TGP Environmental Report NED 03132015

NORTHEAST ENERGY DIRECT PROJECT DOCKET NO. PF14-22-000

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

RESOURCE REPORT 1 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PUBLIC

Submitted by: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. 1001 Louisiana Street Houston, Texas 77002

March 2015

This page intentionally left blank

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-i

RESOURCE REPORT 1 – GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY OF COMMISSION FILING INFORMATION

INFORMATION

FOUND IN

Provide a detailed description and location map of the Project facilities (§ 380.12 (c)(1)).

Section 1.1 Attachment 1a

Describe any non-jurisdictional facilities that would be built in association with the Project (Section 380.12 (c)(2)).

Section 1.7

Provide current original U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute series topographic maps with mileposts showing the Project facilities (§ 380.12 (c)(3)).

Attachment 1a

Provide aerial images or photographs or alignment sheets based on these sources with mileposts showing the Project facilities (§ 380.12 (c)(3)).

Attachment 1a

Provide plot/site plans of compressor stations showing the location of the nearest noise-sensitive areas within 1 mile (§ 380.12 (c)(3,4)).

To be provided in a subsequent filing of this Resource Report 1 (following identification of specific locations for new compressor stations)

Describe construction and restoration methods (§ 380.12 (c)(6)).

Section 1.3

Identify the permits required for construction across surface waters (§ 380.12 (c)(9)).

Section 1.6

Provide the names and addresses of all affected landowners and certify that all affected landowners will be notified as required in Section 157.6(d) (§ 380.12 (c)(10)).

March 2015

Section 1.8 Volume III, Appendix AA


Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0

GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................. 1-1 1.1

PROPOSED FACILITIES ............................................................................................... 1-9 1.1.1

Purpose and Need ............................................................................................... 1-9

1.1.2

Location and Description of Facilities .............................................................. 1-12 1.1.2.1 Pipeline Facilities ............................................................................... 1-13 1.1.2.2 Aboveground Facilities ...................................................................... 1-27

1.1.3 1.2

1.3

Location Maps, Detailed Site Maps, and Plot/Site Maps ................................. 1-38

LAND REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................ 1-38 1.2.1

Pipeline Facilities.............................................................................................. 1-41

1.2.2

Aboveground Facilities ..................................................................................... 1-45

1.2.3

Access Roads .................................................................................................... 1-48

1.2.4

Additional Temporary Workspace.................................................................... 1-48

1.2.5

Pipeyards and Contractor Yards ....................................................................... 1-48

1.2.6

Areas of No Access........................................................................................... 1-50

1.2.7

Non-Surveyed Areas ......................................................................................... 1-51

CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES.............................................................................. 1-58 1.3.1

Pipeline Construction ........................................................................................ 1-58 1.3.1.1 Marking the Corridor ......................................................................... 1-59 1.3.1.2 Erosion and Sediment Control ........................................................... 1-59 1.3.1.3 Clearing, Grading, and Fencing ......................................................... 1-59 1.3.1.4 Trenching ........................................................................................... 1-60 1.3.1.5 Pipe Stringing ..................................................................................... 1-61 1.3.1.6 Pipe Bending ...................................................................................... 1-62 1.3.1.7 Pipe Assembly and Welding .............................................................. 1-62 1.3.1.8 X-Ray and Weld Repair ..................................................................... 1-62 1.3.1.9 Coating Field Welds, Inspection and Repair ...................................... 1-62 1.3.1.10 Pipe Preparation and Lowering-In ..................................................... 1-63 1.3.1.11 Tie-Ins ................................................................................................ 1-63 1.3.1.12 Backfilling and Grade Restoration ..................................................... 1-63 1.3.1.13 Clean-up and Restoration ................................................................... 1-63

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-iii 1.3.1.14 Hydrostatic Testing and Tie-Ins ......................................................... 1-63 1.3.1.15 Alternating Current Mitigation and Cathodic Protection ................... 1-64 1.3.2

Specialized Construction Procedures................................................................ 1-64 1.3.2.1 Rugged Topography ........................................................................... 1-64 1.3.2.2 Residential Areas ............................................................................... 1-75 1.3.2.3 Agricultural Lands ............................................................................. 1-77 1.3.2.4 Road and Railroad Crossings ............................................................. 1-77 1.3.2.5 Trenchless Construction Methods ...................................................... 1-77 1.3.2.6 Rock Removal .................................................................................... 1-81 1.3.2.7 Wetland Crossing Construction ......................................................... 1-82 1.3.2.8 Waterbody Crossing Construction ..................................................... 1-82 1.3.2.9 Project Specific Alternative Measures or Modifications to Commission’s Plan and Procedures ................................................... 1-83

1.3.3

Compressor Stations, Meter Stations, and Appurtenant Facilities.................... 1-83 1.3.3.1 Clearing and Grading ......................................................................... 1-84 1.3.3.2 Foundations ........................................................................................ 1-84 1.3.3.3 Building Design and Construction ..................................................... 1-84 1.3.3.4 High Pressure Piping .......................................................................... 1-84 1.3.3.5 Pressure Testing ................................................................................. 1-85 1.3.3.6 Infrastructure Facilities ...................................................................... 1-85 1.3.3.7 Control Checkout and Engine Startup ................................................ 1-85 1.3.3.8 Final Grading and Landscaping ......................................................... 1-85 1.3.3.9 Erosion Control Procedures ............................................................... 1-85

1.4

1.5

1.3.4

Timeframe for Construction ............................................................................. 1-85

1.3.5

Supervision and Inspection ............................................................................... 1-86

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES .............................................. 1-86 1.4.1

General Procedures ........................................................................................... 1-86

1.4.2

Vegetation Maintenance ................................................................................... 1-87

1.4.3

Cathodic Protection and Cathodic Protection and Alternating Current Mitigation Areas ............................................................................................... 1-88

1.4.4

Periodic Pipeline and ROW Patrols ................................................................ 1-120

1.4.5

Procedures Specific to Aboveground Facilities .............................................. 1-121

FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT .............................................................. 1-122 March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-iv 1.6

PERMITS AND APPROVALS................................................................................... 1-123

1.7

NON-JURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES ..................................................................... 1-129

1.8

LANDOWNER/AGENCY CONSULTATION .......................................................... 1-129 1.8.1

Landowner Consultation/Public Participation ................................................ 1-130

1.8.2

Agency Consultation....................................................................................... 1-136 1.8.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Species Consultations ......................... 1-137 1.8.2.2 Interagency and Other Review/Resource Agency Meetings ............ 1-137

1.9

SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ............................................................. 1-139 1.9.1

Introduction..................................................................................................... 1-139

1.9.2

Cumulative Impacts Analysis Spatial and Temporal Scale ............................ 1-140

1.9.3

Past, Present, Proposed or Future Projects Evaluated for Potential Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................ 1-146

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-v

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) LIST OF TABLES Table 1.0-1 Summary of NED Project Facilities ...................................................................................... 1-3 Table 1.1-1 Proposed Pipeline Facilities for the Project ......................................................................... 1-16 Table 1.1-2 Areas of Pipeline Looping and Co-Location for the Pipeline Facilities .............................. 1-22 Table 1.1-3 Proposed Compressor Stations for the Project .................................................................... 1-29 Table 1.1-4 Proposed Meter Stations for the Project .............................................................................. 1-33 Table 1.1-5 Proposed Appurtenant Aboveground Facilities for the Project ........................................... 1-37 Table 1.2-1 Summary of Land Requirements for the Project ................................................................. 1-38 Table 1.2-2 Proposed Construction ROW Widths for the Project Pipeline Facilities ............................ 1-42 Table 1.2-3 Land Requirements for the Project Pipeline Facilities ........................................................ 1-44 Table 1.2-4 Land Requirements for the Project Aboveground and Appurtenant Facilities .................... 1-46 Table 1.2-5 Pipeyards and Contractor Yards for the Project .................................................................. 1-49 Table 1.2-6 Areas of No Access for the Project by State........................................................................ 1-51 Table 1.2-7 Non-Surveyed Areas of the Project ..................................................................................... 1-52 Table 1.3-1 Tennessee Minimum Specifications for Depth of Cover..................................................... 1-60 Table 1.3-2 Steep Slopes (15 to 30 percent) Crossed by the Project ...................................................... 1-65 Table 1.3-3 Steep Slopes (>30%) Crossed by the Pipeline ..................................................................... 1-66 Table 1.3-4 Steep Side Slopes (15 to 30 percent) Crossed by the Project .............................................. 1-74 Table 1.3-5 Steep Side Slopes (>30 percent) Crossed by the Project ..................................................... 1-74 Table 1.3-6 Horizontal Directional Drill Crossings for the Project ........................................................ 1-79 Table 1.3-7 Shallow Depth to Bedrock for the Project ........................................................................... 1-81 Table 1.4-1 Cathodic Protection Areas Along the Project ...................................................................... 1-89 Table 1.4-2 Alternating Current Mitigation Areas Along the Project................................................... 1-101 Table 1.6-1 Permits, Licenses, Approvals, and Certificates Required for Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of the Project ......................................................................................... 1-124 Table 1.8-1 Libraries Within the Project Area ...................................................................................... 1-131 Table 1.8-2 Newspapers Within the Project Area ................................................................................. 1-134 Table 1.8-3 Agency Meetings Conducted for the Project (As of March 13, 2015) .............................. 1-137 Table 1.9-1 Spatial/Geographic Criteria for Cumulative Impacts ........................................................ 1-141

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1a – FIGURE Figure 1.1-1 Project Location Map ATTACHMENT 1B – LIST OF SOURCES FOR PROJECTS POTENTIALLY CONTRIBUTING TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

March 2015


Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-1

1.0

GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (“Tennessee” or “TGP”) is filing an application seeking the issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission” or “FERC”) for the construction and operation of the proposed Northeast Energy Direct Project (“NED Project” or “Project”). Tennessee proposes to expand and modify its existing pipeline system in Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. The NED Project is being developed to meet the increased demand in the Northeast United States (“U.S.”) for transportation capacity of natural gas. The NED Project will provide up to 2.2 billion cubic feet per day (“Bcf/d”) of new firm natural gas transportation capacity to meet the growing energy needs in the Northeast U.S., particularly in New England. The proposed Project involves the following facilities:  

   

Approximately 32 miles of pipeline looping1 on Tennessee’s 300 Line in Pennsylvania; Approximately 133 miles of new pipeline proposed to be generally co-located2 with the recently approved Constitution Pipeline Project (“Constitution”)3 in Pennsylvania and New York (extending from Tennessee’s existing 300 Line near Auburn Center, Pennsylvania to Wright, New York); Approximately 53 miles of pipeline generally co-located with Tennessee’s existing 200 Line and an existing utility corridor in New York; Approximately 64 miles of pipeline generally co-located with an existing utility corridor in Massachusetts; Approximately 71 miles of pipeline generally co-located with an existing utility corridor in New Hampshire (extending southeast to Dracut, Massachusetts); Various laterals and pipeline looping segments in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut to serve local markets;

1

Pipeline loops are those pipeline segments which are laid parallel to another pipeline and used as a way to increase capacity along what is possible on one line. These lines are connected to move a larger flow of gas through a single pipeline segment.

2

Co-located pipelines are those that are laid parallel to another existing pipeline, but are not connected in any way. The current route of Tennessee’s proposed NED Project, in part, is located parallel and adjacent to, and, in some cases, overlaps existing utility easements (either pipeline or electric utility). This paralleling/overlapping of easements is commonly referred to as colocation. Refinement to the routing will occur as the NED Project is developed through the pre-filing and certificate processes, which will incorporate information gained from field surveys, and landowner and stakeholder input. Tennessee’s current proposed pipeline alignment along utility corridors is proposed to be generally located five (5) feet outside the existing utility easement, as set forth herein. Tennessee’s permanent easement will generally be centered on the proposed pipeline. Depending on final field surveys and discussions with landowners, utility owners, and other stakeholders, the location and configuration of temporary work spaces will be determined.

3

On December 2, 2014, the Commission issued an Order Issuing Certificates and Approving Abandonment, Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC, 149 FERC 61,199 (2014), for the Constitution Pipeline Project, which adopted the recommendations from the Constitution “Final Environmental Impact Statement: Constitution Pipeline and Wright Interconnect Projects,” FERC Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) No. 0249F, Docket Numbers CP13-499-000, CP13-502-000, and PF12-9-000 (“Constitution Final EIS [“FEIS”]”) issued October 24, 2014. Information contained within this Resource Report 1 related to the Constitution Pipeline Project was based on the routing included in the Final EIS, as approved by the certificate order.

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-2  

Construction of 9 new compressor stations and 15 new meter stations, and modifications to existing compressor and meter stations throughout the Project area; and Construction of appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves (“MLVs”), cathodic protection, and pig launchers/receivers through the Project area.

To the extent that it is practicable, feasible, and in compliance with existing law, Tennessee proposes to locate proposed pipeline facilities (either pipeline looping segments or co-located pipeline facilities)4 generally within or adjacent to its existing right-of-way (“ROW”) associated with its existing 300 Line in Pennsylvania and Connecticut; its 200 Line in New York and Massachusetts; and existing pipeline and utility corridors in Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. Table 1.0-1 provides a summary of the NED Project facilities. Tennessee is requesting issuance of a certificate order for the Project in October 2016 and proposes to commence construction activities in January 2017, in anticipation of placing the Project facilities inservice by November 2018 (with the exception of two proposed pipeline looping segments in Connecticut, which would be placed in-service by November 2019), consistent with the terms and conditions of the precedent agreements executed with Project Shippers. Tennessee’s existing pipeline infrastructure consists of approximately 14,000 miles of pipeline designated as the 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, and 800 Lines, based on the region they serve. The proposed NED Project focuses on the existing 200 and 300 Lines. The 200 Line consists of multiple pipelines varying from 24 inches to 36 inches in diameter beginning on the suction of Compressor Station 200 in Greenup County, Kentucky, and extending east through Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts. The 300 Line system consists of two pipelines (24 inches and 30 inches in diameter) beginning on the discharge side of Compressor Station 219 in Mercer County, Pennsylvania, traveling east through Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and terminating as a 16-inch-diameter pipeline at Compressor Station 261 in Hampden County, Massachusetts.

4

Pipeline loops are those pipeline segments which are laid parallel to another pipeline and used as a way to increase capacity along what is possible on one line. These lines are connected to move a larger flow of gas through a single pipeline segment. Co-located pipelines are those that are laid parallel to another existing pipeline, but are not connected in any way.

March 2015

New Modified New

Pipeline

Pipeline Compressor Station Compressor Station

Pipeline

Loop 319-3

Pennsylvania to Wright Pipeline Segment (Pennsylvania Portion)

Station 319 Upgrades

Supply Path Head Station

Pennsylvania to Wright Pipeline Segment (New York Portion) New

New

New

Pipeline

Loop 317-3

New / Modified

Facility Type

Facility Name

B

Susquehanna

March 2015

N/A

D E E

Delaware Schoharie

D

Chenango Delaware

D

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

30.89

20.17

25.33

2.46

16.26

69.84

Pennsylvania Subtotal

N/A

38.03

4.26

4.83

22.72

Length (miles)4

N/A

0.00

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Milepost3

20.83-25.17

C

B

Broome

Susquehanna

Pennsylvania to Wright Pipeline Segment (Pennsylvania Portion) New York

Bradford

C

B

Bradford

Susquehanna

A

Segment2

Bradford

County

Loop 319-3

N/A

N/A

N/A

Pennsylvania

Associated Pipeline1

TABLE 1.0-1 SUMMARY OF NED PROJECT FACILITIES


New

New New New New New New New

Pipeline

Compressor Station Compressor Station Compressor Station Meter Station Meter Station Meter Station Compressor Station

Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (New York Portion)

Supply Path Mid Station

Supply Path Tail Station

Market Path Head Station

IGT-Constitution Bi-Directional Meter

NED Check

NED/200 Line Bi-Directional OPP & Check

Market Path Mid Station 1

New / Modified

Facility Type

Facility Name

March 2015


Pennsylvania to Wright Pipeline Segment (New York Portion)

N/A


G

Rensselaer

Rensselaer

Schoharie

Schoharie

F

F

F

F

F

E

D

F

Rensselaer

Delaware

F

36.51-40.55

0.14

0.12

0.03

0.00-2.02

41.82-46.20

35.65-39.69

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Milepost3

New York Subtotal

F

Schoharie Albany

Segment2

County


148.55

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

0.11

25.35

24.09

3.89

Length (miles)4


Facility Type

Pipeline

Pipeline Pipeline Pipeline Pipeline Pipeline Pipeline Pipeline

Facility Name

Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (Massachusetts Portion)

Maritimes Delivery Line

Concord Delivery Line

Lynnfield Lateral

Peabody Lateral

Haverhill Lateral (Massachusetts Portion)

Fitchburg Lateral Extension (Massachusetts Portion)

North Worcester Lateral

New

New

New

New

New

New

New

New

New / Modified

March 2015

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Massachusetts


K

Middlesex

Q Q

Middlesex Worcester

R

P

Essex

Worcester

P

Middlesex

N

Middlesex

O

N

Essex Essex

M

Middlesex

L

H

Franklin Middlesex

G

G

Hampshire Franklin

G

Segment2

Berkshire

County


N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Milepost3

14.14

3.70

5.20

4.05

1.67

5.37

11.45

4.41

0.51

1.20

2.82

28.18

5.79

5.55

21.41

Length (miles)4


New / Modified New New New New New New New New New New New

Facility Type Meter Station Meter Station Compressor Station Meter Station Compressor Station Compressor Station Meter Station Meter Station Meter Station Meter Station Meter Station

Facility Name

North Adams Check

Dalton


West Greenfield


Market Path Tail Station

Maritimes

200-2 Check

200-1 Check

Haverhill Check

Fitchburg Lateral Check

Worcester


March 2015

Middlesex

Essex

Middlesex

Middlesex

Middlesex

Franklin

Berkshire

County


Lynnfield Lateral






Q

P

N

M

L

K

H

H

G

G

G

Segment2

13.98

0.10

15.86

0.06

1.20

0.00-2.82

21.45-25.51

9.19

16.68-21.01

13.50

7.42

Milepost3

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Length (miles)4


New Modified New Modified New

Meter Station Meter Station Meter Station Meter Station Meter Station

Pipeline

Pipeline Pipeline

North Worcester

North Adams Custody (20103)5

Longmeadow5

Lawrence (20121)5

Everett5

Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (New Hampshire Portion)

Haverhill Lateral (New Hampshire Portion)

Fitchburg Lateral Extension (New Hampshire Portion) New

New

New

New / Modified

Facility Type

Facility Name

March 2015

N/A

N/A

N/A

New Hampshire

Existing TGP Line 270C

Existing TGP Line 270B

Existing TGP Line 200

Existing TGP Line 256A



J

Rockingham

Hillsborough

Q

P

J

Hillsborough

I I

Rockingham

Proposed Facility

Existing Facility

Proposed Facility

Existing Facility

14.14

Milepost3

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Massachusetts Subtotal

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

R

Segment2

Hillsborough

Cheshire

Middlesex

Essex

Hampden

Berkshire

Worcester

County


5.08

1.99

4.77

36.76

0.10

28.96

115.45

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Length (miles)4


5

4

3

2

1

New New

New Modified Modified Modified

Compressor Station Meter Station

Pipeline Pipeline Meter Station Meter Station Meter Station


West Nashua

300 Line CT Loop

Stamford Loop

Stamford (20124)

Long Ridge (20434)5

New Britain (20129)5



Stamford Loop

N/A

N/A

Connecticut



Hartford

Fairfield

Fairfield

Fairfield

Hartford

Hillsborough

Hillsborough

County

19.29

4.40-8.36

Milepost3

427.71

Project Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

1.49

14.72

16.21

Existing Facility

Existing Facility

1.49

N/A

N/A

77.66

N/A

N/A

Length (miles)4

Connecticut Subtotal

N/A

N/A

T

T

S

New Hampshire Subtotal

J

J

Segment2

March 2015

N/A-Not Applicable for proposed pipelines. This column indicates the associated pipeline segment for each aboveground facility (compressor stations and meter stations). Each segment is associated with its own set of mileposts (“MPs”) starting at MP 0.00. N/A-Not Applicable for proposed pipeline facilities. Mileposts are provided for the existing compressor station and the existing and new meter stations located along new proposed pipeline segments only. Mileposts are not provided for meter stations located along TGP’s existing system. For new compressor stations, the MPs provided reflect an area where Tennessee is evaluating potential sites along the associated pipeline segment. N/A-Not Applicable for aboveground facilities (compressor stations and meter stations). Pipeline length applies only to the proposed pipeline facilities as reflected on the alignment sheets. Mileposts for these facilities are not provided because these facilities are located along other pipeline segments of Tennessee's existing system that are not proposed to be modified as part of this Project.

New

New / Modified

Facility Type

Facility Name




1.1 1.1.1

PROPOSED FACILITIES Purpose and Need

Tennessee proposes to construct, install, and operate the Project facilities to meet the growing energy needs in the Northeast and, more specifically, New England. The Project, as described further herein, is a major new pipeline project that consists of: 1) approximately 165 miles of new and co-located pipeline and two pipeline looping segments on Tennessee’s existing 300 Line in Pennsylvania, and compression facilities designed to receive gas from Tennessee’s 300 Line for deliveries to Tennessee’s existing 200 Line system and/or Market Path Component of the NED Project, as defined below, near Wright, New York, Iroquois Gas Transmission System, LP, and/or the Constitution Pipeline Project (may be referred to as the “Supply Path Component” of the NED Project); and 2) approximately 188 miles of new and colocated pipeline facilities extending from Wright, New York to an interconnect with the Joint Facilities, Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline System and Portland Natural Gas Transmission System (“PNGTS”) at Dracut, Massachusetts and Tennessee’s existing 200 Line near Dracut, Massachusetts (may be referred to as the “Market Path Component” of the NED Project). In addition, the Project includes the construction of 9 new compressor stations, modifications at an existing compressor station, and approximately 75 miles of market delivery laterals and pipeline looping segments located in the states of Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. Additionally, the Project includes construction of 15 new meter stations and additional modifications to existing meter stations throughout the Project area. Upon completion, the Project will provide up to 2.2 Bcf/d of additional natural gas transportation capacity to meet the growing energy needs in the Northeast U.S., particularly in New England. This includes needs of local distribution companies (“LDCs”), gas-fired power generators, industrial plants, and other New England consumers. Tennessee has executed precedent agreements, for approximately 500,000 dekatherms per day (“Dth/d”) of long-term firm transportation capacity on the Market Path Component of the proposed NED Project, with The Berkshire Gas Company, Columbia Gas of Massachusetts, Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation, Liberty Utilities Corporation (EnergyNorth Natural Gas Incorporated), National Grid, Southern Connecticut Gas Corporation, City of Westfield Gas and Electric Light Department, and other shippers, which demonstrates the market need for the Project capacity. Negotiations continue with additional Project Shippers for both the Supply Path and Market Path Components of the Project. This Project and its in-service date of November 2018 (with the exception of two proposed pipeline looping segments in Connecticut, to be placed in-service by November 2019) are supported by the precedent agreements entered into by the Project Shippers. Multiple studies have concluded that additional pipeline infrastructure is needed in the region to serve increasing demand from LDCs and the power sector. 5 As a result of the fact that current natural gas transportation infrastructure is inadequate to meet the growing demand in the New England region, gas 5

Current natural gas transportation infrastructure is inadequate to meet the growing demand in the New England region (e.g., U.S. Department of Energy (“USDA”), Quadrennial Energy Review Meeting, Statement of Gordon van Welie, President and Chief Executive Officer of ISO New England, at pp. 4-5 (April 21, 2014), available at www.isone.com/pubs/pubcomm/pres_spchs/2014/van_welie_statement_4-21-14.pdf; USDA, Energy Information Administration (“EIA”), High Prices Show Stresses in New England Natural Gas Delivery System at 1 (February 7, 2014), available at www.eia.gov/naturalgas/issuesandtrends/deliverysystem/2013/pdf/newengland_natgas.pdf. Id. at 8; see also USDA/EIA, Natural Gas Explained: Natural Gas Prices (June 29, 2010), available at www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=natural_gas_prices.

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-10 prices in New England are the highest in the U.S.6 Limited natural gas transportation infrastructure also has led to extremely high electricity prices in the Northeast U.S., and threatens the reliability of the region’s electric grid.7 In fact, National Grid recently announced that it will increase its customers electric rates by an average of 37 percent in winter 2014-2015 due to “continued constraints on the natural gas pipelines serving the region, which decrease natural gas availability at times of peak demand, causing some generators to buy gas on the spot market at higher prices, switch over to alternate fuels or not run at all.”8 A January 21, 2015 presentation by Gordon van Welie, President and Chief Executive Officer of ISO-New England, discussed that the New England region is challenged by a lack of natural gas pipeline infrastructure, and is losing non-gas power plants, resulting in serious threats to power system reliability. The presentation further noted that “electricity prices are on an upward trajectory until the needed energy infrastructure is added.”9 Additional natural gas infrastructure may benefit the region in the form of lower energy costs and enhanced reliability to both the gas transmission system and the power grid, while also reducing the region’s reliance on coal and oil-fired power plants with the added benefit of reducing greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. A recent study by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (“INGAA”) Foundation and ICF International predicted that 6.0 Bcf/d of new natural gas pipeline capacity will be needed in the Northeast U.S. by 2020, and 10.1 Bcf/d of capacity will be needed by 2035.10 Another recent study by the Competitive Energy Services (“CES”) estimated that to provide the ISO-NE with natural gas to meet the needs of electric generators in the winter at competitive prices, New England needs an additional 2.4 Bcf/d of pipeline capacity resulting in an annual economic value of $2.988 Billion per year to the region’s electricity consumers alone. The New England region as a whole will benefit from the Project, as it will enable New England to sustain its electric grid and lower energy costs to compete on a more level economic playing field with other regions of the Nation with access to low-cost gas. As part of Tennessee’s fully integrated natural gas pipeline transportation system, the Project will provide incremental access to diverse and economic supplies of natural gas to customers in the New England region. As demand for natural gas in New England increases, Tennessee’s LDC Project Shippers have expressed the need for additional firm transportation capacity to serve their growing residential, commercial, industrial, and power generation markets.

6

See ISO New England, 2013 Wholesale Electricity Prices in New England Rose on Higher Natural Gas Prices: Pipeline Constraints and Higher Demand Pushed Up Prices for Both Natural Gas and Power at 1 (March 18, 2014), available at http://www.iso-ne.com/nwsiss/pr/2014/2013_price%20release_03182014_final.pdf.

7

Id. at 2. See also Massachusetts Office of The Attorney General, Overview of Electricity & Natural Gas Rates, available at http://www.mass.gov/ago/doing-business-in-massachusetts/energy-and-utilities/energy-rates-and-billing/electric-and-gasrates.html.

8

National Grid, National Grid Files for Winter Rates in Massachusetts (September 24, 2014), available at https://www.nationalgridus.com/aboutus/a3-1_news2.asp?document=8764.

9

van Welie, Gordon. 2015. State of the Grid: Managing a System in Transition. ISO-New England Inc., ISO on Background Informational Briefing, January 21, 2015, available at http://www.iso-ne.com/staticassets/documents/2015/01/stateofgrid_presentation_01212015.pdf

10

The INGAA Foundation, North American Midstream Infrastructure through 2035: Capitalizing on Our Energy Abundance (March 18, 2014). Available at http://www.ingaa.org/File.aspx?id=21498.

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-11 Construction of the Project, therefore, will help to alleviate the natural gas pipeline capacity constraints in New England by increasing capacity in high-demand markets in New England. The Project will serve the emergent need for significant natural gas transportation capacity into New England by delivering sufficient incremental supplies that will, based upon basic market forces of supply and demand, put considerable downward pressure on energy commodity prices, which currently are among the highest in the U.S. The expanded natural gas pipeline transportation infrastructure will assure greater reliability and fuel certainty in the electric generation sector. The proposed interconnection with the Joint Facilities, together with the anticipated reversal of the primary flow direction of the Joint Facilities and Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, will potentially enable the Project to access more markets in the region, including those in New Hampshire and Maine, the Atlantic Canada region, as well as markets on Algonquin Gas Transmission’s (“AGT”) pipeline system through its HubLine Pipeline. Additionally, the Project significantly increases capacity via a backhaul on Tennessee’s existing 200 Line system and will increase deliverability at an important supply feed to the AGT pipeline system via an existing Tennessee-AGT interconnect at Mendon, Massachusetts. A significant portion of the Market Path Component facilities are proposed to be co-located with existing utility corridors (i.e., located parallel and adjacent to and, in some cases, overlapping existing utility easements) rather than with Tennessee’s existing ROW through the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Tennessee’s existing system is located in densely populated and developed parts of Connecticut and Massachusetts. When Tennessee evaluated the market need in New England, and the scope of facilities that would be required to provide the infrastructure that New England needs to reduce its high energy costs and enhance electric reliability, Tennessee conducted extensive evaluation of options to: 1) loop the pipeline along its existing 200 Line pipeline corridor in southern Massachusetts; 2) construct a new pipeline along a route across northern Massachusetts, utilizing existing utility corridors where feasible; or 3) construct a new pipeline along a route across eastern New York, western Massachusetts and southern New Hampshire, utilizing existing utility corridors where feasible. An evaluation of the alternatives that Tennessee is considering is set forth in Resource Report 10 of this Environmental Report (“ER”). Based on an evaluation that includes environmental and landowner impacts, quickest time-to-market gas delivery, constructability, and many other factors, Tennessee has proposed the New York, Massachusetts and New Hampshire route for the Market Path Component which predominantly follows existing utility corridors for its Project. Tennessee believes that the Project would provide the transformative solution that New England needs to reduce energy costs, enhance electric reliability and stimulate economic growth in the New England region. The Project will provide New England with direct access to low-cost gas supplies on the large scale necessary to significantly lower energy costs to the region’s homes and businesses. Tennessee’s proposed route for the Project would disturb significantly fewer stakeholders and result in lower costs to consumers than it would have if Tennessee were to expand only along its existing 200 Line system corridor. Additionally, the New York, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire utility corridor route will provide economic service to several geographic areas in northern Massachusetts and southern New Hampshire that are not currently served by an interstate pipeline. In summary, the purpose of the Project, to create new natural gas transportation capacity to meet the growing energy needs in the Northeast U.S., particularly New England, is clear. The new capacity created by the Project will help reduce natural gas costs for homes and businesses in the region, lower electricity prices, increase the reliability of the electric grid and stimulate economic growth. The Project will also have ancillary environmental benefits by reducing the region’s reliance on GHG-emitting coal and oil-fired power plants.

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-12 The Public Convenience and Necessity section of the certificate application for the Project will include further discussion of the purpose and need for the Project. The certificate application for the Project, including a final version of this Resource Report 1, is anticipated to be submitted to the Commission in September 2015.

1.1.2

Location and Description of Facilities

The proposed Project includes two components: (1) the Supply Path Component of the Project which is comprised of the proposed Project facilities from Troy, Pennsylvania, to Wright, New York; and (2) the Market Path Component of the Project, which is comprised of the proposed Project facilities from Wright, New York, to Dracut, Massachusetts. A summary of the proposed facilities for the Project is provided in Table 1.0-1. Additionally, a summary of the individual pipeline facilities and milepost (“MP”) designations within each township, county, and state for each pipeline facility is provided in Table 1.1-1. The Project facilities are described geographically in a general west-to-east direction and by category. Milepost notations are used throughout this filing to identify resources and facilities along the proposed routes for the pipeline looping segments, co-located pipeline segments, and new pipeline segments and are included on the aerial alignment sheets included as Volume II, Appendix F. For design and reference purposes, the Project facilities have been broken into Segments A through T. Each Segment A through T is associated with its own set of MPs beginning at 0.00. Mileposts begin at 0.00 at the start of each segment break. Therefore, geographical locations of facilities or environmental features reference both a segment letter and a MP. The Project facilities and geographic locations are summarized in Table 1.0-1. Attachment 1a (Figure 1.1-1) provides an overview map of the proposed Project facilities, including the approximate locations of the proposed compressor stations identified in Table 1.0-1. 11 U.S. Geological Survey (“USGS”) topographic quad excerpt mapping of the proposed pipeline facilities (pipeline looping segments, co-located pipeline segments and new pipeline segments) and specific locations for the existing compressor and meter station locations that are proposed to be modified, as well as the general locations for the proposed new compressor and meter stations are included in Volume II, Appendix E. Tennessee is also submitting detailed aerial photographic alignment sheets for the properties along the proposed route for the NED Project, with the proposed pipeline facilities and all major existing and proposed aboveground facilities for which locations have been determined, as well as general locations for the proposed aboveground facilities, superimposed over the images, in conformance with 18 Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”), Section 380.12(c)(3) of the Commission’s regulations in Volume II, Appendix F. The specific locations for the new compressor stations have not yet been identified, but will be included in a revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER. At that time, Tennessee will also include location-specific plot plans for each new compressor station.

11

Where applicable, aerial photographic alignments include two sources of aerial imagery: a 1,600-ft aerial corridor was flown along the proposed pipeline route as the alignment was routed at the time of the flight in May 2014. Since the flight, there have been route deviations and therefore, not all alignment sheets have imagery from the May 2014 flight. Tennessee intends to re-fly the entirety of the currently proposed pipeline route as weather will allow in second quarter 2015. This new aerial imagery will be included in the alignment sheet mapping to be included in a subsequent filing of the ER.

March 2015


1.1.2.1

Pipeline Facilities

Initial route planning was selected through desktop analysis of environmental resources and the potential impacts to the resources crossed by the Project. The desktop analysis was supported by field and aerial reconnaissance. Co-location of the proposed route with existing linear infrastructure was a primary consideration during the initial phases of routing as well as avoidance of sensitive areas. Areas along the Project routes that parallel existing infrastructure (either pipeline looping segments or co-located facilities) is provided in Table 1.1-2. Areas evaluated for the location of looping or co-locating proposed pipeline segments with existing facilities were based on the identification of existing Tennessee pipelines and other known facilities within 25 feet of the proposed pipeline segments and existing powerline ROWs within 50 feet of the proposed pipeline segments. 1.1.2.1.1 Pennsylvania The proposed Project pipeline facilities in Pennsylvania include two pipeline looping segments and new mainline pipeline. The pipeline looping in Pennsylvania will consist of two separate pipeline looping segments of 36-inch-diameter pipeline totaling approximately 32 miles in length and installed generally parallel to Tennessee’s existing 300 Line, referred to as Loop 317-3 (approximately 22.72 miles in length) and Loop 319-3 (approximately 9.09 miles in length). The pipeline looping segments will be located within or directly adjacent to Tennessee’s existing pipeline ROW, to the extent practicable, feasible and in compliance with existing law. For both pipeline looping segments, the pipeline will be designed for a maximum allowable operating pressure (“MAOP”) of 1,200 pounds per square inch (“psig”) and a maximum operating pressure (“MOP”) of 1,170 psig. In addition to the pipeline looping segments in Pennsylvania, approximately 38 miles of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline will be installed extending from Tennessee’s existing 300 Line pipeline toward Wright, New York (as part of the Pennsylvania to Wright Pipeline Segment). A portion of the Pennsylvania to Wright Pipeline Segment will be located in Pennsylvania and a portion will be located in New York (as discussed below). A portion of the 30-inchdiameter pipeline in Pennsylvania will be largely co-located with the pipeline facilities approved by the Commission as part of the Constitution Pipeline Project by order issued on December 2, 2014 in Docket No. CP13-499-000.12 Tennessee is still evaluating the final location of this segment of the 30-inchdiameter pipeline that would be generally co-located with the approved Constitution Pipeline Project facilities. Tennessee will design the 30-inch-diameter pipeline in Pennsylvania for an MAOP and MOP of 1,460 psig with the exception of the pipeline upstream of the Supply Path Head Station. Tennessee will design this portion for an MAOP of 1,460 psig and MOP of 1,170 psig. The Pennsylvania pipeline facilities are described in further detail in Table 1.0-1. Additionally, a summary of the individual pipeline facilities and MP designations within each township, county, and state for each pipeline facility is provided in Table 1.1-1.

12

149 FERC ¶ 61,199 (2014). Information contained within this Resource Report 1 related to the Constitution Pipeline Project was based on the Constitution FEIS issued October 24, 2014. The Commission adopted the recommendations from the Constitution FEIS in the December 2, 2014 certificate order.

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-14 1.1.2.1.2 New York The proposed Project pipeline facilities in New York consist of approximately 95 miles of new 30-inchdiameter pipeline, also planned to be generally co-located with the Constitution Pipeline Project for a majority of its length, extending to Wright, New York (as part of the Pennsylvania to Wright Pipeline Segment). A portion of the Pennsylvania to Wright Pipeline Segment will be located in Pennsylvania and a portion will be located in New York (as discussed above), as well as approximately 53 miles of new 36inch-diameter pipeline generally co-located with Tennessee’s existing 200 Line pipeline and an existing utility corridor (as part of the Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment). Portions of the Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment will be located in New York, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire (as discussed below). The approximately 53 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipe will be located generally parallel or directly adjacent to Tennessee’s existing pipeline ROW and the existing utility corridor, to the extent practicable, feasible, and in compliance with existing law. The New York pipeline facilities will be designed for a MAOP and MOP of 1,460 psig, except for approximately 7 miles of pipe leaving the Supply Path Tail Station which is designed for a MAOP and MOP of 1,600 psig. The New York pipeline facilities are described in further detail in Table 1.0-1. Additionally, a summary of the individual pipeline facilities and MP designations within each township, county, and state for each pipeline segment are provided in Table 1.1-1. 1.1.2.1.3 Massachusetts The proposed Project mainline pipeline facilities in Massachusetts consist of approximately 64 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline, beginning at the New York/Massachusetts border and extending to the Massachusetts/New Hampshire border in Franklin County in western Massachusetts. This mileage also includes the portion of mainline from the New Hampshire/Massachusetts border to Dracut in Middlesex County in eastern Massachusetts (as part of the Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment). Portions of the Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment will be located in New York, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire (as discussed above). Approximately 58 miles of this new proposed mainline pipeline (beginning at the New York/Massachusetts border) will be generally co-located with an existing utility corridor to the extent practicable, feasible, and in compliance with existing law. The remainder of the proposed mainline pipeline facilities in Massachusetts will be new pipeline. The entirety of the proposed mainline pipeline facilities in Massachusetts (64 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline) will be designed for a MAOP and MOP of 1,460 psig. Additionally, Tennessee is proposing seven separate new laterals in Massachusetts as part of the Project:    

The 30-inch diameter Maritimes Delivery Line will be 1.20 miles in length with a MAOP and MOP of 1,460 psig and will extend from the Market Path Tail Station to an interconnect with the Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline System. The 24-inch diameter Concord Delivery Line will be 0.51 miles in length with a MAOP of 1,460 psig and an MOP of 750 psig and will extend from the Market Path Tail Station to Tennessee’s existing Concord Lateral. The 20-inch diameter Lynnfield Lateral will be 15.86 miles in length with a MAOP and MOP of 1,460 psig. Approximately 6.67 miles of the 15.86 miles will be co-located with an existing utility corridor. The 24-inch diameter Peabody Lateral will be 5.37 miles in length with a MAOP of 1,460 psig and MOP of 730 psig and will extend from the new Lynnfield Lateral proposed as part of the Project. March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-15 





The 20-inch diameter Haverhill Lateral (Massachusetts Portion) will be approximately 7.71 miles in length that will extend from Massachusetts through New Hampshire with a MAOP of 1,460 psig and an MOP of 750 psig. Construction of this lateral will include a partial take-up and relay of Tennessee’s existing 10-inch diameter Haverhill Lateral pipeline. Approximately 5.72 miles of the 7.71 miles will be located in Massachusetts. Of the 5.71 miles in Massachusetts, 3.19 miles will be co-located with an existing utility corridor and 2.53 miles will be co-located with Tennessee’s existing ROW. The 12-inch diameter Fitchburg Lateral Extension (Massachusetts Portion) will be 13.98 miles in length with a MAOP and MOP of 1,460 psig. This lateral will be an extension of Tennessee’s existing Fitchburg Lateral which will connect to the Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment in New Hampshire. Approximately 8.90 miles (of which 3.85 miles will be co-located with an existing utility corridor) of the 13.98 miles will be located in Massachusetts. The 12-inch diameter North Worcester Lateral will be 14.14 miles in length with a MAOP of 1,460 psig and an MOP of 750 psig.

The Massachusetts pipeline facilities are described in further detail in Table 1.0-1. Additionally, a summary of the individual pipeline facilities and MP designations within each township, county, and state for each pipeline facility are provided in Table 1.1-1. 1.1.2.1.4 New Hampshire The proposed Project mainline pipeline facilities in New Hampshire consist of approximately 71 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline, beginning at the Massachusetts/New Hampshire border and extending east to Dracut, Massachusetts (as part of the Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment). Portions of the Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment will be located in New York, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire (as discussed above). Approximately 61 miles of this new proposed mainline pipeline (beginning at the Massachusetts/New Hampshire border) will be generally co-located with an existing utility corridor to the extent practicable, feasible, and in compliance with existing law. The proposed Project pipeline facilities in New Hampshire also include the remaining lengths of the Fitchburg Lateral Extension and the Haverhill Lateral (described above in the discussion of Massachusetts pipeline facilities). Approximately 1.99 miles of the 7.71-mile Haverhill Lateral and 5.08 miles of the 13.98-mile Fitchburg Lateral Extension will be located in New Hampshire. The remaining portions of these laterals will be located within Massachusetts. Haverhill Lateral will have an MAOP of 1,460 psig and a MOP of 750 psig. The Fitchburg Lateral Extension with have a MAOP and MOP of 1,460 psig. 1.1.2.1.5 Connecticut The proposed Project pipeline facilities in Connecticut include the Stamford Loop and the 300 Line Connecticut Loop. The 300 Line Connecticut Loop consists of approximately 14.72 miles of new 24-inch-diameter pipeline generally located within or directly adjacent to Tennessee’s existing 300 Line’s ROW. This proposed loop segment will be designed for a MAOP and MOP of 800 psig. The Stamford Loop consists of approximately 1.49 miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline, generally paralleling Tennessee’s existing Stamford Delivery Line to the extent practicable, feasible, and in compliance with existing law. This proposed loop will be designed for an MAOP of 1,460 psig and MOP of 719 psig. The Connecticut pipeline facilities are described in further detail in Table 1.0-1. Additionally, a summary of the individual pipeline facilities and MP designations within each township, county, and state for each pipeline facility are provided in Table 1.1-1. March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-16 TABLE 1.1-1 PROPOSED PIPELINE FACILITIES FOR THE PROJECT Pipeline Name

Diameter (inches)

County

Township

Segment1

Milepost Begin

End

Length (miles)

Pennsylvania

Loop 317-3

Loop 319-3

36

36

Bradford

Bradford Susquehanna


30

Susquehanna

Troy

A

0.00

0.57

0.57

Granville

A

0.57

8.52

7.95

West Burlington

A

8.52

10.11

1.59

Burlington

A

10.11

14.29

4.18

Towanda

A

14.29

16.60

2.31

Monroe

A

16.60

20.16

3.56

Asylum

A

20.16

22.72

2.56

Wyalusing

B

0.00

0.21

0.21

Tuscarora

B

0.21

4.83

4.62

Auburn

B

4.83

9.09

4.26

Auburn

C

0.00

4.17

4.17

Dimock

C

4.17

11.32

7.15

Bridgewater

C

11.32

13.07

1.75

Brooklyn

C

13.07

16.51

3.44

Harford

C

16.51

17.89

1.38

New Milford

C

17.89

26.90

9.01

Jackson

C

26.90

29.57

2.67

Oakland

C

29.57

30.52

0.95

Harmony

C

30.52

38.03

7.51


69.84

March 2015


Diameter (inches)

County

Township

Segment1

Milepost Begin

End

Length (miles)

New York Broome

Sanford

D

0.00

16.26

16.26

Chenango

Afton

D

16.26

18.72

2.46

Masonville

D

18.72

23.26

4.54

Sidney

D

23.26

34.91

11.65

Franklin

D

34.91

44.05

9.14

Franklin

E

0.00

0.29

0.29

Davenport

E

0.29

15.65

15.36

Harpersfield

E

15.65

20.17

4.52

Summit

E

20.17

20.49

0.32

Jefferson

E

20.49

20.80

0.31

Summit

E

20.80

22.61

1.81

Jefferson

E

22.61

23.11

0.50

Summit

E

23.11

23.63

0.52

Jefferson

E

23.63

25.58

1.95

Summit

E

25.58

31.68

6.10

Richmondville

E

31.68

36.58

4.90

Cobleskill

E

36.58

38.70

2.12

Middleburgh

E

38.70

42.25

3.55

Schoharie

E

42.25

50.53

8.28

Wright

E

50.53

51.06

0.53

Wright

F

0.00

3.89

3.89

Knox

F

3.89

8.84

4.95

Berne

F

8.84

13.37

4.53

New Scotland

F

13.37

20.58

7.21

Bethlehem

F

20.58

27.98

7.40

Schodack

F

27.98

39.14

11.16

Nassau

F

39.14

45.81

6.67

Stephentown

F

45.81

53.33

7.52

Stephentown

G

0.00

0.11

0.11

Delaware

Delaware


30

Schoharie

Schoharie

Albany Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (New York Portion)

36 Rensselaer Rensselaer

New York Subtotal March 2015

148.55


Diameter (inches)

County

Township

Segment1

Milepost Begin

End

Length (miles)

Massachusetts Hancock

G

0.11

2.63

2.52

Lanesborough

G

2.63

7.62

4.99

Cheshire

G

7.62

9.54

1.92

Dalton

G

9.54

12.94

3.40

Hinsdale

G

12.94

15.94

3.00

Peru

G

15.94

16.78

0.84

Windsor

G

16.78

21.52

4.74

Hampshire

Plainfield

G

21.52

27.07

5.55

Franklin

Ashfield

G

27.07

32.86

5.79

Ashfield

H

0.00

1.31

1.31

Conway

H

1.31

4.70

3.39

Shelburne

H

4.70

5.97

1.27

Deerfield

H

5.97

11.34

5.37

Montague

H

11.34

16.06

4.72

Erving

H

16.06

18.27

2.21

Northfield

H

18.27

19.50

1.23

Erving

H

19.50

20.10

0.60

Northfield

H

20.10

27.41

7.31

Warwick

H

27.41

28.18

0.77

Middlesex

Dracut

K

0.00

2.82

2.82

Berkshire


36

Franklin


30

Middlesex

Dracut

L

0.00

1.20

1.20


24

Middlesex

Dracut

M

0.00

0.51

0.51

March 2015


Lynnfield Lateral

Diameter (inches)

20

Begin

End

N

0.00

2.68

2.68

Andover

N

2.68

3.71

1.03

Middlesex

Tewksbury

N

3.71

4.14

0.43

Essex

Andover

N

4.14

4.64

0.50

Middlesex

Tewksbury

N

4.64

5.09

0.45

Essex

Andover

N

5.09

5.40

0.31

Middlesex

Tewksbury

N

5.40

5.71

0.31

Essex

Andover

N

5.71

5.83

0.12

Middlesex

Tewksbury

N

5.83

6.35

0.52

Essex

Andover

N

6.35

7.27

0.92

Middlesex

Tewksbury

N

7.27

7.97

0.70

Essex

Andover

N

7.97

9.13

1.16

Wilmington

N

9.13

11.91

2.78

North Reading

N

11.91

15.11

3.20

Reading

N

15.11

15.49

0.38

Lynnfield

N

15.49

15.86

0.37

Lynnfield

O

0.00

2.51

2.51

Middleton

O

2.51

2.85

0.34

Peabody

O

2.85

4.67

1.82

Danvers

O

4.67

5.37

0.70

Dracut

P

0.00

1.67

1.67

Methuen

P

1.67

5.45

3.78

Methuen

P

7.44

7.71

0.27

Middlesex

Townsend

Q

5.08

10.28

5.20

Worcester

Lunenburg

Q

10.28

13.98

3.70

Township

Segment1

Middlesex

Dracut

Essex

Middlesex Essex

Peabody Lateral

Haverhill Lateral (Massachusetts Portion) Fitchburg Lateral Extension (Massachusetts Portion)

24

Essex

Middlesex 20

12

Milepost

Length (miles)

County

Essex

March 2015



Diameter (inches)

12

County

Worcester

Milepost Begin

End

Length (miles)

R

0.00

2.62

2.62

Berlin

R

2.62

6.83

4.21

Northborough

R

6.83

6.89

0.06

Boylston

R

6.89

7.17

0.28

Northborough

R

7.17

7.40

0.23

Boylston

R

7.40

13.49

6.09

West Boylston

R

13.49

13.87

0.38

Shrewsbury

R

13.87

14.02

0.15

West Boylston

R

14.02

14.12

0.10

Worcester

R

14.12

14.14

0.02

Township

Segment1

Bolton


115.45

New Hampshire

Cheshire


36

Hillsborough

Winchester

I

0.00

5.57

5.57

Richmond

I

5.57

11.72

6.15

Troy

I

11.72

12.83

1.11

Fitzwilliam

I

12.83

12.97

0.14

Troy

I

12.97

13.37

0.40

Fitzwilliam

I

13.37

14.38

1.01

Troy

I

14.38

14.46

0.08

Fitzwilliam

I

14.46

20.06

5.60

Rindge

I

20.06

28.96

8.90

New Ipswich

I

28.96

29.06

0.10

New Ipswich

J

0.00

6.20

6.20

Greenville

J

6.20

7.88

1.68

Mason

J

7.88

11.79

3.91

Milford

J

11.79

12.97

1.18

Brookline

J

12.97

15.70

2.73

Milford

J

15.70

17.63

1.93

Amherst

J

17.63

21.66

4.03

March 2015


Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (New Hampshire Portion) (con’t.)

Diameter (inches)

36 (con’t.)

Milepost Begin

End

Length (miles)

J

21.66

26.15

4.49

Litchfield

J

26.15

28.83

2.68

Rockingham

Londonderry

J

28.83

31.37

2.54

Hillsborough

Hudson

J

31.37

33.85

2.48

Rockingham

Windham

J

33.85

36.08

2.23

Hillsborough

Pelham

J

36.08

41.53

5.45

County

Township

Segment1

Hillsborough (con’t.)

Merrimack


20

Rockingham

Salem

P

5.45

7.44

1.99

Fitchburg Lateral Extension (New Hampshire Portion)

12

Hillsborough

Mason

Q

0.00

5.08

5.08


77.66

Connecticut

300 Line CT Loop

Stamford Loop

1

24

12

Hartford

Fairfield

Farmington

S

0.00

0.10

0.10

West Hartford

S

0.10

0.30

0.20

Farmington

S

0.30

0.31

0.01

West Hartford

S

0.31

0.46

0.15

Farmington

S

0.46

0.68

0.22

West Hartford

S

0.68

4.24

3.56

Bloomfield

S

4.24

5.98

1.74

Simsbury

S

5.98

6.12

0.14

Bloomfield

S

6.12

11.10

4.98

Windsor

S

11.10

14.07

2.97

East Granby

S

14.07

14.72

0.65

Stamford

T

0.00

1.49

1.49


16.21

Project Total

427.71

Each segment is associated with its own set of MPs beginning at MP 0.00.

March 2015


Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-22 TABLE 1.1-2 AREAS OF PIPELINE LOOPING AND CO-LOCATION FOR THE PIPELINE FACILITIES

Pipeline Name

County

Township

Co-Location Type

Owner / Operator

Width of Existing ROW (ft)1

Width of Existing ROW To Be Used During Construction (ft)2

Width of Existing ROW To Be Used During Operation (ft)3

Segment

Milepost 4

Begin

End

Length (miles)

Pennsylvania Loop-317-3

Bradford

Troy, Granville, West Burlington, Burlington, Towanda, Monroe, Asylum

Pipeline

TGP

65 - 150

40

0-75

A

0.00

22.72

22.72

Loop-319-3

Bradford, Susquehanna

Wyalusing, Tuscarora, Auburn

Pipeline

TGP

65 - 150

40

15-75

B

0.00

9.09

9.09

Auburn

Pipeline

TGP


Susquehanna

150

40

40

C

0.00

0.61

0.61

5

Brooklyn

Pipeline

Constitution

50

20

20

C

13.68

16.27

2.59

Brooklyn, Harford, New Milford, Jackson, Oakland, Harmony

Pipeline

Constitution5

50

20

20

C

16.48

34.31

17.83

Harmony

Pipeline

Constitution5

50

40

40

C

35.80

38.03

2.23

Pennsylvania Miles of Looping/Co-Location Subtotal

55.07

New York Broome

Sanford

Pipeline

Constitution5

50

20

0

D

0.00

1.24

1.24

Pipeline

5

50

20

0

D

1.66

1.77

0.11

5

50

20

0

D

1.88

10.25

8.37

5

Pipeline


Constitution Constitution

Delaware

Sidney, Franklin

Pipeline

Constitution

50

20

0

D

23.80

44.04

20.24

Delaware, Schoharie

Franklin, Davenport, Harpersfield, Summit, Jefferson, Richmondville, Cobleskill, Middleburgh, Schoharie

Pipeline

Constitution5

50

20

0

E

0.00

45.90

45.90

Pipeline

Constitution5

50

20

0

E

46.65

48.01

1.36

Schoharie

Schoharie Schoharie, Wright

5

Pipeline

Constitution / TGP

75-150

20 / 40

0 / 25

E

48.01

48.71

0.70

Pipeline

TGP

75 - 150

40

25

E

48.71

50.44

1.73

75-150

20 / 40

0 / 25

E

50.44

50.99

0.55

Pipeline

5

Constitution / TGP

March 2015


Pipeline Name

County

Schoharie, Albany

Albany Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (New York Portion)

Albany, Rensselaer




Segment

TGP

75 - 150

40

25

Powerline/Pipeline

Niagara Mohawk / TGP

TBD

15

New Scotland, Bethlehem

Pipeline

TGP

75 - 150

Bethlehem

Powerline


Bethlehem, Schodack

Pipeline

Schodack, Nassau

Co-Location Type

Owner / Operator

Wright, Knox, Berne, New Scotland

Pipeline

New Scotland

Township

Length (miles)

Begin

End

F

0.05

17.81

17.76

0

F

17.81

18.56

0.75

40

25

F

18.56

21.78

3.22

TBD

15

0

F

21.78

24.29

2.51

TGP

75 - 150

40

25

F

25.91

33.87

7.96

Powerline


TBD

15

0

F

34.20

45.47

11.27

Stephentown

Powerline


TBD

15

0

F

46.00

53.33

7.33

Stephentown

Powerline


TBD

15

0

G

0.00

0.11

0.11

Rensselaer

Rensselaer

Milepost 4

New York Miles of Looping/Co-Location Subtotal

131.11

Massachusetts Berkshire, Hampshire, Franklin

Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (Massachusetts Portion) Franklin

Hancock, Lanesborough, Cheshire, Dalton, Hinsdale, Peru, Windsor, Plainfield, Ashfield

Powerline

Western Massachusetts Electric

TBD

15

0

G

0.11

32.45

32.34

Ashfield, Conway, Shelburne, Deerfield

Powerline


TBD

15

0

H

0.69

8.02

7.33

Deerfield

Powerline


TBD

15

0

H

9.73

10.76

1.03

Deerfield, Montague

Powerline


TBD

15

0

H

11.19

13.93

2.74

Montague, Erving, Northfield

Powerline


TBD

15

0

H

14.29

18.43

4.14

Powerline


TBD

15

0

H

19.28

28.18

8.90

Northfield, Erving

March 2015


Pipeline Name

Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (Massachusetts Portion) (con’.t)



Lynnfield Lateral

County

Middlesex

Middlesex

Township

Fitchburg Lateral Extension (Massachusetts Portion) North Worcester Lateral


Segment

Massachusetts Electric

TBD

15

0

Powerline


TBD

15

Powerline


TBD

Powerline


Owner / Operator

Powerline Dracut

Dracut

Milepost 4

Length (miles)

Begin

End

K

0.00

1.69

1.69

0

K

2.72

2.82

0.10

15

0

L

0.00

0.10

0.10

TBD

15

0

L

1.05

1.20

0.15

Dracut

Powerline


TBD

15

0

M

0.04

0.39

0.35

Middlesex, Essex

Dracut, Andover

Powerline

New England Power

TBD

15

0

N

0.04

3.71

3.67

Wilmington

Powerline

New England Power

TBD

15

0

N

9.94

10.19

0.25

North Reading

Powerline

New England Power

TBD

15

0

N

12.25

13.82

1.57

North Reading, Reading, Lynnfield

Powerline

New England Power

TBD

15

0

N

14.53

15.71

1.18

Powerline

New England Power

TBD

15

0

O

0.12

0.20

0.08

Pipeline

TGP

30 - 50

40

25

O

0.24

0.45

0.21

Peabody

Powerline

New England Power

TBD

15

0

O

3.50

4.54

1.04

Peabody, Danvers

Powerline/Pipeline

New England Power / TGP

TBD / 30 50

15 / 40

0 / 25

O

4.54

4.97

0.43

Danvers

Powerline

New England Power

TBD

15

0

O

4.97

5.37

0.40

Middlesex, Essex

Dracut, Methuen

Powerline


TBD

15

0

P

0.00

3.19

3.19

Essex

Methuen

Pipeline

TGP

30 - 50

40

25

P

3.19

5.45

2.26

Pipeline

TGP

30 - 50

40

25

P

7.44

7.71

0.27

Middlesex, Worcester

Townsend, Lunenburg

Powerline

Fitchburg Gas & Electric

TBD

15

0

Q

7.47

10.85

3.38

Worcester

Lunenburg

Powerline

Fitchburg Gas & Electric

TBD

15

0

Q

13.51

13.98

0.47

Worcester

Boylston

Powerline

New England Power

TBD

15

0

R

12.63

12.68

0.05

Middlesex

Lynnfield



Middlesex

Middlesex, Essex

Peabody Lateral


Co-Location Type

Essex

Massachusetts Miles of Looping/Co-Location Subtotal

March 2015

77.32


Pipeline Name

County

Township

Co-Location Type

Owner / Operator




Segment

Milepost 4

Begin

End

Length (miles)

New Hampshire



Cheshire

Winchester

Powerline

Public Service of New Hampshire

TBD

15

0

I

0.00

0.88

0.88

Cheshire, Hillsborough

Richmond, Troy, Fitzwilliam, Rindge, New Ipswich

Powerline


TBD

15

0

I

5.90

29.06

23.16

New Ipswich, Greenville, Mason, Brookline, Milford

Powerline


TBD

15

0

J

0.00

15.06

15.06

Brookline, Milford, Amherst

Powerline


TBD

15

0

J

15.32

18.79

3.47

Amherst

Powerline


TBD

15

0

J

19.24

20.23

0.99

Amherst, Merrimack

Powerline


TBD

15

0

J

21.50

25.34

3.84

Hillsborough, Rockingham

Litchfield, Londonderry

Powerline


TBD

15

0

J

26.41

29.22

2.81

Rockingham, Hillsborough

Londonderry, Hudson, Windham, Pelham

Powerline


TBD

15

0

J

29.73

36.24

6.51

Hillsborough

Pelham

Powerline


TBD

15

0

J

36.81

41.53

4.72

Rockingham

Salem

Pipeline

TGP

30 - 50

40

25

P

5.45

7.44

1.99

Hillsborough

New Hampshire Miles of Looping/Co-Location Subtotal

March 2015

63.43


Pipeline Name

County

Township

Co-Location Type

Owner / Operator




Segment

Milepost 4

Begin

End

Length (miles)

Connecticut Powerline/Pipeline

Connecticut Light & Power / TGP

TBD / 30

15 / 30

25

S

0.00

0.59

0.59

Pipeline

TGP

30

30

25

S

0.59

1.98

1.39

Powerline/Pipeline

Connecticut Light & Power

TBD

15

0

S

1.98

2.47

0.49

Pipeline

TGP

30

30

25

S

2.47

3.01

0.54

West Hartford, Bloomfield

Powerline/Pipeline

Connecticut Light & Power / TGP

TBD / 30

15 / 30

25

S

3.01

4.46

1.45

Bloomfield

Powerline

Connecticut Light & Power

TBD

15

25

S

4.46

5.42

0.96

Bloomfield, Simsbury

Pipeline

TGP

30

30

25

S

5.42

9.70

4.28

Bloomfield

Pipeline

TGP

30

30

25

S

10.20

11.04

0.84

Windsor, East Granby

Pipeline

TGP

30

30

25

S

11.97

14.26

2.29

East Granby

Pipeline

TGP

30

30

25

S

14.66

14.72

0.06

Stamford

Pipeline

TGP

30

25

25

T

0.00

1.49

1.49

Farmington, West Hartford

West Hartford

300 Line CT Loop

Stamford Loop

Hartford

Fairfield

Connecticut Miles of Looping/Co-Location Subtotal

14.38

Total Project Miles of Looping/Co-Location Total

341.31

% of Total Project Looping/Co-Location (427.71 miles) 1 2

3

4 5

80%

TBD-To be Determined. Tennessee is in the process of determining the widths of existing ROWs. Existing ROW widths anticipated to be used during construction of the Project facilities (these widths may vary as Tennessee obtains additional information about the use of existing ROWs for construction of the Project, and may be adjusted in a revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER): Constitution Pipeline Project: For the purposes of this table, Tennessee has assumed a 20 to 50 ft overlap; however, Tennessee anticipates that it will enter into negotiations with Constitution to discuss the potential overlap with existing ROW. Powerlines: For the purposes of this table, Tennessee has assumed a 15 to 50 ft overlap; however, Tennessee anticipates that it will enter into negotiations with power companies to discuss the potential overlap with existing ROW. Existing TGP: 25 to 50 ft. Existing ROW widths anticipated to be used for operations for the Project facilities (these widths may vary as Tennessee obtains additional information about the use of existing ROWs during operation of the Project facilities, and may be adjusted in a revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER): Constitution Pipeline Project: For the purposes of this table, Tennessee has assumed a 0 ft overlap; however, Tennessee anticipates that it will enter into negotiations with Constitution to discuss the potential overlap with existing ROW. Powerlines: For the purposes of this table, Tennessee has assumed a 0 ft overlap; however, Tennessee anticipates that it will enter into negotiations with power companies to discuss the potential overlap with existing ROW. Existing TGP: 25 ft. Each segment is associated with its own set of MPs beginning at MP 0.00. Based on agreements to be negotiated with individual landowners, Tennessee proposes to be adjacent to or overlap with ROW for the approved Constitution Pipeline Project. The location of the Constitution pipeline route is based upon the route for that project as of October 2014 (included in the Constitution FEIS issued by the Commission in October 2014).

March 2015



1.1.2.2

Aboveground Facilities

This section details information related to the associated aboveground facilities required for the Project. These facilities include new and modified compressor stations, new and modified meter stations, new MLVs, pig launchers/receivers, and other pipeline appurtenances. Table 1.1-3 provides a summary, by location, of all new and modified compressor station facilities associated with the Project. Table 1.1-4 provides a summary, with location, of the new and modified meter stations. Table 1.1-5 provides a summary and location of all new appurtenant aboveground facilities including MLVs and pig launchers/receivers (e.g., internal inspection facilities). The facility locations are shown in Attachment 1a. Facility locations, to the extent that the locations have been identified as of the date of filing this resource report are also included on 7.5-minute USGS topographic quad excerpt maps and full size aerial imagery alignments included in Volume II, Appendix E and Appendix F, respectively. 1.1.2.2.1 Compressor Stations As part of the Project, Tennessee proposes to modify facilities at an existing compressor station, Station 319, located along Tennessee’s existing 300 Line, as well as construct nine new compressor stations. Compressor stations are facilities which aid in the transportation of natural gas. Compressor stations compress the natural gas, increase its pressure, and provide energy to move the natural gas through the pipeline system. Compressor stations are placed along a pipeline route at varying intervals based on the diameter of the pipeline, the volume of gas to be moved, and the terrain. The new compressor stations proposed for the Supply Path Component portion of the Project will provide Tennessee’s system up to 92,000 horsepower (“hp”). Additionally, the new compressor stations proposed for the Market Path Component of the Project will provide the system up to 373,000 hp. Tennessee is still evaluating exact locations of the new compressor stations and will provide updated locations in a revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER. At that time, Tennessee will also include location-specific plot plans for each new compressor station. Table 1.1-3 provides further information on the proposed modifications to the existing compressor station and the addition of new compressor stations. Pennsylvania In Pennsylvania, Tennessee proposes to modify its existing Station 319, as well as add one new natural gas-powered compressor station. Proposed modifications to Station 319 include upgrades to its piping systems to accommodate the new 36-inch-diameter pipeline looping segments, re-staging of a centrifugal compressor, and adding blow down silencers. All permanent modifications will be located and operated within the existing fence line of Station 319 and Tennessee is not proposing to move the fenceline as part of the Project. Tennessee will require an additional five acres of temporary workspace (“TWS”) during construction activities at the compressor station, but this additional area will not be needed for station operation. Tennessee owns the property where Station 319 is located as well as the surrounding property (29.20 acres in total). The new compressor station, Supply Path Head Station, will be constructed in Susquehanna County. Tennessee proposes to install two Mars 100 turbines, designed for 32,000 hp at the compressor station.

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-28 New York Four new natural gas-powered compressor stations will be constructed in New York. The Supply Path Mid Station will be located in Delaware County, and will include one Titan 250 turbine, designed for 30,000 hp. The Supply Path Tail Station will be located in Schoharie County, and will include one Titan 250 turbine, designed for 30,000 hp. The Market Path Head Station is also proposed to be located in Schoharie County, which will include two Taurus compressors, designed for a total of 20,000 hp. The Market Path Mid Station 1 will be located in Rensselaer County and will include three Titan 250 turbines, designed for a total of 90,000 hp. Massachusetts Facilities in Massachusetts will include three new compressor stations. The Market Path Mid Station 2 will be located in Berkshire County and will include two Titan 250 turbines and one Titan 130 turbine, designed for a total of 80,000 hp. The Market Path Mid Station 3 will be located in Franklin County and will also include two Titan 250 turbines and one Titan 130 turbine, designed for a total of 80,000 hp. The Market Path Tail Station will be located in Middlesex County and will include a 23,000 hp electrical unit. New Hampshire Facilities in New Hampshire will include the addition of a new natural gas-powered compressor station. The Market Path Mid Station 4 will be located in Hillsborough County and will include two Titan 250 turbines and one Titan 130 turbine designed for a total of 80,000 hp.

March 2015

Market Path Head Station Market Path Mid Station 1

Supply Path Tail Station TBD TBD

Rensselaer

TBD

TBD

TBD

Wyalusing

Township2

Schoharie

Schoharie

Delaware

Supply Path Head Station

Pennsylvania to Wright Pipeline Segment (New York Portion) Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (New York Portion)

Susquehanna


Supply Path Mid Station

Bradford

Loop 319-3

Station 319 Upgrades

County


Facility Name

March 2015

F

F

E

D

New York

C

B

0.00

Milepost4

New

Modified

New / Modified

New

New

New

New

New York Subtotal

36.51-40.55

0.00-2.02

41.82-46.20

35.65-39.69


20.83-25.17

Pennsylvania

Segment3

TABLE 1.1-3 PROPOSED COMPRESSOR STATIONS FOR THE PROJECT

170,000

90,000

20,000

30,000

30,000

32,000

32,000

N/A

New Horsepower (hp)

80.00

20.00

20.00

20.00

20.00

30.80

20.00

10.80

Area Required for Construction (acres)5

40.00

10.00

10.00

10.00

10.00

10.00

10.00

0.00

Area Required for Operation (acres)6




6

5

4

3

2

TBD

Middlesex

TBD

TBD

Franklin

Hillsborough

TBD

Township2

Berkshire

County

Milepost4

0.00-2.82

21.45-25.51

16.68-21.01

New

New

New

New / Modified

J

New

New Hampshire Subtotal Project Total

4.40-8.36

Massachusetts Subtotal New Hampshire

K

H

G

Massachusetts

Segment3

80,000 465,000

80,000

183,000

23,000

80,000

80,000

New Horsepower (hp)

20.00 190.80

20.00

60.00

20.00

20.00

20.00


10.00 90.00

10.00

30.00

10.00

10.00

10.00


March 2015

This column indicates the associated pipeline on which each compressor station will be located. TBD - To Be Determined. Final locations of the new compressor stations have not yet been determined. Each segment is associated with its own set of MPs beginning at MP 0.00. For new compressor stations, the MPs provided reflect a range of area where Tennessee is evaluating potential sites along the associated pipeline. Modifications at Station 319 will require the area of the existing fenced-in facility (5.80 acres) and an additional 5.00 acres of TWS during construction. New compressor stations are assumed to require 20 acres of TWS. New parcels purchased for new compressor station sites will vary based on available land. Updated acreages will be provided in a revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER. Modifications at Station 319 will operate within the existing fenced facility boundary and will require no additional permanent workspace for operational use. New compressor stations are assumed to require 10 acres for operation. New parcels purchased for new compressor station sites will vary based on available land. Updated acreages will be provided in a revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER.


Market Path Mid Station 2 Market Path Mid Station 3 Market Path Tail Station

1


Facility Name

TABLE 1.1-3 PROPOSED COMPRESSOR STATIONS FOR THE PROJECT


Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-31 1.1.2.2.2 Meter Stations As part of the Project, Tennessee proposes to construct 15 new meter stations and modify five existing meter stations within New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire.13 Meter stations are built for the purposes of measuring continuous natural gas flow entering and exiting a pipeline system. Meter stations also possess regulating components which regulate the pressure and delivery volumes of natural gas into and out of the pipeline system. The construction and modification of custody transfer meters is to meet the specific needs of Project Shippers contracting for firm transportation service on the Project. Metering facilities will include the installation of tap, metering, regulation, heating, flow control, and overpressure protection, as necessary unless specified otherwise. Table 1.1-4 provides further information on the proposed modifications to existing and new stations. Meter station locations, to the extent that the locations have been identified at this time, are included on 7.5-minute USGS topographic quad excerpt maps and full size aerial imagery alignments included in Volume II, Appendix E and Appendix F, respectively. New York New meter stations in New York will include the following:   

IGT-Constitution Bi-Directional Meter-Schoharie County, New York; NED Check-Schoharie County, New York; and NED/200 Line Bi-Directional OPP and Check-Schoharie County, New York.

Massachusetts The new and modified meter stations in Massachusetts will include the following:         

13

North Adams Check-Berkshire County, Massachusetts; Dalton-Berkshire County, Massachusetts; West Greenfield-Franklin County, Massachusetts; Maritimes-Middlesex County, Massachusetts; 200-2 Check-Middlesex County, Massachusetts; 200-1 Check-Essex County, Massachusetts; Haverhill Check-Middlesex County, Massachusetts; Fitchburg Lateral Check-Worcester County, Massachusetts; North Worcester-Worcester County, Massachusetts;

Additionally, although the following existing Tennessee meter stations will have an increase in contracted quantities as a result of the Project; no modifications to the meter station facilities or land disturbance will be required: Lunenburg, Leominster, Clinton, Cranston, Pawtucket, Dracut, Acton, Tweksbury, Granite, Haverhill, Maple St./Danvers, Essex, Camp Curtis, Revere, Lynn, Salem, Glouster, Wenham, Lynnfield, West Peabody, Burlington, Southbridge, Arlington, Reading, Spencer, Lexington, Wilmington, Agawam, E. Farmington, and Easton.

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-32    

North Adams Custody-Berkshire County, Massachusetts (modifications include installation of a new tie-in assembly that includes fitting, tap valve, riser, and check valve, and new interconnecting station piping and metering); Longmeadow-Hampden County, Massachusetts; Lawrence-Essex County, Massachusetts (modifications include installation of a new tie-in assembly that includes fitting, valve, and riser, modifications to the existing interconnecting station piping and metering, and the addition of cathodic protection); and Everett-Middlesex County, Massachusetts.

New Hampshire The new meter station in New Hampshire will be the following: 

West Nashua-Hillsborough County, New Hampshire.

Connecticut The modified meter stations in Connecticut will include the following:   

Stamford-Fairfield County, Connecticut (modifications include installation of an additional hot tap assembly, as well as upgraded interconnecting station piping and metering); Long Ridge-Fairfield County, Connecticut (modifications include installation of new interconnecting station piping); and New Britain-Hartford County, Connecticut (modifications include installation of two new tap assemblies and new interconnecting station piping).

March 2015

Maritimes

West Greenfield

Dalton

North Adams Check

NED/200 Line BiDirectional OPP & Check

NED Check

IGTConstitution BiDirectional Meter

Facility Name





Middlesex

Franklin

Berkshire

Schoharie

County

Dracut

Deerfield

Dalton

Lanesborough

Wright

Township

March 2015

L

H

G

G

1.20

9.19

13.50

7.42

0.14

0.12

0.03

Milepost3

Massachusetts

F

F

F

New York

Segment2

1,000,000

TBD

1,000,000

New Capacity (Dth/d)

New

New

New

New

120,000

21,500

11,000

50,000

New York Subtotal

New

New

New

New / Modified

TABLE 1.1-4 PROPOSED METER STATIONS FOR THE PROJECT

1.43

1.43

1.43

1.43

4.29

1.43

1.43

1.43


0.92

0.92

0.92

0.92

2.76

0.92

0.92

0.92



Middlesex Essex Middlesex

Worcester

Berkshire Hampden Essex Middlesex


Lynnfield Lateral








200-2 Check

200-1 Check

Haverhill Check


North Worcester

North Adams Custody (20103)

Longmeadow

Lawrence (20121)

Everett

Worcester

County


Facility Name

Everett

Methuen

Longmeadow

North Adams

Worcester

Lunenburg

Dracut

Lynnfield

Dracut

Township

March 2015

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

R

Q

P

N

M

Segment2

Proposed Facility

Existing Facility

Proposed Facility

Existing Facility

14.14

13.98

0.10

15.86

0.06

Milepost3

35,000

87,581

6,600

17,240

50,000

120,000

300,000

300,000

671,000



New

Modified

New

Modified

New

New

New

New

New

New / Modified


16.80

1.43

0.54

1.43

0.53

1.43

1.43

1.43

1.43

1.43


10.58

0.92

0.23

0.92

0.23

0.92

0.92

0.92

0.92

0.92



Stamford Loop



West Nashua

Stamford (20124)

Long Ridge (20434)

New Britain (20129)

5

4

3

2

1

Hillsborough


New Britain

Stamford

Stamford

Amherst

Township

N/A

N/A

T

Connecticut

J

Existing Facility

Existing Facility

1.49

19.29

Milepost3

New Hampshire

Segment2

65,000


24.12

Project Total

0.53

0.53

0.54

1.60

25,494

48,672

43,336

1.43

1.43


Modified

Modified

Modified


New

New / Modified


14.95

0.69

0.23

0.23

0.23

0.92

0.92


March 2015

This column indicates the associated pipeline for each meter station. Each segment is associated with its own set of MPs beginning at MP 0.00. Mileposts are provided for meter stations and refer to the nearest MPs of the meter stations’ associated segment. Modified meter stations will require the area of the existing facility and an approximate 150 ft x 150 ft area (22,500 ft2 = 0.52 acres) of temporary workspace during construction. New meter stations will require approximately 250 ft x 250 ft (62,500 ft2 = 1.43 acres) of temporary workspace during construction. Updated acreages will be provided in a revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER. Modified meter stations will require approximately 100 ft x 100 ft (10,000 ft2 = 0.23 acres) of permanent workspace for operation. New meter stations will require 200 ft x 200 ft (40,000 ft2 = 0.92 acres) of permanent workspace for operations. Updated acreages will be provided in a revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER.

Hartford

Fairfield

Fairfield

County


Facility Name



Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-36 1.1.2.2.3 Mainline Valves, Pig launchers/receivers and Cathodic Protection Facilities MLVs are integral operation and safety components in a transmission pipeline. Title 49 CFR, Part 192.179, outlines the requirements for MLV spacing. The guidelines are as follows: a) Each transmission line, other than offshore segments, must have sectionalizing block valves spaced as follows, unless in a particular case the Administrator finds that alternative spacing would provide an equivalent level of safety: (1) Each point on the pipeline in a Class 4 location must be within 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) of a valve. (2) Each point on the pipeline in a Class 3 location must be within 4 miles (6.4 kilometers) of a valve. (3) Each point on the pipeline in a Class 2 location must be within 7.5 miles (12 kilometers) of a valve. (4) Each point on the pipeline in a Class 1 location must be within 10 miles (16 kilometers) of a valve. (b) Each sectionalizing block valve on a transmission line, other than offshore segments, must comply with the following: (1) The valve and the operating device to open or close the valve must be readily accessible and protected from tampering and damage. (2) The valve must be supported to prevent settling of the valve or movement of the pipe to which it is attached. (c) Each section of a transmission line, other than offshore segments, between mainline valves must have a blowdown valve with enough capacity to allow the transmission line to be blown down as rapidly as practicable. Each blowdown discharge must be located so the gas can be blown to the atmosphere without hazard and, if the transmission line is adjacent to an overhead electric line, so that the gas is directed away from the electrical conductors. For the Project, Tennessee proposes that MLVs will generally be installed and operated within the proposed permanent ROW associated with the applicable pipeline segment(s). Each MLV will consist of a 25-foot by 25-foot graveled area and will be fenced within the permanent ROW. Permanent access roads to these sites will be required. Tennessee is in the process of conducting a class study on each proposed pipeline segment and will design MLV locations that will meet or exceed the federal spacing requirements. This information will be provided in a revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER. Locations of MLVs will be provided in Table 1.1-5 and included on full size 7.5-minute USGS topographic maps and alignment sheets which will be provided in in a subsequent filing of the ER.

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-37 TABLE 1.1-5 PROPOSED APPURTENANT ABOVEGROUND FACILITIES FOR THE PROJECT Approximate Approximate Facility Name1 Township1 County1 State1 1 Milepost Area (acres) 1

1

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

Information related to appurtenant facilities will be included in a revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER.

Tennessee also intends on installing launcher and receiver barrels to accommodate internal inspection of the pipeline segments in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 192, Subpart O which provides requirements for gas transmission pipeline integrity management. At a minimum, these barrels will be installed at compressor stations and the beginning and end of each proposed lateral. Permanent access roads to these sites will also be required. As Tennessee continues the design of the Project, additional launcher/receiver sites may be deemed necessary. Locations of launcher/receivers will be provided in Table 1.1-5 and included on full size 7.5-minute USGS topographic maps and alignment sheets which will be provided in a revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER. Requirements for pipeline corrosion control are provided in 49 CFR, Part 192, Subpart I. Tennessee intends to design cathodic protection for the Project in accordance with these regulations. For pipeline segments that are proposed to be co-located with Tennessee’s pipeline system, the new segments will be interconnected to the existing cathodic protection system and evaluated for compliance with U.S. Department of Transportation (“USDOT”) regulations. Enhancements will be provided if required to comply with the regulations. On new segments, a new cathodic protection system will be designed and installed. This will include aboveground rectifiers and buried ground beds. The rectifiers will generally be installed on poles within the permanent ROW. These rectifiers will require low voltage power and thus are typically located at road crossings or other facility sites. These sites may be graveled so that future maintenance can be performed in a safe manner. The locations of these rectifiers and ground beds are provided in table format in Section 1.4.2 and included on the alignment sheets in Volume II, Appendix F. Tennessee anticipates the need to install buried ground beds that will extend perpendicular from the pipeline due to the relatively shallow bedrock that is anticipated. Deep well ground beds will be considered if subsurface conditions permit. The locations of these ground beds are provided in table format in Section 1.4.2 and included on the alignment sheets in Volume II, Appendix F. A portion of the proposed pipeline segments will be located adjacent to or co-located with high voltage electric powerlines. Tennessee will design an alternating current (“AC”) mitigation system that will protect the pipeline facilities and operations personnel. It is anticipated that the design will include zinc ribbon, grounding mats, and other equipment, most of which will be buried. The locations of these AC mitigation systems are provided in table format in Section 1.4.2 and included on the alignment sheets in Volume II, Appendix F. March 2015


1.1.3

Location Maps, Detailed Site Maps, and Plot/Site Maps

The overview map of the Project is illustrated in Attachment 1a. Tennessee is also submitting detailed aerial photographic maps for the properties along the proposed route for the NED Project, with the proposed pipeline facilities and proposed meter stations superimposed over the images, in conformance with Section 380.12(c)(3) (2014), 18 CFR, in Volume II, Appendix F. The specific locations for the new compressor stations have not yet been identified, but will be identified in a revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER. At that time, Tennessee will also include location-specific plot plans for each new compressor station.14

1.2

LAND REQUIREMENTS

The construction workspace (including TWS), additional temporary workspace (“ATWS”), permanent (or operational) ROW, temporary and permanent access roads, pipeyards and contractor yards, and aboveground facilities for the Project (to the extent that these areas have been identified) will total approximately 6,904.65 acres (Table 1.2-1). Operation of the Project facilities will require approximately 2,697.13 acres that will be maintained as permanent ROW (or fee property as it pertains to compressor station facilities (Table 1.2-1). Table 1.2-1 includes a summary of all Project-related land requirements that will be affected by construction and operation of the Project facilities (pipeline facilities, new and modified compressor stations, and new and modified meter stations), temporary and permanent access roads, and pipeyards and contractor yards, to the extent that these areas have been identified. The USGS topographic maps and photo-based alignment sheets provided in Volume II, Appendix E and Appendix F, depict the location and configuration of all temporary and permanent construction workspace, and access roads and pipe yards (to the extent they have been identified) required for the Project. Typical construction workspace configurations are also provided in Volume II, Appendix G. TABLE 1.2-1 SUMMARY OF LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECT Land Affected Land Affected Land Affected During within TGP Existing During Operation Facility Construction Operational ROW (acres)1 (acres)1 (acres)1,2 Pennsylvania Pipeline

846.54

423.27

98.24

256.67

0.00

0.00

Compressor Stations

30.80

10.00

5.80

Meter Stations

N/A

N/A

N/A

Cathodic Protection Ground Beds

TBD

TBD

TBD

Additional Temporary Workspace

14

3

Where applicable, aerial photographic alignments include two sources of aerial imagery; a 1,600-ft aerial corridor was flown along the proposed pipeline route as the alignment was routed at the time of the flight in May 2014. Since the flight, there have been route deviations and therefore, not all alignment sheets have imagery from the May 2014 flight. Tennessee intends to re-fly the entirety of the currently proposed pipeline route as weather will allow. This new aerial imagery will be included in the alignment sheet mapping to be included in a subsequent filing of the ER.

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-39 TABLE 1.2-1 SUMMARY OF LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECT Land Affected Land Affected Land Affected During within TGP Existing During Operation Facility Construction Operational ROW 1 (acres) (acres)1 (acres)1,2 Total Temporary and Permanent Access Roads

31.83

TBD

TBD

Pipeyards and Contractor Yards

121.69

0.00

TBD

Appurtenant Facilities

TBD

TBD

TBD


1,287.53

433.27

104.04

1,800.61

900.30

99.00

480.56

0.00

0.00

Compressor Stations

80.00

40.00

0.00

Meter Stations

4.29

2.76

0.00


TBD

TBD

TBD

Total Temporary and Permanent Access Roads7

41.08

TBD

TBD


85.93

0.00

TBD


TBD

TBD

TBD

New York Subtotal

2,492.47

943.06

99.00

1,285.90

699.70

9.61

359.22

0.00

0.00

Compressor Stations

60.00

30.00

0.00

Meter Stations

16.80

10.58

TBD


TBD

TBD

TBD

Total Temporary and Permanent Access Roads

TBD

TBD

TBD


TBD

0.00

TBD


TBD

TBD

TBD


1,721.92

740.28

9.61

919.91

470.67

6.03

183.59

0.00

0.00

20.00

10.00

0.00

4

New York Pipeline Additional Temporary Workspace

3

4

Massachusetts Pipeline Additional Temporary Workspace

3

4

New Hampshire Pipeline Additional Temporary Workspace Compressor Stations

3

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-40 TABLE 1.2-1 SUMMARY OF LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECT Land Affected Land Affected Land Affected During within TGP Existing During Operation Facility Construction Operational ROW 1 (acres) (acres)1 (acres)1,2 Meter Stations

1.43

0.92

0.00


TBD

TBD

TBD

Total Temporary and Permanent Access Roads7

TBD

TBD

TBD


TBD

0.00

TBD


TBD

TBD

TBD


1,124.93

481.59

6.03

174.13

98.24

39.18

86.53

0.00

0.00

Compressor Stations

0.00

0.00

0.00

Meter Stations

1.60

0.69

TBD


TBD

TBD

TBD


15.54

TBD

TBD


TBD

0.00

TBD


TBD

TBD

TBD


277.80

98.93

39.18

4

Connecticut Pipeline Additional Temporary Workspace

3

4

PROJECT SUBTOTALS Total Pipeline

5,027.09

2,592.18

252.06

Total Additional Temporary Workspace3

1,366.57

0.00

0.00

Total Compressor Stations

190.80

90.00

5.80

Total Meter Stations

24.12

14.95

TBD

Total Cathodic Protection Ground Beds

TBD

TBD

TBD


88.45

TBD

TBD


207.62

0.00

TBD

Total Appurtenant Facilities

TBD

TBD

TBD

Project Grand Totals

6,904.65

2,697.13

257.86

4

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-41 TABLE 1.2-1 SUMMARY OF LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECT Land Affected Land Affected Land Affected During within TGP Existing During Operation Facility Construction Operational ROW 1 (acres) (acres)1 (acres)1,2 1

Construction workspace acreage impacts were calculated along the pipeline facilities according to the construction ROW below (which encompasses TWS and the operational ROW widths). Construction workspace through wetlands and waterbodies will be reduced to 75 ft as required and where practicable. However, these reduced areas have not yet been incorporated into the overall construction workspace acreage calculations presented in Table 1.2-1. Pipe Diameter Construction ROW Width (ft) 8" - 16" 75 18" - 24" 90* 26" - 36" 100 * Exception is the Haverhill Lateral which will be constructed within a 75 ft ROW. 2 Operational workspace acreage impacts were calculated along the pipeline facilities according to the following permanent ROW widths: Pipe Diameter Operational ROW Width (ft) 8" - 16" 50 18" - 24" 50 26" - 36" 50 3 Acreages for additional temporary workspace are not included in the Land Affected During Operation pipeline acreage values. 4 All appurtenant ancillary aboveground facilities, including MLVs, and pig launchers/receivers will be constructed and operated within areas of existing or new permanent easements associated with the pipeline facilities. This information will be provided in a revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER. 5 TBD (To Be Determined). The locations for certain Project components have not yet been determined; therefore, acreage impacts have not yet been calculated but will be provided in a revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER. Project components designated as N/A (not applicable) indicate that these facility types are not proposed in those states. 6 The permanent ROW for the proposed pipeline segments will overlap approximately 25 ft of existing TGP ROW. N/A (not applicable) indicates that certain Project components will not overlap existing ROW. TBD-To Be Determined, indicates some Project components have not yet been determined; therefore, acreage impacts within existing ROW have not yet been calculated but will be provided in a revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER.

1.2.1

Pipeline Facilities

The approximate land requirements for the pipeline facilities are summarized in Table 1.2-1. Tennessee will provide additional detail in a subsequent filing of this Resource Report 1. The pipeline acreages are based on varying construction ROW widths to accommodate the outer diameter of the pipeline proposed for each pipeline segment. Tennessee’s proposed construction ROW widths for each pipeline segment are provided in Table 1.2-2 and construction and operational impacts along individual pipeline facilities are provided in Table 1.2-3. These widths will be maintained through uplands and a reduced construction ROW width of 75 feet is proposed for areas crossing wetlands and waterbodies and has been incorporated into the pipeline workspace. However, these reduced areas are not reflected in the overall construction workspace acreage calculations provided in Table 1.2-1. Preliminary pipeline ROW workspace configurations and dimensions are depicted on the aerial alignment sheets provided in Volume II, Appendix F.

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-42 TABLE 1.2-2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ROW WIDTHS FOR THE PROJECT PIPELINE FACILITIES Construction Operational Diameter ROW Width ROW Width Pipeline Name (inches) (ft)1,2 (ft)3 Pennsylvania Loop 317-3

36

100

50

Loop 319-3

36

100

50


30

100

50

New York Pennsylvania to Wright Pipeline Segment (New York Portion)

30

100

50


36

100

50

Massachusetts Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (Massachusetts Portion)

36

100

50


30

100

50


24

90

50

Lynnfield Lateral

20

90

50

Peabody Lateral

24

90

50

Haverhill Lateral (Massachusetts Portion)4

20

75

50


12

75

50


12

75

50

New Hampshire Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (New Hampshire Portion)

36

100

50

Haverhill Lateral (New Hampshire Portion)4

20

75

50

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-43 TABLE 1.2-2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ROW WIDTHS FOR THE PROJECT PIPELINE FACILITIES Construction Operational Diameter ROW Width ROW Width Pipeline Name (inches) (ft)1,2 (ft)3 Fitchburg Lateral Extension (New Hampshire Portion)

12

75

50

Connecticut

1

2

3

4

300 Line CT Loop

24

90

50

Stamford Loop

12

75

50

Construction workspace acreage impacts were calculated along the pipeline facilities according to the following construction ROW widths (which encompasses TWS and the operational ROW widths described in footnote 2). Construction workspace through wetlands and waterbodies will be reduced to 75 ft as required and where practicable. However, these reduced areas have not yet been incorporated into the overall construction workspace acreage calculations presented in Table 1.2-2. Pipe Diameter Construction ROW Width (ft) 8" - 16" 75 18" - 24" 90* 26" - 36" 100 *exception is the Haverhill Lateral which will be constructed within a 75 ft ROW. This includes 25 ft of existing TGP ROW in areas where the proposed pipeline is co-located with an existing TGP pipeline. Operational workspace acreage impacts were calculated along the pipeline facilities according to the following permanent ROW widths: Pipe Diameter Operational ROW Width (ft) 8" - 16" 50 18" - 24" 50 26" - 36" 50 Due to encroachments and development near the Haverhill Lateral, construction will be conducted within a 75 ft construction ROW instead of the 90 ft proposed construction ROW width for pipelines with diameters of 18"-24".

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-44 TABLE 1.2-3 LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECT PIPELINE FACILITIES Diameter Length Construction ROW Operational ROW Pipeline Name (inches) (miles) (acres)1 (acres)2 Pennsylvania Loop 317-3

36

22.72

360.30

137.70

Loop 319-3

36

9.09

156.06

55.09


30

38.03

586.85

230.48

69.84

1,103.21

423.27


New York Pennsylvania to Wright Pipeline Segment (New York Portion)

30

95.11

1,425.84

576.42


36

53.44

855.33

323.88

148.55

2,281.17

900.30

New York Subtotal

Massachusetts Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (Massachusetts Portion)

36

63.75

910.41

386.36


30

1.20

23.98

7.27


24

0.51

10.72

3.09

Lynnfield Lateral

20

15.86

257.26

96.12

Peabody Lateral

24

5.37

80.96

32.55


20

5.72

89.49

34.67


12

8.90

100.33

53.94


12

14.14

171.97

85.70

115.45

1,645.12

699.70



36

70.59

1,028.44

427.82


20

1.99

24.40

12.06

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-45 TABLE 1.2-3 LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECT PIPELINE FACILITIES Diameter Length Construction ROW Operational ROW Pipeline Name (inches) (miles) (acres)1 (acres)2 Fitchburg Lateral Extension 12 5.08 50.66 30.79 (New Hampshire Portion) New Hampshire Subtotal

77.66

1,103.50

470.67

Connecticut 300 Line CT Loop

24

14.72

226.45

89.21

Stamford Loop

12

1.49

34.21

9.03


16.21

260.66

98.24

Project Total

427.71

6,393.66

2,592.18

1

Construction ROW = all workspace during construction activities TWS, ATWS, and permanent easement). Operational ROW = 50-foot permanent easement. NOTE: All impacts were calculated along the pipeline in accordance with the typical ROW widths provided in Table 1.2-2: "Proposed Construction ROW Widths for the Project Pipeline Facilities." Areas depicted are for the pipeline only. Area for associated facilities will be provided in future filings.

2

1.2.2

Aboveground Facilities

The land requirements for the new and modified aboveground facilities, to the extent that the locations have been identified as of the date of the filing of this draft Resource Report 1, are summarized in Table 1.2-4.

March 2015


Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-46 TABLE 1.2-4 LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECT ABOVEGROUND AND APPURTENANT FACILITIES Facility Name

Facility Type


County

Township2

Segment3

Milepost4

New / Modified



Pennsylvania Station 319 Upgrades Supply Path Head Station

Compressor Station

Loop 319-3

Bradford

Wyalusing

B

0.00

Modified

10.80

0.00

Compressor Station


Susquehanna

TBD

C

20.83-25.17

New

20.00

10.00

30.80

10.00

Pennsylvania Subtotal New York Supply Path Mid Station

Compressor Station

Supply Path Tail Station

Compressor Station

Market Path Head Station

Compressor Station

IGT-Constitution Bi-Directional Meter

Meter Station

NED Check

Meter Station

NED/200 Line Bi-Directional OPP & Check

Meter Station


Compressor Station



Delaware

TBD

D

35.65-39.69

New

20.00

10.00

Schoharie

TBD

E

41.82-46.20

New

20.00

10.00

TBD

F

0.00-2.02

New

20.00

10.00

F

0.03

New

1.43

0.92

F

0.12

New

1.43

0.92

F

0.14

New

1.43

0.92

F

36.51-40.55

New

20.00

10.00

84.29

42.76

Schoharie

Rensselaer

Wright

TBD

New York Subtotal Massachusetts North Adams Check

Meter Station

Dalton

Meter Station

Lanesborough

G

7.42

New

1.43

0.92

Dalton

G

13.50

New

1.43

0.92

TBD

G

16.68-21.01

New

20.00

10.00

Deerfield

H

9.19

New

1.43

0.92

TBD

H

21.45-25.51

New

20.00

10.00

Middlesex

TBD

K

0.00-2.82

New

20.00

10.00

Berkshire Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (Massachusetts Portion)


Compressor Station

West Greenfield

Meter Station


Compressor Station

Market Path Tail Station

Compressor Station

Maritimes

Meter Station


Middlesex

Dracut

L

1.20

New

1.43

0.92

200-2 Check

Meter Station


Middlesex

Dracut

M

0.06

New

1.43

0.92

200-1 Check

Meter Station

Lynnfield Lateral

Essex

Lynnfield

N

15.86

New

1.43

0.92

Haverhill Check

Meter Station


Middlesex

Dracut

P

0.10

New

1.43

0.92

Franklin

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-47 TABLE 1.2-4 LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECT ABOVEGROUND AND APPURTENANT FACILITIES Facility Name

Facility Type


County

Township2

Segment3

Milepost4

New / Modified




Meter Station


Worcester

Lunenburg

Q

13.98

New

1.43

0.92

North Worcester

Meter Station


Worcester

Worcester

R

14.14

New

1.43

0.92

North Adams Custody (20103)

Meter Station


Berkshire

North Adams

N/A

Existing Facility

Modified

0.53

0.23

Longmeadow

Meter Station


Hampden

Longmeadow

N/A

Proposed Facility

New

1.43

0.92

Lawrence (20121)

Meter Station


Essex

Methuen

N/A

Existing Facility

Modified

0.54

0.23

Everett

Meter Station


Middlesex

Everett

N/A

Proposed Facility

New

1.43

0.92


76.80

40.58

New Hampshire Market Path Mid Station 4

Compressor Station

West Nashua

Meter Station


Hillsborough

TBD

J

4.40-8.36

New

20.00

10.00

Amherst

J

19.29

New

1.43

0.92

21.43

10.92

New Hampshire Subtotal Connecticut Stamford (20124)

Meter Station

Stamford Loop

Fairfield

Stamford

T

1.49

Modified

0.54

0.23

Long Ridge (20434)

Meter Station


Fairfield

Stamford

N/A

Existing Facility

Modified

0.53

0.23

New Britain (20129)

Meter Station


Hartford

New Britain

N/A

Existing Facility

Modified

0.53

0.23


1.60

0.69

214.92

104.95

Project Total 1 2 3 4

5

6

This column indicates the associated pipeline for each aboveground facility. TBD - To Be Determined. Final locations of the new compressor stations have not yet been determined. Each segment is associated with its own set of MPs beginning at MP 0.00. Mileposts provided for the existing compressor station and the existing and new meter stations refer to the MPs of the aboveground facilities’ associated pipeline segments. For new compressor stations, the MPs provided reflect a range of area where Tennessee is evaluating potential sites along the associated pipeline segment. Modified meter stations will require the area of the existing facility and an approximate 150 ft x 150 ft area (22,500 ft2 = 0.53 acres) of TWS during construction. New meter stations will require approximately 250 ft x 250 ft (62,500 ft2 = 1.43 acres) of TWS during construction. The modified compressor station will require the area of the existing fenced-in facility (5.80 acres) and an additional 5.00 acres of temporary construction workspace. New compressor stations will require approximately 20.00 acres of temporary construction workspace. Updated acreages will be provided in a revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER. Modified meter stations will require approximately 100 ft x 100 ft (10,000 ft2 = 0.23 acres) of permanent workspace for operation. New meter stations will require approximately 200 ft x 200 ft (40,000 ft2 = 0.92 acres) of permanent workspace for operations. Modifications at Station 319 will operate within the existing fenced facility boundary and will require no additional permanent workspace for operational use. New compressor stations will require 10.00 acres for operation. Updated acreages will be provided in a revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER.

March 2015


1.2.3

Access Roads

Construction access to the Project areas and ancillary facilities will be by way of the construction ROW and existing roads. Tennessee anticipates utilizing temporary and permanent access roads during the construction of each portion of the Project. Where public road access is unavailable, Tennessee will identify private access roads. Locations of access roads proposed for the Project (to the extent that they have been identified) are provided in Resource Report 8 of this ER. Locations of proposed temporary access roads identified to date are depicted on USGS topographic maps and aerial alignment sheets provided in Volume II, Appendix E and F. Access roads identified to date include temporary roads that have been previously utilized for prior Tennessee projects and those approved for use during construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project. Tennessee is continuing to identify additional access roads and the need for permanent access roads on other portions of the Project and will provide locations, lengths, and improvements of additional roads in a subsequent filing of the ER.

1.2.4

Additional Temporary Workspace

ATWS areas typically are required at road, railroad, wetland, and waterbody crossing locations (including HDDs) for areas requiring specialized construction techniques, including steep slopes and agricultural land. The configurations and sizes of ATWS areas will be based on site-specific conditions and vary in accordance with the construction methodology, crossing type, and other construction needs. Tennessee has preliminarily identified locations and acreages of ATWS and is still evaluating areas where potential ATWS will be required to facilitate construction. ATWS requirements are summarized in Table 1.2-1. This workspace represents typical dimensions and acreages of ATWS required in specific locations. The acreages do not represent the ATWS configurations shown on the aerial alignment sheets included in Volume II, Appendix F. A complete list of these typical ATWS configurations by MP, the extent they have been identified, is included in Resource Report 8 of this ER.

1.2.5


Tennessee is in the initial phases of identifying potential sites and exact locations to be utilized for pipeyards and contractor yards. Locations of proposed pipeyard and contractor yards, to the extent they have been identified, are provided in Table 1.2-5. Pipeyards and contractor yards proposed at this time represent locations that were utilized for prior Tennessee projects and those approved for the construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project. Tennessee is in the process of contacting these landowners and obtaining permission to utilize these areas. Locations of proposed pipeyards and contractor yards are depicted on the USGS topographic maps and aerial alignment sheets provided in Volume II, Appendix E and Appendix F. These areas will be used for equipment, pipe, and material storage, as well as temporary field offices and pipe preparation/field assembly areas. Site selection and acquisition will continue throughout the planning and permitting stages of the Project. Resource Report 8 provides additional information regarding pipeyards and contractor yards associated with the Project.

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-49 TABLE 1.2-5 PIPEYARDS AND CONTRACTOR YARDS FOR THE PROJECT County

Distance from Project (miles) and Direction

Area Affected During Construction (acres)3

001-TGP

Agriculture, Developed, Open Land/ROW, Upland Forest

21.8 miles NW of MP 0.0 (Segment A)

8.20

Lawrence

002-TGP

Agriculture, Open Land/ROW, Upland Forest

21.8 miles NW of MP 0.0 (Segment A)

6.90

Troy

003-TGP

Agriculture, Developed

0.1 miles S of MP 0.0 (Segment A)

8.90

Athens

005-TGP

Agriculture, PEM, PFO/PSS

17.6 miles N of MP 12.1 (Segment A)

30.00

Wysox

006-TGP



18.32

Wysox

009-TGP



10.84

Wyalusing

010-TGP


3.4 miles W of MP 0.0 (Segment B)

6.37

0.7 miles N of MP 14.0 (Segment C)

20.47

12.8 miles SE of MP 25.5 (Segment C)

11.69


121.69

Township

Yard Name1

Existing Land Use2 Pennsylvania

Lawrence Tioga

Bradford

Bradford Susquehanna

Bridgewater

012-CON

Agriculture, Developed, Upland Forest

Susquehanna

Herrick

013-TGP

Agriculture, Developed, Upland Forest New York

Delaware

Otsego

Sidney

Milford

017-CON


0.1 miles SE of MP 31.8 (Segment D)

11.59

021-CON


3.1 miles N of MP 3.6 (Segment E)

14.31

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-50 TABLE 1.2-5 PIPEYARDS AND CONTRACTOR YARDS FOR THE PROJECT County

Yard Name1

Existing Land Use2

Milford

022-CON

Agriculture, Developed, Upland Forest

3.4 miles N of MP 3.6 (Segment E)

14.78

Davenport

023-CON

Agriculture, Upland Forest

1.3 miles NW of MP 9.5 (Segment E)

25.76

Richmondville

024-CON



4.53

025-CON

Agriculture, Developed, Open Land, Upland Forest


14.96

New York Subtotal

85.93

Project Total

207.62

Township

Delaware

Schoharie Richmondville

1

2

3

Area Affected During Construction (acres)3

Distance from Project (miles) and Direction

For this filing, only pipe and contractor yards previously used for TGP projects ("-TGP") or approved as part of the Constitution Pipeline Project ("-CON") are included. Additional yards will be included in a subsequent filing of the ER. Data set utilized for land use is "National Land Cover Database 2011." TBD- To Be Determined. Land use data has not yet been acquired for yards designated as "TBD." Land use data will be acquired and incorporated for all yards in a subsequent filing. Yards will be used during the construction of the proposed pipeline facilities. No operational impacts will occur at these sites.

1.2.6

Areas of No Access

Tennessee is in the process of contacting affected landowners and obtaining survey permission for the properties proposed to be crossed by the Project. Field surveys on properties for which Tennessee obtained survey access began in July 2014. These surveys include wetland and waterbody delineation surveys, rare species habitat assessments, and cultural resource surveys. The schedule for completing field surveys will depend on the timing of obtaining survey permission on all affected parcels. Survey permission was requested from landowners within a 400 foot corridor on the proposed pipelines. The status of landowner permissions obtained to date is provided in Table 1.2-6. In the event that a certificate order is ultimately issued by the Commission for the Project, Tennessee would have eminent domain authority to pursue access to these properties to conduct necessary surveys.

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-51 TABLE 1.2-6 AREAS OF NO ACCESS FOR THE PROJECT BY STATE Pennsylvania1 Total Landowners with No Access - in Pennsylvania

146

Percent of No Access in Pennsylvania

36% New York

1

Total Landowners with No Access - in New York

471

Percent of No Access in New York

45% Massachusetts

1

Total Landowners with No Access - in Massachusetts

798

Percent of No Access in Massachusetts

65% 2

New Hampshire Total Landowners with No Access - in New Hampshire

744

Percent of No Access in New Hampshire

90% Connecticut1

Total Landowners with No Access - in Connecticut

76

Percent of No Access in Connecticut

1

2

42% Total No Access

2235

Total Percent of No Access

61%

The information in this table represents survey permission for those landowners located within the Project survey corridor (400 ft). Tennessee began requesting survey permissions in New Hampshire beginning in January 2015, as compared to beginning the survey permission process in January 2014 for the remainder of the Project areas.

1.2.7

Non-Surveyed Areas

Surveys for the Project were initiated in June 2014 and were suspended in November 2014 due to winter weather conditions. Additional field surveys will re-commence in March 2015 (weather permitting) and continue throughout the 2015 field survey season as additional survey access permissions are granted. Field surveys have included, but are not limited to, civil survey, wetland and waterbody delineations, and cultural resources surveys. Tennessee anticipates beginning rare species habitat assessment and presence/absence surveys in 2015. Completion of field surveys will be dependent upon the finalization of the Project alignment as well as the acquisition of survey permission on all affected parcels. This process may extend after the issuance of the certificate order, should the Project be approved by the Commission. Field survey data shown on the aerial alignment sheets included in Volume II, Appendix F, incorporates survey data obtained through November 26, 2014, when survey activities were suspended due to winter weather conditions. Publically available data sources were utilized for areas where field surveys have not yet been completed. Areas where civil surveys have not yet been completed are provided in Table 1.2-7.

March 2015


Pipeline Name

TABLE 1.2-7 NON-SURVEYED AREAS OF THE PROJECT Milepost2 1 County Segment Begin End

Crossing Length (ft)

Crossing Length (miles)

Pennsylvania Loop 317-3

Bradford

A

12.37

12.52

752

0.14

Loop 319-3

Susquehanna

B

9.06

9.09

151

0.03

C

0.00

0.31

1,647

0.31

C

1.56

2.07

2,699

0.51

C

2.22

2.38

848

0.16

C

2.45

3.30

4,472

0.85

C

5.44

5.61

865

0.16

C

5.70

38.03

170,708

32.33

182,142

34.50


Susquehanna

Pennsylvania Non-Surveyed Subtotal New York


Broome

Chenango

D

0.00

0.06

321

0.06

D

1.05

1.30

1,331

0.25

D

1.72

1.92

1,057

0.20

D

2.01

3.61

8,454

1.60

D

3.67

3.95

1,466

0.28

D

5.02

5.22

1,049

0.20

D

5.64

6.98

7,101

1.34

D

9.36

9.60

1,259

0.24

D

9.86

10.00

725

0.14

D

10.10

10.56

2,391

0.45

D

10.67

10.78

581

0.11

D

11.15

11.34

1,013

0.19

D

11.49

11.86

1,949

0.37

D

11.98

12.47

2,605

0.49

D

12.68

13.11

2,252

0.43

D

14.57

14.74

855

0.16

D

15.22

15.37

750

0.14

D

17.99

18.72

3,871

0.73

March 2015


Pipeline Name

Pennsylvania to Wright Pipeline Segment (New York Portion) (con’t.)


Delaware

D

18.72

18.75

Crossing Length (ft) 158

D

19.70

20.13

2,263

0.43

D

20.18

20.31

703

0.13

D

20.39

20.74

1,894

0.36

D

21.11

21.30

1,008

0.19

D

22.29

22.43

736

0.14

D

22.55

23.56

5,355

1.01

D

24.97

25.66

3,627

0.69

D

25.85

25.95

552

0.10

D

26.02

27.01

5,240

0.99

D

27.09

27.14

249

0.05

D

27.24

28.02

4,116

0.78

D

30.01

30.52

2,740

0.52

D

30.98

31.34

1,889

0.36

D

32.07

32.32

1,324

0.25

D

32.33

33.59

6,673

1.26

D

33.66

41.50

41,445

7.85

D

41.63

42.18

2,889

0.55

D

42.51

43.79

6,769

1.28

D

43.87

43.93

348

0.07

E

0.19

1.53

7,079

1.34

E

1.56

1.60

216

0.04

E

1.75

2.09

1,824

0.35

E

2.22

3.48

6,620

1.25

E

3.56

4.56

5,295

1.00

E

5.45

5.92

2,484

0.47

E

5.93

6.20

1,416

0.27

E

6.74

6.81

355

0.07

E

7.51

8.40

4,678

0.89

E

8.62

8.95

1,748

0.33

March 2015

Crossing Length (miles) 0.03


Pipeline Name


Delaware (con’t.)

Pennsylvania to Wright Pipeline Segment (New York Portion) (con’t.) Schoharie

Schoharie Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (New York Portion)

Albany

E

8.97

9.72

Crossing Length (ft) 3,922

E

10.02

13.93

20,668

3.91

E

14.14

14.43

1,538

0.29

E

14.70

14.81

596

0.11

E

15.47

16.64

6,223

1.18

E

16.80

18.55

9,246

1.75

E

18.72

20.17

7,689

1.46

E

20.17

21.07

4,739

0.90

E

21.19

21.50

1,655

0.31

E

21.79

22.50

3,760

0.71

E

22.62

23.03

2,186

0.41

E

23.05

23.74

3,615

0.68

E

24.40

25.21

4,264

0.81

E

25.53

27.48

10,300

1.95

E

27.58

28.42

4,397

0.83

E

28.46

28.61

767

0.15

E

28.69

31.52

14,913

2.82

E

31.62

31.69

381

0.07

E

31.84

32.36

2,743

0.52

E

32.63

35.14

13,260

2.51

E

36.33

38.07

9,173

1.74

E

38.64

38.71

389

0.07

E

39.17

51.06

12,947

2.45

F

0.00

0.02

83

0.02

F

10.49

10.53

254

0.05

F

14.17

14.93

4,011

0.76

F

17.98

19.19

6,419

1.22

F

19.66

19.91

1,298

0.25

F

21.79

26.06

22,538

4.27

F

27.72

27.98

1,387

0.26

March 2015



Pipeline Name

Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (New York Portion) (con’t.)


Rensselaer

F

27.98

28.07


F

28.97

29.51

2,880

0.55

F

29.63

29.70

380

0.07

F

29.76

29.80

198

0.04

F

32.05

32.19

693

0.13

F

32.25

32.28

174

0.03

F

33.44

33.63

1,000

0.19

F

33.87

53.33

102,760

19.46

G

0.00

0.11

595

0.11

445,242

84.33

New York Non-Surveyed Subtotal


Massachusetts G

0.11

17.13

89,868

17.02

G

17.38

17.45

383

0.07

G

18.52

18.81

1,550

0.29

G

19.31

19.55

1,307

0.25

G

19.58

19.68

512

0.10

G

20.77

21.52

3,923

0.74

G

21.52

21.66

775

0.15

G

22.26

23.08

4,337

0.82

G

23.61

23.96

1,882

0.36

G

25.72

26.54

4,289

0.81

G

26.62

26.72

479

0.09

G

27.29

27.55

1,374

0.26

G

27.75

27.97

1,153

0.22

G

29.40

31.02

8,530

1.62

Franklin

H

0.00

27.41

144,708

27.41

Middlesex

K

0.00

2.82

14,882

2.82


Middlesex

L

0.00

1.20

6,350

1.20


Middlesex

M

0.00

0.51

2,712

0.51

Berkshire


Hampshire

Franklin

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-56 TABLE 1.2-7 NON-SURVEYED AREAS OF THE PROJECT Milepost2 1 County Segment Begin End Middlesex

N

0.00

2.68

Crossing Length (ft) 14,155

Essex

N

2.68

3.71

5,448

1.03

Middlesex

N

3.71

4.14

2,290

0.43

Essex

N

4.14

4.64

2,618

0.50

Middlesex

N

4.64

5.09

2,362

0.45

Essex

N

5.09

5.40

1,684

0.32

Middlesex

N

5.40

5.71

1,598

0.30

Essex

N

5.71

5.83

647

0.12

Middlesex

N

5.83

6.35

2,766

0.52

Essex

N

6.35

7.27

4,814

0.91

Middlesex

N

7.27

7.82

2,874

0.54

Middlesex

N

7.83

7.97

797

0.15

Essex

N

7.97

8.11

701

0.13

Essex

N

8.30

8.64

1,825

0.35

Essex

N

8.99

9.13

733

0.14

Middlesex

N

9.13

9.64

2,663

0.50

Middlesex

N

9.96

10.17

1,107

0.21

Middlesex

N

10.30

10.76

2,425

0.46

Middlesex

N

11.93

12.86

4,940

0.94

Middlesex

N

13.09

14.40

6,937

1.31

Middlesex

N

14.46

14.86

2,164

0.41

Middlesex

N

14.97

15.31

1,836

0.35

Essex

N

15.77

15.86

503

0.10

Peabody Lateral

Essex

O

0.00

5.37

28,364

5.37


Middlesex

P

0.00

1.67

8,810

1.67

P

1.67

3.26

8,421

1.59

P

7.67

7.71

262

0.05


Middlesex

Q

5.08

10.28

27,463

5.20

Worcester

Q

10.28

13.98

19,573

3.71

Pipeline Name

Lynnfield Lateral

Essex

March 2015



Pipeline Name North Worcester Lateral

TABLE 1.2-7 NON-SURVEYED AREAS OF THE PROJECT Milepost2 1 County Segment Begin End Worcester

R

0.00

14.14

Massachusetts Non-Surveyed Subtotal

Crossing Length (ft)

Crossing Length (miles)

74,677

14.14

524,469

99.33

New Hampshire


Fitchburg Lateral Extension (New Hampshire Portion)

Cheshire

I

0.00

28.96

152,828

28.94

Hillsborough

I

28.96

29.06

551

0.10

Hillsborough

J

0.00

28.83

152,267

28.84

Rockingham

J

28.83

31.37

13,435

2.54

Hillsborough

J

31.37

33.85

13,072

2.48

Rockingham

J

33.85

36.08

11,781

2.23

Hillsborough

J

36.08

41.53

28,840

5.46

Hillsborough

Q

0.00

5.08

26,803

5.08

399,577

75.68

New Hampshire Non-Surveyed Subtotal Connecticut

300 Line CT Loop

Hartford

S

0.00

3.33

17,569

3.33

S

3.49

3.54

279

0.05

S

3.73

6.35

13,835

2.62

S

6.61

6.66

276

0.05

S

8.09

8.11

104

0.02

S

9.13

9.23

509

0.10

S

9.42

9.46

216

0.04

S

9.65

9.74

476

0.09

S

10.62

10.83

1,140

0.22

S

10.95

11.08

678

0.13

S

11.39

13.57

11,488

2.18

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-58 TABLE 1.2-7 NON-SURVEYED AREAS OF THE PROJECT Milepost2 1 County Segment Begin End

300 Line CT Loop (con’t.)

Hartford (con’t.)

S

13.88

14.06


S

14.25

14.69

2,360

0.45

Stamford Loop

Fairfield

T

0.04

0.37

1,758

0.33

51,638

9.78

1,078,599

204.28

Pipeline Name

Connecticut Non-Surveyed Subtotal Project Non-Surveyed Total


NOTE: This table reflects current center line staking as of 1/8/2015 along the current preferred route. 1 Each segment is associated with its own set of mileposts beginning at MP 0.00.

1.3

CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES

The Project facilities will be designed, constructed, tested, operated, and maintained to conform with applicable federal, state, and local requirements, including USDOT regulations at 49 CFR Part 192, “Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards”, and Commission regulations at Section 380.1518, CFR, “Siting and Maintenance Requirements”. In addition, unless otherwise authorized through a variance granted by the Commission, Tennessee will comply with the Commission’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan (“the Plan”, May 2013 version) and the Commission’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (“the Procedures”, May 2013 version), and will also follow Tennessee’s Spill Prevention and Response Plan (“SPRP”), Unanticipated Discovery Plan for cultural resources, Waste Management Plan, and typical construction workspace layout drawings. These documents will be provided in Tennessee’s Projectspecific Environmental Construction Plans (“ECPs”) for each state which will be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER. In addition to these Project-specific ECPs for each state, Tennessee will also implement the Commission’s Plan and Procedures with the exception of any modifications approved by the Commission. The Commission’s Plan and Procedures are included in Volume II, Appendix H. Proposed Project-specific modifications to the Plan and Procedures identified as of the date of filing this resource report are detailed in Section 1.3.2.9.

1.3.1

Pipeline Construction

The general procedures for pipeline construction that will be followed for the Project are described in this section. Tennessee will use conventional techniques for buried pipeline construction and will follow the requirements set forth in Tennessee’s Project-specific ECPs for each state to ensure safe, stable, and reliable transmission facilities consistent with Commission and USDOT specifications. At a minimum, Tennessee will perform the following procedures:    

Marking the corridor; Clearing and grading; Trenching; Stringing; March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-59    

Pipe preparation (bending, welding, X-ray, weld coating, and coating repair) and lowering in; Backfilling and grade restoration; Hydrostatic testing and tie-ins; and Cleanup and restoration.

The above-listed procedures will typically follow in the sequence listed. Areas requiring special construction techniques include road or utility crossings, waterbodies and wetlands, unusual topographies such as unstable soils and trench conditions, residential or urban areas, agricultural areas, areas requiring rock removal and permanent recreation facilities.

1.3.1.1

Marking the Corridor

Land survey crews will mark the centerline of Tennessee’s pipeline mainline, looping segments, and laterals with stakes prior to construction. The centerline will be marked at frequent intervals as well as at known crossings of foreign lines and utilities, at road crossings, and at points of inflection. Additionally, avoidance areas including wetland boundaries, cultural resource sites, and rare species habitat, as applicable, will be marked with appropriate fencing, signage, and/or flagging, based on environmental and archaeology surveys and environmental permit conditions, prior to construction.

1.3.1.2

Erosion and Sediment Control

Temporary soil erosion and sediment control measures will be installed along the proposed construction ROW, ATWS areas, access roads, and other work areas, as applicable, in accordance with Tennessee’s Project-specific ECPs for each state. Typically, staked straw bales and/or silt fence barriers are positioned along the limit of wetland boundaries within the construction workspace. To ensure that appropriate erosion and sediment control measures are maintained until the construction workspace is fully stabilized, full-time Environmental Inspectors (“EIs”) will be assigned to the Project and will inspect all disturbed areas of the construction spread(s) (e.g., construction ROW, pipeyards, and contractor yards) that have not been permanently stabilized in accordance with the following schedule: (1) on a daily basis in areas of active construction; (2) on a weekly basis in areas with no construction or equipment operation; or (3) within 24 hours of the end of a storm event that produces 0.5 inch or greater of precipitation.

1.3.1.3

Clearing, Grading, and Fencing

The construction corridor will be cleared and graded to remove brush, trees, roots, and other obstructions such as large rocks and stumps. Non-woody vegetation may be mowed to ground level. Temporary fences and gates will be installed as needed. No cleared material will be placed within wetland areas. Tennessee anticipates disposal of trees cleared from the ROW using several different methods. Trees, if suitable, may be taken off-site by the clearing contractor and used for timber unless alternate arrangements have been made with the landowner. Trees and stumps may be chipped on-site and removed. Chipped material not removed may be spread across the ROW within upland areas in a manner that does not inhibit revegetation. Wood chips will not be left within agricultural lands, wetlands, or within 50 feet of wetlands. Also, wood chips will not be stockpiled in a manner that they may be transported into a wetland.

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-60 Grading activities will be scheduled to minimize the time between initial clearing operations and the actual installation of pipe. Access to the construction corridor will normally be obtained via public roads that intersect the ROW. Permission will be obtained from landowners for the use/upgrade of access roads across their property to the construction corridor. At the request of a landowner, Tennessee will erect temporary gates along access roads where necessary. Grading of the construction workspace will allow for the movement of heavy equipment and the safe passage of work crews. Grading will include removing rock outcrops, tree stumps, ridges, and topographic irregularities. Generally, machinery will operate on one side of the trench (working side) with excavated materials stockpiled on the other (non–working side). As appropriate, the clearing and grading operations will incorporate special construction procedures to minimize the amount of vegetation removed from stream banks and slopes, prevent undue disturbance of the soil profile, restore the original contours of the natural ground, and prevent topsoil erosion. To minimize impact to the soil profile on agricultural lands, up to 12 inches of topsoil will be segregated from subsoil during trenching and will remain segregated during construction to avoid loss due to mixing with subsoil material. Tennessee will utilize either full ROW topsoil segregation or ditch plus spoil side topsoil segregation, as requested by the landowner, as required by the applicable U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) National Resource Conservation Service (“NRCS”) District or County Conservation District, or as appropriate based upon site-specific conditions. Upon the completion of backfilling operations, the topsoil will be properly replaced over the graded area. Grading activities will be scheduled to minimize the time between initial clearing operations and the actual installation of pipe.

1.3.1.4

Trenching

In most areas characterized by normal soils, the trench for the pipeline is excavated by crawler-mounted, rotary wheel-type trenching machines or track–mounted excavators. The trench generally will be approximately 12 inches wider than the diameter of the pipe and of sufficient depth to allow for the minimum cover requirements to the top of the pipe in accordance with USDOT regulations pursuant to the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, as amended. Landowner requests or permitting requirements may dictate greater depth. Except as depicted on site-specific plans, the depth of cover for the proposed pipeline facilities, as well as the depth of cover for other, non-typical conditions, such as horizontal directional drills (“HDD”), will be in accordance with Tennessee’s minimum specifications, as set forth in Table 1.3-1. Scour analysis and potential for external damage may increase these depths. In actively cultivated agricultural lands, Tennessee plans to install the pipeline with 48 inches of cover, except where rock prevents this depth. In these cases, Tennessee’s minimum specifications for depth of cover will be used. TABLE 1.3-1 TENNESSEE MINIMUM SPECIFICATIONS FOR DEPTH OF COVER Location1 Normal Soil Consolidated Rock USDOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”) Class 1

36

24

USDOT PHMSA Classes 2, 3, and 4

36

24

Land in Agriculture

48

24

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-61 TABLE 1.3-1 TENNESSEE MINIMUM SPECIFICATIONS FOR DEPTH OF COVER Location1 Normal Soil Consolidated Rock Drainage ditches of public roads or railroad crossings

36

24

Navigable river, stream, or harbor

60

24

Minor stream crossings

60

24

1

As defined by USDOT PHMSA at 49 CFR 192.5. Class 1: offshore areas and areas within 220 yards of a pipeline with ≤10 buildings intended for human occupancy. Class 2: areas within 220 yards of a pipeline with >10 but <46 buildings intended for human occupancy. Class 3: areas within 220 yards of a pipeline with >46 buildings intended for human occupancy and areas within 100 yards of either a building or a small, well defined outside area (such as a playground, recreation area, outdoor theater, or other place of public assembly) that is occupied by 20 or more persons on at least five days a week for 10 weeks in any 12month period. Class 4: areas within 220 yards of a pipeline where buildings with four or more stories are prevalent.

Crossing of foreign pipelines will generally require the pipeline to be buried at greater depths depending upon the depth of the foreign pipeline. A minimum of 12 inches of clearance will be maintained when crossing foreign pipelines, utilities or other structures as required by USDOT. Pipeline burial depths in areas requiring special construction techniques through rock will be in accordance with USDOT requirements, 49 CFR Part 192. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the following will be contacted to have underground utilities and foreign pipelines identified and marked: (1) the “Pennsylvania One Call,” for Pennsylvania, (2) the “Dig Safe” system for New York, Massachusetts, and (3) New Hampshire, and the “Call Before You Dig” system for the state of Connecticut; (4) the national “811” call system. Trenching in the vicinity of any foreign utilities will begin only after completing the appropriate notification procedures. In accordance with Tennessee’s Project-specific ECPs for each state, measures will be employed to minimize erosion during trenching operations and construction activities. Measures also will be taken to minimize the free flow of water into the trench and through the trench into waterbodies. Compacted earth for temporary trench breakers and sandbags for permanent trench breakers may be installed within the trench to reduce erosion.

1.3.1.5

Pipe Stringing

The stringing operation involves moving the pipe into position along the prepared ROW. Pipe will be delivered to the Project area’s pipeline storage areas typically by truck and will then be moved by truck from the pipeline storage areas to the construction zone, where it will be placed along the ROW in a continuous line in preparation for subsequent lineup and welding operations. Individual joints of pipe will be strung along the ROW parallel to the centerline and arranged so they are easily accessible to construction personnel. The amount of pipe necessary for stream or road crossings will be stockpiled in pipeline storage areas in the vicinity of each crossing. Stringing activities will be coordinated with the advance of the trenching and pipe laying crews to minimize the potential impact to the resources.

March 2015


1.3.1.6

Pipe Bending

The pipe will be delivered to the Project site in straight sections. However, bending of the pipe will be required to allow the pipeline to follow natural grade changes and direction changes of the ROW. For this purpose, prior to line-up and welding, selected joints will be field-bent by track-mounted hydraulic bending machines. For larger horizontal changes of direction, manufactured induction bends may be used. Pipe bending in the field will be utilized for turns involving slight deflections and/or large radii. For turns involving larger deflections and/or small radii, often related to spatial limitations due to easement and topographic constraints, prefabricated elbow fittings will be utilized, rather than pipe bending on-site.

1.3.1.7

Pipe Assembly and Welding

Following stringing and bending, the joints of pipe will be placed on temporary supports adjacent to the trench. The ends will be carefully aligned and welded together using multiple passes for a full penetration weld. Only welders qualified according to applicable American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”), American Society of Mechanical Engineers (“ASME”), and American Petroleum Institute (“API”) Standards will be permitted to perform the welding. A Tennessee-approved welding inspector will conduct the welder qualification testing and document all test results. A welder failing to meet acceptance criteria of the Kinder Morgan Company15 Standard Welder Qualification Test – API1104 will be disqualified. Bending, welding, and coating in the field will comply with USDOT regulations (49 CFR Part 192). It has not yet been determined if automated welding will be implemented during pipe assembly. Tennessee believes that automated welding may be appropriate for portions of the proposed route, although the use of automated welding may prove impractical for steep construction areas. Tennessee and the construction contractors will jointly determine whether automated welding is appropriate for portions of the Project.

1.3.1.8

X-Ray and Weld Repair

To ensure that the assembled pipe meets or exceeds the design strength requirements and to ensure weld quality and integrity, the welds will be inspected visually and tested non-destructively using radiographic (x-ray) or another approved test method, in accordance with API Standards. Welds displaying inclusions (void spaces) or other defects will be repaired, or they will be cut out (removed) and new welds will be installed and retested.

1.3.1.9

Coating Field Welds, Inspection and Repair

Following welding, the previously uncoated ends of the pipe at the joints will be field-coated per Tennessee coating specifications. Prior to lowering the pipe into the trench, the coating on the entire pipe section will be visually inspected and jeeped using a holiday detector (inspection of pipe coating using

15

Tennessee is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc. (“Kinder Morgan”) and is a member of Kinder Morgan’s natural gas pipeline group.

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-63 electronic equipment). specifications.

Damaged areas will be repaired per Kinder Morgan’s coating repair

1.3.1.10 Pipe Preparation and Lowering-In Once the pipeline has been welded together, coated, and inspected, the pipe is lowered into the trench. If the bottom of the trench is rocky, methods to protect the pipe will be used, including the possible use of sandbags or support pillows at designated intervals along the trench. Rock shield will be installed as needed to protect the pipe coating. Trench dewatering may be required in certain locations to prevent the pipe from floating and also to perform certain limited activities in the trench. Trench dewatering will be performed in accordance with Tennessee’s Project-specific ECPs for each state.

1.3.1.11 Tie-Ins At select locations, such as waterbody crossings, road crossings, and terrain changes along the pipeline system, the pipe will be lowered into the trench in segments. The segments then will be welded together or tied-in prior to backfilling. A crew will be assigned to make these tie-ins at designated locations ahead of the backfill operations.

1.3.1.12 Backfilling and Grade Restoration After lowering the pipe into the trench, the trench will be backfilled. Backfill usually consists of the material originally excavated from the trench; however, in some cases, additional backfill from other sources may be required. Any excess excavated materials or materials unsuitable for backfill will be handled, as approved by landowner or land management agency, or disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. In areas where topsoil has been segregated, the subsoil will be placed in the trench first and then the topsoil will be placed over the subsoil. Backfilling will occur to approximate grade. However, a soil crown may be placed above the trench at the discretion of the Tennessee inspector to accommodate any future soil settlement.

1.3.1.13 Clean-up and Restoration After the completion of backfilling, disturbed areas will be graded, and any remaining trash and debris will be properly disposed of in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. The construction corridor will be protected through the implementation of erosion control measures including site specific contouring, permanent slope breakers, mulching, and reseeding or sodding with soil-holding vegetation. Contouring will be accomplished using acceptable excess soils from construction. If sufficient soils are not available, additional soil will be imported and inspected by Tennessee prior to use. Tennessee will restore the construction workspace in accordance with Tennessee’s Project-specific ECPs for each state, applicable seed mix requirements from the NRCS or applicable County Conservation Districts and relevant landowner agreements.

1.3.1.14 Hydrostatic Testing and Tie-Ins Hydrostatic testing procedures will be described in Tennessee’s Project-specific ECPs for each state. Tennessee will seek coverage under the Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut state-required hydrostatic test water discharge permits. If the proposed discharge location(s) March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-64 do not allow for discharges covered under a General Permit, Tennessee will seek coverage under an individual permit. Hydrostatic test water will be discharged within an upland area through a filter structure. The pipeline will be tested hydrostatically in accordance with the USDOT’s regulations, 49 CFR, Part 192. The pipeline will be filled with water and maintained at a test pressure and duration in compliance with Kinder Morgan’s engineering standards and applicable federal regulations. After the completion of a satisfactory test, the water will be discharged to the ground through a containment structure to a vegetated upland area. The discharge rate of the test water will be regulated using values and energy dissipation devices to prevent erosion. Tie-in locations will be cleaned and restored after hydrostatic testing. Please refer to Resource Report 2 of this ER for additional information regarding hydrostatic pressure testing of the pipeline including anticipated water volumes for each pipeline.

1.3.1.15 Alternating Current Mitigation and Cathodic Protection During the design phase of the Project, if determined to be necessary by Tennessee’s technical services group and cathodic protection consultant, field work would be conducted to determine if soil conditions may affect the need for alternating current mitigation measures. Specifically, soil resistivity, AC/direct current (“DC”) voltage measurements would be obtained at various locations along the proposed pipeline routes in the vicinity of existing transmission lines. Additionally, information about the adjacent powerlines would be obtained from the applicable utility company including voltage levels, available fault current, and the location of transformers. Special software modeling techniques would then be applied to predict potential induced voltages and determine if mitigation measures are needed for safety and cathodic protection. Cathodic protection equipment needed for the pipeline facilities will be determined in the design phase of the Project. Where additional equipment is required, it is expected to consist of rectifiers, anode beds, and AC mitigation devices. Rectifiers and anode beds are routinely located outside the permanent ROW of the pipeline. AC mitigation devices are located within the permanent ROW of the pipeline. Tennessee will seek the appropriate approvals from landowners, regulatory agencies, and the Commission for all cathodic protection facilities located outside the permanent ROW of the pipeline.

1.3.2

Specialized Construction Procedures

Dependent upon site conditions, Tennessee may implement the following special pipeline construction methods in residential, agricultural, and environmentally sensitive areas. Typical construction drawings for each of these specialized construction procedures are included, as applicable.

1.3.2.1

Rugged Topography

Rugged topography may be present along portions of several pipeline sections to be installed. These areas have not fully been determined. Permanent trench breakers consisting of sandbags or foam will be installed in the ditch over and around the pipe in areas of slope with high erosion potential. Trench breakers will be used to isolate wet areas and to minimize channeling of groundwater along the ditch line. Table 1.3-2 identifies areas along the proposed pipeline facilities where slopes 15 to 30 percent are encountered. This information will be included in a revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER. March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-65 In the areas of construction where the slope exceeds 30 percent, a special means of manipulating the construction equipment must be utilized. The preferred method will be “winching” the equipment. This process consists of placing and anchoring a tractor at the top of the slope and using a winch to manipulate the equipment up and down the slope. Table 1.3-3 identifies areas along the proposed pipeline facilities where slopes greater than 30 percent are encountered and the specialized construction techniques noted above may be implemented. TABLE 1.3-2 STEEP SLOPES (15 TO 30 PERCENT) CROSSED BY THE PROJECT Begin Milepost1 End Milepost1 Distance (miles)1 Pennsylvania TBD

TBD Pennsylvania Subtotal

TBD TBD

New York TBD

TBD

TBD

New York Subtotal

TBD

Massachusetts TBD

TBD Massachusetts Subtotal

TBD TBD

Connecticut TBD

TBD Connecticut Subtotal

TBD TBD

New Hampshire TBD

TBD New Hampshire Subtotal

Project Total 1

TBD TBD TBD

Information related to steep slopes will be included in a revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER.

March 2015


Pipeline Name

Loop 317-3

TABLE 1.3-3 STEEP SLOPES (>30%) CROSSED BY THE PIPELINE Milepost Slope County Township Segment1 Gradient Begin End (%)2

Bradford

Bradford Loop 319-3 Susquehanna


Susquehanna

Pennsylvania A A Granville A A West A Burlington A Burlington A A A Monroe A A A A Asylum A A A B Tuscarora B B Auburn B Auburn C C C Dimock C C C Bridgewater C C Brooklyn C C C C Harford C C March 2015

Distance (miles)3

0.81 1.34 5.08 6.93

0.88 1.39 5.15 6.97

48 48 48 48

0.07 0.05 0.07 0.04

9.03

9.14

48

0.11

10.55 14.23 16.95 17.07 17.47 18.21 20.58 21.45 22.04 22.16 22.26 3.23 4.09 6.73 7.66 1.30 6.64 6.85 9.51 10.84 11.19 12.28 14.81 16.36 16.42 16.55 16.93 17.35 17.86

10.63 14.27 16.99 17.12 17.50 18.43 20.63 21.61 22.10 22.17 22.37 3.45 4.25 6.80 7.71 1.41 6.69 6.89 9.56 10.86 11.22 12.33 14.86 16.38 16.47 16.68 16.99 17.40 17.89

48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 50 37 50 50 38 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 40 40 50 40

0.08 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.22 0.05 0.16 0.06 0.01 0.11 0.22 0.16 0.07 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.13 0.06 0.05 0.03


Pipeline Name

Pennsylvania to Wright Pipeline Segment (Pennsylvania Portion) (con’t.)

Pennsylvania to Wright Pipeline Segment (Pennsylvania Portion) (con’t.)

TABLE 1.3-3 STEEP SLOPES (>30%) CROSSED BY THE PIPELINE Milepost Slope County Township Segment1 Gradient Begin End (%)2 C 17.89 17.96 40 C 20.07 20.10 50 C 20.99 21.07 50 C 21.55 21.62 50 C 21.70 21.79 50 C 21.92 22.05 50 C 22.10 22.17 50 Susquehanna New Milford (con’t.) C 23.03 23.05 50 C 23.11 23.13 50 C 25.01 25.08 50 C 25.57 25.65 50 C 26.01 26.07 50 C 26.61 26.81 50 Jackson C 29.46 29.51 50 C 29.68 29.75 50 Oakland C 30.39 30.52 40 C 30.52 30.69 40 C 30.69 30.85 50 C 32.20 32.26 40 C 32.28 32.34 37 Susquehanna C 32.53 32.58 50 (con’t.) C 33.06 33.15 50 Harmony C 33.18 33.30 37 C 33.64 33.71 50 C 33.98 34.07 50 C 34.89 34.94 35 C 35.05 35.08 37 Pennsylvania Subtotal

March 2015

Distance (miles)3 0.07 0.03 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.13 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.20 0.05 0.07 0.13 0.17 0.16 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.12 0.07 0.09 0.05 0.03 4.62


Pipeline Name

TABLE 1.3-3 STEEP SLOPES (>30%) CROSSED BY THE PIPELINE Milepost Slope County Township Segment1 Gradient Begin End (%)2

Distance (miles)3

New York Broome

Sanford

Masonville


Sidney Delaware Franklin

Davenport

Delaware (con’t.) Pennsylvania to Wright Pipeline Segment (New York Portion) (con’t.)

Davenport (con’t.)

Summit Schoharie

Jefferson Summit

March 2015

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

7.27 12.81 12.93 20.23 20.34 21.22 21.32 22.76 27.42 28.38 33.56 35.83 39.36 40.13 42.16 42.72 2.73 3.75 5.32 5.45 7.85 7.88 7.96 8.17 8.93 13.91 20.99 21.76 21.90 25.10 31.16 31.66

7.38 12.88 13.06 20.27 20.37 21.28 21.37 22.88 27.46 28.43 33.64 35.85 39.42 40.20 42.17 42.77 2.81 3.84 5.36 5.59 7.88 7.96 8.07 8.27 8.97 13.97 21.08 21.81 21.90 25.13 31.26 31.67

48 48 48 53 43 53 45 53 43 33 33 33 33 43 33 53 33 53 33 33 33 53 33 38 43 53 53 43 45 53 53 53

0.11 0.07 0.13 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.12 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.14 0.03 0.08 0.11 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.10 0.01

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-69 TABLE 1.3-3 STEEP SLOPES (>30%) CROSSED BY THE PIPELINE Milepost Slope Distance Pipeline Name County Township Segment1 Gradient (miles)3 Begin End 2 (%) E 32.17 32.37 53 0.20 E 32.63 32.71 53 0.08 Richmondville E 34.16 34.22 53 0.06 E 34.35 34.41 53 0.06 E 35.63 35.76 53 0.13 E 39.42 39.47 53 0.05 E 39.57 39.95 53 0.38 Middleburgh E 41.19 41.24 53 0.05 Schoharie E 42.14 42.17 53 0.03 Pennsylvania to E 42.93 42.98 53 0.05 Wright Pipeline Segment E 45.17 45.20 40 0.03 (New York Portion) E 45.60 45.65 40 0.05 Schoharie (con’t.) E 45.69 45.74 40 0.05 E 45.80 45.85 40 0.05 E 45.92 46.04 33 0.12 Wright E 50.68 50.70 40 0.02 Wright F 1.59 1.65 40 0.06 Berne F 13.06 13.12 35 0.06 F 13.49 13.55 35 0.06 Albany New Scotland F 13.62 13.65 35 0.03 F 15.21 15.23 43 0.02 F 15.44 15.48 43 0.04 Pennsylvania F 15.98 16.05 43 0.07 Pennsylvania to to Wright F 16.26 16.39 43 0.13 Wright Pipeline New Scotland F 16.55 16.59 43 0.04 Pipeline Segment Segment F 16.64 16.68 43 0.04 (New York Portion) (New York F 17.70 17.80 43 0.10 (con’t.) Portion) F 18.19 18.23 43 0.04 (con’t.) Bethlehem F 27.37 27.43 35 0.06 New York Subtotal 4.20

March 2015


Pipeline Name

Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (Massachusetts Portion) (con’t.)

TABLE 1.3-3 STEEP SLOPES (>30%) CROSSED BY THE PIPELINE Milepost Slope County Township Segment1 Gradient Begin End (%)2 Massachusetts G 30.22 30.34 45 G 30.40 30.49 45 Ashfield G 30.91 31.03 45 G 31.18 31.27 45 G 31.34 31.44 45 Ashfield H 0.26 0.34 45 H 1.33 1.38 40 H 1.89 1.90 45 H 1.92 1.93 45 H 2.54 2.67 40 H 2.74 2.91 45 H 2.92 2.98 45 Conway H 3.05 3.13 45 H 3.18 3.40 45 H 3.42 3.66 45 H 3.83 3.95 45 Franklin H 4.08 4.18 45 H 4.69 4.70 45 H 4.70 4.72 45 H 4.75 4.80 45 H 5.35 5.40 45 Shelburne H 5.62 5.70 45 H 5.76 5.82 45 H 5.93 5.97 45 H 5.97 6.06 45 H 6.08 6.10 45 H 6.13 6.16 45 H 6.17 6.41 45 Deerfield H 6.66 6.76 45 H 6.97 7.07 45 H 7.70 7.80 45 H 9.55 9.56 40

March 2015

Distance (miles)3 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.17 0.06 0.08 0.22 0.24 0.12 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.02 0.03 0.24 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.01


Pipeline Name


TABLE 1.3-3 STEEP SLOPES (>30%) CROSSED BY THE PIPELINE Milepost Slope County Township Segment1 Gradient Begin End (%)2 H 9.85 9.88 40 H 10.09 10.10 45 Deerfield (con’t.) H 10.16 10.21 45 H 11.13 11.20 45 H 11.39 11.42 45 H 11.44 11.48 45 H 11.49 11.56 45 H 12.10 12.13 45 H 12.61 12.70 40 H 12.81 12.87 40 Montague H 14.09 14.19 45 H 14.60 14.61 45 H 14.66 14.75 45 Franklin (con’t.) H 14.77 15.10 45 H 15.12 15.19 45 H 15.86 15.95 45 H 16.07 16.12 40 H 16.38 16.52 45 Erving H 16.71 16.72 45 H 16.90 17.23 45 H 18.15 18.17 45 H 20.25 20.34 40 H 20.72 20.75 40 Northfield H 22.79 22.87 40 H 22.91 22.96 40 H 23.01 23.08 40

March 2015

Distance (miles)3 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.10 0.01 0.09 0.33 0.07 0.09 0.05 0.14 0.01 0.33 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.07


Pipeline Name



TABLE 1.3-3 STEEP SLOPES (>30%) CROSSED BY THE PIPELINE Milepost Slope Distance County Township Segment1 Gradient (miles)3 Begin End 2 (%) H 23.09 23.11 40 0.02 H 23.13 23.15 40 0.02 H 23.37 23.41 40 0.04 H 23.64 23.66 40 0.02 H 24.21 24.21 40 0.00 H 24.26 24.38 40 0.12 Northfield Franklin (con’t.) H 24.45 24.66 40 0.21 (con’t.) H 24.80 25.01 40 0.21 H 25.61 25.72 40 0.11 H 26.41 26.64 45 0.23 H 26.90 26.96 40 0.06 H 27.09 27.17 45 0.08 Warwick H 27.43 27.49 45 0.06 Massachusetts Subtotal 6.01 New Hampshire I 0.07 0.24 38 0.17 I 1.29 1.32 38 0.03 I 3.16 3.24 33 0.08 Winchester I 3.39 3.57 38 0.18 I 4.17 4.24 38 0.07 I 4.28 4.32 38 0.04 I 5.33 5.38 38 0.05 I 5.73 5.91 38 0.18 I 6.77 6.85 38 0.08 Cheshire I 7.61 7.65 38 0.04 I 8.45 8.52 38 0.07 I 8.95 8.99 38 0.04 I 8.99 9.00 33 0.01 Richmond I 9.11 9.24 33 0.13 I 9.36 9.42 33 0.06 I 9.57 9.72 33 0.15 I 9.96 10.14 38 0.18 I 10.92 10.97 38 0.05 I 11.48 11.49 38 0.01

March 2015


Pipeline Name Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (New Hampshire Portion) (con’t.) Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (New Hampshire Portion) (con’t.)

TABLE 1.3-3 STEEP SLOPES (>30%) CROSSED BY THE PIPELINE Milepost Slope County Township Segment1 Gradient Begin End (%)2 Troy I 13.19 13.29 38 I 13.43 13.45 38 Cheshire I 19.63 19.68 38 (con’t.) Fitzwilliam

Cheshire (con’t.)

Rindge

Hillsborough

New Ipswich

19.76

38

Distance (miles)3 0.10 0.02 0.05

I

19.73

0.03

I I I J J

24.22 24.27 38 24.45 24.52 38 25.15 25.27 38 1.25 1.33 33 3.55 3.57 33 New Hampshire Subtotal

0.05 0.07 0.12 0.08 0.02 2.16

Connecticut Subtotal Project Total

0.00 16.99

Connecticut4

Source: NRCS - SSURGO Soils (County Based). 1 Each segment is associated with its own set of MPs beginning at MP 0.00. 2 Steep slopes are defined as the pipeline running perpendicular to the slope contours. 3 A crossing distance of 0.00 miles indicates that the length of proposed pipeline crossing a steep slope (>30% gradient) is less than 52.8 feet. 4 The proposed pipeline does not cross any steep slopes in Connecticut.

In areas along the ROW where steep side slopes are encountered, the two-tone cut and fill construction methods will be utilized for equipment and/or personnel safety considerations. ATWS will be needed at these locations to accommodate excavated material from the temporary cut and fill areas, while allowing for the temporary storage of trench spoil, excess rock material, cut timber, and, in some cases, salvageable topsoil. Table 1.3-4 and Table 1.3-5 include specific locations where two-tone cut and fill construction methods are anticipated to be required. When side slopes that require special construction are encountered, the two-tone construction technique will be employed, which entails benching into the sideslope to provide a level work surface. During grade restoration of side slope locations, the spoil will be placed back in the cut and compacted. Any springs or seeps found in the cut will be carried down-slope through polyvinyl chloride (“PVC”) pipe and/or gravel French drains installed as part of the cut restoration.

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-74 TABLE 1.3-4 STEEP SIDE SLOPES (15 TO 30 PERCENT) CROSSED BY THE PROJECT Begin Milepost1 End Milepost1 Distance (miles) 1 Pennsylvania TBD

TBD

TBD

Pennsylvania Subtotal New York TBD

TBD

TBD

New York Subtotal

TBD

Massachusetts TBD

TBD

TBD


TBD

New Hampshire TBD

TBD

TBD


TBD

Connecticut TBD

1

TBD

TBD


TBD

Project Total

TBD

Information related to steep side slopes will be included in a revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER.

TABLE 1.3-5 STEEP SIDE SLOPES (>30 PERCENT) CROSSED BY THE PROJECT Begin Milepost1 End Milepost1 Distance (miles) 1 Pennsylvania TBD

TBD Pennsylvania Subtotal

TBD TBD

New York TBD

TBD

TBD

New York Subtotal

TBD

Massachusetts TBD

TBD Massachusetts Subtotal

March 2015

TBD TBD

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-75 TABLE 1.3-5 STEEP SIDE SLOPES (>30 PERCENT) CROSSED BY THE PROJECT Begin Milepost1 End Milepost1 Distance (miles) 1 New Hampshire TBD

TBD

TBD


TBD

Connecticut TBD

1

TBD

TBD


TBD

Project Total

TBD

Information related to steep side slopes will be included in a revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER.

In areas of rugged topography, ROW restoration will begin within 10 days of final pipeline installation to minimize potential erosion and sedimentation control problems, where weather and access issues allow. Tennessee will restore workspace locations within rugged terrain to pre-construction grades and contours. Excavated locations will be backfilled with the original substrate material and if necessary, permanent erosion control devices will be installed following site grading. To facilitate revegetation of the ROW, restored workspace locations will be seeded, fertilized and mulched in accordance with Tennessee’s Project-specific ECPs for each state.

1.3.2.2

Residential Areas

Detailed information relative to construction within residential areas, including techniques and mitigation measures to be implemented are discussed in Resource Report 8. Additionally, site-specific drawings will be developed for occupied residential buildings within 50 feet of the construction workspace that will identify measures to minimize disruption and maintain access to the residences. Tennessee is in the process of identifying residences or commercial buildings which may be located near the Project workspaces. These locations and necessary site-specific drawings will be provided in a subsequent filing of the ER. Temporary construction impacts on residential areas could include inconvenience caused by noise and dust generated by construction equipment, personnel, and trenching of roads or driveways; ground disturbance of lawns; removal of trees, landscaped shrubs, or other vegetative screening between residences; potential damage to existing septic systems or wells; and removal of aboveground structures such as fences, sheds, or trailers from the ROW. Construction through or near residential areas will be done in a manner to ensure that all construction activities minimize adverse impacts on residences and that cleanup is prompt and thorough. Affected landowners will be notified at least 5 days before construction commences, unless more advance notice is required pursuant to a landowner agreement. Access to homes would be maintained, except for the brief periods essential for laying the new pipeline. Tennessee would implement general measures to minimize construction-related impacts on all residences and other structures located within 50 feet of the construction ROW, including: March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-76       

Attempt to maintain, where feasible, a minimum distance of 25 feet between any residence and the edge of the construction work area; Install a safety fence at the edge of the construction ROW for a distance of 100 feet on either side of the residence; Fence the boundary of the construction work area to ensure that construction equipment and materials, including the spoil pile, remain within the construction work area; Attempt to leave mature trees and landscaping intact within the temporary workspace, unless the trees and landscaping interfere with the installation techniques or present unsafe working conditions; Ensure piping is welded and installed as quickly as reasonably possible to minimize the amount of time a neighborhood is affected by construction; Backfill the trench within 10 days after the pipe is laid or temporarily place steel plates over the trench during non-working hours; and Complete final cleanup, grading, and installation of permanent erosion control devices within 10 days after backfilling the trench, weather and access permitting.

To ensure that the trench is backfilled within 10 days after pipeline installation, Tennessee will use a typical pipeline construction sequence in which the pipeline installation crew is followed by a separate backfill crew. Tennessee will require its contractor, by contractual agreement, to backfill trenches in residential areas as soon as practicable after the installation of the pipeline. The minimal length of each construction spread will not require construction crews to be separated by significant distances during pipeline construction. Pipeline construction crews will be in close proximity to each other and will be able to efficiently communicate during the entire construction phase of the Project. Topsoil in landscaped lawns will be segregated and replaced or topsoil will be imported. Immediately after backfilling, residential areas will be restored and all construction debris will be removed. Compaction testing will be performed and soil compaction mitigation will be performed in severely compacted areas. Lawns will be raked, topsoil added as necessary, and restored per landowner agreements. Private property such as mailboxes, fences, gates, and other structures that have been removed will be restored, unless alternate plans have been made with the landowner. Sidewalks, driveways, and roads disturbed by pipeline construction will be restored to original condition upon completion of construction activities. Additionally, Tennessee may test water wells within 150 feet of the construction workspace, both before and after construction. After restoration is complete, a Tennessee representative will contact landowners to ensure that conditions of all agreements have been met and that the landowner has been compensated for damage incurred during construction. If the construction ROW crosses a road or driveway, Tennessee will maintain existing access, or provide alternative access so residents have ingress/egress to their homes. If the road is open cut, one lane will remain open during construction or traffic will be detoured around the work area through the use of adjacent roadways. Traffic safety personnel will be present during construction periods, and signage and safety measures will be developed in compliance with applicable state and local roadway crossing permits. To the maximum extent practicable, Tennessee will schedule work within roadways to avoid commuter traffic and impacts on school bus schedules.

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-77 In general, Tennessee will implement the following practices during construction within residential areas, where necessary to minimize impact. 1.3.2.2.1 Stove-Pipe Construction Method The stove-pipe construction method is typically used in areas where the pipeline is to be installed in very close proximity to an existing structure and an open trench would have an adverse impact. The technique involves installing one joint of pipe at a time in which the welding, weld inspection, and coating activities are all performed in the open trench, thereby reducing the width of the construction ROW. At the end of each day, the trench is backfilled and/or covered with steel plates or timber mats, or protected by fencing. The length of excavation performed each day will typically not exceed the amount of pipe installed. 1.3.2.2.2 Drag-Section Method The drag-section construction method is another method that reduces the width of the construction ROW and is normally preferred over the stove-pipe method. This technique involves the trenching, installation, and backfilling of a prefabricated length of pipe containing several segments, all done in one day. As in the stove-pipe method, the trench is backfilled and/or covered with steel plates or timber mats or protected by fencing at the end of each day after the pipe is lowered in, as necessary to ensure safety.

1.3.2.3

Agricultural Lands

To preserve soil productivity in agricultural lands, up to 12 inches of topsoil will be segregated and stored separately from subsoil during construction. Tennessee will utilize the full ROW topsoil segregation, as required by landowner agreements, or as required by the NRCS or County Conservation District, or as appropriate based upon site-specific conditions. Rock shall be removed from the top 12 inches (topsoil layer) or to the existing subsoil horizon during initial clean-up to a level such that the construction ROW is similar to surrounding areas. During the backfilling and restoration phases, topsoil will be replaced, and any rock uncovered during construction will be returned to the construction work area similar to that of adjacent areas not disturbed by construction. Any drain tiles damaged during construction will be repaired or replaced. Refer to Resource Report 8 of this ER for additional information regarding agricultural land crossed by the Project.

1.3.2.4

Road and Railroad Crossings

Prior to construction, Tennessee will locate all existing underground utilities and make provisions for traffic management in work areas as necessary. The majority of road crossings will be completed using standard open cut or conventional boring methods. Conventional boring entails drilling a hole beneath travel arteries through which the pipe will pass. Additionally, any railroad alignments without rails in which the easement is no longer valid will be open cut. Resource Report 8 of this ER provides additional information regarding the crossing of roadways and railroads associated with the Project.

1.3.2.5

Trenchless Construction Methods

1.3.2.5.1 Conventional Bore Conventional boring consists of creating a shaft/tunnel for a pipe or conduit to be installed to minimize surface disturbance. This is accomplished by first excavating a bore pit and a receiving pit. The bore pit March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-78 is excavated to a depth slightly deeper than the depth of the associated trench and is graded such that the bore will follow the proposed angle of the pipe. A boring machine is then lowered to the bottom of the bore pit to tunnel using a cutting head mounted on an auger. The auger rotates through a bore tube, both of which are pushed forward as the hole is cut. The pipeline is then installed through the bored hole and welded to the adjacent pipeline. The typical workspace configurations required for boring operations consists of staging areas (50 feet x 100 feet) for boring machine setup, cuttings/return settlement and storage pits, pipe storage, entrance and exit pit spoil storage and construction equipment necessary to support the operation. Major factors limiting the success of a boring operation include the crossing distance, subsurface soil and geologic conditions, and existing topography. Boring operations typically occur over a crossing distance of 50 to 60 feet. The maximum length a bore would achieve in ideal soil conditions typically does not exceed 400 feet. Subsurface soil and geologic conditions must be conducive to establishing and maintaining a safe bore pit excavation, as well as provide the capabilities for the boring equipment to conduct a successful bore. Loose packed sediment, free of rock material, is preferred when conducting boring operations. The topographic conditions at a site may also limit the use of this method, as preferred locations are generally consistent with level or moderately convex terrain, such that the depth of the bore pit does not present concerns relative to constructability or safety constraints. Most roads along the proposed pipeline facilities are expected to be crossed via conventional bore. 1.3.2.5.2 Horizontal Directional Drill HDD is a trenchless method of installing pipelines in areas where traditional open cut excavations are not feasible due to sensitive resource areas or logistical reasons. The greatest advantage of the HDD crossing technique is that open cut trenching and equipment disturbance within sensitive resource areas are not necessary, and, as a result, environmental impacts on sensitive resource areas are minimized. However, a greater amount of equipment staging is required for HDD than for the open cut crossing method, and typical installation of an HDD segment generally occurs at durations two to three times slower than a conventional open cut crossing. A minimum workspace footprint of 200 feet wide by 250 feet long is required at the entry and exit points to support the drilling operation. The amount of workspace required can vary significantly from site to site based on site-specific conditions. The entry-side equipment and operations typically will include the drilling rig and entry hole, control cab, drill string pipe storage, site office and tool storage trailers, power generators, bentonite storage, bentonite slurry mixing equipment, slurry pump, cuttings separation equipment, cuttings return/settlement pit, water trucks and water storage, and the heavy construction equipment necessary to support the operation. Exit-side equipment and operations typically will include the exit point and slurry containment pit, cuttings return/settlement pit, cuttings separation and slurry reclamation equipment, drill string pipe storage, and the heavy construction equipment necessary to support the operation. In addition to the drilling operations to be conducted within this workspace footprint, ATWS will be required along the working side ROW. ATWS in the form of “false” ROW may be required to provide a straight corridor for handling pipe at HDD locations where the ROW changes direction, in which to prefabricate the pipeline into one continuous section in preparation for the pull-back. Because this “false” ROW must be relatively straight to accommodate a long section of pipe before it is pulled through the annulus, a significant area of ATWS would be required outside of the standard pipeline construction workspace.

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-79 Once assembled, the pipeline will be placed on pipe rollers so that it may be conveyed into the drill hole during the pull-back operation. Locations of proposed HDDs, identified as of the date of filing this resource report, are included in Table 1.3-6. Evaluations of HDD crossings are ongoing. Locations of additional HDDs, as well as sitespecific plans, will be provided for these areas in a subsequent filing of ER. There are risks associated with HDD, including inadvertent returns during drilling operations and inaccessibility for visual inspection of the pipe and repairs post construction. Tennessee will develop an HDD Contingency Plan as part of the Project-specific ECPs for each state. This Plan will outline protocols for handling unanticipated releases of drilling mud. Each HDD crossing proposed will be analyzed to confirm feasibility during the detailed design of the Project, including geotechnical core borings at proposed locations. For crossings where an HDD is determined to be not feasible, Tennessee will propose an alternative construction method at those crossings. TABLE 1.3-6 HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL CROSSINGS FOR THE PROJECT Nearest Pipeline Name County Township Segment1 Comment Milepost2

Length (ft)3

New York Pennsylvania to Wright Pipeline Segment (New York Portion) Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (New York Portion)

Schoharie

Albany/ Rensselaer

Schoharie

Bethlehem/ Schodack

E

F

46.40

Avoidance of Karker Road, Schoharie Creek, Park Place

2,600

28.10

Avoidance of the Hudson River, Railroad, River Road

4,300

New York Subtotal

6,900

4.90

Avoidance of Bardwells Ferry Road, Powerline, Deerfield River, Railroad

4,500

8.00

Avoidance of Upper Road, Railroad, Interstate 91, Lower Road, Article 97 Property, Deerfield River

4,300

Massachusetts Conway/ Shelburne Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (Massachusetts Portion)

H

Franklin Deerfield

H

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-80 TABLE 1.3-6 HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL CROSSINGS FOR THE PROJECT Nearest Pipeline Name County Township Segment1 Comment Milepost2 Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (Massachusetts Portion) (con’t.)

Franklin (con’t.)

Deerfield/ Montague

Lynnfield Lateral

Middlesex/ Essex

Dracut/ Andover


Worcester

Lunenburg

H

N

Q

Length (ft)3

11.40

Avoidance of Railroad, McClelland Farm Road, Connecticut River, Greenfield Road

3,000

2.70

Avoidance of Quarry Service Road, Merrimack River, River Road

2,700

13.60

Avoidance of Electric Avenue, Electrical Infrastructure

700


15,200

New Hampshire 20.70

Avoidance of Souhegan River

1,700

J

21.20

Avoidance of Souhegan River, Simeon Wilson Road

3,100

J

26.20

Avoidance of Merrimack River

2,000

J Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (New Hampshire Portion)

Amherst Hillsborough Merrimack/ Litchfield


6,800

Connecticut 300 Line CT Loop

1 2 3

Hartford

Windsor

S

Each segment is associated with its own set of MPs beginning at MP 0.00. Nearest MP is the approximate midpoint of the proposed HDD. Lengths are approximate (nearest 100 ft) and subject to field verification.

March 2015

11.40

Avoidance of Farmington River

1,400


1,400

Project Total

30,300


1.3.2.6

Rock Removal

Rock encountered during trenching will be removed using one of the techniques detailed below. Techniques include:     

Conventional excavation with a backhoe; Ripping with a bulldozer followed by backhoe excavation; Hammering with a pointed backhoe attachment or a pneumatic rock hammer, followed by backhoe excavation; Blasting followed by backhoe excavation; or Blasting surface rock prior to excavation.

While some of this rock may be rippable by conventional excavation equipment, some of it may require blasting. All blasting activity will be performed according to strict guidelines designed to control energy release. Proper safeguards will be taken to protect personnel and property in the area. Please refer to Resource Report 6 of this ER, for details relative to blasting. Methods will be employed to prevent the scattering of rock and debris. Tennessee will strictly adhere to all local, state, and federal regulations applicable to controlled-blasting and blast vibration limits with regard to structures and underground utilities while performing these activities. Special care will be taken to monitor and assess blasting within 150 feet of dwellings and private or public water supply wells. Tennessee will develop a Project-specific Blasting Plan for the Project that establishes procedures and safety measures that Tennessee’s contractor will be required to adhere to while implementing blasting activities along the pipeline ROW during the Project. Tennessee will also obtain all the necessary Federal, state, or local blasting permits prior construction. Tennessee’s construction contractor will be required to submit a detailed Blasting Specification Plan to Tennessee that is consistent with the provisions of the Blasting Plan and Kinder Morgan Construction Specifications. The construction contractor's plan, when approved by Tennessee, will be incorporated into the contractor's scope of work. Tennessee’s Blasting Plan will be provided in a subsequent filing of the ER. Excess rock is defined as all rock that cannot be returned to the existing rock profile in the trench or graded cuts or is not needed to restore the ROW surface to a condition comparable to that found adjacent to the ROW. Excess rock will be hauled off the ROW and disposed of at an approved landfill or recycling facility unless approved for use as slope stabilization, windrowing or for some other use on the construction work areas as approved by the landowner or land managing agency. TABLE 1.3-7 SHALLOW DEPTH TO BEDROCK FOR THE PROJECT Pipeline Name1 Length of Pipe (miles)1 Length of Pipe in Rock (ft)1 TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-82 TABLE 1.3-7 SHALLOW DEPTH TO BEDROCK FOR THE PROJECT Pipeline Name1 Length of Pipe (miles)1 Length of Pipe in Rock (ft)1 TBD

TBD

TBD Project Total

1

TBD

Information will be included in revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER.

1.3.2.7

Wetland Crossing Construction

Wetland locations along the pipeline segments are described in Resource Report 2 and shown on the aerial alignment sheets included in Volume II, Appendix F. Site-specific wetland plans will be provided in a subsequent filing of the ER. Pipeline construction across wetlands will be performed in accordance with Tennessee’s Project-specific ECPs for each state. Tennessee will utilize one of the following methods for installing the pipeline within wetlands during construction. The construction methods include:     

Standard pipeline construction; Conventional wetland construction; Conventional bore; HDD; and Push-pull technique.

These wetland crossing techniques are described in detail in Resource Report 2; however, Tennessee is still evaluating the appropriate crossing methods for each wetland. Therefore, crossing methods have not yet been determined but will be provided in Resource Report 2 and depicted on the aerial alignment sheets in a subsequent filing on the ER. Typical drawings depicting these construction methods are provided in Volume II, Appendix G. The wetland impact summary tables are located in Resource Report 2.

1.3.2.8

Waterbody Crossing Construction

Waterbody locations along the pipeline segments are described in Resource Report 2 and shown on the aerial alignment sheets included in Volume II, Appendix F. Site-specific waterbody plans will be provided in a subsequent filing of the ER. Pipeline construction across waterbodies will be performed in accordance with the Tennessee’s Project-specific ECPs for each state and with applicable permit conditions. It is not anticipated that any crossings will take place outside of the timeframes outlined in Tennessee’s Project-specific ECPs for each state. If any crossings are required to take place outside of the specified timeframes, Tennessee will consult with the applicable state agencies to obtain concurrence to proceed with construction outside of the specified timeframes. Waterbodies crossed by the Project are included in Resource Report 2 and shown on the aerial alignment sheets; however, Tennessee is still evaluating the appropriate crossing methods for each waterbody. Therefore, crossing methods have not yet been identified but will be provided in Resource Report 2 and depicted on the aerial alignment sheets in a subsequent filing of the ER. Typical drawings depicting these crossing techniques are provided in Volume II, Appendix G. March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-83 Tennessee will utilize one of the following methods for installing the pipeline across waterbodies:  

 

Wet open cut method; Dry crossing method;  Flume crossing;  Dam and pump;  Cofferdam; and  Dry open cut (conventional trenching waterbodies that are dry or frozen at the time of crossing during periods of no flow); Conventional bore; and HDD.

These waterbody crossing techniques are described in detail in Resource Report 2. The waterbody impact summary tables are located in Resource Report 2 and the alignment sheets identifying the proposed crossing technique for each waterbody will be provided in a subsequent filing of the ER.

1.3.2.9

Project Specific Alternative Measures or Modifications to Commission’s Plan and Procedures

Tennessee anticipates that it will request exceptions to the Commission’s Plan and Procedures as Tennessee continues to develop its route. Proposed modifications to the Commission’s Plan and Procedures will be requested in a subsequent filing of the ER. These exceptions will be incorporated in the Project-specific ECPs for each state. 1.3.2.9.1 Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan Any exceptions to the Commission’s Plan will be requested in a subsequent filing of the ER. 1.3.2.9.2 Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures Tennessee acknowledges that the Project will require certain ATWS to be located within 50 feet of wetlands. Tennessee will provide site-specific locations of these ATWS and justifications per the Commission’s Procedures (Section VI.B.1.a) in a subsequent filing of the ER. Areas of workspace greater than 75 feet wide within wetlands are identified in Resource Report 2. Justification for including workspace greater than 75 feet within wetlands is also provided in the table per Commission’s Procedures, Section VI.A.3.

1.3.3

Compressor Stations, Meter Stations, and Appurtenant Facilities

The new compressor stations, modifications to one existing compressor station, new meter stations, modifications to existing meter stations, and appurtenant facilities will be constructed in accordance with industry standards. Preliminary plans, which will be provided in a subsequent version of the ER, will detail the new compressor stations, modifications to one existing compressor station, new meter stations, modifications to existing meter stations, MLVs and pig launchers/receivers. Construction of these facilities will coincide with construction of the pipeline facilities. Cathodic protection will be installed at

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-84 each compressor station location. Some appurtenant facilities may need cathodic protection (as determined by cathodic protection pre-and post-surveys).

1.3.3.1

Clearing and Grading

The sites for the aboveground facilities will be cleared of vegetation and graded as necessary to create level surfaces for the movement of construction vehicles on the sites and to prepare the areas for the building foundations, where required for specific aboveground facilities. Tennessee will install silt fence and/or hay bales around disturbed areas, as appropriate to the land, soil, and weather conditions, to minimize the potential for erosion and impacts to off-site wetlands and waterbodies. Erosion and sediment controls will conform to Tennessee’s Project-specific ECPs for each state.

1.3.3.2

Foundations

Where required, building foundations are likely to be constructed of poured reinforced concrete. Topsoil, if present, would be stripped from the area of the building foundations. Such soil may be used on-site either for landscaping or to provide soil cover for the septic system leach field, if acceptable. Additional soil or subsurface materials may be imported from approved sources to achieve the desired site/foundation grade.

1.3.3.3

Building Design and Construction

The valve shed buildings will have the same size footprint with open walls and a sloping roof that will tie in to the compressor building roof line. Each compressor building will house the natural gas fueled turbine driven-compressor packages and the electric-driven compressor package. Tennessee will perform air quality impact modeling to support its applications to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”), New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC), and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (“MADEP”) for air permits to construct and operate the proposed turbine-compressors. Final stack heights will be determined through the applicable state-permit review process. Air quality modeling reports will be submitted to the regulatory agencies in the respective states as part of Tennessee’s air permit applications. The modeling reports document that the proposed stack heights and other design parameters achieve acceptable dispersion of turbine exhaust emissions to comply with ambient air quality regulations and standards. The compressor unit design will incorporate various safety features, discussed in Section 1.4.3 of this Resource Report 1. During a typical building construction sequence, the steel frames would be erected followed by the installation of the roof system, exterior wall sheathing, wall insulation, and interior wall sheathing, as specified by the building design plans. Cutouts for protrusions through the siding (e.g., inlet and exhaust vents) would be flashed to ensure that the buildings would be weather-tight.

1.3.3.4

High Pressure Piping

Tennessee proposes to design and construct the high pressure station piping in both the new compressor and meter stations and modified stations to meet the requirements of the USDOT, 49 CFR Part 192. Tennessee proposes to coat the station piping for protection against corrosion. March 2015


1.3.3.5

Pressure Testing

Prior to placing each of the compressor stations and meter stations (whether new or modified) in-service, Tennessee proposes to conduct pressure testing of the piping system. Tennessee proposes to conduct this test in accordance with applicable state and local code or regulatory requirements.

1.3.3.6

Infrastructure Facilities

The installation of the infrastructure facilities includes the various compressors and auxiliary equipment, piping, and other electrical and mechanical systems. These systems have been previously installed at the existing compressor station and meter station sites where modifications are planned. Tennessee is still evaluating the potential need for new electric and communication utilities, in addition to domestic water service and sewer disposal systems in the form of on-site water wells and septic systems for the proposed new compressor stations.

1.3.3.7

Control Checkout and Engine Startup

Before the new compressor units are put into service at the new and modified compressor stations, Tennessee will develop and implement station commissioning plans. These plans will include the checking and testing of controls and safety features, including the blowdown silencers, relief valves, gas and fire detection facilities, over-speed, vibration, and other on- and off-engine protection and safety devices.

1.3.3.8

Final Grading and Landscaping

Prior to construction, Tennessee will develop plans for the final grading and landscaping of the areas that will be disturbed during construction. These final grading and landscaping plans will be consistent with Tennessee’s Project-specific ECPs for each state for the restoration of uplands.

1.3.3.9

Erosion Control Procedures

During the construction of the new and modified compressor stations, meter stations and other aboveground facilities, Tennessee will adhere to the applicable provisions of Tennessee’s Project-specific ECPs for each state. As set forth in the referenced documents, Tennessee proposes to install appropriate erosion controls (e.g., silt fence and/or hay bales) to minimize the potential for erosion from construction of the facilities.

1.3.4

Timeframe for Construction

Construction of the Project will commence after ROWs (private, federal, and state) and applicable regulatory permits and clearances have been acquired for the Project. Tennessee anticipates that it will file an application with the Commission in September 2015 seeking issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the Project and will request issuance of a certificate by October 2016. Certain aspects of construction, including winter tree clearing to avoid Indiana bat breeding periods, compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”), installation of HDD segments, and pipeyard and contractor yard preparation, are planned to begin in the first quarter of 2017. The 2017 construction activities for the mainline and facility scope of work are scheduled to commence in the spring 2017, pending specific construction windows imposed on the Project. Winter tree clearing for the 2018 March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-86 construction activities is scheduled to commence in October 2017, with the 2018 construction activities for the mainline scheduled to commence in the spring 2018. It is anticipated that installation of the HDD segments and facility scope of work will continue year round once started. All Project facilities are anticipated to be placed in-service by November 2018 (with the exception of two proposed pipeline looping segments in Connecticut which would be placed in service by November 1, 2019). The details regarding the anticipated 2017 and 2018 construction activities will be provided in a subsequent filing of the ER. Tennessee estimates that seven construction spreads will be required for pipeline construction portion of the Project. Each spread will consist of approximately 460-600 personnel depending upon the pipeline facility, and each spread will take approximately 9 months to 1 year to complete, depending upon sitespecific conditions for each pipeline facility. Construction of the new and modified compressor station facilities will require approximately 9 months to 1 year to complete and will each require up to 45-75 construction workers depending upon the facility. Construction of the new and modified meter station facilities will require approximately 2 months to 6 months to complete and will each require up to 20-40 construction workers depending on the facility. Tennessee anticipates there will be a need for additional permanent staff for operation of the new Project facilities. The required additional permanent staff will be stationed at existing Station 319 and new offices to be located at the new Project compressor stations. Tennessee anticipates the need for approximately 24 additional full time employees for operation of the Project facilities.

1.3.5

Supervision and Inspection

Tennessee will use a minimum of one qualified, full-time EI for each pipeline spread during Project construction, as well as a minimum of one Lead Environmental Inspector (“LEI”) to oversee the EI staff. The EIs assigned to oversee construction for the individual pipeline spreads will also oversee the construction of the new and modified compressor stations, meter stations, and appurtenant facilities in the area. Tennessee conducts in-house EI training to ensure that the EIs will be able to carry out their duties as described in this document and that construction activities will be in compliance with the Projectspecific ECP requirements for each state and with requirements of applicable federal, state, and local environmental permits and approvals and environmental requirements in landowner easement agreements. Additionally, Tennessee will conduct environmental training in advance of construction, and the EIs will perform all duties as specified in Tennessee’s Project-specific ECPs for each state. The level of training will be commensurate with the type of duties of the Project personnel.

1.4 1.4.1

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES General Procedures

Tennessee will operate and maintain the newly constructed pipeline segments in the same manner as it currently operates and maintains its existing major interstate pipeline facilities in accordance with the requirements of the Commission, the USDOT’s PHMSA in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 192, and industry-proven practices and techniques. The facilities will be operated and maintained in a manner such that pipeline integrity is protected to ensure that a safe, continuous supply of natural gas reaches its ultimate destination. Maintenance activities will include regularly scheduled gas-leak surveys and March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-87 measures necessary to repair any potential leaks. The latter may include repair or replacement of pipe segments. All fence posts, signs, marker posts, aerial markers, and decals will be maintained to ensure that the pipeline locations will be visible from the air and ground. The pipeline and aboveground facilities will be patrolled on a routine basis, and personnel qualified to perform both emergency and routine maintenance on interstate pipeline facilities will handle maintenance. The Project facilities will be patrolled on a periodic basis, as are Tennessee’s existing facilities. This will provide information on possible leaks, construction activities, erosion, exposed pipe, population density, possible encroachment, and any other potential problems that may affect the safety and operation of the pipeline. In addition, Tennessee is a participant in (1) the “Pennsylvania One Call,” for Pennsylvania, (2) the “Dig Safe” system for New York, (3) Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, and the “Call Before You Dig” system for the state of Connecticut and (4) the national “811” call system. Under these systems, anyone planning excavation activities must call a dedicated telephone number to alert all utility companies. Representatives of the utility companies that may be affected then visit the site and mark their facilities so that the excavation can proceed with relative certainty as to the location of all underground lines. In addition, Tennessee employs damage prevention personnel whose job it is to monitor, inspect, and assess all third-party activities near Tennessee’s pipeline facilities. Other maintenance functions will include:    

Periodic seasonal vegetation management of the Project ROW in accordance with the timing restrictions outlined in Tennessee’s Project-specific ECPs for each state; Terrace repair, backfill replacement, and drain tile repair as necessary; Periodic inspection of water crossings; and Maintenance of a supply of emergency pipe, leak repair clamps, sleeves, and other equipment needed for repair activities.

Erosion problems on the pipeline ROW will be reported to the local operations supervisor. These reports may originate from landowners or company personnel performing routine patrols. Corrective measures will be conducted as needed.

1.4.2

Vegetation Maintenance

A typical post-construction permanent ROW of 50 feet will be maintained for the new pipeline segments in accordance with the Tennessee’s Project-specific ECPs for each state. Maintaining a cleared ROW is necessary for the following reasons:     

Access for routine pipeline patrols and corrosion surveys; Avoid pipeline damage from large roots; Access in the event that emergency repairs of the pipeline are needed; Visibility during aerial patrols; and To serve as a visual indicator to the public of an underground pipeline utility and easement.

Operational vegetation maintenance of Tennessee's Project ROW in uplands may be conducted on a frequency of approximately once every 3 years to maintain an herbaceous to low scrub-shrub cover state. Tennessee may annually maintain a 10-foot corridor centered over the Project pipeline in both uplands and wetlands to facilitate pipeline surveys and emergency access on an as-needed basis. March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-88 Within wetlands, Tennessee will only maintain the 10-foot corridor centered over the Project pipeline, allowing the balance of Tennessee’s permanent easement to revert back to its natural, pre-construction vegetated cover state. Additionally, within wetlands, Tennessee reserves the right to selectively cut and remove trees located within 15 feet of the pipeline with roots that may compromise the integrity of the pipeline coating. Tennessee will not use herbicides or pesticides on its ROW for purposes of vegetation management unless approved by applicable regulatory agencies or landowners. No herbicides or pesticides will be used within 100 feet of a wetland or waterbody unless otherwise approved by applicable federal, state, and local agencies and directly affected landowners. Post-construction management of the ROW will be conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Project-specific Invasive Species Management Plan(s) (“ISMP”) for each state that will be contained within Tennessee’s Project-specific ECPs for each state (to be provided in a subsequent filing of the ER). Vegetation maintenance (with respect to the control of invasive species) as well as yearly monitoring and mitigation measures will be detailed in the ISMP. Following construction of the pipeline facilities, areas used for TWS and ATWS will be allowed to revert to their pre-construction land use/land cover with no further vegetation maintenance by Tennessee. Additionally, crop production will be allowed to continue in agricultural areas, immediately following construction or the following growing season.

1.4.3

Cathodic Protection and Cathodic Protection and Alternating Current Mitigation Areas

Cathodic protection of the pipeline will be conducted with impressed current systems that employ rectifier/groundbed systems. Units will be installed at various locations perpendicular to the pipeline and aboveground test stations will be installed at various locations along the pipeline to gather accurate information for potential current adjustments. The cathodic protection system will be regularly monitored to maintain required pipe-to-soil potential and will be achieved in accordance with the specifications set forth by Tennessee that meet USDOT regulations. Locations of cathodic protection rectifiers, to the extent they have been identified, are included in Table 1.4-1. Additional locations of cathode protection installations will be identified in Table 1.4-1 in a revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER. In areas where the pipeline parallels high-voltage electric transmission lines, an AC mitigation system will be implemented as necessary to reduce stray current, to prevent possible shock to personnel during post-construction activities, and to prevent interference with the cathodic protection system. This system will be primarily composed of zinc ribbon, grounding mat, and solid state decouplers (“SSD”), or other suitable design. Locations of SSDs, to the extent they have been identified, are included in Table 1.4-2. Additional areas of AC mitigation system installations will be identified in Table 1.4-2 in a revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER.

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-89 TABLE 1.4-1 CATHODIC PROTECTION AREAS ALONG THE PROJECT Pipeline Name

County

Township

Segment1

Nearest MP2

A

0.00

A

1.11

A

2.52

A

3.35

A

4.69

A

5.67

A

6.43

A

7.41

A

8.88

A

9.55

A

10.77

A

12.01

A

13.56

A

15.25

A

16.52

A

17.10

A

17.64

A

18.93

A

19.91

A

21.24

A

22.65

B

0.02

B

1.16

B

2.01

B

3.53

B

4.65

B

5.92

B

6.94

B

7.73

B

9.06

Pennsylvania Troy

Granville

West Burlington Loop 317-3

Bradford Burlington

Towanda

Monroe

Asylum Wyalusing Bradford

Tuscarora

Loop 319-3

Susquehanna

Auburn

March 2015


County

Township

Auburn

Dimock

Bridgewater

Brooklyn


Harford Susquehanna

New Milford

Jackson Oakland

Harmony

March 2015

Segment1

Nearest MP2

C

0.00

C

1.95

C

3.45

C

4.82

C

6.12

C

7.47

C

9.20

C

10.69

C

11.81

C

13.61

C

14.76

C

15.90

C

16.47

C

16.68

C

17.49

C

19.02

C

20.25

C

21.92

C

23.44

C

24.75

C

26.27

C

27.86

C

29.05

C

30.51

C

32.36

C

33.89

C

34.53

C

34.87

C

36.40

C

37.74


County

Township

Segment1

Nearest MP2

D

1.25

D

2.42

D

3.69

D

5.19

D

6.61

D

8.11

D

9.37

D

10.66

D

11.79

D

13.03

D

14.48

D

16.28

D

18.00

D

19.62

D

21.70

D

24.75

D

26.49

D

27.40

D

27.79

D

28.01

D

29.33

D

30.86

D

32.32

D

33.36

D

34.79

New York

Broome


Chenango

Sanford

Afton Masonville

Delaware Sidney

March 2015


County

Segment1

Nearest MP2

D

35.91

D

37.50

D

39.05

D

40.64

D

42.18

D

43.91

E

1.06

E

2.47

E

3.98

E

5.50

E

6.99

E

8.38

E

9.40

E

11.24

E

13.23

E

14.53

E

15.83

E

16.85

E

18.30

E

19.48

Jefferson

E

20.54

Summit

E

21.61

E

23.02

E

24.36

E

25.87

E

26.96

E

28.39

E

29.88

E

31.38

Township

Franklin

Delaware (con’t.)

Davenport


Harpersfield

Jefferson Schoharie Summit

March 2015


County

Township

Richmondville

Cobleskill


Middleburgh Schoharie (con’t.)

Schoharie

Wright Schoharie


Wright

Knox Albany

Berne

March 2015

Segment1

Nearest MP2

E

32.36

E

33.85

E

35.29

E

36.70

E

38.09

E

39.37

E

40.46

E

41.92

E

43.35

E

44.73

E

46.01

E

46.23

E

46.61

E

47.62

E

49.31

E

50.83

F

0.77

F

2.00

F

3.21

F

4.59

F

6.00

F

7.27

F

8.64

F

8.77

F

9.14

F

10.46

F

12.33


County

Township

New Scotland

Albany (con’t.) Bethlehem


Schodack

Rensselaer Nassau

Stephentown

March 2015

Segment1

Nearest MP2

F

13.67

F

15.49

F

16.56

F

18.00

F

19.20

F

20.96

F

21.98

F

23.40

F

24.71

F

26.14

F

27.26

F

27.62

F

28.42

F

28.46

F

30.42

F

32.01

F

33.48

F

34.69

F

36.44

F

37.51

F

38.86

F

40.52

F

41.59

F

42.95

F

44.19

F

45.75

F

47.67

F

48.70

F

50.40

F

51.98

F

53.14


County

Segment1

Nearest MP2

G

0.76

G

1.94

G

2.88

G

4.38

G

6.08

Cheshire

G

8.00

Dalton

G

12.22

G

13.51

G

14.78

G

15.72

G

17.28

G

18.46

G

20.09

G

20.85

G

21.05

G

21.65

G

23.39

G

24.13

G

24.33

G

25.14

G

26.58

G

27.97

G

29.35

G

29.73

G

30.15

G

31.51

G

32.54

Township Massachusetts Hancock

Lanesborough

Berkshire Hinsdale

Windsor


Hampshire

Franklin

Plainfield

Ashfield

March 2015


County

Township

Segment1

Nearest MP2

Ashfield

H

1.13

H

3.19

H

4.49

H

4.66

H

5.38

H

7.28

H

7.42

H

8.32

H

8.88

H

9.17

H

9.22

H

10.99

H

11.00

H

11.70

H

12.07

H

13.86

H

14.28

H

14.71

H

15.79

H

15.88

H

16.35

H

17.48

Northfield

H

18.78

Erving

H

19.93

H

21.35

H

22.84

H

24.77

H

26.11

H

28.03

K

0.00

K

1.34

Conway Shelburne

Deerfield


Franklin (con’t.) Montague

Erving

Northfield

Warwick Middlesex

Dracut

March 2015


County

Township


Middlesex

Dracut


Middlesex

Dracut

Middlesex

Essex

Dracut

Andover

Tewksbury

Lynnfield Lateral Middlesex

Wilmington

North Reading


Segment1

Nearest MP2

L

0.66

L

0.85

M

0.04

N

0.34

N

1.96

N

2.36

N

2.93

N

3.38

N

4.89

N

6.23

N

7.82

N

9.24

N

10.32

N

11.41

N

13.13

N

14.36

Essex

Lynnfield

N

15.86

Middlesex

Dracut

P

0.75

P

2.05

P

3.28

P

4.21

P

5.34

Q

5.95

Q

7.75

Q

9.35

Q

10.86

Q

12.32

Q

13.27

Q

13.55

Q

13.60

Essex

Middlesex

Methuen

Townsend

Fitchburg Lateral Extension (Massachusetts Portion) Worcester

Lunenburg

March 2015


County

Township

Bolton

Berlin North Worcester Lateral

Worcester

Northborough

Boylston

Worcester

Segment1

Nearest MP2

R

0.00

R

1.15

R

2.30

R

3.32

R

4.02

R

4.77

R

5.77

R

7.27

R

8.50

R

9.03

R

10.76

R

11.84

R

12.92

R

14.14

I

1.55

I

2.52

I

4.25

I

4.37

I

5.76

I

7.36

I

9.06

I

10.37

I

11.80

I

13.39

I

14.73

I

15.98

I

17.08

I

18.05

I

19.16

New Hampshire

Winchester

Richmond Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (New Hampshire Portion)

Cheshire Troy

Fitzwilliam

March 2015


County

Cheshire (con’t.)

Township

Rindge

New Ipswich

Greenville Mason


Milford Brookline Hillsborough

Milford

Amherst

Merrimack

March 2015

Segment1

Nearest MP2

I

20.77

I

22.23

I

23.97

I

25.37

I

26.90

I

28.39

J

1.02

J

2.21

J

3.71

J

4.92

J

6.42

J

8.09

J

9.65

J

11.20

J

12.71

J

14.18

J

15.17

J

16.74

J

18.32

J

20.01

J

20.43

J

20.87

J

21.15

J

21.62

J

22.27

J

23.79

J

25.29

J

25.98



County Hillsborough (con’t.)

Litchfield

Rockingham

Londonderry

Hillsborough

Hudson

Rockingham

Windham

Hillsborough Haverhill Lateral (New Hampshire Portion) Fitchburg Lateral Extension (New Hampshire Portion)

Township

Rockingham

Hillsborough

Pelham

Salem

Mason

Segment1

Nearest MP2

J

26.62

J

26.63

J

27.92

J

29.09

J

30.12

J

31.80

J

33.08

J

34.62

J

35.71

J

37.02

J

38.26

J

39.75

P

6.94

Q

0.67

Q

1.79

Q

3.23

Q

4.62

S

0.00

S

1.67

S

3.32

S

4.39

S

6.67

S

7.51

S

8.69

S

9.64

S

10.84

S

11.27

S

11.77

S

12.29

S

13.25

Connecticut Farmington West Hartford

300 Line CT Loop

Hartford

Bloomfield

Windsor

March 2015


County

Township

300 Line CT Loop

Hartford

East Granby

Stamford Loop 1 2

Fairfield

Stamford

Segment1

Nearest MP2

S

14.24

S

14.72

T

0.00

T

0.56

T

1.49

Each segment is associated with its own set of MPs beginning at MP 0.00. Nearest MP indicates the location of a rectifier to be installed as part of the cathodic protection system.

TABLE 1.4-2 ALTERNATING CURRENT MITIGATION AREAS ALONG THE PROJECT Nearest Pipeline Name County Township Segment1 Milepost2 Pennsylvania Loop 317-3 Loop 319-3

Bradford Bradford

Burlington

A

14.25

B

0.23

B

0.55

B

0.85

C

15.22

C

15.52

C

23.61

C

24.07

C

24.33

C

24.75

Sanford

D

11.50

Masonville

D

21.31

D

23.77

D

24.00

D

24.30

Tuscarora

Brooklyn Pennsylvania to Wright Pipeline Segment (Pennsylvania Portion)

Susquehanna New Milford

New York Broome Pennsylvania to Wright Pipeline Segment (New York Portion)

Delaware

Sidney

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-102 TABLE 1.4-2 ALTERNATING CURRENT MITIGATION AREAS ALONG THE PROJECT Nearest Pipeline Name County Township Segment1 Milepost2


Delaware (con’t.)

Schoharie

D

24.56

D

24.99

D

25.34

D

25.73

D

26.13

D

26.48

D

26.81

Franklin

D

39.90

Davenport

E

4.47

Schoharie

E

48.14

F

17.65

F

17.99

F

18.39

F

18.62

F

19.89

F

21.96

F

22.47

F

22.92

F

23.07

F

23.39

F

23.83

F

24.33

F

24.70

F

29.59

F

29.68

F

29.98

F

30.33

F

33.90

F

34.21

F

34.67

F

35.19

Sidney (con’t.)

New Scotland

Albany

Bethlehem Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (New York Portion)

Rensselaer

Schodack

March 2015


Schodack (con’t.)


Rensselaer (con’t.)

Nassau

March 2015

F

35.61

F

36.04

F

36.44

F

37.01

F

37.18

F

37.35

F

37.52

F

37.73

F

38.05

F

38.44

F

38.84

F

39.03

F

39.42

F

39.75

F

39.89

F

40.11

F

40.52

F

40.90

F

41.31

F

41.59

F

42.12

F

42.48

F

42.96

F

43.22

F

43.72

F

44.19

F

44.55

F

45.15

F

45.59



Rensselaer (con’t.)

Stephentown

F

45.99

F

46.44

F

46.92

F

47.26

F

47.67

F

48.18

F

48.69

F

49.09

F

49.46

F

49.91

F

50.40

F

50.81

F

51.21

F

51.38

F

51.48

F

51.98

F

52.42

F

52.77

F

53.14

F

53.24

G

0.19

G

0.49

G

0.74

G

1.12

G

1.54

G

1.90

G

2.20

G

2.47

Massachusetts


Berkshire

Hancock

March 2015


Lanesborough


Berkshire (con’t.)

Cheshire

Dalton

Hinsdale

March 2015

G

2.89

G

3.28

G

3.69

G

3.98

G

4.37

G

4.51

G

4.75

G

5.15

G

5.38

G

5.78

G

6.08

G

6.58

G

7.03

G

7.42

G

8.05

G

8.47

G

8.86

G

9.27

G

9.64

G

10.05

G

10.45

G

10.87

G

11.33

G

11.72

G

12.11

G

12.24

G

12.59

G

13.01

G

13.50

G

13.97

G

14.41

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-106 TABLE 1.4-2 ALTERNATING CURRENT MITIGATION AREAS ALONG THE PROJECT Nearest Pipeline Name County Township Segment1 Milepost2 Hinsdale (con’t.) Peru

Berkshire (con’t.) Windsor


Hampshire

Plainfield

March 2015

G

14.78

G

15.25

G

15.72

G

16.12

G

16.54

G

16.92

G

17.28

G

17.67

G

18.11

G

18.46

G

18.58

G

19.00

G

19.30

G

19.56

G

20.09

G

20.37

G

20.86

G

21.09

G

21.36

G

21.67

G

22.08

G

22.52

G

22.92

G

23.38

G

23.72

G

24.16

G

24.30

G

24.35

G

24.63

G

25.00

G

25.14

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-107 TABLE 1.4-2 ALTERNATING CURRENT MITIGATION AREAS ALONG THE PROJECT Nearest Pipeline Name County Township Segment1 Milepost2 Hampshire (con’t.)

Plainfield (con’t.)

Ashfield

Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (Massachusetts Portion) (con’t.) Franklin

Conway

March 2015

G

25.58

G

26.15

G

26.58

G

27.02

G

27.42

G

27.77

G

27.97

G

28.20

G

28.67

G

29.07

G

29.42

G

29.80

G

30.15

G

30.56

G

30.81

G

31.15

G

31.50

G

31.95

G

32.25

G

32.54

H

0.13

H

0.52

H

0.83

H

1.12

H

1.55

H

1.96

H

2.08

H

2.50

H

2.84

H

3.17

H

3.52

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-108 TABLE 1.4-2 ALTERNATING CURRENT MITIGATION AREAS ALONG THE PROJECT Nearest Pipeline Name County Township Segment1 Milepost2 Conway (con’t.)

Shelburne

Deerfield Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (Massachusetts Portion) (con’t.)

Franklin (con’t.)

Montague

March 2015

H

3.95

H

4.33

H

4.65

H

4.92

H

5.20

H

5.56

H

5.87

H

6.16

H

6.56

H

6.96

H

7.28

H

7.67

H

7.89

H

8.20

H

9.56

H

9.91

H

10.41

H

11.00

H

11.62

H

12.07

H

12.37

H

12.76

H

13.14

H

13.47

H

13.85

H

14.07

H

14.27

H

14.56

H

14.90

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-109 TABLE 1.4-2 ALTERNATING CURRENT MITIGATION AREAS ALONG THE PROJECT Nearest Pipeline Name County Township Segment1 Milepost2 Montague (con’t.)

Erving

Northfield


Erving Franklin (con’t.)

Northfield

March 2015

H

15.26

H

15.58

H

15.88

H

16.17

H

16.52

H

16.87

H

17.24

H

17.50

H

17.81

H

18.08

H

18.43

H

18.58

H

19.09

H

19.52

H

19.87

H

20.25

H

20.69

H

21.03

H

21.36

H

21.67

H

22.01

H

22.39

H

22.84

H

23.19

H

23.57

H

23.92

H

24.30

H

24.67

H

24.99

H

25.31

H

25.70


Franklin (con’t.)

Warwick

Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (Massachusetts Portion) (con’t.) Middlesex


Northfield (con’t.)

Middlesex

Middlesex

Dracut

Dracut

Dracut

Lynnfield Lateral

Essex

Andover

Middlesex

Tewksbury

Essex

Andover

March 2015

H

26.05

H

26.41

H

26.86

H

27.24

H

27.62

H

27.97

K

0.27

K

0.50

K

0.74

K

1.06

K

1.35

K

1.70

K

1.85

M

0.04

M

0.37

N

0.04

N

0.34

N

0.73

N

1.12

N

1.52

N

1.77

N

1.96

N

2.30

N

2.61

N

2.76

N

3.04

N

3.37

N

3.62

N

3.93

N

8.64

N

8.89

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-111 TABLE 1.4-2 ALTERNATING CURRENT MITIGATION AREAS ALONG THE PROJECT Nearest Pipeline Name County Township Segment1 Milepost2 Wilmington

Lynnfield Lateral (con’t.)

Middlesex

North Reading

Reading Essex

Lynnfield Lynnfield

Peabody Lateral

Essex

Peabody

Danvers

March 2015

N

9.82

N

10.19

N

12.07

N

12.34

N

12.61

N

12.86

N

12.99

N

13.13

N

13.28

N

13.49

N

13.60

N

13.82

N

14.36

N

14.65

N

14.94

N

15.32

N

15.69

N

15.86

O

0.00

O

0.25

O

3.46

O

3.82

O

3.86

O

4.06

O

4.28

O

4.55

O

4.77

O

4.99


Middlesex

Dracut


Essex

Methuen

Middlesex

Townsend


Worcester


Worcester

Lunenburg

Boylston

P

0.10

P

0.43

P

0.78

P

1.11

P

1.48

P

1.59

P

1.81

P

2.06

P

2.39

P

2.60

P

2.90

P

3.20

Q

7.44

Q

7.77

Q

7.82

Q

8.11

Q

8.44

Q

8.83

Q

9.21

Q

9.62

Q

10.02

Q

10.46

Q

10.86

Q

13.52

Q

13.59

Q

13.98

R

12.67

I

0.15

I

0.50

I

0.89


Cheshire

Winchester

March 2015


Richmond

Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (New Hampshire Portion) (con’t)

Cheshire (con’t)

Troy

Fitzwilliam Troy

Fitzwilliam

March 2015

I

5.89

I

6.27

I

6.59

I

6.98

I

7.33

I

7.55

I

7.86

I

8.28

I

8.69

I

9.05

I

9.52

I

9.91

I

10.36

I

10.75

I

11.15

I

11.50

I

11.89

I

12.23

I

12.62

I

13.00

I

13.39

I

13.76

I

14.11

I

14.44

I

14.73

I

15.11

I

15.29


Fitzwilliam (con’t.)


Cheshire (con’t.)

Rindge

March 2015

I

15.66

I

15.98

I

16.33

I

16.68

I

17.08

I

17.41

I

17.73

I

18.02

I

18.12

I

18.50

I

18.82

I

19.17

I

19.51

I

19.81

I

20.00

I

20.43

I

20.76

I

21.03

I

21.20

I

21.58

I

21.94

I

22.22

I

22.38

I

22.69

I

23.04

I

23.25

I

23.36

I

23.68

I

23.97

I

24.25


Cheshire (con’t.)

Rindge (con’t.)


Hillsborough

New Ipswich

March 2015

I

24.48

I

24.79

I

25.19

I

25.37

I

25.57

I

25.83

I

26.08

I

26.22

I

26.58

I

26.90

I

27.31

I

27.70

I

28.09

I

28.46

I

28.82

J

0.13

J

0.44

J

0.75

J

1.02

J

1.38

J

1.80

J

2.05

J

2.21

J

2.59

J

2.96

J

3.32

J

3.71

J

4.04

J

4.41

J

4.81

J

4.91

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-116 TABLE 1.4-2 ALTERNATING CURRENT MITIGATION AREAS ALONG THE PROJECT Nearest Pipeline Name County Township Segment1 Milepost2 New Ipswich (con’t.)

Greenville



Mason

Milford

Brookline

March 2015

J

5.15

J

5.49

J

5.83

J

6.05

J

6.41

J

6.86

J

7.25

J

7.39

J

7.69

J

8.10

J

8.36

J

8.72

J

8.87

J

9.20

J

9.62

J

9.83

J

10.19

J

10.57

J

10.64

J

11.01

J

11.39

J

11.78

J

12.18

J

12.59

J

12.96

J

13.20

J

13.58

J

13.97

J

14.35

J

14.74

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-117 TABLE 1.4-2 ALTERNATING CURRENT MITIGATION AREAS ALONG THE PROJECT Nearest Pipeline Name County Township Segment1 Milepost2 Brookline (con’t.)

Milford



Amherst

Merrimack

March 2015

J

15.08

J

15.19

J

15.58

J

15.95

J

16.13

J

16.34

J

16.68

J

16.86

J

17.13

J

17.52

J

17.91

J

18.31

J

18.45

J

18.77

J

18.97

J

19.33

J

19.39

J

19.73

J

20.01

J

20.47

J

21.50

J

21.70

J

22.07

J

22.27

J

22.42

J

22.67

J

22.77

J

23.01

J

23.43

J

23.79

J

24.17


Merrimack (con’t.)


Litchfield


Rockingham

Hillsborough

Londonderry

Hudson

March 2015

J

24.52

J

24.77

J

24.81

J

25.00

J

25.35

J

26.00

J

26.40

J

26.50

J

26.63

J

26.92

J

27.23

J

27.58

J

27.92

J

28.28

J

28.70

J

29.09

J

29.24

J

29.34

J

29.79

J

30.11

J

30.22

J

30.55

J

30.91

J

31.31

J

31.40

J

31.79

J

31.98

J

32.27

J

32.44

J

32.72

J

32.95

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-119 TABLE 1.4-2 ALTERNATING CURRENT MITIGATION AREAS ALONG THE PROJECT Nearest Pipeline Name County Township Segment1 Milepost2 Hillsborough (con’t.)

Rockingham

Hudson (con’t.)

Windham


Hillsborough

Pelham

March 2015

J

33.09

J

33.36

J

33.52

J

33.86

J

34.02

J

34.34

J

34.61

J

34.74

J

34.96

J

35.13

J

35.34

J

35.70

J

36.03

J

36.33

J

36.66

J

37.01

J

37.38

J

37.71

J

38.07

J

38.25

J

38.53

J

38.80

J

38.99

J

39.02

J

39.34

J

39.69

J

39.99

J

40.29

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-120 TABLE 1.4-2 ALTERNATING CURRENT MITIGATION AREAS ALONG THE PROJECT Nearest Pipeline Name County Township Segment1 Milepost2 Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment (New Hampshire Portion) (con’t.)


Pelham (con’t.)

J

40.58

J

40.90

J

41.20

J

41.50

S

0.00

S

0.32

S

0.66

S

1.68

S

2.02

S

2.47

S

2.91

S

3.31

S

3.68

S

3.97

S

4.32

S

4.66

S

5.04

S

5.43

S

8.70

S

8.98

Connecticut Farmington

West Hartford 300 Line CT Loop

Hartford

Bloomfield

1 2

Each segment is associated with its own set of MPs beginning at MP 0.00. Nearest MP indicates the location of a SSD to be installed as part of the AC mitigation system.

1.4.4

Periodic Pipeline and ROW Patrols

The pipeline and ROW will be patrolled on a periodic basis. The frequency of the patrol of the pipeline by either aerial or ground surveys is determined by the size, operating pressure, class, terrain, weather and other relevant factors. The interval between patrols may not be longer than the applicable USDOT regulations. Additional ground surveys are conducted on an as-needed basis to respond to issues such as landowner concerns and third-party encroachments. During ROW patrols, all permanent erosion control devices that

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-121 are installed during construction will be inspected to ensure that they are functioning properly. Additionally, attention will be given to:       

Existing stormwater outfalls along the alignment; Erosion and washouts along the ROW; Water control devices such as diversions; Condition of banks at drainage ditch crossings; Fallen timber or other threats to the pipeline; Shrubs and other vegetation planted during construction; and Any other conditions that could endanger the pipeline.

The local operations supervisor will be notified of any conditions that need attention. measures will be performed as needed.

1.4.5

Corrective

Procedures Specific to Aboveground Facilities

Tennessee will operate and maintain the proposed aboveground facilities in accordance with standard procedures designed to ensure the integrity of the facilities and to provide its shippers and the general public with a safe and dependable natural gas supply. The facilities will be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with requirements of the Commission, USDOT, industry-proven practices and techniques, and other federal, state, and local requirements as applicable. Responsibilities of Tennessee will include:       

Safe operation and maintenance of pipeline and aboveground facilities to provide the required gas flow; Inspection and maintenance of the pipeline system; Regular monitoring of the ROW; Development and implementation of an ongoing program of safety and environmental compliance; Regulatory compliance maintenance inspections; Administration; and Landowner relations- all operational, environmental, and regulatory inspections will be conducted per applicable Tennessee Operation & Maintenance (“O&M”) procedures.

In accordance with USDOT regulations, 49 CFR, Part 192, the facilities will be regularly inspected for leakage as part of scheduled O&M. Tennessee intends to follow the established Tennessee O&M procedures to ensure that the compressor stations operate safely. Standard Tennessee operations at existing compressor stations include activities such as the calibration, maintenance, and inspection of equipment, as well as the monitoring of pressure, temperature, and vibration data, and traditional landscape maintenance, such as mowing. Tennessee’s standard operations currently also include the periodic checking of safety and emergency equipment and cathodic protection systems. Project facilities will be marked and identified in accordance with applicable regulations. Liaison will be maintained with the public as well as with government agencies regulating activities at compressor stations. Overall, maintenance activities will be in compliance with requirements of Tennessee’s Projectspecific ECPs for each state, as well as other applicable regulatory requirements. The compressor stations March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-122 will be remotely linked to Tennessee’s information and data software networks and infrastructure which monitors the pipeline system on a 24-hour per day basis.

1.5

FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT

The addition of the pipeline facilities, the addition and modification of compressor and meter stations, and the installation of associated appurtenant facilities that comprise the Project are designed to efficiently meet market needs as discussed in Section 1.1.1, Purpose and Need. The Project is in direct response to increased demand for natural gas pipeline transportation capacity in the Northeast U.S. This Project is a stand-alone project. It does not require or necessitate the construction of any pipeline or compression facilities that are proposed as part of any pending or current project or anticipated to be proposed for any future project. Tennessee will proceed with this Project even if no other expansion projects are proposed. Any future expansion of the facilities proposed as part of this Project will be dependent upon a showing of additional demand for natural gas services. On July 31, 2014, Tennessee filed an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the Connecticut Expansion Project with the Commission in Docket No. CP14-529-000. The Connecticut Expansion Project involves the construction of three pipeline looping segments in New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, as well as minor modifications at its existing Agawam Compressor Station located in Massachusetts. The Connecticut Expansion Project is a stand-alone project, limited in size and scope, and supported by binding precedent agreements for 100 percent of the firm transportation capacity to be created by that project. Tennessee has requested a certificate order to be issued for the Connecticut Expansion Project in July 2015 so that it may construct and place the proposed facilities in service by November 1, 2016, the in-service date requested by the three shippers that have executed binding precedent agreements for all of the firm transportation capacity to be created by the Connecticut Expansion Project. This certificate application remains pending at the Commission. The facilities that are proposed for the NED Project will not require modifications to the pipeline looping segments and appurtenant facilities proposed as part of the Connecticut Expansion Project. However, as part of the NED Project, Tennessee is proposing to extend one of the pipeline looping segments proposed as part of the Connecticut Expansion Project (this looping segment is referred to as the “Connecticut Loop”, a partial loop segment proposed to be installed on Tennessee’s 300 Line in Connecticut, in the certificate application for the Connecticut Expansion Project) in order to efficiently create the incremental capacity for the proposed NED Project. This pipeline looping segment is referred to as the “300 Line CT Loop” in this Project filing. In addition, Tennessee is proposing to add a co-located pipeline on Tennessee’s 200 Line in New York as part of the NED Project that would be in close geographic proximity to the New York Loop, which was proposed as part of the Connecticut Expansion Project. Tennessee identified these two limited areas where the Project facilities for both projects may be adjacent or in close geographic proximity in Section 1.5, Future Plans and Abandonment, of Resource Report 1 that was submitted as part of the ER with the Connecticut Expansion Project certificate application. As the plans for the NED Project progress, Tennessee will update the Commission with information regarding any proposed facilities for the NED Project that potentially may impact the proposed facilities for the Connecticut Expansion Project. Tennessee intends to submit information regarding areas where proposed facilities are adjacent or in the same geographic area for both projects in this proceeding, as well as in the Connecticut Expansion Project proceeding, to assist the Commission in its evaluation of cumulative impacts of the two projects. March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-123 Tennessee anticipates that it will include information regarding cumulative impacts for the NED Project and Connecticut Expansion Project in subsequent filings of the ER, as well as updating the ER that was submitted with the certificate application for the Connecticut Expansion Project in that proceeding, to allow the Commission to perform a meaningful analysis of the cumulative impacts of the two projects.16 Tennessee will also include in its cumulative impacts analysis for the NED Project other past, present or reasonably foreseeable projects identified in the areas of impact for resources impacted by the NED Project. Tennessee is also in the planning stages for a proposed backhaul project for the 300 Line, in which gas supplies would be transported from east to west on Tennessee’s 300 Line beginning in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, through Bradford and Tioga Counties, for deliveries in Potter County, Pennsylvania (referred to as the “Susquehanna West Project”). Tennessee has conducted a binding open season to determine interest in that project. The anticipated in-service date for the Susquehanna West Project is expected to be November 2017 or later. Tennessee is determining the final scope and facilities needed for the Susquehanna West Project. Tennessee is also in the conceptual stage for other potential projects on the 300 Line, east of the location of the pipeline looping segments proposed for the NED Project. Tennessee is determining if other such projects are economically justified and, if so, determining the proposed scope and facilities needed for such future projects. Although the evaluation is not yet complete, Tennessee believes that no facilities required for future projects will require modifications to the pipeline looping facilities on the 300 Line proposed as part of the NED Project. Tennessee will design any facilities (which may consist of pipeline looping and/or compression) needed for future expansions of the 300 Line to be compatible with Tennessee’s existing facilities, including the proposed NED Project facilities, and will undergo the applicable federal, state, and local regulatory review (including the filing of a separate application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Commission) for any such future expansions.

1.6

PERMITS AND APPROVALS

All construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project will be conducted in accordance with Tennessee’s specifications and all applicable federal, state, and local permit requirements. The environmental permits, licenses, approvals, and certificates that have been or will be sought for the Project are identified in Table 1.6-1. Tennessee and its agents have consulted federal, state, and local regulatory officials and government agencies regarding this Project. An updated list of regulatory contacts is included in Volume II, Appendix A. Updated agency correspondence is provided in Volume II, Appendix B.

16

Tennessee notes that it submitted an application seeking a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the Niagara Expansion Project on February 21, 2014 in Docket No. CP14-88-000, and that certificate application remains pending. As part of that filing, Tennessee is seeking authorization to install an approximately 3.1 mile 30-inch pipeline looping segment on its 200 Line in Chautauqua County, New York, as well as to modify existing compressor facilities in Chautauqua County, New York and Mercer County, Pennsylvania, as well as modify the Hamburg Meter Station in Erie County, New York. The proposed facilities for the Niagara Expansion Project, although also involving Tennessee’s 200 Line, are located approximately 130 miles to the west of the Project facilities.

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-124 TABLE 1.6-1 PERMITS, LICENSES, APPROVALS, AND CERTIFICATES REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PROJECT Permit/Approval Administering Agency Status Federal Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Certificate application to be submitted September 2015

United States Army Corps of Engineers-Baltimore District Section 404/Individual Permits

United States Army Corps of Engineers-New York District United States Army Corps of Engineers- Buffalo District

Applications to be submitted in September 2015

United States Army Corps of Engineers-New England District Endangered Species Act Section 7 Clearance, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

United States Fish and WildlifePennsylvania Field Office United States Fish and WildlifeNew York Field Office

Consultations in Progress

United States Fish and WildlifeNew England Field Office Northeast Region

Consultation in Progress

Pennsylvania 401 Water Quality Certification

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Quality Protection


Water Obstruction and Encroachment Permits



National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System – Hydrostatic Test Water Discharge General Permit (PAG 10) or Individual Permit


Application to be submitted in January 2016

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Section 402 Chapter 102 Erosion and Sediment Control Permit for Construction Activities

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Quality Protection and County Conservation Districts

Applications to be submitted in December 2016

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-125 TABLE 1.6-1 PERMITS, LICENSES, APPROVALS, AND CERTIFICATES REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PROJECT Permit/Approval Administering Agency Status Submerged Land License Agreement


Applications to be submitted in May 2016

Water Allocation Permit

Susquehanna River Basin Commission

Application to be submitted May 2016

Consumptive Use Permit for Horizontal Directional Drills



Permit for Use of Explosives in Commonwealth Waters

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission


Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Consultations in progress

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission


Pennsylvania Game Commission


Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act Consultation

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission


Plan Approval Permit

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Northeast/Northcentral Regions


Highway Occupancy Permit

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation


Highway Crossing Permit

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation


State Species Consultations

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-126 TABLE 1.6-1 PERMITS, LICENSES, APPROVALS, AND CERTIFICATES REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PROJECT Permit/Approval Administering Agency Status New York Joint Permit including:  Article 15 Protection of Waters (Stream Disturbance, excavation and Fill in Navigable Waters);  Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands;  Article 15, Title 33 Water Withdrawal (Hydrostatic Test Water Withdrawal); and  401 Water Quality Certificate

New York State Department of Environmental ConservationDivision of Environmental Permits


State Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity

New York State Department of Environmental ConservationDivision of Water Bureau of Water Permits


Coastal Zone Consistency Determination (Federal and State Reviews)

New York State Department of State

Consultation to be submitted in September 2015



Applications to be submitted in November 2015


Delaware River Basin Commission


Temporary Revocable Permit

New York State Department of Environmental ConservationBureau of Forest Lands


State Species Consultation

New York Department of Environmental ConservationDivision of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources


Agricultural Lands Consultation

New York State Department of Agricultural Management

Consultations to be submitted in March 2015


New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation


March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-127 TABLE 1.6-1 PERMITS, LICENSES, APPROVALS, AND CERTIFICATES REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PROJECT Permit/Approval Administering Agency Status Air State Facility Permit

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation-Air Quality


Highway Occupancy Permit

New York State Department of Transportation


Massachusetts Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Certificate (301 CMR 11.00) Environmental Notification Form

Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs

Environmental Notification Form to be submitted in July 2015

Clean Water Act 401 Water Quality Certification

Massachusetts Department of Environmental ProtectionDivision of Environmental Permits


Chapter 91 License (Massachusetts Waterfront Act)

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection


National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Sites

United States Environmental Protection Agency


Hydrostatic Testwater Discharge Permit



Water Withdrawal Permit



Air Quality Permit



State Species Consultation, Massachusetts Endangered Species Act

Massachusetts Division and Wildlife and Fishers


Article 97 for Easements on State Lands

Massachusetts State Legislature and Governor

Legislation anticipated to be submitted in January 2017


Massachusetts Historical Commission

Consultation in progress

Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act

Massachusetts Town and Conservation Commissions

Applications to be submitted in January 2016

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-128 TABLE 1.6-1 PERMITS, LICENSES, APPROVALS, AND CERTIFICATES REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PROJECT Permit/Approval Administering Agency Status Approval to Construct

Massachusetts Energy Siting Board

Coordination in September 2015

State Highway Access Permits

Massachusetts Department of Transportation


New Hampshire New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee

New Hampshire Certificate of Site and Facility

Application to be submitted in December 2015

Clean Water Act 401 Water Quality Certificate

New Hampshire Department of Environmental ServicesWatershed Management


Dredge and Fill Permit

New Hampshire Department of Environmental ServicesWetlands Bureau


Shoreland Permit

New Hampshire Department of Environmental ServicesWetlands Bureau


Air Emissions Permit

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services- Air Resources Division


State Species Consultations

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services- Natural Heritage Bureau


New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act Consultation

New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources


National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) Construction General Permit



Large Groundwater Withdrawal Permit or Surface Water Use Registration

New Hampshire Department of Environmental ServicesWatershed Management


Alteration of Terrain

New Hampshire Department of Environmental ServicesAlteration of Terrain


March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-129 TABLE 1.6-1 PERMITS, LICENSES, APPROVALS, AND CERTIFICATES REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PROJECT Permit/Approval Administering Agency Status Connecticut Clean Water Act 401 Water Quality Certificate

Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection-Bureau of Water Protection


General Permit for Hydrostatic Discharges


Applications to be submitted in March 2016

General Permit for Stormwater and Dewatering Wastewater from Construction Sites



Water Diversion Permit



State Species Consultation

Connecticut Natural Diversity Database


Inlands Wetlands and Watercourses

Connecticut Town Inland Wetland Commissions

Applications to be submitted in January 2016


Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office


1.7

NON-JURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES

Tennessee is not proposing nor is it aware of any non-jurisdictional facilities being constructed by others as a direct result of this Project. If, upon further evaluation of the Project, non-jurisdiction facilities are identified, further information will be provided in a revised Resource Report 1 to be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER.

1.8

LANDOWNER/AGENCY CONSULTATION

Tennessee began its stakeholder outreach efforts in January 2014 to inform the public, including government officials, about the Project. Updated lists of Project Stakeholders (Federal and State Regulatory Agency Contact List, Governmental Official List, and Non-governmental Organizations [“NGOs”] Contact List, and Landowner Line List) since Tennessee’s December 8, 2014, filing are provided in Volume II, Appendix A and C and Volume III (Privileged and Confidential), Appendix AA, respectively. The objective in implementing a comprehensive stakeholder outreach strategy has been to March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-130 identify and potentially resolve issues raised by stakeholders in a timely fashion. To that end, Tennessee met with governmental officials in advance of or nearly simultaneously with landowner notification in Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. As discussed herein, Tennessee has been interacting with and informing the public and receiving feedback on the Project through meetings and discussions with landowners and other affected stakeholders and written materials. Key components of the outreach program include: 

 

Timely notification to federal, state, county, and municipal government officials, state legislative and U.S. Congressional delegation members, and leaders of tribal nations in advance of or simultaneously with notification to affected landowners to ensure that all parties have access to Project information in a timely fashion; Active coordination among all specialties within the Project team to facilitate information exchange and dissemination to interested stakeholders; and Ongoing communication with interested parties as facility designs are reviewed and modifications considered based on the response to the open season and stakeholder feedback.

For the Project, Tennessee has proposed facilities that seek to balance landowner and community concerns, environmental resource issues, and Project requirements. In accordance with the guidelines adopted by the Commission, Tennessee encourages landowners; federal, state, county, and municipal government officials; environmental groups; and other stakeholders to discuss their concerns with Tennessee as well as the Commission and to provide input on the most appropriate locations for the pipeline loops and related facilities associated with the Project. Tennessee has attempted to address the concerns raised by various stakeholders and where it has not been possible to modify the Project facilities in the manner requested, to clearly identify the basis for that conclusion. Moreover, Tennessee is continuing to collect the data necessary to fully evaluate various alternatives that have been advanced so that an informed decision may be reached.

1.8.1

Landowner Consultation/Public Participation

Tennessee has engaged individuals and organizations in Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. As noted above, beginning in early 2014, Tennessee has been in contact with: (1) federal, state, county, and municipal government officials; (2) state legislators in the communities located along the proposed Project facilities; (3) state executive offices, state administration officials, state legislative leadership; and (4) the U.S. Congressional delegations and their staffs regarding the Project. Additionally, Tennessee representatives have had multiple contacts with all 93 affected municipalities. As part of that contact, Tennessee representatives have given 45 public presentations about the proposed Project that were attended by over 4,500 members of the public. An updated list of town presentations is included in Volume II, Appendix C. During meetings and telephone conversations and in correspondence, Tennessee provided these governmental officials with information regarding the open season, the proposed facilities, the status of the requests to landowners for survey permission, the timing and permitting process for the Project, and the Commission’s certificate process, including the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) environmental review process. In addition, periodic updates have been provided to governmental officials and other stakeholders since the initial contact.

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-131 An updated list of names and addresses of landowners whose property will be crossed by the Project is provided in Volume III, Appendix AA (Privileged and Confidential). Contacts made to these landowners started in January 2014 to request access for civil and environmental surveys (wetland/waterbody delineations, habitat evaluations, and cultural resources) for the pipeline routes. Contact with these landowners is ongoing. Survey permission is pending for the access roads, pipeyards and contractor yards, and aboveground facility sites. Surveys have started on many of the properties along the Project area where access permission has been granted. After Tennessee submits the certificate application for the Project in September 2015, in accordance with 18 CFR Section 157.6(d), Tennessee will provide notification of the Project to affected and abutting landowners, towns, communities, and local, state, and federal government agencies within 3 business days following the date that the Commission issues a notice of the certificate application for the Project. In addition, within 3 business days of the date that the Commission assigns a docket number to the certificate application, an electronic copy of the certificate application will be placed in public libraries across the Project area (Table 1.8-1). Tennessee will also have a public notice of the filing of the certificate application published twice in a daily or weekly newspaper of general circulation (Table 1.8-2) across the Project area no later than 14 days after the Commission assigns a docket number to the certificate application. TABLE 1.8-1 LIBRARIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA Counties

Town

Library Name

Pennsylvania Bradford

Troy

Allen F. Pierce Free Library

Bradford

Towanda

Towanda Public Library

Bradford

Monroe

Monroeton Public Library

Bradford

Troy

Bradford County Library

Susquehanna

Montrose

Susquehanna County-Montrose

Susquehanna

New Milford

Pratt Memorial Library

New York Broome

Deposit

Deposit Free Library

Broome

Binghamton

Broome County Public Library

Chenango

Afton

Afton Free Library

Delaware

Masonville

Sidney Library-Masonville Branch

Delaware

Sidney

Sidney Memorial Public Library

Delaware

Franklin

Franklin Free Library

Schoharie

Schoharie

Schoharie Free Library

Schoharie

Cobleskill

The Community Library

Schoharie

Middleburgh

Middleburgh Library

Schoharie

Schoharie

Old Stone Fort Library

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-132 TABLE 1.8-1 LIBRARIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA Counties

Town

Library Name

Albany

Berne

Berne Public Library

Albany

Delmar

Bethlehem Public Library

Albany

Feura Bush

The Feura Bush Library

Albany

Voorheesville

Voorheesville Public Library

Albany

Greenville

Greenville Public Library

Albany

Guilderland

Guilderland Public Library

Rensselaer

Castleton

Castleton Public Library

Rensselaer

East Greenbush

East Greenbush Community Library

Rensselaer

Rensselaer

Rensselaer Library

Rensselaer

Stephentown

Stephentown Memorial Library

Rensselaer

Nassau

Nassau Free Library

Massachusetts Berkshire

Pittsfield

Berkshire Athenaeum

Berkshire

Lanesboro

Lanesboro Public Library

Berkshire

Cheshire

Cheshire Public Library

Berkshire

Dalton

Dalton Free Public Library

Berkshire

Hinsdale

Hinsdale Public Library

Berkshire

Peru

Peru Public Library

Berkshire

Windsor

Windsor Free Public Library

Hampshire

Plainfield

Shaw Memorial Library

Franklin

Ashfield

Franklin

Franklin

Conway

Field Memorial Library

Franklin

Shelburne

Shelburne Free Public Library

Franklin

Shelburne

Arms Library

Franklin

Deerfield

Tilton Library

Franklin

Montague

Carnegie Public Library

Franklin

Montague

Millers Falls Library

Franklin

Montague

Montague Center Library

Franklin

Erving

Erving Public Library

Franklin

Shelburne

Arms Library

Franklin

Deerfield

Tilton Library

Franklin

Northfield

Dickson Memorial Library

March 2015


Town

Library Name

Franklin

Warwick

Warwick Free Public Library

Worcester

Bolton

Berlin Public Library

Worcester

Berlin

Berlin Public Library

Worcester

Bolyston

Boylston Public Library

Worcester

Lunenburg

Lunenburg Public Library

Worcester

Royalston

Phinehas S. Newton Library

Worcester

Northborough

Northborough Free Library

Worcester

Shrewsbury

Shrewsbury Public Library

Worcester

West Boylston

Beaman Memorial Public Library

Worcester

Winchendon

Beals Memorial Library

Middlesex

Townsend

Townsend Public Library

Middlesex

Methuen

Methuen, Nevins Memorial Library

Middlesex

Andover

Memorial Hall Library

Middlesex

Tewksbury

Tewksbury Public Library

Middlesex

Wilmington

Wilmington Memorial Library

Middlesex

Reading

Reading Public Library

Middlesex

Reading

Flint Memorial Library

Middlesex

Lynnfield

Lynnfield Public Library

Middlesex

Dracut

Parker Memorial Library

Essex

Middleton

Flint Public Library

Essex

Danvers

Peabody Institute Library of Danvers

Essex

Peabody

Peabody Institute Library

New Hampshire Cheshire

Winchester

Conant Pubic Library

Cheshire

Richmond

Richmond Library

Cheshire

Troy

Gay Kimball Library

Cheshire

Fitzwilliam

Fitzwilliam Town Library

Cheshire

Rindge

Ingalls Memorial Library

Hillsborough

New Ipswich

New Ipswich Library

Hillsborough

Greenville

Chamberlain Public Library

Hillsborough

Temple

Mansfield Public Library

Hillsborough

Wilton

Wilton Public and Gregg Free Library

March 2015


Town

Library Name

Hillsborough

Brookline

Brookline Public Library

Hillsborough

Milford

Wadleigh Memorial Library

Hillsborough

Amherst

Amherst Town Library

Hillsborough

Merrimack

Merrimack Public Library

Hillsborough

Litchfield

Cutler Library

Rockingham

Londonderry

Leach Library

Hillsborough

Hudson

George H. and Ella M. Rogers Memorial Library

Rockingham

Windham

Nesmith Library

Hillsborough

Pelham

Pelham Public Library

Hillsborough

Hollis

Hollis Social Library

Rockingham

Salem

Kelley Library

Connecticut Hartford

Bloomfield

Prosser Public Library

Hartford

Bloomfield

P. Faith McMahon Wintonbury Library

Hartford

Farmington

Main Library

Hartford

Farmington

Barney Library

Hartford

Windsor

Windsor Public Library

Hartford

East Granby

East Granby Public Library

Fairfield

Stamford

Ferguson Library – Main

Fairfield

Stamford

Harry Bennett Branch

Fairfield

Stamford

South End Branch

Fairfield

Stamford

Weed Memorial & Hollander Branch

TABLE 1.8-2 NEWSPAPERS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA County Newspaper Name Pennsylvania Bradford

The Daily Review

Bradford

Rocket Courier

Bradford

Troy Pennysaver

Bradford

Bradford-Sullivan Pennysaver March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-135 TABLE 1.8-2 NEWSPAPERS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA County Newspaper Name Susquehanna

Susquehanna Independent Weekender

Susquehanna

Susquehanna Transcript New York

Broome

Binghamton Press & Sun Bulletin

Chenango

The Evening Sun

Delaware

Oneonta Daily Star

Delaware

Tri-Town News

Schoharie

Cobleskill Times Journal

Schoharie

Altamont Enterprise

Schoharie

Albany Times Union

Albany

Spotlight Newspapers Weekly

Albany

Albany Times Union

Rensselaer

The Eastwick Press

Rensselaer

The Record Massachusetts

Berkshire

Berkshire Eagle

Hampshire

Daily Hampshire Gazette

Franklin

Greenfield Recorder

Worcester

Worcester Telegram & Gazette

Worcester

The Lunenburg Ledger

Worcester

Coulter Press

Worcester

The Item

Worcester

The Banner

Middlesex

Lowell Sun

Middlesex

Town Crier

Middlesex

Reading Chronicle & Daily Time

Middlesex

Reading Advocate

Middlesex

North Reading Transcript

Middlesex

Nashoba Publications Newspapers

Middlesex

Haverhill Gazette

Essex

Lawrence Eagle Tribune

Essex

Haverhill Gazette

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-136 TABLE 1.8-2 NEWSPAPERS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA County Newspaper Name Essex

Andover Townsman

Essex

Peabody and Lynnfield Weekly News New Hampshire

Cheshire

Keene Sentinel

Hillsborough

Amherst Citizen

Hillsborough

The Telegraph

Hillsborough

Cabinet Press

Hillsborough

Londonderry Times

Hillsborough

Union Leader

Hillsborough

Nashua Telegraph

Rockingham

Eagle Tribune Connecticut

Fairfield

Stamford Times

Fairfield

The Advocate

Hartford

Hartford Courant

Tennessee developed a Public Participation Plan for the Project, which was filed with the Commission on September 15, 2014 with Tennessee’s request to use the Commission’s pre-filing process. An updated Public Participation Plan is included in Volume II, Appendix D. As part of the public participation process, Tennessee is planning to conduct open houses in two phases. Tennessee conducted open houses for the Market Path Component of the Project in February 2015 (one open house for the Market Path Component was delayed due to winter weather conditions and will be scheduled for the second quarter 2015). Open houses for the Supply Path Component of the Project have not yet been scheduled, but are anticipated to occur in second quarter 2015. Specific information on the location of these open house meetings will be provided to the Commission and stakeholders, including affected landowners, once they are finalized.

1.8.2

Agency Consultation

In addition to public outreach efforts with landowners and governmental officials described in Section 1.8.1, Tennessee has begun conducting an extensive planning and consultation process with federal and state regulatory agencies, resource agencies, Native American Tribes, and other groups having a stake in the Project. The consultation process has involved briefings, meetings, letter requests for resource information, and telephone discussions and emails. As of the date of this Resource Report 1, Project information and letters requesting environmental information have been sent to the state and local March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-137 agencies in Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. This section provides a brief description of the more significant agency and stakeholder consultations that have occurred. An updated list of agencies contacted to date is provided in Volume II, Appendix A. Copies of agency correspondence are provided in Volume II, Appendix B.

1.8.2.1

Threatened and Endangered Species Consultations

As required under Section 7 of the U.S. Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and the endangered species laws in Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut, Tennessee initiated informal consultations with federal and state resource agencies to identify the known locations of federalor state-listed threatened and endangered species or candidate species that could potentially be affected by construction or operation of the Project. Tennessee has provided preliminary information regarding the Project routes, including a project description, aerial mapping, 7.5-minute USGS topographic maps, and Project-specific shapefiles to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) (Pennsylvania, New York and New England Districts) and the state agencies in Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. Information presented to these agencies represented Tennessee’s most recent route as represented in this ER. Further consultation with these agencies will be conducted as final facility locations for aboveground facility sites, access roads, pipeyards, and contractor yards are identified. An updated listing of the federal and state agencies that Tennessee has contacted is provided in Volume II, Appendix A. Copies of agency correspondence are provided in Volume II, Appendix B.

1.8.2.2

Interagency and Other Review/Resource Agency Meetings

Beginning in 2013, Tennessee began contacting federal and state regulatory agencies in Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire with respect to the relevant permitting requirements for the Project. Contact with federal and state regulatory agencies in Connecticut began in October 2014 and is ongoing. Tennessee conducted several Project introduction meetings and provided the agencies with the Project Description, and advised these agencies of Tennessee’s intent to use the Commission’s NEPA pre-filing process. A list of the agency meetings conducted to date is provided in Table 1.8-3. An updated listing of the federal and state agencies that Tennessee has contacted is provided in Volume II, Appendix A. Copies of agency correspondence are provided in Volume II, Appendix B. Tennessee anticipates that it will file for the federal authorizations needed for the Project at or prior to the time that it submits the certificate application for the Project to the Commission, consistent with Commission Order No. 687. TABLE 1.8-3 AGENCY MEETINGS CONDUCTED FOR THE PROJECT (AS OF MARCH 13, 2015) Agency Meeting Date Topic New Hampshire Office of Energy Planning

5/2/2013

Project Introduction

New Hampshire Public Utilities

5/2/2013


Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities

5/3/2013


Maine Public Utilities Commission

6/4/2013


Maine Office of the Public Advocate

6/4/2013


March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-138 TABLE 1.8-3 AGENCY MEETINGS CONDUCTED FOR THE PROJECT (AS OF MARCH 13, 2015) Agency Meeting Date Topic Massachusetts agencies under Secretary of Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs

3/27/2014


Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities

4/9/2014

Project Introduction Discussion and Petition for Land Survey Permission Process

United States Army Corps of Engineers-New England District

4/9/2014



5/21/2014


Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program

5/21/2014


Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

5/21/2014


United States Army Corps of Engineers-New York and New England Districts

5/28/2014


Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation

6/10/2014


Land Trust Coalition

6/25/2014


New York Agencies-Department of Environmental Conservation, State Historic Preservation Office, Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation

6/27/2014



7/9/2014


Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Department of Conservation and Recreation, Fish and Game

7/10/2014

Secondary Discussion


8/26/2014

Secondary Discussion


8/27/2014

Project Update Discussion


10/1/2014



10/1/2014


March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-139 TABLE 1.8-3 AGENCY MEETINGS CONDUCTED FOR THE PROJECT (AS OF MARCH 13, 2015) Agency Meeting Date Topic United States Environmental Protection Agency

10/7/2014


New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

10/28/2014


Oneida Tribe

11/13/2014


Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (Commissioner), Massachusetts Department of Conservations and Recreation

11/20/2014


Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

1/7/2014


United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Pennsylvania, New York, New England Districts)

1/30/2015


United States Army Corps of Engineers

2/3/2015


New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

2/12/2015


New Hampshire Interagency Meeting

2/19/2015


The Nature Conservancy

3/3/2015


1.9 1.9.1

SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Introduction

To support an informed decision by the Commission, Tennessee assessed potential cumulative impacts attributable to the proposed NED Project. Cumulative effects are defined in the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) regulations for the implementation of NEPA (40 CFR, Section 1508.7) as “…the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions.” Although the individual impact of one project may be minor for one or more resources, the additive or synergistic effects of multiple projects could be significant. Cumulative impacts associated with the proposed NED Project could result from the combined direct and indirect impacts of construction and operation of the Project facilities with other past, present or reasonably foreseeable planned projects that overlap with the geographic scope and timeframe of the proposed NED Project. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed Project are discussed in other sections of this ER.

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-140 This cumulative impacts analysis generally follows the methodology set forth in relevant CEQ and USEPA guidance.17 Under these guidelines, inclusion of projects within the analysis is based on identifying commonalities of impacts from other projects to potential impacts that would result from the proposed NED Project. In addition, the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Cir.”) has clarified that a “meaningful cumulative impact analysis must identify: (1) the area in which the effects of the proposed project will be felt; (2) the impacts that are expected in that area from the proposed project; (3) other actions -- past, present, and proposed, and reasonably foreseeable -- that have had or are expected to have impacts in the same area; (4) the impacts or expected impacts from these other actions; and, (5) the overall impact that can be expected if the individual impacts are allowed to accumulate.” (D.C. Cir. 2002)18

1.9.2

Cumulative Impacts Analysis Spatial and Temporal Scale

To develop a robust and relevant data analysis for decision-making purposes, a practical delineation of the spatial and temporal scales was selected to define the cumulative impact analysis scope. The selection of geographic boundaries and time period is based on the natural boundaries of resources of concern (hereafter referred to as the region of influence “[ROI”]) and the period of time that the proposed Project’s impacts may persist. The cumulative impacts analysis utilizes available data collected for other projects that meet one or more of the criteria listed in Table 1.9-1. In terms of spatial/geographic considerations, a project must impact a resource category potentially affected by the proposed Project within a defined resource-specific ROI. For some resource categories, the ROI can be quite large due to factors such as the dispersal of air pollutants, while for other resources the ROI will be small in size due to the limited spatial extent of the impact, such as with many noise impacts. For example, in this analysis potential cumulative impacts on fisheries and wildlife were considered on a broader, more regional basis and potential cumulative impacts on cultural resources were considered on a smaller, more localized basis. The time period into the past and future which other projects could potentially cumulatively impact the area of the proposed projects was based on whether the resource category impacts are short-term, longterm, or permanent. Most of the direct and indirect impacts related to the proposed NED Project would occur during the construction phase and the subsequent reclamation phase. However, there are some long-term operational impacts from the operation of the Project, including the operation of compressor stations, which will contribute to ongoing air quality impacts. For other, similar projects where the impacts are long-term or permanent, the temporal range was extended to include their impact contributions. The reasonably foreseeable future projects included in the analysis are those that are not speculative (i.e., projects with an existing formal proposal, commitment of funding or other resources, or 17

18

“Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act” from CEQ, Executive Office of the President, January 1997 (122 pp) available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQConsidCumulEffects.pdf; “Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis” from Memorandum from CEQ Chairman James L. Connaughton, June 24, 2005 (4 pp.) available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQ-PastActsCumulEffects.pdf; and “Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents” from EPA, Office of Federal Activities (2252A), Document EPA 315-R-99-002/May 1999 (22 pp.) available at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/nepa/cumulative.pdf. U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir.). 2002. Grand Canyon Trust v. FAA, 290 F.3d 399, 342. Available at https://casetext.com/case/grand-canyon-trust-v-faa?page=342.

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-141 those for which the permitting process has already begun). Table 1.9-1 below identifies the Cumulative Impact Assessment Area (“CIAA”) for each of the resource categories the proposed Project will contribute direct and indirect impacts to, along with the rationale for how the CIAA was designated. In general, regulatory guidance documents from CEQ, USEPA and FERC, along with recent published FERC EISs for similar pipeline projects, were used to select the appropriate CIAA for each resource category. TABLE 1.9-1 SPATIAL/GEOGRAPHIC CRITERIA FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Resource

CIAA Boundary

CIAA Rationale

RR 1: General Project Description

Not applicable

Not applicable

Watershed boundary Hydrologic Unit Code (“HUC”) 8

Watersheds are well-defined, published natural boundaries for surface water flow that may interconnect with groundwater basins. Cumulative effects have been most extensively studied at the watershed level. Agency guidance and recent EISs for similar projects to support the proposed CIAA boundary include:  Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997)  Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents (USEPA 1999)  Algonquin Incremental Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FERC 2015)  Constitution Pipeline and Wright Interconnect Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement (FERC 2014)

Watershed boundary HUC 8

Watersheds are well-defined, published natural boundaries for surface water flow. Cumulative effects have been most extensively studied at the watershed level. Agency guidance and recent EISs for similar projects to support the proposed CIAA boundary include:  Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997)  Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents (USEPA1999)  Algonquin Incremental Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FERC 2015)  Constitution Pipeline and Wright Interconnect Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement (FERC 2014)

RR 2: Groundwater

RR 2: Water Use and Quality

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1-142 TABLE 1.9-1 SPATIAL/GEOGRAPHIC CRITERIA FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Resource

RR 3: Fish, Wildlife

RR 3: Vegetation

CIAA Boundary

CIAA Rationale

Watershed boundary HUC 8; or specific ranges for game units and threatened and endangered species

Watersheds are well-defined, published natural boundaries for surface water features that support fish habitat. Cumulative effects for many resources have been most extensively studied at the watershed level. For game species and T&E species, habitats including breeding grounds, migration routes, and winter habitats are published and well-defined. Agency guidance and recent EISs from similar projects to support the proposed CIAA boundary include:  Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997)  Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents (USEPA1999)  Algonquin Incremental Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FERC 2015)  Constitution Pipeline and Wright Interconnect Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement (FERC 2014)

Watershed boundary HUC 8

Watersheds are well-defined, published natural boundaries that have established interconnections with vegetation habitat and ecosystem functions. Cumulative effects for many resources have been most extensively studied at the watershed level. Agency guidance and recent EISs from similar projects to support the proposed CIAA boundary include:  Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997)  Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents (USEPA1999)  Algonquin Incremental Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FERC 2015)  Constitution Pipeline and Wright Interconnect Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement (FERC 2014)

March 2015


RR 4: Cultural Resources

RR 5: Socioeconomics

CIAA Boundary

CIAA Rationale

0.25 mile

Impacts to cultural resources will be highly-localized and thus a 0.25 mile radius from the Project site will capture any potential overlapping impacts. Agency guidance and recent EISs from similar projects to support the proposed CIAA boundary include:  Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997)  Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents (USEPA1999)  Algonquin Incremental Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FERC 2015)

County

County boundaries are published and well-defined. The FERC Guidance Manual for Environmental Report Preparation specifies that the socioeconomic impact area generally comprises the municipalities or counties in which Project facilities will be located or may be affected by Project activities. Socioeconomic data is collected and published at the county level by the United States Census Bureau and the United States Department of Labor. Agency guidance to support the proposed CIAA boundary include:  Guidance Manual for Environmental Report Preparation (FERC 2002)  Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997)  Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents (USEPA1999)

March 2015


RR 6: Geological Resources

RR 7: Soils

CIAA Boundary

CIAA Rationale

0.25 mile

Geologic conditions and potential resources occur within site-specific locales and are generally not affected by activities occurring outside the Project designated work area. Project-related impacts are typically limited to impacts associated with current and future mineral and non-mineral mining activities rather than geologic formations and geologic hazards. The FERC Guidance Manual for Environmental Report Preparation suggests that impacts to mines and oil or gas fields be evaluated out to 0.25 mile. Agency guidance and recent EISs from similar projects to support the proposed CIAA boundary include:  Guidance Manual for Environmental Report Preparation (FERC 2002)  Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents (USEPA1999)  Algonquin Incremental Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FERC 2015)

0.25 mile or Watershed boundary HUC 8

Soil resources occur within site-specific locales and are generally not affected by activities occurring outside the Project designated work area. Thus, a 0.25 mile distance should capture all impacts to soils from other projects that may overlap. Agency guidance and recent EISs from similar projects to support the proposed CIAA boundary include:  Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents (USEPA1999)  Algonquin Incremental Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FERC 2015)

March 2015


RR 8: Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics

RR 9: Air Quality

RR 9: Noise

CIAA Boundary

CIAA Rationale

Watershed HUC 8 or 10 miles

Impacts to recreation and aesthetics generally occur within and adjacent to Project areas. Land use activities are likely to have overlapping impacts within an established watershed boundary. Some recreation and aesthetic impacts may overlap with the Project in a larger area; a 10 mile radius will capture all of these impacts. Agency guidance and recent EISs from similar projects to support the proposed CIAA boundary include:  Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997)  Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents (USEPA1999)  Constitution Pipeline and Wright Interconnect Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement (FERC 2014)

Air Quality Control Regions (“AQCR”)

AQCRs are recognized regulatory areas for air quality monitoring, reporting and regulation. Under the Clean Air Act, each state is divided into one or more air quality control regions, and must devise a plan which will result in attainment for pollutant standards, by way of strategies such as emission permits, transportation controls, and inspection and maintenance of vehicles. Agency guidance and recent EISs from similar projects to support the proposed CIAA boundary include:  Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997)  Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents (USEPA1999)  Constitution Pipeline and Wright Interconnect Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement (FERC 2014)  Algonquin Incremental Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FERC 2015)

1 mile

Noise impacts are highly localized and attenuate quickly as the distance from the noise source increases. A 1-mile boundary will capture any overlapping noise impacts from other projects. Recent EISs from similar projects to support the proposed CIAA boundary include:  Algonquin Incremental Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FERC 2015)

March 2015


CIAA Boundary

CIAA Rationale

RR 10: Alternatives

Not applicable

Not applicable

RR 11: Reliability and Safety

Not applicable

Not applicable

RR 12: PCBContamination

Not applicable

Not applicable

RR 13: Engineering and Design Material

Not applicable

Not applicable

Sources:

19 20 21

, ,

Examples of minor projects include planned or recently constructed residential development, small commercial development, and small transportation projects. Examples of major projects include large commercial, industrial, transportation and energy development projects.

1.9.3

Past, Present, Proposed or Future Projects Evaluated for Potential Cumulative Impacts

Where a potential for cumulative impacts was indicated, relevant project data were collected for quantitative analysis to the extent practicable; however, in some cases the potential impacts were only available qualitatively. This is particularly the case for (a) projects in the planning stages; (b) projects contingent on economic conditions, availability of financing, and/or the issuance of permits; (c) projects for which there is a lack of readily available comprehensive information; or (d) Title V/NSR permits. Appendix 1b includes a preliminary list of sources used to locate existing or proposed minor and major projects which may be utilized for the resource-specific cumulative impacts analyses. For projects potentially contributing to cumulative impacts, data collection, location mapping, and assignment of impact magnitude per project is in process. Once a more comprehensive dataset of projects is collected, further analysis of these projects will be completed to determine if they meet the spatial and temporal boundaries appropriate for the NED Project resource-specific cumulative impact analysis. This information will be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER.

19

Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act” from CEQ, Executive Office of the President, January 1997 (122 pp) available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQConsidCumulEffects.pdf; “Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis” from Memorandum from CEQ Chairman James L. Connaughton, June 24, 2005 (4 pp.) available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQ-PastActsCumulEffects.pdf; and “Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents” from EPA, Office of Federal Activities (2252A), Document EPA 315-R-99-002/May 1999 (22 pp.) available at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/nepa/cumulative.pdf. 20 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2015. Algonquin Incremental Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. FERC EIS No. 254F. Docket Number CP14-96-000. Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Transportation – Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Office of Energy Projects, Washington, D.C. Issued January 2015. 21 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2002. Guidance Manual for Environmental Report Preparation. Office of Energy Projects, Washington, D.C.

March 2015


Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description

ATTACHMENT 1a Figures

March 2015


1

62 8

µ

3

43

23

# *

# #* )* #" *

56

42

New Hampshire

39

2

STA. 241

STA. 237

66

46

STA. 245

" )

" )

" )

STA. 249

32

28

12

34

33

Vermont

45

" ) # * #" * ) # * " ) Wright

" )

35

53 44

" ) " )

# *

11

" )

30

" )

10

" )

STA. 317

STA. 319

" )

37

STA. 254

4

# *

Massachusetts

60

43

# *

8

# *

# * STA. 264

6 STA. 321

58

29

# * STA.323

Connecticut STA. 325

Pennsylvania

" )

47

New Jersey

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

*MAOP/MOP between Troy to Wright Tail Station & Wright is 1600 *MOP upstream of Supply Path Head Station is 1170

MOP State 750 MA/NH 1460 MA 750 MA 1460 MA/NH 750 MA 800 CT 719 CT 1460 MA 730 MA 1170 PA 1170 PA 1460* PA/NY 1460 NY/MA/NH

Dia Length (mi) 20" 7.71 20" 15.86 24" 0.51 12" 13.98 12" 14.14 24" 14.72 12" 1.49 30" 1.20 24" 5.37 36" 9.09 36" 22.72 30" 133.14 36" 187.78

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

20

64

" )

STA. 267

" )

STA 266A

" )

STA.265A

Rhode Island

Legend Existing TGP

7

Laterals/Loops Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment

#* * # 48

Pennsylvania to Wright Pipeline Segment

" ) " ) # *

MAOP 1460 1460 1460 1460 1460 800 1460 1460 1460 1200 1200 1460* 1460

41

51

" )

" )

NED Pipeline Components Haverhill Lateral Lynnfield Lateral Concord Delivery Line Fitchburg Lateral Extension North Worcester Lateral 300 Line CT Loop Stamford Loop Maritimes Delivery Line Peabody Lateral Loop 319-3 Loop 317-3 Pennsylvania to Wright Pipeline Segment Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment

Beverly

# *

2

9

21

# *

5

40

SEE INSET

56

# * " ) # Dracut *

" )

# " )*

42

1

# *

63 STA. 261

39 3

" )

" )

) # " *

61

38

13

65

31 STA. 315

# *

# 36 *

New York

26

27

22

62

25

24

Pipelines

Hub Line M&NP M&NP & PNGTS Joint Facilities PNGTS M&NP Iroquois Constitution Millennium Dominion Algonquin

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 51 53

Metering

Fitchburg Lateral Check 200-1 Check Haverhill Check 200-2 Check North Adams Check NED/200 Line Bi-Directional OPP & Check IGT-Constitution Bi-Directional Meter Long Ridge (20434) Stamford (20124) New Britain (20129) North Adams Custody (20103)

56 58 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

Lawrence (20121) Longmeadow Dalton West Nashua Maritimes North Worcester Everett West Greenfield NED Check

Compressor Stations 30 Station 319 Upgrades 31 Supply Path Head Station 32,000 HP 32 Supply Path Mid Station 30,000 HP 33 Supply Path Tail Station 30,000 HP 34 Market Path Head Station 20,000 HP 35 Market Path Mid Station 1 90,000 HP 36 Market Path Mid Station 2 80,000 HP 37 Market Path Mid Station 3 80,000 HP 38 Market Path Mid Station 4 80,000 HP 39 Market Path Tail Station 23,000 HP Specific locations for new compressor stations are to be determined. See draft resource reports and detailed mapping for further information.

Proposed Compresser Stations Existing Compressor Station NED Meters

Northeast Energy Direct (NED) Project Location Map 30

15

0

30

Miles Created By: BWR GISMS-556_Jan5_2015_FERC

Date: 1/29/2015 NOTICE KINDER MORGAN, INC. PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

PLEASE FIND KINDER MORGAN GIS DATA SPECIFIC TO THIS PROJECT. A NEW DATA REQUEST WILL NEED TO BE MADE FOR ANY FUTURE OR SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS. THIS DATA IS INTENDED SOLELY FOR INTERNAL USE BY YOUR BUSINESS FOR THAT PURPOSE. YOU MAY NOT DISCLOSE, PUBLISH, SELL, ASSIGN OR TRANSFER THIS DATA TO ANY OTHER PARTY. ALTHOUGH EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO ENSURE THAT THE DATA IS CORRECT AND RELIABLE, ERRORS ARE POSSIBLE. KINDER MORGAN DOES NOT GUARANTEE OR WARRANT THE ACCURACY OR QUALITY OF THIS DATA. THIS DATA SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR EXCAVATION OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. YOU ARE REQUIRED UNDER APPLICABLE STATE LAWS TO ACTIVATE THE ONE CALL PROCESS TO FACILITATE ANY LINE LOCATING REQUIREMENTS.


Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description

ATTACHMENT 1b List of Sources for Projects Potentially Contributing to Cumulative Impacts

March 2015


Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1b-1

ATTACHMENT 1b: List of Sources for Projects Potentially Contributing to Cumulative Impacts The following includes a preliminary list of sources currently being reviewed to identify existing or proposed minor and major projects which may be utilized for the resource-specific cumulative impacts analyses. For projects potentially contributing to cumulative impacts, data collection, location mapping, and assignment of impact magnitude per project is in process. Once a comprehensive dataset of projects is collected, analysis of these projects will be completed to determine if they meet the spatial and temporal boundaries appropriate for the NED Project resource-specific cumulative impact analysis. This information will be submitted in a subsequent filing of the ER. Bridgewater Township. 2014. Letter from Bridgewater Township, Pennsylvanita, to Lori Ferry, AECOM, dated November 13, 2014. Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (“CTDEEP”). 2015. Bureau of Air Title V Emissions Permits. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp. [Accessed January 7, 2015]. CTDEEP. 2015. Public Notices or Proposed Actions or Decisions. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp. [Accessed January 6, 2016]. CTDEEP. 2015. Construction Stormwater General Permits (10/2013-1/2015). [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/water_regulating_and_discharges/stormwater/1501storm_const_ posting_reg_011515.pdf. [Accessed January 12, 23, and 30, 2015]. Connecticut Department of Transportation (“CTDOT”). 2015. Major Projects Updates. [Online WWW]. Available URLs: http://www.moseswheelerbridge.com/; http://www.ctfastrak.com/; http://www.nhhsrail.com/; http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dcommunications/majorprojectupdates/major_projects_ webpdf.pdf; http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2288&q=512286; http://www.rt8bridgeport.com/Home.html; http://www.merrittparkwaystamfordreconstruction.com/; http://www.ct.gov/ceq/cwp/view.asp?a=987&Q=249438&ceqNav=; www.i84hartford.com; http://www.dotdata.ct.gov/iti/master_iti.html. [Accessed January 6 and 9, 2015]. Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority. 2015. Existing Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.ct.gov/pura/cwp. [Accessed: January 7 and 20, 2015]. Connecticut Siting Council (“CSC”). 2015. Large Transmission Line Projects. [Online WWW]. Available URLs: http://www.ct.gov/csc/cwp/; http://www.transmission-nu.com/residential/projects.asp; http://www.ct.gov/csc/lib/csc/petition_staff_reports/p1058sr.pdf. [Accessed January 7 and 8, 2015]. October 2014

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1b-2 Dominion Transmission (“Dominion”). 2015. Somers Solar Center. [Online WWW]. Available URL: https://www.dom.com/corporate/what-we-do/electricity/generation/solar/somers-solar-center. [Accessed January 21, 2015]. ENR New York. 2015. Construction Projects. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://newyork.construction.com/new_york_construction_projects. [Accessed January 19 and 20, 2015]. FERC. 2009. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the HubLine/East to West Project (Docket Nos. CP08-420-000, -001). [Online WWW]. Available URL: https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis/2009/09-25-09.asp. [Accessed January 28, 2015]. FERC. 2014. Final EIS for the Constitution Pipeline and Wright Interconnect Projects, Pennsylvania and New York. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/eismapper/index.html. [Accessed December 28, 2014]. FERC. 2015a. E-Library. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp. [Accessed January 15, 2015]. FERC. 2015b. Projects Near You (Northeast). [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.ferc.gov/for-citizens/projectsearch/SearchProjects.aspx?Region=Northeast. [Accessed January 28 and 29, 2015]. Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”). 2014. Final EIS for Interstate 87 (I-87) Exit 4 Access Improvements, New York. [Online WWW]. Available URLs: http://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/eismapper/index.html; https://www.dot.ny.gov/regionaloffices/region1/projects/i87exit4/reports-documents; http://yosemite.epa.gov/oeca/webeis.nsf/EIS01/ADFB96C41DDA2C2E85257D9D00213ECB?op endocument. [Accessed January 28, 2015]. Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”). 2014. Draft EIS for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Tier 1, New York. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/eismapper/index.html. [Accessed December 29, 2014]. FRA. 2015. NEC Future: A Rail Investment Plan for the Northeast Corridor. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.necfuture.com/. [Accessed January 20, 2015]. GDF Suez Energy North America. 2015. Hydroelectric Facilities. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.gdfsuezna.com/firstlight/hydroelectric-facilities/. [Accessed January 21, 2015]. Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (“MAEEA”). 2015. Generic Environmental Impact Reports. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.mass.gov/eea/. [Accessed December 31, 2014]. MAEEA. 2015. Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (“MEPA”). [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/mpis.aspx. [Accessed January 5 thrugh 9, 12 through 16, 19 through 20, and 23, 2015].

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1b-3 National Pipeline Mapping System (“NPMS”). 2015. Existing Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines. [Online WWW]. Available URL: https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer/. [Accessed January 7, 2015 and January 20, 2015]. New Hampshire Department of Transportation (“NHDOT”). 2002. Corridor Study for Bedford 13953 NH 101 - Widen to 5 lanes from NH 114 to Wallace Road. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.nh.gov/dot/projects/specifics.htm. [Accessed January 9, 2015]. NHDOT. 2004. Final EIS for the I-93 Improvements Project (Rebuilding I-93). [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.rebuildingi93.com/content/overview/feis/. [Accessed December 31, 2014]. NHDOT. 2009. I-93 Corridor Multi-Modal Transit Investment Study. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.nh.gov/dot/programs/i93transit/documents/I-93TransitStudy.pdf. [Accessed January 7, 2015]. NHDOT. 2010. Supplemental EIS (“SEIS”) for the I-93 Improvements Project (Rebuilding I-93). [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.rebuildingi93.com/content/environmental/seis/. [Accessed December 31, 2014]. NHDOT. 2012. Conference Report for the NH 101A & NH 101 EB Ramp, Reconstruct Intersection and Install Signals. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.nh.gov/dot/projects/amherst10136c/documents/10136c_mtn_12172012.pdf. [Accessed January 9, 2015]. NHDOT. 2012. Ten-Year Transportation Improvement Plan, 2013-2022. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/planning/typ/documents/TYP_Alpha_1322_ALL_Official_Gov_Version_I_Approved_6-11-12_V1.2.pdf. [Accessed January 9, 2015]. NHDOT. 2013. Transportation Planning Study. I-293 Exits 6 and 7 (Manchester #16099) [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.293planningstudy.com/pdf/FinalReport/Final%20Report.pdf. [Accessed January 8, 2015]. NHDOT. 2013. Revised Environmental Assessment for Brattleboro, VT-Hinsdale, NH Transportation Corridor BRF2000(19)SC. Prepared by DuBois & King, Inc. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.nh.gov/dot/projects/hinsdalebrattleboro12210/documents/12210_ea_122013.pdf. [Accessed January 12, 2015]. NHDOT. 2015. Project Specific Information for Bedford 16100, Bedford-Manchester-Londonderry 11512, Chesterfield 13597, Fitzwilliam 16211, and Keene 16152. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.nh.gov/dot/projects. [Accessed January 9 and 12, 2015]. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”). 2014. Draft Generic EIS for the State University of New York (“SUNY”) at Albany, Uptown Capital Project Plan. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.albany.edu/facilities/dgeis/. [Accessed January 23, 2015].

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1b-4 NYSDEC. 2014. Generic EIS Scoping Document for the University of Albany Downtown Campus Capital Plan. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.albany.edu/facilities/dgeis/downtown.html. [Accessed January 23, 2015]. NYSDEC. 2015. All Issued Title V Permits. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.dec.ny.gov/dardata/boss/afs/issued_atv.html. [Accessed January 21 through 22 and 26, 2015]. New York State Department of Transportation (“NYSDOT”). 2012. I-787 Reconstruction, Downtown Albany, Project I.D. No. 105158. [Online WWW]. Available URL: https://www.dot.ny.gov/787. [Accessed January 20, 2015]. NYSDOT. 2012. Deck replacement on Route 2 over I-787, Albany County, Route 22 over East Creek, Route 22 over Dill Creek, Washington Ave. over I-90, I-90 over Krafts Road (two structures) all in Rensselaer County. [Online WWW]. Available URL: https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_ names=p_pin&p_arg_values=1ABP02. [Accessed January 20, 2015]. NYSDOT. 2013. Route 17 over the Norfolk Southern Railroad structure repairs, Project ID No. 906751, Broome County. [Online WWW]. Available URL: https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_ names=p_pin&p_arg_values=906751. [Accessed January 22, 2015]. NYSDOT. 2013. I-787: NYS Thruway Exit 23 to SME Complex, Project ID No. 105157, Albany County. [Online WWW]. Available URL: https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_ names=p_pin&p_arg_values=105157. [Accessed January 20, 2015]. NYSDOT. 2013. Patroon Island Bridge Rehabilitation, Project I.D. No. 1528.68, Albany and Rensselaer Counties. [Online WWW]. Available URL: https://www.dot.ny.gov/patroonislandbridge. [Accessed January 20, 2015]. NYSDOT. 2014. Environmental Impact Statement for the Adirondack Northway Exit 4 Project, Project I.D. No. 1721.51, Albany County. [Online WWW]. Available URL: https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region1/projects/i87exit4/reports-documents. [Accessed January 20, 2015]. NYSDOT. 2014. Draft EIS for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor, Project I.D. No. S937.51, Albany and Rensselaer Counties. [Online WWW]. Available URL: https://www.dot.ny.gov/empirecorridor/deis. [Accessed January 22, 2015]. NYSDOT. 2015. Route 17, Exit 82 to the Delaware County Line, Project ID No. 906759, Broome County. [Online WWW]. Available URL: https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_ names=p_pin&p_arg_values=906759. [Accessed January 22, 2015].

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1b-5 NYSDOT. 2015. Route 30 over the East Branch of the Delaware River, Project ID No. 904466, Delaware County. [Online WWW]. Available URL: https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_ names=p_pin&p_arg_values=904466. [Accessed January 22, 2015]. NYSDOT. 2015. I-87: Exit 3, Airport Connector, Part 2, Project ID No. 172190, Broome County. [Online WWW]. Available URL: https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_ names=p_pin&p_arg_values=906751. [Accessed January 22, 2015]. NYSDOT. 2015. I787 NB to South Mall- Project ID No. 105177, Albany County. [Online WWW]. Available URL: https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_ names=p_pin&p_arg_values=105177. [Accessed January 20, 2015]. NYSDOT. 2015. South Mall Bridges from I-787 to Empire State Plaza, Project ID No. 105171, Albany County. [Online WWW]. Available URL: https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_ names=p_pin&p_arg_values=105171. [Accessed January 20, 2015]. NYSDOT. 2015. Conversion of Route 17 to Interstate 86, Delaware County. [Online WWW]. Available URL: https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/multi/i-86. [Accessed January 22, 2015]. NYSDOT. 2015. I-87 Twin Bridges Deck Replacement, Project I.D. No. 1ABP.00, Albany County. [Online WWW]. Available URL: https://www.dot.ny.gov/twinbridges. [Accessed January 20, 2015]. New York Public Service Commission (“NYSPSC”). 2010. 20 MW Energy Storage System, Town of Union, Broome County, New York. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www3.dps.ny.gov/pscweb/WebFileRoom.nsf/ArticlesByCategory/9A0C0975BCC6BF218 525770600511670/$File/pr10034.pdf?OpenElement. [Accessed January 16, 2015]. NYSPSC. 2011. Natural Gas Pipeline, Broome County, New York. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www3.dps.ny.gov/pscweb/WebFileRoom.nsf/ArticlesByCategory/D955D752CAD36DF18 525783A00567FDB/$File/pr11016.pdf?OpenElement. [Accessed January 16, 2015]. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). 2015. Major Facility Operating Permits. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.ahs.dep.pa.gov/eFACTSWeb/. [Accessed January 14 and 21, 2015]. Skiba, Gregory M. 2015a. Letter from Gregory Skiba, Laberge Group, to Lori Ferry, AECOM, dated January 14, 2015. Skiba, Gregory M. 2015b. Telephone correspondence between Gregory Skiba, Laberge Group, and Kit Williams, AECOM on January 22, 2015.

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1b-6 Spectra Energy Corporation. 2015. New Projects and Our Process. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.spectraenergy.com/Operations/New-Projects-and-Our-Process/New-Projects-in-US. [Accessed January 20, 2015]. TGP. 2010a. 300 Line Project - Replacement and Abandonment of Compressor Facilities and Construction of Eight Pipeline Loop Segments in Bradford, Pike, Potter, Susquehanna, Tioga, and Wayne Counties, Pennsylvania. [Online WWW]. Available URLs: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?document_id=13739126; and http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?document_id=13739129. [Accessed January 21, 2015]. TGP. 2010b. Northeast Supply Diversification Project - Pipeline Loop and Compressor Station 230C in Bradford County, Pennsylvania and Erie, Livingston, and Niagara Counties, New York. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?document_id=13864977. [Accessed January 21, 2015]. TGP. 2011. Northeast Upgrade Project - Upgrade of Compressor Facilities and Meter Station and Construction of Five Pipeline Loop Segments in Bradford, Pike, and Wayne Counties, Pennsylvania and Bergen and Passaic Counties, NJ. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?document_id=13905510. [Accessed January 21, 2015]. TGP. 2012. Rose Lake Expansion Project - Modifications & Abandonment at Three Compressor Stations in Tioga and Bradford Counties, Pennsylvania. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?document_id=14058634. [Accessed January 21, 2015]. TGP. 2013. Uniondale Expansion Project - Modifications to Compressor Station 321 and Uniondale Meter Station in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?document_id=14132706. [Accessed January 21, 2015]. Thompson, Zachary. 2015. Letter from Zachary Thompson, Schoharie County Planning & Development Agency, Planner to Lori Ferry, AECOM. January 20, 2015. United States Air Force (“USAF”). Final EIS and Final Recommendations and Associated Actions for the 104th Fighter Wing Massachusetts Air National Guard, Base Realignment and Closure and Implementation. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/eismapper/index.html. [Accessed December 27, 2014]. USAF. 2014. Final EIS for the Second Main Operating Base KC-46A Beddown at Alternative Air National Guard Installations - Pease ANGS, New Hampshire. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/eismapper/index.html. [Accessed December 27, 2014]. United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”). 2013. Final EIS for the South Coast Rail Project. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/eismapper/index.html. [Accessed December 23, 2014].

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1b-7 USACE. 2013. Final Feasibility Report/FSEIS/FEIR for the Boston Harbor - Federal Deep Draft Navigation Improvement Project. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/eismapper/index.html. [Accessed December 23, 2014]. USACE. 2015. New England District Regulatory/Permitting Public Notices. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/PublicNotices. [Accessed January 9, 20, and 23, 2015 – Connecticut; searches pending for Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and New York]. United States Coast Guard (“USCG”). 2006. Final EIS for the Neptune Liquefied Natural Gas (“LNG”), Construction and Operation, Deepwater Port License Application, (Docket Number USCG-200422611), Massachusetts. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/eismapper/index.html. [Accessed December 27, 2014]. USCG. 2006. Final EIS for the Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port License Application to Import Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) (USCG-2005-22219), Massachusetts. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/eismapper/index.html. [Accessed December 27, 2014]. United States Department of Energy (“DOE”). 2014. Final EIS for the Champlain Hudson Power Express Transmission Line Project, New York. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/eismapper/index.html. [Accessed December 29, 2014]. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”). 2005. Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge, Massachusetts. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_5/NWRS/North_Zone/Eastern_Massachusetts_Compl ex/Assabet_River/AssabetFinalCCP.pdf. [Accessed January 3, 2015]. USFWS. 2005. Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Massachusetts. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_5/NWRS/North_Zone/Eastern_Massachusetts_Compl ex/Great_Meadows/Final_GRM_CCP.pdf. [Accessed January 3, 2015]. USFWS. 2005. Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge, Massachusetts. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_5/NWRS/North_Zone/Eastern_Massachusetts_Compl ex/Oxbow/Final_OXB_CCP.pdf. [Accessed January 3, 2015]. USFWS. 2008. Wapack National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. October. New Hampshire. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/planning/Wapack/FinalCCP/zzw_EntireDocument.pdf. [Accessed January 6, 2015].

March 2015

Environmental Report Northeast Energy Direct Project Resource Report 1 General Project Description 1b-8 USFWS. 2012. Great Bay National Wildlife Refuge and Karner Blue Butterfly Conservation Easement – Comprehensive Conservation Plan (August 2012), New Hampshire. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/planning/Great%20bay/pdf/FinalCCP/21w_Entire_Document(4913 KB).pdf. [Accessed January 6, 2015]. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”). 2013. Second Draft Supplementary EIS for NUREG-1437, License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 46, Regarding Seabrook Station, New Hampshire. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/eismapper/index.html. Accessed December 27, 2014].

March 2015

TGP Environmental Report NED 03132015

Recommend Documents