Amc ferc scoping comments

.............................................................................................................

Main Headquarters: 5 Joy Street • Boston, MA 02108-1490 • 617-523-0636 • outdoors.org

Regional Headquarters: Pinkham Notch Visitor Center • 361 Route 16 • Gorham, NH 03581-0298 • 603 466-2721

Additional Offices: Bretton Woods, NH • Greenville, ME • Portland, ME • New York, NY • Bethlehem, PA

October 16, 2015

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First St NE, Room 1A

Washington, DC 20426

Re: Docket No. PF14-22-000, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., Northeast Energy

Direct, EIS Scoping Comments

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments in response to the Notice of Intent to

prepare and Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Northeast Energy Direct (NED)

project.

The Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) is the oldest conservation and recreation organization in

the country, with 150,000 members, supporters, and advocates from Maine to Washington, DC.

Our mission is to promote the protection, enjoyment, and understanding of the mountains,

waters, forests, and trails of the Appalachian region. Because successful conservation depends

on active engagement with the outdoors, we encourage people to experience, learn about, and

appreciate the natural world.

AMC maintains over 1,800 miles of trail throughout the northeast, including the Massachusetts

portions of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (A.T.) and New England National Scenic Trail

(NET) that would be affected by the NED project as it is currently proposed. AMC also

collaborates in the maintenance of New Hampshire’s Metacomet-Monadnock Trail, which is

connected to the NET at the New Hampshire border, and which would also be crossed by the

NED project. AMC collaborates in the management of the Bay Circuit Trail in Massachusetts

and had a historical role in the establishment and maintenance of New Hampshire’s Wapack

Trail, both of which would also be crossed by the NED project as it is currently proposed. AMC

also has over 30 years of experience researching the effects of air pollution and climate change

on the northeast environment and hiker health.

AMC is concerned about the suite of impacts the proposed Northeast Energy Direct project

would have on protected lands, nationally and regionally significant recreational resources, air

quality, and climate. It is important for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to include a

review of the full scope of this multi-state project, including connected actions, cumulative

actions, similar actions, as well as direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts as defined by 40 CFR

Sec. 1508.25.

The importance of scope under NEPA is especially apparent when considering a project that

crosses borders such as this pipeline project. The impact in one individual state may not be

large but cumulatively across states the impact on land, water, regional air quality, and/or

of 7

climate could be substantive. For example, states have mechanisms to address in-state

emissions under federal Clean Air Act (CAA) regulations but this capacity is more limited for

addressing out of state sources. Therefore NEPA is an important federal program that can and

must address the cumulative impacts across the full aerial extent of the project.

AMC’s comments on the scope of the EIS below are comprised of two components below and

on the following pages: (1) land and direct impacts to recreational resources, and (2) air quality

and climate impacts.

1. Project Scope with Regard to Land and Direct Impacts to Recreation Resources

It is the policy of the AMC that public interest lands in our region should be the choice of last

resort for energy and energy transmission projects that would create long-term adverse impacts

to the ecological, recreational, and scenic values of these lands. Specifically, these values include

managing for natural ecosystem and backcountry recreation values, preserving forests for their

carbon sequestration abilities, providing ‘reserves’ that could serve as refugia for ecosystems to

adapt to climate change or provide resilience to the impacts of climate change, and protecting

recognized outstanding scenic characteristics. When large-scale energy projects occur on these

lands, there must be no reasonable alternatives available.

The pipeline route as currently proposed would impact several significant recreational resources

managed by AMC, including:

• Would cross the Appalachian Trail in Dalton, MA with disturbance very near, if not

impinging upon, the Crystal Mountain Campsite.

• Would cross the New England National Scenic Trail (NET) twice in Northfield, MA and a

compressor station and mainline valve/remote blowoff is proposed to be located in

Northfield, MA just .75 mile south of the NET’s 4-season Richardson-Zlogar cabin that is

heavily used for its unparalleled views of Mt. Ascutney (VT), Mt. Monadnock (NH), and

Mt. Wachusett (MA).

• Would cross the NET several times in Bloomfield, Farmington, Simsbury, and West

Hartford, Connecticut.

• Would cross the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail in New Hampshire’s Rhododendron State

Park

• Would cross the Bay Circuit Trail in Andover and Middleton, Massachusetts

• Would impact more than 100 parcels of land in Massachusetts that have been

“protected” by public and private entities. At least 85 of these parcels are protected by

Article 97 for the Massachusetts Constitution, which states that , “The people shall have

the right to clean air and water, freedom from excessive and unnecessary noise, and the

natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic qualities of their environment; and the protection

of the people in their right to the conservation, development and utilization of the

agricultural, mineral, forest, water, air and other natural resources is hereby declared to

be a public purpose.”

• Would impact nearly 50 properties in New Hampshire that have been protected by a

combination of private and public entities for public conservation values, including but

not limited to forest habitat, water quality, and recreation.

AMC therefore urges FERC to review and evaluate the following impacts as part its EIS:

• Full review of impacts to recreational resources and the user experience, including the

impacts to water supplies at overnight sites (on the Appalachian Trail and New England Trail

for example) and the impacts of noise, lights, and visual blight associated with the proposed

of 7

compressor station location in Northfield, which is near a New England Trail overnight sight

that was created with federal funding and has become a popular overnight destination.

• Review of cumulative impacts to long-distance trails; the Tennessee Gas Company’s

Resource Report 8 “Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics” section 8.4.1.7 incorrectly states

that there is one crossing of the New England Trail. In fact there are two crossings of the

NET in Massachusetts, as was confirmed by AMC in a meeting with TGP as recently as

7/23/15. The project would cross the New England Trail a total of five times in

Massachusetts and Connecticut. The impacts to the Appalachian Trail would contribute to

impacts associated with approximately one dozen proposed and reasonably foreseeable

projects on the A.T.

• Review the extent to which expanded corridors will exacerbate problems and associated

impacts of uncontrolled access by all-terrain-vehicles associated impacts to trails and

conserved habitat areas that are inappropriate for ATV use. For example, illegal ATV use us

already problematic in the area of the proposed A.T. crossing and the adjacent Chalet

Wildlife Management Area. ATV traffic would likely increase if the existing utility corridor is

widened, particularly where it crosses roads to the east and west of the A.T.

• Impacts to the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail in New Hampshire. This section of trail is a

critical link between the New England National Scenic Trail and the Monadnock Sunapee

Greenway, which then connects with the Sunapee Ragged Kearsage Greenway, together

connecting Long Island Sound to popular natural features in New Hampshire. Although a

volunteer stewards of the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail met with a TGP representative on

April 28, 2015 to convey information about the trail and discuss potential impacts, there is

no mention of this trail or the potential impacts in the July 24, 2015 Resource Report 8

“Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics.”

• Review alternatives based on a premise that permanent protection of land under the terms

of Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution should be upheld, including conservation

land adjacent to existing utility rights-of-way.

• Include alternatives to locate the pipeline within utility rights-of-way rather than adjacent

to them, and review the full impacts of installing and operating pipelines in and along these

corridors that may be far greater than the impacts of the existing transmission towers. The

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company proposes to align much of the pipeline’s route next to

existing corridors in undeveloped areas despite the technical feasibility of constructing the

pipeline within the ROW. The expanded impacts to the habitat and recreational resources

should be thoroughly evaluated against other alternatives.

• Evaluate the full value of the conservation lands that would be impacted. Significant public

and private investment has been applied with deliberate intention to the lands for their

ecological, cultural, and recreation values that now appear to be viewed as a “path of least

resistance” in direct conflict to the intentions of the investments in protecting these lands.

The evaluation should also reflect the value of the ecosystem services that would be

impacted as part of the project. For reference, a 2013 report by the Trust for Public Land,

“The Return on Investment in Parks and Open Space in Massachusetts,” found that every

of 7

dollar invested in land conservation returns $4 in value of the natural goods and services

associated with clean air and water, recreation and tourism, and fish and wildlife habitat.1

• Include proposed mitigation in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, as opposed to

being developed at a later time, so it can be subject to full public review for its nexus and

adequacy relative to the proposed project’s impacts.

2. Project Scope with Regard to Air and Climate Impacts

AMC believes FERC must consider all of the “connected,” “cumulative,” “similar,” and

“reasonably foreseeable future” actions of this project not only to lands, waters, and recreation,

but also with regards to air quality and climate impacts because air pollutants are not restricted

to the boundaries of the direct project area and air and climate impacts can incur from direct,

indirect, and cumulative actions.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) recently issued a Revised Draft Guidance for

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Impacts2 that recognizes the challenge of

addressing greenhouse gas impacts for projects that fall under NEPA but also provides a useful

roadmap for decision-making in regards to a projects potential impact to climate forcing. The

AMC commented in support of this guidance and recommended further strengthening of it.

While the EIS should cover all related regulations under which the project is subject to review,

they should not dictate or limit the full scope of the EIS, particularly for cumulative hazardous air

pollutant and climate impact analysis. For example, the Clean Air Act (CAA) has a definition of

“major sources” under the oil and gas National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(NESHAP) for natural gas transmission and storage. That definition of major source is used to

determine if the project falls under CAA regulations but should not be used to limit FERC’s

consideration of what is included in a hazardous air pollutants impact analysis under NEPA from

this project. We believe this distinction in defining scope of a project under NEPA is particularly

important for both air pollution and climate impacts. States have mechanisms to address in-

state emissions under federal CAA regulations but this capacity is more limited for out of state

sources. Therefore NEPA is an important federal program that can and must address the

cumulative impacts across the full aerial extent of the project.

FERC should consider alternative locations to the current proposed pipeline corridor and

specifically consider siting locations that are not upwind of nonattainment or maintenance areas

for the 8-hour Ozone, or Fine Particulate Matter, National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS). Further discussion of downwind impacts to recreational areas is discussed below.

Air and Climate Cumulative Impacts

We urge FERC to require a thorough cumulative impact analysis of the air and climate impacts of

this project. The definition of a cumulative impact can be found in 40 CFR §1508.7 and is as

follows:

1 https://www.tpl.org/return-investment-parks-and-open-space-massachusetts

2 https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/nepa/ghg-guidance

of 7

...the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions

regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other

actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively

significant actions taking place over a period of time.

FERC should not limit the impact analysis to the transmission and storage segment of the

proposed project but to all connected actions such as upstream production. This graphic shows

the full natural gas system from production to distribution. Beyond direct impacts this project

will facilitate more natural gas production and processing as well as increase distribution. The

cumulative air quality and climate impacts from these connected segments must be considered.

Air Pollution Impacts

Because hikers, joggers, bikers, paddlers, and other people who spend time exercising in the

outdoors risk increased exposure to air pollution such as particulates, ozone, and other

hazardous air-borne substances which threaten their cardiovascular and pulmonary health, AMC

urges FERC to examine potential air quality degradation from this project in relation to health

impacts to these user groups and to the general public, both independently and cumulatively

along with other projects with open FERC dockets. Potential air pollution associated with the

natural gas pipelines includes methane, ethane, benzene, toluene, xylene, nitrogen oxides,

carbon monoxide and secondary ozone and fine particulate formation from the compressor

station and pipeline; as well as diesel emissions from construction vehicles. NOx and VOCs

contribute to ozone formation downwind of the source emissions. The project’s proximity to

numerous recreation trails and areas makes these areas vulnerable for increased levels of ozone

pollution. This is particularly dangerous for children and young adults who have higher

ventilation rates.3 Further, ozone can also be harmful to plants and forests, causing oxidative

3 United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division Ambient Standards Group,

of 7

stress, disrupting carbon sequestration capacity, water resource allocation efficiency, and pre-

maturely browning leaves.

The added ozone precursor emissions from this project may push a number of counties along

the pipeline route into non-attainment, even without the additional emissions of VOCs and NOx

which would be contributed by this project. EPA recently lowered the current ozone National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) from 75 to 70 ppb but impacts, to both human health

and plants, are still likely at levels between 60 and 70 ppb. EPA decision should not limit FERC’s

consideration of the scientific literature and the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee’s

recommendation to EPA that the standard should be between 60 and 70 ppb and that the lower

end of this range is most protective of people and plants at risk from ozone pollution.

We are also concerned about the project’s proximity to rural landscapes frequented for outdoor

recreation, where air quality may not be currently monitored, but where it could be negatively

impacted. The EIS should include requirements for air quality monitoring that ensure these

areas are monitored. The nine compressor stations proposed by the applicant, including the one

proposed in Northfield, MA approximately .75 miles away from a popular overnight site on the

New England National Scenic Trail, are of particular concern as it poses significant air pollution

risks to the outdoor recreation community and visitors nearby recreational destinations as well

as local residents.

In addition, alternatives should be strongly considered in order to minimize potential air

pollution risks to the outdoor recreation community: powering the compressor station turbine

with an electric motor instead of natural gas; including zero emission pneumatic control

features in plans for the compressor; and supporting other measures that ensure that the

pipeline and associated storage tanks and compressor stations can meet and exceed the

standards set in EPA’s on-the-books and on-the-way regulations controlling all air pollution

emissions from the oil and gas industry.

While EPA’s 2012 NSPS for VOCs for natural gas and oil new rule did not address compressors

and pneumatic controllers in the transmission segment they have been included in the recently

proposed Methane Rule. EPA did not include them in 2012 because the agency argued that the

downstream sources are processed to remove the impurities like VOC, EPA claimed there just

were not enough VOC emissions to justify regulation. However, by regulating methane, EPA

now views these sources as having enough emissions now to warrant regulation. FERC should

consider this pending regulation that may well be finalized by the start of this project.

Climate Change Impacts

In addition to providing an analysis of local and regional air pollution effects of the proposed

pipeline as discussed above, AMC strongly urges FERC to consider the potential for climate

change impacts from the NED pipeline. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) recently

issued draft guidelines on the process for federal agencies to evaluate greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions when conducting reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This

guidance should supersede the previous 2010 guidance and directs agencies to address the

potential climate change impacts of a proposed project as indicated by its GHG emissions. It

2014 Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, (Research Triangle Park, North Carolina) p. 3-81.

of 7

dictates that the EIS should consider both long and short term effects and benefits based on the

duration of the generation of emissions.

These recommendations will likely be formalized during the permitting process for this project.

FERC should include climate change as a discussion item in their final record of decision and

therefore should demonstrate due diligence by fulfilling these requirements early in the process

and including the topic of climate change impacts and opportunities for mitigation within the

draft EIS. In this way, FERC can ensure that the public has had a fair opportunity to comment on

potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures throughout the lengthy public permitting

process.

The CEQ guidance also directs federal agencies to consider the implications of climate change

impacts, including potential adverse environmental effects. The potential impacts of a project of

this scale are wide-ranging and include contributions to global sea level rise and changes in

avian migration patterns, as well as localized impacts that have the potential to hit more close-

to-home, for example, an increased occurrence of intense storm events and extreme flooding

along the eastern seaboard. Both local and cumulative climate change and air quality impacts

should be thoroughly evaluated, and alternatives to avoid or minimize these impacts should be

presented and analyzed. In addition to outlining the potential impacts of carbon dioxide, nitrous

oxide, methane and diesel emissions from the project, it is imperative that the EIS also consider

the loss of forested lands as an impediment to the landscape’s natural ability to sequester

carbon.

The analysis should pay special attention to the proposed compressor stations, given that recent

studies show compressor stations account for 25% of the methane emissions from the oil and

gas industry, much of which is leaked.4

These are just some of the many issue to consider in evaluating the need, impacts, and

alternatives of this complex project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Heather Clish

Director of Conservation & Recreation Policy

4 Mccabe et al, 2015: Waste Not: Common Sense Ways to Reduce Methane Pollution from the

Oil and Natural Gas Industry, (Washington, DC) p. 19

Amc ferc scoping comments

Documents

Transcript of Amc ferc scoping comments