FERC Approval for Tennessee Gas Pipeline - Connecticut Expansion Project

154 FERC ¶ 61,191
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Before Commissioners: Norman C. Bay, Chairman;
Cheryl A. LaFleur, Tony Clark,
and Colette D. Honorable.
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. Docket No. CP14-529-000
ORDER ISSUING CERTIFICATE
(Issued March 11, 2016)
1. On July 31, 2014, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee) filed
an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA)1
and Part 157 of the
Commission’s regulations2
for authorization to construct and operate pipeline facilities
in Albany County, New York; Berkshire and Hampden Counties, Massachusetts; and
Hartford County, Connecticut, and modify an existing compressor station in Hampden
County, Massachusetts (Connecticut Expansion Project). For the reasons discussed
below, we grant Tennessee’s requested certificate authorizations, subject to conditions.
I. Background
2. Tennessee,3
a Delaware limited liability company, is a natural gas company
within the meaning of section 2(6) of the NGA.4
Tennessee operates an interstate
natural gas transmission system that extends from Texas and Louisiana through
Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
and Connecticut.
1
15 U.S.C. § 717f(c) (2012).
2
18 C.F.R. pt. 157 (2015).
3
Tennessee is a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.
4
15 U.S.C. § 717a(6) (2012).

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 2 -
II. Proposal
3. Tennessee proposes to construct and operate three pipeline loops, totaling
13.42 miles in length, on its existing 200 and 300 Lines:5
(1) the New York Loop,
a 1.35-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter loop on the 200 Line near Bethlehem, New York;
(2) the Massachusetts Loop, a 3.81-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter loop on the 200 Line
near the Town of Sandisfield, Massachusetts; and (3) the Connecticut Loop, an
8.26-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter loop on the 300 Line, which will extend from
Compressor Station 2616
in Agawam, Massachusetts, to the East Granby Meter
Station near Suffield and East Granby, Connecticut.7
4. Tennessee also proposes to make minor modifications at its existing Compressor
Station 261 in Hampden County, which would not increase the station’s horsepower.
The modifications include installing a new bi-directional pig launcher/receiver and valve,
miscellaneous station piping, valves, fittings, and an insertion meter, which are necessary
to interconnect the Connecticut Loop to the existing Compressor Station 261 piping. In
addition, Tennessee proposes to install additional appurtenant facilities along the New
York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut Loops, including a mainline valve, cathodic
protection, and new pig launchers and receivers, and to relocate two existing pig receiver
facilities to accommodate internal inspection of the proposed pipeline loops. Tennessee
estimates that the cost of the project will be $85,670,181.
5. The proposed Connecticut Expansion Project will enable Tennessee to provide
72,100 dekatherms (Dth) per day of firm transportation service from its interconnection
with Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. in Wright, New York, to Zone 6 delivery
points on Tennessee’s existing 200 and 300 Lines in Hartford County, Connecticut.
5
The 200 Line consists of 24- to 36-inch-diameter pipelines extending from the
suction side of Compressor Station 200 in Greenup County, Kentucky, through Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and New York, to termini in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode
Island. The 300 Line consists of a 24- and a 30-inch-diameter pipeline extending from
the discharge side of Compressor Station 219 in Mercer County, Pennsylvania, to
Compressor Station 261 in Agawam, Massachusetts.
6
Compressor Station 261 is also known as the Agawam Compressor Station.
7
See Tennessee April 17, 2015 Supplemental Information Filing at 2 (modifying
its proposal by increasing the length of the proposed Connecticut Loop from 8.10 miles
to 8.26 miles).

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 3 -
6. Tennessee states that, on May 28, 2013, prior to holding an open season, it
executed binding precedent agreements with three anchor shippers – Connecticut Natural
Gas Corporation (Connecticut Natural), Southern Connecticut Gas Company (Southern
Connecticut), and Yankee Gas Services Company (Yankee) – for all of the proposed
project capacity and granted them certain contract extension rights in exchange for their
early commitment to the project.8
Subsequently, between July 10 and July 31, 2013,
Tennessee held a binding open season to solicit further interest in capacity on the project.
Only the anchor shippers offered bids: Connecticut Natural for 35,000 Dth per day,
Southern Connecticut for 10,000 Dth per day, and Yankee for 27,100 Dth per day.
Tennessee also solicited interest in turn-back capacity on its existing system but
received no bids.9
7. Tennessee proposes to establish an incremental rate as the initial recourse rate
under Rate Schedule FT-A for firm transportation service on the project facilities. The
three anchor shippers elected to pay a negotiated rate for the proposed transportation
service. Tennessee requests that the Commission approve the negotiated contract
provisions of its precedent agreements with the anchor shippers as permissible material
deviations from the form of service agreement contained in Tennessee’s FERC Gas
Tariff.
III. Notice, Interventions, and Comments
8. Notice of Tennessee’s application was published in the Federal Register on
August 20, 2014, with interventions, comments, and protests due on or before September
4, 2014.10
The parties listed in Appendix A filed timely, unopposed motions to intervene.
The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation filed
8
The anchor shippers are all local distribution companies (LDCs).
9
Pursuant to section 5.8 of Article No. XXVI of the General Terms and
Conditions of its FERC Gas Tariff, Tennessee states that it reserved 32,000 Dth per day
of existing firm transportation capacity on its system from Tennessee’s mainline valve
(MLV) 249 in Wright, New York, to the discharge side of MLV 261 in Agawam,
Massachusetts, including 32,000 Dth per day at the receipt meter located at Wright,
New York (#01-2181). Tennessee states that the reservation reduced the facilities it
needed to construct for the project. Tennessee posted a notice of the unsubscribed
capacity that was reserved on its electronic bulletin board system on July 16, 2013.
10
79 Fed. Reg. 49,296 (2014).

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 4 -
timely notices of intervention. Timely, unopposed motions to intervene and notices of
intervention are granted by operation of Rule 214(c) of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure.11
9. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
filed an untimely notice of intervention. Leigh Rae, Darcey Sutula Parker, and Christine
Shearman filed untimely motions to intervene. We will grant the late-filed notice of
intervention and motions to intervene because they do not unduly delay, disrupt, or
otherwise prejudice the proceeding or other parties.12
10. We received numerous comments in opposition to Tennessee’s proposals.13
These comments were addressed in the Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for
the project.
IV. Discussion
11. Since the proposed facilities will be used to transport natural gas in interstate
commerce, subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction, the construction and operation of
the facilities are subject to the requirements of subsections (c) and (e) of section 7 of the
NGA.14
A. Certificate Policy Statement
12. The Certificate Policy Statement provides guidance for evaluating proposals to
certificate new construction.15
The Certificate Policy Statement establishes criteria for
determining whether there is a need for a proposed project and whether the proposed
project will serve the public interest. The Certificate Policy Statement explains that in
deciding whether to authorize the construction of major new natural gas facilities, the
Commission balances the public benefits against the potential adverse consequences.
11
18 C.F.R. § 385.214(c) (2015).
12
See id. § 385.214(d).
13
On September 30, 2014, Tennessee filed an answer to the adverse comments.
14
15 U.S.C. §§ 717f(c) and 717f(e) (2012).
15
Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities, 88 FERC
¶ 61,227 (1999), clarified, 90 FERC ¶ 61,128, further clarified, 92 FERC ¶ 61,094 (2000)
(Certificate Policy Statement).

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 5 -
The Commission’s goal is to give appropriate consideration to the enhancement of
competitive transportation alternatives, the possibility of overbuilding, subsidization by
existing customers, the applicant’s responsibility for unsubscribed capacity, the
avoidance of unnecessary disruptions of the environment, and the unneeded exercise of
eminent domain in evaluating new pipeline construction.
13. Under this policy, the threshold requirement for pipelines proposing new projects
is that the pipeline must be prepared to financially support the project without relying on
subsidization from existing customers. The next step is to determine whether the
applicant has made efforts to eliminate or minimize any adverse effects the project might
have on the applicant’s existing customers, existing pipelines in the market and their
captive customers, or landowners and communities affected by the construction. If
residual adverse effects on these interest groups are identified after efforts have been
made to minimize them, the Commission will evaluate the project by balancing the
evidence of public benefits to be achieved against the residual adverse effects. This is
essentially an economic test. Only when the benefits outweigh the adverse effects on
economic interests will the Commission proceed to complete the environmental analysis
where other interests are considered.
14. As stated, the threshold requirement is that the applicant must be prepared to
financially support the project without relying on subsidization from its existing
customers. Tennessee has entered into long-term precedent agreements with Connecticut
Natural, Southern Connecticut, and Yankee for 100 percent of the design capacity of the
project. There will be a separate incremental recourse rate for transportation service
using the Connecticut Expansion Project’s facilities that is designed to recover the full
cost of the expansion and exceeds the existing system rate for service. Thus, we find
Tennessee’s existing customers will not subsidize the project.
15. The proposed project will not adversely affect Tennessee’s existing customers
because the project will not degrade any existing service. The project will not adversely
impact existing pipelines and their captive customers because the project is not intended
to replace existing customers’ service on any other existing pipeline. Further, no pipeline
or their captive customers have protested Tennessee’s proposal. Consequently, we find
that there will be no adverse impacts on Tennessee’s existing customers or other
pipelines or their captive customers.
16. Because Tennessee proposes to site the pipeline loops and appurtenant
aboveground facilities within or adjacent to existing right-of-ways and limit the
compressor station modifications to the existing footprint of Compressor Station 261, we
find that Tennessee has minimized impacts on landowners and surrounding communities.

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 6 -
17. Tennessee has entered into precedent agreements for all of the capacity to be
created by the project. Based on the benefits of Tennessee’s proposal, the lack of adverse
effects on existing customers and other pipelines and their captive customers, and the
minimal adverse effects on landowners or surrounding communities, we find, consistent
with the criteria discussed in the Certificate Policy Statement and section 7 of the NGA,
that the public convenience and necessity requires approval of Tennessee’s proposal, as
conditioned in this order.
B. Rates
1. Initial Recourse Transportation Rate
18. Tennessee proposes an initial incremental recourse rate under its existing Rate
Schedule FT-A for firm transportation service. The incremental recourse rate consists of:
(1) a monthly reservation charge of $19.3689 per Dth; (2) a commodity charge of
$0.0000 per Dth; (3) applicable existing system demand and commodity surcharges; and
(4) applicable existing fuel, lost and unaccounted-for, and electric power cost charges.
Although it is proposing a cost-based recourse rate for the incremental service, Tennessee
states that the anchor shippers have agreed in binding precedent agreements for firm
transportation service under individual negotiated rate agreements. Tennessee states it
will file the negotiated rate agreements, as specified by the Commission’s regulation.
19. Tennessee’s proposed base monthly reservation charge of $19.3689 per Dth was
calculated by dividing the first year cost of service of $16,758,000 by 865,200 Dth
(72,100 Dth per day times 12 months). Tennessee states the cost of service reflects the
income tax rates, capital structure, and rate of return approved in its rate settlement in
Docket No. RP95-112-000,16
and reaffirmed in its rate settlement in Docket No. RP11-
1566-000.17
In addition, Tennessee states it used a straight-line depreciation rate of
3.33 percent based on an estimated useful life of the Connecticut Expansion Project
facilities of 30 years.
20. Tennessee proposes to charge the applicable general system rate under Rate
Schedule IT for any interruptible service rendered as a result of the new capacity
available on the Connecticut Expansion Project.
16
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 94 FERC ¶ 61,117 (2001); Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Co., 77 FERC ¶ 61,083 (1996), reh’g denied, 78 FERC ¶ 61,069 (1997).
17
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., LLC, 137 FERC ¶ 61,182 (2011).

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 7 -
21. We have reviewed Tennessee’s proposed cost of service, incremental base
reservation charge, and rate for interruptible service and find that they are reasonable.
Because the proposed incremental monthly reservation charge of $19.3689 Dth is
higher than the generally-applicable Rate Schedule FT-A base reservation charge of
$5.6256 Dth for transportation from Zones 5 to 6 on its system, Tennessee’s existing
customers will not be subsidizing the project. Thus, we will accept Tennessee’s proposed
incremental reservation rate and direct Tennessee to file tariff records that are consistent
with the pro forma tariff records contained in Tennessee’s filing between 30 and 60 days
prior to the date the project facilities go into service. Our policy requires a pipeline to use
its current system IT rate as the maximum recourse rate for any interruptible service
rendered on additional capacity made available as a result of an incremental expansion
that is integrated with existing pipeline facilities.18
22. We will, however, direct Tennessee to set its incremental commodity charge at
its system daily commodity charge because its proposed daily commodity charge is
$0.0000 per Dth, which is less than its generally-applicable commodity charge of
$0.0549 per Dth for transportation from Zones 5 to 6 on its system.
2. Non-Conforming Provisions
23. In addition to the non-conforming provisions identified in the precedent
agreements discussed above, Tennessee states that the proposed service agreements
with the anchor shippers deviate from its Rate Schedule FT-A pro forma service
agreement because they: (1) contain “Whereas” clauses that describe the precedent
agreements; (2) address the commencement date of the service agreements; (3) indicate
that Tennessee will construct the project facilities to provide service; (4) reflect the
commencement date and/or address the need for acceptable regulatory authorization of
the project; (5) contain no language through which individual rate components may be
adjusted downward or upward (because the anchor shippers have agreed to pay
negotiated rates); and (6) provide that the service agreements shall supersede and cancel
the precedent agreements. Further, Tennessee states that sections 1.1 and 6.3 of the
service agreements contain minor, non-substantive deviations from the text of the
pro forma agreement.
18
See, e.g., Dominion Transmission, Inc., 152 FERC ¶ 61,138, at P 20 (2015);
Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, 139 FERC ¶ 61,138, at P 31 (2012); Gulf South
Pipeline Co., LP, 130 FERC ¶ 61,015, at P 23 (2010).

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 8 -
24. In section 12.1 and Exhibit A of the service agreements with the anchor shippers,19
Tennessee proposes a one-time contractual right to extend the 15-year primary term of
the firm transportation service agreements for a 5-year term at the same negotiated rate
levels or the applicable maximum recourse rate set forth in its tariff. Tennessee requests
an upfront determination from the Commission that even if the extension right provision
could be construed to constitute a material deviation from its pro forma service
agreement, the extension right provisions are not unduly discriminatory.20
25. The non-conforming provisions described above in the unexecuted service
agreements constitute material deviations from Tennessee’s pro forma service agreement.
However, we have found in the past that non-conforming provisions may be necessary to
reflect the unique circumstances involved with the construction of new infrastructure and
to ensure the viability of a project.21
We find the non-conforming provisions identified
by Tennessee are permissible because they do not present a risk of undue discrimination,
do not affect the operational conditions of providing service, and do not result in any
customer receiving a different quality of service.22
As discussed further below, when
Tennessee files its non-conforming service agreements, we will require it to identify and
disclose all non-conforming provisions or agreements affecting the substantive rights of
the parties under the tariff or service agreement. This required disclosure includes any
such transportation provision or agreement detailed in a precedent agreement that
survives the execution of the service agreement.
26. At least 30 days, but not more than 60 days, before providing service to any
project shipper under a non-conforming agreement, Tennessee must file an executed
copy of the non-conforming agreement identifying the agreement as a non-conforming
agreement consistent with section 154.112 of the Commission’s regulations.23
In
19
See Exhibit I of the Application.
20
On February 18, 2015, in response to a data request, Tennessee submitted public
copies of both clean and redline/strikeout versions of the unexecuted service agreements
containing the extension right provision. Tennessee also redacted certain information
from the service agreements but states that the redacted information is not applicable to
its request for an upfront determination from the Commission.
21
See, e.g., Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. L.L.C., 144 FERC ¶ 61,219 (2013);
Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC, 124 FERC ¶ 61,089 (2008).
22
Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 97 FERC ¶ 61,221, at 62,004 (2001).
23
18 C.F.R. § 154.112 (2015).

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 9 -
addition, we emphasize that the above determination relates only to those items described
by Tennessee in its application and not to the entirety of the precedent agreement or the
language contained in the precedent agreement.
3. Reporting Incremental Costs
27. Section 154.309 of the Commission’s regulations includes bookkeeping and
accounting requirements applicable for all expansions for which incremental rates are
approved.24
We will require Tennessee to keep separate books and accounting of costs
attributable to the Connecticut Expansion Project. The books should be maintained with
applicable cross-references, as required by section 154.309 of the Commission’s
regulations. This information must be in sufficient detail so that the data can be
identified in Statements G, I, and J in any future NGA section 4 or 5 rate case and the
information must be provided consistent with Order No. 710.25
In addition, Tennessee
will not be allowed to reflect in its system rates any of the costs associated with the
reserved capacity.
C. Environmental Analysis
28. On October 10, 2014, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Assessment (NOI). The NOI was published in the Federal Register26
and mailed to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected
officials; environmental and public interest groups; potentially affected landowners; other
interested individuals; and newspapers and libraries in the project area. The Commission
received 139 comment letters prior to issuance of the NOI and 38 comment letters in
response to the NOI.
29. On October 28, 29, and 30, 2014, Commission staff conducted public scoping
meetings in East Granby, Connecticut; Sandisfield, Massachusetts; and Delmar,
New York, respectively, to provide the public with an opportunity to learn more about
the project and comment on environmental issues that should be addressed in the EA.
In total, 43 individuals provided oral comments on the project at the Commission’s
three scoping meetings. The primary issues raised during the scoping process included
the purpose and need for the project, safety, segmentation of Tennessee’s expansion
24
Id. § 154.309.
25
Revisions to Forms, Statements, and Reporting Requirements for Natural Gas
Pipelines, Order No. 710, FERC Stats. & Regs., ¶ 31,267, at P 23 (2008).
26
79 Fed. Reg. 63,615 (2014).

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 10 -
projects, requests for an environmental impact statement (EIS) rather than an EA, effects
of natural gas development activities, system alternatives, and impacts on lands protected
under Article 97 of the Massachusetts State Constitution.27
30. To satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA),28
Commission staff prepared an EA for Tennessee’s proposal. The New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYSDAM) participated in the preparation
of the EA as a cooperating agency. The EA addresses geology and soils; water resources;
wetlands; fisheries, vegetation, and wildlife; threatened, endangered, and special status
species; land use; socioeconomics; cultural resources; air quality and noise; reliability
and safety; cumulative impacts; and alternatives. All substantive environmental
comments raised during the scoping process were addressed in the EA.
31. On October 23, 2015, the EA was issued for a 30-day comment period, mailed to
all stakeholders on the Commission staff’s environmental mailing list, and placed into
the public record. The Commission received numerous comments on the EA. The
Commission also received numerous comments in opposition to Tennessee’s February
26, 2016 letter to the Commission, requesting a decision on its application. Substantive
comments that require clarification to issues addressed in the EA are discussed in this
order.
1. Procedural and Process Concerns
32. Jean Atwater-Williams and Thelma Esteves request a 30-day extension of the
comment period for the EA. Commission staff issued and mailed a Notice of Availability
of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Connecticut Expansion Project on
October 23, 2015,29
informing the public of a comment period deadline of November 23,
2015.30
The comment period was not extended, but in any event, Mses. Atwater-
Williams and Esteves filed three comments on the EA, two of which were filed after the
EA comment deadline. We considered their comments along with the other filed
comments filed with the Commission. Thus, their requests are now moot.
27
MASS. CONST. art. 97.
28
42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq. (2012). See also 18 C.F.R. pt. 380 (2015)
(Commission’s regulations implementing NEPA).
29
80 Fed. Reg. 66,524 (2015).
30
Neither the Commission’s NEPA implementing regulations nor CEQ
regulations require a comment period for an EA.

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 11 -
33. Mass Audubon, a New England conservation group and affected landowner,
maintains that Tennessee should complete consultation during the NEPA review to allow
the public the opportunity to provide input and agencies to coordinate their review. The
Commission has complied with the NEPA requirements for consultation and obtaining
comments from jurisdictional agencies. Section 1501.4(b) of the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations requires that agencies involve environmental
agencies, applicants, and the public, to the extent practicable, in preparing an EA.
Section 1508.9(a)(1) requires an EA to list agencies and persons consulted.31
Here,
Commission staff invited all affected federal agencies to participate in scoping the
environmental issues and to identify the various environmental review and consultation
requirements that may apply to the project. The EA listed all the federal permits,
licenses, and other entitlements that are needed to implement the project.32
34. The Commission staff does not wait for the issuance of federal, state and local
permits to assess project impacts in order to make conclusions under NEPA. The
issuance of federal, state, and local permits and approvals proceed on a parallel, but
separate, review process under the purview of the respective agencies with jurisdiction.
It is not practical, nor required, for the Commission to withhold its analysis and decisions
until all permits are issued. In spite of the best efforts of those involved, it may be
impossible for an applicant to obtain all approvals necessary to construct and operate
a project in advance of the Commission’s EA or order without unduly delaying the
project.33
The Commission, however, will not authorize construction of the project
until the applicable and required federal authorizations are received, as required by
Environmental Condition 9 of this order. This includes permits under section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and any federal authorizations and consultations required under federal
law that are delegated to state agencies, such as air quality permits under the Clean Air
Act, certifications under section 401 of the Clean Water Act,34
and National Historic
Preservation Act section 106 consultations with State Historic Preservation Offices.35
The Commission takes this approach in order to make timely decisions on matters related
31
40 C.F.R. § 1502.25(b) (2015).
32
See Table A-7 in the EA at 26-29.
33
See, e.g., Crown Landing LLC, 117 FERC ¶ 61,209, at P 26 (2006); Millennium
Pipeline Co., L.P., 100 FERC ¶ 61,277, at PP 225-231 (2002).
34
33 U.S.C. § 1341 (2012).
35
54 U.S.C.A. § 306108 (West 2016).

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 12 -
to our NGA jurisdiction that will inform project sponsors and other permitting agencies,
as well as the public. This approach is consistent with the Commission’s broad
conditioning powers under section 7 of the NGA.
35. In addition, Mass Audubon comments that analyses regarding specific resources,
such as wetlands and threatened and endangered species, that require consultation with
federal agencies, were inadequate. We disagree. Commission staff consulted with both
the New England and New York Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
regarding impacts on wetlands and with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
regarding impacts on federally-listed threatened and endangered species. Commission
staff consulted with the FWS and developed a Biological Assessment for the dwarf
wedgemussel. We find that Commission staff complied with consultation requirements.
2. Purpose and Need
36. CEQ regulations require that an EA must provide a brief discussion of the need
for the proposal.36
Courts have upheld federal agencies’ use of applicants’ identified
project purpose and need as the basis for evaluating alternatives.37
This general principle
is subject to the admonition that a project’s purpose and need may not be so narrowly
defined as to preclude consideration of what may actually be reasonable alternatives.
37. Several commentors, including Sandisfield Taxpayers Opposed to the Pipeline
(STOP) and Mses. Atwater-Williams, and Esteves, assert that the EA defined the purpose
of the proposed project too narrowly and that the project is not needed because the
northeast region is reducing its demand for natural gas in favor of renewable energy.
They cite the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office’s (Massachusetts AG) Power
System Reliability in New England Study (Massachusetts AG Study)38
and the
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan for support. Connecticut
Natural, Southern Connecticut, and Yankee filed comments reiterating the need for
72,100 Dth per day of firm transportation service.
36
See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(b) (2015). See also id. § 1502.13 (the purpose and need
statement in an EIS “shall briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to which the
agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed actions.”).
37
See City of Grapevine v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 17 F.3d 1502, 1506 (D.C. Cir.
1994).
38
http://www.mass.gov/ago/docs/energy-utilities/reros-study-final.pdf
(Massachusetts AG Study).

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 13 -
38. The EA’s adoption of Tennessee’s stated purpose and need for the project is
consistent with NEPA’s requirements, and Tennessee can only accommodate the
requests for additional firm natural gas transportation service by expanding its existing
infrastructure.39
In addition, the cited Massachusetts AG Study does not support the
commentors’ argument. The purpose of the study was to analyze whether the New
England region has sufficient natural gas pipeline capacity to meet the region’s identified
electric system reliability needs.40
The study explicitly states that it does not assess
“whether there is a need for incremental pipeline capacity to meet gas LDC needs or
whether power system needs (or lack thereof) should affect considerations related to
development and construction of new pipeline capacity for use by gas LDCs.”41
As
stated earlier, the purpose of the project is to provide new firm transportation service to
three LDCs. Moreover, the central assumption underlying the Massachusetts AG Study’s
analysis of existing natural gas capacity includes the operation of the Connecticut
Expansion Project.42
In other words, the Massachusetts AG Study assumes the project
will be built.
39. As for EPA’s Clean Power Plan, we note that it is not intended to address the
gas needs of LDCs. Moreover, contrary to STOP’s assertion, the recently stayed-Clean
Power Plan has not been implemented43
and does not immediately reduce the need for
natural gas infrastructure in the northeast region. In fact, the EPA specifically considered
that the substitution of coal-fired electric generating units with natural gas-fired
generating units in determining the best system of emissions reduction for carbon dioxide
39
See EA at 1-2.
40
See Massachusetts AG Study at 20, n.36.
41
Id.
42
Id. at 8 (in its Power Supply Deficiency Analysis section, the study states that
“we include an additional 0.414 [billion cubic feet per] day of new capacity in the third
quarter of 2016 for the Spectra Algonquin Incremental Market (AIM) Project and the
Kinder Morgan Connecticut Expansion Project.”).
43
Chamber of Commerce v. EPA, --- S.Ct. ----, 2016 WL 502658 (Mem) (staying
the Clean Power Plan until after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the
U.S. Supreme Court decide the matter).

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 14 -
from the power sector.44
Thus, we conclude the need of the project is appropriately
defined and adequately discussed.
3. EA vs. EIS
40. Under NEPA, agencies must prepare an EIS for major federal actions that may
significantly impact the environment.45
If, however, an agency determines that a
federal action is not likely to have significant adverse effects, it may prepare an EA for
compliance with NEPA.46
In addition, CEQ regulations state that one of the purposes
of an EA is to determine whether an EIS is required.47
Thus, based on the Commission’s
experience with NEPA implementation for pipeline projects, the Commission’s
environmental staff determines upfront whether to prepare an EIS or an EA for each new
proposed project, pursuant to the Commission’s regulations.48
41. While CEQ regulations do not define “significant,” they do explain that whether
an impact is “significant” depends on both “context” and “intensity.”49
Context means
that the “significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts,” including “the
affected region, the affected interest, and the locality.”50
Intensity is determined by
considering the unique characteristics of the geographic area, the degree to which the
effects are highly controversial or highly uncertain or unknown, the degree to which the
44
See EPA, Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary
Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, 80 Fed. Reg. 64,662, 64,667 (Oct. 23, 2015)
(the transition from coal to natural gas is referred to as Building Block 2).
45
See 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C) (2012); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.4 (2015).
46
See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.3-1501.4 (2015). An EA is meant to be a “concise public
document . . . that serves to . . . [b]riefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for
determining whether to prepare an [EIS] or finding of no significant impact.” Id.
§ 1508.9(a). Pursuant to the Commission’s regulations, if an EA is prepared first,
“[d]epending on the outcome of the environmental assessment, an [EIS] may or may not
be prepared.” 18 C.F.R. § 380.6(b) (2015).
47
40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(c) (2015).
48
See 18 C.F.R § 380.6(b) (2015).
49
40 C.F.R. § 1508.27 (2015).
50
Id. § 1508.24(a).

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 15 -
action may establish a precedent for future actions, whether the action is related to other
actions with insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts, and the degree to which
the action may adversely affect threatened and endangered species.51
42. Several commentors, including Mass Audubon, request that the Commission
prepare an EIS rather than an EA. Furthermore, Ms. Atwater-Williams contends that
state and federal permitting agencies’ review process changed the project scope after the
EA was issued to such an extent that an EIS is now required.
43. Here, Commission staff determined that an EA was appropriate because the
project would only involve looping and associated facilities, and modifications to an
existing compressor station.52
Other than temporary construction impacts, the only
environmental impacts expected to result from the project would be conversion of
forested areas to maintained right-of-way or aboveground facilities, as well as conversion
of forested wetlands to scrub-shrub wetlands. However, these permanent impacts would
not be significant.
44. Since the issuance of the EA, Tennessee has proposed to reduce its construction
right-of-way, reduce the size of a workspace, and eliminate the use of three pipeyards.53
These minor reductions in the project scope do not warrant a change in the conclusions of
the EA or necessitate preparation of an EIS. We recognize that ongoing state and federal
reviews may refine mitigation plans or result in adjustments to address site-specific
circumstances. Accordingly, this order contains numerous pre-construction conditions
that will enable the Commission to ensure compliance with all statutory and regulatory
requirements. Specifically, Environmental Conditions 1 and 5 require prior Commission
approval for any modifications to construction procedures, mitigation measures, facility
locations, or route alignments prior to the start of construction. In addition, any
applicable federal and federally delegated authorizations for such modifications must be
documented prior to Commission approval. We conclude that the EA adequately
describes the project’s potential environmental impacts and the mitigation measures to
address those impacts. The conditions to this order ensure that all such measures will be
fully developed and, where appropriate, approved by federal and federally delegated
authorities, before any construction activities applicable to such approvals may
commence. Thus, we find that the EA appropriately determined that an EIS is not
necessary.
51
Id. § 1508.24(b).
52
See EA at 4.
53
See Tennessee November 23, 2015 Comment on the EA.

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 16 -
4. Programmatic EIS
45. CEQ regulations do not require broad or “programmatic” NEPA reviews. CEQ
has stated that such reviews may be appropriate when an agency is: (1) adopting official
policy; (2) adopting a formal plan; (3) adopting an agency program; or (4) proceeding
with multiple projects that are temporally and spatially connected.54
The Supreme Court
has held that a NEPA review covering an entire region (that is, a programmatic review)
is required only “if there has been a report or recommendation on a proposal for major
federal action” with respect to the region,55
and the courts have concluded that there is
no requirement for a programmatic EIS where the agency cannot identify the projects that
may be sited within a region because individual permit applications will be filed at a later
time.56
46. STOP suggest the Commission prepare a programmatic EIS covering this and
five other projects potentially planned for the northeast region, including Tennessee’s
Northeast Energy Direct Project (NED Project).57
Because these projects are expected
to implement the same best practice and mitigation measures, such as the Commission’s
Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures) and its
54
See CEQ, Memorandum on the Effective Use of Programmatic NEPA Reviews,
at 13-14, (2014), https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/
effective_use_of_programmatic_nepa_reviews_18dec2014.pdf.
55
Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 399 (1976) (holding that a broad-based
environmental document is not required regarding decisions by federal agencies to allow
future private activity within a region).
56
See Piedmont Envtl. Council v. FERC, 558 F.3d 304, 316-17 (4th Cir. 2009).
57
Tennessee filed an application for a certificate for the NED Project on
November 20, 2015, in Docket No. CP16-21. The other projects mentioned are
Algonquin Gas Transmission’s AIM project (Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 150
FERC ¶ 61,163 (2015), reh’g denied, 154 FERC ¶ 61,048 (2016)); Algonquin’s and
Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline’s Atlantic Bridge Project (application filed November 5,
2015, in Docket No. CP16-9); Algonquin’s Access Northeast Project (which entered the
pre-filing process in Docket No. PF16-1 in November 2015); and a Portland Natural Gas
Transmission System Continent to Coast (C2C) Expansion Project, for which the
company announced an open season in Spring 2013, but which is not currently before the
Commission in any form.

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 17 -
Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan (Plan), STOP contends a
programmatic EIS is needed.
47. The Commission acts on individual applications filed by entities proposing to
construct interstate natural gas pipelines. Under NGA section 7, the Commission is
obligated to authorize a project if it finds that the construction and operation of the
proposed facilities “is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and
necessity.”58
What is required by NEPA, and what the Commission provides, is a
thorough examination of the potential impacts of specific projects. In the circumstances
of the Commission’s actions, a broad, regional analysis would “be little more than a study
. . . concerning estimates of potential development and attendant environmental
consequences,”59
which would not present “a credible forward look and would therefore
not be a useful tool for basic program planning.”60
As to projects that are closely related
in time or geography, the Commission may, however, prepare a multi-project
environmental document, where that is the most efficient way to review project
proposals.61
48. We disagree with STOP’s contention that our requirement that natural gas
companies comply with the Commission’s Plan and Procedures demonstrates regional
planning on our part. We expect all natural gas companies, no matter the location of their
project, to comply with these plans. These plans are designed to help project operators
protect the environment and promote restoration.
49. The Commission is not engaging in a regional federal action. Thus, the
Commission’s environmental review of Tennessee’s proposed Connecticut Expansion
Project in a discrete EA is appropriate under NEPA. We conclude a programmatic EIS is
not required.
58
15 U.S.C. § 717f(e) (2012).
59
Kleppe, 427 U.S. at 402.
60
Piedmont, 558 F.3d at 316.
61
See, e.g., Environmental Assessment for the Monroe to Cornwell Project and the
Utica Access Project, Docket Nos. CP15-7-000 and CP15-87-000 (filed Aug. 19, 2015)
and Final Multi-Project Environmental Impact Statement for Hydropower Licenses:
Susquehanna River Hydroelectric Projects, Project Nos. 1888-030, 2355-018, and 405-
106 (filed Mar. 11, 2015).

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 18 -
5. Segmentation
50. CEQ regulations require the Commission to include “connected actions,”
“cumulative actions,” and potentially, “similar actions” in its NEPA analyses.62
“An
agency impermissibly ‘segments’ NEPA review when it divides connected, cumulative,
or similar federal actions into separate projects and thereby fails to address the true scope
and impact of the activities that should be under consideration.”63
“Connected actions”
include actions that: (a) automatically trigger other actions, which may require an EIS;
(b) cannot or will not proceed without previous or simultaneous actions; (c) are
interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their
justification.64
51. In Del. Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that an
“agency’s determination of the proper scope of its environmental review must train on
the governing regulations, which here means 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a).”65
Our
environmental review here indeed followed CEQ regulations against segmentation.
Courts have applied a “substantial independent utility” test in evaluating whether
connected actions are improperly segmented. The test asks “whether one project will
serve a significant purpose even if a second related project is not built.”66
For proposals
that connect to or build upon an existing infrastructure network, this standard
distinguishes between those proposals that are separately useful from those that are not.
While the analogy between the two is not apt in many regards, similar to a highway
network, “it is inherent in the very concept of” the interstate pipeline grid “that each
62
40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(1)-(3) (2015).
63
Del. Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, 753 F.3d 1304, 1313 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
Unlike connected and cumulative actions, analyzing similar actions is not always
mandatory. See, e.g., Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 351 F.3d 1291, 1305-06
(9th Cir. 2003).
64
40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(1)(i)-(iii) (2015).
65
Del. Riverkeeper, 753 F.3d at 1315.
66
Coal. on Sensible Transp., Inc. v. Dole, 826 F.2d 60, 69 (D.C. Cir. 1987); see
also O’Reilly v. Corps of Eng’rs, 477 F.3d 225, 237 (5th Cir. 2007) (defining
independent utility as whether one project “can stand alone without requiring
construction of the other [projects] either in terms of the facilities required or of
profitability.”).

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 19 -
segment will facilitate movement in many others; if such mutual benefits compelled
aggregation, no project could be said to enjoy independent utility.”67
52. In Del. Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, the D.C. Circuit held that individual
pipeline proposals were interdependent parts of a larger action where four pipeline
projects, when taken together, would result in “a single pipeline” that was “linear and
physically interdependent” and where those projects were financially interdependent.68
The court put a particular emphasis on the four projects’ timing, noting that, when the
Commission reviewed the proposed project, the other projects were either under
construction or pending before the Commission.69
Subsequently, the same court has
indicated that, in considering a pipeline application, the Commission is not required to
consider in its NEPA analysis other potential projects for which the project proponent has
not yet filed an application, or where construction of a project is not underway.70
Further,
the Commission need not jointly consider projects that are unrelated and do not depend
on each other for their justification.71
53. Several commentors, including Mass Audubon, the Massachusetts AG, Northeast
Energy Solutions, Inc. (Northeast Energy), Cathy Kristofferson, Ms. Atwater-Williams,
and STOP, accuse the Commission of improperly segmenting our environmental review
of the Connecticut Expansion Project from other natural gas projects in the northeast
region, specifically Tennessee’s NED Project. They point to similarities between the
Connecticut Expansion and the NED Projects, namely that Tennessee is the applicant for
both projects, Southern Connecticut and Connecticut Natural are customers for both
projects, three months separate the time when Tennessee filed an application for the
Connecticut Expansion Project and when it commenced the pre-filing process for the
NED Project, and Tennessee proposes to extend the proposed Connecticut Loop as part
of the NED Project.72
67
Coal. on Sensible Transp., 826 F.2d at 69.
68
753 F.3d at 1314 ,1316.
69
Id.
70
See Minisink Residents for Envtl. Pres. and Safety v. FERC, 762 F.3d 97, 113,
n.11 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
71
See Myersville Citizens for a Rural Community, Inc. v. FERC, 783 F.3d 1301,
1326 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
72
STOP November 23, 2015 Comment on the EA at 16.

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 20 -
54. Tennessee’s proposed Connecticut Expansion and NED Projects are not
physically, functionally, or financially connected. The $5.2 billion NED Project
encompasses a much larger footprint than the Connecticut Expansion Project, with
one component of the NED Project consisting of about 246 miles of pipeline and another
component consisting of about 174 miles of pipeline. The Connecticut Expansion Project
would only encompass about 13.5 miles of pipeline in total. The Connecticut Expansion
and NED Projects are also designed to serve distinct purposes. The Connecticut
Expansion Project is designed to provide 72,100 Dth per day of firm transportation
service from an interconnection with Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. in Wright,
New York, to three LDCs in Hartford County, Connecticut. In contrast, the NED Project,
as currently proposed, is designed to provide 751,650 Dth per day of firm transportation
from northern Pennsylvania to New York and New England for multiple shippers.
Further, though two of the three LDCs which have contracted for service on the
Connecticut Expansion Project have also contracted for service on the NED Project, the
NED Project will also transport gas for other LDCs, as well as for natural gas producers
and a power generator.73
Moreover, Connecticut Expansion service can be provided to
the two common shippers regardless of whether the NED Project is ever built. The
two projects would also be placed into service at different times. The Connecticut
Expansion Project facilities are anticipated to be placed into service on November 1,
2016. The NED Project facilities, as currently-proposed, would be placed into service
two years later (i.e., November 1, 2018). Tennessee can operate the Connecticut
Expansion Project and provide service to the project’s three shippers even if the NED
Project is not built. While the two projects would physically overlap at the Connecticut
Loop, this fact does not demonstrate that the projects are interdependent. Connectivity
by itself does not equate to interdependence. If this were the case, no project in the
interstate pipeline grid could be independently proposed, evaluated, or constructed.
55. In addition, the projects are not financially connected. The Connecticut Expansion
Project is fully subscribed and is not dependent on the NED Project for financial
viability.
56. Furthermore, connected actions must be proposed concurrently.74
Although
Tennessee entered into the Commission’s pre-filing process for the NED Project in
October 2014, it did not file its certificate application until November 20, 2015.
Therefore, when the Commission was conducting its environmental review of the
73
See Tennessee November 20, 2015 Application for the NED Project at 5 and 21.
74
Minisink, 762 F.3d at 113 n.11; Del. Riverkeeper, 753 F.3d at 1317-18 (citing
Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Haw., 454 U.S. 139, 146 (1981)).

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 21 -
Connecticut Expansion Project, which was issued on October 23, 2015, the NED Project
was not a proposed action.75
57. For the reasons discussed, we find the Connecticut Expansion Project is not
connected to the proposed NED Project.76
6. Unconventional Production and Energy Policy
58. Arnold Piacentini requests that the Commission deny Tennessee’s proposals
because of concerns with hydraulic fracturing and national energy policy. These
concerns represent issues that lie beyond the Commission’s jurisdictional reach. The
Commission does not have jurisdiction over natural gas production. The potential
impacts of natural gas production, with the exception of greenhouse gases and climate
change, are localized. Each locale includes unique conditions and environmental
resources. Production activities are thus regulated at a state and local level. In addition,
deep underground injection and disposal of wastewaters and liquids are subject to
regulation by the EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The EPA also regulates air
emissions under the Clean Air Act. On public lands, federal agencies are responsible for
the enforcement of regulations that apply to natural gas wells. Any impacts associated
with hydraulic fracturing are neither caused by the proposed project nor reasonably
foreseeable consequences of our approval of the proposed project.
59. Mr. Piacentini also expressed concern that climate change will be exacerbated
because of fugitive emissions from the proposed project. The EA concluded that fugitive
emissions from project operations will be temporary and not significant.77
In addition,
Tennessee is expected to comply with federal requirements under 40 C.F.R. Part 98,
Subpart W, for reporting actual greenhouse gas emissions in excess of 25,000 metric tons
per year in any year. Tennessee would be subject to this reporting requirement for
emissions related to the associated compressor stations and meter stations including, but
not limited to, compressor venting, blowdown vent stacks, and leaks from valves, meters,
and connectors. Based on previous projects of similar scope and even larger projects, we
75
A project is still subject to significant changes during the pre-filing stage in
response to input from landowners, other stakeholders, and Commission staff. Thus, the
Commission cannot conduct a meaningful assessment of a project’s impacts until an
application has been filed.
76
Discussion of cumulative actions is included in the cumulative impacts
discussion of this order and in section B.10 of the EA.
77
See EA at 94 and 119.

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 22 -
anticipate that the fugitive emissions from the pipeline loops would be far below the
reference point provided by CEQ for determining a quantitative analysis of greenhouse
gas emissions from a particular project.78
Given the information provided in the EA and
Tennessee’s application, we find possible fugitive emissions from the project will not
significantly impact global climate change.
7. Cumulative Impacts
60. CEQ defines “cumulative impact” as “the impact on the environment which
results from the incremental impact of the action [being studied] when added to other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.”79
The requirement that an
impact must be “reasonably foreseeable” to be considered in a NEPA analysis applies
to both indirect and cumulative impacts.
61. The “determination of the extent and effect of [cumulative impacts], and
particularly identification of the geographic area within which they may occur, is a task
assigned to the special competency of the appropriate agencies.”80
CEQ has explained
that “it is not practical to analyze the cumulative effects of an action on the universe; the
list of environmental effects must focus on those that are truly meaningful.”81
Further,
a cumulative impact analysis need only include “such information as appears to be
reasonably necessary under the circumstances for evaluation of the project rather than
to be so all-encompassing in scope that the task of preparing it would become either
fruitless or well-nigh impossible.”82
An agency’s analysis should be proportional to the
magnitude of the environmental impacts of a proposed action; actions that will have no
78
See CEQ, REVISED DRAFT GUIDANCE FOR FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND
AGENCIES ON CONSIDERATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND THE EFFECTS OF
CLIMATE CHANGE IN NEPA REVIEWS, 79 Fed. Reg. 77,802, at 77,829 (Dec. 24, 2014).
79
40 C.F.R. § 1508.7 (2015).
80
Kleppe, 427 U.S. at 413.
81
CEQ, CONSIDERING CUMULATIVE EFFECTS UNDER THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT, at 8 (Jan. 1997),
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQ-
ConsidCumulEffects.pdf (1997 Guidance on Cumulative Effects).
82
New York v. Kleppe, 429 U.S. 1307, 1311 (1976) (quoting Natural Res. Def.
Council v. Calloway, 524 F.2d 79, 88 (2d Cir. 1975)).

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 23 -
significant direct and indirect impacts usually require only a limited cumulative impacts
analysis.83
62. Consistent with CEQ’s Guidance on Cumulative Effects, in order to determine the
scope of a cumulative impacts analysis for each project, Commission staff establishes a
“region of influence” in which various resources may be affected by both a proposed
project and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.84
While the
scope of our cumulative impacts analysis will vary from case to case, depending on the
facts presented, we have concluded that, where the Commission lacks meaningful
information regarding potential future gas production in a region of influence,
production-related impacts are not sufficiently reasonably foreseeable so as to be
included in a cumulative impacts analysis.85
63. The Massachusetts AG and Mass Audubon contend that the Connecticut
Expansion Project should be considered in conjunction with all other pipeline projects in
the northeastern United States to address cumulative impacts. Northeast Energy asserts
that the projects presented as past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are
incomplete.
64. In this case, Commission staff followed CEQ guidance by: (1) identifying the
significant cumulative effects issues associated with the proposed action;86
(2) establishing the geographic scope for analysis;87
(3) establishing a time frame for
analysis equal to the timespan of the proposed project’s direct and indirect impacts,88
and;
(4) identifying other actions that potentially affect the same resources, ecosystems, and
83
See CEQ, Memorandum on Guidance on Consideration of Past Actions in
Cumulative Effects Analysis at 2-3 (June 24, 2005),
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/ nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQ-
PastActsCumulEffects.pdf.
84
See, e.g., Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 149 FERC ¶ 61,255, at P 113
(2014).
85
Id. P 120.
86
1997 Guidance on Cumulative Effects at 11.
87
Id. We note that CEQ’s 1997 Guidance on Cumulative Effects at 15 states that
the “applicable geographic scope needs to be defined case-by-case.”
88
Id.

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 24 -
human communities affected by the proposed action.89
With respect to the geographic
scope for analysis, given the small scale of the proposed project, the lack of significant
direct and indirect impacts on resources, and the expectation that impacts would be
minor, temporary, and local, Commission staff adopted the watershed boundary
Hydrologic Unit Code 8 for disturbances to vegetation, fisheries, and wildlife; a
0.25-mile radius from the proposed project for ground-disturbing activities; a 10-mile
radius for land use and visual resources; and a 0.5 mile radius for air quality and noise.
The time frame employed was the proposed project’s construction schedule.90
These are
parameters the Commission has previously relied upon in conducting cumulative impacts
reviews. As part of this review, the EA considered 12 oil and gas projects, 20 utility and
electric projects, 56 transportation projects, 4 alternative energy projects (i.e.
hydropower, wind, and solar), 4 commercial projects, 11 residential projects, and
15 other projects (such as a wetland restoration project, timber harvest, and hospital
renovation) in the northeast region.91
As one of the 12 oil and gas projects, the EA
considered Tennessee’s proposed NED Project in the cumulative effects discussion.
65. We believe the EA considered the appropriate projects in the region of influence
and concur with the EA’s conclusion that the cumulative impacts of the construction and
operation of the proposed project will not significantly affect the quality of the human
environment.
8. Alternatives
66. CEQ regulations require an EA to include a brief discussion of the need for the
proposal, alternatives to the proposal, and the environmental impacts of the alternatives.92
Consideration of alternatives in an EA need not be as rigorous as the consideration of
alternatives in an EIS.93
67. STOP comments that its alternatives to the project, such as fixing leaks to ensure
efficiency or increasing compression at Compressor Station 261, were ignored or not
adequately addressed in the EA. The EA considered the alternative to increase
89
Id.
90
See EA at 15.
91
See EA at 110 and Appendix J.
92
40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(b) (2015).
93
See Myersville Citizens, 783 F.3d at 1323.

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 25 -
compression at Compressor Station 261 by 3,500 horsepower and determined that
it would result in more air emissions, degrade reliability on Tennessee’s system in
Massachusetts, and lower upstream pressure west of the station.94
We agree that
increasing compression at Compressor Station 261 is not a reasonable alternative.
Additionally, the alternative of fixing methane leaks to ensure efficiency cannot
provide the 72,100 Dth per day of firm natural gas transportation service needed by
the three new shippers. Consequently, fixing methane leaks is not an alternative that
required evaluation in the EA.
68. Several commentors, including Mass Audubon comments that the EA’s
alternatives analysis should consider alternative energy sources and system efficiencies.
Because the purpose of the project is to provide 72,100 Dth per day of firm natural gas
transportation service to three new shippers, the use of renewable energy sources or the
gains realized from increased energy efficiency and conservation are not transportation
alternatives because they cannot function as a substitute for the project. Thus, they were
not considered or evaluated further in the EA.
69. The Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board (Siting Board) comments that
the landowner near milepost (MP) 3.8 of the Massachusetts Loop has requested that
Tennessee relocate the pig receiver facility on either the far east side of his property or
the west side of his property, near Beech Plain Road, to avoid bisecting his property.
As shown in Tennessee’s revised alignment sheets submitted on April 17, 2015, the pig
receiver facility near MP 3.8 of the Massachusetts Loop is located on the far east side of
the property, as the landowner requested. We thus consider this concern resolved.
70. The Berkshire Regional Planning Commission (BRPC) requests that the
Commission consider alternatives, such as alternative routes within existing or proposed
rights-of-way in Connecticut, replacement of existing lines with larger and more efficient
lines, and utilization of systems and infrastructure currently proposed in other projects
(i.e., the NED Project) to meet demand. The EA considers alternatives to the pipeline
system, as well as alternatives and variations to the route. No feasible system alternative
to the project was identified. However, one minor route variation for the Connecticut
Loop was analyzed at a landowner’s request and the variation was adopted by Tennessee
and incorporated into the pipeline route as evaluated in the EA. Further, approximately
92 percent of the Connecticut Loop is located within existing rights-of-way. We find that
further analysis of route alternatives to utilize existing or proposed rights-of-way is not
warranted.
94
See EA at 122.

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 26 -
9. Construction Procedures and Monitoring
71. The Siting Board requests that Tennessee develop a Winter Construction Plan.
As discussed in section B.1.2 and section D of the EA, and as required by Environmental
Condition 13, we will require Tennessee to provide a Winter Construction Plan for
review and written approval by the Commission prior to beginning construction.
72. Susan Baxter requests clarification regarding the width of the permanent right-of-
way for the Massachusetts Loop, specifically relating to the EA’s requirement that
Tennessee maintain a 10-foot wide strip to allow for more frequent vegetation
maintenance to survey corrosion and leaks.95
As stated in the EA, the new permanent
right-of-way for the Massachusetts Loop will be 25 feet wide, which is adjacent to the
permanent right-of-way for Tennessee’s existing 200 and 300 Lines.96
The 10-foot-wide
strip identified in the EA relates only to the Massachusetts Loop. Tennessee is expected
to comply with this mitigation measure as required in this order and discussed in
section A.5.1 of the EA. Any maintenance conducted by Tennessee on its existing
200 and 300 Lines that are located in the right-of-way with the Connecticut Expansion
Project is bound by the Commission’s orders for those specific facilities.
73. BRPC requests that Tennessee participate in a third-party monitoring program
during construction and that Tennessee provide the required bi-weekly status reports to
the Sandisfield Conservation Committee and the Sandisfield Select Board. Given our
requirements in Environmental Condition 7 that Tennessee employ at least one
environmental inspector per spread, and considering the limited number of spreads,
we conclude that a third-party monitoring program is not necessary. In accordance
with the Commission’s Plan, and as required by Environmental Condition 8, we
require Tennessee to file bi-weekly construction reports detailing issues observed by
its environmental inspectors. In addition, Commission staff will conduct independent
inspections of the project throughout construction and restoration. Both Tennessee’s
bi-weekly reports and the Commissions independent inspection reports will be filed in
Docket No. CP14-529-000 and available for public review.
74. The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (Massachusetts
DCR) requests that Tennessee apply best design and management practices, including
providing Massachusetts DCR with a detailed description of the project area, construction
reports submitted by an environmental monitor, and a comparative analysis of the area
95
See id. at 26.
96
See id. at 10.

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 27 -
before and after construction. Ms. Kristofferson comments that Massachusetts Forestry
Best Management Practices require that tree cutting be done when the ground is dry or
frozen. We will require Tennessee to implement the best management practices described
in the Commission’s Plan and Procedures and, as required by Environmental Condition 8,
we will also require Tennessee to file bi-weekly construction reports. In addition,
Commission staff will conduct independent inspections of the project throughout
construction and restoration. As noted above, Tennessee’s bi-weekly reports and the
Commission’s independent inspection reports will be filed in Docket No. CP14-529-000
and available for public review. As appropriate, Massachusetts DCR may require
Tennessee to implement additional measures under its permitting authority.
10. Blasting
75. The Siting Board requests that Tennessee provide additional protection to
architectural resources during blasting activities by expanding the area in which
Tennessee would conduct pre- and post-blast inspections from 200 to 500 feet. As
discussed in section B.7.3 and table B-13 in the EA, the Massachusetts Historical
Commission has concurred with the conclusions in the EA that blasting would not have
adverse effects on architectural resources due to their distances from project workspaces.
As an additional protection measure, and as required by Environmental Condition 26,
Tennessee must further assess potential impacts on the Josiah Hulet House97
due to
vibratory effects from heavy equipment traffic and file avoidance and mitigation
measures for approval. We conclude historical resources will be adequately protected.
76. BRPC contends that the Commission should require that Tennessee monitor
wells within a minimum of 200 feet of a construction work area and within a minimum
of 250 feet of trench blasting. We clarify that Tennessee’s Blasting Plan includes
monitoring public and private wells within 200 feet of blasting, which is beyond the
required distance as set forth in our regulations.98
We will modify Environmental
Condition 14 in the EA to reflect the 200 foot distance. Environmental Condition 14
also requires pre- and post-construction monitoring of private wells within 200 feet of
97
The Josiah Hulet House, located at 182 Cold Spring Road, Sandisfield,
Massachusetts, is about 300 feet from the Massachusetts Loop’s right-of-way. It is
owned by Ronald M. Bernard and Ms. Atwater-Williams and is eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places. See id. at 86.
98
See 18 C.F.R. § 380.12(d)(9) (2015) (requiring applicants to identify known
public and private groundwater supply wells and springs within 150 feet of the proposed
construction areas).

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 28 -
construction work areas, with the well owners’ permission. In addition, we will require
Tennessee to file a report with the Secretary of the Commission within 30 days of placing
the facilities in-service that discusses well yield and water quality complaints for
identified wells and how complaints were resolved. In addition, as stated in the EA, all
blasting must be done in accordance with Massachusetts as well as other local and federal
blasting regulations.99
We conclude public and private groundwater supply wells and
springs would be adequately protected. Therefore, we concur with the EA’s conclusion
that these measures are appropriate to assess construction impacts and ensure that any
impacts on groundwater resources will be properly mitigated.
77. Massachusetts DCR also is concerned that blasting in the Otis State Forest would
adversely affect wetland resources. Commission staff has reviewed Tennessee’s Blasting
Plan, and we agree that it adequately protects environmental resources.
78. Further, BRPC requests that copies of the site-specific blasting plans developed by
Tennessee’s contractor be provided to local officials, a public notification be made, and
Tennessee be held responsible for ensuring emergency response personnel are on-site
during blasting activities. Tennessee will prepare site-specific blasting plans for each
area where blasting will be necessary in accordance with federal, state, and local
requirements. Tennessee will provide site-specific blasting plans and notifications to the
necessary state and local agencies, as well as notify nearby landowners. Commission
staff has reviewed Tennessee’s Blasting Plan, and we agree that it is adequately protects
public safety.
79. Massachusetts DCR identifies a potential contradiction in the EA, which states
that the soil depth in the Massachusetts Loop is 10 to 50 feet deep but later states that
2.3 miles of the Massachusetts Loop will cross areas with shallow bedrock. We clarify
here that the EA identifies soil as 10 to 50 feet deep in describing the predominant
surficial geology of the general project area in Massachusetts. However, more specific
study of the project alignment, including review of soil survey maps and consultations
with the Massachusetts State Geologist, resulted in identification of 2.3 miles with
shallow bedrock, as reported in the EA.
11. Land Use
80. BRPC, Ms. Kristofferson, Kenneth and Katja Mayer (Mayers), the Siting Board,
Mass Audubon, and numerous other commentors request avoidance of lands protected
under Article 97 of the Massachusetts State Constitution,100
namely land in the Otis State
99
See EA at 24.
100
MASS. CONST. art. XLIX.

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 29 -
Forest.101
Massachusetts DCR requests that we require Tennessee to comply with state
land disposition policy.
81. Article 97 is a state public trust doctrine which mandates that a change in use or a
disposal of lands held for public purposes must be approved by a two-thirds vote of both
houses of the Massachusetts legislature.
82. As stated in the EA, Tennessee has complied with the state process and submitted
the required information to the appropriate state agencies, pursuant to the Massachusetts
Environmental Protection Act102
and its implementing regulations.103
Moreover, on
July 13, 2015, a bill was introduced to grant an easement for a 2-mile corridor in the Otis
State Forest for the project.104
A vote on the bill has not been scheduled.
83. Tennessee requires access to the Otis State Forest in order to tie the Massachusetts
Loop into Tennessee’s existing 200 Line.105
The project would affect about 29 acres of
the forest, of which 6 acres would be affected by operations.106
The EA evaluated
three alternatives that would minimize impacts on the Otis State Forest but determined
the alternatives would have a greater environmental impact than the proposed route
through the forest.107
Based on the analysis of alternatives and the proposed route, we
agree with the EA’s conclusion that impacts to the Otis State Forest will be minor.108
101
The Otis State Forest covers over 3,800 acres and is controlled and managed by
Massachusetts DCR. See EA at 76.
102
MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 30 §§ 61-62I (West 2015).
103
301 MASS. CODE REGS. 11.00 (2015).
104
H.3690, 189th Leg. (Mass. 2015).
105
See EA at 8.
106
See id. at 76.
107
See id. at 123-27. The Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs’ certificate on its Final Environmental Impact Report also reached the same
conclusion. See Tennessee April 22, 2015 Filing (enclosing the Certificate of the
Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs on the Final Environmental Impact
Report at 7).
108
See EA at 123-27.

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 30 -
84. The Siting Board requests clarification on the land disposition process in the event
the bill fails to pass. STOP maintains that the certificated project would violate the state
constitution if Tennessee were to exercise eminent domain under the NGA to acquire
property rights in the Otis State Forest. The Massachusetts AG requests we include as a
condition in the order that Tennessee must comply with Article 97’s policy of no net loss
of conservation lands. Both the Massachusetts AG and Massachusetts DCR request that
we require Tennessee to comply with the mitigation measures and compensation
requirements identified in the Massachusetts Final Environment Impact Report certificate
and section 61 certificate.109
85. The Commission encourages applicants to cooperate with state and local agencies
regarding the location of pipeline facilities, environmental mitigation measures, and
construction procedures. That a state or local authority requires something more or
different than the Commission does not necessarily make it unreasonable for an applicant
to comply with both the Commission's and state or local agency's requirements. It is true
that additional state and local procedures or requirements could impose more costs on an
applicant or cause some delays in constructing a pipeline. Not all additional costs or
delays, however, are unreasonable in light of the Commission's goal to include state and
local authorities to the extent possible in the planning and construction activities of
pipeline applicants. The Commission's practice of encouraging cooperation between
interstate pipelines and local authorities does not mean, however, that those agencies may
use their regulatory requirements to undermine the force and effect of a certificate issued
by the Commission.110
A rule of reason must govern both the state and local authorities'
exercise of their power and an applicant's bona fide attempts to comply with state and
local requirements.
109
Massachusetts law requires agencies to review, evaluate, and determine the
environmental impacts of their works, projects, or activities. The agency’s determination
must include a finding describing any environmental impacts of the project and a finding
that all feasible measures have been taken to avoid or minimize such impact. See MASS.
GEN. LAWS ch. 30 §§ 61 (West 2015). The findings by an agency are produced in a
section 61 certificate. See 301 MASS. CODE REGS. 11.12(5) (2015).
110
See, e.g., Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293 (1988); Dominion
Transmission, Inc. v. Summers, 723 F.3d 238, 243 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (holding state and
local regulations is preempted by the NGA to the extent it conflicts with federal
regulation, or would delay the construction and operation of facilities approved by the
Commission).

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 31 -
86. We note that the Commission cannot act as a referee between applicants and
state and local authorities regarding each and every procedure or condition imposed by
such agencies. In the event compliance with a state or local condition conflicts with a
Commission certificate, parties are free to bring the matter before a Federal court for
resolution.
87. Ms. Baxter comments that the EA misidentifies the crossing methods at
Hammertown Road and Beech Plain Road on the Massachusetts Loop as conventional
bore crossings rather than open cut, based on justifications for additional temporary
workspace identified at these locations. We disagree. The EA correctly describes the
crossing method as conventional bore for Beech Plain Road111
and Tennessee’s
application identifies Hammertown Road as an open-cut crossing.
88. Ms. Baxter also comments that permanent and construction impacts on the Otis
State Forest are underestimated. We disagree. The permanent right-of-way width within
the Otis State Forest varies between 15 feet and 35 feet wide; thus, total impacts within
the permanent right-of-way are about 6 acres, as stated in section B.5.3 of the EA.
Tennessee, in collaboration with Massachusetts DCR developed a compensation plan for
temporary and permanent impacts on the Otis State Forest. While vegetation will need to
be cleared within the construction right-of-way, Tennessee would locate the proposed
pipeline loop within or adjacent to the existing cleared rights-of-way to the extent
practicable to minimize impacts on the state forest. After construction, temporary
workspaces will be restored in accordance with Massachusetts DCR’s compensation
plan.
89. STOP alleges that the EA fails to adequately discuss the uniqueness of the affected
state forest and parklands protected under Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution.
Section 1508.27 of CEQ’s regulations requires consideration of both context and
intensity in order to determine significance of a proposal.112
Section 1508.27(b)
recommends that the unique characteristics of the geographic area should be considered
in evaluating intensity of an impact.113
The EA complies with CEQ’s regulations. STOP
fails to consider the EA as a whole document. The entire EA analyzes individual aspects
of the Massachusetts Loop, which affects Article 97-protected land including geology,
soils, water resources, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, land use, recreation, and
111
See Appendix B of the EA.
112
40 C.F.R. § 1508.27 (2015).
113
Id. § 1508.27(b).

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 32 -
visual resources. Based on the analysis of those resources, the EA concludes that the
impact would not be significant.
90. Massachusetts DCR notes that only the Tyringham pipeyard is identified in the
map in Appendix A of the EA (Topographic Maps of the Pipeline Route and Project
Facilities), but Table A-5 of the EA identifies four pipeyards. Massachusetts DCR
requests clarification on the location of the other pipeyard sites and whether Tennessee
proposes to site a pipeyard at Cold Spring Road, which is on Massachusetts DCR
property. In its response to the EA dated November 23, 2015, Tennessee committed to a
single pipeyard (i.e., South Beech Plain Road pipeyard). The Cold Spring Road pipeyard
is no longer proposed for the project.
91. Environmental Condition 25 of the EA recommends that Tennessee develop a
visual screening plan in coordination with the landowner at MP 4.1 on the New York
Loop. Tennessee filed comments on the EA, stating that it has coordinated with this
landowner, regarding potential visual impacts from relocation of a pig receiver site.
Tennessee indicates that the landowner is not requesting visual screening of the site and
that some screening already exists. Since visual impacts on the landowner would be
minimal, we will not adopt environmental recommendation 25 in the EA as a condition
of this order.
12. Water Resources
92. BRPC comments that the EA inconsistently states the requirements for pre- and
post-construction testing of water wells. Ms. Esteves comments that Tennessee has not
committed to testing water wells in the project area. Tennessee has committed to
offering pre- and post-construction well testing to owners with water wells within
200 feet of the project workspace or blasting areas, as detailed in Resource Report 2 of
its application on July 31, 2014. Thus, Environmental Condition 14 has been revised to
indicate that Tennessee will conduct testing at water wells within 200 feet (rather than
150 feet recommended in the EA) of the construction workspace or blasting areas.
Seeps or springs within 150 feet of project workspaces will be reviewed by a qualified
professional to determine if any impacts may occur, at the request of the landowner.
93. Ms. Esteves also comments that the project would have adverse effects on
drinking water supplies for the Town of Sandisfield because of damage to wetlands,
blasting, installation of underground pipe, and hydrostatic testing. As discussed in
sections B.2.1 and B.2.2, Tennessee will avoid or minimize impacts on groundwater and
surface water resources through adoption of our recommendations and implementation of
its Spill Prevention and Response Plan, Blasting Plan, and the Commission’s Procedures
during construction and operation. Thus, we concur with the conclusion in the EA that
impacts on water resources would not be significant with implementation of the plans and
the conditions in this order.

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 33 -
94. Ms. Baxter comments that Spectacle Pond Brook is a coldwater fishery and not a
warmwater fishery as identified in section B.3.2 of the EA. Fishery classifications were
obtained from state geospatial data and published reports, which classify Spectacle Pond
Brook as a warmwater fishery.114
The Massachusetts Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife confirmed this classification in a letter to Tennessee dated May 28, 2014.
95. Alice Boyd, a member of the Sandisfield Board of Selectmen, comments that
Tennessee has not consulted the Town of Sandisfield regarding the use of Lower
Spectacle Pond as a source of water for hydrostatic testing and that the town and the
Sandisfield Board of Selectmen are opposed to the use of Lower Spectacle Pond for this
activity. In addition, BRPC requests that Tennessee consult with the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection and the Town of Sandisfield regarding
hydrostatic test water discharge. BRPC also requests assurance that any discharged
water from the testing would be free of any residual materials or potential contaminants.
Ms. Kristofferson requests that Tennessee use an alternate water source for hydrostatic
test water withdrawal, rather than using Lower Spectacle Pond. Ms. Esteves comments
that hydrostatic test water withdrawal from Spectacle Pond would adversely affect the
pond.
96. As explained the EA, Tennessee will comply with Massachusetts’ Water
Resources Management Program115
and section 404 of the Clean Water Act116
and
consult with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection regarding use of
Lower Spectacle Pond.117
Tennessee will coordinate with local officials on the timing of
the water withdrawal in order to notify residents of any temporary restrictions on the use
of the pond. The EA found that water withdrawal would reduce the 70-acre pond by
about 0.5 inches in depth. After completion of hydrostatic testing, Tennessee would
discharge the water through an energy dissipation structure into a vegetated upland area
for infiltration and to prevent erosion, in accordance with the Commission’s Procedures
and with federal and state discharge permits. Tennessee would also screen its hydrostatic
water intakes to prevent entrainment of aquatic species. Given the negligible reduction in
water depth and because Tennessee would obtain and comply with required water
114
See EA at 61.
115
310 MASS. CODE REGS. 36.00 (2015).
116
33 U.S.C. § 1344 (2012).
117
See EA at 48-49.

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 34 -
withdrawal and discharge permits, we concur with the EA that the withdrawal will not
have a significant adverse effect to Lower Spectacle Pond or its uses.
97. Massachusetts DCR recommends that Tennessee design site-specific stream and
riparian restoration plans for all stream crossings on Massachusetts DCR lands; that the
plans should include bioengineering, seeding, and plantings of native vegetation on banks
and riparian areas; and that the plans should be submitted to it for approval.
Massachusetts DCR requests that all natural features in stream channels and banks be
restored. Massachusetts DCR states that it will require mitigation at the SMA-14118
stream crossing to include a small recreational crossing in the existing right-of-way.
Lastly, Massachusetts DCR states that the Commission should require an independent
environmental scientist that reports to the Massachusetts DCR to monitor all construction
and restoration on Massachusetts DCR lands.
98. Tennessee has committed to implementing the Commission’s Procedures, which
includes restoration measures for streams and riparian areas. These measures specifically
include restoration of waterbody banks to preconstruction contours or to a stable angle of
repose (as approved by the project’s environmental inspector), as well as restoration of
disturbed riparian areas with native species similar in density to adjacent undisturbed
lands. We find that the restoration measures described in our Procedures are adequate
for the project. Massachusetts DCR, however, as appropriate may require additional
measures, if such measures are within its permitting authority.
99. Several commenters also contend that a Clean Water Act Section 401 certificate is
required prior to tree clearing related to the project. Section 401 provides that no federal
license or permit shall be granted until the state certifies that any activity which may
result in a discharge into the navigable waters will comply with the applicable provisions
of the Act.119
The Commission’s conditional approval of the project does not conflict
with this language. The order is an “incipient authorization without current force or
effect” because it does not allow the pipeline to begin the proposed activity before the
environmental conditions are satisfied.120
Although Tennessee, as a certificate holder
118
SMA-14 is a waterbody identification number for Spectacle Brook Pond, which
will be crossed by the Massachusetts Loop at approximate milepost 1.9.
119
33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1) (2012).
120
Finavera Renewables Ocean Energy, Ltd., 122 FERC ¶ 61,248, at P 15 (2008);
Crown Landing LLC, 117 FERC ¶ 61,209, at P 21 (2006); see also Pub. Utils. Comm’n
of Cal. v. FERC, 900 F.2d 269, 282 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (holding that an agency can make
“even a final decision” – e.g., granting a certificate before an environmental hearing was
(continued ...)

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 35 -
under section 7(h) of the NGA,121
can commence eminent domain proceedings in a court
action if it cannot acquire the property rights by contract, Tennessee will not be allowed
to construct any facilities on subject property unless and until there is a favorable
outcome on all outstanding requests for necessary federal approvals, including a section
401 water quality certificate. Consistent with the language of section 401of the Clean
Water Act, Environmental Conditions 9, 17, and 18 ensure that until the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection issues any necessary water quality certificate,
Tennessee may not begin an activity, i.e., pipeline construction, which may result in a
discharge into jurisdictional waterbodies. Consequently, there can be no adverse impact
on Massachusetts’ jurisdictional waters until the Commission receives confirmation that
the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has completed its review of
the project under the Clean Water Act and issues the requisite permits.
13. Wetlands
100. Section B.2.3 of the EA recommends revisions to 14 of Tennessee’s proposed
30 additional temporary workspaces within 50 feet of wetlands. The recommendations
require Tennessee to file revised alignment sheets depicting the modifications or file
justifications for why the revisions cannot be implemented. In response, Tennessee
states that it intends to implement six of the EA’s recommendations, but that it cannot
implement six other recommendations and that two recommendations are not
applicable.122
After a review of Tennessee’s justifications and the associated alignment
sheets, we concur with Tennessee’s evaluations and have been revised Environmental
Conditions 15 and 16 as included in this order.
101. The Corps, New England District notes an inconsistency in the EA’s
representation of the total impacted area wetland (60.5 or 61.5 acres).123
We clarify that
total wetland impacts from the project are 60.5 acres.
finished – as long as the agency assesses the environmental data before the certificate’s
effective date).
121
15 U.S.C. § 717f(h) (2012).
122
See Tennessee November 23, 2015 Comment on the EA at 2-3.
123
The Corps states that it will seek additional information from Tennessee to
demonstrate proper avoidance and minimization measures outlined in the Clean Water
Act section 404(b)(1) guidelines.

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 36 -
102. STOP maintains that it is premature for the EA to conclude that the project
would not adversely affect wetlands when Tennessee has not received its section 401
certification and section 404 permit. STOP accuses the Commission of deferring
environmental review of the project’s impacts on wetlands to certifying agencies. BRPC
makes a similar comment, stating that without a wetland and biological survey, it is
premature to find that the project would have only minor and temporary impacts. Several
commenters also contend that a section 404 permit is required prior to issuing a
certificate.
103. STOP mischaracterizes the EA’s conclusion. After a lengthy discussion about the
project’s effects on wetlands,124
the EA concludes that the project would have minor and
temporary impacts on non-forested wetlands and that vernal pools and forested wetlands
would experience long-term, non-significant impacts.125
To mitigate the impacts, the EA
recommends 19 environmental conditions. In addition to these measures, the EA also
instructs Tennessee that it would not be permitted to commence construction until it has
received all necessary and applicable federal authorizations, including a section 401
certification and a section 404 permit.126
The order incorporates these conditions and
instructions. Nowhere in the EA does the Commission defer its responsibilities under
NEPA to another agency.127
104. We also disagree with several commenters’ assertion that section 404 of the
Clean Water Act requires that a dredge and fill permit be issued prior to the issuance of
a certificate. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires a permit before dredged or fill
may be discharged into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Issuance of a
124
See EA at 49-55.
125
See id. at 55; see also id. at 112-13 (discussing cumulative impacts on
wetlands).
126
See id. at 49.
127
STOP cites Idaho v. I.C.C., 35 F.3d 585 (D.C. Cir. 1994), for support. The
case, however, is inapposite. There, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)
delegated its responsibilities under NEPA to other agencies through conditions in its
authorization. Specifically, the ICC did not investigate whether wetlands occurred in the
area or analyze impacts to wetlands and waterways. Instead, it delegated these tasks to
other agencies. See id. at 589-90. Here, by contrast, Commission staff independently
investigated and assessed the environmental impacts of the project. No delegation
occurred.

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 37 -
section 404 permit is not required by the Commission before issuance of a certificate.128
As stated in Environmental Condition 9, Tennessee must obtain any necessary permits
prior to receiving authorization to commence any construction activities that may result
in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States.
105. Northeast Energy comments that the recent rule issued by the EPA and the Corps
clarifying the scope of the “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act was
not considered by Tennessee. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a
nationwide stay of the rule on October 9, 2015.129
Thus, this rule is not currently in effect
and is not discussed in the EA. In any event, Tennessee will need to obtain whatever
federal permits requirements are required prior to construction.
106. The Mayers state that the project will have irreparable adverse impacts on
wetlands and Ms. Kristofferson requests complete avoidance of all wetlands.
Massachusetts DCR recommends that Tennessee reduce the project’s footprint in the
wetlands. Massachusetts DCR also states that the EA underestimates the project’s
adverse effects on vernal pools and associated wildlife habitats and upland forested
habitat. In accordance with Massachusetts DCR’s allegation that the project will clear
many acres of upland forest habitat and fragment the forest, Massachusetts DCR requests
that Tennessee assess the project’s impacts to upland terrestrial habitats that are used by
breeding amphibians found in vernal pools on public lands associated with the project
and explain how these impacts will be avoided, minimized, and mitigated. Massachusetts
DCR also requests that all clearing and construction in vernal pool terrestrial habitats
avoid breeding and migration periods to protect amphibians. Massachusetts DCR states
that it will require all vernal pools found on its land to be submitted to the Massachusetts
Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program for certification and requests that all
vernal pool forms, associated data, and maps be sent to the Massachusetts DCR Ecology
Program. As discussed in section B.2.3 of the EA, Tennessee will construct through
wetlands in accordance with the Commission’s Procedures. In addition, Environmental
Conditions 15 and 16 of this order require Tennessee to evaluate further modifications to
minimize impacts on wetlands in the project area, and Environmental Condition 17
requires Tennessee to file documentation of completed consultations with the
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection, and the Corps regarding mitigation measures it
would implement to avoid and minimize potential adverse effects on vernal pools. The
EA concludes that with the use of the Commission’s Procedures, environmental
128
See S. Cal. Edison Co., 113 FERC ¶ 61,063 (2005).
129
See In re EPA, 803 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 2015).

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 38 -
conditions in this order and the required federal permits, the project will not have
significant adverse impacts on wetland resources. We concur with this conclusion.
107. Ms. Baxter comments that wetlands are present at the pipeyards associated with
the Massachusetts Loop. Since the issuance of the EA, Tennessee states it will no longer
use the Tyringham, Town Hill Road, or Cold Spring Road pipeyards, but will use a single
yard (i.e., South Beech Plain Road pipeyard) in the Town of Sandisfield. Tennessee
conducted wetland delineation surveys at the South Beech Plain Road pipeyard and chose
a layout to avoid impacts on adjacent wetlands. However, the results of the wetland
delineations at this pipeyard have not yet been verified by the Town of Sandisfield third-
party reviewer. Environmental Condition 18 of this order requires that Tennessee file all
outstanding wetland and biological survey results prior to construction. We note that
Tennessee states the South Beech Plain Road pipeyard is located in an agricultural field
that will be restored to pre-construction use, except for a portion of the field that will be
used for wetland mitigation and will be restored as forested wetland.
108. Ms. Baxter also comments that the relocated pig receiver on the Massachusetts
Loop at MP 3.8 is located within a wetland buffer. Tennessee identified a wetland near
the receiver location and, although the receiver site may be considered a Bordering
Vegetated Wetland under the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act,130
the site is not
located within the wetland in accordance with the Commission’s Procedures.
109. Tennessee requests that we correct the statement in section 2.3 of the EA, which
states that vernal pools are considered Outstanding Resource Waters in Massachusetts.
We clarify that only certified vernal pools are considered Outstanding Resource Waters
under the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act.
110. The Mayers, Ms. Esteves, and Ms. Kristofferson express no confidence that
mitigated or restored wetlands would survive or function like the affected natural
wetlands. Tennessee has committed to implementation of the Commission’s Procedures,
which includes not only restoration measures that must be implemented, but also specific
criteria that must be met for restoration of wetlands to be considered successful. Further,
the Commission’s Procedures require annual monitoring and reporting of wetland
restoration efforts, as well as development and implementation of a remedial revegetation
plan for any wetland that has not successfully revegetated three years after construction
has ended.
130
MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 131 § 40 (2015).

Docket No. CP14-529-000 - 39 -
111. Mass Audubon contends that the mitigation measures identified in the EA are too
generalized and thus inadequate. It recommends that site-specific measures be adopted to
protect specific and unique habitat features. Additionally, Mass Audubon states that
studies show that wetland mitigation fails at a high rate. BRPC also recommends that the
mitigation plan include a monitoring program to determine whether the replanted native
species are reestablishing. Further, BRPC requests an explanation if Tennessee intends
to utilize the In-Lieu Fee Program.131
Our Procedures provide measures that Tennessee
must follow during wetland restoration and requires Tennessee to monitor and record the
success of wetland revegetation annually until revegetation is successful. Our Procedures
define the criteria by which wetland revegetation may be considered successful. As such,
we find that the restoration measures and monitoring requirements set forth in our
Procedures are adequate for the project.
14. Vegetation
112. The Corps requests that Tennessee implement an Integrated Vegetation
Maintenance approach that is consistent with the National Invasive Species Management
Plan and provide examples how Tennessee may implement this approach. As discussed
in section B.3.1 of the EA, Tennessee will implement an Invasive Species Management
Plan to avoid the spread of invasive species during construction, operation, and
maintenance of the project and will monitor the restored rights-of-way following
construction to manage invasive species. Environmental Condition 19 requires that
Tennessee incorporate additional measures in coordination with applicable state agencies,
which may include, but are not limited to, wash stations. The Corps may require
additional measures associated with its federal authority and applicable permits.
Environmental Condition 9 requires Tennessee to obtain and comply with all federal
permits and permit conditions.
113. Ms. Atwater-Williams comments that Tennessee’s Invasive Species Management
Plan provides for monitoring and mitigation of noxious and invasive species for up to
10 years, but that this period is inadequate. Similarly, BRPC and Mass Audubon request
that additional measures be included in Tennessee’s Invasive Species Management Plan,
131
Under the Corps’ section 404 guidance, “in-lieu-fee, fee mitigation, or other
similar arrangements, wherein funds are paid to a natural resource management entity
for implementation of either specific or general wetland or other aquatic resource
development project, are not considered to meet the definition of mitigation banking
because they do not typically provide compensatory mitigation in advance of project
impacts.” Federal Guidance on the Establishment, Use, and Operation of Mitigation
Banks, 60 Fed. Reg. 58,605 (Nov. 28, 1995).

FERC Approval for Tennessee Gas Pipeline - Connecticut Expansion Project

FERC Approval for Tennessee Gas Pipeline - Connecticut Expansion Project

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (16)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to FERC Approval for Tennessee Gas Pipeline - Connecticut Expansion Project

Similar to FERC Approval for Tennessee Gas Pipeline - Connecticut Expansion Project (20)

More from Marcellus Drilling News

More from Marcellus Drilling News (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (14)

FERC Approval for Tennessee Gas Pipeline - Connecticut Expansion Project