VCE
Text of the minutes of the April 6, 1999, Waterbury, VT, meeting between representatives of NYSEG/SVNG, the State of Vermont, and the US Government where the preliminary preferred route of NYSEG/SVNG's proposed natural gas pipeline was identified. One end product of this meeting is the map, on file in most town offices, of that route. [This information is available to the public through the Freedom of Information Act.]

MEETING MINUTES: SOUTHERN VERMONT NATURAL GAS PIPELINE PROJECT PREFERRED ROUTE SELECTION MEETING, APRIL 6, 1999

See also:
  NYSEG/SVNG Map Cover Letter
  List of Meeting Participants

Meeting Attendance

The meeting was held in Waterbury, Vermont, and attended by 26 company and interagency personnel. A complete sign-up list of attendees, including name, affiliation, phone number, and electronic mail address, is provided as Attachment A.

Purpose of Meeting

Several attendees opened the meeting with comments regarding the purpose of the meeting and the project.

Pete LaFlamme (Agency of Natural Resources [ANR]) started the meeting by stating that the purpose of the interagency meeting was to perform a sequential review of the resource constraints maps prepared by Southern Vermont Natural Gas Company (SVNG), and to reach a consensus on a route.

Scott Johnstone (ANR) followed by stating the project provided a unique opportunity for the State of Vermont and its residents, and that the project was perceived as beneficial to the state. Mr. Johnstone encouraged the unique group of attendees to work together to reach consensus.

Peg Elmer (Agency of Commerce) stated that the Agency of Commerce works closely with regional planning boards, primarily on transportation projects, but would be involved in the review of the applicant's Public Service Board 248 Testimony. Ms. Elmer suggested that the applicants use the University of Massachusetts' REMI Model to produce useful economic information. Ms. Elmer also indicated that the Agency of Commerce would like to see growth in the region, not necessarily traditional development patterns.

Pre-Meeting Questions and Comments

Beth Alafat (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA]) raised the question regarding whether the SVNG project was subject to FERC jurisdiction. Ms. Alafat stated that she had spoken with Mr. Rich Hoffiman (FERC) regarding the project and he "has nothing on the project" and therefore cannot judge whether the project is subject to FERC jurisdiction. Ms. Alafat requested that the applicants consult with the FERC on this issue and get a determination on paper. Mr. Bob Malecki (New York State Electric & Gas Corporation [NYSEG]) stated that it would be unprecedented for the FERC to exert jurisdiction over an entirely intrastate natural gas pipeline system. Nonetheless, Mr. Malecki stated that SVNG would consult with FERC for a determination. Tom Dunn (Public Service Board) stated that based on PSB's legal counsel review, the SVNG project is not subject to FERC jurisdiction.

Beth Alafat also requested that the applicants provide a project schedule, on paper, to allow regulators to assess whether the SVNG and other applicant's projects are on a consistent schedule. In particular, a project schedule would be useful to determine the kind of scoping that will be required to determine project impacts (for an Environmental Assessment [EA] or Impact Statement [EIS]).

Ms. Alafat also stated that she would like to see the route as part of selecting the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). Frank DelGuidice (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District [USACE]) indicated that the LEDPA will depend to a large degree on Agency of Transportation (AOT) and ANR review of the constraints maps, identification of any resource concerns generated by that review, and interagency consensus.

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

Pete LaFlamme stated that the ANR would be acquiring six (6) new personnel by mid- to late May to initiate review of the SVNG project, pursuant to final agreement on an MOU between ANR and SVNG. This effort is proposed to perform an expedited review of the project and to meet project schedule. Johnathan Peress (ANR) stated that it had exchanged drafts of the MOU with SVNG, and was waiting to hear back from SVNG. The AOT stated that it would not require additional funding for the MOU review process, however, the y would require reimbursement from SVNG for required construction inspectors. Mike Eastman (SVNG) stated that internal review of the MOU is in progress, and anticipates completion in a week or so. Mr. Eastman stated that once a primary route is selected, SVNG will have a better idea of SVNG's and the state's costs to complete review of the project, and that this estimated level of effort can be incorporated into the MOU.

Project Status Southern Vermont Natural Gas Company

Steve Sease (ANR) requested that the applicants provide a brief summary of the status of the projects. Mike Eastman (SVNG) thanked everyone for their participation in the meeting and extended his appreciation to have such an interagency group involved from the beginning in routing decisions. Mr. Eastman further stated that SVNG is committed to meeting all of the objectives of the interagency group, and was grateful to the PSB for allowing a “work in progress" to be filed. Mr. Eastman stated that SVNG has performed initial routing studies, in the form of the resource constraints maps and matrices, and that this information had been previously provided to the interagency group in preparation for this meeting. He also stated that draft PSB 248 Testimony was being prepared, and that once consensus on the route was completed, the testimony also could be completed and filed in early May. Mr. Eastman indicated that SVNG wants to hold a public meeting to share information with potentially affected property owners. SVNG has shared information in the past and has met with all affected towns, such that SVNG has a good idea of those who favor and oppose the project.

Vermont Energy Park Holdings

Dave Mullet (Vermont Energy Park Holdings [VEPH]) indicated that VEPH would file four (4) applications to the PSB for approval of the two electric power generation plants. and that these also are scheduled for submittal in May. Tom McCauley (VEPH) stated that the Bennington plant site has been revised, and is located in the northeast portion of the town. The site is approximately 21 acres and is an industrial site. No known archaeological resources occur at the site. The site is located adjacent to a bank of a stream, but not in a floodplain because of the existing USACE levees adjacent to the stream. VEPH will continue its air quality analysis, as well as assess water demands for the plant. The movement of the plant to a site with less visual impact appears to be preferred by the town/community.

Bob Votaw (VEPH) stated that VEPH is focusing on financing, and has had independent consultants prepare two market pricing studies which indicate the project is financially viable. VEPH has confirmed that the project is virtually unencumbered and very competitive. However, Mr. Votaw emphasized that project viability is strongly dependent upon the project meeting schedule, with the pipelines being built and the plants in service by 2001.

Iroquois Natural Gas

Tim Barnes (Iroquois Natural Gas) indicated that despite the movement of the VEPH Bennington plant site, the Iroquois interstate natural gas pipeline route has not changed because the point of conveyance to SVNG will be at the same location. Mr. Barnes indicated that the development of permit applications and project analysis is lagging behind a bit in New York, but that Iroquois is obtaining those GIS data layers that are available in the state (i.e., known threatened and endangered species, archaeological sites, hazardous waste sites, etc.). Iroquois also is planning an aerial overflight to obtain aerial photography.

LEDPA Route Selection

Pete LaFlamme concluded the initial meeting comments, and directed that the meeting move on to address preferred route selection, from south to north. SVNG attendees set up tables and project maps, and approximately 15 pertinent regulatory personnel surrounded the tables and maps to discuss route selection. The following provides a segment-by-segment summary of comments, constraints, and consensus on a LEDPA route for the SVNG and Iroquois pipeline projects.

Iroquois Natural Gas Pipeline Project

The interagency group (primarily Frank DelGuidice [USACE], Beth Alafat [USEPA], Pete LaFlamme [ANR], Everett Marshal1 [ANR], Shawn Good [ANR-Fish and Wildlife Department], Peter Keibel [ANR-DEC-Water Quality Division]) reviewed the Iroquois Natural Gas pipeline project (Vermont section) constraint map, and discussed constraints along the approximately two mile project. Iroquois indicated that it had attempted to carefully route the project to avoid engineering and environmental constraints to the maximum extent practicable. The USEPA indicated that the proposed route involved all new right-of-way. Iroquois agreed and indicated that no suitable existing corridors were available at this location. However, Iroquois noted that the route primarily crosses unimproved pasture or other open lands.

The AOT expressed no concerns except for the crossing of Route 9, which could be mitigated with standard construction techniques.

The ANR indicated that there appeared to be no significant environmental issues, as wetlands would be avoided, and only one stream crossing was identified. The ANR stated that minor reroutes could be considered to avoid site-specific issues, and that the overall route appeared to be acceptable as impacts would be short-tem, during the summer of construction. Interagency group consensus was reached rather quickly that there were no significant constraints or concerns along the proposed route as shown on the constraints map, and that the route was acceptable as the LEDPA.

Southern Vermont Natural Gas Pipeline Project Iroquois-SVNG Interconnect Site

The interagency group reviewed the constraints maps regarding two alternative sites for the interconnect between the Iroquois Natural Gas Pipeline Project and SVNG Pipeline Project (A1 versus A2). The AOT had no concerns with regard to either alternative site. The USACE, USEPA, and ANR personnel agreed that the A1 interconnect site would have similar impacts on environmental resources as the A2 interconnect site.

Segment 1

Two alternative route segments were reviewed between the SVNG-Iroquois interconnect site and U.S. Route 7 in Bennington, including:

Alternative 1 A3-A4-A5-A10; and Alternative 2 A3-A7.

The interagency group preferred Alternative 2 (A3-A7). The AOT had no concerns with either alternative. However, the ANR indicated Alternative 2 (A3-A4-A5-A10) crossed two Deer Wintering Areas, but recognized that these would be impacted by the construction of the Route 9 by-pass.

Segment 2

Two major north-south transmission mainline alternative routes were reviewed for this segment between Bennington and the Town of Shaftsbury, including:

Alternative A7-A8A-A9-A12(VELCO/CVPS115kVelectrictransrnissionline);and Alternative 2 A7-A7A-A8-Al l-A12 (U.S. Route 7).

The interagency group reviewed the constraints maps, constraints matrices, and aerial photography of these alternatives. SVNG indicated that Alternative 2 would involve traversing rock ledge such that blasting would be required, and stabilization of the rock face may be difficult to achieve.

The ANR preferred Alternative 2 (A7-A7A-A8-Al l-A12) because Alternative 1 (A7-A8A-A9A12) would impact fisheries, two streams, and a Deer Wintering Area, and would involve greater potential impacts on wetlands and riparian areas. The ANR agreed that it would prefer that rock ledge be impacted (Alternative 2) than to impact the variety of resources located along Alternative 1. The USEPA and USACE concurred with this assessment.

The ANR asked if the pipeline could be located in the median of U. S. Route 7, but AOT stated this was not possible because of future, long-term maintenance requirements. However, the AOT was agreeable to the pipeline being located along the edge of the U.S. Route 7 right-of-way. The AOT therefore concurred with the routing of Alternative 2 as presented on the constraints maps.

As a result, the interagency group concurred that the A7-A7A-A8-Al l-A12 segment be included as part of the LEDPA.

Segment 3

No alternative routes were identified for the 0.4-mile segment located between A12 and A13. Because no resource constraints were mapped in this area, the interagency group concurred that the A12-A13 segment be included as part of the LEDPA.

Segment 4

Two alternative route segments were reviewed between the Town of Shaftsbury and the Town of Arlington, including:

Alternative 1 A13-A17 (U.S. Route 7); and

Alternative 2 A13-A14-A15-A16 (VELCO/CVPS 115 kV electric transmission lines).

The ANR raised concern regarding potential impacts to critical bear habitat along Alternative 1 (A13A17), and concluded that it preferred Alternative 2. The USACE and USEPA concurred with ANR's assessment. The AOT had no specific concerns with the selection of Alternative 2, and also preferred this alternative as it avoided the additional use of U. S. Route 7 right-of-way along Alternative 1. The interagency group therefore concurred that the A13-A14-A15-A16 segment be included as part of the LEDPA.

As an aside, upon question raised by the USEPA, the ANR and USACE noted that the large wetland and other water resources located north of A15 would preclude continuation of alternative routes along the electric transmission line north of A15 Segment s

At the termination of the two Segment 4 alternatives discussed above, a potential connecting segment is located between A16 and U.S. Route 7 (at A17). This connecting segment (A16-A17) is located adjacent to Vermont Route 313. This segment may be used as part of the LEDPA? if necessary, to connect fromA16 to U.S. Route 7 at A17, depending on final interagency consensus on a preferred Segment 5 alternative.

Two alternative route segments were reviewed between the Town of Arlington and the Town of Manchester, including:

Alternative I A16-A17-A20 (Vermont Route 313 and U.S. Route 7); and Alternative 2 A16-A18-A19A20 (new right-of-way and CVPS 46 kV electric transmission line).

The ANR expressed concerns regarding a number of streams traversed by or parallel to Alternative 2. These concerns included opening up riparian canopy and potential subsequent impacts on fisheries. The ANR indicated that they would prefer an alternative where the route is less parallel to streams, and would prefer at least a 50-foot buffer where possible. As a result, from a stream and fisheries perspective, the ANR preferred Alternative 1 (U. S. Route 7).

The ANR also expressed concern regarding the crossing of Deer Wintering Areas and critical bear habitat along Alternative 1. The ANR indicated that, although Alternative 2 (electric transmission line) also crosses similar features, the crossings along Alternative 1 would be more detrimental to whitetailed deer and black bear because they would increase the width (and decrease the vegetative cover) of the existing fragmented corridor along U. S. Route 7. As a result, from a critical wildlife habitat perspective, the ANR preferred Alternative 2 (electric transmission line).

With regard to wetlands, the ANR was uncertain as to a preference because both alternatives crossed a major National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetland and an arm of another major NWI wetland. After review of aerial photographs (which did not adequately cover both wetland areas), the AN1R still was unable to reach consensus on a preferred alternative. The ANR indicated that, tentatively, Alternative 1 was preferred, but that a final determination was pending further review of in-house resource information and possible field review of the two wetlands of concern. The USACE, USEPA, and AOT concurred that Alternative 1 was tentatively preferred, pending further review by ANR

No alternative routes were identified for the 13.8-mile segment located between the Town of Manchester and the Town of Danby adjacent to U.S. Route 7 (A20-A21-A22). As a result, the interagency group concurred that the A20-A21-A22 segment be included as part of the LEDPA.

The ANR, Division of Forests, Parks, and Recreation (FPR), expressed concern regarding the crossing of the Emerald Lake State Park and adjacent state land managed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife (along segment A2 1-A22). The ANR-FPR indicated that the state land was not mapped on the Land Use Features map. The state land is a triangular-shaped parcel located at the southern portion of the park and adjacent to U. S. Route 7 and the park. The Emerald Lake State Park is bisected by U. S. Route 7, which runs north-south through the park, for a distance of approximately I mile.

The ANR-FPR expressed concern regarding the potential impact of construction noise along U.S. Route 7 on campers and visitors at the Emerald Lake State Park (segment A2 1 -A22). The ANR-FPR stated that there is a sheer rock face along the eastern edge of U. S. Route 7 that reflects noise toward the western portion of the park, which contains several campground areas that are heavily utilized The AOT stated that there is a sharp topographic "drop off,' of the west side of U.S. Route 7, down to the railroad tracks, and further down to the park. The ANR-FPR indicated that construction either along U. S. Route 7 or on the ridge above the rock face likely would result in noise impacts on park users.

The ANR-FPR also expressed concern regarding the impact of construction on access to the Emerald Lake State Park. It was implied that because the park is heavily utilized, blockage of the primary access route into the park would interfere with visitations and enjoyment of the park experience. The primary access route is located near the northern portion of the park. The ANRFRI' stated that the park is open between Memorial Day and Labor Day.

SVNG indicated that construction through the approximately 1-mile crossing of the Emerald Lake State Park would take about 45 days, including clearing through final clean-up and restoration. Assuring some pre-construction planning would be required, SVNG indicated that construction could begin in mid-April (pending timely granting of required permits and approvals) and be completed by Memorial Day, thereby avoiding potential construction noise and park access impacts. The ANR-FPR agreed that this mitigation approach was acceptable and would adequately ameliorate their concerns.

The ANR raised concern regarding the crossing of Otter Creek, located just south of the primary park entrance and outside the park. The ANR reported that Otter Creek is a coldwater fishery where spawning activities could be taking place during part of the proposed mitigation construction period between April 15 and Mayl5. The ANR stated that the actual time spawning occurs in a given year is dependent upon water temperature, which in turn is strongly influenced by spring weather patterns. As a result, avoidance of impacts on spawning activities typically involves a construction blackout window during this period (April 15 through May 15).

However, the ANR reported that alternative construction methods could be used to avoid or minimize impact on spring spawning activities in Otter Creek. As a result, the ANR concurred that early construction of the approximately 1 mile segment through Emerald Lake State Park is acceptable, as long as an acceptable construction method also is used to mitigate concerns associated with the Otter Creek crossing.

SVNG indicated that, based on previous field review at this site, the width of the Otter Creek crossing is approximately 10 feet. As a result, SVNG reported that the dam-and-pump construction technique would be a feasible construction method at this location.

The AOT raised concerns regarding limited construction space adjacent to U. S. Route 7 and the rock face. SVNG indicated that it would evaluate more closely construction at the top of the rock face. The ANR then indicated concern regarding potential rare plants that may occur on the rock near the rock face, and discouraged construction immediately at the edge of the rock ledge. SVNG indicated that it would evaluate site-specific routing more closely in this area.

Segment 7

Two primary alternative route segments were reviewed between the Town of Danby and the City of Rutland, including:

Alternative 1 A22-~1-B2-B4-B5-B8-B9-B10-Bll(U.S. Route 7 and railroad right-of-way); and Alternative 2 A22-Cl-C2-C3-C4-C9-C10-Cll (OMYA 46kV electric transmission line and U. S. Route 4).

Alternative 1 generally is located from the Town of Danby through the Town of Wallingford, the Town of Clarendon, and the City of Rutland. Alternative 2 generally is located to the west of Alternative 1, and is located from the Town of Danby through the Town of Tinmouth, Town of Ira, Town of West Rutland, and City of Rutland.

The ANR expressed strong concern regarding the crossing of the Tinmouth Channel along a portion of Alternative 2 (segment C3-C4). The ANR reported that Tinmouth Channel is a unique natural community in the State of Vermont; it is an intermediate fen that is one of the best examples of this type of community in New England. The ANR also reported that Tinmouth Channel provides habitat for rare, threatened, and endangered species. The ANR stressed that avoidance of this important resource is by far the preferred alternative.

SVNG had previously identified Tinmouth Channel as a potentially important resource, and had investigated a re-route to avoid this resource. SVNG presented the re-route by drawing the location of the re-route on the Water Features constraints map. SVNG reported that the re-route adds approximately 2,400 feet in length to the Alternative 2 route. SVNG stated that the re-route completely avoids Tinmouth Channel, crosses no NWI wetlands or historic resources, but does cross two streams. Finally, SVNG reported, during interagency group review of aerial photographs, that the re-route traverses new right-of-way that is entirely forested. and would involve approximately 18 acres of additional forest clearing. The ANR expressed appreciation for SVNG's investigation of the Tinmouth Channel re-route.

The ANR expressed concern regarding potential impacts to Deer Wintering Areas and critical bear habitat along Alternative 1 (U. S. Route 7). The ANR continued that Alternative 2 impacts some Deer Wintering Area, but avoids critical bear habitat. As a result, with the Tinmouth Channel re-route, the ANR preferred Alternative 2 from a wildlife habitat perspective.

The ANR also expressed concern regarding the large number of streams that are crossed by, or located parallel to, the Alternative 1 route. The ANR expressed concern regarding both streams and fisheries issues, similar to those expressed during review of Segment 5 alternatives. In particular, ANR expressed concern regarding the crossing of Otter Creek and associated wetlands on Alternative 1. The ANR stated that Otter Creek is an important coldwater fishery that flows northward to Lake Champlain. However, ANR added that appropriate construction techniques and application of erosion and sedimentation controls would ameliorate these concerns. As a result, with the Tinmouth Channel reroute, the ANR preferred Alternative 2 from a stream and fisheries perspective.

The AOT expressed concern regarding the use of Alternative 1 (U.S. Route 7), especially with regard to right-of-way availability and use. Accordingly, the AOT preferred Alternative 2 located primarily along the 46 kV electric transmission line.

The ANR concluded that, with the Tinmouth Channel re-route, it would prefer Alternative 2 as the LEDPA. The USEPA concurred that the re-route around the Tinmouth Channel would be the LEDPA. The USACE and AOT concurred with both ANR and USEPA assessments. As a result, the interagency group concurred that the A22-C 1 -C2-C3-C4-C9-C 1 0-C 1 1 segment be included as part of the LEDPA.

The ANR expressed concern regarding a small fen located adjacent to the 46 kV electric transmission line, and depicted the location of the fen on the Water Features constraints map. SVNG acknowledged ANR's concern, and indicated that it would evaluate a minor re-route to avoid the fen at the time the centerline is staked.

Further analysis also was required to review the LEDPA route between C4 and C9 (Segment 8), as described below.

Segment 8

Two alternative route segments were reviewed in the tri-town area of the Town of Ira (C4), Town of Clarendon (C7), and Town of West Rutland (C5, C6, C8, C9), including:

Alternative 1 C4-C5-C6-C9 OMYA 46 kV electric transmission line and U.S. Route 4);

Alternative 2 C4-C5-C8-C9 (OMYA 46 kV electric transmission line, new right-of-way, and VELCO 345 kV electric transmission line); and

Alternative 3 C4-C7-C8-C9 (new right-of-way and VELCO 345 kV electric transmission line).

The interagency group inquired regarding other alternative overland routes located between or south of segments C4-C7 and C5-C8. SVNG explained that it had scrutinized this area carefully to identify potential alternative overland route segments. Discussion ensued over review of aerial photographs of the subject. SVNG demonstrated that available open land corridors were fairly limited and that the majority of the subject area was forested. SVNG further explained that the presence of housing areas further constrained viable alternatives. The interagency group concurred that the proposed alternatives were suitable for further evaluation.

Upon request of the interagency group, SVNG presented its preferred alternative. SVNG responded that Alternative 1 was not preferred due to the presence of residences immediately adjacent to the 46 kV electric transmission line. SVNG also responded that Alternative 2 was not preferred due to the presence of a NWI wetland between segment C5-C8. Because SVNG had no specific concerns with Alternative 3, it preferred this alternative.

The USEPA expressed concern regarding a stream channel that paralleled segment C4-C7 of SVNG's preferred Alternative 3. The ANR concurred with USEPA's concern. SVNG acknowledged these concerns. SVNG indicated that, if the stream actually closely parallels this route based on field review, it would evaluate a minor re-route to avoid paralleling the stream.

As a result of the above discussions, the interagency group concurred that the C4-C7-C8-C9 segment be included as part of the LEDPA.

Segment 9

No alternative routes were identified for the 2.2-mile segment located between the Town of West Rutland and VEPH's proposed electric generation plant site in Rutland (C9-C10-C11). As a result, the interagency group concurred that the C9-C10-C11 segment be included as part of the LEDPA.

As an aside, the ANR expressed some concern regarding the crossing of Otter Creek, a coldwater fishery. Shawn Good (Department of Fish and Wildlife) and Fred Nicholson (ANR) suggested that impacts to this stream crossing would be ameliorated by use of the directional drilling crossing technique.

Segment 10 (Route to New VEPH Bennington Plant Site)

Following discussion of the composite LEDPA route for the SVNG transmission mainline, the interagency group evaluated various alternative routes from A7 to the new VEPH Bennington electric generation plant site. These alternative routes were provided to the interagency group as an acetate overlay for the constraints maps along with a constraints matrix. Aerial photographs of the subject site also were available and reviewed by the interagency group.

Three primary alternatives were reviewed, including:

Alternative 1 A7-A7B-A8C-A8B-A7D-A7E-A7F (U.S. Route 7 Bypass and new right-of-way);

Alternative 2 A7-A7B-A8C-A7C-A7E-A7F (U.S. Route 7 Bypass, existing roadways, and new right-of-way); and

Alternative 3 A7-A7B-A7C-A7E-A7F (U. S. Route 7, existing roadways, and new right-of-way)

The ANR expressed concern regarding potential impacts to streams and fisheries resources paralleled by Alternative 3, and initially preferred Alternative 1 from a stream and fisheries resource perspective. However, SVNG and VEPH noted that the potentially affected parallel stream would not be impacted because the pipeline would be located on the opposite side of an existing roadway. The ANR agreed that stream impacts and buffer issues were not significant in this case.

The ANR discussed that all alternatives were essentially equal from a wetlands perspective. The ANR identified two particular wetland sites of concern on the constraints map, and further recommended that impacts to these existing wetlands be avoided, if possible, or minimized.

The ANR also discussed various industrial land use and traffic control issues from a land use planning and construction perspective. Based on these discussions, and review of aerial photographs, the interagency group preferred as the LEDPA a new alternative route that roughly followed Alternative 1. This alternative followed A7-A7B-A8C-A8B, then diverted further to the east of the A8B-A7D segment, to A7E-A7F. SVNG and ANR highlighted this new alternative route on their master LEDPA routing maps. SVNG agreed to obtain tax maps and evaluate this alignment.

Conclusions

The interagency group reached consensus on the approximately 2-mile Iroquois Natural Gas pipeline route from the New York State border to its interconnect with the SVNG natural gas transmission pipeline mainline route at Al as the LEDPA.

Interagency group consensus on a composite LEDPA route for the SVNG transmission mainline was reached for the majority of the route. The composite LEDPA route consists of A1-A2-A3A7- A7A-A8A12-A13-A14-A1 5-A 16-A17-A20-A2 1-A22-C 1-C2-C3-C4-C7-C8-C9-C 10-C 11. The italicized segment (A16-A17-A20) represents a tentative preferred LEDPA pending further review of wetland resource information by ANR All involved agencies (ANR, USACE, and AOT) concurred with the composite LEDPA route, with the exception of the USEPA. The USEPA tentatively concurred with the composite LEDPA route pending additional field review of certain sites. SVNG and ANR highlighted this new alternative route on their master LEDPA routing maps.

The interagency group also reviewed and reached consensus on a new alternative as the LEDPA from A7 to the new VEPH Bennington electric generation plant site. This alternative roughly followed Alternative 1 as it followed A7-A7B-A8C-A8B, then diverted further to the east of the A8B-A7D segment, to A7EA7F. SVNG and ANR highlighted this new alternative route on their master LEDPA routing maps.

Copyright © 1999 by Vermonters for a Clean Environment
Updated: Friday, October 1, 1999