Att. 5 Vol. I of III by lanyuehua

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 128

									EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM
       Attachment 5 – Supplemental Report
                Volume I of III
          CONCERNING THE MASSACHUSETTS PORTION


     OF THE GREATER SPRINGFIELD RELIABILITY PROJECT


                                         BY


     THE WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY




                                    JUNE 2008




      Municipal Consultation Report for the
      Greater Springfield Reliability Project
 
Supplemental Report




                    SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO EXPANDED ENF

                                              EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-1 Introduction and Purpose of the Project
This Supplemental Report together with the Environmental Notification Form (ENF), the additional
attachments listed in the ENF, and the set of documents provided in Volume II and III, constitute an
Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) filed under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy
Act (MEPA) and its applicable regulation, 301 CMR 11.05(7), in order to request a Single Environmental
Impact Report (SEIR) under 301 CMR 11.06(8) for the Greater Springfield Reliability Project (Project)
proposed by Western Massachusetts Electric Company (WMECO).

This Supplemental Report includes a full description of the Project, which generally consists of electric
transmission line upgrades along existing electric transmission rights-of-way (ROWs). The Project
includes proposed upgrades to WMECO’s existing 115-kilovolt (kV) transmission system, as well as the
addition of new 345-kV transmission lines, in the municipalities of Agawam, West Springfield,
Springfield, Chicopee and Ludlow, Massachusetts. The Project triggers three (3) ENF thresholds under
applicable MEPA regulations, 301 CMR 11.03 (land; wetlands; and energy facilities).

The report also describes alternatives to the Project, general construction procedures, the environmental
setting, potential environmental impacts and planning of mitigation measures to minimize and
compensate for unavoidable impacts. The report demonstrates that construction of the Project, pursuant
to proposed plans and consistent with applicable permitting requirements, will provide needed
improvements to the region’s electric transmission system, without resulting in significant adverse
environmental effects.

Section 1 describes the Project in general and specifies its purpose and benefits. The Project as a whole
involves some portions in Connecticut, but this EENF concerns only the Massachusetts portions. In
Massachusetts, the Project includes the construction and operation of approximately 23 miles of new
overhead 345-kV transmission lines (to be located on double-circuit steel poles averaging approximately
130 feet in height) along existing ROWs that are currently occupied by 115-kV overhead transmission
lines. The new 345-kV lines would extend from the Connecticut/Massachusetts border in South Agawam
to WMECO’s Agawam Substation in Agawam, and from Agawam Substation to its Ludlow Substation in
Ludlow. Along these ROWs, the existing 115-kV transmission lines will be rebuilt with a single 115-kV
circuit sharing the steel poles with the new 345-kV lines and all other 115-kV circuits being rebuilt on



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          ES-1                                         June 2008
Supplemental Report



new steel monopole structures. Certain existing 115-kV lines on other ROWs, which intersect with the
primary 345-kV/115-kV route, will also be rebuilt. The Project also includes upgrades of two existing
substations in Ludlow and Agawam, construction of a new switching station in Chicopee (Fairmont),
Massachusetts and a new switching station in Springfield (Cadwell), Massachusetts.

The Project is needed to improve and maintain the reliability of the electric transmission system in the
Greater Springfield area, and to achieve compliance with mandatory electric reliability standards set by
regional and national organizations. In doing so, the Project improves the flexibility of the electric
transmission system in the Greater Springfield area to withstand present and future emergencies, to
transmit electric power to and through the area from east to west and to and from Connecticut, and to
meet future load growth.

Sections 2, 3, and 4 detail the alternatives that WMECO evaluated prior to selecting the proposed Project
components. For example, Section 2 identifies system alternatives, such as demand-side and conservation
measures, and explains why the proposed transmission system upgrade is essential. Section 3 describes
the preferred transmission line route, identifies the prime alternative route that WMECO will submit for
review as a part of the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board review process (i.e., the noticed-
alternative), and explains why WMECO selected the preferred route. As explained in Section 3, the
proposed and alternative routes both would be located within or along existing utility ROWs, except
where some of those ROWs will be expanded by 10 to 35 feet in width to accommodate the new lines.
Section 4 describes the modifications required at the affected substations and switching stations in order
to accommodate the new transmission facilities. All of these substation facility additions will be
developed on utility-owned properties that are already devoted to utility uses. The proposed site for the
new Fairmont Switching Station is located on property currently owned by Holyoke Gas & Electric.

Section 5 summarizes WMECO’s proposed construction procedures for the Project, including the
overhead and the underground components of the transmission circuits and the substation improvements.

Sections 6 and 7 evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the preferred and the alternative Project
routes and facilities, respectively. The sections also describe the planning for mitigation measures to
minimize and compensate for unavoidable impacts. The measures to avoid and minimize impacts chiefly
involve the use of construction procedures designed to minimize avoidable impacts. WMECO met with
the pertinent regulatory agencies and has plans for further meetings with local agencies to identify
unavoidable impacts and appropriate compensatory mitigation, in particular with respect to wetlands




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         ES-2                                             June 2008
Supplemental Report



impacts, and expects to provide more information about mitigation measures in the SEIR as designs
progress.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project      ES-3                                        June 2008
 
Supplemental Report



                                                TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME I

EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM
                                                                                                                            PAGE NO.

  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... ES-1
             ES-1 Introduction and Purpose of the Project.......................................................... ES-1

  GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. G-1

  1.0       INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1-1
             1.1     Project Need and Benefits.................................................................................. 1-2
             1.2     Summary of Proposed Facilities ........................................................................ 1-6
             1.3     Rebuilding of 115-kV Lines .............................................................................. 1-6
             1.4     Noticed-Alternative to the 345-kV Line Route ................................................. 1-7
             1.5     Triggered MEPA Thresholds ........................................................................... 1-14
             1.6     List of Potentially Required Permits (includes consultations) ......................... 1-14

  2.0       PROJECT TRANSMISSION AND NON-TRANSMISSION ALTERNATIVES
            ....................................................................................................................... 2-1
             2.1     Integration of Regulated and Competitive Alternatives .................................... 2-1
             2.2     Alternative Transmission Solutions Considered and Rejected .......................... 2-1
                     2.2.1 Advantages of a 345-kV Connection to the Agawam Substation.......... 2-5
                     2.2.2 Advantage of Avoiding Phase Shifters .................................................. 2-5
                     2.2.3 Elimination of Option C – Manchester to Ludlow ................................ 2-6
                     2.2.4 Elimination of Option B – North Bloomfield – Ludlow........................ 2-7
             2.3     Non-Transmission Alternatives ....................................................................... 2-12
                     2.3.1 The No-Action Alternative .................................................................. 2-12
                     2.3.2 The Absence of Workable Non-Transmission Alternatives to the Project
                             .............................................................................................................. 2-12

  3.0       TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION ....... 3-1
             3.1     Route Selection Objectives ................................................................................ 3-1
             3.2     Overhead Line-Route Analysis Criteria............................................................. 3-2
             3.3     Geographic Boundaries of the Study Area ........................................................ 3-3
             3.4     Alternative Line Routing Identification ............................................................. 3-5
                     3.4.1 Alternative Line Routing Identification – Overhead 345-kV Line Project
                            ................................................................................................................ 3-5
             3.5     Preferred and Noticed-Alternative Line Route Selection Process for the 345-kV
                     Overhead Lines .................................................................................................. 3-7




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project                      TOC-1                                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



  4.0       SUBSTATION AND SWITCHING STATION MODIFICATIONS .................... 4-1
             4.1     Ludlow Substation ............................................................................................. 4-1
             4.2     Fairmont Switching Station – Chicopee ............................................................ 4-1
             4.3     Agawam Substation ........................................................................................... 4-2
             4.4     South Agawam Substation ................................................................................. 4-3
             4.5     Orchard and Piper Substations and Shawinigan Switching Station................... 4-3
             4.6     Cadwell Switching Station and East Springfield Substation ............................. 4-3

  5.0       CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES ................................................................ 5-1
             5.1     Overhead Line Construction Methods ............................................................... 5-1
                     5.1.1 Land Requirements ................................................................................ 5-1
                     5.1.2 Construction Sequence and Methods ..................................................... 5-5
                     5.1.3 Construction Equipment ........................................................................ 5-5
                     5.1.4 Construction Work Hours ...................................................................... 5-5
             5.2     Substation and Switching Station Construction................................................. 5-6
                     5.2.1 Land Requirements ................................................................................ 5-7
                     5.2.2 Construction Sequence and Methods ..................................................... 5-7
                     5.2.3 Construction Equipment ........................................................................ 5-9
                     5.2.4 Construction Work Hours ...................................................................... 5-9

  6.0       DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AND
            MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PREFERRED ROUTES AND
            SUBSTATIONS .............................................................................................. 6-1
             6.1     Land ................................................................................................................... 6-1
                     6.1.1 Existing Conditions................................................................................ 6-1
                     6.1.2 Potential Effects ..................................................................................... 6-2
                     6.1.3 Mitigation Measures .............................................................................. 6-3
             6.2     Rare Species ....................................................................................................... 6-7
                     6.2.1 Existing Conditions................................................................................ 6-7
                     6.2.2 Potential Effects ................................................................................... 6-15
                     6.2.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ 6-15
             6.3     Wetlands, Waterways & Tidelands.................................................................. 6-16
                     6.3.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................. 6-17
                     6.3.2 Potential Effects ................................................................................... 6-18
                     6.3.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ 6-21
             6.4     Transportation Infrastructure ........................................................................... 6-23
                     6.4.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................. 6-23
                     6.4.2 Potential Effects ................................................................................... 6-23
                     6.4.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ 6-23
             6.5     Air .................................................................................................................... 6-23
                     6.5.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................. 6-23
                     6.5.2 Potential Effects ................................................................................... 6-25
                     6.5.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ 6-25
             6.6     Historical & Archaeological Resources ........................................................... 6-25
                     6.6.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................. 6-26


The Greater Springfield Reliability Project                       TOC-2                                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



                     6.6.2 Potential Effects ................................................................................... 6-27
                     6.6.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ 6-27
             6.7     Noise ................................................................................................................ 6-28
                     6.7.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................. 6-28
                     6.7.2 Potential Effects ................................................................................... 6-28
                     6.7.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ 6-28
             6.8     Electric and Magnetic Fields ........................................................................... 6-29

  7.0       COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION LINE
            ROUTES ........................................................................................................ 7-1
             7.1     Land ................................................................................................................... 7-1
             7.2     Rare Species ....................................................................................................... 7-2
             7.3     Wetlands and Waterways ................................................................................... 7-3
             7.4     Historical & Archaeological Resources ............................................................. 7-4
             7.5     Summary and Comparison of Routes ................................................................ 7-4

  8.0       CONSISTENCY WITH PLANNING DOCUMENTS ........................................ 8-1
             8.1     Local and Regional Open Space, Recreation, and Master Plans ....................... 8-1
             8.2     Municipal, State, Regional, and Federal Energy Facilities Plans ...................... 8-2

  9.0       PUBLIC OUTREACH ..................................................................................... 9-1
             9.1     Public Outreach.................................................................................................. 9-1
                     9.1.1 Community Outreach ............................................................................. 9-1
                     9.1.2 Business, Community and Civic Leaders/Groups ................................. 9-2
                     9.1.3 Environmental Groups ........................................................................... 9-2
                     9.1.4 Communications During Construction .................................................. 9-3




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project                      TOC-3                                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



                                              ADDITIONAL VOLUMES

VOLUME II
         EX.1 Transmission Line Cross-Sections and Photography Simulations
         EX.2 Substation and Switching Station General Arrangement Drawings

VOLUME III
         EX.1     Historic and Archaeological Resources
         EX.2     Agency Correspondence
         EX.3     Environmental Tables
         EX.4     NUSCO, “Overhead Transmission Line Standards -OTRM 30”, May 16, 2008
         EX.5     NUSCO/Tighe and Bond, “Best Management Practices Manual”, December 2007




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          TOC-4                       June 2008
Supplemental Report



                                                         LIST OF TABLES

Table No./Description                                                                                                                        Page No.

Table 1-1:      Right-of-Way Segment Summary of the Preferred Route with Proposed Segment
                Circuits ..............................................................................................................................1-11
Table 2-1:      Hartford Area Construction Summary ................................................................................2-7
Table 3-1:      Project Evaluation Criteria and Associated Data Metrics – Overhead Lines ......................3-8
Table 3-2:      General Comparison of Reconstructed 115-kV and New 345-kV Line on “Northern” and
                “Southern” Routes and Spurs ............................................................................................3-12
Table 3-3:      Comparative Summary of “Northern” and “Southern” 345-kV Overhead Line Routes
                Including 115-kV Improvements ......................................................................................3-14
Table 5-1:      Summary of Existing and Proposed ROW configurations for the Preferred “Northern”
                Route in Massachusetts .......................................................................................................5-3
Table 5-2:      Summary of Typical Construction Equipment: Overhead Transmission Line
                Construction ........................................................................................................................5-6
Table 6-1:      Summary of Alterations to Uplands along the GSRP Preferred Routes .............................6-3
Table 6-2:      Summary of State-Listed Rare Species Habitat Mapped within and/or Along the
                Preferred Routes ................................................................................................................6-10
Table 6-3:      Summary of Maximum Estimated Alterations to Jurisdictional Wetlands along the GSRP
                Preferred Routes ................................................................................................................6-20
Table 6-4:      Summary of Estimated Jurisdictional Wetland Resource Area Alterations, by Town ......6-20
Table 6-5:      Ambient Air Quality Concentrations in the Project Area..................................................6-24
Table 7-1:      MA State Line to Agawam Substation to Ludlow Substation Noticed-Alternative Route:
                Zoning and Land-Use Summary .........................................................................................7-2
Table 7-2:      Rare Species Habitat Mapped Along the Noticed-Alternative Line Route .........................7-3
Table 9-1:      Stakeholder Outreach ..........................................................................................................9-4




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project                          TOC-5                                                                 June 2008
Supplemental Report



                                                         LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No./Description                                                                                                                           Page No.

Figure 1-1:     345-kV Loop around Springfield ........................................................................................1-4
Figure 1-2:     Main Electric Systems of Western Massachusetts and Connecticut ...................................1-5
Figure 1-3:     Preferred Routes ..................................................................................................................1-9
Figure 1-4:     Noticed-Alternative Routes ...............................................................................................1-10
Figure 1-5:     115-kV Improvements .......................................................................................................1-13
Figure 2-1:     Preferred North Bloomfield – Agawam – Ludlow Solution (“Option A” or the “Project”)
                .............................................................................................................................................2-4
Figure 2-2:     N. Bloomfield – Ludlow (“Option B”)................................................................................2-4
Figure 2-3:     Manchester – Ludlow (“Option C”) ....................................................................................2-4
Figure 2-4:     Option B Route Variations ..................................................................................................2-9
Figure 3-1:     Study Area Boundaries ........................................................................................................3-4
Figure 3-2:     Potential 345-kV Line Routes .............................................................................................3-6
Figure 3-4:     Preferred “Northern” Route...............................................................................................3-10
Figure 3-5:     Noticed-Alternative “Southern” Route..............................................................................3-11
Figure 6-1:     National Heritage & Endangered Species Program Map ....................................................6-9




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project                            TOC-6                                                                    June 2008
Supplemental Report



                                              GLOSSARY

115 kV: 115 kilovolts or 115,000 volts                    C&LM: Conservation and Load Management.
345 kV: 345 kilovolts or 345,000 volts                    Conductor: A metallic wire busbar, rod, tube
AC (alternating current): An electric current                    or cable which serves as a path for
        which reverses its direction of flow                     electric current flow.
        periodically. (In the United States this          Conduit: Pipes, usually PVC plastic, typically
        occurs 60 times a second-60 cycles or 60                 encased in concrete, for housing
        Hertz.) This is the type of current                      underground power cables.
        supplied to homes and business.                   Contingency: An event, usually involving the
ACSR: Aluminum Conductor, Steel                                  loss of one or more elements, which
        Reinforced, a common type of overhead                    affects the power system at least
        conductor.                                               momentarily.
AIS: Air-Insulated Switchgear                             Conversion: Change made to an existing
Ampere (Amp): A unit measure for the flow                        transmission line for use at a higher
        (current) of electricity. A typical home                 voltage, sometimes requiring the
        service capability (i.e., size) is 100                   installation of more insulators. (Lines
        amps; 200 amps is required for homes                     are sometimes pre-built for future
        with electric heat.                                      operation at the higher voltage.)
Arrester: Protects lines, transformers and                dBA: Decibel, on the A-weighted scale.
        equipment from lightning and other                DC: (direct current): Electricity that flows
        voltage surges by carrying the charge to                 continuously in one direction. A battery
        ground. Arresters serve the same                         produces DC power.
        purpose as a safety valve on a steam              DBH: Diameter at breast height
        boiler.                                           Demand: The total amount of electricity
Auxiliary Transformers: Equipment installed                      required at any given time by an electric
        at substations to provide voltage or                     supplier’s customers.
        current information for relaying and/or           DEP: Department of Environmental Protection
        metering purposes.                                DG: Distributed Generation. Refers to modular
BLSF: Bordering Land Subject to Flooding.                        electric generation or storage, located
Bundle (conductor): Two or more conductors                       near the point of electric use, and
        or cables joined together to operate as a                generally involves the use of small
        single phase of a circuit.                               generators located close to electric
Cable: A fully insulated conductor usually                       demand sources, to decrease end-users’
        installed underground but in some                        electric purchases and to reduce the need
        circumstances can be installed overhead.                 for electricity generated by large,
CELT: NEPOOL, Annual Capacity, Energy,                           centrally-located power plants and
        Load and Transmission report.                            power transport to load centers on
Circuit: A system of conductors (three                           transmission lines.
        conductors or three bundles of                    Distribution: Line, system. The facilities that
        conductors) through which an electrical                  transport electrical energy from the
        current is intended to flow and which                    transmission system to the customer.
        may be supported above ground by                  Disconnect Switch: Equipment installed to
        transmission structures or placed                        isolate circuit breakers, transmission
        underground.                                             lines or other equipment for
Circuit Breaker: A switch that automatically                     maintenance or sectionalizing purposes.
        disconnects power to the circuit in the           DOER: (Massachusetts) Division of Energy
        event of a fault condition. Located in                   Resources (within the Executive Office
        substations. Performs the same function                  of Energy and Environmental Affairs)
        as a circuit breaker in a home.


The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         G-1                                         June 2008
Supplemental Report



DPU: (Massachusetts) Department of Public                 HPGF Pipe Cable System: High-pressure gas-
        Utilities (formerly Department of                         filled, a type of underground
        Telecommunications and Energy)                            transmission line.
DRP: Demand-response program.                             Hz: Hertz, a measure of alternating current
DRSP: Demand-response service provider                            frequency; one cycle/second.
Duct: Pipe or tubular runway for underground              Impedance: The ratio of voltage (volts) to
        power cables (see also Conduit).                          current (amps).
Duct Bank: A group of ducts or conduit                    ISO: Independent System Operator.
        usually encased in concrete in a trench.          ISO-NE: ISO New England, Inc. New
EFSB: (Massachusetts) Energy Facilities Siting                    England’s independent system operator.
        Board                                             kcmil: 1,000 circular mils, approximately
EIR: Environmental Impact Report                                  0.0008 sq. in.
Electric Field: Result of voltages applied to             kV: kilovolt, equals 1,000 volts
        electrical conductors and equipment.              kV/m: Electric field unit of measurement
Electric Transmission: The facilities (69 kV+)                    (kilovolts/meter)
        that transport electrical energy from             Lattice-type Structure: Transmission or
        generating plants to distribution                         substation structure constructed of
        substations.                                              lightweight steel members.
EMF: Electric and magnetic fields.                        Lightning Shield Wire: Electric cable located
ENF: (MEPA) Environmental Notification                            to prevent lightning from striking
        Form                                                      transmission circuit conductors.
EOEEA: (Massachusetts) Executive Office of                Line: A series of overhead transmission
        Energy and Environmental Affairs                          structures which support one or more
EOT: Executive Office of Transportation and                       circuits; or in the case of underground
        Public Works                                              construction, a duct bank housing one or
EPA: United States Environmental Protection                       more cable circuits.
        Agency                                            Load: Amount of power delivered as required
Fault: A failure or interruption in an electrical                 at any point or points in the system.
        circuit (short circuit).                                  Load is created by the power demands
FCM: Forward Capacity Market                                      of customers' equipment (residential,
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management                                commercial, industrial).
        Agency                                            Load Pocket: A load area that has insufficient
FERC: Federal Energy Regulatory                                   transmission import capacity and must
        Commission                                                rely on out-of-merit order local
G: Gauss; 1G = 1,000 mG (milligauss); the unit                    generation.
        of measure for magnetic fields.                   LOLE: Loss of Load Expectation; a measure of
GIL: Gas Insulated Transmission Line using                        bulk power system reliability.
        sulfur hexafluoride gas (SF6).                    LPFF: Low-pressure fluid-filled; a type of self-
GIS: Gas-Insulated Switchgear                                     contained fluid filled (SCFF)
Ground Wire: Cable/wire used to connect                           underground transmission line.
        wires and metallic structure parts to the         LPP: Laminated paper-polypropylene; a type of
        earth. Sometimes used to describe the                     cable insulation.
        lightning shield wire.                            Magnetic Field: Produced by the flow of
HDD: Horizontal directional drill                                 electric current; level measured as
H-frame Structure: A wood or steel structure                      magnetic flux density in units called
        constructed of two upright poles with a                   gauss (G) or milligauss (mG).
        horizontal cross-arm and bracings.                Magnetic Flux Density: See Magnetic Field
HPFF Pipe Cable System: High-pressure                     Manhole: See Splice Vault
        fluid-filled; a type of underground               MassDEP: Massachusetts Department of
        transmission line.                                        Environmental Protection



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         G-2                                         June 2008
Supplemental Report



MEPA: Massachusetts Environmental                         Reactive Power: A component of power, or its
       Protection Act                                             “unproductive” portion. Many times it
MESA: Massachusetts Endangered Species Act                        is added to electrical systems for voltage
MHD: Massachusetts Highway Department                             stability and its unit of measurement is
MHC: Massachusetts Historical Commission                          the VAR.
MHG: Material Handling Guidelines                         Rebuild: Replacement of an existing overhead
mG: milligauss (see Magnetic Field)                               transmission line with new structures
MVA (Megavolt Ampere): Measure of                                 and conductors generally along the same
       electrical capacity equal to the product                   route as the replaced line.
       of the voltage times the current times the         Reconductor: Replacement of existing
       square root of 3. Electrical equipment                     conductors with new conductors, but
       capacities are sometimes stated in MVA.                    with little if any replacement or
MVAR (Megavolt Ampere Reactive):                                  modification of existing structures.
       Measure of reactive power which is                 Reinforcement: Any of a number of
       incapable of doing work. Shunt                             approaches to improve the capacity of
       capacitor and reactor capacities are                       the transmission system, including
       usually stated in MVAR.                                    rebuild, reconductor, conversion and
MW (Megawatt): Megawatt equals 1 million                          bundling methods.
       watts, measure of the work electricity             Right-of-way: ROW; corridor
       can do.                                            RSP: Regional System Plan prepared annually
NEPOOL: New England Power Pool                                    by ISO-NE.
NERC: North American Electric Reliability                 RTEP: Regional Transmission Expansion Plan
       Council                                                    prepared by ISO-NE.
NESC: National Electrical Safety Code                     SCADA: Supervisory Control and Data
NHESP: (Massachusetts) Natural Heritage and                       Acquisition
       Endangered Species Program                         SCFF Cable System: Self-contained fluid-
NPCC: Northeast Power Coordinating Council                        filled hollow-core cable; a type of
NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation                              underground transmission line used
       Service (United States Department of                       primarily for submarine installations.
       Agriculture)                                       Series Reactor: A device used for introducing
NRHP: National Register of Historic Places                        impedance into an electrical circuit, the
OH (Overhead): Electrical facilities installed                    principal element of which is inductive
       above the surface of the earth.                            reactance.
Phases: Transmission (and some distribution)              SF6: Sulfur hexafluoride, an insulating gas used
       AC circuits are comprised of three                         in GIS substations and circuit breakers.
       phases that have a voltage differential            Shield Wire: See Lightning Shield Wire
       between them.                                      SHPO: State Historic Preservation Office
Phases-Shifting Transformers: Phase-Shifting              Shunt Reactor: An electrical reactive power
       Transformers help control the real power                   device primarily used to compensate for
       flow in transmission lines and systems                     reactive power demands by high voltage
       interties. They allow for better                           underground transmission cables.
       utilization of existing networks                   Splice: A device to connect together the ends of
       concerning load growths.                                   bare conductor or insulated cable.
Pothead: See Terminator                                   Splice Vault: A buried concrete enclosure
Protection/Control Equipment: Devices used                        where underground cable ends are
       to detect faults, transients and other                     spliced and cable-sheath bonding and
       disturbances in the electrical system in                   grounding is installed.
       the shortest possible time. They are               S/S (Substation): A fenced-in yard containing
       customized or controlled per an entity’s                   switches, transformers, line-terminal
       operational requirements.                                  structures, and other equipment
PSI: Pounds per square inch.                                      enclosures and structures. Adjustments


The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         G-3                                           June 2008
Supplemental Report



       of voltage, monitoring of circuits and             VAR: Volt-ampere reactive power. The unit of
       other service functions take place in this                measure for reactive power.
       installation.                                      Vault: See Splice Vault.
Switching Station: A fenced-in yard containing            V/m: volts per meter, kilovolt per meter: 1,000
       switches, line terminal structures and                    V/m = 1 kVm; electric field
       other equipment, enclosures and                           measurement.
       structures. Switching of circuits and              Voltage: A measure of the push or force that
       other service functions take place in this                transmits energy.
       installation.                                      Watercourse: Rivers, streams, brooks,
Steel Lattice Tower: See Lattice-Type                            waterways, lakes, ponds, marshes,
       Structure                                                 swamps, bogs, and all other bodies of
Steel Monopole Structure: Transmission                           water, natural or artificial, public or
       structure consisting of a single tubular                  private.
       steel column with horizontal arms to               XLPE: Cross-linked polyethylene (solid
       support insulators and conductors.                        dielectric) insulation for transmission
Step-down Transformer: See Transformer                           cables.
Step-up Transformer: See Transformer
Switchgear: General term covering electrical
       switching and interrupting devices.
       Device used to close or open, or both,
       one or more electric circuits.
SWPPP: Storm Water Pollution Prevention
       Plan
Terminal Points: The substation or switching
       station at which a transmission line
       terminates.
Terminal Structure: Structure typically within
       a substation that ends a section of
       transmission line.
Terminator: A flared pot-shaped insulated
       fitting used to connect underground
       cables to overhead lines.
Transformer: A device used to transform
       voltage levels to facilitate the efficient
       transfer of power from the generating
       plant to the customer. A step-up
       transformer increases the voltage while a
       step-down transformer decreases it.
Transmission Line: Any line operating at
       69,000 or more volts.
UG (Underground): Electrical facilities
       installed below the surface of the earth.
Upgrade: See Reinforcement
URAMs: Utility-Related Abatement Measure
USACE: United States Army Corps of
       Engineers (New England District)
USFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife
       Service
USGS: United States Geological Survey (U.S.
       Department of the Interior).



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         G-4                                         June 2008
Supplemental Report




                                              1.0   INTRODUCTION

The Western Massachusetts Electric Company (WMECO) operates an electric transmission system in
western Massachusetts that serves a major portion of the electric load in the Greater Springfield area.
WMECO proposes to upgrade this system by constructing and operating certain electric transmission
facilities, referred to as the Greater Springfield Reliability Project (GSRP or the Project), in the
municipalities of Agawam, West Springfield, Springfield, Chicopee and Ludlow, Massachusetts.

The New England electric transmission grid, of which the WMECO transmission facilities are a part of, is
regulated by the federal government under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC). The grid is operated pursuant to federal regulation by an independent system operator known as
the Independent System Operator – New England (ISO-NE). ISO-NE also functions under the federal
regulatory scheme as a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) for New England. Upon completion,
the Project is designed to bring the affected transmission systems into conformity with national and
regional reliability standards approved by the FERC and set forth by the North American Reliability
Council (NERC), the Northeast Power Coordinating Council Inc. (NPCC), New England Power Pool
(NEPOOL), and ISO-NE, as well as with the reliability standards developed by Northeast Utilities (NU),
WMECO’s parent company.

The GSRP will improve the electric transmission systems of WMECO in Massachusetts and of The
Connecticut Light and Power Company (CL&P) in Connecticut 1 and, as indicated, will bring these
systems into compliance with national and regional reliability standards. These reliability standards
require extra flexibility in transmission systems to withstand reasonably foreseeable emergencies (often
termed “contingencies” in the jargon of electric transmission planning). In addressing this need, the
Project has multiple benefits and, in particular, will:

    •    Improve reliability during emergencies on the transmission system by relieving the severe
         overloading of overhead electric lines and underground cable circuits that result as the rest of the
         transmission system immediately adjusts to the emergencies;
    •    Meet future demands under both normal and emergency conditions;
    •    Decrease dependence on less economic sources of local power and improve access to more
         economic and more diverse sources of power.

This section explains why the Project is needed and how it will benefit the regional transmission system.



1
 Both CL&P and WMECO are wholly owned subsidiaries of NU, as is their affiliate, Northeast Utilities Service
Company (NUSCO).


The Greater Springfield Reliability Project           1-1                                              June 2008
Supplemental Report



1.1 PROJECT NEED AND BENEFITS
The GSRP is a single integrated, interstate project. Like other parts of the regional transmission system,
GSRP will bring electric power from regional sources both into local areas where some of the power is
used and through those local areas to more remote areas of the region where additional users require
electric power. In this regard, the GSRP improvements are needed to provide safe, reliable, and economic
transmission service to the Greater Springfield geographic area and through that area into north-central
Connecticut. As indicated above, the GSRP will assure that the Greater Springfield and the north-central
Connecticut portions of the regional electric transmission system will comply with mandatory federal and
regional reliability standards. At the same time, the GSRP improvements will advance a comprehensive
longer-term regional plan for improving electric transmission in New England, through extensive
coordinated improvements in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. This comprehensive
transmission plan is known as the New England East – West Solution (NEEWS). The electric companies
involved in NEEWS, which encompasses proposed facilities in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode
Island, include WMECO, CL&P, and National Grid.

The GSRP is needed because the existing transmission system serving the Greater Springfield
geographical area is no longer adequate when tested under current mandatory national and regional
reliability criteria. This system is largely composed of 115-kilovolt (kV) lines originally constructed from
the 1940s through the early 1970s. The system has only a single 345-kV transmission line that connects
the Greater Springfield area to north-central Connecticut. Under conditions existing today, the system
can become overloaded during normal conditions with all lines in-service. These overloads are currently
prevented by contracting (pursuant to “Reliability Agreements”) for local generating plants to guarantee
availability or run “out of merit order” (when the plants’ costs to run exceed the market price of power).
These contracts increase the cost of electric power to consumers in order to maintain continuity of service
in the Greater Springfield geographical area. Moreover, in the event of the unscheduled outage of a
system element such as a transmission line or generator, the system is subject to extensive overloads and
low voltage problems. These problems become worse every year as electric usage increases and will be
further exacerbated if older generation plants in the area are retired.

In addition to serving local area transmission needs, the Springfield 115-kV system serves as a path for
moving power farther west in Massachusetts and between Massachusetts and Connecticut. Under the
present system configuration, power flowing into the Hartford area from CL&P’s North Bloomfield
Substation (Connecticut) typically comes in substantial part through the Springfield 115-kV system. In
the event of a planned or unscheduled outage of the one 345-kV line between western Massachusetts and



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project           1-2                                         June 2008
Supplemental Report



Connecticut (the Ludlow (Massachusetts) - Barbour Hill 2 (Connecticut) line), more power moves to the
Hartford area via the Springfield 115-kV system. Under foreseeable system conditions, these flows will
cause severe overloads and low voltage problems on the Springfield 115-kV system.

To alleviate these problems, WMECO is proposing a reconfiguration of the 115-kV system in the
Springfield area, and CL&P and WMECO together propose to construct 35.0 miles of new 345-kV
transmission lines to complete a 345-kV “loop” through north-central Connecticut and western
Massachusetts. The Massachusetts portion of the new 345-kV “loop” would be constructed between
WMECO’s Ludlow Substation in Ludlow, Massachusetts and the Connecticut/Massachusetts border in
Agawam, Massachusetts (23.0 miles). Along WMECO’s preferred route for the Project (referred to as the
“Northern” Route), the 345-kV transmission lines would traverse from the Ludlow Substation, along
existing transmission routes where overhead 115-kV transmission lines now exist, in a westerly direction
through Ludlow and Chicopee, and then would continue in a southwesterly direction through West
Springfield and Agawam (approximately 17 miles). At the Agawam Substation in Agawam,
Massachusetts, the 345-kV transmission line would interconnect with the 115-kV transmission system
through new transformation and switchyard equipment to be installed at the Agawam Substation. From
the Agawam Substation, a new 345-kV transmission line would continue in a southerly direction to the
Connecticut/Massachusetts border (6 miles).

After crossing into Connecticut following an existing transmission corridor, the Connecticut portion of
the new 345-kV “loop” would continue through the towns of Suffield and East Granby before terminating
at CL&P’s North Bloomfield Substation in Bloomfield, Connecticut (12 miles). This new 345-kV line
would mostly be built within the boundaries of an existing overhead line ROW, next to existing
transmission lines. The new North Bloomfield to Agawam 345-kV line will replace the existing 115-kV
double-circuit line that currently connects the Springfield area to the North Bloomfield Substation, and
these 115-kVcircuits will be bundled and reconnected at a line junction in Connecticut to serve local load
in Massachusetts.

This new high capacity 345-kV “loop” through north-central Connecticut and western Massachusetts will
relieve congestion on the 115-kV system that currently both serves the Springfield area and will better
support interstate transfers of power between the North Bloomfield, Manchester (Connecticut), and
Ludlow Substations. At the same time, the new line will increase the power-transfer capacity between
Connecticut and Massachusetts. The completed high capacity electrical loop will serve a function


2
  Although this line was originally not connected to the Barbour Hill Substation, modifications to the substation and
line that will connect the line into the substation are under construction in 2008.


The Greater Springfield Reliability Project              1-3                                               June 2008
Supplemental Report



analogous to that of a multi-lane circumferential highway constructed around an urban area where
previously all highways had terminated at the edges of the city, requiring that traffic traverse congested
city streets to gain access to the next section of highway. Figure 1-1 below shows the existing 345-kV
lines in the Springfield geographic area and the electrical connections that would complete a 345-kV loop
around Springfield.

                           Figure 1-1:        345-kV Loop around Springfield

                                                            LUDLOW




                                                                              Note: Dotted red lines
                                       AGAWAM                                 illustrate existing 345-kV
                                                                              transmission lines, whereas
                                                                              the purple arrows indicate the
                                                                              345-kV alignments proposed
                                                                              to complete the Greater
                                                                              Springfield 345-kV loop.

                                NORTH
                              BLOOMFIELD




Completing this 345-kV loop will assure that a 345-kV transmission path around Springfield is still
available in the event that one 345-kV line is removed from service for maintenance or repair, or is taken
out of service by an unplanned event. The Springfield 115-kV system will be fed from more than one
location on the 345-kV loop, and “wheeling” large amounts of power through the 115-kV system will no
longer be required. This improvement will increase the reliability of the energy supply to Greater
Springfield. Construction of the new 345-kV links between North Bloomfield, Agawam, Ludlow and
will also provide a “looped” 345-kV supply to the North Bloomfield Substation in Connecticut, thus
assuring continuity of service to that substation in the event of an outage on one of the 345-kV lines. This
improvement will increase the reliability of the supply to the Bloomfield/Manchester/Barbour Hill area,
and to northwest Connecticut.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project           1-4                                              June 2008
Supplemental Report



    Figure 1-2:       Main Electric Systems of Western Massachusetts and Connecticut




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project    1-5                                June 2008
Supplemental Report



Figure 1-2 shows the 345-kV transmission system in western Massachusetts and Connecticut, including
those parts of the system which have already been built and the major new lines under construction in
southwest Connecticut.


1.2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED FACILITIES
The Massachusetts portion of the GSRP would consist of both 345-kV and 115-kV transmission lines.
The new 345-kV lines proposed by WMECO as the preferred route were described in Section 1.1 and will
be constructed between WMECO’s Ludlow Substation in Ludlow and the Connecticut/Massachusetts
border in Agawam, Massachusetts. The planned re-building of the 115-kV transmission lines will occur
primarily along the same route as the new 345-kV lines and is described in more detail in Section 1.3,
below. Figure 1-3 is a map which shows both sets of improvements and their location in the Greater
Springfield area. Substation and switching station modifications are required in connection with the
transmission line construction. Modifications will affect the Ludlow, Agawam, South Agawam, Orchard
and Piper Substations, all of which are shown in Figure 1-3. Modifications also affect the Shawinigan
Switching Station, again shown in Figure 1-3. A full description of these modifications is set forth in
Section 4, below.


1.3 REBUILDING OF 115-kV LINES
As part of the GSRP, WMECO also proposes to rebuild portions of the existing Springfield 115-kV
overhead lines, all along existing ROWs. These existing 115-kV transmission lines primarily occupy the
ROWs along which the new 345-kV transmission lines would be located per the preferred “Northern”
Route described above. The existing 115-kV overhead transmission lines in that ROW will be
substantially rebuilt and reconstructed, and other 115-kV upgrade improvements affecting Greater
Springfield will be performed. The 115-kV upgrade work detailed in Table 1-1 mostly involves the
existing ROWs that traverse from the Ludlow Substation in a westerly direction through Ludlow and
Chicopee, and then continue in a southwesterly direction through West Springfield and into Agawam. At
the Agawam Substation, the rebuilt 115-kV line facilities would continue in a southerly direction to the
South Agawam Substation and then to the Connecticut/Massachusetts border. Figure 1-5, below, is a
map which highlights only the 115-kV improvements in the Greater Springfield areas. Figure 1-5 shows
the other 115-kV upgrade work that does not occur on the same transmission corridor as the preferred
“Northern” Route for the 345-kV lines. As shown, that other 115-kV upgrade work occurs on three
“spurs” which intersect with the preferred route. These “spurs” are (i) from Exit 6 Junction to a new
Cadwell Switching Station; (ii) from East Springfield Junction to Fairmont Switching Station; and (iii)




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         1-6                                           June 2008
Supplemental Report



from Orchard Junction to Orchard Substation. Portions of these “spurs” would pass through the towns of
Chicopee, Ludlow, and Springfield.


1.4 NOTICED-ALTERNATIVE TO THE 345-kV LINE ROUTE
In accordance with requirements of the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB), WMECO
followed a process for identifying a preferred route for the 345-kV transmission lines. As a part of that
process, WMECO and CL&P evaluated a number of alternative routes or alignments and at the end of the
evaluation, WMECO designated one of these routes as a noticed-alternative to the preferred line route.
There is a possibility that the EFSB could order WMECO to build the new 345-kV transmission line on
this noticed-alternative route, which is not WMECO’s preferred choice.

The Massachusetts portion of the noticed-alternative route for the 345-kV transmission line between
Agawam and Ludlow Substations, also referred to as the “Southern” Route alternative, would begin and
end at the same Massachusetts substation locations as the preferred route and would have a common
segment between the Connecticut/Massachusetts border and the Agawam Substation. However, the
noticed-alternative route would traverse due south from the Ludlow Substation, following an existing
transmission corridor currently occupied by one overhead 345-kV transmission line and one 115-kV
transmission line through the towns of Ludlow, Wilbraham, and Hampden. At Hampden Junction, the
alternative route would diverge from the existing transmission corridor to extend west along another
existing ROW (currently occupied by an overhead 115-kV transmission line) through East Longmeadow
to the Connecticut/Massachusetts border with Longmeadow, where the route would turn south and
continue into Enfield, Connecticut. Continuing on the existing 115-kV line’s ROW, this Connecticut
portion of the noticed-alternative route then would extend west through northern Enfield, cross for a short
distance into Longmeadow, Massachusetts, and then proceed west across the Connecticut River into and
through the northeastern portion of Suffield, Connecticut for another short distance until crossing into
Massachusetts again and proceeding to South Agawam Junction before turning north for several miles to
reach Agawam Substation.

The 345-kV transmission lines would interconnect with the 115-kV transmission system through new
transformation equipment to be installed at the Agawam Substation. From the Agawam Substation, a
second new 345-kV line would extend in a southerly direction to the Connecticut/Massachusetts border
along the same alignment as the preferred route. As a result, two new 345-kV line segments would
occupy a widened ROW, sharing new poles with two 115-kV circuits to be rebuilt between Agawam
Substation and South Agawam Junction.



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         1-7                                           June 2008
Supplemental Report



If the Massachusetts noticed-alternative “Southern” Route is selected by the EFSB, CL&P would need to
seek approval from the Connecticut Siting Council for the approximately 5.5 miles of the new 345-kV
transmission line that would have to be constructed in Enfield and Suffield, Connecticut, as described
above. The following maps (see Figures 1-3 and 1-4) illustrate the preferred and noticed-alternative
routes for the 345-kV transmission line facilities, including the portion of the noticed-alternative
“Southern” Route that would extend into Connecticut.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          1-8                                               June 2008
Supplemental Report



                                     Figure 1-3:   Preferred Routes




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         1-9               June 2008
Supplemental Report



                              Figure 1-4:     Noticed-Alternative Routes




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         1-10                   June 2008
Supplemental Report




               Table 1-1:        Right-of-Way Segment Summary of the Preferred Route with Proposed Segment Circuits

                                                                             Existing                   Additional ROW
                                                                  Mileage               Proposed ROW                     Proposed Circuit
      Town               From                  To                           ROW Width                        Width
                                                                  (Miles)                Width (Feet)                     Configuration1
                                                                              (Feet)                     Needed(Feet)
 Suffield,          CT/MA Border        South Agawam         2.8            100         110             10               345 / 115
 Agawam                                 Substation
 Agawam             South Agawam        Agawam               0.9            300         300             0                345 / 115 & 115
                    Substation          Substation           0.5            100         135             35               345 / 115 & 115
                                                             1.9            150         150             0                345 / 115 & 115
 Agawam, West       Agawam              Piper Substation     3.6            150         150             0                345 / 115 & 115
 Springfield        Substation
 West               Piper               Chicopee             3.5            150         150             0                345 / 115 & 115
 Springfield,       Substation          Substation
 Chicopee
 Chicopee           Chicopee            East Springfield     0.7            150         150             0                345 / 115 & 115
                    Substation          Junction
 Chicopee           East Springfield    Exit 6 Junction      1.5            100         125             25               345 / 115 & 115
                    Junction                                 1.0            150         150             0                345 / 115 & 115
 Chicopee           Exit 6 Junction     Shawinigan           0.3            160         160             0                345 / 115 & 115
                                        Switching Station
 Chicopee,          Shawinigan          Orchard Junction     1.4            200         200             0                345 / 115 &
 Ludlow             Switching                                                                                            115 / 115
                    Station
 Ludlow             Orchard             Ludlow               4.8            160         160             0                345 / 115 &
                    Junction            Substation                                                                       115 / 115
 Chicopee           East Springfield    Fairmont             1.7            150         150             0                115 & 115 / 115 &
                    Junction            Switching Station                                                                115
 Chicopee,          Exit 6 Junction     Cadwell              0.9            150 - 248   150             0                115
 Springfield                            Switching Station
 Chicopee,          Cadwell             Area Adjacent to     0.8            200         200             0                115 / 115
 Springfield        Switching           Shawinigan
                    Station             Switching Station



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project                1-11                                                                        June 2008
Supplemental Report



                                                                        Existing                             Additional ROW
                                                            Mileage                     Proposed ROW                                Proposed Circuit
      Town                  From               To                      ROW Width                                  Width
                                                            (Miles)                      Width (Feet)                                Configuration1
                                                                         (Feet)                               Needed(Feet)
 Ludlow,            Orchard             Orchard        0.7             160              160                 0                      115 & 115
 Springfield        Junction            Substation
1: “345/115” means 345-kV and 115-kV transmission circuits on the same line structures. “345 & 115” means 345-kV and 115-kV transmission circuits are on
separate line structures.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          1-12                                                                                      June 2008
Supplemental Report



                                  Figure 1-5:   115-kV Improvements




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project        1-13               June 2008
Supplemental Report



1.5 TRIGGERED MEPA THRESHOLDS
The Massachusetts portion of the GSRP requires review pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental
Policy Act (MEPA). The MEPA regulations outline 12 different categories of environmental impact
thresholds at 301 CMR 11.03, which if met or exceeded by a project action, requires the filing of an
Environmental Notification Form (ENF) and/or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The GSRP
triggers three of the ENF thresholds:

    •    Land – the Project will involve direct alteration of greater than 50 acres of Land, requiring the
         filing of an ENF and the filing of an EIR.
    •    Wetlands, Waterways, and Tidelands – the Project will alter greater than one acre of bordering
         vegetated wetlands, which requires the filing of an ENF and the filing of an EIR.
    •    Energy – the Project involves one or more miles in length of new transmission line with a
         Capacity of 69 or more kV along new, unused, or abandoned ROWs, which requires the filing of
         an ENF.

It is not anticipated that the thresholds for rare species or historical and archaeological resources will be
met or exceeded. WMECO is currently working in close consultation with the Massachusetts Division of
Fisheries & Wildlife (Mass Wildlife) Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP), as
well as the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), to design the Project to avoid adverse effects
on rare species habitats and to avoid the demolition of an historic structure or destruction of any part of a
designated Archaeological Site.


1.6 LIST OF POTENTIALLY REQUIRED PERMITS (INCLUDES CONSULTATIONS)
            Regulatory Agency                     Program & Permit                       Jurisdiction
        Federal
        U.S. Army Corps of Engineers          Individual Clean Water Act        Work in Waters of the U.S.,
        (USACE)                               Section 404 Permit and Section    including Wetlands; Navigable
                                              10 of Rivers and Harbors Act of   Waters
                                              1899 Permit
        U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service          Federal Endangered Species        Federally-listed Rare Species
        (USFWS)                               Act Review (completed)            habitats

        National Marine Fisheries             Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and      Work in, under, or over
        Service                               Conservation Management Act       Essential Fish Habitat
                                              Review
        Federal Aviation                                                        Structures that may affect air
                                              Notice of Construction
        Administration (FAA)                                                    traffic
        U.S. Environmental Protection         National Pollutant Discharge      Land disturbance greater than
        Agency (EPA)                          Elimination System (NPDES),       one acre
                                              General Permit for Storm Water
                                              Discharges and Construction
                                              Dewatering Activities
        Narragansett Tribal Historic          Executive Order 13175--           All areas in Massachusetts with



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project                1-14                                              June 2008
Supplemental Report



       Preservation Office                    Consultation and Coordination      tribal lands, reserved water
                                              With Indian Tribal                 rights, and/or treaty hunting and
                                              Governments                        fishing rights
       Wampanoag Tribal Historic              Executive Order 13175--            All areas in Massachusetts with
       Preservation Office                    Consultation and Coordination      tribal lands, reserved water
                                              With Indian Tribal                 rights, and/or treaty hunting and
                                              Governments                        fishing rights
       Stockbridge-Munsee Tribal              Executive Order 13175--            All areas in Massachusetts with
       Historic Preservation Office           Consultation and Coordination      tribal lands, reserved water
                                              With Indian Tribal                 rights, and/or treaty hunting and
                                              Governments                        fishing rights
       Massachusetts
       Executive Office of Energy and         Massachusetts Environmental        Projects needing state permits
       Environmental Affairs                  Policy Act (MEPA) Review           and exceeding certain review
       (EOEEA MEPA)                                                              thresholds
       Massachusetts Department of            Section 401 of the Clean Water     Work in Waters of the U.S.,
       Environmental Protection               Act; Massachusetts Clean           including Wetlands
                                              Water Act; Individual Water
                                              Quality Certificate
       Natural Heritage and                   Massachusetts Endangered           State-listed Rare Species and
       Endangered Species Program,            Species Act - Determination of     Estimated/Priority Habitat
       Massachusetts Division of Fish         Take or No-take;
       & Wildlife                             Conservation Permit (if needed)
       Massachusetts Historical               So-called “Antiquities Act”        Cultural Resources
       Commission                             Authorization; National Historic
                                              Preservation Act of 1966
                                              Authorization
       Department of Public Utilities         Petition for “Public               All Inclusive
                                              Convenience/Public Interest and
                                              Necessity” approval of
                                              transmission line and , if
                                              needed, eminent domain
                                              authority (G.L. c. 164, Section
                                              72) and, if needed, Petition for
                                              Zoning Exemption (G.L. 40A,
                                              Section 3)
       Energy Facilities Siting Board         Petition for Approval of           All Inclusive
                                              Construction (G.L. 164, Section
                                              69J)
       Executive Office of                    Railroad Crossing Lease and/or     Railroad Encroachment
       Transportation                         Permit
       Massachusetts Aeronautics              Notification                       Structures that may affect air
       Commission                                                                traffic
       Massachusetts Highway                  State, Interstate Highway Right-   Highway Encroachment
       Department                             of-Way Encroachment Permit
       Massachusetts Turnpike                 Aerial Crossing of Turnpike        Massachusetts Turnpike
       Authority
       Local
       Ludlow Conservation                    Order of Conditions                Massachusetts Wetlands/Rivers
       Commission/MADEP                                                          Protection Act and local
                                                                                 wetlands bylaw for work in
                                                                                 Resource Areas
       Chicopee Conservation                  Order of Conditions                Massachusetts Wetlands/Rivers



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project                1-15                                               June 2008
Supplemental Report



       Commission/MADEP                                                        Protection Act and local
                                                                               wetlands bylaw for work in
                                                                               Resource Areas
       Agawam Conservation                    Order of Conditions              Massachusetts Wetlands/Rivers
       Commission/MADEP                                                        Protection Act and local
                                                                               wetlands bylaw for work in
                                                                               Resource Areas
       W. Springfield Conservation            Order of Conditions              Massachusetts Wetlands/Rivers
       Commission/MADEP                                                        Protection Act and local
                                                                               wetlands bylaw for work
                                                                               Resource Areas
       Springfield Conservation               Order of Conditions              Massachusetts Wetlands/Rivers
       Commission/MADEP                                                        Protection Act and local
                                                                               wetlands bylaw for work in
                                                                               Resource Areas
       Ludlow Zoning Board/Planning           Special Permit/Site Plan         Local Zoning/Planning
       Board                                  Review (subject, if needed, to
                                              DPU Exemption Petition)
       Chicopee Zoning                        Special Permit/Site Plan         Local Zoning/Planning
       Board/Planning Board                   Review (subject, if needed, to
                                              DPU Exemption Petition)
       Agawam Zoning                          Special Permit/Site Plan         Local Zoning/Planning
       Board/Planning Board                   Review (subject, if needed, to
                                              DPU Exemption Petition)
       W. Springfield Zoning                  Special Permit/Site Plan         Local Zoning/Planning
       Board/Planning Board                   Review (subject, if needed, to
                                              DPU Exemption Petition)
       Springfield Zoning                     Special Permit/Site Plan         Local Zoning/Planning
       Board/Planning Board                   Review (subject, if needed, to
                                              DPU Exemption Petition)
       North Bloomfield Inland                Connecticut Inland Wetlands &    Work in/near wetlands and
       Wetlands Commission                    Watercourses Act Permit; local   watercourses
                                              wetlands bylaw
       East Granby Inland Wetlands            Connecticut Inland Wetlands &    Work in/near wetlands and
       Commission                             Watercourses Act Permit; local   watercourses
                                              wetlands bylaw
       Suffield Inland Wetlands               Connecticut Inland Wetlands &    Work in/near wetlands and
       Commission                             Watercourses Act Permit; local   watercourses
                                              wetlands bylaw
       Other
       Independent System Operator-           Proposed Project Application     Federal Power Act
       New England (ISO-NE)                   Approval




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project                1-16                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



   2.0       PROJECT TRANSMISSION AND NON-TRANSMISSION ALTERNATIVES

2.1 INTEGRATION OF REGULATED AND COMPETITIVE ALTERNATIVES
Electric transmission system planning is a dynamic and integrated process that must take into
consideration the public’s need for a reliable regional electric grid that is also flexible enough to allow
market-based resources (such as new or replacement generation and/or energy conservation efforts) to
compete freely as supply resources. Transmission planning in New England is overseen today by ISO-
NE, which integrates potential market-based alternatives into its regional planning. ISO-NE directs
transmission owners, such as WMECO, to plan and implement transmission projects needed to bring the
regional transmission grid into compliance with reliability standards. At the same time, ISO-NE
publicizes the nature of the reliability need and invites market participants, such as developers of
generation and conservation resources, to propose and implement alternative solutions to the same
reliability problems.

ISO-NE’s mandate that transmission owners build necessary transmission projects operates as a “fail-
safe” and continues in effect as long as alternative solutions do not emerge from market participants.
WMECO has assessed market alternatives to the Project and concluded that the chance that market
alternatives will emerge and fully satisfy the identified system need is extremely small. WMECO has
also assessed alternative transmission solutions, including alternative electrical approaches, designs, and
locations, and has concluded that the Project is properly configured, properly designed in terms of
technology and long-term transmission system plans, and properly sited along superior routes and at
appropriate substation sites. This section, along with Sections 3 and 4, summarizes WMECO’s review of
these alternatives to the Project.

Section 2.2 briefly describes and assesses the transmission and non-transmission alternatives reviewed by
WMECO.

Section 3 summarizes WMECO’s transmission line routing objectives and the process used to identify the
proposed and alternative routes. As described in Section 3, WMECO conducted necessary studies, taking
into account environmental, social, engineering, and economic factors, to identify and evaluate alternative
routes.


2.2 ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED
As set forth in Section 1.1, above, the Project is one component of a comprehensive longer-term regional
transmission plan which will improve electric transmission in New England through extensive



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project           2-1                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



coordinated improvements in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. This comprehensive
transmission plan is known as NEEWS. The NEEWS projects emerged from a coordinated series of
studies of the deficiencies in the Southern New England (SNE) electric supply system, which began in
2004, and were collectively called the SNETR study. Both the SNETR study and the NEEWS projects
were developed by ISO-NE through an ISO-NE-led Working Group which included the planning staffs of
Northeast Utilities Service Company (NUSCO) and National Grid USA (NGRID), with the assistance of
outside consultants.

Under the leadership of ISO-NE, the planning teams undertook a study of improvements that would be
needed to address SNE transmission system problems expected to arise through 2016, assuming the
completion of other regional projects already underway and projected peak-load growth. As explained in
footnote 6 above, the SNETR study of regional needs was first issued in Draft August 7, 2006 and was
finalized in January, 2008 by ISO-NE in the Southern New England Transmission Reliability Report 1:
Needs Analysis (January, 2008) (Needs Analysis) 3 . The Working Group analyzed needs in order to
develop a 10-year plan for transmission system improvements for southern New England. The SNETR
working group first described options to address the needs identified in the Needs Analysis in a draft
report dated June 25, 2007. A final draft of that report, Southern New England Transmission Reliability
(SNETR) Report 2—Options Analysis (March, 2008) is expected shortly.

In the Options Analysis, ISO-NE identified and analyzed alternative transmission options for each
component of NEEWS. With respect to the needs of the Greater Springfield area, the Options Analysis
presents 12 system alternatives for the Greater Springfield Project and identifies certain electric system
advantages and disadvantages of those 12 Options. All options provide reliability and supply benefits to
both Springfield and Connecticut. All options include a new 345-kV connection between Massachusetts
and Connecticut and associated 115-kV improvements in the Springfield area which bring the areas into
compliance with reliability standards.

The main differences among the options are two-fold. The first difference is whether or not they provide
another 345-kV supply point to the Springfield 115-kV system. The so-called Option A candidates

3
  ISO-NE has produced two reports on the technical need for, and the electrical alternatives to, the NEEWS plan.
Both are referenced in this Municipal Consultation Report. National security concerns embodied in provisions of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 require that portions of these reports be protected from public disclosure as Critical
Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII). The reports are as follows: (1) Southern New England Transmission
Reliability (SNETR), Report 1, Needs Analysis, January, 2008 (Needs Analysis), which has been published with
CEII redacted; and (2) the Southern New England Transmission Reliability (SNETR) Report 2, Options Analysis,
(Options Analysis). A copy of the public version of the Needs Analysis with CEII redacted is available now at
http://www.iso-ne.com/trans/index.html. The Options Analysis will be finalized and published in redacted form at
the same location soon.


The Greater Springfield Reliability Project              2-2                                               June 2008
Supplemental Report



provide that supply point at the Agawam Substation, while the so-called Option B candidates bring a new
345-kV line to the North Bloomfield Substation in Connecticut without going to the Agawam Substation.
The Option C candidates similarly bring a new 345-kV line to the Manchester Substation in Connecticut
without going to the Agawam Substation.

The second main difference is whether they eliminate the weak western Massachusetts/Connecticut 115-
kV electrical ties or retain the ties and use special transformers referred to as “phase shifters” to restrain
power being wheeled through the area on the 115-kV system. All options which cut the ties are
associated with providing another 345-kV supply point to the 115-kV system at the Agawam Substation
(Options A). The options which retain the ties install phase shifters at North Bloomfield Substation
(Options B and C). One Option A variation which cuts the ties also installs phase shifters at the Agawam
Substation to restrain further the flow on the 115-kV system.

In The Options Analysis, the 3 options become 12 when 115-kV system variations were considered.
Some variations address whether and how the Stony Brook Generation Station should be connected to the
115-kV system in the Springfield area. Four variations make no connection (the “a” series) and include
alternative modifications at the Ludlow Substation. Four variations make the new connection at the
Fairmont Switching Station by means of the construction or re-building of overhead 115-kV lines along
9.5 miles of ROW, including 3.4 miles of virgin ROW. Three variations make no Stony Brook
connection but build a new 115-kV line from Ludlow Substation to the Fairmont Switching Station along
the existing ROW.

The Options Analysis reviews the foregoing options in a manner which is highly technical and which far
exceeds in complexity the type of disclosure customarily found useful for purposes of MEPA; no attempt
will be made here to summarize the entire Options Analysis. This Section 2.2 will explain how the
Project, which is one of the Option A variations, was chosen over the Option B and Option C candidates.

As indicated above, in addition to the North Bloomfield – Agawam – Ludlow 345-kV line that WMECO
has identified as its preferred solution and presents as the Project in this document, two other 345-kV
solutions that ISO-NE found to exhibit acceptable electrical system performance in the Options Analysis
were:

    •    A 345-kV line between the North Bloomfield and Ludlow Substations that did not tie into the
         Agawam Substation (“Option B”); and
    •    A 345-kV line from Manchester Substation in Manchester, Connecticut to the Ludlow Substation
         (“Option C”).




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project           2-3                                             June 2008
Supplemental Report



The electrical connections that would be effected by these alternatives are illustrated in Figures 2-2 and 2-
3. For comparison, the electrical connections that would be effected by the preferred North Bloomfield to
Agawam to Ludlow solution are also displayed in Figure 2-1.

Figure 2-1:        Preferred North Bloomfield – Agawam – Ludlow Solution (“Option A” or
                                              the “Project”)
                                                       LUDLOW




                                                                          Note: Dotted red lines
                                 AGAWAM
                                                                          illustrate existing 345-kV
                                                                          transmission lines, whereas
                                                                          the purple arrows indicate
                                                                          the 345-kV alignments
                                                                          proposed to complete the
                                                                          Greater Springfield 345-kV
                                                                          loop.
                           NORTH
                         BLOOMFIELD




   Figure 2-2:        N. Bloomfield – Ludlow               Figure 2-3:     Manchester – Ludlow
                    (“Option B”)                                         (“Option C”)

                                                                                        LUDLOW




                                                                                       MANCHESTER




The Options Analysis pointed out that all three of these options provide a new 345-kV connection
between western Massachusetts and Connecticut, and that, with respect to the system benefits they
provide, the main differences between these plans are whether they provide another area bulk supply
point, eliminate the weak western Massachusetts/Connecticut 115-kV ties, or utilize phase shifters to
restrain power being wheeled through the area.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          2-4                                                June 2008
Supplemental Report



When the three basic 345-kV line Options were identified, it was already clear that although all three
Options eliminated the weak Massachusetts/Connecticut 115 kV ties, only Option A – the North
Bloomfield – Agawam – Ludlow 345-kV line provided another bulk power supply point and did not
utilize phase shifters. As explained in the following paragraphs, these characteristics provide system
benefits and advantages as compared, to the other two Options.

2.2.1 Advantages of a 345-kV Connection to the Agawam Substation
The new bulk power supply point for the Springfield 115-kV system that only the preferred solution
provided was at the Agawam Substation. That supply point would not be part of the 345-kV system
under either of the other Options. With this additional supply point, bulk power could be provided to the
Springfield area’s 115-kV system from the south, in addition to the pre-existing supply from the north
(Ludlow). Should the Ludlow Substation supply to the 115-kV transmission system be lost for any
reason, there would still be a path from the south for power to flow into the Springfield area to meet
customer load and to maintain transmission system voltages within acceptable ranges. Because of this
new source, there would also be less reliance on the Ludlow autotransformers. Additionally, a double-
contingency outage of the Ludlow – Barbour Hill 345-kV line and the Ludlow – Agawam 345-kV line
will not interrupt a 345-kV supply to the Agawam Substation, making it a very reliable new source for the
Springfield 115-kV system. With the preferred configuration, the Agawam Substation also provides
voltage support to the Springfield area. Finally, since all of the area’s 115-kV lines tie into the Agawam
Substation, it is a strategic location for limiting power flows through the Springfield area; and since it is
close to area load centers, it is well sited to provide flexibility in expanding the 115-kV network to serve
future growth.

2.2.2 Advantage of Avoiding Phase Shifters
Only the proposed solution would not also require the use of 115-kV phase-shifting transformers. These
are specially designed transformers for connecting systems at the same voltage in a way to act as a valve
to control or limit power flow. A phase-shifting transformer requires additional substation space, adds
cost to the Project, and would be unique to the Connecticut and western Massachusetts systems. Parts
would have to be obtained and maintained so that reliability is not significantly decreased. Also, as
system conditions change, the phase-shifting transformers would have to be adjusted to provide
continuous optimum performance. This requirement would place additional burden on those actually
operating the system and their support staff providing short-term planning support. Consultations by the
planning team with the system operators ascertained that the operators have a strong preference for
avoiding the use of phase-shifters where possible.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project           2-5                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



2.2.3 Elimination of Option C – Manchester to Ludlow
The NUSCO planners investigated Option C further in order to determine whether it presented any
system benefits, costs, or environmental advantages that would overcome the system benefits advantages
of the preferred solution. That analysis confirmed the superiority of the proposed solution.

System Benefits/Disadvantages

Since the Ludlow to Manchester line configuration would not connect to North Bloomfield Substation, it
would not increase the reliability of supply to this important substation, which is feeding an area of
Connecticut experiencing higher than average load growth; and it would not create an additional loop
around the north-central Connecticut and Springfield area.

Moreover, a new Manchester to Ludlow 345-kV line would be along the same path as the existing
Manchester (Connecticut) to Barbour Hill (Connecticut) to Ludlow 345-kV transmission line. Placing the
two 345-kV lines on the same right-of-way (ROW) would not be a criteria violation. However, a system
with two 345-kV lines on the same ROW would be less reliable than the proposed looped configuration
and could interrupt the Massachusetts – Connecticut interconnection if an extreme contingency on the
right-of-way affected both 345-kV lines.

Associated Construction Requirements and Cost

The Options Analysis recognized that Option C would require construction of more 115-kV facilities in
Connecticut than the other Options. However, further analysis disclosed that these requirements were
significantly greater than had been recognized at the time the studies underlying the Options Analysis
were done.

Option C would require the following 115-kV construction in Connecticut, which would not be required
by Options A or B:

    •    A new underground 115-kV circuit between the Manchester and South Meadow (Hartford)
         Substations, constructed in and along public streets, for a distance of approximately 4.7 miles;
    •    A new underground 115-kV circuit between the Southwest Hartford and South Meadow
         Substations, a distance of approximately 3.8 miles, which would probably be installed in an
         existing empty pipe conduit;
    •    A new underground 115-kV circuit between the Northwest Hartford and Southwest Hartford
         Substations, constructed in and along public streets for a distance of approximately 3.6 miles;
    •    Reconductoring the #1783 Farmington to Newington line for a distance of approximately 3 miles
         with 556-kcmil ACSR conductors; and
    •    Reconductoring the #1785 Berlin to Newington line for a distance of approximately 3 miles with
         795-kcmil ACSR conductors.



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          2-6                                           June 2008
Supplemental Report



A planning grade estimate of the total cost of this work is $230.6 million, broken down as follows:

                          Table 2-1:          Hartford Area Construction Summary


              Segment                             Length (miles)                             Cost1

 Manchester to South Meadow                            4.7                                $97 million
 Southwest Hartford to South                           3.8
                                                                                         $18.9 million
 Meadow
 Northwest Hartford to Southwest                       3.6                       $73.8 million (one cable only)
 Hartford
 Farmington to Newington                               3.4                               $13.5 million
 Berlin to Newington                                   6.9                               $27.4 million
1: This cost estimate includes construction costs, overhead costs, financing costs during construction and expected
escalation to the in-service date. All other cost estimates will be calculated and stated in a similar way.

In contrast, the only ancillary work required in Connecticut by the choice of Option A is the separation of
two segments of 345-kV and 115-kV circuits now on common line structures, along approximately 2.7
miles of the Manchester (Connecticut) to Meekville Junction (Connecticut) ROW. The total cost of this
work is estimated at $13.6 million. Therefore, Option C has a cost disadvantage relating to the
Connecticut 115-kV work alone of approximately $217 million, as compared to Options A and B.

That cost disadvantage is not offset by any requirements of Options A or B that are not common to
Option C (other than the Manchester – Meekville circuit separation.). All three projects require a similar
scope of 115-kV construction and reconstruction in Massachusetts. Moreover, the cost of the 345-kV
component of Option C is driven by its length of 31.6 miles, which is only 3.4 miles shorter than the 35-
mile length of the new 345-kV line construction for the Project. This modest Option C cost advantage for
the 345-kV portion of the Project, together with the advantage of no 345-kV facility costs at Agawam
Substation, does not offset the large excess cost of the 115-kV construction.

2.2.4 Elimination of Option B – North Bloomfield – Ludlow
There are two potential routes along existing ROW’s between the North Bloomfield and Ludlow
Substations. One would be along the ROW that leads from the North Bloomfield Substation south and
east to Meekville Junction in Manchester, Connecticut, turning north from there to Ludlow Substation
(see Figure 2-4 for Option B via Meekville). The other route would be from North Bloomfield Substation
north to the South Agawam Substation, and from there to Ludlow Substation over either the previously
described preferred “Northern” Route or noticed-alternative “Southern” Route (see: Figure 1-3 and Figure
1-4, respectively). (Note, however, that because the line would not be tied into the Agawam Substation, if



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project             2-7                                               June 2008
Supplemental Report



the “Southern” Route were chosen, there would be no 345-kV construction between the South Agawam
Junction and Agawam Substation.) These potential routes are illustrated in Figure 2-4.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project        2-8                                   June 2008
Supplemental Report



                               Figure 2-4:    Option B Route Variations




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         2-9                   June 2008
Supplemental Report



The North Bloomfield – Meekville Junction - Ludlow Route

A 345-kV line constructed along a North Bloomfield – Meekville Junction – Ludlow Route (see: Figure
IV-7, above) would be approximately 44.5 miles long, 31.5 miles of which would be in Connecticut.
From Meekville Junction to Ludlow Substation, a distance of approximately 31 miles, the new 345-kV
line would be along the same path as the existing Manchester to Barbour Hill (Connecticut) to Ludlow
345-kV transmission line, which would present a reliability disadvantage as compared to the Project.

The North Bloomfield – Meekville Junction – Ludlow route would be between approximately 7.2 miles
and approximately 9.5 miles (about 19 to 27 percent) longer than the North Bloomfield - South Agawam -
Ludlow route (depending on whether the shorter Northerly (total length of 35 miles) or the longer
Southerly (total length of 37.3 miles) segment between South Agawam Junction and Ludlow Substation
were employed for the latter route). This increased length translates into increased cost: the planning
grade estimate is that the North Bloomfield – Meekville Junction – Ludlow route would cost
approximately $240 million, as compared to $197 to $210 million for the North Bloomfield – South
Agawam Junction – Ludlow 345-kV line routes.

The increased line length of the route through Meekville Junction would also entail increased
environmental impacts. Further, the social impacts of that route would be greater than the route through
South Agawam, because there are more densely settled areas along the ROW.

Accordingly, were Option B, the North Bloomfield to Ludlow 345-kV line to be selected, the preferred
route for the line would be one of the two routes through South Agawam Junction and not the route via
Meekville Junction.

The North Bloomfield – South Agawam Junction – Ludlow Route

A 345-kV line from North Bloomfield to South Agawam Junction to Ludlow would present virtually all
of the same routing choices and environmental impacts as does the preferred route versus the noticed-
alternative route for the Project.

The only differences between this configuration and that of the Project would be:

    •    No expansion of the Agawam Substation to accommodate 345-kV equipment additions and
         transformation to 115-kV would be required since no connection to the 115-kV system would be
         made at Agawam with this Option B configuration;
    •    In place of transformers at the Agawam Substation, this configuration (on both the preferred
         “Northern” Route and the noticed-alternative “Southern” Route) would require much more costly
         phase shifters installed at the North Bloomfield Substation in Connecticut. In place of these



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         2-10                                          June 2008
Supplemental Report



         expensive phase shifters, the Option A Project uses a lower cost approach of re-configuring 115-
         kV lines going south from the South Agawam Substation into Connecticut and cutting these lines
         off from the North Bloomfield Substation to prevent power from flowing onto the Connecticut
         115-kV system there.
    •    If the southern route between South Agawam Junction and Ludlow Substation were chosen, there
         would be no 345-kV line construction required between the South Agawam Junction and
         Agawam Substation.

However, the same considerations that favor the selection of the “Northern” Route segment discussed in
Section 3, below, would apply here as well. The northern route for Option B would call for the same 35.0
miles of new 345-kV line construction as for the preferred route for the Project. Eliminating a section of
345-kV line back and forth between South Agawam Junction and Agawam Substation, a distance of
approximately 3.2 miles one way, would result in the southern route for Option B being 6.4 circuit miles
shorter than the “Southern” Route for Option A. However, that leaves the southern route for Option B
with 37.3 miles of new 345-kV line construction. For the 345-kV construction, the southern route
segment would therefore still be more expensive than the northern route segment based on the planning
grade cost/mile estimates (2.3 miles difference = $13 million). In addition, the environmental and social
advantages of the northern route would provide reason to prefer it in the same way that these factors
strongly favor the preferred solution’s use of the “Northern” Route. See Section 3.6, below.

If the northern route were chosen for Option B, the only cost difference between Option B and the
preferred solution (Option A on the “Northern” Route) would result from the difference in the scope of
the work required to:

         (i) expand the Agawam Substation for 345- to 115-kV transformation, and implement the
         low cost re-configuration of the 115-kV lines which go south into Connecticut but no longer
         deliver power at 115-kV the North Bloomfield Substation (at a total cost of $74 million and
         $2.6 million, respectively, for a total cost of approximately $76.6 million);

as opposed to that required to

         (ii) install phase shifters, including a spare, at the North Bloomfield Substation (at a total cost
         of $165 million).

This large difference, of approximately $88 million, provides a second strong prong of support for the
selection of the preferred solution. Not only are there significant system benefits associated with the
Option A Project, but it is also more economic than the best variation for Option B.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project           2-11                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



2.3 NON-TRANSMISSION ALTERNATIVES

2.3.1 The No-Action Alternative
Taking no action to remedy the transmission system needs identified by ISO-NE and the other members
of the SNETR Working Group in the Needs Analysis would leave the Greater Springfield area in
violation of national and regional electric transmission reliability standards. Furthermore, the area’s
electric customers would be exposed to unwarranted risks of interruption in the supply of power and to an
increasing reliance on uneconomic local sources of supply. At the same time, customers would be denied
improved access to more remote sources of both lower-priced supply and more diverse supply, such as
renewable generators.

2.3.2 The Absence of Workable Non-Transmission Alternatives to the Project
In order to frame and preview the discussion of system alternatives in conceptual terms, a general
description of how the transmission system operates to move power is offered first, followed by a brief
summary of why workable alternatives to the Project are absent here.

Power systems, like any system that must move large and varying flows of a quantity, such as water
systems, have higher abilities to move the power to where it is needed if they have more connections
among the many points where the flow is received and where the flow is delivered. The size and the
number of the connecting “wires” or “pipes,” as the case may be, determine the ability of the system to
move large quantities of the flow under normal or peak conditions, and most importantly, to continue to
deliver the flow without interruption or delay whenever a major “wire” or “pipe” suffers a contingency,
removing it from operation. For example, a “wire” can break or fall in a storm and a water “pipe” can
burst.

Over time, in response to factors such as population growth, land-use changes, and modifications in
consumer needs, transmission connections may be found to be lacking or undersized to meet new and
expanding demands. In such cases, adding or expanding connections in a timely fashion is critical to
maintain an effective transmission system. A robust and flexible supply and delivery system must
withstand predictable contingencies, while also accommodating normal increases in demand. The
transmission system can do its part only if it has an adequate density of appropriately sized connections or
links among its supply and delivery points. In other words, the more independent or complementary
paths that exist over which the system can move power, the better able the system is to find an adequate
number of paths over which to continue to supply power when contingencies occur.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         2-12                                           June 2008
Supplemental Report



Need for the GSRP is driven by pervasive demographic and resource changes over the last several
decades that affect large geographic sub-areas of Southern New England. The affected areas are the
Greater Springfield area and the entire state of Connecticut. Both areas have become net importers of
power, dependent upon adequate transmission facilities to import power to meet the excess of area load
over area resources.

The Greater Springfield area includes the City of Springfield and extends west to Blandford, south to the
Connecticut border, north to Amherst and east to Ludlow. In its Southern New England Transmission
Reliability Report 1 Needs Analysis (issued in draft form August 2, 2006 and final form, January, 2008),
ISO-NE reports its projection that the Greater Springfield area in 2009 will have a Transfer Requirement
of 463 megawatts (MW), which means that its expected electrical demand or load will exceed the supply
resources in the area by 463 MWs. For 2016, the same projection shows an expected Transfer
Requirement of 583 MWs. In 2009, the existing transfer capability is 446 MWs and in 2016, the transfer
capability will be 205 MWs, leaving a “load deficiency” of 17 MWs and 378 MWs, respectively, for 2009
and 2016. These “load deficiency” numbers mean that additional pathways into the Springfield area must
be found in order to bring the transfer capability up to the Transfer Requirement levels.

For the entire state of Connecticut, the projected “load deficiency” is 550 MWs in 2009 and 1,078 MWs
in 2016. In short, the whole state is in need of new pathways to bring power into the state to close the gap
between the transfer capability and the Transfer Requirements.

From these need determinations, several conclusions about alternative solutions for Connecticut and
Greater Springfield can be drawn as follows:

    •    Adding large amounts of power sources in and around Greater Springfield could change the
         source of the power which must flow through Greater Springfield to Connecticut but does not
         alter the need for adequate pathways for that Connecticut flow under contingent conditions;
    •    When new Greater Springfield area power sources are out-of-service, they have no effect on
         solving the flow-through problem to Connecticut. Power transmitted from Ludlow Substation
         would have to find new and adequate pathways to Connecticut under contingent conditions;
    •    Dramatic conservation in the Greater Springfield area would decrease the Springfield transfer
         problem, as explained below, but would, like new generation in Springfield, not affect the need
         for new and adequate pathways to Connecticut under contingent conditions;
    •    Adding Demand-Side Management (DSM) and Distributed Generation (DG) resources at
         distribution substations in the maximum theoretical amounts (such as reducing peak load by 10
         percent and adding DG equal to 15 percent of substation load, respectively, in the next 5 to 8
         years) uniformly throughout the state of Connecticut could in theory reach up to the amount of
         the import deficiency by 2016, but doing so is highly unrealistic and would be even more unlikely
         if added in amounts necessary to cover for planned and unplanned outages of the DG resources
         themselves and other local generators;



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         2-13                                          June 2008
Supplemental Report



    •    Adding sufficient utility-size bulk generation in Connecticut to meet the import deficiency by
         2016 is also highly unrealistic and also even more unlikely if added in amounts necessary to
         cover for planned and unplanned outages of any of the large generators added.
    •    The same arguments apply to DSM, DG and generation in the Greater Springfield area with
         respect to Springfield’s own “load deficiency” since the “load deficiency” in 2016 is large, DSM
         and DG at the maximum theoretical levels will decrease but not solve the Springfield problem,
         and a large number of contingencies on the 115-kV system can still result in overloads.

Additionally, it should be noted that ISO-NE has stated at meetings of its Planning Advisory Committee
that new generation could potentially defer the need for other components of NEEWS, but that there are
no practical or feasible generation alternatives to the Greater Springfield Reliability Project. Reliability
problems of the type faced by the Greater Springfield area are caused by the limited number of
adequately-sized pathways available to deliver power to customers when one or more important paths
become blocked. The extent of the problem is too pervasive to be solved by a limited number of local or
remote sources of power, even if those sources might be large. Pathways to power sources are too limited
in number and power might be available but could not be reached over the available routes. Adding many
generators in many locations in order that some path exists to some source is not considered practical by
ISO-NE.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          2-14                                           June 2008
Supplemental Report



        3.0     TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION

To identify and evaluate alternative line routes for the new 345-kV lines which are part of the Project, and
to select from among the defined options a preferred and noticed-alternative, WMECO carefully
considered environmental, social, engineering, and economic factors and applied a set of established
routing objectives. Using these objectives, WMECO identified and then further assessed alternatives for
the alignment of the new 345-kV transmission line in the Greater Springfield area. For the defined
Project alignment (that is, between the Massachusetts border and the Ludlow Substation, with an
interconnection at the Agawam Substation), the goal of this alternative line-route evaluation process was
to select a preferred route, along with at least one geographically distinct alternative route (i.e., the
noticed-alternative as specified per EFSB filing requirements), each of which was feasible, practical, and
capable of reliably meeting the Project objectives.

For the other three short Project route segments that required separations and upgrades of existing 115-kV
transmission circuits (that is between East Springfield Junction and Fairmont Switching Station; between
the new Cadwell Switching Station and Exit 6 Junction/Shawinigan Switching Station; and between
Orchard Junction and Orchard Substation), distinct alternative routes were not evaluated because the
improvements will occur within existing WMECO ROW and the upgrades are so short in length and so
limited in scope that formal alternative routing requirements are not triggered under applicable EFSB and
DPU precedents. Neither are such requirements triggered for the re-conductoring and re-building of
existing 115-kV transmission lines on the existing transmission corridor which comprises the preferred
“Northern” Route (see: Figure 1-3). No alternative to keeping the existing lines in the same corridor
makes sense – any such alternative would involve greater costs and greater environmental impacts than
staying on the already-impacted corridor.


3.1 ROUTE SELECTION OBJECTIVES
For the Project, WMECO applied the following set of route selection objectives for transmission lines,
which have been established based on the experience of utilities in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and other
states:

    •     Comply with all statutory requirements, regulations and state and federal siting agency policies
    •     Achieve a reliable, operable, constructible and cost-effective solution
    •     Maximize the reasonable, practical and feasible use of existing linear corridors (e.g., transmission
          lines, highways, pipelines)
    •     Minimize the need to acquire property by eminent domain
    •     Minimize adverse effects on sensitive environmental resources
    •     Minimize adverse effects on significant cultural resources (archaeological and historical)


The Greater Springfield Reliability Project            3-1                                             June 2008
Supplemental Report



    •    Minimize adverse effects on designated scenic resources
    •    Minimize conflicts with local, state and federal land use plans and resource policies
    •    Maintain public health and safety

In addition, because overhead and underground transmission line construction and operation are
inherently different, multiple factors were considered in evaluating the feasibility of each type of line
configuration and associated routing for the Project if there had been a reason to analyze potential
overhead options in comparison to potential underground line configurations for the GSRP. Since
existing overhead transmission line corridors were available, the huge cost differential between overhead
and underground line construction led WMECO to focus on maximizing the potential use of existing
overhead line corridors for the addition of new overhead lines that could meet the subject needs.


3.2 OVERHEAD LINE-ROUTE ANALYSIS CRITERIA
The configuration of overhead transmission lines allows flexibility, provided that a continuous ROW of
adequate width is available. Individual structures can often be located to avoid, or span conductors over,
sensitive environmental areas (e.g., wetlands, streams, steep slopes). However, overhead lines require
relatively wide ROWs within which certain land uses and vegetative community types are precluded.

The following criteria take these issues into account and were given primary consideration in evaluating
the selection of an overhead transmission line route for the new GSRP 345-kV facilities:

    •    Availability of Existing ROW for the New Lines to Follow. The potential collocation of the
         345-kV transmission facilities along existing ROWs (e.g., transmission lines, highways, railroads,
         pipelines), where linear uses are already established, was a primary routing consideration. In
         accordance with WMECO design standards, an entirely new 345-kV overhead line would require
         a minimum 100-foot-wide ROW, based on a steel-monopole design with vertically arranged line
         conductors. The alignment of the same 345-kV facilities on an existing corridor (parallel to
         existing transmission lines) may entail a lesser expansion of an existing ROW or may not require
         any additional ROW at all.
    •    Engineering Considerations. Whether on existing or new ROWs, the length of the route and
         constructability issues must be considered. These include the ability to avoid or minimize the
         location of structures along steep slopes or embankments, in areas of rock outcroppings, or within
         environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands. Engineering requirements for crossing
         streams, railroads, and other facilities also must be assessed. These considerations are important
         determinants of cost and, in many cases, environmental effects as well.
    •    Avoidance of Conflicts with Developed Areas. Where possible, it is preferable to avoid
         conflicts with residential, commercial, and industrial land uses such as homes, businesses, and
         airport approach zones.
    •    Consideration of Visual Impacts. Structure visibility is a significant public concern. It is
         desirable to avoid areas of visual or historic sensitivity, to identify line designs for minimizing
         structure height, and to consider the potential impacts associated with having to remove mature
         trees that currently serve as visual buffers.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          3-2                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



    •    Avoidance or Minimization of Impacts to Environmental Resources. Minimize impacts to
         sensitive environmental resources, including inland and tidal wetlands, steep slopes, erodible
         soils, parks, watercourses, and vegetation/wildlife/fisheries resources of concern.
    •    Accessibility. An overhead line route must also be accessible to both construction and
         maintenance equipment. Although access to all locations along an overhead line route is
         typically not required, vehicular access to each structure location from some access point is
         required.

3.3 GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES OF THE STUDY AREA
Applying the route selection objectives, WMECO initially defined a geographic study area for the Project
and then identified and screened potential transmission routes within this area. In general, the study area
for the Project took into consideration that the shortest routes between the substation interconnections
would also typically minimize environmental disruption, social disruption, and costs. See Figure 3-1 for
the study area boundaries.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         3-3                                           June 2008
Supplemental Report



                                 Figure 3-1:   Study Area Boundaries




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project        3-4                 June 2008
Supplemental Report



3.4 ALTERNATIVE LINE ROUTING IDENTIFICATION
WMECO and CL&P incorporated the transmission line routing objectives and criteria into studies that
were used to identify and subsequently assess different route options for the new 345-kV lines. These
analyses included the identification and evaluation of existing ROWs and other potential routes or route
segments within the Project region. Field reconnaissance, aerial photography review, and baseline data
interpretation were used in these analyses. Alternative route analyses were conducted for the whole
Project alignment: the 345-kV transmission line required between the Connecticut/Massachusetts border
and the Ludlow Substation, with an interconnection at the Agawam Substation.

3.4.1 Alternative Line Routing Identification – Overhead 345-kV Line Project
In light of the generally urban nature of the Project area for the new 345-kV line, the initial universe of
route options focused on the use of existing ROWs, including existing transmission lines, pipelines,
railroads and limited access highways. Because WMECO has numerous transmission line ROWs in the
Project area, such corridors became the focus of alternative route evaluations. Potential locations where
ROW expansion areas would be needed also were determined based on the additional ROW required for
the new 345-kV transmission line. Figure 3-2 illustrates the routes that were identified and evaluated for
the GSRP. The route identified for the segment from the Connecticut/Massachusetts border to Agawam
Substation extends south to North Bloomfield Substation. The routes identified on Figure 3-2 include
routes that were evaluated as part of the Project in Connecticut under the requirements of Connecticut
law, but are not included in the discussion in this document.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          3-5                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



                             Figure 3-2:      Potential 345-kV Line Routes




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          3-6                     June 2008
Supplemental Report



3.5 PREFERRED AND NOTICED-ALTERNATIVE LINE ROUTE SELECTION
         PROCESS FOR THE 345-kV OVERHEAD LINES
To facilitate the assessment of the transmission line route alternatives, WMECO conducted alternatives
evaluations using qualitative and quantitative criteria, generally following the EFSB approach. WMECO
developed Project-specific evaluation criteria that address environmental, human and social, land use, and
engineering/technical factors. Table 3-1 lists these evaluation criteria, the data metric (or measuring
standard) for each criterion, and the source for the applicable data for the 345-kV overhead line.

For each of the potentially viable Project route alternatives, WMECO applied numeric data metrics that
were as objective as possible to obtain a numerical score (or ranking) for each alignment based on the
evaluation criteria. The data were translated to a common scale for summing purposes and the totals were
then summarized and sorted, with the result that a raw, unweighted score for each potential line-route
option was developed. Based on the evaluation criteria, the best scoring potential options represented
routes with potentially fewer impacts, less challenging circumstances, and/or other more favorable
conditions and were, accordingly, preferable routes.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          3-7                                             June 2008
Supplemental Report



 Table 3-1:          Project Evaluation Criteria and Associated Data Metrics – Overhead Lines

                                                 Data
             Evaluation Criteria                                              Available Data Source
                                                 Metric
Total route length                              Feet           GIS analysis
Length NOT paralleling existing linear
                                                Feet           Visual review using aerial photography in GIS
facilities
Length by land use (Commercial/Industrial)      Feet           MassGIS land use
Length by land use (Undeveloped Land)           Feet           MassGIS land use
Length by land use (Residential)                Feet           MassGIS land use
Length by land use (Park/School/Open                           MassGIS Protected and Recreational Open Space
                                                Feet
Space)                                                         Parcel data
Length through private easement                 Feet           Parcel data
Length through stream or wetland                Feet           DEP wetlands and streams
Length through environmentally sensitive
                                                Feet           NHESP priority habitats of protected species
area
Railroad crossings                              Number         Visual review using aerial photography in GIS
Stream crossings                                Number         Visual review using aerial photography in GIS
                                                Qualitative
Cultural resources predictive modeling
                                                score          UMass Report
analysis
                                                (1 to 3)
Residences within ROW                           Number         Visual review using aerial photography in GIS
Residences within 100 feet of edge of ROW       Number         Visual review using aerial photography in GIS
Residences within 101 to 300 feet of edge
                                                Number         Visual review using aerial photography in GIS
of ROW
Businesses within ROW                           Number         Visual review using aerial photography in GIS
Businesses within 100 feet of edge of ROW
                                                Number         Visual review using aerial photography in GIS
or centerline
Businesses within 101 to 300 feet of edge of
                                                Number         Visual review using aerial photography in GIS
ROW
Public Facilities within 300 feet of edge of                   MassGIS infrastructure
                                                Number
ROW                                                            Visual review using aerial photography in GIS
Public Facilities within 301 to 1,200 feet of                  MassGIS infrastructure
                                                Number
edge of ROW                                                    Visual review using aerial photography in GIS
Visibility                                      Rating         Visual review using aerial photography in GIS


For the 345-kV overhead line, each of two alternate Agawam to Ludlow route segments on existing
ROWs, together with the North Bloomfield to Agawam line segment, would establish the required North
Bloomfield-Agawam-Ludlow 345-kV connection. Although the majority of these two routes differ
geographically, each route segment between North Bloomfield Substation and the
Connecticut/Massachusetts border and from the border to Agawam Substation would follow the same



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project              3-8                                             June 2008
Supplemental Report



existing overhead transmission line ROW, passing by the South Agawam Substation en-route. The
alternate route segments for the new 345-kV Agawam to Ludlow transmission line, referred to herein as
the “Northern” Route and the “Southern” Route, are described as follows:

    •    The preferred “Northern” Route would extend north from Agawam Substation on existing ROWs
         to Ludlow Substation, passing adjacent to the Piper and Chicopee Substations and the Shawinigan
         Switching Stations.
    •    The noticed-alternative “Southern” Route would extend from Agawam Substation south to South
         Agawam Junction, and then east, following existing ROWs generally paralleling the Connecticut-
         Massachusetts border, before turning north (at Hampden Junction) to reach the Ludlow
         Substation. For a distance of approximately 3.2 miles between the Agawam Substation and South
         Agawam Junction, the new 345-kV line, if built on this route, would share the ROW with the new
         North Bloomfield to Agawam 345-kV line, so that 2.4 miles of this segment of ROW would have
         to be widened by up to 65 feet.

The “Northern” and “Southern” routes are illustrated in Figures 3-4 and 3-5 below.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project        3-9                                        June 2008
Supplemental Report



                              Figure 3-4:     Preferred “Northern” Route




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         3-10                   June 2008
Supplemental Report



                       Figure 3-5:        Noticed-Alternative “Southern” Route




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          3-11                        June 2008
Supplemental Report



In comparing the “Northern” and “Southern” routes between the Agawam and Ludlow Substations,
WMECO had to consider that the ROWs along the “Northern” Route would be affected in any case by the
required reconstruction of the existing 115-kV lines between the Agawam, Piper, Chicopee, Shawinigan,
Orchard, and Ludlow Stations. There are currently two 115-kV circuits from Agawam to Piper to
Chicopee, two from Chicopee to the Exit 6 Junction near the Shawinigan Switching Station, two from
East Springfield Junction to Fairmont Switching Station, three from the Exit 6 Junction near Shawinigan
Switching Station to East Springfield Substation, and three from Shawinigan Switching Station to
Orchard to Ludlow Substations. These circuits are supported by various types of single- and double-
circuit line structures (i.e., two circuits share common supporting structures). These 115-kV circuits will
all be replaced by either single- or double-circuit structures, and all will have larger conductors to yield
higher circuit capacity. The new 345-kV line can be constructed on these ROWs as part of the same
overall construction effort, and it can share structures with one of the 115-kV circuits.

Table 3-2 compares the “Northern” and “Southern” routes, illustrating miles of 345-kV and 115-kV
affected ROW in both Massachusetts and Connecticut:

   Table 3-2:         General Comparison of Reconstructed 115-kV and New 345-kV Line on
                             “Northern” and “Southern” Routes and Spurs

                                                                     “Southern” Route: Affected
                              “Northern” Route: Affected
                                                                    ROW (Reconstruction of 115-kV
                            ROW (Construction of New 345-
                                                                     lines on “Northern” Route &
     ROW Segment            kV lines & Reconstruction of 115-
                                                                    Construction of New 345-kV line
                                         kV lines)
                                                                         on “Southern” Route)
                                 (miles/location by state)
                                                                        (miles/location by state)
    N. Bloomfield/                        18 (345-kV)                             18 (345-kV)
    Agawam                    (12 miles in CT and 6 miles in MA)      (12 miles in CT and 6 miles in MA)1
    Agawam/Piper-                  16.8 (345-kV + 115-kV)                             16.8
    Chicopee/Ludlow                          (MA)                                    (MA)
    S. Agawam/                                N/A                                     22.3
    Hampden/Ludlow                                                  (5.5 miles in CT and 16.8 miles in MA)
    115-kV Spurs                               4.2                                     4.2
                                             (MA)                                    (MA)
    Total Affected                             39                                     61.3
    ROW                       (12 miles in CT and 27 miles in MA)    (12 miles in CT and 49.3 miles in MA)
                                                                    (38.0 miles 345-kV, 23.3 miles 115-kV)
1: With the 345 kV line on the on the Southern Route, more ROW widening is required on the miles in
Massachusetts

Accordingly, if the “Southern” Route were selected for the 345-kV connection between Agawam and
Ludlow, a total of approximately 61 miles of existing overhead transmission line ROW would have to be


The Greater Springfield Reliability Project            3-12                                           June 2008
Supplemental Report



disturbed for activities such as vegetation clearing, access roads for use during construction, excavation
for structure foundations, and other construction tasks. On the other hand, use of the “Northern” Route
would involve only 39 miles of transmission line ROW disturbance avoiding the disturbance of
approximately 22 linear miles of ROW. The consolidation of the 345-kV and 115-kV line construction
along the “Northern” Route also would require fewer construction support and staging areas, etc.

The selected preferred and noticed-alternative line routes were further compared as presented in

Table 3-3. “Check marks” (          ) in each table identify the route which is superior for each of the

evaluation criteria employed by WMECO.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project             3-13                                               June 2008
Supplemental Report



   Table 3-3:          Comparative Summary of “Northern” and “Southern” 345-kV Overhead
                              Line Routes Including 115-kV Improvements


                                                                                  Southern Route w/ 115-kV
                                     “Northern” Route w/115-kV                     Improvements along the
      Decision Criteria
                                   Improvements (Preferred Route)                “Northern” Route Corridor
                                                                                    (Noticed-Alternative)
  Construction Schedule           36 months                                   36 months1

  Cost Estimate2                  $714 Million                                $766 Million
  Easement & Potential            Fewer homes adjacent (one                   More homes adjacent (two
  Home Impacts                    corridor)                                   corridors)
  Route Length3                   39.4 miles                                  61.8 miles
                                                                              More tree clearing (two
  Tree Clearing                   Less tree clearing (one corridor)
                                                                              corridors)
  Streams/wetlands crossed        Approx. 16,000 linear feet                  Approx. 38,000 linear feet
  Threatened & Endangered
                                  Approx. 42,000 linear feet                  Approx. 96,000 linear feet
  Species Habitat crossed
  Additional ROW width            Approx. 8 acres                             Approx. 12 acres
  Potential Cultural                                                          More disturbance (two
                                  Less disturbance (one corridor)
  Resources                                                                   corridors)
1: The 115-kV re-construction along the South Agawam-East Springfield Junction-Ludlow transmission corridor
occurs whether the “Northern” or “Southern” Route is chosen. Except for the sequential construction described
below, the construction along the “Northern” Route and construction along the “Southern” Route will generally
require an equal number and duration of outages. The Southern route has a limited performance advantage during
the construction period due to the ability to construct the 345-kV transmission line prior to re-building the 115-kV
lines, thus providing a stronger system and eliminating contingencies during the construction period for the 115-kV
lines. To implement this Southern route advantage, however, the total construction duration would be extended to
account for constructing the 345-kV lines and 115-kV line in series rather than in parallel. The extension of the total
construction duration will add significant costs to the project, thus nullifying the performance advantage.
2: This cost estimate includes construction costs, overhead costs, carrying costs and expected escalation to the in-
service date.
3: Inclusive of the 3 miles of 115-kV upgrades on the “spurs”. See Section 1.3 above.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project              3-14                                               June 2008
Supplemental Report



            4.0       SUBSTATION AND SWITCHING STATION MODIFICATIONS

Applying the results of electrical system planning studies, and as a consequence of the proposed new and
upgraded transmission lines in the Greater Springfield area, WMECO has determined that it will be
necessary to modify, expand, build and upgrade certain interconnecting substations and switching stations
as described in the following subsections.


4.1 LUDLOW SUBSTATION
Ludlow is an existing substation with 115- and 345-kV switchyards and is located at 983 Center Street,
Ludlow, Massachusetts (Attachment 1 Mapsheet 15 of 15, Agawam to Ludlow North Route provides an
aerial view of the substation.) The work scope at this substation will include the addition of a new bay of
three 345-kV circuit breakers, two new 345-kV and115-kV autotransformers (each made up of three
single-phase units), a new 345-kV line connecting position, and repositioning of 345-kV lines 301 and
395. Design provisions will also be made for a future 345/115-kV autotransformer and a future 345-kV
line. Upgrades to the 115-kV substation facilities are also necessary for the autotransformer connections.
The construction of the above work will take place within the existing fenced area.


4.2 FAIRMONT SWITCHING STATION – CHICOPEE
WMECO’s existing 115-kV Fairmont Switching Station is located in the northwestern portion of the
Town of Chicopee, approximately 0.2 mile south of the Connecticut River. The switching station
occupies a 3.5-acre site on the corner of Prospect and Ingham streets (Attachment 1 Mapsheet 2 of 2, East
Springfield Jct to Fairmont provides an aerial view of the existing and proposed Fairmont Switching
Station). The Holyoke Electric and Gas Company’s Prospect Substation is located northwest of and
diagonally across Prospect Street from the Fairmont Switching Station.

The Fairmont Switching Station was built in 1958 and currently serves as the junction of three 115-kV
circuits emanating from the South Hadley area to the north, two 115-kV circuits from the Prospect Street
Substation, and two 115-kV circuits from the south (from East Springfield Junction). As part of the
GSRP, the two 115-kV lines between Fairmont and East Springfield will be replaced with four new 115-
kV circuits, each on separate monopoles. The present Fairmont Switching Station is not adequate to
accommodate the planned electrical system modifications in the Greater Springfield area.

WMECO considered options for either rebuilding the station at its present location, or developing a new
switching station, located at another nearby site. The existing Fairmont Switching Station could be
rebuilt instead of building on a new site, but the combined cost of work at a greater cost and with



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         4-1                                           June 2008
Supplemental Report



significant operating problems during construction. A preliminary cost estimate indicates the cost for
rebuilding the existing Fairmont Switching Station will be at least $1.6 million more than building a new
switching station. From a commissioning perspective, constructing a new Fairmont Switching Station
allows for the construction and field testing prior to line and/or bus outages and should be an overall safer
installation. A contractor would have to contend with an energized switching station during construction
at the existing Fairmont site and schedule line outages that could delay construction. Addressing each of
these issues creates additional costs.

As a result, WMECO evaluated alternatives for developing a new switching station in the immediate
vicinity of the existing Fairmont site. Any potential alternative sites for redeveloping the switching
station necessarily had to be in the immediate vicinity of the existing site due to the location of the
various 115-kV circuits that presently and in the future must connect to the station. Taking these
constraints into consideration, WMECO identified a 2.9-acre undeveloped property located northeast of
and across Prospect Street from the present switching station site. This site, which is owned by Holyoke
Gas and Electric, has sufficient acreage to accommodate the new switching station and is already
traversed by WMECO’s 115-kV ROW that extends to East Springfield Junction.

To develop the new Fairmont Switching Station, WMECO proposes to acquire the 2.9-acre site from
Holyoke Gas and Electric. The new switching station would be constructed while the existing station
remains operational. After the new switching station is in service, the old station will be dismantled and
all lines will be disconnected.


4.3 AGAWAM SUBSTATION
Agawam is an existing substation with a 115-kV switchyard and is located at 198 Springfield Street,
Agawam, Massachusetts (Attachment 1 Mapsheet 3 of 3, South Agawam to Agawam provides an aerial
view of the substation.) The work scope at this substation will include constructing a new 345-kV
switchyard to interconnect two 345-kV lines and two 345/115-kV autotransformers, with space provisions
for future 345-kV connections, and a new control house. In the 115-kV switchyard, a circuit-breaker bay
will be added to interconnect the two autotransformers, 115-kV capacitor banks will need to be relocated
in the yard to accommodate the auto-transformers, and several line terminals will be upgraded. A section
of the substation fence will have to be relocated but will remain within WMECO’s property. The
construction of the above work will take place within the substation property. The existing substation
fence will be relocated approximately 65 feet to the north and 45 feet to the west, for a total expansion of
approximately 1 acre within the existing property.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project           4-2                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



4.4 SOUTH AGAWAM SUBSTATION
South Agawam is an existing substation with a 115-kV switchyard (Attachment 1 Mapsheet 3 of 3, MA
Border to South Agawam provides an aerial view of the substation.) The work scope at this substation
will include the disconnection of one of the circuits to North Bloomfield and upgrading of the line
terminal of the remaining circuit to North Bloomfield, which will become the new South Agawam
Substation to Southwick Substation circuit. Additional work scope includes disconnection and removal
of circuit switcher and series reactors for both lines. The construction of the above work will take place
within the substation property with no fence relocation.


4.5 ORCHARD AND PIPER SUBSTATIONS AND SHAWINIGAN SWITCHING
        STATION
Orchard and Piper are existing substations and Shawinigan is an existing 115-kV switching station
(Attachment 1, Mapsheets 3, 9 and 11 of 15 Agawam to Ludlow North Route provide aerial views of the
substations and switching station.) The work scope at these facilities will either upgrade the line
termination and electrical equipment or install new line termination structures and electrical equipment.
The construction of the above upgrades will take place within the properties with minimal or no fence
relocations.


4.6 CADWELL SWITCHING STATION AND EAST SPRINGFIELD SUBSTATION
The 115-kV Cadwell Switching Station will replace the 115-kV switchyard function at East Springfield
Substation that will be “over–duty” due to changes on the transmission system. In this regard, “over-
duty” means that short circuit currents that are available will exceed the capability of the equipment. In
some instances the normal current carrying ability of the equipment will be exceeded. The distribution
equipment at East Springfield Substation will remain and be supplied by two 115-kV overhead lines from
Cadwell. The Cadwell Switching Station would be located approximately 0.5 miles north of East
Springfield Substation at the WMECO Service Center (Attachment 1 Mapsheet 1 of 2 East Springfield to
Shawinigan provides an aerial view of the new switching station.)

Cadwell will be located within the existing Service Center’s fenced area at the south end of the property.
This will minimize the impact on the Service Center operation, avoid the underground gas line on the
west side of transmission line corridor and will not disturb additional land. This location is optimal for
connecting overhead transmission lines as Cadwell will sit adjacent to the existing transmission line
corridor to East Springfield. The three overhead transmission lines feeding the Cadwell Switching
Station would enter from the north, and the two overhead transmission lines feeding the East Springfield
Substation from Cadwell would leave to the south in the same corridor. Based on load requirements,


The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          4-3                                              June 2008
Supplemental Report



preliminary review of the existing overhead transmission lines shows no required re-conductoring of the
existing transmission lines used for connecting Cadwell Switching Station to East Springfield Substation.

The East Springfield Substation could be rebuilt instead of building a new Cadwell Switching Station, but
at a greater cost and with significant operating problems during construction. A preliminary cost estimate
indicates the cost will be at least $8 million more to rebuild the East Springfield Substation than to build
the Cadwell Switching Station and to modify the East Springfield Substation. The costs to relocate part
of WMECO’s Service Center are included in the preliminary cost estimate for Cadwell.

From a commissioning perspective, constructing Cadwell allows for the construction and field testing
prior to line and/or bus outages and should be an overall safer installation. A contractor would have to
contend with an energized substation during construction at East Springfield and schedule line outages
that could delay construction. Addressing each of these issues creates additional costs.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          4-4                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report




                                5.0      CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES

The proposed Project facilities will be constructed in accordance with established electric utility practices,
best management practices, final engineering plans, WMECO’s specifications and the conditions
specified in certificates and permits obtained for the Project. The following subsections describe the land
requirements for the development of the Project and the procedures that will be used to construct the
Project facilities. During actual construction, certain work activities and sequences may vary, based on
factors such as site-specific conditions, final Project designs, and the requirements of regulatory
approvals.


5.1 OVERHEAD LINE CONSTRUCTION METHODS
As part of the Project, WMECO will install a new 345-kV line and rebuild the existing overhead 115-kV
transmission lines along the existing corridor between the Connecticut/Massachusetts border in Agawam
and Ludlow Substation. The existing corridor traverses the communities of Agawam, West Springfield,
Chicopee, Springfield, and Ludlow. Along this corridor, the existing lattice steel towers, steel
monopoles, and wood-pole H-frame structures that currently support 115-kV circuits will be removed and
replaced by new steel-monopole lines, which will support the new 345-kV and rebuilt 115-kV circuits.
Volume II includes typical cross-sections and visual simulation photographs of the proposed overhead
line corridor.

5.1.1 Land Requirements
The proposed overhead 345-kV line has been configured to minimize the amount of new ROW required
and thus the majority of the line construction will be within existing ROWs. However, along certain
segments of the existing transmission line corridor, the existing ROW will have to be expanded to
accommodate the new 345-kV lines and the associated 115-kV line reconstruction. In general, in these
certain areas, portions of the existing ROW easement will have to be widened by an additional 10 to 35
feet. Table 5-1 summarizes the existing and proposed ROW configurations along the preferred
“Northern” Route. Table 3-4, above, shows the additional ROW on the “Northern” Route in terms of the
new acres required (Attachment 1 Mapsheets 1, 2 and 3 of 3 MA Border to South Agawam, Mapsheets 1
and 2 of 3 South Agawam to Agawam, and Mapsheets 7, 8 and 9 of 15 Agawam to Ludlow North Route
show aerial views of the ROW expansion areas.) The Massachusetts portion of the GSRP, utilizing the
preferred “Northern” Route, will involve the following transmission line construction or reconstruction:

    •    Approximately 6 miles of overhead 345-kV transmission line in Agawam (from the
         Connecticut/Massachusetts border to the Agawam Substation). For 2.8 miles north from the


The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          5-1                                              June 2008
Supplemental Report



         border, the existing 100-foot-wide ROW will need to be expanded by 10 feet to 110 feet. North
         of Silver Substation for 0.5 miles, this ROW will need to be expanded by 35 feet to 135 feet total.
    •    Approximately 8 miles of overhead 345-kV transmission line from Agawam Substation to East
         Springfield Junction in Chicopee. No additional ROW is expected to be required.
    •    Approximately 9 miles of overhead 345-kV transmission line from East Springfield Junction to
         the Ludlow Substation.
    •    For 1.4 miles, east from East Springfield Junction, the existing 100-foot-wide ROW will need to
         be expanded by 25 feet to a total width of 125 feet.
    •    For 4.8 miles, from Orchard Junction, northeast toward Ludlow Substation, no additional ROW is
         expected to be required.
    •    Approximately 26.5 corridor miles of existing 115-kV overhead lines will be reconstructed.

To accommodate the new 345-kV facilities and reconfigured 115-kV lines, WMECO also will modify the
existing substations to which the lines will connect. Refer to section 5.2 for substation modifications.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         5-2                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



                                                    Table 5-1:      Summary of Existing and Proposed ROW configurations for the Preferred “Northern” Route in Massachusetts

       Town                    From                   To             Mileage   Existing ROW     Proposed     Additional                                             Proposed Modification Summary
                                                                     (Miles)       (Feet)        ROW        ROW Width
                                                                                                 (Feet)        (Feet)
                                                                                                                          Existing lattice steel towers that average 80 to 95 feet in height supporting two 115-kV circuits.
                                                                                                                          ROW expansion needed for the new 345-kV line.
                                              South Agawam
 Suffield, Agawam      CT/MA Border                                 2.8        100            110          10             Install one 345/115-kV double circuit steel monopole with a typical height of 130 feet.
                                              Substation
                                                                                                                          The existing lattice steel towers will be removed.
                                                                                                                          New structure placement is close to existing structure locations.
                                                                                                                          Existing lattice steel towers that average 80 to 95 feet in height supporting two 115-kV circuits.
                                                                                                                          Install one 345/115-kV double-circuit steel-monopole line with typical pole heights of 130 feet and one single-circuit
                                                                    0.9        300            300          0              115-kV steel-monopole line with typical pole heights of 95 feet.
                                                                                                                          The existing lattice steel towers will be removed.
                                                                                                                          New structure placement is close to existing structure locations.
                                                                                                                          Existing lattice steel towers that average 80 to 95 feet in height support two 115-kV circuits.
                                                                                                                          ROW expansion needed for the new 345-kV line.
                       South Agawam                                                                                       Install one 345/115-kV double-circuit steel-monopole line with typical pole heights of 130 feet and one single-circuit
 Agawam                                       Agawam Substation     0.5        100            135          35
                       Substation                                                                                         115-kV steel-monopole line with typical pole heights of 95 feet.
                                                                                                                          The existing lattice steel towers will be removed.
                                                                                                                          New structure placement is close to existing structure locations.
                                                                                                                          Existing lattice steel towers that average 80 to 95 feet in height support two 115-kV circuits.
                                                                                                                          Install one 345/115-kV double-circuit steel-monopole line with typical pole heights of 130 feet and one single-circuit
                                                                    1.9        150            150          0              115-kV steel-monopole line with typical pole heights of 95 feet.
                                                                                                                          The existing lattice steel towers will be removed.
                                                                                                                          New structure placement is close to existing structure locations.
                                                                                                                          Existing lattice steel towers that average 80 to 95 feet in height support two 115-kV circuits.
                                                                                                                          Existing lattice steel towers that average 80 feet in height and support a de-energized 69-kV line, which in some places is
                                                                                                                          currently used for a 13.8-kV circuit.
 Agawam, West
                       Agawam Substation      Piper Substation      3.6        150            150          0              Install one 345/115-kV double-circuit steel monopole-line with typical pole heights of 130 feet and one single-circuit
 Springfield
                                                                                                                          115-kV steel-monopole line with typical pole heights of 95 feet.
                                                                                                                          The existing lattice steel towers will be removed.
                                                                                                                          New structure placement is close to existing structure locations.
                                                                                                                          Existing lattice steel towers that average 80 to 95 feet in height support two 115-kV circuits.
                                                                                                                          Existing lattice steel towers that average 80 feet in height and support a de-energized 69-kV line, which in some places is
                                                                                                                          currently used for a 13.8-kV circuit.
 West Springfield,
                       Piper Substation       Chicopee Substation   3.5        150            150          0              Install one 345/115-kV double-circuit steel-monopole line with typical pole heights of 130 feet and one single-circuit
 Chicopee
                                                                                                                          115-kV steel-monopole line with typical pole heights of 95 feet.
                                                                                                                          The existing lattice steel towers will be removed.
                                                                                                                          New structure placement is close to existing structure locations.
                                                                                                                          Existing lattice steel towers that average 80 to 95 feet in height support two 115-kV circuits.
                                                                                                                          Install one 345/115-kV double-circuit steel-monopole line with typical pole heights of 130 feet and one single-circuit
                                              East Springfield                                                            115-kV steel-monopole line with typical pole heights of 95 feet.
 Chicopee              Chicopee Substation                          0.7        150            150          0
                                              Junction
                                                                                                                          The existing lattice steel towers will be removed.
                                                                                                                          New structure placement is close to existing structure locations.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project                                                                     5-3                                                                                                      2-27-08_Draft 1_ April 2008
 
Supplemental Report



       Town                    From                   To            Mileage   Existing ROW     Proposed    Additional                                              Proposed Modification Summary
                                                                    (Miles)       (Feet)        ROW       ROW Width
                                                                                                (Feet)       (Feet)
                                                                                                                        Existing steel monopoles that average 80 to 95 feet in height support two 115-kV circuits.
                                                                                                                        ROW expansion needed for the new 345-kV line.
                                                                                                                        Install one 345/115-kV double-circuit steel-monopole line with typical pole heights of 130 feet and one single-circuit
                                                                   1.5        100            125          25
                                                                                                                        115-kV steel-monopole line with typical pole heights of 95 feet.
                                                                                                                        The existing steel monopole structures will be removed.
                       East Springfield
 Chicopee                                     Exit 6 Junction                                                           New structure placement is close to existing structure locations.
                       Junction
                                                                                                                        Existing steel monopoles that average 80 to 95 feet in height support two 115-kV circuits.
                                                                                                                        Install one 345/115-kV double-circuit steel-monopole line with typical pole heights of 130 feet and one single-circuit
                                                                   1.0        150            150          0             115-kV steel-monopole line with typical pole heights of 95 feet.
                                                                                                                        The existing steel monopole structures will be removed.
                                                                                                                        New structure placement is close to existing structure locations.
                                                                                                                        Existing steel monopoles that average 85 feet in height support one 115-kV circuit.
                                                                                                                        Install one 345-kV single-circuit steel-monopole line with typical pole heights of 130 feet and one single-circuit 115-kV
                                              Shawinigan                                                                steel-monopole lines with typical pole heights of 95 feet.
 Chicopee              Exit 6 Junction                             0.3        160            160          0
                                              Switching Station
                                                                                                                        The existing steel monopole structures will be removed.
                                                                                                                        New structure placement is close to existing structure locations.
                                                                                                                        Existing steel monopoles that average 85 feet in height support one 115-kV circuit and wood-pole H-frames that average
                                                                                                                        65 feet in height support one 115-kV circuit.
                       Shawinigan                                                                                       Install one 345/115-kV double-circuit steel-monopole line with typical pole heights of 130 feet and one double-circuit
 Chicopee, Ludlow                             Orchard Junction     1.4        200            200          0             115-kV steel-monopole lines with typical pole heights of 95 feet.
                       Substation
                                                                                                                        The existing steel monopoles and wood-pole H-frame structures will be removed.
                                                                                                                        New structure placement is close to existing structure locations.
                                                                                                                        Existing steel monopoles that average 85 feet in height support two 115-kV circuits and wood-pole H-frames that average
                                                                                                                        65 feet in height support one 115-kV circuit.
                                                                                                                        Install one 345/115-kV double-circuit steel monopole line with typical pole heights of 130 feet and one double-circuit
 Ludlow                Orchard Junction       Ludlow Substation    4.8        160            160          0             115-kV steel monopole lines with typical pole heights of 95 feet.
                                                                                                                        The existing steel monopoles and wood-pole H-frame structures will be removed.
                                                                                                                        New structure placement is close to existing structure locations.
                                                                                                                        Existing lattice steel towers that average 70 feet in height support two 115-kV circuits in a horizontal configuration.
                       East Springfield       Fairmont Switching                                                        The existing lattice structures will be removed.
 Chicopee                                                          1.7        150            150          0
                       Junction               Station                                                                   Install two single-circuit and one double-circuit 115-kV steel monopole lines, averaging 95 feet in height. New structure
                                                                                                                        placement is close to existing structure locations.
                                                                                                                        Existing lattice structures, up to 70 feet in height, support 1 existing 115-kV circuits.
 Chicopee,                                    Cadwell Switching                                                         The existing lattice structures will be removed.
                       Exit 6 Junction                             0.9        150-248        150          0
 Springfield                                  Station                                                                   Install a single-circuit 115-kV steel monopole line, averaging 95 feet in height (mostly share ROW with item on the next
                                                                                                                        row).
                                              Area Adjacent to                                                          One line of existing lattice structures, up to 100 feet in height, support 2 existing 115-kV circuits.
 Chicopee,             Cadwell Switching
                                              Shawinigan           0.8        200            200          0             The existing lattice structures will be removed.
 Springfield           Station
                                              Switching Station                                                         Install one double-circuit 115-kV steel monopole line, averaging 95 feet in height.

 Ludlow,                                                                                                                Two existing wooden H-frame structures with heights up to 80 feet each support a 115-kV circuit in a horizontal
                       Orchard Junction       Orchard Substation   0.7        160            160          0             configuration. The existing wooden H-frames will be removed. Two new lines of monopole structures averaging 95 feet
 Springfield
                                                                                                                        will each support a 115-kV rebuilt circuit. The new structures are close to the existing H-frames locations.



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project                                                                    5-4                                                                                                        2-27-08_Draft 1_ April 2008
 
Supplemental Report



5.1.2 Construction Sequence and Methods
WMECO will perform this work in stages, using the following general construction procedures:

    •    Perform pre-construction activities (e.g., conduct soil borings at proposed structure locations).
    •    Perform surveys to stake the planned structure locations.
    •    Establish a field construction yard, as well as staging and lay-down areas.
    •    Prepare the ROW for construction (including installing erosion and sedimentation controls,
         vegetation removal, improving existing access roads, or developing new access roads). For
         construction purposes, access roads must be approximately 15 to 20 feet wide. Roads may be
         graveled or consist of wood mats, using culverts or crushed stone to maintain drainage patterns
         across the ROW. Roads to structure locations must have sufficient width and capacity for heavy
         construction equipment and both over-the-road and off-road vehicles, including oversize tractor
         trailers. The need for access by flatbed trailers and concrete trucks typically determines the scope
         of access road improvements
    •    Prepare work areas at structure sites
    •    Excavate and construct foundations where necessary, and erect new structures
    •    Install conductors and shield wires
    •    Remove the existing 115-kV transmission line structures and associated conductors and shield
         wires
    •    Perform clean-up and restoration, including revegetation of disturbed areas resulting from the
         construction process

Except for work at contractor yards and equipment movements to and from work sites, overhead
transmission line construction activities will occur within the existing, in certain locations somewhat
widened, WMECO ROWs. As a result, the overhead line construction activities will not create any new
utility corridors and will principally affect land already used for utility purposes.

5.1.3 Construction Equipment
Table 5-2 lists the equipment that will be required to install the new overhead transmission lines and to
remove the existing line structures.

5.1.4 Construction Work Hours
Construction work will typically occur between 7 A.M. and 7 P.M., Monday through Friday. Under
certain circumstances, especially when circuit outages are required, night work and weekend work will be
necessary. Night construction will require lighting and may result in localized noise impacts.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project           5-5                                          June 2008
Supplemental Report



   Table 5-2:          Summary of Typical Construction Equipment: Overhead Transmission
                                               Line Construction

   Construction Phase                             Typical Equipment/Materials Required
 Site Preparation              Pickup and other small trucks
                               Flatbed trucks , brush hogs, bulldozers, bucket trucks for tree canopy trimming,
                               wood chippers
                               Erosion and sediment control devices (silt fence, hay bales, etc.)
                               Equipment for tree trimming and/or cutting
 General Activities            Vehicles to transport personnel
                               Side booms, forklifts and cranes to handle materials
                               Trucks to haul sanitary and solid wastes from construction sites
                               Pickup trucks for supplies
 Access Roads                  Bulldozer or front end loader, dump trucks for hauling crushed stone or gravel
                               Pickup or stake body trucks for culverts, etc.
 Installation of New           Bulldozer or front-end loader
 Structures                    Flatbed trucks for hauling structure components
                               Augers
                               Excavators
                               Cranes and other trucks (for reinforcing rods, conductors, reels, bucket trucks, and
                               hardware)
                               Conductor pulling and tensioning rigs
                               Caissons for foundations
                               Concrete trucks for structures requiring concrete pads or foundations
 Remove Existing               Bucket trucks for dismantling existing lines
 Structures                    Reel trailers to haul out old conductors
                               Trucks to haul out old hardware
                               Flatbed trucks with a crane to remove structures
                               Trucks with welding equipment to cut steel supports or components
                               Dump trucks to haul smaller components
 Restoration                   Pickup and other small trucks


5.2 SUBSTATION AND SWITCHING STATION CONSTRUCTION
The proposed modifications to the existing Ludlow and Agawam Substations and the construction of the
new Fairmont Switching Station in Chicopee and the new Cadwell Switching Station in Springfield will
be performed on utility-owned property. The construction of these facilities will involve similar
sequences of activities, as summarized in this section. Actual sequences and methods of construction
may vary based on the characteristics of each site and the final specific engineering designs for each
station. At these two existing substations, construction activities will be localized within the substation
property lines and thus will have minimal effects. For the new Fairmont and Cadwell Switching Stations,




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project               5-6                                               June 2008
Supplemental Report



standard construction procedures and best management practices will be employed to minimize off-site
construction effects.

5.2.1 Land Requirements
Agawam Substation: The construction of the substation modifications will be confined to WMECO’s
existing station property. The existing fence will be relocated approximately 65 feet to the north and 45
feet to the west, for a total expansion of approximately 1 acre within the existing property lines.

Fairmont Switching Station: The proposed sites being considered for the new Fairmont Switching
Station is located across Prospect Street from the existing Fairmont Switching Station (at 356 Prospect
Street) in Chicopee. The new switching station will require the development of approximately 3 acres.
Holyoke Gas and Electric currently owns the proposed site.

For South Agawam, Chicopee, Piper, Orchard and Ludlow Substations, and Shawinigan Switching
Station, proposed modifications will take place within WMECO properties with little or no fence
expansion.

Cadwell Switching Station: Cadwell Switching Station will be located within fenced area of the
existing WMECO Service Center at the south end of the property. This will minimize the impact on the
Service Center operation, and avoid an underground natural gas line on the west side of the transmission
line corridor. This location is optimal for connecting overhead transmission lines as Cadwell will sit
adjacent to the existing transmission line corridor to East Springfield. The three overhead transmission
lines feeding the Cadwell would enter from the north, and the two overhead transmission lines feeding
East Springfield Substation from Cadwell would leave to the south in the same corridor. Based on load
requirements, a preliminary review of the existing overhead transmission lines shows no required re-
conductoring of the existing transmission lines used between the Cadwell Switching Station and the East
Springfield Substation.

5.2.2 Construction Sequence and Methods
A sequential construction approach will be used to modify the existing substations and to construct the
proposed new switching stations.

Site Preparation
The type of site preparation required will depend on the characteristics of each site. Work may include,
as necessary:




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          5-7                                              June 2008
Supplemental Report



    •    Installing temporary soil erosion and sedimentation controls (e.g., silt fence, straw bales). Such
         controls will be maintained and replaced as necessary throughout the construction process. The
         primary objective of these controls will be to minimize the potential for off-site erosion.
    •    Removing existing structures as required to accommodate the new structures and equipment
    •    Clearing vegetation from work areas and ROWs, as necessary
    •    Creating temporary access to the sites for heavy construction equipment
    •    Grading and drainage improvements to create a level work area.
    •    Installing paving for the access road, parking, and material storage areas, if any and only as may
         be needed.
    •    Installing temporary fencing around the new switching station or substation construction site (if
         appropriate)
    •    Erecting truck ports

Foundation Construction
Foundation construction will commence after the completion of rough grading. The foundation
installation process will involve excavation, form work, steel reinforcement, and concrete placement.
Excavated material will either be reused on site or disposed of off site in accordance with applicable
requirements.

Installation of Equipment
After the foundations are installed, construction activities will shift to the erection of steel support
structures for electrical equipment, such as insulators, bus work, riser-pole structures and disconnect
switches. In addition, control and power conduits and ground grid conductors will be installed.

At Agawam Substation and the new Fairmont Switching Station, a protective relay and control enclosure
will be installed. This enclosure will house the relay and control equipment, station batteries and
chargers, and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system equipment, as well as heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning equipment. Relay and control equipment changes at other substations
will be made, as needed, within each substation’s existing protective relay and control enclosure.

At Ludlow and Agawam Substations and the new Fairmont Switching Station, 115- and/or 345-kV circuit
breakers and/or circuit switchers will be added to protect new lines and equipment such as transformers
and capacitor banks. Circuit breakers will be installed on concrete foundations. Circuit switchers will be
installed on steel structures mounted on concrete foundations.

Testing and Interconnections
All of the substation equipment will be tested prior to final connection to the transmission grid. New
structures and associated conductors and wires will be installed to connect the new substation and




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project           5-8                                             June 2008
Supplemental Report



switching station equipment to the new transmission line terminals and bus at the existing substations and
new switching station.

Final Cleanup, Site Security and Landscaping
After the facilities at each station are installed, any remaining construction debris will be collected and
properly disposed. Temporary erosion controls will be maintained until soils disturbed by construction
activities achieve final stabilization. The new Fairmont Switching Station, similar to the existing
substations, will be fenced or otherwise enclosed to prevent unauthorized access. The fences around the
three existing substations will be replaced, if affected by the construction activities. Landscaping will be
coordinated with the municipality, where appropriate, and will be incorporated in the final design of each
of the station facilities.

5.2.3 Construction Equipment
The construction equipment expected to be required for the substation modifications and switching station
construction will include bulldozers, backhoes, man-lift vehicles, compressors, trucks (various sizes), a
large capacity crane (e.g., 100-ton), and flat-bed trailers.

5.2.4 Construction Work Hours
Construction work at the existing substation and new switching station sites will typically occur between
7 A.M. and 7 P.M., Monday through Friday. Under certain circumstances, especially when circuit
outages are required, night work and weekend work will be necessary. Night construction will require
lighting and may result in localized noise impacts.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project            5-9                                          June 2008
Supplemental Report




 6.0       DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AND
        MITIGATION MEASURES FOR PREFERRED ROUTES AND SUBSTATIONS

This section discusses the preferred Project elements, including the 115-kV transmission line rebuilds,
new 345-kV transmission line, and substation modifications and upgrades that are all to occur along the
preferred “Northern” Route.

To characterize the GSRP region, data were compiled for the parameters listed below:

    •    Land (soils, geology, topography, and land use)
    •    Rare species
    •    Wetlands, waterways, and tidelands
    •    Historical and archaeological resources
    •    Transportation (Traffic control)
    •    Noise
    •    Air quality
    •    Electric and magnetic fields

For each of these factors, the following subsections first characterize the existing conditions in the GSRP
area, then identify potential effects of the construction and operation of the Project and discuss potential
mitigation measures (e.g., resource avoidance, impact minimization, and/or restoration).


6.1 LAND

6.1.1 Existing Conditions

6.1.1.1       General Setting and Geologic History
The GSRP is located in the Connecticut Valley Lowlands region, which was formed by erosion of
sedimentary rocks before the glacial period. These sedimentary rocks were typically composed of
sandstone, shale, and conglomerate particles and interspersed with volcanic rocks during the Jurassic and
Triassic period that took place approximately 190 to 200 million years ago. Surficial geology within the
Project area consists of sand and gravel, sand, till or bedrock, fine-grained deposits, and stratified sand
and gravel deposits.

6.1.1.2       Soils
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maps soil
types and produces county-wide soils maps. These county soils maps provide information concerning
soil characteristics, including but not limited to depth to bedrock, slope, drainage, development,
agricultural suitability, and areas of hydric soils (which may signal the potential presence of jurisdictional



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          6-1                                             June 2008
Supplemental Report



wetlands), and erosion potential. For this project the appropriate USDA Soil Survey (Hampden County)
was consulted. Volume III includes a list of the soil types that will be crossed along the GSRP preferred
and noticed-alternative routes, and at the substations where modifications are planned.

6.1.1.3       Land Use
The GSRP encompasses a wide variety of land uses, ranging from undeveloped open space, designated
recreational areas, transportation ROWs (e.g., highway and railroad corridors) and agricultural lands to
densely developed urban areas within the City of Springfield and its suburbs. These are depicted in the
Environmental Maps provided in Attachment 1 of the ENF. Agricultural and open space uses are more
predominant along the southern portion of the route, and the density of urban/suburban development near
the ROW generally increases from south to north.

6.1.1.4       Vegetative Communities (Uplands)
The GSRP encompasses both rural and urban areas, which are characterized by a variety of vegetative
communities. The typical upland vegetative communities found in the Project area include:

    •    Old Field/Shrubland. This habitat type includes the existing maintained ROW, as well as
         abandoned fields, natural shrublands, and early successional forests. WMECO conducts
         vegetation maintenance along the existing overhead transmission line ROWs in accordance with
         agency-approved Operation & Maintenance Plans to assure that non-compatible plants (i.e.,
         species that mature into trees) do not interfere with the reliability of the transmission lines and
         that maintenance and emergency crews have ready access to existing structures.
    •    Mature Mixed Upland Forest. This forest type includes mature mixed deciduous/coniferous
         forests in upland areas. Mature mixed forests consist typically of tree species common to the
         Northeast, such as maples, oaks, hickories, hemlock, and pine. The ratio of deciduous to
         coniferous species and age of stands varies. This community type occurs along some portions of
         the Project where the existing ROWs are proposed to be widened to accommodate the additional
         transmission lines.
    •    Cultural Grasslands. This community type includes croplands, hay fields, grazing pastures, and
         orchards in active agricultural use, as well as parks and golf courses, maintained lawns, and
         roadside vegetation.

6.1.2 Potential Effects
Temporary and permanent alterations to land (uplands) will occur due to the following Project activities:

    •    Expansion of existing maintained corridors within existing WMECO transmission line easements
         and, in select locations, the expansion of easements;
    •    Improvement of existing access roads or construction of new access roads, involving vegetation
         removal and/or grading along the transmission line ROWs;
    •    Installation of new transmission line structures and foundations;
    •    Creation of crane pads to support the heavy equipment needed to install structures;
    •    Minor expansion of the Agawam Substation;
    •    Construction of the new Fairmont Switching Station; and


The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          6-2                                          June 2008
Supplemental Report



    •    Construction of the new Cadwell Switching Station

Vegetation removal to widen the ROW and to provide access for construction activities will be performed
using mechanical methods. Improvements to access roads and the construction of new access roads will
be accomplished with standard construction equipment. Construction of the foundations for the new
transmission line structures may involve mechanical excavation, some controlled rock drilling and
blasting, if required, installation of form work, supporting/reinforcing and anchor bolt steel, pouring of
concrete, and installation of backfill material.

Table 6-1 provides a summary, by activity, of the alterations to uplands that will occur as a result of the
Project. Note that alterations to vegetated wetlands and “other wetlands” (i.e., floodplains) have been
calculated separately and are addressed in Section 6.3.

    Table 6-1:          Summary of Alterations to Uplands along the GSRP Preferred Routes

             Activity                     Estimated                              Land Attributes
                                          Alterations
Improvement/Construction of                   29.7 acres      Variable; primarily within or along the footprint of
Access Roads                                                  existing access roads in the maintained utility corridors
Installation of Structure                      0.3 acres      Variable; primarily within in the currently maintained
Foundations                                                   utility corridors
Creation of Crane Pads                        91.4 acres      Variable; primarily within in the currently maintained
                                                              utility corridors
Agawam Substation Expansion                    0.5 acres      Currently landscaped or developed land
Cadwell Switching Station                      3.8 acres      Currently landscaped or developed land
Construction
Fairmont Switching Station                     0.2 acres      Primarily herbaceous and shrub habitat within an
Construction                                                  existing ROW
Tree Removal/ for Cross                        5.5 acres      Variable; forest dominated by oaks, maples, and/or white
country ROW Widening                                          pine in the tree layer
TOTAL UPLAND                                  131.4 acres
ALTERATIONS



6.1.3 Mitigation Measures
This section describes the measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, and where necessary, mitigate
alterations to upland resources.

6.1.3.1       Vegetation Removal
Because virtually all of the 115-kV and 345-kV facilities would be aligned along existing ROWs that are
currently maintained to allow safe overhead transmission line operation, adverse impacts to vegetative
communities are generally expected to be incremental. In some areas, new ROW will be required to


The Greater Springfield Reliability Project                 6-3                                               June 2008
Supplemental Report



widen the route to accommodate new poles, and in other areas, additional vegetation will have to be
removed or within existing ROWs. However, the vegetation types found along these ROWs are common
in the region and the vegetation removal associated with the Project construction would represent a
negligible long-term effect. In some ways, the creation of additional scrub-shrub land habitat along the
maintained ROW would represent a long-term positive effect because shrub land habitat (like other early
successional habitats) is otherwise declining in New England as a result of urban/suburban development,
ecological succession, and absence of fire. In Massachusetts, transmission line ROWs are considered a
vitally important source of shrub land habitat, especially for certain rare songbird species.

Vegetation on the existing ROWs along which most of the overhead 115-kV and 345-kV lines will be
located is managed in accordance with NUSCO’s Overhead Transmission Line Standards -OTRM
30, which is provided in Volume III. Under this program, trees that could interfere with the operation
of the existing lines are eliminated from within the cleared portion of the ROW and trees along the edges
are periodically trimmed or removed. The proposed vegetation removal would modify, but would not
eliminate, vegetation and wildlife habitat.

After the completion of construction, desirable native plant species can be expected to regenerate
naturally and the new transmission facilities would be as compatible with natural systems within the
Project area as the existing transmission facilities. WMECO would promote the establishment of
desirable low-growing plant species by selective applications of herbicide to control tree sapling and
undesirable invasive species, thereby enabling native plants to dominate within the ROW. Invasive or
potentially invasive shrub species that are controlled under the current vegetation management program
typically include multiflora rose, autumn olive, black locust, buckthorn, tree-of-heaven, and honeysuckle.

6.1.3.2       Grading, Excavation, and Soil Erosion Control
The GSRP would have negligible effects on topography. Grading would only be performed as required,
to create a level workspace in the immediate area around structure footings and to level access roads to
provide safe passage for construction vehicles/equipment. Grading would not typically be required where
the terrain is flat and open (e.g., in agricultural areas). However, in areas of rock outcrops or irregular
terrain, grading will be required, both to improve existing access ways and for new structure locations.
Where grading is required, temporary erosion control measures would be applied as necessary to stabilize
disturbed soils.

During construction, suitable erosion and sedimentation control measures would be installed, consistent
with WMECO’s final design plans and with the Massachusetts Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project           6-4                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



for Urban and Suburban Areas (MassDEP, 2003). Temporary erosion controls (e.g., silt fence, hay/straw
bales, filter socks, mulching, temporary and/or permanent reseeding) would be installed as needed, during
construction. The need for and extent of temporary or permanent erosion and sedimentation controls
would be a function of factors such as:

    •    Slope
    •    Type of vegetation removal method used and extent of vegetative cover remaining
    •    Type of soil
    •    Soil moisture regimes
    •    Schedule of future construction activities
    •    Proximity of cleared areas to water resources, roads, or other sensitive environmental resources
    •    Time of year
    •    Extreme weather conditions expected during or immediately following soil disturbance

6.1.3.3       Access Road Improvements
Continuous access along the existing transmission line ROWs will not likely be required. However,
access will be required to each transmission structure location, either by means of a lateral access road, or
by means of a road constructed longitudinally along a portion of the transmission line ROW. Along the
existing ROWs, many access roads are currently in place. Where present, these existing access roads
would typically be used for Project construction access. However, it is expected that most of these
existing roads will have to be improved (expanded, graded) or otherwise prepared for construction use. In
particular, the access roads must be improved to assure appropriate grades and to be of sufficient width
and capacity to safely support heavy construction equipment (such as oversize flat-bed trailers, cranes,
and concrete trucks) for not only the 115-kV, but also for the new 345-kV line (where applicable).

WMECO will implement the guidelines outlined in Northeast Utilities’ Best Management Practices
Manual for maintaining and improving access roads along the ROWs. Typically, improvements (e.g.,
grading to create a level surface for equipment movements, filling of ruts with crushed stone or gravel,
installing anti-tracking crushed stone pads at intersections with public roads) will be implemented to
provide a minimum access road width of 15 to 20 feet. In general, grades of access roads must be 10
percent or less to avoid steep slopes for safe maneuverability of construction vehicles.

Access roads may be graveled. Where streams or wetlands must be crossed, culverts and wetland mats
may be used or, if culverts are already present, improved. Erosion and sedimentation controls will be
installed before or in conjunction with the commencement of work on access roads. Erosion or rutting
along existing access roads will be repaired and maintained as needed to ensure the safety of work crews
and minimize the potential for erosion. Maintenance of ROW access roads during the construction phase
of the Project will also be required to allow equipment access.


The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          6-5                                           June 2008
Supplemental Report



WMECO’s standard practice is to install suitable crushed stone aprons/ramps, placed on geotextile fabric,
at road entrances to the ROW to avoid and/or minimize tracking of soil/mud onto the paved surfaces of
public streets. The use of timber mats, high-density plastic mats, or plywood sheeting will be
implemented where necessary for access through wetlands, across streams, and other sensitive areas in
order to minimize compression of soils, rutting, and disturbance to vegetation, subject to the approval of
local conservation commissions, MassDEP, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Equipment crossings
of wetlands and watercourses may require the installation of temporary culverts and rip-rap lined drainage
swales in order to maintain adequate drainage patterns. Use of these materials is temporary and they will
be removed as soon as all work is completed.

6.1.3.4       Blasting/Rock Removal
The preferred methods for excavation of rock are mechanical ripping, the use of compounds that react and
expand to fracture rock, or the application of cryogenic materials (e.g., liquid nitrogen). The selection of
a particular method will depend on site-specific factors such as proximity to structures (e.g., buildings and
transmission towers) and the characteristics of the rock to be removed. The handling, storage, and
application of expansive chemicals and/or cryogenic materials, if used, will be in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications and federal and/or state requirements. Any blasting will be performed by
licensed blasting contractor(s), pursuant to all applicable regulations.

6.1.3.5       Soils Handling and Management
A plan will be prepared for handling soils at various locations along the Project that potentially have been
affected by past releases of oil or other contaminants, as necessary. The procedures will include
appropriate notice to MassDEP and the filing and implementation of appropriate Utility Related
Abatement Measures (URAM) under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP).

6.1.3.6       Construction Dewatering and Stormwater Management
It is possible that groundwater may be encountered during subsurface work. If groundwater is
encountered, the water will be pumped from the excavated areas and discharged in accordance with
applicable local and state requirements. Along the overhead transmission routes, the only activity that
may involve the need for dewatering is excavation for structure foundations. If groundwater is
encountered and needs to be pumped from the excavation, it will be allowed to infiltrate back into upland
soils in the ROW without discharging to wetlands or streams.

While no new point source discharges of stormwater are expected to result from the installation of new
poles or improvement of access roads along the ROW, some new impervious surfaces tied to existing or



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          6-6                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



new point source discharges may occur at the substation and switching stations. In any cases where new
stormwater is generated and connected to point source discharges, stormwater will be managed in
accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Policies.

6.1.3.7       Spill Prevention and Response
As part of the final plans for the Project, WMECO will develop a spill prevention and response plan. The
plan will detail the procedures to be used during construction to minimize the potential for a fuel spill
and, if a spill occurs, to control and minimize the potential effects.


6.2 RARE SPECIES
To assess the potential for state- or federally-listed, endangered, threatened, or special concern plant or
animal species in the Project area, WMECO solicited database information from the Massachusetts
Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS); reviewed the mapping of Estimated Habitats, Priority Habitats and Certified Vernal Pools
available through MassGIS; and conducted field inspections of the Project routes and substation sites to
identify habitat types. In addition, actual field surveys for select rare species commenced in the spring of
2008, in accordance with NHESP-approved protocols.

The USFWS responded on November 11, 2007, indicating no federally-listed or proposed threatened or
endangered species or critical habitat under USFWS jurisdiction have been identified within the GSRP
area (see letter in Volume III). As a result, the USFWS determined that the preparation of a Biological
Assessment (pursuant to Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act) and/or further consultation
with the USFWS would not be required.

On January 9, 2008, NHESP responded to a WMECO information request by providing a list of estimated
and priority rare species habitat polygons, and associated rare plant and animal species known to occur in
the vicinity of the GSRP (see letter in Volume III).

6.2.1 Existing Conditions
According to NHESP, the preferred route crosses the estimated habitats of 15 state-listed rare animal
species, as summarized in Table 6-2 and as depicted in Figure 6-1. Note that several of the species
identified in NHESP’s information letter are not included in this table, as the result of subsequent project
meetings that have involved providing more refined project route data to NHESP staff. This is because
the project has been modified in the past year, effectively eliminating sections that previously traversed




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project            6-7                                          June 2008
Supplemental Report



habitat of the additional species listed in the NHESP letter. No rare plant species are reported to occur
along the preferred route.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         6-8                                            June 2008
 
Supplemental Report



                                              Figure 6-1:   National Heritage & Endangered Species Program Map




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project                                     6-9                              June 2008
 
Supplemental Report



6.2.1.1       General

Table 6-2:         Summary of State-Listed Rare Species Habitat Mapped within and/or Along
                                              the Preferred Routes


    Scientific Name              Common Name           NHESP Polygon Code(s)           General Location

 Acipenser brevirostrum       Shortnose Sturgeon      PH 1236, 1234                   CT River, Westfield
                                                      EH 875, 873                     River
 Alasmidonta undulata         Triangle Floater        PH 167, 1234                    Westfield River
                                                      EH 844, 873
 Ambystoma                    Jefferson Salamander    PH 1191                         Ludlow
 jeffersonianum                                       EH 564
 Ambystoma laterale           Blue-Spotted            PH 39, 966, 167, 1142           Various throughout
                              Salamander              EH 582, 303, 756, 844, 493
 Botarus lentiginosus         American Bittern        PH 678, 731, 732                Various
                                                      EH 129, 156, 157
 Catostomus catostomus        Longnose Sucker         PH 112; EH 815                  To be determined
 Glyptemys insculpta          Wood Turtle             PH 39, 785, 922, 167, 1149      Various throughout
                                                      EH 582, 164, 335, 756, 490
 Haliaeetus                   Bald Eagle              PH 1236, 1234; EH 875, 873      CT River, Westfield
 leucocephalus                                                                        River
 Hemidactylium                Four-Toed Salamander    PH 167, 1142, 1191, 1149        Various throughout
 scutatum                                             EH 564, 490, 756, 844, 493
 Lampsilis cariosa            Yellow Lampmussel       PH 1236; EH 875                 CT River
 Leptodea ochracea            Tidewater Mucket        PH 1236                         CT River
                                                      EH 875
 Neurocordulia                Stygian Shadowdragon    PH 1236                         CT River
 yamaskanensis                                        EH 875
 Stylurus amnicola            Riverine Clubtail       PH 1236; EH 875                 CT River
 Stylurus spiniceps           Arrow Clubtail          PH 1236, 1234; EH 875, 873      CT River, Westfield
                                                                                      River
 Terrapene carolina           Eastern Box Turtle      PH 167, 1101, 1102,1200, 1234   Various throughout
                                                      EH 756, 449, 450, 577, 873
 Acipenser brevirostrum       Shortnose Sturgeon      PH 1236, 1234                   CT River, Westfield
                                                      EH 875, 873                     River
 Alasmidonta undulata         Triangle Floater        PH 167, 1234                    Westfield River
                                                      EH 844, 873
 Ambystoma                    Jefferson Salamander    PH 1191                         East Longmeadow
 jeffersonianum                                       EH 564
 Ambystoma laterale           Blue-Spotted            PH 39, 966, 167, 1142           Various throughout
                              Salamander              EH 582, 303, 756, 844, 493
 Botarus lentiginosus         American Bittern        PH 678, 731, 732                Various
                                                      EH 129, 156, 157



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project           6-10                                          June 2008
Supplemental Report




    Scientific Name              Common Name          NHESP Polygon Code(s)           General Location

 Catostomus catostomus        Longnose Sucker        PH 112; EH 815                  To be determined
 Glyptemys insculpta          Wood Turtle            PH 39, 785, 922, 167, 1149      Various throughout
                                                     EH 582, 164, 335, 756, 490
 Haliaeetus                   Bald Eagle             PH 1236, 1234; EH 875, 873      CT River, Westfield
 leucocephalus                                                                       River
 Hemidactylium                Four-Toed Salamander   PH 167, 1142, 1191, 1149        Various throughout
 scutatum                                            EH 564, 490, 756, 844, 493
 Lampsilis cariosa            Yellow Lampmussel      PH 1236; EH 875                 CT River
 Leptodea ochracea            Tidewater Mucket       PH 1236                         CT River
                                                     EH 875
 Neurocordulia                Stygian Shadowdragon   PH 1236                         CT River
 yamaskanensis                                       EH 875
 Stylurus amnicola            Riverine Clubtail      PH 1236; EH 875                 CT River
 Terrapene carolina           Eastern Box Turtle     PH 167, 1101, 1102,1200, 1234   Various throughout
                                                     EH 756, 449, 450, 577, 873



A summary of the habitat requirements for each of the rare species mapped in the vicinity of the GSRP is
provided below. The information was obtained mainly from species fact sheets published by the NHESP.

    •    Jefferson Salamander. Found in a variety of habitats, the Jefferson Salamander prefers both
         deciduous and coniferous forests, where they can be found beneath logs, rocks, leaf litter, or in
         burrows of small woodland animals. Ponds that retain water into midsummer are vital for
         breeding, and the salamanders will migrate there to reproduce. Logging operations, especially the
         clear cutting of woodlands, are one of the greatest threats to this forest floor inhabitant. The
         construction, and presence, of roads that intersect the migration route to breeding ponds also
         threaten the persistence of this species. Intensive surveys and live trappings were conducted for
         this species for nearly five weeks in the Spring of 2008, in accordance with a detailed, NHESP-
         approved protocol. No Jefferson Salamanders were captured in traps, nor were salamander
         spermatophores or egg masses observed within the NHESP-designed study area of the preferred
         routes.
    •    Blue Spotted Salamander. Found in a variety of habitats, the Blue-spotted Salamander prefers
         both deciduous and coniferous forests, where they can be found beneath logs, rocks, leaf litter, or
         in burrows of small woodland animals. Ponds that retain water into midsummer are vital for
         breeding, and the salamanders will migrate there to reproduce. Logging operations, especially the
         clear cutting of woodlands, are one of the greatest threats to this forest floor inhabitant. The
         construction, and presence, of roads that intersect the migration route to breeding ponds also
         threaten the persistence of this species. Intensive surveys and live trappings were conducted for
         this species for nearly five weeks in the Spring of 2008, in accordance with a detailed, NHESP-
         approved protocol. No Jefferson Salamanders were captured in traps, nor were salamander
         spermatophores or egg masses observed within the NHESP-designated study area of the preferred
         routes.
    •    Wood Turtle. The Wood Turtle is one of the most terrestrial turtles in the United States, and is
         usually found inhabiting forested areas associated with rivers or streams. The species prefers


The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          6-11                                          June 2008
Supplemental Report



         streams with harder substrates, moderate currents and clear water. The Wood Turtle is
         omnivorous and may be observed eating insects, worms, and even strawberries and blackberries.
         Habitat loss, highway mortality and collection for the pet trade industry are causing declines in
         adult Wood Turtle numbers. Additional pressures have also been placed on Wood Turtle nesting
         sites. Wood Turtles nest on sandy river banks, and unfortunately, these areas are often targeted
         for the placement of stabilizing structures. These structures often negatively impact turtles as
         they can block females from reaching the sand bank, as well as trap the young emerging from the
         nest. In some areas sandy river banks are also used quite heavily by recreationists. Increased
         activity, particularly during the nesting season, may negatively influence normal nesting
         behavior, as well as disturb nest sites.
    •    Shortnose Sturgeon. The Shortnose sturgeon is the only federally endangered freshwater fish in
         New England. Shortnose sturgeon inhabits rivers and estuaries. It is an anadromous fish that
         spawns in the coastal rivers along the east coast of North America from the St. John River in
         Canada to the St. Johns River in Florida. It prefers the nearshore marine, estuarine, and riverine
         habitat of large river systems. Shortnose sturgeon, unlike other anadromous species in the region
         such as shad or salmon, does not appear to make long distance offshore migrations. They are
         benthic feeders. Juveniles are believed to feed on benthic insects and crustaceans. Mollusks and
         large crustaceans are the primary food of adult shortnose sturgeon. Construction of dams and
         pollution of many large northeastern river systems during the period of industrial growth in the
         late 1800's and early 1900's may have resulted in substantial loss of suitable habitat. In addition,
         habitat alterations from discharges, dredging or disposal of material into rivers, or related
         development activities involving estuarine/riverine mudflats and marshes, remain constant
         threats. Commercial exploitation of shortnose sturgeon occurred throughout its range starting in
         colonial times and continued periodically into the 1950's.
    •    Bald Eagle. Bald Eagles live near large bodies of open water such as lakes, marshes, seacoasts
         and rivers, where there are plenty of fish to eat and tall trees for nesting and roosting. Bald
         Eagles use a specific territory for nesting, winter feeding or a year-round residence. Eagles that
         reside in the northern U. S. and Canada migrate to the warmer southern climates of the U. S.
         during the winter to obtain easier access to food, especially fish. In Western Massachusetts there
         are several known nesting sites of Bald Eagles along the Connecticut River – the closest to the
         Project is in West Springfield. Preservation of large trees along the River that are structurally
         amenable for nest-building (e.g., Eastern Cottonwood) is an important management consideration
         for this species.
    •    Yellow Lamp Mussel. The Yellow Lamp Mussel inhabits shoals and riffles in sandy-bottomed,
         large fast-flowing rivers, and is occasionally found in ponds, but not in Massachusetts.
         Historically, it was found in the Merrimack River near Haverhill and throughout the Connecticut
         River. A small stretch of the Connecticut River from Sunderland to Deerfield was thought until
         recently to be the only remaining site in Massachusetts where the Yellow Lamp Mussel could still
         be found, but it has been positively identified in the River well south of Sunderland in the past
         few years.
    •    Tidewater Mucket. This mussel species occurs principally in quiet waters (i.e., ponds, canals,
         and slow-moving parts of rivers). In Massachusetts, the Tidewater Mucket prefers natural coastal
         freshwater ponds of several acres with clear, clean water and a sandy substrate. In other parts of
         its range, this species may be found on mud or sand bottoms. It always occurs only near the
         seacoast. One of the greatest threats to this species is acid rain. This species of mussel is habitat-
         sensitive and its population is threatened by the effects of acid rain not only damaging the
         mussel's tissues but by harming its required host fish. Research shows that the gills of the host
         fish for this mussel (e.g., alewife) are adversely affected by acid rain. These results have a
         definite impact on glochidia which prefer fish gills as sites for parasitism. When this parasitic
         stage is lost or altered, it may result in the death of the freshwater mussel glochidia and therefore



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          6-12                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



         diminish the viability of population reproduction. The chemical make-up of the glacial soils in
         the habitat areas where the Tidewater Mucket exists lack the buffering capabilities to shield it
         from the harmful effects of acid rain.
    •    Stygian Shadowdragon. This juvenile, aquatic stage of this species of dragonfly is found on
         lakes with rocky shores and in medium to large rivers with little vegetation. Adults inhabit
         riparian areas and the surrounding uplands. In Massachusetts it is known only from the
         Connecticut River. Greatest threats to this species seem to be erosion of soils into the River
         which negatively affects water quality, and the wakes created by power boats and jet skis on the
         River which can destroy large numbers of these dragonflies as they are going through
         metamorphosis (i.e., their larval, aquatic stage to adult, winged stage) while attached to shoreline
         plants.
    •    Riverine Clubtail. The individuals of the aquatic stage of this dragonfly species inhabit mainly
         medium to large rivers. Adults inhabit riparian areas and the surrounding uplands. All the
         records of this species in Massachusetts are from the Connecticut River. The greatest threats to
         this species appear to be disruption of natural flooding regimes due to dams, impacts to water
         quality – such as sedimentation and erosion, and the wakes created by power boats and jet skis on
         the River which can destroy large numbers of these dragonflies as they are going through
         metamorphosis (i.e., their larval, aquatic stage to adult, winged stage) while attached to shoreline
         plants or rocks.
    •    Arrow Clubtail. The aquatic stage (nymphs) of this species primarily inhabit medium to large
         sandy-bottomed, swift rivers, and occasionally wind-swept lakes. Adults inhabit riparian areas
         and the surrounding uplands. The only recent records of this species come from the Connecticut
         River. The threats posed to the Stygian Shadowdragon and Riverine Clubtail (described above)
         are the same for this species.
    •    Eastern Worm Snake. The Eastern Wormsnake prefers moist, non-saturated, sandy soil and
         woody debris. It occurs in deciduous hardwood forest, mixed pine-hardwoods, pine forest, and
         early successional fields. Often found in ecotone areas near woodland and wetland borders or
         woodland and grassland intersections. Microhabitat soil moisture ranges and pH ranges that this
         snake inhabits are similar to that of their preferred prey, the earthworm. They are typically found
         under logs, stones, leaves, bark slabs, rubbish, boards open loose soft ground, sawdust or mulch
         piles and rotten stumps or under the ground. Wormsnakes are often encountered in gardens,
         compost piles, weedy pastures, and wooded areas. In Massachusetts they have only been recently
         documented within 5 towns of southern Hampden County. Roads may place this species at risk
         due to mortality while crossing and flooding of its habitats and insecticide poisoning can cause
         mortality. In addition to land protection, management recommendations to safeguard known
         populations would include limiting logging within its habitat to the winter months.
    •    Four-Toed Salamander. Four-toed salamanders live in forested habitats surrounding swamps,
         bogs, marshes, vernal pools, and other fish-free aquatic sites that are used as breeding sites. They
         are associated with mature hardwood or coniferous forests and when encountered can be found
         under cover objects such as logs, bark and boards on the forest floor. Juvenile and adult male
         salamanders are primarily terrestrial. Four-toed Salamanders overwinter in forested habitat in
         holes, channels and other crevices in the ground. Appropriate breeding habitat includes wetlands
         with hummocks of grasses, sedges or wet moss (usually sphagnum moss) adjacent to slow
         moving streams or pools of sanding water. The greatest threat to the four-toed salamander is
         habitat destruction resulting from road construction, development, and timber harvesting in and
         around boggy wetlands, peatlands, and forest wetlands. Given the four-toed salamanders
         preference for nesting sites in bogs with sphagnum moss, every effort must be made to protect the
         natural state of bog areas throughout Massachusetts. In particular, suitable nesting substrate –
         sphagnum hummocks abutting pools of water deep enough for larval survival – may be limited,




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         6-13                                           June 2008
Supplemental Report



         even within relatively large wetlands. Every effort should be made to identify areas that could
         potentially serve as nesting habitat and locate work away from these areas.
    •    Eastern Spadefoot. This burrowing toad species requires dry, sand or sandy loam soils
         characteristic of Pitch Pine barrens, coastal oak woodlands or sparse shrub growth, interspersed
         with temporary ponds. It prefers areas with leaf litter, and may be found in farmland areas.
         Colonies may occur within the floodplains of major rivers. Destruction of suitable habitat
         continues to limit its numbers; Spadefoot populations have been extirpated by development from
         Middlesex County, inland Essex County and parts of Martha's Vineyard. The species is
         vulnerable to pesticides, as it was extirpated in Nantucket after WWII by the use of DDT. Many
         individuals are killed crossing roads, especially during the breeding season.
    •    Eastern Box Turtle. Favoring moderately drained deciduous or mixed woodlands, particularly
         ones with sandy soil, the Eastern Box Turtle is found almost exclusively on land. The species can
         also be found in thickets, fields, pastures, vegetated dunes, marshes, and the edges of bogs. Areas
         with the highest turtle densities feature moist, open forest with ravines or mid-sized slopes.
         Access to water is important for the Eastern Box Turtle, who will sometimes soak around the
         edges of small streams or ponds on a hot day. Like most turtles, declining numbers can often be
         attributed to habitat destruction and pollution. Box turtles also live long lives, regularly reaching
         between 40 to 50 years, with a record of 138 years. Sexual maturity is reached at around 10 years
         of age. Factors such as deforestation, road mortalities, spreading suburban development, and
         collection for the pet trade coupled with the length of time before sexual maturity leaves the turtle
         populations vulnerable.
    •    Triangle Floater. In northeastern North America, the triangle floater inhabits small to large
         rivers and lakes. It is more commonly found in flowing water, where it occupies a wide range of
         substrate and flow conditions. Preferred habitats include low-gradient river reaches with sand
         and gravel substrates and low to moderate water velocities. It has been found in streams smaller
         than five meters wide and rivers wider than 100 meters. The triangle floater is the only species in
         the genus Alasmidonta that inhabits lakes; it occurs in both natural lakes and reservoirs
         occasionally in Massachusetts and in Maine, although at lower population densities than in rivers.
         Its ability to tolerate standing water makes this species less sensitive to the effects of dams than
         other species, such as the brook floater. In fact, at times it is as abundant in small impoundments
         of run-of-river dams as it is in free-flowing portions of rivers. Like most other mussel species,
         triangle floaters are sparse or absent in headwater streams and high-gradient river reaches.

At the request of NHESP, and in accordance with NHESP approved field methods, WMECO has
conducted field surveys for the terrestrial and wetland species listed above that may be affected by the
Project and that can be practically identified in the field prior to construction. No surveys have been
conducted for the species that are exclusively aquatic (e.g., fish, mussels, dragonfly larvae) as no impacts
are proposed to the waterways potentially possessing these species. While none of the terrestrial or
wetland species identified during surveys occur on the preferred routes, two species of rare salamanders
and at least one rare plant species have been confirmed to occur along the noticed-alternative route.

6.2.1.2       Vernal Pools
Vernal pools are isolated depressions that provide critical breeding habitat for several rare amphibian and
invertebrate species throughout the spring (and sometimes autumn) and are classified as Class B
Outstanding Resource Waters. Massachusetts has a vernal pool certification process as well as a state-



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          6-14                                           June 2008
Supplemental Report



wide GIS layer that shows certified vernal pools as well as areas suspected to be functioning as vernal
pool habitat (i.e., potential vernal pools (PVPs)). A number of certified and potential vernal pools have
been identified along the GSRP routes, and a list of these areas is provided in Volume III.

In order to determine if an isolated depression functions as a vernal pool, it is necessary to perform vernal
pool surveys in the spring. In western Massachusetts, depending on the particular animal species and
exact geographic location, the spring amphibian breeding period can extend from March through May,
and potentially beyond.

In 2007, WMECO commissioned wetland delineation field surveys of the Project ROWs (refer to Section
6.3). As part of those surveys, isolated depressions were identified and then evaluated as potential vernal
pools, based upon physical characteristics such as pools of water (when present), calls of obligate vernal
pool amphibians, direct evidence of obligate amphibian breeding (egg masses, amphibian larvae), distinct
depressions in wetlands combined with water stained leaves (if dry), significant water marks on
vegetation and/or rocks, as well as marked pit and mound topography. Further surveys were conducted in
spring 2008 in accordance with NHESP-approved protocols to confirm whether isolated areas previously
identified, but not initially surveyed during the amphibian breeding period, function as vernal pools. The
results of these surveys suggest that a number of wetlands along the preferred routes provide vernal pool
habitat, though none have been confirmed to actually contain state-listed species.

6.2.2 Potential Effects
Effects on rare species habitat and vernal pools could occur during the construction of the Project from
vegetation removal during critical breeding/nesting periods, improvement of access roads, use of heavy
machinery on access roads during critical breeding/nesting periods, improper or inadequate use of
sedimentation and erosion controls, destruction of unique and critical structural habitat features, and/or
through the temporary use of equipment staging pads and timber mats, if not timed appropriately. The
long-term operation and maintenance (O&M) of the Project facilities is not anticipated to have adverse
effects on rare species, as long as the work is conducted in accordance with an O&M Plan approved by
NHESP. Proper construction provisions will be employed to avoid a jurisdictional taking of the state-
listed animal species listed in Table 6-2.

6.2.3 Mitigation Measures
As stated above, no rare plant or animal species have been confirmed to date, to occur along the preferred
route. However, WMECO and NHESP have discussed the possible construction measures and




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         6-15                                           June 2008
Supplemental Report



monitoring that will be required in order to avoid the taking of rare species that are difficult to find and
that may not be discovered until the construction phase begins. These are likely to include:

    •    The avoidance of impacts to trees within 300 feet of the Connecticut River to ensure no loss of
         active bald eagle nesting habitat;
    •    The use of, and rigorous monitoring and maintenance of sedimentation and erosion control
         measures to prevent water quality impacts to the rare dragonfly, mussel, and fish habitat areas;
    •    Re-vegetation to the greatest extent practicable within 200 feet of the waterways known to
         possess the rare dragonfly, mussel, and fish habitat areas;
    •    Use of low-pressure equipment to the greatest extent practicable and/or appropriate construction
         timing to avoid impacts to the Eastern Worm Snake and Eastern Spadefoot; and
    •    The preparation and approval (by NHESP) of a formal “Turtle Protection Plan”, in conjunction
         with possible construction timing and/or daily “sweeps” of the construction area by an approved
         biologist, in order to avoid the taking or injury to the Eastern Box Turtle and Wood Turtle.

WMECO anticipates further consultation with NHESP will occur during the next few months in order to
formulate a detailed construction and monitoring plan intended to avoid impacts to rare species. Said
plan is expected to be included in the SEIR.


6.3 WETLANDS, WATERWAYS & TIDELANDS
The GSRP is not located in the vicinity of any tidelands. Baseline research and field studies were
conducted to delineate freshwater wetlands and waterways along the Project routes. The following
resources were used, to determine areas where wetlands would be particularly likely to be found along the
GSRP area:

    •    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Mapping
    •    MassDEP Wetlands Mapping
    •    USDA/NRCS Soil Surveys

Following this desktop research, field studies were conducted (throughout 2007) to identify the type and
extent of local, state, and federal jurisdictional wetlands, watercourses, and waterways along the proposed
GSRP routes. Field surveys were performed according to the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual
(Environmental Laboratory 1987), the MassDEP Wetlands Delineation Manual, and the applicable
municipal Wetlands Protection By-Law Rules and Regulations. Each wetland and watercourse boundary
was demarcated by numbered flagging, which was subsequently surveyed in the field using a Trimble
Global Positing System (GPS) survey unit. Wetlands were classified as palustrine forested (PFO),
palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS), palustrine emergent (PEM) or riverine systems in accordance with
Cowardin et al. (1979). In locations where a wetland could be characterized by more than one wetland
classification type, the most dominant cover type was used.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          6-16                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



6.3.1 Existing Conditions

6.3.1.1       Streams and Rivers
The Project area is located within three different watersheds: the Connecticut River Basin; the Chicopee
River Basin, and the Westfield River Basin. The Chicopee River and Westfield River both discharge to
the Connecticut River, which is the largest drainage system in New England. The Connecticut River
Basin spans 11,263 square miles and includes the states of Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and
Connecticut. This drainage basin covers approximately 2,728 square miles within Massachusetts and
drains all or part of 45 municipalities within the Commonwealth. Twenty-six streams or rivers are
crossed by the preferred route (see complete list in Volume III). These are depicted in the 400-Scale
Aerial Segment Maps provided in Attachment 1 of the EENF.

Among the other waterways crossed by or in the vicinity of the preferred route are:

    •    Still Brook (Agawam)
    •    Philo Brook (Agawam)
    •    Three Mile Brook (Agawam)
    •    Piper Brook (West Springfield)
    •    Bagg Brook (West Springfield)
    •    Schoolhouse Brook (West Springfield)
    •    Fuller Brook (Chicopee)
    •    Harris Brook (Ludlow)
    •    Higher Brook (Ludlow)

6.3.1.2       Wetlands
The existing overhead transmission line ROWs that the preferred route follow encompass a variety of
wetlands. Most of these wetlands have been historically affected (and in some cases, created) by the
routine vegetation management and soil compaction associated with vehicles used to maintain the safe
operation of the transmission facilities. The wetlands found along the existing transmission line ROWs
typically consist of scrub-shrub, emergent marsh, or wet meadow vegetation. In some areas of the GSRP
routes where the ROWs need to be expanded or where the full width of the existing ROW has not been
maintained, forested wetlands also are present. A total of 100 Massachusetts-designated wetland resource
areas and jurisdictional federal wetlands (see complete list in Volume III) were identified and surveyed
along or in the immediate vicinity of the preferred routes, including:

    •    Bordering Vegetated Wetlands
    •    Land under Waterbodies and Waterways (i.e., land under streams, rivers, ponds, and lakes)
    •    Isolated Wetlands
    •    200-Foot Riverfront Area
    •    Bordering Land Subject to Flooding (i.e., 100-year floodplain)


The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         6-17                                         June 2008
Supplemental Report



Isolated wetlands are not jurisdictional Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act resource areas unless they
hold enough water to meet the definition of Isolated Land Subject to Flooding (310 CMR 10.57).
However, given the often unclear determination as to what constitutes a truly “isolated” wetland, the
derivation of alterations to bordering vegetated wetlands in the ENF Form and in the table below actually
represent the total alterations proposed to all vegetated wetlands, whether construed by WMECO to be
“isolated” or not. Bordering vegetated wetlands (BVWs), Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways
(LUWW), and isolated wetlands are generally all considered “Waters of the United States”, subject to
Section 404 and Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act, and equal weight is generally afforded to
these wetland types in terms of protection under these programs. There are no tidelands within the GSRP
area.

6.3.2 Potential Effects

6.3.2.1       Streams and Rivers
No transmission structures are proposed to be installed in any streams or rivers. Any potential effects on
small streams would be limited to the construction phase and be short term. These effects would be
related to activities such as stream-side vegetation management and the placement of temporary mats or
bridges to allow construction equipment to cross. No crossings are proposed for the medium-sized to
larger streams and rivers located along the project.

WMECO proposes to avoid direct construction work in watercourses and to limit the potential for indirect
effects associated with erosion, sedimentation or spills into streams and rivers from nearby upland
construction activities.

6.3.2.2       Wetlands
Effects on wetlands could occur from vegetation removal, the temporary placement of timber mats that
will be needed in order to allow heavy machinery to cross certain wetlands, the placement of equipment
staging pads, grading and filling necessary to improve access roads, and the installation some new
transmission line structures and/or foundations within wetlands. The bulk of these effects will occur from
staging pads and improvement of access roads. While alterations of wetland resource areas will exceed
the typical thresholds associated with the General Performance Standards of the Massachusetts Wetlands
Protection Act, the GSRP qualifies as Limited Project, per 310 CMR 10.53(3)(d): “… the construction,
reconstruction, operation and maintenance of underground and overhead public utilities...” The Limited
Project provisions were created for projects that are generally larger in nature, provide a public service or
benefit, and cannot be designed in a fashion that allows for impacts that fall under all the General
Performance Standard thresholds.


The Greater Springfield Reliability Project            6-18                                         June 2008
Supplemental Report



6.3.2.3        Floodplains
Effects to floodplains will occur from vegetation removal, grading, installation of staging pads, and
installation of new structures within floodplain boundaries. The impacts from vegetation removal and/or
grading would be temporary. While new structures will be sited beyond the 100-year floodplain
boundaries to the greatest extent feasible, some new permanent structures will unavoidably be located in
floodplains.

Table 6-3 provides a summary of the estimated maximum alterations – both temporary and permanent –
that will occur to local, state, and federally-protected watercourses, wetlands, and floodplains as a result
of the proposed Project. As the design is further refined, these impacts should decrease. Table 6-4
provides a breakout of estimated wetland resource area alterations by municipality.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          6-19                                           June 2008
Supplemental Report



     Table 6-3:         Summary of Maximum Estimated Alterations to Jurisdictional Wetlands
                                        along the GSRP Preferred Routes

     Wetland/Resource Area Type               Temporary Alterations               Permanent Alterations
     Bordering and Isolated Vegetated              18,456 square feet                579,645 square feet
     Wetlands
     Land Under                                       0 square feet                     0 square feet
     Waterbodies/Waterways
     Bank                                             0 linear feet                     0 linear feet
     Bordering Land Subject to                     7,751 square feet                 126,443 square feet
     Flooding 1,2
1
    The BLSF boundary is the upper boundary of the statistical 100-year storm.
2
    In some GSRP locations Riverfront Area and Floodplain also encompass vegetated wetlands.

    Table 6-4:       Summary of Estimated Jurisdictional Wetland Resource Area Alterations,
                                                      by Town

       Municipality       Wetland/Resource Area                   Estimated           Estimated
                                  Type                           Alterations      Alterations (Acres)
                                                                (Square Feet)
     Agawam               Bordering and Isolated                   126,926                 2.9
     Map Sheets:          Vegetated Wetlands
     1-3 of 3
     1-3 of 3
     1 of 15
     1-3 of 17
                          Bordering Land Subject to                     0                      0
                          Flooding*
                          Riverfront Area*                         114,081                     2.6
                          Agawam Total                             241,007                     5.5
     West Springfield     Bordering and Isolated                      38,493               0.9
     Map Sheets:          Vegetated Wetlands
     1-5 of 15
                          Bordering Land Subject to                   8,026                    0.2
                          Flooding
                          Riverfront Area                          129,560                     3.0
                          West Springfield Total                   176,079                     4.1
     Springfield          Bordering and Isolated                       270                 0.01
     Map Sheets:          Vegetated Wetlands
     1-2 of 2

                          Bordering Land Subject to                    53                 0.001
                          Flooding
                          Riverfront Area                               0                   0
                          Springfield Total                            323                 0.01



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project              6-20                                           June 2008
Supplemental Report



    Municipality         Wetland/Resource Area                 Estimated           Estimated
                                 Type                         Alterations      Alterations (Acres)
                                                             (Square Feet)
  Chicopee               Bordering and Isolated                 164,635                 3.8
  Map Sheets:            Vegetated Wetlands
  5-10 of 15
  1-2 of 2
                         Bordering Land Subject to              101,046                 2.3
                         Flooding
                         Riverfront Area                         47,882                 1.1
                         Chicopee Total                         313,563                 7.2
  Ludlow                 Bordering and Isolated                 259,749                 6.0
  Map Sheets:            Vegetated Wetlands
  10-15 of 15

                         Bordering Land Subject to              25,069                  0.6
                         Flooding
                         Riverfront Area                        129,560                 2.9
                         Ludlow Total                           414,378                 9.5
* In certain cases BLSF and Riverfront Area overlap with vegetated wetlands.

6.3.3 Mitigation Measures

6.3.3.1       Streams and Rivers
WMECO will implement the following measures to minimize the potential effects of construction
activities in or near watercourses:

    •    Where existing access roads that cross stream bottoms must be improved, clean materials will be
         used (e.g., clean riprap or equivalent, rock fords);
    •    Water flows will not be constrained at any time during construction. Watercourses will be
         bridged or culverted, as necessary, to allow equipment to cross;
    •    Overhead crossings will have adequate clearance to avoid any impacts to navigation or competing
         uses;
    •    Concrete (used for structure foundations) will not be mixed or placed so as to enter a watercourse;
         and
    •    Installation of new culverts at currently day-lighted stream reaches will be avoided to the greatest
         extent

6.3.3.2       Wetlands
Where possible, WMECO will minimize effects on wetlands by avoiding the placement of new structures
in wetlands and minimizing the expansion of access roads through wetlands. Despite these efforts,
however, it is likely that some permanent wetland filling will be unavoidable.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project           6-21                                         June 2008
Supplemental Report



In general, during construction, WMECO will minimize effects on wetlands by implementing the
following practices:

    •    Limiting grading for access roads and in wetlands to the amount necessary to provide a safe
         workspace. The impact numbers in Table 6-3 assume a worst case in that all improved/proposed
         access roads will have widths of 20 feet. In some cases, it may be possible to reduce this width.
         Such semi-final constructability details will be refined prior to submittal of wetland permit
         applications and the EIR.
    •    Installing temporary timber matting, swamp mats, or geotexile and stone pads for access roads
         across wetlands or to establish safe and stable construction work areas/crane pads within
         wetlands, where necessary. The impact numbers in Table 6-3 assume a conservative, worst case
         impact assuming that access roads through wetlands will be permanent and that all existing access
         roads will need to be improved. It is possible, however, that certain of the proposed access roads
         will be temporary. These constructability details will be refined prior to submittal of wetland
         permit applications and the SEIR.
    •    Avoiding the placement of new structures and facilities in wetland areas where possible.
    •    Restoring wetlands to their pre-construction configurations and contours to the extent practicable
    •    Providing appropriate compensatory mitigation (in collaborative consultation with local, state,
         and federal resource agencies) in order to offset any permanent wetland impacts. To date,
         WMECO and its wetlands consultants have participated in pre-application meetings with
         MassDEP Western Regional Office Wetlands and Waterways Program staff, as well as the U.S.
         Army Corps of Engineers to initiate discussions regarding compensatory mitigation, and intend to
         have pre-application meetings with the conservation commissions of Agawam, West Springfield,
         Springfield, Chicopee, and Ludlow to discuss the topic as well. The intent will be to develop a
         compensatory wetlands mitigation package acceptable to all the reviewing agencies, and which
         suitably demonstrates no net loss of existing wetland functions values, and statutory interests
         within the watershed. Compensatory mitigation for the GSRP may include:
             o On-site wetlands restoration and/or enhancement (e.g., replacement of existing
                  compromised culverts conveying streams flows; improvement of existing ford crossings
                  that could benefit from more stabilization; placement of natural obstacles, such as
                  boulders, at the perimeter of especially high quality wetlands, such as vernal pools, in
                  order to impede illicit and destructive all-terrain vehicle (ATV) usage in these areas;
             o Mitigation banking, should such a site exist in the Connecticut River Watershed of
                  Massachusetts at the time of pre-construction;
             o In-lieu of fees, if applicable;
             o On-or-off-site wetlands creation;
             o Off-site wetlands restoration; and/or
             o Wetlands preservation.

The particular mix of these mitigation measures will be developed during the planned pre-application
meetings with federal, state and local wetlands regulatory agencies, and will be further described in the
SEIR.

6.3.3.3       Floodplains
It is likely that some permanent floodplain filling associated with structure foundations that cannot
reasonably be sited beyond floodplain limits will occur. Where unavoidable fills will occur in
floodplains, compensatory flood storage will be provided in accordance with the applicable performance


The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         6-22                                           June 2008
Supplemental Report



standards of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act as outlined at 310 CMR 10.57(4)(1). The
remaining performance standards for Bordering Land Subject to Flooding will be complied with to the
greatest extent feasible.


6.4 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

6.4.1 Existing Conditions
The overhead transmission lines will cross various roads, ranging from Interstates 91, 291, and the
Massachusetts Turnpike, to municipal streets, as well as several railroad lines.

6.4.2 Potential Effects
The GSRP does not exceed any of the ENF or EIR thresholds for transportation outlined at 301 CMR
11.03(6). The installation and operation of the overhead transmission line facilities will not affect the
normal use of the transportation infrastructure within the GSRP area. The well-established public road
network in the Project area will afford ready access for construction vehicles and equipment to most work
sites. Further, the access roads that exist within the existing transmission ROW are expected to be used to
perform most construction activities, along with other roads that may be identified during subsequent
Project planning efforts.

6.4.3 Mitigation Measures
No transportation infrastructure mitigation measures are expected to be needed for the GSRP, with the
exception of the installation of track pads at the entry and exit points between public roads and the off-
road utility line ROWs. The use of these track pads, as well as periodic sweeping, will serve to keep soils
and other debris off the public roads.


6.5 AIR

6.5.1 Existing Conditions
Ambient air quality monitoring data are available to characterize ambient concentrations of criteria
pollutants in the Springfield, Massachusetts area. Table 6-5 summarizes the historical monitoring data
considered to be most representative of ambient air quality in the Springfield area for the period 2004 to
2006. The table lists the maximum annual average concentration in each year and a near peak short-term
concentration. The highest of the second-highest concentrations are listed for all short term averaging
periods except for 24-hour PM2.5 and 8-hour O3 (ozone) where the 98th percentile and highest of the
fourth highest concentration are listed respectively. All data were obtained from the USEPA AIRDATA
database (http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html).



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          6-23                                          June 2008
Supplemental Report



In comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) listed in Table 6-5, the ambient
background concentrations are less than the standard for all pollutants and averaging periods with the
exception of 8-hour O3. Springfield is within a non-attainment area for 8-hour ozone where the three year
average of the fourth highest daily maximum concentrations exceeds the standard of 157 µg/m3.
However, the non-attainment area is considered to be moderate since the three year average does not
exceed 210 µg/m3.

Ambient air quality in the GSRP area is affected by pollutants emitted from both mobile sources (e.g.,
automobiles, trucks) and stationary sources (e.g., manufacturing facilities, power plants, gasoline
stations). There are naturally occurring pollutants as well, such as radon gas or emissions from forest
fires that affect air quality. In addition to emissions from sources within the state, Massachusetts’ air
quality is significantly affected by pollutants that are emitted in states located to the south and west, and
then transported into Massachusetts by prevailing winds. Ambient air quality in the state is monitored
and evaluated by MassDEP. Air quality conditions are assessed in terms of compliance with national
standards for selected “criteria” pollutants, as well as conformance with regulations governing the release
of toxic or hazardous air pollutants.

              Table 6-5:         Ambient Air Quality Concentrations in the Project Area

                                                                    Concentration (µg/m3)           NAAQS
 Pollutant           Monitor             Averaging Period
                                                                    2004           2005     2006    (µg/m3)
               Liberty Parking Lot       1-hour             5,382             3,779         3,550   40,000
 CO
               Springfield, MA           8-hour             3,550             2,977         2,748   10,000
               Liberty Parking Lot
 NO2                                     Annual             32.0              32.0          28.2    100
               Springfield, MA

               1860 Main Street          24-hour            48                53            49      150
 PM10
               Springfield, MA           Annual             19                23            19      50
                                         24-hour            32                30            34      35
               Liberty Parking Lot
 PM2.5
               Springfield, MA
                                         Annual             12.2              12.7          11.3    15
               Anderson Road
 O3                                      8-hour             152.9             176.4         176.4   157
               Chicopee, MA
                                         3-hour             99.6              96.9          78.6    1300
               Liberty Parking Lot       24-hour            60.3              55.0          44.5    365
 SO2
               Springfield, MA
                                         Annual             15.7              15.7          10.5    80




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          6-24                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



                                                                   Concentration (µg/m3)          NAAQS
 Pollutant           Monitor             Averaging Period
                                                                   2004         2005       2006   (µg/m3)

               Kenmore Sq.               Calendar
 Pb                                                         0.02             0.01          0.01   1.5
               Boston, MA                quarter
 Source: http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html




6.5.2 Potential Effects
The GSRP does not exceed any of the ENF or EIR thresholds for air outlined at 301 CMR 11.03(8), and
does not require any air plan approvals from MassDEP. The proposed Project will result in short-term,
highly localized impacts on air quality during construction as well as with demolition and construction
activities at the substation and switching station sites, and along the existing overhead transmission line
ROW.

6.5.3 Mitigation Measures
To minimize the amount of dust generated by construction and demolition activities, the extent of
exposed/disturbed areas along ROWs at any one time will be minimized, and streets will be swept as
necessary. Crushed stone pads will be added to points of ingress/egress along the overhead ROW as
necessary to minimize the potential for equipment to track dirt onto roads. In addition, to minimize dust,
water may be used to wet down disturbed soils along the overhead line ROW, as needed.

The Project will file notices of construction and demolition activity with MassDEP under 310 CMR 7.13
as required, and will deploy dust mitigation measures There will be no adverse effects on air quality
associated with the operation of the Project facilities.


6.6 HISTORICAL & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources include buried archaeological sites, standing historic structures, or thematically-related
groups of structures. To be considered significant and eligible for listing on the National or State
Registers of Historic Places (NRHP/SRHP), a cultural resource must exhibit physical integrity and
contribute to American history, architecture, archaeology, technology, or culture; and must possess at
least one of the following four criteria:

      •   Association with important historic events
      •   Association with important persons
      •   Distinctive design or physical characteristics
      •   Potential to provide important new information about prehistory or history


The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          6-25                                           June 2008
Supplemental Report



In Massachusetts, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is known as the Massachusetts Historical
Commission (MHC) and is responsible for reviewing projects to assure that significant cultural resources
will be protected or otherwise preserved.

To conduct historic and archaeological research for the Project area, WMECO retained Archaeological
Services at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst (UMass) to conduct predictive modeling studies.
UMass, which specializes in historical and social sciences and the management of cultural resources, was
retained to compile information about the history and prehistory of the Project area; to identify the known
cultural resources in the Project area; and, based on such information, to make recommendations
regarding the potential for locating as yet undiscovered resources during the development of the Project.
The study was conducted in consultation with the MHC and the Massachusetts State Archaeologist.
UMass consulted with the MHC regarding the studies required to identify and evaluate the known or
potential significant cultural resources along the subject Project’s primary and alternative routes, and has
conducted a Predictive Modeling Analysis. The MHC verbally concurred with the scope of work, based
on similar studies completed for transmission projects in Massachusetts.

6.6.1 Existing Conditions
The results of the UMASS studies are detailed in the report Archaeological Predictive Modeling Analysis
for the Greater Springfield Reliability Project: 345-kV System and Additional 115-kV Segments,
Hampden County, Massachusetts. This report, which is included in Volume III, addresses both
archaeological and historic resources.

Archaeological/Native American Site Sensitivity
Documentary evidence of pre-Contact Native American sites rarely exists. Therefore, the likelihood of
encountering Native American sites is predicted on the basis of an environmental model which uses
geological, soil, and climatic data; known site locations in the southern New England region; and
expected Native American site locational patterns. Using the factors of these patterns the following
predictive modeling criteria can be applied:

    •    High Sensitivity. Undisturbed areas less than 300 meters (1,000 feet) from water, on level, dry,
         well-drained soils were considered areas of high sensitivity.
    •    Moderate Sensitivity. Areas more than 300 meters (1,000 feet) from water, but on well-drained
         soils are considered to have moderate sensitivity.
    •    Low Sensitivity. Areas that are poorly drained, in excess of 15 percent slope or that have been
         disturbed are considered to have low sensitivity.

Based on the initial UMASS investigation, the areas along the following prominent water features along
the preferred routes represent the highest potential sensitivity for archaeological resources:


The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          6-26                                          June 2008
Supplemental Report



    •    Tarkill Brook (Agawam – Map Sheet 3 of 3)
    •    Still Brook (Agawam – Map Sheet 2 of 3)
    •    Philo Brook (Agawam – Map Sheet 2 of 3)
    •    Worthington Brook (Agawam – Map Sheet 2 of 17)
    •    Westfield River (Agawam and West Springfield – Map Sheet 1 of 15)
    •    Goldine Brook (West Springfield – Map Sheet 4 of 15)
    •    Connecticut River (West Springfield and Agawam – Map Sheets 3 of 17, 5 of 15)
    •    Bagg Brook (West Springfield – Map Sheet 3 of 15)
    •    Piper Brook (West Springfield – Map Sheet 2 of 15)
    •    Chicopee River (Chicopee – Map Sheet 10 of 15)
    •    Cooley Brook (Chicopee – Map Sheet 8 of 15)

Historic Site Sensitivity
Because documentation exists concerning historic land use, an environmental model was not used in
stratifying the Project area for its sensitivity to contain historic sites. Field stratification for historic site
location is based upon documentary research. Identification of important time periods in local history,
and recognition of places and people who were significant on the local, regional, or national scales, help
to identify significant historical resources. Based on the initial UMASS investigation, the only area in the
vicinity of the preferred route with high potential sensitivity for historical resources is Ludlow Center
(Map Sheets 13-14 of 15), which is approximately 500 feet from the project at its nearest point.

6.6.2 Potential Effects
No direct or indirect impacts to historic features are anticipated as a result of the Project. This is because
the Project will not require the removal or damage to any historic structures along the ROWs. In addition,
the ROW is separated from Ludlow Center by a screen of forest, so that visual impacts are not anticipated
as a result of slightly taller line structures.

With respect to archaeological resources, such features can generally only be disturbed through earth-
moving activities, since they tend to be located slightly below the ground surface. Grading to improve
access roads; the construction of the Fairmont Switching Station and the excavation of pits to
accommodate structure foundations in areas with moderate to high potential sensitivity for Native
American artifacts (i.e., along the banks of the major streams and rivers) represent activities that could
affect these resources.

6.6.3 Mitigation Measures
Along portions of the overhead line ROW that have been classified as Moderate or High Sensitivity,
additional archaeological investigation is recommended once the decision has been made to use those
ROWs for construction purposes, and once work locations, Areas of Potential Effect (APEs) and technical
designs have been more fully developed for the GSRP. For each ROW, an archaeological Phase 1A


The Greater Springfield Reliability Project             6-27                                              June 2008
Supplemental Report



reconnaissance survey is recommended. This survey is recommended to include a 100 percent walkover
survey, along with additional archival research. The purpose of the Phase 1A reconnaissance will be to
confirm that locations within the ROW actually merit subsurface testing, and to determine the amount of
testing that is appropriate.

If warranted on the basis of the Phase 1A study, archaeological Phase 1B intensive (locational) subsurface
testing should be conducted in order to locate and identify any Native American and/or historical
archaeological resources located within the APE of the GSRP. WMECO will continue to coordinate with
the SHPO regarding cultural resources and will perform further archaeological and visual effect studies as
necessary.


6.7 NOISE

6.7.1 Existing Conditions
For the most part, the GSRP region is characterized by urban/suburban environments, where ambient
sound levels are influenced by diverse factors such as vehicular traffic, commercial and industrial
activities, and outdoor activities typical of developed environments. Noise-sensitive sites in the GSRP
area include residences, schools, and designated recreational areas. The extent of a noise impact to
humans is dependent upon a number of factors, including the change in noise level from the ambient; the
duration and character of the noise; the presence of other, non-project sources of noise; people's attitudes
concerning the Project; the number of people exposed to the noise; and the type of activity affected by the
noise (e.g., sleep, recreation, conversation).

6.7.2 Potential Effects
Standard types of construction equipment will be used for the Project. In general, the highest noise level
from this type of equipment is approximately 92 dB(A) at the immediate source. Construction-related
noise impacts will be short-term (lasting only for the duration of the construction period) and will
generally stem from the operation of construction equipment, truck traffic, earth-moving vehicles and
equipment, jackhammers and structure erection equipment (cranes) etc. The type of equipment used and
operations performed to install the Project facilities is expected to be typical of large-scale construction.

6.7.3 Mitigation Measures
Taking into consideration the factors that could result in an increase in sound levels and cause annoyance
at nearby area the following procedures may be applied during construction:




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          6-28                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



    •    Engine-powered construction equipment will be properly muffled and maintained to minimize
         excessive noise. Such equipment will not be permitted to idle unnecessarily ; and
    •    In areas where blasting or rock hammering is required (e.g., to install foundations for overhead
         line structures), efforts will be made to schedule or muffle blasts to minimize noise and vibration
         disturbances

6.8 ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS
Electric and magnetic fields (EMF) are two forms of energy that surround an electrical device.
Transmission lines are sources of EMF, as are other substantial components of electric power
infrastructure, ranging from transformers at substations to the wiring and appliances in a home. Any
piece of machinery run by electricity, however, can be a source of EMF.

Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board Practices Regarding EMF

Research has been done for over 30 years to investigate the possibility that EMF exposure might affect
health. A brief summary of that research is given below. To date, that research has failed to find
evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship between magnetic or electric field exposure and human health
at levels commonly encountered. Consistent with this state of the current research, no federal standards
exist for exposure of the public to magnetic or electric fields. Several scientific organizations have
recommended limits on exposure to levels of EMF far above background levels. Massachusetts and a
number of other states have set guidelines for acceptable magnetic field (MF) levels and electric field
(EF) strengths produced by new transmission lines.

In 1985, the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) in Massachusetts applied guidelines for the review of
MF levels and EF strengths at the edges of rights-of-way (ROWs) from new electric transmission lines as
follows: (i) 85 milligauss (mG) for MF levels as a benchmark or guideline, and not as a limit, for
acceptable levels of MF; and (ii) 1.8 kilovolt per meter (1.8 kV/m) as a similar benchmark for acceptable
EF strength levels. The EFSB has used these edge-of-ROW levels as benchmarks in subsequent facility
reviews. For well over the last ten years, however, the EFSB has focused on MF levels rather than EF
strengths because of concern about potential health effects that might be related to MF levels. It is
important to note that benchmark EMF levels applied by the EFSB in Massachusetts have not been based
upon any identified health effects, but rather they simply reflect acceptable levels which would not be
expected to be exceeded by most transmission projects.

In each proceeding for the review of a proposal to construct a transmission line, the EFSB requires the
applicants to present calculations of the MF levels that potentially would exist along the proposed ROW
(such as under conditions of peak load) without the construction of the proposed transmission line and



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         6-29                                           June 2008
Supplemental Report



compare the “without” calculations with similar calculations of MF levels that could exist after the
construction of the proposed transmission lines. The EFSB compares the potential MF levels to its
benchmark MF levels and assesses the differences in MF levels caused by the new transmission line.
Calculations of the transmission line currents to use in MF calculations require complex computer
simulations of the operation of the whole regional transmission system. WMECO is in the process of
preparing the necessary load flow simulations to support MF modeling for its petition to the ESFB.

In addition, the EFSB has from time to time over the last ten years inquired into the current scientific
literature regarding the possible impact of long-term exposure to MF on human health. WMECO
commissioned independent experts at Exponent® to prepare a report updating the scientific research
addressing MF and public health effects, and to identify changes, if any, in the scientific consensus
regarding MF. That report “Electric and Magnetic Fields – Status of Research: Greater Springfield
Reliability Project” is also included in this Municipal Consultation Report in Volume 3. A copy will also
be filed with WMECO’s petition to the EFSB.

With each of its past reviews of the scientific literature regarding possible health effects of exposure to
MF, the EFSB has consistently found that, although some epidemiologic studies suggest a correlation
between exposure to MF and childhood leukemia, altogether the research does not provide persuasive
evidence for a cause-and-effect relationship between MF exposure and human health.

At the same time, the EFSB has acknowledged that some members of the public remain concerned about
MF and has recognized, with its approval, electric company efforts to incorporate design features into
proposed transmission lines that would reduce MF at little or no additional cost 4 . Furthermore, the EFSB
has encouraged the use of practical and cost-effective designs to minimize MF along the edges of
transmission ROWs 5 . WMECO will describe in its petition to the EFSB how it proposes to use practical
and cost-effective designs to minimize the MF associated with the Project.

A Brief Summary of Research on the Health Effects of EMF

After more than 30 years of research that includes more than a thousand studies, none of the national and
international health and scientific organizations conducting reviews of scientific and medical research has
concluded that exposure to electric and magnetic fields (EMF) at extremely low frequencies (ELF), which
include 60Hertz (Hz), is a demonstrated cause of any long-term adverse health effect.


4
 New England Power Company, 4 DOMSB 109, at 148 (1995).
5
 Nickel Hill Energy, LLC, 11 DOMSB 83, at 211 (2000); Sithe Edgar Development LLC, 10 DOMSB 1, at 117
(2000); IDC Bellingham LLC, 9 DOMSB 225, at 333 (1999).


The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          6-30                                           June 2008
Supplemental Report



The evidence in support of a causal relationship is weak because it is founded largely, if not entirely, on
some epidemiology studies that reported statistical associations between estimates of past MF exposure
(or some proxy measure of exposure) and a disease. Scientists have placed less weight on this
epidemiologic evidence because these associations are weak, often inconsistent between studies, are
likely to include systematic errors and confounding factors, and because laboratory and animal studies
have not provided supporting evidence. Overall, the animal studies have not reported an increase in
cancer among animals exposed to high levels of EMF, and no mechanism has been discovered in
laboratory studies that would explain how EMF could initiate disease.

Most notably, a weak association has been reported between childhood leukemia and estimates of long-
term exposure to higher, average MF levels. Combined with the limitations of epidemiology and the lack
of confirmed findings from animal and laboratory studies, however, the overall body of research does not
indicate that this association, or any other, is causal in nature.

The only studies that can be said to confirm a relationship between EMF and an adverse biological or
health effect are those in which very high levels of exposure to these fields produce currents and fields in
the body, a shock-like effect. The levels at which these short-term effects occur are very high. Two
international organizations have developed health-based guidelines for exposures of the public to EF and
MF to prevent stimulatory effects on nerves and muscles resulting from induction of voltages and currents
within tissues by exposures at levels well above background levels. In 1998 the International
Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) recommended screening values of 833 mG
and 4.2 kV/m at 60 Hz (ICNIRP, 1998). Exposures above these screening levels are permitted if the
underlying basic restrictions on induced current density are not exceeded. ICNIRP concluded that there
was insufficient evidence to warrant the development of standards or guidelines to address hypothesized
long-term adverse health effects such as cancer. In 2002, the International Committee on Electromagnetic
Safety (ICES) determined that exposures of the public up to 9,040 mG and 5 kV/m were acceptable
(ICES, 2002). Both organizations set these guidelines after taking into account large safety factors.

The ICNIRP and ICES guidelines provide guidance to national agencies and only become legally binding
if a country adopts them into legislation. The World Health Organization (WHO) strongly recommends
that countries adopt such guidelines, or use a scientifically sound framework for formulating any new
guidelines (WHO, 2007).

The WHO established the International EMF Project in 1996, in response to public concerns about
exposures to EMF and possible adverse health effects. The Project’s membership includes 8 international



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project           6-31                                         June 2008
Supplemental Report



organizations, 8 collaborating institutions and over 54 national authorities. The overall purpose of the
Project is to assess any possible health and environmental effects of exposure to static and time varying
EMF. A key objective is to evaluate the scientific literature and make a status report on health effects, to
be used as the basis for a coherent international response. The evaluation report was prepared by 21
scientists from around the world with expertise in a wide range of disciplines and published in June 2007
as part of WHO’s Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) Program.

The WHO concluded the following:

         Acute biological effects have been established for exposure to ELF electric and magnetic fields in
         the frequency range up to 100 kHz that may have adverse consequences on health. Therefore,
         exposure limits are needed. International guidelines exist that have addressed this issue.
         Compliance with these guidelines provides adequate protection. Consistent epidemiological
         evidence suggests that chronic low-intensity ELF magnetic field exposure is associated with an
         increased risk of childhood leukaemia. However, the evidence for a causal relationship is limited,
         therefore exposure limits based upon epidemiological evidence are not recommended, but some
         precautionary measures are warranted. (p. 355)

The absence of clear evidence for adverse effects after continued research and testing increases the
certainty that there is not an adverse effect, or that any risk associated with the exposure is small.
Because of the inherent limitations of scientific investigation, no review panel can ever completely rule
out the possibility that EMF in our communities and workplaces might have some adverse effect. Given
the amount and quality of research that has been conducted thus far, however, the opinion is strong that
there is not a cause-and-effect relationship between ELF EMF and long-term, adverse health effects.

EMF Modeling Report
WMECO has commissioned Exponent® to model the EF and MF levels that may be expected when the
Project is operating under projected annual average and peak load conditions expected in the year the
Project goes into service and five years after. The calculations will compare expected EMF levels at
typical ROW sections with, and without, the Project in these future years. Project-related EMF levels will
also compared to the applicable Massachusetts benchmark levels. In order to model the MF levels,
assumptions need to be made not only about the expected levels of electrical load but also about the
identity of the generation facilities in the region that would be dispatched to support that load.
Exponent’s report summarizing the modeling of EMF associated with the Project will be submitted with
the SEIR and WMECO’s petition to the EFSB.



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          6-32                                             June 2008
 
Supplemental Report




   7.0       COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION LINE
                                  ROUTES

As discussed in Section 3.5, WMECO conducted detailed studies to identify and assess alternative
alignments for the Project transmission lines. These analyses culminated in the identification of the
preferred 345-kV line route described in Section 3.5 and discussed in Section 6. The purpose of this
section is to provide further environmental comparisons of the preferred and the noticed-alternative 345-
kV line routes that would connect the North Bloomfield and Ludlow Substations.

Each of the alternatives is viable. However, for environmental, engineering, and cost reasons, the
noticed-alternative line route is less desirable than the preferred route. Natural resources data tables for
the noticed-alternative route are included in Volume III. Environmental maps depicting the
noticed-alternative route and its land uses, wetlands, waterways, and floodplains are included in
Attachment 1 of the ENF.

From North Bloomfield to Agawam Substations, the noticed-alternative overhead transmission line route
would be located within existing CL&P and WMECO ROWs, in the same corridor as the preferred route.
From South Agawam Junction to Hampden Junction, the noticed-alternative route would parallel an
existing 115-kV transmission line, and parallel an existing 345-kV and a 115-kV transmission line from
Hampden Junction to Ludlow Substation (see Figure 3-5). The new 345-kV transmission line would be
approximately 40.4 miles long which includes approximately 3.2 miles between South Agawam Junction
and Agawam Substation that would require two circuits on separate line structures (two 345-kV lines).
Compared to the approximately 34.8-mile long preferred route, the noticed-alternative would be
approximately 5.6 miles longer.


7.1 LAND
The principal land uses and zoning in the vicinity of the noticed-alternative line route are summarized in
Table 7-1 and illustrated on the environmental map sheets provided in Attachment 1 of the EENF. As
this information shows, the principal land uses near the noticed-alternative route include a mix of
residential, agriculture, recreational, commercial and industrial development along with undeveloped
forest land. Other predominant features in the vicinity of the 345-kV noticed-alternative route include
Crestview Country Club, Six Flags New England Amusement Park, Fanny Stebbins Memorial Wildlife
Refuge, Wolf Swamp Park & Recreation Area, Mill Road Conservation Area, Elmcrest Country Club,
Tanglewood Conservation Area, Wilbraham Country Club, Wilbraham Game Farm, Ludlow Country




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          7-1                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



Club and Facing Rock Wildlife Management Area. In general, the noticed-alternative route is
substantially less developed and more rural in nature than the preferred route.

     Table 7-1:        MA State Line to Agawam Substation to Ludlow Substation Noticed-
                          Alternative Route: Zoning and Land-Use Summary

     Segment 1                Predominant Zoning and Land Uses                     Noteworthy Features
CT/MA Border to         Agricultural, residential, recreational, open       Crestview Country Club; HMPD
Agawam Substation       space, commercial/industrial; transportation        County Training School; Pioneer
                        infrastructure                                      Valley Racket Club
South Agawam            Agricultural, residential, commercial/industrial    Connecticut River
Junction to CT River
edge in Suffield, CT
CT River edge in        Agricultural, residential, open space;              Connecticut River; Fannie Stebbins
Longmeadow to           transportation infrastructure                       Memorial Wildlife Refuge; Interstate-
East Longmeadow                                                             91; Wolf Swamp Park & Conservation
town line                                                                   Area
East Longmeadow         Residential; agricultural                           Jawbuck Brook Reservoir; Watchaug
                                                                            Brook
Hampden                 Residential; agricultural
Wilbraham               Residential; agricultural; recreational; open       Boy Scout Camp; Wilbraham Game
                        space;                                              Club; Wilbraham Country Club;
                                                                            White Cedar Swamp; Chicopee River
Wilbraham/Ludlow        Agricultural, residential, commercial/industrial;   Chicopee River; Ludlow Country
town line to Ludlow transportation infrastructure                           Club; Massachusetts Turnpike;
Substation
1
  : See Attachment 1 of the ENF for locations.


7.2 RARE SPECIES
According to NHESP, the noticed-alternative route crosses through habitats of 19 different rare plant or
animal species, as summarized in Table 7-2. During the spring of 2008, at the request of NHESP,
intensive surveys were conducted along the preferred and noticed-alternative routes for the Blue-Spotted
Salamander and Jefferson Salamander. While none were detected on the preferred route, both species
were documented as occurring on the noticed-alternative route. Surveys for rare plants have recently
commenced along the noticed-alternative route, as well.

No certified vernal pools exist along the noticed-alternative route, although eight areas have been
identified by the NHESP as Potential Vernal Pools and WMECO’s consultants have identified other
wetland areas along the noticed-alternative route that evidently provide vernal pool (though not
necessarily active rare species) habitat.

WMECO will be furthering its consultation with NHESP in the coming months to determine what
additional rare species surveys may be required for both routes, which will determine which of these



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project               7-2                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



alignments is relatively more important in terms of providing rare species habitat. Due to the fact that the
noticed-alternative route is substantially less developed than the preferred route, it appears that it may
possess higher quality habitat – both for general – and rare species.

   Table 7-2:        Rare Species Habitat Mapped Along the Noticed-Alternative Line Route

          Priority / Estimated
                                                      Species                        Municipality
               Habitat #
        PH 1102 / EH 450               Eastern Box Turtle                        Agawam
        Ph 1236 / EH 875               Green Dragon, Gray’s Sedge, Narrow-       Longmeadow
                                       Leaved Spring Beauty, Shortnose
                                       Sturgeon, Bald Eagle, Arrow Clubtail,
                                       Yellow Lampmussel, Tidewater Mucket,
                                       Stygian Shadowdragon, Riverine
                                       Clubtail
        PH 1191 / EH 564               Four-Toed Salamander, Jefferson           East Longmeadow
                                       Salamander
        PH 167 / EH 756                Eastern Box Turtle, Triangle Floater,     East Longmeadow,
                                       Eastern Spadefoot, Four-Toed              Hampden, Wilbraham
                                       Salamander, Eastern Wormsnake,
                                       Bristly Buttercup, Wood Turtle, Blue-
                                       Spotted Salamander, Climbing Fern

        EH 844                         Triangle Floater, Four-Toed Salamander,   Wilbraham
                                       Blue-Spotted Salamander
        PH 167/ EH 844                 Eastern Box Turtle, Triangle Floater,     Ludlow
                                       Eastern Spadefoot, Four-Toed
                                       Salamander, Eastern Wormsnake,
                                       Bristly Buttercup, Wood Turtle, Blue-
                                       Spotted Salamander, Climbing Fern

        PH 1149 / EH 490               Four-Toed Salamander                      Ludlow



7.3 WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS
The noticed-alternative line route crosses 17 streams or rivers in Massachusetts. The prominent streams
and rivers traversed along the noticed-alternative route in Massachusetts include the Connecticut River,
Chicopee River, Worthington Brook, Freshwater Brook, Watchaug Brook, the South Branch of the Mill
River, and Fuller Brook. During the 2007 field surveys, 73 wetlands were identified within
Massachusetts along the noticed-alternative route. Complete lists of the wetlands and watercourses along
the noticed-alternative route are proved in Volume III. Overall, the quality of wetlands and streams along
the noticed-alternative route is higher than those of the preferred route, due mainly to the fact the noticed-




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project              7-3                                          June 2008
Supplemental Report



alternative route is less developed. One noteworthy wetland feature along the noticed-alternative route is
a great blue heron rookery, a relatively uncommon type of wildlife habitat in Massachusetts.


7.4 HISTORICAL & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The noticed-alternative line route traverses areas with low, moderate, and high potential sensitivity to
cultural resources. Areas with potentially high archaeological sensitivity are generally associated with
prominent water features. Along this route of the project these include:


   •     Tarkill Brook and Threemile Brook (Agawam – Map Sheets 1-3 of 3)
   •     Worthington Brook (Agawam – Map Sheet 2 of 17)
   •     Watchaug Brook (East Longmeadow – Map Sheet 8 of 17)
   •     Mill River (Hampden, Wilbraham – Map Sheet 11 of 17)
   •     White Cedar Swamp (Wilbraham – Map Sheet 13 of 17)
   •     Connecticut River (Longmeadow, East Longmeadow – Map Sheet 4 of 17)
   •     Chicopee River and Cooley Brook (Wilbraham, Ludlow – Map Sheet 15 of 17)

There are no potentially sensitive historic areas in the vicinity of the noticed-alternative route. At this
point predictive modeling and some ground-truthing has been performed to determine areas along the
preferred route where possible sensitivity for cultural resources is low, moderate, or high. A specific
scope of work will be developed in consultation with the Massachusetts Historical Commission if it is
necessary to advance the collection of additional cultural resources information for the noticed-alternative
route.


7.5 SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF ROUTES
Compared to the preferred route, the noticed-alternative route would be longer and therefore would
generally result in greater construction-related impacts and higher capital costs. In addition, the preferred
route would still be impacted for the 115-kV overhead rebuild portion of the project which is one of the
reasons the preferred route was selected to site the new 345-kV line. This siting would restrict all the
impacts to the same route during the same construction period.

In terms of natural resources, and based on: 1) resource mapping; 2) field investigations; 3) its
substantially less developed nature; and 4) information provided by regulatory agencies, the noticed-
alternative route appears to exhibit higher quality wetlands, streams, general wildlife, and rare plant and
animal species habitat than the more urban-situated preferred route.

Tables 3-2 and 3-3 (in Section 3) provide a summary comparison of the portions of the preferred route
and the noticed-alternative route located in Massachusetts.



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project           7-4                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report




                     8.0      CONSISTENCY WITH PLANNING DOCUMENTS

8.1 LOCAL AND REGIONAL OPEN SPACE, RECREATION, AND MASTER PLANS
Most of the municipalities traversed by the ROW have established Master Plans or similar documents that
outline local development, economic growth, and land use goals. Additionally, Massachusetts has 13
Regional Land Use Planning Agencies, which implement conservation and development strategies and
goals in their respective regions. The Pioneer Valley Regional Planning Council is the regional planning
agency that covers the GSRP area.

In order to determine if the GSRP as currently planned is consistent with the over-arching planning
documents of the involved municipalities, WMECO obtained and reviewed the available documents for
each town along the preferred and noticed-alternative routes, including:

    •    The Pioneer Valley Land Use Plan (2007);
    •    Agawam Community Development Plan (2004);
    •    Agawam Open Space & Recreation Plan (2006);
    •    Chicopee Open Space & Recreation Plan (2005);
    •    East Longmeadow Open Space & Recreation Plan (2000);
    •    Longmeadow Open Space & Recreation Plan (2002);
    •    Hampden Open Space & Recreation Plan (2003);
    •    Springfield “Strategies for a Sustainable City” Plan (2006);
    •    West Springfield Open Space & Recreation Plan (1998);
    •    West Springfield Master Plan (2000); and
    •    Wilbraham Open Space & Recreation Plan (2000-2005)

Overall these plans tend to focus on issues such as: mechanisms for preserving open space and
agricultural lands; protecting valuable natural resources; identifying ways to connect existing protected
lands; identifying modes of alternative transportation; encouraging smart growth and sustainable
development; decreasing low density urban sprawl; increasing both passive and active recreational
facilities; creating and preserving low-income and senior housing; identifying and preserving historical
resources.

As previously outlined, the primary reason for the GSRP is to make necessary upgrades and
improvements to the existing electric transmission system in these towns to ensure safe, reliable electric
power and to maintain compliance with regional and national electric standards. Impacts to open space –
both temporary and permanent, will be minimal, since the various segments of the preferred and
alternative routes are principally within existing electric utility ROWs, and no entirely new cross-country
ROWs are proposed. As a result, the GSRP is not at odds with the factors covered by the municipal



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         8-1                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



planning initiatives within the project area, and a safe, reliable source of electric power is vital to the
overall well-being of these communities and will only help to allow the objectives of these municipal
plans to be realized.


8.2 MUNICIPAL, STATE, REGIONAL, AND FEDERAL ENERGY FACILITIES PLANS
The objective of the Project is to maintain the reliability of the Greater Springfield Area’s transmission
system, consistent with the ISO-NE requirements. ISO-NE is responsible for the day-to-day reliable
operation of the region’s bulk electric generation and transmission system. One of its primary purposes is
to plan for and ensure a reliable bulk power system for New England. The principles followed by ISO-
NE to ensure system reliability are overseen by FERC.

The reliability attributes of the Project are also consistent with regional policies, as outlined by the
Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC), which establishes and maintains reliability standards for
the six New England states, New York, and several Canadian provinces. The NPCC is one of ten
regional reliability councils that encompass the NERC, which provides uniform design and operating
standards for electricity generation and delivery systems. The NPCC requires transmission systems to be
designed and operated so that the loss of a major portion of the system will not result from reasonably
foreseeable contingencies. The Project is designed to be consistent with regional reliability policies.

The Project is also consistent with state and local policies on several levels. The Project is designed to be
consistent with the mandates of the Massachusetts EFSB, which has jurisdiction to approve the Project
based on a showing that the Project provides a reliable energy supply for the Commonwealth with a
minimum impact on the environment at the lowest possible cost. Accordingly, the Project will be
consistent with state energy policy as it relates to the siting of energy facilities.

Moreover, the Project will be constructed and operated to comply fully with the Commonwealth’s local
environmental policies. WMECO will obtain all the necessary permits and approvals, including MEPA
and MassDEP reviews. Accordingly, by meeting the requirements for securing state, regional and local
permits, the Project will be in compliance with applicable state and local environmental policies.

WMECO notes the MEPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol recently issued by EOEEA.
That policy requires certain projects that are required to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
under MEPA to quantify the Project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and identify measures to avoid,
minimize or mitigate such emissions. Even were the Secretary to determine that an EIR is needed for the
Project, however, this Project would not be covered by the policy because it does not fall within any of



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project            8-2                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



the covered categories (the project proponent is not a state agency; no state agency is providing financial
assistance, the Project does not require air plans approval from MassDEP, and the Project does not need a
Vehicular (as opposed to non-vehicular) Access Permit from MHD)). Also, the Project’s direct emissions
of GHGs are de minimis.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         8-3                                           June 2008
 
Supplemental Report



                                         9.0   PUBLIC OUTREACH

9.1 PUBLIC OUTREACH
At the onset of the Project, WMECO designed a comprehensive and proactive multi-step public outreach
plan to establish and maintain communications with stakeholders. The objective of this plan is to keep
stakeholders informed of the Project status, from initial Project planning through in service.

This plan includes procedures for public education and communication regarding the need for the Project,
the steps involved in Project planning, the permitting and siting processes, the development of detailed
construction plans, the dissemination of construction updates and outreach during construction, and
follow-up outreach after Project completion. The plan was designed to engage the community, facilitate
transparency throughout the Project, foster participation during the process, and solicit feedback from
stakeholders. Stakeholders targeted in the plan include local and state officials, residents and businesses
located along the Project ROWs or near the substation/switching station sites, business groups,
community leaders, environmental groups, the local media, civic groups, and the general Greater
Springfield community. To date, over 200 formal and informal briefings have been held. Table 9-1,
located at the end of this section, lists some of the groups with whom WMECO has met to date
concerning the Project.

9.1.1 Community Outreach
WMECO will be actively engaging the residents and community members living in the towns and cities
along the potential Project transmission line routes and near the substation sites. Communication tactics
will include a series of Neighborhood Council meetings and an educational video being developed to be
aired on the community cable access channels. Communications collateral will be developed in
additional languages as determined by the need in the neighborhoods the Project may impact, and
translators will be available at appropriate Neighborhood Council meetings.

WMECO has also developed a municipal consultation report which details the full scope of the project.
This report is being delivered to chief local official in each community along the potential transmission
line routes and near the substation sites, as well made available for public review at the libraries of these
communities and on the NU transmission Web site. Executive summaries will be delivered to business
groups and the summary and/or the report in full will be made available upon request. Both the report
and executive summaries provide an opportunity for local official and community feedback on the scope
and design of the Project.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project           9-1                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



As well, WMECO is developing and will host community Open Houses. The Open Houses will provide
interactive information about the Project, its environmental benefits, the transmission technologies
specific to each community, what to expect during the construction phase as well as an interactive route
locator to assist community members in locating their home or business along the potential routes.

A Project Web site has also been developed and will be updated on an ongoing basis
(www.NEEWSProjects.com) through Project completion. Additional communications with impacted
residents will include personal contact, news releases in the local media and on the local public access
channel as available, a toll-free Project hotline, email construction updates, an email inquiry box, direct
mail, and leave behinds. Communications will be produced in languages based on community feedback.

9.1.2 Business, Community and Civic Leaders/Groups
WMECO has committed to keep business and civic groups apprised of the Project, and to that end has
held both formal and informal meetings with business and community leaders, including local chambers
of commerce, economic development councils, the local chapter of the National Association of
Manufacturers, Associated Industries of Massachusetts, Low Income Energy Affordability Network,
National Consumer Law Center, Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, the Massachusetts Affordable
Reliable Electricity Alliance, the Springfield Business Improvement District, the Greater Springfield
Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Regional Technology Corporation, the Urban League, Housing
Alliance Partnership, local colleges, and area hospitals.

WMECO has held two customer forums for over 100 businesses in western Massachusetts, and
participated in a regional energy forum hosted by the Massachusetts Affordable Reliable Electricity
Alliance. Businesses located directly along the potential routes are assigned an account executive with
whom they have and will continue to have direct contact throughout the Project.

WMECO has also developed a Speaker’s Bureau to provide civic and community groups with presenters
to discuss the Project on an ongoing basis.

9.1.3 Environmental Groups
WMECO proactively reached out to environmental groups and will continue to communicate with these
groups as the Project moves forward. Included in the initial outreach were the Northeast Sustainable
Energy Association, the Environmental Business Council of New England, the Connecticut River
Watershed Council, the Fannie Stebbins Wildlife Refuge, the Nature Conservancy and the Massachusetts
Audubon Society, with local environmental groups being identified on an ongoing basis.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project          9-2                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



9.1.4 Communications During Construction
WMECO fully understands that effective community outreach programs do not end when a project is
permitted, but rather extend through construction and beyond. Thus, a critical element of WMECO’s
communications plan includes outreach during construction to alert residents; visitors; fire, police and
emergency personnel and municipal officials as to work schedules and other construction activities.

Recognizing the varying needs of its stakeholders, WMECO is developing various communications
methods to inform audiences throughout construction, including bill inserts as needed; work area signage;
advance notification of scheduled construction; personal contact with residents and businesses along the
transmission ROWs; print, radio, cable access and television updates; fax updates to local officials; and
conference calls with local officials.

Further, WMECO will designate personnel who will be responsible for receiving, investigating, and
responding to comments and complaints about work performance and construction activities. All such
complaints will be logged, investigated and responded to within a 24-hour period or the next business day
during a weekend or holiday.




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project         9-3                                           June 2008
Supplemental Report



                                    Table 9-1:        Stakeholder Outreach

                            Who                                                When
   16 Acres Citizens Council Meeting                      November 20, 2007
   Affiliated Chambers of Commerce of Greater             October 10, 2006; August 16, 2007; November 27,
   Springfield President Russell F. Denver                2007
   Affiliated Chambers of Commerce of Greater             October 10, 2006; August 6, 2007
   Springfield Vice President Government Affairs
   Jeffrey Ciuffreda
   Agawam Chamber President Edward Borgatti               June 29, 2007; October 19, 2007; November 27,
                                                          2007
   Agawam Chamber Board of Directors                      November 27, 2007
   Agawam Director of Planning and Community              November 20, 2006; August 21, 2007; January 15,
   Development Deborah Dachos                             2007
   Former Agawam Mayor Richard Cohen                      November 20, 2006; May 3, 2007; August 21, 2007
   Agawam Mayor Susan Dawson                              December 11, 2007; March 13, 2008
   Agawam Town Councilor and former President Don         May 31, 2007
   Rheault
   Agawam Town Councilor and former Vice President        June 27, 2007
   Bob MacGovern
   Agawam Town Council Vice President Cecilia             January 7, 2008
   Calabrese
   Agawam Town Councilor Joseph Mineo                     May 29, 2007; April 17, 2008
   Agawam Town Councilor Paul Cavallo                     April 16, 2008
   Agawam Town Councilor Robert Rossi                     June 27, 2007
   Ann Berwick, Undersecretary of Energy                  April 2007
   APEX Resource Technologies                             June 12, 2007
   Armory Quadrangle Civic Association Meeting            TBD
   Associated Industries of Massachusetts                 December 2006
   Attorney General Martha Coakley                        December 2006; February 2007
   Bank of America Regional President Rick Ziliewicz      February 11, 2008
   Bay Area Citizens Council Director Ernestine           August 1, 2007
   Johnson
   Bay Path College President Carol Leary                 November 30, 2006
   Bay Path College Vice President for Finance and        November 30, 2006
   Administrative Services Michael Giampietro
   Baystate Health President Mark Tolosky                 December 6, 2006
   Baystate Health Vice President Government and          December 6, 2006; October 5, 2007
   Community Relations Steven Bradley
   Baystate Health Vice President of Facilities and       December 6, 2006
   Guest Services Mike Moran
   Baystate Medical Center Assistant Director of          October 20, 2006
   Engineering
   Baystate Medical Center Director of Engineering        October 20, 2006; December 6, 2006
   Dennis Desmarais




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project             9-4                                          June 2008
Supplemental Report



                            Who                                               When
   Baystate Medical Center Electrical Manager Jim       October 20, 2006
   Fischer
   Baystate Medical Center Manager, Power Plant and     October 20, 2006
   Roads/Grounds
   Berkshire Economic Development Corporation           June 12, 2007
   President Tyler Fairbanks
   Berkshire Life Insurance Company Representative      June 12, 2007
   Terrence Chiaretto
   Big Y Foods Director of Construction and             December 1, 2006
   Maintenance Tony Coppola
   Big Y Foods Energy Manager Gary Kuchyt               December 1, 2006
   Big Y Foods Vice President of Real Estate and        December 1, 2006
   Development Peter Thomas
   Boston Globe                                         March 6, 2007
   Cavallero Plastics President Dario Cavallero         June 12, 2007
   Cavallero Plastics Vice President Thomas Ehmann      June 12, 2007
   Chicopee Electric Engineering and Operations         May 8, 2007; August 8, 2007
   Manager Jim Lisowski
   Chicopee Electric General Manager Jeff Cady          May 8, 2007; June 25, 2007; August 8, 2007
   Chicopee Mayor Michael Bissonnette                   May 8, 2007; September 5, 2007, November 14,
                                                        2007; November 28, 2007; December 11, 2007,
                                                        February 7, 2008
   Chicopee Chamber Executive Director Gail Sherman     May 7, 2008
   CompuWorks President Al Bauman                       June 12, 2007
   Congressman Richard Neal                             December 12, 2007
   Crane & Company Production Manager Jim Noel          June 12, 2007
   Crane & Company Manager, Environmental Control       June 12, 2007
   Crowne Plaza Assistant General Manager Chuck         June 12 2007
   Burnick
   Crowne Plaza Representative John Morawiec            June 12 2007
   DPU Chair Paul Hibbard                               Q2 2007
   DPU Commissioner Tim Woolf                           Q2 2007
   DPU Commissioner W. Robert Keating                   Q2 2007
   DPU Staff                                            October 2007
   DTE Chair Judith Judson (former)                     Q4 2006
   East Longmeadow Town Executive Secretary Nick        December 13, 2006; September 26, 2007
   Breault
   East Springfield Neighborhood Council Meeting        November 13, 2007
   East Springfield Neighborhood Council President      May 30, 2007; September 11, 2007
   Kathy Brown
   Eastern States Exposition                            February 20, 2008
   Easthampton Mayor Michael Tautznik                   June 25, 2007
   Economic Development Council Infrastructure          December 12, 2006; October 9, 2007
   Committee



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project           9-5                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



                               Who                                               When
   Economic Development Council President Allan            October 10, 2006; August 1, 2007;
   Blair
   Economic Development Council Vice President Ann         October 10, 2006
   Burke (former)
   Economic Development Council Vice President             August 1, 2007
   Michael Graney
   Economic Development Council Vice President             October 10, 2006; August 6, 2007
   Government Affairs Jeffrey Ciuffreda
   E. Henry Twiggs, Community Leader, Leader of            April 1, 2008
   Springfield’s Democratic City Committee
   Edison Electric Institute                               March 9, 2007
   Elizabeth Cardona, director – Governor Patrick’s        April 7, 2008
   Western Massachusetts Office
   Energy Committee Chair Rep. Brian Dempsey               December 2006; April 2007; September 2007
   Energy Committee Chair Sen. Michael Morrissey           December 2006; April 2007; September 2007
   Energy Committee Member Rep. Angelo Puppolo             December 2006; March 21, 2007; June 2007;
                                                           September 2007
   Energy Committee Vice Chair Rep. Michael Kane           December 2006; March 21, 2007; July 2007
   Fannie Stebbins Wildlife Refuge                         January 24, 2008
   Franklin County Council of Governments                  June 28, 2007
   Friendly Ice Cream Corporation Manager of               October 3, 2006
   Manufacturing Engineering Bud Ellison
   GL&V Manager of Manufacturing Services Richard          June 12, 2007
   Cadenelli
   General Dynamics Defense Systems Dana Anderson          June 12, 2007
   General Dynamics Defense Systems Supervisor of          June 12, 2007
   Maintenance and Operations David Rashe
   Granby Town Administrator Chris Martin                  November 15, 2007
   Greater Springfield Convention and Visitors Bureau      October 10, 2006; December 7, 2007
   President Mary Kay Wydra
   Greater Springfield Senior Services Director Elaine     April 22, 2008
   Massery
   Greenfield Energy Park Manager Sandy Thomas             December 5, 2006
   Greenfield Mayor Christine Forgey                       June 19, 2007
   Greenfield Director of Economic Development             June 19, 2007
   Marlene Moricco
   Hampden Town Administrator Pam Courtney                 December 7, 2006; October 24, 2007
   HAP Projects Manager Sara Page                          April 22, 2008
   HAP Associate Executive Director Michelle               April 22, 2008
   McAdaragh
   HAP ProjectManager/Staff Attorney Rudy Perkins          April 22, 2008
   Hi-Tech Mold & Tool Manager Bill Amuso                  June 12, 2007
   Hi-Tech Mold & Tool President Bill Kristensen           June 12, 2007
   Hill McKnight Neighborhood Council Executive            August 14, 2007



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project              9-6                                           June 2008
Supplemental Report



                            Who                                                When
   Director Ben Swan Jr.
   Hill McKnight Neighborhood Council Meeting            November 13, 2007
   House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi                        December 2006
   Human Service Forum Director Carol Ford               April 24, 2008
   Hungry Hill Neighborhood Council Meeting              November 15, 2007
   Ian Bowles, Sec. Mass. Exec. Office of                April 2007
   Environmental Affairs
   Ice River Springs Water Co. President Jamie Gott      June 12, 2007
   Interprint Chief Financial Officer Jens Bauer         June 12, 2007
   Lee Town Administrator Robert Nason                   June 12, 2007
   Legacy Banks Facilities Manager Dave Hicks            June 12, 2007
   Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray                        March 2007
   Longmeadow Department of Public Works Director        November 30, 2006; November 20, 2007
   Michael Wrabel
   Longmeadow Fire Chief Eric Madison                    November 30, 2006
   Longmeadow Town Manager Robin Crosbie                 November 30, 2006; November 20, 2007
   Longmeadow Town Engineer Thom Martens                 November 20, 2007
   Ludlow Select Board Chair Lawrence Nasciemiento       May 7, 2007
   (former)
   Ludlow Town Administrator Michael Szlosek             May 7, 2007; February 26, 2008
   Ludlow Select Board Chair Antonio DosSantos           August 9, 2007; February 26, 2008
   Ludlow Select Board Member John DaCruz                February 26, 2008
   MA Audubon Society                                    May 20, 2008
   MA Nature Conservancy                                 May 19, 2008
   Mass. Affordable Reliable Elec. Alliance              December 2006; April 2007; November 15, 2007;
                                                         February 28, 2008
   Mass. DEP – Boston                                    Q4 2006
   Mass. DEP – Regional Dir. Michael Gorski              November 28, 2006; February 12, 2006
   Mass. Office of Economic Development                  Q1 2007; Q2 2007
   Undersecretary Bob Coughlin (former)
   MassMutual Assistant Vice President of Facilities     October 19, 2006
   Operations David Brown
   MassMutual Chief Operating Officer Elaine             September 17, 2007
   Sarzynski
   MassMutual Corporate Vice President Ricky Swaye       September 17, 2007
   MassMutual Director of Engineer and Facilities        October 19, 2006
   Operations Sean Anderson
   MassMutual Facilities Operations Thomas Gour          October 19, 2006
   MassMutual Vice President Corporate Service Trish     September 17, 2007
   Robinson
   MassMutual Vice President of Community Relations      September 17, 2007
   Ron Copes
   Naismith Memorial Hall of Fame President John         December 18, 2006; June 22, 2007



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project            9-7                                        June 2008
Supplemental Report



                            Who                                                 When
   Doleva
   Naismith Memorial Hall of Fame Vice President of       December 18, 2006
   Finance and Operations Don Senecal
   National Assoc. of Manufacturers New England           April 25, 2007; August 9, 2007
   Director Bruce Stebbins
   New England Farm Workers Council Director              May 6, 2008
   Heriberto Flores
   New England Council                                    December 2006; October 2007
   New England Black Chamber of Commerce                  February 12, 2008
   Executive Director Aimee Munnings
   Northampton Mayor Claire Higgins                       October 23, 2007
   Northampton Economic Development Coordinator           October 23, 2007
   Teri Anderson
   Northeast Sustainable Energy Association Executive     December 5, 2006
   Director David Barclay
   Old Hill Neighborhood Council Executive Director       July 31, 2007
   Omega Johnson
   Palmer Paving Representative Jim Toomey                June 12, 2007
   Performance Food Group                                 October 31, 2007
   Peter Pan President Peter Picknelly                    December 2006
   Picknelly Properties President Paul Picknelly          November 27, 2006
   Pine Point Community Center Director Yolanda           August 1, 2007
   Nahorniak
   Pine Point Neighborhood Council Meeting                November 13, 2007
   Pioneer Valley Planning Commission Executive           October 10, 2006
   Director Tim Brennan
   Pittsfield Mayor James Ruberto                         June 12, 2007
   Pittsfield Boys & Girls Club Facilities Manager        June 12, 2007
   Frank Ostrander
   Pittsfield Cooperative Bank Director of Security       June 12, 2007
   Conrad Bernier
   Regional Technology Corporation President Ellen        October 10, 2006
   Bemben
   Representative “Smitty” Pignatelli                     June 12, 2007
   Representative Ben Swan                                December 12, 2006; October 4, 2007
   Representative Cheryl Coakley Rivera                   December 13, 2006; October 4, 2007
   Representative James Welch                             December 2006; March 21, 2007; June 2007;
                                                          September 2007
   Representative Mary Rogeness                           December 2006; March 21, 2007; June 2007;
                                                          September 2007
   Representative Rosemary Sandlin                        May 11, 2007; June 2007; December 11, 2007
   Representative Joseph Wagner                           September 2007
   Representative Sean Curran                             December 2006; March 21, 2007; June 2007;
                                                          September 2007




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project             9-8                                            June 2008
Supplemental Report



                            Who                                                  When
   Senate President Travaglini (former)                    December 2006
   Senator Gale Candaras                                   December 2006; June 2007; September 2007
   Senator Steve Buoniconti                                December 2006; June 2007; September 2007
   Senator Michael Knapik                                  December 2006
   Simmons Company                                         February 21, 2008
   Sisters of Providence President Vince McCorkle          December 12, 2006
   Sisters of Providence Vice President of Medical         December 12, 2006
   Affairs Dr. Jaames Fanale
   Sisters of Providence Vice President of System          December 12, 2006
   Support Services Stanley Rogalski
   Six Flags Vice President and General Manager Mark       December 12, 2006
   Kane
   Smith & Wesson Facilities Manager Mauro DeMaio          October 19, 2006
   Solutia Operations Manager Tim Presz                    July 10, 2007
   Sovereign Bank Regional Executive Thomas Creed          July 25, 2007
   Speaker of the House Salvatore DiMasi                   December 2006
   Speaker Pro Tem Thomas Petrolati                        December 2006; June 2007; November 2007
   Springfield Business Improvement Chris Castellano       August 6, 2007
   Springfield Business Improvement District Executive     October 10, 2006; August 6, 2007
   Director Jeff Keck
   Springfield Business Improvement District Executive     October 10, 2006
   Director Robert Turin (former)
   Springfield City Councilor Bruce Stebbins               April 25, 2007; August 9, 2007
   Springfield City Councilor Bud Williams                 May 21, 2007; August 8, 2007
   Springfield City Councilor James Ferrara                June 1, 2007; August 7, 2007
   Springfield City Councilor Jose Tosado                  May 15, 2007; August 2, 2007
   Springfield City Councilor Rosemarie Mazza-             May 30, 2007; September 11, 2007
   Moriarty
   Springfield City Councilor Tim Rooke                    May 17, 2007
   Springfield City Councilor William Foley                May 24, 2007
   Springfield City Councilor Patrick Markey               January 31, 2008
   Springfield College                                     June 22, 2007
   Springfield Control Board Executive Director Steven     September 12, 2007
   Lisaukas
   Springfield Economic Development Director David         November 21, 2006
   Panagore
   Springfield Finance Control Board Executive             November 21, 2006
   Director Philip Puccia (former)
   Springfield Kiwanis                                     July 25, 2007; January 2, 2008
   Former Springfield Mayor Charles Ryan                   November 21, 2006
   Springfield Partners for Community Action Director      May 2, 2008
   Paul Bailey
   Springfield Ski Club President Jay Pagliuca             June 12, 2007



The Greater Springfield Reliability Project              9-9                                          June 2008
Supplemental Report



                            Who                                                  When
   Springfield Technical Community College President       July 30, 2007
   Ira Rubenzahl
   Springfield Technical Community College Vice            July 30, 2007
   President Mike Suzor
   TD Banknorth Regional President David Glidden           January 4, 2008
   The Republican Business Editor Ken Ross                 March 13, 2007
   TopFlite                                                December 2006; October 25, 2007
   Tyco Company                                            October 31, 2007
   United Way Executive Director Joel Weiss                May 1, 2008
   United States Postal Service Springfield Bulk Mail      December 12, 2006
   Center Maintenance Engineering Specialist Charles
   Podolak
   Urban League President Henry Thomas                     October 2, 2007
   Valley Opportunity Council Director Steve Huntley       May 8, 2008
   WAMC Radio                                              March 7, 2007
   West Springfield City Councilor Angus Rushlow           June 11, 2007; April 10, 2008
   West Springfield City Councilor George Kelly            June 14, 2007
   (former)
   West Springfield City Councilor John Sweeney            June 14, 2007; April 11, 2008
   West Springfield City Councilor Paul Boudo              May 25, 2007; February 8, 2008
   West Springfield City Councilor Robert Mancini          April 10, 2008
   West Springfield City Councilor Michael Finn            June 19, 2007
   West Springfield City Councilor Richard Newman          April 11, 2008
   West Springfield Department of Public Works             May 8, 2007; October 11, 2007
   Director Jack Dowd
   West Springfield Mayor Edward Gibson                    May 8, 2007; October 11, 2007; May 13, 2008
   West Springfield Town Planner Richard Werbiskus         May 8, 2007
   Westover Development Corporation President Kenn         October 10, 2006; August 14, 2007; October 16,
   Delude                                                  2007
   WesMass Area Development Corporation                    November 14, 2007
   Wilbraham Town Administrator William Fogarty            December 7, 2006
   Wilbraham Select Board Chair James Thompson             September 17, 2007
   Wilbraham Town Attorney Robert Weitz                    September 17, 2007
   WMECO Employees                                         April 26, 2007; May 25, 2007; June 12, 2007; June
                                                           13, 2007; June 15, 2007; June 19, 2007; June 20,
                                                           2007; June 25, 2007; October 25, 2007; November 7,
                                                           2007
   WMECO Management Team                                   March 28, 2007; April 26, 2007; June 25, 2007;
                                                           August 8, 2007; October 25, 2007; November 7,
                                                           2007; January 29, 2008
   WMECO Supervisors                                       March 28, 2007; April 4, 2007; April 26, 2007; June
                                                           25, 2007; September 21, 2007; October 25, 2007;
                                                           November 7, 2007




The Greater Springfield Reliability Project             9-10                                            June 2008

								
To top