PPRP Exhibit __ (SSP-1)

BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

In the matter of the Application of Potomac Electric ) Power Company for a Certificate of Public Convenience ) and Necessity to Rebuild an Existing Double Circuit ) Case 9329 230kV Overhead Tower Line on Existing Right-Of-Way ) from the Burtonsville Substation to the Takoma ) Substation in Prince George’s County, Maryland )

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF

Sandra Shaw Patty

ON BEHALF OF THE

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

POWER PLANT RESEARCH PROGRAM Tawes State Office Bldg., B-3 Annapolis, MD 21401 410-260-8668

February 18, 2014

1 Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, POSITION AND BUSINESS 2 ADDRESS.

3 A. Sandra Shaw Patty, Manager of Transmission Projects for the Power Plant 4 Research Program (PPRP) in the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), 5 Tawes State Office Building, Annapolis, Maryland 21401.

6 Q. HOW LONG HAVE YOU HELD THIS POSITION?

7 A. I have held this position since March 1991.

8 Q. WHAT ARE YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES IN THIS POSITION?

9 A. I provide technical and administrative direction on a wide variety of 10 environmental assessment projects and tasks performed by PPRP staff and 11 consultants related to transmission line issues. My responsibilities include 12 defining issues and evaluating studies and analyses necessary to provide 13 a comprehensive assessment of environmental impacts associated with 14 the construction and operation of transmission lines. DNR and other State 15 agencies use the results of these assessments in the licensing and 16 administrative proceedings for transmission line projects. PPRP’s role in 17 the licensing of transmission lines is presented later in this testimony.

18 PPRP is supported by integrator contracts that address economic (Exeter 19 Associates), atmospheric (ERM), biological (Versar, Inc.), and engineering 20 (ERM) issues. Under my direction, appropriate members of these staffs 21 participated in the review and evaluation of the documents submitted by 22 PEPCO and also in field investigations.

23 Q. WHAT EXPERIENCE DO YOU HAVE IN TRANSMISSION LINE 24 EVALUATION AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT?

25 A. Prior to joining PPRP, I was employed by Allegheny Power Service

1 1 Corporation, a member company of Allegheny Power Systems, as an 2 Environmental Analyst from 1974 to 1991. In that position, I was 3 responsible for conducting environmental assessments of electric utility 4 transmission projects, substations, and power stations. I have prepared 5 and presented expert testimony before regulatory agencies in 6 Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia regarding environmental 7 issues. I have participated in the review, siting and analysis of at least five 8 major generating stations, and over 250 miles of transmission facilities.

9 Q. WHAT IS YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND?

10 A. I received my Bachelor of Science Degree in Biology in 1973 from 11 California State College, and a Masters in Civil Engineering, Energy 12 Resources, in 1983 from the University of Pittsburgh.

13 Q. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY?

14 A. The purpose of my testimony is to provide the Maryland Public Service 15 Commission (PSC) with the findings and preliminary recommendations of 16 PPRP and other Reviewing State agencies concerning the CPCN 17 application by PEPCO in this proceeding. Specifically, PEPCO is 18 proposing to rebuild 9.9 miles of a 230 kV transmission line within 19 existing right-of-way (ROW) in Prince George’s County, Maryland, 20 originating at PEPCO’s Burtonsville Substation in Burtonsville, Maryland, 21 running through the Metzerott Road East Substation (Metzerott) in 22 Adelphi, Maryland, and terminating at the Takoma Substation in Takoma 23 Park, Maryland (Project). My testimony summarizes PPRP's evaluation 24 and initial recommendations with respect to the proposed Project.

25 Q. HAVE YOU REVIEWED THE SUBMISSIONS FROM PEPCO FOR 26 THIS PROJECT?

2 1 A. Yes. I have reviewed PEPCO’s CPCN application materials, including 2 direct testimony and related exhibits, filed with the PSC on June 21, 2013 3 (CPCN Application). I have reviewed PEPCO’s responses to data requests 4 and participated in a meeting with PEPCO on May 29, 2013. Under my 5 direction, PPRP’s consultants participated in a conference call with 6 PEPCO on January 28, 2014. Also, my consultants and I participated in a 7 field review of the Project on November 5, 2013.

8 Q. PLEASE PROVIDE A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED 9 PROJECT.

10 A. The Project will rebuild the East Burtonsville to Takoma Park 230 kV 11 transmission line. The line is approximately 9.9 miles long, extending 6.6 12 miles from the Burtonsville Substation through the Metzerott Substation, 13 then running 3.3 miles from the Metzerott Substation and terminating at 14 the Takoma Substation in Takoma Park, Maryland. The Project will 15 consist of removing the existing lattice towers and replacing them with 52 16 new double circuit single steel pole structures. The Project will share the 17 right-of-way (ROW) with another 230 kV double circuit transmission line, 18 as well as existing 13 kV, 34 kV and 69 kV distribution lines that are 19 located along the edges of the ROW in certain areas of the rebuild. The 20 ROW is generally 250 feet wide; however, the ROW varies from 186 feet to 21 300 feet in certain areas of the Project. The new single steel poles will be 22 offset 62.5 feet from the ROW centerline and will range in heights between 23 118 to 173 feet above ground with an average span length between poles 24 of 1000 feet. Much of the Project ROW consists of PEPCO-owned real 25 property; however, PEPCO will be responsible for obtaining a Special Use 26 Permit from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for 27 construction on Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.

3 1 Q. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF PPRP'S ENVIRONMENTAL AND 2 SOCIOECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT?

3 A. This filing represents a summary of the technical and environmental 4 analyses of the Project completed to date. These initial recommendations 5 may be modified up to 15 days after the close of the public comment 6 period. If no such modifications are warranted, the initial 7 recommendations will constitute the final recommendations.

8 Need for the Burtonsville to Takoma Park Transmission Rebuild Project

9 Q. HAS PEPCO PROVIDED INFORMATION ON WHY THE PROJECT IS 10 NEEDED?

11 A. Yes. According to PEPCO the need to rebuild the line is based on several 12 considerations, including: rebuilding the line before reliability concerns 13 make it more difficult and costly to schedule construction outages 14 necessary for rebuilding the line; aging infrastructure concerns because 15 the lattice towers have been in place since 1958; and given the fact that 16 PEPCO has had to put in place temporary measures because the existing 17 circuits do not meet NERC clearance requirements. Based upon PEPCO’s 18 load projections, the line should be rebuilt by June 1, 2015 to ensure that 19 construction of the Project can be completed over a single eight month 20 construction outage window following the 2014 summer season. A later 21 in-service date raises concerns that construction of the line would have to 22 be performed in stages, thereby adding to the overall cost of the Project.

23 Q. HAS PPRP EVALUATED THE MATERIALS PROVIDED BY THE 24 APPLICANT RELATED TO THE NEED FOR THE PROJECT?

25 A. Yes. This Project involves rebuilding a 9.9-mile transmission line on 26 existing right-of-way. PPRP has reviewed the materials included in

4 1 PEPCO’s CPCN Application, as well as responses to data requests. Based 2 on this review, PPRP does not take issue with PEPCO’s representations 3 that it is reasonable to proceed with the Project at this time.

4 The Application and Supporting Information

5 Q. DID PEPCO SUBMIT ANY EXHIBITS OR DOCUMENTS THAT 6 ASSESSED THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT?

7 A. Yes. PEPCO’s environmental analyses of the Project were submitted with 8 its CPCN Application. As part of the Application, PEPCO provided the 9 Burtonsville to Takoma Environmental Review Document, (ERD), dated 10 June 21, 2013. The ERD includes a site evaluation, aerial photographs and 11 topographic maps, showing the proposed Project location, data sheets and 12 structure sketches, and an assessment of expected effects. Also, attached 13 to the ERD, were 11 appendices, including a compilation of Agency 14 correspondence, a wetlands delineation report, a rare and threatened 15 species list, a rare and threatened species survey, a raptor nest survey, a 16 habitat suitability assessment for rare and threatened species, a list of 17 PEPCO’s Best Management Practices, an Integrated Vegetation 18 Management plan, an alternate route analysis, and detailed project plan 19 maps. PEPCO also provided a report identifying petroleum- and/or 20 hazardous substance contaminated sites located near the Project ROW. 21 After reviewing all this information, PPRP concluded that the information 22 provided in the Application was sufficient to conduct the State's review.

23 Impact Assessment

24 Q. DID PPRP CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE 25 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED 26 TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT?

5 1 A. Yes. PPRP reviewed the Applicant's Direct Testimony and ERD, 2 evaluated the potential environmental impacts using data from a variety 3 of sources, consulted with other Reviewing State agencies, and observed 4 conditions in the ROW during a field inspection. Based on analysis of the 5 information provided by these sources, PPRP assessed the potential effects 6 of the Project on streams and non-tidal wetlands; rare, threatened, and 7 endangered species; forest resources and Maryland’s green infrastructure 8 network; and land use and vegetation management in the relevant 9 portions of Prince George’s County. PPRP also evaluated the cumulative 10 impacts of the Project and state agency plans for restoring degraded 11 natural resources in and near the ROW.

12 Q. DID PPRP REVIEW THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES PROPOSED BY 13 THE APPLICANT?

14 A. Yes. The proposed project does not require the evaluation of alternative 15 routes under COMAR 20.79.04.03 because it is a rebuild of an existing 230- 16 kV transmission line using larger conductors on taller structures (a 17 "modification" as defined by COMAR 20.79.01.02). However, PEPCO 18 provided an analysis of several alternative construction techniques 19 including a second overhead option using H frame structures, an option 20 that places the transmission line entirely underground, and altering the 21 construction methods to avoid obstructions along the Project ROW (ERD, 22 Appendix E). These options were rejected based on higher cost, viewshed 23 impacts, and greater disturbance to other infrastructure and natural 24 resources. PPRP reviewed PEPCO's analysis to determine if any of the 25 alternatives considered by PEPCO would have less environmental impact 26 than rebuilding the existing 230-kV line on new steel monopole structures 27 as proposed. PPRP agrees that PEPCO has selected the least impact 28 solution from among the alternatives considered.

6 1 Q. ARE YOU INTRODUCING ANY EXHIBITS TO SUPPORT PPRP’S 2 TESTIMONY?

3 A. Yes. I will be referring to two (2) exhibits in my testimony today. PPRP 4 Exhibit __SSP-2 provides PPRP’s set of Initial Recommended Licensing 5 Conditions. PPRP Exhibit__SSP-3 provides a description of 6 environmental concerns at 12 locations along the Project ROW identified 7 by PPRP as potentially sensitive to the effects of constructing or operating 8 a new transmission line.

9 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE ANY LIMITATIONS OF THE ANALYSIS BEING 10 PRESENTED TODAY.

11 A. PPRP's review is limited by the completeness and accuracy of the 12 information about the proposed configuration of the Project that PEPCO 13 provided in its environmental review. Design changes and any other new 14 information about specific plans could change PPRP’s analyses or 15 conclusions.

16 Environmental Issues

17 Q. WHAT SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ARE 18 AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT ROW?

19 A. The entire 9.9 mile Project ROW, encompassing approximately 302 acres, 20 is located within the watershed of the Anacostia River, which is 21 designated by Maryland as a Scenic River. The Project ROW crosses six 22 subwatersheds of the Anacostia River: Indian Creek, Little Paint Branch, 23 Paint Branch, Northeast Branch Anacostia River, Northwest Branch 24 Anacostia River, and Sligo Creek, each of which supports sensitive natural 25 resources. Located within the subwatersheds in the ROW are DNR- 26 designated Stronghold Watersheds, BIONET biodiversity conservation

7 1 areas, and known locations of Rare, Threatened, or Endangered (RTE) 2 species. In addition to 15 water crossings, the ROW transects several 3 Wetlands of Special State Concern (WSSC) and forms gaps in Green 4 Infrastructure corridors.

5 Specific locations within each subwatershed, identified in PPRP Exhibit__ 6 (SSP-3), are especially important for protecting these natural resources. 7 Riparian buffer habitat within the ROW is critical in the Sligo Creek 8 watershed. Northwest Branch is crossed by the ROW in a high 9 biodiversity area that includes a Green Infrastructure Corridor, wetlands 10 in the ROW, and a 100-year floodplain. There is a WSSC in the Paint 11 Branch subwatershed that contains RTE species habitat. The WSSC 12 known as the I-95 Bogs are located in the Little Paint Branch 13 subwatershed. Finally, several large wetland areas are crossed by the 14 ROW in the Indian Creek subwatershed.

15 The most sensitive portion of the Project ROW is located within the Little 16 Paint Branch subwatershed. This area is designated as a stronghold 17 watershed because of the presence of the state-listed threatened American 18 Brook Lamprey (Lampetra appendix), a population of which has been 19 recorded in Little Paint Branch. The I-95 Bogs associated with Little Paint 20 Branch and located within the ROW support three of the five state RTE 21 plant species known to occur in the ROW and are designated as a WSSC 22 (see PPRP Exhibit__ (SSP-3), Locations F, G and H). Additional areas in 23 this watershed have been designated as critically significant for 24 conservation of the State's biodiversity.

25 Q. WHAT ARE THE CURRENT LEVELS OF PROTECTION AFFORDED 26 BY STATE LAW AND POLICY TO THE SENSITIVE 27 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES THAT PPRP HAS IDENTIFIED?

8 1 A. Considering the conservation of natural resources and the protection of 2 environmental quality is an essential element of the CPCN process, 3 specifically required by Maryland's Environmental Policy Act (Sections 1- 4 301 to 1-305 of the Natural Resources Article), that is achieved through 5 evaluating the applicability of current environmental laws to the proposed 6 project. When the Burtonsville-Takoma Park transmission line was 7 originally constructed, the understanding of the environmental impacts of 8 such ROWs was vastly different than it is today, so such a review is 9 particularly important in this case. New knowledge has led to laws, 10 regulations, and policies that seek to preserve and to restore streams, 11 wetlands, forests, and habitats for critical or sensitive species, without 12 compromising the use of suitable areas for critical infrastructure such as 13 transmission lines. The natural resources present along the Burtonsville- 14 Takoma Park ROW require specific consideration of the following:

15 Scenic Rivers. The Anacostia River is a state-designated Scenic River. 16 Maryland's Scenic and Wild Rivers System Act (Section 8-401 of the 17 Natural Resource Article) recognizes that many rivers or portions of rivers 18 in Maryland, and their tributaries and watersheds, possess outstanding 19 scenic, geological, ecological, historical, recreational, agricultural, cultural 20 and other similar values. The State's policy is "…to preserve and protect 21 the natural values of these rivers, enhance their water quality, and fulfill 22 vital conservation purposes by the wise use of resources within their 23 surrounding environment." According to the Act, each unit of State and 24 local government is required to take whatever action is necessary to protect 25 and enhance the qualities of a designated river.

26 Watershed Plans. The Anacostia Watershed Restoration Partnership has

9 1 developed an Anacostia Watershed Restoration Plan (ARP).1 The 2 Partnership includes the Maryland Department of the Environment 3 (MDE) and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR), along 4 with the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG), 5 Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, the District of Columbia, the 6 Maryland-National Capitol Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC), 7 and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Baltimore District. The 8 Watershed Restoration Plan defines priority watersheds and projects and 9 is currently being implemented by the agencies in the Partnership. 10 PEPCO’s Project ROW is located within six subwatersheds of the 11 Anacostia watershed that are being targeted for restoration, and actions in 12 the ROW can contribute to or hinder those restoration efforts. The 13 restoration goals include 1) reducing pollutant loads, 2) protecting and 14 restoring ecological integrity, 3) improving fish passage, 4) increasing 15 wetland acreage, 5) expanding forest cover, and 6) increasing public and 16 private participation (ARP, p. 8).

17 Stronghold watersheds are DNR-designated Maryland watersheds that 18 are important for the protection of the state’s aquatic biodiversity. The 19 Little Paint Branch sub-watershed, through which the ROW passes, is one 20 of these designated watersheds. Such watersheds are places where rare, 21 threatened, or endangered freshwater fish, amphibians, reptiles, or mussel 22 species have the highest abundance. DNR policy is that special protection 23 of these watersheds is necessary to ensure the persistence of these 24 imperiled fauna.

25 Wetlands of Special State Concern (WSSC, COMAR 26.23.06) are to be

1 Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan and Report, Final Draft, February 2010. Available at http://www.anacostia.net/plan.html.

10 1 avoided if at all possible, and regulated activities are restricted to the 2 minimum area necessary to meet the project purpose. Mitigation may be 3 required for unavoidable losses. There are five areas designated as WSSC 4 located within the Project ROW, some of which will suffer new impacts 5 from construction in the ROW.

6 Streams, wetlands, and 100-year floodplains. The Burtonsville to Takoma 7 Park ROW crosses streams and their associated floodplains in 15 places, 8 and also crosses 16 wetland areas. Access roads, staging areas, and some 9 pole construction will affect many of these areas. All impacts to streams, 10 wetlands, and 100-year floodplains are regulated under COMAR Title 26, 11 and require permits from MDE. Also, under COMAR 20.79.04.02(e) a 12 transmission line applicant is required to provide the PSC with the 13 location and identification of all portions of the ROW requiring 14 construction within the 100-year floodplain of any stream. Construction 15 that affects any of these areas will, at a minimum, require soil and erosion 16 control procedures and/or matting to minimize temporary disturbance. 17 Mitigation may also be required for permanent impacts.

18 Forests and Green Infrastructure. The DNR has defined a Green 19 Infrastructure Network consisting of large forested hubs and corridors 20 between them. Portions of the Burtonsville to Takoma Park ROW are 21 within elements of this network and cause gaps in it, although there is no 22 regulated forest area in the ROW itself. DNR's purpose in identifying the 23 network and seeking to close gaps in it is to assure that the minimum 24 amount of high-functioning forested habitat necessary to support and 25 sustain Maryland's native ecosystems and biodiversity will be available 26 now and in the future. It is the Department's policy to avoid impacts to 27 the network, to encourage complimentary land uses adjacent to it, and to 28 improve and extend it whenever possible.

11 1 Biodiversity Conservation. DNR’s Wildlife and Heritage Service's 2 Natural Heritage Program (NHP) has mapped and ranked terrestrial and 3 freshwater areas throughout the State for biodiversity conservation. A 4 specific set of criteria is used to identify the most irreplaceable species and 5 habitats, as well as the habitats that concentrate larger numbers of rare 6 species, thereby forming a Biodiversity Conservation Network (BIONET).2 7 The Burtonsville to Takoma Park ROW intersects several highly-ranked 8 elements of this network. Protection or enhancement of these areas is 9 encouraged to preserve vanishing species and habitats, as well as to 10 support migratory animals, population dispersal, and habitat shifts that 11 may result from climate change.

12 Coastal Zone. Prince George's County, in which the Burtonsville to 13 Takoma Park project is located, is included within Maryland's Coastal 14 Zone. Under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, Federal actions 15 that have reasonably foreseeable coastal effects within the Coastal Zone 16 must be consistent with enforceable policies of state coastal management 17 programs. Maryland's Coastal Zone Management Program imposes 18 similar requirements on non-Federal projects within the State. Although 19 this is not a Federal project, permits will be required from both the 20 USACE Baltimore District and the MDE. These permits will require the 21 project to comply with all Maryland Coastal Zone policies, including laws 22 and regulations addressing water quality, flood hazards, critical area, tidal 23 and non-tidal wetlands, forests, historical and archaeological sites, and 24 living aquatic resources.

25 Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE THE IMPACT OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND 26 OPERATION OF THE PROJECT ON THE NATURAL RESOURCES

2 See http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/Plants_Wildlife/pdfs/BIONET_FactSheet.pdf for further details on the selection criteria.

12 1 THAT THE ROW INTERSECTS OR AFFECTS.

2 A. In addition to the environmentally sensitive sites identified in PPRP 3 Exhibit __ (SSP-3), PPRP has assessed PEPCO’s proposed mitigation 4 approaches and analyzed the Project Plans (Appendix B) and other 5 relevant appendices of PEPCO’s ERD in detail to determine the impacts of 6 the construction and operation of the project. These impacts are 7 summarized below by resource.

8 Streams and Floodplains

9 The streams crossed by the Project ROW contain vulnerable species that 10 could be affected by disturbance from construction or vehicular traffic or 11 by the release of sediment into the water if erosion control measures fail 12 during construction. For example, there is a stocked trout recreational 13 fishery in Northwest Branch. Paint Branch contains the only self- 14 sustaining population of Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) in the Washington 15 Metro region and Little Paint Branch has a population of the State-listed 16 threatened American Brook Lamprey.

17 Protecting water quality, maintaining healthy riparian buffers, and 18 preventing erosion at stream crossings is particularly important where 19 ROWs cross designated Scenic or Wild Rivers, as well as on tributaries 20 throughout their watersheds. In several places along access roads in the 21 ROW, streams are forded, rather than bridged. Concrete fords are present 22 in sensitive streams, affecting bottom habitat and water temperature, and 23 also allowing the introduction of pollutants from crossing vehicles.

24 Direct stream impacts will include temporary impacts to surface waters 25 resulting from temporary bank-to-bank bridging of two unnamed 26 tributaries of Little Paint Branch that will be required for construction

13 1 access to transmission structure construction/removal locations. The 2 mainstem of Little Paint Branch will also be crossed by temporarily 3 bridging the existing concrete ford to prevent soil, sediment, and 4 contaminants entering the surface water. Future use of the concrete ford 5 during maintenance operations, however, will have long-term impacts on 6 the stream and the endangered species habitat within it. There are also 7 several places in the ROW where access roads ford stream beds directly, 8 without any form of bridging or stream protection, two of which are 9 located in WSSC. These areas will also suffer impacts during maintenance 10 of the ROW after construction.

11 Wetlands

12 The Burtonsville to Takoma Park Rebuild Project will include placing 13 matting in wetland areas during construction, constructing poles and 14 access roads in wetlands and wetland buffers, and mowing wetlands and 15 wetlands buffers during regularly scheduled vegetation management 16 cycles after construction. These activities can impact the wetlands in the 17 ROW by compressing hydric soils, promoting the spread of invasive 18 species, altering hydrologic conditions, reducing wetland acreage, and 19 affecting RTE plant and animal species habitat.

20 The areas in the ROW that are most sensitive to these impacts will be the 21 areas designated as WSSC. Several of these sensitive wetlands, known 22 collectively as the I-95 Bogs, are associated with Little Paint Branch (see 23 PPRP Exhibit ___SSP-3, Locations F, G, and H). These wetlands are 24 known to support two state-threatened plants, as well as one state-listed 25 rare plant. PEPCO states that these wetlands will only suffer temporary 26 impacts from the placement of matting required for construction access 27 and work areas and will be permitted to return to their preconstruction

14 1 condition after project completion. However, two monopole foundations 2 will be constructed within the regulatory 100-foot buffers of these WSSC, 3 resulting in permanent small impacts to those buffers. In addition, access 4 roads through this area will be located in wetlands and wetland buffers. 5 While these access roads will be matted during construction, on some soils 6 matting can alter the hydrology of the wetland and create shallow 7 depressions that become open water areas. Many wetland plants cannot 8 colonize even in shallow open water and will no longer grow in areas that 9 were matted during construction and have become wetter than they were 10 prior to being matted. Aggressive invasive species (e.g., purple 11 loosestrife, common reed, cattails) present in the seedbank of the soil 12 colonize these disturbed areas in a monoculture, making the communities 13 less ecologically diverse. Once these aggressive species have colonized 14 the disturbed area, they are likely to be there permanently and to colonize 15 adjacent areas.

16 An additional area that will be affected by construction and operation of 17 the ROW is the portion of the Buck Lodge Bog that is located immediately 18 adjacent to the northwest corner of the Metzerott Road substation. The 19 buffer of this area, which contains habitat for a state-endangered plant 20 species, will be disturbed by the reconstruction of the access road around 21 the perimeter of the substation. A second wetland area is located 0.2 miles 22 north of the substation and will be bisected by an access road that also 23 crosses a stream. The banks of this stream are already overgrown with an 24 invasive Bamboo species, Bambusa vulgaris, which is encroaching upon the 25 wetland and can be expected to spread opportunistically in response to 26 the disturbance created by construction traffic.

27 PEPCO has stated that after construction it will continue to use the current 28 vegetation management approaches that include mowing most of the

15 1 ROW four times per year and only provide for control of woody invasive 2 species that have the potential to affect the transmission lines. Frequent 3 mowing in the Project ROW following construction will maintain 4 inadequate stream and wetland buffers and lead to further stream bank 5 erosion. Sedimentation from such erosion is a threat to wetland areas 6 adjacent to the streams as are high nutrient loads and water temperatures 7 resulting from the lack of vegetation. Both alter the biological community 8 composition within wetlands and create ideal conditions for invasive and 9 non-native plant species to colonize the disturbed wetland area.

10 Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity

11 Forested areas adjacent to the ROW are rich habitats that support a wide 12 range of species that complement the biological diversity of nearby stream 13 and wetland areas. The construction required to rebuild the Burtonsville 14 to Takoma Park transmission line will have minimal direct effects on 15 forest habitats, since the ROW is currently cleared. The vegetation 16 management regime applied during subsequent operation of the facility, 17 however, can have an impact on how well these forest areas serve the 18 environmental goals of the state.

19 Several sections of the Project ROW, identified in PPRP Exhibit__ (SSP-3), 20 bisect and create gaps in well-forested stream buffers that are part of 21 Maryland's Green Infrastructure Network. These network corridors 22 include Northwest Branch, Little Paint Branch, Paint Branch, and Indian 23 Creek, and provide a variety of wildlife with food, protection, and 24 pathways to move between suitable habitat patches in an otherwise highly 25 developed urban area. Mowing the ROW where it intersects these 26 corridors will disrupt this critical function. Alternative vegetation 27 management in these areas after construction can minimize the impact of

16 1 the ROW by maintaining the maximum riparian area vegetation height 2 and density consistent with safety and reliability, including maintaining 3 taller shrubs and trees where topography permits, thereby providing 4 wildlife connections between the forested habitats separated by the ROW. 5 This is particularly useful in the significant forest-interior-dwelling species 6 (FIDS) habitat areas separated by the ROW (e.g. PPRP Exhibit__ (SSP-3), 7 Sites C, G and H), because the ROW otherwise restricts FIDS movement 8 between them due to its 186 to 300-foot cleared width.

9 Wildlife and RTE Species

10 PEPCO plans to develop and use a construction manual that incorporates 11 worker awareness, biological monitoring, permit conditions, fencing of 12 sensitive areas, trash and construction management, access routes, 13 communication protocols, chain of command, and project reporting 14 requirements to reduce impacts to sensitive species during construction. 15 On-site environmental monitors will be employed to ensure proper 16 placement of protective matting, construction access, erosion and 17 sediment BMPs, and compliance with permit conditions. These 18 approaches should ensure avoidance of RTE species and wildlife impacts.

19 PPRP finds the following species and habitats will need to be included in 20 the management plan to minimize construction impacts effectively. Five 21 state-listed threatened or endangered plant species have been identified as 22 potentially occurring in the ROW (MD DNR Wildlife and Heritage Service 23 review letter dated August 28, 2012): Dark Green Sedge (Carex venusta), 24 Halberd-leaved Greenbrier, or Bamboo vine (Smilax pseudochina), Long’s 25 Rush (Juncus longii) Wild or Sundial Lupine (Lupinus perennis), and 26 Eastern Featherbells (Stenanthium gramineum). Populations of Long’s 27 Rush, Halberd-leaved Greenbrier and Dark-Green Sedge were identified

17 1 in the ROW in areas previously known for their occurrence and 2 designated as WSSC during PEPCO’s RTE species habitat surveys. No 3 Eastern Featherbells plants or Sundial Lupine plants were identified 4 during these surveys, either within the known sites or other sites 5 identified as having suitable habitat. Nonetheless, since they may be 6 present but undetected, these areas should be avoided to the maximum 7 extent practicable to eliminate possible impacts.

8 Long's Rush. The state endangered Long’s Rush occur in the Project ROW 9 in seepage bog wetlands identified as the Sellman Road wetland and the I- 10 95 Bog WSSC by WHS (Area 3, 4, and 5 in Appendix K of PEPCO's ERD).

11 Halberd-leaved Greenbrier. Halberd-leaved Greenbrier (bamboo vine), 12 was found within the Buck Lodge Bog and I-95 Bog WSSC (Areas 2 and 4 13 in Appendix K of PEPCO's ERD).

14 Dark-Green Sedge. Dark-Green Sedge plants were only found along the 15 slightly drier western boundary of the Buck Lodge WSSC (Area 2 in 16 Appendix K of the ERD). Suitable habitat may also exist in Area 1, but 17 this area was not included in PEPCO’s updated RTE Species Survey 18 Report.

19 Wild Lupine. The Sellman Road area identified by WHS as an area 20 supporting the occurrence of the state threated Wild Lupine is not fenced 21 or protected, and therefore vulnerable to disturbance. This area is 22 described in PEPCO’s Habitat Characterization Report (Appendix J) as an 23 unmowed, upland knoll with small trees and vegetation with highly 24 sandy and acidic soil suitable habitat for Wild Lupine, but it is not 25 identified on the Project Plans in Appendix B in the ERD. PEPCO’s spring 26 RTE survey revealed that this area of the Project ROW had been mowed 27 prior to the spring RTE Survey and no Wild Lupine plants had been found

18 1 (Updated Appendix K, August 2013).

2 Eastern Featherbells. There are records for Eastern Featherbells 3 (Stenanthium gramimuem) within the group of three WSSC known 4 collectively as the I-95 Bogs that are associated with Little Paint Branch 5 (see PPRP Exhibit__(SSP-3), Locations F, G and H).

6 American Brook Lamprey. The American Brook Lamprey (Lampetra 7 appendix) is considered threatened in Maryland and is known to occur in 8 Little Paint Branch in the vicinity of the Project ROW. Adult American 9 brook lamprey spawn (make nests in gravel, then lay and fertilize eggs) in 10 late March or early April. While the concrete ford in the stream does not 11 provide suitable habitat for the lamprey, construction in or near the 12 stream should be avoided during the spawning period.

13 Raptors. The Raptor Nest Survey conducted in July 2012 (PEPCO ERD, 14 Appendix I), indicated that no active raptor nests were in the ROW. 15 However, four American Kestrels (Falco sparverius) and a pair of Red- 16 tailed Hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) were observed in the ROW between the 17 Takoma substation and Route 200 during the survey. The survey 18 concluded that additional surveys would need to be conducted if 19 construction is scheduled during the months of April to July of a given 20 year, and PPRP concurs with this assessment.

21 Watershed Scale Impacts

22 The Project ROW crosses streams at 15 separate locations distributed 23 among six sub-watersheds of the Anacostia River (PPRP Exhibit ___ (SSP- 24 3), Figure 1). Impacts to these streams during construction and operation 25 of the transmission line (discussed above) will accumulate within each 26 subwatershed, and then join with impacts from the others downstream.

19 1 Since all of these streams and watersheds are part of the Anacostia River 2 system, even small local impacts have the potential for accumulating and 3 affecting progress toward the restoration of the watershed.

4 Q. ARE THERE UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE 5 PROJECT OR REQUIRED MITIGATION ACTIONS?

6 A. Yes. Major disturbances are not expected, since this is a well-established 7 transmission line ROW, but there will still be new impacts to specific 8 resources. For example, disturbances resulting from removing old poles 9 and emplacing new poles in sensitive areas will cause both temporary and 10 permanent impacts. Further, living resources in and around the ROW 11 have changed since the ROW was constructed and will be subject to 12 ongoing impacts from the operational maintenance of the ROW after 13 construction. Some of these impacts can be ameliorated using current best 14 ROW management practices. Degraded stream and wetland areas within 15 the ROW will require specific attention after construction to bring them 16 up to current environmental standards, and to meet the enhancement 17 requirements of the Scenic Rivers Act and the restoration goals of the 18 Anacostia Watershed Restoration Plan.

19 Unavoidable impacts will be caused primarily by the construction of 20 access roads and pole foundations in sensitive areas. Based on the 21 proposed design provided by PEPCO, one pole will be constructed in a 22 wetland/floodplain area immediately south of Van Dusen Road (in the 23 wetland area surrounding a lake in the Indian Creek system, 24 approximately 25 feet from the nominal shoreline) and two poles will be 25 constructed within wetland buffers (in the WSSCs known as the I-95 Bog 26 Complex). An additional seven distinct wetland areas will have to be 27 temporarily matted to provide access to pole installation and removal

20 1 locations. Reconstruction of the access road around the Metzerott Road 2 Substation (PPRP Exhibit__ (SSP-3), Location D) will occur within a WSSC 3 buffer, immediately adjacent to the wetland and an area protected under a 4 DNR agreement. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to avoid permanent 5 impacts to the wetland area and its hydrology. Impacts are also expected 6 in four 100-year floodplain areas from placing four of the new poles 7 within these floodplain areas and removing three existing lattice towers 8 from them.

9 The area of most impact will be the I-95 Bogs (PPRP Exhibit__ (SSP-3), 10 Locations F, G and H), which are mapped as Wetlands of Special State 11 Concern (WSSCs) and are known habitat for state-listed threatened or 12 endangered species. PEPCO has indicated that impacts to these wetlands 13 from construction access for pole replacements and removals are 14 unavoidable, since access to the ROW is restricted and pole locations are 15 constrained by engineering requirements. To the extent practicable, 16 PEPCO plans to return wetland areas that suffer impacts from the use of 17 temporary matting to their preconstruction conditions. Further, the areas 18 of WSSCs that are fenced off under agreements with DNR to restrict 19 mowing, herbicide spraying, and other routine ROW maintenance 20 activities will continue to be protected.

21 PEPCO's intent to minimize the impacts of construction through the use of 22 sediment controls, protective matting, and other good construction 23 practices will be helpful, but will not eliminate all impacts to the sensitive 24 natural resources in the ROW. Some mitigation for impacts to streams 25 and wetlands will be required under MDE permits. PPRP has also 26 identified additional measures that would ensure greater protection to the 27 living resources in and adjacent to the ROW and contribute to the 28 restoration of the Anacostia River system and watershed as required by

21 1 state law and policy. It appears possible to relocate some of the proposed 2 poles from new locations in wetland buffer or floodplain areas into nearby 3 areas, near current lattice tower positions, where they would have lesser 4 impact. The existing concrete fords through Little Paint Branch and a 5 tributary of Northwest Branch are detrimental to stream health in 6 sensitive watersheds and will cause ongoing impacts, including 7 introduction of pollutants if used for future maintenance operations or 8 other ROW access. They are not acceptable under current regulations and 9 should be replaced with bridges or culverts. The access road around the 10 Metzerott Road substation could be re-routed around the other (southeast) 11 side of the substation to avoid wetland impacts. The proposed vegetation 12 management protocols can be improved to minimize effects on forests, 13 wildlife, waterways, and RTE species habitat, particularly at the 12 14 Environmentally Sensitive Areas identified in Table 1 of PPRP Exhibit__ 15 (SSP-3). Practices such as complete clearing of vegetation, side trimming, 16 and excluding all trees within the ROW are unnecessary to meet the 17 requirements of reliability standard FAC-003-2 or the safety requirements 18 of NESC C2-2007 in these areas of the ROW.

19 Q. WHAT ARE PPRP'S RECOMMENDATIONS WITH RESPECT TO 20 IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES THAT WILL BE CAUSED BY 21 THE PROJECT?

22 A. Considering the importance and sensitivity of the Anacostia River 23 watershed, PPRP recommends minimizing vegetation removal at all 24 stream crossings, using enhanced best management practices for erosion 25 and sediment control throughout the Project area, remediating any 26 existing degraded conditions at stream crossings, and developing and 27 implementing long-term vegetation management plans that are consistent 28 with the nature and values of the Anacostia Scenic River. Initial

22 1 Recommended Licensing Condition No. 1(f) requires that the project be 2 compatible with the Scenic and Wild River Act and Initial Recommended 3 Licensing Condition No. 7(c) requires that all impacts to the Anacostia 4 Scenic River System be identified in the Wetlands and Waterways permit 5 applications that will be submitted to MDE. Initial Recommended 6 Licensing Condition No. 13 identifies specific areas within the watershed 7 where vegetation management plans or conservation of vegetation in 8 stream ravines is appropriate. In order to be consistent with the Anacostia 9 Watershed Restoration Plan, Initial Recommended Licensing Condition 10 No. 11 requires that construction and maintenance activities in the ROW 11 be coordinated with State, County, and local agencies that are managing 12 or pursuing projects affecting natural resources in or adjacent to the ROW.

13 Specifically, the State recommends that access through or disturbance of 14 any WSSC or its buffer area should be avoided and that PEPCO allow 15 riparian areas that are cleared or disturbed during construction to re- 16 vegetate to the greatest extent possible without impeding the safe and 17 reliable operation of the transmission line. In most cases this result can be 18 achieved by using appropriate Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM) 19 techniques to maintain buffer areas of predominantly native shrub-scrub 20 vegetation around streams and wetlands and to allow trees and other 21 taller vegetation to remain, where topography permits.

22 IVM techniques should be based on the approaches specified in Best 23 Management Practices: Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM) on Electric 24 Utility Rights-of-Way (R. Miller, International Society of Arboriculture, 25 2007) and should be used to maintain predominantly native shrub-scrub 26 cover near streams, wetlands, and forest areas and other non-cultivated or 27 undeveloped areas of the ROW. Where the ROW is wide enough, a 28 border zone that starts 10 feet beyond the outermost conductor should be

23 1 defined in which small trees are permitted to grow. Wildlife passages 2 across the ROW should be created where topography allows taller trees to 3 grow safely. Sites B, J, and L in Table 1 of PPRP Exhibit__ (SSP-3) are 4 suitable for this latter approach.

5 In addition, detailed vegetation management plans are recommended at 6 five locations along the ROW that are especially sensitive (PPRP Exhibit__ 7 (SSP-3), Table 1, Sites B, C, E, G and K). Such plans should include a map 8 that shows pole positions, wetlands and streams and the buffers around 9 them, areas of border zone and wire zone vegetation, and designated 10 taller vegetation corridors across the ROW where topography allows 11 additional vertical clearances under conductors, with the extant 12 vegetation clearly indicated. The plan should describe the 13 appearance/functionality of the vegetation in the ROW after construction, 14 the proposed long term appearance/functionality, and the prescribed 15 vegetation management that will be implemented.

16 PPRP also recommends continuing effort after construction to maintain 17 the wetlands habitats in ROW and reduce invasive species populations. 18 Currently only nonnative woody species are managed in the Project ROW. 19 Initial Recommended Licensing Condition No. 8 requires that PEPCO 20 consult with MDE to identify sensitive wetlands in the Project ROW, with 21 particular attention to WSSC, and to develop plans to manage these 22 wetlands to encourage growth of sustainable populations of native 23 herbaceous plant species through approved treatments.

24 PPRP’s Recommended Initial Licensing Condition 13 related to vegetation 25 management will also help to mitigate the adverse, fragmenting effects of 26 transmission line ROWs within Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) 27 habitat. Condition 10 deals specifically with mitigation of effects to the

24 1 five RTE vascular plant species known to occur in the Project ROW, which 2 include: Eastern Featherbells; Long’s Rush; Dark Green Sedge; Halberd- 3 leaved Greenbrier; and Wild Lupine. Condition 10 also requires an 4 environmental monitoring program be put in place during construction 5 and that a pre-construction survey for raptor nests be conducted, since 6 there is evidence that raptors utilize the ROW. To mitigate effects of the 7 ROW on the state-listed threatened American Brook Lamprey, which is 8 known to occur in Little Paint Branch in the vicinity of the Project ROW, 9 Initial Recommended Licensing Condition 9 requires PEPCO to remove 10 the concrete ford crossing in Little Paint Branch, which is also a WSSC (I- 11 95 Bog Wetland area), and replace it with a permanent bridge or culvert 12 following consultation and approval from MDE and WHS. Initial 13 Recommended Licensing Condition 11 requires consultation with the 14 WHS to determine appropriate action should any unanticipated rare, 15 threatened, or endangered species be encountered during construction.

16 Proximity to Sites with Petroleum or Hazardous Substance Releases

17 Q. DOES THE PROJECT SPAN, OR REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION, IN 18 AREAS OF KNOWN TO CONTAIN PETROLEUM AND/OR 19 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES?

20 A. Yes. PEPCO acknowledges that there areas along the ROW that contain 21 petroleum-contaminated soil or areas where hazardous substances may be 22 present in soil or groundwater (Direct Testimony of Dana D. Small at page 23 12, lines 5-9). In all cases, the presence of oil-contaminated soil or 24 hazardous substances is the result of releases caused by entities other than 25 PEPCO whereby such substances have migrated onto the PEPCO ROW. 26 Based on information provided by PEPCO in a third-party environmental 27 site information report, there are three off-site sources of groundwater

25 1 contamination that could pose a potential risk to human health should 2 PEPCO encounter contaminated soil or groundwater during construction 3 activities within the Project ROW. Two of the sites (Red Top Road 4 Apartments and the Riggs Road Shell Station) are a result of leaking 5 underground storage tanks monitored under MDE’s Oil Control Program. 6 In the case of the Riggs Road Shell Station, motor/lube oil was released 7 from an underground tank resulting in localized groundwater impacts. 8 While this release occurred approximately 1500 feet from the ROW, it is 9 possible that some components of the petroleum released to groundwater 10 could migrate to the ROW. As such, PEPCO shall be aware of potential 11 contamination using visual inspection for stained soils while conducting 12 any subsurface construction activities in the area of structure locations 13 113E, 114E, 115E and 116E. The Red Top Road Apartments site is the 14 result of a commercial heating oil release. Again, PEPCO shall be aware 15 of similar conditions while conducting subsurface activities, particularly 16 near structure 120E.

17 The third site is associated with the Takoma Park Shopping Center which 18 resulted in the release of dry cleaning chemicals into the soil and 19 groundwater. Information obtained from MDE shows that the 20 contaminant plume has migrated off-site of the shopping center extending 21 across the PEPCO ROW near the Takoma substation. The MDE Voluntary 22 Cleanup/Brownfields Programs have provided over-sight for the 23 remediation of the release. According to PEPCO’s plans, structure 122E is 24 located within the groundwater contaminant plume; any construction 25 activity associated with structure 122E will likely encounter the affected 26 groundwater and/or soil (PPRP Exhibit __SSP-3), Site A.

27 PEPCO has stated that it plans to conduct an investigation to determine 28 the presence of soil and/or groundwater contamination at the structure

26 1 locations to the depths of proposed excavations prior to initiation of 2 construction. Additionally, PEPCO committed to using the results to the 3 investigation to determine the course of action to mitigate potential risks 4 from contamination during construction (Direct Testimony of Dana D. 5 Small at page 12, lines 12-14). These actions could include a soil 6 management plan, proper disposal, or engineering design solutions.

7 Q. DOES PPRP RECOMMEND SPECIFIC PROCEDURES TO AVOID OR 8 MINIMIZE POTENTIAL HUMAN EXPOSURE WITH 9 CONTAMINATED SOIL OR GROUNDWATER?

10 A. Yes. There are two concerns regarding potential human exposure to 11 contaminated soil or groundwater, namely exposure to the construction 12 workers excavating contaminated soil and groundwater and exposure to 13 area residents from impacted soil removed from the excavations. PPRP, 14 in concert with MDE Waste Management Administration, has prepared 15 Initial Recommended Licensing Condition No. 20 to address concerns 16 regarding worker health and safety and management and disposal of 17 excavated materials impacted with hazardous substances, and ensure 18 PEPCO delivers on the commitments set forth in the CPCN application.

19 In Initial Recommended Licensing Condition No. 20a, PPRP requires that 20 PEPCO conduct necessary analytical testing of the soil and groundwater 21 near the structure locations that could be affected by subsurface 22 contamination. PEPCO will also be required to prepare plans for soil and 23 groundwater management to include plans for health and safety, 24 excavation, containment and disposal.

25 Initial Recommended Licensing Condition No. 20b and 20c require that 26 results of the analytical data collected as part of the investigation must be 27 compared to MDE’s Cleanup Standards for Soil and Groundwater,

27 1 Interim Final, June 2008. Analytical data for soil must be compared to 2 residential cleanup levels to ensure protection of residents living adjacent 3 to the Project ROW. Should analytical data for soil exceed the MDE 4 standards for residential soil, PEPCO must adhere to proper disposal of 5 impacted soil at a licensed solid waste facility in accordance with MDE’s 6 solid and hazardous waste laws and regulations. Impacted soil shall not 7 remain within the Project ROW. If groundwater is determined to contain 8 hazardous substances exceeding MDE’s standards, procedures shall be 9 developed and implemented to ensure that impacted groundwater is 10 either treated or disposed of in accordance with all applicable local, State 11 and federal laws and regulations.

12 Initial Recommended Licensing Condition No. 20d requires that PEPCO 13 adhere to all appropriate Occupational Safety and Health Administration 14 (OSHA, 29 CFR 1910) and Maryland OSHA (MOSHA, COMAR 09.12.20) 15 regulations and procedures to ensure worker protection.

16 Historical and Archeological Resources

17 Q. WHAT ARE THE PROJECT’S IMPACTS ON HISTORICAL AND 18 CULTURAL RESOURCES?

19 A. All or parts of 32 properties listed in the Maryland Inventory of Historic 20 Properties (MIHP) are within one-quarter mile of the Project’s ROW, one 21 which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). While 22 most are occupied residences, the list of MIHP properties includes the 23 Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC), University of Maryland 24 College Park, Sligo Creek Parkway and Laurel Sand & Gravel Company. 25 No easement held by the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) is within one- 26 quarter mile of the ROW nor are any National Historic or Prince George’s 27 County Historic Districts near the Project area.

28 1 The Project is within the Anacostia Trails Certified Heritage Area (CHA), 2 an 84 square mile area containing relatively unspoiled historic sites that 3 inform how transportation and communication advances have 4 transformed the landscape and affected settlement patterns around 5 Washington DC. Cultural and historical resources are linked by the 6 Anacostia Tributary Trails System, a scenic greenway of trails, recreation 7 facilities and other attractions that are designed to promote heritage 8 tourism. The Anacostia Trails CHA is part of the Maryland Heritage 9 Areas program. PPRP sent a consultation letter to the Anacostia Trails 10 Heritage Area Inc. requesting input on potential effects of the Project on 11 the Anacostia Trails CHA.

12 The Project would be constructed within an existing ROW that currently 13 contains four 230kV circuits on two sets of towers. Two circuits and 14 existing towers on the eastern side of the ROW would be replaced by 15 double circuit steel monopoles and new cabling. New pole locations 16 would be adjacent to existing structures, which would subsequently be 17 demolished. Some ground disturbance around each new structure is 18 expected for site preparation, pole assembly and lattice tower demolition. 19 PEPCO expects these work pads to be about 80 x 50 feet. Work areas at 20 pulling and tensioning sites would be larger to accommodate additional 21 equipment. Access to structure locations would be via a combination of 22 existing and new access roads.

23 The Project would be constructed in a ROW that has been previously 24 disturbed and dedicated to electric transmission for many years. Because 25 of this and the historical and cultural context in which the ROW is located, 26 PPRP determined that no significant historic property would be physically 27 altered or destroyed by the Project, nor would taller structures change the 28 use of these properties. The Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) concurs

29 1 that no known historic properties would be affected by the Project.

2 Q. DOES PPRP HAVE ANY RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS TO 3 ADDRESS THE PROJECT’S IMPACTS ON HISTORICAL AND 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES THAT ARE NOT KNOWN AT THIS TIME?

5 A. Yes. In the event an unforeseen archeological site is discovered, PPRP 6 recommends Initial Recommended Licensing Condition 15 requiring 7 PEPCO to develop and implement a plan addressing such relics and sites 8 that would address avoidance and protection, data recovery, or 9 destruction without recovery. PEPCO would be required to consult and 10 obtain written approval from MHT for this plan.

11 Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Issues

12 Q. WHAT ARE YOUR CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE ECONOMIC, 13 DEMOGRAPHIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT?

14 A. The Project would have a beneficial effect on the Prince George’s County 15 economy through the awarding of contracts to engineering and 16 construction firms. Only a small construction crew would be needed to 17 complete the Project. Most construction labor is expected to be sourced 18 from the Washington and Baltimore metropolitan areas. Workers with 19 specialized skills who live outside normal commuting distances would 20 reside in transient accommodation. The Project contains a material 21 component, including conductors, poles, shield wire and optical fiber 22 ground wire. Because of the specialized nature of some of these 23 components, not all economic benefits from construction of the 24 transmission line would accrue to Maryland. In summary, Project 25 construction would have no discernible effect upon employment, 26 population, housing or regional income.

30 1 PPRP has concluded that post-construction project benefits would be 2 primarily fiscal, in the form of property tax payments to Prince George’s 3 County from an increase in the ROW’s tax base.

4 Transportation

5 Q. WHAT ARE YOUR CONCLUSIONS REGARDING 6 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS FROM THE PROJECT?

7 A. The Project traverses several county roads, State highways and ramps to I- 8 495, I-95 and the Inter-County Connector (ICC). Because of the small 9 labor force for the Project, construction worker vehicles are not expected 10 to adversely affect existing commuting patterns. Truck transport of 11 materials to staging areas would be via access roads from county roads 12 and state highways traversed by the Project. Project plans indicate that 13 new access roads would be required to reach structure locations from 14 westbound East West Highway, Fordham Street, a ramp from I-495, 15 Appalachian Trail (a local road), Denim Road and a ramp from I-95. A 16 new access road from northbound I-95 is under consideration.

17 Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS?

18 A. Yes. PPRP is requiring conditions to address transportation. First, PPRP 19 recommends requiring PEPCO to obtain any utility permits required by 20 the Maryland State Highway Administration Utility Engineer’s Office or 21 the Prince George’s County Department of Public Works and 22 Transportation, as necessary (Initial Recommended Licensing Condition 23 16).

24 In addition, some additional transportation will be associated with the 25 construction of the Project. Several truck trips would be needed to 26 prepare each site, to deliver poles, and foundation materials, to assemble

31 1 and lift pole sections and arms, and to remove the existing structure. 2 Cable reels would be delivered on flatbed trucks to pulling locations at 3 selected locations along the route. PPRP recommends Initial 4 Recommended Licensing Condition 17 requiring PEPCO to schedule the 5 transport of materials and equipment to staging areas and construction 6 sites during non-peak hours. Such steps would mitigate disruptions to 7 traffic on public roads.

8 Also, the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) requires 9 hauling permits for hauling any load of materials or equipment that are 10 “oversize vehicles” or “overweight vehicles”, as defined by Title 24, 11 Subtitle 1 of the Transportation Article of the Annotated Code of 12 Maryland .

13 Prince George’s County also requires permits for transporting extremely 14 large and/or heavy items on public roadways. The Department of 15 Permitting, Inspection and Enforcement requires sufficient advance notice 16 to conduct an inspection of the proposed hauling route and for analysis of 17 the equipment. No bridges or certain culverts may be crossed if the 18 combined load is in excess of Maryland legal load or posted limits. 19 However, permits for overweight/oversize vehicles issued by the SHA 20 are valid for county roads provided weight restrictions for structures are 21 observed.

22 PPRP recommends Initial Recommended Licensing Condition 18 23 requiring PEPCO to comply with all permit requirements for transport of 24 oversize or overweight loads on State highways and Prince George’s 25 County roads, and to obtain appropriate approvals, as necessary.

26 No transportation impacts are expected from operation of the Project.

32 1 Land Use

2 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE DOMINANT LAND USES PRESENT 3 WITHIN AND AROUND THE PROPOSED PROJECT.

4 A. The project is located in the Subregion 1 and Subregion 2 master plan 5 areas in Prince George’s County (Figure 1). Subregion 1 is a 44 square 6 mile area in northeast Prince George’s County bounded by Montgomery 7 County to the west, the Capital Beltway (I-495) to the south, the City of 8 Laurel and Howard County to the north and the Baltimore Washington 9 Parkway and MD 201 to the east. Planning Areas 60, 61, 62 and 64 are 10 within Subregion 1. Subregion 2 is south of Subregion 1, generally within 11 the Capital Beltway and the District of Columbia. The subregion contains 12 Planning Areas 65, 66, 67, 68 and 69. The Burtonsville-Tacoma 13 transmission corridor lies within PA 60, 61, 65 and 66.

14 The Approved Subregion 1 Master Plan and Sectional Plan Amendment 15 2010 identifies three major “living areas” within the area of potential effect 16 (APE) of the transmission line: Beltsville, Calverton and Gunpowder. In 17 Subregion 2 the transmission corridor separates the sub-communities of 18 Adelphi-Langley Park and Hollywood-College Park Woods, and bisects 19 Chillum-Takoma Park. Within the latter, the ROW forms the southeastern 20 boundary of the Takoma-Langley Crossroads (TLC) area.

21 The ROW traverses a wide range of land uses. Much of the land in 22 Subregion 1 south of the Burtonsville substation to the ICC is extractive, 23 primarily sand and gravel mining. Further south, surrounding land uses 24 are primarily residential although the ROW is buffered by lands classified 25 as Forest. In Subregion 2, the ROW cuts through mostly agricultural lands 26 that are part of the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC), 27 specifically the North and South Farms of BARC-West, before

33 1 transitioning into residential land uses south of Adelphi Road.

2 Several parks and other recreation facilities are adjacent to or bisected by 3 the ROW. Further, the ROW is crossed by several hiker/biker/equestrian 4 trails that are part of the Anacostia Tributary Trail System: Cross Creek 5 Connector Trail, Paint Branch Trail, Northwest Branch Trail and the Sligo 6 Creek Trail.

7 Planning documents indicate that lands near the ROW in Subregion 1 are 8 expected to undergo significant change. Konterra Town Center is a 9 proposed mixed use development that straddles I-95 from MD 198 to the 10 ICC. It is identified in the 2002 Prince George’s County Approved 11 General Plan as a future regional center and has undergone several 12 transformations since its conception in the 1990 Subregion 1 Master Plan 13 and Sectional Map Amendment. Originally envisioned with a regional 14 mall, office, retail and residential uses west of I-95, and the town center to 15 the east, the principal retail core has since been moved back to Town 16 Center East where much of the office space is now conceived as residential 17 space. Konterra Town Center East is currently under construction. A 37- 18 acre industrial site and the Konterra Headquarters Building have been 19 developed on the west side of I-95. The 2010 Subregion 1 Approved 20 Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment envisions a mix of land uses 21 in Konterra Town Center West that steps down development intensity 22 from east (along I-95) to west to be compatible with single-family 23 development along Old Gunpowder Road.

24 Fewer land use changes are expected south of the ICC. For example, 25 BARC’s mission requires it to maintain its overall pattern of use, with 26 development activities directed toward modernization to extend its useful 27 life and improve its existing research activities. Within the Capital

34 1 Beltway, land is substantially developed around the ROW. Plans such as 2 the Takoma/Langley Crossroads Approved Sector Plan seek to enhance 3 the character and quality of life in communities and provide for transit- 4 oriented development around proposed Purple Line light rail transit 5 stations. Because land use intensity is so much greater here, plans identify 6 the ROW as a resource for expanding the county’s network of trails.

7 Q. WHAT ARE YOUR CONCLUSIONS REGARDING LAND USE 8 IMPACTS FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT?

9 A. The Project would occupy a dedicated ROW, which is shared with another 10 230kV transmission line. No lands including community gardens within 11 the ROW would be preempted from other uses during construction or 12 operation. With the Project occupying a ROW that has been dedicated to 13 transmission for many years, its construction and operation are not 14 expected to indirectly influence land uses surrounding the ROW.

15 Visual Quality

16 Q. WHAT ARE PROPOSED PROJECT’S VISUAL IMPACTS?

17 A. As noted, the ROW traverses land that has been intensively developed 18 either for resource extraction or for industrial, commercial and residential 19 purposes. The northern part of the ROW parallels an eight-lane interstate 20 highway (I-95) and crosses over the I-495/I-95 interchange and the ICC. 21 Scenic resources are therefore scarce in the vicinity of the ROW and tend 22 to be either intermittent or impeded by the built environment. Still, scenic 23 relief is available within BARC, Greenbelt Lake, University of Maryland, 24 Northwest Branch the Washington Memorial Park Cemetery and Fairland 25 Regional Park. BARC is also known by cyclists for its scenic roads. 26 Tributaries of the Anacostia River, a scenic river designated under the

35 1 Maryland Scenic and Wild Rivers Act, are within the Project’s ROW.

2 According to PEPCO’s Application, 52 steel monopoles would replace the 3 same number of lattice structures. Poles would range in height from 118 4 to 175 feet above ground level. Views of the ROW during construction 5 would include trucks and cranes around pole placement sites for short 6 periods of time.

7 Post-construction views of the ROW would be mostly unchanged, 8 differentiated mainly by structure type, with steel poles replacing existing 9 lattice structures. Although taller than the lattice structures, the height of 10 the poles would be similar to existing monopoles carrying a transmission 11 line along the western side of the ROW.

12 Given that a high voltage transmission line has been part of the landscape 13 for many years, it is doubtful that the Project would have an adverse effect 14 on scenic perceptions in the vicinity of the ROW. PPRP has therefore 15 concluded that views of the ROW would be no more impeded than 16 currently, and that social, recreational, heritage and other activities 17 conducted within view of the ROW would not be adversely affected by 18 the Project.

19 Conclusion

20 Q. WHAT IS THE STATE'S RECOMMENDATION WITH RESPECT TO 21 THE REQUESTED CPCN?

22 A. PPRP and the Reviewing Agencies find that PEPCO has provided 23 evidence that construction of the Project is necessary and can be built 24 without significant new environmental impacts. However, there will be 25 some construction and long-term impacts resulting from the Project that 26 PEPCO should address. Thus, PPRP recommends that the Initial

36 1 Recommended Licensing Conditions, which are provided in PPRP 2 Exhibit__ (SSP-2), be incorporated into any CPCN that may be granted by 3 the Commission. This will ensure that the Project can be constructed and 4 operated in accordance with applicable environmental laws and standards 5 and in a way that minimizes environmental impacts.

6 Q. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY AT THIS 7 TIME? 8 A. Yes.

37