PERRY – A public relations spokesman for Quoddy Bay LNG Tuesday denied that the developer’s natural gas pipeline would “pass through” the Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge.

Cary Weston said that information submitted last week by Roger Fleming of the Conservation Law Foundation of Brunswick to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was incorrect. Asked to identify the correct route, Weston, who was traveling, said he did not have that information at his fingertips.

In an e-mail sent to the Bangor Daily News later, Weston said the pipeline, as detailed on the company’s Web site, would run from the storage facility in Perry to the west and north for a distance of about 2.3 miles before converging with an existing abandoned rail grade.

The pipeline then would follow the existing abandoned rail grade between milepost 4.4 in the town of Perry and milepost 11.8 in the town of Charlotte. From there, the pipeline would travel to the west and north through Charlotte, Cooper, Alexander and Princeton where it would connect with the Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline.

“At no point does the proposed pipeline pass near or through the refuge,” Weston said.

Last year, the developer entered into an agreement with the Passamaquoddy Tribe to build a liquefied natural gas terminal at Pleasant Point. Plans call for a two-berth facility that can handle up to 90 ships a year at Split Rock, near Route 190. The developer plans to build three storage tanks in neighboring Perry. Quoddy Bay was the first LNG developer Down East to submit information to FERC.

Fleming said that’s where he got his information.

“I am looking at the map that is contained in Volume 1 of their application that is on the FERC docket,” Fleming said Tuesday afternoon. “And it has three alternative routes for the pipeline. Two of the three very clearly go right through the middle of the Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge.”

In his original statement to FERC officials last week during the Quoddy Bay LNG scoping session, Fleming brought up the issue of the pipeline and the impact on the refuge.

Fleming agreed Tuesday that the company did have another map on its Web site, which offered three additional alternatives, but said he took information Quoddy Bay had submitted to FERC. Fleming said it was CLF’s responsibility, if the information was correct in the application, to identify the issues so FERC could analyze them.

During the two-day scoping sessions, more than 50 people offered both written and verbal comments to FERC. The majority of those who spoke said they were against Quoddy Bay’s project.

The conservation group last week called for a regional approach for siting an LNG facility at the FERC scoping session based on the potential merits and environmental impacts of adding one or more LNG import facilities to the regional energy infrastructure.

Fleming suggested a two-prong approach to the FERC analysis: first, that an energy and gas supply-and-demand needs assessment should be conducted. “This assessment should serve as a key determinant in decision-making and in explaining regional need to affected local communities,” he said in the remarks he submitted to FERC.

Second, he suggested a regional siting approach was needed to determine the specific sites for an LNG import facility “based upon rigorously developed criteria that address both public safety and environmental protection.”

To date, there are more than 10 proposals for onshore LNG terminals and offshore deep-water ports in the Northeast and Maritime Canada. Currently, three applicants are advancing through the regulatory system for deep-water ports off the coast of Massachusetts and Long Island Sound.

The CLF’s senior attorney also suggested that FERC work with other federal agencies to prepare a regional Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.

Another concern raised by CLF was the impact the facility would have on coastal and marine environment. He suggested the project be subjected to a rigorous environmental review.

CLF also suggested FERC look at safety issues associated with both the import and storage of LNG and the impact from noise during facility operation, impact to air quality, impact to cultural resources and impact on the scenic and wild character of the area.