RR6 Atlantic-Bridge Vol-II-A OCT-2015 FINAL PDF

ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT
RESOURCE REPORT 6
Geological Resources
FERC Docket No. CP16-__-000
October 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6.0 RESOURCE REPORT 6 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES................................................................... 6-1

6.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 GEOLOGIC SETTING .................................................................................................................................. 6-2
6.2.1 Physiography ....................................................................................................................................... 6-2
6.2.2 Topography .......................................................................................................................................... 6-2
6.2.3 Surficial Geology of the Atlantic Bridge Project Area ........................................................................ 6-4
6.2.4 Bedrock Geology of the Atlantic Bridge Project Area ......................................................................... 6-4
6.2.4.1 New York..................................................................................................................................................... 6-7
6.2.4.2 Connecticut .................................................................................................................................................. 6-7
6.2.4.3 Massachusetts .............................................................................................................................................. 6-7
6.2.4.4 Maine ........................................................................................................................................................... 6-8
6.3 ROCK REMOVAL ....................................................................................................................................... 6-8
6.4 MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 6-8
6.5 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 6-8
6.6 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ................................................................................................................................ 6-8
6.6.1 Seismic Environment and Risk ............................................................................................................. 6-9
6.6.2 Active Faults ........................................................................................................................................ 6-9
6.6.3 Areas Susceptible to Soil Liquefaction .............................................................................................. 6-10
6.6.4 Areas Susceptible to Landslides......................................................................................................... 6-10
6.6.5 Surface Subsidence Karst ............................................................................................................... 6-11
6.6.6 Surface Subsidence Underground Mines ........................................................................................ 6-11
6.6.7 Flash Flooding................................................................................................................................... 6-11
6.6.8 Sea Level Rise .................................................................................................................................... 6-11
6.6.9 Volcanism .......................................................................................................................................... 6-12
6.7 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 6-12
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 6.2-1 SURFICIAL GEOLOGY WITHIN THE ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT AREA................................................ 6-5
TABLE 6.2-2 BEDROCK GEOLOGY WITHIN THE ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT AREA ................................................. 6-6
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 6A
Figure 6.2-1 Surficial geology along the Atlantic Bridge Project

Figure 6.2-2 Bedrock Geology along the Atlantic Bridge Project
Figure 6.6-1 Seismic Hazard Map
Figure 6.6-2 Landslide Hazard Map
Figure 6.6-3 FEMA Flood Zones at Proposed Weymouth Compressor Station
APPENDIX 6B
Atlantic Bridge Project Rock Removal Plan
APPENDIX 6C
Feasibility Report, Atlantic Bridge Project, Taconic Parkway HDD Crossing
Resource Report 6 Geological Resources i ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

RESOURCE REPORT 6GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Location in
Filing Requirement Environmental
Report
For underground storage facilities, how drilling activity by others within or
adjacent to the facilities would be monitored, and how old wells would be N/A
located and monitored within the facility boundaries ( 380.12(h)(6)).
Discuss the need for and locations where blasting may be necessary in order to Section 6.3 and
construct the proposed facilities ( 380.12(h)(3)). Appendix 6B
Identify the location (by milepost) of mineral resources and any planned or
Section 6.4
active surface mines crossed by the proposed facilities ( 380.12(h)(2)).
Identify any geologic hazards to the proposed facilities ( 380.12(h)(1&2)). Section 6.6
For LNG projects in seismic areas, the materials required by Data
Requirements for the Seismic Review of LNG Facilities, NBSIR84-2833 ( N/A
380.12(h)(5)).
RESPONSE TO FERC AUGUST 19, 2015 COMMENTS ON

ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 6 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
FERC COMMENTS ON LOCATION OR
DRAFT RESOURCE REPORT 6 RESPONSE TO COMMENT
1. Provide the results of geotechnical borings for the Based on the results of the geotechnical investigation for
planned HDD crossing. Include an assessment of the the Project, the HDD installation has been designed within
subsurface conditions and its suitability for the HDD favorable geotechnical materials, and the Taconic State
method. Identify any conditions that would increase Parkway crossing has been deemed feasible for
the risk of complications or drill failure and describe construction using HDD methods. The geotechnical
any measures proposed to minimize these risks. boring results are included with the Feasibility Report for
the Taconic State Parkway HDD crossing (see Appendix
6C).
2. Section 6.5 states that portions of the Project cross
Portland Akrose, which could contain significant
paleontological resources, however, Portland Akrose The bedrock geology along the Project does not include
is not identified in table 6.2-2. Clarify this Portland Akrose. Reference to Portland Akrose has been
discrepancy. Describe mitigation measures that removed from Section 6.5.
would be used if significant paleontological
resources were uncovered during construction.
3. Provide a discussion regarding storm surge and
inundation impacts at the planned Weymouth
Compressor Station site. Include in this discussion,
an analysis of the climate change predicted sea level See Section 6.6.8 for a discussion of sea level rise at the
rise over the next 50 years, the potential impacts of proposed Weymouth Compressor Station.
rising sea levels on the facility, and any mitigation
measures that would be used to avoid or minimize
the effects of sea level rise.
Resource Report 6 Geological Resources ii ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Algonquin Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC

Applicants Algonquin and Maritimes
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
HDD horizontal directional drill
hp horsepower
Maritimes Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.
M&R metering and regulating
MP milepost
Project Atlantic Bridge Project
ROW right-of-way
U.S. United States
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
Resource Report 6 Geological Resources iii ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

6.0 RESOURCE REPORT 6 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
6.1 Introduction
Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin) and Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.
(Maritimes) (collectively the Applicants) are seeking authorization from the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC or Commission) pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act1 to construct,
install, own, operate, and maintain the Atlantic Bridge Project (Project). The Applicants are also seeking
authorization pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act2 to abandon certain facilities as a related
component of the Atlantic Bridge Project.
The Atlantic Bridge Project will create additional firm pipeline capacity necessary to deliver natural gas
supplies that will meet supply and load growth requirements in the Northeast market area. The Project will
create additional capacity between a receipt point on Algonquins system at Mahwah in Bergen County,
New Jersey and various delivery points on the Algonquin system, including at Beverly, Massachusetts for
further transportation and deliveries on the Maritimes system. The Project capacity of up to 132,705
dekatherms per day will be created through pipeline take-up and relay facilities and additional compression
on Algonquins system. South-to-north transportation on the Maritimes system will be achieved through
minor modifications to existing facilities to provide bi-directional flow on the existing Maritimes system.
The target in-service date for the Project is November 1, 2017.
As is more fully described in Resource Report 1, the Atlantic Bridge Project includes the construction of
approximately 6.3 miles of take-up and relay pipeline facilities on the Algonquin system. These pipeline
facilities include the following:
New York:
o Stony Point Discharge Take-up and Relay 4.0 miles of 42-inch diameter pipeline.
Connecticut:
o Southeast Discharge Take-up and Relay 2.3 miles of 42-inch diameter pipeline.
On the Algonquin and Maritimes systems, the Project also includes aboveground facilities including
modifications at three existing compressor stations, five existing metering and regulating (M&R) stations,
and one existing regulator station, as well as the construction of one new compressor station and one new
M&R station. To the extent feasible, existing public and private roads along the proposed Atlantic Bridge
Project routes will be used as the primary means of accessing pipeline rights-of-way (ROW) and
aboveground facilities. These aboveground facilities are listed below and are described in more detail in
Resource Report 1.
New York:
o Stony Point Compressor Station uprate existing compressor unit3.
o Yorktown M&R Station install over pressure protection facilities for existing station.
1
15 U.S.C. 717f(c) (2012).
2
15 U.S.C. 717f(b) (2012).
3
The proposed uprate to the existing Mars 100 compressor unit at the Stony Point Compressor Station in New
York will utilize constructed but uncertificated horsepower capacity. The uprate simply requires the removal
of a software control, installed previously to limit the horsepower output. As a result, the uprate will not
require any facility construction or ground disturbance, and there will be no additional impacts relating to
such activities. As a result, the proposed work at the Stony Point Compressor Station is not discussed further
in this resource report.
Resource Report 6 Geological Resources 6-1 ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

Connecticut:
o Oxford Compressor Station add compression and cooling facilities.
o Chaplin Compressor Station add compression and cooling facilities and upgrade existing
compressor units.
o Danbury M&R Station install over pressure protection facilities for existing station.
o Salem Pike M&R Station construct new station to replace existing.
Massachusetts:
o Weymouth Compressor Station construct new station.
o Needham Regulator Station modify existing station.
o Pine Hills M&R Station rebuild existing station.
o Plymouth M&R Station rebuild existing station.
Maine:
o Westbrook M&R Station modify existing station.
This resource report describes the geologic setting and resources of the Atlantic Bridge Project area for the
pipeline facilities and the new and existing aboveground facilities (Section 6.2) and addresses the potential
for blasting (Section 6.3), use of mineral resources (Section 6.4), paleontological resources (Section 6.5),
and geological hazards that may affect the construction and operation of these new facilities (Section 6.6).
Where appropriate, mitigation measures intended to reduce the impact of the Atlantic Bridge Project on
geological resources and/or reduce the impact of geological hazards on Project facilities are identified. A
checklist showing the status of the FERC filing requirements for Resource Report 6 is included after the
table of contents.
6.2 Geologic Setting
The geology of the Atlantic Bridge Project area is diverse, with complex arrays of folded and faulted
metamorphic bedrock and igneous bedrock overlain by glacial deposits of varying thickness. The resulting
landscape is that of generally rock-based hills softened by glacial erosion and covered by till separated by
outwash plains and valleys laid down during glacial melt and deposition.
6.2.1 Physiography
The Atlantic Bridge Project area is located in the New England Physiographic Province. From the west to
east, the Project will be located in the New England Uplands Section, consisting of narrow river valleys
and low hills and transitioning to the Seaboard Lowland Section with lower ridges, beaches, and harbors
along the coast (USGS, 1946).
6.2.2 Topography
Topographic elevations along the Atlantic Bridge Project proposed facilities are presented on U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute series topographic quadrangle excerpts located in Appendix 1A
of Resource Report 1. Slopes and slope class are illustrated on the Pipeline Alignment Sheets provided in
Appendix 1A of Resource Report 1. The percent slopes and slope class within the Atlantic Bridge Project
area are presented in Table 7B-1 of Resource Report 7. A summary of topography is presented below.
New York
Stony Point Discharge Take-up and Relay
This pipeline segment will traverse west to east over moderate to steep relief, with ridges and narrow valleys
that trend north to south. Elevations typically range between 500 and 600 feet along the segment.

Existing Yorktown M&R Station
Algonquins existing Yorktown M&R Station is located on relatively flat terrain, gently sloping to the
northeast, at a topographic elevation of approximately 630 feet.
Connecticut
Southeast Discharge Take-up and Relay
This pipeline segment will traverse rolling hills with moderate to steep slopes. Elevation decreases from
approximately 625 feet on the west end to less than 300 feet in the Still River Valley.
Existing Oxford Compressor Station
Algonquins existing Oxford Compressor Station is located between the two crests atop Woodruff Hill at
an elevation of approximately 850 feet. Slopes in the area of this compressor station are gradual with steep
slopes immediately to the south toward the valley of an unnamed, intermittent stream.
Existing Chaplin Compressor Station
Algonquins existing Chaplin Compressor Station is located near the top of a hill approximately 400 feet
above the Hope River, which is located less than a mile to the west.
Salem Pike M&R Station
The proposed Salem Pike M&R Station will be located on flat land at the base of a hill on the edge of
wetlands with an elevation of approximately 100 feet.
Existing Danbury M&R Station
Algonquins existing Danbury M&R Station is located on flat land that is relatively lower in topographic
elevation than the surrounding land, standing at an elevation of approximately 460 feet.
Massachusetts
Existing Needham Regulator Station
Algonquins existing Needham Regulator Station is located on flat land at the base of a hill on the edge of
wetlands with an elevation of approximately 130 feet.
Existing Plymouth M&R Station
Algonquins existing Plymouth M&R Station is located on relatively flat land with an elevation of
approximately 140 feet and a low relief hill to the west and sloping towards the ocean to the east.
Existing Pine Hills M&R Station
Algonquins existing Pine Hills M&R Station is located on relatively flat to gently sloping land with an
elevation of approximately 80 feet.

Proposed Weymouth Compressor Station
Algonquins proposed site for the Weymouth Compressor Station is located on flat land with an elevation
of less than 20 feet at the mouth of the Weymouth Fore River.
Maine
Existing Westbrook M&R Station
Maritimes existing Westbrook M&R Station is located on relatively flat land near the top of Lorenzen Hill
at an elevation of approximately 300 feet.
6.2.3 Surficial Geology of the Atlantic Bridge Project Area
A review of surficial geologic maps and databases provided information regarding the nature of deposits
expected in the Atlantic Bridge Project area. Table 6.2-1 summarizes surficial geology by milepost (MP)
in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline and aboveground facilities. Figure 6.2-1 in Appendix 6A illustrates
surficial geology in the Atlantic Bridge Project area. Additional details of the surficial geology deposits
presented in the above-referenced table and figure are presented below.
Bedrock - Shallow surficial geology deposit present, with bedrock at the surface or generally within one
meter of the surface (Cadwell et al., 1986).
Fines (very fine sand, silt, and clay) - Composed of well-sorted, thin layers of alternating silt and clay or
thicker layers of very fine sand and silt. Very fine sand commonly occurs at the surface and grades
downward into rhythmically bedded silt and clay varves (lake-bottom deposits) (CTECO, 2015).
Outwash Sand & Gravel - Composed of mixtures of gravel and sand within individual layers and as
alternating layers. Sand and gravel layers generally range from 25 to 50 percent gravel particles and from
50 to 75 percent sand particles. Layers are well to poorly sorted; bedding may be distorted and faulted due
to post-depositional collapse (CTECO, 2015).
Till - A variable texture, usually poorly sorted diamict deposited beneath glacier ice. It tends to be
impermeable, have variable clast content, and range in thickness from 1 to 50 meters. Till is associated
with potential land instability on steep slopes (Cadwell et al., 1986).
6.2.4 Bedrock Geology of the Atlantic Bridge Project Area
Bedrock geology of the Atlantic Bridge Project area is dominated by igneous and metamorphic rocks. A
review of bedrock geology maps and databases provided information regarding the nature of units expected
in the Project area. Table 6.2-2 below summarizes bedrock geology by MP and at aboveground facilities,
while Figure 6.2-2 presents bedrock geology (see Appendix 6A). A summary of shallow bedrock locations
is presented in Table 7B-1 of Resource Report 7.

TABLE 6.2-1
Surficial Geology within the Atlantic Bridge Project Area
Project Facility / Begin

End MP Surficial Geology Material Map Symbol
Location MP
PIPELINE FACILITIES
New York
0.00 1.29 Till t
1.29 1.41 Outwash Sand and Gravel og
1.41 3.98 Till t
3.98 3.99 Bedrock r
3.99 4.03 Till t
Connecticut
0.00 0.34 Thick Till TT
0.34 0.54 Till T
0.54 0.88 Gravel G
0.88 1.08 Till T
1.08 1.11 Gravel G
1.11 1.49 Till T
1.49 1.50 Gravel G
1.50 1.54 Sand and Gravel SG
1.54 1.73 Thick Till TT
1.73 1.99 Sand and Gravel SG
1.99 2.27 Sand overlying Fines S/F
ABOVEGROUND FACILITIES
New York
Yorktown M&R Station
-- -- Till T
Connecticut
Oxford Compressor Station
-- -- Thick Till TT
Chaplin Compressor Station
-- -- Till T
-- -- Sand and Gravel SG
Danbury M&R Station
-- -- Till T
Massachusetts
Weymouth Compressor Station
-- -- Sand and gravel deposits 1
Plymouth M&R Station
Pine Hills M&R Station
-- -- Sandy till over sand 3
Needham Regulator Station
Maine
Westbrook M&R Station
-- -- Till Pt

TABLE 6.2-2
Bedrock Geology within the Atlantic Bridge Project Area
Project Facility / Begin Description Map

End MP Formation Symbol
Location MP Primary Secondary
PIPELINE FACILITIES
New York
0.00 0.69 Muscovite-biotite granite Granite -- Dpgr
0.69 4.03 Biotite-quartz-plagioclase gneiss Gneiss Granitic Gneiss bqpc
Connecticut
0.00 0.99 Pink Granitic Gneiss Granitic Gneiss -- Ygr
0.99 2.27 Dalton Formation Gneiss Quartzite Cd
New York
-- -- Biotite-quartz-plagioclase gneiss Gneiss Granitic Gneiss bqpc
Connecticut
-- -- Waterbury Gneiss Schist Gneiss Cwb
Calc-Silicate
-- -- Hebron Gneiss Schist SOh
Rock
-- -- Tatnic Hill Formation Gneiss Schist Ota
Danbury M&R Station
-- -- Pink Granitic Gneiss Granitic Gneiss -- Ygr
Massachusetts
-- -- Cambridge Argillite Argillite Quartzite PzZc
-- -- Granite, gneiss and schist, undivided Granite Gneiss Zgg
-- -- Roxbury Conglomerate Conglomerate Sandstone PzZr
Maine
-- -- Carboniferous alkali feldspar granite Granite -- C1b(m)
__________________________
References: Fisher et al., 1970; Rodgers, 1985; Zen et al., 1983.

6.2.4.1 New York
Each New York bedrock geologic unit that will be crossed by or will be in the vicinity of the Atlantic Bridge
Project pipeline and aboveground facilities is described below:
Muscovite-biotite Granite (Dpgr) Upper Devonian granite that is part of the Peekskill Pluton (Fisher et
al., 1970).
Biotite-quartz-plagioclase Gneiss (bqpc) Middle Proterozoic biotite-quartz-plagioclase gneiss with some

biotite granitic gneiss, amphibolite, and calcsilicate rock (Fischer et al., 1970).
6.2.4.2 Connecticut
Each Connecticut bedrock geologic unit that will be crossed by or will be in the vicinity of the Atlantic
Bridge Project pipeline and aboveground facilities is described below:
Pink Granitic Gneiss (Ygr) Proterozoic granitic gneiss that is light pink to gray in color, medium to coarse
texture, foliated but generally massive or poorly layered granitic gneiss having quartz, microline, oligoclase,
and either biotite or muscovite (or both), with amphibole or epidote occurring locally (Rodgers, 1985).
Dalton Formation (Cd) Early Cambrian gray, medium grained, well layered gneiss or feldspathic
quartzite, some schistose micaceous layers with sillimanite nodules, with purple quartzite common
(Rodgers, 1985).
Waterbury Gneiss (Cwb) Proterozoic or Cambrian gray, fine to medium grained, irregularly foliated
schist, including garnet and kyanite, and schistose gneiss. Granitoid gneiss is found irregularly (Rodgers,
1985).
Tatnic Hill Formation (Ota) Ordovician, gray, medium grained gneiss or schist, interlayered with local
units and thinner layers of rusty-weathering graphitic phyrrhotitic schist (Rodgers, 1985).
Hebron Gneiss (SOh) Ordovician to Silurian, interlayered gray, medium to coarse grained schist
containing local lenses of graphite, and greenish-gray, fine to medium grained calc-silicate rock (Rodgers,
1985).
6.2.4.3 Massachusetts
Each Massachusetts bedrock geologic unit that will be in the vicinity of the Atlantic Bridge Project area is
described below.
Roxbury Conglomerate (PzZr) Proterozoic to early Paleozoic, conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone,

argillite, and melaphyre. Consists of multiple members including a conglomerate with clasts of Dedham
granite and volcanic rock, interbedded argillite and sandstone, a distinctive diamictite, and mafic volcanic
rocks (Zen et al., 1983).
Cambridge Argillite (PzZc) Proterozoic to early Paleozoic, gray argillite, and minor quartzite with some
sandy argillite and red sandstone; red beds present above some cleaner quartzites. Contains acritarch fossils
(Zen et al., 1983).
Granite, Gneiss and Schist, undivided (Zgg) Proterozoic, undivided granite, gneiss and schist (Zen et al.,
1983).

6.2.4.4 Maine
The Maine bedrock geologic unit that will be in the vicinity of the Atlantic Bridge Project area is described
below.
Carboniferous alkali feldspar granite (muscovite accessory mineral) (C1b(m)) Late Devonian to early
Carboniferous (West, 1999), light-colored, medium-grained, plutonic igneous rock composed of feldspar,
quartz, muscovite, and biotite (GeoDIL, 2001).
6.3 Rock Removal
Algonquin has developed a Rock Removal Plan for the Atlantic Bridge Project (see Appendix 6B). The
Rock Removal Plan will be utilized for each site when solid rock is encountered as part of the pipeline
trench excavation, when grading to prepare a level linear work area, or during excavation for aboveground
facilities. When the Rock Removal Plan is consulted, the experienced contractor will analyze the rock type
and hardness and consider all other contributing factors such as location, surrounding environment, nearby
facilities, residences, and/or resources. This analysis process will result in a suitable rock removal
procedure, subject to Atlantic Bridge Project approval.
Large rock not suitable for use as backfill material will be windrowed along the edge of the ROW in upland
areas (with landowner permission), buried on the ROW, or hauled off to an approved gravel operation,
landfill, or recycling facility. The remaining rock will be mixed with any overlying subsoil that might have
been removed to access the rock and used to backfill the trench to the original contour. Substantial bedrock
necessitating the creation of windrows along the take-up and relay pipeline segments is not anticipated due
to the limited volume of bedrock that will be removed to expand the previously excavated trenchline.
6.4 Mineral Resources
Mineral resources in the Project area consist of commercial sand and gravel, crushed stone, and a gypsum
quarry. There are no mines located within 0.25 mile of proposed Atlantic Bridge Project facilities.
6.5 Paleontological Resources
The majority of the bedrock units that will underlie the Atlantic Bridge Project are either igneous or
metamorphic in origin and do not contain fossils. Although the bedrock underlying the Atlantic Bridge
Project in New York is unlikely to contain fossils, recent Ice Age fossils (110,000 to 12,000 years ago) may
be found in glacial sediments during shallow excavation, especially in low areas and organic rich bogs
(Columbia University, 2015).
6.6 Geologic Hazards
Geologic hazards are natural physical conditions that, when active, can impact environmental features and
man-made structures and may present public safety concerns. Such hazards typically include seismicity,
soil liquefaction, landslides, subsidence, flooding, and volcanism.
Field Assessments and Geotechnical Investigations
Based on the results of the geotechnical investigation for the Project, the horizontal directional drill
(HDD) installation has been designed within favorable geotechnical materials, and the Taconic State
Parkway crossing has been deemed feasible for construction using HDD methods. The geotechnical boring

results for the Taconic State Parkway are included in the HDD Feasibility Report for the Taconic State
Parkway HDD crossing (see Appendix 6C).
No geologic hazards have been identified as high risk for the Atlantic Bridge Project area; therefore,
geologic hazards are not of significant concern to the construction, operation, or maintenance of the Project
facilities, as discussed below.
6.6.1 Seismic Environment and Risk
Earthquakes and related seismic hazards are not anticipated to have an impact on the Atlantic Bridge
Project. The Project area is not located along a tectonic plate boundary where frequent high energy
earthquakes are typically common. Rather, the Project will be located in an intraplate setting with
historically low seismic risk and minimal seismic activity.
During an earthquake, seismic waves travel out from an earthquake epicenter through the surrounding rock.
Ground motion is higher closer to the location of the event. In general, ground motion decreases away from
the epicenter, though the amount of ground motion at the surface is related to more than just distance from
the epicenter. Some natural materials can amplify ground motion. For instance, ground motion is typically
less on solid bedrock and greater on thick deposits of clay, sand, or artificial fill.
Seismic hazards defined in building codes are typically based on peak ground acceleration. During an
earthquake, a particle attached to the earth will move back and forth irregularly. The horizontal force a
structure must withstand during an earthquake is related to ground acceleration. Peak ground acceleration
is the maximum acceleration experienced by a particle during an earthquake.
The USGS produces probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps for the United States (U.S.) with peak horizontal
acceleration values represented as a factor of g. The factor g is equal to the acceleration of a falling
object due to gravity. A review of the USGS Seismic Hazard Map (USGS, 2015) for the Atlantic Bridge
Project area indicates the area has a 2 percent probability of a 6 to 14 percent g exceedance in 50 years.
Figure 6.6-1 presents the Seismic Hazard Map for the region (see Appendix 6A).
Specific site conditions, including earthquakes, are considered in the design of the pipeline and
aboveground facilities. The seismic hazard in the Atlantic Bridge Project area is relatively low to moderate,
and the ground vibration would not pose a problem for a modern welded-steel pipeline. Even under much
higher ground vibrations, the main risk to pipelines would be a slip fault (e.g. San Andreas in California)
that displaces laterally during the earthquake. The proposed pipeline route does not cross this type of land
feature.
ORourke and Palmer (1994) performed a review of the seismic performance of gas transmission lines in
southern California. The authors found that electric arc-welded pipelines constructed post-World War II in
good repair have never experienced a break or leak as a result of either traveling ground waves or permanent
ground deformation during a southern California earthquake. The authors further concluded that modern
electric arc-welded gas pipelines in good repair are generally highly resistant to traveling ground wave
effects and moderate amounts of permanent deformation. Based on the low seismic risk and occurrence
assigned to the Atlantic Bridge Project area, the risk of damage to pipeline facilities by earthquakes is
anticipated to be low.
6.6.2 Active Faults
The USGS Quaternary Fold and Fault Database was searched to identify any Quaternary faults that would
be crossed or encountered by the Atlantic Bridge Project facilities. None were identified (USGS, 2014a).

There are no known active faults in the vicinity of the Atlantic Bridge Project area. There are many old,
extinct faults from the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras that formed as continents collided and subsequently
separated. These old faults are generally unrelated to earthquake occurrence in modern times. However,
the Ramapo Fault, which extends from Pennsylvania and New Jersey into southern New York, has been
correlated to earthquake occurrence in the area. The Ramapo Fault is part of a system of northeast-striking
faults that were active during the creation of the Appalachian Mountains and opening of the Atlantic Ocean
(~200 million years ago). The fault system remains as a vestige of an active tectonic boundary that once
existed in the area.
Although there is no on-going movement along the Ramapo Fault, seismologists have drawn a correlation
between identified earthquake epicenters and the trendline of the Ramapo Fault within the Ramapo Seismic
Zone (Sykes et al., 2008). This is attributed to manifestations of modern crustal stresses along pre-existing
fractures related to the Ramapo Fault (Jacob et al., 2004). However, identification of active faults in the
Atlantic Bridge Project area is very difficult due to Pleistocene glaciation (which covered pre-existing linear
features), small rupture size resulting from eastern earthquakes, and earthquake occurrence along many
faults with low rates of displacement (Sykes et al., 2008).
6.6.3 Areas Susceptible to Soil Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is a process whereby the strength and stiffness of a soil is reduced by earthquake shaking
or other rapid loading. The result is a transformation of soil to a liquid state. Typically, three general
factors are necessary for liquefaction to occur and can be used as a liquefaction hazard screening (USGS,
2014b). These factors are:
Presence of young (Pleistocene) sands and silts with very low or no clay content, naturally
deposited (beach or river deposits, windblown deposits) or man-made land (hydraulic fill, backfill).
Saturated soils where the space between individual particles is completely filled with water. This
water exerts a pressure on the soil particles that influences how tightly the particles themselves are
pressed together. This is most commonly observed near waterbodies such as rivers, lakes, bays,
and oceans, and the associated wetlands.
Severe shaking, which is most commonly caused by a large earthquake. Prior to an earthquake,
the water pressure is relatively low. However, earthquake shaking can cause the water pressure to
increase to the point where the soil particles can readily move with respect to each other. This
factor is limited by the distance from the large earthquake epicenter. That is, liquefaction potential
decreases as distance increases from the epicenter of a large earthquake.
The low seismic risk in the Project area is a limiting factor for liquefaction to occur; as a result, Algonquin
believes that the likelihood of this geologic hazard to occur in the Project area is low.
6.6.4 Areas Susceptible to Landslides
Landslides occur when rock, sediments, soils, and debris move down steep slopes. Such gravity-induced
flow is usually precipitated by heavy rains, erosion by rivers, earthquakes, or human activities (e.g., man-
made structures or piles of rock or ore). Areas of unstable soils that may be susceptible to landslides may
be characterized by soils that shrink or swell with changes in moisture content and are located in areas with
steep relief.
USGS mapping of landslide incidence and susceptibility for the U.S. indicates mapped landslide incidence
and landslide susceptibility are both considered low in the Atlantic Bridge Project area (USGS, 2005).

Figure 6.6-2 presents a landslide hazard map for the region (see Appendix 6A). To limit the potential for
landslides or slips, the restoration techniques presented in the Atlantic Bridge Project Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan (Resource Report 1, Appendix 1B) will be implemented.
6.6.5 Surface Subsidence Karst
No karst terrain has been identified along the proposed Atlantic Bridge Project facilities.
6.6.6 Surface Subsidence Underground Mines
Underground mining poses risks to engineered structures because of the potential for the overlying strata
to collapse into the void formed by the extraction of minerals. No current or former underground mining
activities exist in the vicinity of the Atlantic Bridge Project area (Altamura, 1987; USGS, 2013a; USGS,
2013b; USGS, 2013c). Therefore, no ground subsidence from underground mines is anticipated.
6.6.7 Flash Flooding
Flash flooding of streams in the Atlantic Bridge Project area is possible, particularly in areas of higher relief
and narrower stream valleys. Concerns over flash flooding have increased in recent years due to significant
rainfall events associated with tropical storms that have passed near the Atlantic Bridge Project area.
Tropical Storms Irene and Lee contributed 30 inches of rainfall in areas of southeastern New York and
western Connecticut in late August and early September of 2011 (NOAA, 2015). Flooding can also be
caused by seasonal variations in precipitation.
As required, aboveground facilities located in floodplains and pipeline stream crossings will be designed
to preclude impacts from high velocity flows, largely by controlling erosion, in accordance with the Project
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Measures will be implemented to provide the necessary equipment to
handle waterbody flow increases during pipeline installation activities such as having additional pumps on
stand-by for dam-and-pump crossings or appropriately sizing flumes to handle storm flows for flume
crossings.
In addition, equipment crossings will be designed to handle higher flow volumes that could be anticipated
from storm events and flooding situations. After construction is completed, each crossing will be
periodically inspected for signs of erosion and will be remediated as necessary. Impacts to Atlantic Bridge
Project facilities from flash flooding are not anticipated.
Flood data for the proposed Weymouth Compressor Station site was considered in evaluating the potential
effects of siting the station in a coastal area (i.e., the Weymouth Fore River). According to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map for Norfolk County, Massachusetts (revised
June 9, 2014), the northwestern portion of the proposed Weymouth Compressor Station construction site
occurs within the 100-year flood zone (Zone AE, Elevation 10 feet). However, the permanent station
facility itself is not located within this flood zone (see Figure 6.6-3). The mapped flood zone at this site
will be crossed by the two proposed underground suction and discharge pipelines that will connect the
proposed compressor station to Algonquins existing I-10 pipeline. These interconnection lines will be
buried and will not affect the ability of this portion of the site to address flooding during storm events.
6.6.8 Sea Level Rise
Over the last 100 years, tide gauges and satellites recorded measurements indicating an accelerated rate of
sea level rise compared to the past rate (MCZM, 2013). As sea level rises, high water elevations move
landward, areas of coastal shoreline retreat, and low-lying areas are increasingly exposed to erosion, tidal

inundation, and coastal storm flooding. Due to the threats posed by rising sea levels, it is important to
incorporate sea level rise scenarios into planning and development in coastal areas. The proposed Atlantic
Bridge Project will include the construction of a new aboveground facility, the Weymouth Compressor
Station, within a coastal area of Weymouth, Massachusetts.
The proposed Weymouth Compressor Station will be designed to mitigate the effects of sea level rise and
storm surge over a 50 year period. The station will be designed to incorporate the most conservative
published data and calculations from the U. S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Based on the USACE Sea Level Change Curve Calculator, the
most conservative scenario for sea level rise in the area around Boston, Massachusetts is an increase of
approximately 3.22 feet by the year 2067 (USACE, 2014). Potential storm surge and inundation impacts
will be accounted for by designing the station based on this scenario.
6.6.9 Volcanism
No volcanic activity has occurred near the Atlantic Bridge Project area for approximately 200 million
years based on the ages and types of rock discussed above; therefore, no impacts from volcanism are
anticipated.
6.7 References
Altamura, R. J. (compiler). 1987. Rock Mines and Quarries of Connecticut. Connecticut Geological and
Natural History Survey. Scale 1:125,000.
Cadwell, D. H. et al. 1986. Surficial Geologic Map of New York, Lower Hudson Sheet. Compiled and
edited by. NY State Museum Geological Survey. Map and chart series #40.
Columbia University. 2015. Email correspondence between Paul Olsen (Lamont Doherty Geological
Observatory of Columbia University at Palisades, NY) and Ayla Heinze Fry (TRC) on March 24,
2015.
[CTECO] - Connecticut Environmental Conditions Online. 2015. Surficial Materials, University of

Connecticut. http://cteco.uconn.edu/guides/Surficial_Material.htm. Last accessed April 7, 2015.
Fisher D.W., Y. W. Isachsen, and L. V. Rickard. 1970. Geologic Map of New York State, consisting of 5
sheets: Niagara, Finger Lakes, Hudson-Mohawk, Adirondack, and Lower Hudson, New York State
Museum and Science Service, Map and Chart Series No. 15, scale 1:250000.
[GeoDIL] Geological Digital Image Library. GeoDIL-19: Muscovite-biotite granite. Available online at:
[http://www.geodil.com/image.asp?ImageID=19&history=0&categoryid=3]. Accessed August 4,
2015.
Jacob, K., W.Y. Kim, and A. Lerner-Lam. 2004. Earthquakes and the Ramapo Fault System in Southeastern
New York State. The Earth Institute at Columbia University. March 22, 2004.
[MCZM] Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management. 2013. Sea Level Rise: Understanding and
Applying Trends and Future Scenarios for Analysis and Planning. Available online at:
[http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/czm/stormsmart/slr-guidance-2013.pdf]. Accessed October 6,
2015.

[NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2015. Extreme Weather 2011, Hurricane
Irene. http://www.noaa.gov/extreme2011/irene.html. Last accessed April 8, 2015.
ORourke, T.D. and M.C. Palmer. 1994. The Northbridge, California, Earthquake of January 17, 1994:
Performance of Gas Transmission Pipelines. National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research. Technical Report NCEER-94-0011. Buffalo, New York.
Rodgers, J. 1985. Bedrock Geological Map of Connecticut. Connecticut Geological and Natural History
Survey, in cooperation with U.S. Geological Survey, Scale 1:125,000. 1985.
Sykes, L. R., J. G. Armbruster, W. Y. Kim, and L. Seeder. 2008. Observations and Tectonic Setting of
Historic and Instrumentally Located Earthquakes in the Greater New York City-Philadelphia Area.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 98, No. 4, pp. 1696-1719.
[USACE] United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2014. Climate Change Adaptation USACE Sea
Level Change Curve Calculator. Available online at:
[http://www.corpsclimate.us/ccaceslcurves.cfm]. Accessed October 6, 2015.
[USGS] United States Geological Survey. 1946. Physiographic divisions of the conterminous U. S., US
Geological Survey. http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/metadata/usgswrd/XML/physio.xml. Last accessed
April 9, 2015.
USGS. 2005. Digital Compilation of Landslide Overview Map of the Conterminous United States. USGS
Open-File Report 97-289.
USGS. 2013a. 2009 Minerals Yearbook, Connecticut [Advance Release]. U.S. Geological Survey.
February 2013.
USGS. 2013b. 2009 Minerals Yearbook, Massachusetts [Advance Release]. U.S. Geological Survey.
January 2013.
USGS. 2013c. 2009 Minerals Yearbook, New York [Advance Release]. U.S. Geological Survey. May 2013.
USGS. 2014a. Quaternary fault and fold database for the United States.
http//earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/. Last accessed April 23, 2015.
USGS. 2014b. Liquefaction Fact Sheet, United States Geological Survey.

http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/sfgeo/liquefaction/aboutliq.html. Last accessed October 29, 2014.
West, D. P., Jr. 1999. Timing of displacements along the Norumbega fault system, south-central and
south-coastal Maine. Geological Society of America. Special Paper 331. Available online at:
[https://books.google.com/books?id=Mj_1gQcR654C&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=carbonifero
us+muscovite+granite+maine&source=bl&ots=DvpYunQwxu&sig=x61Gfppcvp43lH42UDOOX
cDjACY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBzgKahUKEwji5KOquY_HAhVDWz4KHWOMAP
I#v=onepage&q=carboniferous%20muscovite%20granite%20maine&f=false]. Accessed August
4, 2015.
Zen, E.A. (editor), R. Goldsmith, N. M. Ratcliffe, P. Robinson, R. S. Stanley, N. L. Hatch Jr., A. F. Shride,
E. G. A. Weed, and D. R. Wones. Bedrock Geologic Map of Massachusetts: U.S. Geological
Survey Special Geologic Map. 1983.

APPENDIX 6A
Figure 6.2-1: Surficial geology along the Atlantic Bridge Project

Figure 6.2-2: Bedrock Geology along the Atlantic Bridge Project
Figure 6.6-1: Seismic Hazard Map
Figure 6.6-2: Landslide Hazard Map
Figure 6.6.3: FEMA Flood Zones at Proposed Weymouth Compressor Station

pm
og
4!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
r
!
(
3!
!
(
k
(
!
(
k
!
(
YORKTOWN !(
!
(
og !
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
t 2!
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
STONY POINT DISCHARGE TAKE-UP AND RELAY

!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
1!
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
0!
(
!
(
r
og
K
Maine
Vermont "
) Legend
!
( Approximate Milepost Surficial Geology Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC
New Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.
Hampshire ! M&R Station (Modification Required) Not crossed by project
M&R Station (Proposed New) Crossed by project 0 0.5
Atlantic Bridge Project
New !
t - Till
Miles
York
Massachusetts "
) " "
) Compressor Station (C/S) (Proposed Modification)
)
r - Bedrock
"
) )
" Compressor Station (C/S) (Proposed New) Figure 6.2-1 Surficial Geology
"
)
RI
"
)
Proposed Pipeline og - Outwash sand and gravel Sources: ESRI, SPECTRA, TRC
NY State Museum - Surficial Geology STONY POINT DISCHARGE TAKE-UP AND RELAY
Connecticut
Existing Algonquin Transmission Pipeline
"
) "
)
"
Projection: NAD83, UTM Zone 18N
)
"
)
US Survey Feet, Grid North. Map 1 of 10 Created: 9/08/2015
NJ
TT T SG S
SW S/F S/F
SG
TT
W TT T SG/S
T
S/F
W A/F
G
S A/F
W
TT T
SG/S/F G F
TT W S/F
TT
W
T T
AF
DANBURY TT
!
( F/SG
!!
(
G SG !
(
1 2 !(
!
( !
( !
(
T S/F G
W
!
(
W A/F A/F
! !
(
( !
(
T
!
( !
( !
( !
(
!
( !
(
!
( !
(
A/F
!
( !
(
SG/S
!
(
A/F
!
(
!
( W TT
A/F
S A/SG T S/SG
W AF
T
F S
SW/F
SG S S A/F
A/SG SG/S S/F
W
TT SG/F
TT S/F
TT F
T
SG
S A/SG
T
A/F SG S
F T T T SW/S/SG
Maine Legend
Vermont "
) !
( Approximate Milepost Surficial Geology SG/F - Sand+Gravel overlying Sand
! M&R Station (Modification Required) Not crossed by project SG/S/F - Sand + Gravel overlying Sand overlying Fines Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC
M&R Station (Proposed New) A/SG - Alluvium overlying Sand + Gravel S/F - Sand overlying Fines
New ! Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.
Hampshire
"
) Compressor Station (C/S) (Proposed Modification) A/F/G - Alluvium overlying Fines overlying Gravel SW - Swamp
G - Gravel TT - Thick Till
New
)
" Compressor Station (C/S) (Proposed New)
York
Proposed Pipeline S - Sand T - Till
Massachusetts "
) "
)
SG - Sand + Gravel
Figure 6.2-1 Surficial Geology
Existing Algonquin Transmission Pipeline Water
K
"
)
"
)
RI
"
)
Sources: ESRI, SPECTRA, TRC,
CTDEEP SOUTHEAST DISCHARGE TAKE-UP AND RELAY
Connecticut
"
) "
) 0 0.5
"
)
"
)
Miles US Survey Feet, Grid North.
Map 2 of 10 Created: 9/8/2015
NJ
TT SG SG TT
SG
SW TT
SW SG SW
TT SW TT
SG
TT W W
SG
AF TT
A/SG
TT
W SG
SG
TT
S SW/F/S
TT
S S
)
"
SG TT
Existing Oxford C/S
Increase HP
S SW
T
W
W TT
TT
TT
SW
SG SG
SG
TT
W
TT
SW T TT SG
Maine Legend
Vermont "
) !
Hampshire
"
New
)
York
Massachusetts "
) "
)
SG - Sand + Gravel
K
"
)
"
)
RI
"
)
CTDEEP OXFORD COMPRESSOR STATION
Connecticut
"
) "
) 0 0.5
"
)
"
)
NJ
SW SG/S T SG/S
SW T A/S
TT SG/S A/S A/SG/F
S A/SG
T
W T
SW
A/S
W SG
A/SG T
T
G SG/S
SG
SW SG
SG T
T A/S
A/SG T
SG ! TT
SALEM PIKE
SG
A/SG A/SG SG/S/F SG/F A/SG
SW/F T
A/S
A/F
W
SG/S
TS
A
T
W
TS
TS SG/S/F
SG
TT A/SG SG/S SW
Maine Legend
Vermont "
) !
Hampshire
"
New
)
York
Massachusetts "
) "
)
SG - Sand + Gravel
K
"
)
"
)
RI
"
)
CTDEEP SALEM PIKE M&R STATION
Connecticut
"
) "
) 0 0.5
"
)
"
)
NJ
TT SG SG SG
G
TT A/SG W
W
TT SW
W A/SG SG
A/SG
T
W
W
Existing Chaplin C/S
TT
A/SG Increase HP SG
SW SG
G SG
A/SG
SG
W )
" TT
TT SG
A/SG
A/SG
TT SG
T
A/SG
A/S/SG
A/SG W A/SG
SG/S
W A/SG
W A/S/SG
W
T
SG/S
G
A/SG SG
TT TT TT
A/SG G A/S/SG
SG SW SW SG
Maine Legend
Vermont "
) !
Hampshire
"
New
)
York
Massachusetts "
) "
)
SG - Sand + Gravel
K
"
)
"
)
RI
"
)
CTDEEP CHAPLIN COMPRESSOR STATION
Connecticut
"
) "
) 0 0.5
"
)
"
)
NJ
2
2 7
2
1
2
1
2
1
1 2 2 1
2
NEEDHAM
!
2 1
2
1
2
1 2
7
Legend
Maine
K
Vermont "
)
! M&R Station (Modification Required) Surficial Geology
Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC
New ! M&R Station (Proposed New) 1 - Sand and Gravel Deposits Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.
Compressor Station (C/S) (Proposed Modification) 2 - Till or Bedrock

Hampshire
"
)
0 0.5
Compressor Station (C/S) (Proposed New) 3 - Sandy Till over Sand Atlantic Bridge Project
New
York )
"
Massachusetts "
) "
) Proposed Pipeline 4 - End Moraines Miles
"
) Existing Algonquin Transmission Pipeline 5 - Large Sand Deposits Figure 6.2-1 Surficial Geology
"
)
RI
"
)
6 - Fine Grained Deposits Sources: ESRI, SPECTRA, TRC,
MASSGIS NEEDHAM REGULATOR STATION
Connecticut
7 - Floodplain Alluvium
"
) "
)
"
)
"
)
US Survey Feet, Grid North.
NJ
1
2
1 2
2
1
2 1
2
1
2
1
Proposed Weymouth C/S
)
" 2
1 1
2
1
2
1
7
2
2
2 2
1 7
7 1
7 1
7 1 7
Legend
Maine
K
Vermont "
)

Hampshire
"
)
0 0.5
New
York )
"
Massachusetts "
) "
"
"
)
RI
"
)
MASSGIS WEYMOUTH COMPRESSOR STATION
Connecticut
"
) "
)
"
)
"
)
NJ
1
1
1
PLYMOUTH
1 !
1
7
Legend
Maine
K
Vermont "
)

Hampshire
"
)
0 0.5
New
York )
"
Massachusetts "
) "
"
"
)
RI
"
)
MASSGIS PLYMOUTH M&R STATION
Connecticut
"
) "
)
"
)
"
)
NJ
7
1
1
7 1
1
1
PINE HILLS 1
!
4
5 3
4
7
7
7 7
1
1
7 4
1
4
1 3
1
Legend
Maine
K
Vermont "
)

Hampshire
"
)
0 0.5
New
York )
"
Massachusetts "
) "
"
"
)
RI
"
)
MASSGIS PINE HILLS M&R STATION
Connecticut
"
) "
)
"
)
"
)
NJ
Pt
Pt Hw
Pmrs Pemc Pt
Pemc Pt Pm
Pm
Pmf/Pemc
Pp
Pt
Pemc
Pt
Pemc Pp Pt
Pt
Pt
Pp WESTBROOK
Ha !
Pemc Pmf
Pp Pp
Ha Pt Ha
Ha Pt
Pemc
Pp
Pmrs
Pemc Ha Pp
Ha
Pp
Pmf
Pp
Maine Legend
K
Vermont "
) ! M&R Station (Modification Required) Surficial Geology
! M&R Station (Proposed New) Ha - Stream alluvium Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC
New Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.
Hampshire Existing Maritimes Northeast Pipeline Hw - Wetland deposits
Pemc - End moraine complex 0 0.5
New
York Pm - Marine deposits
Massachusetts "
) "
)
Pmf - Marine fan deposit Miles
Pmf/Pemc - Marine fan deposit over moraine complex
"
)
"
)
RI
"
)
Pmrs - Marine regressive sand deposits MEOGIS WESTBROOK M&R STATION
Connecticut
"
) "
)
Pp - Presumpscot Formation
"
)
"
)
Pt - Till Map 10 of 10 Created: 9/8/2015
NJ
Cpg
4 !(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
3 !(
!
(
!
(
!
(
YORKTOWN !(
!
(
bg
!
!
(
!
(
bqpc !
(
!
(
2 !(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
( bg
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
1 !(
!
( STONY POINT DISCHARGE TAKE-UP AND RELAY bqpc
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
Dpgr
!
(
!
(
!
(
0 !( !
(
Dpgd
Maine Legend
K
Approximate Milepost Bedrock Geology
Vermont "
)
!
(
New ! M&R Station (Modification Required) Not crossed by project Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC
Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.
Hampshire ! M&R Station (Proposed New) Dpgr - Muscovite-biotite granite
Trhc - Hammer Creek Formation 0 0.5
Compressor Station (C/S) (Proposed Modification)
New
York
"
)
bqpc - Biotite-quartz-plagioclase paragneiss
Massachusetts "
) "
) )
" Compressor Station (C/S) (Proposed New) Miles
"
) Proposed Pipeline hg - Hornblende granite and granite gneiss Figure 6.2-2 Bedrock Geology
" "
)
Sources: ESRI, SPECTRA, TRC
Existing Algonquin Transmission Pipeline
)
RI
NY State Museum - Surficial Geology STONY POINT DISCHARGE TAKE-UP AND RELAY
Connecticut
"
) "
)
"
)
"
)
US Survey Feet, Grid North. Map 1 of 10 Created: 9/8/2015
NJ
Yg
Ygh Yga
Owm
Ob
Cd
DANBURY !
(
!!
( !
(
1 2 !(
!
( !
( !
(
!
(
Ygr ! !
(
( !
(
!
( !
( !
( !
(
!
(
Or
!
( !
(
!
( !
( !
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
SOUTHEAST DISCHARGE TAKE-UP AND RELAY

OCs
Or
Ygh
Ob
Maine Legend
Vermont "
) !
( Approximate Milepost Bedrock Geology Ogl - Glastonbury Gneiss
! M&R Station (Modification Required) Not crossed by project Ot - Taine Mountain Formation
New ! M&R Station (Proposed New) Cd - Dalton Formation Ot+Oc - Taine Mountain and Collinsville Formation undivided Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.
Hampshire
"
) Compressor Station (C/S) (Proposed Modification) Cwb - Waterbury Gneiss Ota - Tatnic Hill Formation
DSt - The Straits Schist Otb - Basal member of Taine Mountain Formation
New )
York Proposed Pipeline Jp - Portland Arkose SOh - Hebron Gneiss
Massachusetts "
) "
) Existing Algonquin Gas Transmission Pipeline Och - Collins Hill Formation Ygr - Pink granitic gneiss
"
) Ochv - Metavolcanic member of Collins Hill Formation Figure 6.2-2 Bedrock Geology
K
"
) "
)
RI
0 0.5 CTDEEP SOUTHEAST DISCHARGE TAKE-UP AND RELAY
Connecticut
"
) "
)
"
)
"
)
NJ
Cwb
Dlp
Ot+Oc
)
"
Otb Existing Oxford C/S

Increase HP
DSt
Ot
Oc
Maine Legend
Vermont "
) !
Hampshire
"
New )
Massachusetts "
) "
"
K
"
) "
)
RI
0 0.5 CTDEEP OXFORD COMPRESSOR STATION
Connecticut
"
) "
)
"
)
"
)
NJ
DSs SOh SOh
Dc
Otay
Otaf
Ota
Ota
Zw
!
SALEM PIKE
Zwr
Zsh
Zwm
Zw
Zp
Zsh
Maine Legend
Vermont "
) !
Hampshire
"
New )
Massachusetts "
) "
"
K
"
) "
)
RI
0 0.5 CTDEEP SALEM PIKE M&R STATION
Connecticut
"
) "
)
"
)
"
)
NJ
SObl
Obr?
SOs
Existing Chaplin C/S

Increase HP
DSs
)
"
SOh
Dce
SOh
Otay
Dc
Dc
Maine Legend
Vermont "
) !
Hampshire
"
New )
Massachusetts "
) "
"
K
"
) "
)
RI
0 0.5 CTDEEP CHAPLIN COMPRESSOR STATION
Connecticut
"
) "
)
"
)
"
)
NJ
PzZr PzZr
PzZrb
Zm
Zdgr
PzZrb
Zw
NEEDHAM
!
PzZr PzZrb
Zm
PzZr
Zm
Legend
Maine
Vermont "
)
!
( Approximate Milepost Bedrock Geology SOqgr - Quincy Granite
New ! M&R Station (Modification Required) Not Crossed by Project Zb - Blackstone Group Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.
Hampshire
! M&R Station (Proposed New) Pp - Pondville Conglomerate Zfgr - Granite of the Fall River pluton

New
"
) Compressor Station (C/S) (Proposed Modification) PzZc - Cambridge Argillite Zgg - Granite, gneiss, and schist, undivided
York
Massachusetts "
) "
) )
" Compressor Station (C/S) (Proposed New) PzZr - Roxbury Conglomerate Zgr - Biotite granite
Proposed Pipeline Figure 6.2-2 Bedrock Geology
K
"
)
"
)
RI
"
)
Connecticut
" "
) Existing Algonquin Transmission Pipeline 0 0.5 MASSGIS NEEDHAM REGULATOR STATION
" )
)
"
)
NJ
PzZr
PzZc
PzZc
PzZc
PzZc
C-bw C-bw
Proposed Weymouth C/S

PzZc
PzZc Zdgr
SOqgr )
" PzZc
PzZc
SOqgr
C-bw
SOqgr
Zdgr
SOqgr
C-bw PzZc
Zdgr
Legend
Maine
Vermont "
)
!
Hampshire

New
"
York
Massachusetts "
) "
) )
K
"
)
"
)
RI
"
)
Connecticut
" "
) Existing Algonquin Transmission Pipeline 0 0.5 MASSGIS WEYMOUTH COMPRESSOR STATION
" )
)
"
)
NJ
PLYMOUTH
!
Zgg
Legend
Maine
Vermont "
)
!
Hampshire

New
"
York
Massachusetts "
) "
) )
K
"
)
"
)
RI
"
)
Connecticut
" "
) Existing Algonquin Transmission Pipeline 0 0.5 MASSGIS PLYMOUTH M&R STATION
" )
)
"
)
NJ
Zgg PINE HILLS
!
Zgg
Legend
Maine
Vermont "
)
!
Hampshire

New
"
York
Massachusetts "
) "
) )
K
"
)
"
)
RI
"
)
Connecticut
" "
) Existing Algonquin Transmission Pipeline 0 0.5 MASSGIS PINE HILLS M&R STATION
" )
)
"
)
NJ
C1b(m)
WESTBROOK
SOv
SOv
D9
Maine
K
Vermont "
) Legend
M&R Station (Modification Required) Bedrock Geology
Hampshire ! M&R Station (Proposed New) C1b(m) - Carboniferous alkali feldspar granite
Existing Maritimes Northeast Pipeline D9 - Devonian gabbro/diorite/ultramafic rocks 0 0.5
New
SOv - Silurian - Ordovician Vassalboro formation
York
Massachusetts "
) "
) Miles
"
) Figure 6.2-2 Bedrock Geology
"
)
RI
"
)
MEOGIS WESTBROOK M&R STATION
Connecticut
"
) "
)
"
)
"
)
NJ
Legend WESTBROOK !
"
)
" Compressor Station (C/S) (Proposed New) MAINE
! M&R Station (Modification Required)
! M&R Station (Proposed New)
Proposed Pipeline
VERMONT
Existing Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Existing Algonquin Gas Transmission Pipeline
Seismic Hazard
Peak acceleration, expressed as a fraction of standard gravity (g)
.20
0.18 - 0.14
0.14 - 0.10
0.10 - 0.06
0.06 - 0.04
0.04 - 0.02
0.02 - 0 Sources: ESRI, TRC, SPECTRA, USGS
National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project 2014
NEEDHAM ! Proposed
Weymouth C/S
MASSACHUSETTS
)
"
NEW YORK
PLYMOUTH
Existing Chaplin C/S !
Increase HP
PINE HILLS
!
)
"
CONNECTICUT
RHODE
Existing Oxford C/S ISLAND
Increase HP
SALEM PIKE !
)
"
DANBURY !
YORKTOWN
!
Southeast Discharge Take-Up and Relay (2.3 miles)

NEW JERSEY Stony Point Discharge Take-Up and Relay (4.0 miles) Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.
0
K
!
Miles
30
Figure 6.6-1
Seismic Hazard Map
Created on 9/8/2015
Legend
WESTBROOK !
"
)
MAINE
! M&R Station (Proposed New)
Proposed Pipeline
VERMONT
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Low Landslide Incidence
Moderate Landslide Incidence

High Landslide Incidence
Moderate Susceptibility/Low Incidence
High Susceptibility/Low Incidence

High Susceptibility/Moderate Incidence
Sources: ESRI, USGS, TRC, SPECTRA
NEEDHAM ! Proposed
Weymouth C/S
MASSACHUSETTS
)
"
NEW YORK
PLYMOUTH
Existing Chaplin C/S !
Increase HP
PINE HILLS
!
)
"
CONNECTICUT
RHODE
Existing Oxford C/S ISLAND
Increase HP
SALEM PIKE !
)
"
DANBURY !
YORKTOWN
!
Southeast Discharge Take-Up and Relay (2.3 miles)

NEW JERSEY Stony Point Discharge Take-Up and Relay (4.0 miles) Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.
0
K
!
Miles
30
Figure 6.6-2
Landslide Hazard Map
Created on 9/8/2015
I-10
I-10
V:\PROJECTS\AUGUSTA\SPECTRA\Atlantic_Bridge\Fig_2_1_1_Weymouth_FEMA_Flood_Zones_Aerial_8x11_P.mxd
0
K100 200
Feet
Legend
Proposed Compressor Station
Construction Workspace
Proposed Compressor Station
Existing Algonquin Pipeline Systems
Figure: 2.1-1
FEMA 100yr Floodzone (2014)
6.6-3
FEMA Flood Zones
NOTE: Flood data derived from the Created: 14 Gabriel Drive
FEMA National Flood Hazard GIS Layer Sources: ESRI, MASSGIS, SPECTRA 10/13/2015 Augusta, ME 04330
APPENDIX 6B
Atlantic Bridge Project Rock Removal Plan

ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT
Rock Removal Plan
October 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 BEDROCK CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................................... 1
3.0 ROCK REMOVAL CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................................................ 2
4.0 ROCK REMOVAL METHODS ....................................................................................................................... 2

4.1 Excavation .................................................................................................................................................... 3
4.2 Hammering ................................................................................................................................................... 3
4.3 Drilling ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
4.4 Blasting......................................................................................................................................................... 3
5.0 BLASTING PLAN .............................................................................................................................................. 4

5.1 Pre-Blast Inspection...................................................................................................................................... 4
5.2 Monitoring of Blasting Activities ................................................................................................................. 4
5.3 Post-Blast Inspection .................................................................................................................................... 4
5.4 Waterbody Crossing Blasting Procedures .................................................................................................... 5
5.5 Blasting Specifications ................................................................................................................................. 5
5.5.1 Pre-requisites for Use of Explosives ................................................................................................. 5
5.5.2 Evaluation of Close-In Blasts .....7
5.5.3 Blasting on Pipeline Right-of-Way ................................................................................................ 7
5.5.4 Minimum Offset From Blast Holes to Pipeline ................................................................................. 7
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1 Map of the Atlantic Bridge Project

ATTACHMENT 2 Table 1: Estimated Depth to Bedrock along the Atlantic Bridge Project
ATTACHMENT 3 Table 2: Bedrock Geology within the Atlantic Bridge Project Area
Rock Removal Plan i ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin) and Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.
(Maritimes) have developed this Rock Removal Plan (Plan) to be implemented during construction and
operation of the Atlantic Bridge Project (Project). The Plan provides information on the type of bedrock
likely to be encountered during construction, bedrock locations along the Project route, and estimated depth
to bedrock. Information on the characteristics of the bedrock may be evaluated, at least in a general sense,
and applied towards an appropriate bedrock excavation method.
This information was obtained from the local published soil maps as acquired from the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and State resources.
A map depicting the location of the Atlantic Bridge Project is presented in Attachment 1.
2.0 BEDROCK CHARACTERISTICS

The hard and intact nature of the unweathered igneous bedrock (basalts and granites) and metamorphic
bedrock (slates, phyllites, schists, and quartzites) dictate the removal methods that will be utilized. Soft
bedrock, such as sedimentary or weathered igneous and metamorphic rock, may possibly be removed by
ripping. Other geologic features may also control the effects of removal. Rock fabric, or the arrangements
of minerals, determines intrinsic rock strength, and thus influences rock excavation. Joint spacing, bedding,
and foliation also influence rock excavation. Lithologic generalizations of the Atlantic Bridge Project area
rock type include:
Granitic rock is invariably resistant, except where weathered;

Granulitic (high temperature-high pressure metamorphic rock with gneissic texture) and migmatitic
(cooled rock having reached the boundary between metamorphism and magmatism) rock are also
equally resistant;
Ultramafic (rich ferromagnesium) rocks are highly fractured and almost always require blasting.
Other metamorphic rock along the geothermal gradient may have a wide range of susceptibility to
blasting or ripping. It is the most difficult to predict of the hard rocks. Degrees of intensity of
metamorphism can be further deduced from the minerals that schists contain; and
Weathered or thinly bedded sedimentary rock is generally amenable to ripping.
Distinct paralithic zones of partially weathered bedrock or weakly consolidated bedrock were not identified
in the publicly available databases reviewed for the Project area.
Attachment 2 presents the estimated depth to bedrock along the pipeline route where shallow bedrock may
be encountered during construction. Attachment 3 presents a summary of bedrock types present at the
Atlantic Bridge Project facilities.
Rock Removal Plan 1 ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

3.0 ROCK REMOVAL CONSIDERATIONS
The Rock Removal Plan will be utilized for each site when solid rock is encountered as part of the pipeline
trench excavation, the grading to prepare a level linear work area, or the excavation for aboveground
facilities. Refer to the tables in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 for a summary of bedrock characteristics
for the Atlantic Bridge Project. Site specific geotechnical information is provided in facility specific reports
for new aboveground facilities.
If rock is encountered, the experienced contractor will analyze the rock type and hardness and consider all
other contributing factors such as location, surrounding environment, nearby facilities, residences, and/or
resources. The procedures outlined in the Rock Removal Plan will then be used to determine a suitable
rock removal procedure, subject to Algonquin approval.
Should rock be encountered during grading or trench excavation, the contractor will assess the rock
properties and attempt to remove rock using simple mechanical processes, such as a bulldozer mounted
rock ripping attachment or rock teeth on an excavator bucket. If alternative methods are considered,
including an excavator mounted hydraulic breaker, line drilling and ripping, or drilling and blasting,
approval from Algonquin will be required.
For rock removal adjacent to other utilities, information will be gathered on the depth of trench, proximity
to the existing utility, the type of rock, and other factors. Following an evaluation by Algonquin, the
contractor will be notified of all approved rock removal methods for the site that adhere to Algonquin
specifications.
The contractor will then assess proximity to structures, resources, facilities, and residences. Federal, state,
and local regulations will be consulted to determine acceptable removal methods within the area. If blasting
is allowed, all necessary steps will be taken to protect existing conditions. Such procedures may include
pre- and/or post-blast surveys at residences and structures, water well testing as applicable, and utilization
of blasting mats.
The contractor will make a reasonable effort to first mechanically remove the rock in congested or densely
residential areas. If the mechanical methods of removal fail to properly fragment the rock, then blasting
will be used (where allowed by Algonquin and applicable regulations). For all other areas, the contractor
will ultimately select the rock removal method from the methods approved by Algonquin and applicable
regulations. The decision will be based upon the factors listed above, along with additional factors
including, but not limited to, volume of rock to be removed, availability of equipment and personnel, and
site-specific considerations. If blasting is selected, then site-specific, detailed blasting plans will be
developed for each site to meet Algonquins specifications and standard practices.
4.0 ROCK REMOVAL METHODS

As per Algonquin specifications, all forms of mechanical rock removal will occur between the hours of
7 a.m. and 6 p.m. (unless otherwise specified by Algonquin or restricted by permit). Additionally, a
fragmentation rate of at least 75 percent of trench rock to less than 6 inches in diameter is required.
There are several possible methods to remove rock from within an excavation. Each method is best suited
for specific situations due to individual advantages and limitations. A general overview of each method is
provided below.

4.1 Excavation
During normal trenching activities, the contractor will use excavators to remove soil from the path of the
pipeline. If the excavator encounters small to medium boulders, then it may be possible for the machine to
remove the rock. However, it is expected that the excavator may encounter bedrock while trenching. The
contractor may be able to rip the bedrock using rock teeth on an excavator bucket or a ripping attachment
on a bulldozer. When ripping of rock is not practical or possible, other means of rock fragmentation are
necessary as described below.
4.2 Hammering
Hammering is the use of any tool that fragments rock using a percussion hammer. Two common pieces of
construction equipment used in hammering are hand held jack-hammers and hydraulic breakers attached to
excavators (referred to as a hammer hoe).
Hand-held jack-hammers can be useful for fragmenting pavement, concrete, or rock. However, hand-held
jack-hammers are only practical for small amounts of rock removal because the process is labor intensive
and has limited percussive strength. Hydraulic breakers are more useful in fragmenting rock due to the
increased size, efficiency, and power. Rock removal progress for hydraulic breakers is generally slow for
large amounts of rock.
Hammer hoe or jack-hammer operations require planning and execution of applicable precautionary
measures. Initially, all adjacent utilities must be verified and protected, including Algonquin pipelines and
facilities. Fortunately, the rock immediately adjacent to existing utilities would have already been removed
during installation of the utility. Appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) including hearing
protection, breathing protection, and eye protection in conjunction with standard PPE will be required.
Hand signals or other alternative plans/methods must be used to mitigate complications with heightened
noise and dust levels.
4.3 Drilling
Drilling will be integral to achieving proper bedrock fragmentation. Two main types of rock drills may be
used during construction. The primary rock drilling equipment will be an excavator mounted drill. The
second possible piece of equipment is a crawler drill, which is a mobile rock drill. These machines use a
rotating drill bit as well as a percussive force to create a cylindrical hole within the bedrock. The fragmented
rock is then flushed out of the hole by an air compressor within the drill.
Excavator mounted drills and crawler drills are integral in creating a hole within rock for blasting, as both
machines are quick and efficient. However, the drilling machines can also drill a formation of holes to
weaken the rock. When the rock is properly drilled, hammering or ripping may then be attempted to
fragment the rock. While this approach is typically the most successful form of mechanical removal, there
are several associated limitations including the following: increasing the quantity and variety of equipment
running at the job site to maximize the progress from this method; production is much slower than if blasting
was used; and as with other mechanical methods, proper fragmentation of the rock cannot be guaranteed.
4.4 Blasting
Blasting is another method of rock removal that may be utilized. This method is supported by drilling,
which is described above. After the hole is drilled, blasting operations are carried out as described within
a site-specific blasting plan that addresses all of the specifications below.

5.0 BLASTING PLAN
5.1 Pre-Blast Inspection
As required by the FERC, Algonquin shall conduct pre-blast surveys, with landowner permission, to assess
the conditions of structures, wells, springs, and utilities within 150 feet of the proposed construction ROW.
Should local or state ordinances require inspections in excess of 150 feet from the work, the more stringent
ordinances shall prevail. The survey will include:
Informal discussions to familiarize the adjacent property owners with blasting effects and planned
precautions to be used on the Project;
Determination of the existence and location of site-specific structures, utilities, septic systems,
wells, and springs;
Detailed examination, photographs, and/or video records of adjacent structures and utilities; and
Detailed mapping and measurement of large cracks, crack patterns, and other evidence of structural
distress.
The results will be summarized in a condition report that will include photographs and be completed prior
to the commencement of blasting.
5.2 Monitoring of Blasting Activities
During blasting, Algonquin contractors will take precautions to prevent damage to adjacent areas and
structures. Precautions include:
Display warning signage, signals, flags, and/or barricades;

Use of matting or other suitable cover, as necessary;
Following federal, state, and local procedures and regulations for safe storage, handling, loading,
firing, and disposal of explosive materials; and
Staffing existing utilities with operations personnel during blasting operations.
Blasting will be performed only by state-licensed experts (where required) and monitored by experienced
blasting inspectors. As appropriate, the effects of each discharge will be monitored at the nearest adjacent
facility using seismographs.
5.3 Post-Blast Inspection
To maximize its responsiveness to the concerns of affected landowners, Algonquin will evaluate all
complaints of well or structural damage associated with construction activities, including blasting. A toll-
free landowner hotline will be established by Algonquin for landowners to use in reporting complaints or
concerns. An independent contractor engaged by Algonquin will examine, with landowner permission, the
condition of structures, wells, springs, and utilities within 150 feet of the construction area after completion
of blasting operations to identify any changes in the conditions of these properties or confirm any damages
noted by the landowner. Similar inspections may be required by federal, state, or local ordinances.
Algonquin will conduct pre-blasting yield and quality testing of any well or spring within 150 feet of the
blast site and document these conditions. Sampling will consist of turbidity and bacteriological analysis
(total coliform). Should any damage or change occur during the blasting operations, Algonquin will
coordinate with the landowner to seek a remedy, including an additional survey of the affected property.

5.4 Waterbody Crossing Blasting Procedures
To facilitate planning for blasting activities for waterbody crossings, rock drills or test excavations may be
used in waterbodies to test the ditch-line during mainline blasting operations to evaluate the presence of
rock in the trench-line. The excavation of the test pit or rock drilling is not included in the time window
requirements for completing the crossing. For testing and any subsequent blasting operations, streamflow
will be maintained through the site. When blasting is required, the FERC timeframes for completing in-
stream construction begin when the removal of blast rock from the waterbody is started. If additional
blasting is required after removing the blast rock, a new timing window will be determined in consultation
with the Environmental Inspector. If blasting impedes the flow of the waterbody, the contractor can use a
backhoe to restore the stream flow without triggering the timing window. The complete waterbody crossing
procedures are included in the Atlantic Bridge Project Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan.
5.5 Blasting Specifications
The potential for blasting along the pipeline to affect any wetland, waterbody, municipal water supply,
waste disposal site, well, septic system, or spring will be prevented by controlled blasting techniques and
by using mechanical methods for rock excavation where reasonable. Controlled blasting techniques have
been effectively employed for decades by Algonquin and other companies to protect active utilities.
The following text presents details of Algonquins procedures for blasting. Ultimately, the contractor is
responsible for securing and complying with all necessary permits required for the transportation, storage,
and use of explosives. The contractor will also be responsible for following the specifications below.
5.5.1 Pre-requisites for Use of Explosives
Prior to the use of any explosives, the contractor will submit a blasting procedure and receive Algonquins
approval. The blasting procedure will consider adjacent pipelines and specific requirements outlined in the
Contract Documents and will include the following as a minimum:
Storage of explosives;
Transportation of explosives;
Inspection of drilling areas;
Loading of explosives;
Non-electric detonation methods (electric detonation methods are not acceptable);
Prevention of fly-rock during blasting, including mat placement if used;
Security procedures;
Sequence of events leading up to the detonation of explosives;
Proposed hours of blasting;
True distances to buildings or operating pipelines;
Maximum charge mass per delay interval;
Borehole diameters;
Hole pattern, burden, and spacing;
Borehole depth, subgrade depth, and unloaded collar length;
Sketch showing borehole loading details;
Explosive names, properties, and delay sequences;
Calculated powder factor (weight per volume of rock), based on explosive energy of 1000 calories
per gram;
Geology description;

Borehole stemming depth;
Special conditions or variations for grade rock, trench rock, underwater blasting, and blasting at
undercrossings of existing utilities;
Blast to open face;
Algonquins approval and a notice of 72 hours prior to detonation of any explosives;
Algonquins approval if the blasting parameters vary from the requirements set out in this
specification or the Contract Documents;
Use of explosives;
The Contractor shall secure and comply with all the applicable permits required for the handling,
transportation, storage, and use of explosives;
The Contractor shall not endanger life, livestock, or adjacent properties;
The Contractor shall minimize inconveniences to the property owners or tenants during all phases
of blasting;
The Contractor shall provide physical protection to any above-grade utilities and equipment in the
area of the blast;
Algonquin shall set up required monitoring equipment;
The Contractor shall provide monitoring equipment to ensure vibrations are limited to two inches
per second (50 mm/s) PPV, when measured at dwellings, buildings, structures, and power line
towers. For power line towers, this limit applies to the greatest of the three vectors; otherwise this
limit is the vector sum of the three planes. The Contractor limits vibrations to one inch per second
(25 mm/s) PPV for vibration-sensitive structures specified by Algonquin. In no case shall vibration
amplitude exceed 0.004 in (0.15 mm);
Any blasting in close proximity to existing in-service piping is to be in accordance with the Contract
Documents;
Charge loading is to be spread in order to obtain the optimum breakage of rock. The Contractor
shall attempt to achieve a fragmentation rate of at least 75 percent of the trench rock to less than 6
inches (150 millimeters) in diameter;
All delay connectors used shall have a delay interval of at least 17 milliseconds; and
There are to be no loaded holes left overnight, and the site will be inspected after each blast for any
un-detonated charges.
The Contractor shall discuss the blasting plan with Algonquin prior to each blast, including the maximum
charge weight per delay, hole sizes, spacing, depths, and layout. Algonquin will employ a qualified Blasting
Inspector to confirm and document that the Contractor is following the approved blasting plan at each blast
site. Upon completion of blasting each day, the Contractor shall provide Algonquin with the following for
each blast:
Blasting Contractor license number;

Date, time, and location of blast;
Hole sizes, spacing, depths, layout, and volume of rock in blast;
Delay type, interval, total number of delays, and holes per delay;
Explosive type, specific gravity, energy release, weight of explosive per delay, and total weight of
explosive per shot;
Powder factor; and
Copies of any seismographic data.

5.5.2 Evaluation of Close-In Blasts
The following additional limitations apply for blasting at distances of less than 25 feet from the pipeline.
These criteria were extrapolated from a 1970 U.S. Bureau of Mines study on cratering in granite and were
refined based on a 2004 failure investigation. Other blasting limitations based upon extensive research by
the Pipeline Research Committee International, blasting consultants, and the U.S. Bureau of Mines
regarding blasting adjacent to pipelines is also included in the Spectra Energy blasting criteria.
5.5.3 Blasting on Pipeline Right-of-Way
Blasting should not be allowed on the pipeline right-of-way except when conducted for the benefit of the
Company and under the supervision of a Company representative or qualified Blasting Inspector familiar
with the Companys blasting requirements.
5.5.4 Minimum Offset from Blast Holes to Pipeline
No blast holes should be loaded at an offset of less than 25 feet from the centerline of an in-service pipeline
except in cases where precise measurements are taken to ensure that the pipeline will have at least one foot
of clearance from the theoretical area surrounding the blast hole in which the ground could be permanently
deformed by the blast under worst case conditions. This theoretical area is a conical shape originating at
the bottom of the blast hole and extending out at an angle up to the ground surface.
When blast holes are angled from the vertical, this can have the effect of directing the disruption from the
blast in one direction (the surface acts as a free face, allowing movement in that direction). For this reason,
blast holes within 25 feet of an existing pipeline must be drilled vertically or angled away from the pipeline
as the hole gets deeper. In all cases, the absolute minimum horizontal offset from the blast hole to the side
of the pipe is 12 feet.
6.0 REFERENCES
Fisher D.W., Y. W. Isachsen, and L. V. Rickard. 1970. Geologic Map of New York State, consisting of 5
sheets: Niagara, Finger Lakes, Hudson-Mohawk, Adirondack, and Lower Hudson, New York State
Museum and Science Service, Map and Chart Series No. 15, scale 1:250000.
Rodgers, J. 1985. Bedrock Geological Map of Connecticut. Connecticut Geological and Natural History
Survey, in cooperation with U.S. Geological Survey, Scale 1:125,000. 1985.
Zen, E.A. (editor), R. Goldsmith, N. M. Ratcliffe, P. Robinson, R. S. Stanley, N. L. Hatch Jr., A. F. Shride,
E. G. A. Weed, and D. R. Wones. Bedrock Geologic Map of Massachusetts: U.S. Geological
Survey Special Geologic Map. 1983.

ATTACHMENT 1
MAP OF ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT
Rock Removal Plan ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

Androscoggin
Legend NB
QC ME
)
" Compressor Station (C/S) (Proposed Modification)
ON NS
)
Cumberland NY VT NH
!
WESTBROOK Atlantic Bridge
Project
M&R Station (Proposed New)
MAINE
MA
! Regional
CT Maritimes & Northeast
Proposed Pipeline
Suppliers
RI
Belknap York PA Algonquin
Texas Eastern
NJ
Windsor
Strafford
State Boundary Sullivan Merrimack
County Boundary
Windham Cheshire Rockingham

Hillsborough
VERMONT NEW HAMPSHIRE

Bennington
Essex
Rensselaer
Albany Franklin
Schoharie Middlesex
MASSACHUSETTS
Worcester
Berkshire Hampshire NEEDHAM !
Greene
)
"
Columbia
Norfolk Proposed
Hampden Weymouth C/S
NEW YORK PLYMOUTH
Existing Chaplin C/S Plymouth
!
Bristol
Increase HP Providence
Ulster Litchfield Tolland PINE HILLS
Existing Oxford C/S
!
Dutchess )
" Windham
Hartford
Increase HP Barnstable
Kent
Existing Stony Point C/S R H O D E Newport
Uprate ISLAND
SALEM PIKE ! Washington
DANBURY
)
" Dukes
Putnam New London Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC
Orange ! CONNECTICUT
Middlesex
New Haven
YORKTOWN Fairfield
!
)
"
Westchester Southeast Discharge Take-Up and Relay (2.3 miles) Atlantic Bridge Project
K
Rockland
Passaic Stony Point Discharge Take-Up and Relay (4.0 miles) Figure 1.1-1
Bergen
!
Project Overview Map
NEW
Morris
Bronx Suffolk 0 40
JERSEY
ork
Essex
Ne son
Created on 10/19/2015
wY
Queens Nassau
Miles
Hud
Union Kings
ATTACHMENT 2
TABLE 1 - ESTIMATED DEPTH TO BEDROCK

TABLE 1
Estimated Depth to Bedrock Along the Atlantic Bridge Project
Proposed Pipeline Depth to Bedrock Depth to Bedrock Mile Post Mile Post
Segment (centimeters) (inches) (Begin) (End)
74 29 0.00 0.06
51 20 0.06 0.15
74 29 0.15 0.21
66 26 0.21 0.32
51 20 0.32 0.40
51 20 0.40 0.50
>200 >78 0.50 0.59
>200 >78 0.59 0.71
>200 >78 0.71 0.79
66 26 0.79 0.90
51 20 0.90 1.02
66 26 1.02 1.09
>200 >78 1.09 1.20
>200 >78 1.20 1.28
>200 >78 1.28 1.37
51 20 1.37 1.44
66 26 1.44 1.50
66 26 1.50 1.56
74 29 1.56 1.82
51 20 1.82 1.86
>200 >78 1.86 1.90
51 20 1.90 1.91
51 20 1.91 2.10
66 26 2.10 2.13
51 20 2.13 2.33
74 29 2.33 2.40
>200 >78 2.40 2.44
66 26 2.44 2.46
74 29 2.46 2.59
>200 >78 2.59 2.62
51 20 2.62 2.80
66 26 2.80 2.93
51 20 2.93 2.99
74 29 2.99 3.03
>200 >78 3.03 3.04
127 50 3.04 3.07

TABLE 1
74 29 3.07 3.09
51 20 3.09 3.12
66 26 3.12 3.26
51 20 3.26 3.29
66 26 3.29 3.36
>200 >78 3.36 3.40
41 16 3.40 3.48
41 16 3.48 3.51
>200 >78 3.51 3.56
61 24 3.56 3.63
>200 >78 3.63 3.79
74 29 3.79 3.81
51 20 3.81 3.82
51 20 3.82 3.83
51 20 3.83 3.84
66 26 3.84 3.86
66 26 3.86 4.00
66 26 4.00 4.03
76 30 0.00 0.06
66 26 0.06 0.35
66 26 0.35 0.39
66 26 0.39 0.48
66 26 0.48 0.51
>200 >78 0.51 0.64
>200 >78 0.64 0.66
>200 >78 0.66 0.78
>200 >78 0.78 0.84
38 15 0.84 0.95
>200 >78 0.95 1.05
>200 >78 1.05 1.05
>200 >78 1.05 1.14
>200 >78 1.14 1.17
66 26 1.17 1.28
66 26 1.28 1.44
>200 >78 1.44 1.48
>200 >78 1.48 1.62

TABLE 1
66 26 1.62 1.65
>200 >78 1.65 1.92
>200 >78 1.92 1.96
>200 >78 1.96 2.06
>200 >78 2.06 2.15
>200 >78 2.15 2.27

ATTACHMENT 3
TABLE 2 - BEDROCK ALONG THE ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

TABLE 2
Bedrock Geology within the Atlantic Bridge Project Area
Project Facility / Begin Description Map

End MP Formation Symbol
Location MP Primary Secondary
PIPELINE FACILITIES
New York
0.00 0.69 Muscovite-biotite granite Granite -- Dpgr
0.69 4.03 Biotite-quartz-plagioclase gneiss Gneiss Granitic Gneiss bqpc
Connecticut
0.00 0.99 Pink Granitic Gneiss Granitic Gneiss -- Ygr
0.99 2.27 Dalton Formation Gneiss Quartzite Cd
New York
-- -- Biotite-quartz-plagioclase gneiss Gneiss Granitic Gneiss bqpc
Connecticut
-- -- Waterbury Gneiss Schist Gneiss Cwb
Calc-Silicate
-- -- Hebron Gneiss Schist SOh
Rock
-- -- Tatnic Hill Formation Gneiss Schist Ota
Danbury M&R Station
-- -- Pink Granitic Gneiss Granitic Gneiss -- Ygr
Massachusetts
-- -- Cambridge Argillite Argillite Quartzite PzZc
-- -- Roxbury Conglomerate Conglomerate Sandstone PzZr
Maine
-- -- Carboniferous alkali feldspar granite Granite -- C1b(m)
References: Fisher et al., 1970; Rodgers, 1985; Zen et al., 1983.

APPENDIX 6C
Feasibility Report, Atlantic Bridge Project, Taconic Parkway HDD

Crossing

Feasibility Report
Taconic Parkway HDD Crossing
Prepared for
Spectra Energy Partners, LP
September 2015
Spectra Energy Partners
Feasibility Report Taconic Parkway HDD Crossing
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 General......................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Taconic Parkway HDD Crossing Description ............................................................................................. 1
2. Geotechnical Conditions ...................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Subsurface Investigation .............................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 Geotechnical Observations .......................................................................................................................... 2
3. Proposed Taconic Parkway Crossing ................................................................................................................. 3
3.1 Site Conditions............................................................................................................................................. 3
3.1.1 General Site and Staging Area ...................................................................................................... 3
3.1.2 Site Access .................................................................................................................................... 4
3.1.3 Workspace and Staging Area Requirements ................................................................................. 4
3.1.4 Sources of Interference .................................................................................................................. 5
3.1.5 Fresh Water Source ....................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Bore Geometry and HDD Installation Considerations................................................................................. 6
3.2.1 Entry and Exit Angles ................................................................................................................... 6
3.2.2 Vertical Curvature ......................................................................................................................... 6
3.2.3 Installation Depth .......................................................................................................................... 6
3.2.4 Recommended Taconic Parkway HDD Bore Geometry ............................................................... 6
3.3 Preliminary HDD Engineering Evaluation .................................................................................................. 8
3.3.2 Design and Minimum Allowable Bend Radii ............................................................................... 8
3.3.3 Operating Stress Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 8
3.3.4 Preliminary Hydraulic Fracture Evaluation ................................................................................... 9
3.3.5 HDD Installation Loads and Stress Evaluations .......................................................................... 13
3.3.6 HDD Installation Induced Stresses .............................................................................................. 14
4. HDD Feasibility and Risk Discussions .............................................................................................................. 15
4.1 HDD Industry - State of Practice ............................................................................................................... 15
4.2 HDD Risk Discussions .............................................................................................................................. 17
4.2.1 Geotechnical Risk Considerations ............................................................................................... 17
5. Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. 20
6. Limitations .......................................................................................................................................................... 20
APPENDIX
Appendix A: Engineering Evaluation
Appendix B: GZA Geotechnical Report
TABLES
Table 3-1: Assumptions used for the Taconic Parkway hydraulic fracture evaluations.
Table 3-2: Material property assumptions for the soil materials anticipated to be encountered along the Taconic
Parkway Hydraulic Fracture Evaluation.
Table 3-3: Material property assumptions for the bedrock materials anticipated to be encountered along the
Taconic Parkway Hydraulic Fracture Evaluation.
Table 3-4: Pipeline properties for the Taconic Parkway HDD installation.
Table 3-4: State of the HDD Industry.
HMM Project 340381 Page i

FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Proposed HDD Site Location Map.

Figure 3-1: Taconic Parkway Crossing HDD Entry Site Conditions
Figure 3-2: Taconic Parkway Crossing HDD Exit Site Conditions
Figure 3-3: Taconic Parkway Crossing HDD Plan and Profile.
Figure 3-4: Hydraulic Fracture Evaluation.
HMM Project 340381 Page ii

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Hatch Mott MacDonald (HMM) was requested by Spectra Energy Partners, LP (Spectra) to prepare this
feasibility study for evaluating their proposed crossing of the Taconic Parkway, as part of the larger
Atlantic Bridge Project. The current diameter for the proposed pipeline is 42 inches.
This feasibility report summarizes HMMs evaluation of the design elements and risk discussions (as
determined based on the information provided) and presents recommendations for enhancing the success
of a horizontal directional drill (HDD) crossing of the Taconic Parkway. The drawings and design
elements have been prepared and evaluated with the aid of a partially completed geotechnical
investigation at the time of writing this report.
1.2 Taconic Parkway HDD Crossing Description
The proposed Taconic Parkway Crossing is located in Westchester County, in Yorktown, New York. The
HDD construction method was selected as a potential trenchless option to avoid causing any disturbance
to the six lane Taconic Parkway and adjacent wetlands. The approximate location of the proposed project
site is provided in Figure 1-1.
Figure 1-1: Anticipated HDD Site Location Map. (Bing Maps)
HMM Project 340381 Page 1

The HDD entry location is on the east side of the Taconic Parkway with the exit location (and pipe
staging area) selected to be on the west side of the crossing. The minimum depth of cover beneath the
Taconic Parkway is approximately 97 feet. The HDD alignment also crosses below a 30-inch AGT
pipeline at two (2) locations at approximate STA 2+00 and 20+00 (with depths of cover of approximately
40 and 90 feet, respectively).
The horizontal length of the Taconic Parkway crossing is approximately 3,234 feet with a drill (true)
length of 3,253 feet. The approximate ground surface elevations of the HDD entry and exit sites are 492
and 456 feet, respectively. This results in an elevation difference of approximately 36 feet between the
proposed HDD entry and exit locations.
2. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
2.1 Subsurface Investigation
The geotechnical exploration for this crossing was complete by Geologic Earth Explorations, under the
observation of GZA Geoenvironmental, Inc. (GZA) between April 14, 2015 and May 15, 2015. The three
borings included in this feasibility study were performed on the east side of the Taconic Parkway and
ranged in depth from 120 to 201 feet. Borehole logs and laboratory testing data was provided by GZA in
their report dated July 8, 2015, included in Appendix B.
The borings were advanced by rotary wash methods in soil and by rotary coring methods in bedrock. Soil
samples were generally taken by Standard Penetration split barrel samples at 5-foot intervals until auger
refusal was encountered. Continuous core samples were collected while drilling in bedrock. Laboratory
testing for the Taconic Parkway Project was completed for specific samples. The locations of the
boreholes were selected to provide geotechnical information to support design efforts for this crossing and
to identify types and depths of soil and rock. The results of the geotechnical investigation are used to
identify potential construction risks and to develop the conceptual HDD alignment. The geotechnical
boring sticks and the proposed HDD alignment are provided in Figure 2-1.
2.2 Geotechnical Observations
The following discussions on the anticipated geotechnical conditions are based on the information
provided from the geotechnical investigation completed to date. Three geotechnical borings (TP-4, TP-5,
and TP-6) were completed on the east side of the Taconic Parkway for use in the HDD design. Two (2)
additional borings are planned for the west side.
Soil encountered in the borings on the east side of the Taconic Parkway generally consisted of dense to
very dense silty sand with trace gravel. Boring TP-6 showed an increase in silt at greater depths between
Elev 428 and 390.8 and is identified as glacial till on the boring logs. Occasional cobbles and boulders
between 4 and 20 inches diameter were encountered in all three borings at various depths. Based on
laboratory testing, soils were observed to contain 2 to 24 percent gravel, 31 to 54 percent sand, and 22 to
60 percent fines (silt and clay portions that passed the #200 sieve).
Rock was encountered in Borings TP-4 and TP-5. The rock consisted of hard to very hard grey-white
gneiss with RQDs ranging from as low as 20 percent to as high as 98 percent and recoveries ranging
between 64 percent and 100 percent. Top of rock was 11 feet bgs (Elev 425.3) in TP-4 and 151 feet bgs
(Elev 357.3) in TP-5 indicating that the soil/rock interface dips down to the east. Boring TP-6 was
terminated at 120 feet below ground surface (bgs) (Elev 357), before rock was encountered.

The RQD ratings generally increased with depth. The average RQD ratings observed in Boring TP-4
were 56 percent between a depth of 11 to 75 feet (Elev 425 to 361) below the ground surface and 76
percent from this depth to the termination depth at 140 feet (Elev 296) below ground surface. Similarly, in
Boring TP-5, the average RQD ratings were 49 percent between depths of 151 and 171 feet (Elev 357 to
337) below ground surface and 73 percent from this depth to the termination depth of 201 feet (Elev 307)
below ground surface.
Three (3) laboratory tests of the rock samples taken from Borings TP-4 and TP-5 revealed that the gneiss
has a fairly consistent unconfined compressive strength ranging between 20,600 psi and 22,200 psi with
an average of 21,400 psi. Cerchar abrasivity testing was also performed on the samples, and gave
Cerchar abrasivity index values between 4.6 and 5.5, averaging about 5.0.
3. PROPOSED TACONIC PARKWAY CROSSING
3.1 Site Conditions
3.1.1 General Site and Staging Area

The proposed HDD crossing of the Taconic Parkway is located in southeastern New York State, in
Yorktown, NY and is approximately 3,234 feet in horizontal length. The HDD entry area is located about
1,600 feet east of the Taconic Parkway, and is shown in Figure 3-1. Access to the site can be obtained via
Strang Boulevard which serves as access to nearby recreational ball fields. The ground surface at the
entry site slopes downward to the east. North of the site is a small drainage pond about 40 feet from the
site.
Proposed HDD Entry Area
Figure 3-1: Taconic Parkway Crossing HDD Entry Site Conditions (Bing Maps).
The proposed HDD exit location is on the AGT pipeline ROW, and is shown in Figure 3-2. The ROW
has been cleared and is about 30 feet wide with woods on either side of the ROW. Some tree clearing
may be required to provide adequate workspace and laydown area. Access to the exit site can be obtained
from Stoney Street which is about 1,200 feet to the west of the bore exit location.
For both entry and exit sites caution will have to be taken due to the existing pipeline within the worksite
limits.

Proposed HDD Exit Area
Figure 3-2: Taconic Parkway Crossing HDD Exit Site Conditions (Bing Maps).
3.1.2 Site Access

HMM assumes that access to the HDD entry area will be available off of Strang Boulevard via the AGT
ROW and access to the exit location will be available off of Stoney Street. Care should be exercised by
the Contractor throughout HDD operations to maintain the current condition of these roads at all times so
as not to interfere with vehicular traffic. Any damage to the roads resulting from HDD operations should
be immediately repaired and restored to its previous condition at the expense of the Contractor.
3.1.3 Workspace and Staging Area Requirements

A staging area of approximately 150 to 200 long by 150 to 200 feet wide is required at the drill rig site.
This area requirement is required to stage equipment necessary for the installation, which includes the
drill rig, stacks of drill pipe, operator control cabin, tooling trailers, crane or excavator, separation plant,
mud tanks, mud pumps, drilling fluid storage/frac tanks, office trailer, and support trailers.
The area identified for the HDD entry location has sufficient area to accommodate the necessary
equipment with a minimum amount of work required to prepare the area for supporting HDD operations.
A typical staging area of approximately 100 to 150 feet by 100 to 150 feet is required to accommodate
pipeline installation equipment at the exit location. The area identified for the HDD exit location has
sufficient area to accommodate the necessary equipment to support drilling operations.
A pipeline staging area is also required for the fabricating sections of the pipe string, and preferably the
entire pipe string when possible, prior to installation. A typical pipe staging area requires an area 50 to 75
feet wide by a distance equal to the length of the installation is required to support this work. Larger
widths may be required to stage multiple sections of product pipe prior to pullback, where the product
pipe cannot be fully fabricated into a single pipe string prior to installation. The pipe staging area is
currently proposed to the west side of the crossing. The space available within the proposed construction
easement for staging and installation of the product pipe in this area appears to be insufficient for
assembly of a single pipe string equal to the length of the installation, approximately 3,253 feet, along the
ground surface. A minimum of three (3) pipe strings will be required due to the limited staging length of
approximately 1,100 feet available on this side of the crossing. The fabrication of three pipe strings will

result in the delay of pullback operations to allow for an intermediate weld, thus increasing the risk to the
bore and product pipe during pullback operations.
3.1.4 Sources of Interference

The horizontal and vertical position of the bottom hole assembly is tracked using a downhole survey tool,
consisting of a probe that utilizes Earths gravitational and magnetic fields. These tools have a nominal
accuracy of approximately:
Inclination: +/- 0.1o

Azimuth: +/-0.3o to 0.5o
Tool-face: +/-0.1o
The accuracy of these tools can be enhanced through the use of a surface wire/coil loop established over
the alignment. Inducing an electrical current through the wire creates a localized magnetic field that the
probe can then use to determine its location relative to the surveyed coil and magnetic field. These
enhanced guidance systems include TruTracker and ParaTrack systems. The TruTracker guidance system
relies on a closed loop surveyed wire layout that is at least as wide as the depth of the HDD installation.
For highways and water body crossings, individual coils are often established on each side of the crossing
feature. A ParaTrack system relies on a single wire placed directly over the HDD alignment centerline,
with a return wire offset several hundred feet from the alignment to form a closed loop system. When
augmented with a surface coil, the lateral and vertical position of the survey probe is plus or minus two
(2) percent of the depth separating the location of the probe and the surface coil. Greater inaccuracies may
occur if site constraints prevent the use of an energized wire grid on the ground surface.
Fiber-optic gyroscopic guidance systems have also been used to track downhole tooling. This type of
system relies on an inertial measurement unit to calculate the position of the bottom hole assembly and is
not affected by magnetic interference. This tool is very effective in accurately locating the surface tool
position during pilot bore drilling.
With all of these methods, survey readings can be taken at the end of each drilled joint or every half of a
joint. Stand-alone surveys can be completed where the surface coils are established. Here the inaccuracy
is a function of the specific depth of cover at the location in question. Where the surface coils cannot be
established such as across a highway or beneath a river, the position of the bottom hole assembly is built
based on the calculated position of the previous measurement. In this manner, any inaccuracy built into
the measured position is additive as the drill length increases. However, as the bottom hole assembly re-
encounters the surface coil on the opposite side of the highway or river, the inaccuracy is once again a
function of a stand-alone measurement based on the specific depth of cover at the location in question.
HMM recommends the use of a either the Paratrack system or the gyroscopic guidance system for the
proposed crossing to mitigate concerns associated with laying a surface coil along the proposed alignment
and highway.
3.1.5 Fresh Water Source

HDD operations require a continuous source of water to support construction activities. It is typical for
contractors to make use of an onsite source, have water hauled or delivered from a nearby source, or use a
nearby hydrant as a water source. In each case the contractor should verify that the water source is
suitable for HDD operations or treat it (filtration, pH, etc.) so that it is suitable for use. The Contractor
should also be responsible for the acquisition of all permits required to access the selected water source.

3.2 Bore Geometry and HDD Installation Considerations
The design of the Taconic Parkway HDD Crossing has been completed in accordance with the currently
accepted standards and good practices of the HDD industry. The following sections provide a brief
introduction to the basic components considered during the development of the design plan and profile for
the Taconic Parkway Crossing.
3.2.1 Entry and Exit Angles

HDD operations are typically designed with entry angles between 8 and 16, although steeper entry
angles have been used where insufficient setback distance exists for a given alignment. Exit angles are
lower than a given entry angle with typical values between 8 and 12, as consideration must be given to
product pipe diameter, equipment necessary to transition the product pipe into the bore, and the induced
stresses as the pipe is forced over the break-over location where it enters the HDD bore.
For the proposed Taconic Parkway Crossing, the entry and exit angles have been set at 5 and 12 degrees,
respectively, both relative to the horizontal plane. The entry and exit angles were selected based on the
existing topography and to accommodate product pipe installation.
3.2.2 Vertical Curvature

The proposed Taconic Parkway vertical curve radius of 4,200 feet shown in Figure 2-1 is based on the
HDD industry standard of 100 times per inch of product pipe diameter. For the Taconic Parkway HDD
crossing, a straight alignment has been selected eliminating the need for horizontal curves and any
associated risks.
3.2.3 Installation Depth

For the proposed installation, the depth of cover is governed primarily by the depth of cover required
beneath the Taconic Parkway and the chosen entry and exit locations. The minimum depth of cover
beneath the Taconic Parkway is 97 feet. Another factor is to maintain a bore alignment in less fracture
rock with higher RQDs to reduce the risk for drilling fluid migrating through fractures in less competent
material. A hydraulic fracture evaluation has been completed to confirm the resulting depths of cover
along the design alignment. Details of this evaluation are provided in Section 3.4.2.
3.2.4 Recommended Taconic Parkway HDD Bore Geometry
The proposed HDD plan and profile for the Taconic Parkway Crossing is provided in Figure 3-3. This
alignment is based on the bore geometry recommended and discussed above.

Figure 3-3: Taconic Parkway Crossing HDD Plan and Profile.

3.3 Preliminary HDD Engineering Evaluation
3.3.1.1 Pipe Properties

The product pipe properties for the proposed HDD crossing is provided in Table 3-1. Pipe diameter, wall
thickness, grade, coating material and thickness, and maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP)
were provided by Spectra. Assumed maximum operating and construction temperatures are provided.
Table 3-1: Pipeline properties for the Taconic Parkway HDD installation.
Evaluation Parameter Value
Outer Diameter 42 in
Wall Thickness 0.938 in
Pipe Grade X-70
Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure 850 psi
Minimum Operating Temperature 20F
Maximum Operating Temperature 100F
3.3.2 Design and Minimum Allowable Bend Radii

The minimum ultimate bend radius is a function of the maximum allowable operating pressure, pipe
diameter, wall thickness, design factor, location factor, and specified minimum yield strength of the pipe
material. Determination of the ultimate minimum bend radius is based on determining the hoop and
longitudinal stresses under operating pressure and then determining the available magnitude of stress that
the product pipe can accommodate in an alignment bend/curve.
Using the pipe properties presented in Table 3-1, the ultimate minimum bending radius is calculated for
the pipe and pressure conditions. This radius represents the lowest radius that could be drilled without
overstressing the product pipe for the identified pipe properties and in-service loading. Based on the pipe
properties provided in Table 3-1, the ultimate minimum bending radius is approximately 2,020 feet, based
on a design factor of 0.5.
The minimum allowable bending radius is the minimum radius that the HDD contractor is permitted to
drill during their pilot bore to maintain the design alignment and profile. This radius is established above
the calculated ultimate minimum bending radius to ensure that the product pipe is not overstressed during
the HDD installation process and sufficiently below the design radius provided on the Contract Drawings.
Based on an ultimate minimum bending radius of approximately 2,020 feet and the diameter of the
tooling required to complete reaming operations, the minimum allowable bending radius has been
established at 2,500 feet.
The design radius is the radius selected to develop the HDD plan and profile. This radius is greater than
the minimum allowable bending radius given to the HDD contractor to complete the construction of the
crossing. The design bending radius for developing the HDD profile has been established at 4,200 feet,
consistent with the HDD industry standard of 1,200 times the outer diameter of the product pipe.
3.3.3 Operating Stress Evaluation

Evaluation of operating loads for pipelines installed by HDD methods is generally similar to the
evaluation for pipelines installed by open-cut construction methods. The main difference between the two
scenarios is that the condition of elastic bending (as a result of the curved HDD alignment profile) has to
be considered for the HDD installation. Elastic bending stresses occur as the product pipe takes on the
final shape of the HDD bore. As a rule, the bending stresses induced are not a critical stress condition on

their own, but must be considered in a combined loading condition with other stress conditions such as
hoop stress and longitudinal stress.
An operating stress evaluation has been completed in compliance with the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers B31.4 and B31.8. The input parameters for this analysis are provided in Table 3-.
The results of the evaluation are provided below in Table 3-2 and are based on the minimum allowable
bending radius of 2,500 feet (based on the allowable bend radius provided to the HDD contractor). As
observed in Table 3-2, the operating stresses are below the maximum allowable limits. Hence, the pipe
properties (wall thickness and grade) are sufficient to meet the operating stresses within the HDD
alignment.
Table 3-1: Summary of the HDD operating stress evaluation
Percent of Maximum Allowable

Estimated Stress SMYS1 Percent of SMYS1
Stress Condition (psi) (%) (%)
Longitudinal Bending Stress 20,440 29.2 --
Hoop Stress 19,030 27.2 50(2)
Longitudinal Tensile Stress from Hoop
Stress 5,709 8.2 --
Longitudinal Stress from Thermal
Expansion 14,927 21.3 90(3)
Net Longitudinal Stress
(Compression Side of the Curve) 29,658 42.4 90(4)
Net Longitudinal Stress
(Tension Side of the Curve) 11,222 16.0 90(4)
Maximum Shear Stress 24,344 34.8 45
Combined Biaxial Stress 48,688 69.6 90(4)
Notes: 1 Specified Minimum Yield Stress
2
Limited by design factor
3
Limited by ASME B31.4
4
Limited by ASME B31.8
3.3.4 Preliminary Hydraulic Fracture Evaluation

The hydraulic fracture evaluation for this crossing has been completed in general accordance with the
Delft Geotechnics Method outlined in Appendix B of the Army Corps of Engineers 1998 Report CPAR-
GL-98 and 2002 Report ERDC/GSL TR-02-9 (Guidelines for Installation of Utilities Beneath Corp of
Engineers Levees Using Horizontal Directional Drilling). This method is used to estimate the maximum
effective pressure (i.e. drilling fluid pressure) that can be induced during an HDD operation within a
particular soil horizon. This pressure is then compared with the fluid pressure required to induce slurry
flow within the HDD bore to determine the potential for a hydraulic fracture for a given HDD alignment.
The required fluid pressure for an HDD installation is governed by the drilling fluid weight (commonly
referred to as the mudweight), installation length and depth, and drilling fluid flow properties (plastic
viscosity, yield point, etc.).
The Delft Geotechnics Method assumes a uniform column of soil above any point of interest along the
alignment. Where an increased risk of hydraulic fracture is identified, it does not necessarily mean that a
hydraulic fracture will occur. A proper HDD execution plan based on HDD industry standard
construction practices can reduce the risk of a hydraulic fracture from occurring.

Currently, no accepted methods are available to model/estimate the maximum allowable drilling fluid
pressure within bedrock materials. While bedrock tensile strength and unconfined compressive strength
evaluations have been used to estimate the allowable drilling fluid pressure within bedrock materials,
these methods tend to provide results that are not considered conservative and greatly over predict the true
maximum allowable drilling fluid pressures. These over predictions are based on the fact that the
laboratory tests are typically completed on sound bedrock samples that do not represent the strengths of
the weaker bedrock materials that are washed out or impacted by the drilling process. Hence, for the
bedrock hydraulic fracture evaluation, HMM has elected to model the bedrock mass as soil with similar
properties to the soil encountered directly above the bedrock materials to allow for a conservative
evaluation of the maximum allowable drilling fluid pressures.
In order to complete the hydraulic fracture evaluation it is necessary to make several assumptions relative
to the bore diameter, drilling fluid pumping rate, and drilling fluid properties. Parameters used in HMMs
evaluation are provided in Table 3-3. These parameters have been selected based on HMMs experience
in drilling within similar anticipated geotechnical materials. The drilling fluid properties, drill bit
diameter, and pumping rate used in the evaluation are based on assumptions and are subject to change
depending on the Contractors means and methods and approved work plan.
Table 3-3: Assumptions used for the Taconic Parkway hydraulic fracture evaluations.
Pilot Bore Diameter 10.625 in
Drill Pipe Diameter 5. 5 in
Drilling Fluid Pumping Rate 600 gal/min
Drilling Fluid Weight 11.0 ppg
Yield Point 21 lb/ 100 ft2
Plastic Viscosity 14 Cp
In addition to the assumptions provided in Table 3-3 (above), assumptions are also required for the
anticipated soil/rock formation(s) and their properties including, but not limited to soil strength, unit
weight, cohesion, friction angle, and shear modulus. These assumptions are provided in Tables 3-4 and 3-
5. For this evaluation, HMM assumes that the encountered subsurface material will consist of very dense
silty sand and gneiss bedrock. As stated previously, soil parameters have been used in the section of bore
that is in bedrock to conservatively model the hydraulic fracture evaluation.
Table 3-4: Material property assumptions for the soil materials anticipated to be encountered along the
Taconic Parkway Hydraulic Fracture Evaluation.
Soil Unit Weight Above / Below Water Table 120 lb/ft3 / 130 lb/ft3
Effective Cohesion 0 psf
Internal Friction Angle 32
Youngs Modulus 30,000 psf
Poissons Ratio 0.35

Table 3-5: Material property assumptions for the bedrock materials anticipated to be encountered along
the Taconic Parkway Hydraulic Fracture Evaluation.
Soil Unit Weight Above / Below Water Table 130 lb/ft3 / 120 lb/ft3
Effective Cohesion 0 psf
Internal Friction Angle 25
Youngs Modulus 35,000 psf
Poissons Ratio 0.33
The results of the hydraulic fracture evaluation are provided in Figure 3-4 for the pilot bore phase of the
installation process. Calculations were performed about every 50 feet along the alignment assuming the
drill rig was located on the east side of the crossing. As the pilot bore progresses the required drilling
fluid pressure increases. Based on the known subsurface conditions, there appears to be adequate soil and
rock strength to resist the required drilling fluid pressures necessary for the installation.
Once the pilot bore is completed, the hydraulic fracture risk associated with the installation typically
decreases, assuming the bore is reamed to its full extent and a subsequent swab pass is completed through
the bore prior to installing the product pipe. However, it is important to note that, although the hydraulic
fracture potential is significantly reduced, a hydraulic fracture event may still occur during the reaming
pass if the bore becomes plugged or blocked such that the required drilling fluid pressure increases in
magnitude to the point where it exceeds the estimated allowable mud pressure for the assumed overlying
soil properties. Good HDD industry construction practices should decrease this potential.
HMM also notes that the potential for hydraulic fracture or inadvertent returns exists at all points along
the alignment. The drilling fluids will always follow the path of least resistance, and if good practices are
not observed and an open bore not maintained to facilitate fluid flow, the drilling fluids will not flow
through the pilot bore as intended, but create an alternate path and migrate to the ground surface.

Figure 3-4: Hydraulic Fracture Evaluation.

3.3.5 HDD Installation Loads and Stress Evaluations
3.3.5.1 HDD Installation Loads

A total of six (6) pull load evaluations were completed for the HDD bore profile. These calculations are
based on a modified version of the installation load calculation method provided in American Society of
Civil Engineer MREP 108 (2005) and the Pipeline Research Committee at the American Gas Association
publication entitled Installation of Pipelines by Horizontal Directional Drilling, an Engineering Guide.
The modification includes an updated fluidic drag calculation based on observed drilling fluid properties
and the anticipated bore diameter.
The pull load evaluation includes assumptions for final bore diameter, soil and pipe roller friction
coefficients, drilling fluid yield point and plastic viscosity, drilling fluid pumping rate, and other
installation parameters such as buoyancy control measures (i.e., whether or not the pipe will be filled with
water during pullback operations). In addition, the evaluation accounts for the capstan effect induced by
curves in the alignment, fluidic drag, buoyancy of the pipe string within the bore, and the weight of the
tail string at startup and throughout the installation process.
Six (6) installation evaluations have been completed to investigate the effects of varying mud weights and
buoyancy control measures during the installation of the product pipe. The six (6) scenarios evaluated
include:
Case 1: Drilling Fluid Weight 10 ppg (Specific Gravity of 1.20)

Product Pipe No buoyancy control (pipe empty of water)
Product Pipe Full buoyancy control measures (pipe full of water)
A summary of the maximum anticipated pull load for each pull load scenario is provided in Table 3-6.
Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix A. The anticipated installation loads as shown in Table 3-
6 are well below the ultimate allowable load of the steel product pipe of approximately 6,776,100 lb,
based on a tensile stress equivalent to 80 percent of the yield stress for the given wall thickness and pipe
grade provided in Table 4-1. It is important to note the difference in pull loads when buoyancy control
measures are implemented and water is added to the product pipe during pullback, as the estimated
installation loads are much lower when buoyancy control measures are used. HMM recommends the use
of buoyancy control measures to reduce the installation loads and stresses acting on the product pipe
during its installation.
A start-up factor of 1.5 has been applied to the estimated pullback forces to replicate the higher
installation loads observed during stoppages and recommencing of pullback operations. This is referred to
as the initial start-up pullback force in Table 3-6.

Table 3-6: Summary of the anticipated HDD pullback loads
Product Pipe Estimated Initial Start-Up

Drilling Fluid Buoyancy Pullback Force Force
Weight (ppg) Condition (lbs) (lbs)
10 (Case 1) Empty 848,689 1,273,033
10 (Case 2) Full 502,919 754,379
11 (Case 3) Empty 991,976 1487,963
11 (Case 4) Full 427,541 641,312
12 (Case 5) Empty 1,134,743 1,702,115
12 (Case 6) Full 420,999 631,499
3.3.6 HDD Installation Induced Stresses
Results of the corresponding HDD installation stresses (based on the minimum allowable bending radius
of 2,250 feet) are summarized in Table 3-7.
Table 3-7: Summary of the HDD installation stress evaluation
Stress Condition Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6

Maximum Tensile Stress 7,014 psi 4,156 psi 8,198 psi 3,533 psi 9,378 psi 3,479 psi
(Percent of Allowable) (10.0%) (5.9%) (11.7%) (5.0%) (13.4%) (5.0%)
Maximum Bending Stress 12,083 psi 12,083 psi 12,083 psi 12,083 psi 12,083 psi 12,083 psi
Maximum Hoop Stress 1,828 Psi 1,828 psi 2,010 psi 2,010 psi 2,193 psi 2,193 psi
Maximum Unity Check
0.39 0.34 0.41 0.33 0.43 0.33
Tensile and Bending
Maximum Unity Check
Tensile, Bending, and 0.18 0.15 0.20 0.16 0.22 0.17
Hoop
As observed in Table 4-7, the results of the HDD installation stress evaluation are within the allowable
limits for all cases.

4. HDD FEASIBILITY AND RISK DISCUSSIONS
4.1 HDD Industry - State of Practice
HMM maintains an up-to-date database of successfully completed HDD installations based on pipeline
diameter and installation length (Table 4-1). This database is used to quickly and uniquely assess the
achievable installation length for a given pipeline diameter. This database is also a valuable tool in
determining the number of qualified HDD Contractors with the necessary length and diameter experience
for a given project. The common range of HDD industry experience/capability (shaded in green) was
established based on the requirement that several contractors have completed similar installation lengths
at the specific diameter. The yellow shaded cells in Table 4-1 identify the installation lengths and
diameters that are considered feasible with an experienced contractor in favourable ground conditions.
Cells shaded in red in Table 4-1 are considered to be at or beyond the state-of-the-practice for the HDD
industry.
Several North American horizontal directional drilling contractors were contacted as part of this work to
determine the state of the HDD industry with respect to installation lengths and pipe diameters similar to
those specifically required for the Taconic Parkway HDD Crossing. The contractors were selected based
on their known experiences with completing complex installations.
The results of the survey revealed that larger and longer installations are being completed each year using
HDD installation methods. Furthermore, the majority of the long and large diameter installations have
only recently been completed within the last 3 to 5 years. It is very important to note that the state of the
HDD industry shown in Table 4-1 includes crossings with similar elevations between HDD entry/exit
locations and the crossing feature, good soils/bedrock materials, and adequate staging area for fabricating
the pipe string. These completed projects mostly reflect projects with low risk profiles (especially for
larger and longer HDD installations). As such, when comparing a specific crossing to those completed
projects within the HDD industry, the site-specific geotechnical and crossing risks need to be thoroughly
considered and evaluated to ensure comparison to the completed project listings is deemed to be adequate.
If the current proposed crossing carries a low risk profile, then the comparison can serve as a guide to
what has been successfully completed within the HDD industry. However, if the current proposed
crossing carries a high risk profile, then the comparison to the completed projects may not be applicable.
As observed in Table 4-1, several HDD installations have been successfully completed at a diameter of 42
inches for lengths considerably longer than the required installation length of approximately 3,234 feet
required for the Taconic Parkway HDD Crossing. Therefore, from a feasibility standpoint, the Taconic
Parkway HDD Crossing is deemed to be within a zone of typical experience of what has been
accomplished to date within the HDD industry.

Feasibility Report Taconic Parkwayr HDD Crossing
Table 4-1: State of the HDD Industry (2014 Data).

4.2 HDD Risk Discussions
4.2.1 Geotechnical Risk Considerations

Sands, silts and clays typically present no significant challenge to an HDD installation. These materials
are often described as good to excellent materials in terms of feasibility. However, when these soils exist
in a soft or very loose state, they may not provide sufficient strength to resist the required fluid pressures
necessary to complete an HDD installation. Within these materials, the required drilling fluid pressures
can exceed their strength resulting in the formation of a hydraulic fracture through the overlying soils and
ponding of drilling fluids at the ground surface. This risk can only be mitigated by placing the HDD bore
within more favourable geotechnical materials that provide greater resistance to induced drilling fluid
pressures or through the use of conductor casings to provide an open pathway for drilling fluid flow.
Soils containing gravels and larger size particles (cobbles) range from marginally acceptable to
unacceptable in terms of feasibility depending upon the percentage of gravels by weight and particle size.
Only those particles that can be suspended within the drilling fluid can be removed from the bore.
Generally speaking, gravel sized particles less than approximately 0.5 to 0.75 inches can be removed from
the bore, provided good HDD practices are followed. Particles greater in size typically cannot be
suspended by the drilling fluid and tend to settle out and accumulate along the bottom of the bore. Risks
associated with the accumulation of larger particles within the bore increase with greater bore diameter,
due to the greater exposed soil materials in the crown of a larger bore.
To properly remove the cuttings and support the open bore, the drilling fluid must remain within the bore
without excessive loss to the surrounding formations. Open graded deposits of gravel and cobble-sized
clasts allow drilling fluids to escape into the surrounding formations. As a result, the bore may collapse as
the larger particles ravel into the bore. The net result is a gravel-or cobble-filled bore that will directly
impact the ability to further ream the bore and/or install the product pipe.
Soils with gravel compositions greater than approximately 30 to 40 percent carry higher installation risks
associated with ravelling and an inability to remove cuttings from the bore. This risk of bore collapse is
significantly higher for larger diameter installations in comparison to small diameter installations.
During the course of drilling and reaming, bore stability is maintained within an HDD bore through
application of supporting fluid pressure acting on the filter cake that develops along the walls of the bore.
The supporting fluid pressure is derived from the presence of the drilling fluid within the bore. The ability
to maintain stability is highly dependent on the composition and consistency of the surrounding soils.
Ravelling (bore instability) describes soil conditions where gravel and larger sized particles are fully
exposed within the crown of the HDD bore and are free to fall into the bore under the influence of
gravity. This condition can develop in soils consisting of a high percentage of gravel (i.e. above 30 to 40
percent) where the neighbouring soil particles are not capable of locking the adjacent particles in place
through frictional contact to prevent their fall into the bore. If excessive ravelling were to occur,
installation risks associated with proper bore conditioning and potential damage to the product pipe (or
stuck pipe conditions) significantly increase.
While gravels were observed in the boreholes at various depths and percent composition, these gravels are
not anticipated pose a high risk to the Taconic Parkway HDD crossing, as these gravels made up less than
25 percent of the soil. The high percentage of fins (silts and clays) within the observed soils should
further limit bore instability issues.
While cobbles/boulders were observed or inferred from the geotechnical investigation at various depths,
their limited frequency should not pose a high risk to the Taconic Parkway HDD installation.

Controlling and maintaining fluid flow within the bore is critical to the success of an HDD installation.
Installation risks significantly increase when slurry circulation is not maintained within the HDD bore.
Drilling fluid flow follows the path of least resistance. As long as the bore is located within favourable
geotechnical materials at a sufficient installation depth and properly drilled by the HDD contractor, a
stable flow pathway can be created between the drill bit and the HDD entry or exit locations and
maintaining drilling fluid flow within the bore should not be an issue. As observed in the hydraulic
fracture evaluation, loss of drilling fluids through the overlying soil is not anticipated over the majority of
the crossing.
High plasticity clays can increase in volume (swell) in the presence of drilling fluids. The increase in
volume can decrease the area for drilling fluid flow and increase down hole bore pressures required to
remove the cuttings. Risks associated with swelling increase with exposure time to the drilling fluids.
Fortunately, successive passes of down hole tooling through the bore can alleviate swelling concerns. In
addition, drilling fluid additives can be used to reduce the swelling potential of the produced cuttings and
surrounding geotechnical materials. If higher than anticipated drilling fluid pressures are observed during
drilling operations, the bottom hole assembly should be tripped out several joints to clear any blockage or
cuttings within the bore. Based on the observed geotechnical materials, the HDD bore may encounter
shale bedrock in the vicinity of the pond, but only for a relatively short duration. The majority of the
HDD installation appears to be located within silts and sands. Only on the entry and exit tangents are clay
soils likely to be encountered. These clay soils have not been identified as carrying a swelling potential.
Successive reaming passes and trips in and out of the bore with down hole tooling can be used to mitigate
this risk, if realized.
Based on the anticipated geotechnical materials, the HDD installation has been designed within favorable
geotechnical materials and avoids observed soil layers containing significant compositions of gravels and
cobbles to the extent possible.
Bedrock is classified as being excellent to unacceptable with respect to HDD feasibility. Competent
bedrock is well suited for HDD as the bore tends to remain open for extended periods of time. However,
heavily weathered, jointed, fractured or fissured bedrock can present challenges with respect to bore
stability. In fact, poor quality bedrock can present the same challenges as coarse granular deposits where
fracturing and jointing is extensive and present an unacceptable risk in terms of feasibility to an HDD
installation. The risk associated with these materials arises from the inability to support and maintain
stability within the bore. This risk increases with RQD ratings below 60 percent. Stability is afforded
through application of supporting fluid pressure acting on the walls of the bore from the presence of the
drilling fluid within the bore. Bedrock materials that are extensively jointed, fractured or weathered, such
that they behave in a manner similar to gravel and/or cobble, are not capable of being supported by the
drilling fluid during an installation. As an HDD bore is enlarged in these materials, the larger independent
particles are able to fall/ravel into the bore under the influence of gravity as the bore exposes them. Only
if these particles are bridged by the surrounding rock mass or finer grained particles will raveling not
occur. In addition to bore stability issues, extensive jointing, fracturing and weathering of bedrock
materials can also give rise to increased drilling fluid migration outside of the bore and less particle
support and transport of cuttings. Based on the available geotechnical material, the rock quality is
anticipated to be greater than 60 percent for the majority of the installation.
The unconfined compressive strength of bedrock materials can present a challenge for an HDD
installation. Bedrock materials with high unconfined compressive strengths (i.e. greater than 25,000 psi)
may require frequent trips in and out of the bore during the pilot bore and reaming operations to replace
worn tooling. Worn tooling manifests itself in the form of reduced production. From a feasibility
standpoint, higher strength bedrock materials impact construction costs associated with requiring

additional drill bits, hole openers, and time/labor to replace the worn tools. Similarly, abrasive bedrock
materials also impact the overall construction costs associated with a particular installation.

5. SUMMARY
The Taconic Parkway crossing is deemed feasibility for construction using HDD methods. While
geotechnical risks have been identified from the available information, appropriate risk mitigation
measures are available to lower the overall risk for this crossing. Of the risks evaluated based on the
available information, no fatal deterrents have been identified with the alignment. Based on the required
installation length and diameter, there are a number of successfully completed HDD installations of
similar lengths within the HDD contracting community in North America.
6. LIMITATIONS
This Report is intended to be used in its entirety. The data, interpretations, conclusions, and
recommendations contained within this Report are provided for informational purposes for Spectra
Energy Partners and pertain specifically to the Taconic Parkway HDD Crossing. The data and
conclusions presented herein do not and should not be applied to any other project site or HDD
installation. Interpretations of the subsurface conditions are based off of the information obtained from
the limited number of geotechnical borings, laboratory data and our use of generally accepted analytical
procedures. The subsurface conditions presented between the geotechnical borings are interpretations and
may vary from the actual conditions encountered. If further investigations reveal significant differences
in the subsurface conditions we should be given the opportunity to review and modify our
recommendations, if appropriate.

APPENDIX A
Engineering Evaluation
HMM Project 340381

Project Name: Atlantic Bridge By: C. Petta
Project No: 340381 Checked: G. Duyvestyn
HDD Name: Taconic Parkway Owner: Spectra Energy
Horizontal Directional Drilling Location: Date: 8/20/2015
Minimum Radius Calculations - MAOP Based
References: 1. ASME/ANSI B31.4 section 402.3.2

2. ASME/ANSI B31.8 section 833.3
4. ASME/ANSI B31.4 section 402.3.1
Design Parameters
Pipe Diameter 42 inches Class 1 0.72
Wall Thickness 0.938 inches Class 2 0.6
D/t Ratio 44.8 Class 3 0.5
MAOP 850 psi Class 4 0.4
SMYS 70,000 psi
Modulus of Elasticity 2.92E+07
Design Factor 0.5
Hoop Stress Calculation

Hoop Stress = (MAOP * Pipe Diameter) / (2 * Wall Thickness)
Calculated Hoop Stress 19,030 psi
Longitudinal Stress Calculation

Longitudinal Stress = Hoop Stress / 2
Calculated Longitudinal Stress 9,515 psi
Allowable Stress Calculation

Allowable Stress = Design Factor * SMYS
Calculated Allowable Stress 35,000 psi
Bending Stress Calculation

Bending Stress = Allowable Stress - Longitudinal Stress
Calculated Bending Stress 25,485 psi
Minimum Bend Radius Calculation

Minimum Radius = (Modulus of Elasticity * Pipe Diameter) / (2 * Bending Stress)
Calculated Minimum Radius 2,005 feet
PipeSide RigSide
500 600
450
550
400
350
500
Fluid Pressure (psi)
300
Elevation (ft)
250 450
200
400
150
100
350
50
0 300
0+00 5+00 10+00 15+00 20+00 25+00 30+00
Station (ft)
CrossingLength(ft) 2984.67
BoreDiameter(in) 10.625 Pallowable Prequired Ground Surface Bore Profile
DrillPipeO.D.(in) 5.5
DrillingFluidWeight(ppg) 11.0
Plastic Viscosity(cP) 14
YieldPoint(lb/100SF) 21
Atlantic Bridge Project Pilot Bore Drilling Fluid

Spectra Energy Taconic Parkway HDD Crossing
HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILLING EVALUATION
DRILLING FLUID PRESSURE EVALUATION Pressure Evaluation
Calculated by: C. Petta
Checked by: G. Duyvestyn
Date: 8/28/2015
Horizontal Directional Drilling Project No: 340381
Drilling Fluid Hydraulic Fracture Calculations
PROJECT: Atlantic Bridge Project CROSSING LOCATION: Taconic Parkway

Reference: 1. Latoore, C.A., Wakeley, L.D., and Conroy, P.J., Guidelines for Installation of Utilities Beneath Corps of Engineers Levees using Horizontal Directional Drilling, June 2002, ERDC/GSL TR-02
2. HDD Consortium, Horizontal Directional Drilling Good Practices Guidelines, Third Edition, North American Society of Trenchless Technology, 200
Geotechnical Inputs HDD Installation Inputs

Note that soil type assumes entire soil layer above the bore consists of the same soil Drill and Intersect Used no yes or no
type and properties. Need to input appropriate soil properties into evaluation sheet for 5+00 input stationing in feet (do not enter + sign)
Target Drill and Intersect Location
soils above the bore. 152 Stationing in metres
Drill Rig setup on Pipe Side (Single Rig Option Only).For yes or no (must be no for direct and intersect)
no
Drill and Intersect, this must be "no"
492.0 feet
Drill Rig #1 Elevation
150.0 metre
N/A feet
Drill Rig #2 Elevation (Pipe Entry Location)
Only Change cells shaded in green N/A metre
Changing other cells will interfere with calculations
2984.67 feet
Total Horizontal Installation Length
Soil Properties Soil Type 1 Soil Type 2 Soil Type 3 Soil Type 4 Soil Type 5 909.74 metre
c ,soileffectivecohesion(psf) 0 0 0 3006.93 feet
True Installation Length
c ,soileffectivecohesion(N/m2orPa) 0 0 0 0 0 916.52 metre
, soil internal friction angle (deg) 30.0 25.0 10.625 inch Use 8.5, 9 7/8, 10 5/8, or 12.25
Pilot Bore Diameter
, soil internal friction angle (rad) 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 269.88 mm
E , Young's Modulus (kPa) 30,000 35,000 5.5 inch Use 5.0, 5.5 or 6 5/8
Drill Pipe Diameter
E , Young's Modulus (lb/ft2) 626,563 730,990 0 0 0 139.70 mm
, Poisson's ratio 0.35 0.33 Yield Point 21 lb/100ft 2
Calculated based on Plastic Viscosity
G ,soilshearmodulus(ksf) 224 275 0 0 0 Plastic Viscosity 14 cP For soil use 16 to 22, for bedrock use 12 to 16
G ,soilshearmodulus(kPa) 10,714 13,158 0 0 0 600 gal/min Use 300 GPM (soil) and 600 GPM (bedrock)
Drilling Fluid Pumping Rate
G ,soilshearmodulus(Pa) 10,714,286 13,157,895 0 0 0 2.27 m3/min
, soil total unit weight (pcf) below water table 130 130 2.962 ft/sec
Calculated Drilling Fluid Velocity
, soil total unit weight (kN/m3) below water table 20.4 20.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.903 m/sec
, soil total unit weight (pcf) above water table 120 120 0.022 psi per ft of bore
, soil total unit weight (kN/m3) above water table 18.9 18.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pressure Required for Bore Slurry Flow 0.152 kPa per metre of bore
Top Elevation Soil Type encountered (feet) 0.662 psi per 30 ft drill pipe
Top Elevation Soil Type encountered (metre) 11.0 ppg Use 10.5 lb/gal for bedrock, 11.0 lb/gal for soil
Bottom Elevation Soil Type encountered (feet) Drilling Fluid Mud Weight 82.3 lb/ft3 Adjust as necessary
Bottom Elevation Soil Type encountered (metre) 1.32 specific gravity
Note: Stationing should be at least every 100 feet and finer detail where required
Check Start and Stop STA for proper direction. Type 1 , Type 2, Type 3, Type 4, Type 5 or leave blank
Estimated Bore
Maximum Estimated Bore Estimated
Drilled Length Fluid Pressure for
Ground Surface Water Table Allowable Fluid Pressure for Hydrostatic Fluid
Bore Stationing wrt Drill Rig(s) Bore Elevation Depth of Cover Factor of Factor of Drilling Fluid Flow Factor of
Location Elevation Elevation Soil Type Drilling Fluid Drilling Fluid Pressure Within
and Locations Satety Satety and Hydrostatic Satety
Pressure Flow Bore
Column
feet metre feet metre feet metre feet metre feet metre feet metre psi kPa psi kPa psi kPa psi kPa
Pipe Exit Side 29+85 9+10 0.00 0.00 492.0 150.0 492.0 150.0 425.0 129.5 0.0 0.00 Type 1 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 -- 0.00 0.00 -- 0.00 0.0 --
29+08 8+86 76.90 23.44 475.6 145.0 492.0 150.0 425.0 129.5 16.4 4.99 Type 1 120.8 833.2 1.7 11.7 71.21 9.3 64.4 12.94 11.0 76.1 10.95
28+31 8+63 153.79 46.88 459.3 140.0 506.0 154.2 425.0 129.5 46.7 14.24 Type 1 264.8 1825.6 3.4 23.4 78.02 18.7 128.8 14.18 22.1 152.2 12.00
27+54 8+39 230.69 70.32 442.9 135.0 508.0 154.8 425.0 129.5 65.1 19.84 Type 1 329.9 2274.2 5.1 35.1 64.80 28.0 193.2 11.77 33.1 228.3 9.96
26+77 8+16 307.59 93.75 426.6 130.0 510.0 155.4 425.0 129.5 83.4 25.43 Type 2 341.3 2353.1 6.8 46.8 50.28 37.4 257.6 9.14 44.1 304.4 7.73
26+23 8+00 361.44 110.17 415.5 126.6 515.0 157.0 425.0 129.5 99.5 30.33 Type 2 379.2 2614.6 8.0 55.0 47.54 43.7 301.2 8.68 51.7 356.2 7.34
25+69 7+83 415.43 126.62 405.1 123.5 517.0 157.6 425.0 129.5 111.9 34.10 Type 2 405.2 2793.9 9.2 63.2 44.20 49.6 342.1 8.17 58.8 405.3 6.89
25+15 7+67 469.55 143.12 395.5 120.5 519.0 158.2 425.0 129.5 123.5 37.65 Type 2 429.4 2960.3 10.4 71.4 41.44 55.1 380.2 7.79 65.5 451.6 6.56
24+61 7+50 523.79 159.65 386.5 117.8 519.0 158.2 425.0 129.5 132.5 40.38 Type 2 446.5 3078.7 11.6 79.7 38.63 60.3 415.4 7.41 71.8 495.1 6.22
24+07 7+34 578.15 176.22 378.3 115.3 518.5 158.0 425.0 129.5 140.2 42.74 Type 2 460.9 3177.8 12.8 88.0 36.13 65.0 447.9 7.09 77.7 535.9 5.93
23+52 7+17 632.61 192.82 370.7 113.0 518.0 157.9 425.0 129.5 147.3 44.89 Type 2 473.8 3266.8 14.0 96.2 33.94 69.3 477.6 6.84 83.2 573.8 5.69
22+98 7+00 687.16 209.45 363.9 110.9 517.5 157.7 425.0 129.5 153.6 46.81 Type 2 485.3 3346.0 15.2 104.5 32.00 73.2 504.5 6.63 88.3 609.0 5.49
22+43 6+84 741.80 226.10 357.8 109.1 510.0 155.4 425.0 129.5 152.2 46.39 Type 2 477.6 3292.7 16.4 112.9 29.18 76.7 528.5 6.23 93.0 641.4 5.13
21+88 6+67 796.51 242.78 352.4 107.4 505.0 153.9 425.0 129.5 152.6 46.51 Type 2 474.9 3274.0 17.6 121.2 27.02 79.7 549.7 5.96 97.3 670.9 4.88
21+33 6+50 851.29 259.48 347.7 106.0 495.0 150.9 425.0 129.5 147.3 44.88 Type 2 457.7 3155.6 18.8 129.5 24.36 82.4 568.1 5.55 101.2 697.7 4.52
20+79 6+34 906.13 276.19 343.8 104.8 481.0 146.6 425.0 129.5 137.2 41.82 Type 2 427.9 2950.6 20.0 137.9 21.40 84.7 583.7 5.05 104.7 721.6 4.09
20+24 6+17 961.01 292.92 340.6 103.8 474.0 144.5 425.0 129.5 133.4 40.67 Type 2 415.2 2862.6 21.2 146.2 19.58 86.5 596.5 4.80 107.7 742.7 3.85
19+69 6+00 1015.93 309.66 338.0 103.0 468.0 142.6 425.0 129.5 130.0 39.61 Type 2 403.5 2782.3 22.4 154.6 18.00 87.9 606.4 4.59 110.4 761.0 3.66
19+14 5+83 1070.88 326.41 336.2 102.5 456.0 139.0 425.0 129.5 119.8 36.50 Type 2 373.0 2571.6 23.6 162.9 15.78 89.0 613.5 4.19 112.6 776.4 3.31
18+59 5+67 1125.84 343.16 335.2 102.2 445.0 135.6 425.0 129.5 109.8 33.48 Type 2 342.6 2362.1 24.8 171.3 13.79 89.6 617.7 3.82 114.4 789.0 2.99
18+04 5+50 1180.82 359.92 334.8 102.0 440.0 134.1 425.0 129.5 105.2 32.07 Type 2 328.1 2261.9 26.1 179.7 12.59 89.8 619.1 3.65 115.9 798.8 2.83
17+82 5+43 1203.07 366.70 334.8 102.0 440.0 134.1 425.0 129.5 105.2 32.07 Type 2 328.1 2261.9 26.5 183.0 12.36 89.8 619.1 3.65 116.3 802.2 2.82
17+59 5+36 1225.32 373.48 334.8 102.0 439.8 134.0 425.0 129.5 105.0 31.99 Type 2 327.3 2256.6 27.0 186.4 12.10 89.8 619.1 3.64 116.8 805.6 2.80
17+37 5+29 1247.57 380.26 334.8 102.0 439.5 134.0 425.0 129.5 104.7 31.91 Type 2 326.5 2251.2 27.5 189.8 11.86 89.8 619.1 3.64 117.3 809.0 2.78
17+15 5+23 1269.82 387.05 334.8 102.0 439.3 133.9 425.0 129.5 104.5 31.84 Type 2 325.7 2245.9 28.0 193.2 11.62 89.8 619.1 3.63 117.8 812.3 2.76
16+93 5+16 1292.07 393.83 334.8 102.0 439.0 133.8 425.0 129.5 104.2 31.76 Type 2 325.0 2240.5 28.5 196.6 11.40 89.8 619.1 3.62 118.3 815.7 2.75
16+70 5+09 1314.32 400.61 334.8 102.0 438.5 133.7 425.0 129.5 103.7 31.61 Type 2 323.4 2229.8 29.0 200.0 11.15 89.8 619.1 3.60 118.8 819.1 2.72
16+48 5+02 1336.57 407.39 334.8 102.0 438.0 133.5 425.0 129.5 103.2 31.46 Type 2 321.8 2219.0 29.5 203.4 10.91 89.8 619.1 3.58 119.3 822.5 2.70
16+26 4+96 1358.82 414.17 334.8 102.0 437.0 133.2 425.0 129.5 102.2 31.15 Type 2 318.7 2197.4 30.0 206.7 10.63 89.8 619.1 3.55 119.8 825.9 2.66
16+04 4+89 1381.07 420.95 334.8 102.0 435.0 132.6 425.0 129.5 100.2 30.54 Type 2 312.4 2153.9 30.5 210.1 10.25 89.8 619.1 3.48 120.3 829.3 2.60
15+81 4+82 1403.32 427.74 334.8 102.0 432.0 131.7 425.0 129.5 97.2 29.63 Type 2 302.8 2087.8 31.0 213.5 9.78 89.8 619.1 3.37 120.8 832.7 2.51
15+59 4+75 1425.57 434.52 334.8 102.0 431.0 131.4 425.0 129.5 96.2 29.32 Type 2 299.6 2065.6 31.5 216.9 9.52 89.8 619.1 3.34 121.3 836.0 2.47
15+37 4+68 1447.82 441.30 334.8 102.0 430.0 131.1 425.0 129.5 95.2 29.02 Type 2 296.3 2043.2 31.9 220.3 9.28 89.8 619.1 3.30 121.7 839.4 2.43
15+00 4+57 1484.47 452.47 335.0 102.1 428.0 130.5 425.0 129.5 93.0 28.36 Type 2 289.4 1995.6 32.8 225.9 8.84 89.7 618.5 3.23 122.5 844.4 2.36
14+64 4+46 1521.12 463.64 335.4 102.2 435.0 132.6 425.0 129.5 99.6 30.35 Type 2 311.0 2144.1 33.6 231.4 9.26 89.4 616.6 3.48 123.0 848.1 2.53
14+27 4+35 1557.76 474.81 336.2 102.5 442.0 134.7 425.0 129.5 105.8 32.24 Type 2 331.1 2282.9 34.4 237.0 9.63 89.0 613.5 3.72 123.4 850.5 2.68
13+90 4+24 1594.40 485.98 337.4 102.8 441.0 134.4 425.0 129.5 103.6 31.59 Type 2 325.6 2244.8 35.2 242.6 9.25 88.3 609.1 3.69 123.5 851.6 2.64
13+44 4+10 1640.17 499.93 339.2 103.4 438.0 133.5 425.0 129.5 98.8 30.11 Type 2 312.1 2152.0 36.2 249.5 8.62 87.3 601.8 3.58 123.5 851.3 2.53
12+99 3+96 1685.93 513.88 341.6 104.1 438.0 133.5 425.0 129.5 96.4 29.40 Type 2 306.9 2116.0 37.2 256.5 8.25 85.9 592.5 3.57 123.1 849.0 2.49
12+53 3+82 1731.65 527.81 344.4 105.0 437.5 133.4 425.0 129.5 93.1 28.38 Type 2 298.9 2060.9 38.2 263.5 7.82 84.3 581.3 3.55 122.5 844.8 2.44
12+07 3+68 1777.35 541.74 347.7 106.0 437.0 133.2 425.0 129.5 89.3 27.20 Type 2 289.7 1997.6 39.2 270.4 7.39 82.4 568.1 3.52 121.6 838.6 2.38
11+62 3+54 1823.00 555.66 351.6 107.2 438.0 133.5 425.0 129.5 86.4 26.34 Type 2 284.2 1959.7 40.2 277.4 7.07 80.2 553.0 3.54 120.4 830.4 2.36
11+16 3+40 1868.61 569.56 355.9 108.5 439.0 133.8 425.0 129.5 83.1 25.32 Type 2 277.6 1913.7 41.2 284.3 6.73 77.7 535.9 3.57 119.0 820.2 2.33
10+71 3+26 1914.17 583.45 360.8 110.0 444.0 135.3 425.0 129.5 83.2 25.37 Type 2 282.9 1950.7 42.2 291.2 6.70 75.0 516.8 3.77 117.2 808.1 2.41
10+25 3+12 1959.67 597.31 366.1 111.6 460.0 140.2 425.0 129.5 93.9 28.62 Type 2 321.7 2218.0 43.2 298.2 7.44 71.9 495.8 4.47 115.2 794.0 2.79
9+61 2+93 2023.73 616.84 374.0 114.0 476.0 145.1 425.0 129.5 102.0 31.10 Type 2 352.9 2433.1 44.7 307.9 7.90 67.4 464.8 5.23 112.1 772.7 3.15
8+97 2+73 2087.80 636.37 381.8 116.4 488.0 148.7 425.0 129.5 106.2 32.36 Type 2 371.3 2560.0 46.1 317.6 8.06 62.9 433.8 5.90 109.0 751.5 3.41
8+33 2+54 2151.86 655.89 389.7 118.8 490.0 149.4 425.0 129.5 100.3 30.57 Type 2 360.9 2488.5 47.5 327.4 7.60 58.4 402.8 6.18 105.9 730.2 3.41
7+69 2+34 2215.92 675.42 397.6 121.2 494.0 150.6 425.0 129.5 96.4 29.39 Type 2 356.3 2456.3 48.9 337.1 7.29 53.9 371.9 6.61 102.8 709.0 3.46
7+05 2+15 2279.98 694.95 405.4 123.6 505.0 153.9 425.0 129.5 99.6 30.35 Type 2 371.5 2561.4 50.3 346.9 7.38 49.4 340.9 7.51 99.8 687.8 3.72
6+41 1+95 2344.05 714.47 413.3 126.0 523.0 159.4 425.0 129.5 109.7 33.44 Type 2 405.4 2795.4 51.7 356.6 7.84 44.9 309.9 9.02 96.7 666.5 4.19
5+77 1+76 2408.11 734.00 421.2 128.4 523.0 159.4 425.0 129.5 101.8 31.04 Type 2 390.0 2688.8 53.1 366.4 7.34 40.5 278.9 9.64 93.6 645.3 4.17
5+13 1+56 2472.17 753.53 429.0 130.8 523.0 159.4 425.0 129.5 94.0 28.64 Type 2 371.2 2559.5 54.6 376.1 6.80 36.0 247.9 10.32 90.5 624.0 4.10
4+48 1+37 2536.23 773.05 436.9 133.2 523.0 159.4 425.0 129.5 86.1 26.24 Type 2 349.0 2406.3 56.0 385.9 6.24 31.5 216.9 11.09 87.4 602.8 3.99
3+84 1+17 2600.30 792.58 444.8 135.6 523.0 159.4 425.0 129.5 78.2 23.85 Type 2 326.2 2248.8 57.4 395.6 5.68 27.0 185.9 12.09 84.3 581.6 3.87
3+20 0+98 2664.36 812.11 452.6 138.0 521.0 158.8 425.0 129.5 68.4 20.84 Type 1 340.8 2349.5 58.8 405.4 5.80 22.5 154.9 15.16 81.3 560.3 4.19
2+56 0+78 2728.42 831.63 460.5 140.4 516.0 157.3 425.0 129.5 55.5 16.92 Type 1 296.9 2047.2 60.2 415.1 4.93 18.0 124.0 16.52 78.2 539.1 3.80
1+92 0+59 2792.48 851.16 468.4 142.8 510.0 155.4 425.0 129.5 41.6 12.69 Type 1 245.0 1689.4 61.6 424.9 3.98 13.5 93.0 18.17 75.1 517.8 3.26
1+28 0+39 2856.55 870.69 476.2 145.2 504.0 153.6 425.0 129.5 27.8 8.46 Type 1 184.9 1274.8 63.0 434.6 2.93 9.0 62.0 20.57 72.0 496.6 2.57
0+64 0+20 2920.61 890.21 484.1 147.6 497.0 151.5 425.0 129.5 12.9 3.93 Type 1 95.1 655.7 64.4 444.4 1.48 4.5 31.0 21.16 68.9 475.3 1.38
Pipe Entry Side 0+00 0+00 2984.67 909.74 492.0 150.0 492.0 150.0 425.0 129.5 0.0 0.00 Type 1 0.0 0.0 65.9 454.1 -- 0.0 0.0 -- 65.9 454.1 --
Date: 8/24/2015
Calculation of Pull Loads and Stresses during Pipe Installation
PROJECT: Atlantic Bridge Project HDD CROSSING LOCATION: Taconic Parkway

Reference: 1. Installation of Pipelines by Horizontal Directional Drilling, an Engineering Guide, PRCI Publication November 2008
2. Pipeline Design for Installation by Horizontal Directional Drilling, Manual of Practice, ASCE MREP 108, 2005
HDD Installation Load Analysis HDD Installation Stress Analysis

Combined Combined
Combined CombinedT Tensile, Tensile,
Bore Stationing Installed Length Bore Elevation Bore Diameter Tensile (Axial) Stress Bending Stress Hoop Stress Tensile and ensile and Bending Bending
Segment Type Type of Curve Geotechnical TOTAL PULL LOADS
Bending Bending and Hoop and Hoop
Friction Factor
Factor <1.0 Factor <1.0
feet metres feet metres feet metres inch mm psi MPa % SMYS psi MPa % SMYS psi MPa % SMYS
Pipe Entry Location 0+00 0+00 0.00 0.00 491.96 149.95 -- -- 204,239 lb 102.1 tons 1,688 11.64 2.41% 0 0.00 0.00% 0.0 0.00 0.00% 0.03 Yes 0.00 Yes
straight 0+43 0+13 43.03 13.12 486.72 148.35 54.0 1371.6 0.3 214,784 lb 107.4 tons 1,775 12.24 2.54% 0 0.00 0.00% 61.0 0.42 0.09% 0.03 Yes 0.00 Yes
curve vertical 11+53 3+51 1160.98 353.87 352.42 107.42 54.0 1371.6 0.3 527,315 lb 263.7 tons 4,358 30.05 6.23% 12083 83.31 17.26% 1622.8 11.19 2.32% 0.35 Yes 0.15 Yes
HDD Rig Location 29+85 9+10 3006.93 916.52 491.96 149.95 54.0 1371.6 0.3 848,689 lb 424.3 tons 7,014 48.36 10.02% 0 0.00 0.00% 0.0 0.00 0.00% 0.13 Yes 0.02 Yes
NOTE: Hoop stress taken as an empty pipe to represent worst case scenario
491.96 feet
Ground Elevation at Pipe Entry
149.95 metres
491.96 feet
Ground Elevation at Pipe Exit
149.95 metres
Input Pipe Properties
42 in
Pipe Outer Diameter
1066.8 mm
0.938 in
Pipe Wall Thickness
23.8252 mm
DR 44.8
411.74 lbs/ft
Pipe Weight (in air)
614.02 kg/m
0.0 lbs/ft
Weight of Water in pipe
0.00 kg/m
-307.9 lbs/ft
Net Buoyant Weight of pipe
-459.19 kg/m
2.90E+07 psi
Young's Modulus of Elasticity
199948 MPa
70,000 psi
Yield Strength
482.6 MPa
Poisson Ratio 0.3
6.625 in
Drill Pipe Diameter
168.275 mm
2,500 ft
Minimum Radius of Curvature
762 m
Ultimate Safe Pull Load 6,776,116 lb
(based on 80% of Yield Strength) 30,142 kN
848,689 lb
Maximum Calculated Pull Load
3,775 kN
Factor of Safety 8.0
Start-up Load Factor 1.5
1,273,033 lb
Required Pipe Pull Load
5,663 kN
Soil and Mud Properties
10 ppg of drill fluid and solids (typically 9.5 to 11 lb/gal)
Mud Weight
1.199 Specific Gravity
Friction Coeff. (GS or rollers) 0.15 rollers typically 0.10 to 0.30 (along ground surface is higher range)
21 lb/100ft2 (Based on HDD experience from previous installations)
Yield Point
100.548 dyne/cm 2
Plastic Viscosity 14 cP (Based on HDD experience from previous installations)
600 GPM (typically 200 to 300 gpm for soil or 400 to 800 gpm bedrock)
Drilling mud pumping rate
2.271 m3/min
1679 GPM (equivalent mud rate accounting for slurry displaced by product pipe installation)
6.358 m3/min
15 feet/min (Based on HDD experience)
Pipe Pullback Rate
4.57 m/min
Pull Load Analysis

2015.08.24 Pull Load Calculation Sheet Atlantic Bridge - Pull Loads v600 one curve.xlsx 8/28/2015
Date: 8/24/2015


Combined Combined
Friction Factor
491.96 feet
149.95 metres
491.96 feet
149.95 metres
42 in
Pipe Outer Diameter
1066.8 mm
0.938 in
Pipe Wall Thickness
23.8252 mm
DR 44.8
411.74 lbs/ft
614.02 kg/m
547.9 lbs/ft
817.10 kg/m
240.0 lbs/ft
357.91 kg/m
2.90E+07 psi
199948 MPa
70,000 psi
Yield Strength
482.6 MPa
Poisson Ratio 0.3
6.625 in
Drill Pipe Diameter
168.275 mm
2,500 ft
762 m
502,919 lb
2,237 kN
754,379 lb
3,356 kN
Mud Weight
Yield Point
100.548 dyne/cm 2
2.271 m3/min
6.358 m3/min
Pipe Pullback Rate
4.57 m/min
Pull Load Analysis

Date: 8/24/2015


Combined Combined
Friction Factor
491.96 feet
149.95 metres
491.96 feet
149.95 metres
42 in
Pipe Outer Diameter
1066.8 mm
0.938 in
Pipe Wall Thickness
23.8252 mm
DR 44.8
411.74 lbs/ft
614.02 kg/m
0.0 lbs/ft
0.00 kg/m
-379.9 lbs/ft
-566.51 kg/m
2.90E+07 psi
199948 MPa
70,000 psi
Yield Strength
482.6 MPa
Poisson Ratio 0.3
6.625 in
Drill Pipe Diameter
168.275 mm
2,500 ft
762 m
991,976 lb
4,413 kN
1,487,963 lb
6,619 kN
Mud Weight
Yield Point
100.548 dyne/cm 2
2.271 m3/min
6.358 m3/min
Pipe Pullback Rate
4.57 m/min
Pull Load Analysis

Date: 8/24/2015


Combined Combined
Friction Factor
491.96 feet
149.95 metres
491.96 feet
149.95 metres
42 in
Pipe Outer Diameter
1066.8 mm
0.938 in
Pipe Wall Thickness
23.8252 mm
DR 44.8
411.74 lbs/ft
614.02 kg/m
547.9 lbs/ft
817.10 kg/m
168.0 lbs/ft
250.59 kg/m
2.90E+07 psi
199948 MPa
70,000 psi
Yield Strength
482.6 MPa
Poisson Ratio 0.3
6.625 in
Drill Pipe Diameter
168.275 mm
2,500 ft
762 m
427,541 lb
1,902 kN
641,312 lb
2,853 kN
Mud Weight
Yield Point
100.548 dyne/cm 2
2.271 m3/min
6.358 m3/min
Pipe Pullback Rate
4.57 m/min
Pull Load Analysis

Date: 8/24/2015


Combined Combined
Friction Factor
curve vertical 24+61 7+50 2472.56 753.65 386.51 117.81 54.0 1371.6 0.3 1,048,602 lb 524.3 tons 8,666 59.75 12.38% 12083 83.31 17.26% 1471.6 10.15 2.10% 0.42 Yes 0.19 Yes
curve vertical 26+77 8+16 2692.47 820.67 426.58 130.02 54.0 1371.6 0.3 1,110,740 lb 555.4 tons 9,180 63.29 13.11% 12083 83.31 17.26% 912.4 6.29 1.30% 0.43 Yes 0.17 Yes
straight 26+90 8+20 2705.25 824.57 429.24 130.83 54.0 1371.6 0.3 1,111,715 lb 555.9 tons 9,188 63.35 13.13% 0 0.00 0.00% 875.3 6.04 1.25% 0.16 Yes 0.04 Yes
HDD Rig Location 29+85 9+10 3006.93 916.52 491.96 149.95 54.0 1371.6 0.3 1,134,743 lb 567.4 tons 9,378 64.66 13.40% 0 0.00 0.00% 0.0 0.00 0.00% 0.17 Yes 0.03 Yes
491.96 feet
149.95 metres
491.96 feet
149.95 metres
42 in
Pipe Outer Diameter
1066.8 mm
0.938 in
Pipe Wall Thickness
23.8252 mm
DR 44.8
411.74 lbs/ft
614.02 kg/m
0.0 lbs/ft
0.00 kg/m
-451.9 lbs/ft
-673.84 kg/m
2.90E+07 psi
199948 MPa
70,000 psi
Yield Strength
482.6 MPa
Poisson Ratio 0.3
6.625 in
Drill Pipe Diameter
168.275 mm
2,500 ft
762 m
1,134,743 lb
5,048 kN
1,702,115 lb
7,571 kN
Mud Weight
Yield Point
100.548 dyne/cm 2
2.271 m3/min
6.358 m3/min
Pipe Pullback Rate
4.57 m/min
Pull Load Analysis

Date: 8/24/2015


Combined Combined
Friction Factor
491.96 feet
149.95 metres
491.96 feet
149.95 metres
42 in
Pipe Outer Diameter
1066.8 mm
0.938 in
Pipe Wall Thickness
23.8252 mm
DR 44.8
411.74 lbs/ft
614.02 kg/m
547.9 lbs/ft
817.10 kg/m
96.1 lbs/ft
143.27 kg/m
2.90E+07 psi
199948 MPa
70,000 psi
Yield Strength
482.6 MPa
Poisson Ratio 0.3
6.625 in
Drill Pipe Diameter
168.275 mm
2,500 ft
762 m
420,999 lb
1,873 kN
631,499 lb
2,809 kN
Mud Weight
Yield Point
100.548 dyne/cm 2
2.271 m3/min
6.358 m3/min
Pipe Pullback Rate
4.57 m/min
Pull Load Analysis

Project Name: Atlantic Bridge By: C. Petta
Project No: 340381 Checked: G. Duyvestyn
HDD Name: Taconic Parkway Owner: Spectra Energy
Horizontal Directional Drilling Location: 0 Date: 8/20/2015
Operating Stress Analysis - MAOP Based
References: 1. ASME/ANSI B31.4 section 402.3.2

4. ASME/ANSI B31.4 section 402.3.1
Design Parameters
Pipe Diameter 42.0 inches
Wall Thickness 0.938 inches
D/t Ratio 44.8
MAOP 850 psi
SMYS 70,000 psi
Modulus of Elasticity 2.92E+07
Design Factor 0.5
Poisson's Ratio 0.30
Minimum Radius of Curvature 2,500 feet
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion 6.39E-06 in/in/F
Assumed Installation Temperature 20 F
Assumed Operating Temperature 100 F
Temperature Derating Factor 1
Longitudinal Stress from Bending

Longitudinal Stress from Bending 20,440 psi
Percent SMYS 29.2%
Hoop Stress
Calculated Hoop Stress 19,030 psi Should be less than Design Factor x SMYS = 35000
Percent SMYS 27.2% Limited by Design Factor according to 49 CFR 192.11
Longitudinal Tensile Stress from Hoop Stress

Longitudinal Tensile Stress from Hoop Stress 5,709 psi
Percent SMYS 8.2%
Longitudinal Stress from Thermal Expansion

Longitudinal Stress from Thermal Expansion -14,927 psi
Percent SMYS 21.3% Limited by 90% SMYS by ASME/ANSI B31.4 section 402.3.2
Net Longitudinal Stress (Compression Side of Curve)

Net Longitudinal Stress (Compression Side of Curve) -29,658 psi
Percent SMYS 42.4% Limited by 90% SMYS by ASME/ANSI B31.8 section 833.3
Net Longitudinal Stress Tension Side of Curve)

Net Longitudinal Stress (Tesion Side of Curve) 11,222 psi
Percent SMYS 16.0% Limited by 90% SMYS by ASME/ANSI B31.8 section 833.3
Maximum Shear Stress

Maximum Shear Stress 24,344 psi
Percent SMYS 34.8% Limited by 45% SMYS by ASME/ANSI B31.4 section 402.3.1
Combined Biaxial Stress Check

Combined Biaxial Stress Check 48,688 psi
Percent SMYS 69.6% Limited to 90% SMYS by ASME/ANSI B31.8 section 833.4
APPENDIX B
GZA Geotechnical Report
HMM Project 340381

VIAEMAIL
July8,2015
FileNo.09.0025870.02
ProactivebyDesign

Mr.JohnV.Heintz,P.E.
SpectraEnergy
890WinterStreet,Suite300
Waltham,Massachusetts02451

Re: PreliminaryDataSubmittal
Geotechnical
Environmental
AtlanticBridgeProject
Ecological
StonyPointLift
Water
Yorktown,NewYork
Construction
Management
DearMr.Heintz:

WearepleasedtoprovidethepreliminaryinformationinadvanceofissuingtheGeotechnical
Data Report for the abovereferenced project. The Geotechnical Data Report will follow
promptly.ThecontentsofthisreportaresubjecttotheLimitationscontainedinAppendixA.
249VanderbiltAvenue
Norwood,MA02062
It has been a pleasure serving Spectra Energy on this phase of the project, and we look
(781)2783700
www.gza.com
forward to our continued work with you on the Atlantic Bridge project. If you have any
questionsregardingthereport,orifwecanprovidefurtherassistance,pleasedonothesitate
tocontacttheundersigned.

Verytrulyyours,

GZAGEOENVIRONMENTAL,INC.

AndrewR.Blaisdell GaryR.McAllister,P.E.
SeniorProjectManager AssociatePrincipal

ARB/GRM:grm
P:\09Jobs\0025800s\09.0025870.00SpectraAtlanticBridge\09.0025870.02StonyPtTaconicEast\Report\2587002ABPRLEIMDATA.docx

Attachments:
Figure1 BoringLocationPlan
AppendixA Limitations
AppendixB BoringandCoreLogs
AppendixC LaboratoryTestReports
AnEqualOpportunityEmployerM/F/V/H

FIGURE

GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.

LEGEND:
TP-4
BORING LOCATION &
!
> DESIGNATION
NOTES:
1) THIS MAP CONTAINS THE ESRI ARCGIS ONLINE BING
MAPS AERIAL LAYER PACKAGE, PUBLISHED DECEMBER 1,
2010 BY ESRI ARCIMS SERVICES AND UPDATED MONTHLY.
THIS SERVICE USES UNIFORM NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED
DATUM AND CARTOGRAPHY STANDARDS AND A VARIETY OF
AVAILABLE SOURCES FROM SEVERAL DATA PROVIDERS.
2) AS-DRILLED COORDINATES AND GROUND SURFACE
ELEVATIONS WERE SURVEYED BY SPECTRA-CONTRACTED
SURVEYORS AND PROVIDED TO GZA.
3) THE TEST BORINGS WERE PERFORMED BY GOEOLOGIC
EARTH EXPLORATIONS BETWEEN APRIL 14, 2015 AND MAY
15, 2015 AND OBSERVED AND LOGGED BY GZA PERSONNEL.
4) LOCUS INSET IS NOT SHOWN AT THE SAME SCALE AS THE
BASEMAP. THE LOCUS INSET IS SHOWN AT 1:24,000 FEET (1
IN = 2000 FT).
0 50 100 200

2015 - GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. C:\GIS\Spectra\Stony Point\09.0025870.02\MXDs\Figure1_BoringLocationPlan.mxd, 6/24/2015, 11:06:31 AM, aimee.mountain
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
LOCUS INSET
SITE AREA
Copyright: 2013 National

Geographic Society, i-cubed
UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT, THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF
GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC. (GZA). THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE DRAWING IS SOLELY FOR
THE USE BY GZA'S CLIENT OR THE CLIENT'S DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE SPECIFIC
PROJECT AND LOCATION IDENTIFIED ON THE DRAWING. THE DRAWING SHALL NOT BE TRANSFERRED,
REUSED, COPIED, OR ALTERED IN ANY MANNER FOR USE AT ANY OTHER LOCATION OR FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF GZA, ANY TRANSFER, REUSE, OR MODIFICATION
TO THE DRAWING BY THE CLIENT OR OTHERS, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN EXPRESS CONSENT OF
GZA, WILL BE AT THE USER'S SOLE RISK AND WITHOUT ANY RISK OR LIABILITY TO GZA.
SPECTRA ATLANTIC BRIDGE

STONY POINT LIFT
YORKTOWN, NEW YORK
BORING LOCATION PLAN

TACONIC PARKWAY CROSSING, EAST
PREPARED BY: PREPARED FOR:

Engineers and Scientists SPECTRA ENERGY TRANSMISSION
www.gza.com
PROJ MGR: ARB REVIEWED BY: ARB CHECKED BY: GRM FIGURE
DESIGNED BY: ADM DRAWN BY: ADM SCALE: 1 in = 100 ft
DATE:
JUNE 2015
PROJECT NO.
09.0025870.02
REVISION NO.
1
APPENDIXA
LIMITATIONS

LIMITATIONS
UseofReport
1. GZAGeoEnvironmental,Inc.(GZA)preparedthisreportonbehalfof,andfortheexclusive
useofourClientforthestatedpurposeandlocationidentifiedintheProposalforServices
and/or Report. Use of this report, in whole or in part, at other locations, or for other
purposes,mayleadtoinappropriateconclusions;andwedonotacceptanyresponsibility
fortheconsequencesofsuchuse.Further,reliancebyanypartynotexpresslyidentifiedin
theagreement,foranyuse,withoutourpriorwrittenpermission,shallbeatthatpartyssole
risk,andwithoutanyliabilitytoGZA.

StandardofCare
2. GZAsfindingsandconclusionsarebasedontheworkconductedaspartoftheScopeof
Services set forth in Proposal for Services and/or Report, and reflect our professional
judgment.Thesefindingsandconclusionsmustbeconsiderednotasscientificorengineering
certainties, but rather as our professional opinions concerning the limited data gathered
duringthecourseofourwork.Ifconditionsotherthanthosedescribedinthisreportare
foundatthesubjectlocation,orthedesignhasbeenalteredinanyway,GZAshallbeso
notified and afforded the opportunity to revise the report, as appropriate, to reflect the
unanticipatedchangedconditions.

3. GZAsserviceswereperformedusingthedegreeofskillandcareordinarilyexercisedby
qualified professionals performing the same type of services, at the same time, under
similarconditions,atthesameorasimilarproperty.Nowarranty,expressedorimplied,is
made.

SubsurfaceConditions
4. ThegeneralizedsoilprofileprovidedinourReportisbasedonwidelyspacedsubsurface
explorations and are intended only to convey trends in subsurface conditions. The
boundaries between strata are approximate and idealized, and were based on our
assessment of subsurface conditions. The composition of strata, and the transitions
betweenstrata,maybemorevariableandmorecomplexthanindicated.Formorespecific
informationonsoilconditionsataspecificlocationrefertotheexplorationlogs.

5. Inpreparingthisreport,GZAreliedoncertaininformationprovidedbytheClient,stateand
localofficials,andotherpartiesreferencedthereinwhichweremadeavailabletoGZAat
thetimeofourevaluation.GZAdidnotattempttoindependentlyverifytheaccuracyor
completenessofallinformationreviewedorreceivedduringthecourseofthisevaluation.
6. Waterlevelreadingshavebeenmadeintestholesasdescribedinthereportatthespecified
timesandunderthestatedconditions.Thesedatahavebeenreviewedandinterpretations
havebeenmadeinthisReport.Fluctuationsinthelevelofthegroundwaterhoweveroccur
due to temporal or spatial variations in areal recharge rates, soil heterogeneities, the
presence of subsurface utilities, and/or natural or artificially induced perturbations. The
watertableencounteredinthecourseoftheworkmaydifferfromthatindicatedinthe
Report.

09.0025870.00/.01/.03 APPENDIXA1 06/24/2015

7. GZAsservicesdidnotincludeanassessmentofthepresenceofoilorhazardousmaterials
at the property. Consequently, we did not consider the potential impacts (if any) that
contaminants in soil or groundwater may have on construction activities, or the use of
structuresontheproperty.

8. Recommendationsforfoundationdrainage,waterproofing,andmoisturecontroladdress
the conventional geotechnical engineering aspects of seepage control. These
recommendationsmaynotprecludeanenvironmentthatallowstheinfestationofmoldor
otherbiologicalpollutants.

CompliancewithCodesandRegulations
9. Weusedreasonablecareinidentifyingandinterpretingapplicablecodesandregulations.
These codes and regulations are subject to various, and possibly contradictory,
interpretations. Compliance with codes and regulations by other parties is beyond our
control.

09.0025870.00/.01/.03 APPENDIXA2 06/24/2015

APPENDIXB
BORINGANDCORELOGS

CORE BORING DISCONTINUITY LOG KEY

Engineers and Scientists
TYPE
DESCRIPTION SYMBOL CRITERIA
JOINT J A natural fracture along which no displacement has occurred. May occur in parallel groups called sets.
SHEAR S A natural fracture along which differential movement has occurred. May be slickensided or stricted.
FAULT F A natural fracture along which displacement has occurred. Usually lined with gouge and slickensides.
VEIN V A thin, sheet-like igneous intrusion into a fissure.
BEDDING JOINT B Joints that occur along bedding planes.
FOLIATION JOINT FJ Joints that occur parallel to the foliation of a rock mass.
SHEAR ZONE SZ Zone of fractured rock and gouge bordering the displacement area.
Directly measured angle below horizontal plane for exposed rock and vertical rock core. For inclined or angled
DIP
borings, the angle measured below the plane perpendicular to the tock core axis.
ROUGHNESS
INTERMEDIATE SCALE SYMBOL SMALL SCALE SYMBOL
STEPPED S ROUGH R
UNDULATING U SMOOTH Sm
PLANAR P SLICKENSIDED K
NOT DETERMINED X WAVY Wo
WEATHERING / ALTERATION OF DISCONTINUITIES

DESCRIPTION SYMBOL CRITERIA
FRESH FR No visible sign of weathering on the rock discontinuity surfaces.
Discoloration of rock material on discontinuity surfaces. Degree of discoloration and specific discolored mineral
DISCOLORED DS
constituents (if applicable) indicated.
Discontinuity surface rock material is weathered to a soil with the rock material fabric intact. Rock material is
DISINTEGRATED DG
friable, but the mineral grains are not decomposed.
Discontinuity surface rock material is weathered to a soil with the rock material fabric intact and with some or all
DECOMPOSED DE
mineral grains decomposed.
APERTURE
DESCRIPTION SYMBOL APERTURE (IN.) DESCRIPTION SYMBOL APERTURE (IN.)
VERY TIGHT VT < 0.004 WIDE W > 0.4

TIGHT * T 0.004 0.010 VERY WIDE VW 0.4 4.0
PARTLY OPEN PO 0.01 0.02 EXTREMELY WIDE EW 4.0 40.0
OPEN ** O 0.02 0.10 CAVERNOUS CA > 40
MODERATELY WIDE MW 0.10-0.40
* TIGHT denotes that core pieces can be manually joined such that no void space is visible.
** OPEN denotes that core pieces cannot be manually joined and exhibit visible voids.
INFILLING
TEXT DESCRIPTION TEXT DESCRIPTION TEXT DESCRIPTION
Cl Clay ST Stains Li Limonite
Fgmts Fragments Ca Calcium, calcite Sa Sand (Not Residuum)
N None Fe Iron, iron oxides QZ Quartz
Res Residuum Na Salt residue Bi Biotite
Rx Rock Py Pyrite, iron pyrite ML SILT
Sh Shale X Not determined
SL Slicks - Not determined
I:\gINT\Libraries\Spectra special gINT library and samples\CORE BORING LOG KEY.docx
TEST BORING LOG
Spectra Energy EXPLORATION NO.: TP-4
GZA Atlantic Bridge SHEET: 1 of 1
GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Taconic Parkway Crossing PROJECT NO: 09.0025870.02
Engineers and Scientists Yorktown, New York REVIEWED BY: A. Blaisdell
Logged By: J. Szmyt Type of Rig: ATV Boring Location: 15005603N 1963617E H. Datum: NAD 83
Drilling Co.: GeoLogic Earth Explorations Rig Model: CME 55 Ground Surface Elev. (ft.): 436.3
Foreman: Charles O'Donnell Drilling Method: Rotary Final Boring Depth (ft.): 11 V. Datum: NAVD 88
Wash/Core Date Start - Finish: 5/1/2015 - 5/15/2015
Groundwater Depth (ft.)
Hammer Type: Donut Hammer Sampler Type: SS
Hammer Weight (lb.): 140 Sampler O.D. (in.): 2.0 Date Time Water Depth Stab. Time
Hammer Fall (in.): 30 Sampler Length (in.): 24 5/11/15 0830 13.1 65 hrs
Auger or Casing O.D./I.D Dia (in.): 5"/4"/3" Rock Core Size: 2.0 5/12/15 0730 12.8 16 hrs
5/12/15 1530 8.5' 15 min
Casing Sample
Remark
Field Stratum
Depth
Elev.
Depth Blows/ Sample Description and Identification
(ft.)
(ft.)
Depth Pen. Rec. Blows SPT Test Description
(ft) Core No. (Modified Burmister Procedure)
Rate (ft.) (in) (in) (per 6 in.) Value Data
2
S-1 4-4.7 8 7 9 50/2" R S-1: Very dense, medium to coarse SAND, trace Gravel, SAND WITH
5 GRAVEL
trace Silt, wet. (SP) 3
9.1 427.2
S-2 9-9.1 .5 0 35/.5" R S-2: No recovery. 4
10
BEDROCK
5
Please refer to Rock Core Log. 11 425.3
End of exploration at 11 feet.
15
20
25
GZA TEMPLATE TEST BORING; 7/8/2015; 1:11:46 PM
30
1 - Hand dug to 3.0'-3.3' bgs in a 3.0'x4.0' square around original location on 5/1/15 and hit large boulder/bedrock.
REMARKS
2 - Began drilling with CME 55 ATV drill rig on 5/7/15; encountered boulder at 3.1' bgs (0.7' thick).
3 - Encountered multiple boulders and/or cobbles from 4.7'-8.0' bgs; drove 5" casing to 3.0' bgs.
4 - Groundwater depths were measured during coring with borehole depths of 29.0' bgs (first reading) and 50.3' bgs (2nd reading).
5 - Spun 4" casing to approximately 7.0' bgs and removed 5" casing. Advanced roller bit to 11.0' bgs and spun 4" casing to 11.0' bgs before
starting to core.
See Log Key for exploration of sample description and identification procedures. Stratification lines represent Exploration No.:
approximate boundaries between soil and bedrock types. Actual transitions may be gradual. Water level readings have
been made at the times and under the conditions stated. Fluctuations of groundwater may occur due to other factors TP-4
than those present at the times the measurements were made.
GZA BORING NO.:
GeoEnvironmental, Inc. CORE BORING LOG TP-4
Engineers and Scientists Page 1 of 6
Project: Atlantic Bridge Project Project No.: 09.0025870.02
Location: Taconic Parkway Crossing, Yorktown, New York Project Mgr: A. Blaisdell
Client: Spectra Energy Field Eng. Staff: J. Szmyt
Drilling Co.: GeoLogic Earth Explorations Date/Time Started: May 1, 2015 at 7:00 am
Driller: C. O'Donnell Date/Time Finished: May 15, 2015 at 3:00 pm
Elevation: 436.3 ft. Vertical Datum: NAVD 88 Boring Location: See Plan Coord.: N: 15005603 E: 1963617
Item Casing Core Barrel Core Bit
Type NX NQ Carbide Chip Horizontal Datum: NAD 83 / UTM 18 Drilling Method: Conventional
Length (ft) 10 Rig Make & Model: CME 55
Inside Dia. (in.) 4 2.0 2.0
Avg
Depth/ Core Run/ Rec RQD Discontinuities
Depth Stratum Depth
Elev. Rate (ft) (Box) (in. / (in / Rock Core
Graphic Visual Identification, Description and Remarks Remarks
(ft) (min No. %) %) (ft.)
(See Legend for Rock Description System)
/ft) Hard. Weath SEE TEST BORING LOG FOR OVERBURDEN DETAILS Type Dip Rgh Wea Aper Infill
11.0 Very hard, fresh, fine grained, white/gray, GNEISS.
Joints are very close to closely spaced, low angle to 11.20 J 0-5 U,R DS T
6.0
moderately dipping. 11.50 J 40-45 U,R FR T
11.70 J 45-50 P,R DS T
11.80 J 45-50 U,R DS PO
5.5 12.30 J 45-50 U,R DS T

12.50 J 55-60 U,R DS T
12.90 J 45-50 U,R DS PO

57 31
7.5 R-C-1 13.40 J 20-25 U,R DS T
95% 52%
13.60 J 25-30 U,R DS PO
9.75
14.50 J 15-20 U,R DS T
14.70 J 15-20 U,R DS T
15 14.80 J 10-15 U,R DS PO
15.10 J 30-35 U,R DS T CL
11.25 15.20 J 30-35 U,R DS T
16.0 16.0 15.70 J 20-25 U,R DS O
16.0 Hard, fresh, fine grained, white/gray, GNEISS. Primary
REDUCED TEMPLATE.GDT, ROCK CORING LOG, 09.0025870.02 SPECTRA - ATLANTIC BRIDGE YORKTOWN NY - ROCK CORE TP-4 & TP-5.GPJ, REDUCED LIBRARY.GLB, 7/8/2015 1:27:49 PM
6.5 joints are very close to closely spaced, low angle. 16.30 J 10-15 U,R DS T
Secondary joints are closely spaced, moderately
dipping.
17.00 J 15-20 U,R DS T
17.10 J 15-20 U,R DS T
9.0 17.20 J 15-20 P,R DS PO
17.30 J 15-20 P,R DS T
17.40 J 15-20 U,R FR O
17.50 J 10-15 P,R DS T
56 13 17.60 J 40-45 U,R DS O
4.75 R-C-2 18.10 J 20-25 U,R DS T
93% 22%
18.20 J 20-25 U,R DS O
18.40 J 20-25 U,R DS T
18.50 J 20-25 U,R DS PO
6.25 18.60 J 15-20 U,R DS T
18.80 J 30-35 U,R FR PO
19.10 J 20-25 U,R DS PO
20 19.50 J 30-35 U,R DS T
19.60 J 30-35 U,R DS T
6.25 19.70 J 15-20 U,R DS PO
19.80 J 20-25 U,R DS O
21.0 21.0 19.90 J 40-45 U,R DS PO
20.20 J 30-35 U,R DS PO
21.0 Hard, fresh, fine grained, white/gray/red, GNEISS.
9.5 Primary joints are very close to closely spaced, low 21.30 J 40-45 U,R DS MW
angle. Secondary joints are close to moderately
spaced, moderate to high angle.
21.90 J 25-30 U,R DS T
22.20 J 15-20 U,R DS PO
5.5 22.30 J 15-20 U,R DS O
22.60 J 35-40 U,R DS T
22.70 J 40-45 P,R DS T
23.10 J 30-35 U,R DS PO
57 33 23.20 J 30-35 U,R DS PO
8.0 R-C-3
95% 55%
23.80 J 60-65 U,R DS T
23.90 J 10-15 U,R DS O
12.0
24.50 J 30-35 S,R DS VT
25 24.90 J 15-20 U,R DS VT
25.00 J 15-20 U,R DS VT
14.0
26.0 26.0
26.0 Hard, fresh, fine grained, white/gray, GNEISS. Joints
are very close to moderately spaced, low angle to 26.20 J 30-35 U,R FR VT
12.25
moderately dipping.
26.80 J 20-25 U,R DS PO
26.90 J 20-25 U,R DS PO
27.00 J 20-25 U,R DS PO
13.75
27.80 J 15-20 U,R FR T
59 41 28.20 J 25-30 U,R DS PO

13.25 R-C-4 28.30 J 25-30 U,R DS PO
98% 68%
28.40 J 25-30 U,R DS PO
16.25 29.30 J 10-15 U,R FR T

29.60 J 45-50 S,R DS T
30 29.80 J 40-45 U,R DS T
15.5 30.40 J 40-45 U,R DS T

31.0 31.0
Water Level Data Notes:
Elapsed Depth in feet to: 1. Run C-5 retrieved unrecovered portion of run C-4.
Date Time Time Bot. of Bottom 2. Replaced core barrel bit and catch at 47.3' bgs.
Water
(hr) Casing of Hole 3. Run C-10 retrieved unrecovered portion of run C-9.
- 4. Tremie-grouted the hole from the bottom up with a grout-bentonite mix (2 bags Portland cement, 1/3 bag
bentonite, 100 gallons water) to the ground surface.
Boring No.: TP-4

GZA BORING NO.:
Engineers and Scientists (continued) Page 2 of 6
Avg
Depth/ Core Run/ Rec. RQD Discontinuities
Depth Stratum Depth
Elev. Rate (ft) (Box) (in. / (in. / Rock Core
Graphic Visual Identification, Description and Remarks (ft.)
Remarks
(ft) (min No. %) %) (See Legend for Rock Description System)
/ft) Hard. Weath Type Dip Rgh Wea Aper Infill
31.0 Hard, fresh, fine grained, white/gray, GNEISS. Primary
3.5 joints are close to moderately spaced, low angle.
Secondary joints are moderately spaced, moderately 31.60 J 30-35 U,R DS PO Sa, Mica
dipping. 31.80 J 30-35 U,R DS PO
31.90 J 55-60 U,R DS T Sa
32.10 J 10-15 U,R DS T Sa, Mica
4.0 32.30 J 30-35 U,R DS PO
56 42
R-C-5
104% 78%
4.5
33.80 J 10-15 U,R DS T
34.20 J 25-30 U,R FR T Sa

5.25 34.40 J 45-50 P,R DS T
35 34.80 J 40-45 U,R FR T

35.5 35.5
8.0/6"
35.5 Hard, fresh, fine grained, white/gray/orange, GNEISS
with Quartz seams. Primary joints are close to 35.70 J 40-45 U,R FR T
8.75
moderately spaced, low angle. Secondary joints are 36.00 J 40-45 U,R FR T Mica
closely spaced, moderately dipping. 36.10 J 40-45 U,R DS T Mica
36.20 J 15-20 U,R FR PO Sa
36.50 J 50-55 U,R FR T Sa
8.25
37.60 J 15-20 U,R FR T

59 34
8.0 R-C-6
98% 57%
38.30 J 15-20 U,R DS T
38.60 J 15-20 U,R FR O Sa, Mica
4.0 38.90 J 10-15 U,R DS O Sa, Mica
39.40 J 15-20 U,R FR VT

40 7.0
40.00 J 45-50 U,R DS VT
40.5 40.5
40.5 Very hard, fresh, fine grained, white/gray, GNEISS with
9.75 Quartz seams. Joints are moderately spaced, low
angle. One moderately dipping joint. 41.10 J 5-10 U,R FR VT
8.25
42.00 J 5-10 U,R FR VT
56 53
R-C-7 42.80 J 5-10 U,R FR VT
8.5 98% 93%
43.70 J 5-10 U,R FR VT

13.5
45 17.0/9" 45.3
45.3 45.00 J 50-55 U,R FR PO
Quartz seams. Primary joints are close to moderately 45.50 J 10-15 U,R FR O
27.5 45.70 J 45-50 U,R FR T
spaced, low angle. Secondary joints are widely spaced,
moderately dipping. 46.00 J 0-5 U,R FR O Sa
46.40 J 0-5 U,R FR T Sa

34.0
47.00 J 5-10 U,R FR VT
47.30 J 0-5 U,R FR VT
57 33 47.60 J 0-5 U,R FR VT Sa
52.25 R-C-8
95% 55% 47.80 J 0-5 U,R FR VT
48.10 J 5-10 U,R FR VT
48.20 J 0-5 U,R FR VT
3.0
49.00 J 40-45 U,R FR VT
4.25
50
50.3 50.3
50.20 J 45-50 U,R FR PO Sa
50.3 Very hard, fresh, fine grained, white/gray/orange,
5.25 GNEISS with Quartz seams. Primary joints are close to
moderately spaced, low angle. Secondary joints are 50.90 J 35-40 U,R DS VT
close to moderately spaced, moderately dipping.
51.30 J 45-50 U,R FR VT
6.5
59 47 52.00 J 15-20 U,R FR VT
R-C-9
123% 98%
52.50 J 20-25 U,R FR T
7.5
53.20 J 0-5 U,R FR VT

53.50 J 20-25 U,R FR T
7.0 53.60 J 30-35 U,R FR PO
54.3 54.3
54.3 Very hard, fresh, fine grained, white/gray, GNEISS.
Primary joints are closely spaced, low angle. 54.50 J 10-15 U,R FR T
11.75 54.60 J 65-70 U,R FR T
55 Secondary joints are closely spaced, moderately 54.80 J 15-20 U,R DS PO
17 5 dipping to high angle.
R-C-10 55.20 J 45-50 U,R DS T
71% 21%
55.50 J 45-50 P,R DS T
8.5
56.3 56.3
NOTES: PROJECT NO.: 09.0025870.02 Boring No.: TP-4

GZA BORING NO.:
Avg
Depth Stratum Depth
Remarks
56.3 Very hard, fresh, fine grained, white/gray, GNEISS. 56.50 J 45-50 U,R FR VT
9.0
Joints are closely spaced, low angle to moderately
dipping. One high angle joint. 57.00 J 15-20 U,R FR T
57.50 J 15-20 U,R DS O

9.25 57.60 J 85 U,R FR T
37 10
R-C-11 58.00 J 85 U,R DS VT
84% 23% 58.20 J 15-20 U,R FR O
58.50 J 85 U,R FR VT
12.25 58.70 J 10-15 U,R FR VT Sa
58.80 J 20-25 U,R FR VT Sa
59.00 J 40-45 P,X FR VT
6.25/8" 60.0 60.0

60
60.0 Very hard, fresh, fine grained white/gray, GNEISS.
13.75 Joints are close to moderately spaced, low angle.
60.50 J 5-10 U,R FR PO
61.00 J 0/45 U,R DS T

7.5
61.70 J 0-5 U,R FR VT Sa
59 47
13.75 R-C-12
98% 78% 62.60 J 0-5 U,R FR T
63.20 J 5-10 U,R FR T Sa

11.25
63.60 J 0-5 U,R FR PO Sa
11.25 64.30 J 0-10 U,R FR PO

65.0 65.0
65
Hard, fresh, fine grained, white/gray, GNEISS with
65.0
13.25 Quarts seams. Primary joints are close to moderately
spaced, low angle. Secondary joints are very close to 65.50 J 0-5 U,R FR VT
widely spaced, moderately dipping. 65.60 J 40-45 U,R DS T
66.00 J 0-5 U,R DS T Sa
12.25 66.30 J 0-5 U,R DS T Sa
66.50 J 5-10 U,R FR PO Sa
57 28 67.20 J 0-5 U,R FR VT

10.75 R-C-13 67.40 J 0-5 U,R DS VT
95% 47%
67.90 J 5/35 U,R FR O Sa
7.75 68.40 J 10-15 U,R FR PO Sa

68.50 J 10-15 U,R FR T Sa
68.70 J 45-50 U,R FR VT Sa, Mica
68.90 J 25-30 U,R FR O Sa
69.10 J 45-50 U,R FR O Sa
4.25 69.30 J 45-50 U,R DS VT Sa
70.0 70.0 69.50 J 20-25 U,R FR VT Sa
70
70.0 Hard, fresh, fine grained, white/gray, GNEISS. Joints
4.0 are very close to closely spaced, low angle. 70.30 J 15-20 U,R FR O Sa
70.50 J 5-10 U,R FR T Sa
70.60 J 5/45 U,R DS O
71.10 J 45 U,R FR O
4.25 71.30 J 25-30 U,R DS O Sa
71.90 J 15-20 U,R DS T Sa

72.00 J 20-25 U,R DS VT Sa
50 11 72.30 J 10-15 U,R FR T
3.0 R-C-14
83% 18% 72.40 J 5-10 U,R FR VT Sa, Mica
72.50 J 30-35 U,R DG T
72.70 J 20-25 U,R DS VT
73.00 J 10-15 U,R DS T
4.5 73.10 J -- DG
73.70 J 10-15 U,R FR T Sa
74.00 J 45-50 U,R FR PO Sa
5.5
75.0 75.0
75
75.0 Very hard, fine to medium grained, white/gray, GNEISS
9.75 with Quartz seams and Granite intrusions. Joints are
close to widely spaced, low angle. 75.50 J 10-15 U,R FR T
6.5 76.30 J 5-10 U,R FR VT
76.80 J 0-5 U,R FR VT
59 54
5.5 R-C-15
98% 90% 77.50 J 0-5 U,R FR VT
7.75
5.75
80.0 80.0
80
80.0 Very hard, fresh, fine to medium grained, white/gray,
10.25 GNEISS with Quartz seams. Joints are close to
moderately spaced, low angle. 80.50 J 0-5 U,R FR VT
80.80 J 0-5 U,R FR T
7.25 81.40 J 0-5 U,R FR VT

GZA BORING NO.:
Avg
Depth Stratum Depth
Remarks
58 49
5.5 R-C-16
97% 82%
82.70 J 20-25 U,R DS VT
8.25
83.90 J 20-25 U,R FR T
6.5
85.0 84.60 J 0-5 U,R FR T Sa
85.0
85
85.0 Very hard, fresh, fine to medium grained, GNEISS with
10.25 Quartz seams. Joints are close to moderately spaced,
low angle.
85.70 J 0-5 U,R FR T
86.00 J 10-15 U,R FR VT
12.25 86.40 J 20-25 U,R FR VT
58 54
13.25 R-C-17
97% 90%
87.70 J 10-15 U,R FR T
11.5 88.30 J 10-15 U,R FR VT Sa
14.5
90.0 90.0
90
90.0 Very hard, fresh, fine to medium grained, white/gray,
10.25 GNEISS with Quarts seams. Joints are moderately to
widely spaced, low angle.
12.25
59 59
13.25 R-C-18
98% 98%
11.5 93.30 J 0-5 U,R FR T
93.80 J 0-5 U,R FR VT
14.5
95.0 95.0
95
low angle to moderately dipping. 95.50 J 5-10 U,R FR VT
95.80 J 20-25 U,R DG O
8.75 96.40 J 0-5 U,R FR VT
57 49 97.30 J 45-50 U,R FR PO

3.25 R-C-19
94% 82%
98.20 J 10-15 U,R FR VT Sa

15.5
99.00 J 0-5 U,R FR VT

11.25
100.0 100.0
100
13.75 Quartz seams. Joints are close, horizontal to low angle. 100.30 J 15-20 U,R FR VT
100.90 J 0-5 U,R FR VT

101.10 J 0-5 U,R FR VT
7.75
101.50 J 10-15 U,R FR VT
102.00 J 5-10 U,R FR VT Sa

58 42
9.25 R-C-20
97% 70% 102.50 J 5-10 U,R FR VT
103.00 J 10-15 U,R FR T

9.5 103.30 J 0-5 U,R FR T
104.00 J 0-5 U,R FR VT Sa

8.75 104.30 J 20-25 U,R FR T
105.0 105.0
105
8.75 Quartz seams. Joints are close, horizontal to low angle.
105.80 J 10-15 U,R FR T
106.20 J 0-5 U,R FR VT

9.75
106.60 J 5-10 U,R FR O
6.75 58 33 107.30 J 5-10 U,R FR T

GZA BORING NO.:
Avg
Depth Stratum Depth
Remarks
R-C-21 97% 55% 107.50 J 5-10 U,R FR VT
6.75
107.90 J 5-10 U,R FR PO
6.75 108.30 J 5-10 U,R FR VT

108.50 J 5-10 U,R FR T
108.70 J 0-5 U,R FR T
108.90 J 5-10 U,R FR T
109.10 J 5-10 U,R FR T
7.75 109.30 J 5-10 U,R FR T
109.50 J 0-5 U,R FR T
110.0 110.0 109.70 J 0-5 U,R FR T
110
110.0 Very hard, fresh, fine grained, white/gray, GRANITE.
5.75 Joints are close to moderately spaced, horizontal to low 110.30 J 0-5 U,R FR T Sa
angle. 110.50 J 5-10 U,R FR T
110.70 J 15-20 U,R FR T
110.90 J 0-5 U,R FR VT
111.10 J 0-5 U,R FR VT Sa
4.5 111.30 J 10-25 U,R FR T
111.90 J 0-5 U,R FR VT Sa

58 41
4.5 R-C-22
97% 68% 112.50 J 5-10 U,R FR VT
5.0
113.70 J 5-10 U,R FR T
4.5 114.40 J 5-10 U,R FR VT Sa

115.0 115.0
115
need Quartz seams. Primary joints are close to moderately
spaced, horizontal to low angle. Secondary joints are
closely spaced, moderately dipping. 115.80 J 10-15 U,R FR T
core
59 44
times R-C-23 117.40 J 40-45 U,R FR T
98% 73%
117.80 J 45-50 U,R FR VT
118.30 J 0-4 U,R FR T
119.00 J 15-20 U,R FR PO

119.30 J 10-15 U,R FR T
119.50 J 10-15 U,R FR T
120.0 120.0 119.70 J 40-45 U,R FR O
120
4.5 Quartz seams. Joints are very close to moderately
spaced, horizontal to low angle.
120.90 J 0-5 U,R FR VT
4.25 121.40 J 10-15 U,R FR VT

121.70 J 5-10 U,R FR T
57 37 122.30 J 5-10 U,R FR VT

4.5 R-C-24
95% 62% 122.60 J 0-5 U,R FR VT
122.80 J 0-5 U,R FR O
122.90 J 20-25 U,R FR O
123.00 J 10-15 U,R FR T
5.25
123.60 J 5-10 U,R FR VT
124.20 J 0-5 U,R FR VT

4.0 124.40 J 10-15 U,R FR VT
125.0 125.0
125
125.0 Very hard, fresh, fine grained white/gray GNEISS with
horizontal to low angle.
125.80 J 25-30 U,R FR VT
7.25
126.60 J 5-10 U,R FR T
58 49
8.25 R-C-25
97% 82%
128.10 J 5-10 U,R FR T

5.75 128.30 J 0-5 U,R FR VT
128.60 J 0-15 U,R FR T
128.80 J 0-5 U,R FR VT
2.75 129.30 J 5-10 U,R FR VT

130.0 130.0
130
7.5 Quartz seams. Joints are close to moderately spaced, 130.30 J 0-5 U,R FR VT
low angle.
7.25
131.50 J 5-10 U,R FR VT
58 47 132.20 J 20-25 U,R FR VT

8.25 R-C-26
97% 78% 132.60 J 10-15 U,R FR T Sa

GZA BORING NO.:
Avg
Depth Stratum Depth
Remarks
133.10 J 0-15 U,R FR T
5.75
133.70 J 0-5 U,R FR VT
2.75 134.30 J 0-10 U,R FR O Sa

134.50 J 10-15 U,R FR T
135.0 135.0
135
135.0 Very hard, fresh, fine grained, white gray, GNEISS with
6.5 Quartz seams. Joints are moderately spaced, 135.30 J 45-50 U,R FR VT
moderately dipping.
7.25
39 39
6.25 R-C-27
65% 65%
9.5
12.0
140.0 140.0
140
End of exploration at 140 feet below grade.
145
150
155

TEST BORING LOG
Logged By: E.Lonstein/J. Szmyt/J. Davis Type of Rig: ATV Boring Location: 15005825N 1964095E H. Datum: NAD 83
Hammer Fall (in.): 30 Sampler Length (in.): 24 4/27/15 0830 7.7' 52 hrs
Auger or Casing O.D./I.D Dia (in.): 5"/4"/3" Rock Core Size: 4/27/15 1525 6.7' 15 min
4/28/15 1000 11.6' 18 hrs
Casing Sample
Remark
Field Stratum
Depth
Elev.
(ft.)
(ft.)
G-1 0-3.9 -- -- G-1: Light brown, fine to coarse SAND, little Silt, trace
Gravel, dry. (SM) 1
2
S-1 4-6 24 16 19 28 S-1: Dense, light brown, fine to medium SAND, some Silt, 3
5
20 20 48 little Gravel, moist. (SM)
S-2 9-11 24 20 18 28 S-2: Very dense, light brown, fine to medium SAND, 4
10
26 22 54 some Silt, little Gravel, moist. (SM)
S-3 14- 18 14 46 60 S-3: Very dense, light brown, fine to medium SAND,
15 >100 some Silt, some Gravel, wet. (SM) SILTY SAND
15.5 100 WITH GRAVEL
S-4 19- 1 0 30/1" R S-4: No recovery.

20
19.1
S-5 24- 15 14 25 61 S-5: Very dense, light brown, fine to medium SAND,
25 R
25.3 50/3" some Silt, trace Gravel, wet. (SM)
S-6 29-31 24 15 39 60 S-6: Very dense, light brown, fine to medium SAND,
30
1 - Vacuum excavated to 3.9' bgs on 4/14/15. Sample collected during vacuum excavation.
REMARKS
2 - Encountered 1.1' boulder at 2.0' bgs.

3 - Groundwater depths were measured during drilling with casing depth of 9.0' bgs and borehole depths of 19.0' bgs (first reading) and 51.0'
bgs (second and third readings).
4 - Began drilling with CME 55 ATV drill rig on 4/23/15; drove 5" casing to 9.0' bgs on 4/24/15.
TEST BORING LOG
4/28/15 1000 11.6' 18 hrs
Casing Sample
Remark
Field Stratum
Depth
Elev.
(ft.)
(ft.)
66 46 >100 some Silt, little Gravel, wet. (SM)
S-7 34- 15 12 33 70 S-7: Very dense, light brown, fine to coarse SAND, some
35 R
35.3 50/3" Silt, trace Gravel, wet. (SM)
S-8 39- 14 12 56 63 S-8: Very dense, light brown, fine to medium SAND, little
40 R
40.2 50/2" Silt, trace Gravel, wet. (SP-SM)
S-9 44- 2 0 50/2" R S-9: No recovery. 6

45 SILTY SAND
44.2 WITH GRAVEL
S-10 49-51 24 16 39 38 S-10: Very dense, brown, fine to medium SAND, little Silt,
50
49 66 87 little Gravel, wet. (SP-SM)
S-11 54- 16 11 46 59 S-11: Very dense, brown, fine to medium SAND, some 7
55 R
55.3 50/4" Silt, trace Gravel, wet. (SM)
S-12 59- 5 4 100/5" R S-12: Very dense, gray/olive, fine to medium SAND,
60
5 - Encountered boulder at approximately 41.0' bgs (1.5' thick).

REMARKS
6 - Encountered boulder at approximately 44.0' bgs (1.7' thick).

7 - Drove/spun 4" casing to 54.0' bgs before collecting sample S-13.
TEST BORING LOG
4/28/15 1000 11.6' 18 hrs
Casing Sample
Remark
Field Stratum
Depth
Elev.
(ft.)
(ft.)
59.4 some Silt, trace Gravel, wet. (SM)
65
S-14 69- 10 8 63 50/4" R S-14: Very dense, gray/olive, fine SAND, some Silt, trace
70
69.8 Gravel, wet. (SM)
S-15 74- 15 6 51 60 S-15: Very dense, gray/olive, fine to medium SAND, little
75 R SILTY SAND
75.3 50/3" Silt, trace Gravel, moist. (SP-SM) WITH GRAVEL
S-16 79- 7 7 83 50/1" R S-16: Very dense, gray/olive, fine to medium SAND,
80
S-17 84- 9 4 87 50/3" R S-17: Very dense, gray/olive, fine to medium SAND, little
85
84.8 Silt, little Gravel, wet. (SM)
S-18 89- 8 8 71 50/2" R S-18: Very dense, gray/olive, fine to coarse SAND, some
90
REMARKS
TEST BORING LOG
4/28/15 1000 11.6' 18 hrs
Casing Sample
Remark
Field Stratum
Depth
Elev.
(ft.)
(ft.)
89.7 Silt, trace Gravel, wet. (SM)
SILTY SAND
WITH GRAVEL
93 415.3
S-19 94- 5 4 100/5" R S-19: Very dense, gray/olive, fine to medium SAND and
95
100
105
SILTY SAND
TO
SANDY SILT
WITH GRAVEL
S-22 109- 4 3 100/4" R S-22: Very dense, gray/olive, fine to coarse SAND and
110
S-23 114- 5 3 100/5" R S-23: Very dense, gray/olive, fine to coarse SAND and
115
S-24 119- 9 8 71 50/3" R S-24: Very dense, gray/olive, fine to coarse SAND and
120
REMARKS
TEST BORING LOG
4/28/15 1000 11.6' 18 hrs
Casing Sample
Remark
Field Stratum
Depth
Elev.
(ft.)
(ft.)
S-25 124- 8 3 72 50/2" R S-25: Very dense, gray/olive, fine to coarse SILT, some
125
124.7 fine to coarse Sand, little Gravel, wet. (ML)
SILTY SAND
TO
SANDY SILT
WITH GRAVEL
S-26 129- 4 4 100/4" R S-26: Very dense, gray/olive, fine to coarse SILT, some
130
129.3 fine to coarse Sand, little Gravel, wet. (ML)
133 375.3
9
135
10
S-28 139- 5 3 100/5" R S-28: Very dense, fine to coarse SAND, some Gravel,
140
139.4 little Silt, wet. (SM)
SILTY SAND
WITH GRAVEL
S-29 144- 4 0 100/4" R S-29: No recovery.

145
144.3 11
12 148.5 359.8
13
S-30 149- 0 0 50/0" R S-30: No recovery. BEDROCK
150
9 - Encountered cobble at approximately 133.1' bgs (4" thick).

REMARKS
10 - Encountered boulder at approximately 137.5' bgs (9" thick).

11 - Rock in tip of split spoon of sample S-30.
12 - Encountered increased drilling resistance at approximately 148.5' bgs.
13 - Spun 4" casing to 149.0' bgs. Advanced roller bit to 151.0' bgs before beginning coring.
TEST BORING LOG
4/28/15 1000 11.6' 18 hrs
Casing Sample
Remark
Field Stratum
Depth
Elev.
(ft.)
(ft.)
149 Refer to Core Boring Log. BEDROCK
151 357.3
155
160
165
170
175
180
REMARKS
GZA BORING NO.:
Engineers and Scientists Page 1 of 3
Project: Atlantic Bridge Project Project No.: 09.0025870.02
Location: Taconic Parkway Crossing, Yorktown, New York Project Mgr: A. Blaisdell
Client: Spectra Energy Field Eng. Staff: J. Szmyt/E. Lonstein
Drilling Co.: GeoLogic Earth Explorations Date/Time Started: April 14, 2015 at 7:00 am
Driller: C. O'Donnell Date/Time Finished: May 6, 2015 at 3:00 pm
Elevation: 508.3 ft. Vertical Datum: NAVD 88 Boring Location: See Plan Coord.: N: 15005825 E: 1964095
Item Casing Core Barrel Core Bit
Type NX NX Carbide Chip Horizontal Datum: NAD 83 / UTM 18 Drilling Method: Conventional
Length (ft) 10 Rig Make & Model: CME 55
Inside Dia. (in.) 3 2.0 2.0
Avg
Depth/ Core Run/ Rec RQD Discontinuities
Depth Stratum Depth
Elev. Rate (ft) (Box) (in. / (in / Rock Core
Graphic Visual Identification, Description and Remarks Remarks
(ft) (min No. %) %) (ft.)
(See Legend for Rock Description System)
/ft) Hard. Weath SEE TEST BORING LOG FOR OVERBURDEN DETAILS Type Dip Rgh Wea Aper Infill
151.0 151.0 Hard, slightly weathered, medium grained, gray-white,
5.0 GNEISS. Joints are very close to closely spaced, low
151.40 J 45 U,R FR T Sa
angle to moderately dipping. Once vertical joint.
151.80 J 45 U,R FR T Sa
152.2 152.00 J 30-45 U,R FR O Sa
152.20 J 90 U,R FR PO Sa
14.5
152.70 J 45 U,R FR T Sa
32 10 152.90 J 15 U,R FR PO Sa
R-C-1
64% 20%
4.75 153.30 J 45 U,R FR PO Sa
5.0
155 155.2 155.2 155.00 J 50-55 U,R FR PO

Hard, fresh, fine grained, gray-white GNEISS. Joints
4.0/2" 155.2 are very close to moderately spaced, moderately
3.0
dipping.
155.90 J 10-15 U,R FR PO Sa
7.0
156.80 J 30-35 P,R FR T Sa
157.20 J 45 P,R DS VT
58 45
7.75 R-C-2
97% 75% 157.80 J 30-35 P,R DS VT
158.40 J 45 P,R DS VT
9.0
158.70 J 30-35 P,R FR VT CL
159.40 J 45 P,R FR T CL
8.5 159.50 J 45-50 P,R FR T CL
160 160.2 159.60 J 45-50 P,R FR T Sa
160.2 159.80 J 40 P,R FR T Sa
160.2 Hard, fresh, fine grained, gray-white, GNEISS. Primary
10.0 joints are close to moderately spaced, moderately
160.60 J 15-20 P,R FR T CL
dipping. Secondary joints are widely spaced, low angle.
35 28
7.25 R-C-3
97% 78% 161.80 J 45 S,R DS VT
162.00 J 45 P,R DS VT
162.20 J 45 U,R FR T Sa
10.75
163.2 163.2 163.00 J 0-5 U,R DS O Sa
163.2 Hard, fresh, fine grained, white-gray, GNEISS. Joints 163.20 J 0-5 U,R DS O
7.75 are closely spaced, moderately dipping to high angle. 163.50 J 45 P,R DS T
163.60 J 0-10 U,R DS PO
164.00 J 45-50 U,R FR PO
33 8
6.5 R-C-4 164.50 J 15-20 U,R DS PO
97% 24%
165
165.00 J 50-55 P,R FR PO
165.30 J 45-60 P,R FR PO
15.0
166.0 166.0
166.0 Hard, fresh, fine grained, white-gray, GNEISS. Primary
9.0 joints are close to moderately spaced, moderately
dipping. Secondary joints are closely spaced, high
angle.
166.90 J 30-45 P,R FR T
8.75 167.30 J 30-35 U,R FR PO
167.90 J 45-55 U,R FR T

56 27 168.20 J 30-40 U,R FR PO
6.5 R-C-5 168.40 J 50-55 U,R FR PO
93% 45%
168.60 J 40-45 U,R FR T
169.20 J 50-65 U,R FR O

7.25 169.40 J 50-55 U,R FR O
170
7.5
171.0 171.0
Water Level Data Notes:
Elapsed Depth in feet to: 1. Core barrel jammed at 163.2', 166.0', and 175.5' bgs.
Date Time Time Bot. of Bottom 2. Tremie grouted hole from the bottom with 140 gallons of cement-bentonite grout mixture to approximately 17.8'
Water
(hr) Casing of Hole bgs. Backfilled with drill cuttings to ground surface.
-
Boring No.: TP-5

GZA BORING NO.:
Avg
Depth Stratum Depth
Remarks
171.0 Hard, fresh, fine grained, gray, GNEISS. Joints are
5.25 close to moderately spaced, moderately dipping.
171.70 J 45-50 P,R FR VT
7.75
58 54
4.25 R-C-6 173.30 J 50-55 P,R FR VT
100% 93%
7.75
174.70 J 45-50 P,R FR VT
175
4.0 175.30 J 45-55 P,R FR VT

175.8 175.7
175.7 Hard, fresh, medium grained, white-gray, GNEISS.
4.25 Joints are close to moderately spaced, moderately
dipping to high angle.
3.75
177.40 J 45-50 U,R DS VT
59 50
4.75 R-C-7
98% 83%
6.0
180
5.0 180.10 J 50-60 P,R FR T Mi
180.7 180.20 J 30-40 U,R FR T CL
180.7
180.7 Very hard, fresh, fine grained, white-gray, GNEISS.
5.5 Joints are moderately spaced, low angle to moderately
dipping.
8.0
182.20 J 30-35 P,R FR VT
57 57
11.25 R-C-8
95% 95%
183.60 J 40-45 P,R FR VT
15.0
184.30 J 45-50 P,R FR VT
185
21.0
185.7 185.7
185.7 Very hard, fresh, fine grained, white-gray, GNEISS.
12.0 Primary joints are close to moderately spaced, 186.00 J 0-5 U,R FR T
moderately dipping. Secondary joints are close to
moderately spaced, low angle. One vertical joint.
186.80 J 0-10 U,R FR T
4.0 187.00 J 10-15 U,R FR T Sa
187.20 J 10-15 U,R FR PO Sa
187.30 J 10-15 U,R FR PO Sa
187.50 J 30-40 U,R FR PO Sa
60 30
4.0 R-C-9
100% 50%
188.50 J 45 U,R FR T
Sa
188.60 J 45 U,R FR PO
188.90 J 45 U,R FR T Sa
3.5 189.10 J 45 U,R FR PO Sa
189.70 J 45 U,R FR T
190
8.0
190.7 190.7 190.40 J 5-10 U,R FR PO
190.7 Very hard, fresh, fine grained, gray-white, GNEISS.
3.5 Primary joints are close to moderately spaced, low
angle to moderately dipping. Secondary joints are
closely spaced, high angle. 191.50 J 40-45 U,R FR T
10.0 192.10 J 45-55 U,R FR PO

192.40 J 45 S,R FR T
192.80 J 0-5 U,R FR O Sa

56 18
11.75 R-C-10
93% 30%
193.70 J 80-85 U,R FR VT

193.90 J 45 U,R FR PO
8.0
194.30 J 0-5 U,R FR T Sa
194.60 J 0-5 U,R FR T Sa
195
9.75 195.00 J 5-10 U,R FR T Sa
195.10 J 85-90 U,R FR T
195.7 195.7 195.20 J 0-5 U,R FR PO
195.7 Hard, fresh, fine grained, gray-white, GNEISS. Joints
5.25 are moderately spaced, low angle to moderately 196.00 J 80-85 U,R FR VT Sa
dipping. One high angle joint.

GZA BORING NO.:
Avg
Depth Stratum Depth
Remarks
4.0
59 53
3.75 R-C-11 198.10 J 0-5 U,R FR T Sa
98% 88%
4.0
199.70 J 40-45 U,R FR VT Sa

200
3.5
200.7 200.7
End of exploration at 200.7 feet below grade.
205
210
215
220

TEST BORING LOG
Logged By: E.Lonstein/J. Szmyt Type of Rig: Truck Boring Location: 15006088N 1964512E H. Datum: NAD 83
Wash Date Start - Finish: 4/14/2015 - 4/22/2015
Hammer Type: Automatic Hammer Sampler Type: SS
Hammer Fall (in.): 30 Sampler Length (in.): 24 4/22/15 0935 22.6' 1.0 hrs
Auger or Casing O.D./I.D Dia (in.): 5"/4" Rock Core Size: --
Casing Sample
Remark
Field Stratum
Depth
Elev.
(ft.)
(ft.)
G-1 0-4 -- -- G-1: Light brown, fine to medium SAND, trace Silt, trace
Gravel, dry. (SP) 1
2
SAND
5
G-2 5-6.3 -- -- G-2: Olive, fine to medium SAND, little Gravel, little Silt,
dry. (SP-SM) 6.3 504.5
3 7.1 BOULDER 503.7
S-1 9-11 24 12 7 8 S-1: Medium dense, light brown, fine to medium SAND,
10
12 9 20 little Silt, trace Gravel, moist. (SP-SM)
S-2 14-16 24 13 9 13 S-2: Dense, light brown, fine to medium SAND, little Silt, 4
15
23 12 36 trace Gravel, moist. (SM)
SILTY SAND
WITH GRAVEL
S-3 19-21 24 0 11 10 S-3: No recovery.
20
9 9 19
S-4 24-26 24 11 18 26 S-4: Very dense, light brown, fine to medium SAND,
25
28 26 54 some Silt, trace Gravel, wet. (SM)
S-5 29- 7 5 27 50/2" R S-5: Dense, light brown, fine to medium SAND, some Silt, 5
30
1 - Vacuum excavated to 6.3' bgs on 4/14/15. Samples collected during vacuum excavation.
REMARKS
2 - Encountered cobbles and boulders from 1.0'-7.1' bgs.

3 - Encountered boulder at 6.3' bgs (0.8' thick).
4 - Began drilling with CME 75 truck drill rig on 4/16/15; drove 5" casing to 14.0' bgs and continued with 4" casing.
5 - Encountered boulder at 29.6' bgs.
TEST BORING LOG
Casing Sample
Remark
Field Stratum
Depth
Elev.
(ft.)
(ft.)
29.7 little Gravel, wet. (SM)
SILTY SAND
WITH GRAVEL
34 476.8
S-6 34-36 24 11 34 26 S-6: Very dense, gray, fine SAND and Silt, trace Gravel,
35
36 50 62 wet. (SM)
S-7 39- 21 21 35 60 S-7: Very dense, gray, fine SAND and Silt, trace Gravel,
40
40.7 75 60/3" >100 wet. (SM)
S-8 44- 21 15 27 50 S-8: Very dense, gray, fine SAND and Silt, trace Gravel,
45
45.7 65 65/3" >100 wet. (SM)
SILTY SAND
TO
SANDY SILT
WITH GRAVEL
S-9 49-51 24 18 18 35 S-9: Hard, gray, SILT and fine Sand, trace Gravel, wet.
50
40 50 75 (ML)
S-10 54- 21 17 38 63 S-10: Hard, gray, SILT, some fine Sand, little Gravel, wet.
55
55.7 75 37/3" >100 (ML)
S-11 59- 16 12 23 53 S-11: Hard, gray, SILT, little fine Sand, little Gravel, wet.
60 R
REMARKS
TEST BORING LOG
Casing Sample
Remark
Field Stratum
Depth
Elev.
(ft.)
(ft.)
60.3 57/4" (ML)
S-12 64- 7 6 49 27/1" R S-12: Hard, gray, SILT, little fine Sand, little Gravel, wet.
65
64.6 (ML)
S-13 69-70 12 11 30 70 S-13: Hard, gray, SILT, little fine Sand, little Gravel, wet.
70 SILTY SAND
(ML) TO
SANDY SILT
WITH GRAVEL
S-14 74-75 12 7 48 73 S-14: Hard, gray, SILT, little fine Sand, little Gravel, wet.
75
(ML)
S-15 79- 18 12 72 98 S-15: Hard, gray, SILT, some Gravel, little fine Sand, wet.
80 >100 (ML)
80.5 100
81.2 429.6
6
BOULDER
82.8 428.0
S-16 84- 18 17 46 64 S-16: Very dense, gray, fine SAND and Silt, little Gravel,
85 >100 wet. (SM)
85.5 80
GLACIAL TILL
S-17 89- 6 6 110 30/0" R S-17: Very dense, gray, fine SAND and Silt, little Gravel,
90
6 - Boulder encountered from 81.2'-82.8' bgs.

REMARKS
TEST BORING LOG
Casing Sample
Remark
Field Stratum
Depth
Elev.
(ft.)
(ft.)
89.5 wet. (SM)
S-18 94- 10 8 102 75/4" R S-18: Very dense, gray, SILT and fine to medium Sand,
95
94.8 trace Gravel, wet. (ML)
S-19 99- 18 16 50 67 S-19: Very dense, gray, SILT and fine to medium Sand,
100 >100 trace Gravel, wet. (ML)
100.5 86
S-20 104- 18 12 70 75 S-20: Hard, gray, SILT, some Gravel, some fine Sand,
105 >100 wet. (ML) GLACIAL TILL
105.5 95
S-21 109- 2 2 70/2" R S-21: Very dense, gray, fine SAND and Silt, trace Gravel,
110
109.2 wet. (SM)
115 >100 wet. (SM)
115.5 62
120 R 120 390.8
REMARKS
TEST BORING LOG
Casing Sample
Remark
Field Stratum
Depth
Elev.
(ft.)
(ft.)
120 30/0" wet. (SM)
125
130
135
140
145
150
REMARKS
APPENDIXC
LABORATORYTESTREPORTS

LABORATORY TESTING DATA SHEET
Project Name Spectra Atlantic Bridge Location Yorktown, NY Reviewed By

Project No. 09.0025870.02 Assigned By B.Cardali
Project Manager Andrew Blaisdell Report Date 6/16/2015 Date Reviewed 6/16/2015
Identification Tests Strength Tests
Water Sieve Hyd Dry Torvane Laboratory Log

Boring/ Sample Lab LL PL ORG sc Failure s1 - s3 Strain
Depth ft. Content -200 -2 Gs unit wt. or Type and
Test Pit No. No. No. % % % psf Criteria psf %
% % % pcf Test Soil Description
S-25, 124- Gray SILT, some f-c Sand, little

TP-5 S-26 129.3 1 9.8 56.8 fine Gravel
S-27, 134- Gray f-c SAND, some f-c Gravel,
TP-5 S-28 139.4 2 9.6 21.6 some Silt
Gray SILT and f-m SAND, trace
TP-6 S-18 84-85.5 3 13.3 60.4 Gravel
99- Gray f-c SAND and SILT, trace
TP-6 S-21 100.5 4 9.5 46.9 Gravel
104- Gray f-c SAND and SILT, little
TP-6 S-22 105.5 5 9.4 38.0 fine Gravel
195 Frances Avenue

Cranston, RI 02910 401-467-6454
ASTM D422
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
3" 2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
90
80
70
C
Percent Finer by Weight
60
50
L
GRAVEL SAND SILT A
40
Y
30
20
10
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine

0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Gravel Sand Fines

11.9% 31.3% 56.8%
Lab # Exploration Sample Depth Description WC LL PL PI

1 TP-5 S-25 & 26 124-129.3' Gray SILT, some f-c Sand, little fine Gravel 9.8
Sieve Size % Passing
" 100.0
" 96.2
#4 88.1 CTS-74-15-0003
#10 81.9 Spectra Atlantic Bridge
#20 76.0 Yorktown, NY
#40 70.6 GZA Project # 09.0025870.02
#60 66.3 Tested by: AS/MS Date: 6/11/15
195 Frances Ave., Cranston, RI 02910 #100 61.9 Reviewed by: MBP Date: 6/16/15
401-467-6454 #200 56.8
ASTM D422
3" 2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
90
80
70
C
60
50
L
GRAVEL SAND SILT A
40
Y
30
20
10

0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Gravel Sand Fines

23.7% 54.7% 21.6%

2 TP-5 S-27 & 28 134-139.4' Gray f-c SAND, some f-c Gravel, some Silt 9.6
" 85.5
" 85.5
#4 76.3 CTS-74-15-0003
#40 45.0 GZA Project # 09.0025870.02
401-467-6454 #200 21.6
ASTM D422
3" 2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
90
80
70
C
60
50
L
GRAVEL SAND SILT A
40
Y
30
20
10

0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Gravel Sand Fines

1.7% 37.9% 60.4%

3 TP-6 S-16 84-85.5' Gray SILT and f-m SAND, trace Gravel 13.3
" 100.0
" 99.0
#4 98.3 CTS-74-15-0003
#40 87.1 GZA Project # 09.0025870.02
401-467-6454 #200 60.4
ASTM D422
3" 2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
90
80
70
C
60
50
L
GRAVEL SAND SILT A
40
Y
30
20
10

0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Gravel Sand Fines

6.0% 47.1% 46.9%

4 TP-6 S-21 99-100.5' Gray f-c SAND and SILT, trace Gravel 9.5
" 100.0
" 97.6
#4 94.0 CTS-74-15-0003
#40 72.1 GZA Project # 09.0025870.02
401-467-6454 #200 46.9
ASTM D422
3" 2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
100
90
80
70
C
60
50
L
GRAVEL SAND SILT A
40
Y
30
20
10

0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Gravel Sand Fines

15.3% 46.7% 38.0%

5 TP-6 S-22 104-105.5' Gray f-c SAND and SILT, little fine Gravel 9.4
" 100.0
" 91.1
#4 84.7 CTS-74-15-0003
#40 61.1 GZA Project # 09.0025870.02
401-467-6454 #200 38.0
LABORATORY TESTING DATA SHEET
Project Name Spectra Atlantic Bridge Location Yorktown, NY Reviewed By

Project No. 09.0025870.02 Assigned By B.Cardali
Project Manager Andrew Blaisdell Report Date 6/16/2015 Date Reviewed 6/16/2015
Sample Data Compression Tests
(1) (7) E
Moh's (2) Wet (3) (4) (5) (6) (8)
Boring Sample Depth Lab Do L Unit Bulk sec st Is50 Rock Formation or
Hard- Density Other Strength Strain Conf. Poisson's
No. No. Ft. No. in. in. Wt. Gs. PSI PSI KSI Description or Remarks
ness PCF Tests PSI % Stress Ratio
PCF EE+06
90.6-
TP-4 C-18 91.0 6 7 1.989 4.592 166.2 U 21,402 0.38 4.48 0.13 2296
91.5 6 1.990 0.744 165.5 PLA 1273

91.1-
91.3 6 1.990 2.057 167.0 PLD 1313
111.9-
TP-4 C-22 112.3 7 6-7 1.989 4.566 163.4 U 22,226 0.44 3.74 0.002 2161
112.4 1.990 0.779 162.7 PLA 1216

111.6-
111.8 1.990 3.080 161.8 PLD 1616
166.1-
TP-5 C-5 166.5 8 6-7 1.992 4.580 164.5 U 20,600 0.36 4.30 1.02 1701
166.5 1.990 1.240 165.1 PLA 1114
(1) Volume Determined By Measuring Dimensions (3) P=Petrographic PLD=Point Load (diametrical), (5) Strain at Peak Deviator Stress
(2) Determined by Measuring Dimensions and PLA= Point Load (Axial) RST= Splitting Tensile (6) Represents Confining Stress on Triaxial Tests
Weight of Saturated Sample U= Unconfined Compressive Strength (7) Represents Secant Modulus at 50% of Total Failure Stress
(4) Taken at Peak Deviator Stress (8) Represents Secant Poisson's Ratio at 50% of Total Failure Stress
195 Frances Avenue

Cranston, RI 02910 401-467-6454
Spectra Alantic Bridge
Yorktown, NY
30
27
24
21
Stress (ksi)
18
15
12
0
4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 -5.0
Lateral Strain (in/inX1000) Axial Strain (in/inX1000)
Rock Unconfined Compression Testing - ASTM D7012
Boring No. TP-4 File No. 09.0025870.02

Sample No. C-18 Date: 06/11/15
Depth: 90.6-91.0' Test No. U 6
Yorktown, NY
30
27
24
21
Stress (ksi)
18
15
12
0
4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 -5.0

Depth: 111.9-112.3' Test No. U 7
Yorktown, NY
30
27
24
21
Stress (ksi)
18
15
12
0
5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0

Depth: 166.1-166.5' Test No. U 8
Earth Mechanics Institute Colorado School of Mines
Client: Thielsch Engineering Mining Engineering Department
Project: Spectra Atlantic Bridge
Date: 07-07-2015
Sample Rock Type Cerchar Abrasivity Index
ID
TP4-C18@90.5-91.8 Metamorphic 4.8

Pictures of Sample Before and After
Cerchar Abrasivity Index
Client Name: Thielsch Engineering
Project Name: Spectra Atlantic Bridge
Date: 6/29/2015
Sample ID: TP4-C18@90.5-91.8
Before
After
Earth Mechanics Institute, CSM 7/7/2015

Date: 6/29/2015
Sample ID: TP4-C22@111.3-112.7
Before
After

Date: 6/29/2015
Sample ID: TP5-C5@166.0-166.9
Before
After

RR6 Atlantic-Bridge Vol-II-A OCT-2015 FINAL PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

RR6 Atlantic-Bridge Vol-II-A OCT-2015 FINAL PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

FERC Docket No. CP16-__-000

6.0 RESOURCE REPORT 6 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES................................................................... 6-1

Figure 6.2-1 Surficial geology along the Atlantic Bridge Project

Atlantic Bridge Project Rock Removal Plan

Feasibility Report, Atlantic Bridge Project, Taconic Parkway HDD Crossing

Resource Report 6 Geological Resources i ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

RESPONSE TO FERC AUGUST 19, 2015 COMMENTS ON

Resource Report 6 Geological Resources ii ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

Algonquin Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC

Resource Report 6 Geological Resources iii ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

Resource Report 6 Geological Resources 6-1 ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

6.2 Geologic Setting

Stony Point Discharge Take-up and Relay

Resource Report 6 Geological Resources 6-2 ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

Southeast Discharge Take-up and Relay

Existing Oxford Compressor Station

Existing Chaplin Compressor Station

Salem Pike M&R Station

Existing Danbury M&R Station

Existing Needham Regulator Station

Existing Plymouth M&R Station

Existing Pine Hills M&R Station

Resource Report 6 Geological Resources 6-3 ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

Existing Westbrook M&R Station

6.2.3 Surficial Geology of the Atlantic Bridge Project Area

6.2.4 Bedrock Geology of the Atlantic Bridge Project Area

Resource Report 6 Geological Resources 6-4 ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

Surficial Geology within the Atlantic Bridge Project Area

Project Facility / Begin

Resource Report 6 Geological Resources 6-5 ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

Bedrock Geology within the Atlantic Bridge Project Area

Project Facility / Begin Description Map

Resource Report 6 Geological Resources 6-6 ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

Biotite-quartz-plagioclase Gneiss (bqpc) Middle Proterozoic biotite-quartz-plagioclase gneiss with some

Roxbury Conglomerate (PzZr) Proterozoic to early Paleozoic, conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone,

Resource Report 6 Geological Resources 6-7 ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

6.3 Rock Removal

6.4 Mineral Resources

6.5 Paleontological Resources

6.6 Geologic Hazards

Field Assessments and Geotechnical Investigations

Resource Report 6 Geological Resources 6-8 ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

6.6.1 Seismic Environment and Risk

6.6.2 Active Faults

Resource Report 6 Geological Resources 6-9 ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

6.6.3 Areas Susceptible to Soil Liquefaction

6.6.4 Areas Susceptible to Landslides

Resource Report 6 Geological Resources 6-10 ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

6.6.5 Surface Subsidence Karst

6.6.6 Surface Subsidence Underground Mines

6.6.7 Flash Flooding

6.6.8 Sea Level Rise

Resource Report 6 Geological Resources 6-11 ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

[CTECO] - Connecticut Environmental Conditions Online. 2015. Surficial Materials, University of

Resource Report 6 Geological Resources 6-12 ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

USGS. 2014b. Liquefaction Fact Sheet, United States Geological Survey.

Resource Report 6 Geological Resources 6-13 ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

Figure 6.2-1: Surficial geology along the Atlantic Bridge Project

Resource Report 6 Geological Resources 6-7 ATLANTIC BRIDGE PROJECT

STONY POINT DISCHARGE TAKE-UP AND RELAY

Compressor Station (C/S) (Proposed Modification) 2 - Till or Bedrock

Compressor Station (C/S) (Proposed Modification) 2 - Till or Bedrock