Maryland Department of Natural Resources Weighs In

 MD DNR questions route  and notes potential  damage from the MAPP power lines and converter station slated for Parkers Creek watershed in Calvert county.


. April 4, 2011
Mr. Doug Boren Loan Programs Office (LP-10)
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585
via e-mail
MAPP-EIS@hq.doe.gov
Reference: DOE/EIS-0465
Dear Mr. Boren:
The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Power Plant Research Program (PPRP) has reviewed the Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for a Proposed Federal Loan Guarantee To Support Construction of Phase II of the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway Transmission Line Project, in Maryland and Delaware (Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 43, p. 12088, March 4, 2011). PPRP appreciates the opportunity to provide comment on the Department of Energy (DOE) scoping of the EIS for the evaluation of potential environmental impacts of the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP) project. In response to the Notice of Intent, I would like to first describe the review process that is used in Maryland for evaluating such projects, and then from this perspective offer specific comments about the issues raised by the MAPP project and the desired scope of DOE's environmental review.
Maryland's Transmission Line Review Process - As you may be aware, Maryland’s process for evaluating transmission line licensing projects falls under the following:
• Power Plant Siting Act of 1971,
• Chapter 31 of the Laws of Maryland of 1971, as codified in Sections 3-301 through 3-306 of the Natural Resources Article,
• Sections 2-207 and 2-208 of the Public Utility Company Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, and
• Maryland's Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 702 of the Laws of 1973, as codified in Section 1-303 of the Natural Resources Article.
Tawes State Office Building – 580 Taylor Avenue – Annapolis, Maryland 21401
410-260-8DNR or toll free in Maryland 877-620-8DNR – www.dnr.maryland.gov – TTY Users Call via the
Maryland Relay
Under these Acts, the Public Service Commission (PSC) is required to consider a broad range of impacts including socioeconomic, environmental, health, safety and system reliability of any proposed new or modified overhead electric transmission line in excess of 69,000 volts as part of the application review and approval process. In accordance with the Natural Resource Article §3-306 of the Annotated Code, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Power Plant Research Program (PPRP) performs an integral role in the evaluation process and is responsible for coordinating the review of projects requiring a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) with other units within DNR, as well as with the Departments of the Environment, Agriculture, Transportation, Business and Economic Development, and Planning (including the Maryland Historic Trust), the Maryland Energy Administration, and other units as appropriate. The purpose of coordinating the review of the proposed project is to assure review by those agencies with regulatory responsibility for managing Maryland's natural, socioeconomic, and cultural resources, and that their comments and insights are incorporated into any licensing or permit conditions. Additionally, evaluating the electrical system need for a transmission project is also integral to the evaluation process. As such, the electrical need and reliability of the transmission project are considered to ensure that the project provides improved electrical service for Maryland and the Mid-Atlantic region.
This coordinated review process culminates in a comprehensive set of proposed licensing conditions and recommendations from the State’s reviewing agencies that insure the proposed project meets all State and federal statutory and regulatory requirements. Although the Environmental Review Statement which DOE will prepare will likely address many of the same issues which will be addressed in the PSC review process, the DOE review will in no way supplant the PSC’s review process. On the contrary, DOE is welcome to utilize the findings of the State review process. The recommended licensing conditions are supported by the preparation of an independent Environmental Review Document (ERD) that details the State’s evaluation of the potential impacts of the project. The process is intended to facilitate the provision of adequate electric power on reasonable schedules at reasonable costs with the least possible depreciation in the quality of the State’s environment.
PPRP has begun preparing an ERD for the Maryland portion of the proposed MAPP transmission line. While this document is not yet complete, PPRP's ongoing review indicates that a number of significant environmental issues merit thorough evaluation – beyond and independent of the material provided by the Applicants - to determine the potential impact of the proposed project. Based on our review to date, I offer below a number of comments intended to address your request to provide input for the EIS scope. Where appropriate, comments have been organized under the topic areas listed in the Notice of Intent.
Project Need and Alternatives – The evaluation of need for a transmission project falls within the responsibility of the state public service commissions and environmental agencies; however, we support the intent of the DOE to consider the No Action Alternative (i.e., the “no loan” alternative) as stated in the Notice of Intent and required under 40 CFR 1502.14(d). Under this alternative DOE may properly evaluate the effects on the regional transmission system of a "no project" or "no build" scenario. We recommend that DOE also consider in the EIS at least two alternatives that meet the objectives stated by the PJM Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee (TEAC) by reinforcing existing transmission routes or building new transmission routes that do not cross Chesapeake Bay.
Additional Alternatives - PPRP supports the intent of DOE, as stated in the Notice of Intent, to "analyze alternatives to portions of the project, such as alternative routes and river crossings, which could lessen or avoid impacts to affected resources". In addition to route alternatives which would avoid crossing of the Chesapeake Bay, we recommend that the EIS consider route alternatives that would avoid the major environmental impacts of the Applicants' proposed route, including the removal or conversion of forested wetlands and the removal or conversion of forested areas in sensitive watersheds or habitats. Specifically, at least one alternative route that avoids the oyster fisheries of the Choptank River should be considered in the EIS. In addition, at least two alternatives to the portion of the route between the Choptank River and the Gateway converter should be included, one that is further south and takes advantage of the Route 50 corridor, and one that proceeds north and east to the existing 230-kV Steele-Vienna right-of-way (ROW), and then utilizes this corridor to get to the vicinity of Vienna. In the segment between Chalk Point and the Western Shore, at least two alternate placements of the Chestnut substation/converter station should be evaluated, including one in which the DC conversion occurs at or near the existing Chalk Point substation. PPRP stands ready to help DOE develop the details of these suggested alternatives at the appropriate time in the EIS process.
Innovative Technology - The MAPP project will use 640-kV (± 320-kV) voltage source converter (VSC) high voltage direct current (HVDC) cable technology with a proposed underground and submarine cable type consisting of solid dielectric cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) in lieu of mass-impregnated or oil filled cables. While this cable technology is purported to be currently available, having already been installed and put into service, DOE should be aware that such installations are not operating at voltages as high as ± 320-kV. Several planned projects that will use similar technology will not be in-service until 2013 or later. PPRP is not opposed to using new, innovative technology if determined to be feasible; however, it is not clear that the feasibility of this high a voltage technology has been sufficiently demonstrated or in fact even available. Additionally, there is concern that the Chesapeake Bay could suffer irreparable damage as a result of installation, operation and maintenance of such an untested technology. Specific impacts, as described in the following sections, should be evaluated in the EIS.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change - The project clears or converts large areas of forests and wetlands, which will reduce Maryland's carbon sequestration capacity and result in the emission of considerable amounts of greenhouse gases. The EIS should evaluate the following:
- carbon emissions caused by removal or conversion of forests, forested wetlands, and wetlands, and by the disturbance and drying of their soils initiated by construction of the proposed right of way.
- immediate and continuing future methane emissions caused by conversion, disturbance, or hydrological changes to wetlands areas by construction of the proposed right of way.
- annual loss of carbon sequestration services caused by the removal or conversion of forests and wetlands, and total losses expected over the lifetime of the transmission project.
- effects of potential submergence of upland or wetland portions of the proposed right of way due to climate-caused sea-level rise.
Energy Use and Production – In operation, the AC/DC converter stations will produce a great amount of waste heat (in the range of 20 to 50 MW) that will be released to the environment via a cooling system. The converter stations are located in rural areas where this heat release will create a micro-climatological "heat island" effect centered on the converter stations. The impact of this continuing and long-term atmospheric disturbance on local weather patterns (such as precipitation zones and amounts or deposition of particulates) and the resulting environmental changes to nearby agricultural, residential, or natural areas should be assessed.
Water Resources, Including Ground Water and Surface Water – A number of the watersheds affected by the proposed transmission line ROW either have water quality problems or have unusually good water quality. The EIS should assess the effects on water quality, on a watershed basis, from the cleared area of the ROW and substations, the numerous stream crossings, and the increased impervious surface area to be created at substations and converter stations. Particular attention should be directed to the Patuxent River Watershed, the Parker Creek Watershed, the Choptank watershed, the Chicawicomico Watershed, and the Nanticoke Watershed.
Note that the Patuxent River is a Maryland Scenic River and that, in addition to any other regulations, water quality is protected by Maryland's Scenic and Wild Rivers Act. The State's policy is contained in Section 8-401 of the Scenic & Wild Rivers Act, as follows: "The policy of the State is to preserve and protect the natural values of these rivers, enhance their water quality, and fulfill vital conservation purposes by the wise use of resources within their surrounding environment." Construction of the modified Pepco ROW across the Patuxent River and through the Patuxent River Watershed areas in Calvert County may have deleterious effects on the Patuxent River, its tributaries, and its watershed ("surrounding environment") that fall under these protections.
Wetlands and Floodplains - Significant portions of the MAPP project in Maryland are located in freshwater wetlands, estuarine wetlands, forested wetlands, or floodplains. The EIS should carefully evaluate whether impacts on these resources, which are discouraged under Maryland and Federal laws and regulations, can be avoided, and if they cannot be avoided whether the Applicant proposes sufficient and achievable mitigation, both in amount and in function. Specifically, the EIS should consider:
- effects on wetlands and 100-year floodplain areas of the Patuxent River, Choptank River, Chicawicomico River, and the Nanticoke River. Particular attention should be given to evaluating whether effects on the Wetland of Special State Concern associated with the Chicawicomico River north of Route 50 are necessary or justified.
- effects on the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area, including the bottom areas of the Bay and its tributaries to the head of tide, the landward buffer areas around the Bay, and all tidal wetlands associated with the Bay or its tributaries, and evaluate whether those effects are detrimental to the resources in the Critical Area or consistent with Maryland and Federal goals for preserving and enhancing those resources.
Ecological Resources, including T&E species and Species of Special Concern - PPRP and the Maryland Wildlife and Heritage and Fisheries Services have identified many ecological resources and a number of sensitive species habitat areas that will be crossed by or affected by the Project. A set of concerns suitable for EIS scope development is listed below, but other concerns may be identified and added as our review continues. At a minimum, the EIS should consider:
Wildlife and Heritage
- the magnitude of the effects on forests, Maryland's Green Infrastructure, and wetlands.
- the sufficiency of mitigation plans for forests and wetlands, including replacing in kind and function the removed habitat.
- the species and Ecologically Significant Areas identified by DNR's Wildlife and Heritage Service, including those in the Stump Gut Complex site located roughly north of US Route 50 and east of the Nanticoke River; the Stump Point Marshes site located north of the confluence of Chicone Creek with the Nanticoke River; the Chicone Creek Natural Heritage Area ; the Maiden Branch Road Pond site; the Ocean Gateway Ponds site located approximately one mile west of the US Route 50/Route 731 split; the Big Millpond site located adjacent to US Route 50 on its north side; Mockingbird Creek; Riverton Road Powerlines and Riverton Road Ponds; the headwaters of Middleton Branch; the Parker’s Creek stream system; and the West Governor Run watershed.
- species of special concern, including the Delmarva fox squirrel; waterfowl in known historical Waterfowl Concentration and Staging Areas; colonial waterbirds; and Forest Interior Dwelling (FID) birds.
Fisheries
- the disruption to benthic habitat and species that depend upon it for food, spawning locations, or juvenile development - including oysters, blue crabs, resident and migratory fish, overwintering sea ducks, and other sensitive species - from multiple sediment disturbances during preconstruction, construction, and long-term maintenance activities.
- potential effects of thermal modification (including heat content build up over time) of a strip of bottom habitat across the Bay to species that are associated with or depend upon that habitat, including commercial and recreational fisheries in the Choptank River and Bay.
- effects on Submerged Aquatic Vegetation, which provide important spawning and nursery for fish and shellfish in the Bay.
- the size and potential effects of any electromagnetic fields produced by the operation of the submarine cables on the behavior of sensitive fish such as eels, rays, and sharks as well as migratory blue crabs or other benthic organisms that could be similarly affected.
Cultural resources - Approximately 14 miles of the MAPP project would be a new ROW between the Choptank River and the Gateway Converter Station in Wicomico County. In addition, there will be significant ground disturbance associated with excavation and grading for the Chalk Point Substation, Chestnut Converter, Western Shore Landing and Gateway Converter, all of which must be evaluated for archeological resources. Construction of the submarine cable portion of MAPP has the potential to adversely affect submerged archeological resources. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Article 83B Section 5-617 and 5-618 of the Maryland Code require responsible governmental agencies to examine the impact of their undertakings on significant cultural resources and to take steps to avoid, reduce or mitigate any adverse effects.
Land Use and Vegetation Management - The EIS should examine whether the proposed ROW, and the NERC-required vegetation management plans, are consistent with County Master Plans, Watershed Restoration Action Strategies, and other local, state, and Federal land-use planning documents.
PPRP believes that a specialized vegetation management plan that can be applied to maintain appropriate woody and associated habitat in riparian zones, woody wetlands, Green Infrastructure areas, and other ecologically sensitive areas within the terrestrial portions of the MAPP ROW will be needed.
Coastal zone management - The Chesapeake Bay is a unique estuary, vital to both the environment and the economy of the State of Maryland. Management of the Bay is shared among a number of agencies of the states that surround it and partner agencies in the Federal government. Central to protecting the Bay and restoring it from its current degraded state is minimizing development in the "Critical Area", defined generally to be the waters of and land beneath the Bay and its tributaries to the head of tide, tidal wetlands, and lands within 1000 feet of the shore, head of tide, or tidal wetland boundary. The EIS should carefully evaluate the MAPP submarine cable crossing of the Bay, with particular attention to the reasoning and purpose behind Maryland's Critical Area Commission regulations (COMAR 27.02.05.03B(d)) that state "Certain new development, or redevelopment activities or facilities, because of their intrinsic nature, or because of their potential for adversely affecting fish, plant, and wildlife habitat or water quality, may not be located on State-owned lands within the Critical Area except in areas of intense development and only after the activity or facility has demonstrated to all appropriate State permitting agencies and the Commission that there will be a net improvement in water quality in the adjacent body of water. These activities include the following:…. (ii) Transportation facilities and utility transmission facilities…"
Visual resources and aesthetics – New overhead structures between Chalk Point and the Delaware state line would range in height from 85 to 195 feet. Four new structures approximately 165 feet high would be constructed in the Patuxent River, parallel to existing lattice structures. The Patuxent River is a Maryland Scenic River. Each unit of State and local government, in recognizing the intent of the Scenic and Wild Rivers Act, is required to take whatever action is necessary to protect and enhance the qualities of a designated river. In Dorchester County, an unknown number of structures would occupy a new ROW on land that is currently forested or in agriculture. Some of the tallest structures in the new overhead segment would span the Nanticoke River. The Nanticoke is the most biologically diverse watershed on
the Delmarva Peninsula. It is free of dams, supports excellent fisheries and has a rich history, evidenced by a number of nearby properties on the National Register of Historic Places.
The project would include two converter stations co-located in Calvert County and one in Wicomico County. Each converter station would have a footprint of approximately 1000 feet x 800 feet and would be 60 to 70 feet high. The Applicants propose to build converter stations in Calvert County adjacent to MD Route 2/4, the only north-south route through the county.
DOE should be aware that the cultural landscape of Southern Maryland is identified by the many federal, State, and local programs that promote it. In conjunction with this, heritage tourism has become a significant economic engine for the region. A potential adverse effect on the cultural landscape therefore has both cultural and economic dimensions. The Southern Maryland Heritage Area Tourism Management Plan is a major blueprint for highlighting the region’s cultural heritage. The Certified Heritage Area (CHA) comprises eleven distinct clusters in Charles, St. Mary’s, and Calvert Counties that are connected by corridors comprising scenic byways, trials and waterways. MD Route 2/4 is part of the Star-Spangled Banner State Scenic Byway in Calvert County and a designated CHA corridor. In Dorchester County, the project would construct an overhead high-voltage transmission line within new ROW through the Heart of the Chesapeake CHA which could potentially affect two State Scenic Byways. The Financial Institutions Article Title 13 Subtitle 11 (§ 13-1112(b)) of Maryland requires units of State government that conduct or support activities affecting a certified heritage area, when conducting a review of activities under §§ 5A-325 and 5A-326 of the State Finance and Procurement Article, assure that the activities will not have an adverse effect on the historic and cultural resources of the certified heritage area, unless there is no prudent and feasible alternative.
The EIS must also consider the many federal programs that overlay the project area. These include the Captain John Smith National Historic Water Trail and Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail in Calvert County and the proposed Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park in Dorchester County. Note that the National Park Service (NPS) assessed the potential impact of the Applicant’s previous proposal to rebuild a transmission line between Chalk Point and Calvert Cliffs and concluded that the project did not have the potential to adversely affect cultural resources that could be significant to the visitor experience and understanding of either National Historic Trail. However, the NPS did express concern about the cumulative impacts of this and other transmission projects in Southern Maryland. That the scope of the MAPP project has changed so significantly suggests that consultations with the NPS must be undertaken at the outset of DOE’s environmental review.
Transportation and Traffic – In consultation with the Corps of Engineers, DOE should assess potential impacts from construction of the transmission line to commercial and recreational navigation in the Patuxent, Choptank and Nanticoke rivers.
Noise and vibration – DOE should assess the potential impacts of construction noise to fish, shellfish, benthos and RTE species including, seaturtles, and sturgeon, especially if construction will occur during spawning season for aquatic species of the Chesapeake Bay and the Choptank River.
Hazardous materials and solid waste management - The Chesapeake Bay has been a major ship transportation route since European settlement, has served as the final resting place for material eroded or washed from urban areas and agricultural operations, and has a nuclear power plant on its shores and several more located on the Susquehanna River, a major tributary. Toxic materials from any or all of these sources may have found their way into the sediments of the Bay. The EIS should consider the potential for release of contaminants from sediments dispersed into the water column during preconstruction, construction and maintenance activities associated with the submarine cable portion of MAPP.
Human health and safety - Nutrients may be released from sediments dispersed into the water column during construction of the MAPP submarine cable, and long term operation of the cable may release heat that will have local affects on water temperature. The EIS should consider the potential for stimulating harmful algal blooms (HABs), which have been a recurrent problem in many parts of Chesapeake Bay, including the Choptank River, through increased nutrient loads and water temperature.
An additional potential issue is long-term or seasonal heating of sediment near the operating cable that will create refuges for or increase the rate of growth of bacteria such as Vibrio (specific types found in the Bay e.g., Vibrio parahaemolyticus, Vibrio vulnificus) and E. coli. Oysters and other shellfish that ingest these bacteria pose a human health risk, and monitoring for contaminated shellfish is a considerable state expense. The potential for increasing these risks or cost should be evaluated.
Generally, the submerged portion of this innovative technology presents new issues related to aquatic impacts. As described above, the heat generated from HVDC needs to be quantified as well as the temperature fluctuations at the surface of the bottom. Likewise, the rationale for the depth of submergence and the related tradeoffs need to be fully understood. This includes the expected concentrations of nutrient release due to sediment dispersal and the bottom surface temperature as a function of trench depth. Likewise the methods proposed for trench formation and cable placement need to be properly demonstrated and impacts identified and quantified.
Electromagnetic Field (EMF) issues as impacted by HVDC transmission need to be fully understood and quantified particularly as it may impact benthic biota for the submerged portions and agriculture operations beneath the aerial portions.
Socioeconomics, including impacts to community services –The EIS needs to address the extent to which the project is likely to benefit local labor markets and industries. The application contains little information on labor force requirements, project scheduling, sources of key components, etc., and the extent to which these needs can be fulfilled locally. The Applicants allude to using local labor, but there are no local contractors on the Eastern Shore or in Southern Maryland with HVDC expertise, suggesting the need for imported labor and with it, transient accommodation in an area that experiences large seasonal variations in demand for short-term lodging. Other impacts that need to be considered include potential adverse economic effects on commercial finfish and shellfish fisheries and on recreational water-dependent tourism from construction of the underwater portion of the project in the Chesapeake Bay and construction activities in the Patuxent, Choptank and Nanticoke rivers.
Cumulative Effects - PPRP has concerns about the overall magnitude of affects associated with building the MAPP project and its long-term operation. Whether or not each individual resource impact is acceptable, the sum of all of the impacts may significantly degrade the nature or function of the regional environments of the Western Shore, Chesapeake Bay, and Eastern Shore of Maryland. Further, we believe that it is extremely important for the EIS to consider the effect of creating a new, permanently disturbed, developed corridor bisecting the Bay. Once it exists, this corridor would attract further development over time (it would, for example, become a favored route for additional transmission development under the Energy Policy Act), potentially expanding in width and in the types of bottom facilities and structures present. The effect of a permanent and expandable strip of discontinuous habitat in the Bay, dividing the bottom into upper and lower sections, may include disruption of critical migration routes for benthic creatures and isolation of spawning or juvenile populations from important habitat or other resources. The risk of the MAPP cable ROW developing into such an ecological fence line across the Bay should be seriously evaluated.
Concluding Remarks
We appreciate the opportunity to offer this input into the DOE EIS scoping process and look forward to continue a cooperative relationship as our complementary environmental review processes for this project move forward.
Sincerely,
Sandra S. Patty
Transmission Project Manager
Power Plant Research Program