Northeast Supply Enhancement
CULTURAL RESOURCES – RESOURCE REPORT 4 -
Williams has worked to significantly minimize impacts on existing cultural resources. This page intentionally left blank. NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
SUMMARY OF FILING INFORMATION
Data INFORMATION Found in Section Sources1 Full FERC Filing Requirements 1. Resource Report 4 must contain: (i) Documentation of the applicant's initial cultural resources consultation, including consultations with Native Americans and other interested persons (if appropriate); i. See Volumes 3 and 4 (ii) Overview and Survey Reports, as appropriate; ii. See Appendix 4D and 4E (iii) Evaluation Report, as appropriate; D iii. See Appendix 4D and 4E (iv) Treatment Plan, as appropriate; and iv. See Appendix 4B and 4C (v) Written comments from State Historic Preservation v. See Volumes 3 and 4 Officer(s) (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO), as appropriate, and applicable land-managing agencies on the reports in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) of this section. 2. Initial filing requirements. The initial application must include the documentation of initial cultural resource consultation, the Overview and Survey Reports, if required, and written comments from SHPOs, THPOs and land-managing agencies, if available. The initial cultural resources consultations should establish the need for surveys. If surveys are deemed necessary by the consultation with the SHPO/THPO, the survey report must be filed with the application. (i) If the comments of the SHPOs, THPOs, or land- See Volume 3,Volume 4, management agencies are not available at the time the D Section 4.6, Appendix 4D, application is filed, they may be filed separately, but they and Appendix 4E must be filed before a final certificate is issued. (ii) If landowners deny access to private property and certain areas are not surveyed, the unsurveyed area must be identified by mileposts, and supplemental surveys or evaluations shall be conducted after access is granted. In such circumstances, reports, and treatment plans, if necessary, for those inaccessible lands may be filed after a certificate is issued. 3. The Evaluation Report and Treatment Plan, if required, for the entire project must be filed before a final certificate is issued. (i) The Evaluation Report may be combined in a single synthetic report with the Overview and Survey Reports if the SHPOs, THPOs, and land-management agencies allow See Volume 3, Volume 4, and if it is available at the time the application is filed. D Appendix 4D, and Appendix (ii) In preparing the Treatment Plan, the applicant must consult 4E with the Commission staff, the SHPO, and any applicable THPO and land-management agencies. (iii) Authorization to implement the Treatment Plan will occur only after the final certificate is issued.
i NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
SUMMARY OF FILING INFORMATION
Data INFORMATION Found in Section Sources1 4. Applicant must request privileged treatment for all material filed with the Commission containing location, character, and All privileged and confidential ownership information about cultural resources in accordance material will be treated in with §388.112 of this chapter. The cover and relevant pages or D accordance with the rules portions of the report should be clearly labeled in bold lettering: outlined. “CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION—DO NOT RELEASE.” 5. Except as specified in a final Commission order, or by the Construction will not begin Director of the Office of Energy Projects, construction may not D until all reports and plans begin until all cultural resource reports and plans have been have been approved. approved. Additional Information Often Missing and Resulting in Data Requests 1. Identify the project APE in terms of direct or indirect effects on D See Section 4.4 known cultural resources. 2. Provide a project map with mileposts, clearly showing boundaries of all areas surveyed (ROW, extra work areas, access roads, etc.). Ensure mileposts are marked, and survey D See Appendix 4A corridor widths are clearly specified, and clearly indicate where survey has not yet been completed. 3. Provide documentation of consultation with SHPOs, THPOs, See Volumes 3, 4 and Table and applicable land-managing agencies regarding the need for D 4.8-1 and required extent of cultural resource surveys. 4. Provide a narrative summary of overview results, cultural resource surveys completed, identified cultural resources, and D Section 4.6. any cultural resource issues. 5. Provide a project-specific ethnographic analysis (can be part of See Section 4.3 and D Overview/Survey Report). Appendix 4D and 4E 6. Identify by mileposts any areas requiring survey for which the D N/A landowner denied access. 7. Provide written comments on the Overview and Survey Reports, if available, from the SHPOs or THPOs, as appropriate, and D See Volume 4 applicable land-managing agencies. 8. Provide a summary table of completion status of cultural resource surveys and SHPO or THPO and land-managing D See Section 4.6 agency comments on the reports. 9. Provide a summary table of identified cultural resources and SHPO or THPO and land-managing agency comments on the D See Table 4.6-3 eligibility recommendations for those resources 10. Provide a brief summary of the status of federally recognized See Volume 3 and Section Indian tribe contact, including copies of related correspondence D 4.9 and records of verbal communications. 11. Provide a brief summary of comments received from See Sections 4.8 through D stakeholders regarding cultural resources. 4.10 12. Provide a schedule for completing any outstanding cultural D See Section 4.7 resource studies.
ii NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
SUMMARY OF FILING INFORMATION
Data INFORMATION Found in Section Sources1 13. Provide an Unanticipated Discoveries Plan for the project area, See Appendix 1B, referencing appropriate state statutes. D Attachments 5 and 6 to Resource Report 1 1 Data Source Definitions:
D = Applicant
iii NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
RESPONSES TO FERC COMMENTS DATED 1/17/2017 REGARDING DRAFT RESOURCE REPORT 4 Comment: Response/Information Location: 65. Provide any previously unfiled or new correspondence (including any enclosures/attachments, in color if originally provided in color), meeting notes, phone logs, etc., including the following correspondence listed in table 4.7-3: Pennsylvania a. The August 11, 2016 draft Onshore Unanticipated Discovery Plan (UDP) and the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) comments dated September 19, 2016. b. The Quarryville Loop Phase I Archaeological Survey draft report referenced in the transmittal letter dated October 19, 2016 and the Pennsylvania SHPO comments. c. The Pennsylvania SHPO comment letter regarding the Revised Onshore UDP submitted on October 26, 2016. See Volumes 3 and 4 New Jersey d. Transco’s transmittal letter and draft Onshore UDP referenced in the New Jersey SHPO’s comments dated September 26, 2016. e. The New Jersey SHPO comment letter for the Revised Onshore and Offshore UDP submitted on October 26, 2016. New York f. Transco’s transmittal letter and letter report detailing geophysical survey of vibracore locations 37-44 as referenced in the October 13, 2016 response from the New York SHPO. g. The New York SHPO response approving vibracore locations and sampling methodology referenced in an email to the New York SHPO dated October 5, 2016. 66. Rectify, clarify, and correct the following apparent discrepancies in regulatory correspondence, and update table 4.7-3 to include accurate dates for all correspondence, emails, meeting notes, phone logs, etc. a. Section 4.3.1.2 references a June 21, 2016 New Jersey SHPO response as providing concurrence of Transco’s definition of direct a. See Section 4.4.1.2 and Table Area of Potential Effect (APE); however, it appears that the New 4.8-1 Jersey SHPO concurred with the definition of the direct APE in its b. See Section 4.5.1 and Table 4.8- October 28, 2016 response regarding the Terrestrial Work Plan. 1 b. Section 4.4.1, 2nd paragraph: submission of the Phase I report for c. See Section 4.8.1.2 and Table the Quarryville Loop occurred on October 19, 2016, not October 4.8-1 20, 2016. d. See Section 4.8.1.3 and Table c. Section 4.7.2.2, 3rd paragraph: submission of the New Jersey 4.8-1 Terrestrial Work Plan occurred on August 8, 2016, not August 15, 2016. e. See Section 4.11 d. Section 4.7.2.3, 3rd paragraph: the New York SHPO provided a response on November 9, 2016, not November 10, 2016. e. Section 4.11, 2nd paragraph: Pennsylvania SHPO comments were dated September 19, 2016, not September 29, 2016. 67. Provide the NJDEP’s Superstorm Sandy Waterway Debris Removal See Section 4.8.1.2 and Volume 3 Project Report referenced in section 4.7.2.2. Attachment 1 68. Update section 4.4.1.2 to describe the archaeological survey methodology for low probability areas per the Revised Terrestrial Work See Section 4.5.1.2 Plan
iv NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
RESPONSES TO FERC COMMENTS DATED 1/17/2017 REGARDING DRAFT RESOURCE REPORT 4 Comment: Response/Information Location: 69. Provide documentation of any actions taken to follow-up with the federally recognized Native American tribes and other parties and, if See Volume 3, Attachment 2. applicable, any responses from those parties contacted. 70. Address stakeholder concerns about direct and indirect impacts (visual, auditory, odor, etc.) on the following resources near Compressor Station 206 in Franklin Township, Somerset County, New Jersey: a. Rockingham House (National Register ID 70000394); b. Withington Estate (National Register ID 84002740); c. Kingston Village Historic District (National Register ID 89002163); d. Kingston Bridge (part of the Kingston Mill Historic District, National Final reports will be provided as a Register ID 86000707); supplemental filing, in the 2nd e. Delaware and Raritan Canal Historic District (National Register ID quarter of 2017. 73001105; designated a National Scenic Byway); f. Washington Rochambeau Revolutionary Route (designated a National Historic Trail); g. Millstone Valley Scenic Byway (designated a National Scenic Byway); and h. Higgins Farm. 71. Revise the UDPs provided in draft RR1, Attachment XX, as follows: Onshore UDP: a. Page 2-2, second bullet, add FERC. b. Page 2-2, 5th bullet, a meeting or site visit may (instead of “will”) be held. c. Page 2-2, 6th bullet, the FERC (not the SHPO) will notify Transco that excavation and/or construction may resume. d. Page 4-1, change FERC contact to: Christine Allen, Project Manager, 202-502-6847 and Ellen Armbruster, Archaeologist, 202- See Appendix 1B, Attachments 5 502-8330. and 6 to Resource Report 1 Offshore UDP: e. Page 2-2, 7th bullet, a meeting or site visit may (instead of “will”) be held. f. Page 2-2, 8th bullet, the FERC (not the SHPO) will notify Transco that excavation and/or construction may resume. g. Page 4-1, change FERC contact to: Christine Allen, Project Manager, 202-502-6847 and Ellen Armbruster, Archaeologist, 202- 502-8330.
v NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
RESPONSES TO NJDEP COMMENTS DATED 1/10/2017 REGARDING DRAFT RESOURCE REPORT 4 Response/Information Comment: Location: Upon review of the project to affect historic and archaeological resources, according to the HPO it appears the proposed undertaking will require consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Comment noted. the identification, evaluation and treatment of historic properties within the project's area of potential effects. Note: NJDEP comments are not numbered consecutively but are responded to according to applicable subject matter by Resource Report.
vi NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 4-1 4.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 4-1 4.2 REGULATORY SETTING...... 4-4 4.3 ETHNOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS ...... 4-5 4.4 THE AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 4-6 4.4.1 Onshore Facilities ...... 4-7 4.4.1.1 Pennsylvania ...... 4-7 4.4.1.2 New Jersey ...... 4-8 4.4.2 Offshore Facilities ...... 4-9 4.5 FIELD METHODS ...... 4- 10 4.5.1 Onshore Facilities ...... 4- 11 4.5.1.1 Pennsylvania ...... 4- 12 4.5.1.2 New Jersey ...... 4- 14 4.5.2 Offshore Facilities ...... 4- 16 4.5.2.1 New Jersey and New York ...... 4- 17 4.6 STATUS OF CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS ...... 4- 19 4.6.1 Previously Identified Cultural Resources ...... 4- 20 4.6.1.1 Onshore Facilities ...... 4- 20 4.6.1.2 Offshore Facilities ...... 4- 23 4.6.2 Newly Identified Cultural Resources ...... 4- 27 4.6.2.1 Onshore Facilities ...... 4- 27 4.6.2.2 Offshore Facilities ...... 4- 34 4.7 REMAINING AREAS REQUIRING SURVEY ...... 4- 48 4.7.1 Onshore Facilities ...... 4- 48 4.7.1.1 Pennsylvania ...... 4- 48 4.7.1.2 New Jersey ...... 4- 48 4.7.2 Offshore Facilities ...... 4- 48 4.8 AGENCY CONSULTATION ...... 4- 49 4.8.1 Consultation with State Historic Preservation Offices ...... 4- 49 4.8.1.1 Pennsylvania ...... 4- 51 4.8.1.2 New Jersey ...... 4- 52 4.8.1.3 New York ...... 4- 53 4.9 STATUS OF NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION ...... 4- 55
vii NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.10 CONSULTATION WITH STAKEHOLDER ORGANIZATIONS ...... 4- 56 4.11 UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY PLANS FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES AND HUMAN REMAINS . 4-57 4.12 REFERENCES ...... 4- 58
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 4A Resoure Report Figures Appendix 4B Onshore Data Collection Plan Appendix 4C Marine Data Collection Plan Appendix 4D1 Onshore Phase I Historic Archaeological Survey for Chester and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania Appendix 4D2 Onshore Phase I Historic Architectural Survey for Chester and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania Appendix 4E1 Onshore Phase I Historic Archaeological Survey for Middlesex and Somerset Counties, New Jersey Appendix 4E2 Onshore Phase I Historic Architectural Survey for Middlesex and Somerset Counties, New Jersey Appendix 4F Offshore Phase I Historic Architectural Survey for the Raritan Bay Loop, New Jersey and New York
viii NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1-1 Summary of Pipeline Facilities ...... 4-1 Table 4.4-1 APE for Raritan Bay Loop ...... 4- 10 Table 4.6-1 Previous Cultural Resources Investigations ...... 4- 24 Table 4.6-2 Hydrographic Survey Reports Reviewed for Comparison of Charted Items .. 4-25 Table 4.6-3 Newly Identified Onshore Cultural Resource Sites for the Project ...... 4-34 Table 4.8-1 Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Offices ...... 4-49 Table 4.9-1 List of Native American Organizations Consulted in Accordance with NHPA Section 106 ...... 4- 55 Table 4.10-1 List of Stakeholder Organizations Consulted in Accordance with NHPA Section 106 ...... 4- 57
ix NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
This page intentionally left blank.
x NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation A.D. anno Domini Alpine Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey, Inc. amsl above mean sea level APE area of potential effect AWOIS Automated Wrecks and Obstructions Information System BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management B.P. before present Certificate Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations CHIRP compressed high-intensity radar pulse CP cathodic protection CRIS Cultural Resource Information System CIA critical issues analysis d/b/a doing business as DGPS differential global positioning system E & E Ecology and Environment, Inc. ENC electronic navigation chart ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ha hectare (100 acres) HDD horizontal directional drill HPO Historic Preservation Office (New Jersey) Hz hertz ISO International Organization of Standardization Kz kilohertz LNYBL Lower New York Bay Lateral MDCP Marine Data Collection Plan MLLW mean lower low water ML mud line MP milepost NAD83 North American Datum of 1983
xi NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act of 1990 NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 NCEI National Center for Environmental Information NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NESE Northeast Supply Enhancement Project NHL national historic landmark NHD National Hydrography Dataset NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection NMR Northern Maritime Research NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPS National Park Service NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places nT nanotesla PHMC Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Project Transco Northeast Supply Enhancement Project RCGA R.C. Goodwin & Associates, Inc. RNAS Rockaway Naval Air Station Rogers Rogers Surveying, PLLC RTK real time kinematic ROW right-of-way RDL Rockaway Delivery Lateral RR Resource Report R/V research vessel SHPO State Historic Preservation Office(r) Transco Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC UDP Unanticipated Discovery Plan U.S. United States USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S.C. United States Code Williams Williams Partners L.P.
xii NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.1 Introduction Resource Report (RR) 4 describes existing cultural resources directly and indirectly affected by construction and operation of Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC’s (Transco’s) proposed Northeast Supply Enhancement Project (Project). Transco obtained the information contained in this RR from onshore field surveys, offshore geophysical vessel surveys, review of available literature, and consultation with various federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. Volume 3, Agency Correspondence, provides copies of the consultation documents, including Native American consultations. Information pending in this RR will be submitted in a supplemental filing as noted in grey italics with the anticipated filing date.
Transco, a subsidiary of Williams Partners L.P. (Williams), prepared this RR to support its application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) for the Project. The Project supports National Grid's long-term growth, reliability, and flexibility beginning in the 2019/2020 heating season. Transco is proposing to expand its existing interstate natural gas pipeline system in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and its existing offshore natural gas pipeline system in New Jersey and New York waters. The Project capacity is fully subscribed by two entities of National Grid: Brooklyn Union Gas Company (d/b/a [doing business as] National Grid NY) and KeySpan Gas East Corporation (d/b/a National Grid), collectively referred to herein as “National Grid.”
To provide the incremental 400,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of capacity, Transco plans to expand portions of its system from the existing Compressor Station 195 in York County, Pennsylvania, to the Rockaway Transfer Point in New York State waters. As defined in executed precedent agreements with National Grid, the Rockaway Transfer Point is the interconnection point between Transco’s existing Lower New York Bay Lateral (LNYBL) and existing offshore Rockaway Delivery Lateral (RDL). Table 4.1-1 lists the pipeline facilities associated with the Project. Figure 1A-1 in Appendix 1A shows the overall Project location and facilities.
Table 4.1-1 Summary of Pipeline Facilities
Onshore/ Length Facility Size State County Offshore (miles) Quarryville Loop 42-inch-diameter pipeline Onshore Pennsylvania Lancaster County 10.17 Madison Loop 26-inch-diameter pipeline Onshore New Jersey Middlesex County 3.43 Raritan Bay Loop 26-inch-diameter pipeline Onshore New Jersey Middlesex County 0.16
4-1 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 4.1-1 Summary of Pipeline Facilities
Onshore/ Length Facility Size State County Offshore (miles) Raritan Bay Loop 26-inch-diameter pipeline Offshore New Jersey Middlesex County 1.86 Raritan Bay Loop 26-inch-diameter pipeline Offshore New Jersey Monmouth County 4.09 Raritan Bay Loop 26-inch-diameter pipeline Offshore New York Queens County 6.44 Raritan Bay Loop 26-inch-diameter pipeline Offshore New York Richmond County 10.94
A description of the Project facilities is provided below. Note that the mileposts (MPs) provided below for the onshore pipeline facilities correspond to the existing Transco Mainline and Lower New York Bay Lateral1. The offshore pipeline facility MPs are unique to the Raritan Bay Loop. The starting MP for the Raritan Bay Loop corresponds to MP12.00 of the Lower New York Bay Lateral, and the end MP corresponds to the Rockaway Transfer Point.
Onshore Pipeline Facilities
Quarryville Loop ● 10.17 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline from MP1681.00 near Compressor Station 195 to MP1691.17 co-located with the Transco Mainline in Drumore, East Drumore, and Eden Townships, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Once in service, the Quarryville Loop will be referred to as Mainline D.
Madison Loop ● 3.43 miles of 26-inch-diameter pipeline from Compressor Station 207 at MP8.57 to MP12.00 southwest of the Morgan meter and regulating (M&R) Station on the Lower New York Bay Lateral in Old Bridge Township and the Borough of Sayreville, Middlesex County, New Jersey. Once in service, the Madison Loop will be referred to as Lower New York Bay Lateral Loop F.
Raritan Bay Loop ● 0.16 mile of 26-inch-diameter pipeline from MP12.00 west-southwest of the Morgan M&R Station to the Sayreville shoreline at MP12.16. Additionally, a cathodic protection (CP) power cable will be installed from a rectifier located at the existing Transco Morgan M&R Station near MP12.10 and extending to a connecting point on the proposed 26-inch-diameter pipeline at MP12.00. The
1 Also referred to as Lower Bay Loop C.
4-2 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
approximately 545-foot-long power cable will be installed by horizontal directional drill (HDD).
Offshore Pipeline Facilities
Raritan Bay Loop ● 23.33 miles of 26-inch-diameter pipeline from MP12.16 at the Sayreville shoreline in Middlesex County, New Jersey, to MP35.49 at the Rockaway Transfer Point in the Lower New York Bay, New York, south of the Rockaway Peninsula in Queens County, New York. Additionally, a 1,831-foot-long CP power cable will be installed via HDD from a rectifier at the existing Transco Morgan M&R Station near MP12.10 to an offshore anode sled located approximately 1,200 feet north of MP12.32. Once in service, the Raritan Bay Loop will be referred to as Lower New York Bay Lateral Loop F.
Aboveground Facilities
New Compressor Station 206 ● Construction of a new 32,000 ISO (International Organization for Standardizations) horsepower (hp) compressor station and related ancillary equipment in Franklin Township, Somerset County, New Jersey, with two Solar Mars® 100 (or equivalent) natural gas-fired, turbine-driven compressors.
Modifications to Existing Compressor Station 200 ● Addition of one electric motor-driven compressor (21,902 hp) and related ancillary equipment to Transco’s existing Compressor Station 200 in East Whiteland Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania.
Modifications to Existing Mainline Valve Facilities ● Existing Valve Site 195-5 – Installation of a new mainline valve, launcher/receiver, and tie-in facilities at the start of the Quarryville Loop (MP1681.00). ● Existing Valve Site 195-10 – Installation of a new mainline valve, launcher/receiver, and tie-in facilities at the end of the Quarryville Loop (MP1691.17). ● Existing Valve Site 200-55 – Installation of a new mainline valve, launcher/receiver, and tie-in facilities at the start of the Madison Loop (MP8.57).
4-3 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
New Mainline Valve Facilities ● Proposed Valve Site 195-8 – Installation of a new intermediate mainline valve for the Quarryville Loop (MP1687.86). ● Proposed Valve Site 200-59 – Installation of a new mainline (isolation) valve for the Madison Loop (MP11.90).
If the Commission issues a Certificate for the Project and Transco obtains the applicable permits and authorizations, Transco anticipates that construction of the Project will begin in the 3rd quarter of 2018 to meet an in-service date in the 3rd quarter of 2019.
4.2 Regulatory Setting Federal and state laws recognize the importance of cultural resources and provide mechanisms to ensure that they are considered in the actions of government agencies. The federal legal mandates under which consideration of cultural resources most commonly take place include Section 1062 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, Executive Order 11593, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s (ACHP’s) implementing regulations for Section 106 (36 CFR 800), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974. Consideration of offshore cultural resources most commonly takes place under the Abandoned Shipwreck Act (43 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 2101-2106). FERC will use the NEPA process to ensure cultural resources are adequately addressed.
In Pennsylvania, state legal mandates include the Environmental Rights Amendment, Article 1, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Pennsylvania History Code (37 PA. Cont. Stat. Section 500). In New Jersey, the consideration of cultural resources is mandated under the Register of Historic Places Act of 1970. In New York, cultural resources are considered under Section 14.09 of the Historic Preservation Act of 1980 and Section 233 of the State Education Law. Both the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (HPO) and the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) prefer to follow the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM) Guidelines for Providing Archaeological and Historic Property Information Pursuant to 30 CFR 585 (BOEM 2015a) when overseeing offshore cultural resource surveys.
2 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and affords the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. Revised regulations, "Protection of Historic Properties" (36 CFR Part 800), became effective August 5, 2004.
4-4 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Transco also has developed Unanticipated Discovery Plans (UDPs) for the onshore and offshore portions of the Project in order to establish a set of procedures to address unanticipated discoveries of human remains and/or cultural resources over the course of Project construction (see Appendix 1B, Attachments 5 and 6 to RR 1).
The Onshore UDP is intended to comply with the following regulations:
• Applicable federal and state laws and regulations, particularly 36 CFR 800 92007, the regulations that implement Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended;
• 36 CFR 63; 36 CFR 61; Section 3(d) (25 U.S.C. 3002) of the 1990 Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (25 U.S.C. 3001-3013);
• Chapter 5, Title 37 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Code 511, Historic Preservation Criminal Penalties; Pennsylvania Statute, Title 9 202 – 215, Historic Burial Places Preservation Act;
• New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, Title 2C 33-9, Preservation of Venerated Objects; and
• New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, Title 2C 22-1, Disturbance and Desecration of Human Remains.
The Offshore UDP is intended to comply with all of the federal laws listed above in conjunction with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 and the Abandoned Shipwrecks Act of 1987 (43 U.S.C. § 2101-2106). The Offshore UDP is also intended to comply with all state laws, including Section 233 of the New York State Education Law; New Jersey Administrative Code, Title 7 Chapter 7E § 3.13 and §3.16, Shipwreck Management and Historic and Archaeological Resources; and the New Jersey Annotated Statutes, Title 13 Chapters 1L-10 and 1L-23, Protection Against Archaeological Disturbance.
4.3 Ethnographic Analysis As part of the desktop analysis conducted for the Project, Transco assembled data on prehistoric and historic land use by Native American, Euro-American, and Afro-American populations. This included both narrative and mapping documentation that described geographic distribution, settlement and subsistence patterns, and culturally specific land use activities for these societies (see Appendices 4D and 4E). The exact chronology for various cultural groups entering and establishing a presence within a particular region tends to vary slightly. These slight differences can be attributed to several factors, including human conflict, navigation restrictions,
4-5 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
food source availability, animal migratory patterns, and scholarly interpretation. The following overview summarizes the regional prehistory through European colonization and expansion, and provides a framework for assessing the significance of archaeological resources that may be present in the vicinity of the Project area.
The prehistoric cultural sequence recognized for the Project area has traditionally included the Paleoindian (circa 15,000–10,000 BP), the Archaic (circa 10,000–2,700 BP), and the Woodland (circa 2,700 BP–A.D. 1500); these epochs extend from the first appearance of humans in the region to their initial interaction with people from Europe and Africa. This synthesis of cultural change from the prehistoric era to the historic era follows a diachronic framework that studies the development of change and adaptation resulting from gradual variations in climatic conditions, settlement patterns, food procurement, and technological advancement. This transitional framework has been assessed through extensive examinations of the geological, archaeological, and historic records. The historic cultural sequence within the Project area includes the Contact (A.D. 1500–1750), Colonial (A.D. 1681–1785), Agrarian Expansion and Town Development (A.D. 1785–1861), Civil War (A.D. 1861–1865), Postwar (A.D. 1865–1918), and the Modern (A.D. 1918–Present); these periods range from the first recorded European presence in the region to the rise of our modern era.
Each epoch is distinguished by rates of population growth and cultural expansion as well as significant historical events and technological change. Although material remains associated with each of these eras appear in the archaeological record, extant examples also remain in both the architectural record and as documentation within the historical record. For additional information on the ethnographic context of the Project area, see the cultural resource survey reports in Appendix 4D and 4E.
4.4 The Area of Potential Effect for Cultural Resources The area of potential effect (APE) for cultural resources generally comprises two distinct types of potential impacts: direct and indirect (or viewshed). The direct APE includes the land that will be disturbed by the construction and installation of the various Project facilities (described above in Section 4.1). The viewshed APE consists of areas adjacent to the Project facilities that may incur visual impacts. The viewshed APE for the Project has two components: the first component is related to the subterranean installation of the pipeline, while the second involves any aboveground infrastructure required for the Project. In the case of the buried pipeline, viewshed effects are anticipated to be either negligible or temporary. However, because the removal of trees and other vegetation and the installation of aboveground infrastructure can result
4-6 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
in visual impacts, the historic architectural survey considered standing structures, historic districts, and rural landscapes located within or adjacent to the direct APE. Onshore cultural resource field surveys have been completed. (Offshore surveys are complete. The results will be provided in a supplemental filing in the 2nd quarter of 2017.)
4.4.1 Onshore Facilities
4.4.1.1 Pennsylvania The distribution of archaeological sites and historic architectural resources is documented using standard Phase I research protocols in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, the Pennsylvania History Code, and all other pertinent federal and state guidelines; these protocols include site visits, background research, field testing, analysis, and reporting.
4.4.1.1.1 Quarryville Loop In Pennsylvania, the direct APE, as agreed upon by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) on July 26, 2016 (Volume 3, Attachment 1) is considered to be the zone of ground disturbance that the Project’s land requirements will impact during construction of the Quarryville Loop and its related facilities. The survey corridor width for the Quarryville Loop is generally 400 feet, but with some variation, and includes an existing pipeline easement, the Transco Mainline, which has been previously disturbed, and proposed aboveground facilities along the pipeline route (see Figure 4A-1). Additionally, the study corridor was expanded between MP1685.74 and MP1686.14 as well as MP1686.66 and MP1687.01 to accommodate engineering design criteria (see RR 1 for additional information on these areas). Portions of the proposed access roads, contractor yards, and additional temporary workspaces outside the 400-foot survey corridor were also surveyed.
Assessment of the indirect, or viewshed APE, based on guidance from the PHMC, consists of a visual evaluation of resources adjacent to the direct APE and within the line-of-sight (viewshed) of the corridor and any related facilities. The viewshed is considered to comprise the area within 0.5 mile of the direct APE. In the case of farms, visual or other impacts are considered for the entire parcel (farm) as established by the guidance offered in “Pennsylvania’s Agricultural History Project” context statement.
4.4.1.1.2 Compressor Station 200 The direct APE for Compressor Station 200 is considered to be the zone of ground disturbance that the Project land requirements will impact during expansion of Compressor Station 200. The proposed modifications at Compressor Station 200 will be within the existing
4-7 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
fenceline of the compressor station; a majority of the area that will be disturbed has been previously surveyed and cleared of cultural resources. However, an additional 7.57 acres of potential workspace had not been subject to previous cultural resource investigations. Therefore, the 7.57-acre area was evaluated for cultural resources using the FERC and PHMC guidelines.
Assessment of the indirect, or viewshed, APE, based on guidance from the PHMC, consists of a visual evaluation of resources adjacent to the direct APE and within the line-of-sight (viewshed) of the study area and any related facilities.
4.4.1.2 New Jersey In New Jersey, the direct APE, as agreed upon by the New Jersey HPO on October 28, 2016, regarding the Terrestrial Work Plan (see Attachment 1 in Volume 3, and Attachment 7 to Volume 4), was identified according to standard state and federal recommendations and is considered to be the zone of ground disturbance that Project land requirements will impact during construction of the New Jersey Project facilities.
4.4.1.2.1 Madison Loop The direct APE for the Madison Loop is considered to be the zone of ground disturbance that Project land requirements will impact during construction of the Madison Loop and any related facilities. As noted in Section 4.1, the Project pipeline facilities include 3.4 miles of 26-inch- diameter pipeline. To ensure that the direct APE is evaluated for cultural resources, a 300-foot- wide corridor was examined using the FERC and New Jersey HPO guidelines. The 300-foot- wide corridor encompasses the construction footprint of the proposed pipeline and proposed aboveground facilities along the pipeline route (see Figure 4A-2). Portions of the proposed access roads, contractor yards, and additional temporary workspaces outside the 300-foot survey corridor were also surveyed.
Assessment of the indirect, or viewshed, APE, based on guidance from the HPO, consists of a visual evaluation of resources adjacent to the direct APE and within the line-of-sight (viewshed) of the study corridor and any related facilities.
4.4.1.2.2 Raritan Bay Loop The direct APE for the onshore portion of the Raritan Bay Loop is considered to be the zone of ground disturbance that Project land requirements will impact during construction of the onshore portion of the Raritan Bay Loop and any related facilities (see Figure 4A-2). To ensure that the direct APE is evaluated for cultural resources, a 300-foot-wide study corridor was examined using the FERC and New Jersey HPO guidelines. In areas where additional temporary
4-8 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
workspaces are required around the onshore HDD entry points and CP facilities, the study corridor was widened. The 300-foot-wide corridor encompasses the construction footprint for the Raritan Bay Loop that will be installed using HDD.
4.4.1.2.3 Compressor Station 206 The direct APE for Compressor Station 206 is considered to be the zone of ground disturbance that Project land requirements will impact during construction of Compressor Station 206 and any related facilities. The study area encompasses the construction footprint of the compressor station site and was examined using the FERC and New Jersey HPO guidelines (see Figure 4A-3).
For aboveground resources, an assessment of the indirect, or viewshed, APE, based on guidance from the HPO, consists of a visual evaluation of cultural resources adjacent to the direct APE and within the line-of-sight (viewshed) of the study area and any related facilities.
4.4.2 Offshore Facilities
New Jersey and New York
Raritan Bay Loop The APE for direct effects associated with the offshore facilities is defined as the centerline corridor and anchor-handling area of the proposed pipeline (see Figure 4A-4). The proposed pipeline route extends from the Sayreville shoreline in Middlesex County, New Jersey, to the Rockaway Transfer Point, the interconnection point with the existing Rockaway Delivery Lateral in New York State waters in the Atlantic Ocean, approximately 3 miles seaward of Rockaway, New York.
The Project APE for the offshore portion of the Raritan Bay Loop located in New Jersey waters includes a 2,500- to 5,000-foot-wide corridor along 5.95 miles of the Raritan Bay Loop centerline. In the shallow waters (less than 15 feet) spud barges may be used rather than anchor barges, therefore, the Project APE will encompass a width of 2,500 feet from MP12.24 to MP12.50. For the remainder of the Raritan Bay Loop in New Jersey (after MP12.50), the Project APE will encompass a width of 5,000 feet (2,500 feet on either side of the centerline). These corridors are being examined using FERC, BOEM, and New Jersey HPO guidelines. Concurrence on the APE was obtained from the New Jersey HPO on October 13, 2016 (see Attachment 1 to Volume 3).
4-9 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Project APE for the offshore portion of the Raritan Bay Loop located in New York waters includes a 5,000-foot-wide corridor along 17.38 miles of the Raritan Bay Loop centerline (2,500 feet on either side of the centerline). Transco is examining this corridor using FERC, BOEM, and New York SHPO guidelines; concurrence on the APE was obtained from the New York SHPO on September 8, 2016 (see Attachment 1 to Volume 3).
Additionally, Transco evaluated a 400-foot-wide centerline corridor that incorporates a 100-foot-wide construction corridor within which direct impacts will result from excavation of the trench and subsequent burial of the pipeline (see Table 4.4-1).
The width of the anchor handling area varies according to environmental conditions and Project needs. Where nearshore conditions require the use of only 125 feet north of the centerline, conditions further eastward require widths from 2,500 feet to 5,000 feet to allow for anchor management and other activities associated with pipeline installation.
Table 4.4-1 APE for Raritan Bay Loop
Vertical APE Horizontal APE Centerline Milepost Installation (feet below (feet) Corridor (feet) ML)a New Jersey and New York 12.16 to 12.24 Morgan Shore Approach HDD 125 125 85 Tracking Wires Workspace 12.24 to 12.50c HDD – Morgan Shore Approach 2,500 400 85 12.50 to 29.52 Trenching – Pipeline Burial 5,000b 400 8d 30.40 to 35.49 29.52 to 30.40 HDD- Ambrose Channel 5,000b 400 65 a The vertical APE associated with the HDDs extended to the maximum anticipated depth of the HDD b The nominal width of the APE was 5,000 feet, however, the actual width was reduced in specific areas to reflect the actual construction spaces that are being proposed. c The actual APE varied based on accessibility to shallow water areas west of MP12.50. d The vertical APE associated with the Raritan Bay and Chapel Hill Channels is deeper to reflect anticipated burial depth requirements.
Key: APE = Area of Potential Effect ML = mudline
4.5 Field Methods Phase I cultural resource surveys for all Project facilities were conducted in conjunction with input and guidance from the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) in Pennsylvania,
4-10 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
New York, and New Jersey. The following sections describe the requirements of the Phase I surveys and the techniques Transco used for the different Project facilities.
4.5.1 Onshore Facilities The purpose of a Phase I cultural resource survey investigation is to locate and identify cultural resources within the direct and indirect Project APE. Phase I cultural resources investigations in Pennsylvania and New Jersey involve a number of steps. The first step usually involves archival, or desktop, research to locate previously recorded archaeological sites and aboveground resources such as historic buildings or structures. Use of the desktop study, in conjunction with consultations with the PHMC and New Jersey HPO provided guidance for the field surveys.
Pennsylvania’s pre-Contact archaeological predictive model was designed specifically to identify the prehistoric archaeological site distribution in Pennsylvania. The model and the results of the Phase I background research for cultural resources in the Project area in Pennsylvania indicate the following: 30% of the Project is in areas of high archaeological potential (15% slope or less and within 500 feet of a water source; structures on historic maps or previously recorded sites); 59% of the Project is in areas of moderate archaeological potential (15% slope or less and more than 500 feet from a water source; structures on historic maps or previously recorded sites); and 11% of the Project is in areas of low archaeological potential (greater than 15% slope; wetlands with standing water; and developed zones or other disturbances).
Field survey protocols in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey involve pedestrian reconnaissance (surface collection), shovel testing, and geomorphological assessments to locate archaeological sites in the Project APE. Visual surveys along the study corridor or windshield surveys from road rights-of-way (ROWs) are used to identify aboveground resources in the APE.
In Pennsylvania, Phase I archaeological and architectural surveys were conducted along the Quarryville Loop pipeline route and related aboveground infrastructure. The surveys were conducted using guidelines set forth by FERC and the PHMC. Initial surveys were conducted between July 19 and August 31, 2016, and additional surveys were conducted between November 8, 2016 and January 20, 2017. The Phase I archaeological report for the initial archaeological survey was submitted to the PHMC for review on October 19, 2016; concurrence was received on November 17, 2016. The results of the supplemental Phase I archaeological survey were submitted to the PHMC for review on January 20, 2017, and concurrence was
4-11 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
received on January 26, 2017 (see Appendix 4D1). The results of the Phase I architectural survey were submitted to the PHMC on January 17, 2017; concurrence on this report is pending.
A Phase I survey was also conducted in the Compressor Station 200 survey area between August 30 and September 12, 2016. The Phase I report was submitted to the PHMC for review on October 19, 2016, and concurrence was received on November 17, 2016 (see Appendix 4D).
In New Jersey, using guidelines set forth by FERC and the New Jersey HPO, a Phase I archaeological survey and an historic architectural assessment were conducted between September and December 2016 for the Madison Loop and the onshore portion of the Raritan Bay Loop, as well as for the proposed site for Compressor Station 206. The Phase I archaeological survey report was submitted to the New Jersey HPO for review on February 7, 2017; concurrence with this report is pending (see Appendix 4E).
4.5.1.1 Pennsylvania
Archaeological Survey Methods The Federal Highway Administration, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, and the PHMC collaborated to develop a state-wide pre-Contact archaeological predictive model for Pennsylvania. The project involved developing statistical models to analyze the landscape at known Native American archaeological sites in Pennsylvania and extrapolating identified patterns to all areas of the commonwealth. One of the long-term accomplishments of the project is a complete state-wide layer of archaeological sensitivity aggregated from 132 spatial subareas. This model was initiated in 2016 and is currently in the early stages of its lifecycle; the model will be continually evaluated and occasionally updated.
Using the pre-Contact archaeological predictive model, areas of high and moderate archaeological potential were mapped within the Project APE. Following comprehensive background research and discussions with the PHMC, Transco conducted shovel test excavations within the areas of high and moderate archaeological potential within the APE at 50- or 80-foot intervals. Since the pre-Contact archaeological predictive model is associated with the demarcation of potential prehistoric sites, the additional presence of eighteenth and nineteenth century farmsteads in the vicinity of the Project APE required in-field modification to the modeled results. Based on the presence of these farmsteads, many areas that would otherwise be considered as having a low potential for archaeological sites were tested as high or moderate potential areas using 50- or 80-foot shovel test intervals. Low probability areas (i.e., areas of slope exceeding 15% and previously disturbed areas), were subject to pedestrian reconnaissance
4-12 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
only, with shovel testing performed as necessary based on professional judgement. For parts of the APE where surface collection was possible (80% or greater surface visibility), high probability areas were examined along transects set at 16-foot intervals; moderate probability areas were surveyed along transects set at 50-foot intervals (see Appendix 4D).
A supplemental Phase I survey was undertaken by Transco from November 8, 2016 to January 20, 2017. Surveyed areas included additional proposed access roads (with a 50-foot- wide survey width), additional proposed temporary workspaces, and a proposed contractor yard along the Quarryville Loop. The supplemental survey areas encompassed 65.24 acres, bringing the total current APE for archaeological resources to 625.91 acres. As no areas of high potential were identified within the survey area, the supplemental survey included shovel testing in areas of moderate potential, and areas with low potential were subjected to judgmental shovel testing and surface reconnaissance.
Shovel tests were excavated to a diameter of approximately 24 inches and, except where soil conditions prevented full excavation, the shovels tests were excavated until culturally sterile subsoil was encountered. All soil extracted from each excavation was screened through 0.25- inch hardware mesh. Shovel test locations were recorded on Project field maps. Soil color, texture, and other pertinent stratigraphic information was also recorded (USDA 1963), along with information on archaeological results. Standard records, artifact inventories, and catalogues were developed in accordance with the Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Pennsylvania (PHMC 2016) (see Volume 4 Attachment 7).
Geoarchaeological Assessment Prior to the archaeological survey, a geoarchaeological assessment of the Project area was conducted to assess the potential for cultural deposits buried beyond the depth of standard archaeological shovel testing. The assessment consisted of an initial map study to locate alluvial landforms traversed by the Project area. Data sources examined to locate alluvial landforms included topographic maps, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil series data, and the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Once located, the potential for the alluvial landforms to yield deeply buried cultural deposits was determined based on stream order, valley geometry, and the profile characteristics of identified alluvial landforms. Soil profile characteristics were assessed according to the degree of soil development, depth to unaltered parent material, and percolation variability classification (see Appendix 4D1).
4-13 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Architectural Survey Methods Transco conducted an architectural reconnaissance survey to identify built resources 50 years of age or older in the immediate vicinity of the Project area. The survey included a review of any previously identified resources recorded in the PHMC files. In addition, windshield surveys were conducted in the Project area following the methodology defined in the National Register Bulletin 24 (Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning; National Park Service [NPS] 1985). All work was completed following standards promulgated in Archaeology and Historic Preservation: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines (NPS n.d), and in accordance with techniques sanctioned by the PHMC, particularly the 2013 Survey Guidelines for Pipeline Projects: Above Ground Resources (PHMC 2013).
The purpose of the architectural reconnaissance survey was to collect sufficient data to characterize the type and integrity of the historic built resources located within the Project area. The data were used to assess the visual impact of aboveground Project facilities within a 0.5-mile viewshed surrounding the direct APE. Aerial photographs were analyzed to determine whether built resources are present within the Project’s APE. Buildings identified on the aerial photographs were correlated with data on previously identified architectural resources compiled from files maintained by the PHMC; this assessment was typically limited to the exterior inspection of buildings. Digital photography was used to supplement all newly collected field data. Field maps, including aerial photographs, U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle maps, and viewshed maps, were annotated in the field as needed (see Appendix 4D2).
4.5.1.2 New Jersey
Archaeological Survey Methods As part of the Phase I survey, Transco conducted archaeological field surveys to test for the presence of archaeological sites within the APE for the Madison Loop, the onshore portion of the Raritan Bay Loop, and the proposed site of Compressor Station 206, following comprehensive background research and discussions with the New Jersey HPO (see Volume 4 Attachment 7). If survey visibility was greater than 50%, a surface reconnaissance was conducted with surface collection within the Project APE. In areas of moderate probability, the surface reconnaissance consisted of transects spaced at 18-foot intervals; in high probability areas transects were spaced at 10-foot intervals. In cases of less surface visibility (e.g., due to topography), the survey corridor was shovel tested. In accordance with the New Jersey HPO guidelines, low probability areas were examined using surface reconnaissance along with judgmental shovel testing to provide evidence of soil conditions and potential buried deposits. Moderate probability areas were tested
4-14 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
along transects spaced 50 feet apart, with shovel tests excavated every 50 feet, and high probability areas were tested along transects spaced 32 feet apart, with shovel tests excavated every 32 feet. Shovel test excavations had a minimum diameter of 1 foot and were dug to culturally sterile subsoil except where soil conditions prevented full excavation. Soil was removed according to natural stratigraphic soil horizons and screened through 0.25-inch hardware cloth. The location of each shovel test within the sampling pattern, the depths of the stratigraphic zones, and the presence or absence of cultural materials was recorded in the field. Soil characteristics, including color and texture, were recorded using standard soil nomenclature (see Appendix 4E1).
Geoarchaeological Assessment As with Pennsylvania, prior to the archaeological survey, a geoarchaeological assessment of the Project area was conducted to assess the potential for cultural deposits buried beyond the depth of standard archaeological shovel testing. The assessment consisted of an initial map study to locate alluvial landforms traversed by the Project area. Data sources examined to locate alluvial landforms included topographic maps, NRCS soil series data, and the NHD. Once located, the potential for the alluvial landforms to yield deeply buried cultural deposits was determined based on stream order, valley geometry, and the profile characteristics of identified alluvial landforms. Soil profile characteristics assessed included degree of soil development, depth to unaltered parent material, and drainage classification (see Appendix 4E1).
Architectural Survey Methods Transco conducted an architectural reconnaissance survey to identify built resources 50 years of age or older within the immediate vicinity of the Project area. The architectural reconnaissance survey adopted the methodology for windshield surveys defined in the National Register Bulletin 24 Guidelines for Local Surveys A Basis for Preservation Planning (NPS 1985). All work was completed following standards promulgated in Archaeology and Historic Preservation: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines (NPS n.d.), and in the New Jersey HPO guidelines.
The purpose of the architectural survey was to collect sufficient data to characterize the type and integrity of the historic built resources located within the Project APE. The data were used to assess the visual impact of aboveground Project facilities within a 0.5-mile viewshed surrounding the direct APE. Aerial photographs were analyzed to determine whether built resources were present within the Project’s APE. Buildings identified on the aerial photographs were correlated with data on previously identified architectural resources compiled from files
4-15 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
maintained by the New Jersey HPO; this assessment was typically limited to an exterior inspection of buildings. Digital photography was used to supplement all newly collected field data. Field maps, including aerial photographs, U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle maps, and viewshed maps, were annotated in the field as needed (see Appendix 4E2).
4.5.2 Offshore Facilities Phase I cultural resource surveys were initiated through comprehensive background research for the offshore portion of the Project area. This research involved a review of 10 previous cultural resource investigations, five of which intersect the APE of the offshore Raritan Bay Loop, and inventories of identified historic properties and submerged cultural resources (see Table 4.6-1 and 4.6-2). Also included in the background research was a review of readily available historical maps, aerial photographs, and other relevant public records, including the site file records at the New Jersey HPO, the New York SHPO, and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) files. To assess hydrographic survey data and products, Transco reviewed the Northern Maritime Research (NMR) database; the Office of Coast Survey’s Wrecks and Obstructions database, which is sourced from the NOAA Office of Coast Survey’s Electronic Navigational Charts (ENC) and the Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System (AWOIS); the Office of Coast Survey's Historical Map and Chart Collection; and the National Center for Environmental Information (NCEI) database.
Potential submerged cultural resources within the Project area include two distinct types: prehistoric sites and historic shipwrecks. Using topographic mapping and data on undersea tectonics, the Phase I preliminary assessment of potential offshore prehistoric sites involved a comparative analysis of known geological indicators for locations above current sea level as well as a comparative analysis of data on Pleistocene and Holocene environments. As a result, the potential for submerged prehistoric cultural resource sites within the Project area directly relates to the geomorphology of sea-level change associated with the Pleistocene-Holocene transition, which occurred between 18,000 and 6,000 BP. As discussed below, a remote-sensing survey using a sub-bottom profiler to pinpoint relict landforms in combination with sediment coring was conducted to identify the location of prehistoric sites as well as areas of the present ocean floor that have the potential for containing the material remains of prehistoric activity.
Identifying documented historic shipwrecks along the Project route involved analyzing numerous documents concerning shipwreck locations within and in proximity to the Project area and the approaches to Raritan Bay and Lower New York Bay. These shipwrecks likely resulted from storms, lack of navigational aids, collisions, and grounding in the surface zone or on
4-16 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
unmarked obstructions. Background research revealed that the Project area, from Raritan Bay to Breezy Point at Rockaway Beach, is well known for shifting sandbars, which made the approach to New York Harbor quite treacherous until the Ambrose Channel was dredged in 1912.
4.5.2.1 New Jersey and New York
Raritan Bay Loop
Archaeological Survey Methods A multi-sensor geophysical remote-sensing survey was conducted along the proposed offshore APE in both New York and New Jersey jurisdictional waters. The geophysical survey was used in conjunction with geotechnical borings to identify submerged prehistoric and historic sites.
Geophysical Survey A survey track line layout was designed to identify potential cultural resources within the APE. One track line followed the proposed pipeline centerline, and additional parallel track lines were spaced at 100 feet to cover the full width of the APE. As a means of providing quality control and confirmation of sounding, sub-bottom profiling, sonar imaging, and magnetometer data acquired along the primary track lines, additional data were acquired along a series of cross, or “tie”, lines set perpendicular to the primary track lines. The geophysical survey provided sufficient coverage to define current seabed and shallow sub-surface conditions and to identify hazards, environmentally sensitive areas, and potentially significant submerged historic properties.
Geophysical survey operations were conducted from May 3 to September 14, 2016, using two nearshore vessels designed for efficient hydrographic survey operations and outfitted with an array of multi-sensor geophysical survey equipment. The survey vessel (S/V) Ronald P. Jensen is a 30-foot aluminum catamaran with an enclosed cabin and dual outboard motors. S/V Red Rogers is a 36-foot aluminum catamaran with an enclosed cabin and twin diesel motors. The survey equipment was configured aboard each survey vessel to optimize data quality, reduce ambient noise, and maximize survey efficiency (Rogers Surveying, PLLC. 2016). The primary equipment systems employed on board the vessels to complete the survey included the following:
• A differential global positioning system (DGPS);
• HYPACK navigation and data-logging software;
• Reson 7101 210º wide swath multibeam echosounder (MBES);
4-17 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
• Odom Echotrac DF3200 digital dual-frequency depth sounder;
• Klein 3000 100/500 kHz dual-frequency digital side-scan sonar system;
• Geometrics G-882 cesium marine magnetometer with bottom-tracking altimeter; and
• EdgeTech 3200-XS compressed high-intensity radar pulse (CHIRP) sub-bottom profiling system equipped with a SB216 tow vehicle (2-16 kHz).
All geophysical survey equipment was operated in accordance with manufacturers’ procedures, and industry standard protocols were followed for data transfer and transformation to ensure the integrity of the raw dataset and the quality of post-processed data. Confidence checks were performed daily or as needed to ensure proper equipment functionality and data quality.
For precise navigation and positioning, an Applanix POS MV 320 Version 4 position system with visual reference station real-time kinematic (RTK) input was used (Rogers Surveying, PLLC 2016). This system transferred information to Hypack navigation software, allowing it to continuously determine the position of the survey vessel. The position of the vessel was plotted on a vessel track plot and displayed in real time on a color monitor that also provided additional navigation parameters to the helmsman. This method enabled piloting of the vessel along the pre-determined survey lines and navigating to selected geologic or bathymetric features. Position fixes were logged digitally on a continual basis along the vessel track. Geodesy3 information was presented clearly across all data types. Quality control methods conform to the requirements of Special Order Surveys as defined by the International Hydrographic Bureau (2008). Project horizontal reference is the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) in feet, New York State Plane (Long Island). Project vertical reference is the Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) in feet. Horizontal positioning of the survey vessels for this investigation was accomplished utilizing a satellite navigation system with RTK input.
In February 2017, an additional offshore close order survey was conducted to further assess all previously identified targets having signatures that indicated the possible presence of submerged cultural resource sites within the Project APE. This supplemental survey involved the use of a multibeam echo sounder, side scan sonar, magnetometer, and subbottom profiler; parallel tracklines were spaced every 75 feet. The horizontal positioning of all sounding was
3 Geodesy is the scientific discipline that deals with the measurement and representation of the Earth, including its gravitational field, in a three-dimensional time-varying space.
4-18 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
collected in the New York State Plane NAD83 Coronate system; all previously identified targets were re-identified according to their size, position, interpretation, and height above the seafloor. The supplemental survey served to confirm or deny the historical significance of previously identified targets. (The results of this survey will be provided in a supplemental filing in the 2nd quarter of 2017.)
Geotechnical Survey Geotechnical survey is a technique used to obtain information on the physical properties of sediments, soil, and rock around a project site to aid in pipeline design and includes both shallow vibracoring and deep boring programs. Vibracoring is a technique used for collecting samples of unconsolidated saturated shallow sediments. Each vibracore achieves from 12 to 30 feet of penetration below the seafloor; deep bores penetrate much deeper, reaching depths from 65 to 120 feet. Transco identified 69 vibracore locations and 17 deep bore locations along the Raritan Bay Loop in New York and New Jersey waters (see Figure 1 in Appendix 1D). (The results of this survey will be provided in a supplemental filing in the 2nd quarter of 2017.)
Prior to initiating the geotechnical survey, the geophysical survey data obtained for each proposed vibracore and deep bore location were reviewed. This review focused on the areas of bottom-disturbing activities that have the potential to impact submerged archaeological resources during geotechnical boring investigations. Magnetic anomalies were identified using magnetic contour maps of the seafloor; individual magnetic signatures, which can exhibit varying degrees of amplitude, duration, and distribution, were used to characterize each anomaly.
In order to ensure that geotechnical boring activities would not impact any potential cultural resources, 100-, 75-, or 50-foot-radius buffers were established around each vibracore location. These buffers were designed to easily accommodate the coring activities and avoid any potential effects on magnetic anomalies and/or side-scan sonar anomalies that could represent cultural resources. The geotechnical survey was conducted from the multi-purpose vessel R/V Shearwater. The vessel did not anchor; position was maintained using dynamic positioning thrusters (Alpine 2016).
4.6 Status of Cultural Resources Investigations This section describes the status of the current Phase I cultural resource surveys for all Project facilities. As noted above, cultural resource surveys for the Project include comprehensive background research, the outcome of which is discussed below. Onshore and offshore cultural
4-19 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
resource field surveys have been completed. (Offshore survey results will be provided in a supplemental filing in the 2nd quarter of 2017.)
4.6.1 Previously Identified Cultural Resources The results of the comprehensive background research for each of the Project facilities are discussed below.
4.6.1.1 Onshore Facilities
4.6.1.1.1 Pennsylvania
Quarryville Loop
Archaeological Review Background research revealed that no archaeological sites had been previously identified within the Project APE or within 0.5 mile of the direct APE. Two previous cultural resources surveys were conducted within 0.5 mile of the proposed pipeline loop and access roads, with one overlapping the Project corridor for approximately the initial 0.4 mile. No archaeological sites or historic structures were identified by these surveys (see Appendix 4D1).
Architectural Review A review of the PHMC’s Cultural Resources Geographic Information System identified eight previously recorded built resources within 0.5 mile of the Quarryville Loop. These resources represented a variety of building types, including residences, a church ruin, farmsteads, and transportation corridors (primarily railroad beds). Three resources were previously determined to be not eligible for listing on the NRHP. These include the Reittenbaugh Barn No. 2 (PA Key No. 83403), the Downington-to-Cedar Hollow Railroad (now the Chester Valley Running Track, PA Key No. 10916), and the Pennsylvania Railroad: Schuylkill Valley Branch (PA Key No. 155409, 155997). These three resources were eliminated from further architectural investigation. The remainder of the previously identified resources were determined ineligible for listing on the NRHP by the consultant; concurrence with these findings from the PHMC is currently pending (see Attachment 7 of Volume 4).
Compressor Station 200 All modifications to Compressor Station 200 will occur within the fence line for the existing compressor station facility. Although the majority of the land within the existing Compressor Station 200 fence line (including the existing facility footprint) was previously disturbed or cleared for archaeological resources (see Appendix 4D), an additional 7.57-acre area that may be used
4-20 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
within the present fence line during construction was evaluated for the presence of cultural resources (see Section 4.5).
Archaeological Review The majority of the lands associated with the existing compressor station were found to be disturbed by development or had already been subject to previous cultural resource surveys. The 7.57-acre area south of the previously developed area was surveyed and found not to contain archaeologically significant cultural remains. Supplemental surveys of all proposed access roads, additional temporary workspaces, and the proposed contractor yard also revealed no archaeological remains. Due to the lack of cultural resources, the Project archaeologists recommend that no additional background research, file investigations, or archaeological surveys are required for these areas (see Appendix 4D).
Architectural Review No previously identified architectural resources or significant viewsheds have been identified within or adjacent to the existing Compressor Station 200 site.
4.6.1.1.2 New Jersey
Madison Loop and Onshore Raritan Bay Loop
Archaeological Review Research undertaken for the Madison Loop and onshore Raritan Bay Loop indicated that a total of three previously identified archaeological sites and six historic properties are within 0.5- mile of these loops. None of these historic properties have been formally listed in the NRHP, but all have been determined eligible for listing. One of the three archaeological sites (28-MI-169 [Morgan 2]) appears to lie directly within the Project APE. This site has been subjected to at least two archaeological investigations; the latter study concluded that some intact archaeological deposits associated with this site still could be extant (see Appendix 4E1). By Project design, HDD operations will avoid impacting any extant archaeological remains.
In total, at least eight archaeological investigations have been conducted within 0.5-mile of the loops; one of these surveys appeared to follow the same general alignment as the existing pipeline easement within the present Project survey areas. Except for the two studies cited above, all the remaining surveys generally found that the areas traversed by this Project corridor possessed little or no potential for intact archaeological deposits (see Appendix 4E1).
4-21 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Transco conducted a distributional review of known previously recorded sites to develop a set of survey protocols for Phase I testing of the proposed Project areas. These recorded sites reflected a common pattern found in most areas of New Jersey, with archaeological sites located on well-drained, flat to gently sloping landforms situated in near resource-rich areas such as wetlands, streams, and rivers. Data collected from other archaeological investigations conducted within an approximately 0.5-mile radius of the Project APE were examined to define areas with the highest potential for archaeological sites that are eligible for listing on the NRHP, having high levels of preservation and research potential.
Based on background research and regional archaeological site distribution, Transco determined that most unrecorded sites in the Project area would likely be situated on gently sloping areas (less than 15% slope) located within 500 feet of water features. Based on these criteria, high probability areas generally included floodplains, terraces, levees, and other settings of less than 15% slope and within 500 feet of water, as well as locations within 500 feet of previously recorded archaeological sites or historic resources and structure locations on nineteenth to early twentieth century historic cartographic sources. Moderate probability areas generally were defined as areas with less than 15 % slope that are not within 500 feet of water sources or previously recorded archaeological sites or historic structures or structure locations on nineteenth to early twentieth century historic maps. Low probability areas included areas of greater than 15% slope, wetlands with standing water, and developed zones or other disturbed areas. The probability assessments were adjusted based on the determination of archaeological field supervisors (see Appendix 4E).
During the cultural resources survey, one previously recorded archaeological site (28-MI- 169) was re-identified. Background research had shown that this site had been subjected to several archaeological investigations. It was first identified in 1914 and determined to be part of an expansive Woodland Period midden, indicating Native Americans had occupied the site for an extended period. Subsequent investigations in 1977 and 1992 concluded that some intact archaeological deposits associated with this site could be present and recommended a Phase II archaeological evaluation. The site was subject to additional excavations in 1993, which identified additional historic materials (see Appendix 4E).
Architectural Review Six historic properties were identified within 0.5-mile-wide of the direct APE (see Appendix 4E2). None of the historic properties have been formally listed in the NRHP, but all have been determined to be eligible for listing.
4-22 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Compressor Station 206
Archaeological Review In the area of Compressor Station 206, three archaeological sites have been previously identified and two spatially limited archaeological surveys have been conducted. All of the archaeological sites cluster at the intersection of New Jersey Route 27 and Raymond Road, on the border between Middlesex and Somerset counties. Avoidance or mitigation have been previously recommended for two sites: Site 28-SO-94 (features associated with the Charles Moore farm), and Site 28-MI-109 (the Kingston Grid Site) (see Appendix 4E).
Architectural Review The proposed site of Compressor Station 206 is not associated with any historic architectural resources. (The historic architectural assessment will be provided in a supplemental filing in the 2nd quarter of 2017.)
4.6.1.2 Offshore Facilities
New Jersey and New York
Raritan Bay Loop
Archaeological Review Archival research conducted for the offshore facilities has entailed review of several sets of primary and secondary sources. Three sources provided basic insight into the location of potential cultural resource sites within and adjacent to the Project APE: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 2016 Wrecks and Obstructions Database, which sources information from the ENC layers and the AWOIS; BOEM’s (2015b) wreck map; and an unpublished list of reported and suspected vessel wrecks supplied by the New York SHPO. Additionally, information obtained from nautical archaeologists at the New Jersey HPO was included. Relevant reports summarizing surveys previously conducted in the vicinity of the Project corridor (RCGA 2010), including hydrographic reports, also were consulted. These data were augmented by referencing sources available online, including electronic repositories such as the U.S. Coastal Survey digital library of historic navigation charts and the NRHP research database.
The intent of this literature search and records review was to determine the location of all previously recorded archaeological sites, shipwrecks, historic standing structures, historic cemeteries, and NRHP-listed properties positioned within or immediately adjacent to the Project area. This information was used to develop the archaeological context for assessing and
4-23 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
subsequently avoiding any cultural resources that may lie within the areas under examination. (The resulting lists and charts known and suspected wrecks and obstructions, as well as the three light towers (one destroyed), that appear to lie within or immediately adjacent to the Project corridor buffer zone will be provided in a supplemental filing in the 2nd quarter of 2017.)
Background research identified a total of 10 cultural resources investigations that have been conducted in the vicinity of the offshore Raritan Bay Loop Project area; however, only four investigations intersect the APE defined for the offshore Raritan Bay Loop (Table 4.6-1).
Table 4.6-1 Previous Cultural Resources Investigations
Cultural Resource Investigation Description Marine Archaeological Assessment for the Rockaway In 2009, PBS&J conducted a high-resolution geophysical Delivery Point Project, Queens County, New York survey off Queens County, New York, that located no (PBS&J 2009) potentially historic sites. Archaeological Resource Survey and Cultural In 2010, RCGA, conducted an archaeological and Resources Assessment for the Liberty Natural Gas, cultural resources survey and analysis of the proposed LLC Deepwater Port, Pipeline Corridor and Anchor Liberty Natural Gas, LLC Deepwater Port, offshore Handling Areas, New Jersey State Waters (RCGA pipeline, and anchor handling areas in New Jersey state 2010) waters. While the survey identified 66 targets with characteristics of potentially significant shipwrecks, they are not located in the study area. Target Investigations in Connection with the New In 2002, Panamerican Consultants, Inc. conducted an York and New Jersey Harbor Navigation Project, underwater archaeological investigation for a proposed Upper and Lower Bay, Port of New York and New widening and deepening of many channels in the Port of Jersey (PANAM 2002) New York and New Jersey. Remote Sensing Survey of Portions of Ambrose In 2008, Panamerican Consultants, Inc. conducted a Channel and Sandy Hook Pilot Area in Connection maritime remote-sensing survey for the USACE, New with the New York and New Jersey Harbor York District, of their proposed dredging areas of the Navigation Study, King and Richmond Counties, New Ambrose Channel and select locations of the Sandy York (PANAM 2008) Hook Pilot Area (Lydecker and James 2009). No anomalies were determined to represent potentially significant resources.
Background research also included a review of descriptive hydrographic survey reports prepared for NOAA and sourced from NCEI, which maintains the National Ocean Service Hydrographic Database and Hydrographic Survey Meta Database (Table 4.6-2) (USOCS n.d.). The findings of each hydrographic report were compared with existing charted items (wrecks, obstructions, and features) to determine whether the reported descriptions accurately identified the item.
4-24 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 4.6-2 Hydrographic Survey Reports Reviewed for Comparison of Charted Items
Date Report No. Commanding Officer Report Title 1982 H-10031 R. K. Matsushige Descriptive Report: Hydrographic Survey: New Jersey: Vicinity of Sandy Hook: Flynns Knoll to Old Orchard Shoal 1982 H-10035 R. K. Matsushige Descriptive Report: Hydrographic Survey: New Jersey: Vicinity of Sandy Hook: False Hook 1996-97 H-10675 David A. Cole Descriptive Report: Hydrographic/Side Scan Sonar: New York-New Jersey: Lower Bay: Vicinity of Sandy Hook 1997 H-10668 S. P. DeBow Descriptive Report: Hydrographic/Side Scan Sonar: New York, North Atlantic Ocean, 5 NM SE of Rockaway Point 2006 H-11601 Raymond C. Slagle Descriptive Report: New York: New York Harbor: Lower Bay to Rockaway Inlet 2007 H-11709 Todd Schattgen Descriptive Report: New York-New Jersey: New York Harbor and Approaches, New York and New Jersey 2009 H-11710 Shepherd M. Smith Descriptive Report: New York: New York Harbor and Approaches: Rockaway Beach: Rockaway Point to Silver Point Source: USOCS n.d.
A thorough review of the site characteristics within the Project area was also undertaken to understand how past and present geologic processes have shaped the Project area’s geomorphology. Information on plate tectonics, volcanism, seismicity, underlying stratigraphy, glaciation, regional isostasy, fluvial sediment input, erosion, and oceanographic influences on the site (currents, waves, tides, storms) all provide details on the forces that formed the site geology in the past and are continuing to affect the Project area. Of particular interest are the conditions affecting the Project area since the time of earliest human occupation of the region, approximately 12,500 to 15,000 years ago. At that point in time, sea level was approximately 230 feet below the current MLLW.
A paleo-geographic reconstruction of the area was performed to assess how much of the Project area was exposed as subaerial land versus submerged by the sea. This modeled reconstruction used established topographic and bathymetric datasets defining the coastal relief of the area (NOAA’s coastal relief database combined with Project-specific bathymetry in the survey corridor) along with the most accepted relative sea level curves for the region. The results identified the portions of the Project area that were subaerially exposed over the last 14,000 years and thus available for prehistoric habitation. Due to the shallow depth of water covering most of
4-25 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
the preferred route, the majority of the Project area was dry land until approximately 5,000 years ago, except for the Hudson River and, possibly, the Raritan River channels. Significant reworking of the seabed is apparent in this section, as it was exposed to sedimentary discharge from the Hudson River. This influx of debris extended from the New York Bight and Chapel Hill Channel to the north along Sandy Hook, and continued eastward.
Background research and the reconstruction modeling were used to delineate locations within the Project area where the potential is higher for the occurrence of preserved prehistoric remains as well as areas that were subjected to the effects of the Holocene marine transgression. The subsequent review of geophysical and geotechnical data focused on these locations within the Project APE. (The offshore survey is complete. The results will be submitted in a supplemental filing in the 2nd quarter of 2017.)
Architectural Review The Project area is in the vicinity of four NRHP-listed sites, all of which are in New Jersey. Construction began within the Fort Hancock and Sandy Hook Proving Grounds Historic District in 1874. The district was listed on the NRHP in 1980 because of its significance as an early coastal defense fort and as the site of the first disappearing (retractable) gun battery. The Old Orchard Shoal Light Station was built in 1893 in Raritan Bay off Staten Island, New York. The station was blown off its foundation in 2012 by the high winds associated with Hurricane Sandy, but the base of the structure could persist as a submerged archaeological resource. The light station had been listed on the NRHP in 2006. The Great Beds Light Station was built in 1880 and lies in Raritan Bay in South Amboy, Middlesex County, New Jersey. Classified as a “sparkplug lighthouse4” due to its shape, the structure has become the symbol for the city of South Amboy. It was added to the New Jersey Register of Historic Places and the NRHP in 2008. Also classified as a “sparkplug lighthouse” is the Romer Shoal Light Station, which was built in 1898 in Lower New York Bay, on the north edge of the Swash Channel, about 0.75 nautical mile south of the Ambrose Channel and 2.5 nautical miles north of Sandy Hook, New Jersey, at the entrance to New York Harbor. The shoal was named for the pilot boat the William J. Romer, which foundered there in 1863. The
4 Sparkplug lighthouses are cast iron structures built at offshore locations. The keeper's quarters is a round building, usually three stories in height. The round lantern room sits atop the keeper's quarters, and the whole structure rests on a solid foundation, usually a concrete or stone caisson. Sparkplugs were prefabricated, brought to the site by barge, and put in place by floating cranes. They were a low-cost solution to the problem of providing offshore lighthouses in the sounds and bays of the northeastern and mid-Atlantic states.
4-26 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
light station was listed on the NRHP in 2007 (NJDEP n.d.). (The offshore survey is complete. The results will be submitted in a supplemental filing in the 2nd quarter of 2017.)
4.6.2 Newly Identified Cultural Resources
4.6.2.1 Onshore Facilities
4.6.2.1.1 Pennsylvania
Quarryville Loop
Archaeological Survey One isolated prehistoric artifact (Non-site 36LA218) and 14 historic artifacts from three shovel tests (Site 36LA1600) were recovered. The isolated prehistoric artifact appears to indicate the site was utilized by Native Americans for only a short period of time. Due to its isolation, find 36LA/218 does not possess the potential to address significant research issues. The isolated find does not possess those qualities of significance and integrity defined in the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]), and thus, is not eligible for listing in the NRHP as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(l). Therefore, no further work is recommended for the isolated find location.
Site 36LA1600 appears to represent an early nineteenth century domestic refuse scatter. The presence of the pearlware fragments suggest that the site may possess those qualities of significance and integrity defined in the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [a- d]). Avoidance or Phase II archaeological evaluation to further assess the archaeological integrity and research potential of the site and to evaluate its eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP has been recommended. The site is located no closer than 105 feet from the centerline of the Quarryville Loop. Therefore, workspaces for the proposed Project have been configured to avoid impacting the site. Transco proposes to fence off the site with temporary fencing at a buffer of 16.4 feet from the site boundary during construction. Due to these avoidance measures, no further archaeological investigation is warranted or recommended.
No other historic properties, as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(l), will be affected by this portion of the Project. Additionally, no further archaeological investigations are warranted or recommended in this portion of the Project. On November 17, 2016, the Pennsylvania SHPO concurred with all procedures, findings, and recommendations associated with this cultural resources assessment (see Attachment 7 to Volume 4).
4-27 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Geoarchaeological Assessment The geoarchaeological assessment of the Quarryville Loop identified very little alluvial land traversed by the proposed Project area, with the majority of the landscape comprised of gently rolling uplands. The alluvial landforms identified within the Project area are all adjacent to first- and second-order streams. These small, potentially seasonal streams carry very little water, and therefore very little sediment. As a result, overbank flooding and deposition, and subsequent burial of cultural deposits is rare along these low-order drainages. Cultural deposits, if present, would likely be contained within the upper portion of the soil profile, well within the excavation range of typical Phase I shovel testing. In addition, the majority of the alluvial landforms are, at minimum, somewhat poorly drained, which suggests they were not ideal locations for prehistoric occupation. The results of the review indicate it is unlikely that any deeply buried cultural deposits would exist beyond the depth of Phase I shovel testing in the Project area. Therefore, Transco conducted no deep testing in conjunction with surveys for the Quarryville Loop.
Architectural Survey No impacts to historic architectural resources or sensitive viewshed were identified within the APE associated with the Quarryville Loop (see Appendix 4D1).
Compressor Station 200
Archaeological Survey No artifacts were recovered and no archaeological sites were identified within the survey area associated with Compressor Station 200 (see Appendix 4D).
Geoarchaeological Assessment Based on the geoarchaeological review of the Compressor Station 200 APE, no locations were likely to contain deeply buried alluvial deposits due to factors such as poor drainage, weakly developed soils, and level of disturbance. As a result, no deep testing was conducted at Compressor Station 200.
Architectural Survey This discussion focuses on the analysis of direct and indirect effects of proposed aboveground Project construction on adjacent cultural resources. Although not considered a historic resource, Compressor Station 200 was originally built in 1949 and gradually modified over the years to serve Transco’s growing needs. Compressor Building A was originally constructed to house six compressors and subsequently has been expanded. Compressor Building B, located
4-28 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
east of Building A, was constructed before 1968. Pipelines, scrubbers, launchers/receivers, and smaller regulation buildings occupy the area north of the compressor buildings. Administration and warehouse buildings and such structures as gas and oil lube coolers are located south of the two compressor buildings. The south section of the Transco property also contains a communications building with a guy-wired communications tower approximately 540 feet tall. The compressor station is set back from North Bacton Hill Road and is accessed by a tree-lined driveway. The expansion of the compressor station will comprise the construction of one new compressor building to house an electric compressor and several smaller support buildings and structures The new structures are planned to be constructed in the open area east of Building B and west of North Bacton Hill Road. This area currently is planted with grasses. An existing road is located east of the construction site and will be used by Transco to access the site. No historic properties are located within the Project APE at Compressor Station 200 (see Appendix 4D2).
The architectural survey indicates that the potential visibility of the proposed new construction will be limited to an area less than originally proposed 0.5 mile radius of the direct APE due to rolling topography and existing tree cover. The current visibility of the existing Compressor Station 200 suggests that the new compressor building will not increase the overall visibility of the facility beyond its current viewshed. Seven existing historic properties that have been previously determined eligible for listing on the NRHP were identified within 0.5 mile of Compressor Station 200; none of these resources will be affected by the Project. One previously unrecorded historic site, the Philadelphia Memorial Park Cemetery, was identified within the study area. This site will remain unaffected by the proposed expansion of Compressor Station 200 due to an intervening tree line.
In summary, no built resources 50 years of age or older in the area will have views to the proposed new construction at the Compressor Station 200. No further architectural investigations for the proposed new construction at Compressor Station 200 are recommended (see Appendix 4D2).
4.6.2.1.2 New Jersey
Madison Loop and Onshore Raritan Bay Loop
Archaeological Survey Archaeologists relocated Site 28-MI-169; at this time, the site was delineated through 16.4-foot interval shovel testing. Within the survey corridor, the site measures 14,800.4 square
4-29 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
feet and is defined by a scattering of historic and prehistoric artifacts and a buried 4.43-foot- diameter well (see Appendix 4E).
The current investigations at Site 28-MI-169 yielded no information to contradict the earlier multicomponent determination, as signs of Middle to Late Woodland remains lie in situ with those from the historic period. Despite the lack of temporally diagnostic artifacts, the presence of a buried well suggests that some integrity may persist. Therefore, this portion of site possesses sufficient research potential to yield information important in history (Criterion D). As a result, Site 28-MI-169 appears to retain the levels of significance and integrity defined in the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]) and represents an historic property as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(l).
The current Project scope indicates that direct impacts on Site 28-MI-169 will be avoided by using a horizontal directional drill (HDD) to install the pipeline in this area which will extend approximately 70 to 90 feet below the present surface elevation. Under these conditions, archaeologists have determined that no further archaeological investigations are warranted or recommended, although an archaeological monitor should be present during drilling operations in the event an inadvertent release of drilling fluid were to occur within the site boundaries (see Appendix 4E).
Geoarchaeological Assessment Based on the geoarchaeological assessment of the Madison Loop and onshore Raritan Bay Loop, no locations were likely to contain deeply buried alluvial deposits due to a combination of factors, including poor drainage, weakly developed soils, and level of disturbance. Therefore, no deep testing was conducted.
Architectural Survey In November 2016, Transco‘s archaeological consultant undertook architectural investigations. The survey area included 3.43 miles of the Madison Loop, and included access roads and associated aboveground facility. The architectural investigations also included the 0.16-mile onshore section of the onshore Raritan Bay Loop that is to be installed using HDD. Both pipeline loops are to be placed adjacent to existing pipeline ROW.
Through comprehensive research and analysis, the cultural resources investigation has concluded that the construction of the Madison and onshore Raritan Bay Loops will result in no direct impacts to built resources 50 years of age or older. The Madison Loop will cross under two NRHP-eligible resources: the Garden State Parkway and the Old Spye Road. In these two cases,
4-30 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
the pipeline loop will be installed through the conventional bore method that will result in no direct surface impacts to these two resources. The Raritan Bay Loop will cross under one National Register-eligible resource: the New York and Long Branch Railroad. The Raritan Bay Loop will be installed under this resource through HDD and will result in no direct impacts to this resource. No other built resources 50 years of age or older were located within the survey corridor, access roads, or contractor yards for the aforementioned pipeline loops. Thus, no direct impacts to historic properties will occur as a result of the construction of the pipeline loops (see Appendix 4E).
A new mainline valve is planned at the eastern end of the Madison Loop on the south side of State Route 35. Due to the urban setting of the area, views to the proposed facility were confined to four buildings identified as 50 years of age or older. These four resources were evaluated applying the Criteria for Evaluation for the NRHP. None of these built resources exhibit significance for their physical design or construction under National Register Criterion C. They do not appear to be associated with a significant local context under National Register Criterion A, or with significant persons in the past under National Register Criterion B. Therefore, the four built resources do not possess those qualities of significance and integrity defined in the National Register of Historic Places Criteria for Evaluation and the NHPA.
Modifications will occur to the existing aboveground valve site located near MP 8.57 near the west end of Madison Loop; this area was developed after 1969. As such, no built resources 50 years of age or older were identified within the viewshed of this existing facility (see Appendix 4E).
Compressor Station 206
Archaeological Survey One newly identified site, Site 28-SO-166, was located during the testing of the proposed Compressor Station 206 APE. This site includes surface structural remains, surface refuse, and locations of culturally positive shovel tests. The structural remains include a partially collapsed domestic building and a series of concrete footers encompassing an area measuring 9.8 feet by 23 feet. A total of 88 shovel tests were excavated at intervals of 32.8 feet within an approximately 328- by 328-foot area around the structural remains.
The twentieth century date of the site, the limited amount of cultural material recovered, and the absence of evidence for intact deposits suggest that the site does not possess sufficient research potential to yield information important in history (Criterion D). As such, the
4-31 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
archaeologists determined that Site 28-SO-166 does not possess those qualities of significance and integrity defined in the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]) and does not rep- resent a historic property as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(l). Therefore, no further archaeological investigation is recommended (see Appendix 4E1).
Architectural Survey A ruined domestic building (Site 28-SO-166) dating from ca. 1920 was identified. Both architectural and archeological investigations were conducted for the house ruin and its associated parcel. The site was analyzed applying the National Register Criteria for Evaluation for significance and integrity. Upon inspection the house ruin has been determined to be quite disarticulated and no longer exhibits integrity of its original design, materials, or workmanship; the remains were determined to have no significance under National Register Criterion C. The site of an early twentieth century farm, the parcel no longer retains outbuildings or fields to illustrate its use for agricultural practices, which would have applied to National Register Criterion A. The persons associated with this parcel do not appear to be significant in New Jersey history to qualify for National Register Criterion B. The twentieth-century date of the site, the limited amount of cultural material recovered, and the absence of evidence for intact deposits suggest that the site does not possess sufficient research potential to yield information important in history (Criterion D). As such, Site 28-SO-166 does not possess those qualities of significance and integrity defined in the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation, and does not represent an historic property, as defined by the NHPA.
The indirect APE for visual effects around the Compressor Station 206 parcel initially was proposed as a 0.5-mile radius from the parcel boundaries. However, field studies revealed that the visibility to the proposed compressor station will be limited due to proposed tree buffers that will be retained around the new station and existing tree cover on adjoining parcels that lie outside the Project area. Large areas surrounding Compressor Station 206 currently are devoid of built resources. The built resources within the initial 0.5-mile radius were confined to areas along the two major transportation corridors in the area: County Route 518 or State Route 27.
Three properties were identified with potential views to Compressor Station 206 along County Road 518. Two of the properties were analyzed applying the National Register Criteria for Evaluation for significance and integrity (36 CFR 60.4[a-d]). The properties do not exhibit significance for their physical design or construction under National Register Criterion C. The properties do not appear to be associated with a significant local context, such as agriculture, under National Register Criterion A, or with significant persons in the past under National Register
4-32 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Criterion B. Therefore, these two properties do not possess those qualities of significance and integrity defined in the NRHP. No architectural survey was permitted on the third property, but a review of the tax records and historic aerial maps indicates that no built resources older than 50 years are located on the property.
The potential views to Compressor Station 206 from the buildings located along State Route 27 also were analyzed. The buildings on the west side of the road face east-southeast and have no direct view toward the proposed Compressor Station 206 parcel. The parcels behind the buildings along the west side of State Route 27 typically are densely wooded. These wooded areas in addition to the wooded buffer that will be retained on the Compressor Station 206 parcel will block views of the compressor station from the rear elevations of the buildings located on the west side of State Route 27. Buildings sited on the east side of State Route 27 also will have no view to the compressor station due to the intervening tree cover. Therefore, no built resources 50 years of age or older were identified along State Route 27 with views to the proposed Compressor Station 206.
The twentieth century date of the site, the limited amount of cultural material recovered, and the absence of evidence for intact deposits suggest that the site does not possess sufficient research potential to yield information important in history (Criterion D). As such, the archaeologists determined that Site 28-SO-166 does not possess those qualities of significance and integrity defined in the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]) and does not rep- resent a historic property as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(l). Therefore, no further archaeological investigation is recommended (see Appendix 4E2).
Geoarchaeological Assessment Based on the geoarchaeological assessment of the Compressor Station 206 APE, the location is not likely to contain deeply buried alluvial deposits due to a combination of factors, including poor drainage, weakly developed soils, and level of previous disturbance. Therefore, no deep testing was conducted.
The archaeological and architectural survey reports are currently under review by the NJ HPO. Once comments have been received, any updates or recommendations will be submitted to the FERC as a supplemental attachment.
In conclusion, the onshore cultural resource investigations identified five prehistoric and/or historically significant onshore sites. Of these, two are considered not eligible for listing on the
4-33 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
NRHP, while two are identified as potentially eligible. Only one site is considered eligible for listing on the NRHP (see Table 4.6-3).
Table 4.6-3 Newly Identified Onshore Cultural Resource Sites for the Project
Resource NRHP Facility County Cultural Affiliation Name/Number Recommendation Pennsylvania Quarryville Loop 36LA1600 Lancaster Historic-Early 19th Potentially Century Domestic Eligible/Avoidance Recommended 36LA218 Lancaster Prehistoric/Isolate Not Eligible Compressor Philadelphia Memorial Chester Historic Cemetery Eligible Station 200 Park Cemetery New Jersey Madison Loop N/A Middlesex N/A N/A Raritan Bay Loop 28-MI-169 Middlesex Prehistoric Woodland Potentially Period/Historic Eligible/Avoidance Domestic Recommended Compressor 28-SO166 Somerset Early 20th Century Not Eligible Station 206 Farmstead Ruin
4.6.2.2 Offshore Facilities
New Jersey and New York
Raritan Bay Loop For the offshore section of the Raritan Bay Loop geophysical surveys were required to assess bottom and subbottom conditions for the presence of submerged cultural resource sites. Remote sensing equipment was used by a survey vessel to pinpoint potential targets such as shipwrecks and submerged paleo landforms. Deep bore and vibracoring samples were used to conduct geoarchaeological assessments of subbottom soil deposits and determine the presence or absence of cultural remains. During these operations an unanticipated discovery was made at vibracore location 60; although discovered just below the present mudline, the material was cataloged and transferred back to the lab for a thorough archaeological assessment. The findings associated with this activity are highlighted below.
Archaeological Assessment The geophysical survey data, including the sub-bottom and seismic datasets, were processed following collection. Following processing, the results underwent analysis for cultural resources. Individual anomalies were examined carefully during the data analyses. An inventory
4-34 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
of magnetic anomalies was compiled (see Appendix 4B, Table 4B-1), and the profile of each was characterized in terms of signature, amplitude, and duration. Particular attention was paid to magnetic anomalies that indicated areas of high density; anomalies exhibiting complex magnetic signatures; clusters of anomalies; and anomalies of unusually high amplitude and duration that were recorded on multiple transects; these anomalies were plotted on a magnetic contour map. The contour map data assisted in visualizing and correlating anomaly characteristics (distribution and amplitude) and the relationship between paired anomalies on adjacent track lines.
The side-scan sonar data along each parallel track line was analyzed in order to identify anomalies with the potential to represent areas that contain significant submerged cultural resources. Magnetic contours, anomaly locations, shipwreck positions, archaeological site and pipeline locations, and side-scan sonar data were projected over navigational charts using Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI) ArcGIS software to establish relationships between these datasets and to identify targets with the potential to represent submerged cultural resources along the Project centerline and adjacent anchor handling areas. (The offshore survey is complete. The results will be submitted in a supplemental in the 2nd quarter of 2017.)
Centerline Corridor The following sections describe the results of the initial geophysical surveys. Based on the results of the initial geophysical surveys, 13 potential targets were identified in eight blocks (Blocks 02, 03, 09, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 17) along the Project centerline. Each of these are discussed below. In addition, Transco conducted additional geophysical investigations within each of these eight blocks to collect additional information related to the presence of magnetic and sonar targets to better evaluate the cultural aspects of these targets. In New York waters, seven targets were identified on or adjacent to the centerline; in New Jersey waters, six targets were identified. Additional details regarding target characteristics are provided below. (Offshore surveys are complete. The results will be provided in a supplemental filing in the 2nd quarter of 2017.)
Block 02
Target BL02-001 Target BL02-001 contains two magnetic anomalies (BLOCK02-S03-005 and BLOCK02- S07-015) and two related side-scan sonar contacts (SS-BL02-S03_2 and SS-BL02-WRECK_1). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK02-S03-005 exhibits high amplitude (2,405 nanotesla [nT]), short duration (49 feet), and a simple, monopolar signature. It was recorded with a tow-fish sensor
4-35 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
(sensor) height of 3 feet above the seafloor5. Magnetic anomaly BLOCK02-S07-015 exhibits high amplitude (2,821 nT), medium duration (56 feet), and a simple, monopolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 3 feet above the seafloor. Sonar contact SS-BL02-S03_2 depicts a confirmed shipwreck measuring 94.4 by 22.1 feet, with 2.1 feet of relief. Sonar contact SS- BL02-WRECK_1 depicts a shipwreck measuring 27.9 by 12.0 feet, with 4.5 feet of relief. This sonar contact’s extant dimensions and the results of spatial magnetic analyses indicate the wreck is disarticulated and its ferrous components are largely buried.
Target BL02-002 Target BL02-002 contains one magnetic anomaly (RCG_BLK_02_1). Magnetic anomaly RCG_BLK_02_1 exhibits high amplitude (165 nT), medium duration (47 feet) and a simple, dipolar signature. No side-scan sonar contact was identified in conjunction with this anomaly. The results of magnetic and spatial analyses indicate this anomaly may represent a potential cultural resource.
Block 03
Target BL03-001 Target BL03-001 contains one magnetic anomaly (BLOCK03-N07-001) and one related side-scan sonar contact (SS-BL03-N08_1). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK03-N07-001 exhibits high amplitude (188 nT), medium duration (79 feet), and a simple, monopolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 10 feet above the seafloor. Although BLOCK03-N07-001 exhibited a simple monopolar signature in profile, its magnetic contours present an unbalanced, dipolar signature. Sonar contact SS-BL03-N08_1 depicts a possible debris field measuring 93.3 feet by 32.2 feet, with less than 1 foot of relief. This sonar contact’s extant dimensions and the results of spatial and magnetic analyses indicate it may represent a potential cultural resource. The limited magnetic data could be interpreted as representing a historic shipwreck because the ferrous components have degraded over time.
5 In order to optimize the size of a target, it is desirable to tow the magnetometer tow-fish as close to the seafloor as possible and to use small trackline spacing. Within 6 meters is considered to be an reasonably optimal height. What is reasonable depends on the nature of the seafloor, the prevailing sea conditions, and the judgment of the operator.
4-36 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Block 09
Target BL09-001 Target BL09-001 contains two magnetic anomalies (BLOCK09-N02-003 and BLOCK09- N02-004) and one related side-scan sonar contact (SS-BL09-N03_2). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK09-N02-003 exhibits low amplitude (33 nT), medium duration (128 feet), and a simple, monopolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 48 feet above the seafloor. Magnetic anomaly BLOCK09-N02-004 exhibits low amplitude (36 nT), medium duration (137 feet), and a simple, monopolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 46 feet above the seafloor. Sonar contact SS-BL09-N03_2 depicts a possible small craft measuring 18.9 feet by 6.2 feet, with 2.2 feet of relief. This sonar contact’s dimensions and the results of spatial and magnetic analyses indicate a potential sunken craft.
Block 11
Target BL11-001 Target BL11-001 contains one magnetic anomaly (BLOCK11-N06-003). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK11-N06-003 exhibits high amplitude (462 nT), medium duration (153 feet), and a simple, dipolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 18 feet above the seafloor. No side-scan sonar contact was identified in conjunction with this anomaly. The results of magnetic and spatial analyses indicate this anomaly may represent a potential cultural resource.
Target BL11-002 Target BL11-002 contains one magnetic anomaly (BLOCK11-N03-001) and one related side-scan sonar contact (SS-RCG-BL11-1). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK11-N03-001 exhibits medium amplitude (60 nT), medium duration (88 feet), and a simple, monopolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 21 feet above the seafloor. Sonar contact SS-RCG-BL11-1 depicts a possible small boat measuring 33.9 feet by 9.4 feet, with at least 1 foot of relief. Objects from shipwrecks often become buried over time. The sonar contact’s dimensions and the results of spatial and magnetic analyses indicate a potential cultural resource.
Block 12
Target BL12-002 Target BL12-002 contains one magnetic anomaly (BLOCK12-S02-001). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK12-S02-001 exhibits medium amplitude (89 nT), medium duration (161 feet), and a simple, monopolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 37 feet above the seafloor.
4-37 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
No side-scan sonar contact was identified in conjunction with this anomaly. The results of magnetic and spatial analyses indicate this anomaly may represent a potential cultural resource due to its amplitude and duration.
Block 13
Target BL13-001 Target BL13-001 contains one magnetic anomaly (BLOCK13-S22-012). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK13-S22-012 exhibits high amplitude (167 nT), medium duration (36 feet), and a simple, dipolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 10 feet above the seafloor. No side-scan sonar contact was identified in conjunction with this anomaly. The results of magnetic and spatial analyses indicate this anomaly may represent a potential cultural resource.
Block 14
Target B14-002 Target B14-002 contains one magnetic anomaly (BLOCK14-S02-003) and one related side-scan sonar contact (SS-BL14-S02_7). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK14-S02-003 exhibits high amplitude (999 nT), medium duration (166 feet), and a complex, multi-component signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 6 feet above the seafloor. Sonar contact SS-BL14-S02_7 depicts a possible barge measuring 121.8 feet by 46 feet, with 2.2 feet of relief. The sonar contact’s dimensions and the results of spatial and magnetic analyses indicate the wreckage is mostly buried but not disarticulated.
Target B14-003 Target B14-003 contains one magnetic anomaly (BLOCK14-N01-001). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK14-N01-001 exhibits high amplitude (285 nT), medium duration (68 feet), and a simple, dipolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 9 feet above the seafloor. The results of magnetic contour analyses indicate that this anomaly may represent a potential cultural resource.
Block 17
Target BL17-001 Target BL17-001 contains two magnetic anomalies (BLOCK17-N05-003 and BLOCK17- N05-004). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK17-N05-003 exhibits high amplitude (385 nT), medium duration (81 feet), and a complex, multiple-component signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 9 feet above the seafloor. Magnetic anomaly BLOCK17-N05-004 exhibits high
4-38 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
amplitude (4,920 nT), low duration (47 feet), and a dipolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 9 feet above the seafloor. While no side-scan sonar contact is associated with either magnetic anomaly, shipwrecks often become disarticulated and submerged beneath the seafloor. Clusters of magnetic anomalies of this amplitude and duration may represent characteristics associated with buried shipwrecks and merits additional evaluation.
Target BL17-002 Target BL17-002 contains two magnetic anomalies (BLOCK17-N06-001 and BLOCK17- N07-001). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK17-N06-001 exhibits low amplitude (18 nT), low duration (47 feet), and a simple, monopolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 9 feet above the seafloor. Magnetic anomaly BLOCK17-N07-001 exhibits high amplitude (1,181 nT), medium duration (59 feet), and a dipolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 6 feet above the seafloor. No side-scan sonar contact was identified in conjunction with this target; however, shipwrecks often become disarticulated and submerged beneath the seafloor. The high amplitude and duration of anomaly BLOCK17-N07-001 is indicative of a potential cultural resource.
Target BL17-003 Target BL17-003 contains one magnetic anomaly (BLOCK17-N02-003). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK17-N02-003 exhibits high amplitude (802 nT), medium duration (76 feet), and a simple, dipolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 10 feet above the seafloor. No side-scan sonar contact was identified in conjunction with this magnetic anomaly, the size of the magnetic anomaly merits additional evaluation.
Anchor Handling Area The anchor handling area exists outside the construction corridor and serves to provide the necessary space for the placement of an anchor array needed to stabilize the towing vessel that is required for trench excavation and pipe-laying procedures. The proposed pipeline installation method first involves positioning and stabilizing the pipe lay vessel on location over the pipeline to maximize the pulling force on the jet sled while retaining control of the vessel, and then setting the jet sled on the seafloor over the pipeline route. Once the jet sled is in place, the towing vessel moves along the pipeline route, pulling on bow anchor lines and releasing stern anchor lines for predetermined distance. As the towing vessel moves forward, anchor handling tugs repeatedly move the anchors ahead of the towing vessel. The tugs sequentially raise and
4-39 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
lower the anchors at locations on the seafloor parallel to the construction corridor while avoiding identified submerged cultural resources by staying outside predetermined buffers.
Six survey blocks (Blocks 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 17) within the Project area were subjected to assessment due to the presence of magnetic and sonar targets that exhibited qualities indicative of submerged cultural resource sites. Within these six blocks, 19 targets were identified; 14 of these were in New York waters and 5 were in New Jersey waters. Additional details regarding target characteristics are provided below. Transco anticipates developing and adhering to SHPO approved buffers around each of these targets (see Attachment 7 to Volume 4). (Offshore surveys are complete. The results will be provided in a supplemental filing in the 2nd quarter of 2017.)
Block 10
Target BL10-001 Target BL10-001 contains one magnetic anomaly (RCG_BLK_10_1) and one related side- scan sonar contact (SS-BL10-N14_5). Magnetic anomaly RCG_BLK_10_1 exhibits high amplitude (1,700 nT), medium duration (115 feet), and a simple, dipolar signature. Sonar contact SS-BL10-N14_5 depicts a debris field measuring 23.0 feet by 4.5 feet, with at least 2 feet of relief. However, an adjacent sonar contact indicates that the debris extends approximately 67.4 feet to the north-northwest. The sonar contact’s dimensions and the results of spatial and magnetic analyses indicate a potential cultural resource.
Block 11
Target BL11-003 Target BL11-003 contains one magnetic anomaly (BLOCK11-N19-005) and one related side-scan sonar contact (SS-BL11-N20_1). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK11-N19-005 exhibits low amplitude (18 nT), medium duration (159 feet), and a simple, monopolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 19feet above the seafloor. Sonar contact SS-BL11-N20_1 depicts an unidentified object measuring 51.5 feet by 25.1 feet, with 2.2 feet of relief. The sonar contact’s dimensions and the results of spatial and magnetic analyses indicate a potential cultural resource.
Target BL11-004 Target BL11-004 contains one magnetic anomaly (BLOCK11-S10-001) and one related side-scan sonar contact (SS-RCG-BL11-4). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK11-S10-001 exhibits high
4-40 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
amplitude (335 nT), medium duration (82 feet), and a simple, dipolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 24 feet above the seafloor. Sonar contact SS-RCG-BL11-4 depicts linear debris measuring 66.5 feet by 6.5 feet, with little to no relief. The sonar contact’s dimensions and the results of spatial and magnetic analyses indicate these two anomalies together may represent a potential cultural resource that is primarily buried.
Block 12
Target BL12-001 Target BL12-001 contains one magnetic anomaly (BLOCK12-S17-002) and one related side-scan sonar contact (SS-BL12-S17_2). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK12-S17-002 exhibits medium amplitude (72 nT), medium duration (109 feet), and a simple, dipolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 8 feet above the seafloor. Sonar contact SS-BL12-S17_2 measures 16.2 feet by 9.4 feet, with 1.6 feet of relief. The anomaly depicts debris, rocks, or other material, which could represent a shipwreck’s ballast. The sonar contact’s image and the results of spatial and magnetic analyses indicate a potential cultural resource.
Block 14
Target BL14-001. Target BL14-001 contains one magnetic anomaly (BLOCK14-S04-005). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK14-S04-005 exhibits high amplitude (771 nT), medium duration (48 feet), and a simple, monopolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 6 feet above the seafloor. No side-scan sonar anomalies were identified in conjunction with this target. The results of magnetic contour analyses and the anomaly’s high amplitude indicate this may represent a potential cultural resource.
Target BL14-004 Target BL014-004 contains one magnetic anomaly (BLOCK14-S03-003) and one related side-scan sonar contact (SS-BL14-S02_6). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK14-S03-003 exhibits high amplitude (729 nT), medium duration (42 feet), and a simple, monopolar signature in profile; however, the contour data indicate a complex, multicomponent source. It was recorded with a sensor height of 6 feet above the seafloor. Sonar contact SS-BL14-S02_6 depicts linear objects and debris in an area measuring 29.9 feet by 7.6 feet, with 2.3 feet relief, which may represent a shipwreck. The sonar contact’s dimensions and the results of magnetic contour analyses indicate the wreckage is disarticulated.
4-41 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Target BL14-005. Target BL14-005 contains one magnetic anomaly (BLOCK14-S04-001). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK14-S04-001 exhibits high amplitude (681 nT), medium duration (137 feet), and a simple, dipolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 6 feet above the seafloor. No side-scan sonar contacts were identified in conjunction with this target. The results of magnetic contour analyses and the high amplitude indicate this anomaly may represent a potential cultural resource.
Target BL14-006 Target BL14-006 contains one magnetic anomaly (BLOCK14-S17-002). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK14-S17-002 exhibits high amplitude (591 nT), medium duration (87 feet), and a simple, dipolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 10 feet above the seafloor. No side-scan sonar contacts were identified in conjunction with this target. The magnetic contour analyses and high amplitude indicate this anomaly may represent a potential cultural resource.
Target BL14-007 Target BL14-007 contains one magnetic anomaly (BLOCK14-S23-001). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK14-S23-001 exhibits high amplitude (581 nT), medium duration (112 feet), and a simple, dipolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 10.0 feet. No side-scan sonar contacts could be associated with this target. The results of magnetic contour analyses indicate that this anomaly may represent a potential cultural resource.
Target BL14-008 Target BL14-008 contains one magnetic anomaly (BLOCK14-S12-004). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK14-S12-004 exhibits high amplitude (575 nT), medium duration (66 feet), and a simple, monopolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 12.0 feet. No side-scan sonar contacts were identified in conjunction with this target. This target correlated to an obstruction plotted on NOAA Chart No. 12327-1 (NOAA 2017). The high amplitude, location at a charted obstruction, and the results of magnetic contour analyses indicate this anomaly may represent a potential cultural resource.
Target BL14-009 Target BL14-009 contains one magnetic anomaly (BLOCK14-S16-002). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK14-S16-002 exhibits high amplitude (322 nT), medium duration (65 feet), and a simple, dipolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 15.0 feet. No side-scan sonar
4-42 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
contacts were identified in conjunction with this target. The high amplitude and the results of magnetic contour analyses indicate that this anomaly may represent a potential cultural resource.
Target BL14-010 Target BL14-010 contains two magnetic anomalies (BLOCK14-S08-003 and BLOCK14- S09-004) and one related side-scan sonar contact (SS-BL14-S08_1). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK14-S08-003 exhibits medium amplitude (60 nT), medium duration (81 feet), and a simple, dipolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 8.0 feet above the seafloor. Magnetic anomaly BLOCK14-S09-004 exhibits high amplitude (105 nT), long duration (328 feet), and a simple, monopolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 9.0 feet. Sonar contact SS- BL14-S08_1 depicts riprap around the base of the Old Orchard Lighthouse. The sonar contact’s imagery and the results of spatial and magnetic analyses indicate these three anomalies together represent the basal structure of the Old Orchard Lighthouse.
Target BL14-011 Target BL14-011 contains one side scan sonar contact (SS-BL14-S05_4). Sonar contact SS-BL14-S05_4 depicts two linear and two curvilinear objects measuring 75 feet by 31 feet, with 0.5 feet of relief. The sonar contact’s imagery is indicative of a shipwreck, and the lack of corresponding magnetic data suggest that the wreck is largely wooden, with little ferrous material.
Block 16
Target BL16-001 Target BL16-001 contains two magnetic anomalies (BLOCK16-S17-006 and BLOCK16- S18-004) and one related side-scan sonar contact (SS-BL16-S17_4). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK16-S17-006 exhibits high amplitude (220 nT), short duration (25 feet), and a simple, monopolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 6.0 feet above the seafloor. Magnetic anomaly BLOCK16-S18-004 exhibits high amplitude (1,005 nT), short duration (28 feet), and a simple, dipolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 6.0 feet above the seafloor. Sonar contact SS-BL16-S17_4 depicts a rock mound and rectangular objects measuring 80.7 feet by 16.0 feet, with 5.1 feet of relief. The sonar contact correlates to AWOIS Obstruction 2452 (NOAA 2016); no further information is provided on the obstruction. The sonar contact’s dimensions, the high amplitudes of the magnetic anomalies, and the results of magnetic contour analyses indicate these three anomalies together may represent a potential cultural resource.
4-43 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Target BL16-002 Target BL16-002 contains two magnetic anomalies (BLOCK16-S20-005 and BLOCK16- S21-003). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK16-S20-005 exhibits high amplitude (902 nT), short duration (44 feet), and a simple, dipolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 7.0 feet above the seafloor. Magnetic anomaly BLOCK16-S21-003 exhibits high amplitude (3374 nT), short duration (21 feet), and a simple, dipolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 6.0 feet. No side-scan sonar contacts were identified in conjunction this target in the bottom records. The high amplitudes of the magnetic anomalies and the results of magnetic contour analyses indicate both of these anomalies may represent a potential cultural resource.
Target BL16-003 Target BL16-003 contains two magnetic anomalies (BLOCK16-S18-009 and BLOCK16- S19-002). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK16-S18-009 exhibits medium amplitude (56 nT), medium duration (78 feet), and a simple, dipolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 10.0 feet above the seafloor. Magnetic anomaly BLOCK16-S19-002 exhibits high amplitude (1,874 nT), medium duration (79 feet), and a simple, dipolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 10.0 feet above the seafloor. No side-scan sonar contacts were identified in conjunction with this target in the bottom records. BLOCK16-S19-002’s high amplitude and the results of magnetic contour analyses indicate both of these anomalies may represent a potential cultural resource.
Target BL16-004 Target BL16-004 contains three magnetic anomalies (BLOCK16-N06-001, BLOCK16- N07-003, and BLOCK16-N08-003). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK16-N06-001 exhibits high amplitude (253 nT), long duration (326 feet), and a multiple component signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 5.0 feet above the seafloor. Magnetic anomaly BLOCK16-N07-003 exhibits high amplitude (143 nT), medium duration (110 feet), and a multiple component signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 5.0 feet above the seafloor. Magnetic anomaly BLOCK16-N08-003 exhibits high amplitude (126 nT), medium duration (134 feet), and a simple, monopolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 6.0 feet above the seafloor. The sonar record depicts the riprap surrounding the Romer Shoal Lighthouse, which is noted on NOAA Chart No. 12327_1 (2014). The sonar record, the magnetic anomalies’ high amplitudes, and results of magnetic contour analyses indicate these three anomalies together represent a potential cultural resource.
4-44 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Block 17
Target BL17-004 Target BL017-004 contains three magnetic anomalies (BLOCK17-S03-001, BLOCK17- S04-001, and BLOCK17-S05-001) and one related side-scan sonar contact (SS-BL17-S05_4). Magnetic anomaly BLOCK17-S03-001 exhibits medium amplitude (94 nT), medium duration (86 feet), and a simple, dipolar signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 9 feet above the seafloor. Magnetic anomaly BLOCK17-S04-001 exhibits high amplitude (1,088 nT), medium duration (130 feet), and a complex, multiple component signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 9 feet above the seafloor. Magnetic anomaly BLOCK17-S05-001 exhibits high amplitude (1,084 nT), medium duration (156 feet), and a complex multiple component signature. It was recorded with a sensor height of 8 feet above the seafloor. Sonar contact SS-BL17-S05_4 depicts an oblong debris or rock area measuring 121 feet by 62 feet, with little to no relief, and may represent ship’s ballast with associated linear objects. Target BL17-004 exhibits characteristics of a possible shipwreck.
Target BL17-005 Target BL17-005 contains one side-scan sonar contact (SS-BL17-N17_2). Sonar contact SS-BL17-N17_2 depicts a possible shipwreck measuring 92.0 feet by 26.2 feet, with 5.5 feet of relief. Two strong linear reflectors may indicate structural elements, although the data is inconclusive due to towfish distortion in the bottom record.
Geoarchaeological Assessment To augment the sub-bottom data collected during the geophysical survey, a geoarchaeological analysis was conducted on 17 vibracores from locations in Raritan Bay and the Lower New York Bay. The geoarchaeological analysis focused specifically on evaluating the potential for buried landforms or remnants thereof, and possibly signs of former human occupation when sea level was lower. The analysis served to provide information in support of a paleo- geographic reconstruction that covers the period of the first Native American habitation sites along the coast from approximately 15,000 years ago to recent times. The vibracores were positioned at sites near former waterways that were infilled since the Holocene transgression. These areas included the following:
• The landfall approach, west end of the route;
• On and adjacent to Round Shoal;
4-45 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
• Along the periphery of Old Orchard Shoal;
• On and adjacent to Romer Shoal; and
• Along the margins of the Ambrose Channel.
A detailed geoarchaeological assessment of each section of each vibracore was performed to identify intact paleo-landforms of interest or evidence of human occupation. Once all assessments were completed, half of the core was discarded and the other half was bagged and archived for future review, if necessary. Based on these results, the following preliminary conclusions can be drawn:
• Along much of the route, the subaerial surfaces exposed to the Holocene transgression are not apparent in the geophysical and geotechnical data and appear to be below the anticipated depth of disturbance.
• Where a seismic reflector suggestive of a ravinement surface6 or buried paleo- feature is intact on the sub-bottom profiles, the features are below the anticipated depth of disturbance.
• At locations where the interpreted ravinement depth or geomorphic feature is within the vertical APE, sub-bottom profile data coupled with vibracore results indicate the transgression likely has removed or reworked the underlying deposits with the potential to contain prehistoric cultural remains.
• Sections of the route that appear to have the highest potential for preservation of prehistoric landforms and materials include the landfall approach on and adjacent to Round Shoal, and along the southern boundary of Old Orchard Shoal.7
No prehistoric material remains were readily apparent in these sections. (Offshore surveys are complete. The results will be provided in a supplemental filing in the 2nd quarter of 2017.)
Vibracore Location 60 On December 17, 2016, archaeological materials were encountered and recognized during coring in the vicinity of Vibracore 60. The water depth at this location is approximately 29
6 Ravinement Surface: In sequence stratigraphy, the first surface to have been formed by flooding due to rising sea level, at or close to the shoreline. 7 Data show that the top layer of the shoal has been removed by transgression, erosion, and sediment redistribution associated with shoreline retreat; thus, any paleo-cultural remains that may have existed in this location have been destroyed.
4-46 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
feet. Examination by the geotechnical team on the vessel characterized those materials as consisting of “slag, coal, shell hash, peach-pit-like nuts, glass, and a piece of bone.” At that time, the Project’s Unanticipated Discovery Plan was initiated, and a 1,000-foot protective buffer was placed around the core location. On December 21, 2016, the artifacts and biofacts were delivered to the laboratories of Transco’s archaeological consultant via United Parcel Service. A chain-of- custody log was prepared at the time of delivery and has been maintained.
Results of the examination and analysis of the submitted remains conformed to the descriptions provided by the geotechnical crew in the field. The materials consisted of six fragments of coal slag, one large brick fragment, four refined earthenware ceramic sherds, two glass shards, one seed, and one mammal bone, later determined to be that of a pig. All of these remains were encountered between 0 to 3 feet below the seafloor. The assemblage of artifacts was determined to represent a relict historic offshore locus of refuse disposal or dumping, either as part of systematic or situational disposal of urban refuse. The fact that these materials contain domestic utilitarian items along with coal slag, food specimens, and a partial brick clearly indicates waste disposal. The shallow stratigraphic aspect, the admixture with shell hash, and the water- worn character of some of the remains demonstrates that these deposits also lack the qualities of integrity. As a result, this submerged refuse deposit does not possess those qualities of significance and integrity as defined in the Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]). The New York SHPO concurred with the archaeological assessment (January 18, 2017) that the assemblage did not constitute a historic property as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(1)). Therefore, no further work was recommended (see Attachment 7 to Volume 4).
Borehole Locations Not Covered by the Subbottom Geophysical Survey Three proposed geotechnical investigations, BH3, BH4, and BH5, were not covered by the geophysical survey data acquired in New Jersey waters due to shallow water conditions. The New Jersey HPO granted permission to proceed with the proposed nearshore geotechnical investigations provided an archaeologist was onboard the survey vessel during the investigation. Per New Jersey HPO direction, a geoarchaeologist was present for on-site analysis of the samples taken from the three nearshore geotechnical investigation sites. Drilling occurred in 2- foot intervals, during which continuous split barrel samples were taken. All samples were photographed and recorded, and each stratigraphic unit was sampled by the geoarchaeologist. The geotechincal investigation continued in this manner until the geoarchaeologist confirmed that the depth of the geotechnical investigation was below stratigraphic units of potential cultural significance. After reaching this depth, drilling and sampling continued in 5-foot intervals. None
4-47 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
of the nearshore samples revealed evidence of prehistoric materials. The review suggests that a shifting fluvial environment once characterized the area. Prior to this, the area appears to have been encompassed within a backbay estuarine environment with no evidence of a preserved paleo land surface. (Offshore surveys are complete. The results will be provided in a supplemental filing in the 2nd quarter of 2017.)
4.7 Remaining Areas Requiring Survey
4.7.1 Onshore Facilities
4.7.1.1 Pennsylvania
Quarryville Loop All areas affected by the Project’s limits of disturbance for the Quarryville Loop have been surveyed for cultural resources.
4.7.1.2 New Jersey
Madison Loop All areas affected by the Project’s limits of disturbance for the Madison Loop have been surveyed for cultural resources.
Raritan Bay Loop All areas affected by the Project’s limits of disturbance for the onshore portion of the Raritan Bay Loop have been surveyed for cultural resources.
4.7.2 Offshore Facilities
New Jersey and New York
Raritan Bay Loop All areas affected by the Project’s limits of disturbance for the Raritan Bay Loop have been surveyed for cultural resources. Transco conducted supplemental close-order survey to further assess the context and integrity of 13 areas of archaeological interest as presented in Section 4.6.2.2. (Offshore surveys are complete. The results will be provided in a supplemental filing in the 2nd quarter of 2017.)
4-48 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.8 Agency Consultation The following sections present a chronological summary of federal, state, and local agency consultations undertaken for the Project. A detailed table, letters, and contact reports documenting these consultations are provided in Volume 3 and Volume 4.
4.8.1 Consultation with State Historic Preservation Offices Transco is consulting with the SHPOs in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York with regard to the protection of cultural resources located within or adjacent to the Project APE. The purpose of these consultations is to demonstrate the Project’s compliance with the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended, and the implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800. Table 4.8-1 provides a summary of consultations with the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York SHPOs.
Table 4.8-1 Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Offices
Consulting Agency Description of Consultation Date Submitted Date of Response or Organization Pennsylvania PHMC (SHPO) Project Work Plan/Review Forms – Section 106 July 8, 2016 July 26, 2016 Draft Onshore Unanticipated Discovery Plan August 11, 2016 September 19, 2016 Quarryville Loop Phase I Archaeological October 19, 2016 November 17, 2016 Survey Report Revised Onshore Unanticipated Discovery Plan October 26, 2016 January 8, 2017 Aboveground (Historic Architecture and January 17, 2017 Pending Viewshed) Assessment Report: Quarryville Loop, Access Roads, and Compressor Station 200 Quarryville Loop Phase I Archaeological January 20, 2017 January 26, 2017 Supplemental Survey Report New Jersey HPO Response to Megan Kelly of the Land Use April 8, 2016 (date June 21, 2016 (date Reclamation Program regarding participation in request received) of response) the Section 106 process associated with the offshore portion of the Project Contact Report: Meeting to discuss Project and July 11, 2016 N/A offshore APE, Trenton, New Jersey Draft Onshore and Offshore Unanticipated August 11, 2016 September 26, 2016 Discovery Plans Phase I Terrestrial Work Plan August 18, 2016 September 14, 2016 Phase I Marine Data Collection Plan August 18, 2016 October 13, 2016 Revised Phase I Terrestrial Work Plan September 19, 2016 October 28, 2016
4-49 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 4.8-1 Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Offices
Consulting Agency Description of Consultation Date Submitted Date of Response or Organization Call/meeting concerning 17 offshore boring September 21, 2016 N/A locations along the Raritan Bay Loop Phase I Negative Findings Memo: Negative September 26, 2016 September 30, 2016 Findings Associated with Bore Locations Notification regarding concurrence with hand September 28, 2016 N/A sampling of nearshore deep bore samples Phase I Negative Findings Memo: Negative October 4, 2016 October 17, 2016 Findings Associated with Revised Borehole Locations Phase I Negative Findings Memo: Geophysical October 17, 2016 October 25, 2016 Survey of Vibracore Locations 1-4 and 45-55 Phase I Negative Findings Memo: Geophysical October 25, 2016 November 4, 2016 Survey of Revised Borehole Locations 8, 17, and 21-25 Revised Onshore and Offshore Unanticipated October 26, 2016 December 1, 2016 Discovery Plans Meeting to provide updates on offshore survey December 13, 2016 N/A data collection and ongoing evaluations Madison Loop and Onshore Raritan Bay Loop February 7, 2017 Pending Phase I Archaeological Survey Report Provided an update on offshore cultural February 8, 2017 Pending resources assessment and supplemental surveys to further analyze identified targets of interest within the Project area. Provided cultural resources analysis of February 8, 2017 Pending proposed nearshore work areas along the centerline and proposed location for the CP power cable and HDD tracking lines. New York NY SHPO Teleconference: Project Introduction – Initiate May 11, 2016 N/A discussion on offshore resources Email discussion concerning dates to meet with August 2, 2016 August 9, 2016 the SHPO to discuss the offshore APE and survey protocols Contact Report: Introduction and Project August 3, 2016 N/A Meeting Coordination with the NY SHPO Draft Offshore Unanticipated Discovery Plan August 11,2016 September 8, 2016 Marine Data Collection Plan August 18, 2016 September 8, 2016 Meeting to discuss Project scope and protocols August 19, 2016 N/A Email: NY SHPO supplies electronic database August 19,2016 N/A for offshore cultural sites in New York waters Contact Report: Meeting Summary for August August 22, 2016 N/A 19 Meeting
4-50 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 4.8-1 Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Offices
Consulting Agency Description of Consultation Date Submitted Date of Response or Organization Email submitted to NY SHPO regarding the October 5, 2016 January 20, 2017 approval of Vibracore locations and sampling methods – New York SHPO concurred without official response. Resolved communication gap. Phase I Negative Findings Memo: Geophysical October 10, 2016 October 11, 2016 Survey of Vibracore Locations 7–21 Phase I Negative Findings Memo: Geophysical October 12, 2016 October 13, 2016 Survey of Vibracore Locations 22–36 Phase I Negative Findings Memo: Geophysical October 19, 2016 October 21, 2016 Survey of Vibracore Locations 5, 6, and 56–69 Revised Offshore Unanticipated Discovery Plan October 26, 2016 November 9, 2016 Phase I Negative Findings Memo: Geophysical November 1, 2016 November 3, 2016 Survey of Vibracore Locations 70–87 Meeting with the NY SHPO to provide updates December 15, 2016 N/A on offshore survey data collection and ongoing evaluations Email submitted to NY SHPO informing of December 19, 2016 December 21, 2016 unanticipated discovery at Vibracore location 60. Email inquiry submitted to NY SHPO regarding December 21, 2016 December 21, 2016 information on historic buried subsea cables Memo Report: Unanticipated Discovery of January 6, 2017 January 18, 2017 Archaeological Materials in the Vicinity of Vibracore Location 60 Provided an update on offshore cultural February 8, 2017 Pending resources assessment and supplemental surveys to further analyze identified targets of interest within the Project area.
4.8.1.1 Pennsylvania On July 8, 2016, Transco submitted the required Archaeological and Architectural Review Forms and Statewide Pre-Contact Probability Model Testing Methodology Form to the PHMC for review and concurrence (Volume 3 Attachment 1). These forms introduced the Project and provided a comprehensive terrestrial work plan for the portions of the Project APE in Pennsylvania. On July 15, 2016, PHMC (see Attachment 1 to Volume 3) submitted an informal email providing their concurrence with the terrestrial work plan. This email was followed by a formal response from PHMC on July 26, 2016.
4-51 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Draft UDP was submitted to the PHMC for review on August 11, 2016; Transco received comments and recommended changes on September 19, 2016. The Draft UDP was revised in accordance with these recommendations and resubmitted on October 26, 2016, for further review. PHMC Division of Archaeology and Protection concurred with the revised UDP and logged it into the SHPO database; this notification was provided via email received on January 8, 2017 (see Attachment 1 to Volume 3).
A draft Phase I Archaeological Survey report was submitted to the PHMC on October 19, 2016, for review and comment; the PHMC concurred with these findings and recommendations on November 17, 2016. A draft Supplemental Phase I Archaeological Survey report was submitted to the PHMC for review on January 20, 2017; concurrence was received on January
26, 2017. The architectural survey, which assessed the potential effects of the Project on surrounding historic resources and sensitive viewsheds, was completed and submitted to the PHMC for review on January 17, 2017. The results of this review are pending (see Attachment 1 to Volume 3).
4.8.1.2 New Jersey On June 21, 2016, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Land Use Regulation Program responded to a request for the New Jersey HPO to participate in Section 106 consultations regarding the Project in New Jersey. The HPO provided the cultural resources assessment associated with the NJDEP’s Superstorm Sandy Waterway Debris Removal Project. This assessment served to identify multiple potential historic and archaeological resources within or adjacent to the offshore Project APE, including several known and potentially historic shipwrecks.8 Impacts on cultural resources were also addressed in a damage assessment report completed by the NJDEP in 2015 (NJDEP 2015) (see Volume 3 Attachment 1).
On July 11, 2016, a meeting was held with the New Jersey HPO to further discuss the Project facilities in New Jersey. The New Jersey HPO expressed concern for shipwreck sites and relic landforms that may contain human remains and emphasized the use of BOEM’s offshore survey guidelines and the implementation of those guidelines within New Jersey waters; currently,
8 The Draft Superstorm Sandy Section 106 Response and Recovery Historic Preservation Report was produced by NJDEP in conjunction with the Superstorm Sandy Waterway Debris Removal Project. The report was submitted by Dewberry and Associates of Parsippany, New Jersey, in June 2014. To date, the report is still under federal review and has not been officially accepted by the NJDEP. Data from this report was provided to ensure that potentially historic offshore targets were identified, buffers were applied, and the sites noted for avoidance.
4-52 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
no sub-bottom data are available from the HPO for this portion of the offshore APE. The New Jersey HPO requested survey plans for both the onshore and offshore Project facilities (see Attachment 1 to Volume 3).
On August 11, 2016, the Draft UDPs for the onshore and offshore APEs were submitted to the New Jersey HPO; comments and recommended modifications to the documents were returned on September 26, 2016. The UDPs were revised to reflect these recommendations and resubmitted to the HPO for further review on October 26, 2016; concurrence with these documents was received on December 1, 2016. The Phase I Terrestrial Work Plan was submitted to the HPO for review on August 18, 2016; comments were received with recommended changes on September 14, 2016. On September 19, 2016, the revised Terrestrial Work Plan was resubmitted to the HPO for further review; concurrence with this document was received on October 28, 2016. On August 18, 2016, the Marine Data Collection Plan, which addressed the practices and protocols associated with the offshore remote-sensing survey and subsequent archaeological assessment of the resulting data, was submitted to the HPO for review; concurrence with the plan was received on October 13, 2016 (see Attachment 1 to Volume 3).
Between September 21 and November 4, 2016, results of the offshore remote-sensing survey were used to clear geotechnical testing sites for sediment boring and vibracoring; these results were submitted to the HPO for review and comment in an effort to avoid impacts on submerged cultural resource sites. On February 7, 2017, the Phase I Archaeological Survey Report for the Madison Loop and Onshore Raritan Bay Loop was submitted to the New Jersey HPO for review. On February 8, 2017, an update on offshore cultural resource data assessments and supplemental surveys was submitted to the HPO for review and comment; also on this data, the results of a cultural resources analysis of proposed nearshore work areas was submitted to the HPO for review and comment (Table 4.8-1) (see Attachment 1 to Volume 3)..
4.8.1.3 New York On May 11, 2016, a teleconference was held with representatives of the New York SHPO to introduce the overall scope of the Project and initiate discussion on the presence of offshore cultural resource sites within the Project APE. A Marine Data Collection Plan, which served to provide the protocols needed for the processing and analysis of the remote sensing data, was submitted to the New York SHPO on August 18, 2016; concurrence of the procedures was received on September 8, 2016. On August 19, 2016, a meeting was held with the New York SHPO. The SHPO archaeologists stated at the meeting that shipwreck concentrations are typically associated with near-shore environments and that ships sank for a variety of reasons
4-53 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
(groundings were regular occurrences in the Project area). The SHPO noted the potential presence of unexploded military ordnance, which can produce the same remote magnetic reading as a small shipwreck, shipwreck debris field, or a single object such as a ship’s anchor; however, most locations are documented and appear primarily to the east and north of the APE. Because previously unidentified military ordnance is routinely discovered, caution was recommended during ground-truthing procedures, which are typically performed by scuba divers. On August 19, 2016, the New York SHPO provided a list of previously identified shipwreck sites known to lie in New York waters. A contact report highlighting the topics discussed with the New York SHPO was created on August 22, 2016 (see Attachment 1 to Volume 3).
The New York SHPO also emphasized the potential for the discovery of relic landforms and is interested in the reconstruction of submerged paleo topography through the analysis of collected vibracore samples; reconstruction of the paleo topography within the Project APE would serve to balance the state’s mitigation requirements.
On August 11, 2016, the Draft Offshore UDP was submitted electronically to the New York SHPO; comments were received on September 8, 2016, with recommended changes. The revised UDP was submitted on October 26, 2016; SHPO issued concurrence with the UDP on November 9, 2016 (see Attachment 1 to Volume 3).
On December 15, 2016, a meeting was held at the office of the New York SHPO, to provide Project updates and discuss the collection of offshore remote-sensing data and the ongoing archaeological evaluations. On December 19, 2016, the SHPO was notified of an unanticipated discovery of artifacts at Vibracore location 60; the SHPO responded to this notification on December 21, 2016. On January 6, 2017, the SHPO was provided with a memo that presented the analysis and recommendations of the small collection of artifacts found at vibracore location. The collection was determined to be displaced from its original context as a result of late 19th century offshore waste disposal activity. On January 18, 2017, the SHPO concurred with the resultant findings that the deposit was not in situ and lacked a primary archaeological context (see Attachment 1 to Volume 3).
On December 21, 2016, an inquiry was sent to the New York SHPO regarding any documented evidence related to historic subsea cables lying within the Project area; on the same day, the SHPO responded that they had no information and recommended that Transco confer with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA request was sent to the USACE on January 9, 2017, requesting current or previous/historic cables crossing under Sandy Hook Channel and any current or historic power and telecommunication
4-54 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
cables within 6 miles east of Ambrose Channel and south of the Rockaway Peninsula (see Attachment 1 to Volume 3). (Results of the FOIA request will be provided in a supplemental filing in the 2nd quarter of 2017.)
4.9 Status of Native American Consultation In July 2016, Transco initiated informal consultation with Native American tribes by sending informal Section 106 consultation letters, including the Project description and site maps of the Project APE, to 18 federally recognized tribes and three state-recognized tribes with a potential interest in the Project area. Copies of Transco’s consultation correspondence are included in Volume 3. Table 4.9-1 lists all tribal organizations contacted. To date, responses have been received from the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, the Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe, and the Delaware Tribe of Indians. On March 6, 2017, updated request letters were submitted to the 18 tribes who have not provided responses (see Attachment 2 to Volume 3).
Table 4.9-1 List of Native American Organizations Consulted in Accordance with NHPA Section 106
Date Date of No. Group Title Address Submitted Response 1 Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Tribal Chairman 18 E Commerce Street, July 15, 2016 Pending Indians Bridgeton, NJ 08302 March 6, 2017 (state recognized) 2 Powhatan Renape Nation P.O. Box 2353 July 15, 2016 Pending Riverton, NJ 08077 March 6, 2017 (state recognized) 3 Ramapough Lenape Chief 189 Stag Hill Road July 15, 2016 Pending Nation Mahwah, NJ 07430 March 6, 2017 (state recognized) 4 Shinnecock Indian Trustees P.O. Box 5006 July 15, 2016 Pending National Tribe Southampton, NY 11969 March 6, 2017 5 Cayuga Nation of New Federal P.O. Box 803 July 15, 2016 Pending York Representative Seneca Falls, NY 13148 March 6, 2017 6 Oneida Indian Nation Nation 1256 Union Street July 15, 2016 Pending Representative Oneida, NY 13421 March 6, 2017 7 Oneida Tribe of Indians of Chairwoman P.O. Box 365 July 15, 2016 Pending Wisconsin Oneida, WI 54155 March 6, 2017 8 Onondaga Nation Faithkeeper 3951 Route 11 July 15, 2016 Pending Nedrow, NY 13120 March 6, 2017 9 Seneca Nation of Indians President 90 Ohiyo Way July 15, 2016 Pending Salamanca, NY 14779 March 6, 2017 10 Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Chief 23701 S 655 Road July 15, 2016 Pending Oklahoma Grove, OK 74344 March 6, 2017
4-55 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 4.9-1 List of Native American Organizations Consulted in Accordance with NHPA Section 106
Date Date of No. Group Title Address Submitted Response 11 Saint Regis Mohawk Chiefs 412 State Route 37 July 15, 2016 Pending Tribe Akwesasne, NY 13655 March 6, 2017 12 Stockbridge-Munsee Tribal Chairman P.O. Box 70 July 15, 2016 February 6, Community of Wisconsin Bowler, WI 54416 February 14, 2017 2017 13 Tonawanda Band of Chief 7027 Meadville Road July 15, 2016 Pending Seneca Indians of New Basom, NY 14013 March 6, 2017 York 14 Tuscarora Nation Chief 2006 Mount Hope Road July 15, 2016 Pending Lewiston, NY 14092 March 6, 2017 15 Shawnee Tribe of Chairman 29 South Highway 69A July 15, 2016 Pending Oklahoma Miami, OK 74355 March 6, 2017 16 Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Chief P.O. Box 350 July 15, 2016 August 15, 2016 Oklahoma Seneca, MO 64865 17 Delaware Tribe of Indians Chief 170 NE Barbara July 15, 2016 September 29, 2016 Bartlesville, OK 74006 18 Delaware Nation Acting President 31064 State Hwy 281 July 15, 2016 Pending Anadarko, OK 73005 March 6, 2017 19 Absentee Shawnee Tribe Governor 2025 S Gordon Cooper July 15, 2016 Pending of Oklahoma Dr., Shawnee, OK 74801 March 6, 2017 20 Mohegan Tribe Chairman 13 Crow Hill Road July 28, 2016 Pending Uncasville, CT 06382 March 6, 2017 21 Munsee Delaware Indian Chief 70463 Hopewell Road July 28, 2016 Pending Nation Cambridge, OH 43725 March 6, 2017
4.10 Consultation with Stakeholder Organizations Transco has initiated informal consultation with eleven stakeholder organizations. Five of the organizations are associated with the Quarryville Loop, the Madison Loop, and the onshore Raritan Bay Loop. Six of the organizations are associated with the offshore portion of the Raritan Bay Loop. Table 4.10-1 lists all stakeholder organizations contacted. To date, Transco has not received any responses to these letters (see Attachment 1 to Volume 3).
4-56 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 4.10-1 List of Stakeholder Organizations Consulted in Accordance with NHPA Section 106
Date of No. Group Address Date Submitted Response Pennsylvania 1 Lancaster County Historical 230 North President Avenue July 20, 2016 Pending Society Lancaster, PA 17603 2 Chester County Historical 225 North High Street September 13, Pending Society West Chester, PA 19380 2016 New Jersey 3 Middlesex County Cultural 703 Jersey Avenue July 20,2016 Pending Heritage Commission New Brunswick, NJ 08901 4 Somerset County Historical 9 Van Veghten Drive July 20,2016 Pending Society Bridgewater, NJ 08807 5 Monmouth County Historic 70 Court Street July 28,2016 Pending Association Freehold, NJ 07728 6 New Jersey Historical Divers 2201 Marconi Road July 28,2016 Pending Association Wall, NJ 07719 7 New Jersey Maritime Museum 528 Dock Road July 28,2016 Pending Beach Haven, NJ 08008 8 Ocean Wreck Divers of New P.O. Box 1555 July 28,2016 Pending Jersey Toms River, NJ 08753 New York 9 Brooklyn Historical Society 128 Pierrepont Street Brooklyn, September 13, Pending NY 11201 2016 10 The Long Island Maritime 88 West Avenue September 13, Pending Museum West Sayville, NY 11796 2016 11 The National Lighthouse 200 The Promenade at September 13, Pending Museum Lighthouse Point 2016 Staten Island, NY 10301
4.11 Unanticipated Discovery Plans for Cultural Resources and Human Remains Transco developed UDPs (see Appendix 1B, Attachment 5 and 6) for the onshore and offshore portions of the Project in order to establish a set of procedures to address unanticipated discoveries of human remains and/or cultural resources over the course of Project construction. The UDPs provide the regulatory and review agencies with the procedures that Project personnel will follow to prepare for and respond to unanticipated discoveries. The UDPs also provide
4-57 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
guidance to Project representatives on the proper procedures to follow if an unanticipated discovery occurs.
On August 11, 2016, Transco forwarded copies of the onshore UDP to the Pennsylvania and New Jersey SHPOs for review and comment, and copies of the offshore UDP to the New Jersey and New York SHPOs for review and comment (see Attachment 1 to Volume 3). Comments were received from New York on September 8, 2016, from New Jersey on September 26, 2016, and from Pennsylvania on September 19, 2016. Each UDP for the Project was finalized in accordance with the comments received from each SHPO and resubmitted for review on October 26, 2016. To date, the New York SHPO has concurred with the offshore UDP. With SHPO concurrence, Transco will implement the UDPs to ensure there are no impacts on cultural resources or human remains inadvertently identified during construction of the Project.
4.12 References Alpine. 2016. Vessels, R/V Shearwater. Accessed from http://www.alpineocean.com/vessels- equipment/vessels/.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). 2015a, July. Guidelines for Providing Archaeological and Historic Property Information Pursuant to 30 CFR Part 585. Retrieved March 02, 2017, from https://www.boem.gov/Survey-Guidelines/ See Archaeological and Historic Property Information
______. 2015b. Archaeological Resource Information Database (ARI). Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Region (Not for Public Release).
International Hydrographic Bureau. (2008). IHO Standards for Hydrographic Surveys, 5th Edition, Special Publication No. 44. MANACO.
Lydecker, Andrew and Stephen James. 2009. Remote Sensing Survey of Portions of Ambrose Channel and Sandy Hook Pilot Area in Connection with the New York and New Jersey Harbor Navigation Study, King and Richmond Counties, New York. Prepared for Environmental Analysis Section, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, by Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Memphis, Tennessee.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2016. Wrecks and Obstructions Database. Interactive electronic GIS reference accessible at http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/wrecks_and_obstructions.html.
4-58 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
______. 1985. National Register Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning. Washington, D.C.
National Park Service (NPS). (n.d.). National Register of Historic Places Official Website--Part of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Retrieved February 10, 2017, from https://www.nps.gov/Nr/
______. n.d.). Secretary's Standards--Archeology and Historic Preservation. Retrieved February 14, 2017, from https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_0.htm
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2015. Damage Assessment on the Effects of Hurricane Sandy on the State of New Jersey’s Natural Resources. Prepared for the Hurricane Sandy Natural and Cultural Resources Workgroup.
______. New Jersey: National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). n.d. Retrieved February 14, 2017, from http://www.nj.gov/dep/hpo/1identify/nrsr_lists.htm
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Chart 12327-1, Revised 2017. Retrieved February 14, 2017, from http://www.charts.noaa.gov/OnLineViewer/ 12327.shtml
Panamerican Consutants, Inc. 2002. Target Investigations in Connection with the New York and New Jersey Harbor Navigation Project, Upper and Lower Bay, Port of New York and New Jersey
______. 2008. Remote Sensing Survey of Portions of Ambrose Channel and Sandy Hook Pilot Area in Connection with the New York and New Jersey Harbor Navigation Study, King and Richmond Counties, New York.
Post, Buckley, Shue, & Jernigan, Inc. (PBS&J). 2009. Marine Archaeological Assessment for the Rockaway Delivery Point Project, Queens County, New York.
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC). 2013. Survey Guidelines for Pipeline Projects: Aboveground Resources.
PHMC. 2016. Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Pennsylvania (Revised). Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office.
R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. (RCGA). 2010. Archaeological Resource Survey and Cultural Resources Assessment for the Liberty Natural Gas, LLC Deepwater Port, Pipeline Corridor and Anchor Handling Areas, New Jersey State Waters.
4-59 NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Rogers Surveying, PLLC. 2016. Survey Vessel and Equipment. Prepared for R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., by Rogers Surveying, PLLC.
Transco. 2016. Offshore Marine Data Collection Plan for the Offshore Portion of the Proposed Raritan Bay Loop, Northeast Supply Enhancement Project.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1963. Soil Survey of Chester and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania.
United States Office of Coast Survey (USOCS). (n.d.). National Ocean Service Hydrographic Database and Hydrographic Survey Meta Database. Retrieved February 14, 2017, from https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/hydrog.htm
4-60
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC
Appendices to Resource Report 4
Cultural Resources
Northeast Supply Enhancement Project
March 2017
This page intentionally left blank.
TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY, LLC
APPENDIX 4A TO RESOURCE REPORT 4
FIGURES
NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
MARCH 2017
This page intentionally left blank.
Gap 1978 Conestoga Quarryville 1978 1978
Holtwood 1978 Wakefield 1978 Kirkwood 1978
SITE LOCATION DRAWING NO. REFERENCE TITLE
Legend TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY LLC NY CT QUARRYVILLE MAIN D Quarryville Loop Additional Archaeological Survey NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT (NESE) Quarryville Loop Initial Archaeological Survey LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PA Quad Sheet Boundary U NO. DATE BY REVISION DESCRIPTION W.O. NO. CHK. APP. DRAWN BY: KW DATE:1/30/2017 ISSUE FOR BID: N/A SCALE: 1:50,000 A 1/30/2017 KW ISSUED FOR 2833 __ __ CHECKED BY: __ DATE:__/__/____ ISSUE FOR CONSTRUCTION: N/A 0 1 2 3 4 NJ Atlantic Ocean APPROVED BY: __ DATE:__/__/____ SHEET 1 SCALE IN MILES Figure 4A-1 OF 1 WO: 2833 Q:\Project_Data\PRJ_2833_Williams_QuarryvilleLoop\MXD\Williams_Quarryville_MainD_11x17_Locator.mxd Legend Data Sources: Williams 2016; E&E 2016; ESRI 2012; ESRI Base Map Services 2016 Mile Post Centerline Survey Corridor Quad Sheet Boundary
This page intentionally left blank.
South Amboy 1982 Keyport 1972
SITE LOCATION DRAWING NO. REFERENCE TITLE
Legend TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY LLC NY CT MADISON MLLBD Madison Loop Archaeological Survey NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT (NESE) Raritan Loop Archaeological Survey MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY PA Quad Sheet Boundary U NO. DATE BY REVISION DESCRIPTION W.O. NO. CHK. APP. DRAWN BY: KW DATE:1/31/2017 ISSUE FOR BID: N/A SCALE: 1:24,000 A 1/31/2017 KW 2833 __ __ CHECKED BY: __ DATE:__/__/____ ISSUE FOR CONSTRUCTION: N/A 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 NJ Atlantic Ocean APPROVED BY: __ DATE:__/__/____ Figure 4A-2 SHEET 1 SCALE IN MILES OF 1 WO: 2833 Q:\Project_Data\PRJ_2833_Williams_QuarryvilleLoop\MXD\Williams_Madison_MainD_11x17_Locator.mxd Legend Data Sources: Williams 2016; E&E 2016; ESRI 2012; ESRI Base Map Services 2016 Mile Post Centerline Survey Corridor Quad Sheet Boundary
This page intentionally left blank.
Q:\Project_Data\PRJ_2833_Williams_QuarryvilleLoop\MXD\Williams_CS206_8x11.mxd
Monmouth Junction 1982
Legend SITE LOCATION CS206 Archaeological Survey NY Quad Sheet Boundary CT U PA
0 2,000 4,000 NJ Atlantic SCALE IN FEET Ocean
DRAWING NO. REFERENCE TITLE
TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY LLC CS206 MODIFICATION NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT (NESE) SOMERSET COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
NO. DATE BY REVISION DESCRIPTION W.O. NO. CHK. APP. DRAWN BY: KW DATE:1/31/2017 ISSUE FOR BID: N/A SCALE: 1:24,000
A 1/31/2017 KW 2833 __ __ CHECKED BY: __ DATE: 1/31/2017 ISSUE FOR CONSTRUCTION: N/A
APPROVED BY: __ DATE: 1/31/2017 SHEET 1 Figure 4A-3 OF 1 WO: 2833 Data Sources: Williams 2016; E&E 2016; ESRI 2012; USGS Topographic Map via NGS 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
BL11-003 MP 24 Block 15 MP 34 BL11-002 MP 23 MP 35 MP 25 MP 35.49 BL14-011 BL14-002 BL10-001 MP 33 Block 11 BL14-005 BL16-003 MP 26 BL11-004 BL14-001 BL14-004 BL14-007 Block 16 MP 32 Block 10 MP 22 Block 14 BL16-004 MP 31 MP 21 BL14-009 BL16-002 MP 19 BL14-010 BL14-006 MP 27 Block 13 MP 20 NY_NJ_Border BL16-001 MP 30 BL12-002 BL14-008 BL17-005 Block 9 MP 18 MP 17 MP 28 MP 29 Block 17 BL17-004 BL12-001 Block 12
MP 16 Additional MP 15 Workspace
MP 14
Block 2 MP 13
MP 12
SITE LOCATION DRAWING NO. REFERENCE TITLE Legend TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY LLC Avoidance Buffer Centerline Survey Block Area NY LOCATOR MAP Locator Map Milepost NJ-NY Maritime Boundary Additional Workspace NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT (NESE) Study Corridor U NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK NJ NO. DATE BY REVISION DESCRIPTION W.O. NO. CHK. APP. DRAWN BY: KFM DATE: 3/13/2017 ISSUE FOR BID: N/A SCALE: 1:88,000 Atlantic CHECKED BY: DATE: ISSUE FOR CONSTRUCTION: N/A 0 1 2 3 4 Ocean
APPROVED BY: DATE: SHEET 1 Miles Figure 4A-4 PA WO: OF 1 Data Sources: Williams 2017; E&E 2017; ESRI 2012; ESRI Base, RCGA 2017, NOAA 2017, NOAA Chart 12326, 12327 N:\Project_Data\prj_2834_williams_nyrep_offshore\project\mxd\final_report\v2\locator\prj_2834_williams_nese_offshore_locator_rev_preferred_blocks.mxd
This page intentionally left blank.
TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY, LLC
APPENDIX 4B TO RESOURCE REPORT 4
ONSHORE DATA COLLECTION PLAN
NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
MARCH 2017
This page intentionally left blank.
ONSHORE DATA COLLECTION PLAN
This Attachment is a Privileged Document and available in Volume 4.
This page intentionally left blank.
TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY, LLC
APPENDIX 4C TO RESOURCE REPORT 4
MARINE DATA COLLECTION PLAN
NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
MARCH 2017
This page intentionally left blank.
DRAFT AUGUST 8, 2016
MARINE DATA COLLECTION PLAN
GEOPHYSICAL/CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY TO S UPPORT TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE
C OMPANY’S OFFSHORE RARITAN BAY LOOP
NATURAL GAS PIPELINE EXPANSION N EW JERSEY AND NEW YORK STATE WATERS
PREPARED FOR:
WILLIAMS PARTNERS LP 2800 POST OAK BLVD. HOUSTON, TX 77056
R. CHRISTOPHER GOODWIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 241 EAST FOURTH STREET, SUITE 100 . FREDERICK, MD 21701
This page intentionally left blank.
TABLE OF CONTENTS MARINE WORK PLAN ...... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Project Administration ...... 1 1.2 Proposed Work Schedule ...... 3 1.3 Potential Interested Parties ...... 3 1.4 Cultural Resources Assessment (Data Analyses) ...... 4 1.5 Marine Background Research ...... 4 1.5.1 Previous Cultural Resources Investigations in the Project Vicinity...... 5 2.0 DATA COLLECTION PLAN ...... 8 2.1 Project Areas and Trackline Layouts ...... 8 2.2 Survey Vessel...... 8 2.3 Survey Equipment Overview ...... 8 2.3.1 Navigation and Positioning ...... 9 2.3.2 Bathymetry ...... 9 2.3.4 Side Scan Sonar ...... 10 2.3.5 Magnetometer ...... 10 2.3.6 Subbottom Profiler ...... 11 2.3.7 Sediment Grab Samples ...... 11 2.4 System Calibrations ...... 11 2.5 Horizontal and Vertical Control ...... 11 2.6 Basic Survey Procedures ...... 12 2.7 Data Products ...... 12 3.0 VIBRATORY CORE SAMPLING ...... 12 3.1 Cultural Resources Assessment of Vibracore Locations ...... 13 4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORTING ...... 13 5.0 REFERENCES ...... 14
i
This page intentionally left blank.
MARINE WORK PLAN
GEOPHYSICAL/CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY TO SUPPORT TRANSCONTINETAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY’S OFFSHORE RARITAN BAY LOOP NATURAL GAS PIPELINE EXPANSION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. (RCG&A) prepared this marine data collection plan for geophysical and cultural resource (Phase 1) surveys to support Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company’s (Transco), a subsidiary of Williams Partners L.P. (Williams), offshore Raritan Bay Loop natural gas pipeline expansion (Project). This project will support National Grid's long-term supply and reliability needs for their existing natural gas transmission and distribution system through the 2020 heating season.
Transco is proposing to expand its existing interstate natural gas pipeline system in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and offshore New Jersey and New York. The Project capacity is fully subscribed by two entities of National Grid: Brooklyn Union Gas Company (d/b/a National Grid NY) and KeySpan Gas East Corporation (d/b/a/ National Grid), collectively referred to herein as “National Grid.” The offshore pipeline facilities will consist of 23.43 miles of 26-inch diameter pipeline from MP11.99 on the existing Transco offshore Lower New York Bay Lateral (LNYBL) located in Sayreville, Middlesex County, New Jersey, to MP34.01 at the Rockaway Transfer Point in the Lower New York Bay, New York (Figure 1-1). After the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issues a Certificate for the Project and Transco obtains the applicable permits and authorizations, Transco anticipates that construction of the Project will begin mid-2018 to meet an in-service date of the third quarter of 2019.
A geophysical surveyor will be contracted to perform a combined geophysical and cultural resources survey of the proposed offshore Area of Potential Effect (APE). The APE extends east from Raritan Bay and includes a 23.43 mile long pipeline centerline and 5,000-ft wide survey corridor (2,500 feet either side of the centerline) (Figure 1).
1.1 Project Administration
RCG&A’s Senior Nautical Archaeologist, James S. Schmidt, M.A., will serve as Principal Investigator (PI) and will direct cultural resources investigation activities. Benjamin Wells, M.A., Nautical Archaeologist will serve as the project’s Geoarchaeologist assisted by Jeffrey Gardner, M.S., PG, CPG. Nautical Archaeologists Kathryn Ryberg, M.Sc., and Kara Davis, M.A., will assist with the research, data analyses and report preparation tasks.
1
Figure 1. Overview of project area showing centerline and corridor
2
The RCG&A nautical archaeology staff meet or exceed Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM) and the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738- 44739), and have extensive experience in collecting and analyzing high-resolution marine geophysical survey data. In addition, our marine staff includes a certified GIS Professional (GISP), Certified Mapping Scientist (CMS-GIS/LIS), and Certified Remote Sensing Technologist (RST), with project work experience in underwater archaeological preserve planning and development, survey and documentation of historic maritime structures and watercraft, development of shipwreck databases/geodatabases, and in authoring maritime history resource guides for state historic preservation agencies. The marine geologist/geophysicist has applied expertise in the analysis and interpretation of seismic reflection profiles that can reveal the presence of buried glacial and fluvial landforms and other associated submerged coastal features that elucidate paleo-environments and allow the reconstruction of paleo-landscapes.
This project will be addressed under a FERC Section 7(c) filing. Because this project is a Federal “undertaking” pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, all offshore work will be performed in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, entitled “Protection of Historic Properties;” the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979; “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation” (48 FR 44716); the Abandoned Shipwrecks Act of 1987 (43 U.S.C. 2101-2106); and in accordance with regulations and guidelines of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Historic Preservation Office (HPO), and the New York Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs (SHPO).
1.2 Proposed Work Schedule
Survey will be performed following approval of project specific survey protocols and notices required by certain state and federal agencies including the State Historic Preservation Offices (NY and NJ) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The survey may be conducted in phases, with coordinated mobilization and demobilization efforts to accommodate strategic survey decisions and exchanges of appropriate personnel.
To the extent possible, bathymetric, side scan sonar, subbottom profiler and magnetometer data will be collected simultaneously to satisfy the geophysical and cultural resources investigation requirements. This method of collection increases survey efficiency, reduces the total duration of the survey effort, and provides the opportunity to perform quality assurance against simultaneously run systems. The geotechnical investigation (i.e., seabed sampling) will be conducted following completion of the geophysical data acquisition.
1.3 Potential Interested Parties
RCG&A drafted an informational letter on behalf of Transco to inform interested parties of this project. A description and maps outlining the project area were included with the letter. The following Native American tribes, historical societies, and other parties received the letter:
Absentee-Shawnee Cayuga Nation of New Delaware Nation Delaware Tribe of Indians Tribe of Oklahoma York Eastern Shawnee Tribe Lancaster County Middlesex County Cultural Mohegan Tribe of Oklahoma Historical Society and Heritage Commission
3
Monmouth County Munsee Delaware Indian Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape New Jersey Historical Historical Association Nation Indians Divers Association, Inc. New Jersey Maritime Ocean Wreck Divers Oneida Indian Nation Oneida Tribe of Indians of Museum Wisconsin Onondaga Nation Powhatan Renape Nation Ramapough Lenape Nation Seneca Nation of Indians
Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Shawnee Tribe of Shinnecock Indian Nation Somerset County Oklahoma Oklahoma Historical Society St. Regis Mohawk Tribe Stockbridge-Munsee Tonawanda Band of Seneca Tuscarora Nation Community of Wisconsin Indians of New York
1.4 Cultural Resources Assessment (Data Analyses)
Detailed cultural resources analyses will be conducted of all geophysical remote sensing data. All data will be analyzed using currently acceptable scientific methodologies. Submerged cultural resources include shipwrecks and disposal sites, and submerged prehistoric and historic archaeological sites. These objects and deposits normally can be detected with a remote sensing array that includes a marine magnetometer, side scan sonar, and a subbottom profiler. Side scan sonar records are analyzed to help distinguish topographic features of the seabed and any objects protruding above the bottom sediments. The interpretation of side scan sonar records involves recognition of any distinct patterns indicating projection or depressions, and it will provide descriptions of all sonar contacts, including measurements such as length, area and approximate height above seabed. For archaeological materials (e.g. shipwrecks), higher side scan frequencies and shorter ranges increase the likelihood of detecting older sites with small acoustic profiles. Magnetic data collected during survey will be examined carefully following post processing. For each magnetic anomaly, the profile will be examined to determine amplitude, duration, signature (monopole, dipole, or complex) and areal distribution (detectable over multiple track lines). Contour mapping will be used to ascertain the nature of any features and the distribution of magnetic anomalies. The subbottom profiler detects sediment horizons beneath the seabed and can help identify paleolandforms that may have supported human habitation in the past. The identification of potentially significant cultural resources from side scan sonar, magnetometer and subbottom profiler records will involve correlation of data from across the entire remote sensing array.
All data will be correlated via DGPS position data and plotted via ArcGIS. Magnetometer and bathymetric data will be contoured via ArcGIS 3D Analyst to provide visual aids for interpretation. Remote sensing data then will be correlated with a variety of shipwreck databases, geomorphic and historical research results, nautical charts, and any observations noted in survey logs during data collection.
1.5 Marine Background Research
Background Research will focus on development of environmental and cultural contexts for the project area and will involve a review of previous cultural resources investigations and inventories of identified historic properties and submerged cultural resources (pre-and post-contact period) within the proposed project area. This background research will be highly leveraged using data from previous marine projects in precisely the current project area, i.e., Raritan Bay and approaches, for which RCG&A has extensive background holdings including cultural/geophysical data. Research also will include a review of readily available historical maps, aerial photographs, cultural resources
4
survey reports and other relevant public records, as well as examination of the site file records at the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (NJSHPO), the New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO), and the National Register of Historic Places files. Additionally, background research will include a review of the Office of Coast Survey’s Wrecks and Obstructions database (NOAA 2016), the Office of Coast Survey's Historical Map & Chart Collection, and the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) database to review hydrographic survey data and products.
The intent of this literature search and records review will be to determine the location of all previously recorded archaeological sites, shipwrecks, historic standing structures, historic cemeteries, and National Register properties positioned within or immediately adjacent to project area. This information will be used to develop the archaeological context for assessing and subsequently avoiding any cultural resources that may lie within the areas under examination.
1.5.1 Previous Cultural Resources Investigations in the Project Vicinity
Archaeological Resource Survey and Cultural Resources Assessment for the Liberty Natural Gas, LLC Deepwater Port, Pipeline Corridor and Anchor Handling Areas, New Jersey State Waters
RCG&A conducted archaeological and cultural resources survey and analysis of the proposed Liberty Natural Gas, LLC (Sonde Resources Corporation) Deepwater Port, offshore pipeline, and anchor handling areas in New Jersey state waters. The deepwater port location was located in Federal waters approximately 16.2 miles (26.6 km) offshore the New Jersey shoreline. A 44.37 statute mile long, 36- inch (91 cm) diameter submarine pipeline was part of the port facility; it was designed to deliver regasified natural gas to an Onshore Meter Station (OMS) near Perth Amboy, New Jersey, where an Onshore Pipeline would transport the gas approximately nine miles (15 km) to its interconnect with the existing interstate Transco and TETCO systems.
Survey in state waters consisted of five (5) lines spaced 50 feet (15.2 m) apart. The anchor corridor width was 1,500 feet between MP 1 (South Amboy landfall) and MP 3.5, where the proposed route turned northeast. Through Raritan Bay, between MP 4 and MP 8, it remained a consistent 1,000 feet. The anchor corridor widened to 5,000 feet at mile 8.1, and then narrowed along the Sandy Hook Channel or bayside as it traversed around the Sandy Hook Point shoreline. The corridor narrowed at MP 20 and remained a consistent 4,000 feet to MP 27. The anchor corridor varied in width according to water depth, proposed construction method, and route geometry.
RCG&A conducted an archaeological and cultural resources assessment applying remote sensing data. The geoarchaeological and prehistoric context developed for the project area demonstrated that prehistoric archaeological sites on the New Jersey Continental Shelf largely should be expected to date from the Paleo-Indian and Archaic Stages located on the former terraces and point bars of paleofluvial systems. Paleo-Indian and Archaic Stage sites on the New Jersey Continental Shelf could be preserved, despite erosive shoreline transgression, in contexts amenable to having been buried by alluvial and fluvial processes during late Pleistocene and early Holocene epochs.
The inner New Jersey platform is a region of sediment starvation, little sediment cover, and heavy reworking of bottom sediments. Preservation potential of cultural materials in this region is very low. Exceptions include the flanks of buried channels, which are numerous on this part of the shelf. Within the project area, though, depth range sediments would be expected to have been reworked extensively. Raritan Bay is a first generation drowned river valley estuary that likely supported human populations on the flanks of the ancestral Raritan River prior to sea-level transgression ~6 kya.
5
Burial and preservation of cultural materials by fluvial sedimentation is likely, but below the normal project depth range. Burial and preservation of cultural remains by overlying estuarine sediments is less likely due to at least two episodes of ravinement and constant reworking of sediments within the project depth range.
The Sandy Hook transition zone sedimentologically is very dynamic in that spit growth by longshore transport processes has resulted from an extensive rate of sediment input and accumulation. Geologically recent human occupation of sites within the project corridor is highly unlikely because the area was below sea level until recently. No buried channels were identified previously in the project area, because the ancestral Raritan River had been buried completely by northward spit growth. In the highly unlikely event that humans occupied the project area prior to sea-level transgression, and if cultural remains were buried and preserved, they most likely would lie well below the proposed project depths in the study area.
Review of remote sensing data resulted in the identification of 293 targets that were analyzed to ascertain whether or not those targets possessed characteristics of potentially significant (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]) cultural resources, i.e., drowned watercraft or shipwrecks. Analyses of these data identified 66 targets with the characteristics of potentially significant shipwrecks. It is noteworthy that six targets produced side scan sonar images clearly depicting sunken vessels, while others demonstrated ranges of characteristics possibly indicative of shipwrecks.
Archaeological Resource Survey and Cultural Resources Assessment for the Port Ambrose Project State and Federal Waters, Offshore New York
R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. (RCG&A) conducted archaeological and cultural resources survey and analysis of the Port Ambrose Project area, which was comprised of a Deepwater Port, offshore pipeline and anchor handling areas in New York state waters. Liberty Natural Gas, LLC (Liberty) proposed to construct, own, and operate a Deepwater Port, known as Port Ambrose (or the Project), in the New York Bight. It consisted of two basic sets of components: Offloading Buoys and two offshore subsea lateral pipelines (Laterals) connected to a subsea natural gas mainline (the Mainline). The STL Buoy systems were located in water depths of approximately 103 ft (31 m), in federal waters roughly 19 miles (30 km) off Jones Beach, New York, and approximately 31 miles (50 km) from the entrance to New York Harbor.
RCG&A conducted cultural resources assessments of the project area within state and federal waters by analyzing remote sensing, sedimentological and geochronological data. The project area in state waters measured 461.3 acres or 0.72 mi (1.9 km) and entailed 71.5 linear miles (115.1 km) of survey transects. The primary route was surveyed at an interval of 30 m (excluding the laterals and the Port). In addition, a vibracoring program for geophysical/geotechnical and archaeological analyses examined five paleochannel features identified on the Compressed High Intensity Radar Pulse (CHIRP) data. The geophysical program acquired a total of 43 cores of varying lengths (103 sections); 13 of the cores were acquired for archaeological requirements, and 30 were acquired for geotechnical requirements and ground trothing of the geophysical survey data.
Seismic Compressed High Intensity Radar Pulse (CHIRP) and boomer data revealed 22 buried paleochannels within the Mainline and Deepwater Port. Of these 22 paleochannels, 5 were located in state waters. Even though sediment analyses indicate that these areas may have been favorable for human occupation during the late Pleistocene/Holocene, ~ 20,000 ybp, on-going site destruction processes have resulted in a patchy, laterally discontinuous framework of preserved natural levee
6
deposits. Therefore, there is a low potential for the preservation of intact submerged prehistoric archaeological sites.
The historical context developed for that project area demonstrated that the Port Ambrose project area is located in and adjacent to one of the busiest commercial shipping routes and largest ports in United States waters. Archival research into the maritime history of this region provided substantive information on many voyages and vessels. Review of remote sensing data identified 12 targets that were analyzed to ascertain if they possessed characteristics of significant (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]) cultural resources, i.e., shipwrecks. However, spatial and magnetic contour analyses coupled with careful review of associated sonar contacts and visual inspections using an ROV showed that the 12 targets did not represent significant cultural resources. As a result of these investigations, a determination of “No historic properties affected” (36CFR 800.4) in New York state waters for the Port Ambrose Project was recommended.
Atlantic Sea Island Group, LLC, Safe Harbor Energy Terminal, Sites and Pipeline Routes, Federal Waters
This project entailed marine archaeological survey of the Atlantic Sea Island Group, LLC (ASIG) Safe Harbor Energy Offshore LNG (Safe Harbor) Project area, in New York and Federal waters. Safe Harbor planned the construction of an LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) unloading, storage, re-gasification and delivery Terminal on a man-made island in the Atlantic Ocean located approximately 13.4 mi (21.5 km) south of Long Island, NY and 21.7 mi (35.0 km) east of Sandy Hook, NJ in federal Lease Block 6655. From this facility, off-loaded and processed natural gas was slated for delivery to onshore facilities and customers through an interconnect with the existing Williams-Transco Morgan, NJ to Long Beach, NY pipeline (Transco Pipeline) located approximately 3.0 mi (4.8 km) south of Long Island.
R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. conducted an archaeological assessment of remote sensing data for the Safe Harbor proposed and alternative Terminal sites and Pipeline routes. A total of 381 miles of primary survey line data from the offshore remote sensing array were analyzed for this project. These investigations were conducted in consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Office.
Cultural Resources Investigations for the Eastchester Marine Pipeline, Suffolk and Bronx Counties, New York
This project involved cultural resources survey of the Eastchester Marine Pipeline alignment, which extended 30.30 mi (48.76 km) between Northport, Suffolk County, New York to Eastchester in Bronx County, New York. In addition to the survey of the preferred alignment, six alternative marine alignments were surveyed in the vicinity of Execution Rocks and western Long Island Sound.
Geophysical survey of the submerged portion of the project corridor was designed to identify and evaluate potential submerged archaeological resources in accordance with New York State and Federal standards and guidelines. All of the off-shore portions of the project corridor were considered to possess a moderate to high potential for submerged cultural resources. Archival research indicated that shipwrecks were present in the vicinity of the project corridor and that submerged prehistoric sites could be present near the corridor’s western landfall.
Geophysical survey data were analyzed by Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Over 250,000 magnetic readings were taken during the survey, and 342 magnetic anomalies were identified. Of the 342
7
magnetic anomalies, 201 magnetic anomalies constituted single, pattern-less point sources without correlations on adjacent track lines, without correlative side scan sonar images, and without particular geographic correlations. One hundred forty-one anomalies analyzed resulted in 53 magnetic target areas of high density, single or grouped anomalies of unusually high amplitudes or duration, and/or those that exhibited complex magnetic signatures. Six of these exhibited characteristics typical of submerged cultural resources. A total of 27 acoustic anomalies also were detected in the 300 ft corridor of the survey area. Eight required further remote sensing and/or diver investigation.
2.0 DATA COLLECTION PLAN
This data collection plan details a multi-sensor geophysical remote sensing survey that will be performed for a combined geophysical and cultural resource survey of the proposed offshore APE. The APE extends east from Raritan Bay and includes a 23.43 mile long pipeline centerline and 5,000- ft (1524-m) corridor (2,500 ft (762 m) either side of the centerline). This survey will include: dual- frequency and multibeam echo sounding bathymetry; Chirp subbottom profiling; side scan sonar imaging; and marine magnetometer mapping.
2.1 Project Areas and Trackline Layouts
The proposed geophysical survey will provide sufficient coverage to define current conditions and to identify hazards, environmentally sensitive areas and significant submerged cultural resources. It is our understanding that the NJSHPO and the NYSHPO follow the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Guidelines for Providing Archaeological and Historic Property Information (2015a).
The trackline layout has been designed to identify potential cultural resources within the APE. One trackline will follow the centerline and additional parallel track lines will be spaced at a maximum of 75.0-ft (22.8-m) offsets to cover the full width of the APE. As a means of providing quality control and confirmation of sounding, subbottom profiling, sonar imaging, and magnetometer data acquired along the primary tracklines, additional data will be acquired along a series of cross or “tie” lines set perpendicular to the primary tracklines and spaced 1,640 ft (500 m) apart. Tracklines proposed within this data collection plan total approximately 1,628.8 linear miles (including tielines).
2.2 Survey Vessel
The survey operations will be conducted from a nearshore vessel designed for efficient hydrographic survey operations and outfitted with a suite of multi-sensor geophysical survey equipment. The geophysical survey crew will consist of at least one captain and at least one senior marine geologist/geophysicist and additional support personnel as needed.
2.3 Survey Equipment Overview
The survey equipment will be configured aboard the survey vessel to optimize data quality, reduce ambient noise and maximize survey efficiency. Sensors will be separated by as much space as possible to reduce acoustic interference and tow noise, as well as to minimize the possibility of entanglement during turns. Vessel speed will be maintained as high as possible without affecting the quality of the survey data, typically at 3-4 knots. Layback and offset values for each piece of
8
equipment will be made in “real time” and logged utilizing a navigation and data logging software package.
The primary equipment systems (or equivalent) to be mobilized onboard the vessel and employed to complete the proposed survey:
• Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) • Hypack Navigation and data logging software • Multibeam Echosounder (MBES), 400 kHz • Odom Echotrac DF3200 Digital Dual-Frequency Depth Sounder • Klein 3000 100/500 kHz Dual-Frequency Digital Side Scan Sonar System • Geometrics G882 Cesium Marine Magnetometer with bottom tracking altimeter • EdgeTech 3200-XS Chirp Subbottom Profiling System equipped with a SB216 Tow Vehicle (2-16 kHz)
2.3.1 Navigation and Positioning
The navigation system will continuously determine the position of the survey vessel. The position of the vessel will be plotted on a vessel track plot and displayed in real-time on a color monitor that will also provide additional navigation parameters to the helmsman. This method enables piloting of the vessel along pre-determined survey lines, and navigating to selected geologic or bathymetric features. Position fixes will be logged digitally on a continuous basis along the vessel track. Geodesy information will be presented clearly across all data types. Quality control methods will conform to the requirements of Special Order Surveys as defined by the International Hydrographic Organization (2005).
Positioning of Towed Sensors
Positioning for towed sensors will be provided by an ultra-short baseline (USBL) acoustic positioning system. The vessel may also use cable layback for positioning of surface-towed sensors.
Heading and Motion
A high-accuracy inertial measurement system (e.g., Applanix POSMV, IXSEA PHINS or similar) will be used to correct for vessel roll, pitch, heave, and heading. The antennas and motion sensor will be hard-mounted to the vessel(s) such that each item is undisturbed and rigid during survey.
2.3.2 Bathymetry
Multibeam Echosounder
MBES bathymetric data will be collected for bathymetric charting of the seafloor. Data from the MBES will be corrected in real time for vessel attitude, heading and position to generate a set of XYZ values in the project coordinates. These data will be subjected to a set of real time Quality Control (QC) checks, and data flagged as valid will be used to update the on-line displays. Sound velocity profile (SVP) casts will be conducted at regular intervals within the survey area to maintain quality and accuracy of the MBES data. The MBES will be operated to ensure 100% ensonification of the seafloor. In water depths less than 10 ft (3 m), full bottom coverage may not be achieved since across track coverage is typically only 3-5 times water depth.
9
Singlebeam Echosounder
If acquisition of multibeam data is impractical due to shallow water, a single or dual frequency echo sounder, such as the Odom Echotrac DF3200 (or equivalent), will be used to collect bathymetric data. Calibration and testing of the system will be conducted using typical methods, including daily bar checks, where possible, and a latency test over a known target or feature upon mobilization. Sound velocity profiler and spot checks will be used to verify the system. Daily draft measurements will be taken and recorded at the beginning and end of each day. Routine sound velocity profiles will be applied in real-time and during post processing, while tidal corrections will be applied during post processing.
2.3.4 Side Scan Sonar
The side scan sonar system will provide continuous planimetric imagery of the seafloor to identify potential archaeological resources. To provide sufficient resolution of seafloor features, the sonar will operate on as high a frequency as practical based on the factors of line spacing, instrument range, and water depth. For archaeological resource surveys, a system that operates at a 500-kHz frequency or greater is recommended (BOEM 2015a). The sonar system must be capable of resolving small, discrete targets 1.6 ft (0.5 m) in length at maximum range.
The instrument range will be set to provide at least 100% overlapping coverage (i.e., 200% seafloor coverage) between adjacent primary survey lines. The side scan sonar sensor will be towed above the seafloor at a height that is 10 - 20 % of the range of the instrument.
Sonar data will be recorded digitally and displayed to monitor data quality and identify targets of interest during acquisition. The data will be post-processed to improve data quality for interpretation and mapping, for example, by adjusting for slant range effects and variable speed along line.
2.3.5 Magnetometer
The magnetometer will be towed as near as possible to the seafloor and in a way that minimizes interference from the vessel hull and the other survey instruments. The magnetometer altitude will not exceed 20 ft. (6 m) above the seafloor. A bottom-tracking altimeter will be used to ensure the proper height of the magnetometer in the water column. The altitude of the magnetometer will be recorded continuously during data acquisition along survey.
Magnetometer sensitivity will be 1.0 gamma (γ; 1.0 nano-Tesla [nT]) or less. Background noise level will not exceed a total of 3.0 γ peak to peak. The data sampling rate will be greater than 4.0 Hz to ensure sufficient data point density. Magnetometer data will be recorded on a digital medium to link electronically to the positioning data. Survey line, time, position, altitude, and speed will be annotated on all output data. Magnetometer data will be processed to reduce ambient noise effects and diurnal field variation. Data will be smoothed, gridded, and contoured.
An anomaly check will be performed at the beginning of the survey by towing the magnetometer in close proximity to a known ferrous object (such as a navigational buoy) to ensure that anomalies in the local field are detected.
10
2.3.6 Subbottom Profiler
A subbottom profiler system will be used for identifying and mapping buried geomorphological features of archaeological potential that may exist within the horizontal and vertical footprints of the project’s APE. The selection of the appropriate subbottom frequency and system to achieve this goal will be based on understanding of both the geomorphology of the area (including the potential depth of the Holocene-Pleistocene unconformity) and the parameters of the proposed project (including the maximum depth of disturbance from the proposed activities).
The subbottom system will be capable of achieving a depth of penetration and resolution of vertical bed separation sufficient to allow identification and cross-track mapping of features of archaeological potential (e.g., shell middens, paleochannels, levees, inset terraces paleolagoon systems, etc.). As a minimum standard, the subbottom profiler system will be capable of achieving a resolution of vertical bed separation of at least 1 ft. (0.3 m) in the uppermost 30-50 ft (10 - 15 m) of sediments, depending on substrate. Chirp systems may be suitable for achieving this level of archaeological information; however, in some circumstances medium penetration seismic systems, such as a boomer, bubble pulser, or other low frequency system, may be necessary to provide archaeological information on sedimentary structure that exceeds the depth limitations of Chirp systems. For all subbottom systems used, the data will be recorded digitally to allow signal processing to improve data quality, and for export to a workstation for integrated interpretation and mapping.
The subbottom imagery will be processed to reduce ambient noise effects (due to the vessel, sea state, or other natural and anthropogenic phenomena), to remove noise within the water column, and to enhance contrast within subsurface stratigraphy. The data will be bottom-tracked using automatic and/or manual digitization; a swell filter will be used if necessary to remove vertical changes in the data due to towfish movement caused by sea state. After initial processing, subsurface data interpretation will be performed and all imagery will be reviewed to identify and digitize stratigraphic features. Imagery and interpretations will be provided as a geo-referenced TIF file.
2.3.7 Sediment Grab Samples
Sediment grab samples will be collected and used to ground-truth the geological interpretation based on the bathymetric and side scan sonar data. Samples will be collected at a pre-determined spacing along the centerline. Information derived from the samples will be discussed and documented in a manner that clearly demonstrates what was observed in the samples, including pictures and written assessments.
2.4 System Calibrations
All geophysical survey equipment will be operated in accordance with manufacturers’ procedures, and industry standard protocols will be followed for data transfer and transformation that will ensure the integrity of the raw data set and the quality of post-processed data. Confidence checks will be performed daily, or as needed, to ensure proper equipment functionality and data quality.
2.5 Horizontal and Vertical Control
Project horizontal reference is the UTM Zone 18 North, NAD83 in feet. Project vertical reference is the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88 using Geoid12A), in feet. Horizontal
11
positioning of the survey vessels for this investigation will be accomplished utilizing a DGPS interfaced with a U.S. Coast Guard Differential Beacon Receiver that calculates geodetic coordinates referenced to the WGS-84 datum (World Geodetic System established in 1984), and equivalent to NAD 83 (North American Datum established in 1983). Differential corrections will be received from the nearest U.S. Coast Guard reference beacon and applied to the GPS positions. The navigation software will convert the geodetic coordinates (latitude-longitude) to project grid coordinates (easting-northing) for navigation while logging these position data at 1-second intervals along survey tracklines. This DGPS system will provide sub-meter repeatable position accuracy, as stated by the manufacturer.
Navigation checks will be performed at the beginning and end of the field program to ensure that the positioning system is functioning properly and delivering the horizontal position accuracy required for the project. The survey disk to be used for these horizontal navigation checks will be determined by the geophysical contractor.
2.6 Basic Survey Procedures
Equipment will be mobilized onboard the survey vessel at a local port facility. Once the vessel is mobilized, the survey crew will check to make sure all instrument systems are working properly and show no sign of wear or potential safety hazards. A navigation check will be conducted at a local datum to be determined by the survey crew.
Once equipment is deployed and towing points secured, the vessel will get underway and the instrumentation will be tuned for site conditions. Data logging will be initiated prior to the start of the survey along a given line. All raw survey data and acquisition documentation (i.e., field notes) will be recorded electronically or manually in a field notebook. At the end of each survey day, digital logged data files from each system will be checked for error flags. All accepted data will be backed up. Backup copies will be made for all raw electronic data files.
During daily survey operations, a general lookout will be maintained for vessel traffic, floating debris, fishing gear and buoys, and any other items that could become an obstacle for avoidance. Under poor weather conditions, the survey vessel will transit back to safe harbor until the weather subsides and sea conditions are favorable for data collection.
2.7 Data Products
Following completion of all field data acquisition, the geophysical survey contractor will process, analyze and interpret the acquired geophysical data to yield products best supporting the project objectives. All data products resulting from the marine geophysical investigation will be reviewed for completeness and for compliance with the data transfer protocols provided by RCG&A to facilitate the archaeological interpretation. Specific data transfer protocols will be developed collaboratively with the survey contractor prior to commencing field work.
3.0 VIBRATORY CORE SAMPLING
Following the geophysical survey, a geotechnical contractor will conduct a vibratory core program along the pipeline alignment to ground truth the geophysical data and to evaluate near surface conditions. Vibracore samples are also an effective method of determining whether stratigraphy detected in the sub-surface geophysical investigation contains Pleistocene-Holocene components
12
indicative of sensitive areas for archaeological sites. Information collected during the geophysical survey will be used to refine and revise the locations as well as interval of the actual sample locations. The cores will obtain a depth that reaches beyond the maximum pipeline burial depth. Vibracore activities will be conducted from a suitable work platform equipped with a DGPS navigation system to guide the vessel to the coring locations.
As with the survey task, navigation checks will be performed at the beginning and end of the coring program to ensure the positioning system is functioning properly and delivering the horizontal position accuracy required for the project. The coring locations will be referenced horizontally using the project’s datum and spatial projection reference system. Depth measurements at each coring station will be corrected for tidal variation based on predicted tides in the area.
Coring will be accomplished by an experienced scientific (i.e., geologist) and technical crew. The crew will install the vibratory corer onboard the lift boat or barge to accomplish the investigation. The vibratory corer will be equipped with a Lexan liner so that a continuous sediment core can be recovered. All core sections will be analyzed by a geologist. This analysis will include splitting, visually describing, photographing, and subsampling. Subsamples then will be analyzed for grain size. Once all analyses are complete, the core sections will be transported to an approved facility for archiving.
3.1 Cultural Resources Assessment of Vibracore Locations
All core locations (and associated anchor spreads) will require cultural resources assessment prior to initiation of the geotechnical program. RCG&A will leverage data collected during the geophysical survey to provide a cultural resources assessment of each proposed core location. This assessment will identify any cultural resources present and provide avoidance recommendations as needed. RCG&A also may identify buried features in the subbottom data that may contain preserved archaeological materials, and recommend collection of geotechnical samples to confirm the presence or absence of soil horizons in order to resolve whether such surfaces will need to be avoided during construction activities. To achieve these objectives, geotechnical cores planned for engineering may be co-located to support the archaeological analysis.
4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORTING
A cultural resources assessment report, incorporating the results of the marine geophysical survey and geotechnical testing, will be submitted to federal and state agencies for review and comment as a stand-alone document. The archaeological analyses will be conducted by a qualified marine archaeologist and the report will be prepared in accordance with guidelines established by the NJSHPO and NYSHPO, and with counterpart federal guidance documents. Based on our assessment of the geophysical survey data and geotechnical investigations, recommendations of significance will be offered as possible for all newly recorded archaeological sites identified as a result of this survey. These assessments will apply the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]).
The report will include a description of the project area, the findings of the historical research, and discussion and presentation of the techniques, methods, and results of all data interpretation and analyses. Methodologies and assumptions employed will be explained and justified. Inferential statements and conclusions will be supported by statistics where possible. The report will include a complete inventory of all magnetic anomalies, sonar targets and seismic reflectors of interest recorded in and adjacent to the corridor area during survey. The data analyses and presentation will include at a
13
minimum, correlation of remote sensing data, and appropriate, maps, figures, and photographs to document these analyses.
5.0 REFERENCES
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) 2015a Guidelines for Providing Archaeological and Historic Property Information Pursuant to 30 CFR Part 585. 2015b Guidelines for Providing Geophysical, Geotechnical and Geohazard Information Pursuant to 30 CFR Part 585.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service, Office of Coast Survey 2016 Wrecks and Obstructions Database. Online database at http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/wrecks_and_obstructions.html.
14
TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY, LLC
APPENDIX 4D1 TO RESOURCE REPORT 4
ONSHORE PHASE I HISTORIC ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR CHESTER AND LANCASTER COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA
NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
MARCH 2017
This page intentionally left blank.
ONSHORE PHASE I HISTORIC ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR CHESTER AND LANCASTER COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA
This Attachment is a Privileged Document and available in Volume 4.
This page intentionally left blank.
TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY, LLC
APPENDIX 4D2 TO RESOURCE REPORT 4
ONSHORE PHASE I HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY FOR CHESTER AND LANCASTER COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA
NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
MARCH 2017
This page intentionally left blank.
ONSHORE PHASE I HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY FOR CHESTER AND LANCASTER COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA
This Attachment is a Privileged Document and available in Volume 4.
This page intentionally left blank.
TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY, LLC
APPENDIX 4E1 TO RESOURCE REPORT 4
ONSHORE PHASE I HISTORIC ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR MIDDLESEX AND SOMERSET COUNTIES, NEW JERSEY
NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
MARCH 2017
This page intentionally left blank.
ONSHORE PHASE I HISTORIC ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR MIDDLESEX AND SOMERSET COUNTIES, NEW JERSEY
This Attachment is a Privileged Document and available in Volume 4.
This page intentionally left blank.
TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY, LLC
APPENDIX 4E2 TO RESOURCE REPORT 4
ONSHORE PHASE I HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY FOR MIDDLESEX AND SOMERSET COUNTIES, NEW JERSEY
NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
MARCH 2017
This page intentionally left blank.
ONSHORE PHASE I HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY FOR MIDDLESEX AND SOMERSET COUNTIES, NEW JERSEY
This Attachment is a Privileged Document and available in Volume 4.
This page intentionally left blank.
TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY, LLC
APPENDIX 4F TO RESOURCE REPORT 4
OFFSHORE PHASE I HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY FOR THE RARITAN BAY LOOP, NEW JERSEY
NORTHEAST SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
MARCH 2017
This page intentionally left blank.
OFFSHORE PHASE I HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY FOR THE RARITAN BAY LOOP, NEW JERSEY
This Attachment will be included in Transco’s supplemental filing anticipated to be filed in the 2nd quarter of 2017.
This page intentionally left blank.