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
Resource Report 1
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
Resource Report 1
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
Commissions 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
Resource Report 1
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
Resource Report 1
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
Resource Report 1
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
Resource Report 1
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 Tennessees 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 Tennessees existing 300 Line near Auburn Center, Pennsylvania to Wright,
New York);
Approximately 53 miles of pipeline generally co-located with Tennessees 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;
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. The current
route of Tennessees 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. Tennessees 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. Tennessees 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.
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
Resource Report 1
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.
Tennessees 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.
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
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
New
New
New
Pipeline
Loop 317-3
New /
Modified
Facility
Type
Facility Name
Susquehanna
March 2015
N/A
D
E
E
Delaware
Schoharie
Chenango
Delaware
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
Broome
Susquehanna
Pipeline Segment
New York
Bradford
Bradford
Susquehanna
Segment2
Bradford
County
Loop 319-3
N/A
N/A
N/A
Pennsylvania
Associated Pipeline1
TABLE 1.0-1
SUMMARY OF NED PROJECT FACILITIES
Resource Report 1
1-3
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
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
N/A
Rensselaer
Rensselaer
Schoharie
Schoharie
Rensselaer
Delaware
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
Schoharie
Albany
Segment2
County
TABLE 1.0-1
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
Resource Report 1
1-4
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
Fitchburg Lateral Extension

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
Middlesex
Q
Q
Middlesex
Worcester
Essex
Worcester
Middlesex
Middlesex
Essex
Essex
Middlesex
Franklin
Middlesex
Hampshire
Franklin
Segment2
Berkshire
County
TABLE 1.0-1
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
Resource Report 1
1-5
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
Fitchburg Lateral
Extension
March 2015
Middlesex
Essex
Middlesex
Middlesex
Middlesex
Franklin
Berkshire
County
Haverhill Lateral
Lynnfield Lateral
Maritimes Delivery
Line
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
TABLE 1.0-1
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
Resource Report 1
1-6
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
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
Rockingham
Hillsborough
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
Segment2
Hillsborough
Cheshire
Middlesex
Essex
Hampden
Berkshire
Worcester
County
TABLE 1.0-1
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
Resource Report 1
1-7
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
Existing TGP Line

350A
Stamford Loop
N/A
N/A
Connecticut
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(New Hampshire
Portion)
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
New Hampshire Subtotal
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 TGPs 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
TABLE 1.0-1
Resource Report 1
1-8
Resource Report 1
1-9
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 Tennessees existing 300 Line in Pennsylvania, and compression
facilities designed to receive gas from Tennessees 300 Line for deliveries to Tennessees 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 Tennessees 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
Resource Report 1
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
regions 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
regions 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 regions 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 Tennessees 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, Tennessees LDC Project Shippers have expressed the need for additional firm
transportation capacity to serve their growing residential, commercial, industrial, and power generation
markets.
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.
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.
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.
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
Resource Report 1
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
Transmissions (AGT) pipeline system through its HubLine Pipeline. Additionally, the Project
significantly increases capacity via a backhaul on Tennessees 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 Tennessees existing ROW through the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Tennessees 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 regions homes and
businesses. Tennessees 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 regions reliance on GHG-emitting coal
and oil-fired power plants.
March 2015
Resource Report 1
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 Commissions 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
Resource Report 1
1-13
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 Tennessees 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 Tennessees 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
Tennessees 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
Resource Report 1
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 Tennessees 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 Tennessees 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 Tennessees
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
Resource Report 1
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 Tennessees 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
Tennessees 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 Tennessees
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 Tennessees existing 300 Lines
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
Tennessees 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
Resource Report 1
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
Pennsylvania to
Wright
Pipeline Segment
(Pennsylvania
Portion)
30
Susquehanna
Troy
0.00
0.57
0.57
Granville
0.57
8.52
7.95
West
Burlington
8.52
10.11
1.59
Burlington
10.11
14.29
4.18
Towanda
14.29
16.60
2.31
Monroe
16.60
20.16
3.56
Asylum
20.16
22.72
2.56
Wyalusing
0.00
0.21
0.21
Tuscarora
0.21
4.83
4.62
Auburn
4.83
9.09
4.26
Auburn
0.00
4.17
4.17
Dimock
4.17
11.32
7.15
Bridgewater
11.32
13.07
1.75
Brooklyn
13.07
16.51
3.44
Harford
16.51
17.89
1.38
New Milford
17.89
26.90
9.01
Jackson
26.90
29.57
2.67
Oakland
29.57
30.52
0.95
Harmony
30.52
38.03
7.51
69.84
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-17
TABLE 1.1-1
Pipeline Name
Diameter
(inches)
County
Township
Segment1
Milepost
Begin
End
Length
(miles)
New York
Broome
Sanford
0.00
16.26
16.26
Chenango
Afton
16.26
18.72
2.46
Masonville
18.72
23.26
4.54
Sidney
23.26
34.91
11.65
Franklin
34.91
44.05
9.14
Franklin
0.00
0.29
0.29
Davenport
0.29
15.65
15.36
Harpersfield
15.65
20.17
4.52
Summit
20.17
20.49
0.32
Jefferson
20.49
20.80
0.31
Summit
20.80
22.61
1.81
Jefferson
22.61
23.11
0.50
Summit
23.11
23.63
0.52
Jefferson
23.63
25.58
1.95
Summit
25.58
31.68
6.10
Richmondville
31.68
36.58
4.90
Cobleskill
36.58
38.70
2.12
Middleburgh
38.70
42.25
3.55
Schoharie
42.25
50.53
8.28
Wright
50.53
51.06
0.53
Wright
0.00
3.89
3.89
Knox
3.89
8.84
4.95
Berne
8.84
13.37
4.53
New Scotland
13.37
20.58
7.21
Bethlehem
20.58
27.98
7.40
Schodack
27.98
39.14
11.16
Nassau
39.14
45.81
6.67
Stephentown
45.81
53.33
7.52
Stephentown
0.00
0.11
0.11
Delaware
Delaware
Pennsylvania to
Wright
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
30
Schoharie
Schoharie
Albany
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
36
Rensselaer
Rensselaer
New York Subtotal

March 2015
148.55
Resource Report 1
1-18
TABLE 1.1-1
Pipeline Name
Diameter
(inches)
County
Township
Segment1
Milepost
Begin
End
Length
(miles)
Massachusetts
Hancock
0.11
2.63
2.52
Lanesborough
2.63
7.62
4.99
Cheshire
7.62
9.54
1.92
Dalton
9.54
12.94
3.40
Hinsdale
12.94
15.94
3.00
Peru
15.94
16.78
0.84
Windsor
16.78
21.52
4.74
Hampshire
Plainfield
21.52
27.07
5.55
Franklin
Ashfield
27.07
32.86
5.79
Ashfield
0.00
1.31
1.31
Conway
1.31
4.70
3.39
Shelburne
4.70
5.97
1.27
Deerfield
5.97
11.34
5.37
Montague
11.34
16.06
4.72
Erving
16.06
18.27
2.21
Northfield
18.27
19.50
1.23
Erving
19.50
20.10
0.60
Northfield
20.10
27.41
7.31
Warwick
27.41
28.18
0.77
Middlesex
Dracut
0.00
2.82
2.82
Berkshire
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(Massachusetts
Portion)
36
Franklin
Maritimes Delivery
Line
30
Middlesex
Dracut
0.00
1.20
1.20
Concord Delivery
Line
24
Middlesex
Dracut
0.00
0.51
0.51
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-19
TABLE 1.1-1
Pipeline Name
Lynnfield Lateral
Diameter
(inches)
20
Begin
End
0.00
2.68
2.68
Andover
2.68
3.71
1.03
Middlesex
Tewksbury
3.71
4.14
0.43
Essex
Andover
4.14
4.64
0.50
Middlesex
Tewksbury
4.64
5.09
0.45
Essex
Andover
5.09
5.40
0.31
Middlesex
Tewksbury
5.40
5.71
0.31
Essex
Andover
5.71
5.83
0.12
Middlesex
Tewksbury
5.83
6.35
0.52
Essex
Andover
6.35
7.27
0.92
Middlesex
Tewksbury
7.27
7.97
0.70
Essex
Andover
7.97
9.13
1.16
Wilmington
9.13
11.91
2.78
North Reading
11.91
15.11
3.20
Reading
15.11
15.49
0.38
Lynnfield
15.49
15.86
0.37
Lynnfield
0.00
2.51
2.51
Middleton
2.51
2.85
0.34
Peabody
2.85
4.67
1.82
Danvers
4.67
5.37
0.70
Dracut
0.00
1.67
1.67
Methuen
1.67
5.45
3.78
Methuen
7.44
7.71
0.27
Middlesex
Townsend
5.08
10.28
5.20
Worcester
Lunenburg
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
Resource Report 1
1-20
TABLE 1.1-1
Pipeline Name
North Worcester
Lateral
Diameter
(inches)
12
County
Worcester
Milepost
Begin
End
Length
(miles)
0.00
2.62
2.62
Berlin
2.62
6.83
4.21
Northborough
6.83
6.89
0.06
Boylston
6.89
7.17
0.28
Northborough
7.17
7.40
0.23
Boylston
7.40
13.49
6.09
West Boylston
13.49
13.87
0.38
Shrewsbury
13.87
14.02
0.15
West Boylston
14.02
14.12
0.10
Worcester
14.12
14.14
0.02
Township
Segment1
Bolton
115.45
New Hampshire
Cheshire
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(New Hampshire
Portion)
36
Hillsborough
Winchester
0.00
5.57
5.57
Richmond
5.57
11.72
6.15
Troy
11.72
12.83
1.11
Fitzwilliam
12.83
12.97
0.14
Troy
12.97
13.37
0.40
Fitzwilliam
13.37
14.38
1.01
Troy
14.38
14.46
0.08
Fitzwilliam
14.46
20.06
5.60
Rindge
20.06
28.96
8.90
New Ipswich
28.96
29.06
0.10
New Ipswich
0.00
6.20
6.20
Greenville
6.20
7.88
1.68
Mason
7.88
11.79
3.91
Milford
11.79
12.97
1.18
Brookline
12.97
15.70
2.73
Milford
15.70
17.63
1.93
Amherst
17.63
21.66
4.03
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-21
TABLE 1.1-1
Pipeline Name
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(New Hampshire
Portion)
(cont.)
Diameter
(inches)
36
(cont.)
Milepost
Begin
End
Length
(miles)
21.66
26.15
4.49
Litchfield
26.15
28.83
2.68
Rockingham
Londonderry
28.83
31.37
2.54
Hillsborough
Hudson
31.37
33.85
2.48
Rockingham
Windham
33.85
36.08
2.23
Hillsborough
Pelham
36.08
41.53
5.45
County
Township
Segment1
Hillsborough
(cont.)
Merrimack
Haverhill Lateral
(New Hampshire
Portion)
20
Rockingham
Salem
5.45
7.44
1.99
Fitchburg Lateral
Extension
(New Hampshire
Portion)
12
Hillsborough
Mason
0.00
5.08
5.08
77.66
Connecticut
300 Line CT Loop
Stamford Loop
24
12
Hartford
Fairfield
Farmington
0.00
0.10
0.10
West Hartford
0.10
0.30
0.20
Farmington
0.30
0.31
0.01
West Hartford
0.31
0.46
0.15
Farmington
0.46
0.68
0.22
West Hartford
0.68
4.24
3.56
Bloomfield
4.24
5.98
1.74
Simsbury
5.98
6.12
0.14
Bloomfield
6.12
11.10
4.98
Windsor
11.10
14.07
2.97
East Granby
14.07
14.72
0.65
Stamford
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
Resource Report 1
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
0.00
22.72
22.72
Loop-319-3
Bradford,
Susquehanna
Wyalusing, Tuscarora, Auburn
Pipeline
TGP
65 - 150
40
15-75
0.00
9.09
9.09
Auburn
Pipeline
TGP
Pipeline Segment
Susquehanna
150
40
40
0.00
0.61
0.61
Brooklyn
Pipeline
Constitution
50
20
20
13.68
16.27
2.59
Brooklyn, Harford, New

Milford, Jackson, Oakland,
Harmony
Pipeline
Constitution5
50
20
20
16.48
34.31
17.83
Harmony
Pipeline
Constitution5
50
40
40
35.80
38.03
2.23
Pennsylvania Miles of Looping/Co-Location Subtotal
55.07
New York
Broome
Sanford
Pipeline
Constitution5
50
20
0.00
1.24
1.24
Pipeline
50
20
1.66
1.77
0.11
50
20
1.88
10.25
8.37
Pipeline
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
Constitution
Constitution
Delaware
Sidney, Franklin
Pipeline
Constitution
50
20
23.80
44.04
20.24
Delaware, Schoharie
Franklin, Davenport,
Harpersfield, Summit,
Jefferson, Richmondville,
Cobleskill, Middleburgh,
Schoharie
Pipeline
Constitution5
50
20
0.00
45.90
45.90
Pipeline
Constitution5
50
20
46.65
48.01
1.36
Schoharie
Schoharie
Schoharie, Wright
Pipeline
Constitution / TGP
75-150
20 / 40
0 / 25
48.01
48.71
0.70
Pipeline
TGP
75 - 150
40
25
48.71
50.44
1.73
75-150
20 / 40
0 / 25
50.44
50.99
0.55
Pipeline
Constitution / TGP
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-23
TABLE 1.1-2
Pipeline Name
County
Schoharie, Albany
Albany
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
Albany, Rensselaer
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
TGP
75 - 150
40
25
Powerline/Pipeline
Niagara Mohawk /
TGP
TBD
15
New Scotland, Bethlehem
Pipeline
TGP
75 - 150
Bethlehem
Powerline
Niagara Mohawk /
TGP
Bethlehem, Schodack
Pipeline
Schodack, Nassau
Co-Location
Type
Owner / Operator
Wright, Knox, Berne, New

Scotland
Pipeline
New Scotland
Township
Length
(miles)
Begin
End
0.05
17.81
17.76
17.81
18.56
0.75
40
25
18.56
21.78
3.22
TBD
15
21.78
24.29
2.51
TGP
75 - 150
40
25
25.91
33.87
7.96
Powerline
Niagara Mohawk /
TGP
TBD
15
34.20
45.47
11.27
Stephentown
Powerline
Niagara Mohawk /
TGP
TBD
15
46.00
53.33
7.33
Stephentown
Powerline
Niagara Mohawk /
TGP
TBD
15
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
Franklin
Hancock, Lanesborough,
Cheshire, Dalton, Hinsdale,
Peru, Windsor, Plainfield,
Ashfield
Powerline
Western
Massachusetts
Electric
TBD
15
0.11
32.45
32.34
Ashfield, Conway, Shelburne,

Deerfield
Powerline
Western
Massachusetts
Electric
TBD
15
0.69
8.02
7.33
Deerfield
Powerline
Western
Massachusetts
Electric
TBD
15
9.73
10.76
1.03
Deerfield, Montague
Powerline
Western
Massachusetts
Electric
TBD
15
11.19
13.93
2.74
Montague, Erving, Northfield
Powerline
Western
Massachusetts
Electric
TBD
15
14.29
18.43
4.14
Powerline
Western
Massachusetts
Electric
TBD
15
19.28
28.18
8.90
Northfield, Erving
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-24
TABLE 1.1-2
Pipeline Name
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(con.t)
Lynnfield Lateral
County
Middlesex
Middlesex
Township
Fitchburg Lateral
Extension
Width of Existing
ROW
To Be Used During
Operation (ft)3
Segment
Massachusetts
Electric
TBD
15
Powerline
Massachusetts
Electric
TBD
15
Powerline
Massachusetts
Electric
TBD
Powerline
Massachusetts
Electric
Owner / Operator
Powerline
Dracut
Dracut
Milepost
4
Length
(miles)
Begin
End
0.00
1.69
1.69
2.72
2.82
0.10
15
0.00
0.10
0.10
TBD
15
1.05
1.20
0.15
Dracut
Powerline
Massachusetts
Electric
TBD
15
0.04
0.39
0.35
Middlesex, Essex
Dracut, Andover
Powerline
New England Power
TBD
15
0.04
3.71
3.67
Wilmington
Powerline
New England Power
TBD
15
9.94
10.19
0.25
North Reading
Powerline
New England Power
TBD
15
12.25
13.82
1.57
North Reading, Reading,

Lynnfield
Powerline
New England Power
TBD
15
14.53
15.71
1.18
Powerline
New England Power
TBD
15
0.12
0.20
0.08
Pipeline
TGP
30 - 50
40
25
0.24
0.45
0.21
Peabody
Powerline
New England Power
TBD
15
3.50
4.54
1.04
Peabody, Danvers
Powerline/Pipeline
New England Power /

TGP
TBD / 30 50
15 / 40
0 / 25
4.54
4.97
0.43
Danvers
Powerline
New England Power
TBD
15
4.97
5.37
0.40
Middlesex, Essex
Dracut, Methuen
Powerline
Massachusetts
Electric
TBD
15
0.00
3.19
3.19
Essex
Methuen
Pipeline
TGP
30 - 50
40
25
3.19
5.45
2.26
Pipeline
TGP
30 - 50
40
25
7.44
7.71
0.27
Middlesex,
Worcester
Townsend, Lunenburg
Powerline
Fitchburg Gas &

Electric
TBD
15
7.47
10.85
3.38
Worcester
Lunenburg
Powerline
Fitchburg Gas &

Electric
TBD
15
13.51
13.98
0.47
Worcester
Boylston
Powerline
New England Power
TBD
15
12.63
12.68
0.05
Middlesex
Lynnfield
Haverhill Lateral
Width of Existing
ROW
To Be Used During
Construction (ft)2
Middlesex
Middlesex, Essex
Peabody Lateral
Width of
Existing
ROW (ft)1
Co-Location
Type
Essex
Massachusetts Miles of Looping/Co-Location Subtotal
March 2015
77.32
Resource Report 1
1-25
TABLE 1.1-2
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)
New Hampshire
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
Haverhill Lateral
Cheshire
Winchester
Powerline
Public Service of
New Hampshire
TBD
15
0.00
0.88
0.88
Cheshire,
Hillsborough
Richmond, Troy, Fitzwilliam,

Rindge, New Ipswich
Powerline
Public Service of
New Hampshire
TBD
15
5.90
29.06
23.16
New Ipswich, Greenville,

Mason, Brookline, Milford
Powerline
Public Service of
New Hampshire
TBD
15
0.00
15.06
15.06
Brookline, Milford, Amherst
Powerline
Public Service of
New Hampshire
TBD
15
15.32
18.79
3.47
Amherst
Powerline
Public Service of
New Hampshire
TBD
15
19.24
20.23
0.99
Amherst, Merrimack
Powerline
Public Service of
New Hampshire
TBD
15
21.50
25.34
3.84
Hillsborough,
Rockingham
Litchfield, Londonderry
Powerline
Public Service of
New Hampshire
TBD
15
26.41
29.22
2.81
Rockingham,
Hillsborough
Londonderry, Hudson,
Windham, Pelham
Powerline
Public Service of
New Hampshire
TBD
15
29.73
36.24
6.51
Hillsborough
Pelham
Powerline
Public Service of
New Hampshire
TBD
15
36.81
41.53
4.72
Rockingham
Salem
Pipeline
TGP
30 - 50
40
25
5.45
7.44
1.99
Hillsborough
New Hampshire Miles of Looping/Co-Location Subtotal
March 2015
63.43
Resource Report 1
1-26
TABLE 1.1-2
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)
Connecticut
Powerline/Pipeline
Connecticut Light &

Power / TGP
TBD / 30
15 / 30
25
0.00
0.59
0.59
Pipeline
TGP
30
30
25
0.59
1.98
1.39
Powerline/Pipeline
Connecticut Light &

Power
TBD
15
1.98
2.47
0.49
Pipeline
TGP
30
30
25
2.47
3.01
0.54
West Hartford, Bloomfield
Powerline/Pipeline
Connecticut Light &

Power / TGP
TBD / 30
15 / 30
25
3.01
4.46
1.45
Bloomfield
Powerline
Connecticut Light &

Power
TBD
15
25
4.46
5.42
0.96
Bloomfield, Simsbury
Pipeline
TGP
30
30
25
5.42
9.70
4.28
Bloomfield
Pipeline
TGP
30
30
25
10.20
11.04
0.84
Windsor, East Granby
Pipeline
TGP
30
30
25
11.97
14.26
2.29
East Granby
Pipeline
TGP
30
30
25
14.66
14.72
0.06
Stamford
Pipeline
TGP
30
25
25
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
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.
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
Resource Report 1
1-27
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 Tennessees 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
Tennessees 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
Resource Report 1
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
Pennsylvania to
Wright
Pipeline Segment
(Pennsylvania
Portion)
Supply Path
Mid Station
Bradford
Loop 319-3
Station 319
Upgrades
County
Associated
Pipeline1
Facility
Name
March 2015
New York
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
Resource Report 1
1-29
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(New Hampshire
Portion)
Market Path
Mid Station 4
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
New

Project Total
4.40-8.36
New Hampshire
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
Area
Required
for
Construction
(acres)5
10.00
90.00
10.00
30.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
Area
Required
for
Operation
(acres)6
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.
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.
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(Massachusetts
Portion)
Market Path
Mid Station 2
Market Path
Mid Station 3
Market Path
Tail Station
Associated
Pipeline1
Facility
Name
TABLE 1.1-3
PROPOSED COMPRESSOR STATIONS FOR THE PROJECT
Resource Report 1
1-30
Resource Report 1
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
Resource Report 1
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
Maritimes
Delivery Line
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(Massachusetts
Portion)
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(New York
Portion)
Associated
Pipeline1
Middlesex
Franklin
Berkshire
Schoharie
County
Dracut
Deerfield
Dalton
Lanesborough
Wright
Township
March 2015
1.20
9.19
13.50
7.42
0.14
0.12
0.03
Milepost3
Massachusetts
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
Area
Required
for
Construction
(acres)4
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
2.76
0.92
0.92
0.92
Area
Required
for
Operation
(acres)5
Resource Report 1
1-33
Middlesex
Essex
Middlesex
Worcester
Berkshire
Hampden
Essex
Middlesex
Concord Delivery
Line
Lynnfield Lateral
Haverhill Lateral
(Massachusetts
Portion)
Fitchburg Lateral
Extension
(Massachusetts
Portion)
North Worcester
Lateral
Existing TGP Line

256A
Existing TGP Line

200
Existing TGP Line

270B
Existing TGP Line

270C
200-2 Check
200-1 Check
Haverhill
Check
Fitchburg
Lateral
Check
North
Worcester
North Adams
Custody
(20103)
Longmeadow
Lawrence
(20121)
Everett
Worcester
County
Associated
Pipeline1
Facility
Name
Everett
Methuen
Longmeadow
North Adams
Worcester
Lunenburg
Dracut
Lynnfield
Dracut
Township
March 2015
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
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
Capacity
(Dth/d)
New
Modified
New
Modified
New
New
New
New
New
New /
Modified
TABLE 1.1-4
16.80
1.43
0.54
1.43
0.53
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
Area
Required
for
Construction
(acres)4
10.58
0.92
0.23
0.92
0.23
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Area
Required
for
Operation
(acres)5
Resource Report 1
1-34
Stamford Loop
Existing TGP Line

300
Existing TGP Line

350A
West Nashua
Stamford
(20124)
Long Ridge
(20434)
New Britain
(20129)
Hillsborough
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(New Hampshire
Portion)
New Britain
Stamford
Stamford
Amherst
Township
N/A
N/A
Connecticut
Existing
Facility
Existing
Facility
1.49
19.29
Milepost3
New Hampshire
Segment2
65,000
New
Capacity
(Dth/d)
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
Area
Required
for
Construction
(acres)4
14.95
0.69
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.92
0.92
Area
Required
for
Operation
(acres)5
March 2015
This column indicates the associated pipeline for each meter station.
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
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
Associated
Pipeline1
Facility
Name
TABLE 1.1-4
Resource Report 1
1-35
Resource Report 1
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
Resource Report 1
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
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
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
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 Tennessees 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
Resource Report 1
1-38
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
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
Resource Report 1
1-39
TABLE 1.2-1
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

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

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
New York
Pipeline
Massachusetts
Pipeline
New Hampshire
Pipeline
Compressor Stations
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-40
TABLE 1.2-1
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

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

Access Roads
15.54
TBD
TBD
TBD
0.00
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
277.80
98.93
39.18
Connecticut
Pipeline
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

Access Roads
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
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-41
TABLE 1.2-1
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. Tennessees 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
Resource Report 1
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
Pipeline Segment
30
100
50
New York
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
30
100
50
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
36
100
50
Massachusetts
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
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
36
100
50
Haverhill Lateral
(New Hampshire Portion)4
20
75
50
March 2015
Resource Report 1
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
12
75
50
Connecticut
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
Resource Report 1
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
Pipeline Segment
30
38.03
586.85
230.48
69.84
1,103.21
423.27
New York
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
30
95.11
1,425.84
576.42
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
36
53.44
855.33
323.88
148.55
2,281.17
900.30
New York Subtotal
Massachusetts
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
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
Haverhill Lateral
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
New Hampshire
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
36
70.59
1,028.44
427.82
Haverhill Lateral
20
1.99
24.40
12.06
March 2015
Resource Report 1
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
12
5.08
50.66
30.79
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
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.
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
Resource Report 1
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
Area Required
for Construction
(acres)5
Area Required
for Operation
(acres)6
Pennsylvania
Station 319 Upgrades
Supply Path Head Station
Compressor Station
Loop 319-3
Bradford
Wyalusing
0.00
Modified
10.80
0.00
Compressor Station
Pipeline Segment
Susquehanna
TBD
20.83-25.17
New
20.00
10.00
30.80
10.00
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
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
Delaware
TBD
35.65-39.69
New
20.00
10.00
Schoharie
TBD
41.82-46.20
New
20.00
10.00
TBD
0.00-2.02
New
20.00
10.00
0.03
New
1.43
0.92
0.12
New
1.43
0.92
0.14
New
1.43
0.92
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
7.42
New
1.43
0.92
Dalton
13.50
New
1.43
0.92
TBD
16.68-21.01
New
20.00
10.00
Deerfield
9.19
New
1.43
0.92
TBD
21.45-25.51
New
20.00
10.00
Middlesex
TBD
0.00-2.82
New
20.00
10.00
Berkshire
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
Compressor Station
West Greenfield
Meter Station
Compressor Station
Market Path Tail Station
Compressor Station
Maritimes
Meter Station
Middlesex
Dracut
1.20
New
1.43
0.92
200-2 Check
Meter Station
Middlesex
Dracut
0.06
New
1.43
0.92
200-1 Check
Meter Station
Lynnfield Lateral
Essex
Lynnfield
15.86
New
1.43
0.92
Haverhill Check
Meter Station
Haverhill Lateral
Middlesex
Dracut
0.10
New
1.43
0.92
Franklin
March 2015
Resource Report 1
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
Area Required
for Construction
(acres)5
Area Required
for Operation
(acres)6
Meter Station
Fitchburg Lateral
Extension
Worcester
Lunenburg
13.98
New
1.43
0.92
North Worcester
Meter Station
Worcester
Worcester
14.14
New
1.43
0.92
North Adams Custody

(20103)
Meter Station
Existing TGP Line 256A
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
Existing TGP Line 270B
Essex
Methuen
N/A
Existing Facility
Modified
0.54
0.23
Everett
Meter Station
Existing TGP Line 270C
Middlesex
Everett
N/A
Proposed
Facility
New
1.43
0.92
76.80
40.58
New Hampshire
Compressor Station
West Nashua
Meter Station
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
Hillsborough
TBD
4.40-8.36
New
20.00
10.00
Amherst
19.29
New
1.43
0.92
21.43
10.92

Connecticut
Stamford (20124)
Meter Station
Stamford Loop
Fairfield
Stamford
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
Existing TGP Line 350A
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
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.
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
Resource Report 1
1-48
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
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
Resource Report 1
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
Agriculture,
Developed
3.0 miles N of
MP 19.5 (Segment A)
18.32
Wysox
009-TGP
Agriculture,
Open
Land/ROW,
Upland Forest
3.0 miles N of
MP 20.2 (Segment A)
10.84
Wyalusing
010-TGP
Agriculture,
Developed
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
Agriculture,
Developed
0.1 miles SE of
MP 31.8 (Segment D)
11.59
021-CON
Agriculture,
Open
Land/ROW,
Upland Forest
3.1 miles N of
MP 3.6 (Segment E)
14.31
March 2015
Resource Report 1
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
Agriculture,
Developed
2.0 miles NW of
MP 34.2 (Segment E)
4.53
025-CON
Agriculture,
Developed, Open
Land, Upland
Forest
1.7 miles NW of
MP 34.2 (Segment E)
14.96
New York Subtotal
85.93
Project Total
207.62
Township
Delaware
Schoharie
Richmondville
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
Resource Report 1
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
Total Landowners with No Access - in New York
471
Percent of No Access in New York
45%
Massachusetts
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
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
Resource Report 1
1-52
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
12.37
12.52
752
0.14
Loop 319-3
Susquehanna
9.06
9.09
151
0.03
0.00
0.31
1,647
0.31
1.56
2.07
2,699
0.51
2.22
2.38
848
0.16
2.45
3.30
4,472
0.85
5.44
5.61
865
0.16
5.70
38.03
170,708
32.33
182,142
34.50
Pennsylvania to
Wright
Pipeline Segment
(Pennsylvania
Portion)
Susquehanna
Pennsylvania Non-Surveyed Subtotal

New York
Pennsylvania to
Wright
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
Broome
Chenango
0.00
0.06
321
0.06
1.05
1.30
1,331
0.25
1.72
1.92
1,057
0.20
2.01
3.61
8,454
1.60
3.67
3.95
1,466
0.28
5.02
5.22
1,049
0.20
5.64
6.98
7,101
1.34
9.36
9.60
1,259
0.24
9.86
10.00
725
0.14
10.10
10.56
2,391
0.45
10.67
10.78
581
0.11
11.15
11.34
1,013
0.19
11.49
11.86
1,949
0.37
11.98
12.47
2,605
0.49
12.68
13.11
2,252
0.43
14.57
14.74
855
0.16
15.22
15.37
750
0.14
17.99
18.72
3,871
0.73
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-53
Pipeline Name
Pennsylvania to
Wright
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
(cont.)
TABLE 1.2-7
Milepost2
1
County
Segment
Begin
End
Delaware
18.72
18.75
Crossing
Length
(ft)
158
19.70
20.13
2,263
0.43
20.18
20.31
703
0.13
20.39
20.74
1,894
0.36
21.11
21.30
1,008
0.19
22.29
22.43
736
0.14
22.55
23.56
5,355
1.01
24.97
25.66
3,627
0.69
25.85
25.95
552
0.10
26.02
27.01
5,240
0.99
27.09
27.14
249
0.05
27.24
28.02
4,116
0.78
30.01
30.52
2,740
0.52
30.98
31.34
1,889
0.36
32.07
32.32
1,324
0.25
32.33
33.59
6,673
1.26
33.66
41.50
41,445
7.85
41.63
42.18
2,889
0.55
42.51
43.79
6,769
1.28
43.87
43.93
348
0.07
0.19
1.53
7,079
1.34
1.56
1.60
216
0.04
1.75
2.09
1,824
0.35
2.22
3.48
6,620
1.25
3.56
4.56
5,295
1.00
5.45
5.92
2,484
0.47
5.93
6.20
1,416
0.27
6.74
6.81
355
0.07
7.51
8.40
4,678
0.89
8.62
8.95
1,748
0.33
March 2015
Crossing
Length
(miles)
0.03
Resource Report 1
1-54
Pipeline Name
TABLE 1.2-7
Milepost2
1
County
Segment
Begin
End
Delaware
(cont.)
Pennsylvania to
Wright
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
(cont.)
Schoharie
Schoharie
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
Albany
8.97
9.72
Crossing
Length
(ft)
3,922
10.02
13.93
20,668
3.91
14.14
14.43
1,538
0.29
14.70
14.81
596
0.11
15.47
16.64
6,223
1.18
16.80
18.55
9,246
1.75
18.72
20.17
7,689
1.46
20.17
21.07
4,739
0.90
21.19
21.50
1,655
0.31
21.79
22.50
3,760
0.71
22.62
23.03
2,186
0.41
23.05
23.74
3,615
0.68
24.40
25.21
4,264
0.81
25.53
27.48
10,300
1.95
27.58
28.42
4,397
0.83
28.46
28.61
767
0.15
28.69
31.52
14,913
2.82
31.62
31.69
381
0.07
31.84
32.36
2,743
0.52
32.63
35.14
13,260
2.51
36.33
38.07
9,173
1.74
38.64
38.71
389
0.07
39.17
51.06
12,947
2.45
0.00
0.02
83
0.02
10.49
10.53
254
0.05
14.17
14.93
4,011
0.76
17.98
19.19
6,419
1.22
19.66
19.91
1,298
0.25
21.79
26.06
22,538
4.27
27.72
27.98
1,387
0.26
March 2015
Crossing
Length
(miles)
0.74
Resource Report 1
1-55
Pipeline Name
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
(cont.)
TABLE 1.2-7
Milepost2
1
County
Segment
Begin
End
Rensselaer
27.98
28.07
Crossing
Length
(ft)
479
28.97
29.51
2,880
0.55
29.63
29.70
380
0.07
29.76
29.80
198
0.04
32.05
32.19
693
0.13
32.25
32.28
174
0.03
33.44
33.63
1,000
0.19
33.87
53.33
102,760
19.46
0.00
0.11
595
0.11
445,242
84.33
New York Non-Surveyed Subtotal
Crossing
Length
(miles)
0.09
Massachusetts
G
0.11
17.13
89,868
17.02
17.38
17.45
383
0.07
18.52
18.81
1,550
0.29
19.31
19.55
1,307
0.25
19.58
19.68
512
0.10
20.77
21.52
3,923
0.74
21.52
21.66
775
0.15
22.26
23.08
4,337
0.82
23.61
23.96
1,882
0.36
25.72
26.54
4,289
0.81
26.62
26.72
479
0.09
27.29
27.55
1,374
0.26
27.75
27.97
1,153
0.22
29.40
31.02
8,530
1.62
Franklin
0.00
27.41
144,708
27.41
Middlesex
0.00
2.82
14,882
2.82
Maritimes Delivery
Line
Middlesex
0.00
1.20
6,350
1.20
Concord Delivery
Line
Middlesex
0.00
0.51
2,712
0.51
Berkshire
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(Massachusetts
Portion)
Hampshire
Franklin
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-56
TABLE 1.2-7
Milepost2
1
County
Segment
Begin
End
Middlesex
0.00
2.68
Crossing
Length
(ft)
14,155
Essex
2.68
3.71
5,448
1.03
Middlesex
3.71
4.14
2,290
0.43
Essex
4.14
4.64
2,618
0.50
Middlesex
4.64
5.09
2,362
0.45
Essex
5.09
5.40
1,684
0.32
Middlesex
5.40
5.71
1,598
0.30
Essex
5.71
5.83
647
0.12
Middlesex
5.83
6.35
2,766
0.52
Essex
6.35
7.27
4,814
0.91
Middlesex
7.27
7.82
2,874
0.54
Middlesex
7.83
7.97
797
0.15
Essex
7.97
8.11
701
0.13
Essex
8.30
8.64
1,825
0.35
Essex
8.99
9.13
733
0.14
Middlesex
9.13
9.64
2,663
0.50
Middlesex
9.96
10.17
1,107
0.21
Middlesex
10.30
10.76
2,425
0.46
Middlesex
11.93
12.86
4,940
0.94
Middlesex
13.09
14.40
6,937
1.31
Middlesex
14.46
14.86
2,164
0.41
Middlesex
14.97
15.31
1,836
0.35
Essex
15.77
15.86
503
0.10
Peabody Lateral
Essex
0.00
5.37
28,364
5.37
Haverhill Lateral
(Massachusetts
Portion)
Middlesex
0.00
1.67
8,810
1.67
1.67
3.26
8,421
1.59
7.67
7.71
262
0.05
Fitchburg Lateral
Extension
(Massachusetts
Portion)
Middlesex
5.08
10.28
27,463
5.20
Worcester
10.28
13.98
19,573
3.71
Pipeline Name
Lynnfield Lateral
Essex
March 2015
Crossing
Length
(miles)
2.68
Resource Report 1
1-57
Pipeline Name
North Worcester
Lateral
TABLE 1.2-7
Milepost2
1
County
Segment
Begin
End
Worcester
0.00
14.14
Massachusetts Non-Surveyed Subtotal
Crossing
Length
(ft)
Crossing
Length
(miles)
74,677
14.14
524,469
99.33
New Hampshire
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(New Hampshire
Portion)
Fitchburg Lateral
Extension
(New Hampshire
Portion)
Cheshire
0.00
28.96
152,828
28.94
Hillsborough
28.96
29.06
551
0.10
Hillsborough
0.00
28.83
152,267
28.84
Rockingham
28.83
31.37
13,435
2.54
Hillsborough
31.37
33.85
13,072
2.48
Rockingham
33.85
36.08
11,781
2.23
Hillsborough
36.08
41.53
28,840
5.46
Hillsborough
0.00
5.08
26,803
5.08
399,577
75.68
New Hampshire Non-Surveyed Subtotal

Connecticut
300 Line CT Loop
Hartford
0.00
3.33
17,569
3.33
3.49
3.54
279
0.05
3.73
6.35
13,835
2.62
6.61
6.66
276
0.05
8.09
8.11
104
0.02
9.13
9.23
509
0.10
9.42
9.46
216
0.04
9.65
9.74
476
0.09
10.62
10.83
1,140
0.22
10.95
11.08
678
0.13
11.39
13.57
11,488
2.18
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-58
TABLE 1.2-7
Milepost2
1
County
Segment
Begin
End
300 Line CT Loop

(cont.)
Hartford
(cont.)
13.88
14.06
Crossing
Length
(ft)
949
14.25
14.69
2,360
0.45
Stamford Loop
Fairfield
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
Crossing
Length
(miles)
0.18
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 Commissions Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan (the Plan, May 2013
version) and the Commissions Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (the
Procedures, May 2013 version), and will also follow Tennessees 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 Tennessees 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 Commissions Plan and Procedures with the exception of any modifications approved by
the Commission. The Commissions 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 Tennessees 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
Resource Report 1
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 Tennessees 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 Tennessees
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
Resource Report 1
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 (nonworking 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 trackmounted 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 Tennessees 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, Tennessees 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
Resource Report 1
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
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 Tennessees 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 areas 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
Resource Report 1
1-62
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
Morgans natural gas pipeline group.
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-63
electronic equipment).
specifications.
Damaged areas will be repaired per Kinder Morgans 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 Tennessees 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 Tennessees 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 Tennessees 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
Resource Report 1
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 USDOTs regulations, 49 CFR,
Part 192. The pipeline will be filled with water and maintained at a test pressure and duration in
compliance with Kinder Morgans 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 Tennessees 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
March 2015
Resource Report 1
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
TBD
TBD
New York
TBD
TBD
TBD
New York Subtotal
TBD
Massachusetts
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Connecticut
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
New Hampshire
TBD
TBD
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
Resource Report 1
1-66
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
Pennsylvania to
Wright
Pipeline Segment
(Pennsylvania
Portion)
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
Resource Report 1
1-67
Pipeline Name
Pennsylvania to
Wright
Pipeline Segment
(Pennsylvania
Portion)
(cont.)
Pennsylvania to
Wright
Pipeline Segment
(Pennsylvania
Portion)
(cont.)
TABLE 1.3-3
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
(cont.)
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
(cont.)
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
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
Resource Report 1
1-68
Pipeline Name
TABLE 1.3-3
Milepost
Slope
County
Township
Segment1
Gradient
Begin End
(%)2
Distance
(miles)3
New York
Broome
Sanford
Masonville
Pennsylvania to
Wright
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
Sidney
Delaware
Franklin
Davenport
Delaware
(cont.)
Pennsylvania to
Wright
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
(cont.)
Davenport
(cont.)
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
Resource Report 1
1-69
TABLE 1.3-3
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
(cont.)
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
(cont.)
Portion)
F
18.19 18.23
43
0.04
(cont.)
Bethlehem
F
27.37 27.43
35
0.06
New York Subtotal
4.20
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-70
Pipeline Name
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(Massachusetts
Portion)
(cont.)
TABLE 1.3-3
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
Resource Report 1
1-71
Pipeline Name
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(Massachusetts
Portion)
(cont.)
TABLE 1.3-3
Milepost
Slope
County
Township
Segment1
Gradient
Begin End
(%)2
H
9.85
9.88
40
H
10.09 10.10
45
Deerfield
(cont.)
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
(cont.)
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
Resource Report 1
1-72
Pipeline Name
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(Massachusetts
Portion)
(cont.)
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(New Hampshire
Portion)
TABLE 1.3-3
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
(cont.)
H
24.45 24.66
40
0.21
(cont.)
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
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
Resource Report 1
1-73
Pipeline Name
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(New Hampshire
Portion)
(cont.)
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(New Hampshire
Portion)
(cont.)
TABLE 1.3-3
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
(cont.)
Fitzwilliam
Cheshire
(cont.)
Rindge
Hillsborough
New Ipswich
19.76
38
Distance
(miles)3
0.10
0.02
0.05
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
0.05
0.07
0.12
0.08
0.02
2.16
Project Total
0.00
16.99
Connecticut4
Source: NRCS - SSURGO Soils (County Based).

1
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
Resource Report 1
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
New York
TBD
TBD
TBD
New York Subtotal
TBD
Massachusetts
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
New Hampshire
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Connecticut
TBD
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
TBD
TBD
New York
TBD
TBD
TBD
New York Subtotal
TBD
Massachusetts
TBD
TBD
March 2015
TBD
TBD
Resource Report 1
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
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 Tennessees
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
Resource Report 1
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
Resource Report 1
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
Resource Report 1
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
Resource Report 1
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
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)
Franklin
Deerfield
March 2015
Resource Report 1
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)
(cont.)
Franklin
(cont.)
Deerfield/
Montague
Lynnfield Lateral
Middlesex/
Essex
Dracut/
Andover
Fitchburg Lateral
Extension
(Massachusetts
Portion)
Worcester
Lunenburg
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
21.20
Avoidance of
Souhegan River,
Simeon Wilson
Road
3,100
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
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
Resource Report 1
1-81
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 Tennessees 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. Tennessees 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.
Tennessees 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
Resource Report 1
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
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 Tennessees 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 Tennessees 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
Tennessees 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
Resource Report 1
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 Commissions

Plan and Procedures
Tennessee anticipates that it will request exceptions to the Commissions Plan and Procedures as
Tennessee continues to develop its route. Proposed modifications to the Commissions 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 Commissions 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
Commissions 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
Commissions 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
Resource Report 1
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 Tennessees 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 Tennessees 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
Resource Report 1
1-85
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
Tennessees 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 Tennessees 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
Resource Report 1
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 Tennessees 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 USDOTs 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
Resource Report 1
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 Tennessees 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 Tennessees pipeline facilities.
Other maintenance functions will include:
Periodic seasonal vegetation management of the Project ROW in accordance with the timing
restrictions outlined in Tennessees 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 Tennessees 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
Resource Report 1
1-88
Within wetlands, Tennessee will only maintain the 10-foot corridor centered over the Project pipeline,
allowing the balance of Tennessees 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 Tennessees 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
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
Resource Report 1
1-89
TABLE 1.4-1
CATHODIC PROTECTION AREAS ALONG THE PROJECT
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Segment1
Nearest MP2
0.00
1.11
2.52
3.35
4.69
5.67
6.43
7.41
8.88
9.55
10.77
12.01
13.56
15.25
16.52
17.10
17.64
18.93
19.91
21.24
22.65
0.02
1.16
2.01
3.53
4.65
5.92
6.94
7.73
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
Resource Report 1
1-90
TABLE 1.4-1
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Auburn
Dimock
Bridgewater
Brooklyn
Pipeline Segment
Harford
Susquehanna
New Milford
Jackson
Oakland
Harmony
March 2015
Segment1
Nearest MP2
0.00
1.95
3.45
4.82
6.12
7.47
9.20
10.69
11.81
13.61
14.76
15.90
16.47
16.68
17.49
19.02
20.25
21.92
23.44
24.75
26.27
27.86
29.05
30.51
32.36
33.89
34.53
34.87
36.40
37.74
Resource Report 1
1-91
TABLE 1.4-1
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Segment1
Nearest MP2
1.25
2.42
3.69
5.19
6.61
8.11
9.37
10.66
11.79
13.03
14.48
16.28
18.00
19.62
21.70
24.75
26.49
27.40
27.79
28.01
29.33
30.86
32.32
33.36
34.79
New York
Broome
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
Chenango
Sanford
Afton
Masonville
Delaware
Sidney
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-92
TABLE 1.4-1
Pipeline Name
County
Segment1
Nearest MP2
35.91
37.50
39.05
40.64
42.18
43.91
1.06
2.47
3.98
5.50
6.99
8.38
9.40
11.24
13.23
14.53
15.83
16.85
18.30
19.48
Jefferson
20.54
Summit
21.61
23.02
24.36
25.87
26.96
28.39
29.88
31.38
Township
Franklin
Delaware
(cont.)
Davenport
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
(cont.)
Harpersfield
Jefferson
Schoharie
Summit
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-93
TABLE 1.4-1
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Richmondville
Cobleskill
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
(cont.)
Middleburgh
Schoharie
(cont.)
Schoharie
Wright
Schoharie
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
Wright
Knox
Albany
Berne
March 2015
Segment1
Nearest MP2
32.36
33.85
35.29
36.70
38.09
39.37
40.46
41.92
43.35
44.73
46.01
46.23
46.61
47.62
49.31
50.83
0.77
2.00
3.21
4.59
6.00
7.27
8.64
8.77
9.14
10.46
12.33
Resource Report 1
1-94
TABLE 1.4-1
Pipeline Name
County
Township
New Scotland
Albany
(cont.)
Bethlehem
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
(cont.)
Schodack
Rensselaer
Nassau
Stephentown
March 2015
Segment1
Nearest MP2
13.67
15.49
16.56
18.00
19.20
20.96
21.98
23.40
24.71
26.14
27.26
27.62
28.42
28.46
30.42
32.01
33.48
34.69
36.44
37.51
38.86
40.52
41.59
42.95
44.19
45.75
47.67
48.70
50.40
51.98
53.14
Resource Report 1
1-95
TABLE 1.4-1
Pipeline Name
County
Segment1
Nearest MP2
0.76
1.94
2.88
4.38
6.08
Cheshire
8.00
Dalton
12.22
13.51
14.78
15.72
17.28
18.46
20.09
20.85
21.05
21.65
23.39
24.13
24.33
25.14
26.58
27.97
29.35
29.73
30.15
31.51
32.54
Township
Massachusetts
Hancock
Lanesborough
Berkshire
Hinsdale
Windsor
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
Hampshire
Franklin
Plainfield
Ashfield
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-96
TABLE 1.4-1
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Segment1
Nearest MP2
Ashfield
1.13
3.19
4.49
4.66
5.38
7.28
7.42
8.32
8.88
9.17
9.22
10.99
11.00
11.70
12.07
13.86
14.28
14.71
15.79
15.88
16.35
17.48
Northfield
18.78
Erving
19.93
21.35
22.84
24.77
26.11
28.03
0.00
1.34
Conway
Shelburne
Deerfield
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(cont.)
Franklin
(cont.)
Montague
Erving
Northfield
Warwick
Middlesex
Dracut
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-97
TABLE 1.4-1
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Middlesex
Dracut
Middlesex
Dracut
Middlesex
Essex
Dracut
Andover
Tewksbury
Lynnfield Lateral
Middlesex
Wilmington
North Reading
Haverhill Lateral
Segment1
Nearest MP2
0.66
0.85
0.04
0.34
1.96
2.36
2.93
3.38
4.89
6.23
7.82
9.24
10.32
11.41
13.13
14.36
Essex
Lynnfield
15.86
Middlesex
Dracut
0.75
2.05
3.28
4.21
5.34
5.95
7.75
9.35
10.86
12.32
13.27
13.55
13.60
Essex
Middlesex
Methuen
Townsend

Worcester
Lunenburg
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-98
TABLE 1.4-1
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Bolton
Berlin
Worcester
Northborough
Boylston
Worcester
Segment1
Nearest MP2
0.00
1.15
2.30
3.32
4.02
4.77
5.77
7.27
8.50
9.03
10.76
11.84
12.92
14.14
1.55
2.52
4.25
4.37
5.76
7.36
9.06
10.37
11.80
13.39
14.73
15.98
17.08
18.05
19.16
New Hampshire
Winchester
Richmond
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
Cheshire
Troy
Fitzwilliam
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-99
TABLE 1.4-1
Pipeline Name
County
Cheshire
(cont.)
Township
Rindge
New Ipswich
Greenville
Mason
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(cont.)
Milford
Brookline
Hillsborough
Milford
Amherst
Merrimack
March 2015
Segment1
Nearest MP2
20.77
22.23
23.97
25.37
26.90
28.39
1.02
2.21
3.71
4.92
6.42
8.09
9.65
11.20
12.71
14.18
15.17
16.74
18.32
20.01
20.43
20.87
21.15
21.62
22.27
23.79
25.29
25.98
Resource Report 1
1-100
TABLE 1.4-1
Pipeline Name
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(cont.)
County
Hillsborough
(cont.)
Litchfield
Rockingham
Londonderry
Hillsborough
Hudson
Rockingham
Windham
Hillsborough
Haverhill Lateral
Township
Rockingham
Hillsborough
Pelham
Salem
Mason
Segment1
Nearest MP2
26.62
26.63
27.92
29.09
30.12
31.80
33.08
34.62
35.71
37.02
38.26
39.75
6.94
0.67
1.79
3.23
4.62
0.00
1.67
3.32
4.39
6.67
7.51
8.69
9.64
10.84
11.27
11.77
12.29
13.25
Connecticut
Farmington
West Hartford
300 Line CT Loop
Hartford
Bloomfield
Windsor
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-101
TABLE 1.4-1
Pipeline Name
County
Township
300 Line CT Loop
Hartford
East Granby
Stamford Loop
1
2
Fairfield
Stamford
Segment1
Nearest MP2
14.24
14.72
0.00
0.56
1.49
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
14.25
0.23
0.55
0.85
15.22
15.52
23.61
24.07
24.33
24.75
Sanford
11.50
Masonville
21.31
23.77
24.00
24.30
Tuscarora
Brooklyn
Pipeline Segment
Susquehanna
New Milford
New York
Broome
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
Delaware
Sidney
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-102
TABLE 1.4-2
Nearest
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Segment1
Milepost2
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
(cont.)
Delaware
(cont.)
Schoharie
24.56
24.99
25.34
25.73
26.13
26.48
26.81
Franklin
39.90
Davenport
4.47
Schoharie
48.14
17.65
17.99
18.39
18.62
19.89
21.96
22.47
22.92
23.07
23.39
23.83
24.33
24.70
29.59
29.68
29.98
30.33
33.90
34.21
34.67
35.19
Sidney
(cont.)
New Scotland
Albany
Bethlehem
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
Rensselaer
Schodack
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-103
TABLE 1.4-2
Nearest
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Segment1
Milepost2
Schodack
(cont.)
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
(cont.)
Rensselaer
(cont.)
Nassau
March 2015
35.61
36.04
36.44
37.01
37.18
37.35
37.52
37.73
38.05
38.44
38.84
39.03
39.42
39.75
39.89
40.11
40.52
40.90
41.31
41.59
42.12
42.48
42.96
43.22
43.72
44.19
44.55
45.15
45.59
Resource Report 1
1-104
TABLE 1.4-2
Nearest
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Segment1
Milepost2
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(New York Portion)
(cont.)
Rensselaer
(cont.)
Stephentown
45.99
46.44
46.92
47.26
47.67
48.18
48.69
49.09
49.46
49.91
50.40
50.81
51.21
51.38
51.48
51.98
52.42
52.77
53.14
53.24
0.19
0.49
0.74
1.12
1.54
1.90
2.20
2.47
Massachusetts
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
Berkshire
Hancock
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-105
TABLE 1.4-2
Nearest
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Segment1
Milepost2
Lanesborough
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(cont.)
Berkshire
(cont.)
Cheshire
Dalton
Hinsdale
March 2015
2.89
3.28
3.69
3.98
4.37
4.51
4.75
5.15
5.38
5.78
6.08
6.58
7.03
7.42
8.05
8.47
8.86
9.27
9.64
10.05
10.45
10.87
11.33
11.72
12.11
12.24
12.59
13.01
13.50
13.97
14.41
Resource Report 1
1-106
TABLE 1.4-2
Nearest
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Segment1
Milepost2
Hinsdale
(cont.)
Peru
Berkshire
(cont.)
Windsor
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(cont.)
Hampshire
Plainfield
March 2015
14.78
15.25
15.72
16.12
16.54
16.92
17.28
17.67
18.11
18.46
18.58
19.00
19.30
19.56
20.09
20.37
20.86
21.09
21.36
21.67
22.08
22.52
22.92
23.38
23.72
24.16
24.30
24.35
24.63
25.00
25.14
Resource Report 1
1-107
TABLE 1.4-2
Nearest
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Segment1
Milepost2
Hampshire
(cont.)
Plainfield
(cont.)
Ashfield
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(cont.)
Franklin
Conway
March 2015
25.58
26.15
26.58
27.02
27.42
27.77
27.97
28.20
28.67
29.07
29.42
29.80
30.15
30.56
30.81
31.15
31.50
31.95
32.25
32.54
0.13
0.52
0.83
1.12
1.55
1.96
2.08
2.50
2.84
3.17
3.52
Resource Report 1
1-108
TABLE 1.4-2
Nearest
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Segment1
Milepost2
Conway
(cont.)
Shelburne
Deerfield
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(cont.)
Franklin
(cont.)
Montague
March 2015
3.95
4.33
4.65
4.92
5.20
5.56
5.87
6.16
6.56
6.96
7.28
7.67
7.89
8.20
9.56
9.91
10.41
11.00
11.62
12.07
12.37
12.76
13.14
13.47
13.85
14.07
14.27
14.56
14.90
Resource Report 1
1-109
TABLE 1.4-2
Nearest
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Segment1
Milepost2
Montague
(cont.)
Erving
Northfield
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(cont.)
Erving
Franklin
(cont.)
Northfield
March 2015
15.26
15.58
15.88
16.17
16.52
16.87
17.24
17.50
17.81
18.08
18.43
18.58
19.09
19.52
19.87
20.25
20.69
21.03
21.36
21.67
22.01
22.39
22.84
23.19
23.57
23.92
24.30
24.67
24.99
25.31
25.70
Resource Report 1
1-110
TABLE 1.4-2
Nearest
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Segment1
Milepost2
Franklin
(cont.)
Warwick
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(cont.)
Middlesex
Northfield
(cont.)
Middlesex
Middlesex
Dracut
Dracut
Dracut
Lynnfield Lateral
Essex
Andover
Middlesex
Tewksbury
Essex
Andover
March 2015
26.05
26.41
26.86
27.24
27.62
27.97
0.27
0.50
0.74
1.06
1.35
1.70
1.85
0.04
0.37
0.04
0.34
0.73
1.12
1.52
1.77
1.96
2.30
2.61
2.76
3.04
3.37
3.62
3.93
8.64
8.89
Resource Report 1
1-111
TABLE 1.4-2
Nearest
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Segment1
Milepost2
Wilmington
Lynnfield Lateral
(cont.)
Middlesex
North Reading
Reading
Essex
Lynnfield
Lynnfield
Peabody Lateral
Essex
Peabody
Danvers
March 2015
9.82
10.19
12.07
12.34
12.61
12.86
12.99
13.13
13.28
13.49
13.60
13.82
14.36
14.65
14.94
15.32
15.69
15.86
0.00
0.25
3.46
3.82
3.86
4.06
4.28
4.55
4.77
4.99
Resource Report 1
1-112
TABLE 1.4-2
Nearest
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Segment1
Milepost2
Middlesex
Dracut
Haverhill Lateral
Essex
Methuen
Middlesex
Townsend

Worcester
Worcester
Lunenburg
Boylston
0.10
0.43
0.78
1.11
1.48
1.59
1.81
2.06
2.39
2.60
2.90
3.20
7.44
7.77
7.82
8.11
8.44
8.83
9.21
9.62
10.02
10.46
10.86
13.52
13.59
13.98
12.67
0.15
0.50
0.89
New Hampshire
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
Cheshire
Winchester
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-113
TABLE 1.4-2
Nearest
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Segment1
Milepost2
Richmond
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(cont)
Cheshire
(cont)
Troy
Fitzwilliam
Troy
Fitzwilliam
March 2015
5.89
6.27
6.59
6.98
7.33
7.55
7.86
8.28
8.69
9.05
9.52
9.91
10.36
10.75
11.15
11.50
11.89
12.23
12.62
13.00
13.39
13.76
14.11
14.44
14.73
15.11
15.29
Resource Report 1
1-114
TABLE 1.4-2
Nearest
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Segment1
Milepost2
Fitzwilliam
(cont.)
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(cont.)
Cheshire
(cont.)
Rindge
March 2015
15.66
15.98
16.33
16.68
17.08
17.41
17.73
18.02
18.12
18.50
18.82
19.17
19.51
19.81
20.00
20.43
20.76
21.03
21.20
21.58
21.94
22.22
22.38
22.69
23.04
23.25
23.36
23.68
23.97
24.25
Resource Report 1
1-115
TABLE 1.4-2
Nearest
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Segment1
Milepost2
Cheshire
(cont.)
Rindge
(cont.)
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(cont.)
Hillsborough
New Ipswich
March 2015
24.48
24.79
25.19
25.37
25.57
25.83
26.08
26.22
26.58
26.90
27.31
27.70
28.09
28.46
28.82
0.13
0.44
0.75
1.02
1.38
1.80
2.05
2.21
2.59
2.96
3.32
3.71
4.04
4.41
4.81
4.91
Resource Report 1
1-116
TABLE 1.4-2
Nearest
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Segment1
Milepost2
New Ipswich
(cont.)
Greenville
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(cont.)
Hillsborough
(cont.)
Mason
Milford
Brookline
March 2015
5.15
5.49
5.83
6.05
6.41
6.86
7.25
7.39
7.69
8.10
8.36
8.72
8.87
9.20
9.62
9.83
10.19
10.57
10.64
11.01
11.39
11.78
12.18
12.59
12.96
13.20
13.58
13.97
14.35
14.74
Resource Report 1
1-117
TABLE 1.4-2
Nearest
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Segment1
Milepost2
Brookline
(cont.)
Milford
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(cont.)
Hillsborough
(cont.)
Amherst
Merrimack
March 2015
15.08
15.19
15.58
15.95
16.13
16.34
16.68
16.86
17.13
17.52
17.91
18.31
18.45
18.77
18.97
19.33
19.39
19.73
20.01
20.47
21.50
21.70
22.07
22.27
22.42
22.67
22.77
23.01
23.43
23.79
24.17
Resource Report 1
1-118
TABLE 1.4-2
Nearest
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Segment1
Milepost2
Merrimack
(cont.)
Hillsborough
(cont.)
Litchfield
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(cont.)
Rockingham
Hillsborough
Londonderry
Hudson
March 2015
24.52
24.77
24.81
25.00
25.35
26.00
26.40
26.50
26.63
26.92
27.23
27.58
27.92
28.28
28.70
29.09
29.24
29.34
29.79
30.11
30.22
30.55
30.91
31.31
31.40
31.79
31.98
32.27
32.44
32.72
32.95
Resource Report 1
1-119
TABLE 1.4-2
Nearest
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Segment1
Milepost2
Hillsborough
(cont.)
Rockingham
Hudson
(cont.)
Windham
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(cont.)
Hillsborough
Pelham
March 2015
33.09
33.36
33.52
33.86
34.02
34.34
34.61
34.74
34.96
35.13
35.34
35.70
36.03
36.33
36.66
37.01
37.38
37.71
38.07
38.25
38.53
38.80
38.99
39.02
39.34
39.69
39.99
40.29
Resource Report 1
1-120
TABLE 1.4-2
Nearest
Pipeline Name
County
Township
Segment1
Milepost2
Wright to Dracut
Pipeline Segment
(cont.)
Hillsborough
(cont.)
Pelham
(cont.)
40.58
40.90
41.20
41.50
0.00
0.32
0.66
1.68
2.02
2.47
2.91
3.31
3.68
3.97
4.32
4.66
5.04
5.43
8.70
8.98
Connecticut
Farmington
West Hartford
300 Line CT Loop
Hartford
Bloomfield
1
2
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
Resource Report 1
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. Tennessees 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 Tennessees Projectspecific ECPs for each state, as well as other applicable regulatory requirements. The compressor stations
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-122
will be remotely linked to Tennessees 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 Tennessees 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
Tennessees 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
Resource Report 1
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 Tennessees 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 Tennessees 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
Tennessees 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 Tennessees 200 Line, are located
approximately 130 miles to the west of the Project facilities.
March 2015
Resource Report 1
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

Engineers-New York District
Engineers- Buffalo District
Applications to be submitted
in September 2015

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
in September 2015
Water Obstruction and

Encroachment Permits
Protection
in September 2015
National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System
Hydrostatic Test Water
Discharge General Permit
(PAG 10) or Individual Permit
Protection
Application to be submitted
in January 2016

Elimination System, Section 402
Chapter 102 Erosion and
Sediment Control Permit for
Construction Activities
Protection and County
Conservation Districts
in December 2016
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-125
TABLE 1.6-1
Permit/Approval
Status
Submerged Land License
Agreement
Protection
in May 2016
Water Allocation Permit
Susquehanna River Basin

Commission
May 2016
Consumptive Use Permit for

Horizontal Directional Drills

Commission
May 2016
Permit for Use of Explosives in

Commonwealth Waters
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat

Commission
in September 2016
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
Bureau of Air Quality Northeast/Northcentral Regions
in September 2015
Highway Occupancy Permit
Transportation
May 2016
Highway Crossing Permit
Transportation
May 2016
State Species Consultations
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-126
TABLE 1.6-1
Permit/Approval
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
in September 2015
State Pollution Discharge

Elimination System General
Permit for Stormwater
Discharges from Construction
Activity

Environmental ConservationDivision of Water
Bureau of Water Permits
in December 2015
Coastal Zone Consistency

Determination (Federal and State
Reviews)
New York State Department

of State
Consultation to be submitted
in September 2015

Commission
in November 2015
Delaware River Basin

Commission
in November 2015
Temporary Revocable Permit

Environmental ConservationBureau of Forest Lands
in November 2015
State Species Consultation
New York Department of

Environmental ConservationDivision of Fish, Wildlife and
Marine Resources
Agricultural Lands Consultation

Agricultural Management
Consultations to be submitted
in March 2015

New York State Office of Parks,

Recreation and Historic
Preservation
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-127
TABLE 1.6-1
Permit/Approval
Status
Air State Facility Permit

Environmental Conservation-Air
Quality
in September 2015
Highway Occupancy Permit

Transportation
in November 2015
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
in September 2015
Chapter 91 License
(Massachusetts Waterfront Act)
Environmental Protection
in December 2015

Elimination System, General
Permit for Stormwater
Discharges from Construction
Sites
United States Environmental

Protection Agency
in September 2015
Hydrostatic Testwater Discharge

Permit

Protection Agency
in December 2015
Water Withdrawal Permit
in May 2016
Air Quality Permit
in September 2015
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
in January 2016
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-128
TABLE 1.6-1
Permit/Approval
Status
Approval to Construct
Massachusetts Energy Siting

Board
Coordination in September
2015
State Highway Access Permits
Transportation
in May 2016
New Hampshire
New Hampshire Site Evaluation
Committee
New Hampshire Certificate of

Site and Facility
in December 2015

Quality Certificate
New Hampshire Department of

Environmental ServicesWatershed Management
in September 2015
Dredge and Fill Permit

Environmental ServicesWetlands Bureau
in May 2016
Shoreland Permit

Environmental ServicesWetlands Bureau
in May 2016
Air Emissions Permit

Environmental Services- Air
Resources Division
in September 2015
State Species Consultations

Environmental Services- Natural
Heritage Bureau
New Hampshire Fish and Game

Department
New Hampshire Division of

Historical Resources

Elimination System (NPDES)
Construction General Permit

Protection Agency
in December 2015
Large Groundwater Withdrawal

Permit or Surface Water Use
Registration

Environmental ServicesWatershed Management
in December 2016
Alteration of Terrain

Environmental ServicesAlteration of Terrain
in May 2016
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-129
TABLE 1.6-1
Permit/Approval
Status
Connecticut
Quality Certificate
Connecticut Department of
Energy and Environmental
Protection-Bureau of Water
Protection
in September 2015
General Permit for Hydrostatic

Discharges
Protection
in March 2016
General Permit for Stormwater

and Dewatering Wastewater from
Construction Sites
Protection
in May 2016
Water Diversion Permit
Protection
in December 2015
State Species Consultation
Connecticut Natural Diversity

Database
Inlands Wetlands and

Watercourses
Connecticut Town Inland

Wetland Commissions
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
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 Tennessees 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
Resource Report 1
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 Commissions 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
Resource Report 1
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
Resource Report 1
1-132
TABLE 1.8-1
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
Resource Report 1
1-133
TABLE 1.8-1
Counties
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
Resource Report 1
1-134
TABLE 1.8-1
Counties
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
Resource Report 1
1-135
TABLE 1.8-2
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
Resource Report 1
1-136
TABLE 1.8-2
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 Tennessees request to use the Commissions 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
Resource Report 1
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 Tennessees 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 Tennessees intent to use the Commissions 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
Resource Report 1
1-138
TABLE 1.8-3
Agency
Meeting Date
Topic
Massachusetts agencies under Secretary
of Massachusetts Office of Energy and
Environmental Affairs
3/27/2014
Public Utilities
4/9/2014
Project Introduction Discussion and

Petition for Land Survey Permission
Process

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

Engineers-New York and New England
Districts
5/28/2014
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
Transportation
7/9/2014
Massachusetts Office of Energy and

Environmental Affairs, Department of
Conservation and Recreation, Fish and
Game
7/10/2014
Secondary Discussion
Transportation
8/26/2014
Secondary Discussion

8/27/2014
Project Update Discussion
Transportation
10/1/2014

10/1/2014
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-139
TABLE 1.8-3
Agency
Meeting Date
Topic
United States Environmental Protection
Agency
10/7/2014

Environmental Conservation
10/28/2014
Oneida Tribe
11/13/2014
(Commissioner), Massachusetts
Department of Conservations and
Recreation
11/20/2014
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

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
Resource Report 1
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
Projects 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
Resource Report 1
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

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:
Review of NEPA Documents (USEPA1999)
(FERC 2014)
RR 2: Groundwater
RR 2: Water Use
and Quality
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-142
TABLE 1.9-1
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

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:
(FERC 2014)
Watershed boundary
HUC 8

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
include:
(FERC 2014)
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-143
TABLE 1.9-1
Resource
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:
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
Guidance Manual for Environmental Report
Preparation (FERC 2002)
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-144
TABLE 1.9-1
Resource
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
Guidance Manual for Environmental Report
Preparation (FERC 2002)
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:
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-145
TABLE 1.9-1
Resource
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
include:
(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:
(FERC 2014)
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
include:
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1-146
TABLE 1.9-1
Resource
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
Resource Report 1
ATTACHMENT 1a
Figures
March 2015
62
8
43
23
#
*
#
#*
)*
#"
*
56
42
New
Hampshire
39
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
#
*
Massachusetts
60
43
#
*
#
*
#
*
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
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
300 Line CT Loop
Stamford Loop
Peabody Lateral
Loop 319-3
Loop 317-3
Pennsylvania to Wright Pipeline Segment
Wright to Dracut Pipeline Segment
Beverly
#
*
21
#
*
40
SEE INSET
56
#
*
"
)
#
Dracut *
"
)
#
"
)*
42
#
*
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

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
80,000 HP
80,000 HP
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
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.
Resource Report 1
ATTACHMENT 1b
List of Sources for Projects Potentially Contributing to Cumulative Impacts
March 2015
Resource Report 1
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
Resource Report 1
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.
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.
FERC. 2015b. Projects Near You (Northeast). [Online WWW]. Available URL:
http://www.ferc.gov/for-citizens/projectsearch/SearchProjects.aspx?Region=Northeast.
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:
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
Resource Report 1
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/.
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.
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.
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
Resource Report 1
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.
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:
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:
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.
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
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1b-5
NYSDOT. 2015. Route 30 over the East Branch of the Delaware River, Project ID No. 904466,
Delaware County. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
NYSDOT. 2015. I-87: Exit 3, Airport Connector, Part 2, Project ID No. 172190, Broome County.
[Online WWW]. Available URL:
NYSDOT. 2015. I787 NB to South Mall- Project ID No. 105177, Albany County. [Online WWW].
Available URL:
NYSDOT. 2015. South Mall Bridges from I-787 to Empire State Plaza, Project ID No. 105171, Albany
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/.
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
Resource Report 1
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.
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.
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:
2015].
TGP. 2012. Rose Lake Expansion Project - Modifications & Abandonment at Three Compressor
Stations in Tioga and Bradford Counties, Pennsylvania. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
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:
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:
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.
March 2015
Resource Report 1
1b-7
USACE. 2013. Final Feasibility Report/FSEIS/FEIR for the Boston Harbor - Federal Deep Draft
Navigation Improvement Project. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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
Resource Report 1
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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TGP Environmental Report NED 03132015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NORTHEAST ENERGY DIRECT PROJECT

DOCKET NO. PF14-22-000

This page intentionally left blank

RESOURCE REPORT 1 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Provide a detailed description and location map of the Project

Describe any non-jurisdictional facilities that would be built in

Provide current original U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute

Provide aerial images or photographs or alignment sheets based

Provide plot/site plans of compressor stations showing the

To be provided in a subsequent filing

Describe construction and restoration methods

Identify the permits required for construction across surface

Provide the names and addresses of all affected landowners and

This page intentionally left blank

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

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

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

Location and Description of Facilities .............................................................. 1-12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pipeline Construction ........................................................................................ 1-58

Specialized Construction Procedures................................................................ 1-64

Compressor Stations, Meter Stations, and Appurtenant Facilities.................... 1-83

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

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

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

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

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

Cathodic Protection and Cathodic Protection and Alternating Current

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agency Consultation....................................................................................... 1-136

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

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

Past, Present, Proposed or Future Projects Evaluated for Potential

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

This page intentionally left blank

GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Approximately 32 miles of pipeline looping1 on Tennessees 300 Line in Pennsylvania;

Station 319 Upgrades

Supply Path Head Station

Supply Path Mid Station

Supply Path Tail Station

Market Path Head Station

Market Path Mid Station 1

New York Subtotal

Maritimes Delivery Line

Concord Delivery Line

Fitchburg Lateral Extension

North Worcester Lateral

North Adams Check