting or use of low impact equipment would help prevent soil 

compaction and any resulting impacts to groundwater recharge near the Project location. Matting of 

wetland crossings would further minimize soil disturbance and compaction. These measures would help 

prevent any impacts to groundwater recharge near the Project location. 

There are minimal potential impacts to utilized groundwater supplies resulting from construction and 

operation of the Project for the installation of the aerial structures or the Choptank River Station. 


footers, shallow aquifers could be penetrated by the footers for the river and/or land structures. However, 

penetration of the shallow aquifers, should it occur, is not expected to impact the quality, level, or flow of 

groundwater. The relatively small size of the footers would have minimal effects on any surficial 

groundwater, and aquifers used by nearby communities are typically located at least 30 feet below the 

ground surface and likely would not be impacted by Project-related disturbance. No additional 

impervious surfaces other than the footers for the new transmission structures or the small structures of 

the Choptank River Station would be added as a part of this aerial segment, so groundwater recharge 

would be minimally impacted. 





Plan would include a section on the management of hazardous materials, such as fuels, lubricants, 

coolants, and herbicides that would be used during construction and maintenance. 


Impacts and mitigation for the crossing of the Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River are discussed in 

Volume III. 

Potential Nanticoke River Crossing Impacts and Mitigation 

The Nanticoke River would be crossed aerially using three pairs of single-pole structures and associated 

footers, which is described in Volume I, Section 2.0. The crossing length of the River is approximately 

0.4-mile long. Pile driving of the type proposed for this project does not release significant amounts of 

sediment into the water column. The primary source of sediment disturbance from pile driving operations 

is generally associated with pressure waves propagating from the pile driving head through the pile, 

which can causing a brief tap in lighter surface sediments upon each hit. This “bump” each time the head 

hammers the pile would, at worst, cause lighter, finer surficial particles or the largely organic “duff” – the 

top organic detritus that lines the bottom of many areas – in the topmost surface sediment to become 

briefly re-suspended in the immediate vicinity of the pile being driven. 

Piles are typically designed for displacement of sediments, further limiting vertical movement (and 

potential re-suspension) of sediments. Such “displacement piles” are used to support structures by 

transmitting loads to the soils or sediments below. Displacement piles increase soil density and strength 

by consolidating soil. Sometimes the soil will heave at the surface, but not enough to suspend sediments. 

1-69




Driving piles using capped, hollow pipes do not disturb surface or deeper sediments except for that 

related to compressing the materials about the exterior circumference of the pipe which affords the piling 

its structural integrity. This type of piling construction also does not force deeper sediments to mix with 

surface sediments or the water column that may be associated with other piling construction techniques 

like drilled pilings might suspend sediments. Pepco is also investigating alternative pile installation 

methods through vibration or hydraulics that would further minimize the potential for suspension of 

sediments. 

Prior to commencement of construction activities in the Nanticoke River, the Company will deploy 

bubble curtains around each of the proposed in-water structure foundations. Bubble curtains will be 

properly maintained during pile driving to protect fish from underwater pressure waves and to deter fish 

from approach the foundation piles as they are installed. Additionally, the Company may implement preinstallation 

“tapping” techniques as recommended by NOAA NMFS, to encourage fish to avoid the area. 

The Company is investigating alternative pile installation methods through vibration or hydraulics that 

further minimize the potential for resuspension of sediments and may eliminate the need for a turbidity 

curtain. Therefore, the use of a turbidity curtain or other similar device will be evaluated after selection 

of a construction contractor and construction method. The specific proposed construction method and 

best management practices will be provided to PPRP and MDE prior to construction for review once a 

contractor is selected. 

Potential Onshore Impacts and Mitigation 

The transmission circuit located east of the Choptank River and mouth of Goose Creek would be installed 

underground in a duct bank as described in Volume I, Section 2.0. No streams would be disturbed during 

construction of the Choptank River Station. 

Following installation of the underground transmission lines, all disturbed areas would be restored as 

closely as possible to pre-construction contours to allow for the agricultural use of the land. The 

maintenance of a permanent access road would not reduce groundwater discharge or increase stormwater 

runoff since it would not be a paved surface. 

Temporary and short term impacts to surface waters related to Project construction may include sediment 

influxes from construction of the underground transmission circuits and pre-cast concrete splicing vaults, 

stream bed disturbance, tree/vegetation clearing, and road construction. However, these impacts would 

be minimized by the use of a variety of measures to limit soil disturbance and migration. Erosion from 

disturbed soil near the trenches would be minimized by the use of. measures called for in the current 

version of the Maryland Standards and Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Movement 

of loose soil spread across the existing Project right-of-way (limited to non-regulated areas) would be 

minimized by placement away from steep slopes; BMPs would be used as necessary to prevent movement 

of the loose soil into waterbodies. Bank-to-bank bridges would be used in all places where trucks would 

cross a stream bed temporarily affecting four waterbodies as listed in Table 1.3-5. Impacts will be 


Potential temporary and short term impacts to the onshore waterbodies other than the Nanticoke River 

(Table 1.3-5) in the aerially spanned segment may include sediment influxes from construction of the new 

structures and tree/vegetation clearing. For the majority of aerial stream crossings, the transmission lines 

would cross above the stream channel and no construction in the channel itself would be required, and 

there would be no permanent impacts to the stream channels themselves. However, as applicable, these 

impacts would be minimized by the use of a variety of best management practices to limit soil disturbance 

and migration. Erosion from disturbed soil would be minimized by the use of best management practices 

1-70




through Soil Erosion and Sediment Control or Forest Harvest Plans. Erosion from disturbed soil near the 

new structure footings would be minimized by the use of standard erosion control measures. Movement 

of loose soil spread across the existing Project right-of-way (limited to non-regulated areas) would be 

minimized by placement off of steep slopes; BMPs would be used as necessary to prevent movement of 

the loose soil into waterbodies and wetlands. Temporary mats for trucks and construction equipment 

would be used for wetland crossings to minimize soil disturbance and compaction and maintain wetland 

and riparian root systems to promote regrowth or revegetation. Bank to bank bridges would be used 

where possible in places where trucks cross stream beds, keeping equipment out of stream beds. The use 

of equipment bridges bank to bank would be further evaluated in Dorchester County, where site 

conditions and topography may limit their feasibility. 



reduce the risks of erosion and associated sediment pollution in adjacent waterbodies. Soil disturbance is 

not expected in staging areas for heavy materials as these areas would be located away from streams to 

avoid the potential for soil migration into waterbodies. Whenever an access road or entrance to the 

existing Project right-of-way intersects any paved public roadway, a stabilized construction entrance will 

be installed to prevent the tracking or flowing of sediment onto the public road as necessary and as 

allowed. 









Potential impacts to groundwater from the Gateway Converter would be minor and would be related to 

Project construction, clearing and grading, and the permanent addition of impervious surfaces for the 

converter station itself. As described in Volume I, Section 2.0, the impervious surfaces added would be 

for the new converter and switching station structures and some paved access. These facilities would 

have minimal impacts on groundwater recharge. 




spills and manage the storage and use of materials for spill prevention. Erosion from disturbed soil would 

be minimized by the use of best management practices through Soil Erosion and Sediment Control or 

Forest Harvest Plans. The Construction Management plan would include a section on the management of 



The Company would manage tree/vegetation clearing and construction of the new converter site 

infrastructure with BMPs to help prevent soil compaction in applicable areas and any resulting impacts to 

groundwater recharge near the Project location. The level of ground disturbance during the construction 

of the Project is not expected to cause domestic or community wells to be impacted by sedimentation. 

1-71





As no waterbodies are located on the Gateway Converter project site, no direct impacts to water bodies 

would occur. Potential temporary and short term indirect impacts to any adjacent, off-site surface waters 

resulting from site runoff could include sediment influxes from construction of the new converter station, 

which is described in Volume I, Section 2.0. However, these impacts would be minimized by the use of a 

variety of measures to limit soil disturbance and migration. Erosion from disturbed soil would be 

minimized by the use of best management practices through Soil Erosion and Sediment Control or Forest 

Harvest Plans. Erosion from disturbed soil near the new converter station would be minimized by the use 

of standard erosion control and stormwater management measures. Movement of loose soil spread across 

the existing Project right-of-way (limited to non-regulated areas) would be minimized by placement away 

from steep slopes; BMPs would be used as necessary to prevent movement of the loose soil into 

waterbodies and wetlands. 




prevention. The Construction site plan would include a section on the management of hazardous 

materials, such as fuels, lubricants, coolants, and herbicides that would be used during construction and 

maintenance. 



There are minimal potential impacts to groundwater resulting from construction and operation of the 

proposed Project component, which is described in Volume I, Section 2.0. For the new transmission 

lines, no additional impervious surfaces, other than the structure footings, would be added as a part of this 

Project, so groundwater recharge would be minimally impacted. 

The Company would manage the construction along the existing right-of-way with BMPs. Erosion from 

disturbed soil would be minimized by the use of best management practices through Soil Erosion and 

Sediment Control or Forest Harvest Plans. These measures, which may include the use of temporary 

matting or the use of low impact tires would help prevent soil compaction and any resulting impacts to 

groundwater recharge near the Project location. Matting near wetland crossings would further minimize 

soil disturbance and compaction. These measures would help prevent any impacts to groundwater 

recharge near the Project location. Since very little ground disturbance would occur during the 

construction of the Project, no domestic or community wells would be impacted by sedimentation. 








Three waterbodies would be crossed by this proposed Project segment and are listed in Table 1.3-6. 

Although the aerial transmission lines may cross above stream channels in the new Project right-of-way, 

1-72




which is described in Volume I, Section 2.0, there would be no construction within stream channels and 

therefore there would be no permanent impact to the channels themselves. No new land-based structures 

would be located in stream channels. 

Short-term temporary impacts to surface waters may include sediment influxes from transmission line 

installation. However, these impacts would be minimized by the use of a variety of measures to limit 

soil/sediment disturbance and migration. Erosion from disturbed soil would be minimized by the use of 

best management practices through Soil Erosion and Sediment Control or Forest Harvest Plans. 

Temporary mats for trucks and construction equipment would be used to minimize soil/sediment 

disturbance and compaction and maintain wetland and riparian root systems to promote regrowth or 

revegetation. The mats would be used in all places where trucks cross wetlands; bank-to-bank bridging 

would be used for stream crossings. Bank to bank bridges would be used in all places where trucks or 

equipment cross stream beds resulting in temporary impacts as listed in Table 1.3-6. Impacts will be 


Soil disturbance is not expected in staging areas for heavy materials however as these areas would be 

located away from wetlands and streams to avoid the potential for soil migration into waterbodies. Last, 

whenever an access road or entrance to the existing Project right-of-way intersects any paved public 

roadway, stabilized construction entrances would be used to prevent the tracking or flowing of sediment 

onto the public road as necessary and as allowed. . 

Accidental spills and leaks of potentially hazardous materials could cause impacts to groundwater or 

surface water resources. The Company and its contractors would document measures to minimize the 

likelihood of spills or accidental releases of hazardous materials, such as fuels, lubricants, coolants, and 

herbicides that would be used during construction of the structures and maintenance of the transmission 

line. 


Calvert County. 2004 Comprehensive Plan, Calvert County Maryland, December 2004. Available at: 

http://www.co.cal.md.us/references/documents/plan/. 

City of Salisbury, 2009. Draft 2009 Comprehensive Plan, Water Resources Chapter 5. Available at: 

http://www.ci.salisbury.md.us/Portals/0/Press/7Draft_CityCompPlan_Chapter5_WaterResources 

Element_April09.pdf. 

Coastal Resources, Inc., 2011. Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway, Wetland Delineation Report – Chestnut 

Converter to Maryland / Delaware Line. February 2011. 

Drummond, David. 2007. Water-Supply Potential of the Coastal Plain Aquifers in Calvert, Charles, and 

St. Mary’s Counties, Maryland, with Emphasis on the Upper Patapsco and Lower Patapsco 

Aquifers. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Geological Survey Report of 

Investigations No. 76, 2007. Available at: http://www.mgs.md.gov/hydro/pub/ri76abs.html. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2010. Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategies. 

Available at: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/tribstrat/patuxent/patuxent.html. 

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) 1998. swsub8 – Maryland’s Sub-Watersheds GIS data 

layer. Available online: www.msgic.state.md.us/techtool. 

1-73




Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2008a. The 2008 Integrated Report of Surface Water 

Quality in Maryland. Draft Report. Available at: 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/TMDL/Maryland%20303%20dlist/2008_ 

303d_pubnotice.asp. 

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2008b. Maryland’s High Quality Waters (Tier II). 

Available at: 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/ResearchCenter/Data/waterQualityStandards/Antidegradation/index. 

asp. 

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2010a. The 2010 Integrated Report of Surface Water 

Quality in Maryland. Draft Report. Available at: 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/TMDL/Pub_Notice/draft_2010_IR_for_p 

ubnotice.asp. 

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2010b. Maryland’s High Quality Waters (Tier II). 

Available at: 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/ResearchCenter/Data/waterQualityStandards/Antidegradation/index. 

asp. 

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2010c. Maryland’s Role in the Chesapeake Bay 

TMDL. Available at: 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/TMDL/cb_tmdl/index.asp. 

Maryland Department of the Environment Water Supply Program (MDEWSP). 2003. Source Water 

Assessment for City of Salisbury, Wicomico County, Maryland. 

Maryland Department of the Environment Water Supply Program (MDEWSP). 2004a. Source Water 

Assessment for Community Water Systems in Calvert County, Maryland. 

Maryland Department of the Environment Water Supply Program (MDEWSP). 2004b. Source Water 

Assessment for Community Water Systems in Dorchester County, Maryland. 

Maryland Department of the Environment Water Supply Program (MDEWSP). 2005a. Source Water 

Assessment for Calvert County, Maryland. 

Maryland Department of the Environment Water Supply Program (MDEWSP). 2005b. Source Water 

Assessment for Community Water Systems in Wicomico County, Maryland. 

Maryland Department of the Environment Water Supply Program (MDEWSP). 2007. Ground Water 

Protection Program Annual Report to the Maryland General Assembly. Available at: 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/WSP-AGW2007.pdf. 

Maryland Department of the Environment Water Supply Program (MDEWSP). 2008. Ground Water 

Protection Program 2007 Annual Report to the Maryland General Assembly. Available at: 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/WSP-AGW2007.pdf. 

McGreevy, L. J., and J.C. Wheeler. 2010. National Water Summary – Groundwater Resources, Maryland 

and the District of Columbia. United States Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2275. 

http://md.water.usgs.gov/publications/wsp-2275/md-dc-html.html. 

1-74




National Park Service (NPS) 2011. National Center for Recreation and Conservation: Nationwise Rivers 

Inventory website. Available online: http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/index.html. 

Accessed March 11, 2011. 

Soeder, Daniel, Jeff Raffensperger, and Mark Nardi. 2007. Effects of Withdrawals on Ground-Water 

Levels in Southern Maryland and the Adjacent Eastern Shore, 1980-2005. United States 

Geological Survey and Maryland Power Plant Research Program. Scientific Investigations 

Report 2007-5249. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5249/. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2010, Chesapeake Bay TMDL Executive Summary., 

Accessed on March 31, 2011. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbay/FinalBayTMDL/BayTMDLExecutiveSummaryF 

INAL122910_final.pdf 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). 2009. 2008 Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

in Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Bays. Available at: 

http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav06/index.html. 

Wicomico County 2009. Wicomico County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 5: Water Resources Element. 

Available at: 

http://www.wicomicocounty.org/news/2009_news//2009_WRE/WRE_County_9152009_FINAL. 

pdf. 

1-75




1.4 WETLANDS 

This section provides information on the wetland resources associated with the installation and operation 

of the Project in Prince George’s, Calvert, Dorchester and Wicomico Counties, Maryland. Wetland 

resources reviewed include the wetlands, wetland buffers, and Wetlands of Special State Concern 

occurring at the converter stations and along the transmission line route. Special wetland management 

areas are described in Section 1.4.1. Existing conditions are addressed first in Section 1.4.2 followed by 


The state of Maryland classifies wetlands as tidal or nontidal and defines each type by their spatial 

distribution, hydrology, vegetation, and soils. Nontidal wetlands are those inundated or saturated by 

surface water or groundwater at a frequency that generally supports hydrophytic vegetation. Tidal 

wetlands include all marshes, submerged aquatic vegetation, lands, and open water affected by the tides 

within the Chesapeake Bay, its tributaries, and state waters (MDE 2003). Wetlands perform a number of 

valuable ecosystem functions. Among these are flood flow attenuation, sediment retention, nutrient 

retention, provision of wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge and discharge, recreation, and erosion 

control. 

The entire Project area is within the Coastal Plain physiographic region of Maryland. This province has 

the highest diversity of emergent estuarine and palustrine wetland communities in the state. Estuarine 

systems include tidal waters and contiguous wetlands with salinities that are occasionally diluted by 

freshwater runoff. Brackish marshes are the dominant estuarine wetland type in Maryland, and they can 

be found inshore along coastal rivers (MDE 2003). Palustrine wetland communities include nontidal 

wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, and emergent mosses or lichens, as well as 

tidal wetlands with salinities less than 0.5 percent (Cowardin et al 1979). Palustrine wetlands in the 

Coastal Plain are dominated by forested wetlands which are located within floodplains along the 

freshwater tidal and nontidal river and stream segments, in upland depressions, and flat areas between 

drainages (MDE 2003). Palustrine emergent (PEM) wetlands are characterized by erect, rooted, 

herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses and lichens (Cowardin et al. 1979). Palustrine scrub-shrub 

(PSS) wetlands include all wetlands dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall. PSS wetlands 

are typically not as structurally diverse as forested wetlands due to the lack of trees comprising a canopy. 

In general, PSS wetlands supply an abundance of food and cover resources for mammals and birds 

(Cowardin et al. 1979). Palustrine forested (PFO) wetlands are dominated by woody vegetation that is at 

least 20 feet tall, and these wetlands provide a diverse assemblage of vegetation and an abundance of food 

and water sources for wildlife (Cowardin et al. 1979). Riverine wetlands also occur in the Project area 

and include sparsely vegetated wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a channel that have 

salinities less than 0.5 percent (Cowardin et al. 1979). 

The Company has completed wetland delineation surveys for areas that would be subject to disturbance 

from Project installation and operation. Wetland delineation reports for each Project component are 

included in Volume V. Further, all field delineated wetlands are depicted on the Project’s environmental 

feature mapping, which is also contained in Volume V. 

1.4.1 Special Wetland Management Areas 

Special management areas discussed in this section include those in which wetlands are managed or 

regulated pursuant to specific objectives. General management strategies for these areas are discussed 

below. Specific special management areas are discussed where they are located within specific 

components of the Project in Sections 1.4.2 and 1.4.3. 

1-76




1.4.1.1 Wetlands of Special State Concern 

In Maryland, Wetlands of Special State Concern (WSSC) with rare, threatened, or endangered species or 

unique habitat are identified through the Code of Maryland Regulations, and receive certain protections. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s (USFWS’s) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) provides the basis for 

identifying these WSSC (COMAR 26.23 [USFWS 2010]). WSSCs and a 100-foot upland buffer are 

regulated by the MDE (COMAR 26.23). 

1.4.2 Existing Environment 


Wetlands present within the Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter Component were identified 

during wetland delineations completed by the Company’s consultants (Volume V). Field wetland 

delineation surveys identified approximately 43 delineated wetlands with unique nomenclature 

identification codes within this Project Component right-of-way, including tidal (1.4 acres) and non-tidal 

(35.8 acres) wetlands. The actual number of independent wetland systems could be smaller, since large 

wetland systems that cross multiple parcels were named according to each parcel studied. These wetlands 

were comprised of both forested and non-forested wetland vegetation (Table 1.4-1). None of these 

wetlands have been designated as a WSSC. 

Typical woody species observed in wetland areas included sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), 

American black elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), black willow (Salix nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), 

arrowwood viburnum (Viburnum dentatum), willow oak (Quercus phellos), slender lepedeza (Lepedeza 

virginica), sycamore maple (Acer pseudoplatanus), American holly (Ilex opaca), American elm (Ulmus 

Americana), Eusideroxylon spp., bayberry (Myrica pennsylvanica), devil’s walkingstick (Aralia spinosa), 

highbush blueberry (Vaccinum corymbosum), speckled alder (Alnus rugosa), spicebush (Lindera 

benzoin), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), black willow (Salix nigra), green ash (Fraxinus 

pennsylvanica), and river birch (Betula nigra). 

Typical herbaceous plant species observed in wetland areas included common boneset (Eupatorium 

perfoliatum), deertongue (Dichanthelium clandstinum), common reed (Phragmites australis), smallspike 

false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrical), yellow foxtail (Setaria glauca), smooth cordgrass (Spartina 

alternifolia), saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), cinnamon fern 

(Osmunda cinamomea), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), broomsedge (Carex scoparia), arrowleaf 

tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), beggartick (Bidens frondosa), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), 

orange jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), arrow-arum, broom panic grass (Dicanthelium scoparium), 

cattail sedge (Carex typhina), clearweed (Pilea pumila), climbing hempvine (Mikania scandens), 

common greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), common smartweed (Polygonum hydropiper), dotted 

smartweed (Polygonum punctatum), foxtail grass (Setaria geniculata), grass-leaved goldenrod (Solidago 

gramnifolia), Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), 

soft rush (Juncus effusus), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), Virginia iris (Iris virginiana), and Virginia 

meadow-beauty (Rhexia virginica). 

1-77




Non-Tidal 

Forested Wetlands 

Table 1.4-1 

Summary of Wetland and Wetland Buffers 

Within the Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter Component 

Total 

Wetland 

Area within 

Right-of- 

Way and 

Work Areas 

(Acres) 

Access and 

Work Area 

Matting 

(Acres) c 

1-78 

Forested 

Wetland 

Conversion 

(Clearing) 

(Acres) b 

Impacts a 

Scrub/Shrub 

Wetland 

Conversion 

(Clearing) 

(Acres) b 

Foundation/ 

Trenching/Access 

Road/Construction 

Entrances/Manhole 

Impacts/Converter 

Station/Substation 

Construction (acres) 

0.3 2.4 N/A 0.0 a 

Scrub-shrub Wetlands 35.8 

3.5 N/A 0.0 0.0 

Emergent Wetlands 9.5 N/A N/A 0.0 a 

Non-Tidal Subtotal f 35.8 13.3 2.4 0.0 0.0 a 

Tidal 


0.0 a 

0.0 0.0 0.0 


0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Emergent Wetlands 0.0 a 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Tidal Subtotal f 1.4 0.8 f 

Non-Tidal 

Forested Buffer d,e 

Wetlands Total f 

0.0 0.0 0.0 

37.2 14.1 2.4 0.0 0.0 a 

0.0 0.4 N/A 0.0 

Non-forested Buffer N/A 

d,e 0.0 a N/A 0.0 0.0 a 

Non-Tidal Subtotal f 0.0 a 0.4 0.0 0.0 a 

Tidal 


0.0 0.0 a N/A 0.0 


d,e 0.0 N/A 0.0 0.0 

Tidal Subtotal f 0.0 0.0 a 0.0 0.0 

Buffer Total f 

N/A 0.0 a 

0.4 0.0 0.0 a 

a Areas of less than 0.05 acre are shown as 0.0 acre. Wetland or vegetation types that do not occur are shown as not applicable (N/A). 

b All areas of forest clearing and scrub-shrub trimming in wetlands are matted. 

c Total temporary matting impacts do not include matting areas with forest or scrub shrub clearing. This avoids double counting total 

d 

e 

impacts. 

Buffers are normally 25 feet wide except in WSSC where the buffer width is increased to 100 feet. 

Total buffer does not include any buffers that fall within an adjacent wetland. 

f Individual entries may not sum to the subtotal value due to rounding.




A buffer that is typically 25 feet wide around wetlands is regulated under COMAR 26.23. This buffer 

may be expanded in areas of erodible soil or steep slopes. In WSSC, this buffer is 100 feet wide. Buffer 

areas around impacted field delineated wetlands in this component were identified primarily as forested 

and to a lesser extent (less than 0.05 acre) non-forested wetland buffer. Wetland buffers are listed in 

Table 1.4-1. 


Wetlands present within the Chestnut Converter Component were determined during wetland delineations 

completed by the Company‘s consultants (Volume V). Field delineation surveys identified the presence 

of approximately 35 non-tidal delineated wetlands (with unique nomenclature identification codes) within 

the Chestnut Converter Component. The actual number of independent wetland systems could be 

smaller, since large wetland systems that cross multiple parcels were named according to each parcel 

studied. These resources were generally located in steep-sided forested ravines or broader stream valley 

floodplains associated with Parkers Creek (located approximately 1.6 miles from the property). The 

wetlands were hydrologically supported by hillside seeps that originated near the toe-of-slope and drained 

downslope to the wetlands. Approximately 6.1 acres of forested wetlands are located within the Chestnut 

Converter Component (Table 1.4-2). None of the wetlands in this Project component would be located in 

WSSC. 

Typical woody species observed in wetland areas included sweet gum, red maple, American holly, 

American elm, American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), roundleaf greenbrier, American beech 

(Fagus grandifolia), green ash, Northern spicebush, blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), American sycamore 

(Platanus occidentalis), devil’s walkingstick, highbush blueberry, papaw (asimina triloba), and tuliptree 

(Liriodendron tulipifera). 

Typical herbaceous plant species observed in wetland areas included Nepalese browntop, Allegheny 

monkeyflower (Mimulus ringens), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), common smartweed, 

smallspike false nettle, New York fern (Thelypteris novaboracensis), and lizard’s tail. 


may be expanded in areas of erodible soil or steep slopes. In WSSC, this buffer is 100 feet wide. Forested 

buffers surround non-tidal field delineated wetlands that would be located within Chestnut Converter 

Component impact areas. Wetland buffers are listed in Table 1.4-2. 

1-79




Non-Tidal 


Table 1.4-2 


Within the Chestnut Converter Component 

Total Wetland 

Area Within 

Parcels 

(Acres) 

Access and 

Work Area 

Matting 

(Acres) c 

0.0 a 

1-80 

Forested 

Wetland 

Conversion 

(Clearing) 

(Acres) b 

Impacts a 

Scrub/Shrub 

Wetland 

Conversion 

(Clearing) 

(Acres) b 

1.8 N/A 0.6 

Foundation/ 

Trenching/ Access 

Road/ 

Construction 

Entrances/ 

Manhole Impacts/ 

Converter Station/ 


Construction 

(acres) 


0.0 N/A 0.0 0.0 

Emergent Wetlands 0.0 N/A N/A 0.0 

Non-Tidal Subtotal f 6.1 0.0 a 

Tidal 


0.0 

1.8 0.0 0.6 

0.0 0.0 0.0 


0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Emergent Wetlands 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Tidal Subtotal f 0.0 0.0 

Non-Tidal 



0.0 0.0 0.0 

6.1 0.0 a 1.8 0.0 0.6 

0.0 1.9 N/A 1.3 


d,e 0.0 N/A 0.0 0.0 

Non-Tidal Subtotal f 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.3 

Tidal 


0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 


d,e 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Tidal Subtotal f 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 


N/A 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.3 



c Total temporary matting impacts do not include matting areas with forest or scrub shrub clearing. This avoids double counting total 

d 

e 

impacts. 








Wetlands present within the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing Component right-of-way were 

determined during wetland delineations completed by the Company’s consultants (Volume V). Field 

wetland delineation surveys identified approximately 7 non-tidal delineated wetlands with unique 

nomenclature identification codes within this Project Component right-of-way. The actual number of 

independent wetland systems could be smaller, since large wetland systems that cross multiple parcels 

were named according to each parcel studied. Wetland resources were generally located in steep-sided 

ravines or broader stream valleys that drain to Parker’s Creek and Governor’s Run. The majority of this 

Project component would be located within an existing transmission line right-of-way, and consequently 

many of the wetlands identified were maintained in a scrub-shrub or emergent vegetative cover. Overall, 

approximately 0.8 acre of non-tidal wetlands were delineated within this Project component (Table 1.4-3). 

Typical woody species observed in wetland areas included sweet gum, red maple, American hornbeam, 

tuliptree, green ash, multiflora rose, black elderberry, northern spicebush, black willow, eastern baccharis, 

black cherry (Prunus serotina), and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia). 

Typical herbaceous plant species observed in wetland areas included deertongue (Dichanthelium 

clandestinum), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), shallow sedge, climbing hempvine, fowl 

mannagrass (Glyceria striata), smooth white oldfield aster (Symphyotrichum racemosum), awlfruit sedge 

(Carex stipata), common rush (Juncus effuses), switchgrass, scouringrush horsetail (Equisetum hyemale), 

and muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia). 


may be expanded in areas of erodible soil or steep slopes. In WSSC, this buffer is 100 feet wide. Buffer 

areas around non-tidal field delineated wetlands that would be located within impact areas in this Project 

component were identified as both forested and non-forested. Wetland buffers are listed in Table 1.4-3. 

1-81




Non-Tidal 


Table 1.4-3 


Within the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing Component 

Total Wetland 

Area Within 

Right-of-Way 

and Work 

Areas (Acres) 

Access and 

Work 

Area 

Matting 

(Acres) c 

1-82 

Forested 

Wetland 

Conversion 

(Clearing) 

(Acres) b 

Impacts a 

Scrub/ 

Shrub 

Wetland 

Conversion 

(Clearing) 

(Acres) b 


0.0 N/A 0.0 0.2 

0.0 a 

0.0 N/A 0.0 a 


Non-Tidal Subtotal f 

Tidal 


0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 


0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 

Emergent Wetlands 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Tidal Subtotal f 

Non-Tidal 



0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 


d,e 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 

Non-Tidal Subtotal f 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 

Tidal 


0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 


d,e 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 



0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.7 

Foundation/ 


Road/ Construction 

Entrances /Manhole 

Impacts/ Converter 

Station/ Substation 

Construction (acres) 



c 

d 

e 

Total temporary matting impacts do not include matting areas with forest or scrub shrub clearing. This avoids double counting total 

impacts. 








Wetlands present within the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Component were determined 

during wetland delineations completed by the Company (Volume V). The field wetland delineation 

surveys identified approximately 71 delineated wetlands (with unique nomenclature identification codes) 

within the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Project Component right-of-way, associated 

equipment staging areas, and work areas. The actual number of independent wetland systems could be 

smaller, since large wetland systems that cross multiple parcels were named according to each parcel 

studied. The majority of the wetland resources in this component are part of extensive forested wetland 

systems resulting from the low-lying terrain and a seasonally high water table. Overall, approximately 

246.2 acres of tidal and non-tidal wetlands of forested, scrub shrub and emergent types would be located 

within the Project component right-of-way (Table 1.4-4). 

Typical woody species observed in wetland areas included red maple, blackgum, loblolly pine (Pinus 

taeda), black cherry, roundleaf greenbrier, southern bayberry (Morella cerifera), willow oak, sweetgum, 

winged sumac (Rhus copallinum), southern arrowwood, sweetbay magnolia, hazel alder (Alnus 

serrulata), coastal sweetpepperbush, American holly, white oak (Quercus alba), eastern baccharis 

(Baccharis halimifolia), cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), green ash, Allegheny blackberry (Rubus 

allegheniensis), Virginia pine, lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolia), common winterberry (Ilex 

verticillata), water oak (Quercus nigra), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), black willow, and 

common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana). 

Typical herbaceous plant species observed in wetland areas included switchgrass, fall panicgrass 

(Panicum dichotomiflorum), common reed, Japanese honeysuckle, eastern poison ivy (Toxicodendron 

radicans), hairy crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), Mexican tea (Chenopodium ambrosioides), biennial 

wormwood (Artemisia biennis), trumpet creeper, rice cutgrass, smallspike falsenettle, English ivy 

(Hedera helix), whitegrass (Leersia virginica), Tatarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), bearded 

beggarticks (Bidens aristosa), common rush, woolgrass, slender woodoats (Chasmanthium laxum), 

lizards tail, deertongue, Virginia creeper, partridgeberry (Mitchella repens), broomsedge bluestem 

(Andropogon virginicus), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), rare clubmoss (Lycopodium 

obscurum), broadleaf cattail, American pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), 

smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), swamp dock (Rumex verticillatus), annual wildrice (Zizania 

aquatica), and chairmaker’s bulrush (Schoenoplectus americanus). 


may be expanded in areas of erodible soils or steep slopes. Additionally, in a WSSC, the buffer is 

extended to 100 feet. Tidal and non-tidal forested and non-forested buffers would be located within the 

Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Component (Table 1.4-4). 

1-83




Non-Tidal 


Table 1.4-4 


Within the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Component 

Total Wetland 

Area Within 

Right-of-Way 

and Work 

Areas (Acres) 

Access and 

Work 

Area 

Matting 

(Acres) c 

1-84 

Forested 

Wetland 

Conversion 

(Clearing) 

(Acres) b 

Impacts a 

Scrub/Shrub 

Wetland 

Trimming 

Conversion 

(Clearing) 

(Acres) b 

0.4 203.0 N/A 0.7 

Scrub-shrub Wetlands 231.6 10.0 N/A 0.0 0.2 



Tidal 


231.6 19.4 203.0 0.0 1.0 

0.0 3.4 N/A 0.0 


0.0 N/A 0.0 0.0 

Emergent Wetlands 5.5 N/A N/A 0.0 a 


Non-Tidal 




d,e 0.0 a 

Non-Tidal Subtotal f 0.0 a 

Tidal 


Foundation/ 


Road/ 

Construction 

Entrances/ 


Converter 


Construction 

(acres) 

14.6 5.5 3.4 0.0 0.0 a 

246.2 24.9 206.4 0.0 1.0 

0.0 10.2 N/A 0.2 

N/A 3.2 0.4 

10.2 3.2 0.5 

0.0 a 0.3 N/A 0.0 


d,e 0.0 a N/A 0.0 0.0 



N/A 0.1 

10.5 3.2 0.5 



c 

d 

e 


impacts. 







1.4.2.4.1 Wetlands of Special State Concern 

This Project component would cross one WSSC associated with the Chicamacomico River (MDNR 

2008). In total, the Project component right-of-way would cross approximately 6.6 acres of WSSC within 

the overhead transmission line right-of-way. A 100-foot buffer around WSSC wetlands is protected by 

MDNR. Approximately 3.4 acres of wetland buffer associated with a WSSC would be contained within 

the Project component overhead transmission line right-of-way. 


Wetlands present within the Gateway Converter Component were determined during wetland delineations 

completed by the Company’s consultants (Volume V). The field wetland delineation surveys identified 

approximately 9 non-tidal delineated wetlands (with unique nomenclature identification codes) within the 

Gateway Converter Component and associated equipment staging areas. The actual number of 

independent wetland systems could be smaller, since large wetland systems that cross multiple parcels 

were named according to each parcel studied. A majority of the delineated wetlands consisted of forested 

or shrub-scrub types located within ditches or along the edges of agricultural fields. Approximately 47.2 

acres of wetlands were delineated within the overall Project component (Table 1.4-5). None of the 

wetlands in this Project component would be located in a WSSC. 

Typical woody species observed in wetland areas included sweetgum, coastal sweetpepperbush, sweetbay 

magnolia, loblolly pine, water oak, red maple, roundleaf greenbrier, Allegheny blackberry and black 

willow. Typical herbaceous species observed in wetland areas included broomsedge bluestem, roundleaf 

greenbrier, netted chainfern, velvet panicum (Dichanthelium scoparium), common rush, redtop panicgrass 

(Panicum rigidulum), Oriental lady’s thumb (Polygonum cespitosum), woolgrass, warty panicgrass 

(Panicum verrucosum), woolgrass, and rough barnyard grass (Echinochloa muricata). 

Wetland buffers extend 25 feet from the perimeter of wetlands, except in Critical Areas where they 

extend 100 feet (CAC 2010). Buffers may also be extended in areas of steep slopes or highly erodible 

soils, at the discretion of MDNR. Non-tidal forested and non-forested buffers would be located within the 

Gateway Converter Component (Table 1.4-5). 

1-85




Non-Tidal 


Table 1.4-5 


Within the Gateway Converter Component 

Total Wetland 

Area Within 

Parcels 

(Acres) 

Access and 

Work 

Area 

Matting 

(Acres) c 

0.0 a 

1-86 

Forested 

Wetland 

Conversion 

(Clearing) 

(Acres) b 

Impacts a 

Scrub/Shrub 

Wetland 

Conversion 

(Clearing) 

(Acres) b 

5.7 N/A 0.8 

Foundation/ 


Road/ 

Construction 

Entrances/ 


Converter 


Construction 

(acres) 


0.4 N/A 0.0 0.1 

Emergent Wetlands 0.0 a N/A N/A 0.7 


Tidal 


47.2 0.4 5.7 0.0 1.6 

0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 


0.0 N/A 0.0 0.0 



Non-Tidal 




d,e 0.0 

Non-Tidal Subtotal f 0.0 

Tidal 


0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

47.2 0.4 5.7 0.0 1.6 

0.0 2.1 N/A 0.5 

N/A 0.0 a 

2.1 0.0 a 


d,e 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.8 

1.4 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 



N/A 0.0 2.1 0.0 a 



c 


impacts. 

d 

e 



f Individual entries may not sum to the subtotal value due to rounding. 

1.4





Wetlands present within the Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line Component right-ofway 

were field delineated by the Company’s consultants (Volume V). The field wetland delineation 

surveys identified approximately 28 non-tidal delineated wetlands (with unique nomenclature 

identification codes) within this Project Component right-of-way and associated equipment staging areas 

(Table 1.4-6). The actual number of independent wetland systems could be smaller, since large wetland 

systems that cross multiple parcels were named according to each parcel studied. None of the wetlands in 

this Project component would be located in a WSSC. 

Typical woody species observed in wetland areas included sweetgum, red maple, water oak, roundleaf 

greenbrier, loblolly pine, Allegheny blackberry, black willow, multiflora rose, highbush blueberry, 

roundleaf greenbrier, black cherry, sassafras (Sassafras albidum), and willow oak. 

Typical herbaceous species observed in wetland areas included: tapered rosette grass (Dichanthelium 

acuminatum), velvet panicum, slender goldentop (Euthamia caroliniana), warty panicgrass, woolgrass, 

bushy bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus), broomsedge bluestem, inkberry (Ilex glabra), swamp 

doghobble, western brackenfern (Pteridium aquilinum), common rush, slender woodoats, deertongue, 

meadow fescue (Schedonorus pratensis), broadleaf cattail, marsh seedbox (Ludwigia palustris), sweet 

woodreed (Cinna arundinacea), Japanese honeysuckle, sensitive fern, and common reed. 


may be expanded in areas of erodible soils or steep slopes. Additionally, in a WSSC, the buffer is 

extended to 100 feet. Less than 0.05 acre of forested and non-forested buffers around field delineated 

wetlands were identified within Project component impact areas (Table 1.4-6). 

1-87




Non-Tidal 


Table 1.4-6 


Within the Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line Component 

Total Wetland 

Area Within 

Right-of-Way 

and Work 

Areas (Acres) 

Access and 

Work 

Area 

Matting 

(Acres) c 

1-88 

Forested 

Wetland 

Conversion 

(Clearing) 

(Acres) b 

Impacts a 

Scrub/Shrub 

Wetland 

Conversion 

(Clearing) 

(Acres) b 

0.7 0.0 N/A 0.0 


12.9 N/A 0.0 0.0 a 



Tidal 


28.7 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 a 

0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 


0.0 N/A 0.0 0.0 



Non-Tidal 



0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

28.7 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 


d,e 0.0 a N/A 0.0 0.0 a 

Non-Tidal Subtotal f 0.0 a 

Tidal 


0.0 0.0 0.0 a 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 


d,e 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 



N/A 0.0 a 0.0 0.0 

Foundation/ 


Road/ 

Construction 

Entrances/ 

Manhole 

Impacts/Converter 


Construction 

(acres) 



c 

d 

e 


impacts. 



f Individual entries may not sum to the subtotal value due to rounding. 

0.0 a





Impacts to wetlands are subject to permits issued by the USACE and MDE, and will be based upon field 

delineation of wetlands. The wetland delineation data and reports contained in Volume V will be 

submitted to regulatory agencies, as appropriate, in conjunction with the Joint Permit Application. The 

Company will apply for and accord with those permits. The information provided in this section 

addresses mitigation, including avoidance and minimization techniques, the Company expects to use. 

Compensatory mitigation would be addressed in the permit process and would be based upon the field 

data as contained in the Joint Permit Application. 

As described in Volume I, Section 2.0, the Company would minimize Project-related impacts to wetlands 

resources, to the extent practical. Some measures that would be implemented to minimize these Projectrelated 

impacts to wetlands would include the use of multiple construction access points to avoid crossing 

regulated resources, use of temporary matting to protect wetlands from impacts where access and work 

areas need to occur within wetlands, the prohibition of fueling or equipment maintenance within 

delineated wetlands, and the removal of cleared timber to upland areas. The Company fully intends to 

further minimize potential temporary and permanent impacts to these resources during the final 

engineering design of project components, and during construction activities. 

The Company anticipates conducting wetland mitigation for all wetland conversion impacts that are 

unavoidable, as well as for any unavoidable permanent fill impacts to wetlands or other Waters of the 

United States. The Company currently owns (or has rights to purchase) a number of parcels identified 

that may be suitable for wetland mitigation. The Company will continue to coordinate with the 

appropriate agencies to review these and other identified parcels for mitigation suitability. 


Installation of the proposed Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter Component is discussed in 

Volume I, Section 2.0. 

Table 1.4-1 contains a summary of the potential Project-related wetland and wetland buffer impacts in the 

Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter Component. Project construction and operation would 

result in temporary and permanent disturbance of non-forested and forested wetlands located within the 

Project right-of-way. Due to the use of the previously-cleared right-of-way, a minimal amount of wetland 

tree clearing would occur. For the portion of this Project component where single-circuit structures 

would be added, vegetation would be cleared for the installation of new structures. Where forested 

wetlands are present within the clearing area, a permanent conversion of forested wetlands to emergent or 

scrub-shrub wetland types would occur. Minor quantities of forested and non-forested wetlands would be 

permanently lost by the installation of foundation footers for new transmission facilities. The total 

acreage of forested wetlands that would be permanently converted to scrub-shrub wetlands due to clearing 

would be approximately 2.4 acres. A total of approximately 0.4 acre of forested wetland buffer would 

also be converted to a non-forested land cover type. The total acreage of forested and non-forested 

wetlands permanently lost due to the installation of the single-circuit structures would be less than 0.01 

acres. 

Where it is necessary to cross portions of wetlands during installation, vehicle access via matting (see 

Volume I, Section 2.0) through wetlands contained within the existing right of-way would result in shortterm, 

temporary impacts. Further, matting in wetlands to facilitate Project activities, such as stringing 

sites for transmission line installation, would result in additional temporary wetland impacts. A total of 

1-89




approximately 14.1 acres of wetlands in this component would be temporarily impacted by access and 

work area matting. 

During installation of the overhead transmission line between Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut 

Converter, the Company would install BMPs, as appropriate, to limit erosion into adjacent wetland areas. 

These BMPs would be included in the Project’s SESC or FHP, which would be developed based on the 

applicable regulatory requirements. In areas of forested wetland conversion or temporary impact, 

appropriate actions would be developed in coordination with regulatory agencies. Avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation of wetland impacts would be implemented in accordance with USACE and 

MDE permitting requirements. 


Installation of the proposed Chestnut Converter Component is discussed in Volume I, Section 2.0. 


Chestnut Converter Component. Construction of the Chestnut Converter would result in some permanent 

impacts (pervious and semipervious surfaces within the converter station sites) to forested wetlands 

associated with converter station, switching stations, access roads/entrances, parking, stormwater 

impoundments, and equipment storage. Vegetation clearing would also occur on portions of the converter 

station site to facilitate storage areas and other temporary features during construction. The total acreage 

of forested wetlands that would be permanently converted to a non-forested wetland type due to clearing 

would be approximately 1.8 acres. A total of approximately 1.9 acres of forested wetland buffer would 

also be converted to a non-forested land cover type. The total acreage of forested wetlands permanently 

lost due to the installation of the structures in the Project component would be less than 0.6 acres. 

Approximately 1.3 acres of wetland buffers would also be permanently lost. No wetlands within the 

Project component would be temporarily encumbered by matting. 

During installation of the facilities at the Chestnut Converter, the Company would install BMPs, as 

appropriate, to limit erosion into adjacent wetland areas. These BMPs would be included in the Project’s 

SESC or FHP, which would be developed based on the applicable regulatory requirements. Wetland 

construction techniques are discussed in Volume I, Section 2.0. 

In areas of permanent wetland impact, restoration actions would be developed in coordination with 

regulatory agencies and may include monitoring natural attenuation, grading disturbed areas, seeding, 

mulching, and/or re-establishing native vegetation. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of wetland 

impacts would be implemented in accordance with USACE and MDE permitting requirements. 





Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing Component. Project construction and operation would 

result in the permanent disturbance of non-forested wetlands located within the Project right-of-way. Due 

to the use of the previously-cleared right-of-way, no wetland tree or scrub-shrub clearing would occur 

outside of the permanent impact areas. The connecting transmission lines are discussed above. A small 

quantity of non-forested wetlands would be permanently lost by the installation of transmission line in 

areas with trenching, access roads, construction entrances, and/or manholes. The total acreage of non- 

1-90




forested wetlands permanently lost due to the installation of the Project component would be 

approximately 0.8 acres. Further, approximately 0.7 acre of wetland buffer would be permanently lost for 

the proposed Project. 


Installation of the proposed Western Shore Landing to Chestnut Converter Component is discussed in 



Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Component. Project construction and operation would 

result in disturbance of non-forested and forested wetlands located within the proposed Western Shore 

Landing to Gateway Converter Component right-of-way. Further, both forested and non-forested 

wetlands would be temporarily or permanently disturbed by the installation of foundation footers, new 

transmission facilities, manholes, trenching for cable burial, and the access roads. . 

During the installation of the underground portions of the Project component, wetland vegetation would 

be removed and wetland soils would be disturbed along the trench and in installation work space. After 

underground transmission line installation, the placement of the access road and man holes would result 

in a permanent loss of any wetlands in which these facilities would be located. Underground right-of-way 

maintenance would result in the permanent conversion of forested to a vegetative state that would result 

from the Company stabilizing, seeding/monitoring as appropriate, and allowing for natural revegetation. 

Vegetation maintenance in wetlands would be conducted in accordance with appropriate permitting and 

regulatory requirements. 

Installation of the Choptank River Station would avoid all field delineated wetlands within the transition 

station footprint. 

Forested wetland vegetation clearing for the overhead transmission line would be conducted in 

accordance with procedures outlined in Volume I, Section 2.0. Forested wetlands cleared within the 

Project right-of-way would result in a permanent conversion of forested wetlands to a non-forested scrubshrub 

wetland type. Further, overhead transmission line installation would result in additional temporary 

impacts to wetlands associated with matting for uses such as access and stringing sites (see Volume I, 

Section 2.0). Following Project installation, the right-of-way would be maintained in accordance with the 

Company’s Transmission Vegetation Management Program (TVMP; Volume V), and in accordance with 

applicable regulatory and permitting requirements. 

Overall, approximately 24.9 acres of tidal and non-tidal wetlands would be temporarily impacted through 

the use of matting in workspaces and to facilitate access. The total acreage of forested wetlands that 

would be permanently converted to non-forested wetland types due to clearing would be approximately 

206.4 acres. A total of approximately 10.5 acres of forested wetland buffer and 3.2 acres of scrub-shrub 

wetland buffer would also be cleared and/or converted to an herbaceous wetland vegetation. The total 

acreage of forested and non-forested wetlands permanently lost due to the installation of permanent 

facilities (i.e. structures, trenching, access road, construction entrances, and manholes) would be 

approximately 1.0 acre. Further, approximately 0.5 acre of wetland buffer would also be permanently 

encumbered by Project structures. 

During construction, the Company would install appropriate BMPs to limit erosion into adjacent wetland 

areas. These BMPs would be included in the Project’s SESC or FHP, which would be developed based 

on the applicable regulatory requirements. In areas of forested wetland conversion or temporary impact, 

1-91







1.4.3.4.1 Wetlands of Special State Concern 

The overhead portion of the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Component right-of-way 

would cross two WSSCs. Impacts in WSSC would be similar to those described above. Approximately 

10.9 acres of forested wetlands and 1.6 acres of forested wetland buffer within designated WSSC would 

be permanently converted to scrub-shrub wetlands. Less than 0.05 acres of wetlands designated as WSSC 

would be permanently lost due to the Project’s permanent facilities. All temporary and permanent 

impacts to wetlands would be managed in accordance with techniques discussed in Volume I, Section 2.0, 

as well as the Company’s TVMP, and would comply with the conditions of any permits from USACE 

and MDE. 


Installation of the proposed Gateway Converter Component is discussed in Volume I, Section 2.0. 

Wetland construction in the Gateway Converter station is discussed further in Volume I, Section 2.0. 


Gateway Converter Component. Construction of the Gateway Converter would result in some permanent 

impacts (pervious and semi-pervious surfaces within the converter station sites) to forested wetlands 

associated with converter station, switching stations, access roads/entrances, parking, stormwater 

impoundments, and equipment storage. Vegetation clearing would also occur on portions of the converter 

station site to facilitate storage areas and other temporary features during construction. 

The total acreage of forested wetlands that would be permanently converted to a vegetative state that 

would result from the Company stabilizing, seeding/monitoring as appropriate, and allowing for natural 

revegetation would be approximately 5.7 acres. A total of approximately 2.1 acres of forested wetland 

buffer would also be converted to a non-forested land cover type. The total acreage of forested and nonforested 

wetlands permanently lost due to the installation of the structures and facilities at the Gateway 

Converter would be approximately 1.6 acres. Approximately 1.4 acres of wetland buffer would also be 

permanently lost. Approximately 0.4 acres of wetlands within the Project component would be 

temporarily encumbered by matting. 

During construction, the Company would install appropriate BMPs to limit erosion into adjacent wetland 

areas. These BMPs would be included in the Project’s SESC or FHP, which would be developed based 

on the applicable regulatory requirements. In areas of forested wetland conversion or temporary impact, 





Installation and operation of the Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line Component are 

described in Volume I, Section 2.0. 

Project construction and operation would result in temporary disturbance of approximately 15.4 acres of 

wetlands located within the existing and maintained right-of-way due to matting for access and stringing 

1-92




sites. Less than 0.05 acre of wetlands or wetland buffers would be permanently lost by the installation of 

new structures. Further, no forested wetlands or buffers would be converted to non-forested wetland 

vegetation. Where it is necessary to cross portions of wetlands during installation, matting would be 

installed in wetlands to facilitate activities such as vehicle access and stringing (see Volume I, Section 

2.0). Matting of approximately 15.4 acres of wetlands contained within the existing right of-way would 

result in short-term, temporary impact to wetland resources. 

During installation of the transmission line between Gateway Converter and the Maryland/Delaware State 

Line, the Company would install appropriate BMPs to limit erosion into adjacent wetland areas. These 

BMPs would be included in the Project’s SESC or FHP, which would be developed based on the 

applicable regulatory requirements. In areas of forested wetland conversion or temporary impact, 




Wetland vegetation within the existing right-of-way would continue to be managed using the Company’s 

TVMP and appropriate regulatory and permitting requirements. 


Critical Area Commission (CAC). 2010. Critical Areas – Frequently Asked Questions. Available online 

at: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/criticalarea/. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. La Roe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater 

Habitats in the United States. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/nwi/Pubs_Reports/Class_Manual/class_titlepg.htm . 

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2003. Maryland State Wetland Conservation Plan. 

Available online at: 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/Wetlands_Waterways/wetland_conservati 

on/index.asp. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2008. Wetlands of Special State Concern Polygon 

Geospatial Data. Available at: http://dnrweb.dnr.state.md.us/gis/data/data.asp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands 

Inventory. Version 1.0. Available online: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Products.html. 

1-93




1.5 VEGETATION 

This section provides information on the vegetation resources associated with the installation and 

operation of the proposed Project in Prince George’s, Calvert, Dorchester and Wicomico Counties, 

Maryland. Vegetation resources reviewed include the typical and sensitive species and habitat potentially 

occurring at the converter stations and along the transmission line route. Special management areas and 

species are first addressed in Section 1.5.1. Existing conditions are then addressed first in Section 1.5.2 

followed by an analysis of potential Project impacts to those resources in Section 1.5.3. 

The Project area would be located in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain ecoregion (USEPA 2010). The 

Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain is a flat plain, with extensive swamps and marshes. Forested areas in the 

ecoregion generally consist of loblolly-shortleaf pine with oak, gum, and cypress appearing in patches 

near major waterbodies. Aside from naturally occurring vegetation, Maryland has 35 invasive terrestrial 

plants that are of concern. 

The scrub-shrub vegetation within the general Project area consists of blackberry (Rubus allegheniensis), 

wild garlic (Allium vineale), Japanese honeysuckle (Lioncera japonica), broomsedge (Andropogon sp.), 

goldenrod (Solidago sp.), soft rush (Juncus effuses), Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), Southern 

red oak (Quercus falcata), sweet gum (Liquidambar styracuflua), and red maple (Acer rubrum) saplings. 

The herbaceous vegetation within the general Project area generally consists of grass and forb species. 

Forested vegetation within the Project area is predominantly mixed forest with coniferous and deciduous 

trees. Maryland forest lands are predominantly made up of combinations of 12 different tree species, 

including yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple, loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sweetgum 

(Liquidambar styraciflua), hickory (Carya spp.), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), blackgum (Nyssa 

sylvatica), and multiple oak species (Quercus spp.). Because of its location and soil characteristics, 

Maryland contains trees from both the northern and southern regions of the United States and the state 

recognizes the occurrence of approximately 160 native or naturalized trees (MDNR 2010a). 

Agricultural lands also occur throughout the Project area; the predominant crops in the counties crossed 

by the Project include small grains and soybeans (RESAC 2010). The Project area is also interspersed 

with emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested wetlands, which are discussed in Section 1.4. 

1.5.1 Special Management Areas 

Special management areas discussed in this section include those in which vegetation is managed or 

regulated pursuant to specific objectives. General management strategies for these areas are discussed 

below. Specific special management areas are discussed where they are located within specific 

components of the Project in Sections 1.5.2 and 1.5.3. 

1.5.1.1 Green Infrastructure 

The state of Maryland has mapped a green infrastructure network, defined as “a network of undeveloped 

lands that provide the bulk of the state's natural support system” (MDNR 2010c). Maryland recognizes 

that these areas provide ecosystem services, such as cleaning the air, filtering water, storing and cycling 

nutrients, conserving soils, regulating climate, and maintaining hydrologic function, and the areas are 

managed with the goal of retaining their value for these services, as well as habitat and other benefits they 

provide. Maryland describes green infrastructure as “hubs” which are large, contiguous areas with 

specific habitat values and “corridors” which are linear features that connect hubs. The state determined 

Green infrastructure hubs through GIS analysis based on a variety of criteria, some of which include the 

1-94




presence of large, contiguous tracts of unfragmented forest or wetlands, the presence of sensitive plant 

and animal species, streams and rivers with intact riparian areas, and current land protection status. 

Green infrastructure corridors were determined by GIS analysis based, at least partially, on topography, 

waterbody and riparian location, and vegetative land cover. Depending on the features of the existing 

rights-of-way in the Project area, as described further below, a portion of the Project area has been 

identified through GIS analysis as green infrastructure hub or corridor. Utility corridors can be 

categorized by the state as a type of green infrastructure. Unprotected lands that are identified as green 

infrastructure are considered as a priority for acquisition and protection or for uses consistent with the 

ecosystem services. 

1.5.1.2 Chesapeake Bay Critical Area 

The Maryland Critical Area Act defines Critical Areas as areas within 1,000 feet of tidal waters or tidal 

wetlands. Further, absent mitigation or other determinations, the Maryland Critical Area Act requires a 

100-foot buffer around all tidal waters, tidal wetlands, and a tributary streams within the Critical Area. 

Within the Critical Area there are three land use classifications: Resource Conservation Areas (RCA), 

Limited Development Areas (LDA), and Intensely Developed Areas (IDA). RCAs have the most 

restrictive land-uses and are designated for resource protection and low-intensity residential development 

(CBF 2004). Areas designated for moderate-intensity residential development and some, limited, 

commercial development are classified as an LDA. IDAs have been designated for high-intensity 

development. 

Two of the goals set out in the Maryland Critical Area Act are to “minimize adverse impacts on water 

quality that result from pollutants that are discharged from structures or conveyances or that have run off 

from surrounding lands” and “to conserve fish, wildlife, and plant habitat” (Nat. Res. Art. §8-1808). 

Maryland recognizes that forests and developed woodlands not only provide habitat for wildlife, but are 

also important in maintaining water quality by trapping sediments, taking up nutrients, and immobilizing 

toxic substances (Chesapeake Bay Program 1995). Under state law, it is the CAC, and not local 

authorities, that reviews proposals for construction of transmission lines requiring Certificates of Public 

Convenience and Necessity (CPCNs) and that determines the appropriate mitigation for such projects 

(CAC 2010). 

1.5.1.3 Rural Legacy Area and Rural Legacy Conservation Easements 

The goals of the Rural Legacy Program are to establish greenbelts of forests and farms around rural 

communities in order to preserve their cultural heritage and sense of place; preserve critical habitat for 

native plant and wildlife species; support natural resources economies such as farming forestry, tourism, 

and outdoor recreation; and protect riparian forests, wetlands, and greenways to buffer the Chesapeake 

Bay and its tributaries from polluted runoff. The Rural Legacy Program identifies lands for conservation 

that produce food and provide scenic open space, wildlife habitat, and clean water in Maryland. 

Nanticoke and Calvert Creeks Rural Legacy Area lands occur within the Project area. The Calvert Creeks 

Rural Legacy Area protects sensitive habitats in four watersheds stretching from the Patuxent River to the 

Chesapeake Bay. The Nanticoke Rural Legacy Area is a greenbelt of important natural resources, forests, 

and farms co-managed by MDNR and The Nature Conservancy. 

1.5.1.4 Chesapeake Forest Lands 

The Chesapeake Forest Lands consist of more than 66,000 acres of discontinuous forested tracts managed 

by the MDNR Forest Service for natural resource protection, maintenance of regional character and water 

1-95




quality, and expansion of public access (MDNR 2010b). These properties have been acquired by the state 

to protect natural resources such as wetlands and forests. 

1.5.1.5 Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 

The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is a voluntary, incentive based federal program 

that pays farmland owners incentives for putting their lands into conservation practices that benefit 

wildlife, improve water quality, and conserve soil. Under the CREP, farmers place a portion of their farm 

under a 10 or 15 year contract that requires the land to be put into the conservation cover that the farmer 

chooses. Farmers can establish forest, native warm-season grasses, or cool season grasses. In return the 

farmer receives cost-share, annual rental payments, and bonus payments. In Maryland, the CREP 

program focuses on buffer establishment, wetland restoration, and retiring highly erodible agricultural 

lands adjacent to waterbodies that drain into the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay 

restoration strategy relies upon the establishment of stream buffers and the protection of wetlands to 

achieve water quality improvements in the Bay. For a property to be eligible for enrollment in the CREP, 

the property must be currently used for agricultural purposes and must be within 150 feet of a waterbody. 

1.5.1.6 Agricultural Land Preservation Easements and Districts 

In 1977, the Maryland General Assembly established the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation 

Foundation (MALPF) as part of the Maryland Department of Agriculture. The goal of the program is to 

preserve productive agricultural land and woodland, to protect these lands as open space, and to provide 

for the continued production of food and fiber. The MALPF permanently restricts development in these 

areas by acquiring agricultural preservation easements. To create an easement, an interested, qualified 

landowner voluntarily creates an Agricultural Land Preservation District, containing one or more tracts of 

land. Easements within the Agricultural Land Preservation District may then be donated or purchased so 

that the land would perpetually remain in agricultural use. This accomplishes the mission of the MALPF 

by preserving farmland and woodland, curbing urban development expansion, protecting wildlife habitat, 

and enhancing the environmental quality of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. 

1.5.1.7 Forested Lands under the Maryland Forest Conservation Act 

The Maryland Forest Conservation Act (Natural Resources Article Section 5-1601 through 5-1613; Forest 

Conservation Act [FCA]) was implemented to minimize the loss of forest resources through land 

development. Although transmission line projects (and facilities integral to them) requiring a CPCN are 

exempted from FCA requirements, the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) has authority to 

impose FCA requirements regardless. Thus, the Company is conducting a Forest Stand Delineation 

(FSD), as described in the FCA, and would prepare a Forest Conservation Worksheet and Forest 

Conservation Plan, as described in the FCA, for portions of the Project, as directed by the PSC. The FSD 

would identify existing forest cover for the Project area. The Forest Conservation Plan would show the 

location of forest to be preserved or removed, in the course of the Project. 


Field surveys were conducted along the proposed Project right-of-way and converter and substation 

parcels between 2008 and 2011. Further, an FSD was conducted for the Project components (Volume V). 

Common vegetation species observed during field surveys are summarized within the individual Project 

component discussions. In general, vegetation within the Project area consists of open land (herbaceous 

and scrub-shrub), mixed forest, and agricultural lands. Overall vegetation classifications of the proposed 

Project area were derived from field survey data and aerial photo interpretation. Summaries of the 

1-96




vegetation classes in each Project component are summarized below in each Project component 

discussion. 

Invasive exotic species observed during the FSD include tree-of-heaven, white mulberry (Morus alba), 

Paulownia (Paulonia tomentosa), mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), and pear (Pyrus communis), which were 

dominant. Invasive vines such as English ivy (Hedera helix var.), and particularly Japanese honeysuckle 

and tearthumb were also often common. As necessary to manage invasive species, the Project right-ofway 

will be managed in accordance with the TVMP and Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IVMP; 

Volume V). 


Proposed Project activities in the Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter Component are discussed 

in Volume I, Section 2.0. 

Lands within the Project component right-of-way include approximately 231.9 acres of non-forested 

(open land and agricultural) vegetation types and approximately 21.5 acres of mixed forest vegetation, as 

determined through field surveys and aerial photograph interpretation (Table 1.5-1). Typical Maryland 

vegetative species would likely be contained within these areas. The existing right-of-way would also be 

interspersed with wetlands, which are discussed in Section 1.4. According to the VIMS 2004 to 2009 

SAV data, no SAV are located in the area where the Project component would cross the Patuxent River 

(VIMS 2011). 

Table 1.5-1 

Vegetation Within the Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter Component 

Mixed 

Forest c 

Herbaceous c 

1-97 

a, b, c 

Vegetation Cover (acres) 

Scrub- 

Shrub c Agricultural d Total b 

Total Right-of-Way 21.5 179.9 33.3 18.7 253.4 

Temporary Matting e 0.3 9.4 4.3 1.4 15.3 

Forest Conversion f 7.9 N/A N/A N/A 7.9 

Scrub-Shrub Clearing or 

Trimming g 

a 

N/A N/A 0.0 N/A 0.0 

Permanent Structures 0.0 0.0 a 0.0 0.0 0.0 a 

Areas of less than 0.05 acre are shown as 0.0 acre. 

b 

This total acreage does not account for those Project areas that do not cross vegetated areas, such as barren, paved, developed, or 

waterways. 

c 

d 

Upland and wetland vegetation types reported together. 

Includes row crops, pastures, and hay fields. 

e To avoid double counting impact acreages, temporary matting impacts are only reported for those areas that would not be subject to 

permanent vegetation conversion or structure installation. 

f. Vegetation would be permanently converted from forest vegetation to an open vegetation type. 

g Scrub-shrub vegetation would be cleared in uplands and trimmed in wetlands. The Company expects that temporary impacts of 

construction would be stabilized and seeded/monitored as appropriate and habitat would be allowed to naturally revegetate.




The majority of the existing Project component right-of-way consists of open land that is comprised of 

recently mowed scrub-shrub or herbaceous plants. Agricultural areas, including pasture and cropland, 

also occur throughout the right-of-way. During field surveys, the scrub-shrub vegetation within the 

unmaintained portion of the right-of-way consisted of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), 

pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), Eastern red cedar, common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), Virginia 

broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), blackberry, and black cherry (Prunus serotina). Areas within the 

existing maintained right-of-way were dominated by switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), sedge species 

(Carex spp), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli), joe-pye weed (Eupatoriadelphus spp.), and 

chickweed (Stellaria media). All of these species are common in Maryland. 

The vegetation within the un-maintained portion of the right-of-way (between the Chalk Point Substation 

and the Patuxent River) that would be cleared is primarily forested land. Common species observed in 

this mixed forest area included Virginia pine, white oak (Quercus alba), Northern red oak (Quercus 

rubra), Southern red oak, American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and sweet gum. The understory contained 

tulip poplar, red maple, and sweet gum. These stands vary from early successional to mature forest cover. 

In the younger areas the shrub layer was dense with American holly (Ilex opaca) and common greenbrier 

(Smilax rotundifolia), with little herbaceous cover in the more mature areas. 

Originally introduced as a cultivated plant, Japanese honeysuckle is considered an invasive species of 

concern in Maryland (Maryland Invasive Species Council 2008). This woody vine that invades a variety 

of habitats was identified within the existing Project right-of-way throughout the Project area. Wild garlic 

is also found throughout the Project component area and is considered an invasive species of concern, as 

it invades lawns, fields, and meadows (Maryland Invasive Species Council 2008). As necessary to 

manage invasive species, the Project right-of-way will be managed in accordance with the TVMP and 

IVMP (Volume V). 

All of Prince George’s County is under quarantine for the Emerald Ash Borer, an exotic invasive insect. 

Under this quarantine, regulated articles may not be moved out of the infested area (including portions of 

Prince George’s County) to the rest of the quarantine area (MDNR 2008b). Regulated articles include all 

life stages of the emerald ash borer, non-coniferous fire wood, nursery stock, green lumber, and any 

materials of ash species. 

1.5.2.1.1 Special Management Areas 

Special management areas that exist within this Project component include green infrastructure, Critical 

Areas, CREPS, and the Calvert Creeks Rural Legacy Area. The Project component right-of-way would 

include the following: 

Approximately 156.7 acres of lands designated as a green infrastructure corridor (88.0 acres) 

or hub (68.7 acres); 

Approximately 2.1 acres of area identified as potentially eligible for CREP easements; 

Approximately 52.9 acres of the Project component would cross the Calvert Creek Rural 

Legacy Area and 11.7 of this area is held in easement; and 

Approximately 38.0 acres of Critical Areas categorized as RCA. 

1-98





Proposed Project activities in the Chestnut Converter Component are discussed in Volume I, Section 2.0. 

Based on the field assessments conducted by the Company in 2010 (Volume V), the Chestnut Converter 

site would be located in a mix of upland forest, forested and riparian wetlands, open herbaceous lands, 

and agricultural lands (both active and fallow). Specifically, lands within the Chestnut Converter 

Component include approximately 32.0 acres of non-forested (open land and agricultural) vegetation 

types and approximately 72.7 acres of mixed forest vegetation, as determined through field surveys and 

aerial photograph interpretation (Table 1.5-2). Forest stands within the Chestnut Converter station were 

highly variable in type (species) and size class, and included mostly deciduous hardwoods but also some 

pine. Exotic/invasive plants species were scarce in most of the site, but invasive species were heavy 

along wooded fringes. The Project’s FSD report that characterizes the forest vegetation in this component 

is included in Volume V. The Chestnut Converter parcel would also be interspersed with wetlands, 

which are discussed in Section 1.4. 

Table 1.5-2 

Vegetation Within the Chestnut Converter Component 

Mixed 

Forest c Herbaceous c 

1-99 

a, b, c 


Scrub- 

Shrub c Agricultural b Total c 

Total Component 72.7 0.2 1.8 30 104.7 




Trimming g 

a 

N/A N/A 0.0 N/A 0.0 

Permanent Structures 14.9 0.0 0.1 22.5 37.6 


b 


waterways. 

c 

d 





f. Vegetation would be permanently converted from forest or scrub-shrub vegetation to an open vegetation type. 


construction would be stabilized and seeded/monitored as appropriate and habitat would be allowed to naturally revegetate. 

Typical vegetation species observed in upland forest areas included loblolly pine, Virginia pine, Chestnut 

oak (Quercus prinus), white oak, American beech, sweet gum, hickory (Carya spp.), flowering dogwood 

(Comus florida), American holly, sassafras (Sassafras albidum), American beech, lowbush blueberry 

(Vaccinium angustifolium), and mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia).




Typical vegetation species observed in agricultural and herbaceous lands included various grasses and 

herbaceous vegetation. Jimsonweed (Datura stramonium) and horsenettle (Solanum carolinense) were 

particularly abundant. Other species noted include timothy (Phleum pratense), lye grasses (Lolium spp.), 

knottweed (Polygonum spp.), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), deptford pink (Dianthus armeria), 

goldenrod (Solidago spp.), blackberry, catbriar (Smilax glauca) and marginal wood fern (Dryopteris 

marginalis). Corn and soybean were also encountered in agricultural areas. 


Approximately 32.9 acres of lands designated as a green infrastructure hub and approximately 11.6 acres 

as green infrastructure corridor would be contained within the Chestnut Converter location. 


Proposed Project activities in the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing Component are discussed 


The existing maintained right-of-way consists of approximately 9.9 acres of vegetation, of which 2.4 

acres is mixed forest and 7.5 acres is non-forested, as determined through field delineation and aerial 

photo interpretation (Table 1.5-3). Based on field data collected by the Company in 2011 (Volume V), 

common woody species observed in this component include sweet gum, American holly, black oak 

(Quercus velutina), Eastern red cedar, mountain laurel, pine (Pinus spp.) and black locust (Robinia 

pseudoacacia). Sloped areas contain dense thickets of sumac (Rhus spp.), multiflora rose, round leaf 

greenbriar, and blackberry. 

Table 1.5-3 

Vegetation Within the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing Component 

Mixed 


1-100 

a, b, c 


Scrub- 



Temporary Matting e 

Forest Conversion f 


Trimming g 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 

N/A N/A 0.0 N/A 0.0 


a 


b 


waterways. 

c 


d 


e 

To avoid double counting impact acreages, temporary matting impacts are only reported for those areas that would not be subject to 


f. 

Vegetation would be permanently converted from forest or scrub-shrub vegetation to an open vegetation type. 

g 

Scrub-shrub vegetation would be cleared in uplands and trimmed in wetlands. The Company expects that temporary impacts of 





Herbaceous species commonly observed in the component included mullein, spreading dogbane 

(Apocynum androsaemifolium), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), thistle (Cirsium spp.), pokeweed, 

goldenrod (Solidago spp.) and knapweed (Centaurea stoebe). Uniform areas of turf grasses were also 

observed. Some of these grasses included tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), orchard grass (Dactylis 

glomerata), sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), crabgrass (Digitaria filiformis) and giant 

foxtail (Setaria faberi), as well as switch grass, Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans) and Dichanthelium 

spp. 

The invasive mile-a-minute (Polygonum perfoliatum) was observed to be prevalent within Chestnut 

Converter to Western Shore Landing plant survey areas (see Volume V). Mile-a-minute is an invasive 

species of concern in Maryland (Maryland Invasive Species Council 2011). This thorny vine rapidly 

overtakes shrubs and trees. The plant is an annual whose seeds are dispersed by water. As necessary to 

manage invasive species, the Project right-of-way will be managed in accordance with the TVMP and 

IVMP (Volume V). 

The existing right-of-way would also be interspersed with wetlands, which are discussed in Section 1.4. 

The portion of the Project component located under Western Shores Boulevard would not contain any 

vegetation resources. 


Special management areas that exist within this Project component include the Chesapeake Bay Critical 

Area, and green infrastructure. The Project component right-of-way would include the following: 

Approximately 6.3 acres of lands designated as a green infrastructure corridor (3.2 acres) or 

hub (3.1 acres); and 

Approximately 2.2 acres of Critical Areas categorized as LDA. 


Proposed Project activities in the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Component are discussed 


The right-of-way, including the Choptank River Transition Station, within the Western Shore Landing to 

Gateway Converter Component generally consists of approximately 228.6 acres of mixed forest 

vegetation (both wetlands and uplands) and approximately 139,6 acres of non-forested vegetation, based 

on the field surveys and aerial photo interpretation (Table 1.5-4). 

Typical woody species observed during field studies conducted by the Company in 2010 (Volume V) 

included sweetgum, blackgum, red maple, willow oak (Quercus phellos), tulip poplar, loblolly pine. 

American holly, post oak (Quercus palustris), red mulberry (Morus rubra), tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus 

altissima), black cherry, sassafras. highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), roundleaf greenbriar, 

sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), and black huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata). 

Typical herbaceous species observed included black-eyed susan (Rudbeckia hirta), big bluestem 

(Andropogon gerardii), rye grass (Lolium spp.), timothy, switch grass, Queen Anne's lace. purple passion 

flower (Passiflora incarnata), winged sumac (Rhus copallina), slender-leaved goldenrod (Solidago 

tenuifolia), common pokeweed, tickseed sunflower (Bidens coronata), Asiatic dayflower (Commelina 

communis), meadowbeauty (Rhexia mariana), soft rush, little bluestem (Andropogon scoparius), yellow 

goatsbeard (Tragopogon pratensis), pinweed (Lechea spp.), white boneset (Eupatorium album), wild 

1-101




lettuce (Lactuca canadensis), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), common mullein, jimsonweed, horse 

nettle, curly dock (Rumex crispus), common reed (Phragmites australis), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), 

ground ivy (Glechoma hederacea), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), yarrow, devil's walking stick (Aralia 

spinosa), netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginica), trumpet 

creeper (Campsis radicans), grape (Vitis spp.), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), soft rush (Juncus 

effusus) sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.), partridge pea (Cassia fasciculata), and sessile-leaved tick 

trefoil (Desmodium sessilifolium). Agricultural crops observed included corn and soybeans. 

Table 1.5-4 

Vegetation Within the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Component 

Mixed 


1-102 

a, b, c 


Scrub- 






Trimming g 

a 

b 

0.4 14.6 9.9 0.0 24.9 

224.6 N/A N/A N/A 224.6 

N/A N/A 20.2 N/A 20.2 




c 


waterways. 

d 




f. Vegetation would be permanently converted from forest or scrub-shrub vegetation to an open vegetation type. 



The uncleared right-of-way would also be interspersed with wetlands, which are discussed in Section 1.4. 

SAV near the Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River are reported in Volume III. 


Special management areas that exist within this Project component right-of-way include Critical Areas, 

Chesapeake Forest lands, the Nanticoke Rural Legacy Area, CREP lands, agricultural land preservation 

easements and districts, and green infrastructure. The Project component right-of-way would include the 

following: 

Approximately 303.4 acres of lands identified as green infrastructure hub (296.0 acres) or 

corridor (7.4 acres); 

Approximately 34.5 acres of Critical Area designated as RCA;




Approximately 40.8 acres of the overhead transmission line portion would cross the 

Nanticoke River Rural Legacy Area, but no Rural Legacy easements would be crossed by this 

Project component; 

Approximately 6.9 acre of lands managed by MDNR as Chesapeake Forest Lands; 

Approximately 23.6 acre of lands potentially eligible for CREP easements; and 

Approximately 22.2 acres of Agricultural Land Preservation Districts, but the Project 

component would not cross any Agricultural Land Preservation Easements. 


Proposed Project activities in the Gateway Converter Component are discussed in Volume I, Section 2.0. 

The Gateway Converter Component primarily contains loblolly pine forestland, but also contains some 

active agricultural land. The pine on Gateway Converter Component site has been recently harvested, 

leaving a thin residual stand in some areas. Structure and retention priority on the pine forest are low. 

Overall, lands within the Gateway Converter Component include approximately 21.7 acres of nonforested 

(open land and agricultural) vegetation types and approximately 56.8 acres of mixed forest 

vegetation, as determined through field surveys and aerial photograph interpretation (Table 1.5-5). 

Typical Maryland vegetative species would likely be contained within these areas. The Gateway 

Converter parcel would also be interspersed with wetlands, which are discussed in Section 1.4. 

Table 1.5-5 

Vegetation Within the Gateway Converter Component 

Mixed 


1-103 

a, b, c 


Scrub- 


Total Component 56.8 12.7 8.8 0.2 78.6 




Trimming g 

0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 

12.5 N/A N/A N/A 12.5 

N/A N/A 0.0 N/A 0.0 


a Areas of less than 0.05 acre are shown as 0.0 acre. 

b Includes row crops, pastures, and hay fields. 

c 


waterways. 

d Upland and wetland vegetation types reported together. 



f Vegetation would be permanently converted from forest or scrub-shrub vegetation to an open vegetation type. 







included loblolly pine, black gum, swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), willow oak, post oak, southern red oak 

(Quercus falcata), sweet gum, red maple, American holly, sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), 

winterberry (Ilex verticillata), and highbush blueberry. 

Typical herbaceous species observed included partridge pea, Asiatic dayflower, sweet goldenrod 

(Solidago odora), Maryland meadowbeauty, and common pokeweed, as well multiple thorough-worts 

including hyssop leaved (Eupatorium hyssopifolium) and hairy boneset (Eupatorium pilosum). 


The proposed Gateway Converter Component contains approximately 76.8 acres of green infrastructure 

hub. Other special management areas include Critical Area. 


Proposed Project activities in the Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line Component are 

discussed in Volume I, Section 2.0. 

The existing right-of-way within the Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line Component 

generally consists of approximately 4.5 acres of forest vegetation and approximately 105.9 acres of nonforested 

vegetation, as identified through field surveys and interpretation of aerial photography (Table 

1.5-6). 

Table 1.5-6 

Vegetation Within the Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line Component 

Mixed 

Forest c 

a, b, c 


Herbaceous c Scrub-Shrub c Agricultural b Total c 





Trimming g 

N/A N/A 0.0 N/A 0.0 


a 


b 


c 


waterways. 

d 


e 

To avoid double counting impact acreages, temporary matting impacts are only reported for those areas that would not be subject to 


g 

Scrub-shrub vegetation would be cleared in uplands and trimmed in wetlands. The Company expects that temporary impacts of 


1-104





included sweetgum, red maple, loblolly pine. American holly, black cherry, Sweetbay, sassafras, black 

gum, water oak, scrub oak (Quercus ilicifolia), chicory (Cichorium intybus), Eastern red cedar, and 

blackberry. 

Typical herbaceous species observed included Long’s sedge (carex longii), mugwart (Artemisia vulgaris), 

rough-leaved goldenrod (Solidago rugosa), rice cutgrass (Leersia ericoides), soft rush, Southern long 

sedge (Carex lonchocarpa), tall morning-glory (Ipomea purpurea), trumpet vine, velvet panic grass 

(Dichanthelium scoparium), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), 

broad-leaf cattail (Typha latifolia), Japanese honeysuckle, jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), and poison 

ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). 

The right-of-way would also be interspersed with wetlands, which are discussed in Section 1.4. 


Special management areas that exist within this Project area include Chesapeake Forest lands, green 

infrastructure, and CREP. Specifically, the Project component right-of-way would include the following: 

Approximately 58.1 acres of lands designated as a green infrastructure corridor (4.0 acre) or 

hub (54.1 acre); 

Approximately 11.4 acres of parcels designated as Chesapeake Forest Lands; and 

Approximately 1.8 acres of lands potentially eligible for the CREP. 


Potential impacts to vegetation resources from the proposed Project components are discussed in the 

following section. Note that only a portion of the right-of-way and property vegetation values reported in 

Section 1.5.2 would be impacted by Project construction and operation. 


Table 1.5-1 contains a summary of the potential Project component impacts to vegetative resources. For 

the portion of this Project component where single-circuit structures would be added, some vegetation 

clearing would be required for the installation of new structures. A majority of vegetation disturbance 

would occur within herbaceous or scrub-shrub vegetation types, but some forest clearing (approximately 

7.9 acres) would be required. All vegetation removal in Prince George’s County would comply with the 

Emerald Ash Borer quarantine rules that are currently under effect in that county. A description of 

vegetation clearing and restoration is described in Volume I, Section 2.0. 

Of the forest clearing anticipated to occur within this Project component, the vast majority (approximately 

46 percent) would occur in forest stands classified as Size Class 1 (diameter at breast height [DBH] of 2 

to 5.9 inches), as determined during FSD studies conducted (see Volume V; Table 1.5-7). Other size 

classes being cleared in this Project component include approximately 18 percent of Size Class 2 (DBH 6 

to 11.9 inches), approximately 33 percent of Size Class 3 (DBH 12 to 19.9 inches), and approximately 3 

percent of Size Class 4 (DBH 20 to 22 inches). 

1-105




In locations where existing transmission line structures would be replaced, temporary matting in wetlands 

and use of upland open land and agricultural vegetation would likely occur. No forest clearing would be 

required in the Calvert County portion of this component due to the use of existing right-of-way. 

All Project-related impacts, other than new structure installation, to open land vegetation would be 

temporary. The approximately 7.9 acres of cleared forested areas within the Project right-of-way would 

be permanently converted to an open land vegetation cover. Vegetation within the footprint of the new 

structures in Prince George’s County would be permanently lost. Less than 0.05 acres of mixed forest 

and herbaceous vegetation would be lost due to structure installation. 

Table 1.5-7 

Size Classes of Forested Lands Cleared within the Chalk 

Point to Chestnut Converter Component 

a 

Size Class 

(DBH) 

1-106 

Percent of Forest 

Clearing 

2”-5.9” 46% 

6”-11.9” 18% 

12”-19.9” 33% 

20”-29.9” 3% 

>30” 0% 

Tree Cover a 1% 

Tree cover type is individual trees that are not “forest” under FCA rules 

and/or the area does not have forest structure and ecological characteristics. 

Tree cover area species often mimic those in the nearest forest stand, but 

many areas have developed in primarily “pioneer” or early successional stage 

species such as honey locust, black cherry, sweetgum, yellow poplar, and red 

maple regardless of nearby seed sources. Sizes of the dominant and codominant 

trees often vary between the clusters of trees within a tree cover 

area, as does the species creating the shrub layer and groundcover. 

Vegetation restoration actions for areas subject to vegetation disturbance during installation activities 

would be developed, as necessary, in coordination with regulatory agencies. The Company expects that 

temporary impacts of construction would be stabilized and seeded/monitored as appropriate and habitat 

would be allowed to naturally revegetate. Vegetation clearing, restoration, and maintenance methods are 

discussed in Volume I, Section 2.0. All right-of-way maintenance would conform to the Company’s 

TVMP and would be performed to meet all existing guidelines and standards, including the North 

American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) guidelines. 

Project component structures in the Patuxent River would be located in areas containing soft bottom 

substrates. According to the VIMS 2004 to 2008 SAV data, no SAV are located in the area that the 

Project component would cross the Patuxent River (VIMS 2011). While structure installation would 

result in temporary elevated TSS (see Section 1.3), due to the distance of Project activities from SAV, no 

SAV is expected to be impacted directly or indirectly by installation of the proposed Project component.





Green Infrastructure, CREP, and Calvert Creek Rural Legacy Area 

Because the majority of the Project component would be located in existing, maintained right-of-way, 

nearly all of this land is currently covered in open vegetation. Therefore, installation of this Project 

component would largely result in only a short-term vegetation impact through matting and the temporary 

use of green infrastructure, CREP, and Calvert Creek Rural Legacy Area vegetation. After installation, 

the right-of-way would largely return to pre-construction condition. Impacts to vegetation in special 

management lands would be similar to those temporary vegetation impacts described in Section 1.5.3.1. 

In addition to the temporary impacts to these areas, as described above, approximately 6.3 acres of green 

infrastructure hub or corridor would be permanently converted from forest vegetation to an open 

vegetation type. Additionally, permanent loss of vegetation at the structure footings would occur in lands 

designated as green infrastructure, and rural legacy areas. No permanent loss of vegetation would be 

greater than 0.02 acres. 

The Company and its contractors are currently consulting with MDNR, as needed, to identify impact 

minimization measures to sensitive species or habitats that may be impacted by Project installation and 

operation in this component. 

Critical Areas 

Approximately 7.6 acres of upland and wetland forest cleared for installation of the single circuit would 

occur in areas designated as RCA in the Critical Area in Prince George’s County. As described in 

Section 1.4, on July 8, 2009, the CAC approved, subject to the condition that the Company provide a 

finalized Forest Mitigation Plan, the Company’s proposal to install this Project component. The 

Company has obtained mitigation property and has submitted a draft forest mitigation and management 

plan to the CAC. The Company is currently consulting with the CAC to finalize mitigation planning. 

Forest Conservation Act 

Although transmission line projects (and facilities integral to them) requiring a CPCN are exempted from 

FCA requirements, the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) has authority to impose FCA 

requirements regardless. Thus, the Company is conducting a Forest Stand Delineation (FSD), as 

described in the FCA, and would prepare a Forest Conservation Worksheet and Forest Conservation Plan, 

as described in the FCA, for portions of the Project, as directed by the PSC. The FSD would identify 

existing forest cover for the Project area. The Forest Conservation Plan would show the location of forest 

to be preserved or removed, in the course of the Project. Potential forest clearing within the Chestnut 

Converter property was described in Section 1.5.3.1. The Company’s contractors completed a FSD, as 

described in the FCA, as a basis for determining what further action is needed (Volume V). 


Table 1.5-2 contains a summary of the potential Project component impacts to vegetative resources. All 

vegetation located within the temporary workspaces and the permanent facility footprint of the Chestnut 

Converter would require clearing, grading, and other vegetation disturbing activities. A description of 

construction of the Chestnut Converter is provided in Volume I, Section 2.0. Forested vegetation located 

within the Chestnut Converter property would be cleared of trees and vegetation for Project component 

1-107




installation. Approximately 12.2 acres of forested lands would be converted to an herbaceous or scrubshrub 

vegetation cover. 

Forested (14.9 acres), scrub-shrub (0.1 acre), and agricultural (22.5 acres) vegetation within the 

permanent facility footprint would be permanently eliminated and converted to commercial/industrial 

land cover (i.e. no vegetation). The permanent facility footprint would also include a road to the entrance 

gate, as well as stormwater management features, which would be placed outside the fence around the 

switching station and converters. Vegetation areas not needed for the placement of structures would be 

returned to pre-construction conditions as applicable; therefore, the vegetation impacts in these areas 

would be temporary. 

Of the forested area that would be subject to clearing or would be permanently lost in this proposed 

Project component, the vast majority (approximately 78 percent) would occur in forest stands classified as 

Size Class 4 (DBH of 20 to 29.9 inches; Table 1.5-8), as determined during FSD studies (Volume V). 

Other size classes that would be cleared in this Project component include approximately 10 percent of 

Size Class 2 (DBH 6 to 11.9 inches) and approximately 11 percent of trees in the Size Class 3 (DBH 12 to 

19.9 inches). 

Table 1.5-8 

Size Classes of Forested Lands Cleared within the 

Chestnut Converter Component 

Size Class 

(DBH) 

1-108 


Clearing 

Class 1 (2”-5.9”) 0% 

Class 2 (6”-11.9”) 10% 

Class 3 (12”-19.9”) 11% 

Class 4 (20”-29.9”) 78% 

Class 5 (>30”) 0% 


a Tree Cover type is individual trees that are not “forest” under FCA 

rules and/or the area does not have forest structure and ecological 

characteristics. Tree cover area species often mimic those in the 

nearest forest stand, but many areas have developed in primarily 

“pioneer” or early successional stage species such as honey locust, 

black cherry, sweetgum, yellow poplar, and red maple regardless of 

nearby seed sources. Sizes of the dominant and co-dominant trees 

often vary between the clusters of trees within a tree cover area, as 

does the species creating the shrub layer and groundcover. 

Construction techniques and vegetation clearing techniques are discussed further in Volume I, Section 

2.0. All vegetation maintenance would conform to the Company’s TVMP.





Green Infrastructure 

Approximately 7.9 acres of green infrastructure hub would be permanently converted from forest 

vegetation to open vegetation within the Chestnut Converter Component. Further, vegetation clearing 

and grading within the Chestnut Converter permanent facilities would result in permanent elimination of 

an additional 5.3 acres of green infrastructure hub vegetation within the converter station footprint. The 

Company and its contractors would consult with MDNR, as needed, to identify impact minimization 

measures to sensitive species or habitats that may be impacted by Project component construction and 

operation. 












Construction and operation of the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing Component would be 

completed on land within existing road and transmission line rights-of-way and the transmission line 

would be installed underground via HDD, direct burial, and duct bank. 

Table 1.5-3 contains a summary of the potential Project component impacts to vegetative resources. 

Where the cable is directly buried, permanent vegetation loss would result from the installation of an 

access road that would be constructed between the two buried cables. Further permanent vegetation loss 

would result from man holes, installed at a frequency as necessitated by construction constraints, and 

access areas. Temporary impacts to herbaceous vegetation and scrub-shrub vegetation would occur in 

other areas that are cleared and/or trenched during construction. Because the proposed Project component 

would be located within existing rights-of-way, a majority of the vegetation disturbance would occur 

within herbaceous or scrub-shrub vegetation types. Approximately 2.1 acres of mixed forest, 4.9 acres of 

herbaceous, and 1.6 acres of scrub-shrub vegetation would be permanently lost for the installation of 

Project structures and facilities. Additionally, short term disturbance of open land vegetation would 

result during construction in matting, laydown, and stringing areas (see Volume I, Section 2.0). 

Of the approximately 2.1 acres of anticipated forest clearing for permanent pieces of this Project 

component, approximately 0.5 acres were delineated during FSDs (Volume V). The remaining areas of 

tree clearing in this Project component would occur along the existing maintained transmission and 

Western Shores Boulevard rights-of-way. Of the forest land delineated during FSDs, approximately 80 

percent of the cleared forest (occurring in the Western Shores Landing site) was classified as Size Class 3 

(DBH 12 to 19.9 inches) (Table 1.5-9). 

1-109




a 

Table 1.5-9 

Size Class of Forested Lands Cleared within the Chestnut 

Converter to Western Shore Landing Component 

Size Class 

(DBH) 

1-110 


Clearing 

Class 1 (2”-5.9”) 0% 

Class 2 (6”-11.9”) 0% 

Class 3 (12”-19.9”) 80% 

Class 4 (20”-29.9”) 0% 

Class 5 (>30”) 0% 


Tree Cover type is individual trees that are not “forest” under FCA rules and/or the area 

does not have forest structure and ecological characteristics. Tree cover area species 

often mimic those in the nearest forest stand, but many areas have developed in 

primarily “pioneer” or early successional stage species such as honey locust, black 

cherry, sweetgum, yellow poplar, and red maple regardless of nearby seed sources. 

Sizes of the dominant and co-dominant trees often vary between the clusters of trees 

within a tree cover area, as does the species creating the shrub layer and groundcover. 

The Company expects that temporarily impacted vegetation would be stabilized and seeded/monitored as 

appropriate and habitat would be allowed to naturally revegetate. Techniques utilized to minimize both 

long-term and short-term impacts from vegetation clearing are discussed in Volume I, Section 2.0. 

All right-of-way maintenance would conform to the Company’s TVMP. All right-of-way vegetation 

maintenance is performed to meet all existing guidelines and standards, including NERC and FERC 

guidelines. 



Because nearly all of this land is currently held in open land vegetation, installation of this Project 

component would largely result in temporary impact to herbaceous green infrastructure vegetation. No 

scrub-shrub or forested vegetation within green infrastructure would be cleared or trimmed. A minor 

permanent loss of vegetation would occur due to installation of the access road and manholes. 

Approximately 5.9 acres of vegetation within green infrastructure hub and corridor would be permanently 

lost. Overall, impacts to lands identified as green infrastructure would be similar to those vegetation 

impacts described in Section 1.5.3.3. The Company and its contractors would consult with MDNR, as 

needed, to identify impact minimization measures to sensitive species or habitats that may be impacted by 

Project construction and operation in this component. 




requirements regardless. Thus, the Company is conducting a Forest Stand Delineation (FSD), as











Approximately 0.4 acres of Critical Area designated as LDA (Limited Development Areas) would be 

subject to upland and wetland forest clearing. As appropriate, the Company would provide a forest 

mitigation and management plan to the CAC. 


Table 1.5-4 contains a summary of the potential Project component impacts to vegetative resources. 

Transmission line installation would entail the removal and clearing of vegetation for the underground 

installation right-of-way, as well as the clearing of forest vegetation along the entire overhead 

transmission line right-of-way, and within the Choptank River Station footprint. Cleared forested 

vegetation along the overhead transmission line would be permanently converted to open land vegetation 

within the right of-way. Overall, approximately 224.6 acres of forest vegetation and approximately 20.0 

acres of scrub-shrub vegetation would be cleared, trimmed, and/or converted to open vegetation. 

Installation of the access road and the man holes along the underground portion of the Project component 

would result in a minor permanent loss of vegetation. A small permanent vegetation loss would also 

result from the installation of the Choptank River Station and footers for the new structures. 

Cumulatively, approximately 1.0 acres of forest, 1.3 acres of herbaceous, 0.3 acres of scrub-shrub, and 

6.4 acres of agricultural vegetation would be permanently lost. 

Of the total of approximately 225.6 acres of forest clearing anticipated to occur within this Project 

component, most (approximately 49 percent) of the forest clearing would occur in forest stands classified 

as Size Class 3 (DBH of 12 to 19.9 inches; Table 1.5-10), as determined through FSDs conducted 

(Volume V). Other size classes being cleared in this Project component include approximately 13 percent 

of Size Class 1 (DBH 2 to 5.9 inches), approximately 26 percent of Size Class 2 (DBH 6 to 11.9 inches), 

and approximately 1 percent of Size Class 4 (DBH 20 to 29.9 inches). Approximately 11 percent of the 

anticipated clearing area still requires FSDs conducted, which was prevented due to limited site access. 

1-111




Table 1.5-10 

Size Class of Forested Lands Cleared within the Eastern 

Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Component 

a 

Size Class 

(DBH) 

1-112 


Clearing 

Class 1 (2”-5.9”) 13% 

Class 2 (6”-11.9”) 26% 

Class 3 (12”-19.9”) 49% 

Class 4 (20”-29.9”) 1% 

Class 5 (>30”) 0% 


To be Studied b 11% 

Tree Cover type is individual trees that are not “forest” under FCA rules 

and/or the area does not have forest structure and ecological characteristics. 

Tree cover area species often mimic those in the nearest forest stand, but 

many areas have developed in primarily “pioneer” or early successional stage 

species such as honey locust, black cherry, sweetgum, yellow poplar, and red 

maple regardless of nearby seed sources. Sizes of the dominant and codominant 

trees often vary between the clusters of trees within a tree cover 

area, as does the species creating the shrub layer and groundcover. 

b Approximately 24.2 acres of forest clearing areas require that a FSD be 

conducted due to restricted access. 

Beyond the forest and non-forest vegetation permanently cleared or lost, non-forested vegetation would 

be temporarily impacted during Project installation, such as matting in wetlands, stringing, and access 

areas. Additional installation and matting details are described in Volume I, Section 2.0. 

Vegetation restoration actions for areas subject to vegetation disturbance during installation activities 

would be developed, as necessary, in coordination with regulatory agencies. The Company expects that 


would be allowed to naturally revegetate. Further, the Company would complete restoration in wetlands, 

as determined through appropriate permitting requirements. Techniques utilized to minimize both longterm 

and short-term impacts from vegetation clearing are discussed in Volume I, Section 2.0. 



guidelines. 

Volume III discusses the location of SAV relative to the proposed Project crossing of the Chesapeake Bay 

and Choptank River.






This Project component is located within the Critical Area for the Chesapeake Bay and the Nanticoke 

River. The portion of these areas where the underground transmission line would be installed includes 

two areas that have been designated as Critical Area for the Chesapeake Bay. Both of these areas 

primarily contain agricultural and open vegetation. The Project component overhead transmission line 

would also cross the Nanticoke River Critical Area in Dorchester and Wicomico Counties. The portion of 

the Critical Area crossed in Dorchester County is primarily held in open agricultural land; therefore, there 

would be minimal vegetation clearing required. The Wicomico County portion of the Nanticoke River 

Critical Area contains forest vegetation that would require clearing for Project component installation and 

operation. Overall, installation of the proposed Project component would result in the clearing of 

approximately 13.7 acres of forest vegetation in Critical Areas. Vegetation impacts in the Critical Area 

would be similar to those described in Section 1.5.3.4. The Company and its contractors would consult 

with the CAC to determine the appropriate Project impact minimization measures and mitigation in 

Critical Areas. 











Agricultural Land Preservation Easement Districts 

The entire portion of this district crossed by the proposed Project component currently contains woodland 

vegetation cover. Approximately 13.3 acres of forest vegetation would be cleared and approximately 2.5 

acres of vegetation would be lost due to structures that would be installed along the right-of-way. After 

Project installation, the right-of-way could contain agricultural vegetation, but the reestablishment of 

woodland vegetation would not occur under the Company’s TVMP. Ongoing right-of-way maintenance 

activities (as described in Volume I, Section 2.0) would be compatible with agricultural uses. 

Nanticoke River Rural Legacy Area, Green Infrastructure, CREP, and Chesapeake Forest Lands 

Vegetation in the Project component right-of-way that would cross the Nanticoke River Rural Legacy 

Area includes mixed forest, open, and agricultural lands. Review of aerial imagery indicates that 

potential CREP areas are primarily held in forested vegetation. Further, a majority of Chesapeake Forest 

Lands, and green infrastructure currently contain mixed forest vegetation that would require clearing for 

Project component construction. 

Trenching would be conducted in agricultural lands that are identified as green infrastructure corridor 

areas where the Project component transitions from underwater (HDD) to underground terrestrial areas. 

Where overhead transmission lines would be constructed, forested vegetation would be permanently 

1-113




cleared and converted to non-forested vegetation within the Project component right-of-way. Vegetation 

impacts in these areas would be similar to those described in Section 1.5.3.4. The mixed forest and 

scrub-shrub lands in these special management areas would be subject to clearing, trimming, and/or 

permanent conversion to open vegetation types. Adjacent forested lands would likely have alterations of 

vegetation along the newly created forest edges. Open and agricultural lands within the Nanticoke River 

Rural Legacy Area that would be subject to temporary Project installation activities would be maintained 

as open land covers. A small amount of permanent vegetation loss associated with structure installation 

would also occur within some special management areas. 

Overall, the following conversion or loss of vegetation would occur in special vegetation areas: 

Green infrastructure hub: approximately 217.2 acres of forest to open land vegetation 

conversion, 8.3 acres of scrub-shrub clearing/trimming, and 1.2 acres of permanent 

vegetation loss; 

Rural legacy area: 6.6 acres of forest to open land vegetation conversion, 1.9 acres of scrubshrub 

clearing/trimming, and 0.9 acres of vegetation loss. Project does not cross any rural 

legacy easements; 

Chesapeake Forest lands (MP ESLGC 10.4, MP ESLGC 14.0 to ESLGC 14.4): 6.9 acres of 

forest to open vegetation conversion; and 

Potential CREP areas (MP ESLGC 0.5 – ESLGC 0.8, MP ESLGC 2.0 – ESLGC 2.2, MP 

ESLGC 2.6, MP ESLGC 7.1 – ESLGC 8.1): 1.2 acres of forest to open land vegetation 

conversion and 0.4 acres of vegetation loss. 

The Company and its contractors would determine any avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures 

associated with the forest clearing in these areas through the permitting process. 


Table 1.5-5 contains a summary of the potential Project component impacts to vegetative resources. All 

vegetation located within the temporary workspaces and the permanent facility footprint of the Gateway 

Converter would require clearing, grading, and other vegetation disturbing activities. A description of 

construction of the Gateway converter is provided in Volume I, Section 2.0. Forested vegetation located 

within the Gateway Converter property would be cleared of trees and vegetation for Project component 

installation. Approximately 12.5 acres of forest vegetation would be converted to herbaceous or scrubshrub 

vegetation. Further, approximately 15.1 acres of forested and open vegetation within the permanent 

facility footprint would be permanently eliminated and converted to commercial/industrial land cover (i.e. 

no vegetation). 

Of forest clearing anticipated to occur within this Project component, the vast majority (approximately 99 

percent) would occur in forest stands classified as Size Class 1 (DBH of 2 to 5.9 inches), as identified in 

FSDs conducted for the proposed Project (Volume V). Less than 1 percent of the remaining trees were 

Class 2 (DBH 6 to 11.9 inches). 

The permanent facility footprint would also include a road to the entrance gate, as well as stormwater 

management features, which would be placed outside the fence around the switching station and 

converters. Vegetation areas not needed for the placement of these structures and outside the fence line of 

the switching stations and converters would be returned to pre-construction conditions as much as 

1-114




practicable; therefore, the vegetation impacts in these areas would be temporary. Construction and 

vegetation clearing techniques are discussed in Volume I, Section 2.0. 



Nearly the entire Gateway Converter site has been designated as hub or corridor green infrastructure. 

Approximately 12.2 acres of green infrastructure vegetation (open and forested) would be permanently 

converted to an industrial land cover within the converter station footprint. Approximately 11.8 acres of 

forest and 0.02 acres of scrub shrub vegetation in green infrastructure would be cleared, trimmed, and/or 

converted to an open vegetation type. Overall, impacts to green infrastructure would be similar to the 

general vegetation impacts described above. The Company and its contractors would consult with 

MDNR, as needed, to identify impact minimization measures to sensitive species or habitats that may be 

impacted by Project component construction and operation. 












The Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line would consist of an aerial transmission line that 

would be installed in an existing right-of-way. Project components are further described in Volume I, 

Section 2.0. 

Table 1.5-6 contains a summary of the potential Project component impacts to vegetative resources. A 

majority of vegetation disturbance would occur within herbaceous vegetation types. A minor quantity of 

forested or scrub-shrub vegetation would be cleared or trimmed for the construction of the Gateway 

Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line component due to the extensive use of existing rights-of-way. 

All trees identified during FSDs conducted for this Project component were Size Class 1 (DBH 2 to 5.9 

inches; Volume V). Less than 0.05 acres of vegetation would be permanently lost due to the installation 

of Project structures. Short term, temporary disturbance of open land vegetation would result during 

construction in matting, laydown, and stringing areas. Construction techniques and disturbance areas are 

more fully discussed in Volume I, Section 2.0. 

If vegetation restoration actions for areas subject to vegetation disturbance during installation activities 

are necessary, measures would be developed, as necessary, in coordination with regulatory agencies. The 

Company expects that temporary impacts of construction would be stabilized and seeded/monitored as 

appropriate and habitat would be allowed to naturally revegetate. The Company would complete 

restoration in wetlands, as determined through appropriate permitting requirements. Techniques utilized 

1-115




to minimize both long-term and short-term impacts from vegetation clearing are discussed in Volume I, 

Section 2.0. 



guidelines. 


Green Infrastructure, Chesapeake Forest Lands, and CREP 

Impacts to lands identified as green infrastructure, Chesapeake Forest Lands, and CREP would be similar 

to those temporary vegetation impacts described in Section 1.5.3.6. Therefore, minimal impacts to the 

forest vegetation that are part of the green infrastructure, CREP would occur as part of the installation of 

the proposed Project component. No impacts to forest vegetation in Chesapeake Forest Lands would 

occur. Standard vegetative maintenance would be continued during Project component installation and 

operation following the existing easement agreements between the Company and MDNR, and the 

ongoing maintenance methods described in the Company’s TVMP. The Company and its contractors 

would consult with MDNR, as needed, to identify impact minimization measures to sensitive species or 

habitats that may be impacted by Project component construction. Operation of this Project component 

would not represent a change in the current use of the existing right-of-way. 


Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF). 2004. A Citizen’s Guide to the Critical Area Program of Maryland. 

Available online at: http://www.cbf.org/Document.Doc?id=149. 

Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). 1995. Water Quality Functions of Riparian Forest Buffer Systems in the 

Chesapeake Bay Water-shed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August 1995. 

Critical Area Commission (CAC). 2010. Critical Areas – Frequently Asked Questions. Available online 

at: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/criticalarea/. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR).. 2008a. TargetEcoArea - Targeted Ecological 

Areas. GIS data available at: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/greenways/gi/gi.html. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR).. 2008b. Emerald Ash Borer Quarantine FAQ's. 

Available at: http://www.mda.state.md.us/plants-pests/eab/faq.php. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2010a. Forest Facts of Maryland. Available at: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/forester/mdfacts.asp. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR).. 2010b. Maryland State Forests. Available online 

at: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/mdforests.asp. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR).. 2010c. Maryland’s Green Infrastructure. 

Available online at: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/greenways/gi/gi.html. 

Maryland Invasive Species Council (MISC). 2008. Invasive Species of Concern in Maryland. Available 

at: http://www.mdinvasivesp.org/list_terrestrial_plants.html. 

1-116




Maryland Invasive Species Council (MISC). 2011. Invasive Species of Concern in Maryland: Terrestrial 

Plants- Mile-A-Minute. Available at: 

http://www.mdinvasivesp.org/species/terrestrial_plants/Mile-a-minute.html. 

Mid-Atlantic Regional Earth Science Applications Center (RESAC). 2010. Mapping USDA-NASS Crop 

Data. Available at: http://www.geog.umd.edu/resac/nass.htm. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010. Ecoregions of EPA Region 3: 

Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. Available online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/reg3_eco.htm#. 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). 2011. Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation. GIS 

Data available at: http://web.vims.edu/bio/sav/gis_data.html. 

1-117




1.6 WILDLIFE 

This section provides information on the wildlife resources associated with the installation and operation 

of the proposed Project in Prince George’s, Calvert, Dorchester and Wicomico Counties, Maryland. 

Wildlife resources reviewed include the typical and sensitive species and habitat potentially occurring at 

the converter stations and along the transmission line route. Special management areas and species are 

first addressed in Section 1.6.1. Existing conditions are then addressed first in Section 1.6.2 followed by 


Habitat within the Project area is comprised of upland and wetland forest communities; open land and 

scrub-shrub and emergent wetland communities; and managed wildlife areas. Terrestrial wildlife and 

their habitats are described in context of the vegetative community types discussed in Section 1.5. 

Forested uplands that include mixed forest types host a variety of mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, and 

unique wildlife species. Open land upland habitats include areas of agriculture, range and pasture land, 

early successional habitats, and scrub-shrub uplands. These areas typically support smaller mammal 

species, edge habitat opportunists, and raptor species that utilize forest edge perches to hunt for prey in 

open areas. Wetland areas include scrub-shrub, forested, and emergent wetlands that support a faunal 

assemblage including a range of wetland dependent species, as well as some species that can also be 

found in upland areas. Fully inundated wetlands within the Project area support many migratory and 

resident waterfowl such as wood ducks and black ducks. Species, including some species specially 

protected under state or federal law, potentially found in vegetative communities in Prince George’s, 

Calvert, Dorchester, and Wicomico Counties, Maryland that may be present in the Project area and/or 

within the Project right-of-way are listed in Table 1.6-1. Further, those wildlife species observed during 

field habitat surveys are included in Table 1.6-1. 

Table 1.6-1 

Typical Wildlife Species Potentially Present in the Project Area and/or Project Components 

Vegetative 

Habitat 

Community Wildlife Species Potentially Present in the Project Area 

red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), 

great blue heron (Ardea herodias), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), 

red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), northern 

flicker (Colaptes auratus), Baltimore oriole (Icterus galbula), song sparrow 

(Melospiza melodia), mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), night heron 

(Nycticorax nycticorax), white-throated Sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis ), 

osprey (Pandion haliaetus), Eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), Eastern 

bluebird (Sialia sialis), white breasted nithatch (Sitta carolinensis), brown 

thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), barred owl (Strix varia), wild turkey (Meleagris 

Observed Species 

gallopavo), beaver (Castor canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), eastern 

gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys 

sabrinus), white footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), white-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus virginianus), sika deer (Cervus nippon), red fox (Vulpes fulva), 

raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern 

cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), 

northern dusky salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), American bullfrog 

(Lithobates catesbeianus), northern green frog (Lithobates clamitans melanota), 

northern spring peeper (Pseudacris c. crucifer) (Volume V). 

1-118





Typical Wildlife Species Potentially Present in the Project Area and/or Project Components 

Vegetative 

Habitat 

Community Wildlife Species Potentially Present in the Project Area 

Upland Forest 

Open Land 

Wetland 

Communities 

Shoreline and Open 

Water 

Communities 

white-tailed deer, sika deer, raccoon, gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), red 

fox (Vulpes vulpes), Eastern gray squirrel, Southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys 

volans), fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), Northern flying squirrel, white footed 

mouse, eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridesens), common gray treefrog (Hyla 

versicolor), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), common garter snake 

(Thamnophis sirtalis), rat snake (Elaphe obsolete), eastern box turtle 

(Terrapene carolina), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), blue jay (Cyanocitta 

cristata), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), ruby throated 

hummingbird (Archilochus colubris), barred owl (Strix varia), Bewick’s wren 

(Thryomanes bewickii ), black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta varia ), Carolina 

chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), coyote (Canis latrans), and many others. 

white-tailed deer, sika deer, European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), northern 

mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), American robin (Turdus migratorius), 

mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), American crow, Virginia opossum, barn 

owl (Tyto alba) and eastern cottontail, woodchuck (Marmota monax), and 

white footed mouse. 

beaver (Castor canadensis), star-nosed mole (Condylura cristata), raccoon, 

Virginia oppossum, two-lined salamander (Eurycea bisliniata), four-toed 

salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum), mud salamander (Pseudotriton 

montanus), American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), northern watersnake 

(Nerodia sipedon), spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), eastern painted turtle 

(Chrysemys picta), Northern Spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), and many 

others. 

bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), osprey, (Pandion haliaetus), great blue 

heron (Ardea herodias), Atlantic yellow-nosed albatross (Thalassarche 

chlororhynchos), American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), 

Audubon's shearwater (Puffinus lherminieri), wood duck (Aix sponsa ), 

American black duck (Anas rubripes), gadwall (Anas strepera), mallard (Anas 

platyrhynchos ), pintail (Anas acuta ), American widgeon (Anas americana), 

Northern shoveler (Anas clypeata ), blue-wing teal (Anas discors), green-wing 

teal (Anas crecca ), American tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus), Canada 

goose (Branta canadensis), canvasback (Aythya valisineria), pintail (Anas 

acuta), scoter duck (Melanitta sp.), ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis), osprey 

(Oxyura jamaicensis), ibis (Threskiornithidae), willet (Tringa semipalmata), 

oyster catcher (Haematopus palliates), sandpiper (scolopacidae), ruddy 

turnstone (Arenaria interpres), great blue heron (Ardena herodias), blackcrowned 

night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), beaver (Castor canadensis), 

black skimmer (Rynchops niger), fish crow (Corvus ossifragus), river otter 

(Lontra canadensis), and the muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). 

1-119




1.6.1 Special Management Areas, Habitat, or Species 

Special management areas or species discussed in this section include those in which wildlife species or 

habitat are managed or regulated pursuant to specific objectives. General management strategies for these 

areas are discussed below. Specific special management areas are discussed where they are located 

within specific components of the Project in Sections 1.6.2 and 1.6.3. 

1.6.1.1 Forest Interior Dwelling Bird Species 

Forest interior dwelling bird species (FIDS), such as certain hawks, thrushes, woodpeckers, warblers, and 

vireos, use large tracts of hardwood forests for breeding habitat (Jones et al. 2001). Twenty-five FIDS 

potentially breed in Maryland’s forest interior areas, of which the majority of species are small 

neotropical songbirds including warblers, vireos, and flycatcher (Jones et al. 2001). FIDS require large 

areas of mature forests for breeding and/or for microhabitats that do not exist in smaller tracts of forests 

due to changes in vegetation structure or environmental conditions (Jones et al. 2001). Permanent 

changes in the size, quality, and quantity of mature forests can result in declines in FIDS populations from 

the loss of habitat (Jones et al. 2001). 

MDNR produced a GIS model based upon National Land Cover Dataset (30 meter resolution; data from 

1992) that depicts the location of potential FIDS habitat based upon certain criteria (MDNR 2003a). 

Potential FIDS habitat that is outside of Maryland’s Critical Areas was identified if it met one of the 

following criteria: 

Contiguous forested area greater than 50 acres in size with at least 10 acres of forest interior; 

or 

Riparian forested area near a perennial stream, as depicted on a USGS 7.5 minute 

topographic map that measures at least 300 feet in width and has more than 50 acres of 

forested area. 

These model outputs have not been field verified. 

1.6.1.1.1 Colonial Nesting Birds 

“Colonial nesting waterbirds” is a collective term used to refer to a variety of bird species that obtain all 

or most of their food from aquatic environments and gather in large colonies, or rookeries, during the 

nesting season. Colonial waterbird nesting areas are considered under Maryland’s Critical Area 

Protection Act regulations. 

1.6.1.1.2 Waterfowl Staging Areas 

Areas within the State of Maryland that are recognized as historic waterfowl staging areas can have 

significant numbers of waterfowl populations during the winter months. Waterfowl staging areas are 

considered under the Critical Area Protection Act regulations. Many counties, such as Dorchester 

County, crossed by the proposed Project contain a multitude of waterfowl hunting opportunities. 

1.6.1.1.3 Bald Eagle Nest Sites 

Bald eagles were removed from the Maryland state list of threatened and endangered species on April 5, 

2010, although they are still federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Bald 

eagles inhabit Maryland year round. This species typically nests near open water areas, including river 

1-120




and lake shorelines, and large marshes. Nests are typically constructed in tall trees or cliffs where eagles 

are able to have a large field of view for hunting prey. Nests can also be found on man-made structures 

such as utility structure and poles. An aerial survey of potential bald eagle nests was conducted on March 

4, 2010 over the Project area that extended from Chalk Point Substation to the Maryland/Delaware State 

Line. 

1.6.1.1.4 Sensitive Species Project Review Area 

The Sensitive Species Project Review Area (SSPRA) incorporate various types of lands identified under 

the Critical Area Criteria and other areas of concern statewide, including: Natural Heritage Areas, Listed 

Species Sites, Other or Locally Significant Habitat Areas, Colonial Waterbird Sites, Waterfowl Staging 

and Concentration Areas, Nontidal Wetlands of Special State Concern, and Geographic Areas of 

Particular Concern. The SSPRAs are categorized into three groups with Group 1 being federally-listed 

species, Group 2 being state-listed species, and Group 3 being species of concern with no listed status. 

(MDNR 2003b). 

1.6.1.1.5 Targeted Ecological Area (TEA) 

TEAs are lands of high ecological value targeted for protection by the state of Maryland. TEAs are a 

limited number of areas that rank exceptionally high (the top 10 percent) for ecological criteria and that 

have a practical potential for preservation. TEAs were developed based on the compilation of several data 

layers and have a large-scale resolution (i.e. 30 meter by 30 meter grid); therefore, some areas identified 

as TEAs may not contain the targeted ecological features. Further, TEAs may include recently developed 

areas, where the loss of habitat may not be reflected in the TEA data because of the time lag in updating 

several databases (MDNR 2011). Therefore, TEAs coverages presented in this ERD are course resolution 

and may contain developed lands. TEAs are described further in vegetation, (Section 1.5). 

1.6.1.1.6 MDNR-Chesapeake Forest 

The Chesapeake Forest lands include approximately 66,700 acres that make up approximately 12 percent 

of the productive forests in the Chesapeake region. The acquisition of these forested lands by MDNR 

occurred to protect Maryland’s natural resources, to maintain the rural character, economy, and heritage 

of the region; and to maintain and enhance water quality while also establishing large areas of important 

habitat for FIDS, threatened and endangered species, and upland game (MDNR 2010a). These areas 

house both leased and public hunting opportunities. 

1.6.2 Existing Environment 

Below is a discussion of the existing wildlife habitat and species potentially present in each Project 

component. 


Volume I, Section 2.0 contains a description of the proposed Project activities within the Chalk Point 

Substation to Chestnut Converter Component. 

As discussed in the Project’s protected species report contained in Volume V, the Chalk Point Substation 

to Chestnut Converter Component primarily consists of existing, maintained right-of-way and some 

uncleared forest habitat. Approximately 21.5 acres of forested habitat (upland and wetland) and 

approximately 231.9 acres of non-forested habitat, as identified through field data collection and aerial 

1-121




photo interpretation, are located within the Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter Component 

right-of-way. These habitats would contain species typical of the Project area, as depicted in Table 1.6-1. 

During field surveys completed in 2008 through 2010, field biologists observed several wildlife species 

within the Project component area. Table 1.6-1 also contains wildlife species observed within the 

existing right-of-way. 

1.6.2.1.1 Special Habitat and Wildlife Species 

The existing right-of-way in which the Project component would be located crosses or abuts habitats 

potentially containing forest interior dwelling bird species, bald eagle nesting locations, colonial nesting 

birds, waterfowl staging areas, TEA, and SSPRA. As described above, TEA data are course resolution 

and may not absolutely contain the targeted environmental features. These sensitive wildlife species and 

habitats are discussed below and in Section 1.6.1. 

Forest Interior Dwelling Bird Species 

This Project component right-of-way would cross multiple areas identified as potentially containing FIDS 

habitat. Although the Project right of way is largely an existing cleared corridor, the model shows that the 

proposed right-of-way within the Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter Component is within 

approximately 140.5 acres of FIDS habitat. Of that total, 55.8 acres are classified as Class 1 (high quality 

intact forest greater than 500 acres) and 84.7 acres are classified as Class 2 (high quality intact forest less 

than 500 acres). The proposed Project component would not cross any areas classified as Class 3 (not 

high quality or unknown). All of these areas identified as potentially containing FIDS habitat occur in 

existing right-of-way. 

Colonial Nesting Birds 

The Company field verified that double-crested cormorants (a colonial nesting waterbird) were nesting in 

several structures that would be adjacent to the new structures placed within the Patuxent River in this 

component. As recommended by MDNR, the Company would consult further with MDNR to remove the 

nests from the structures. 

Waterfowl Staging Areas 

Based on consultations with MDNR, the Patuxent River open waters, extending well beyond the Project 

area, have been identified as a known historic waterfowl concentration and staging area. However, 

MDNR has not identified any area within 0.25 mile of the Project as having current waterfowl 

concentrations (MDNR 2008). 

Bald Eagle Nest Sites 

Two potential bald eagle nesting sites were identified on structures located at MP CPCC 1.8 and MP 

CPCC 2.2, near the eastern bank of the Patuxent River within the existing right-of-way during field 

assessments in 2008 through 2010. Surveyors in 2008 were unable to determine if these nesting sites 

were or were not actively used during preliminary surveys. Subsequent monitoring for bald eagle activity 

and nest occupation in the 2009 to 2010 bald eagle breeding season found that these nests were not 

actively occupied by breeding eagles. While these nests were not used during breeding, these nests were 

observed to have some non-breeding bald eagle activity during the observation period. 

1-122




Special Management Areas 

Identified special management areas crossed by the Project component include SSPRAs and TEAs. GIS 

review confirmed that approximately 115.3 acres of lands identified as SSPRAs would be located along 

the proposed right-of-way in this Project component. Approximately 111.5 acres have been classified as 

Group 1 and approximately 3.8 acres have been classified as Group 2. The publicly available data does 

not specify what species or habitats occur in these designated areas. Approximately 89.9 acres of the 

Project component would be located in lands identified as a TEA. 


Volume I, Section 2.0 contains a description of the proposed Project activities within the Chestnut 

Converter Component. 

As discussed in the Project’s protected species report contained in Volume V, the Chestnut Converter site 

is a mix of vacant forested uplands, vacant forested and riparian wetlands, actively managed cornfields 

and successional former arable lands. A majority (72.7 acres) of the Chestnut Converter consists of 

forested habitat and a lesser portion (32 acres) of the component would be comprised of non-forested 

habitat. These habitats would contain species typical of the Project area, as depicted in Table 1.6-1. 

Several special wildlife habitat areas have been identified within the Chestnut Converter Component 

property and these areas are discussed further below. 


The Chestnut Converter property would potentially contain FIDs bird species, SSPRA, and TEA. As 

described above, potential TEA and FIDS habitat data are course resolution and may not absolutely 

contain the targeted environmental features. These sensitive wildlife species and habitats are discussed 

below and in Section 1.6.1. 


The Chestnut Converter Component property would contain and occupy lands identified as potentially 

containing FIDS habitat. The FIDS habitat model shows that portions of the Chestnut Converter 

Component would contain approximately 55.7 acres of FIDS habitat. All of this area has been classified 

as Class 1 (high quality intact forest greater than 500 acres). The Chestnut Converter Component would 

not contain any areas classified as Class 2 or Class 3. 



review confirmed that approximately 96.7 acres of lands identified as SSPRAs would be located within 

the Chestnut Converter Project component property. All of this property has been classified as Group 1 

(federally-listed species); however, the publicly available data does not specify what species or habitats 

occur in these areas. Approximately 32.7 acres of the Chestnut Converter site would be located in lands 

identified as a TEA. 

1-123





Volume I, Section 2.0 contains a description of the proposed Project activities within the Chestnut 

Converter to Western Shore Landing Component. 

As discussed in the Project’s protected species report contained in Volume V, the Chestnut Converter to 

Western Shore Landing Component has largely been cleared of natural forest communities and currently 

exists in an early successional vegetative state. Approximately 2.4 acres of forested habitat (upland and 

wetland) and approximately 7.5 acres of non-forested habitat, as identified through field studies and aerial 

photo interpretation, would be located within the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing 

Component right-of-way. These habitats would contain species typical of the Project area, as depicted in 

Table 1.6-1. Several special wildlife habitat or areas managed for wildlife have been identified along the 

Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing Component and these areas are discussed further below. 


The Chestnut Convert to Western Shore Landing would potentially contain bald eagle nests, which are 

discussed in Section 1.6.1. Further, potential FIDS habitat, SSPRA, and TEA have been identified within 

this Project component. As described above, potential TEA and FIDS habitat data are course resolution 

and may not absolutely contain the targeted environmental features. 


The Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing Component right-of-way would cross multiple areas 

identified as potentially containing FIDS habitat. Although the Project is within an existing cleared rightof-way, 

the FIDS habitat model shows that the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing Component 

would cross approximately 1.8 acres of potential FIDS habitat. Of that total, 1.7 acres are classified as 

Class 2 (high quality intact forest less than 500 acres), and less than 0.1 acre is classified as Class 3 (not 

high quality or unknown). No Class 1 (high quality intact forest greater than 500 acres) would be crossed. 


In 2009 through 2010, the Company completed sensitive wildlife, including bald eagle, surveys along the 

existing right-of-way, a portion of which the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing Component 

would be located (Volume V). No bald eagle nests were identified within or near the Chestnut Converter 

to Western Shore Landing Component right-of-way during aerial and field surveys. 



review confirmed that approximately 14.6 acres of lands identified as SSPRAs would be located along the 

proposed Project component. Approximately 3.8 acres of this area has been classified as Class 1 

(federally-listed species) and 10.8 acres as Class 2 (state-listed species). The publicly available data does 

not specify what species or habitats occur in these designated areas. Approximately 3.2 acres of the 

Project component would be located in lands identified as a TEA. 


Volume I, Section 2.0 contains a description of the proposed Project activities within the Western Shore 

Landing to Gateway Converter Component. 

1-124




As discussed in the Project’s protected species report contained in Volume V, the Western Shore Landing 

to Gateway Converter Component is comprised of a mosaic of forested and non-forested wetlands and 

uplands. Approximately 228.6 acres of forested habitat (upland and wetland) and approximately 139.6 

acres of non-forested habitat would be located within the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter 

Component right-of-way. These habitats would contain species typical of the Project area, as depicted in 

Table 1.6-1. Several special wildlife habitat or wildlife management areas have been identified along the 

Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Component and these areas are discussed further below. 


Sensitive bird species or habitats including colonial nesting waterbirds, waterfowl staging areas, and bald 

eagle nests may be present within the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter component and are 

discussed in Section 1.6.1. Further, GIS data shows that the Project component would contain potential 

FIDS habitat, SSPRA, TEA, and Chesapeake Forest Lands. As described above, potential TEA and FIDS 

habitat data are course resolution and may not absolutely contain the targeted environmental features. 


The Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Component right-of-way would cross multiple areas 

identified as potentially containing FIDS habitat. The MDNR FIDS model shows that the proposed rightof-way 

within the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Component would cross approximately 

201.6 acres of potential FIDS habitat. Of that total, 162.6 acres are classified as Class 1 (high quality 

intact forest greater than 500 acres), 29.6 acres are classified as Class 2 (high quality intact forest less than 

500 acres), and the remaining 9.4 acres are classified as Class 3 (not high quality or unknown). 

Colonial Nesting Birds 

MDNR identified great blue heron colonies along the Warwick River and Whitehall Creek near the 

proposed Project component right-of-way (MDNR 2010b). The Warwick River and Whitehall Creek 

would be located a mile or more from the proposed Project area. No colonial nesting birds or their nests 

were observed in this Project component during 2008 to 2010 field observations. 


Based on consultations with MDNR, portions of the Choptank and Nanticoke Rivers open waters, 

extending well beyond the Project area, are known historic waterfowl concentration and staging areas 

(MDNR 2010b). 


A total of 100 occupied or active nests were encountered in Wicomico and Dorchester Counties during 

state surveys in 2004. Sixteen bald eagle nests were identified in Wicomico County and 84 were located 

in Dorchester County. Although the exact locations of the nests encountered during the 2004 surveys are 

not publicly available, survey results conducted between 1977 and 2003 generally indicate that bald 

eagles typically nest in or near the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Component. In 2009 

and 2010, the Company completed sensitive wildlife, including bald eagle, surveys along the proposed 

Project component right-of-way (Volume V). No bald eagle nests were identified during field or aerial 

surveys within or near the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Component right-of-way. 

1-125





Identified special management areas crossed by the Project component include SSPRAs, TEAs, and 

Chesapeake Forest land. All of these areas are described in Section 1.6.1. GIS review confirmed that 

approximately 208.1 acres of lands identified as SSPRAs would be located along the proposed right-ofway 

in this Project component. Approximately 151.6 acres classified as Group 1(federally-listed species) 

and 56.5 acres classified as Group 2 (state-listed species) would occur within the Project right-of-way; 

however, the publicly available data does not specify what species or habitats occur in these areas. The 

proposed Project component would also cross TEAs in multiple locations (over approximately 315.4 

acres). 

Multiple tracts managed by MDNR as Chesapeake Forest land would be near the proposed Project 

component and the proposed Project right-of-way would cross approximately 6.9 acres of Chesapeake 

Forest lands. 


Volume I, Section 2.0 contains a description of the proposed Project activities within the Gateway 

Converter Component. 

As discussed in the Project’s protected species report contained in Volume V, the majority of the 

proposed Gateway Converter Component has been timbered in the past and exists in a regenerative state. 

Sub-climax woodlands and dense scrub vegetation are prevalent in the component and a portion of the 

land is maintained as an agricultural cornfield. A majority (56.8 acres) of the Gateway Converter would 

be located is comprised of forested habitat (upland and wetland) with lesser amounts (21.7 acres) of nonforested 

habitat. These habitats would contain species typical of the Project area, as depicted in Table 

1.6-1. Several special wildlife habitat or wildlife management areas have been identified within the 

Gateway Converter Component property and these areas are discussed further below. 


The Gateway Converter Station property would contain potential FIDS habitat, TEAs, and SSPRAs. As 

described above, potential TEA and FIDS habitat data are course resolution and may not absolutely 

contain the targeted environmental features. No sensitive bird species or habitats including colonial 

nesting waterbirds, waterfowl staging areas, and bald eagle nests have been identified within the Gateway 

Converter component. 


The Gateway Converter property would contain approximately 56.4 acres identified as potentially 

containing FIDS habitat. The MDNR FIDS model shows that all of this area is classified as Class 3 (not 

high quality or unknown). 


Identified special management designations within the Project component property include SSPRAs and 

TEAs. GIS review indicated that approximately 33.4 acres of lands identified as SSPRAs would be 

located within the Gateway Converter Component. All of the SSPRAs identified within the Gateway 

Converter property are classified as Group 2 (state-listed species). The publicly available data does not 

1-126




specify what species or habitats occur in these areas. The entire Gateway Converter property has been 

identified as a TEA. 


Volume I, Section 2.0 contains a description of the proposed Project activities within the Gateway 

Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line Component. 

As discussed in the Project’s protected species report contained in Volume V, the Gateway Converter to 

Maryland/Delaware State Line Component has largely been cleared of natural forest communities and 

currently exists in a maintained right-of-way vegetative state. Approximately 4.5 acres of forested habitat 

(upland and wetland) and approximately 105.9 acres of non-forested habitat would be located within the 

Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line Component. These habitats would contain species 

typical of the Project area, as depicted in Table 1.6-1. Several special wildlife habitat or wildlife 

management areas have been identified along the Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line 

Component and these areas are discussed further below. 


Sensitive bird species or habitats including bald eagle nests and potential FIDS habitat may be present 

within the Gateway Convert to Maryland/Delaware State Line component and are discussed further in 

Section 1.6.1. Further, special management areas including SSPRAs, TEAs, and Chesapeake Forest lands 

have been identified in at least a portion of the Project component right-of-way. As described above, 

potential TEA and FIDS habitat data are course resolution and may not absolutely contain the targeted 

environmental features. 


The existing right-of-way used by Gateway Converter to the Maryland/Delaware State Line Component 

crosses multiple areas identified as potentially containing FIDS habitat. Although the Project is within a 

cleared and maintained right-of-way, the MDNR FIDS habitat model shows that the proposed Project 

component right-of-way would cross approximately 22.5 acres of potential FIDS habitat. All of this area 

has been classified as Class 3 (not high quality or unknown). 


Section 1.6.1 describes general bald eagle habitat requirements. Sixteen bald eagle nests were identified 

in Wicomico County during state surveys in 2004. Although the exact locations of the nests encountered 

during the 2004 surveys are not publicly available, survey results conducted between 1977 and 2003 

generally indicate that bald eagles typically nest in or near the Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware 

Stateline Component. In 2009 and 2010, the Company completed sensitive wildlife, including bald eagle, 

surveys along the proposed Project component right-of-way (Volume V). No bald eagle nests were 

identified within or near the Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line Component right-ofway 

during field and aerial surveys. 


Identified special management areas crossed by the Project component include SSPRAs, TEAs, and 

Chesapeake Forest land. GIS review identified approximately 21.0 acres of lands identified as SSPRAs 

that would be located along the existing right-of-way in this Project component. All of the identified 

1-127




SSPRAs along the Project component have been classified as Group 3 (species of concern with no listed 

status). Approximately 113.2 acres of the existing right-of-way in which the Project component would be 

located has been designated as a TEA. Three tracts managed by MDNR as Chesapeake Forest land 

(approximately 11.4 acres) would be within the Project component right-of-way, for which the Company 

has existing easement for the right-of-way across these parcels. 


Potential impacts to wildlife resources from the proposed Project components are discussed in the 

following section. Note that only a portion of the right-of-way and property’s wildlife habitat acreages 

reported in Section 1.6.1 would be impacted by Project construction and operation. 


There may be minor, temporary open wildlife habitat disturbances from vehicles over vegetation or due to 

matting, where it is needed in open habitat areas within the right-of-way. The Company expects that 


would be allowed to naturally revegetate. Impacts to existing open land habitats and emergent wetland 

habitats in the construction right-of-way and work spaces would be temporary and would revert quickly 

to a successional habitat condition. Clearing of approximately 10.0 acres of forest vegetation between the 

Chalk Point Substation and the Patuxent River for the Project right-of-way and permanent structures 

would result in the permanent conversion of forested habitat. Some nesting and tree cavity species and 

other resident wildlife species in the tree clearing limits that are dependent on trees for food, refuge, or 

nesting would be permanently displaced to adjacent forested habitats. Overall wildlife habitat impacts in 

this Project component would be minimized through the extensive use of existing rights-of-way along the 

Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter Component. 

Some wildlife mortality would be expected for less mobile species that cannot avoid construction 

equipment during tree clearing and structure and circuit installation. Impacts due to noise from clearing 

and construction equipment may temporarily displace mobile wildlife species to adjacent habitat areas 

near the construction site. 

The Company and its contractors would consult with MDNR and USFWS to identify and implement 

avian protection measures, as necessary, to minimize avian mortality and injury. 


Below is a discussion of special wildlife habitat and species impacts and minimization measures in the 

Chalk Point to Chestnut Converter Component. 


Overall, the proposed Project component would not result in any forest clearing in identified potential 

FIDS habitat. The portion of the existing right-of-way that would be cleared of forest vegetation between 

Chalk Point Substation and the west side of the Patuxent River has not been identified as potential FIDS 

habitat. The existing right-of-way on the east side of the Patuxent River would not be cleared of trees or 

scrub shrub vegetation, but this area is adjacent to multiple areas identified as potentially containing FIDS 

habitat. Direct impacts to FIDS habitats would be avoided by the use of currently maintained portions of 

the existing right-of-way. Noise associated with structure and line installation may result in the 

temporary disturbance to FIDS habitat that may abut the existing right-of-way, which may cause 

1-128




temporary abandonment of adjacent forest interior habitat. Because FIDS species typically avoid the 

edge of large forested areas, forest vegetation abutting the existing right-of-way would serve as a noise 

buffer. 

Due to the extensive use of existing right-of-way and the lack of disturbance to forest within areas 

identified as potential FIDS habitat, the impacts to FIDS and their habitat would be significantly 

minimized by the Project. 


Bald eagle nests have been identified in the Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter Component. 

The Company is currently consulting with MDNR and USFWS regarding appropriate minimization and 

other possible mitigation measures to minimize impacts to any active bald eagle nesting sites. There are 

two nest sites located in the existing right-of-way. The Company contractors observed use of the bald 

eagle nests located near the Patuxent River. Because bald eagles were observed using these nests, the 

Company has obtained an eagle nest removal and depredation permit (Volume V) from the USFWS to 

remove the identified bald eagle nests. The Company will continue to work with MDNR and USFWS to 

determine appropriate avoidance, minimization measures, or permitting conditions. 


Time of year restrictions and buffers on construction activities may be required in waterfowl staging areas 

at the Patuxent River and smaller waterbodies to prevent impacts to these populations during 

construction. Permanent impacts associated with waterbody crossings could include minor encumbrance 

of waterfowl staging areas by new structures (Patuxent River). Other impacts may include noise 

disturbance during construction and increased barge traffic for construction that may temporarily displace 

waterbird staging areas. The Company is currently consulting with MDNR to minimize impacts to 

waterfowl staging areas. 


Vegetation clearing and other construction activities would primarily be limited to areas within the 

existing right-of-way. Although the character of the habitat within the existing right-of-way would not 

change as a result of the proposed Project activities, construction activities may cause species utilizing 

SSPRAs and TEAs to disperse during the construction as a result of the increased activity and noise 

disturbance. 

Because the SSPRAs incorporates the various types of regulated areas under the Critical Area Criteria and 

other areas of concern statewide, impacts to SSPRAs would also vary depending upon species or habitat 

sensitivity. As all the SSPRAs in this component are listed as Group 1 (federally-listed species) and 

Group 2 (state-listed species), impacts to federally-listed or state-listed species, if present, are discussed in 

Section 1.8. Overall the impacts would likely be limited through required state or federal consultations or 

permitting. 

No forest or scrub shrub clearing would occur within portions of the Project right-of-way listed as TEA. 

Further, only a minor quantity (




Overall, the extensive use of an existing right-of-way in this component would primarily result in modest, 

temporary impacts to wildlife and their habitat that may be located within the SSPRA and TEA that is 

crossed. 


Approximately 12.2 acres of upland and wetland forested habitat located within the Chestnut Converter 

property would be cleared of trees and vegetation for Project component installation; these areas would be 

converted to open habitat types. Further, approximately 37.6 acres of forested (14.9 acres) and open 

habitats (22.7 acres) within the permanent facility footprint would be permanently eliminated and 

converted to commercial/industrial land cover (i.e. a permanent habitat loss). Edge effects associated 

with the removal of forest habitat and the expansion of forest edges could result in forest habitat 

fragmentation. Habitat areas not needed for the establishment of right–of-way, placement of structures, 

and outside the fence line of the switching station and converters would be returned to pre-construction 

conditions; therefore, the habitat impacts in these areas would be temporary. 

Some nesting and tree cavity species and other resident wildlife species in the clearing limits that are 

dependent on trees for food, refuge, or nesting would be permanently displaced to adjacent forested 

habitats. Some wildlife mortality would be expected for less mobile species that cannot avoid 

construction equipment during vegetation removal, grading, and other installation activities. Impacts due 

to noise from construction equipment may temporarily displace mobile wildlife species to adjacent habitat 

areas near the construction site. 


Below is a discussion of special wildlife habitat impacts and minimization measures. 


Construction of the Project would require the clearing of approximately 10.5 acres, as determined through 

field surveys and aerial photo interpretation, of forest habitat located within potential FIDS habitat in the 

Chestnut Converter Component facility footprint. Further, habitat clearing activities from the 

construction of permanent structures and facilities, some of which would be located through forest 

interiors, would occur. Approximately 9.1 acres of habitat converted to permanent facilities would be 

located in potential FIDS habitat. Changes in environmental conditions due to edge effects, such as 

humidity, light penetration, and temperature, can have an effect on important food and shelter resources 

for FIDS due to changes in microhabitat conditions that support plant and animal species important to the 

ecological stability of FIDS communities (Jones et al. 2001). Direct edge effects can include higher rates 

of nest predation, increases in avian predators, and increases in brood parasitism, especially from cow 

birds (Jones et al. 2001). 

MDNR strongly encourages the conservation and protection of forest interior habitat. MDNR has 

previously outlined several minimization measures for similar projects that would reduce impacts to 

FIDS. To minimize potential Project-related impacts to FIDS habitat, the Company may follow seasonal 

restrictions, such as avoiding forest clearing, if required, during the May to August, which is the breeding 

season for most FIDS. However, due to the presence of a Barred owl in the woodlands, if breeding, the 

seasonal restrictions may be expanded from February to August. . 

1-130





Much of the land designated as a TEA and SSPRA within the Chestnut Converter property is currently 

forested; therefore, tree clearing would result in the conversion to developed land cover (i.e. permanent 

loss), which provides little wildlife habitat value, or to open land habitats. Approximately 8.9 acres of 

TEA would be subject to permanent conversion of forested vegetation to open habitats and approximately 

5.1 acres of TEA would be permanently converted to an industrial land cover. None of the TEA would be 

matted, but some of the open portions of the TEA may be temporarily accessed during Project 

installation. 


other areas of concern statewide, impacts to SSPRAs would vary depending upon sensitive species type 

and habitat requirements. As all the SSPRAs in this component are listed as Group 1 (federally-listed 

species) and no federally-listed species that would be present in this component (as discussed in Section 

1.8), there would be no impact. 

Vegetation clearing and other construction activities may cause mobile species utilizing SSPRAs and 

TEAs to disperse during the Chestnut Converter Component installation as a result of the increased 

activity and noise disturbance. Further, vegetation clearing of forested areas and construction of 

permanent structures may result in permanent habitat loss and edge effects for those sensitive species that 

use forested habitats. 


minimization measures to sensitive species or habitats that may be impacted by Project construction and 

operation in this component. Likely Project-related impacts to sensitive species would be limited through 

adherence to required state or federal consultations or permitting. 


Where the cable is directly buried, permanent habitat loss would result from the installation of an access 

road that would be constructed between the two buried cables. Approximately 6.5 acres of permanent 

open habitat loss within the existing right-of-way would result from manholes, installed at a frequency as 

necessitated by construction constraints, and access areas. No upland or wetland forest or scrub-shrub 

habitat clearing or conversion would occur in this component. A further description of both direct burial 

and duct bank underground installation is provided in Volume I, Section 2.0. Additionally, short term 

disturbance of open habitat would result during construction in matting, laydown, and stringing areas (see 

Volume I, Section 2.0). Wildlife present within or adjacent to the component right-of-way during any 

construction activity would be temporarily disturbed through increased noise and activity. Portions of the 

habitat within the right-of-way would be permanently lost due to facility placement, but wildlife would 

likely return to a majority of the Project component area after installation activities had ceased. Overall 

wildlife habitat impacts of the proposed construction in the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing 

Component would be minimized through the use of existing rights-of-way. 

Some wildlife mortality would be expected for less mobile species that cannot avoid construction and 

trenching equipment. Further, impacts due to noise from construction equipment may temporarily 

displace mobile wildlife species to adjacent habitat areas near the construction site. These wildlife 

impacts would be temporary and would not represent significant impacts at a population level. 



1-131





Below is a discussion of additional special wildlife habitat impacts and minimization measures. 


The proposed construction activities in the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing Component 

would not involve the clearing of mature trees as the existing right-of-way is maintained as open land. 

Therefore, no interior forest habitat would be directly affected by Project activities in this component. 

Even though forest clearing activities are not proposed as part of the installation of this Project 

component, the proposed construction activities could result in impacts to the edges of the FIDS habitat 

that are adjacent to the right-of-way. Edge effects associated with the construction activities would 

include a temporary increase in noise via construction vehicles. Due to the extensive use of existing rightof-way 

and the lack of forest clearing, the impacts to FIDS and their habitat would be significantly 

minimized by the Project. 


No temporary wetland matting, forest conversion, or upland scrub-shrub clearing would occur within 

SSPRAs or TEAs. Vegetation clearing and other construction activities would primarily be limited to 

areas within the existing right-of-way that would be subject to new permanent facilities. Installation of 

these permanent facilities and the temporary use of open habitats during construction may cause species 

utilizing SSPRAs and TEAs to disperse as a result of the increased activity and noise disturbance. 

Overall, approximately 3.2 acres of lands designated as TEA would be lost to permanent Project 

component structures. As discussed above, the quality of lands designated as TEA are variable due to the 

dataset’s spatial resolution and changes in land use within the Project area. 





Section 1.8. Overall, the impacts would likely be limited through required state or federal consultations 

or permitting. 

Further, as discussed above, the extensive use of an existing right-of-way in conjunction with the 

Company’s lack of tree clearing, and vegetation management program, the Project in this component 

would primarily result in temporary impacts and some minor permanent impacts to wildlife that may be 

located within the SSPRA and TEA that is crossed. 


Wildlife Habitat Impacts 

Forested habitat along the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter right-of-way for both 

underground and overhead transmission lines would be cleared of trees, which would result in a 

permanent conversion of approximately 224.6 acres of forest habitat to open habitats. Further, 

approximately 20.2 acres of scrub-shrub habitat in the underground installation area and overhead 

transmission line right-of-way would be cleared in upland areas and trimmed in wetland areas. Impacts to 

existing open habitats along the aerial construction right-of-way and work spaces would be temporary and 

would revert quickly to pre-Project condition. Approximately 9.1 acres of upland and wetland open and 

1-132




forested habitats within the footprint of the access road and manholes associated with the underground 

installation, in the Choptank River Station, and footers for the new structures would be permanently lost. 

Wildlife Species Impacts 

Some nesting and tree cavity species and other resident wildlife species in the tree clearing limits that are 


habitats. Tree clearing activities would result in the creation of a new cleared right-of-way corridor, some 

of which would be located through forest interiors. Edge effects associated with the removal of forest 

habitat and the creation of forest edges could result in forest habitat fragmentation. Further, the creation 

of forest edge habitat can increase light and wind in cleared and forest edge areas, which can result in 

changes in environmental conditions, and encroachment of invasive plants or edge forest animal species. 

As necessary to manage invasive species, the Project right-of-way will be managed in accordance with 

the TVMP and IVMP (Volume V). Permanent conversion of forest habitat to open land and edge habitat 

would result in the reduction of habitat for some species, while creating additional habitat opportunities 

for other wildlife species. Similarly, the clearing and/or trimming of scrub-shrub habitat along the 

underground and overhead transmission line right-of-way would benefit some wildlife species, while 

decreasing available habitat for other species. Some wildlife mortality would be expected for less mobile 

species that cannot avoid construction equipment during tree clearing and structure, circuit, and transition 

station installation. Impacts due to noise from clearing and construction equipment may temporarily 

displace mobile wildlife species to adjacent habitat areas near the construction site. 





Forest Interior Dwelling Species 

Construction of the Project would require the permanent clearing of forest habitat in the Project 

component right-of-way, but not all of this forested habitat would be considered FIDS habitat. 

Approximately 159.4 acres and 29.1 acres of forest conversion in potential FIDS class 1 and class 2 

habitat areas, respectively, would occur. The right-of-way clearing activities would result in the creation 

of a new cleared right-of-way corridor, some of which would be located through forest interiors. Only a 

small portion (approximately 0.5 acre) of land identified as potential FIDS habitat would be permanently 

converted to Project structures. Edge effects associated with the removal of forest and the creation of 

forest edges that abut FIDS habitat include an increase in light and wind, which can result in changes in 

environmental conditions, and encroachment of invasive plants or predatory edge forest animal species 

(Jones et al. 2001). Changes in environmental conditions, such as humidity, light penetration, and 

temperature, can have an effect on important food and shelter resources for FIDS due to changes in 

microhabitat conditions that support plant and animal species important to the ecological stability of FIDS 

communities (Jones et al. 2001). Direct edge effects can include higher rates of nest predation, increases 

in avian predators, and increases in brood parasitism, especially from cow birds (Jones et al. 2001). 

FIDS habitat is protected under Maryland’s Critical Area Act within Critical Areas. Further, MDNR 

strongly encourages the conservation and protection of forest interior habitat both within and beyond 

Critical Areas. MDNR has previously outlined several minimization measures for similar projects that 

would reduce impacts to FIDS. To minimize potential Project-related impacts to FIDS habitat, The 

1-133




Company may follow seasonal restrictions, such as avoiding forest clearing, if required, during the May 

to August breeding season for most FIDS. However, due to the presence of a Barred owl in the 

woodlands, if breeding, the seasonal restrictions may be expanded from February to August. . 


Time of year restrictions and buffers on construction activities may be required in waterfowl staging areas 

at the Choptank and Nanticoke Rivers and smaller waterbodies to prevent impacts to these populations 

during construction. Permanent impacts associated with waterbody crossings could include minor 

encumbrance of waterfowl staging areas by new structures (Nanticoke River). Other impacts may include 

noise disturbance during construction and increased barge traffic for construction that may temporarily 

displace waterbird staging areas. The Company is currently consulting with MDNR to minimize impacts 

to waterfowl staging areas. 


Impacts to wildlife in the special management areas would be similar to those described for general 

wildlife and habitats impacts in Section 1.6.3.4. Vegetation clearing and other construction activities may 

cause species utilizing TEAs and SSPRAs to disperse during the installation of the Western Shore 

Landing to Gateway Converter Component as a result of the increased activity and noise disturbance. 

Further, permanent vegetation clearing of forested and scrub-shrub areas may result in permanent habitat 

conversion and edge effects for those sensitive species that use forested habitats. 





Section 1.8. Overall the impacts would likely be limited through required state or federal consultations or 

permitting. 

The Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Component right-of-way would cross MDNR owned 

Chesapeake Forest land and this Project component would also abut several tracts enrolled in the program 

(MP ESLGC 10.4 and MP ESLGC 14.0 to ESLGC 14.4). Construction activities could temporarily 

disrupt the migration of game species, including white tailed deer and wild turkey. Approximately 6.9 

acres of forest vegetative clearing and installation activities could also displace species near the right-ofway 

as a result of the increased noise and human presence. Further, those wildlife species that are 

dependent on forested habitat would be permanently displaced to adjacent forested habitat areas. 


minimization measures to sensitive species or habitats that may be impacted by Project construction and 

operation in this component. 


Approximately 12.5 acres of previously cleared forested habitat located within the Gateway Converter 

property would be cleared of trees and vegetation for installation of the Project facilities. Further, 

approximately 15.1 acres of forested and open habitats within the permanent facility footprint would be 

permanently eliminated and converted to commercial/industrial land cover (i.e. a permanent habitat loss). 

Edge effects associated with the removal of forest habitat and the expansion of forest edges could result in 

forest habitat fragmentation. Habitat areas not needed for establishment of the project right-of-way, 

1-134




placement of structures and outside the fence line of the switching station and converters would be 

returned to pre-construction conditions; therefore, the habitat impacts in these areas would be temporary. 

Some nesting and tree cavity species and other resident wildlife species in the clearing limits that are 


habitats. Edge effects associated with the removal of forest habitat and the expansion of forest edges 

could result in forest habitat fragmentation. This conversion of forest habitat to open land and edge 

habitat would result in the reduction of habitat for some species, while creating additional habitat 

opportunities for other wildlife species. Some wildlife mortality would be expected for less mobile 

species that cannot avoid construction equipment during installation. Impacts due to noise from 

construction equipment may temporarily displace mobile wildlife species to adjacent habitat areas near 

the construction site. The Company and its contractors would consult with MDNR and USFWS to 

identify and implement avian protection measures, as necessary, to minimize avian mortality and injury. 


Below is a discussion of special wildlife habitat impacts and minimization measures. 


Construction of the Project would require the clearing of forest habitat in the Gateway Converter 

Component footprint, but not all of this forested habitat would be considered FIDS habitat. Only Class 3, 

which is not high quality or of unknown quality, potential FIDS habitat would be subject to forest 

clearing (9.5 acres) or loss due to permanent facilities (1.6 acres). Any FIDS habitat contained within the 

permanent converter station facilities would result in the permanent loss of FIDS habitat and edge effects. 

Changes in environmental conditions due to edge effects, such as humidity, light penetration, and 

temperature, can have an effect on important food and shelter resources for FIDS due to changes in 

microhabitat conditions that support plant and animal species important to the ecological stability of FIDS 

communities (Jones et al. 2001). Direct edge effects can include higher rates of nest predation, increases 

in avian predators, and increases in brood parasitism, especially from cow birds (Jones et al. 2001). 

MDNR strongly encourages the conservation and protection of forest interior habitat. MDNR has 

previously outlined several minimization measures for similar projects that would reduce impacts to 

FIDS. To minimize potential Project-related impacts to FIDS habitat, the Company may follow seasonal 

restrictions, such as avoiding forest clearing, if required, during the April to August breeding season. 


Vegetation clearing and other construction activities may cause species utilizing SSPRAs and TEAs to 

disperse during the Gateway Converter Component as a result of the increased activity and noise 

disturbance. Further, vegetation clearing may result in permanent habitat loss and edge effects for those 

sensitive species that use vegetated habitats. Overall, approximately 12.6 acres of forest vegetation 

within TEAs would be converted to open habitats and approximately 15.1 acres of TEA would be 

converted to developed land cover associated with permanent structures. As discussed above, the quality 

of lands designated at TEA are variable due to the dataset’s spatial resolution and changes in land use 

within the Project area. 



sensitivity. All the SSPRAs in this component are listed as Group 2 (state-listed species). Impacts to 

1-135




state-listed species, if present, are discussed in Section 1.8. Overall the impacts would likely be limited 

through required state consultations or permitting. 

Likely Project-related impacts to sensitive species would be limited through adherence to required state or 

federal consultations or permitting. The Company and its contractors are currently consulting with 

MDNR, as needed, to identify impact minimization measures to sensitive species or habitats that may be 

impacted by Project construction and operation in this component. 


There may be minor, temporary open wildlife habitat disturbances from vehicles over vegetation or due to 

matting, where it is needed. The Company expects that temporary impacts of construction would be 

stabilized and seeded/monitored as appropriate and would be allowed to naturally revegetate.. Impacts to 

existing open land habitats and emergent wetland habitats in the construction right-of-way and work 

spaces would be temporary and would revert quickly to pre Project condition. No new permanent 

structures would be placed in areas containing forest vegetation and no other tree clearing or scrub shrub 

clearing would occur in this component; therefore, no permanent conversion or loss of forested or open 

habitats would occur. Overall wildlife habitat impacts in this Project component would be minimized 

through the extensive use of existing rights-of-way along the Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware 

State Line Component. 

Some wildlife mortality would be expected for less mobile species that cannot avoid construction 

equipment. Further, impacts due to noise from construction equipment may temporarily displace mobile 

wildlife species to adjacent habitat areas near the construction site. 






The proposed construction activities in the Gateway Converter to the Maryland/Delaware State Line 

Component would not involve the clearing of trees as the existing right-of-way is maintained as open 

land. No interior forest habitat would be directly affected by Project activities in this component. Even 

though clearing activities are not proposed as part of the installation of this Project component, the 

proposed construction activities could result in impacts to the edges of the FIDS habitat that are adjacent 

to the right-of-way. Edge effects associated with the construction activities would include a temporary 

increase in noise and potential encroachment of invasive plants relocated via construction vehicles. As 

necessary to manage invasive species, the Project right-of-way will be managed in accordance with the 

TVMP and IVMP (Volume V). 

Due to the use of the existing right-of-way and the resultant lack of disturbance to forest interior, the 

impacts to FIDS and their habitat would be significantly minimized by the Project. 

1-136





Temporary wildlife displacement from Chesapeake Forest lands (MP GGSL 1.0 to GGSL 1.5), TEAs and 

SSPRAs within the existing right-of-way to adjacent habitat due to construction noise disturbance and 

clearing may occur. 

Approximately 15.3 acres of TEA would be subject to temporary matting and other TEA open land areas 

may be accessed temporarily during Project installation. As discussed above, the quality of lands 

designated at TEA are variable due to the dataset’s spatial resolution and constant changes in land use 

within the Project area. 

No forest or scrub-shrub clearing would occur on Chesapeake Forest lands. Although the character of the 

habitat within the existing right-of-way would not change as a result of the proposed Project activities, 

construction activities may cause species utilizing special management areas to disperse during the 

construction as a result of the increased activity and noise disturbance. Further, construction activities 

could temporarily disrupt the migration of game species, including white tailed deer and wild turkey. 



sensitivity, but the impacts would likely be limited through required state or federal consultations or 

permitting. 

As discussed under other special wildlife management areas, the extensive use of an existing right-of-way 

in conjunction with the Company’s lack of tree clearing, and vegetation management program, the Project 

in this component would primarily result in temporary impacts to wildlife that may be located within the 

special management areas that are crossed. 


Jones, C., McCann, J., and McConville S. 2001. A Guide to the Conservation of Forest Interior 

Dwelling Birds in the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area. Annapolis, Maryland. Critical Area 

Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2003a. FIDS - Potential Habitat for Forest Interior 

Dwelling Species (FIDS). GIS Data available at: http://dnrweb.dnr.state.md.us/gis/data/data.asp. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2003b. sspra - Sensitive Species Project Review 

Areas. GIS Data available at: http://dnrweb.dnr.state.md.us/gis/data/data.asp. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2008. Letter dated May 8, 2008, from Lori A. 

Bryne (MDNR-Wildlife and Heritage Service) to William S. Twupack (JCM Environmental). 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2010a. Chesapeake Forest. Available at: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/chesapeakeforestlands.asp. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2010b. Letter dated August 6, 2010 from Lori 

Bryne (MDNR) to Art Saunders (ENTRIX) regarding Environmental Review for Pepco 

Holdings, Inc (PHI): Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP) Transmission Line: Chestnut 

Converter to MD/DE State Line. 

1-137




Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2011. GreenPrint: Frequently Asked Questions. 

Available at: http://www.greenprint.maryland.gov/faq.asp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. 

1-138




1.7 FISHERIES 

This section provides information on the fisheries resources associated with the installation and operation 

of the proposed Project in Prince George’s, Calvert, Dorchester and Wicomico Counties, Maryland. 

Fisheries resources reviewed include the typical and sensitive species and habitat potentially occurring at 

the converter stations and along the transmission line route. Existing conditions are addressed first in 

Section 1.7.1 followed by an analysis of potential Project impacts to those resources in Section 1.7.2. 

Fisheries resources evaluated include commercial and recreationally important species, anadromous and 

catadromous species, Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), and shellfish resources. 

As described in Section 1.3, the proposed Project right-of-way would cross multiple ephemeral, 

intermittent, and perennial waterbodies. With the exception of the Choptank River, Chesapeake Bay, 

Nanticoke River, Patuxent River, and Ramsey Creek, the Project right-of-way typically crosses nontidally 

influenced freshwater portions of these waterbodies. A discussion of the resources and potential 

Project-related impacts to the Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River are discussed in Volume III. Further, 

EFH assessments for the Patuxent River, Choptank River, and Chesapeake Bay are included in Volume 

V. 

Salinities in the Nanticoke River at the Project crossing range from 0.6 and 5.0 ppt in the fall and winter 

and between 0.0 and 2.5 ppt in the summer and spring (CBP 2008a). The Project crossing would occur in 

the middle portion of the Patuxent River tidal zone that typically contains salinities between 2.5 and 7.5 

ppt in the winter and spring and 5.1 to 10.0 ppt in the summer and fall when there is less precipitation and 

less subsequent freshwater input (CBP 2008a). Typical salinities for the proposed Chesapeake Bay and 

Choptank River Project crossing location are discussed in Volume III. Tidal habitats support a variety of 

species and aquatic habitats that are used for both commercial and recreational fishing. 

Table 1.7-1 contains a list of fish species that are listed in the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

Estuarine Living Marine Resources Database (ELMRD) as being common to highly abundant in the 

Patuxent River during at least one life stage (NOAA 2005). Further, common freshwater species 

identified during the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) are included in Table 1.7-1. 

Representative fish species potentially present in the Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River are described 

in Volume III. Note that Table 1.7-1 is intended to be a representative list, not an exhaustive list, of fish 

species potentially present within the general proposed Project area. The estuarine species listed in Table 

1.7-1 are reflective of the range of salinities. Salinities in waterbodies crossed can depend on various 

factors such as the season, rainfall, and currents. Seasonal shifts in salinity and life history patterns would 

also influence the seasonal abundance of many of these species. 

1-139




Patuxent 

a, b 


Fresh c 

Table 1.7-1 

Typical Fish Species Potentially Present in the Proposed Project Area 

alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), 

Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulates), Atlantic menhaden 

(Brevoortia tyrannus), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), blueback 

herring (Alosa aestivalis), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), channel 

catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), cownose ray (Rhinoptera bonasus), 

gobies (Gobiidae spp.), hogchoker (Trinectes maculates), killifishes 

(Cyprinodontidea spp.), Northern pipefish (Syngnathus focus), oyster 

toadfish (Opsanus tau), sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegates), 

silversides (Atherinidae spp.), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), spotted 

seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), 

summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), weakfish (Cynoscion 

regalis), white perch (Morone Americana), and yellow perch (Perca 

flavescens). 

least brook lamprey (Lampetra aepyptera), American brook lamprey 

(Lampetra appendix), sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), American 

eel, chain pickerel (Esox niger), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), 

Eastern mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea), warmouth (Lepomis 

gulosus), comely shiner (Notropis amoenus), Eastern silvery minnow 

(Hybognathus regius), fallfish (Semotilus corporalis), golden shiner 

(Notemigonus crysoleucas), ironcolor shiner (Notropis chalybaeus), 

rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), satinfin shiner (Cyprinella 

analostana), spotfin shiner (Cyprinella spiloptera), spottail shiner 

(Notropis hudsonius), blue ridge sculpin (Cottus caeruleomentum), 

swallowtail shiner (Notropis procne), creek chubsucker (Erimyzon 

oblongus), white sucker (Catostomus commersonii), brown bullhead 

(Ameiurus nebulosus), margined madtom (Noturus insignis), tadpole 

madtom (Noturus gyrinus), yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), 

pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), rock bass (Ambloplites 

rupestris), banded killifish (Fundulus diaphanous), gizzard shad 

(Dorosoma cepedianum), mummichog (Fundulus heterocfitus), 

mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), white perch, banded sunfish 

(Enneacanthus obesus), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), 

bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), green sunfish (Lepomus cyanellus), 

largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), mud sunfish 

(Acantharchus pomotis), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), redbreast 

sunfish (Lepomis auritus), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), 

darters (Etheostoma spp.), yellow perch. 

a 

Estuarine fish species listed as common or abundant in the ELMRD. 

b 

The species listed here are reflective of the range of salinities in the Patuxent River, ranging from freshwater 

conditions at the head of the tide to much more saline conditions at the mouth of the river. Species that prefer 

higher salinities would be more abundant in the lower reaches of the river, while species that prefer lower salinity 

water would be more likely to be abundant near the upper portion of the river. Seasonal shifts in salinity and life 

history patterns would also influence the seasonal abundance of many of these species. 

c 

Fish species presented are those identified in the MBSS in fresh waterbodies within watersheds crossed by the 

proposed Project. 

Source: NOAA 2005, MDNR 2005a 

1-140






As described in Section 1.3, several waterbodies would be crossed by the Chalk Point Substation to 

Chestnut Converter Component. Crossed waterbodies would include the Patuxent River, where new 

structures would be placed, Ramsey Creek, and several unnamed tributaries, which would have the 

Project spanning over the waterbodies. Typical freshwater fish species that were recorded in freshwater 

tributaries to the Patuxent River and Chesapeake Bay during the MBSS and typical fish in the Patuxent 

River are listed in Table 1.7-1. 

In addition to the fish species listed in Table 1.7-1, the tidal portion of the Patuxent River near the Project 

area provides habitat for several invertebrate species, including blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), 

daggerblade grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio), eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica), sevenspine bay 

shrimp (Crangon septemspinosa), and soft shell clam (Mya arenaria) (NOAA 2005). 

The general Patuxent River crossing area contains silty clay soft bottom habitat. A preliminary risk 

evaluation was conducted for benthos inhabiting the Patuxent River in 2009 and surficial sediment 

collected from 13 locations (upstream and downstream of the existing crossing) in the river was assessed. 

Although these sediment samples contained a few chemicals above some of NOAA's biological effects 

levels, no chemical exceeded its Probable Effects Level (PEL). 

According to the VIMS 2004 to 2009 SAV data, no SAV is located within 0.8 mile of the Patuxent River 

Project crossing area (VIMS 2011). MDNR, in coordination with the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Program 

Office, has implemented several large-scale eelgrass restoration sites in the Patuxent River 

(MDNR 2009). The Project would cross at a location that would be greater than 10 river miles upstream 

of the nearest eelgrass restoration site. 

1.7.1.1.1 Oyster and Clam Bars 

The nearest Maryland oyster repletion sites and natural oyster bars are located approximately 2.5 river 

miles downstream of the Project component crossing of the Patuxent River (MDNR 2008a, MDNR 

2008b). Historic oyster beds are located approximately one river mile downstream and 0.4 river mile 

upstream from the Project crossing (MDNR 2008a, MDNR 2008b). Oyster restoration sites are made into 

oyster sanctuaries, which is an area where no shellfish harvest is allowed. An oyster sanctuary is located 

approximately 1.1 miles downstream of the proposed Project component crossing (MDNR 2008e, ORG 

2008). Oyster harvest reserve area has also been established in the Patuxent River. In oyster harvest 

reserve area, harvest would be allowable with restrictions such as timing, location, oyster size, and 

extraction limits. 

1.7.1.1.2 Commercial and Recreational Fish Species 

The Patuxent River is used for both recreational and commercial fishing. Fisheries for the following 

species potentially occur within the Patuxent River: American eel, Atlantic croaker and spot, Atlantic 

menhaden, black drum, black sea bass, blue crab, bluefish, catfish, eastern oysters, red drum, striped bass, 

summer flounder, tautog, weakfish, white perch, yellow perch, spotted sea trout, largemouth bass, 

smallmouth bass, soft shell clam, horseshoe crab, chain pickerel, and Spanish mackerel (NOAA 2005, 

MDNR 2008c, MDNR 2008d, NOAA 2005). Fishing-related livelihood, tourism, or socioeconomic 

conditions are discussed in Section 1.10. 

1-141




1.7.1.1.3 Anadromous and Catadromous Fish Species 

The Patuxent River and several of its tributaries provide migrational or spawning habitat for several 

anadromous (species that as adults migrate from saltwater to breed in freshwater) and catadromous 

(species that as adults migrate from freshwater to breed in saltwater) fish species. Historically, freshwater 

spawning and rearing habitat for anadromous and catadromous fish species have been blocked or 

degraded by dams, culverts, and land use practices. MDNR in conjunction with the Chesapeake Bay 

Program have worked to open historic anadromous and catadromous fish habitat within tributaries to the 

Chesapeake Bay. Since 1989, several fish passage projects have been completed in the Project area (CBP 

2008b). To promote the recovery of these populations, several stocking programs have been implemented 

to increase anadromous and catadromous fish abundance within the Patuxent River watershed (MDNR 

2004, MDNR 2005b, Richardson et al 2007). 

1.7.1.1.4 Essential Fish Habitat 

Fishery Management Councils (FMCs), with assistance from NMFS, are required to delineate EFH for all 

managed species. Managed species EFH and life history stages in the Project area are identified in the 

NOAA Guide to Essential Fish Habitat Designations in the Northeastern United States (NOAA 2010). 

EFH has been designated for the portion of the Patuxent River at the Project crossing location. EFH has 

been designated in the Patuxent River for the juvenile and adult life stages of windowpane flounder, 

bluefish, and summer flounder (NMFS 2008). Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) for summer 

flounder have been defined as all SAV areas containing macroalgae, seagrasses, and freshwater and tidal 

macrophytes (NMFS 2010). HAPC has not been designated for the bluefish or windowpane flounder. 

Forage fish that are prey for managed fish species also comprise a critical component of EFH. Alewife, 

blueback herring, American shad, white perch, bay anchovy, and Atlantic menhaden serve as important 

forage fish species for species with designated EFH. These forage fish may be present within the Project 

area. The full EFH assessment for the Patuxent River crossing is included in Volume V. This assessment 

was originally prepared for a previously proposed component route that extended from Chalk Point 

Substation to Calvert Cliffs with the same crossing of the Patuxent River. While the proposed Project 

component no longer extends to Calvert Cliffs the proposed Project activities in the Patuxent River are the 

same; therefore, the conclusions of the EFH assessment have not changed. 


As discussed in Section 1.3, three unnamed waterbodies would be located within the Chestnut Converter 

parcel boundary. Due to the size of these waterbodies, significant numbers of fish are not likely to be 

present, but the waterbody may contribute water to fish bearing waterbodies downstream. Fish species 

potentially in downstream waterbodies to which the Chestnut Converter waterbody contributes water 

would be consistent with those presented in Table 1.7-1. 


As discussed in Section 1.3, waterbodies crossed by the proposed Project component include three 

unnamed tributaries to Governor’s Run. Typical freshwater fish species that were recorded in freshwater 

tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay, in which the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing 

Component lies, during the MBSS are listed in Table 1.7-1. All freshwater waterbodies crossed by the 

Project component containing fish species are primarily classified as warmwater fisheries. 

1-142





In addition to the Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River, as discussed in Volume III, waterbodies crossed 

by the proposed Project component include the Transquaking River, Chicamacomico River, Nanticoke 

River, and several unnamed tributaries. Section 1.3 provides further discussion of waterbodies within the 

Project area. The freshwater and estuarine fish species listed in Table 1.7-1 are representative of the fish 

species potentially encountered within and near the Project component. 


The Nanticoke River and several of its tributaries provide migrational or spawning habitat for several 

anadromous and catadromous fish species. Historically, freshwater spawning and rearing habitat for 

anadromous and catadromous fish species have been blocked or degraded by dams, culverts, and land use 

practices for tributaries throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. MDNR with the Chesapeake Bay 

Program have worked to open historic anadromous and catadromous fish habitat within tributaries to the 

Chesapeake Bay. The Nanticoke River has been designated as migratory fish spawning and nursery use 

(CBP 2008b). Waters with this designation support important (economically, recreationally, and/or 

commercially) anadromous, semi-anadromous, and tidal-fresh resident fish species in the spawning and 

nursery grounds from February 1 through May 31. 

Several anadromous stocking programs have been initiated in the Nanticoke River (DDFW 2006, 

Minkkinen 2008, MDNR 2010). For example, American and hickory shad are stocked in the Nanticoke 

River (DDFW 2006, Minkkinen 2008). Further, Atlantic sturgeon stocking programs (see Section 1.8) 

have occurred in the Nanticoke River (MDNR 2010). 


As described in Section 1.3, no waterbodies are located near the Gateway Converter parcel boundaries. 

Fish species present within waterbodies in the general vicinity of the Gateway Converter would be 

consistent with those presented in Table 1.7-1. 


Typical fish species that were recorded in freshwater tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay, in which the 

Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line Component lies, during the MBSS are listed in 

Table 1.7-1. Waterbodies crossed by the Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line 

Component are included in Section 1.3 and include Bratton Creek, Mockingbird Creek, and an unnamed 

tributary. All freshwater waterbodies crossed by the Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State 

Line Component containing fish species are primarily classified as warmwater fisheries. 


As described in Section 1.7.1.4.3, habitat restoration and anadromous fish stocking programs are currently 

occurring in the Nanticoke River. Some of the tributaries to the Nanticoke River that would be crossed 

by the proposed Project component may contain migrating or spawning anadromous or catadromous fish 

species. 

1-143





Potential impacts to fisheries resources from the proposed Project components are discussed in the 

following sections. 




In general, direct impacts to fisheries could include temporarily degraded water quality, reduced 

reproductive potential due to increased stress and displacement during Project construction, removal or 

degradation of habitat, and, potentially, some minimal individual mortality. Direct impacts to fisheries 

habitats and species would either be avoided or limited to a localized area where the new transmission 

line structures would be placed in the Patuxent River. 

Construction of the proposed Project structures within the Patuxent River would cause short term, minor, 

and localized adverse impacts on benthic habitat within the immediate area of the structure, as well as on 

the mobile species that periodically use that habitat. Benthic habitat data collected by the Company 

indicates that the Project component structures would be located in areas containing soft bottom 

substrates. Installation of new structures would result in minor alterations of aquatic habitat, through the 

addition of hard structures in these soft bottom habitat areas. Less than 0.01 acres of soft river bottom 

would be used for structure footers. While the Project would result in a minor decrease in soft bottom 

habitat available to some species, other aquatic species would benefit from the addition of hard substrates 

in the Project area. 

Project construction would result in the temporary minor increase in turbidity due to seafloor disturbance 

at new structure installation sites in the Patuxent River. Because Project construction in the Patuxent 

River would be limited to the driving of closed-ended piles, turbidity associated with Project construction 

is anticipated to be minor, localized, decrease rapidly in the water column, and settle out quickly. Pile 

driving of the type proposed for this Project would not release significant amounts of sediment into the 

water column. The primary source of sediment disturbance from pile driving operations is generally 

associated with pressure waves propagating from the pile driving head through the pile, which can 

causing a brief tap in lighter surface sediments upon each hit. This “bump” each time the head hammers 

the pile would, at worst, cause lighter, finer surficial particles or the largely organic “duff” – the top 

organic detritus that lines the bottom of many areas – in the topmost surface sediment to become briefly 

re-suspended in the immediate vicinity of the pile being driven. Increases in turbidity and sedimentation 

would have a minor, temporary impact on benthic invertebrate communities. 

None of the sediment samples collected in 2009 sampling had chemicals that exceeded its PEL (as 

described in Section 1.7.1.1). Further, driving piles using capped, hollow pipes would not disturb surface 

or deeper sediments except for that related to compressing the materials about the exterior circumference 

of the pipe which affords the piling its structural integrity. This type of piling construction also does not 

force deeper sediments to mix with surface sediments or the water column that may be associated with 

other piling construction techniques like drilled pilings, which might suspend sediments. 

Further, the driving of piles in support of structure construction would result in temporary increases in 

underwater noise levels and the introduction of contaminants, if there are unmanaged spills, which could 

result in fish avoidance of the Project area and could result in the temporary displacement of these 

species. The Company would evaluate alternative methods of pile driving installation and other best 

1-144




management practices, such as bubble curtains, to minimize underwater noise levels. Some mobile 

species would likely avoid the Project area during construction due to increased noise or turbidity, but it is 

anticipated that these species would likely return upon completion of Project construction. 

Removal of riparian vegetation within the Project right-of-way adjacent to the western bank of the 

Patuxent River could, if not managed, cause an increase in surface runoff and erosion from the Project 

right-of-way. Turbidity resulting from erosion of work areas within the Project right-of-way could 

increase quantities of organic materials suspended in the water, which could reduce dissolved oxygen by 

increasing the biochemical oxygen demand; this could lead to stress or displacement of aquatic species 

near and downstream of clearing locations. These impacts, if they were to occur, would only occur at the 

Patuxent River and the unnamed tidal channel that is adjacent to the Patuxent River. Due to the size of 

these waterbodies, the minor amount of clearing, and the implementation of BMPs through SESC or FHP, 

which would be developed based on the applicable regulatory requirements, these impacts would be 

minimized or avoided. 

All Project-related construction completed within waterbodies would be done in accordance with 

regulatory permitting requirements and state water quality certification. 

1.7.2.1.1 Oysters 

No oyster beds or sanctuaries would be within one mile downstream of Project construction areas and 

would not be impacted by the Project. Other benthic invertebrates within the Project area would 

experience a minor, temporary impact during Project construction from pile driving. 

1.7.2.1.2 Commercial and Recreational Fish Species 

Impacts to commercial and recreational fish species would be similar to those described under 1.7.2.1. 

The Company is consulting with MDNR and NMFS to minimize Project impacts to commercially and 

recreationally important fish and shellfish species and their habitats in addition to protected species 

consultation, as described in Section 1.8. Potential impacts to fishing-related livelihood, tourism, or 

socioeconomic conditions are discussed in Section 1.10. 


Potential Project-related impacts to aquatic habitats in which anadromous and/or catadromous fish may be 

present would be similar to those impacts described in Section 1.7.2.1. Mobile anadromous and 

catadromous life stages would likely avoid the Project area during construction, but it is anticipated that 

these species would likely return upon completion of Project construction. 

1.7.2.1.4 Essential Fish Habitat 

The seasonal patterns of managed species abundance in areas designated as EFH suggests that at least one 

life stage for at least one of these species would be present year round in the mixing zones of the Patuxent 

River in the vicinity of Project construction. Because the Project would entail pile driving in a relatively 

small area over a short period of time, the Project is unlikely to have significant long-term effects on the 

EFH, regardless of the season during which installation is conducted. The Company would work with 

NMFS, as necessary, to address potential concerns of impacts to EFH. Volume V contains an EFH 

assessment for the Patuxent River crossing. 

1-145





Installation of the proposed Chestnut Converter Component is discussed in Volume I, Section 2.0. One 

small waterbody has been identified within the Chestnut Converter property. Facility construction 

activities would include clearing, grubbing, and grading, which may result in the introduction of sediment 

to nearby waterbodies. The impacts to aquatic fish species and habitat associated with the introduction of 

sediment or contaminants would be similar as those discussed under Section 1.7.2.1. As appropriate, the 

Company would develop and obtain permits to implement erosion control and BMPs in facility work 

areas if waterbodies are identified near construction work areas. These BMPs would be included in the 

Project’s SESC or FHP, which would be developed based on the applicable regulatory requirements. The 

installation of erosion control BMPs, as appropriate, would minimize increases in water turbidity and 

siltation of stream substrate during and after completion of construction. 

As discussed further in Section 1.3, the Company has not determined final site layout, therefore, it is not 

known if the 800 linear feet of the waterbodies present within the Chestnut Converter property would be 

directly impacted. Permanent impacts to these waterbodies would be avoided and minimized as much as 

possible during final engineering. If the need for the installation of culverts or the redirection of 

waterbodies is determined during final engineering, potential impacts to aquatic resources could include 

decreased aquatic habitat quality due to the temporary increase in sediment due to instream installation 

and riparian vegetation disturbance. Overall impacts would be similar to those discussed in Section 

1.7.2.3 for the underground transmission line installation. If installation and operation of the Project 

component were to impact the waterbodies and the associated aquatic habitat, the Company would 

complete appropriate permitting and consultation. 



Volume I, Section 2.0. The underground portion of the Project component would cross three unnamed 

tributaries (see Section 1.3). 

In general, direct impacts to freshwater fisheries could include reduced reproductive potential due to 

increased stress and displacement during Project installation, removal or degradation of habitat, and, 

potentially, some minimal individual mortality. Direct, in-channel disturbance associated with the 

waterbody crossings would result in temporary alterations of aquatic habitat, such as the physical 

disturbance or destruction of instream cover due to trenching. Further, water quality impacts, such as 

sedimentation, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen levels, and introduction of contaminants, could also 

temporarily degrade aquatic habitat. Direct impacts to aquatic habitats and species would be limited to 

localized areas at the site of the Project crossing, and the area just downstream. 

Removal of vegetation and soil disturbance within the Project right-of-way in riparian areas could cause 

an increase in surface runoff and erosion from the underground installation areas. Increases in turbidity 

and sedimentation would have a minor, temporary impact on benthic invertebrate communities and could 

result in mobile aquatic species avoidance of the Project area during installation. Use of the existing 

roadway for the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing Component would minimize vegetation 

clearing and the associated potential aquatic habitat impacts. To contain disturbed soils from underground 

transmission line installation and to minimize the potential for sediment loss from vegetative clearing and 

soil disturbance, temporary erosion controls would be installed prior to initial disturbance of soils and 

maintained throughout Project installation. These BMPs would be implemented through the Project’s 

SESC or FHP, which would be developed based on the applicable regulatory requirements. 

1-146




The introduction of pollutants into waterbodies and aquatic habitats could occur through the disturbance 

of contaminated soils or sediments and accidental spills. Such pollutants could affect fishes and other 

aquatic life through acute or chronic toxicity, and sub-lethal effects could affect reproduction, growth, and 

recruitment. The Company would implement BMPs to minimize the potential for spills and manage the 

storage and use of materials for spill prevention. 

The Company is consulting with MDNR, NMFS, and USFWS to minimize Project impacts to sensitive 

aquatic species and their habitats in addition to protected species consultation, as described in Section 1.8. 

All Project-related installation completed within waterbodies would be done in accordance with USACE 

permitting and state water quality certification. 


Installation of the proposed Western Shore Landing to Chestnut Converter Component is discussed in 

Volume I, Section 2.0. Structures would be placed in the Nanticoke River for an aerial crossing. The 

footings of the structures in the Nanticoke River are expected to encumber a similar portion of the river 

bottom as those associated with the Patuxent River crossing (less than 0.01 acre), but final permanent 

impacts to Nanticoke River would be determined after final engineering. 

In general, direct impacts to freshwater fisheries could include temporarily degraded water quality, 

reduced reproductive potential due to increased stress and displacement during Project installation, 

removal or degradation of habitat, and, potentially, some individual mortality. Crossing of the Nanticoke 

River may result in temporary elevated turbidity and noise, which may result in temporary impacts to 

fishery resources. 

Installation of the underground transmission line would require the crossing of Indian Creek. The 

Company would cross this waterbody via HDD; therefore, no surface impacts to this waterbody are likely 

to occur. No additional field delineated waterbodies would be crossed by the underground transmission 

line installation (see Section 1.3). Because of the Company’s proposed use of HDD in conjunction with 

the lack of other waterbodies within the underground transmission line right-of-way, no direct impacts to 

aquatic species or their habitat is anticipated. 

Direct Project-related impacts associated with the overhead portion of the transmission line could include 

the temporary blockage of habitat within the Nanticoke River through the potential disruption of 

migration through the Project area by structure installation vessels, equipment, or pile driving. Further, 

there may also be a temporary change in habitat due to temporary increased turbidity and noise caused by 

the installation of in-water structures in the Nanticoke River. To minimize potential disturbance to 

aquatic fish species from pile driving noise, the Company would deploy bubble curtains around each of 

the proposed in-water structure foundations. Bubble curtains would be properly maintained during pile 

driving to protect fish from underwater pressure waves and to deter fish from approach the foundation 

piles as they are installed. Additionally, the Company may implement pre-installation “tapping” 

techniques to encourage fish to avoid the area. 

Pile driving of the type proposed for the proposed Project would not release significant amounts of 






briefly re-suspended in the immediate vicinity of the pile being driven. Driving piles using capped, 

1-147




hollow pipes would not disturb surface or deeper sediments except for that related to compressing the 

materials about the exterior circumference of the pipe which affords the piling its structural integrity. 

This type of piling construction also does not force deeper sediments to mix with surface sediments or the 

water column that may be associated with other piling construction techniques like drilled pilings might 

suspend sediments. 

For these reasons, potential Project-related direct impacts to mobile aquatic species in the Nanticoke 

River would be temporary and localized. It is anticipated that any mobile fish present near the work area 

would temporarily be displaced to adjacent habitat for the duration of construction. The structures placed 

in the Nanticoke River would represent a small quantity of river substrate (likely less than 0.01 acre) 

permanently encumbered; these structures would not result in a permanent migration blockage. 

The removal of riparian vegetation and the loss of associated shading at waterbody crossings other than 

the Nanticoke River could result in elevated water temperatures and alterations to in-stream aquatic 

habitat. Further, the removal of vegetation from riparian areas associated with the multiple waterbodies 

crossed by the overhead transmission line right-of-way could cause an increase in surface runoff and 

erosion from the right-of-way. Turbidity resulting from erosion from clearing work areas within the 

right-of-way could affect benthic communities, which would reduce fish feeding opportunities. Further, 

the increased quantities of organic materials suspended in the water could reduce dissolved oxygen which 

could lead to stress or displacement of aquatic species at clearing locations. These impacts would be 

minor due to the implementation of BMPs identified in the SESC and FHP, which would be developed 

based on applicable regulatory requirements. 

To contain disturbed soils in upland areas and minimize the potential for sediment loss from vegetative 

clearing to waterbodies, temporary erosion controls would be installed prior to initial disturbance of soils 

and maintained throughout installation. Further, to minimize any potential impacts to aquatic habitats 

associated with the disturbance of contaminated soils or sediments and accidental spills, the Company 

would implement BMPs to minimize the potential for spills and manage the storage and use of materials 

for spill prevention. 

Any Project-related construction completed within the waterbodies would be done in accordance with 

USACE permitting and state water quality certification. Further, the Company is consulting with MDNR, 

NMFS, and USFWS to minimize Project impacts to sensitive aquatic species and their habitats in addition 

to protected species consultation, as described in Section 1.8. 


Potential Project-related impacts to aquatic habitats in which anadromous and/or catadromous fish that 

may be present within waterways crossed by the proposed Project would be similar to those impacts 

described in Sections 1.7.2.4.1 and 1.7.2.4.2. The structures placed in the Nanticoke River would not 

result in a permanent migration blockage for anadromous or catadromous fish species. The Company 

would consult with NMFS, as appropriate, to implement appropriate minimization measures to ensure 

that the proposed Project would not likely adversely affect anadromous and catadromous fish species. 


Installation of the proposed Gateway Converter Component is discussed in Volume I, Section 2.0. No 

field delineated waterbodies are present within the Gateway Converter property. 

1-148




There would be no direct impacts to waterbodies, and associated fish species, from the construction or 

operation of the Gateway Converter. Facility construction activities would include clearing, grubbing, 

grading, and other site preparation and installation activities which may result in the introduction of 

sediment to nearby waterbodies that are located outside of the Gateway Converter property. The impacts 

to aquatic fish species and habitat associated with the introduction of sediment or contaminants would be 

similar as those discussed under Section 1.7.2.2. 

As required by the SESC and FHP plans, which would be developed based on applicable regulatory 

requirements, the Company would implement erosion control BMPs in facility work areas. The 

installation of erosion control BMPs, as appropriate, would minimize aquatic habitat and species impacts 

associated with increases in water turbidity and siltation of stream substrate during and after completion 

of construction. 


Installation and operation of the Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line Component are 


As described in Volume I, Section 2.0, locations within the right-of-way that would be disturbed as a 

result of structure installation are within the maintained, existing right-of-way, which would reduce or 

eliminate the impact to the riparian areas. Section 1.3.4.6.2 describes the potential Project-related impacts 

to water quality from installation in this Project component. If sediment or herbicides are transported to 

waterbodies via stormwater, these could result in reduced dissolved oxygen by increasing the biochemical 

oxygen demand; this could lead to stress or displacement of aquatic species at clearing locations. Such 

events, if they occurred, would temporarily degrade habitat and may cause fish avoidance of the Project 

area. As appropriate, the Company would implement erosion control and BMPs in work areas near 

waterbodies to minimize aquatic impacts associated with increases in water turbidity and siltation of 

stream substrate during and after the completion of construction. These BMPs would be implemented 

through the Project’s SESC or FHP, which would be developed based on the applicable regulatory 

requirements. 


As discussed above, Project component-related impacts to aquatic habitats would be limited due to the 

extensive use of existing right-of-way in conjunction with the implementation of BMPs to minimize the 

delivery of sediment to adjacent waterbodies. These BMPs would be implemented through the Project’s 

SESC or FHP, which would be developed based on the applicable regulatory requirements. Further, 

overhead transmission line installation in the Project component would not require the installation of 

structures in waterbodies; therefore, Project component installation would not result in the blockage of 

migratory habitat. Due to the lack of in-stream installation, impacts to anadromous and catadromous fish 

species are not expected. Further, the Company would consult with relevant agencies, as necessary, 

regarding measures to minimize Project component-related impacts to anadromous and catadromous fish 

species that might be associated with on land construction. 


Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). 2008a. Chesapeake Bay Mean Surface Salinity. Available at: 

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/maps.aspx?menuitem=16828. 

1-149




Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). 2008b. Migratory Fish Spawning and Nursery Designated Use. 

Available at: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/maps/cbp_19890.pdf. 

Delaware Department of Fish and Wildlife (DDFW). 2006. American and Hickory Shad Restoration on 

the Nanticoke River. Available at: 

http://www.fw.delaware.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/FW%20Gallery/Research/ShadRestoratio 

n.pdf. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2004. Tidal and Coastal Fisheries Management: 

Alosines. Available at: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/management/FMP/FMPAlosines04.pdf. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2005a. Maryland Biological Stream Survey. 

Available at: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/pubs/ea05-6_biodiv.pdf. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2005b. Shad Restoration. Available at: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/recreational/hatchery/shadrestoration.html. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2008a. Maryland's Historic Oyster Bottom 

Geospatial Data. Available at: http://dnrweb.dnr.state.md.us/gis/data/data.asp. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2008b. Oyster Repletion Data Geospatial Data. 

Available at: http://dnrweb.dnr.state.md.us/gis/data/data.asp. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2008c. Summary of Maryland Commercial 

Fisheries Regulations. Available at: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/regulations/commregs.html. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2008d. Summary of Maryland Tidal Recreational 

Fisheries Regulations. Available at: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/regulations/recregchrt.html. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2008e. Oyster Restoration in Maryland. Available 

at: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/recreational/articles/oysterreservemap.html. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2009. Large-scale restoration of eelgrass (Zostera 

marina) in the Patuxent and Potomac Rivers, Maryland. Available at: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/sav/restoration/award_NA03NMF4570470_finalreport.pdf. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2010. Sturgeon Restoration. Available at: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/recreational/hatchery/hatsturgeon.html. 

Minkkinen. S. 2008. Anadromous Fish Restoration in Chesapeake Bay. Available at: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/recreational/anadromous.html. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. Summary of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 

Designations: Patuxent River. Available at: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/md5.html. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Summer flounder. 

Available at: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/summerflounder.htm. 

1-150




National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2005. Estuarine Marine Living Resources 

Database. Available at: http://www8.nos.noaa.gov/biogeo_public/elmr.aspx. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2010. Guide to Essential Fish Habitat 

Designations in the Northeastern United States. Available at: 

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/webintro.html. 

Oyster Recovery Group (ORG). 2008. Oyster Sanctuary Geospatial Data. 

Richardson, B.M, C.P. Stence, M.W. Baldwin, C.P. Mason. 2007. Restoration of American Shad and 

Hickory Shad in Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay: 2007 Final Progress Report. Available at: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/recreational/hatchery/2007F-57segment8Final.pdf. 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). 2011. Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation. GIS 

Data available at: http://web.vims.edu/bio/sav/gis_data.html. 

1-151




1.8 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

This section provides information on the federal and state listed threatened and endangered species 

potentially associated with the installation and operation of the Project in Prince George’s, Calvert, 

Dorchester and Wicomico Counties, Maryland. Federally-listed species are described in Section 1.8.1 

and state-listed species are described in Section 1.8.2. 

The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Maryland Nongame and Endangered Species 

Conservation Act establish requirements for the protection of threatened and endangered species. The 

federal and state agencies have prepared lists identifying species as threatened, endangered or otherwise 

protected under these programs. 

The Company’s contractors sent consultation letters between 2008 and 2010 to NMFS, MDNR, and the 

USFWS to identify potential protected species habitat and locations that protected species may inhabit 

(see Volume V for a complete list of agency correspondence). In addition, the Company’s contractors 

reviewed the Maryland Natural Heritage Commission (MNHC) Rare, Threatened, and Endangered 

Species of Maryland-Plants and Animals Listed by County (MNHC 2010) and the USFWS’s Federally 

Listed Endangered and Threatened Species (USFWS 2010a) to identify state- and federally-listed 

threatened and endangered species potentially occurring within the counties crossed by the Project. The 

Company contractors have completed the majority of species specific studies for the Project. Additional 

studies will occur to complete the assessment of the Project components prior to construction to identify 

protected species or their habitat. The results of these studies will be provided as supplemental 

submissions throughout the spring, summer and fall of 2011. All state-and federally-listed protected 

species and their habitats identified as potentially occurring within the Project counties have been 

included in these surveys. Prior to, during, and after field survey, the Company contractors would 

coordinate with applicable regulatory agencies, such as MDNR, USFWS, and NMFS, as necessary, to 

minimize Project-related impacts to sensitive species. 

Based on consultations with NMFS and MDNR, 4 federally-listed endangered species, 4 federally-listed 

threatened species, and 1 candidate species were identified as potentially occurring within the counties 

that comprise the Project area between Chalk Point and the Maryland/Delaware State Line (NMFS 2010, 

MDNR 2010c). As of the date of this ERD, USFWS had not yet provided a response to the Project 

consultation letter. Volume V contains a summary of all relevant local, state, and federal agency 

correspondence. Tables 1.8-1 and 1.8-2 list the agency identified federally- and/or state-listed threatened 

and endangered species. Additional discussion of several species identified as potentially occurring in the 

Project area is also provided below. 

1.8.1 Federally-Protected Species 

Eight federally listed threatened or endangered species were identified by NMFS, MDNR, and/or MDNR 

and USFWS lists as potentially occurring within the proposed Project area within Prince George’s, 

Calvert, Dorchester, or Wicomico Counties. Delmarva fox squirrel (Sciurus niger cinereus), Loggerhead 

sea turtle (Caretta caretta), Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempi), green sea turtle (Chelonia 

mydas), leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), 

Puritan tiger beetle (Cicindela puritana), and Northeastern beach tiger beetle (Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis) 

have been identified as potentially present within the proposed Project area (NMFS 2010, MDNR 2010). 

Further, NMFS identified the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus), a candidate species, as potentially 

occurring within the proposed Project area (NMFS 2010). Possible habitat, occurrence of, and impacts to 

sea turtles and tiger beetles are discussed in Volume III, and is not included in the discussion below. 

Potential Project-related impacts to the remaining species are included below. The Project’s threatened 

1-152




and endangered species reports discussing survey results for federally-protected species with a potential 

for occurrence within the Project area are included in Volume V. In addition, after consultation has been 

conducted, the Company would implement appropriate conservation measures recommended for federally 

listed threatened or endangered species by the regulatory agencies. 

Table 1.8-1 contains a summary of the Project counties and Project components for those federallyidentified 

species potentially occurring within the proposed Project area. Further, the potential for these 

species to occur within the proposed Project area and the potential impacts of construction and operation 

of the transmission lines are discussed below. 

1.8.1.1 Delmarva Fox Squirrel 

Delmarva fox squirrels were federally listed as endangered in 1967 after early hunting and habitat loss 

caused a 90 percent decline in the population. At the time of listing, the species was extirpated in all but 

four counties of Maryland, including Kent, Queen Anne’s, Talbot, and Dorchester Counties. However, 

successful reintroduction activities between 1978 and 1992 resulted in current populations also inhabiting 

Somerset, Wicomico, and Worchester Counties (USFWS 2010b, MDNR 2010a). The Delmarva fox 

squirrel is found mostly in mixed stands of mature hardwoods and loblolly pines with relatively open 

understory (USFWS 2009, USFWS 2007, MDNR 2010c). This species is also found in forested riparian 

areas along streams and bays, small woodlots near agricultural fields, and forests near salt marshes 

(USFWS 2010b). The species has been observed feeding in agricultural fields up to 330 feet from 

forested lots. Oaks, maples, hickories, beeches and pines are all important components of the forest 

where this species occurs because they provide food in the form of mast - that is, acorns, nuts and seeds 

(MDNR 2010a). The average home range of the Delmarva fox squirrel is approximately 40 acres, but 

home range size can vary substantially (USFWS 2010d). No critical habitat has been established or is 

being proposed for this species (USFWS 2010b). The most recent recovery plan (1993) for this species 

identified timber harvest, short-rotation pine forestry, and forest conversion to agriculture and/or 

structural development as the broad threats to the Delmarva fox squirrels and their habitat (USFWS 

2007). In August 2010, the USFWS initiated a five-year review for this species, but the updated review 

has not been completed as of the completion of this ERD. 

The largest remaining natural population of Delmarva fox squirrels is located in the Blackwater National 

Wildlife Refuge in Dorchester County (USFWS 2010c). As part of this species’ recovery effort, 

reintroduction of the species to multiple locations within their historic range has resulted in a successful 

establishment of this species in twelve locations (USFWS 2010d). Recently, the Delmarva fox squirrel 

has been identified in new areas and USFWS believes that these sightings could be attributed to increased 

distribution of this species on the edge of their range and through the reintroductions (USFWS 2010d). 

In the Delmarva Peninsula Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger cinereus) 5-Year Review: Summary and 

Evaluation (USFWS 2007), the USFWS estimated a total of approximately 128,434 acres of occupied 

Delmarva fox squirrel habitat. Approximately 85,000 acres of this occupied habitat was identified as 

being located in Dorchester County (USFWS 2007). The average density of Delmarva fox squirrels was 

estimated at 0.3 fox squirrels per acre, but the density in Dorchester County is estimated to reach this 

average or higher (USFWS 2007). Delmarva fox squirrels located within Dorchester and Wicomico 

Counties are part of the Dorchester sub-population (USFWS 2007). USFWS conducted an analysis of 

likely development scenarios to estimate individual sub-population likelihood of survival (USFWS 2007). 

The Dorchester sub-population was rated as ‘likely to persist’ (the highest persistence rating) (USFWS 

2007). 

1-153




Table 1.8-1 

Federally-Protected Species Identified as Potentially Occurring in the Project Area 

Status a,b Listed County 

(portion of potential range 

Federal Maryland crossed by the Project) Potential Project Component Presence 

Species 

Mammals 

Eastern Shore Landing to Gateway Converter; 

Gateway Converter; 

Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware 

State Line 

E SE Dorchester and Wicomico 

County, MD c 

Delmarva fox squirrel 

(Sciurus niger cinereus) 

Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter; 


E SE Calvert and Dorchester Counties, 

MD (Chesapeake Bay) 

Fish 

Shortnose sturgeon e 

(Acipenser brevirostrum) 

Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter; 


C -- Calvert and Dorchester Counties, 


Atlantic sturgeon e 

(Acipenser oxyrhinchus) 

Reptiles 

Western Shore Landing to Eastern Shore 

Landing 

E SE Calvert and Dorchester Counties, 


Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle f 

(Lepidochelys kempi) 


Landing 

T ST d Calvert and Dorchester Counties, 


Green sea turtle f 

(Chelonia mydas) 


Landing 

E SE d Calvert and Dorchester Counties, 


Leatherback sea turtle f 

(Dermochelys coriacea) 


Landing 

T ST Calvert and Dorchester Counties, 


Loggerhead sea turtle f 

(Caretta caretta) 

1-154





Federally-Protected Species Identified as Potentially Occurring in the Project Area 

Status a,b Listed County 

(portion of potential range 

Federal Maryland crossed by the Project) Potential Project Component Presence 

Species 

Insects 

Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing 

T SE Calvert County, MD (Chesapeake 

Bay beaches) 

Puritan tiger beetle f (Cicindela 

puritana) 

Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing 

T SE Calvert County, MD 

(Chesapeake Bay beaches) 

Northeastern beach tiger beetle f 

(Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis) 

a E = endangered; T = threatened; C = candidate; SE = State listed endangered; ST = State listed threatened. 

b Source: MNHC 2010, MDNR 2010c, USFWS 2010a 

c 

USFWS (2010a) identifies this species as potentially present in Wicomico and Dorchester County, while MNHC (2010) and MDNR (2010c) only identifies this species as present in Dorchester 

County. 

This species is identified by NMFS as potentially occurring within the proposed Project area, but this species has not been identified in county lists maintained by USFWS (USFWS 2010a) or 

MNHC (2010). 

d 

This species is discussed in this section regarding its potential occurrence in the Nanticoke River and in Volume III regarding the potential occurrence in the Chesapeake Bay and the Choptank 

River. 

e 

This species is discussed in Volume III. 

f 

1-155




The Company conducted photomonitor presence/absence surveys for Delmarva fox squirrel during fall 

2009, spring 2010, and fall 2010 along tracts where biologists identified a potential for Delmarva fox 

squirrel occurrence. Additional surveys are scheduled to occur in the spring of 2011. The proposed 

Project’s Threatened and Endangered Species Report contained in Volume V provides details of the 

survey methods and parcel-specific survey results. Delmarva fox squirrels were observed during 

monitoring of multiple forested tracts along the Dorchester County portion of the proposed Western Shore 

Landing to Gateway Converter Component. No Delmarva fox squirrels were observed within forested 

surveyed areas in Wicomico County. As negative occurrence results in Wicomico County were found 

through field surveys conducted over a one-year period, the Company is currently conducting additional 

field studies, as appropriate, to determine the potential presence of the Delmarva fox squirrel in the 

Wicomico County portion of the proposed Project area. 

1.8.1.1.1 Potential Impacts and Mitigation on Delmarva Fox Squirrel 


Construction of the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Component are described in Volume I, 

Section 2.0. 

Project-related impacts to the Delmarva fox squirrel in the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter 

Project Component would consist primarily of permanent habitat conversion and some permanent habitat 

loss through the clearing of mature forest habitat within the right-of-way and the installation of permanent 

facilities (such as structures and permanent access points). Establishment of the new right-of-way would 

result in the permanent conversion of mature forested habitat to herbaceous and/or scrub-shrub habitat, 

depending on transmission line installation type (underground or overhead transmission line). The 

reduced foraging and shelter habitat from the conversion and loss of mature forest habitat within the rightof-way 

could result in adverse impacts to the Delmarva fox squirrel. As described further below, 

approximately half of the forest clearing or conversion area along the Western Shore Landing to Gateway 

Converter Component would consist of tree size classes less than 12 inches in diameter. 

Construction of the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter would result in a temporary increase in 

vehicle traffic which could result in an increase in vehicle noise or the number of vehicle strikes. 

Potential noise and vehicle impacts would largely be limited to the construction period. Noise generated 

during vegetation clearing and Project component installation would result in the temporary disturbance 

of Delmarva fox squirrel habitat and any animals present. Studies of timber harvest in Dorchester County 

found that in those locations where timber harvest occurred, Delmarva fox squirrels moved into adjacent 

forested habitat in response to timber harvest activities (USFWS 2007). It is anticipated that any 

Delmarva fox squirrel near timber clearing within the Project component right-of-way would shift into 

adjacent suitable habitats, if available. 

In addition to a temporary increase in noise, installation of the Project component could result in a 

temporary increase in traffic along Project access roads and the Project component right-of-way. 

Construction-related traffic may result in Delmarva fox squirrel vehicle strikes. The frequency of vehicle 

strikes would depend on the density of Delmarva fox squirrels in the area and the proximity of the access 

roads and the right-of-way to habitat (USFWS 2007). Access road locations are identified on the EFMs 

included in Volume V. If access roads cross occupied Delmarva fox squirrel habitat, the Company and 

its contractors would consult, as necessary, with USFWS regarding appropriate vehicle strike 

minimization measures for access roads that may cross Delmarva fox squirrel habitat. 

1-156




Nearly all of the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter land component would cross current 

Delmarva fox squirrel habitat range (USFWS 2007) in Dorchester County. The reduced foraging and 

shelter habitat from the conversion and loss of mature forest habitat within the right-of-way could result 

in adverse impacts to the Delmarva fox squirrel. As described further in Section 1.6, approximately 18.3 

acres of forest upland and approximately 210.9 acres of forested wetland vegetation would be cleared in 

Dorchester County for the proposed Project right-of-way. Further, as described in Section 1.6, 

approximately 2.1 acres of forest upland and approximately 11.5 acres of forested wetland vegetation 

would also be cleared in Wicomico County for the proposed Project Component. Of the total of all forest 

clearing, approximately 13 percent would occur in forest stands classified as Size Class 1 (diameter at 

breast height [DBH] of 2 to 5.9 inches) in Forest Stand Delineation studies conducted (Volume V). Other 

size classes being cleared in this Project component include Size Class 2 (DBH of 6 to 11.9 inches): 

approximately 26 percent; Size Class 3 (DBH of 12 to 19.9 inches): approximately 49 percent; and Size 

Class 4 (DBH of 20 to 29.9 inches): 1 percent. Approximately 9 percent of the anticipated clearing area 

still needs to have a FSD conducted (due to limited site access). 

Due to the positive results of Delmarva fox squirrel field surveys, as discussed in Section 1.8.1.1, all of 

the mature forest clearing area in Dorchester County is conservatively being assumed to be Delmarva fox 

squirrel habitat. As described in Section 1.8.1.1, the Company has conducted studies with no findings of 

Delmarva fox squirrel and is continuing field studies in the Wicomico County portion of this Project 

Component. Upon completion of the 2011 Wicomico County field survey, the Company, in consultation 

with USFWS, would determine if the proposed Project Component would affect any Delmarva fox 

squirrel habitat in Wicomico County. 

The Company’s contractors have initiated consultation with USFWS regarding Delmarva fox squirrel 

presence and habitat mitigation. The USFWS has identified a 3:1 mitigation ratio for any identified 

Delmarva fox squirrel habitat that would be impacted by construction and operation of the proposed 

Project. Mitigation areas could include the preservation of mature forests that Delmarva fox squirrels 

currently use. The Company has identified several and currently owns (or has rights to purchase) several 

parcels with forested tracts where Delmarva fox squirrel habitat has been documented to be present, for 

potential use as mitigation. One of these sites is a large, forested tract of land that lies between two nonadjacent 

sections of Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. The Company has conducted studies that 

documented Delmarva fox squirrel presence throughout this over 500-acre site, and USFWS has reviewed 

the study results, inspected the site, and approved the use of this site for Delmarva fox squirrel mitigation. 

This site is anticipated to comprise the majority of required Project Delmarva fox squirrel mitigation. If 

additional mitigation acreage is required, the Company has several other forested parcels containing 

documented Delmarva fox squirrel habitat, which could also be used for mitigation. 

Gateway Converter 

Construction and operation of the Gateway Converter are described in Volume I, Section 2.0. 

The Gateway Converter would be located within currently identified Delmarva fox squirrel range 

(USFWS 2007). Except for approximately 1 acre of potential forested habitat identified within the 

Gateway Converter property during field surveys (Volume V), the Gateway Converter Component does 

not contain potential Delmarva fox squirrel habitat. While field investigators largely did not identify 

potentially suitable habitat within the Component survey area, biologists did identify potential habitat 

near the south and west of the proposed Project component area (Volume V). 

The Company would continue follow up Delmarva fox squirrel surveys in the spring of 2011 in 

Wicomico County. If no occurrences of this species is identified, there would likely be no impacts to this 

1-157




species due to the construction of the Gateway Converter. If after the completion of field surveys, 

Delmarva fox squirrels are identified in this area, potential impacts could include temporary constructionrelated 

impacts, such as noise and an increased potential for vehicle strikes, which would be similar to 

those described for the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Component. Squirrels are 

anticipated to temporarily relocate to adjacent habitat as a result of temporary noise from timber clearing 

activities; therefore, noise is not anticipated to result in a significant impact on the species. 

As discussed above, the Company’s contractors have initiated consultation with USFWS and field 

surveys to date have not identified the presence of Delmarva fox squirrel within the project area in 

Wicomico County. Additional surveys will continue through 2011 in Wicomico County. Because field 

surveys in Wicomico County are ongoing, final Delmarva fox squirrel impact acreages for this Project 

component have not yet been determined. After completion of field surveys, the Company would 

continue consultation with the USFWS and would mitigate any potential impacts to Delmarva fox 

squirrel habitat, as appropriate. 

Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line Component 

Project components for the Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line Component are further 


The Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line Component would cross the currently 

identified Delmarva fox squirrel range; however, it is existing cleared right-of-way and impacts are not 

expected. Due to the use of existing rights-of-way in this Project component, limited to no tree clearing 

would occur. Therefore, Delmarva fox squirrel habitat would not likely be impacted due to permanent 

habitat conversion or loss in this component. 

1.8.1.2 Sturgeon 

The Atlantic sturgeon and the shortnose sturgeon are demersal, anadromous species that are distributed 

within the United States along the Atlantic coast between Florida and Maine (NMFS 2006). In general, 

both species migrate to freshwater for spawning during the late winter to early summer time period. 

During spawning, sturgeon eggs adhere to hard bottom surfaces where they remain approximately 4 to 6 

days until hatching (NMFS 2006). For the first summer after hatching, juvenile sturgeon remain in 

freshwater and then migrate to estuaries in winter. Juveniles remain in estuaries for 3 to 5 years before 

migrating to the near-shore marine environment as adults (NMFS 2006). 

Adult shortnose sturgeon forage in estuaries and downstream areas prior to migrating upstream in the 

spring to spawn. Shortnose sturgeon are benthic feeders that forage in deeper waters containing soft 

bottom substrate. Upstream spawning habitat typically consists of hardbottom areas, such as cobble or 

limestone, in a variety of water depths (Friedland and Kynard 2004). Juveniles migrate upstream in the 

spring and summer months prior to traveling downstream (NMFS 1998). Both adults and juveniles 

congregate in deeper pools with cooler water temperatures that provide thermal refuge during summer 

months. 

Shortnose sturgeon found in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries comprise the Chesapeake Distinct 

Population Unit (DPU; NMFS 1998). There is little information about the Chesapeake DPU distribution 

and abundance (NMFS 1998). Recent shortnose sturgeon capture in the Chesapeake Bay and its 

tributaries have demonstrated that this species is present within the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, 

but directed sampling for shortnose sturgeon is needed to more definitively establish distribution and 

movement patterns (NMFS 1998). NMFS has indicated that based on tagging and capture data, it is 

1-158




believed that shortnose sturgeon may be present within the Chesapeake Bay year round (NMFS 2008). 

Through March of 2008, NMFS has indicated that 73 individual shortnose sturgeon have been captured in 

the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay (NMFS 2010). 

There is little information about the Chesapeake DPU distribution and abundance in the Patuxent River, 

Nanticoke River, and Choptank River. None of these rivers are currently listed as a river system 

supporting the shortnose sturgeon in the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) (NMFS 

1998). While these rivers are not listed as supporting shortnose sturgeon, the Recovery Plan 

acknowledges that additional research would be required to determine shortnose sturgeon distribution 

within the Chesapeake DPU. According to the ELMRD, no shortnose sturgeon, during any lifestage, has 

been recorded in the mixing zone of the Patuxent or Choptank Rivers in the Project area (NOAA 2005). 

Atlantic sturgeon spawning habitat is located in deep, fast flowing river channels with hard bottom 

substrate (NMFS 2008; ASMFC 1990). Adults of this species then travel to coastal ocean waters in the 

fall to overwintering habitat (CBP 2010). ELMRD data indicate that adults of this species are rare in the 

Chesapeake mixing zone between March through June, and juveniles could be present year round (NOAA 

2005). ELMRD data indicate that no Atlantic sturgeon life history stage is present within the Patuxent or 

Choptank Rivers (NOAA 2005). Atlantic sturgeon used to be common throughout the Chesapeake Bay 

and its tributaries, but the species is now rare and is most often found in Virginia waters (CBP 2010). 

NMFS (2010) indicated that there may be a reproducing Atlantic sturgeon population in the James River, 

Virginia, which would support Atlantic sturgeon present in the Chesapeake Bay. Atlantic sturgeon are 

reported to be found in the mainstem Chesapeake Bay and Nanticoke River (NMFS 2010, CBP 2010), but 

overall, NMFS has indicated that these populations are likely to be small (NMFS 2010) and this species is 

considered biologically extirpated or below the minimum viable population size (MDNR 2010b). No 

young of the year Atlantic sturgeon have been captured in Maryland’s juvenile finfish survey for the past 

45 years (MDNR 2010b). 

Although USFWS and MDNR stocked approximately 3,000 Atlantic sturgeon in the Nanticoke River, 

subsequent recapture data indicates that there are currently no natural reproducing Atlantic sturgeon 

population in Maryland’s portion of the Chesapeake Bay (Bolinger and Minkkinen 2008). Atlantic 

sturgeon restoration via artificial propagation in Maryland waters is currently being developed (Bolinger 

and Minkkinen 2008). 

1.8.1.2.1 Potential Impacts and Mitigation on Sturgeon 

Note that impacts to sturgeon species potentially present in the Choptank River and/or Chesapeake Bay 

are discussed in Volume III. A discussion of potential Project-related impacts to sturgeon species in the 

Patuxent and Nanticoke Rivers are presented below. 

Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter Component 

Volume I, Section 2.0, describes proposed Project-related activities in the Chalk Point Substation to 

Chestnut Converter Component. 

The Project component would result in the construction of new transmission line structures within the 

Patuxent River in primarily soft bottom substrate. Due to the lack of hardbottom in the construction area, 

temporary construction-related impacts to sturgeon species would only occur to migrating or foraging 

adults and juveniles, if present in the Patuxent River. Project-related impacts would be similar for this 

Project component as described in Section 1.7. Potential impacts could include some temporary blockage 

of adult and juvenile migration routes through the potential disruption of migration through the Project 

1-159




area by structure installation vessels, equipment, or pile driving.. There may also be a temporary change 

(and a possible decrease) in foraging habitat due to sturgeon avoidance of the Project area due to 

increased turbidity and the potential subsequent decrease in dissolved oxygen, and noise caused by pile 

driving and structure construction. As discussed in Section 1.7, to minimize potential disturbance to 

aquatic fish species from pile driving noise, the Company would deploy bubble curtains around each of 

the proposed in-water structure foundations. Bubble curtains would be properly maintained during pile 

driving to protect fish from underwater pressure waves and to deter fish from approach the foundation 

piles as they are installed. Additionally, the Company may implement pre-installation “tapping” 

techniques to encourage fish to avoid the area. 













All of these impacts would be limited to the construction time period. No long-term Project-related 

impacts are anticipated to either sturgeon species due to the limited number of sturgeon potentially 

present in the Patuxent River, the temporary nature of the proposed construction activities, and the very 

small footprint (less than 0.01 acres) of the permanent structure footers within the Patuxent River. 


Potential impacts associated with the installation of the submarine transmission lines across the 

Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River on sturgeon species are discussed in Volume III. Below is a 

discussion of potential Project component-related impacts in the Nanticoke River. 

Because of potential shortnose and/or Atlantic sturgeon presence in the Chesapeake Bay estuary and its 

tributaries (such as the Nanticoke River), these species may be located near the Western Shore Landing to 

Gateway Converter Component during transmission line structure installation. Juvenile sturgeon may 

potentially be present within the Project area year round, while adults may use the Project area as a 

migration corridor during the spring and summer months. If construction occurs during adult migration 

periods, Project-related impacts to adult sturgeon would be similar to those described for the Patuxent 

River and in Section 1.7. To minimize potential disturbance to aquatic fish species from pile driving 

noise, the Company would deploy bubble curtains around each of the proposed in-water structure 

foundations. Bubble curtains would be properly maintained during pile driving to protect fish from 

underwater pressure waves and to deter fish from approach the foundation piles as they are installed. 

Additionally, the Company may implement pre-installation “tapping” techniques to encourage fish to 

avoid the area. 




1-160













Due to the short duration and localized nature of structure installation activities (see Volume I, Section 

2.0), it would be expected that adults typically would avoid the Nanticoke River Project area during 

construction. 

If shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon juveniles are present within the Project area during construction, Projectrelated 

impacts may include some temporary blockage of juvenile migration routes or foraging by 

construction vessels and structure installation in the Nanticoke River. Further, there may also be a 

temporary change (and possible decrease) in foraging habitat due to temporary increased turbidity and 

noise caused by the installation of in-water structures. Potential Project-related impacts to sturgeon 

species from these construction activities would be temporary and localized. Because shortnose and 

Atlantic sturgeon are mobile fish species, it is anticipated that any juvenile fish present near the 

installation areas would temporarily be displaced to adjacent habitat for the duration of construction. The 

six structures placed in the Nanticoke River would represent a small quantity (




Table 1.8-2 

State-Protected Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Area 

Potential Project Component 

Presence Habitat Availability and Species Presence 

County 

(portion of 

potential 

range 

crossed by 

Project) 

State 

a, b 

Status 

Species 

Plants 

The dark green sedge is typically found in swamp 

forests, bogs, wet places in pine forests, bays, 

hammocks, and roadside ditches. Field surveys 

identified this species in Dorchester County along the 


Component. Further, populations were identified at 

the Gateway Converter Component and along the 

existing right-of-way along the Gateway Converter to 

State Line Component. Project MPs where this 

species was observed include MP ESLGC 3.1, MP 

ESLGC 3.8 to 4.7, MP GCSL 0.9, and MP GCSL 1.2 

to 1.4. 

Western Shore Landing to Gateway 

Converter; Gateway Converter; 

Gateway Converter to State Line 

ST Wicomico 

County, 

MD c 

Dark green sedge 

(Carex vanusta) 

1-162








County 

(portion of 

potential 

range 

crossed by 

Project) 

State 

a, b 

Status 

Species 

Plants (continued) 

This species is typically found in wet areas with light 

conditions that range from shaded to open. The 

coppery St. John’s wort is also found in low woods, 

bogs, and marshes. Populations of this species were 

identified along the Gateway Converter to State Line 

Component. Project MPs where this species was 

observed include MP GCSL 0.9 and GCSL 1.2. 




ST Wicomico 

County, 

MD 

Coppery St. 

John’s wort 

(Hypericum 

denticulatum), 

The Torrey’s beaksedge is found in seasonally wet 

areas with full sun and few shrubs. This species was 

identified within the existing right-of-way in the 

Gateway Converter to State Line Component. Project 

MPs where this species was observed include MP 

GCSL 1.9 to 2.1. 




ST Dorchester 

and 

Wicomico 

County, 

MD 

Torrey’s 

beakdsedge 

(Rhynchospora 

torreyana) 

1-163








County 

(portion of 

potential 

range 

crossed by 

Project) 

State 

a, b 

Status 

Species 


The showy goldenrod is found in thickets, fields, and 

along roadside cleared areas. MDNR identified lands 

within the Parkers Creek watershed as containing 

potential showy goldenrod habitat. This species can 

be present in prairies, abandoned fields, forested, and 

woodland areas. Field surveys identified populations 

of this species in the Chalk Point to Chestnut 

Converter Component, Chestnut Converter 

Component and multiple locations containing this 

species along the Chestnut Converter to Western 

Shore Landing Component. Project MPs where this 

species was observed include MP CCWSL 0.7 to 0.9, 

MP CPCC 10.0, MP CPCC 10.1, and MP CPCC 10.5. 

Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut 

Converter, Chestnut Converter, 

Chestnut Converter to Western Shore 

Landing 

ST Prince 

George’s 

and Calvert 

County, 

MD 

Showy 

goldenrod 

(Solidago 

speciosa) 

MDNR identified lands within the Parkers Creek 

watershed as containing potential long-beaked 

arrowhead habitat. Typically, this species is found in 

swamps and along ponds. Two small populations of 

long-beaked arrowhead were found in the vicinity of 

the Project right-of-way along the Chalk Point 

Substation to Chestnut Converter during a speciesspecific 

field survey that was completed in August of 

2008. Project MPs where this species was observed 

include MP CPCC 7.8, 




Landing 

SU Prince 

George’s 

and Calvert 

County, 

MD 

Long-beaked 

arrowhead 

(Sagittaria 

longirostra) 

1-164








County 

(portion of 

potential 

range 

crossed by 

Project) 

State 

a, b 

Status 

Species 


MDNR identified lands within the Chalk Point area 

as containing habitat for the spurred butterfly-pea. 

This species grows in areas with full or partial sun. 

The spurred butterfly-pea and its habitat were found 

in the vicinity of the Chalk Point Substation to 

Chestnut Converter Component right-of-way during a 

spurred butterfly-pea specific field survey that was 

completed in August of 2008. Approximately 20 

flowering stems of the spurred butterfly-pea were 

identified in three pockets near the Chalk Point 

Substation in the vicinity of the right-of-way, but not 

directly within the right-of-way. While this species 

was identified within the general Project area, this 

species was identified outside of the proposed Project 

right-of-way near MP CPCC 0.5. Note that this 

species would not be impacted by the proposed 

Project. 




Landing, Western Shore Landing to 

Gateway Converter Gateway 

Converter, Gateway Converter to State 

Line 

SR Prince 

George’s, 

Calvert 

County, 

Dorchester, 

and 

Wicomico 

Counties, 

MD 

Spurred 

butterfly-pea 

(Centrosema 

virginianum) 

1-165








County 

(portion of 

potential 

range 

crossed by 

Project) 

State 

a, b 

Status 

Species 


SR None d None d Barratt’s sedge typically occurs in wet swales, stream 

banks, and savannas, especially in pine barren 

swamps. This species also occurs in disturbed 

habitats such as ditches, abandoned cranberry bogs, 

and railroad, powerline, and road rights-of-way. This 

species was identified during field surveys between 

MP MP ESLGS 4.5 and 4.7. 

Barratt’s sedge 

(Carex barratti) 


watershed as containing potential few-flowered 

tick-trefoil habitat. Habitat is woodlands; mature, 

rich, mesic mixed deciduous forest. This species was 

not observed during protected botanical species 

surveys. 




Landing 

SE Prince 

George’s 

and Calvert 

County, 

MD 

Few-flowered 

tick-trefoil 

(Desmodium 

pauciflorum) 

1-166








County 

(portion of 

potential 

range 

crossed by 

Project) 

State 

a, b 

Status 

Species 



watershed as containing potential rigid tick-trefoil 

habitat. This species is typically found in savannahs 

and open woodlands. This species was not observed 

during protected botanical species surveys. 




Landing 

SE Prince 

George’s 

and Calvert 

County, 

MD 

Rigid tick-trefoil 

(Desmodium 

rigidum) 


watershed as containing potential single-headed 

pussytoe habitat. Habitat for this species includes 

wooded or forested slopes or hillsides. This species 

was not observed during protected botanical species 

surveys. 




Landing 

ST Prince 

George’s 

and Calvert 

County, 

MD 

Single-headed 

pussytoes 

(Antennaria 

soliaria) 

MDNR identified an occurrence of the sweet pinesap 

on a land trust property near West Governor Run. 

This species is primarily found in forested habitat. 

This species was not observed during protected 

botanical species surveys. 




Landing 

SE Prince 

George’s 

and Calvert 

County, 

MD 

Sweet pinesap 

(Monotropsis 

odorata) 

1-167








County 

(portion of 

potential 

range 

crossed by 

Project) 

State 

a, b 

Status 

Species 


MDNR identified lands along Woodland Branch and 

within the Parkers Creek watershed as containing 

potential large-seeded forget-me-not habitat. This 

species is found in fallow and cultivated fields, 

woodlands, slopes, and roadsides. This species was 


surveys. 




Landing 

SR Prince 

George’s 

and Calvert 

County, 

MD 

Large-seeded 

forget-me-not 

(Myosotis 

macrosperma) 


watershed as containing potential tobaccoweed 

habitat. This species is found in dry open woods and 

thickets. This species was not observed during 

protected botanical species surveys. 




Landing 

SE Calvert 

County, 

MD 

Tobaccoweed 

(Elephantopus 

tomentosus) 

MDNR identified lands in the Stump Gut Complex as 

containing potential white fringed orchid habitat. 

Suitable habitat includes spaghnum and other acidic 

moss, in open wet areas in black spruce or tamarack 

bogs or on the boggy shores of lakes and in open wet 

meadows. This species was not observed during 


Gateway Converter; Gateway 

Converter to State Line 

ST Wicomico 

County, 

MD 

White fringed 

orchid 

(Platanthera 

blephariglolttis) 

1-168








County 

(portion of 

potential 

range 

crossed by 

Project) 

State 

a, b 

Status 

Species 


MDNR identified known northern pitcher-plant 

habitat in the Stump Gut Complex. Suitable habitat 

for this species is found in peat bogs, thin moist and 

rich woods, and savannas. This species was not 

observed during protected botanical species surveys. 



ST Wicomico 

County, 

MD 

Northern pitcherplant 

(Sarracenia 

purpurea) 

MDNR identified known evergreen bayberry habitat 

in the Stump Gut Complex. Suitable habitat for this 

species is found in dry to wet to moist areas. This 

species was not observed during protected botanical 

species surveys. 



ST Wicomico 

County, 

MD 

Evergreen 

bayberry 

(Morella 

caroliniensis) 

Angelpod known habitat (woods and thickets) has 

been identified in the Chicone Creek Natural Heritage 

Area. This species was not observed during protected 



Converter 

SE Dorchester 

County, 

MD 

Anglepod 

(Matelea 

carolinensis) 

MDNR identified potential Long’s bittercress habitat 

in the Stump Gut Complex. Suitable habitat for this 

species includes freshwater tidal mud flats. This 





SE Wicomico 

County, 

MD 

Long’s 

bittercress 

(Cardamine 

longii) 

1-169








County 

(portion of 

potential 

range 

crossed by 

Project) 

State 

a, b 

Status 

Species 


MDNR identified potential Torrey’s beakrush habitat 

in the Riverton Road Powerlines Site, which is near 

the Project area. Suitable habitat for this species 

includes ponds and bogs. This species was not 




ST Wicomico 

County, 

MD 

Torrey’s 

beakrush 

(Rhynchospora 

forreyana) 

MDNR identified known habitat (marshlands) for the 

marsh wild sienna in the Stump Point Marshes site. 

This site is located north of the confluence of Chicone 

Creek and the Nanticoke River. This species was not 





SE Dorchester 

and 

Wicomico 

County, 

MD 

Marsh wild 

sienna 

(Chamaecrista 

fasciculate var. 

macrosperma) 

MDNR identified long-bristled Indian-grass habitat in 

the Chicone Creek Natural Heritage Area, but not 

directly within the Project area. This plant usually 

grows in dry, open woods on sandy terraces of 

lowlands, often over a clay subsoil. This species was 


surveys. 


Converter 

SE Dorchester 

County, 

MD 

Long-bristled 

flat-grass 

(Sorghastrum 

elliottii) 

1-170








County 

(portion of 

potential 

range 

crossed by 

Project) 

State 

a, b 

Status 

Species 


MDNR identified cream-flowered tick-trefoil habitat 

in the Chicone Creek Natural Heritage Area, but not 

directly within the Project area. Habitat for this 

species includes limestone glades with red cedar, 

persimmon, and redbud and sunny openings in upland 

mixed hardwood forests with calcium-rich soil. This 




Converter 

SE Dorchester 

County, 

MD 

Cream-flowered 

tick-trefoil 

(Desmodium 

ochroleucum) 

MDNR identified habitat for the wild lupine in the 

Chicone Creek Natural Heritage Area, but not 

directly within the Project area. Suitable habitat for 

this species includes open sunny areas of dry 

woodland glades, savannas, grasslands, and along 

roadsides. This species was not observed during 



Converter 

ST Dorchester 

County, 

MD 

Wild lupine 

(Lupinus 

perennis) 

Small’s yellow eyed-grass occurs in the Ocean 

Gateway Ponds site. Suitable habitat for this species 

is wet sandy or peaty locations. This species was not 



Converter 

SE Dorchester 

County, 

MD 

Small’s yellow 

eyed-grass (Xyris 

smalliana) 

1-171








County 

(portion of 

potential 

range 

crossed by 

Project) 

State 

a, b 

Status 

Species 


MDNR identified known fringed yellow eyed grass 

habitat in the Ocean Gateway Ponds site. Habitat for 

this species includes bogs, meadows, floodplains, and 

seepage areas, especially in sites with damp, acid soil. 

This species was not observed during protected 



Converter 

SE Dorchester 

County, 

MD 

Fringed yellow 

eyed-grass (Xyris 

fimbriata) 

MDNR identified the swollen bladderwort as being 

located in the Big Millpond WSSC site. Suitable 

habitat includes slow moving waters, including lakes, 

ponds, and rivers. This species was not observed 



Converter 

SE Dorchester 

County, 

MD 

Swollen 

bladderwort 

(Utricularia 

inflate) 

MDNR identified the prickly hornwort as being 

located in the Big Millpond WSSC site. Suitable 

habitat for this species includes soft-water lakes, 

ponds, and reservoirs. This species was not observed 



Converter 

SE Dorchester 

County, 

MD 

Prickly hornwort 

(Ceratophyllum 

echinatum) 

A record of occurrence for the great purple hairstreak 

exists in the Middleton Branch. This species is found 

in swampy areas, and adults frequently use 

buttonbrush, milkweed and butterfly weed. This 




Converter 

ST Dorchester 

County, 

MD 

Great purple 

hairstreak 

(Atlides halesus) 

1-172








County 

(portion of 

potential 

range 

crossed by 

Project) 

State 

a, b 

Status 

Species 

Fish 

Barren Creek, which would be located downstream of 

the Project route, is known to support the ironcolor 

shiner. This species is found in deep pool areas of 

creeks and small rivers, as well as in bodies of water 

where a moderate current exists. They occur in areas 

with aquatic vegetation and potentially spawn in sand 

substrates. 

Gateway Converter, Gateway 


SE Wicomico 

County, 

MD 

Ironcolor shiner 

(Notropos 

chalybaeus) 

a SE = endangered; ST = threatened; SR = rare; SU = possibly rare, but uncertain status 

b Source: MNHC 2010, MDNR 2010c 

c MNHC (2010) identifies dark green sedge as potentially occurring in Wicomico County, but field surveys identified this plant species in Dorchester County (see Volume V). 

d MNHC (2010) does not identify Barrett’s sedge as potentially occurring in any of the counties crossed by the proposed Project. 

1-173




1.8.3 State-Protected Plant Species Summary 

State-protected botanical survey reports are contained in Volume V and the location of sensitive plant 

species identified during field surveys are contained in the EFMs in Volume V. Note that three protected 

species reports were generated for the proposed Project and are included in Volume V. The report titled 

MidAtlantic Power Pathway Project Section 5: Chalk Point to Calvert Cliffs, Maryland: Threatened and 

Endangered Species and Habitat Assessment Report contains a description of protected resources that 

extend from the Chalk Point Substation to the Calvert Cliffs area. Note that this report contains 

information about protected resources that would no longer be located within the proposed Project area. 

For the purposes of the Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter Component, the first 11 miles of the 

survey area reported (from Chalk Point Substation to the location where the Project right-of-way would 

cross Parkers Creek Road) contains the currently proposed Project component. Follow up botanical 

protected species surveys were conducted for this area in 2010. Results of follow up surveys along the 

Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter Component are reported in Rare, Threatened, and 

Endangered Species Report: Pepco Holdings, Inc. Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP) Project: Chalk 

Point to Chestnut Converter dated March 21, 2011 which is also contained in Volume V. The report 

entitled Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Report: Pepco Holdings, Inc. Mid-Atlantic Power 

Pathway (MAPP) Project: Chestnut Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line dated March 15, 2011 

contains a description of protected species surveys and results for the Project components between the 

Chestnut Converter to the Maryland/Delaware state line. 

To minimize potential Project related impacts to these species, the Company would fence off and avoid 

direct impacts to these species wherever practicable. The primary mitigation measure for rare, threatened, 

and endangered (RTE) plant species is anticipated to be avoidance of impact, however some impacts to 

individual plant may not be avoidable. Additional coordination with DNR regarding the construction 

techniques to be implemented and anticipated seasonal construction schedule may yield specific requests 

for avoidance and minimization (i.e. transplanting). 

As described above, the Company has initiated state-protected species assessments and will continue field 

assessments, as needed, through 2011. The Company has implemented construction measures to 

minimize land and aquatic impacts, as described in Volume I, Section 2.0. Impacts to state-protected 

species would generally be consistent with those reported in Sections 1.5, 1.6, 1.7 and 1.8. To the extent 

feasible and practicable the Company will avoid and protect these state-protected species. The Company 

would continue consultation with MDNR during and after field assessments to determine the presence of 

sensitive species within the Project area and to ensure that such species are appropriately protected. 

Below is a summary of state-listed threatened or endangered species identified in each Project 

component. 

1.8.4 Chalk Point to Chestnut Converter State-Protected Plant Species 

The Company conducted field surveys of the Chalk Point to Chestnut Converter Component for statelisted 

protected species in 2008 through 2011. Biologists identified two isolated populations of longbeaked 

arrowhead (Sagittaria australis) (MP CPCC 7.8) and three populations of showy goldenrod 

(Solidago speciosa) (MPs CPCC 10.0, 10.1, and 10.5) in the existing right-of-way. None of these 

populations would be subject to vegetation clearing or matting during Project installation. Chestnut 

Converter State-Protected Plant Species. 

The Company conducted field surveys of the Chestnut Converter Component for state-listed protected 

species in the summer and fall of 2010. Biologists identified two isolated populations of showy 

1-174




goldenrod in or near fallow fields on the proposed Chestnut Converter Component site. Permanent 

impacts due to the installation of permanent converter station infrastructure to showy goldenrod would be 

approximately 0.05 acres. Additional botanical surveys would be conducted during the appropriate 

survey season(s) as applicable to assess potential protected plant species presence in portions of this 

Project component that were not accessible during the appropriate season. 

1.8.5 Chestnut Converter State-Protected Plant Species. 

The Company conducted field surveys of the Chestnut Converter Component for state-listed protected 

species in the summer and fall of 2010. Biologists identified two isolated populations of showy 

goldenrod in or near fallow fields on the proposed Chestnut Converter Component site. Permanent 

impacts due to the installation of permanent converter station infrastructure to showy goldenrod would be 

approximately 0.05 acres. Additional botanical surveys would be conducted during the appropriate 

survey season(s) as applicable to assess potential protected plant species presence in portions of this 

Project component that were not accessible during the appropriate season. 

1.8.6 Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing State-Protected Plant Species 

A spring, summer, and fall 2010 field survey along the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing 

Component identified multiple areas containing non-flowering showy goldenrod. All of these plants were 

identified in the existing maintained right-of-way at MPs CCWSL 0.7 to 0.9. Permanent impacts to 

showy goldenrod from permanent Project structures and facilities would be approximately 0.14 acres. No 

state- protected botanical species were identified along the portion of the Project component that would 

underlie Western Shores Boulevard or at the Western Shore Landing. 

1.8.7 Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter State-Protected Plant Species 

Between the fall of 2009 and the fall of 2010, biologists conducted botanical surveys for state-protected 

species along the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Component. Field surveys identified 

three occurrences of dark green sedge (Carex vanusta) at MPs ESLGC 3.1 and ESLGC 3.8 to 4.7. 

Further, biologists identified Barratt’s sedge (Carex barratti) between MPs ESLGC 4.5 and 4.7. Some of 

the dark green sedge and Barratt’s sedge populations would be located where general forest clearing 

would be conducted. Therefore, clearing in these areas would be conducted in a manner that would avoid 

or reduce impacts to this species to the maximum extent practical. Planned 2011 botanical field surveys 

would continue during the appropriate survey season(s) in 17 parcels in the Western Shore Landing to 

Gateway Converter Component right-of-way. 

1.8.8 Gateway Converter State-Protected Plant Species 

Summer and fall 2010 surveys of the Gateway Converter Component identified three populations of dark 

green sedge. No additional state-listed threatened, endangered, or rare plant species were observed within 

the Gateway Converter Component survey area. These populations would not be impacted by 

construction of the proposed Project. 

1.8.9 Gateway Converter to State Line State-Protected Plant Species 

Coppery St. John’s wort (Hypericum denticulatum) (MPs GCSL 0.9 and GCSL 1.2), dark green sedge 

(MPs GCSL 0.9 and GCSL 1.2 to GCSL 1.4), and Torrey’s beaksedge (Rhynchospora torreyana) (MPs 

GCSL 1.9 to 2.1) were identified within existing right-of-way along the Gateway Converter to State Line 

1-175




Component during spring and summer 2010 surveys. None of these plants would be impacted by Project 

construction. 


Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 1990. Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic 

Sturgeon. Available at: http://www.asmfc.org/. 

Bolinger, A, and S. Minkkinen. 2008. Atlantic Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus, in Chesapeake Bay. 

Available at: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/recreational/atlanticsturgeon.html. 

Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). 2010. Atlantic Sturgeon. Available at: 

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/bfg_atlantic_sturgeon.aspx?menuitem=14388. 

Friedland, K.D. & Kynard, B. 2004. Acipenser brevirostrum. In: IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of 

Threatened Species. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2010a. Delmarva Fox Squirrel: Shore Lore and 

Legacy. Available online at: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/nhpdelfox.html. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2010b. Sturgeon Restoration. Available at: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/recreational/hatchery/hatsturgeon.html. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2010c. Letter dated August 6, 2010 from Lori 

Bryne (MDNR) to Art Saunders (ENTRIX) regarding Environmental Review for Pepco 

Holdings, Inc (PHI): Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP) Transmission Line: Chestnut 

Converter to MD/DE State Line. 

Maryland Natural Heritage Commission (MNHC). 2010. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of 

Maryland - Plants & Animals Listed by County. Available at: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/Plants_Wildlife/rte/rteplants.asp. Accessed on July 8, 2010. 

(NMFS). 1998. Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum. December 

1998. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/sturgeon_shortnose.pdf. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2006. Atlantic and Shortnose sturgeons Atlantic (Acipenser 

oxyrhynchus) Shortnose (Acipenser brevirostrum). Available at: 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/af/sturgeon/archives/42_Atlantic_ShortnoseSturgeons_200 

6.pdf. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. Letter dated May 8, 2008, from John Nichols (NMFS- 

Habitat Conservation Division) to Arthur Sanders (ENTRIX). 

National Marine Fisheries Service NMFS. 2009. Letter dated November 4, 2009, from John Nichols 

(NMFS-Habitat Conservation Division) to Arthur Sanders (ENTRIX) regarding Mid-Atlantic 

Power Pathway, Eastern Shore Alternatives. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).2010. Letter dated June 21, 2010, from Mary Colligan 

(NMFS-Protected Resources Division) to Arthur Sanders (ENTRIX) regarding PHI Mid-Atlantic 

Power Pathway. 

1-176




National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2005. Estuarine Marine Resources 

Database. Available at: http://www8.nos.noaa.gov/biogeo_public/elmr.aspx. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Delmarva Peninsula Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger 

cinereus) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Summer 2007. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1119.pdf. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Letter from Leopoldo Miranda (USFWS) to Art 

Saunders (ENTRIX) regarding federally-listed threatened and endangered species within the 

Dorchester County portion of the proposed MAPP Project. Letter dated October 6, 2009. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010a. Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species: 

Maryland. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/EndSppWeb/LISTS/specieslistmd.html. 

Accessed on July 8, 2010. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010b. Delmarva Peninsula Fox Squirrel Species Profile. 

Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A00B. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010c. Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge: wildlife: 

mammals. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/blackwater/mammals.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010d. Delmarva Peninsula Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger 

cinereus): Species Fact Sheet. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/EndSppWeb/dfs/dfsfacts.htm. 

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR). 2008. Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle 

Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis. Available at: 

http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/documents/fsnebtigerbeetle.pdf. 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). 2010. Virginia’s Sea Turtles. Available at: 

http://www.vims.edu/research/units/programs/sea_turtle/va_sea_turtles/index.php. 

1-177




1.9 LAND USE 

This section provides information on the cultural resources associated with the installation and operation 

of the Project in Prince George’s, Calvert, Dorchester and Wicomico Counties, Maryland. As discussed 

in Volume I, Section 2.0, the proposed action would consist of electrical infrastructure construction and 

installation from Prince George’s County, Maryland to the Maryland/Delaware state line near Mission, 

Delaware. 


This section examines the current uses of the land in the Project area, including descriptions of 

recreational and special interest areas, as well as visual resources. The Project area is defined as the 

counties crossed by the proposed transmission line and the sites of the converters. These counties are: 

Prince George’s County, Calvert County, Dorchester County, and Wicomico County, all of which are in 

Maryland. Detailed discussions of waterbodies, wetlands, and vegetation types are presented in Section 

1.3, Section 1.4, and Section 1.5, respectively. 

Volume III contains the analysis for the portion of the Project that crosses the Chesapeake Bay and 

Choptank River. 

1.9.1.1 Existing Land Cover Types 

1.9.1.1.1 Transmission Lines 

The proposed Project would extend approximately 33.9 miles 1 from the Chalk Point Substation to the 

Maryland/Delaware State Line. The Project would include crossings of the Patuxent River and Nanticoke 

River, in addition to other ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial surface waters as discussed in Section 1.3. 

Construction activities would include the building of river and land foundations and structures, 

installation activities (i.e. stringing, clipping-in, and sagging the wires) and also vegetation clearing, 

bridge or mat placement over waterbodies and wetlands as needed for access, activities in the staging 

areas, removal of existing transmission structures and post construction activities as necessary. Volume I, 

Section 2.0 provides a detailed discussion of construction methods for each of the six Project components. 

The land use types within the right-of-way for the transmission line, temporary workspaces, converter 

sites, and other proposed construction work areas, including access locations, are defined below. These 

land types are based on field delineations of wetland and forested resources combined with the 

interpretation and digitization of aerial imagery. The land use categories are classified according to the 

predominant land use, as follows: 

Open lands - barren, herbaceous and scrub-shrub lands and non-forested wetlands; 

Agricultural lands – active crop and pasture lands or hayfields; 

Forested lands – upland forested lands and forested wetlands; 

Open Water – surface waterbodies; and 

Developed lands - commercial/industrial developments such as utility stations, rock quarries, 

strip mines, gravel pits, and major railroad and road crossings. 

1 This Project length excludes the crossing of the Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River. Existing conditions and 

analysis of potential impacts for this portion of the proposed Project are presented in Volume III. 

1-178




1.9.1.1.2 Open and Agricultural Lands 

Agricultural lands are defined as areas that are actively cultivated or rotated croplands, pastures, or 

hayfields. Open lands include areas characterized by scrub-shrub and herbaceous vegetation, nonforested 

wetlands, and areas barren of vegetation. 

Prince George’s County encompasses almost 320,000 acres, with 37,005 acres of farmland. The 

harvested cropland as a percentage of land in farms is approximately 38 percent (City-Data 2010). In 

2007, 4,700 acres were harvested for corn, 1,000 acres of wheat, 3,000 acres of soybeans, 4,200 acres of 

hay, 1,100 acres for vegetables, and 45 acres of land in orchards (USDA Forest Service 2010). 

Calvert County is Maryland’s smallest county in land area with 136,320 acres, bounded by the 

Chesapeake Bay on the east, and the Patuxent River on the west (Calvert County Government 2010). As 

of 2007, there were approximately 26,443 acres of land in farms within the county, with about 3,600 acres 

harvested for corn, 2,200 acres of soybeans, and 3,200 acres for hay (USDA Forest Service 2010). 

Dorchester County encompasses over 629,000 acres, of which land area is 357,000 acres and 272,000 

acres is water (City-Data 2010). In 2007, there was a total of 133,188 acres of land in farms, of which 

85,033 acres were harvested cropland (USDA Forest Service 2010). The harvest cropland included corn, 

wheat, soybeans, vegetables, sorghum, barley, and hay. 

Wicomico County has a total land area of over 241,000 acres and a total water area of over 14,000 acres 

(City-Data 2010). Harvested cropland as a percentage of land in farms is approximately 46 percent 

(USDA Forest Service 2010). Harvested croplands included land harvested for corn, soybeans, wheat, 

hay, and vegetables (USDA Forest Service 2010). 

1.9.1.1.3 Forested Land 

Forested lands include upland forest lands and forested wetlands. 

Prince George’s County includes about 196,495 acres of forest lands based on 2005 data from the 

Northeastern Forest Inventory. About 37.8 percent of this area, or 74,300 acres, is publicly owned forest 

lands including state, county, municipal, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands. The remaining 62.2 

percent of forest lands are privately owned (USDA Forest Service 2005). 

Calvert County includes over 71,000 acres of forest lands based on 2008 survey data. Approximately 4.3 

percent of this area, or 3,058 acres, is publicly owned state forest lands, while the remaining 95.7 percent 

of forest lands are privately owned (USDA Forest Service 2010). Additional description of forested areas 

is provided in Section 1.5. 

Dorchester County includes over 139,600 acres of forest lands based on 2008 data. Approximately 14 

percent of this area, or 19,539 acres, is publicly owned state forest lands, 4.5 percent is forest land owned 

by USFWS, while the remaining 81.5 percent of forest lands are privately owned (USDA Forest 

Service 2010). Additional details on forest stand delineations are provided in Section 1.5. 

Wicomico County includes over 108,000 acres of forest lands. This includes about 23,765 acres (22 

percent) of publicly owned state forest lands, and does not include any national forests or national forest 

service lands. The remaining 78 percent of its forest lands are privately owned (USDA Forest Service 

2010). 

1-179




Forested lands are common within the Project right-of-way and in areas adjacent to the right-of-way. 

Additional description of forested areas is provided in Section 1.5. 

1.9.1.1.4 Open Water 

Open water areas are defined as surface waterbodies. 

Approximately 8,320 acres, 83,136 acres, 271,616 acres, and 14,464 acres of Prince George’s, Calvert, 

Dorchester, and Wicomico County lands, respectively, are water (City-Data 2010). This includes 

streams, rivers, lakes, and other waterways. 

In addition to other streams or smaller waterbodies, the Patuxent River would be crossed by the Chalk 

Point Substation to Chestnut Converter component and the Nanticoke River would be crossed by the 

Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter component. Detailed discussions of Surface Water 

Resources and Wetlands are provided in Section 1.3 and Section 1.4, respectively. Volume III provides 

the analysis for the crossings of the Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River. 

1.9.1.1.5 Developed Lands 

Developed lands include commercial/industrial developments such as utility stations, rock quarries, strip 

mines, gravel mines/pits, and major railroad and road crossings. 

Prince George’s County and Calvert County include approximately 132,610 acres and 22,203 acres, 

respectively, of developed lands. Wicomico County and Dorchester County include approximately 

28,802 acres and 20,626 acres, respectively, of developed lands. 

Developed lands within the Project area include portions of existing right-of-way, gravel pits, railroad and 

road crossings. Impacts to gravel mines/pits are discussed in Section 1.1, residential and planned 

developments are discussed below, and impacts to ground transportation are discussed in Section 1.10. 

1.9.1.2 Recreational Boating 

Patuxent River 

In 2010, a total of 7,088 and 6,047 pleasure boats were registered to owners residing in Calvert and Prince 

George’s Counties, respectively. The total is about 8.1 percent of all non-commercial fishing vessels 

registered to Maryland residents (MDNR 2011a). A total of 6,657 had a homeport within Calvert or 

Prince George’s Counties in 2010. The total is about 3.5 percent of all Maryland registered boats with a 

homeport within Maryland in 2010 (MDNR 2011a). The closest public boat ramps to this Project 

component area are located at Chestnut and the George Watson boating areas, which are located 

approximately 2.3 miles south and 6.9 miles north, respectively of the proposed crossing location of the 

Patuxent River. Desoto’s Landing Marina and Benedict Marina are both located less than three miles 

from the Project component. 

The existing right-of-way for this Project component crosses various ephemeral, intermittent and 

perennial surface waterbodies. In addition, the mouth of two large perennial creeks which are tributaries 

to the Patuxent River, Hunting Creek and Swanson Creek, are within 1.5 miles of the Patuxent River 

Crossing. These waterbodies support some recreational boating. Additional information regarding 

surface water resources is provided in Section 1.3. 

1-180




Nanticoke River 

In 2010, a total of 2,787 pleasure boats were registered to residents of Dorchester County, excluding 

commercial fishing boats (MDNR 2011a). These boats may be utilized in a number of waterbodies, 

including the Chesapeake Bay, Choptank River, and Nanticoke River. The MDNR identifies a total of 20 

public boat ramps in Dorchester County. The only public boat ramp on the Nanticoke River in 

Dorchester County is the Vienna’s Race Street boat ramp (MDNR 2010a), which is less than 1 mile (by 

water) from this Project component area. 

In 2010, 3,607 boats were registered to owners residing in Wicomico County (MDNR 2011a). There are 

seven public boat ramps in Wicomico County (MDNR 2010a). The closest boat ramp to this Project 

component is the Mardela Springs ramp which is about 1.5 miles away (by water) (MDNR 2010a). The 

Cedar Hill Marina is located on the Nanticoke River but is several miles downstream from the Project 

component. 

1.9.1.3 Recreational Fishing 

Table 1.9-1 presents annual recreational fishing license statistics for the State of Maryland from 2007 to 

2010. On average, resident non-tidal and resident bay sport licenses made up the majority of license sales 

during this period. During this period an average of 461,563 licenses were issued annually for the entire 

State of Maryland; however, the total number of recreational fishing licenses is not synonymous with the 

total number of recreational fishermen operating in the state because an individual may hold more than 

one license type. 

The Project right-of-way would also cross various ephemeral, intermittent and perennial surface 

waterbodies. Some of these waterbodies support recreational fishing. Additional information on 

recreational fishing is provided in Section 1.10. 


The Patuxent River drains over 576 thousand acres of land in portions of seven counties including Prince 

George’s and Calvert Counties and is the largest river lying entirely within the State of Maryland. The 

water quality conditions of the Patuxent River are addressed in Section 1.3. The Patuxent River 

watershed supports over 100 fish species in its fresh and brackish waters (MDNR 2003). 

1-181




Table 1.9-1 

Maryland Annual Recreational Fishing License Statistics 

License Type 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average 

Resident Non-tidal 139,632 118,737 120,093 111,241 122,426 

Nonresident Non-tidal 12,378 11,657 11,986 11,625 11,912 

3 Day Non-tidal 8,943 7,952 8,400 8,230 8,381 

5 Day Non-tidal 6,193 7,539 8,145 8,065 7,486 

Trout Stamp 63,897 58,103 59,839 56,247 59,522 

Non-tidal Blind 104 111 124 107 112 

Senior Consolidated License 19,317 20,168 21,884 22,147 20,879 

Resident Bay Sport a 107,251 91,607 94,688 89,985 95,883 

Nonresident Bay Sport a 21,504 21,242 23,373 22,471 22,148 

5 Day Bay Sport 13,558 15,469 17,344 15,352 15,431 

Pleasure Boat Decal 50,556 46,828 47,001 46,886 47,818 

Bay Sport Blind 258 217 205 158 210 

Recreational Crabbing b 41,277 36,702 39,059 42,186 39,806 

Nonresident Recreational Crabbing 5,475 5,134 5,625 7,181 5,854 

Recreational Crabbing Boat 3,204 3,446 3,847 4,297 3,699 

Total Licenses c 493,547 444,912 461,613 446,178 461,563 

MDNR 2010b, 2011a 

a Includes complimentary license from Pleasure Boat Decal 

b Does not include complimentary license from Pleasure Boat Decal 

c Total number of licenses is not equivalent to total commercial fishermen because an individual may hold more than one license type. 

Table 1.9-2 presents the recreational fishing license sales by license type for Calvert and Prince George’s 

counties in 2010. These counties accounted for approximately 8.1 percent of the total license sales in the 

state of Maryland. 

1-182




License Type 

Table 1.9-2 

Recreational Fishing Licenses in 2010 a 

1-183 

Calvert b 

County 

Prince 

George’s c 

State of 

Maryland c 

Resident Non-tidal 4,014 5,130 111,241 

Nonresident Non-tidal 5 12 11,625 

Short Term Non-tidal 78 183 16,295 

Trout Stamp 1,844 1,842 56,247 

Senior Consolidated License 776 1,815 22,147 

Consolidated Bay Sport Boat 1909 1830 N/A 

Resident Bay Sport 1,821 6,980 89,985 

Nonresident Bay Sport 9 83 22,471 

Short Term Bay Sport 81 504 15,352 

Recreational Crabbing 1,373 1780 42,186 

Nonresident Recreational Crabbing 7 6 7,181 

Recreational Crabbing Boat 95 65 4,297 

Natural Resources Magazine 36 60 N/A 

Other c 5 6 N/A 

Total 12,053 20,296 399,027 

MDNR 2011a 

N/A indicates that these licenses were not listed for the state wide data. 

a 

Excludes pleasure boat decal, Bay Sport Blind, and Non-tidal Blind. 

b 

Short term license included both 3 day and 5 day licenses for both bay sport and Non-Tidal. 

c Other includes Non-Tidal Blind Person and Bay Sport – Blind Person. 

Tables 1.9-3 and 1.9-4 present counts of freshwater and saltwater fishermen for the period from 2006 to 

2010. On average over the period, fishermen from these counties accounted for about 7.5 percent of the 

freshwater fishermen in Maryland and about 7.7 percent of the saltwater fishermen in Maryland. 

Freshwater and saltwater fishermen from Prince George’s County account for a greater percentage of total 

fishermen relative to Calvert County.




Table 1.9-3 

Maryland Freshwater Recreational Fishermen Counts by County 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Prince George’s 6,690 6,552 5,584 5,299 4,801 

Calvert 12,219 12,539 8655 7,898 6,992 

Out of State 22,476 23,342 21,693 22,364 21,826 

Total Fishermen 181,489 183,407 161,908 167,521 158,233 

MDNR 2010b, 2011a 

Table 1.9-4 

Maryland Saltwater Recreational Fishermen Counts by County 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Prince George’s 6,710 6,844 5,472 5,213 5,069 

Calvert 17,318 18,640 13,138 12,510 11,225 

Out of State 41,523 43,785 42,505 46,047 45,884 


MDNR 2010b, 2011a 


Table 1.9-5 presents the recreational fishing license sales by license type for Dorchester and Wicomico 

counties in 2010. In Dorchester County there were a total of 3,366 licenses and in Wicomico County 

there were a total of 6,367 licenses. These counties combined accounted for 1.5 percent of licenses in 

Maryland in 2010 (MDNR 2011a). 

1-184




Table 1.9-5 

Maryland Recreational Fishing Licenses by County and Type in 2010 

License Type Dorchester Wicomico 

1-185 

State of 

Maryland 

(2010) 

Resident Non-tidal 171 1,035 111,241 

Nonresident Non-tidal 2 3 11,625 

Short Term Non-tidal a 5 22 16,295 

Trout Stamp 52 154 56,247 

Senior Consolidated License 310 542 22,147 

Consolidated Bay Sport Boat 889 1238 N/A 

Resident Bay Sport 1,152 2,156 89,985 

Nonresident Bay Sport 3 5 22,471 

Short Term Bay Sport a 30 27 15,352 

Recreational Crabbing 712 1144 42,186 

Nonresident Recreational Crabbing 2 2 7,181 

Recreational Crabbing Boat 34 29 4,297 

Natural Resource Magazine 1 7 N/A 

Other b 3 3 N/A 

Total 3,366 6,367 399,027 

MDNR 2011a 

N/A indicates that these licenses were not listed for the state wide data. 

a 

Short term licenses included both 3 day and 5 day license types. 

b 

Other is comprised of special licenses for blind people. 

Tables 1.9-6 and 1.9-7 present counts of freshwater and saltwater fishermen in Dorchester and Wicomico 

counties for the period from 2006 to 2010. In 2010, fishermen from these counties accounted for about 

15.1 percent of the freshwater fishermen in Maryland and about 24.7 percent of the saltwater fishermen in 

Maryland. Additional information on recreational fisheries appears in Section 1.10.




Table 1.9-6 

Maryland Freshwater Recreational Fishermen Counts by County 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Dorchester 661 713 499 480 478 

Wicomico 2,545 2,452 1,909 1,697 1,584 

Out of State 22,476 23,342 21,693 22,364 21,826 


MDNR 2010b, 2011a 

Table 1.9-7 

Maryland Saltwater Recreational Fishermen Counts by County 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Dorchester 3,152 3,468 2,737 2,579 2,482 

Wicomico 5,586 5,622 4,611 4,397 4,141 

Out of State 41,523 43,785 42,505 46,047 45,884 


MDNR 2010b, 2011a. 

1.9.1.4 Commercial Fishing 

In Maryland commercially important target species include blue crabs, channel catfish, oysters, striped 

bass, menhaden, spot, and perch. Some fisheries (e.g., catfish) are essentially open-access fisheries, or 

have no limits, and others are highly regulated (e.g., striped bass) (MDNR 2008). 


As presented in Table 1.9-8, commercial crabbing and unlimited tidal fishing respectively, accounted for 

67 and 25 percent of total licenses issued for the Patuxent River from 2005 to 2009 (MDNR 2011b). 

During this period approximately 451 licenses were issued annually. Note that the total number of 

commercial licenses is not synonymous with the total number of commercial fishermen operating in the 

Patuxent River because an individual may hold more than one license type. Commercially important 

target species include blue crabs, channel catfish, oysters, striped bass, menhaden, spot, and perch. 

1-186




Table 1.9-8 

Patuxent River Commercial Fishing Licenses 

License Types 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Average 

Crab Harvester - 300 pots 7 4 5 5 9 6 

Finfish - Hook and Line 10 5 7 8 12 8 

Ltd Crab Harvester - Active 266 248 261 312 420 301 

Oyster Harvester 10 21 14 10 12 13 

Unlimited Finfish Harvester 7 7 7 11 13 9 

Unlimited Tidal Fish a 121 123 89 110 122 113 

Grand Total 421 408 383 456 588 451 

MDNR 2011b 

2010 commercial license data with not be available until September 2011 

Total number of licenses is not equivalent to total commercial fishermen because an individual may hold more than one license type 

a 

An unlimited tidal fish license is a consolidated license for harvesting finfish and shellfish, including blue crabs with trotlines and up to 

300 crab pots (ASMFC 2006) 


An average of approximately 76.6 commercial fishing licenses were sold for the Nanticoke River for the 

2005-2009 fishing seasons (Table 1.9-9) (MDNR 2011b). One hundred and four commercial fishing 

licenses were sold in 2009. Limited Crab Harvester and Unlimited Tidal fish are consistently sold in the 

highest numbers, with 31 and 46 respectively sold in 2009. Fewer Crab Harvester and Finfish – Hook 

and Line licenses are sold, with only 2 licenses sold in total over the five years (MDNR 2011b). 

Commercially important target species include Blue Crab, Catfish, Croaker, Common Eel, Gizzard Shad, 

Menhaden, Oysters, River herring, Striped Bass, Snapping Turtle, and White Perch. 

1-187




Table 1.9-9 

Nanticoke River Commercial Fishing License Sales 2005-2009 

License Type 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Average 

Crab Harvester - 300 pots 1 0 0 0 1 1 

Finfish - Hook and Line 1 0 0 1 1 1 

Ltd Crab Harvester - Active 18 20 21 24 31 23 

Oyster Harvester 9 6 7 9 16 9 

Unlimited Finfish Harvester 8 7 6 7 9 7 

Unlimited Tidal Fish 29 32 33 40 46 36 

Grand Total 66 65 67 81 104 77 

MDNR 2011b 

2010 commercial license data with not be available until September 2011 

1.9.1.5 Residential and Planned Development 

Existing Right-of-Way 

A review of mapping and aerial photography identified 134 existing residences or structures located 

within 300 feet of existing right-of-way for the proposed transmission line for areas from Chalk Point 

Substation to Chestnut Converter and Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line (Table 1.9- 

10). Twenty-four residences were identified to be within 100 feet of existing right-of-way for these 

Project components. In addition, one development, currently under construction, has been identified 

adjacent to existing right-of-way, in Calvert County just south of Route 231. 

1-188




Project Component 


Chestnut Converter b 

Table 1.9-10 

Structures Near the Project Area 

1-189 

Within 300 feet (100 feet) 

Residences Other Structures a 

31 (6) 29 (11) 

Chestnut Converter c 16 (8) 22 (11) 

Chestnut Converter to WSL d 27 (10) 8 (2) 

WSL to Gateway Converter 3 e (0) 13 (5) 

Gateway Converter c 1 (0) 4 (2) 

Gateway Converter to MD/DE 

SL b 

45 (18) 29 (9) 

a Other structures are commercial properties, sheds, garages, or residential buildings that did not appear to be dwellings. 

b The Project component is located within existing right of way. 

c The analysis of residences and structures within proximity to the converters is based on the property boundary of the site 

rather than the specific location of the physical structure. In each case the siting of the physical structure of the 

converter would be located within the property boundary, as such the distance from the reported residences or structures 

would be greater. 

d While portions of this Project component would be constructed within existing rights-of-way as discussed in Volume I, 

Section 2.0, the rights-of-way are not owned by the Company. Therefore, this component is discussed under the heading 

of New Right-of-Way. 

e Two of these residences are within 300 feet of the property boundary of the proposed site of the Choptank River Station 

rather than the specific location of the physical structure itself. The physical structure of the station would be located 

within the property boundary, as such the distance from the reported residences or structures would be greater. The third 

residence is within 300 feet of a temporary workspace during construction. Following construction the area would 

revert to pre-construction conditions. 

New Right-of-Way 

Where portions of the proposed Project require new right-of-way, in Calvert and Dorchester counties, the 

siting of the transmission line route was selected to traverse primarily rural, unincorporated areas, thereby 

minimizing the presence of residential areas. As such, no planned developments were identified along the 

proposed new right-of-way. Similarly, no planned developments were identified near the proposed 

converters or the transition station. Approximately 30 residences would be within 300 feet of the 

proposed new right-of-way or temporary workspaces for use during construction. Ten residences were 

identified to be within 100 feet of the right-of-way within the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore 

Landing Project component. 

Converter Stations 

Similarly the locations of the Chestnut and Gateway Converters were selected in a manner to minimize 

the presence of residential areas. As such, no planned developments were identified near either of the 

proposed converters. Approximately 17 residences would be within 300 feet of the proposed Converter 

locations and eight residences would be within 100 feet.




1.9.1.6 Recreation and Special Interest Areas 

Several areas of special interest have been identified in or near the Project area (Table 1.9-11). Scenic 

State Routes would be crossed by the right-of-way in several locations. In addition, one state-designated 

Scenic River is crossed by the existing right-of-way. Due to the scenic nature of these byways they are 

discussed in the Visual Resources Section that follows below. 

Critical Areas a 

(21.7) 

Table 1.9-11 

Special Interest Areas in the Project Area 

Name 

(Total Acres) MP Acres Owned/managed by 

Maryland State Scenic River - 


CREP Target Lands 

(27.5) 

Rural Legacy Area 

(93.7) 

Agricultural Land Preserve 

Districts 

(22.2) 

Chesapeake Forest Lands 

(18.3) 

CPCC 0.0 – CPCC 1.1 

CPCC 2.0 – CPCC 2.8 

1-190 

7.6 

CCWSL 2.1 – CCWSL 2.4 0.4 

ESLGC 0.0 – ESLGC 0.3 




13.6 

MDNR Critical Areas 

Commission 

CPCC 1.1 – CPCC 2.0 10.9 d MDNR 

CPCC 2.9 – CPCC 3.2 2.1 

ESLGC 0.5 – ESLGC 0.8 b 


ESLGC 2.6 c 

ESLGC 7.1 – ESLGC 8.1 d 

23.6 

GGSL 2.2 1.8 

MDNR 

CPCC 7.5 – CPCC 9.5 52.9 MDNR and The Nature 

Conservancy 

ESLGC 12.3 – ESLGC 13.3 40.8 



ESLGC 10.4 


22.2 

6.9 

GGSL 1.0 – GGSL 1.5 11.4 

Maryland Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

NRI River - Nanticoke River ESLGC 13.3 – ESLGC 13.7 4.8 d,e NPS 

a 

Acreages reported here are within and outside the 100-foot buffer around the mean high water line of tidal waters, tidal wetlands, and 

tributary streams. For a detailed breakdown of impacts by buffer area see Section 1.4. 

b 

There are two crossings within these mileposts. 

c 

There are four crossings within these mileposts. 

d 

Crossing of open water at this location would not be associated with acquisition of a right-of-way. As such the acreage reported is an 

estimate based on the crossing length and the width of the structures to be installed as detailed in Volume I, Section 2.0.




Maryland Critical Area 

The Maryland Critical Area Act defines Critical Areas as areas within 1,000 feet of tidal waters or tidal 

wetlands. Further, absent mitigation or other determinations, the Maryland Critical Area Act requires a 

minimum 100-foot buffer around all tidal waters, tidal wetlands, and tributary streams within the Critical 

Area. Within the Critical Area there are three land use classifications: Resource Conservation Areas 

(RCA), Limited Development Areas (LDA), and Intensely Developed Areas (IDA). RCAs have the most 

restrictive land-uses and are designated for resource protection and low-intensity residential development 

(CBF 2004). Areas designated for moderate-intensity residential development and some limited 

commercial development are classified as an LDA. IDAs have been designated for high-intensity 

development. 

Approximately 7.6 acres of the aerial transmission line from the Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut 

Converter would cross Critical Areas categorized as RCA. In a letter dated July 14, 2010, the CAC 

provided approval of the Company’s request to add a second transmission line along the existing right-ofway 

in this area. 

The underground transmission line of the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing segment would 

cross approximately 0.4 acre of Critical Areas categorized as LDA. In addition, the Western Shore 

Landing to Gateway Converter Project component would cross approximately 13.6 acres categorized as 

RCA. 

Scenic Rivers 

The Patuxent River is a Maryland State Scenic River. The Maryland State Scenic Rivers act was passed 

in 1968 to recognize rivers or portions thereof that possess outstanding scenic, geologic, ecologic, 

historic, recreational, agricultural, fish, wildlife, cultural, or other resource values. Further, the Act 

mandates the preservation and protection of natural values associated with rivers designated as scenic 

and/or wild (MDNR 2011c). This scenic river is currently crossed by the existing transmission line, and 

an additional crossing is planned to occur upstream of the existing crossing between MP CPCC 1.1 to MP 

CPCC 2.0. 

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) 

The CREP in Maryland offers incentives to landowners to encourage practices which reduce sediment 

and nutrients in Chesapeake Bay and improve wildlife habitat. Lands enrolled within the program must 

meet criteria-based multiple factors including erodibility, proximity to waterbodies, suitability for 

planting, and suitability for habitat restoration (USDA 2010). Approximately 2.1 acres of land identified 

by MDNR as being potentially eligible to be enrolled in the CREP would be crossed by the existing rightof-way 

for the transmission line from the Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter. In addition, the 

proposed right-of-way for the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Project component would 

cross approximately 23.6 acres of area identified as potentially eligible 2 for CREP easements. Finally, 

approximately 1.8 acres of CREP-eligible lands would be crossed by the existing right-of-way for the 

proposed Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line Project component. 

2 For a property to be eligible for enrollment in the CREP, the property must be currently used for agricultural 

purposes and must be within 150 feet of a waterbody. 

1-191




Maryland Rural Legacy Program 

The Maryland Rural Legacy Program protects large contiguous tracts of lands with cultural and natural 

significance through grants made to local applicants (MDNR 2010c). The Calvert Creeks Rural legacy 

area is located in Calvert County and totals 52.9 acres. This area is traversed by the existing right-of-way 

for the transmission line of the Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter Project component. The 

Nanticoke Rural legacy area is located in Dorchester County and totals 40.8 acres. This area would be 

crossed by the proposed right-of-way for the transmission line of the Western Shore Landing to Gateway 

Converter Project component. 

Agricultural Preservation Districts 

As discussed in Section 1.5, Agricultural Preservation Districts are lands, such as productive agricultural 

land and woodland, to be protected as open space and to provide for the continued production of food and 

fiber. These lands are established under the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation 

(MALPF), which permanently restricts development in these areas by acquiring agricultural preservation 

easements. An interested, qualified landowner voluntarily creates an Agricultural Preservation District, 

containing one or more tracts of land. Easements within the district may then be donated or purchased so 

that the land would perpetually remain in agricultural use. This accomplishes the mission of the MALPF 

by preserving farmland and woodland, curbing urban development expansion, protecting wildlife habitat, 

and enhancing the environmental quality of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Approximately 22.2 

acres of these lands would be traversed by the underground portion of the Western Shore Landing to 

Gateway Converter Project component. Alternatively, no Agricultural Land Preserve Easements would 

be crossed by the proposed Project. 

Chesapeake Forest Lands 

As discussed in Section 1.5, the Chesapeake Forest Lands consist of more than 66,000 acres of 

discontinuous forested tracts managed for natural resource protection, maintenance of regional character 

and water quality, and expansion of public access (MDNR 2010d). Approximately 6.9 acres of these 

lands would be traversed by the portion of the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Project 

component between MP ESLGC 10.4 and MP ESLGC 14.4 (Table 1.9-11). In addition, the existing 

right-of-way for the Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line Project component between 

MP GGSL 1.0 and MP GGSL 1.5 would cross approximately 11.4 acres of Chesapeake Forest Lands 

(Table 1.9-11). 

Nationwide Rivers Inventory 

Streams included in the NRI, which is managed by the NPS, are considered to possess “outstandingly 

remarkable natural or cultural values judged to be of more than local or regional significance” (NPS 

2011). The proposed Project component’s route would cross one NRI-listed stream 3 , the Nanticoke 

River. 

The proposed crossings of the Nanticoke River would be located just north of the Route 50 Bridge. No 

NPS permits are required for the crossing of NRI-listed waterways. Additional discussion of the 

proposed crossing of the Nanticoke River and its NRI-designation are discussed in Section 1.3. 

3 The NRI-listed reach of the Patuxent River does not extend north to the area of the proposed Project’s crossing. 

1-192




1.9.1.7 Maryland’s Smart Growth Program 

In 1997, the Maryland General Assembly passed five pieces of legislation and budget initiatives, 

collectively referred to as “Smart Growth”. Smart Growth directs the State of Maryland to target 

programs and funding to support established communities and locally designated growth areas, and to 

protect rural areas. The Priority Funding Area (PFA) law provides a geographic focus for the State’s 

investment in growth-related infrastructure. The remaining four pieces of legislation - Brownfields, Live 

Near Your Work, Job Creation Tax Credits, and Rural Legacy - target specific State resources to preserve 

land outside of PFAs, to encourage growth inside PFAs, and to ensure that existing communities continue 

to provide a high quality of life for their residents (Maryland Department of Planning [MDP], 2008). 

The four primary goals for Smart Growth are: 

Save the State’s most valuable natural resources before they are lost; 

Support existing communities by targeting resources to support development in areas where 

infrastructure exists; 

Prevent public expenditures on unnecessary costs of building the infrastructure required to 

support sprawl; and 

Provide State residents with a high quality of life, whether choosing to live in a rural 

community, suburb, small town or city (MDP 2008). 

Maryland has adopted the following principles of Smart Growth: 

Mixed land uses; 

Compact building design; 

Housing opportunities and choices; 

Walkable communities; 

Attractive communities; 

Open space, farmland, natural beauty, critical environmental areas; 

Transportation options; 

Predictable, fair, and cost effective development decisions; and 

Community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions (MDP 2008). 

1.9.1.8 Visual Resources 

To assess potential visual impacts we consider how each Project component relates visually to the 

existing environment. Visual resources are a function of geology, climate, and historical processes, and 

are influenced by topographic relief, vegetation, water, wildlife, land use, human uses, and development. 

Potential visual receptors within the Project area include nearby residents, passing motorists, commercial 

and recreational fishermen, recreational boaters, as well as users of other recreational and special use 

areas. The various receptors identified within the Project area are described above. 

The proposed Project could alter existing visual resources in three ways: (1) construction activity and 

equipment may temporarily alter viewscapes; (2) construction and right-of-way maintenance would alter 

1-193




existing vegetation patterns; and (3) aboveground facilities would represent permanent alterations to the 

viewscape. 

The State of Maryland has designated 19 scenic byways which include a total of 2,487 miles of roadways. 

Routes given this designation are generally characterized by areas of scenic beauty and areas of historical 

and cultural significance (Maryland Department of Transportation 2008). The proposed Project would 

cross or is within 0.1 mile of three existing scenic byways and one proposed scenic byway. 

1.9.1.8.1 Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter 

The entire route of this Project component would occur within existing cleared rights-of-way comprised 

primarily of agricultural and forested lands 4 . In general, dense stands of deciduous trees on adjacent 

property greatly diminish the overall visibility of the existing transmission lines. Existing transmission 

structures are visible over treelines in some locations when viewed from elevated viewpoints or open 

lands and agricultural areas. 

The viewshed at the Patuxent River crossing is characterized by the Company’s existing four steel lattice 

transmission structures and a series of shorter steel lattice structures belonging to another company. The 

dominant visual features in the area of the crossing are cooling structures and smokestacks associated 

with the Chalk Point Generating Station which are taller than the existing transmission structures and 

visible from a wide area. Existing transmission line structures are visible from some nearby locations, but 

in other shoreline locations visibility is greatly restricted by wooded areas. 

As discussed above, the existing Project right-of-way crosses Maryland Route 2/4 which is part of Scenic 

Byway #13, “Star-Spangled Banner”. In general, existing transmission structures within this Project 

component’s right-of-way are set well back from public roads and the entire line of transmission 

structures is typically only evident at the point where the Company’s existing Project right-of-way 

traverses the public roadway. 

1.9.1.8.2 Chestnut Converter 

The properties identified for location of the Chestnut Converter are comprised primarily of agricultural 

and forested lands. Similar to the Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Project component, nearby forest 

lands would diminish the overall visibility of the Chestnut Converter. However, the converter could be 

visible from elevated viewpoints, motorists on nearby roadways, or from nearby open lands and 

agricultural areas. 

This Project component would be located near Maryland Route 2/4 which is part of Scenic Byway #13, 

“Star-Spangled Banner”. 

4 Due to the methods used to determine land cover/vegetation for large-scale data sets (such as the NLCD); actual 

field conditions may differ from those reported. Areas within maintained rights-of-way specified as containing 

mixed forest vegetation may contain open vegetation that is not represented in the values reported in the NLCD 

data and this table. Therefore, the reported acres of forest land are an overestimate of the actual amount of 

forest lands in the Project area. 

1-194




1.9.1.8.3 Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing 

The entire route of this Project component is underground construction and would occur within existing 

cleared rights-of-way comprised primarily of open and agricultural lands and would not be visible. 

The Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing component does not cross and is not within 0.1 mile 

of any Maryland Scenic Byways. 

1.9.1.8.4 Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter 

The upland portions of the proposed right-of-way for this Project component are primarily comprised of 

agricultural and forested lands. The siting of the transmission line route was selected to traverse primarily 

rural, unincorporated areas, thereby diminishing the overall visibility. This Project component also 

includes the construction of the Choptank River Station. The location proposed for this station is 

predominately agricultural lands. 

The Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter component’s proposed right-of-way would cross 

Maryland Route 16 which is part of Scenic Byway #18, “Harriet Tubman”, and would parallel Maryland 

Route 50 which is part of Scenic Byway #17, “Chesapeake Country”. Currently, plans are under way to 

establish the Michener’s Chesapeake Country Scenic Byway, which would span Talbot, Dorchester, and 

Caroline Counties to connect two existing byways: the Chesapeake Country Scenic Byway and the Blue 

Crab Scenic Byway. The route for this proposed State Scenic byway would be crossed by this Project 

component’s right-of-way in two locations. 

1.9.1.8.5 Gateway Converter 

The properties identified for location of the Gateway Converter are comprised primarily of agricultural 

and forested lands. Similar to the Chestnut Converter, nearby forest lands would diminish the overall 

visibility of the Gateway Converter. However, the converter could be visible from elevated viewpoints or 

from nearby open lands and agricultural areas. 

No Maryland Scenic Byways cross the Gateway Converter property or are located within 0.1 mile of the 

property. 

1.9.1.8.6 Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line 

The entire route of this Project component would occur within existing cleared rights-of-way comprised 

primarily of open and agricultural lands. Along portions of the existing right-of-way, dense stands of 

deciduous trees on adjacent property greatly diminish the overall visibility of the existing transmission 

lines. Existing transmission structures are visible over treelines in some locations when viewed from 

elevated viewpoints or open lands and agricultural areas. New structures for this Project Component will 

be as high as 135 feet tall, which would be about 50 feet taller than the existing structures. 

The Gateway Converter to the Maryland/Delaware State Line component does not cross and is not within 

0.1 mile of any Maryland Scenic Byways. 


This section discusses impacts to the previously described land types and uses within the Project area. 

Impacts are categorized as either temporary or permanent. Temporarily impacted areas would revert to 

1-195




their preconstruction use and land cover type following construction, while permanent impacts would 

continue throughout the operational life of the Project. 

Potential impacts associated with the crossing of the Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River are analyzed in 

Volume III. 


1.9.2.1.1 General Land Use 

In general, land use impacts resulting from installation and operation of the Chalk Point Substation to the 

Chestnut Converter component would be minor. All of this Project component’s activities would occur 

within the existing right-of-way. Volume I, Section 2.0 provides a detailed discussion of construction 

methods. Aside from the installation of towers for the Patuxent River crossing, impacts associated with 

changes in the land use of areas within the existing right-of-way resulting from installation activities 

would be temporary. These impacts include: areas needed as temporary work spaces; areas used for 

equipment and material storage; areas where shrubs and brush will be cleared for access reasons; and 

other areas where the designated land use will return to its original state after the Project is completed. 

Temporary impacts within this Project component occur over 2.5 acres of land in Prince George’s County 

and 12.8 acres of land in Calvert County (Table 1.9-12). The total area of temporarily impacted land over 

both counties would be 15.3 acres. Permanent impacts resulting from operation of this Project component 

are primarily associated with the conversion of forested lands. Permanent impacts within this Project 

component occur over 7.9 acres of land in Prince George’s County and 0.1 acre of land in Calvert County 

(Table 1.9-12). The total area of permanently impacted land over both counties is 8.0 acres. 

Maryland 

County 

Prince 

George’s 

Open Land 

Table 1.9-12 

Impacts to Land Use Types in the Chalk Point Substation to 

Chestnut Converter Component Area (Acres) a 

Agricultural 

Land 

Forested 

Lands Open Water 

1-196 

Developed 

Lands Total 

Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm 

2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 7.9 

Calvert 11.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.8 0.1 

Total 13.6 0.1 1.4 0.0 0.3 7.9




line that contains a circuit. Therefore, the only additional clearing would be maintenance type clearing to 

remove any undesirable species that have established within the existing right-of-way. This vegetation 

would need to be removed from the right-of-way in order to comply with safety and reliability standards, 

such as NERC and FERC for vegetation maintenance. Clearing of the un-maintained portion of the 

existing right-of-way would occur for about 1 mile between the Chalk Point Generating Station and the 

Patuxent River. As such, construction activities within the existing right-of-way would result in the 

temporary disturbance of 15.0 acres of agricultural and open lands (Table 1.9-12). These temporarily 

disturbed areas would be relatively small and natural revegetation would be expected to occur following 

construction activities. 

Installation of new structure foundations would result in a conversion of 0.1 acre of open land to 

developed land. Similarly, the new structures in the Patuxent River would result in permanent impacts to 

less than 0.1 acre of open water. 

1.9.2.1.3 Forested Lands 

As discussed in Volume I, Section 2.3, the existing right-of-way is currently managed in a cleared state 

for the portion that contains a transmission circuit. The total acreage of forest vegetation that would be 

disturbed during Project component installation is estimated at 8.2 acres. This total includes 5.5 acres of 

forest land that will be converted to open land and 2.4 acres of forested wetlands that will be converted to 

emerging wetlands. All of these impacts occur within Prince George’s County. Temporary impacts are 

expected over approximately 0.3 acre in Calvert County. As described above, there are over 267,000 

acres of forest land in Prince George’s and Calvert Counties. As such, the limited amount of clearing 

within the existing right-of-way is not expected to result in significant impacts to forested lands within 

this Project component area. 


Construction and operation of this Project component would result in permanent and temporary impacts 

to areas of open water. Temporary impacts would be associated with construction work areas and rightof-way 

access. The Patuxent River crossing would be single circuit lattice steel structures (matching the 

existing structures), to be installed adjacent to the existing single circuit structures. The centerline to 

centerline spacing between the existing and new structures would be about 150 feet. The height of the 

structures would be about 162 feet. The structures are approximately 100 feet wide, and the overall width 

of both circuits is about 250 feet. Each transmission structure typically would consist of piles 

approximately 2 feet in diameter which would be driven into the bottom of the Patuxent River to a depth 

necessary to support the tower loads. The piles would be topped by concrete on which the transmission 

lattice tower work would be bolted. 

Overall impacts to open water from construction and installation of this Project component would be 

negligible, temporarily impacting less than 0.1 acre. Similarly operation of the Chalk Point Substation to 

Chestnut Converter Transmission Line would be negligible with less than 0.1 acre of open water impacts. 

1-197





Construction and operation of this Project component is not expected to impact the land use of any 

developed lands. 

1.9.2.1.6 Recreational Boating 

Potential Project-related impacts to recreational boaters include the diversion of recreational boaters en 

route to or from their destination and the diversion of recreational boating trips destined for areas nearby 

this Project component area during the construction period. Some navigable waters within the Patuxent 

River would be inaccessible during the four- to six-month construction period due to the presence of 

construction vessels. To reduce potential impacts during construction activities, the timing and 

implementation of construction and installation activities, such as travel lanes, standoff distances, and 

speed constraints, would be relayed to commercial and recreational vessels via a USCG Notice to 

Mariners. It is expected that only a small number of recreational boating trips would be destined for areas 

occupied by construction equipment during the four- to six-month construction period and Project 

structures after construction activities are completed. Recreational boaters traversing this Project 

component area would also need to divert around the construction equipment and Project structures. 

Given the size of the area impacted relative to the total navigable waters in the area, impacts to 

recreational boating associated with the navigation and destination of recreational vessels would be 

negligible. 

Recreational boating in other waterbodies within the existing right-of-way for this Project component 

would be temporarily impacted during the construction period. These waterbodies would be bridged or 

matted, as appropriate, for access as discussed in Section 1.3. Thus, disruptions to activities within any 

one waterbody would be short-term and temporary. 

Following construction, all recreational boating activities in the Patuxent River and the other waterbodies 

within the existing right-of-way would proceed as normal. For a discussion of recreational boating as it 

relates to tourism see Section 1.10. 

1.9.2.1.7 Recreational Fishing 

Impacts to recreational fishing in the Patuxent River resulting from this Project component would be 

associated with the construction of transmission structures within the river. As discussed in Section 1.7, 

construction-related impacts to stocks of target species and to habitat degradation are not expected. This 

Project component would include the construction of four transmission structures which would occupy 

less than 0.01 acre of river bottom fishing grounds. Additional recreational fishing grounds occupied by 

construction vessels would also be temporarily inaccessible during the four- to six-month construction 

period. It is expected that the recreational fishing activity that would have occurred in areas impacted by 

Project construction would be diverted to surrounding areas. This diversion may contribute to increased 

congestion at other nearby sites and/or lost recreational trips during construction. These impacts would 

be short-term and minor because construction within the Patuxent River would only occur for four- to six- 

months. 

Recreational fishing in other waterbodies within the existing Project right-of-way would be temporarily 

impacted during the construction period. These waterbodies would be bridged or matted, as appropriate, 

for access as discussed in Section 1.3. Disruptions to activities within any one waterbody would be 

short-term and temporary. 

1-198




Following construction, all recreational fishing activities in these waterbodies would be allowed to 

proceed as normal. For a discussion of recreational fishing as it relates to tourism see Section 1.10. 

1.9.2.1.8 Commercial Fishing 

As discussed in Section 1.7, construction-related impacts to stocks of target species and habitat 

degradation are not expected. This Project component includes the construction of four transmission 

structures in the Patuxent River, which would occupy less than 0.01 acre of river bottom fishing grounds. 

Additional fishing grounds occupied by construction vessels would also be temporarily inaccessible 

during the four- to six- month construction period. It is expected that the commercial fishing activity that 

would have occurred in areas impacted by construction of this Project component would be diverted to 

surrounding areas, resulting in a negligible increase in harvesting congestion. These impacts would be 

short-term and minor because construction within the Patuxent River would only occur for four- to sixmonths. 

Commercial fishing in other waterbodies within the existing right-of-way would be temporarily impacted 

during the construction period. These waterbodies would be bridged or matted, as appropriate, for access 

as discussed in Section 1.3. Thus disruptions to activities within any one waterbody would be short-term 

and temporary. 

Following construction, all commercial fishing activities in these waterbodies would proceed as normal. 

1.9.2.1.9 Residential and Planned Development 

Thirty-one existing residences are located along the existing right-of-way. For those residences adjacent 

to the existing Project right-of-way, the Company would institute the following impact minimization 

measures: 

Ensure that construction is completed as quickly as practicable to minimize the construction 

period in areas where residential areas are adjacent to the existing Project right-of-way; 

Repair any damages to residential property resulting from construction activities 

Monitor and maintain safety controls to insure each site is left in a manner to not endanger 

the public, which may include temporary fencing, plating or barricading any open 

excavations; and 

Develop a Construction Monitoring Manual to comply with environmental permit conditions, 

mitigation measures and identification of sensitive resources within this Project component 

area. 

The Company would attempt to maintain a safe distance between residences and any construction work 

area wherever feasible. Residences nearby the existing right-of-way would potentially be impacted by 

both dust and noise associated with construction activities and equipment. Potential impacts associated 

with air quality and noise are addressed in Section 1.12 and Section 1.13, respectively. Based on the 

Company’s implementation of the residential impact minimization measures described above in 

conjunction with the Company’s site-specific construction plans, impacts from construction activities 

would be temporary and minor. Visual impacts are addressed in a following discussion of visual 

resources. 

One planned development has been identified adjacent to the Company’s existing Project right-of-way. 

However, this Project component would not alter the land use of areas within any planned developments 

1-199




adjacent to the right-of-way and impacts resulting from dust and noise from construction activities would 

be temporary and minor. 

1.9.2.1.10 Recreational and Special Interest Areas 

Several areas of special interest have been identified as nearby the existing right-of-way within this 

Project component area. Construction and operation of this Project component would occur with the 

existing right-of-way and would not restrict access to recreational sites occurring outside of the right-ofway. 

Noise and dust associated with construction of this Project component would result in temporary, 

minor impacts to portions of recreational and special interest areas that abut the existing right-of-way (see 

Table 1.9-11). Impacts from this Project component associated with air quality and noise are discussed in 

Sections 1.12 and 1.13, respectively. In general, construction of this Project component could result in 

the temporary restriction of special interest areas in cases where it is collocated with existing right-ofway. 

This would represent a temporary, minor impact to the area, ending following the completion of 


This Project component would cross CREP easements and Rural Legacy Areas along existing right-ofway 

in Calvert County where much of this land is currently classified as open land. As such, installation 

of this Project component would result in short-term, minor impact to vegetation from clearing. After 

installation, the cleared portion of right-of-way would revert back to the previous land type. Because this 

portion of this Project component is within existing right-of-way, there would be no change in land use of 

any existing CREP easements or Legacy Areas. CREP and Rural Legacy Areas are also discussed in 

Section 1.5. 

Approximately 7.6 acres of the aerial transmission line would cross Critical Areas categorized as RCA. 

As previously discussed, in a letter dated July 14, 2010, the Critical Area Commission provided approval 

of the Company’s request to add a second transmission line along the existing right-of-way for these 

Project components. Critical Areas are also discussed in Section 1.5. 

Impacts to special interest areas related to wildlife and water resources are addressed in Section 1.6 and 

Section 1.3, respectively. Impacts to special interest areas with cultural or historical significance are 

addressed in Section 1.11. 

1.9.2.1.11 Maryland’s Smart Growth Program 

This Project component is consistent with the goals of the Smart Growth Program by enhancing a critical 

element of public infrastructure in existing right-of-way. 

1.9.2.1.12 Visual Resources 

Visual impacts associated with this Project component would differ for the portion at the Patuxent River 

crossing and the portion occurring on land within the existing right-of-way. Four transmission structures 

would be constructed in the Patuxent River parallel to the two sets of existing transmission structures at 

the crossing. The height of these new transmission structures in the river would be the same as existing 

structures which are approximately 162 feet in height. Construction vessels would be visible to nearby 

fishermen, recreational boaters and shoreline receptors during the anticipated four- to six-month 

construction period. This would result in temporary, minor visual impacts to these receptors. 

The operation of the new transmission structures and circuit within the Patuxent River would result in a 

permanent visual impact to nearby fishermen, recreational, boaters and shoreline receptors. However, 

1-200




visual impacts associated with the Patuxent River crossing are considered minor given the presence of 

existing transmission structures and industrial facilities within the existing viewshed (Figure 1.9-1). 

Densely wooded areas near the shoreline also diminish the visibility of the structures to inland areas. 

Project component construction activities in upland areas within the existing right-of-way would include 

vegetation clearing, the replacement of existing transmission structures, the installation of new 

transmission structures, and the installation of an additional circuit. While the majority of the existing 

right-of-way is already maintained for reduced vegetation heights, vegetation clearing would be necessary 

within a portion of the existing right-of-way. The total acreage of forest vegetation that would be 

disturbed during Project component installation will be 8.2 acres. Of the 8.2 acres, 7.9 acres will be 

permanently converted and 0.3 acre will be temporarily disturbed during construction. 

Thirty-one residences have currently been identified within 300 feet of the Chalk Point Substation to 

Chestnut Converter Project Component. The Company’s mitigation measures associated with residences 

in proximity to the proposed Project are discussed in Section 1.9.2.1.8. In general, densely wooded areas 

border the existing right-of-way, thus vegetation clearing would not typically result in the full removal of 

vegetative screening of the existing transmission structures to nearby visual receptors. However, clearing 

in some locations could result in increased visibility of construction vehicles and equipment during the 

construction phase. The new and replacement land-based structures installed within the existing right-ofway 

would range in height between 125 feet and 195 feet. On average, the new and replacement 

structures would be 38 feet taller than the existing structures. As discussed in Volume I, Section 2.3, 

these structures would be offset from the existing structures generally 50 feet to 200 feet. The visibility 

of these new taller structures and the additional circuit would be diminished by densely wooded areas 

bordering and adjacent to the existing right-of-way. 

This Project component’s right-of-way crosses Scenic Byway #13. Since the right-of-way at this crossing 

is existing right-of-way, visual impacts to motorists on the byway would not be permanent. Given the 

expected progression of construction vehicles and equipment, along with the existing vegetative buffer 

bordering the existing right-of-way, visual impacts resulting from the presence of construction activities 

would be short term and minor. 

Following construction, the visibility of the replacement structures, the eight new structures, and the 

additional circuit would generally be diminished by the densely wooded areas bordering and adjacent to 

the existing right-of-way. Given the presence of the existing structures and circuit within the right-of-way 

and of the existing vegetative buffer, visual impacts resulting from operation of this Project component 

would be long-term and minor. The Company is continuing to evaluate visual impacts of this Project 

component. 



The Chestnut Converter Project Component would be constructed in Calvert County, Maryland on land 

adjacent to the existing right-of-way on a parcel of land approximately 131.3 acres in size. The primary 

impacts to land use will occur as a result of the construction of the two converter stations and the AC 

switching station. Additional acreage within the parcel would be needed for staging areas, equipment 

1-201

Current Viewshed 








user to determine if the data on this 







law. 

Figure 1.9-1 

Current and Simulated Viewshed 

of the Patuxent River 

Simulated Viewshed 

10 Corporate Circle, Suite 300 



ph. (302) 395-1919 

fx (302) 395-1920 

Date: March 31, 2011




storage and parking areas. Those areas not being utilized during operations would be vegetated as 

appropriate following construction activities. Permanent impacts to the area will include developing 

lands currently classified as open, agricultural, or forested lands, and will also include the conversion of 

some forested land to open land or emerging wetlands. The total area expected to be permanently 

impacted by this Project component is 50.0 acres (Table 1.9-13). See Volume I, Section 2.0 for a more 

detailed description of the construction methods. 

Maryland 

County 

Table 1.9-13 

Impacts to Land Use Types in the Chestnut Converter Component Area (Acres) a 

Open Land 

Agricultural 

Land 

Forested 


1-203 

Developed 

Lands Total 


Calvert 0.0 0.1 0.0 22.5 0.0 27.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 

Total 0.0 0.1 0.0 22.5 0.0 27.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 

a Values are rounded to the nearest tenth of an acre which may cause discrepancies in the totals. Values less than 0.05 acres will show as 0.0. 


More than 26 thousand acres of land in Calvert County are classified as farmlands. Construction 

activities will result in permanent impacts to approximately 22.5 acres of agricultural land and 0.1 acre of 

open land for a total of 22.6 acres (Table 1.9-13). This land will be permanently converted to developed 

land. Although this impact would be permanent, lasting for at least the life of the Project, the overall 

impact would not be significant given the limited acreage involved. Temporarily disturbed areas total less 

than 0.1 acres and would be of minor impact. 


Clearing would be required for construction of the Chestnut Converter. The total acreage of forest 

vegetation that would be disturbed during Project component installation will be approximately 27.1 acres 

(Table 1.9-13). Land cleared for construction of the converter would be permanently changed to 

developed land. Of the 27.1 acres, 14.9 acres will be converted to developed land, as the site of the 

Chestnut Converter, the remaining 12.2 acres of clearing will be under or adjacent to the areas where the 

AC lines will enter the station from the existing right-of-way and where AC line will connect to the 

Chestnut Converter. The 12.2 acres of cleared land will be converted to 1.8 acres of emerging wetlands 

and 10.4 acres of open land. 


As discussed in Section 1.3, the Company has not determined final site layout, therefore, it is not known 

if the 800 linear feet of the waterbodies present within the Chestnut Converter property would be directly 

impacted; although the current analysis indicates 0.2 acre of permanent impact to open water. Permanent 

impacts to these waterbodies would be avoided and minimized as much as possible during final 

engineering. If the need for the installation of culverts or the redirection of waterbodies is determined 

during final engineering,





Construction and operation of this Project component is not expected to impact any areas of developed 

land. 


At present the siting of this Project component is generally consistent with the goals of the Smart Growth 

Program by enhancing a critical element of public infrastructure in a cost effective manner to connect 

existing infrastructure, while minimizing the need for new development to the extent practicable. 


Visual impacts associated with the Chestnut Converter would be associated with vegetation clearing, the 

presence of construction activities, and the presence of the new facilities. The total acreage of forest 

vegetation that would be disturbed during Project component installation will be 27.1 acres (Table 1.9- 

13). Cleared forested vegetation would be permanently converted to open land or developed land, 

resulting in a permanent impact to the viewshed. 

Sixteen residences have currently been identified within 300 feet of the property boundary selected for 

location of the Chestnut Converter. The physical structure of the converter would be located within the 

property boundary, as such the distance from the reported residences or structures would be greater. The 

Company’s mitigation measures associated with residences in proximity to the proposed Project are 

discussed in Section 1.9.2.1.8. No recreational or special interest areas have been identified near the 

proposed Chestnut Converter. However, Scenic Byway #13 is located near the proposed location of the 

converter. Given the brief construction period and limited amount of visual receptors in this Project 

component’s area, visual impacts resulting from the presence of construction activities would be shortterm 

and minor. Following construction, the visibility of the converter station, would generally be 

diminished by the densely wooded areas bordering and adjacent to the converter station, as well as, the 

construction of berms with vegetation to provide additional screening. 


In general, land use impacts resulting from installation and operation of the Chestnut Converter to 

Western Shore Landing component would be minor. This Project component would be installed 

underground within an existing right-of-way. The HDD method would be used to install the transmission 

line from the Chestnut Converter to the BGE right-of-way. The underground transmission line would be 

direct buried within a 35-foot-wide portion of the existing BGE right-of-way, and installed within a 40foot-wide 

right-of-way beneath Western Shores Boulevard within a duct bank. An HDD would be used 

to install the transmission line from the landfall location for a maximum of 2,000 feet to the bottom of the 

Chesapeake Bay. Permanent impacts would result from the access roads within the right of way that will 

follow the transmission lines and from the installation of manholes for access points along the route. 

Approximately 10.2 acres within this Project component would be permanently impacted (Table 1.9-14). 

See Volume I, Section 2.0 for a more detailed description of the construction methods. 

1-204




Maryland 

County 

Open Land 

Table 1.9-14 

Impacts to Land Use Types in the Chestnut Converter to 

Western Shore Landing Component Area (Acres) a 

Agricultural 

Land 

Forested 


1-205 

Developed 

Lands Total 


Calvert 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 10.2 

Total 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 10.2 

a Values are rounded to the nearest tenth of an acre which may cause discrepancies in the totals. Values less than .05 acres will show as 0.0. 


Construction activities within the right-of-way could result in the temporary disturbance of these lands 

within the footprint of construction right-of-way. Impacts resulting from construction of this Project 

component would be temporary and minor. The existing Company right-of-way has been maintained in a 

cleared state for the portion of the line that contains a circuit. Installation of the underground lines would 

result in a permanent conversion, resulting from the installation of an access road that would be 

constructed between the two buried cables and from manholes, installed at a frequency as necessitated by 

construction constraints, and access areas. Approximately 6.9 acres of open land will be permanently 

impacted through a conversion to developed land (Table 1.9-14). Given the amount of open and 

agricultural lands existing in Calvert County, over 26 thousand acres, impacts to these lands from the 

installation of the transmission line would be minor. 

Agricultural lands located within the existing right-of-way would continue use for agriculture following 

the construction period. 


The existing right-of-way for this Project component is currently managed in a cleared state. As such the 

clearing of forested land within the existing right-of-way would be limited. A total of 2.1 acres of 

forested land would be converted to developed land as a result of the access road that would be 

constructed between the two buried cables and from the manholes as described in detail in Volume I, 

Section 2.0. 


Construction and operation of this Project component would result in approximately 0.2 acre of 

permanent impacts to lands classified as open water. There would be no temporary impacts to areas of 

open water. Overall impacts to open water from operation of the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore 

Landing Transmission Line would be negligible. Potential impacts to surface water resources are 

discussed in detail within Section 1.3.





Construction and operation of this Project component will result in a permanent impact to approximately 

1.0 acre of developed land (Table 1.9-14). Impacts are a result of the temporary disturbance associated 

with burying the cables and the permanent impacts associated with the access road and manholes 



Twenty-seven residences have currently been identified within 300 feet of the Chestnut Converter to 

Western Shore Landing Project Component. The Company’s mitigation measures associated with 

residences in proximity to the proposed Project are discussed in Section 1.9.2.1.8. At this time no 

planned developments have been identified adjacent to the right-of-way. However, in the event that a 

planned development becomes platted, this Project component would not alter the land use of areas within 

the planned development and impacts resulting from dust and noise construction activities within this 

Project component right-of-way would be temporary and minor. Potential permanent impacts to the 

planned development would be associated with visual resources and are addressed in a subsequent 

discussion of impacts to visual resources. 


As discussed above, Critical Areas categorized as LDA have been identified along the proposed right-ofway 

for the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing component. The proposed use of an HDD at 

the Western Shore Landing area would likely reduce Project-related impacts to critical areas. Critical 

Areas are also discussed in Section 1.5. 


The Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing component is consistent with the goals of the Smart 

Growth Program by enhancing a critical element of public infrastructure in existing Project right-of-way. 


Visual impacts associated with the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing component would be 

associated with clearing and construction activities. While the majority of the existing transmission line 

right-of-way is already maintained for reduced vegetation heights, vegetation clearing may be necessary 

within a portion of the existing right-of-way. Clearing of herbaceous or scrub-shrub vegetation types in 

some locations could result in increased visibility of construction vehicles and equipment during the 

construction phase. Given the expected progression of construction vehicles and equipment, along with 

the existing vegetative buffer bordering the existing right-of-way, visual impacts resulting from the 

presence of construction activities would be short-term and minor. 

Twenty-seven residences have currently been identified within 300 feet of the Chestnut Converter to 

Western Shore Landing Project Component. This Project component would be installed underground; 

therefore, it would not be visible during operation. The installation of an access road and manholes 

would result in a permanent conversion of 9.2 acres to developed lands (Table 1.9-14), but given the 

location within an existing right-of-way, visual impacts resulting from these features would be negligible. 

1-206






In general, land use impacts resulting from installation and construction of the transmission line 

associated with the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter component would be variable, 

depending on the location and type of construction. Installation activities across the Chesapeake Bay and 

Choptank River would occur below the surface of the water. Discussion of the impacts associated with 

the crossing of the Bay and the Choptank River are found in Volume III and Volume V. The land-based 

portion of this Project component has impacts in two counties, Dorchester and Wicomico. Existing rightof-way 

would be used for underground cable installation approximately one mile from the Eastern Shore 

landing to the Choptank River Station. Land-based construction of this Project component would require 

about 14 miles of new transmission line right-of-way, including a new crossing of the Nanticoke River, 

which would result in some permanent land use conversions. Permanent impacts resulting from this 

Project component are also associated with visual resources. 

A total of 233.7 acres of land are expected to be permanently impacted by construction and operation of 

this Project component (Table 9.1-15). Of those, 218.6 acres are in Dorchester County and the remaining 

15.1 acres are in Wicomico County (Table 1.9-15). The permanent impacts are primarily associated with 

the clearing of forest lands for the new transmission line right of way. Temporary impacts resulting from 

this Project component are primarily a result of matting in wetland areas and of clearing brush and shrubs 

in open land for the new right of way. After construction and revegetation, this land is expected to 

quickly return to its previous state as open land. A total of 45.1 acres of land will be temporarily affected 

by this Project component (Table 1.9-15). Temporary impacts total 22.9 acres in Dorchester County and 

22.3 acres in Wicomico County (Table 1.9-15). 

Maryland 

County 

Open Land 

Table 1.9-15 

Impacts to Land Use Types in the Western Shore Landing to 

Gateway Converter Component Area (Acres) a 

Agricultural 

Land 

Forested 


1-207 

Developed 

Lands Total 


Dorchester 22.5 1.6 0.0 6.4 0.4 210.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 22.9 218.6 

Wicomico 22.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.3 15.1 

Total 44.7 1.7 0.0 6.4 0.4 225.6




Of the 22.5 acres of open land temporarily impacted in Dorchester County, 18.3 acres will be associated 

with matting in wetland areas and 4.2 acres of scrub-shrub uplands and wetlands will be cleared. Of the 

22.3 acres temporarily impacted in Wicomico County, 6.2 acres of wetlands will be impacted by matting 

and 16.0 acres of scrub-shrub upland and wetlands will be cleared. Permanent impacts will also occur as 

a result of the construction of transmission towers and the construction of the Choptank River Station. A 

total of 8.1 acres of open and agricultural land will be permanently impacted through the construction of 

this Project component (Table 1.9-15). Dorchester County will have 1.6 acres of open land permanently 

impacted and 6.4 acres of agricultural land permanently impacted. Wicomico County will have 0.1 acre 

of open land permanently impacted. These impacts are the result of converting the current land use type 

to developed land. 


Clearing would be required for construction of the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter 

component. The total acreage of forest vegetation that would be disturbed during Project component 

installation is approximately 226.0 acres. Of the 226.0 acres impacted, 0.4 acre of forested wetlands in 

Dorchester County will be temporarily impacted from matting and the rest will be permanently impacted 

(Table 1.9-15). Most of the remaining 225.6 acres are permanently impacted as a result of clearing. 

While, a portion of the cleared area would be able to revert back to the previous land type, this would 

occur over a period of years. Therefore, impacts to forest lands would be long term. Lands under the 

new transmission lines would be maintained with low vegetation. In Dorchester County, 191.4 acres of 

forested wetlands and 18.3 acres of upland forest would be cleared, for a total of 209.7 acres. In 

Wicomico County, 1.2 acres of tidal forested wetlands, 11.5 acres of forested wetlands, and 2.1 acres of 

upland forest would be cleared, for a total of 14.8 acres. Also, in Dorchester County and Wicomico 

County, 0.9 acre and 0.2 acre respectively, are permanently impacted by a conversion to developed land. 

The clearing is a result of creating the new transmission line right of way and the conversion to developed 

land is a result of constructing the new transmission towers. 


Project construction and operation would result in temporary impacts to surface waterbodies. Temporary 

impacts would be associated with construction work areas and right-of-way access. The Nanticoke River 

crossing would consist of three pairs of single-pole tubular support structures located in the water. Each 

transmission structure typically would consist of piles which would be driven into the bottom of the 

Nanticoke River to a depth necessary to support the tower loads. While final design is pending the results 

of soil borings, impacts associated with this water crossing are expected to be similar to those at the 

Patuxent River crossing, impacting less than 0.1 acre of open water. Potential impacts to surface water 

resources are discussed in detail within Section 1.3. Further detailed discussion of the Nanticoke River 

crossing is provided in Volume V. 


Construction and operation of this Project component will result in a permanent impact to approximately 

0.1 acre of developed land (Table 1.9-15). Impacts in the Project component are a result of the 

construction of the Choptank River Station and the installation of new transmission towers as described 

above. 

1-208




1.9.2.4.6 Recreational Boating 

Potential Project-related impacts to recreational boaters include the diversion of recreational boaters en 

route to or from their destination and the diversion of recreational boating trips destined for areas nearby 

this Project component area during the construction period. To reduce potential impacts during 

construction activities, the timing and implementation of construction and installation activities, such as 

travel lanes, standoff distances, and speed constraints, would be relayed to commercial and recreational 

vessels via a USCG Notice to Mariners. It is expected that only a small number of recreational boating 

trips would be destined for areas occupied by construction equipment during the brief construction period. 

Recreational boaters traversing this Project component area would also need to divert around the 

construction equipment and installation procedures. Given the size of the area impacted within the river 

relative to the total navigable waters in the area, impacts to recreational boating associated with the 

navigation and destination of recreational vessels would be negligible. 

Recreational boating in other waterbodies within the proposed right-of-way for this Project component 

would be temporarily impacted during the construction period. These waterbodies would be bridged or 

matted for access as discussed in Section 1.3. Construction vehicles and equipment would progress along 

this Project component right-of-way resulting in short-term and temporary disruptions to activities within 

any one waterbody. 

Following construction, all recreational boating activities in the Nanticoke River and the other 

waterbodies within the right-of-way would proceed as normal. For a discussion of recreational boating as 

it relates to tourism see Section 1.10. 

1.9.2.4.7 Recreational Fishing 

Impacts to recreational fishing in the Nanticoke River resulting from this Project component would be 

associated with the construction of transmission structures within the Nanticoke River. As discussed in 

Section 1.7, construction-related impacts to stocks of target species and habitat degradation are not 

expected. Additional recreational fishing grounds occupied by construction vessels would also be 

temporarily inaccessible during the brief construction period. It is expected that the recreational fishing 

activity that would have occurred in areas impacted by construction of this Project component would be 

diverted to surrounding areas. This diversion may contribute to increased congestion at other nearby sites 

and/or lost recreational trips during construction. These impacts would be short-term and minor because 

construction within the Nanticoke River would occur over a brief construction period. 

Recreational fishing in other waterbodies within the proposed right-of-way would be temporarily 

impacted during the construction period. These waterbodies would be bridged or matted for access as 

discussed in Section 1.3. Construction vehicles and equipment would progress along this Project 

component right-of-way resulting in short-term and temporary disruptions to activities within any one 

waterbody. 

Following construction, all recreational fishing activities in these waterbodies would proceed as normal. 

For a discussion of recreational fishing as it relates to tourism see Section 1.10. 

1.9.2.4.8 Commercial Fishing 

As discussed in Section 1.7, construction-related impacts to stocks of target species and habitat 

degradation are not expected. Additional fishing grounds occupied by construction vessels would also be 

temporarily inaccessible during the brief construction period. It is expected that the commercial fishing 

1-209




activity that would have occurred in areas impacted by Project construction would be diverted to 

surrounding areas. It is expected that commercial fishers would be displaced to nearby areas, resulting in 

a negligible increase in harvesting congestion. These impacts would be short-term and minor because 

construction within the Nanticoke Rivers would only occur over a brief construction period. 

Commercial fishing in other waterbodies within this Project component right-of-way would be 

temporarily impacted during the construction period. These waterbodies would be bridged or matted for 

access as discussed in Section 1.3. Construction vehicles and equipment would progress along this 

Project component right-of-way resulting in short-term and temporary disruptions to activities within any 

one waterbody would be short-term and temporary. 

Following construction, all commercial fishing activities in these waterbodies would proceed as normal. 

1.9.2.4.9 Residential and Planned Developments 

Three residences have currently been identified within 300 feet of the Western Shore Landing to Gateway 

Converter Project Component. Two of these residences are within 300 feet of the property boundary of 

the proposed site of the Choptank River Station rather than the specific location of the physical structure 

itself. The physical structure of the station would be located within the property boundary, as such the 

distance from the reported residences or structures would be greater. The third residence is within 300 

feet of a temporary workspace during construction. Following construction the area would revert to preconstruction 

conditions. The Company’s mitigation measures associated with residences in proximity to 

the proposed Project are discussed in Section 1.9.2.1.8. At this time no planned developments have been 

identified adjacent to the right-of-way. However, in the event that a planned development becomes 

platted, this Project component would not alter the land use of areas within the planned development and 

impacts resulting from dust and noise construction activities within this Project component right-of-way 

would be temporary and minor. Potential permanent impacts to the planned development would be 

associated with visual resources and are addressed in a subsequent discussion of impacts to visual 

resources. 


Several recreation and special interest areas have been identified as near the proposed right-of-way for the 

Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter component. Noise and dust associated with construction 

would result in temporary, minor impacts to portions of recreational and special interest areas that abut 

the right-of-way (see Table 1.9-11). Impacts from construction associated with air quality and noise are 

discussed in Sections 1.12 and 1.13, respectively. In general, construction could result in the temporary 

restriction of use of these areas. This would represent a temporary, minor impact to the area during 

construction period. 

This Project component would cross CREP easements, Rural Legacy Areas, and Chesapeake Forest 

Lands. Land types within these areas are comprised of a mix of open and agricultural lands, along with 

portions that are forested lands. In general, installation of this Project component would result in shortterm, 

minor impact to vegetation from clearing. After installation, the open and agricultural lands would 

revert back to the previous land type. Forested lands within the Project right-of-way would be 

permanently converted to developed or open lands. CREP and Rural Legacy Areas are also discussed in 

Section 1.5. 

Approximately 13.6 acres of the aerial transmission line would cross Critical Areas categorized as RCA. 

The Nanticoke River Critical Area in Dorchester and Wicomico Counties would be crossed by the aerial 

1-210




transmission line. However, the water-based structures proposed at the Nanticoke River crossing would 

occupy less than 0.1 acre of lands under Maryland Tidal waters classified as Critical Area. The landbased 

portions of the Critical Area crossed in Dorchester County are primarily held in open agricultural 

land; therefore, there would be minimal vegetation clearing required. The Wicomico County land-based 

portions of the Nanticoke River Critical Area contains forest vegetation that would require clearing for 

Project component installation and operation. The Company would install new structures at the 

appropriate distance from the Nanticoke River, which would be determined during final Project design. 

Impacts to these areas would be similar to those above. Open and agricultural lands would revert to the 

previous land type, forested lands would be permanently converted to open land, and the small areas 

within the footprint of the structures would be permanently converted to developed land. Critical Areas 

are also discussed in Section 1.5. 

Impacts to special interest areas related to water and wildlife resources are addressed in Section 1.3 and 

Section 1.6, respectively. Impacts to special interest areas with cultural or historical significance are 

addressed in Section 1.11. 


This Project component is generally consistent with the goals of the Smart Growth Program by enhancing 

a critical element of public infrastructure in existing Project right-of-way. While portions of this Project 

component do require new right-of-way, the siting of transmission line route was selected in a cost 

effective manner to connect existing infrastructure while minimizing new right-of-way to the extent 

practicable. 


Visual impacts associated with this Project component would differ for the portion that crosses the 

Nanticoke River and the portion occurring on land within Dorchester and Wicomico counties. 

During installation of transmission line across the Nanticoke River, construction vessels would be visible 

to nearby fishermen,, recreational boaters and shoreline receptors during the brief construction period of 

4-to-6 months. This would result in temporary, minor visual impacts to these receptors. 

As discussed in Volume I, Section 2.0, the Choptank River Station would be sited on an approximate 4.0 

acre site where the underground transmission lines transition from underground to aerial transmission 

structures. This transition station would include a small modular building enclosed within a perimeter 

fence. The Choptank River Station would also include a 70 to 110 foot structure for two outgoing aerial 

circuits. Given the brief construction period, visual impacts resulting from the presence of construction 

activities would be short-term and minor. 

Two of the three residences identified within 300 feet of the Western Shore Landing to Gateway 

Converter Project Component were near the Choptank River Station. Following construction, the 

visibility of the transition station would generally be diminished by the densely wooded areas bordering 

and adjacent to the transition station. The third residence was found to be within 300 feet of a temporary 

workspace located in an agricultural field. As such these lands would require no clearing and overall 

visual impacts at this location would be temporary. 

Within Dorchester County, construction and installation of the new transmission structures and lines 

would require new right-of-way which would be cleared. As discussed above, in general, the new rightof-way 

would cross forested and agricultural lands through Dorchester County. The total acreage of 

1-211




forest vegetation that would be disturbed during Project component installation will be calculated when 

Project engineering and designs are complete. Clearing would result in a permanent change in the 

viewshed. The new structures in the right-of-way would range in height between 70 feet and 195 feet. 

The visibility of these structures may be diminished by densely wooded areas bordering and adjacent to 

the new right-of-way for the Project component. 

The crossing at the Nanticoke River would involve installation of aerial transmission lines of about 195 

feet in height. The crossing location would be north of Route 50 and the structures would be located to 

align with the bridge supports for Route 50. The setting at this crossing location is a mix of industrial 

areas and agricultural lands so while the transmission line would generally be visible to nearby receptors 

it would not significantly alter the existing industrial setting. 

This Project component’s right-of-way would cross the Scenic Byway #18 and the proposed expansion of 

the Michener’s Chesapeake Country Scenic Byway. In addition, a portion of the right-of-way would 

parallel Scenic Byway #17. The crossing at Scenic Byway #18 would be underground, which would not 

require road closures or open cutting of the roadways. Impacts would be limited to potential short-term 

traffic disruptions associated with the construction equipment and alterations to the viewshed. Given the 


bordering the proposed right-of-way, visual impacts resulting from the presence of construction activities 

would be short-term and minor. 

The conversion of forest lands to open land (i.e. scrub-shrub) and use as a utility corridor would be a 

permanent change to the existing viewshed. 

Following construction, the visibility of the structures would generally be diminished by the densely 

wooded areas bordering and adjacent to the proposed right-of-way. Given that the majority of the 

Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter component would require new right-of-way; this would 

represent a minor, permanent impact to the viewshed. 



In general, land use impacts resulting from construction and operation of the Gateway Converter would 

be minor. Permanent impacts resulting from operation would be primarily associated with impacts to 

visual resources. Other permanent impacts would total 27.6 acres in this Project component (Table 1.9- 

16). Temporary impacts would total 0.4 acre (Table 1.9-16). Impacts would result from the construction 

of the AC switchyard, AC/DC converter station and other support buildings. The land would have to be 

cleared for the construction of the buildings, access roads, and parking areas. 

1-212




Maryland 

County 

Table 1.9-16 

Impacts to Land Use Types in the Gateway Converter Component Area (Acres) a 

Open Land 

Agricultural 

Land 

Forested 


1-213 

Developed 

Lands Total 


Wicomico 0.4 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 27.6 

Total 0.4 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 27.6 

a Values are rounded to the nearest tenth of an acre which may cause discrepancies in the totals. Values less than .05 acres will show as 0.0. 


Portions of the property boundary of the converter station are classified as open and agricultural lands. 

Construction activities could result in temporary and permanent impacts of these lands within the 

footprint of construction work areas. The temporarily disturbed areas would be minor and revegetation 

would be expected to occur following construction activities. Temporary impacts would total 

approximately 0.4 acre as a result of matting in a wetland area (Table 1.9-16). 

Permanent changes to land cover would also be associated with the proposed Gateway Converter, as the 

acreage required for this Project component would be permanently converted to a developed land. 

Permanent impacts to open and agricultural lands would total 12.2 acres (Table 1.9-16). Although this 

impact would be permanent, lasting for at least the life of the Project, the overall impact would not be 

significant given the limited acreage involved. 


Clearing would be required for construction of the Gateway Converter. The total acreage of forest 

vegetation that would be disturbed during Project component installation is 15.5 acres (Table 1.9-16). 

Approximately 6.9 acres of upland forest and 5.6 acres of forested wetlands would be cleared during the 

Project component construction. Another 2.9 acres of forest land would be converted to developed land 

for the construction of the site. While a portion of the cleared area would be able to revert back to the 

previous land type or be landscaped, as appropriate, this would occur over a period of years. Therefore, 

impacts to forest lands would be long term. Impacts to forested wetlands are further discussed in Section 

1.4. 


Construction and operation of this Project component is not expected to impact any areas of open water. 

Potential impacts to surface water are discussed in detail within Section 1.3. 



land.





As discussed above Critical Areas classified as RCA fall within this Project component site. Where 

needed, the Company would coordinated with the Critical Area Commission and install the appropriate 

BMPs, such as installation of straw bales or biologs, to limit erosion from vegetation clearing in the 

adjacent tidal waterbodies. Maintenance of this Project component right-of-way would be implemented 

in accordance with the on-going maintenance methods described in the Company’s TVMP. Critical 

Areas are also discussed in Section 1.5. 


The Gateway Converter is generally consistent with the goals of the Smart Growth Program by enhancing 

a critical element of public infrastructure in a cost effective manner to connect existing infrastructure 

while minimizing new right-of-way to the extent practicable. 


Visual impacts associated with the Gateway Converter would be associated with vegetation clearing, the 

presence of construction activities and the presence of the new facilities. The total acreage of forest 

vegetation that would be disturbed during Project component installation is 15.5 acres (Table 1.9-16). 

Cleared forested vegetation would be permanently converted to open land or developed land resulting in a 

permanent impact to the viewshed. 

One residence has been identified within 300 feet of the property boundary selected for location of the 

Gateway Converter. The physical structure of the converter would be located within the property 

boundary, as such the distance from the reported residences or structures would be greater. The 

Company’s mitigation measures associated with residences in proximity to the proposed Project are 

discussed in Section 1.9.2.1.8. Currently no recreational or special interest areas have been identified 

near the proposed Gateway Converter. Given the brief construction period, visual impacts resulting from 

the presence of construction activities would be short-term and minor. Following construction, the 

visibility of the converter station, would generally be diminished by the densely wooded areas bordering 

and adjacent to the converter station. 



In general, land use impacts resulting from installation and operation of transmission lines associated with 

the Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line would be minor. All Project activities would 

occur within an existing Project right-of-way. Volume I, Section 2.0 provides a detailed discussion of 

construction methods. Impacts associated with changes in the land use of areas within the existing rightof-way 

resulting from installation activities would be temporary. A total of 15.4 acres of land within the 

Project component are expected to have temporary impacts (Table 1.9-17). Permanent impacts resulting 

from operation of this Project component are associated with impacts of new transmission line structures 

and also to visual resources as discussed below. Permanent impacts are expected on approximately 0.1 

acre within this project component (Table 1.9-17). 

1-214




Maryland 

County 

Open Land 

Table 1.9-17 

Impacts to Land Use Types in the Gateway Converter to 

Maryland/Delaware State Line Component Area (Acres) a 

Agricultural 

Land 

Forested 


1-215 

Developed 

Lands Total 


Wicomico 14.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 0.1 

Total 14.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0






land. 


Forty-five residences have currently been identified within 300 feet of the existing right-of-way, of which 

18 are within 100 feet. For these residences and any other residences that may be identified as adjacent to 

this Project component right-of-way, the Company would institute the impact minimization measures 

described in Section 1.9.2.1.8. 

At this time no planned developments have been identified adjacent to the right-of-way. However, in the 

event that a planned development becomes platted, this Project component would not alter the land use of 

areas within the planned development and impacts resulting from dust and noise construction activities 

within the right-of-way would be temporary and minor. Potential permanent impacts to the planned 

development would be associated with visual resources and are addressed in a subsequent discussion of 

impacts to visual resources. 


Several areas of special interest have been identified as nearby the existing right-of-way within this 

Project component area. Construction and operation of this Project component would occur with the 

existing right-of-way and would not restrict access to recreational sites occurring outside of the right-ofway. 

Noise and dust associated with construction of this Project component would result in temporary, 

minor impacts to portions of recreational and special interest areas that abut the existing right-of-way, see 

Table 1.9-11. Impacts from this Project component associated with air quality and noise are discussed in 

Sections 1.12 and 1.13, respectively. In general, construction of this Project component could result in 

the temporary restriction of use a special interest area in cases where it is collocated with existing rightof-way. 

This would represent a temporary, minor impact to the area, ending following the completion of 


This Project component’s existing right-of-way crosses CREP easements and Chesapeake Forest Lands. 

In general, the existing right-of-way is maintained as open land, although trees adjacent to the right-ofway 

may encroach upon the right-of-way. After installation, the cleared portion of right-of-way would be 

able to revert back to the previous land type. Since this portion of this Project component is within 

existing right-of-way, there would be no change in land use of any existing CREP easements or Legacy 

Areas. CREP and Chesapeake Forest Lands are also discussed in Section 1.5. 

Impacts to special interest areas related to wildlife and water resources are addressed in Section 1.6.2 and 

Section 1.3.2, respectively. Impacts to special interest areas with cultural or historical significance are 

addressed in Section 1.11.2. 


This Project component is consistent with the goals of the Smart Growth Program by enhancing a critical 

element of public infrastructure in existing right-of-way. 

1-216





Visual impacts associated with the Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line component 

would be associated with clearing and construction activities. While the majority of the existing right-ofway 

is already maintained for reduced vegetation heights, vegetation clearing may be necessary within a 

portion of the existing right-of-way. Less than an acre, or 0.7 acre, of forest vegetation would be cleared 

for installation purposes. Clearing in these locations could result in increased visibility of construction 

vehicles and equipment during the brief construction phase. 

Forty-five residences have currently been identified within 300 feet of the Gateway Converter to 

Maryland/Delaware State Line Project Component, which utilizes existing right-of-way. Given the 


bordering the existing right-of-way, visual impacts resulting from the presence of construction activities 

would be short-term and minor. 

Since this Project component would be located within an existing right-of-way, there would only be a 

minor change in the viewshed due to operation of this Project component. 


Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2006. Maryland Trawl Gear Characterization. 

Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/strategy/md_trawl_gear.pdf. 

Calvert County Government. 2010. Welcome to Calvert County. Available at: http://www.co.cal.md.us. 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF). 2004. A Citizen’s Guide to the Critical Area Program of Maryland. 

Available online at: http://www.cbf.org/Document.Doc?id=149. 

City-Data. 2010. City Data. Available at: http://www.city-data.com/. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2003. Patuxent River: Basin Overview November 

2003. Available at: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/tribstrat/patuxent/patuxent.pdf. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2008. Commercial Fisheries Data. Personal 

Communication with Connie Lewis. Email dated July 21, 2008. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2010a. Online Boating Access Guide. Available at: 

http://mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/fish/state2.html. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2010b. Fishing, Boating, and Fisherman Count 

Statistics by License Year. Personal Communications via fax with Vicki Johnston, MDNR, May 

7, 2010 and November 30, 2010. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2010c. Maryland Rural Legacy Program. Available 

at: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/land/rurallegacy/index.asp. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2010d. Maryland State Forests. Available online 

at: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/mdforests.asp. 

1-217




Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2011a. Fishing Statistics by License Year and 

Boating information.. Personal Communications via fax with Vicki Johnston, MDNR, March 28 th 

2011. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2011b. Commercial Fisheries Data Nanticoke and 

Patuxent Rivers. Personal Communication with Connie Lewis. Email dated January 12, 2011. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2011c. Land Acquisition and Planning, 

Stewardship Scenic and Wild Rivers Planning. Available at: 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/land/stewardship/scenicrivers.asp 

Maryland Department of Planning. 2008. Smart Growth Background. Available at: 

http://www.mdp.state.md.us/smartintro.htm. 

Maryland Department of Transportation. 2008. Maryland Scenic Byways. Available at: 

http://www.sha.state.md.us/exploremd/oed/scenicbyways/scenicbyways.asp. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2011. National Center for Recreation & Conservation: Nationwide Rivers 

Inventory. Available at: http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/ 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2010. 2007 Census of Agriculture. Available at: 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2005. Northeastern Forest Inventory and 

Analysis GIS and Spatial Stastistics: FIA Map Maker. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/fia/gis/index.html. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2010. FIDO Custom Reports. Available at 

http://fiatools.fs.fed.us/fido/customrpt.html. 

1-218




1.10 SOCIOECONOMICS 

As discussed in Volume I, Section 2.0, the proposed action in Maryland would consist of electrical 

infrastructure construction and installation from Prince George’s County, Maryland to the 

Maryland/Delaware state line near Mission, Delaware. 

The construction of all Project components would occur over a two to three year period. The Project 

would require the hiring of construction workers for the following: underground and submarine 

installation; site preparation and construction at converter station and switching station sites; site 

preparation and construction of a transition station; the erection of land structures; and the installation of 

the transmission wires. Construction activities for the Project would include installation activities (i.e. 

burying, stringing, clipping-in, and sagging the wires), site preparation, vegetation clearing, mat 

placement over waterbodies and wetlands, installation of other BMPs, preparation activities in the staging 

areas, removal of existing land structures, installation of new land structures, and post construction 

restoration activities including mitigation. See Volume I, Section 2.3 for a detailed discussion on 

construction procedures. It is estimated that the potential workforce would be comprised of a few 

hundred construction workers that specialize in the construction of transmission lines. A limited number 

of permanent workers would be required for operation and maintenance of this Project component. 

For analysis of the crossing of the Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River see Volume III. 


This section examines the existing socioeconomic conditions in the Project area, which is defined as the 

counties crossed by the proposed transmission line and sites of the stations. These counties are: Prince 

George’s County, Calvert County, Dorchester County, and Wicomico County, all of which are in 

Maryland. 

1.10.1.1 Population 

Table 1.10-1 summarizes selected socioeconomic statistics for the Project area. Between 2000 and 2010, 

the overall population of Prince George’s, Calvert, Dorchester, and Wicomico counties has increased by 

approximately 7.7, 19.0, 6.3, and 16.6 percent respectively (Table 1.10-1) (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a, c). 

Prince George’s County has a rapidly evolving and ethnically diverse population (Table 1.10-2). 

According to 5-year estimates (2005-2009 American Community Survey), 23.3 percent of the Prince 

George’s County population is white, 63.8 percent is African American, 0.3 percent is American Indian 

or Alaska Native, 3.9 percent is Asian, 0.1 percent is Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and the 

remaining population is comprised of individuals of some other race or two or more races (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2011b). The median age of Prince George’s County's population is 34.8 years old, and 8.9 

percent of the county's population is 65 years old and over (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). 

Estimates for Calvert County show 81.8 percent of the county population is white, 14.1 percent is African 

American, 0.2 percent is American Indian or Alaska Native, 1.4 percent is Asian, and the remaining 

population is comprised of individuals of some other race or two or more races (Table 1.10-2) (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2011b). The median age of Calvert County's population is 38.7 years old, and 9.8 percent 

of the county's population is 65 years old and over (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). 

1-219




Location 

Prince George’s 

County 

Population 

2010 a 

Population 

Change between 

2000 & 2010 

(Percent) ab 

Table 1.10-1 

Existing Socioeconomic Conditions 

Persons per 

Square Mile of 

Land Area 

2010 ab 

1-220 

Per Capita 

Income 

(Dollars) c 

Civilian 

Labor 

Force c 

Unemployment 

Rate (Percent) d 

Major 

Industry c 

863,420 7.7 1,778.7 30,917 474,100 7.2 Education, 

health and 

social 

services 

Calvert County 88,737 19.0 412.4 35,898 47,482 5.9 Education, 

health and 

social 

services 

Dorchester 

County 

Wicomico 

County 

32,618 6.3 58.5 25,047 16,799 11.7 Education, 

health and 

social 

services 

98,733 16.6 261.8 25,935 49,877 9.8 Education, 

health and 

social 

service 

a U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Census Fact Sheets (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a) 

b U.S. Census Bureau, U.S Census Data Sets (U.S. Census Bureau 2011c) 

c U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau 2011b) 

d 

Bureau of Labor and Statistics, Unemployment Rates by County in Maryland January 2011 (BLS 2011) 

State/County White 

Table 1.10-2 

Racial/Ethnic Estimates of Populations in Counties Crossed by the 

Proposed Project (in percent) a 

Black or 

African 

American 

American 


and 

Alaska 

Native Asian 

Native 

Hawaiian 

and Pacific 

Islander 

Persons 

Reporting Two 

or More Races 

Persons of 

Hispanic or 

Latino 

Origins b 

MARYLAND 60.9 28.8 0.3 4.9 0.1 2.0 6.6 

Prince 

George’s 

23.3 63.8 0.3 3.9 0.1 2.3 12.4 

Calvert 81.8 14.1 0.2 1.4 0.0 1.8 2.5 

Dorchester 69.2 27.7 0.2 0.8 0.0 1.3 2.2 

Wicomico 71.6 23.3 0.1 1.9 0.0 1.5 3.4 

Notes: 

a 

b 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011b) 

People who identify their origin as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Thus, the percent Hispanic or Latino should not be added 

to the race as percentage of population categories.




Estimates for Dorchester County show 69.2 percent of the county population is white, 27.7 percent is 

African American, 0.2 percent is American Indian or Alaska Native, 0.8 percent is Asian, and the 

remaining population is comprised of individuals of some other race or two or more races (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2011b). The median age of Dorchester County's population is 42.9 years old, and 17.8 percent of 

the county's population is 65 years old and over (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). 

Finally, in Wicomico County 5-year estimates show that 71.6 percent of the population is white, 23.3 

percent is African American, 0.1 percent is American Indian or Alaska Native, 1.9 percent is Asian, and 

the remaining population is comprised of individuals of some other race or two or more races (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2011b). The median age of Wicomico County's population is 35.9 years old, and 13.1 

percent of the county's population was 65 years old and over (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). 

1.10.1.2 Employment 

The Prince George’s County civilian labor force exceeds 474,000 and is concentrated in the educational, 

health and social services, and public administration sectors (Table 1.10-1) (U.S. Census Bureau 2011b). 

According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (2011), unemployment in Prince George’s County was 

estimated at 7.2 percent in January of 2011, and according to the 2005-2009 American Community 

Survey, the per capita income is estimated at $30,917 (U.S. Census Bureau 2011b). 

The Calvert County civilian labor force exceeds 47,400 and is concentrated in the educational, health and 

social services, and public administration sectors (Table 1.10-1) (U.S. Census Bureau 2011b). According 

to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (2011), unemployment in Calvert County was estimated at 5.9 

percent in January of 2011, and according to the 2005-2009 American Community Survey, the per capita 

income is estimated at $35,898 (U.S. Census Bureau 2011b). 

The Dorchester County civilian labor force exceeds 16,700 and is concentrated in the educational, health 

and social services and the manufacturing sectors (Table 1.10-1) (U.S. Census Bureau 2011b). According 

to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (2011), unemployment in Dorchester County was estimated at 11.7 

percent in January of 2011, and according to the 2005-2009 American Community Survey, the per capita 


The Wicomico County civilian labor force exceeds 49,800 and is concentrated in the educational, health 

and social services and manufacturing sectors (Table 1.10-1) (U.S. Census Bureau 2011b). The Bureau 

of Labor and Statistics (2011) estimates that the unemployment rate in Wicomico County was at 9.8 

percent in January of 2011, and according to the 2005-2009 American Community Survey the per capita 


1.10.1.3 Economy and Tax Revenues 

In 2010, Maryland income tax rates ranged from 1.25 percent to 3.20 percent depending on taxable net 

income. Maryland counties also levy a local income tax, calculated as a percentage of taxable income. In 

2010 local income tax rates were 0.0320, 0.0280, 0.0262, and 0.0310 percent for Prince George’s County, 

Calvert County, Dorchester County, and Wicomico County residents, respectively (Comptroller of 

Maryland 2011). In addition, a sales and use tax of six percent is applied to all taxable sales. A majority 

of food sales, medicine, energy for residential use, manufacturing machinery and equipment, and certain 

vehicle rentals and mobile home sales are exempt from sales tax. A rate of 8.0% is applied on rental 

trucks, while passenger car and recreational vehicle rentals are taxed at a rate of 11.5 percent. Property 

taxes for properties owned by public utilities for the year starting on July 1, 2010 are 2.4, 2.23, 2.24, and 

1-221




1.9 percent for Prince George’s, Calvert, Dorchester, and Wicomico Counties, respectively (Maryland 

State Department of Assessments and Taxation 2011) 5 . 

1.10.1.4 Local Service Providers 

According to the U.S Census Bureau, the number of fire, police, and health full-time equivalent positions 

in Prince George’s, Calvert, Dorchester, and Wicomico Counties were over 3,258, 142, 94, and 294, 

respectively (U.S Census Bureau 2009). The level of community services available in Prince George’s, 

Calvert, Dorchester, and Wicomico Counties is about 96.4 percent, 4.2 percent, 2.8 percent and 8.7 

percent, respectively, of those available in Baltimore County. 

1.10.1.5 Transportation 

This Project could also potentially impact transportation in the Project area during construction. The 

proposed Project area is predominately comprised of low-density rural and suburban areas. As such, 

existing transportation infrastructure in the area traversed by the proposed Project includes mostly rural 

roads and highways. The existing conditions for ground and marine transportation are reviewed in the 

following sections. 

1.10.1.5.1 Ground Transportation 

Construction activities could result in temporary impacts to surface transportation infrastructure. These 

impacts could include disruption to traffic flow due to the movement of construction equipment, 

materials, and crew members and construction of the facility itself at road crossings. The existing 

conditions for ground transportation were reviewed and the annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes 

for major roads crossed by the Project are presented in Table 1.10-3. 

Table 1.10-3 

AADT for Road Crossed by the Transmission Line a,b 

Road County 

1-222 

AADT c 

State Highway 2 Calvert 25,871 



State Highway 509 Calvert 791 

State Highway 331 Dorchester 2,280 

State Highway 16 Dorchester 6,912 

U.S. Highway 50 Wicomico 24,661 

State Highway 313 Wicomico 4,390 

a 

The portion of the transmission line within Prince George’s County would not cross any major or minor 

roadways. 

b The proposed Chestnut Converter property is not adjacent to any major roadways; however, major roads 

in the vicinity of this Project component include State Highway 2 and State Highway 231 

c Maryland Department of Transportation (2010) 

5 Residents in special taxing areas within Prince George’s County may be subject to additional property taxes.




Maryland & Delaware Railroad Company operates and maintains track in the state of Maryland, and a 

portion of its Seaford line (Cambridge, Maryland to Seaford, Maryland) intersects existing right-of-way 

near Cambridge, Maryland (about 5 miles south of the Choptank River Landfall location). Maryland & 

Delaware Railroad Company freight transport includes grain-related commodities, fertilizer, gluten, 

canola, lumber, drywall, paper products, wax, steel, propane and other chemicals. The Maryland & 

Delaware Railroad Company Seaford rail line is also used for tourism operation. 

1.10.1.5.2 Marine Transportation 


Marine shipping activities within the Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter Project component 

area are limited to the Patuxent River, which the proposed line would cross between Prince George’s and 

Calvert Counties. Marine shipping traffic on the Patuxent River primarily consists of vessels transporting 

sand, gravel, and petroleum products (Table 1.10-4). The drafts from these vessels are typically fourteen 

feet or less and rarely have a draft larger than this (Table 1.10-5). Most, if not all, of the commercial 

vessel traffic on the Patuxent River consist of domestic goods (USACE 2010; AAPA 2008). Hamill 

(2008) of the Association of Maryland Pilots confirmed that there is no ship traffic on the Patuxent River 

requiring pilots. 6 Hamill (2008) did note that some minor barge traffic is present on the Patuxent River. 

One to two naval vessels also use the river each year; however, these vessels only go as far north as 

Solomons, Maryland, which is about 20 miles south of the proposed river crossing (Hamill 2008). There 

is no ship traffic associated with the Patuxent Naval Air Testing Center on the Patuxent River (Roamer 

2008). 7 

Table 1.10-4 

Patuxent River Commodities Shipped in Short Tons from 2006 to 2009 

2006 2007 2008 2009 

Total Goods 49,215 64,325 82,719 42,795 

Total Petroleum and Petroleum 

Products 49,215 48,292 38,497 36,532 

Total Crude Materials 0 16,033 43,472 6,263 

Manufactured Equipment 0 0 750 0 

USACE 2011 

Values are given in Short Tons 

2010 data was not available at the time of analysis. 

6 

Ships carrying foreign goods are required to have a licensed pilot on board when navigating U.S. waters. 

7 

This facility does not have a marine component. The Patuxent Naval Air Testing Center is located on the water to enable 

aircraft to be tested under the appropriate atmospheric conditions (Roamer 2008). 

1-223




Table 1.10-5 

Patuxent River Trips by Draft from 2006 to 2008. 

1-224 

2006 2007 2008 

All Drafts 77 101 163 

0-5 ft. 22 31 30 

6-9 ft. 13 20 61 

10-12 ft. 41 23 26 

13-14 ft. 0 25 45 

15-17 ft 1 2 1 

USACE 2010 

USACE WCUS 2009 trip data will not be available until April or May 2011. 

According to the USCG commercial traffic on the Patuxent River is minimal in comparison to the 

Potomac River (Hahn 2008). This is confirmed by data from the USACE. Cargo vessel traffic data from 

the USACE (2011) revealed only 163 total shipping trips up and down the Patuxent River compared to 

3,139 total trips on the Potomac River in 2008 (Table 1.10-6). Based on the literature available and 

personal communication (USACE 2011; AAPA 2008; Hahn 2008), on average approximately 13 trips are 

made by one to two commercial vessels on the Patuxent River each month. There are eighteen ports or 

docking areas listed on the Patuxent River, only two of which are north of the proposed crossing site 

(USACE 2011). As such, potentially effects to shipping at the proposed crossing are expected to be minor 

and temporary.





Table 1.10-6 

Patuxent River Trips by Month for 2008 

Month 

1-225 


Foreign Domestic 

January 0 6 

February 0 6 

March 0 4 

April 0 13 

May 0 9 

June 0 32 

July 0 27 

August 0 34 

September 0 8 

October 0 13 

November 0 5 

December 0 6 

Totals 0 163 

Tujaque 2010 

USACE WCUS 2009 trip data will not be available until April or May 

2011. 

Marine shipping traffic on the Nanticoke River primarily consists of vessels carrying petroleum products, 

chemical products, sand, gravel, farm products and food, (USACE 2011). All of the commercial vessel 

traffic recorded by the USACE on the Nanticoke River consists of domestic goods (Table 1.10-7). Cargo 

vessel traffic data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers indicates only 692 cargo shipments occurred 

on the Nanticoke in 2008 a significant decrease in shipping when in 2007, 804 trips occurred. The drafts 

of vessels on the river typically do not exceed 12 feet with the majority of vessels having a draft less than 

9 feet (Table 1.10-8). Total commodities shipped on the Nanticoke have been steadily declining since 

2006 (Table 1.10-9). There are 40 ports or docking areas listed on the Nanticoke River, 24 of which are 

north of the proposed crossing site (USACE 2011). As such, potentially effects to shipping at the 

proposed crossing are expected to be minor and temporary.




Month 

Table 1.10-7 

Trips per Month on Nanticoke River 2008 

1-226 


Foreign Domestic 

January 0 39 

February 0 71 

March 0 78 

April 0 57 

May 0 54 

June 0 83 

July 0 54 

August 0 69 

September 0 62 

October 0 31 

November 0 38 

December 0 56 

Totals 0 692 

Total trips 692 

Tujaque 2010 

USACE WCUS 2009 trip data will not be available until April or May 2011. 

Table 1.10-8 

Trips on Nanticoke River 2006-2008 

Draft CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 

All Drafts 1,372 804 692 

0-5 ft. 338 195 131 

6-9 ft. 785 402 307 

10-12 ft. 249 207 251 

USACE 2010 

USACE WCUS 2009 trip data will not be available until April or May 2011.




Table 1.10-9 

Commodities Shipped on Nanticoke River 2006-2009 

Commodity in Short Tons 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Total Goods 1,245,736 826,412 771,878 496,446 

Total Petroleum and 

Petroleum Products 

Total Chemicals and Related 

Products 

Subtotal Soil, Sand, Gravel, 

Rock and Stone 

Total Food and Farm 

Products 

10,529 11,578 20,511 3,910 

0 5,476 9,594 32,182 

1,081,107 630,758 530,773 238,080 

154,100 178,600 211,000 218,900 

Manufactured goods 0 0 0 3,374 

USACE 2011 

1.10.1.6 Housing 

During construction, the counties within the Project area could experience a temporary increase in 

housing demand. Most non-local workers would likely use temporary housing such as hotels, motels, and 

apartments within commuting distance of the work areas. Others may use campsites and recreational 

vehicle sites. A large number of temporary rental units, hotel rooms, and motel rooms are available in 

these counties (Table 1.10-10). 

1-227




Location 

Prince 

George’s 

County 

Table 1.10-10 

Temporary Accommodations Available in the Project Area 

Rental 

Units a 

Motel/Hotel 

Rooms b,c,d Campsites b,c,d 

1-228 

Total 

Units 

Rental 

Vacancy Rate 

(Percent) e 

114,951 3,739 0 118,690 7.8 

Calvert County 4,117 772 117 5,006 3.8 

Dorchester 

County 

Wicomico 

County 

a 

b 

c 

Census 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2010) 

3,378 681 171 4,230 4.4 

10,799 1,704 671 13,174 5.2 

Calvert County (2010) The number of motel/hotel rooms listed may not be all inclusive. 

Dorchester County (2010) The number of motel/hotel rooms listed may not be all inclusive. 

d Wicomico County (2010) The number of motel/hotel rooms listed may not be all inclusive. 

e 

2005-2009 American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau 2011b). 

1.10.1.7 Recreational Fisheries 


The recreational harvest data for the areas in the Patuxent River, presented in Section 1.9.1, were 

analyzed to assess the recreational importance of the River. The 2009 harvest data were estimated by 

NMFS based on the NMFS access-point intercept survey, which is conducted at public marine fishing 

access points 8 . Table 1.10-11 shows the value of recreational finfish landings by species in the vicinity of 

this Project component as shown in Figure 1.10-1. The busiest months for recreational fishing in the 

Patuxent River are July and August. These values are a product of the recreational finfish landings (by 

number of fish) in Table 1.10-11 and marginal per fish consumer surplus values given by USEPA 

(2006) 9 . The USEPA derived these values for different regions and species groups through a metaanalysis 

of recreational fishing studies. This meta-analysis was designed to estimate average consumer 

surplus values for relatively broad groups of commonly harvested fishes. USEPA (2006) guidance and 

professional judgment were used to the assign the species in Table 1.10-11 to the appropriate species 

group. Recreational fishing landings were valued at over $2,542,000 in and near the Patuxent River for 

2009. Values from USEPA (2006) were adjusted to 2010 U.S. dollars. 

8 

For details on potential limitations of this data and weighting procedures see: 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreational/queries/glossary.html. 

9 

Consumer surplus measures the benefit, or enjoyment, that fishermen derive from catching fish, net of opportunity costs of 

catching the fish.




Table 1.10-11 

Value of Recreational Fishing Landings in and near the Patuxent River for 2009 in 2010 US Dollars a 

March/April May/June July/Aug Sept/Oct Nov/Dec 2009 Total 

Number Value Number Value Number Value Number Value Number Value Number Value 

Species 

Atlantic Croaker NR NR 613 $3,534 90,291 $520,546 6,637 $38,264 NR NR 97,541 $562,343 

Bluefish NR NR NR NR 94,666 $270,139 12,414 $35,425 NR NR 107,080 $305,563 

Channel Catfish NR NR NR NR 22,246 $25,289 NR NR NR NR 22,246 $25,289 

Spanish Mackerel NR NR NR NR 19,629 $113,165 NR NR NR NR 19,629 $113,165 

Spot NR NR 57,516 $164,128 238,880 $681,668 124,590 $355,530 NR NR 420,986 $1,201,326 

Striped Bass 31,926 $91,104 12,278 $35,037 17,188 $49,048 11,646 $33,233 25,990 $74,165 99,028 $282,586 

Summer Flounder NR NR NR NR 4,738 $25,996 NR NR NR NR 4,738 $25,996 

White Perch NR NR 613 $1,749 1,309 $3,735 7,253 $20,697 NR NR 9,175 $26,182 

Total 31,926 $91,104 71,020 $204,447 488,947 $1,689,586 162,540 $483,148 25,990 $74,165 780,423 $2,542,451 

NMFS only collects recreational fishing data for finfish 

NR indicates that no landings were reported 

a Source: NMFS (2010) 

1-229

PRINCE 

GEORGE'S 

COUNTY 

CHARLES 

COUNTY 

MD 

VA 

MD 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

ANNE ARUNDEL 

COUNTY 

CALVERT 

COUNTY 

PATUXENT RIVER 

= Main map extent 

!( 

ST. MARY'S 

DE COUNTY 

VA 















law. 

!( 

!( 

CHESAPEAKE 

BAY 

!( !(!(!(!( 

!( 


RIVER 

CHOPTANK RIVER 

0 5 10 15 20 Miles 


Legend 

!( NOAA Survey Sites 


TALBOT 

COUNTY 

DORCHESTER 

COUNTY 

Figure 1.10-1 


Recreational Fishing Data – NMFS 

Survey Locations for the Chalk 

Point Substation to Chestnut 

Converter Project Component 

CAROLINE 

COUNTY 

NANTICOKE 

RIVER 




ph. (302) 395-1919 

fx (302) 395-1920 

WI 

CO 

Date: March 31, 2011





The recreational harvest data for the Nanticoke River, were analyzed to assess the recreational importance 

of the waterway. These harvest data were estimated by NMFS (2010) based on the NMFS access-point 

intercept survey, which is conducted at public marine fishing access points 10 . Table 1.10-12 shows the 

value of recreational finfish landings in the vicinity of this Project component as shown in Figure 1.10-2. 

These values are a product of the recreational finfish landings (by number of fish) in Table 1.10-12 and 

marginal per fish consumer surplus values given by USEPA (2006) 11 . The USEPA derived these values 

for different regions and species groups through a meta-analysis of recreational fishing studies. This 

meta-analysis was designed to estimate average consumer surplus values for relatively broad groups of 

commonly harvested fishes. USEPA (2006) guidance and professional judgment were used to assign the 

species in Table 1.10-12 to the appropriate species group. The majority of recreational fishing value for 

the Nanticoke River is harvested in the months of May and June. Recreational fishing landings on the 

Nanticoke River were valued at over $383,000 in 2009. Total Values from USEPA (2006) were adjusted 

to 2009 U.S. dollars. 

1.10.1.8 Commercial Fisheries 


Commercial harvest data for the Patuxent River was analyzed to assess the commercial importance of the 

river (Section 1.9). The commercial landings for the entire Patuxent River were compiled by MDNR 

from trip level logbooks, where the lower boundary is roughly the mouth of the river at Drum Point. The 

monthly profit associated with commercial harvest in the Patuxent River was estimated for 2009, based 

on the commercial harvest given by MDNR (2011) and the average profit per pound of commercial 

harvest, and is shown in Table 4.10-13. We assumed that profits associated with commercial fishing were 

20 percent of the commercial landings value per pound based on USEPA (2004) estimates. 12 The value 

per pound of commercial landings for each species was estimated based on 2007 data from 

NOAA (NMFS 2008). 13 

10 

For details on potential limitations of this data and weighting procedures see: 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreational/queries/glossary.html. 

11 

Consumer surplus measures the benefit, or enjoyment, that fishermen derive from catching fish, net of opportunity costs of 

catching the fish. 

12 

EPA (2004) indicated that producer surplus (i.e., profit) could range between zero and 40 percent, depending upon if the 

fishery is open access (zero percent) or restricted (40 percent or less). Commercial fisheries in the Patuxent River are 

mixture of open access and restricted access fisheries. Therefore, the midpoint producer surplus (20 percent) was used for 

all commercial fish values in this analysis. 

13 

NMFS (2008b) provides the weight and value of monthly commercial landings by species. Landings data specific to 

Maryland were used when available. 

1-231




Table 1.10-12 

Detailed Recreational Landings Statistics for Areas in the Nanticoke River in 2009 a 

March/April May/June July/Aug Sept/Oct Nov/Dec 2009 Total 

Number Value Number Value Number Value Number Value Number Value Number Value 

Species 

Atlantic Croaker NR NR 56,748 $296,139 NR NR 1,269 $6,622 NR NR 58,017 $302,762 

Brown Bullhead NR NR NR NR NR NR 1,904 $1,959 NR NR 1,904 $1,959 

Channel Catfish NR NR 3,783 $3,893 NR NR NR NR NR NR 3,783 $3,893 

Spot NR NR NR NR NR NR 2,221 $5,737 NR NR 2,221 $5,737 

Striped Bass 18,556 $47,930 NR NR NR NR 317 $819 NR NR 18,873 $48,749 

White Perch NR NR 5,675 $14,659 NR NR 2,221 $5,737 NR NR 7,896 $20,395 

Total 18,556 $47,930 66,206 $314,691 NR NR 7,932 $20,874 NR NR 92,694 $383,495 

NMFS only collects recreational fishing data for finfish 


a Source: (NMFS 2010; USEPA 2006) 

1-232

CHESAPEAKE 

BAY 

MD 

VA 


RIVER 

MD 

CHOPTANK RIVER 















law. 

= Main map extent 

DE 

VA 

TALBOT 

COUNTY 

DORCHESTER 

COUNTY 

NANTICOKE 

RIVER 

0 5 10 15 20 Miles 

!( !( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

WICOMICO 

COUNTY 

SOMERSET 

COUNTY 


Legend 

!( NOAA Survey Sites 


DE 

Figure 1.10-2 


Recreational Fishing Data – NMFS 

Survey Locations for the Western 

Shore Landing to Gateway 

Converter Project Component 




ph. (302) 395-1919 

fx (302) 395-1920 

Date: April 4, 2011




Table 1.10-13 

2009 Monthly Commercial Harvest by Species for the Patuxent River a 

Month Blue Crab b 

Channel 

Catfish 

Common 

Eel Oysters c 

1-234 

Striped 

Bass Other d Total 

January NR $13,522 NR $1,446 $2,946 N/A $17,914 

February NR $19,662 NR $697 $3,367 N/A $23,726 

March NR $22,361 NR $207 NR N/A $22,568 

April $6,667 $2,810 $3,559 NR NR N/A $13,036 

May $82,765 $296 $10,267 NR NR N/A $93,328 

June $251,901 NR $289 NR $8,446 N/A $260,636 

July $255,913 $89 $632 NR $3,696 N/A $260,330 

August $250,732 $91 $65 NR $704 N/A $251,592 

September $376,370 $508 $36 NR $5,007 N/A $381,921 

October $118,760 $125 $257 $5,167 $6,912 N/A $131,221 

November $4,974 $258 $109 $2,517 $3,266 N/A $11,124 

December NR $5,103 NR $2,246 $2,020 N/A $9,369 

Species Total $1,348,082 $64,825 $15,215 $12,280 $36,364 N/A $1,476,766 


a Source: MDNR (2011) , USEPA (2004) 

b Blue Crabs Includes Soft and Hard Crabs 

c Oysters includes summer and fall 

d Other includes Bullhead, Carp, Catfish - white, Gizzard Shad, Hickory Shad, Menhaden, Spot, Yellow Perch, White Perch, 

Snapping Turtle, Croaker. 


The Nanticoke River, a major tributary to the Chesapeake Bay, also supports commercial fishing. 

Additional discussion regarding the fisheries of this waterbody can be found in Section 1.7. Commercial 

harvest data for the Nanticoke River was analyzed to assess the commercial importance of this waterway 

(Table 1.10-14). The commercial landings for the Nanticoke River were compiled by MDNR from trip 

level logbooks. The annual profit associated with commercial harvest in the Nanticoke River was 

estimated for 2009, based on the commercial harvest given by MDNR (2010) and the average profit per 

pound of commercial harvest.




Table 1.10-14 

Monthly Landings for the Nanticoke River in 2009 

White 

b, c, d 

Perch Other 

Striped 

Bass 

Oysters, 

Fall 

Gizzard 

Shad Menhaden 

Eel 

Common 

Catfish - 

Channel Croaker 

Catfish 

White 

Blue 

Crab a 

Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Pounds 

Month 

January NR $268 $7,838 NR $0 $102 NR NR $6,997 $9,045 376 

February NR $365 $494 NR NR $42 NR NR $8,282 $10,730 727 

March NR $5,814 $1,579 NR NR $972 $71 NR NR $12,122 2,227 

April $2,006 $14,934 $1,936 $1,002 $10,361 $715 $770 NR NR $2,425 14,994 

May $13,415 $1,254 $2,176 $1,124 $8,209 $203 $914 NR NR $582 14,632 

June $43,131 $4,275 $1,957 $227 $1 $122 $407 NR $8,020 $130 6,900 

July $62,501 NR $1 $110 NR $45 $127 NR $428 $62 436 

August $72,952 NR $32 $146 NR $21 $62 NR $133 $11 299 

September $57,559 NR $250 $4 $1 NR $448 NR $1,484 $169 511 

October $21,318 $771 $1,176 $2 $2 $43 $6 $5,293 $8,978 $270 107 

November $187 $3,249 $1,105 $1 $1 $237 $3 $6,591 $14,096 $895 93 

December NR $929 $565 NR NR $125 NR $1,994 $3,875 $1,187 255 

Grand 

Total $273,069 $31,858 $19,109 $2,615 $18,577 $2,626 $2,807 $13,877 $52,293 $37,628 41,557 

MDNR 2011 

a Blue Crab totals are made up of soft and hard crab landings. 

b Other includes Bluefish, Carp, Common Eel, Gizzard Shad, Horseshoe Crabs, River Herring, Sea Bass, Sea Trout, Dogfish, Spanish Mackerel, Snapping Turtle, and Yellow Perch. 

c Other makes up less than two percent of total commercial landings. 

d Other shows pounds landed because a value cannot be given to the assorted species. 

1-235




1.10.1.9 Tourism 

The tourism industry in Prince George’s, Calvert, Dorchester, and Wicomico Counties primarily consists 

of attractions associated with outdoor recreation along with heritage sites and museums. Counties that 

border the Chesapeake Bay are tourist destinations for recreational beaches, boating, lighthouses, and 

fishing. The Chesapeake Bay also provides waterfowl hunting opportunities that contribute to the tourism 

industry. 

In recent years the tourism industry in Prince George’s County has drawn in as many as 2,508,000 

tourists (Smith 2008). The county is located just east of Washington, D.C. and therefore may generate 

revenues from tourists visiting the nation’s capital. Visitors to Prince George’s County have spent more 

than $971 million in recent years with $6,957,471 in local hotel/bed tax and $14,146,810 in local 

admission and amusement tax (Smith 2008). The County is home to multiple aerospace attractions, 

including the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Visitor Center and Andrews Air Force Base, as well as Fort 

Washington and Six Flags America in Largo. 

Calvert County had 396,092 visitors at 14 key visitor sites throughout the County in 2009, an increase of 

34 percent over 2006 (Calvert County 2009). Between 2008 and 2009 Calvert County tax collections on 

tourism increased 29.2 percent (Calvert County 2009). Sales tax collected between 2005 and 2009 from 

hotels increased by 51.4 percent, while restaurants increased by 27.2 percent and shopping and 

amusements increased 57 percent (Calvert County 2009). Tourism expenditures increased 4.5 percent 

from 2006 to 2008 (Calvert County 2009). According to Calvert County’s 2009 State of the Economy, 

tourism employed 2,364 people in 2008 (Calvert County 2009). In addition, tourism expenditure 

exceeded $140 million in 2008. 

The tourism industry in Dorchester County consists of ten key attractions which includes museums and 

other sites such as the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, the Harriet Tubman Underground Rail Road 

Museum and the John Smith Trail & Discovery Center. These ten attractions alone drew 86,856 visitors 

in 2008 (Fenstermaker 2009). It is estimated that these attractions provide a direct economic benefit of 

$43-$58 million per year to Dorchester County (Fenstermaker 2009). In 2006, the tourism industry 

directly employed 100 people in the County, about 0.6 percent of total employment (Maryland Tourism 

Development Board 2008). This industry sector resulted in a direct tourism payroll of $4,270,000 

(Maryland Tourism Development Board 2008). According to the Maryland Department of Tourism, 

Dorchester County generated $2.5 million in tax revenues from tourism related purchases in 2008. In 

2009, about $2.2 million was generated in tourism tax revenue, a 16.3 percent decrease in revenue 

(Maryland Tourism Development Board 2009). 14 

Wicomico County tourism attractions include 75 regional parks, a large number of heritage sites, and a 

zoo. Wicomico County’s direct tourism employment was 1,990 employees, which accounted for 3.9 

percent of the total employment within the county (Maryland Tourism Development Board 2008). As of 

2006, the County had a direct tourism payroll of $65.0 million (Maryland Tourism Development Board 

2008). According to the Maryland Department of Tourism, Wicomico County generated $4.9 million in 

tax revenues from tourism related purchases in 2008, and $4.6 million in 2009, indicating a 6.6 percent 

decrease from 2008 (Maryland Tourism Development Board 2009). 

14 These taxes include: restaurants, lunchrooms, delicatessens, hotels and motels selling food, restaurants and night clubs, 

general merchandise, automobile/bus and truck rentals, commercial airlines, recreation and amusement places, hotels, 

motels, apartments, and cottages. 

1-236




1.10.1.10 Environmental Justice 

Environmental Justice considerations the demographic characteristics in the region of influence to 

identify and address, as appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental 

effects of programs, policies, or activities on minority populations and low-income groups. Under 

governing guidance, it is appropriate to go through the following steps to assess environmental justice 

considerations (CEQ 1997): 

Is there a protected community: assess the racial and economic composition of affected 

communities; 

Would a protected community face unique effects: evaluate any health-related issues that 

may amplify project effects to minority or low-income individuals; and 

If there is a protected community, assure full participation: consider enhanced or different p- 

Public participation strategies, including community or tribal participation in the permitting 

process. 

The USEPA provides guidance on determining whether there is a minority or low-income community to 

be addressed. According to this guidance, minority population issues should be addressed when they 

comprise over 50 percent of an affected area or when the minority population percentage of the affected 

area is substantially greater than the minority percentage in the larger area of the general population. 

Low-income populations are those that fall within the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty. 

Minority populations comprise less than 50 percent of the population in all of the census tracts traversed 

by the proposed Project (Table 1.10-15). In the case of an Environmental Justice evaluation, an effort is 

made to correlate the demographic analysis to the area most likely to bear environmental effects. For this 

Project any minor effects will be focused around the construction area and the census tract data offers a 

more localized representation of the affected community. To further assess whether the minority 

population in the affected community is substantially greater than the minority population in surrounding 

areas, we compared census tract demographics to the respective state and county proportions. The 

proportion of individual minority populations is greater than respective state-level statistics in one of the 

seven census tracts that make up the region of influence for the Project. Census tract 8009.00 has a 

minority population higher than the state proportions; however, when compared to the respective countylevel 

statistics, that census tract has a lower proportion of minority populations (Table 1.10-15). 

Guidance from the CEQ states that “minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the 

minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population percentage of 

the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general 

population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis” (CEQ 1997). These statistics indicate that a 

disproportionate effect on minority populations is unlikely. 

1-237




State/County/ 

Tract White 

Table 1.10-15 

Racial/Ethnic Estimates of Populations in Census Tracts Crossed by the 

Proposed Project (in percent) a 

Black or 

African 

American 

American 


and 

Alaska 

Native Asian 

1-238 

Native 

Hawaiian 

and Pacific 

Islander 

Persons 

Reporting Two 

or More Races 

Persons of 

Hispanic or 

Latino 

Origins b 

MARYLAND 60.9 28.8 0.3 4.9 0.1 2.0 6.6 

Prince 

George’s 

23.3 63.8 0.3 3.9 0.1 2.3 12.4 

8009.00 54.1 41.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 3.0 

Calvert 81.8 14.1 0.2 1.4 0.0 1.8 2.5 

8607.01 74.5 13.9 0.6 8.7 0.0 2.3 0.0 

8607.03 74.5 20.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 2.9 2.1 

8608.02 84.1 12.7 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.6 6.8 

Dorchester 69.2 27.7 0.2 0.8 0.0 1.3 2.2 

9703.00 89.4 7.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.9 4.6 

9701.00 82.0 17.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 

Wicomico 71.6 23.3 0.1 1.9 0.0 1.5 3.4 

Notes: 

a 

b 

0107.01 79.6 16.3 0.0 1.1 0.0 2.4 1.8 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau 2011b) 

People who identify their origin as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Thus, the percent Hispanic or Latino should not be added 

to the race as percentage of population categories. 

Low-income populations are defined as those living below the established poverty level. The U.S. 

Census Bureau also reports the percentage of populations with an income below the poverty level of 

$10,991 in 2008, as summarized in Table 1.10-16. In order to evaluate the potential for a low-income 

population to be impacted disproportionately, we compared the poverty level rates for the census tracts 

within the region of influence to those of their respective state and county levels.




Table 1.10-16 

Economic Statistics for Census Tracts Crossed by the 

Proposed Project a 

State / County / 

Census Tract 

Median Household 

Income in Dollars 

1-239 

Percentage of 

Persons below 

Poverty 

MARYLAND 69,475 8.2 

Prince 

George’s 

Notes: 

a 

70,753 7.4 

8009.00 61,786 2.4 

Calvert 90,621 4.8 

8607.01 88,459 4.9 

8607.03 64,740 11.9 

8608.02 86,452 2.9 

Dorchester 45,095 13.3 

9703.00 58,141 8.2 

9701.00 40,893 13.8 

Wicomico 51,352 12.4 

0107.01 52,589 12.5 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2011b) 

Six of the seven census tracts crossed by the proposed Project have poverty rates that are lower than, or 

within a half of a percentage point of, their respective county levels (Table 1.10-16). One of the census 

tracts within the region of influence has a poverty rate that is significantly higher than the respective 

county level. Census tract 8607.03 has a poverty rate of 11.9 percent while Calvert County has a poverty 

rate of 4.8 percent. However, the impact to the area is expected to be minor. The portion of the Project 

crossing this census tract involves replacing existing transmission structures and will occur entirely within 

an existing right of way. Impacts are expected to be temporary. Also, the portion of the census tract to be 

crossed is largely rural and the only major road crossings occur at the boundaries of the tract. The 

impacts involved with this portion of the Project are similar to other areas of the Project along existing 

right of way and further, these impacts are not shown to affect lower income populations 

disproportionately. 


Construction of the Project would result in a minor, short-term population increase in the vicinity of the 

Project. When available, local workers would be employed for construction. However, non-local,




specialized workers typically comprise about 70 percent of a linear utility construction workforce (FERC 

2004). 

Table 1.10-17 uses estimates from Charles River Associates’ (2010) report on the economic impacts of 

the project and provides the maximum expected transmission line-related migration into the Project area. 

The maximum potential peak workforce is assumed to be distributed evenly throughout the four counties. 

If all non-local construction workers and their families in-migrated to the region at one time, the regional 

population would increase by approximately 70 percent. This population increase would potentially exist 

for the entire construction time frame of between two and three years. 

Location 

Prince 

George’s 

County 

Calvert 

County 

Dorchester 

County 

Wicomico 

County 

a 

b 

c 

d 

2010 

Population b 

Table 1.10-17 

Maximum Potential Population Increase a 

Maximum 

Potential 

Peak 

Workforce c 

Local 

Workers 

1-240 

Non- 

Local 

Workers 

Non-Local 

Family 

Members d 

Total In- 

Migration 

Maximum 

Population 

Increase 

Percent 

863,420 139 42 97 78 175 0.02% 

88,737 139 42 97 78 175 0.20% 

32,618 139 42 97 78 175 0.54% 

98,733 139 42 97 78 175 0.18% 

Table based on estimates from “Economic Impacts of the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP) Project on Local Economies in Maryland 

and Delaware” by Charles River Associates. 2010. 

Census 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a) 

Assumes all workers are distributed evenly throughout all four locations. 

Based on FERC (2003), assume 0.8 non-workers accompany each non-local worker. 

Within the region, anticipated population impacts for the individual counties vary from between 0.02 to 

0.55 percent. The greatest percent change in population will occur in Dorchester County; its population of 

just over 30,000 will increase about half a percent if all non-local workers and their families in-migrated 

to the county at the same time. In all four counties, the demographic impact will be negligible. 

1.10.2.1 Employment 

Installation of the transmission line and construction of the converters and transition station is estimated 

to result in a moderate increase in employment during the construction period. When available, local 

workers would be employed for construction. It is assumed that 70 percent of the construction workforce 

would be non-local workers (FERC 2004). Therefore, construction would create new, temporary 

employment opportunities for approximately 42 local residents in each county, totaling 168 employment 

opportunities regionally (Table 1.10-17). The direct effect of the Project would be an increase in area 

employment and per capita income during the construction period.




Some additional full-time positions may be required for operation and maintenance across all six Project 

components, resulting in a permanent impact on employment and per capita income in the area. 

1.10.2.2 Economy and Tax Revenues 

The Project would likely have direct and indirect economic effects in the Project area, including an 

increase in the local economic activity and in sales tax revenues during construction. These activities 

would include investments associated with environmental mitigation from construction of the Project, 

including the tidal wetlands compensation fund; taxes paid by the Company; and rights-of-way and land 

acquisition investments associated with the Project right-of-way. Estimated construction and 

environmental mitigation expenditures within the Project area are estimated at over $154 million (Charles 

River Associates 2010). 

The construction and environmental mitigation activities of the six Project components are also likely to 

provide a short-term increase in employment through approximately 168 additional job opportunities in 

the local economies. During construction, a portion of the Project’s construction payroll would be spent 

locally for the purchase of housing, food, gasoline, and entertainment. In addition, the majority of the 

estimated $154 million Project-related expenditures would be subject to Maryland’s six percent sales tax. 

The subsequent increase in sales tax revenue would likely represent a significant increase in the local 

counties’ revenues. 

Following construction, the transmission lines, transition station, and converter stations would be 

classified as operating personal property and subject to state, county, and/or local taxation to be paid by 

the Company. Thus, operation of the six Project components would provide a permanent increase in 

government revenues. The annual property (ad valorem) taxes generated as a result of the Project are 

expected to lead to significant economic benefits in the form of government spending of increased tax 

revenues. In addition, operations and maintenance activities associated with the six Project components 

and subsequent environmental mitigation would likely result in a small, ongoing annual increase in local 

revenues. 

The Company does not expect that the completion of the Project would impact the assessed value of real 

estate for property owners along the right-of-way or near the transition station or converters. The 

expectation that property values would not be impacted is based on research presented by Chalmers and 

Voorvaart in the Summer 2009 Appraisal Journal. The article examines the impact of proximity, 

visibility and encumbrance effects of high-voltage transmission lines on property values. The result of 

their research is that “…even though the direction of effect on real estate value is generally negative, the 

presence of transmission lines is…not given sufficient weight by buyers and sellers of real estate to have 

had any consistent, material effect on property values.” (Chalmers 2009, 230). 

1.10.2.3 Local Service Providers 

There could be minor, temporary impacts on local service providers, including requests for permits for 

daily transport of oversized or overweight vehicles, temporary law enforcement needs, and possible 

injuries to workers, requiring local emergency medical services. The presence of 175 non-local 

construction personnel and their families could also result in a minor and short-term increase in the need 

for other social services. However, the construction workforce would not be in the area for an extended 

period of time. Furthermore, due to the temporary nature of construction activities, we do not anticipate 

that many school-age children would accompany the workforce; there should be little or no increased 

demand for education. We anticipate that the existing fire, police, and medical professionals would be 

capable of handling any increase in demand during the construction period. 

1-241




The Project’s long-term impact on demand for community services would primarily be limited to fire, 

police, and emergency responders during transmission line maintenance activities. During operation, the 

probability that these agencies would be required to respond to an industrial incident would increase 

minimally. 

1.10.2.4 Transportation 

Potential impacts to area transportation include disruption to ground and/or marine transportation and 

disruption to commercial and/or recreational fisheries. Potential impacts to transportation are discussed 

below. Based on preliminary and ongoing consultations with Federal Aviation Administration this 

Project component would not affect airborne traffic. 

1.10.2.4.1 Ground Transportation 

The movement of construction equipment and materials to work areas may result in a minor, temporary 

increase in traffic volume on roads in the Project vicinity. It may also temporarily require increased 

transportation permitting and enforcement activity. Several construction-related trips would be made 

each day (to and from the job site). This level of traffic would remain consistent throughout the 

construction period and typically would occur during the early morning and evening hours. To maintain 

safe conditions, the Company would work with state and local road authorities to manage impacts of its 

construction vehicles and equipment. For example, it may be necessary to use mats or other appropriate 

measures to reduce the deposition of dust, soil, or mud on road surfaces. 

The daily commuting of construction workers to the work area could also moderately increase traffic 

volume; however, given the size of construction workforce, we believe additional traffic volume 

associated with the Project would have minor and temporary impacts on local ground transportation. 

Further, because construction would move sequentially along the utility corridor, traffic flow impacts that 

do arise would be temporary on any given section of roadway. 

In certain areas, individual lanes of traffic may have temporary closures, but no total road closures are 

anticipated. In areas where traffic would be affected, the Company would file appropriate Maintenance 

of Traffic (MOT) Plans with the proper road authority. 

Given the size of the construction workforce, the nature of construction and the proposed measures to 

reduce impacts on local transportation, we believe the Project would have minor and temporary impacts 

on local ground transportation. 

1.10.2.4.2 Marine Transportation 


The Project would require the construction of four new structures in the Patuxent River and installation of 

a 500 kV transmission line through these structures. Construction traffic would consist of anchored or 

spudded barges that would carry construction materials (pilings, concrete, and structure construction 

materials) as well as construction equipment, including pile-driving rigs. See Volume I, Section 2.0 for a 

description of anticipated construction measures within the Patuxent River. Construction of new 

structures would be completed within a period of four-to-six months. This construction may involve 

some temporary, minor disruption to river traffic as vessels may be required to divert around construction 

activities. Specific impacts to marine transportation would be characterized once design engineering for 

the Project is complete. Information regarding travel lanes, standoff distances, and speed constraints due 

1-242




to the timing and implementation of construction and installation activities would be relayed to 

commercial and recreational vessels via a USCG Notice to Mariners. Specific maintenance of river 

traffic plans would be developed in coordination with the USCG. A letter has been provided to the Coast 

Guard regarding the Project and the Coast Guard would also provide comments to the USACE during the 

permitting process. The four new structures would run parallel to four existing structures, and be of 

similar type and height, including any painting or lighting currently present on the existing structures. 

After construction, the new structures would be marked for navigation. 

Potential socioeconomic impacts associated with marine shipping include those associated with revenue 

and employment. As discussed above, only one or two shipping vessels would be expected to traverse the 

Patuxent River near the Project area each month. No major ports are expected to be impacted by 

construction-related vessels in transit or anchored. Therefore, the partial closure of the navigational 

channel is expected to result in temporary and negligible impacts on marine shipping. 


The Nanticoke River crossing would consist of three pairs of single-pole tubular support structures 

located in the water. Each transmission structure typically would be constructed of piles which would be 

driven into the bottom of the Nanticoke River to a depth necessary to support the tower loads. Large 

barges are used to transport cranes and other equipment to each structure site in the river. 

Potential socioeconomic impacts associated with marine shipping include those associated with revenue 

and employment. Impacts to marine shipping in the Nanticoke River could occur if construction-related 

activities preclude or delay shipping as a result of restrictions to portions of the existing navigational 

channel. During the construction period portions of the Nanticoke River crossings could be partially 

blocked due to the presence of construction vessels. Vessels may be required to divert around the 

construction activities. However, this waterway would not be entirely closed to marine shipping traffic at 

any time due to these construction activities. Information regarding travel lanes, standoff distances, and 

speed constraints due to the timing and implementation of construction and installation activities, would 

be relayed to commercial and recreational vessels via a USCG Notice to Mariners. The partial closure of 

any one of the navigational channels is expected to result in temporary and negligible impacts on marine 

shipping. No major ports are expected to be impacted by construction related vessels in transit or 

anchored. 

1.10.2.5 Housing 

Due to the temporary increase in non-local employees, a short term increase in the demand for temporary 

housing is expected. Table 1.10-10 reports selected housing statistics for the region of influence. Within 

this region, there are approximately 133,245 rental units supplemented by approximately 6,896 hotel or 

motel rooms. An additional 959 campsites exist within the region. Assuming each non-local worker 

requires individual housing; about 0.3% percent of the available temporary housing in the region would 

be occupied. Thus, existing temporary housing appears capable of meeting the temporary and slightly 

increased housing demand resulting from construction on the Project. 

Housing demand for the few permanent positions generated by operation of the Project would represent a 

permanent but negligible increase in housing demand. 

1-243




1.10.2.6 Recreational Fisheries 

Potential socioeconomic impacts associated with recreational fishing include those associated with 

revenue and employment related to recreational fishing in the Project area. As described in Sections 1.7 

and 1.9, construction is not expected to result in significant impacts to targeted fish stocks or to 

recreational fishing in the Patuxent River and Nanticoke River, or other fishable waters within the Project 

area. Navigational restrictions would not be expected to result in significant increases to the variable 

costs of recreational fishermen and boaters. In general, no significant impacts to revenue and 

employment associated with these activities in the Project area would be expected during construction and 

operation of the Project. In addition, new structures in the Patuxent and Nanticoke Rivers could serve as 

localized fish attractors. 

1.10.2.7 Commercial Fisheries 

Impacts to commercial fishermen are expected to be temporary and minimal. Potential socioeconomic 

impacts associated with commercial fishing include those associated with revenue and employment. As 

described in Sections 1.7 and 1.9, construction of the Project is not expected to result in significant 

impacts to harvestable fish stocks or to commercial fishing in the Patuxent River or Nanticoke River, or 

other fishable waters within the Project area. In some cases, commercial fishermen may face additional 

costs resulting from navigational restrictions during construction, but in general, significant impacts to 

revenue and employment associated with commercial fishing in the Project area would be not be expected 

during construction and operation of this Project component. If the construction of the transmission lines 

in these waterbodies occurred during the summer when a majority of commercially important species are 

present, there may be minor impacts to commercial fishermen related to area closures or restricted 

passage through the construction area. 

1.10.2.8 Tourism 

Impacts to tourism are considered to be those which directly impact revenue generated from tourism 

activities. For portions of the Project that would be located in existing right-of-way, including the 

transmission lines from Chalk Point Substation to Western Shore Landing and Gateway Converter to 

Maryland State Line, no foreseeable direct impacts to tourism are expected. 

The proposed actions associated the construction of the transition station and converters do not impede 

any major tourism locations, such as heritage sites or public recreation areas. Therefore, there are no 

foreseeable direct impacts to tourism as a result of these Project components. 

The proposed actions associated the construction of the Western Shoreline to Gateway Converter 

transmission line does not impede any tourism sites, such as major heritage sites or land-based public 

recreation areas. Some navigable waters would be inaccessible to recreational boats and tourism charter 

cruises during the construction period of the crossing due to the presence of construction vessels. 

However, the river would not be entirely closed at any time to boat traffic. Information regarding travel 

lanes, standoff distances, and speed constraints due to the timing and implementation of construction and 

installation activities, would be relayed to commercial and recreational vessels via a USCG Notice to 

Mariners. The impacts of construction on marine traffic would be temporary and negligible. 

1.10.2.9 Environmental Justice 

Impacts related to Environmental Justice would occur if any adverse health or environmental effects of 

the Project were found to be disproportionately high for minority populations or low-income groups. Our 

1-244




analysis of the Project route and census tract data identified one area with a poverty rate significantly 

higher than the overall population, however, the expected impacts to this portion of the Project are similar 

to other areas of the Project and further, these impacts are not shown to affect lower income populations 

disproportionately. 

As discussed in the above Sections, the impacts of the Project are expected to be minor and will mostly 

occur during the temporary construction of the Project. Any minor negative effects have not been found 

to disproportionately affect minority populations or low income groups. 

Since there is not expected to be a disproportionately adverse effect on any environmental justice 

community, there is no need to develop additional or special public participation systems. The Project 

already involves many public participation opportunities. Extensive public involvement has occurred as 

part of the development of the proposed Project. These activities are described in detail in Volume I, 

Section 3.0 (Alternatives). Public involvement will continue as a part of the permitting process with the 

Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Maryland state agencies and as a part 

of the Maryland Public Service Commission’s (Commission) Certificate of Public Convenience and 

Necessity (CPCN). 


American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA). 2008. AAPA Map of U.S. Member Ports. Available 

at: http://www.aapa-ports.org/files/PDFs/US_ports.pdf?navItemNumber=987. 

Bureau of Labor and Statistics. 2011. Unemployment Rates by County in Maryland, January 2011. 

Available at: http://www.bls.gov/ro3/mdlaus.htm. Last Modified: March 22, 2011.Calvert 

County. 2009. Calvert County Department of Economic Development. State of the Economy 

2009. Available at: http://www.ecalvert.com/content/aboutcced/stateoftheeconomy/index.asp. 

Calvert County. 2010. Calvert County Tourism Office. Available at: http://www.ecalvert.com/index.asp. 

Chalmers, James and Frank Voorvaart. High-Voltage Transmission Lines: Proximity, Visibility, and 

Encumbrance Effects. The Appraisal Journal, Summer 2009, 227-245. 

Charles River Associates. 2010. Economic Impacts of the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP) Project 

on Local Economies in Maryland and Delaware. October 13, 2010. 

Comptroller of Maryland. 2011. Available at: http://www.marylandtaxes.com/default.asp. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf 

Dorchester County. 2010. Dorchester County Department of Tourism, Lodging. Available at: 

http://www.tourdorchester.org/category.php?category=7&last_clicked=12. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. The Regional Benefits Assessment for the Proposed 

Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/316b/phase3/ph3docs/p3_rba_fullreport.pdf. 

1-245




Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006. Regional Benefits Analysis for the Final Section 

316(b) Existing Facilities Rule. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/316b/phase3/ph3docs/p3-rba-final-part1.pdf. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2003. Greenbrier Pipeline Project Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. (Docket Nos. PF01-1-000 and CP02-396-000.) Vol. 1. Washington, DC. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2004. Tractebel Calypso Pipeline Project – Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Tractebel Calypso Pipeline, LLC. January. (FERC/FEIS- 

0163F). 

Fenstermaker, Amanda. 2009. Dorchester County Department of Tourism. “Potential Economic Benefits 

of Nature & Historic Tourism for Dorchester County.” Prepared at Request of Dorchester 

Citizens for Safe Energy Community & Environmental Defense Services. 

Hahn, Jason. 2008. Personal Communication. United States Coast Guard: ANT Potomac. September 2, 

2008. 

Hamill, Captain John. 2008. Personal Communication. Association of Maryland Pilots, First Vice 

President, Operations Management. October 9, 2008. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2011. Commercial Fisheries Data Nanticoke and 

Patuxent Rivers. Personal Communication with Connie Lewis. Email dated January 12, 2011. 

Maryland Department of Transportation. 2010. Maryland's Traffic Volume Maps by County: 2009. 

Available at: http://www.sha.maryland.gov/index.aspx?PageId=792. 

Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation. 2011. Available at: 

http://www.dat.state.md.us/sdatweb/taxrate.html. Revised: 2/18/2011. 

Maryland Tourism Development Board. 2008. Maryland Office of Tourism. Fast Facts 2008. Available 

at: http://visitmaryland.org/ABOUTMDTOURISM/Pages/TourismNewsAndReports.aspx. 

Maryland Tourism Development Board. 2009. Maryland Office of Tourism. 2009 Annual Report. 

Available at: 

http://visitmaryland.org/ABOUTMDTOURISM/Pages/TourismNewsAndReports.aspx. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Fisheries Statistics Division. 2008. Monthly Commercial 

Landing Statistics. Available at: 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/monthly_landings.html. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010. Maryland Recreational Fishing Data. Personal 

Communications via email with Tom Sminkey, NOAA NMFS, July 14, 2010. 

Roamer, John. 2008. Personal Communication. Patuxent Naval Air Testing Center, Public Affairs. 

August 19, 2008. 

Smith, Carl. 2008. Personal Communication. Prince George’s County Conference and Visitors Bureau, 

Marketing Manager. Email dated September 19, 2008. 

1-246




Tujaque, Amy. 2010. Personal communication. United States Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne 

Commerce of the United States. October 7 th, 2010. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center. 2010. U.S. 

Waterway Data: Waterborne Commerce of the United States. New Orleans, LA. Available at: 

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/data/datawcus.htm. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center. 2011. U.S. 

Waterway Data: Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Cargo Reports. New Orleans, LA. 

Available at: http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/wcsc/webpub09/webpubpart-1.htm. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. County Area Employment. Access Database. Available at: 

ftp://ftp2.census.gov/pub/outgoing/govs/special60/. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Fact Sheet from the U.S. Census. Available at: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011a. Fact Sheet from the U.S. Census. Available at: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011b. Data Sets from the 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5 year 

estimates. Available at: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datas 

ets_1&_lang=en&_ts= 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011c. Data Sets from the U.S. Census. Available at: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_submenuId=data 

sets_0&_lang=en 

Wicomico County. 2010. Wicomico County Tourism Department. Available at: 

http://www.wicomicotourism.org/. 

1-247




1.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

This section provides information on the cultural resources associated with the installation and operation 

of the Project in Prince George’s, Calvert, Dorchester and Wicomico Counties, Maryland. This section 

describes agency consultation efforts, identifies previously and newly recorded historic sites within the 

landward Project area in Maryland, and assesses the Project’s potential to affect these sites. 

1.11.1 Agency Consultation and Scope of Work 

The Company is consulting with the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) to identify and evaluate cultural 

and historic resources. MHT is also the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as designated under 

the National Historic Preservation Act. In consultation with MHT, a scope of work was prepared for the 

identification of cultural resources within the Project area and assessment of potential direct (i.e., 

construction) and indirect (i.e., visual) effects potentially caused by the Project. The scope of work 

includes the completion of Phase IA, Phase I, and Phase II cultural resources studies that identify or, 

when necessary, evaluate NRHP eligibility of previously recorded and newly recorded cultural resources 

and areas with a high potential for cultural resources. In addition, the scope of work includes preparation 

of viewshed studies that record previously identified, and newly identified historic built resources and 

assess potential Project visibility from these historic sites through the use of computer modeling and field 

verification. The methods used in these studies follow guidelines set forth in MHT's Standards and 

Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Maryland (Shaffer and Cole 1994) and Standards and 

Guidelines for Architectural and Historical Investigations in Maryland (2000), and have been refined 

through discussions with MHT. 

1.11.2 Study Area and Technical Reports for Cultural Resources 

The Phase IA and Phase I study areas for cultural resources for the Project are divided into six 

components defined as follows: 

1. Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter Transmission Line – This Project component 

extends from the Chalk Point Substation in Prince George’s County to the Chestnut 

Converter in Calvert County. The terrestrial Phase IA cultural resources study area is 0.5 

mile on either side of the centerline of the transmission line. Phase I studies were limited to 

the planned project area. The study area in the Patuxent River is 700 feet wide (350 feet on 

either side of the Project centerline); 

2. Chestnut Converter – The station site would be located on a parcel north of Solomon’s Island 

Road in the vicinity of Port Republic, Calvert County. The Phase IA study area included a 

0.5 mile radius around the planned converter. The Phase I study incorporated the entirety of 

the planned project area; 

3. Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing Transmission Line – This Project component 

extends from the Chestnut Converter to the Western Shore Landing. The Phase IA study area 

is 0.5 mile on either side of the centerline of the transmission line, and the Phase I was 

limited to the planned Project area; 

4. Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Transmission Line – This Project component 

comprises submarine cable extending from the Western Shore Landing in Calvert County to 

the landing in Dorchester County, an underground cable would extend from landfall to the 

new Choptank River Station, and then an aerial line would extend from the station to the 

Gateway Converter in Wicomico County. The area of the terrestrial Phase IA study area is 

0.5 mile on either side of the Project centerline, while the Phase I study is limited to the 

1-248




planned Project area. This Project component also includes the Choptank River Station. An 

analysis of the submarine portion across the Chesapeake Bay and the Choptank River is 

provided in Volume III; 

5. Gateway Converter – The station site would be located on a parcel in Wicomico County; and 

6. Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware Line – This Project component extends from the 

Gateway Converter in Dorchester County to the Maryland/Delaware Line in Wicomico 

County. The Phase IA study area is 0.5 mile on either side of the centerline, while the Phase 

I study is limited to the planned project area. 

Four Phase IA Cultural Resource Investigation reports, five Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation 

reports, one combined Phase I and Phase II Cultural Resource Investigation report, two Submerged 

Cultural Resource reports 15 and three Preliminary Viewshed Analysis reports for the Maryland portion of 

MAPP have been prepared as of this submittal and identify previously recorded and newly recorded 

historic sites situated within the study area. The analysis in this section is based upon the findings of 

these studies. In addition, fieldwork was conducted previously for the Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut 

Converter Project component. Data from the Patuxent River and Nanticoke River also was analyzed to 

identify submerged cultural resources. The previously prepared reports are referenced as follows: 

Markell, A.B., K.M. Child, J.S. Roth, and M. R. Williams. Draft Phase IA Cultural 

Resources Investigations for the Terrestrial Portion of the Proposed Mid-Atlantic Power 

Pathway Between the Hallowing Point Converter (now called the Chestnut Converter) and 

the Eastern Shore Converter Station in Calvert, Dorchester, and Wicomico Counties, 

Maryland. Prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates for ENTRIX, Inc., New 

Castle, Delaware. May 11, 2010. 

Grandine, K.E., Slemmer, C., and A.B. Markell. Preliminary Viewshed Analysis for the 

Proposed Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway in Charles, Prince George’s and Calvert Counties, 

Maryland. Prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. for ENTRIX, Inc., New 

Castle, Delaware. 

Markell, A.B., Godwin, P.L., and M.R. Williams. Phase IA Cultural Resource Investigations 

for the Chalk Point to Calvert Cliffs Segment of the Proposed PHI Mid-Atlantic Power 

Pathway in Prince George’s and Calvert Counties, Maryland. Prepared by R. Christopher 

Goodwin & Associates, Inc. for ENTRIX, Inc., New Castle, Delaware. June 10, 2009. 

Markell, A.B., Williams, M.R., and K.E. Grandine. Phase IA Cultural Resources 

Investigations for the Proposed Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway in Charles, Prince George’s and 

Calvert Counties, Maryland. Prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. for 

ENTRIX, Inc., New Castle, Delaware. 

Nowak, T.J., Ryberg, K.A., Friedman, A., and M.R. Williams. Submerged Cultural 

Resources Investigations of the Mid Atlantic Power Pathway Patuxent and Potomac River 

Crossings. Prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. for ENTRIX, Inc., New 

Castle, Delaware. September 2008. 

Nowak, T., K. Ryberg, and A.B. Markell. Summary Report: Submerged Cultural Resources 

Assessment for PHI Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway Chesapeake Bay Crossing and Choptank 

15 Submerged resources associated with the crossing of the Nanticoke River are identified in the January 2011 

Archaeological Resource Survey and Cultural Resources Assessment. 

1-249




River Survey Areas. Prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. for ENTRIX, 

Inc., New Castle, Delaware. June 2, 2010 (Revised June 4, 2010). 

Markell, A.B., Williams, M.R., and W. Barse. Draft Phase IA Cultural Resources 

Investigations for the Proposed Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway between Vienna, Maryland and 

the Maryland/Delaware State Line in Dorchester and Wicomico Counties, Maryland. 

Prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. for ENTRIX, Inc., New Castle, 

Delaware. November 2009. 

Roth, J.S., Godwin, P.L., R. Ciuffo, M.R. Williams, A.B. Markell. Phase I Cultural 

Resources Investigations of the Chestnut Converter Component of the Proposed Pepco 

Holdings, Inc. Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway Project in Calvert County, Maryland. Prepared 

by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. for Cardno ENTRIX, New Castle, Delaware. 

December 2010. 

Roth, J.S., Child K.M., R. Ciuffo, M.R. Williams, A.B. Markell, P.L. Godwin. Phase I 

Cultural Resources Investigations of the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing 

Segment of the Proposed Pepco Holdings, Inc. Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway Project in 

Calvert County, Maryland. Prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. for 

Cardno ENTRIX, New Castle, Delaware. December 2010. 

Kuranda, K. M., Ciuffo R. L., Riggle, B., May, K.F. Preliminary Viewshed Analysis for the 

Proposed Pepco Holdings, Inc. Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway Project Between the Choptank 

River and the Gateway Converter Station in Dorchester and Wicomico Counties, Maryland. 

Prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. for Cardno ENTRIX, New Castle, 

Delaware. December 2010. 

Roth, J.S., Godwin P.L., A.B. Markell, R.C. Ciuffo, M.R. Williams. Phase I Cultural 

Resources Investigations of the Gateway Converter Station for the Pepco Holdings, Inc. 

Proposed Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway Project in Wicomico County, Maryland. Prepared by 

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. for Cardno ENTRIX, New Castle, Delaware. 


Roth, J.S., Godwin, P.L., A.B. Markell, M.R. Williams. Phase I Cultural Resources 

Investigations of the Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line Segment of the 

Proposed Pepco Holdings, Inc Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway Project in Wicomico County, 

Maryland. Prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. for Cardno ENTRIX, 

New Castle, Delaware. December 2010. 

Kuranda, K.M., Ciuffo, R.L., K.F. May. Preliminary Viewshed Analysis for the Proposed 

Pepco Holdings, Inc. Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway Project Between the Gateway Converter 

Station and the Maryland/Delaware State Line in Wicomico County, Maryland. Prepared by 



Markell, A.B., Roth, J.S., P.L. Godwin, M.R. Williams. Phase I Archaeological Survey in 

Map 21 Parcel 19 and Phase II Archaeological Evaluations for Sites 18DO122 and 18DO154 

for Pepco Holdings Inc., Proposed Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway Project, Dorchester County, 

Maryland. Prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. for Cardno ENTRIX, 

New Castle, Delaware. December 2010. 

Schmidt, J., McCullough, D, K. Ryberg, M. Williams, J.S. Roth, R.C. Goodwin. 

Archaeological Resource Survey and Cultural Resources Assessment for the Mid-Atlantic 

Power Pathway (MAPP) Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter, Chesapeake Bay, 

1-250




Choptank, and Nanticoke River Crossing, Maryland. Prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin 

& Associates, Inc. for Cardno ENTRIX, New Castle, Delaware. January 2011. 

Roth, J.S., Godwin, P.L., K.R. West, K.M. Child, M.R. Williams, A.B. Markell. Phase I and 

Phase II Cultural Resources Investigations (Terrestrial) of the Western Shore Landing to 

Gateway Converter Segment of the Proposed Pepco Holdings, Inc. Mid-Atlantic Power 

Pathway Project in Dorchester and Wicomico Counties, Maryland. Prepared by R. 

Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. for Cardno ENTRIX, New Castle, Delaware. 


The following cultural resource studies will be completed as engineering design progresses and will be a 

supplemental submission: 

Addendum to: Roth, J.S., Godwin, P.L., R. Ciuffo, M.R. Williams, A.B. Markell. Phase I 

Cultural Resources Investigations of the Chestnut Converter Component of the Proposed 

Pepco Holdings, Inc. Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway Project in Calvert County, Maryland. 

Prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. for Cardno ENTRIX, New Castle, 

Delaware. December 2010. 

Addendum to: Roth, J.S., Godwin, P.L., K.R. West, K.M. Child, M.R. Williams, A.B. 

Markell. Phase I and Phase II Cultural Resources Investigations (Terrestrial) of the Western 

Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Segment of the Proposed Pepco Holdings, Inc. Mid- 

Atlantic Power Pathway Project in Dorchester and Wicomico Counties, Maryland. Prepared 

by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. for Cardno ENTRIX, New Castle, Delaware. 


Section 1.9 addresses Project Visual Impacts. 

1.11.3 Historic Sites 

Historic sites considered in this analysis include cultural resources (i.e., archaeological sites, architectural 

properties, historic districts) that have been listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as well as resources that are recorded at the MHT or are included on 

the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP) but have not yet had formal determinations of 

NRHP eligibility. In addition to MHT, the Prince George’s, Calvert, Dorchester, and Wicomico County 

Governments were consulted to determine if any properties near the Project area that were not listed in 

either the NRHP or the MIHP were locally designated and/or protected. Only Prince George’s County 

and Calvert County maintain a separate list of locally designated properties, and no locally designated 

properties, not also listed on the MIHP, were located within the study area. The evaluation of impacts to 

cultural resources identified in the following sources is outlined below. 

1.11.3.1 Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties 

MHT is responsible for compiling the MIHP. The MIHP consists of “districts, sites, buildings, structures, 

and other objects of known or potential value to prehistory, history, upland and underwater archaeology, 

architecture, engineering, and culture of the State” (Annotated Code of Maryland, State Finance and 

Procurement Article, § 5A 323(a)). 

1.11.3.2 National Register of Historic Places 

The NRHP, created under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, is the federal list of historic 

properties of local, state, and national significance in American history, architecture, archeology, 

1-251




engineering, and culture, and worthy of preservation. The NRHP is maintained and expanded by the 

National Park Service on behalf of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior. MHT administers 

Maryland’s NRHP program, but the final evaluation and listing of properties is the responsibility of the 

Keeper of the National Register 36 C.F.R. §60.3(f). The National Park Service has developed the NRHP 

Criteria for Evaluation (NPS 2002), which are the standards by which every property nominated to the 

NRHP is evaluated. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and 

culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, 

design, setting, material, workmanship, feeling, and association, and meet at least one of the four 

evaluator criteria. 

1.11.3.3 Local (County) Historic Preservation Ordinances 

Prince George’s County currently implements an historic preservation ordinance that protects locally 

designated historic properties. Subtitle 29 of the Prince George’s County Code is designed to protect 

historic properties from alterations and also typically requires a Historic Area Work Permit prior to such 

alterations. No properties that are locally designated by Prince George’s County are within the study 

area. 

Calvert County currently implements an historic preservation ordinance that protects locally designated 

historic properties. Chapter 57 “Historic Districts” of the Calvert County Code provides a regulatory 

process for designating an historic district and also protecting the district through its requirements for a 

Historic Area Work Permit. One site, Cedar Hill (CT-0035, HD #92-1) is a locally designated historic 

district that is subject to Chapter 57 of the Calvert County Code. While it falls within the larger study 

area, Cedar Hill lies outside the Company’s existing transmission corridor. Any clearing that would 

occur for this Project would be minor, and distance and the intervening location of large vegetation would 

limit any indirect effects to Cedar Hill. 

Wicomico and Dorchester Counties do not have local county historic preservation ordinances. 

1.11.3.4 Maryland Historical Trust Easements 

MHT may be a recipient of a term or perpetual easement from property owners who wish to protect their 

historic properties. In order to qualify, a property must be listed in or eligible for listing in, the NRHP or 

located within a locally certified or NRHP-listed historic district. These protective easements typically 

require property owners to consult with MHT prior to any modifications to any historic building or to the 

larger property. One property, the Plumer Cranford Barn (CT-1028A), is within the larger study area for 

the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing component of the Project area. Another easement 

property, Cedar Hill (CT-0035) is located in the Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter 

component. The Handsell House (D-127) and the Vienna Customs House (D-147) are located in the 

Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Phase IA study area, but outside of the Project right-ofway. 

1.11.3.5 Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail 

In December 2006, the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail (NHT) was authorized by 

the U.S. Congress. This new trail is still under development, and is administered by the National Park 

Service in coordination with the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. The trail comprises 

3,000 miles of water trails based on the explorations of Captain John Smith in 1607 and 1608 and links 

over 150 parks, refuges, museums, as well as land and water trails. Current mapping indicates that the 

1-252




Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware Line component of the Project would intersect the trail as it 

crosses the Nanticoke River. 

1.11.3.6 Heart of Chesapeake Country, Lower Eastern Shore, and Southern Maryland Heritage 

Areas 

Maryland Heritage Areas are locally designated and State certified regions focused on preservation of 

historical, cultural and natural resources for the purpose of encouraging sustainable development and 

tourism. Three Heritage Areas have been certified by the Maryland Heritage Areas Authority in the 

region, including: (1) the Heart of the Chesapeake Country Heritage Area, which includes a significant 

portion of Dorchester County; (2) the Lower Eastern Shore Heritage Area located in Somerset, Worcester, 

and Wicomico Counties; and (3) the Southern Maryland Heritage Area in Calvert, Charles, and St. 

Mary’s Counties. These three Heritage Areas are governed by individual management plans that provide 

the strategies, projects, programs, actions, and partnerships that are necessary to promote heritage 

conservation. The Heritage Area designation, while encouraging the preservation of historic sites through 

grants, program support, and heritage enterprise zones, is non-regulatory in nature in that it does not 

specifically endow protection upon individual historic sites or landscapes. 

1.11.4 Native American Sites of Religious and Cultural Significance and Consultation 

In order to identify and consider effects to historic sites of value to Native American Tribes, such as sites 

of religious and cultural significance, the Company forwarded a letter dated July 22, 2010 describing the 

Project to the Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs. The State of Maryland does not have any 

federally recognized Indian tribes within its borders. A response from the Maryland Commission on 

Indian Affairs has not yet been received. The Company also held meetings with the Nause – Waiwash 

Band of Indians to update them on the project and request input on potential cultural resource sites 

although no information was provided. 

1.11.5 Cultural Resource Survey Results 

1.11.5.1 Previously Identified Archaeological Resources 

Archaeological models for the Project area indicate that floodplains and terraces adjacent to wetlands and 

along stream drainages, as well as coastal areas would be particularly sensitive for prehistoric 

archeological sites; some portions of Dorchester County with significant aeolian deposition also could 

contain early prehistoric evidence. Other areas along the corridor would have a more moderate potential 

for prehistoric period sites. Potential for historic period sites is highest in areas along the various 

roadways and along the major and minor drainages that cross the Project corridor. Other portions of the 

corridor may contain evidence of agricultural or other activity associated with seventeenth through 

twentieth century occupation. Contact period sites are possible throughout the Project area but the areas 

adjacent to the Choptank and Nanticoke Rivers are particularly sensitive. 


Volume I, Section 2.0 provides details on the proposed construction and operation of this Project 

component. Based on the results of Phase IA cultural resources studies, a total of 26 previously identified 

archaeological sites are within 0.5 mile of the surveyed corridor for the Chalk Point Substation to 

Chestnut Converter Project area. In addition, Phase I archaeological testing has been completed for the 

planned structure locations within the corridor. No additional cultural resources were identified within 

the corridor. One previously recorded site (18CV61) within the existing corridor is eligible for listing in 

1-253




the NRHP and has the potential to be impacted by the new structure installation. Consultation has been 

initiated with the MHT on methods to avoid impacts to this site through the use of temporary matting. No 

impacts are expected to other archeological sites. 

Submerged Archaeological Resources 

The Project includes a crossing of the Patuxent River. The River is a historically significant waterway 

with potential for submerged archaeological resources. Some of the potential submerged resources may 

represent prehistoric or historic materials that have eroded from adjacent banks or have been carried 

downstream from other locations. The location of a historic wharf/ferry terminus has also been identified 

in the vicinity of the Patuxent crossing. Site 18CV399, Leitch’s Wharf, lies on the east bank of the 

Patuxent River, approximately 1,047 feet from the Project. Other types of structures (e.g., fish weirs, 

pound net fencing) may be associated with fin and shellfish harvesting. 

Vessel wrecks comprise the other major category of submerged sites, but no previously recorded vessel 

wrecks have been identified. Submerged cultural resources remote sensing data analyses have identified 

one potential cultural resource, “Target 4”, in the Patuxent River crossing, approximately 800 feet from a 

Project structure location. A 200-foot circumference avoidance zone around Target 4 has been 

established in consultation with MHT. The zone was established in anticipation of boring activities that 

would occur at prospective structure sites in the Patuxent River. 



component. The Chestnut Converter lies within the study areas of the 2009/2010 Phase IA and the 2010 

Phase I cultural resources surveys for Calvert County. Those studies indicate that no previously recorded 

archeological sites or built resources are present within the property boundary, although built resources 

recorded with the MIHP are present just outside of the property boundaries in Port Republic. Phase I 

archeological testing for the Chestnut Converter has been completed in all but a small extension at the 

southwestern edge of the property; the results of survey in that area will be presented in an addendum to 

the Phase I study. No archeological sites were recorded in the areas already surveyed. Consultation with 

MHT will continue through the permitting process. 



component. The Phase I Cultural Resources Report for this component identified five previously 

recorded archaeological sites within the study area but outside of the Project right-of-way. Only one site 

is located in close proximity to the proposed Project (18CV319). Site 18CV319, an 18th century 

farmstead site, is located to the south of the Project corridor. Phase I Archaeological testing indicates that 

the site does not extend into the Project right-of-way. An architectural resource located on the property at 

Western Shore Landing has been evaluated and recommended not eligible for the NRHP. No other 

cultural resources were identified during the Phase I survey. Consultation with MHT is ongoing. 

1.11.5.1.4 Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Transmission Line 


component. The terrestrial portion of the Project extends from landfall along the Choptank River in 

Dorchester County to the Gateway Converter. The archaeological potential for historic and prehistoric 

sites is relatively high in portions of this Project component, particularly in the vicinity of Nanticoke 

1-254




River and along the Transquaking River and its tributaries. Historic sites are likely in many of the upland 

settings. Within this study area (0.5 miles from the centerline), there are 71 previously identified 

archaeological sites, including 29 historic sites, 15 prehistoric sites, 22 sites with both historic and 

prehistoric components, and five sites consisting of shell or other deposits with unknown cultural or 

temporal affiliation. None of these sites have been formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, 

but three sites have been determined not eligible for listing. 

The Phase IA study indicated that five sites were located either within the Project corridor or immediately 

adjacent to the route. Sites 18DO122 and 18DO154 are located at the head of Indian Creek and are 

associated with 18th and early 19th century occupation of the Choptank Indian Reservation; these sites 

also contain evidence of late prehistoric occupation. Sites 18DO193 and 18DO194 were recorded as sites 

with both historic and prehistoric components. Historic materials indicate occupation during the 18th and 

early 19th centuries, and the prehistoric component may date from the Late Archaic and Early Woodland 

Periods. Site 18DO193 appears to be located within the Project corridor, while 18DO194 is located a 

short distance away. Finally, Site 18DO064 was located near the mouth of Chicone Creek, in the 

floodplain of the Nanticoke River. It was identified as oyster shell deposits with no clear temporal 

association, but it was believed to have a possible association with the Chicacoan (Nanticoke) 

Reservation located here in the 17th and 18th centuries. Phase I and Phase II investigations of sites 

18DO122 and 18DO154 were carried out. Both sites were relocated, and evaluation excavations have 

indicated that portion of site 18DO122 within the project corridor meets the eligibility criteria for listing 

in the NRHP, and the site has been recommended as eligible. The portion of site 18DO154 that lies 

within the Project easement also was evaluated for NRHP eligibility, but that portion of the site lacks 

sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for NRHP eligibility; it has been recommended as not eligible for 

the NRHP. Phase I investigations could not re-locate two sites originally mapped within the corridor 

(18DO193 and 18DO64). One site was located outside of the Project easement (18DO194). Two new 

sites were identified during the Phase I investigations (18DO483 and 18DO484). Site 18DO484 is 

associated with the former built resource MIHP #D-98. Neither of the sites (or portions thereof that lie 

within the Project easement) appear eligible for the NRHP. Consultation with MHT concerning the 

eligibility of all newly identified and evaluated sites, and acceptable methods of avoidance for site 

18DO122 are ongoing. The Company proposes to avoid impacts to these resources through the use of a 

Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) to bore underneath these sites and the watercourse at this location. 

Submerged Archaeological Resources 

The submerged portion of this Project component would lie beneath the Chesapeake Bay and the 

Choptank River. This area is discussed in Volume III. 

Archival data, geomorphologic data, and an array of remote sensing data were collected for the Nanticoke 

River Crossing. Review of these data sources indicated an absence of potential cultural resources. 

Consultation with MHT concerning submerged archaeological resources is ongoing. 


The Phase I Cultural Resources Report identified two newly identified archaeological resources and three 

isolates within the Gateway Converter study area. Site 18WC 199 is a late-nineteenth century domestic 

and agricultural site and site 18WC198 is a late nineteenth to early twentieth century domestic site. Based 

primarily on lack of depositional integrity and the inability to meet any of the NRHP criteria for 

evaluation, neither of the sites was recommended as eligible for NRHP listing. Consultation with MHT 

concerning the recommendations in the report is ongoing. 

1-255





The Phase I Cultural Resources Report did not identify any archaeological sites along this segment of the 

Project. Consultation with MHT concerning the recommendations in the report is ongoing. 

1.11.5.2 Previously Identified Architectural Resources 

The following analysis is based upon the Draft Phase I Cultural Resources Reports and Viewshed Reports 

for each of the components. 


The Phase IA Cultural Resources Report identified 59 previously recorded architectural resources listed 

in the MIHP within 0.5 mile of the transmission line corridor between Chalk Point Substation and the 

Chestnut Converter. In Calvert County, one architectural resource within the 0.5 mile study area has been 

determined eligible for the NRHP but has not yet been listed (CT-0856). Two eighteenth century 

architectural resources are listed on the NRHP; Willow Glen (CT-0034A) and Cedar Hill (CT-0035). 

Cedar Hill is also protected by a MHT easement. The Patuxent River (Benedict) Bridge (Bridge #4008; 

CT-1214) is two miles from the Project centerline but would have views of the Patuxent River crossing. 

In Prince George’s County, at least one previously recorded architectural resource and a potential historic 

district are close to the 0.5 mile study area. Neither Trueman Point (PG: 87B-28), a landing for plantation 

shipping, or the Town of Eagle Harbor have been evaluated for NRHP eligibility. Eagle Harbor was 

identified by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (MNCPPC) in 

correspondence dated April 25, 2008 as possessing historic significance as an early twentieth-century 

African-American resort along the Patuxent River. The Phase IA cultural resource survey and the 

viewshed analysis that includes this component have been reviewed by MHT and they have concurred 

with the results and recommendations in those reports. Consultation with MHT is ongoing. 


A preliminary viewshed analysis for architectural resources has been completed for this Project 

component. The analysis determined that there are 18 previously documented architectural resources 

located within 1 mile of the Station. Based on the conceptual design for the proposed Chestnut Converter 

Station, parts of the Chestnut Converter facility would be potentially visible from architectural resources 

located near Solomons Island Road. Once the design of the converter station has been finalized, an 

additional review should confirm this preliminary assessment. Consultation with MHT is ongoing. 


Twenty six architectural resources have been previously recorded in the MIHP within 0.5 mile of the 

Project centerline. None of these resources lies within the Project right-of-way. Of the twenty six 

architectural resources only one, Christ Episcopal Church (CT-0040/NR-343), was determined eligible 

and is listed in the NRHP. Bridge #4020 (CT-1186) over Governor’s Run has been determined to be not 

eligible for the NRHP. No determinations of eligibility have been recorded for 24 properties. One 

architectural resource was identified at the Western Shore Landing. The residence is not 50 years of age 

and is not currently eligible for listing in the NRHP. Because the route between the Chestnut Converter 

and the Western Shore Landing will be installed underground, it is not expected to have any direct or 

indirect visual impact on any historic resources, and no viewshed analysis of this section is planned. 

1-256





A preliminary viewshed analysis for architectural resources has been completed for this Project 

component. The analysis determined that there are 110 architectural resources over 50 years of age 

located within the area of potential visual effects (1.5 miles on either side of the existing power line 

corridor). Most of these resources are dwellings, farmsteads, churches, barns, commercial buildings, the 

rural community of Mardela Springs, and the rural village of Vienna consisting of houses, stores, and 

government buildings. Of the 110 resources, approximately 85 could have possible views to the proposed 

transmission line corridor and/or above ground structures. Field survey determined that 25 architectural 

resources would not have any views of the proposed transmission corridor due to distance and topography 

of the landscape. Only two properties, D-127 Handsell House and D-99, Little Mill Farm/Vinecroft and 

the Vienna Historic District (D-652) have been previously determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

There will be no view to the proposed transmission line from these resources. Consultation with MHT is 

ongoing to confirm the area of potential visual effect of the project and the results of the preliminary 

viewshed analysis. 


The Phase I Cultural Resources Report and preliminary viewshed analysis did not identify any previously 

recorded architectural resources within the property containing the Gateway Converter site. In addition, 

no architectural resources older than fifty years of age are located in the immediate vicinity of the 

proposed converter station location. 


The Preliminary Viewshed Analysis identified 161 architectural resources over 50 years of age were 

identified through a review of the MIHP and through a windshield survey. Most of the resources are 

dwellings, farmsteads, churches, barns, commercial buildings, in addition to the Mardela Springs survey 

district. Of the 161 resources, 39 currently have views to the transmission corridor and will have views of 

the proposed new structures. Another 26 architectural resources that currently do not have views of the 

transmission corridor may have views of the proposed new structures. Two of these resources, the 

Snethen Methodist Church (WI-385) and the Middle Point Monument (WI-70) may have views of the 

new structures, but they would be limited by existing screening vegetation. Field surveying confirmed 

that the remaining 96 resources would likely not have views of the new structures due to tree cover, 

intervening tree lines or intervening buildings. Consultation with MHT is ongoing to confirm the area of 

potential visual effect of the project and the results of the preliminary viewshed analysis. 

1.11.6 Potential Project Effects to Historic Sites 

1.11.6.1 Effects to Archaeological Resources 

Construction methods for each component of the Project are described in Volume I, Section 2.0. 

Anticipated soil disturbance during construction and installation of the Project components are merely 

summarized here. 


Existing single circuit structures in the terrestrial portion of this Project component would be 

removed and replaced with new dual circuit structures. The foundations for the existing 

1-257




structures would remain in place to minimize soil disturbance. New foundations and 

structures would be constructed. 

Some vegetation clearing would occur between Chalk Point substation and the west bank of 

the Patuxent River. 

Four additional structures would be constructed for the Patuxent River crossing and would 

involve minimal river bottom disturbance. 

A number of construction work areas would be required for stringing new transmission lines. 

These would measure approximately 200 feet by 600 feet or smaller in size; mats would be 

used in wetland areas to protect the ground surface. 


Construction at the Chestnut Converter site would involve vegetation clearing and associated 

soil disturbance. Details on the Project engineering and design of this Project component are 

pending. Volume I, Section 2.0 provides additional details on the facilities that would be 

built at this site. 





Parallel cable troughing about five feet in depth related to the installation of two underground 

transmission circuits for approximately 2 miles along an existing right-of-way. An additional 

one mile would be underground via a duct bank beneath the existing Western Shores 

Boulevard. 





Parallel cable troughing related to the installation of two underground transmission lines for 

approximately one mile. 

As needed, vegetation removal will occur for the creation of a 35-foot-wide right-of-way for 

the underground portion (1.0 mile) and 300 feet for the aboveground portion that extends for 

approximately 14 miles. 

Construction would include a new crossing of the Nanticoke River north of the Route 50 

Bridge comprised of new structures being placed in the water with minimal river bottom 

disturbance. 




1-258





Construction at the Gateway Converter site could involve vegetation clearing and associated 

soil disturbance. Details on the Project engineering and design of this Project component are 

pending. Volume I, Section 2.0 provides additional details on the facilities that would be 

built at this site. 





Subsurface ground disturbance related to construction of new structures within the existing 

right-of-way. Additional subsurface disturbance may be caused by the subsequent removal of 

the existing H-frame structures. 




1.11.6.2 Effects to Architectural Resources 

For all Project components, there are no architectural resources situated within the Project right-of-way. 

The principal effects to architectural resources from Project-related construction and operation would be 

potential short-term changes in the visual settings caused by the construction activities and potential 

limited long-term changes to the viewshed where new structures are constructed. The height of the new 

structures along the terrestrial portion of the Project and the Patuxent and Nanticoke River crossings 

would range from 70 to 195 feet in height and would result in potentially visible lines. Construction of 

converter stations and substations would also introduce transmission infrastructure that may also be 

visible from historic architectural resources. 

1.11.6.2.1 Chalk Point Substation to Chestnut Converter Transmission Line 

A preliminary viewshed model for the Patuxent crossing reveals that two NRHP listed properties, Willow 

Glen (CT-0034A) and Cedar Hill (CT-0035) would have limited and/or partially obscured views of the 

transmission line. The crossing would also be visible from the NRHP eligible Bridge #4008 (CT-1214) 

that carries MD 231 over the Patuxent River. The bridge lies outside the 0.5 mile study area and views of 

the corridor’s Patuxent River crossing would be minimal. 

At Willow Glen, the house is set back from Barstow Road and surrounded by tall trees; only the chimneys 

of the house were visible from the public road. Barns are located on the west side of the road. The 

existing structures in the transmission corridor are not visible from Barstow Road in front of the house. 

Since the new structures would be constructed to the same height as the existing structures it is unlikely 

that the new structures would be visible from the property. 

Cedar Hill is not visible from the public road that passes in front of the building. A dense tree buffer 

separates the house from the transmission corridor. However, the existing corridor was visible over open 

agricultural fields from the southwestern corner of the property and behind the H.E. Hutchins Store and 

House (CT-125). 

1-259




The community of Eagle Harbor overlooks a small cove. The houses visible from the beach are oriented 

to face northeast and would not have direct views towards the Patuxent Crossing. It may be anticipated 

that some houses near the shore may have oblique views towards the crossing, but any houses within the 

community would have no view due to the dense tree cover on house lots throughout the community. 

From St. Leonard Road (MD 765), the transmission corridor was generally glimpsed only through gaps in 

treelines or at intersections with public roads. A node of older farm complexes and houses located near 

the intersection of St. Leonard Road and Parkers Creek Road have views of the existing transmission 

corridor. These older farm complexes and houses have not been evaluated for eligibility to the NRHP. 

While the transmission line would be visible from a number of historic sites, the distance from these sites 

is significant enough such that the new structures and line would not add a substantial level of visual 

intrusion. Furthermore, the visual environment already includes a pair of transmission line crossings as 

well as a power plan. It is unlikely that Patuxent crossing and terrestrial portions of Project, therefore, 

would affect the qualities or integrity of properties that might be eligible for or listed in the NRHP. 


Based on the conceptual design for the proposed Chestnut Converter Station, and if the existing tree cover 

facing Solomons Island Road and Parkers Creek Road remain intact, the new converter station is not 

likely to affect architectural resources. Once the design of the converter station has been finalized, an 

additional review should confirm this preliminary assessment. 

1.11.6.2.3 Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing Transmission Line 

Long term visual effects to architectural resources are not anticipated for the Chestnut Converter to 

Western Shore Landing Transmission Line component of the Project due to the Project specifications that 

call for underground circuits. 

1.11.6.2.4 Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Transmission Line 

Along the Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter segment, approximately 85 architectural 

resources may have possible views to the proposed transmission line corridor and/or above ground 

structures. Only two properties, D-127 Handsell House and D-99, Little Mill Farm/Vinecroft and the 

Vienna Historic District (D-652) have been previously determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. There 

will be no view of the proposed transmission line from these resources. 


No long term or short term visual effects to architectural resources are anticipated for the Gateway 

Converter segment. No built resources older than fifty years of age are located in the immediate vicinity 

of the proposed converter station location. Furthermore, trees surrounding the property are anticipated to 

block views of the converter station. 

1.11.6.2.6 Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware Line 

Along the Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware Stateline segment, 39 architectural resources 

currently have views to the transmission corridor and will have views of the proposed new structures. 

Another 26 architectural resources that currently do not have views of the existing transmission corridor 

may have views of the proposed new structures. Two of these resources, the Snethen Methodist Church 

1-260




(WI-385) and the Middle Point Monument (WI-70) may have views of the new structures, but the long 

term visual effects are anticipated to be limited by existing screening vegetation. 

No long term visual effects are anticipated for the Chestnut Converter provided that vegetation situated 

between the project structures and neighboring roads is not removed. No long term visual effects are 

anticipated at the Gateway Converter. 


The Project has the potential for effects to archaeological resources within the Project corridor and to the 

viewsheds of architectural resources situated near the Project corridor. Phase I archaeological testing has 

been completed along the Project corridor to identify any additional archaeological sites that could be 

impacted and Phase II testing has been completed at two sites to evaluate their NRHP eligibility. The 

portion of Site 18DO122 located within the project area was recommended eligible for the NRHP. 

Consultation with MHT concerning the eligibility of all newly identified and evaluated sites and 

acceptable methods of avoidance for site 18DO122 is ongoing. 

Preliminary viewshed analyses identified a potential for impacts to the viewsheds of architectural 

resources. Consultation with MHT is ongoing to confirm the area of potential visual effect of the Project 

and the results of the preliminary viewshed analysis.. The Company will continue to consult with MHT 

to ensure that impacts to cultural resources are avoided, minimized, and/or mitigated during Project 

construction. 


Grandine, K.E., C. Slemmer, and A.B. Markell. Preliminary Viewshed Analysis for the Proposed Mid- 

Atlantic Power Pathway in Charles, Prince George’s and Calvert Counties, Maryland. Prepared 

for ENTRIX, Inc., New Castle, Delaware. September 2008. 

Kuranda, K. M., Ciuffo R. L., Riggle, B., May, K.F. Preliminary Viewshed Analysis for the Proposed 

Pepco Holdings, Inc. Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway Project Between the Choptank River and the 

Gateway Converter Station in Dorchester and Wicomico Counties, Maryland. Prepared by R. 

Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. for Cardno ENTRIX, New Castle, Delaware. December 

2010. 

Kuranda, K.M., Ciuffo, R.L., K.F. May. Preliminary Viewshed Analysis for the Proposed Pepco 

Holdings, Inc. Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway Project Between the Gateway Converter Station and 

the Maryland/Delaware State Line in Wicomico County, Maryland. Prepared by R. Christopher 

Goodwin & Associates, Inc. for Cardno ENTRIX, New Castle, Delaware. December 2010. 

Markell, A.B., Godwin, P.L., and Williams, M.R. Phase I Cultural Resource Investigations for the Chalk 

Point to Calvert Cliffs Segment of the Proposed PHI Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway in Prince 

George’s and Calvert Counties, Maryland. June 10, 2009. 

Markell, A.B., K.M. Child, J.S. Roth, and M. R. Williams. Draft Phase IA Cultural Resources 

Investigations for the Terrestrial Portion of the Proposed Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway Between 

the Hallowing Point Converter and the Eastern Shore Converter Station in Calvert, Dorchester, 

and Wicomico Counties, Maryland. Prepared for ENTRIX, Inc., New Castle, Delaware. May 11, 

2010. 

1-261




Markell, A.B., M. Williams, and W. Barse. Draft Phase IA Cultural Resources Investigations for the 

Proposed Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway between Vienna, Maryland and the Maryland/Delaware 

State Line in Dorchester and Wicomico Counties, Maryland. Prepared for ENTRIX, Inc., New 

Castle, Delaware. November 2009. 

Markell, A.B., M.R. Williams, and K.E. Grandine. Phase IA Cultural Resources Investigations for the 

Proposed Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway in Charles, Prince George’s and Calvert Counties, 

Maryland. Prepared for ENTRIX, Inc., New Castle, Delaware. September 2008. 

Markell, A.B., Roth, J.S., P.L. Godwin, M.R. Williams. Phase I Archaeological Survey in Map 21 Parcel 

19 and Phase II Archaeological Evaluations for Sites 18DO122 and 18DO154 for Pepco Holdings 

Inc., Proposed Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway Project, Dorchester County, Maryland. Prepared by 



Maryland Historical Trust (MHT). 2000. Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Historical 

Investigations in Maryland. Maryland Department of Planning. Available online at: 

http://mht.maryland.gov/documents/PDF/Survey_standards_architecture_web.pdf. 

Nowak, T., K. Ryberg, and A.B. Markell. Summary Report: Submerged Cultural Resources Assessment 

for PHI Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway Chesapeake Bay Crossing and Choptank River Survey 

Areas. Prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. for ENTRIX, Inc., New Castle, 

Delaware. June 2, 2010 (Revised June 4, 2010). 

Nowak, T.J., Ryberg, K.A., Friedman, A., and M.R. Williams. Submerged Cultural Resources 

Investigations of the Mid Atlantic Power Pathway Patuxent and Potomac River Crossings. 

Prepared for ENTRIX, Inc., New Castle, Delaware. September 2008. 

Roth, J.S., Child K.M., R. Ciuffo, M.R. Williams, A.B. Markell, P.L. Godwin. Phase I Cultural 

Resources Investigations of the Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing Segment of the 

Proposed Pepco Holdings, Inc. Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway Project in Calvert County, 

Maryland. Prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. for Cardno ENTRIX, New 

Castle, Delaware. December 2010. 

Roth, J.S., Godwin P.L., A.B. Markell, R.C. Ciuffo, M.R. Williams. Phase I Cultural Resources 

Investigations of the Gateway Converter Station for the Pepco Holdings, Inc. Proposed Mid- 

Atlantic Power Pathway Project in Wicomico County, Maryland. Prepared by R. Christopher 


Roth, J.S., Godwin, P.L., A.B. Markell, M.R. Williams. Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations of the 

Gateway Converter to Maryland/Delaware State Line Segment of the Proposed Pepco Holdings, 

Inc Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway Project in Wicomico County, Maryland. Prepared by R. 

Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. for Cardno ENTRIX, New Castle, Delaware. December 

2010. 

Roth, J.S., Godwin, P.L., K.R. West, K.M. Child, M.R. Williams, A.B. Markell. Phase I and Phase II 

Cultural Resources Investigations (Terrestrial) of the Western Shore Landing to Gateway 

Converter Segment of the Proposed Pepco Holdings, Inc. Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway Project in 

Dorchester and Wicomico Counties, Maryland. Prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin & 

Associates, Inc. for Cardno ENTRIX, New Castle, Delaware. December 2010. 

1-262




Roth, J.S., Godwin, P.L., R. Ciuffo, M.R. Williams, A.B. Markell. Phase I Cultural Resources 

Investigations of the Chestnut Converter Component of the Proposed Pepco Holdings, Inc. Mid- 

Atlantic Power Pathway Project in Calvert County, Maryland. Prepared by R. Christopher 


Schmidt, J., McCullough, D, K. Ryberg, M. Williams, J.S. Roth, R.C. Goodwin. Archaeological 

Resource Survey and Cultural Resources Assessment for the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway 

(MAPP) Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter, Chesapeake Bay, Choptank, and 

Nanticoke River Crossing, Maryland. Prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. 

for Cardno ENTRIX, New Castle, Delaware. January 2011. 

Shaffer, Gary D., Cole, Elizabeth J. 1994. Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in 

Maryland. Maryland Historical Trust Technical Report No. 2. Available online at: 

http://mht.maryland.gov/documents/PDF/Archeology_standards_investigations.pdf. 

1-263




1.12 AIR QUALITY 

This section provides information on the air quality resources associated with the installation and 

operation of the Project in Prince George’s, Calvert, Dorchester and Wicomico Counties, Maryland. Air 

quality resources reviewed include the existing conditions and attainment status that exist at the converter 

stations and along the transmission line route. Existing conditions are addressed first in Section 1.12.1 

followed by an analysis of potential Project impacts and mitigation for those resources in Section 1.12.2. 


The USEPA uses six "criteria pollutants" (ground level ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur 

dioxide, particulate matter (PM), and lead) as indicators of air quality, and has established for each of 

them maximum concentrations above which adverse effects on human health or general welfare may 

occur. These threshold concentrations are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

The USEPA also monitors air quality nationwide and classifies areas on a county-level as one of three 

designations: 

Non-Attainment: Any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a 

nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary ambient air quality 

standards for the pollutant. 

Attainment: Any area (other than an area identified above) that meets the national primary or 

secondary ambient air quality standards for the pollutant. 

Unclassifiable: Any area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as 

meeting or not meeting the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the 

pollutant (USEPA 2010a). 

Two criteria pollutants are relevant to air quality in the counties in which the Project would be located: 

ground level ozone and PM 2.5. Ground-level ozone is the primary component of smog. Ozone is found 

in two regions of the Earth’s atmosphere, at ground level and in the upper regions of the atmosphere. 

While upper atmospheric ozone forms a protective layer from the sun’s harmful rays, ground level ozone 

is the primary component of smog. Ground level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but forms 

through a reaction of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of 

sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities and electric generation utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, 

gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are the major man-made source of NOx and VOCs. Because 

sunlight and hot weather accelerate its formation, ozone is mainly a summertime air pollutant. Both 

urban and rural areas can have high ozone levels, often due to transport of ozone or its precursors (NOx 

and VOCs) from hundreds of miles away. Breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung function and 

increase respiratory symptoms (USEPA 2008a). On September 16, 2009, the USEPA announced it would 

reconsider the 2008 NAAQS for ground-level ozone. USEPA proposed revisions to the national 

standards for ground-level ozone on January 6, 2010. USEPA plans to complete designations for ozone 

NAAQS by March 12, 2011 (USEPA 2010b). Until the new standards are approved, the 1997 

designations are being used for ground-level ozone, and the 8-hour ozone standard is in effect. 

PM2.5 consists of tiny airborne particles that result from direct particulate emissions, the condensation of 

emitted sulfates, nitrates, ammonia, and organics from the gas phase, the coagulation of smaller particles 

and particles formed in the atmosphere due to chemical reactions involving emissions of sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), NOx, VOCs and ammonia precursors. Sources of PM2.5 include all types of combustion activities, 

including motor vehicle emissions, coal power plants, wood and vegetation burning, and many industrial 

processes involving emitting particulates, condensibles and precursors. There are two NAAQS for annual 

1-264




PM2.5 (fine particulate matter): 1997 standards and 2006 standards (USEPA 2008b). EPA expects 

designations based on the 2006 NAAQS and 2007-2009 data to take effect in 2010 (USEPA 2010c). 

The federal Clean Air Act requires review under the Non-Attainment New Source Review (NNSR) 

program of any new or significantly modified major emission source of pollutants for which the area in 

which the source is located has been classified as non-attainment. The Act also requires review under the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program of any new or significantly modified major source 

of those pollutants for which the area where it is located is in attainment or not classified. Under the 

NNSR program, a covered source must demonstrate that it has installed emission controls that are 

as effective as any required for its type of source in the emission control regulations of any state, or as 

effective as the most stringent limit achieved in practice by similar sources. It must also show that its 

emissions will not interfere with the scheduled attainment of the air quality standards. A PSD-affected 

source must show that it will install the best available control technology, and that its emissions will not 

cause a violation of air quality standards, or cause good air quality to deteriorate by more than designated 

"significant" amounts. 


This segment of transmission line would be located in Prince George’s and Calvert Counties, Maryland as 

described in Volume I, Section 2.0. Prince George’s County is currently in attainment for four criteria 

pollutants - carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead, but is in non-attainment for 8hour 

ozone and annual PM2.5. Calvert County is in attainment with all of the NAAQS except 8-hour 

ozone based on the 1997 standard. 

Prince George’s County is in non-attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 standards and is not classified for the 

2006 standards (USEPA 2010a; USEPA 2008b). A summary of the pollutants for which these counties 

are currently in non-attainment is provided in the Table 1.12-1 (USEPA 2010a; USEPA 2009a). 

Table 1.12-1 

Air Quality Pollutants for which Project Counties are Designated In Non Attainment 

County Pollutant (standard) Current Classification 

Prince George’s 8-Hour Ozone (1997) Moderate (Non-attainment) 

Prince George’s Annual PM 2.5 (1997) Non-attainment 

Calvert 8-Hour Ozone (1997) Moderate (Non-attainment) 

The attainment designation for Prince George’s County for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is recent. In 

2005, the Washington DC area (including Prince George’s County) was designated as in non-attainment 

under this standard. This designation was changed to attainment on January 12, 2009 (USEPA 2009b). 

However, because of the 2005 non-attainment rating for 24-hour PM2.5, Maryland was required to 

develop a plan demonstrating that the area would attain the federal air quality standards as quickly as 

possible. This change occurred because, although air quality monitoring data in Prince George’s County 

meet 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, they have been determined to be contributing to exceedances of the standard 

in Baltimore (USEPA 2008c) 

1-265





The Chestnut Converter would be located in Calvert County, which is currently in non-attainment for 

ground-level ozone based on the 1997 standards (USEPA 2009a). Calvert County is in attainment for the 

five other criteria pollutants. 

A summary of the pollutants for which Calvert County is currently in non-attainment is provided in Table 

1.12-2 (USEPA 2009a). 

Table 1.12-2 

Air Quality Pollutants for which the Project County is Designated In Non Attainment 

County Pollutant (standard) Current Classification 

Calvert 8-Hour Ozone (1997) Moderate (Non-attainment) 

1.12.1.3 Chestnut Converter to Western Shore Landing Transmission Line 

This segment of underground transmission line would be located entirely in Calvert County. Current 

conditions in Calvert County are described above in Section 1.12.1.2. 

1.12.1.4 Western Shore Landing to Gateway Converter Transmission Line 

This segment of transmission line would be located in Calvert, Dorchester, and Wicomico Counties, 

Maryland. The proposed Choptank River Station would also be located in Dorchester County. 

Dorchester and Wicomico Counties meet all national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards 

and are in attainment for all six criteria pollutants (ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur 

dioxide, fine particulate matter [PM2.5] and lead). 

Current conditions in Calvert County are described above in Section 1.12.1.2. 


The Gateway Converter would be located in Wicomico County, Maryland. Wicomico County meets all 

national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards and is in attainment for all six criteria 

pollutants (ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, fine particulate matter [PM2.5] and 

lead). 


This segment of transmission line would be located in Wicomico County, Maryland. Wicomico County 

meets all national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards and is in attainment for all six 

criteria pollutants (ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, fine particulate matter 

[PM2.5] and lead). 

1-266




1.12.2 Project Impacts and Mitigation 

1.12.2.1 Chalk Point Substation to the Chestnut Converter 

Project construction activities would temporarily generate certain air emissions. Fueled vessels and 

barges would be used to install proposed new structures in the Patuxent River. On land, activities include 

vehicle traffic and construction equipment. During on land construction, air emissions would result from 

the driving of trucks and other mobile fossil-fueled machinery during tree clearing, installation of the new 

structures, and installation of the new transmission line on the structures. The construction practices are 

described in more detail in Volume I, Section 2.3. At the new structures on land, limited, temporary soil 

disturbance would be expected during construction. These construction practices would be expected to 

result in temporary dust and engine emissions impacts. The Company would work with State and local 

road authorities to manage vehicular use to minimize and control dust, mud, and other emissions. Overall 

dust emissions would be expected to be minimal. Emissions from vehicles or equipment would be 

minimized by adherence to the manufacturers’ specifications. 

The proposed Project would not be a source of permanent air emissions and therefore no permanent 

impacts to air quality are anticipated from this Project. 


Project construction activities would temporarily generate certain air emissions. Construction of the 

Chestnut Converter and switching station includes clearing of vegetation and grading of the site, and 

construction of permanent facilities within a fenced area. Volume I, Section 2.3.5 describes these 

facilities and construction methods more fully. Additionally, air emissions would result from the driving 

of trucks and other mobile fossil-fueled machinery such as bulldozers, track hoes, and dump trucks during 

vegetation clearing and construction of the converter and switching station. 

The Company would work with State and local road authorities to manage vehicular use to minimize and 

control dust, mud, or other emissions. The building of new access roads or modifications to existing 

access roads may be required to support construction. The scope of access roads needed for the Project 

would be determined once engineering and design studies are completed. Further, emissions would be 

minimized by maintaining equipment to the manufacturers’ specifications. 

The Chestnut Converter transforms AC power to DC. It does not manufacture or utilize any products or 

raw materials. As a result, it is not normally a source of air emissions. The converter station does utilize 

the local electric distribution grid to supply normal lighting, heating, and control system power to the 

station. As a back-up, the station can provide its own back-up power from the main transformer. As a 

last resort, emergency backup diesel generators would be located at the Chestnut Converter and switching 

station. The generators would only run during an emergency situation, if both the primary and backup 

station service power supplies were lost, and they would only run until one of the other power sources 

returned. Therefore, during normal operations the generators would not be used. Any permits required 

for the operation of the emergency generators will be applied for and obtained prior to commencement of 

facility operations. 

The proposed Project would not be source of permanent air emissions and therefore no permanent 


1-267





Project construction activities would generate certain temporary emissions from trenching and placement 

of underground cable for this Project segment. Additionally, air emissions would result from the driving 

of trucks and other mobile fossil-fueled machinery during vegetation clearing and installation of the new 

underground transmission line. Construction methods are described more fully in Volume I, Section 2.3. 

These construction practices would be expected to result in temporary dust and engine emissions. The 

Company would work with State and local road authorities to manage vehicular use to minimize and 








Project construction activities as described in Volume I, Section 2.0 for both onshore and offshore 

segments would generate certain emissions. Onshore, air emissions would result from the driving of 

trucks and other mobile fossil-fueled machinery during vegetation clearing and installation of the new 

transmission line both underground (duct bank) and aerially, as well as at the Choptank River Station. At 

the sites of installation of underground lines via duct bank or new aerial structures, limited, temporary soil 

disturbance would be expected during construction. Onshore activities related to the Chesapeake Bay and 

Choptank River crossings would include vehicle traffic and construction equipment near the landfall sites, 

as well as use of horizontal directional drill equipment linking the onshore and offshore portions of the 

proposed segment. 

A discussion of air quality for the Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River crossings are discussed in detail 

in Volume III. 









Project construction activities would generate certain emissions. Construction of the new Gateway 

Converter and switching station would involve use of heavy equipment such as bulldozers, track hoes, 

and dump trucks. Volume I, Section 2.3.5 describes these facilities and construction methods more fully. 

Use of construction vehicles and heavy equipment would also result in local and temporarily increased air 

emissions. This disturbance would be expected to be limited and temporary. 

1-268









The Gateway Converter transforms AC power to DC power. It does not manufacture or utilize any 

products or raw materials. As a result, it is not normally a source of air emissions. The converter station 

does utilize the local electric distribution grid to supply normal lighting, heating, and control system 

power to the station. As a back-up, the station can provide its own back-up power from the main 

transformer. As a last resort, emergency backup diesel generators would be located at the Gateway 

Converter and switching station. The generators would only run during an emergency situation, if both 

the primary and backup station service power supplies were lost, and they would only run until one of the 

other power sources returned. Therefore, during normal operations the generators would not be used. 

Any permits required for the operation of the emergency generators will be applied for and obtained prior 

to commencement of facility operations. 




Project construction activities would generate certain temporary emissions. Air emissions would result 

from the driving of trucks and other mobile fossil-fueled machinery during vegetation clearing and 

installation of the new aerial transmission line. At the sites of installation of new structures, limited, 

temporary soil disturbance would be expected during construction. Volume I, Section 2.3 describes the 

construction methods more fully. 

These construction practices would be expected to result in temporary dust and engine emissions impacts. 









U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008a. Fact Sheet – Final Revisions to the NAAQS for 

Ozone. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/pdfs/2008_03_factsheet.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008b. Air Quality Designations for the 2006 24-Hour 

Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/documents/2008-12- 

22/FR_Final_24hr_PM2.5_Designations_010609.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008c. December 5 letter from Donald S. Welsh 

(USEPA) to Honorable Martin O’Malley (Governor of Maryland), regarding Nonattainment areas 

1-269




for PM2.5. Available at: http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committeedocuments/ZV5dWVZY20081208081927.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009a. Letter from State of Maryland to USEPA 

Region 3 dated March 10, 2009. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/designations/2008standards/rec/letters/03_MD_rec.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009b. Fact Sheet – EPA to Reconsider Ozone 

pollution Standards. http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/pdfs/O3_Reconsideration_ 

FACT%20SHEET_091609.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010a. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for 

Criteria Pollutants. Published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as of June 15, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010b. FACT SHEET - EXTENSION OF 

DEADLINE FOR PROMULGATING DESIGNATIONS FOR THE 2008 OZONE NATIONAL 

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/pdfs/fs20100106des.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010c. PM Standards Revision – 2006. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oar/particlepollution/naaqsrev2006.html 

1-270




1.13 NOISE 

This section provides information on the noise environment associated with the installation and operation 

of the Project in Prince George’s, Calvert, Dorchester and Wicomico Counties, Maryland. Noise 

resources reviewed include the existing conditions that exist at the converter stations and along the 

transmission line route. Existing conditions are addressed first in Section 1.13.1 followed by an analysis 

of potential Project impacts and mitigation for those resources in Section 1.13.2. 


The ambient sound level of a region is defined by the total noise generated, including sounds from both 

natural and artificial sources. Land use in the Project area is described in Section 1.9, which provides 

additional information about the existing land use at each project segment. The magnitude and frequency 

of environmental noise may vary considerably over the course of the day and throughout the week, in part 

due to changing weather conditions and the effects of seasonal vegetative cover. Noise quality would be 

temporarily affected during construction and very minimally during operation of this Project. 


This Project segment would be located approximately 30 to 35 miles southeast of suburban Washington, 

D.C., in an area of Prince George’s and Calvert Counties, Maryland that is primarily suburban and mixed 

forest, with some pasture/agriculture. Existing noise along the Project route is due to its general 

proximity to the Chalk Point Substation, a power plant, existing transmission right-of-way and suburban, 

rural, and agriculturally developed areas and roads. 


The Project site would be located approximately 35 miles southeast of suburban Washington, D.C., in an 

area of Calvert County, Maryland that is primarily suburban and forested. Existing noise along the 

Project route is due to its general proximity to and existing transmission right-of-way, suburban, rural, 

and agriculturally developed areas and roads. 


The Project segment would be located approximately 35 to 38 miles southeast of suburban Washington, 

D.C., in an area of Calvert County, Maryland that is primarily suburban and forested. Existing noise 

along the Project route is due to its general proximity to suburban and rural areas and roads. 


The Project’s Western Shore Landing is located approximately 38 miles southeast of suburban 

Washington, D.C., in an area of Calvert County that is largely suburban for the onshore landfall portion of 

the route. The Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River crossings are discussed in detail in Volume III. The 

eastern onshore portion of the Project, which traverses Dorchester County to a new Gateway Converter 

and switching station in Wicomico County, is located approximately 55 to 70 miles southeast of suburban 

Washington, D.C. in an area that is largely agricultural/pasture and forested. The proposed Choptank 

River Station would also be located in Dorchester County. 

1-271





The Gateway Converter and switching station site is located approximately 70 miles southeast of 

suburban Washington, D.C., in an area of Wicomico County that is largely agricultural with forests, 

marshes, and some homes. The existing noise environment along the Project route is due to its general 

proximity to suburban, industrial, and agriculturally developed areas. 


This Project segment is located approximately 70 to 75 miles southeast of suburban Washington, D.C., in 

an area of Wicomico County that is largely agricultural. Existing noise along the Project route is due to 

its general proximity to suburban and agriculturally developed areas. 

1.13.2 Project Impacts and Mitigation 

During Project construction, adjacent locations would hear construction noise at various levels, depending 

upon the construction phase. The effect of construction noise would depend on the particular type, 

number, and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment. The State of Maryland has a 

Noise Control Program found at COMAR 26.02.03. Under this program, construction noise is subject to 

a 90 decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA) limit during daylight hours, and may not cause exceedances 

of a 55 dBA limit on residential properties during nighttime hours, according to COMAR 

26.02.03.03(A)(2). 


During construction, noises along the right-of-way would generally be due to the driving of trucks and 

other heavy equipment and clearing of vegetation to support installation of the new aerial transmission 

line, which is described in Volume I, Section 2.0. Where vegetation would be cleared, noise impacts 

would be associated with the clearing, hauling, and/or chipping of vegetation, and installation of new 

structures for this segment. Construction noises would be intermittent and would likely extend over a 

period of several months. All construction activities would follow the State’s Noise Control Program, 

including time of day limitations. Construction equipment would be maintained to manufacturers’ 

specifications to minimize noise impacts. Although individuals in the immediate vicinity of the 

construction activities could hear the activities, the impact on the noise environment at any specific 

location along the proposed route would be temporary and short-term. 

Based on visual interpretation of 2010 satellite imagery, approximately 60 potentially habitable buildings 

that may be homes, residences, or other habitable structures would be located within approximately 300 

feet of the proposed Project route. The inhabitants of these buildings may be noise sensitive receptors. 


There would be temporary noise impacts in the area of the site during construction procedures, which are 

described in Volume I, Section 2.0. Noise impacts at the Chestnut Converter would generally be due to 

the driving of trucks and other heavy equipment and clearing of vegetation. Where vegetation would be 

cleared, noise impacts would be associated with the clearing, hauling, and/or chipping of vegetation and 

site construction. Construction noises would be intermittent and would likely extend over a period of 

several months. All construction activities would follow the State’s Noise Control Program, including 

time of day limitations. Construction equipment would be maintained to manufacturers’ specifications to 

1-272




minimize noise impacts. Although individuals in the immediate vicinity of the construction activities 

could hear the activities, the impact on the noise environment would be temporary and short-term. 

Based on visual interpretation of 2010 satellite imagery, approximately 38 potentially habitable buildings 

that may be homes, residences, or other habitable structures are located within approximately 300 feet of 

the proposed Project site. The inhabitants of these buildings would be the nearest noise sensitive 

receptors. Long-term maintenance of the site would involve routine vegetation and station maintenance. 

These activities would comply with noise ordinances. 


During construction procedures, which are described in Volume I, Section 2.0, noises along the right-ofway 

would generally be due to the driving of trucks and other heavy equipment and clearing of 

vegetation. This Project segment involves placement of underground cable using trenching equipment. 

Volume I, Section 2.3.3 describes these construction practices. Construction noises would be intermittent 

and likely would be extended over a period of several months. All construction activities would follow 

the State’s Noise Control Program, including time of day limitations. Construction equipment would be 

operated on an as-needed basis during those periods and would be maintained to manufacturers’ 

specifications to minimize noise impacts. Although individuals in the immediate vicinity of the 

construction activities could hear the activities, the impact on the noise environment at any specific 

location along the proposed route would be temporary and short-term. 

Based on interpretation of 2010 satellite imagery, approximately 35 potentially habitable buildings that 

may be homes, residences, or other habitable structures were observed within approximately 300 feet of 

the proposed Project. The inhabitants of these buildings would be the nearest noise sensitive receptors. 


There would be temporary noise impacts in the area of the Project during construction procedures, which 

are described in Volume I, Section 2.0. Onshore, noise impacts during construction would result from the 

driving of trucks and other heavy equipment, clearing of vegetation, and installation of the new 

transmission line for both underground and aerial segments, as well as construction at the proposed 

Choptank River Station. Where vegetation would be cleared, noise impacts would be associated with the 

clearing, hauling, and/or chipping of vegetation. Trucks would be used to install poles, install insulators 

on each pole, and pull the new line for aerial crossings. Onshore activities related to the Chesapeake Bay 

and Choptank River crossing would include vehicle traffic as well as use of horizontal directional drill 

equipment linking the onshore and offshore portions of the proposed segment. 

Noise associated with the Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River crossings are discussed in detail in 

Volume III. 

Construction activities would follow the State’s Noise Control Program, including time of day limitations. 

Construction equipment would be operated on an as-needed basis during those periods and would be 

maintained to manufacturers’ specifications to minimize noise impacts. Although individuals in the 

immediate vicinity of the construction activities could hear the activities, the impact on the noise 

environment at any specific location along the proposed route would be temporary and short-term. 

Based on interpretation of 2010 satellite imagery, there were 16 potentially habitable buildings that may 

be homes, residences, or other habitable observed within approximately 300 feet of the onshore portion of 

proposed Project. The inhabitants of these buildings would be the nearest noise sensitive receptors. 

1-273





There would be temporary noise impacts in the area of the site during construction procedures, which are 

described in Volume I, Section 2.0. Noises at the Gateway Converter would generally be due to the 

driving of trucks and other heavy equipment and clearing of vegetation. Where vegetation would be 

cleared, noise impacts would be associated with the clearing, hauling, and/or chipping of vegetation, and 

structure installation. 

Construction noises would be intermittent and would likely extend over a period of several months. All 

construction activities would follow the State’s Noise Control Program, including time of day limitations. 




environment would be temporary and short-term. 

Based on interpretation of 2010 satellite imagery, approximately six potentially habitable buildings that 

may be homes, residences, or other habitable structures were observed within approximately 300 feet of 

the proposed Project site. The inhabitants of these buildings would be the nearest noise sensitive 

receptors. 


There would be temporary noise impacts in the area of the Project during construction procedures, which 

are described in Volume I, Section 2.0. Noises would generally be due to the driving of trucks and other 

heavy equipment and clearing of vegetation. Where vegetation would be cleared, noise impacts would be 

associated with the clearing, hauling, and/or chipping of vegetation. Trucks would be used to install 

poles, install insulators on each pole and pull the new line. 

Construction noises would be intermittent and would likely extend over a period of several months. All 

construction activities would follow the State’s Noise Control Program, including time of day limitations. 




environment at any specific location along the proposed route would be temporary and short-term. 

This segment would be constructed on existing right-of-way. Based on interpretation of 2010 satellite 

imagery, approximately 74 potentially habitable buildings that may be homes, residences, or other 

habitable structures were counted within approximately 300 feet of the proposed Project. The inhabitants 

of these buildings would be the nearest noise sensitive receptors. 

1.13.2.7 Operational Noise 

Long-term maintenance of the right-of-way during operations would involve routine vegetation and 

transmission line maintenance. These activities would comply with applicable noise ordinances. All DC 

equipment at the converter stations is housed within a building so there will be no audible noise produced 

from the DC equipment. The only other equipment located at either the converter stations or switching 

stations that would produce any noise are the AC transformers. The noise produced from these will meet 

all applicable federal, state and local guidelines. Transmission lines are also capable of producing both 

radio and audible noise from a phenomenon known as corona. This varies with weather and other 

ambient conditions. All transmission lines being constructed as part of this project meet all applicable 

1-274




standards. Two detailed reports, titled “Electric & Magnetic Fields, Corona Phenomena, and Assessment, 

Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway Direct Current and Alternating Current Transmission Lines, Choptank 

River Station to Mission Converter” and “EMF, Audible and Radio Noise Assessment: Possum Point to 

Calvert Cliffs 500kV Lines”, produced by Exponent are attached in Volume V, Appendix E. 

1-275




1.14 ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS 

This section assesses electromagnetic fields (EMF) associated with the operation of the transmission 

lines. A complete report analyzing potential EMF and impacts is provided in Volume V, Appendix E. 

1.14.1 Available State, National and International Guidelines for EMF 

There are no federal standards for EMF for power lines nor are there state standards in Maryland. 

Guidelines for exposure of the public and workers to AC EMF and DC magnetic fields have been 

recommended by the International Committee on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and other 

agencies. These guidelines are applicable to the on land portions of the route and pertain to human health 

that would be in the proximity of the transmission lines. See Appendix E7 for further details. 


Magnetic fields are produced by the flow of electric currents. The background geomagnetic field at the 

earth’s surface is a static field that largely originates from DC flow in the liquid part of the earth’s core 

and from metallic elements in the crust of the earth. Exponent, 2010 evaluates naturally occurring 

magnetic fields in the Project Area. The strength of project-related magnetic fields in this report is 

expressed as magnetic flux density in units of milligauss (mG). As described in that report, the highest 

geomagnetic field strengths are measured at the magnetic poles (~700 mG) and lowest values are 

measured at the equator (~300 mG), i.e. 0.7 -0.3 G. In the Project Area, the estimated geomagnetic field 

is about 518 mG. Local variations in the geomagnetic field (magnetic field anomalies) may be produced 

by the presence of a wide variety of ferromagnetic sources, including shore-based structures (docks and 

jetties), sunken ships, pipelines, and ferromagnetic mineral deposits. The field intensity produced by such 

sources varies with distance; near some sources, the background magnetic field could be perturbed by up 

to hundreds of mG or more (Exponent, 2010). 

1.14.3 Potential Environmental Impacts 

The analysis of potential EMF impacts from the operating transmission lines found that the potential 

impact is minimal. The assessment in Appendix E7 concludes that there is no evidence in the literature 

that variations in the geomagnetic field, including magnetic anomalies, are harmful to humans or animals. 

There will be no impact to the human environment because exposures to DC magnetic fields that the 

general public might encounter even directly over the buried Upland and Submarine Cables will be 

approximately 4,000 times or more below the ICNIRP recommended exposure limit. Further discussions 

of the potential environmental impacts associated with EMF exposure can be found in Volume V, 

Appendix E. 

1-276




Summary of Impacts from Construction and Operation of the Proposed Project in Maryland a 

Gateway to 

State Line 

WSL to 

Gateway Gateway 

Chestnut 

to WSL 

Chalk to 

Chestnut Chestnut 

Temporary Tidal Waterbody Impacts (acres) 0.0020 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

Permanent Tidal Waterbody Impacts (acres) 0.0024 0.0000 0.0000 TBD b 0.0000 0.0000 

Temporary Non-tidal Waterbody Impacts (acres) 0.0110 0.0000 0.0000 0.0250 0.0000 0.0080 

Permanent Non-tidal Waterbody Impacts (acres) 0.0000 0.1780 0.1470 0.0040 0.0000 0.0000 

Temporary Agricultural Lands 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Permanent Agricultural Lands 0.0 22.5 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 

Temporary Open Lands c 13.6 0.0 0.0 44.7 0.4 14.7 

Permanent Open Lands c 0.1 0.1 6.9 1.7 12.2 0.0 

Temporary Forest Lands d 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.7 

Permanent Forest Lands d 7.9 27.1 2.1 225.6 15.5 0.0 

Temporary Open Water e




Summary of Impacts from Construction and Operation of the Proposed Project in Maryland a (continued) 


State Line 



Chestnut 




Emergent Wetlands 0.0 0 0 5.5 0 0 

Non-Tidal Wetlands Forested Wetland Conversion 

2.4 1.8 0 203.0 5.7 0 

g, h, i 

(Clearing) (Acres) 

Tidal Wetlands Forested Wetland Conversion (Clearing) (Acres) g, h, i 0.0 0.0 0 3.4 0 0 

Non-Tidal Scrub/Shrub Wetland Conversion (Clearing) (Acres) g, h, i 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 

Tidal Scrub/Shrub Wetland Conversion (Clearing) (Acres) g, h, i 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 

Non-Tidal Wetlands Permanent Foundation/Trenching/Access 

Road/Construction Entrances/Manhole Impacts (Acres) g 

Forested Wetlands g 0.0 0.6 0 0.7 0.8 0 

Scrub-shrub Wetlands g 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0 

Emergent Wetlands g 0.0 0 0.5 0.1 0.7 0 

Tidal Wetlands Permanent Foundation/Trenching/Access 

Road/Construction Entrances/Manhole Impacts (Acres) g 

Forested Wetlands g 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 

Scrub-shrub Wetlands g 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 

Emergent Wetlands g 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 

Non-Tidal Wetland buffer Access and Work Area Matting 

(Acres) g 

Forested Buffer g, j, k 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 

Non-forested Buffer g, j, k 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 

g, j, k 

Tidal Wetland buffer Access and Work Area Matting (Acres) 

Forested Buffer g, j, k 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 

Non-forested Buffer g, j, k 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 

1-278






State Line 



Chestnut 




Non-Tidal Wetland Buffer Forest Conversion (Clearing) (Acres) g, j, k 0.4 1.9 0.0 10.2 2.1 0 

Tidal Wetland Buffer Forest Conversion (Clearing) (Acres) g, j, k 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0 0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0 0 

Non-Tidal Wetland Buffer Scrub/Shrub Conversion (Clearing) (Acres) 

g, j, k 

Tidal Wetland Buffer Scrub/Shrub Conversion (Clearing) (Acres) g, j, k 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 

Non-Tidal Wetland Buffer Permanent 

Foundation/Trenching/Access Road/Construction 

g, j, k 

Entrances/Manhole Impacts (Acres) 

Forested Buffer g, j, k 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0 

Non-forested Buffer g, j, k 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.8 0 

Tidal Wetland Buffer Permanent Foundation/Trenching/Access 

g, j, k 

Road/Construction Entrances/Manhole Impacts (acres) 

Forested Buffer g, j, k 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 

Non-forested Buffer g, j, k 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 

0.0 0.0 0.0






State Line 



Chestnut 




Potential FIDS habitats - Class 1 Matting (Acres) 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 



Sensitive species Project Review Areas - Group 1 Matting (Acres) 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 



Green Infrastructure Hubs Forest Conversion (Acres) 2.8 7.9 0.0 217.2 11.8 0.0 

Green Infrastructure Corridors Forest Conversion (Acres) 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Rural Legacy Areas Forest Conversion (Acres) 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 

Rural Legacy Easements Forest Conversion (Acres) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Chesapeake Forest Lands Forest Conversion (Acres) 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 

CREP targeted acreages Forest Conversion (Acres) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 

Targeted ecological areas Forest Conversion (Acres) 0.0 8.9 0.0 224.0 12.6 0.0 

Agricultural land preservation easements Forest Conversion (Acres) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Agricultural land preservation districts Forest Conversion (Acres) 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 

Potential FIDS habitats - Class 1 Forest Conversion (Acres) 0.0 10.5 0.0 159.4 0.0 0.0 



0.0 12.2 0.0 148.3 0.0 0.0 

Sensitive species Project Review Areas - Group 1 Forest Conversion 

(Acres) 

0.0 0.0 0.0 23.3 6.9 0.0 

Sensitive species Project Review Areas - Group 2 Forest Conversion 

(Acres) 

1-280






State Line 



Chestnut 




Green Infrastructure - Hubs Scrub-Shrub Clearing (Acres) 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 

Rural Legacy Areas Scrub-Shrub Clearing (Acres) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 

CREP targeted acreages Scrub-Shrub Clearing (Acres) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Targeted ecological areas Scrub-Shrub Clearing (Acres) 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.2 0.0 0.0 

Potential FIDS habitats - Class 3 Scrub-Shrub Clearing (Acres) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 

Sensitive species Project Review Areas - Group 2 Scrub-Shrub 

Clearing (Acres) 

Green Infrastructure Hubs Permanent (Acres) 0.016 5.324 3.076 1.201 12.239 0.226 

Green Infrastructure - Corridors Permanent (Acres) 0.018 0.000 2.826 0.008 0.000 0.001 

Rural Legacy Areas Permanent (Acres) 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.868 0.000 0.000 

Rural Legacy Easements Permanent (Acres) 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

CREP targeted acreages Permanent (Acres) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.436 0.000 0.001 

Targeted ecological areas Permanent (Acres) 0.016 5.055 3.202 1.484 15.095 0.047 

Agricultural land preservation districts Permanent (Acres) 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.540 0.000 0.000 

Potential FIDS habitats - Class 1 Permanent (Acres) 0.013 9.124 0.000 0.177 0.000 0.000 



Sensitive species Project Review Areas - Group 1 Permanent (Acres) 0.024 37.732 2.059 0.580 0.000 0.000 



Bald Eagle Nests (Number) 2 0 0 0 0 0 

1-281






State Line 



Chestnut 




0.000 0.050 0.140 0.000 0.000 0.000 

State-Listed Threatened or Endangered Plant Species Permanent 

(Acres) 

Critical Areas Forest Conversion (acres) 7.600 0.000 0.400 13.700 0.000 0.000 

Archaeological Resources (within Study Area) l 26 0 5 71 5 0 

Archaeological Resources (within Project right-of-way) 1 0 0 5 5 0 

Architectural Resources (currently within view) 59 18 0 0 0 39 

Architectural Resources (potential view following installation) 0 0 0 85 0 26 

Architectural Resources (within Project right-of-way) 0 0 0 0 0 0 

a Impacts associated with the crossing of the Chesapeake Bay and Choptank River are presented in Volume III 

b 

TBD – To Be Determined: Permanent impacts to Nanticoke River will be determined, anticipated to be similar to Patuxent Crossing impacts. Does not include impacts to Chesapeake Bay or 

Choptank River (see Volume III). 

c Open land is a land type applied in the Land Use analysis and is defined by lands classified as barren land, herbaceous and scrub-shrub lands and non-forested wetlands. 

d Forest land is a land type applied in the Land Use analysis and is defined by lands classified as upland forested lands and forested wetlands. 

e Open water is a land type applied in the Land Use analysis and is defined by lands classified as surface water. 

f 

Developed Land is a land type applied in the Land Use analysis and is defined by lands classified as industrial or developed such as utility stations, rock quarries, strip mines, gravel pits, and 

major railroad and road crossings) 

g Areas of less than 0.05 acre are shown as 0.0 acre. 

h All areas of forest clearing and scrub-shrub trimming in wetlands are matted. 

i Total temporary matting impacts do not include matting areas with forest or scrub shrub clearing. This avoids double counting total impacts. 

j Buffers are normally 25 feet wide except in WSSC where the buffer width is increased to 100 feet. 

k Total buffer does not include any buffers that fall within an adjacent wetland. 

l 

Section 1.11.2 provides details on the Project Component specific study areas but in general the study area is 0.5 mile on either side of the centerline of the transmission line or 0.5 mile radius 

around the planned converter. 

1-282

Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway Chalk Point Substation to Indian River ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?