Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Routing Code PJ 11.4

Washington, DC 20426

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use FERC EIS 

No. 0249D Draft Environmental Impact Statement Constitution Pipeline and Wright Interconnect Projects

Docket Nos. 

CP13-499-000 

CP13-502-000 

PF12-9-000 

February 2014 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

FERC EIS 0249D

Cooperating Agencies

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Office of Energy Projects

Washington, DC  20426

Constitution Pipeline and

Wright Interconnect Projects

February 2014

Docket Nos.:

CP13‐499‐000; CP13‐502‐000; PF12‐9‐000
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Constitution Pipeline and Wright Interconnect Projects

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

i Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................ i 

LIST OF APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... vii 

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................. xiii 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ xiv 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. ES-1

PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................................................................... ES-1

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ....................................................................................................... ES-2

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION .............................................................................. ES-2

Geology and Soils ......................................................................................................... ES-3

Groundwater, Waterbody Crossings, Water Use, and Wetlands .................................. ES-4

Vegetation, Wildlife, Fisheries, and Federally Listed and State-Sensitive Species. ..... ES-5

Land Use and Visual Resources ................................................................................... ES-6

Socioeconomics ............................................................................................................ ES-8

Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ ES-8

Air Quality and Noise ................................................................................................... ES-9

Reliability and Safety .................................................................................................... ES-9

Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................... ES-10

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ......................................................................................... ES-10

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... ES-11

1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EIS ........................................................................... 1-3

1.2.1 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ............................................................ 1-4

1.2.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .............................................................. 1-4

1.2.3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ........................................................................... 1-5

1.2.4 Federal Highway Administration ........................................................................ 1-5

1.2.5 New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets .................................. 1-5

1.3 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT ............................................................................ 1-5

1.4 NON-JURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES ....................................................................... 1-11

1.5 PERMITS, APPROVALS, CONSULTATIONS, AND REGULATORY REVIEW ... 1-11

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 PROPOSED FACILITIES ............................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Pipeline Facilities ................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1.2 Aboveground Facilities ....................................................................................... 2-5

2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................... 2-6

2.2.1 Pipeline Facilities ................................................................................................ 2-7

2.2.1.1 Adjacent Existing Rights-of-Way and Utility Crossings.................... 2-7

2.2.1.2 Right-of-Way Configurations ............................................................. 2-9
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ii

2.2.1.3 Extra Workspace .............................................................................. 2-10

2.2.2 Aboveground Facilities ..................................................................................... 2-10

2.2.3 Contractor Yards ............................................................................................... 2-11

2.2.4 Access Roads .................................................................................................... 2-11

2.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES .............................................................................. 2-12

2.3.1 General Pipeline Construction Procedures ....................................................... 2-13

2.3.2 Special Construction Techniques ...................................................................... 2-18

2.3.2.1 Wetland Crossings ............................................................................ 2-18

2.3.2.2 Waterbody Crossings ........................................................................ 2-19

2.3.2.3 Drag-Section and Stove-Pipe Specialized Construction Methods .... 2-24

2.3.2.4 Typical Road and Railroad Construction Methods .......................... 2-24

2.3.2.5 Residential Areas .............................................................................. 2-25

2.3.2.6 Winter Construction ......................................................................... 2-25

2.3.2.7 State-owned Lands ........................................................................... 2-26

2.3.2.8 Agricultural Lands ............................................................................ 2-26

2.3.2.9 Rugged Topography ......................................................................... 2-27

2.3.3 Aboveground Facility Construction Procedures ............................................... 2-27

2.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ................................................................................... 2-28

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INSPECTION AND MITIGATION 

MONITORING .............................................................................................................. 2-28

2.5.1 Coordination and Training ................................................................................ 2-28

2.5.2 Environmental Inspection ................................................................................. 2-28

2.5.3 FERC Third-Party Compliance Monitoring ..................................................... 2-30

2.5.4 Post-Approval Variance Process ...................................................................... 2-30

2.5.5 Post-Construction Monitoring .......................................................................... 2-30

2.6 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND SAFETY CONTROLS ................................. 2-31

2.7 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT ................................................................ 2-32

3.0 ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE....................................................................................... 3-2

3.1.1 Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency ...................................................... 3-3

3.1.2 Non-Gas Energy Alternatives ............................................................................. 3-5

3.1.2.1 Nuclear Energy ................................................................................... 3-5

3.1.2.2 Fossil Fuels ......................................................................................... 3-6

3.1.2.3 Renewable Energy .............................................................................. 3-7

3.2 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................... 3-12

3.2.1 Existing Transportation System Alternatives ................................................... 3-12

3.2.2 Status of Existing Pipeline Systems .................................................................. 3-15

3.2.3 Modification of Existing Pipeline Systems....................................................... 3-15

3.2.3.1 Tennessee Gas Pipeline .................................................................... 3-16

3.2.3.2 Dominion .......................................................................................... 3-16

3.2.3.3 Other System Alternative Configurations ........................................ 3-19

3.3 COLLOCATION WITH EXISTING PIPELINE SYSTEMS ....................................... 3-19

3.3.1 TGP Collocated Alternative .............................................................................. 3-21

3.3.2 Millennium-Dominion-TGP Collocated Alternative ........................................ 3-21

3.3.3 EmKey-Dominion-TGP 200 Collocated Alternative ........................................ 3-21

3.3.4 Bluestone Pipeline Partially Collocated Alternative ......................................... 3-23

3.4 ROUTE ALTERNATIVES AND MINOR ROUTE VARIATIONS ............................ 3-25

3.4.1 Major Route Alternatives .................................................................................. 3-25

3.4.1.1 Alternative K .................................................................................... 3-25

3.4.1.2 Alternative M.................................................................................... 3-30
TABLE OF CONTENTS

iii Table of Contents

3.4.2 Minor Route Alternatives .................................................................................3-44

3.4.2.1 Minor Route Alternatives Adopted into the Proposed Route...........3-45

3.4.2.2 Minor Route Alternatives Not Adopted into the Proposed Route....3-49

3.4.3 Minor Route Variations....................................................................................3-58

3.4.3.1 Minor Route Variations Reported to Constitution ...........................3-59

3.4.3.2 Minor Route Variations Reported By Stakeholders.........................3-60

3.4.3.3 Minor Route Variations Assessed for Impacts on Agricultural 

Land..................................................................................................3-61

3.5 ABOVEGROUND FACILITY SITE ALTERNATIVES .............................................3-62

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.............................................................................................4-1

4.1 GEOLOGY ......................................................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Geologic Setting .................................................................................................4-1

4.1.1.1 Bedrock Geology................................................................................4-4

4.1.1.2 Geotechnical Investigations for the Trenchless Crossings.................4-4

4.1.2 Mineral Resources..............................................................................................4-6

4.1.2.1 Mining ................................................................................................4-7

4.1.3 Geologic Hazards..............................................................................................4-10

4.1.3.1 Seismicity .........................................................................................4-10

4.1.3.2 Faults................................................................................................4-11

4.1.3.3 Soil Liquefaction ..............................................................................4-11

4.1.3.4 Landslides.........................................................................................4-12

4.1.3.5 Flash Flooding..................................................................................4-14

4.1.3.6 Karst Topography.............................................................................4-14

4.1.3.7 Shallow Bedrock ..............................................................................4-15

4.1.3.8 Blasting.............................................................................................4-16

4.1.4 Paleontological Resources................................................................................4-16

4.1.5 General Impacts and Mitigation........................................................................4-17

4.2 SOILS ............................................................................................................................4-20

4.2.1 Existing Conditions...........................................................................................4-20

4.2.1.1 Pipeline.............................................................................................4-20

4.2.1.2 Aboveground Facilities and Access Roads ......................................4-20

4.2.2 Standard Soil Limitations .................................................................................4-20

4.2.2.1 Erosion by Water and Wind .............................................................4-23

4.2.2.2 Shallow Depth to Bedrock and Stony-Rocky Soils..........................4-23

4.2.2.3 Compaction Potential .......................................................................4-23

4.2.2.4 Poor Revegetation Potential .............................................................4-24

4.2.2.5 Poor Drainage...................................................................................4-24

4.2.2.6 Hydric Soils......................................................................................4-24

4.2.2.7 Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance .................4-24

4.2.2.8 Contaminated Soil ............................................................................4-25

4.2.2.9 Ground Heaving ...............................................................................4-25

4.2.3 Aboveground Facilities.....................................................................................4-27

4.2.3.1 M&R Stations, Mainline Valves, and Iroquois’ Project...................4-27

4.2.3.2 Contractor Yards ..............................................................................4-28

4.2.3.3 Access Roads....................................................................................4-28

4.2.3.4 Extra Workspace ..............................................................................4-28

4.2.4 General Impact and Mitigation.........................................................................4-31

4.2.5 Topsoil Segregation ..........................................................................................4-34

4.3 WATER RESOURCES .................................................................................................4-35

4.3.1 Groundwater Resources....................................................................................4-35
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents iv

4.3.1.1 Existing Groundwater Resources .....................................................4-35

4.3.1.2 Sole Source Aquifers........................................................................4-37

4.3.1.3 State Designated Aquifers................................................................4-37

4.3.1.4 Wellhead and Aquifer Protection Areas...........................................4-37

4.3.1.5 Water Supply Wells and Springs......................................................4-38

4.3.1.6 Contaminated Groundwater..............................................................4-39

4.3.2 Aboveground Facilities and Contractor Yards .................................................4-40

4.3.2.1 Groundwater General Impact and Mitigation...................................4-40

4.3.3 Surface Water Resources..................................................................................4-43

4.3.3.1 Existing Surface Water Resources ...................................................4-43

4.3.3.2 Public Watersheds............................................................................4-45

4.3.3.3 Water Classifications........................................................................4-47

4.3.3.4 Sensitive Waterbodies......................................................................4-48

4.3.3.5 Waterbody Construction Procedures................................................4-51

4.3.3.6 General Impacts and Mitigation .......................................................4-54

4.3.3.7 Extra Workspaces within 50 Feet of Waterbodies ...........................4-58

4.3.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................4-58

4.4 WETLANDS .................................................................................................................4-58

4.4.1 Existing Wetland Resources.............................................................................4-59

4.4.1.1 Pipeline Facilities .............................................................................4-59

4.4.1.2 Aboveground Facilities ....................................................................4-59

4.4.1.3 Contractor Yards ..............................................................................4-59

4.4.1.4 Access Roads....................................................................................4-59

4.4.1.5 Wetland Types..................................................................................4-60

4.4.1.6 Palustrine Forested Wetlands...........................................................4-60

4.4.1.7 Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetlands.....................................................4-60

4.4.1.8 Palustrine Emergent Wetlands..........................................................4-60

4.4.1.9 State Wetland Classifications...........................................................4-60

4.4.2 Wetland Construction Procedures.....................................................................4-61

4.4.3 General Impacts and Mitigation........................................................................4-62

4.4.4 Alternative Measures........................................................................................4-64

4.4.5 Compensatory Mitigation .................................................................................4-66

4.4.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................4-67

4.5 VEGETATION..............................................................................................................4-68

4.5.1 Existing Vegetation Conditions........................................................................4-68

4.5.2 Vegetation Communities of Special Concern or Value....................................4-69

4.5.3 Interior Forest Habitat.......................................................................................4-70

4.5.4 Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Plant Species...........................................4-71

4.5.5 General Impacts and Mitigation........................................................................4-72

4.5.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................4-76

4.6 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES................................................................4-77

4.6.1 Wildlife .............................................................................................................4-77

4.6.1.1 Existing Wildlife Resources.............................................................4-77

4.6.1.2 Sensitive or Managed Wildlife Habitats...........................................4-77

4.6.1.3 Migratory Birds................................................................................4-80

4.6.1.4 General Impacts and Mitigation .......................................................4-83

4.6.1.5 Conclusion........................................................................................4-87

4.6.2 Aquatic Resources............................................................................................4-87

4.6.2.1 Existing Aquatic Resources..............................................................4-87

4.6.2.2 Fisheries of Special Concern ............................................................4-88

4.6.2.3 General Impacts and Mitigation .......................................................4-90
TABLE OF CONTENTS

v Table of Contents

4.6.2.4 Conclusion........................................................................................4-93

4.7 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES.......................................................................................4-93

4.7.1 Regulatory Requirements and Species Identification.......................................4-94

4.7.2 Federally Listed Species...................................................................................4-95

4.7.3 State-listed Species...........................................................................................4-98

4.7.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................................4-105

4.8 LAND USE, RECREATION, SPECIAL INTEREST AREAS, AND VISUAL 

RESOURCES ..............................................................................................................4-105

4.8.1 Land Use.........................................................................................................4-105

4.8.1.1 Environmental Setting....................................................................4-105

4.8.1.2 Pipeline Facilities ...........................................................................4-109

4.8.1.3 Aboveground Facilities ..................................................................4-113

4.8.1.4 Project Contractor Yards................................................................4-114

4.8.1.5 Access Roads..................................................................................4-114

4.8.2 Landownership and Easement Requirements.................................................4-114

4.8.3 Existing Residences, Commercial and Industrial Facilities, and Planned 

Developments.................................................................................................4-115

4.8.3.1 Existing Residences; Commercial and Industrial Facilities...........4-116

4.8.3.2 Planned Developments...................................................................4-119

4.8.4 Recreation and Special Interest Areas............................................................4-120

4.8.4.1 State Forests....................................................................................4-122

4.8.4.2 Organic Farm Lands and Specialty Crops......................................4-122

4.8.4.3 Conservation and Other Special Use Lands...................................4-126

4.8.5 Hazardous Waste Sites....................................................................................4-130

4.8.6 Visual Resources.............................................................................................4-130

4.8.6.1 Pipeline...........................................................................................4-130

4.8.6.2 Aboveground Facilities ..................................................................4-131

4.8.6.3 Contractor Yards ............................................................................4-132

4.8.6.4 Access Roads..................................................................................4-132

4.8.6.5 Scenic Byways................................................................................4-132

4.8.6.6 Agricultural Lands and Open Land ................................................4-133

4.8.6.7 Forested Land .................................................................................4-133

4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS..................................................................................................4-133

4.9.1 Population and Employment...........................................................................4-133

4.9.2 Housing...........................................................................................................4-136

4.9.3 Public Services................................................................................................4-138

4.9.4 Transportation and Traffic ..............................................................................4-139

4.9.4.1 Construction Across and Within Roadways and Railroads............4-140

4.9.5 Property Values and Mortgages......................................................................4-141

4.9.6 Insurance.........................................................................................................4-142

4.9.7 Economy and Tax Revenues...........................................................................4-143

4.9.8 Environmental Justice.....................................................................................4-145

4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES........................................................................................4-147

4.10.1 Constitution Pipeline Project ..........................................................................4-148

4.10.1.1 Cultural Resources Investigations..................................................4-148

4.10.1.2 Results of Cultural Resource Investigations in Pennsylvania ........4-148

4.10.1.3 Results of Cultural Resource Investigations in New York.............4-150

4.10.1.4 Native American Consultation .......................................................4-154

4.10.2 Wright Interconnect Project............................................................................4-155

4.10.2.1 Cultural Resources Investigations..................................................4-155

4.10.2.2 Results of Cultural Resource Investigations...................................4-155
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents vi

4.10.2.3 Native American Consultation .......................................................4-156

4.10.3 Unanticipated Discovery Plans.......................................................................4-156

4.10.4 General Impacts and Mitigation......................................................................4-156

4.11 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE .....................................................................................4-157

4.11.1 Air Quality......................................................................................................4-157

4.11.1.1 Existing Air Quality .......................................................................4-157

4.11.1.2 Air Quality Regulatory Requirements............................................4-161

4.11.1.3 Air Emission Impacts and Mitigation.............................................4-167

4.11.1.4 Radon Exposure..............................................................................4-173

4.11.2 Noise ...............................................................................................................4-174

4.11.2.1 Existing Noise Levels.....................................................................4-174

4.11.2.2 Noise Regulatory Requirements.....................................................4-179

4.11.2.3 Noise Level Impacts and Mitigation ..............................................4-181

4.12 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY...................................................................................4-189

4.12.1 Safety Standards .............................................................................................4-190

4.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.........................................................................................4-202

4.13.1 Marcellus Shale Development........................................................................4-214

4.13.1.1 Background.....................................................................................4-214

4.13.1.2 Wells...............................................................................................4-214

4.13.1.3 Pipeline Gathering Systems............................................................4-215

4.13.2 Non-jurisdictional Project-related Facilities...................................................4-215

4.13.3 FERC-Jurisdictional Natural Gas Pipeline Projects........................................4-216

4.13.4 Other Projects .................................................................................................4-217

4.13.5 Potential Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action...................................4-219

4.13.5.1 Geology and Soils...........................................................................4-219

4.13.5.2 Water Resources.............................................................................4-220

4.13.5.3 Vegetation.......................................................................................4-223

4.13.5.4 Wildlife...........................................................................................4-223

4.13.5.5 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources....................................................4-224

4.13.5.6 Special Status Species ....................................................................4-225

4.13.5.7 Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual 

Resources .......................................................................................4-225

4.13.5.8 Socioeconomics..............................................................................4-227

4.13.5.9 Cultural Resources..........................................................................4-228

4.13.5.10 Air Quality and Noise.....................................................................4-229

4.13.5.11 Reliability and Safety .....................................................................4-232

4.13.6 Conclusion ......................................................................................................4-232

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................5-1

5.1 CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................5-1

5.1.1 Geology and Paleontological Resources.............................................................5-1

5.1.2 Soils ....................................................................................................................5-2

5.1.3 Water Resources.................................................................................................5-2

5.1.4 Wetlands.............................................................................................................5-4

5.1.5 Vegetation...........................................................................................................5-5

5.1.6 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources.........................................................................5-6

5.1.7 Special Status Species.........................................................................................5-8

5.1.8 Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources................5-9

5.1.9 Socioeconomics................................................................................................5-11

5.1.10 Cultural Resources............................................................................................5-11

5.1.11 Air Quality and Noise.......................................................................................5-12
TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii Table of Contents

5.1.12 Reliability and Safety........................................................................................5-14

5.1.13 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................................5-15

5.1.14 Alternatives.......................................................................................................5-16

5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION....................................................5-17
LIST OF APPENDICES

Table of Contents viii

APPENDIX A Distribution List

APPENDIX B Project Overview Maps

APPENDIX C Typical Right-of-Way Configurations

APPENDIX D Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction of the Constitution 

Pipeline Project

APPENDIX E Private Access Roads Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project

APPENDIX F Roadways and Railroads Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project

APPENDIX F-1 Roadways Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project

APPENDIX F-2 Railroads Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project

APPENDIX G Steep Slopes and Side Slopes Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline 

Project

APPENDIX G-1 Steep Slopes (15% to 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline 

Project

APPENDIX G-2 Steep Slopes (> 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline 

Project

APPENDIX G-3 Steep Side Slopes (15% to 30%) Crossed by the Constitution 

Pipeline Project

APPENDIX G-4 Steep Side Slopes (> 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline 

Project

APPENDIX H Status of Minor Route Variations

APPENDIX H-1 Status of Minor Route Variations Reported to Constitution

APPENDIX H-2 Status of Minor Route Variations Reported by Stakeholders

APPENDIX H-3 Status of Minor Route Variations Assessed for Impacts on 

Agricultural Lands

APPENDIX H-4 Status of Minor Route Variations Assessed for Impacts on Water 

Resources

APPENDIX I Areas of Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline 

Project

APPENDIX J Soil Limitations Crossed by for the Constitution Pipeline Project

APPENDIX J-1 Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline 

Project

APPENDIX J-2 Potential Soil Limitations at the Turnpike Road M&R Station, 

Westfall Road M&R Station, MLVs, and Contractor Yards

APPENDIX J-3 Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline 

Project Extra Workspaces

APPENDIX J-4 Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline 

Project Access Roads

APPENDIX K Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project

APPENDIX K-1 Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project –

Pennsylvania

APPENDIX K-2 Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project – New 

York
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ix Table of Contents

APPENDIX L Wetlands Affected by the Constitution Pipeline Project

APPENDIX L-1 Wetlands Affected by the Constitution Pipeline Project –

Pennsylvania

APPENDIX L-2 Wetlands Affected by the Constitution Pipeline Project – New 

York

APPENDIX M Interior Forests Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project

APPENDIX N Waterbodies Containing Sensitive Fisheries Crossed by the Proposed 

Constitution Pipeline Project

APPENDIX O Residential Construction Plans for the Constitution Pipeline Project

APPENDIX P Clean and Green Program Properties Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline 

Project

APPENDIX Q References 

APPENDIX R List of Preparers 
LIST OF TABLES

Table of Contents x

Table Title Page

Table 1.1-1 Constitution Pipeline Project Precedent Agreements......................................... 1-3

Table 1.3-1 Issues Identified and Comments Received During the Scoping Process 

for the Proposed Projects.................................................................................... 1-8

Table 1.5-1 Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations Applicable to the Proposed 

Projects............................................................................................................. 1-12

Table 2.1.1-1 Pipeline Facilities Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project................ 2-4

Table 2.1.2-1 Aboveground Facilities for the Constitution Pipeline and Wright 

Interconnect Projects.......................................................................................... 2-5

Table 2.2-1 Summary of Land Requirements Associated with the Constitution and 

Iroquois Project Facilities................................................................................... 2-7

Table 2.2.1-1 Summary of Pipeline Collocated with Existing Rights-of-Way ........................ 2-8

Table 2.3-1 Summary of Proposed Modifications to the FERC’s Plan and Procedures ..... 2-13

Table 2.3.1-1 Constitution’s Proposed Minimum Specifications for Depth of Cover ........... 2-15

Table 2.6-1 Maximum Scheduled Intervals Between Patrols for the Proposed 

Constitution Pipeline Project............................................................................ 2-31

Table 3.4.1-1 Comparison of Proposed Route to Alternative K............................................. 3-27

Table 3.4.1-2 Comparison of Proposed Route Segment 1 to Alternative M Segment 1 ........ 3-34

Table 3.4.1-3 Comparison of Proposed Route Segment 3 to Alternative M Segment 3 ........ 3-36

Table 3.4.1-4 Comparison of Proposed Route Segment 5/6 to Alternative M Segment 

5/6..................................................................................................................... 3-38

Table 3.4.1-5 Comparison of Proposed Route to 

Alternative Route M Segment 5, Bridge 1, Proposed Route Segment 6.......... 3-40

Table 3.4.1-6 Comparison of Proposed Route to Proposed Route 

Segment 5, Bridge 2, Alternative Route M Segment 6 .................................... 3-43

Table 3.4.2-1 Minor Route Alternatives Adopted into the Proposed Pipeline Route............. 3-45

Table 3.4.2-2 Comparison of the Proposed Pipeline Route to Alternative C and D .............. 3-51

Table 3.4.2-3 Comparison of the Proposed Pipeline Route to Alternative E1 ....................... 3-53

Table 3.4.2-4 Comparison of the Proposed Pipeline Route to Alternative G......................... 3-55

Table 3.4.2-5 Comparison of the Proposed Pipeline Route to Alternative P.......................... 3-57

Table 3.4.3-1 Status of Minor Route Variations Reported to Stakeholders ........................... 3-61

Table 3.4.3-2 Status of Minor Route Variations Assessed for Impacts on Agricultural 

Lands................................................................................................................ 3-62

Table 4.1.1-1 Physiographic Section and Geologic Formation along the Proposed 

Projects............................................................................................................... 4-2

Table 4.1.1-2 Surficial Geology Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline......................................... 4-3

Table 4.1.1-3 Summary of Geotechnical Investigations for Trenchless Construction 

Methods Along the Proposed Pipeline Route.................................................... 4-5

Table 4.1.2-1 Mineral Resources within 0.25 miles of the Constitution’s Project................... 4-7

Table 4.1.3-1 Landslide Potential in the Project Area............................................................ 4-12

Table 4.1.3-2 Identified Measures for Steep Slopes Associated with the Constitution 

Pipeline Project ................................................................................................ 4-13

Table 4.1.3-3 Karst Features in Proximity to the Proposed Pipeline...................................... 4-15

Table 4.2.2-1 Potential Soil Limitations (in acres) for the Constitution Pipeline Project ...... 4-21

Table 4.2.2-2 Impacts on Prime Farmlands and Farmlands of Statewide Importance (in 

acres) for the Proposed Constitution Pipeline Project...................................... 4-26

Table 4.2.2-3 Vulnerable Soils (in miles) Along the Proposed Constitution Pipeline 

Route ................................................................................................................ 4-27

Table 4.2.3-1 Soil Limitations (in acres) for Access Roads for the Constitution Pipeline 

Project............................................................................................................... 4-29
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)

xi Table of Contents

Table 4.2.3-2 Soil Limitations (in acres) for Additional Temporary Workspaces for the 

Constitution Pipeline Project............................................................................ 4-30

Table 4.3.1-1 Aquifers Crossed by the Proposed Projects...................................................... 4-36

Table 4.3.1-2 Private Water Supply and Monitoring Wells and Springs Within 150 feet 

of the Proposed Projects................................................................................... 4-39

Table 4.3.3-1 Watersheds Crossed by the Proposed Projects................................................. 4-44

Table 4.3.3-2 Public Water Supply Watersheds Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline .............. 4-46

Table 4.3.3-3 Water Quality Sensitive Surface Waters Crossed by the Constitution’s 

Project............................................................................................................... 4-48

Table 4.3.3-4 FEMA Flood Hazard Zones Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Facilities....... 4-51

Table 4.3.3-5 Proposed Hydrostatic Test Water Sources and Discharge Locations for 

the Proposed Projects....................................................................................... 4-53

Table 4.3.3-6 Proposed Hydrostatic Test Water Segments for the Pipeline Facilities........... 4-53

Table 4.4.3-1 Wetland Acreages Affected by the Construction and Operation of the 

Proposed Pipeline Project................................................................................. 4-62

Table 4.4.4-1 Areas Where Constitution Requested a Right-of-Way Greater than 75-

feet-wide in Wetlands....................................................................................... 4-65

Table 4.5.2-1 Special Vegetation Communities Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline............... 4-70

Table 4.5.5-1 Vegetation Types and Acres Impacted by Construction and Operation of 

the Projects....................................................................................................... 4-73

Table 4.6.1-1 Sensitive Wildlife Habitats Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project....... 4-77

Table 4.6.2-1 Construction Timing Restrictions for Waterbodies Containing Sensitive 

Fisheries Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project................................... 4-89

Table 4.7.2-1 Federally Listed Species Potentially Occurring in the Constitution 

Pipeline Project Area........................................................................................ 4-95

Table 4.7.3-1 State-Listed Species Potentially Occurring in the Constitution Pipeline 

Project Area...................................................................................................... 4-99

Table 4.7.3-2 Flowering Periods and Habitat Associations of State-Listed Plants.............. 4-103

Table 4.8.1-1 Acreage Affected by Construction and Operation of the Proposed 

Projects........................................................................................................... 4-106

Table 4.8.1-2 Land Uses Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Facilities for the 

Constitution Pipeline Project (miles) ............................................................. 4-110

Table 4.8.1-3 Agricultural Drain Tiles or Irrigation Systems Crossed by the Proposed 

Constitution Pipeline Project.......................................................................... 4-112

Table 4.8.3-1 Residences and Other Structures Within 50 feet of the Construction 

Work Area for the Constitution Pipeline Project ........................................... 4-116

Table 4.8.3-2 Planned Developments Within 0.5 Mile of the Construction Work Area 

for the Constitution Pipeline Project .............................................................. 4-119

Table 4.8.4-1 Federal, State, Recreation, and Conservation Lands Located Within 0.25 

Mile of the Constitution Pipeline Project....................................................... 4-121

Table 4.8.4-2 Organic and Specialty Crops Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline 

Project in New York....................................................................................... 4-123

Table 4.8.4-3 Agricultural Districts Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project in 

New York ....................................................................................................... 4-123

Table 4.8.4-4 Potential Farm Service Agency Program Enrolled Lands Crossed by the 

Constitution Pipeline Project.......................................................................... 4-127

Table 4.8.4-5 480/480a Properties Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project in New 

York................................................................................................................ 4-128

Table 4.9.1-1 Existing Economic Conditions for the Area Surrounding the Projects.......... 4-134

Table 4.9.1-2 Estimated Workforce and Work Schedule for the Projects............................ 4-135

Table 4.9.2-1 Housing Statistics by County in the Vicinity of the Projects......................... 4-137
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)

Table of Contents xii

Table 4.9.3-1 Public Service Infrastructure for the Projects................................................. 4-138

Table 4.9.7-1 Socioeconomic Impact Resulting from Construction and Operation of the 

Constitution Pipeline Project.......................................................................... 4-144

Table 4.9.8-1 Racial/Ethnic Statistics for the Area Surrounding the Projects...................... 4-146

Table 4.9.8-2 Economic Statistics for the Area Surrounding the Projects (Five-year 

Average: 2007-2011)...................................................................................... 4-146

Table 4.10.1-1 Archaeological Sites Within the Proposed Area of Direct Impact in 

Pennsylvania................................................................................................... 4-149

Table 4.10.1-2 Archaeological Sites Within the Proposed Area of Direct Impact in New 

York................................................................................................................ 4-151

Table 4.10.1-3 NRHP-Eligible Historic Aboveground Resources Within the Proposed 

Area of Impact in New York.......................................................................... 4-154

Table 4.11.1-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards....................................................... 4-158

Table 4.11.1-2 Wright Compressor Station Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data .............. 4-160

Table 4.11.1-3 General Conformity Applicability Thresholds............................................... 4-165

Table 4.11.1-4 Schoharie County Construction Emissions and General Conformity 

Thresholds for the Projects............................................................................. 4-165

Table 4.11.1-5 Estimated Construction Emissions (tons)....................................................... 4-168

Table 4.11.1-6 Combined Existing Wright Compressor Station and Proposed 

Compressor Station Operations Emissions (tpy)............................................ 4-169

Table 4.11.1-7 Air Dispersion Modeling Results for Wright Compressor Station 

Modification................................................................................................... 4-171

Table 4.11.1-8 Air Dispersion Modeling Results for Cumulative Impacts – Wright 

Compressor Station Modification .................................................................. 4-171

Table 4.11.2-1 Background Noise Levels at the Nearest NSAs to the Proposed 

Aboveground Facilities and Drill Sites.......................................................... 4-175

Table 4.11.2-2 Background Noise Levels at the Nearest NSAs to the Existing Wright 

Compressor Station ........................................................................................ 4-179

Table 4.11.2-3 Calculated HDD and Direct Pipe Noise Levels at the Nearest NSAs............ 4-182

Table 4.11.2-4 Calculated Operational Noise Levels at the Nearest NSAs to the 

Proposed Constitution Pipeline M&R Station and Mainline Valve Sites...... 4-185

Table 4.11.2-5 Calculated Operational Noise Levels at the Nearest NSA to Iroquois’ 

Project............................................................................................................. 4-187

Table 4.11.2-6 Calculated Operational Noise Levels for the Westfall Road M&R 

Station, Iroquois’ Compressor Facilities, and the Existing Wright 

Compressor Station ........................................................................................ 4-188

Table 4.12.1-1 Area Classifications along Constitution’s Project.......................................... 4-192

Table 4.12.1-2 Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Significant Incidents by Cause (1993-

2012)............................................................................................................... 4-198

Table 4.12.1-3 Outside Forces Incidents by Cause (1993-2012)............................................ 4-199

Table 4.12.1-4 Annual Average Fatalities - Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines ................. 4-200

Table 4.12.1-5 Nationwide Accidental Deaths....................................................................... 4-201

Table 4.13-1 Existing or Proposed Projects Evaluated for Potential Cumulative 

Impacts........................................................................................................... 4-204
LIST OF FIGURES

xiii Table of Contents

Figure Title Page

Figure 2.1-1 Project Overview Map........................................................................................ 2-2

Figure 2.1-2 Wright Interconnect Project Compressor Station Map ...................................... 2-3

Figure 3.2.1-1 Overview of the proposed Constitution Pipeline Project and Relative 

Location of other Interstate Pipelines in the Project Area................................ 3-14

Figure 3.2.3-1 Tennessee (TGP300) – Tennessee (TGP 200) ................................................. 3-17

Figure 3.2.3-2 Dominion Alternative....................................................................................... 3-18

Figure 3.3-1 EmKey and Bluestone Pipeline Collocated Alternatives Map......................... 3-20

Figure 3.3.2-1 Millennium – Dominion – Tennessee (TGP 200)............................................ 3-22

Figure 3.3.3-1 EmKey – Dominion – Tennessee (TGP 200)................................................... 3-24

Figure 3.4-1-1 Major Route Alternatives................................................................................. 3-26

Figure 3.4.1-2 Alternative M Segments................................................................................... 3-33

Figure 3.4.2-1 Adopted Minor Route Alternatives and Corresponding Non-adopted 

Segments .......................................................................................................... 3-48

Figure 3.4.2-2 Minor Route Alternatives Not Adopted ........................................................... 3-50

Figure 3.5-1 Compressor Station Alternatives...................................................................... 3-64

Figure 4.11.2-1 NSAs nearest to Turnpike Road M&R Station .............................................. 4-177

Figure 4.11.2-2 NSAs nearest to Westfall Road M&R Station ............................................... 4-178

Figure 4.11.2-3 NSAs nearest to Wright Interconnect Project ................................................ 4-180
TECHNICAL ACRONYMS 

Table of Contents xiv

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

AQCR air quality control regions

BA Biological Assessment

BACT Best Available Control Technology

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern

BMP best management practices

CAA Clean Air Act

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CH4 methane

CHP combined heat and power

Class I Mandatory Federal Class I Areas

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalents

COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Contamination Plan Unanticipated Discovery of Contamination Plan

CWA Clean Water Act

CWF coldwater fisheries

dB decibel

dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale

Discovery Plan Unanticipated Cultural and Paleontological Resources and Human Remains 

Discovery Plan

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

DRBC Delaware River Basin Commission

DTE DTE Energy

Dth/d dekatherms per day

ECP Environmental Construction Plan

EI Environmental Inspector

EIA Energy Information Administration

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

EV Exceptional Value (waterbody)
TECHNICAL ACRONYMS 

xv Table of Contents

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commisssion

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

fracking hydraulic fracturing

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

GHG greenhouse gas

GWP global warming potential

HAP hazardous air pollutant

HCA high consequence area

HDD horizontal directional drill

HQ High-Quality (waterbody)

IBA Important Bird Areas

kV kilovolt

Ldn day-night sound level

Leq equivalent sound level

LNG liquefied natural gas

LPG liquefied petroleum gas

M&R meter and regulation

MAOP maximum allowable operating pressure

MLV mainline valves

MP milepost

MW megawatt

N2O nitrous oxide

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NESHAPS National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NGA Natural Gas Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NNSR Nonattainment New Source Review

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOAA Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine 

Fisheries Service

NOx nitrogen oxides

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
TECHNICAL ACRONYMS 

Table of Contents xvi

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSA noise sensitive area

NSR New Source Review

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

NYCDEP New York City Department of Environmental Protection

NYCRR New York Codes, Rules and Regulations

NYCWSW New York City Water Supply Watershed

NYISO New York Independent System Operator

NYPA New York Power Authority

NYSDAM New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

NYSDOH New York State Department of Health

NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation

O3 ozone

OPRHP Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation

PADCNR Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

PEM palustrine emergent

PennDOT Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

PFBC Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission

PGC Pennsylvania Game Commission

PHMC Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Plan Constitution's Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan

PM particulate matter

PM10 particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less

PM2.5 particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less

ppb parts per billion by volume

ppm parts per million by volume

Procedures Constitution's Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation 

Procedures

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

psig pounds per square inch

PSS palustrine scrub-shrub

PTE potential-to-emit

PVR PVR Partners
TECHNICAL ACRONYMS 

xvii Table of Contents

RPS renewable portfolio standard

SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SIL Significant Impact Level

SIP State Implementation Plan

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SPCC Plan Iroquois’ Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan

Spill Plan Constitution’s Spill Plan for Oil and Hazardous Materials

SRBC Susquehanna River Basin Commission

SSA sole source aquifer

SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database

tcf trillion cubic feet

TDS total dissolved solids

TGP Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC

tpy tons per year

USC United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VOC volatile organic compounds

WHPA wellhead protection areas

Williams Williams Field Services Company
ES-1 Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared 

this draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to fulfill requirements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the Commission’s implementing regulations under Title 18 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations Part 380 (18 CFR 380). On June 13, 2013, Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC 

(Constitution) and Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. (Iroquois), filed applications with the FERC 

under Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission’s regulations to 

construct, install, own, operate, and maintain certain interstate natural gas pipeline facilities in 

Pennsylvania and New York. 

The FERC is the federal agency responsible for authorizing interstate natural gas transmission 

facilities under the NGA, and is the lead federal agency for the preparation of this EIS in compliance with 

the requirements of NEPA. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (COE), the Federal Highway Administration, and the New York State Department of 

Agriculture and Markets (NYSDAM) participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS. 

A cooperating agency has jurisdiction by law or has special expertise with respect to environmental 

resource issues associated with a project. 

PROPOSED ACTION

Constitution’s proposal, referred to as the Constitution Pipeline Project, would involve the 

construction and operation of 124.4 miles of new 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline and associated 

equipment and facilities in Pennsylvania and New York. Constitution also proposes to construct and 

operate 2 new metering and regulating (M&R) stations; 2 tie-ins, and 11 mainline valves (MLVs); and 

would install a pig1

 launcher and a pig receiver at the M&R stations.

Iroquois’ Wright Interconnect Project, also referred to as the compressor transfer station, would 

involve the construction and operation of new compressor facilities adjacent to Iroquois’ existing Wright 

Compressor Station and modifications to the existing Wright Compressor Station. Iroquois’ proposed 

expansion would be constructed completely within the property boundaries of its existing Wright 

Compressor Station. 

According to Constitution, the proposed pipeline project was developed in response to natural gas 

market demands in the New York and the New England areas, and interest from natural gas shippers that 

require transportation capacity from Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania to the existing Tennessee Gas 

Pipeline Company LLC (TGP) and Iroquois systems in Schoharie County, New York. 

The proposed projects would deliver up to 650,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of natural gas 

supply from Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania to the interconnect with the TGP and Iroquois systems at 

the existing Wright Compressor Station (to markets in New York and New England). 

Dependent upon Commission approval, Constitution and Iroquois (collectively Applicants) 

propose to begin construction in the second quarter of 2014 and third quarter of 2014, respectively, and 

place the projects in service by March of 2015. Constitution and Iroquois would seek approval to begin 

construction of their projects as soon as possible upon receiving all necessary federal authorizations.

 

1

 A pig is an internal tool that can be used to clean and dry a pipeline and/or to inspect it for damage or corrosion.
Executive Summary ES-2

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

On April 5, 2012, Constitution filed a request with the FERC to implement the Commission’s 

pre-filing process for its pipeline project. At that time, Constitution was in the preliminary design stage 

of its project and no formal application had been filed. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to 

encourage the early involvement of interested stakeholders, facilitate interagency cooperation, and 

identify and resolve issues before an application is filed with the FERC. On April 16, 2012, the FERC 

granted Constitution’s request and established a pre-filing docket number (PF12-9-000) to place 

information related to the pipeline project into the public record. The cooperating agencies agreed to 

conduct their environmental reviews of the pipeline project in conjunction with the Commission’s 

environmental process.

On September 7, 2012, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Planned Constitution Pipeline Project, Request for Comments on Environmental 

Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings. The notice was published in the Federal Register on 

September 14, 2012, and mailed to more than 2,100 interested parties, including federal, state, and local 

government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; 

Native American Tribes; affected property owners; other interested parties; and local libraries and 

newspapers. We initially held three public scoping meetings in the project area to provide an opportunity 

for agencies, stakeholders, and the general public to learn more about the proposed pipeline project and 

participate in the environmental analysis by commenting on the issues to be addressed in the draft EIS. 

On October 9, 2012, the Commission subsequently issued a Notice of Public Scoping Meeting and 

Extension of Scoping Period for the Planned Constitution Pipeline Project. The notice was published in 

the Federal Register on October 16, 2012, and mailed to more than 3,300 interested parties on our 

mailing list. The notice listed the date and location of one additional public scoping meeting to be held in 

the pipeline project area and extended the closing date for receipt of comments from October 9, 2012 to 

November 9, 2012. On July 10, 2013, the Commission issued an additional Notice of Intent to Prepare 

an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Wright Interconnect Project and Request for 

Comments on Environmental Issues. The notice was published in the Federal Register on July 16, 2013, 

and mailed to 74 interested parties. 

In response to our notices and at our public meetings, we received over 2,000 comments from 

landowners, public officials, non-governmental organizations, and government agencies regarding the 

projects. These comments expressed concerns with the proposed location of the pipeline route and the 

effects of the projects on resources, including, but not limited to waterbodies, wetlands, wildlife, 

vegetation, threatened and endangered species, property values, homeowners insurance, project safety, 

blasting, air quality, exportation of natural gas, hydraulic fracturing, cumulative impacts, and alternatives. 

These comments are addressed in this draft EIS.

A copy of the draft EIS was mailed to those agencies, tribal organizations, and individuals that 

attended meetings or submitted written comments on the projects, as well as to our environmental mailing 

list. The draft EIS has been filed with the EPA and a formal notice of availability will be issued in the 

Federal Register. The public has 45 days after the date of publication of the EPA’s notice in the Federal 

Register to comment on the draft EIS either in the form of written comments or at public meetings to be 

held along the pipeline route. All comments received on the draft EIS related to environmental issues will 

be addressed in the final EIS.

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

Construction and operation of the projects could result in numerous impacts on the environment. 

We evaluated the impacts of the projects, taking into consideration Constitution’s and Iroquois’ proposed 
ES-3 Executive Summary

impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures on geology, soils, groundwater, surface water, 

wetlands, vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, special status species, land use, visual resources, socioeconomics, 

cultural resources, air quality, noise, and safety. Where necessary, we are recommending additional 

mitigation to minimize or avoid these impacts. Cumulative impacts of these projects with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the projects’ area were also assessed. In section 3 of this 

EIS, we summarize the evaluation of nearly 400 alternatives to the projects, including the no-action 

alternative, system alternatives, major and minor route alternatives, and minor route variations.

Based on scoping comments, agency consultations, and our independent evaluation of resource 

impacts, the major issues identified in our analysis are in regard to waterbodies, wetlands, vegetation 

including interior forests, wildlife habitat, socioeconomics, and alternatives. Our analysis of these issues 

is summarized below and is discussed in detail in the appropriate resource sections in sections 3 and 4 of 

this EIS. Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of this EIS contain our conclusions and a compilation of our recommended 

mitigation measures, respectively.

Geology and Soils

The primary effect of construction of the projects on geologic resources would be disturbances to 

steep topographic features found along the construction right-of-way. A well-defined landslide feature 

was identified in the area of milepost 30.3 of the pipeline route, for which Constitution intends to perform 

a formal slope stability analysis. Since the potential hazards associated with the proposed route through 

this area has not been quantified, we are recommending that Constitution file the results of the formal 

slope stability analysis at MP 30.3.

Constitution performed geotechnical feasibility studies to evaluate subsurface conditions at the 

sites where specialized crossing methods are proposed for features including wetlands, waterbodies and 

roads; however, we have not received the results of all of the investigations. Therefore, we are 

recommending that Constitution provide geotechnical feasibility studies for all trenchless crossing 

locations. 

Flash flooding is a potential hazard in the area of the proposed projects. Constitution would 

design all waterbody crossings to minimize potential impacts from flash flooding, scouring, and high flow 

velocities during project operation. There are also several areas where karst topography may be present 

along the proposed pipeline route. Constitution has not yet indicated whether it would implement all of

the listed potential mitigation measures discussed in its environmental reports. Therefore, we are 

recommending that Constitution implement the above-mentioned mitigation measures for karst terrain. 

The projects would traverse a variety of soil types and conditions. Construction activities 

associated with the projects, such as clearing, grading, trenching, and backfilling, could adversely affect 

soil resources by causing erosion, compaction, and introducing excess rock or fill material to the surface, 

which could hinder the restoration of the disturbed areas. However, the Constitution and Iroquois would 

implement the mitigation measures contained in their respective environmental construction plans to 

control erosion, enhance successful revegetation, and minimize any potential adverse impacts on soil 

resources. Such measures include topsoil segregation, temporary and permanent erosion controls, and 

post-construction restoration and revegetation of construction work areas. Additionally, Constitution and 

Iroquois would implement their respective spill plans during construction and operation to prevent, 

contain, and clean-up accidental spills. To further protect soils, we are recommending that Constitution 

adhere to a maximum allowable rutting depth of 4 inches in agricultural areas and that Constitution 

consult with the NYSDAM and Constitution’s agricultural inspector prior to conducting any agricultural 

restoration of New York agricultural parcels between October 1 and May 15 to determine soil workability

during winter conditions.
Executive Summary ES-4

Most impacts on soil would be temporary and short-term. Permanent impacts on soils would 

occur at the aboveground facilities where the sites would be covered with gravel and converted to natural 

gas facility use. With the implementation of Constitution’s state-specific Environmental Construction 

Plans (ECPs), its Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan), Wetland and 

Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures), and Iroquois’ Plan as well as our 

additional recommendations, we concluded that impacts on geological and soil resources would be 

adequately minimized. 

Groundwater, Waterbody Crossings, Water Use, and Wetlands

The proposed pipeline would cross approximately 4 miles of the Clinton Street Ballpark sole 

source aquifer in Broome County, New York as well as Principal Aquifers, and wellhead protection areas 

in New York (WHPA). The construction workspaces would be within 150 feet of 2 water monitoring 

wells, 4 private water wells used for drinking water, and 20 private water supply wells or springs that are 

not used for drinking water. Constitution has not, however, completed identifying water wells and 

springs within 150 feet of the proposed pipeline and contractor yards. Therefore, we are recommending 

that Constitution determine the location of all water wells and springs within 150 feet of the proposed 

pipeline and aboveground facilities in Pennsylvania (where survey access has been granted) prior to 

construction. Constitution has agreed to test all water wells within 150 feet of the construction workspace 

for water quality and quantity prior to and after construction, and provide an alternative water source or a 

mutually agreeable solution in the event of construction-related impacts. 

Construction activities would not significantly impact groundwater resources because the 

majority of construction would involve shallow, temporary, and localized excavation. These potential 

impacts would be avoided or further minimized by the use of construction techniques and mitigation 

described in Constitution’s ECPs and Iroquois’ Procedures. Constitution and Iroquois would prevent or 

adequately minimize accidental spills and leaks of hazardous materials during construction and operation 

by adhering to their spill prevention plans.

The pipeline project would cross a total of 277 surface waterbodies, 2 of which are considered 

major waterbodies (greater than 100 feet wide). Constitution is proposing to use trenchless crossing 

methods for 42 of the crossings, including both major waterbodies and dry crossing methods for the 

remaining 235 waterbodies. Constitution would use construction techniques that avoid in-stream work. 

None of the aboveground facilities, including Iroquois’ proposed project, would impact waterbodies. Use 

of trenchless crossing methods to cross waterbodies and implementation of the mitigation measures 

outlined in Constitution’s ECPs and other project-specific plans would avoid or adequately minimize

impacts on surface water resources.

We reviewed Constitution’s proposed measures and determined that impacts on waterbodies not 

crossed by the pipeline, but affected by workspaces during construction, should be quantified on a 

waterbody-specific basis. Therefore, we are recommending that Constitution file a description of impacts 

and any proposed impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for each waterbody that 

would be impacted by workspaces but not crossed by the pipeline. 

Construction of the pipeline project would impact a total of 91.8 acres of wetlands, including 32.7 

acres of forested wetlands, 34.1 acres of herbaceous wetlands, and 25.0 acres of shrub-scrub wetlands. 

The majority of the projects’ wetland impacts would be located in temporary workspaces (75.7 acres) and 

these areas would eventually return to pre-construction conditions following construction. For the 

operation of the pipeline Constitution would maintain 16.1 acres of previously forested or scrub-shrub 

wetland in an herbaceous state. No wetlands would be impacted by construction of Iroquois’ proposed 

project.
ES-5 Executive Summary

Constitution also proposes to temporarily fill one wetland and permanently fill 13 wetlands 

(approximately 0.3 acres) for the purposes of constructing access roads. Constitution has not provided us 

with sufficient detail for these proposed permanent crossings of wetlands, nor have they provided us 

sufficient justification for the use of permanent fill. For these reasons, we are recommending that 

Constitution file site-specific plans for the permanent access road crossings wetlands and associated 

waterbodies, including site-specific justifications for the use of permanent fill. 

Based on the avoidance and minimization measures developed by Constitution, including the 

ECPs, we conclude that impacts on groundwater, surface water, and wetland resources would be 

effectively minimized or mitigated, and would be largely temporary in duration. Construction and 

operation-related impacts on wetlands would be further minimized or mitigated by Constitution’s

compliance with the conditions imposed by the COE, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection (PADEP), and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).

Vegetation, Wildlife, Fisheries, and Federally Listed and State-Sensitive Species.

The proposed projects’ impacts on vegetation would range from short-term to permanent due to 

the varied amount of time required to reestablish certain community types, as well as the maintenance of 

grassy vegetation within the permanent right-of-way and the conversion of aboveground facility locations 

to non-vegetated areas. The pipeline project would also affect vegetation communities of special concern, 

including a limestone/calcareous talus slope woodland and large tracts of interior forest. Interior forests 

are quality habitat for wildlife and migratory birds, and fragmentation of large blocks of interior forest has 

the potential to effectively disconnect forested tracts. To minimize impacts on interior forest which 

would account for 439.7 acres during construction and 217.9 acres during operations, Constitution would 

reduce the proposed construction right-of-way from 110-feet-wide to 100-feet-wide feet, where feasible, 

avoiding impacts on approximately 52 acres of forestlands (forested areas would be subject to 50-footwide permanent easement). To further mitigate impacts from fragmentation, we are recommending that 

Constitution develop an Upland Forest Mitigation Plan developed in consultation with the applicable 

federal and state agencies to minimize forest impacts. Although some impacts would occur on forested 

lands at the Iroquois site, the adjacent area is already industrially developed. 

The projects would affect wildlife and wildlife habitats along the pipeline route and at the 

compressor transfer station. These impacts would be temporary, short-term, long-term, or permanent, 

depending on the habitat type impacted, proposed facility type, as well as the location of that habitat 

within project workspaces. The proposed project would impact four high-quality wildlife areas, including 

an area of potential timber rattlesnake habitat, two state forests, and an Important Bird Area. Constitution 

has routed the pipeline to minimize impacts where possible and would implement its Plan, Procedures, 

and ECPs to minimize the effects of the project on wildlife and their habitats. 

Construction could cause direct and indirect impacts on raptors and other migratory birds. 

Constitution has surveyed, and would continue to survey, for bald eagles at specific locations along the 

proposed project and has located three nests identified by the agencies, two of which are within 0.5-mile 

of project areas that may require blasting. We are recommending that Constitution consult with the 

applicable agencies to complete required surveys, develop mitigation for nests that may be close to areas 

requiring blasting, and finalize a bald eagle mitigation plan. Constitution would conduct the majority of 

tree-clearing activities within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) recommended clearing window 

for the protection of migratory birds. As noted above, we are recommending that Constitution develop an 

Upland Forest Mitigation Plan that would specifically address impacts on migratory bird habitat (in 

addition to forested areas) for forest lands that would be cleared outside of the FWS-recommended 

clearing window. 
Executive Summary ES-6

As noted above, the pipeline project would cross 277 waterbodies, most of which are classified as 

coldwater fisheries; 97 support trout populations. Schoharie Creek, the only warmwater fishery that 

would be crossed by the pipeline project, contains potential habitat for the state-listed yellow lampmussel. 

Constitution indicated that it would cross all fisheries of special concern, including trout fisheries and 

Schoharie Creek within state-designated dates for crossing windows. In addition, Constitution would use 

a dry crossing method for all waterbodies, which would avoid in-stream construction, and allow flow to 

be maintained, and minimize downstream sedimentation and turbidity. There are no aquatic habitats 

present at the proposed compressor transfer station site. No in-water blasting is expected to be required 

for any of the pipeline crossings. However, if it is later determined that in-water blasting is required, 

Constitution would develop a detailed in-water blasting plan that complies with state-specific regulations 

and permit conditions. We are recommending that Constitution provide the FERC with any site-specific 

blasting plans that include protocols for in-water blasting and the protection of aquatic resources and 

habitats. 

Constitution and Iroquois would use surface water and municipal sources totaling approximately 

22.7 million gallons for hydrostatic testing. Constitution proposes to use five waterbodies as sources of 

hydrostatic test water, all of which contain sensitive fisheries: Starrucca Creek in Pennsylvania, and 

Oquaga, Ouleout, Kortright, and Schoharie Creeks in New York. The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 

Commission (PFBC) approved the withdrawal of water from Starrucca Creek but requested that water not 

be withdrawn between March 1 and June 15, which could be outside of Constitution’s proposed water 

withdrawal window of December through March. Constitution has not received approval for water 

withdrawal from the NYSDEC, nor has Constitution verified whether water withdrawals would be subject 

to the in-stream work windows, where applicable. Therefore, we are recommending that Constitution 

commit to withdrawing water within the PFBC recommended in-stream work window or provide the 

results of additional coordination with the PFBC. In addition, we are recommending that Constitution file 

written approval from the NYSDEC allowing water withdrawals, as well as listing any timing restrictions 

that would be placed on withdrawals at those locations.

Based on Constitution’s consultations with the FWS and our review of existing records, four 

federally listed threatened or endangered species are potentially present in the vicinity of the pipeline 

project, but no critical habitat has been designated for these species in the project area. We are requesting 

that the FWS consider this draft EIS as the Biological Assessment for the projects. We have determined 

that construction and operation of the project is not likely to adversely affect the federally listed Indiana 

bat, dwarf wedgemussel, and Northern monkshood. We have determined that the proposed project would 

have no effect on the threatened bog turtle. In addition, we are recommending that Constitution not begin 

construction until all remaining surveys and consultations with the applicable federal and state agencies 

are complete, and it has received written notification from the Director of OEP. No federally listed 

threatened or endangered species would be affected by Iroquois’ project. 

Nineteen additional species are state listed as threatened, endangered, or candidate species, or 

were noted by the applicable state agencies as being of special concern. We are recommending that 

Constitution develop appropriate mitigation for special-status bat species that were encountered during 

species-specific surveys. In addition, we are recommending that Constitution submit the remaining 

surveys for state-listed species that may be present in the pipeline project workspaces. In consideration of 

these recommendations, as well as those described above for the bald eagle, we concluded that impacts on 

state sensitive species would be avoided or adequately minimized.

Land Use and Visual Resources

Construction of the proposed projects would impact a total of 1,862.0 acres. Approximately 89 

percent of this acreage would be utilized for the pipeline facilities, including the construction right-of-way 
ES-7 Executive Summary

(83.6 percent) and extra workspaces (5.8 percent). The remaining acreage is associated with contractor 

yards (5.9 percent), access roads (3.6 percent), and aboveground facilities (1.1 percent). Following 

construction, lands outside of the permanent right-of-way, extra workspace areas, contractor yards, and 

temporary access roads would be allowed to revert to their original land use type. The primary land use 

types impacted during construction would be forested/woodland (55.0 percent) and agriculture (23.5 

percent). Open water, open land, industrial/commercial and residential make up the remaining 21.5 

percent of land types. 

Operation of the projects would permanently affect 748.8 of the 1,862.0 acres impacted during 

construction. The easement for the new permanent pipeline right-of-way would account for 707.3 acres, 

or 94.5 percent of the acreage. The remaining 41.5 acres (5.5 percent) are associated with aboveground 

facilities (including 4.5 acres for Iroquois’ project) and permanent access roads. 

Currently we have identified six residences and an occupied pool house that would be within 50 

feet of Constitution’s proposed construction work area. Three of them would be within 25 feet of the 

proposed work area. To limit the distance between construction and the residences, Constitution 

developed site-specific construction plans for them. To reduce impacts of construction, we are 

recommending that Constitution more accurately classify currently unsurveyed structures, and also 

prepare an updated site-specific plan regarding potential impacts on a septic field located within the 

proposed work area. 

No planned developments in Pennsylvania are within 0.5 mile of the pipeline project. In New 

York, five planned projects were identified as being within 0.5 mile of the pipeline project. Constitution 

incorporated several route variations into its proposed pipeline route to minimize or avoid impacts on four 

of the planned developments. For the remaining development, we are recommending that Constitution 

coordinate with the developer and local authorities to minimize impacts.

In general, impacts on recreational and special interest areas, including two New York State 

Forests, would be temporary (several days to several weeks in any one area). Constitution would install 

the pipeline at greater depths to allow trees to grow back over the pipeline. 

The pipeline project would cross 7 tracts of land supporting specialty crops as well as 33.4 miles 

within agricultural districts. Constitution has committed to continuing coordination with landowners to 

avoid and minimize impacts on specialty crops, including the use of minor route re-alignments to avoid 

sensitive areas. Where impacts on specialty crops cannot be avoided, Constitution would implement 

special construction procedures in accordance with its ECPs. In addition, we are recommending that 

Constitution revise their Organic Farm Protection Plan to require the use of organic straw/hay for mulch 

on certified organic agricultural lands. 

Visual resources along the proposed pipeline route are a function of geology, climate, and 

historical processes, and include topographic relief, vegetation, water, wildlife, land use, and human uses 

and development. A portion of the pipeline (about 9.0 percent) would be installed within or parallel to 

existing pipeline and/or utility rights-of-way. As a result, the visual resources along this portion of the 

project have been previously affected by other similar activities. Impacts in other areas would be greatest 

where a conversion from forested land to a grassy, maintained right-of-way would occur, particularly at 

viewing locations such as roadways. We conclude that these visual impacts, however, would not be 

considered significant overall. Due to the location of the proposed compressor transfer station in an 

existing industrial setting surrounded by in part by forest land, it is anticipated that visual impacts on 

nearby visual receptors during operation would be permanent but negligible. 
Executive Summary ES-8

Socioeconomics

The primary socioeconomic impacts of the pipeline project include population effects associated 

with the influx of construction workers and the impact of these workers on public services and temporary 

housing during construction. Secondary socioeconomic effects include increased sales and property tax 

revenue, job opportunities, income associated with local construction employment, increased vehicle 

traffic, and impacts on roads. 

We received comments regarding the effect of the project on property values and insurance 

policies. The real potential for these impacts is unclear and would likely be highly variable. To address 

this issue we are recommending that Constitution document any property insurance issues and describe 

efforts to coordinate with the affected landowners to mitigate impacts.

Construction of the projects would result in minor positive impacts due to increases in 

construction jobs, payroll taxes, purchases made by the workforce, and expenses associated with the 

acquisition of material goods and equipment. Operation of the projects would have a minor to moderate 

positive effect on the local governments’ tax revenues due to the increase in property taxes that would be 

collected. 

Cultural Resources

Constitution conducted archival research and walkover surveys of the area of the proposed 

project to identify historic aboveground resources and locations for additional subsurface testing in areas 

with potential for prehistoric and historic archaeological sites. Constitution identified 138 historic 

aboveground resources within the area of direct impact for the proposed pipeline route. Of those, we 

have determined that 15 of these historic aboveground resources are eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Two of the 15 NRHP-eligible resources would be adversely affected 

by the proposed pipeline. Constitution would implement measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any 

anticipated adverse effects on eligible historic aboveground resources as part of the ongoing process to 

comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Twenty-six archaeological sites and 17 stone pile sites would be located within the proposed 

pipeline construction right-of-way, one archaeological site would be located in the area of potential 

impact at a proposed contractor yard, and one cemetery would be within a proposed access road 

corridor. Constitution has recommended 17 archaeological sites that would be impacted by its project as

potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. Constitution would either modify the project to avoid 

impacts, or provide suitable mitigation. Iroquois identified a single archaeological site during its Phase I 

survey. The site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP, and the New York Office of Parks, Recreation 

and Historic Preservation agreed. 

We consulted with federally recognized Native American tribes (15 associated with 

Constitution’s project and 10 associated with Iroquois’ project) and three tribes that are not federally 

recognized to provide them an opportunity to comment on the proposed projects. Several tribes and 

organizations requested additional consultation or information, but none have provided comments on the 

projects.

To ensure that our responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act are 

met, we are recommending that the Applicants not begin construction until any additional required 

surveys are completed, survey reports and treatment plans (if necessary) have been reviewed by the 

appropriate parties, and we provide written notification to proceed.
ES-9 Executive Summary

Air Quality and Noise

Air quality impacts associated with construction of the projects would include emissions from 

fossil-fueled construction equipment and fugitive dust. Such air quality impacts would generally be 

temporary and localized, and are not expected to cause or contribute to a violation of applicable air 

quality standards.

Emissions generated during operation of Constitution’s project would be minimal, limited to 

emissions from maintenance vehicles and equipment and fugitive emissions. Operation of the new 

turbines at the compressor transfer station would result in the existing Wright Compressor Station 

becoming a “major source” of greenhouse gas emissions requiring a Title V application and permit at 

start-up of the new compressors. Because Title V is only required for greenhouse gas emissions, the 

proposed turbines would still be permitted and regulated as “minor sources” and “minor modifications”

with regard to emission controls and other requirements.

Most of the project area is in attainment for criteria pollutants. Extensions of the construction 

schedule past the estimated 9 months may result in increases in construction emissions that would exceed 

the general conformity applicability threshold. Therefore, we are recommending that if such 

modifications occur within Schoharie County, then the Applicants would have to provide additional 

emissions data to assist in our preparation of a General Conformity assessment.

Noise would be generated during construction of the pipeline and aboveground facilities for both 

projects. Construction activities in any one area would typically last from several days to several weeks 

on an intermittent basis. Construction equipment would be operated on an as-needed basis during this 

period, and would not be expected to exceed the FERC’s noise standard of 55 decibels on a A-weighted 

scale – day/night average (dBA-Ldn) at the nearest noise sensitive areas (NSAs). However, we are 

recommending that Constitution develop a site-specific noise mitigation plan for a NSA near one of 

Constitution’s HDDs.

Some noise would be generated by the operation of Constitution’s M&R Stations and Iroquois’ 

facility. An acoustical analysis was completed to identify the estimated combined noise impacts on the 

nearest NSAs from both the Westfall Road M&R station and Iroquois’ compressor station. The results of 

the acoustical analysis demonstrate compliance with the FERC’s noise standard of 55 dBA (Ldn). 

However, to ensure that the actual noise levels produced by the compressor station facilities, we are 

recommending that Iroquois submit noise surveys and add noise mitigation until noise levels are below 

our acceptable thresholds. 

Implementation of Constitution’s and Iroquois’ proposed measures such as acoustical enclosures 

and absorptive noise barriers as well as our additional recommendations would adequately minimize air 

and noise-related impacts associated with the projects.

Reliability and Safety

The pipeline and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed projects would be designed, 

constructed, operated, and maintained to meet the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Minimum 

Federal Safety Standards in 49 CFR 192 and other applicable federal and state regulations. These 

regulations include specifications for material selection and qualification; minimum design requirements; 

and protection of the pipeline from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion. 

The Applicants would also perform integrity risk assessments of the facilities, which would be 

instrumental in early detection of leaks and would reduce the likelihood for pipeline failure. The 
Executive Summary ES-10

Applicants’ representatives would meet with the emergency services departments of the municipalities 

and counties along the proposed pipeline facilities on an ongoing basis as part of their liaison programs. 

The Applicants would provide these departments with emergency contact information and verbal, written, 

and mapping descriptions of the pipeline systems. This liaison program would identify the appropriate 

fire, police, and public officials and the responsibilities of each organization that may respond to a gas 

pipeline emergency, and coordinate mutual assistance in responding to emergencies. 

We conclude that the Applicants’ implementation of the above measures would protect public 

safety and the integrity of the proposed facilities. 

Cumulative Impacts

Three types of projects (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects) could potentially 

contribute to a cumulative impact when considered with the proposed projects. These projects include 

Marcellus Shale development (wells and gathering systems); natural gas facilities that are not under the 

Commission’s jurisdiction; other FERC jurisdictional natural gas pipelines; and unrelated actions such as 

residential or industrial developments, transportation projects, wind farms, and utility lines. The region of 

influence for cumulative impacts varied depending on the resource being discussed. Specifically, we 

included minor projects located within 0.25 mile of the proposed area for both Constitution and Iroquois’ 

projects; major projects located within 10 miles of the proposed area for both projects; major projects 

located within watersheds crossed by the proposed projects; and projects with potential to result in longer 

term impacts on air quality located within an air quality control region crossed by the proposed projects. 

We received numerous comments about the cumulative impacts associated with development of 

natural gas reserves in the Marcellus Shale and hydraulic fracturing. In Pennsylvania, the permitting of 

upstream facilities associated with the development of the Marcellus Shale is under the jurisdiction of the 

PADEP Bureau of Oil and Gas Management. The PADEP has developed Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) for the construction and operation of upstream oil and gas production facilities. Further, the 

PADEP and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission have recently enacted regulations to specifically 

protect surface and groundwater resources from potential impacts associated with the unconventional 

development of the Marcellus Shale. Development of the Marcellus Shale is expected to continue in 

proximity to and during construction and operation of portions of the pipeline project in Pennsylvania 

(hydraulic fracturing is currently prohibited in New York). 

Impacts associated with the proposed projects in combination with other projects such as 

residential developments, wind farms, utility lines, and transportation projects, would be relatively minor 

overall. We have included recommendations in the EIS to further reduce the environmental impacts 

associated with Constitution’s and Iroquois’ projects, as summarized in section 5.2. Additionally, 

Constitution selected a route that collocates with existing rights-of-way where feasible. Therefore, we 

conclude that the cumulative impacts associated with the Constitution and Iroquois projects, when 

combined with other known or reasonably foreseeable projects, would be effectively limited. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The no-action alternative was considered for the projects. While the no-action alternative would 

eliminate the environmental impacts identified in this draft EIS, the user markets would be denied the 

projects’ objective of delivering 650,000 Dth/d of natural gas from existing supplies in Susquehanna 

County, Pennsylvania to markets in New York and New England. This might result in greater reliance on 

alternative fossil fuels, such as coal or fuel oil, or both. We also considered energy conservation and 

efficiency, and other energy source alternatives (including renewable energy sources). Other fossil fuels 

are not as clean as natural gas, and renewable sources such as solar and wind power are not always 
ES-11 Executive Summary

reliable or available in sufficient quantities to support market requirements. We concluded that the no 

action alternative, energy efficiency, and other sources of energy were not viable alternatives to the 

proposed projects in the required timeframe.

Any system alternative for the projects would need to be able to transport similar volumes of 

natural gas to the vicinity of the existing Wright compressor station or to the ultimate market destinations 

of New York and New England. We did not identify any existing pipeline systems that could meet the 

purpose and need of the projects without expansion. Based on our knowledge of other systems, 

construction and operational impacts associated with system alternatives would be similar to or greater 

than those of the proposed projects due to the amount of looping and new construction required to 

connect the systems to the projects’ origin and terminus. Consequently, no system alternatives were 

identified that are environmentally preferable to the proposed projects.

We evaluated two major route alternatives to the proposed pipeline’s route. Neither of these 

major route alternatives offered a significant environmental advantage over the proposed route. 

Therefore, we eliminated them from further consideration. We also evaluated 20 minor route alternatives 

relative to Constitution’s proposed route. Although they can extend for several miles, minor route 

alternatives typically deviate from the proposed route less substantially than major route alternatives. 

Minor route alternatives are often designed to avoid larger environmental resources or engineering 

constraints, and typically remain within the same general area as the proposed route. Based on 

consultations with landowners, resource agencies, municipal governments, field review, and impact 

assessment, Constitution fully incorporated nine minor route alternatives and partially incorporated two 

additional minor route alternatives into its proposed route as a result of input during both the pre-filing 

and certificate application review of its project. These changes were adopted primarily to increase 

collocation with existing utilities, avoid or minimize impacts on natural resources, reduce or eliminate 

safety and constructability concerns, and/or avoid or minimize conflicts with existing or proposed 

residential land uses.

Constitution indicated that it had assessed numerous minor route variations over the course of 

project development and that over 50 percent of its proposed route had changed due to incorporation of 

alternatives or variations since the project was introduced during the pre-filing process in May 2012. 

We also reviewed numerous minor route variations and found that 13 of these variations could 

reduce or eliminate impacts on site-specific resources. Therefore, we are recommending that Constitution 

provide us with additional information on these alternatives.

We also evaluated the locations of the proposed pipeline’s aboveground facilities to determine 

whether environmental impacts would be reduced or mitigated by the use of alternative facility sites. We 

did not identify any alternative sites that would offer a significant environmental advantage to the 

proposed sites for these facilities. Alternative locations for the proposed compressor transfer station 

included six parcels in the vicinity of the existing Wright Compressor Station along Westfall Road or 

Barton Hill Road. While these parcels were potentially viable alternative sites, locating the proposed 

compressor transfer station within the existing parcel owned by Iroquois and already containing a 

compressor facility would have numerous environmental advantages. For these reasons, we concluded 

that construction of the compressor transfer station on the existing Iroquois parcel was preferable to 

construction on a previously non-developed site. 

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS

We determined that construction and operation of the projects would result in limited adverse 

environmental impacts. This determination is based on a review of the information provided by 
Executive Summary ES-12

Constitution and Iroquois and further developed from environmental information requests; field 

reconnaissance; scoping; literature research; alternatives analyses; and contacts with federal, state, and 

local agencies, and other stakeholders. We conclude that the approval of the projects would have some 

adverse environmental impacts, but these impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. 

Although many factors were considered in this determination, the principal reasons are:

• Constitution would minimize impacts on natural and cultural resources during 

construction and operation of its project by implementing its Plan and Procedures; Soil 

Protection and Subsoil Decompaction Mitigation Plan; HDD Contingency Plan; Special 

Crop Productivity Monitoring Procedures; Unanticipated Cultural and Paleontological 

Resources and Human Remains Discovery Plan; Seeding, Fertilizing, and Lime 

Recommendations for Gas Pipeline Right-of-Way Restoration in Farmlands;

Unanticipated Discovery of Contamination Plan; Spill Plan for Oil and Hazardous 

Materials; Blasting Plan; Invasive Species Management Plan; Winter Construction Plan;

Organic Farm Protection Plan; and Karst Mitigation Plan.

• Iroquois would minimize impacts on natural and cultural resources during construction 

and operation of its project by implementing its Plan and Procedures, Spill Prevention, 

Containment, and Countermeasure Plan, and Unanticipated Cultural Resource Discovery 

Plan. 

• We would complete Endangered Species Act consultations with the FWS prior to 

allowing any construction to begin.

• We would complete the process of complying with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act and implementing the regulations at 36 CFR 800 prior to allowing any 

construction to begin.

• Constitution would use trenchless crossing methods for several waterbodies and 

wetlands, would cross other waterbodies using dry crossing methods, and would be 

required to obtain applicable permits and provide mitigation for unavoidable impacts on 

waterbodies and wetlands through coordination with the COE, the PADEP, and the 

NYSDEC. 

• We are recommending that Constitution develop a forest (and migratory bird) impact 

mitigation plan.

• We are recommending that Constitution develop a property owner insurance tracking and 

mitigation plan.

• Our oversight of an environmental inspection and mitigation monitoring program that 

would ensure compliance with all mitigation measures that become conditions of the 

FERC authorizations and other approvals.

In addition, we developed site-specific mitigation measures that Constitution should implement to 

further reduce the environmental impacts that would otherwise result from construction of its project. We 

determined that these measures are necessary to reduce adverse impacts associated with the project, and 

in part, are basing our conclusions on implementation of these measures. Therefore, we are 

recommending that these mitigation measures be attached as conditions to any authorization issued by the 

Commission. These recommended mitigation measures are presented in section 5.2 of the draft EIS.
1-1 Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On June 13, 2013, Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC1 (Constitution) and Iroquois Gas 

Transmission System, L.P. (Iroquois); filed applications with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(Commission or FERC) under Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the 

Commission’s regulations to construct, install, own, operate, and maintain certain interstate natural gas 

pipeline facilities in Pennsylvania and New York. Constitution and Iroquois are seeking Certificates of 

Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate), and were assigned Docket Nos. CP13-499-000 and 

CP13-502-000, respectively, for their applications, respectively. We issued a Notice of Application for 

each project on June 26, 2013, which were noticed in the Federal Register on July 2, 2013. 

Constitution’s proposal, referred to as the Constitution Pipeline Project, would involve the 

construction and operation of 124.4 miles of new 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline and associated 

equipment and facilities in Pennsylvania and New York. Constitution also proposes to construct and 

operate two new metering and regulating (M&R) stations; two tie-ins, 11 mainline valves (MLVs); and 

install one pig2 launcher and one receiver at the M&R stations.

Iroquois’ proposal, referred to as Iroquois’ Wright Interconnect Project (or proposed compressor 

transfer station), would involve the construction and operation of the Constitution Transfer Station 

adjacent to the existing Wright Compressor Station; modifications to the existing Wright Compressor 

Station; installation of additional odorization pumps; upsizing of gas piping and measurement controls; 

and construction of an interconnect with Constitution’s pipeline. 

Constitution and Iroquois propose to place the projects in service by or near March of 2015. The 

Applicants would seek approval to begin construction as soon as possible after receiving all necessary 

federal authorizations. The proposed facilities for both projects and their schedules are described in detail 

in section 2.0. 

The environmental staff of the FERC has prepared this draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) to assess the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the facilities 

proposed by Constitution and Iroquois in accordance with the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (COE), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the New York State 

Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYSDAM), are participating as cooperating agencies in the 

preparation of the EIS.3

 The roles of the FERC and the cooperating agencies in the review process for 

both projects are described in section 1.2.

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

According to Constitution, the proposed pipeline project was developed in response to market 

demands in New York and the New England area, and due to interest from shippers that require 

transportation capacity from Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania to the existing Tennessee Gas Pipeline 

Company LLC (TGP) systems in Schoharie County, New York. While this EIS will briefly discuss the 

 1 Jointly owned by Williams Partners Operating, LLC; Cabot Pipeline Holdings, LLC; Piedmont Constitution 

Pipeline Company, LLC; and Capital Energy Ventures Corporation. 2 A pig is an internal tool that can be used to clean and dry a pipeline and/or to inspect it for damage or corrosion. 3 A cooperating agency has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to environmental impacts 

involved with the proposal and is involved in the NEPA analysis. 
Introduction 1-2

Applicants’ purpose, it will not determine whether the need for the projects exists, as this will later be 

determined by the Commission. 

Based on information provided by Constitution and Iroquois, the purpose of the proposed projects 

is to:

• deliver up to 650,000 dekatherms per day4 (Dth/d) of natural gas supply from 

Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania to the interconnect with the TGP and Iroquois 

systems at the existing Wright Compressor Station;

• provide new natural gas service for areas currently without access to natural gas;

• expand access to multiple sources of natural gas supply, thereby increasing supply 

diversity and improving operational performance, system flexibility, and reliability in the 

New York and New England market areas; 

• optimize the existing systems for the benefit of both current and new customers by 

creating a more competitive market, resulting in enhanced market competition, reduced 

price volatility, and lower prices; and 

• provide opportunities to improve regional air quality by utilizing cleaner-burning natural 

gas in lieu of fuel oil in existing and future residential, commercial, and industrial 

facilities, thereby reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other pollutants. 

As noted in the second bullet above, Constitution has identified that the proposed pipeline could 

provide natural gas service to nearby municipalities that do not currently have access to natural gas. 

According to Leatherstocking Gas Company, LLC (Leatherstocking), Leatherstocking has entered into a 

Memorandum of Understanding with Constitution, which would allow Leatherstocking to interconnect 

with Constitution’s pipeline at several delivery points (Leatherstocking 2013). Leatherstocking would 

then be able to deliver gas from Constitution’s pipeline to homes and businesses within communities in 

Pennsylvania and New York. In New York, the Town of Bainbridge, the Village of Windsor, the Town 

of Windsor, the Village of Bainbridge, the Town of Unadilla, the Village of Unadilla, the Town of 

Sidney, the Village of Sidney, and the Village of Delhi have granted Leatherstocking approvals for the 

opportunity to serve their communities (Leatherstocking 2013). Leatherstocking would evaluate the need 

for gas in these communities and construct the necessary infrastructure as part of the New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation’s (NYSDEC) permitting process for natural gas gathering 

and local distribution lines and could be subject to other processes including review by the COE for 

impacts on waters of the United States. 

In March 2012, Constitution executed binding precedent agreements5 for the entire proposed 

650,000 Dth/d or about 0.65 billion cubic feet per day of additional firm transportation capacity. Prior to 

executing these agreements, the shippers typically already have the production capacity in place to supply 

the full volumes for the project. As a result, the proposed pipeline is fully subscribed. Table 1.1-1 lists 

 4 A dekatherm is a unit of heating value often used by natural gas companies instead of volume for billing 

purposes. A dekatherm is equivalent to 10 therms or one million British thermal units. For conceptualization 

purposes only, a natural gas capacity of 650,000 Dth/d would be sufficient to power roughly 6.2 million homes 

annually (if it were used solely for residential energy production). This estimate assumes an average household 

energy consumption of 11,000 kilowatt hours per year. If these projects are approved, the natural gas could be 

used in a variety of applications, not solely for residential energy generation. 5 A precedent agreement is a binding contract under which one or both parties has the ability to terminate the 

agreement if certain conditions, such as receipt of regulatory approvals, are not met.
1-3 Introduction

Constitution’s shippers by contracted volumes. The non-jurisdictional facilities associated with the 

delivery of the proposed volumes are discussed in sections 1.4 and 4.13.

TABLE 1.1-1

Constitution Pipeline Project Precedent Agreements

Shipper Maximum Daily Transportation Quantity (Dth/d)

Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation 500,000

Southwestern Energy Services Company 150,000

Total Volume Contracted 650,000

The purpose of Iroquois’ project is to provide 650,000 Dth/d of leased firm capacity of natural 

gas from the terminus of Constitution’s project in Wright, New York to downstream customers in 

Iroquois’ existing system through the addition of system compression, interconnections (including TGP), 

and other necessary infrastructure. In addition, Iroquois’ proposed compressor transfer station has 

rendered Constitution’s originally planned greenfield6 compressor station unnecessary. This is discussed 

in detail in section 3.5. 

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EIS

Our 7 principal purposes for preparing the EIS are to:

• identify and assess the potential impacts on the natural and human environment that 

would result from the implementation of the proposed projects;

• describe and evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed projects that would avoid or 

substantially lessen adverse effects of the projects on the environment while still meeting 

the project objectives;

• identify and recommend specific mitigation measures, as necessary, to avoid or minimize 

environmental effects; and

• encourage and facilitate involvement by the public and interested agencies in the 

environmental review process.

The topics addressed in the EIS include alternatives; geology; soils; groundwater; surface waters; 

wetlands; vegetation; wildlife and aquatic resources; special status species; land use, recreation, special 

interest areas and visual resources; socioeconomics; cultural resources; air quality and noise; reliability

and safety; and cumulative impacts. The EIS describes the affected environment as it currently exists 

based on available information, discusses the environmental consequences of the proposed projects, and 

compares the projects’ potential impact to that of various alternatives. The EIS also presents our 

recommended mitigation measures.

Our description of the affected environment is based on a combination of data sources including 

desktop resources such as scientific literature and regulatory agency reports as well as field data collected 

by Constitution and Iroquois. Constitution has field surveyed approximately 534 of 707 land tracts, or 

about 76 percent of the total number of tracts (approximately 94 miles) along the project route. 

Completion of field surveys is primarily dependent upon acquisition of survey permission from 

 6 Greenfields are lands that do not contain existing utility rights-of-way.

7 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the FERC’s Office of Energy Projects. 
Introduction 1-4

landowners. If the necessary access cannot be obtained through coordination with landowners and the 

proposed projects are certificated by FERC, Constitution may use the right of eminent domain granted to 

it under Section 7(h) of the NGA to obtain a right-of-way. Therefore, if the projects are Certificated by 

the Commission, then it is likely that a substantial number of the outstanding surveys for Constitution’s 

project (and associated agency permitting) would have to be completed after issuance of the Certificate. 

Iroquois’ project would occur entirely upon land owned by Iroquois, and field surveys for the parcel have 

been completed. 

1.2.1 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

The FERC is the federal agency responsible for evaluating applications filed for authorization to 

construct and operate interstate natural gas pipeline facilities. If the Commission determines that a project 

is required by the public convenience and necessity, Certificates would be issued under 7(c) of the NGA 

and Part 157 of the Commission’s regulations. The Commission bases its decision on not only 

environmental impact, but also technical competence, financing, rates, market demand, gas supply, longterm feasibility, and other issues concerning a proposed project. As such, the FERC is the lead federal 

agency for the preparation of this EIS in compliance with the requirements of NEPA, the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (Title 40 

Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), and the FERC’s regulations implementing NEPA 

(18 CFR 380).

As the lead federal agency for the projects, the FERC is required to comply with Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and Section 307 of the Coastal Zone 

Management Act of 1972. These and other statutes have been taken into account in the preparation of the 

EIS. 

1.2.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The EPA has delegated water quality certifications under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) and the NYSDEC, but the 

EPA may assume this authority if no state program exists, if the state program is not functioning 

adequately, or at the request of a state. Water used for hydrostatic testing of pipelines that is point-source 

discharged into waterbodies requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (Section 

402 of the CWA) issued by the state with EPA oversight. In addition, the EPA has the authority to 

review and veto the COE decisions on Section 404 permits.

The EPA also has jurisdictional authority to control air pollution under the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

(42 United States Code [USC] Chapter 85) by developing and enforcing rules and regulations for all 

entities that emit toxic substances into the air. Under this authority, the EPA has developed regulations 

for major sources of air pollution. The EPA has delegated the authority to implement these regulations to 

state and local agencies, who are also allowed to develop their own regulations for non-major 

sources. The EPA also establishes general conformity applicability thresholds, with which a federal 

agency can determine whether a specific action requires a general conformity assessment.

In addition to its permitting responsibilities, the EPA is required under Section 309 of the CAA to 

review and publicly comment on the environmental impacts of major federal actions including actions 

that are the subject of draft and final EISs, and responsible for implementing certain procedural provisions 

of the NEPA (e.g., publishing the Notices of Availability of the draft and final EISs in the Federal 

Register) to establish statutory timeframes for the environmental review process.
1-5 Introduction

1.2.3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The COE has jurisdictional authority pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA (33 USC 1344), which 

governs the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (including wetlands). 

Because the COE must comply with the requirements of the NEPA before issuing permits under this 

statute, it has elected to cooperate in the preparation of the EIS. The COE would adopt the EIS per 40 

CFR 1506.3 if, after an independent review of the document, it concludes that its comments and 

suggestions have been satisfied. 

As an element of its review, the COE must consider whether the proposed projects represent the 

least environmentally damaging practicable alternative pursuant to the CWA Section 404(b)(1) 

guidelines. The term practicable means available and capable of being done after taking into 

consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall purposes of both projects. 

Although this document addresses environmental impacts associated with the proposed projects 

as they relate to Section 404, it does not serve as a public notice for any of the COE’s permits. 

Constitution filed an application for a Department of the Army Permit under Section 404 of the CWA on 

August 27, 2013. It is the COE’s intent that a public notice describing the activity for which a Section 

404 permit is sought will be issued when the draft EIS is issued. The FERC will hold comment meetings 

during the 45-day draft EIS comment period to solicit input comments on the EIS. The COE will 

consider the comment meetings on the draft EIS to serve as their public hearings to gather information 

that will assist in the review of Constitution’s request for any necessary COE permit. 

1.2.4 Federal Highway Administration

The FHWA is an agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) that supports state 

and local governments in the design, construction, and maintenance of the Nation’s highway system on 

various federally and tribal owned lands. Constitution developed a route alternative (alternative M) 

which would place the proposed route in and/or adjacent to the right-of-way for Interstate 88 which is 

managed by the New York State Department of Transportation but receives funding from the FHWA

(section 3.4.1.2). 

1.2.5 New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets

The NYSDAM is a state agency that works to promote a viable agricultural industry, foster 

agricultural environmental stewardship, and safeguard the food supply of New York. The NYSDAM has 

prepared guidance documents for construction of pipelines within agricultural areas. Constitution intends 

to adhere to the NYSDAM’s guidance for construction within agricultural land. 

1.3 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

On April 5, 2012, Constitution filed a request with the FERC to implement the Commission’s 

pre-filing process for the Constitution pipeline project. At that time, Constitution was in the preliminary

design stage of the project and no formal application had been filed with the FERC. The purpose of the 

pre-filing process is to encourage the early involvement of interested stakeholders, facilitate interagency 

cooperation, and identify and resolve issues before an application is filed. On April 16, 2012, the FERC 

granted Constitution’s request and established pre-filing docket number PF12-9-000 to place information 

related to the pipeline project into the public record. The cooperating agencies agreed to conduct their 

environmental reviews of the pipeline project in conjunction with the Commission’s environmental 

process.
Introduction 1-6

During the pre-filing process, Constitution held seven informational open houses in July and 

September 2012. The purpose of the open houses was to provide affected landowners, elected and agency 

officials, and the general public with information about the pipeline project and to give them an 

opportunity to ask questions and express their concerns. We participated in the open houses and provided 

information regarding the Commission’s environmental review process to interested stakeholders and to 

take comments about the proposed pipeline project and the alternatives. The substantive questions and 

concerns raised by the public at the open houses are addressed in this EIS.

In addition, Constitution established a single point of contact to answer questions and provide 

information, established a website with information about the pipeline project, and sent periodic update 

newsletters. Constitution also communicated directly with certain landowners where specific issues were 

raised regarding individual properties.

On September 7, 2012, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Planned Constitution Pipeline Project, Request for Comments on Environmental 

Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings. The notice was published in the Federal Register on 

September 14, 2012 and mailed to more than 2,100 interested parties, including federal, state, and local 

government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; 

Native American Tribes; affected property owners; other interested parties; and local libraries and 

newspapers. The notice briefly described the project and the EIS process, provided a preliminary list of 

issues identified by us, invited written comments on the environmental issues that should be addressed in 

the draft EIS, listed the date and location of three public scoping meetings to be held in the area of the 

project, and established a closing date for receipt of comments of October 9, 2012.

We initially held three public scoping meetings to provide an opportunity for agencies, 

stakeholders, and the general public to learn more about the proposed pipeline project and participate in 

the environmental analysis by commenting on the issues to be addressed in the draft EIS. The first 

meeting was in Afton, New York on September 24, 2012; the second meeting was in Schoharie, New 

York on September 25, 2012; and the third meeting was in New Milford, Pennsylvania on September 26, 

2012. Forty-two people commented at the meeting in Afton, 45 people commented at the meeting in 

Schoharie, and 14 people commented at the meeting in New Milford. Each meeting was documented by 

a court reporter, and the transcripts were placed into the public record for Constitution’s project.

On October 9, 2012, the Commission issued a Notice of Public Scoping Meeting and Extension of 

Scoping Period for the Planned Constitution Pipeline Project. The notice was published in the Federal 

Register on October 16, 2012 and mailed to more than 3,300 interested parties as noted above. The notice 

listed the date and location of one additional public scoping meeting to be held in the pipeline project area 

and extended the closing date for receipt of comments from October 9, 2012 to November 9, 2012. The 

additional scoping meeting was held on October 24, 2012 in Oneonta, New York at which 70 people 

commented. The meeting was documented by a court reporter and the transcript was placed into the 

public record for Constitution’s project.

An interagency meeting in the pipeline project area was held on August 22, 2012, to solicit 

comments and concerns about Constitution’s project from other jurisdictional agencies. The participating 

(either in person or via teleconference) agencies included the COE, EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

(FWS), PADEP, NYSDEC, and NYSDAM.

In addition, during the pre-filing process, we conducted conference calls on an approximately biweekly basis with representatives from Constitution and interested agencies to discuss the pipeline 

project’s progress and issues. Summaries of the calls were placed in the public record.
1-7 Introduction

The transcripts of the public scoping meetings, summaries of the bi-weekly conference calls, and 

all written scoping comments are part of the public record for Constitution’s project and are available for 

viewing on the FERC internet website (http://www.ferc.gov).8

 On February 21, 2013, and October 9, 

2013, we issued Project Updates, which outlined the status of the environmental review process and 

included a summary of the issues identified through the scoping process. 

On July 10, 2013, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed Wright Interconnect Project and Request for Comments on Environmental 

Issues. The notice was published in the Federal Register on July 16, 2013 and mailed to 74 interested 

parties, including federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; 

environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; affected property owners as defined in 

the Commission’s regulations (i.e., landowners within one-half mile of the compressor transfer station); 

other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. 

Table 1.3-1 lists the environmental issues that were identified during scoping and indicates the 

section of the EIS in which each issue is addressed. In addition to the comments received at the public 

scoping meetings discussed above, nearly 2,130 written comments and nearly 500 motions to intervene 

were filed with the FERC and place in the public record for the projects. Table 1.3-1 also lists comments 

that were received after the formal scoping period closed, including the relevant environmental comments 

raised by individuals requesting to be intervenors in the Commission’s proceeding.9

 Additional issues we 

independently identified are also addressed in the EIS. 

Several of the issues identified both during and after the pre-filing process involved alternative 

pipeline routes prompted by localized resources such as water wells or wetlands, as well as larger 

resource areas such as aquifers, watersheds, and state parks. These concerns were identified by property 

owners, stakeholders, the FERC staff, and other agency staff. Many of these alternative routes that 

avoided sensitive resources were developed early in the process and voluntarily incorporated by 

Constitution into its proposed route. Given this process, subsequent alternative route comparisons often 

were not necessary if the resource was avoided or the stakeholder’s concerns were otherwise resolved. 

Other alternative routes, however, both small and large, remained viable throughout the course of the 

project. Section 3.0 presents our analysis of all the alternatives that were identified since the beginning of 

our review of these projects in May 2012. This section also discusses the original routes that were

discarded in favor of routes voluntarily incorporated by Constitution to reduce impacts on specific 

resources. 

 8 Using the “eLibrary” link, select “General Search” from the eLibrary menu and enter the docket number 

excluding the last three digits in the “Docket Number” field (i.e., PF12-9). Be sure to select an appropriate date 

range. 9 The FERC’s Notice of Application (for the Constitution pipeline project and the Iroquois project), issued in the 

Federal Register on June 26, 2013, opened the 21-day period for intervention. A total of 477 groups and 

individuals for the Constitution pipeline project and 11 groups and individuals for the Iroquois project requested 

intervenor status. Interveners are official parties to the proceeding and have the right to receive copies of caserelated Commission documents and filings by other intervenors. Likewise, each intervenor must provide a copy

of its filings to the Secretary of the Commission and must send a copy of its filings to all other intervenors. 

Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission’s decision.
Introduction 1-8

TABLE 1.3-1

Issues Identified and Comments Received During the Scoping Process for the Proposed Projects

Issue/Specific Comment

EIS Section

Addressing Comment

General

Project purpose and need 1.1

Coordination of NEPA reviews by cooperating agencies 1.2

Pre-filing process, its use in project development, agency coordination, 

landowner notifications and communications, public participation

1.3

Compliance with environmental permits 1.5

Right-of-way width requirements and configurations 2.2.1

Depth of cover 2.3.1

Non-jurisdictional facilities 1.4

Timeframe and schedule for the proposed facilities 2.4

Future project expansion 2.7

Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts on the 

environment

4.0 

Development of natural gas reserves in the Marcellus Shale (fracking) 4.13

Exportation of natural gas 1.3

Alternatives

No-action alternative 3.1

Energy conservation 3.1.1

Non-gas energy alternatives 3.1.2

Consideration of renewable energy alternatives 3.1.2

Use of other natural gas systems 3.2

Consideration of alternative routes to avoid populated areas, planned 

development, and critical infrastructure

3.4, 3.5, 3.6

Consideration of alternative routes and construction practices to avoid 

sensitive resources

3.3, 3.4, 3.5, appendix H

Evaluation of a route along the I-88 corridor 3.4.1

Workspace alternatives 2.3, 4.8

Geology

Potential for seismic activity (earthquakes) or landslides to affect the 

integrity of the pipeline after construction

4.1.3

Impacts from blasting 4.1.3

Impacts due to construction in karst terrain 4.1.3

Soils

Erosion and sediment control 4.2.1, 4.2.3, 4.2.4

Contaminated soils 2.3.1, 4.2.2, 4.8.5

Soil compaction 4.2.2

Water Quality and Aquatic Resources

Storage of hazardous materials and fuel oil, and spill reporting procedures 2.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2 

Impacts on groundwater, existing hydrology, and drinking water supply 

(including public and private wells)

4.3.1
1-9 Introduction

TABLE 1.3-1 (continued)

Issues Identified and Comments Received During the Scoping Process for the Proposed Projects

Issue/Specific Comment

EIS Section

Addressing Comment

Dewatering methods and procedures 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 4.2.4, 

Waterbody crossing time windows, methods, mitigation, and restoration 

measures

2.3.2, 4.3.3, 4.6.2, appendix K

Impacts of horizontal directional drill crossings, including inadvertent 

releases of drilling mud, drilling spoil management and disposal

4.3.3, 4.6.2, 

Impacts on the pipeline from a flood event 4.1.3, 4.3.3

Impacts on fishery resources, including coldwater fishery streams 4.6.2

Wetlands

Impacts on wetlands 4.4.3, appendix L

Restoration of wetlands and wetland mitigation 4.4.5

Vegetation

Impacts on mature trees, including restoration plans 4.5.3, 4.8.1, appendix M

Revegetation of areas cleared during construction 4.5.5

Plans for invasive species control 4.5.4

Wildlife

Timing restrictions and compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 4.6.1

Impacts on wildlife from forest fragmentation/forest edge effect 4.6.1

Impacts on Important Bird Areas 4.6.1

Special Status Species

Agency coordination and requirements 4.7.1

Evaluation of potential impacts on threatened or endangered species and 

their habitat

4.7.2, 4.7.3

Land Use

Impacts on future development plans 4.8.3

Eminent domain and compensation process 4.8.2

Compatibility with state- and federally owned lands 4.8.4

Impacts on existing residences and structures during construction and 

operation

4.8.3

Impacts on recreational and special interest areas (including agricultural 

lands and organic farms)

4.8.4

Visual impacts of aboveground facilities 4.8.6

Impacts on landowners from removal of lands from conservation programs 

with potential tax or penalty implications

4.8.4, appendix O

Impacts on transportation infrastructure (roads, highways, railroads) 2.3.2, 4.9.4, appendix F

Increased impacts on landowners from trespassers and decreased privacy 4.8.3

Impacts on tourism, ecotourism, and businesses which rely on the land 4.8.4, 4.9.2

Socioeconomics

Employment opportunities for local contractors and laborers and increased 

tax revenues

4.9.1, 4.9.7

Assessment of and impacts on community public safety resources 4.9.3

Traffic impacts associated with the project 4.9.4

Impacts on Environmental Justice communities 4.9.8
Introduction 1-10

TABLE 1.3-1 (continued)

Issues Identified and Comments Received During the Scoping Process for the Proposed Projects

Issue/Specific Comment

EIS Section

Addressing Comment

Impacts on homes, businesses, and land values, potential for increased 

taxes and lowered property values

4.9.5, 4.9.7

Impacts on mortgage rates 4.9.5

Impacts on ability to obtain and afford homeowner’s insurance 4.9.6

Cultural Resources

Tribal consultation and impacts on tribal lands and areas of cultural 

importance to Native American tribes

4.10.1

Impacts on culturally and historically significant properties 4.10.4

Air Quality

Consistency with the emissions limits and standards 4.11.1

Impacts on air quality resulting from construction activities 4.11.1

Methane leaks, GHG emissions and consistency 4.11.1

Radon 4.11.1

Noise

Potential noise impacts resulting from construction activities and proposed 

mitigation measures to reduce impacts

4.11.2

Reliability and Safety

Emergency response plans, evacuation plans, and coordination with 

community public safety services

4.8.5, 4.12.1

Remote detection of potential issues (e.g., pipeline leaks), safety of pipeline 

operation

4.12.1

Safety and reliability of constructing and maintaining the pipeline 4.12.1

Pipeline damage from accidental third-party or terrorist actions 4.12.1

Cumulative Impacts

Analysis of cumulative impacts 4.13

We also received scoping comments regarding the potential for overseas exportation of natural 

gas associated with the Constitution’s project. Constitution has stated that it would deliver natural gas to 

the existing Iroquois and TGP systems, to ultimately serve markets in New England and New York. 

Constitution’s application does not include provisions for the exportation of natural gas. Further, there 

are no existing or proposed natural gas exportation facilities located downstream of Constitution’s project. 

Should such exportation facilities be proposed in the future downstream of Constitution’s project, which 

is speculative, then any such proposal would be subject to a new and separate approval process from the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the FERC, and all other applicable permitting agencies. 

This draft EIS has been filed with the EPA and mailed to federal, state, and local government 

agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes and regional organizations; local libraries and 

newspapers; property owners affected by the proposed facilities; individuals requesting intervenor status 

in the FERC’s proceeding; and other interested parties (i.e., individuals, and environmental and public 

interest groups who provided scoping comments or asked to remain on the mailing list). The distribution 

list for the draft EIS is in appendix A. The draft EIS was also submitted to the EPA for issuing its formal 

public Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. The public has 45 days after the date of publication 

in the Federal Register to review and comment on the draft EIS either in the form of written comments 

and/or at public meetings to be held in the area of both projects. The dates and locations of these public 
1-11 Introduction

meetings are listed in the To the Party Addressed letter that is included in the front of this draft EIS and in 

the Notice of Availability. All comments received on the draft EIS related to environmental issues will be 

addressed in the final EIS.

1.4 NON-JURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES

Under Section 7 of the NGA, the FERC is required to consider, as part of its decision to authorize 

interstate natural gas facilities, all factors bearing on the public convenience and necessity. Occasionally, 

proposed projects have associated facilities that do not come under the jurisdiction of the Commission. 

These “non-jurisdictional” facilities may be integral to the need for the proposed facilities (e.g., a power 

plant at the end of a FERC-jurisdictional pipeline), or they may be merely associated as minor, nonintegral components of the jurisdictional facilities that would be constructed and operated as a result of 

Certification of the proposed facilities.

Two proposed non-jurisdictional facilities are associated with the proposed pipeline project and 

would be located in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. These facilities include the White Road M&R 

Station near milepost (MP) 3.3 and the Sutton Road M&R Station near MP 9.4. The White Road M&R 

Station would consist of a 2.2 acre site and it would house transfer, measurement, and regulation 

facilities. Williams Field Services Company would own and operate the White Road M&R Station. The 

Sutton Road M&R Station would receive up to 150 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas. 

The approximate 2 acre site would be enclosed by a chain link fence. Southwestern Energy Services 

Company (Southwestern) would own and operate the Sutton Road M&R Station. 

Commentors recommend that the impacts associated with producing natural gas from the 

Marcellus Shale be included in the environmental review of the Project. Our authority under the NGA 

and the NEPA review requirements relate only to natural gas facilities that are involved in interstate 

commerce. Thus, the facilities associated with the production of natural gas are not under FERC 

jurisdiction. The development of the Marcellus Shale, which is regulated by the states, continues to drive 

the need for takeaway interstate pipeline capacity to allow the gas to reach markets. Therefore, 

companies are planning and building interstate transmission facilities in response to this new source of 

gas supply. In addition, many production facilities have already been permitted and/or constructed in the 

region, creating a network through which natural gas may flow along various pathways to local users or 

interstate pipeline systems.

That is not to say that the environmental impact of individual production facilities is not 

assessed. In Pennsylvania, the permitting of oil and gas production facilities is under the jurisdiction of 

the PADEP, and other agencies, such as the COE or the Susquehanna and Delaware River Basin 

Commissions. Although we do not examine the impacts of Marcellus Shale production facilities to the 

same extent as the project facilities in this EIS, we have identified existing and proposed Marcellus Shale 

production facilities in proximity to the Constitution project (including the White Road and Sutton Road 

M&R Stations) and have considered them within the context of cumulative impacts in the project area 

(see section 4.13 - Cumulative Impacts). 

1.5 PERMITS, APPROVALS, CONSULTATIONS, AND REGULATORY REVIEW

Table 1.5-1 lists the major federal, state, and local permits, approvals, and consultations identified 

for the construction and operation of the projects. Table 1.5-1 also provides the dates or anticipated dates 

when Constitution and Iroquois commenced or anticipate commencing formal permit and consultation 

procedures. Constitution and Iroquois would be responsible for obtaining all permits and approvals 

required to implement the proposed projects prior to construction regardless of whether they appear in 

this table. 
Introduction 1-12

TABLE 1.5-1

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations Applicable to the Proposed Projectsa

Agency

Permit/Approval/ 

Consultation Agency Action Constitution Status Iroquois’ Status

Federal

FERC Certificate of 

Public 

Convenience and 

Necessity

Determine whether the 

proposed project is in the 

public interest, and 

consider issuance of a 

Certificate.

Application for 

Certificate under 

review (filed June 13, 

2013)

Application for 

Certificate under 

review (filed June 13, 

2013)

COE Section 404, CWA 

Permit

Issuance of a Section 404 

permit for discharges of 

dredged or fill material into 

waters of the United 

States, including 

jurisdictional wetlands.

Consultation began in 

August 2012 

Application submitted 

August 27, 2013

Not Applicable

EPA Section 404, CWA Review CWA, Section 404 

wetland dredge-and-fill 

applications to the COE 

with 404(c) veto power for 

wetland permits issued by 

the COE.

Consultation through 

the COE process

Consultation through 

the COE process

CAA Determination of General 

Conformity Applicability. 

Review and publicly 

comment on the 

environmental impacts of 

major federal actions.

Not Applicable Delegated to NYSDEC

FWS Section 7 ESA 

Consultation, 

Biological Opinion

Finding of impacts on 

federally listed or proposed 

species. Provide 

Biological Opinion if the 

project is likely to 

adversely affect federally 

listed or proposed species 

or their habitats.

Consultation ongoing Clearance from FWS 

received February 22, 

2013

Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act

Provide comments to 

prevent taking or loss of 

habitat for migratory birds.

Consultation ongoing Consultation ongoing

Bald & Golden 

Eagle Protection 

Act

Provide comments to 

prevent taking or loss of 

habitat for bald and golden 

eagles.

Consultation ongoing Consultation ongoing

Susquehanna River 

Basin Commission 

Water Allocation 

Permit

Issuance of a Water 

Allocation Permit for 

withdrawal of surface water 

and groundwater.

Consultation ongoing; 

applications to be 

submitted 1st quarter 

2014

Not Applicable

Delaware River Basin 

Commission 

Water Withdrawal 

Permit

Issuance of a Water 

Withdrawal Permit for 

withdrawal of surface water 

and groundwater.

Consultation ongoing; 

applications to be 

submitted 1st quarter 

2014

Not Applicable

State of Pennsylvania

PADEP Regional 

Bureaus of Watershed 

Management

Section 401 

Water Quality 

Certification

Issuance of a Section 401 

permit for discharge to 

waters of the United 

States.

Consultation ongoing; 

applications submitted 

August 2013

Not Applicable

PADEP Regional 

Bureaus of Watershed 

Management

Chapter 105 Issuance of a Chapter 105 

permit for wetlands and 

water obstructions.

Consultation ongoing; 

applications submitted 

August 2013

Not Applicable
1-13 Introduction

TABLE 1.5-1 (continued)

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations Applicable to the Proposed Projectsa

Agency

Permit/Approval/ 

Consultation Agency Action Constitution Status Iroquois’ Status

PADEP Bureau of 

Land and Water 

Conservation Division 

of Stormwater 

Management and 

Sediment Control

Chapter 102 Issuance of a Chapter 102 

permit

Consultation ongoing; 

applications submitted 

August 2013

Not Applicable

PADEP Bureau of 

Water Quality 

Protection

CWA Section 402 

National Pollutant 

Discharge 

Elimination 

System & General 

Permit for 

Hydrostatic Test 

Water Discharges

Issuance of a Section 402 

& hydrostatic test water 

discharge permit.

Consultation ongoing; 

applications to be 

submitted 1st quarter 

2014

Not Applicable

Pennsylvania 

Department of 

Transportation

Highway 

Occupancy Permit

Issuance of a Highway 

Occupancy Permit for 

installation of utilities which 

serve the public.

Consultation ongoing; 

applications to be 

submitted 1st quarter 

2014

Not Applicable

Pennsylvania 

Department of 

Conservation and 

Natural Resources

Rare Species 

Consultation

Provide comments to 

prevent impacts on rare 

species.

Consultation ongoing. Not Applicable

Pennsylvania Fish and 

Boat Commission

(PFBC)

Rare Species 

Consultation

Provide comments to 

prevent impacts on rare 

species.

Consultation ongoing. Not Applicable

Pennsylvania Game 

Commission

Rare Species 

Consultation

Provide comments to 

prevent impacts on rare 

species.

Consultation ongoing. Not Applicable

Pennsylvania Historical 

and Museum 

Commission Bureau of 

Historic Preservation

Section 106, 

NHPA

Consultation

Review and comment on 

the project and its effects 

on historic properties.

Consultation ongoing. Not Applicable

PFBC Permit for Use of 

Explosives in 

Commonwealth 

Waters

Permit for blasting in 

waterbodies

TBD Not Applicable

Local and County

Susquehanna 

County/Municipalities

County/Municipal 

Road Opening 

Permits

Permits for impacts on 

roads.

Consultation ongoing. 

Applications to be 

submitted 1st quarter 

2014

Not Applicable

Susquehanna County 

Planning Commission

Plan Certification 

Under Article VII 

(Commercial and 

Industrial Land 

Development) 

Section 707.4 

(Noise)

Permit for noise impacts TBD Not Applicable

State of New York

NYSDEC Joint Permit 

including: Article 

15, Article 24, and 

CWA Section 401

Issuance of Water Quality 

Certificate

Consultation ongoing; 

applications submitted 

August 2013

Not Applicable

NYSDEC Article 15 Title 33 Permit hydrostatic test 

water withdrawal

Applications submitted 

August 2013

Not Applicable
Introduction 1-14

TABLE 1.5-1 (continued)

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations Applicable to the Proposed Projectsa

Agency

Permit/Approval/ 

Consultation Agency Action Constitution Status Iroquois’ Status

NYSDEC State Pollution 

Discharge 

Elimination 

System Program 

General Permit for 

Stormwater 

Discharges from 

Construction 

Activities (GP-02-

01)

Issuance of permit for 

hydrostatic test Water 

discharge and trench 

dewatering.

Applications submitted 

August 2013

Application will be 

submitted prior to 

construction

NYSDEC Air State Facility 

Permit

Permit for construction and 

operation of source air 

pollutant emissions

Not Applicable Application submitted 

July 31, 2013

NYSDEC Major Title V 

Greenhouse Gas 

Operating Permit

Permit for major potential 

source of greenhouse 

gases.

Not Applicable Application submitted 

after start of 

operations

NYSDEC Bureau of 

Forest Lands 

Management

Temporary 

Revocable Permit

Issuance of Temporary 

Revocable Permit for use 

of state lands.

Application to be 

submitted1st quarter 

2014

Not Applicable

NYSDEC Division of 

Fish, Wildlife and 

Marine Resources 

Bureau of Wildlife’s 

Endangered Species 

Program

New York State 

Rare Species

Program

Consultation on state-listed 

rare species.

Consultation ongoing Not Applicable

New York State Office 

of Parks, Recreation 

and Historic 

Preservation, State 

Historic Preservation 

Office

Section 106, 

NHPA

Review and comment on 

the project and its effects 

on historic properties.

Consultation ongoing Clearance received 

July 31, 2013

NYSDAM Agricultural lands 

consultation

Consultation on crossing of 

agricultural lands.

Consultation ongoing Not Applicable

New York State 

Department of 

Transportation

Highway 

Occupancy Permit

Issuance of a Highway 

Occupancy Permit for 

installation of utilities which 

serve the public.

Consultation ongoing; 

applications to be 

submitted 1st quarter 

2014

Not Applicable

Local

County/ Municipalities County/Municipal 

Road Opening 

Permits

Permits for impacts on 

roads.

Consultation ongoing; 

applications to be 

submitted 1st quarter 

2014

Not Applicable

Town of Wright, NY Local Approvals 

for Compressor 

Buildings

Site Plan review, building 

permit, and State 

Environmental Quality 

Review Act review

Not Applicable Application submitted 

November 22, 2013

____________________

a Consultations with Native American tribes are discussed in section 4.10.1.

TBD = To Be Determined.
2-1 Project Description

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROPOSED FACILITIES

Constitution proposes to construct and operate a new natural gas transmission pipeline in 

Pennsylvania and New York. Constitution’s project would involve construction and operation of a new 

pipeline, two new M&R stations, and associated pipeline support facilities such as MLVs, blow down 

valves, two side taps, and pig launcher and receiver facilities. M&R stations measure the transfer of one 

gas from one pipeline system to another. MLVs are used to close the pipeline and stop the flow of gas for 

maintenance or safety purposes. An overview map of the pipeline project’s location and facilities is 

provided on figure 2.1-1. Detailed maps showing the location of pipeline route, aboveground facilities, 

and contractor yards are contained in appendix B. 

Constitution also has entered into an agreement with Iroquois to provide additional compression 

and related facilities at the terminus of the pipeline project. Iroquois has proposed to expand its existing 

compression and metering facilities in Wright, New York. An overview map of the proposed Iroquois 

facilities is provided on figure 2.1-2. The facilities associated with Iroquois’ project are discussed 

throughout this document generally under “aboveground facilities.” Because Iroquois’ project would not 

involve substantial pipeline construction, sections of this document describing pipeline construction 

would be solely applicable to Constitution. 

2.1.1 Pipeline Facilities

The proposed pipeline consists of 124.4 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipe located in the counties in 

table 2.1.1-1 and described in detail below. 

The pipeline’s source of natural gas would come from two shippers, Cabot Oil and Gas 

Corporation (Cabot) and Southwestern who would deliver it into the pipeline in Susquehanna County, 

Pennsylvania. The natural gas would be transported to a proposed interconnection with the existing 

Wright Compressor Station operated by Iroquois in Schoharie County, New York. The pipeline route 

generally follows a greenfield (i.e., lands and vegetation, including adjacent areas, that are undisturbed or 

undeveloped) pathway from northeastern Pennsylvania to south-central New York. The maximum 

allowable operating pressure (MAOP) for the new pipeline would be 1,480 pounds per square inch gauge 

(psig). 
Wright Interconnect

Project Compressor 

Station and Westfall

Road M&R Station

Sutton Road Tie-in

Turnpike Road 

M&R Station

White Road Tie-in

Spread 1

Contractor Yard

Spread 2

Contractor Yard

Spread 3

Contractor Yard

Spread 4a

Contractor Yard

Spread 4b

Contractor Yard

Spread 5

Contractor Yard

New York

Pennsylvania

Cortland

Tioga

Onondaga

Broome

Chenango

Madison

Otsego

Albany

Greene

Montgomery

Schenectady

Schoharie

Columbia

Delaware

Sullivan

Susquehanna

Wayne

Dutchess

Ulster

Proposed Route

Aboveground Facility

Contractor Yards

p

0 5 10 15 20

Miles

Figure 2.1-1

Constitution Pipeline Project

Project Overview Map

NEW YORK

PENNSYLVANIA

NJ

MA

MD

CT

NH

VA

VT

DE

RI

2-2
PROPOSED IGTS

METER & REGULATOR

BUILDING (55' x 95') FILTERS

STORAGE VESSEL

GAS COOLERS

PROPOSED EXPANDED

FENCE AREA APPROX.

SHADED ORANGE

(2.43 Ac.)

EXISTING FENCED AREA

(5.02 Ac.)

PROPOSED FENCED AREA

TOTAL (7.45 Ac.)

COMPRESSOR BUILDING

(136' x 80')

AUXILIARY BUILDING

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

AREA - TOTAL APPROX.

SHADED BLUE AND

WITHIN DASHED LINE

(12.45 Ac.)

PROPOSED TEMPORARY

WORKSPACE APPROX.

SHADED BLUE

(7.95 Ac.)

DOMESTIC GAS

BUILDING

WESTFALL ROAD

Property Boundary

Proposed Construction Area

Proposed Expanded Fence Area

p

0 100 200 300 400

Feet

Figure 2.1-2

Wright Interconnect Project

Compressor Station Map

Site Location Schenectady

County

NEW YORK

PA

Broome

County

Chenango

County

Herkimer

County

Madison

County

Oneida

County

Otsego

County Albany

County

Fulton

County

Greene

County

Montgomery

County

Saratoga

County

Schoharie

County

Delaware

County

Ulster

County

2-3
Project Description 2-4

TABLE 2.1.1-1

Pipeline Facilities Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project

State/County/Municipality Milepost Range Length (miles)

PENNSYLVANIA

Susquehanna County

Brooklyn 0.0 – 3.0 3.0

Harford 3.0 – 4.3 1.3

New Milford 4.3 – 13.4 9.2

Jackson 13.4 – 16.1 2.6

Oakland 16.1 – 17.0 1.0

Harmony 17.0 – 25.2 8.2

Pennsylvania (subtotal) 0.0 – 25.2 25.2

NEW YORK

Broome County

Sanford 25.2 – 42.2 17.0

Chenango County

Afton 42.2 – 47.5 5.3

Bainbridge 47.5 – 50.5 3.0

Delaware County

Masonville 50.5 – 52.2 1.7

Sidney 52.2 – 64.2 12.0

Franklin 64.2 – 73.7 9.4

Davenport 73.7 – 89.0 15.4

Harpersfield 89.0 – 93.5 4.5

Schoharie County

Summit 93.5 – 93.9 0.3

Jefferson 93.9 – 94.1 0.2

Summit 94.1 – 96.0 1.9

Jefferson 96.0 – 96.5 0.5

Summit 96.5 – 97.0 0.5

Jefferson 97.0 – 98.9 1.9

Summit 98.9 – 105.1 6.1

Richmondville 105.1 – 109.9 4.9

Cobleskill 109.9 – 112.1 2.1

Middleburgh 112.1 – 115.6 3.5

Schoharie 115.6 – 124.0 8.4

Wright 124.0 – 124.4 0.5

New York (subtotal) 25.2 – 124.4 99.2

Constitution Pipeline Project Total 124.4

____________________

Note: Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding.
2-5 Project Description

2.1.2 Aboveground Facilities

The proposed projects would include both construction of new aboveground facilities and the 

modification of existing facilities. These facilities are listed in table 2.1.2-1.

TABLE 2.1.2-1

Aboveground Facilities for the Constitution Pipeline and Wright Interconnect Projects

Facility Milepost Operator Municipality County, State

New M&R Stations

Turnpike Road M&R Receipt Station (with 

pig launcher and kickoff MLV No. 1)

0.0 Constitution 

(input from) 

Cabot

Brooklyn Susquehanna, PA

Westfall Road M&R Delivery Station (with 

pig receiver and MLV terminus – No. 11)

124.4 Constitution 

(delivery to 

Iroquois and 

TGP)

Wright Schoharie, NY

Compressor Station Modifications

Wright Interconnect Project 124.4 Iroquois Wright Schoharie, NY

Tap Facilities

White Road Tie-in (side tap) 3.3 Constitution 

(input from 

Cabot)

Harford Susquehanna, PA

Sutton Road Tie-in (side tap) 9.4 Constitution 

(input from 

Southwestern)

New Milford Susquehanna, PA

Mainline Valves

MLV No. 2 – Walkers Road 15.2 Constitution Jackson Susquehanna, PA

MLV No. 3 – Vale Road 26.7 Constitution Sanford Broome, NY

MLV No. 4 – O’Brien Road 41.2 Constitution Sanford Broome, NY

MLV No. 5 – Access Road/Town Road 52.1 Constitution Masonville Delaware, NY

MLV No. 6 – Stewart Road 66.7 Constitution Franklin Delaware, NY

MLV No. 7 – County Road 10 81.8 Constitution Davenport Delaware, NY

MLV No. 8 – Clapper Hollow Road 95.1 Constitution Summit Schoharie, NY

MLV No. 9 – Access Road/Dodge Lodge 

Road

108.5 Constitution Richmondville Schoharie, NY

MLV No. 10 – Smith Road 119.6 Constitution Schoharie Schoharie, NY

The Turnpike Road M&R Station would be connected to the existing, non-jurisdictional Central 

Compressor Station via a 700-foot-long, 30-inch-diameter tie-in pipeline. This tie-in pipeline would 

allow Cabot to input natural gas into the Constitution pipeline. The White Road Tie-in would also allow 

for Cabot to input natural gas into the Constitution pipeline via Cabot’s non-jurisdictional White Road 

M&R Station. Cabot’s contribution to the Constitution pipeline at both sources would be limited to a 

maximum of 500,000 Dth/d combined. The Sutton Road Tie-in would connect Southwestern’s nonjurisdictional Sutton Road M&R Station to the Constitution pipeline and would deliver up to 150,000 

Dth/d. The Westfall Road M&R Station would deliver gas to Iroquois’ existing Wright Compressor 

Station for eventual delivery to the existing Iroquois and TGP natural gas pipeline systems. The Westfall 

Road M&R Station would be connected to Iroquois’ existing Wright Compressor Station and proposed 

compressor transfer station by a 500-foot-long, 30-inch-diameter tie-in pipeline. 
Project Description 2-6

Constitution has entered into an agreement for Iroquois to provide additional compression at the 

terminus of Constitution’s pipeline. Iroquois’ proposed expansion would expand its existing compression 

and metering facilities in Wright, New York. Iroquois’ project would provide additional compression 

allowing delivery of up to 650,000 Dth/d of natural gas from the terminus of the proposed Constitution 

pipeline into the existing Iroquois and the TGP systems. 

As part of Iroquois’ project, it would construct, own, and operate several new and modified 

facilities at its existing Wright Compressor Station property in Schoharie County, New York. These 

facilities would include:

• connection with Constitution’s proposed 500-foot-long, 30-inch-diameter tie-in pipeline;

• construction of a new transfer compressor station including the addition of incremental 

compression facilities of about 21,800 horsepower, to supplement the existing 

compression capacity of 14,200 horsepower; 

• expansion of the existing odorization facilities;

• construction of natural gas coolers, station piping, and valves; 

• modification and upgrade of the existing delivery meter and associated piping to the TGP 

system or possible construction of a new delivery meter to support the full capacity of the 

Constitution pipeline; and

• modification of the existing Wright Compressor Station to allow Iroquois to use stationwide compression in the most energy efficient and integrated method.

Expansion of the existing Wright Compressor Station would eliminate the need for a new, 

greenfield compressor station, which was originally planned by Constitution. Iroquois’ expansion would 

be constructed completely within the property boundaries of the existing Wright Compressor Station. 

2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS 

Table 2.2-1 summarizes the land requirements for the combined Constitution and Iroquois 

projects. A detailed description and breakdown of land requirements and use is presented in section 4.8.1. 

Construction of Constitution’s project would disturb 1,849.5 acres of land, including the pipeline 

facilities, aboveground facilities, contractor yards, and access roads. Permanent operations would 

encumber 744.3 acres, consisting of 707.2 acres for the new pipeline right-of-way, 5.4 acres for 

Constitution’s aboveground facilities, and 31.7 acres for access roads. The remaining 1,105.2 acres of 

land disturbed by Constitution would be restored and allowed to revert to its former use. Iroquois’ project 

would require 12.5 acres during construction, and would encumber 7.5 acres during operation. 

Collectively, Constitution and Iroquois’ proposed projects would affect 1,862.0 acres during construction 

and 751.8 acres during operations. Additional area would be required for permanent ground beds to 

provide cathodic protection of the pipeline, but the acreage that would be affected for this purpose has not 

yet been determined. However, the design of ground beds is usually finalized following pipeline 

operations and are typically located near the ends of a pipeline and encompass one to two acres in total. 
2-7 Project Description

TABLE 2.2-1

Summary of Land Requirements Associated with the Constitution and Iroquois Project Facilities

Facility

Land Affected During 

Construction (acres) a

Land Affected During 

Operation (acres) b

PIPELINE FACILITIES

Pennsylvania

Pipeline Right-of-Way 318.6 145.5

Additional Temporary Workspace 19.5 0.0

New York

Pipeline Right-of-Way 1,238.7 561.7

Additional Temporary Workspace 87.9 0.0

Pipeline Facilities Total 1,664.7 707.2

ABOVEGROUND FACILITIES b

Pennsylvania

Turnpike Road M&R Station 4.9 3.1

New York

Westfall Road M&R Station 3.3 2.3

Wright Interconnect Project (Iroquois) 12.5 7.5

Aboveground Facilities Total 20.7 12.9

CONTRACTOR YARDS

Pennsylvania 20.0 0.0

New York 90.0 0.0

Contractor Yards Total 110.0 0.0

ACCESS ROADS

Pennsylvania 29.2 10.8

New York 37.4 20.9

Access Roads Total 66.6 31.7

SUBTOTAL – CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 1,849.5 744.3

COMBINED PROJECTS TOTAL 1,862.0 751.8

____________________

a Note: The totals shown in this table may not equal the sum of addends due to rounding.

b The Sutton Road and White Road Tie-ins, MLVs, and pig launcher and receiver facilities would be located within the 

operational easement and would not result in additional land impacts beyond those already accounted for above.

2.2.1 Pipeline Facilities

Of the 1,664.7 acres of land that would be disturbed during construction of the pipeline facilities 

and associated workspaces, 707.2 acres would be retained as new permanent pipeline right-of-way. The 

remaining 957.5 acres would be used as temporary workspace.

2.2.1.1 Adjacent Existing Rights-of-Way and Utility Crossings

The proposed pipeline would be collocated within or adjacent to existing pipelines and/or electric 

transmission utility rights-of-way for 11.2 miles (9.0 percent). Additionally, the proposed route crosses
Project Description 2-8

multiple existing pipelines and/or electric transmission utility (i.e. powerline) rights-of-way (1.4 miles of 

crossovers collectively), but these crossings are not considered collocation. A summary of the locations 

where the pipeline would be collocated within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way is presented in table 

2.2.1-1.

TABLE 2.2.1-1

Summary of Pipeline Collocated with Existing Rights-of-Way 

Adjacent Facility

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Paralleled 

Length 

(feet)

Width of 

Foreign 

Right-ofWay

(feet)

Width of Foreign 

Right-of-Way 

That Would Be 

Used During 

Construction 

(feet)

Width of Foreign 

Right-of-Way 

That Would Be 

Used During 

Operation (feet)

Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania

Powerline 6.2 6.7 2,798 30 0 0

Powerline 10.3 10.7 2,376 120 25 0

Powerline 11.0 11.2 1,003 120 25 0

Bluestone Pipeline 22.0 22.3 1,901 50 0 0

Subtotal Susquehanna County 8,078

Broome County, New York

Powerline 26.5 26.6 475 20 0 0

Powerline 37.4 40.7 17,266 100 10 0

Powerline 40.7 40.7 475 100 25 0

Subtotal Broome County 18,216

Chenango County, New York

Powerline 47.4 47.5 581 400 50 0

Powerline 47.5 47.6 422 400 125 0

Powerline 47.6 47.9 1,478 400 0 0

Powerline 47.9 48.0 370 400 50 0

Powerline 48.0 48.0 158 400 100 0

Powerline 48.0 48.0 106 400 0 0

Powerline 48.0 48.0 106 400 50 0

Powerline 48.0 48.0 158 400 100 0

Powerline 48.0 48.9 4,646 400 50 0

Subtotal Chenango County 8,025

Delaware County, New York

Powerline 52.8 53.1 1,637 250 10 0

Powerline 53.1 53.5 2,376 250 0 0

Powerline 53.5 53.6 370 250 10 0

Powerline 53.6 53.8 1,056 250 25 0

Powerline 53.8 54.2 2,165 250 10 0

Powerline 54.2 55.2 5,491 250 0 0

Powerline 55.2 55.3 211 250 110 0

Powerline 55.3 55.3 370 250 10 0

Subtotal Delaware County 13,676
2-9 Project Description

TABLE 2.2.1-1 (continued)

Summary of Existing Rights-of-Way Collocated with the Proposed Constitution Pipeline

Adjacent Facility

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Paralleled 

Length 

(feet)

Width of 

Foreign 

Right-ofWay

(feet)

Width of Foreign 

Right-of-Way 

That Would Be 

Used During 

Construction 

(feet)

Width of Foreign 

Right-of-Way 

That Would Be 

Used During 

Operation (feet)

Schoharie County, New York

30” TGP 200 Line 121.3 121.4 370 150 10 0

30” TGP 200 Line 121.4 121.4 158 150 60 0

30” TGP 200 Line 121.4 121.5 211 150 0 0

30” TGP 200 Line 121.5 121.5 53 150 25 0

30” TGP 200 Line 121.5 121.5 158 150 75 0

30” TGP 200 Line 121.5 121.7 1,003 150 25 0

30” TGP 200 Line 121.7 121.9 1,109 150 10 0

30” TGP 200 Line 121.9 122.3 1,901 150 25 0

30” TGP 200 Line 123.3 123.4 634 150 0 0

30” TGP 200 Line 123.4 123.5 158 150 20 0

30” TGP 200 Line 123.5 123.9 2,218 150 0 0

30” TGP 200 Line 123.9 124.4 2,851 150 25 25

30” TGP 200 Line 124.4 124.4 158 150 25 0

Subtotal Schoharie County 10,982

CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT

TOTAL COLLOCATION 58,977

2.2.1.2 Right-of-Way Configurations

Constitution proposes to use a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way in upland interior forested 

locations (excluding areas with steep side slopes1 as quantified in section 4.1.3), a 110-foot-wide 

construction right-of-way in non-agricultural uplands, and a 125-foot-wide construction right-of-way in 

upland agricultural lands. Constitution proposes to use a 75-foot-wide construction right-of-way in most 

wetlands. In cases where Constitution proposes the horizontal directional drill (HDD) method, there 

would be no disturbance of the ground surface between the HDD workspaces as described further below. 

Actual right-of-way configurations and widths would vary, in some cases beyond 125-feet-wide 

considering extra workspace, based on site-specific conditions including road and railroad crossings, 

waterbodies, wetland crossings, the need for additional spoil storage, steep topography, the presence or 

absence of an existing right-of-way, and proximity to adjacent utilities. Constitution has submitted 

drawings that depict right-of-way configurations for the proposed 30-inch-diameter pipeline. The typical 

right-of-way configurations proposed by Constitution are included in appendix C and are discussed 

further below. The construction procedures that would be followed are described in detail in section 2.3.

The width of the construction right-of-way for the 30-inch-diameter pipeline would vary 

depending on site-specific factors; the permanent right-of-way would be 50 feet wide across the entire 

 1 Steep side slopes are defined as areas where the pipeline would run parallel to the slope contours and where the 

slope is 15 percent or greater.
Project Description 2-10

project. While many construction right-of-way configurations are possible based on site-specific 

conditions, there are four main variations for uplands, agricultural lands, interior forest areas, and 

wetlands. The trench would be 10 feet wide in all upland configurations, and it would be 12 feet wide in 

wetlands. In upland areas the 110-foot-wide right-of-way would consist of 70 feet on the working side 

and 30 feet on the non-working (spoil) side of the 10-foot-wide pipeline trench. In upland agricultural 

areas requiring additional topsoil segregation, the construction right-of-way would typically be 125 feet

wide, consisting of 70 feet on the working side of the pipeline and 45 feet on the non-working (spoil) side 

of the 10-foot-wide trench. Through upland interior forest, and where no construction safety constraints 

such as steep side slopes are present, the typical 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way would consist of 

60 feet on the working side and 30 feet on the spoil side of the 10-foot-wide trench. Within wetlands, the 

typical 75-foot-wide construction right-of-way would consist of 44 feet on the working side of the 12-

foot-wide trench and 19 feet on the spoil side. Where the HDD or Direct Pipe method is employed in 

uplands or wetlands, there would be no actual construction right-of-way between the HDD entry and exit 

workspaces, and no clearing, trenching or other disturbance of the ground other than site-specific 

workspaces associated with placing the HDD guide wires via foot traffic and minor hand clearing. 

2.2.1.3 Extra Workspace

In addition to the various construction right-of-way configurations described above, Constitution 

has requested a wider construction right-of-way in several locations due to the presence of constraints 

mentioned above and for other, site-specific construction-related reasons. Appendix D identifies where 

Constitution has requested extra workspace for staging areas and resource crossings, including workspace

dimensions, the acreage of impact, associated land use, and the justification for their use. A detailed 

discussion of Constitution’s requests for extra workspace is provided below in section 2.3 and in sections 

4.3.3.7 and 4.4.4. 

Additional extra workspaces beyond those currently identified could be required during 

construction of the pipeline. Prior to construction, Constitution would be required to file a complete and 

updated list of all extra work areas, including any requested additional contractor yards for review and 

approval (see Post-Approval Variance Process in section 2.5.4).

2.2.2 Aboveground Facilities

The proposed aboveground facilities for Constitution’s project include 2 new M&R stations, 2

new tie-ins, 11 MLVs, and pig launcher and receiver facilities (see table 2.1.2-1). Construction of the 

Turnpike Road M&R Station would require 4.9 acres of land, 3.1 acres of which would be used 

permanently during operation. The kickoff MLV (No. 1), interconnecting piping, and a pig launcher 

would be located at the Turnpike Road M&R Station. The Westfall Road M&R Station would affect 3.3 

acres of land during construction and 2.3 acres during operation. The MLV terminus (No. 11), 

interconnecting piping, and a pig receiver would be located at the Westfall Road M&R Station. 

Constitution’s Sutton Road and White Road Tie-ins and MLVs 2 through 10 would be entirely within the 

permanent right-of-way and therefore would not encumber any additional acreage. 

Constitution proposes to use remotely controlled MLVs along the pipeline route. Remotely 

controlled MLVs would be continuously monitored at Constitution’s gas control center and in the event 

of an incident, an electronic command for valve closure can be sent. According to information provided 

by Constitution, remotely controlled MLVs provide more real-time data and reliability than automatically 

controlled valves. 

Modifications and construction at Iroquois’ Wright Compressor Station would occur within the 

existing station property boundary. Construction of Iroquois’ project would require 12.5 acres of 
2-11 Project Description

temporary workspace, including 2.1 acres within the existing fence line, 2.4 acres that would be outside 

the existing fence line but within the new, expanded fence line (this area also would be retained 

permanently for operations), and 8.0 acres of temporary workspace outside the proposed new, expanded 

fence line that eventually would be allowed to return to its pre-construction state. Iroquois would not 

need to acquire any additional property for project operation.

2.2.3 Contractor Yards

To support construction activities, Constitution proposes to use six contractor yards on a 

temporary basis. The use of these sites would temporarily affect about 110.0 acres of land. These sites 

are classified as having predominately open land / agricultural land use (see table 2.2.3-1). These yards 

are depicted on the maps in appendix B. 

TABLE 2.2.3-1

Contractor Yards along the Constitution Project Route

State/Yard Municipality

Size

(acres) Land Use

Pennsylvania

Spread 1 Bridgewater/Susquehanna County 20.0 Open Land

Subtotal 20.0

New York

Spread 2 Deposit/Broome County 19.1 Agriculture and Open Land

Spread 3 Sidney/Delaware County 17.8 Agriculture

Spread 4a Oneonta/Otsego County 26.9 Sand and Gravel, Open Land

Spread 4b Maryland/Otsego County 12.5 Open Land and Industrial

Spread 5 Richmondville/Schoharie County 13.8 Agriculture and Open Land

Subtotal 90.0

Constitution Pipeline Project Total 110.0

2.2.4 Access Roads

In addition to public roads, Constitution proposes to use 59 private access roads along the 

pipeline route (18 in Pennsylvania and 41 in New York) to construct the pipeline (see maps in appendix 

B). Of these 59 roads, 41 are existing, 10 would be a combination of existing and new roads, and 8 would 

be all newly constructed. Constitution proposes to maintain all but five of the 59 roads permanently for 

operations. Two of the five proposed temporary access roads would be newly constructed. Constitution 

has proposed a standard 12-foot-wide access road in straight areas, with expansion to 24-feet-wide as 

required for curves and corners. Modifications to existing roads could include tree, brush, or structure 

removal, widening, grading, installation of culverts, and addition of gravel. The location, description, 

length, land use, and type of improvement required (if any) for each of the access roads are listed in 

appendix E.
Project Description 2-12

2.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES

The projects would be designed, constructed, tested, and operated in accordance with all 

applicable requirements included in the DOT regulations in 49 CFR 192,2 Transportation of Natural and 

Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards; and other applicable federal and state 

regulations, including the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

requirements. These regulations are intended to ensure adequate protection for the public. Among other 

design standards, Part 192 specifies pipeline material and qualification, minimum design requirements, 

and protection from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion.

To reduce construction impacts, Constitution would implement its state-specific Environmental 

Construction Plans (ECPs)3

. The ECPs include Constitution’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, 

and Maintenance Plan (Plan) which are based on our Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and 

Maintenance Plan (our Plan4

). The ECPs also include Constitution’s Wetland and Waterbody 

Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures), which, similarly, are based upon and contain many 

of the measures found in our Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (our 

Procedures4

). The intent of Constitution’s Plan and Procedures is to identify baseline mitigation measures 

and construction techniques that incorporate guidelines recommended by various resource agencies (such 

as crop productivity monitoring procedures), as well as other guidelines and plans tailored to projectspecific issues. The ECPs contain numerous measures that would prevent or minimize potential impacts 

on resources. As indicated in appendix D, Constitution’s ECPs include some alternative measures that 

differ from our standard Plan and Procedures, such as the use of certain extra workspaces. These 

alternative measures are discussed in more detail in section 4.2.4, 4.3.3, 4.4.3, and 4.4.4, which also 

includes our recommendations for the appropriateness of these modifications. 

Constitution’s Plan and Procedures propose three notable modifications from our standard Plan 

and Procedures. These modifications, their descriptions, and status are listed below in table 2.3-1.

Constitution’s Plan and Procedures also include deviations from our standard Plan and 

Procedures not listed in table 2.3-1, but they are more protective than our requirements, and we have 

found them to be acceptable. Iroquois proposes to adopt our Plan and Procedures, but did not propose 

any modifications from the FERC’s standard Plan and Procedures.

 2 Pipe design regulations for steel pipe are contained in subpart C, Part 192. Section 192.105 contains a design 

formula for the pipeline’s design pressure. Sections 192.107 through 192.115 contain the components of the 

design formula, including yield strength, wall thickness, design factor, longitudinal joint factor, and temperature 

derating factor, which are adjusted according to the project design conditions, such as pipe manufacturing 

specifications, steel specifications, class location, and operating conditions. Pipeline operating regulations are 

contained in subpart L, Part 192. 3 The Pennsylvania ECP (Volume II Appendix I) and the New York ECP (Volume II Appendix J) can also be 

found at http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?document_id=14160901. 4 The FERC Plan and Procedures are a set of construction and mitigation measures that were developed in 

collaboration with other federal and state agencies and the natural gas pipeline industry to minimize the 

potential environmental impacts of the construction of pipeline projects in general. The FERC Plan and 

Procedures can both be viewed on the FERC Internet website at 

https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/guidelines.asp.
2-13 Project Description

TABLE 2.3-1

Summary of Proposed Modifications to the FERC’s Plan and Procedures

Applicable 

FERC 

Plan/Procedures 

Section Resource Issue Description Status

Section 

Discussed

Plan, at IV.A.2 Construction rightof-way widthProposal to utilize a standard 

construction right-of-way width of 

100 feet in upland interior forested 

locations, 110 feet in other upland 

locations, and 125 feet in all active 

agricultural areas.

Acceptable 2.2.1

Procedures, at 

Sections II.A and 

VI.B.1.a

Construction rightof-way width in 

wetlands; extra 

workspace 

positioning relative 

to waterbodies and 

wetlands

Proposal to use a construction rightof-way width greater than 75 feet in 

wetlands; utilize extra workspace 

within 50 feet of waterbodies and 

wetlands in specific locations as 

listed in appendix D. 

Acceptable 4.4.4

Procedures, at 

VI.D.1

Vegetation clearing 

and maintenance 

associated with 

HDDs

Proposal to clear vegetation at a 10-

foot-wide corridor within wetlands 

that are between HDD entry and 

exit points to facilitate water 

withdrawal for drilling operations.

Not Acceptable - the clearing 

of wetland (and/or upland) 

vegetation between HDD entry 

and exit points is not 

adequately justified.

4.4.3

To avoid or minimize the potential for harmful spills and leaks during construction, Constitution 

has developed a Spill Plan for Oil and Hazardous Materials (Constitution’s Spill Plan) and Iroquois has 

developed Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. Constitution’s Spill Plan and 

Iroquois’ SPCC describes spill and leak preparedness and prevention practices, procedures for emergency 

preparedness and incident response, and training requirements. Additional discussion of Constitution’s

Spill Plan is presented in section 4.3.2. Other resource-specific plans have been developed for the 

proposed pipeline project and are included in the ECPs. These plans are introduced below and are 

discussed in more detail in section 4.0.

2.3.1 General Pipeline Construction Procedures

This section describes the general procedures proposed by Constitution and Iroquois for their 

respective facilities. Constitution’s primary pipeline construction technique in upland areas would be 

standard, sequential assembly line installation (described below). Constitution would have 5 of these 

assembly lines or “spreads” that would each be simultaneously completing construction activities at 

different locations along the route. Iroquois’ construction at the Wright Compressor Station would entail 

standard site and industrial development type activities. 

Other specialized construction methods, such as two-tone cut and fill methods used on steep sideslopes, HDD and Direct Pipe methods used to cross under sensitive resources, residential-specific 

methods, and procedures for crossing of waterbodies and wetlands would also be employed. These 

specialized construction methods are also described below.

Separate crews typically would be used for construction of the aboveground facilities and 

modifications to existing facilities. Construction procedures for aboveground facilities are described in 

section 2.3.3. 
Project Description 2-14

Survey and Staking

After Constitution completes land or easement acquisition and before the start of construction, 

crews would mark the limits of the approved work areas (i.e., the construction right-of-way boundaries 

and extra workspace, the pipeline centerline, and approved access roads). Property owners would be 

notified prior to surveying and staking activities. Wetland boundaries and other environmentally sensitive 

areas identified in easement agreements or by federal and state agencies would be clearly marked with 

visible signage and fenced with erosion control devices for protection. In association with COE 

requirements, Constitution may also use orange safety fencing to identify wetlands of high value. 

Clearing Operations

Clearing would be required to remove trees, brush, and other existing vegetation from approved 

work areas. This would occur by mechanical means including feller-bunchers and hydroaxes. Hand 

cutting with chain saws may also be used in specific areas as needed. Timber would be removed from the 

right-of-way and sold for lumber or pulp if suitable, disposed of at an appropriate receiving facility, or 

chipped on the right-of-way. Constitution would not dispose of any cleared vegetation by burning. The 

transportation of any wood materials would comply with the NYSDEC’s regulations intended to prevent 

the spread of invasive species. Constitution’s state-specific Invasive Species Management Plans are 

described in more detail in section 4.5. Timber may also be cut and stacked at the edge of the right-ofway in accessible area, if requested by the landowner. Wood chips would not be placed in agricultural 

areas, wetlands, or waterbodies. Timber would not be left in piles or stacks on the right-of-way. 

In uplands, tree stumps and rootstock would be removed from the entire width of the permanent 

right-of-way. Additional stump pulling would be conducted in upland extra workspaces if deemed 

necessary for safety reasons. In wetlands, the pulling of stumps would be limited to the trench line and 

other areas where it is deemed necessary for safety reasons (see section 2.3.2.1 for a description of stump 

removal in wetlands). Elsewhere in wetlands, stumps and rootstock would be left intact to promote 

revegetation following construction. Excavated stumps would be removed from the right-of-way for 

disposal at approved locations or made available to landowners upon request. 

Closely following clearing and before beginning grading activities, crews would install erosion 

control devices at the locations outlined in the ECPs. The ECPs also include specifications for the 

installation and maintenance of temporary erosion controls such as silt fence, straw bales, temporary slope 

breakers (interceptor dikes); as well as permanent erosion controls such as permanent trench plugs, slope 

breakers, restoration methods, and revegetation measures. The environmental inspector (EI) would be 

responsible for ensuring that the erosion controls are installed correctly, inspected, and maintained in 

accordance with the ECPs.

Grading

Grading of the construction right-of-way would be scheduled to limit the amount of time between 

clearing and the installation of the pipeline. Where necessary, the entire width of the construction rightof-way, including the temporary construction workspace, would be rough graded with bulldozers to allow 

for safe passage of equipment and to prepare the work surface for pipeline installation activities. 

Backhoes may be used in conjunction with bulldozers in areas where tree stumps, rock outcrops, and 

uneven topographic features need to be removed. A travel lane would be utilized to allow for the passage 

of daily traffic.

Topsoil stripping would occur in agricultural and residential lands, and in other areas as requested 

by landowners. Up to 12 inches of topsoil would be removed and kept segregated from subsoil until 
2-15 Project Description

replacement. Constitution would strip topsoil from the full right-of-way in agricultural lands. 

Constitution has developed a Soil Protection and Subsoil Decompaction Mitigation Plan, which is 

discussed in more detail in section 4.2.

Trenching 

The trench would be excavated with a backhoe or track-mounted excavator to provide at least the 

minimum cover as required by 49 CFR 192. Typically, the trench would be sufficiently deep (5.5 feet

deep to 7.5 feet deep for the 30-inch-diameter pipeline) to provide for a minimum of 3 feet of cover over 

the pipeline. In areas with consolidated rock, the minimum amount of cover would be 24 inches. In 

certain areas such as at crossings of foreign pipelines and utilities, deeper burial would be required 

resulting in an increased trench depth. Constitution’s proposed minimum specifications for depth of 

cover over the pipeline are listed in table 2.3.1-1. Where the HDD or Direct Pipe methods are used the 

pipeline would be installed deep below the ground surface. 

TABLE 2.3.1-1

Constitution’s Proposed Minimum Specifications for Depth of Cover

Location a

Normal Soil (cover 

depth in inches) 

Consolidated Rock 

(cover depth in inches) 

DOT PHMSA Class 1 36 24

DOT PHMSA Class 2, 3, and 4 36 24

Land in Agriculture 48 24

Drainage ditches of public roads or railroad crossings 60 24

Navigable river, stream, or harbor 60 24

Minor stream crossings 60 24

____________________

a As defined by the DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) at 49 CFR 192.5.

Class 1: offshore areas and areas within 220 yards of a pipeline with ≤10 buildings intended for human occupancy.

Class 2: areas within 220 yards of a pipeline with >10 but <46 buildings intended for human occupancy.

Class 3: areas within 220 yards of a pipeline with >46 buildings intended for human occupancy and areas within 100 

yards of either a building or a small, well defined outside area (such as a playground, recreation area, 

outdoor theater, or other place of public assembly) that is occupied by 20 or more persons on at least 5

days a week for 10 weeks in any 12-month period.

Class 4: areas within 220 yards of a pipeline where buildings with four or more stories are prevalent.

The Constitution project would cross underground utilities in numerous locations. Prior to 

construction, the Constitution’s contractors would contact the “Call Before You Dig” or “One Call” 

system, or state or local utility operators, to verify and mark all underground utilities (e.g., cables, 

conduits, and pipelines) along the pipeline route to minimize the potential for accidental damage during 

construction. In areas where the location is not apparent, utility lines would be located by field 

instrumentation and test pits. The proposed route has been designed to avoid existing utility lines to the 

extent possible. However, relocation of utilities may be necessary in some circumstances. Constitution 

would coordinate all required utility relocations with the appropriate owner.

Spoil material excavated from the trench would be temporarily piled to one side of the right-ofway, adjacent to the trench. Subsoil would not be allowed to mix with the previously stockpiled topsoil. 

Where trench dewatering is needed, water would be discharged off the right-of-way into a well-vegetated 

upland area and/or into an approved filter. Any contaminated soil or groundwater encountered would be 

managed in accordance with the Constitution’s Unanticipated Discovery of Contamination Plan

(Contamination Plan). Additionally, Constitution has developed an Unanticipated Cultural and 
Project Description 2-16

Paleontological Resources and Human Remains Discovery Plan (Discovery Plan) should those features be 

discovered during trenching or construction. 

Shallow Bedrock and Blasting

The proposed pipeline would cross numerous areas of shallow bedrock distributed along most of 

the route as discussed in detail in section 4.1. Where bedrock is encountered along the pipeline route, it 

would be broken up and removed using one of the following methods. Where practicable, conventional, 

non-explosive methods would be used, including ripping or hammering the rock with a pointed backhoe 

attachment before excavating it with a backhoe. Rock would be returned to a level no higher than the 

existing rock profile during restoration. In agricultural areas rock would not be used for backfill closer 

than 24 inches in mesic soil or 30 inches in frigid soils from the construction surface of the right-of-way, 

and any excess would be disposed of at a landfill or recycling facility or used for other approved purposes 

within the right-of-way as allowed by the landowner and applicable permits. 

If rock cannot be removed by any of these techniques, blasting may be required to fracture the 

rock prior to its removal. Blasting would be performed under strictly controlled conditions designed to 

prevent potential damage to people and property (such as homes and wells). Constitution has proposed to 

offer both pre- and post-construction testing of water quality and quantity in wells and to mitigate any 

damages caused by construction. Minimum charges needed to perform the blasting would be used. 

Heavy mats may be used to prevent the scattering of debris, and blast monitoring would be conducted. 

Constitution has developed a Blasting Plan to address potential issues and impacts related to blasting (see

section 4.1). 

Constitution also developed a Karst Mitigation Plan to address potential issues associated with 

the presence of shallow carbonate sedimentary (i.e., limestone) rock. This plan is also discussed in 

section 4.1. The plan includes provisions for the use of geotechnical specialists, exploratory testing, and 

geophysical assessment as necessary to prevent or minimize potential impacts. 

Pipe Stringing, Bending, and Welding

Once the trench is excavated, the next process in conventional pipeline construction is stringing 

the pipe along the trench. Stringing involves initially hauling the pipe by tractor-trailer, generally in 40-

foot lengths (joints), from contractor yard onto the right-of-way. The pipe would be off-loaded from 

trucks and placed next to the trench using a sideboom tractor. Typically, several pipe joints are lined up 

end-to-end or “strung” to allow for welding into continuous lengths known as strings. Individual joints 

would be placed on temporary supports or wooden skids and staggered to allow room for work on the 

exposed ends. 

The pipe would be delivered to the contractor yards and work areas in straight sections. Some 

bending of the pipe would be required to enable the pipeline to follow the natural grade and direction 

changes of the right-of-way. Selected joints would be bent by track-mounted hydraulic bending machines 

as necessary prior to line-up and welding. Manufacturer supplied induction bends and pre-fabricated 

elbow fittings may be used in certain circumstances as needed. Following stringing and bending, the 

individual joints of pipe would be aligned and welded together. All welding would be performed 

according to applicable American National Standards Institute, American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers, and American Petroleum Institute standards as well as Constitution’s specifications. Only 

welders qualified to meet the standards of these organizations would be used during construction. 

Every completed weld would be examined by a welding inspector to determine its quality using 

radiographic or other approved methods as outlined in 49 CFR 192. Radiographic examination is a non-
2-17 Project Description

destructive method of inspecting the inner structure of welds and determining the presence of defects. 

Welds that do not meet the regulatory standards and Constitution’s established specifications would be 

repaired or removed. After a weld is approved, the joint would be cleaned and epoxy coated. The coating 

on the remainder of the completed pipe section would be inspected and any damaged areas repaired.

Special tie-in crews would be used at some locations, such as at waterbody and road crossings, at 

changes in topography, and at other selected locations as needed. A tie-in is typically a relatively small 

segment of pipeline specifically used to cross certain features as needed. Once the pipeline segment is 

installed across the feature, the segment is then welded to the rest of the pipeline. 

Lowering-in and Backfilling

Before the pipeline is lowered-in, the trench would be inspected to ensure that it is free of rocks 

and other debris that could damage the pipe or protective coating. Typically, any water that is present in 

the trench would be removed and pumped to a vegetated upland through an approved filter. Constitution 

would use a padding machine to ensure that rocks mixed with subsoil do not damage the pipe. The 

padding would consist of subsoil free from rocks and would surround the pipe along the bottom, both 

sides, and at the top. No topsoil would be used as padding material. Where there is not sufficient 

padding material on site or when the native material that was excavated from the trench is not suitable 

backfill material (i.e., rocky), the acquisition of backfill from other sources may be necessary. 

After the pipe is lowered into the trench, final tie-in welds would be made and inspected, and then 

the trench would be backfilled. All suitable material excavated during trenching would be re-deposited 

into the trench using bladed equipment or backhoes. If rock is excavated from the trench and 

subsequently used as backfill, it would not be allowed to extend above the soil horizon where it naturally 

is found. The top of the trench may be slightly crowned to compensate for settling. 

Cleaning and Hydrostatic Testing

After burial, the inside of the pipeline would be cleaned to remove any dirt, water, or debris 

inadvertently collected in the pipe during installation. A manifold would be installed on one end of the 

pipeline section and a cleaning “pig” (typically a large soft plug used to swab the inside of the pipeline) 

would be propelled by compressed air through the pipeline. 

After cleaning, the pipe would be hydrostatically tested to ensure that the system is capable of 

withstanding the operating pressure for which it was designed. Hydrostatic testing involves filling the 

pipeline with water and pressurizing the water in the pipeline for several hours to confirm the pipeline’s 

integrity. The testing would be done in segments according to Constitution’s requirements and the 

DOT’s specifications in 49 CFR 192. The exact sequence and timing of hydrostatic testing would depend 

on the final schedule for construction (section 2.4). Iroquois anticipates using a combination of nitrogen 

and water from municipal sources for hydrostatic testing. 

Water for hydrostatic testing would potentially be obtained from five streams located along the 

proposed pipeline route. These streams are discussed in more detail in section 4.3. Constitution would 

reuse test water by transferring water from one test segment to another where practicable. Following 

testing, the water would be discharged in vegetated upland areas through a dewatering structure designed 

to slow the flow of water. All testing activities would be conducted within the parameters of the 

applicable water withdrawal and discharge permits. 
Project Description 2-18

Cleanup and Restoration 

Within 20 days of backfilling the trench, all work areas would be final graded and restored to preconstruction contours and natural drainage patterns as closely as possible, weather permitting. Permanent 

slope breakers or diversion berms would be constructed and maintained in accordance with the ECPs as 

needed. Fences, sidewalks, driveways, and other structures would be restored or repaired as necessary. If 

seasonal or other weather conditions prevent compliance with these timeframes, temporary erosion 

controls would be maintained until conditions allow completion of final cleanup. 

Restoration activities would be conducted in accordance with state and municipal permit 

requirements. Soils that supported vegetation prior to construction would be revegetated using seed 

mixes, application rates, and timing windows recommended by local soil conservation authorities or other 

duly authorized agencies (such as the Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS]), landowner 

requests, and in accordance with the ECPs. The right-of-way would be seeded within six working days 

following final grading, weather and soil conditions permitting, unless otherwise directed by local soil 

conservation authorities. Additionally, monitoring of revegetation after construction would be conducted

to evaluate and correct areas requiring remediation. 

Cathodic Protection and Alternating Current Mitigation

Constitution would install cathodic protection equipment along the pipeline to prevent the 

corrosion of metal surfaces over time. Cathodic protection equipment could consist of rectifiers, test 

leads, and sacrificial anode beds. The design and location of cathodic protection systems has not yet been 

determined but would be submitted to Commission staff for review and approval prior to construction. 

The ground beds are usually located near the ends of the pipeline and encompass one to two acres in total. 

Constitution would also develop an alternating current mitigation plan for areas where the pipeline 

parallels adjacent power lines. The alternating current mitigation plan would be designed to ensure safety 

and prevent corrosion facilitated by the presence of nearby high voltage power lines. 

2.3.2 Special Construction Techniques

Construction involving wetlands, waterbodies, or construction across or within roads, highways, 

railroads, and streets, would require construction techniques that differ from the standard measures 

implemented in general areas. Constitution’s special construction techniques are summarized below. 

2.3.2.1 Wetland Crossings

The proposed pipeline would cross palustrine forested, palustrine scrub-shrub, and palustrine 

emergent wetlands. Wetland resources are discussed in detail in section 4.4. Construction within, and 

restoration of wetlands would be performed in accordance with the wetland construction and mitigation 

measures contained in the ECPs and Constitution’s Procedures. 

Clearing of vegetation in wetlands would be limited to trees and shrubs, which would be cut flush 

with the surface of the ground and removed from the wetland. Stump removal, grading, topsoil 

segregation, and excavation would be limited to the area immediately over the trenchline in order to avoid 

excessive disruption of wetland soils and the native seed and rootstock within the wetland. A limited 

amount of stump removal and grading may also be conducted in other areas if dictated by safety-related 

concerns.

During clearing, sediment barriers such as silt fence and staked straw bales would be installed and 

maintained adjacent to wetlands and within temporary extra workspaces as necessary to minimize the 
2-19 Project Description

potential for sediment runoff. Sediment barriers would be installed across the full width of the 

construction right-of-way at the base of slopes adjacent to wetland boundaries. If trench dewatering is 

necessary in wetlands, the trench water would be discharged into stable, vegetated, upland areas and/or 

filtered through a filter bag or siltation barrier in accordance with the ECPs. No heavily silt-laden water 

would be allowed to flow into a wetland.

Construction equipment working in wetlands would be limited to that essential to clear the rightof-way, excavate the trench, fabricate and install the pipeline, backfill the trench, and restore the right-ofway. The specific method of construction used in wetlands would depend on the stability of the soils at 

the time of construction. 

Standard pipeline construction, similar to construction methods described for uplands, may be 

conducted in non-saturated wetlands. In areas of saturated soils or standing water, low-ground-weight 

construction equipment and/or wooden mats would be used to reduce rutting and the mixing of topsoil 

and subsoil. In unsaturated wetlands and unfrozen wetlands, the top 12 inches of topsoil from the 

trenchline would be stripped and stored separately from the subsoil. 

Where wetland soils are saturated and/or inundated, the pipeline may be installed using the pushpull technique. The push-pull technique involves stringing and welding the pipeline outside of the 

wetland and excavating the trench through the wetland using a backhoe supported by equipment mats. 

The water that seeps into the trench is used to “float” the pipeline into place together with a winch and 

flotation devices attached to the pipe. After the pipeline is floated into place, the floats are removed 

allowing the pipeline to sink into place. Pipe installed in saturated wetlands is typically coated with 

concrete or equipped with set-on weights to provide negative buoyancy. After the pipeline sinks to the 

bottom of the trench, a trackhoe working on equipment mats backfills the trench and completes cleanup. 

Trenchless construction techniques, such as conventional bore, HDD, and Direct Pipe would also be used 

to cross under certain wetlands (see section 2.3.2.2). 

Because little or no grading would occur in wetlands, restoration of contours would be 

accomplished during backfilling. Prior to backfilling, trench breakers would be installed where necessary 

to prevent the subsurface drainage of water from wetlands. Where topsoil has been segregated from 

subsoil, the subsoil would be backfilled first, followed by the topsoil. Equipment mats, terra mats, and 

timber riprap used for equipment support would be removed from wetlands following backfilling.

For wetlands at the base of slopes, permanent interceptor dikes and trench plugs would be 

installed in upland areas adjacent to the wetland boundary. Temporary sediment barriers would be 

installed where necessary until revegetation of adjacent upland areas is successful. Once revegetation is 

successful, sediment barriers would be removed from the right-of-way and properly disposed.

2.3.2.2 Waterbody Crossings

Waterbody crossings would be constructed in accordance with federal, state, and local permits 

and the ECPs. Surface water resources are discussed further in section 4.3.2, and aquatic resources are 

discussed in section 4.6.2. Discussion of potential impacts on fisheries resources, including agency 

consultations regarding construction timing restrictions, is also included in section 4.6.2. Constitution 

would cross waterbodies using methods including dry open-cut (if dry or frozen at the time of crossing), 

dry crossings (flume pipe, cofferdam, or a dam and pump), or trenchless crossings (conventional bore, 

HDD, or Direct Pipe). All three of the trenchless crossing methods are proposed for use for at least one 

waterbody. 
Project Description 2-20

Where standing water is present within a channel, but flow is not discernible, a dry crossing (e.g., 

flume crossing, dam and pump, or cofferdam) method would be used to allow for construction under dry 

conditions. The specific dry crossing method to be used at waterbodies would be decided at the time of 

construction based on site conditions. 

Wet, open-cut crossing methods are not proposed for any waterbodies, but could be considered if 

the dry crossing options are rendered infeasible. Wet, open-cut construction methods involve trenching 

within the waterbody under flowing conditions, with backfill and restoration occurring quickly (typically 

within 24 to 48 hours) to limit impacts on the stream. Implementation of these methods would require 

additional review by the COE, PADEP, NYSDEC, and the Commission.

The pipeline crossings would typically require extra workspaces on each side of the waterbody to 

stage construction, fabricate the pipeline, and store materials. These extra workspaces would be located a 

minimum of 50 feet from the waterbody edge, except where the adjacent upland consists of actively 

cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed land, or where site-specific for a reduced setback is 

necessary (section 4.3.3 and appendix D).

Constitution would install temporary equipment bridges over waterbodies. Bridges may include 

clean rock fill over culverts, equipment pads supported by flumes, railcar flatbeds, flexi-float apparatus, 

and other types of spans. These bridges would remain in place throughout construction until they are no 

longer needed. Each bridge would be designed to accommodate normal to high stream flows and would 

be maintained to prevent soil from entering the waterbody. All construction equipment would be required 

to use the bridges, except for the clearing equipment needed for installation of the equipment bridges. 

The number of clearing equipment crossings of each waterbody would be limited to one piece of 

equipment as specified in Constitution’s Procedures. Sediment barriers would be installed immediately 

after initial disturbance of the waterbody or adjacent upland. Sediment barriers would be properly 

maintained throughout construction and reinstalled as necessary (such as after backfilling of the trench) 

until replaced by permanent erosion controls, or restoration of adjacent upland areas is complete and 

revegetation has stabilized the disturbed area.

Dry Crossing Construction Methods

Dry open-cut crossings of waterbodies involve conventional trenching of channels that are dry or 

frozen at the time of crossing (contain no discernible flow). This construction technique is similar to the 

standard pipeline installation process described above for uplands. However, Constitution identified it 

would complete construction and backfill within 24 hours for minor water bodies (less than 10 feet wide) 

and within 48 hours for intermediate waterbodies (10 to 100 feet wide). Constitution has committed to 

keep temporary diversion structures available onsite in the event that unexpected rainfall causes any 

waterbody being crossed by the dry open-cut method to begin flowing prior to completion of the crossing. 

In that case, a flume crossing, dam and pump or cofferdam method would then be employed.

The flume method is a standard dry waterbody crossing method that involves diverting the flow 

of water across the construction work area through one or more flume pipes placed in the waterbody. The 

first step involves placing a sufficient number of adequately sized flume pipes in the waterbody to 

accommodate the highest anticipated flow during construction. After the flume pipe(s) are placed in the 

waterbody, sand bags or equivalent dam diversion structures are installed in the waterbody upstream and 

downstream of the trench area. These devices serve to dam the stream and divert the water flow through 

the flume pipe(s), thereby isolating the water flow from the construction area between the dams. The 

flume pipe(s) and dams would remain in place during pipeline installation and until the final cleanup of 

the stream bed and bank is completed.
2-21 Project Description

The dam and pump method is another standard dry waterbody crossing construction method that 

may be used as an alternative to the flume method. This method is similar to the flume crossing method 

except that pumps and hoses are used instead of flumes to move water across or around the construction 

work area. The technique involves installing a pump upstream of the crossing and running a discharge 

hose from the pump across the construction area to a discharge point downstream of the construction area. 

After the pump is installed and operational, sandbags or equivalent dam diversion structures would be 

installed upstream and downstream of the trench area to isolate the water flow from the construction area 

between the dams. An energy dissipation device would be used to prevent scouring of the stream bed at 

the discharge location. Water flow would be maintained throughout the dam-and-pump operation until 

the pipeline is installed and banks are restored and stabilized.

A cofferdam is a temporary structure that could be installed within waterbodies to isolate a 

portion of the work area during construction, thereby allowing pipeline installation and construction to 

proceed under dry conditions. Cofferdams would typically be used for waterbody crossings with larger 

high flow volumes that may be unsuitable for flume or dam and pump methods. A cofferdam consists of

installing the pipeline across the waterbody in stages, using the cofferdam to divert the water around the 

workspace (i.e., a portion of the stream’s width) in each stage. This process allows work to proceed under 

dry conditions during each stage after the work area is dewatered, and it could take two or more stages to 

complete the crossing. Cofferdam construction methods may include but not be limited to sand bags, 

sheet piling, timber lagging, and inflatable dams.

Cofferdam crossings would be designed in accordance with all applicable federal and state 

permits to ensure that the cofferdam could withstand elevated waterbody flows during the course of the 

work. Dewatering operations of the work areas isolated by the cofferdam would require silt-laden water 

to be pumped and discharged to an appropriate dewatering device (e.g., filter bags) in a vegetated upland

area before it would be allowed to flow back towards the waterbody.

Trenchless Crossing Methods

Conventional boring consists of creating a tunnel-like shaft for a pipeline to be installed below 

roads, waterbodies, wetlands, or other sensitive resources without affecting the surface of the resource. 

Bore pits would be excavated on both sides of the resource to the depth of the adjacent trench and graded 

to match the proposed slope of the pipeline. A boring machine would then be used within the bore pit to 

tunnel under the resource or wetland by using a cutting head mounted on an auger. The auger would 

rotate and be advanced forward as the hole is bored. The pipeline would then be pushed through the bore 

hole and welded to the adjacent section of pipeline. 

The HDD construction method would be used at five locations, and the Direct Pipe construction 

method would be used at two locations. The proposed HDD and Direct Pipe locations cross under 

waterbodies and/or wetlands, in each case. Roads would also be crossed using these methods at four 

crossings. The locations and lengths of the proposed HDD and Direct Pipe crossings and the resources 

they would cross under are summarized in table 2.3.2-1. Constitution has prepared conceptual sitespecific construction plans for the two major waterbody crossings (Bennettsville Creek and Schoharie 

Creek) as well as all proposed HDD and Direct Pipe crossings. We find these conceptual plans to be 

generally acceptable with the exception of one HDD crossing (see section 4.10.4.). 
Project Description 2-22

TABLE 2.3.2-1

Proposed Horizontal Directional Drill and Direct Pipe Locations for the Constitution Pipeline

Approximate Milepost

Length 

(feet)

Potential 

Installation 

Method

Proposed Alternative 

Crossing Method if the 

Trenchless Method 

Fails

Reason for 

Start End Evaluation Status

Pennsylvania

15.3 15.7 2,210 HDD Open-cut crossing 

(Wetlands)

Dry crossing 

(Waterbodies)

Avoidance of 

wetlands, 

waterbody, 

Lakeview 

Road 

(Highway 

1019)

Conceptual design 

complete; awaiting 

site access for 

geotechnical 

evaluations

New York

47.7 48.0 1,630 HDD Open-cut crossing 

(Wetlands)

Dry crossing 

(Waterbodies)

Avoidance of 

Bennettsville 

Creek, other 

waterbodies, 

wetlands

Conceptual design 

complete; awaiting 

site access for 

geotechnical 

evaluations

54.4 55.3 5,500 HDD Open-cut crossing 

(Wetlands)

Dry crossing 

(Waterbodies)

Avoidance of 

wetlands, 

waterbodies

Conceptual design 

complete; awaiting 

site access for 

geotechnical 

evaluations

85.8 86.1 3,188 HDD Open-cut crossing 

(Wetlands)

Avoidance of 

wetlands

Conceptual design 

complete; awaiting 

site access for 

geotechnical 

evaluations

87.8 88.2 2,050 HDD Open-cut crossing 

(Wetlands)

Dry crossing 

(Waterbodies)

Avoidance of 

wetlands, 

Middle Brook, 

other 

waterbodies, 

and Highway 

23

Conceptual design 

and geotechnical 

study complete;

awaiting laboratory 

results and 

analysis

101.5 101.6 570 Direct Pipe Open-cut crossing Avoidance of 

wetlands and 

Baldwin Road

Conceptual design 

complete; awaiting 

site access for 

geotechnical 

evaluations

119.8 120.0 744 Direct Pipe Dry crossing 

(Waterbodies)

Avoidance of 

Smith Road, 

Schoharie 

Creek, Holiday 

Way

Preliminary design 

of Direct Pipe 

method in 

progress

The HDD method would also avoid disturbing surface and shallow subsurface features (such as 

waterbodies, wetlands, vegetation, manmade structures, and public use and protected areas) between two 

construction areas. The HDD method typically involves establishing workspaces in upland areas on both 

sides of the feature(s) to be crossed and confining the work and equipment to these areas. The process 

commences with the drilling of a pilot hole in an arced path beneath the feature using a drill rig positioned 

on the entry side of the crossing. When the pilot hole is completed, reamers are attached and are used to 

enlarge the hole in one or more passes until its diameter is sufficient to accommodate the pipeline. As the 
2-23 Project Description

hole is being reamed, a pipe section long enough to span the entire crossing is fabricated (staged and 

welded) on one side of the crossing (typically the exit side) and then hydrostatically tested to ensure the 

integrity of the welds. When the reaming is complete, the prefabricated pipe section is pulled through the 

pre-reamed drilled hole back to the entry side. Constitution would weld the proposed pipeline at the midpoint for HDDs at MP 15.3, 47.6, and 54.3 due to a lack of workspace to accommodate a fully assembled 

HDD pipeline segment awaiting pullback into the reamed hole. The use of a mid-point weld would allow 

Constitution to use shorter extra workspaces for these proposed HDD crossings. 

Between HDD entry and exit points foot traffic would be required to place guide wires to track 

the progress and guide the movement of the drilling cutterheads. These guide wires would be placed in 

upland and wetland areas but would not be laid on the bed of any waterbodies. 

Constitution proposes to clear a 10-foot-wide corridor between the HDD or Direct Pipe entry and 

exit holes, including within wetlands, at Middle Brook, Bennettsville Creek, and Schoharie Creek. We 

consider this proposal in section 4.4, but have currently found the need to be unsupported by Constitution 

without additional justification. Pathways to the water source in support of drilling operations can 

typically be routed in a meandering fashion, thereby avoiding trees and any substantial clearing. In 

section 4.4 we recommend that Constitution not clear any trees between the HDD entry and exit sites 

during construction. Minor brush clearing, less than 3 feet wide, using hand tools only is allowed to 

facilitate the use of the HDD tracking system, or acquisition of water for makeup of the HDD slurry. 

Throughout the drilling process, a slurry of naturally occurring, non-toxic, bentonite clay and 

water would be pressurized and pumped through the drilling head to lubricate the drill bit, remove drill 

cuttings, and hold the hole open. This slurry, referred to as drilling mud or drilling fluid, has the potential 

to be inadvertently released to the surface. Constitution would monitor the pipeline route and the 

circulation of drilling mud throughout the HDD operation for indications of an inadvertent drilling mud 

release and would immediately implement corrective actions if a release is observed or suspected. The 

corrective actions that Constitution would implement, including the agencies it would notify and the steps 

it would take to clean up and dispose of a release, are outlined in its Draft HDD Contingency Plan, which 

is discussed in section 4.3.3.

It is possible for HDD operations to fail, primarily due to the encountering of unexpected 

geologic conditions during drilling or if the pipe were to become lodged in the hole during pullback 

operations. Potential causes for abandoning a drill hole include the loss of drill bits or pipe down the hole 

due to a mechanical break or failure; a prolonged release of drilling mud that cannot be controlled; failure 

of the HDD pullback where a section of pipe cannot be retracted and has to be abandoned; or an inability 

to correct a severe curvature of the pilot hole drill path. In any event, reasonable attempts would be made 

to overcome the obstacles preventing successful completion of the drill. Such measures could include redrilling the pilot hole in a slightly different location or re-conditioning of the pilot hole. Constitution 

would be required to seek approval from the Commission and other applicable agencies prior to 

abandoning any proposed HDD (or Direct Pipe) crossing in favor of another construction method. If an 

HDD or Direct Pipe hole were to be abandoned, Constitution would seal and grout with cement at least 

the upper 35 feet of the bore hole(s), with the top five feet filled with soil to allow for revegetation. 

Constitution’s preferred alternative crossing methods in the event that any proposed trenchless crossing 

were to fail are listed in table 2.3.2-1. 

Not all geotechnical data testing pertaining to the feasibility of the proposed HDD and Direct 

Pipe crossings have been provided by Constitution, often due to a lack of survey permission. These 

geotechnical assessments would be required by the Commission prior to the start of drilling operations

(see section 4.1.1.2). If any of the proposed HDD or Direct Pipe crossings are found to be infeasible, 
Project Description 2-24

Constitution would be required to submit specific proposed alternate construction methods for review and 

approval by the Commission and other applicable agencies. 

The Direct Pipe procedure is another trenchless construction method that is similar to HDD, but is

also combined with processes related to microtunnelling. A single, continuous process allows the 

trenchless installation of pre-fabricated pipeline simultaneously with development of the bore hole. A 

Direct Pipe installation is different from an HDD because a much larger initial cutterhead is used, 

eliminating the reaming process. Excavation and hole boring is performed with a navigable 

microtunnelling machine and cutterhead. Temporary flushing pipes located inside the pipeline are used to

transport the drilling fluids to the cutterhead and earthen cuttings to the surface. The pressure used to 

advance the boring process and simultaneously install the pipeline is applied directly to the pipeline by a 

piece of equipment called a “pipe thruster.” The force applied on the pipeline pushes the cutting head 

forward. Reliable installation and monitoring methods ensure accurate measurement of the pipe’s 

location along the intended pathway. 

Direct pipe installations may be shorter and more shallow than HDD installations because the 

bore hole is continuously cased, thereby limiting the risk of hole collapse and the inadvertent release of 

drilling fluids. The Direct Pipe technology for a 30-inch-diameter pipeline is currently limited to 

crossings of roughly 900 feet in length or shorter. Subsurface geology (including boulders) may affect 

the successful use of this method.

2.3.2.3 Drag-Section and Stove-Pipe Specialized Construction Methods

The drag-section and stove-pipe methods could be used to reduce the amount of workspace and 

the duration of construction activity in the immediate vicinity of residences and other areas where 

workspace may be limited. The drag-section method first involves excavating a trench long enough to 

accommodate several pipe sections. Then, a section of pipe fabricated at either end of the trench is

carried along the travel lane, lowered into the ditch, and welded into place. Immediately after, the trench 

is backfilled. At any given time with this method, the excavation of the trench is limited to length of the 

prefabricated pipe segment being installed. The steps for the stove pipe method are similar except that 

only one pipe section would be installed at a time (typically 40 feet). 

2.3.2.4 Typical Road and Railroad Construction Methods

The pipeline project would cross numerous public or private roads and railroads. Two of the 

railroads that would be crossed are active and two are inactive, although one inactive railroad is used as a 

trail. These roads and railroads are listed in appendices F-1 and F-2, respectively, along with the 

proposed crossing method. Roads would either be conventionally bored, open cut, or crossed by HDD or 

Direct Pipe. All railroads would be conventionally bored. A description of the conventional boring, 

HDD, and Direct Pipe construction techniques is provided above. Open-cut road crossing methods are 

described below. The use of conventional boring, HDD, and Direct Pipe methods would avoid road and 

rail surface impacts, but the use of the open-cut crossing method would not. Road crossing permits would 

be obtained from applicable federal, state, and local agencies. These permits would dictate the specific 

requirements for the day-to-day construction activities and methods at each crossing. 

Open-Cut Road Crossing Method

Where paved, road crossings are open-cut, the pavement over the trench would be cut and 

removed. This would be followed by the excavation of the trench and installation of the pipeline. 

Trenching would typically be accomplished using a backhoe or trackhoe augmented by hand-shoveling 

where necessary to expose and protect existing utilities. Any existing utilities that are exposed during the 
2-25 Project Description

excavation would be supported at their existing elevations. This support would be maintained throughout 

the crossing operation until the backfilling is completed. If the roadway surface is paved, the pavement 

would be restored in accordance with the road crossing permit requirements. Gravel surfaces would also 

be repaired to as good or better conditions following restoration.

Constitution would use appropriate measures to ensure that road construction activities do not 

prevent passage by emergency and other vehicles. Measures could include the use of temporary travel 

lanes during construction or the installation of steel plate bridges over the work area to allow traffic flow 

during open trenching. Traffic flow and access to homes would be maintained, except for the temporary 

periods when road blockage is unavoidable due to actual pipeline installation. In circumstances where 

traffic volumes are high or congested, Constitution would use a police presence to direct traffic and 

ensure public safety. 

2.3.2.5 Residential Areas

The proposed pipeline route crosses numerous residential properties and would pass within 50 

feet of at least six identified homes. Residential structures within 50 feet of construction work areas are 

discussed in more detail in section 4.8.3.1; Constitution has developed site-specific residential 

construction plans for these homes. Special care would be taken when residential areas are adjacent to 

construction activities to minimize neighborhood and traffic disruption and to control noise and dust to

the extent practicable.

In general, Constitution indicated that when working near or adjacent to residential areas, it 

would:

• maintain at least a 25-feet-wide buffer from any residence and the construction work 

area, where feasible;

• notify local residents at least 7 days in advance of construction activities;

• maintain access to homes, except for short periods necessary for installing the pipeline;

• install safety fencing along the work areas for at least 100 feet on both sides of a 

residence and install additional fencing along the work boundary;

• preserve trees and landscaping, where possible;

• preserve and replace topsoil in lawns;

• restore affected structures such as fences, mailboxes, and gates;

• ensure pipe is welded and installed as quickly as reasonably possible consistent with 

prudent pipeline construction practices to minimize construction time affecting a home or 

neighborhood; and

• backfill the trench within 10 days and complete final cleanup within 10 additional days, 

weather permitting.

2.3.2.6 Winter Construction

Constitution has proposed to place its project into service in March 2015, and would seek 

approval to begin construction as soon as all necessary federal approvals can be obtained. This schedule 

may involve construction during the winter of 2014/2015. Therefore, Constitution developed a Winter 

Construction Plan to address specialized methods and procedures that would be used to protect resources 

during the winter season. The key elements of the Winter Construction Plan include:
Project Description 2-26

• use of special snow plowing equipment that would prevent mixing of snow and 

underlying soil;

• storage of snow over the trenchline prior to excavation to prevent deep frost penetration 

of the soil;

• clearing of snow from roads without blocking driveways or other access points;

• coordination with individual landowners on a site-specific basis if snow storage adjacent 

to the construction right-of-way is desired; 

• minimization of the amount of open trench and use of safety fencing where snow may 

cover an open trench; 

• suspension of backfill and topsoil replacement if unfeasible due to frozen conditions;

• use of mulch and erosion control devices to stabilize topsoil and subsoil piles; and

• delaying final cleanup activities until soils have thawed.

We have reviewed the Winter Construction Plan and have found its mitigating measures 

acceptable. 

2.3.2.7 State-owned Lands

Constitution is proposing to cross two state-owned lands in New York: the Clapper Hollow State 

Forest in Schoharie County, and the Melondy Hill State Forest in Chenango County. The proposed routes 

across these two state forests have been modified by Constitution in consultation with the NYSDEC in 

order to minimize potential impacts. Constitution has developed site-specific crossing plans that we find 

acceptable. These crossings are discussed further in section 4.8.4.1

2.3.2.8 Agricultural Lands

The proposed pipeline crosses numerous agricultural lands including row crops, specialty crops, 

pastures, and organic farms. These resources are discussed in detail in section 4.8. Measures that would 

be used by Constitution to prevent or minimize impacts on agricultural lands would include: 

• preservation, segregation, and replacement of topsoil across the full construction right-ofway;

• removal of rock (4 inches in size or larger) to a depth of 12 inches or to the subsoil 

horizon;

• repair or replacement of drain tiles or irrigation systems damaged during construction; 

and

• initiation of a crop-monitoring program to assess the yields of restored areas postconstruction. 

In addition to the other plans already discussed in this section, Constitution has developed or 

adopted three other specialized plans to further prevent or minimize potential impacts. These plans 

include: Special Crop Productivity Monitoring Procedures (provided by the NYSDAM and adopted by 

Constitution); Seeding, Fertilizing, and Lime Recommendations for Gas Pipeline Right-of-way 

Restoration in Farmlands (also provided by the NYSDAM and adopted by Constitution); and an Organic 

Farm Protection Plan. 
2-27 Project Description

2.3.2.9 Rugged Topography

Rugged topography, such as steep, vertical slopes and steep side slopes (i.e., slopes running 

parallel to the proposed route), is present in numerous areas along the proposed pipeline route. These 

areas are listed in appendix G. In the steepest areas, Constitution would employ a technique called 

“winching” that involves placing heavy equipment at the top of the slope to serve as an anchor point, and 

then connecting one or more additional pieces of equipment together with a cable. This provides stability 

and safety to the equipment operators as work proceeds up and down the steep slope. 

Another construction method used in areas with steep side slopes is called the “two-tone” cut and 

fill method. Typically, the up-slope side of the construction right-of-way is cut during grading, and the 

soil excavated from the cut is then be used to fill the down-slope edge of the construction right-of-way to 

provide a safe and level working surface for heavy equipment. Pipeline construction then occurs on the 

level surface as it would in typical construction. Then, during restoration, the spoil material are placed 

back into the cut and compacted to match the original topography and contours. Constitution would 

require extra workspace in these areas for storage of excavated material from the temporary cut and fill 

areas, as well as for temporary storage of material such as trench spoil, excess rock, and felled timber. 

Subsurface springs or seeps encountered during excavation activities would be directed down-slope 

through drainage pipes or French drains. 

Right-of-way restoration in rugged areas, including restoration of pre-construction contours, 

would begin within 10 days of pipeline installation to minimize potential erosion issues. Permanent 

trench breakers would be installed in the trench surrounding the pipeline in areas of steep slopes with high 

erosion potential and to prevent the high velocity channeling of water along the trench line. Constitution 

indicated that cement sacks would not be utilized to construct trench breakers. Seeding and mulching 

would be performed in these areas to promote revegetation and slope stability. 

2.3.3 Aboveground Facility Construction Procedures

Both Constitution and Iroquois have proposed aboveground facilities for their proposed projects 

(see table 2.1.2-1 above). Constitution’s facilities include two new M&R stations, two side taps, a pig 

launcher, a pig receiver, MLVs, and assorted ancillary facilities at various points along the proposed 

route. Construction activities associated with these facilities would include installation of erosion 

controls, clearing, grading, installation of concrete foundations, construction of metal buildings 

appurtenances, fencing, pressure testing, and restoration grading and landscaping. Initial work at the 

M&R stations would focus on preparing the sites for equipment staging, fabrication, and construction. 

Foundation holes and pipe trenches would be excavated with standard construction earthmoving 

equipment, unless blasting is required. Following foundation work, station equipment and structures 

would be brought to the site and installed, using any necessary trailers or cranes for delivery and 

installation. Following installation of the facilities, associated equipment, piping, and electrical systems 

would be installed, and the sites would be graveled, as necessary, and fenced. Necessary equipment 

testing and start-up activities would occur on a concurrent basis.

The construction methods associated with Iroquois’ expansion of the Wright Compressor Station 

would proceed in a manner similar to that described immediately above, but in a single location at the 

terminus of the pipeline project and on a larger scale. Iroquois’ proposed facilities include a new 

compressor building, cooling facility, additional piping, and other ancillary facilities. The compressor 

building would be approximately 80 feet wide by 100 feet long. The roof would peak at 58 feet tall, 

although the exhaust stack would reach a height of 63 feet. A steel frame would be covered with siding, 

although the exterior design has not yet been completed. The cooling facility would be approximately 40

feet long by 25 feet wide. Telephone service would be extended over from the existing connections 
Project Description 2-28

within the Wright Compressor Station, and expanded electrical service would be required. Prior to 

placement into service, Iroquois’ new facilities would be tested and operated on a trial basis. 

2.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 

Both Constitution and Iroquois have proposed in-service dates of March 2015. The Applicants 

would seek to begin construction of their projects as soon as possible following the receipt of all 

necessary federal authorizations. Constitution would first commence clearing activities at special status 

streams, access roads, trenchless construction workspaces, and M&R stations and subsequently clear 

vegetation at remaining areas along the mainline pipeline right-of-way.

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INSPECTION AND MITIGATION MONITORING

2.5.1 Coordination and Training

Constitution and Iroquois would incorporate the mitigation measures identified in their permit 

applications as well as additional requirements of federal, state, and local agencies into their construction 

drawings and specifications. Constitution and Iroquois would also provide copies of applicable 

environmental permits and construction drawings and specifications to their construction contractors. 

Constitution and Iroquois would develop an environmental training program tailored to the 

proposed projects and their requirements. The program would be designed to ensure that:

• qualified environmental training personnel provide thorough and focused training 

sessions regarding the environmental requirements applicable to the trainees’ activities;

• all individuals receive environmental training before they begin work on any construction 

workspaces;

• adequate training records are kept; and

• refresher training is provided as needed to maintain high awareness of environmental 

requirements. 

Constitution and Iroquois would also conduct training for construction personnel regarding 

proper field implementation of the ECPs and other project-specific plans and mitigation measures. 

2.5.2 Environmental Inspection

Constitution and Iroquois would be represented on each construction spread5 or work area by a 

Resident Engineer/Chief Inspector, who would have overall authority on the construction spread for 

quality assurance and compliance with mitigation measures, other applicable regulatory requirements, and 

company specifications. One or more Environmental Inspectors (EI) would be employed per spread by 

Constitution and Iroquois during active construction and restoration. The EIs would be on-site during 

active construction and would have peer status with all other activity inspectors. The EI would have 

authority to stop construction activities that violate the measures set forth in the documents and permit 

authorizations for both projects, as well as authority to order corrective actions. At a minimum, the EI 

would be responsible for:

 5 A spread is an individual segment of the overall project staffed by its own labor and equipment. The project 

would consist of 5 spreads.
2-29 Project Description

• ensuring compliance with the measures set forth in the ECPs (for the pipeline project) 

and all other environmental permits and approvals, as well as environmental requirements 

in landowner agreements;

• identifying, documenting, and overseeing corrective actions as necessary to bring an 

activity back into compliance;

• verifying that the limits of authorized construction work areas and locations of access 

roads are properly marked before clearing;

• verifying the location of signs and highly visible flagging marking the boundaries of 

sensitive resource areas, waterbodies, wetlands, or areas with special requirements along 

the construction work area;

• identifying erosion/sediment control and stabilization needs in all areas;

• locating dewatering structures and slope breakers to ensure they would not direct water 

into sensitive areas such as known cultural resource sites or sensitive species habitat;

• verifying that trench dewatering activities do not result in the deposition of sand, silt, 

and/or sediment near the point of discharge in a wetland or waterbody. If such deposition 

is occurring, the EI would stop the dewatering activity and take corrective action to 

prevent a reoccurrence;

• advising the Resident Engineer/Chief Inspector when conditions (such as wet weather) 

make it advisable to restrict construction activities to avoid excessive rutting;

• approving imported soils and verifying that the soil is certified free of noxious weeds and 

soil pests, unless otherwise specified by the landowner;

• determining the need for and ensuring that erosion controls are properly installed, as 

necessary, to prevent sediment flow into wetlands, waterbodies, sensitive areas, and onto 

roads;

• inspecting and ensuring the maintenance of temporary erosion control measures at least 

daily in areas of active construction or equipment operation, on a weekly basis in areas 

with no construction or equipment operation; and within 24 hours of each 0.5 inch or 

greater of rainfall in Pennsylvania, with slightly more stringent inspection requirements 

in New York6

;

• ensuring restoration of contours and topsoil;

• ensuring the repair of all ineffective temporary erosion control measures as soon as 

possible but not longer than 24 hours after identification; 

• ensuring that the Applicants’ contractors implement and comply with their spill 

prevention and mitigation plans;

• keeping records of compliance with conditions of all environmental permits and 

approvals during active construction and restoration; and

• identifying areas that should be given special attention to ensure stabilization and 

restoration after the construction phase.

 6 Twice per week inspections in areas with no active construction and greater than 5 acres in size and the 

initiation of inspections once rain events reach the 0.5-inch threshold, whether or not the rain event is 

continuing (as per NYSDEC requirements).
Project Description 2-30

2.5.3 FERC Third-Party Compliance Monitoring

Constitution has committed to funding a FERC third-party compliance monitoring program 

during the construction phase of the pipeline project. Under this program, a contractor, is selected by, 

managed by, and reports solely to the FERC staff to provide environmental compliance monitoring 

services. The FERC Third-party Compliance Monitor would provide daily reports to the FERC on 

compliance issues and make recommendations to the FERC Project Manager on how to deal with 

compliance issues and construction changes, should they arise. In addition to this program, FERC staff 

would also conduct periodic compliance inspections during all phases of construction.

2.5.4 Post-Approval Variance Process

The pipeline alignment and work areas identified in this draft EIS should be sufficient for 

construction and operation (including maintenance) of the projects. However, minor route realignments 

and other workspace refinements sometimes continue past the project planning phase and into the 

construction phase. These changes could involve minor route realignments, shifting or adding new extra 

workspaces or staging areas, adding additional access roads, or modifications to construction 

methods. We have developed a procedure for assessing impacts on those areas that have not been 

evaluated in this draft EIS and for approving or denying their use following any Certificate issuance. In 

general, biological and cultural resources surveys were conducted using a survey corridor larger than that 

necessary to construct the facilities. Where survey approvals were denied, constitution would complete 

the required surveys following a Certificate issuance. If Constitution or Iroquois request to shift an 

existing workspace or require a new extra workspace subsequent to issuance of a Certificate, these areas 

would typically be within the previously surveyed area. Such requests would be reviewed using a 

variance request process.

A variance request for route realignments or extra workspace locations along with a copy of the 

survey results would be documented and forwarded to the FERC in the form of a “variance request” in 

compliance with recommended condition number 5 in section 5.2 of this EIS. The FERC would take the 

lead on reviewing the request. Typically, no further resource agency consultation would be required if the 

requested change is within previously surveyed areas and no sensitive environmental resources are 

affected. The procedures used for assessing impacts on work areas outside the survey corridor and for 

approving their use are similar to those described above, except that additional surveys, analyses, and 

resource agency consultations would be performed to assess the extent of any impacts on biological, 

cultural, and other sensitive resources and identify any avoidance or minimization measures 

necessary. All variance requests for Constitution’s project and their approval status would be 

documented according to the FERC’s compliance monitoring program as described above. Any variance 

activity by either Applicant (whether submitted through the third party compliance monitoring program or 

directly to FERC) and subsequent FERC action would be available on the FERC’s e-library webpage

under the docket number for the respective project (CP13-499 or CP13-502). 

After Constitution and Iroquois complete any additional surveys, landowner consultation, 

analyses, and/or resource agency consultations, the new work area and supporting documentation 

(including a statement of landowner approval) would be forwarded to the FERC in the form of a variance 

request, which would be evaluated in the manner described above for approval or denial.

2.5.5 Post-Construction Monitoring

After construction, Constitution and Iroquois would conduct follow-up inspections of all 

disturbed upland areas after the first and second growing seasons to determine the success of restoration. 

Restoration of upland areas would be considered successful if the right-of-way vegetation is visually 
2-31 Project Description

successful in density and cover, surface conditions are similar to adjacent undisturbed lands, construction 

debris is removed, and proper drainage has been restored. For at least 2 years following construction, 

Constitution and Iroquois would submit quarterly reports to the FERC that document any problems 

identified by Constitution, Iroquois, or landowners and describe the corrective actions taken to remedy 

those problems. Constitution would perform monitoring for invasive plant species on at least an annual 

basis for 3 years following construction. The monitoring period for invasive species would be extended 

as needed or as required by permits or regulatory agencies. 

In accordance with its ECPs, Constitution would monitor the success of wetland revegetation 

annually for the first 3 years (or as required by permit) after construction or until wetland revegetation is 

successful. Wetland revegetation would be considered successful when the cover of herbaceous and/or 

woody species is at least 80 percent of the type, density, and distribution of the vegetation in adjacent 

undisturbed wetland areas or as compared to documented, pre-project conditions. In accordance with its

Procedures, if revegetation is not successful at the end of 3 years, Constitution would develop and 

implement (in consultation with a professional wetland ecologist) a plan to actively revegetate the 

wetland with native wetland herbaceous and woody plant species. 

After construction, the FERC, cooperating agencies, and/or other agencies would continue to 

conduct oversight inspection and monitoring to assess the success of restoration. If it is determined that 

the success of any of the restoration activities are not adequate at the end of the respective timeframes, 

Constitution and Iroquois would be required to extend their post-construction monitoring programs.

2.6 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND SAFETY CONTROLS

Constitution and Iroquois would operate and maintain the proposed pipeline and/or aboveground 

facilities in compliance with the DOT’s regulations provided in 49 CFR 192, the Commission’s guidance 

at 18 CFR 380.15, and the maintenance provisions of their Plan and Procedures. Constitution and 

Iroquois would operate and maintain the newly constructed pipeline facilities in the same manner as they 

currently operate and maintain their existing systems. The pipeline right-of-way would be patrolled by 

either aerial flyovers or ground surveys on a schedule as described in table 2.6-1, although additional 

ground surveys would be conducted as necessary.

TABLE 2.6-1

Maximum Scheduled Intervals Between Patrols for the Proposed Constitution Pipeline Project

Class Location of Linea At All Highway and Railroad Crossings 

(inspection interval)

At All Other Locations (inspection 

interval)

1 and 2 No longer than every 7.5 months, and at least 

twice each calendar year.

No longer than every 15 months, and at 

least once each calendar year.

3 No longer than every 4.5 months, and at least 

four times each calendar year.

No longer than every 7.5 months, and at 

least twice each calendar year.

4 No longer than every 4.5 months, and at least 

four times each calendar year.

No longer than every 4.5 months, and at 

least four times each calendar year.

_____________________

a As defined by DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration at 49 CFR 192.5:

Class 1: offshore areas and areas within 220 yards of a pipeline with ≤10 buildings intended for human occupancy.

Class 2: areas within 220 yards of a pipeline with >10 but <46 buildings intended for human occupancy.

Class 3: areas within 220 yards of a pipeline with >46 buildings intended for human occupancy; and areas within 100 

yards of either a building or a small, well defined outside area (such as a playground, recreation area, outdoor 

theater, or other place of public assembly) that is occupied by 20 or more persons on at least five days a week 

for 10 weeks in any 12-month period.

Class 4: areas within 220 yards of a pipeline where buildings with four or more stories are prevalent.
Project Description 2-32

The new pipeline would be patrolled to identify:

• erosion concerns occurring along the right-of-way;

• the performance status of water control devices and stormwater structures;

• the condition of the banks at waterbody and wetland crossings;

• third-party activity along the pipeline right-of-way; 

• the condition/success of vegetation and plantings;

• the presence of invasive plant species; and 

• any other conditions that could threaten the pipeline.

Constitution’s management staff would be notified by its inspectors of any conditions that need 

attention. Corrective measures would be performed as needed. Aboveground facilities such as M&R

stations and MLVs would also be inspected to ensure proper working conditions. The pipeline cathodic 

protection system would also be monitored and inspected periodically to ensure proper and adequate 

corrosion protection.

Maintenance of the proposed pipeline permanent right-of-way in uplands generally would consist 

of mowing once every 3 years. However, Constitution may mow a 10-foot-wide strip centered over the 

pipeline in both upland and wetland areas (with the exception of the HDD segments), along with selective 

cutting and removal of trees greater than 15 feet high located within 15 feet of the pipeline within 

wetlands, to facilitate inspections. All workspaces affected temporarily during construction would be 

stabilized and seeded, and then allowed to eventually revert back to pre-project conditions. 

The pipeline facilities would be clearly marked at line-of-sight intervals and at crossings of roads, 

railroads, and other key points. The markers would indicate the presence of the pipeline and provide a 

telephone number and address where a company representative could be reached in the event of an 

emergency or before any third party excavation in the area of the pipeline. Constitution and Iroquois 

participate in the “Call Before You Dig” and “One Call” programs and other related pre-excavation 

notification organizations.

Iroquois would also inspect and maintain the proposed compressor station facilities, including

calibrating equipment; checking; the odorization system; assessing cathodic protection systems; checking

safety systems; and monitoring pressures, temperature, and vibration data. Iroquois would also mow and 

maintain the landscaping around the compressor station. 

2.7 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT

Constitution and Iroquois have not identified or proposed any plans for future expansion of their 

systems or abandonment of any of the projects’ facilities. We have received comments from the public 

concerning the possible future expansion of Constitution’s project to transport additional and newly 

developed supplies of natural gas. Such an expansion, if proposed, would require a new, separate NEPA 

review by the FERC and additional permitting by other local, state, and federal agencies. 

In response to an information request from the FERC, Constitution indicated if its pipeline inlet 

pressures were to be increased to Constitution’s maximum operating pressure of 1,440 psig, then the 

maximum volume that the pipeline would be able to transport would be 850,000 Dth/d, assuming there 

were no other constraints at the delivery point. This scenario would possibly allow Constitution to deliver 
2-33 Project Description

an additional 200,000 Dth/d of natural gas beyond the level currently proposed. However, Constitution 

would need additional FERC authorization to increase any volumes above the proposed 650,000 Dth/d.
3-1 Alternatives

3.0 ALTERNATIVES

In accordance with NEPA and our policy, we evaluated alternatives to the projects to determine 

whether an alternative would be technically and economically feasible, and environmentally preferable to 

the proposed action. The purpose of this evaluation was to determine whether there are reasonable 

alternatives that would result in less environmental impact than the projects as proposed while still 

meeting the projects’ objectives. As described in section 1.1, Constitution indicated that the project 

objectives were to: 

• deliver up to 650,000 Dth/d of natural gas supply from Susquehanna County, 

Pennsylvania to the interconnect with the TGP system at the existing Wright Compressor 

Station;

• provide new natural gas service for areas currently without access to natural gas;

• expand access to multiple sources of natural gas supply, thereby increasing supply 

diversity and improving operational performance, system flexibility, and reliability in the 

New York and New England market areas; 

• optimize the existing systems for the benefit of both existing and new customers by 

creating a more competitive market, resulting in enhanced market competition, reduced 

price volatility, and lower prices; and 

• provide opportunities to improve regional air quality by utilizing cleaner-burning natural 

gas in lieu of fuel oil in existing and future residential, commercial, and industrial 

facilities, thereby reducing GHG emissions and other pollutants. 

Iroquois stated that the purpose of its project is to provide 650,000 Dth/d of leased firm capacity 

of natural gas from the terminus of the Constitution’s project in Wright, New York to downstream 

customers in Iroquois’ existing system through the addition of system compression, interconnections with 

TGP, and other necessary infrastructure. According to Iroquois, the interconnection with Constitution’s 

project and the proposed compressor transfer station would provide Iroquois’ existing customers with 

new supply, increased reliability, and lower fuel prices. 

The alternatives to the proposed actions that we address in this section include the no-action 

alternative, system alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site 

alternatives. 

We established several key criteria to evaluate the potential alternatives identified. Each 

alternative was evaluated in consideration of whether or not it would:

• be technically and economically feasible and practical;

• offer a significant environmental advantage over the proposed action; and

• meet the projects’ objectives, as described above.

With respect to the first criterion, it is important to recognize that not all conceivable alternatives 

are technically feasible and practical. For example, some alternatives may not be possible to implement 

due to technological difficulties or logistics. We do not design natural gas pipeline projects. Rather, 

pipeline companies propose and design pipeline projects in response to market conditions. In turn, we 

analyze these proposals and a reasonable range of alternatives. In conducting this analysis, it is important 

to recognize the environmental advantages and disadvantages of the proposed actions in order to focus the 

analysis on reasonable alternatives that may reduce impacts and offer a significant environmental 
Alternatives 3-2

advantage. A detailed discussion of the environmental consequences of the projects (both positive and 

negative) is included in section 4.0. 

Using the evaluation criteria discussed above and subsequent environmental comparisons, each 

alternative was considered to the point where it was clear that the alternative was either not reasonable, 

would result in substantially greater environmental impacts that could not be readily mitigated, offered no 

potential environmental advantages over the proposed projects, or could not meet the projects’ objectives. 

Alternatives that appeared to result in less than or similar levels of environmental impact were reviewed 

in greater detail. The following sections discuss and analyze each of the alternatives evaluated in 

sufficient detail to explain why they were eliminated from further consideration or are recommended for 

adoption into the respective project.

Where environmental data are presented within this alternatives analysis, it is data collected from 

desktop (e.g., maps, literature, aerial photography, and agency databases) sources. Constitution collected 

field survey data for its proposed route and some (but not all) alternatives. Therefore, to present the most 

consistent comparisons of potential impacts on environmental resources this section presents data 

obtained from desktop sources for both the proposed route and alternative routes, even when field data 

may exist. 

During the preliminary design stage for the projects, Constitution participated in our pre-filing 

process (see section 1.3). This process emphasizes identification of potential stakeholder issues early in 

the development of a project, as well as identification and evaluation of alternatives that may avoid or 

minimize these issues. During this process, Constitution made multiple modifications to its proposed 

pipeline route to address stakeholder concerns. The majority of route changes were made to avoid 

conflicts with existing or planned land uses or to increase the distance of the pipeline route from 

residences and commercial businesses, recreation areas, or other infrastructure. These changes were 

subsequently made part of the Constitution’s proposed route when it filed its FERC application and 

supplements, and are presented in this draft EIS. Iroquois did not participate in our pre-filing process, but 

its proposal is the result of the adoption of an alternative to Constitution’s original proposal (i.e., a new, 

greenfield compressor station) in an effort to reduce overall environmental impact. 

3.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The Commission has two courses of action in processing applications under Section 7 of the 

NGA: 1) deny the requested action (the no-action alternative), or 2) grant the Certificate, with or without 

conditions. If the no-action alternative is selected by the Commission, the proposed facilities would not 

be constructed, and the short- and long-term environmental impacts from the projects would not occur. In 

addition, if the no-action alternative is selected, the stated objectives of Constitution and Iroquois’ 

proposals would not be met. The no-action alternative would eliminate this new natural gas supply for 

New York and New England markets, causing existing and potential users of natural gas to either pursue 

other means of natural gas supply, to rely on other fuels (such as heating oil), or to seek other means to 

meet or curtail their energy needs.

The New York State Energy Planning Board (2009) assessment of natural gas markets in New 

York and in the northeast concluded that most of the interstate transmission pipelines in the region are at 

or near capacity on peak days, and that by 2018 unmet peak day natural gas demand for New York and 

New England could range between an estimated 300,000 to 900,000 Dth/d. Demand for natural gas is 

expected to grow by five percent between 2009 and 2020 for New York alone (New York State Energy 

Planning Board 2009), and production of natural gas is increasing in the northeast region. Other reports 

have also documented increased demand for natural gas in New York and New England and the lack of 
3-3 Alternatives

adequate pipeline capacity to deliver required volumes of natural gas (ISO-New England 2012, ICF 

International 2012). 

The lack of a new pipeline with access to supply sources into the region could prolong the 

existing supply constraints in the proposed delivery areas, which could create winter-premium pricing and 

exacerbate price volatility for all natural gas users in the areas, and could increase the difficulty for others, 

such as the operators of gas-fired electric generating plants, in finding economical gas supplies. This in 

turn could lead to higher gas and electric rates in the region and could lead to energy shortages during 

times of winter peak demand. 

The burning of natural gas at power plants to produce electricity also results in reduced air 

emissions compared to other fossil fuels, such as coal and fuel oil. According to the EPA (2013a), natural 

gas produces at least 50 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2), almost 70 percent less nitrogen oxides (NOx), 

and about 99 percent less sulfur oxides compared to a coal-fired power plant. Since the 1990s, the 

transition to natural gas fueled power plants in New England has substantially decreased dependence 

upon the formerly pre-dominant energy sources of fuel oil, coal, and nuclear energy (ISO-New England 

2012). If the no action alternative were adopted, then air emissions could be increased if other sources of 

energy were used. Other energy alternatives are discussed below in section 3.1.2. 

The no-action alternative would not provide the potential economic benefits associated with the 

proposed projects, including increased jobs, secondary spending, and tax revenues during construction, as 

well as increased property tax revenues to local governments during operations as discussed in section 

4.9. Further, the no-action alternative would not provide natural gas service to municipalities in 

Pennsylvania and New York near the project that do not currently have access to natural gas. The abovementioned transition in energy sources in New England over time has been hastened by the relative lower 

cost of natural gas, which has economic and cost savings benefits that are then passed along to consumers 

of electricity. 

In summary, the no-action alternative would avoid the environmental impacts of the proposed 

projects, but it would result in the need for alternate means to satisfy the demand for natural gas, or other 

sources of energy in New York and New England. The no-action alternative would not meet the 

objectives of the proposed projects. It would likely, however, lead end users to seek energy from other 

sources including other fossil fuels and renewable energy. It could also lead to increased energy 

conservation. Each of these potential options, with respect to the no-action alternative, is discussed 

below.

3.1.1 Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency

Energy conservation measures have and will continue to play an important role in reducing 

energy demand in the United States. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 includes guidelines to diversify 

America’s energy supply and reduce dependence on foreign sources of energy, increase residential and 

businesses’ energy efficiency and conservation (e.g., EPA Energy Star Program), improve vehicular 

energy efficiency, and modernize domestic energy infrastructure (U.S. Congress 2005). 

New York has strongly promoted energy conservation and has a number of programs in place to 

minimize energy use. One result of these programs is that New York is now the second most energy 

efficient state in the nation on a per capita basis, with about one-third lower energy usage than the

national average. One of New York’s energy goals is to reduce electricity use to 15 percent below 2015 

projected levels, which would provide additional impetus for the state’s electricity efficiency initiatives. 

Data from the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) demonstrate that although statewide 

energy use dropped a total of 5.1 percent in 2008 and 2009 (primarily due to the downturn in the 
Alternatives 3-4

economy), energy use grew by 3 percent in 2010, and remained near 2010 levels in 2011. Energy use in 

the New York City area in 2010 also exceeded 2008 levels (NYISO 2012). Moreover, projected electrical 

demand in New York is forecast to increase by about 900 gigawatt hours per year between 2011 and 2021 

(NYISO 2012). This projected growth in electrical demand takes into account New York’s 15 percent 

energy efficiency target described above. Con Edison is a major supplier of electricity and natural gas in 

the New York area and operates programs that promote energy efficiency for homes, businesses, and 

industry, including a “Green Team” initiative with opportunities for energy audits, incentives, and rebates 

(Con Edison 2013). 

New England states such as Massachusetts also strongly promote energy efficiency 

(Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 2013). The State of 

Massachusetts calls energy efficiency its “first fuel” and sponsors programs to promote energy efficiency 

for homes, businesses, cities, new construction projects, and state government operations. Massachusetts 

was ranked as the top state in the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy’s (ACEEE 2013) 

rankings for 2012 and other New England states such as Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Vermont all also 

ranked in the top ten. Massachusetts has some of the most ambitious energy savings targets in the United 

States with targets of 2.6 percent annual electric savings for 2013-2015 along with state-funding and 

support (ACEEE 2013). Additionally, National Grid is a major supplier of electricity and natural gas in 

the New England area and operates a program called Mass Save which promotes energy efficiency for 

homes, businesses, and industry (National Grid 2013). 

Combined Heat and Power

Combined heat and power (CHP), also known as cogeneration, accounts for almost 12 percent of 

electrical power generation in the U.S. (United States Clean Heat and Power Association 2013). CHP is 

the simultaneous production of electricity and heat from a single fuel source, such as natural gas, biomass, 

biogas, coal, or oil. CHP is not a single technology, but an energy system that can be modified depending 

on the needs of the energy end user. CHP systems consist of a number of individual components 

configured into an integrated whole to recover and use waste heat from production of electricity. These 

components include the prime mover, generator, heat recovery equipment, and electrical interconnection. 

The prime mover drives the overall system and typically includes reciprocating engines, combustion 

turbines, steam turbines, microturbines, and fuel cells (EPA 2011a). In the U.S., CHP decreases energy 

use by about 1.3 trillion British thermal units (Btus) per year and contributes to overall reductions in NOx

and SO2 emissions (United States Clean Heat and Power Association 2013). New York currently has 517 

CHP installations with a generating capacity of about 5,552 megawatts (MW) (ICF International 2013). 

The vast majority (85 percent) of these CHP installations operate using natural gas. 

The State of Massachusetts promotes the use of CHP (Mass.gov 2013). The state offers 

incentives for the use of alternative energy systems such as CHP and stated that CHP was especially 

appropriate for larger commercial, industrial, and institutional facilities. 

Recently, the EPA evaluated the opportunity for the use of CHP at wastewater treatment facilities 

and found that, as of June 2011, wastewater treatment CHP systems were in place at 133 sites in 30 states, 

representing 437 MW of capacity (EPA 2011a). Although 78 percent of the facilities identified rely 

solely on biogas from on-site anaerobic digesters, some facilities employ other fuel sources (e.g., natural 

gas or fuel oil) either because the facility does not use anaerobic digesters or because biogas is not a 

practicable option due to site-specific technical or economic conditions. New York currently has six 

wastewater treatment CHP facilities representing about 3 MW of capacity (EPA 2011a). Wastewater 

CHP systems typically work best when employed at facilities with influent flow rates of 5 million gallons 

per day (mgd) or more (EPA 2011a). This is because waste stream volumes this large are typically 

required to produce sufficient quantities of biogas to make CHP usage economically feasible. The EPA’s 
3-5 Alternatives

2011 study examined the potential for increasing CHP use at wastewater treatment facilities with influent 

rates of at least 1 mgd. Smaller wastewater facilities that employ anaerobic digesters can produce 

sufficient biogas through conventional means (given high enough biosolids loadings) or augment their 

digester process to raise the biogas generation rate (e.g., addition of collected fats, oils, and greases; use 

of microbial stimulants). About 37 percent of the wastewater treatment facilities with influent flows of 1 

to 5 mgd and employing anaerobic digestion processes are candidates for deployment of CHP (EPA 

2011a). If all of these facilities instituted CHP an additional 54 MW per day of electrical generation and 

4,997 million Btu per day of thermal energy could be produced nationally. 

While the Energy Policy Act and these other state and municipal programs promote increased

energy efficiency and conservation by supporting new energy efficient technologies (such as CHP) and 

increasing funds for energy efficiency research, and would no doubt minimize energy use, they are not 

expected to eliminate the increasing demand for energy or natural gas. Additionally, the implementation 

and success of energy conservation in curtailing energy use is a long-term goal, extending well beyond 

the timeframe of the proposed projects. 

Projections by the DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) support this conclusion. 

According to the Annual Energy Outlook 2013 with Projections to 2040 (DOE/EIA 2013a) reference 

case, despite increased efficiency, natural gas consumption (subtotal) in the Mid-Atlantic states, which 

include Pennsylvania and New York, is expected to grow from 2.78 quadrillion Btu per year in 2010 to 

3.45 quadrillion Btu per year in 2040. Natural gas consumption in the New England states is expected to 

grow from 0.90 quadrillion Btu per year in 2010 to 1.12 quadrillion Btu per year in 2040. These natural 

gas estimates comprise about a 24 percent increase in consumption for both regions. Therefore, while 

energy conservation and energy efficiency would undoubtedly reduce the demand for fossil fuels in the 

New York and New England regions to some degree, it would not eliminate the need for additional 

natural gas supply altogether or in the short term. 

While energy conservation reduces demand for energy sources such as natural gas, and may be a 

long-term alternative or partial alternative for the projects, implementation of sufficient energy 

conservation measures to eliminate the need for the proposed projects is not feasible in the short-term. As 

such, we do not consider energy conservation or energy efficiency a practicable alternative to the 

proposed projects and they were eliminated from further analysis.

3.1.2 Non-Gas Energy Alternatives

3.1.2.1 Nuclear Energy

Energy from nuclear power is important nationally and accounted for approximately 9 percent of 

annual energy consumption nationwide in 2011 (DOE/EIA 2013a). In New York, nuclear power 

currently accounts for about 14 percent of statewide generating capacity (NYISO 2012). In New England 

(Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut), nuclear energy 

accounted for approximately 12 percent of total energy consumption in 2012. The projected trends for 

nuclear energy production are relatively flat, with total consumption rising from 0.377 quadrillion Btu in 

2012 to 0.405 quadrillion Btu in 2021 and then decreasing to 0.384 quadrillion Btu by 2033 (DOE/EIA 

2013a). 

Entergy’s Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, which has provided about 4 percent of New England’s 

total electricity supply since 2007, is scheduled to close in 2014 (DOE/EIA 2013b). The reasons cited by 

Entergy for the plant’s closure included low wholesale electricity prices resulting partially from low 

natural gas prices, as well as capital costs associated with maintaining the plant (DOE/EIA 2013b). The 
Alternatives 3-6

same report showed that the portion of total electricity sales in New England attributable to natural gas 

grew from less than 30 percent overall in 2001 to greater than 50 percent in 2012. 

Moreover, increased use of nuclear power is seen by some as a means of reducing GHG 

emissions associated with the burning of fossil fuels. However, environmental and regulatory challenges 

concerning safety and security, the disposal of toxic materials (i.e., spent fuel), and alterations to 

hydrological/biological systems would need to be addressed before any new nuclear power generation 

facilities could be constructed. Nuclear power remains controversial, given these factors. 

Plans for a new nuclear power plant in New York were announced by UniStar Nuclear. UniStar 

Nuclear applied for a Combined License in September 2008 for a new nuclear plant at the Nine Mile 

Point nuclear plant site on Lake Ontario in the town of Scriba, which is approximately 6 miles northeast 

of Oswego, New York. The proposed plant would generate about 1,710 MW of electricity. However, the 

future of the project is unclear. According to the DOE/EIA, UniStar requested that the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission suspend its review of the application for the project on May 31, 2010. No other 

proposed new nuclear power reactors have been submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 

New York or New England (NRC 2013). The most recent new nuclear reactor to enter service in the

United States was the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Watts Bar Unit 1 in 1996 (EIA 2013a). 

Because the subject of nuclear power remains controversial, these proposals and any subsequent 

plans that arise to construct new or expand existing plants in the northeast would likely involve prolonged 

review periods that would not meet the objectives of the projects. For these reasons, nuclear power is not 

currently a practicable alternative to the projects and was eliminated from further review.

3.1.2.2 Fossil Fuels

According to the DOE/EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2013 with Projections to 2040 reference 

case (DOE/EIA 2013a), fossil fuel consumption as a percentage of total energy consumption is projected 

to drop from 82 percent of total U.S. energy demand in 2011 to 78 percent in 2040. The same DOE/EIA 

source also projected that energy production attributable to the consumption of coal would fall from 19.62 

quadrillion Btu in 2011 to an estimated 18.75 quadrillion Btu in 2040. The projected decline in fossil fuel 

consumption as a percentage of total consumption is due largely to corporate average fuel economy 

standards and state and federal standards for renewable energy sources.

If the proposed projects were not constructed, fossil fuels including coal and fuel oil could be 

used as alternative sources of electricity generation. We are not aware of any plans for major energy 

supply projects that would supply or use petroleum to create electricity in the projects’ area. Coal is used 

for energy generation and would function as an alternative to natural gas. However, relative to natural 

gas, the burning of coal results in greater emissions of pollutants such as NOx, sulfur dioxide (SO2), GHG,

and mercury (EPA 2005). In 2010, coal comprised 46 percent of total U.S. electric power generation 

(DOE/EIA 2011). Due to the greater environmental impacts associated with emissions from coal-burning 

power generation, it is unlikely that coal would displace the need for natural gas in the target market areas 

in the foreseeable future.

Use of fuel oil may result in increased reliance on foreign oil, which could require development 

of additional import, storage, and refining facilities. Fuel oil is commonly transported by pipeline which 

could then require construction of other pipeline systems to transport it which would likely have similar 

impacts as the proposed projects, but in a different location. Reliance on fuel oil as an alternative to 

natural gas would increase the potential for environmental impacts such as oil spills; land development to 

construct or modify import, storage, and refining facilities; and pollution from air emissions. Because 

natural gas burns cleaner than other fossil fuels, is relatively inexpensive compared to other fossil fuels, 
3-7 Alternatives

and is domestically produced, we conclude that it is unlikely that other fossil fuels would displace the 

need for natural gas in the target market areas in the foreseeable future. Therefore, consideration of the 

use of other fossil fuels was eliminated from further review. 

3.1.2.3 Renewable Energy

The DOE/EIA (2013a) projects rapid growth in renewable fuel consumption due primarily to the 

implementation of the federal Renewable Fuels Standard for transportation fuels and state renewable 

portfolio standard (RPS) programs for electric generation. Nationally, the consumption of renewable 

energy is projected to increase between 2011 and 2040 from about 9 percent in 2011 to approximately 13 

percent in 2040 as a result of state standards, federal tax credits for renewable electricity generation and 

the federal renewable fuels standard (DOE/EIA 2013a). A summary of potential renewable energy use in 

the projects’ area is included below.

Wind

Wind power technology that has experienced advancements over the last 20 years including 

reductions in installation costs, improved turbine performance, and reduced maintenance costs. Although 

wind projects have no operational emissions, such developments can negatively affect wildlife 

(particularly birds and bats), visual resources, and other environmental resources. In the projects’ general 

area, the sites with the highest wind velocities tend to be located along ridgelines in areas of steep slopes 

(National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL] 2010) which are challenging to access and generally 

highly visible.

To date, most of the large-scale renewable projects participating in the New York RPS program 

are wind projects in northern and western New York where wind resources are greatest. As of March 

2012, currently operating wind generation capacity in New York is about 1,414 MW, or approximately 3 

percent of statewide generating capacity (NYISO 2012). Interconnect requests into NYISO’s queue as of 

March 2012, representing proposed power projects, would add another 4,000 MW of wind capacity 

(NYISO 2012). Since the wind farm areas are typically located far from major downstate load areas, 

major infrastructure improvements would be necessary for these projects to serve the New York City 

area. 

To address this concern, proposals are being evaluated to develop wind resources closer to or in 

the vicinity of major load areas. The New York Power Authority (NYPA), Long Island Power Authority,

and Con Edison, in collaboration with other public agencies, are currently conducting technical and 

environmental studies to determine the feasibility of siting a wind farm about 13 to 15 miles offshore of 

the western end of the Rockaway Peninsula to generate 350 MW of electricity by 2015 (with the potential 

to expand to 700 MW in later phases) to serve the New York City and Long Island market. According to 

the Joint Con Edison - Long Island Power Authority Offshore Wind Power Integration Project Feasibility 

Assessment (March 20, 2009), a 350-MW wind facility operating at a 30 percent capacity factor would 

generate about 920,000 MW hours per year, half of which would serve New York City. In June 2010, the 

NYPA Board of Trustees authorized the NYPA to apply for a lease for approximately 64,500 acres of 

underwater land from the Federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, 

formerly known as the Minerals Management Service. In September 2011, the NYPA submitted a 

request to that agency to lease approximately 81,500 acres offshore of the Rockaway Peninsula for 

construction of up to 700 MW of wind power. The New York State Energy Research and Development 

Authority completed an initial environmental feasibility study (NYSERDA 2010). These actions indicate 

a continuing interest in the project; however, the development of the offshore wind project is still in its 

early phase and its future is still uncertain. However, additional site-specific engineering and 

environmental studies need to be completed, the agencies need to release a request for proposal to select a 
Alternatives 3-8

private project developer to build and operate the wind farm, the filing of permit applications would need 

to be made, and environmental reviews would need to be conducted. The Cape Wind Project, another 

proposed wind power project with 130 turbines producing up to 454 MW, would be located in Nantucket 

Sound off shore of Massachusetts (Cape Wind 2013). Cape Wind has received applicable permit 

approvals and is pending as its project financing phase is completed and legal challenges are resolved. 

Total consumption of renewable energy sources such as wind (and combined with other 

renewable energy sources such as conventional hydroelectric, geothermal, and solar) is projected to rise 

from 0.219 quadrillion Btu in 2010 to an estimated 0.270 quadrillion Btu in 2020 and ultimately to 0.378 

quadrillion Btu by 2040 in the New England region (DOE/EIA 2013a). It appears likely that wind 

projects will continue to be pursued depending on tax credits and/or other financial incentives, state 

programs, technology improvements, transmission availability, and the public interest. In June 2010, the 

governor of New York, along with the governors of nine other east coast states, signed a memorandum of 

understanding with the U.S. Department of the Interior to establish the Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy 

Consortium to promote the development of wind resources on the Outer Continental Shelf. In February 

2011, the DOE and U.S. Department of the Interior published A National Offshore Wind Strategy, a 

guidance document for developing an offshore wind energy industry in the United States. This document 

calls for development of 10 gigawatts (GW) of deployed wind generation capacity by 2020, at a cost of 

$0.10 per kilowatt hour; and a longer term goal of 54 GW of generating capacity by 2030, at a cost of 

$0.07 per kilowatt hour. However, the authors note that, to achieve the called-for generation goals, two 

critical objectives must be met: reducing the cost of offshore wind energy and reducing the timeline for 

deploying offshore wind energy (i.e., streamlining regulatory review and permitting). It is also 

speculative at this point to say which individual project(s) may be approved and economically supported 

to provide power to the New York markets, or what effect these projects might have on the local natural 

gas market.

In the near-term, sufficient wind energy is not available in the projects’ vicinity that would 

provide the 650,000 Dth/d (190,496.4 megawatt hours or 15,874.7 MW per 12-hour day) of energy that 

would be provided by the proposed projects. Constitution estimated that 5,292 new wind turbines would 

be required to provide the same energy generation capacity as the natural gas to be transported by the 

proposed projects. The amount of land that would be directly impacted by operation of that number of 

wind turbines was estimated to be approximately 1,323 acres including access roads and support 

structures, but excluding the turbine spacing buffer that would be necessary between turbines (NREL 

2012). Assuming an average of 2.5 acres per MW of wind power, the total land requirements for a 

theoretical wind project with the power generation capacity of the proposed projects could be greater than 

39,000 acres (NREL 2009). This estimated amount of land is far greater than the permanent impact on

lands of the proposed projects, which would be approximately 744 acres for the proposed pipeline and 2.4 

acres for the Iroquois compression transfer station. 

The largest wind farm currently operating in New York has a 320-MW capacity; approximately 

50 wind farms of the same size would be required to replace the proposed projects. No wind projects are 

operational in the counties crossed by the proposed pipeline (NYSDEC 2012a). The Moresville Wind 

Farm project is proposed and under review in Delaware County; however, that project would produce 66 

MW of energy, a mere 0.4 percent of the energy capacity that would be provided by the proposed 

projects, which is clearly insufficient in meeting their objectives (NYSDEC 2012b). 

Onshore wind power generation requires large, permanent turbines and supporting facilities, as 

well as construction of electric transmission lines to connect wind facilities to transport the wind energy 

to consumers. These facilities would have an impact on visual resources, since onshore wind turbines are 

constructed to capture wind high above the natural topography and could be constructed along highly 

visible ridge lines. Additionally, wind turbines may have direct impacts on resident and migratory birds, 
3-9 Alternatives

bats, and other wildlife from collision mortality or indirect impacts from habitat disturbance. 

Construction of offshore wind power generation facilities may result in impacts on marine species. In 

contrast, the permanent right-of-way of the proposed pipeline area would be restored to pre-construction 

contours and maintained as herbaceous cover. Potential impacts on wildlife from the proposed projects 

are expected to be largely short-term and temporary, with the exception of habitat conversion in forested 

areas and the establishment of some aboveground facilities. Therefore, theoretical onshore wind 

generation facilities would result in greater impacts upon visual, vegetation, and wildlife resources than 

the proposed projects. 

Because of the greater potential for negative environmental impacts on lands, visual resources,

and wildlife from a wind energy project, as well as limitations including the short-term unavailability of 

sufficient wind energy to meet the projects’ objectives, we have determined that wind energy is not a 

suitable alternative for the proposed projects and it was eliminated from further consideration. 

Geothermal Power

Geothermal energy is dependent upon proximity to hotspots of volcanic activity or tectonic plate 

boundaries. The project area is not conducive to development of geothermal power generation projects. 

Therefore, geothermal energy was eliminated from further consideration.

Fuel Cells

Fuel cells use hydrogen or fossil fuels to generate electricity more cleanly than traditional 

electrical generation methods; however, fuel cell technology is in the early phases of development. 

Because fuel cell technology is not sufficiently developed to provide a cost-effective, substantial source 

of energy, fuel cells were eliminated from further consideration. 

Hydroelectric Generation

Hydroelectric generation is fully commercialized, including both run-of-river and large 

impoundment-type projects ranging in capacity from less than one MW to hundreds of MW. The 

DOE/EIA (2013a) has projected that little new hydroelectric capacity will be developed through 2040. 

Although hydroelectric power does not result in emissions of air pollutants, it can alter flow conditions 

within streams, thereby affecting habitats for fish and other aquatic organisms. Additionally, new 

hydroelectric facilities may require the construction of electric power transmission lines and their 

associated environmental impacts. 

One new project that has applied for a license from the FERC is the Thompson Hydroelectric 

Project (P-12741) on the Hudson River in Saratoga and Washington Counties, New York (FERC 2013). 

This proposed project would consist of a dam, a generating unit with a capacity of approximately 24 MW, 

a transmission line, and other facilities that, if licensed and constructed, would have an estimated annual 

generation of approximately 69 gigawatt hours. The applicant for the Thompson Hydroelectric Project 

filed an application for a successive preliminary permit on August 20, 2013 proposing to study the 

feasibility of the hydropower project. 

Currently, there are two proposed transmission projects to import hydroelectric and wind power 

into New York and New England: the Champlain Hudson Power Express Project and the Northern Pass 

Project. The DOE (2013) issued a notice of availability for a draft EIS for the Champlain Hudson Power 

Express Project on October 21, 2013. Both proposed projects require a Presidential Permit since the 

transmission line would involve a border crossing. The Champlain Hudson Power Express Project 

involves construction of a 1,000-MW high voltage direct current transmission system from a converter 
Alternatives 3-10

station southeast of Montreal in Quebec, Canada to the New York City area. The proposed transmission 

cables would be buried in Lake Champlain, the Hudson River, and under adjacent existing railroad rightsof-way. According to the project sponsors, the transmission line is expected to be used primarily by 

hydroelectric and wind generators in Canada. A projected energy market and emissions impact analysis, 

prepared by Champlain Hudson Power Express, Inc., states that the project would facilitate the import of 

more than 7,647 gigawatt hours of renewable energy per year, which would expand the renewable energy 

base within New York by 13 percent. The project is ongoing, and the public comment period for the draft 

EIS ended in December 2013. 

The proposed Northern Pass Project would bring 1,200 MW of hydroelectric energy from Quebec 

to New Hampshire and New England (Northern Pass 2013). The Northern Pass Project transmission line 

would be largely collocated with existing rights-of-way and would extend approximately 187 miles. 

Northern Pass submitted an application to the DOE in October 2010, and filed an amended application in 

June 2013. Regulatory review of the project is ongoing. 

The proposed projects’ area is generally not conducive to development of major new 

hydroelectric power generation projects. The importation of hydroelectric power from Canada via the 

proposed construction of new electric transmission lines appears to be an emerging option for some of the 

energy needs in both New York and New England. However, these potential sources of hydroelectric 

power are not sufficient to displace the need for increased natural gas supplies in the region. Therefore, 

hydroelectric energy generation was eliminated from further consideration.

Biomass

Combustion of biomass is a proven technology using biomass feedstock, which, if properly 

grown, represents a renewable resource (EPA 2013b). Biomass can be derived from organic materials 

such as crops, wood, and municipal wastes. These products can then be turned in to heat and electricity.

In New York, biomass (e.g., wood) has been the leading in-state renewable resource consumed in 

the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors as measured by primary energy input. According to the 

New York State Energy Plan, New York uses 99 trillion Btu of wood and 13 trillion Btu of biogenic 

waste annually and has the technical and practical potential to develop 350 trillion and 14 trillion Btu 

annually by 2018, respectively (New York State Energy Planning Board 2009). Current biomass 

generating capacity participating in New York’s RPS was 26.0 MW as of December 31, 2012 

(NYSERDA 2013). An additional 43.3 MW of biomass generation capacity is in development or under 

construction. The mix of feedstock for these facilities includes wood, tire-derived fuel, coal, and landfillderived methane. Information from the NYISO indicates that biomass accounts for less than 2 percent of 

current generation capacity in the New York Control Area (NYISO 2013). 

The State of Massachusetts limited incentives associated with some biomass facilities in 2012 

(Mass.gov 2012). The limitations involved the status of certain wood-burning (and similar organic 

material burning) power plants as renewable energy sources due to concerns based on carbon emissions 

and GHG concerns. New air quality efficiency standards would be required at biomass facilities to 

maintain state-mandated incentives.

Biomass is not considered a viable alternative to the increased natural gas supplies that would be 

provided by the proposed projects based on its limited capacity, and it was eliminated from further 

consideration. 
3-11 Alternatives

Photovoltaic (Solar Power)

Photovoltaic power systems convert sunlight directly into electricity. These systems generally 

are not well-suited for use as large-scale generation in the proposed projects’ area due to relatively low 

direct insolation, higher capital costs, potential reliability issues, and lower efficiencies. 

To promote photovoltaic power systems in New York State, including providing clean energy 

jobs and promoting the diversity of the state’s energy sources, on January 27, 2010, the NYPA released a 

request for proposals seeking a public-private partnership for the installation of up to 100 MW of 

photovoltaic systems across the state (NYPA 2010). The NYPA is reviewing numerous proposals 

received and, once proposals are selected, the NYPA expects the installations to occur through 2014. A 

recent assessment of solar domestic hot water systems within New York indicated that solar thermal 

energy could potentially provide over half of the energy required for water heating in a typical home that 

has adequate access to sunlight. Solar energy systems can be more easily deployed in densely populated 

areas than other renewables and where their output closely matches with peak demand; however, solar 

systems are among the highest cost renewable technologies (New York State Energy Planning Board 

2009).

Solar energy also is used and promoted in New England. For example, the City of Boston has a 

program called Renew Boston Solar with a goal of increasing solar energy system capacity in Boston to 

25 MW by 2015 (CityofBoston.gov 2013). This program encourages installation of solar technology in 

homes and businesses, as well as within City government. 

Solar power generation on an industrial scale requires large, permanent facilities with impervious 

cover and no shading to allow for photovoltaic panels to gather energy. In contrast, the permanent rightof-way of the proposed project area would be restored to pre-construction contours and maintained as 

herbaceous cover. Therefore, a large, industrial scale, solar power generation facility would result in 

greater visual, vegetation, and habitat impacts than the proposed projects. Impacts of new electric 

transmission lines associated with solar power generation facilities would be similar to impacts from the 

proposed projects. Additionally, the operational land requirements for solar power generation would far 

exceed those required for the proposed projects as at least an estimated 1,176 acres of permanent 

aboveground solar facilities would be required to produce the equivalent 15,875 MW of power. In 

addition to the construction of a solar power generation facility, construction of access roads and electric 

transmission lines also would be required to transport the generated solar energy to consumers, resulting 

in additional environmental impacts. Because of the far greater land use required for a solar power 

generation project, as well as limitations including potential reliability issues, higher costs, and the 

unsuitability of the proposed project area (due to low direct insolation), solar power generation as an 

alternative to the increased natural gas supplies that would be delivered by the proposed projects was 

eliminated from further consideration.

Tidal and Wave Power

New York is committed to continued research and marketing of the development of tidal, current, 

and other hydrokinetic resources in the projects’ area (New York State Energy Planning Board 2009). 

Wave and tidal energy technologies are still in the early stages of development. The limiting factors in 

the development of these new technologies include the high cost of construction and environmental 

monitoring, as well as the management of potential impacts on competing uses. From the Commission’s 
Alternatives 3-12

experience in reviewing projects that involve requests for preliminary permits,1 the interest in developing 

wave energy projects has been limited to the west coast of the United States, due to the resource 

availability and its proximity to shore. While the Commission has issued a number of preliminary 

permits, and currently has several active licensing proceedings for the development of tidal energy 

projects in New York, these proposals are for small-scale demonstration projects that are seeking, or plan 

to seek, short-term pilot licenses that would allow them to gather the field data necessary for a full-scale 

commercial deployment. For instance, in January 2012, the Commission issued a pilot project license for 

the Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy Project, a 1,050-kilowatt pilot-scale hydrokinetic generation facility 

that would be located in the East River in New York City (FERC 2012). The project would be 

constructed in three phases and operate for 10 years. When fully built, the facility would generate about 

2.4 gigawatt hours annually.

Tidal energy is also being explored in New England. The Town of Edgartown has partnered with 

governmental agencies and academic institutions to evaluate using tidal power to produce electricity for 

the Muskeget Tidal Energy Project (New England Marine Renewable Energy Center 2013). This tidal

project would produce 5 MW of energy. Demonstration tests were conducted in August 2011. The 

Muskeget Tidal Energy Project would be subject to multiple agency regulatory reviews, including by the 

Commission.

Given its preliminary nature of tidal and wave energy in the United States and relatively small 

scale, tidal and wave energy is not a viable alternative to the increased natural gas supplies that would be 

delivered by the proposed projects, and it was eliminated from further consideration 

Summary of Renewable Energies

The renewable energy projects planned or proposed in both New York and New England would 

help to diversify the electricity market in the both regions, thus helping to protect consumers from volatile 

fossil fuel prices and assisting both regions with achieving their respective RPS goals. Accordingly, 

while these renewable energy projects would benefit the energy market by diversifying the array of fuels 

used to generate electricity, they are not expected to meet consumers’ overall electricity needs. 

Moreover, renewable energy is not completely interchangeable with natural gas. Most renewable energy 

sources are used to generate electricity. While natural gas is used for this purpose, it is also used for 

space heating and cooking. Although these uses could be served by electricity instead of natural gas, 

existing natural gas-based heating and cooking systems would have to be converted to electric-based 

systems, which may be prohibitively expensive for many consumers. Finally, moving electricity from the 

point of generation to consumers may require major investment in electric transmission lines as well as 

other additional infrastructure costs. Additionally, the development of the transmission lines associated 

with renewable projects would have potentially adverse effects on air, water, ecological values, and other 

resources. Therefore, renewable energy alternatives were eliminated from further consideration.

3.2 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES

3.2.1 Existing Transportation System Alternatives

System alternatives would make use of other existing, modified, or proposed pipeline systems (or 

other transportation systems) to meet the stated objectives of the projects. A system alternative would 

 1 The Commission’s preliminary permits carry a term of 3 years and do not authorize project construction or 

operation. The purpose of a preliminary permit is to maintain priority of a potential future license application 

for a site while a developer gathers the information necessary for developing a license application.
3-13 Alternatives

make it unnecessary to construct all or part of the proposed projects, although some modifications or 

additions to another existing pipeline system may be required to increase its capacity, or another entirely 

new system may need to be constructed to meet the projects’ purpose and need. Such modifications or 

additions would result in environmental impact that could be less than, similar to, or greater than those 

associated with construction of the proposed projects. The purpose of identifying and evaluating system 

alternatives is to determine whether potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and 

operation of the proposed facilities could be avoided or reduced while still meeting the basic objectives of 

the projects. 

To be practicable system alternatives to the proposed projects, other systems, or modified systems 

would need to meet the Applicants’ stated objectives (sections 1.1 and 3.0) and be both technically 

feasible and practicable. Two of the Applicants’ objectives that are crucial to the evaluation of system 

alternatives would be their ability to: 

• deliver up to 650,000 Dth/d of natural gas supply from Susquehanna County, 

Pennsylvania to the interconnects with the Iroquois and TGP systems at the existing 

Wright Compressor Station (or otherwise delivery of the same amount of natural gas to 

the destination markets through other means); and

• expand access to new sources of natural gas supply, thereby increasing supply diversity 

and improving operational performance, system flexibility, and reliability in the New 

York and New England market areas. 

Another important consideration is whether a system alternative is economically practical. Two 

shippers (Cabot and Southwestern) have signed precedent agreements with Constitution for the proposed 

natural gas volumes. The shippers would deliver gas from existing sources in Pennsylvania to the New 

York and New England markets. To be economically practicable, a system alternative must be capable of 

meeting these two shippers’ requirements. 

Figure 3.2.1-1 provides a geographic overview of the proposed project area, as well as the relative 

location of other existing interstate natural gas pipelines in the area that were evaluated as system 

alternatives. The status of existing systems is described below in section 3.2.2. 

Another potential system alternative could involve the transportation of the required volume of 

liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the delivery point by truck via existing roadways. We asked Constitution 

to evaluate a natural gas shipping alternative involving the potential use of LNG transport trucks to 

deliver the same amount of natural gas from the supply area in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania to the 

delivery area near the existing Wright Compressor Station, along with any other infrastructure that may 

be required. This alternative would require the construction of a new liquefaction facility near the supply 

area, a vaporization plant at the delivery point, and an estimated 302,345 LNG tanker truck one-way trips 

per year, or approximately 828 trips per day each day of the year. Given the requirement for the new 

liquefaction and vaporization facilities that would have to be constructed as well as the number of truck 

trips that would be required on a continuous basis, we conclude that the use of LNG trucks to deliver the 

required amounts of natural gas is not preferable to the proposed projects. 
Existing Wright

Compressor Station

Transco (Leidy)

Tennessee (TGP 300)

Tennessee (TGP 200)

Iroquois (IQT)

Millennium

Dominion

PENNSYLVANIA NEW

JERSEY

CONNECTICUT

R. I.

MASSACHUSETTS

NEW HAMPSHIRE

VERMONT

NEW YORK

Algonquin

Susquehanna

Supply Area

Proposed Pipeline

Susquehanna Supply Area

p

0 20 40 60 80

Miles

Figure 3.2.1-1

Constitution Pipeline Project

Relative Location to Other Projects Overview Map

3-14
3-15 Alternatives

3.2.2 Status of Existing Pipeline Systems

Constitution’s joint owners, Williams Partners Operating, LLC, Cabot Pipeline Holdings, LLC, 

and Piedmont Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC do not own or operate existing pipeline systems 

capable of meeting the natural gas delivery capacity that the proposed pipeline project would provide to 

service downstream markets in New York and New England. However, there are four other existing 

pipeline systems operating in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline project area in addition to the Iroquois 

and TGP 200 pipeline systems operating in the New York and New England market areas. These other 

pipelines include:

• Transco Leidy;

• TGP 300 Line; 

• Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC (Millennium); and

• Dominion Transmission, Inc. (Dominion).

Constitution obtained data for each pipeline system and determined that all of these systems are 

currently operating at or near full capacity. We have reviewed this information and conclude that these 

pipelines do not have the available capacity to transport the required volumes of natural gas to the 

delivery point in Wright, New York in their current configuration. Moreover, none of the existing 

pipeline systems are connected to the proposed pipeline project’s gas supply area in Susquehanna County, 

Pennsylvania except for TGP’s 300 Line. However, TGP’s 300 Line proceeds in an east-west direction, 

not northeast towards the existing Wright Compressor Station and proposed delivery area. TGP’s 200 

Line is the only pipeline that connects to the existing Wright Compressor Station and proposed natural 

gas delivery area, (Transco Leidy, Millennium, and Dominion do not). Even if additional pipeline was 

constructed for the purposes of connecting any of these system alternatives to the supply area and the 

delivery area, there still is not sufficient available capacity on any of these existing pipeline systems to 

meet the proposed pipeline projects’ required delivery of natural gas. Therefore, we do not consider use 

of existing pipeline systems as feasible alternatives for the proposed projects. 

3.2.3 Modification of Existing Pipeline Systems

Because none of the existing pipeline systems in the project area have the capacity to meet the 

projects’ objectives in their current state, they would require substantial modifications to meet the 

projects’ objectives. These modifications could include greenfield pipeline construction to connect to the 

supply area, delivery area, or both; the use of existing pipeline where possible along with looped pipeline 

(i.e., new pipeline construction generally adjacent to an existing pipeline); additional compression; or 

some combination of these options. 

We dismissed major system alternatives from further consideration if it were considered to have 

environmental impacts greater than the proposed pipeline project. These cases at a minimum involved 

routes that were partially looped with an existing pipeline and had a new greenfield segment that 

exceeded the length of the proposed project (124 miles). This eliminated system alternatives involving 

greenfield and looping options of the Millennium and Transco Leidy from further analysis. The 

Millennium and Transco Leidy systems are discussed further below in relation to other possible system 

alternatives in configurations that would not require a greenfield pipeline exceeding the length of the 

pipeline proposed by Constitution. 

Two other system alternatives, for TGP and Dominion, would have greenfield pipeline lengths 

less than the proposed pipeline, but would have to be combined with looped pipeline segments to provide 
Alternatives 3-16

the same service delivery capacity as the proposed pipeline. An evaluation of the potential for these two 

interstate pipelines to provide the same service as the proposed projects is also presented below.

3.2.3.1 Tennessee Gas Pipeline

The TGP pipeline system carries natural gas from the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana, and Texas to 

the northeastern United States. As shown in Figure 3.2.1-1, the TGP system in the projects’ area includes 

both the TGP 200 Line and 300 Line. The TGP 200 Line extends from western New York State through 

the Wright Compressor Station and into New England. The TGP 300 Line transverses across northern 

Pennsylvania, south of the proposed pipeline project area, and transports gas through New Jersey to New 

York City and New England markets. 

The existing TGP system does not have available capacity in the relevant locations and could not 

meet the proposed projects’ delivery capacity of up to 650,000 Dth/d of natural gas. To meet the required 

capacity, looping along portions of approximately 354 miles of the existing TGP system and additional

compression (between 160,000 and 256,000 horsepower) would be required. Additionally, to connect to 

the supply area in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, expansion of the TGP system would require 

construction of approximately 25 miles of greenfield pipeline. The TGP system alternative would 

proceed south from the supply area via the 25-mile-long greenfield pipeline, proceed west along TGP’s 

300 Line to TGP’s Compressor Station 319 in Bradford County, Pennsylvania, head north to TGP’s 

Compressor Station 237 in Ontario County, New York, and then, finally, east along TGP’s 200 Line 

ending at the Wright Compressor Station (figure 3.2.3-1). 

Constitution estimated that installation of between 142 and 260 miles of mostly looped 30-inchdiameter pipeline and substantial new compression would be required for the TGP system alternative. 

We have reviewed this information and conclude that the required new facilities would likely result in 

land disturbance and environmental impacts greater than the impacts of the proposed projects due to the 

greater total length of new pipeline facilities and the need for additional new or modified compressor 

station facilities with at least 8 times the amount of compression required for the proposed project. 

Therefore, we do not consider use of the TGP system alternative as preferable to the proposed projects.

3.2.3.2 Dominion

The Dominion pipeline system transports gas to markets in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and 

Midwest via its pipeline system in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, and 

Ohio. Dominion does not have available capacity in the proposed project area and therefore could not 

meet the required projects’ capacity of up to 650,000 Dth/d of natural gas. Looping would be required to 

accommodate the proposed pipeline capacity along approximately 135 miles of Dominion’s existing 

pipeline system. Additionally, construction of approximately 92 miles of greenfield pipeline would be 

required to connect the existing Dominion pipeline facility to Constitution’s receipt area in Susquehanna 

County, Pennsylvania and to the delivery area at the Wright Compressor Station (figure 3.2.3-2). 

Additional compression between 96,000 and 128,000 horsepower would also be required. The required 

new facilities would result in environmental impacts that likely would be greater than the impacts of the 

proposed projects due to the greater total length of new pipeline facilities (about 100 more miles) and the 

need for new or modified compressor station facilities (an increase of over 400 percent). Therefore, we 

do not consider modification of the Dominion pipeline system to be preferable to the proposed projects.
Existing Wright

Compressor Station

Transco (Leidy)

Tennessee (TGP 300)

Tennessee (TGP 200)

Iroquois (IQT)

Millennium

Dominion

PENNSYLVANIA NEW

JERSEY

CONNECTICUT

R. I.

MASSACHUSETTS

NEW HAMPSHIRE

VERMONT

NEW YORK

Algonquin

Susquehanna

Supply Area

TGP 300 - TGP 200 Alternative

Proposed Route

Susquehanna Supply Area

p

0 20 40 60 80

Miles

Figure 3.2.3-1

Constitution Pipeline Project

Tennessee (TGP 300) - Tennessee (TGP 200)

3-17
Existing Wright

Compressor Station

Transco (Leidy)

Tennessee (TGP 300)

Tennessee (TGP 200)

Iroquois (IQT)

Millennium

Dominion

PENNSYLVANIA NEW

JERSEY

CONNECTICUT

R. I.

MASSACHUSETTS

NEW HAMPSHIRE

VERMONT

NEW YORK

Algonquin

Susquehanna

Supply Area

Dominion Alternative

Proposed Route

Susquehanna Supply Area

p

0 20 40 60 80

Miles

Figure 3.2.3-2

Constitution Pipeline Project

Dominion Alternative

3-18
3-19 Alternatives

3.2.3.3 Other System Alternative Configurations

In addition to the TGP and Dominion system alternatives discussed above that were originally 

envisioned by Constitution in its application and which would generally proceed west initially, then north, 

and then east; we also considered system alternatives that would first proceed east along either the TGP 

300 Line, Transco Leidy, or Millennium pipelines more directly towards New York City. In theory, 

natural gas delivered in a more direct pathway to the vicinity of New York City could supply that market 

demand assuming that the appropriate interconnections for transportation and distribution could be 

maintained. Furthermore, depending upon the amount of natural gas destined for delivery in New 

England and existing infrastructure servicing the New England area, other options may exist to deliver the 

required amount of natural gas to that market area as well. 

As noted above, there is not sufficient available capacity to transport natural gas along the 

existing the TGP 300 Line, Transco Leidy, or Millennium pipelines in the direction of New York City to 

supply natural gas needs in that area. Further, the connection of a new pipeline proceeding east towards 

New York City to another existing or new pipeline extending northeast from New York City towards 

New England would be constrained by the high level of development within New York City and the 

surrounding area. Given these considerations, we conclude that system (or collocated) alternatives along 

the existing TGP 300 Line, Transco Leidy, or Millennium pipelines proceeding east directly toward New 

York City and then connecting with existing or new pipelines and proceeding towards New England, are 

not feasible and would not be preferable to the proposed projects. 

3.3 COLLOCATION WITH EXISTING PIPELINE SYSTEMS

We reviewed the potential for collocation of the proposed pipeline project almost completely 

along the route of existing pipeline systems either alone or in tandem with other existing systems, or a 

combination of existing and proposed pipeline systems. In addition, we evaluated the potential for partial 

collocation with an existing pipeline system. Two existing pipeline systems or combinations of existing 

systems were evaluated: TGP and a Millennium-Dominion-TGP system combination. We also assessed 

collocation using a combination of a proposed EmKey pipeline, an existing EmKey pipeline, the 

Dominion Pipeline, and TGP 200 Line. Finally, we reviewed the potential for an alternative with partial 

collocation along the existing Bluestone pipeline. These existing and proposed pipeline systems are 

depicted in figures 3.2.1-1 and 3.3-1.

We received comments about potential collocation of the proposed pipeline with the Laser 

Northeast Gathering System (Laser System). The Laser System consists of a 16-inch-diameter pipeline 

and gas gathering system located in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania (approximately 33 miles) and 

Broome County, New York (approximately 10 miles). Laser is owned by Williams Partners LP, a 

company affiliated with the Constitution Pipeline. The Laser System is located approximately 10 miles to 

the northwest of Constitution’s proposed route, is designed for proximity to gas wells as a meandering 

gathering pipeline, and is not located near Constitution’s proposed natural gas receipt points. For these 

reasons, we do not consider collocation of the pipeline project with the Laser System to be viable and it 

was not evaluated further. The Laser System is also depicted in figure 3.3-1. 
Existing Wright

Compressor Station

Tennessee (TGP 300)

Tennessee (TGP 200)

Iroquois (IQT)

Millennium

Dominion

NEW YORK

Susquehanna

Supply Area

EmKey

Bluestone

EmKey - 

Proposed

Laser

Chemung

Bradford

Lycoming Sullivan

Tioga

Wyoming

Cortland

Tioga

Cayuga

Onondaga

Schuyler

Seneca

Tompkins

Wayne

Yates

Broome

Chenango

Herkimer

Madison

Oneida

Otsego Albany

Fulton

Greene

Montgomery

Saratoga

Schoharie

Columbia

Rensselaer

Delaware

Sullivan

Lackawanna

Pike

Susquehanna

Wayne

Dutchess

Orange

Putnam

Ulster

Proposed Route

Susquehanna Supply Area

p

0 20 40

Miles

Figure 3.3-1

Constitution Pipeline Project

EmKey, Bluestone, and Laser Pipeline Systems Emkey and Bluestone Alignment Sources:

http://emkeycompanies.com/emkey-resources/

http://www.dtepipeline.com/pdfs/bluestoneGatheringMap.pdf

3-20
3-21 Alternatives

3.3.1 TGP Collocated Alternative

As generally described above for the TGP system alternative (figure 3.2.3-1), the TGP collocated 

alternative would proceed south from the Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania supply area via a 25-milelong greenfield pipeline, proceed west along TGP 300 to TGP Compressor Station 319 in Bradford 

County, Pennsylvania, head north to TGP Compressor Station 237 in Ontario County, New York, then 

east along TGP 200 ending at the Wright Compressor Station. Collocation with the TGP system could 

allow for transportation of natural gas from the vicinity of the supply area in Susquehanna County to the 

Wright Compressor Station. 

This largely collocated TGP route would require installation of approximately 362 miles of new, 

collocated pipeline, approximately 25 miles of greenfield pipeline, and construction of two new 

compressor stations (one in Tioga County, Pennsylvania and one in Schoharie County, New York). The 

total length of this pipeline, approximately 387 miles, is more than three times the length of the proposed 

pipeline, and although it would be collocated with existing rights-of-way for approximately 94 percent of 

its length, it would also result in much greater total land disturbance, impacts on more landowners, and 

greater total environmental impacts relative to the proposed projects. Therefore, we do not consider 

collocation with the TGP pipeline system to be preferable to the proposed projects. 

3.3.2 Millennium-Dominion-TGP Collocated Alternative

We also considered collocation with a combination of three different pipeline systems: 

Millennium to Dominion to TGP 200. This collocated alternative would involve an approximately 10-

mile-long greenfield pipeline connecting the supply area in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania to the 

north to the Millennium Pipeline, then west to the Dominion Pipeline, then northeast to the TGP 200 

Pipeline proceeding east to the Wright Compressor Station (figure 3.3.2-1). Collocation with the 

Millennium-Dominion-TGP systems could allow for transportation of natural gas from the vicinity of the 

supply area in Susquehanna County to the Wright Compressor Station. 

This largely collocated Millennium-Dominion-TGP route would require installation of 

approximately 222 miles of new, collocated pipeline, approximately 10 miles of greenfield pipeline, and 

construction of at least one new compressor station. The total length of this pipeline, approximately 232 

miles, is almost twice the length of the proposed pipeline, and although it would be collocated with 

existing rights-of-way for approximately 96 percent of its length, it would also result in greater total land 

disturbance, impacts on more landowners, and greater total environmental impacts relative to the 

proposed pipeline. Therefore, we do not consider collocation with the Millennium-Dominion-TGP 

pipeline system to be preferable to the proposed projects. 

3.3.3 EmKey-Dominion-TGP 200 Collocated Alternative

The existing EmKey pipeline is comprised of approximately 35 miles of 16- to 24-inch-diameter 

mainline pipeline and smaller laterals in Chenango and Madison Counties, New York. The EmKey 

pipeline is essentially a gathering line designed to collect and transport natural gas from wells in those 

two counties. EmKey has also proposed to expand its gathering line system with approximately 40 miles 

of new pipeline in Broome, Chenango, and Madison Counties, New York (EmKey 2013). 
Existing Wright

Compressor Station

Transco (Leidy)

Tennessee (TGP 300)

Tennessee (TGP 200)

Iroquois (IQT)

Millennium

Dominion

PENNSYLVANIA NEW

JERSEY

CONNECTICUT

R. I.

MASSACHUSETTS

NEW HAMPSHIRE

VERMONT

NEW YORK

Algonquin

Susquehanna

Supply Area

Millennium - Dominion - TGP 200 Alternative

Proposed Route

Susquehanna Supply Area

p

0 20 40 60 80

Miles

Figure 3.3.2-1

Constitution Pipeline Project

Millennium - Dominion - Tennessee (TGP 200)

3-22
3-23 Alternatives

The collocated EmKey-Dominion-TGP 200 alternative would proceed north from the 

Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania supply area via new, greenfield pipeline; begin collocation with the 

proposed EmKey pipeline route in Broome County, New York; proceed north to the existing EmKey 

pipeline in Chenango County, New York; then north to the Dominion Pipeline; northeast for a short 

distance along the Dominion Pipeline; then east via TGP 200 to the Wright Compressor Station (figure 

3.3.3-1). In addition, construction of at least one new compressor station would also be required. The 

total length of this EmKey-Dominion-TGP 200 collocated alternative, approximately 147 miles, is almost 

23 miles longer than the proposed pipeline. 

The existing and proposed EmKey pipelines would include meandering pathways and laterals 

designed for collecting gas from wells, not for the direct transportation of natural gas northeast to the 

Wright Compressor Station. Gathering lines typically have smaller diameters (due to lower volumes) and 

have more frequent bends and turns, which generally cannot be achieved with 30-inch-diameter pipe. 

Therefore, collocation is unlikely for the entirety of its length and would require many pipeline crossovers 

that would require substantially more and larger workspaces for construction. 

Further, Constitution’s proposed receipt points would be located approximately 20 to 25 miles 

away from the start of the EmKey pipeline. Although it would be collocated with existing rights-of-way 

for approximately 95 percent of its length, it would also result in greater total land disturbance, impacts 

on more landowners, greater total environmental impacts relative to the proposed pipeline project 

(including a crossing of the Susquehanna River), and reliance upon collocation with a proposed pipeline 

route for which ultimate approval and construction is uncertain. Because EmKey’s project status and its 

likelihood of construction is unknown, if it were not built, the maximum extent of collocation would be 

decreased to about 67 percent. While the use of some overlapping workspaces may be possible, it is 

likely that implementation of this alternative would require extensive use of abutting or adjacent rights-ofway, resulting in new impacts on previously undisturbed areas. Therefore, we do not consider collocation 

with the EmKey-Dominion-TGP 200 pipeline systems to be preferable to the proposed projects. 

3.3.4 Bluestone Pipeline Partially Collocated Alternative

The existing Bluestone pipeline is comprised of approximately 40 miles of trunk line located in 

Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania and Broome County, New York (figure 3.3-1). The Bluestone 

pipeline is essentially a gathering line designed to collect and transport natural gas from wells in those 

two counties; it connects to the TGP 300 Line in the south and the Millennium system to the north. It 

does not follow a direct path typical of natural gas transmission pipelines, as its route is dependent upon 

linkage and proximity to existing natural gas wells. Constitution’s proposed pipeline would be collocated 

with the Bluestone pipeline at MP 22.0 to 22.3 for a distance of approximately 1,901 feet, would cross 

over the Bluestone pipeline in multiple locations, and would make use of at least four access roads 

operated by Bluestone. Given the meandering nature of the Bluestone pipeline, its overall short length 

compared to the entire proposed pipeline route, and since Constitution has already proposed partial 

collocation and to make use of at least some other areas already disturbed by Bluestone, we conclude that 

additional collocation with the Bluestone pipeline is not preferable to the proposed project.
Existing Wright

Compressor Station

Tennessee (TGP 300)

Tennessee (TGP 200)

Iroquois (IQT)

Millennium

Dominion

NEW YORK

Susquehanna

Supply Area

EmKey

Bluestone

EmKey - 

Proposed

Chemung

Bradford

Lycoming Sullivan

Tioga

Wyoming

Cortland

Tioga

Cayuga

Onondaga

Schuyler

Seneca

Tompkins

Wayne

Yates

Broome

Chenango

Herkimer

Madison

Oneida

Otsego Albany

Fulton

Greene

Montgomery

Saratoga

Schoharie

Columbia

Rensselaer

Delaware

Sullivan

Lackawanna

Pike

Susquehanna

Wayne

Dutchess

Orange

Putnam

Ulster

EmKey - Dominion - TGP 200 Alternative

Proposed Route

Susquehanna Supply Area

p

0 20 40

Miles

Figure 3.3.3-1

Constitution Pipeline Project

EmKey - Dominion - Tennessee (TGP 200) Emkey and Bluestone Alignment Sources:

http://emkeycompanies.com/emkey-resources/

http://www.dtepipeline.com/pdfs/bluestoneGatheringMap.pdf

3-24
3-25 Alternatives

3.4 ROUTE ALTERNATIVES AND MINOR ROUTE VARIATIONS 

Major route alternatives include those that deviate from the proposed route for a significant 

distance, often a majority or more of the proposed route’s length, and which provide a substantially 

different pathway from the source area to the delivery area. Minor route alternatives deviate from the 

proposed route less substantially than major route alternatives, are often designed to avoid large 

environmental resources or engineering constraints, and typically remain within the same general area as 

the proposed route. Minor route variations are typically site-specific and may allow for avoidance of 

certain localized features such as a home, wetland, or orchard. 

This assessment includes route alternatives and variations identified by Constitution, FERC staff, 

landowners, municipalities, and other stakeholders. Many of the alternatives identified below are the 

result of Constitution adopting changes to reduce impacts on specific resources; therefore, some of the 

alternatives presented are those that were originally identified by Constitution as part of its planned route 

in May 2012. Subsequently, our assessment of the environmental consequences of the alternatives and 

variations already incorporated by Constitution into its proposed route is included as part of our 

environmental analysis of the proposed projects in section 4.0.

3.4.1 Major Route Alternatives

We evaluated two major route alternatives, alternatives K and M. These two alternatives, along 

with a comparison of potential environmental impacts and other relevant factors, are described below and 

depicted in figure 3.4.1-1. 

3.4.1.1 Alternative K

Alternative K was developed by Constitution to maximize collocation with existing rights-ofway. As with the proposed route, alternative K begins at the Williams Central Compressor Station in 

Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, and ends at the existing Wright Compressor Station in Schoharie 

County, New York. This alternative is approximately 118 miles long, which is about 6 miles shorter than 

the proposed route. Alternative K is collocated with existing rights-of-way, primarily electric 

transmission lines, for approximately 90 miles or about 76 percent of its total length. A comparative 

analysis of environmental impacts of the proposed route and alternative K is presented in table 3.4.1-1.

Alternative K crosses the New York City Water Supply Watershed (NYCWSW) in Delaware and 

Schoharie Counties, New York for approximately 33 miles. The NYCWSW provides unfiltered drinking 

water supply to approximately eight million consumers, almost one-half the population of New York 

State (New York City Department of Environmental Protection [NYCDEP] 2012). The proposed 

pipeline route would also cross public water supply watersheds (i.e., Cobleskill Reservoir watershed, Pine 

Hill Reservoir watershed, and the Barton Hill Natural Resource Protection Overlay watershed), but these 

three watersheds would be crossed for a combined length of approximately 4 miles. Additionally, 

potential impacts on the Pine Hill Reservoir watershed would be minimized through the use of an HDD 

for much of the proposed crossing length in that area. In addition, Constitution’s proposed pipeline route 

is located at least 1 mile away from springs supplying the Barton Hill Natural Resource Protection 

Overlay watershed.
ALTERNATIVE K

ALTERNATIVE M

SEGMENT 1

ALTERNATIVE M

SEGMENT 3

ALTERNATIVE M

SEGMENTS 5 & 6

WRIGHT 

COMPRESSOR 

STATION

NEW YORK

PENNSYLVANIA

NEW YORK CITY

WATERSHED

SUB-ALTERNATIVE K

Cortland

County

Broome

County

Chenango

County

Madison County

Otsego

County

Albany

County

Greene

County

Schoharie

County

Delaware

County

Sullivan

County

Susquehanna

County

Wayne

County

Ulster

County

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦88

Proposed Constitution Pipeline Route

Alternative K

Sub-Alternative K

Alternative M

Susquehanna Source Area

New York City Watershed

p

0 10 20

Miles

Figure 3.4.1-1

Constitution Pipeline Project

Major Route Alternatives

NEW YORK

PENNSYLVANIA

NJ

MA

MD

CT

NH

VA

VT

DE

RI

3-26
3-27 Alternatives

TABLE 3.4.1-1 

Comparison of Proposed Route to Alternative K

Factor

Proposed

Route

Alternative

Route

Difference

(if Applicable)a

Length of Corresponding Segments (miles) 124.4 118.0 -6.5

Type of Right-of-Way

Length Adjacent to Existing Utility Right-of-Way (electric/pipeline) 

(miles)

11.2 82.1 70.9

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadways Paralleling and within an 

Existing Right-of-Way or Easement (miles)

0.0 0.0 0.0

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadway Paralleling and Abutting an 

Existing Right-of-Way or Easement (miles)

0.5 0.5 0.0

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadways Paralleling an Existing Rightof-Way or Easement within 300 feet (miles)7.5 7.7 0.2

Right-of-Way Requirements

Pipeline Construction Requirements (acres) 1,659.2 1,572.7 -86.5

Pipeline Operation Requirements (acres) 754.2 714.9 -39.3

Wetlands

Total Wetland Complexes Crossed (number) 33 36 3

Total Wetland Crossed (linear feet) 8,148 8,470 322

Total Wetland Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 14.0/9.4 14.6/9.7 0.6/0.4

Palustrine Forest Wetland Complexes Crossed 

(construction/operation) (acres)

2.0/1.3 2.2/1.5 0.2/0.2

Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland Complexes Crossed 

(construction/operation) (acres)

5.5/3.7 3.4/2.3 -2.2/-1.4

Palustrine Emergent Wetland Impacts (construction/operation) 

(acres)

6.6/4.4 9.0/6.0 2.5/1.6

Waterbodies

Waterbodies Crossed (number) 98 134 36

Major River Crossings (number greater than 100 feet) 2 3 1

Streams with Drinking Water Use Designation (number) 1 5 4

Cultural Resources

National Historic Landmarks (number) 0 0 0

National Register of Historic Places Eligible or Potentially Eligible 

Cultural Resources Sites Crossed (number) 

0 1 1

Land Use

Forested Land Crossed (miles) 79.0 80.4 1.4

Forested Land Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 1,053.9/479.0 1,072.5/487.5 18.7/8.5

Forest Edge Crossed (miles) 43.1 69.9 26.9

Forested Edge Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 574.3/261.0 932.4/423.8 358.1/162.8

Forest Interior Crossed (miles) 36.0 10.5 -25.5

Forested Interior Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 436.0/218.7 127.4/63.7 -308.6/-154.3

Important Bird Area Crossed (miles) 2.4 19.1 16.7

Audubon Forest Blocks of Importance (miles) 6.1 47.8 41.7
Alternatives 3-28

TABLE 3.4.1-1 (continued)

Comparison of Proposed Route to Alternative K

Factor

Proposed

Route

Alternative

Route

Difference

(if Applicable)a

Agricultural Land Crossed (miles) 36.0 22.2 -13.8

Agricultural Land Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 545.6/218.2 336.5/134.6 -209.1/-83.6

Landfills, Quarries, Material Storage and Processing (number) 6 0 -6

Property Owners

Property Owners Affected (number of parcels crossed) 655 623 -32

Residences Located within 50 feet of the Pipe Centerline (number) 7 1 -6

Residences Located within 125 feet (number) 7 14 7

Residences Located within 250 feet (number) 79 72 -7

Federal and State Land

Federal Lands Crossed (number/miles) 0 0 0

State Forest/Parks (number/miles) 2/0.1 1/0.6 -1/0.5

Trails

Trails (number) 2 1 -1

Other Physical Features

Road Crossings (number) 129 134 5

Railroads Crossed (number) 4 5 1

Other Environmental Features

Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed (miles) 43.7 34.9 -8.8

Steep Slopes Crossed (30 degrees or greater) (miles) 8.1 14.7 6.6

Side Slope Construction greater than 30 Percent Slope (miles) 2.3 0 -2.3

Environmental Hazards and/or Concerns (within 0.5 mile) (number) 8 9 1

Landslides / Unstable Lands Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 0.0

___________________

a Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding

Alternative K also crosses and collocates with the West Delaware Tunnel of the New York City 

Water Supply Aqueduct System for approximately 4 miles (NYCDEP 2012). This aqueduct carries water 

supplies from the NYCWSW to New York City. If alternative K was pursued, drilling and blasting 

would be prohibited in the vicinity of the aqueduct, and other special permitting requirements would 

apply. Other energy infrastructure crossed and/or collocated with alternative K include electric utility 

lines operated by Penelec, New York State Electric and Gas, the NYPA, and National Grid, as well as 

pipelines operated by Enterprise and Millennium. 

The NYCDEP administers several programs designed to protect the NYCWSW. These programs 

include stormwater permitting and regulation, land acquisition, agricultural partnerships, forestry 

initiatives, stream management and restoration plans, riparian buffer protection regulations, and wetland 

protection. Land use permits are required for certain activities occurring within the watershed as 

described in NYCDEP’s Watershed Rules and Regulations (NYCDEP 2006).

The NYCDEP, in its scoping comments, noted the sensitivity of the water supply watershed, its 

importance to millions of water consumers in New York, and potential impacts on the watershed and 

ultimately the water supply resulting from stormwater discharges and polluted runoff that could occur 
3-29 Alternatives

during construction of the pipeline. It is likely that major additional permitting efforts and impact 

avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures would be required by the NYCDEP if alternative K 

was adopted. The NYCDEP supported Constitution’s decision to deem alternative K as non-viable and 

requested that Constitution’s project not be sited within the NYCWSW. The NYCDEP further noted that 

if Constitution’s project were subsequently routed through the NYCWSW, then the route would be 

subject to their permitting requirements and regulations and that the NYCDEP would have additional 

scoping and environmental review comments. 

Both the proposed route and alternative K have certain advantages environmentally. Alternative 

K is shorter in length, thereby affecting less land (i.e., smaller overall footprint). It is also collocated with 

more existing rights-of-way than the proposed route resulting in less greenfield construction. 

Consequently, it would have fewer impacts on forest interiors, property owners, nearby residences, and 

shallow bedrock. 

However, the proposed route crosses much fewer waterbodies, streams designated as drinking 

water supplies, areas within public water supply watersheds (as discussed above), and important bird 

areas and forest blocks of importance for birds as designated by the National Audubon Society. In 

particular, alternative K crosses an additional 19 miles of Audubon Society-designated Important Bird 

Areas, and 48 miles of Audubon Forest Blocks of Importance. Important Bird Areas vary in size, but are 

typically discrete habitats that provide essential habitat for bird species including sites for breeding, 

migrating, and overwintering (Audubon New York 2013). These areas also typically focus on habitats for 

birds that are under regulatory protection, those birds that are considered at risk or especially vulnerable 

to habitat loss, or at places where large numbers of birds may congregate. Forest Blocks of Importance 

are contiguous blocks of forested areas providing habitat for many wildlife species, including birds. In 

addition to the total miles of blocks crossed, the blocks crossed by alternative K are larger, more 

contiguous blocks than those crossed by the proposed route.

The utility lines that alternative K would collocate with have variable right-of-way widths 

(depending on its operator) of between 150 and 200 feet wide. Factoring in areas of extra workspace that 

would be needed for crossovers of existing subsurface utilities, roads, staging areas for wetland and 

waterbody crossings, and avoidance of transmission towers and guide wires, the long-term impacts of

construction could result in a corridor ranging between 200 and 325 feet. 

Although there can be environmental benefits to collocation of linear projects and expansion of 

existing rights-of-way, impacts on certain wildlife species also may occur. Forest interior species, such as 

some migratory birds, mammals, and other fauna, may be isolated or have movements restricted by the 

occurrence of extensive cleared gaps or corridors through otherwise forested areas (FERC 2008, USDA

and U.S. Forest Service 2002, Bourque and Desrochers 2003). Certain species may be more sensitive to 

wider gaps than others. In some cases, forest gaps of approximately 250 feet may inhibit bird movement 

or affect behavior (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2002). Increased nest predation and parasitism may 

also occur along expanded corridors. Generalist, forest edge, or disturbance-tolerant avian and other 

wildlife species could benefit from the expansion of open corridors, but the forest interior and 

disturbance-intolerant species may not. 

The proposed route avoids the NYCWSW, which supplies unfiltered drinking water to 

approximately one-half of the State of New York. Potential impacts on rare or protected species such as 

the bald eagle, Indiana bat, bog turtles, timber rattlesnake, and dwarf wedgemussel also would have to be 

fully evaluated if alternative K was selected over the proposed route. The proposed pipeline route’s 

impacts on rare and protected species are discussed in section 4.7. According to Constitution, the full 

assessment and possible adoption of alternative K would add extensive time for study, stakeholder input, 

agency review and permitting, and construction, potentially adding over 2 years to the project schedule. 
Alternatives 3-30

Constitution also stated that such a delay would likely render the project non-viable from a market 

perspective. Given all of these factors, we do not consider that alternative K offers a significant 

environmental advantage over the proposed pipeline project. 

We also considered a sub-alternative K (figure 3.4.1-1) which diverges from the proposed 

pipeline route north of the NYCWSW thereby avoiding it, connects to alternative K, and then proceeds

north to the existing Wright Compressor Station. The addition of sub-alternative K adds approximately 6 

miles to the proposed pipeline’s overall length and would require the construction of a greenfield 

compressor station in order to meet the expanded compression requirements necessitated by the increased 

length. For these two reasons, we do not consider adoption of sub-alternative K to be preferable to the 

proposed projects and it is not further evaluated. 

3.4.1.2 Alternative M

Alternative M was developed to evaluate the possibility of collocating the proposed pipeline with 

Interstate 88 (I-88). Numerous commenters requested that an alternative route be evaluated which would 

place a portion of the pipeline route within or adjacent to the I-88 corridor, thereby reducing the need for 

disturbance in greenfield areas. I-88 originates near Binghamton, New York, which is just north of the 

Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania supply area, and proceeds approximately 118 miles to the northeast to 

the vicinity of Schenectady, New York. The proposed pipeline route and I-88 occur in the same general 

vicinity as each other, both trending northeast-southwest. Near the northeast end of the proposed pipeline 

route at MP 121, I-88 and the proposed pipeline route would be located about 300 feet apart, before the 

route proceeds approximately 3 miles east ending at the Wright Compressor Station, the pipeline project’s 

delivery point.

The I-88 corridor is managed by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), 

with funding and oversight provided by the FHWA. Constitution consulted with the NYSDOT and 

FHWA regarding the possibility of locating alternative M within or along the right-of-way for I-88. We 

also have coordinated with the NYSDOT and FHWA regarding alternative M. 

As a result of this coordination several potential construction or engineering issues have been 

identified regarding alternative M:

• blasting near the roadway; 

• use of two-tone construction techniques on side slopes; 

• disruption of interstate traffic flow during blasting;

• delays caused by slow moving, heavy construction equipment operating near the 

roadway; and

• limited areas where the pipeline could be safely installed relative to the roadway. 

For the safety of both motorists and construction workers, Constitution would not be allowed to 

access the construction workspace directly from I-88; rather, access would have to be obtained from 

adjacent private properties. Constitution also would not be allowed to access the permanent right-of-way 

from I-88 during operations. Placement of the pipeline within the controlled access area2 managed by the 

NYSDOT would obstruct pipeline construction as well as inspections and maintenance during pipeline 

 2 A controlled access area is a highway with limited ingress and egress to facilitate traffic flow, and which the 

owners of abutting lands are typically denied access to or from the highway.
3-31 Alternatives

operations. The NYSDOT stated that the proposed pipeline would be required to comply with FHWA 

policy, (23 CFR 645, Subpart B) which states that Constitution would be required to show that no feasible 

alternative routes exist to obtain approval of the alternative M route from the NYSDOT and FHWA. As 

demonstrated in this analysis, multiple alternative routes do exist including the route proposed by 

Constitution. Further, because the easements are federally managed, Constitution would be required to 

successfully negotiate an easement for any portion of its project located within or crossing these access 

areas. If the NYSDOT refused the granting of an easement or if a mutually agreeable easement could not 

otherwise be negotiated in these areas, and the Commission were to grant an approving Certificate, it 

would essentially be approving a non-buildable project, as federally managed lands cannot be acquired

through the power of eminent domain. In some cases, projects are built on federally managed lands; 

however, the appropriate land managing agency was receptive to the granting of an easement.

Constitution used a tiered approach in developing a technically feasible and constructible route 

for alternative M. First, placement of the pipeline within the median of I-88 was evaluated. Given that 

the median width ranges from 60 to 100 feet, and Constitution’s project would generally require at least a 

100 foot construction right-of-way, there is not sufficient width for construction workspace within the 

median. The limited space within the median would also not be sufficient for specialized construction 

techniques such as the HDD method. Additionally, side slopes occurring within the median would 

require even more workspace, and existing stormwater management structures would present obstacles to 

construction. Additionally, ingress and egress to project workspaces would only be accessible directly 

from the left-hand lanes of I-88. This would likely require shifts of traffic to accommodate ingress and 

egress resulting in safety concerns, potential damage to motorists and vehicles, and delays in traffic for 

the duration of construction associated with reduced lane width and shifts. Given these factors, we concur 

that placement of the pipeline within the I-88 median is not technically feasible.

Second, placement of the pipeline adjacent to I-88 within or along the controlled access under 

jurisdiction of the NYSDOT was evaluated. When I-88 was constructed, the highway was placed along 

steep side slopes in many locations, and was often installed along rocky cliffs or bluffs via use of blasting. 

This roadway configuration leaves little or in some cases no room for construction workspaces adjacent to 

the roadway, which is further exacerbated by the lack of safe construction or operational access from I-88. 

Additionally, blasting would likely be required in many locations in close proximity to the highway, 

thereby potentially affecting highway use during construction. As noted above, construction within side 

slopes would also require expanded workspaces. Given these factors, we concur that placement of the 

pipeline immediately adjacent to I-88 within the NYSDOT’s controlled access area is not feasible.

Finally, we evaluated placement of the pipeline adjacent to I-88 where feasible (outside of the 

NYSDOT’s controlled access area) with deviations away from the I-88 corridor as necessary to avoid 

constraints such as side slopes, cliffs, stormwater management structures, known cultural resources, 

environmentally sensitive areas; as well as population centers, homes, and businesses. The result of these 

evaluations is the route discussed here as alternative M.

If alternative M were subsequently proposed as the preferred route, the FHWA, along with 

NYSDOT, stated that they would need to complete additional review of the plan sheets (with I-88 access 

control lines) of the segments where the pipeline could approach and ultimately impact the I-88 control of 

access area. 

For purposes of our comparative analysis, alternative M was divided into six segments. This 

allows us to evaluate incorporating potentially one or more segments of alternative M into the proposed 

route. However, due to the proximity of I-88 to the Susquehanna supply area and delivery point in 

Wright, New York, three segments of alternative M are identical to the proposed pipeline route; therefore, 

they are not assessed as part of the analysis. The remaining three segments are evaluated where 
Alternatives 3-32

alternative M and the proposed route do not follow an identical path. This process allows for a 

comparison not just for alternative M relative to the proposed route, but also for a more detailed 

assessment of various segments of alternative M compared to corresponding segments of the proposed 

route. The alternative M route segments are depicted in figure 3.4.1-2 and are evaluated below.

Three paired comparison segments are straightforward comparisons of the proposed route to 

corresponding alternative M segments. These comparison segments include (noting that segments 2, 4, 

and 7 are identical to the proposed route and are not compared):

• proposed route segment 1 compared to alternative M segment 1;

• proposed route segment 3 compared to alternative M segment 3; and

• proposed route segment 5/6 compared to alternative M segment 5/6.

In addition to these three straightforward segment comparisons, two other possible combinations 

of proposed route segments 5/6 with alternative M segments 5/6 were evaluated. We discuss these 

additional route combinations in order to obtain the maximum number of possible comparisons. In order 

to facilitate this process, and because alternative M segment 5/6 was relatively lengthy at approximately 

46 miles long, Constitution developed a “bridge” connecting the proposed route segment 5 to alternative 

M segment 6 and also a “bridge” connecting alternative M segment 5 to the proposed route segment 6. 

These bridges were located near Richmondville, in Schoharie County, New York and they are depicted in 

figure 3.4.1-2. These alternative M combination alternatives included:

• proposed route segment 5/6 compared to alternative M segment 5 to bridge 1 to the 

proposed route segment 6; and

• proposed route segment 5/6 compared to proposed route segment 5 to bridge 2 to 

alternative M segment 5/6.

Each of these five comparisons for various alternative M scenarios are evaluated and discussed 

below. 
BRIDGE 2

BRIDGE 1

PROPOSED ROUTE

SEGMENT 5

PROPOSED ROUTE

SEGMENT 6

ALTERNATIVE M

SEGMENT 6

ALTERNATIVE M

SEGMENT 5

SEGMENT 2

ALTERNATIVE M

SEGMENT 1

ALTERNATIVE M

SEGMENT 3

SEGMENT 4

SEGMENT 7

Chenango

County

Madison

County

Otsego

County

Greene

County

Schoharie

County

Delaware

County

Alternative M Seg1

Alternative M Seg 3

Alternative M Seg 5+6

Alternative M Seg 5 to Bridge 1

to Proposed Route Seg 6

Proposed Route Seg 5 to Bridge

2 to Alternative M Seg 6

Proposed Route

p

0 5 10 15

Miles

Figure 3.4.1-2

Constitution Pipeline Project

Alternative M Segments

NEW YORK

PENNSYLVANIA

NJ

MA

MD

CT

NH

VA

VT

DE

RI

3-33
Alternatives 3-34

Proposed Route Segment 1 Compared to Alternative M Segment 1

Alternative M segment 1 diverges from the proposed route at MP 49.1 in Chenango County, New 

York and rejoins the proposed route at MP 57.6 in Delaware County, New York. This segment is 0.5 

mile longer than the proposed pipeline route. Alternative M segment 1 parallels the I-88 corridor for 28 

percent of its length in the southwestern portion of the project area and diverges from the I-88 corridor to 

avoid features such as a rock quarry, steep rocky bluffs, a residential area, and a waterbody. The 

locations of the Towns of Sidney and Unadilla, large wetland complexes, and the Susquehanna River 

precluded the feasibility of crossing under I-88 and proceeding along the northern side of the corridor. A 

comparison of the environmental and other routing considerations associated with proposed route 

segment 1 compared to alternative M segment 1 is presented in table 3.4.1-2. 

TABLE 3.4.1-2 

Comparison of Proposed Route Segment 1 to Alternative M Segment 1

Factor

Proposed

Route

Alternative

Route

Difference

(if Applicable)a

Length of Corresponding Segments (miles) 8.3 8.8 0.5

Type of Right-of-Way

Length Adjacent to Existing Utility Right-of-Way (electric/pipeline) 

(miles)

2.5 0.0 -2.5

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadways Paralleling and within an 

Existing Right-of-Way or Easement (miles)

0.0 0.0 0.0

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadway Paralleling and Abutting an 

Existing Right-of-Way or Easement (miles)

0.0 0.0 0.0

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadways Paralleling an Existing Rightof-Way or Easement within 300 feet (miles)0.2 2.5 2.3

Right-of-Way Requirements

Pipeline Construction Requirements (acres) 111.1 117.1 6.0

Pipeline Operation Requirements (acres) 50.5 53.2 2.7

Wetlands

Total Wetland Complexes Crossed (number) 2 0 -2

Total Wetland Crossed (linear feet) 81 0 -81

Total Wetland Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 0.1/0.1 0.0/0.0 -0.1-/0.1

Palustrine Forest Wetland Complexes Crossed 

(construction/operation) (acres)

0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0

Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland Complexes Crossed 

(construction/operation) (acres)

0.1/0.1 0.0/0.0 -0.1/-0.1

Palustrine Emergent Wetland Impacts (construction/operation) 

(acres)

0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0

Waterbodies

Waterbodies Crossed (number) 6 6 0

Major River Crossings (number greater than 100 feet) 0 0 0

Streams with Drinking Water Use Designation (number) 1 0 -1

Cultural Resources

National Historic Landmarks (number) 0 0 0

National Register of Historic Places Eligible or Potentially Eligible 

Cultural Resources Sites Crossed (number) 0 0 0
3-35 Alternatives

TABLE 3.4.1-2 (continued)

Comparison of Proposed Route Segment 1 to Alternative M Segment 1

Factor

Proposed

Route

Alternative

Route

Difference

(if Applicable)a

Land Use

Forested Land Crossed (miles) 5.1 6.8 1.7

Forested Land Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 67.9/30.8 90.0/41.9 22.1/10.1

Forest Edge Crossed (miles) 4.1 3.1 -1.0

Forested Edge Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 54.8/24.9 41.1/18.7 -13.7/-6.2

Forest Interior Crossed (miles) 1.0 3.7 2.7

Forested Interior Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 11.9/5.9 44.5/22.2 32.6/16.3

Important Bird Area Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Audubon Forest Blocks of Importance (miles) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Agricultural Land Crossed (miles) 2.0 1.0 -1.0

Agricultural Land Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 30.6/12.2 15.4/6.2 -15.2-/6.1

Landfills, Quarries, Material Storage and Processing (number) 0 0 0

Property Owners

Property Owners Affected (number of parcels crossed) 36 41 5

Residences Located within 50 feet of the Pipe Centerline (number) 0 0 0

Residences Located within 125 feet (number) 0 0 0

Residences Located within 250 feet (number) 6 10 4

Federal and State Land

Federal Lands Crossed (number/miles) 0/0.0 0/0.0 0/0.0

State Forest/Parks (number/miles) 0/0.0 0/0.0 0/0.0

Trails

Trails (number) 1 1 0

Other Physical Features

Road Crossings (number) 8 8 0

Railroads Crossed (number) 0 0 0

Other Environmental Features

Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed (miles) 3.9 3.6 -0.3

Steep Slopes Crossed (30 degrees or greater) (miles) 0.1 1.0 0.9

Side Slope Construction (miles) 0.2 0.8 0.6

Environmental Hazards and/or Concerns (within 0.5 mile) (number) 0 3 3

Landslides / Unstable Lands Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 0.0

___________________

a Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding

Many of the routing factors considered above are similar between the two alternatives. Although 

alternative M segment 1 is collocated with the I-88 corridor or other existing corridors for 2.5 miles, the 

corresponding proposed route segment is collocated with existing corridors for 2.7 miles. Notably, the 

proposed route would affect fewer forested lands, interior forested lands, landowners, residences within 
Alternatives 3-36

250 feet, and side slopes. Therefore, we do not consider adoption of alternative M segment 1 to be 

preferable to the proposed project. 

Proposed Route Segment 3 Compared to Alternative M Segment 3

Alternate M segment 3 diverges from the proposed route at MP 61.2 in Delaware County, New 

York, crosses a short portion of Otsego County, New York, and then re-enters Delaware County before 

rejoining the proposed route at MP 76.9. Alternate M segment 3 is collocated with the southern side of I88 for a portion of its length and deviates to avoid a cemetery, residential areas, and a commercial area 

adjacent to the Susquehanna River. The possibility of crossing under I-88 and proceeding along the 

northern side of the roadway corridor was not considered practical for this segment due to the locations of 

the Towns of Otego and Oneonta, New York. A comparison of the environmental and other routing 

considerations associated with proposed route segment 3 compared to alternative M segment 3 is 

presented in table 3.4.1-3. 

TABLE 3.4.1-3 

Comparison of Proposed Route Segment 3 to Alternative M Segment 3

Factor

Proposed

Route

Alternative

Route

Difference

(if Applicable)a

Length of Corresponding Segments (miles) 15.7 18.0 2.3

Type of Right-of-Way 

Length Adjacent to Existing Utility Right-of-Way (electric/pipeline) 

(miles)

0.0 0.0 0.0

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadways Paralleling and within an 

Existing Right-of-Way or Easement (miles)

0.0 0.0 0.0

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadway Paralleling and Abutting an 

Existing Right-of-Way or Easement (miles)

0.0 0.1 0.0

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadways Paralleling an Existing Rightof-Way or Easement within 300 feet (miles)0.5 6.3 5.9

Right-of-Way Requirements

Pipeline Construction Requirements (acres) 208.9 239.6 30.7

Pipeline Operation Requirements (acres) 95.0 108.9 13.9

Wetlands

Total Wetland Complexes Crossed (number) 5 1 -4

Total Wetland Crossed (linear feet) 1,074 350 -724

Total Wetland Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 1.8/1.2 0.6/0.4 -0.2/-0.8

Palustrine Forest Wetland Complexes Crossed 

(construction/operation) (acres)

0.3/0.2 0.6/0.4 0.3/0.2

Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland Complexes Crossed 

(construction/operation) (acres)

0.2/0.1 0.0/0.0 -0.2/-0.1

Palustrine Emergent Wetland Impacts (construction/operation) 

(acres)

1.4/1.0 0.0/0.0 -1.4/-1.0

Waterbodies

Waterbodies Crossed (number) 11 17 6

Major River Crossings (number greater than 100 feet) 0 0 0

Streams with Drinking Water Use Designation (number) 0 0 0
3-37 Alternatives

TABLE 3.4.1-3 (continued)

Comparison of Proposed Route Segment 3 to Alternative M Segment 3

Factor

Proposed

Route

Alternative

Route

Difference

(if Applicable)a

Cultural Resources

National Historic Landmarks (number) 0 0 0

National Register of Historic Places Eligible or Potentially Eligible 

Cultural Resources Sites Crossed (number)

0 0 0

Land Use

Forested Land Crossed (miles) 11.6 14.5 2.9

Forested Land Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 154.9/70.4 193.6/88.0 38.7/17.6

Forest Edge Crossed (miles) 5.0 11.0 6.1

Forested Edge Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 66.5/30.2 147.2/66.9 80.7/36.7

Forest Interior Crossed (miles) 6.6 3.5 -3.2

Forested Interior Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 80.4/40.2 42.2/21.1 -38.2/-19.1

Important Bird Area Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Audubon Forest Blocks of Importance (miles) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Agricultural Land Crossed (miles) 3.3 1.5 -1.8

Agricultural Land Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 44.0/20.0 19.6/8.9 -24.4/-11.1

Landfills, Quarries, Material Storage and Processing (number) 0 0 0

Property Owners

Property Owners Affected (number of parcels crossed) 78 88 10

Residences Located within 50 feet of the Pipe Centerline (number) 0 0 0

Residences Located within 125 feet (number) 0 0 0

Residences Located within 250 feet (number) 7 14 7

Federal and State Land

Federal Lands Crossed (number/miles) 0/0.0 0/0.0 0/0.0

State Forest/Parks (number/miles) 0/0.0 0/0.0 0/0.0

Trails

Trails (number) 0 0 0

Other Physical Features

Road Crossings (number) 13 12 -1

Railroads Crossed (number) 0 0 0

Other Environmental Features

Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed (miles) 5.9 4.7 -1.3

Steep Slopes Crossed (30 degrees or greater) (miles) 0.4 2.3 2.0

Side Slope Construction (miles) 0.2 6.5 6.4

Environmental Hazards and/or Concerns (within 0.5 mile) (number) 0 13 13

Landslides / Unstable Lands Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 0.0

___________________

a Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding
Alternatives 3-38

Many of the routing factors considered above are similar between the two alternatives. Although 

alternative M segment 3 is collocated with the I-88 corridor or other existing corridors for 6.4 miles, the 

proposed route is 2.3 miles shorter overall. Alternative M segment 3 crosses fewer wetlands, forest 

interiors, and shallow bedrock areas. However, the proposed route segment 3 crosses fewer waterbodies, 

forested wetlands, forested lands overall, property owners, and side slopes. Therefore, we do not consider 

adoption of alternative M segment 3 to be preferable to the proposed pipeline. 

Proposed Route Segment 5/6 Compared to Alternative M Segment 5/6

Alternative M segment 5/6 diverges from the proposed route at MP 77.4 in Delaware County, 

New York, and re-connects with the proposed route at MP 121.3. Alternative M segment 5/6 is 

collocated for about 27 miles but diverges from I-88 to avoid side slopes and the Town of Richmondville, 

New York. The collocation could be increased with a potential crossing of I-88 and then proceeding 

generally along the northern side of the roadway but this was not considered practical due to the presence 

of the Towns of Maryland, Schenevus, and Worcester, New York. However, alternative M segment 5/6 

crosses under I-88 near the Town of Bramanville, New York and then proceeds along the northern side of 

the I-88 corridor for approximately 7 miles before crossing back under I-88 and re-connecting with the 

proposed route. A comparison of the environmental and other routing considerations associated with 

proposed route segment 5/6 compared to alternative M segment 5/6 is presented in table 3.4.1-4. 

TABLE 3.4.1-4 

Comparison of Proposed Route Segment 5/6 to Alternative M Segment 5/6

Factor

Proposed

Route

Alternative

Route

Difference

(if Applicable)a

Length of Corresponding Segments (miles) 43.9 47.5 3.6

Type of Right-of-Way 

Length Adjacent to Existing Utility Right-of-Way (electric/pipeline) 

(miles)

0.0 0.0 0.0

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadways Paralleling and within an 

Existing Right-of-Way or Easement (miles)

0.0 0.0 0.0

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadway Paralleling and Abutting an 

Existing Right-of-Way or Easement (miles)

0.1 0.3 0.2

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadways Paralleling an Existing Rightof-Way or Easement within 300 feet (miles)2.2 26.7 24.5

Right-of-Way Requirements

Pipeline Construction Requirements (acres) 585.5 633.9 48.4

Pipeline Operation Requirements (acres) 266.1 288.1 22.0

Wetlands

Total Wetland Complexes Crossed (number) 8 6 -2

Total Wetland Crossed (linear feet) 2,272 2,281 9

Total Wetland Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 3.9/2.6 3.9/2.6 0.0/0.0

Palustrine Forest Wetland Complexes Crossed 

(construction/operation) (acres)

0.4/0.2 3.1/2.1 2.7/1.8

Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland Complexes Crossed 

(construction/operation) (acres)

1.3/0.8 0.4/0.3 -0.8/-0.6

Palustrine Emergent Wetland Impacts (construction/operation) 

(acres)

2.3/1.5 0.4/0.3 -1.9/-1.3
3-39 Alternatives

TABLE 3.4.1-4 (continued)

Comparison of Proposed Route Segment 5/6 to Alternative M Segment 5/6

Factor

Proposed

Route

Alternative

Route

Difference

(if Applicable)a

Waterbodies

Waterbodies Crossed (number) 35 45 10

Major River Crossings (number greater than 100 feet) 1 2 1

Streams with Drinking Water Use Designation (number) 0 5 5

Cultural Resources

National Historic Landmarks (number) 0 0 0

National Register of Historic Places Eligible or Potentially Eligible 

Cultural Resources Sites Crossed (number)

0 0 0

Land Use

Forested Land Crossed (miles) 29.2 29.7 0.5

Forested Land Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 389.5/177.0 395.9/179.9 6.4/2.9

Forest Edge Crossed (miles) 13.7 25.8 12.1

Forested Edge Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 182.3/82.9 343.3/156.1 161.1/73.2

Forest Interior Crossed (miles) 15.5 3.9 -11.6

Forested Interior Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 188.4/94.2 47.8/23.9 -140.6/-70.3

Important Bird Area Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Audubon Forest Blocks of Importance (miles) 2.4 0.0 2.4

Agricultural Land Crossed (miles) 10.4 6.5 -3.9

Agricultural Land Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 157.1/62.9 98.5/39.4 -58.6/-23.5

Landfills, Quarries, Material Storage and Processing (number) 3 1 -2

Property Owners

Property Owners Affected (number of parcels crossed) 253 140 -113

Residences Located within 50 feet of the Pipe Centerline (number) 0 2 2

Residences Located within 125 feet (number) 1 12 11

Residences Located within 250 feet (number) 18 56 38

Federal and State land

Federal Lands Crossed (number/miles) 0/0.0 0/0.0 0/0.0

State Forest/Parks (number/miles) 1/0.1 0/0.0 -1/-0.1

Trails

Trails (number) 1 0 -1

Other Physical Features

Road Crossings (number) 43 42 -1

Railroads Crossed (number) 0 0 0

Other Environmental Features

Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed (miles) 19.5 7.6 -11.9

Steep Slopes Crossed (30 degrees or greater) (miles) 3.6 10.1 6.6

Side Slope Construction (miles) 0.8 2.7 1.9
Alternatives 3-40

TABLE 3.4.1-4 (continued)

Comparison of Proposed Route Segment 5/6 to Alternative M Segment 5/6

Factor

Proposed

Route

Alternative

Route

Difference

(if Applicable)a

Environmental Hazards and/or Concerns (within 0.5 mile) (number) 1 6 5

___________________

a Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding

Many of the routing factors considered above are similar between the two alternatives. Although 

alternative M segment 5/6 is collocated with the I-88 corridor or other existing corridors for 

approximately 27 miles, the proposed route segment is 3.6 miles shorter overall. Alternative M segment 

5/6 also crosses fewer forest interiors, Audubon-designated forest blocks of importance, property owners, 

and shallow bedrock areas. However, the proposed route segment 5/6 crosses fewer waterbodies, forested 

wetlands, and much fewer nearby residences and steep side slopes. Therefore, we do not consider 

adoption of alternative M segment 5/6 to be preferable to the proposed pipeline. 

Proposed Route Segment 5/6 Compared to Alternative M Segment 5, Bridge 1, Proposed Route 

Segment 6

This section describes the comparative analysis of incorporating alternative M segment 5 into the 

project without alternative M segment 6. Because the division of these two segments is about 2 miles 

from the proposed route, a “bridge” was developed to connect the routes in a more direct fashion. This 

was therefore termed alternative M segment 5, bridge 1, proposed route segment 6. It diverges from the 

proposed route at MP 77.4 in Delaware County, New York and re-connects with the proposed route at 

MP 121.3. A comparison of the environmental and other routing considerations associated with proposed 

route segment 5/6 compared to alternative M segment 5, bridge 1, proposed route segment 6 is presented 

in table 3.4.1-5. Note that both routes being compared include segment 6 of the proposed route due to the 

location of the bridge.

TABLE 3.4.1-5

Comparison of Proposed Route to Alternative Route M Segment 5, Bridge 1, Proposed Route Segment 6

Factor

Proposed

Route

Alternative

Route

Difference

(if Applicable)a

Length of Corresponding Segments (miles) 43.9 48.0 4.1

Type of Right-of-Way 

Length Adjacent to Existing Utility Right-of-Way (electric/pipeline) 

(miles) 0.0 3.9 3.9

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadways Paralleling and within an 

Existing Right-of-Way or Easement (miles) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadway paralleling and abutting an 

existing Right-of-Way or easement (miles) 0.1 0.3 0.2

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadways paralleling an existing Rightof-Way or easement within 300 feet (miles) 2.2 14.9 12.7

Right-of-Way Requirements

Pipeline Construction Requirements (acres) 585.5 639.6 54.1

Pipeline Operation Requirements (acres) 266.1 290.7 24.6
3-41 Alternatives

TABLE 3.4.1-5 (continued)

Comparison of Proposed Route to Alternative Route M Segment 5, Bridge 1, Proposed Route Segment 6

Factor

Proposed

Route

Alternative

Route

Difference

(if Applicable)a

Wetlands

Total Wetland Complexes Crossed (number) 8 7 -1

Total Wetland Crossed (linear feet) 2,272 2,377 105

Total Wetland Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 3.9/2.6 4.1/2.7 0.2/0.1

Palustrine Forest Wetland Complexes Crossed 

(construction/operation) (acres) 0.4/0.2 3.1/2.1 2.8/1.8

Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland Complexes Crossed 

(construction/operation) (acres) 1.3/0.8 0.4/0.3 -0.9/-0.6

Palustrine Emergent Wetland Impacts (construction/operation) 

(acres) 2.3/1.5 0.6/0.4 -1.7/-1.2

Waterbodies

Waterbodies Crossed (number) 35 40 5

Major River Crossings (number >100 feet) 1 2 1

Streams with Drinking Water Use Designation (number) 0 0 0

Cultural Resources

National Historic Landmarks (number) 0 0 0

National Register of Historic Places Eligible or Potentially Eligible 

Cultural Resources Sites crossed (Number) 0 0 0

Land Use

Forested Land Crossed (miles) 29.2 33.9 4.7

Forested Land Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 389.5/177.0 451.6/205.3 62.1/28.2

Forest Edge Crossed (miles) 13.7 25.1 11.4

Forested Edge Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 182.3/82.9 334.7/152.1 152.1/69.3

Forest Interior Crossed (miles) 15.5 8.8 -6.8

Forested Interior Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 188.4/94.2 106.3/53.2 -82.1/-41.0

Important Bird Area Crossed (miles) 0 0 0

Audubon Forest Blocks of Importance (miles) 2.4 0 -2.4

Agricultural Land Crossed (miles) 10.4 8.8 -1.5

Agricultural Land Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 159.1/63.7 132.4/53.0 -26.7/-10.7

Landfills, Quarries, Material Storage and processing (number) 3 1 -2

Property Owners

Property Owners Affected (number of parcels crossed) 253 167 -86

Residences located within 50 feet of the pipe Centerline (number) 0 2 2

Residences located within 125 feet (number) 1 6 5

Residences located within 250 feet (number) 18 34 16

Federal & State Land

Federal Lands Crossed (number/miles) 0/0.0 0/0.0 0/0.0

State Forest/Parks (number/miles) 1/0.1 0/0.0 -1/-0.1

Trails

Trails (number) 0 1 1
Alternatives 3-42

TABLE 3.4.1-5 (continued)

Comparison of Proposed Route to Alternative Route M Segment 5, Bridge 1, Proposed Route Segment 6

Factor

Proposed

Route

Alternative

Route

Difference

(if Applicable)a

Other Physical Features

Road Crossings (number) 43 38 -5

Railroads Crossed (number) 0 0 0

Other Environmental Features

Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed (miles) 19.5 13.8 -5.7

Steep Slopes Crossed (30 degrees or greater) (miles) 3.6 10.5 6.9

Side Slope Construction (miles) 0.8 5.4 4.6

Environmental Hazards and/or Concerns (within 0.5 mile) (number) 1 1 0

Landslides / Unstable lands crossed (Length) 0.0 0.0 0.0

___________________

a Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding

Many of the routing factors considered above are similar between the two alternatives. Although 

alternative M segment 5 to bridge 1 to proposed route segment 6 is collocated with the I-88 corridor or 

other existing corridors for approximately 19 miles, the corresponding segment of the proposed route is

4.1 miles shorter overall. Alternative M segment 5 to bridge 1 to proposed route segment 6 also would 

cross fewer forest interiors, property owners, and shallow bedrock areas. However, the proposed route 

segment 5/6 crosses fewer forested wetlands, (and less forested land overall), nearby residences, and side 

slopes. Therefore, we do not consider adoption of alternative M segment 5, bridge 1, proposed route 

segment 6 to be preferable to the proposed pipeline route (proposed route segments 5/6). 

Proposed Route Segment 5/6 Compared to Proposed Route Segment 5, Bridge 2, Alternative M 

Segment 6

Similar to the discussion of preceding section, here we discuss the comparative analysis of 

incorporating alternative M segment 6 into the project without alternative M segment 5. Because the 

division of these two segments is about 2 miles from the proposed route, a “bridge” was developed to 

connect the routes in a more direct fashion. This was therefore termed proposed route segment 5, bridge 

2, alternative M segment 6. This segment diverges from the proposed route at MP 77.4 in Delaware 

County, New York, and re-connects with the proposed route at MP 121.3 in Schoharie County, New 

York. A comparison of the environmental and other routing considerations associated with proposed 

route segment 5/6 compared to proposed route segment 5, bridge 2, alternative M segment 6 is presented 

in table 3.4.1-6. 
3-43 Alternatives

TABLE 3.4.1-6 

Comparison of Proposed Route to Proposed Route Segment 5, Bridge 2, Alternative Route M Segment 6

Factor

Proposed

Route

Alternative

Route

Difference

(if Applicable)a

Length of Corresponding Segments (miles) 43.9 44.2 0.3

Type of Right-of-Way 

Length Adjacent to Existing Utility Right-of-Way (electric/pipeline) 

(miles)

0.0 0.0 0.0

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadways Paralleling and within an 

Existing Right-of-Way or Easement (miles)

0.0 0.0 0.0

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadway Paralleling and Abutting an 

Existing Right-of-Way or Easement (miles)

0.1 0.2 0.0

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadways Paralleling an Existing Rightof-Way or Easement within 300 feet (miles)2.2 13.5 11.3

Right-of-Way Requirements

Pipeline Construction Requirements (acres) 585.5 589.9 4.4

Pipeline Operation Requirements (acres) 266.1 268.1 2.0

Wetlands

Total Wetland Complexes Crossed (number) 8 5 -3

Total Wetland Crossed (linear feet) 2,272 2,181 -91

Total Wetland Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 3.9/2.6 3.8/2.5 -0.2/-0.1

Palustrine Forest Wetland Complexes Crossed 

(construction/operation) (acres)

0.4/0.2 0.4/0.2 0.0/-0.1

Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland Complexes Crossed 

(construction/operation) (acres)

1.3/0.8 1.4/1.0 0.2/0.1

Palustrine Emergent Wetland Impacts (construction/operation) 

(acres)

2.3/1.5 2.0/1.3 --0.3/-0.2

Waterbodies

Waterbodies Crossed (number) 35 42 7

Major River Crossings (number greater than 100 feet) 1 1 0

Streams with Drinking Water Use Designation (number) 0 3 3

Cultural Resources

National Historic Landmarks (number) 0 0 0

National Register of Historic Places Eligible or Potentially Eligible 

Cultural Resources Sites Crossed (number)

0 0 0

Land Use

Forested Land Crossed (miles) 29.2 24.3 -4.9

Forested Land Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 389.5/177.0 323.6/147.1 -65.9/-29.9

Forest Edge Crossed (miles) 13.7 13.7 0.0

Forested Edge Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 182.3/82.9 182.1/82.8 -0.1/-0.1

Forest Interior Crossed (miles) 15.5 10.6 -4.9

Forested Interior Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 188.4/94.2 128.6/64.3 -59.8/-29.9

Important Bird Area Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Audubon Forest Blocks of Importance (miles) 2.4 2.4 0.0

Agricultural Land Crossed (miles) 10.4 9.5 -0.8
Alternatives 3-44

TABLE 3.4.1-6 (continued)

Comparison of Proposed Route to Proposed Route Segment 5, Bridge 2, Alternative Route M Segment 6

Factor

Proposed

Route

Alternative

Route

Difference

(if Applicable)a

Agricultural Land Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 157.1/62.8 144.4/57.8 -12.7/-5.1

Landfills, Quarries, Material Storage and Processing (number) 3 1 -2

Property Owners

Property Owners Affected (number of parcels crossed) 253 220 -33

Residences Located within 50 feet of the Pipe Centerline (number) 0 0 0

Residences Located within 125 feet (number) 1 7 6

Residences Located within 250 feet (number) 18 39 21

Federal and State Land

Federal Lands Crossed (number/miles) 0/0.0 0/0.0 0/0.0

State Forest/Parks (number/miles) 1/0.1 1/0.1 0/0.0

Trails

Trails (number) 1 1 0

Other Physical Features

Road Crossings (number) 44 49 5

Railroads Crossed (number) 0 0 0

Other Environmental Features

Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed (miles) 19.5 13.8 -5.7

Steep Slopes Crossed (30 degrees or greater) (miles) 3.6 2.3 -1.3

Side Slope Construction (miles) 0.8 3.6 2.8

Environmental Hazards and/or Concerns (within 0.5 mile) (number) 1 6 5

Landslides / Unstable Lands Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 0.0

___________________

a Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding

Many of the routing factors considered above are similar between the two alternatives. Although 

proposed route segment 5, bridge 2, alternative M segment 6 is collocated with the I-88 corridor or other 

existing corridors for approximately 14 miles, the proposed route segment is 0.3 mile shorter overall. 

Proposed route segment 5, bridge 2, alternative M segment 6 crosses less forested land overall, and fewer

forest interiors, property owners, and shallow bedrock areas. However, the proposed route segment 5/6 

crosses fewer waterbodies, nearby residences, and side slopes. Therefore, we do not consider adoption of 

proposed route segment 5, bridge 2, alternative M segment 6 to be preferable to the proposed pipeline 

route. 

3.4.2 Minor Route Alternatives

Although they can extend for several miles, minor route alternatives deviate from the proposed 

route less substantially than major route alternatives. Minor route alternatives are often designed to avoid 

large environmental resources or engineering constraints, and typically remain within the same general 

area as the proposed route.
3-45 Alternatives

3.4.2.1 Minor Route Alternatives Adopted into the Proposed Route 

Based on consultations with landowners, resource agencies, municipal governments, field review, 

and impact assessment, Constitution fully incorporated nine minor route alternatives and partially 

incorporated two additional minor route alternatives into the proposed route during the pre-filing and 

post-filing review stages of its project. As such, they are now part of the proposed action and are 

included in our impacts assessment in section 4.0. These changes were adopted primarily to increase 

collocation, avoid or minimize impacts on natural resources, reduce or eliminate safety and 

constructability concerns, and/or avoid or minimize conflicts with existing or proposed residential land 

uses. Minor route alternatives adopted into the proposed pipeline route are described in table 3.4.2-1 and 

depicted in figure 3.4.2-1. 

TABLE 3.4.2-1 

Minor Route Alternatives Adopted into the Proposed Pipeline Route

Alternative

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

County, 

State

Adopted/ 

Partially 

Adopted Description

Alternative A 0.0 9.8 Susquehanna 

County, PA

Adopted The original route (A1) was designed to 

increase collocation with utility rights-ofway. However, alternative A was 

adopted to reduce impacts on wetlands, 

waterbodies, and property owners

compared to route A1. Alternative T was 

subsequently adopted into alternative A 

(see below). 

Alternative T Sub-Part of 

alternative A

Sub-Part of 

alternative A

Susquehanna 

County, PA 

Adopted Alternative T was adopted in association 

with alternative A (see above) at the 

crossing of Martins Creek adjacent to 

State Route 11 to avoid steep slope

construction, thereby resolving an issue 

with Alternative A. 

Brushville Road 

Minimization 

Route

11.6 14.1 Susquehanna 

County, PA

Adopted The Brushville Road Minimization Route 

alternative was adopted to avoid a 

sensitive palustrine forested wetland 

hemlock forest and rare plants compared 

to the original route in this area 

(Brushville Road Route 1). This routing

also fulfills landowner requests to move 

the proposed pipeline away from 

residences and toward the rear property 

boundaries. This route results in 

reduced impacts on wetlands and 

waterbodies compared to alternative 

Brushville Road Route 1. 

Alternative S 18.8 23.6 Susquehanna 

County, PA 

Adopted Alternative S was adopted based upon 

the results of geotechnical analysis and 

field surveys to avoid potential landslide 

areas along a hillside north of Starrucca 

Creek. It also allows for safer 

construction, operation and maintenance 

of the pipeline compared to alternative 

S1. Although alternative S would 

increase impacts on forested lands, 

waterbodies, and property owners, it is

still preferable to routing through the 

landslide area for constructability, longterm pipeline integrity, and safety 

reasons. 
Alternatives 3-46

TABLE 3.4.2-1 (continued)

Minor Route Alternatives Adopted into the Proposed Pipeline Route

Alternative

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

County, 

State

Adopted/ 

Partially 

Adopted Description

Alternative B 25.2 44.7 Susquehanna 

County, PA, 

Broome and 

Chenango 

Counties, NY

Adopted Alternative B was adopted to increase 

collocation with existing utility corridors, 

thereby reducing impacts on forested 

lands, including interior forest compared 

to Alternative B2. It also avoids springs 

used as potable water supply for the 

town of Afton in Chenango County, NY. 

Although this route is slightly longer and 

would increase impacts on waterbodies

compared to route B2, it is still preferable 

for the favorable reasons identified 

above.

Melondy Hill 

State Forest 

Minimization 

Route

41.5 44.7 Broome and 

Chenango 

Counties, NY 

Adopted The Melondy Hill State Forest 

Minimization route was adopted into the 

proposed project route, and minimizes 

impacts by being shorter overall, 

reducing impacts on forested lands, 

forested wetlands, having fewer side 

slopes, and limiting the crossing length to 

0.1 mile within the Melondy Hill State 

Forest compared to the Melondy Hill 

State Forest Avoidance Reroute (see 

below). 

A route that would avoid Melondy Hill 

State Forest completely was also 

evaluated; however, that route would 

have been longer, and had more side 

slopes, forest impacts, and wetland 

crossings. 

Clapper Hollow 

State Forest 

Minimization 

Route

96.9 97.4 Schoharie 

County, NY 

Adopted The Clapper Hollow State Forest 

Minimization Route was adopted to 

reduce the crossing length of the state 

forest from the originally considered

route. The current proposed route limits

the crossing of Clapper Hollow State 

Forest to approximately 411 feet.

A route that completely avoids Clapper 

Hollow State Forest was also evaluated

(Clapper Hollow State Forest Avoidance 

Reroute); however, that route crosses an 

existing spring-fed trout pond that was 

the subject of landowner concern. 

Alternative R 105.0 116.8 Schoharie 

County, NY 

Adopted Alternative R was adopted in response to 

comments from the town of 

Richmondville, NY to reduce the number 

of affected landowners, minimize 

crossing of agricultural land, and move 

the route away from the Cobleskill 

Reservoir to the maximum extent 

possible. This route is shorter and 

substantially reduces the number of 

waterbody crossings compared to 

Alternative R1. Although alternative R 

would increase impacts on forested 

lands, including forest interiors, it is

preferable for the favorable reasons 

identified above. Alternative R 

incorporates components of alternatives 

L and O (see below). 
3-47 Alternatives

TABLE 3.4.2-1 (continued)

Minor Route Alternatives Adopted into the Proposed Pipeline Route

Alternative

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

County, 

State

Adopted/ 

Partially 

Adopted Description

Alternative L Part of 

alternative R

Part of 

alternative R

Schoharie 

County, NY 

Partially 

Adopted

A portion of alternative L was adopted in 

association with alternative R (see 

above) to minimize crossing of 

agricultural land (compared to the 

original route of Alternative R) at the 

request of the Schoharie County 

Planning Commission. By adopting 

alternative R, portions of alternative L are 

no longer connected to the proposed 

project route and were therefore not 

adopted. 

Alternative O Part of 

alternative R

Part of 

alternative R

Schoharie 

County, NY 

Partially 

Adopted

A 5.4 mile portion of alternative O was 

adopted in association with alternative R 

(see above) to move the pipeline away 

from the Cobleskill Reservoirs to the 

maximum extent possible (compared to 

the original route of Alternative R) at the 

request of the Town of Cobleskill. 

Alternative Q 116.6 124.1 Schoharie 

County, NY 

Adopted Alternative Q was adopted to collocate 

with the existing TGP right-of-way, to 

minimize potential impacts on Schoharie 

Creek, and to decrease potential impacts 

on the Barton Hill watershed compared 

to Alternative Q1. Although this segment 

is longer and would affect more forested 

land overall, forest interior, and property 

owners compared to Alternative Q1, it 

would reduce impacts on waterbodies 

and nearby residences. 
WRIGHT

COMPRESSOR

STATION

ALTERNATIVE Q1

ALTERNATIVE R1 (L1, O1)

ALTERNATIVE A-T (ADOPTED)

Chenango 

County

BRUSHVILLE ROAD

MINIMIZATION ROUTE

(ADOPTED)

ALTERNATIVE B2

ALTERNATIVE S1

ALTERNATIVE A1 (T1) BRUSHVILLE ROAD 1

ALTERNATIVE S (ADOPTED)

ALTERNATIVE B

(ADOPTED)

ALTERNATIVE R-L-O

(ADOPTED)

ALTERNATIVE Q (ADOPTED)

Cortland

County

Broome

County

Chenango

County

Otsego

County

Albany

County

Greene

County

Schoharie

County

Delaware

County

Sullivan

County

Susquehanna County

Wayne

County

Ulster

County

Brushville Road 1

Clapper Hollow State Forest

Avoidance Reroute

Melondy Hill State Forest

Avoidance Reroute

Alternative A1 (T)

Alternative B2

Alternative Q1

Alternative R1 (L, O)

Alternative S1

p

0 5 10 15 20

Miles

Figure 3.4.2-1

Constitution Pipeline Project

Adopted Minor Route Alternatives and Corresponding Non-adopted Segments

NEW YORK

PENNSYLVANIA

NJ

MA

MD

CT

NH

VA

VT

DE

RI

Proposed Constitution Pipeline Route

Susquehanna Supply Area

Melondy 

Hill State

Forest

MHSF

AVOIDANCE

ROUTE

MHSF

MINIMIZATION

ROUTE

MELONDY HILL STATE FOREST 

AVOIDANCE/MINIMIZATION ROUTE

Clapper Hollow

State Forest

CHSF

AVOIDANCE

ROUTE

CHSF

MINIMIZATION

ROUTE

CLAPPER HOLLOW STATE FOREST 

AVOIDANCE/MINIMIZATION ROUTE

3-48
3-49 Alternatives

3.4.2.2 Minor Route Alternatives Not Adopted into the Proposed Route

We evaluated five additional alternatives based on review of environmental and other routing 

factors. Minor route alternatives, alternatives C, D, E1, G, and P are discussed below and comparative 

analyses relative to the proposed route are provided. These alternatives are depicted in figure 3.4.2-2. 

Alternatives C and D

Alternative C begins at MP 90.3 in Delaware County, New York and extends 38.2 miles into 

Schoharie County, New York, terminating at the proposed Westfall Road M&R Station. Constitution 

identified alternative C in an effort to increase collocation with existing utility rights-of-way, to avoid 

crossing several landowner tracts, and to locate the pipeline predominantly agricultural land within the 

Schoharie Creek floodplain. A comparison of the environmental and other routing considerations 

associated with alternative C to the proposed route is presented in table 3.4.2-2. 

Alternative D is a sub-alternative of alternative C, and was developed to avoid the floodplain 

valley along Schoharie Creek. Alternative D would minimize construction and operational concerns 

associated with siting the pipeline along Schoharie Creek. Alternative D is 1.3 miles west of Schoharie 

Creek, parallels the boundary of the Burnt-Rossman State Forest, and crosses mountain ridges before 

connecting back to alternative C.

Elected representatives in Schoharie County expressed interest in avoiding impacts on ridgelines 

for aesthetic reasons, as well as concerns about routing the pipeline through agricultural areas. 

Alternative C involves seven crossings of Schoharie Creek (a major waterbody); workspace constraints at 

many of these crossing locations would limit Constitution’s ability to implement HDDs. Because 

Schoharie Creek is subject to flash flooding, safe construction, operation, and maintenance of the pipeline 

within the floodplain would be of concern. Also, alternative C crosses a portion of Burt-Rossman Hills 

State Reforestation Area (where it would be adjacent to an existing utility right-of-way). Adoption of 

alternative D into alternative C would decrease impacts on agricultural lands, but would increase impacts 

on forested habitat and crossings of land with shallow depth to bedrock. 

Therefore, inclusion of alternative D into alternative C is not preferable due to the increase in 

forested impacts and amount of shallow bedrock crossed. Compared to the proposed route, alternative C 

is approximately 4 miles longer, crosses Schoharie Creek six more times, and would have increased 

impacts on wetlands, forested wetlands, waterbodies, property owners, and nearby residences. Therefore, 

we do not consider adoption of alternative C (or D) to be preferable to the proposed project. 
WRIGHT

COMPRESSOR

STATION

ALTERNATIVE C (D)

ALTERNATIVE E1

ALTERNATIVE G

ALTERNATIVE P

Chenango

County

SUSQUEHANNA 

SUPPLY AREA

Cortland

County

Broome

County

Chenango

County

Otsego

County

Albany

County

Greene

County

Schoharie

County

Delaware

County

Sullivan

County

Susquehanna

County

Wayne

County

Ulster

County

Alternative C (D)

Alternative E1

Alternative G

Alternative P

p

0 5 10 15 20

Miles

Figure 3.4.2-2

Constitution Pipeline Project

Minor Route Alternatives Not Adopted

NEW YORK

PENNSYLVANIA

NJ

MA

MD

CT

NH

VA

VT

DE

RI

Proposed Project Route with Adopted

Alternatives

Susquehanna Supply Area

3-50
3-51 Alternatives

TABLE 3.4.2-2

Comparison of the Proposed Pipeline Route to Alternative C (and D)

Factor

Proposed

Route

Alternative

Route

Difference 

(if Applicable)a

Length of Corresponding Segments (miles) 34.2 38.2 4.0

Type of Right-of-Way 

Length Adjacent to Existing Utility Right-of-Way (electric/pipeline) 

(miles)

1.0 12.8 11.8

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadways Paralleling and within an 

Existing Right-of-Way or Easement (miles)

0.0 0.0 0.0

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadway Paralleling and Abutting an 

Existing Right-of-Way or Easement (miles)

0.1 0.1 -0.1

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadways Paralleling an Existing Rightof-Way or Easement within 300 feet (miles)2.2 1.9 -0.3

Right-of-Way Requirements

Pipeline Construction Requirements (acres) 455.9 509.3 53.5

Pipeline Operation Requirements (acres) 207.2 231.5 24.3

Wetlands

Total Wetland Complexes Crossed (number) 4 16 12

Total Wetland Crossed (linear feet) 925 4,822 3,897

Total Wetland Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 1.6/1.1 8.3/5.5 6.7/4.5

Palustrine Forest Wetland Complexes Crossed 

(construction/operation) (acres)

0.0/0.0 3.3/2.2 3.3/2.2

Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland Complexes Crossed 

(construction/operation) (acres)

1.2/0.8 0.9/0.6 -0.3/-0.2

Palustrine Emergent Wetland Impacts (construction/operation) 

(acres)

0.4/0.3 4.1/2.7 3.7/2.5

Waterbodies

Waterbodies Crossed (number) 23 35 12

Major River Crossings (number greater than 100 feet) 0 7 7

Streams with Drinking Water Use Designation (number) 0 0 0

Cultural Resources

National Historic Landmarks (number) 0 0 0

Number of National Register of Historic Places Eligible or Potentially 

Eligible Cultural Resources Sites Crossed (number) 0 2 2

Land Use

Forested Land Crossed (miles) 20.8 16.9 -3.9

Forested Land Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 277.3/126.1 225.6/102.6 -51.7/-23.5

Forest Edge Crossed (miles) 9.7 16.0 6.3

Forested Edge Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 129.6/58.9 213.7/97.2 84.1/38.2

Forest Interior Crossed (miles) 11.1 0.9 10.2

Forested Interior Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 134.3/67.2 10.8/5.4 -123.5/-61.8

Important Bird Area Crossed (miles) 0 0 0

Audubon Forest Blocks of Importance (miles) 2.4 4.4 1.9
Alternatives 3-52

TABLE 3.4.2-2 (continued)

Comparison of the Proposed Pipeline Route to Alternative C (and D)

Factor

Proposed

Route

Alternative

Route

Difference 

(if Applicable)a

Agricultural Land Crossed (miles) 10.1 17.0 6.9

Agricultural Land Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 153.0/61.2 257.1/102.9 104.1/41.6

Landfills, Quarries, Material Storage and Processing (number) 3 0 -3

Property Owners

Property Owners Affected (number of parcels crossed) 191 207 16

Residences Located within 50 feet of the Pipe Centerline (number) 0 0 0

Residences Located within 125 feet (number) 0 5 5

Residences Located within 250 feet (number) 18 36 18

Federal and State Land

Federal Lands Crossed (number/miles) 0 0 0

State Forest/Parks (number/miles) 1/0.1 1/0.3 0/0.2

Trails

Trails (number) 1 0 -1

Other Physical Features

Road Crossings (number) 34 35 1

Railroads Crossed (number) 0 0 0

Other Environmental Features

Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed (miles) 15.2 8.2 -7.0

Steep Slopes Crossed (30 degrees or greater) (miles) 3.0 2.3 -0.8

Side Slope Construction (miles) 0.8 1.1 0.3

Environmental Hazards and/or Concerns (within 0.5 mile) (number) 1 1 0

Landslides / Unstable Lands Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 0.0

___________________

a Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding

Alternative E1

Alternative E was considered in response to comments from the Schoharie County Planning 

Commission regarding the potential to reduce the length of the route and to site the pipeline away from 

ridgelines. Alternative E evolved into alternative E1 based on six minor route deviations included at the 

request of landowners. Alternative E1 begins at MP 93.6 and re-connects to the proposed route at MP 

95.3. A comparison of the environmental and other routing considerations associated with alternative E1 

to the proposed route is presented in table 3.4.2-3. 
3-53 Alternatives

TABLE 3.4.2-3

Comparison of the Proposed Pipeline Route to Alternative E1

Factor

Proposed

Route

Alternative

Route

Difference

(if Applicable)a

Length of Corresponding Segments (miles) 1.7 1.7 0.0

Type of Right-of-Way 

Length Adjacent to Existing Utility Right-of-Way (electric/pipeline) 

(miles)

0.0 0.0 0.0

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadways Paralleling and within an 

Existing Right-of-Way or Easement (miles)

0.0 0.0 0.0

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadway Paralleling and Abutting an 

Existing Right-of-Way or Easement (miles)

0.0 0.1 0.0

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadways Paralleling an Existing Rightof-Way or Easement within 300 feet (miles)0.2 0.2 0.0

Right-of-Way Requirements

Pipeline Construction Requirements (acres) 23.2 23.2 0.0

Pipeline Operation Requirements (acres) 10.6 10.6 0.0

Wetlands

Total Wetland Complexes Crossed (number) 0 1 1

Total Wetland Crossed (linear feet) 0 221 221

Total Wetland Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 0 0.4/0.3 0.4/0.3

Palustrine Forest Wetland Complexes Crossed 

(construction/operation) (acres)

0.0 0.0 0.0

Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland Complexes Crossed 

(construction/operation) (acres)

0.0 0.0 0.0

Palustrine Emergent Wetland Impacts (construction/operation) 

(acres)

0 0.4/0.3 0.4/0.3

Waterbodies

Waterbodies Crossed (number) 2 2 0

Major River Crossings (number greater than 100 feet) 0 0 0

Streams with Drinking Water Use Designation (number) 0 0 0

Cultural Resources

National Historic Landmarks (number) 0 0 0

Number of National Register of Historic Places Eligible or Potentially 

Eligible Cultural Resources Sites Crossed (number)

0 0 0

Land Use

Forested Land Crossed (miles) 1.3 1.3 0.0

Forested Land Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 17.9/8.1 17.9/8.1 0.0/0.0

Forest Edge Crossed (miles) 1.1 1.2 0.1

Forested Edge Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 14.3/6.5 15.6/7.1 1.3/0.6

Forest Interior Crossed (miles) 0.3 0.2 -0.1

Forested Interior Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 3.3/1.6 2.1/1.0 -1.2/-0.6

Important Bird Area Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Audubon Forest Blocks of Importance (miles) 1.5 1.3 -0.2
Alternatives 3-54

TABLE 3.4.2-3 (continued)

Comparison of the Proposed Pipeline Route to Alternative E1

Factor

Proposed

Route

Alternative

Route

Difference

(if Applicable)a

Agricultural Land Crossed (miles) 0.2 0.1 -0.1

Agricultural Land Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 2.9/1.2 1.8/0.7 -1.1/-0.4

Landfills, Quarries, Material Storage and Processing (number) 0 0 0

Property Owners

Property Owners Affected (number of parcels crossed) 15 11 -4

Residences Located within 50 feet of the Pipe Centerline (number) 0 0 0

Residences Located within 125 feet (number) 0 0 0

Residences Located within 250 feet (number) 0 2 2

Federal and State Land

Federal Lands Crossed (number/miles) 0/0.0 0/0.0 0/0.0

State Forest/Parks (number/miles) 0/0.0 0/0.0 0/0.0

Trails

Trails (number) 0 0 0

Other Physical Features

Road Crossings (number) 3 3 0

Railroads Crossed (number) 0 0 0

Other Environmental Features

Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed (miles) 0.4 0.5 0.1

Steep Slopes Crossed (30 degrees or greater) (miles) 0.2 0.2 0.0

Side Slope Construction (miles) 0.1 0.0 -0.1

Environmental Hazards and/or Concerns (within 0.5 mile) (number) 0 0 0

Landslides / Unstable Lands Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 0.0

___________________

a Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding

The proposed route and alternative E1 are about the same length and would have similar impacts 

on waterbodies, wetlands, forested land, nearby residences, and side slopes. Further, the proposed route 

was already developed to satisfy both landowner concerns and the Schoharie County Planning 

Commission’s request to move the pipeline away from ridges and into lower lying areas. For these 

reasons, we do not consider adoption of alternative E1 to be preferable to the proposed project. 

Alternative G

Alternative G was considered in response to comments from the Schoharie County Planning 

Commission and Wright Township to locate the pipeline within predominantly agricultural land in the 

Schoharie Creek floodplain and to avoid karst geology. Alternative G starts at MP 101.8 and ends at the 

proposed Westfall Road M&R Station. Alternative G follows along the ridge of Towpath Mountain and 

parallels portions of alternatives C and D. A comparison of the environmental and other routing 

considerations associated with alternative G to the proposed route is presented in table 3.4.2-4. 
3-55 Alternatives

TABLE 3.4.2-4

Comparison of the Proposed Pipeline Route to Alternative G

Factor

Proposed

Route

Alternative

Route

Difference

(if Applicable)a

Length of Corresponding Segments (miles) 22.7 25.3 2.6

Type of Right-of-Way 

Length Adjacent to Existing Utility Right-of-Way (electric/pipeline) 

(miles)

1.0 0.6 0.4

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadways Paralleling and within an 

Existing Right-of-Way or Easement (miles)

0.0 0.0 0.0

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadway Paralleling and Abutting an 

Existing Right-of-Way or Easement (miles)

0.1 0.1 0.0

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadways Paralleling an Existing Rightof-Way or Easement within 300 feet (miles)1.8 2.6 0.8

Right-of-Way Requirements

Pipeline Construction Requirements (acres) 302.4 337.3 34.9

Pipeline Operation Requirements (acres) 137.5 153.3 15.9

Wetlands

Total Wetland Complexes Crossed (number) 3 5 2

Total Wetland Crossed (linear feet) 735 2,505 1,770

Total Wetland Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 1.3/0.8 4.3/2.9 3.0/2.0

Palustrine Forest Wetland Complexes Crossed 

(construction/operation) (acres)

0.0/0.0 1.4/1.0 1.4/1.0

Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland Complexes Crossed 

(construction/operation) (acres)

0.9/0.6 1.1/0.7 0.2/0.1

Palustrine Emergent Wetland Impacts (construction/operation) 

(acres)

0.4/0.3 1.8/1.2 1.4/1.0

Waterbodies

Waterbodies Crossed (number) 13 22 9

Major River Crossings (number greater than 100 feet) 1 0 -1

Streams with Drinking Water Use Designation (number) 0 1 1

Cultural Resources

National Historic Landmarks (number) 0 0 0

Number of National Register of Historic Places Eligible or Potentially 

Eligible Cultural Resources Sites Crossed (number)

0 1 1

Land Use

Forested Land Crossed (miles) 13.4 9.7 3.7

Forested Land Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 178.8/81.3 129.2/58.7 -49.6/-22.5

Forest Edge Crossed (miles) 6.8 8.3 1.4

Forested Edge Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 91.1/41.4 110.0/41.4 18.9/8.6

Forest Interior Crossed (miles) 6.6 1.4 5.1

Forested Interior Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 79.8/39.9 17.5/8.7 -62.3/-31.2

Important Bird Area Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Audubon Forest Blocks of Importance (miles) 2.4 6.2 3.8
Alternatives 3-56

TABLE 3.4.2-4 (continued)

Comparison of the Proposed Pipeline Route to Alternative G

Factor

Proposed

Route

Alternative

Route

Difference

(if Applicable)a

Agricultural Land Crossed (miles) 7.6 13.4 5.8

Agricultural Land Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 115.0/46.0 202.3/80.9 87.3/34.9

Landfills, Quarries, Material Storage and Processing (number) 2 0 -2

Property Owners

Property Owners Affected (number of parcels crossed) 110 142 32

Residences Located within 50 feet of the Pipe Centerline (number) 0 0 0

Residences Located within 125 feet (number) 0 2 2

Residences Located within 250 feet (number) 10 21 11

Federal and State Land

Federal Lands Crossed (number/miles) 0/0.0 0/0.0 0/0.0

State Forest/Parks (number/miles) 0 1/2.4 1/2.4

Trails

Trails (number) 0 2 2

Other Physical Features

Road Crossings (number) 19 26 7

Railroads Crossed (number) 0 0 0

Other Environmental Features

Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed (miles) 9.3 5.8 -3.5

Steep Slopes Crossed (30 degrees or greater) (miles) 2.7 1.2 -1.5

Side Slope Construction (miles) 0.7 0.9 0.2

Environmental Hazards and/or Concerns (within 0.5 mile) (number) 1 3 2

___________________

a Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding

Alternative G would be subject to the same construction, operation, and maintenance safety 

concerns as alternative C due to its location within the Schoharie Creek floodplain, as discussed above. 

Alternative G is longer than the proposed route and would result in additional impacts on Audubon Forest 

Blocks of Importance, trail crossings, wetlands, waterbodies, property owners, and nearby residences. It 

also crosses 2.4 miles of the Burt-Rossman Hills State Forest, which would be the largest state forest 

crossing associated with the project. This state forest is fully avoided by the proposed pipeline project 

route. Therefore, we do not consider adoption of alternative G to be preferable to the proposed project. 

Alternative P

Alternative P was considered to minimize potential impacts on the Barton Hill public water 

supply watershed at the request of the Town of Wright. Alternative P begins at MP 121.5 and end at the 

proposed Westfall Road M&R Station. A comparison of the environmental and other routing 

considerations associated with alternative P to the proposed route is presented in table 3.4.2-5. 
3-57 Alternatives

TABLE 3.4.2-5

Comparison of the Proposed Pipeline Route to Alternative P

Factor

Proposed

Route

Alternative

Route

Difference

(if Applicable)a

Length of Corresponding Segments (miles) 2.9 3.3 0.3

Type of Right-of-Way 

Length Adjacent to Existing Utility Right-of-Way (electric/pipeline) 

(miles)

1.0 0.2 -0.8

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadways Paralleling and within an 

Existing Right-of-Way or Easement (miles)

0.0 0.0 0.0

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadway Paralleling and Abutting an 

Existing Right-of-Way or Easement (miles)

0.0 0.0 0.0

Length Adjacent to Existing Roadways Paralleling an Existing Rightof-Way or Easement within 300 feet (miles)0.0 1.0 1.0

Right-of-Way Requirements

Pipeline Construction Requirements (acres) 38.9 43.3 4.4

Pipeline Operation Requirements (acres) 17.7 19.7 2.0

Wetlands

Total Wetland Complexes Crossed (number) 0 0 0

Total Wetland Crossed (linear feet) 0 0 0

Total Wetland Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0

Palustrine Forest Wetland Complexes Crossed 

(construction/operation) (acres)

0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0

Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland Complexes Crossed 

(construction/operation) (acres)

0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0

Palustrine Emergent Wetland Impacts (construction/operation) 

(acres)

0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0 0.0/0.0

Waterbodies

Waterbodies Crossed (number) 1 1 0

Major River Crossings (number greater than 100 feet) 0 0 0

Streams with Drinking Water Use Designation (number) 0 0 0

Cultural Resources

National Historic Landmarks (number) 0 0 0

National Register of Historic Places Eligible or Potentially Eligible 

Cultural Resources Sites Crossed (number)

0 0 0

Land Use

Forested Land Crossed (miles) 0.4 0.7 0.3

Forested Land Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 5.2/2.4 9.5/4.3 4.3/1.9

Forest Edge Crossed (miles) 0.4 0.7 0.3

Forested Edge Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 5.2/2.4 9.5/4.3 4.3/1.9

Forest Interior Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Forested Interior Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Important Bird Area Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Audubon Forest Blocks of Importance (miles) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Alternatives 3-58

TABLE 3.4.2-5 (continued)

Comparison of the Proposed Pipeline Route to Alternative P

Factor

Proposed

Route

Alternative

Route

Difference

(if Applicable)a

Agricultural Land Crossed (miles) 2.4 2.4 0.0

Agricultural Land Impacts (construction/operation) (acres) 36.9/14.7 36.7/14.7 -0.2/-0.1

Landfills, Quarries, Material Storage and Processing (number) 0 0 0

Property Owners

Property Owners Affected (number of parcels crossed) 13 11 -2

Residences Located within 50 feet of the Pipe Centerline (number) 0 1 1

Residences Located within 125 feet (number) 0 2 2

Residences Located within 250 feet (number) 1 4 3

Federal and State Land

Federal Lands Crossed (number/miles) 0/0.0 0/0.0 0/0.0

State Forest/Parks (number/miles) 0/0.0 0/0.0 0/0.0

Trails

Trails (number) 0 0 0

Other Physical Features

Road Crossings (number) 3 3 0

Railroads Crossed (number) 0 0 0

Other Environmental Features

Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed (miles) 0.2 0.1 -0.1

Steep Slopes Crossed (30 degrees or greater) (miles) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Side Slope Construction (miles) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Environmental Hazards and/or Concerns (within 0.5 mile) (number) 0 0 0

Landslides / Unstable Lands Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 0.0

___________________

a Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding

The proposed route is 0.3 mile shorter and slightly less collocated than alternative P. The 

proposed route and alternative P would have roughly equal impacts on wetlands and waterbodies. The 

proposed route would have fewer impacts upon forested land and nearby residences, while alternative P 

would have fewer impacts on the number of property owners. Both the TGP and Iroquois gas pipeline 

systems have operated within the Barton Hill watershed for many years without any known impact on the 

water supply. For these reasons, we do not consider adoption of alternative P to be preferable to the 

proposed project. 

3.4.3 Minor Route Variations

In addition to the major and minor route alternatives described above, we evaluated minor route 

variations which are much smaller in scale. Typically, they are shorter in length and involve minor shifts 

in the pipeline alignment to avoid a site-specific resource issue or concern. These site-specific issues 

included proximity to homes and property boundaries, avoidance of forested land, waterbodies, wetlands, 

side slopes, special agricultural areas, and addressing impacts on other construction-related, 

environmental, or landowner concerns. While many of these minor variations were incorporated, a 

smaller number were reviewed and rejected for environmental or construction engineering reasons, or 
3-59 Alternatives

because some of them subsequently became isolated and obsolete due to the incorporation of other 

alternatives. A brief description of each variation, the reasons why it was adopted or rejected, and our 

assessments are presented below. 

Constitution indicated that it had evaluated 371 minor route variations over the course of project 

development and that over 50 percent of its originally considered pipeline route had changed due to 

incorporation of alternatives and smaller realignments since its original filing in May 2012. During our 

pre-filing process 200 of these minor route variations were evaluated by Constitution during the course of 

preliminary route review, engineering design, and field assessments. These 200 variations were part of 

the early phase, original route design process and are not discussed further below as the concerns for 

which they were developed have been addressed. 

We assessed 20 minor route variations to avoid or minimize potential impacts on wetlands and 

waterbodies. In many cases, the landowners, staff from the NYSDEC, and staff from the COE met with 

Constitution in the field to develop these potential minor route variations. All 20 minor route variations 

were incorporated into its proposed route. Appendix H (Status of Minor Route Variations Assessed for 

Impacts on Water Resources) details the parcel number, location, assessment, status of the alternative 

relative to the proposed route, and landowner resolution status for each minor route variation identified by 

the NYSDEC and COE staff. We determined that these minor route variations, as incorporated in the 

proposed route, would reduce impacts on the water resources, and have no reason to recommend further 

analysis along the segments of the proposed route.

Other minor route variations were identified by landowner or stakeholder input. The status of 

these minor route variations, 151 in total, is discussed in the following three sections below. These were 

identified based on input to Constitution directly from landowners, input to Constitution from our staff 

based on landowner comments supplied to us, as well as Constitution’s coordination with the NYSDAM, 

NYSDEC, and the COE. 

3.4.3.1 Minor Route Variations Reported to Constitution 

Constitution reported 96 minor route variations based on requests from potentially affected 

landowners (appendix H-1) that cross 257 individual tracts. Constitution adopted 81 of these 96 minor 

route variations into its proposed route or otherwise resolved the landowners’ concerns. Constitution 

stated that the remaining 15 minor route deviations were not adopted for reasons such as:

• rendering the route variation as obsolete or replacement by another route; 

• routing conflicts with other infrastructure; 

• substantial increases in pipeline length; 

• substantial increases in the number of affected landowners; and 

• increases in environmental impacts. 

Appendix H-1 details the parcel number, location, assessment, status of the alternative relative to 

the proposed route, and landowner resolution status for each minor route variation identified by 

Constitution. We concur with Constitution’s assessment for its identified minor route variations with one 

exception. In this case a variation was developed (but not adopted) that would increase the distance 

between the pipeline and a water well on tract ALT-B-NY-BR-082.003. We determined that this 

deviation or possibly other minor pipeline realignment could reduce potential impacts on this well;

therefore, we recommend that:
Alternatives 3-60

• Constitution should further assess a minor route deviation for parcel ALT-B-NYBR-082.003 and either incorporate a route that avoids the water well or otherwise 

explain how potential impacts on the well have been effectively avoided, minimized, 

or mitigated, and file this information with the Secretary prior to the end of the 

draft EIS comment period. 

3.4.3.2 Minor Route Variations Reported By Stakeholders

We assessed 48 minor route variations that would affect 102 individual tracts as a result of 

comments we received from potentially affected landowners (appendix H-2). We developed potential 

minor route variations based on our field visits, landowner input, and our review of desktop data; and 

supplied those variations to Constitution for assessment. Constitution adopted 41 of these 48 minor route 

variations into its proposed route or otherwise resolved the landowners’ concerns. Constitution stated that 

the seven remaining minor route deviations were not adopted for reasons such as the route variation was 

unnecessary or there were routing conflicts with other infrastructure. 

Appendix H-2 details the parcel number, location, assessment, status of the variation relative to 

the proposed route, and landowner resolution status for each minor route variation we identified. We 

generally concur with Constitution’s assessment and conclusions for these stakeholder-identified minor 

route variations listed in appendix H-2 and found that these variations result in fewer impacts. However, 

we received comments that landowner resolution for one of the parcels is not yet complete, and we have 

received comments about ten other parcels where issues remain. These tracts are listed below in table 

3.4.3-1. Based on the unresolved status of several landowner comments regarding the proposed crossings 

of eleven individual tracts, we recommend that:

• Constitution should further assess minor route deviations for the tracts identified in 

table 3.4.3-1 of the EIS in coordination with the landowners and either incorporate 

a route that avoids the resources of concern or otherwise explain how potential 

impacts on resources have been effectively avoided, minimized, or mitigated. 

Constitution should file the assessments with the Secretary prior to the end of the 

draft EIS comment period. 
3-61 Alternatives

TABLE 3.4.3-1

Status of Minor Route Variations Reported to Stakeholders

Land Parcel ID MP

Requested Minor Route

Deviation Description

ALT-S-PA-SU-007.002 21.1 Landowner concerned with proximity of alignment to future house site.

NY-BR-077.000 40.6 Landowner concerned current alignment would prohibit future development of the 

land.

ALT-B-NY-BR-082.000 41.4 Landowner was concerned about rights to build a house, removal of trees and berry 

bushes, and ability to cross the pipeline.

NY-CH-001.007 42.5 Landowner requested the pipeline be moved to the back of their property so as to 

not impact a future gas well or home site.

NY-DE-111.000 72.9 Landowner concerned about damage to a woodlot, wetlands, and stream on the 

property.

NY-DE-137.000 77.2 Landowner concerned with proximity of pipeline to home (100 feet) and because the 

alignment cuts the property in half.

NY-DE-199.000 86.6 Landowner concerned with proximity of pipeline to home (25-50 feet).

NY-DE-226.000 90.8 This deviation was developed to avoid forested land.

ALT-O-NY-SC-015.000

ALT-O-NY-SC-017.000

ALT-O-NY-SC-022.000

114.1, 

115.0, and 

115.6

The route could disrupt farming operations and make the landowner out of 

compliance with their agricultural permits.

____________________

For parcels listed above, we are requesting that Constitution provide additional information as described above.

3.4.3.3 Minor Route Variations Assessed for Impacts on Agricultural Land

We assessed seven minor route variations based on requests to reduce construction or operational 

impacts on agricultural areas affecting 26 tracts of land (appendix H-3). We evaluated these tracts with 

assistance from the NYSDAM. In many cases, the NYSDAM staff visited the sites of these potential 

variations in the field with both the landowner and Constitution. Constitution indicated that it had 

adopted all seven of the variations into its proposed route or otherwise resolved the landowners’ concerns. 

However, the NYSDAM indicated that issues remained unresolved for six tracts where construction 

activity may result in limited access to other farmable fields during construction or conflict with terms of 

agricultural conservation agreements. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Constitution should further assess minor route deviations for the tracts identified in 

table 3.4.3-2 of the EIS in coordination with the landowners and the NYSDAM. 

Constitution should either incorporate a route that avoids the agricultural resources 

of concern or otherwise explain how potential impacts on resources have been 

effectively avoided, minimized, or mitigated. Constitution should file the 

assessments with the Secretary prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period.

Table 3.4.3-2 details the parcel number, location, assessment, status of the alternative relative to 

the proposed route, and landowner resolution status for each tract where concerns are unresolved. With 

the exception of the above, we determined that impacts on the remaining tracts listed in appendix H-3 

were adequately minimized and did not require further assessment. 
Alternatives 3-62

TABLE 3.4.3-2

Status of Minor Route Variations Assessed for Impacts on Agricultural Lands

Affected Parcel Numbers MP

Reason for Minor

Deviation

NY-CH-011.000

NY-CH-013.000

NY-CH-012.000

NY-CH-014.000

UA-NY-CH-015.001

NY-CH-017.000

45.9 Deviation to minimize impact on farmland.

NY-CH-011.000

NY-CH-013.000

NY-CH-012.000

NY-CH-014.000

NY-CH-015.000

UA-NY-CH-015.001

NY-CH-016.000

NY-CH-017.000

46.5 Deviation to minimize impact on farmland.

NY-SC-156.000

NY-SC-152.000

NY-SC-160.000

ALT-Q-NY-SC-001.000

ALT-Q-NY-SC-002.000

ALT-Q-UA-NY-SC-004.000

ALT-Q-NY-SC-005.000

ALT-Q-NY-SC-006.000

116.4 Deviation to minimize impact on farmland;

a re-route was already considered and approved for this landowner.

____________________

For parcels noted in bold we are requesting that Constitution provide additional information as described above.

3.5 ABOVEGROUND FACILITY SITE ALTERNATIVES

We evaluated the locations of the proposed aboveground facilities to determine whether 

environmental impacts would be reduced or mitigated by the use of alternative facility sites. Our 

evaluation involved inspection of aerial photography and mapping, as well as our own field work along 

the proposed projects’ corridor and location. The aboveground facilities for the proposed projects include 

Constitution’s Turnpike Road M&R Station (including one MLV site and pig launcher), the White Road 

Tie-in, the Sutton Road Tie-in, 10 MLVs, the Westfall Road M&R Station (which would include one 

MLV site and a pig receiver) and Iroquois’ new compressor transfer station at the terminus of 

Constitution’s pipeline.

Because the locations of the two proposed meter stations would be linked to the general location 

of the associated natural gas receipt and delivery points near the proposed Constitution project origin and 

at the pipeline terminus, the search for alternatives was constrained to sites adjacent to the existing 

Central Compressor Station and the existing Wright Compressor Station, respectively. We did not 

identify any reasonable alternative sites for the proposed meter stations that would offer a major 

environmental advantage to the proposed sites for these facilities. 

The proposed locations of MLVs along the proposed pipeline route were partly determined based 

on DOT safety regulations that specify the maximum distance between sectionalizing block valves, and 

require that these facilities be located in readily accessible areas. The location for the White Road Tie-in 

was determined by the location of the proposed non-jurisdictional White Road M&R Station and Miller 

Compressor Station facilities. Similarly, the location for the Sutton Road Tie-in was determined by the 

location of the proposed non-jurisdictional Sutton Road M&R Station. In addition, the proposed White 

Road Tie-in, Sutton Road Tie-in, and MLVs would all be located wholly within Constitution’s proposed 

pipeline operational right-of-way. No additional land disturbance beyond that already accounted for 
3-63 Alternatives

within the proposed pipeline’s permanent right-of-way would be required for the White Road Tie-in, 

Sutton Tie-in, or proposed MLVs, and we did not identify any site alternatives for these facilities that 

would be preferable to the proposed locations. Furthermore, as discussed above, the tie-ins and MLVs 

would only have minimal operational impacts on visual aesthetics, which did not necessitate the need for 

additional analysis.

Early in the pre-filing process in May 2012, Constitution proposed to construct a new greenfield 

compressor station on an undeveloped parcel near the existing Wright Compressor Station. Constitution 

identified six potential locations for a new compressor station (figure 3.5-1). In February 2013, 

Constitution re-evaluated hydraulic modeling estimates and determined that the compression needed to 

deliver natural gas from the proposed pipeline into Iroquois’ system could be met by modifying the 

existing Wright Compressor Station owned by Iroquois. These modifications eliminated the need for a 

new, greenfield compressor station. As such, Iroquois has proposed a new compressor transfer station 

adjacent to its existing compressor station and wholly on its own property that would provide Constitution 

with the needed compression. Furthermore, adding compression on Iroquois’ property would allow it to 

optimize the new compressors in tandem with the existing facilities. Therefore, this resulted in a decrease 

in the total amount of compression needed to complete the project. Iroquois has proposed to construct 

20,500 horsepower of compression, while Constitution would have been required to construct 32,000 

horsepower of compression without Iroquois’ optimizations.

Alternative locations for the proposed Iroquois compressor transfer station included six parcels in 

the vicinity of the existing Wright Compressor Station along Westfall Road or Barton Hill Road. While 

these parcels were potentially viable alternative sites, siting the compressor transfer station within the 

existing parcel owned by Iroquois would have several advantages. These advantages include: 

• use of an existing industrially developed parcel;

• elimination of the need for survey permission and right-of-way acquisition from other 

private landowners;

• making use of existing compressor facilities where possible instead of construction of 

completely new facilities;

• reduced air emissions from reductions in total compression needed;

• use of existing access roads; and

• lack of impacts on environmental resources such as waterbodies, wetlands, agricultural 

land, residences, or cultural resources.

For these reasons, we concluded that construction of the compressor transfer station on the 

existing Iroquois parcel was preferable to construction on a previously non-industrial site. 
SCHOHARIE COUNTY

A

B

C

D E

F

Existing Wright

Compressor Station/

Proposed Compressor 

Transfer Station

MP 124.4

MP 122

MP 123

MP 124

Kimmy Rd

Co Rd 54

Sheldon Rd

Fox Creek

Farm Rd

Blanchard Rd Westfall Rd

Warner Rd

Wilber Rd

Sever Rd

Co Rd 25

Barton

Hill Rd

State Rte 146

Kump Rd

Dugan Hill Rd

Cook Rd

State Rte 443

Westfall Rd

Co Rd 25

Barton

Hill Rd

Co Rd 26

Larry Hill Rd

Proposed 30-inch Diameter Natural

Gas Pipeline Alignment

Compressor Station Alternatives

p

0 1,000 2,000 3,000

Feet

Figure 3.5-1

Compressor Station Site Alternatives

NEW YORK

PENNSYLVANIA

NJ

MA

MD

CT

NH

VA

VT

DE

RI

3-64
4-1 Geology

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

This section describes the affected environment as it currently exists and discusses the 

environmental consequences of the proposed projects. The discussion is organized by the following 

major resource topics: geology; soils; water resources; wetlands; vegetation; wildlife and aquatic 

resources; special status species; land use, recreation, special interest areas, and visual resources; 

socioeconomics (including transportation and traffic); cultural resources; air quality and noise; reliability 

and safety; and cumulative impacts.

The environmental consequences of constructing and operating the projects would vary in 

duration and significance. Four levels of impact duration were considered: temporary, short-term, longterm, and permanent. Temporary impacts generally occur during construction with the resource returning 

to pre-construction condition almost immediately afterward. Short-term impacts could continue for up to 

3 years following construction. Impacts were considered long-term if the resource would require more 

than 3 years to recover. A permanent impact could occur as a result of any activity that modifies a 

resource to the extent that it would not return to pre-construction conditions during the life of the projects. 

We considered an impact to be significant if it would result in a substantial adverse change in the physical 

environment.

The Applicants, as part of their proposals, developed certain mitigation measures to reduce the 

impact of the projects. In some cases, we determined that additional mitigation measures could further 

reduce the project’s impacts. Our additional mitigation measures appear as bulleted, boldfaced 

paragraphs in the text of this section and are also included in section 5.2. We will recommend to the 

Commission that these measures be included as specific conditions in the Certificate the Commission 

may issue to the Applicants for these projects. 

The conclusions in the EIS are based on our analysis of the environmental impact and the 

following assumptions:

• the Applicants would comply with all applicable laws and regulations;

• the proposed facilities would be constructed as described in section 2.0 of the EIS; and

• the Applicants would implement the mitigation measures included in their applications

and supplemental submittals to the FERC and cooperating agencies, and in other 

applicable permits and approvals. 

4.1 GEOLOGY

4.1.1 Geologic Setting

Constitution’s pipeline would cross three sections of the Appalachian Plateau physiographic 

province: Glaciated Low Plateau, Southern New York, and Catskills sections. Table 4.1.1-1 describes 

the geology and topographic relief of these physiographic sections (Sevon 2000). Iroquois’ project would 

be located in the Southern New York physiographic province.
Geology 4-2

TABLE 4.1.1-1 

Physiographic Section and Geologic Formation along the Proposed Projects

State/County Physiographic Province Physiographic Section

Geological Formation/ 

Stratigraphic Unit

Local 

Relief

Pennsylvania

Susquehanna Appalachian Plateaus Glaciated Low Plateau Wisconsinan till underlain by 

sandstone, siltstone, and shale.

High

New York

Broome Appalachian Plateaus Southern New York Till underlain by sandstone, shale 

and limestone.

High

Chenango Appalachian Plateaus Southern New York Till underlain by sandstone, shale 

and limestone.

High

Delaware Appalachian Plateaus Catskill Till underlain by sandstone and 

shale.

Very High

Otsego Appalachian Plateaus Southern New York Till underlain by sandstone, shale 

and limestone.

Very High

Schoharie Appalachian Plateaus Southern New Yorka Till underlain by sandstone, shale 

and limestone.

Very High

____________________

Sources: Sevon 2000; Frenneman, NM., and Johnson, D.W. 1946; Muller, E.H. and D.H. Cadwell 1986

a Iroquois’ project would be located within this physiographic province and section.

Pennsylvania

The proposed pipeline alignment in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania consists of 

Mesoproterozoic metamorphic rock, which is overlain by Devonian-aged sedimentary rock. The 

Devonian sedimentary bedrock is made up of sandstones, shale, and limestone (Barnes and Sevon 2002). 

The landscape in the project area was shaped by the Late Wisconsinan glaciation that occurred 

approximately 22,000 to 17,000 years ago. The majority of the proposed pipeline route in Pennsylvania 

is covered by moderately thick sandy Olean till or very thin Olean till, the majority of which has been 

identified as Wisconsinan Till (Sevon et al. 1999). There is very little preserved vertical stratigraphy 

along the proposed pipeline route (Sevon et al. 1999). Table 4.1.1-2 presents the cumulative length of the 

surficial geology crossed by the proposed pipeline alignment. Elevation change and topography along the 

proposed pipeline route are characterized by high relief with an approximately 800 feet elevation change 

from approximately 1,000 to 1,800 feet above mean sea level. The topography of Constitution’s project 

area includes rounded hills and valleys. Geologic structures and superficial geology along the proposed 

pipeline route in Pennsylvania includes low-amplitude folds, glacial and re-sedimented till, glacial 

deposits, swamp, and peat bogs (Sevon 2000).

New York

The bedrock underlying the New York portion of the pipeline project consists of Mesoproterozoic

metamorphic rock, the majority of which is overlain by till, recent alluvium, kame deposits, or is exposed 

bedrock. Table 4.1.1-2 displays the cumulative length of the surficial geology crossed by the proposed 

pipeline. The topography and surficial geology of Constitution’s project area in New York was affected 

by glaciation that took place approximately 20,000 years ago, and glacial deposits make up much of the 

superficial geology in this area. Broome, Chenango, and Schoharie Counties are characterized by high 

relief with approximately 600 to 1,000 feet in elevation change across the proposed pipeline route. These 

counties are also characterized by flat-topped hills and deeply dissected valleys. Bedrock within these 

counties consists of alternating strata of sandstone and shale. Delaware County contains very high relief 
4-3 Geology

with a more than 1,000 feet in elevation change. Topography in Delaware County is similar to that of the 

other counties in New York. All of the counties crossed by the proposed in New York have relatively 

similar geology. The proposed pipeline route through New York has elevations ranging from 

approximately 600 to 2,200 feet above mean sea level. Elevations in Otsego County range from 970 to 

2,430 feet above mean sea level.

TABLE 4.1.1-2

Surficial Geology Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline

State Length (miles) Geologic Unit

Pennsylvania

0.7 Alluvium

1.7 Bedrock (sandstone, siltstone, and shale)

0.2 Fill

6.8 Sandstone and Shale Bedrock

0.1 Wetland

0.1 Wisconsinan Ice-Contact Stratified Drift

15.8 Wisconsinan Till

New York

5.8 Bedrock (sandstone, siltstone, and shale)

3.6 Kame deposits

1.2 Kame moraine

0.2 Lacustrine sand

0.4 Lacustrine silt and clay

2.4 Outwash sand and gravel

4.3 Recent alluvium

81 Till

0.4 Till Moraine

Project Total 124.4

____________________

Sources: Sevon 2000; Rickard and Fisher 1970

Aboveground Facilities

The Turnpike Road M&R Station, and the Westfall Road M&R Station and Iroquois’ compressor 

station would be located in the Glaciated Low Plateau Section and Southern New York Section of the 

Appalachian Plateau Physiographic Province, respectively. Topography surrounding the proposed 

location of both M&R Stations and the compressor station is characterized as low relief with elevation 

changes of less than 100 feet. Surficial geology at the Turnpike Road M&R Station site is made up of 

glacial and re-sedimented till. Glacial till with small areas of kame, kame-moraine, and alluvial deposits 

make up the surficial geology at the Westfall Road M&R Station site and the proposed compressor 

station. Bedrock at the Turnpike Road M&R Station site consists of various Devonian age sandstones, 

siltstones, and shales, while the bedrock geology of the Westfall Road M&R Station and compressor 

station sites is made up of sedimentary shale, siltstones, sandstone, and limestone.
Geology 4-4

Contractor Yards and Access Roads

The proposed access roads and contractor yards are in the same general vicinity as the proposed 

pipeline discussed above. 

4.1.1.1 Bedrock Geology

Pennsylvania

Information on the bedrock geology in Pennsylvania was provided by the Pennsylvania 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PADCNR) Bureau of Topographic and Geologic 

Survey. The majority of the bedrock within the Project areas in Pennsylvania is the Devonian age 

Catskill Formation consisting of grayish-red sandstone, siltstone, and shale. 

New York

Information on bedrock geology in New York was obtained from geologic maps by Rickard and 

Fisher (1970). Bedrock within the project areas in New York consists of shale, siltstones, sandstone, 

limestone, and dolostone. The majority of the bedrock is made up of four groups: the Hamilton group, 

the Genesee group and Tully limestone, the Sonyea Group, and the West Falls group. The Hamilton 

group is made up of shale, sandstone, and siltstone and covers 17.7 miles of the proposed alignment. The 

pipeline would cross 38.2 miles of the Genesee group and Tully limestone and 19.3 miles of the Sonyea 

group, both of which consists of shale, sandstone, and conglomerate. Lastly, the proposed route crosses

17.1 miles of the West Falls group, which consists of sandstone, shale, black shale, siltstone, and 

conglomerate. Through New York it is anticipated that about 37.4 miles of the pipeline would traverse 

through shallow bedrock terrain (within 5 feet of ground surface) (see section 4.1.3.7).

4.1.1.2 Geotechnical Investigations for the Trenchless Crossings

Constitution performed geotechnical feasibility studies to evaluate subsurface conditions at the 

proposed trenchless crossing sites. The purpose of these investigations was to confirm the understanding 

of the geology of the immediate area and to help design each trenchless crossing. Constitution has 

conducted or is currently conducting geotechnical investigations along the proposed pipeline route. These 

geotechnical investigations would help determine the feasibility of using a trenchless crossing 

method. Constitution is currently proposing to cross these 21 locations via 13 trenchless 

crossings. Geotechnical studies at three locations have been completed, and Constitution determined that 

one site would not require a geotechnical investigation due to the short crossing distance. Studies for the 

remaining nine sites are either on-going or not started due to lack of site access. Data analysis for two of 

the completed locations (Lake View Road at MP 15.3 and Schoharie Creek at MP 119.8) has determined 

that the proposed crossing methods (HDD and Direct Pipe, respectively) are feasible. Constitution has 

conducted the geotechnical survey for the Middle Brook site (MP 87.8) but has not finalized the report. 

Since Constitution has not provided the results of the geotechnical studies for all proposed trenchless 

crossings, we recommend that:

• Prior to construction, Constitution should file with the Secretary all outstanding 

geotechnical feasibility studies for trenchless crossing locations.

Table 4.1.1-3 summarizes the results of the geotechnical investigations that have been conducted 

to date for each of the proposed trenchless crossings. 
4-5 Geology

TABLE 4.1.1-3 

Summary of Geotechnical Investigations for Trenchless Construction Methods 

Along the Proposed Pipeline Route

Location

Approximate 

Milepost Method

Crossing 

Length (feet) Feature Avoided

Geotechnical 

Evaluation Status Status

Sutton Road 

Bore 

Crossing

9.2 CB 140 Avoidance of 

Waterbody: 

• SU-1D-S230

Geotechnical 

evaluation currently 

underway.

Design complete, 

successful CB 

anticipated based 

on minimal 

crossing distance.

State Route

492 Road

Bore

Crossing

9.9 CB 66 Avoidance of 

Waterbody: 

• SU-1C-S029G

Geotechnical 

evaluation currently 

underway.

Design complete, 

successful CB 

anticipated based 

on minimal 

crossing distance.

Lake View

Road

15.3 HDD 2,210 Avoidance of 

Lakeview Road 

(Highway 1019) and 

Wetlands and 

Waterbodies:

• SU-1K-W061

• SU-1K-W062

• SU-1K-W064

• SU-1K-S067

• SU-1K-S072

• SU-1K-S069

• SU-1K-S069A

• SU-1G-S074

Geotechnical 

exploration and 

laboratory work 

complete. 

Conceptual design 

complete. HDD 

method judged 

feasible. Final 

design pending.

Rockwell 

Road Bore 

Crossing

22.6 CB 40 Avoidance of 

Waterbody: 

• SU-1C-S282

Geotechnical 

evaluation currently 

underway.

Design complete, 

successful CB 

anticipated based 

on minimal 

crossing distance.

Baker Road 

Bore 

Crossing

38.7 CB 55 Avoidance of 

Wetland and 

Waterbody:

• BR-1Q-S209

• BR-1H-W240

Geotechnical 

evaluation currently 

underway.

Design complete, 

successful CB 

anticipated based 

on minimal 

crossing distance.

Melondy Hill 

Road Bore 

Crossing

45.3 CB 60 Avoidance of 

Waterbody: 

• CH-1A-S048

Geotechnical 

evaluation currently 

underway.

Design complete, 

successful CB 

anticipated based 

on minimal 

crossing distance.

Bennettsville

Creek

47.7 HDD 1,630 Avoidance of 

Wetlands and 

Waterbodies:

• CH-1A-W063

• CH-1A-S010

• CH-1C-010B

• CH-1C-010C

• CH-1H-010D

• CH-1H-010E

None performed to 

date.

Conceptual design 

completeawaiting site 

access for 

geotechnical 

evaluations

Pine Hill

Creek

54.4 HDD 4,900 Avoidance of 

Wetlands and 

Waterbodies:

• DE-1X-W158

• DE-1H-S013

• DE-1F-W075

• DE-1M-S075

Geotechnical 

exploration work 

currently underway.

Conceptual design 

completeawaiting site 

access (West Side 

of HDD, have 

accessed east 

side borings) for 

geotechnical 

evaluations.
Geology 4-6

TABLE 4.1.1-3 (continued)

Summary of Geotechnical Investigations for Trenchless Construction Methods 

Along the Proposed Pipeline Route

Location

Approximate 

Milepost Method

Crossing 

Length (feet) Feature Avoided

Geotechnical 

Evaluation Status Status

Rathbun Hill 

Road Bore 

Crossing

79.4 CB 55 Avoidance of

Waterbody: 

• DE-XX-S79.36

None performed to 

date.

Design complete, 

successful CB 

anticipated based 

on minimal 

crossing distance.

NYSDEC 

Wetland 

DN-11

85.8 HDD 1,710 Avoidance of 

Wetland:

• DE-1N-W156A

• DE-XX-W85.72

None performed to 

date.

Conceptual design 

completeawaiting site 

access for 

geotechnical 

evaluations.

Middle

Brook

87.8 HDD 2,050 Avoidance of 

Highway 23 and 

Wetlands and 

Waterbodies:

• DE-1T-W051

• DE-1C-050A

• DE-1P-W050

• DE-1P-W052

• DE-1T-W053

• DE-1T-W055

• DE-1C-051A

• DE-1T-S051

• DE-1T-S052

Geotechnical 

exploration complete, 

lab testing and 

analysis ongoing.

Conceptual design 

complete. 

Feasibility 

assessment 

pending.

Baldwin

Road

101.5 DP 570 Avoidance of

Baldwin Road

None performed to 

date.

Conceptual design 

completeawaiting site 

access for 

geotechnical 

evaluations.

Schoharie

Creek

119.8 DP 744 Avoidance of Smith 

Road, Holiday Way 

and Waterbody:

• SC-1Q-S289

Geotechnical 

exploration complete, 

data report submitted.

Conceptual design 

and feasibility 

study complete. 

DP is judged 

feasible. Final 

design pending.

____________________

HDD = Horizontal Directional Drill, DP – Direct Pipe, CB = Conventional Bore

4.1.2 Mineral Resources

Mineral resources identified in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline include a small number of oil 

and gas wells, as well as aggregates including bluestone, sandstone, and slate (U.S. Geological Survey 

[USGS] 2012a, 2012b). New York and Pennsylvania are the only two states in which bluestone, a bluishcolor, layered feldspathic sandstone is produced for constructing patios, walkways, fences, and 

countertops (Barnes and Smith 2001). Information regarding mineral resources in Pennsylvania was 

obtained though the PADEP Bureau of Mining Programs (PADEP 2013a), the PADEP mining facility 

database (PADEP 2013b) and the Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access Geographic Information System data 

layer for Industrial Mineral Mining Operations (PASDA 2013a, 2013b, 2013c). Additional information 

on proposed mining operations was provided by the Pennsylvania Office of Active and Abandoned Mine 

Operations (Houtz 2013) and the Pottsville District Mining Office (Walck 2013). Information regarding 

mineral resources in the state of New York came from the NYSDEC, Division of Mineral Resources, GIS 
4-7 Geology

data layer for Mining Operations, NYSDEC Division of Mineral Resources Mined Land Database 

(NYSDEC 2013a, ESOGIS 2013).

4.1.2.1 Mining

Pennsylvania

Mineral resources within 0.25 mile of the proposed pipeline alignment in Pennsylvania consist 

mainly of bluestone, sandstone, and slate. Of all the nonfuel mineral resources produced in Pennsylvania, 

crushed stone, sand and gravel aggregate is the most significant in terms of both tons mined and dollars 

earned (Barnes and Smith 2001). In total, 34 active, inactive, or proposed mining operations were 

identified within 0.25 mile of the proposed pipeline, contractor yards, access roads, and M&R station in 

Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania (PASDA 2013a, 2013b, 2013c). The closest mineral resource to the 

proposed pipeline is a bluestone surface mine located 171 feet from MP 5.3. Table 4.1.2-1 identifies 

mineral resources within 0.25 mile of the proposed project. 

TABLE 4.1.2-1

Mineral Resources within 0.25 miles of the Constitution’s Project

Component/County/MP Type Commodity Status

Distance from 

Pipeline Facility (feet)

PIPELINE

Susquehanna County

0 Surface Mine Sandstone Inactive 517

2.18 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 940

2.18 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 911

2.18 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 925

2.18 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 897

2.75 Surface Mine Bluestone Active 385

3.47 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 478

3.47 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 458

3.47 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 438

3.47 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 418

3.47 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 498

4.37 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 348

4.37 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 367

4.37 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 420

4.37 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 381

4.37 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 400

5.33 Surface Mine Bluestone Active 171

5.55 Surface Mine Bluestone Proposed 307

5.8 Surface Mine Bluestone Active 1,503

9.45 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 453

9.45 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 435

9.46 Oil/Gas Well Gas Inactive 428
Geology 4-8

TABLE 4.1.2-1 (continued)

Mineral Resources within 0.25 miles of the Constitution’s Project

Component/County/MP Type Commodity Status

Distance from 

Pipeline Facility

9.46 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 428

9.54 Surface Mine Sandstone Active 1,090

12.54 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 895

12.54 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 876

12.54 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 856

13.17 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 1,343

10.72 Surface Mine Slate Active 897

14.02 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 526

14.02 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 500

14.05 Surface Mine Bluestone Active 969

14.73 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 754

16.64 Surface Mine Sandstone Active 1,513

79 Surface Mine Sandstone Active 909

19.15 Surface Mine Sandstone Active 1,012

19.17 Surface Mine Sandstone Active 514

19.74 Surface Mine Bluestone Active 787

21.58 Surface Mine Bluestone Active 324

22.9 Surface Mine Bluestone Active 325

Broome County

28.77 Surface Mine Sand & Gravel Inactive 1,537

31.36 Surface Mine Sand & Gravel Inactive 1,481

37.12 Oil/Gas Well Gas Inactive 798

37.18 Oil/Gas Well Gas Inactive 1,276

38.68 Oil/Gas Well Gas Inactive 1,162

Chenango County

45.36 Surface Mine Sand & Gravel Inactive 1,138

Delaware County

51.84 Surface Mine Bluestone Active 821

52 Surface Mine Bluestone Active 696

ACCESS ROADS

Susquehanna County

1.74/PAR1 Surface Mine Bluestone Active 1,001

1.74/PAR1 Surface Mine Bluestone Active 988

1.74/PAR1 Surface Mine Bluestone Proposed 989

7.25/PAR6 Surface Mine Shale Proposed 1,265

9.46/PAR7 Surface Mine Bluestone Active 1,252

12.20/PAR10 Surface Mine Bluestone Proposed 1,310

12.20/PAR10 Surface Mine Bluestone Proposed 955

12.20/PAR10 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 628
4-9 Geology

TABLE 4.1.2-1 (continued)

Mineral Resources within 0.25 miles of the Constitution’s Project

Component/County/MP Type Commodity Status

Distance from 

Pipeline Facility

12.20/PAR10 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 604

12.20/PAR10 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 604

12.20/PAR10 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 660

12.20/PAR10 Oil/Gas Well Gas Active 653

13.37/PAR11 Surface Mine Bluestone Active 182

13.37/PAR11 Surface Mine Bluestone Active 152

13.37/PAR11 Surface Mine Bluestone Active 171

Broome County

28.48/PAR22 Surface Mine Sand & Gravel Inactive 1,109

58.85/PAR37 Surface Mine Sand & Gravel Inactive 1,476

69.98/PAR44 Surface Mine Sand & Gravel Inactive 1,045

CONTRACTOR YARD

Susquehanna County

Spread One Contractor Yard Surface Mine Bluestone Active 579

Spread One Contractor Yard Surface Mine Bluestone Active 1,352

Spread One Contractor Yard Surface Mine Bluestone Inactive 1,138

Spread One Contractor Yard Surface Mine Bluestone Active 563

Spread One Contractor Yard Surface Mine Bluestone Active 835

Spread One Contractor Yard Surface Mine Bluestone Active 925

Spread One Contractor Yard Surface Mine Bluestone Active 1,030

Spread One Contractor Yard Surface Mine Bluestone Active 57

Spread One Contractor Yard Surface Mine Bluestone Active 852

Otsego County

Spread 4a Contractor Yard Surface Mine Sand and Gravel Active Within Contractor Yard 

Boundary

Spread 4a Contractor Yard Surface Mine Sand and Gravel Inactive 145

_______________________

Sources: PASDA 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, NYSDEC 2013a, 2013b, ESOGIS 2013

New York

Mineral resources within 0.25 mile of the proposed pipeline consist mainly of bluestone, sand, 

and gravel. Ten mining operations were identified within 0.25 mile of the proposed pipeline, contractor 

yards, and access roads in New York. According to the NYSDEC Division of Mineral Resources there 

are no proposed surface mines within 0.25 mile of Constitution’s project in New York (NYSDEC 2013a, 

Mahoney 2013, and Rodriquez 2013). Table 4.1.2-1 identifies mineral resources within 0.25 mile of the 

proposed pipeline, access roads, and aboveground facilities. The NYSDEC Division of Mineral 

Resources did not report any mining operations in proximity to Iroquois’ proposed compressor station 

facilities (Evans 2013). 
Geology 4-10

Oil and Gas Production

In Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania there are 29 active and 1 inactive oil and gas operations 

within 0.25 mile of Constitution’s project (including contractor yards and access roads). The closest 

active location to the proposed pipeline in Susquehanna County is 348 feet away. Three inactive gas 

wells have been identified within Constitution’s project area in New York (ESOGIS 2013). Oil and gas 

wells within 0.25 mile of the proposed pipeline are identified in table 4.1.2-1. 

4.1.3 Geologic Hazards

Geologic hazards including seismicity (e.g., earthquakes), surface faults, soil liquefaction, 

landslides, flash flooding, karst topography, shallow bedrock, and blasting were evaluated for the 

proposed projects. These hazards are discussed in the following sections. Conditions necessary for the 

development of other geologic hazards, including avalanches and volcanism, are not present in the project 

area and therefore not discussed. 

4.1.3.1 Seismicity

The majority of significant earthquakes around the world are associated with tectonic subduction

zones, where one crustal plate is overriding another (e.g., the Japanese islands), where tectonic plates are 

sliding past each other (such as in California), or where tectonic plates are converging (e.g., the Indian 

Sub-Continent). Unlike these highly active tectonic regions, the east coast of the United States is a 

passive tectonic plate boundary located on the “trailing edge” of the North American continental plate, 

which is relatively seismically quiet. Earthquakes, however, do occur in the area of the projects, largely 

due to trailing edge tectonics and residual stress release from past orogenic (i.e., mountain building) 

events. 

The shaking during an earthquake can be expressed in terms of the acceleration due to gravity. 

Based on USGS seismic hazard mapping, the proposed projects are in an area where peak horizontal 

ground accelerations of 6 to 9 percent of the force of gravity (g) along the proposed alignment have a 2 

percent chance of being exceeded in 50 years (Petersen 2011). Peak horizontal ground accelerations 

between 1 and 3 percent g have a 10 percent chance of being exceed in 50 years (Petersen 2011). Peak 

ground accelerations less than 10 percent g are considered as having little to no potential for damage. In 

general, welded steel pipelines have not sustained damage during seismic events except due to permanent 

ground deformation or wave propagation (O’Rourke and Palmer 1994a).

Information for earthquakes in Pennsylvania was provided by Earthquake Epicenters mapping 

from 1724 to 2003 and the USGS Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory (Faill 2004, Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory 2013). There was one seismic event with a magnitude of 1.8 on the Richter scale in 

Susquehanna County in 1982. The largest recorded seismic event in Pennsylvania took place on 

September 25, 1998 in Crawford County (located in extreme northwestern Pennsylvania, approximately 

225 miles from Constitution’s project) and registered 5.2 on the Richter scale. An event such as this 

today could cause considerable damage to poorly built structures, but only negligible damage to buildings 

of good design and construction.

Information for seismicity in New York was provided by the USGS and Lamont-Doherty 

Cooperative Seismographic Network (Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory 2013). The largest earthquake 

recorded in New York registered 5.8 on the Richter scale and took place in 1944 in St. Lawrence County 

(located in extreme northern New York, approximately 150 miles from the proposed projects). There 

have been no recorded seismic events within Broome and Chenango counties. In Delaware County three 

seismic events were recorded which were less than 2.9 on the Richter scale. In Schoharie County six 
4-11 Geology

seismic events were recorded that were below 2.9 on the Richter scale, and one event that was 4.1 on the 

Richter scale occurred in 1991 (Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory 2013). The Schoharie County AllHazards Mitigation Plan supplied no records of earthquakes resulting in damage (Schoharie County 

Hazard Mitigation Committee et al. 2006). Seismicity in the area of the proposed projects including 

aboveground facilities is considered low and the potential for seismic activity to affect the operational 

integrity of the pipeline would be low. 

4.1.3.2 Faults

Faults, fractures in rock where there has been displacement, can cause seismic events. Tectonic 

faulting is not known along the proposed pipeline route but small seismic events have been recorded. For 

a fault to be considered active, displacement must have taken place in the last 10,000 years (USGS 2008).

In Pennsylvania the proposed pipeline would not intersect any known, mapped, or inferred fault 

lines (Alexander et al. 2005). Mapped faults can be found in northwestern and southeastern 

Pennsylvania, and inferred faults to the southeast and northwest but none of these are in proximity to the 

proposed pipeline. There are two faults of note within the area of the proposed projects. The Sprakers 

(near MP 105.8) and Nose (near MP 110.3) Faults are two parallel faults which run north to south in 

Schoharie County (Isachsen and McKendree 1977). The Susquehanna River/Scranton Gravity High Fault 

intersects the proposed pipeline route at several locations. According to the Jacobi (2002), this fault may 

have been active 420 million years ago. The Susquehanna River/Scranton Gravity High Fault intersects 

the pipeline at MPs 78.4, 58.1, 51.4, 44.8, 44.4, and 38.2. Geologic mapping of New York from 2002 

identified additional proposed faults and lineaments (Jacobi 2002). Lineaments are straight line or gently 

curving topographical features that are generally expressed as ridges or depressions. The New York State 

Geologist (Smith 2012) stated that no recent activity has been observed in the area of the projects that is 

associated with the faults and lineaments shown in the 2002 mapping. According to research provided by 

GeoEngineers, the proposed pipeline does not cross any recognized Quaternary faults based upon review 

of the USGS Quaternary Fold and Fault Database (USGS 2012c). 

There are seven class C and D features which are crossed by the proposed pipeline route. Class D 

features are defined by the USGS as not to be seismogenic. Class C features do not have enough 

sufficient data to classify them as either class A or class B faults. Class A faults have geologic evidence 

that demonstrates the existence of a quaternary fault of tectonic origin either exposed by mapping or 

inferred deformational features. Class B faults have geologic evidence that is indicative of a quaternary 

deformation but the fault is not deep enough to be a potential source for earthquakes or the evidence 

available is too significant to assign a fault as class C but not enough to assign as class A (USGS 2013a). 

There are no class C features within 40 miles of the proposed projects (USGS 2013b). 

4.1.3.3 Soil Liquefaction

Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon often associated with seismic activity in which saturated, noncohesive soils temporarily lose their strength and liquefy (i.e., behave like viscous liquid) when subjected 

to forces such as intense and prolonged ground shaking. Areas susceptible to liquefaction may include 

soils that are generally sandy or silty and are generally located along rivers, streams, lakes, and shorelines 

or in areas with shallow groundwater (University of Washington 2000). There have been no documented 

occurrences of soil liquefaction from seismicity in the project area. Since pipelines are installed 

underground, hazards from soil liquefaction are not anticipated.
Geology 4-12

4.1.3.4 Landslides

Landslides are defined as the movement of rock, debris, or soil down a slope. Slope failure 

causing a landslide can be initiated by precipitation, seismic activity, slope disturbance due to 

construction or other activity, or a change in groundwater conditions. Construction factors that may

increase the potential for slope failure could include trenching along slopes and the burden of construction 

equipment on unstable surfaces. 

Information on landslides incidence and susceptibility was provided by a digitally compiled 

Landslide Overview Map of the Conterminous United States (Radbruch-Hall et al. 1982, Godt 2002). 

Several locations were identified as having landslides occur within the vicinity of the proposed pipeline. 

Approximately 25 miles of the pipeline route in Pennsylvania is considered to have a moderate to low 

susceptibility to landslides. In New York, approximately 15 miles of the proposed alignment has a 

moderate to low susceptibility to landslides, and the remaining 83 miles has a low susceptibility (Godt 

2002). Table 4.1.3-1 provides the location and landslide susceptibility and locations of these areas. 

TABLE 4.1.3-1

Landslide Potential in the Project Area

State County Start Milepost End Milepost Total Distance

Susceptibility to 

Landslidinga

Pennsylvania Susquehanna 0 25.2 25.24 Moderate/Low

New York Broome 25.2 40.0 14.71 Moderate/Low

40.0 42.2 2.29 Low

Chenango 42.2 50.5 8.3 Low

Delaware 50.5 93.5 43 Low

Schoharie 93.5 124.4 30.9 Low

____________________

Sources: Godt 2002.

a Low < 1.5% of area affected by landslides

Moderate 1.5% to 15% of area affected by landslides

High > 15% of area affected by landslides

Constitution hired a geotechnical consulting firm to provide geotechnical analysis of several 

potential steep slope and karst areas crossed by the proposed pipeline. Constitution’s geotechnical firm 

identified several areas along the proposed pipeline route that would require special construction 

procedures (table 4.1.3-2). Constitution’s geotechnical firm provided site-specific construction 

recommendations and mitigation measures for several steep slope and karst areas. However, Constitution 

has not indicated if it would adhere to these mitigation measures; therefore, to adequately assess the 

impacts on these karst and steeply sloped areas, we recommend that:

• Constitution should adopt the recommendations and mitigation measures for steep 

slope and karst areas provided in the Geological Reconnaissance Memorandum 

dated October 4, 2013.
4-13 Geology

TABLE 4.1.3-2

Identified Measures for Steep Slopes Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project

Milepost Description Recommended Measures

1.2 – 1.3 Steep slope at an old quarry Prepare to work on unstable soils adjacent to a rock wall and 

rock overhang. Protect workers and nearby public road from 

falling and rolling rock. Prepare rock management plan and 

blasting plan if necessary.

8.2 - 8.6 Possible landslide/recent fill Re-grade or remove fill from foreign pipeline; bury proposed 

pipeline in native ground with a minimum of 3 feet of cover.

8.6 - 8.9 Possible older landslide Access restrictions limited complete evaluation.

10.0 – 10.1 Steep slope adjacent to stream with 

potential minor channel migration

Bury pipeline 3 feet deeper than normal within the channel. 

Provide bank protection, such as rip-rap or bury the pipeline 

deeper.

17.0 – 17.1 Moderate to steep slopes/partial 

access

Access restrictions limited complete evaluation.

26.5 – 27.5 Steep side slopes and potentially loose 

material

Trench shoring may be required. Falling rocks may impact 

construction.

30.3 – 30.4 Steep slope, landslide and potential 

channel migration

Re-route to the east or install the pipeline below the depth of 

landslide and utilize seepage barriers.

31.3 – 31.6 Steep side slope/ partial access Access restrictions limited complete evaluation. Avoid 

stockpiling soil on or near slopes greater than 50%. Manage 

stormwater and seepage.

32.1 – 32.2 Moderate to steep slopes/ side slopes/ 

partial access

Access restrictions limited complete evaluation. 

32.5 – 32.7 Moderate to steep slopes No special recommendations.

45.3 Steep slope Compact backfill, install jute matting and waddles at 10-15 

foot spacing, add articulated concrete mats if soils ravel.

46.8 – 47.0 Moderate slopes No special measures.

45.3 – 45.4 Steep slope Compacted fill, reinforced fill.

55.0 – 55.1 Steep slope No special measures.

78.9 – 79.1 Steep side slope and seepage Avoid stockpiling soil on or near slopes greater than 50%. 

Manage stormwater and seepage.

81.2 – 81.6 No access

94.4 – 94.5 Steep slope No special measures.

109.0 – 109.2 Moderate to steep side slope and 

drainage paths

Avoid stockpiling soil on or near slopes greater than 50%. 

Provide rock-lined swales for drainage.

114.4 – 114.7 Moderate to steep side slopes No special measures.

116.3 – 116.8 Very steep slope with indications of 

shallow slope movement

Compacted fill reinforced fill/ slop stabilization.

117.4 – 117.5 Man-made pond (not karst) No special measures.

Constitution identified a potential landslide hazard at the proposed crossing of Starrucca Creek 

(MP 21.9). Constitution has since revised the proposed route through this area so as to avoid the potential 

landslide hazard.

A well-defined landslide feature was identified in the area of MP 30.3. This site has been 

established by mature trees and there is very little evidence of recent movement. However, this feature 

has been identified as an area with a high potential for landslide activity. Constitution identified that it 
Geology 4-14

would perform a formal slope stability study for this site. Since the potential hazards associated with the 

proposed route through these areas have not been quantified, we recommend that:

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Constitution should file with the 

Secretary the results of the formal slope stability study for the area at MP 30.3, 

including any specialized construction techniques or mitigation measures 

Constitution would implement at this location.

During construction, EIs and construction crews would be responsible for identifying potential 

landslide conditions and would utilize geologic hazard maps included in Constitution’s state-specific 

ECPs. Constitution would employ a geotechnical specialist to assess potential landslide locations, if 

necessary.

The proposed pipeline crosses several areas of steep terrain where slopes or side slopes are

greater than 30 percent. In Pennsylvania, approximately 2 miles of steep slopes (and 3.8 miles of steep 

side slopes [15 to >30 percent]) would be crossed by the pipeline. The New York portion contains 2.8 

miles of steep slopes and 9.1 miles of steep side slopes (15 to >30 percent). Steep slopes and side slopes 

are discussed in section 2.3.2.9. Constitution would implement best management practices (BMPs) on a 

site-specific basis as specified in its state-specific ECPs to address slope stability and construction on 

steep slopes. The BMPs that would be implemented are based on past experience and the measures 

identified in the FERC Plan. Constitution’s BMPs would be submitted to regulatory agencies for 

approval before construction activities begin. Constitution states that any construction that would take 

place in a high risk or known landslide area would be monitored by over flights and on-the-ground 

routine inspections. 

Iroquois’ project is in an area of low landslide incidence and no steep slopes (Godt 1997). 

Additionally, Iroquois indicated that it did not anticipate the need to re-contour slopes during restoration 

based on the generally level nature of the site.

4.1.3.5 Flash Flooding

The potential for flash flooding to occur and significantly impact construction or operation of the 

proposed pipeline is low, but possible on streams in the area of the proposed pipeline. The greatest 

potential for flash flooding to occur along waterbodies in the area of Constitution’s project is associated 

with high intensity short duration storm events, which are usually accompanied by significant 

precipitation over a short period of time. The National Weather Service Flash Flood Guidance estimates 

that the amount of rainfall needed to generate flash flooding in the counties crossed by the proposed 

projects is 1.5 to 1.7 inches per hour (NOAA 2013a). 

The Catskill area of New York (including Delaware and Schoharie Counties) suffered extensive 

flooding due to Hurricane Irene on August 28, 2011, and Tropical Storm Lee on September 2, 2011. 

Following Hurricane Irene, President Obama issued a Major Disaster Declaration for New York State on 

August 31, 2011. Nearly a foot of rain fell on the Southern Tier of New York due to Tropical Storm Lee 

(NY Responds 2012). 

4.1.3.6 Karst Topography

Common causes of ground subsidence include the presence of karst terrain, underground mining, 

and significant groundwater or fluid withdrawal, such as associated with oil-producing regions. Karst 

features such as sinkholes, caves, and caverns can form as a result of the long-term action of groundwater 

on soluble carbonate rocks (e.g., limestone and dolostone). The risk of the development of sinkholes 
4-15 Geology

along the pipeline is relatively low based on a geologic literature review and a field review of potential 

karst features by Constitution. Constitution’s project would only cross karst terrain in Schoharie County, 

New York (about 12.4 miles from approximately MPs 109.1 to 124.4).

Three potential sinkhole ponds were identified within 200 feet of MPs 117.1, 118.1, and 118.5. 

An area of karst pavement (open cracks) is located within a property near MP 118.5. In addition, two 

closed depressions were identified near MP 122.6, between MP 123.0 and MP 123.2, and a cave feature 

was located near MP 123.1. Table 4.1.3-3 provides the locations of known or potential karst features 

located in proximity to the proposed pipeline. 

TABLE 4.1.3-3 

Karst Features in Proximity to the Proposed Pipeline

Name Feature Closest Milepost

Distance and Direction

from the proposed Pipeline

(feet)

Halftubes Cave 122.1 2,210 north

Keyhole Cave Cave 122.7 2,315 north

Dead Sink Pit 122.5 2,190 south

Gage Caverns & Green Cave Cave 122.7-122.8 1,100-2,000 north

Joober Hole Cave 123.1 400 south

Halfhole Cave Cave 123.4 2,760 north

Ewalds Fissures Cave 124.2 1,187 south

____________________

Source: Mylroie 1977.

MPs 118.5 to 118.8 and 123.0 to 123.2 are considered to be areas of concern for karst 

development, and karst features have been identified in these areas by Constitution. Constitution’s 

geotechnical firm performed subsurface investigations in the area of MPs 118.0 to 118.6 to evaluate 

potential karst features. The subsurface investigations found that karst pavement, sinkholes, and caves 

were common east of MP 118.3; voids and soft rock conditions in the limestone bedrock were 

encountered in the study area. Constitution developed a Karst Mitigation Plan specifically for these areas,

as discussed below. 

4.1.3.7 Shallow Bedrock

Soils with bedrock present within 5 feet of the surface are considered to have shallow depth to 

bedrock. Areas with shallow bedrock classifications were identified using the NRCS’ Soil Survey 

Geographic Database (SSURGO). To excavate the trench line in the areas identified with shallow 

bedrock, blasting may be necessary in order install the pipeline to the proper depth. If shallow bedrock is 

encountered, other methods of bedrock removal such as ripping, chipping, or grinding would be 

attempted first before blasting would be used. Constitution anticipates that ripping would be possible in 

areas of shale and sandstone and potentially possible in areas of limestone depending on weathering of the 

rock. In areas of sandstone, conglomerate, and limestone, other excavation methods would be tried such 

as grinding or chipping. Blasting would not be used in areas of limestone to prevent the possible opening 

of fractures in the rock, thereby allowing the potential introduction of blasting chemicals into subsurface 

rock strata and potentially groundwater. The proposed pipeline in Pennsylvania would traverse 8.1 miles 

of shallow bedrock while the New York portion would traverse 37.4 miles of shallow bedrock. Areas of 

shallow depth to bedrock are listed in appendix I. 
Geology 4-16

4.1.3.8 Blasting

The potential for blasting exists at all locations where shallow bedrock may be encountered. The 

proposed pipeline crosses 45.5 miles of shallow depth to bedrock that may require blasting. Constitution 

expects that based on previous work in similar areas, a large portion of the bedrock would be ripped using 

conventional excavation techniques and would not require the use of blasting or chipping.

Blasting in areas of karst topography can create fractures in the rock, potentially introduce 

chemicals from blasting, and temporarily affect yield and increase turbidity in nearby water wells and/or 

springs. Constitution has stated the blasting in areas of limestone and karst features would be avoided. 

Hard limestone would be removed by using conventional methods or techniques such as hydraulic 

chipping or ripping. 

Potential impacts on water wells, springs, wetlands, steep slopes, paleontological resources, 

nearby aboveground facilities, and adjacent pipelines and utility lines could result from blasting. 

Potential impacts on water wells and springs are discussed in section 4.3. Constitution has proposed to 

offer both pre-construction and post-construction testing of water quality and quantity in wells, and to 

mitigate any damages caused by construction. Any required blasting would be conducted in accordance 

with all federal, state, and local regulations. Constitution has developed a Blasting Plan as part of its

state-specific ECPs. As outlined in the Blasting Plan, Constitution would:

• use the minimum charges needed;

• use heavy mats to prevent the scattering of debris;

• use seismograph equipment to monitor the velocity of the blasts at all structures within 

150 feet of blasting activities; 

• inspect aboveground and underground facilities within 150 of blasting activities; and 

• identify potential impacts, and minimization and mitigation measures for areas that have 

been identified as having steep slopes. 

We have reviewed these measures and Constitution’s Blasting Plan and find them acceptable. 

Aboveground Facilities

Iroquois’ project would be installed in an area of shallow bedrock. While Iroquois does not 

anticipate the need for blasting, if blasting is required for construction of the proposed compressor facility 

it would be conducted in accordance with all federal, state, and local regulations. Blasting would be 

conducted in a safe manner so that off-site water supplies would not be affected. 

4.1.4 Paleontological Resources

Paleontological resources including plant, invertebrates, and vertebrate fossils may be found in a 

variety of geologic formations. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act and NEPA enforce the 

protection of significant paleontological resources on federally owned and/or managed lands. Potential 

impacts on paleontological resources associated with the proposed pipeline may occur as a result of 

construction and may include impacts from trenching the pipeline, the use of heavy equipment, grading, 

and excavation. It is not anticipated that construction of Constitution’s project would uncover significant 

paleontological resources, and no known paleontological sites have been identified. However, there is the 

potential for unanticipated discovery of fossils along the entirety of the proposed route especially in areas 

of shallow bedrock or where bedrock removal is necessary. To minimize impacts on paleontological 
4-17 Geology

resources that may be uncovered during pipeline construction, Constitution would follow the procedures 

provided in its Discovery Plan and would notify the PADCNR Bureau of Topographic and Geologic 

Survey or the New York State Paleontologist and other relevant agencies. The Discovery Plan’s 

procedures include:

• shutdown of construction activities if sensitive paleontological resources are encountered;

• notification of Constitution’s cultural resource consultant (URS) who would contact the 

FERC and the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC), or the New 

York Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) as applicable1

;

• adherence to the FERC and the PHMC or the OPRHP instructions regarding stabilization 

of the area (if necessary); and

• consultation with the FERC and the PHMC or the OPRHP to determine and implement 

any additional mitigation measures deemed necessary.

Previous surveys conducted at the proposed compressor station parcel did not discover any 

paleontological finds. In addition, the closest catalogued paleontological artifact was discovered more 

than a mile from Iroquois’ project site (NYSDEC 2013b). However, the bedrock that underlies Iroquois’ 

project area could contain paleontological resources. Nevertheless, impacts on bedrock are expected to be

minimal and localized to foundation installations.

4.1.5 General Impacts and Mitigation

The overall effect of Constitution’s project on geologic resources would be minor. The primary 

effect of pipeline construction on geologic resources would be disturbances to steep topographic features 

found along the construction right-of-way. As described in section 2.3 all areas disturbed during 

construction including those considered rugged terrain would be graded and restored as closely as 

possible to pre-construction contours during cleanup and restoration. Restoration would be started within 

10 days after the completion pipeline construction. 

There are approximately 15 active mines (generally, sandstone and bluestone) within 0.25 mile of 

the proposed pipeline. Constitution’s pipeline would not pass through any active or proposed mines, and 

the closest active mine would be 171 feet away. The nearest active gas well is about 348 feet away from 

the pipeline construction right-of-way. There are no mining or oil and gas operations near Iroquois’ 

proposed project. Construction and operation of the projects would not result in a significant impact or 

additional restriction on current or future mining or oil and gas operations in the area.

Based on the low probability of localized earth movements or geologic hazards in the vicinity of 

the proposed projects, we do not anticipate any impacts attributable to such movements or hazards. 

Maintained pipelines constructed using modern arc-welding techniques have performed well in

seismically active areas of the United States, such as California (O’Rourke and Palmer 1994b). Only 

large, abrupt ground displacements have caused serious impacts on pipeline facilities. Due to the limited 

potential for large seismically induced ground movements in the area of the projects there is very little 

risk of earthquake-related impacts on the pipeline and other project facilities. Conditions necessary for 

soil liquefaction to occur would likely be present in some portions of the project area. However, due to 

the low potential for strong and prolonged ground shaking associated with a seismic event to occur, the 

potential for soil liquefaction to occur in the vicinity of the projects is very low.

 1 These agencies contain each state’s respective Historic Preservation Office, commonly referred to as a “SHPO.”
Geology 4-18

Several areas exist along the proposed route that have steep slopes and that have experienced 

landslide activity in the recent past. Constitution would follow its ECPs and employ erosion and slope 

stability BMPs as needed. Constitution would conduct on the ground and over-flight monitoring of the 

pipeline in areas where there is a potential landslide hazard. Additional measures and techniques that 

may be used to prevent impacts include:

• use of slope gauges; 

• drainage systems (french drain) to drain storm water away from the right of way;

• use of trench breakers to prevent water from draining down the trench;

• use of temporary and permanent trench plugs; and

• periodic inspection of the right-of-way for the life of the pipeline and inspection after rain 

events during construction and restoration.

Flash flooding in the area could potentially occur if rainfall amounts of 1.5 to 1.7 inches per hour 

are realized. Constitution has designed waterbody crossings to minimize potential impacts from flash 

flooding, scouring, and high flow velocities during pipeline construction and operation. High flow 

mitigation measures during construction include providing equipment to handle increased flow such as 

standby pumps at dam-and-pump locations and sizing flume pipes to be able to accommodate storm level 

flows. Flooding would not be anticipated at Iroquois’ project due to the absence of waterbodies on-site 

and nearby. 

Karst features such as sinkholes, caves, and caverns can form as a result of the long-term action 

of groundwater on soluble carbonate rocks (for example, limestone and dolostone). The risk of the 

development of sinkholes along the proposed pipeline is low. There are still however several areas where 

karst hazards have been identified or may potentially be present along the pipeline route. Constitution has 

developed a Karst Mitigation Plan to mitigate potential impacts and hazards from karst features. BMPs 

that may be used by Constitution during construction in areas of karst terrain include:

• installing storm water control measures;

• monitoring of sediment/ erosion control measures throughout the construction process 

and after rain events;

• using additional erosion control techniques such as two rows of silt fencing where water 

flows into a sink hole or cave; 

• positioning of staging areas at least 200 feet from a waterbody, sinkhole, spring, or cave;

• staging of construction waste and debris away from karst terrain;

• refueling of equipment at least 200 feet from karst features and waterbodies;

• adherence to Constitution’s Spill Plan to minimize and remediate any inadvertent releases 

or spills;

• monitoring of existing and any previously unidentified wells and springs within karst 

areas; 

• maintaining natural waterbody features;

• minimizing removal of riparian vegetation;

• revegetating disturbed areas after construction activities are complete;
4-19 Geology

• applying fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, or other chemicals at least 200 feet from 

waterbodies or karst features;

• discharging of hydrostatic test waters away from areas of known karst terrain;

• contacting geotechnical specialists if karst feature are found during construction; and

• conducting a geologic subsurface evaluation of the area using exploratory boreholes, 

electrical resistivity, seismic, or ground penetrating radar.

According to Constitution, areas where bedrock is exposed by construction and exhibits jointing 

or epikarst features would require special measures. Due to the potential for contamination and increased 

turbidity, Constitution would conduct additional monitoring for wells and springs within karst areas. This 

additional monitoring would apply to the three springs that supply water to the Village of Schoharie 

(Young, Dugan, and Truax Springs) and three private drinking water wells between MP 115 and MP 124. 

Monitoring would be conducted by Constitution before the start of construction to establish a baseline and 

would continue through construction at a rate of twice a day when construction is occurring within 2,000 

feet of the wells, springs, or groundwater flow path. In addition to the standard BMPs for controlling 

erosion at locations where water may flow into a karst feature, additional measures would be employed 

by Constitution. These measures may include the use at least two rows of silt fencing, monitoring of 

sediment and erosion control measures throughout construction and after a rain event, routing of runoff to 

sediment ponds, routing water away from the open trench, and use of geotextile fabric to line the trench 

and act as a runoff sediment barrier. 

Additional BMPs and the Karst Mitigation Plan are available in Constitution’s state-specific 

ECPs and provide further details on how karst features encountered during construction would be 

handled. Shallow depth to bedrock may be encountered. Constitution would first attempt to remove 

bedrock by using conventional methods such as ripping but blasting may become necessary. In order to 

minimize potential impacts from blasting, Constitution would comply with all federal, state, and local 

regulations for blasting and has developed a Blasting Plan that would be implemented during 

construction. As discussed in section 4.1.3.8 above, mitigation measures include installation of blasting 

mats in congested areas, shallow waterbodies, and near structures as well as the use of warning signals, 

flags, and barricades. Adjacent pipelines would be manned at valves in case of an emergency. In 

addition, Constitution’s Blasting Plan requires the blasting contractor to also prepare a site-specific 

blasting plan that includes site-specific details and blasting procedures. Blasting would be avoided in 

areas of limestone bedrock where cracks can form and the potential for contaminating groundwater exists. 

In these locations, bedrock would be removed by conventional means such as ripping or chipping. 

Constitution would investigate damage claims associated with blasting and would provide an alternative 

water source or mitigate damage through agreements with the well owner if a well is impaired. If 

structural damage due to blasting activities occurred, Constitution would compensate the affected owner 

or repair the damage. 

Iroquois stated that if blasting would be required for construction of the proposed compressor 

station, then it would:

• develop a site-specific blasting plan;

• locate and check both Iroquois and foreign facilities;

• obtain an engineering assessment to gauge safety concerns;

• coordinate with Tennessee regarding protection of their nearby facilities; and

• use both blast monitoring and post-blast surveys to assess any potential concerns. 
Soils 4-20

Impacts on geologic resources from the proposed projects during post-construction operations are

expected to be minimal or none. Permanent features resulting from the projects would include the 

subterranean pipeline and aboveground facilities, which include the proposed Westfall Road M&R 

station, Turnpike Road M&R station, associated facilities such as valves, and Iroquois’ compressor 

station. However, as no additional ground would be excavated during operation of the projects, no

operational impacts are expected related to geologic hazards. Based on the overall geologic conditions 

present in the projects’ area, and the Applicants’ proposed construction and operational methods, 

construction of the projects would not significantly alter the geologic condition of the area of the projects.

4.2 SOILS

4.2.1 Existing Conditions

4.2.1.1 Pipeline

The soils crossed by Constitution’s project were identified and assessed using various data 

sources including digital soils data such as the SSURGO database and published soil surveys, where 

available. The SSURGO database is a digital version of the original county soil surveys developed by the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the NRCS for use with GIS (NRCS 2013a). It provides the 

most detailed level of soils information for natural resource planning and management. The attribute data 

within the SSURGO database provide the proportionate extent of the component soils and their properties 

for each soil map unit. The U.S. General Soil Map was obtained from the NRCS Soil Data Mart and the 

NCRS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2013b). Additional information was obtained through published NRCS 

soil surveys for Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania and Broome, Chenango, Delaware, Otsego, and 

Schoharie Counties, New York. The pipeline would cross 239 different soil series types, primarily loams, 

that have a wide variety of characteristics. The soil series types that would be crossed by the pipeline are 

listed by milepost in appendix J. 

4.2.1.2 Aboveground Facilities and Access Roads

Constitution’s M&R Stations would cross four soil series types. Slopes range from 0 to 30 

percent, with soils generally consisting of till from sandstone and siltstone and loamy till from limestone, 

dolomite, calcareous shale, and small amounts of sandstone and siltstone. Constitution’s proposed MLVs 

would be within the proposed pipeline right-of-way so soil types would be the same as discussed above 

for the pipeline. Constitution’s six proposed contractor yards would cross 21 soil series types, and the

access roads would cross 112 soil series (see appendix J). 

4.2.2 Standard Soil Limitations

Several soil characteristics have the potential to affect, or be affected by, construction and 

operation of pipeline. These include erosion potential, depth to shallow bedrock, stony and rocky soils, 

compaction potential, revegetation concerns, drainage patterns, hydric soils, and prime farmlands or 

farmlands of statewide importance. Table 4.2.2-1 summarizes the amounts of soil characteristics in acres 

that would be impacted by construction of the pipeline.
4-21

4-21 Soils

TABLE 4.2.2-1

Potential Soil Limitations (in acres) for the Constitution Pipeline Project

County/State

Potential 

Water 

Erosiona

Potential 

Wind 

Erosionb

Stony/ Rocky 

Soilsc

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockd

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentiale

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialf

Poor 

Drainage 

Potentialg

Hydric 

Soilsh

Prime 

Farmlandsi

Pennsylvania

Susquehanna 

County

25.2 -- -- 72.5 0.2 -- 3.4 3.4 83.0

Pennsylvania 

(sub-total)

25.2 -- -- 72.5 0.2 -- 3.4 3.4 83.0

New York

Broome County 1.0 -- -- 26.1 19.9 42.2 12.2 -- 88.9

Chenango 

County

-- -- -- 24.3 9.6 -- 2.4 -- 59.0

Delaware 

County

2.7 0.4 -- 140.7 -- -- 4.8 0.2 273.4

Schoharie 

County

21.0 -- 3.6 149.7 -- -- 18.0 15.4 125.7

New York 

(sub-total)

24.7 0.4 3.6 340.8 29.4 42.2 37.4 15.6 547.0

Constitution 

Pipeline Project 

Total

49.9 0.4 3.6 413.3 29.6 42.2 40.8 19.0 630.1
4-22

Soils

4-22

TABLE 4.2.2-1 (continued)

Potential Soil Limitations (in acres) for Areas by the Constitution Pipeline Project

County/State

Potential 

Water 

Erosiona

Potential 

Wind 

Erosionb

Stony/ Rocky 

Soilsc

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockd

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentiale

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialf

Poor 

Drainage 

Potentialg

Hydric 

Soilsh

Prime 

Farmlandsi

____________________

Source: NCRS 2013a

Table includes temporary and permanent access roads.

Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding.

a Areas identified as Highly Water Erodible Soils are ranked as “Very Severe” or “Severe” by SSURGO Erosion Hazard (Off-Road, Off-Trail) criteria.

b Areas identified as Highly Wind Erodible Soils have a Wind Erodibility Index of 134 or greater as determined by SSURGO.

c Areas identified to have shallow depth to bedrock are described as having bedrock less than 5 feet from the surface as determined by SSURGO.

d Areas identified to have Stony/Rocky Soils are lands that are composed of 20% or more of rock fragments larger than 3 inches in the surface layer as determined by 

SSURGO.

e Areas identified to have a severe compaction potential are limited to agricultural and residential lands that contain soils with a mean high water table of 1.5 feet or less 

below the surface elevation and have a surface texture of sandy clay loam, or finer as determined by SSURGO. 

f Areas identified to have poor revegetation potential are lands that contain a Capability Class 3 or greater, a low available water capacity, and slopes greater than 8% as 

determined by SSURGO.

g Areas identified to have poor drainage potential are ranked as “poor” or “very poor” as determined by SSURGO.

h Areas identified to have a hydric rating meet the all hydric criteria as determined by SSURGO.

i Areas identified as Prime Farmland are identified as lands that meet the All Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance criteria as determined by NRCS 

SSURGO.
4-23 Soils

4.2.2.1 Erosion by Water and Wind

Erosion is a continuing natural process that can be accelerated by human disturbance. Factors 

such as soil texture, structure, slope, vegetative cover, rainfall intensity, and wind intensity can influence 

the degree of erosion. Soils most susceptible to erosion by water are typified by bare or sparse vegetative 

cover, non-cohesive soil particles with low infiltration rates, and moderate to steep slopes. Soils typically 

more resistant to erosion by water include those that occupy low relief areas, are well vegetated, and have 

high infiltration capacity and internal permeability. Wind erosion processes are less affected by slope 

angles than water erosion processes. Wind-induced erosion often occurs on dry soil where vegetative 

cover is sparse and strong winds are prevalent. 

The potential for soils to be eroded by water was evaluated based on the K factor, where 

available, and slope. The K factor represents a relative quantitative index of the susceptibility of bare soil 

to particle detachment and transport by water and is one of the factors used in the Revised Universal Soil 

Loss Equation to calculate soil loss.

The proposed pipeline would impact 49.9 acres of soils that are classified as having very severe 

or severe water erosion potential classifications. These areas are primarily in Susquehanna County, 

Pennsylvania and Schoharie County, New York. Potential wind erosion would only affect 0.4 acre, all in 

Delaware County, New York (table 4.2.2-1 and appendix J).

4.2.2.2 Shallow Depth to Bedrock and Stony-Rocky Soils

Soils with textural classifications including stony, cobbly, gravelly, shale, slate, and droughty in 

any layer, or with stones larger than 3 inches in the surface layer in greater than 15 percent of the area, 

may be characterized as stony or rocky soil. Shallow bedrock is considered prevalent where the depth to 

bedrock is less than 5 feet below the ground surface.

The pipeline would impact 3.6 acres of stony or rocky soils, all in Schoharie County, New York. 

The proposed route crosses 413.3 acres of shallow bedrock, which primarily would be encountered in 

Delaware and Schoharie Counties, New York. Potential impacts from stony-rocky soils would be 

minimized on agricultural lands through the removal of rock fragments brought to the surface during 

construction. Topsoil removed from the trench line would be segregated and stockpiled during 

construction activities. In residential areas replacement soil may be used instead of topsoil segregation 

methods. Prior to topsoil replacement, topsoil would be screened for rock fragments greater than 4 inches 

in diameter. The trench may be back filled with excavated material, but would only be filled to the height 

of the existing bedrock horizon. In agricultural lands the trench would generally only be backfilled to 2 

feet below the B horizon sub-soil surface in mesic soils or 30 inches in frigid soils to prevent 

incorporation of rock into agricultural lands.

4.2.2.3 Compaction Potential

Soil compaction modifies the structure and reduces the porosity and moisture-holding capacity of 

soils. The degree of compaction was evaluated based on the drainage class of the soil. Very poorly and 

poorly drained soils were considered to have a high potential for compaction. The proposed pipeline 

would impact 29.6 acres of soils considered to have high compaction potential, almost completely in 

Broome and Chenango Counties, New York. 
Soils 4-24

4.2.2.4 Poor Revegetation Potential

The vegetation potential of soils is based on several characteristics including topsoil thickness, 

soil texture, available water capacity, wetness, susceptibility to flooding, soil temperature, and slope. 

Some soils have characteristics that cause a high seed mortality. These areas may need additional 

management and may be difficult to revegetate. The clearing and grading of soils with poor revegetation 

potential could result in a lack of adequate vegetation following construction and restoration of the rightof-way, which could lead to increased erosion, a reduction in wildlife habitat, and adverse visual impacts. 

The proposed pipeline crosses 42.2 acres of soils classified as having poor revegetation potential, all in 

Broome County, New York. 

4.2.2.5 Poor Drainage

The drainage potential is the degree, frequency, and duration of wetness for a given soil. Soils 

that are considered to be well drained do not hold water well, will not pond, and dry quickly. Poorly 

drained soils are usually associated with high groundwater, will remain soggy, and do not conduct water 

well. Poorly drained soils are more likely to be compacted and are more prone to rutting than well 

drained soils. The pipeline would impact 40.8 acres of soils with poor drainage potential. The majority 

of these soils (37.4 acres) occur in the New York portion of the project, with the largest acreage (18.0 

acres) occurring in Schoharie County. Table 4.2.2-1 identifies the impacts of soils with poor drainage 

potential.

4.2.2.6 Hydric Soils

The National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils defines hydric soils as soils that formed 

under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop 

anaerobic conditions in the upper part (Federal Register 1994). These soils are typically indicative of 

areas with a high mean water table and wetlands. However, agricultural lands can contain hydric soils 

that are no longer saturated due to managed hydrology for crop development. Agricultural lands often 

employ the use of ditches and drain tiles to allow for the production of crops. The proposed pipeline 

crosses 19.0 acres of hydric soils, the majority (15.4 acres) of which is in Schoharie County, New York. 

Table 4.2.2-1 identifies the impacts of soils that are considered to be hydric.

4.2.2.7 Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance

The USDA defines prime farmland as “land that has the best combination of physical and 

chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, and oilseed crops” (USDA 1993). This 

designation includes cultivated land, pasture, woodland, or other lands that are either used for food or 

fiber crops, or are available for these uses. Urbanized land, built-up land, and open water cannot be 

designated as prime farmland. Prime farmland typically contains few or no rocks, is permeable to water 

and air, is not excessively erodible or saturated with water for long periods, and is not subject to frequent

or prolonged flooding during the growing season. Soils that do not meet the above criteria may be 

considered prime farmland if the limiting factor is mitigated (e.g., by draining or irrigating).

The methods for defining and listing farmland of statewide importance are determined by the 

appropriate state agencies such as the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and NYSDAM, typically 

in association with local soil conservation districts or other local agencies. Farmland of statewide 

importance generally includes areas that almost satisfy the requirements for prime farmland and which 

grow high yields of crops when managed in accordance with best farming methods.
4-25 Soils

The proposed pipeline crosses 630.1 acres of prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance 

(table 4.2.2-1). These farmlands would be crossed in each of the five counties traversed by the route, but 

the largest acreages affected would be in Delaware and Schoharie Counties, New York. The locations of 

prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance crossed by the proposed pipeline are listed in 

appendix J. Specialty and organic farms and related programs are discussed in section 4.8 

Farmlands that are considered to be prime or of statewide importance can be further broken down 

into several subcategories including active agricultural land, agricultural land/fallow field, managed forest 

land, and open field/open land. Table 4.2.2-2 identifies impacts on these farmland subcategories both 

through construction and operation.

In addition to farmlands that are considered prime or of statewide importance the pipeline would 

cross several miles of vulnerable soils. These soils are considered vulnerable due to characteristics of 

high erodibility, vulnerability to wetness, shallow depth to bedrock, or are organic mucklands. The 

pipeline would cross 22.6 miles of vulnerable soils (see table 4.2.2-3).

4.2.2.8 Contaminated Soil

As discussed in section 2.3.1, no areas of contaminated soils were identified along the proposed 

pipeline alignment or at the proposed aboveground facility locations. Constitution has developed a 

Contamination Plan, which would be used in the event that unanticipated contamination is encountered 

during the construction.

4.2.2.9 Ground Heaving

Ground heaving is the uplifting of soil, typically based on the development and growth of ice 

lenses underneath the upper soil layer. Ground heaving or frost heaving is based on soil saturation, soil 

characteristics, and freezing temperatures. The maximum depth of frost penetration within the area of the 

projects does not exceed 5 feet and in most years it is approximately 4 feet or less (NOAA 1978). The 

pipeline would have a typical bottom depth of 5.5 feet (except in consolidated rock), and the likelihood of 

frost affecting soils completely surrounding the buried pipeline is low. Additionally, the ground 

surrounding the buried pipeline would be warmed by natural gas flow in the winter. Based on these 

circumstances the risk of ground heaving and associated potential impacts on or from a pipeline, from 

freeze-thaw action is low.
Soils

4-26

TABLE 4.2.2-2 

Impacts on Prime Farmlands and Farmlands of Statewide Importance (in acres) for the Proposed Constitution Pipeline Project

Farmland 

Classification

Total Farmland Impacts

Farmland Type

Active Agricultural Land

Agricultural Land/Fallow 

Field Managed Forest Land Open Field/Open Land

Construction 

Impacts

Operation

Impacts

Construction 

Impacts

Operation 

Impacts

Construction 

Impacts

Operation 

Impacts

Construction 

Impacts

Operation 

Impacts

Construction 

Impacts

Operation 

Impacts

Pipeline 471.1 226.7 292.6 118.7 0.6 0.2 14.9 6.6 163.0 101.2

Access Roads 11.5 11.0 6.9 6.6 -- -- -- -- 4.6 4.2

Turnpike Road 

M&R Station

0.7 0.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Westfall Road 

M&R Station

1.7 1.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Contractor 

Yards

70.5 -- 36.2 -- -- -- -- -- 57.7 --

Project Total 555.4 240.1 335.8 125.3 0.6 0.2 14.9 6.6 225.3 105.4

____________________

Source: NCRS 2013a

Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding.
4-27 Soils

TABLE 4.2.2-3 

Vulnerable Soils (in miles) Along the Proposed Constitution Pipeline Route

Vulnerable Soil 

Typesa

County

Susquehanna Broome Chenango Delaware Schoharie Project Total

V/B 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.1 1.6

V/W 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.1

V/W; VE 2.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.9 4.0

V/W; VE; V/B 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

V/W; V/OR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

VE 2.7 1.9 0.8 3.1 4.3 12.8

VE; V/B 0.5 0.3 0.0 1.0 1.1 2.9

Totals 5.4 2.8 0.9 5.5 8.0 22.6

____________________

Source: NCRS 2013a.

Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding.

a VE – Highly erodible land; V/W – Vulnerability due to wetness; V/B – Shallow depth to bedrock; V/OR – Unavoidable 

organic mucklands. 

4.2.3 Aboveground Facilities

4.2.3.1 M&R Stations, Mainline Valves, and Iroquois’ Project

The areas of the proposed Turnpike Road M&R Station, Westfall Road M&R station, and 

Iroquois’ facility do not contain any soils that have associated limitations, except for shallow bedrock and 

incidences of prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance. An estimated 3.7 acres of shallow 

bedrock would be potentially impacted with regards to the construction of the Turnpike Road M&R 

Station, and 1.7 acres of soils with shallow bedrock would be encountered at the Westfall Road M&R 

Station. If bedrock is encountered during construction, Constitution would attempt to employ mechanical 

means of bedrock removal before blasting is considered. At the Turnpike Road and Westfall Road M&R 

Stations there are 0.1 and 1.7 acres of prime farmlands or farmlands of statewide importance,

respectively. These prime farmlands or farmlands of statewide importance would be permanently 

encumbered by the M&R stations. An additional breakdown of impacts on prime farmlands and 

farmlands of statewide importance can be found in table 4.2.2-2 for both the Turnpike Road and Westfall 

Road M&R Stations. 

The work associated with Iroquois’ project would be within or directly adjacent to soils that have 

been previously disturbed by Iroquois’ existing Wright Compressor Station. Modifications and 

construction at Iroquois’ Wright Compressor Station for the new proposed compressor station would 

occur within the existing property boundary of the station site. Construction of Iroquois’ project would 

require 12.5 acres of temporary workspace, including 2.1 acres within the existing fence line, 2.4 acres 

outside the existing fence line, but within the new, expanded fence line (this area also would be retained 

permanently for operations), and 8.0 acres of temporary workspace outside the proposed new, expanded 

fence line that eventually would be allowed to return to its pre-construction state. No additional property 

would need to be acquired by Iroquois.

Soils potentially impacted by construction of the compressor station are similar to the soils series 

located at the terminus of the pipeline. Based on information provided by Iroquois, the construction area 
Soils 4-28

for Iroquois’ project is within the Honeoye-Farmington complex. This complex does not have poor 

revegetation potential or soil compaction potential, and only a slight risk of erosion.

Prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance are listed for the soil types that do exist in 

the area of the proposed compressor station. However, the site is an existing industrial facility with 

adjacent idle woodlands and pasture used for hay production. The property containing the existing 

compressor station and Iroquois’ project are owned by Iroquois and no crops are grown. Facility 

expansion associated with the proposed compressor station would permanently encumber designated 

prime farmland and/or farmland of statewide importance, but given the property ownership and current 

land use, there would be no substantive impacts on farming. No contaminated soils or sites were 

identified in proximity to Iroquois’ proposed project.

The MLVs would be constructed along the pipeline route. Therefore, existing conditions and 

potential impacts would generally be the same as those discussed above for the pipeline during 

construction. The installation of MLVs would encumber 0.8 acre of prime farmland or farmland of 

statewide importance at 9 MLV sites (the other two MLVs would be located at the M&R stations).

4.2.3.2 Contractor Yards

Constitution identified six contractor yards that would be used during construction. These yards 

would be located within 5.0 acres of highly erodible soils, 3 acres of shallow bedrock, 18.6 acres of soils 

with poor revegetation potential, 0.3 acres of soils with poor drainage potential, and 70.5 acres of prime 

farmland or farmland of statewide importance. These yards would be returned to preconstruction 

conditions following construction and would not represent new permanent impacts on soil resources. The

majority of land use types for the contractor yards is agricultural and open land with a small amount of 

sand and gravel, road, and commercial and industrial land being occupied by one of the proposed 

contractor yards in Otsego County. Site improvements that would be made at the contractor yards include 

sediment and erosion control, topsoil segregation on agricultural lands, grading, gravel base, and creation 

of a construction entrance. An additional breakdown of impacts on prime farmlands and farmlands of 

statewide importance can be found in table 4.2.2-2.

4.2.3.3 Access Roads

Construction of access roads associated with the pipeline would not impact soils that are 

potentially susceptible to wind erosion or stony and rocky soils. Potential impacts associated with other 

soil limitations would be relatively minor, except for shallow bedrock and prime farmland or farmland of 

statewide importance. Table 4.2.3-1 identifies soil limitations by county for access roads associated with 

the proposed pipeline. Shallow bedrock would not be of concern since no trenching would take place on 

the access roads. Potential impacts on 34.8 acres of prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance 

would be largely permanent as most of the access roads would be permanent roads as currently proposed. 

Only impacts on 1.6 acres of prime farmlands and 0.3 acre of shallow depth to bedrock would be 

attributable to temporary access roads. An additional breakdown of impacts on prime farmlands and 

farmlands of statewide importance can be found in table 4.2.2-2. Information regarding site-specific 

justification for permanent access roads can be found in section 4.8 and appendix E.

4.2.3.4 Extra Workspace

Extra workspace to be utilized during the construction of the pipeline would not impact soils that 

are potentially susceptible to wind erosion or contain stony or rocky soils. Table 4.2.3-2 identifies soil 

limitations by county for extra workspaces associated with the pipeline. Shallow bedrock would not be of 
4-29 Soils

TABLE 4.2.3-1

Soil Limitations (in acres) for Access Roads for the Constitution Pipeline Project

State/County

Length 

(miles)

Potential 

Water 

Erosiona

Potential 

Wind 

Erosionb

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsc

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockd

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentiale

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialf

Poor 

Drainage 

Potentialg

Hydric 

Soilsh

Prime 

Farmlandsi

Pennsylvania

Susquehanna 6.9 2.7 -- -- 10.1 -- -- -- -- 11.0

New York

Broome 1.8 -- -- -- 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.2 -- 1.4

Chenango 0.4 -- -- -- 0.9 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.9

Delaware 10.1 -- -- -- 7.7 -- -- -- -- 17.6

Schoharie 13.1 0.2 -- -- 2.8 -- -- 0.0 0.0 3.9

Project Total 32.4 2.8 0.0 0.0 21.6 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.0 34.8

_____________________

Source: NCRS 2013a

Table includes temporary and permanent access roads.

Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding.

a Areas identified as Highly Water Erodible Soils are ranked as “Very Severe” or “Severe” by SSURGO Erosion Hazard (Off-Road, Off-Trail) criteria.

b Areas identified as Highly Wind Erodible Soils have a Wind Erodibility Index of 134 or greater as determined by SSURGO.

c Areas identified to have shallow depth to bedrock are described as having bedrock less than 5 feet from the surface as determined by SSURGO.

d Areas identified to have Stony/Rocky Soils are lands that are composed of 20% or more of rock fragments larger than 3 inches in the surface layer as determined by 

SSURGO.

e Areas identified to have a severe compaction potential are limited to agricultural and residential lands that contain soils with a mean high water table of 1.5 feet or less below 

the surface elevation and have a surface texture of sandy clay loam, or finer as determined by SSURGO. 

f Areas identified to have poor revegetation potential are lands that contain a Capability Class 3 or greater, a low available water capacity, and slopes greater than 8% as 

determined by SSURGO.

g Areas identified to have poor drainage potential are ranked as “poor” or “very poor” as determined by SSURGO.

h Areas identified to have a hydric rating meet the all hydric criteria as determined by SSURGO.

i Areas identified as Prime Farmland are identified as lands that meet the All Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance criteria as determined by SSURGO.
Soils

4-30

TABLE 4.2.3-2

Soil Limitations (in acres) for Additional Temporary Workspaces for the Constitution Pipeline Project

County

Potential 

Water 

Erosiona

Potential 

Wind 

Erosionb

Stony/ Rocky 

Soilsc

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockd

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentiale

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialf

Poor 

Drainage 

Potentialg Hydric Soilsh Prime 

Farmlandsi

Pennsylvania

Susquehanna 2.8 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 9.1

New York

Broome 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.6 2.7 1.0 0.0 8.6

Chenango 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 6.3

Delaware 0.5 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 25.1

Schoharie 1.5 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.7 11.0

Project Total 4.8 0.0 0.0 23.2 1.7 2.7 3.8 1.4 60.1

____________________

Source: NCRS 2013a

Table includes temporary and permanent access roads.

Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding.

a Areas identified as Highly Water Erodible Soils are ranked as “Very Severe” or “Severe” by SSURGO Erosion Hazard (Off-Road, Off-Trail) criteria.

b Areas identified as Highly Wind Erodible Soils have a Wind Erodibility Index of 134 or greater as determined by SSURGO.

c Areas identified to have shallow depth to bedrock are described as having bedrock less than 5 feet from the surface as determined by SSURGO.

d Areas identified to have Stony/Rocky Soils are lands that are composed of 20% or more of rock fragments larger than 3 inches in the surface layer as determined by 

SSURGO.

e Areas identified to have a severe compaction potential are limited to agricultural and residential lands that contain soils with a mean high water table of 1.5 feet or less below 

the surface elevation and have a surface texture of sandy clay loam, or finer as determined by SSURGO. 

f Areas identified to have poor revegetation potential are lands that contain a Capability Class 3 or greater, a low available water capacity, and slopes greater than 8% as 

determined by SSURGO.

g Areas identified to have poor drainage potential are ranked as “poor” or “very poor” as determined by SSURGO.

h Areas identified to have a hydric rating meet the all hydric criteria as determined by SSURGO.

i Areas identified as Prime Farmland are identified as lands that meet the All Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance criteria as determined by SSURGO.
4-31 Soils

concern since no trenching would take place at any of the extra workspace locations. The proposed extra 

workspaces would cross 60.1 acres of prime farmlands or farmlands of statewide importance, but impacts 

associated with extra workspaces would be temporary as these spaces would be allowed to revert to preconstruction conditions and uses following construction.

4.2.4 General Impact and Mitigation

Construction activities such as clearing, grading, trench excavation, backfilling, and the 

movement of construction equipment along the right-of-way would affect soil resources. Clearing 

removes protective cover and exposes the soil to the effects of wind and rain, which increases the 

potential for soil erosion and sedimentation of sensitive areas. Grading, spoil storage, and equipment 

traffic can compact soil reducing porosity and increasing runoff potential. Excess rock or fill material 

brought to the surface during trenching operations could hinder restoration of the right-of-way. 

To prevent soil erosion Constitution would follow the BMPs that are outlined in its state-specific 

ECPs. Constitution’s BMPs contain guidance from the PADEP’s Erosion and Sediment Pollution 

Control Program Manual (March 2012), the NYSDEC’s New York State Standards and Specifications for 

Erosion and Sediment Control, and the Plan and Procedures, which Constitution has adopted from the 

FERC. Constitution would also prepare site-specific erosion and sediment control plans describing 

specific BMPs that would be used to prevent impacts from construction such as: temporary and 

permanent slope breakers, topsoil segregation, restoration of soil layering, restoration of surface contours, 

and revegetation using recommended seed mixes. To minimize potential impacts near waterbodies and 

wetlands, temporary erosion control devices would be installed prior to construction. These would be 

inspected regularly to determine whether repair or replacement is necessary and would only be removed 

following the successful revegetation of an affected area. Constitution would also employ permanent 

erosion control devices such as installing trench breakers at the base of slopes greater than 5 percent and 

within 50 feet of a waterbody or wetland and constructing slope breakers in all areas except for cultivated 

areas.

Potential impacts on compaction prone soils would be mitigated by utilizing methods described in 

Constitution’s Soil Protection and Subsoil Decompaction Plan contained within the state-specific ECPs. 

Soils with moderate moisture content would typically be more prone to compaction associated with 

construction activities than dry soils. Potential impacts on compaction prone soils would be mitigated 

through the use of timber or board mats through wetland areas. In agricultural areas Constitution would 

employ topsoil segregation techniques and prevent the mixing of topsoil with subsoil and/or rock. Soil 

identified as being compacted would be mitigated in two phases. In the first phase the contractor would 

deep rip and rock pick the subsoil with a deep tillage device. Stones that are larger than 4 inches would 

be removed from the subsoil area being ripped. The second phase following topsoil replacement would 

employ a paratill to loosen the soil to a depth of 20 to 22 inches. Additionally, Constitution would 

conduct compaction tests and till compacted subsurface soils in agricultural and residential areas through 

the use of paratills or similar equipment as identified in the ECPs. Constitution has also adopted two 

guidance documents prepared by NYSDAM: Special Crop Productivity Monitoring Procedures and 

Seeding, Fertilizing, and Lime Recommendations for Gas Pipeline Right-of-way Restoration in Farmland. 

The implementation of these guidance documents, as well as Constitution’s Organic Farm Protection Plan 

(section 4.8), all would assist with the prevention, minimization, or mitigation of potential impacts on 

soils and associated resources such as farms. 

In order to minimize and mitigate potential impacts on areas with poor revegetation potential, 

Constitution would follow several procedures during construction, such as:

• restoration of the right-of-way with lime, fertilizer, seed, and mulch;
Soils 4-32

• selection of the proper seed mix using guidance from appropriate agencies and sources;

• preparation of the seedbed to ensure effective seed application;

• broadcast seeding (where completed by hand) in two separate perpendicular passes at one 

half rate to ensure proper coverage;

• use of netting or matting made of jute, wood excelsior, or similar materials to anchor 

mulch where needed; and 

• restoration and seeding of the right-of-way within 20 working days after final grading has 

been completed, with reseeding taking place within 6 working days after final grading. 

Soils with moderate moisture content may be more prone to compaction associated with 

construction activities than dry soils. Potential impacts on compaction prone soils would be mitigated 

through the use of timber or board mats to cross areas that are compaction prone. Additionally, 

Constitution would conduct compaction tests and till compacted subsurface soils in agricultural and 

residential areas through the use of paratill or similar equipment as identified in the ECPs. Constitution 

would use a combination of BMPs to remove excess water from the trench, known as dewatering, 

including:

• sump pits located at the lowest depth of the trench;

• sediment filter bags to remove sediment greater than 150 microns;

• sediment filter bags placed in vegetated areas to provide additional filtration;

• discharge locations in approved well vegetated upland areas; and

• employment of BMPs if the discharge from filter bags appears milky or excessively 

cloudy.

In areas of shallow depth to bedrock Constitution would employ subsoil protection techniques. 

These techniques may include separately stockpiling the “B” soil horizon up to a depth of 12 inches or to 

the top of the bedrock layer or from the full top width of the trench and spoil pile area. Excavated 

bedrock would be removed from the site at the time of excavation and using imported subsoil material to 

backfill the trench. The use of the techniques would be decided on a site-specific basis.

Hydric soils are most often associated with wetlands. Constitution plans to employ the following 

BMPs and techniques when crossing wetlands. Additional information and details can be found in the 

state-specific project ECPs. To protect and minimize impacts on wetlands, Constitution would:

• educate construction personnel on wetland construction techniques and wetland 

locations;

• limit the typical workspace to 75 feet where possible through wetlands;

• accelerate construction activities in and adjacent to wetlands where possible;

• limit equipment operation to those necessary for construction of the pipeline;

• stabilize upland areas; and

• inspect the right-of-way periodically both during and after construction as well as make 

repairs to erosion control devices and restoration features.

When constructing in saturated wetlands Constitution would employ the following techniques:
4-33 Soils

• minimize the clearing of vegetation and removal of stumps;

• install sediment barriers across the right-of-way at the edge of the wetland following 

ground disturbance;

• if vegetation clearing is required, vegetation would be cut at ground level by hand, or by 

equipment that does not cause rutting, or by using equipment on equipment mats;

• if possible a maximum of two equipment mat layers would be used;

• no topsoil segregation would be conducted in inundated wetlands; and

• in areas with standing water equipment would be supported by floats, pontoons, or 

equipment mats.

Potential impacts on agriculture and prime farmlands would be minimized by implementing the 

BMPs that are provided in Constitution’s ECPs. ECPs for agricultural lands and prime farmlands were 

developed from the FERC Plan as well as NYSDAM’s Pipeline Right-of-Way Construction Projects 

Agricultural Mitigation, through the Stages of Planning, Construction/Restoration and Follow-up 

Monitoring guidance.

Mitigation methods include replacement of segregated topsoil, stone removal, and compliance 

with re-seeding recommendations. Pasture land would be protected by use of alternative grazing 

locations and alternate locations where livestock can cross the construction corridor. Potential grazing 

deferment plans may be negotiated with the landowner. Reimbursement of any damage or loss of product 

due to construction activities would be negotiated with the landowner/producers. Impacts on agricultural 

lands would be mitigated by use of the following measures including: 

• employment of agricultural inspectors (AIs) / Drainage Specialists for monitoring 

specific to each part of project construction;

• implementation of grazing deferment programs, creation of trench fencing and crossings, 

as well as site-specific organic farm protection plans;

• installation of construction entrances that would be constructed of stone placed on 

geotextile fabric located at paved road intersections;

• repair of any impacts on subsurface drains;

• segregation of topsoil, removal of rock greater than 4 inches, and subsoil decompaction; 

and

• monitoring that would be conducted for 2 years after the initial in-service date or 

restoration.

Agricultural soils identified as having fragipans (which can be related to water boils) would be 

mitigated by follow-up monitoring and installation of interceptor drain tiles. There are 5.4 miles of soils 

that are considered to be highly erodible land, vulnerable due to wetness, shallow depth to bedrock, or 

unavoidable organic mucklands in Pennsylvania; 17.2 such miles are in New York. Additional details on 

these farmlands can be found in Constitution’s ECPs. Serious hydrology and subsurface flow issues 

would be avoided by implementation of a planned system of sandbag trench breakers. 

In agricultural areas where soils become saturated before topsoil segregation occurs, the AI would 

either halt work or allow construction to proceed as long as rutting does not exceed pre-determined 

depths. Constitution has proposed to determine the allowable depth of rutting by subtracting 6 inches 
Soils 4-34

from the topsoil depth as determined by the AI. For example, if the topsoil depth is 14 inches, the 

maximum depth of rutting would be 8 inches. However, the NYSDAM recommends a maximum 

allowable rutting depth of 4 inches in all agricultural fields regardless of topsoil depth. Because these 

areas contain vulnerable highly productive soils, we recommend that:

• Constitution should adhere to a maximum allowable construction equipment rutting 

depth of 4 inches in saturated agricultural areas, where Constitution has not 

segregated topsoil across the full right-of-way width.

Additionally, according to the NYSDAM, restoration of agricultural areas is generally not 

possible between October 1 through May 15 due to excessive soil moisture which can result in loss and/or 

mixing of topsoil during replacement. The NYSDAM has requested that the soil workability be 

determined prior to conducting any agricultural restoration during this timeframe in consultation with the 

FERC, the NYSDAM, and the AI. We agree restoration during these timeframes may result in loss of 

productive soils and therefore recommend that: 

• Prior to conducting any agricultural restoration between October 1 and May 15, 

Constitution should determine soil workability in consultation with the FERC, the 

NYSDAM, and the AI for all New York agricultural parcels. 

Revegetation of agricultural lands and crops would be considered to be complete if the yields of 

crops on impacts lands are similar to yields in other un-impacted sections of the same field. Monitoring 

of impacted agricultural lands would continue for at least two growing seasons following restoration. 

Constitution would provide agricultural inspectors to make sure contractors use and maintain the proper 

erosion and sediment control BMPs during construction. Attachment 4 to the state-specific ECPs 

specifies the criteria for agricultural monitoring, which includes plant populations, general appearance, 

and yields.

Constitution would monitor for problems related to topsoil replacement, soil-profile, compaction, 

rocks, drainage, and irrigation stems that are the result of pipeline construction in agricultural areas and 

would continue to correct problems until an AI declares restoration to be complete.

4.2.5 Topsoil Segregation

Topsoil is the uppermost layer of soil, typically has the highest concentration of organic 

materials, and generally has greater biological productivity than subsurface soils. The micro-organisms 

and other biological material typically found in topsoil provide necessary nutrients to vegetation. Topsoil 

also has the highest concentration of plant root and seeds. Topsoil preservation is important especially for 

restoration of natural vegetation and cropland, especially in areas where topsoil is limited in extent or 

depth. Topsoil would be segregated across the width of the construction workspace in agricultural areas 

including improved pastures and residential areas, and in areas where requested by the landowner and in 

accordance with Constitution’s state-specific ECPs. In unsaturated wetlands, up to 12 inches of topsoil 

would be segregated over the pipeline trench. Topsoil segregation would not be possible in wetlands with 

saturated soils or standing water.

Topsoil would be removed to a minimum depth of 12 inches in accordance with Constitution’s 

state-specific ECPs. Topsoil would be stockpiled in a manner that prevents mixing with subsurface soil. 

Silt fences and other barriers would be installed to prevent erosion and siltation from the stockpiles from 

migrating into nearby wetlands and waterbodies. 
4-35 Water Resources

Iroquois would segregate suitable topsoil from the compressor station area. The segregated 

topsoil would then be utilized in final site grading. If Iroquois is unable to stockpile a sufficient amount 

of topsoil, topsoil may be imported from off-site sources. Silt fences and other barriers would be installed 

to prevent erosion and siltation from the stockpiles into nearby wetlands and waterbodies. 

Construction associated with the compressor station would be within or directly adjacent to soils 

that have been previously disturbed by Iroquois’ existing Wright Compressor Station. To minimize 

general construction-related effects to soils, Iroquois would implement measures described in its Plan and 

Procedures. These measures would include inspection during construction, installation and maintenance 

of erosion control devices, spill prevention measures, topsoil segregation, soil compaction mitigation in 

restored areas, and revegetation. 

Impacts of Constitution’s project during post-construction operations are expected to be minimal. 

Permanent impacts from the projects would include aboveground facilities, which include the proposed 

Westfall Road M&R station, Turnpike Road M&R station, MLVs, and the proposed compressor station. 

However, as no additional ground would be excavated during operation of Constitution’s aboveground 

facilities and Iroquois’ project, no impacts are expected during operations. Based on the overall soil 

conditions present in the projects’ area, Constitution and Iroquois’ proposed construction and operation 

methods, we conclude that construction of the projects would not significantly alter the soils of the region.

4.3 WATER RESOURCES

4.3.1 Groundwater Resources

4.3.1.1 Existing Groundwater Resources

Pennsylvania

Groundwater resources in Pennsylvania originate from Devonian-aged sedimentary rock 

consisting of sandstones, shales, and limestones. Shale and sandstone bedrock aquifers are not considered 

principal aquifers as their yields are lower than sand and gravel aquifers. Shale aquifer wells yield 5 to 20 

gallons per minute (gpm) of groundwater while sandstone aquifer wells yield 5 to 60 gpm of 

groundwater. Yields can be increased to 200 gpm by drilling wells in fractured rock. Bedrock within 

Pennsylvania is covered by a layer of ground moraine deposits of loamy till (Trapp and Horn 1997). 

Surficial aquifers in Pennsylvania tend to be along major streams and consist of unconsolidated 

sand and gravel deposits. Surficial aquifer yields range from 400 to 750 gpm near the Lehigh and 

Delaware Rivers, but could be as high as 1,300 gpm in other areas of northeastern Pennsylvania, and a 

few wells along the Susquehanna River have yields as high as 3,000 gpm (Trapp and Horn 1997). 

Pennsylvania residents rely on private water wells as a primary source of drinking water. Seventy-five 

percent of the total water used in Susquehanna County comes from groundwater (Fleeger 1999). The 

majority of the pipeline route in Pennsylvania crosses unconfined aquifers, in which the water table is 

exposed to the atmosphere (USGS 2002). Aquifers underlying the proposed pipeline are described in 

table 4.3.1-1. 
Water Resources 4-36

TABLE 4.3.1-1

Aquifers Crossed by the Proposed Projects

State/Aquifer Type Start Milepost End Milepost

Approximate 

Depth (feet)

Average Yield 

(gpm)

New York 

Principal 

Aquifer

Pennsylvania

Other Rock 

(Devonian-aged)

0.0 25.2 18-250, 

average 91

5-200 No

Surficial 19.8 22.0 6-30 400-3,000 No

New York

Other Rock 

(Devonian-aged)

25.2 110.5 18-250, 

average 91

5-200 No

Surficial 28.6 29.0 <10 10-100 Yes

Surficial 32.7 34.4 <10 10-100 Yes

Surficial 35.4 36.8 <10 10-100 Yes

Surficial 44.9 46.5 <10 10-100 Yes

Surficial 47.1 47.3 Unknown Unknown Yes

Surficial 47.3 47.8 >10 >100 Yes

Surficial 47.8 48.4 Unknown Unknown Yes

Surficial 56.5 56.7 Unknown Unknown Yes

Surficial 56.7 56.9 >10 >100 Yes

Surficial 56.9 57.1 Unknown Unknown Yes

Surficial 57.8 59.1 <10 10-100 Yes

Surficial 60.7 61.1 >10 >100 Yes

Surficial 61.1 61.3 Unknown Unknown Yes

Surficial 87.9 88.1 >10 >100 Yes

Surficial 113.8 114.2 >10 >100 Yes

Surficial 119.7 120.1 >10 >100 Yes

Surficial 120.1 120.5 Unknown <10 Yes

Surficial 124.3 124.3 >10 >100 Yes

New York and New 

England Carbonate-rock

110.5 117.9 20-500, might 

exceed 800

10-30, might 

exceed 1,400

No

Other Rock 

(Devonian-aged)

117.9 123.2 2-300, average 

79

5-200 No

New York and New 

England Carbonate-rock

123.2 124.4 20-500, might 

exceed 800

10-30, might 

exceed 1,400

Yes

____________________

Sources: Trapp and Horn 1997, Olcott 1995, USGS 2012d, NYSDEC 2008a, Braun and Sevon 1997, Braun 2006.

New York

The majority of the groundwater resources in New York also originate from Devonian-aged 

sedimentary rock consisting of sandstones, shales, and limestones. However, a portion of the proposed 

route in New York (MPs 111 to 118 and MP 123 to 124) crosses New York and New England carbonate 

bedrock aquifers consisting of limestone, dolomite, and marble. Carbonate rock aquifers in New York 
4-37 Water Resources

typically yield 10 to 30 gpm. However, yields may be as high as 1,000 gpm in areas with a number of 

dissolution features and fractures in the rock (Olcott 1995). The majority of the pipeline in New York 

would cross unconfined aquifers. 

Surficial aquifers in New York are generally glacial deposits of till and gravel. The proposed 

pipeline area in New York generally has a layer of till over bedrock. Water well yields in areas of till are 

generally around 1 gpm but could be as high as 20 gpm. Glacial valley aquifers generally have water well 

yields of 10 to 1,000 gpm and could be as high as 3,000 gpm (Olcott 1995). Approximately 16 percent of 

the residents of Broome County, 57 percent of Chenango County residents, 51 percent of Delaware 

County residents, and 68 percent of Schoharie County residents rely on private water wells for drinking 

water (USGS 2005). 

4.3.1.2 Sole Source Aquifers

The EPA defines a sole source aquifer (SSA) or principal source aquifer area as one that supplies 

at least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer. The EPA guidelines 

also stipulate that these areas can have no alternative drinking water source(s) that could physically, 

legally, and economically supply all those who depend upon the aquifer for drinking water (EPA 2010a). 

Based on a review of the EPA’s designated SSA mapping, the pipeline would not cross a 

designated SSA in Pennsylvania. The pipeline would cross about 4 miles of the Clinton Street Ballpark 

SSA in Broome County, New York at two locations (MP 25.2 and MP 40.0). Additionally, the pipeline 

would cross surface waters within the stream flow source area, which may recharge the Clinton Street 

Ballpark SSA. The Clinton Street Ballpark SSA is within the Susquehanna River Basin and consists of 

glacial deposits. The glacial outwash is thicker than 200 feet along the river valley and decreases in 

thickness towards the valley walls (EPA 1985). 

4.3.1.3 State Designated Aquifers

In addition to the EPA designated SSA program, individual states may enact regulations 

protecting significant aquifer recharge areas, critical areas where excessive use of groundwater poses a 

threat to the long-term integrity of a water-supply source, or preservation areas to protect natural 

resources including public water supply sources. There are no state-designated aquifers in the area of the 

proposed pipeline in Pennsylvania.

The NYSDEC designates highly productive aquifers that are utilized as municipal water supply 

sources as Primary Water Supply Aquifers (Primary Aquifers). Principal Aquifers are aquifers that are 

not Primary Aquifers, but are known to be highly productive or have geologic conditions that suggest an 

abundant water supply (NYSDEC 1990). The proposed projects in New York would not cross any 

Primary Aquifers. However, the projects would cross 19 Principal Aquifers in New York, as listed in 

table 4.3.1-1, for a total length of 12 miles. 

4.3.1.4 Wellhead and Aquifer Protection Areas

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, each state is required to develop and implement 

a Wellhead Protection Program in order to identify the land and recharge areas contributing to public 

supply wells, and prevent the contamination of drinking water supplies. The Act also requires the 

development of a broader-based Source Water Assessment Program, which includes the assessment of 

potential contamination to both groundwater and surface water through a watershed approach. 
Water Resources 4-38

Pennsylvania

The proposed pipeline route in Pennsylvania would not cross any WHPAs.

New York

The Wellhead Protection Program in New York is administered by the New York State 

Department of Health (NYSDOH) as part of the Source Water Assessment Program. The Assessment 

Program provides information on the potential threat of contamination to both groundwater and surface 

water sources that supply New York's public drinking water systems. The pipeline would cross three 

WHPAs in Delaware and Schoharie Counties (NYSDOH 2012). Two additional WHPAs in Delaware 

County would be within 100 feet of the pipeline. Constitution’s access roads and contractor yards would 

cross five WHPAs. One WHPA would be within 300 feet of a contractor yard in Schoharie County.

4.3.1.5 Water Supply Wells and Springs

According to information provided by the NYSDOH, no public water supply wells are within 150 

feet of the proposed pipeline. In addition, Constitution consulted with landowners regarding the locations 

of private wells and springs on their properties. Based on these consultations, no public water supply 

wells or springs are within 150 feet of the projects. The projects would be within 150 feet of 2

monitoring wells, 4 private water wells used for drinking water (approximately MP 29 through MP 36), 

and 20 private water supply wells or springs that are not used for drinking water (table 4.3.1-2). 

However, Constitution has not completed identifying water wells and springs within 150 feet of 

construction workspaces in Pennsylvania due to changes in Constitution’s proposed route. Therefore, we 

recommend that:

• Prior to construction, Constitution should file with the Secretary the location of all 

water wells and springs within 150 feet of the proposed pipeline and aboveground 

facilities in Pennsylvania where survey access has been granted. 

The Delaware County Soil and Water Conservation District identified several important drinking 

water springs (2 to 5 gpm) in the project area. While the pipeline project would not impact the springs, it 

would cross several springs recharge areas. The recharge areas are characterized by having fractured 

sandstone bedrock, which may require blasting. Therefore, blasting and contamination are the primary 

concerns of construction in the proximity of springs. 

Consultation with the Broome County Health Department and the Chenango County Department 

of Public Health identified a recharge area and natural springs that provide drinking water to the Village 

of Afton. Constitution incorporated a re-route (alternative route B) that moved the route 1.5 miles away 

from the natural springs. Additional information regarding this re-route is presented in section 3.4.2.
4-39 Water Resources

TABLE 4.3.1-2

Private Water Supply and Monitoring Wells and Springs Within 150 feet of the Proposed Projects

State/Well/Spring

Approximate 

Milepost

Distance from 

Centerline (feet)

Distance from 

Construction 

Work Area (feet)

Direction from 

Construction

Drinking Water

(Yes or No)

Pennsylvania

Monitoring Well 4.5 96 46 West No

Monitoring Well 4.6 41 0 West No

Water Well 5.4 213 98 East No

Water Well 9.8 71 21 West No

Water Well 10.0 225 150 East No

Water Well 10.8 180 105 South No

Spring Well 14.4 53 3 North No

Water Well 21.7 141 106 South No

Water Well 21.7 185 150 North No

New York

Water Well 29.0 154 79 East Yes

Water Well 29.0 173 98 East Yes

Well (undefined) 35.5 83 48 West Yes

Water Well 36.4 187 137 West Yes

Water Well 60.6 264 139 East No

Water Well 60.6 186 136 West No

Water Well 90.3 114 64 South No

Water Wella 90.6 N/A N/A N/A No

Water Well 96.5 68 0 North No

Water Well 102.6 196 121 East No

Water Wellb 106.8 N/A N/A N/A No

Water Well 119.6 34 0 South No

Water Well 119.6 81 0 North No

Water Well 119.7 114 0 North No

Water Well 119.7 228 103 South No

Water Well 119.7 73 8 North No

Water Well 119.7 73 23 North No

____________________

Sources: Landowners, Constitution field surveys, PADEP 2013c, NYSDEC 2013c

a Within the boundary of Spread 4b contractor yard.

b Within the boundary of Spread 5 contractor yard.

N/A = Not applicable

4.3.1.6 Contaminated Groundwater

As discussed in sections 2.3.1 and 4.8, no areas of contaminated groundwater (or soils or 

sediments) were identified within the area of the proposed projects (EDR 2012). Constitution has 
Water Resources 4-40

developed a Contamination Plan, which it would use in the event that unanticipated contamination is 

encountered during the construction process. 

4.3.2 Aboveground Facilities and Contractor Yards

As discussed in section 2.0, Constitution would construct the Turnpike Road M&R Station and 

associated pig launcher at MP 0 in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. This meter station would be 

within Devonian-aged sandstone and shale aquifers. The Westfall Road M&R Station, its associated pig 

receiver, and Iroquois’ compression transfer station would be at MP 124.4 in Schoharie County, New 

York, within the New York and New England carbonate-rock aquifers. Groundwater impacts from 

construction of these facilities would be similar to that described above for the pipeline facilities. 

Constitution would install its MLVs within the pipeline’s permanent right-of-way. Therefore, 

potential impacts on groundwater resources from the MLVs would be the same as those discussed for the 

pipeline.

Constitution has proposed to use six contractor yards. As of issuance of this draft EIS, 

Constitution has surveyed three of the six contractor yards for water wells. Because the surveys for 

proposed contractor yards are not complete, we recommend that:

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Constitution should file with the 

Secretary the results of surveys for all proposed contractor yards not previously 

submitted concerning water wells, waterbodies, and wetlands, as well as the status 

of any required agency consultations.

4.3.2.1 Groundwater General Impact and Mitigation

Construction activities are not likely to significantly impact groundwater resources because the 

majority of construction would involve shallow, temporary, and localized excavation. However, shallow 

aquifers could sustain minor, indirect impacts from changes in overland water flow and recharge caused 

by clearing, grading, and trenching of the right-of-way. 

In addition, near-surface soil compaction caused by heavy construction vehicles could reduce the 

soil’s ability to absorb water in these isolated areas. During construction, local water table elevations 

could be affected by trenching and backfilling. The pipeline trench would be excavated to a depth of 6 to 

8 feet in most cases. In areas where groundwater is near the surface, trench excavation may intersect the 

water table. Shallow aquifers may also be contacted by drilling associated with HDD or Direct Pipe 

operations. These minor, direct, and indirect impacts would be temporary and would not significantly 

affect groundwater resources. Constitution would avoid or further minimize these impacts by using 

construction techniques described in its site-specific ECPs, such as using temporary and permanent trench 

plugs and interceptor dikes. After installation of the proposed pipeline, Constitution would restore the 

ground surface as closely as practicable to original contours and revegetate any exposed soils to ensure 

restoration of pre-construction overland flow and recharge patterns. Constitution also incorporated 

several re-routes (such as alternative routes B, Q, and R) to avoid impacts on reservoirs, springs, and 

sinks used for drinking water. Additional information regarding re-routes can be found in section 3.4.2.

Accidental Spills of Hazardous Materials

Pipeline construction necessitates the use of heavy equipment and associated fuels, lubricants, 

and other potentially hazardous substances that, if spilled, could affect shallow groundwater and/or 

unconsolidated aquifers. The majority of the pipeline route would cross unconfined aquifers. A spill 
4-41 Water Resources

could reach different aquifer layers in these areas. Accidental spills or leaks of hazardous materials 

associated with vehicle fueling, vehicle maintenance, and construction materials storage would present 

the greatest potential contamination threat to groundwater resources. Soil contamination resulting from 

these spills or leaks could continue to add pollutants to the groundwater long after a spill occurs. 

Implementation of proper storage, containment, and handling procedures would minimize the chance of 

such releases. Constitution’s Spill Plan and Iroquois’ SPCC Plan addresses the preventative and 

mitigative measures that would be implemented to avoid or minimize the potential impacts of hazardous 

material spills during construction. Measures outlined in Constitution’s Spill Plan and Iroquois’ SPCC 

Plan and in Constitution’s and Iroquois’ Plan and Procedures include, but are not limited to:

• regular inspection of containers and tanks for leaks;

• prohibition of fueling, lubricating activities, and hazardous material storage in or adjacent 

to sensitive areas;

• use of secondary containment for storage of fuels, oils, hazardous materials, and 

equipment;

• implementation of emergency response procedures, including spill reporting procedures; 

and

• use of standard procedures for excavation and off-site disposal of any soils contaminated 

by spillage.

We have reviewed Constitution’s Plan, Procedures, and Spill Plan as well as Iroquois’ SPCC Plan 

(Iroquois has adopted our Plan and Procedures) and find that these protocols adequately address the 

storage and transfer of hazardous materials and the response to be implemented in the event of a spill. 

As discussed in section 2.5.2, Constitution and Iroquois would employ EIs to ensure compliance 

with the state-specific ECPs, Constitution’s Spill Plan, Iroquois’ SPCC Plan, and other specifications 

during construction and restoration. The EIs would have the authority to stop work and order corrective 

actions for activities that violate the environmental conditions of our Certificate and other permit 

authorizations.

Blasting

Constitution identified several portions of the proposed pipeline right-of-way where blasting may 

be required for pipeline installation (section 4.1.3.7 and appendix I). Blasting could affect groundwater 

quality by temporarily changing groundwater levels and increasing groundwater turbidity near the 

construction right-of-way; however, rock particles and sedimentation would be expected to settle out 

quickly. Constitution would attempt to utilize specialized excavation methods, including ripping or the 

use of hydraulic hammers or rock saws. However, blasting may be necessary to achieve the required 

trench depth if these methods prove to be ineffective or inefficient. Constitution has developed a Blasting 

Plan to minimize potential adverse impacts on the environment, nearby water sources, structures, or 

utilities. As stated in the Blasting Plan, licensed blasting contractors would conduct the blasting activities 

in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Constitution would obtain all 

necessary permits if blasting is required.

We anticipate that impacts on nearby wells and springs (such as increases in turbidity) from 

blasting would be temporary and would likely dissipate shortly after blasting or after a well has been 

flushed several times. Constitution has committed to contacting affected landowners again regarding the 

location of any wells or springs just prior to the start of construction so that a comprehensive list of these 

features can be compiled. Additionally, Constitution has agreed to test all water wells within 150 feet of 
Water Resources 4-42

the proposed construction workspace for water quality and quantity parameters prior to and after 

construction, and provide an alternative water source or a mutually agreeable solution in the event of 

construction-related impacts. We find this acceptable.

Water Use and Quality

As stated above, Constitution has agreed to perform pre- and post-construction monitoring for 

well yield and water quality for private wells within 150 feet of the proposed construction workspace. 

The closest water supply wells are approximately 240 feet from Iroquois’ proposed project. Constitution 

would monitor water quantity parameters including water column height, flow rate of existing equipment, 

water column drawdown, rebound time, volatile organic compounds, total petroleum hydrocarbons, and 

compounds used in blasting (if blasting has occurred nearby). Constitution’s water supply well testing 

plans would comply with NYSDOH recommendations (2006). Should the integrity of any water supply 

well be impacted during construction, either water quantity or quality, Constitution would provide an 

alternative water source or compensate the landowner for a new, comparable well. Constitution has also 

agreed to file with the Secretary, within 30 days after completion of construction, a report describing 

landowner complaints received regarding well quality and yield and how those complaints were resolved. 

In addition, Constitution would conduct additional pre-and post-construction monitoring for 

water quality and yield for wells and springs within karst areas (see section 4.1.3.6). This additional 

monitoring would apply to the three springs that supply water to the Village of Schoharie (Young, Dugan, 

and Truax Springs) and three private drinking water wells between MP 115 and MP 124. Constitution 

would collect measurements before construction activities to establish baseline data and monitor twice per 

day when construction activities occur within 2,000 feet of wells, springs, or the groundwater flow to 

springs.

Constitution has also agreed to provide expert field assessment of seeps and springs within 150 

feet of construction workspaces. The expert would determine if construction activities could have an 

impact on the seeps and/or springs. The expert would then provide recommended construction 

alternatives to avoid impacts as applicable.

Constitution would route around septic systems and the associated leach fields, if possible. If 

impacts cannot be avoided, Constitution would work with the landowners to relocate the existing septic 

system and would compensate the landowner for associated costs and for loss of usable land.

We asked Constitution to consult with the applicable agencies and describe any avoidance, 

minimization, and/or mitigation measures recommended by the agencies for the proposed crossing of the

Clinton Street Ballpark SSA. Additionally, we contacted the EPA to discuss potential impacts regarding 

the proposed crossing of the Clinton Street Ballpark SSA. The EPA indicated that they would not require 

a detailed review of potential impacts on the Clinton Street Ballpark SSA for the projects because no 

federal funding would be involved. The best management practices, blasting procedures, and spill 

prevention/response measures described above would be used to minimize impacts on the Clinton Street 

Ballpark SSA, Principal Aquifers of New York, and WHPAs, which we determined would reduce risk to 

the aquifer to an acceptable level. Any impacts would be temporary and would not significantly affect 

groundwater resources. 

Aboveground Facilities

The aboveground facilities, proposed compressor facility, access roads, and contractor yards 

would be in the same general vicinity as the proposed pipeline discussed above. The measures 

Constitution and Iroquois have proposed to minimize the potential impacts of the pipeline on groundwater 
4-43 Water Resources

(e.g., adherence to the measures included in Constitution’s ECPs, our Plan and Procedures, Constitution’s 

Spill Plan, and Iroquois’ SPCC Plan) would apply to these areas as well. Additionally, although some 

clearing and grading activities may be associated with the contractor yards and access roads, trenching 

and drilling would not take place in these areas, thereby reducing the potential for impact. In addition, 

excavation associated with the compressor facility is expected to be less than 6 feet deep (i.e., the depth to 

groundwater at the parcel) and therefore impacts on groundwater would be minimal. According to 

Iroquois, blasting is not expected to be required for installation of the compressor station. If blasting were 

required, it would be conducted by licensed blasting contractors in accordance with all applicable federal, 

state, and local regulations and permits. For these reasons, we do not expect the construction or use of the 

aboveground facilities, access roads, and contractor yards to impact groundwater resources.

Operation Impacts

The proposed pipeline would be a fixed belowground structure, coated in accordance with the 

DOT standards, and hydrostatically tested prior to the commencement of operation in order to avoid 

initial leaks. Constitution and Iroquois would conduct monitoring in accordance with the DOT 

requirements during operations to minimize potential impacts of corrosion and leaks. None of the

proposed aboveground facilities involve operation of activities belowground. In accordance with 

Iroquois’ SPCC Plan, all containers of 55 gallons or more, as well as fuel tanks would be stored within 

secondary containment. Therefore, no impacts on groundwater resources would occur during operation 

of the projects.

Conclusion

No long-term impacts on groundwater are anticipated from construction or operation of the 

projects because disturbances would be temporary, erosion controls would be implemented, natural 

ground contours would be restored, and the right-of-way revegetated. Implementation of Constitution’s 

ECPs and Iroquois’ Plan and Procedures would limit impacts from construction on groundwater 

resources. Temporary, minor, and localized impacts could result during trenching activities in areas with 

shallow groundwater (depth less than 10 feet below the ground surface) crossed by the pipeline. The 

greatest threat posed to groundwater resources would be a hazardous material spill or leak into 

groundwater supplies. We have reviewed Constitution’s Spill Plan and Iroquois’ SPCC Plan and 

conclude that these plans adequately address strategies and methods to prevent or limit such 

contamination should a spill occur. We do not anticipate any significant impacts on aquifers by the 

proposed projects given their depth and the relatively shallow nature of construction.

4.3.3 Surface Water Resources

4.3.3.1 Existing Surface Water Resources

Constitution and Iroquois identified surface water resources in the majority of the project area 

during field surveys conducted throughout 2012 and 2013. Environmental information was obtained for 

areas where access permission has not been granted from USGS topographic mapping, aerial 

photography, and other available GIS-based information. 

The projects would cross three watershed basins. Watershed descriptions and approximate 

locations are provided in table 4.3.3-1.
Water Resources 4-44

TABLE 4.3.3-1

Watersheds Crossed by the Proposed Projects

Watershed 

Approximate 

Milepost Rangea Drainage Area Description

Susquehanna 

River

0 – 27

40 – 101

27,500 square miles The Susquehanna River watershed spans portions of 

Pennsylvania, New York, and Maryland (NYSDEC 

2013d). The Susquehanna River watershed is divided 

into six subbasins: Lower Susquehanna, Juniata River, 

West Branch Susquehanna River, Middle Susquehanna, 

Chemung River, and Upper Susquehanna River.

Delaware River 27 – 40 12,800 square miles The Delaware River watershed covers portions of New 

York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. The 

headwaters of this watershed begin in the Catskill 

Mountains and eventually flow into the Delaware Bay and 

Atlantic Ocean (NYSDEC 2013d).

Mohawk River 101 – 124 and 

Iroquois’ project

3,460 square miles The Mohawk River watershed is entirely within the state of 

New York. This watershed begins in the valley between 

the Adirondacks and Tug Hill Plateau and ends 140 miles 

east at the Hudson River (NYSDEC 2013d).

____________

a Mileposts have been rounded up for purposes of this table and do not reflect exact locations.

Appendix K lists the 277 waterbodies that Constitution would cross, and includes waterbody 

name, location, crossing width, flow type, fishery type, FERC classification, state water quality 

classification, and proposed crossing method. These include 124 perennial waterbody crossings, 96 

intermittent waterbody crossings, and 57 ephemeral waterbody crossings. In addition to the 277 

waterbodies crossed by the pipeline trench, another 58 waterbodies would be within construction the 

construction right-of-way. 

Pipeline Facilities

Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania portion of the pipeline would require 46 minor waterbody crossings and 24 

intermediate waterbody crossings. In addition to these 70 waterbodies another 18 would be within the 

construction right-of-way, but not crossed by the trenchline directly. 

New York

Constitution would cross 130 minor waterbodies, 74 intermediate waterbodies, and 3 major 

waterbodies (greater than 100 feet wide at the crossing) in New York (Bennettsville Creek at MPs 47.68 

and 47.71 and Schoharie Creek at MP 119.8). In addition to these 207 waterbodies, another 40 are within 

the construction right-of-way, but not crossed by the trenchline directly. 

Constitution has provided site-specific crossing plans for the major waterbodies. Constitution 

would cross Bennettsville Creek using a single HDD, approximately 1,630 feet long. Constitution would 

cross Schoharie Creek using the Direct Pipe method, approximately 744 feet long.
4-45 Water Resources

Aboveground Facilities and Contractor Yards

No waterbodies are present within the proposed workspace at any of the aboveground facility 

sites, including Iroquois’ proposed facilities. Constitution completed field surveys for wetlands and 

waterbodies and initiated agency consultation for three of the six proposed contractor yards. Field 

surveys identified waterbodies within the boundaries of contractor yards Spread 1 and Spread 5. 

According to Constitution, final design of the contractor yards has not yet been completed. We 

recommended above that Constitution complete all required surveys and provide us with the updated 

status of agency permitting for all of the proposed contractor yards prior to the end of the draft EIS 

comment period. 

Access Roads

Proposed access roads associated with the pipeline would require two minor and one intermediate 

waterbody crossings in Pennsylvania and would require three minor waterbody crossings in New York. 

Of these one waterbody is ephemeral, four are intermittent, and one is perennial. In addition, waterbodies 

in 17 waterbodies are present within the proposed construction right-of-way, but not intersected by the 

trenchline directly. 

Constitution would temporarily cross one waterbody and permanently cross five waterbodies by 

culverts or equipment bridges. Constitution would remove the temporary culvert or equipment bridge 

after construction and restore the stream bed and banks. The size and installation methods for the

permanent culverts would vary based upon waterbody classification. 

In addition, Constitution proposed to stabilize and permanently fill one waterbody (with culverts) 

at two different locations near MP 17.8. The unnamed tributary of Canawacta Creek would be crossed by 

permanent access road 15. At this time, Constitution has not provided us with sufficient detail for its 

proposed permanent access road crossings of waterbodies, nor has it provided us sufficient justification 

for the use of permanent fill in waterbodies. For these reasons, we recommend that: 

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Constitution should file with the 

Secretary site-specific plans for the proposed permanent access road crossings of 

waterbodies and wetlands, site-specific justifications for the use of permanent fill, 

and agency consultations regarding these plans.

4.3.3.2 Public Watersheds

Pennsylvania

Constitution contacted the EPA and the PADEP regarding public watersheds within the area of 

the proposed pipeline. Agency consultation indicated there are no public water supply watersheds, public 

water supply well sources, or springs within 300 feet of the proposed pipeline and that no potable water 

supply surface water intakes would be within 0.25 mile of the pipeline. 

New York

According to Constitution, NYSDOH did not identify any potable water intakes within 3 miles 

downstream of proposed waterbody crossings in New York. However, a public reservoir is downstream 

of a proposed crossing of Collar Brook (DE-1H-S013). Constitution was unable to determine the location 

of the intake associated with this reservoir. Therefore, Constitution would cross waterbody DE-1H-S013 

via HDD to avoid impacts on the waterbody and potential potable water intakes. An inadvertent release 
Water Resources 4-46

of drilling fluids is possible, but unlikely as most occur when the drill bit is working near the surface (i.e., 

near the entry and exit points). Therefore, impacts from the pipeline on this resource are not anticipated. 

There are three public drinking water supply watersheds and one water supply watershed overlay within 

the construction area of the pipeline in New York (table 4.3.3-2). 

TABLE 4.3.3-2

Public Water Supply Watersheds Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline

State/County Surface Water Supply

Crossing 

Length (miles)

Water Supply’s Approximate Distance/Direction 

from the Pipeline (miles)

Pennsylvania

None Identified

New York

Delaware Pine Hill Reservoir 0.8 0.6 mile North of MP 54.3

Schoharie Carr’s Creek Watershed 2.7 Crosses from MPs 54.9 to 57.6

Schoharie Cobleskill Reservoirs 0.8 1.2 miles Northwest of MP 111.7

Schoharie Barton Hill Natural Resource 

Protection Overlaya

2.6 0.8 mile Southeast of MP 119.1 (closest spring)

____________________

a Iroquois’ compressor station would also be within the watershed for the Barton Hill Natural Resource Protection Overlay.

The pipeline would cross 0.8 mile of the Pine Hill Reservoir watershed system, including a 

crossing of a tributary to the reservoir (waterbody DE-1H-S013). The reservoir is 0.6 mile north of the 

proposed pipeline. According to the Village of Sidney Annual Drinking Water Quality Report for 2012, 

the Village of Sidney uses the Pine Hill Reservoir as a backup water supply (The Tri-Town News 2012). 

The pipeline would cross 2.7 miles of the Carr’s Creek Watershed, for which we received several 

comments regarding increased risk of flooding. Severe flooding events in 2006 prompted the Sidney 

Center Improvement Group to develop a watershed management plan for the Carr’s Creek Watershed. 

The Carr’s Creek Watershed is approximately 19,009 acres in size and drains into the Susquehanna River. 

The headwaters of the watershed are near Merrickville, New York.

The Cobleskill Reservoirs provide drinking water to the Village of Cobleskill and the State 

University of New York at Cobleskill. The Cobleskill Reservoir includes three reservoirs: Dow 

Reservoir, Smith Reservoir, and the Holding Pond. The pipeline would cross 0.8 mile of the reservoir 

system watershed. The Town of Cobleskill requested Constitution move the pipeline as far away from 

the reservoirs as possible. In response, Constitution adopted alternative route R, which moved the 

pipeline 0.9 mile from the Cobleskill Reservoirs. See section 3.4.2 for additional details regarding 

alternative route R.

The pipeline would cross the Barton Hill Natural Resource Protection Overlay for 2.8 miles. The 

pipeline would be 0.8 mile from the closest spring. This overlay zone includes the Young, Dugan, and 

Truax Springs and associated aquifer, which provide groundwater to the Village of Schoharie. The 

pipeline would be 1.6 miles from the Young Spring, 1.1 miles from Dugan Spring, and 1.5 miles from the 

Truax Spring. Iroquois’ project would also be within the Barton Hill Natural Resource Protection 

Overlay.
4-47 Water Resources

4.3.3.3 Water Classifications

CWA Section 303(d) requires that each state review, establish, and revise water quality standards 

for all surface waters within each state. State classification systems develop monitoring and mitigation 

programs to ensure that water standards are attained as designated. Waters that fail to meet their 

designated beneficial use are considered as impaired and are listed under a state’s 303(d) list of impaired 

waters. 

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Code Title 25, Chapter 93 establishes water quality standards for each waterbody 

based on their use. Waterbody uses include: aquatic life, water supply, recreation, fish consumption, 

special protection, and navigation. Surface waters of Pennsylvania are classified as: coldwater fisheries 

(CWF), warmwater fisheries, migratory fisheries, and trout stocked. Selected waterbodies are further 

classified as High-Quality (HQ) or Exceptional Value (EV) and given special protection. 

In order to be classified as a HQ surface water, the waterbody must have at least 1 year of water 

quality data which exceed parameters outlined in Pennsylvania Code Title 25 Chapter 93.4b, support a 

high quality aquatic community with a benthic macroinvertebrate score of 83 percent or more, or is 

classified as Class A wild trout stream. 

In order to be classified as an EV surface water, the waterbody must meet the criteria for a HQ 

waterbody and at least one of the following:

• is a surface water of exceptional recreational significance;

• is designated as a wilderness trout stream;

• is a surface water of exceptional ecological significance; 

• is located in an outstanding national, state, regional or local resource water; or

• is located in a national wildlife refuge or state game propagation and protection area; 

designated state park natural area, state forest natural area, national natural landmark, 

federal or state wild river, federal wilderness area, or national recreational area. 

(Pennsylvania Code 2012)

New York

Fresh waterbodies in New York are classified as either coldwater or warmwater and given letter 

classifications under regulation 6 New York Code of Rules and Regulations Part 701 which denote their 

best use: AA, A, B, C, and D (NYSDEC 2012c). 

As stated in New York Code Part 701, the best uses for each class are:

• Class AA waters are a source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing 

purposes; primary and secondary contact recreation; and fishing. These waters require 

only disinfection treatment.

• Class A waters are a source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing 

purposes; primary and secondary contact recreation; and fishing. These waters require 

coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection treatment.

• Class B waters are primary and secondary contact recreation and fishing. 
Water Resources 4-48

• Class C and D waters are fishing. (NYSDEC 2012c)

4.3.3.4 Sensitive Waterbodies

Waterbodies that may be considered sensitive to pipeline construction, include, but are not 

limited to: 

• waters that do not meet the water quality standards associated with the state’s designated 

beneficial uses;

• surface waters that have been designated for intensified water quality management and 

improvement;

• waterbodies that contain threatened or endangered species or critical habitat;

• waters that support fisheries of special concern (e.g., trout streams);

• waterbodies that are designated as an outstanding resource water; and

• waterbodies on or designated to be added to the Nationwide Rivers Inventory or a state 

river inventory.

Other factors that can provide a basis for sensitivity include waterbodies in sensitive and 

protected watershed areas; waterbodies and intermittent drainages that have steep banks, potentially 

unstable soils, high volume flows, and actively eroding banks; and surface waters that have important 

riparian areas. Table 4.3.3-3 lists sensitive waterbodies that would be crossed by Constitution’s project 

based on water quality parameters. Section 4.6.2.2 discusses waterbodies containing fisheries of special 

concern. The projects would not cross any Nationwide Rivers Inventory-designated rivers, statedesignated rivers, or national Wild and Scenic Rivers.

TABLE 4.3.3-3

Water Quality Sensitive Surface Waters Crossed by the Constitution’s Project

State/ Waterbody ID Waterbody Namea Milepost

Basis for 

Sensitivityb

Proposed Crossing 

Methodc

Pipeline

Pennsylvania

SU-1B-S137 Meylert Creek 6.7 HQ-CWF Dry crossing

SU-XX-S7.76 Meylert Creek 7.9 HQ-CWF Dry crossing

SU-1B-S141 UNT to Wellmans Creek 8.4 HQ-CWF Dry crossing

SU-1F-S148 UNT to Wellmans Creek 8.7 HQ-CWF Dry crossing

SU-1F-S142 UNT to Wellmans Creek 8.8 HQ-CWF Dry crossing

SU-1B-S144 Wellmans Creek 8.9 HQ-CWF Dry crossing

SU-1B-S145 UNT to Wellmans Creek 9.0 HQ-CWF Dry crossing

SU-1D-S230 UNT to Wellmans Creek 9.2 HQ-CWF Conventional bore

SU-1C-S029G Road Ditch 9.9 HQ-CWF Conventional bore
4-49 Water Resources

TABLE 4.3.3-3 (continued)

Water Quality Sensitive Surface Waters Crossed by the Constitution’s Project

State/ Waterbody ID Waterbody Namea Milepost

Basis for 

Sensitivityb

Proposed Crossing 

Methodc

SU-1X-S231 Salt Lick Creek 10.0 HQ-CWF Dry crossing

SU-1D-S235 Agricultural Ditch 10.6 HQ-CWF Dry crossing

SU-1D-S237 UNT to Salt Lick Creek 10.8 HQ-CWF Dry crossing

SU-1B-S031 UNT to East Lake Creek 11.1 HQ-CWF Dry crossing

SU-1B-S033 UNT to East Lake Creek 11.3 HQ-CWF Dry crossing

SU-1B-S035 UNT to East Lake Creek 11.4 HQ-CWF Dry crossing

SU-1B-S036 UNT to East Lake Creek 11.4 HQ-CWF Dry crossing

SU-1B-S037 UNT to East Lake Creek 11.5 HQ-CWF Dry crossing

SU-1B-S038 UNT to East Lake Creek 11.5 HQ-CWF Dry crossing

SU-1E-S039 UNT to East Lake Creek 11.6 HQ-CWF Dry crossing

SU-1E-S043A UNT to East Lake Creek 12.0 HQ-CWF Dry crossing

SU-1C-S253 UNT to Salt Lick Creek 12.9 HQ-CWF Dry crossing

New York

DE-1H-S013 UNT to Susquehanna River 54.5 AA HDD

DE-1H-S013 UNT to Susquehanna River 54.5 AA HDD

Access Roads

Pennsylvania

SU-1D-S234TAR8 UNT to Salt Lick Creek 10.1 HQ-CWF Temporary Culvert

_____________________

a UNT = unnamed tributary

b HQ = high quality

CWF = coldwater fishery

AA = a source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing purposes

c Dry crossing = dry open cut (if not flowing during construction), flume, dam and pump, cofferdam; HDD = horizontal 

directional drill

The sensitive waterbodies identified in Pennsylvania are listed due to their HQ designation. 

According to Pennsylvania regulations, HQ waterbodies are treated as specially protected waters. 

Constitution would cross all HQ waterbodies using a dry crossing or conventional bore method. Two 

sensitive waterbodies in New York would be crossed by the pipeline via HDD. Both of these waterbodies 

are classified as AA, indicating that they function as public water supplies. 

We asked Constitution to evaluate the feasibility of using a trenchless crossing method for all 

sensitive or high quality waterbodies. According to Constitution, trenchless crossing methods are not 

practical for waterbody crossings less than 30 feet in width, unless they were adjacent to a larger wetland, 

waterbody complex, road, or railroad. Constitution indicated that such crossings would be impractical 

due to minimum length requirements, depth of pipeline considerations, and workspace requirements. 
Water Resources 4-50

According to Constitution, conventional boring typically requires a crossing length of 50 to 60 

feet maximum of 400 feet and two staging areas, typically 50 feet by 100 feet. HDD crossings typically 

require larger staging areas (typically 200 feet by 250 feet) on either side of the feature(s) crossed and a 

crossing distance not longer than 7,000 feet (for a 30-inch-diameter pipe). Direct Pipe crossings for a 30-

inch-diameter pipe are typically less than 900 feet long. Because each HDD would generally require 

approximately 2.5 acres of workspace in order to complete the technique, it is rarely used to cross minor 

waterbodies, as dry crossings can often be implemented with less long-term impacts from staging 

workspaces. Additionally, shorter HDDs must be located closer to the ground surface (and resource) 

which may increase the risk of inadvertent releases of drilling fluid. 

Technical constraints and engineering requirements eliminated all but four of the sensitive 

waterbodies listed in table 4.3.3-3 from consideration for a trenchless crossing. Constitution proposed to 

cross three of the four waterbodies using a trenchless crossing method (conventional bore or HDD). One 

waterbody (SU-1X-S231) would be crossed via a dry crossing method. Constitution reviewed the 

proposed dry crossing method for SU-1X-S231 in the field with the NYSDEC during the summer of 

2013, and the proposed crossing method is consistent with the guidance provided by the NYSDEC.

Waterbodies that Support Fisheries of Special Concern

Consultations with the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) and the NYSDEC 

determined that 97 waterbodies classified as fisheries of special concern would be crossed by the pipeline. 

Additional information regarding fisheries of special concern is discussed in more detail in section 

4.6.2.2. 

Contaminated Sediments

According to federal and state hazardous waste site databases, there are no contaminated 

sediments along the proposed pipeline route, aboveground facilities, and three of the six contractor yards 

(Spread 1, 4b, and 5 contractor yards). Constitution has not provided this information for the other three 

contractor yards (Spread 2, 3, and 4a).

Impaired Streams

According to the EPA’s NEPAssist online database, the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania is an 

impaired stream due to mercury levels (EPA 2013c). However, the pipeline would not cross the impaired 

portions of the Susquehanna River or any other impaired streams in Pennsylvania or New York. 

Therefore, we do not expect any impacts on impaired streams.

Flood Hazard Zones

The pipeline project would cross 14 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) identified 

flood hazard zones (table 4.3.3-4). None of the proposed aboveground facilities, including Iroquois’ 

project, would be within a FEMA flood hazard zone. According to FEMA, Zone A and AE2 areas have a 

1 percent annual chance of a flood event. Zone X areas have a 0.2 percent annual chance of a flood event 

(FEMA 2013a). 

 2 According to FEMA (2013g), the Zone AE Floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain 

areas that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 1 percent annual chance flood can be carried without 

substantial increases in flood heights.
4-51 Water Resources

TABLE 4.3.3-4

FEMA Flood Hazard Zones Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Facilities

State/ Waterbody ID Waterbody Name Milepost FEMA Flood Zonea

Pennsylvania

SU-1M-S220 Hop Bottom Creek 1.0 Zone A SFHA

SU-1B-S228 Martin’s Creek 3.0 Zone A SFHA

SU-1B-S137 Meylert Creek 6.7 Zone A SFHA

SU-XX-S7.76 Meylert Creek 7.9 Zone A SFHA

SU-1B-S144 Wellman’s Creek 8.9 Zone A SFHA

SU-XX-S16.87 Drinker Creek 16.9 Zone A SFHA

SU-1G-S298 Canawacta Creek 18.8 Zone A SFHA

SU-1C-S180 Starrucca Creek 21.8 Zone AE Floodway, Zone AE SFHA

SU-1X-S284, SU-1X-284A Roaring Run 22.6 Zone A SFHA

SU-1C-S283 Little Roaring Brook 23.3 Zone A SFHA

New York

CH-1A-S048 Lander’s Creek 45.3 Zone A SFHA

DE-XX-S56.74 Carr’s Creek 56.7 Zone A SFHA

DE-1P-S129 Ouleout Creek 60.7, 60.8 Zone AE Floodway, Zone AE SFHA, Zone X Flood Area

SC-1Q-S289 Schoharie Creek 119.7 Zone AE Floodway, Zone AE SFHA, Zone X Flood Area

____________________

Source: FEMA 2004, 2010, 2012, and 2013b, c, d, e, f, g 

a SFHA = Special Flood Hazard Area

4.3.3.5 Waterbody Construction Procedures

As described above, construction of the proposed pipeline would require 277 waterbody 

crossings. Regulatory agencies (the COE, the NYSDEC, and the PADEP) have not yet provided 

feedback on Constitution’s proposed waterbody crossing methods. Constitution would cross all 

waterbodies according to state-designated timing windows as discussed in section 4.6.2.1.

Dry Crossing Method

Constitution would use a dry crossing method (i.e., dry open cut, flume, dam and pump, or 

cofferdam crossing method) at 235 waterbodies. Dry open-cut crossing methods are described in section 

2.3.2.2. 

Trenchless Crossing Methods

Constitution would use a trenchless crossing method (i.e., conventional bore, HDD, or Direct 

Pipe) method at 42 waterbody crossings. Constitution has proposed 27 conventional bore crossings, 14 

HDD crossings, and one Direct Pipe crossing. The location of all trenchless crossings can be found in 

table 2.3.2-1 the methods are described in section 2.3.2.2. 
Water Resources 4-52

Waterbodies Within Workspaces

As discussed previously, waterbodies in 58 locations waterbodies along the proposed pipeline 

route would be within the construction workspaces, but not crossed by the pipeline (appendix K). In 

addition, waterbodies in 18 locations would be within access road workspaces but not crossed by the 

access road. Constitution would avoid impacts on waterbodies within the proposed construction right-ofway to the extent possible. If Constitution cannot avoid impacting a waterbody, it would limit impacts to 

the installation of temporary equipment crossings and/or clearing of adjacent vegetation. Constitution 

would maintain a 15-foot vegetation buffer between the waterbody and the workspace. We have 

reviewed Constitution’s proposed generalized measures and determined that impacts on waterbodies not 

crossed by the proposed pipeline, but affected by workspaces should be quantified on a waterbodyspecific basis. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Constitution should file with the 

Secretary a description of impacts and any proposed impact avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation measures for each waterbody that would not be 

directly crossed by the trenchline, but would be impacted by the construction rightof-way. 

Public Watersheds and Reservoirs

Constitution would cross portions of three surface water reservoir watersheds and one watershed 

overlay within the project area in New York (table 4.3.3-2). The pipeline would be more than 0.5 mile 

from each resource and Constitution would implement protective measures such as its Procedures, HDD 

Contingency Plan, and Blasting Plan to avoid impacts on drinking water sources. In addition, the existing 

TGP and Iroquois pipeline systems have been in operation for over 20 years with no impacts on the 

Barton Hill Natural Resource Protection Overlay. Therefore, we do not anticipate any impacts on public 

watersheds and reservoirs due to the proposed projects.

Hydrostatic Testing and Dust Control

Constitution would verify the integrity of the pipeline before placing it into service by conducting 

hydrostatic testing. These tests would be conducted in accordance with DOT regulations to ensure that 

the system is capable of withstanding 125 percent of the MAOP. This testing involves filling the pipeline 

with water, pressurizing it, and then checking for pressure losses due to pipeline leakage. Constitution 

would withdraw about 22.5 million gallons of test water from five local surface waters between 

December 2014 and March 2015 (table 4.3.3-5) and perform testing at 11 test segments (table 4.3.3-6). 

Hydrostatic test water would be held for a maximum of 14 days and transferred between test segments to 

minimize the total volume of test water needed. Following testing, hydrostatic test water would be 

discharged into well vegetated upland locations within the same watershed as the source water, thereby 

preventing inter-basin transfers. 

Constitution would ensure that base flows are maintained in the source streams during the water 

withdrawal process. Constitution intends to submit water withdrawal permit applications to the 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Delaware River Basin Commission, and NYSDEC in the first 

quarter of 2014. As such, regulatory agencies have not provided feedback on Constitution’s proposed 

water withdrawal plans, including the use of waterbodies containing fisheries of special concern. 
4-53 Water Resources

TABLE 4.3.3-5

Proposed Hydrostatic Test Water Sources and Discharge Locations for the Proposed Projects

Component/State Source Milepost

Hydrostatic Testing Volume 

(gallons)

PIPELINE

Pennsylvania

Starrucca Creek 21.8 5,948,429

New York

Oquaga Creek 32.9 2,629,575

Ouleout Creek 60.8 6,233,571

Kortright Creek 81.6 2,040,627

Schoharie Creek 119.8 5,688,747

Pipeline Subtotal 22,540,949

ABOVEGROUND FACILITIES

Pennsylvania

Turnpike Road M&R Station Municipal 0.0 4,000

New York

Westfall Road M&R Station Municipal 124.1 4,000

Iroquois’ Facilities Municipal N/A 160,000

Aboveground Facilities Subtotal 168,000

Projects Total 22,708,949

____________________

N/A = not applicable

TABLE 4.3.3-6

Proposed Hydrostatic Test Water Segments for the Pipeline Facilities

Test Segment No. Begin Milepost End Milepost Potential Water Source

1 0.0 10.1 Starrucca Creek

2 10.1 21.6 Starrucca Creek

3 21.6 32.8 Starrucca Creek

4 32.8 47.3 Oquaga Creek

5 47.3 60.7 Ouleout Creek

6 60.7 71.7 Ouleout Creek

7 71.7 81.8 Ouleout Creek

8 81.8 93.0 Kortright Creek

9 93.0 107.0 Schoharie Creek

10 107.0 119.8 Schoharie Creek

11 119.8 124.4 Schoharie Creek

Constitution would require an additional 8,000 gallons of water for hydrostatic testing of the 

meter stations, MLVs, and pig launcher and receiver sites. Water for testing of these aboveground 
Water Resources 4-54

facilities would be obtained from municipal sources. Iroquois anticipates using a combination of nitrogen 

and water for hydrostatic testing the compressor transfer station. About 160,000 gallons of water from 

municipal sources would be needed for hydrostatic testing of Iroquois’ project. 

Constitution and Iroquois would also use municipal water sources for dust control activities. The 

Applicants would obtain all appropriate permits and authorizations required prior to conducting any dust 

control activities. Given the length of the proposed pipeline and that weather conditions would play a 

large role, it is impossible to predict precisely how much water would be needed for dust suppression. 

Water for HDD Operations

As discussed in section 2.3.2.2 Constitution would use the HDD method at five locations (14 

waterbody crossings) along the proposed pipeline route. Throughout the process of drilling and enlarging 

the hole, a slurry made of non-toxic/non-hazardous bentonite clay and water, referred to as drilling mud, 

would be circulated through the drilling tools to lubricate the drill bit, remove drill cuttings, and hold the 

hole open. Constitution has proposed to use water from Bennettsville Creek, Middlebrook Creek, and 

Schoharie Creek to create the slurry. Constitution may also use municipal water to create a slurry or 

purchase drilling mud from another contractor. In addition, Constitution would require additional water 

for hydrostatic testing of the individual HDD segments prior to pullback into the reamed hole and has

proposed to use the same three water sources identified above for the slurry (or municipal water sources). 

Following testing, the hydrostatic test water would be discharged into well vegetated upland locations 

near the HDD crossing. We estimate that Constitution would require approximately 286,000 gallons of 

water to test each HDD segment. 

During the HDD installation, the drilling mud returns would be circulated through mud pits to 

remove the drill cuttings, and the bentonite would be recycled for use as the drilling operation continues. 

After completion of the HDD operations, the recovered drilling mud would be recycled or disposed of at 

an approved upland location or disposal facility. No recovered drilling mud would be disposed of in 

streams or storm drains. 

4.3.3.6 General Impacts and Mitigation

Pipeline construction could impact surface waters in several ways. Clearing and grading of 

streambanks, in-stream trenching, trench dewatering, and backfilling could result in modification of 

aquatic habitat, increased sedimentation, turbidity, decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations, releases of 

chemical and nutrient pollutants from sediments, and introduction of chemical contaminants such as fuel 

and lubricants. 

One potential impact on surface waters could result from the temporary increase in sediments 

mobilized downstream during in-stream construction. The extent of the impact would depend on 

sediment loads, stream velocity, turbidity, bank composition, and sediment particle size. These factors 

would determine the density and downstream extent of sediment migration. In-stream construction could 

cause the dislodging and transport of channel bed sediments and the alteration of stream contours. 

Changes in the stream bottom contours could alter stream dynamics and increase downstream erosion or

deposition. Turbidity resulting from resuspension of sediments from in-stream construction and erosion 

of cleared right-of-way areas could reduce light penetration and photosynthetic oxygen production. Instream disturbance could also introduce chemical and nutrient pollutants from sediments. Resuspension 

of deposited organic material and inorganic sediments could cause an increase in biological and chemical 

use of oxygen, potentially resulting in a decrease of dissolved oxygen concentrations in the affected area. 

Lower dissolved oxygen concentrations could cause temporary displacement of motile organisms, such as 

fish, and may kill non-motile organisms within the affected area.
4-55 Water Resources

The clearing and grading of streambanks could expose soil to erosional forces and would reduce 

riparian vegetation along the cleared section of the waterbody. The use of heavy equipment for 

construction could cause compaction of near-surface soils, an effect that could result in increased runoff 

into surface waters in the immediate vicinity of the proposed construction right-of-way. Increased surface 

runoff could transport sediment into surface waters, resulting in increased turbidity levels and increased 

sedimentation rates in the receiving waterbody. Disturbances to stream channels and streambanks could 

also increase the likelihood of scour after construction.

Refueling of vehicles and storage of fuel, oil, or other hazardous materials near surface waters 

could create a potential for contamination. If a spill were to occur, immediate downstream users of the 

water could experience degradation in water quality. Acute and chronic toxic effects to aquatic organisms 

could also result from such a spill.

Blasting may be required along the pipeline route and within streams. In-stream blasting has the 

potential to injure or kill aquatic organisms, displace organisms during blast-hole drilling operations, and 

temporarily increase stream turbidity. Chemical by-products from the blasting materials could also be 

released and could potentially contaminate the water. Constitution developed a Blasting Plan to minimize 

potential adverse impacts on the environment, nearby water sources, structures, and utilities. As stated in 

the Blasting Plan, licensed blasting contractors would conduct blasting activities in accordance with all 

applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Constitute would obtain all necessary permits if blasting 

were required within streams.

Seasonal and flash flooding hazards are a potential concern where the proposed pipeline would 

cross or be near major streams and small watersheds. Although flooding itself does not generally present 

a risk to pipeline facilities, bank erosion and/or scour could expose the pipeline or cause sections of pipe 

to become unsupported. All pipeline facilities are required to be designed and constructed in accordance 

with 49 CFR 192. These regulations include specifications for installing the pipeline at a sufficient depth 

to avoid possible scour at waterbody crossings. Typically, the trench would be sufficiently deep to 

provide for a minimum of 5 feet of cover over the pipeline at waterbodies. 

In addition, Constitution would implement several mitigation measures within floodplains to 

minimize potential impacts from flood events. These measures include:

• clearing only the vegetation needed for safe construction of the pipeline;

• installing and maintaining erosion and sediment control structures;

• installing concrete pipe coating or concrete weights on pipe within waterbodies and/or 

floodplains to prevent possible floating of the pipe;

• restoring floodplain contours and waterbody banks to their pre-construction condition; 

and

• conducting post-construction monitoring to ensure successful revegetation.

Dry Crossings

Constitution would cross all waterbodies using either a dry crossing or trenchless crossing 

method. Section 2.3.2.2 provides a description of waterbody crossing methods. Temporary constructionrelated impacts associated with the use of dry crossing methods would be limited primarily to short 

periods of increased turbidity before installation of the pipeline during the assembly of the upstream and 

downstream dams and following installation of the pipeline when the dams are removed and flow across 

the restored work area is re-established. Constitution would minimize impacts on waterbodies, 
Water Resources 4-56

watersheds, and nearby reservoirs during construction by implementing the construction and mitigation 

procedures contained in its Procedures, which include:

• limiting clearing of vegetation between temporary extra workspaces and the edge of the 

waterbody to preserve riparian vegetation;

• constructing the crossing as close to perpendicular to the waterbody as site conditions 

allow;

• maintaining adequate flow rates throughout construction to protect aquatic life and 

prevent the interruption of existing downstream uses;

• locating equipment parking areas, equipment refueling areas, concrete coating activities, 

and hazardous material storage to areas at least 100 feet from surface waters;

• requiring construction across waterbodies to be completed as quickly as possible;

• requiring temporary erosion and sediment control measures to be installed across the 

entire width of the construction right-of-way after clearing and before ground 

disturbance;

• requiring maintenance of temporary erosion and sediment control measures throughout 

construction until streambanks and adjacent upland areas are stabilized;

• requiring bank stabilization and reestablishment of bed and bank contours and riparian 

vegetation after construction;

• limiting post-construction maintenance of vegetated buffer strips adjacent to streams; and

• implementing Constitution’s Spill Plan if a spill or leak occurred during construction.

Long-term impacts associated with pipeline operations and maintenance would be relatively 

minor. Constitution would stabilize streambanks within 24-hours of completion of construction and 

revegetate following installation of the pipeline and post-construction vegetation maintenance would be 

limited to the permanent right-of-way pursuant to the Constitution’s ECPs.

During construction, the open trench may accumulate water, either from the seepage of 

groundwater or from precipitation. Where dewatering is necessary, Constitution would pump the trench 

water into well-vegetated uplands and/or filter bags, as described in the Constitution’s ECPs. This 

process would prevent heavily silt-laden water from flowing into any adjacent waterbodies or wetlands.

HDD Crossings

The primary impact that could occur as a result of a HDD is an inadvertent release of drilling mud 

directly or indirectly into the waterbody. Waterbody crossings accomplished by conventional bore would 

not be at risk for an inadvertent release, and the Direct Pipe method would have minimal risk for losing 

drilling-related fluids. Drilling mud may leak through previously unidentified fractures in the rock or soil 

material being drilled, in the area of the HDD’s mud pits or tanks, or along the drill path due to 

unfavorable ground conditions. The potential for an inadvertent release is generally greatest during the 

drilling of the pilot hole and when the drill bit is working near the surface (i.e., near the entry and exit 

points), when the pressurized drilling mud is seeking the path of least resistance. The path of least 

resistance is typically back along the path of the drilled pilot hole. However, if the drill path becomes 

temporarily blocked or large fractures or fissures that lead to the surface are crossed, then an inadvertent 

release could occur. Constitution would monitor the pipeline route and the circulation of drilling mud 

throughout the HDD operation for indications of an inadvertent drilling mud release and would 
4-57 Water Resources

immediately implement corrective actions if a release is observed or suspected. Although drilling mud 

consists of nontoxic materials, in larger quantities the release of drilling mud into a waterbody could 

affect fisheries or other aquatic organisms by causing turbidity in a waterbody and/or temporarily coating 

the waterbody bed with a layer of clay. Because the staging areas for the HDDs would be set back from 

the banks of the rivers, the potential for an inadvertent release to occur in the water would be minimized. 

As discussed in section 4.1, Constitution evaluated the need for a geotechnical investigation at 13

proposed trenchless crossings along the pipeline route. Because geotechnical investigations are still ongoing, we are recommending that Constitution provide the results of these investigations and feasibility 

studies for the proposed trenchless crossings prior to construction. Constitution developed an HDD 

Contingency Plan that describes how the HDD operations would be monitored to minimize the potential 

for inadvertent releases of drilling fluids and includes general procedures for cleanup. The plan includes 

procedures for identifying inadvertent releases, procedures for sealing boreholes (if necessary), a list of 

on-site supplies and equipment staged in advance for frac-out response, and contact information for 

individuals who should be notified of an incident. Therefore, we conclude that impacts on surface waters 

from HDD installations would be minimized and not significant. 

Access Roads

The temporary and permanent access roads required for construction of the pipeline would 

require either new construction or improvements to existing roads, such as widening and the addition of 

gravel to accommodate the movement of equipment and materials. The proposed access roads may

require grading, addition of gravel, replacement/installation of culverts, and removal of overhanging 

vegetation. Constitution would minimize impacts by installing and maintaining erosion control devices 

and removing mud from paved road surfaces. Additionally, Constitution has not provided us with 

sufficient detail for its proposed permanent crossings of waterbodies, nor has it provided us sufficient 

justification for the use of permanent fill in waterbodies. As noted above, we have recommended that 

Constitution file site-specific plans for the proposed permanent access road crossings of waterbodies and 

wetlands, including site-specific justifications for the use of permanent fill, prior to the end of the draft 

EIS comment period.

Hydrostatic Testing and Dust Control

As discussed in section 4.3.3.5, Constitution and Iroquois estimate that approximately 23 million 

gallons of water would be needed for hydrostatic testing of the proposed pipeline, HDD test segments, 

and aboveground facilities. 

The withdrawal of large volumes of water from surface water sources could temporarily affect the 

recreational and biological uses of the resource if the diversions constitute a large percentage of the 

source’s total flow or volume. Water withdrawals could also result in temporary loss of habitat, change in 

water temperature and dissolved oxygen levels, and entrainment or impingement of fish or other aquatic 

organisms. Constitution would minimize the potential effects of water withdrawals from surface water 

and groundwater sources by adhering to the measures in its ECPs. Constitution would maintain base 

flows during all withdrawals, screen intake hoses, regulate the rate of withdrawal of test water to prevent 

the entrainment of fish and other aquatic organisms, and discharge test waters to well vegetated, upland 

areas. Therefore, we conclude that impacts on surface waters from withdrawal of test and dust control 

water would be minimized and not significant. Section 4.6 further discusses the potential impacts from 

water withdrawal on aquatic species. Additionally, Constitution would acquire the necessary permits and 

approvals from state and federal agencies. Iroquois would obtain its test water from municipal sources, so 

no impacts on surface waterbodies would occur. 
Wetlands 4-58

Hazardous Material Spills

Accidental spills and leaks of hazardous materials associated with equipment trailers; the 

refueling or maintenance of vehicles; and the storage of fuel, oil, and other fluids can have immediate 

effects on aquatic resources and could contaminate a waterbody downstream of the release point. 

Constitution and Iroquois would implement their respective Procedures which avoid or minimize impacts 

associated with spills or leaks of hazardous liquids by restricting the location of refueling (at least 100 

feet from a wetland or waterbody) and storage facilities and by requiring containment and cleanup in the 

event of a spill or leak. 

Additionally, implementation of the measures in Constitution’s Spill Plan and Iroquois’ SPCC 

Plan would minimize the potential for surface water impacts associated with an inadvertent spill of 

hazardous materials. These plans include the use of secondary containment structures for petroleum 

products, daily equipment inspection for leaks, and restrictions on the transport of potentially hazardous 

materials to the construction work area. Constitution’s Spill Plan and Iroquois’ SPCC Plan also specify 

measures to contain and clean up a spill. Implementation of Constitution’s Procedures and Spill Plan and 

Iroquois’ Procedures and SPCC Plan would adequately address the storage and transfer of hazardous 

materials and petroleum products, and the appropriate response in the event of a spill.

4.3.3.7 Extra Workspaces within 50 Feet of Waterbodies

As discussed in section 2.3, our Procedures stipulate that all extra workspaces should be at least 

50 feet from waterbodies. Constitution has identified certain areas where site-specific conditions do not 

allow for a 50-foot setback. Appendix D identifies these locations and the reasons why Constitution 

stated the extra workspaces are justified. Based on our review, we concur that all of Constitution’s 

requests are justified. Section 2.3 provides additional discussion on this topic.

4.3.4 Conclusion

No long-term impacts on surface waters are anticipated as a result of the proposed projects 

because Constitution would not permanently affect the designated water uses, it would bury the pipeline 

beneath the bed of all waterbodies, it would implement erosion controls, and it would restore the 

streambanks and streambed contours as close as practical to pre-construction conditions.

Operation of the projects would not cause impacts on any surface waters, unless maintenance 

activities involving pipe excavation and repair in or near streams are required in the future. For 

maintenance activities if needed, Constitution and Iroquois would employ protective measures similar to 

those proposed for use during construction. As a result, we conclude that any impacts derived from 

maintenance would be short-term and similar to those discussed above for the initial pipeline 

construction.

4.4 WETLANDS

Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and 

duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation 

adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Examples of wetlands 

include swamps, marshes, and bogs. Wetlands serve important biological, physical, and chemical 

functions, including providing wildlife food, habitat, recreation opportunities, flood control, and water 

quality improvement. 
4-59 Wetlands

In the project area, wetlands are regulated at both federal (COE) and state (PADEP and 

NYSDEC) levels. Under Section 404 of the CWA, the COE is authorized to issue permits for activities 

that would result in the discharge of dredge or fill material, or the dredging of, waters of the United States 

such as wetlands. Under Section 401 of the CWA, states are required to certify that proposed dredging or 

filling of waters of the United States meets state water quality standards. 

4.4.1 Existing Wetland Resources

Constitution identified and delineated wetlands along the proposed pipeline route during field 

surveys in 2012 and 2013. Wetland boundaries were delineated using the methods described in the 

Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and 

Northeast Region (Environmental Laboratory 2012). For areas where Constitution was denied survey 

access, publicly available National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and state wetlands maps (as applicable) 

were used to approximate the locations and boundaries of wetlands within the project area. Constitution 

utilized a 600-foot-wide survey corridor for wetland surveys conducted from June through December 

2012. Surveys conducted in 2013 used a 300-foot-wide survey corridor. Constitution submitted a 

wetland delineation report to the COE as part of its application for a Section 404/10 Individual Permit on 

August 26, 2013. A total of 91.8 acres of wetlands would be either crossed by Constitution’s project 

(crossings include the pipeline and proposed access roads), affected by temporary extra workspace, or 

within the construction right-of-way but not affected. Appendix L identifies the location, NWI 

classification, crossing length, and acreage of each wetland that Constitution would affect. Iroquois’ 

project would not impact any wetlands.

4.4.1.1 Pipeline Facilities

The pipeline would affect a total of 90.9 acres of wetlands, including 15.4 acres in Pennsylvania 

and 75.5 acres are in New York. Of those impacts, 75.1 acres (13.3 acres in Pennsylvania and 61.8 acres 

in New York) would be temporary and associated with construction of the project. Constitution was 

unable to survey all parcels; therefore, the total acreages were determined through a combination of field 

survey data and a review of the NWI maps. 

4.4.1.2 Aboveground Facilities

No wetlands were identified at any of Constitution’s proposed aboveground facility locations. 

4.4.1.3 Contractor Yards

Constitution conducted wetland surveys for three of the proposed contractor yards in 2013. 

Constitution plans to conduct surveys of the remaining three contractor yard sites and to subsequently 

provide that information to us. Given that field surveys and final design of the contractor yards has not 

yet been completed, we recommended in section 4.3.2 that Constitution file the remaining wetland 

surveys prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period. Wetlands were identified within the boundaries 

of two proposed contractor yards. Constitution states it would avoid any wetlands within or adjacent to 

the contractor yards and use BMPs to prevent sediments from being transported to wetlands. Constitution 

would fence wetlands with erosion controls at a buffer of 10 feet or greater to avoid disturbance or 

sedimentation of the wetland during construction. 

4.4.1.4 Access Roads

Temporary and permanent access roads to support pipeline construction would cross a total of 0.5 

acre of wetlands in Pennsylvania and 0.4 acre in New York. Appendix L identifies the location, NWI 
Wetlands 4-60

classification, crossing length, and acreage of each wetland that Constitution would affect by access 

roads. Of the 0.9 total acres of wetlands affected by access roads, 0.6 acres of impacts would be 

temporary. Constitution would use equipment mats in wetlands affected by temporary access roads; once 

construction is complete, Constitution would remove the mats and restore the wetlands as described in its 

ECPs. 

Constitution has proposed to permanently fill 0.3 acre of wetlands associated with permanent 

access roads. In section 4.3 we recommended that permanent fill of wetlands and waterbodies for the 

construction and operation of access roads be further justified. A full list of access roads and their 

impacts is provided in appendix E.

4.4.1.5 Wetland Types

Wetland types were assigned based on the NWI classification hierarchy described by Cowardin et

al. (1979). Wetlands crossed by the project are classified as palustrine (freshwater wetland) and are 

defined by their dominant vegetation layer (emergent, shrub-scrub, or forested), as described below. 

4.4.1.6 Palustrine Forested Wetlands

Palustrine forested wetlands in the project area are dominated by trees and shrubs at least 20 feet 

tall with a tolerance to a seasonally high water table (Cowardin et al. 1979). Forested wetlands typically 

have a mature tree canopy with a diverse range of understory and herbaceous community structure and 

species. Wetland tree species identified in in the area of the proposed pipeline include coniferous species 

(e.g., eastern hemlock and white pine) and hardwoods (e.g., yellow birch, ash, and maple).

4.4.1.7 Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetlands

Palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands identified in the area of Constitution’s project are typically shrub 

swamps at the transition between herbaceous (emergent) and forested habitats. Palustrine scrub-shrub 

wetlands are dominated by shrubs and saplings less than 20 feet tall (Cowardin et al. 1979). Shrub 

species identified in the proposed pipeline area include willows, dogwoods, speckled alder, and southern 

arrowwood.

4.4.1.8 Palustrine Emergent Wetlands

Palustrine emergent wetlands are characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous plants suited to 

growing in wet conditions (Cowardin et al. 1979). Vegetation may also include mosses and lichens. In 

the area of Constitution’s project, these wetlands include wet meadows (including agricultural fields). 

Emergent wetland species identified in the proposed pipeline area include common rush, smartweeds, 

goldenrods, sedges, and reed canary grass (an invasive species). 

4.4.1.9 State Wetland Classifications

Pennsylvania

Exceptional value wetlands are given special protection in the state of Pennsylvania by the 

PADEP under Pennsylvania Code Title 25 (Pennsylvania Code 1991) and include those wetlands that:

• serve as habitat for threatened and endangered species (or are hydrologically connected to 

or within 0.5 mile of such type wetlands);

• are adjacent to a wild trout stream or EV water;
4-61 Wetlands

• are along a designated drinking water supply; and

• occur within natural or wild areas (e.g., federal and state lands).

Two of the wetlands crossed by the proposed pipeline in Pennsylvania are forested and classified 

as exceptional value (appendix L). 

New York

In accordance with the Environmental Conservation Article 24, New York Code (Freshwater 

Wetlands), the state of New York identifies, classifies, and protects freshwater wetlands with an area of 

12.4 acres or more, by establishing a 100-foot-wide regulated adjacent area around each protected 

wetland (New York Code 1997). The proposed pipeline would cross 4.4 acres of NYSDEC-regulated 

wetlands, all of which are Class II wetlands, as defined in 6 NYCRR Part 664 (appendix L) (NYCRR 

2006). Class II wetlands meet any of the cover type, ecological associations, special features (such as 

habitat for listed, vulnerable or rare animal and plant species, archaeological significance, or association 

with an unusual geological feature), hydrological and pollution control features (such as sewage treatment 

capacity or hydrological connection to an aquifer designated as potentially useful water supply), or 

distribution and location characteristics (such as location within an urbanized area or publically owned 

recreation area) defined in 6 NYCRR Part 664. Class II wetlands include emergent marshes with less 

than two-thirds cover of invasive purple loosestrife or common reed, wetlands with two or more structural 

groups, or wetlands associated with permanent waterbodies. Class II wetlands may also be important 

migrant or resident habitat for threatened, endangered, vulnerable or rare species, demonstrate 

paleontological significance, or be associated with unusual geological features. Class II wetlands can 

include connection with potentially useful water supply aquifers, provide flood abatement services, and 

be within an urbanized area or publicly owned recreation area. Constitution has requested field review 

with the NYSDEC to confirm the boundaries of these wetlands, and would incorporate additional 

protection measures for NYSDEC-regulated wetlands, including setback of all extra workspace outside of 

a 100-foot area adjacent to each wetland.

4.4.2 Wetland Construction Procedures

Constitution would impact a total of 91.8 acres of wetland by the proposed pipeline and extra 

workspaces. Construction would be conducted in accordance with Constitution’s state-specific ECPs and 

as described in section 2.3.2.1. In wetlands, the construction right-of-way would be generally limited to a 

width of 75 feet, except in areas where Constitution requested additional right-of-way width as discussed 

in section 4.4.4. Because surveys could not be obtained for all parcels crossed by the pipeline, the 

acreages were determined through a combination of field survey data and a review of the NWI maps. 

Constitution would determine the method of pipeline construction within each wetland by soil 

stability and saturation at the time of construction. Where soils are stable and are not saturated at the time 

of crossing, the pipeline would be installed using methods similar to those in uplands. Additional 

protection methods in these wetlands include limiting the use of equipment operating in wetlands, 

limiting the time that the trench would remain open, and installing trench breakers on the upland 

boundary of each wetland. Constitution would use equipment mats in wetlands where rutting could 

occur.

Where wetland soils are saturated or are not stable enough to support construction equipment at 

the time of crossing, conventional wetland crossing methods would be used. Using the conventional 

wetland crossing method, Constitution would string and weld the pipe in an upland staging area. 
Wetlands 4-62

Vegetation and stump removal would be limited to the trench line, and topsoil would not be segregated if 

soils are saturated or inundated. 

Where wetland soils are inundated, the pipeline may be installed using the push-pull technique. 

This technique involves stringing and welding the pipeline outside of the wetland and excavating the 

trench through the wetland using a backhoe supported by equipment mats. The water that seeps into the 

trench would be used to “float” the pipeline into place together with a winch and flotation devices that 

would be attached to the pipe. After the pipeline is floated into place, Constitution would remove the 

floats, and the pipeline would sink into place. 

Pipe installed in saturated wetlands is typically coated with concrete or equipped with set-on 

weights to provide negative buoyancy. After the pipeline sinks to the bottom of the trench, a trackhoe 

working on equipment mats would backfill the trench and complete any additional cleanup that is 

required. 

4.4.3 General Impacts and Mitigation

Table 4.4.3-1 summarizes the impacts of the proposed pipeline on wetlands. Construction would 

impact a total of 91.8 acres of wetland, including 32.7 acres of forested wetlands, 25.0 acres of shrubscrub wetlands and 34.1 acres of emergent wetlands. The majority of the project’s wetland impacts 

would occur from construction within temporary workspaces (75.7 acres) and therefore return to preconstruction conditions following construction. Constitution would maintain a 30-foot-wide corridor in 

wetlands, with selective removal of trees within 15 feet of the pipeline, impacting a total of 12.5 acres 

through the operational life of Constitution’s project. Additionally, Constitution would maintain a 10-

foot-wide corridor as herbaceous within shrub-scrub wetlands, impacting a total of 3.6 acres during 

operation. 

TABLE 4.4.3-1

Wetland Acreages Affected by the Constructiona and Operationb of the Proposed Pipeline Project

State/Facility

Wetland Type Total Wetland 

Area Affected 

(Construction, 

acres)

Total Wetland 

Area Affected 

(Operation, 

acres)

Forested Wetland Shrub-Scrub Wetland Emergent Wetland

Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper

Pennsylvania

Pipeline 

Facilities

4.4 1.7 1.9 0.3 9.1 0.0 15.4 2.0

Access 

Roads

0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 <0.1 0.5 0.1

State Total 4.7 1.8 2.0 0.3 9.2 <0.1 15.8 2.1

New York

Pipeline 

Facilities

27.7 10.5 23.0 3.3 24.9 0.0 75.5 13.8

Access 

Roads

0.4 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.2

State Total 28.0 10.7 23.0 3.3 25.0 <0.1 76.0 14

Project Total 32.7 12.5 25.0 3.6 34.1 <0.1 91.8 16.1

____________________

Note: Columns may not sum correctly due to rounding.

a Construction impacts include the right-of-way width and all workspace and extra workspace.

b Operational impacts include the 10-foot-wide corridor of vegetation maintenance within the pipeline right-of-way of shrubscrub wetlands and a 30-foot-wide corridor permanently maintained through forested wetlands.
4-63 Wetlands

The primary impacts of Constitution’s construction on wetland vegetation would be the 

temporary and permanent alteration of forested wetland vegetation. Other impacts on wetlands could 

include temporary changes in hydrology and water quality during construction. Temporary removal of 

wetland vegetation during construction could alter the capacity of wetlands to function as habitat and 

flood and erosion control buffers.

Mixing of topsoil with subsoil could alter nutrient availability and soil chemistry, thereby 

inhibiting recruitment of native wetland vegetation. Blasting may be required for trench excavation 

across an estimated 1.6 miles of wetlands along the pipeline route due to the presence of shallow bedrock. 

Blasting could result in changes in wetland hydrology due to disturbance of impermeable layers of soil or 

shallow bedrock. Blasting is described further in sections 2.3.1 and 4.1. Heavy equipment operating 

during construction could result in soil compaction or rutting that would alter natural hydrologic and soil 

conditions, potentially inhibiting germination of native seeds and the ability of plants to establish healthy 

root systems. Additionally, discharges from stormwater, dewatering structures, or hydrostatic testing 

could transport sediments and pollutants into wetlands, affecting water quality. 

The majority of the impacts on wetlands from the proposed pipeline would be temporary and 

short-term. Constitution would restore all wetlands to pre-project contours and hydrology, with the 

exception of 0.3 acre of palustrine emergent and forested wetlands associated with permanent access 

roads that Constitution has proposed to permanently fill. Herbaceous wetland vegetation would 

regenerate quickly, typically within 1 to 3 years, and emergent wetlands would not be subject to 

vegetation maintenance. Temporary impacts on forested and shrub-scrub wetlands would be long-term, 

because woody vegetation would take several years to regenerate. In section 4.3 we recommend that 

Constitution provide further justification for permanent fill of wetlands associated with access roads. 

Constitution would also avoid wetland impacts by using trenchless (HDD or Direct Pipe) 

construction methods at five locations. Use of the HDD and Direct Pipe crossing methods would 

eliminate the need for trenching and operation of heavy construction equipment within the wetland, and 

Constitution would limit activities between the HDD entry and exit points to foot traffic required to place 

guide wires for the drill alignment. Constitution proposed to clear vegetation within a 10-foot-wide 

corridor between the HDD entry and exit location along the centerline for the purposes of accessing water 

to support drilling operations at three locations. However, we conclude that for the construction of the 

HDDs, the installation of guide wires and acquisition of water can be completed without clearing trees

along the HDD alignment. Therefore, to avoid unnecessary impacts and limit disturbance to the 

minimum area needed to construct the HDD crossings, we recommend that: 

• During construction of the project, Constitution should not clear any trees between 

the workspaces for HDD/Direct Pipe entry and exit sites. Minor brush clearing, less 

than 3 feet wide, using hand tools only would be allowed to facilitate the use of the 

HDD/Direct Pipe tracking system or acquisition of water for makeup of the 

HDD/Direct Pipe slurry. During operation Constitution should not conduct any 

routine vegetation maintenance in these areas.

As discussed in section 3.0, Constitution also incorporated several route modifications during 

project design to avoid wetlands. 

Constitution would limit permanent impacts on forested and shrub-scrub wetlands to a 10-footwide maintained corridor along the pipeline centerline. Additionally, Constitution would selectively clear 

forested wetland vegetation within 15 feet of the centerline. The remainder of forested and shrub-scrub 

wetlands in those habitats would be allowed to return to pre-project vegetation conditions. Constitution 

would mitigate for unavoidable wetland impacts by implementing the procedures specified in its state-
Wetlands 4-64

specific ECPs, and by complying with the conditions of its pending Section 404 and 401 permits. 

Specific measures Constitution would implement include: 

• limiting the construction right-of-way width to 75 feet, except in areas where site-specific 

conditions require additional space (FERC approval required);

• locating extra workspaces at least 50 feet from wetland boundaries, except where sitespecific conditions warrant otherwise (FERC approval required);

• cutting vegetation just above ground level, leaving existing root systems in place, and 

limiting the pulling of stumps and grading activities to directly over the trenchline except 

where the Chief Inspector and EI determine that these activities are required for safety 

reasons;

• using low ground weight equipment or operating equipment on timber mats in saturated 

soils to prevent rutting;

• installing sediment barriers immediately after initial ground disturbance at the edge of the 

boundary between wetlands and uplands, immediately upslope of the wetland boundary, 

and along the edge of the right-of-way as necessary to contain spoil and to protect 

adjacent wetland areas;

• segregating the top 12 inches of topsoil from the trenchline, except in areas where 

standing water is present or soils are saturated or frozen;

• decompacting compacted wetland soils by plowing or similar methods;

• prohibiting the use of rock, soil imported from outside the wetland, tree stumps, or brush 

riprap to stabilize the right-of-way;

• installing trench plugs as necessary to maintain the original wetland hydrology;

• restoring pre-construction contours to maintain the original wetland hydrology;

• prohibiting the use of lime or fertilizer within wetlands;

• seeding restored wetlands with annual ryegrass or an agency approved wetland seed mix, 

unless standing water is present;

• limiting vegetation maintenance in wetlands to a 10-foot-wide herbaceous corridor 

centered over the pipeline and the cutting and removal of trees within 15 feet of the 

pipeline centerline; and

• prohibiting the use of herbicides or pesticides within 100 feet of wetlands or waterbodies 

except as specified by the appropriate land management or state agency.

In accordance with its ECPs (and our standard Procedures) Constitution would conduct routine 

wetland monitoring for a minimum of 3 years and submit quarterly reports to the FERC on the status of 

wetland restoration and vegetation growth. Based upon the status of restoration we could require 

additional restoration activity, monitoring, or mitigation to be carried out until wetland restoration is 

deemed satisfactory. 

4.4.4 Alternative Measures 

The FERC Procedures and Constitution’s state-specific ECPs specify that the construction rightof-way in wetlands should be limited to 75 feet wide. However, in certain circumstances, Constitution 
4-65 Wetlands

has requested that the construction right-of-way width be expanded beyond 75 feet, as listed in table 

4.4.4-1. 

TABLE 4.4.4-1

Areas Where Constitution Requested a Right-of-Way Greater than 75-feet-wide in Wetlands 

State/Wetland ID Milepost

Sizea

(acres) Justification FERC Review Status

Pennsylvania

SU-1C-W189 2.4 <0.1 Extra right-of-way width is

required to cross a 

waterbody and road.

We have reviewed and find 

acceptable.

SU-1C-W190 2.4 <0.1 Extra right-of-way width is 

required to cross a 

waterbody and road.

We have reviewed and find 

acceptable.

SU-1B-W138 8.4 <0.1 Extra right-of-way width is 

required to cross a road 

due to the proximity of the 

road crossing to an existing 

pipeline.

We have reviewed and find 

acceptable.

SU-1X-W299 22.6 <0.1 Extra right-of-way width is 

required to cross a road.

We have reviewed and find 

acceptable.

New York

BR-1I-W059 33.3 0.2 Extra right-of-way width is 

required to cross an 

existing pipeline. 

We have reviewed and find 

acceptable.

BR-1B-W083 40.8 0.1 Extra right-of-way width is 

required to cross a road 

and an existing powerline.

We have reviewed and find 

acceptable.

Project Total 0.4

____________________

a Column may not sum correctly due to rounding

The FERC Procedures and Constitution’s state-specific ECPs specify that extra workspace should 

not be within 50 feet of wetlands except where an alternative measure has been requested by Constitution 

and approved by the FERC. Areas where Constitution has requested extra workspace and stated that a 

50-foot setback from wetlands is infeasible (including its justification) are identified in appendix D. We 

have reviewed these and deem them acceptable, as discussed in section 2.3. 

Additionally, appendix D lists the areas where Constitution has requested extra workspace within 

wetlands. Constitution identified three such areas required for HDD installations, and one location at an 

existing power line in one location. We have reviewed Constitution’s proposed extra workspaces within 

wetlands and find them acceptable. 

Finally, Constitution’s ECPs state that Constitution would consult with appropriate federal or 

state agencies to develop a project-specific wetland restoration plan. Revegetation and noxious weed 

control plans are included in Constitution’s state-specific ECPs. Constitution proposes to restore 

wetlands with seed and mulch based upon specifications of the PADEP, the NYSDEC, and/or other 

applicable agencies. Constitution has incorporated these specifications into its ECPs. Following 

construction, Constitution would ensure that all disturbed areas successfully revegetated. Revegetation 

would not be considered successful until: the affected wetland satisfies the current federal definition for a 

wetland; vegetation is at least 80 percent of either the cover documented for the wetland prior to 

construction, or at least 80 percent of the cover in adjacent wetland areas that were not disturbed by 
Wetlands 4-66

construction; the plant species composition is consistent with early successional wetland plant 

communities in the affected ecoregion; and invasive species and noxious weeds are absent, unless they 

are abundant in adjacent areas that were not disturbed by construction. Constitution’s mitigation 

measures to control invasive species during construction are described in section 4.5.4. Three years after 

construction, Constitution must file a report with the Secretary identifying the status of wetland 

revegetation efforts and documenting success, as defined above. Where revegetation is not successful at 

the end of three years, Constitution would develop and implement remedial revegetation plans, in 

consultation with a professional wetland ecologist, to actively revegetate any wetland and continue 

revegetation efforts and file annual reports until wetland revegetation is successful. 

4.4.5 Compensatory Mitigation

Constitution provided a conceptual wetland mitigation plan as part of its applications for Section 

404/10 Individual Permits to the COE, the PADEP, and the NYSDEC in August 2013. 

Subsequently, the COE requested that Constitution provide a compensatory mitigation plan in 

accordance with the 2008 Final Rule for Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources (33 

CFR 332). Constitution submitted detailed mitigation plans in December 2013, proposing the use of an 

in-lieu fee arrangement and permittee responsible mitigation in New York; and permittee responsible 

mitigation in Pennsylvania. The plans are based on an assessment of wetland impacts using remotesensing techniques for portions of the pipeline corridor which could not be assessed due to the lack of 

landowner permission. Wetland impacts were also assessed using ground surveys where landowner 

permission was granted. These plans are currently under review to ensure appropriate compensation for 

impacts on aquatic resources. 

Pennsylvania

Constitution’s draft mitigation plan for wetland impacts in Pennsylvania identifies a tiered 

approach, which includes minimization of impacts as described in the Pennsylvania ECP sections 7 and 

9.3, conducting mitigation for temporary and short-term impacts using onsite restoration, and conducting 

mitigation for permanent and long-term impacts using a variety of offsite mitigation methods. 

Constitution also attempted to identify in lieu fee programs, but none were identified for the project area 

in Pennsylvania. Constitution has preliminarily identified a wetland mitigation opportunity that would 

provide “in-kind” mitigation for unavoidable impacts caused by the pipeline project and resulting in no 

net loss of wetland function or area.

In an effort to distribute mitigation equally along the length of the pipeline project, as regulatory 

agencies and stakeholders typically prefer, Constitution sought mitigation opportunities in both HUC-8 

watersheds that would be crossed in Pennsylvania: the Upper Susquehanna and the Upper SusquehannaTunkhannock. No appropriate mitigation sites were identified in either Upper Susquehanna HUC-8 

watershed, but an appropriate opportunity was found in the broader HUC-6 watershed, where the 

proposed project also would be located. The mitigation site would be located in Bradford County, 

Pennsylvania, and the COE and the PADEP approval of the site is pending. However, Constitution 

anticipates that the opportunity could be approved prior to the start of pipeline construction, thereby 

making it available to serve as mitigation for the project. Wetland mitigation sites are placed in restrictive 

covenants, thereby ensuring their long-term preservation and maintenance.

Constitution proposed that temporal impacts for emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands be mitigated 

solely by onsite restoration. Mitigation ratios for temporal impacts on forested wetlands, permanent 

conversion of scrub-shrub or forested wetland to another wetland type (such as emergent), or permanent 

fill (such as with installation of a permanent access road) would be negotiated by Constitution with the 
4-67 Wetlands

COE and the PADEP and would generally be higher for impacts on forested wetlands and for permanent 

impacts. 

The COE’s Baltimore District and the PADEP are still reviewing Constitution’s wetland 

mitigation plan for Pennsylvania and will continue to work with Constitution to determine the appropriate 

type and amount of mitigation needed for the pipeline project’s wetland impacts in Pennsylvania. 

New York

Constitution’s mitigation plan for wetland impacts in New York also identifies a tiered approach, 

as described above for Pennsylvania. Constitution would minimize impacts on wetlands by implementing 

the procedures as described in section 4.4.3. Temporary, short-term impacts on palustrine emergent and 

palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands would be restored to pre-project contours and revegetated according to 

the ECP. Therefore, Constitution is not proposing additional mitigation for the wetlands. Because 

temporary impacts on palustrine forested wetlands affected by construction of the project would be longterm, Constitution is proposing offsite mitigation. Additionally, offsite mitigation would be conducted 

for: 

• permanent fill of wetlands associated with access road construction; 

• conversion of palustrine forested to palustrine scrub-shrub or palustrine emergent 

wetlands within a 30-foot-wide vegetation maintenance corridor along the centerline; and

• conversion of palustrine scrub-shrub to palustrine emergent wetland within a 10-foot 

vegetation maintenance corridor along the centerline. 

Constitution assessed potential offsite mitigation separately for each watershed crossed by the 

project so that mitigation would be conducted where impacts would occur. Mitigation techniques 

typically include: mitigation banks, in-lieu fee programs, and permittee-responsible mitigation. 

Mitigation banking is not available in New York; therefore, where possible Constitution is proposing inlieu fee programs. In-lieu fee programs would require Constitution to provide funds to a project sponsor 

(e.g., a natural resource management agency) for development or maintenance of a mitigation site. In 

watersheds where an in-lieu fee program is not available, Constitution would conduct permitteeresponsible mitigation. Permittee-responsible mitigation would require Constitution to restore existing 

wetlands, enhance the quality of existing wetlands, create (establish) wetlands, or preserve existing 

wetlands. Additionally, Constitution could conduct permittee-responsible mitigation by establishing or 

preserving a buffer separating wetlands from adjacent agricultural or developed land.

Constitution identified a ratio of mitigation acres to impact acres for each type of impact and 

mitigation. Constitution assumed degraded wetlands (such as those impacted by agriculture) required less 

mitigation and therefore had lower mitigation ratios. 

Approval of Constitution’s mitigation plan is pending review of its application for Section 404/10 

Individual Permit to the COE and the NYSDEC.

4.4.6 Conclusion

With adherence to the ECPs, Procedures, the NYSDEC and the COE permit requirements, and 

our recommendations, impacts on wetlands would be minor. While adverse and long-term impacts on 

wetlands would occur, with Constitution’s implementation of its mitigation we conclude the impacts 

would be reduced to less than significant levels. 
Vegetation 4-68

4.5 VEGETATION

4.5.1 Existing Vegetation Conditions

The projects would be entirely within the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province of the Eastern United 

States, which is characterized by mixed stands of coniferous and deciduous species with coniferous 

forests predominant in areas with poor soil quality and deciduous stands dominant in habitats with good 

quality soils (USDA 2005). There are four major cover types along the proposed pipeline route,

characterized by dominant vegetation and habitat value: agricultural and open lands; upland forest; and 

wetlands. Developed land, which is not discussed in this section, includes residential, commercial, and 

industrial lands; roadways; and mining operations, all of which are generally devoid of native vegetation

and provide little habitat value (instead see our discussion in section 4.8. Agricultural land includes areas 

used for livestock grazing and crop production that provide minor to moderate habitat value. Commercial 

crops common to the project area and include hay, alfalfa, corn, and soybeans. Open land consists of 

non-forested vegetated areas not encompassed by developed or agricultural lands and includes grass and 

shrub lands, successional fields, and maintained rights-of-way.

In Pennsylvania, upland forest communities are predominantly deciduous hardwood forests with 

smaller coverage of mixed conifer-deciduous hardwood and conifer forests (PADCNR 2010). In New 

York, upland forest communities are comprised of hemlock northern hardwood, Appalachian oak-pine, 

and beech-maple mesic forests (Edinger 2002). Wetlands are discussed in section 4.4. 

Pipeline Facilities

The majority of vegetation that the pipeline project and associated extra workspaces would 

impact during construction is upland forest (983.0 acres). Additional vegetation impact types include 

agricultural lands (387.0 acres), open lands (179.6 acres), and wetlands (90.9 acres, of which 32.1 acres 

are forested). 

Aboveground Facilities

Construction of the aboveground facilities would impact 8.2 acres of upland forest and 7.1 acres 

of open land. Constitution would construct the mainline valves, pig launcher/receivers, and two tie-ins 

within the permanent pipeline easement or M&R station boundaries. 

Contractor Yards

Constitution proposes to use six contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction 

activities. These contractor yards would impact 40.8 acres of agricultural and 42.9 acres of open 

vegetation types. 

Access Roads

Constitution would use five temporary access roads during construction activities and an 

additional 54 permanent access roads during construction and operation. The temporary access roads 

would impact 2.0 acres of land. Of the permanent access roads, 38 would be existing roads that may 

require some improvements (e.g., grading and widening), resulting in impacts on a total of 21.3 acres of 

upland forest, agricultural land, open land, and wetlands. The construction of six new permanent access 

roads would result in impacts on a total of 2.5 acres of vegetation. The remaining 10 roads would be a 

combination of new and modified existing roads, which would result in 18.0 acres of impact on 

vegetation, some of which would be new disturbance. Impacts of access roads on wetlands are discussed 
4-69 Vegetation

in section 4.4. However, plans for access roads for the proposed meter stations had not yet been 

developed. Because this information has not yet been provided and potential impacts on vegetation have 

not been quantified, we recommend that:

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Constitution should file a 

description of its proposed access roads leading to the two proposed meter stations; 

maps depicting the access roads; tabulated impacts on vegetation types; and any 

proposed impact avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures. 

In addition, we recommended in section 4.3 that permanent fill of wetlands and waterbodies for 

the construction and operation of access roads be further justified. A list and description of access roads 

is provided in appendix E. 

4.5.2 Vegetation Communities of Special Concern or Value

Constitution consulted with federal and state resource agencies to identify sensitive or protected 

vegetation types, natural areas, and unique plant communities in the project area. The discussion below 

summarizes these consultations. Information regarding federally or state-listed plant species (including 

species of special concern) is included in section 4.7. 

Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program, a component of the PADCNR, has inventoried, by 

county, the locations of plant species and natural communities of special concern (PADCNR 2012). 

“Natural communities of special concern” are natural communities identified as vulnerable, imperiled or 

critically imperiled by the Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program while “natural areas” are defined by 

the Pennsylvania Code as areas of unique scenic, historic, geologic, or ecological value that have been 

maintained in their natural condition (Zimmerman 2012, Pennsylvania Code 2013). Neither natural 

communities nor natural areas are regulated under the Pennsylvania Code. Based on the PADCNR 

Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Index, 2 natural communities of concern and 10 rare plant species were 

identified in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline project (PADCNR 2012). Constitution identified three 

additional natural communities of concern and one natural area through supplemental literature review 

(Zimmerman et al. 2012). 

Constitution used qualified botanists to conduct biological surveys for the natural communities 

and natural areas identified during agency consultation and literature research, as well as the rare plants 

that may be present within them. Surveys have been completed for those areas within a 600-foot-wide 

survey corridor in areas identified as suitable habitat, with the exception of one area (approximately 57 

acres) for which landowner access has not been obtained. Two natural communities, both hemlock 

palustrine forested wetlands, were encountered during surveys. Constitution would avoid one of these 

wetlands by a route modification and avoid the other by a reduction in workspace. The PADCNR 

indicated in a June 7, 2013 letter that no impacts on plants or natural communities are anticipated along 

the project route (PADCNR 2013a). Therefore, we conclude that no impacts on Pennsylvania natural 

communities or natural areas of special concern would occur.

New York

The NYSDEC, in a letter dated February 13, 2013, identified one natural community, a dwarf 

shrub bog, as potentially present within the project area (NYSDEC 2013e). In addition to agency 

consultation, Constitution identified potentially suitable habitat for significant natural communities within 

the 600-foot-wide survey corridor during additional data reviews (Edinger et al. 2002). 
Vegetation 4-70

Areas identified as suitable habitat for significant natural communities were surveyed by qualified 

botanists in September 2012, and three natural community types were identified in the pipeline project 

area: a Spruce Fir Swamp between MP 85.8 and MP 85.9, a Limestone Woodland Community between 

MP 118.5 and MP 119.0, and a Calcareous Talus Slope Woodland between MP 119.0 and MP 119.1 (see 

table 4.5.2-1). These natural community types are rare in the state or represent high quality examples of a 

common ecological community, but are not protected by any state or federal regulations. The dwarf 

shrub bog community type identified by the NYSDEC was not encountered during surveys. Constitution 

would avoid impacts on the Spruce Fir Swamp community by use of an HDD crossing. Constitution has 

not proposed specific mitigation for the Limestone Woodland Community or the adjacent Calcareous 

Talus Slope Woodland, but would reduce the construction right-of-way width from 110 feet to 100 feet 

within these interior forested crossings, and would adhere to the measures described in its New York ECP 

to minimize impacts. We have reviewed these measures and conclude they would minimize impacts on 

these areas to the extent practicable. 

No special-status natural communities are present at Iroquois’ proposed compressor station 

transfer facility site.

TABLE 4.5.2-1

Special Vegetation Communities Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline

State/County Special Community

Crossing Length 

(miles) Milepost Additional Mitigation

Pennsylvania

None Crossed

New York

Delaware Spruce Fir Swamp 0.4 85.8 – 85.9 HDD

Schoharie Limestone Wooded 

Community 0.5 118.5 – 119.0 Right-of-way reduction

Schoharie Calcareous Talus Slope 

Woodland 0.1 119.0 – 119.1 None

4.5.3 Interior Forest Habitat

Interior forest habitat is not managed as a federal or state-regulated sensitive area, but does 

provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species. We are defining interior forests as forested areas greater 

than 300 feet from the influence of forest edges or open habitat (Jones et al. 2001). These habitats 

provide protection from disturbance and predation, food resources, and brooding habitat for wildlife. 

Clearing or fragmentation of interior forests creates more edge habitat and smaller forested tracts which 

can impact availability and quality of feeding and nesting habitat for certain species as well as isolate 

species populations (Rosenberg et al. 1999). 

Constitution would cross 36 miles of interior forest habitat, which includes upland and wetland 

vegetation communities (appendix M). Although breeding habitat for interior forest birds varies

significantly, ranging in size from 3 to 6,200 forested acres, Constitution identified 35 acres as the

minimum size of interior forest habitat that would support most interior forest bird species (Robbins et al. 

1989). Constitution would bisect 129 interior forest blocks greater than 35 acres, creating 55 forested 

blocks less than 35 acres in size. In order to reduce impacts on sensitive habitat, Constitution reduced its 

proposed construction right-of-way width from 110 feet, as originally proposed, to 100 feet within 

interior forested areas where practicable. Constitution would not reduce the right-of-way width in areas 

where steep slopes or other constraints exist for safety reasons. Where the right-of-way would not be 

reduced, the impact beyond the 100-foot right-of-way represents 12.2 acres of interior forest habitat. 
4-71 Vegetation

Construction activities for the pipeline would impact 439.7 acres of interior forest habitat with operation 

of the pipeline facilities permanently eliminating 217.9 acres of interior forest. By minimizing the rightof-way width through these areas, Constitution would avoid the clearing of 51.8 acres of interior forest 

relative to the original proposal. 

Although Constitution has attempted to route its project adjacent to existing disturbance and 

outside of forested areas, and has decreased workspaces within interior forest areas relative to its original 

proposal, impacts on the habitat and the migratory birds and other wildlife that use this habitat still 

account for 42.9 percent of the total forest impacts and 23.6 percent of the total project impacts. In 

section 4.6.1, we discuss Constitution’s potential impacts on migratory birds and their interior forest 

habitats, including proposed clearing outside of agency-recommended timeframes. In addition, the 

permanent clearing of a 30- to 50-foot-wide right-of-way may result in effectively disconnected forested 

tracts (Jones et al. 2001). Based on our experience with other projects, there are several measures that 

could be used to further mitigate impacts on interior forests such as support of conservation programs, 

planting of trees, reduction of the width of the permanent right-of-way, and limitation of maintenance of 

the area directly over or immediately adjacent to the pipeline. Therefore, to minimize and further reduce 

impacts on forested tracts through interior forest areas we recommend that:

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Constitution should file with the 

Secretary a draft Upland Forest Mitigation Plan developed in consultation with the 

FWS, the NYSDEC, the PADCNR, and the Pennsylvania Game Commission. The 

draft plan should also include a discussion of migratory birds, including specific 

locations and mitigation (such as, but not limited to, further reducing the 

construction right-of-way width, replanting temporary workspaces, and reducing 

the maintenance clearing width of the permanent maintained right-of-way). The

proposed clearing activities outside of agency-recommended clearing windows

should also be addressed in relation to migratory birds.

4.5.4 Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Plant Species

Invasive species are those that display rapid growth and spread, becoming established over large 

areas (USDA 2013a). Most commonly they are exotic species that have been introduced from another 

part of the United States, another region, or another continent, although some native species that exhibit 

rapid growth and spread are also considered invasive. Invasive plant species can change or degrade 

natural vegetation communities, which can reduce the quality of habitat for wildlife and native plant 

species. Similar to invasive species, noxious weeds are frequently introduced but occasionally are native. 

Noxious weeds are defined as those that are injurious to commercial crops, livestock, or natural habitats 

and typically grow aggressively in the absence of natural controls (USDA 2013b). 

Constitution’s removal of existing vegetation and disturbance of soils during construction of the 

proposed facilities could create conditions conducive to the establishment of invasive weeds, particularly 

where new corridors are established in previously forested areas. To minimize the potential spread of 

invasive species, Constitution has developed state-specific Invasive Species Management Plans in 

consultation with the applicable state regulatory agencies (the PADCNR, the NYSDEC, and the 

NYSDAM). The Management Plans contain measures designed to control invasive plant species during 

project construction and operation through limited use of herbicides, installation of wash stations to clean 

vehicles that have traversed infested areas, and rapid restoration and reseeding following installation of 

the pipeline, which would promote the establishment of desirable plant species and deter the spread of 

unwanted plant species. Constitution would also conduct yearly monitoring and apply herbicide, as 

needed. Constitution would control the potential transport of invasive terrestrial and aquatic species, such 

as the emerald ash borer and didymo, through adherence to federal and state-specific regulations for 
Vegetation 4-72

preventing the land transport of such species, and by discharging hydrostatic test waters within the source 

watershed. 

Pennsylvania has 14 state-listed noxious or invasive weeds (USDA 2013c). Constitution 

conducted invasive plant surveys to identify the presence of non-native invasive plant species within the 

600-foot-wide survey corridor (where survey permission was granted). Baseline surveys documented the 

location, size, and percent cover of invasive plants present within the proposed project area. Invasive 

species identified include reed canary grass, multiflora rose, narrow-leaved cattail, Japanese stilt grass, 

Japanese barberry, European privet, black locust, Japanese knotweed, and common buckthorn. Only the 

multiflora rose is listed as noxious by the state of Pennsylvania and none are on the List of Federal 

Noxious Weeds (USDA 2013b). 

New York does not have legislation adopting a state noxious or invasive weeds list; however, the 

NYSDEC lists invasive plant species potentially present in New York (NYSDEC 2013f). As in 

Pennsylvania, Constitution conducted invasive plant surveys to identify the presence of non-native 

invasive plant species within the 600-foot-wide survey corridor (where survey permission was granted) 

and documented the location, size, and percent cover of invasive plants present. Abundant invasive 

species include reed canary grass, multiflora rose, and tartarian honeysuckle. None of these species are 

listed on the List of Federal Noxious Weeds (USDA 2013b). No noxious weeds were identified at 

Iroquois’ proposed compressor station transfer site.

Constitution would finalize invasive plant surveys upon receipt of survey permission and would 

subsequently determine the locations of wash stations. Because surveys are not complete and the 

locations of weed wash stations have not yet been provided, we recommend that:

• Prior to construction, Constitution should file with the Secretary the final, complete 

results of invasive plant surveys and the planned locations of weed wash stations for 

review and written approval of the Director of OEP.

Based on Constitution’s implementation of its Invasive Species Management Plans and our 

recommendation to finalize surveys and the locations of weed wash stations before construction, we 

conclude that the potential spread of noxious or invasive weeds would be effectively minimized or 

mitigated.

4.5.5 General Impacts and Mitigation

Construction of the proposed projects, including the construction right-of-way, extra workspace, 

aboveground facilities, contractor yards, and access roads would result in impacts on 1,790.8 acres of 

vegetated lands. This total includes 1,024.5 acres of upland forest and 91.8 acres of wetland habitat 

(including 32.7 acres of forested wetland). Operation of the projects would result in impacts on 720.7 

acres of vegetated lands, including 471.1 acres of upland forest and 16.1 acres of wetlands (of which 12.5 

acres would be forested). Table 4.5.5-1 summarizes the approximate acreage that would be affected 

during project construction and operation. 
4-73

4-73 Vegetation

TABLE 4.5.5-1 

Vegetation Types and Acres Impacted by Construction and Operation of the Projects

Facilitiesa

Agricultural Open Landb Wetlandc Upland Forest Project Total

Constrd Opere Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper

PIPELINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EXTRA WORKSPACE

Pennsylvania 70.5 28.9 27.3 10.8 15.4 2.0 217.5 100.2 330.6 141.9

New York 316.5 120.2 152.4 65.6 75.5 13.8 765.5 352.5 1309.8 552.0

PIPELINE TOTAL 387.0 149.1 179.6 76.3 90.9 15.8 983.0 452.6 1,640.4 693.9

ABOVEGROUND FACILITIES

Pennsylvania (Constitution) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 3.1 4.9 3.1

New York (Constitution) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Wright Interconnect Project (Iroquois) 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 3.3 1.9 10.4 2.4

New York Aboveground Subtotal 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 3.3 1.9 10.4 2.4

ABOVEGROUND FACILITIES TOTAL 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 8.2 5.0 15.3 5.5

CONTRACTOR YARDS

Pennsylvania 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0

New York 40.8 0.0 22.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.7 0.0

CONTRACTOR YARDS TOTAL 40.8 0.0 42.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.7 0.0

ACCESS ROADS

Pennsylvania 3.7 1.2 2.9 0.9 0.5 0.1 15.97 4.56 23.0 6.7

New York 5.4 2.5 5.4 3.0 0.4 0.2 17.32 8.94 28.5 14.6

ACCESS ROADS TOTAL 9.1 3.7 8.3 3.9 0.9 0.3 33.3 13.5 51.5 21.3

Pennsylvania Subtotal 74.2 30.1 50.1 11.7 15.8 2.1 238.4 107.8 378.5 151.7

New York Subtotal 362.7 122.7 187.7 69.0 75.8 14.0 786.1 363.3 1,412.4 569.0

PROJECTS TOTAL 436.8 152.8 237.9 80.7 91.8 16.1 1,024.5 471.1 1,790.8 720.7

____________________

a Impacts associated with MLVs are included in the pipeline facility impacts. Impacts associated with the pig launcher and pig receiver are included in the aboveground facility impacts.

b Maintained utility easement (pipeline, electric transmission, railroad, etc.) crossings and other open lands.

c Forested, palustrine scrub-shrub, and palustrine emergent wetlands crossed by the pipeline.

d Land affected during construction for pipeline facilities is comprised of the 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way, 60 feet of temporary workspace; and extra workspace where applicable.

e Land affected during operation of the pipeline includes only the new 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way, except for the permanent right-of-way in wetlands as detailed in section 4.4.

Note: Column totals may not sum correctly due to rounding.
Vegetation 4-74

Construction impacts on vegetation resources are classified based on the duration and 

significance of impacts. Temporary impacts generally occur during construction with vegetation 

returning to pre-construction conditions almost immediately after construction, whereas short-term 

impacts are those which require up to 3 years to return to pre-construction conditions. Long-term impacts 

require more than 3 years to revegetate but conditions would return to their pre-construction state during 

the life of the project. Permanent impacts are those that modify vegetation resources to the extent that 

they would not return to pre-construction conditions during the life of the project. Additional information 

on land use impacts is presented in section 4.8. Impacts on wetland vegetation are further discussed in 

section 4.4.

Pipeline Facilities

The degree of impact on vegetation would depend on the type of vegetation affected, the rate at 

which the vegetation would regenerate after construction, and the area and frequency of vegetation 

maintenance conducted during operation. The primary impact of pipeline construction would be the 

cutting, clearing, and/or removal of 1,640.4 acres of existing vegetation, of which 983.0 acres is upland 

forest. The remaining vegetation would include 387.0 acres of agricultural land, 179.6 acres of open land, 

and 90.9 acres of wetlands (including 32.1 acres of forested wetlands). Specific mitigation for impacts on 

wetlands is discussed in section 4.4.

Impacts associated with disturbances to vegetation could include increased soil compaction and 

erosion, increased potential for the introduction and establishment of non-native and invasive species, and 

a local reduction in available wildlife habitat (see section 4.6.1). Constitution would implement erosion 

control measures as described in their ECPs and mitigate the introduction of non-native and invasive 

species by adhering to the Invasive Species Management Plans. 

During clearing activities, Constitution would mow non-woody vegetation to ground level and 

cut and remove woody vegetation and stumps, as necessary. Constitution would fell trees and other 

woody material into the right-of-way, then chip and remove the debris. At the request of individual 

landowners, Constitution would stack the tree length cut timber on the landowner property for landowner 

use. Following construction, Constitution would seed all of the previously vegetated workspaces 

disturbed by construction in accordance with its ECPs, Plan, and Procedures. Constitution developed the 

proposed seed mixes using PADEP, NYSDAM, and NYDEC guidance (PADEP 2012, NYSDAM 2005, 

and NYSDEC 2005). In addition, Constitution is coordinating with the National Wild Turkey Federation 

to determine areas along the right-of-way where Federation-recommended seed mixes would best be used 

to benefit wildlife. Use of these seed mixes would be approved by the applicable regulatory agencies 

prior to use. 

Most impacts on agricultural lands would be temporary to short-term, as these areas are disturbed 

annually to produce crops and would typically return to their previous condition shortly following 

construction, cleanup, and restoration. Constitution would maintain topsoil segregation throughout all 

construction activities in agricultural lands in order to mitigate impacts on subsequent crop production 

and maintain a minimum cover depth of 48 inches. Lands currently dominated by herbaceous growth 

would revegetate quickly, often within one growing season after seeding and otherwise typically within 3 

years, depending on a number of factors. Cleared scrub-shrub vegetation would likely require 3 to 5

years to regain their woody composition. 

The greatest impact would be in forested areas. Construction in forested lands would remove the 

tree canopy over the entire width of the construction right-of-way, which would change the structure and 

environment of the underlying area. Constitution would reduce the proposed construction workspace and 

right-of-way to 100 feet within interior forests, except where extra workspace is necessary. This neck-
4-75 Vegetation

down would prevent clearing of 51.8 acres of interior forest during construction. Forested lands within 

the maintained right-of-way would be permanently converted to an herbaceous cover type. The regrowth 

of shrubs and trees within the temporary workspaces would reduce the edge effect and provide 

connectivity between adjacent forested tracts to some extent (Tewksbury et al. 2002), but it may take 

decades before these areas resemble the forest vegetation that was present before construction. As 

indicated above, we have recommended that Constitution develop an Upland Forest Mitigation Plan in 

consultation with the relevant agencies to mitigate impacts from forest clearing.

In addition, soils that were previously shaded by the tree canopy would receive increased 

amounts of light, which could lead to drier soils and higher soil temperatures. Trees on the edge of the 

right-of-way might be subject to mechanical damage to trunks and branches and root impacts from soil 

disturbance and compaction, all of which could result in the decreased health and viability of some trees 

and root systems. Some edge trees that were previously within dense forested stands may also lack 

stability following removal of adjacent supporting trees, which could result in increased susceptibility to 

wind damage.

Following construction, if Constitution’s operational site monitoring identifies unsuccessful 

revegetation or potential invasive species colonization, it would conduct additional vegetation 

management, such as herbicide application, manual removal of non-native vegetation, and consultation 

with qualified botanists. If deemed necessary, Constitution would use foliar herbicides along the right-ofway in accordance with agency regulations and manufacturer’s recommendations to control potential 

invasive vegetation. Constitution would not apply herbicides, fertilizer, or lime within 100 feet of a 

wetland. 

During operations, Constitution would mow up to a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way no 

more than once every three years; however, a 10-foot-wide swath may be mowed more frequently to 

facilitate routine patrols and emergency access. Within wetlands, Constitution would permanently 

maintain only a 10-foot-wide swath and selectively remove trees within 15 feet of the pipeline. These 

maintenance activities would result in impacts on 703.0 acres of land, of which 452.6 acres of upland 

forest and 15.8 acres of wetlands (including 12.2 acres of forested wetlands) would permanently convert 

to an herbaceous state. Due to the predominantly rural nature, the project would cross many forested 

areas. However, Constitution routed the pipeline to minimize vegetation impacts where feasible, and 

Constitution would further minimize impacts on vegetation by adherence to its state-specific ECP and 

Plan and Procedures. Specific measures that would reduce the impacts include: 

• minimizing the footprint of the proposed work activities and the duration of disturbances 

to the extent practicable;

• minimizing disturbances to wetlands;

• protecting topsoil and mitigation of subsoil compaction within agricultural and residential 

areas which could impact root systems of existing vegetation;

• adhering to the Invasive Species Management Plans;

• collocating with existing rights-of-way to the extent practicable; 

• minimizing the right-of-way width to 100 feet in interior forests, to the extent practicable;

• installing erosion controls to prevent the loss of soils, and reseeding in all disturbed areas 

that are not actively be used for cultivated crops, to stabilize the soils and speed 

revegetation; and
Vegetation 4-76

• monitoring the success of revegetation efforts and taking appropriate action to correct any 

poor revegetation that is observed. 

Aboveground Facilities

The impact of Constitution’s two M&R Stations and the Iroquois project on each vegetation type 

is provided in table 4.5.5-1. The projects would disturb a total of 8.2 acres of upland forest and 7.1 acres 

of open land for construction of the new aboveground facilities. Temporary impacts on vegetation within 

the construction work area would be similar to those described for the pipeline facilities. Constitution 

would stabilize, seed, and allow the temporary workspace areas used during construction to revegetate. 

Permanent vegetation impacts would include the conversion of a total of 5.0 acres of upland forest and 

0.5 acre of open land to developed land. The majority of permanent upland forest impacts (3.1 acres) 

would occur at the Turnpike Road M&R Receipt Station and Iroquois’ proposed compressor transfer 

station (1.9 acres). The remaining acreage (less than 0.1 acre) would be impacted at the Westfall Road 

M&R Delivery Station. 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards

The six contractor yards would temporarily impact 42.9 acres of open and 40.8 acres of 

agricultural vegetation types. Following construction, Constitution would re-seed the open land and 

allow it to revegetate. No seeding would occur in actively cultivated cropland without landowner 

approval.

Access Roads

The proposed access roads for the pipeline would impact 33.3 acres of upland forest, 9.1 acres of 

agricultural land, 8.3 acres of open land, and 0.9 acre of wetlands (including 0.7 acre of forested 

wetlands) during construction. Construction impacts on vegetation would be comparable to those 

described for the proposed pipeline, including the potential for soil compaction and erosion, establishment 

of invasive species, and fragmentation of interior forested tracts. Following construction, Constitution 

would restore and seed any previously vegetated areas affected by construction of the five temporary 

access roads (totaling 2.1 acres) according to its ECPs and Plan. During operations, the 54 permanent 

access roads would permanently convert 31.6 acres to developed lands. As previously indicated, we 

recommended in section 4.3.3.1 that Constitution provide site-specific plans and further justification for 

permanent impacts of access roads on wetlands and waterbodies. We also recommended above that 

Constitution fully describe the access roads that would service the two proposed meter stations.

4.5.6 Conclusion

Based on our review of the potential impacts on vegetation as described above, we conclude that 

the primary impact from construction and operation would be on forested lands. However, due to the 

prevalence of forested habitats within the project area, Constitution’s commitment to necking down of the 

right-of-way through interior forests to 100 feet where possible to minimize impacts at levels below those 

originally proposed, eventual regrowth of prior forested areas outside of the permanent right-of-way, and 

implementation of our recommendation to develop mitigation for upland forest impacts, we conclude that

the permanent conversion of forested lands would not result in a significant impact on the vegetative 

resources within the proposed project area. In addition, impacts on forested and non-forested vegetation 

types would be further mitigated through adherence to the measures described in Constitution’s ECPs, 

Plan, and Invasive Species Management Plans.
4-77 Wildlife And Aquatic Resources

4.6 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES 

4.6.1 Wildlife

4.6.1.1 Existing Wildlife Resources

The proposed pipeline project would traverse terrestrial and wetland habitats that support a 

diversity of wildlife species. Wildlife habitats along the proposed route are representative of the local 

vegetation communities (upland forest, open land, agricultural land, developed land, and wetlands). 

Upland forest is characterized by hardwood forests which provide food resources, nesting habitat, 

and cover for a variety of reptiles, amphibians, mammals, birds, and invertebrates. Open land is 

characterized by grasslands, fields, and scrub-shrub areas which provide cover as well as foraging and 

nesting habitat for a variety of species. Agricultural land, though limited in cover, provides forage and 

nesting habitat for a variety of songbirds. Developed land includes residential, commercial, and industrial 

land; roadways; and mining operations, and is generally devoid of native vegetation and often provides 

little wildlife habitat. Wetlands provide cover, forage, and nesting habitat for a variety of reptiles, 

amphibians, mammals, and birds. Representative wildlife species that could use be found in the project 

area include the American bullfrog, red salamander, gray squirrels, white-tailed deer, American robins, 

and wood ducks. 

Project Facilities

The projects would impact a total of 1,024.5 acres of upland forest, 436.8 acres of agricultural 

land, 237.9 acres of open land, 91.8 acres of wetlands (of which 32.7 acres would be forested wetlands), 

and 65.1 acres of developed land. Impacts of individual project components (the pipeline, aboveground 

facilities, contractor yards, and access roads) upon vegetation types are provided in section 4.5.

4.6.1.2 Sensitive or Managed Wildlife Habitats 

Constitution and Iroquois consulted the FWS, PADCNR, PGC, PFBC, and NYSDEC to identify 

significant sensitive wildlife habitats in the vicinity of the project (PADCNR 2013b, 2013c, PFBC 2012, 

PGC 2012, FWS 2012a, 2012b). The areas identified by these agencies are provided in table 4.6.1-1 and 

discussed below. Constitution would not cross any National Wildlife Refuges, National Park Service 

Wilderness Areas, or Pennsylvania or New York Wildlife Management Areas (National Park Service

2012, NYSDEC 2008b, FWS 2012c, USGS 2012e). Specific information regarding threatened and 

endangered wildlife species and their habitats is included in section 4.7.

TABLE 4.6.1-1

Sensitive Wildlife Habitats Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Sensitive Habitat 

Name

Administering 

Agency

Length 

Crossed 

(feet)

Existing 

Habitat Type

Acreage Affected

Constructiona Operation b

18.8 21.8

Area Between 

Canawacta Creek 

and Starrucca 

Creek

PFBC 15,867

Upland Forest 33.2 15.7

Open Land 2.1 0.8

PFO Wetland 0.2 0.20

Waterbodies 0.2 0.10

Developed 2.9 1.1

Total Canawacta/Starrucca Creek Area 38.5 17.8
Wildlife And Aquatic Resources 4-78

TABLE 4.6.1-1 (continued)

Sensitive Wildlife Habitats Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Sensitive Habitat 

Name

Administering 

Agency

Length 

Crossed 

(feet)

Existing 

Habitat Type

Acreage Affected

Constructiona Operation b

42.5 42.5 Melondy Hill State 

Forest

NYSDEC 307 Upland Forest 0.9 0.4

Total Melondy Hill State Forest 0.9 0.4

43.6 45.1

Cannonsville/

Steam Mill AreaIBA-Crossing #1

National 

Audubon 

Society- New 

York Chapter

7,651

Upland Forest 16.1 7.7

Open Land 0.1 0.1

PFO Wetland 1.4 0.9

Waterbodies 0.0 0.0

Developed 0.0 0.0

Total Cannonsville/Steam Mill Crossing #1 17.7 8.7

45.2 45.3

Cannonsville/

Steam Mill AreaIBA-Crossing #2

National 

Audubon 

Society- New 

York Chapter

386

Upland Forest 1.0 0.4

Open Land 0.1 0.0

PFO Wetland 0.0 0.0

Waterbodies 0.0 0.0

Developed 0.0 0.0

Total Cannonsville/Steam Mill Crossing #2 17.1 8.1

46.4 47.2

Cannonsville/

Steam Mill AreaIBA-Crossing #3

National 

Audubon 

Society-New 

York Chapter

4,561

Upland Forest 11.0 5.0

PFO Wetland 0.2 0.1

Waterbodies 0.0 0.0

Total Cannonsville/Steam Mill Crossing #3 11.2 5.2

97.0 97.1 Clapper Hollow 

State Forest NYSDEC 333

Upland Forest 1.0 0.2

Open Land 0.0 0.0

PFO Wetland 0.4 0.2

PEM Wetland 0.0 0.0

Total Clapper Hollow State Forest 1.4 0.5

_____________________

Source: USGS 2012e.

a Construction Acreage = workspace utilized during construction activities (temporary plus permanent).

b Operation Acreage = 50 foot width permanently maintained easement through upland areas; 30 foot width permanently 

maintained through forested wetlands, 10 foot width permanently maintained through scrub-shrub wetlands; there are 

no operation impacts on PEM wetlands as there is no change in the pre- and post-construction vegetation cover type.

IBA = Important Bird Area

PFO = palustrine forested

PEM = palustrine emergent
4-79 Wildlife And Aquatic Resources

Pennsylvania

The PFBC, during early coordination, indicated that a privately owned area between Canawacta 

Creek and Starrucca Creek provides habitat for a variety of wildlife species, including the timber 

rattlesnake, which is a Pennsylvania state candidate species (PFBC 2013a, 2013b). Constitution initially 

adopted a route alternative due to potential landslide concerns in this area; however, the pipeline would 

still cross sensitive wildlife habitat between MP 18.8 and 21.8, for a total of 3.0 miles (table 4.6.1-1). 

Construction through this area would impact 38.5 acres of land, including 33.2 acres of upland forest. 

Operation of the pipeline would result in 17.8 acres of permanent impact, including 15.7 acres of upland 

forest. In addition to the Taylor Hill area, Pennsylvania State Game Lands No. 70 would be 

approximately 209 feet from the pipeline centerline at MP 25.3; however, these lands would not be 

directly impacted by project construction or operation.

New York

The pipeline route would cross two areas classified as sensitive wildlife habitat by the NYSDEC, 

the Melondy Hill State Forest and the Clapper Hollow State Forest (NYSDEC 2012d). In addition, 

Constitution would cross an Important Bird Area (IBA), the Cannonsville/Steam Mill IBA, identified by 

the National Audubon Society-New York Chapter (Liner 2012). This IBA would be crossed in three 

locations. These habitat areas, listed in table 4.6.1-1. Three additional conservation areas are within 

close proximity to the proposed pipeline route: Pine Hill State Forest near MP 52.4, the Emmons Pond 

Bog Preserve near MP 75.0, and the Petersburg State Forest near MP 110.4. However, these would not 

be crossed or impacted by the project. State forest lands are further discussed in section 4.8.

Melondy Hill State Forest

The Melondy Hill State Forest, in southeastern Chenango County, New York, is comprised of 

5,417 acres of primarily upland forest. The forest is managed by the NYSDEC with the objective to 

maintain a variety of forest habitats including young and old growth as well as evergreen and deciduous 

forests (NYSDEC 2012e). The area contains both natural and planted forest stands, is used by the public 

for a variety of recreational activities, and provides habitat for a variety of wildlife including small 

mammals, birds, deer, and black bears (NYSDEC 2012e). Constitution would cross the Melondy Hill 

State Forest at MP 42.5 for a total crossing length of 307 feet. The project would impact 0.9 acre of 

upland forest during construction and 0.4 acre during operation. To minimize impacts on this sensitive 

wildlife habitat, the original route was modified to reduce the total crossing length and to collocate the 

pipeline with an existing roadway for approximately 40 percent of the segment in the forest to avoid 

further fragmentation. Constitution would not construct any project-related aboveground facilities or 

access roads in the Melondy Hill State Forest. 

Cannonsville/Steam Mill Area IBA

Constitution consulted with the Audubon society to identify IBAs in the vicinity of the pipeline 

project. IBAs vary in size but are typically discrete habitats that provide habitat for bird species including 

sites for breeding, migrating, and overwintering. The Cannonsville/Steam Mill IBA comprises 26,306 

acres of mostly upland forest surrounding the Cannonsville Reservoir and provides habitat for a variety of 

bird species including the bald eagle (National Audubon Society-New York Chapter 2013a). Based on 

consultation with the Audubon Society, the pipeline would cross the Cannonsville/Steam Mill IBA in 

three locations, including at MP 43.6 for 7,651 feet, at MP 45.2 for 386 feet, and at MP 46.4 for 4,561 

feet (Liner 2012). Construction activities would impact 46.0 acres, of which 28.1 acres is upland forest. 

Operation of the pipeline would impact 22.0 acres, of which 13.1 acres is upland forest. 
Wildlife And Aquatic Resources 4-80

To minimize impacts on this sensitive wildlife habitat and reduce fragmentation of contiguous 

forested tracts, Constitution has sited two of the three crossings along or near the edges of the IBA. The 

third crossing (between MPs 46.4 and 47.2) would fragment a currently contiguous forest block into two 

new forested tracts of 300 acres and 125 acres. Constitution would reduce the construction right-of-way 

from 110 feet to 100 feet through the IBA, where practicable, and reseed disturbed areas with a specialty 

seed mix determined in consultation the regulatory agencies and appropriate non-governmental 

organizations. Constitution would construct a single permanent access road (PAR34) within the IBA to 

minimize crossings of wetlands and waterbodies and facilitate access to the pipeline. This access road 

would permanently impact 1.0 acre of predominantly upland forest. Although Constitution has 

minimized impacts within the IBA, the overall impact on wildlife, and specifically migratory birds, 

through clearing of interior forest is still a potentially significant impact; therefore, we have 

recommended in section 4.5 that Constitution develop an Upland Forest Mitigation Plan with the 

applicable agencies that would include additional mitigation for migratory birds. 

Clapper Hollow State Forest

The Clapper Hollow State Forest is in Jefferson and Schoharie Counties, New York, and is 

comprised of 820 acres of primarily upland forest. It is managed as snowshoe hare habitat and a 

reforestation area by the NYSDEC, and also provides public recreation, including a cross-country ski trail 

system. The pipeline would cross the Clapper Hollow State Forest between MPs 97.0 and 97.1, for 333 

feet. Construction would impact 1.0 acre of upland forest and 0.4 acre of forested wetlands; operation 

would impact 0.2 acre of upland forest and 0.2 acre of forested wetlands. Constitution has implemented 

route modifications to minimize the crossing length and follow the edge of the state forest, thereby 

avoiding impacts from fragmentation. No additional proposed facilities or access roads would impact the 

Clapper Hollow State Forest. 

4.6.1.3 Migratory Birds

Migratory birds are species that nest in the United States and Canada during the summer, and 

then migrate south to the tropical regions of Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean for 

the non-breeding season. Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S. 

Code 703-711). Executive Order 13186 (EO 13186) (66 Federal Register 3853) directs federal agencies 

to identify where unintentional take is likely to have a measurable negative effect on migratory bird 

populations and to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on migratory birds through enhanced collaboration 

with the FWS. EO 13186 states that emphasis should be placed on species of concern, priority habitats, 

and key risk factors, and that particular focus should be given to addressing population-level impacts. 

Additionally, bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 

USC 668-668d). 

In response to a 1998 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, the FWS established 

a list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that, without conservation action, were expected to 

become candidate species for listing under the ESA (FWS 2008). The BCC lists species of concern at 

National, FWS Region, and Bird Conservation Region geographic scales. Table 4.6.1-2 lists BCCs for 

which the preferred habitat is known or expected within the project area or for which breeding has been 

documented in project counties. 
4-81 Wildlife And Aquatic Resources

TABLE 4.6.1-2

Birds of Conservation Concern with Potentially Suitable Habitat within the Project Area

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Type

Habitat Present 

within Project 

Area

Confirmed 

Breeding in 

Project Countiesa

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus 

podiceps

Freshwater to brackish 

seasonal and permanent 

ponds. 

Yes - breeding No

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus Small to moderate-sized, 

shallow freshwater ponds and 

marshes.

Yes - migration No

American Bittern Botaurus 

lentiginosus

Interior freshwater wetlands 

and occasionally coastal salt 

marshes. 

Yes – breeding No

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Freshwater and brackish 

marshes with tall, dense 

emergent vegetation 

Yes – breeding No

Snowy Egret Egretta thula Open edges of rivers, lakes, 

salt marshes, marine intertidal 

zones and maritime beaches 

Yes – feeding No

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

Undisturbed areas near large 

lakes and reservoirs, marshes 

and swamps, or stretches 

along rivers 

Yes Yes (all)

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Open country from tundra, 

savannah and sea coasts, to 

high mountains, as well as 

open forests and tall buildings. 

Yes – Terrace 

Mountain only

No

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus 

erythropthalmus

Edges and clearings of young 

deciduous and mixed 

deciduous-coniferous woods 

Yes – breeding Yes (all)

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Open country including 

grasslands and marshlands. 

Yes – migratory / 

wintering

No

Whip-poor-Will Caprimulgus 

vociferous

Central Canada east to the 

Atlantic coast and south to 

Oklahoma and Georgia. 

Yes Schoharie (one 

survey block)

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus

Dead trees for nest sites, 

snags for roosting, and open 

ground for foraging. 

Yes No

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius 

ludovicianus

Agricultural areas that contain 

hedgerows, hayfields, 

pastures and scattered trees 

and shrubs, especially 

hawthorn. 

Yes No

Sedge Wren Cistothorus 

platensis

Wet meadows or hayfields 

dominated by sedges and 

grasses. 

Yes No

Wood Thrush Hylocichla 

mustelina

Interior and edges of mature 

deciduous or mixed forests

Yes – breeding Yes (all)

Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus Dense herbaceous growth and 

shrubs, scattered low trees, 

and wooded edges.

Yes – breeding Yes (all)
Wildlife And Aquatic Resources 4-82

TABLE 4.6.1-2 (continued)

Birds of Conservation Concern with Potentially Suitable Habitat within the Project Area

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Type

Habitat Present 

within Project 

Area

Confirmed 

Breeding in 

Project Countiesa

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora 

chrysoptera

Early successional fields with 

a combination of shrubby and 

open areas within the territory. 

Yes – breeding No

Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Shrubby habitats including 

those in southern pine forest, 

mangroves, pine and scrub 

oak barrens, and regenerating 

forest. 

Yes Yes (all)

Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea Large forest tracts of tall, 

deciduous, broad-leafed tree 

species. 

Yes – migration / 

breeding

Schoharie (one 

survey block)b

 

Worm-eating Warbler Helmitheros 

vermivorum

Mature deciduous or mixed 

forests on steep hillsides or 

ravines with a dense, shrubby 

understory. 

Yes No

Canada Warbler Wilsonia 

canadensis

Primarily coniferous and mixed 

northern hardwood forests 

with dense, often wet, 

undergrowth. 

Yes - breeding Yes (all)

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus 

carolinus

Bogs, beaver ponds, swamps, 

and slow streams. 

Yes - migration No

______________________

Notes:

a Based on upon review of Wilson et al. 2012 and NYSDEC 2013g. Species were observed to breed in the counties 

listed. Data provided in these reports were collected between 2000 and 2009 in PA and 2000 and 2005 in NY.

b Constitution conducted habitat surveys (September 2013) and determined that potentially suitable habitat for the 

cerulean warbler is present between MP 107.5 and 108.0.

Sources: Cornell 2009, Cornell 2013, National Audubon Society 2013, National Audubon Society-New York Chapter 2013b, c, d, 

e, NYNHP 2013a, NYSDEC 2013g, Wilson et al. 2012

On March 30, 2011, the FWS and the Commission entered into a Memorandum of Understanding 

Between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of the Interior United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding Implementation of Executive Order 13186, “Responsibilities 

of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds” that focuses on migratory birds and strengthening 

migratory bird conservation through enhanced collaboration between the two agencies. This voluntary 

memorandum does not waive legal requirements under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act, ESA, or any other statutes and does not authorize the take of migratory birds. 

Noise and other construction activities during migratory bird courtship and breeding periods 

could result in reduced reproduction and nest abandonment. Migratory bird nesting within the project 

area spans from mid-April through mid-August and peaks between mid-May and early August (Meade 

2008). Therefore Constitution proposes to conduct the majority of tree clearing between September 1 and 

March 31 in order to minimize impacts on breeding birds and comply with state and federal 

recommendations (FWS 2012a). Constitution would conduct limited clearing activities between April 1 

and August 31 for access roads and sensitive waterbodies, as necessary, to access and construct through 

sensitive fisheries within state-designated construction windows (see section 4.6.2). To minimize the 

potential for impacts on migratory birds, we have recommended in section 4.5 that Constitution develop 

an Upland Forest Mitigation Plan that would provide mitigation for the proposed limited tree clearing 

outside of the recommended window. Species that utilize the project area during the fall migration period 
4-83 Wildlife And Aquatic Resources

or for overwintering would likely avoid construction operations, though temporary displacement to less 

suitable habitat may occur. The fragmentation of large forested tracts during construction and operation 

of the project could create long-term impacts on BCCs by reducing available breeding, nesting, and 

foraging habitat for interior nesting species, such as the wood thrush, cerulean warbler, and Canada 

warbler, which are present within the project area (NYSDEC 2013g). Large tracts of interior forest that 

the project would cross are listed in appendix M. Species that use edge habitat or grassland/scrub-shrub 

habitat for foraging, nesting, or breeding, such as the prairie warbler, could benefit from the creation of 

smaller contiguous forested blocks and maintained rights-of-way. In general, construction would 

temporarily displace birds to adjacent habitats which could increase the competition for food and other 

resources, increase stress, increase susceptibility to predation, and impact reproductive success. 

Maintenance of the permanent right-of-way would create smaller contiguous tracts of forest 

habitat and might reduce available feeding and nesting habitat for certain migratory bird species. The loss 

of interior forest habitat could result in mobile species permanently populating adjacent habitats which 

could increase competition and stress on a long-term basis. However, the creation of additional edge 

habitat could benefit certain species by providing travel corridors and additional forage habitat. 

Constitution has consulted with state and federal agencies regarding migratory bird impact avoidance and 

mitigation and has committed to continued consultation with the FWS to develop mitigation measures for 

the project. Constitution’s currently proposes to:

• conduct most clearing activities between September 1 and March 31 to minimize or avoid 

direct impacts on breeding birds; 

• reduce the construction right-of-way width within interior forest tracts to 100 feet, where 

practicable (see appendix M);

• route the project along existing rights-of-way and roadways where practicable to 

minimize fragmentation of interior forest tracts, including high quality bird habitat such 

as the Cannonsville/Steam Mill Area IBA (see section 4.6.1.2); 

• use seed mixes provided by the National Wild Turkey Foundation, or applicable 

regulatory agencies to help revegetate soils disturbed by project activities in a manner 

beneficial to wildlife and early successional species, where appropriate; and

• continue coordination with regulatory agencies to mitigate potential impacts. 

Overall construction impacts on migratory birds would be short-term as birds would move into 

adjacent undisturbed habitats. In addition, Constitution would conduct the majority of clearing activities 

outside of the sensitive timeframes. The operational impact would be long-term to permanent by 

reducing the size of unfragmented forest tracts and creation of open habitats. We have recommended that 

Constitution provide additional mitigation for the limited clearing proposed for times during the breeding 

period. Additional potential impacts on IBAs in the vicinity of the proposed project are described in 

section 4.6.1.2. 

4.6.1.4 General Impacts and Mitigation

Pipeline Facilities

In total, construction of the pipeline and extra workspace would impact 1,658.9 acres of vegetated 

habitat. Following construction, Constitution would re-seed the disturbed right-of-way to stabilize the 

soils and speed revegetation. During operations, 703.0 acres of vegetated habitat within the permanent 

right-of-way would convert to, and Constitution would maintain by mowing as, an early successional 
Wildlife And Aquatic Resources 4-84

stage. This maintenance would result in the conversion of 452.6 acres of upland forest and 12.2 acres of 

forested wetlands to herbaceous and scrub/shrub habitat. 

Wildlife could be impacted by clearing of vegetation; alteration of the landscape from grading the 

ground, soil disturbance, and recontouring; conflicts with vehicles; human presence; activities associated 

with trenching; increased predation; and edge effects and habitat fragmentation. During construction, 

more mobile species would be temporarily displaced from the construction right-of-way to similar 

habitats nearby due to human presence and increases in noise. Noise impacts would typically be 

temporary and intermittent, as pipeline construction typically occurs in a manner similar to a moving 

assembly line. Less mobile species, such as small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and nesting birds, may 

experience direct mortality or permanent displacement. Displacement of species could lead to increased 

competition for some resources. Some wildlife displaced from the right-of-way would return to the newly 

disturbed area and adjacent, undisturbed habitats after completion of construction. Soil-dwelling 

invertebrates would be impacted directly through movement of soil from one place to another, resulting in 

some mortality and displacement. This could reduce the forage potential for insectivores and other small 

predators that inhabit the area. The overall impact of these effects, however, would be minor due to the 

temporary nature of the effects and limited area affected by construction. 

The clearing of vegetation on the construction right-of-way and extra workspaces would reduce 

cover, foraging, breeding, and nesting habitat for some wildlife. The degree of impact would depend on 

the type of habitat affected, the timing of clearing and construction activities, and the rate at which the 

area recovers after disturbance from construction. Seasonal habitat use for migratory birds is discussed 

above. The effect on species that rely on open land habitats would be short-term, as Constitution would 

seed these areas and they would likely recover within 1 to 3 years after construction. Cleared scrub-shrub 

vegetation would likely require several years to regain their woody composition. The effect of workspace 

clearing on forest-dwelling wildlife species would be greater than open and scrub-shrub habitat wildlife as 

forested lands could take decades to return to pre-construction condition, and Constitution would prevent 

trees from reestablishing on the permanent right-of-way. Constitution minimized the potential for these 

long-term effects by collocating the proposed workspace with other existing rights-of-way in certain areas 

for approximately 9 percent of the proposed alignment, and by reducing the construction right-of-way to 

100 feet in interior forest areas, where able.

Trash and debris could impact wildlife by animals eating contaminated or dangerous items and by 

encouraging certain species to move into areas where humans are working, resulting in potential wildlifehuman interaction and conflict. To minimize the potential for wildlife attraction, Constitution would 

maintain construction debris in a neat and orderly manner, remove it from all work areas, and dispose it in 

a state approved off-site location.

A spill of hazardous materials during construction, such as diesel fuel or oil, or the excavation 

and exposure of contaminated soil or groundwater could impact wildlife. Constitution would minimize 

impacts from chemicals or contaminants by adhering to its state-specific ECPs (including its Spill Plan) 

and Plans and Procedures, such as storing hazardous materials in temporary containment capable of 

holding 110 percent of the total volume and refueling in designated areas at least 100 feet from wetlands 

and waterbodies, or in accordance with EI provisions. In addition, Constitution would use biodegradable, 

water-soluble, and environmentally safe dust suppressants. Thus, we conclude the risk of chemical 

exposure to individual animals would be low and there would be no risk of population-level impacts on 

any wildlife species.

Construction traffic on paved and unpaved roads could temporarily disturb birds and other 

wildlife near the roadways. There could also be an increase in direct mortality of certain wildlife 

resulting from animal/vehicle collisions. However, due to the use of existing roads when practicable, and 
4-85 Wildlife And Aquatic Resources

the short timeframe of construction, we would expect the overall impacts on wildlife from increased 

vehicular traffic to be minor. 

Trenching activities and the spoil piles generated during construction could create potential traps 

where wildlife could fall into trenches. In addition, spoil piles could create barriers to some less mobile 

species such as small reptiles and amphibians. Constitution would periodically inspect open trenches for 

wildlife and return any wildlife found to the appropriate suitable habitat. Constitution would also 

sequence construction to limit the amount and duration of open trench (and related spoil piles). 

Therefore, we conclude that trenching and spoil pile impacts on wildlife movement would be minimized 

to the extent practicable.

Increased predation could occur during construction and operation of the pipeline due to the 

removal of vegetation and the resulting increase in visibility. While individual mortality rates could 

increase, the project would not likely have any population-level impact due to these effects. 

Impacts due to fragmentation of contiguous forested tracts are dependent on the size and 

orientation of remaining tracts. Constitution would cross a total of 36.0 miles of interior forest habitat in 

539 different tracts. Large forested tracts in close proximity and connected by corridors can provide high 

quality wildlife habitat; however, the creation of additional edge habitat has the potential to cause changes 

in vegetation composition, species distributions, and available foraging and nesting habitat (Rosenberg et 

al. 1999). Impacts on migratory birds are discussed in section 4.6.1.3. The creation of additional edge 

habitat could benefit foraging mammal species, such as white-tailed deer and raccoons, by providing 

travel corridors and additional forage habitat. Following construction, Constitution would re-seed soils 

disturbed by project activities to facilitate revegetation which would act to reduce the edge effect and 

allow mammals to move between adjacent forested areas.

Blasting may be necessary along the pipeline route, including sensitive wildlife areas with 

shallow depth to bedrock, such as the Cannonsville/Steam Mill IBA (MP 43.6), Clapper Hollow State 

Forest (MP 97.0), as well as numerous interior forest areas. Constitution would determine the need for 

blasting at the time of crossing, and state agencies would give approval prior to any necessary blasting. 

Constitution has developed a blasting plan which would limit potential impacts, as described in sections 

2.3.1 and 4.1. 

Riparian zones are adjacent to waterbodies and contain vegetation dependent on moist soils. 

These habitats are important for water quality and bank stabilization and provide shelter, foraging areas, 

and nesting habitat for species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and invertebrates. Potential impacts on 

wildlife from the removal of riparian habitat include temporary displacement of species to adjacent 

suitable habitat and alteration of migration routes by mammals and birds, especially waterfowl. 

Constitution would allow riparian areas at least 25 feet wide to permanently revegetate across the pipeline 

right-of-way at each waterbody crossing (except for a 10 foot-wide corridor centered over the pipeline) to 

facilitate bank stabilization, stream shading, and to provide wildlife habitat. 

Constitution has routed the pipeline to minimize impacts on sensitive wildlife habitat whenever 

feasible. Constitution would minimize impacts on wildlife habitat further by adhering to its state-specific 

ECPs, Plan, and Procedures, as well as additional proposed mitigation. Specific measures to reduce 

impacts include: 

• maintaining a reduced permanent right-of-way width (10 foot-wide herbaceous and 30-

foot-wide shrub-scrub) through wetlands as described in Constitution’s Procedures (see 

section 4.4);
Wildlife And Aquatic Resources 4-86

• monitoring restoration and revegetation of disturbed areas to develop a stratified 

vegetation cover;

• reducing the construction right-of-way width within interior forested habitat and 

wetlands; and

• conducting the majority of tree clearing activities from September 1 to March 31 for the 

protection of migratory birds. 

Aboveground Facilities

Construction of the Turnpike Road M&R Receipt station, the Westfall Road M&R Delivery 

Station and Iroquois’ proposed compressor transfer station would impact a total of 8.2 acres of upland 

forest, with a majority of the impacts (4.9 acres) at the Turnpike Road facility. Temporary impacts on 

wildlife occurring within or near construction workspaces would be similar to those described above for 

the pipeline facilities. Following construction, Constitution would stabilize, seed, and allow temporary 

workspace to revegetate, which would restore their use to most wildlife. Construction of the projects 

would permanently convert a total of 5.0 acres of upland forest vegetation to developed land. Wildlife 

would likely be permanently displaced from these areas by habitat conversion to impervious cover (i.e., 

slab and gravel at the meter stations) or maintained vegetation (i.e., impervious surface and maintained 

lawn at Iroquois’ site) and the erection of security fences at the aboveground facility sites. Iroquois is 

currently proposing to clear all trees outside of the FWS-recommended clearing window and is therefore 

working with the FWS to develop additional mitigation measures for the protection of migratory birds. 

The increase in ambient noise in the immediate vicinity of these facilities during both 

construction and operation, especially for the proposed compressor station transfer facility, may also 

result in a decrease in wildlife use of adjacent habitat. Changes in ambient noise levels are further 

discussed in section 4.11.2 along with proposed measures to limit noise exposure during both 

construction and operations of the projects. The Applicants would minimize impacts on wildlife by 

collocating the Westfall Road M&R Station and the proposed compressor station adjacent to developed 

land that includes Iroquois’ existing Wright Compressor Station. Wildlife in this area is likely already 

acclimated to the permanent noise environment associated with an existing natural gas compressor 

station.

Contractor Yards

The proposed contractor yards would temporarily impact 42.9 acres of open land, 40.8 acres of 

agricultural land, and 26.3 acres of developed land. Following construction, Constitution and Iroquois 

would restore and reseed any previously vegetated areas that are affected, with the exception of actively 

cultivated croplands, unless approved in writing by the landowner. Use of these areas would temporarily 

displace wildlife species; however, displaced wildlife would return to these areas following restoration. 

Therefore, no permanent impacts on wildlife would result from the use of the contractor yards. 

Access Roads

Constitution proposes to use 5 temporary access roads during construction and 54 permanent 

access roads during construction and operation of its project. Of the 54 permanent access roads, 38 are 

existing roads and would generally require improvements such as grading or widening, 6 would be newly 

constructed, and 10 are existing roads that also would require new extensions. Construction of these 

roads would impact 33.3 acres of upland forest, 14.9 acres of developed land, 9.1 acres of agricultural 

land, 8.3 acres of open land, and 0.9 acre of wetlands (including 0.7 acre of forested wetlands). 

Construction impacts on these habitats would be comparable to those described for pipeline facilities and 
4-87 Wildlife And Aquatic Resources

include soil compaction and erosion, the potential establishment of invasive species, and fragmentation of 

interior forested tracts. Constitution would restore and seed any previously vegetated areas affected by 

construction according to its ECPs and Plan after construction is completed. Operational use of the 54 

permanent roads would result in the permanent conversion of 31.6 acres, including 13.5 acres of upland 

forest, to developed land. Constitution has not yet sited additional permanent access roads that it would 

use to access the meter stations; therefore, we have recommended in section 4.5 that Constitution provide 

locations for any roads required to access the proposed meter stations. A full list of access roads and 

discussion of their impacts is provided in appendix E. 

4.6.1.5 Conclusion

Overall, wildlife resources are not expected to be significantly impacted due to construction and 

operation of the projects based on the amount of similar adjacent habitat available for use, the proposed 

clearing window for avoidance of the migratory bird nesting season, and our recommendation to develop 

an Upland Forest Mitigation Plan, which would further minimize impacts on wildlife due to forest 

clearing. In addition, the Applicants would minimize impacts to the extent possible through adherence to 

their ECPs, Plan, Procedures, routing of the proposed pipeline to minimize impacts on sensitive areas, and 

reducing the construction right-of-way through wetlands and interior forests. 

4.6.2 Aquatic Resources

4.6.2.1 Existing Aquatic Resources

The pipeline would cross a total of 277 waterbodies, 70 in Pennsylvania and 207 in New York. 

Waterbody crossings in Pennsylvania would include 46 minor, 24 intermediate, and no major crossings. 

Waterbody crossings in New York would include 130 minor, 74 intermediate, and 3 major, including 

Bennettsville Creek (MP 47.7 and 47.7) and Schoharie Creek (MP 119.8). An additional 18 waterbodies 

in Pennsylvania and 40 waterbodies in New York would be within the construction workspaces, but not 

crossed by the pipeline. Construction or improvements of two proposed access roads in Pennsylvania and 

three in New York would impact waterbodies; 12 additional access roads would cross waterbodies using 

existing infrastructure. A more detailed characterization of the waterbodies that Constitution would cross 

is provided in section 4.3. None of the aboveground facilities or contractor yards would impact any 

fisheries resources. Therefore, these facilities are not discussed further in this section.

Pennsylvania

As discussed in section 4.3.3.3, the PADEP classifies waterbodies according to water quality and 

aquatic communities. Under Pennsylvania Code Title 25, Chapter 93 waterbodies in the state are 

classified as: coldwater fisheries, warmwater fisheries, migratory fisheries, and trout stocked. Selected 

waterbodies are further classified as High-Quality or Exceptional Value and given special protection. 

Waterbodies that are classified as HQ exceed levels necessary to support fish, shellfish, wildlife, and 

recreation whereas waterbodies classified as EV are in significant natural areas, provide exceptional 

ecological significance, or are designated as a “wilderness trout stream” (Pennsylvania Code 2012). The 

PFBC further classifies waterbodies supporting trout populations or providing habitat as: Approved Trout 

Water, Class A Trout Waters, Special Regulation Areas, Stream Sections that Support Natural 

Reproduction of Trout, and Wilderness Trout Streams; trout streams and their applicable tributaries are 

the only streams with a PFBC-recommended crossing window. The pipeline would cross 21 waterbodies 

classified as HQ-CWF; the remaining 49 waterbodies are classified as CWF. Five of the 18 waterbodies 

within the construction right-of-way, but not crossed by the trenchline, are classified as HQ-CWF (see 

appendix K). In addition, one temporary access road would impact a waterbody classified as HQ-CWF,

and one permanent access road would impact three CWF-classified waterbody segments. Constitution 
Wildlife And Aquatic Resources 4-88

would cross eight waterbodies designated as supporting trout, eight additional tributaries to these streams 

that are afforded seasonal protection (appendix N).

New York

Fresh waterbodies in New York are classified as either coldwater or warmwater and given letter 

classifications under regulation 6, New York Code of Rules and Regulations, Part 701 which denote their 

best use: AA, A, B, C, and D (NYSDEC 2012c). Freshwater classes AA, A, B, and C are all suitable for 

fish, shellfish, and wildlife propagation and survival. All waterbodies crossed by the proposed project are 

classified as CWF with the exception of Schoharie Creek (warmwater). In addition, the project would 

cross 88 waterbodies capable of supporting trout (NYSDEC 2012c, 2012f). Of the remaining 119 

waterbodies, 84 are road ditches or are classified as D and are unsuitable for aquatic life propagation, 33 

are classified as C, and two are classified as AA. Of the 40 waterbodies within construction workspaces, 

but not crossed by the pipeline, only 11 are capable of supporting trout. In addition, two permanent 

access roads would impact waterbodies capable of supporting trout. New York waterbody classifications 

are also discussed in detail in section 4.3.3.3. 

4.6.2.2 Fisheries of Special Concern

Constitution consulted the National Marine Fisheries Service, the FWS, the PFBC, and the 

NYSDEC to identify waterbodies that may contain federally or state-listed threatened, endangered, or 

candidate species and their habitats, coldwater fisheries, and other fisheries resources that could be 

considered fisheries of special concern. The National Marine Fisheries Service did not identify any 

federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate aquatic species under its jurisdiction or any

designated essential fish habitat in the project vicinity (NOAA 2012, 2013b). Threatened and endangered 

species are discussed in section 4.7. Consultations with the PFBC and the NYSDEC determined that 108 

waterbodies classified as fisheries of special concern would be impacted by the pipeline with 6 impacted 

by permanent access roads (appendix N). No commercial fisheries were identified in the vicinity of the 

project (NOAA 2012, 2013b); however, fisheries of significant recreational value (i.e., those that support 

stocking programs, natural populations, or spawning of native trout species) would be crossed. These 

recreational fisheries are considered sensitive and are described below. Although fisheries of special 

concern are given additional considerations based on the value of their resources, general impacts on each 

of them would be similar to those for general fisheries. 

Pennsylvania

Constitution, in consultation with the PFBC, identified 16 waterbody crossings containing 

sensitive fisheries (PFBC 2013c). These waterbodies are classified as Approved Trout Water, Trout 

Stocked Water, or Supporting Natural Trout Reproduction, or are tributaries to waterbodies with these 

designations (appendix N). Constitution would cross all but three waterbodies using a dry crossing 

method (i.e., dam and pump, flume, or cofferdam methods, as described in sections 2.3.2 and 4.3.3), 

which would allow construction under mostly dry conditions, minimizing the potential for downstream 

sedimentation and turbidity. The unnamed tributaries to Starrucca Creek (MP 21.5) and Roaring Run 

(MP 22.6) would be crossed using a conventional bore, and the remaining waterbody would be within the 

workspace but not crossed by the pipeline. Constitution would further minimize impacts on fisheries 

resources within these waterbodies by adhering to the PFBC’s recommended construction windows, 

which allows in-stream work in Trout Stocked streams between June 16 and February 28 to avoid impacts 

on recreational angling, and between January 1 and September 30 for Streams that Support Natural 

Reproduction of Trout to avoid interference with spawning (PFBC 2013c) (table 4.6.2-1). Potential 

impacts on aquatic resources that could result from the use of dry crossing methods are discussed below. 

Potential impacts on surface waters from these methods are discussed in section 4.3.3. In addition, 
4-89 Wildlife And Aquatic Resources

Constitution proposes to permanently fill one tributary to Canawacta Creek during the construction of a 

permanent access road (PAR15). We have recommended in section 4.3 that Constitution provide sitespecific justification for this permanent fill.

TABLE 4.6.2-1

Construction Timing Restrictions for Waterbodies Containing Sensitive Fisheries Crossed by the 

Constitution Pipeline Project

State Fishery Classification

Construction 

Restriction Windowa

In-Stream Work 

Window

Applicable 

Regulations

Pennsylvania Trout Stocked March 1 through 

June 15

June 16 through 

February 28

PFBC Trout 

Designations

Pennsylvania Natural Trout 

Reproduction

October 1 through 

December 31

January 1 through 

September 30

PFBC Trout 

Designations

New York Trout and Troutb

Spawning

October 1 through 

May 31

June 15 through 

September 30

NYSDEC

New York Warmwater Fisheries March 1 through 

July 15

July 16 through 

February 28

NYSDEC

____________________

a Timing restrictions determined based on agency consultation with the PFBC and the NYSDEC (PFBC 2013c, NYSDEC 

2012g, NYSDEC 2013h)

b Trout and trout spawning classifications are denoted by a “T” or “TS” in appendix N.

New York

The NYSDEC classifies all waterbodies with a rating of B or higher, or those rated C with 

suitable trout habitat, as protected streams. Schoharie Creek, rated C, is also considered a sensitive 

fishery as it may contain suitable habitat for sensitive species. The pipeline and associated work spaces 

would impact 100 waterbodies containing sensitive fisheries, with an additional 2 impacted by permanent 

access roads. The pipeline would cross 1 warmwater fishery (Schoharie Creek) in addition to impacting 

34 waterbodies supporting trout populations and 54 waterbodies supporting trout spawning. In addition, 

11 waterbodies that would be impacted by the project do not carry a fishery classification; however, 

Constitution has indicated that waterbody-specific construction windows were determined based on 

coordination with the NYSDEC in the field (appendix N). Schoharie Creek, which Constitution would 

cross at MP 119.8, is classified by the NYSDEC as a warmwater fishery and serves as potential habitat 

for the state-listed yellow lampmussel. Constitution would use the Direct Pipe method to install the 

pipeline beneath the creek bed without affecting aquatic resources. Constitution would also adhere to the 

NYSDEC’s allowable construction window of July 16 to February 28 for warmwater fisheries to avoid 

disruption to spawning (NYSDEC 2013h). Constitution would cross Bennettsville Creek (oxbows and 

side channels crossed four times between MP 41.7 and 41.8) and Middle Brook (crossed at MP 87.9) via 

HDD. Potential impacts on aquatic resources that could result from the use of the Direct Pipe or HDD 

methods are discussed below. 

Constitution would use dry crossing methods (flume, dam and pump, or cofferdam) at the 

remaining crossings in order to minimize potential sedimentation and turbidity impacts. Constitution has 

indicated that it would also adhere to the NYSDEC allowable construction window for protected 

coldwater streams designated for trout and trout spawning to avoid disruption of spawning and overwintering of trout eggs (NYSDEC 2012g, 2013b) (table 4.6.2-1). However, the NYSDEC-recommended 

allowable construction window is from June 15 through September 30 (NYSDEC 2013h) instead of 

Constitution’s proposed window of June 1 to September 30. In addition, Constitution has proposed a 

contingency crossing window of May 15 through October 15 if the HDD proposed for Bennettsville 

Creek were unsuccessful. To further protect fisheries resources, we recommend that:
Wildlife And Aquatic Resources 4-90

• Constitution should construct in-stream crossings of all trout and trout spawning 

waterbodies in New York between June 15 and September 30, or file the NYSDEC’s 

approval to cross these waterbodies outside of the allowable construction window.

Methods for crossing sensitive fisheries by access roads would adhere to the ECPs, including 

installation of erosion and sedimentation controls and the use of equipment bridges. Construction of 

access roads and potential impacts on waterbodies are described in section 4.3.2.

4.6.2.3 General Impacts and Mitigation

This section describes general impacts and measures Constitution would implement to minimize 

impacts on fisheries and aquatic resources. A majority of waterbodies (235 of 277 crossings) would be 

crossed using a dry crossing method that would be determined by Constitution based on in-stream flow 

and conditions at the time of crossing. Constitution would cross all other waterbodies via trenchless 

methods, including conventional bore (27 crossings), HDD (14 crossings), and Direct Pipe (1 crossing). 

Details regarding waterbody crossings and alternative methods for proposed trenchless crossings are 

described herein and in section 4.3.3. The proposed crossing method for each waterbody potentially 

impacted by the pipeline project is provided in appendix K. Temporary impacts on fisheries from dry 

crossings would stream bank disturbance, potentially increased sedimentation and waterbody turbidity 

upon the return of flow to the stream following restoration, reduction in shading and cover, and 

modification of flow. These temporary impacts could cause physical damage to the gills of fish, disrupt 

food sources and predator/prey interactions, impact fish passage, increase ambient water temperature, 

degrade spawning and nursery habitat by filling interstitial spaces of bottom substrates with silt, smother 

demersal eggs, and temporarily reduce reproduction potential. Trenchless methods generally do not result 

in direct impacts on the waterbody.

In Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, Constitution would utilize one permanent access road and 

one new temporary access road that would impact waterbodies capable of sustaining fisheries; one 

permanent access road (PAR15) would cross three segments of a tributary to a fishery of concern and is 

discussed above. In New York, three permanent access roads would impact fisheries, including two

sensitive fisheries. Constitution would adhere to best management practices described in the ECPs to 

mitigate impacts on aquatic resources, including the use of erosion and sediment control measures, use of 

temporary equipment bridges to transport construction equipment; and limiting in-stream equipment to 

that required to construct the crossing. Constitution would design equipment bridges to minimize impacts 

on channel bottoms and banks, allow normal flow, and withstand maximum flows at each location. 

Constitution proposes to add fill to a waterbody to construct a permanent access road near MP 17.8. 

Since permanent fill of a waterbody would impact flow and habitat quality, we have recommended in 

section 4.3 that Constitution provide a site-specific plan and justification for the proposed fill. We have 

also recommended that Constitution provide mitigation for additional waterbodies within workspaces.

Constitution would implement measures described in its state-specific ECPs to minimize impacts 

on fisheries resources. These measures include:

• completing waterbody crossings during appropriate in-stream construction windows and 

completing open cut crossings within 24 hours and 48 hours for minor and intermediate 

crossings, respectively;

• completing major waterbody crossings using trenchless methods;

• installing temporary erosion controls and maintaining flow rates;

• dispersing any downstream discharges to minimize scour and downstream siltation; 
4-91 Wildlife And Aquatic Resources

• crossing waterbodies perpendicular to the channel or as close as practicable; and

• restoring stream channels to their original contour and flow rate and stabilizing banks.

Following construction, Constitution would allow a 25-foot-wide riparian strip along each 

waterbody bank to revegetate with native flora in order to stabilize banks, reduce erosion impacts, and 

provide shading and cover for fisheries resources; however, a 10-foot-wide corridor may be permanently 

maintained in an herbaceous state directly above the pipeline, except in areas crossed by HDD. 

Where standing water is present within a channel, but flow is not discernible, Constitution would 

conduct a dry crossing (e.g., flume crossing, dam and pump or cofferdam) to allow for construction under

dry conditions. The specific dry crossing method at waterbodies would be decided by Constitution at the 

time of construction based on site conditions. Dry crossing methods would allow waterbody flow to be 

maintained at all times and measures would be implemented to eliminate scour and minimize impacts on 

aquatic resources.

Dry Crossing Method

Dry crossing methods involve the installation of dams and flume pipes, a dam-and-pump system, 

or a cofferdam prior to trenching to isolate the stream flow from the construction area and allow trenching 

of the stream crossing in drier conditions. These methods typically result in lower sedimentation and 

associated turbidity impacts than open-cut crossings while maintaining stream flow. In addition to the 

impacts noted above, fish and other biota could be impinged or entrained during pump use; however, 

Constitution would screen dewatering pumps at all dry crossings to minimize impingement and 

entrainment of fish. In addition, Constitution would attempt to capture aquatic organisms in areas that 

would be dewatered and would relocate them immediately downstream of construction operations. 

Freshwater mussels are not anticipated in any of the waterbodies proposed for dry crossings. In addition, 

removal of streamside vegetation at the crossings may reduce shading of the waterbody, diminish escape 

cover, and could result in locally elevated water temperatures. Constitution would mitigate potential 

impacts from dry crossing methods by adherence to the best management practices described in the ECPs, 

as described above.

Horizontal Directional Drill Crossings

Constitution proposes to use the HDD method at 14 waterbodies: unnamed tributaries to Drinker 

Creek (crossed at MP 15.3, twice at MP 15.5, and once at MP 15.6), Bennettsville Creek (three times at 

MP 47.7 and once at MP 47.8), unnamed tributaries to Susquehanna River (crossed twice at MP 54.5 and 

once at MP 55.1), Middle Brook (MP 87.9), and unnamed tributaries to Middle Brook (MP 87.8 and MP 

88.1). The use of an HDD allows the pipeline to be installed beneath the bed of a waterbody without 

affecting aquatic resources. Potential impacts associated with HDD crossings include erosion or 

sedimentation associated with the onshore operation of the HDD equipment and inadvertent releases of 

drilling fluids and associated impacts on water quality and aquatic organisms. 

Drilling entry and exit points and workspaces are locations with an increased likelihood of 

inadvertent releases of drilling fluids and are typically located away from the waterbodies crossed to 

minimize potential impacts. Although drilling mud consists of non-toxic materials it may leak through 

unidentified fractures below the surface, either along the path of the HDD or in adjacent areas. The 

majority of inadvertent releases occur close to the HDD entry or exit points; however, drilling mud could 

also be released into a waterbody and settle on the stream bed, temporarily inundating the habitats used by 

these species. Benthic and less mobile resources as well as spawning and nursery habitat could be 

impacted from the settling of drilling mud. In addition, increased sedimentation and turbidity within 
Wildlife And Aquatic Resources 4-92

waterbodies could impact predator/prey interactions and reproductive success. If drilling mud were 

released into a waterbody, Constitution would consult with the applicable land management agency or 

landowner to determine whether the mud should be left in place, contained, or cleaned and removed in 

order to minimize impact on the waterbody per the HDD Contingency Plan.

Conventional Bore Crossings

Conventional boring is a trenchless construction method that Constitution would mainly use for 

highway crossings, but it could also be used at associated wetland and waterbody crossings, which limits 

surface disturbance because no open trench is associated with this construction method. Constitution 

would dig bore pits on each side of the feature and tunnel below the road or streambed without the use of 

drilling fluid. Constitution proposes to use this method at 27 waterbody crossings, the majority of which 

would be adjacent to roads. This method is limited because of the need to dig bore pits on each side of 

the feature, which in the case of waterbody crossings could cause those pits to fill with water. Additional 

detail regarding conventional bore crossings can be found in section 2.3.2.

Direct Pipe Crossings

The Direct Pipe method combines the HDD and conventional boring methods to lay prefabricated 

pipe simultaneously with boring of the pipeline tunnel. Direct pipe installations are shorter and shallower 

than the HDD method and are limited to distances of 900 feet. Soils with large or abundant rocks might 

preclude Direct Pipe crossings. Constitution proposes to use the Direct Pipe method at the Schoharie 

Creek crossing (MP 119.8) with the conventional dry crossing method used as an alternative. Possible 

impacts on aquatic resources from Direct Pipe construction would be similar to those of HDD 

construction, and primarily related to the potential for inadvertent releases of drilling fluids into 

waterbodies. However, the risk of a loss drilling fluids is lower for Direct Pipe compared to HDD given 

that the borehole would be continuously cased. Additional detail regarding Direct Pipe crossings can be 

found in section 2.3.2.

Blasting

Waterbodies with a shallow depth to bedrock along the pipeline project route include Dry Brook 

(MP 37.3), Mud Lake (MP 87.1), and West Kill (MP 101.8), as well 19 unnamed tributaries and 3 road 

ditches. No in-stream blasting is anticipated. If in-stream blasting is required, Constitution has 

committed to developing a detailed in-stream blasting plan that complies with state-specific regulations 

and permit conditions. However, this plan has not been provided to FERC. Therefore, we recommend 

that:

• Prior to in-stream blasting at any waterbody crossing, Constitution should file with 

the Secretary for the review and approval of the Director of OEP, a site-specific 

Blasting Plan that provides protocols for in-stream blasting and the protection of 

the fisheries and aquatic resources and habitat. These plans should be developed in 

consultation with applicable state resources agencies.

Hydrostatic Test Water

To comply with DOT regulations, Constitution would conduct hydrostatic testing of the pipeline 

prior to placing it into service (see section 4.3). Constitution proposes to use five waterbodies as sources 

of hydrostatic test water, all of which contain sensitive fisheries: Starrucca Creek in Pennsylvania, and 

Oquaga, Ouleout, Kortright, and Schoharie Creeks in New York. The PFBC approved the withdrawal of 

water from Starrucca Creek, but requested that water not be withdrawn between March 1 and June 15
4-93 Special Status Species

(PFBC 2013c), which overlaps with Constitution’s proposed water withdrawal window of December 

through March. Constitution has not received approval for water withdrawal from Oquaga, Ouleout, 

Kortright, and Schoharie Creeks from the NYSDEC, nor has Constitution verified whether water 

withdrawals would be subject to the in-stream work windows. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Constitution should not withdraw water from Starrucca Creek outside of the PFBC 

recommended in-stream work window of June 16 through February 28, or should 

provide the PFBC approval to withdraw water outside this window. Prior to 

construction, Constitution should also file with the Secretary copies of consultation 

with the NYSDEC regarding the potential to withdraw water from Oquaga, 

Ouleout, Kortright, and Schoharie Creeks, as well as any timing restrictions placed 

on water withdrawal at those locations.

Constitution would mitigate impacts on aquatic resources by adhering to its ECPs which include 

the use of 0.1-inch mesh screens on intake pumps to reduce the impingement and entrainment of fishes, 

the discharge of water to the same watershed, control of the flow rate to prevent erosion, and maintaining 

normal waterbody flow during hydrostatic test water withdrawals. All test waters would be discharged in 

upland areas through a contained filtration structure to prevent flow into waterbodies and wetlands. With 

Constitution’s proposed measures and our recommendation to consult with the applicable agencies 

regarding water withdrawal from fisheries of special concern, we conclude that hydrostatic testing would 

not significantly impact aquatic resources. Constitution would also file hydrostatic test permits prior to 

construction which would detail discharge timing, volume, and locations. 

Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures

Accidental spills of construction-related fluids (for example oil, gasoline, or hydraulic fluids) into 

waterbodies could result in water quality impacts that affect fish and other aquatic organisms. The 

potential impact would depend on the type and quantity of the spill, and the dispersal and attenuation

characteristics of the waterbody. Minimization and mitigation procedures related to water quality are 

discussed in section 4.3.3.6. To reduce the potential for surface water contamination and resulting 

impacts on aquatic life, Constitution would implement the measures in its ECPs which include conducting 

routine inspections of construction equipment, tanks, and storage areas to help reduce the potential for 

spills or leaks; restricting refueling and the handling of hazardous materials to greater than 100 feet from 

wetland and waterbody resources; and the use of secondary containment around all containers and tanks. 

With adherence to these measures, we conclude that impacts on aquatic resources from potential spills 

would be adequately minimized.

4.6.2.4 Conclusion

Based on our review of potential project impacts on aquatic resources as described above, we 

conclude that the proposed projects would result in some temporary impacts on aquatic resources, but that 

these impacts would be adequately mitigated through adherence to the measures described in 

Constitution’s ECPs, as well as our recommendations regarding the timing of construction activities and 

development of in-stream blasting plans.

4.7 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Special status species are those species for which state or federal agencies afford an additional 

level of protection by law, regulation, or policy. For the purposes of this environmental analysis, special 

status species of plants and animals include species officially listed by the states of Pennsylvania or New 
Special Status Species 4-94

York or the federal government as endangered or threatened (as per the ESA), or species of special 

concern.

Constitution’s field reconnaissance surveys and wetland delineations were conducted from June 

2012 to September 2013. The original study area was typically a 600-foot-wide corridor encompassing 

the project route and workspaces but was decreased to 300 feet during the 2013 survey season as the route 

became more defined. However, Constitution has not yet acquired survey access for about 24 percent of 

the pipeline route (an estimated 30 miles), has finalized special status species surveys focused on a subset 

of the route accounting for approximately 8 miles, and has not surveyed three of the proposed contractor 

yards sites.

4.7.1 Regulatory Requirements and Species Identification

The ESA requires each federal agency to ensure that any actions authorized, funded, or carried 

out by the agency do not jeopardize the continued existence of a federally listed endangered or threatened 

species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the designated critical habitat of a federally 

listed species. As the lead federal agency, the FERC is required to consult with the FWS and/or NOAA’ 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) to determine whether federally listed endangered or 

threatened species or designated critical habitat are found in the vicinity of a proposed project, and to 

determine the proposed action’s potential effects on those species or critical habitats. Constitution and 

Iroquois, acting as the FERC’s non-federal representatives for the purpose of complying with Section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA, initiated informal consultation with the FWS on May 2, 2012 and February 22, 2013, 

respectively. Constitution submitted consultation letters to two FWS offices in the project area, including 

the New York and Pennsylvania Field Offices and Iroquois submitted a consultation letter to the New 

York field office. Additionally, Constitution has consulted with the Northeast Regional Office of the 

FWS, NOAA Fisheries, the PFBC, the PGC, the PADCNR, and the NYSDEC. In addition to the FWS’s 

New York Field Office, Iroquois has consulted with the NYSDEC.

For actions involving major construction activities with the potential to adversely affect listed 

species or designated critical habitat, the FERC must prepare a biological assessment (BA) for those 

federally listed species that may be affected and report its findings to the FWS and NOAA Fisheries (as 

applicable). If it is determined that the action would adversely affect a federally listed species, the FERC 

must submit a request for formal consultation to comply with Section 7 of the ESA. In response, the 

FWS and/or NOAA Fisheries would issue a biological opinion as to whether or not the federal action

would likely jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical habitat. 

The FWS, which is responsible for terrestrial and freshwater species, and NOAA Fisheries, which 

is responsible for marine species, jointly administer the ESA. NOAA Fisheries, during early coordination 

with Constitution, indicated that no threatened or endangered species under its purview are expected to be 

within the proposed pipeline project area and that no further consultation is required. Additionally, 

Iroquois’ proposed compressor transfer station would be constructed at the end of the pipeline; no 

threatened or endangered species under NOAA Fisheries’, FWS’, or NYSDEC’s purview are expected 

within the compressor transfer station and no further consultation for the Iroquois project is required. 

Because Constitution’s project may affect federally listed species, in compliance with Section 7 of the 

ESA, the FERC requests that the FWS consider the draft EIS, along with various survey reports prepared 

by Constitution, as the BA for the Constitution project.

In addition to federal law, Pennsylvania and New York have passed laws to protect state-listed 

threatened and endangered species. The state-specific regulations include the Pennsylvania ESA 

(Pennsylvania Code 58 §75.1-75.4); and the New York ESA (New York Environmental Conservation 
4-95 Special Status Species

Law § 11-0535 and 6 NYCRR Part 182), revised November 2010. The overall goal of each of the state 

endangered species laws is to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance any listed species and their habitat. 

Through our and Constitution’s consultations with the protected species agencies and research, 

we have identified 4 federally listed species and 19 additional state-listed species along in the general area 

of the pipeline project were identified. The potential effects of Constitution’s project on these species are 

discussed below.

4.7.2 Federally Listed Species 

We reviewed the information submitted by Constitution, performed our own research, and 

consulted with the agencies regarding federally listed species. According to the FWS, 4 federally listed 

species may be present in the proposed pipeline project area. Our determination of effect for each species 

is included in table 4.7.2-1 and described in the species-specific discussions below. 

TABLE 4.7.2-1

Federally Listed Species Potentially Occurring in the Constitution Pipeline Project Area

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Statusa State Statusa Determination of Effect

Mammals

Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis E PA-E; NY-E Not likely to adversely affect.

Mussels

Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta 

heterodon

E PA-E; NY-E Not likely to adversely affect.

Reptiles

Bog Turtle Clemmys 

muhlenbergii

T PA-E; NY-E No effect.

Plants

Northern Monkshood Acontum 

noveboracense

T NY-T Not likely to adversely affect.

____________________

a E = endangered; T = threatened; PA = Pennsylvania; NY = New York.

Sources: PGC 2013a; Steiner 2013; FWS 2013a; NYSDEC 2013i.

Indiana Bat 

The Indiana bat is a federally listed endangered species, and is a state-listed endangered species in 

New York and Pennsylvania. The Indiana bat is relatively small, weighing only 0.25 ounce, and has a 

wingspan of 9 to 11 inches. It hibernates during winter in caves or, occasionally, in abandoned mines 

from November through March (FWS 2012a). For hibernation, it requires cool, humid caves with stable 

temperatures, under 50° F but above freezing. The hibernacula typically have large volumes of Indiana 

bats and often have large rooms and vertical or extensive passages (FWS 2006). 

When active, the Indiana bat roosts in dead trees, dying trees, or live trees with exfoliating bark. 

During the summer months, most reproductive females occupy roost sites that receive direct sunlight for 

more than half the day. Roost trees are generally found within canopy gaps in a forest, fence line, or 

along a wooded edge. Maternity roosts are found in riparian zones, bottomland and floodplain habitats, 

and wooded wetlands, as well as in upland communities. Indiana bats forage in semi-open to closed 

forested habitats, forest edges, and riparian areas (FWS 2004). Threats to the species include 

anthropogenic disturbance and the spread of white-nose syndrome. White-nose syndrome is a contagious 
Special Status Species 4-96

fungal disease affecting bats with a potentially high mortality rate and is known to be present in both New 

York and Pennsylvania. Critical habitat has not been designated for the species in either New York or 

Pennsylvania.

The pipeline project is within the range of the Indiana bat in Pennsylvania; however, there are no 

known maternity colonies in Susquehanna County, nor would the pipeline project fall within swarming 

habitat associated with known hibernacula for the species. Due to the potential presence of the species in 

Susquehanna County, and at the request of FWS, Constitution conducted mist-net and acoustic surveys 

along the proposed pipeline route in June and July 2012, and at additional sites in May and June 2013, 

using a qualified biologist and in accordance with the FWS and the PGC survey guidelines. No Indiana 

bats were encountered during these surveys, although several state-listed bat species were found (section 

4.7.3). As a result of the 2012 surveys, the FWS determined that tree-clearing related to the project was 

not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat in Pennsylvania. The 2013 results were similar, but the FWS 

has not yet commented on them. Although two additional access roads have been proposed for use in 

Pennsylvania since the 2013 surveys, they are existing roads that would require minimal clearing, and no 

bat surveys have been proposed for them by Constitution. 

Constitution also consulted with the FWS – New York Field Office regarding the potential to 

affect the Indiana bat. The species is listed as having potential summer habitat in Schoharie County, New 

York; however, the FWS stated that the species to be extirpated in that area and has indicated that no 

surveys are required within the New York portion of the project (FWS 2012b, FWS 2012d). 

If individual Indiana bats are present within the pipeline project area, tree-clearing could remove 

potential roost trees and foraging areas. However, this represents only a small percentage of the available 

forest habitat in the project area. As such, and based on the negative survey results in Pennsylvania and 

the assumed extirpation within the only county of potential occurrence that would be crossed in New 

York, we have determined that the project is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat. 

Dwarf Wedgemussel 

The dwarf wedgemussel is listed as federally endangered wherever it is present, and is state-listed 

as endangered in New York and Pennsylvania. The pipeline project would only cross the range of this 

species in the Delaware River watershed in Broome County, New York. The dwarf wedgemussel is a 

small freshwater mussel that rarely exceeds 1.5 inches in length. Typical habitat includes slow to 

moderately running waters of all substrates, including silt, sand, or gravel. Primary threats to the species 

are water pollution and stream impoundments which impede flow. Males release sperm in mid-summer 

or fall, which are collected by females when siphoning food from the water. The parasitic larvae are 

released the following spring and attach to host fish until they are ready to settle (NYSDEC 2013j). The 

dwarf wedgemussel has two known extant populations in New York, one in the upper Delaware River in 

Sullivan and Delaware Counties and one in the lower Neversink River in Orange County (NYNHP 

2013b). 

Although the project would not cross the Delaware River or the Neversink River, Constitution 

conducted habitat assessment surveys in waterbodies that it would cross in the Delaware River watershed. 

These surveys were conducted in August of 2013 across 35 waterbodies between MP 27.3 and MP 39.6; 3

waterbodies were not surveyed due to lack of survey access. Constitution will provide a survey report to 

us and the consulting agencies when finalized, but indicated that no habitat or dwarf wedgemussels were 

present within the waterbodies surveyed adjacent to the proposed construction work areas. 

Construction of the pipeline could impact the dwarf wedgemussel through direct mortality during 

flume, dam-and-pump, or cofferdam stream crossings, if it were present and stranded within the footprint 
4-97 Special Status Species

of the construction, or through impacts on water quality and flow if populations were to be present 

downstream of activities causing increased turbidity or stream flow modifications. Operational impacts 

would be limited or avoided as Constitution would restore waterbodies following construction. 

Aboveground facilities would not be placed adjacent to streams, and only minimal maintenance clearing 

of streamside vegetation would occur. Constitution indicated that it did not anticipate encountering 

significant populations of mussels during waterbody crossings and did not propose any special measures 

for relocating mussels that could be stranded within the dewatered work zone for dry waterbody 

crossings. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Prior to construction, Constitution should develop impact avoidance or effective 

impact minimization or mitigation measures (e.g., utilization of trenchless crossing 

methods or mussel relocation) in consultation with the FWS, the PFBC, the PGC, 

the PADCNR, and the NYSDEC for any dwarf wedgemussels encountered during 

construction.

Based on the results of the 2013 surveys indicating that no dwarf wedgemussel specimens or 

habitat were found, Constitution’s implementation of its Procedures (which include measures to maintain 

downstream flow and minimize sedimentation when crossing streams), and our recommendation to 

develop impact avoidance, minimization, or mitigation in the event that specimens are found during later 

surveys, we conclude that the pipeline project is not likely to adversely affect the dwarf wedgemussel. 

Bog Turtle

The northern population of bog turtles is federally listed as threatened and state-listed as 

endangered in both Pennsylvania and New York. The species is one of the smallest turtles in the world at 

less than 5 inches long, with a dark brown or black carapace. Bog turtles have a small home range and 

use riverine or palustrine wetland habitat (FWS 2013a, NatureServe 2013). 

Of the counties Constitution would cross, the bog turtle is only know to occur in Otsego County, 

New York (listed as historic range for the species [FWS 2012b]). The only facilities proposed in Otsego 

County are two contractor yards that would impact quarry, industrial, developed, and open land uses. 

Although riverine habitat is close to one of the proposed contractor yards, it would not be impacted. As 

the pipeline project would have minimal impacts in Otsego County, none of which would occur in bog 

turtle habitat, we have determined that the project would have no effect on the bog turtle. 

Northern Monkshood

The Northern monkshood, a perennial flower, is federally listed as threatened and state-listed in 

New York as threatened. The only known occurrences of this species within New York are in Delaware 

County (FWS 2007a, 2012b). The plant itself is 1 to 4 feet high and its blue, hood-shaped flowers bloom 

between June and September. It is generally found on partially shaded cliffs, algific talus slopes, or 

streamsides with cool conditions. Threats to the Northern monkshood include habitat loss and 

degradation, livestock grazing, and misuse of pesticides (FWS 2007a).

If present within the pipeline project footprint, the Northern monkshood could be impacted 

through direct loss or degradation of suitable habitat during construction and operation of the project. To 

verify that no impact on the species would occur, Constitution conducted surveys in potentially suitable 

habitat along the primary pipeline route in Delaware County. Surveys were completed in September 2012 

and July 2013, within the flowering season; no Northern monkshood were identified. There are four 

parcels of potential habitat for the Northern monkshood that Constitution has not yet surveyed due to lack 
Special Status Species 4-98

of land access (MPs 72.9 to 73.0, 74.8 to 74.9, 76.4 to 76.5, and 83.4 to 83.5). Therefore, we 

recommend that:

• Prior to construction, Constitution should file with the Secretary, the results of 

completed Northern monkshood surveys and Constitution’s consultation with the 

FWS and the NYSDEC regarding the results. Constitution should file the 

avoidance/minimization measures it would use in the event that Northern 

monkshood are found either prior to or during construction including:

a. avoidance of plant locations and associated habitat, as feasible, including 

“necking-down” or reducing construction footprint;

b. the feasibility of boring or HDD; and

c. the feasibility of transplanting and seed banking (only after all other options 

are considered).

Based on the results of the 2012 and 2013 surveys that indicate that no Northern monkshood are 

present within potentially suitable habitat surveyed to date, and our recommendation to develop impact 

avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures for the species as a contingency in the event populations 

are found, we conclude that the pipeline project is not likely to adversely affect the Northern monkshood. 

Constitution is still conducting surveys and consulting with the FWS regarding federally listed 

threatened and endangered species that may be present in the project area. In addition, Constitution has 

added additional access roads and contractor yards, that have not been reviewed by the agencies. 

Therefore, we recommend that:

• Constitution should not begin construction of the proposed facilities until:

a. all outstanding biological surveys have been completed;

b. the FERC staff completes any necessary Section 7 consultation with the FWS; 

and

c. Constitution has received written notification from the Director of OEP that 

construction and/or use of mitigation (including implementation of conservation 

measures) may begin.

4.7.3 State-listed Species

In New York, the NYSDEC is responsible for special status species. In Pennsylvania, three 

agencies are responsible for special status species: the PADCNR is responsible for plants, terrestrial 

invertebrates, natural communities, and geologic features; the PGC is responsible for state-listed birds and 

mammals; and the PFBC is responsible for fish, reptiles, amphibians, and aquatic invertebrates. The 

PADCNR and the PFBC, during early coordination with Constitution, reviewed the pipeline project route 

and indicated that no adverse impacts are expected to occur to species under their purview during project 

construction or operation (PADCNR 2013a, PFBC 2013d). Constitution has since adopted additional 

access roads and contractor yards and will provide updated route information to the applicable state 

agencies for their review in January 2014. 

Twenty-three species that are state-listed as threatened, endangered, or of special concern were 

identified as potentially present in the pipeline project area (table 4.7.3-1). Four of these species, the 

Indiana bat, dwarf wedgemussel, bog turtle, and Northern monkshood, are also federally listed and are 

therefore discussed above in section 4.7.2. The remaining species are discussed further below.
4-99 Special Status Species

TABLE 4.7.3-1

State-Listed Species Potentially Occurring in the Constitution Pipeline Project Area

Common Name Scientific Name

Federal 

Statusa State Statusa Conclusion

Birds

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

BGEPA PA-T; NY-T Would not cause adverse impact.

Mammals

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris 

noctivagans

PA-SC Would not cause adverse impact.

Eastern Small-footed Myotis Myotis leibii PA-T; NY-SC Would not cause adverse impact.

Little Brown Bat Myotis lucifugus IR N/A Would not cause adverse impact.

Northern Myotis Myotis 

septentrionalis

PE PA-SC Would not cause adverse impact.

Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis E PA-E; NY-E See section 4.7.2

Mussels

Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta 

heterodon

E NY-E See section 4.7.2

Yellow Lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa PA-ICS; NYSCWould not cause adverse impact.

Plants

Hooker’s Orchid Platanthera 

hookeri

NY-E Would not cause adverse impact.

Northern Monkshood Acontum 

noveboracense

T NY-T See section 4.7.2

Northern Wild Comfrey Cynoglossum 

virgnianum

NY-E Would not cause adverse impact.

Red Currant Ribes triste PA-T Would not cause adverse impact.

Mountain Starwort Stellaria borealis PA-SC Would not cause adverse impact.

Bog Rosemary Andromeda 

polifolia

PA-SC Would not cause adverse impact.

Great-spurred Violet Viola selkirkii PA-SC Would not cause adverse impact.

Canadian Milkwort Astragalus 

Canadensis

PA-SC Would not cause adverse impact.

Slender Sedge Carex lasiocarpa PA-SC Would not cause adverse impact.

Soft-leaved Sedge Carex disperma PA-SC Would not cause adverse impact.

Marsh bedstraw Galium trifidum PA-SC Would not cause adverse impact.

American Reed Phragmites 

australis 

americanus

PA-SC Would not cause adverse impact.

Kidney-leaved White Violet Viola renifolia PA-SC Would not cause adverse impact.
Special Status Species 4-100

TABLE 4.7.3-1 (continued)

State-Listed Fauna Potentially Occurring in the Constitution Pipeline Project Area

Common Name Scientific Name

Federal 

Statusa State Statusa Determination of Effect

Reptiles

Timber Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus PA-C; NY-T Would not cause adverse impact.

Bog Turtle Clemmys 

muhlenbergii

T PA-E; NY-E See section 4.7.2.

____________________

a E = endangered; PE= proposed endangered; T = threatened; SC = species of concern; PA = Pennsylvania; NY = New York; 

IR = in review for potential listing; ICS = immediate concern species; BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; C = 

Candidate (State) N/A = not applicable

Sources: PGC 2013a; Steiner 2013; PGC 2013b; PADCNR 2012; NYSDEC 2013i; NYSDEC 2013e.

Bald Eagle 

The bald eagle was formerly a federally listed species, but was delisted in 2007 due to recovery of 

the population. Despite the delisting, the species retains federal protection under the Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act, which prohibits the taking of eagles, their eggs, or their nests. Bald eagles are also 

state-listed as threatened in both New York and Pennsylvania, although the PGC is currently evaluating 

whether the Pennsylvania status should be changed to “secure” based on recent recovery data (PGC 

2013c). Bald eagles mate for life and a mated pair will establish a nesting territory that they use for the 

rest of their lives. Nests are large structures that are typically built on tall trees or rock walls adjacent to 

large bodies of water. The nests are typically reused each year, with new nest materials added during 

preparation for the breeding season (NYSDEC 2013k). The breeding season can begin as early as late 

February and young generally fledge by early July (The Eagle Institute 2013). 

During agency consultation, the NYSDEC provided the locations of three known bald eagle nests 

in the vicinity of the pipeline project. Constitution conducted aerial overflights of the primary route in 

March 2013 to determine if the three nests identified by the NYSDEC were active and whether any 

additional nests were present within 0.25-mile of the proposed centerline. One of the nest was occupied 

by a bald eagle during surveys (nest NY204, 0.3 mile from the proposed centerline), one was unoccupied 

at the time of surveys, but showed recent nest construction activity (nest NY163c, 0.4 mile from the 

proposed centerline), and one was not visible and occupation could not be verified (nest NY220, 0.7 mile 

from the proposed centerline). In addition, nests NY204 and NY163c are in close proximity to I-88 and 

are likely conditioned to heightened anthropogenic noises. No new nests were observed within the survey 

corridor although one adult bald eagle was observed in flight in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. 

Although no nests were encountered within the 0.25-mile survey corridor in 2013, nests NY204 

and NY163c are within 0.5-mile of areas that may require excavation by blasting. Blasting in proximity 

to nests during sensitive periods may cause the adults to abandon the nests, causing egg or fledging 

mortality. The National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (FWS 2007b) indicate that blasting should 

be avoided within 0.5-mile of an active nest. Constitution has indicated that it is consulting with the FWS 

and the NYSDEC to determine if blasting within 0.5-mile of bald eagle nests would present a significant 

impact on bald eagles. In addition, Constitution is developing a mitigation plan for potential blasting in 

the vicinity of bald eagle nests that will be provided to the FWS for review and concurrence. 

Constitution has agreed to conduct additional bald eagle surveys along the entire project route in 

early 2014 to verify that no new eagle nests have been built, as well as to survey new route modifications 

between MP 19.2 and MP 21.1 and between MP 22.0 and 23.5. Constitution has also agreed to survey 
4-101 Special Status Species

recently proposed contractor yards and access roads that have not been surveyed or reviewed by the 

applicable agencies to determine if known nests are in the vicinity of the new facilities. Because the final 

survey results and mitigation plan are not yet available, we recommend that:

• Prior to construction, Constitution should file with the Secretary for review and 

approval by the Director of OEP the final bald eagle survey results, as well as the 

final bald eagle mitigation plan, developed in consultation with the FWS, the PGC, 

and the NYSDEC. The mitigation plan should include impact avoidance or effective 

impact minimization or mitigation measures for any nests encountered during the 

2014 surveys. Specific mitigation, or approval from the applicable agencies, should 

be included for potential blasting within 0.5 mile of an active nest. 

Based on the lack of bald eagle nests within 0.25-mile of the pipeline along surveyed areas and 

our recommendation to finalize mitigation for any nests that are found during the 2014 surveys, including 

measures for potential blasting in the vicinity of eagle nests, we conclude the pipeline project would not 

result in adverse impacts on bald eagles.

Bats 

Three special-status bat species are present within the proposed project area, including the:

• small-footed bat, which is listed as threatened in Pennsylvania and is a species of concern 

in New York;

• northern myotis, which is listed as proposed endangered by the FWS and a Pennsylvania 

species of concern; and the 

• silver-haired bat, which is listed as a Pennsylvania species of concern. 

The little brown bat (which is not currently federally or state-listed) is being reviewed by the 

FWS to determine if it may warrant future protection under the ESA due to large population declines 

from white-nose syndrome (FWS 2012b). In December 2013, FWS stated that the eastern small-footed 

bat did not warrant federal listing, but the northern myotis bat was proposed as an endangered species 

(FWS 2013b). 

The small-footed bat is rarely found in large numbers but the largest known populations are 

present in Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, and West Virginia. Summer roosts include caves and 

mines, hollow trees, and cracks and crevices in rock walls (Butchkoski 2010). The Northern myotis and 

silver-haired bat utilize forested areas where they can roost in tree cavities or under loose bark (PNHP 

2013, Naumann 1999). The little brown bat roosts in trees, buildings, and under rocks (Havens 2006). 

All four species hibernate in caves or mines (Butchkoski 2010, PNHP 2013, Naumann 1999, Havens 

2006). Threats to these bat species include destruction and disturbance of hibernation sites, as well as the 

spread of white-nose syndrome, as discussed above for the Indiana bat.

The FWS requested that Constitution conduct mist-net surveys across the Pennsylvania portion of 

the proposed project to determine if the Indiana bat was present (section 4.7.2). Constitution surveyed 

areas in Pennsylvania in June and July 2012, and at additional areas in May and June 2013. Although no 

Indiana bats were encountered, seven bat species were found, including 22 Northern myotis and 6 silverhaired bats. In 2013, Constitution also employed full spectrum acoustic detectors at 29 locations, 

resulting in the detection of approximately 3,700 bats, including 44 Northern myotis, 551 silver-haired 

bats, and 7 little brown bats. 
Special Status Species 4-102

Construction and operation of the pipeline could impact bat species through direct mortality, if 

clearing affected occupied roost trees, or indirectly through habitat loss and disruption. To minimize 

impacts on the small-footed bat, the PGC has requested that certain areas of rocky habitat be avoided as 

they could be day or maternity roosts. Constitution has routed the proposed pipeline so that it avoids 

direct impacts on these habitats. The PGC also requested that Constitution clear trees or dead snags 

greater than 5 inches in diameter between November 1 to March 31 to minimize impacts on the Northern 

myotis and silver-haired bats. 

As proposed, Constitution would conduct tree clearing outside of the PGC’s recommended rare 

bat protection window of November 1 to March 31. Constitution has proposed to conduct the majority of 

tree clearing from September 1 through March 31, with initial clearing occurring as late as April 1 in 

limited areas, to construct access roads and sensitive waterbody crossings. Constitution’s rationale for its 

tree clearing schedule is premised upon a requirement to perform in-stream work at wild trout waters 

between January 1 and September 30. Further, Constitution indicated that its proposed tree clearing 

would occur within the last one-half of the bat roosting period and outside of the peak bat roosting season. 

Given that the initial clearing would be limited in scope, the majority of tree clearing would occur past the 

peak bat roosting season, and the underlying reasons for the schedule (including competing resource 

protection windows), we concur with Constitution’s proposed clearing schedule. Constitution has 

indicated its intent to continue consultations with the PGC regarding mitigation for sensitive bat species 

along the project route; however, no such mitigation measures have been developed to date. Therefore, 

we recommend that: 

• Prior to construction, Constitution should develop impact avoidance, minimization, 

or mitigation measures in coordination with the FWS and the PGC for construction 

between April 1 and October 31 to minimize impacts on the small-footed bat, 

Northern myotis, silver haired bat, and little brown bat. Constitution should file 

any such measures with the Secretary. 

Based on the results of the 2012 and 2013 surveys, there appear to be areas along the pipeline 

project in Pennsylvania that provide habitat for communities of bats, including bat species being 

considered for listing under the ESA. However, with adherence to our recommendation to develop 

additional mitigation measures in consultation with the FWS and the PGC, as well as our 

recommendation in section 4.5 to develop an Upland Forest Mitigation Plan, we conclude that 

construction and operation of the project would not result in adverse impacts on sensitive bat species. 

Yellow Lampmussel

The yellow lampmussel is a freshwater mussel that is present in small to large rivers, especially 

those with sandy substrates in riffles. Although the species is not state or federally listed, it is a New 

York species of concern due to widespread population declines and extirpations that have been occurring 

since the 1970s. The predominant threat to this species is habitat degradation (NYS-OPRHP 2013). 

The yellow lampmussel is known to be present in Schoharie Creek and has been recorded 

approximately 0.3 mile north of the proposed route. Constitution would cross Schoharie Creek using the 

trenchless Direct Pipe method, which avoids direct impacts on the waterbody by drilling underneath it. 

Constitution attempted to conduct mussel surveys adjacent to the proposed Schoharie Creek crossing (MP 

119.8) in August and September of 2013; however, site conditions including deep water and high 

turbidity that limited visibility did not allow a determination of species presence or absence. Constitution

is continuing to consult with the NYSDEC regarding this proposed crossing and potential impacts on the 

yellow lampmussel. However, as Constitution has proposed a trenchless crossing of the only potential 

habitat present in the project area, and the Direct Pipe method is not likely to result in an inadvertent loss 
4-103 Special Status Species

of drilling mud on the stream bottom, we do not expect the proposed project would not result in adverse 

impacts on the yellow lampmussel. 

Plants

Consultation with the applicable federal and state agencies indicated that 13 rare plant species are 

known to be present in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline project in Pennsylvania and New York (table 

4.7.3-1). The Northern monkshood, which is federally listed as threatened, is discussed in section 4.7.2. 

The remaining 12 species are further described in table 4.7.3-2 with their habitat type and flowering 

season. Constitution, through desktop review and observations during fieldwork, determined where the 

proposed pipeline crosses potentially suitable habitat for these species and conducted field surveys over a 

600-foot-wide corridor in 2012 and a 300-foot-wide corridor in 2013. 

TABLE 4.7.3-2

Flowering Periods and Habitat Associations of State-Listed Plants

Common Name Scientific Name State Statusa Flowering Period Preferred Habitat

Hooker’s Orchid Platanthera hookeri NY-E Mid-May – early 

August

Dry to moist coniferous and deciduous forests 

with an open understory and successional 

forests.

Northern Wild Comfrey Cynoglossum 

virgnianum

NY-E Mid-May - July Deciduous forest edge or along paths in 

sandy or rocky, dry soils.

Red Currant Ribes triste PA-T June – July Wet, rocky woods, swamps, and cliffs.

Mountain Starwort Stellaria borealis PA-SC May – August Seepy wooded slopes, sphagnum swamps, 

and stream banks

Bog Rosemary Andromeda polifolia PA-SC Year-round Bogs and peaty wetlands.

Great-spurred Violet Viola selkirkii PA-SC May – July Dry, cool woods and rock crevices.

Canadian Milkwort Astragalus 

Canadensis

PA-SC June – August Rocky roadside banks, limestone ledges, and 

shale barrens.

Slender Sedge Carex lasiocarpa PA-SC June – August Sphagnum bogs and swales, medium fens.

Soft-leaved Sedge Carex disperma PA-SC June – August Bogs and acidic wet woods.

Marsh bedstraw Galium trifidum PA-SC June – July Moist woods, thickets, emergent wetlands, 

and swales.

American Reed Phragmites australis 

americanus

PA-SC July – September Marshes, ditches, and moist disturbed 

ground.

Kidney-leaved White 

Violet

Viola renifolia PA-SC May - July Dry, cool woods, rock crevices, and 

hummocks in swamps.

____________________

a DL = Delisted; E = endangered; T = threatened; SC = species of concern; PA = Pennsylvania; NY = New York

Sources: PADCNR 2012, NYNHP 2013c.

In New York, Constitution surveyed two parcels for Hooker’s orchid and Northern wild comfrey 

during the appropriate flowering timeframes between August 2012 and July 2013; no specimens were 

observed. In Pennsylvania, Constitution surveyed seven of eight potentially suitable habitat parcels in 

July 2012 and May through July 2013. One species of concern, the soft-leaved sedge, was identified 

within one additional surveyed parcel. The soft-leaved sedge is a rare species and is not regulated outside 

of state lands; however, Constitution re-routed the pipeline to avoid the population and the wetland 

community in which it is present. 
Special Status Species 4-104

Construction and operation of the project could directly impact any of these plant species if they 

are present within the construction workspace. Constitution has completed surveys of most potential 

habitat along the proposed route and has modified the proposed route to avoid rare plant species 

encountered during surveys. Constitution has agreed to survey the remaining parcel of potential habitat in 

Pennsylvania (MP 7.0 to MP 8.0) for the marsh bedstraw once land access is granted. 

Based on the results of the rare plant surveys, the only potential impact from the project would be 

on the marsh bedstraw; however, we are recommending below, that prior to construction Constitution 

submit the results of any outstanding surveys and subsequent mitigation measures. Consequently, we 

conclude that the proposed pipeline project is unlikely to cause a trend in federal listing for these plant 

species due to construction and operation.

Timber Rattlesnake

The timber rattlesnake is a candidate species for listing in Pennsylvania. The species is also statelisted as threatened in New York, but there are no known occurrences of timber rattlesnakes in proximity 

to the proposed project in New York (NYSDEC 2013e). Timber rattlesnakes are most often found in 

mountainous areas with numerous rocks and crevices, or in thick forested habitats. The species’ peak 

mating time is between July and August and the young are born in August or September. Despite a 20-

year life span, females only reproduce two to three times over the course of their lifetime. During the 

later stages of gestation, females often remain in their dens, making them vulnerable to predation and den 

disturbance by humans. Hibernation occurs from early October to late April (PSU 2006).

At the request of the PFBC, Constitution surveyed an area between Canawacta and Starrucca 

Creeks (MP 18.8 to MP 21.8), which contains numerous rocky outcrops that could be used for rattlesnake 

denning and gestational habitat. Phase I surveys, to determine and classify potential habitat, were 

conducted on four parcels of land in April and July 2013. Phase II surveys, to determine the presence or 

absence of timber rattlesnakes, were conducted in two of the four surveyed parcels in April 2013; no 

rattlesnakes were observed. Of the remaining two parcels that were surveyed in 2013, one did not require 

Phase II surveys because no suitable habitat was found and one parcel will have a Phase II survey in 

spring 2014. Two additional parcels will undergo Phase I and II surveys, as applicable, when survey 

permission is obtained. Although timber rattlesnakes were determined to be absent at three of the six 

parcels of potential habitat, potential denning habitat was encountered at two of those parcels. In 

addition, the presence or absence of timber rattlesnakes or their habitat has not been determined on three 

parcels. 

Given that there are surveys for state-listed species that are not yet completed, we recommend 

that:

• Prior to construction, Constitution should file with the Secretary the results of any 

outstanding surveys for New York and Pennsylvania state-listed species and identify 

additional mitigation measures developed in consultation with the applicable state 

agencies. 

Based on the results of the surveys to date and our recommendation above, we conclude that 

construction and operation of the proposed pipeline project would not cause a trend in federal listing for 

the timber rattlesnake. 
4-105 Land Use And Visual Resources

4.7.4 Conclusion

Constitution has surveyed the majority of potentially suitable habitat for all state-listed species 

noted by the applicable agencies as being present in the pipeline’s vicinity. Although bald eagles and 

sensitive bat species were found during field surveys, and surveys to determine the presence/absence of 

additional species are ongoing, Constitution would implement measures to minimize impacts on those 

species, as discussed above, and follow its state-specific ECPs, and its Plan and Procedures to minimize

impacts on potential habitat and species. With those measures and our recommendations to submit the 

results of any outstanding surveys and consultation with the applicable agencies, we conclude that 

construction and operation of the proposed pipeline project would not adversely impact any state-listed 

species. 

4.8 LAND USE, RECREATION, SPECIAL INTEREST AREAS, AND VISUAL RESOURCES

4.8.1 Land Use 

This section discusses the land requirements for construction and operation of the proposed 

projects, the current use of those lands, and an evaluation of the project-related impacts. Constitution’s 

proposed pipeline project consists of 124.4 miles of new natural gas pipeline that would cross one county 

of Pennsylvania and four counties in New York. One additional county in New York would not be 

crossed by the pipeline, but would be affected by two contractor yards. Of the 124.4 miles of proposed 

new 30-inch-diameter pipeline, 11.2 miles, or approximately 9.0 percent, would be collocated with 

existing right-of-way (see table 2.2.1-1). Constitution’s project also includes 2 meter stations, 2 tie-ins, 

pig launchers/ receivers; 11 mainline valves; and other appurtenant facilities. 

Per an agreement with Constitution, Iroquois would expand existing compression and metering 

facilities located in Wright, New York. Iroquois’ Wright project would be constructed within the 

property line of its existing Wright Compressor Station. This section initially focuses on and discusses 

the proposed pipeline project, which accounts for over 99 percent of the land disturbances associated with 

both projects. Because Iroquois’ project would have a comparatively small land disturbance associated 

with its construction, it is primarily discussed in sections 4.8.1.3 (aboveground facilities) and 4.8.6.2 

(visual resources). 

4.8.1.1 Environmental Setting

Seven general land use types would be affected by the Constitution and Iroquois projects. Table 

4.8.1-1 summarizes the acreage of each land use type that would be affected. The definitions of each land 

use type are as follows:

• agricultural land – actively cultivated or specialty crops;

• industrial/commercial – manufacturing or industrial plants, paved areas, landfills, and 

commercial or retail facilities, and sand/gravel pits or quarries; 

• open land – open fields, existing utility rights-of-way, herbaceous and scrub-shrub 

uplands, non-forested lands, and non-paved roads; 

• open water – waterbody crossings greater than 100 feet;

• wetlands – emergent wetlands, scrub-shrub wetlands, and forested wetlands;
Land Use And Visual Resources

4-106

TABLE 4.8.1-1

Acreage Affected by Construction and Operation of the Proposed Projects

Facilitiesa/

County

Agricultural

Commercial & 

Industrial Residential Open Land Wetland Waterbody Upland Forest Total

Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper

PIPELINE FACILITIES

Pennsylvania

Susquehanna 66.9 28.9 1.5 1.1 3.7 1.6 24.0 10.8 15.4 2.0 1.3 0.9 205.8 100.2 318.6 145.5

New York

Broome 46.7 19.7 1.2 1.0 1.8 0.8 44.8 21.2 17.8 2.6 1.0 0.6 98.5 47.6 211.7 93.5

Chenango 18.2 8.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 10.1 5.0 8.7 2.3 0.8 0.7 63.4 30.8 101.6 47.0

Delaware 114.9 47.3 2.2 1.5 0.7 0.3 41.8 19.5 24.4 5.6 1.9 1.4 348.1 171.2 533.9 246.7

Schoharie 108.9 45.2 1.6 1.2 3.3 1.5 40.7 19.9 24.3 3.2 0.9 0.7 211.7 102.8 391.5 174.5

Pipeline 

Facilities 

Subtotal

355.6 149.1 6.8 5.0 9.5 4.1 161.4 76.3 90.6 15.8 5.9 4.3 927.6 452.6 1,557.3 707.3

EXTRA WORKSPACES

Pennsylvania

Susquehanna 3.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 19.5 0.0

New York

Broome 5.2 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 16.9 0.0

Chenango 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 8.1 0.0

Delaware 9.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 5.6 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.8 0.0 37.9 0.0

Schoharie 9.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 4.3 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 0.0 25.1 0.0

Extra 

Workspaces 

Subtotal

31.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.7 0.0 18.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.4 0.0 107.4 0.0

ACCESS ROADS

Pennsylvania

Susquehanna 3.7 1.2 4.6 3.7 1.5 0.4 2.9 0.9 0.5 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 16.0 4.6 29.2 10.8

New York

Broome 0.5 0.2 2.1 1.8 0.5 0.3 0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 0.6 0.4 3.9 2.7

Chenango 0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4 1.2 0.7
4-107 Land Use And Visual Resources

TABLE 4.8.1-1

Acreage Affected by Construction and Operation of the Proposed Projects

Facilitiesa/

County

Agricultural

Commercial & 

Industrial Residential Open Land Wetland Waterbody Upland Forest Total

Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper

Delaware 3.4 1.6 5.0 3.5 0.2 0.1 3.8 1.9 0.4 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 11.4 5.8 24.2 13.1

Schoharie 1.5 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.2 1.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 4.4 2.3 8.1 4.5

Otsego 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1

Access 

Roads 

Subtotal

9.1 3.7 12.1 9.3 2.9 1.0 8.3 3.9 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 33.3 13.5 66.5 31.7

CONTRACTOR YARDS

Pennsylvania

Susquehanna 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0

New York

Broome 19.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.1 0.0

Chenango 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Delaware 17.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.8 0.0

Schoharie 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0

Otsego 0.0 0.0 26.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.4 0.0

Contractor 

Yards 

Subtotal

40.8 0.0 26.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 110.0 0.0

METER, REGULATION, AND RECEIPT STATIONS

Pennsylvania

Susquehanna 

– Turnpike 

Road M&R

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 3.1 4.9 3.1

New York

Schoharie –

Westfall Road 

M&R

0.0 0.0 3.3 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 3.3 2.3
Land Use And Visual Resources

4-108

TABLE 4.8.1-1

Acreage Affected by Construction and Operation of the Proposed Projects

Facilitiesa/

County

Agricultural

Commercial & 

Industrial Residential Open Land Wetland Waterbody Upland Forest Total

Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper

COMPRESSOR STATION MODIFICATION

Iroquois’ Wright 

Interconnect 

Project

0.0 0.0 2.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 1.9 12.5 4.5

Aboveground 

Facilities 

Subtotal

0.0 0.0 5.4 4.4 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 5.0 20.7 9.9

COUNTY PROJECT SUBTOTALS

Pennsylvania

Susquehanna 

County 

74.2 30.1 6.2 4.8 6.1 2.0 50.1 11.7 15.8 2.1 1.3 0.9 238.4 107.8 392.1 159.4

Subtotal 

Pennsylvania

74.2 30.1 6.2 4.8 6.1 2.0 50.1 11.7 15.8 2.1 1.3 0.9 238.4 107.8 392.1 159.4

New York

Broome 

County 

71.4 19.9 3.3 2.7 2.8 1.1 49.0 21.2 18.0 2.6 1.0 0.6 106.2 48.0 251.6 96.2

Chenango 

County 

22.3 8.0 0.5 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 11.2 5.0 8.8 2.3 0.8 0.7 67.4 31.2 110.9 47.7

Delaware 

County 

145.1 48.9 7.4 5.0 1.1 0.4 51.2 21.3 24.8 5.8 1.9 1.4 382.3 177.0 613.8 259.8

Schoharie 

County 

123.9 45.9 7.3 5.6 4.1 1.7 63.3 21.5 24.4 3.2 0.9 0.7 230.3 107.1 454.3 185.8

Otsego 

County 

0.0 0.0 26.3 <0.1 0.0 0.0 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.4 <0.1

Subtotal New 

York

362.7 122.7 44.8 13.8 8.0 3.1 187.8 69.1 76.0 14.0 4.6 3.4 786.1 363.3 1,469.9 589.4

PROJECT 

TOTAL

436.8 152.8 51.0 18.6 14.1 5.1 237.9 80.7 91.8 16.1 5.9 4.3 1,024.5 471.1 1,862.0 748.8

______________________

a Impacts associated with MLVs and tie-ins are included in the pipeline facility impacts. Impacts associated with the pig launcher and pig receiver are included in the meter 

station impacts.
4-109 Land Use And Visual Resources

• forest/woodland – upland forest lands; and

• residential – existing developed residential areas and planned residential developments. 

This includes large developments, residentially zoned areas that have been developed,

and short segments of the route at road crossings with homes near the route alignment.

Construction of the proposed projects would impact a total of 1,862.0 acres. Approximately 89.4 

percent of this acreage would be utilized for the pipeline facilities, including the construction right-of-way 

(83.6 percent) and additional temporary extra workspace (5.8 percent). The remaining acreage impacted 

during construction would be associated with contractor yards (5.9 percent), access roads (3.6 percent), 

and aboveground facilities (1.1 percent). Following construction, lands outside of the permanent right-ofway, extra workspace areas, contractor yards, and temporary access roads would be allowed to revert to 

their original land use type. The primary land use types impacted during construction would be 

forested/woodland (55.0 percent) and agriculture (23.5 percent). Open water, open land, 

industrial/commercial and residential would make up the remaining 21.5 percent of land types impacted 

during construction. 

Operation of the projects would permanently encumber 748.8 acres. The easement along the new 

permanent pipeline right-of-way would account for 707.3 acres, or 94.5 percent of the acreage. The 

remaining 41.5 acres (5.5 percent) would be associated with aboveground facilities (including 4.5 acres 

for Iroquois’ project) and permanent access roads. The primary land use types that would be newly 

encumbered on a permanent basis are forested/woodland (62.9 percent) and agriculture (20.4 percent). 

Open land, industrial/commercial lands, open water, residential lands, and wetlands would make up the

remaining 16.7 percent of land use types associated with the permanent right-of-way, aboveground 

facilities, and permanent access roads. 

Additionally, currently undetermined impacts would occur due to Constitution’s proposed 

construction of access roads for meter stations and the installation of cathodic protection. In section 4.5.1, 

we recommended that Constitution provide information regarding potential impacts for access roads for 

the meter stations. Cathodic protection ground beds are usually located near the ends of a pipeline and 

encompass only one to two acres in total. Smaller beds may also be located along the pipeline.

Constitution has not identified the locations of these facilities and the sizes of these project components; 

any cathodic protection beds Constitution would require that are outside of previously approved 

workspace would fall under the variance process described in section 2.5.4. 

4.8.1.2 Pipeline Facilities

The proposed pipeline project consists of 124.4 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipe. Table 4.8.1-2 

summarizes the land uses crossed. Predominant land uses are forest land (60.1 percent), followed by 

agricultural land (19.7 percent), open land (10.0 percent), and wetlands (8.4 percent). Residences and 

other structures within 50 feet of the construction workspace are discussed in section 4.8.3.1. The 

remaining 1.8 percent of the land is comprised of residential, commercial/industrial (including roadways), 

and open water. 
Land Use And Visual Resources

4-110

TABLE 4.8.1-2

Land Uses Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Facilities for the Constitution Pipeline Project (miles)

State/County Mileposts Agricultural Forest Land Open Land Wetlands Open Water

Commercial / 

Industrial Residential Total

30-inch diameter Pipeline

Pennsylvania

Susquehanna County 0.0 to 25.1 4.8 16.5 1.7 1.7 0.1 0.2 0.3 25.2

Subtotal Pennsylvania 0.0 to 25.1 4.8 16.5 1.7 1.7 0.1 0.2 0.3 25.2

New York

Broome County 25.1 to 42.2 3.3 8.0 3.5 1.9 0.1 0.2 0.1 17.0

Chenango County 42.2 to 50.6 1.3 5.1 0.8 0.9 0.1 <0.1 0.0 8.3

Delaware County 50.6 to 93.4 7.8 28.3 3.2 3.3 0.2 0.2 <0.1 43.0

Schoharie County 93.4 to 124.4 7.4 17.0 3.2 2.6 0.1 0.2 0.3 30.9

Subtotal New York 25.1 to 124.4 19.7 58.4 10.7 8.7 0.6 0.7 0.4 99.2

Project Total 0.00 to 124.4 24.6 74.9 12.4 10.4 0.7 0.8 0.7 124.4
4-111 Land Use And Visual Resources

In general, land use-related impacts associated with the Constitution Pipeline project would 

include the disturbance of existing uses within the right-of-way during construction and a new permanent 

right-of-way for operation of the pipeline. Constitution proposes to generally use a 110-foot-wide 

construction right-of-way, consisting of 50 feet of permanent right-of-way and 60 feet of temporary 

construction workspace. In wetland areas, Constitution proposes to use a 75-foot-wide construction rightof-way except where a modification has been requested and found acceptable (see section 4.4.4). In 

designated interior forest areas, Constitution proposes to use a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way, 

except where specialized side slope construction techniques are needed. In agricultural areas, 

Constitution proposes to expand the construction right-of-way to 125-feet-wide to allow for topsoil 

segregation. 

In addition to the construction right-of-way, various extra workspaces would be used for project 

construction. As discussed in section 2.2.1.3, Constitution identified several areas where it stated that

site-specific conditions require the use of extra workspace outside of the proposed nominal 110-foot-wide 

construction right-of-way. Appendix D lists the locations of these extra workspaces, their dimensions, 

area affected, justification, and other information. Based on our review, we find these requests to be 

acceptable. Additional discussion of these extra workspace areas is presented in section 4.4.4. 

Where the pipeline would be installed at the same location as existing pipelines or electric 

transmission lines, the permanent right-of-way could consist of a portion of the existing, cleared 

permanent right-of-way and some additional new right-of-way (table 2.2.1-1). The pipeline project would 

require a new 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way in most cases. The land retained as new permanent 

right-of-way would generally be allowed to revert to its former use, except for forested land as discussed 

below. Certain activities such as the construction of permanent structures, including houses, house 

additions, garages, patios, pools, or other objects not easily removable, or the planting of trees, would be 

prohibited within the permanent right-of-way. To facilitate pipeline inspection, operation, and 

maintenance, the entire permanent right-of-way in upland areas would be maintained in an 

herbaceous/scrub-shrub vegetated state. This maintained right-of-way would be mowed no more than 

once every 3 years, but a 10-foot-wide strip centered over the pipeline might be mowed annually to 

facilitate corrosion and other operational surveys. However, as discussed in section 4.6.1.4 annual 

mowing would not be allowed to during bird nesting season.

Specific impacts on agricultural land, industrial/commercial, open land, and forest/woodland 

areas are discussed below. Impacts on residential areas and specialty crops are discussed in sections 

4.8.3.1 and 4.8.4, respectively. Wetlands and surface waters (open water) are discussed in sections 4.4 

and 4.3.2, respectively. 

Forest land that would be affected by the pipeline project consists mainly of northern hardwood, 

hemlock/northern hardwood, sugar maple/basswood, and aspen/gray birch forests (section 4.5.1). Where 

practicable, Constitution reduced the construction right-of-way from the typical 110-foot-wide right-ofway down to a 100-foot-wide right-of–way within interior forests. This reduction in work area resulted in 

51.6 acres of interior forest impacts being avoided. Although trees cleared within temporary construction 

work areas would be allowed to regenerate to pre-construction conditions following construction, impacts 

on forest resources in these areas would last for several years. Following construction, the maintained 

portion of the right-of-way would be permanently converted to a non-forested condition (see section 

4.5.5). Forest lands are discussed in more detail in section 4.8.4.

Agricultural lands affected by construction primarily include active crop lands or hayfields, as 

well as pasture land that may be used for grazing. In general, agricultural lands are distributed along the 

entire pipeline route. The primary impacts in these areas would be short term and occur during the 

growing season concurrent with construction. Farmers would experience some loss of crop production in 
Land Use And Visual Resources 4-112

areas directly disturbed by construction-related activities. Farmers may have to alter sowing patterns in 

order to best farm areas that may have limited access due to construction activity. Grazing animals may

also have to be moved to different areas or other fields, and/or be penned with gates. Following 

construction, agricultural practices within the pipeline right-of-way would be allowed to resume. 

Constitution would restore all disturbed agricultural areas associated with construction in accordance with 

its ECPs, which include crop productivity monitoring and farmland restoration procedures developed by 

the NYSDAM, as well as all other applicable federal, state, and local permit requirements. Typical 

mitigation measures include topsoil segregation, soil decompaction, and repair/replacement of irrigation 

and drainage structures damaged by construction (table 4.8.1-3). Agricultural lands, including specialty 

crops (fruit, vegetables, Christmas trees, and maple trees for syrup) are discussed in more detail in section 

4.8.4.2. Impacts on and mitigation for prime farmlands and statewide important farmlands are discussed 

in section 4.2.2.7. 

TABLE 4.8.1-3 

Agricultural Drain Tiles or Irrigation Systems Crossed by the Proposed Constitution Pipeline Project

Approximate Milepost Drain Type County/State

10.59 - 10.70 Drain Tilea Susquehanna, PA

10.95 - 11.01 Drain Tilea Susquehanna, PA

100.68- 100.82 Drain Tilea Schoharie, NY

104.88 - 104.97 Clay Tileb Schoharie, NY

___________________

a Drain tiles were identified through landowner consultation. Mileposts represent enter and exit for the entire parcel, exact 

drain tile locations to be determined through additional landowner discussion.

b Clay tiles identified through field surveys. Mileposts represent the drain tile locations.

Open lands that would be affected by the pipeline project include open fields, existing utility 

rights-of-way, herbaceous and scrub-shrub uplands, non-forested lands, and non-paved roads. 

Construction-related impacts on open land would include the removal of vegetation and disturbance of 

soils. Impacts on open land would be temporary and short term and would be minimized by the 

implementation of Constitution’s state-specific ECPs. Following construction, most open land uses 

would be able to continue. However, some activities, such as the building of new commercial or 

residential structures, would be prohibited on the permanent right-of-way. Road and railroad crossings 

are discussed in sections 2.3.2.4 and 4.9.4. Section 4.8.4 provides discussion on potential effects to a 

commuter parking lot for I-88 and other special use areas.

Industrial/commercial land uses could be temporarily impacted during construction of the 

pipeline project by increased dust from exposed soils, construction noise, and traffic congestion. 

Constitution would minimize impacts on commercial land uses by coordinating driveway crossings with 

business owners to provide access across the construction right-of-way. 

Constitution would ensure access for emergency vehicles during road crossings by using 

temporary platforms across the pipeline trench as needed. Road surfaces would be restored as soon as 

practicable so that normal access could resume, and commercial land uses would be restored to preconstruction conditions, or as specified in landowner agreements. As discussed in section 4.9.4, 

Constitution has developed and would implement a Residential Access and Traffic Mitigation Plan.
4-113 Land Use And Visual Resources

4.8.1.3 Aboveground Facilities

Constitution proposes to construct two new Meter and Regulation Stations (the Turnpike Road 

M&R Station in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania and the Westfall Road M&R Station in Schoharie 

County, New York); install pig launcher and receiver facilities at the Turnpike Road M&R Station and 

the Westfall Road M&R Station, respectively; and install two tie-ins (the Sutton Road tie-in and the 

White Road tie-in) and 11 MLVs. One MLV and the two tie-ins would be in Pennsylvania and 10 MLVs 

would be in New York. Iroquois proposes to expand its existing Wright Compressor Station by 

constructing a new compressor transfer station to facilitate the transfer of gas from Constitution’s 

pipeline.

A total of about 20.7 acres of land would be disturbed by construction of these aboveground 

facilities. Of this total, 9.9 acres would be permanently retained for operation. Table 4.8.1-1 summarizes 

the land requirements and land uses for the aboveground facilities. The dominant land use that would be 

affected by these facilities is forest land.

The Turnpike Road M&R Receipt Station would affect 4.9 acres of upland forest land during 

construction. A 365-foot by 365-foot site affecting 3.1 acres of upland forest lands would be permanently 

affected during operation of the facility. The Westfall Road M&R Station would affect less than 0.1 acre 

of upland forest land and 3.3 acres of industrial/commercial land during construction. During operation, 

the facility would permanently affect an irregularly shaped 2.3-acre site which includes less than 0.1 acre 

of permanent impacts on upland forest land.

A total of 3.1 acres of currently forested land would be permanently converted to 

industrial/commercial land associated with the meter stations’ footprints. The remaining 1.8 acres would 

be allowed to revert to forest vegetation. Following construction, Constitution would seed these lands 

outside of the permanent footprint of the M&R stations in accordance with its ECP. The stations’ impacts 

on forested land would be long-term and permanent, depending on the time it takes vegetation to re-grow 

to pre-construction conditions. Additional information on forest lands, including a discussion on invasive 

species mitigation, can be found in section 4.5.

A pig launcher and MLV #1 would be located at the Turnpike Road M&R Station and a pig 

receiver and MLV #11 would be located at the Westfall Road M&S Receipt Station. The Sutton Road 

and White Road Tie-ins, as well as MLVs 2 – 10, would be located within Constitution’s permanent 

pipeline right-of-way. Therefore these project features would not impact any additional acreage that is 

not already accounted for in the pipeline and aboveground facility land disturbance impact acreages. 

However, they would result in permanent conversion of forested lands to industrial lands, whereas the 

pipeline right-of-way would result in conversion to open lands. They would also result in minor, 

permanent impacts on visual resources (discussed below).

Construction of Iroquois’ compressor transfer station would take place within the property 

boundary of Iroquois’ existing 53.2 acre Wright Compressor Station. The facility, which is owned by 

Iroquois, is comprised of forested, open, and industrial/commercial lands. Construction of the 

compressor transfer station would require a total of 12.5 acres of land within the facility, including 3.3 

acres of forest/woodland, 7.1 acres of open land, and 2.1 acres of industrial/commercial land. Operation 

of Iroquois’ project would permanently impact 4.5 acres, including 2.1 acres of commercial/industrial 

land, 1.9 acres of forest/woodlands, and 0.5 acre of open land. Following construction, Iroquois would 

restore land not required for operation of the compressor station to pre-construction conditions. The 1.9 

acres of forested land required for operation would result in a permanent impact, converting forest land to 

industrial/commercial land. The remaining 1.4 acres of forested land not required for operation would be 
Land Use And Visual Resources 4-114

allowed to revert to pre-existing conditions; however, this would still result in long-term impacts on 

forested lands. 

Iroquois would use two existing access roads to access the Iroquois project site. The main access 

road is paved from Westfall Road to the existing station, where it transitions to gravel and to the TGP 

right-of-way. Iroquois would pave the portion of the road that is currently graveled and extend the road 

to access Constitution’s proposed Westfall Road M&R Station. This modification and expansion would 

impact 0.2 acre. Another existing access road would serve for access between the contractor yard area 

and the compressor station site. Iroquois would extend this road to allow for construction access, 

impacting 0.2 acre. 

4.8.1.4 Project Contractor Yards

Constitution proposes to use six temporary contractor yards to support construction activities. 

One yard would be in Pennsylvania and the other five would be in New York. These yards would 

temporarily affect about 40.8 acres of agricultural lands, 42.9 acres of open land, and 26.3 acres of 

commercial land (see Table 4.8.1-1).

4.8.1.5 Access Roads

In addition to public roads, Constitution proposes to use 54 permanent access roads and 5

temporary access roads (2 in Pennsylvania and 3 in New York). Two of the temporary access roads 

would be newly constructed and would impact 0.9 acre of mixed land use types including agricultural, 

commercial/industrial, open, and upland forest. Following construction, these temporary roads would be 

restored and reseeded according to Constitution’s ECPs and Plan. Constitution’s proposed access roads 

are listed in appendix E and discussed further in sections 2.2.4 and 4.8.6.4. 

Of the 54 permanent access roads 16 would be in Pennsylvania and 38 would be in New York). 

Forty-eight of the permanent and temporary access roads are existing roads and would involve some 

modifications or expansions. However, the remaining six permanent access roads would be newly 

constructed. Some of the required improvements include the addition of gravel or culverts, and the 

removal or clearing of trees in order to accommodate the movement of equipment and materials to the 

construction right-of-way (appendix E). During construction, access roads would encumber 66.5 acres, of 

which 3.3 acres would be associated with the eight newly constructed roads. All roads would be 12 feet

wide along straight sections and up to 24 feet wide as required for curves and corners. The permanent 

access roads would impact 31.7 acres during operations. Because the usage of these access roads would 

involve some in-stream work, we have recommended that Constitution provide us with additional 

information regarding the use of permanent fill for access roads in waterbodies and wetlands (see section 

4.3.3) and regarding access roads leading to the meter stations (see section 4.5.1). 

4.8.2 Landownership and Easement Requirements

Pipeline operators must obtain easements from existing landowners to construct and operate

authorized facilities, or acquire the land on which the facilities would be located. Easements can be 

temporary, granting the operator the use of the land during construction (e.g., extra workspaces, 

temporary access roads, contractor yards), or permanent, granting the operator the right to operate and 

maintain the facilities once constructed.

Constitution would need to acquire new easements or acquire the necessary land to construct and 

operate the new pipeline. These new easements would convey both temporary (for construction) and 

permanent (no greater than 50-feet-wide for operation) rights-of-way to Constitution. 
4-115 Land Use And Visual Resources

An easement agreement between a company and a landowner typically specifies compensation 

for losses resulting from construction, including losses of non-renewable and other resources, damages to 

property during construction, and restrictions on existing uses that would not be permitted on the 

permanent right-of-way. Compensation would be fully determined through negotiations between 

Constitution and the landowner. Constitution identified that it has based its offerings on a market study 

conducted by a licensed real estate appraiser. 

If an easement cannot be negotiated with a landowner and if the projects are approved by the 

Commission, Constitution may use the right of eminent domain to acquire the property necessary to 

construct and operate its project. This right would apply to all project-related workspace covered by an 

approval, including the temporary and permanent rights-of-way, aboveground facility sites, pipe storage 

and contractor yards, access roads, and extra workspaces. Constitution would still be required to 

compensate the landowner for the right-of-way and damages incurred during construction. However, the 

level of compensation would be determined by a court according to state or federal law. Iroquois already 

owns the property where its project would be located, so eminent domain does not apply in this case. 

4.8.3 Existing Residences, Commercial and Industrial Facilities, and Planned Developments 

As currently designed, approximately 14.1 acres of residential land would be impacted by 

construction of the projects, all of which would be associated with the pipeline. Following construction, 

5.1 acres of residential land would be within the permanent pipeline right-of-way and would be subject to 

restrictions such as planting large trees or the placement of certain structures. The remaining 9.0 acres of 

would not be subject to any restrictions; however, all residential lands would be restored to preconstruction conditions to the extent possible. In restoring properties, Constitution would adhere to its 

state-specific ECPs and any specific requirements identified by landowners and agreed to during 

negotiations. In most cases, property owners would be able to use the permanent right-of-way as they did 

before construction as long as the use does not conflict with project operation and the terms of the 

landowner’s negotiated easement agreement. There are no residences within 50 feet of the Iroquois 

project, and no planned developments have been identified within a 0.25 mile radius of the compressor 

station site.

We received comments raising concerns about trespassing and decreased privacy associated with 

unauthorized use of the project right-of-way during operations. Constitution’s Plan (based on our Plan) 

and ECPs adopt measures to mitigate unauthorized access to the right-of-way. Specifically, Constitution 

would implement the following measures in forested lands to minimize access by unauthorized vehicles, 

in coordination with the property owner:

• posting no trespassing signs;

• installation of gates and/or fencing;

• installation of screening such as shallow-root trees; and/or 

• strategic placement of access barriers such as slash and timber, piping, or boulders.

We conclude these measures would be sufficient to reduce unauthorized access by vehicles. In 

addition to these measures landowners could take additional steps against trespassing within the confines 

of local and state law. 
Land Use And Visual Resources 4-116

4.8.3.1 Existing Residences; Commercial and Industrial Facilities

Table 4.8.3-1 lists residences and other structures within 50 feet of any proposed construction 

work area by milepost, and indicates the distance and orientation of each from the proposed work areas. 

Constitution’s construction work area would be within 50 feet of six residential structures, (all single 

family dwellings). Three of the residences (MPs 40.4, 96.5, and 119.7) would be within 25 feet of 

construction work areas. 

TABLE 4.8.3-1 

Residences and Other Structures Within 50 feet of the Construction Work Area for the Constitution Pipeline Project

State/County Milepost

Description of 

Structure

Approximate 

Distance and 

Direction from 

Construction Work 

Area (feet)

Approximate 

Distance and 

Direction from 

Pipeline Centerline 

(feet)

Pennsylvania

Susquehanna 3.0 Structurea 11 north 46 north

Susquehanna 6.2 Outhouse 0 4 west

Susquehanna 8.4 Shed 16 north 141 north

Susquehanna 9.8 Pump House 28 west 78 west

Susquehanna 10.8 House 28 south 103 south

Susquehanna 10.9 Shed 12 south 62 south

Susquehanna 10.9 Barn 1 south 76 south

Susquehanna 14.4 Barn 19 north 144 north

Susquehanna 15.0 Barn 25 west 185 south

New York

Broome 29.2 Structure a 10 east 85 east

Broome 35.3 Chicken Coop 25 west 75 west

Broome 40.4 Frame Porch 29 north 104 north

Broome 40.4 House 24 north 99 north

Broome 47.4 Structure a 46 east 213 east

Delaware 55.6 Wood Barn 36 south 111 south

Delaware 60.6 Structure a 25 east 150 east

Delaware 60.6 Structure a 37 east 162 east

Delaware 71.6 Shed 45 west 95 west

Delaware 79.4 Sugar Shack a 0 100 east

Delaware 86.7 Structure a 0 65 east

Delaware 86.7 Structure a 25 east 100 east

Delaware 87.9 Wood Shed 24 north 49 north

Delaware 90.3 Foundation 32 south 82 south

Schoharie 96.5 House 3 west 77 west
4-117 Land Use And Visual Resources

TABLE 4.8.3-1 (continued)

Residences and Other Structures Within 50 feet of the Construction Work Area for the Constitution Pipeline Project

State/County Milepost

Description of 

Structure

Approximate 

Distance and 

Direction from 

Construction Work 

Area (feet)

Approximate 

Distance and 

Direction from 

Pipeline Centerline 

(feet)

Schoharie 96.7 House 26 east 101 east

Schoharie 99.3 Subdivisionb Unknown Unknown

Schoharie 100.6 Structure a 36 south 111 south

Schoharie 100.6 Structure a 0 54 south

Schoharie 100.7 Wood Stove 17 south 92 south

Schoharie 100.7 Shed 5 south 70 south

Schoharie 104.6 Abandoned Stable 0 114 east

Schoharie 115.3 House 45 north 95 north

Schoharie 119.7 House 16 east 141 East

Schoharie 120.1 Structure a 0 72 south

Schoharie 121.4 Pool House 19 south 44 south

Schoharie 121.4 Structure a 39 south 64 south

____________________

a Portions or all of the parcel were not necessarily surveyed; therefore these descriptions are based on review of aerial 

photography. While the use of most these structures was not discernible, they do not appear to be residential.

b The Subdivision at MP 99.3 was recently completed but the specific details regarding its location are at this time 

unknown.

Of these structures, the residences located within 50 feet of the construction work area would be 

most likely to experience the effects of project construction and operation. In general, as the distance to 

the construction work area increases, the impacts on residences decrease. In residential areas, the two 

greatest impacts associated with construction and operation of a pipeline are temporary disturbances 

during construction and the encumbrance of a permanent right-of-way, which would prevent the 

construction of permanent structures within the right-of-way, as well as certain other limitations or 

restrictions. 

Constitution would notify local residents a minimum of one week in advance of construction 

activities. Potential impacts on residences within 50 feet of the work areas would be minimized by: 

• using dust control measures;

• installing temporary safety fencing for at least 100 feet on either side of the residence and 

maintaining it while the trench is open;

• maintaining a 25-foot-wide buffer between work areas and the residence for at least 100 

feet on either side of the residence; 

• avoiding removal of mature trees and landscaping (where possible); and

• restoring lawn areas and landscaping immediately after backfill.

Three residences and one pool house are within 25 feet of proposed construction work areas, and 

potential impacts on these residences would be minimized by measures listed above with the exception of 

the 25-foot buffer. In addition, Constitution has committed to delay excavation of the trench near these 
Land Use And Visual Resources 4-118

residences until the pipeline is ready to be installed, and would immediately backfill the trench after the 

pipeline is lowered-in. 

Constitution prepared site-specific plans for the six residences and pool house currently identified 

as within 50 feet of proposed construction work areas and these plans are presented in appendix O. 

Twelve structures are on parcels that have not yet been surveyed, in part or whole, and were deemed 

unlikely to be residential based on our review of aerial photography. In addition, a subdivision that was 

recently completed at MP 99.3 was identified, but its specific location in relation to the pipeline is

unknown. We noted that a water well is within the extra workspace for tract ALT-F-NY-SC-007.002 at 

milepost 96.5, but the well would be fenced away from the work areas by safety fencing and protected 

from disturbance. Additionally, the well would be subject to Constitution’s well protection measures as 

described in sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2. We also noted that a septic field is within the proposed workspace 

for tract ALT-F-NY-SC-011.000 at milepost 96.7, but no known impact mitigation measures have been 

proposed by Constitution. We have reviewed the site-specific plans, mitigation, and associated 

workspace justifications, and found them acceptable with the exception of the septic field. In order to 

assure that impacts on residential properties are minimized, we recommend that:

• Prior construction, Constitution should file an updated classification of the current 

use of the twelve un-surveyed structures identified in table 4.8.3-1 of the EIS within 

50 feet of the construction work area. If any of the structures are found to be 

occupied residences, site-specific plans should be developed and filed with the 

Secretary. Also, Constitution should provide an updated site-specific plan for tract 

ALT-F-NY-SC-011.000 at MP 96.7 that includes adequate impact avoidance, 

minimization, or mitigation measures for the septic field. 

• Prior to construction, Constitution should also confirm the distance and location of 

the subdivision at MP 99.3 in relation to the pipeline, and provide a site-specific 

plan as necessary.

Our experience has shown that when project sponsors maintain communication with landowners 

during construction and restoration phases, issues in and near residential areas can be effectively managed 

and resolved. Constitution has developed an environmental complaint resolution procedure that it would 

implement during project construction and restoration. Constitution would work to notify affected 

landowners or complainants (even if they are not the landowner), within 24 hours of receiving a 

complaint. If contact is not possible within 24 hours, Constitution would continue to attempt to contact 

the affected parties either in person, by telephone, electronic mail, or by mail if necessary. All complaints 

and follow-up correspondence would be documented and any action required to resolve the issue would 

be discussed with the affected landowner and/or complainant. We find these procedures to be consistent 

with those implemented by other companies for similar projects. Further, we are recommending in 

section 5.0 that Constitution file weekly reports with us to document complaints and resolution status. 

Commercial structures in close proximity to the pipeline project could also experience short-term 

disruptions to businesses as a result of in-street construction, detours, or restricted access due to lane 

closures. These impacts and corresponding mitigation measures are discussed in more detail in section 

4.9.4. Implementation of Constitution’s general construction methods for working near residences and 

commercial areas, such as boring of public roadways, avoidance of road closures, development of a 

Residential Access and Traffic Mitigation Plan, and the environmental complaint resolution procedure 

would minimize disruption to residential and commercial areas to the extent practicable.
4-119 Land Use And Visual Resources

Operational impacts would be limited to the 5.1 acres of residential lands located within the 

permanent right-of-way, which would have restricted use. Specifically, no trees over fifteen feet tall or 

permanent structures would be permitted within the permanent right-of-way. 

4.8.3.2 Planned Developments

Constitution contacted local and county officials in the affected municipalities of Pennsylvania 

and New York in 2012 and 2013 to identify planned residential, commercial, or industrial developments 

within 0.5 mile of the proposed facilities. Those developments identified are provided in table 4.8.3-2, 

although consultations are still ongoing. A discussion of cumulative impacts associated with the 

proposed pipeline project and these developments is provided in section 4.13. 

TABLE 4.8.3-2

Planned Developments Within 0.5 Mile of the Construction Work Area for the Constitution Pipeline Project

State/County

Location 

(Milepost)

Direction from 

Constitution 

Pipeline Planned Project

Approximate 

Distance from 

Construction 

Work Area (feet) Project Status

Pennsylvania

Susquehanna None Identified

New York

Chenango None Identified

Delaware None Identified

Schoharie 116.0 Northwest Water and Sewer 

Infrastructure

7,234 In progress

Schoharie 114.3 Northwest Subdivision (Oak 

Meadows)

650 Approved

Schoharie 115.0 North Subdivision 

(Carolina –

Catapano 

Estates)

810 Approved

Schoharie 120.8 South Apartments 1,848 Approved

Schoharie 121.5 Crossed Subdivision 0 Approved

To date no planned developments in Pennsylvania within 0.5 mile of the pipeline project have 

been identified. In New York five planned projects were identified as being within 0.5 mile of the 

pipeline project including three subdivisions, an apartment complex, and a water/sewer line infrastructure 

project in Schoharie County. The status of the subdivisions suggests that while they are approved, 

construction has not yet begun. No planned developments were identified in Broome, Chenango, or 

Delaware Counties. 

The majority of the developments identified would not be subject to adverse impacts because they 

are located several hundred feet away from the route and have a sufficient buffer between them. 

However, one of the developments would be directly crossed by the route. Subdivisions identified in 

Schoharie County include one unnamed subdivision, a multi-phase residential community (Oak 

Meadows), and Carolina - Catapano Estates. Oak Meadows and Carolina - Catapano Estates would be 

located approximately 650 and 810 feet away from the proposed pipeline project, respectively. The one 

unnamed subdivision would be crossed at MP 121.5. The planned apartment complex near MP 120.8 is

more than 0.25 mile away. Constitution is working with the Schoharie County Department of Planning 

and Development regarding the status and details for the subdivision crossed at MP 121.5. To date we 
Land Use And Visual Resources 4-120

have received no comments from the developer or other interested parties regarding potential conflicts 

with the proposed pipeline placement in the planned subdivision. While the subdivision has been 

identified as being crossed by the project route, a site plan or details allowing us to determine the 

potential impacts from the pipeline have not yet been provided. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Constitution should, in 

coordination with the Schoharie County Department of Planning and Development 

and the developer of the planned subdivision at MP 121.5, develop a residential 

crossing plan that addresses the presence of this development and addresses any 

issues raised during Constitution’s consultations. Constitution should file the 

residential crossing plan with the Secretary.

Constitution incorporated several route variations into its pipeline route to minimize or avoid 

impacts on planned developments as described in section 3.0. In addition to implementation of 

Constitution’s general construction impact minimization methods, Constitution also attempted to route 

the pipeline along property boundaries where practicable to minimize potential impacts on existing and 

planned residential developments. 

We conclude that implementation of the identified mitigation measures, in addition to our 

recommendation, would minimize or mitigate the impacts of the pipeline project on existing planned 

residential areas and developments. Overall, construction activities would result in temporary impacts for 

any residence occupied at the time of pipeline installation. Operational impacts would be limited to the 

encumbrance of a permanent right-of-way, which would prevent the construction of permanent structures 

within the right-of-way. 

4.8.4 Recreation and Special Interest Areas 

The Constitution project would not cross any national or state-designated Wild and Scenic Rivers, 

waterbodies listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, or lands managed by or associated with the U.S. 

Bureau of Land Management, Wetland Reserve Program, Emergency Conservation Program, Grassland 

Reserve Program, national forests, national parks, state parks, or Indian Reservations. The pipeline 

project is outside of any Coastal Zone Management Act areas; as such, no impacts on coastal resources 

are expected. However, portions of the pipeline project could affect several other recreation and/or 

special interest areas that are within 0.25 mile of the proposed project (table 4.8.4-1). Further discussion 

of these areas is included below. Scenic byways are discussed in section 4.8.6.5. In addition, no 

recreational or scenic areas would be impacted by the Iroquois project. Section 4.6.1 provides a 

discussion on crossings of Audubon Society-designated IBAs. 

One of the primary concerns when crossing recreation and special interest areas is the impact of 

construction on the purpose for which the area was established (e.g., the recreational activities, public 

access, and resources the area aims to protect). Construction could alter visual aesthetics by removing 

existing vegetation and disturbing soils; these potential impacts are discussed in section 4.8.6. 

Construction could also generate dust and noise, which could be a nuisance to recreational users. 

Construction could also interfere with or diminish the quality of the recreational experience by affecting 

wildlife movements or disturbing hikers while using trails. 

In general, impacts on recreational and special interest areas would be temporary and limited to 

the period of active construction, which typically would last only several days to several weeks in any one 

area. These impacts would be minimized by implementation of Constitution’s ECPs. In addition, 

Constitution has proposed specific mitigation measures as described below for some of the recreation and 

special interest areas that would be affected. 
4-121 Land Use And Visual Resources

TABLE 4.8.4-1

Federal, State, Recreation, and Conservation Lands Located Within 0.25 Mile of the Constitution Pipeline Project

State/County Milepost Location Name of Area Landowner

Existing Land 

Usea

Approximate 

Crossing 

Length (feet) Construction Operation

Pennsylvania

Susquehanna 21.5 Delaware and 

Hudson Rail-Trail b

Rail-Trail Council of the Northeast 

Pennsylvania, Inc.

F,I, OL 9 <0.1 <0.1

Susquehanna 23.9 State Game Lands 

No. 70

PA Game Commission N/A 0 N/A N/A

New York

Broome 25.1 Boy Scout Camp Boy Scouts of America N/A 0 N/A N/A

Broome 37.3 Girl Scout Camp Girl Scouts of America N/A 0 N/A N/A

Chenango 42.5 Melondy Hill State 

Forest

NYSDEC F,I 307 0.9 0.4

Chenango 44.6 Melondy Hill State 

Forest

NYSEC N/A 0 N/A N/A

Chenango 50.1 Finger Lakes Trail Finger Lakes Trail Conference OL 32 <0.1 <0.1

Delaware 51.4 DelChenango Rod 

and Gun Club

DelChenango Rod and Gun Club OL 83 0.2 0.1

Delaware 52.4 Pine Hill State 

Forest

NYSDEC N/A 0 N/A N/A

Delaware 75.0 Emmons Pond Bog 

Preserve

The Nature Conservancy N/A 0 N/A N/A

Schoharie 97.0 Clapper Hollow 

State Forest

NYSDEC F, W, R, OW, OL 333 1.4 0.5

Schoharie 110.4 Petersburg State 

Forest

NYSDEC N/A 0c N/A N/A

______________________

a I = Industrial/commercial OL = Open Land, OW = Open Water , W = Wetland, F = Forest/woodland, R = Residential, N/A - Not Applicable

b The rail-trail consists of a now-defunct railroad bed being used as a recreational trail. 

c The proposed right-of-way does not cross state forest lands, but an extra workspace would abut the forest.
Land Use And Visual Resources 4-122

Construction periods could coincide with a variety of hunting seasons. No state-designated land 

would be crossed in Pennsylvania; therefore, public hunting areas in this state would not be affected. 

Potential impacts on hunting on New York State public lands are discussed in section 4.8.4.1. However, 

it is also likely that hunting occurs on private lands throughout the projects’ area, therefore Constitution 

would educate construction workers about hunting seasons prior to initiation of work; require workers to 

wear orange vests, and would conduct daily safety meetings to inform workers of relevant conditions. 

Constitution would coordinate with landowners regarding the timing of construction activities so that 

hunters could be informed of planned construction activities. 

Following construction, most open land uses would be able to continue. Constitution would 

continue to consult with the owners and managing agencies of recreation and special interest areas 

regarding the need for specific construction mitigation measures. 

4.8.4.1 State Forests

No Pennsylvania State Forests would be crossed by or are within 0.25 mile of the proposed 

pipeline project. Constitution’s project would cross two state forests in New York: Melondy Hill State 

Forest (MP 42.5) in Chenango County and Clapper Hollow State Forest (MP 97.0) in Schoharie County. 

The pipeline also would be approximately 109 feet from Melondy Hill State Forest near MP 44.6. Two 

other state forests in New York would not be crossed by the Constitution pipeline, but would be within 

0.25 mile of the pipeline. Pine Hill State Forest in Delaware County would be 866 feet southeast of MP 

52.4 and Petersburg State Forest in Schoharie County is immediately adjacent to an extra workspace 

proposed southeast of MP 110.4. 

Constitution has been consulting with the NYSDEC on routing through the New York State 

Forests and to obtain the necessary approvals to construct and operate the pipeline within these lands. 

The NYSDEC manages these forests for diversity of habitat; in particular the Clapper Hollow State Forest 

is managed for snowshoe hare habitat. The state forests support a variety of activities, including hiking 

and hunting, as well as winter recreation with snowmobiling and cross-country skiing. 

Construction of the project would impact 0.9 acre of a single, contiguous, 5,417-acre tract within 

the Melondy Hill State Forest and 1.4 acres of an 820-acre tract of the Clapper Hollow State Forest. 

Recreational activities, such as hiking, hunting, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing may be restricted

during the period of construction due to the presence of workers, equipment, or construction activity. 

While the crossing of Clapper Hallow State Forest would be in an area where hunting is not permitted, 

and no direct impacts on hunters would occur, the presence of construction personnel and equipment 

could diminish the value of hunting activities in the general area by reducing or limiting access to hunting 

areas near construction areas and/or if construction activities (e.g. noise, movement of equipment) causing 

wildlife (or hunters) to avoid nearby hunting areas. However, construction at any single point within the 

forests would be short-term. Following construction, 0.4 acre and 0.5 acre of the Melondy Hill State 

Forest and Clapper Hollow State Forest, respectively, would be permanently affected by operation of 

Constitution’s project and convert to open lands. Areas affected only temporarily by construction would 

be restored to previous conditions to the extent possible in accordance with Constitution’s ECPs and any 

specific requirements identified by the NYSDEC. All authorized recreational activities could resume 

within the permanent right-of-way once construction and restoration activities have been completed. 

4.8.4.2 Organic Farm Lands and Specialty Crops

The proposed pipeline project crosses several tracts of land supporting specialty crops including 

tree farms (Christmas trees, pine and spruce), a Certified Green Tag Forest, an Organic Rated Farm, and 

an maple sugar operation (table 4.8.4-2), as well as 33.4 miles of agricultural districts (7 districts in total 
4-123 Land Use And Visual Resources

crossed 53 times, table 4.8.4-3). These districts are part of a voluntary program administered by the 

NYSDAM to protect and conserve active farm operations. Farm operations within an agricultural district 

can receive private nuisance protection under the “right-to-farm” provision of the Agricultural Districts 

Law and protection from unreasonably restrictive local laws, as well as receiving tax breaks. The 

NYSDAM has identified Schoharie Valley as a concentrated area of high-value crops, and the Delaware 

County Soils and Water Conservation District identified Delaware County as supporting a substantial 

number of beef and dairy farms. 

TABLE 4.8.4-2

Organic and Specialty Crops Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project in New York

Crop or Special Use Type County

Start 

Milepost

End

Milepost

Acres Impacted

Construction Operation

Tree Farm (Spruce and Pine) Delaware 59.1 59.2 1.9 0.9

Christmas Tree Farm Delaware 71.6 71.6 1.1 0.3

Christmas Tree Farm Delaware 71.6 71.6 0.3 0.1

Sugar Busha Delaware 79.5 79.6 1.3 (estimated) 0.6 (estimated)

Tree Farm Delaware 88.9 88.9 1.6 0.6

Certified Green Tag Forestb

(The Charlotte Forest)

Delaware 90.7 91.7 12.0 5.9

91.7 91.8 1.5 0.6

Organic Rated Farmb Schoharie 101.7 101.8 0.6 0.2

Tree Farm Schoharie 111.7 111.8 1.6 0.8

_____________________

a Access to this parcel has not been granted so acres of impact were estimated by Commission staff based on length of 

parcel crossing and typical right-of-way widths.

b Area of the specific crop has not yet been determined. Mileposts listed represent parcel boundary entry and exit 

points.

TABLE 4.8.4-3 

Agricultural Districts Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project in New York

County Town Agricultural 

District

Start 

Milepost

End

Milepost

Total Miles 

Crossed

Broome Sanford 3 29.7 31.5 1.8

Broome Sanford 3 32.7 32.9 0.2

Broome Sanford 3 33.5 35.7 2.2

Broome Sanford 3 35.7 36.2 0.5

Broome Sanford 3 36.3 37.3 1.0

Broome Sanford 3 38.1 38.9 0.9

Chenango Afton 5 42.8 43.9 1.1

Chenango Afton 5 44.7 44.9 0.2

Chenango Afton 5 45.3 45.5 0.2

Chenango Afton 5 45.7 47.0 1.3
Land Use And Visual Resources 4-124

TABLE 4.8.4-3 (continued)

Agricultural Districts Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project

County Town Agricultural 

District

Start 

Milepost

End

Milepost

Total Miles 

Crossed

Chenango Afton 5 47.2 47.5 0.3

Chenango Bainbridge 5 47.5 48.0 0.5

Chenango Bainbridge 5 48.0 50.1 2.1

Delaware Masonville 12 51.6 51.8 0.2

Delaware Sidney 12 55.5 55.6 0.1

Delaware Sidney 12 56.0 56.3 0.3

Delaware Sidney 12 56.5 57.8 1.3

Delaware Sidney 12 57.8 58.1 0.3

Delaware Sidney 12 59.7 60.1 0.4

Delaware Franklin 14 65.5 66.0 0.5

Delaware Franklin 14 66.0 66.7 0.7

Delaware Franklin 14 67.5 68.2 0.6

Delaware Franklin 14 68.3 68.6 0.3

Delaware Franklin 14 68.9 71.0 2.1

Delaware Franklin 14 71.5 71.5 0.1

Delaware Davenport 17 77.4 77.7 0.3

Delaware Davenport 17 77.7 77.9 0.2

Delaware Davenport 17 78.1 78.2 0.1

Delaware Davenport 17 78.2 79.2 1.0

Delaware Davenport 17 82.1 82.4 0.4

Delaware Davenport 17 84.8 85.1 0.2

Delaware Davenport 17 86.7 87.0 0.3

Delaware Davenport 17 87.1 87.8 0.8

Delaware Davenport 17 87.9 87.9 0.0

Delaware Davenport 17 88.2 88.4 0.3

Delaware Davenport 17 88.5 88.6 0.2

Delaware Davenport 17 88.9 89.0 0.2

Delaware Harpersfield 17 89.0 89.0 0.0

Delaware Harpersfield 1 89.1 89.1 0.1

Delaware Harpersfield 1 89.2 89.7 0.5

Delaware Harpersfield 1 92.4 93.5 1.2

Schoharie Summit 3 104.1 104.8 0.6

Schoharie Summit 3 104.9 105.0 0.2

Schoharie Richmondville 3 105.0 105.7 0.7

Schoharie Richmondville 3 107.5 107.7 0.2

Schoharie Richmondville 3 107.9 109.9 2.1

Schoharie Middleburg 1 114.1 115.6 1.5

Schoharie Schoharie 1 115.6 117.0 1.4

Schoharie Schoharie 1 117.1 117.2 0.1
4-125 Land Use And Visual Resources

TABLE 4.8.4-3 (continued)

Agricultural Districts Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project

County Town Agricultural 

District

Start 

Milepost

End

Milepost

Total Miles 

Crossed

Schoharie Schoharie 1 118.3 119.0 0.8

Schoharie Schoharie 1 119.7 120.1 0.3

Schoharie Schoharie 2 121.9 122.6 0.7

Schoharie Schoharie 2 123.5 123.7 0.2

TOTAL MILES CROSSED 33.4

As noted in table 4.8.4-2, the proposed pipeline crosses approximately 1 mile of a Certified Green 

Tag Forest in Delaware County known as the Charlotte Forest. The Charlotte Forest is a 924-acre tract of 

land (NY-DE-226.000) named after the Charlotte River, which crosses the property. 

The landowners of the Charlotte Forest have filed several comment letters regarding impacts on 

the forest and request avoidance of the tract. The landowners state that the pipeline crosses Delaware 

County’s largest block of interior forest and could introduce invasive species into the Clapper and Mud 

Lakes wetland complexes. Staff from the FERC met with landowners of the Charlotte Forest in 

September of 2012 to discuss their concerns and to conduct a site visit of portions of the Forest. 

In letters to FERC, the landowners of the Charlotte Forest reported that their coordination 

attempts with Constitution have been unsuccessful. Therefore, we have recommended in section 3.4.3.2

that Constitution further assess minor route deviations for tract NY-DE-226.000 (the Charlotte Forest) in 

coordination with the landowners and either incorporate a route that avoids the resources of concern or 

otherwise explain how potential impacts on resources have been effectively avoided, minimized, or 

mitigated. 

Constitution has committed to continuing coordination with landowners to avoid and minimize 

impacts on specialty crops, including route deviations as discussed in section 3.4. Where impacts on 

specialty crops cannot be avoided, Constitution would implement special construction procedures in 

accordance with its ECPs. Such practices could include working with landowners to properly restore 

affected areas and drainage features, use of AIs to monitor construction activities, and post-construction 

monitoring and resolution of problem areas. These practices would be applied in actively cultivated or 

rotated cropland, pastures, and hayfields to minimize potential impacts. Constitution stated that it would 

compensate farmers for loss of dairy production or other measurable impacts on livestock associated with 

construction of the proposed pipeline.

Constitution would limit potential impacts on organic farms, such as the one located at MP 101.7 

through implementation of its Organic Farm Protection Plan. The NYSDAM has recommended that 

Constitution use only organic straw/hay for mulch in certified organic agricultural land. We agree. 

Therefore, we recommend that: 

• Constitution should revise its Organic Farm Protection Plan to include the required 

use of organic straw/hay for mulch in certified organic agricultural land.

Constitution has attempted to coordinate with the owner of the sugar bush operation at MP 79.5 

in Delaware County, New York. However, Constitution reported that so far coordination attempts have 

been unsuccessful. Because potential impacts on the operation are not fully described, we recommend 

that:
Land Use And Visual Resources 4-126

• Prior to construction, Constitution should file an impact avoidance, minimization, 

or mitigation plan for specialty crops (i.e., the sugar bush operation at MP 79.5), in 

coordination with the landowner if possible. 

Constitution has committed to employ AIs during installation of the pipeline and during postconstruction restoration efforts. The AIs would conduct field reviews and consult with affected 

landowners, conservation districts, and the NYSDAM in order to provide site-specific content to be 

incorporated into the final version of Constitution’s ECPs. The AIs would also provide training to 

construction personnel on proper standards and requirements for working on agricultural lands, as well as 

providing technical field supervision including monitoring of construction and restoration activities. In 

addition, the AIs would be responsible for documenting compliance with the ECPs and requesting any 

modifications to the ECPs affecting agricultural resources. 

Constitution has committed to work with individual landowners regarding the appropriate 

placement of fencing to exclude work areas, establishment of crossing locations for livestock, and 

relocation of livestock to temporary grazing sites during the construction phase. Crop yields would be 

monitored as outlined in Constitutions ECPs, which are sourced from the measures developed by 

NYSDAM. These measures would ensure that yields in areas affected by construction return to yields 

similar to preconstruction or those of adjacent, undisturbed areas. Finally, the owners of agricultural land 

would be compensated for any measureable loss of agricultural or livestock production in accordance 

with the terms of landowner agreements. Impacts on agricultural lands would be short-term and offset by 

compensation agreed to during easement negotiations. 

Some agricultural lands along the route have vulnerable soils, which are associated with slopes, 

soil wetness conditions, and/or shallow bedrock that have the potential for greater disturbance from 

construction. Constitution is currently consulting with the NYSDAM and NRCS regarding the 

identification and crossings of these areas. The NYSDAM guidelines related to vulnerable soils were 

incorporated into Constitution’s ECPs. Implementation of the measures would minimize impacts on 

agricultural lands, including those with vulnerable soils. Section 4.2 provides additional discussion of 

vulnerable agricultural soils crossed by the proposed pipeline project.

4.8.4.3 Conservation and Other Special Use Lands

The pipeline project would cross a number of parcels enrolled in a variety of conservation 

programs including:

• Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program; 

• Clean and Green Program; 

• 480 and 480a Real Property Tax eligible lands; and

• Nature Conservancy Lands.

In addition to lands enrolled in these programs, several other special use lands are near, but would 

not be crossed by the pipeline. Those include lands associated with the Farmable Wetlands Program, 

Emergency Conservation Program, Grassland Reserve Program, Land and Water Conservation Program, 

Community Conservation Partnerships Program, New York State’s Farmland Protection Program, and the 

Environmental Protection Fund. 

Lands managed by the NRCS and the Farm Service Agency that would be crossed by the 

proposed pipeline project are designated as Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program parcels. These
4-127 Land Use And Visual Resources

lands are administered by the Farm Service Agency, with the NRCS providing land eligibility 

determinations as well as conservation planning and practice implementation. The Enhancement Program 

provides financial assistance to eligible farmers and ranchers in order to encourage landowners to conduct 

environmental enhancement projects on their lands. Constitution’s project would cross four parcels 

enrolled in the Enhancement Program, all of which are in Pennsylvania (table 4.8.4-4). 

TABLE 4.8.4-4 

Potential Farm Service Agency Program Enrolled Lands Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project

County Milepost

Acres Affected

Construction Operation

Susquehanna 2.2 4.6 2.3

Susquehanna 2.6 7.3 3.1

Susquehanna 11.4 2.3 1.1

Susquehanna 11.6 2.1 1.1

Project Total 16.3 7.6

The Clean and Green Program (Act 319) is administered by the Pennsylvania Department of 

Agriculture with the goal of preserving agricultural and forest land. Lands that meet the requirements of 

this program are subject to tax breaks, because the tax assessments are based on the use of the land rather 

than fair market value. Once enrolled in the program, lands must maintain the specified acreage and use 

indefinitely or incur roll-back taxes for the last seven years plus 6 percent interest. Exactly 100 tracts 

enrolled in this program would be crossed by the pipeline. Constitution stated that it would negotiate 

compensation of such fees or penalties, including roll-back taxes and increased annual taxes, as part of the 

easement for each tract if the project would render the parcel ineligible for the program. These tracts are 

listed in appendix P.

The 480 and 480a Real Property Tax program provides tax exceptions for certain forest lands of 

at least 50 eligible acres for Section 480a or 15 acres for Section 480 in New York State. Section 480 

governs lands enrolled in the program prior to September 1974, and 480a governs lands subsequently 

enrolled after 1974. Twenty-three tracts enrolled in this program would be crossed by the project. These 

tracts are listed in table 4.8.4-5.

Constitution has stated that, based on NYSDEC regulation Title 6 New York Codes, Rules and 

Regulations Part 199, it does not believe that the tracts enrolled in the programs discussed above would 

be subject to fees or penalties as a result of the pipeline right-of-way or easement. This provision states 

that owners of certified tracts shall not be penalized by the taking, voluntary or not, for the establishment 

of rights-of-way. However, actions taken to install the pipeline may require landowners to amend their 

Forest Management Plans. Constitution would work with landowners to assist with amendments to the 

Management Plans, including providing maps of the right-of-way and a schedule of operational clearing 

required for the tract. If a tract is removed from the 480/480a program as a result of the project, 

Constitution stated that it would negotiate compensation of such fees or penalties, including roll-back 

taxes and increased annual taxes, as part of the easement agreement for each tract, if applicable. 
Land Use And Visual Resources 4-128

TABLE 4.8.4-5 

480/480a Properties Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project in New York

County Start Milepost End Milepost

Acres Affected (Total Parcel)

Construction Operation

Broome 29.0 29.0 0.3 0.2

Broome 29.1 29.1 0.6 0.3

Broome 37.6 37.7 2.3 1.0

Broome 37.8 38.1 3.1 1.4

Broome 38.5 38.7 1.6 1.0

Broome 38.7 38.8 1.8 0.8

Broome 38.8 38.9 1.0 0.5

Broome N/A N/A 0.0 0.0

Broome 40.8 41.1 3.6 1.6

Chenango N/A N/A 0.0 0.0

Chenango 50.4 50.5 1.8 0.9

Chenango N/A N/A 0.0 0.0

Delaware 51.2 51.5 4.1 1.8

Delaware 53.6 53.9 5.0 1.8

Delaware 55.0 55.1 1.0 1.0

Delaware N/A N/A 0.0 0.0

Delaware 59.0 59.3 3.5 1.3

Delaware 59.3 59.6 4.8 2.2

Delaware 63.3 63.5 2.5 1.3

Delaware 63.5 63.5 0.4 0.2

Delaware 64.6 64.8 2.7 1.3

Delaware 67.3 67.5 2.9 1.4

Delaware 78.1 78.2 1.4 0.6

Delaware 78.2 78.6 5.5 2.2

Delaware 78.6 78.9 3.3 1.6

Delaware 86.1 86.2 1.3 0.8

Delaware 87.3 87.8 5.9 3.0

Delaware 87.9 87.9 0.1 0.1

Schoharie 118.3 119.0 8.7 4.2

Two trails would be crossed by the pipeline project, the Delaware and Hudson Rail-Trail at MP 

21.5 in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania and the Finger Lakes Trail at MP 50.1 in Chenango County,

New York. The D&H Rail-Trail is 38 miles long supporting non-motorized use (e.g. biking, hiking, 

horseback riding), except in the winter when the trail is maintained by the NorthEast Pennsylvania 

SnoTrails association for snowmobiling. The trail crossing would be approximately 9 feet long at an 

unimproved railroad bed and would be accomplished by conventional bore eliminating surface impacts on 

the trail. The Finger Lakes Trail is over 950 miles long connecting the Allegany State Forest to the Long 

Path in Catskills Forest Preserve. Portions of the trail are part of the North Country National Scenic Trail. 

This trail also supports year-round use with cross-country skiing and snowshoeing in the winter months. 
4-129 Land Use And Visual Resources

Constitution has proposed to cross the trail with a conventional bore to avoid surface impacts; therefore, it 

does not anticipate the need to close the trail. Also, as requested by Finger Lakes Trail Conference, Inc., 

Constitution would provide advanced notice of construction so the Trail Conference can take measures to 

notify trail users. Constitution has committed to continue to consult with the Trail Conference regarding 

the approximate 32-foot-long crossing. 

A commuter parking lot off I-88 in the Town of Schoharie could be impacted during construction. 

A small portion of the commuter parking lot would be used for extra workspace. In consultation with the 

NYSDOT, Constitution would work to maintain access to the commuter parking lot during construction 

or provide an alternative parking area. 

A portion of the DelChenango Rod and Gun Club would be crossed by pipeline project at MP 

51.2. The route as proposed would cross the firing range of the gun club. Constitution has coordinated 

with the owner regarding the crossing location, appropriate depth of cover, safety measures, and potential 

measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts on the firing range during construction and 

routine operation of the pipeline. According to Constitution’s anticipated construction schedule, 

construction would take place between September and March, during which time the range would closed. 

Temporary closures would be posted in the clubhouse, as well as at the range. Temporary fencing would 

help limit access, and construction personnel would be required to wear orange safety vests while on site. 

Operational impacts would be limited to periodic temporary closures of the range for routine maintenance 

of the right-of-way. Similar notification and safety measures would be undertaken for these periodic 

closures. 

State Game Lands No. 70 (MP 23.9), one Boy Scout Camp (MP 25.1), one Girl Scout Camp (MP 

37.3), and a tract owned by The Nature Conservancy (Emmons Pond Bog Preserve, MP 75.0) are all 

within 0.25 mile of the proposed project, but would not be crossed or directly affected. Potential impacts 

associated with construction, installation, and operation for these areas would be limited to noise and 

visual impacts. For related discussions see sections 4.11.2 and 4.8.6, respectively. 

In general, recreation areas and special use areas crossed by Constitution’s project are expected to 

experience some temporary impacts during construction. Clearing of trees, noise, dust, and limited access 

may prevent or curtail recreational activities. Users of these areas such as hikers, wildlife enthusiasts, 

sightseers, bikers, and other recreationalists may be prevented from use of the immediate area around the 

temporary right-of-way during construction. Nearby recreation areas and special use areas are expected 

to experience similar temporary impacts as areas crossed, but as the distance to the construction work area 

increases, these impacts would generally decrease. Where recreational use would be allowed to proceed 

near construction activities, and otherwise, Constitution would post signs, install safety fencing, and 

establish detours around construction activities to ensure recreationalist’s safety. 

Constitution would consult with the appropriate federal, state, and managing agencies to develop 

and implement measures to mitigate and reduce impacts on these areas as needed. Direct access to some 

entry points within these areas may be temporarily limited or restricted due to increased traffic or road 

closures during construction. For further discussion of transportation impacts and mitigation measures, 

refer to sections 4.9.4. 

We received comments about a school property that would be crossed by the pipeline in 

Schoharie County, New York. Among other things, the Schoharie Career and Technical Education 

School teaches students how to operate excavators, backhoes, bulldozers, and other construction 

equipment. The safety and welfare of the students was the primary concern raised by the commentors. 

We requested information from Constitution regarding the crossing of this property, but it is still not clear 

when and how the school would be impacted. Our review of aerial imagery indicates that the pipeline 
Land Use And Visual Resources 4-130

route would cross the parcel owned by the school and in an area where excavation and construction 

activities are being conducted as part of the school’s curriculum. Given the potential for a conflict 

between pipeline easement restrictions and the current usage of the lands by the school, we recommend 

that:

• Prior to construction, Constitution should coordinate with the Schoharie Career 

and Technical Education School Board of Educators and file with the Secretary for 

the review and written approval of the Director of OEP, impact avoidance, 

minimization, or mitigation measures designed to ensure that the pipeline and 

access road PAR 73a (near MP 120.6) do not conflict with or hinder the school’s 

ability to implement current or future curriculum activities. 

4.8.5 Hazardous Waste Sites

Based on field and database research, as well as in consultation with state environmental 

agencies, Constitution identified 53 known contaminated sites that are within 0.25 mile of the pipeline 

project area. Information on contaminated soil, groundwater, and sediments near the proposed facilities is 

provided in sections 4.2.2, 4.3.1.6, and 4.3.3, respectively.

None of the sites identified would be crossed by the pipeline; therefore, no impacts associated 

with construction, installation, and operation of the project are expected. To address both known and 

unanticipated contamination along the pipeline route, Constitution has prepared state-specific ECPs which 

include measures for the unanticipated discovery of contamination. These plans identify procedures to be 

employed if contaminated soil and groundwater are encountered during construction. These measures 

could include the suspension of construction activities when suspected contamination is encountered, 

evacuations if necessary, proper notifications, and follow up actions as appropriate including mobilization 

of emergency response personnel and regulatory agency coordination. 

4.8.6 Visual Resources

“Visual resources” refers to the composite of basic terrain features, geologic features, hydrologic 

features, vegetation patterns, and anthropogenic features that influence the visual appeal of an area for 

residents or visitors. The proposed pipeline project would cross state and privately owned lands. No 

federal lands, national or state designated wild or scenic rivers would be crossed. Iroquois’ project would 

be constructed at the site of an existing compressor station. 

4.8.6.1 Pipeline

Visual resources along the proposed pipeline route are a function of geology, climate, and 

historical processes, and include topographic relief, vegetation, water, wildlife, land use, and human uses 

and development. A portion of the pipeline (about 9.0 percent) would be installed within or parallel to 

existing pipeline and/or utility rights-of-way. As a result, the visual resources along this portion of the 

project have been previously affected by other similar activities. 

Constitution proposes to generally use a 110-foot-wide construction right-of-way, consisting of 

50 feet of permanent right-of-way and 60 feet of temporary construction workspace for the 30-inchdiameter pipeline. In agricultural areas, Constitution is proposing to use a 125-foot-wide construction 

right-of-way to accommodate the topsoil segregation along the entire right-of-way through these lands. 

These impacts are discussed in more detail in section 4.8.4.2.
4-131 Land Use And Visual Resources

Some areas would be wider than the standards identified above to provide extra workspace for 

waterbody, road, and utility crossings. Visual impacts associated with the construction right-of-way and 

extra workspaces include the removal of existing vegetation and the exposure of bare soils, as well as 

earthwork and grading scars associated with heavy equipment tracks, trenching, blasting (if required), and 

machinery and tool storage. Other visual effects could result from the removal of large individual trees 

that have intrinsic aesthetic value; the removal or alteration of vegetation that may currently provide a 

visual barrier; or landform changes that introduce contrasts in visual scale, spatial characteristics, form, 

line, color, or texture. 

Visual impacts would be greatest where the pipeline route parallels or crosses roads and the 

pipeline right-of-way may be seen by passing motorists; from residences where vegetation used for visual 

screening or for ornamental value is removed; and where the pipeline is routed through forested areas. 

The duration of visual impacts would depend on the type of vegetation that is cleared or altered. The 

duration of impact from clearing would be shortest in open areas where the re-establishment of vegetation 

following construction would be relatively rapid (generally less than 5 years). The duration would be 

greater in forested land, which would take many years to regenerate. The greatest potential visual impact 

would result from the removal of large specimen trees, which would take longer than other vegetation to 

regenerate and would be prevented from re-establishing on the permanent right-of-way.

The area crossed by the pipeline is predominately forest lands, comprising mostly a mixture of 

northern hardwood, hemlock/northern hardwood, sugar maple/basswood, and aspen/gray birch. While 

trees cleared within temporary construction work areas would be allowed to regenerate to preconstruction conditions following construction, impacts on forest resources within these areas would last 

for several years. The predominately forested setting would help to minimize the number of visual 

receptors along the forested portion of the right-of-way. The visual effect of the pipeline would also be 

mitigated by the HDD and Direct Pipe trenchless crossings, where surface impacts and impacts on visual 

resources between the HDD entry and exit holes would be avoided. After construction, all disturbed areas 

would be restored and areas outside of the permanent right-of-way would be returned to pre-construction 

conditions in compliance with federal, state, and local permits; landowner agreements; and Constitution’s 

easement requirements, with the exception of aboveground facility sites.

4.8.6.2 Aboveground Facilities

Each of the meter and regulator stations would be installed at locations with aesthetics and 

topography similar to that described for the pipeline. The meter and regulator stations would be in areas 

characterized as residential, agricultural, and upland forest; however, the station would be installed in 

primarily upland forested areas. They would be visible from nearby roads, but are not expected to create 

a unique visual impact on the area. Meter stations serve as interconnects with other pipeline systems, and 

are sited close to existing, previously disturbed, and cleared pipeline rights of way. 

In general, the impacts on visual resources resulting from the construction and operation of the 

MLVs would be minimal as each site is small (typically less than 0.1 acre) and would be operated within 

the pipeline operational right-of-way or within a proposed aboveground facility (e.g., meter and regulator 

station site). Visual impacts associated with MLV #1 and #11 are included in the discussion above for 

meter stations. MLVs along the operational right-of-way would be enclosed in a chain-link security 

fence. Proximity of residences to the MLV sites range from 270 feet to 1,750 feet. Generally, the 

existing vegetation and distance from the MLV would minimize visual impacts. To further mitigate 

visual impacts for MLVs along the operational right-of-way (MLVs #2 through #10), Constitution would 

install slats in the fencing to help screen the MLV to visual receptors. Slat color would be selected to 

blend with the existing environment, typically brown, green or gray. 
Land Use And Visual Resources 4-132

Pig launchers, and pig receivers would be constructed within the pipeline right-of-way or near 

existing developed sites, thereby minimizing impacts on visual resources. 

Construction and operation of the Iroquois project could also result in visual resource impacts. 

The compressor transfer station would be located off of Westfall Road and would be visible to motorists 

approaching the area. There are eight residences within 0.5 mile of the proposed compressor transfer 

station site; however, due to existing vegetation, only six have a potential view of the site. Iroquois’ 

compressor building would be located approximately 10 to 15 feet below the elevation of Westfall Road, 

which would decrease the potential for visual impacts. Also, the compressor transfer station would be 

constructed immediately adjacent to an existing compressor station. While construction of the Iroquois 

project would require the clearing of 3.3 acres of forest land, the surrounding forest land combined with 

site topography and the existing industrial setting indicate that visual impacts from construction would be 

short-term and minor. Due to the rural location of the compressor transfer station site in an existing 

industrial setting surrounded by in part by forest land, it is anticipated that visual impacts on nearby visual 

receptors during operation would be permanent but minor. 

4.8.6.3 Contractor Yards

The pipe storage and contractor yards would be located on lands classified as agricultural, open, 

and industrial/commercial. With the possible exception of minor grading activities and surfacing, soils at 

the pipe storage and contractor yards would not be disturbed. As a result, there would be no permanent 

impacts on visual resources associated with the use of these yards. The only impacts at yards would be 

temporary when trailers, vehicles, pipe, and other construction-related materials are stored at these sites 

during construction.

4.8.6.4 Access Roads

Constitution proposes to use 59 roads for temporary access to the pipeline right-of-way during 

construction, of which 54 would be for permanent access to the pipeline right-of-way during operation. 

Access roads would be maintained at a width of 12 to 24 feet as required for curves and corners. Most of 

these roads are currently paved, graveled, or have dirt surfaces and would require minor improvements;

but this would not have a significant impact on visual resources. Alternatively, the two temporary access 

roads and six permanent access roads would be newly constructed. Construction of these roads would 

require some tree clearing in addition to grading and graveling, impacting 3.3 acres. 

After construction, the five roads used for temporary access would be returned to pre-construction 

conditions unless another arrangement is mutually agreed upon with the landowner. The permanent 

access road retained for operation would result in 31.7 acres of roadway, of which 1.3 acres would be 

associated with the new permanent access roads. 

4.8.6.5 Scenic Byways

The proposed pipeline route crosses one roadway in Pennsylvania that is designated as scenic, 

Viaduct Valley Way Scenic Byway (MP 16.8). No scenic byways in New York would be crossed; 

however, the New York State Department of Public Service has raised concerns about visual impacts on 

Route 17/I-86 in the Town of Sanford (MP 28.7). To avoid disruption of the roadway and traffic flow, 

Constitution proposes to use the conventional bore construction technique to cross the scenic byway and 

Route 17/I-86. The crossings would both be within or adjacent to existing open lands, which would 

minimize potential long-term visual impacts since pre-construction and post-construction land use 

characteristics would be similar. 
4-133 Land Use And Visual Resources

During construction, some activity may be seen from the roadway, but this impact would be 

temporary, occurring only during construction, lasting up to a week at either location. Mitigation 

measures that may be needed would be addressed during the standard permitting process with the 

NYSDOT. Impacts would be short-term and would occur only during construction.

4.8.6.6 Agricultural Lands and Open Land

About 9.0 percent of the pipeline route would be within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way for 

pipelines or roads. Visual impacts associated with pipeline construction in agricultural and open land 

areas along the route would be temporary and would result from the presence of construction equipment 

and post-construction visual scarring. In agricultural land, any visual scarring would remain within the 

right-of-way until new crops are planted. After replanting of the crops, any remaining visual impact from 

pipeline construction would be minor, but visual evidence of construction may last for a few years. 

4.8.6.7 Forested Land

The pipeline project would affect 1,024.5 acres of forest land during construction. Trees within 

the construction right-of-way would be cleared. Constitution has proposed construction mitigation and 

restoration measures to reduce potential impacts on forested land. The permanent right-of-way would be 

periodically mowed, thereby preventing regeneration of trees for the life of the project. In the 

construction right-of-way, trees would be allowed to re-grow; however, larger trees likely would not grow 

to maturity within the construction right-of-way for many decades. The permanent right-of-way would 

generally be maintained clear of trees. Removal of trees along both the permanent and construction 

rights-of-way in otherwise forested areas would leave a corridor that would persist for the duration of 

pipeline operation and that would be visible from some vantage points in the pipeline project area. The 

forested nature of Constitution’s project suggests that visibility of the permanent right-of-way would be 

limited with some exceptions, such as road crossings or other vantage points. Overall, the visual impact 

related to the construction right-of-way would be long term, but minor and localized, while the visual 

impact related to the permanent right-of-way would be permanent, but relatively minor and localized.

4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS

The socioeconomic conditions and impacts associated with the proposed pipeline, two new M&R 

stations (one each in Pennsylvania and New York), associated facilities, and an expansion of an existing 

compressor station are discussed below. This section focuses initially on Constitution’s pipeline project. 

Based on an agreement with Constitution, Iroquois would expand existing compression and metering 

facilities located in Wright, New York that would facilitate operation of the pipeline project. Iroquois’ 

project would be within the property boundary of the existing Wright Compressor Station; as such,

Iroquois’ project would have a comparatively small impact on socioeconomic conditions, which are 

discussed below as applicable.

The primary socioeconomic impacts of the Constitution project include population effects 

associated with the influx of construction workers and the impact of these workers on public services and 

temporary housing during construction. Secondary socioeconomic effects include increased vehicle 

traffic necessary to move materials, equipment, and workers to and from the right-of-way, increased 

property tax revenue, job opportunities, and income associated with local construction employment. 

4.9.1 Population and Employment

Table 4.9.1-1 provides a summary of selected demographic and socioeconomic conditions for the 

communities that would be affected by the projects in Pennsylvania and New York. The major 
Socioeconomics 4-134

occupations in the projects area are in the fields of education; health and social services; retail trade; and 

manufacturing. 

TABLE 4.9.1-1 

Existing Economic Conditions for the Area Surrounding the Projects

State/County

2010 

Populationa

Population 

Density 

(Persons/

sq. mi.)a

Per Capita 

Incomeb

Unemployment 

Rate for July 

2013c

(percent)

Civilian 

Workforceb

Top Three

Industriesb,d

Pennsylvania 12,702,379 283.9 $27,824 7.5 6,447,161 A,D,C

Susquehanna County 43,356 52.7 $23,392 7.5 21,505 A,D,C

New York 19,378,102 411.2 $31,796 7.5 9,855,104 A,B,C

Broome County 200,600 284.2 $24,766 7.7 99,146 A,C,D

Chenango County 50,477 56.5 $22,786 6.6 24,898 A,D,C

Delaware County 47,980 33.3 $23,120 7.6 23,253 A,D,C

Otsego County 62,259 62.2 $23,176 6.5 29,675 A,B,C

Schoharie County 32,749 52.7 $25,362 7.7 16,920 A,C,E

____________________

Source:

a U.S. Census Bureau 2013a

b U.S. Census Bureau 2013b

c U.S. Department of Labor 2013a

d Industry Key:

A = Educational Services and Health Care and Social Assistance

B = Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative, and Waste Management

C = Retail Trade

D = Manufacturing

E = Construction

The population of Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania is 43,356 with a population density of 52.7 

people per square mile (U.S. Census Bureau 2013a). The county-level civilian workforce is estimated to 

be 21,505 people with an unemployment rate of 7.5 percent (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2013b). Per 

capita income in Susquehanna County is about $4,400 lower than the state average of $27,824 (based on 

2007-2011 five-year estimates).

In New York, the populations in potentially affected counties (Broome, Chenango, Delaware, 

Otsego and Schoharie Counties) range from 32,749 to 200,600 and population densities range from 33.3 

to 284.2 people per square mile (U.S. Census Bureau 2013a). The county-level civilian workforces range 

from 16,920 to 99,146 people. Based on five-year estimates, per capita incomes in these counties range 

from $6,400 to $9,000 lower than the New York State average of $31,796. Unemployment rates within 

the potentially affected New York counties range from 6.5 to 7.7 percent (U.S. Department of Labor 

2013a).

Construction of the pipeline project would temporarily increase the population in the general 

vicinity of the project. Table 4.9.1-2 lists the size of the estimated construction workforce for the projects 

by spread, worksite, and county. The construction workforce would be comprised of five spreads of 260 

workers each for an estimated peak workforce of 1,300 during the eight month construction period. 

Construction of the Iroquois project would require a peak workforce of 75 workers and take about 9 

months to complete. Combined, this would represent an estimated 0.3 percent increase in the projects’ 
4-135 Socioeconomics

area population. A peak total workforce of 520 workers may be present within a single county during 

periods of coinciding construction spreads. 

TABLE 4.9.1-2

Estimated Workforce and Work Schedule for the Projects

Project Facility

(miles)a County/State

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Crossing 

Length 

(Miles)

Construction

Duration

Peak Workforce 

(Peak when 

spreads overlap)

Pipeline Spreads

Pipeline Spread 1( 21.6)

Pipeline Spread 2 (25.7)

Susquehanna, 

PA 0.0 25.2 25.2b 26 weeks (Spread 1)

4 weeks (Spread 2) 260 (520)

Pipeline Spread 2 (25.7) Broome, NY 25.2 42.2 17.0 b 21 weeks (Spread 2) 260 (260)

Pipeline Spread 2 (25.7)

Pipeline Spread 3 (24.3)

Chenango, 

NY 42.2 50.5 8.3 b 7 weeks (Spread 2)

4 weeks (Spread 3) 260 (520)

Pipeline Spread 3 (24.3)

Pipeline Spread 4 (21.4)

Pipeline Spread 5 (31.4)

Delaware, NY 50.5 93.5 43.0 b

26 weeks (Spread 3)

26 weeks (Spread 4)

1 weeks (Spread 5)

260 (520)

Pipeline Spread 5 (31.4) Schoharie, NY 93.5 124.4 30.9 b 32 weeks (Spread 5) 260 (260)

Horizontal Directional Drills

HDD 1 Susquehanna, 

PA 15.3 15.7 0.4

7 months 16

HDD 2 Chenango, 

NY 47.7 48.0 0.3

HDD 3 Delaware, NY 54.4 55.3 0.9

HDD 4 Delaware, NY 85.8 86.1 0.3

HDD 5 Delaware, NY 87.8 88.2 0.4

Direct Pipe

Direct Pipe 1 Schoharie, NY 101.5 -- N/A

7 months 28

Direct Pipe 2 Schoharie, NY 119.8 -- N/A

Aboveground Facilities

Turnpike Road Meter 

Station

Susquehanna, 

PA 0.0 -- N/A

7 months

24

White Road and Sutton 

Road Tie-ins

Susquehanna, 

PA 3.3, 9.4 -- N/A 10

Westfall Road Meter 

Station Schoharie, NY 124.4 -- N/A 24

Iroquois

Compressor Transfer 

Station Schoharie, NY -- -- N/A 9 months 75

_____________________

a All personnel listed for HDDs, Direct Pipe, and aboveground facilities are already included in the pipeline facilities 

personnel number. Workforce for the compressor station would be in addition to the workforce for the pipeline.

b Crossing lengths were calculated based on start and end milepost, thus may not reflect the true crossing length.

Constitution anticipates hiring local construction workers with the requisite experience for the 

installation of natural gas facilities. These local hires would include paving, landscape, fencing, or 

hauling contractors, appraisers, and industrial suppliers in Pennsylvania and New York. Additional 
Socioeconomics 4-136

construction personnel hired from outside the Constitution project area would include supervisory 

personnel and inspectors who would temporarily relocate to the project area. Local hiring could 

temporarily decrease the unemployment rate. According to the economic analysis conducted by the 

Center for Government Research (CGR), unemployment rate changes would range from less than 0.1 

percent (Broome County, New York) to 0.8 percent (Delaware County, New York) (CGR 2013). This 

would result in a temporary, but positive impact on employment for counties within the project area. 

In addition to direct hires, the pipeline project would be expected to provide a number of 

temporary indirect jobs as purchases are made by non-local workers on food, clothing, lodging, gasoline, 

and entertainment. The jobs would have a temporary, stimulatory effect on the local economy. A study 

by Inform & Empower, Center for Government Research, which was commissioned by Constitution to 

examine the economic benefits of its proposed project, estimated that the pipeline project would generate 

more than 224 indirect jobs in New York, five of which would be more long-term in non-specified fields. 

According to the study, jobs associated with construction and operation would generate approximately 

$113 million in personal income for those individuals directly and indirectly employed. It is estimated 

that a proportionately smaller number of jobs and corresponding income and taxes would be created by 

the pipeline project in Pennsylvania. This would include 57 indirect jobs and approximately $29 million 

in personal income for those directly and indirectly employed during operation and construction. 

Population impacts are expected to be temporary and minor in the project area. The pipeline 

project’s effects on the total population would include the influx of non-local construction workers and 

any family members accompanying them. Assuming the construction workforce comprises a maximum 

of 1,300 individuals and approximately 75 percent of the total workforce would be non-local; there would 

be an influx of about 975 workers into the area due to Constitution’s project. Additionally, construction 

of Iroquois’ compressor transfer station would require a peak workforce of 75. Iroquois has stated that it

would work with contractors to employ local workers where skill-sets and experience align with 

construction activities. The proportion of local hires typical for these types of construction activities 

typically ranges from approximately 25 percent to 40 percent. More specialized jobs such as inspectors 

would likely be non-local hires. The influx may be higher, however, if workers bring family members 

with them. The U.S. Census Bureau (2013c) reports the average household size as 2.60 persons, which 

means the population in the area could increase by about 2,500 people during construction. Given the 

population of the project area (totaling 437,421) and distribution of the construction workforce, the 

addition of 2,500 people would not be a significant change. An estimated seven new full-time, local 

employees would be directly hired to operate the facilities on a permanent basis. As discussed above, the 

creation of new, full-time positions would result in an estimated 5 indirect hires during operation. 

Operation of Iroquois’ project would require no additional workforce. 

4.9.2 Housing

Housing statistics for the counties affected by the proposed project are presented in table 4.9.2-1. 

Based on a five-year average (2007-2011), the number of vacant housing units across the six potentially 

affected counties in Pennsylvania and New York ranged from a high of 10,915 vacant units in Delaware 

County, New York to a low of 4,384 vacant units in Schoharie County, New York (U.S. Census Bureau 

2013a). Rental vacancy rates varied from 4.2 percent in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania to 8.3 

percent in Otsego County, New York. 
4-137 Socioeconomics

TABLE 4.9.2-1

Housing Statistics by County in the Vicinity of the Projects

State/County

Owner 

Occupieda

Renter 

Occupieda

Median Monthly 

Housing Costs ($US 

dollars)a

For 

Seasonal or 

Occasional 

Useb

Vacant 

Housing 

Unitsa

Rental 

Vacancy 

Rate

(percent)a

Number 

of Hotels/ 

Motelsc

Pennsylvania 3,498,381 1,454,185 $479 161,582 602,373 6.5 N/A

Susquehanna 

Countyd

13,558 3,715 $467 3,828 5,671 4.2 2

New York 3,955,232 3,260,455 $687 289,301 865,616 4.6 N/A

Broome County 53,498 26,759 $470 1,272 10,174 7.4 20

Chenango 

County

15,371 4,632 $457 2,584 4,674 6.7 2

Delaware 

County

15,301 4,876 $457 9,276 10,915 7.2 6

Otsego County 17,885 6,735 $462 3,621 6,157 8.3 7

Schoharie 

County

9,817 2,984 $481 2,942 4,384 5.5 3

____________________

a U.S. Census Bureau 2013d

b U.S. Census Bureau 2013e

c EPodunk 2013

d Susquehanna County Tourism Committee 2013

N/A = Not applicable

Temporary housing availability varies seasonally and geographically within the counties and 

communities near the proposed facilities. The demand for temporary housing in the project area is 

generally greatest during the summer months when tourism is at its highest. Temporary housing is 

available in the form of daily, weekly, and monthly rentals in motels and hotels. Table 4.9.2-1 provides 

the approximate number of hotels/motels in the counties crossed by the project. Other available 

temporary housing such as bed and breakfast facilities, apartments, and vacation properties, available in 

these or neighboring counties within commuting distance of Constitution’s project area are not included. 

Therefore, the actual availability of temporary housing is greater than presented in table 4.9.2-1.

Construction of the pipeline project could temporarily decrease the availability of housing in the 

area. The project could have a short-term positive impact on the area rental industry through increased 

demand and higher rates of occupancy; however, no significant impacts on the local housing markets are 

expected. Assuming that the local construction workers do not require housing, a total of 975 housing 

units for the non-local Constitution workforce and 56 housing units for the Iroquois project workforce 

may be required during peak construction activities. Given the vacancy rates (4.2 percent to 8.3 percent)

and the number of vacant housing units in the counties that would be affected by the project (41,975 

between Pennsylvania and New York), construction crews should not encounter difficulty in finding 

temporary housing. At a maximum, the workforce would utilize about 2.5 percent of the vacant housing 

units. While some of the construction activity would be conducted during the peak tourism season, 

sufficient temporary housing is still likely to be available, but may be more difficult to find and/or more 

expensive to secure. Additional housing options for construction workers, as well as tourists not reported 

here include campgrounds, bed and breakfast lodges, or inns. Therefore, impacts on tourism due to the 

construction of Constitution’s project are expected to be minimal. 
Socioeconomics 4-138

The estimated four to seven new permanent employees required for Constitution’s project would 

have no measureable impact on housing stocks in the project area. 

4.9.3 Public Services

A wide range of public services and facilities are present in each county in Pennsylvania and New 

York and include full-service law enforcement, paid and volunteer fire departments, schools, and 

hospitals. All six counties in Constitution’s project area have sheriff/police departments. Table 4.9.3-1 

provides an overview of selected public services available in the larger municipalities in the vicinity of 

the project.

TABLE 4.9.3-1

Public Service Infrastructure for the Projects

State/County

Number of 

Fire 

Department 

and EMS

Number of 

Police 

Precincts/ 

Departments

Number of 

School 

Districts 

(students 

enrolled)

Closest School 

(distance in miles)

Number of 

Hospitals 

(number of 

beds)

Pennsylvania

Susquehanna 

County

16 8 3 (3,250) Susquehanna Community 

Elementary, Junior, and Senior 

High Schools (1.3)

3 (98)

New York

Broome County 37 6 2 (1,790) Deposit Elementary and 

Middle-High Schools (3.0)

3 (767)

Chenango County 20 6 2 (1,640) Afton Elementary and MiddleHigh Schools (1.6)1 (58)

Delaware County 29 7 3 (1,976) Charlotte Valley Central School 

District: K-12, Sidney 

Elementary and Middle Schools 

(1.3)

3 (63)

Otsego County 30 3 1 (2,119)a St. Mary’s School (1.4 from 

contractor yard)

2 (444)

Schoharie County 13 2 4 (4,525b) Joseph B. Radez Elementary 

School District: K-5 (1.8)

1 (40)

____________________

a Proposed pipeline does not cross Otsego County, but contractor yards would be located there.

b http://www.newyorkschools.com/

Based on the number of police and fire stations, schools, and hospitals, there appears to be 

adequate public service infrastructure in the project vicinity to accommodate the temporary needs of the 

975 non-local construction workers and their families. 

Constitution would require each of its contractors to have a health and safety plan, covering 

location-specific or work-specific requirements, to minimize the potential for on-the-job accidents. The 

contractors and Constitution’s site safety staff are responsible for monitoring compliance with the plans. 

In the event of an accident, Constitution could require police, fire, and/or medical services, depending on 

the type of emergency; however, the anticipated demand for these services is not expected to exceed the 

existing capabilities of the emergency service infrastructure. Short-term impacts on certain other public 

services are possible, which would include the need for localized police assistance or certified flaggers to 

control traffic flow during construction activities. Additional discussion of traffic and public service 

assistance necessary to support traffic controls is provided in section 4.9.4. 
4-139 Socioeconomics

Constitution has established a Community Grant Program that would benefit the local 

communities within the counties traversed by the project. The Grant Program was established to identify 

and help fund noteworthy projects that benefit the surrounding communities. As of October 2013, 

Constitution has distributed more than $700,000 to various groups and organizations in all five counties 

that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline, plus Otsego County, New York. These grants include

funding for fire departments, ambulance services, and police organizations, as well as community groups 

and social programs. Constitution indicated that it does not currently plan to link its Grant Program to 

mitigation that may be required by regulatory agencies.

The four closest hospitals to the proposed pipeline route are the Barnes-Kasson Hospital in 

Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania (approximately 1 mile), Aurelia Osborn Fox Hospital in Otsego 

County, New York (approximately 3 miles), Cobleskill Regional Hospital in Schoharie County, New 

York (approximately 4 miles), and Tri-Town Regional Healthcare in Delaware County, New York 

(approximately 1 mile). In addition, there are three hospitals in Broome County, two hospitals in Otsego 

County, and one hospital in Chenango County, New York (UHS Chenango Memorial Hospital).

No schools were identified within 0.25 mile of the pipeline project3

. The closest school to the 

proposed pipeline would be located over a mile away. Based on the construction schedule, it is unlikely 

that the families of all of the workers would relocate to the area, since this would require temporarily 

switching students to a new school, and presumably back to their previous school the following year. 

Therefore, we conclude that a small number of construction workers would choose to relocate their 

families. Those students that are relocated would reside throughout the project area and would be 

dispersed among multiple schools and school districts. Based on the number and size of schools in the 

pipeline project area, there appears to be adequate education infrastructure in the vicinity of the proposed 

pipeline to accommodate any temporary educational needs of the non-local construction workers and their 

families.

In summary, there are ample public services available in the area to meet the needs of the 

projects. Additional discussion on the safety measures that would be implemented for the projects is 

provided in section 4.12. 

Operation of the pipeline would require the addition of four to seven full-time permanent 

positions. The impacts on public services due to these employees would be negligible, but permanent.

4.9.4 Transportation and Traffic

In Pennsylvania, the principal north-south roadways are I-81 and the principal east-west roadway 

is PA-706/167 while in New York these are NY-17 and I-88. However, the majority of the pipeline 

project would be in rural areas, and most of the roads impacted by the pipeline project would be county or 

private roads. Construction of Constitution’s project could affect transportation and traffic across and 

within roadways and railroads due to increased vehicle traffic associated with the commuting of the 

construction workforce to the work area as well as the movement of construction vehicles and delivery of 

equipment and materials. Constitution has stated that it would utilize major highways, as well as using 

the construction right-of-way to the extent practicable, to mitigate impacts on local roadways.

 3 For the purposes of the analysis of potential impacts on schools due to the influx of non-local workers and 

accompanying underage children, schools identified were limited to kindergarten through grade 12. See section 

4.8.5 for additional details on schools. 
Socioeconomics 4-140

Construction of the pipeline would require a peak workforce of 1,300 workers distributed along 

five construction spreads. Constitution expects the majority of the workforce to be on-site prior to peak 

morning commuting hours and to depart after peak evening commuting hours. Constitution also proposes

to utilize buses to transport workers from designated parking locations to the construction work areas. 

4.9.4.1 Construction Across and Within Roadways and Railroads

The pipeline project would require 133 crossings of 119 public or private roads and 4 railroads. 

Two of the railroads are active and two are inactive, although one inactive railroad is used as a 

recreational trail. These roads and railroads are listed in appendix F along with the proposed crossing 

methods. Roads would either be conventionally bored, open-cut, or crossed by HDD or Direct Pipe. All 

railroads would be conventionally bored. A description of the conventional boring, HDD, and Direct Pipe 

construction techniques is provided in section 2.0. Open-cut road crossing methods are described below. 

The use of conventional boring, HDD, and Direct Pipe methods would avoid surface impacts for 108 road 

crossings and all 4 railroads, but the use of the open-cut crossing method would not. Constitution would 

be responsible for obtaining road crossing permits from the applicable federal, state, and local agencies 

(which could dictate specific requirements for the day-to-day construction activities and methods at each 

crossing) and has committed to the repair of any roads damaged by its pipeline project. 

The open-cut crossing method would primarily be used at 25 locations, consisting of a 

combination of private and public roads, and driveways. The first step for an open-cut crossing is to 

install traffic control devices, followed by excavation of the trench across the road, one lane at a time. 

Steel plates are then placed across the trench to allow vehicle access across the trench. One lane is left

open for the majority of the process, except for the short period of time when the pipeline is lowered into 

the trench. If alternate routes around any particular crossing location exist, Constitution may temporarily 

close the road and detour traffic around the area.

Constitution developed a Residential Access and Traffic Mitigation Plan. The plan contains 

details regarding:

• locations and types of temporary traffic control measures, including signage, 

channelization devices, barricades, and flagmen;

• a communication plan for public notification of the location and duration of road 

closures; 

• crossings of private driveways; and

• emergency access response management, which includes establishing temporary travel 

lanes and the staging of steel plate bridges on-site to place over the open trench in the 

event that emergency vehicles need to use the roadway.

We find Constitution’s plan to be acceptable as it would reduce impacts on traffic flow. Based on 

the mitigation measures listed above, we expect the impacts from construction across and within 

roadways to be minor and temporary.

The FHWA and NYSDOT identified they will need to complete additional reviews of the 

segment of pipeline near MP 29 in the vicinity of New York Route 17. The proposed route is collocated 

with New York Route 17 over a short distance and crosses it in three places. The NYSDOT indicated that 

New York Route 17 is involved in a project to upgrade it to an interstate in the coming years (designated 

as I-86). The FHWA and NYSDOT need to evaluate any project that could conflict with the future 

designation of the interstate. This includes the proposed location of Constitution’s pipeline adjacent to 
4-141 Socioeconomics

the current New York Route 17 and plans for maintenance, which may not be feasible once the route is 

upgraded to an interstate. In order to ensure that future plans to upgrade this road are fully considered, we 

recommend that:

• Constitution should consult with the NYSDOT and the FHWA regarding potential 

project impacts on the planned upgrade to NY Route 17. If necessary develop 

impact avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures, and file the results of the 

consultation and the measures prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period.

Construction activities associated with the expansion of Iroquois’ compressor station could result 

in short-term impacts on transportation infrastructure. These activities would be similar to those 

associated with the pipeline such as increased traffic flow due to movement of construction vehicles, 

personnel, and equipment; and potential damage to local roadways from heavy construction equipment. 

Iroquois committed to coordinate with the Town of Wright and Schoharie County to address any 

substantive impacts on roads as a result of its project. Given the relatively low numbers of workers that 

would commute, we do not expect traffic delays associated with construction of the compressor transfer 

station.

4.9.5 Property Values and Mortgages

We received comments regarding the potential effect of the project on property values. Specific 

issues mentioned include. devaluation of property if encumbered by a pipeline easement; being the 

responsible party for property taxes within a pipeline easement; paying increased landowner insurance 

premiums for project-related effects; and negative economic effects resulting from changes in land use 

(e.g. loss of timber production within the permanent right-of-way). As described in section 4.8.2, 

Constitution would acquire easements for both the temporary (construction) and permanent rights-of-way 

and compensate landowners for the easements, the limited use during construction, and any constructionrelated damages. 

We received comments regarding economic impacts on agriculture, timber production, and 

specialty crops. Construction of the pipeline project would impact approximately 437 acres of 

agricultural land, as discussed in section 4.8.1. No agricultural land would be affected by Iroquois’ 

project. Constitution would compensate landowners at current market value for any crop damage or 

measureable loss resulting from construction of the project. Compensation to landowners would be 

calculated by value of the crop loss at 100 percent the first year, 50 percent the second year, and 25 

percent the third year. Constitution has committed to continue to work with individual landowners to 

avoid impacts on specialty crops, such as organic farms or Christmas tree farms (section 4.8.4).

Approximately 1,025 acres of forested land would be impacted during construction of the 

projects. Constitution has retained local appraisers to review the route, and timber appraisals would be 

conducted on an individual property basis. Landowners would be compensated for any marketable timber 

that is removed from their property during construction. Iroquois already owns all of the land that would 

be affected by the compressor transfer station. Impacts on agricultural and forest lands are discussed in 

sections 4.5 and 4.8.

Land values are determined by appraisals which take into account objective characteristics of the 

property such as size, location, and any improvements. The potential impact of a pipeline on the value of 

a tract of land would be related to many tract-specific variables, including the size of the tract, the current 

value of the land, the utilities and services available or accessible, the current land use, and the values of 

the adjacent properties. However, subjective valuation is generally not considered in appraisals. That is 

not to say that the presence of a pipeline, and the restrictions associated with a pipeline easement, could 
Socioeconomics 4-142

not influence a potential buyer’s decision to purchase a property. If a buyer is looking for a property for a 

specific use, which the presence of the pipeline renders infeasible, then the buyer may decide to purchase 

another property more suitable to their objectives. For example, a buyer wanting to develop the land for a 

commercial property with sub-surface structures would likely not find the property suitable, but a farmer 

looking for land for grazing or additional cropland could find it suitable for their needs. This would be 

similar to other buyer-specific preferences that not all homes have, such as close proximity to shopping, 

relative seclusion, or access to high quality school districts. 

Several studies examined the effects of pipeline easements on sales and property values and 

evaluated the impact of natural gas pipelines on real estate. The first study (Diskin et al. in 2011) looked 

at the effects of natural gas transmission pipelines on residential values in Arizona. The study concluded 

that there was no identifiable systematic relationship between proximity to a pipeline and residential sale 

price or value. 

Studies conducted in 2008 by PGP Valuation Inc. (PGP 2008) for Palomar Gas Transmission, 

Inc. and by Ecowest for the Oregon LNG Project reached similar conclusions. Both studies evaluated the 

potential effect on property values of a natural gas pipeline that was constructed in 2003/2004 in 

northwestern Oregon, including along the western edge of the Portland metropolitan area. The PGP study 

found that:

• there was no measurable long-term impact on property values resulting from natural gas 

pipelines for the particular pipeline project studied; 

• interviews with buyers and brokers indicated no measurable impact on value or price; and 

• there was no trend in the data to suggest an extension of marketing periods (i.e., time 

while the property is on sale) for properties with gas pipeline easements.

The Ecowest study concluded that the pipeline had no statistically significant or economically 

significant impact on residential properties. The study also concluded that there was no relationship 

between proximity to the pipeline and sale price (Fruits 2008).

Another study (Hansen et al. 2006) analyzed property sales near a pipeline accident location in 

Washington State, using methodologies that considered proximity and persistence over time. This study 

noted a decline in property values following the incident. However, the effect was very localized, and 

declined as the distance from the affected pipeline increased. The effect also diminished over time in the 

years following the incident. 

We also researched comments received about the potential impact of installation of the pipeline 

upon the ability to obtain a mortgage or on mortgage rates. We interviewed staff at banks and mortgage 

companies, but could not confirm that impact would occur.

4.9.6 Insurance

We received comments regarding the potential for insurance premium adjustments or loss of 

coverage associated with a pipeline easement on a residential property. Specifically, commenters noted 

that they were told by their insurance company that either their property insurance coverage would be 

cancelled if a pipeline was installed on their property or that if they accepted compensation from the 

pipeline company, then their property would become uninsurable. Other commenters stated that their 

insurance premiums would rise to an unaffordable level if the pipeline was installed. To address these 

comments, we conducted independent research on the matter. 
4-143 Socioeconomics

The initial phase of our research involved calling insurance offices for a variety of agencies in the 

project area. We asked whether the presence of a utility crossing would change the terms of an existing 

or new residential insurance policy, which types of utilities may cause a change, how a policy might 

change, and what factors would influence a change in the policy terms, including the potential for a policy 

to be dropped completely. Results of this initial investigation suggested that the potential for a residential 

insurance policy to be affected could exist, but the extent of any action and corresponding corrective 

action would depend upon several factors including the terms of the individual land owner’s policy and 

the terms of the applicant’s own policy (in this case Constitution). Insurance company contacts were not 

able to speak directly to the potential factors that could cause a change in a policy (e.g. type of utility, 

proximity of the residence to the utility), or provide quantitative information on the potential change in a 

policy premium (in dollars or percent). 

The next phase of research involved identifying and writing to representatives from five major 

insurance companies (i.e. holding major market share in the United States and the project area). The goal 

of the written correspondence was to reach out to the corporate offices of insurance companies to obtain 

more definitive information on conditions under which a policy may be modified or dropped, specific 

factors used to evaluate the action, and what corrective action could be undertaken by the landowner or 

company to mitigate any change in a policy. The written correspondence included the questions posed in 

the calls to agents; a synopsis of our findings from conducting the calls; as well as follow-up questions 

seeking clarification on the plausibility of a change or dropped policy, details on potential corrective 

actions, as well specific scenarios or quantitative information. Despite repeated attempts at follow-up, to 

date only one response has been received and the contact stated that they could not provide the 

information we requested. This contact also shared our correspondence with the Insurance Information 

Institute, but they too were unable to assist us. 

As we have been unsuccessful in confirming exclusively under what conditions a landowner’s 

insurance policy could be changed as a result of a pipeline easement, and to mitigate for potential 

impacts, we recommend that:

• Constitution should file with the Secretary reports describing any documented 

pipeline-related complaints concerning landowners’ homeowner insurance policies 

and identifying how Constitution is coordinating with the affected party to mitigate 

any impacts associated with the complaints. During construction these reports 

should be included in Constitution’s weekly status reports (see Condition 7) and in 

quarterly reports for a 2 year period following in-service of the project. 

4.9.7 Economy and Tax Revenues

Construction and operation of the project would have a beneficial impact on local sales tax 

revenue. Table 4.9.7-1 provides the estimated payroll, cost of materials purchased locally, and projected 

sales tax revenues associated with project construction. Payroll taxes would also be collected from the 

workers employed on the projects. Constitution anticipates that its total payroll would be approximately 

$129.8 million during the construction phase ($26.8 million in Pennsylvania and $103.1 million in New 

York). Economic impacts due to construction of Iroquois’ project may be beneficial at the local and 

county level in the form of increased sales and payroll taxes. However, these impacts would be limited to 

the duration of the construction period. 
Socioeconomics 4-144

TABLE 4.9.7-1

Socioeconomic Impact Resulting from Construction and Operation of the Constitution Pipeline Project

State/County

Construction (in millions) Operation (in millions)

Construction Payroll

Cost of Materials 

Purchased

Property Taxes 

(Annual)

Pennsylvania $26.8 $7.4 $0.25

Susquehanna County $26.8 $7.4 $0.25

New York $103.1 $20.3 $12.7

Broome County $17.7 $4.9 $2.1

Chenango County $8.6 $2.4 $1.3

Delaware County $44.7 $12.3 $4.9

Schoharie County $32.1 $0.7 $4.4

Total for Project Area $129.9 $27.7 $12.95

____________________

Source: Center for Governmental Research 2013

Construction of the proposed pipeline project would have a short-term, beneficial effect in terms 

of increased payroll and local material purchases. Because about 25 percent of the workers are expected 

to be local, and non-local workers would temporarily relocate to the pipeline project vicinity, a substantial 

portion of the payroll likely would be spent with local vendors and businesses. While most of the 

materials for Constitution’s project construction would be purchased from national vendors, common 

supplies (e.g., stone and concrete) would likely be purchased from vendors in the project area. 

Construction of the pipeline project would also result in increased state and local sales tax revenues 

associated with the purchase of some construction materials, as well as goods and services, by the 

construction workforce. 

We do not expect the project to have any long-term negative economic impact. The pipeline 

would be installed underground, and any surface impacts, such as damaged roads, would be repaired. 

Once installed, the pipeline would not impede normal surface traffic or access to businesses, and most 

pre-construction property uses would be allowed. The long-term positive economic impacts from the 

proposed pipeline include an increase in annual property taxes ranging from $250 thousand per year in 

Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania to $4.9 million in Delaware County, New York. This increase in 

property taxes paid would benefit the local governments and their budgets annually for the life of 

Constitution’s project. Constitution would be responsible for any increase in valuation for property tax 

purposes resulting from operation of the pipeline project. The landowner would not bear responsibility 

for increased property taxes resulting from installation or operation of the pipeline. 

Operation of Iroquois’ project would result in $1.5 million in annual property taxes to the Town 

of Wright. These tax payments would be beyond those taxes already paid for the existing Wright 

Compressor Station. As the Town of Wright has a per capita income of $19,711 with 8.9% of the 

population living below the poverty line, this increase in property tax could have a substantial positive 

impact on the Town’s budget, and thereby the community that it serves. Moreover, the increase in annual 

property taxes would be a long-term positive impact on the local government. 
4-145 Socioeconomics

4.9.8 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 (EO 12898) on Environmental Justice recognizes the importance of using 

the NEPA process to identify and address, as appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse health 

or environmental effects of federal programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations. Consistent with EO 12898, the CEQ called on federal agencies to actively scrutinize 

the following issues with respect to environmental justice (CEQ 1997a):

• the racial and economic composition of affected communities;

• health-related issues that may amplify project effects on minority or low-income 

individuals; and

• public participation strategies, including community or tribal participation in the process.

The EPA’s Environmental Justice Policies focus on enhancing opportunities for residents to 

participate in decision making. The EPA (2011b) states that Environmental Justice involves meaningful 

involvement so that: “(1) potentially affected community residents have an appropriate opportunity to 

participate in decisions about a proposed activity that will affect their environment and/or health; (2) the 

public’s contributions can influence the regulatory agency’s decision; (3) the concerns of all participants 

involved will be considered in the decision-making process; and (4) the decision-makers seek out and 

facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected.” 

As discussed in section 1.3, there have been many opportunities for the public to comment on and 

provide input about the projects. Constitution and Iroquois met with many different stakeholders during 

the initial development of the route including local residents and affected landowners. These efforts 

included Constitution holding a number of open houses in the project area for the affected communities 

and local authorities. Constitution and Iroquois also established, and are maintaining, websites to share 

information about the projects with the public.

Constitution also used the FERC’s pre-filing process (section 1.3). One of the major goals of this 

process is to increase public awareness and encourage public input regarding every aspect of the project 

before an application is filed. As part of this process, FERC staff participated in all of Constitution’s 

open houses to receive input from the public about the pipeline project. Interested parties have had, and 

will continue to be given, opportunities to participate in the NEPA review process. To date, this included 

the opportunity to participate in FERC’s public scoping meetings within the area of the projects to 

identify concerns and issues that should be covered in the EIS, and the opportunity to submit written 

comments about the Projects to the FERC. Going forward, stakeholders will have the opportunity to 

review this draft EIS, participate in public meetings that will be held in the area of the projects, and 

provide comments directly to the FERC staff in person or in writing. All comments on the draft EIS will 

be responded to in the Final EIS. 

Guidance from the CEQ states that “minority populations should be identified where either: (a) 

the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population percentage 

of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general 

population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis” (CEQ 1997a). Minority populations, defined 

as Hispanics, Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders, African-Americans, and American Indians and 

Alaskan Natives persons, comprise less than 20 percent of the population in each of the counties that 

would be traversed by the projects, and those counties would comprise the region of influence for the 

projects (table 4.9.8-1). To further assess whether the minority population in the region of influence is 

substantially greater than the minority population in surrounding areas, we compared county-level 

demographics to the respective statewide proportions. The proportion of individual minority populations 
Socioeconomics 4-146

is less than respective state-level statistics in all of the counties that make up the region of influence for 

the projects (table 4.9.8-1). These statistics indicate that a disproportionate effect on minority populations 

is unlikely, according to the guidance set forth by the CEQ.

TABLE 4.9.8-1

Racial/Ethnic Statistics for the Area Surrounding the Projects

State/County

Racial/Ethnic Group (percent)

Persons of 

Hispanic or 

Latino Origin 

White Black (percent)

Native 

American 

and Alaska 

Native Asian

Native 

Hawaiian 

and Other 

Pacific 

Islander

Persons 

Reporting 

Two or 

More 

Races

Pennsylvania 83.5 11.4 0.3 3.0 0.1 1.7 6.1

Susquehanna County 98.3 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.8 1.6

New York 71.2 17.5 1.0 8.0 0.1 2.2 18.2

Broome County 88.5 5.2 0.2 3.6 0.1 2.4 3.6

Chenango County 97.0 0.8 0.4 0.5 <0.1 1.3 2.0

Delaware County 95.7 1.8 0.3 0.8 <0.1 1.3 3.3

Otsego County 94.9 2.0 0.2 1.3 <0.1 1.5 3.3

Schoharie County 96.3 1.3 0.3 0.8 <0.1 1.3 2.9

_____________________

Source: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/36025.html

The U.S. Census Bureau defines “low-income populations” as those living below the established 

poverty level. The U.S. Census Bureau also reports the percentage of county populations with an income 

below the poverty level, which is presented in table 4.9.8-2. In order to evaluate the potential for a lowincome population to be impacted disproportionately, we compared the poverty level rates for counties 

within the region of influence to those of their respective state levels.

TABLE 4.9.8-2

Economic Statistics for the Area Surrounding the Projects (Five-year Average: 2007-2011)

State/County

Median 

Household 

Incomea

Persons 

Below 

Povertya

(percent)

Households 

Receiving Cash 

Public Assistanceb

(percent)

Households Receiving 

Food Stamp/SNAP 

benefits in the past 12 

monthsb (percent)

Pennsylvania $51,016.00 12.4 3.4 10.1

Susquehanna County $46,473.00 11.3 2.2 8.4

New York $56,951.00 14.5 3.1 12.3

Broome County $45,619.00 16.2 3.7 11.5

Chenango County $44,662.00 13.9 1.9 12.7

Delaware County $43,554.00 14.1 2.2 8.4

Otsego County $45,334.00 16.4 1.5 8.4

Schoharie County $50,795.00 10.7 1.3 10.8

___________________

a http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/36025.html

b http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
4-147 Cultural Resources

The majority of the counties in the project area have poverty rates that are similar to or lower than 

the respective statewide levels, but two of the counties within the region of influence have poverty rates 

that are higher than the respective state levels (Broome County and Otsego County, New York). While 

these statistics are indicative of a potentially disproportionate effect on low-income communities, the 

county levels are only slightly higher than their respective state levels. Otsego County would be the 

location of a contractor yard, a portion of a permanent access road, and the possible location of a 

warehouse to accommodate the seven full-time operational staff. The pipeline would not cross this 

county. Given these factors, we conclude that the project would not have a disproportionate effect on 

low-income communities in Otsego County. Sanford is the only town proposed to be crossed by the 

pipeline in Broome County, although a contractor yard is proposed to be located in Deposit Village, 

which is also in Broome County. The U.S. Census Bureau reports poverty levels for Sanford and Deposit 

Village as 13.1 and 24.8 percent, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau 2013a). We conclude that the 

proposed project would not have a disproportionate effect on low-income communities in Sanford due to 

the lower than state-wide poverty level in that town. Because the contractor yard would be over 5 miles 

from the center of Deposit Village, we conclude that the project would not have a permanent or 

significant disproportionate effect on low-income communities in Deposit Village. Because the areas 

crossed by the project as a whole have generally smaller lower-income populations than the remainder of 

Pennsylvania and New York, the potential for disproportionate effects to low-income communities is low 

overall. 

As described above, Constitution’s project and Iroquois’ project would have negligible to minor 

negative impacts and minor to moderate positive impacts on socioeconomic characteristics and economies 

within the region of influence. As discussed throughout this EIS, potentially negative environmental 

effects associated with the projects would be minimized and/or mitigated, as applicable. Although the 

racial and economic composition of the counties traversed by the proposed projects shows some 

deviations from state-level statistics, there is no evidence that the projects would cause a disproportionate 

share of adverse environmental or socioeconomic impacts on any racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group. 

The primary health issues related to the proposed projects would be the risk associated with an 

unanticipated pipeline or compressor station failure. Section 4.12 discusses the localized risks to public 

safety that could result from a pipeline failure and describes how applicable safety regulations and 

standards would minimize the potential for these risks. Because the projects would generally traverse 

sparsely populated areas, the number of persons who would be at risk of injury due to a pipeline failure 

would be low; and there is no evidence that such risks would be disproportionately borne by any racial, 

ethnic, or socioeconomic group.

Construction of the projects would result in minor positive impacts due to increases in payroll 

taxes, purchases made by the workforce, and expenses associated with the acquisition of material goods 

and equipment. Operation of the projects would have a minor to moderate positive effect on the counties 

and local communities due to the increase to property taxes that would be collected. 

4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 USC 470), as amended, 

requires the FERC to take into account the effects of its undertakings (including the issuance of 

Certificates) on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 

and to provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment on the 

undertaking. Constitution and Iroquois, as non-federal parties, are assisting the FERC in meeting our 

obligations under Section 106 by preparing the necessary information, analyses, and recommendations as 

authorized by 36 CFR 800.2(a)(3). 
Cultural Resources 4-148

Construction and operation of the projects could potentially affect historic properties (that is, 

cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP). These historic properties could include 

prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, structures, or objects, as well as locations 

with traditional value to Native Americans or other groups. Historic properties generally must possess 

integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and must meet one 

or more of the criteria specified in 36 CFR 60.4. 

4.10.1 Constitution Pipeline Project

4.10.1.1 Cultural Resources Investigations

Constitution conducted Phase I cultural resources field survey for archaeological resources during 

2012 and 2013. The Phase I surveys conducted during 2012 examined a 600-foot-wide survey corridor 

along the proposed pipeline route and those conducted during 2013 examined a 300-foot-wide corridor. 

The survey corridors are sufficiently wide to encompass the pipeline construction right-of-way, associated 

extra workspace, MLVs, and pig launchers/receivers. 

As of October, 29 2013, Constitution had obtained landowner permission and conducted field 

surveys for approximately 76 percent of the length of the proposed pipeline route. Constitution has not 

completed Phase I surveys for meter stations, access roads, one contractor yard, cathodic protection 

systems, or other facilities outside the pipeline survey corridor. Phase II evaluation investigations at 

potentially NRHP-eligible archaeological sites that would be directly affected by the project are currently 

ongoing.

As of November 2013, Constitution had conducted historic aboveground resource surveys of all 

property parcels within or crossed by the survey corridor except for 10 parcels in New York for which 

access permission was not obtained and which could not be adequately examined from public rights-ofway. Constitution will conduct surveys of the remaining property parcels once access permission is 

obtained. Constitution has also conducted the preliminary assessment of effects of the proposed project 

on NRHP-eligible historic aboveground resources within the pipeline’s area of potential impacts. 

Historic aboveground resource surveys have not been completed for access roads, contractor 

yards, cathodic protection sites, or other ancillary facilities outside the survey corridor. Constitution also 

has not completed the analysis of visual effects from proposed aboveground facilities to historic 

aboveground resources pending completion of detailed project plans for these facilities.

The reports completed to date were submitted to the FERC, the PHMC, and the OPRHP for 

review. 

4.10.1.2 Results of Cultural Resource Investigations in Pennsylvania

Archaeological Sites

Constitution has identified 25 archaeological sites within the survey corridor of the proposed 

pipeline route. Eleven sites are historic, 1 site is a cemetery, and 13 sites consist of one or more stone 

piles each. It is unclear whether the stone piles are associated with pre-contact Native American 

occupation of the area or with historic land use activity. Constitution also identified a cemetery along a 

proposed access road corridor. 
4-149 Cultural Resources

One historic site and six stone pile sites are within the currently proposed pipeline construction 

right-of-way and one cemetery is within a proposed access road corridor (table 4.10.1-1) (URS 

Corporation 2013a). These resources would be impacted by the project as currently proposed.

TABLE 4.10.1-1

Archaeological Sites Within the Proposed Area of Direct Impact in Pennsylvaniaa

Site No.

Temporary 

No.

Temporal 

Period Site Type

Constitution 

Recommended 

NRHP Evaluation

PHMC NRHP 

Recommendation

Constitution

Recommended 

Future Action

-- PASu44-SP1 

to SP22

Unknown Stone Piles Culturally sensitive 

area

Pending Mitigationb

36SQ169 PASu45-Site1 Historic Domestic Potentially eligible Potentially eligible Phase II Testing 

-- PASu218-SP1 

to SP6

Unknown Stone Piles Culturally sensitive 

area

Pending Alignment shift to 

avoid site 

-- PASu218-SP7 

to SP8

Unknown Stone Piles Culturally sensitive 

area

Pending Alignment shift to 

avoid site

Pending PASu-TAR1-

Cemetery

Historic Cemetery Culturally sensitive 

area

Avoid Access road 

modification to 

avoid cemetery

-- PASu51-SP1 

to SP3

Unknown Stone Piles Culturally sensitive 

area

Pending Alignment shift to 

avoid site

-- PASu236-SP1 

to SP2

Unknown Stone Piles Culturally sensitive 

area

Pending Mitigationc

-- PASu31-SP1 

to SP3

Unknown Stone Piles Culturally sensitive 

area

No further work Alignment shift to 

avoid site

____________________

a The PHMC classifies stone pile sites as non-site cultural resources; it does not assign official site numbers to these 

resources or make recommendations on their NRHP eligibility.

b Five of 22 stone piles would be within the area of direct impact.

c One of two stone piles would be within the area of direct impact.

Constitution evaluated the historic site (Site 36SQ169) as potentially eligible for listing in the 

NRHP. The PHMC agrees with this recommendation. Constitution is conducting Phase II investigations 

to formally evaluate the site. If the investigations indicate that the site is eligible for listing in the NRHP, 

Constitution would consider modifications to the project to avoid the site. If avoidance is not feasible due 

to terrain or construction constraints, further investigations would be required to mitigate any adverse 

effects that would occur. 

Constitution has not made recommendations on the NRHP eligibility of the cemetery or stone pile 

sites, but has provisionally designated them “culturally sensitive.” The PHMC has not commented on the 

eligibility status of the cemetery. The PHMC considers the stone pile sites to be non-site cultural 

resources and does not comment on their NRHP-eligibility status. Constitution plans to modify the 

proposed access road to avoid the cemetery, and to modify the pipeline alignment to avoid four of the six 

stone pile sites. Portions of two stone pile sites cannot be completely avoided due to terrain and 

construction constraints. Five of 22 stone piles at one site (Site PASu44-SP1 to SP22) and 1 of 2 stone 

piles at another site (Site PASu236-SP1 to SP2) would be within the pipeline construction right-of-way 

and would be destroyed. Constitution is considering measures to mitigate impacts on these sites. Based 

on prior discussions between Constitution and the Oneida Nation, these measures could potentially 

involve archaeological documentation of the stone piles to be impacted complemented by further 

contextual research of regional stone pile sites.
Cultural Resources 4-150

Constitution has not completed surveys for archaeological resources for property parcels for 

which access permission has not been granted, aboveground facilities, access roads, contractor yards, or 

other facilities or extra workspace outside the survey corridor.

Historic Aboveground Resources

Constitution has identified 30 historic aboveground resources within the area of impact for the 

proposed pipeline route in Pennsylvania (Zeoli 2013a). The PHMC has recommended that these historic 

aboveground resources are not eligible for listing in the NRHP. We concur. The pipeline would not 

affect any of these resources. 

Two previously recorded historic railroads would also be crossed by Constitution’s project. 

These railroads remain unevaluated. The PHMC determined that Constitution would not be required to 

document or evaluate railroads as historic aboveground resources for the project, but they would be 

required to consult with the PHMC to address potential direct impacts on existing railroad-related 

features. Constitution intends to cross underneath all rail beds by means of conventional bores, thereby 

avoiding direct impacts.

Aboveground historic resources surveys for aboveground facilities, access roads, contractor 

yards, or other facilities or extra workspace outside the survey corridor are pending.

4.10.1.3 Results of Cultural Resource Investigations in New York

Archaeological Sites

Constitution has identified 94 archaeological sites within the New York portion of the project. 

Thirty-two sites are prehistoric, 27 sites are historic, 1 site is both prehistoric and historic, 3 sites are 

cemeteries, and 31 sites consist of one or more stone piles each. It is unclear whether the stone piles are 

associated with pre-contact Native American occupation of the area or with historic land use activity. 

Thirty-six sites fall within the currently proposed pipeline construction right-of-way and one site 

is in the area of potential impact at the proposed Schoharie County contractor yard (table 4.10.1-2) (URS 

Corporation 2013b). These sites would be impacted by the project as currently proposed and are 

comprised of 15 prehistoric sites, 10 historic sites, 1 site that is both prehistoric and historic, and 11 sites 

that consist of stone piles. Constitution has recommended 16 of these sites as potentially eligible for 

listing in the NRHP and 10 sites as not eligible. Constitution has not made recommendations on the 

NRHP eligibility of the stone pile sites, but has provisionally designated them “culturally sensitive.” The 

OPRHP agrees with these recommendations except that it recommends additional testing at three sites 

before commenting on their eligibility. 

Constitution plans to modify the project to avoid five sites recommended as potentially eligible 

by shifting the pipeline alignment (one site), horizontal directional drilling (HDD) (one site), modification 

of the Schoharie County contractor yard (one site), and more precisely defining site boundaries and 

installing protective barriers (two sites). Constitution plans to perform Phase II testing to formally 

evaluate the NRHP eligibility of the other 11 sites presently recommended potentially eligible. If Phase II 

testing were to indicate any of these sites are eligible for listing in the NRHP, Constitution would 

consider modifications to the project to avoid them. If they could not be avoided due to terrain or 

construction constraints, further investigations would be required to mitigate any adverse effects that 

would occur. The OPRHP agrees with these recommendations.
4-151 Cultural Resources

TABLE 4.10.1-2

Archaeological Sites Within the Proposed Area of Direct Impact in New York

Site No.

Temporary 

No.

Temporal 

Period Site Type

Constitution 

Recommended 

NRHP 

Evaluation

OPRHP NRHP 

Recommendation

Constitution 

Recommended 

Future Action

A00712.000035 NYBr202-

Site1

Historic Domestic Potentially 

Eligible

Potentially Eligible Alignment shift 

to avoid site 

A00712.000040 NYBr22-

Site1

Historic Domestic Potentially 

Eligible

Potentially Eligible Refine site 

boundary/install 

protective 

barrier to avoid

A00712.000036 NYBr205-

Site1

Historic Agricultural Potentially 

Eligible

Potentially Eligible Refine site 

boundary/install 

protective 

barrier to avoid

-- NYBr25-

Site1

Prehistoric Isolate Not Eligible Not Eligible No further work

A00712.000045 NYBr28-

Site2

Historic Trash Scatter Not Eligible Not Eligible No further work

A00712.000037 NYBr213-

Site1

Prehistoric Open Potentially 

Eligible

Potentially Eligible Phase II testing 

A00712.000048 NYBr31-

Site1

Historic Agricultural Not Eligible Not Eligible No further work

-- NYBr32-

Site1

Prehistoric Isolate Not Eligible Not Eligible No further work

A00712.000038 NYBr220-

SP1

Unknown Stone Pile Culturally 

sensitive area

Culturally sensitive 

area

Alignment shift 

to avoid site 

A00712.000039 NYBr220-

SP2

Unknown Stone Pile Culturally 

sensitive area

Culturally sensitive 

area

Alignment shift 

to avoid site 

A02517.000314 NYDe06-

Site1

Prehistoric Open Not Eligible Not Eligible No further work

A02517.000316 NYDe07-

Site2

Historic Domestic Potentially 

Eligible

Potentially Eligible Avoidance 

through HDD 

being evaluated

A02517.000326 NYDe07-

SP1 & 

SP19 to 

SP20

Unknown Stone Pile Culturally 

sensitive area

Culturally sensitive 

area

Avoidance 

through HDD 

being evaluated

A02517.000315 NYDe07-

Site1

Historic Unknown Not Eligible Not Eligible No further work

A02517.000323 NYDe15-

Site2

Prehistoric Open Not Eligible Needs further 

testing

--

A02507.000155 NYDe29-

SP1 to 

SP4

Unknown Stone Piles Culturally 

sensitive area

Culturally sensitive 

area

Alignment shift 

to avoid site 

A02504.000051 NYDe31-

SP1

Unknown Stone Piles Culturally 

sensitive area

Culturally sensitive 

area

Alignment shift 

to avoid site

A02504.000048 NYDe231-

Site1

Prehistoric Open Potentially 

Eligible

Potentially Eligible Phase II testing 

A02504.000053 NYDe39-

SP2 to 

SP4

Unknown Stone Piles Culturally 

sensitive area

Culturally sensitive 

area

Workspace 

modification to 

avoid site
Cultural Resources 4-152

TABLE 4.10.1-2

Archaeological Sites Within the Proposed Area of Direct Impact in New York

Site No.

Temporary 

No.

Temporal 

Period Site Type

Constitution 

Recommended 

NRHP 

Evaluation

OPRHP NRHP 

Recommendation

Constitution 

Recommended 

Future Action

A02504.000049 NYDe233-

SP1 & SP2

Unknown Stone Piles Culturally 

sensitive area

Culturally sensitive 

area

Alignment shift 

to avoid site

A02504.000054 NYDe44-

SP1 to 

SP4

Unknown Stone Piles Culturally 

sensitive area

Culturally sensitive 

area

Mitigation a

A02504.000050 NYDe46-

SP1

Unknown Stone Piles Culturally 

sensitive area

Culturally sensitive 

area

Alignment shift 

to avoid site

Pending NYSc202-

SP1 to 

SP2

Unknown Stone Piles Culturally 

sensitive area

Culturally sensitive 

area

Alignment shift 

to avoid site

A09509.000047 NYSc208-

Site 1

Historic Domestic Not Eligible Not Eligible No further work

A09515.000047 NYSc62-

SP8

Unknown Stone Piles Culturally 

sensitive area

Culturally sensitive 

area

Alignment shift 

to avoid site

A09511.000046 NYSc79-

Site1

Historic Domestic Potentially 

Eligible

Potentially Eligible Phase II testing

A09511.000045 NYSc300-

Site1

Prehistoric Open Potentially 

Eligible

Potentially Eligible Modification of 

contractor yard 

to avoid site

A09512.000227 NYSc232-

Site1

Prehistoric Open Potentially 

Eligible

Potentially Eligible Phase II testing

A09512.000232 NYSc61-

Site1

Prehistoric Open Not Eligible Needs further 

testing

--

A09512.000233 NYSc66-

Site1

Historic Domestic Potentially 

Eligible

Potentially Eligible Phase II testing

A09512.000234 NYSc67-

Site1

Prehistoric Open Potentially 

Eligible

Potentially Eligible Phase II testing

A09512.000235 NYSc68-

Site1

Historic/ 

Prehistoric

Domestic/ Open Potentially 

Eligible

Potentially Eligible Phase II testing

A09512.000237 NYSc68-

Site3

Prehistoric Open Potentially 

Eligible

Potentially Eligible Phase II testing

A09512.000228 NYSc235-

Site1

Prehistoric Open Potentially 

Eligible

Potentially Eligible Phase II testing

A09512.000229 NYSc235-

Site2

Prehistoric Open Potentially 

Eligible

Potentially Eligible Phase II testing

A09512.000230 NYSc101-

Site1

Prehistoric Open Potentially 

Eligible

Potentially Eligible Phase II testing

A09512.000238 NYSc75-

Site1

Prehistoric Open Not Eligible Needs further 

testing

--

_____________________

a One of four stone piles would be within the area of direct impact; the right-of-way would be modified to avoid another 

stone pile.

Constitution plans to modify the project to avoid 10 stone pile sites classified as culturally 

sensitive by shifting the pipeline alignment (eight sites), HDD (one site), and modifying a workspace (one 

site). Portions of one stone pile site cannot be completely avoided due to terrain and construction 

constraints. One of four stone piles at that site would be within the pipeline construction right-of-way and 
4-153 Cultural Resources

would be destroyed. Constitution is considering measures to mitigate impacts on this stone pile. Based 

on prior discussions between Constitution and the Oneida Nation, these measures could potentially 

involve archaeological documentation of the stone pile to be affected complemented by further contextual 

research of regional stone pile sites. The OPRHP agrees with these recommendations.

If after consultation with the OPRHP we determine that the other 10 sites within the construction 

right-of-way are not eligible for listing in the NRHP, the project would not affect those sites and no 

further work would be required. These consist of six prehistoric sites and four historic sites. The OPRHP 

has requested additional testing for three of the prehistoric sites.

Constitution has not completed surveys for archaeological resources for property parcels for 

which access permission has not been granted, aboveground facilities, access roads, contractor yards, or 

other facilities or extra workspace outside the survey corridor. It has also not provided the results of deep 

testing of the Schoharie Creek pipeline crossing. The OPRHP has also requested specific site protection 

plans for each archaeological site and stone pile to be avoided once project design has been finalized.

Historic Aboveground Resources

Constitution has identified 108 historic aboveground resources within the survey corridor for the 

New York portion of the proposed pipeline route (Zeoli 2013b). The OPRHP has recommended that 15 

of these historic aboveground resources (all within the proposed area of impact) are eligible for listing in 

the NRHP and that 93 resources are not eligible. We concur. Constitution recommends that 2 NRHPeligible properties would be adversely affected by the project and that the other 13 NRHP-eligible 

properties would not be adversely affected (table 4.10.1-3). As of November 2013, the OPRHP had not 

commented on these assessments of effect. Constitution would implement measures to avoid, minimize, 

or mitigate any anticipated adverse effects to eligible historic aboveground resources. Historic 

aboveground resources that are determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP would not be affected by 

the project.

Constitution has not completed surveys for historic aboveground resources for 10 parcels for 

which access permission has not been granted, aboveground facilities, access roads, contractor yards, or 

other facilities or extra workspace outside the survey corridor. Constitution has also not completed 

analysis of visual impacts on historic aboveground resources pending the completion of project plans. 
Cultural Resources 4-154

TABLE 4.10.1-3

NRHP-Eligible Historic Aboveground Resources Within the Proposed Area of Impact in New York

Survey No. Location Resource Type Preliminary 

Assessment of Effect

16059 504 Clark Rd., Sanford, NY Farmstead No adverse effect

4028 13709 County Hwy. 23,Sidney, NY Farmstead No adverse effect

4031 1381 Crane Hill Rd., Sidney, NY Farm Adverse effect

4092 10905 and 12679 State Hwy. 357, Franklin, NY Farm No adverse effect

4094 State Hwy. 357, Franklin, NY Farm No adverse effect

4095 13305 State Hwy. 357, Franklin, NY Farmstead No adverse effect

4142.001 2424 MacDougall Rd., Davenport, NY Farmstead-School No adverse effect

6149 713 Schoharie Hill Rd., Schoharie, NY Farm No adverse effect

6149.001 680 Schoharie Hill Rd., Schoharie, NY Farm No adverse effect

21015.002 245 Keyser Rd., Middleburgh, NY Farmstead No adverse effect

21017 3354 SR 145, Middleburgh, NY Farm Adverse effect

22005 322 Beards Hollow Rd., Summit, NY Residential No adverse effect

22006 429 Beards Hollow Rd., Summit, NY Farmstead No adverse effect

23021.002 239 SR 30A, Schoharie, NY Farmstead No adverse effect

23038 219 Westfall Rd., Wright, NY Farmstead No adverse effect

4.10.1.4 Native American Consultation

On April 5, 2102, Constitution initiated Native American consultation by sending a letter to 18

Indian tribes providing them an opportunity to comment on the project. These letters were sent to 15

federally recognized Indian tribes (Absentee-Shawnee Indian Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Cayuga 

Nation, Delaware Nation, Delaware Tribe of Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Oneida 

Nation of New York, Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, Onondaga Nation, Seneca Nation of Indians, 

Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, Shawnee Tribe, St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York, 

Tonawanda Band of Seneca, Stockbridge-Munsee Band of the Mohican Nation of Wisconsin and 

Tuscarora Nation) and three tribes that are not federally recognized (Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of 

New Jersey, New Jersey Sand Hill Band of Lenape and Cherokee Indians, and the Sand Hill Indians).

As of November 2013, Constitution had received responses from six tribes. The Delaware Tribe 

of Indians, Oneida Nation of New York, St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York, StockbridgeMunsee Band of the Mohican Nation of Wisconsin, and New Jersey Sand Hill Band of Lenape and 

Cherokee Indians requested to consult on the project and to review cultural resources reports. The 

Shawnee Tribe requested to be contacted if archaeological materials are discovered. No response has 

been received from nine tribes and the letter addressed to the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New 

Jersey was returned unopened.

A field meeting was held among representatives of the Oneida Nation, the OPRHP, and 

Constitution on May 31, 2012. The purpose of the meeting was to allow the Oneida Nation Historic 

Resources Specialist to familiarize Constitution and the OPRHP with stone piles that the Oneida Nation 

believes may be Native American in origin. Constitution agreed to record the stone piles as 

archaeological resources. Constitution held a follow up meeting with the Oneida Nation on October 9, 

2012, to discuss the stone features that had been recorded to that time. On April 9, 2013, representatives 
4-155 Cultural Resources

of the Oneida Nation, the OPRHP, and Constitution met in the field to examine some of the 

archaeological sites identified to date and to discuss the possible scope of future evaluation and treatment. 

During June 2012, the St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York also requested to meet with 

Constitution representatives to discuss the project.

Constitution has not filed any documentation indicating that they have provided copies of the 

cultural resources reports to the federally-recognized tribes that requested them. We will defer making 

any determinations of eligibility and effect for any archaeological sites until we have written confirmation 

that these tribes have had an opportunity to review and comment on the reports.

On September 7, 2012, the FERC sent copies of the NOI to the federally recognized tribes. On 

September 26, 2012, the FERC sent letters to the tribes requesting comments on Constitution’s project 

and encouraging attendance at the FERC’s public scoping meetings. The Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe 

responded on November 27, 2012 that while the Constitution project would be within Mohican territory, 

cultural sites within the project areas were not likely. The Oneida Nation requested to be a consulting 

party in their response on November 16, 2012. As of November 2013, no other responses have been 

received.

4.10.2 Wright Interconnect Project

4.10.2.1 Cultural Resources Investigations

Iroquois conducted a Phase I cultural resources field survey for archaeological resources during 

2013 (Hartgen Archeological Associates Inc. 2013). The Phase I survey examined three irregularly 

shaped parcels outside the existing fenced compressor station yard within the 53-acre property owned by 

Iroquois at the existing Wright Compressor Station. Iroquois also documented a small additional area 

surveyed during 2006 and 2007 for which the results were not previously fully reported or reviewed. 

Portions of the area proposed for use during the current project have been previously surveyed and were 

not resurveyed for the current project. 

4.10.2.2 Results of Cultural Resource Investigations

Archaeological Sites

Iroquois identified a single archaeological site during its Phase I survey. The site is a small 

historic trash scatter that would potentially be impacted by the proposed compressor modification project. 

Iroquois recommends that the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP. The OPRHP concluded that no 

archaeological sites would be affected as a result of Iroquois’ project. We concur.

Historic Aboveground Resources

The records search identified three previously recorded historic aboveground resources within 1 

mile of Iroquois’ project. One of those resources has been determined as not eligible for listing in the 

NRHP. The other two resources remain unevaluated. Both are 19th-century farmhouses. Iroquois 

concluded that the proposed modifications to the existing Wright Compressor Station would not be 

visible from one resource and would not have a significant additional impact on the second resource. We 

concur.
Cultural Resources 4-156

4.10.2.3 Native American Consultation

Iroquois previously consulted with 10 federally recognized tribes during 2007 for its proposed 

08/09 Expansion Project (Expansion Project CP07-457). The Expansion Project included pipeline 

looping within and adjacent to the existing compressor station as well as modifications to the compressor 

station. The tribes consulted included the Cayuga Nation of New York, Mashantucket Pequot Tribal 

Nation, Mohegan Tribe, Oneida Indian Nation of New York, Onondaga Nation of New York, Seneca 

Nation of New York, St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York, Stockbridge-Munsee Band of the 

Mohican Indians, Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York, and Tuscarora Nation of New York. 

Only the Tuscarora Nation of New York indicated that the portion of the Expansion Project within and 

adjacent to the compressor facilities was within the lands used by the ancestral Tuscarora Nation but they 

had no comments on the project or the FERC Environmental Assessment for the Expansion Project. 

The FERC sent copies of the NOI to the tribes on July 10, 2013. The NOI requested comments 

on the proposed compressor facility modifications and invited attendance at the FERC’s public scoping 

meetings. We have not received a response to our NOI from any of the tribes.

4.10.3 Unanticipated Discovery Plans

The Applicants prepared state-specific plans for unanticipated discoveries that would be 

implemented in the event that cultural resources or human remains are encountered during construction. 

The plans provide for the notification of interested parties, including Indian tribes, in the event of any 

discovery. We requested revisions to the plans which the Applicants made and resubmitted. We find the 

revised plans to be acceptable.

4.10.4 General Impacts and Mitigation

Construction and operation of the pipeline and associated facilities could affect NRHP-eligible 

archaeological or historic aboveground resources. Direct effects could include destruction or damage to 

all, or a portion of an archaeological site, or alteration or removal of a historic aboveground resource. 

Indirect effects could include the introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that affect the 

setting or character of a historic aboveground resource. If NRHP-eligible resources are identified which 

cannot be avoided, Constitution would prepare treatment plans for review and approval by the appropriate 

parties, including the FERC, PHMC or the OPRHP, and tribes. The FERC would afford the ACHP an 

opportunity to comment in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6. Implementation of a treatment plan would 

only occur after certification of the projects (if they are reviewed and found acceptable by the 

Commission) and the FERC provides written notification to proceed.

One of Constitution’s proposed HDD sites is located within a potentially eligible historic site. 

Constitution is currently considering adjustment of the HDD exit point to avoid all potential impacts on

the site. However, this project modification has not yet been finalized. If it is determined that the site is 

eligible, Constitution would be required to either adjust the workspace to avoid potential impacts or 

provide mitigation. 

To ensure that required cultural resources studies and consultation are completed for all proposed 

project components and the FERC’s responsibilities under Section 106 of the NHPA are met, we 

recommend that: 

• Constitution should not begin implementation of any treatment plans/measures 

(including archaeological data recovery); construction of facilities; or use of staging, 

storage, or temporary work areas and new or to-be-improved access roads until:
4-157 Air Quality And Noise

a. Constitution files with the Secretary outstanding cultural resources survey 

and evaluation reports, any necessary treatment plans, and the PHMC’s and 

OPRHP’s comments, as appropriate, on the reports and plans;

b. Constitution provides documentation that it has provided cultural resources 

reports to the Native American Tribes which have requested them;

c. the ACHP is provided an opportunity to comment on the undertaking if 

historic properties would be adversely affected; and

d. the FERC staff reviews and the Director of OEP approves all cultural 

resources survey reports and plans, and notifies Constitution in writing that 

treatment plans/mitigation measures may be implemented or construction 

may proceed. 

All material filed with the Secretary containing location, character, and ownership 

information about cultural resources must have the cover and any relevant pages 

therein clearly labeled in bold lettering: “CONTAINS PRIVILEGED 

INFORMATION - DO NOT RELEASE.”

4.11 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE

4.11.1 Air Quality

Air quality would be affected by both construction and operation of the pipeline and facilities 

associated with Constitution’s and Iroquois’ projects. Iroquois would construct a compressor facility in 

the Town of Wright, Schoharie County, New York, which would facilitate natural gas deliveries from 

Constitution’s project into the Iroquois and Tennessee Gas Pipeline (TGP) systems. This section 

describes the potential effects related to air quality that may result from implementation of the projects. 

In addition, existing laws and regulations relevant to air quality are described. 

4.11.1.1 Existing Air Quality

The 1970 Clean Air Act, as amended in 1997 and 1990 (CAA), was enacted by Congress to 

protect the public from the adverse effects of air pollution. The EPA has developed National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect human health and welfare. Primary standards protect human 

health, including the health of “sensitive” populations, such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. 

Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, 

damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. NAAQS have been developed for sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), particulate matter (PM) with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), PM with a diameter of 2.5 

microns or less (PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), and lead and are 

listed as a concentration level based on an averaging period. Ozone, unlike the other substances for 

which NAAQS have been established, is not a pollutant emitted into the air. It is, however, formed near 

ground level as a result of a chemical reaction between oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight. Subsequently, emissions of NOX and VOCs are regulated 

by the EPA as they are considered “precursors” to the formation of ozone. 

The current NAAQS are listed in table 4.11.1-1. 
Air Quality And Noise 4-158

TABLE 4.11.1-1

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Averaging Period

NAAQS

Primary Secondary

SO2

Annuala,b 0.03 ppm

80 μg/m3 --

24-hourb,c 0.14 ppm

365 μg/m3 --

3-hourc -- 0.5 ppm

1,300 μg/m3

1-hourd,e 75 ppb

PM10 24-hourf 150 μg/m3 150 μg/m3

PM2.5

Annualg 12.0 μg/m3 15.0 μg/m3

24-hourh 35 μg/m3 35 μg/m3

NO2

Annuala 0.053 ppm (53 ppb)

100 μg/m3

0.053 ppm (53 ppb)

100 μg/m3

1-houri 100 ppb --

CO

8-hourc 9 ppm

10,000 μg/m3 --

1-hourc 35 ppm

40,000 μg/m3 --

O3 (2008 Standard) 8-hourj,k 0.075 ppm 0.075 ppm

O3 (1997 Standard) 8-hourj,l 0.080 ppm 0.080 ppm

O3 1-hourm,n 0.12 ppm 0.12 ppm

Pb

Rolling 3-montha 0.15 μg/m3 0.15 μg/m3

3-montha 1.5 μg/m3 1.5 μg/m3
4-159 Air Quality And Noise

TABLE 4.11.1-1 (continued)

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Averaging Period

NAAQS

Primary Secondary

____________________

a Not to be exceeded.

b The 24-hour and annual average primary standards for SO2 will be revoked.

c Not to be exceeded more than once per year.

d Compliance based on 3-year average of 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an 

area.

e The 1-hour SO2 standard was effective August 23, 2010.

f Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years.

g Compliance based on 3-year average of weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations at community-oriented monitors.

h Compliance based on 3-year average of 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor 

within an area.

i Compliance based on 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor 

within an area.

j Compliance based on 3-year average of fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured 

at each monitor within an area.

k The EPA is currently reconsidering the 8-hour ozone standard set in March 2008.

l The 1997 8-hour ozone standard and associated implementation rules remain in place as the transition to the 2008 

standard occurs.

m Maximum 1-hour daily average not to be exceeded more than 1 day per calendar year on average.

n The 1-hour ozone standard has been revoked in all areas in which project activities would occur.

O3 = ozone

Pb = lead

ppm = parts per million by volume

ppb = parts per billion by volume

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

Source: EPA 2013d

While states can promulgate more stringent standards than the NAAQS, both the PADEP and the 

NYSDEC have adopted all of the NAAQS as promulgated by the EPA. 

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) can occur in the atmosphere naturally and as a result of human 

activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels. GHGs such as CH4, CO2, N2O, and various fluorinated 

gases trap heat in the atmosphere and are the primary drivers of the increase in global mean temperature, 

known as global warming. GHGs produced by fossil fuel combustion include carbon dioxide (CO2), 

methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). GHG emissions are typically expressed in terms of carbon 

dioxide equivalents (CO2e) where the potential of each gas to increase heating in the atmosphere is 

expressed as a multiple of the heating potential of CO2, termed its global warming potential (GWP). Thus

CO2 has a GWP of 1. In comparison CH4 has a GWP of 25, and N2O has a GWP of 2984

.

Air quality control regions (AQCRs) are federally-designated areas with uniform air quality and 

where federal ambient air quality standards must be met. AQCRs were established by EPA and local 

 4 On November 29, 2013 the EPA revised GWPs for GHGs to reflect more accurate GWPs from the 

Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report to better characterize the climate 

impacts of individual GHGs and to ensure continued consistency with other U.S. climate programs, including 

the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. More information is available in Volume 78 of 

the Federal Register, Issue 230.
Air Quality And Noise 4-160

agencies in accordance with Section 107 of the CAA as a means to implement the CAA and comply with 

the NAAQS through State Implementation Plans. Each AQCR develops an implementation plan for how 

ambient air quality standards would be achieved and maintained. Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania is 

within the Northeast Pennsylvania – Upper Delaware Valley Interstate AQCR; Broome, Chenango, 

Otsego, and Delaware Counties, New York are within the Southern Tier East Intrastate AQCR; and 

Schoharie County, New York is within the Hudson Valley Intrastate AQCR.

The EPA designates an attainment status for each area based on whether or not the area meets the 

NAAQS for criteria pollutants. Areas meeting the NAAQS are designated as attainment, while those that 

do not meet the NAAQS are considered as nonattainment. Areas which lack sufficient data to determine 

attainment are designated as unclassified. Areas previously designated as nonattainment that have since 

reached attainment are considered maintenance areas.

All areas for the two projects are designated as attainment or unclassified of the NAAQS with the 

exception of ozone. As Pennsylvania and New York are included in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), 

the area is treated as moderate ozone nonattainment for VOCs and NOX for New Source Review (NSR) 

permitting activities (EPA 2013e).

The majority of operational emissions from the two projects collectively would result from 

Iroquois’ project. Air quality monitoring data, presented in table 4.11.1-2, characterizes ambient air 

quality conditions near the existing Wright Compressor Station. Data shows compliance with all ambient 

air quality standards.

TABLE 4.11.1-2

Wright Compressor Station Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Dataa

Pollutant Averaging Period

Maximum 

Concentration Percent of NAAQS

SO2

b 1-hour 0.009 ppm 12

3-hour NM NA

24-hour 0.003 ppm 2.1

Annual NM NA

PM10c 24-hour 18.0 μg/m3 12

PM2.5b 24-hour 18.0 μg/m3 51.4

Annual 7.0 μg/m3 50.7

NO2

d 1-hour 0.04 ppm 40.0

Annual NM NA

COb 1-hour 1.1 ppm 3.1

8-hour 0.7 ppm 7.8

Pbd,e 3-month 0.063 μg/m3 42.0

O3

b 1-hour 0.09 ppm 75.0

8-hour 0.073 ppm 97.3
4-161 Air Quality And Noise

TABLE 4.11.1-2 (continued)

Wright Compressor Station Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Dataa

Pollutant Averaging Period

Maximum 

Concentration Percent of NAAQS

____________________

a EPA 2012. Since air monitors are not located in the Schoharie County project area, these 2012 values are from Albany 

County sites, except as noted below. 

b Site 360010012, Loudonville Reservoir, Albany, NY 

c Site 360337003, Hogansburg, Franklin County, NY

d Site 360713001, Ball Corporation, Wallkill, Orange County, NY

e 3-month average monitoring values currently are not available. The tabulated value represents a maximum 24-hour 

value. 

ppm = parts per million by volume

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

NM = not monitored in the State of New York

NA = not applicable

4.11.1.2 Air Quality Regulatory Requirements

The CAA, 42 USC 7401, amended in 1977 and 1990 and codified at 40 CFR 50-99, comprises 

the basic federal statute and regulation governing air pollution. The provisions of the CAA that are 

potentially relevant to the proposed projects include the following:

• Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review;

• Federal Class I Area Protection;

• Title V Permitting;

• Federal Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Regulations;

• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants;

• New Source Performance Standards;

• Clean Air Act General Conformity; and 

• State Air Quality Regulations.

The majority of emissions associated with Constitution’s project would be temporary, resulting 

from construction activities, therefore the only applicable federal regulation is the CAA’s general 

conformity rule. 

Iroquois’ compressor facility would result in emissions from construction as well as operation 

activities, therefore the federal and state regulations are discussed below.

Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review 

NSR refers to the pre-construction permitting programs under Parts C and D of the CAA that 

must be satisfied before construction can begin on new major sources or major modifications are made to 

existing major sources located in attainment or unclassified areas. A Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) review applies to new major sources or major modifications of existing major 

sources located in an attainment area. This review process is intended to prevent new air emission 

sources from causing existing air quality to deteriorate beyond acceptable levels as codified in the federal 
Air Quality And Noise 4-162

regulations. For new or modified major sources located in non-attainment areas, the Non-attainment New 

Source Review (NNSR) program is implemented for the pollutants for which the area is classified as nonattainment. 

The PSD regulations apply to proposed new major sources or major modifications to existing 

major sources. The PSD regulations (40 CFR 52.21) define a major source as any source type belonging 

to a list of named source categories that emit or have the potential-to-emit (PTE) 100 tons per year (tpy) 

or more of any regulated pollutant or, for any source not on the list of named source categories, a PTE of 

any regulated pollutant equal to or greater than 250 tpy. Modifications to existing facilities have lower 

pollutant thresholds, known as significant emission rates (100 tpy for CO; 40 tpy for NOX, VOCs, and 

SO2 [each]; 15 tpy for PM10; and 10 tpy for PM2.5), above which PSD review is triggered. The projects 

would not include facilities or operations included on the list of named source categories to which the 

100-tpy trigger applies; therefore, the 250-tpy threshold applies.

The Wright Compressor Station is located in the Northeast OTR and, therefore, a more stringent 

review must be performed to address NNSR applicability for ozone pollutant precursors (NOx and VOC) 

and PSD applicability reviews for the pollutants in attainment (CO, PM10, PM2.5, and SO2). The facility 

currently exists as a minor source under the NNSR program because VOC and NOx emissions are below 

their respective major source thresholds. The facility is also currently a minor source with respect to the 

PSD program. The modified Wright Compressor Station would remain a minor source with respect to 

NNSR and PSD for all criteria pollutants and would therefore not be subject to NNSR or PSD for these 

pollutants.

On May 13, 2010, the EPA issued the PSD GHG Tailoring Rule. This rule intends to account for 

facilities that represent an estimated 70 percent of GHG emissions from stationary sources while shielding 

smaller sources such as apartment buildings and schools. Beginning on July 1, 2011, a new industrial 

facility is subject to PSD review for GHGs if it: (1) will be a major source for at least one non-GHG 

pollutant and will have the PTE at least 75,000 tpy of CO2e; or (2) has the PTE 100,000 tpy of CO2e and 

at least 100 tpy or 250 tpy GHG on a mass basis (depending on whether the facility is a listed source 

category under PSD). Any existing industrial facility is subject to PSD review for GHGs if: (1) it is 

already a major source of a non-GHG pollutant and will increase its GHG emissions by 75,000 tpy CO2e 

or more; (2) the existing potential GHGs emissions are equal to or greater than 100,000 tpy CO2e and 

100/250 tpy on a mass basis (depending on the source category) and GHG emissions as a result of the 

Project will increase by 75,000 tpy or more; or (3) the existing source is minor for PSD (including GHGs) 

and the modification alone will result in equal to or greater than 100,000 tpy CO2e and 100/250 tpy of 

GHGs on a mass basis. 

Greenhouse gas emissions were evaluated to determine if any of the PSD GHG Tailoring Rule 

thresholds were triggered requiring a PSD permit. As shown in table 4.11.1-6, the existing Wright 

Compressor Station by itself emits 69,304 tons of CO2e and is minor for PSD. The proposed 

modification would result in 89,698 tons of CO2e, below 100,000-tpy threshold. The net GHG emissions 

would be less than the applicable threshold; therefore, PSD permitting for GHG emissions was not 

triggered for the Wright Compressor Station modification.

Federal Class I Area Protection

The CAA Amendments of 1977 designated certain areas of the United States as Mandatory 

Federal Class I (Class I) Areas, based on their air quality being considered a special feature of the area 

(e.g., national parks, wilderness areas, national forests). Class I Areas are protected against several types 

of pollution, including elevated levels of criteria pollutant concentrations, visibility degradation, and acid 

deposition. If the new major source or major modification is located within 62 miles (100 kilometers) of 
4-163 Air Quality And Noise

a Class I Area, the facility is required to notify the appropriate federal officials and assess potential 

impacts of that project on the nearby Class I Area. For major sources that are located within 6.2 miles (10 

kilometers) from a Class I area, ambient air pollutant impacts must be assessed for any project emission 

increases.

There are no Class I areas within 62 miles of either project, however, the Lye Brook Wilderness 

is located approximately 65 miles northeast of the proposed Westfall Road M&R Station and 70 miles 

northeast of the proposed compressor facility. Because the Wright Compressor Station modification 

would be below the PSD major modification thresholds and the station is more than 62 miles from the 

nearest Class I area, additional PSD Class I analysis was not required.

Title V Permitting 

Title V of the CAA requires each state to develop an operating permit program. The operating 

permit program is implemented through Title 40 CFR Part 70 and establishes applicability thresholds for 

criteria pollutants and HAPs. The major source threshold level for an air emission source is 100 tpy for 

criteria pollutants. The major source HAP thresholds for a source are 10 tpy of any single HAP or 25 tpy 

of all HAPs in aggregate. If a facility’s PTE exceeds one or more of these thresholds, the facility is 

considered a “major source.” The EPA also promulgated the Title V GHG Tailoring Rule, which 

established permitting thresholds for GHG emissions under the Title V program.5

 Sources with an 

existing Title V permit or new sources obtaining a Title V permit for non-GHG pollutants are required to 

address GHGs. New sources and existing sources not previously subject to Title V that have a PTE equal 

to or greater than 100,000 tpy CO2e would become subject to Title V requirements.

The existing Wright Compressor Station emits 69,304 tpy CO2e and the modification would 

increase GHG emissions to 159,044 tpy CO2e, above the 100-tpy threshold for major sources. Therefore, 

operation of the proposed turbines at Iroquois’ facility would result in the existing Wright Compressor 

Station becoming a major source of GHGs requiring a Title V permit at start-up of the new compressors. 

As suggested by the NYSDEC on January 18, 2013, Iroquois included the Title V permit information 

with its State Facility Permit application submitted to the NYSDEC in July 2013, while the proposed 

turbines would still be permitted and regulated as minor sources and minor modifications with regard to 

emission controls and other requirements.

Federal Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Regulations

On September 22, 2009, the EPA issued the final Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule. This rule 

established the following reporting categories that may apply to the Wright Compressor Station 

modification: general stationary fuel combustion sources (Subpart C), petroleum and natural gas systems 

(Subpart W), and suppliers of natural gas (Subpart NN). The mandatory GHG reporting threshold for the 

Wright Compressor Station is 25,000 metric tons of annual CO2e emissions, not including emergency 

generator GHG emissions. Iroquois has been reporting GHG emissions since 2011, as required, and

would continue to do so with the addition of the proposed compressor facility.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), codified in 40 CFR 61 and 

63, regulates hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. Part 61 defines requirements for industries that 

emit specific HAPs. Part 61 was promulgated prior to the 1990 CAA Amendments and may be 

 5 See volume 75 of the Federal Register, page 31,514 (June 3, 2010).
Air Quality And Noise 4-164

superseded in Part 63. Natural gas transmission and storage or compressor stations are not among the 

industries listed in Part 61 and do not emit any pollutants listed in Part 61. Therefore, the Wright 

Compressor Station modification is not subject to 40 CFR 61 of the NESHAP requirements.

The 1990 CAA Amendments established a list of 189 HAPs (currently 187 HAPs), resulting in 

the promulgation of Part 63. Part 63, also known as Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

standards, defines major source categories that emit HAPs above Title V major source thresholds. The 

major source threshold is 10 tpy of any single HAP or 25 tpy for all combined HAP emissions. The 

Wright Compressor Station is an existing minor source (or area source) for HAPs. 

Subpart ZZZZ of 40 CFR 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAPs) applies to the existing Wright Compressor Station’s emergency electrical power generator. 

Iroquois would install a similar generator for the proposed compressor facility. These units are 

considered emergency generator engines because they would not operate more than 100 hours annually 

for non-emergency activities. The unit that would be installed as part of the compressor facility would 

comply with Subpart ZZZZ in the same manner as the existing Wright Compressor Station units. 

New Source Performance Standards

The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), codified in 40 CFR 60, apply to new, modified, 

or reconstructed stationary sources that meet or exceed specified applicability thresholds. 

The proposed turbines for the compressor facility would be subject to NSPS Subpart KKKK as 

their fuel heat input ratings would exceed 10 million Btus per hour, and their manufacturing date would 

be after February 18, 2005. Subpart KKKK regulates emissions of NOx and SO2. The engines would 

comply with Subpart KKKK based on maximum NOX concentrations of 15 parts per million (ppm) which 

is below the 25 ppm Subpart KKKK limit, and because they would be limited to natural gas fuel. NOX

concentrations would be confirmed at least biennially by stack testing as required by Subpart KKKK. 

Iroquois would comply with the Subpart KKKK SO2 limit by using pipeline-quality natural gas fuel for 

the proposed compressor units. Iroquois would meet all applicable Subpart KKKK requirements for 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.

Clean Air Act General Conformity

The General Conformity Rule is codified in 40 CFR 93, Subpart B, Determining Conformity of 

General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans. The CAA’s general conformity rule 

was developed to ensure that federal actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas do not impede 

states’ attainment of the NAAQS. The general conformity rule entails both an applicability analysis and a 

subsequent conformity determination. A conformity determination must be conducted by the lead federal 

agency if a federal action’s construction and operational activities is likely to result in generating direct 

and indirect emissions that would exceed the conformity threshold (de minimis) levels of the pollutant(s) 

for which an area is in nonattainment or maintenance. For general conformity purposes, nonattainment 

designations based solely on being part of an Ozone Transport Region are not applicable. According to 

the conformity regulations, emissions from sources that are subject to any NNSR or PSD 

permitting/licensing (major or minor) are exempt and are deemed to have conformed. Emissions for 

criteria pollutant levels from federal actions in a nonattainment or maintenance area are listed in table 

4.11.1-3.
4-165 Air Quality And Noise

TABLE 4.11.1-3

General Conformity Applicability Thresholds

Designated 

Pollutant Designation Threshold (tpy) Pollutant or Precursor

O3

Serious nonattainment 50 VOC or NOX

Severe nonattainment 25 VOC or NOX

Extreme nonattainment 10 VOC or NOX

Other nonattainment areas 

outside an OTR

100 VOC or NOX

Other nonattainment areas 

within an OTR

50 VOC

Other nonattainment areas 

within an OTR

100 NOX

PM2.5 Nonattainment 100 PM2.5, SO2 or NOX

PM10

Serious Nonattainment 70 PM10

Moderate Nonattainment 100 PM10

CO All nonattainment areas 100 CO

OTR = Ozone Transport Region

For Constitution’s and Iroquois’ projects, Schoharie County, New York requires an applicability 

analysis because it is designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. As the designation is 

based on the ozone standard, its precursors VOC and NOX need to be evaluated. Operation of the 

modified Wright Compressor Station would be exempt from the General Conformity analysis because the 

proposed facilities would be subject to minor source NNSR requirements as part of the NYSDEC state 

Facility Permit. Emissions from construction of Constitution’s aboveground facilities and pipeline were 

calculated for comparison with the general conformity de minimis emission thresholds, and are provided 

in table 4.11.1-4. Because the estimated construction emissions for the projects within Schoharie County 

would be below de minimis thresholds, a general conformity determination is not required. However, as 

indicated in the table below, the estimated construction emissions are very close to the applicability 

threshold for NOX.

TABLE 4.11.1-4

Schoharie County Construction Emissions and General Conformity Thresholds for the Projects

County, State Source(s) NOX (tons) VOC (tons)

Schoharie, New York Project Construction 97.0 15.0

General Conformity Threshold 100 50

Below Conformity Threshold Yes Yes

For Schoharie County, New York, a marginal ozone nonattainment area, major source thresholds 

are 100 tpy for NOX and 50 tpy for VOCs, 250 tpy for all other pollutants, 10 tpy for any single HAP and 

25 tpy for all HAPs. The major source threshold for GHG emissions is 100,000 tpy of CO2e. Estimated 

emissions from construction and operation of Iroquois’ compressor station expansion are below these 

thresholds and therefore do not exceed any of the general conformity regulations significance thresholds 

(see table 4.11.1-5 under the Construction Emissions discussion below, and table 4.11.1-6 under the 

Operation Emissions discussion below).
Air Quality And Noise 4-166

Should the project construction schedule change, there is a possibility that emissions may exceed 

the 100 tpy threshold for conformity for a single year. The General Conformity regulations require that, 

if an agency has originally determined that a General Conformity Determination is not necessary, but 

changes in the projects’ result in the total emissions being above the General Conformity applicability 

thresholds, then the agency must at that time make a General Conformity Determination. Because the 

projects’ emissions are very close to the applicability threshold, and to ensure that the projects’ 

construction schedule does not trigger General Conformity, we recommend that:

• Prior to construction, the Applicants should each file with the Secretary for review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP, a Construction Emission Plan 

identifying how they would track their construction schedules for the respective

components of the projects within Schoharie County and ensure construction 

emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) would remain under the General Conformity 

applicability threshold. If a change in the construction schedules or projects result 

in emissions of NOx greater than the General Conformity applicability threshold of 

100 tons per year: 

a. the Applicants should provide and document all mitigation measures under 40 

C.F.R. § 93.158 it would implement to comply with the General Conformity 

Regulations; and 

b. the FERC staff completes its Final General Conformity Determination and 

notifies the Applicants that project facilities in Schoharie County can be 

placed into service.

State Air Quality Regulations

Constitution would apply control measures to minimize fugitive dust emissions where necessary 

during construction in accordance with title 25 of the Pennsylvania Code, section 123.1. These mitigation 

measures to minimize fugitive dust emissions would include, but would not be limited to the following:

• use, where possible, of water or chemicals (e.g., magnesium chloride) for dust control

during construction operations, the grading of roads, or the clearing of land;

• application of asphalt, oil, water, or suitable chemical on dirt roads, material stockpiles, 

and other surfaces which may give rise to airborne dusts;

• maintenance of roadways; and 

• prompt removal of earth or other material from paved streets onto which earth or other 

material has been transported by trucking or earth moving equipment, erosion by water, 

or other means.

Emissions resulting from construction and operation of Iroquois’ compressor facility are 

prohibited from preventing New York State’s attainment of the NAAQS, and must adhere to the SIPs. 

This is demonstrated with the air dispersion modeling results discussed below. New York’s SIP is based 

on federal and state regulations for emissions from stationary sources, mobile construction vehicles and 

equipment, facility coating, and other potential activities proposed for the compressor facility and the 

portion of Constitution’s project in New York. The compressor facility and the New York portion of 

Constitution’s project would comply with the SIP as required by the following regulations, where 

applicable:
4-167 Air Quality And Noise

• NYCRR Parts 200 and 201-1 through 201-9: Prevention and Control of Air 

Contamination and Air Pollution;

• NYCRR Part 202: Emissions Verification;

• NYCRR Part 205: Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings; 

• NYCRR Part 211: General Prohibitions;

• NYCRR Part 215: Open Fires;

• NYCRR Part 217: Motor Vehicle Emissions;

• NYCRR Part 218: Emission Standards for Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines;

• NYCRR Part 225: Fuel Composition and Use; 

• NYCRR Part 227-1: Stationary Combustion Installations;

• NYCRR Part 228: Surface Coating Processes, Commercial and Industrial Adhesives, 

Sealants and Primers;

• NYCRR Part 231-5: New Major Facilities And Modifications To Existing Non-Major 

Facilities In Nonattainment Areas, And Attainment Areas Of The State Within The 

Ozone Transport Region;

• NYCRR Part 231-7: New Major Facilities and Modifications to Existing Non-major 

Facilities in Attainment Areas (Prevention of Significant Deterioration);

• NYCRR 239: Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control; and

• NYCRR 257: Air Quality Standards. 

4.11.1.3 Air Emission Impacts and Mitigation

Construction Emissions

Construction of the projects would result in temporary increases of pollutant emissions from the 

use of diesel- and gas-fueled equipment, as well as temporary increases in fugitive dust emissions from 

earth/roadway surface disturbance. Indirect emissions would be generated from delivery vehicles and 

vehicles associated with construction workers traveling to and from work sites.

The volume of fugitive dust generated would be dependent upon the area disturbed and the type 

of construction activity, along with the soil’s silt and moisture content, wind speed, and the nature of 

vehicular/equipment traffic. Fugitive particulate matter emissions for PM10 and PM2.5 were calculated 

using the EPA AP-42 recommended emission factors for heavy construction equipment, combined with 

estimates of the extent and duration of active surface disturbance during construction. These emission 

factors tend to be conservative and can overestimate potential fugitive dust generated by the projects, and 

demonstrate what is considered the worst-case scenario. 

Emissions of NOX, CO, PM10, PM2.5, SO2, VOCs, GHGs and HAPs from Constitution’s 

construction equipment were calculated based on the proposed non-road and on-road equipment and their 

use levels. Diesel and gasoline on-road vehicle emission factors used the EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emission 

Simulator (EPA MOVES 2010b) model, while diesel and gasoline non-road equipment engine emission 

factors used the EPA’s NONROAD model. 
Air Quality And Noise 4-168

Iroquois estimated emissions from equipment as well as construction and worker vehicles using 

emission factors from appropriate EPA models such as Mobile6.2 and Non-Road Version 2008 and the 

number of pieces and type of equipment and their hours of operation. Fugitive dust emissions were 

calculated using the EPA’s AP-42 applicable emission factors for construction and paved roads and do 

not take into account any mitigation applied. Therefore, actual fugitive dust emissions would be expected 

to be less. The estimated emissions for both projects are listed in table 4.11.1-5 below. 

TABLE 4.11.1-5

Estimated Construction Emissions (tons)

Project NOX VOC CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 GHGs HAPs

Pipeline 393.6 59.8 1,306.4 1.3 1,127.6 183.7 66,926.8 5.2

Compressor Station 0.13 0.01 0.06 0.004 5.01 0.71 25.2 0.001

Emissions resulting from diesel- and gasoline-fueled construction equipment and vehicle engines 

for both projects would be minimized by federal design standards required at the time of manufacture of 

the equipment and vehicles, and would comply with the EPA’s mobile and non-road emission regulations 

found in 40 CFR Parts 85, 86, and 89. Dust suppression techniques would be implemented in all 

construction work areas near residential and commercial areas to reduce potential impacts of fugitive dust 

emissions. In addition, contractors and employees would be encouraged by Iroquois to minimize vehicle 

and equipment idling time to the extent practical during construction activities to further minimize 

emissions. 

In order to comply with 6 NYCRR Part 215, no open burning of construction material would take 

place. Timber would be trimmed, cut, and removed from the area or would be chipped or disposed of 

according to applicable regulations at commercial facilities or other approved locations.

Mitigation measures that would be used during construction activities are detailed in 

Constitution’s state-specific ECPs and would include:

• proper maintenance of construction equipment;

• covering of open-bodied trucks while transporting materials likely to produce airborne 

dusts;

• watering construction sites (or use of other approved dust suppressant) for fugitive dust 

control, if necessary; and

• minimizing soil disturbance to areas necessary for construction.

Constitution and Iroquois would comply with the applicable Pennsylvania and New York 

regulation regarding construction emissions. Like Constitution’s project, the compressor facility

emissions during construction would be temporary and would be minimized by mitigation measures 

described above. Impacts are not expected to result in a significant impact on local or regional air quality.

Operation Emissions

Emissions generated during operation of Constitution’s project would be minimal, limited to 

emissions from maintenance vehicles and equipment and fugitive emissions (considered negligible for the 

pipeline). There are no compressors, dehydrators, line heaters, or other emission-generating combustion 

equipment or odorization facilities proposed for Constitution’s project. Any emissions resulting from 
4-169 Air Quality And Noise

operation of Constitution’s project would not be expected to have significant impacts on local or regional 

air quality.

Operation of Iroquois’ facility would generate primarily NOX, CO, GHG and PM emissions, with 

lesser amounts of SO2, VOC, and HAP emissions. Air pollutant emissions were calculated based on 

manufacturer data, from emission factors obtained from the EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors, and from engineering mass balance calculations. Table 4.11.1-6 shows the potential emissions 

for the proposed turbines, combined with emissions from the existing turbines as well as the existing and 

proposed auxiliary fuel-burning equipment, and compared with major source thresholds. None of the 

major source thresholds would be exceeded. 

TABLE 4.11.1-6

Combined Existing Wright Compressor Station and 

Proposed Compressor Station Operations Emissions (tpy)

Emissions Source NOX CO VOC PM SO2 CO2e HAPs

2 Existing Solar Taurus 60 Turbines 551.6 62.8 0.9 9.3 0.02 66,478 0.269

2 Proposed Solar Taurus 70 Turbines 41.5 42.1 1.2 12.4 0.02 89,257 0.361

Existing emergency generator 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.04 0.0005 99.8 1.511

Proposed emergency generator 1.4 2.8 0.7 0.03 0.0004 375.3 5.681

Existing compressor building heat 

water/glycol boiler

2.1 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.0132 2,608 0.214

Existing office forced air furnace 0.02 0.01 0.001 0.002 0.0002 31.3 0.003

Existing control room forced air furnace 0.03 0.01 0.002 0.003 0.0002 41.7 0.003

2 existing compressor dry gas seals 

leakage

NA NA 2.6 NA NA 66.0 0.000

2 proposed compressor dry gas seals 

leakage

NA NA 2.6 NA NA 66.0 0.000

Existing domestic water heater 0.02 0.007 0.001 0.001 0.0001 20.9 0.003

Existing 4 control building unit space 

heaters

0.10 0.042 0.006 0.008 0.0006 125.2 0.010

Existing facilities 54.2 64.0 3.8 9.5 0.0 69,304 2.0

Proposed Facilities 42.9 44.9 4.5 12.5 0.0 89,698 6.0

Combined Total 97.1 109.0 8.3 22.0 0.06 159,044 8.0

“Major” Thresholds TPY 100 250 50 250 250 100,000 25

Proposed Facilities % of Major 

Threshold

43% 18% 9% 5% 0% 90% 24%

Potential emissions of the proposed natural gas combustion turbines are based on incorporating 

SoLoNOX (i.e., dry low NOX or lean pre-mix) combustors in continuous service at maximum load 

conditions, and at a worst case annual average ambient temperature of zero degrees Fahrenheit. 

Similarly, all other fuel-burning equipment, except for the auxiliary power units, is assumed to operate at 

full load for 24 hours per day and 365 days per year. The auxiliary power units would be restricted to 

operating only during periodic testing and maintenance or when purchased electrical power is interrupted. 

Potential auxiliary power unit emissions represent operations at full load for no more than 500 hours per 

year each. Manufacturers of the turbines guarantee NOX and VOC emissions below 15 ppm and CO 

below 25 ppm, and recommend a PM emission factor of 0.018 pounds per million Btus of fuel heat input. 

While Best Available Control Technology (BACT) is not required for the proposed turbines, the pollutant 

emission concentrations and rates are as strict as BACT requirements. Using low NOX turbine 
Air Quality And Noise 4-170

combustors, the emission levels listed would be achieved with normal engine maintenance and operation 

according to the manufacturer’s recommendations while consuming only pipeline quality natural gas fuel. 

Permitted emission limits would be monitored through performance testing for the turbines following 

start-up, and at least every other year during operation as required by federal. Like Constitution’s project, 

any emissions resulting from operation of the compressor facility would not be expected to have 

significant impacts on local or regional air quality. 

As shown in table 4.11.1-5, construction of the proposed pipeline would result in the generation 

of approximately 66,927 tons of GHG emissions, while construction of Iroquois’ compressor facility 

would result in the generation of approximately 25.2 tons of GHGs, as measured in CO2e. Operation of 

Constitution’s project would result in negligible GHG emissions, while operation of Iroquois’ compressor 

facility would result in 159,044 tons of GHG emissions, as shown in table 4.11.1-6. The GHG emissions 

for both construction and operation of the pipeline are very small (about 0.001 percent) when compared 

with the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory of 6.63 billion metric tons of CO2e (EPA 2009). The GHG 

emissions for both construction and operation of the compressor facility are also very small (about 0.002 

percent) when compared with the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory.

Air Dispersion Modeling

Air dispersion modeling was conducted in support of Iroquois’ air permit application and serves 

to demonstrate compliance with (1) the NAAQS for criteria pollutants; and (2) the NYSDEC’s guideline 

concentrations for toxic and hazardous air pollutants. The modeling analysis adheres to the NYSDEC’s 

“DAR-10: Guidelines for Dispersion Modeling Procedures for Air Quality Impact Analysis” and the 

EPA’s “Guideline on Air Quality Models”. The analysis was conducted in accordance with the modeling 

protocol submitted to the NYSDEC in June 2013 and in accordance with comments provided by the 

NYSDEC. 

The EPA’s most recent version of AERMOD (Version 12345) was used in the analysis, with the 

regulatory default options and 5 years (2008 to 2012) of hourly meteorological surface data and upper air 

observations collected at Albany County Airport in Albany, New York.

Step 1 of modeling is to demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS by comparing the maximum 

ambient air quality impacts from new source emissions from the compressor facility with the EPA’s 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) for SO2, PM2.5, PM10, NO2, and CO. If the maximum modeled 

concentrations are below the SILs then compliance with the NAAQS is demonstrated and no further 

analysis is required. However, if the modeled impact for any pollutant and/or averaging period exceeds 

the applicable SILs for the pollutant, then the project proponent must take a second step to conduct a 

cumulative modeling analysis to demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS. Cumulative modeling would 

require the following to be considered: (1) the proposed compressor turbines and ancillary equipment; (2) 

existing facility sources; (3) other nearby background sources identified by the NYSDEC; and (4) 

monitored background concentrations to represent non-modeled sources.

As shown in table 4.11.1-7, the maximum modeled impacts for Iroquois’ compressor facility

sources exceed SILs for the 1-hour NO2 and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. No further analysis was required for 

pollutants and/or averaging periods with levels below SILs. Based on the exceedance, a cumulative 

analysis was conducted using representative background concentrations based on the compressor station’s

rural location and as approved by the NYSDEC. Iroquois requested off-site source information from the 

NYSDEC to include in their cumulative modeling. The NYSDEC did not identify any significant off-site 

sources, pending applications, or permitted but not yet constructed sources for inclusion. As shown in 

table 4.11.1-8, the cumulative modeling analysis demonstrates that emissions would not cause or 

contribute to a violation of any NAAQS.
4-171 Air Quality And Noise

TABLE 4.11.1-7

Air Dispersion Modeling Results for Wright Compressor Station Modification

Pollutant Averaging Period

Modeled Maximum

Concentrationa (μg/m3

)

Significant Impact Level 

(μg/m3)

NO2

1-hour 11.20 7.5

Annual 0.40 1

CO

1-hour 359.73 2,000

8-hour 51.65 500

PM10

24-hour 3.13 5

Annual 0.10 1

PM2.5

24-hour 1.70 1.2

Annual 0.10 0.3

SO2

1-hour 0.01 7.8

3-hour 0.07 25

24-hour 0.01 5

Annual 0.001 1

____________________

a All concentrations are the maximum modeled over the 5-year period with the exception of the 24-hour PM2.5 and 1-hour 

NO2 & SO2 concentrations which are the maximum 5-year average values. 

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

TABLE 4.11.1-8

Air Dispersion Modeling Results for Cumulative Impacts – Wright Compressor Station Modification

Pollutant

Averaging 

Period

Modeled 

Maximum

Concentrationa 

(μg/m3)

Background 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) Total (μg/m3

)

NAAQS 

(μg/m3

)

Percent of 

NAAQS

NO2 1-hour 20.07 97.20 117.27 188 62%

PM2.5 24-hour 1.65 21.13 22.78 35 65%

____________________

a 1-hour NO2 is the 98th percentile (8th-highest) of daily distribution of maximum 1-hour modeled concentrations. 24-

hour PM2.5 is conservatively based on the 99th percentile (4th highest) 5-year average 24-hour concentration.

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

Modeling of air toxics emissions was also conducted for the compressor facility’s proposed 

combustion turbines and emergency generator in accordance with the NYSDEC’s Air Guide-1 procedures 

using short-term and annual guideline concentrations to assess impacts. The initial screening level 

approach for modeling air toxics used an emission rate of 1 gram per second in AERMOD for individual 

runs and combined the greatest impacts over the five years of meteorology data for all sources. This 

approach is extremely conservative as the highest impacts for each source do not occur at the same 

receptor or during same time period. All short-term and annual guideline concentrations were below 

screening levels and further analysis was not required (table 4.11.1-9).
Air Quality And Noise 4-172

TABLE 4.11.1-9

Short-term and Annual Guideline Concentrations Analysis for Hazardous Air Pollutants

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Modeled 1-hour 

Concentration (μg/m3

)

Short-term 

Guideline 

Concentrations

(μg/m3

)

Modeled Annual 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

)

Annual Guideline 

Concentrations

(μg/m3

)

1,1 Dichloroethane 0.005 N/A 0.00001 0.63

1,1,2 Trichloroethane 0.006 N/A 0.00002 1.4

1,1,2,2 Tetrachloroethane 0.010 N/A 0.00003 16

1,2 Dichloroethane 0.005 N/A 0.00001 0.038

1,2 Dichloropropane 0.005 N/A 0.00001 3,000

1,3 Dichloropropene 0.005 N/A 0.00001 0.25

1,3 butadiene 0.271 N/A 0.001 0.033

Acetaldehyde 1.152 4,500 0.003 0.45

Acrolein 1.075 2.5 0.003 0.35

Benzene 0.649 1,300 0.002 0.13

Butyr/isobutyraldehyde 0.020 86 0.0001 N/A

Carbon Tetrachloride 0.007 1,900 0.00002 0.17

Chlorobenzene 0.005 N/A 0.00001 110

Chloroform 0.006 150 0.00001 0.043

Ethane 28.731 N/A 0.075 2,900

Ethylbenzene 0.020 54,000 0.0002 1,000

Ethylene Dibromide 0.009 N/A 0.00002 0.0017

Formaldehyde 8.596 30 0.026 0.06

Methanol 1.249 33,000 0.003 4,000

Methylene Chloride 0.017 None 0.00004 29

Napthalene 0.040 7,900 0.0001 3

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 0.058 N/A 0.0002 0.02

Propylene Oxide 0.009 3,100 0.0002 0.02

Styrene 0.005 17,000 0.00001 1,000

Toluene 0.270 37,000 0.001 5,000

Vinyl Chloride 0.003 180,000 0.00001 0.11

Xylenes 0.100 4,300 0.001 100

____________________

N/A = No Short-term and Annual Guideline Concentrations listed.

Conclusion

Because pipeline construction moves through an area relatively quickly, air emissions are 

typically intermittent and short term. Once construction activities in an area are completed, fugitive dust 

and construction equipment emissions would subside and the impact on air quality would diminish. 

Further, construction emissions for both projects would be minimized by mitigation measures described 

above. Therefore, we conclude that the projects’ construction-related impacts are not expected to result in 

a significant impact on local or regional air quality.
4-173 Air Quality And Noise

Emissions generated during operation of Constitution’s proposed project would be minimal, 

limited to emissions from maintenance vehicles and equipment and fugitive emissions (considered 

negligible for the pipeline). Iroquois submitted a State Facility Permit to the NYSDEC to construct and 

operate the proposed turbines at their compressor facility. Operation of the new turbines results in the 

existing Wright Compressor Station becoming a major source of GHGs which requires a Title V permit, 

although the proposed turbines would still be permitted and regulated as minor sources and minor 

modifications with regard to emission controls and other requirements. While BACT is not required for 

the proposed turbines, the pollutant emission concentrations and rates proposed by Iroquois are as strict as 

BACT requirements. Using low NOX turbine combustors, low emission levels would be achieved with 

normal engine maintenance and recommended operation using pipeline quality natural gas. Permitted 

emission limits would be monitored through performance testing for the turbines. Like Constitution’s 

project, any emissions resulting from operation of the compressor facility would not be expected to have 

significant impacts on local or regional air quality.

The GHG emissions for both construction and operation of the pipeline are very small (about 

0.001 percent) when compared with the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory of 6.63 billion metric tons of 

CO2e (EPA 2009). The GHG emissions for both construction and operation of the compressor facility are 

also very small (about 0.002 percent) when compared with the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory. 

Modeled impacts for SO2, PM2.5, PM10, NO2, and CO at Iroquois’ compressor facility sources 

were below SILs with the exception of the 1-hour NO2 and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. A cumulative 

analysis was then conducted and demonstrated that emissions would not cause or contribute to a violation 

of any NAAQS. In addition, Iroquois conducted modeling of air toxics emissions for the proposed 

emission sources using short-term and annual guideline concentrations, and results showed all short-term 

and annual concentrations were below screening levels.

4.11.1.4 Radon Exposure

We received comments about the potential exposure to released radon gas. Radon is one of many 

naturally-occurring radioactive substances found in natural gas. Natural gas extracted from Pennsylvania 

that is expected to supply Constitution’s project would be located in the EPA’s Zone 1 or Zone 2 rated 

areas, which has been determined to have the highest potential and a moderate potential, respectively, for 

radon to exist. Recent studies by the Responsible Natural Gas Resource Development Group in August 

2012 presents information concerning radon levels when natural gas is extracted, and the 

deterioration/reduction of radon in the gas during transmission, processing, and at combustion. 

Information compiled shows that, when radon concentrations are detected, levels at upstream gas wells 

are relatively higher than downstream points, due to radon’s deterioration half-life of less than four days. 

Studies have shown that the longer the transportation distance and subsequent time prior to combustion, 

the lower the levels of radon in the natural gas. Breakdown of the radon begins in the ground and 

continues during extractions and transport. Radon removal also occurs in a gas processing plant during 

the removal of liquefied petroleum gases (LPG), (such as ethane and propane), which rapidly reduces 

radon levels. Radon gas that reaches the processing plant also undergoes further processing to reduce 

radon before it is burned. The time needed to gather, process, store, and deliver natural gas to residences 

allows a portion of the entrained radon to decay, which decreases the amount of radon in the gas before it 

is used in a residence. The required venting of appliance exhausts from water heaters, furnaces, and other 

appliances also limits potential exposure pathways to radon emissions. 

As mentioned previously, radon concentrations are reduced when a natural gas stream undergoes 

upstream processing to remove LPG. This is because radon and the two major components of LPG, 

propane and ethane, have similar boiling points. According to a study of health effects from radon 

(Johnson et al. 1973), processing can remove an estimated 30 to 75 percent of the radon from natural 
Air Quality And Noise 4-174

gas. Research by Gogolak (1980) suggests that the cumulative decay of radon from wellhead to burner 

tip is on the order of 60 percent. Gogolak concluded that indoor radon concentrations resulting from the 

use of natural gas in the home are unlikely to pose a radiological hazard to domestic users. Johnson et al. 

reached a similar conclusion. While the number of deaths due to increased indoor radon concentrations 

could potentially be higher now than in 1973 due to the growth in the U.S. population over the last 30 or 

more years, and changes to dose and risk calculation methods, there is no reason to determine that the 

conclusions by Johnson et al. and Gogolak regarding the risks of radon in natural gas would be any 

different. In fact, radon exposure associated with the combustion of natural gas may be lower now due to 

the improved ventilation and increased energy efficiency of modern boilers, furnaces and hot water 

heaters, as well as new building codes requiring venting of gas-fired stoves and ovens. Other more recent 

studies also support the conclusions of Johnson et al. and Gogolak. A study performed by Van Netten et 

al. (1998) found that the radon exposure risk to domestic users in U.S. and British Columbia households 

was virtually nonexistent. Another more recent study completed in the United Kingdom reached a similar 

conclusion and found that individual exposure to radon associated with domestic gas use is small, and 

radon is not likely to be of concern to suppliers or customers due to the small quantity that is released into 

buildings from burning natural gas (Dixon 2001).

While the FERC has no regulatory authority to set, monitor, or respond to indoor radon levels, 

many local, state, and federal entities establish and enforce radon exposure standards for indoor air. We 

expect that the combustion of gas delivered by local delivery companies would comply with all applicable 

air emission standards. In the unlikely event that these standards are exceeded, we would expect that the 

necessary modifications would be implemented to ensure public safety.

4.11.2 Noise

Both projects would contribute to noise in their vicinities area during both construction and 

operation. The magnitude and frequency of environmental noise varies considerably during the day, 

week, season, and based on weather conditions as well as seasonal vegetative cover, along with the 

activities occurring. Two standard measures that relate the time-varying quality of environmental noise to 

its known effect on people are the 24-hour equivalent sound level (Leq) and day-night sound level (Ldn). 

The Leq is the level of steady sound with the same total (equivalent) energy as the time-varying sound of 

interest, averaged over a 24-hour period. The Ldn is the Leq plus 10 decibels (dB) on the A-weighted scale 

(dBA) added to account for people’s greater sensitivity to nighttime sound levels (typically considered 

between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM). The A-weighted scale is used to assess noise impacts as 

human hearing is less sensitive to low and high frequencies than mid-range frequencies. The human ear’s 

threshold of perception for noise change is considered to be 3 dB; a change of 6 dB is clearly noticeable 

to the human ear, and a change of 10 dB is perceived as a doubling of noise.

4.11.2.1 Existing Noise Levels

Constitution conducted acoustical assessments to establish baseline noise conditions near its two 

proposed M&R stations, MLV sites, and HDD and Direct Pipe entry and exit points. Nearby noisesensitive areas (NSAs) which include residences, hospitals, or schools were identified in the vicinity of 

the M&R, MLV, and HDD and Direct Pipe sites, to determine the Constitution Pipeline project’s 

potential sound contribution.

Constitution’s Aboveground Facilities and HDD and Direct Pipe Sites

Constitution conducted ambient sound levels measurements at the nearest NSAs within 0.5 mile 

of each M&R station, MLV site, and HDD and Direct Pipe entry and exit sites. The Leq and unweighted 

octave-band sound pressure levels were measured at each sound measurement location. The 
4-175 Air Quality And Noise

measurements attempted to exclude extraneous sound such as a nearby vehicles passing by the 

measurement equipment. Table 4.11.2-1 lists the closest NSAs to each aboveground facility site, along 

with the calculated ambient sound levels collected during the noise survey. Figures 4.11.2-1 and 4.11.2-2 

show the Turnpike Road and Westfall Road M&R Stations and the nearest NSAs, respectively.

TABLE 4.11.2-1

Background Noise Levels at the Nearest NSAs to the Proposed

Aboveground Facilities and Drill Sites

Project Feature Nearest NSAs

Distance and Direction 

to NSA Ambient Ldn (dBA)

Turnpike Road M&R Station NSA #1 800 feet SSW 48.1

MLV-1

(at Turnpike Rd M&R)

NSA #1 800 feet SSW 48.1

MLV-2

NSA #1 740 feet SW 45.0

NSA #2 1,090 feet SSE 45.0

MLV-3

NSA #1 300 feet NNE 45.0

NSA #2 1,000 feet S 45.0

MLV-4

NSA #1 710 feet W 45.0

NSA #2 750 feet E 45.0

MLV-5

NSA #1 1,680 feet SW 45.0

NSA #2 1,750 feet NW 45.0

MLV-6

NSA #1 1,140 feet S 45.0

NSA #2 1,150 feet NE 45.0

MLV-7

NSA #1 500 feet N 45.0

NSA #2 650 feet E 45.0

MLV-8

NSA #1 610 feet S 45.0

NSA #2 660 feet E 45.0

MLV-9

NSA #1 1,020 feet ESE 45.0

NSA #2 1,150 feet S 45.0

MLV-10

NSA #1 270 feet S 45.0

NSA #2 450 feet ENE 45.0

MLV-11

(at Westfall Rd M&R)

NSA #1 1,620 feet NNE 47.4

NSA #2 1,820 feet WNW 47.6

Westfall Road M&R Station NSA #1 1,620 feet NE 47.4

HDD #1 Entry NSA #1 600 feet SSW 50.8

HDD #1 Exit NSA #1 1,350 feet S 47.3

HDD #2 Entry NSA #1 925 feet E 51.3

HDD #2 Exit NSA #1 850 feet E 58.0
Air Quality And Noise 4-176

TABLE 4.11.2-1 (continued)

Background Noise Levels at the Nearest Noise-Sensitive Areas (within 0.5 mile) to the Proposed

Constitution Pipeline Project M&R Stations, Mainline Valves, HDD, and Direct Pipe Sites

Project Feature Nearest NSAs

Distance and Direction 

to NSA Ambient Ldn (dBA)

HDD #3 Entry NSA #1 625 feet SE 49.7

HDD #3 Exit -- No NSA within 0.5 mile N/A

HDD #4 Entry NSA #1 1,575 feet NNW 35.5

HDD #4 Exit NSA #1 2,000 feet NE 35.5

HDD #5 Entry NSA #1 750 feet NE 53.5

HDD #5 Exit NSA #1 200 feet E 57.5

Direct Pipe #6 Entry NSA #1 250 feet N 50.3

Direct Pipe #6 Exit NSA #1 500 feet E 52.6

Direct Pipe #7 Entry NSA #1 150 feet SSE 57.2

Direct Pipe #7 Exit NSA #1 850 N 57.7

Iroquois Wright Compressor Station

Iroquois’ project, adjacent to the existing Wright Compressor Station, would include two gas 

compressor turbines, a control building, gas coolers, and other associated equipment. Each gas turbine 

would be housed in a separate building.
)

1/2 MILE

NSA #1

PROPOSED LOCATION

OF TURNPIKE ROAD

METER STATION AND

MLV-1

T-548

(TURNPIKE RD)

T-538

BAD RD

(2059)

Non-Residential Building

House or Mobile Home

p

0 400 800 1,200 1,600

Feet

Figure 4.11.2-1

Constitution Pipeline

NSAs Nearest to Turnpike Road M&R Station

Site Location

NEW YORK

PENNSYLVANIA

Lacawanna

County

Bradford

County

Luzerne

County

Sullivan

County

Wyoming

County

Tioga

County

Tompkins

County

Broome

County

Chenango

County

Delaware

County

Sullivan

County

Pike

County

Susquehanna

County

Wayne

County

4-177
)

1/2 MILE

EXISTING

COMPRESSOR

STATION

NSA #2

NSA #3

PROPOSED

WESTFALL RD

METER STATION

AND MLV-11

NSA #1

WESTFALL RD

KUMP RD

Non-Residential Building

House or Mobile Home

p

0 400 800 1,200 1,600

Feet

Figure 4.11.2-2

Constitution Pipeline

NSAs Nearest to Westfall Road M&R Station

Site Location Schenectady

County

NEW YORK

Chenango

County

Herkimer

County

Madison

County

Oneida

County

Otsego

County

Hamilton

County

Albany

County

Fulton

County

Greene

County

Montgomery

County

Saratoga

County

Schoharie

County

Columbia

County Delaware

County

4-178
4-179 Air Quality And Noise

Iroquois conducted ambient noise level measurements at the nearest NSAs to the existing Wright 

Compressor Station, which include six residences within a 0.5-mile radius of the station. Table 4.11.2-2 

lists the NSAs, along with the calculated ambient sound levels. Figure 4.11.2-3 shows the nearest NSAs.

TABLE 4.11.2-2

Background Noise Levels at the Nearest NSAs to the Existing Wright Compressor Station

NSAa Direction to NSA Distance to NSA (feet) Calculated Ambient Ldn (dBA)

NSA #4 NNE 900 44

NSA #5 NW 2,250 47

NSA #6 S 2,800 41

NSA #7 NE 1,400 39

NSA #8 SW 2,600 41

NSA #9 SE 3,000 40

4.11.2.2 Noise Regulatory Requirements

Federal Noise Regulations

The EPA published Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public 

Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin on Safety in 1974, which evaluated the effects of 

environmental noise on health and safety. The EPA determined an Ldn of 55 dBA as the maximum sound 

level not adversely affecting public health and welfare by interfering with speech or other outdoor 

activities. We have adopted this criterion for new compression and associated facilities, and it is used 

here to assess the potential noise impact during operation of Constitution and Iroquois’ projects. The 

Commission’s regulations (18 CFR Section 380.12(k)(4)(v)(A)) require that the noise attributable to any 

new compressor station, compression added to an existing station, or any modification, upgrade, or update 

of an existing station not exceed a Ldn of 55 dBA at any pre-existing NSA. With the steady sound source 

adjustments of an additional 6.4 dBA, an Ldn of 55 dBA corresponds to an Leq of 48.6 dBA. This criteria 

was used as guidance relative to the proposed M&R sites. The M&R stations would comply with the 

required noise limit in the Commission’s regulations (55 dBA sound pressure level).

Our criterion for noise regulation of 55 dBA Ldn is the controlling noise regulation for 

Constitution’s project and in many cases is more stringent than the local noise regulations. Compliance 

with the state local noise ordinances is discussed below. Additionally, Section 380.12(k)(4)(v)(B) 

indicates new compressor stations or modifications of existing stations shall not result in a perceptible 

increase in vibration at any NSA.
NSA #5

NSA #6

NSA #4

WESTFALL RD

KUMP RD

NSA #7

NSA #8

NSA #9

WRIGHT COMPRESSOR

STATION

1/2 MILE

Existing Compressor Station Boundary

p

0 400 800 1,200 1,600

Feet

Figure 4.11.2-3

NSAs nearest to Wright Interconnect Project 

Site Location Schenectady

County

NEW YORK

Chenango

County

Herkimer

County

Madison

County

Oneida

County

Otsego

County

Hamilton

County

Albany

County

Fulton

County

Greene

County

Montgomery

County

Saratoga

County

Schoharie

County

Columbia

County Delaware

County

4-180
4-181 Air Quality And Noise

State and Local Noise Regulations

State noise regulations have not been identified in either Pennsylvania or New York that would 

apply to Constitution’s project. Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania has a land development ordinance 

(“Article VII – Commercial & Industrial” of the “Susquehanna County Subdivision and Land 

Development Ordinance”) that includes a quantitative sound level requirement that is potentially 

applicable to the Turnpike Road M&R Station. Section 707.4 (Noise) of the Ordinance states that audible 

sound from a Commercial or Industrial development shall not exceed 50 dBA as measured at the exterior 

of any occupied building on a neighboring landowner’s property. It would be necessary for Constitution 

to establish and certify with the Susquehanna County Planning Commission the required decibel level 

prior to approval of the development.

No applicable county noise regulations have been identified in Broome, Chenango, or Delaware 

counties (where MLV sites would be located), or in Schoharie County, New York, or Wright Township, 

New York (where the Westfall Road M&R Station would be located).

No applicable state, county, or local noise ordinances or requirements have been identified for 

Iroquois’ facility with the exception of the NYSDEC Policy Document described above.

4.11.2.3 Noise Level Impacts and Mitigation

Construction Noise

Noise would be generated during construction and operation of the projects. Construction would 

consist of multiple work crews at various locations along the pipeline route. Each crew’s work rate would 

vary based on specific activities, but in general work along the pipeline route would progress between 100 

to 1,000 or more feet per day. HDD and Direct Pipe activities would be stationary and restricted to areas 

surrounding the entry and exit points. Depending on the crossing length and the composition of the earth 

being drilled, the activity could last for weeks or months. Nearby receptors would be subject to noise 

disturbances for the duration of the drills. Construction equipment would be operated on an as-needed 

basis and receptors near the construction areas may experience an increase in perceptible noise, but the 

effect would be temporary and local. Noise mitigation measures employed during construction include 

the use and maintenance of manufacturer-installed sound muffling devices on each piece of equipment. If 

necessary, additional noise mitigation measures could be implemented during construction to reduce 

construction noise disturbances at NSAs. 

Nighttime noise is not expected to increase during construction because most construction 

activities would be limited to daytime hours. Blasting would likely be required along the Constitution 

right-of-way, but blasting is not anticipated for construction of Iroquois’ compressor facility. Blasting 

plans, including mitigation measures, are included in Constitution’s state-specific ECPs and are discussed 

in section 4.1. An exception to daytime construction may be certain HDD or Direct Pipe activities, which 

are proposed at seven locations. HDD and Direct Pipe activities use a wide variety of equipment, with the 

majority of equipment at the HDD or Direct Pipe entry point. Equipment may include a drilling rig (or 

tunneling machine for Direct Pipe) and associated engine-driven hydraulic power unit, mud pumps, 

electric generators, mud mixing and cleaning equipment, backhoes, forklifts, cranes, boom trucks, and 

loaders. Direct Pipe activities would also include the use of pipe thrusters and pipejacking machinery. 

HDD or Direct Pipe exit point equipment may include a backhoe, sidebooms, and a generator set. Based 

on the equipment, noise levels at the HDD and Direct Pipe exit points are generally lower than at the 

entry points.
Air Quality And Noise 4-182

Constitution performed an acoustical assessment that included background noise measurements at 

the NSAs nearest the HDD or Direct Pipe exit and entry locations and the predicted noise levels at the 

NSAs during HDD or Direct Pipe activity. Table 4.11.2-3 lists the noise levels expected during 

construction, both unmitigated and with mitigation measures implemented, compared with the measured 

background levels, and shows that seven HDD or Direct Pipe entry or exit points would require additional 

mitigation to reduce noise levels below our noise requirement (i.e., Ldn of 55 dBA) at the closest NSAs. 

The HDD or Direct Pipe sites where additional mitigation would be necessary and has been proposed 

include the:

• HDD #1 Entry Location;

• HDD #2 Entry Location;

• HDD #3 Entry Location;

• HDD #5 Entry Location;

• HDD #5 Exit Location;

• Direct pipe #6 Entry Location (East Side); and

• Direct pipe #7 Entry Location.

TABLE 4.11.2-3

Calculated HDD and Direct Pipe Noise Levels at the Nearest NSAs

HDD/

Direct 

Pipe Site

Calculated

Ambient 

Ldn (dBA)

HDD noise –

Ldn (dBA)

unmitigated

Estimated 

HDD/ Direct 

Pipe+ ambient

Ldn(dBA) 

(unmitigated)

Exceeds 

FERC 

Criterion?

HDD 

Noise –

Ldn (dBA) 

mitigated

Estimated 

HDD/

Direct 

Pipe+ 

ambient 

(dBA) 

(mitigated)

Potential 

Noise 

Increase 

(dB)

Mitigation 

Measures 

Proposed 

for Sites 

Exceeding 

FERC 

Criterion

HDD #1 

Entry

50.8 64.2 64.4 Yes 52.1 54.5 3.7 A

HDD #1 

Exit

47.3 45.4 49.5 No N/A N/A 2.2 N/A

HDD #2 

Entry

51.3 59.9 60.4 Yes 52.7 55.0 3.7 A

HDD #2 

Exit

58.0 51.4 58.9 No N/A N/A 0.9 N/A

HDD #3 

Entry

49.7 63.8 63.9 Yes 51.8 53.9 4.2 A

HDD #3 

Exita

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

HDD #4 

Entry

35.5 50.1 50.3 No N/A N/A 14.8 N/A

HDD #4 

Exit

35.5 36.3 39.0 No N/A N/A 3.5 N/A

HDD #5

Entry

53.5 62.0 62.5 Yes 52.8 56.1 2.6 A

HDD #5 

Exit

57.5 62.8 63.9 Yes 53.8 59.1 1.6 B

Direct 

Pipe #6 

Entry

50.3 66.2 66.3 Yes 52.3 54.4 4.1 C
4-183 Air Quality And Noise

TABLE 4.11.2-3 (continued)

Calculated HDD and Direct Pipe Noise Levels at the Nearest NSAs

HDD/

Direct

Pipe Site

Calculated

Ambient 

Ldn (dBA)

HDD noise –

Ldn (dBA)

unmitigated

Estimated 

HDD/ Direct 

Pipe+ ambient

Ldn(dBA) 

(unmitigated)

Exceeds 

FERC 

Criterion?

HDD 

Noise –

Ldn (dBA) 

mitigated

Estimated 

HDD/

Direct 

Pipe+ 

ambient 

(dBA) 

(mitigated)

Potential 

Noise 

Increase 

(dB)

Mitigation 

Measures 

Proposed 

for Sites 

Exceeding 

FERC 

Criterion

Direct 

Pipe #6 

Exit

52.6 54.0 56.4 No N/A N/A 3.8 N/A

Direct 

Pipe #7 

Entry

57.2 62.4 69.7 Yes 54.5 59.1 1.9 C

Direct 

Pipe #7 

Exit

57.7 49.2 58.3 No N/A N/A 0.6 N/A

____________________

a No NSAs within 0.5 mile from HDD #3 exit point

NSA = Noise Sensitive Area

HDD = horizontal directional drill

Ldn = day-night sound level

dBA = A-weighted decibel

N/A = not applicable

Mitigation Measures:

A = Install a partial noise barrier (i.e., open top system) around the hydraulic power units, around any engine-driven pumps 

(e.g., mud pump) and any engine-driven generators (unless already factory-installed); temporary noise barrier would be 

constructed of plywood panels or sound absorptive/barrier material installed around three sides of the equipment (including the 

engine cooler); the generator associated with the mud cleaning/system would be a “lownoise” generator (i.e., has a factoryinstalled acoustical enclosure).

B = Install a temporary noise barrier along the north and south sides of the HDD exit site workspace (between the site 

workspace and nearest NSAs to the north and south); temporary noise barrier would be constructed of plywood panels or 

sound absorptive/barrier material.

C = Due to proximity of residences to Direct Pipe site, prior to drilling activities, discuss temporary housing or equivalent 

monetary compensation with nearby landowner; if temporary housing or monetary compensation is not a viable option, cover 

the workspace with a noise-reducing tent with sound-absorptive/barrier liner material designed with a septum mass layer. In 

addition, engine-driven pumps (even if located inside the tent) would be necessary and low-noise generators (i.e., factoryinstalled acoustical enclosures) would be required.

All engines used for HDD and Direct Pipe activities would be fitted with residential-grade 

exhaust silencers to reduce noise. In addition, Constitution has proposed site-specific mitigation 

measures as outlined in table 4.11.2-3. The noise mitigation listed above would be expected to reduce the 

noise from HDD and Direct Pipe activity to below 55 dBA Ldn.

Table 4.11.2-3 also indicates that the closest NSA to the HDD #4 entry location would experience 

an increase in noise levels above 10 dBA, which is considered a doubling of noise (see section 4.11.2 

above). This doubling of HDD noise could adversely impact the residents at NSA#1, which is located 

1,575 feet to the north-northwest. Constitution did not propose any site-specific HDD noise reduction or 

mitigation measures at this location. To ensure that HDD-related noise impacts do not adversely affect 

NSA#1, we recommend that: 

• Prior to construction, Constitution should file for the review and written approval 

of the Director of OEP a plan detailing the additional noise mitigation measures 

Constitution would use to ensure that the noise levels attributable to the HDD #4 
Air Quality And Noise 4-184

activities near the entry point do not exceed an Ldn of 55 dBA and/or increase noise 

over ambient conditions greater than 10 dB at NSA #1.

Based on the analyses conducted and the mitigation measures proposed, and our 

recommendation, we conclude that Constitution’s project would not result in significant noise impacts on 

residents, and the surrounding communities, for either HDD/Direct Pipe activity or any other construction 

activity required.

Construction of Iroquois’ compressor facility would include clearing and grading of the site using 

a backhoe, bulldozer, pneumatic rock hammer, and potential blasting activity (although the need for 

blasting is not anticipated). Construction would also include laying concrete building foundations, 

erecting compressor buildings, and installing high-pressure piping.

The most prevalent noise-generating equipment during construction of the proposed compressor 

facility would be internal combustion engines of construction equipment (up to 85 dBA at 50 feet). Site 

earth work would be expected to result in the highest construction noise due to multiple pieces of 

equipment operating simultaneously. While blasting is not anticipated, if blasting were required, 

mitigation measures would be implemented to minimize impacts from both noise and vibration. The 

noise levels experienced at NSAs would depend on the type of equipment used, the mode of operation of 

the equipment, the length of time the equipment is in use, the amount of equipment used simultaneously, 

and the distance between the noise generation source and the receptor. Iroquois would limit construction 

to daylight hours to prevent nighttime noise impacts. Increased noise levels during construction would 

occur for the duration of the approximate 9-month construction period. Sound levels would be reduced a 

minimum of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance between the source and the receiver. While

construction could produce noise levels that would be perceptible above the ambient noise conditions, the 

noise increment would be temporary and local. 

Based on the analyses conducted and mitigation measures proposed, we conclude that 

construction of Iroquois’ project would not result in significant noise impacts on residents, and the 

surrounding communities.

Operational Noise

Constitution’s sources of operational noise would include daily operation of the proposed M&R 

stations and infrequent blowdown events at the MLV sites. Potential noise impacts associated with the 

operation of these aboveground facilities would be limited to the vicinity of the facilities. The noise 

levels and potential impact at the nearest NSAs are described below.

An acoustical analysis was conducted to estimate the noise levels at the nearest NSAs from 

Constitution’s project and to determine if any noise control measures would be needed to ensure 

compliance with any applicable federal and local noise regulations. 

The noise generated by an M&R station is generally a result of the flow-control valves from the 

aboveground piping, where the pipe noise is a direct result of the pressure drop and gas flow across the 

valves for the required regulator runs. For the acoustical assessment, the operating condition with the 

highest potential for noise was evaluated for the nearest NSA (as further NSAs would experience lower 

sound levels), and assumed that the valve-generated noise would be equal to or less than 85 dBA for the

“worst case” operating condition (i.e., measured A-weighted sound level at 3 feet from the piping; 

downstream of the regulator valve during operation of the respective regulator run). 
4-185 Air Quality And Noise

The flow control valves associated with each M&R station would be designed to achieve a noise 

level of 85 dBA for the full range of potential operating conditions. If necessary, Constitution would

utilize acoustical insulation to cover the aboveground gas piping or use an acoustic building to encompass 

the regulator skid if the noise level at the control valves exceeds 85 dBA for the entire range of operating 

conditions. 

Table 4.11.2-4 shows the results of the acoustical assessment for the operation of the M&R 

stations, and indicated that with the implementation of noise control measures described above, noise 

from the operation of the M&R stations would not result in a perceptible noise increase (below a 3 dB 

increase) or exceed our thresholds.

TABLE 4.11.2-4

Calculated Operational Noise Levels at the Nearest NSAs to the Proposed

Constitution Pipeline M&R Station and Mainline Valve Sites

Project Feature

Nearest 

NSAs

Calculated 

Ambient Ldn

(dBA)

Calculated M&R 

Station 

Ldn (dBA)

Calculated M&R 

Station

Plus Ambient Ldn

(dBA)

Potential Noise 

Increase (dB)

Turnpike Road M&R 

Station

NSA #1 48.1 47.6 50.9 2.8

Westfall Road M&R 

Station

NSA #1 47.4 39.7 48.1 0.7

Project Feature

Nearest 

NSAs

Calculated 

Ambient Ldn

(dBA)

Calculated 

Blowdown 

Ldn (dBA)

Blowdown Event

Plus Ambient 

Ldn (dBA)

Potential Noise

Increase (dB)

MLV-1 (at Turnpike Rd 

M&R Station) 

NSA #1 48.1 55.5 56.2 8.1

MLV-2 NSA #1 45.0 55.7 56.1 11.1

NSA #2 45.0 52.0 52.8 7.8

MLV-3 NSA #1 45.0 65.2 65.2 20.2

NSA #2 45.0 52.1 52.9 7.9

MLV-4 NSA #1 45.0 56.8 57.1 12.1

NSA #2 45.0 55.7 56.1 11.1

MLV-5 NSA #1 45.0 46.1 48.6 3.6

NSA #2 45.0 46.0 48.5 3.5

MLV-6 NSA #1 45.0 51.9 52.7 7.7

NSA #2 45.0 51.9 52.7 7.7

MLV-7 NSA #1 45.0 61.1 61.2 16.2

NSA #2 45.0 57.9 58.1 13.1

MLV-8 NSA #1 45.0 58.7 58.9 13.9

NSA #2 45.0 57.6 57.9 12.9

MLV-9 NSA #1 45.0 54.0 54.6 9.6

NSA #2 45.0 50.8 51.8 6.8

MLV-10 NSA #1 45.0 68.7 68.8 23.8

NSA #2 45.0 63.2 63.2 18.2

MLV-11 (at Westfall Rd 

M&R Station)

NSA #1 47.4 47.2 50.3 2.9

NSA #2 47.6 45.9 49.9 2.3
Air Quality And Noise 4-186

In addition to the operational noise discussed above for the M&R stations, blowdown events 

would also generate noise at the MLV sites. Planned blowdown events can happen during 

commission/decommissioning of a compressor station or maintenance, and are conducted between MLVs

for the latter scenario. Unplanned blowdown events are necessary in the event of an emergency and could 

occur at any time. The frequency and length of the blowdown events depend upon the extent of the 

maintenance activity or type of emergency release. Pipeline blowdown events are typically infrequent 

and of short duration.

A noise assessment was conducted for each of the MLV sites due to the distance of the nearest 

NSAs (see table 4.11.2-4), and incorporated the use of a blowdown silencer with the exception of any 

emergency blowdown events which would prohibit the use of a silencer. The noise assessment used the 

operating condition with the greatest potential for noise (the expected ‘peak’ blowdown condition which 

typically occurs for only 5 to 20 minutes). The noise levels were calculated for only the closest NSAs 

near each MLV site as noise levels for further NSAs would be lower. 

For blowdown events, Constitution would notify local Police and Fire Departments, the NonEmergency 911 system, and landowners in advance, if feasible. 

As shown in table 4.11.2-4, the maximum estimated noise attributable to a blowdown event 

would be 68.7 dBA at NSA#1 to MLV 10. Although the noise levels associated with planned or 

unplanned blowdown events may exceed an Ldn of 55 dBA at some of the MLV sites, the relative 

infrequency and short duration of these events would not result in a significant noise impact on nearby 

residents. 

Based on the analyses conducted and mitigation measures proposed, we conclude that operation 

of Constitution’s project would not result in significant noise impacts on residents and the surrounding 

communities.

Preliminary noise modeling was conducted for Iroquois’ project based on the current design in 

order to determine the noise levels at the nearest NSAs. These noise sources would include (1) two gas 

turbines with gas compressors and cooling; (2) one emergency back-up auxiliary power unit; and (3) 

turbine, compressor, and control building service equipment. Following final engineering, the 

compressor facility would be designed so that the total noise at both the existing Wright Compressor 

Station and the proposed Constitution Transfer Station, operating at full capacity, would not exceed our 

requirements, resulting in noise levels at an Ldn of 55 dBA or lower, at the nearest NSA. In addition, 

Iroquois would implement the following noise control measures to reduce noise impacts:

• All buildings would include:

- wall and roof panels with perforated lining, a mineral wool layer, and steel exterior 

panel; 

- acoustically-treated doors; windows, skylights, and louvers that are fixes and cannot 

be opened; patched and well-sealed voids and openings; construction consistent with 

a high performance acoustical compressor building; and a double rollup, insulated, 

weather-stripped door; and 

- a ventilation system designed to ventilate, heat, and cool with all doors closed, with a 

maximum sound level at each ventilation inlet and exhaust outlet of 40 dBA at 50 

feet, with a 36-inch silencer on each roof exhaust vent installed between the surface 

and vent/hood, and a metal boot enclosing the fan where applicable.
4-187 Air Quality And Noise

• Turbine systems would include:

- turbine air intake silencer;

- turbine combustion exhaust stack silencer; and

- turbine compartment cooling intake and discharge silencers.

• Additional measures would include:

- rooftop and grade level noise barriers for transformers and air handling equipment;

- acoustical lagging for gas scrubbers, filter separators, valves and other exposed 

piping;

- a station gas aftercooler designed to not exceed 55 dBA at 50 feet, equipped with VBelt drive and Moore Class 10000 MAG style fans, with a maximum fan tip speed 

not exceeding 6,000 feet per minute; and

- buried (to the extent possible) high pressure gas piping, valves, and headers, or 

covered with acoustical material such as blankets if not buried. 

Iroquois calculated the maximum allowed noise level for the compressor station equipment, using 

the preliminary site layout, the noise specification data for the proposed turbine equipment, the station’s 

general equipment list, and an acoustical design goal of 49 dBA Leq at the nearest NSA. Due to 

attenuation by distance, NSAs further from the equipment would experience lower noise levels. Table 

4.11.2-5 shows the predicted compressor station noise levels for the compressor facility. 

TABLE 4.11.2-5

Calculated Operational Noise Levels at the Nearest NSA to Iroquois’ Project

Western Property Line NSA #4

Equipment

Maximum 

dBA at 300 

feet

Approx. 

Distance

(feet)

Calculated Equipment 

Noise Ldn (dBA)

Approx. 

Distance

(feet)

Existing 

Ambient 

Noise Ldn

(dBA)

Calculated 

Equipment 

Noise Ldn

(dBA)

Solar T70 

Compressor 

Building 

42 365 40 960 44 30

Gas Coolers 41 570 36 560 44 30

Calculated Total Expected Day-Night, 

Ldn Sound Level, dBA

47

As shown in table 4.11.2-5, predicted noise levels are expected to be below our 55 dBA Ldn

requirement. However, to ensure that the actual noise produced as a result of Iroquois’ modifications to 

its compressor station meets our criteria, we recommend that:

• Iroquois should file a noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days after 

placing the authorized units at the Wright Compressor Station in service. If a full 

load condition noise survey is not possible, Iroquois should provide an interim 

survey at the maximum possible horsepower load and provide the full load survey 

within 6 months. If the noise attributable to the operation of all of the equipment at 

the Wright Compressor Station under interim or full horsepower load conditions 

exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby NSAs, Iroquois should file a report on what 

changes are needed and should install the additional noise controls to meet the level 
Air Quality And Noise 4-188

within 1 year of the in-service date. Iroquois should confirm compliance with the 

above requirement by filing a second noise survey with the Secretary no later than 

60 days after it installs the additional noise controls.

In addition, the operation of the new Constitution Transfer Compressor Station is not expected to 

result in a perceptible increase in vibration at any NSA, as gas turbines, as opposed to reciprocating 

engines, do not produce as high of levels of vibration as compared to reciprocating engines. Iroquois 

would install a vibration monitoring system on the turbines to shut down the turbines if unsafe vibration 

levels are measured.

Based on potential noise impacts on NSAs that could result from a combination of both existing 

and proposed facilities in this area, we requested that Iroquois perform a cumulative noise analysis. 

Iroquois’ cumulative acoustical analysis was performed to determine noise levels resulting from 

combined operation of the existing Wright Compressor Station, the proposed Westfall Road M&R 

Station, the proposed Wright interconnect project facilities, and the proposed TGP crossover piping. 

TGP’s crossover piping would connect TGP’s system with the Iroquois’ proposed facilities. To 

determine combined noise levels for both projects, unweighted sound pressure levels for each individual 

noise source were identified based on 1) actual sound measurements where possible/available; 2) known 

levels for similar equipment; or 3) information provided by the equipment manufacturer. The individual 

sound pressure levels were corrected for A-weighting, which correlates to a person’s perception of how 

loud a sound is, and logarithmically summed and corrected again for A-weighting to provide the 

estimated A-weighted sound level contribution for the combination of sources at the nearest NSAs. 

Results of the analysis are shown in table 4.11.2-6. Predicted noise levels are expected to be below our 

55 dBA Ldn requirement at the NSAs which range in distance from 900 feet to 3,000 feet.

TABLE 4.11.2-6

Calculated Operational Noise Levels for the Westfall Road M&R Station, Iroquois’ Compressor Facilities, and the 

Existing Wright Compressor Station

NSA

Existing 

Ambient 

Noise 

Ldn (dBA)

Existing 

Wright CS 

dBA Ldn

Proposed 

Iroquois 

CS dBA 

Ldn

Proposed 

Westfall Rd 

M&R Station 

dBA Ldn

TGP 

Crossover 

Piping dBA Ldn

Projects 

Total dBA Ldn

Potential 

Noise 

Increase (dB)

NSA #4 44 44.0 52.0 39.7 33.2 52.9 8.9

NSA #5 47 47.0 44.4 39.0 31.9 49.4 2.4

NSA #6 41 41.0 41.4 38.5 29.4 45.4 4.4

NSA #7 39 39.0 47.0 39.6 32.6 48.4 9.4

NSA #8 41 41.0 41.4 41.9 32.7 46.4 5.4

NSA #9 40 40 39.8 34.3 26.0 43.6 3.6

____________________

CS = compressor station

M&R = meter and regulation

dBA = A-weighted decibel

Ldn = day-night sound level

TGP = Tennessee Gas Pipeline

Conclusion

As stated previously, construction equipment for Constitution’s project would be operated on an 

as-needed basis and receptors near the construction areas may experience an increase in perceptible noise, 

but the effect would be temporary and local. Noise mitigation measures employed during construction 
4-189 Reliability And Safety

include manufacturer-installed sound muffling devices on equipment, and additional noise mitigation 

measures could be implemented to further reduce construction noise disturbances at NSAs. Generally, 

nighttime noise is not expected to increase during construction with the exception of HDD and Direct 

Pipe activity. Proposed mitigation would reduce noise levels from HDD and Direct Pipe activity to below 

55 dBA Ldn and our recommendation would ensure that HDD-related noise does not increase noise over 

ambient conditions greater than 10 dB at NSA #1 to the HDD #4 entry point.

Based on modeled noise levels, mitigation measures proposed, and our recommendation, we 

conclude that Constitution’s project would not result in significant noise impacts on residents and the 

surrounding communities, for either HDD/Direct Pipe activity or any other construction activity required.

The most prevalent noise-generating equipment during construction of Iroquois’ compressor 

facility would be construction equipment engines operating during site earth work. Use of construction 

equipment could produce noise levels that would be perceptible above the ambient noise conditions 

during construction. Iroquois would limit construction to daylight hours to prevent nighttime noise 

impacts. Because construction would be temporary and limited to the station site, we conclude that 

construction of Iroquois’ project would not significantly impact nearby residents.

Operation of the Constitution project’s M&R stations would not result in a perceptible noise 

increase or exceed our criteria. Noise from planned or unplanned blowdown events could exceed our 

noise criteria but would be infrequent and of relative short duration. Based on the analyses conducted 

and mitigation measures proposed, we conclude that operation of Constitution’s project would not result 

in significant noise impacts on residents and the surrounding communities. 

Operation of the Iroquois project would result in noise impacts associated with the Wright 

Compressor Station modification. Based on the analyses conducted, the mitigation measures proposed, 

and our recommendation we conclude that Iroquois’ project would not result in significant noise impacts 

on residents, and the surrounding communities during operation as noise levels attributable to the 

proposed modification are expected to be below our 55 dBA Ldn criteria at the nearest NSAs. In addition, 

the operation of Iroquois’ project is not expected to result in a perceptible increase in vibration at any 

NSA, as gas turbines, as opposed to reciprocating engines, do not produce as high of levels of vibration as 

compared to reciprocating engines. Finally, noise levels from combined operation of the Westfall Road 

M&R Station, the Wright Interconnect Project facilities, and the existing Wright Compressor Station were 

modeled and are expected to be below our 55 dBA Ldn criteria. 

4.12 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY

The transportation of natural gas by pipeline involves some incremental risk to the public due to 

the potential for accidental release of natural gas. The greatest hazard is a fire or explosion following a 

major pipeline rupture. 

Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is colorless, odorless, and tasteless. It is not 

toxic, but is classified as a simple asphyxiate, possessing a slight inhalation hazard. If breathed in high 

concentration, oxygen deficiency can result in serious injury or death. Constitution has indicated that a 

chemical odorant would not be added to the natural gas to produce the familiar “natural gas smell.” The 

proposed compressor facility does include modification of odorization equipment, but this process would 

not be observable along the proposed pipeline route. We received comments concerning the toxicity of 

methane if there was a release of natural gas to the atmosphere. Methane is inactive biologically and 

essentially nontoxic. It is not listed in the International Agency for Research on Cancer, National 

Toxicology Program, or by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as a carcinogen or 

potential carcinogen.
Reliability And Safety 4-190

Methane has an auto-ignition temperature of 1,000°F and is flammable at concentrations between 

5 percent and 15 percent in the air. Unconfined mixtures of methane in air are not explosive. However, a 

flammable concentration within an enclosed space in the presence of an ignition source can explode. It is 

buoyant at atmospheric temperatures and disperses rapidly in air.

4.12.1 Safety Standards

The DOT is mandated to provide pipeline safety under Title 49, USC Chapter 601. The Pipeline 

and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety administers the 

national regulatory program to ensure the safe transportation of natural gas and other hazardous materials 

by pipeline. It develops safety regulations and other approaches to risk management that ensure safety in 

the design, construction, testing, operation, maintenance, and emergency response of pipeline facilities. 

Many of the regulations are written as performance standards that set the level of safety to be attained and 

allow the pipeline operator to use various technologies to achieve the required safety standard. 

The PHMSA ensures that people and the environment are protected from the risk of pipeline 

incidents. This work is shared with state agency partners and others at the federal, state, and local level. 

The DOT provides for a state agency to assume all aspects of the safety program for intrastate facilities by 

adopting and enforcing the federal standards. A state may also act as the DOT’s agent to inspect 

interstate facilities within its boundaries; however, the DOT is responsible for enforcement action. For 

the proposed projects, Pennsylvania and New York have delegated authority to inspect interstate pipeline 

facilities.

The DOT pipeline standards are published in Parts 190-199 of Title 49 of the CFR. Part 192 

specifically addresses natural gas pipeline safety issues. Under a Memorandum of Understanding on 

Natural Gas Transportation Facilities dated January 15, 1993 between the DOT and the FERC, the DOT 

is recognized as having the exclusive authority to promulgate federal safety standards used in the 

transportation of natural gas. Section 157.14(a)(9)(vi) of the FERC’s regulations require that an applicant 

certify that it will design, install, inspect, test, construct, operate, replace, and maintain the facility for 

which a Certificate is requested in accordance with federal safety standards and plans for maintenance 

and inspection, or shall certify that it has been granted a waiver of the requirements of the safety 

standards by the DOT in accordance with section 3(e) of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act. The FERC 

accepts this certification and does not impose additional safety standards other than the DOT standards. 

If the Commission becomes aware of an existing or potential safety problem, there is a provision in the 

memorandum to promptly alert the DOT. The memorandum also provides instructions for referring 

complaints and inquiries made by state and local governments and the general public involving safety 

matters related to pipelines under the Commission’s jurisdiction.

The FERC also participates as a member of the DOT’s Technical Pipeline Safety Standards 

Committee, which determines if proposed safety regulations are reasonable, feasible, and practicable.

The pipeline and aboveground facilities associated with the projects would be designed, 

constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with or to exceed the DOT Minimum Federal Safety 

Standards in 49 CFR 192. These regulations, which are intended to protect the public and to prevent 

natural gas facility accidents and failures, include specifications for material selection and qualification; 

minimum design requirements; and protection of the pipeline from internal, external, and atmospheric 

corrosion. Many commenters expressed concern about how the pipeline would be maintained over time 

and the long-term safety of operations. As stated previously, any natural gas facility has some degree of 

risk and, although any structure will eventually degrade, the DOT rules require regular inspection and 

maintenance, including repairs as necessary, to ensure the pipeline has adequate strength to transport the 

natural gas safely. 
4-191 Reliability And Safety

The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation Act of 2011 (H.R. 2845), was passed 

by Congress and signed into law on January 3, 2012 by President Barack Obama. Among other 

requirements, this Act mandates that no later than 2 years of the date of enactment, after considering 

factors specified in the Act, the DOT Secretary, if appropriate, shall require by regulation the use of 

automatic or remote control shut-off valves, or equivalent technology, where economically, technically, 

and operationally feasible on transmission pipeline facilities constructed or entirely replaced after the date 

on which the Secretary issues the final rule containing such requirement. Although these regulations have 

not yet gone into effect and would apply to pipelines built in the future, Constitution committed to the use 

of remote control shut-off valves on the proposed pipeline as discussed in section 2.2.2.

The DOT defines area classifications, based on population density in the vicinity of the pipeline, 

and specifies more rigorous safety requirements for populated areas. Pipe wall thickness and pipeline 

design pressures, hydrostatic test pressures, MAOP, inspection and testing of welds, and frequency of 

pipeline patrols and leak surveys must also conform to higher standards in more populated areas. The 

class locations unit is an area that extends 220 yards on either side of the centerline of any continuous 1 

mile length of pipeline. The four area classifications are defined below: 

• Class 1 – Location with 10 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy;

• Class 2 – Location with more than 10 but less than 46 buildings intended for human 

occupancy;

• Class 3 – Location with 46 or more buildings intended for human occupancy or where the 

pipeline lies within 100 yards of any building, or small well-defined outside area 

occupied by 20 or more people on at least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 12-month 

period; and 

• Class 4 – Location where buildings with four or more stories aboveground are prevalent.

In accordance with federal standards, class locations representing more populated areas require 

higher safety factors in pipeline design, testing, and operation. Pipelines constructed on land in Class 1 

locations must be installed with a minimum depth of cover of 30 inches in normal soil and 18 inches in 

consolidated rock. Class 2, 3, and 4 locations, as well as drainage ditches of public roads and railroad 

crossings, require a minimum cover of 36 inches in normal soil and 24 inches in consolidated rock. All 

pipelines installed in navigable rivers, streams, and harbors must have a minimum cover of 48 inches in 

soil or 24 inches in consolidated rock. Class locations also specify the maximum distance to sectionalized 

block valves (that is 10.0 miles in Class 1, 7.5 miles in Class 2, 4.0 miles in Class 3, and 2.5 miles in 

Class 4). 

The new 30-inch-diameter pipeline would stretch 124.4 miles from Brooklyn Township, 

Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania and proceed across Broome, Chenango, and Delaware Counties 

before terminating in the Town of Wright, Schoharie County, New York. The pipeline would receive gas 

at a pressure of 1,190 to 1,250 psig from the Turnpike Road M&R Station and Sutton Road M&R Station 

both located in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. The pipeline system would deliver gas at a pressure 

of 800 to 850 psig to the Westfall Road M&R Delivery Station in Schoharie County, New York. 

Approximately 1.0 mile (about 1 percent) of the proposed 30-inch-diameter pipeline would be located in 

Class 3 areas (three segments located in Schoharie County, New York), 22 miles (about 18 percent) 

would be located in Class 2 areas, and 101 miles (about 81 percent) would be located in Class 1 areas. A 

summary of class locations based on current population density along the proposed pipeline route is 

provided in table 4.12.1-1. 
Reliability And Safety 4-192

TABLE 4.12.1-1

Area Classifications along Constitution’s Project

State/Facility Start Milepost End Milepost Length Class Location

Pennsylvania

30-inch-diameter pipeline 0.0 4.4 4.4 1

4.4 4.7 0.3 2

4.7 5.0 0.3 1

5.0 6.0 1.1 2

6.0 6.5 0.4 1

6.5 7.0 0.5 2

7.0 10.3 3.3 1

10.3 10.5 0.3 2

10.5 10.7 0.1 1

10.7 11.3 0.7 2

11.3 11.4 0.1 1

11.4 11.7 0.3 2

11.7 21.1 9.4 1

21.1 21.5 0.4 2

21.5 21.6 0.1 1

21.6 22.1 0.6 2

22.1 22.5 0.4 1

22.5 22.8 0.3 2

22.8 25.2 2.5 1

New York

25.2 34.3 9.1 1

34.3 35.2 0.9 2

35.2 35.3 0.2 1

35.3 35.6 0.3 2

35.6 35.7 0.2 1

35.7 36.0 0.3 2

36.0 36.2 0.2 1

36.2 37.0 0.8 2

37.0 37.1 0.1 1

37.1 37.3 0.3 2

37.3 40.7 3.4 1

40.7 41.0 0.3 2

41.0 41.3 0.3 1

41.3 42.1 0.9 2

42.1 42.2 0.1 1

42.2 42.2 0.0 2

42.2 42.5 0.2 2
4-193 Reliability And Safety

TABLE 4.12.1-1 (continued)

Area Classifications along Constitution’s Project

State/Facility Start Milepost End Milepost Length Class Location

42.5 42.6 0.1 1

42.6 43.0 0.4 2

43.0 50.5 7.6 1

50.5 50.7 0.2 1

50.7 51.0 0.3 2

51.0 51.0 0.0 1

51.0 51.3 0.3 2

51.3 51.5 0.2 1

51.5 51.9 0.5 2

51.9 55.1 3.2 1

55.1 56.3 1.2 2

56.3 56.3 0.0 1

56.3 56.7 0.3 2

56.7 60.5 3.9 1

60.5 60.8 0.3 2

60.8 61.0 0.2 1

61.0 61.8 0.8 2

61.8 74.8 13.0 1

74.8 75.4 0.6 2

75.4 75.4 0.0 1

75.4 75.9 0.6 2

75.9 76.7 0.8 1

76.7 76.9 0.3 2

76.9 77.0 0.1 1

77.0 77.9 0.9 2

77.9 77.9 0.0 1

77.9 78.5 0.6 2

78.5 87.7 9.3 1

87.7 88.4 0.6 2

88.4 88.4 0.1 1

88.4 88.8 0.4 2

88.8 93.5 4.7 1

93.5 96.2 2.6 1

96.2 97.2 1.0 2

97.2 97.3 0.1 1

97.3 97.5 0.3 2

97.5 97.6 0.1 1

97.6 97.9 0.3 2

97.9 99.3 1.4 1

99.3 99.6 0.3 2
Reliability And Safety 4-194

TABLE 4.12.1-1 (continued)

Area Classifications along Constitution’s Project

State/Facility Start Milepost End Milepost Length Class Location

99.6 99.6 0.0 1

99.6 100.9 1.3 2

100.9 100.9 0.0 1

100.9 101.8 0.9 2

101.8 101.9 0.1 1

101.9 102.3 0.4 2

102.3 102.4 0.0 1

102.4 102.8 0.4 2

102.8 116.3 13.6 1

116.3 117.6 1.3 2

117.6 119.4 1.9 1

119.4 119.8 0.4 3

119.8 119.8 0.0 1

119.8 120.2 0.4 3

120.2 120.7 0.5 1

120.7 121.0 0.3 3

121.0 121.0 0.0 1

121.0 121.3 0.3 2

121.3 124.4 3.2 1

If Constitution’s project is approved, the regulations require that the pipeline be designed, at a 

minimum, to the appropriate Class location standards and that the spacing between the mainline valves 

meets the DOT requirements. Constitution proposed a more robust design than is required. Specifically, 

Constitution has committed to several measures that exceed the specified DOT requirements. These 

additional measures would include:

• installation of Class 2 design pipe in all Class 1 locations;

• installation of the pipeline deeper than required for Class 1 locations with a minimum 

depth of 36 inches in normal soils and 24 inches in consolidated rock (a level suitable for 

Class 2, 3, and 4 locations);

• inspection of 100 percent of mainline pipeline welds;

• hydrostatic testing of the entire pipeline at a higher level suitable for Class 3 locations; 

and

• spacing of MLVs at closer intervals to meet Class 2 requirements in all areas. 

During operation of the pipeline, the operating company is required to periodically reassess the 

class locations along its pipelines. If a subsequent increase in population density adjacent to the right-ofway indicates a change in class location for the pipeline, Constitution would be required to reduce the 

MAOP or replace the segment with pipe of sufficient grade and wall thickness, if required, to comply 

with the DOT code of regulations for the new class location.
4-195 Reliability And Safety

The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 also requires operators to develop and follow a 

written integrity management program that contains all the elements described in 49 CFR 192.911 and 

addresses the risks on each transmission pipeline segment. Specifically, the law establishes an integrity 

management program that applies to all high consequence areas (HCA). 

We received several comments about the potential effects of a pipeline rupture and natural gas 

ignition (the area of potential effect is sometimes referred to as the potential impact radius6

). It should be 

noted that a pipeline rupture does not necessarily ignite. However, the DOT published rules that define 

HCAs where a gas pipeline accident could do considerable harm to people and their property and requires 

an integrity management program to minimize the potential for an accident. This definition satisfies, in 

part, the Congressional mandate for the DOT to prescribe standards that establish criteria for identifying 

each gas pipeline facility in a high-density population area.

The HCAs may be defined in one of two ways. In the first method, an HCA includes: 

• current Class 3 and 4 locations; 

• any area in Class 1 or 2 locations where the potential impact radius is greater than 660 

feet and there are 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy within the 

potential impact circle7

; or

• any area in Class 1 or 2 locations where the potential impact circle includes an identified 

site.

An identified site is an outside area or open structure that is occupied by 20 or more persons on at 

least 50 days in any 12-month period; a building that is occupied by 20 or more persons on at least 5 days 

a week for any 10 weeks in any 12-month period; or a facility that is occupied by persons who are 

confined, are of impaired mobility, or would be difficult to evacuate.

In the second method, an HCA includes any area within a potential impact circle that contains:

• 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy; or

• an identified site.

Constitution is still in the process of determining HCAs for the proposed pipeline project.

Once a pipeline operator has determined the HCAs on its pipeline, it must apply the elements of 

its integrity management plan to those segments of the pipeline within the HCAs. The DOT regulations 

specify the requirements for the integrity management plan at Part 192.911. The pipeline integrity 

management rule for HCAs requires inspection of the pipeline every 7 years. Constitution would add the 

Constitution Pipeline to their current overall comprehensive integrity management plan that meets these 

regulations. 

As previously discussed, the proposed projects would be designed and constructed in accordance 

with or to exceed the DOT Minimum Federal Safety Standards in 49 CFR 192. In constructing the 

pipeline, Constitution would use specified welding protocol and hydrostatic testing to ensure the integrity 

 6 The potential impact radius is calculated as the product of 0.69 and the square root of the MAOP of the pipeline 

in pounds per square inch multiplied by the pipeline diameter in inches. 7 The potential impact circle is a circle of radius equal to the potential impact radius.
Reliability And Safety 4-196

of the pipeline, and pipeline coating and cathodic protection systems8 to meet requirements established by 

the DOT for protection of metallic facilities from external, internal, and atmospheric corrosion. 

Constitution would inspect all welds and use a non-destructive method such as radiographic or ultrasonic 

inspections to ensure pipeline structural integrity and compliance with the applicable the DOT 

regulations. Those welds that do not meet established specifications would be repaired or replaced. Once 

the welds are approved, the welded joints would be coated with a protective coating and the entire 

pipeline would be visually inspected for any faults, scratches, or other coating defects. Any damage 

would be repaired before the pipeline is installed. Upon completion of construction, the integrity of the 

pipelines would be verified by hydrostatic testing as described in section 4.3.2. During operation, the 

pipelines would be protected by a cathodic protection system, which would impress a low voltage current 

on the pipelines to offset natural soil and groundwater corrosion potential during operation. After its 

installation, the functional capability of the cathodic protection system would be inspected frequently to 

ensure proper operating conditions for corrosion mitigation.

After construction and as required by the DOT regulations, the pipeline facilities would be 

marked at line-of-sight intervals and at crossings of roads, railroads, and other key points. The markers 

would indicate the presence of the pipeline and provide a telephone number and address where a company 

representative could be reached in the event of an emergency or before any excavation in the area of the 

pipeline by a third party. Constitution participates in the “Call Before You Dig” and “One Call” 

programs and other related pre-excavation notification organizations in the states in which they operate. 

In addition, if there is excavation occurring near one of Constitution’s pipelines, operational personnel 

would be on site during the work near the pipeline to ensure there is no risk of damage to Constitution’s 

facilities.

The DOT prescribes the minimum standards for operating and maintaining pipeline facilities, 

including the requirement to establish a written plan governing these activities. Each pipeline operator 

must establish an emergency plan that includes procedures to minimize the hazards in a natural gas 

pipeline emergency. Key elements of Constitution and Iroquois’ emergency procedures would include 

but are not limited to the following:

• receiving, identifying, and classifying emergency events such as gas leakage, fires, 

explosions, and natural disasters; 

• establishing and maintaining communications with local fire, police, and public officials, 

and coordinating emergency response; 

• emergency shutdown of system and safe restoration of service;

• making personnel, equipment, tools, and materials available at the scene of an 

emergency; and

• protecting people first and then property, and making them safe from actual or potential 

hazards, including evacuating individuals and rerouting traffic as necessary to avoid any 

area that is deemed to be unsafe.

Constitution and Iroquois would incorporate the projects into their existing gas monitoring and 

control systems. Constitution would maintain a monitoring system that includes a gas control center that 

monitors system pressures, flows, and customer deliveries on its entire system. The center is staffed 24 

hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year from Houston, Texas. The compressor facility would be 

 8 Cathodic protection is a technique to reduce corrosion (rust) of the natural gas pipeline that includes the use of 

an induced current or a sacrificial anode (like zinc) that corrodes at faster rate to reduce corrosion.
4-197 Reliability And Safety

monitored by Iroquois Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System, which is also monitored 7 days 

a week, and 365 days a year.

Constitution’s pipeline systems (which would include the proposed facilities) would also be 

equipped with remote control valves that can be operated remotely by the gas control center. In the event 

of an emergency, usually evidenced by a sudden loss of pressure, the gas control center would send a 

command signal to the remote control valves to initiate the closure of the valves. 

In accordance with the regulations, the pipeline would be patrolled on a routine basis. 

Constitution committed to walking and visually inspecting the pipeline corridor. These patrols would 

identify soil erosion that may expose the pipe, dead vegetation that may indicate a leak in the line, 

conditions of the vegetative cover and erosion control measures, unauthorized encroachment on the rightof-way such as buildings and other substantial structures, and other conditions that could present a safety 

hazard or require preventive maintenance or repairs. Constitution would also perform (generally) weekly 

fly-over inspections of the right-of-way and annual leak detection surveys of the proposed pipeline 

facilities. Constitution would also inspect valves twice a year, inspect rectifiers six times a year, and 

verify the cathodic protection system annually. These surveys would provide early detection of leaks and 

would reduce the likelihood for pipeline failure. Constitution would also use both caliper and smart pigs 

to identify pipeline defects, corrosion, and other areas in need of repair.

Constitution representatives have already met with emergency services departments in four of the 

counties that would be affected by the proposed projects and they would continue to meet with the 

departments in all of the counties along the proposed pipeline route annually. Constitution would provide 

these departments with emergency numbers and emergency response plans. Affected public landowners, 

emergency responders, public officials, and excavators would receive annual updates about the pipeline. 

Additionally, Constitution has already provided and would continue to provide financial assistance for 

selected emergency responders via their Community Grant Program. This program evaluates specific 

requests for noteworthy community projects. Constitution provided grants to six emergency responder 

groups in Delaware and Schoharie Counties, New York, in December 2012. In June 2013, six grants 

were awarded to emergency responder groups in Susquehanna, Broome, Delaware, and Schoharie 

counties. 

We received comments regarding who would be financially responsible should there be a pipeline 

incident. Constitution has stated that they would reimburse the landowner for any loss or damage to their 

property as a result of an incident with the operation of the proposed pipeline. According to Constitution, 

compensation would include but is not limited to, replacement, repair, rental, or straight compensation of 

the damage. Constitution would implement various public safety measures during construction in 

residential areas including but not limited to: safety fencing the construction work area boundary to 

ensure equipment, materials, and spoil remain in the construction right-of-way and that the public is 

excluded from hazardous areas; ensuring piping is welded and installed as quickly as reasonably possible 

consistent with prudent pipeline construction practices to minimize the duration of construction within a 

neighborhood; backfilling the trench as soon as the pipe is laid or temporarily installing a steel plate over 

the open trench; and completing final cleanup and installation of permanent erosion control measures 

within 10 days after the trench is backfilled, weather conditions permitting. 

Constitution would prepare site-specific traffic closure and detour plans if the proposed projects 

are approved. Sections 4.8.3 and 4.9.4 provide additional discussions regarding potential impacts on 

traffic.

We also received comments from residents who were concerned about the construction and 

operational impacts, as well pipeline rupture impacts on vulnerable populations such as children, the 
Reliability And Safety 4-198

elderly, or the infirm. Constitution has routed the pipeline, and is continuing to evaluate route 

modifications, to minimize risks to local residents and vulnerable locations. The DOT regulations 

summarized in Section 4.12.1 are designed to ensure minimum requirements for safety of all populations. 

Pipeline Accident Data

The DOT requires all operators of natural gas transmission pipelines to notify the DOT of any 

significant incidents and to submit a report within 20 days. Significant incidents are defined as any leaks 

that:

• cause a death or personal injury requiring hospitalization; or

• involve property damage of more than $50,000 in 1984 dollars.9

During the 20-year period from 1993 through 2012, a total of 1,182 significant incidents were 

reported on the more than 300,000 total miles of natural gas transmission pipelines nationwide. 

Additional insight into the nature of service incidents may be found by examining the primary 

factors that caused the failures. Table 4.12.1-2 provides a distribution of the causal factors, as well as the 

number of each incident by cause. The dominant incident cause is corrosion and pipeline material, weld 

or equipment failure constituting 48.5 percent of all significant incidents. The pipelines included in the 

data set in table 4.12.1-2 vary widely in terms of age, pipe diameter, and level of corrosion control. Each 

variable influences the incident frequency that may be expected for a specific segment of pipeline. The 

frequency of significant incidents is strongly dependent on pipeline age. Older pipelines have a higher 

frequency of corrosion incidents, since corrosion is a time-dependent process. 

TABLE 4.12.1-2

Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Significant Incidents by Cause (1993-2012) a

Cause Number of Incidents Percentageb

Corrosion 284 24.0

Excavationc 200 16.9

Pipeline Material, Weld or Equipment 

Failure

289 24.5

Natural Force Damage 143 12.1

Outside Forcesd 67 5.7

All Other Causese 199 16.8

TOTAL 1,182 --

____________________

a PHMSA 2013a.

b Due to rounding, column may not total 100 percent.

c Includes third-party damage.

d Fire, explosion, vehicle damage, previous damage, intentional damage.

e Miscellaneous causes or unknown causes.

 9 $50,000 in 1984 dollars is approximately $110,660 as of December 2013 (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of 

Labor Statistics 2013b).
4-199 Reliability And Safety

The use of both an external protective coating and a cathodic protection system, required on all 

pipelines installed after July 1971, significantly reduces the corrosion rate compared to unprotected or 

partially protected pipe.

Outside forces, including excavations and natural events are the cause in 34.7 percent of 

significant pipeline incidents. Table 4.12.1-3 presents information on the outside forces incidents by 

cause. These mostly result from the encroachment of mechanical equipment such as bulldozers and 

backhoes; earth movements due to soil settlement, washouts, or geologic hazards; weather effects such as 

winds, storms, and thermal strains; and willful damage. 

Older pipelines have a higher frequency of outside forces incidents partly because their location 

may be less well known and less well marked than newer lines. In addition, the older pipeline systems 

contain a disproportionate number of smaller diameter pipelines, which have a greater rate of outside 

forces incidents. Small diameter pipelines are more easily crushed or broken by mechanical equipment or 

earth movements.

Since 1982, operators have been required to participate in “One Call” public utility programs in 

populated areas to minimize unauthorized excavation activities in the vicinity of pipelines. The “One 

Call” program is a service used by public utilities and some private sector companies (for example oil 

pipelines and cable television) to provide pre-construction information to contractors or other 

maintenance workers on the underground location of pipes, cables, and culverts.

TABLE 4.12.1-3

Outside Forces Incidents by Cause (1993-2012)a

Cause Number of Incidents Percent of all Incidents b

Third-party excavation damage 168 14.2

Operator excavation damage 25 2.1

Unspecified equipment damage/Previous damage 7 0.6

Heavy Rain/Floods 70 5.9

Earth Movement 37 3.1

Lightning/Temperature/High Winds 21 1.8

Unspecified Natural Force 13 1.1

Vehicle (not engaged with excavation) 42 3.6

Fire/Explosion 8 0.7

Previous mechanical damage 5 0.4

Intentional damage 1 0.1

Unspecified outside force 1 0.1

TOTAL 398 --

____________________

a Excavation, Outside Forces, and Natural Force Damage from table 4.12.1-2.

b Due to rounding, column does not equal 34.7 percent.

Impact on Public Safety

The service incident data summarized in table 4.12.1-2 include pipeline failures of all magnitudes 

with widely varying consequences. 
Reliability And Safety 4-200

Table 4.12.1-4 presents the average annual injuries and fatalities that occurred on natural gas 

transmission lines between 2008 and 2012. The data have been separated into employees and 

nonemployees, to better identify a fatality rate experienced by the general public. Fatalities among the 

public averaged 1.6 per year over the 5 year period from 2008-2012. 

TABLE 4.12.1-4

Annual Average Fatalities - Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines

Injuries Fatalities

Year Employees Public Employees Public

2008 3 2 0 0

2009 4 7 0 0

2010a 10 51 2 8

2011 1 0 0 0

2012 3 4 0 0

____________________

a All of the public injuries and fatalities in 2010 were due to the Pacific Gas and Electric pipeline rupture and fire in San 

Bruno, California on September 9, 2010.

The majority of fatalities from pipelines involve local distribution pipelines. These are natural 

gas pipelines that are not regulated by the FERC and that distribute natural gas to homes and businesses 

after transportation through interstate natural gas transmission pipelines. In general, these distribution 

lines are smaller diameter pipes, often made of plastic or cast iron rather than welded steel, and tend to be 

older pipelines that are more susceptible to damage. In addition, distribution systems do not have large 

rights-of-way and pipeline markers common to the FERC-regulated natural gas transmission pipelines.

The nationwide totals of accidental fatalities from various manmade and natural hazards are listed 

in table 4.12.1-5 in order to provide a relative measure of the industry-wide safety of natural gas 

transmission pipelines. Direct comparisons between accident categories should be made cautiously, 

however, because individual exposures to hazards are not uniform among all categories. Furthermore, the 

fatality rate is more than 25 times lower than the fatalities from natural hazards such as lightning, 

tornados, floods, earthquakes, etc.

The available data show that natural gas transmission pipelines continue to be a safe, reliable 

means of energy transportation. The number of significant incidents over the more than 300,000 miles of 

natural gas transmission lines indicates the risk is low for an incident at any given location. The operation 

of the projects would represent a slight increase in risk to the nearby public.
4-201 Reliability And Safety

TABLE 4.12.1-5

Nationwide Accidental Deathsa

Type of Accident Annual Number of Deaths

All accidents 123,706

Motor Vehicle 43,945

Poisoning 29,846

Falls 22,631

Drowning 3,443

Fire, smoke inhalation, burns 3,286

Floodsb 89

Lightningb 52

Tornadob 74

Natural gas distribution linesc 14

Natural gas transmission pipelinesc 2

____________________

a U.S. Census Bureau 2012.

b NWS 2012.

c PHMSA 2013b.

Terrorism

Safety and security concerns have changed the way pipeline operators as well as regulators must 

consider terrorism, both in approving new projects and in operating existing facilities. The Office of 

Homeland Security is tasked with the mission of coordinating the efforts of all executive departments and 

agencies to detect, prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks 

within the United States. Among its responsibilities, the Office of Homeland Security oversees the 

Homeland Infrastructure Threat and Risk Analysis Center, which analyzes and implements the National 

Critical Infrastructure Prioritization Program that identifies and lists Tier 1 and Tier 2 assets. The Tier 1 

and Tier 2 lists are key components of infrastructure protection programs and are used to prioritize 

infrastructure protection, response, and recovery activities. The Commission, in cooperation with other 

federal agencies, industry trade groups, and interstate natural gas companies, is working to improve 

pipeline security practices, strengthen communications within the industry, and extend public outreach in 

an ongoing effort to secure pipeline infrastructure.

Unfortunately, we are unable to provide more details in this analysis. The Commission is faced 

with a dilemma in how much information can be offered to the public while still providing a significant 

level of protection to the facility. Consequently, energy facility design plans and location information 

have been removed from its website to ensure that sensitive information filed under Critical Energy 

Infrastructure Information is not readily available (RM02-4-000 and PL02-1-000 issued February 20, 

2003).

The likelihood of future acts of terrorism or sabotage occurring at the proposed facilities, or at 

any of the myriad natural gas pipeline or energy facilities throughout the United States, is unpredictable 

given the disparate motives and abilities of terrorist groups. The continuing need to construct facilities to 

support the future natural gas pipeline infrastructure is not diminished from the threat of any such future 

acts. 
Cumulative Impacts 4-202

4.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

In accordance with NEPA, we considered the cumulative impacts of Constitution’s and Iroquois’ 

projects and other projects or actions in the area. Cumulative impacts represent the incremental effects of 

a proposed action when added to impacts associated with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future 

projects, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Although the individual 

impact of each separate project may be minor, the additive or synergistic effects of multiple projects 

could be significant. The direct and indirect impacts of Constitution’s and Iroquois’ projects are 

discussed in other sections of this EIS.

The purpose of this analysis is to identify and describe cumulative impacts that would potentially 

result from implementation of the Constitution and Iroquois projects. This cumulative impacts analysis 

uses an approach consistent with the methodology set forth in relevant guidance (CEQ 1997b, 2005; EPA 

1999). Under these guidelines, inclusion of actions within the analysis is based on identifying 

commonalities of impacts from other actions to potential impacts that would results from Constitution’s

and Iroquois’ projects. In order to avoid unnecessary discussions of insignificant impacts and projects 

and to adequately address and accomplish the purposes of this analysis, the cumulative impacts analysis 

for the proposed projects was conducted using the following guidelines:

• a project must impact a resource category potentially affected by the proposed projects. 

For the most part, these projects are located in the same general area that would be 

directly affected by construction of the proposed projects. The effects of more distant 

projects are in most cases not assessed, because their impacts would tend to be localized 

and not contribute significantly to the impacts of the proposed projects. Potential 

cumulative impacts on air quality and watersheds, however, were considered on a 

broader, more regional basis;

• the distance into the past and future which other projects could potentially cumulatively 

impact the area of the proposed projects was based on whether the impacts are shortterm, long-term, or permanent. Most of the impacts related to the proposed projects 

would occur during the construction phase. Constitution has proposed to place its project 

into service in March 2015, and would seek approval to begin construction as soon as all 

necessary federal approvals can be obtained. For projects where the impacts are longterm or permanent, the temporal range was extended; and

• where a potential for cumulative impacts was indicated, those impacts were quantified to 

the extent practicable; however, in some cases the potential impacts can only be 

described qualitatively. This is particularly the case for projects that are in the planning 

stages; are contingent on economic conditions, availability of financing, and/or the 

issuance of permits; or for which there is a lack of comprehensive information available. 

Projects meeting one or more of the criteria listed below were considered in this cumulative 

analysis. These criteria define the projects’ region of influence, which will be used in this analysis to 

describe the general area for which the proposed projects could potentially contribute to cumulative 

impacts. The region of influence varies depending on the resource being discussed. Specifically, we 

included: 

• minor projects, such as residential development, small commercial development, and 

small transportation projects within 0.25 mile of the proposed area for both Constitution’s

and Iroquois’ projects;
4-203 Cumulative Impacts

• major projects, such as large commercial, industrial, transportation and energy 

development projects within 10 miles of the proposed area for both projects. This 

includes natural gas well permitting and development projects; 

• major projects within watersheds crossed by the proposed projects; and

• projects with potential to result in longer term impacts on air quality (for example, natural 

gas pipeline compressor stations) located within an AQCR crossed by the proposed 

projects. 

We have identified four types of projects that would potentially cause a cumulative impact when 

considered with the proposed projects. These are: 1) Marcellus Shale development (wells and gathering 

systems); 2) natural gas facilities that are not under the Commission’s jurisdiction [non-jurisdictional

project-related facilities]; 3) other FERC jurisdictional natural gas pipelines; and 4) other actions (see 

table 4.13-1). We identified these projects through scoping and independent research, as well as 

information provided by the Applicants.

When considering natural gas infrastructure projects that could be developed in the future (and 

are therefore not listed in table 4.13-1) and the potential for associated cumulative impacts, it’s important 

to note that with an increase in pressure of 1,400 pounds per square inch gauge (psig), the Constitution 

pipeline’s maximum capacity would be 850,000 Dth/d, which is 200,000 Dth/d (31 percent) greater than 

the currently proposed level. This relatively modest allowance for increased capacity would likely 

preclude the use of the Constitution line as a major conduit for newly emerging gas supplies, should they 

occur. The potential cumulative impacts related to the use of the Constitution line for this purpose, while 

uncertain, are described in general below.
4-204

Cumulative Impacts

4-204

TABLE 4.13-1

Existing or Proposed Projects Evaluated for Potential Cumulative Impacts

Project 

Location

(County, State) Description

Approximate 

Closest 

Distance to 

Project (miles) State Watershed a Project Statusb 

Air Quality Control 

Region (AQCR)

Marcellus Shale Development

Wellsc

PA Wells Susquehanna 

and Wayne, PA

Between 2009 and October 2013, 

the PADEP has issued 1,545 

unconventional natural gas well 

permits in Susquehanna County 

and 19 in Wayne County.

Varied East Branch Wyalusing 

Creek, Meshoppen Creek, 

Tunkhannock Creek, Middle 

Susquehanna Creek, Lower 

Susquehanna Creek, Lower 

West Branch Delaware River, 

Lackawanna River

Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania-Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Interstate

NY Wells Broome, 

Chenango, 

Delaware 

(horizontal 

drilling permits 

only) and 

Otsego, NY

Between 2009 and October 2013, 

the NYSDEC has issued 68 well 

permits (24 vertical natural gas 

well permits and 44 horizontal 

natural gas well permits 

(unconventional natural gas 

drilling is currently suspended 

pending New York state review).

Varied Susquehanna River, 

Chenango River, Unadilla 

River, Northern Delaware 

River, Schoharie Creek, 

Mohawk River, Mid-Hudson 

River

Ongoing Southern Tier East 

Intrastate

Gathering Systemsd

Williams ABA Well 

Connects: Lewis 1-6 

Well Connect Pipeline

Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas well interconnect 

gathering line located near 

Dimock Township

1.0 Mehoopany Bowmans Creek Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Williams ABA Well 

Connects: Lippincott 

1,2,3,4 Well Connect 

Pipeline

Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas well interconnect 

gathering line located in Brooklyn 

Township

4.5 Tunkhannock Creek Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Williams CTL HP 

Pipeline 

Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas gathering line located 

in Bridgewater, Dimock, 

Springville, and Brooklyn 

Township

7.0 Meshoppen Creek Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Williams Ely Lake 

Pipeline 

Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas gathering line located 

in Brooklyn and Dimock 

Townships

3.8 Meshoppen Creek Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate
4-205

4-205 Cumulative Impacts

TABLE 4.13-1

Existing or Proposed Projects Evaluated for Potential Cumulative Impacts

Project 

Location

(County, State) Description

Approximate 

Closest 

Distance to 

Project (miles) State Watershed a Project Statusb 

Air Quality Control 

Region (AQCR)

Williams Lindaville 

Pipeline 

Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas gathering line located 

in Brooklyn Township

3.4 Tunkhannock Creek Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Williams Molner 

Pipeline

Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas gathering line located 

in Brooklyn and Dimock

Townships

5.5 Tunkhannock Creek, 

Meshoppen Creek

Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Williams Newton 

Pipeline 

Susquehanna, 

PA

16-inch-diameter natural gas 

gathering line located in Brooklyn 

and Bridgewater Townships

0.2 Tunkhannock Creek, 

Meshoppen Creek

Inservice Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Williams Quarry 

Pipeline

Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas gathering line located 

in Brooklyn and Bridgewater 

Townships

0.5 Tunkhannock Creek, 

Meshoppen Creek

Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Williams Vandermark 

Pipeline 

Susquehanna, 

PA

16-inch-diameter natural gas 

gathering line located between 

Route 29 and Martins Creek in 

Bridgewater, Brooklyn, and 

Dimock Townships

1.0 Tunkhannock Creek, 

Meshoppen Creek

Inservice Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Williams Wells 

Pipeline 

Susquehanna, 

PA

16-inch-diameter natural gas 

gathering line located in Brooklyn 

and Bridgewater Townships

0.2 Tunkhannock Creek, 

Meshoppen Creek

Inservice Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Williams Williams 

Pipeline

Susquehanna, 

PA

12-inch-diameter natural gas 

gathering line located in Brooklyn 

Township

1.8 Tunkhannock Creek, 

Meshoppen Creek

Inservice Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Williams Bridgewater 

Pipeline 

Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas gathering line located 

in Brooklyn Township

1.4 Tunkhannock Creek, 

Meshoppen Creek

Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Williams Bush Pipeline Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas gathering line located 

on Seeley Road in Brooklyn and 

Forest Lake Townships

5.4 East Branch Wyalusing 

Creek, Meshoppen Creek

Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate
4-206

Cumulative Impacts

4-206

TABLE 4.13-1

Existing or Proposed Projects Evaluated for Potential Cumulative Impacts

Project 

Location

(County, State) Description

Approximate 

Closest 

Distance to 

Project (miles) State Watershed a Project Statusb 

Air Quality Control 

Region (AQCR)

Williams Diamond 

Pipeline 

Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas gathering line located 

in Bridgewater Township

1.7 Meshoppen Creek Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Williams Squire 

Pipeline

Susquehanna, 

PA

8-inch natural gas gathering line 

located in Brooklyn Township

0.0 Tunkhannock Creek, 

Meshoppen Creek

Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Williams Teddick 

Pipeline

Susquehanna, 

PA

8-inch natural gas gathering line 

located in Brooklyn Township

0.07 Tunkhannock Creek, 

Meshoppen Creek

Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Tingley Pipeline Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas supply/discharge line 

that would connect to the Miller 

Compressor Station

2.0 Tunkhannock Creek, 

Meshoppen Creek

Unknown Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Williams Alford 

Pipeline

Susquehanna, 

PA

12-inch natural gas bridge line 

that would connect natural gas 

systems located in Brooklyn and 

Harford Townships

0.1 Tunkhannock Creek Proposed Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Williams Tiffany 

Pipeline

Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas gathering line located 

in Bridgewater Township

1.0 Tunkhannock Creek Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Williams Wood 

Pipeline

Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas gathering line located 

in Dimock and Bridgewater 

Townships

3.0 Meshoppen Creek Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Williams Zaverton 

Pipeline 

Susquehanna, 

PA

12-inch natural gas gathering line 

located in Bridgewater Township

1.7 Meshoppen Creek Inservice Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Williams Springville 

Gathering

Susquehanna, 

Wyoming, and 

Luzerne, PA

33.5 miles of 24-inch natural gas 

gathering line interconnecting to 

Transco pipeline

7.3 Tunkhannock Creek, 

Meshoppen Creek, Lower 

Susquehanna River

Inservice (2012) Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate
4-207

4-207 Cumulative Impacts

TABLE 4.13-1

Existing or Proposed Projects Evaluated for Potential Cumulative Impacts

Project 

Location

(County, State) Description

Approximate 

Closest 

Distance to 

Project (miles) State Watershed a Project Statusb 

Air Quality Control 

Region (AQCR)

WPX Energy 

Marcellus Gathering, 

LLC, Hayes Gathering 

Pipeline 

Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas gathering line located 

in Bridgewater and Silver Lake 

Townships

6.6 Lower Susquehanna River Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

PVR Partners, Kerr to 

Nobel Natural Gas 

Pipeline 

Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas gathering line located 

in Brooklyn and Lathrop 

Townships

6.7 Tunkhannock Creek Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Carrizo, LLC, Frystak 

to Bush Gathering 

Line 

Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas gathering line located 

in Bridgewater Township

6.7 East Branch Wyalusing 

Creek

Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Laser Northeast 

Gathering Co. (Laser 

Northeast), IveyHayes Pipeline 

Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas gathering line located 

in Bridgewater, Forest Lake and 

Silver Lake Townships

9.9 East Branch Wyalusing 

Creek, Lower Susquehanna 

River

Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Laser Northeast, 

Susquehanna 

Gathering System I

Susquehanna, 

PA; Broome, NY

42-mile-long, 16-inch-diameter or 

less outside diameter natural gas 

gathering line that connects to the 

Millennium project

9.7 Lower Susquehanna River, 

East Branch Wyalusing 

Creek, Wyalusing Creek, 

Unadilla River

Inservice (2011) Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate, Southern 

Tier East Intrastate 

Laser Northeast, 

Susquehanna 

Gathering System II

Susquehanna 

and Wyoming, 

PA 

9-mile-long, 24-inch outside 

diameter natural gas gathering 

line in Susquehanna County to 

interconnect with the Tennessee 

project. 9-mile-long, 16-inchdiameter outside diameter 

pipeline in Wyoming County to 

connect to the Tennessee 

project. Project also includes a 

new compressor station.

11.5 Wyalusing Creek, East 

Branch Wyalusing Creek, 

Meshoppen Creek

Unknown Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Marcellus Midstream 

Energy, LLC, 

Susquehanna 

Gathering Pipeline 

Montrose Extension 

Susquehanna 

and Wyoming, 

PA

Natural gas gathering line located 

in Dimock, Jessup, Bridgewater, 

and Lemon Townships

8.4 East Branch Wyalusing 

Creek, Meshoppen Creek

Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate
4-208

Cumulative Impacts

4-208

TABLE 4.13-1

Existing or Proposed Projects Evaluated for Potential Cumulative Impacts

Project 

Location

(County, State) Description

Approximate 

Closest 

Distance to 

Project (miles) State Watershed a Project Statusb 

Air Quality Control 

Region (AQCR)

Susquehanna 

Gathering Co. 1, 

(Susquehanna), Well 

Connect 49 Pipeline 

Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas well interconnect 

gathering line

1.8 Tunkhannock Creek, Lower 

Susquehanna River

Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Susquehanna Well 

Connect 57/43 

Bluestone AMI 

Pipeline 

Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas well interconnect 

pipeline located in Jackson 

Township

1.5 Great Bend Susquehanna Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Susquehanna Well 

Connect 67 Pipeline

Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas well interconnect 

gathering line located in Jackson 

Township

3.2 Tunkhannock Creek, Lower 

Susquehanna River

Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Susquehanna Well 

Connect 69 Pipeline 

Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas well interconnect 

gathering line located in Jackson 

and Thompson Townships

3.1 Tunkhannock Creek, Lower 

Susquehanna River

Pending Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Susquehanna Well 

Pad 45 Lateral

Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas well interconnect 

gathering line located in Jackson 

Township

1.6 Tunkhannock Creek, Lower 

Susquehanna River

Pending Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Susquehanna 

Compressor Station

Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas compression and 

dehydration facility in New Milford 

Township

0.4 Tunkhannock Creek Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

EmKey Gathering 

LLC, EmKey Pipeline 

Broome, 

Chenango, and 

Madison, NY

75-mile, 16- to 24-inch natural 

gas gathering line to connect with 

Millennium and Dominion 

Pipelines

1.1 Unadilla River, Chenango 

River

Ongoing Southern Tier East 

Intrastate, Central New 

York Intrastate

EmKey Gathering 

LLC, EmKey 

Expansion Pipeline 

Broome, 

Chenango, and 

Madison, NY

Approximately 40 miles of natural 

gas gathering line.

Unknown Unadilla River, Chenango 

River

Unknown Southern Tier East 

Intrastate, Central New 

York Intrastate

Chesapeake Energy 

Marketing, LLC and 

Statoil Natural Gas, 

LLC, Meter Station 

Upgrades

Bradford, 

Susquehanna, 

PA

Meter station upgrades to deliver 

natural gas from Tennessee’s 

Northeast Upgrade project 

Unknown Unknown Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate
4-209

4-209 Cumulative Impacts

TABLE 4.13-1

Existing or Proposed Projects Evaluated for Potential Cumulative Impacts

Project 

Location

(County, State) Description

Approximate 

Closest 

Distance to 

Project (miles) State Watershed a Project Statusb 

Air Quality Control 

Region (AQCR)

Southwestern TNT 

Compressor and 

Dehydration Facility

Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas compression and 

dehydration facility located in 

New Milford Township

0.2 Tunkhannock Creek, Lower 

Susquehanna River

Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Southwestern/ 

Boardwalk Field 

Services, 

Southwestern 

Gathering System

Susquehanna, 

Lackawanna, 

PA

26-mile, 12-inch outside diameter 

natural gas gathering line that 

would interconnect with the 

Tennessee project

Unknown Unknown Unknown Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Southwestern, Martin’s 

Creek Water 

Conveyance Line

Susquehanna, 

PA

1,210-foot, 8-inch steel water 

pipeline located in Brooklyn and 

Harford Townships

0.4 Tunkhannock Creek Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

DTE Energy (DTE), 

Bluestone Gathering 

System

Susquehanna, 

PA; Broome, NY

44-mile, 16- to 20-inch outside 

diameter natural gas gathering 

line that gas to both the 

Millennium and Tennessee 

pipelines 

0.0 Tunkhannock Creek, Lower 

Susquehanna River, Unadilla 

River, East Branch Delaware 

River

Inservice (2012) Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate, Southern 

Tier East Intrastate 

AQCR

DTE, Bluestone 

Gathering System –

Dehydration Facility 

Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas dehydration facility 

located in New Milford Township

0.2 Tunkhannock Creek, Lower 

Susquehanna River

Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

DTE, Bluestone 

Gathering System 

Pipe Yard

Susquehanna, 

PA

Pipe yard facility in New Milford 

Township

2.8 Tunkhannock Creek Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Leatherstocking Broome, 

Chenango, 

Delaware, 

Otsego, NY

Various local distribution gas 

pipelines

Unknown Susquehanna River, 

Chenango River, Unadilla 

River, Northern Delaware 

River, Schoharie Creek, 

Mohawk River, Mid-Hudson 

River

Unknown Southern Tier East 

Intrastate
4-210

Cumulative Impacts

4-210

TABLE 4.13-1

Existing or Proposed Projects Evaluated for Potential Cumulative Impacts

Project 

Location

(County, State) Description

Approximate 

Closest 

Distance to 

Project (miles) State Watershed a Project Statusb 

Air Quality Control 

Region (AQCR)

Non-jurisdictional Project-related Facilities

Williams Field 

Services Co., LLC 

(Williams), Central 

Compressor Statione

Susquehanna, 

PA

Expansion of an existing 

compressor station located in 

Brooklyn Township

0.0 Great Bend Susquehanna Inservice (2013) Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Williams Miller 

Compressor Statione

Susquehanna, 

PA

Natural gas compressor station 

located in Harford Township that 

is proposed for use by multiple 

natural gas gathering systems. 

2.0 Tunkhannock Creek, 

Meshoppen Creek

Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Williams Reynolds 

Pipelinee

Susquehanna, 

PA

Approximate 2-mile discharge 

line from the proposed Miller 

Compressor Station to a 

proposed interconnect with the 

Constitution project

0.0 Tunkhannock Creek, 

Meshoppen Creek

Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Williams White Road 

M&R Statione

Susquehanna, 

PA

Proposed M&R station to 

facilitate delivery of natural gas to 

the Constitution pipeline

0.0 Tunkhannock Creek, 

Meshoppen Creek

Planning Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Southwestern, Sutton 

Road M&R Facility 

and Laterale

Susquehanna, 

PA

M&R facility and associated 

lateral pipeline that would be the 

point of receipt of natural gas for 

delivery to the Constitution 

project

0.0 Tunkhannock Creek, Lower 

Susquehanna River

Ongoing Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

FERC – Jurisdictional Natural Gas Pipeline Projects

TGP, 300 Line 

(CP09-444-000)

Potter, Tioga, 

Bradford, 

Susquehanna, 

Wayne, Pike, 

PA; Sussex, NJ

127-mile, 30-inch outside 

diameter pipeline loop with two 

new compressor stations in 

western PA and other 

compressor station modifications 

in PA and NJ

6.2 Pine, Tioga, Upper 

Susquehanna- Tunkhannock, 

Upper SusquehannaLackawanna, Lackawaxen, 

Upper Delaware

Inservice (2011) Northeast 

Pennsylvania-Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Interstate, Northwest 

PennsylvaniaYoungstown Interstate

TGP Northeast 

Upgrade

(CP11-161-000)

Bradford, 

Wayne, Pike, 

and 

Susquehanna, 

PA; Sussex, NJ

40.9 miles of 30-inch outside 

diameter pipeline loops and the 

modification of four existing 

compression stations

13.0 Upper Susquehanna -

Tunkhannock,

Upper SusquehannaLackawanna,

Lackawaxen, Upper 

Delaware

Inservice (2013) Northeast 

Pennsylvania-Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Interstate, Northwest 

PennsylvaniaYoungstown Interstate

Other Projects
4-211

4-211 Cumulative Impacts

TABLE 4.13-1

Existing or Proposed Projects Evaluated for Potential Cumulative Impacts

Project 

Location

(County, State) Description

Approximate 

Closest 

Distance to 

Project (miles) State Watershed a Project Statusb 

Air Quality Control 

Region (AQCR)

Electric Generation and Transmission

New York Transco, 

Oakdale - Frasier 345 

kV Line Upgrade

Broome and 

Delaware, NY

57 miles of new 345-kV line from 

Union Township to Delhi 

Township

0.0 Susquehanna River Proposed Southern Tier East 

Intrastate

New York Transco, 

Delhi-Colliers 115 kV 

Line Reconductoring

Otsego, NY, 

Delaware, NY

17.5 miles of Reconductoring of 

an existing 115-kV line from 

Colliersville Township to Delhi 

Township

0.0 Susquehanna River Proposed Southern Tier East 

Intrastate

Horizon Wind Energy, 

Franklin Wind Farm 

Delaware, NY 500- MW, 5,000 to 7,000-acre 

located in Franklin

1.4 Unadilla River Proposed Southern Tier East 

Intrastate

Moresville Energy, 

L.L.C. (Invenergy 

LLC), Moresville Wind 

Energy Center 

Delaware, NY 99-MW wind energy facility that 

would consist of 33 turbines 

located in Stamford and Roxbury

9.3 Northern Delaware River Ongoing Southern Tier East 

Intrastate

Ridgeline Energy, 

Bruce Hill Wind Farm

Delaware, NY Community-scale wind project 

located in Walton

5.1 Unadilla River Proposed Southern Tier East 

Intrastate

Ridgeline Energy, 

Smokey Avenue Wind 

Farm

Otsego, NY Community-scale wind project 

located in Maryland, NY

6.8 Unadilla River Proposed Southern Tier East 

Intrastate

Ridgeline Energy 

South Mountain Wind 

Project

Delaware, NY Community-scale wind project 

located in Walton, NY

12.9 Northern Delaware River Proposed Southern Tier East 

Intrastate

Transportation

NYSDOT, multiple 

minor projects

Broome, 

Chenango, 

Delaware, 

Otsego, and 

Schoharie, NY

Proposed infrastructure 

inspection, maintenance, and 

repair projects (such as road 

resurfacing, bridge repairs, road 

improvements, and culvert 

repairs) at various locations

0.3 to 5.4 Unadilla River, Northern 

Delaware River, Schoharie 

Creek, 

Future projects (2013-

2021)

Southern Tier East 

Intrastate; Hudson 

Valley Intrastate

NYSDOT, Route 357 

Resurfacing Project

Delaware, NY Resurface Route 357 from Route 

7 to Merrickville Road

0.0 Unadilla River Proposed Southern Tier East 

Intrastate

NYSDOT, Bridge 

Painting – Route 17

Broome, NY Bridge painting at multiple 

locations along Route 17

0.0 Unadilla River, Northern 

Delaware River

Complete Southern Tier East 

Intrastate
4-212

Cumulative Impacts

4-212

TABLE 4.13-1

Existing or Proposed Projects Evaluated for Potential Cumulative Impacts

Project 

Location

(County, State) Description

Approximate 

Closest 

Distance to 

Project (miles) State Watershed a Project Statusb 

Air Quality Control 

Region (AQCR)

Pennsylvania 

Department of 

Transportation 

(PennDOT), multiple 

minor projects

Susquehanna, 

PA

Proposed repair projects (such as 

road resurfacing, bridge repairs, 

road improvements, and culvert 

repairs) at various locations

0.3 to 9.1 Tunkhannock Cree, Lower 

Susquehanna River, 

Wyalusing Creek, East 

Branch Wyalusing Creek, 

Undetermined, 

Proposed, Ongoing, & 

Complete

Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

PennDOT, District 

Bridge Group # 12

Susquehanna, 

PA

Bridge work for SR 1009 0.0 Lower Susquehanna River Unknown Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

PennDOT, 

Susquehanna County 

Flood Repairs

Susquehanna, 

PA

Emergency flood repairs along 

SR 492 in Jackson Township

0.0 Lower Susquehanna River Complete Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Commercial/Residential Development 

Town of Cobleskill, 

New York State Route 

7/Howe Caverns 

Water and Sewer Line 

Infrastructure 

Schoharie, NY Construction of a new potable 

water system and sanitary sewer 

system

1.4 Schoharie Creek Ongoing Hudson Valley 

Intrastate

Susquehanna County 

Housing and 

Redevelopment 

Authority, Sustainable 

Streets, Phase 3

Susquehanna, 

PA

Construction of sidewalks and 

curbing; and landscaping 

activities located in Susquehanna 

Depot

1.7 Lower Susquehanna River Complete Northeast 

Pennsylvania – Upper 

Delaware Valley 

Intrastate

Subdivision Broome, NY Four residential subdivisions 

located in Sanford

0.1 Northern Delaware River Complete Southern Tier East 

Intrastate

Area Variance Schoharie, NY Construction of a front porch on 

an existing residence

0.6 Schoharie Creek Complete Hudson Valley 

Intrastate

Subdivision Schoharie, NY Application to subdivide a parcel 

located in Summit. The parcel 

has since been subdivided. 

0.0 Unadilla River Complete Hudson Valley 

Intrastate

Area Variance Schoharie, NY Approval of variance request for 

parcel size requirements

0.02 Schoharie Creek Complete Hudson Valley 

Intrastate

Subdivision Schoharie, NY Four lot subdivision 0.0 Schoharie Creek Approved Hudson Valley 

Intrastate
4-213

4-213 Cumulative Impacts

TABLE 4.13-1

Existing or Proposed Projects Evaluated for Potential Cumulative Impacts

Project 

Location

(County, State) Description

Approximate 

Closest 

Distance to 

Project (miles) State Watershed a Project Statusb 

Air Quality Control 

Region (AQCR)

Subdivision Schoharie, NY Oak Meadows Subdivision. 27-lot 

residential subdivision

0.1 Schoharie Creek Approved Hudson Valley 

Intrastate

Subdivision Schoharie, NY Carolina-Catapano Estates. 11-

lot residential subdivision 

0.2 Schoharie Creek Ongoing Hudson Valley 

Intrastate

Rental Apartments Schoharie, NY Two 4-unit rental apartments 0.4 Schoharie Creek Approved, 

construction delayed

Hudson Valley 

Intrastate

______________________

a This parameter is referring to watershed crossed by the proposed Constitution project only. 

b Proposed = Project has been identified but applications have not been submitted; Pending = Permit applications have been submitted but regulatory approvals have not been 

obtained; Ongoing = Regulatory permits have been issued and/or construction has commenced; Inservice/Complete = Construction has been completed and the project is in 

operation; TBD = to be determined; Unknown = Project details and/or status are not available.

c Proposed well drilling activity located in counties within 10 miles of the proposed projects; see text for additional information.

d Projects recently completed, under construction, or expected to be under construction in the same timeframe as and located within 10 miles of Constitution’s and Iroquois’ 

projects.

e This project is also a non-FERC-jurisdictional project that is related to the Constitution and Iroquois projects; see text for additional information. 

Sources: DTE Energy 2012; Kinder Morgan 2013; PADEP 2013d; NYSDEC 2013l; Schoharie County Planning and Development Agency (SCPDA) 2013
Cumulative Impacts 4-214

4.13.1 Marcellus Shale Development

4.13.1.1 Background

The Marcellus Shale is an approximately 385-million-year-old, organic-rich shale formation that 

exists beneath 93 million acres of Pennsylvania, southern New York, eastern Ohio, and northern West 

Virginia. Over geologic time and with the pressure and temperature associated with deep burial, oil and 

natural gas can be generated within organic-rich shale formations. However, because shale is generally 

impermeable (that is, fluids do not readily flow through the formation), the oil and natural gas contained 

in these types of rocks cannot be economically produced using conventional well drilling and completion 

methods. Within the last 20 years, however, the petroleum industry has developed the horizontal drilling 

technique in conjunction with hydraulic fracturing (fracking), which has been in use for over 50 years, to 

recover natural gas from shale reservoirs. Fracking involves the injection of fluids and sand under high 

pressure to fracture the shale around the wellbore, thus enabling the flow of natural gas to the well.

Using these techniques, the first natural gas production from the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania 

began in 2005. Prior to 2005, Pennsylvania was producing approximately 0.5 billion cubic feet per day 

(bcf/d) of natural gas from conventional reservoirs. With development of the Marcellus Shale, 

Pennsylvania is forecast to produce approximately 7.5 bcf/d by 2015 and 13.4 bcf/d by 2020 (Governor’s 

Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission 2011). The USGS recently estimated that the Marcellus Shale 

contains a technically recoverable mean of 84 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (Coleman et al. 2011). For 

comparison, in 2012, the United States consumed approximately 25.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas 

(EIA 2013b); thus, the Marcellus Shale represents a significant natural gas deposit in close proximity to 

the high population centers of the northeastern United States. 

Natural gas production from the Marcellus Shale involves the drilling and completion of wells 

and construction of gathering systems and consequent rights-of-way. We received comments concerning

the FERC’s jurisdiction over these “upstream” production activities. The FERC’s authority under the 

NGA review requirements relate only to natural gas facilities that are involved in interstate commerce. 

Thus, the facilities associated with the production of natural gas are not under FERC jurisdiction.

We received comments during scoping concerning the development of natural gas reserves in the 

Marcellus Shale. Development of the Marcellus Shale natural gas resource is not the subject of the EIS 

nor is the issue directly related to the proposed projects. Production and gathering activities, and the 

pipelines and facilities used for these activities, are not regulated by the FERC but are overseen by the 

affected region’s state and local agencies with jurisdiction over the management and extraction of the 

Marcellus Shale gas resource. The FERC’s jurisdiction is further restricted to facilities used for the 

transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce, and does not typically extend to facilities used for 

intrastate transportation.

Although we do not examine the impacts of Marcellus Shale upstream facilities to the same 

extent as Constitution’s and Iroquois’ projects in this EIS, we considered the general development of the 

Marcellus Shale in proximity to the projects within the context of cumulative impacts in the area of both 

projects. A more specific analysis of Marcellus Shale upstream facilities is outside the scope of this 

analysis because the exact location, scale, and timing of future facilities are unknown. 

4.13.1.2 Wells

Marcellus Shale production wells involve improvement or construction of roads, preparation of a 

well pad, and drilling and completion of the well. Between 2009 and October 2013, 1,564 

unconventional gas wells were permitted in Pennsylvania counties within 10 miles of the proposed 
4-215 Cumulative Impacts

projects (1,545 in Susquehanna County and 19 in Wayne County) (PADEP 2013d). During the same 

time period the NYSDEC issued 68 natural gas well permits in New York counties within 10 miles of the 

proposed projects (2 in Broome County, 63 in Chenango County, and 3 in Otsego County) (NYSDEC 

2013l). As of October 1, 2013, companies reported drilling 760 (almost 50 percent) of the 

aforementioned permitted wells in Pennsylvania; 27 (approximately 40 percent) of the permitted wells in 

New York were listed as active (PADEP 2013d; NYSDEC 2013l). Less gas production occurs in New 

York due to current horizontal well drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing method restrictions in 

the state. It is likely that drilling would continue through the construction of the proposed projects, but 

the exact extent of such drilling is unknown. 

4.13.1.3 Pipeline Gathering Systems

Multiple non-jurisdictional FERC intrastate natural gas well interconnect and gathering facilities 

are either proposed, under construction, or have been constructed within 10 miles of the proposed 

projects. These non-jurisdictional pipeline systems gather natural gas from Marcellus Shale wells for 

transport to local customers or the interstate natural gas transmission system.

At least 13 companies own multiple natural gas gathering system projects within the region of 

influence for both projects. Eleven of these projects are located within 0.25 mile of the proposed projects, 

and five of these intersect Constitution’s project (see table 4.13-1). The Williams Field Services 

Company’s (Williams’s) Squire Pipeline project, which is currently in the permitting and review process, 

is an eight-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline that intersects Constitution’s project at MP 1.8. DTE 

Energy’s (DTE’s) Bluestone Gathering System project is a 44-mile-long, 16- to 20-inch-diameter pipeline 

that extends from Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania to Broome County, New York. The Bluestone 

Gathering System was placed into service in November 2012 and intersects Constitution’s proposed route

in multiple locations. The remaining three projects would intersect the Constitution pipeline corridor and 

would also contribute to the infrastructure providing natural gas volumes to the Constitution pipeline. 

These projects include Williams’s Central Compressor Station adjacent to Constitution’s project at MP 

0.0; William’s White Road M&R Station at MP 3.3and Southwestern’s Sutton Road M&R Station at MP 

9.4, all in Susquehanna County. These facilities are discussed further in section 4.13.2. 

All projects located within Constitution’s region of influence are, or would be, within the 

Northeast Pennsylvania – Upper Delaware Valley AQCR as well as within at least one of the watersheds 

crossed by the Constitution project. Construction of the gathering systems would involve activities 

similar to construction of interstate natural gas transmission facilities, although land requirements for 

construction would typically be less for gathering systems due to the installation of smaller diameter pipe.

4.13.2 Non-jurisdictional Project-related Facilities

Southwestern would construct the Sutton Road M&R Station on a 2.0-acre parcel of land in New 

Milford Township, Pennsylvania. The land is collocated with the proposed Constitution pipeline corridor 

and is currently associated with agricultural/open land cover types. Access to the Sutton Road M&R 

Station would be acquired by Southwestern via a gravel road. An associated approximately 900-footlong, 12.75-inch outside diameter lateral pipeline would be constructed by Southwestern to deliver gas to 

the Sutton Road M&R Station from its planned TNT Compressor and Dehydration Facility, which would 

be located north of Sutton Road, also in New Milford Township. Southwestern has indicated that its 

proposed TNT Compressor Station and connecting lateral pipeline are in the planning phases, but 

Southwestern anticipates that the TNT Compressor Station would disturb approximately 12 acres of land.

Williams would expand its existing Central Compressor Station located at MP 0.0 in Brooklyn 

Township, Pennsylvania. This facility was placed into service in 2013 to accommodate the needs of the 
Cumulative Impacts 4-216

Williams Springville Pipeline gathering system and would be operated regardless of whether or not the 

Constitution project is built. 

Williams’s Miller Compressor Station and associated Reynolds Pipeline are currently under 

development and would result in the disturbance of 29.7 acres of primarily forested land in Harford 

Township, Pennsylvania. The Miller Compressor Station would be used to support multiple gathering 

line systems in the region; therefore, it would have been constructed regardless of whether or not 

Constitution’s project is built. Gas would be discharged from the Miller Compressor Station to the 

proposed Constitution pipeline via the 20-inch outside diameter Reynolds Pipeline. Construction of the 

Reynolds Pipeline would result in approximately 2 miles of linear impacts on agricultural/forested/open 

lands. 

Williams’s planned White Road M&R Station would be adjacent to the proposed Constitution 

pipeline corridor in Harford Township, Pennsylvania and would house the necessary equipment to 

facilitate the delivery of gas from the Miller Compressor Station to the Constitution pipeline. Formal site 

plans for this station have not been finalized, but it is currently proposed to be sited on 2.2 acres of 

agricultural and open land adjacent to an existing well drill pad site. Because the Miller Compressor 

Station, Reynolds Pipeline, and White Road M&R Station are either in the planning or development 

phases, the extent of the potential impacts that could occur as a result of their construction and operation 

is unknown; however, certain impacts can be estimated. 

We anticipate that the expansion activities planned at the Williams Central Compressor Station 

would occur within existing fence lines and that the shippers would use existing access roads. We also 

anticipate that shippers would obtain all environmental permits and approvals required for the 

modifications. Land use types that would be impacted by the non-jurisdictional project-related facilities 

are generally the same land use types that would be impacted by the proposed projects. Impacts from the 

non-jurisdictional pipelines and compressor stations would be similar to the proposed projects except on a 

smaller scale due to smaller diameter pipe and smaller compressor station parcels. Further, the 

proposed/ongoing activities at the Central Compressor Station and Miller Compressor Station would be 

completed whether or not the proposed projects are constructed. Therefore, we conclude that construction 

and operation of the non-jurisdictional project-related facilities would result in negligible cumulative 

impacts in the region. 

4.13.3 FERC-Jurisdictional Natural Gas Pipeline Projects

There are two FERC-jurisdictional natural gas transmission projects within 10 miles of the 

proposed projects that were recently completed. A description of each project is included in table 4.13-1,

and additional details regarding each project can be obtained through our website at www.ferc.gov by 

utilizing the docket number given for each project. 

TGP’s 300 Line Project, which was put into service in 2011, is 6.2 miles from Constitution’s 

proposed project. The 300 Line Project is a 127-mile-long, 30-inch-diameter pipeline loop with two new 

compressor stations and compressor station modifications in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. 

TGP’s Northeast Upgrade Project is 13.0 miles from Constitution’s proposed project. The 

Northeast Upgrade project consists of a 40.9-mile-long, 30-inch-diameter pipeline loop and modifications 

to four existing compressor stations. 

Based on their distance from the proposed projects, scope, and schedule, these other FERCjurisdictional projects are not expected to significantly contribute to cumulative impacts in the area of the 

proposed projects. In addition, all of the FERC-jurisdictional projects would be constructed and 
4-217 Cumulative Impacts

maintained in accordance with our approved procedures and other construction, operation, and mitigation 

measures that may be required by federal, state, or local permitting authorities, further reducing the 

potential for cumulative impacts.

4.13.4 Other Projects

Electric Generation and Transmission Projects

There are two proposed electric and transmission projects located within ten miles of the 

proposed projects, both of which are located in New York. New York Transco’s Oakdale-Frasier 345 

kilovolt (kV) Line Upgrade project would include approximately 57 miles of new electrical transmission 

line from Union Township in Broome County to Delhi Township in Delaware County and is expected to 

cross the proposed Constitution pipeline at MP 53.0. If the Oakdale-Frasier 345-kV Line Upgrade project 

is built, construction is expected to commence in 2014 and be in service December 2018. However, the 

permitting process is ongoing and incomplete and could result in changes to the New York Transco’s 

schedule. Therefore, while the project status is uncertain, it is reasonable to assume that a crossing of the 

pipeline in Broome or Chenango Counties would be required for the project whether or not construction 

occurs concurrently or at a later date. 

New York Transco is also proposing to construct the Delhi-Colliers 115-kV Line Reconductoring 

project, which would include the reconductoring of 17.5 miles of existing transmission line that intersects 

Constitution’s project route at MP 57.0. The existing 115-kV line extends begins in Colliersville 

Township in Otsego County and ends in the Village of Delhi in Delaware County. Information on the 

proposed timeline for this project is not available; therefore, it was not possible to determine if it is 

reasonably foreseeable. We anticipate that the reconductoring work would take place within the existing 

transmission line corridor on existing transmission line structures and also using existing access roads. 

Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with the operation of the Delhi-Colliers 115-kV Line 

Reconductoring project are not expected to occur. 

There are five potential wind energy projects within 10 miles of the proposed projects, all of 

which would be in the state of New York. Very little public information is available about these projects; 

therefore, their exact locations and current status are unknown. For the purposes of this analysis, it was 

assumed that all five projects are in the permitting phase and could move forward to construction at an 

undetermined date. If new information is identified it will be updated in the final EIS.

Leatherstocking Distribution Project

As discussed in the introduction, Leatherstocking, has made agreements with Constitution to 

construct interconnects with its pipeline and potentially bring a new supply of natural gas to communities 

along the pipeline route. As of this time no concrete plans for this local distributor have been made. 

However, if the Leatherstocking project were completed, it would likely consist of small diameter 

pipeline (2 to 6 inches), and various appurtenant facilities such as meter and pressure regulation stations. 

New compressor stations would be unlikely, as the high operating pressures of interstate natural gas lines 

can generally support delivery needs of most small diameter pipelines in a short distance. Construction 

and operational procedures for a distribution pipeline would be similar to those of Constitution’s, 

although would be on a smaller scale, and rights-of-way would likely be smaller. Because the specifics 

are unknown, impacts are discussed in a general sense where applicable below.
Cumulative Impacts 4-218

Transportation and Commercial/Residential Development Projects

Transportation Projects

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) and the NYSDOT are overseeing 

multiple ongoing and proposed infrastructure projects in the region of influence for the proposed projects. 

The scopes of all of the projects are limited to work on existing infrastructure. The exact locations for 

many transportation projects are not available, because they involve work at multiple locations. 

Therefore, the proximity of these projects to the Constitution and Iroquois’ projects could not be 

determined. Of the transportation projects with multiple locations, those that are located in counties 

crossed by the Constitution and Iroquois projects were evaluated according to the guidelines and criteria 

established for this cumulative analysis. Of the projects that do have specific locational information, four 

intersect Constitution’s project:

• The PennDOT’s District Bridge Group #12 project crosses the proposed Constitution 

pipeline in multiple locations in Harmony Township, Susquehanna County. This project 

would consist of bridge work along State Route 1009. The project’s status is unknown.

• The PennDOT completed its Susquehanna County Flood Repairs project, which involved 

emergency flood repairs along State Route 492 in Jackson Township and crossed the 

current proposed Constitution pipeline at MP 10.0; 

• The NYSDOT’s proposed Route 357 Resurfacing project would cross the proposed 

Constitution project at MP 60.6. This project would resurface Route 357 from Route 7 to 

Merrickville Road in the towns of Sidney and Franklin; and 

• The NYSDOT’s Bridge Painting – Route 17 project was completed in September 2013. 

This project crosses Constitution’s proposed route at MP 28.7. 

All of the aforementioned transportation projects are minor with the exception of PennDOT’s I81 Reconstruction project, which would rebuild the north and south lanes of Interstate 81 from Exit 223 

(New Milford Township, Pennsylvania) to the New York-Pennsylvania border. This project would be 1.0 

mile northwest of MP 9.7 of Constitution’s project and would be within two of the same watersheds. The 

status of the I-81 project is unknown but based on available information could likely occur concurrently 

or after construction of the proposed projects. 

Commercial/Residential Development Projects

Constitution identified one utility infrastructure project in the vicinity of the proposed projects. 

The Town of Cobleskill, New York is planning to construct a potable water system and a sanitary sewer 

system to serve the Village of Cobleskill. The New York State Route 7/ Howe Caverns Water and Sewer 

Line Infrastructure Project, would be 1.4 mile northwest of the proposed Constitution pipeline in 

Schoharie County. The Route 7/ Howe Caverns Water and Sewer Line Infrastructure project, along with 

the proposed projects, are within the Mohawk River watershed and the Hudson Valley Interstate ACQR. 

The timeline for this utility infrastructure project is unknown. 

Constitution identified six minor residential developments within 0.25 mile of the proposed 

projects. Details of the locations of the developments relative to the projects are provided in table 4.13-1. 

The Constitution project would cross one outer edge of a subdivided parcel that is part of a subdivision in 

the Town of Summit in Schoharie County, New York. Constitution’s project would also cross a parcel in 

the Town of Schoharie near State Routes 7 and 30 that is labeled ‘subdivision’ by the Schoharie County 
4-219 Cumulative Impacts

Planning and Development Agency. This land is not currently officially planned for development, and 

Constitution is in easement negotiations with the landowner. 

The majority of these projects would consist of short-term, localized activities. We anticipate that 

these transportation and commercial/residential development projects would require state or local 

approval and that BMPs would be implemented to minimize environmental impacts such as erosion and 

sedimentation. 

4.13.5 Potential Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action

The potential impacts that we consider as part of our cumulative review pertain to geology and 

soils; groundwater, surface water, and wetlands; vegetation; wildlife; fisheries and aquatic resources; land 

use, recreation, special interest areas, and visual resources; socioeconomics; cultural resources; and air 

quality and noise. 

In the following analysis we discuss the potential cumulative impacts associated with the general 

development of the Marcellus Shale, nearby non-jurisdictional project-related projects, residential 

development projects, and wind energy projects. For reasons discussed above, we did not further 

consider more distant FERC-jurisdictional projects, New York Transco’s electric transmission line 

projects, or transportation projects in our analysis. 

4.13.5.1 Geology and Soils

Cumulative effects on geology crossed by the proposed projects would be limited primarily to the 

combined impacts of construction projects located within the same region of influence as the proposed 

projects and recently completed or concurrent construction activities along the same route as the proposed 

projects. These include natural gas wells, natural gas gathering systems, wind energy projects, and nonjurisdictional project-related natural gas projects. The facilities associated with the proposed projects are 

expected to have a temporary, but direct impact on near-surface geology and soils. The soil stabilization 

and revegetation requirements included in Constitution’s ECP and Iroquois’ Plan and Procedures would 

prevent or minimize any indirect impacts. Because the direct effects would be highly localized and 

limited primarily to the period of construction, cumulative impacts on geology and soils would primarily

occur if other projects are constructed at the same time and place as the proposed projects. The 

construction of some of the projects listed in table 4.13-1, such as the Williams Squire Pipeline project, 

Williams Teddick Pipeline project, several residential development projects, and the non-jurisdictional 

project-related facilities, could coincide with the schedule proposed for the Constitution Pipeline project 

and the Iroquois compressor station. Projects that require significant excavation or grading would also 

have temporary, direct impacts on near-surface geology and soils, although like the proposed projects, the 

duration and effect of these projects would be minimized by the implementation of erosion control and 

restoration measures. 

In Pennsylvania, the permitting of upstream facilities associated with the development of the 

Marcellus Shale is under the jurisdiction of the PADEP Bureau of Oil and Gas Management. The 

PADEP has developed BMPs for the construction and operation of upstream oil and gas production 

facilities. These BMPs include erosion and sediment control practices; setback requirements from 

springs, wetlands, and waterbodies; wetland and waterbody crossing procedures; access road construction 

practices; soil amendment procedures; and right-of-way restoration measures. Implementation of these 

measures, in combination with the measures outlined in Constitution’s ECPs would avoid or minimize 

cumulative impacts of Marcellus Shale development activities on geology and soil resources in the 

Project area, particularly where workspaces are adjacent to each other.
Cumulative Impacts 4-220

Many of the non-jurisdictional project-related facilities and residential development projects are

adjacent to Constitution’s project. In addition, there are several proposed wind energy projects in the 

region of influence. Since the schedule for construction of the non-jurisdictional project-related facilities, 

the wind energy projects, and the two residential subdivisions is not known, we are unable to determine if 

any or all would be constructed at the same time as the proposed project. However, we expect these

projects to be required by the state permitting agencies to adhere to BMPs similar to those proposed by 

Constitution and Iroquois. The potential for cumulative soil impacts resulting from one or more of these 

projects is low and primarily temporary because construction of other pipeline facilities would generally 

not result in loss of soils. The five wind energy projects proposed in the region of influence could result 

in the loss of soils due to installation of wind turbines and support structures. However, these five 

projects would be relatively small (6 to 16 turbines, with one project proposing 33 turbines). Residential 

subdivisions could result in some loss of productive soils from the additions of impervious surfaces (e.g., 

building footprint, driveways, sidewalk), however these are limited in scope, and would be distributed 

along the length of the pipeline and not concentrated in any one area. Furthermore, due to aesthetic 

reasons, it is unlikely that any residential area would be left unrestored following its construction, thereby 

minimizing exposure of soils to erosive forces. As Constitution and Iroquois would follow the 

recommended procedures and take the necessary precautions to avoid and mitigate soil impacts, the 

proposed projects are not expected to significantly contribute to the potential cumulative impact on soils.

Consequently, the cumulative effect of the projects on geological resources and soils would be 

temporary and minor. 

4.13.5.2 Water Resources

Construction and operation of the proposed projects would likely result in only short-term 

impacts on water resources (section 4.3). These impacts, such as increased turbidity, would return to 

baseline levels over a period of days or weeks following construction.

Groundwater

Any of the projects listed in table 4.13-1 involving ground disturbance or excavation, including 

the proposed Constitution Pipeline project, Marcellus Shale development, and non-jurisdictional projectrelated facilities, could impact groundwater resources. The major pipeline construction activities for the 

Constitution project that could affect groundwater include the clearing of vegetation, excavation and 

dewatering of the trench and bore pits, soil mixing and compaction, and hazardous material handling. 

Major construction activities for the Iroquois facilities that could affect groundwater include excavation 

of the foundation for the transfer station and hazardous material handling. However, depth to 

groundwater at Iroquois’ project site is approximately 6 feet. According to Iroquois, foundation 

excavations are not anticipated to be deeper than 6 feet and therefore construction would not likely impact 

groundwater to a significant extent. 

The impacts of both projects on groundwater resources are expected to be short-term and minor. 

All of the major projects (such as wells and gathering lines for Marcellus Shale development and nonjurisdictional project-related facilities) in the region of influence identified in table 4.13-1, would be 

required to obtain water use and discharge permits and would implement their various SPCC Plans as 

mandated by federal and state agencies. 

Concerns have been raised regarding the potential impact that completion of natural gas wells in 

the Marcellus Shale may have on groundwater quality due to gas migration and the use of chemical 

additives in the fracking water to stimulate gas flow. In response to these concerns in Pennsylvania, the 

PADEP has updated its regulations governing the drilling, casing, cementing, testing, monitoring and 
4-221 Cumulative Impacts

plugging of oil and gas wells; and for the protection of water supplies (law signed February 2012 and 

effective April 2012). This recent rulemaking includes updated material specifications and performance 

testing and amended design, construction, operational, monitoring, plugging, water supply replacement, 

and gas migration reporting requirements. Oil and gas wells must also be sited at least 500 feet from a 

drinking water well and at least 100 feet from a spring. According to the PADEP, the additional 

requirements would provide an increased degree of protection for both public and private water supplies. 

Drilling companies must now also disclose the chemical additives used in fracking gas wells and 

appropriately manage drilling return water to prevent impacts on water resources. 

For these reasons, we anticipate that the proposed projects would only contribute to minor and 

temporary cumulative impacts on groundwater. 

Wetlands and Waterbodies

Constitution conducted wetland surveys for all parcels crossed by the proposed route, with the 

exception of those parcels for which the landowners would not grant access. Surveys will continue as 

additional access is granted. Constitution performed desktop surveys using data from state and federal 

sources to approximate wetland locations on parcels it could not access. Based on the outcome of these 

surveys, construction of Constitution’s project would impact 91.8 acres of wetlands, with 32.7 acres 

affecting forested wetlands, 25.0 acres affecting scrub-shrub wetlands, and 34.1 acres affecting emergent 

wetlands. The Constitution project would affect 16.1 acres of wetlands as a result of operations and 

maintenance of the project. Section 4.4 of this EIS discusses the wetlands that would be crossed by the 

proposed pipeline along with wetland types and crossing acreages. Iroquois’ proposed facilities would 

not impact any wetlands. 

Generally, impacts resulting from pipeline construction across waterbodies are localized and 

short-term. Cumulative impacts would only occur in the event more than one project impacting the same 

waterbody are constructed within a similar period of time. The proposed Constitution pipeline project 

would require 277 waterbody crossings, including 124 perennial waterbody crossings, 96 intermittent 

waterbody crossings and 57 ephemeral waterbody crossings. The majority of them would be crossed 

using a dry crossing method, including flume, dam and pump, or cofferdam. The specific dry crossing 

method to be used at waterbodies would be decided at the time of construction, based on site conditions. 

Constitution has proposed 42 trenchless crossings via conventional bore, HDD, or Direct Pipe methods in 

total. Construction and operation of the Iroquois compressor station would not impact any waterbodies. 

Concerns have been raised regarding the potential impact of Marcellus Shale development on 

surface water resources. Approximately 1.9 million gallons of water per day is used for Marcellus Shale 

development in Pennsylvania, or about 0.02 percent of the 9.5 billion gallons of water withdrawn in 

Pennsylvania (from surface or groundwater sources) per day for all general uses and consumption 

(Governor’s Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission 2011). The SRBC is responsible for reviewing all 

consumptive water uses in the Susquehanna River basin, including water used for shale gas production. 

For each project, the SRBC reviews whether a proposed withdrawal would cause adverse impacts on 

other water uses, fish, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, recreation, flow regime, and other 

resources, and can place conditions in any approval, if it chooses to do so, to protect these resources. The 

DRBC has enacted a drilling ban in the Delaware River watershed while it considers what regulations 

related to fracking are necessary for protection of water resources in the watershed. Constitution’s and 

Iroquois’ projects would require almost 23 million gallons of water during construction, primarily for 

hydrostatic testing. The SRBC does not consider hydrostatic test water as a consumptive use; whereas the 

DRBC considers a small amount (usually between 2 and 10 percent) of hydrostatic test water as 

consumptive use. The proposed projects would account for 0.0006 percent of the total water withdrawn 

in Pennsylvania (but likely less as some portion would be withdrawn in New York). Therefore, because 
Cumulative Impacts 4-222

the water use would be primarily non-consumptive and be less than one-thousandth of one percent of the 

total water use in Pennsylvania, significant impacts are not expected. Constitution and Iroquois would 

comply with any stipulations within the authority of the DRBC, SRBC, PADEP, and NYSDEC in the 

water withdrawal application approval process.

Flowback water from fracking operations could also threaten water quality. Operators report that 

approximately 15 percent of the 5 million gallons of water used on average to fracture a Marcellus Shale 

well is returned to the surface. The flowback water contains pollutants of concern, particularly high 

levels of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS); however, some of the municipal waste treatment plants that well 

drillers previously used to treat and dispose of the flowback water were unable to adequately remove TDS 

to meet state drinking water standards. At the request of Governor Corbett, the Pennsylvania well drilling 

industry agreed to cease taking flowback water to waste treatment plants lacking the appropriate 

technology to remove TDS. PADEP’s recently promulgated Chapter 95 regulations to address the 

remaining treatment facilities and completely eliminate any potential cumulative impact from natural gas 

development wastewater discharges (Governor’s Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission 2011). Well 

drillers are implementing other measures, such as recycling, to reduce the volume of flowback water for 

treatment and disposal. Furthermore, as previously noted, the PADEP requires operators to implement 

BMPs during construction and operation of upstream facilities, including wells and gathering systems, to 

avoid or reduce potential impacts on sensitive resources including water resources. 

In conclusion, the PADEP and SRBC have recently enacted regulations to specifically protect 

surface and groundwater resources from potential impacts associated with the development of the 

Marcellus Shale, and the DRBC is considering further regulation of Marcellus Shale drilling activities. 

Development of the Marcellus Shale is expected to continue in proximity to and during construction and 

operation of portions of Constitution’s project in Pennsylvania. Marcellus Shale development is currently 

banned in New York. However, because the proposed projects and other non-jurisdictional projectrelated facilities in the area would not have a significant adverse impact on water resources, and 

considering the significantly greater geographic and time scale for development of the Marcellus Shale, 

the proposed projects and other non-jurisdictional project-related facilities in the area would not 

contribute in any significance to cumulative impacts on water resources that may be associated with 

development of the Marcellus Shale.

Sediment loading could also occur as the result of runoff from construction activities near 

wetlands and waterbodies. Wetlands and waterbodies could also be adversely affected by a spill of 

hazardous liquids or the excavation and dispersal of contaminated sediments during trenching. 

Constitution would minimize these effects by implementing wetland and waterbody construction and 

mitigation measures, including erosion control measures contained in the ECP, and by complying with 

applicable federal and state permits requirements. According to federal and state resources, there are no 

contaminated sediments in the proposed project area. Although unlikely, Constitution would evaluate and 

treat any unanticipated hazardous materials uncovered during construction in accordance with its 

Contamination Plan and applicable regulatory requirements. 

Most of the projects listed in table 4.13-1 are within watersheds crossed by the proposed projects, 

and some of these projects could potentially result in impacts on wetlands and surface waters, such as 

wind energy projects and the non-jurisdictional project-related facilities. Thus, there is the potential that 

cumulative impacts could result if the proposed projects were constructed in addition to other projects 

listed in table 4.13-1. However, Constitution’s and Iroquois’ projects would contribute little to the longterm cumulative impacts on wetlands and waterbodies because the majority of the potential impacts are 

temporary and short-term. Impacts on surface waters resulting from construction of Constitution’s project 

would end shortly after the pipeline was installed. Also, wind energy projects and non-jurisdictional 

project-related facilities would likely follow BMPs similar to those proposed by Constitution and Iroquois 
4-223 Cumulative Impacts

so as to minimize impacts on waterbodies. Therefore, most of the impacts on wetlands would also be of 

short duration. Consequently, the cumulative effect on wetland and waterbody resources would be 

temporary and minor.

4.13.5.3 Vegetation

Cumulative effects on vegetation disturbed by Constitution’s and Iroquois’ projects would be 

limited primarily to the combined impacts of construction projects located within the same region of 

influence as the proposed projects and recently completed or concurrent construction activities along the 

same route and the proposed projects. These include energy development projects listed in table 4.13-1, 

such as the wind energy projects, residential development projects, Marcellus Shale development, and 

non-jurisdictional project-related facilities. While the vegetation impacts of these projects and the 

proposed projects would not be inconsequential, the overall impact of these projects would be considered 

minor in comparison to the abundance of comparable habitat in the area. The Applicants would be 

required to restore vegetation in temporarily disturbed areas, and non-jurisdictional project-related 

facilities would likely be held to similar standards by state permitting agencies. As discussed previously, 

due to aesthetic reasons it is unlikely that any residential area would be left unrestored following its 

construction. 

Construction of the proposed projects would result in both temporary and permanent impacts on 

vegetation. Among the temporary vegetation impacts, the most prominent would be those impacting 

forested vegetation that is slow to regenerate within temporary work areas, and permanent conversion of 

forest to grassy, open lands within the permanent right-of-way (which would be regularly mowed). 

Constitution has reduced its construction right-of-way from 110 feet to 100 feet (except in areas of steep 

slopes) in order to reduce impacts on upland interior forests. In addition, while the Iroquois compressor 

station would result in tree removal, the project would be constructed within a currently industrialized 

parcel.

Implementation of Constitution’s ECPs and Iroquois’ Plan and Procedures would promote 

revegetation of the right-of-way and compressor station parcel following construction. Wind energy 

projects, residential development projects, Marcellus Shale development, and non-jurisdictional projectrelated facilities would also likely be required to implement mitigation measures designed to minimize the 

potential for long-term erosion and resource loss, increase the stability of site conditions, and revegetate 

disturbed soils, thereby minimizing the degree and duration of the impacts of these projects. This, 

cumulative impacts on vegetation resulting from the proposed projects, wind energy projects, residential 

development projects, Marcellus Shale development, and non-jurisdictional project-related facilities are 

expected to be minor or negligible, considering the limited area impacted within the region of influence 

and because these projects are expected to take the required precautions and mitigation measures in 

accordance with state and federal regulations. The incremental and cumulative effect to vegetation would 

be minor.

4.13.5.4 Wildlife

Cumulative effects on wildlife would occur where projects are constructed in the same general 

time frame and in proximity or which represent permanent or long term loss of habitat types important to 

wildlife. These include the wind energy projects, residential development projects, Marcellus Shale 

development, and non-jurisdictional project-related facilities listed in table 4.13-1. Construction activities 

such as right-of-way and other workspace clearing and grading would result in loss of vegetation cover 

and soil disturbance, alteration of wildlife habitat, displacement of wildlife species from the construction 

zone and adjacent areas, mortality of less mobile species, and other potential indirect effects as a result of 

noise created by construction and human activity in the area. Overall impacts would be greatest where 
Cumulative Impacts 4-224

projects are constructed in the same time frame and area as the proposed projects or that have long-term 

or permanent impacts on the same or similar habitat types. 

In general, wildlife is expected to return to affected areas following construction of the proposed 

projects and other projects in the area. Clearing and grading of the construction rights-of-way for the 

proposed projects and other nearby projects would result in a loss of wildlife habitat. The effect of 

workspace clearing on forest-dwelling wildlife species would be greater than on open habitat wildlife 

species since forested lands could take decades to return to pre-construction condition in areas used for 

temporary workspace, and would be permanently prevented from re-establishing on the permanent rightof-way. This may result in the cumulative loss of individuals of small mammal species, amphibians, 

reptiles, nesting birds, and non-mobile species. However, we expect that any projects constructed in the 

area would be required to restore some vegetation cover to the disturbed areas unless they are covered by 

buildings or impervious surfaces. Once the area is restored, some wildlife displaced during construction 

of any of the projects would return to the newly disturbed area and adjacent, undisturbed habitats after 

completion of construction. 

Construction of Iroquois’ compressor station would result in some permanent impacts on wildlife 

habitat; however, due to the limited size of the proposed compressor station and the prevalence of similar 

habitats in adjacent areas, as well as Iroquois’ collocation with an existing facility and use of an existing 

industrial site, the permanent conversion of forested lands would not be a significant impact on wildlife 

resources within the proposed project area. 

Construction of any Marcellus Shale development projects would also result in some long-term 

loss of wildlife habitat due to aboveground structures and well pads. In addition, wind energy projects 

could result in mortality to bird and bat species. Impacts on wildlife species from construction of any of 

the projects listed in table 4.13-1 would be local, temporary, and minor. Therefore, cumulative impacts 

are expected to be negligible for any individual wildlife species relative to the population in the region of 

influence. 

4.13.5.5 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

Cumulative impacts on fisheries and aquatic resources could occur if other projects occur within 

the same segment of a waterbody and have similar construction timeframes as the proposed Constitution 

pipeline project or that could result in permanent or long-term impact on the same or similar habitat types. 

Construction and operation of Iroquois’ project would not have any impact on fisheries and aquatic 

resources. Construction of the projects identified in table 4.13-1, such as wind energy projects, residential 

development projects, Marcellus Shale development, and non-jurisdictional project-related facilities, and 

Constitution’s project could result in cumulative impacts on waterbodies and fisheries from sedimentation 

and turbidity, habitat alteration, streambank erosion, fuel and chemical spills, water depletions, 

entrainment or entrapment due to water withdrawals or construction crossing operations, blasting, and 

operational pipeline failure if constructed on the same waterbody in a similar timeframe. We expect that 

most of the projects in the region of influence would be designed so as to minimize impacts on

waterbodies, and therefore fisheries and aquatic resources, as much as possible. Any waterbodies that 

could not be avoided would be mitigated through implementation of best management and restoration 

practices in accordance with the respective federal, state, and local permitting agencies. Further, we

expect that the NYSDEC and the PFBC would require any other applicable projects constructed in the 

region of influence to adhere to timing windows for construction within waterbodies.

In addition, any impacts on waterbodies and therefore fisheries and aquatic resources would be 

temporary and limited to construction of the projects. As such, none of these impacts are expected to be 

cumulatively significant because of their temporary nature and the impacts avoidance and mitigation 
4-225 Cumulative Impacts

measures that would be implemented. The ensuing operations of the proposed pipeline would not result 

in any additional impacts unless maintenance activities occur in or near streams. 

4.13.5.6 Special Status Species

The species discussed in section 4.7 of this EIS could potentially be affected by construction and 

operation of other projects occurring within the same area as the proposed projects. Constitution, 

Iroquois, and all other companies’ projects are required to consult with the appropriate federal, state, and 

local agencies to evaluate the types of species that may be found in the area of the projects; identify 

potential impacts from construction and operation of the projects to any species identified; and implement 

measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on special status species and their habitat. Based on 

projected impacts and proposed mitigation measures, all federally listed endangered and threatened 

species and all state-listed species were determined to be either unaffected or not adversely affected by 

the proposed projects. Because protection of threatened, endangered, and other special status species is 

part of the federal and state permitting processes, cumulative impacts on such species would be reduced 

or eliminated through conservation and mitigation measures identified during those relevant permitting 

processes. Consequently, we conclude that past and present projects in combination with the proposed 

projects would have minor cumulative effects to special status species.

4.13.5.7 Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

Projects with permanent aboveground components, such as buildings, wind energy projects, 

residential projects, roads, and aboveground electrical transmission lines would generally have greater 

impacts on land use than the operational impacts of a pipeline (including gathering lines for Marcellus 

Shale development and non-jurisdictional project-related facilities) which would be buried and thus allow 

for most uses of the land following construction. Therefore, with the exception of aboveground facilities 

and the permanent right-of-way, pipeline projects typically only have temporary impacts on land use. 

The majority of long-term or permanent impacts on land use are associated with vegetation clearing and 

maintenance of the pipeline right-of-way. Vegetation within the right-of-way would be cleared during 

construction. 

The projects listed in table 4.13-1 would disturb hundreds of additional acres of land affecting a 

variety of land uses. We focused our analysis of potential cumulative land use impacts on projects 

located close by or immediately adjacent to the proposed construction workspaces. Of the projects listed 

in table 4.13-1, those with the greatest potential for impacts include the non-jurisdictional project-related 

facilities, Marcellus Shale development projects, residential developments, and linear infrastructure 

facilities crossing Constitution’s route. 

In particular, around MP 3.2, several past, ongoing, and future projects would be active in a 

reasonably short time. At this location, Williams Field Services would construct its Reynolds discharge 

line from its Miller Compressor Station, Constitution would construct its White Road Tie-in and the 

pipeline, and there is a previously constructed well pad and associated pipeline that is inservice. 

Cumulative impacts on forested lands at this location could occur if these projects are constructed around 

the same time as the proposed projects. 

The majority of the Constitution project’s potential impacts on agricultural land and other nonforested land use types would be temporary, as most land uses would be allowed to revert to prior uses 

following construction. Any impacts would be minimized or mitigated to the greatest extent practicable 

through the use of resource-specific construction plans (for example, Constitution’s ECPs, Plan, and 

Procedures) and consultation with state agencies, federal agencies, and landowners. It is anticipated that 
Cumulative Impacts 4-226

other projects in the region of influence would be required to implement similar construction and 

restoration practices to minimize impacts on land use. 

Constitution’s project, if built at the same time as other foreseeable future projects, could result in 

cumulative impacts on recreation and special-interest areas if other projects affect the same areas or 

feature at the same time. The Constitution project would cross or be located near several recreation and 

special interest areas, including four state forests in New York: Melondy Hill State Forest (MPs 42.5 and 

44.6) in Chenango County; Pine Hill State Forest (MP 52.4) in Delaware County; and Clapper Hollow 

(MP 97.0 to 97.1) and Petersburg State Forest (MP 110.4 to 110.8) in Schoharie County. Constitution has 

and will continue to consult with the NYSDEC on routing through the New York State Forests to 

minimize impacts on these lands, where feasible. Additional details are provided in section 4.8.4 of this 

EIS. At this time, we have not determined that any of the projects listed in table 4.13-1 would impact any 

of the recreation and special-use areas that would be crossed by Constitution’s project. However, if one 

or more of the projects listed in table 4.13-1 was constructed at the same time and nearby location as the 

proposed projects, then temporary cumulative impacts could occur in those areas. 

The visual character of the existing landscape is defined by historic and current land uses such as 

recreation, conservation, and development. The visual qualities of the landscape are further influenced by 

existing linear installations such as highways, railroads, pipelines, and electrical transmission and 

distribution lines. Within this context, the pipelines, wind farms, electrical transmission lines, and 

residential developments listed in table 4.13-1 would have the greatest cumulative impact on visual 

resources in the proposed project area. Constitution’s and Iroquois’ projects would add incrementally to 

this impact, but the overall contribution would be relatively minor given that the majority of 

Constitution’s project would be buried pipeline and Iroquois’ compressor station would be added to an 

existing compressor station site. Existing vegetation around both projects’ aboveground facilities would 

shield surrounding areas from visual impacts. Additionally, disturbed areas would be revegetated as 

appropriate. The impact of Marcellus Shale development activities on land use, recreation, special 

interest areas, and visual resources would vary widely depending on the location of specific facilities and 

access roads, but would be minimized to the extent possible through the PADEP review and permitting 

process. One advantage of the horizontal drilling technique used in the Marcellus Shale is that numerous 

wells can be drilled from a single well pad, thereby reducing the land use requirements for access roads, 

gathering pipelines, and individual well pads.

The assessment of visual importance of an object or area varies greatly between individuals. In 

particular, some may find alternate forms of energy infrastructure (i.e., windmill) appealing for its 

intrinsic value while others may take a tangible approach in their evaluations, making meaningful 

conclusions on visual resources subjective. Visual impacts associated with operation of Marcellus Shale 

and other natural gas development result from maintained rights-of-way for gathering lines and other 

pipelines, well pads, compressor stations, meter stations, and gas processing facilities. The turbines 

associated with the Horizon Wind Energy’s wind farm in Franklin could be 400 feet tall and be visible 

from residences nearby the project in Delaware County. Construction of the turbines would require the 

presence of large equipment to transport and install turbines and blades, and large cranes would be 

brought on site to complete installation of the turbines, blades, and shaft. 

Although the visual impact of the wind farm and Marcellus Shale production may be longterm, 

only a minor visual impact would occur due to the operation of the proposed projects, primarily resulting 

from the conversion of forested land to scrub-shrub or herbaceous vegetation types. Project proponents 

for gathering lines for Marcellus Shale development and non-jurisdictional project-related facilities would 

restore disturbed areas in accordance with state permitting agency requirements, thereby limiting 

permanent visual impacts on those areas where previously existing forest would not be allowed to 

reestablish within the new permanent right-of-way. Permanent visual impacts would also occur in 
4-227 Cumulative Impacts

developed areas where permanent structures (e.g., transmission line posts) would remain. Other recently 

completed or proposed project aboveground facilities would, for the most part, likely be located adjacent 

to an existing right-of-way (e.g., transmission line), at existing paved commercial/industrial sites, in 

remote locations, and/or within a permanent right-of-way. Whereas these permanent visual impacts may 

be locally noticed, generally they would not be inconsistent with the existing visual character of the area. 

Therefore, the proposed projects’ contribution to cumulative impacts on land use, recreation, special 

interest areas, and visual resources would mostly be limited to the construction phase and would be 

temporary and minor. 

4.13.5.8 Socioeconomics

Present and reasonably foreseeable future projects and activities could cumulatively impact 

socioeconomic conditions in the region of influence for both projects. The socioeconomic issues 

considered in the area of the proposed projects were employment, housing, public services, transportation, 

property values, economy and tax revenues, and environmental justice.

Employment

The projects considered in this section would have cumulative effects on employment during 

construction if more than one project is built at the same time. Constitution has estimated that the 

Constitution project would employ up to 260 workers for each of five spreads to fill up to 1,300 new jobs. 

Local hires could include surveyors, welders, equipment operators, and general laborers. Iroquois 

estimates that the proposed compressor station would employ 50 workers on a regular basis during 

construction with fluctuations as high as 75 workers. Due to the relatively low populations, if multiple 

similar projects are built at the same time, the demand for workers could exceed the local supply of 

appropriately skilled labor. A small number of new permanent employees would be hired to operate the 

proposed Constitution facilities, which would not have a measurable impact on the economy or 

employment. 

Temporary Housing

Temporary housing would be required for construction workers not drawn from the local area. 

Given the current vacancy rates, the number of rental housing units in the area, and the number of rental 

housing units in the area, and the number of hotel/motel rooms available in the vicinity of the projects, 

construction workers should not encounter difficulty in finding temporary housing. If construction occurs 

concurrently with other projects, particularly during peak tourist periods, temporary housing would still 

be available but may be slightly more difficult to find and/or more expensive to secure. Regardless, these 

effects would be temporary, lasting only for the duration of construction, and there would be no long-term 

cumulative impact on housing. 

Infrastructure and Public Services

The cumulative impact of the proposed projects and the other projects listed in table 4.13-1 on 

infrastructure and public services would depend on the number of projects under construction at one time. 

The small incremental demands of several projects occurring at the same time could become difficult for 

police, fire, and emergency service personnel to address. The problem would be temporary, occurring 

only for the duration of construction, and could be mitigated by the various project sponsors providing 

their own personnel to augment the local capacity or by providing additional funds or training for local 

personnel. 
Cumulative Impacts 4-228

In addition, increased use of local roadways from multiple projects could accelerate degradation 

of roadways and require early replacement of road surfaces. However, Constitution committed to the 

repair any roadways damaged during installation of the proposed pipeline and Iroquois stated that it also 

would coordinate with local authorities regarding any project-related impacts on roads.

No long-term cumulative effect on infrastructure and public services is anticipated.

Transportation and Traffic

Construction of the proposed projects could result in temporary impacts on road traffic in some 

areas and could contribute to cumulative traffic, parking, and transit impacts if other projects are 

scheduled to take place at the same time and in the same area. The local road and highway system in the 

vicinity of the proposed projects is readily accessible by interstate highways, U.S. highways, state 

highways, secondary state highways, county roads, and private roads. However, the majority of the 

Constitution project is located in rural areas and most of the roads impacted by the project would be 

county or private roads. Constitution has stated that it would utilize major highways, as well as using the 

construction right-of-way to the extent practicable, to reduce impacts on local roadways. 

The addition of traffic associated with construction personnel commuting to and from the projects 

could also contribute to cumulative regional traffic congestion. However, any construction of the 

proposed project to cumulative traffic impacts would be temporary and short-term. Workers associated 

with the projects would generally commute to and from the pipeline right-of-way, contractor yards, or 

aboveground facility sites during off-peak traffic hours (e.g., before 7:00 AM and after 6:00 PM). In 

addition, Constitution has identified many of its workers would travel to project workspaces via buses. It 

is unlikely that other projects listed in table 4.13-1 would have similar commuting schedules or reach 

peak traffic conditions simultaneously. 

Constitution stated that it would be further minimize impacts associated with road crossings 

through the creation of temporary travel lanes during construction, temporary placement of steel plate 

bridges to accommodate traffic during open trenching for use by fire and emergency vehicles, and 

implementation of its Residential Access and Traffic Mitigation Plan. We expect other projects to 

develop similar procedures. 

The proposed projects would not contribute to any long-term cumulative impact on the 

transportation infrastructure, because only a small number of new permanent employees would be 

required to operate Constitution’s project. 

4.13.5.9 Cultural Resources

Cumulative impacts on cultural resources would only occur if other projects were to impact the 

same historic properties impacted by the proposed projects. The currently proposed projects listed in 

table 4.13-1 that are defined as federal actions would include mitigation measures designed to avoid or 

minimize additional direct impacts on cultural resources. Where direct impacts on significant cultural 

resources are unavoidable, mitigation (e.g., recovery and curation of materials) would occur before 

construction. Non-federal actions would need to comply with any mitigation measures required by the 

affected states. The Applicants developed project-specific plans to address unanticipated discoveries of 

cultural resources and human remains in the event they are discovered during construction. Therefore, 

the proposed projects may incrementally add to the cumulative effects of other projects that may occur at 

the same time. However, this incremental increase would not be significant. 
4-229 Cumulative Impacts

4.13.5.10 Air Quality and Noise

Air Quality

The proposed project and the projects listed in table 4.13-1 would involve the use of heavy 

equipment that would generate emissions or air contaminants, fugitive dust, and noise. The majority of 

these impacts, with the exception of HDDs and construction of the proposed Iroquois compressor station, 

would be minimized, because the construction activities would occur over a large geographical area and 

would be moving regularly. The majority of emissions associated with Constitution’s project would be 

temporary, resulting from construction activities; therefore, the only applicable federal regulation is the 

CAA general conformity rule. Construction activities for Constitution’s project would generate potential 

air pollutant emissions. These emissions would be temporary and occur only during and as a result of 

construction activities, and would be minimized by mitigation measures such as using properly 

maintained vehicles and commercial gasoline and diesel fuel products with specifications to control 

pollutants. Impacts from construction of the proposed Constitution Pipeline project are not expected to 

result in a significant impact on local or regional air quality. 

With the exception of GHG emissions, air impacts would be localized and confined primarily to 

the airsheds in which the projects occur. The proposed Constitution pipeline project’s estimated 

emissions would be well below the attainment standards set for the ACQRs included in the Project area. 

The combined effect of multiple construction projects occurring in the same airshed, ACQR, and 

timeframe as the proposed project could temporarily add to the ongoing air quality effects of existing 

activities. However, the contribution of the proposed project to the cumulative effect of all foreseeable 

projects would be temporary. The projects listed in table 4.13-1 have varying construction schedules and 

would take place over a relatively large geographic area. Additionally, it is likely that mitigation 

measures similar to those employed for the proposed projects would be required for these other projects to 

protect ambient air quality. 

While fugitive dust impacts would also be temporary and would not be expected to affect local or 

regional air quality, dust suppression techniques would be implemented in all construction work areas 

near residential and commercial areas to reduce potential impacts of fugitive dust emissions.

The proposed Constitution pipeline project would not have a significant long-term adverse impact 

on air quality and would not add significantly to the long-term cumulative impact of other projects. It is 

also possible that Constitution’s project could contribute to cumulative improvements in regional air 

quality if a portion of the natural gas associated with the Constitution’s project displaced the use of other 

fossil fuels that may contribute greater amounts of air pollutants of concern. 

Iroquois construction activity would result in PM, NOX, CO, VOC, SO2, GHG, and HAP 

emissions from equipment as well as construction and worker vehicles. Potential impacts from dieseland gasoline-fueled construction equipment and vehicle would be minimized by federal design standards 

imposed when the equipment engines were manufactured, and would comply with EPA mobile emission 

regulations at 40 CFR Part 85. Fugitive dust emissions would be generated during excavation, by 

vehicles traveling on unpaved roadways, and from disturbed land surfaces. Fugitive dust emissions 

would be controlled by monitoring and the use of dust suppression techniques when necessary, which 

typically include application of water or lime. These suppressants would be applied only in accordance 

with applicable regulations and the presence of nearby waterways or wetlands would be considered prior 

to application. Like Constitution’s project, the Iroquois’ compressor station emissions during 

construction would be temporary and would be minimized by mitigation measures described above. 

Impacts from construction of the proposed compressor station are not expected to result in a significant 

impact on local or regional air quality.
Cumulative Impacts 4-230

Operation of Iroquois’ facilities would generate primarily NOX, CO, and PM emissions, with 

lesser amounts of SO2, VOC, GHG, and HAP emissions. However, none of the major source thresholds 

would be exceeded. Therefore, impacts from operation of Iroquois’ project are not expected to result in a 

significant impact on local or regional air quality.

Ongoing drilling activities of Marcellus Shale natural gas reserves and other projects in the area 

such as non-jurisdictional project-related facilities (table 4.13-1), would involve the use of heavy 

equipment that would generate emissions of air contaminants and fugitive dust during construction. 

Because pipeline construction moves through an area quickly, air emissions associated with pipelines 

would be intermittent and short term. The majority of these impacts would be minimized further because 

the construction activities would occur over a large geographical area and, in many cases, construction 

schedules would not directly overlap. Although these projects would result in short-term construction air 

emissions, they are not likely to significantly affect long-term air quality in the region.

Operation of the proposed projects, Marcellus Shale drilling activities, and other nearby projects 

would also contribute cumulatively to existing air emissions. Operation of wind energy projects and 

residential development projects are not expected to contribute to air emissions in the region of influence. 

Each of the projects would need to comply with federal, state, and local air regulations, which may 

require controls to limit the emission of certain criteria pollutants or HAPs. Although outside the extent 

of the Commission’s jurisdiction, it is anticipated that Marcellus Shale development activities would 

result in increased long-term emissions of criteria pollutants, HAPs, and GHGs within the region. 

Climate Change

Climate change is the change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result 

of human activity, and cannot be represented by single annual events or individual anomalies. For 

example, a single large flood event or particularly hot summer are not indications of climate change, 

while a series of floods or warm years statistically change the average precipitation or temperature over 

years of decades may be climate-related. 

The leading U.S. scientific body on climate change is the U.S. Global Change Research Program. 

Thirteen federal departments and agencies participate in the U.S. Global Change Research Program, 

which began as a presidential initiative in 1989 and was mandated by Congress in the Global Change 

Research Act of 1990. 

In June 2009, the U.S. Global Change Research Program issued a report, Global Climate Change 

Impacts in the United States, summarizing the impacts that climate change has already had on the United 

States and what projected impacts climate change may have in the future. The report includes a 

breakdown of overall impacts by resource and impacts described for various regions of the United States. 

Although climate change is a global concern, for this cumulative analysis, we will focus on the potential 

cumulative impacts of climate change in the area of both projects. 

The U.S. Global Change Research Program’s report notes the following observations of 

environmental impacts that may be attributed to climate change in the Northeast region:

• more frequent days with temperatures above 90o F;

• a longer growing season;

• increased heavy precipitation;

• less winter precipitation falling as snow and more as rain; and
4-231 Cumulative Impacts

• rising sea surface temperatures and sea level.

Emissions of GHGs from Constitution’s project would not have any direct impacts on the 

environment in the area of the projects. Currently, there is no standard methodology to determine how 

the proposed Constitution pipeline project’s relatively small incremental contribution to GHGs would 

translate into physical effects of the global environment. The GHG emissions from the construction and 

operation of Constitution’s project would be negligible compared to the global GHG emission inventory. 

Additionally, burning natural gas emits less CO2 compared to other fuel sources (e.g., fuel oil or coal). 

Because fuel oil is widely used as an alternative to natural gas in the region in which Constitution’s 

project would be located, it is anticipated that the pipeline project would result in the displacement of 

some fuel oil use, thereby potentially offsetting some regional GHG emissions. 

Operation of the new turbines associated with Iroquois’ project would result in the existing 

Wright Compressor Station becoming a major source of GHGs requiring a Title V application and permit 

at start-up of the new compressors. However, the GHG emissions for both construction and operation 

(159,044 tons of GHG emissions) would be very small when compared with the U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Inventory of 6.63 billion metric tons of CO2 (EPA 2009). The GHG emissions for both construction and 

operation of the pipeline are very small (about 0.001 percent) when compared with the U.S. Greenhouse 

Gas Inventory of 6.63 billion metric tons of CO2e (EPA 2009). The GHG emissions for both construction 

and operation of the compressor facility are also very small (about 0.002 percent) when compared with 

the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Therefore, we conclude the proposed projects would not 

significantly contribute to GHG cumulative impacts.

Noise

The proposed projects could contribute to cumulative noise impacts. However, the impact of 

noise is highly localized and attenuates quickly as the distance from the noise source increases; therefore, 

cumulative impacts are unlikely except if one or more of the projects listed in table 4.13-1 are constructed 

at the same time in the same location. Based on the schedule and proximity of these activities to the 

pipeline route, there may be some cumulative noise impacts. However, since the majority of noise 

impacts associated with the projects would be limited to the period of construction and most construction 

activities would occur during daytime hours and be intermittent rather than continuous, the proposed 

contribution from both projects to cumulative noise impacts would primarily be for only short periods of 

time when the construction activities are occurring at a given location. 

Operation of the Constitution project’s M&R stations would not result in a perceptible noise 

increase or exceed our thresholds. Noise from blowdown events, which are typically infrequent, of short 

duration, and occur during daytime hours, may be perceptible at the NSAs, but not at an excessive level 

such as to interrupt normal human conversation. The maximum estimated noise at a NSA from the 

blowdown events would be 68.8 dBA, comparable to a washing machine at approximately 65 to 70 dBA 

(EPA 1974). Based on the analyses conducted and mitigation measures proposed, we conclude that 

Constitution’s project would not result in significant noise impacts on residents, and the surrounding 

communities.

Operation of the Iroquois project would result in noise from the gas turbines; emergency 

generator; and turbine, compressor, and control building service equipment. Based on the analyses 

conducted and mitigation measures proposed, we conclude that Constitution’s project would not result in 

significant noise impacts on residents, and the surrounding communities during operation as noise levels 

are expected to be below our 55 dBA Ldn requirement, and are not expected to result in a perceptible noise 

increase at the nearest NSAs. In addition, the operation of Iroquois’ project is not expected to result in a 

perceptible increase in vibration at any NSA, as gas turbines, as opposed to reciprocating engines, do not 
Cumulative Impacts 4-232

produce as high of levels of vibration as compared to reciprocating engines. In addition, noise levels 

from combined operation of the Westfall Road M&R Station, the proposed Iroquois project facilities, and 

the existing Wright Compressor Station were modeled and would be expected to be below our 55 dBA

Ldn requirement, and are not expected to result in a perceptible noise increase at the nearest NSAs. In 

addition, the area surrounding Iroquois’s project is primarily agricultural and additional development 

would be unlikely.

4.13.5.11 Reliability and Safety

Impacts on reliability and public safety would be mitigated through the use of the DOT Minimum 

Federal Safety Standards in 49 CFR 192, which are intended to protect the public and to prevent natural 

gas facility accidents and failures. In addition, Constitution and Iroquois’ construction contractors would 

be required to comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Safety and Health 

Regulations for Construction in 29 CFR 1926. No cumulative impacts on safety and reliability are 

anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed projects. 

4.13.6 Conclusion

The majority of cumulative impacts would be temporary and minor when considered in 

combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities. However, some long-term 

cumulative impacts would occur on wetland and upland forested vegetation and associated wildlife 

habitats. Short-term cumulative benefits would also be realized through jobs and wages and purchases of 

goods and materials. There is also the potential that the proposed projects would contribute to a 

cumulative improvement in regional air quality if a portion of the natural gas associated with the proposed 

projects displaces the use of other more polluting fossil fuels.
5-1 Conclusions And Recommendations

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

The conclusions and recommendations presented in this section are those of the FERC 

environmental staff. Our conclusions and recommendations were developed with input from the EPA, 

COE, FHWA, and NYSDAM, as cooperating agencies. The federal cooperating agencies may adopt the 

EIS per 40 CFR 1506.3 if, after an independent review of the document, they conclude that their 

permitting requirements and/or regulatory responsibilities have been satisfied. However, these agencies 

would present their own conclusions and recommendations in their respective and applicable records of 

decision. Otherwise, they may elect to conduct their own supplemental environmental analysis, if 

necessary. 

We determined that construction and operation of Constitution’s and Iroquois’ projects would 

result in adverse environmental impacts. These impacts would occur during both construction and 

operation of the projects and occur on vegetation and individual wildlife species. However, if the 

proposed projects are constructed and operated in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, the 

mitigating measures discussed in this EIS, and our recommendations, these impacts would be reduced to 

less than significant levels. This determination is based on a review of the information provided by the 

Applicants and further developed from data requests; field investigations; scoping; literature research; 

alternatives analysis; and contacts with federal, state, and local agencies as well as individual members of 

the public. As part of our review, we developed specific mitigation measures that we determined would 

appropriately and reasonably reduce the environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation 

of the projects. We are therefore recommending that our mitigation measures be attached as conditions to 

any authorization issued by the Commission. A summary of the anticipated impacts and our conclusions 

is provided below, by resource area. 

5.1.1 Geology and Paleontological Resources

The primary effect of construction of the projects on geologic resources would be disturbances to 

steep topographic features found along the construction right-of-way. All areas disturbed during pipeline

construction would be graded and restored as closely as possible to pre-construction contours during

cleanup and restoration. The projects would not cross any active or proposed mines. 

Constitution performed geotechnical feasibility studies at three locations to evaluate subsurface 

conditions at the proposed trenchless crossing sites. Studies for the remaining nine sites are either ongoing or not started due to lack of site access. Since Constitution has not provided the results of the 

geotechnical studies for all proposed trenchless crossings, we are recommending that Constitution provide 

geotechnical feasibility studies for all locations where the trenchless crossing method is proposed. 

Flash flooding is a potential hazard in the project area. Constitution has designed all waterbody 

crossings to minimize potential impacts from flash flooding, scouring, and high flow velocities on the 

pipeline. There are several areas along the pipeline route where a karst hazard may be present. 

Constitution identified several site-specific construction recommendations and mitigation measures that 

could be employed for steep slope and karst areas, but did not indicate if it would adhere to these 

measures. Therefore, we are recommending that Constitution implement the karst mitigation measures. 

The pipeline would traverse 45.4 miles of shallow bedrock that may require blasting. In order to 

minimize potential impacts from blasting, Constitution would comply with all federal, state, and local 

regulations for blasting and has developed a Blasting Plan to be implemented during construction. 

Iroquois does not anticipate that blasting would be required to construct its compressor station.
Conclusions And Recommendations 5-2

A well-defined landslide feature was identified in the area of MP 30.3, for which Constitution 

intends to perform a formal slope stability analysis. Because the potential hazards associated with the 

route through landslide-prone areas have not been quantified, we are recommending that Constitution file 

the results of the formal slope stability analysis for MP 30.3.

With the implementation of Constitution’s state-specific ECPs (which include its Plan and 

Procedures), as well as our additional recommendations, we conclude that impacts on geological 

resources would be adequately minimized.

We do not anticipate that construction of the projects would uncover significant paleontological 

resources, and no known paleontological sites have been identified. However, there is the potential for an 

unanticipated discovery of fossils along the proposed pipeline route, especially in areas of shallow 

bedrock or where bedrock removal is necessary. To minimize impacts on paleontological resources that 

may be uncovered during construction, Constitution would follow the procedures provided in its 

Discovery Plan and notify the PADCNR Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey or the New York 

State Paleontologist and other relevant agencies as necessary. Given these measures, we conclude that 

potential impacts on paleontological resources would be adequately minimized. 

5.1.2 Soils

The projects would traverse a variety of soil types and conditions. Construction activities 

associated with the projects, such as clearing, grading, trenching, and backfilling, could adversely affect 

soil resources by causing erosion, compaction, and introduction of excess rock or fill material to the 

surface, which could hinder restoration. However, the Applicants would implement the mitigation 

measures contained in their ECPs (Constitution) and Plan (Iroquois) to control erosion, enhance 

successful revegetation, and minimize any potential adverse impacts on soil resources. Specifically, soil 

impacts would be mitigated through measures such as topsoil segregation, temporary and permanent 

erosion controls, and post-construction restoration and revegetation of construction work areas. 

Additionally, Constitution and Iroquois would implement their Spill Plan and SPCC Plan, respectively, 

during construction and operation to prevent and contain, and if necessary clean up, accidental spills of 

any material that may contaminate soils. We are further recommending that Constitution adhere to a

maximum allowable rutting depth of 4 inches in agricultural areas and that Constitution consult with the 

FERC, the NYSDAM, and the AI (for New York parcels) prior to conducting any agricultural restoration 

between October 1 and May 15 to determine soil workability.

Permanent impacts on soils would mainly occur at the aboveground facilities where the sites 

would be graveled and converted to natural gas use. Implementation of Constitution’s ECPs and 

Iroquois’ Plan and other project-specific plans would adequately avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

construction impacts on soil resources in the remainder of the area of both projects. Based on our 

analysis of the Applicants’ proposed measures, we conclude that potential impacts on soils would be 

avoided or effectively minimized or mitigated. 

5.1.3 Water Resources

Groundwater

Groundwater resources in the area of both projects come from Devonian-aged sedimentary rock 

consisting of sandstones, shales, and limestones. The pipeline would cross approximately 4 miles of the 

Clinton Street Ballpark SSA in Broome County, New York. Project facilities in New York would not be 

within designated primary aquifers; however, they would cross 19 designated principal aquifers. 

Facilities in Pennsylvania would not cross or affect any WHPAs; however, the New York portion of the 
5-3 Conclusions And Recommendations

pipeline would cross three WHPAs. Access roads and contractor yards would cross an additional five 

WHPA areas. 

No public water supply wells or springs are within 150 feet of the proposed projects. The 

projects are within 150 feet of 2 water supply monitoring wells, 4 private water wells used for drinking 

water, and 20 private water supply wells or springs that are not used for drinking water. However, 

Constitution has not yet completed identifying water wells and springs within 150 feet of the project in 

Pennsylvania. Therefore, we are recommending that Constitution report the location of all water wells 

and springs within 150 feet of the proposed pipeline and aboveground facilities in Pennsylvania. 

Constitution has agreed to test all water wells within 150 feet of the construction workspace for water 

quality and quantity prior to and after construction, and provide an alternative water source or a mutually 

agreeable solution in the event of construction-related impacts. 

Constitution completed field surveys for wetlands and waterbodies and initiated agency 

consultation for three of the six proposed contractor yards. Field surveys identified waterbodies within 

the boundaries of contractor yards Spread 1 and Spread 5. According to Constitution, final design of the 

yards has not yet been completed. Therefore, we are recommending that Constitution complete all 

required surveys and provide us with the updated status of agency permitting for all of the proposed 

contractor yards.

Construction activities are not likely to significantly impact groundwater resources because the 

majority of construction would involve shallow, temporary, and localized excavation. These potential 

impacts would be avoided or further minimized by the use of construction techniques and mitigation 

described in Constitution’s ECPs and Iroquois’ Procedures. Constitution and Iroquois would prevent or 

adequately minimize accidental spills and leaks of hazardous materials into groundwater resources during 

construction and operation by adhering to their Spill Plan (Constitution) and SPCC Plan (Iroquois). 

Given the Applicants’ proposed measures, as well as our recommendations, we conclude that potential 

impacts on groundwater resources would be avoided, minimized, or mitigated.

Surface Waters

The pipeline project would cross 277 waterbodies (124 perennial, 96 intermittent, and 57 

ephemeral). The pipeline would cross two major waterbodies (greater than 100 feet wide): Bennettsville 

Creek and Schoharie Creek, both in New York.

Constitution is proposing to use trenchless crossing methods (conventional bore, Direct Pipe, or 

HDD) for 42 of the crossings, including both major waterbodies. Constitution would cross the remaining 

235 waterbodies via dry crossing methods (dry open cut, dam and pump, flume, or cofferdam). None of 

the proposed aboveground facilities, including Iroquois’ project, would impact waterbodies. Use of 

trenchless and dry crossing methods to cross the waterbodies, and implementation of the mitigation 

measures outlined in Constitution’s ECPs and other project-specific plans would aid in the effective 

avoidance or minimization of impacts on surface water resources.

Access roads associated with Constitution’s project would require installation of temporary and 

permanent culverts or equipment bridges over waterbodies. According to Constitution, the size and 

installation methods for the culverts that would be permanently installed would vary based upon 

individual waterbody size and characteristics. In addition, Constitution proposed to stabilize and 

permanently fill one waterbody (with culverts) at two different locations, and to temporarily fill one 

wetland and permanently fill 13 wetlands for the purposes of constructing access roads. At this time, 

Constitution has not provided us with sufficient detail for its proposed permanent access road crossings of 

waterbodies and wetlands, nor has Constitution provided us sufficient justification for the use of 
Conclusions And Recommendations 5-4

permanent fill. For these reasons, we are recommending that Constitution file site-specific plans for the 

proposed permanent access road crossings of waterbodies and wetlands, including site-specific 

justifications for the use of permanent fill.

As discussed previously, several waterbodies along the pipeline route and access roads would be 

within Constitution’s construction workspaces, but would not be crossed by the pipeline directly. 

Constitution stated that it would avoid impacts on such waterbodies to the extent possible. We have 

reviewed Constitution’s proposed generalized measures and determined that impacts on these waterbodies 

should be quantified on a waterbody-specific basis. Therefore, we are recommending that Constitution 

file a description of impacts and any proposed impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures 

for each waterbody that would not be directly crossed, but would be impacted by workspaces. 

Surface Water Uses during Construction 

The Applicants are proposing to use both surface water and municipal water sources for 

hydrostatic testing. Constitution and Iroquois would require a total of 22,708,949 gallons of water for 

hydrostatic testing. Iroquois anticipates using a combination of nitrogen and water from municipal 

sources. 

Constitution would use water from municipal sources or surface water during the HDD 

operations to create the drilling mud used to lubricate the drill bit, remove drill cuttings, and hold the hole 

open. After completion of the HDD operations, the recovered drilling mud would be recycled or disposed 

of at a suitable upland location or disposal facility. 

Both projects would also require municipal and/or surface water for dust suppression. Iroquois 

estimates the water needed for dust suppression would be imported via a 2,000 gallon capacity truck 

twice a week as needed. Given the length of the pipeline and that weather conditions would play a large 

role in determining need, the amount of water that Constitution would need for dust suppression would be 

determined at the time of construction. 

Impacts associated with the withdrawal and discharge of water would be effectively minimized 

by the implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in Constitution’s ECPs and Iroquois’ 

Procedures. In addition, Constitution and Iroquois would obtain appropriate National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System discharge permits prior to conducting hydrostatic testing. Accidental spills during 

construction and operations would be prevented or adequately minimized through implementation of 

Constitution’s Spill Plan and Iroquois’ SPCC Plan.

Based on the avoidance and minimization measures developed by Constitution including the 

ECPs, as well as our recommendations, we conclude that the projects would not have adverse impacts on 

surface water resources.

5.1.4 Wetlands

Construction of the pipeline would impact a total of 91.8 acres of wetlands, including 32.7 acres 

of forested wetlands, 34.1 acres of herbaceous wetlands, and 25.0 acres of shrub-scrub wetlands. The 

majority of wetland impacts would be from temporary workspaces (75.7 acres); these areas would return 

to pre-construction conditions following construction. Constitution would maintain a 30-foot-wide 

corridor with selective removal of trees within forested wetlands, impacting a total of 12.5 acres through 

the operational life of the project. Additionally, Constitution would mow and maintain a 10-foot-wide 

corridor within shrub-scrub wetlands, impacting a total of 3.6 acres during operation. Constitution has 

completed surveys for three of the six contractor yards. Because the surveys for three yards are not 
5-5 Conclusions And Recommendations

complete we are recommending that Constitution provide survey results for all proposed contractor yards. 

No wetlands would be impacted by construction of Iroquois’ project.

Construction and operation-related impacts on wetlands would be mitigated by Constitution’s 

compliance with the conditions of the COE Section 404 and the NYSDEC permits; and by implementing 

the wetland protection and restoration measures contained in Constitution’s ECPs, including its

Procedures. Constitution would conduct annual post-construction monitoring of all wetlands affected by 

construction to assess the condition of revegetation and the success of restoration until revegetation is 

successful. 

Constitution requested alternative measures from its Procedures in several areas where it

concluded that site-specific conditions do not allow for a 50-foot setback of extra workspace from 

wetlands, or where a 75-foot-wide right-of-way is insufficient to accommodate wetland construction. 

Based on our review, we determined that these requests are justified. 

Constitution would also avoid wetland impacts at five locations by using trenchless (HDD or 

Direct Pipe) construction methods. At three locations, Constitution proposed to clear vegetation within a 

10-foot-wide corridor between the HDD/Direct Pipe entry and/or exit location along the centerline to 

facilitate access to water for drilling operations during construction. However, to further reduce impacts 

and to limit disturbance to the minimum area needed to construct the HDD/Direct Pipe crossings, we are 

recommending that Constitution limit vegetation clearing between HDD/Direct Pipe entry and exit points. 

Based on the avoidance and minimization measures developed by Constitution, as well as our 

recommendations, we conclude that impacts on wetland resources would be effectively minimized or 

mitigated.

5.1.5 Vegetation

Construction of the projects, including the construction right-of-way, extra workspace, 

aboveground facilities, contractor yards, and access roads would result in impacts on 1,856.0 acres of 

vegetated lands. This total includes 1,024.5 acres of upland forest. During operations, Constitution 

would mow and maintain a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way no more than once every three years; 

however, a 10-foot-wide swath may be mowed more frequently to facilitate routine patrols and 

emergency access to the pipeline centerline. Operation of the projects would result in impacts on 744.4 

acres of vegetated lands, including 471.1 acres of upland forest. 

Constitution would use 5 temporary access roads during construction activities and an additional 

54 permanent access roads during construction and operation. The access roads would impact 33.3 acres 

of upland forest during construction and 13.5 acres of upland forest during operation. Plans for access 

roads for the meter stations have not yet been developed. Since this information has not been provided 

and potential impacts on vegetation have not been fully quantified, we are recommending that 

Constitution file a complete description of its proposed access roads leading to the two meter stations 

along with an impact assessment, and any proposed impact avoidance, minimization, or mitigation 

measures. 

The greatest impact on vegetation would be on forested areas because of the time required for tree 

regrowth back to pre-construction condition. Construction in forest lands would remove the tree canopy 

over the width of the construction right-of-way, which would change the structure and local setting of the 

forest area. The regrowth of trees would take years and possibly decades. Moreover, the forest land on 

the permanent right-of-way would be permanently impacted by ongoing vegetation maintenance during 

operations, which would preclude the re-establishment of trees on the right-of-way. 
Conclusions And Recommendations 5-6

Constitution would cross 36 miles of interior forest habitat, which includes upland and wetland 

communities. The construction workspace and right-of-way width would be reduced from 110 feet to 100 

feet within interior forests except where extra workspace is necessary for safety or engineering reasons. 

This neck-down would prevent 51.8 acres of interior forest from being cleared during construction. 

Although Constitution has attempted to route its pipeline adjacent to existing disturbances and outside of 

forested areas where possible, and has decreased workspaces within interior forest areas relative to its 

original proposal, impacts on the interior forest habitat, and the migratory birds and other wildlife that use 

it, still account for about 43 percent of the total forest impacts and about 24 percent of the total project 

impacts. Therefore, we are recommending that Constitution file a draft Upland Forest Mitigation Plan 

developed in consultation with the FWS, the NYSDEC, the PADCNR, and the PGC. The draft plan 

should include a discussion of migratory birds, including specific locations and mitigation for clearing 

activities outside of agency-recommended clearing windows.

Constitution also conducted invasive plant surveys and identified multiple invasive species along 

the proposed project’s right-of-way where access was granted. Constitution would minimize the spread 

of invasive plant species through use of wash stations to clean equipment and by rapid restoration and 

seeding of cleared areas (as discussed in its Invasive Species Management Plans). Since the invasive 

species surveys are not yet complete, and the location of wash stations has not been determined, we are 

recommending that these surveys and mitigation measures be completed prior to construction. 

The impact of the pipeline project on open lands would be short term as these areas would 

revegetate quickly, usually within 1 to 3 years. Moreover, open areas would be less affected by 

vegetation maintenance on the permanent right-of-way. 

Constitution has committed to reduce the construction right-of-way footprint through interior 

forests to 100 feet where possible, collocate with existing utilities where possible, and re-seed and 

monitor revegetation success to minimize the spread of invasive species. With our further

recommendations to develop mitigation for upland forest impacts, we conclude that the proposed projects 

would not result in a significant impact on vegetation resources. 

5.1.6 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

The projects could have both direct and indirect impacts on wildlife species and their habitats. 

Direct impacts of construction on wildlife include the displacement of wildlife from the right-of-way or 

work sites into adjacent areas and the potential mortality of some individuals. The cutting, clearing, 

and/or removal of existing vegetation within the construction work area could also affect wildlife by 

reducing the amount of available habitat for nesting, cover, and foraging. Indirect effects of construction 

could include lower reproductive success by disrupting courting, nesting, or breeding of some species, 

which could also result in a decrease in prey available for predators of these species. Some of these 

effects would be temporary, lasting only while construction is occurring, or short-term, lasting no more 

than a few years until the pre-construction habitat and vegetation type would be reestablished. Other 

impacts would be longer term such as the re-establishment of forested habitats, which could take decades. 

The Applicants proposed several measures to minimize or avoid impacts on wildlife, including 

collocating the proposed workspace with other existing rights-of-way (approximately 9 percent of the 

proposed alignment), utilizing the existing Wright Compressor Station (an industrial location) for 

construction of the compressor transfer station, and by reducing the construction right-of-way width to 

100 feet in interior forest areas. 

Constitution has routed the pipeline to minimize impacts on sensitive wildlife habitats, such as 

the Taylor Hill area, Melondy Hill State Forest, Cannonsville/Steam Mill Area IBAs, and Clapper Hollow 
5-7 Conclusions And Recommendations

State Forest, whenever feasible. Constitution would further minimize impacts on wildlife habitat further 

by adhering to its state-specific ECPs, Plan, and Procedures. 

A variety of migratory bird species, including BCCs, are associated with the habitats that would 

be affected by the pipeline. The clearing of vegetation during the nesting season could have direct 

impacts on individual migratory birds. Constitution would conduct the majority of tree-clearing activities 

within the FWS’s recommended clearing window for the protection of migratory birds. As noted above, 

we are recommending that Constitution develop an Upland Forest Mitigation Plan that would specifically 

address impacts on migratory bird habitat for forest land that would be cleared outside of the FWSrecommended clearing window. Iroquois is currently proposing to clear a small tract of trees outside of 

the FWS-recommended clearing window and is therefore working with the FWS to develop additional 

mitigation measures for the protection of migratory birds. 

Given the impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures proposed by the Applicants, 

as well as our recommendations, we conclude that the proposed projects would not have a significant 

adverse effect on wildlife. 

All waterbodies that would be crossed by the pipeline are classified as coldwater fisheries with 

the exception of Schoharie Creek (a warmwater fishery). Consultations with the PFBC and the NYSDEC 

determined that 108 waterbodies classified as fisheries of special concern would be crossed, with six 

impacted by permanent access roads. Iroquois’ project would not impact any waterbodies. In-stream 

pipeline construction across waterbodies could have both direct and indirect effects on aquatic species and 

their habitats, including increased sedimentation and turbidity, alteration or removal of aquatic habitat 

cover, stream bank erosion, impingement or entrainment of fish and other biota associated with the use of 

water pumps, downstream scouring, and the potential for fuel and chemical spills. No in-stream blasting 

is expected to be required for any of the pipeline crossings; therefore, we do not expect any blastingrelated fishery impacts. However, if it is later determined that in-stream blasting is required, Constitution 

would develop a detailed in-stream blasting plan that complies with state-specific regulations and permit 

conditions. We are recommending that Constitution provide the FERC with any such plans and that they 

include protocols for in-stream blasting and the protection of aquatic resources and habitats.

Constitution would minimize the effects of its project on aquatic resources through the use of 

various trenchless or dry crossing methods, construction timing windows, extra workspace restrictions, 

and restoration procedures. Constitution would also implement measures outlined in its ECPs and 

Procedures to minimize impacts on aquatic resources such as restoring stream beds and banks to preconstruction conditions. Adherence to the ECPs would maximize the potential for regrowth of riparian 

vegetation.

Constitution proposes to use the HDD method at 14 waterbody crossings, the conventional bore 

method at 27 waterbody crossings, and the Direct Pipe method at 1 waterbody crossing. These methods 

would avoid impacts on the streambed, stream banks, and aquatic resources. Constitution would use dry 

crossing methods (flume, dam and pump, or cofferdam) at the remaining crossings in order to minimize 

potential sedimentation and turbidity impacts. 

The primary aquatic resource impact that could result from use of the HDD method would be an 

inadvertent return or release of drilling fluid into the waterbody. Constitution developed a draft HDD 

Contingency Plan that describes how the HDD operations would be monitored to minimize the potential 

for inadvertent releases. This plan includes general procedures for cleanup of drilling mud releases 

associated with the HDDs. Constitution has indicated that it would adhere to the state-designated 

allowable construction windows for protected coldwater streams to avoid disruption of spawning and 

over-wintering of trout eggs. However, the NYSDEC-recommended allowable construction window 
Conclusions And Recommendations 5-8

extends from June 15 through September 30 instead of Constitution’s proposed window of June 1 to 

September 30. Therefore, we are recommending that Constitution cross trout and trout spawning 

waterbodies in New York between June 15 and September 30, or file documentation of approval from the 

NYSDEC to cross these waterbodies outside of the recommended construction window. 

The Applicants would use surface water and municipal sources of water for hydrostatic testing. 

Constitution proposes to use five waterbodies as sources of hydrostatic test water, all of which contain 

sensitive fisheries: Starrucca Creek in Pennsylvania; and Oquaga, Ouleout, Kortright, and Schoharie 

Creeks in New York. The PFBC approved the withdrawal of water from Starrucca Creek, but requested 

that water not be withdrawn between March 1 and June 15, which could be outside of Constitution’s 

proposed water withdrawal window of December through March. Constitution has not received approval 

from the NYSDEC for water withdrawal from Oquaga, Ouleout, Kortright, and Schoharie Creeks, nor has 

Constitution verified whether water withdrawals would be subject to the in-stream work windows. 

Therefore, we are recommending that Constitution not withdraw water from Starrucca Creek outside of 

the PFBC-recommended allowable work window of June 16 to February 28, or provide the results of 

additional coordination with the PFBC. In addition, we are recommending that Constitution file written 

approval from the NYSDEC allowing water withdrawal from Oquaga, Ouleout, Kortright, and Schoharie 

Creeks, as well as listing any timing restrictions that would be placed on water withdrawals at those 

locations.

Constitution would minimize impacts associated with hydrostatic testing by fitting intake lines 

with screens to minimize the entrainment of fish and maintaining ambient, downstream flow rates to 

protect aquatic life. Following the completion of the hydrostatic tests, Constitution would discharge the 

test water into an upland dewatering structure. The discharge rates would be regulated and energy 

dissipation devices would be employed to prevent erosion, stream bed scour, suspension of sediments, 

flooding, or excessive flows. Discharge of hydrostatic test water would comply with all applicable 

permits, including the sampling of discharge water to document water quality at the time of discharge. 

The Applicants would minimize the potential for spills to impact aquatic resources by 

implementing the measures contained in Constitution’s Spill Plan and Iroquois’ SPCC Plan. These plans 

include measures that restrict refueling or other handling of hazardous materials within 100 feet of a 

waterbody and require the Applicants to conduct routine inspections of tank and storage areas to reduce 

the potential for spills or leaks of hazardous materials. 

Given the impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures proposed by the Applicants, 

including their adherence to multiple resource protection plans, as well as our additional 

recommendations, we conclude that the projects would not result in adverse impacts on aquatic resources. 

5.1.7 Special Status Species

To comply with Section 7 of the ESA, we consulted either directly or indirectly (through the 

Applicants’ informal consultation) with the FWS, NOAA Fisheries, and state resource agencies regarding 

the presence of federally listed, proposed for listing, or state-listed species in the project area. Based on 

these consultations, we determined that construction and operation of Constitution’s project would not 

affect the bog turtle and may affect, but would not likely adversely affect the Indiana bat, dwarf 

wedgemussel, and Northern monkshood. No federally or state-listed special status species were noted in 

the vicinity of Iroquois’ compressor transfer station site. In compliance with Section 7, we requested that 

the FWS consider the draft EIS, along with various survey reports prepared by the Applicants, as the BA 

for the projects. 
5-9 Conclusions And Recommendations

Constitution has not completed necessary surveys for dwarf wedgemussels, northern monkshood, 

sensitive bat species, bald eagle, and any other state-listed species of concern. Therefore, we have 

recommended that Constitution file the results of any remaining surveys for these species as well as any 

additional mitigation measures developed in consultation with the applicable state and federal agencies.

Although no bald eagle nests were encountered within 0.25 mile of Constitution’s proposed 

pipeline, two nests are within 0.5-mile of areas that may require excavation by blasting. Constitution has 

indicated that it is still consulting with the FWS and the NYSDEC to determine if blasting within 0.5 mile 

of these nests would adversely impact bald eagles. The National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines 

indicate that blasting should be avoided within 0.5-mile of an active nest; therefore, we are 

recommending that Constitution provide the final bald eagle mitigation plan developed in coordination 

with the FWS and the NYSDEC. 

In addition to the federally listed and proposed species, 19 other candidate, state-listed, or special 

concern species were identified as potentially present in Constitution’s project area. These species could 

be affected by Constitution’s project, but we do not expect any adverse effects given Constitution’s 

proposed measures and our recommendations. Based on implementation of those measures, we conclude 

that impacts on special-status species would be adequately avoided or minimized.

5.1.8 Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

Construction of the projects would affect approximately 1,862 acres of land. Of this, about 1,665

acres would be for the pipeline facilities, including about 1,557 acres for the pipeline right-of-way and 

about 107 acres for extra workspaces. Of the remaining areas affected, 20.7 acres would be for the 

aboveground facilities, 110.0 acres would be for contractor yards, and 66.5 acres would be for access 

roads. During operation, the permanent pipeline right-of-way, aboveground facilities, and permanent 

access roads would newly encumber 748.8 acres of land. The new pipeline would require a new 50-footwide permanent right-of-way. To facilitate pipeline inspection, operation, and maintenance, the entire 

permanent right-of-way in upland areas would be maintained in an herbaceous/scrub-shrub vegetated 

state. This maintained right-of-way would be mowed no more than once every 3 years, but a 10-footwide strip centered over the pipeline may be mowed annually to facilitate operational surveys.

Constitution’s proposed construction work area is within 50 feet of six residential structures and 

one occupied pool house. Three residences and the pool house are within 25 feet of proposed

construction work areas. Constitution prepared site-specific plans to address impacts for residences 

within 50 feet of construction workspace. We have reviewed these plans and found them acceptable with 

the exception of one plan that was not sufficient. Therefore, we are recommending that Constitution 

provide an updated plan for the residence and septic field crossed at MP 96.7 and updated classifications 

for unsurveyed structures.

No planned developments in Pennsylvania are within 0.5 mile of the pipeline project. In New 

York, five planned projects were identified within 0.5 mile of the pipeline project including three 

subdivisions, an apartment complex, and a water/sewer line infrastructure project, all three in Schoharie 

County. The status of the subdivisions suggests that while they are approved, construction has not yet 

begun. Constitution incorporated several route variations to minimize or avoid impacts on planned 

developments. We determined that implementation of the identified mitigation measures would minimize 

or mitigate the impacts of Constitution’s project on planned residential developments, with one exception. 

Constitution has stated that it would continue to coordinate with the developers to assess the route across 

these tracts. Because Constitution has not provided details regarding impacts on one of the planned 

developments, we are recommending that Constitution coordinate with the developer and local authorities 

regarding a planned residential development at MP 121.5.
Conclusions And Recommendations 5-10

In general, impacts on recreational and special interest areas, including two New York State 

Forests, two recreational trails, and one gun club, would be temporary and limited to the period of active 

construction, which typically would last only several days to several weeks in any one area. These 

impacts would be minimized by implementation of Constitution’s ECPs. 

The pipeline would cross several tracts of land supporting specialty crops such as tree farms 

(Christmas trees, pine, and spruce), Certified Green Tag Forest, an Organic Rated Farm, and a sugar bush 

operation, as well as 33.4 miles of agricultural districts. Constitution has committed to continuing 

coordination with landowners to avoid and minimize impacts on specialty crops. Where impacts on 

specialty crops cannot be avoided, Constitution would implement special construction procedures in 

accordance with the ECPs. In addition, we are recommending that Constitution revise its Organic Farm 

Protection Plan to require use of only organic straw/hay for mulch in certified organic agricultural land. 

Crop yields would be monitored based on the measures developed by the NYSDAM. These 

measures would ensure that yields in areas affected by construction return to levels similar to those of 

adjacent, undisturbed areas. Finally, the owners of agricultural land would be compensated for any 

measureable loss of agricultural or livestock production in accordance with the terms of landowner 

agreements. Impacts on agricultural lands would be short-term and offset by compensation agreed to 

during easement negotiations. However, since the potential impacts on the sugar bush operation have not 

yet been fully described, we are recommending that Constitution develop an impact mitigation plan for all 

specialty crops, including this location. 

 We received comments regarding the Schoharie Career and Technical Education School which 

would be impacted by pipeline construction. The route crosses the school property in an area where 

excavation and construction activities are being conducted as part of the school’s curriculum. Given the 

potential for a conflict in use between placement of the pipeline and current usage of the lands by the 

school, we are recommending that Constitution coordinate with the school Board of Educators to ensure 

Constitution’s project does not hinder the school’s ability to implement existing or future curriculum.

Visual resources along the pipeline route are a function of geology, climate, and historical 

processes, and include topographic relief, vegetation, water, wildlife, land use, and human uses and 

development. A portion of the pipeline (about 9.0 percent) would be installed within or parallel to 

existing pipeline and/or utility rights-of-way. As a result, the visual resources along collocated portions

have been previously affected by other similar activities. Impacts in other areas would be greatest where 

a conversion from forested land to a grassy, maintained right-of-way would occur, particularly at viewing 

locations such as roadways. However, we do not consider these visual impacts significant overall.

In general, the impacts on visual resources resulting from the construction and operation of the 

meter stations and MLVs would be minimal as each site is small and would be operated within the 

pipeline operational right-of-way or within an aboveground facility. While construction of the Iroquois 

project would require the clearing of 3.3 acres of forest land, assessment of the surrounding forest land, 

site topographic conditions, and the existing industrial setting indicate that visual impacts from 

construction would be minor. Due to the location of the proposed compressor transfer station in an 

existing industrial setting surrounded in part by forest land, we anticipate that visual impacts on nearby 

visual receptors during operation would be permanent, but negligible. 

With adherence to Constitution’s proposed impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation plans, 

and our recommendations, we conclude that overall impacts on land use and visual resources would be 

adequately minimized. 
5-11 Conclusions And Recommendations

5.1.9 Socioeconomics

Construction of the projects would not have a significant adverse impact on local populations, 

housing, employment, or the provision of community services. There would be temporary increases in 

traffic levels due to the commuting of the construction workforce to the area of the projects as well as the 

movement of construction vehicles and delivery of equipment and materials to the construction right-ofway. To address traffic impacts related to in-street construction, Constitution developed a Residential 

Access and Traffic Mitigation Plan. Based on comments received from the New York State Department 

of Transportation and the FHWA, we are recommending that Constitution consult with those agencies 

regarding the planned expansion of New York State Route 17 relative to the proposed pipeline’s location. 

We received comments regarding the potential effect of the pipeline project on property value 

devaluation and potentially modified landowner insurance policies. We assessed available studies 

regarding property values and conclude that a loss of property value due to construction of a pipeline is 

not supported by the literature. There is no literature available regarding the potential effects of pipeline 

proximity on property insurance, nor were we able to resolve this issue through our independent research. 

To address this issue, we are recommending that Constitution file weekly reports during construction and 

quarterly reports for 2 years after construction describing the nature of the insurance complaints and 

demonstrating how Constitution coordinated with the affected landowners to mitigate impacts. 

Based on our research and analysis, there is no evidence that the projects would result in 

disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental effects on minority or low-income 

communities.

The long-term socioeconomic effect of the projects is likely to be beneficial, based on the 

increase in tax revenues that would accrue in the counties affected by the projects. Based on the analysis 

presented, and our recommendations, we conclude that the projects would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the socioeconomic conditions of the project area. 

5.1.10 Cultural Resources

Constitution conducted archival research and walkover surveys of the area of the proposed 

project to identify historic aboveground resources and locations for additional subsurface testing in areas 

with potential for prehistoric and historic archaeological sites. Constitution identified 138 historic 

aboveground resources within the area of direct impact for the proposed pipeline route. We have 

determined that 15 of these historic aboveground resources are eligible for listing in the NRHP and that 

123 resources are not eligible. Constitution indicated that two NRHP-eligible resources would be 

adversely affected by the proposed pipeline and that the other 13 NRHP-eligible resources would not be 

adversely affected. Constitution would implement measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any 

anticipated adverse effects to eligible historic aboveground resources. Resources that are determined not 

eligible for listing in the NRHP would not be affected by the proposed project. Two previously recorded 

historic railroads would be crossed by Constitution’s project. These railroads remain 

unevaluated. Constitution intends to cross underneath all rail beds by means of conventional bores, 

thereby avoiding direct impacts.

Twenty-six archaeological sites and 17 stone pile sites would be located within the proposed 

pipeline construction right-of-way, one archaeological site would be located in the area of potential 

impact at a proposed contractor yard, and one cemetery would be located within a proposed access road 

corridor. Constitution has recommended 17 archaeological sites that would be impacted by its project as 

potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP and 10 sites as not eligible. Constitution has not made 
Conclusions And Recommendations 5-12

recommendations on the NRHP eligibility of the 17 stone pile sites or the cemetery, but has designated 

them “culturally sensitive.” 

Constitution plans to modify its project to avoid 5 archaeological sites that it recommends as 

potentially eligible, and it plans to perform additional testing to formally evaluate the NRHP eligibility of 

the other 12 sites recommended potentially eligible. If the additional testing were to indicate any of these 

sites are eligible for listing in the NRHP, Constitution would consider modifications to the project to 

avoid them. If the sites could not be avoided due to terrain or construction constraints, further 

investigations would be required to mitigate any adverse effect that would occur. Constitution plans to 

modify the proposed access road to avoid the cemetery. It also plans to modify its project to avoid 14 

stone pile sites recommended as culturally sensitive. Three stone pile sites cannot be completely avoided 

due to terrain and construction constraints. Constitution is considering measures to mitigate impacts on 

these sites. If after consultation we determine that the other 10 sites within the construction right-of-way 

are not eligible for listing in the NRHP, those sites would not be affected and no further work would be 

required.

Iroquois identified a single archaeological site during its Phase I survey. Iroquois recommended 

that the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP and the OPRHP agreed. Two previously recorded 

historic aboveground resources located within 1 mile of Iroquois’ project remain unevaluated. Based on 

the proximity to Iroquois’ project, overall impacts on these resources would be minimized. 

Both we and the Applicants consulted with federally recognized Native American tribes (15

associated with the Constitution project and 10 associated with the Iroquois project) and 3 tribes that are 

not federally recognized to provide them an opportunity to comment on the proposed projects. Several 

tribes and organizations requested additional consultation or information, but none have provided 

comments on the projects.

To ensure that our responsibilities under Section 106 of the NHPA are met, we are recommending 

in section 4.10.4 that Constitution not begin construction until any additional required surveys are 

completed, survey reports and treatment plans (if necessary) have been reviewed by the appropriate 

parties, and we provide written notification to proceed. The studies and impact avoidance, minimization, 

and measures proposed by Constitution, and our recommendation, would ensure that any adverse effects 

on cultural resources would be appropriately mitigated. 

5.1.11 Air Quality and Noise

Air Quality

Air quality impacts associated with construction of the proposed projects would include 

emissions from fossil-fueled construction equipment and fugitive dust. Such air quality impacts would 

generally be temporary and localized, and are not expected to cause or contribute to a violation of 

applicable air quality standards.

Emissions generated during operation of Constitution’s project would be minimal, limited to 

emissions from maintenance equipment and fugitive emissions. Operation of Iroquois’ project would 

generate emissions of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, volatile 

organic compounds, GHGs, and hazardous air pollutants. Operation of the new turbines at the proposed 

compressor transfer station would result in the existing Wright Compressor Station becoming a major 

source of GHGs requiring a Title V application and permit at start-up of the new compressors. Because 

Title V is only required for GHGs, the proposed turbines would still be permitted and regulated as minor 

sources and minor modifications with regard to emission controls and other requirements.
5-13 Conclusions And Recommendations

Iroquois conducted air dispersion modeling for the proposed Wright Compressor Station 

modification in support of its air permit application to the NYSDEC. The results of the modeling analysis 

demonstrated that emissions for the modified compressor station would not cause or contribute to a 

violation of the NAAQS.

We did note that modifications to the construction schedule and/or the projects may result in 

increases in construction emissions that could exceed the General Conformity applicability threshold for 

NOx in Schoharie County. Therefore, because the projects’ emissions are very close to the applicability 

threshold, we are recommending that Constitution and Iroquois file a plan to track emissions during 

construction so that if emissions exceed that threshold we can comply with General Conformity 

Regulations. 

We received several comments about the health risk of releasing radon when natural gas is 

burned in the home. While the FERC has no regulatory authority to set, monitor, or respond to indoor 

radon levels, many local, state, and federal entities establish and enforce radon exposure standards for 

indoor air. We expect that the combustion of gas carried by the proposed projects would comply with all 

applicable air emission standards. In the unlikely event that these standards are exceeded, the necessary 

modifications would be implemented to ensure public safety.

Noise

Noise would be generated during construction of the pipeline and aboveground facilities for both 

projects. Construction activities in any one area would typically last from several days to several weeks 

on an intermittent basis. Construction equipment would be operated on an as-needed basis during this 

period. Construction of Iroquois’ project would be limited to daytime hours and to the Wright 

Compressor Station. Generally, nighttime noise is not expected to increase during construction because 

most construction activities would be limited to daytime hours with the exception of certain HDD 

activities, which may continue into nighttime hours. Constitution conducted noise assessments to 

determine the potential noise impacts at all of its proposed HDD/Direct Pipe locations. With the 

implementation of the Constitution’s mitigation measures (e.g., installation of barriers, using mufflers on 

equipment) and our recommendation the noise generated during these activities would be below a 10 dB 

increase above ambient in compliance with our noise standard of 55 dBA (Ldn) at the nearest NSA with 

the exception of the HDD #4 entry point. We are recommending that Constitution file a noise mitigation 

plan detailing how it would ensure that the noise attributable to the HDD activities would not increase 

noise over ambient conditions greater than 10 dB at NSA #1. 

Constitution’s project would likely require blasting in some areas of the proposed route to 

dislodge bedrock resulting in potential noise and vibration impacts. Constitution’s state-specific ECPs 

include mitigation measures related to blasting activity. Blasting would be conducted in accordance with 

applicable agency regulations, including pre- and post-blast inspections, advance public notification, and 

mitigation measures as necessary. Blasting is not anticipated for construction of Iroquois’ project.

Based on the analyses conducted, the proposed mitigation measures, and our recommendation, 

we concluded that construction of the projects would not result in significant noise impacts on residents 

and the surrounding environment. Constitution performed a noise assessment for its proposed M&R 

Stations and demonstrated the operation of its M&R Stations would be in compliance with our noise 

criteria of 55 dBA (Ldn) at the nearest NSAs. Iroquois also performed an acoustical analysis for its 

Wright Compressor Station modifications. Iroquois committed to ensuring that the final design of the 

modified facility would comply with our noise criteria of 55 dBA (Ldn) at the nearest NSAs. To ensure 

that Iroquois’ modified Wright Compressor Station continues to meet our noise criteria, we recommended 
Conclusions And Recommendations 5-14

that Iroquois file a noise survey at this facility operating at full load conditions, and install additional 

noise controls if the levels are exceeded.

Noise would be generated by the operation of Constitution’s M&R Stations and Iroquois’ facility. 

The Applicants completed an acoustical analysis to identify the estimated combined noise impacts from 

the Westfall Road M&R station and the compressor station to the nearest NSAs. The results of the 

acoustical analysis demonstrate compliance with the FERC’s noise standard of 55 dBA (Ldn) at the

nearest NSAs. 

Given adherence to the Applicants’ proposed measures as well as our additional 

recommendations, we conclude that potential air and noise-related impacts associated with the projects 

would be adequately minimized or mitigated. 

5.1.12 Reliability and Safety

The pipeline and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed projects would be designed, 

constructed, operated, and maintained to meet the DOT Minimum Federal Safety Standards in 49 CFR 

192 and other applicable federal and state regulations. These regulations include specifications for 

material selection and qualification; minimum design requirements; and protection of the pipeline from 

internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion. We received comments expressing concern about how the

pipeline would be maintained over time and the long-term safety of operations. The DOT rules require 

regular inspection and maintenance, including repairs as necessary, to ensure the pipeline has adequate 

strength to transport the natural gas safely. Further, although regulations requiring remote control shutoff valves have not yet gone into effect and would apply to pipelines built in the future, Constitution 

committed to the use of remote control shut-off valves for the proposed pipeline. 

We received several comments about the potential effects of a pipeline rupture and natural gas 

ignition (the area of potential effect is sometimes referred to as the potential impact radius). While a 

pipeline rupture does not necessarily ignite, the DOT does publish rules that define high consequence 

areas (HCA) where a gas pipeline accident could do considerable harm to people and their property and 

requires an integrity management program to minimize the potential for an accident. Iroquois is currently 

implementing a comprehensive integrity management plan for its existing facilities that meet the DOT’s 

requirements. It would modify the existing integrity management plan, as necessary, to incorporate its

proposed facilities. Constitution would implement its own management plan for its pipeline facilities 

which would be clearly marked at line-of-sight intervals and at other key points to indicate the presence 

of the pipeline. The pipeline system would be inspected to observe right-of-way conditions and identify 

soil erosion that may expose the pipe, dead vegetation that may indicate a leak in the pipeline, conditions 

of the vegetative cover and erosion control measures, unauthorized encroachment on the right-of-way 

such as buildings and other structures, and other conditions that could present a safety hazard or require 

preventive maintenance or repairs. Constitution would also perform integrity risk assessments of the 

proposed facilities, which would be instrumental in early detection of leaks and reduce the likelihood for 

pipeline failure.

Constitution representatives would meet with the emergency services departments of the 

municipalities and counties along the proposed pipeline facilities on an ongoing basis as part of their 

liaison programs. Constitution would provide these departments with emergency contact information and 

verbal, written, and mapping descriptions of the pipeline systems. This liaison program would identify 

the appropriate fire, police, and public officials and the responsibilities of each organization that may 

respond to a gas pipeline emergency, and coordinate mutual assistance in responding to emergencies. 
5-15 Conclusions And Recommendations

We conclude that the Applicants’ implementation of the above measures, along with our 

recommendation, would help to protect public safety and the integrity of the proposed facilities. 

5.1.13 Cumulative Impacts

Three types of projects (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects) could potentially 

contribute to a cumulative impact when considered with the proposed projects. These projects include 

Marcellus Shale development (wells and gathering systems), natural gas facilities that are not under the 

Commission’s jurisdiction, other FERC jurisdictional natural gas pipelines, and unrelated actions such as 

residential or industrial developments, transportation projects, wind farms, and utility lines. The region of 

influence for cumulative impacts varied depending on the resource being discussed. Specifically, we 

included: 

• minor projects, such as residential development, small commercial development, and 

small transportation projects within 0.25 mile of the proposed area for both Constitution 

and Iroquois’ projects;

• major projects, such as large commercial, industrial, transportation and energy 

development projects within 10 miles of the proposed area for both projects, including 

natural gas well permitting and development projects; 

• major projects located within watersheds crossed by the proposed projects; and

• projects with potential to result in longer term impacts on air quality (for example, natural 

gas pipeline compressor stations) located within an AQCR crossed by the proposed 

projects. 

We received numerous comments about the cumulative impacts associated with development of 

natural gas reserves in the Marcellus Shale. In Pennsylvania, the permitting of upstream facilities 

associated with the development of the Marcellus Shale is under the jurisdiction of the PADEP Bureau of 

Oil and Gas Management. The PADEP has developed BMPs for the construction and operation of 

upstream oil and gas production facilities. Further, the PADEP and the SRBC have recently enacted 

regulations to specifically protect surface and groundwater resources from potential impacts associated 

with the development of the Marcellus Shale. Development of the Marcellus Shale is expected to 

continue in proximity to and during construction and operation of portions of the pipeline project in 

Pennsylvania (hydraulic fracturing of the Marcellus Shale is currently prohibited in New York). 

However, because the proposed projects and other FERC jurisdictional projects in the area would not 

have an adverse impact on water resources, and considering the significantly greater geographic and time 

scale for development of the Marcellus Shale, the proposed projects and other FERC jurisdictional 

projects in the area would not contribute in any significance to cumulative impacts on water resources that 

may be associated with development of the Marcellus Shale.

Impacts associated with the proposed projects in combination with other projects such as 

residential developments, wind farms, utility lines, and transportation projects, would be relatively minor 

overall, and we included recommendations in the EIS to further reduce the environmental impacts 

associated with Constitution’s and Iroquois’ projects, as identified in section 5.2. Additionally, 

Constitution selected a route that collocates with existing rights-of-way, where feasible. Similarly, each 

of the other projects considered in our cumulative impacts analysis would have been designed to avoid or 

minimize impacts on sensitive environmental resources. It is anticipated that any adverse impacts on 

sensitive resources resulting from these projects would be avoided or effectively minimized or mitigated 

through project design, BMPs, and regulatory agency permitting. Therefore, we conclude that the 
Conclusions And Recommendations 5-16

cumulative impacts associated with the Constitution and Iroquois projects, when combined with other 

known or reasonably foreseeable projects, would be effectively limited. 

5.1.14 Alternatives

As an alternative to the proposed action, we evaluated the no-action alternative, system 

alternatives, route alternatives, minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. While 

the no-action alternative would eliminate the short- and long-term environmental impacts identified in the 

EIS, the stated objectives of the Applicants’ proposals would not be met. We also evaluated the use of 

alternative energy sources and the potential effects of energy conservation, but determined that these 

sources and measures would not be practicable alternatives to the proposed projects.

Our analysis of system alternatives included an evaluation of whether existing or proposed 

natural gas pipeline systems could meet Constitution’s and Iroquois’ objectives while offering an 

environmental advantage. There is no available and suitably located capacity for existing pipeline 

systems to transport the required volumes of natural gas to the delivery point in Wright, New York in 

their current configuration. Moreover, none of the existing pipeline systems are directly connected to the 

proposed pipeline project’s gas supply area in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania except for TGP’s 300

Line. However, TGP’s 300 Line proceeds in an east-west direction, not northeast towards the existing 

Wright Compressor Station and proposed delivery area. We determined that all of the other existing 

systems in the area of the proposed projects would require significant new facilities, which would result 

in environmental impacts similar to or greater than the proposed projects. Consequently, there are no 

practicable system alternatives that are environmentally preferable to Constitution’s and Iroquois’ 

projects. 

We evaluated the potential for collocation of the proposed pipeline project almost completely 

along the route of existing pipeline systems either alone or in tandem with other existing systems, or a 

combination of existing and proposed pipeline systems. Two existing pipeline systems or combinations 

of existing systems were evaluated: TGP and a Millennium-Dominion-TGP system combination. We 

also assessed collocation using a combination of a proposed EmKey pipeline, an existing EmKey 

pipeline, the Dominion Pipeline, and TGP’s 200 Line. Finally, we reviewed the potential for an 

alternative with partial collocation along the existing Bluestone pipeline. Based on our analyses, we 

conclude that none of the collocated route alternatives would be preferable to the proposed projects. 

We evaluated two major route alternatives to the proposed pipeline route. Because neither of 

these would offer major environmental advantages over the proposed pipeline route, we eliminated them 

from further consideration. We also considered 9 minor route alternatives to resolve or reduce

construction impacts on a scale somewhat smaller than the major route alternatives. We reviewed these 

routes, and their assessments, and concluded none of these routes avoided or reduced impacts over the

corresponding segments of the proposed route. 

Constitution assessed numerous minor route variations over the course of project development 

and indicated that over 50 percent of the proposed pipeline route had changed due to incorporation of 

variations and alternatives to its originally planned route identified in May 2012 during the pre-filing 

process. We are recommending that Constitution further assess 13 minor route deviation variations.

Because the locations of the two meter stations would be linked to the general location of the 

associated natural gas receipt and delivery points near Constitution’s project origin and at the pipeline 

terminus, the search for alternatives was constrained to sites located adjacent to the existing Central 

Compressor Station and the existing Wright Compressor Station, respectively. We did not identify any 
5-17 Conclusions And Recommendations

alternative sites for the proposed meter stations or the MLVs that would offer a major environmental 

advantage to the proposed sites for these facilities. 

We evaluated six alternative locations for the Iroquois compressor transfer station site. All six 

parcels were located in the vicinity of the existing Wright Compressor Station along Westfall Road or 

Barton Hill Road. While these parcels were potentially viable alternative sites, locating the compressor 

transfer station within the existing parcel owned by Iroquois has several advantages including use of 

existing industrially developed lands, reduction in survey needs, elimination of the need to acquire 

property not already encumbered by natural gas facilities, and the ability to utilize existing infrastructure 

(e.g. access roads). We determined that for these reasons, siting the compressor transfer station on the 

existing Iroquois parcel was preferable to construction on a previously non-industrial site.

5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION

If the Commission authorizes the Constitution and Iroquois projects, we recommend that the 

following measures be included as specific conditions in the Commission’s Order. We conclude that 

these measures would further mitigate the environmental impact associated with construction and 

operation of the proposed projects. Certain recommendations listed below request that Constitution and 

Iroquois provide information prior to the development of the final EIS for further review. 

1. The Applicants shall each follow the construction procedures and mitigation measures described 

in its application and supplements, including responses to staff data requests and as identified in 

the EIS, unless modified by the Order. The Applicants must:

a. request any modification to these procedures, measures, or conditions in a filing with the 

Secretary of the Commission (Secretary);

b. justify each modification relative to site-specific conditions;

c. explain how that modification provides an equal or greater level of environmental 

protection than the original measure; and

d. receive approval in writing from the Director of OEP before using that modification.

2. The Director of OEP has delegated authority to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the 

protection of all environmental resources during construction and operation of the projects. This 

authority shall allow:

a. the modification of conditions of the Order; and

b. the design and implementation of any additional measures deemed necessary (including 

stop-work authority) to ensure continued compliance with the intent of the environmental 

conditions as well as the avoidance or mitigation of adverse environmental impact 

resulting from construction and operation of the projects.

3. Prior to any construction, the Applicants shall file an affirmative statement with the Secretary, 

certified by a senior company official, that all company personnel, EIs, and contractor personnel 

will be informed of the EIs’ authority and have been or will be trained on the implementation of 

the environmental mitigation measures appropriate to their jobs before becoming involved with 

construction and restoration activities. 

4. The authorized facility locations shall be as shown in the EIS, as supplemented by filed alignment 

sheets. As soon as they are available, and before the start of construction, the Applicants 

shall file any revised detailed survey alignment maps/sheets at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 

with station positions for all facilities approved by the Order. All requests for modifications of 
Conclusions And Recommendations 5-18

environmental conditions of the Order or site-specific clearances must be written and must 

reference locations designated on these alignment maps/sheets.

Constitution’s exercise of eminent domain authority granted under NGA Section 7(h) in any 

condemnation proceedings related to the Order must be consistent with these authorized facilities 

and locations. Constitution’s right of eminent domain granted under NGA Section 7(h) does not 

authorize it to increase the size of its natural gas pipeline to accommodate future needs or to 

acquire a right-of-way for a pipeline to transport a commodity other than natural gas.

5. The Applicants shall file detailed alignment maps/sheets and aerial photographs at a scale not 

smaller than 1:6,000 identifying all route realignments or facility relocations, and staging areas, 

contractor yards, new access roads, and other areas that would be used or disturbed and have not 

been previously identified in filings with the Secretary. Approval for each of these areas must be 

explicitly requested in writing. For each area, the request must include a description of the 

existing land use/cover type, and documentation of landowner approval, whether any cultural 

resources or federally listed threatened or endangered species would be affected, and whether any 

other environmentally sensitive areas are within or abutting the area. All areas shall be clearly 

identified on the maps/sheets/aerial photographs. Each area must be approved in writing by the 

Director of OEP before construction in or near that area.

This requirement does not apply to extra workspace allowed by the Applicants’ Plans and/or 

minor field realignments per landowner needs and requirements which do not affect other 

landowners or sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands.

Examples of alterations requiring approval include all route realignments and facility location 

changes resulting from:

a. implementation of cultural resources mitigation measures;

b. implementation of endangered, threatened, or special concern species mitigation 

measures;

c. recommendations by state regulatory authorities; and

d. agreements with individual landowners that affect other landowners or could affect 

sensitive environmental areas.

6. Within 60 days of the acceptance of the Certificate and before construction begins, the 

Applicants shall file their respective Implementation Plans for review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP. The Applicants must file revisions to their plans as schedules change. The 

plans shall identify:

a. how the Applicants will implement the construction procedures and mitigation measures 

described in its application and supplements (including responses to staff data requests), 

identified in the EIS, and required by the Order;

b. how the Applicants will incorporate these requirements into the contract bid documents, 

construction contracts (especially penalty clauses and specifications), and construction 

drawings so that the mitigation required at each site is clear to onsite construction and 

inspection personnel;

c. the number of EIs assigned, and how the company will ensure that sufficient personnel 

are available to implement the environmental mitigation;

d. company personnel, including EIs and contractors, who will receive copies of the 

appropriate material;
5-19 Conclusions And Recommendations

e. the location and dates of the environmental compliance training and instructions the 

Applicants will give to all personnel involved with construction and restoration (initial 

and refresher training as the projects progress and personnel change) with the opportunity 

for OEP staff to participate in the training sessions;

f. the company personnel (if known) and specific portion of the Applicant’s organization 

having responsibility for compliance;

g. the procedures (including use of contract penalties) the Applicants will follow if 

noncompliance occurs; and

h. for each discrete facility, a Gantt or PERT chart (or similar project scheduling diagram), 

and dates for: 

(1) the completion of all required surveys and reports;

(2) the environmental compliance training of onsite personnel;

(3) the start of construction; and

(4) the start and completion of restoration.

7. Beginning with the filing of its Implementation Plan, Constitution shall file updated status reports 

with the Secretary on a weekly basis until all construction and restoration activities are 

complete. Iroquois shall file updated status reports with the Secretary on a monthly basis until 

construction and restoration activities are complete. On request, these status reports will also 

be provided to other federal and state agencies with permitting responsibilities. Status reports 

shall include:

a. an update on the Applicant’s efforts to obtain the necessary federal authorizations;

b. the construction status of the projects, work planned for the following reporting period, 

and any schedule changes for stream crossings or work in other environmentally sensitive 

areas;

c. a listing of all problems encountered and each instance of noncompliance observed by the 

EIs during the reporting period (both for the conditions imposed by the Commission and 

any environmental conditions/permit requirements imposed by other federal, state, or 

local agencies);

d. a description of corrective actions implemented in response to all instances of 

noncompliance, and their cost;

e. the effectiveness of all corrective actions implemented;

f. a description of any landowner/resident complaints that may relate to compliance with 

the requirements of the Order, and the measures taken to satisfy their concerns; and

g. copies of any correspondence received by the Applicants from other federal, state, or 

local permitting agencies concerning instances of noncompliance, and the Applicant’s 

response.

8. Prior to receiving written authorization from the Director of OEP to commence 

construction of their respective project facilities, the Applicants shall file documentation that 

they have received all applicable authorizations required under federal law (or evidence of waiver 

thereof).

9. The Applicants must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP before placing their 

respective projects into service. Such authorization will only be granted following a 
Conclusions And Recommendations 5-20

determination that rehabilitation and restoration of areas affected by the projects are proceeding 

satisfactorily.

10. Within 30 days of placing the authorized facilities in service, each Applicant shall file an 

affirmative statement with the Secretary, certified by a senior company official:

a. that the facilities have been constructed in compliance with all applicable conditions, and 

that continuing activities will be consistent with all applicable conditions; or

b. identifying which of the Certificate conditions the Applicant has complied or will comply 

with. This statement shall also identify any areas affected by the projects where 

compliance measures were not properly implemented, if not previously identified in filed 

status reports, and the reason for noncompliance.

11. Constitution shall further assess a minor route deviation for parcel ALT-B-NY-BR-082.003 and 

either incorporate a route that avoids the water well or otherwise explain how potential impacts 

on the well have been effectively avoided, minimized, or mitigated, and file this information with

the Secretary prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period. (section 3.4.3.1)

12. Constitution shall further assess minor route deviations for the tracts identified in table 3.4.3-1 of 

the EIS in coordination with the landowners and either incorporate a route that avoids the 

resources of concern or otherwise explain how potential impacts on resources have been 

effectively avoided, minimized, or mitigated. Constitution shall file the assessments with the 

Secretary prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period. (section 3.4.3.2)

13. Constitution shall further assess minor route deviations for the tracts identified in table 3.4.3-2 of 

the EIS in coordination with the landowners and the NYSDAM. Constitution shall either 

incorporate a route that avoids the agricultural resources of concern or otherwise explain how 

potential impacts on resources have been effectively avoided, minimized, or mitigated. 

Constitution shall file the assessments with the Secretary prior to the end of the draft EIS 

comment period. (section 3.4.3.3)

14. Prior to construction, Constitution shall file with the Secretary all outstanding geotechnical 

feasibility studies for trenchless crossing locations. (section 4.1.1.2)

15. Constitution shall adopt the recommendations and mitigation measures for steep slope and karst 

areas provided in the Geological Reconnaissance Memorandum dated October 4, 2013. (section 

4.1.3.4)

16. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Constitution shall file with the Secretary the 

results of the formal slope stability study for the area at MP 30.3, including any specialized 

construction techniques or mitigation measures Constitution would implement at this location. 

(section 4.1.3.4)

17. Constitution shall adhere to a maximum allowable construction equipment rutting depth of 4 

inches in saturated agricultural areas, where Constitution has not segregated topsoil across the full 

right-of-way width. (section 4.2.4)

18. Prior to conducting any agricultural restoration between October 1 and May 15, 

Constitution shall determine soil workability in consultation with the FERC, the NYSDAM, and 

the AI for all New York agricultural parcels. (section 4.2.4)

19. Prior to construction, Constitution shall file with the Secretary the location of all water wells 

and springs within 150 feet of the proposed pipeline and aboveground facilities in Pennsylvania 

where survey access has been granted. (section 4.3.1.5)
5-21 Conclusions And Recommendations

20. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Constitution shall file with the Secretary the 

results of surveys for all proposed contractor yards not previously submitted concerning water 

wells, waterbodies, and wetlands, as well as the status of any required agency consultations. 

(section 4.3.2)

21. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Constitution shall file with the Secretary 

site-specific plans for the proposed permanent access road crossings of waterbodies and wetlands, 

site-specific justifications for the use of permanent fill, and agency consultations regarding these 

plans. (section 4.3.3.1)

22. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Constitution shall file with the Secretary a 

description of impacts and any proposed impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation 

measures for each waterbody that would not be directly crossed by the trenchline, but would be 

impacted by the construction right-of-way. (section 4.3.3.5)

23. During construction of the project, Constitution shall not clear any trees between the 

workspaces for HDD/Direct Pipe entry and exit sites. Minor brush clearing, less than 3 feet wide, 

using hand tools only would be allowed to facilitate the use of the HDD/Direct Pipe tracking 

system or acquisition of water for makeup of the HDD/Direct Pipe slurry. During operation 

Constitution shall not conduct any routine vegetation maintenance in these areas. (section 4.4.3)

24. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Constitution shall file a description of its 

proposed access roads leading to the two proposed meter stations; maps depicting the access 

roads; tabulated impacts on vegetation types; and any proposed impact avoidance, minimization, 

or mitigation measures. (section 4.5.1)

25. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Constitution shall file with the Secretary a 

draft Upland Forest Mitigation Plan developed in consultation with the FWS, the NYSDEC, the 

PADCNR, and the Pennsylvania Game Commission. The draft plan shall also include a 

discussion of migratory birds, including specific locations and mitigation (such as, but not limited 

to, further reducing the construction right-of-way width, replanting temporary workspaces, and 

reducing the maintenance clearing width of the permanent maintained right-of-way). The 

proposed clearing activities outside of agency-recommended clearing windows shall also be 

addressed in relation to migratory birds. (section 4.5.3)

26. Prior to construction, Constitution shall file with the Secretary the final, complete results of 

invasive plant surveys and the planned locations of weed wash stations for review and written 

approval of the Director of OEP. (section 4.5.4)

27. Constitution shall construct in-stream crossings of all trout and trout spawning waterbodies in 

New York between June 15 and September 30, or file the NYSDEC’s approval to cross these 

waterbodies outside of the allowable construction window. (section 4.6.2.2)

28. Prior to in-stream blasting at any waterbody crossing, Constitution shall file with the 

Secretary for the review and approval of the Director of OEP, a site-specific Blasting Plan that 

provides protocols for in-stream blasting and the protection of the fisheries and aquatic resources 

and habitat. These plans should be developed in consultation with applicable state resource 

agencies. (section 4.6.2.3)

29. Constitution shall not withdraw water from Starrucca Creek outside of the PFBC recommended 

in-stream work window of June 16 through February 28, or shall provide the PFBC approval to 

withdraw water outside this window. Prior to construction, Constitution shall also file with the 

Secretary copies of consultation with the NYSDEC regarding the potential to withdraw water 

from Oquaga, Ouleout, Kortright, and Schoharie Creeks, as well as any timing restrictions placed 

on water withdrawal at those locations. (section 4.6.2.3)
Conclusions And Recommendations 5-22

30. Prior to construction, Constitution shall develop impact avoidance or effective impact 

minimization or mitigation measures (e.g., utilization of trenchless crossing methods or mussel 

relocation) in consultation with the FWS, the PFBC, the PGC, the PADCNR, and the NYSDEC 

for any dwarf wedgemussels encountered during construction. (section 4.7.2)

31. Prior to construction, Constitution shall file with the Secretary, the results of completed 

Northern monkshood surveys and Constitution’s consultation with the FWS and the NYSDEC

regarding the results. Constitution shall file the avoidance/minimization measures it would use in 

the event that Northern monkshood are found either prior to or during construction, including:

a. avoidance of plant locations and associated habitat, as feasible, including “neckingdown” or reducing construction footprint;

b. the feasibility of boring or HDD; and

c. the feasibility of transplanting and seed banking (only after all other options are 

considered). (section 4.7.2)

32. Constitution shall not begin construction of the proposed facilities until:

a. all outstanding biological surveys have been completed;

b. the FERC staff completes any necessary Section 7 consultation with the FWS; and

c. Constitution has received written notification from the Director of OEP that construction 

and/or use of mitigation (including implementation of conservation measures) may begin. 

(section 4.7.2)

33. Prior to construction, Constitution shall file with the Secretary for review and approval by the 

Director of OEP the final bald eagle survey results, as well as the final bald eagle mitigation plan, 

developed in consultation with the FWS, the PGC, and the NYSDEC. The mitigation plan shall

include impact avoidance or effective impact minimization or mitigation measures for any nests 

encountered during the 2014 surveys. Specific mitigation, or approval from the applicable 

agencies, shall be included for potential blasting within 0.5 mile of an active nest. (section 4.7.3)

34. Prior to construction, Constitution shall develop impact avoidance, minimization, or mitigation 

measures in coordination with the FWS and the PGC for construction between April 1 and 

October 31 to minimize impacts on the small-footed bat, Northern myotis, silver haired bat, and 

little brown bat. Constitution shall file any such measures with the Secretary. (section 4.7.3)

35. Prior to construction, Constitution shall file with the Secretary the results of any outstanding 

surveys for New York and Pennsylvania state-listed species and identify additional mitigation 

measures developed in consultation with the applicable state agencies. (section 4.7.3)

36. Prior to construction, Constitution shall file an updated classification of the current use of the 

twelve un-surveyed structures identified in table 4.8.3-1 of the EIS within 50 feet of the 

construction work area. If any of the structures are found to be occupied residences, site-specific 

plans shall be developed and filed with the Secretary. Also, Constitution shall provide an updated 

site-specific plan for tract ALT-F-NY-SC-011.000 at MP 96.7 that includes adequate impact 

avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures for the septic field. (section 4.8.3.1) 

37. Prior to construction, Constitution shall also confirm the distance and location of the 

subdivision at MP 99.3 in relation to the pipeline, and provide a site-specific plan as necessary. 

(section 4.8.3.1)

38. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Constitution shall, in coordination with the 

Schoharie County Department of Planning and Development and the developer of the planned 

subdivision at MP 121.5, develop a residential crossing plan that addresses the presence of this 
5-23 Conclusions And Recommendations

development and addresses any issues raised during Constitution’s consultations. Constitution 

shall file the residential crossing plan with the Secretary. (section 4.8.3.2)

39. Constitution shall revise its Organic Farm Protection Plan to include the required use of organic 

straw/hay for mulch in certified organic agricultural land. (section 4.8.4.2)

40. Prior to construction, Constitution shall file an impact avoidance, minimization, or mitigation 

plan for specialty crops (i.e., the sugar bush operation at MP 79.5), in coordination with the 

landowner if possible. (section 4.8.4.2)

41. Prior to construction, Constitution shall coordinate with the Schoharie Career and Technical 

Education School Board of Educators, and file with the Secretary for the review and written 

approval of the Director of OEP, impact avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures 

designed to ensure that the pipeline and access road PAR 73a (near MP 120.6) do not conflict 

with or hinder the school’s ability to implement current or future curriculum activities. (section 

4.8.4.3)

42. Constitution shall consult with the NYSDOT and the FHWA regarding potential project impacts 

on the planned upgrade to NY Route 17. If necessary develop impact avoidance, minimization, 

or mitigation measures, and file the results of the consultation and the measures prior to the end 

of the draft EIS comment period. (section 4.9.4.1)

43. Constitution shall file with the Secretary reports describing any documented pipeline-related 

complaints concerning landowners’ homeowner insurance policies and identifying how 

Constitution is coordinating with the affected party to mitigate any impacts associated with the 

complaints. During construction these reports shall be included in Constitution’s weekly status 

reports (see Condition 7) and in quarterly reports for a 2 year period following in-service of the 

project. (section 4.9.6)

44. Constitution shall not begin implementation of any treatment plans/measures (including 

archaeological data recovery); construction of facilities; or use of staging, storage, or temporary 

work areas and new or to-be-improved access roads until:

a. Constitution files with the Secretary outstanding cultural resources survey and evaluation 

reports, any necessary treatment plans, and the PHMC’s and OPRHP’s comments, as 

appropriate, on the reports and plans; 

b. Constitution provides documentation that it has provided cultural resources reports to the 

Native American Tribes which have requested them; 

c. the ACHP is provided an opportunity to comment on the undertaking if historic 

properties would be adversely affected; and

d. the FERC staff reviews and the Director of OEP approves all cultural resources survey 

reports and plans, and notifies Constitution in writing that treatment plans/mitigation 

measures may be implemented or construction may proceed. 

All material filed with the Secretary containing location, character, and ownership 

information about cultural resources must have the cover and any relevant pages therein clearly 

labeled in bold lettering: “CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION - DO NOT 

RELEASE.” (section 4.10.4)

45. Prior to construction, the Applicants shall each file with the Secretary for review and written 

approval by the Director of OEP, a Construction Emission Plan identifying how they would track 

their construction schedules for the respective components of the projects within Schoharie

County and ensure construction emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) would remain under the 

General Conformity applicability threshold. If a change in the construction schedules or projects 
Conclusions And Recommendations 5-24

result in emissions of NOx greater than the General Conformity applicability threshold of 100 

tons per year: 

a. the Applicants shall provide and document all mitigation measures under 40 C.F.R. § 

93.158 it would implement to comply with the General Conformity Regulations; and 

b. the FERC staff completes its Final General Conformity Determination and notifies the 

Applicants that project facilities in Schoharie County can be placed into service. 

(section 4.11.1.2)

46. Prior to construction, Constitution shall file for the review and written approval of the Director 

of OEP a plan detailing the additional noise mitigation measures Constitution will use to ensure 

that the noise levels attributable to the HDD #4 activities near the entry point do not exceed an 

Ldn of 55 dBA and/or increase noise over ambient conditions greater than 10 dB at NSA #1. . 

(section 4.11.2.3)

47. Iroquois shall file a noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days after placing the 

authorized units at the Wright Compressor Station in service. If a full load condition noise survey 

is not possible, Iroquois shall provide an interim survey at the maximum possible horsepower 

load and provide the full load survey within 6 months. If the noise attributable to the operation 

of all of the equipment at the Wright Compressor Station under interim or full horsepower load 

conditions exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby NSAs, Iroquois shall file a report on what 

changes are needed and shall install the additional noise controls to meet the level within 1 year

of the in-service date. Iroquois shall confirm compliance with the above requirement by filing a 

second noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days after it installs the additional noise 

controls. (section 4.11.2.3)
APPENDIX A 

Distribution List 

APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-1 

Federal Government Agencies 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, DC 

Office of Federal Program 

Charlene D. Vaughn, Assistant Director of Federal Program Development 

Army Corps of Engineers 

Buffalo District, NY 

Maggie Crawford 

Judy Robinson 

Diane Kozlowski, Regulatory Branch Chief 

Upstate Regulatory Field Office, NY 

Kevin Bruce, Project Manager 

Baltimore District, PA 

Mike Dombroskie 

New York District Field Office, NY 

Heidi Firstencel 

Amy L. Gitchell, Section Chief 

Council on Environmental Quality, DC 

Ellen Athas, Senior Counsel 

Horst G. Greczmiel, Director-NEPA Oversight 

Department of Agriculture, DC 

Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) 

Quentin Gahan, District Conservationist, Walton Area Office, NY 

Albany Area Office, NY 

Andrew Clang, PA 

Lauren Johnson, District Conservationist, Norwich Service Center 

Thomas Lacko, District Conservationist, Schoharie Service Center 

Elena Steele, District Conservationist, Binghamton Service Center 

Jan Surface, Assistant State Conservationist for Water Resources 

Ain Welmon, District Conservationist,Susquehanna Conservation District 

Karl D. Strause, Schoharie Service Center 

Andree DuVarney, National Environmental Coordinator 

Forest Service-Ecosystem Management Coordination, DC 

Joe Carbone, Assistant Director, NEPA 

Forest Service-Farm Service Agency, DC 

Matthew Ponish, Manager 

Department of Commerce, MD 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service 

Jennifer Anderson, NEPA Coordinator 

Steve Kokkinakis, NEPA Policy & Compliance 

Steve Leatherly, National NEPA Coordinator 

Environmental Compliance 

Helen Serassio, Director, Environmental Compliance 

Department of Defense, DC 

Department of the Air Force, SAF/IEI, DC 

Mr. Steve Zanders 

Department of the Air Force, Basing and Units 

Jack Busch, Senior Planner/NEPA Program Manager 

Department of the Army, Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, 

Cheryl Antosh, Assistant for Sustainability 

Office of Deputy Undersecretary Defense 

Terry Bowers, Director Environmental Security 

Department of Energy, DC 

Office of Environmental Management 

Dave Huizenga, Senior Advisor 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-2 

Federal Government Agencies (continued) 

Import/Export Activities 

John Anderson, Director 

Office of Intergovernmental Affairs 

Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, OGC 

Department of Health & Human Services 

Sharunda Buchanan, Director, GA 

Edward Pfister, DHHS Environmental Program Manager, DC 

Department of Homeland Security 

Coast Guard 

Robert Papp, Commandant 

Office of Environmental Management 

Ed Wandelt, Chief 

Customs & Border Protection, DC 

Christopher Oh, Branch Chief 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, DC 

Environmental Planning Division 

James M. Potter, Community Planner 

Department of Interior 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, VA 

Mary Keller, Chief 

Bureau of Land Management DC 

Kerry Rogers, Senior NEPA Specialist 

Environmental Management Branch, VA 

Esther Eng, Chief 

Minerals Management Service, DC 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land 

National Park Service, Environmental Planning and Compliance Branch, CO 

Patrick Walsh, Chief 

Dennis Reidenbach, Regional Director, Northeast Region 

Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance, DC 

Vijai N. Rai, Team Leader 

David Sire, Team Leader, NRM 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

Region 5, PA 

Clint Riley, Project Leader 

Jennifer Saini 

David Stilwell, Field Supervisor, PA 

Northeast Region (5), NY 

Robyn Niver, Ecological Services Field Office 

New York Field Office, NY 

Tim Sullivan 

Pat Carter, NEPA Coordinator, VA 

Geological Survey (USGS), VA 

Michael S. Baker, State Minerals Specialist, Minerals Information 

Department of Justice, DC 

Environment & Natural Resources Division 

Beverly Li, NEPA Coordinator 

Department of State 

Bureau of Oceans & International Environmental & Scientific Affairs, DC 

Alexander Yuan, Foreign Affairs Officer 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-3 

Federal Government Agencies (continued) 

Department of Transportation, DC 

Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

Sherri Pappas, Office of Chief Counsel 

Magcy El-Sibaie, Associate Administrator 

Jeffrey Wiese, Associate Administrator 

Federal Highway Administration (FHA), NY 

Michael Kowalczyk 

Jonathan McDade, Division Administrator 

Section of Environmental Analysis 

Victoria Rutson, Chief, 

Office of Pipeline Safety 

Administrator-Research& Special Programs Administration 

Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety 

Community Assistant/Technical Services 

Environmental Policy Team Coordinator 

Environmental Protection Agency, DC 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator 

Office of Federal Activities 

Susan E. Bromm, Acting Director 

Cliff Rader, Director of the NEPA Compliance Division 

Region 2, NY 

Grace Musumeci , Chief 

Stephanie Lamster 

Judith A. Enck, Regional Administrator 

Lingard Knutson, Regional Administrator 

Region 3, NY 

Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator 

Jerome Blackman, Natural Gas STAR 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DC 

Douglas Sipe, Outreach Manager 

Senate, DC 

Energy & Natural Resources Committee Office, DC 

Jeff Bingaman, Chairman 

Federal Senators and Representatives 

Senator, Robert P. Casey, Jr., PA 

Congressman, Chris Gibson, NY 

Senator, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, NY 

Congressman Richard Hanna, NY 

Congressman Tom Marino, PA 

Senator, Charles E. Schumer, NY 

Senator, Patrick J. Toomey, PA 

State Senators and Assembly Members 

New York 

Senator, John J. Bonacic 

Assemblymember, Marc W. Butler 

Assemblymember, Clifford W. Crouch 

Assemblymember, Gary D. Finch 

Senator, Tom Libous 

Assemblymember, Peter D. Lopez 

Assemblymember, William Magee 

Senator, James L. Seward 

Pennsylvania 

State Senator, Lisa Baker 

Executive Scheduler, Linda Fiorilla 

State Representative, Sandra Major 

State Representative, Tina Pickett 

State Senator, Gene Yaw 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-4 

State Government Agencies

Dig Safely New York, NY 

Gilbert Lake and Robert V. Riddle State Parks, NY 

Tom Goetzmann, Park Manager 

Mine Kill and Max V. Shaul State Parks, NY 

John Lowe, Park Manager 

New York Farm Bureau, NY 

New York State 

Governor 

Andrew Cuomo, Governor 

Pat Henderson, Governor's Energy 

Executive 

Chenango County 

William C. Craine, County Treasurer 

Robert Slavicek, Supervising Forester 

Delaware County 

Martha Bellinger, Deputy Regional Permit 

Administrator 

Department of Environmental Conservation 

Bureau of Fisheries 

Daniel Zielinski, Region 7 

Dave Lemon, Fisheries Manager, Region 7 

Kevin Bliss, Region 7 

Norm McBride, Fisheries Manager, 

Region 4 

Dan Bishop, Aquatic Biologist, 

Region 7 

Bureau of State Land Management 

Rob Messenger, Bureau Chief: Land and 

Forests 

Bureau of Technical Preservation Services 

John Bonafide, Director 

Central New York State Park Region 

Robert Hiltbrand, Regional Director 

Central Office 

Joe Martens, Commissioner 

Division of Environmental Permits 

Region 4-Sub Office 

Chris Hogan, Permit Administrator 

Stephen Tomasik, 

William Clark, Permit Administrator 

David Bimber, Permit Administrator 

William Clark, Permit Administrator, 

Region 4 

Division of Environmental Remediation 

Keith Goertz, Region 4 

Harry Warner, Region 7 

Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources 

(DFWMR) 

Nicholas Conrad, Information Resources 

Coordinator 

Division for Historic Preservation 

Philip A. Perazio 

Division of Lands And Forests 

Robert Davies, Director 

Division of Mineral Resources 

Patricia Evans, Regional Mined Land Staff, 

Region 4 

Lucas Mahoney, Regional Mined Land 

Supervisor, Region 7 

Matt Podniesinski, Section Chief 

Forestry 

John Burst, Region 4 

Natural Heritage Program 

Jean Pietrusiak, Information Services 

D.J. Evans, Program Director 

Peter Innes, Regional Natural Resources 

Supervisor, Region 4 

Office of Electric, Gas And Water 

Thomas Dvorsky, Director 

Office of General Counsel 

Patricia J. Desnoyers, Senior Attorney 

Sandra Garlick 

Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic 

Preservation 

Michael Boyle 

Office of the State Geologist 

Dr. Langhorne B. Smith, Acting State 

Geologist 

Public Service Commission, NY 

Alan T. Michaels, Assistant Counsel 

Resources and Partnerships 

Tom Alworth, Deputy Commissioner 

Saratoga-Capital District State Park Region 

Alane Ball, Regional Director 

Department of Health (NYSDOH) 

Bureau of Public Water Supply Protection 

Jane Thapa, Wellhead Protection 

Lloyd Wilson 

Department of Public Services 

Andrew Davis, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and the Environment 

Jeffrey Kline, Gas Safety 

Cynthia McCarran, Office of Electric Gas 

and Water 

Edward Schrom, Electric Planning 

Department of State 

Office of Coastal, Local Government and 

Community Sustainability 

Department of Transportation 

Joan MacDonald, Commissioner 

Region 1 

Kent Destefanis, P.E., Resident 

Engineer 

Michael Fayette, P.E., Resident 

Engineer 

Dominick Gabriel, P.E., Resident 

Engineer 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-5 

State Government Agencies (continued) 

Mary E. Ivey, Regional Director 

Frank Komoroske, P.E., Resident 

Engineer 

Michael Mariotti 

Pete Melas, P.E., Resident Engineer 

Ian Miller, P.E., Resident Engineer 

Douglas Rose, P.E., Resident Engineer 

Lee Zimmer, Resident Engineer 

Region 9 

Mike Adams, Resident Engineer 

John Mancuso, Resident Engineer 

James Massar, Resident Engineer 

Bob Richter, Resident Engineer 

Jack Williams, Regional Director 

Office of External Relations 

Diane Lombardi 

Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO) 

Ruth Pierpont, Deputy 

Commissioner/Deputy 

Otsego County Legislature 

Board of Representatives, District 13 

Linda Rowinski, 

Legislature, District 3 

Kathleen Clark, County Legislature 

State of Pennsylvania 

Governor 

Tom Corbett, Governor 

Jim Cawley, Lt. Governor 

Department of Agriculture 

Region 3 

Daniel Naylor, Regional Director 

Department of Community and Economic 

Development 

C.Alan Walker, Secretary 

Department of Concervation and Natural 

Resources (PA DCNR) 

Richard Allan, Secretary 

Thomas A. McElroy, Senior Geologic 

Scientist, Groundwater Services 

Bureau of Forestry 

Deb Fisler, Ecological Services Section, 

Environmental Review Manager 

Dave Mong, Row and Leasing 

Administration and Operations Section 

Bureau of Topographic And Geologic Survey 

George E.W. Love, P.G., Director / State 

Geologist 

Executive Office 

Cindy Adams Dunn, Deputy Secretary for 

Conservation and Technical Services 

Department of Environmental Protection (PA 

DEP) 

Katy Gresh, Director of Communications 

Mike Krancer, Secretary 

Coastal Resources Management Program 

Larry Toth, CZM State Permits and Federal 

Consistency Coordinator 

Northeast Region Env Cleanup and Brownfield 

Redevelopment 

Eric Supey, Environmental Program 

Manager 

Northeast Region Office Safe Drinking Water 

Dino Agustini, P.E., Environmental Program 

Manager 

Northeast Regional Office 

Michael Bedrin, Regional Director 

Office of Mineral Resources Management - 

Bureau of District Mining Operations 

Mike Menghini, District Mining Manager 

Fish and Boat Commission (PA FBC) 

Division of Environmental Services 

Tom Shervinskie, Fisheries Biologist 

Natural Diversity Section 

Christopher Urban, Chief 

Northeast Region 

John Arway, Executive Director 

Rob Wnuk, Fisheries Biologist 

Game Commission (PGC), PA 

Bureau of Wildlife Management, Division 

of Environmental Planning and Habitat 

Protection 

Daniel Brauning, Wildlife Diversity 

Division Chief 

Northeast Region 

Stephen Schweitzer, Director 

Historical Museum Commission (PHMC) 

Bureau For Historic Preservation 

Ann Safley 

Douglas McLearen, Division Chief 

Public Utility Commission 

Robert Powelson, Chairman 

Local Government Agencies 

Afton Fire Department, NY 

Andes Fire Department, NY 

Andes Town Highway Department, NY 

Highway Department 

Michael McAdams, Superintendent 

Arena Fire Department, NY 

Arkville Fire Department, NY 

Bainbridge Fire Department, NY 

Bainbridge Village Police Department, NY 

Bainbridge, New York Chamber of Commerce, NY 

Binghamton City Police Department, NY 

Blenheim Hose Company, NY 

Bloomville Fire Department and EMS, NY 

Borden Hose Co., NY 

Bovina Fire Department, NY 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-6 

Local Government Agencies (continued) 

Bridgewater Township, Susquehanna County, PA 

Charles Mead, Board of Supervisors Chair 

Brisben Fire Department, NY 

Broome County, NY 

Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney 

Debra A. Preston, County Executive 

Department of Health 

Claudia Edwards, Director 

Department of Public Works 

Dick Marks 

Chet Kupiec, Highway 

Daniel A. Schofield, Commisioner of Public 

Works 

County Clerk 

Richard R. Blythe 

Emergency Services 

Brett B. Chellis, Director / Fire Coordinator 

Legislature 

Scott Baker, County Legislator 

Stephen D. Herz, County Legislator 

Wayne L. Howard, Majority Leader 

Mark R. Whalen, Minority Leader 

Office of Energy Development 

Margaret Scarinzi, Director 

Office of GIS 

Douglas C. English, Jr., GIS Administrator 

Planning And Economic Development 

Frank Evangelisti, Chief Planner 

Elaine Miller, Commissioner 

Sheriff’s Office 

David E. Harder, Sheriff 

Soil And Water Conservation District 

Charles McElwee, Executive Director 

Broome County Environmental Management 

Council, NY 

Broome Volunteer Emergency Squad, NY 

Campville Fire Department, NY 

Carlisle Volunteer Fire Department, NY 

Castle Creek Fire Company, NY 

Central Bridge Fire Department, NY 

David Egnor, Volunteer Fireman 

Eric A. Johnson, Volunteer Fireman 

Scott Johnson, Chief 

Charlotteville Fire Department, NY 

Chenango Ambulance Services, Inc., NY 

Chenango Bridge Fire Company, Inc., NY 

Chenango Chamber of Commerce, NY 

Chenango County, NY 

Board of Supervisors 

Richard Decker, Chairman 

Department of Emergency Services 

Matthew Beckwith, Fire Coordinator 

Department of Planning and Development 

Rena Doing 

Donna M. Jones, Director 

Department of Public Health, Environmental 

Health 

Isaiah Sutton, Director of Environmental 

Health 

Executive County Officers 

Carol A. Franklin, Democratic 

Commissioner 

Harriett Jenkins, Republican Commissioner 

Lawrence N. Wilcox, Board of Supervisors 

Chairman 

Sheriff’s Office 

Ernest Cutting, Sheriff 

James Lloyd, Undersheriff 

Soil And Water Conservation District 

Lance Lockwood, District Manager 

Village of Bainbridge 

Phillip "Chick" Darling, Mayor 

Chenango Fire Company, Inc., NY 

Choconut Center Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., NY 

City of Binghamton Fire Bureau, NY 

City of Norwich Fire Department, NY 

Clifford Township Volunteer Fire Company, PA 

Cobleskill Fire Department, NY 

Colchester Town Police Department, NY 

Colesville Volunteer Ambulance Service, NY 

Columbia Hose Company No. 1, PA 

Cooks Falls Fire Department, NY 

Coventry Volunteer Fire Company, NY 

Davenport Fire Department, NY 

Davenport Highway Department, NY 

Fred Utter, Superintendent 

Delaware County, NY 

Board of Supervisors 

Tina Molé, Vice Chair 

Chamber of Commerce 

Dr. Seth J. Blocker, Chairman 

Jonathan Kemp, Kraft Foods 

Roxanne Liddle 

Mary Beth Silano, Executive Director 

Clerk of the Board 

Lori Koronowski, Assistant Clerk 

Christa M. Schafer, Board Clerk 

Colchester Highway Department 

Kenneth R. Eck Jr., Superintendent of 

Highway 

County Clerk Staff 

Debra Goodrich, Deputy County Clerk 

Haley Gransbury, Deputy County Clerk 

Sharon O’Dell, County Clerk 

County Planning 

Nicole Franzese, Planning Director 

County Sheriff’s Office 

Thomas E. Mills, Sheriff 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-7 

Local Government Agencies (continued) 

Delaware County Attorney 

Richard B Spinney, County Attorney 

Economic Development 

Glenn Nealis, Director, Office of 

Employment and Training 

William Willis 

Industrial Development Agency 

Tabitha Byam 

Bruce Dolph, IDA Member/Walton Town 

Supervisor 

Bill Gross, IDA Member - Signs, etc. 

Jim Thomson, Chairman IDA 

Legislature District 7 

Marchie Diffendorf, County Legislator 

Planning Department 

Duncan Martin 

Public Health Department 

Bonnie Hamilton, Director 

Public Works 

Wayne Reynolds, Commissioner 

Dan Sanford 

Real Estate 

George Bergleitner, Industrial Development 

Agency Secretary 

George Berlitner, Industrial Development 

Agency Secretary 

Sidney 

Lisa French, Town Clerk 

Soil And Water Conservation District 

Karen Clifford, Spec. Progs. Tech. 

Rick Weidenbach, Executive Director 

Town of Davenport 

Dennis Valente, Supervisor 

Town of Masonville 

Craig Dumond, Supervisor 

Western Catskills 

Linda Stratigos 

Watershed Affairs 

Dean Frazier, Commissioner 

Tom Hilson 

Delhi Fire Department, NY 

Delhi Village Police Department, NY 

Deposit Fire Department Emergency Squad, NY 

Deposit Village Police Department, NY 

Downsville Fire Department, NY 

East Branch Fire Department, NY 

East Maine Fire Company, Inc., NY 

East Meridith Fire Department, NY 

Endicott Fire Department, NY 

Endicott Village Police Department, NY 

Endwell Fire Department, NY 

Five Mile Point Fire Company, Inc., NY 

Forest City Borough Police Department, PA 

Forest City Fire Department, PA 

Franklin Fire Department, NY 

Genegantslet Fire Co., NY 

Glen Aubrey Fire Company, Inc., NY 

Grand Gorge Hose Company 1, NY 

Great Bend Hallstead Volunteer Ambulance, PA 

Great Bend Hose Company #1, Inc., PA 

Greater Susquehanna Valley Chamber of Commerce, 

PA 

Greene Fire Department, NY 

Greene Village Police Department, NY 

Guilford Fire Department, NY 

Halcottsville Fire Department, NY 

Hallstead Fire Engine Hose CO # 1, PA 

Hancock Fire Department, NY 

Hancock Village Police Department, NY 

Harford Volunteer Fire Company, PA 

Harmony Township, PA 

Lynn Jenkins, Township Secretary 

Albert Rockwell 

Harpurs Ferry Student Volunteer Ambulance Service, 

NY 

Hillcrest Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., NY 

Hobart Fire Department, NY 

Hop Bottom Borough Police Department, PA 

Jefferson Volunteer Fire Department, NY 

Johnson City Fire Department, NY 

Johnson City Village Police Department, NY 

Killawog Fire District, NY 

Lanesboro Police Department, PA 

Lisle Fire Company, Inc., NY 

Maine Emergency Squad, NY 

Maine Fire Department, NY 

Margaretville Fire Department, NY 

Margaretville Village Police Department, NY 

Masonville Fire Department, NY 

Meridale Fire Department, NY 

Middleburgh Fire Department, NY 

Montrose Borough Police Department, PA 

New Berlin Fire Department, NY 

New Berlin Town Police Department, NY 

New York City, NY 

Department of Environmental Protection 

Ed Blouin, Agricultural Program Manager 

John Schwartz 

Carter Strickland, Commissioner 

New York Mills Fire Department, NY 

North Norwich Volunteer Fire Department, NY 

Norwich City Police Department, NY 

Oakland Borough Police Department, PA 

Otsego County, NY 

Board of Representatives 

Ed Frazier, County Board 

Donald L. Lindberg, County Legislature 

James Powers, Butternuts, Morris, 

Pittsfield/District No.2 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-8 

Local Government Agencies (continued) 

Beth Rosenthal, Representative 

Department of Planning and Solid Waste 

Meghan Lottridge, Secretary 

Karen Sullivan, Planning Director 

Psalm Wyckoff, Senior Planner 

Highways, Forestry, and Parks 

Kevin Flint, Town Deputy Highway 

Superintendent 

Ronald Tiderencel, Town Highway 

Superintendent 

Office of Emergency Services 

Robert J. O’Brien, Assistant Coordinator 

Kevin W. Ritton, Coordinator 

Office of the County Clerk 

Sharon Burch, Deputy Clerk of the 

Board/County Auditor 

Kathy Sinnott Gardner, County Clerk 

Carol McGovern, Clerk of the Board/County 

Auditor 

Planning Department 

Erik Scrivener, Planner 

Sheriff’s Office 

Cameron S. Allison, Undersheriff 

Richard J. Devlin, Jr., Sheriff 

Town of Maryland 

Majorie French, Town Supervisor 

Scott Gaston, Board Member 

Sharon Heller, Board Member 

Otsego County Chamber, NY 

Oxford Fire Department, NY 

Oxford Village Police Department, NY 

Pharsalia Fire Company, NY 

Pindars Corners Fire Department, NY 

Plymouth Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., NY 

Port Dickinson Fire Department, NY 

Port Dickinson Village Police Department, NY 

Preston Fire Department, NY 

Prospect Terrace Fire Department, NY 

Richmondville EMS, NY 

Ed Hillenbrand, Emergency Responder 

Scott Benett, Emergency Responder 

Richmondville Fire Department, NY 

Dennis Cole, Fireman 

Gary Rightmyer, Fireman 

Jeffery Sperbeck, Fireman 

Roxbury Volunteer Fire Department, NY 

Rush Volunteer Fire Department, PA 

Sanitaria Springs Fire Company, NY 

Schoharie County, NY 

Chamber of Commerce 

Clerk of The Board’s Office 

Sheryl Largeteau, Deputy Clerk 

Karen Miller, Board Clerk 

Karen Prall 

County 911 

Amy Wayman, Supervisor 

Fire Coordinator/Town Board Member 

Matthew Brisley, Fire Coordinator 

Highway Department 

Paul Becker, Manager 

Planning and Development 

Sarah Blood, Economic Development 

Specialist 

Lillian Bruno, Planner 

Brian Fleury, GIS Specialist 

Planning Board 

Pamela Foland, Town Clerk 

Shane Nickle, Senior Planner 

Alicia Terry, Director of Planning 

Sheriff’s Office 

Anthony F. Desmond, Sheriff 

Ronald R. Stevens, Undersheriff 

Soil And Water Conservation District 

Stephen Hoerz, District Manager 

Town Board 

Alan Tavenner, Town Board Member 

Town of Broome 

Ann Batz, Town Supervisor 

Town of Carlisle 

Larry Bradt, Town Supervisor 

Town of Cobleskill 

Tom Murray, Town Supervisor 

Town of Conesville 

D. Michael Brandow, Town Supervisor 

Town of Esperance 

Earl VanWormer, Town Supervisor 

Town of Middleburgh 

James Buzon, Town Supervisor 

Town of Seward 

Carl Barbic, Town Supervisor 

Town of Sharon 

Sandra Manko, Town Supervisor 

Town of Summit 

Jim Dibble, Superintendent 

Town of Summit 

Raynor Duncombe, Town Attorney 

Schoharie Village Police Department, NY 

Schoharie-Wright Ambulance, NY 

Joan and Warren Burton, Emergency 

Responders, Town of Wright 

Sharon Springs Fire Department, NY 

Sherburne Village Police Department, NY 

Sidney Chamber of Commerce, NY 

Sidney Fire Department, NY 

Sidney Village Police Department, NY 

Silver Lake Police Department, PA 

Silver Lake Volunteer Fire Company, PA 

Smyrna Fire Department, NY 

South Kortright Volunteer Fire Department, NY 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-9 

Local Government Agencies (continued) 

South New Berlin Fire Department, NY 

South Otselic Fire Department, NY 

Springville Volunteer Fire Company, PA 

Summit Fire Department, NY 

Susquehanna County, PA 

Planning Commission 

Robert G. Templeton, Director 

Commissioner 

Leon Allen, Commissioner (Vice-Chair) 

Maryann Warren, Commissioner 

(Chairperson) 

Conservation District 

Jim Garner, District Manager 

Council of Governments 

B. Elliot Ross, Chairman, Brooklyn, 

Bridgewater, Jackson, Harmony 

Courthouse 

Silvia Beamer, Chief Clerk 

Michael Giangrieco, Commissioner 

County Government 

Sue Abbott, Council Member 

Jack Agler, Council Member 

John Agler, Council Member 

Richard Ainey, Council Member 

Eric Allan, Roadmaster / Street 

Superintendent 

Daniel J. Anthony, Secretary 

Graham A. Anthony, President / 

Chairperson 

Linda Anthony, Emergency Management 

Coordinator 

Ken Bondurant, Emergency Management 

Coordinator 

Ken Carey, Council Member 

Jim Carr, Council Member 

Todd Chamberlain, Council Member 

Russell Conklin, President / Chairperson 

Dwayne Conklin, Fire Chief / Fire Marshal 

Paul Dudley, Emergency Management 

Coordinator 

Robert Ehm, Roadmaster / Street 

Superintendent 

Michael S. Fabrizi, Jr., President / 

Chairperson / Roadmaster / Street 

Superintendent 

Garry Foltz, President / Chairperson 

Wayne Frederici, Emergency Management 

Coordinator 

Randy Glover, Mayor / Executive 

William Gorski, Supervisor 

Sean Granahan, Council Member 

Alan M. Hall, President / Chairperson 

Amy Hine, Secretary 

Jim Hunter, Township Supervisor 

Barbara James, Council Member 

Dave Jenkins, Supervisor 

Thomas Lamont, Council Member 

Jack Lasher, Emergency Management 

Coordinator 

Kenneth Mead, Roadmaster / Street 

Superintendent 

Oscar Miller, Emergency Management 

Coordinator 

Charlene Moser, Emergency Management 

Coordinator 

Richard Moser, Fire Chief 

Jeffrey Page, Secretary 

Mark Pease, Supervisor 

Tony Pickett, Council Member 

Davis W. Reed II, Emergency Management 

Coordinator 

Craig Reimel, Council Member 

Penny Scarborough, Council Member 

Randall Schuster, Council Member 

Julanne Skinner, Council Member 

Joseph Taylor, Mayor / Executive 

Morgan Turner, Supervisor 

Lawrence White, Council Member 

Barbara Whitehead, Secretary 

John Wilson, Mayor 

James E. Wood, Emergency Management 

Coordinator 

William Wynn, Supervisor 

Bridgewater Township 

Emergency Management Coordinator 

Harford Township 

Sue A. Furney, Secretary 

Doug Phelps, Supervisor 

Harmony Township 

Frederick Jackson, President / Chairperson 

Jackson Township 

Frederick D. Lewis, Roadmaster / Street 

Superintendent 

New Milford Borough 

James Carpenetti, Emergency Management 

Coordinator 

Jack Conroy, Township Supervisor 

Julene N. Graham, Secretary 

Teri Gulick, Council Member 

Don Shibley, Supervisor 

Jane Zick, Council Member 

Oakland Borough 

Ronald Beavan, President / Chairperson 

Gary Boughton, Council Member 

Florence Brush, Secretary 

David Dibble, Council Member 

Thomas Kubas, Council Member 

Brian Rhone, Council Member 

David Trevarthan, Council Member 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-10 

Local Government Agencies (continued) 

Health Department 

Sylvia Parker, State Health Nurse 

Supervisor 

Municipal Authority 

Rex Maxey 

Susquehanna Depot Borough Police Department, PA 

Susquehanna Fire Department, PA 

Thompson Hose Company, PA 

Town of Afton, NY 

Elected Supervisors 

John H. Lawrence, Town Supervisor 

Highway Department 

Lynn Shultis, Superintendent of Highway 

Planning Board 

Lloyd Warren, Chairperson 

Town of Bainbridge, NY 

Elected Supervisors 

Dolores Nabinger, Town Supervisor 

Highway Department 

Gary R. Richman, Superintendent 

Planning Board 

Jarrett Cannistra, Chairperson 

Town of Binghamton, NY 

Highway Department 

Michael K. Donahue, Highway 

Superintendent 

Town of Binghamton Volunteer Fire Company Inc., 

NY 

Town of Blenheim, NY 

Blenheim Town Council 

Keith Graham, Council Member 

Chester Keyser, Council Member 

Anne Mattice-Strauch, Council Member 

Joseph Ward, Council Member 

Board of Supervisors 

Robert H. Mann Jr., Town Supervisor 

Town of Bloomville, NY 

Planning Board 

Archibald Gallup, Planning Board Chair 

Town of Broome Volunteer Fire Department, NY 

Town of Cobleskill, NY 

Board of Supervisors 

Thomas Murray, Jr., Town Supervisor 

Highway Department 

Michael Persons, Superintendent 

Planning Board 

Andre Nadeau, Planning Board Chair 

Town of Colesville, NY 

Board of Supervisors 

Edward Mosher, Town Supervisor 

Highway Department 

Jim Bulger, Highway Supt. 

Robert Young, Highway Supt. 

Planning Board 

William Schuldt, Planning Board Secretary 

Town of Colesville Fire Company #1, NY 

Town of Davenport, NY 

Board of Supervisors 

Dennis J. Valente, Town Supervisor 

Planning Board 

Jo Bordinger 

Morrison Bordinger 

Town of Delhi, NY 

Highway Department 

Robert Howard, Superintendent 

Town of Franklin, NY 

Highway Department 

Mark Laing, Superintendent of Highways 

Planning Board 

Daniel Schlafer, Planning Board 

Town of Fulton, NY 

Joyce Hodder, 

Board of Supervisors 

Philip R. Skowfoe Jr., Town Supervisor 

Town Council 

Neil Driscoll, Chair 

James Heiser, Council Member 

Helmut R. Hoeher, Council Member 

Richard Mix 

James Morgan, Council Member 

Francis Tatten, Council Member 

Town of Gilboa, NY 

Board of Supervisors 

Anthony T. Vanglad, Town Supervisor 

Town Council 

David Hartwell, Council Member 

Dorothy Pickett, Council Member 

Maxwell B. Stryker, Council Member 

Norwood Tompkins, Council Member 

Town of Harpersfield, NY 

Board of Supervisors 

James E. Eisel, Sr., Chair 

Highway Department 

Russell Hatch, Superintendent 

Planning Board 

Dean A. Darling, Planning Board Chairman 

Town of Jefferson, NY 

Daniel Singletary, Supervisor 

Board of Supervisors 

Daniel Singletary, Town Supervisor 

Planning Board 

Robert Glas, Planning Board Chair 

Town of Kortright, NY 

Board of Supervisors 

Steven C. Bower, Town Supervisor 

Highway Department 

John McMullen, Superintendent 

William Smith, Superintendent 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-11 

Local Government Agencies (continued) 

Town of Maryland, NY 

Assessor’s Office 

John Arnold, Assessor 

Highway Department 

Robert Lincoln, Town Highway 

Superintendent 

Planning Board 

John and Eleanor A. Arnold, Planning Board 

Chairman 

Town Board 

Kaye Freling, Town Clerk 

Scott Gaston, Board Member 

Sharon Heller, Board Member 

Town Supervisors 

Marjorie French, Town Supervisor 

Town of Masonville, NY 

Board of Supervisors 

Craig S. Dumond, Town Supervisor 

Highway Department 

Chuck Smith, Superintendent 

Planning Board 

Pamela Walker, Town clerk 

Town Board 

Michael S. Sabansky, Supervisor 

Michael Spaccaforno, Supervisor 

Town of Meredith, NY 

Board of Supervisors 

Keitha Capouya, Town Supervisor 

Highway Department 

William Jester, Superintendent 

Planning Board 

Sue Dapkins, Planning Board Chair 

Town of Middletown, NY 

Highway Department 

John Biruk, Superintendent 

Town of Oneonta, NY 

Cheryl L. Shackelton, Town Clerk 

Code Enforcement 

Paul T. Neske, Code Enforcement Officer 

Highway Department 

James Hurtubise II, Superintendent of 

Highways 

Otsego County Rep 

Richard Murphy, County Representative 

Planning Board 

Kellie Place, Planning Board Chairman 

Town Board 

Scott Gravelin, Board Member 

David Jones, Board Member 

Town Supervisors 

Robert Wood, Town Supervisor 

Town of Otsego, NY 

Highway Department 

Shawn Mulligan, Superintendent 

Town of Otego, NY 

Maryalice Brown, Town Clerk and Collector 

Highway Department 

J.R. Hurlburt, Superintendent of Highways 

Planning Board 

Stephen Butler, Planning Board Chairman 

Town Supervisors 

Joseph Hurlburt, Sr., Town Supervisor 

Anne Geddes-Atwell, Town Supervisor 

Town of Richmondville, NY 

Board of Supervisors 

Richard T. Lape, Town Supervisor 

Highway Department 

Keith Altizer, Superintendent 

Planning Board 

Harold Loder, Planning Board Chair 

Town of Roxbury, NY 

Highway Department 

Stephen Schuman, Superintendent 

Town of Sanford, NY 

Board of Supervisors 

Dewey Decker, Town Supervisor 

Planning Board 

Karl R. Crantz, Planning Board Chair 

Town of Schoharie, NY 

Board of Supervisors 

Eugene Milone, Town Supervisor 

Martin Shrederis, Town Supervisor 

Mayor’s Office 

John J. Borst, Mayor 

Town of Sidney, NY 

Andy Matviak, Mayor 

Bob McCarthy, Supervisor 

Highway Department 

James A. Roberts Jr., Superintendent 

James A. Roberts, Jr., Superintendent 

Town Board 

Bill Whallon, Town Board Member 

Town of Stamford, NY 

Highway Department 

John A. Rice Jr., Superintendent 

Town of Summit, NY 

Barbara Vanvalkenburg, Town Clerk 

Board of Supervisors 

Harold Vroman, Town Supervisor 

Council 

Rich Beller, Councilman 

Georgia R. Shafer, Council Person 

Planning Board 

Gayle Beller, Secretary 

John Meaney, Planning Board Chairman 

Town of Tomkins, NY 

Highway Department 

Ronald Van Valkenburg, Superintendent 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-12 

Local Government Agencies (continued) 

Town of Unadilla, NY 

Highway Department 

Rodney Renwick, Town Highway 

Superintendent 

Town Supervisors 

Gregory J. Relic, Town Supervisor 

Town of Walton, NY 

Highway Department 

Walter Geidel, Superintendent 

Town of Windsor, NY 

Highway Department 

Richard ‘Rocky’ Kholbach, Superintendent 

Planning Board 

Shelly Johnson-Bennett, Planning Board 

Chair 

Supervisor 

Randy Williams 

Town of Worcester, NY 

Jo Anne Beverland, Town Clerk 

Dave Parker, Town Councilman 

Highway Department 

Roger Butler, Town Highway 

Superintendent 

Planning Board 

Judy Amendola, Planning Board Chairman 

Town Board 

Larry Anteman, Town Supervisor 

Town of Wright, NY 

Amber Bleau, Deputy Town Supervisor 

Lynn Herzog, Town Clerk 

Highway Department 

Harry Bennanati, Superintendent 

Jim McLean, Superintendent 

Planning Board 

Trudie Boulia, Planning Board Chair 

Treadwell Fire Department, NY 

Triangle Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., NY 

Trout Creek Fire Department, Inc., NY 

Union Center Fire Company, Inc., NY 

Union Dale Ambulance, PA 

Union Dale Volunteer Fire Co., PA 

Union Volunteer Emergency Squad, NY 

United Fire Company, PA 

Vestal Emergency Squad, NY 

Vestal Fire Department, NY 

Vestal Town Police Department, NY 

Village of Franklin, NY 

Mark Laing 

Village of Sidney, NY 

Village of Stamford Fire Department, NY 

Walton Fire Department, NY 

Walton Village Police Department, NY 

West Colesville Fire Company, Inc., NY 

West Corners Fire Department, NY 

West Fulton Volunteer Fire Department, NY 

Windsor Fire Company and Ambulance, NY 

Windsor Partnership, NY 

Town of Windsor 

Elaine Card, Insurance Agency 

Native American Groups 

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, OK 

Karen Kaniatobe, THPO 

Cayuga Nation of New York, NY 

Timothy Two Gun, THPO 

Clint Halftown 

Delaware Nation, OK 

Darrin Ahshapanek 

Delaware Tribe Historic Preservation Office, KS 

Brice Obermeyer 

Delaware Tribe of Indians, OK 

Joe Brooks, Chief 

Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, MO 

Roxane Weldon 

Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation, CT 

Michael Boland, Director Natural Resources 

Protection 

Mohegan Tribe, CT 

Jean McInnis, Environmental Protection 

Department 

Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey, NJ 

Mark Gould 

Onandaga Nation of New York, NY 

Jean Shenandoah 

Oneida Indian Nation of New York, NY 

Laura Misita, Paralegal/Land Administrator 

Stephen J. Seldon, Esq. 

Dan Smith 

Tony Wonderley, Historian 

Oneida Nation of Wisconsin, WI 

Corina Burke, THPO 

Onondaga Nation, NY 

Tony Gonyea 

Sand Hill Indians, NJ 

Dr. Samuel W. Beeler, Jr., 

Seneca Nation of Indians, NY 

Kathleen Mitchell, THPO 

Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, OK 

Paul Barton 

Shawnee Tribe, OK 

Belinda Pryor, THPO 

St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York, NY 

Craig Arquette, Site Specific GM Oversight 

Sheree Bonaparte, THPO 

Ken Jock 

Stockbridge - Munsee Community, WI 

Steve Comer 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-13 

Native American Groups (continued) 

Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York, 

NY 

Darwin Hill, Clerk 

Roger Hill, Chief 

Tuscarora Nation of New York, NY 

Leo Henry, Chief 

Neil Patterson, Director - Environmental 

Schools 

Afton Central School District, NY 

Margery Secrest, President, Board of 

Education 

Bainbridge-Guilford Central School District, NY 

Michelle Gifford, President, Board of 

Education 

Don Wheeler, Superintendent 

Board of Cooperative Educational Services 

(BOCES), NY 

Capital Region 

Broome County, NY 

Afton Central School District 

Elizabeth Briggs, Superintendent 

Chenango Valley Central School District 

David P. Gill, Superintendent 

Harpursville Central School District 

Kathleen M. Wood, Superintendent 

Windsor Central School District 

Jason Andrews, Superintendent 

Peter Nowacki, President, Board of 

Education 

Capital Region BOCES, NY 

Office of School Attorney 

Michael V. Handzel, Esq. 

Charlotte Valley Central School District, NY 

Joanna Coons, Board of Education President 

Mark Dupra, Superintendent 

Cobleskill-Richmondville Central Schools, NY 

Lynn Macan, Superintendent 

Bruce Tryon, Board of Education President 

Delaware County, NY 

Franklin Central School District 

Gordon Daniels, Superintendent 

Linda Deandrea, Board of Education 

President 

Otego-Unadilla Central School District 

Lesley Bohacek, Board of Education 

President 

Charles Molloy, Superintendent 

Sidney Central School District 

William Christensen, Superintendent 

South Kortright Central School District 

Patricia Norton White, Superintendent 

Delhi Central School District, NY 

Thomas Flanders, Board of Education 

President 

Jason Thomson, Superintendent 

Deposit Central School District, NY 

Joseph Burns, President, Board of Education 

Edward Shirkey, Superintendent 

Harpursville Central School District, NY 

John Giannone, President, Board of 

Education 

Hartwick College, NY 

Katherine O'Donnell, Ph.D., 

Jefferson Central School District, NY 

Carl Mummenthey, Superintendent 

Greg Starheim, Board of Education 

President 

Middleburg Central School District, NY 

Kimberly Smith, Board of Education 

President 

Michele Weaver, Superintendent 

Schoharie Central School District, NY 

Linda Isles, Board of Education President 

Brian Sherman, Superintendent 

Sidney Central School District, NY 

Nancy Parsons, Board of Education 

President 

South Kortright Central School District, NY 

Janet Becken Smith, Board of Education 

President 

Janet Beken Smith, Board of Education 

President 

Stamford Central School District, NY 

Darby Hartwell, 

Michael Kane, 

William Lister, Superintendent 

SUNY Delhi, NY 

Business and Community Services 

Glenda Roberts, Director 

Libraries 

Afton Free Library, NY 

Deposit Free Library, NY 

Franklin Free Library, NY 

Harris Memorial Library, NY 

Huntington Memorial Library, NY 

Pratt Memorial Library, PA 

Schoharie Free Library, NY 

Sidney Memorial Public Library, NY 

Susquehanna County Free Library, PA 

The Community Library, NY 

Unadilla Public Library, NY 

Worcester Free Library, NY 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-14 

Media 

Albany Times Union, NY 

Larry Rulison 

Amsterdam Recorder, NY 

Kevin Mattison, Executive Director 

Binghamton Press and Sun Bulletin, NY 

Steve Reilly 

Fox 40 WICZ TV, NY 

Steve Perlin, Assignment Editor 

Marcellus Drilling News, NY 

Jim Willis, Editor 

Norwich Evening Sun, NY 

Jeff Genung, Managing Editor 

Oneonta Daily Star, NY 

Mark Boshnack, Editorial Department 

Press And Sun Bulletin, NY 

My-Ly Nguyen, Business Editor 

The Daily Gazette, NY 

Ed Munger, Montgomery County Reporter 

The Daily Review, PA 

Kelly Andrus, Editor 

The Evening Sun, NY 

Jeffrey Genung, Managing Editor 

The Patriot News, PA 

Jack Sherzer, Business News 

The Times Shamrock, PA 

David Falchek, Business Reporter 

The Windsor Standard, NY 

Donald Einstein, Editor 

Times Herald Record, NY 

Carmen Ramos, Recordonline.Com, 

Community News Coordinator 

Times Journal, NY 

Jim Poole, Publisher 

TV 34 (ABC.NBC Affiliate), NY 

Peter Quinn, Reporter 

Watershed Post, NY 

Julia Reischel, Publisher 

Wayne Independent, PA 

Greg Little, Group Editor 

WBGN-TV 560, NY 

Matt Markham 

WQBJ, 103.5 FM, NY 

Rob Dawes, Program Director 

WSDE, NY 

Ed Sherlock, President/General Manager 

Your News Now (YNN), NY 

Joe Comings, Operation Technician 

Organizations 

Adaquetangie Club Inc. 

Atlantic States Legal Foundation, NY 

Audubon New York, NY 

Albert E. Caccese, Executive Director 

Sean Mahar, Director of Government 

Relations and Communications 

Baden-Powell Council, Boy Scouts of America, NY 

Business Council of New York, NY 

Darren Suarez, Director of Government 

Affairs 

Catskill Center for Conservation and Development, 

NY 

Tom Alworth, Executive Director 

Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy, NY 

Catskill Forest Association, Inc., NY 

Richard D. Sloman, 

Jim Waters, Executive Director 

Catskill Mountainkeeper, NY 

Ramsay Adams, Executive Director 

High Peaks Regional Office 

Kathy Nolan, High Peaks Regional Director 

Catskill Watershed Corporation, NY 

Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization 

(CLW IO), NY 

Cayuga Lake Watershed Network, NY 

Chenango County Environmental Management 

Council, NY 

Citizen Action of New York, NY 

Karen Scharff, Executive Director 

Citizen Voices, NY 

C/O WER Consulting 

Citizens Campaign for yhe Environment, NY 

Capital Region/North Country Chapter 

Adrienne Esposito, Executive Director 

Citizens’ Environmental Coalition, NY 

Citizens for Clean Water, PA 

Vera Scroggins 

Clapper Hollow R&G Club, NY 

Ronald Yasinski 

Delaware County Cooperative Extension, NY 

Mariane Kiraly, Ag Program Leader 

Delaware Riverkeeper Network, PA 

Maya K. Van Rossum 

Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society, Inc., NY 

Eileen Kline and Eleanor Moriarty 

Delchenango Rod & Gun Club Inc., NY 

Ducks Unlimited, NY 

Ron Zega, Eastern New York Regional 

Director 

Earthjustice, NY 

Legal 

Paul Achitoff, Managing Attorney 

Deborah Goldberg 

Eastchester R & G Club Inc, NY 

C/O Dennis Calabro 

Eastchester R and G Club Inc, NY 

Dennis Calabro 

Energy In Depth, NY 

Northeast Marcellus 

Rachael Colley, Field Director 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-15 

Organizations (continued) 

Environment New York, NY 

David Vanluven, Legislative Director 

Environmental Advocates of New York, NY 

Rob Moore, Executive Director 

Garden of Eden Presbyterian Church of NY, NY 

Gobblers Knob Rod and Gun Club, PA 

Ray Testa 

Gowanus Hunting Club, NY 

Vincent Armarando 

Hanford Mills Museum, NY 

Liz Callahan 

Headwaters Youth Conservation Corps, NY 

Hudson River Environmental Society, NY 

IAMAW Union, NY 

Bruce Hodges, President 

Joint Landowners Coalition of NY, NY 

Land Owner Coalition 

Dan Fitzsimmons, President 

Laborers International Union of North America, NY 

Local 785 

David P Marsh, Business Manager 

League of Women Voters of Cooperstown, NY 

Ellen Tillapaugh, 

League of Women Voters of Oneonta, NY 

Kay Stuligross, 

Marcellus Shale Coalition, PA 

Steve Forde, Policy and Communications 

Director 

National Audubon Society/Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology, NY 

Jillian M. Liner, Director of Bird 

Conservation 

National Wild Turkey Federation, NY 

Regional Biologist (NY, MA, CT, RI) 

Doug Little, CWB(r) 

Natural Resources Defense Council, NY 

Ashok Gupta, Director of Programs 

New York Center For Agricultural Medicine and 

Health (NYCAMH), NY 

New York Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, 

NY 

New York Farm Bureau, NY 

Julie C. Suarez, Director of Public Policy 

Jeffrey R. Williams, Deputy Director of 

Public Policy 

New York League of Conservation Voters, NY 

Marcia Bystryn, President 

New York Public Interest Research Group 

(NYPIRG), NY 

Laura Haight, Senior Environmental 

Associate 

Binghamton Chapter 

New York State Council of Trout Unlimited, NY 

Robert Semian, Region 7 VP 

NY Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance, NY 

Director 

Richard Thomas, 

NYS Dept of Agriculture and Markets (NYA&M), 

NY 

Matthew Brower, Agricultural Resource 

Specialist 

Oneonta Sportsmen Club Inc Inc, NY 

Otsego County Conservation Association, NY 

Parks & Trails New York, NY 

Pennsylvania Independent Oil And Gas Association, 

PA 

Stephanie Paluda, Public Outreach 

Coordinator 

Project Watershed Central New York, NY 

Norm Webber, Coordinator for Oneida Lake 

Region 

Riverkeeper, NY 

Paul Gallay, President and Hudson 

Riverkeeper 

Schoharie Co Historical Society, NY 

Schoharie Co Jeep Club Inc., NY 

Sharon Springs Against Hydrofracking, NY 

Lisa Zaccaglini 

Sidney Union Cemetery Assc Inc Association Inc, 

NY 

Sierra Club, NY 

Atlantic Chapter 

Roger Downs, Chapter Conservation 

Director 

Hudson-Mohawk Group 

Susan Lawrence, Chair 

Susquehanna Group 

Jeff Bohner, Group Chair 

Stop The Constitution Pipeline, NY 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission, PA 

Water Resources Management 

Andrew S. Dehoff 

SVBC.org, NY 

Pastor Bruce 

Teamsters Local Union No. 693, NY 

Bob Firmstone, Secretary Treasurer BA 

The Institute For Energy and Environmental 

Research, PA 

Thomas E. Barnard, PhD, PE, 

The Nature Conservancy, NY 

Trout Unlimited, VA 

Katy Dunlap, Eastern Water Project Director 

Trout Unlimited, NY 

Ron Urban, NY State Council Chair 

Brian Wagner, PA State Council Chair 

Mike Walchko, President 

Unatego Area Landowners Association, NY 

Richard Downey, 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-16 

Organizations (continued) 

Upper Susquehanna Coalition, NY 

Jim Curatolo, Watershed Coordinator 

Tioga Soil and Water Conservation District 

Upstate Landowners Group, LLC, NY 

James T. Ash 

Pawella Ash 

John T. Brady 

Victoria Cempa, 

Jerry Roberts 

James Worden, Manager 

VFW POST 2161, NY 

Watershed Agriculture Council, NY 

Craig Cashman, Executive Director 

Companies 

128 Rr 1, LLC, NJ 

J Vincent and Theresa A Toscano 

All Season Construction, NY 

Jeffrey A Relyea 

Amphenol Aerospace, NY 

Company Operations 

Rick Aiken, General Manager 

Gary Anderson, Senior Vice President 

Tom Czernecki, Program Manager 

Andy Gates, Controller 

Rob Goodchild, Factory Manager 

B. S. Quarries, Inc., PA 

Barnes Kasson Country Hospital HHS, PA 

Bassett Hospital of Schoharie County d/b/a 

Cobleskill Regional Hospital, NY 

Bear Swamp LP, NY 

Better Homes & Transport Inc., NY 

Binghamton Boys' Club Inc, NY 

Binghamton General Hospital United Health 

Services, Inc., NY 

Blenheim Inc, NY 

Blue Dot Holding LLC, NJ 

Bluestone Pipe Company of PA, MI 

C/O Director of Business Development 

BMB Land LLC, NY 

May Miller 

Broome Oil & Gas Company Inc, NY 

Brown & Davis Excavators Inc, NY 

Co-Op City Tire Supply 

Anthony Arditi 

Sam Graw 

C/O World Properties, NY 

Alex Demetriades 

Cannonsville Hearth and Home, NY 

Sandra Davis, Landowner and Business 

Owner 

Capital District Community Gardens, NY 

Sharon Diloranzo, Program Director 

Centaur Farms LLC, NY 

Corning Natural Gas, NY 

Company Operations 

Mike German, President 

Coughlin and Gerhart LLP, NY 

Beth E. Westfall 

Cross Hill, LLC, MA 

Anton Pepjonaj 

Decker Forest Products Inc, NY 

DelChengo Rod and Gun Club, NY 

James Bonner 

Dew-Dec Farms Inc, Dec Five LLC, NY 

Dewey A. Decker and Dawn M. Decker 

DGNY Properties LLC, NJ 

Distant Ventures Limited Partnership, PA 

Earthworks Oil And Gas Project, NY 

Nadia Steinzor, Marcellus Shale Organizer 

Embar Farms LLC, NY 

F,J,L&G Corp, PA 

Forno Enterprises, NY 

Brian Albanese 

Glick-Glock Inc, CT 

Grzankowski Family Properties, LLC, NJ 

Lucille Grzankowski 

Haywell Farms LLC, PA 

Heartwood Forestland Fund LLC III Limited 

Partners, NC 

Henry & Louise Holding LLC, NJ 

Hometown Energy Group, NY 

Uni Blake 

HRW LLC, NY 

Marc Wishengrad 

HSK Energy Group, LLC, NY 

Chris Paulsen 

Hunter Holding Corp, NJ 

Matthew Frasco 

I 88 Truck Stop Inc, CT 

C. Marsh 

Iroquois Gas Transmission System, LP, CT 

Hubert Harrell 

Jepacon, LLC, NJ 

John Mitchell Constantine, Jr., Michael John 

Constantine and Elaine J. Constantine, 

JTC Realty LLC, NJ 

KER-MART Realty, NY 

La Capra Associates, Inc., MA 

Melissa Whitten, Consultant 

Lancaster Development, Inc., NY 

Mark Galasso 

Leatherstocking Gas Company, LLC, NY 

Gas Supply 

Russ Miller, Vice President 

Joe Mirabito, Business Owner 

Lizzas Valley View Farm LLC, NY 

Lorder Properties Inc, NY 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-17 

Companies (continued) 

Lyncott Corporation, PA 

Richard Valigo, President 

Maple Downs Lands LLC, NY 

Margaretville Memorial Hospital, NY 

Maxim Equity Properties LLC, NJ 

Meltz Realty Corp, NY 

Mill Farm LLC, NY 

Montrose General Hospital, PA 

Montrose MinuteMen, Inc., PA 

Mountain Boys LTD, NY 

MSD Bedrock, LLC, PA 

Mt Summit Realty, NY 

National Speleological Soc Inc, AL 

New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, NY 

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, NY 

Jane D. Catalano 

Northeastern Cave Conservancy, Inc, NY 

O’Conner Hospital, NY 

Oneida Campground And Lodge LL, PA 

PADAPP, LLC, NY 

Parker Hollow Preservation Club 1, LLC, NY 

Donald Devincentis 

Passaic Bergen R&G, NJ 

Mike Fasino 

Recreational Acreage Exchange LTD., NY 

RP Hills, PA 

Gayle Kelly Hills 

Scenic Hudson, Inc., NY 

Schaefer Enterprises, Inc., NY 

Larry Schaefer, Business Owner 

Schoharie Water Sys & Sup Line, NY 

Shaul Farms Inc, NY 

David and Becky Shaul 

Sheldon Road Farm, LLC, NY 

Sherwood Forest Products, LLC, NY 

Sky Lake of Wyoming Conference, Inc., NY 

Smith and Delp Attorneys At Law, NY 

Shawn J. Smith, Esq. 

Starlight Forests LLC, PA 

State Line Resources, LLC, NY 

John Donaldson 

Statewide 985, LLC, PA 

Stone Mountain Management LLC, UT 

Summit Lake Assoc Inc, NY 

TE Products Pipeline Co LP, TX 

Terrace Mountain Orchard, LLC, NY 

Tessarok Development Industries, Inc., NY 

Terrence Tessarzik, President, Tessarzik 

Development Industries, Inc. 

The Denton Law Office, PLLC, NY 

Legal Issues 

Christopher Denton, Lawyer 

The Henry S. Kernan Land Trust and The Charlotte 

Forest, NY 

Christopher Kernan 

The Law Office of Douglas H. Zamelis, NY 

Douglas H. Zamelis 

The National Grid Gas Delivery Companies, DC 

Cullen and Dykman LLP 

Kenneth T. Maloney 

TNT I Limited Partnership, PA 

Top Rock 14 Inc, PA 

John Ricciard 

Troy Construction, TX 

Facilities Division 

Wayne Pierce, Superintendent 

Trustco Realty Corp., NY 

UHS Chenango Memorial Hospital, Inc., NY 

UHS Delaware Valley Hospital, NY 

Vallonia Springs Corp, NY 

Vandyke Enterprises Inc, NY 

Walczak Lumber Company Inc., PA 

Trevor Walczak, Forester 

Williams Field Services Company LLC, PA 

Kristy Flavin 

Wilson Medical Center United Health Services 

Hospitals, Inc., NY 

World Wide Trucks & Parts, Inc., PA 

Young Sommer LLC, NY 

Michael Moore, Esq. 

Kevin Young 

Intervenors 

Laura Ahearn-Rau, NY 

Nick Albaugh, NY 

Michael Aronson, NY 

Robert Ashley, NY 

Michele Barnes, NJ 

Henry T. Bergmann, NY 

Albert and Deborah Bernard, NY 

Glenn and Laura Bertrand, NY 

Linda Bevilacqua, NY 

Michael and Dawn M. Bianco, NY 

Mary and James Bixby, Jr., NY 

Bernald and Leona Briggs, NY 

Tracy Briggs, NY 

Bernard and Leona Briggs, NY 

Daniel and Laura Jean Olivia Brignoli, NY 

Linda Randall Bryant, NY 

Craig Buckbee, NY 

Chris Burgher and Lori Collins-Hall, NY 

Karen Butler, NY 

Timothy Camann, NY 

Jonathan S. Chasan, NY 

Stan Chatis, NY 

David C. and Rebecca J. Colby, NY 

G.R. Cooley, NY 

Al Crepeau, PA 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-18 

Intervenors (continued) 

Earl and Jamie Cunningham, NY 

Mark and Carmen D'Amico, NY 

MaryAnn Dasilva, NY 

Dennis Denman, NY 

Michael DePinto, NY 

Paul Drosziak, SC 

Richard W. Duggan III, NY 

Patricia Fowler, NY 

Joseph Freiss, NY 

Giuseppe and Robin Fudul, NY 

Alexander Gallinelli, NY 

Anne Marie Garti, NY 

Joe Goellner, NY 

Dennis Gonseth, NY 

Claudia Gorman, RI 

Claudia Gorman, NY 

Toni Grekin, NY 

Michael Grossman, NJ 

Chris Hammond, NY 

Howard L. Hannum, NY 

William Hansien, NY 

Aaron Harrison and Joyce Bitran, NY 

Orvill Jay Hine, NY 

Rachel Diana and Philip Hulbert, NY 

J. Hurley, NY 

John J. Hviid, NY 

Susan Jacques, NY 

Linda Jaffe, NY 

Ralph and Roseann Kaiser, NY 

Maria J. Karl, NY 

Edward Kendall, NY 

Bruce Kernan, NY 

Eileen Kline, NY 

Deborah Krol, NY 

Sherry Lane, NY 

Antonio C. Lava, NY 

Kathleen Lee, PA 

Kathleen Lee, NY 

Robert Lidsky, NY 

Bonita and Harold Lindsay, NY 

Ann Lodovice, NY 

Barbara Loeffler, NY 

Christine Longe, PA 

Kerry A. Lynch, NY 

Anthony Macaluso, NY 

Diane MacInnes, NY 

Joe Maloney, NY 

Eugene Marner, NY 

Carole Marner, NY 

James Martin, NY 

Joe Martin, NY 

Jose Martin, NY 

Gary Mazanec, NJ 

Mary Colleen McKinney and Thomas Gorman, NY 

Cathy McNulty, NY 

George Meszaros, Jr., NY 

John Migliette, NY 

Rob Minotti, NY 

Renee and Robert Neid, NY 

Phil Nelson, NY 

Frank Nicolia, NY 

Diane Nixon, NY 

Laura Jean Oliva, NY 

Karen O'Neill, NY 

Alicia Pagano, NY 

Albino and Lena Perazzo, NY 

Jane C. Perry, NY 

Joseph Petroski, NY 

Mark Pezzati, NY 

Nancy DiPace Pfau, NY 

Richard Pfau, NY 

Gregory and Judith Poquette, NY 

Harris Randall, NY 

Kenneth Rau, NY 

William and Eleanor Raymond, NY 

Gale Reardon, NY 

Hazen Reed, NY 

Christine Roche, NY 

R. Rogan, NY 

Judy Rowe, NY 

Kate Ryan, NY 

Nancy Saglimbeni, NY 

Andrea and Clark Sanders, NY 

Andrea and Clark Sanders, NY 

Angelo Santoro, NY 

Allegra Schecter, NY 

Peter Schoenecker, NY 

Keith Schue, NY 

Kathy Shimberg, NY 

Jason Siemion and Julie Wawrzynek, NY 

Dee Singer and Lee Teper, NY 

Laura Skidmore, VA 

Michael Sodomora, NY 

Anthony Spaziani, NY 

Kimberly and Dustin Sperry, NY 

Anne and Bob Stack, NY 

Craig Stevens, PA 

Richard and Robin Stimpfz, NY 

Wayne R. Stinson, NY 

Wayne and Jennifer Stinson, NY 

James and Sandra Terrano, NY 

Richard D. Thomas, NY 

Beverly Travis, NY 

Joan Turbridy, NY 

William and Nancy Turick, NY 

Mary Tuthill, NY 

Shirley P. Uhle, NY 

Deanna Urrey, NY 

Michael and Barbara Walls, NY 

Julie Wawrzynek and Jason Siemon, NY 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-19 

Intervenors (continued) 

Alfred A. and Nora Will, NY 

Albert and Jean Williams, NY 

Janet M. Windus, NY 

Suzanna Winkler, NY 

Randy T. Wood III, NY 

Robert Wright, NY 

Anjeannette Wright, NY 

Sara Zimmerman, NY 

BMB Land, LLC 

May Miller, NY 

Capital Region BOCES 

Michele V. Handzel, NY 

Citizens for Clean Water 

Vera Scroggins, PA 

Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society 

Eleanor Moriarty, NY 

Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society, Inc. 

Eileen Kline and Eleanor Moriarty, NY 

Hartwick College 

Katherine O'Donnel, Ph.D., NY 

New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation 

Patricia Desnoyers, NY 

NY Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance 

Richard Thomas, NY 

Ostego County Board of Representatives 

Beth Rosenthal, NY 

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission 

Douglas McLaren, PA 

The National Grid Gas Delivery Companies 

Kenneth T. Maloney, DC 

Upstate Landowners Group, LLC 

James T. Ash, NY 

Pawella Ash, NY 

John T. Brady, NY 

Victoria Cempa, NY 

Victoria Cempa, NJ 

Jerry Roberts, NJ 

Theona Sitaras, NY 

Donald M. Smith, NY 

Ronald A. and Bette R. Wagner, NY 

James Worden, NY 

Individuals 

Gina Abatemarco, NY 

Ziad Abbud and Anne McBain, NJ 

Anne Abbud and Ziad McBain, NJ 

Rebecca Aberle, NJ 

Linda-Lee M. Abraham and John W. Gould, NY 

Earl and Laura A Abrams, PA 

Gail Edward Abrams, NY 

Lowel F. Abrams, NY 

Elaine Abse, NY 

Arnold Gene and Judith Christine Adair, NY 

John J Adamovich, NY 

Ann Adams, NY 

Scott Adams, PA 

Waldo H. and Linda Adams, CA 

William F. Adams, NY 

William F. and William J. Adams, NY 

Antonino and Pasqualina Afasano, NY 

Laura Ahearn-Rau, NY 

Bilal and Anbreen Ahmad, NY 

Alphonse and Madeline Albanese, NJ 

Nick Albaugh, NY 

Ludwig J. Albert, NJ 

Thomas A and Mary A Albertson, PA 

David Alescio, NY 

William J. Alex, NY 

Michael L and Michelle Dirubba Alford, NY 

John Alishauskas, NY 

Anyrelyce Allen Mossman, NY 

Paul W. Allen, Jr., CT 

David L. and Bonnie Althiser, NY 

Humberto A. Alvarez, Et Al, NJ 

Michael H. Alvin and Karen E. Alvin, NY 

Walter Amann and Cynthia Amann, NJ 

Hephzibah Amaran, Gerard Amaran and 

Das Stanley Williams, NY 

Salvatore Amato, NY 

Anthony and Joann Amorando, CT 

Kenneth and Marie Andersen, TN 

Richard W. Andersen and Gail L. Andersen, NY 

George A. Andersen, Lynn A. Andersen, NY 

Benjamin J. Anderson, NY 

Emily B. Anderson, NY 

Benjamin J. Anderson and Jennifer S. Anderson, NY 

Steven K. Anderson, Elaine D. Anderson, NY 

Alfred R. Anderson, Jr., Et Al, NY 

Edward R and Ann M Andreas, NY 

Richard W. Andresen, NY 

Richard Andresen And Gail L. Andresen, Ny 

Lauren E. Andrews and Elizabeth J. Andrews, NY 

Elizabeth F. Ang, NH 

Gordon L. Angle, NY 

Michael F. Antaki, NY 

Jeremiah Apgar, NJ 

Joseph E. Araiza, NY 

Mark E. Archambault, NY 

Olon Archer and Kay E. Archer, NY 

Keith Armlin, FL 

Ward J Arnold Sr, NY 

Michael Aronson, NY 

Gloria Arruda, PA 

Robert Ashley, NY 

Ronald G. Ashley, NJ 

Salvatore Audia, NY 

Neil Auerbach, NY 

Sima Auerbach, NY 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-20 

Individuals (continued) 

Vanessa L. Aulet, NJ 

John Axtell, Charlotte Axtell, NY 

Daniel Ayala, NJ 

Maureen G Aylward, PA 

Maureen G. Aylward, PA 

James G. Ayres and Jane B. Ayres, NY 

Gregory L. and Colleen Badger, NY 

Kenneth R. Bagley, Mary A. Bagley, NY 

Lois Bailey, NY 

David Bailey and Lona Bailey, NY 

Richard E. Bailey II, NY 

Laurie Baker, NY 

James Baldo, NY 

James A Baldo Living Trust, NY 

Claude N. Baldwin, NY 

P Scott and Deborah A Baldwin, PA 

Janis J. Balins, NY 

Jean S and John R Ball, PA 

Richard E. and Kitty L. Ballard, NY 

Timothy J. Ballard and Jason A. Ballard, NY 

John Peter Ballard, Barbara Ballard, NY 

Richard E. Ballard, Kitty L. Ballard, NY 

Francis and Fred Ballard, Laura Ballard, NY 

John Ballo, Robin Ballo, NY 

Ernest M. and Esther M. Banks, NY 

James R. and Cynthia Barber, NY 

Nicholas J and Sallyann McCarty Barbieri, MD 

Robert W. and Virginia L. Bareika, NY 

Jody Barile, MT 

Joseph Barile, NY 

Peter Barker, NY 

Seth Barlette, NY 

Douglas Barnard, MD 

Velda Barner, NY 

Velda and Gary Barner, NY 

Michele Barnes, NJ 

R Anthony and Linda L Baroni, PA 

Lisa Barr, NY 

John Barrass, NY 

Edward Barsic Jr., NY 

Joy Barteski, NY 

Claude W Bartholomew, NY 

Duane A. Barton, Kathleen Crawford, Patricia 

Wayman, and Geraldine Stone, PA 

Josephine Basile, NY 

Russell Bass, NY 

Peter F. Bassett, NY 

Neisha P Bassoff, NY 

Jonathan R. Baudendistel and Shannon L. 

Baudendistel, NY 

Arthur J. Baudenistel and Rita Baudenistel, NY 

Michael and Mary Lee Bauer, GA 

Mary Baum, Amanda E. Jordan, and Marilyn SangoJordan, NY 

Peter T. Baumann and Mary A. Butler, PA 

John Baumgarten, NY 

Robert A. and Joan B. Baumgarten Family Trust, NY 

Jeffery J. Baumley, NJ 

Bruce A. Baxter, Jr., NJ 

Dale and Cynthia Corna Beach, NY 

Leon Beach, NY 

Jason E. Beach and John E. Beach, NY 

Katharine S Beale, NY 

Richard L. Beames and Sydney J. Beames, NY 

George E. Beardsley, NY 

Joseph Paul Beaver, NY 

James Becker, FL 

John E. and Patricia J. Becker, NY 

Kenneth P Becker, NY 

Randall F Becker, NY 

Randall F and Marjorie R. Becker, NY 

Robert Becker, NY 

Charles W. Beebe, NY 

Michael Beers, Sandra Finley, NY 

Cassandra Begos, NY 

Roberta J Behnke, NY 

Fredrick R Bell, NY 

Gerald Bellingham, NY 

Timothy Bender, NY 

Kenneth Benfante, NJ 

Joseph Benfatta, NY 

Dawn Benjamin, NY 

Richard L. and Dawn Benjamin, NY 

Patricia A. Benkert, NY 

Robert R. Benninger, NY 

Kenneth D and Bonnie A Benson, NY 

Leonard N. Berdan Trust, NY 

Joseph Beretz, Jr., NY 

David C and Stephanie R Berg, PA 

Henry T. Bergmann, NY 

Harold K. Berhardt, NY 

John Berhardt, FL 

Kenneth Alex Berhardt, NY 

Jacqueline Berlant, NY 

Albert F. and Deborah A. Bernard, NY 

Harold K Bernhardt, NY 

Herman E. Bernhardt, NY 

John Bernhardt, FL 

Kenneth Alex Bernhardt, NY 

Glen T. and Laura J. Bertrand, NY 

Diane Betts, NY 

William F. Betz, Patricia Betz, Theresa L. Borst, NY 

Epifanio Bevilacqua, NY 

Linda Bevilacqua, NY 

Linda and Pete Bevilacqua, NY 

Milton J. Bevis, NY 

John H. and Grace D. Beza, NY 

Michael Bianco, NY 

Thomas A. Bielawski, NY 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-21 

Individuals (continued) 

Charles A and Janet J Bilby, NY 

Robert L and Joanne M Billmers, NJ 

Alma L. Binger, NY 

Martin and Anne Birley, NY 

Lydia Bisaillon, NY 

Loretta J and James B Bishop Sr., PA 

Peter Biskoroway, NY 

Aaron Harrison and Joyce Bitran, NY 

Joseph Bivone, NY 

James and Margaret Bixby, NY 

James E. Jr and Mary A. Bixby, NY 

Jean Bizot, NY 

Clifford Blackburn, NY 

George E. and Ann Blair, NY 

Bruce E. Blanchard, PA 

Loise E. and Heidi L. Blasetti, NY 

Jean Blizot, NY 

Douglas Blood, NJ 

Rita Bobry, NY 

Robert F. Boehm, NY 

Mayumi Boettcher, NY 

James C. and Ellen L. Bogardus, NY 

Judith Bogner, CT 

Michael A. Bohan, Kimberly W., NY 

Pamela Bohsung, NY 

Theodoros Bolkas, NY 

Timothy Bolster, NY 

Joseph P III and Annette L Bomba, NY 

Nicholas Bonacci, NY 

John Bonadio, NY 

Thomas Bonadio and Elizabeth Bonadio, CT 

Gary L and Margaret E Bonker, NY 

Martin Booker, NY 

Jayne Bordi and Sarah Wells, MD 

Ronald D., David and Doris Boreali, NY 

Arthur J. Boreali, Jr, NY 

Margaret Borneman, NY 

Peter Borneman, NY 

Alan J. and Theresa L. Borst, NY 

John J. III and Michele Borst, NY 

John Jacob and Gail Marie Borst, NY 

David W. Borthwick, NY 

Salvatore Bortuna, NY 

Holly Boss, NY 

Joseph M. and Joan C. Bott, NY 

Ronald G. Bourdonnay and Patricia Bourdonnay, NY 

Norma C. Bowen, NJ 

Kevin Bowman, VA 

Gerald Bowne, Barbara H. Bowne, NY 

James F. Bracken, NY 

Helen M. Bradbury Wasnowic and John F. 

Wasnowic, PA 

Charlotte I Bradley, NY 

Michael P. and Susan I. Bradley, PA 

John T Brady, NY 

Michael L. Brady, NY 

Esther R. Brady, Et Al, NY 

Christopher Brake and Kim Condon-Brake, NY 

Henry Branche and Olive Branche, NY 

Jeffrey M. Brand, NY 

Lanning Brandel, NY 

James M Bredin, NY 

Michael James and Lisa A. Breitbach, NY 

Drew Brendel, NY 

William Brennan, NY 

Whitney Brice, PA 

Bradley Briggs, NY 

Tracy Briggs, NY 

Vernadine Briggs, NY 

Micah and Leigh Brill, NY 

Thomas B. and Rosa Brindley, NY 

Todd C. Brizzee, NY 

Marty Broad, PA 

Brian Brock, 

Henry C. Brooking, Cindy L. Greenblatt, NY 

Keith T. Brooks, NY 

Addie Brown, NY 

Barry J. Brown, NY 

Kathleen Brown, NY 

Mark and Cynthia Brown, NY 

Robert L. Brown, NY 

Timothy and Amy Brown, NY 

Victor W. Brown, NY 

Donald P. Brown and Anthony Stella, NY 

Timothy Brown, Amy Brown, NY 

Arthur and Nancy Brundage, NY 

Kenneth C. Bryan Jr. and Mary Ann Wollaber-Bryan, 

NY 

Joan O. and Irving C. Buchalter, CA 

Daniel Buck, NY 

Craig Buckbee, NY 

Marcin and Elizabeth Buczel, NY 

Danny R. Buel and Naomi N. Buel, NY 

Raymond G and Joan E Buenzle, NJ 

Linda Buman, NY 

Harold A. Buman, Gary Buman and Linda Buman, 

NY 

Barbara Buongiorno, NY 

Lee Burdette, NY 

Chris Burgher, Lori Collins-Hall, NY 

William L. Jr. and Roberta Burr, NY 

Jean Burton, NY 

Terry Burton, NY 

Karen Butler, NY 

Jim Butterfield, NY 

Daniel Buttermann, NY 

Donald Button Et Al and Matthew Button, PA 

Norman Button, Et Al, PA 

Floyd N Byam, Judith A Bynam, NY 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-22 

Individuals (continued) 

Anthony J and Susan Caglioti, NY 

Richard Caiati, NY 

Thomas Calamuci and Ellen Leigh-Osterberg, NY 

Jessica Calder, FL 

James and Brenda Caldwell, NJ 

Joseph R. and Roxanne Caldwell, NY 

Carlos Camacho, NY 

Charles Camacho, NY 

Timothy Camann, Christine Camann, NY 

Anita Cammilleri, NY 

Michelle Campanello, NJ 

Keith A. Campbell, LA 

Dennis and Petrina B. Campo, NY 

Leonard Cannella, NY 

Richard N. Canniff, NY 

Douglas B. and Alice J. Cannistra, NY 

Anthony J. Canute, PA 

Greg Capobianco, NY 

Gerardo Capozza and Rosa Cappoza, CT 

Vincent S. Sr. and Debra S. Cardella, NY 

Steven Carella and Robin Mistrette-Snider, NY 

Benjamin T. Carey, Joann M Carey, NY 

Mario and Maria Carino, NY 

Anthony Caro, NY 

Clement and Jeanne Caron, NY 

Anthony A. Carpanini, NJ 

Ellen Carpenter, NY 

George F. Carpenter, PA 

Russell M. Carpenter, Judith R. Carpenter, and 

George F. Carpenter, PA 

John B. and Karin M. Carrozzi, NY 

Douglas Carver, NY 

Robert H. Case, NY 

Seth B. and Stephanie L. Casey, NY 

Joan Virgilio Cass, NY 

Roberta Cass Rev. Trust, NY 

Joanne Casso, NY 

Jamie Castellanos, NJ 

Glenn Castelli, NY 

Gaetano and Joan Catapano, NY 

Thomas Catapano, NY 

Bajram and Came Causevic, NY 

Sami Causevic, NY 

Angel L. Celpa and Robert Braun, NY 

Julian Cempa and Victoria Cempa, NY 

George and Moria Jan Hummel Cernusca, PA 

Mark Cerosaletti, NY 

Paul E. Cerosaletti and Amy R. Cerosaletti, NY 

Charles Cerosaletti, Marilyn Cerosaletti, NY 

Elizabeth J. Chader and Stephen D and Warren and 

Norine Chader Trust, AZ 

Trevor Chaisson, Sharon L. Allen, NY 

Donald C and Helen E Chamberlain, NY 

Thomas Chamberlain, NY 

Frank Chamberlin IV, NY 

Donald Chambers and Lloyd M. Chambers, NY 

Thomas Chapman and Deborah A. Puza-Jensen, NY 

Jonathan S. Chasan, NY 

John W. Chase, Jr. and Kerry K. Chase, NY 

Stanley Chatis and Mary L. Tuthill, NY 

Edward and Gwen M. Chianese, PA 

Paul T. Chiaramonte and Lois G. Chiaramonte, NJ 

Gilbert L. and Nancy E. Chichester, NY 

Dale Chidester, PA 

Eugene and Ida Chidester, PA 

Kathi Chipman, FL 

Joseph Chirichella and Suzanne E. Girimonti, NY 

Kennon Christel, NY 

Danette D. Christensen, NY 

Theodore A. Christensen and Mary Ann Christensen, 

MD 

Joann Christie-Shpak, NY 

Grace M. Chumacas Living Trust, NY 

Steve W. and Annie M Chung, NY 

Angelo Ciaccio, James Sforza, and Richard Finno, 

NY 

William Ciaramello and Joseph Ervolino, NY 

Rocco Ciardiello, NY 

Dominick Ciardullo, NY 

Robert and Ann Ciarelli, NY 

Robert and Lori Ciccotelli, NY 

Andrew Ciesluk, NY 

Erika Ciganik, CT 

Frank and Gina Cimine, NY 

Luigi and Francesco Cinquemani and Maria 

Cinquemani-Messina, NY 

Joseph and Yolanda Cinquemani, Jr., NY 

Michael and Carmelita Ciocia, NY 

Eamonn J. Clancy, NY 

Patricia Clancy, NY 

Kenneth Clapper, NY 

Joyce A. Clapper, Carl H. Clapper, Kenneth L. 

Clapper, Margie L. Clapper, NY 

David Clark, NY 

Diane Clausen, NY 

Helen Clement, NY 

Kenneth R. Clinton, NY 

Gregory T. and Marlene Coccaro, NY 

Patrick and Kathleen Coffey and Ronald Stevens, NY 

Stephen J. Cohn, NY 

Howard J. and Dorothy Cohn, Jr., NY 

Patricia A Coiro, NY 

Bret L. and Misao Coladner, NY 

David C. and Rebecca J. Colby, NY 

Robert Coleman, NY 

Fabio Collazos, NY 

Charlotte Collett, NY 

William J and Arlene R Collins, PA 

Sarah E. Collins and Ned M. Johnson, NY 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-23 

Individuals (continued) 

Mary Jane Colwell, NY 

John Conboy, NY 

Anthony J Conigliaro, PA 

Timothy and Chin Chuan Conklin, MA 

George W. and Nanette G J Conner, PA 

Steven Connors and Jeanette Westcott, NY 

E. Marc Conrow and Jude Conrow, NY 

John Mitchell Constantine, Jr., NJ 

Alfred and Lisa Marie Contarino, NY 

Pasquale Conte, NY 

Albert A and Mary C Conti, NY 

Francis M Conti, Martin E. Crimmins, Suzanne E. 

Kahlay, Carolyn J. Crosby and Betty M. Darcy, 

NY 

Nancy Coogan, NY 

Lois A. Cook, NY 

Shelly M Cook, NY 

Thomas R. and Brenda Cook, NY 

Wallace James Cook, NY 

William P. Cook, NY 

Robert G. Cooley, NY 

Claude F Coons, NY 

David and Beverly J. Coons, NY 

Rose M Corbin, PA 

Richard Cordes, NY 

Lyndon E and Marie M Cornell, NY 

Todd C. and Lisa Cornell, NY 

Christopher C. Cornwell, NY 

William and Margaret Corradino, NY 

Joseph J and Rosemarie Corso, NY 

Allen Cosgrove, NY 

Thomas and Clara Courtenay-Clack, NY 

Julie Cousin, NY 

J. Robert and Lauren Craig, NY 

Timothy B. Crain, NY 

Karl R. Crantz and Dorothy H. Crantz, NY 

Virginia Crary, NY 

Albert Crepeau Jr., Sharon Hodurski, and May 

Crepeau, PA 

Andrew Crittenden and David Crittenden, PA 

Michael D. Croote, NY 

Cindy S. Cross, NY 

Gerald Carl Cross, NY 

David B. Crossley, David E. Crossley and Brandon J. 

Reed, NJ 

Susan and Joe Crua, NY 

Karen Cuccinello, NY 

Betsy Westad Cunningham, NY 

Earl M. Cunningham (Life Tenant) and Jamie L. 

Denman, NY 

Sanya Cupic, Trustee, TX 

Pamela Curtin, NY 

Pietro Curto, NY 

Kenneth and Barbara Czachor, NY 

Stephen Czachor, NY 

Frank Czyzewski, NJ 

Alan and Colette Daab, NY 

Lionel and Freda Dacosta, NY 

Mark S and Frances M D’Agostino, NY 

Mark R. Dahl, NY 

Christine Devine Dailey, NY 

Peter M. Dalaker, NY 

Joann Daleo, NY 

Richard and Maureen Daley, NY 

Ronald Daly, NY 

Mark and Carmen D’Amico, NY 

Konstantinos N. Danalis, NY 

Robert and Ella Darrow, PA 

Fernando Dasilva and Maryann Dasilva, NY 

Dennis L. Daskalakis, NY 

Vincent D’Attolico, NY 

Robert Davenport, PA 

Lori Ann Davenport, Robert Davenport, PA 

Dona Davey, NY 

Vincent and Josephine Davi, NY 

Lillian G Davies, PA 

Darren C Davis, NY 

Sandra Davis, NY 

Charles F. Davis and Carolyn R. Davis, NY 

Katherine Dawson, NY 

Daniel De Masi, NY 

James J. and Dorothy A. Dean, NY 

Jeffrey E. Dean and Priscilla E. Dean, NY 

Gary Decarlo, NY 

Nicholas Decarlo and Susan Decarlo, NJ 

Loreto Deciantis and Rosina Deciantis, NY 

Clifford A Decker, NY 

Randy D and Lou Ann Decker, PA 

Robert L. Decker, NY 

Dennis Decker and Linda Decker, NY 

William S. Decker and Robin D. Decker, NY 

John C. Deckert, NY 

Dennis J. Dedek, NY 

Angela and Diane Dedominicis, NY 

Anthony J Dedominicis, NY 

Ciro F. and Beverly J. Defilippo, NY 

Margaret Defilippo, NY 

Andrew P. Deforest, NY 

Laverne E. Deforest and Patricia A. Deforest, NY 

Douglas and Tammy Deigert, NJ 

David and Gloria Deininger, PA 

Denise and Donald Delaney, NY 

Mark L and Susan K Delello, NY 

Robert Dellue, NY 

Dominick and Heather Demarco, NY 

Ronald F. Demarino and Catherine W. Porter, NY 

Fiore DeMatteis, NY 

Joseph Dematto and Philip J. Notto, PA 

Thomas and Carol Demeola, NY 

Benjamin Demott, Katherine Demott, NY
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-24 

Individuals (continued) 

Dennis Denman, NY 

Judith E Dennis, PA 

Daniel E. and Jane M. Denny, Jr., PA 

Walter and Judith Denton, NY 

Nancy Depace Pfau, NY 

Todd W. and Bobbie A Depew, NY 

Michael J. and Nieves Depinto, NY 

Gregory and Caterina Derkasch, FL 

Roger J. and Helga B. Deroziere, NY 

Michael Desantis, NY 

Jeanne Desousa and Michael L. Brizzee, NY 

Frederick G and Margaret A Deutcsh, NY 

Christine Devine Dailey, NY 

Marybeth Dewitt, PA 

Jean Diamantis-Blizot and Diana Modica, NY 

Alton and Grace Diamond, NY 

Thomas Diamond, NY 

Rodney J. Diamond and Michelle L. Parks, NY 

Sharon Dianich, NY 

Filomena Dibiasi, NY 

Thomas Dickson, NY 

John R. Dilullo, PA 

Gene Dimarco, NY 

Dennis P and Elke A DiMattia, NY 

Scott A. and Sandra A. Dimick, NY 

Wesley R. Dimmick, NY 

William Dion, NY 

Nancy DiPace Pfau, NY 

Michael DiPasquale, NY 

Rodney E. Dirig and Dianne Dirig, NY 

Michael L and Michelle Dirubba-Alford, NY 

Lavinia DiSanto, DE 

Robert Dittrich, FL 

David Dolack and Margaret McCarthy, NJ 

Dave Dolan, NY 

Alfonso Dolgetta, NY 

Benedict J. Donaghy, NY 

James G. Donegan, NJ 

Ethan Cole, Cheyenne, Danielle Donnelly, NY 

Peter E. Donnelly and Eva A. Donnelly, CT 

Anthony J Donnolo, NY 

Michael and Sherri Donovan, NY 

David E. Doolittle, NY 

Warren E. Doolittle, NY 

Lawrence Doriguzzi, NY 

John P. Dougherty, NY 

Joseph P. and Nora M. Dougherty, NY 

John H. T. Dow, Jr. and Roselynn S. Dow, NY 

Daniel C. and Karen A. Doyle, NY 

Nancy H. Doyle, NY 

Frank J. Drake, NY 

Judianne Drebitko, NY 

James T. and Iracema Drew, Jr., NY 

Paul and Elizabeth Ann Drozdiak, SC 

Colette Duab and Alan Duab, NY 

Tadeusz Dubicki and Danuta Fazzalari, NY 

Stanley Ducharme, NY 

Stanley Dudek and Margaret A. Dudek, PA 

Michael Dudley, NY 

Harold Dupont, NY 

Patrick and Susan L. Durcan, NY 

Judith Relyea and Robert Durland, NY 

Ashutush Dutt, NY 

Maizis Dye, NY 

Thomas C. Earle, NY 

Alex S. Eastman, PA 

Christopher Eastman, NY 

Charles Eckel, NJ 

Charles and Nancy Eckel, Timothy and Lynn Eckel, 

NJ 

Christine and Richard Eckerson, NY 

Richard C. Eckerson and Christine Eckerson, NY 

Bruce Edwards, PA 

Harold Edwards, NY 

Frank D. Egitto, NY 

Frederick H and Ilse Ehmann, Jr., PA 

Carolyn Elefant, DC 

Fredericka N Ellis, NY 

Donna Elmendorf, NY 

Barbara Elmore, NY 

Frederick F. Jr and Barbara G. Enck, NY 

William F. Jr and Nancy B. Engel, NY 

Arnold L. and Margret E. English, NY 

Robert E. and Joan K. English, MI 

Joseph Eppich and Joseph Eppich Jr., NY 

Russ Erath, NY 

Muge Eriksson, NY 

Pablo Escotto, NY 

John C. Esposito, NY 

Kathleen M. Estabrook, PA 

Vickie J. Evans Et Al and Marjorie Evans, NY 

Claucine Evans, Et Al and Marjorie Evans, Arthur H. 

Summers and Cyrena M. Summers, NY 

Merritt W. Every, NY 

Alex Evreinov and Patricia Evreinov, NY 

Jack L. Ewen, Jann G. Ewen, Todd Joseph Ewen, NY 

John Ezzo, NY 

David Fagan, NY 

Joseph Fagan, NY 

Attilio Fagnani, NY 

Matthew and Theresa Fagnani, NY 

Douglas Fague, VA 

Matthew Faiella, Dolores Faiella, Edward R. 

Wilkinson, Rosemary T. Wilkinson, NY 

Robert and Kim E. Failcowitz and Wayne B. Latta, 

NJ 

Ronnie Faile, NY 

William J. Fairbairn and Stacia E. Bryant, NY 

Nicholas Jr and Thomas Falcicchio, NY 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-25 

Individuals (continued) 

Dina Falconi, NY 

Kenneth A. and Michele Faljean, NY 

Stephen Fancher, NY 

Slope Farms, NY 

Wells M. and Elizabeth A Farr, NY 

Jessica Farrell, NY 

Thomas J and Christine Farrelly, PA 

Michele K. Fass, NY 

Mario I. Fasullo, NY 

Ilario Fazzolari, NY 

Stephen G. Feeney, NY 

Terry J Fees and Kimberly Brand, NY 

Krista and Charles Feezel, MD 

Margaret M. Feinberg and Lawrence T. Feinberg, 

NY 

John P Felleman, NY 

Barbara J Fenescey and Neir Scott and Cora Starr, 

PA 

Stephen Feney, NY 

Richard A. Ferguson, Mary A. Ferguson, NY 

Belinda Feris, NY 

Guy Fernbacher, NY 

Anne Fettel, Trustee, CA 

Peter E. Fetzer, Jr., NY 

Wayne B. Fialcowitz and Robert and Kim E. Latta, 

NJ 

Horst and Margrit Fierek, NY 

Bert W. and Sally A. Finch, NY 

Barton S. and Brideen Finegan, CT 

Frank Fini, NY 

Jerry and Michelle Fiore, NY 

Dawn Fiorillo, NY 

Joanne Fiorito, PA 

Kenneth C. and Hyuncha Fischer, NY 

Richard and Donna Fisher, NY 

Theodore C and Laura J Fisher, NY 

Bette Ann Fisher Sullivan, Kathleen Jean Fisher 

Smith-Bernier, William Thomas Fisher IV, 

Debora Ellen Fisher Rogers and Herbert 

Lawrence Folkerts, NY 

Ben Fishner, NY 

Robert J. Fitzpatrick and Cheryl L. Fitzpatrick, NJ 

Robert G. Fletcher, Jr., NY 

Gary J. and Cheryl A. Fleury, NY 

Michael Foland, NY 

Carl Foland and Linda Beach-Foland, NY 

William C. and Karen D. Foose, NJ 

Michael S. Ford, NY 

Louis and Anna Fortuna Et Al and David Deininger, 

PA 

Timothy J. Foster and Amy Lynne Fletcher, NY 

Lawson R. and Patricia Lee Fowble, NY 

Patricia Fowler, NY 

Stephen W. Francis, NY 

Susan Franck, IL 

Thomas James Francke, NY 

Niki Frantzis, NY 

John M. Frasca, NY 

Lance P Frasier and Sandra F. Lory, NY 

Rodney D Frazier, NY 

Stephen T. Freeman, NY 

Joseph Freiss, NY 

James A. Fretto and Anthony Damiano, NY 

Michael M Freyer, NY 

Elizabeth S Friedberg and Richard Steven Friedberg, 

NY 

John R and Catherine J Frisch, NY 

Giuseppe Fuduli and Robin M Fuduli, NY 

Gregory Furlong, NY 

Joseph Fydenkevez, NY 

Kittie M. Gabaccia, NY 

Stephen J. Gabaly, NY 

Gabby and Jeff Leach Gabby and Jeff Leach, NY 

Joseph M. and Phyllis D. Gable, NY 

George E. and Georgia A. Gabrielsen, NY 

Tom Gabrielson, NY 

Joyal and Jane Rogers Gael, NY 

James Gaida, NY 

James G. and Terrie L. Gaida, NY 

Gregory Galano, NY 

Martin A. Jr Galasso, NY 

Catherine M. Gallagher, NY 

James L. Gallagher, Et Al, MA 

Casey R. Galley, NY 

Glen L. Galley, NY 

John R and Maria L Galli, NY 

Alexander P. Gallinelli, NY 

Dale Allen Garnett, Stephen Allen Garnett and 

Nichole A. Garnett, PA 

Rachelle Garniez, NY 

Anne Marie Garti, NY 

Gary Moller and Edward Barsic Jr., Ny 

Peter V. Gatto, NY 

John F. Gawley, NY 

Noreen A. Gawley, Judy M. Gawley, Denis J. 

Gawley and Michael P. Gawley, NY 

Gerard Gawlowski and Gregory Locaso, NY 

Alan M. Gaydorus and Colleen C. Gaydorus, NY 

Daniel Gentile, NY 

Daniel and Diana L Gentile, NY 

Russell A Germond and Carolyn Tolley, NY 

Laura Gerstley, PA 

Robert L. Gerstner, NY 

Agel Ghaleb, NY 

Deborah Giakoumis, NY 

Joseph F. and Maureen J. Giallanzo, NY 

Mary Ann Giannico, NY 

Anthony Giannico and Peter Marzziotti, Jr., NY 

Robert J. Giarrusso, NY 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-26 

Individuals (continued) 

James and Paula Gibson, CT 

Agnes P. Giesin Estate, NY 

J. Michael Gill and Patricia S. Carey, NY 

Anthony P. Giordano, NY 

John J. Giordano and Christine Giordano, NY 

James M. and Sharon L. Glath, PA 

Robert Glendenning, NY 

Diane M. Glover, CO 

Richard and Joanne Godas, NY 

Robert R and Maria Godas, NY 

Bruce Goddard, NY 

Joe Goellner, NY 

Robert E Goellner, Lillian P Goellner, NJ 

Heidi Gogins, NY 

Helmuth A. and Lois Golda, NY 

David Goldberg, NY 

Suzanne H. and Harry Goldman, SC 

Ralph A. Gombach and Mary N. Gombach, NY 

Hamilton Goncalves and Sandra L. Lenzi, NJ 

Sharon Gonsalves, Crystal Gonsalves, NY 

Dennis W. Gonseth, NY 

Joseph and Dorothy Gonzalez, NY 

Barbara Goodfellow, NY 

Brian and Shirley Goodfellow, NY 

Margaret Goodfellow, NY 

Erik Goodrich, NY 

Noel A. Goodspeed, Jennifer L. Goodspeed, NY 

Claudia Gorman, RI 

Robert Gormsen and James Collins, NY 

Melvin C. and Martha L. Gorton, NY 

Edna Goss, NY 

Ellie Gossage, NY 

Roert and Donna I. Gosselink, NY 

Brian L. Goth, NY 

Linda-Lee M. Gould and John W Abraham, NY 

Robert J. Govel, NY 

Charles G Goy, NY 

Renee Grabowski, NY 

Timothy and Marguerite Grady, NY 

James Grant and Patricia Kavanagh, NY 

Eleanor Grass, NY 

Scott Gravelin, NY 

John M. Graves, NY 

Terry Graves, NY 

James Gravina and Laura Gravina, NY 

Margaret Gray, NY 

Ronald Grazier, NY 

Marianna Greco, PA 

Henry C. Greenblatt, Cindy L. Brooking, NY 

Edward Greene, Jr. and Edward B. Greene III, PA 

Richard E. and Lynn W. Greenway, NY 

Remigio and Jacqueline Gregorat, NY 

Toni A. Grekin, NY 

Frank Gremsperger, NY 

Laurel Greyson, NY 

Arsen Grgas and Vedrana Grgas, NY 

Richard G. Griffin, NY 

John Grigoli, NY 

John Grigoli, Jr., NY 

Simone Grimaldi, NY 

William Grimes, Jeanette M. Grimes, NY 

David and Karen Grizzanti, PA 

Gary J. Grob, NY 

Jack Grob, NJ 

James N. Groshans, NY 

Michael F Grossmann, NJ 

Dale A. Grover, NY 

Daniel Guasp, NY 

Sherwood H. Guernsey, NY 

Clemencia Guillem, NY 

Ingrid Guiter, NY 

Michael Gumpel, Jeffrey Klein, NY 

Jeffery Gumpel, Michael Klein, NY 

Alvin Gunneson, NJ 

Roger Gural, NY 

Roger Gural and Sigrid E. Gural, NY 

Arthur Gustafson, NY 

Richard and Karen S. Gutwirth, NY 

Raymond and Roma Haag, NY 

Jay Hager, NY 

Paul G. Hahn, NY 

Eric V. and Claudia C. Haight, NY 

Beryl Haley, PA 

David and Christine Hall, PA 

Herman Hall, NY 

James and Erica L. Hall, NY 

Ronald D and Joyce Hall, PA 

Michael J. Hall and Deborah Hall, NY 

Douglas J. Hall and Warren J. Sullivan, NY 

Warren Hall, Douglas J Sullivan, NY 

Larry R. and Deborah Hamm, NY 

Keith Hammecker, NY 

Chris Hammond, NY 

David J and Charles H Hamwey, NY 

Margaret E. Hamwey, Janice M. Smith, Timothy A. 

Hamewy, NY 

Scott Handy and Jodi Bell, NY 

Benjamin S. Haney and Laura B. Haney and Steven 

S. Haney, NY 

Sashaba Hanlon, NY 

Gerald E and Dolores S Hannigan, PA 

Howard L Hannum, NY 

William M. and Margaret M. Hansen, NY 

Zbigniew Harasimowicz, NY 

Cassandra Hardendorf, NY 

Charles W and Barbara S Harding, NY 

Barbara Harja, NY 

Barbara F. Harju and Joseph M. Freiss, NY 

Cynthia S. Harrington, NY 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-27 

Individuals (continued) 

Stephen A. Harris, NY 

Clarence Harrison, NY 

Aaron Harrison and Joyce Bitran, NY 

Ron Harting, NY 

Thor Hartten, NJ 

Inga Hartwich, NY 

Harry J. Hartz and Lynn L. Hartz, NY 

Ty Harvey, Naho Harvey, TX 

Jeffrey and Michael and Raymond Hatala, PA 

Floyd J. and Heather A. Hatllee, FL 

Spiridon and Dionysios Lekatsas Hatsiandreu, NY 

Ethel Bessie Hausch, NY 

Andrew Havas, NY 

Milford J. Hayes, NY 

William Hayman, NY 

George Haynes, NY 

Teri Winzinger Healy, NY 

James V. Heaney, NY 

Thomas Heaney, NJ 

Deborah Hecht, NY 

Richard A. Heeder, Jr., CO 

David Hegi and Mary Hegi, NJ 

John Hegyi and Nancy Kim Hegyi, NY 

Jason Heiser and Maggie Heiser, NY 

William Hellman, NY 

Richard H. Helm, IL 

Scott Helmstadt, NY 

Thomas R. Helmstadt, NY 

Hugh and Betty Henderson, NY 

James Stephen Henderson, Et Al, NY 

Cyndi and Grady Hendrickson, NY 

James E and Leslie J Henry, NJ 

James Edward Henry, PA 

Charles Warren Henshall, NY 

Allyson Hensley, NJ 

Elizabeth Henson, NY 

Robert F. Herodes, NY 

Joseph F. and Susan J. Hess, NY 

Kevin Hession, NY 

Paul E. Heusinger, SC 

John and Kim Heygi, NY 

Paul R and Todd Michael Heyn, NY 

Charles B and Charles S Hild, CT 

James E. and Tracy A. Himme, NY 

Mark and Amy Hine, PA 

Orville Jay Hine, NY 

Orville J. Hine, Jr. and Anne B. Hine, NY 

Don and Catherine Hines, PA 

Robert F. Hinkley, Andrew Hinkley, NY 

Jeffrey D. Hoal, PA 

Ellis R and Elaine M Hobart, PA 

Gary and Sandra Hodne, NY 

Wayne K. and Lisa R. Hoffman, NY 

Sam Hogan, NY 

Lorraine Holden, Austrailia 

Leo Holder, NY 

Gillian Holland, NY 

Wendy Hollander, NY 

Betty Holt, NY 

Robert D. Holt, NY 

Annette Homauer, NY 

Kathleen S. Hoover, NY 

Donald and Rose L. Hotaling, NY 

John M. Hotaling, VA 

Mahlon H. Jr and Robin M. Houston, NY 

Roy T. Howard and Evelyn Howard, NY 

Anne Howarth, AZ 

Richard J. and Karen Hower, PA 

Robert C. and Nancy Joyce Hower, PA 

Tom Hownes, NY 

Laverne C and Floradel Hubbard, NY 

Peter Hudiburg, NY 

Philip J. and Rachel D. Hulbert, NY 

Robert Jesse Hummer, Jr. and William George 

Hummer, NJ 

John P. and Kay L. Humphrey, NY 

Robert T. and Sharon Humphrey, NY 

Gregory Hurd and Larry Stanley, NY 

Douglas A and David A Hurlburt, NY 

J. Hurley, NY 

Susan Hurley, NY 

William and Ingrid Husam, NY 

Sylvester J. and Pauline C. Huse, NY 

June H Huston, PA 

Robin Lee Huston, PA 

William Huston, NY 

Kathleen Hutchens, NY 

David Hutchison, NY 

John J Hviid, NY 

Chad and Jami Hyndshaw, PA 

Annabel Ibanez, NY 

Gordon Ichikawa, NY 

Lawrence Infantine, NY 

Leslie Inga, NY 

Steven D. Ingalls and Berna L. Ingalls, NY 

Rachel Ingram, NY 

Kevin R. Ingram and Laura D. Calcaterra, NY 

Michael A and Catherine Inserillo, NY 

Charalambos and Christiana Ioannou, NY 

Anita Iodice, NY 

Marguerite Ireland, NY 

Marion Ireland, NY 

Richard F. Irwin, NY 

Keith L and Linda A Isles, NY 

Wendelin Jac and Gracie Ann Jablonowski, NY 

Todd E Jackson, NY 

Susan Jacques, NY 

Linda Jaffe, NY 

Peter M and Joan M Janicelli, PA 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-28 

Individuals (continued) 

Margo Paige Temple Jansen, MA 

Michael Jaqueway, NY 

Michael and Teresa C. Jarvis, NY 

June Jasen, NY 

Veganeh Javadt, NY 

David Jenkins, NY 

Bart C and Wendy L Jennings, PA 

Charles Jensen Jr., and Deborah A. Puza-Jensen, NY 

Charles Jensen, Jr., NY 

Marvin K. Jester, NY 

Brittany Jewel, OH 

Harold Johnson, NY 

Lee A. and Diana Johnson, NY 

Louise Johnson, NY 

Malcolm R. Johnson, NY 

Mark C. and Ellen M. Johnson, NY 

Charles K. and Sabrina L. Johnston, NJ 

Robin P. and Helene D. Jorgensen, NY 

Charley L. and Heidi M. Joslin, NY 

Gael Joyal, NY 

Gael Joyal and Jane Rogers, NY 

John G. Julia, PA 

Frank C Kahrs, NY 

Ethel Dolores Kaiser, NY 

Ralph and Roseann Kaiser, NY 

Roseann Kaiser, NY 

Lawrence Kaiser and Margaret Feinberg, NY 

Steve Kakh, NY 

Fannie E. Kamp, NY 

Bruce Kamrowski, NY 

Brian E. and Celestina M. Kane, NY 

Edward Kane, NY 

Timothy Kane, NY 

Brian W. Kane and Celestina M Kane, NY 

Patricia Kanischak, Charles Pirog, Peter Pirog, NJ 

Betty Kaplan and Kenneth Kaplan, NY 

Joseph and Florence Kaputa, PA 

Steven Karagiannis and Evan Karagiannis, NY 

Stanislawa Karcz, NJ 

Michael and Martha J. Karker, NY 

Friedel and Anneliese Karl, NY 

Maria J. Karl, NY 

George Karlewicz, NY 

Lawrence Karp, PA 

Scott M. Katen, NY 

Leonard Kazel Sr., NY 

Theodore Kazmierczak, PA 

David Keenan, NY 

Charles R. Keesler, NY 

Stanley J and Donna G Keever, NY 

Randall Keller, NY 

Terry Keller, NY 

Todd M. Kelley, NY 

Dennis C. Kelly, NY 

Shirley K. Kelly, NY 

Wilma J. Kelsey, NY 

Jean E. Kelso, NY 

Kenneth Kelso, NY 

Maria E. Kelso, NY 

John P Kemmeren, NY 

David A and Lori J. Kemmerer, NY 

Edward and Kirsten Kendall, NY 

Roger D. and Cynthia I. Kennedy, NY 

Colm J. Kennedy and Patricia F. Clancy, NY 

Frederick W. Kennedy, Sr., NY 

Kenneth K. Kent, NY 

Bruce S. Kernan, NY 

Henry S. Kernan Land Trust, NY 

Thomas E. and Barbara Kerr, NY 

Jason R. Key, NY 

Brendan Keys, NY 

Ilse Keyser and Donald Martin, NY 

Michael Kibalo, NJ 

Richard F and Janice S Kiesznowski, NY 

Patrick and Patricia Kilpeck, NY 

Charles Kime, NM 

Charles E and Marsha L Kime, PA 

Clinton A. King, NY 

Harvey M. and Jane A. King, NY 

Mark King, NY 

Melissa M. King, NY 

Richard King, NY 

Wanda J King, NY 

Wendy Kingsland, NY 

Timothy E. Kinter and Terri L. Kinter, NY 

Vl Kintz, NY 

Stephen J. Kirby, Sr., PA 

Jeffrey Klein, NY 

Richard M and Michelene Y Klim, PA 

Eileen Kline, NY 

Gary B. and Maureen Kline, NY 

Gary B. Kline and Maureen Kline, PA 

Steven W. Klugh, NY 

Debra Knapp, NY 

James W. and Leah Knapp, NY 

Virginia M. Knight, NC 

Harold Kniskern, NY 

Eugene E. and John and Kenneth and Todd Knoebel, 

NY 

Daniel E. Koch, NY 

Kevin Koch, NY 

Richard J. Kocsis, NY 

Stephen E. Kompass, NY 

George P. and Nancy K. Konta, NY 

Peter Koopmann, NY 

John J. Korbul, NY 

Thomas Korbul, NY 

Alexandra Korsok, OH 

Steven Kos, NY 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-29 

Individuals (continued) 

Katherine Koska, NY 

Peter Koska, NY 

Stanislew and Janina Kowalczyk, NY 

Helen M. Kozlowski and Edward J. Kozlowski, III, 

PA 

Joseph D. Kraus, NY 

Joseph K II and Sally J. Krimmel, PA 

Janis E. Krohn, NY 

Deborah Krol, NY 

John C. Krol, NY 

Kenneth J. Krugaluk, NY 

Sandra A Kruglak, NY 

Anne Kruzinski, NY 

William E. Kuehnle, NY 

Frank R. and Phyllis H. Kuhn, NY 

John Kukowski, PA 

Erhard and Kathleen Kuntze, NY 

Anthony J. Kurutz and Vivian Williams-Kurutz, NY 

Richard Lacey, NY 

Frank A Jr Lacko, NY 

Jane and Frank Lacko, NY 

Adolfo Lacola, NY 

Paul Lahullier, NJ 

Floyd E. and Nancy Lamont, Jr., NY 

David Lampel, Claudia Lampel, NY 

Stephen Lancia, CT 

Sherry Lane, NY 

Charles H. Langdon, Jr., PA 

James F and Christine M Lange, PA 

John C. and Patricia Langen, NY 

Robert B. Lansing, NY 

George Lape, NY 

George H. and Rosemary Lape, NY 

Joel K. and Amber Lape, NY 

Judy K. Lape, NY 

William R and Teresa M. Lape, NY 

Gerald J. and Judy K. Lape and Bruce R and Suzanne 

R Stevens, NY 

Robert C. Laporta, Jr., NY 

Carver Laraway, NY 

Pat Lareh, NY 

Kevin Larmon and Anthony Porcelli, NY 

Kenneth Larson, Karen Larson, NY 

John M. Lasala, NY 

Pat Lasch, NY 

John W. Lasher, PA 

Aimee L. Lauterbach, NY 

Antonio C. Lava, NY 

Margaret B. Lavigueur and Beth Ann Van Sandt, AK 

Laurie K. Lavoy, NY 

Jeffrey M. Lawrence, NY 

William Lawrence, NY 

George and Janet Lawton, NY 

Edwin R. Lawton and George K. Lawton, NY 

A. Edwin Lawyer, NY 

Chad and Stephanie Lawyer, NY 

Fred Jr. and Linda Lawyer, NY 

James Lawyer, NY 

Kathleen P. Lawyer, NY 

Kenneth Lawyer, NY 

Cynthia Lay, NY 

Jackie Layton, NJ 

Jeff and Gabby Leach, NY 

Helen Leap, NY 

Christopher and Barbara Leavey, NJ 

Martin Lebenson, NY 

Edwin Leber, NY 

Caroline F. Lebmo and Hill Thorpe, NY 

Kathleen Lee, NY 

Kathleen M. Lee, PA 

Paul W. Lee, NY 

Robert A and Susan A Lee, PA 

Wing Lee, NY 

Burdette Lee and Frances B. Lee, NY 

Michael Leforce, NY 

Wayne Leidecker, NY 

Marinko and Rochelle Lemut, PA 

Francesco and Diane Leone, NJ 

Brian J. Leopold, NJ 

Jean M. Letennier, NY 

Margaret Lettis, NY 

Antonio and Clorinda Leva, NY 

Carmela Leva, NY 

Ercole Leva, Et Al, NY 

Valentina Levic, NY 

Clifton Levine, NY 

Michael C. and Michele F. Levitch, FL 

Richard M. Lewis, NY 

Raymond Lewis, Janet Marsh, NY 

Salvatore and Kimberly Liardo, NY 

Donald P. Libby, NY 

andrew P. Liberante, NY 

Anthony Licenziato, NY 

Paul Liddle, NY 

Robert J. Lidsky and Beverly Travis, NY 

Silvano Ligniti, NY 

Silvano and Giuliana Ligniti, NY 

Debarah Limacher, AK 

Howard L Linder, Trustee, NJ 

Harold J and Bonita Lindsay, NY 

Lori Lindsley, NY 

Judith Linhares, NY 

Matthew Linsalata, Andrew Linsalata, NY 

Beth Linskey, NY 

Carmine Liparulo and Maria Liparulo, NY 

Gary L. Little, NY 

Spyridon Livathinos, NY 

Thomas M. and Kathleen E. Livingston, NY 

Dennis Lockwell, NY 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-30 

Individuals (continued) 

Harold J. Sr. and Marie A. Loder, NY 

James and Tamera L. Loder, NY 

Julie A. Loder, NY 

Marie A. Loder, NY 

Matthew Loder, NY 

Harold J. Loder Jr and James E Loder, NY 

James E. and Harold J. Loder, Jr., NY 

Ann Lodovice, NY 

Barbara Loeffler, NY 

Mario Lofaro, NY 

Kenneth and Darlene Loiacono, NY 

Gary D. Loke, PA 

Wendy Long, NY 

Stanley H Long, Jr. and Arlita H. Robinson, PA 

Christine Longe, PA 

Sandra Lory, NY 

Ryszard J. and Grzegorz Los, NY 

Warren and Doris Lott, NY 

Todd M. Loucks, NY 

Erika A. Loucks, Vincent and Allison Sanganetti, NY 

Luther B. Lowe, NY 

Thomas F and Donna M Lubbers, NY 

Peter and Joan M. Lucas, NY 

Ricardo and Kathleen Lucchetti, NY 

Robert E. and Sandra K. Luh, NJ 

Richard and Jayne Lule, NY 

William J. and Ariel L. Lum, NY 

Victor Lupo, NY 

Robert Lutz, Eric Lutz, NY 

John Lymn, NY 

Kerry A. Lynch, NY 

Thomas D. Lynch, NY 

Kenneth E. Lyons, NY 

Anthony S. Macaluso, NY 

Diane Macinnes, NY 

William G. and Florence Macintosh, NJ 

Stephen Mackenzie, NY 

Stephen and Laurie Mackenzie, NY 

James Maddalone, NY 

Alan Madden, GA 

Frank Joseph Madl, NY 

Norman C Madore, NY 

Norman C. and Allyn J. Madore, NY 

Peter M. Maguire, NY 

Philip Mahla, NY 

Joe Mahoney, NY 

Priscilla Irene Major, NY 

Alton D. Makely, NY 

Alton D. and Matthew Makely, NY 

Alfred Malave and Louis Ortega, NY 

Josephine and Sheila Malcolm Moffett, NY 

Caroline B. Malinchak, PA 

Joe Maloney, NY 

David Maloof, PA 

Floyd A and Valarie S Manchester, NY 

Maureen Manchester, NY 

Danny and Jan A. Mancini, NY 

William C and Jean M Manley, NY 

Robert H. Mann, NY 

David Mann, Sally Mann, NY 

Lee A. and Rebecca S. Manson, NY 

Timothy E. Manz, NY 

Charles J and Marlene Manzo, NY 

Linda and David E Maranville, NY 

Joseph M. Marchese, NY 

William J. Margeson, Beverly B. Margeson, NY 

Dr. Glen and Rhonda Marin, NY 

Giuseppe Marino, NY 

Daniel J and Stacie M Mark, NY 

Carole Satrina Marner, NY 

Eugene Marner, NY 

Loddie Marsh, NY 

Raymond and Janet Marsh, NY 

Donald H and Alice C Marshall, NY 

Emma May Marshall, NJ 

John Taylor Marshall, NJ 

Andrew D. Marshall and Debra S. Rickard, NY 

John Taylor Marshall Family Trust, NJ 

Henry Marshall Sr., Wendy Bouck, Marilyn N. 

Kehrer, Brenda J. Lawyer, Marianne Leblanc, 

Gregory L. Marshall, Kyle D. Marshall, 

Christine A. Schroeder, NY 

Richard Marsiglia, NY 

Richard Marsiglia and Theresa Marsiglia, NY 

Carol Martin, NY 

Caroline Martin, NY 

Debbie Martin, PA 

Joe Martin, NY 

Jose Martin, NY 

Manuel E. Martin, NY 

Joe Martin and Judith Wood, NY 

Armando R. Martinez and Eileen Martinez, NY 

Richard N. and Phyllis E. Marzolf, NY 

Peter G and Rosemary Marzziotti, NY 

Donald and William Mason and Lesley May 

Vaitekanus, NY 

Eric and Sara Masterson, NY 

Amanda L. Matteson, NY 

Ruth Mattice, NY 

Robert Mattinson, NY 

Shawn E. and Kerry C. Mattison, NY 

Lillian Mau, NY 

Robert E. and Janice M. Mau, NY 

Walter G and Patricia T. Mau, Jr., NY 

Peter M. Mauhs, NY 

John P and Julia L Maxwell, PA 

James Mayer, NY 

Lorenz A. Mayer, VA 

Herbert F. and Edna M. Mayne, NY 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-31 

Individuals (continued) 

Joseph Mayott, NY 

Gary H. Mazanec, Cindy A. Mazanec, Charles F. 

Graves, and Carol J. Gigl, NJ 

Ryan McAllister, NY 

Daniel and Nicole McBride, NY 

William D and Kathie Strobel McCabe, NY 

Salvatore McCagnano and Irene P. McCagnano, NJ 

Alfred McCall, NY 

Joann McCann, NY 

Kathleen M. McClaine, NY 

Hugh and Theresa M. McCollum, PA 

Robert McCormack, NY 

Philip D. and Mary E. McCorriston, PA 

John F McCoy, PA 

Thomas J. McCoy and Helen F. McCoy, Et Al, PA 

Bonnie McDermott, NY 

Carl D. McDonald, NY 

Logan M. McDuffey, NY 

William J. McGill, NY 

William J and Elaine McGinness, NY 

William J. McGinness, NY 

Kirsten McGiver, NY 

Rod McGrath, NY 

Bruce McGregor, NY 

Eugene C. McIntyre, NY 

Laura McIntyre, NJ 

Edward M. McKendrick and Jeanne M. Rubio, NY 

Marian McKenna, NY 

Mary Colleen McKinney and Thomas M. Gorman, 

NY 

Dennis A and Doreen L McMahon, NY 

John J. McManus, NY 

Philip G. McManus, NY 

R. McMorris, NY 

Brian and Corinne A McNamara, NY 

Michael J and Gloria A McNamara, NY 

Denis M and Deborah M McNamee, PA 

Cathy McNulty, NY 

Kathleen Ann McSparin Et Al, NJ 

Edwin Mead, PA 

Leon Mead, NY 

Lyla R. Meader, NY 

Michael E. Meadows and Debbie Paden, NY 

Nelson and Janice M. Medynec, PA 

Skender and Sadija Mehmedovic, NY 

Daniel Mencucci, NY 

John A. and Theresa A. Mendence and Philip 

Mendence, CT 

Jose P Mendoza, Jr. Et Al, NJ 

William Menzies, NY 

Matt Mercier, NY 

Kimberly D. Merenz, NY 

Anthony and Marie A Meringolo, NY 

Neal H. Merrihew, NY 

Joseph Merwin, NY 

Walter B. Merwin, NY 

Mildred E. Merwin, Douglas B. Merwin, NY 

Alan Mesec, NY 

Thomas Messineo, NY 

Michael Meszaros and George J. Meszaros, Jr., NY 

George Meszaros, Jr., NY 

Robert H. Meyer, Jr., NY 

Annette Michelitch, NY 

Kim Michels, NY 

Elizabeth Ann Michelsen, Et Al, NY 

Cheryl Mickel, NY 

Mark and Cheryl Mickel, NY 

Alyce H. Mickel, Et Al, NY 

Randy G. Mickle, NY 

Gerald Mickle, Et Al, NY 

Ryan Middleton, NY 

Barbara Miers, NY 

Donald Miesfeldt, NY 

John Miglietta, NY 

Donato Mignone and Mary Mignone Coretto, Mary 

Antoinette Finelli, Rosann Mignone and Diane 

Mignone, NY 

Jerry Mignone, Frank Mignone, NY 

Juanita Mihalco, NY 

Jayne E. Mihan, NY 

Stan Mikalsen, PA 

Nicholas D. Milano, Jr., NY 

Savas and Joana Milienos, NY 

Charles Miller, FL 

David John Miller, NY 

Diane Miller, NY 

Henry Miller, NY 

John A. Miller, NY 

John A. and Karen A. Miller, NY 

Kevin Miller, NY 

Lisa Miller, NY 

William E III Miller and Edward Bryan and Ann 

Marie Lopez, NY 

Lois G. Miller and Jennifer Miller-Heath, NY 

Michael R. Miller and Mary Lou Miller, NY 

Henry T. Miller and Michele Barns, NJ 

Seth Milligan, NY 

Dawn Milone, NY 

Dale W Miner, NY 

Vernon W. Miner, NY 

Rob Minotti, NY 

Robert J. Minotti, Jr., NY 

Derek Mirabella, Jessica Mirabella, NY 

Robin L. Miskell, Brooke K Whiting N/K/A 

McTighe, NY 

John R Miskell, Mary M Miskell, NY 

Albert Mitchell, NY 

Gerald Mitchell, NY 

Diana Modica, NY 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-32 

Individuals (continued) 

Maurits Modin, NJ 

Josephine and Sheila Malcolm Moffett, NY 

Robert and Jeanne Molinaro, NY 

Gary Moller, NY 

William J. and Katherina Moller, NY 

Gary Moller and Edward Barsick, Jr., NY 

Carlo Mollica and Fiore Verrelli, NY 

Clifton T. Mollitor, NY 

Philip M. and Marlene A. Monfiletto, NY 

Clifford Montgomery, NY 

Clarence D. Montgomery and Clifford L.D. Clarence, 

NY 

Clarence D. Montgomery and Janelle Underwood, 

NY 

John J and Carmen A. Montiel, NY 

Linda M and Leroy H Moon, NY 

John F. and Maureen B. Mooney, NY 

James J. Mooney and Vicki Lynn Thomas, NY 

Douglas Mooneyhan, GA 

Ryan P. Moore, NY 

Sylvia Moore, NY 

Cheryle Morande, NY 

Kimberly More, NY 

Ralph Steven and Judy M Moreland, NY 

Randall Moreland, NY 

Christopher Morey, NY 

William L. and Shirley Morey, NY 

Patricia L. Morgan, NY 

Eleanor Moriary, NY 

Craig Morlang, NY 

Adele Morrissey, NY 

Mildred M. Morse, Et Al, NY 

Joan Moser, NY 

Jennifer Mosher, NY 

Karen Lynn Mowers, NY 

Randy and Karen L Mowers, NY 

Michael Mueller, NY 

Melanie A. Muldoon and Kenneth R. Delforge, MA 

Kenneth R. Muldoon and Melanie A. Delforge, MA 

Julie Mullaney and Robert H. Shufelt, Jr., NY 

John Mullen and John Tabler, NY 

Bridget Murdock, NY 

Frances D. Murphy, FL 

Michael M. and Colleen A. Murphy, NY 

Gene A Murphy, Jr., NY 

John Murray III, NY 

Janet L. Murray, AKA Janet Murray-Liberti, NY 

Lisa Murrell, NY 

Arturo J Musumeci, NY 

George W. Myers, NY 

Mary Jane Myers, NY 

Mary Jane and Maynard S. Myers, NY 

Michele F. Myers-Platt, NY 

Lori Naveh, CA 

Kevin Neary, NY 

Leland H. Neff, NY 

Glenn R Nelsen, Kathryn Nelson, NY 

Paul C. and Winifred S. Nelson, NY 

Phil Nelson, NY 

Winnie Nelson, NY 

Frederick J. Neroni, NY 

Mary Nethaway and Margaret Bliss, NY 

Susan Newhart, PA 

William Newhoff, NY 

Frank B. Newkirk, NY 

Brian J and Colleen J Nichols, PA 

Robert L and Brenda Nichols, PA 

Terry A. Nichols, CT 

Frank A. and Constance A. Nicolia, NY 

Renee and Robert Nied, NY 

Corina Nier, Scott and Starr Nier, Paul Shofkum and 

Jo Ann Shofkum, PA 

Detmar and Luitgard Nieshalla, NJ 

Rafael Nieves, NY 

James Nitterour, Et Al, PA 

Diane Nixon, NY 

Cesar and Debra R Nolasco, NJ 

John B. Nolte and Janet M. Hofmann, NY 

Raymond J. and Maureen B. Norcross, NY 

Joseph H. Noriega, NY 

Patrick W. Noto, NY 

Edward Novak, NY 

Richard B. and Bernadette Novak, NY 

George B. Novellano and Nancy M. Novellano, NY 

Shawn Noxem, NY 

Ronald D and Karen Noxon, NY 

Shawn Noxon, NY 

Chris and Dean Nunamann, NY 

Joan F. Nunamann and Dean Nunamann, NY 

Joseph and Marie Nunes, NY 

Kathleen E. Oakley, PA 

Mark and Rebekah Obleman, NY 

James E. O’Bray and Dianne T. O’Bray, NY 

Michael D. O’Brien, NY 

Daniel O’Brien and Doreen Hickey, NY 

Martin B. and Maureen H. O’Brien and Stanley and 

Elizabeth A. Sather, NY 

Rita M. O’Brien, Darlene Patten, Dorene Losie, 

Wayne P. Patten, and Frank H. Patten, Jr., NY 

Vincent O’Brien, Et Al, NY 

William J. O’Brien, Jr., Deborah T. O’Brien, and 

John O’Brien, CT 

Martin B. O’Brien, Maureen H. O’Brien, Stanley 

Sather, and Elizabeth A. Sather, NY 

Darlene O’Brien, Rita M. Patten, NY 

Michael J. O’Connor Jr., NJ 

Michael E O’Dell, Nance O’Dell, NY 

William J. Odell, Patricia M. Odell, and Scott L. 

Odell, PA 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-33 

Individuals (continued) 

Chris Odo, Maureen Fleming, NY 

Richard E. Ogsbury, NY 

Daniel O’Hara, PA 

Brian O’Hearn, TX 

Daniel Oliva, Laurajean Brignoli, NY 

Daniel and Rosa Oliveira, NJ 

Elizabeth Olon, NY 

Christine O’Loughlin, NY 

Carol Omalyev, NY 

Kim J. Ondrusek, NY 

James J. and Irene O’Neill, NY 

Karen O’Neill, NY 

David R. Orosz, NY 

Jeremy Orosz and David Rudolph Orosz, Jr., NY 

John R. O’Rourke, NY 

Laurie Orsini, NY 

Catherine L. Orth, NY 

David Osborne, PA 

Elaine Osborne, FL 

Richard Osborne, PA 

William Osborne, NJ 

Walter Oset, NY 

Warren E. Osterhout, Et Al, NY 

Norma and Scott Osterling, PA 

Roy and Genevieve Overholt, NY 

Lucy E. Oxios and Robert Apuzzo, NY 

Robert Oxios, Lucy E. Apuzzo, NY 

Ross P and Kelly A Pacatte, NY 

Andrew V Pace and Holly Pollock, NY 

Debbie Paden, NY 

Alicia Pagano, NY 

Joseph and Laura Pagano, NY 

Andrew Pagnozzi and Bernadette Pagnozzi, NY 

Abel S. Palma, Jr. and David A. Palma, NY 

Stanley Palmer, Jr., NY 

Paul M and Joseph R Palmeri, NY 

Marie A Palmero, NY 

Mark and Kathleen Palmeter, NY 

Arthur Panetta, NY 

Stevens and Shelia A. Pannepacker, PA 

Stevens Pannepacker and Shelia A. Pannepacker, PA 

Milos and Nada Papajic, NJ 

William Jr and Doreen E Pappas, NY 

Sarah Parker, NY 

Marvin D and Sally D Parshall, NY 

Marvin D. Parshall, NY 

Marvin D. and Pattie F. Parshall, Jr., NY 

David and Gerladine A. Parsons, PA 

Kenneth E and Barbara Parsons, NY 

Joseph Pasquariello and Timothy Duell, NY 

Dorothy Patashnick, NY 

Steven V. Patrillo, NY 

Jeffrey D. Patterson and Nancy E. Zier, NY 

Thomas G. Patton and Helen M. Patton, NY 

Susan Pausel, NY 

Esteban D. Paz Lizama, N 

Arthur and Dale Pearson, NY 

Larry Pearson, NY 

Stylianos Pefanis, NY 

Joseph C. Peletz and Bonnie L. Peletz, NY 

Martin F Peloso and Lorraine Peloso, NY 

Daniel J. Pelt, NJ 

John Pelton, NY 

Pietro Pennella, OH 

Rocco and Karen Jean Pennella, NY 

Anton Pepjohaj, NY 

Nicole and Steven Peragine, NY 

Albino and Lena Perazzo, NY 

John and Idalina Pereira, NY 

Joseph Perotti, Jr., NY 

Donald L. and Barbara Perrington, PA 

William M. Perrone, NY 

Jane C Perry, NY 

Vickram Persad, NY 

Dennis and Louise M. Perzacki, PA 

Benedict T. Peters, NY 

Richard and Susan Petersen, NY 

Douglas Petersen and Cheryl Petersen, NY 

Robert L. and Betty A Pethick, NY 

Toby D. Pethick, NY 

Todd W. Pethick, NY 

Robert L. Pethick and Betty A. Pethick, NY 

Joseph Petiski, NY 

Pasquale Petriccione, NY 

Joseph Petroski, Joanne M Petroski, NY 

Mark Pezzati, NY 

Richard Pfau, NY 

Michael D. Phelan, NY 

Bruce A. and Sheryl M. Phillips, NY 

Tom Phillips, NY 

Kenneth E. Phillips and Elizabeth Phillips, NJ 

Dennis M. Pierce, NY 

John O. and Connie L. Pierce, NY 

Nora R. Pierce, NY 

Theodore and Shirley Pierce, NY 

Giovanni Pilla and Virginia Pilla, NY 

Ryan N and Stephanie J Pillsbury, NY 

Thomas Piper, NY 

Joseph Piscatella, Et Al, NY 

Carol Pitt, NY 

Blane Pixley, NY 

Rachel Polems, NY 

Robert P. Polgar, NY 

David J. Pollard, NY 

Douglas F. Pollicino, NY 

Louis J and Linda A. Pollizotto, Sr., NY 

Robert B. Pondolfino, NY 

Polly Poole, NY 

John P. and Roberta S. Poorman, NY 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-34 

Individuals (continued) 

Judith Ann and Gregory Poquette, NY 

Anthony Porcelli, NY 

Ernest Porcelli, NY 

Rebecca Porcelli, NY 

Leonard and Kathleen Portello, NY 

Steven Portuese, PA 

Douglas and Virginia Posson, NY 

Maurice H. and Lori Faye Potter, NY 

Rosemary Potter and William Wlasiuk, NY 

George R and Kathleen Powers, NY 

Andrew and Nina Preli, NY 

Andrew J and Nina Preli, NY 

David C. Press and Robert T. Lahullier, NJ 

David R. Price, NY 

Joseph Primavera, NY 

John J. Primeau, Et Al, NY 

Richard and Sandra Prokop, NY 

Steve Proscia, NJ 

Barry L. and Sharon K. Przysiecki, NY 

Lori C. Puente, David S. Hudson, Lynn R. Hudson, 

CA 

Lynn R. Puente, Lori Ci Hudson, David S. Hudson, 

CA 

Angelica Puglia, NY 

John Edward Purick, NY 

Gladys Pushchin, NY 

Dusty Putnam, NY 

Raymond L and Sandra R Putnam, NY 

David Pysnik, NY 

David B. Quas, NY 

Darwyn Quay, Sr., NY 

Darlene and Patricia Serdock Quinn, NY 

Domingo Quinones, NY 

June Quraishi, NJ 

Elias Rabady, NY 

Jean E. Race, NY 

Leslie P Rago, NY 

Anthony Ragucci, NY 

Stanley Nils Rahmas, NY 

D. Steve Rahmas and Judith Richter Rahmas, NY 

Alvaro Ramirez, Ana Ramirez, PA 

Carlos Ramos and Jose Manuel Gomes, NY 

Jose Manuel Ramos, Carlos Gomes, NY 

Harris Randall, NY 

Edward A. Range and Grace E. Range Revocable 

Living Trust, NJ 

Emilio Rascionato, NY 

Joe Rathbun, NY 

Kenneth Rau, NY 

Kenneth Rau and Stephen G. Feeney, NY 

Kenneth R. and Elaine M. Rau, and John W. and 

Dorothy T. Rau, NY 

Thomas P. Raucci, Jr., CT 

Alice J. Ray, NY 

Carol Ann Ray and Henrietta H. Wilber, Betty 

Taccone, NY 

Betty Taccone Ray, Carol Ann and Henrietta H 

Wilbur, NY 

William S and Eleanor R Raymond, Sr., NY 

Gale Reardon, NY 

Burton R. and Catherine D. Reed, NY 

Hazen B. Reed, NY 

Howard J. and Hazel R. Reed, NY 

Burton R. Reed and Catherine D. Reed, NY 

Richard A. Reese and Jeanne E. Reese, and Raymond 

Gardner and Elizabeth Gardner, NY 

William K Regan, NY 

Albert E. and Greta C. Rehberg, NY 

Wesley and Eileen Rehberg, NY 

Fred Rehberg, Jr., Pauline Rehberg, and Jennifer R. 

Rehberg, NY 

Timothy Reigles, NY 

Daniel F. Reigles and Timothy L. Reigles, NY 

James C. and Cathy Reilly, NY 

Christopher W. III and Catherine Ann Reimels, NY 

Dorothy F. Reina, NY 

Joseph F. and Lauren M. Reinhart, NY 

Zachary and Amanda Reinhart, NY 

Tammy Reiss, NY 

Donald J. and William H. Reithoffer, NY 

Judith Relyea and Robert Durland, NY 

Steven M and Doreen H. Remen Weiner, NY 

Ronald R and Marcie E Renwick, PA 

Timothy and Sharlene R. Reploeg, NY 

Ronald A Rera, NY 

Gary L Reynolds and Cindy L Reynolds, NY 

Dean R and Patricia N Rhinehart, NY 

Amelia Ricciardella, NY 

Frederick Rice and Marilyn Isaacs, NY 

Caiati Richard, NY 

Leslie Richards, NY 

Gordon G. Rickard, NY 

Jeffrey K. and Nicole E. Rickard, NY 

Todd A. and Troy R. Rider, NY 

Charles F. and Melinda S. Rielly, NY 

Harry C. Riker, NY 

Ken Riley, NY 

Anthony Rinaldi, NJ 

Mary Darlene Rinaldo, NY 

Daniel P. Ringuette and Anne M. Hensel, NY 

Fred H. and Margaret R. Risse, NY 

Douglas J. Ritz and Marjorie A. Ritz, NY 

Anthony J. Rivelli, Jr., Laina Rivelli, and Tracey 

Weinbaum, NY 

David and Lisa Ann Rivera, NY 

Donald N. and Barbara Ann Roberts, NJ 

John W. Roberts, NY 

Donald N. Roberts and Barbara Ann Roberts and 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-35 

Individuals (continued) 

Jerry Roberts, NJ 

Donald N Roberts, Barbara Ann Roberts, NY 

Gerald Robinson, NY 

Judy Robinson, NY 

Christine Roche, NY 

William Roche, NY 

William J. Roche and Christine Bender, NJ 

Christine Roche and William J Bender, NJ 

Joel Rockwell, PA 

John E and Peggy Rockwell, PA 

Terry and Wanda M Rockwell, PA 

Henry J. Rode II, NY 

George and Patricia A. Rodenas, NY 

Luis A. Jr and Salome E. Rodriguez, NY 

Alton Roe, NY 

William Roehrich and Donna Roehrich, NJ 

Achim and Louise Roennpagel, NY 

R. Rogan, NY 

James A. Rogers, NY 

Jennifer Rogers, NY 

Sergio Rogliano, NY 

Bernhard A and Christa Rohe, NJ 

Todd E Rolfe, NY 

Robert A. Romain, NY 

William R. Romain, NY 

William and Judith Romain, Jr., NY 

Maasimo and Lisa Romano, NY 

David and James Rootes, NY 

Gerard W. Rosand, NY 

Beth B. Roscoe, NY 

Alana Rose, NY 

John and Lynn Rosler, PA 

William Ross, NY 

Rebecca Roter, PA 

Arlene D and Leslie W Rought, PA 

Judy Rowe, NY 

Michael L. Rowe, NY 

Frances, Robert and Stephen Rowles Thome, IL 

David I and Sherry A Roy, NY 

Warren E. Rozelle, NY 

Max F. Jr and Catherine Rua, NY 

Jeanne M. Rubio and Edward M. McKendrick, NY 

Edward M. Rubio and Jeanne M. McKendrick, NY 

Gerald V Ruggiero, NY 

R Rugler, NY 

Richard L. Ruland, NY 

Arthur and Susan Rumph, NY 

Kelly Rumph, NY 

Lee S. and Sana Lee Rumsey, NY 

Robert and Marybeth Ruscica, NY 

Thomas Rushmer, NY 

Cecilia J. Russell, NY 

Gerald T. and Cecilia J. Russell Revocable Trust, NY 

Kate Ryan, NY 

Wadea W. Saad and Mikhail George, NJ 

William Sabia, NY 

Jerry Sacher, NY 

David Saddlemire, NY 

Kathryn Saddlemire, NY 

James W. Saddlemire and Emma Blanchard, NY 

Edgar L. Sagan, KY 

Nancy Saglimbeni, NY 

Jack Sakellarides, Agnes Sakellarides, NY 

Gerard H. and Adriana Sallows, NY 

Judith Salzmann, NY 

Andrea and Clark Sanders, NY 

Clark Sanders, NY 

Glen Sanders, NY 

Shawnee Sanders, NY 

Andrew J. and Joan L. Sanfilippo, PA 

Vincent and Allison Sanganetti, NY 

Francis Sanna, Ann Sanna, NY 

Anthony F. Sanniola, Jr., NY 

Tony and Kathleen Santana, NY 

James Santore, NY 

Victor A. Santore, Ann Santore, Elizabeth B. 

Santore, Elizabeth Santore, George Santore, 

James Santore, Victor Santore, NY 

Angelo Santoro, NY 

Michael A. and Karen A. Santulli, NY 

Johannes Sanzin, NY 

Bonnett L. Saussol and Lily Quan Lew, CA 

Bonnett L. Saussol and Quan Lew Lily, CA 

Paul Sauter, NY 

Lester Savarese, NY 

William and Brenda Sayward, NY 

Gerard Scelzo, NY 

Stephen G. Schafer, NY 

Geoffrey J and Janie A Schaffner, NY 

Josephine G. and Thomas E. Schake, NY 

Allegra Schecter, NY 

Fred J. Scheidegger, Jr., NY 

William H. Schetting and Doris M. Schetting, NJ 

James F. Schillinger, Et Al, NY 

Anthony J. Schindler, NY 

Mark Schinnerer, NY 

Christopher and Ernst Schleimer, NY 

Patricia Schlichting, NY 

Dave Schmauch, NY 

Peter M and Erika J Schmid, NY 

Louise Schmidt, NY 

Roger E. Schmidt, Dayle G Schmidt, NY 

Vera Schmitt, NY 

Martin A Schneider, NJ 

Peter Schoeivecker, NY 

Nicholas Schoenecker, NY 

Peter Schoenecker, NY 

Teresa I, Peter N, Matthew L, and Nicholas A 

Schoenecker, NY 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-36 

Individuals (continued) 

Nicholas A. Schoenecker and Matthew L. 

Schoenecker, Peter N. Schoenecker, NY 

Francine Schreiber, NY 

Thelma H. Schreier, NY 

Adolph Schrull, NY 

Keith Schue, NY 

Robert Schuflet, NY 

Diantha Schull, NY 

James Schultz, NY 

Warren E. Schuman, Carole F. Schuman, NY 

Juergen H. Schumann, Jeannie K. Schumann, NY 

James A Schwartz, NY 

Michael Schwerd, NY 

Anthony Scielzi, NY 

Ralph L. Scorzelli, NY 

Agnes and Francis Scott, NY 

Ward F. Scott, NY 

Robert A. Seacord, NY 

Michael L. Seaman, III, John A. Seaman, Andrew N. 

Lee, and Deborah M. Skogman, NY 

Bruce L and Marion E Seamans, PA 

Elbert Seamans, PA 

Hollis Seamans, PA 

Francis Secrest, NY 

Robert W See II, NY 

Emma and Yon Suk Seebold, NY 

Seepersaud and Sushila Seecharan, NY 

Joel and Sarah Seemann, NJ 

Sofoklis and Athina Selisios, NY 

Edward B. Selleck, NY 

Edward B. and Christopher Selleck, NY 

Charity J. Senecal, NY 

Lynn Senick, PA 

Stephen Sepesi, NY 

Arthur Serdock, NY 

Patricia Serdock and Darlene Quinn, NY 

Paul Serpduto, Christine Foley, NY 

William A. Sestito, Et Al, MA 

Aurelio A and Maria Sesto, NY 

John and Ann-Marie Seven-Sky, FL 

Josep A. Sevilla, NJ 

David K. Sexton and Anita M. Sexton, NY 

Kurt D Shafer, NY 

Gail Shaffer, NY 

Edwin Shaffer, Sandra Gray, Stanley Shaffer, Gail 

Shaffer, NY 

Joann Christie Shapak, NY 

Holly J Shaul, NY 

James A and Pamela J Shaul, NY 

John G. Shaul, NY 

Judy Shaul, NY 

Mabel M. Shaul, FL 

Marcy G. Shaul, NY 

Alfred L and Tammy Shaver, Jr., NY 

John Shear, NY 

Andrew and Noelle Sheber, William M. Perrone, NY 

Gregory and Ellen L Sheehan, NY 

Brian P. Sheeley, NY 

Bart L. Sheldon, NY 

Mark H Sherman, PA 

William Sherman, NY 

James T. Sherwood, CT 

Joan M. Sherwood, NY 

Laurie A. Sherwood, NY 

Patricia J Shevy, NY 

Leo Shew, NY 

Leo and Linda Shew, NY 

Sheila A. Shibley, PA 

Stanley Joseph and Tra Shidagis, PA 

Kathy Shimberg, NY 

Thomas J. and Cheryl A. Shimp, NY 

Jeannie Shipman, NY 

Charles Shoemaker, NY 

Jill and Reed Sholtes, NY 

Martin and Darleen Shrederis, NY 

Paula Shufect, NY 

Robert Shufelt, NY 

James E. Sickler and Ruth M. Sickler, NY 

Edward and George Sidney, SC 

Leo Jr. and Carol Ann Siemion, NY 

Jason Siemion and Julie M. Wawryzynek, NY 

James B. and Florine S. Sikking and Turowski Trust, 

CA 

James A. and Karla D. Sikora, NY 

Antonio V Silva, NY 

Gertrude Silvernell, NY 

George R. Silvernell and Sarah May Silvernell Tims, 

NY 

Karen S Simmon-Karker, NY 

Timothy W. Simmons, NY 

Shahndra R. Simmons and Zachary Lawyer, NY 

Randy and Diana Simms, NY 

Scott D and Mary Ann Simonds, NY 

Richard E. and Sharon Simpson, NY 

Dee Singer, Lee Teper, NY 

John Sitaras and Theano Sitaras, NY 

Ralph Z Sitts, Phylis Sitts, NY 

Laura Skidmore, VA 

Roger S. Skinner, NY 

Zbigniew and Katarzyna Skurzok, PA 

Gene S. and Elaine D. Slater, NY 

William A and Kathleen J Slater, NY 

Bruce A and Janice M Smith, NY 

Cara C. Smith, NY 

Carlton R. Smith, AZ 

Catherine C. Smith, NY 

David E. Smith, NY 

Donald M. Smith, NY 

Dorothy E Smith, NY 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-37 

Individuals (continued) 

Douglas W. and Amelia Smith, NJ 

James M. and Tammy Smith, NY 

Maggie Smith, NY 

Michael J. and Karen J. Smith, NY 

Robert S. Smith, NY 

Russell D.B. Smith, NY 

Victor L and Margaret Janet Smith, PA 

David E. Smith and Elaine M. Smith, NY 

Donald M. Smith and Janice E. Smith and Kimberly 

K. Guernsey, NY 

Victor L. Smith And Margaret Janet Smith, PA 

David Jay Smith and Richardo Chang Yee, NY 

Jennifer Shadel Smith and Roy M. Smith Jr., NY 

Douglas W Smith, Ameila Smith, NJ 

Douglass W Smith, Amelia Smith, TN 

Erwin Van B. Smith, Edwin C. Smith, NY 

Frank H. Smith, Jr. and Frances M. Smith, NJ 

Robert F. Snedeker and Cheryl S. Hine, NY 

Joshua Snediker, NY 

Angeline Snow, NY 

Charles H. And Mary E. Snyder, PA 

James F. and Darla A. Snyder, PA 

Mary E. Snyder, PA 

Joan D. Snyder and Henry Earl Goss, NY 

Charles Snyder and Michelle Snyder, PA 

Elwood and Linda Soden, PA 

Michael Sodomora, NY 

Michael A. and Michael P. Sodomora, NY 

Michael A. and Walter J. Sodomora, NY 

Matthew and Lisa Sokol, NJ 

Reverend Ellen Sokolow, NY 

Meryl-Jo Solar, PA 

William Solonewitz, PA 

William P. and Mary A. Solonewitz, PA 

William C. and Frances A. Sossei, NY 

Frances B. Sossei, John H. Binger, and Alma L. 

Binger, NY 

Clinton I. Soules, NY 

Gordon Jay Sowder, NY 

Jeffrey R. Spandine and Brenda L. Spadine, PA 

Ferdinand Spages, PA 

Peter Spallino, NY 

Joshua C. Sparkes, NY 

Alice T. Spatt, NY 

Marion D. and Roger L. Spaulding, NY 

Anthony T. Spaziani, NY 

Armando and Marie Spaziani, NY 

Brent D. Speedling, NY 

Jud Speer, NY 

Gordon Spence and Josephine Spence, NY 

Myrtle Spencer, NY 

Diane and Thomas Speranza, NC 

Paul and Christine Sperduto, NY 

Christine Sperduto, Paul Foley, NY 

Dustin and Kimberly Sperry, NY 

Terry A. and Linda L. Sperry, NY 

Deborah Spezza, NY 

John and Maria Spina, NY 

Joseph and Maryann Spina, NY 

Stephen Spretnjak, NY 

Robert and Charlotte Tru Squier, PA 

Robert Squier and Charlotte Tru, PA 

Michael and Linda Squillini, NY 

Irene and Stephen Stabenow, NY 

Gaspare Stabile, NY 

Bruce and Michele Stacey, NY 

Anne and Bob Stack, NY 

William Stafford, NY 

Richard F and Tina M Stalker, NY 

Shane M. Stalter, NY 

Richard Stanford, AZ 

Duane and Myschell A Stangle, NY 

Robert Stankiewicz, PA 

Tina M. Stannard, NY 

Richard Stannard, Volneta Stannard, NY 

Horace Stanton, NY 

Susan H. Stanton, NY 

Kenneth G. and Juanita Stanton III, NY 

Rebecca Stanton-Terk and Kenneth G. Stanton III, 

NY 

Christopher R. and Robin Ann Stauble, NY 

Edmund C. Staudenmaier, NY 

Alan W. and Julie Stay, NY 

Constantinos Stefanou, Maria Stefanou and Terry 

Stefanou, NY 

Barret A and Christine M Stein, NY 

R. Steinmuller, NY 

Julie I Steinmuller and Suzanne Lockwood, NY 

David R. Steitz, NY 

Timothy Rene Stephenson, NY 

Arthur C. and Mary Ann Sternheimer, NY 

Feeney Steve, NY 

Craig Stevens, PA 

Eric and Deborah Stevens, NY 

Jennifer Stevens, NY 

Richard and Shelly Stevens, NY 

Benjamin W. Stever, NY 

Dawn Stidham, NY 

Dawn Stidham and Michael Bianco, NY 

Jonathan Stillman, Laura Carraro, Daniel Stillman 

and Marcia Stillman, NY 

Richard Stimpfl, Robin Stimpfl, NY 

Wayne R. and Jennifer Stinson, NY 

Michael and Patricia Stockert, NY 

Yvonne Stone, PA 

George, Alexis and Nicholas Strachkevitch, NY 

Lee T. Strassburg, NY 

Anne Michelle M and Christian Strauch, NY 

Michael J. Streng, NY 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-38 

Individuals (continued) 

Robert and Helen M. Strother, NY 

Ted Sturka, NY 

Deborah A. Sugamele, NY 

James J Sullivan, Grace E Sullivan, NY 

Bette Ann Sullivan, Kathleen Jean Fisher SmithBernier, William Thomas Fisher IV, Debora 

Ellen Fisher Rogers and Herbert Lawrence 

Folkerts, NY 

Arthur H. Summers and Cyrena M. Summers, NY 

Domenico Suppa, NY 

Donald P. Suttle, NY 

Dorothy J and Leslie Sutton, NY 

Mark Swanberry, NY 

Christopher Swartout, NY 

Jim and Vicki Swartout, NY 

Donna M. Swavola, NY 

Timothy J. and Diana L. Sweeney Jr., NY 

James H. and Jean T. Swisher, NY 

George Sydlar, NY 

George M. and Denise M. Sydlar, NY 

Michael R. and Luigia Taccone, NY 

Richard and Betty Taccone, NY 

Michael R. Taccone and Luigia Taccone, NY 

William Taddeo, Frank Taddeo, NY 

Timothy D. and Jane Taggart, PA 

Douglas J. Tait, MI 

Cheuk Tam, NY 

Clifton Tamsett, Jr., NY 

Franca Tantillo, NY 

Domenic and Rosa Tebano, NY 

Christelynn Teed, NY 

Charles M. Tell and Delores A. Tyneway, NJ 

Robert E. Teomans and Jacylyn M. Schaeffer, NY 

Janet Terchek, NJ 

Nancy L. Terpening, NY 

James and Sandra Terrano, NY 

Kevin and Mary J. Terry, NY 

Donald L. Teter and Nancy J. Swantak, NY 

Paul A Thayer, NY 

Ed Thomas, CT 

Greg Thomas, NY 

Richard D. Thomas, NY 

Richard P and Margaret K Thomas, NY 

Robert and Stephen Thome, Frances Rowles Thome, 

IL 

Charles Thompson, NY 

James R. Thompson and Audre A. Thompson, NY 

Justin N and Martha B Thompson, ME 

Samuel F. Thompson, PA 

Frieda Ordella Thorington, NY 

Grant Thorn, NY 

Jason M. Thorne, NY 

Allen Thorp, NY 

Allen and Christine Thorp, NY 

Connie J. Tilison, NY 

Clayton and Beverly M. Tillapaugh, MD 

Diane Olds Timm, NY 

Cassandra Tingue Anderson, FL 

Tom Tiogo, NY 

Marcus Tiscione, NY 

Matthew F. Tiscione and Carmela Tiscione, NY 

Eugene and Lorraine P. Titus, NY 

Charles L. and Suzette R. Todd, NY 

Gilbert and Marlene Toglia, NY 

John and Aida Toledo, NY 

Eduardo C. Toloza, NJ 

Anna and James Tomaino, NY 

M. Tomasino, NY 

William Torres, NY 

Donna L. Tracy and Mario Ruttkiewicz, NY 

Beverly Travis, NY 

Lawrence and Tracy Travis, NY 

Robert Travis, NY 

Alton R. Travis III, NY 

Betty Treis, NY 

Jeffrey S. Treis, NY 

Nicholas Treis, NY 

Terry Allen and Alina M. Treis, NY 

Thomas J and Laurie Trelease, NY 

William and Susan Trendell, 

Debra and James Tricoukes, NY 

Robert G. Troidl, NY 

Paul and Carole A. Trotta, NY 

John E. Trowbridge, NY 

Richard P. Trowbridge, NY 

Emily Trower-Yang, NY 

James E. and Aili D. Truelove, NY 

Kenneth H. Truesdale and Luella I. Truesdale, NY 

Mark Truesdell, NY 

Robert E. Truman and Donald K. Truman, NY 

Edward J. Trzcinski, NY 

Joan Tubridy, NY 

Robert Tufano, NY 

Robert J. Tufano, NY 

Joseph and Barbara Tuite, NY 

Kristina Turechek, NY 

William and Nancy Turick, NY 

Joy S. Turowski and Walter R. Turowski, CA 

Frank and Sergio Tursi, NY 

Mary Tuthill, NY 

William J. Twomey, NY 

Delores A. Tyneway and Susan L. Murphy, NY 

Shirley Uhle, NY 

Kerry Unger, NY 

Kerry Lee Unger, NY 

Gary D. Unger and Lori J. Cavaco, NY 

Deanna Urrey, NY 

Stephen F. Utter, FL 

Wanda Utter, NY 

Bart Vacca, NY 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-39 

Individuals (continued) 

Donald Mason and Lesley May Vaitekunas, NY 

Carmino and Margaret Valente, NY 

Rocky Valenzisi, NY 

Albert Vallone, Vicki Vallone, NV 

Nancy Van Deusen, NY 

Francesca Vanasco, NY 

Patrick Vanbuskirk, NY 

W. Cooper Vancott, PA 

Seymour Vander, NY 

Jeffrey A. Vandermark, NY 

Robert Vanderveen, NY 

Seymour and Grace Vanderveen, NY 

Jeffrey L. Vandeusen, NY 

Nancy Vandeusen, NY 

Nora and Leroy Vandeusen, NY 

William A and Lori Vandevalk, NY 

Kenneth Vangorder, PA 

Joseph Vanharken, NY 

Edward Vanloan, NY 

Patrice VanSlyke, NY 

James D. Vanvalen, NY 

James D. and Ethel Vanvalen, NY 

Kathleen Vanvalkenburgh, NY 

Bradley Vanzile, NY 

Bruce Vanzile, Lynne M Vanzile, and Bradley 

Vanzile, NY 

Nick Vardouniotis, NY 

Charles Vaughan and Shannon Vaughan, NY 

Michael D. Vaughn, NJ 

Helen P. and William W. Jr. Vedder, NY 

Martha Vedder Sheth, NY 

Francois G. and Dana Vedier, NY 

James M. Veley, NY 

Mark M. and Stephanie E. Veley, NY 

Louis Ventiere, NY 

Vincent Verdichizzi, NY 

Anthony Verini, Et Al, NY 

Susan Vetterlein, NJ 

Robert and Francine Vilato, NY 

Richard Vilegi, NY 

Susan Vines-Duffy, NY 

Anthony J. Vitaliano, NY 

James Vitti, NY 

George Vlesmas and Yolanda Koumidou-Vlesmas, 

NY 

Karl and Nancy Vogl, NY 

Anthony J. Vojnich, Jr., NJ 

James M. and Dorothy A. Volo, CT 

Kristen Volsky, NY 

Paul and Karen Volsky, NY 

Jonathan and Michele Vonlinden, NY 

Ryan Vonlinden, NY 

Cindy J Voorspuy, NY 

Gus J. Voyiatgis, NY 

Clifford E. and Eileene Vroman, NY 

Stephen R. Wade, CA 

Allen and Debra J Wadge, PA 

Carl Wagman, NJ 

Ronald A. and Bette R. Wagner, NY 

Edward Joseph Wagner and Carl E. Wagner, HI 

Carl Wagner and Edward Joseph Wagner, PA 

Irwin and Karoline M. Waldman, CA 

Jackie Waldron, PA 

Steven J and Susan C Walke, NY 

Brad J. Walker, NY 

Daniel J. and Peggy L. Walker, PA 

George Walker, NY 

James S and Donna M Walker, PA 

Richard W. Walker, NY 

Suzy Walker, NY 

Juanita Walker, Et Al, PA 

Dennis Walker, Linda Decker, NY 

Arthur M. Wallace, NY 

Barry Wallace, NY 

Michael and Barbara Walls, NY 

Jane P Walsh, NY 

Dave Walton, NY 

Phillip A. and Valerie A. Walton, NY 

Richard L Walworth, PA 

J Arnold Ward, Sr., NY 

John W. and Judith J. Warner, NY 

Raymond A. Warner, NY 

Robert J. Warner, NY 

Scott and Ginae Warner, NY 

Billy Joe Watson, NY 

Frances S. Watson and Christopher E. Watson, NY 

Stanley E and Donna Waxmundsky, NJ 

Gerald Wayman, SC 

Larry Earl Wayman, NY 

Lisa M. Wayne and Shelly J. Nichols, PA 

John J. Weber and Susan Keeler-Weber, NY 

Fred L and Phyllis Wedman, PA 

Harry J. Weibel, PA 

Daniel L and Lyn M Weideman, NY 

Karen Weinberg, NY 

Steven M and Doreen H Remen Weiner, NY 

June C. Weinheimer, NY 

Stacey L. Weir, NY 

John Weiss, CO 

Sarah Wells Bordi and Jayne Wells, MD 

Madison Wenman, NY 

Barbara Wenzel, NY 

Gerard Werner, NY 

Theodore J Werner, NY 

Terry E. and George Westervelt, NY 

William F and Ellen Louise Wetsel, NY 

William F. Wetsel, NY 

Michele Wetuns, NY 

Joel and Julie Wexler, NY 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-40 

Individuals (continued) 

William Whallon, NY 

Robert K. Wheelhouse, NY 

Joseph and Mary C. Whipple, NY 

Robert Whipple, NY 

Rudy E Whitbeck and Loretta S Whitbeck, NY 

Timothy J. Whitehead, NY 

Susan C. Whiteman, NY 

Robin L. Whiting, N/K/A Robin McTighe and 

Brooke K. Miskell, NY 

Charles A. and Penny K. Whitmore, NY 

Brice Whitney, PA 

Rodney J. Whitney, NY 

Douglas A. and Cynthia L. Whittaker, NY 

James J. Whittaker, NY 

Ann Whynman, PA 

Janet A. and Robert W. Sr. Widell, AL 

Michael A. and Pamela J. Wilber, NY 

Michael A. Wilber, Timothy A. Duell, Joseph 

Pasquariello, NY 

Richard Halsey Wilbur, NY 

Edward Wildlove, Exec, NY 

Ken and Melinda Wiley, NY 

Keith Wilke, NY 

Lawrence Karl and Carol A Wilke, NJ 

Alfred A. and Nora E. Williams, NY 

Bob and Betsy Williams, NY 

Christopher M. and Ruth Jane Williams, NY 

George and Nancy Catherine Williams, NC 

James C. Williams, NY 

Kenneth T. Williams, NY 

Donald W. Williams and Daryl S. Williams, NJ 

Albert Williams and Jean Williams, NY 

Christopher M. Williams and Ruth Jane Williams, 

NY 

Jamse C. Williams, Et Al, NY 

Brian Williamson, NJ 

James Willis, NY 

Lori Willman and Allen C. Dibble, NY 

David A and Solveig Wilson, NY 

Keith Wilson, NY 

Pamela J. Wilson, NY 

Robert Kevin Wilson, NY 

Carman F Wilson and Ruby Wilson, NY 

Eric M. Windus, Jr. and Janet M. Windus, NY 

Robert J. and Cynthia M. Winegard, NY 

Suzanna Winkler, NY 

Thomas K. Winn, NY 

Stanley Wocoszyn, NY 

Florence D. Wojcik Irrevocable Trust and Joseph P. 

Cosentino, PA 

Richard Wolcott, NY 

Michael and Linda Wolfe, NY 

Stanley Woloszyn, NY 

Denise Wolsiefer, NY 

Aaron M. Wood, NY 

Christopher Wood, NY 

Everett J and Bonnie R Wood, NY 

Randy T. and Nathen S. Wood, NY 

Randy T. Wood III, NY 

Nathen S. Wood, Jennifer Stevens, and 

Randy T. Wood, II, NY 

Donna Woodcock, NY 

Daniel J. and Jane S. Woodford, NY 

Ramona E. Woodruff, NY 

Madison T. Woodward III and Thomas M. 

Woodward, TX 

Bruce J and Mary D Wrench, NY 

Annjeanette H. Wright, NY 

Bruce R. Wright, NY 

Charles M. Wright, NY 

Clyde Wright, NY 

Harold Daniel Wright, NY 

James R. Wright, NY 

Karen Wright, NY 

Kenneth A. and Gloria J. Wright, NY 

Martin J. and Edna C. Wright, NY 

Richard and Lynn Wright, NY 

Robert Wright, NY 

Timothy H. Wright, NY 

Mary Wroblewski, NJ 

Charles Wyble, NY 

Gary Wyble and Jennifer Rogers, NY 

Gary Wyble, Charles and Patricia Wyble, NY 

Louise Wyman Schmidt Ir Trust, NY 

James and Judy Yachumiak, PA 

James L Yachymiak, PA 

Joseph Lee and Ashley Marie Yachymiak, PA 

Edward Yachymicak, Jr., PA 

Anne Yazaras, NY 

Mollie A Young, NY 

William Young, Jr., NY 

Frank Youngs, NY 

Thomas E. and Mary Ann Youngs, NY 

Tracy Youngs, NY 

Thomas L. Youngs And Ella J. Youngs, NY 

Marianne M. Younkheere, NY 

Christopher T. Zaba, NY 

Terrence and Nora Zaba, NY 

Elaine Zablocki, NY 

Ed Zaengle, Esq., NY 

Rachel Zander, NY 

Neven Zanki and Bruna Zanki, NY 

Bonnie A and Michael W. Zeffer, David E. Seamans, 

PA 

Michael W. Zeffer, Et Al, PA 

Dorothy J Zeh, NY 

Walter J. and Gail C. Zeh, NY 

Stephen W. Zeh, Jr., NY 

Daniel Zielinski, NY 

 
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-41 

Individuals (continued) 

Peter D Zimmer, NY 

Sara Zimmerman, NY 

Elizabeth Joyce Zipay, NY 

David Zummo, NY 
APPENDIX B 

Project Overview Maps 

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

Turpike Road M&R Station

Spread 1

Contractor Yard

(19.97 AC)

Sutton Road Tie-in

(MP 9.4)

White Road Tie-in

(MP 3.3)

MP 0

MP 1 MP 2

MP 3

MP 4

MP 5

MP 6

MP 7

MP 8

MP 9

Main Line Valves

Permanent Access Road

Temporary Access Road

Proposed Pipeline

Contractor Yards

A! Mileposts

p

0 1 2

Miles

Appendix B

Constitution Pipeline Project

Project Overview Map

Page 1 of 21

B-1
A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

Sutton Road Tie-in

(MP 9.4)

Mainline Valve No. 2 - 

Walkers Road (MP 15.2)

MP 9

MP 10

MP 11

MP 12

MP 13

MP 14

MP 15

MP 16

MP 17

Main Line Valves

Permanent Access Road

Temporary Access Road

Proposed Pipeline

Contractor Yards

A! Mileposts

p

0 1 2

Miles

Appendix B

Constitution Pipeline Project

Project Overview Map

Page 2 of 21

B-2
A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

MP 16

MP 17

MP 18

MP 19

MP 20

MP 21

MP 22

MP 23

MP 24

Main Line Valves

Permanent Access Road

Temporary Access Road

Proposed Pipeline

Contractor Yards

A! Mileposts

p

0 1 2

Miles

Appendix B

Constitution Pipeline Project

Project Overview Map

Page 3 of 21

B-3
A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

Mainline Valve No. 3 - 

Vale Road (MP 26.7)

MP 23

MP 24

MP 25

MP 26

MP 27

MP 28

MP 29

Main Line Valves

Permanent Access Road

Temporary Access Road

Proposed Pipeline

Contractor Yards

A! Mileposts

p

0 1 2

Miles

Appendix B

Constitution Pipeline Project

Project Overview Map

Page 4 of 21

B-4
A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

MP 29

MP 30

MP 31

MP 32

MP 33

MP 34

Main Line Valves

Permanent Access Road

Temporary Access Road

Proposed Pipeline

Contractor Yards

A! Mileposts

p

0 1 2

Miles

Appendix B

Constitution Pipeline Project

Project Overview Map

Page 5 of 21

B-5
A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

Spread 2

Contractor Yard

(19.16 AC)

MP 34

MP 35

MP 36

MP 37

MP 38

MP 39

Main Line Valves

Permanent Access Road

Temporary Access Road

Proposed Pipeline

Contractor Yards

A! Mileposts

p

0 1 2

Miles

Appendix B

Constitution Pipeline Project

Project Overview Map

Page 6 of 21

B-6
A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

Mainline Valve No. 4 -

O'Brien Road (MP 41.2)

Spread 2

Contractor Yard

(19.16 AC)

MP 39

MP 40

MP 41

MP 42

MP 43

MP 44

Main Line Valves

Permanent Access Road

Temporary Access Road

Proposed Pipeline

Contractor Yards

A! Mileposts

p

0 1 2

Miles

Appendix B

Constitution Pipeline Project

Project Overview Map

Page 7 of 21

B-7
A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

MP 44

MP 45

MP 46

MP 47

MP 48

MP 49

MP 50

Main Line Valves

Permanent Access Road

Temporary Access Road

Proposed Pipeline

Contractor Yards

A! Mileposts

p

0 1 2

Miles

Appendix B

Constitution Pipeline Project

Project Overview Map

Page 8 of 21

B-8
A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

Mainline Valve No. 5 -

Access Road/Town Road (MP 52.1)

Spread 3

Contractor Yard

(17.76 AC)

MP 49

MP 50 MP 51

MP 52

MP 53

MP 54

MP 55

MP 56

Main Line Valves

Permanent Access Road

Temporary Access Road

Proposed Pipeline

Contractor Yards

A! Mileposts

p

0 1 2

Miles

Appendix B

Constitution Pipeline Project

Project Overview Map

Page 9 of 21

B-9
A

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

ad (MP 52.1)

MP 55

MP 56

MP 57

MP 58

MP 59

MP 60

Main Line Valves

Permanent Access Road

Temporary Access Road

Proposed Pipeline

Contractor Yards

A! Mileposts

p

0 1 2

Miles

Appendix B

Constitution Pipeline Project

Project Overview Map

Page 10 of 21

B-10
A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

MP 59

MP 60

MP 61

MP 62

MP 63

MP 64

MP 65

MP 66

Main Line Valves

Permanent Access Road

Temporary Access Road

Proposed Pipeline

Contractor Yards

A! Mileposts

p

0 1 2

Miles

Appendix B

Constitution Pipeline Project

Project Overview Map

Page 11 of 21

B-11
A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

Mainline Valve No. 6 -

Stewart Road (MP 66.7)

MP 65

MP 66

MP 67

MP 68

MP 69

MP 70

MP 71

MP 72

MP 73

MP 74

Main Line Valves

Permanent Access Road

Temporary Access Road

Proposed Pipeline

Contractor Yards

A! Mileposts

p

0 1 2

Miles

Appendix B

Constitution Pipeline Project

Project Overview Map

Page 12 of 21

B-12
A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

Spread 4a

Contractor Yard

(26.90 AC)

MP 73

MP 74

MP 75

MP 76

MP 77 MP 78

MP 79

MP 80

MP 81

Main Line Valves

Permanent Access Road

Temporary Access Road

Proposed Pipeline

Contractor Yards

A! Mileposts

p

0 1 2

Miles

Appendix B

Constitution Pipeline Project

Project Overview Map

Page 13 of 21

B-13
A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

Mainline Valve No. 7 -

County Road 10 (MP 81.8)

MP 80

MP 81

MP 82

MP 83

MP 84

MP 85

MP 86

MP 87

MP 88

Main Line Valves

Permanent Access Road

Temporary Access Road

Proposed Pipeline

Contractor Yards

A! Mileposts

p

0 1 2

Miles

Appendix B

Constitution Pipeline Project

Project Overview Map

Page 14 of 21

B-14
A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

Mainline Valve No. 8 -

Clapper Hollow Road (MP 95.1)

MP 87

MP 88

MP 89

MP 90

MP 91

MP 92

MP 93 MP 94

MP 95

Main Line Valves

Permanent Access Road

Temporary Access Road

Proposed Pipeline

Contractor Yards

A! Mileposts

p

0 1 2

Miles

Appendix B

Constitution Pipeline Project

Project Overview Map

Page 15 of 21

B-15
A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

Spread 4b

Contractor Yard

(12.54 AC)

MP 91

MP 92

MP 93

MP 94

Main Line Valves

Permanent Access Road

Temporary Access Road

Proposed Pipeline

Contractor Yards

A! Mileposts

p

0 1 2

Miles

Appendix B

Constitution Pipeline Project

Project Overview Map

Page 16 of 21

B-16
A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

Mainline Valve No. 8 -

Clapper Hollow Road (MP 95.1)

MP 93 MP 94

MP 95

MP 96

MP 97

MP 98

MP 99

MP 100

MP 101

MP 102

Main Line Valves

Permanent Access Road

Temporary Access Road

Proposed Pipeline

Contractor Yards

A! Mileposts

p

0 1 2

Miles

Appendix B

Constitution Pipeline Project

Project Overview Map

Page 17 of 21

B-17
A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

Mainline Valve No. 9 -

Access Road/Dodge Lodge Road

(MP 108.5)

MP 101

MP 102

MP 103

MP 104

MP 105

MP 106

MP 107

MP 108

MP 109

MP 110

Main Line Valves

Permanent Access Road

Temporary Access Road

Proposed Pipeline

Contractor Yards

A! Mileposts

p

0 1 2

Miles

Appendix B

Constitution Pipeline Project

Project Overview Map

Page 18 of 21

B-18
A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

Mainline Valve No. 9 -

Access Road/Dodge Lodge Road

(MP 108.5)

Spread 5 Contractor Yard

14.44 Acres

MP 108

MP 109

MP 110

MP 111

MP 112 MP 113

MP 114

Main Line Valves

Permanent Access Road

Temporary Access Road

Proposed Pipeline

Contractor Yards

A! Mileposts

p

0 1 2

Miles

Appendix B

Constitution Pipeline Project

Project Overview Map

Page 19 of 21

B-19
A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A

A!

MP 113

MP 114

MP 115

MP 116

MP 117

MP 118

MP 119

Main Line Valves

Permanent Access Road

Temporary Access Road

Proposed Pipeline

Contractor Yards

A! Mileposts

p

0 1 2

Miles

Appendix B

Constitution Pipeline Project

Project Overview Map

Page 20 of 21

B-20
A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

Mainline Valve No. 10 -

Smith Road (MP 119.6)

Wright Interconnect Project

Compressor Station and

Westfall Road M&R Station

MP 118

MP 119

MP 120

MP 121

MP 122

MP 123

MP 124

Main Line Valves

Permanent Access Road

Temporary Access Road

Proposed Pipeline

Contractor Yards

A! Mileposts

p

0 1 2

Miles

Appendix B

Constitution Pipeline Project

Project Overview Map

Page 21 of 21

B-21
APPENDIX C 

Typical Right-of-Way Configurations 

Date: December 2013

Not to Scale Constitution Pipel

Typical Construction Horizonta

Typical construction drawing obtained from Constitution’s Environmental Construction Plan

C-1
Date: December 2013

Not to Scale Constitution Pipel

Typical Access Road 

Typical construction drawing obtained from Constitution’s Environmental Construction Plan

C-2
Date: March 2010

Not to Scale Constitution Pipel

Typical Construction Cor

Construct

Typical construction drawing obtained from Constitution’s Environmental Construction Plan

C-3
Date: December 2013

Not to Scale Constitution Pipel

Typical Constructi

Across Agricultu

Typical construction drawing obtained from Constitution’s Environmental Construction Plan

C-4
Date: December 2013

Not to Scale Constitution Pipel

Typical Construction C

Saturated We

Typical construction drawing obtained from Constitution’s Environmental Construction Plan

C-5
Date: December 2013

Not to Scale Constitution Pipel

Typical Constructi

Across Non-Saturat

Typical construction drawing obtained from Constitution’s Environmental Construction Plan

C-6
Date: December 2013

Not to Scale Constitution Pipel

Typical Constructi

Construction at Ro

Typical construction drawing obtained from Constitution’s Environmental Construction Plan

C-7
Date: December 2013

Not to Scale Constitution Pipel

Typical Right-of-Way 

Co-Located Within Utility R

Typical construction drawing obtained from Constitution’s Environmental Construction Plan

C-8
Date: December 2013

Not to Scale Constitution Pipeli

Typical Right-of-Way Cross-

Adjacent to Utility ROW 

Typical construction drawing obtained from Constitution’s Environmental Construction Plan

C-9
Date: December 2013

Not to Scale Constitution Pipeli

Typical Construction Corr

Construction with Overhead 

Typical construction drawing obtained from Constitution’s Environmental Construction Plan

C-10
Date: December 2013

Not to Scale Constitution Pipeli

Typical Right-of-Way C

Co-Located Within Utility RO

Typical construction drawing obtained from Constitution’s Environmental Construction Plan

C-11
Date: December 2013

Not to Scale Constitution Pipeli

Typical Right-of-Way C

Across Interior Fo

Typical construction drawing obtained from Constitution’s Environmental Construction Plan

C-12
Date: December 2013

Not to Scale Constitution Pipeli

Typical Right-of-Way C

Normal Construction with Foreign Pip

Typical construction drawing obtained from Constitution’s Environmental Construction Plan

C-13
Date: December 2013

Not to Scale Constitution Pipeli

Typical Right-of-Way C

Co-Located Within Utility 

Typical construction drawing obtained from Constitution’s Environmental Construction Plan

C-14
Date: December 2013

Not to Scale Constitution Pipeli

Typical Right-of-Way Cross-Section Co

Foreign Pipeline Crossing – A

Typical construction drawing obtained from Constitution’s Environmental Construction Plan

C-15
Date: December 2013

Not to Scale Constitution Pipeli

Typical Right-of-Way Cross-Section Co

Foreign Pipeline Crossin

Typical construction drawing obtained from Constitution’s Environmental Construction Plan

C-16
Date: December 2013

Not to Scale Constitution Pipeli

Typical Right-of-Way Cross-Section Co

Overhead Utility Line Cross

Typical construction drawing obtained from Constitution’s Environmental Construction Plan

C-17
Date: December 2013

Not to Scale Constitution Pipeli

Typical Right-of-Way Cross-Section Co

Overhead Utility Line Cross

Typical construction drawing obtained from Constitution’s Environmental Construction Plan

C-18
Date: December 2013

Not to Scale Constitution Pipeli

Typical Right-of-Way Cross-Section Co

Overhead Utility Line Crossing 

Typical construction drawing obtained from Constitution’s Environmental Construction Plan

C-19
Date: December 2013

Not to Scale Constitution Pipeli

Typical Right-of-Way Cross-

Adjacent to Utility R

Typical construction drawing obtained from Constitution’s Environmental Construction Plan

C-20
Date: December 2013

Not to Scale Constitution Pipeli

Typical Right-of-Way Cross-

Adjacent to Utili

Typical construction drawing obtained from Constitution’s Environmental Construction Plan

C-21
Date: December 2013

Not to Scale Constitution Pipeli

Typical Right-of-Way Cross-

Within Utility Corridor Rig

Typical construction drawing obtained from Constitution’s Environmental Construction Plan

C-22
Date: December 2013

Not to Scale Constitution Pipeli

Typical Right-of-Way Cross-

Within Existing Utility 

Typical construction drawing obtained from Constitution’s Environmental Construction Plan

C-23
Date: December 2013

Not to Scale Constitution Pipeli

Typical Right-of-Way Cross-

Adjacent to Utility ROW L

Typical construction drawing obtained from Constitution’s Environmental Construction Plan

C-24
APPENDIX D 

Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction 

of the Constitution Pipeline Project 

 

D-1 

APPENDIX D 

Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project a,f

ATWS ID #

Township/ 

Town

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Nominalb

Dimensions 

(feet)

Area 

Affectede

(acres)

Existing 

Land Usec

Wetland or Waterbody 

within 50 feet

Width Length 

PENNSYLVANIASusquehanna County ATWS 001 Brooklyn 0.2 0.2 Varies 150 0.1 UF ATWS 002 Brooklyn 0.2 0.2 24 65 0.0 AG, UF SU-1C-W344 ATWS 003 Brooklyn 0.5 0.5 50 150 0.2 AG SU-1B-W227 ATWS 004 Brooklyn 0.8 0.8 50 100 0.1 UF SU-1X-W345 ATWS 005 Brooklyn 0.9 0.9 50 100 0.1 OL, UF SU-1Q-W316 ATWS 006 Brooklyn 1.2 1.2 50 48 0.1 UF ATWS 007 Brooklyn 1.2 1.2 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 008 Brooklyn 2.1 2.1 50 100 0.1 OL SU-1C-W187 ATWS 009 Brooklyn 2.2 2.2 50 100 0.1 OL SU-1C-W187 ATWS 010 Brooklyn 2.5 2.6 50 100 0.1 AG ATWS 011 Brooklyn 2.8 2.9 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 012 Brooklyn 2.9 2.9 90 166 0.5 ID, UF ATWS 013 Brooklyn 2.9 2.9 150 116 0.3 UF ATWS 014 Brooklyn 2.9 2.9 47 150 0.3 UF ATWS 015 Harford 3.0 3.0 50 100 0.1 RE, UF SU-1B-S228 ATWS 016 Harford 3.0 3.1 50 96 0.1 OL, UF SU-1M-S229, SU-1B-S275 ATWS 017 Harford 3.1 3.1 50 150 0.2 UF SU-1M-S275A ATWS 018 Harford 3.3 3.3 50 100 0.1 UF SU-1B-W234 ATWS 019 Harford 3.3 3.3 50 33 0.1 UF SU-1M-S276, SU-1M-S276A ATWS 020 Harford 3.3 3.4 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 021 Harford 4.2 4.2 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 022 Harford 4.3 4.3 50 100 0.1 AG,UF ATWS 023 New Milford 4.4 4.4 50 100 0.1 AG 
D-2 

APPENDIX D (continued) 

Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project a,f

ATWS ID #

Township/ 

Town

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Nominalb

Dimensions 

(feet)

Area 

Affectede

(acres)

Existing 

Land Usec

Wetland or Waterbody 

within 50 feet

Width Length 

ATWS 024 New Milford 4.6 4.6 50 100 0.1 AG ATWS 025 New Milford 5.2 5.5 40 1147 1.0 AG, UF ATWS 026 New Milford 5.5 5.5 50 150 0.2 AG, UF ATWS 027 New Milford 5.5 5.6 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 028 New Milford 6.1 6.1 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 029 New Milford 6.1 6.2 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 030 New Milford 6.6 6.6 50 150 0.2 OL, UF ATWS 031 New Milford 6.8 6.9 50 150 0.2 AG SU-1F-W135 ATWS 032 New Milford 7.8 7.8 50 150 0.2 AG, RD ATWS 033 New Milford 7.9 7.9 50 74 0.1 AG, UF ATWS 034 New Milford 7.9 7.9 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 035 New Milford 8.4 8.4 50 85 0.1 RE ATWS 036 New Milford 8.4 8.5 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 037 New Milford 8.7 8.7 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 038 New Milford 8.8 8.8 50 150 0.2 AG, UF ATWS 039 New Milford 8.9 8.9 50 90 0.1 UF SU-1F-W141 ATWS 040 New Milford 9.1 9.1 50 100 0.1 AG SU-1C-W149A ATWS 041 New Milford 9.2 9.2 50 150 0.2 AG SU-1F-W141, SU-1D-S230, 

SU-1D-W245 

ATWS 042 New Milford 9.3 9.3 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 043 New Milford 9.7 9.8 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 044 New Milford 9.8 9.8 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 045 New Milford 10.0 10.0 50 50 0.1 UF SU-1C-S029G, SU-1D-W250 ATWS 046 New Milford 10.0 10.0 50 42 0.0 UF SU-1D-W250 ATWS 047 New Milford 10.0 10.0 50 150 0.2 UF, OL SU-1X-W253, SU-1D-W254 ATWS 049 New Milford 10.1 10.2 50 150 0.2 OL 
D-3 

APPENDIX D (continued) 

Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project a,f

ATWS ID #

Township/ 

Town

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Nominalb

Dimensions 

(feet)

Area 

Affectede

(acres)

Existing 

Land Usec

Wetland or Waterbody 

within 50 feet

Width Length 

ATWS 048 New Milford 10.2 10.2 200 76 0.7 OL SU-1D-W254 ATWS 050 New Milford 10.7 10.7 50 206 0.2 AG ATWS 051 New Milford 10.9 10.9 50 100 0.1 AG ATWS 052 New Milford 11.0 11.1 50 100 0.1 UF SU-1E-W040, SU-1G-W305 ATWS 053 New Milford 11.2 11.2 50 115 0.1 OL, UF ATWS 054 New Milford 11.2 11.3 50 248 0.3 UF ATWS 055 New Milford 11.5 11.6 50 150 0.2 OL, UF ATWS 056 New Milford 11.7 11.7 50 100 0.1 UF SU-1B-W045 ATWS 057 New Milford 11.8 11.8 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 058 New Milford 12.0 12.0 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 059 New Milford 12.8 12.8 50 150 0.2 OL, UF SU-1L-W307 ATWS 060 New Milford 12.8 12.8 50 62 0.1 OL, UF ATWS 061 New Milford 12.9 12.9 50 100 0.1 OL, UF ATWS 062 Jackson 13.5 13.5 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 063 Jackson 13.6 13.6 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 064 Jackson 14.2 14.2 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 065 Jackson 14.3 14.3 50 150 0.2 OL ATWS 066 Jackson 14.4 14.4 50 75 0.1 RE,UF SU-1B-W134, SU-1G-W055, 

SU-1B-S134 

ATWS 067 Jackson 14.4 14.5 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 068 Jackson 14.6 14.7 50 150 0.2 AG, OL ATWS 069 Jackson 14.8 14.8 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 070 Jackson 15.0 15.1 50 565 0.5 AG, OL, UF SU-1K-S064 ATWS 071 Jackson 15.2 15.2 50 100 0.1 AG ATWS 072 Jackson 15.2 15.3 50 100 0.1 UF SU-1G-W059A ATWS 073 Jackson 15.3 15.3 125 225 0.6 UF SU-1K-S067, SU-1G-S068, 
D-4 

APPENDIX D (continued) 

Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project a,f

ATWS ID #

Township/ 

Town

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Nominalb

Dimensions 

(feet)

Area 

Affectede

(acres)

Existing 

Land Usec

Wetland or Waterbody 

within 50 feet

Width Length 

SU-1G-W059A 

ATWS 074 Jackson 15.7 15.7 115 254 0.6 AG, OL, UF SU-1K-W064 ATWS 075 Oakland 16.3 16.3 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 076 Oakland 16.4 16.4 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 077 Oakland 16.6 16.6 50 150 0.2 UF SU-1H-W164 ATWS 078 Oakland 16.7 16.8 50 316 0.4 OL, UF ATWS 079 Oakland 16.8 16.9 50 317 0.4 OL, RD SU-XX-S16.87 ATWS 080 Oakland 16.9 16.9 50 150 0.2 OL ATWS 081 Oakland 17.0 17.0 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 082 Harmony 17.1 17.1 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 083 Harmony 17.2 17.3 50 313 0.4 UF ATWS 084 Harmony 17.9 18.0 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 085 Harmony 18.0 18.0 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 086 Harmony 18.8 18.8 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 090 Harmony 18.9 19.0 50 150 0.2 CM, UF ATWS 091 Harmony 19.9 19.9 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 092 Harmony 19.9 20.0 50 167 0.2 UF SU-1G-S286A ATWS 093 Harmony 20.0 20.1 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 094 Harmony 20.7 20.7 50 55 0.1 UF SU-1S-W304 ATWS 095 Harmony 20.8 20.8 50 100 0.1 UF SU-1S-W309 ATWS 096 Harmony 21.5 21.5 50 150 0.2 OL, UF SU-1G-S367 ATWS 097 Harmony 21.6 21.6 100 175 0.4 OL, RE, UF ATWS 098 Harmony 21.7 21.7 50 150 0.2 RD, RE ATWS 099 Harmony 21.7 21.7 50 150 0.2 RD, RE ATWS 100 Harmony 21.8 21.8 50 100 0.1 RE ATWS 101 Harmony 21.8 21.9 50 100 0.1 UF SU-1C-W289A 
D-5 

APPENDIX D (continued) 

Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project a,f

ATWS ID #

Township/ 

Town

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Nominalb

Dimensions 

(feet)

Area 

Affectede

(acres)

Existing 

Land Usec

Wetland or Waterbody 

within 50 feet

Width Length 

ATWS 102 Harmony 22.4 22.5 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 103 Harmony 22.5 22.6 50 100 0.1 RE ATWS 104 Harmony 22.6 22.6 50 46 0.1 OL, RD, RE SU-1G-W312, SU-1C-S282 ATWS 105 Harmony 22.7 22.7 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 106 Harmony 22.8 22.8 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 107 Harmony 23.3 23.3 50 100 0.1 OL, UF ATWS 108 Harmony 23.4 23.4 50 100 0.1 OL, UF ATWS 109 Harmony 23.8 23.8 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 110 Harmony 23.9 23.9 50 100 0.1 UF SU-1B-S277 ATWS 111 Harmony 24.2 24.3 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 112 Harmony 24.3 24.3 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 113 Harmony 24.4 24.4 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 114 Harmony 24.4 24.5 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 115 Harmony 25.0 25.0 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 116 Harmony 25.1 25.1 50 100 0.1 UF SU-1C-W170 

Pennsylvania Pipeline Extra Workspaces Total 19.5 

NEW YORK Broome County ATWS 117 Sanford 26.4 26.4 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 118 Sanford 26.5 26.5 50 165 0.2 UF ATWS 119 Sanford 26.7 26.7 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 121 Sanford 26.8 26.8 42 110 0.1 UF ATWS 120 Sanford 26.8 26.8 50 176 0.2 RE, UF ATWS 122 Sanford 26.9 27.1 40 957 0.9 UF ATWS 123 Sanford 27.2 27.2 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 124 Sanford 27.3 27.3 50 150 0.2 OL BR-XX-S27.26 
D-6 

APPENDIX D (continued) 

Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project a,f

ATWS ID #

Township/ 

Town

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Nominalb

Dimensions 

(feet)

Area 

Affectede

(acres)

Existing 

Land Usec

Wetland or Waterbody 

within 50 feet

Width Length 

ATWS 125 Sanford 27.4 27.4 50 100 0.1 AG ATWS 126 Sanford 28.3 28.4 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 127 Sanford 28.4 28.5 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 128 Sanford 28.5 28.6 50 315 0.3 OL, UF BR-1J-W210 ATWS 129 Sanford 28.7 28.7 50 100 0.1 OL BR-1J-W210, BR-1H-S178 ATWS 130 Sanford 28.9 28.9 50 150 0.2 OL, UF ATWS 131 Sanford 28.9 28.9 50 198 0.2 OL, RE, WB BR-1J-S170 ATWS 132 Sanford 29.1 29.1 50 150 0.1 OL ATWS 133 Sanford 29.2 29.2 50 100 0.1 OL ATWS 134 Sanford 29.4 29.4 50 100 0.1 UF BR-1I-S050 ATWS 135 Sanford 29.7 29.7 50 100 0.1 UF BR-1I-S051 ATWS 136 Sanford 29.8 29.8 50 100 0.1 OL ATWS 137 Sanford 29.8 29.9 50 150 0.2 OL ATWS 138 Sanford 29.9 29.9 50 150 0.1 UF ATWS 139 Sanford 30.2 30.3 50 300 0.4 AG, UF ATWS 140 Sanford 30.3 30.4 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 141 Sanford 30.4 30.4 50 190 0.3 AG BR-1I-W055 ATWS 142 Sanford 30.4 30.5 40 405 0.4 AG BR-1I-W056, BR-1I-W054B ATWS 143 Sanford 30.7 30.7 50 244 0.3 AG, UF BR-1B-W057 ATWS 144 Sanford 30.7 30.8 50 150 0.2 AG, UF BR-1I-S055 ATWS 145 Sanford 30.8 30.9 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 146 Sanford 30.9 30.9 50 150 0.2 RE ATWS 147 Sanford 31.7 31.7 50 150 0.2 UF BR-1H-S132 ATWS 148 Sanford 31.8 31.8 50 359 0.4 AG, UF BR-1H-S132 ATWS 149 Sanford 31.8 31.9 50 150 0.2 AG, UF ATWS 150 Sanford 32.7 32.7 50 150 0.2 UF 
D-7 

APPENDIX D (continued) 

Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project a,f

ATWS ID #

Township/ 

Town

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Nominalb

Dimensions 

(feet)

Area 

Affectede

(acres)

Existing 

Land Usec

Wetland or Waterbody 

within 50 feet

Width Length 

ATWS 152 Sanford 32.7 32.9 50 774 0.9 AG BR-1I-S188A ATWS 151 Sanford 32.8 32.8 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 153 Sanford 32.9 32.9 50 100 0.1 AG, UF ATWS 154 Sanford 32.9 33.0 50 100 0.1 OL, UF BR-1G-S188 ATWS 155 Sanford 33.1 33.1 50 100 0.1 OL, UF BR-1I-W059 ATWS 156 Sanford 33.3 33.3 50 150 0.2 PSS BR-1I-W059 ATWS 157 Sanford 33.6 33.6 50 150 0.2 UF BR-1G-S186 ATWS 158 Sanford 33.7 33.7 50 150 0.2 AG BR-1G-S185 ATWS 159 Sanford 33.9 33.9 50 200 0.2 AG ATWS 160 Sanford 34.0 34.0 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 161 Sanford 34.5 34.6 50 242 0.3 OL BR-1H-S181A, BR-1S-S181 ATWS 162 Sanford 34.6 34.6 50 64 0.1 OL, UF BR-1S-S181 ATWS 163 Sanford 34.8 34.8 50 100 0.1 OL BR-1H-W156 ATWS 164 Sanford 34.9 34.9 50 100 0.1 OL ATWS 165 Sanford 34.9 34.9 50 150 0.2 OL BR-1H-W156 ATWS 166 Sanford 35.0 35.0 50 150 0.2 OL ATWS 167 Sanford 35.1 35.2 50 100 0.1 OL, RE BR-1K-W161 ATWS 168 Sanford 35.3 35.3 50 100 0.1 OL ATWS 169 Sanford 35.5 35.5 50 100 0.1 OL BR-1U-W168 ATWS 170 Sanford 35.6 35.6 50 100 0.1 OL BR-1U-W168 ATWS 171 Sanford 35.6 35.7 50 242 0.3 OL ATWS 172 Sanford 35.8 35.8 50 200 0.2 AG, UF ATWS 173 Sanford 35.8 35.9 50 140 0.2 AG ATWS 174 Sanford 36.1 36.1 50 70 0.1 AG ATWS 175 Sanford 36.2 36.2 50 100 0.1 AG ATWS 176 Sanford 36.3 36.3 50 120 0.2 UF 
D-8 

APPENDIX D (continued) 

Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project a,f

ATWS ID #

Township/ 

Town

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Nominalb

Dimensions 

(feet)

Area 

Affectede

(acres)

Existing 

Land Usec

Wetland or Waterbody 

within 50 feet

Width Length 

ATWS 177 Sanford 36.3 36.3 50 142 0.2 AG ATWS 178 Sanford 36.5 36.5 50 100 0.1 OL, UF ATWS 179 Sanford 36.6 36.6 25 145 0.1 UF ATWS 180 Sanford 36.7 36.7 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 181 Sanford 37.2 37.3 50 150 0.2 OL ATWS 182 Sanford 37.3 37.3 50 218 0.3 OL, UF ATWS 183 Sanford 37.3 37.4 50 275 0.3 UF BR-1I-S067 ATWS 184 Sanford 37.7 37.8 50 100 0.1 OL ATWS 185 Sanford 37.8 37.8 50 100 0.1 OL ATWS 186 Sanford 37.9 38.0 50 100 0.1 UF BR-1B-W074 ATWS 187 Sanford 38.1 38.1 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 188 Sanford 38.2 38.2 50 284 0.3 OL, RD, UF ATWS 189 Sanford 38.4 38.4 50 121 0.1 OL ATWS 191 Sanford 38.7 38.7 50 150 0.2 OL, UF ATWS 192 Sanford 38.9 38.9 50 70 0.1 UF BR-1C-W180 ATWS 193 Sanford 39.1 39.1 50 85 0.1 OL ATWS 194 Sanford 39.2 39.3 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 195 Sanford 39.6 39.6 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 196 Sanford 39.7 39.7 50 100 0.1 UF BR-1C-S221 ATWS 197 Sanford 40.1 40.1 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 198 Sanford 40.2 40.3 50 150 0.1 UF ATWS 199 Sanford 40.3 40.3 50 150 0.2 RE, UF ATWS 200 Sanford 40.4 40.4 50 77 0.1 UF ATWS 201 Sanford 40.4 40.5 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 202 Sanford 40.6 40.6 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 203 Sanford 40.7 40.8 50 150 0.2 UF 
D-9 

APPENDIX D (continued) 

Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project a,f

ATWS ID #

Township/ 

Town

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Nominalb

Dimensions 

(feet)

Area 

Affectede

(acres)

Existing 

Land Usec

Wetland or Waterbody 

within 50 feet

Width Length 

ATWS 204 Sanford 40.8 40.9 50 157 0.1 AG ATWS 205 Sanford 40.9 40.9 50 100 0.1 AG ATWS 206 Sanford 41.1 41.2 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 207 Sanford 41.5 41.5 50 100 0.1 AG ATWS 208 Sanford 41.7 41.8 50 150 0.2 OL BR-1X-W192 ATWS 209 Sanford 41.9 42.0 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 210 Sanford 42.0 42.0 50 150 0.2 AG, UF ATWS 211 Sanford 42.1 42.1 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 212 Sanford 42.2 42.2 50 150 0.2 UF Chenango County ATWS 213 Afton 42.4 42.4 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 214 Afton 42.4 42.5 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 215 Afton 42.6 42.6 50 100 0.1 OL ATWS 216 Afton 42.7 42.8 50 110 0.1 UF ATWS 217 Afton 42.8 42.8 50 88 0.1 UF CH-XX-S42.78 ATWS 218 Afton 43.1 43.1 50 150 0.2 OL ATWS 219 Afton 43.1 43.1 50 150 0.2 OL ATWS 220 Afton 43.4 43.5 50 100 0.1 OL, UF ATWS 221 Afton 43.6 43.6 50 100 0.1 OL ATWS 222 Afton 43.6 43.6 50 100 0.1 OL ATWS 223 Afton 43.9 43.9 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 224 Afton 44.0 44.0 50 150 0.2 RD, UF ATWS 225 Afton 44.0 44.1 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 226 Afton 45.1 45.1 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 227 Afton 45.2 45.2 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 231 Afton 45.3 45.3 50 150 0.2 AG, UF 
D-10 

APPENDIX D (continued) 

Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project a,f

ATWS ID #

Township/ 

Town

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Nominalb

Dimensions 

(feet)

Area 

Affectede

(acres)

Existing 

Land Usec

Wetland or Waterbody 

within 50 feet

Width Length 

ATWS 232 Afton 45.7 45.7 50 100 0.1 OL, UF ATWS 233 Afton 45.9 46.0 50 100 0.1 AG, UF ATWS 234 Afton 46.1 46.1 50 100 0.1 AG ATWS 235 Afton 46.2 46.2 50 100 0.1 AG ATWS 236 Afton 46.2 46.2 50 100 0.1 AG CH-1X-S063 ATWS 237 Afton 46.3 46.3 50 100 0.1 AG CH-1X-W067 ATWS 238 Afton 46.3 46.4 50 100 0.1 AG ATWS 238A Afton 46.4 46.4 65 150 0.2 UF ATWS 239 Afton 46.5 46.6 50 100 0.1 UF CH-1Q-W038 ATWS 240 Afton 46.7 46.7 50 150 0.2 UF CH-1Q-W040 ATWS 241 Afton 46.7 46.7 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 242 Afton 46.8 46.8 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 243 Afton 46.8 46.8 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 244 Afton 47.2 47.3 50 85 0.1 AG ATWS 245 Afton 47.3 47.3 50 100 0.1 AG, RE CH-1C-W017, CH-1C-S008 ATWS 246 Afton 47.3 47.4 200 250 1.1 AG ATWS 247 Afton 47.4 47.5 65 388 0.5 AG, PEM CH-1C-W018 ATWS 248 Bainbridge 47.5 47.6 75 410 0.7 AG ATWS 249 Bainbridge 47.9 47.9 100 250 0.7 AG ATWS 249 Bainbridge 47.9 47.9 50 125 0.7 AG ATWS 250 Bainbridge 48.0 48.0 50 123 0.1 OL ATWS 251 Bainbridge 48.0 48.1 50 150 0.2 UF CH-1H-W025 ATWS 252 Bainbridge 48.2 48.2 50 147 0.2 AG, UF ATWS 253 Bainbridge 48.3 48.3 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 254 Bainbridge 48.4 48.4 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 255 Bainbridge 49.6 49.6 50 100 0.1 UF 
D-11 

APPENDIX D (continued) 

Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project a,f

ATWS ID #

Township/ 

Town

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Nominalb

Dimensions 

(feet)

Area 

Affectede

(acres)

Existing 

Land Usec

Wetland or Waterbody 

within 50 feet

Width Length 

ATWS 256 Bainbridge 49.7 49.7 50 101 0.1 UF ATWS 257 Bainbridge 50.4 50.5 50 150 0.2 UF Delaware County ATWS 258 Masonville 50.6 50.7 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 259 Masonville 50.9 50.9 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 260 Masonville 51.0 51.1 50 150 0.2 UF DE-1B-S027 ATWS 261 Masonville 51.5 51.5 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 262 Masonville 51.6 51.7 50 150 0.2 AG DE-1H-S028 ATWS 263 Masonville 52.1 52.2 50 100 0.1 UF DE-1K-W227 ATWS 264 Masonville 52.2 52.2 50 50 0.1 UF ATWS 265 Sidney 52.6 52.6 50 117 0.1 UF ATWS 266 Sidney 52.7 52.8 50 150 0.2 OL, UF ATWS 267 Sidney 53.4 53.5 50 613 0.7 OL, UF ATWS 268 Sidney 53.5 53.6 50 150 0.2 RE ATWS 269 Sidney 53.6 53.6 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 270 Sidney 53.8 53.8 50 163 0.2 AG ATWS 271 Sidney 53.8 53.9 50 146 0.2 UF ATWS 272 Sidney 53.9 54.2 25 1563 0.9 UF ATWS 273 Sidney 54.2 54.3 108 250 0.6 UF ATWS 274 Sidney 55.2 55.2 75 250 0.4 UF ATWS 275 Sidney 55.2 55.3 100 250 0.5 PEM, PFO, 

OL, UF 

DE-1F-W075 

ATWS 276 Sidney 55.7 55.8 50 150 0.2 OL DE-1K-S077A ATWS 277 Sidney 55.9 56.0 50 425 0.5 OL, UF ATWS 278 Sidney 56.0 56.1 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 279 Sidney 56.3 56.3 50 179 0.2 UF 
D-12 

APPENDIX D (continued) 

Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project a,f

ATWS ID #

Township/ 

Town

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Nominalb

Dimensions 

(feet)

Area 

Affectede

(acres)

Existing 

Land Usec

Wetland or Waterbody 

within 50 feet

Width Length 

ATWS 280 Sidney 56.3 56.4 50 140 0.2 AG, UF ATWS 281 Sidney 56.4 56.5 50 150 0.2 AG, OL ATWS 282 Sidney 56.5 56.5 50 142 0.2 AG ATWS 283 Sidney 56.7 56.7 50 150 0.2 OL, UF DE-1X-W56.74 ATWS 284 Sidney 56.8 56.8 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 285 Sidney 57.0 57.0 50 60 0.1 AG, OL, UF ATWS 286 Sidney 57.0 57.1 50 100 0.1 AG ATWS 287 Sidney 57.8 57.8 50 150 0.2 OL ATWS 288 Sidney 58.0 58.1 50 195 0.2 UF ATWS 289 Sidney 58.2 58.2 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 290 Sidney 58.2 58.2 50 150 0.2 AG, UF ATWS 291 Sidney 58.3 58.4 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 292 Sidney 58.7 58.7 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 293 Sidney 58.8 58.8 50 100 0.1 OL ATWS 294 Sidney 58.9 58.9 50 100 0.1 AG, UF ATWS 295 Sidney 59.1 59.1 50 150 0.2 AG, UF ATWS 296 Sidney 59.4 59.5 50 150 0.2 UF DE-1M-S080 ATWS 297 Sidney 59.7 59.7 50 115 0.1 UF ATWS 298 Sidney 59.9 59.9 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 299 Sidney 59.9 60.0 50 150 0.1 AG ATWS 300 Sidney 60.3 60.3 50 100 0.1 UF DE-1C-W205 ATWS 301 Sidney 60.3 60.3 50 100 0.1 OL DE-1C-W205 ATWS 302 Sidney 60.6 60.6 50 90 0.1 OL ATWS 303 Sidney 60.6 60.6 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 304 Sidney 60.7 60.8 150 159 0.4 AG DE-1P-W134 ATWS 305 Sidney 60.8 60.8 50 89 0.1 AG 
D-13 

APPENDIX D (continued) 

Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project a,f

ATWS ID #

Township/ 

Town

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Nominalb

Dimensions 

(feet)

Area 

Affectede

(acres)

Existing 

Land Usec

Wetland or Waterbody 

within 50 feet

Width Length 

ATWS 306 Sidney 61.1 61.1 50 100 0.1 AG, UF ATWS 307 Sidney 61.2 61.2 50 150 0.2 OL, UF ATWS 308 Sidney 61.2 61.2 50 150 0.2 OL ATWS 309 Sidney 61.3 61.3 50 100 0.1 OL ATWS 310 Sidney 61.4 61.4 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 310A Sidney 61.6 61.6 50 78 0.1 UF ATWS 311 Sidney 61.6 61.6 50 150 0.2 OL, UF ATWS 312 Sidney 63.1 63.1 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 313 Sidney 63.2 63.2 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 314 Sidney 63.6 63.6 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 315 Sidney 63.7 63.8 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 316 Sidney 63.9 63.9 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 317 Sidney 64.0 64.0 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 318 Franklin 65.2 65.2 50 155 0.2 UF ATWS 319 Franklin 65.2 65.3 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 320 Franklin 66.0 66.0 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 321 Franklin 66.0 66.0 50 150 0.2 OL ATWS 322 Franklin 66.2 66.2 50 150 0.2 OL ATWS 323 Franklin 66.3 66.4 50 150 0.2 AG, UF DE-1M-W175 ATWS 324 Franklin 66.7 66.8 50 150 0.2 OL ATWS 325 Franklin 66.8 66.8 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 326 Franklin 68.8 68.8 50 106 0.1 UF DE-XX-S68.81 ATWS 327 Franklin 68.9 68.9 50 150 0.2 OL, UF ATWS 328 Franklin 69.5 69.5 50 100 0.1 OL, UF ATWS 329 Franklin 69.5 69.5 50 100 0.2 OL ATWS 330 Franklin 70.6 70.6 50 89 0.1 AG, UF DE-1W-S055A 
D-14 

APPENDIX D (continued) 

Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project a,f

ATWS ID #

Township/ 

Town

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Nominalb

Dimensions 

(feet)

Area 

Affectede

(acres)

Existing 

Land Usec

Wetland or Waterbody 

within 50 feet

Width Length 

ATWS 331 Franklin 70.8 70.9 50 100 0.1 OL, UF ATWS 333 Franklin 71.0 71.0 50 96 0.1 OL, RD, UF DE-1W-W065 ATWS 334 Franklin 71.0 71.0 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 335 Franklin 71.5 71.5 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 336 Franklin 71.5 71.6 50 129 0.1 ID ATWS 337 Franklin 71.6 71.6 140 200 0.6 AG ATWS 338 Franklin 71.7 71.7 100 438 0.6 AG, UF DE-1W-W073 ATWS 339 Franklin 71.8 71.8 50 100 0.1 AG, UF ATWS 340 Franklin 71.9 71.9 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 341 Franklin 72.2 72.3 50 410 0.4 UF ATWS 342 Franklin 73.0 73.0 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 343 Franklin 73.0 73.0 50 150 0.2 UF DE-XX-S72.98 ATWS 344 Franklin 73.2 73.3 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 345 Franklin 73.3 73.3 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 346 Franklin 73.4 73.5 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 347 Franklin 73.6 73.6 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 348 Davenport 74.2 74.3 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 349 Davenport 74.3 74.4 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 350 Davenport 74.4 74.5 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 351 Davenport 74.5 74.5 50 150 0.2 AG, UF ATWS 352 Davenport 75.3 75.3 50 150 0.2 AG, OL DE-1C-S268 ATWS 353 Davenport 75.3 75.4 50 150 0.2 OL ATWS 354 Davenport 75.9 75.9 50 150 0.2 UF DE-XX-S75.87 ATWS 355 Davenport 75.9 75.9 50 46 0.1 OL DE-XX-S75.87 ATWS 356 Davenport 75.9 75.9 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 357 Davenport 76.4 76.4 50 150 0.2 UF DE-XX-S76.42 
D-15 

APPENDIX D (continued) 

Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project a,f

ATWS ID #

Township/ 

Town

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Nominalb

Dimensions 

(feet)

Area 

Affectede

(acres)

Existing 

Land Usec

Wetland or Waterbody 

within 50 feet

Width Length 

ATWS 358 Davenport 76.5 76.5 50 150 0.2 OL ATWS 359 Davenport 76.8 76.9 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 360 Davenport 76.9 77.0 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 361 Davenport 77.4 77.4 50 150 0.2 AG, UF ATWS 362 Davenport 77.4 77.4 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 363 Davenport 77.6 77.6 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 364 Davenport 77.7 77.7 50 150 0.2 OL ATWS 364A Davenport 77.8 77.8 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 364B Davenport 77.9 77.9 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 365 Davenport 78.0 78.0 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 366 Davenport 78.1 78.2 50 240 0.3 AG, UF ATWS 367 Davenport 78.2 78.2 50 125 0.1 UF DE-1C-S241 ATWS 368 Davenport 78.2 78.3 50 150 0.2 AG DE-1C-S241 ATWS 369 Davenport 78.3 78.3 50 100 0.1 AG ATWS 370 Davenport 78.3 78.4 50 100 0.1 AG, UF ATWS 371 Davenport 78.5 78.5 50 150 0.2 AG DE-1L-W250 ATWS 372 Davenport 78.8 78.8 50 150 0.2 OL, UF ATWS 373 Davenport 78.9 78.9 40 215 0.2 UF ATWS 374 Davenport 79.0 79.1 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 375 Davenport 79.2 79.2 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 376 Davenport 79.2 79.2 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 377 Davenport 79.3 79.3 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 378 Davenport 79.4 79.4 50 150 0.2 RE, UF DE-XX-S79.36 ATWS 379 Davenport 79.6 79.7 40 497 0.5 UF ATWS 380 Davenport 79.8 79.8 40 100 0.1 UF ATWS 381 Davenport 79.9 79.9 50 100 0.1 UF 
D-16 

APPENDIX D (continued) 

Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project a,f

ATWS ID #

Township/ 

Town

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Nominalb

Dimensions 

(feet)

Area 

Affectede

(acres)

Existing 

Land Usec

Wetland or Waterbody 

within 50 feet

Width Length 

ATWS 382 Davenport 80.0 80.0 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 383 Davenport 80.3 80.3 50 175 0.2 OL, UF ATWS 384 Davenport 80.4 80.4 47 122 0.1 RD, UF DE-1G-S206 ATWS 385 Davenport 80.4 80.5 50 110 0.1 OL, UF DE-1G-S206 ATWS 386 Davenport 80.5 80.5 50 100 0.1 OL, UF DE-1B-S267 ATWS 387 Davenport 80.5 80.5 50 100 0.1 UF DE-1B-S267 ATWS 388 Davenport 80.6 80.7 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 389 Davenport 80.8 80.8 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 390 Davenport 80.9 80.9 50 100 0.1 AG ATWS 391 Davenport 80.9 81.0 50 150 0.2 AG, UF ATWS 392 Davenport 81.6 81.6 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 393 Davenport 81.7 81.8 50 595 1.0 OL, UF DE-1G-S201A ATWS 394 Davenport 81.8 81.8 50 150 0.2 OL, UF ATWS 395 Davenport 81.9 82.0 50 100 0.1 OL, UF ATWS 396 Davenport 82.1 82.1 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 397 Davenport 82.8 82.8 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 398 Davenport 82.8 82.8 50 150 0.2 RD, UF ATWS 399 Davenport 83.1 83.1 50 100 0.1 UF DE-1B-S271 ATWS 400 Davenport 83.2 83.2 50 100 0.1 UF DE-1B-W336 ATWS 401 Davenport 83.3 83.3 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 402 Davenport 83.5 83.5 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 403 Davenport 84.6 84.7 50 150 0.2 OL, RD, UF ATWS 404 Davenport 84.7 84.7 50 125 0.1 OL, UF DE-XX-S84.70 ATWS 405 Davenport 84.7 84.7 50 100 0.1 OL, UF ATWS 406 Davenport 85.2 85.2 50 138 0.2 UF DE-1G-W008 ATWS 408 Davenport 85.2 85.6 50 2158 2.5 UF DE-1N-W009 
D-17 

APPENDIX D (continued) 

Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project a,f

ATWS ID #

Township/ 

Town

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Nominalb

Dimensions 

(feet)

Area 

Affectede

(acres)

Existing 

Land Usec

Wetland or Waterbody 

within 50 feet

Width Length 

ATWS 407 Davenport 85.3 85.3 50 143 0.2 UF ATWS 409 Davenport 85.6 85.7 15 250 0.1 UF ATWS 410 Davenport 85.6 85.7 85 250 0.5 UF ATWS 412 Davenport 86.0 86.0 87 250 0.5 UF ATWS 411 Davenport 86.0 86.0 15 250 0.1 UF ATWS 413 Davenport 86.0 86.1 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 414 Davenport 86.2 86.3 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 415 Davenport 86.6 86.6 50 125 0.2 UF ATWS 416 Davenport 86.6 86.7 50 125 0.2 UF ATWS 417 Davenport 87.0 87.0 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 418 Davenport 87.2 87.2 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 419 Davenport 87.2 87.3 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 420 Davenport 87.7 87.7 125 250 0.7 AG ATWS 421 Davenport 88.1 88.1 150 252 0.8 AG, OL, UF ATWS 423 Davenport 88.2 88.3 50 912 1.1 AG, UF ATWS 424 Davenport 88.4 88.4 50 150 0.1 AG, UF ATWS 425 Davenport 88.4 88.4 50 75 0.1 AG ATWS 426 Davenport 88.5 88.5 50 140 0.2 AG, OL, UF ATWS 427 Harpersfield 89.7 89.7 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 429 Harpersfield 90.8 90.8 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 430 Harpersfield 91.7 91.7 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 431 Harpersfield 91.7 91.7 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 432 Harpersfield 91.8 91.8 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 433 Harpersfield 91.8 91.9 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 434 Harpersfield 92.1 92.1 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 435 Harpersfield 92.1 92.2 50 100 0.1 UF 
D-18 

APPENDIX D (continued) 

Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project a,f

ATWS ID #

Township/ 

Town

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Nominalb

Dimensions 

(feet)

Area 

Affectede

(acres)

Existing 

Land Usec

Wetland or Waterbody 

within 50 feet

Width Length 

ATWS 436 Harpersfield 92.3 92.3 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 437 Harpersfield 92.4 92.4 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 438 Harpersfield 93.0 93.0 220 300 1.5 AG ATWS 439 Harpersfield 93.3 93.3 50 150 0.2 UF DE-1G-W143 ATWS 440 Harpersfield 93.4 93.4 50 45 0.1 UF DE-1G-W143 Schoharie County ATWS 441 Summit 93.6 93.6 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 442 Summit 93.8 93.8 25 145 0.1 OL SC-1S-W402 ATWS 443 Summit 94.5 94.6 50 100 0.1 AG, UF ATWS 444 Summit 94.7 94.7 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 445 Summit 94.9 95.0 50 150 0.1 OL SC-1Y-S342, SC-1Y-W437 ATWS 446 Summit 95.0 95.0 50 150 0.1 AG,RD SC-1Y-W438, SC-1Y-S342 ATWS 447 Summit 95.1 95.2 50 100 0.1 OL, UF ATWS 448 Summit 95.3 95.3 40 327 0.3 UF SC-1Q-S284 ATWS 449 Summit 95.4 95.4 50 178 0.2 UF ATWS 450 Jefferson 96.1 96.1 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 451 Jefferson 96.4 96.4 50 150 0.2 UF SC-1C-S280 ATWS 452 Jefferson 96.4 96.4 50 164 0.2 UF ATWS 453 Jefferson 97.3 97.3 50 100 0.1 AG SC-1C-W411 ATWS 454 Jefferson 97.4 97.4 50 100 0.1 AG ATWS 455 Jefferson 97.5 97.5 50 208 0.3 AG SC-1G-S343 ATWS 456 Jefferson 97.5 97.5 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 457 Jefferson 97.7 97.8 50 150 0.2 OL, UF SC-1C-S329 ATWS 457A Jefferson 97.8 97.8 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 458 Jefferson 98.6 98.6 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 459 Jefferson 98.6 98.7 50 100 0.1 UF 
D-19 

APPENDIX D (continued) 

Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project a,f

ATWS ID #

Township/ 

Town

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Nominalb

Dimensions 

(feet)

Area 

Affectede

(acres)

Existing 

Land Usec

Wetland or Waterbody 

within 50 feet

Width Length 

ATWS 460 Summit 99.2 99.2 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 461 Summit 99.2 99.3 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 462 Summit 100.8 100.8 50 150 0.2 RE, UF, RD ATWS 463 Summit 100.8 100.9 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 464 Summit 100.9 100.9 50 100 0.1 AG, OL ATWS 465 Summit 101.0 101.0 50 100 0.1 OL ATWS 466 Summit 101.1 101.2 50 100 0.1 AG, OL ATWS 468 Summit 101.8 101.8 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 469 Summit 102.0 102.1 50 150 0.2 OL ATWS 470 Summit 102.1 102.2 50 150 0.2 UF SC-1E-W105 ATWS 471 Summit 102.5 102.6 50 150 0.2 RD, UF SC-1R-W111 ATWS 472 Summit 102.6 102.6 50 150 0.2 UF SC-1R-W111 ATWS 473 Summit 102.9 102.9 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 475 Summit 103.1 103.1 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 476 Summit 104.1 104.1 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 477 Summit 104.2 104.3 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 478 Summit 104.5 104.5 50 150 0.2 AG SC-1G-S151 ATWS 479 Summit 104.6 104.6 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 480 Summit 104.6 104.6 50 150 0.2 OL, UF ATWS 481 Summit 104.8 104.8 50 150 0.2 RD, UF ATWS 482 Summit 104.8 104.9 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 483 Summit 104.9 104.9 50 100 0.1 AG, UF SC-1Q-S244 ATWS 484 Summit 105.0 105.1 40 617 0.6 AG, UF ATWS 485 Richmondville 105.2 105.2 50 100 0.1 OL, UF ATWS 486 Richmondville 105.3 105.3 50 90 0.1 OL, UF ATWS 487 Richmondville 105.6 105.7 50 150 0.2 UF SC-1G-W340 
D-20 

APPENDIX D (continued) 

Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project a,f

ATWS ID #

Township/ 

Town

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Nominalb

Dimensions 

(feet)

Area 

Affectede

(acres)

Existing 

Land Usec

Wetland or Waterbody 

within 50 feet

Width Length 

ATWS 488 Richmondville 105.7 105.7 50 100 0.1 OL, UF SC-1Q-W338 ATWS 489 Richmondville 105.7 105.8 50 120 0.1 UF SC-1G-W339, SC-1L-W304 ATWS 490 Richmondville 105.8 105.8 50 100 0.1 OL, UF SC-1L-W303, SC-1L-S166C ATWS 491 Richmondville 106.0 106.0 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 492 Richmondville 106.1 106.2 40 465 0.4 UF ATWS 493 Richmondville 106.2 106.4 40 828 0.8 UF SC-1J-W385 ATWS 494 Richmondville 106.4 106.5 40 425 0.4 UF SC-1J-S298 ATWS 495 Richmondville 106.7 106.7 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 496 Richmondville 106.9 107.0 50 250 0.3 OL ATWS 497 Richmondville 107.1 107.2 50 188 0.2 UF SC-1D-W295 ATWS 498 Richmondville 107.2 107.2 50 140 0.2 RD, UF SC-1D-W295 ATWS 499 Richmondville 107.2 107.3 50 150 0.2 UF ATWS 500 Richmondville 107.4 107.4 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 501 Richmondville 107.5 107.5 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 502 Richmondville 108.6 108.6 50 100 0.1 AG ATWS 503 Richmondville 108.6 108.7 50 100 0.1 AG, UF ATWS 504 Richmondville 108.7 108.8 40 316 0.3 AG ATWS 505 Richmondville 108.8 108.9 40 491 0.5 AG, UF ATWS 506 Richmondville 109.0 109.1 40 501 0.5 AG, UF ATWS 507 Richmondville 109.2 109.2 40 100 0.1 AG SC-1C-S278 ATWS 508 Richmondville 109.2 109.3 40 400 0.4 AG, RD SC-1C-W370 ATWS 509 Richmondville 109.3 109.3 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 510 Richmondville 109.4 109.5 50 100 0.1 AG ATWS 511 Richmondville 109.6 109.6 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 512 Cobleskill 110.0 110.1 50 150 0.2 RD, UF ATWS 514 Cobleskill 110.2 110.2 50 100 0.1 UF 
D-21 

APPENDIX D (continued) 

Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project a,f

ATWS ID #

Township/ 

Town

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Nominalb

Dimensions 

(feet)

Area 

Affectede

(acres)

Existing 

Land Usec

Wetland or Waterbody 

within 50 feet

Width Length 

ATWS 515 Cobleskill 110.2 110.3 50 100 0.1 UF SC-1L-W308 ATWS 516 Cobleskill 110.3 110.3 50 100 0.1 OL, UF SC-1L-W309 ATWS 517 Cobleskill 110.5 110.6 22 300 0.2 UF SC-1C-S187 ATWS 518 Cobleskill 110.6 110.6 24 298 0.2 UF SC-1C-W419, SC-1C-S331 ATWS 519 Cobleskill 110.7 110.7 35 100 0.1 UF ATWS 520 Cobleskill 110.8 110.8 36 100 0.1 UF SC-1C-W418 ATWS 521 Cobleskill 111.4 111.4 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 522 Cobleskill 111.5 111.5 50 49 0.1 AG ATWS 523 Cobleskill 111.7 111.7 50 100 0.1 OL, UF ATWS 524 Cobleskill 111.9 111.9 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 525 Cobleskill 112.0 112.0 50 90 0.1 UF ATWS 526 Middleburgh 112.1 112.1 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 527 Middleburgh 113.3 113.3 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 528 Middleburgh 113.6 113.6 50 100 0.1 AG ATWS 529 Middleburgh 113.7 113.7 50 100 0.1 AG ATWS 529A Middleburgh 113.8 113.8 25 89 0.1 AG ATWS 530 Middleburgh 113.8 113.8 50 57 0.1 AG ATWS 531 Middleburgh 113.9 113.9 50 150 0.2 RD, UF ATWS 532 Middleburgh 114.5 114.5 50 100 0.1 AG, UF ATWS 533 Middleburgh 114.5 114.6 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 534 Middleburgh 114.6 114.7 50 100 0.1 AG SC-1M-W058 ATWS 535 Middleburgh 114.8 114.8 50 100 0.1 AG ATWS 536 Middleburgh 115.2 115.3 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 537 Middleburgh 115.3 115.3 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 538 Middleburgh 115.4 115.5 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 539 Middleburgh 115.5 115.6 50 150 0.2 UF 
D-22 

APPENDIX D (continued) 

Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project a,f

ATWS ID #

Township/ 

Town

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Nominalb

Dimensions 

(feet)

Area 

Affectede

(acres)

Existing 

Land Usec

Wetland or Waterbody 

within 50 feet

Width Length 

ATWS 540 Schoharie 116.7 116.7 50 150 0.2 AG, OL ATWS 541 Schoharie 116.7 116.8 40 325 0.3 AG ATWS 542 Schoharie 116.9 116.9 70 100 0.2 AG ATWS 543 Schoharie 117.3 117.3 50 150 0.2 AG ATWS 544 Schoharie 117.3 117.4 50 150 0.1 OL ATWS 545 Schoharie 117.4 117.4 50 100 0.1 OL ATWS 546 Schoharie 117.6 117.6 50 100 0.1 AG, UF ATWS 547 Schoharie 119.4 119.4 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 548 Schoharie 119.5 119.5 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 551 Schoharie 119.6 119.7 150 815 2.2 AG, OL, 

RD, PEM 

SC-1L-W399, SC-1J-W398 

ATWS 549 Schoharie 119.6 119.6 50 150 0.2 OL, RE ATWS 550 Schoharie 119.6 119.7 50 607 0.6 AG, OL, 

RE, UF 

ATWS 552 Schoharie 119.8 119.9 150 425 1.7 AG ATWS 552 Schoharie 119.8 199.9 100 100 1.7 AG ATWS 553 Schoharie 119.9 119.9 38 159 0.1 AG ATWS 554 Schoharie 120.0 120.0 50 65 0.1 ID, OL ATWS 556 Schoharie 120.1 120.1 50 150 0.2 OL ATWS 558 Schoharie 120.7 120.7 50 79 0.1 UF ATWS 559 Schoharie 120.7 120.7 50 100 0.1 UF ATWS 560 Schoharie 121.0 121.0 50 100 0.1 OL SC-1G-W160 ATWS 561 Schoharie 121.1 121.1 50 100 0.1 OL, UF SC-1G-W161 ATWS 562 Schoharie 121.3 121.3 50 150 0.2 OL ATWS 563 Schoharie 121.3 121.3 50 145 0.1 OL ATWS 564 Schoharie 121.4 121.4 50 150 0.2 OL 
D-23 

APPENDIX D (continued) 

Extra Workspaces Associated with Construction of the Constitution Pipeline Project a,f

ATWS ID #

Township/ 

Town

Start 

Milepost

End 

Milepost

Nominalb

Dimensions 

(feet)

Area 

Affectede

(acres)

Existing 

Land Usec

Wetland or Waterbody 

within 50 feet

Width Length 

ATWS 565 Schoharie 121.5 121.5 50 158 0.2 AG ATWS 566 Schoharie 122.5 122.5 50 100 0.1 AG ATWS 567 Schoharie 122.6 122.6 50 100 0.1 AG ATWS 568 Schoharie 123.0 123.0 50 150 0.2 AG, UF ATWS 569 Schoharie 123.2 123.2 50 150 0.2 AG, UF SC-1G-W336 ATWS 570 Schoharie 123.4 123.5 25 150 0.1 AG ATWS 571 Schoharie 123.5 123.5 50 150 0.2 AG, RE ATWS 572 Schoharie 123.9 123.9 50 100 0.1 AG ATWS 573 Wright 124.0 124.0 50 100 0.1 AG ATWS 574 Wright 124.2 124.2 50 150 0.1 AG, UF ATWS 575 Wright 124.2 124.3 50 150 0.2 AG, UF 

New York Pipeline Extra Workspaces Total 87.9 

PROJECT TOTAL 107.4 

____________________ a Extra workspace (also known as additional temporary workspace) areas in bold are within 50 feet of a wetland or waterbody. b Several extra workspace areas are irregularly shaped - dimensions of such areas are approximate, and the actual acreage aff

nominal length x width 

c AG = Agricultural; ID = Industrial; RE = Residential; RD = Roads; OL = Open Land (existing ROW, Open Field, Non-agriculture

Forested Wetlands; PSS = Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetlands; PEM = Palustrine Emergent Wetlands; WB = Waterbody; UF = 

d a = road crossing; b = side slope construction; c = steep slope construction; d = road bore; e = powerline crossing; f = railroad 

outcrop; h = waterbody crossing; i = wetland crossing; j = horizontal bends greater than 10%; k = swap working side/ crossovetop soil segregation, n = HDD Crossing, o = hydrotest station, p = spread break, q = dewatering site, r = direct pipe drill crossin

e Area shown is the actual area of the extra workspace shape, calculated using GIS software. Nominal length x width will only m

workspace is a perfect rectangle. If the shape is not a perfect rectangle, the nominal length x width will only give approximate a

f Areas where the temporary right-of-way would be greater than 75 feet and within a wetland, but do not include extra workspac

table. 
APPENDIX E 

Private Access Roads Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project 

 
 
E-1 

APPENDIX E 

Private Access Roads Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Access Road ID Mileposta

Existing 

Road Type 

Modification 

Required / New 

Existing 

Land 

Useb

Length 

(feet) 

Affected Area 

(Construction) 

(acres)c

Affected 

Area 

(Operation) 

(acres) Cons

PENNSYLVANIA Susquehanna County PAR1 1.7 gravel placed 

on the new 

road, 

remainder is 

dirt 

widening / tree 

removal / 

grading / 

graveling 

AG, OL, 

RE, UF 

3,318 4.3 1.2 Permanent a

east of Route operational mconstruction. Route 167 ewould require could potentissues. Accewould cross which Constialong access Use of this eimpacts to wminimizes im

PAR1a (ATV Trail) 2.9 dirt tree removal / 

graveling 

RD, UF 370 0.4 0.1 Access to the 

the trenchlesconstruction maintenanceRoute 2015 wcomplex, whto avoid alonpracticable. not result in waterbodies, upland forest

PAR3 4.1 dirt possible grading 

to widen road if 

needed / 

grading/ 

graveling 

AG, RE 1,433 1.6 0.6 Need perma

Township RoRoad for opeconstruction. require crossConstitution access roadsfrom the souareas of steeerosion issuethe existing rresult in impawaterbodies. 
E-2 

APPENDIX E (continued) 

Private Access Roads Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Access Road ID Mileposta

Existing 

Road Type 

Modification 

Required / New 

Existing 

Land 

Useb

Length 

(feet) 

Affected Area 

(Construction) 

(acres)c

Affected 

Area 

(Operation) 

(acres) Cons

PAR4 4.8 dirt possible grading 

to widen road if 

needed / 

grading/ 

graveling 

AG, RD, 

RE 

1,152 1.3 0.5 Need perma

Township RoRoad for opeconstruction. require crossConstitution access roadsfrom the souareas of steeerosion and operation. Uwould not reswaterbodies. 

PAR5 5.2 dirt culvert / tree 

removal / 

grading / gravel 

AG, UF 434 0.6 0.2 Need perma

487 and Thremaintenance from PAR 4 tRoad to the steep terrainand accessibthis existing in impacts to minimizes im

PAR6 7.3 dirt / none culvert / tree 

removal / 

grading / gravel 

OL, RD, 

UF 

1,676 2.1 0.6 Need perma

Township Rooperational mconstruction. 676 to the soMeylert Creefields. Accesnorth traverssteep terrain issues. Conaccess road agriculture fieupland forest
E-3 

APPENDIX E (continued) 

Private Access Roads Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Access Road ID Mileposta

Existing 

Road Type 

Modification 

Required / New 

Existing 

Land 

Useb

Length 

(feet) 

Affected Area 

(Construction) 

(acres)c

Affected 

Area 

(Operation) 

(acres) Cons

PAR7 9.5 gravel existing 

BlueStone 

access road / 

grading 

OL, RD, 

UF 

1,600 2.1 1.0 Need perma

Road Tie-in tSouthwesterRoad M&R Sroad has recwould not reswaterbodies. 

TAR8 10.1 dirt existing 

BlueStone 

access road / 

grading / 

graveling 

OL, PFO, 

PSS, RD, 

WB, UF 

1,021 0.7 0.0 Needed for t

side of Salt LThis is an exused for conPipeline. Ustemporary wdisturbed weminimized by equipment mduring constwaterbodies minimized thaccess roadwimplement its access road and reestablconstruction 

PAR10 12.2 dirt removal of old 

barn / create 

road from barn 

to pipelinegrading gravel 

OL, PEM, 

RD, UF 

1,837 1.6 0.7 Need perma

and Twp-629 post construcand Twp-629 wetlands eacaccessed. Uexisting road wetlands or wimpacts on u
E-4 

APPENDIX E (continued) 

Private Access Roads Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Access Road ID Mileposta

Existing 

Road Type 

Modification 

Required / New 

Existing 

Land 

Useb

Length 

(feet) 

Affected Area 

(Construction) 

(acres)c

Affected 

Area 

(Operation) 

(acres) Cons

PAR11 13.4 gravel tree removal; / 

grading / this is a 

partial road 

ID, RD, 

SG, UF 

3,820 2.4 1.9 Need perma

629 and PA-maintenance from Twp-62crossing wetUse of this eimpacts to wminimizes im

PAR12 14.1 dirt partial road will 

need tree 

removal / 

grading on east 

end / graveling 

AG, OL, 

RD, SG, 

UF, WB 

1,577 2.2 0.7 Need perma

629 and PA-maintenance from Twp-62crossing wetand areas of potential eroUse of this eimpacts on wminimizes im

PAR13 15.1 gravel / 

none 

end of road will 

need tree 

clearing and 

grading 

AG, 

OL,RD, 

UF 

446 0.2 0.2 Need perma

temporary acthis existing agricultural fiseveral wetlathe north. Uwould not reswaterbodies upland forest
E-5 

APPENDIX E (continued) 

Private Access Roads Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Access Road ID Mileposta

Existing 

Road Type 

Modification 

Required / New 

Existing 

Land 

Useb

Length 

(feet) 

Affected Area 

(Construction) 

(acres)c

Affected 

Area 

(Operation) 

(acres) Cons

PAR14 16.3 gravel / dirt tree removal / 

grading 

AG, PEM, 

PFO, UF 

2,637 3.0 1.0 Need access 

92. Temporaaccess an HPermanent amaintenance construction Access from require crosswaterbodies significant imaccess road wetlands. Imwaterbodies minimized throadway. CoPA ECP whefurther minim

PAR15 17.8 gravel / dirt tree removal / 

grading 

OL, PFO, 

RD, UF, 

WB 

3,729 3.9 1.1 Need access 

171 to avoid construction maintenance from PA-101travel along vpotential eroexisting acceimpacts to wminimizes im

PAR15a 21.0 dirt tree removal / 

grading / may 

require some 

mats / graveling 

UF 701 1.1 0.4 Need access 

Starrucca Cr1009 during operational mafter construneeded to avcrossings of this existing impacts to up
E-6 

APPENDIX E (continued) 

Private Access Roads Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Access Road ID Mileposta

Existing 

Road Type 

Modification 

Required / New 

Existing 

Land 

Useb

Length 

(feet) 

Affected Area 

(Construction) 

(acres)c

Affected 

Area 

(Operation) 

(acres) Cons

PAR16 23.4 gravel / dirt grading / 

graveling 

AG, OL, 

UF, WB 

2,202 1.0 0.6 Need perma

Rockwell Roagricultural fimaintenance east is very sroad would nwetlands or wimpacts to up

PAR18 24.5 dirt Gravel-existing 

road 

OL, RD, 

UF 

324 0.4 0.2 Need access 

Vale Road fooperational mrough south existing road wetlands or wimpacts on u

TAR1 25.1 dirt grading / 

gravelingexisting 

Bluestone 

access road 

PEM, 

PFO, UF, 

WB 

241 0.2 0.0 Need tempo

Drive and Vato steep terrabeaver pond crossing. Thby Bluestone another piperequire additwill temporarwetlands; hominimized by construction rutting. Impaand upland fthrough use Constitution when using tminimize imp

Susquehanna Subtotal 28,518 29.2 10.8 

Pennsylvania Subtotal 28,518 29.2 10.8 
E-7 

APPENDIX E (continued) 

Private Access Roads Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Access Road ID Mileposta

Existing 

Road Type 

Modification 

Required / New 

Existing 

Land 

Useb

Length 

(feet) 

Affected Area 

(Construction) 

(acres)c

Affected 

Area 

(Operation) 

(acres) Cons

NEW YORK Broome County PAR19 26.2 dirt some grading 

possible / 

graveling 

RE 489 0.3 0.1 Need access 

Vale Road foconstruction to steep terrawaterbodies. would not reswaterbodies. 

PAR20 26.7 none grading / gravel / 

tree removal 

RD, UF 74 0.1 0.0 Need perma

this location. Vale Road to wetland crosaccess road waterbodies. have been msite adjacent minimizing thand amount the site. 

PAR21 27.8 dirt Adequate as is RD, RE, 

UF, WB 

2,018 1.1 0.8 Need perma

Lake Road arough terrain crossing the operational mexisting road wetlands or wimpacts on u

PAR22 28.5 gravel barrier fence / 

railroad ballast / 

existing 

BlueStone 

access road / 

grading 

ID, RD, 

UF 

4,726 1.3 1.1 Need access 

and the railrothe Fly Creek and for operaconstruction. would not reswaterbodies. 
E-8 

APPENDIX E (continued) 

Private Access Roads Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Access Road ID Mileposta

Existing 

Road Type 

Modification 

Required / New 

Existing 

Land 

Useb

Length 

(feet) 

Affected Area 

(Construction) 

(acres)c

Affected 

Area 

(Operation) 

(acres) Cons

PAR27 33.8 dirt grading / 

graveling 

AG, WB 443 0.3 0.2 Need perma

maintenancealong Hwy 4help during c

Creek crossiwould not reswaterbodies. 

PAR28 35.2 gravel / dirt grading OL, RD, 

RE 

558 0.3 0.2 Need access 

and CR-241 workspace linearby wetlais needed fopost construccrossings. Uroad would nwetlands or w

PAR29 36.1 dirt gravelingexisting road AG, RD, UF 598 0.4 0.2 Need access 

Road during limited workswetlands and bore. Permaoperational mto minimize wexisting acceimpacts to w

PAR31 40.7 gravel Adequate as is AG, OL, 

RD, RE, 

UF, WB 

176 0.1 0.1 Need access 

crossings unconstruction. either crossinwetland impaneeded for oconstruction crossings. Unot result in waterbodies. 
E-9 

APPENDIX E (continued) 

Private Access Roads Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Access Road ID Mileposta

Existing 

Road Type 

Modification 

Required / New 

Existing 

Land 

Useb

Length 

(feet) 

Affected Area 

(Construction) 

(acres)c

Affected 

Area 

(Operation) 

(acres) Cons

PAR32 41.2 dirt grading / 

graveling 

RD, UF 106 0.1 0.1 Need perma

Access from or south wouand waterbowould not reswaterbodies, upland forest 

Broome County Subtotal 9,188 3.9 2.7 

Chenango County PAR33 43.6 gravel grading AG, OL, 

RD 

379 0.3 0.2 Need access 

Edwards Lanoperational mprovide acceUse of this eimpacts to wminimizes im

PAR34 44.2 dirt tree removal / 

culvert / grading 

/ graveling 

PSS, RD, 

RE, UF 

1,725 0.9 0.5 Need access 

Melondy Hill for operationaccess road wetland / waof Edwards Lwaterbody coMelondy Hill as a PAR wabecause it is Impacts on wupland foresthrough use Constitution when using tminimize imp

Chenango County Subtotal 2,104 1.2 0.7 
E-10 

APPENDIX E (continued) 

Private Access Roads Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Access Road ID Mileposta

Existing 

Road Type 

Modification 

Required / New 

Existing 

Land 

Useb

Length 

(feet) 

Affected Area 

(Construction) 

(acres)c

Affected 

Area 

(Operation) 

(acres) Cons

Delaware County PAR36 52.1 dirt brush removal 

and grading at 

end of road / 

graveling 

OL, PEM, 

RD, RE, 

SG, UF, 

WB 

2,435 1.4 0.8 Need perma

rough terrain construction maintenance wetlands and forest have bthe existing rimplement its access road 

PAR36a 54.1 dirt grading / 

gravelingbridging of creek 

OL, UF 3,075 2.1 1.0 Need tempo

Road and Pato an HDD loThis access archaeologicto the west wexisting farm access roadsresult in tempand waterbocovered with and the watetemporary brConstitution when using tminimize imp

PAR36b 54.3 dirt grading / 

gravelingbridging of creek 

OL, RD, 

UF 

1,977 1.3 0.7 Need tempo

Road and Pato an HDD loThis access wetland impaimpacts will btemporary eqthem to avoid implement its access road 
E-11 

APPENDIX E (continued) 

Private Access Roads Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Access Road ID Mileposta

Existing 

Road Type 

Modification 

Required / New 

Existing 

Land 

Useb

Length 

(feet) 

Affected Area 

(Construction) 

(acres)c

Affected 

Area 

(Operation) 

(acres) Cons

PAR37 58.9 dirt some tree 

trimming for low 

limbs 

AG, OL, 

PEM, RD, 

UF, WB 

4,049 2.0 1.2 Need access 

and CR-357 with limited wand for operaminimize wetexisting road wetlands or wimpacts on u

PAR38 60.1 dirt brush removal / 

grading / 

graveling 

AG, OL, 

PEM, RD 

1,438 0.9 0.5 Need access 

and CR-357 operational mterrain to the Crane Hill Romultiple wetlexisting road wetlands or w

PAR39 62.6 dirt tree removal / 

grading / 

widening / 

graveling 

AG, OL, 

RD, RE, 

UF 

1,985 1.6 0.6 Need access 

and Bissell Rduring constmaintenanceminimizes imwaterbodies provides accrather than thminimizing im

PAR40 63.5 dirt tree removal at 

the beginning of 

road for approx. 

800 feet 

AG, PFO, 

UF 

2,050 1.0 0.7 Need access 

and Bissell Rduring constmaintenance 

wetlands, wahave been man existing roimplement its access road 
E-12 

APPENDIX E (continued) 

Private Access Roads Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Access Road ID Mileposta

Existing 

Road Type 

Modification 

Required / New 

Existing 

Land 

Useb

Length 

(feet) 

Affected Area 

(Construction) 

(acres)c

Affected 

Area 

(Operation) 

(acres) Cons

PAR41 65.9 dirt grading / culvert 

/ graveling 

AG, RD, 

UF 

668 0.3 0.2 Need access 

Otego Road operational mconstruction. minimizes imfields. There waterbody imroad. 

PAR42 66.8 none grading / brush 

removal for 

widening 

possible / 

graveling 

OL 193 0.1 0.1 Need perma

new road is nwetlands or wclearing base(this is a no apotentially prwill be minimadjacent to thlength of the 

PAR43e 68.3 dirt grading / 

graveling / 

culvert-this is 

existing road 

OL, PEM, 

UF 

2,480 1.4 0.8 Need access 

Chamberlain terrain during operational mexisting road steep slopes term erosion waterbodies minimized throadway. CoNY ECP whefurther minim

PAR44 69.8 gravel some widening /

grading / 

existing road 

AG, OL, RD, UF, 

WB 

3,236 1.3 0.8 Need access 

Road and Ricrossings of during constmaintenance this existing wetlands, waimpacts to upimplement its access road 
E-13 

APPENDIX E (continued) 

Private Access Roads Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Access Road ID Mileposta

Existing 

Road Type 

Modification 

Required / New 

Existing 

Land 

Useb

Length 

(feet) 

Affected Area 

(Construction) 

(acres)c

Affected 

Area 

(Operation) 

(acres) Cons

PAR45 70.5 dirt existing roadneeds no 

modification 

AG, OL, 

PEM, RD, 

UF, WB 

4,809 1.9 1.2 Need access 

Road and Ricrossings of construction maintenancewaterbodies, minimized throadway. CoNY ECP whefurther minim

PAR46d 72.8 dirt / none grading / 

tree removal for 

widening / 

culvert / 

graveling-silt 

fence along 

pond bank 

RD, RE, 

UF, WB 

4,512 4.1 2.5 Need access 

Hall Road to construction maintenanceto the pipelinstream crosscrossings of will minimize waterbodies implementaticonstruction road is curre

PAR47 73.7 dirt culvert / tree 

removal / 

grading / 

graveling 

OL, UF 1,982 1.2 0.6 Need access 

and Swart Hcrossings thrwetland resoto avoid crosoperational mexisting road any wetlands minimizes treanalysis (this access parce
E-14 

APPENDIX E (continued) 

Private Access Roads Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Access Road ID Mileposta

Existing 

Road Type 

Modification 

Required / New 

Existing 

Land 

Useb

Length 

(feet) 

Affected Area 

(Construction) 

(acres)c

Affected 

Area 

(Operation) 

(acres) Cons

PAR48 76.8 existing / 

none 

tree and brush 

removal / 

grading / culvert 

/ graveling 

AG, RD, 

UF 

1,013 0.6 0.3 Need access 

Prosser Holloterrain during operational mconstruction. road minimizanticipated to waterbodies (this road is t

PAR54 84.3 none tree removal / 

culvert / grading 

/ graveling 

AG, OL, 

PFO, UF, 

WB 

2,201 1.1 0.7 Need access 

Brick House crossings of during constthe fields durConstitution wetlands and areas througECP during c

TAR5 87.7 none tree removal / 

grading / culvert 

/ graveling 

AG, RD, 

UF 

1,339 0.8 0.0 Need tempo

Route 96 and terrain, and twetlands and construction. access an HConstruction impacts to wImpacts to fo

and the area to revert to pcover types oConstitution during constaccess road. 
E-15 

APPENDIX E (continued) 

Private Access Roads Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Access Road ID Mileposta

Existing 

Road Type 

Modification 

Required / New 

Existing 

Land 

Useb

Length 

(feet) 

Affected Area 

(Construction) 

(acres)c

Affected 

Area 

(Operation) 

(acres) Cons

PAR56 89.3 dirt grading / 

gravelingexisting road 

AG, RD 1,310 0.9 0.4 Need access 

Schoolhouse to minimize cduring const

the fields durpost construcavoids impacwaterbodies upland forest

TAR4 92.7 dirt grading / culvert 

/ graveling / 

existing roadtree in middle of 

extra workspace 

to be fenced off, 

was planted by 

landowner when 

married 30 years 

ago 

OL, RD 490 0.3 0.0 Need tempo

Lake Road aconstruction workspace aspread break terrain. Consavoids impacwaterbodies. will be temporestored and construction. its NY ECP dtemporary ac

Delaware County Subtotal 41,242 24.2 13.1 

Schoharie County PAR59 95.1 none grading / culvert 

/ tree removal 

AG, RD 245 0.2 0.1 Need perma

of this existinimpacts to wImpacts to upminimized by to the roadw
E-16 

APPENDIX E (continued) 

Private Access Roads Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Access Road ID Mileposta

Existing 

Road Type 

Modification 

Required / New 

Existing 

Land 

Useb

Length 

(feet) 

Affected Area 

(Construction) 

(acres)c

Affected 

Area 

(Operation) 

(acres) Cons

PAR60 96.0 existing / 

none 

tree and brush 

removal / 

grading / culvert 

/ graveling / 

widening 

RD, UF 2,224 1.5 0.7 Need access 

Road and Stterrain and wduring constmaintenance this access rthe steep sloalong the rigExtension of avoids impacwaterbodies upland forest

PAR63 99.9 existing / 

none 

tree and brush 

removal / 

grading / 

graveling 

UF 544 0.5 0.2 Need access 

CR-10 to minagricultural fiduring operaconstruction. road will avowaterbodies upland forest

TAR2 101.5 none grading / culvert 

/ graveling 

OL 178 0.1 0.0 Need tempo

entry pit. Coroad avoids iwaterbodies. minimized by open land. Ibecause the allowed to reconditions. CNY ECP duritemporary ac
E-17 

APPENDIX E (continued) 

Private Access Roads Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Access Road ID Mileposta

Existing 

Road Type 

Modification 

Required / New 

Existing 

Land 

Useb

Length 

(feet) 

Affected Area 

(Construction) 

(acres)c

Affected 

Area 

(Operation) 

(acres) Cons

PAR66 103.4 existing / 

none 

tree and brush 

removal / 

grading / 

graveling 

RD, SG, 

UF, WB 

3,181 1.7 1.0 Need access 

Road and Deterrain during operational maccess road steep terrainwetlands locUse of the exto wetlands aminimizes im

PAR68 106.5 existing grading / brush 

removal / 

graveling 

UF 382 0.2 0.1 Need access 

Cross Hill Roand to accesstream crossfor operationconstruction. minimize croand south foerosion and streams. Conto wetlands, areas througECP during c

PAR71 117.1 none grading / culvert 

/ graveling 

AG,OL, 

RD, RE 

1,085 1.0 0.3 Need access 

and Terrace of this new roimpact wetlaon desktop aparcel). Impavoided by loopen field. 

PAR73 117.9 dirt / none grading / tree 

removal / 

graveling 

AG, OL, 

RD, UF 

2,102 1.4 0.7 Need access 

Road and Smterrain to the crossing agrconstruction maintenanceroad avoids iwaterbodies upland forest
E-18 

APPENDIX E (continued) 

Private Access Roads Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Access Road ID Mileposta

Existing 

Road Type 

Modification 

Required / New 

Existing 

Land 

Useb

Length 

(feet) 

Affected Area 

(Construction) 

(acres)c

Affected 

Area 

(Operation) 

(acres) Cons

PAR74 119.6 none tree removal / 

culvert / grading 

/ graveling 

AG, RD 144 0.1 0.1 Need perma

to access a Dduring const

new access wetlands and forested area siting the accadjacent to th

PAR73a 120.6 existing / 

none 

tree removal / 

grading / 

graveling 

OL, SP, UF, WB 

2,343 1.5 1.2 Need access 

during constworkspace fowaterbody crmaintenanceaccess road and waterboupland forest

Schoharie County Subtotal 12,428 8.1 4.5 Otsego County PAR43e 68.3 dirt grading / 

graveling / 

culvert 

RD 0 0.0 0.0 Need access 

Chamberlain terrain during operational mexisting road steep slopes term erosion waterbodies minimized throadway. CoNY ECP whefurther minim

Otsego County Subtotal 0 0.0 0.0 

New York Subtotal 64,962 37.4 20.9 

Project Total 93,480 66.5 31.7 
E-19 

APPENDIX E (continued) 

Private Access Roads Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Access Road ID Mileposta

Existing 

Road Type 

Modification 

Required / New 

Existing 

Land 

Useb

Length 

(feet) 

Affected Area 

(Construction) 

(acres)c

Affected 

Area 

(Operation) 

(acres) Cons

_____________________ a Milepost indicates the point at which the access road connects with the pipeline right-of-way. b AG (Agricultural); ID (Industrial); RE (Residential); RD (Roads); OL (Open Land [existing right-of-way, Open Field, Non-Agriculture]; WL (Wetla

scrub-shrub, and emergent]); (UF) Upland Forest; SG (Sand and Gravel); PFO (Palustrine Forested Wetland); PSS (Palustrine scrub-shrub w

emergent wetland); WB (Waterbody). 

c Temporary access roads will be restored to pre-construction land use and will not result in permanent land impacts or land use modification. d PAR46 is still being designed. Therefore a width of 40 feet has been used for construction impact calculations and a width of 24 feet has been 

calculations. 

e PAR43 has impacts in both Delaware County and Otsego County, but the centerline only crosses through Delaware County. 

TAR - Temporary Access Road PAR - Permanent Access Road 
APPENDIX F 

Roadways and Railroads Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

 
 
APPENDIX F-1 

Roadways Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

 
 
APPENDIX F – ROADWAYS AND RAILROADS CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

F1-1 

APPENDIX F-1 

Roadways Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Town/ 

Township County Milepost Road Name 

Public or 

Private 

Crossing 

Method 

Brooklyn Susquehanna 0.5 Polander Road / Catlin Road / T-538 Public Conventional Bore 

Brooklyn Susquehanna 1.2 State Route 167 Public Conventional Bore 

Brooklyn Susquehanna 2.4 State Route 2015/North Weston Road Public Open cut 

Brooklyn Susquehanna 2.9 PAR-1A (ATV Trail) Private Open cut 

Brooklyn Susquehanna 2.9 State Route 2032/Depot Road Public Conventional Bore 

Harford Susquehanna 3.0 US Highway 11 Public Conventional Bore 

Harford Susquehanna 3.1 Plank Road Public Conventional Bore 

Harford Susquehanna 3.3 White Road Public Conventional Bore 

New Milford Susquehanna 4.6 Southwestern Entrance Road Private Open cut 

New Milford Susquehanna 5.5 Three Lakes Road / T-554 Public Conventional Bore 

New Milford Susquehanna 6.1 Alexander Road Public Conventional Bore 

New Milford Susquehanna 6.7 Washburn Road / T-676 Public Open cut 

New Milford Susquehanna 7.9 State Route 2061 / Tingley Lake Road Public Conventional Bore 

New Milford Susquehanna 8.4 State Route 2063 / State Highway 848 / 

Hartford Road 

Public Conventional Bore 

New Milford Susquehanna 9.2 Sutton Road / T611 Public Conventional Bore 

New Milford Susquehanna 9.8 I- 81 Public Conventional Bore 

New Milford Susquehanna 9.8 I- 81 Public Conventional Bore 

New Milford Susquehanna 10.0 State Route 492 Public Conventional Bore 

New Milford Susquehanna 10.9 Bluestone Gravel Access Road Private Open cut 

New Milford Susquehanna 12.8 Lewis Corners Road Public Conventional Bore 

Jackson Susquehanna 14.4 State Route 1021 / Brushville Road Public Conventional Bore 

Jackson Susquehanna 14.7 Walkers Road / Ours Road Public Conventional Bore 

Jackson Susquehanna 15.6 State Road 1019 / Lakeview Road Public HDD 

Oakland Susquehanna 16.8 State Route 92 Public Conventional Bore 

Harmony Susquehanna 17.1 State Route 1013 / Turnpike Street Public Conventional Bore 

Harmony Susquehanna 18.9 State Route 171 / Bellmont Turnpike Public Conventional Bore 

Harmony Susquehanna 21.5 State Route 1009 / Starrucca Creek 

Road 

Public Conventional Bore 

Harmony Susquehanna 21.7 Rockwell Road Private Conventional Bore 

Harmony Susquehanna 22.6 Rockwell Road Private Conventional Bore 

Sanford Broome 26.8 Vale Road Public Open cut 

Sanford Broome 27.2 Laurel Lake Road Public Conventional Bore 

Sanford Broome 28.7 State Highway 17 (East Bound) Public Conventional Bore 

Sanford Broome 28.8 State Highway 17 (West Bound) Public Conventional Bore 

Sanford Broome 28.9 County Road 28/Old Route 17 Public Conventional Bore 

Sanford Broome 29.2 Tennent Road Private Open cut 

Sanford Broome 29.9 School House Road Public Conventional Bore 

Sanford Broome 30.4 Gill Road Public Conventional Bore 

Sanford Broome 30.9 Farnham Road Public Conventional Bore 
APPENDIX F – ROADWAYS AND RAILROADS CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

F1-2 

APPENDIX F-1 

Roadways Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Town/ 

Township County Milepost Road Name 

Public or 

Private 

Crossing 

Method 

Sanford Broome 31.8 Blinco Road Public Conventional Bore 

Sanford Broome 32.7 State Highway 41 Public Conventional Bore 

Sanford Broome 34.5 Shaver Hill Road Public Conventional Bore 

Sanford Broome 34.6 Loomis Hill Road Public Conventional Bore 

Sanford Broome 35.7 North Sanford Road/County Road 241 Public Conventional Bore 

Sanford Broome 36.3 Clark Road Public Conventional Bore 

Sanford Broome 37.3 Clark Road Public Conventional Bore 

Sanford Broome 38.7 Baker Road Public Conventional Bore 

Sanford Broome 39.2 Hawkins Road Public Conventional Bore 

Sanford Broome 40.3 Walker Road Public Conventional Bore 

Sanford Broome 40.5 O'brien Road Public Conventional Bore 

Sanford Broome 40.7 PAR 31 Private Open cut 

Sanford Broome 40.8 O'brien Road Public Conventional Bore 

Sanford Broome 41.8 O'brien Road Public Conventional Bore 

Sanford Broome 42.0 Perry Road Public Conventional Bore 

Afton Chenango 42.8 Ives Hill Road Public Conventional Bore 

Afton Chenango 43.1 Oxbow Road Public Conventional Bore 

Afton Chenango 44.0 Edwards Lane Public Open cut 

Afton Chenango 45.3 Melondy Hill Road Public Conventional Bore 

Afton Chenango 46.4 Lesuer Road Public Open cut 

Afton Chenango 47.3 Corbin Road Public Conventional Bore 

Bainbridge Chenango 48.0 State Highway 206 Public Conventional Bore 

Bainbridge Chenango 50.1 Neff Hill Road/Finger Lakes Trail Public Conventional Bore 

Masonville Delaware 51.0 Thorpe Hill Road Public Conventional Bore 

Masonville Delaware 51.5 State Highway 8 Public Conventional Bore 

Masonville Delaware 51.6 County Highway 4 Public Conventional Bore 

Masonville Delaware 52.1 Town Road Private Open cut 

Sidney Delaware 52.5 Peck Road Private Open cut 

Sidney Delaware 53.6 Pine Hill Road Public Conventional Bore 

Sidney Delaware 54.3 Reservoir Road Private HDD 

Sidney Delaware 55.7 Parker Hollow Road Public Conventional Bore 

Sidney Delaware 56.0 County Road Thirteen Public Conventional Bore 

Sidney Delaware 56.5 County Highway 23 Public Conventional Bore 

Sidney Delaware 57.8 Crane Hill Road Public Conventional Bore 

Sidney Delaware 60.6 State Highway 357 Public Conventional Bore 

Sidney Delaware 61.2 County Road 44 Public Conventional Bore 

Sidney Delaware 61.6 Patent Line Road Public Conventional Bore 

Franklin Delaware 65.2 Bissell Road Public Conventional Bore 

Franklin Delaware 66.0 Otego Road Public Conventional Bore 
APPENDIX F – ROADWAYS AND RAILROADS CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

F1-3 

APPENDIX F-1 

Roadways Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Town/ 

Township County Milepost Road Name 

Public or 

Private 

Crossing 

Method 

Franklin Delaware 66.8 Stewart Road Private Conventional Bore 

Franklin Delaware 68.9 Chamberlain Hill Road Public Conventional Bore 

Franklin Delaware 71.0 Rich Road Public Conventional Bore 

Franklin Delaware 71.5 State Highway 28 Public Conventional Bore 

Franklin Delaware 73.3 Grange Hall Road Public Conventional Bore 

Davenport Delaware 74.5 Swart Hollow Road Public Conventional Bore 

Davenport Delaware 75.3 White Hill Road Public Conventional Bore 

Davenport Delaware 75.5 Tower Drive Public Open cut 

Davenport Delaware 75.9 White Hill Road Public Conventional Bore 

Davenport Delaware 76.5 Coe Hill Road Public Conventional Bore 

Davenport Delaware 77.4 Prosser Hollow Road Public Conventional Bore 

Davenport Delaware 77.7 Prosser Hollow Road Public Conventional Bore 

Davenport Delaware 78.2 McDougal Road Public Conventional Bore 

Davenport Delaware 79.3 Rathbun Hill Road Public Conventional Bore 

Davenport Delaware 80.4 Pumpkin Hollow Road Public Conventional Bore 

Davenport Delaware 80.9 Jamesway Road Public Conventional Bore 

Davenport Delaware 80.9 Lew Lane Public Conventional Bore 

Davenport Delaware 81.8 County Route 10 Public Conventional Bore 

Davenport Delaware 82.8 Taylor Road Public Conventional Bore 

Davenport Delaware 84.7 Brick House Hill Road Public Conventional Bore 

Davenport Delaware 85.2 Stewart Road Public Conventional Bore 

Davenport Delaware 86.6 McIlwain Road/Old Route 96 Road Public Conventional Bore 

Davenport Delaware 87.9 State Highway 23 Public HDD 

Davenport Delaware 88.4 Parker School House Road Public Conventional Bore 

Harpersfield Delaware 90.2 Quaker Hill Road Public Open cut 

Harpersfield Delaware 91.7 South Worcester Hill Road Public Conventional Bore 

Jefferson Schoharie 93.9 Wood Chuck Run Road Private Open cut 

Summit Schoharie 94.6 Willow Springs Road Public Open cut 

Summit Schoharie 95.0 Clapper Hollow Road Public Conventional Bore 

Jefferson Schoharie 96.4 Stannard Road Public Open cut 

Jefferson Schoharie 97.5 County Highway 64/Meade Road Public Conventional Bore 

Jefferson Schoharie 97.7 Arabia Road Public Open cut 

Summit Schoharie 99.2 Arabia Road Public Conventional Bore 

Summit Schoharie 100.3 Coyote Drive Private Open cut 

Summit Schoharie 100.8 State Highway 10 Public Conventional Bore 

Summit Schoharie 101.4 Baldwin Road Public Direct Pipe 

Summit Schoharie 101.7 Wharton Hollow Road/Route 16 Public Conventional Bore 

Summit Schoharie 101.7 Creamery Road Public Conventional Bore 

Summit Schoharie 102.6 Sawyer Hollow Road / County Road 20 Public Conventional Bore 
APPENDIX F – ROADWAYS AND RAILROADS CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

F1-4 

APPENDIX F-1 

Roadways Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Town/ 

Township County Milepost Road Name 

Public or 

Private 

Crossing 

Method 

Summit Schoharie 104.8 Decker Road Public Open cut 

Richmondville Schoharie 105.7 Lape Road Public Conventional Bore 

Richmondville Schoharie 107.2 Cross Hill Road Public Conventional Bore 

Richmondville Schoharie 109.3 Dodge Lodge Road Public Conventional Bore 

Cobleskill Schoharie 110.1 County Highway 4/W Fulton Road Public Conventional Bore 

Cobleskill Schoharie 110.6 Tower Road Public Conventional Bore 

Cobleskill Schoharie 111.5 Greenbush Hill Road Public Conventional Bore 

Middleburgh Schoharie 113.8 County Highway 41/Ecker Hollow Road Public Open cut 

Middleburgh Schoharie 115.3 State Highway 145 Public Conventional Bore 

Schoharie Schoharie 116.7 County Highway 1A/Schoharie Hill 

Road 

Public Conventional Bore 

Schoharie Schoharie 117.3 Terrace Mountain Road Public Open cut 

Schoharie Schoharie 119.6 Smith Road Public Open cut 

Schoharie Schoharie 119.9 Holiday Way Private Open cut 

Schoharie Schoharie 120.1 State Highway 30A Public Conventional Bore 

Schoharie Schoharie 121.4 State Highway 30 Public Conventional Bore 

Schoharie Schoharie 123.5 County Road 25/Barton Hill Road Public Conventional Bore 

Wright Schoharie 124.2 Westfall Road Public Open cut 

____________________ 

HDD = Horizontal directional drill
APPENDIX F-2 

Railroads Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

 
 
APPENDIX F – ROADWAYS AND RAILROADS CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

F2-1 

APPENDIX F-2 

Railroads Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Railroad 

Active/ 

Abandoned 

Town/ 

Township County, State Milepost Crossing Method 

Conrail 

(Consolidated Rail 

Corporation) 

Active Brooklyn 

Township 

Susquehanna, PA 2.9 Conventional Bore 

Conrail 

(Consolidated Rail 

Corporation) 

Abandoned / D&H 

Rail-Trail 

Harmony 

Township 

Susquehanna, PA 21.5 Conventional Bore 

Conrail 

(Consolidated Rail 

Corporation) 

Active Sanford Broome, NY 28.5 Conventional Bore 

O &W Railroad Abandoned Sidney Delaware, NY 56.3 Conventional Bore 
APPENDIX G 

Steep Slopes and Side Slopes Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 
 
APPENDIX G-1 

Steep Slopes (15% to 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

 
 
APPENDIX G – STEEP SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

G1-1 

APPENDIX G-1 

Steep Slopes (15% to 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)a

Pennsylvania 

0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.2 0.2 0.0 

0.8 0.8 0.0 

0.9 1.0 0.1 

1.0 1.0 0.0 

1.0 1.1 0.0 

1.1 1.2 0.0 

1.3 1.3 0.1 

1.5 1.5 0.0 

1.8 1.8 0.0 

1.9 2.0 0.0 

2.7 2.8 0.0 

2.8 2.9 0.0 

2.9 2.9 0.0 

3.2 3.2 0.0 

5.4 5.5 0.1 

6.1 6.3 0.1 

6.3 6.3 0.0 

6.4 6.4 0.1 

6.5 6.5 0.0 

6.5 6.5 0.0 

6.5 6.6 0.0 

6.6 6.6 0.0 

6.8 6.8 0.0 

6.9 7.0 0.0 

7.0 7.0 0.1 

7.2 7.2 0.0 

7.5 7.5 0.1 

7.7 7.9 0.2 

7.9 7.9 0.0 

8.0 8.0 0.0 

8.1 8.2 0.0 

8.2 8.2 0.0 

8.3 8.3 0.0 

   
APPENDIX G – STEEP SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

G1-2 

APPENDIX G-1 (continued) 

Steep Slopes (15% to 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)a

8.5 8.5 0.0 

8.6 8.7 0.1 

9.1 9.1 0.1 

9.3 9.4 0.1 

9.5 9.6 0.1 

9.7 9.7 0.0 

9.9 10.0 0.1 

11.5 11.6 0.1 

11.6 11.6 0.0 

12.0 12.2 0.1 

12.4 12.5 0.0 

12.7 12.7 0.0 

12.9 13.0 0.2 

13.2 13.3 0.2 

13.6 13.7 0.1 

14.0 14.0 0.1 

14.2 14.2 0.0 

14.3 14.3 0.0 

14.4 14.4 0.0 

14.4 14.5 0.1 

14.6 14.6 0.0 

15.0 15.3 0.3 

15.5 15.5 0.0 

15.5 15.5 0.0 

15.8 15.8 0.0 

15.8 15.9 0.1 

16.5 16.6 0.1 

16.6 16.7 0.0 

16.9 16.9 0.0 

16.9 17.0 0.1 

17.2 17.3 0.1 

17.3 17.3 0.0 

17.5 17.6 0.1 

18.1 18.2 0.1 

18.3 18.5 0.2 

18.7 18.8 0.0 
APPENDIX G – STEEP SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

G1-3 

APPENDIX G-1 (continued) 

Steep Slopes (15% to 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)a

18.9 18.9 0.1 

19.1 19.1 0.0 

19.1 19.2 0.0 

19.3 19.4 0.1 

19.5 19.5 0.1 

19.6 19.6 0.0 

19.6 19.9 0.2 

20.0 20.2 0.2 

20.3 20.4 0.0 

20.4 20.7 0.3 

20.8 20.8 0.0 

21.4 21.4 0.0 

21.9 21.9 0.0 

22.0 22.0 0.0 

22.6 22.7 0.1 

22.8 22.8 0.1 

22.8 22.9 0.1 

23.0 23.1 0.1 

23.3 23.3 0.0 

23.3 23.4 0.0 

Pennsylvania Subtotal 5.4 

New York 

25.4 25.5 0.1 

25.5 25.6 0.1 

26.3 26.4 0.1 

27.3 27.5 0.2 

28.0 28.1 0.1 

28.3 28.4 0.1 

28.5 28.5 0.0 

29.0 29.0 0.0 

29.4 29.5 0.1 

29.8 29.9 0.0 

30.1 30.2 0.0 

30.2 30.3 0.0 

30.3 30.4 0.0 

30.4 30.4 0.0 
APPENDIX G – STEEP SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

G1-4 

APPENDIX G-1 (continued) 

Steep Slopes (15% to 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)a

30.8 31.0 0.2 

31.1 31.2 0.1 

31.6 31.6 0.0 

31.8 31.9 0.0 

32.1 32.2 0.0 

32.4 32.5 0.1 

32.6 32.6 0.0 

34.5 34.5 0.0 

35.5 35.6 0.0 

36.2 36.3 0.0 

36.5 36.5 0.0 

36.9 37.0 0.1 

37.1 37.1 0.1 

37.3 37.4 0.0 

37.8 37.9 0.0 

39.1 39.1 0.0 

39.2 39.3 0.0 

39.9 40.0 0.1 

41.4 41.5 0.0 

42.2 42.2 0.0 

42.3 42.3 0.0 

42.4 42.4 0.0 

42.7 42.7 0.0 

42.9 42.9 0.0 

44.3 44.4 0.0 

44.7 44.8 0.1 

44.8 44.8 0.0 

45.1 45.1 0.0 

45.1 45.1 0.0 

45.2 45.3 0.0 

44.9 45.0 0.2 

46.4 46.7 0.3 

46.8 46.9 0.1 

47.0 47.2 0.3 

47.3 47.4 0.1 

48.3 48.7 0.3 
APPENDIX G – STEEP SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

G1-5 

APPENDIX G-1 (continued) 

Steep Slopes (15% to 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)a

48.7 48.8 0.1 

49.5 49.6 0.1 

50.9 51.0 0.1 

51.0 51.1 0.1 

51.5 51.5 0.1 

51.5 51.6 0.0 

54.0 54.0 0.0 

54.2 54.3 0.1 

54.9 55.0 0.1 

55.0 55.0 0.0 

55.1 55.1 0.0 

55.6 55.9 0.2 

57.6 57.8 0.2 

58.4 58.4 0.0 

60.5 60.6 0.0 

60.7 60.7 0.0 

61.7 61.7 0.0 

62.1 62.1 0.0 

62.6 62.7 0.1 

62.8 62.8 0.0 

62.9 63.0 0.1 

63.0 63.1 0.1 

63.2 63.2 0.1 

63.3 63.4 0.1 

64.4 64.4 0.0 

64.5 64.6 0.1 

65.2 65.2 0.0 

66.0 66.0 0.0 

67.1 67.1 0.0 

67.3 67.4 0.0 

67.6 67.6 0.0 

68.1 68.1 0.0 

68.2 68.3 0.0 

68.7 68.8 0.1 

69.2 69.4 0.2 

69.4 69.5 0.0 
APPENDIX G – STEEP SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

G1-6 

APPENDIX G-1 (continued) 

Steep Slopes (15% to 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)a

69.5 69.5 0.1 

70.7 70.8 0.0 

71.4 71.5 0.1 

71.8 71.8 0.0 

71.8 71.9 0.1 

72.0 72.0 0.1 

72.1 72.1 0.0 

72.1 72.2 0.1 

73.0 73.1 0.0 

74.0 74.1 0.1 

74.2 74.3 0.1 

74.4 74.5 0.0 

74.6 74.6 0.0 

75.4 75.5 0.1 

75.7 75.7 0.1 

76.0 76.0 0.0 

76.1 76.2 0.1 

76.2 76.3 0.0 

77.0 77.0 0.0 

77.6 77.8 0.2 

78.0 78.0 0.0 

78.1 78.1 0.0 

78.2 78.2 0.0 

78.2 78.2 0.0 

78.7 78.7 0.0 

79.2 79.2 0.1 

79.7 79.7 0.0 

79.7 79.8 0.1 

80.1 80.2 0.0 

80.2 80.2 0.0 

80.4 80.4 0.0 

80.6 80.7 0.1 

80.7 80.8 0.1 

81.1 81.1 0.0 

81.2 81.2 0.0 

81.3 81.6 0.3 
APPENDIX G – STEEP SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

G1-7 

APPENDIX G-1 (continued) 

Steep Slopes (15% to 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)a

81.6 81.6 0.0 

84.4 84.5 0.0 

84.8 84.8 0.0 

87.3 87.5 0.2 

87.5 87.6 0.1 

87.8 87.8 0.0 

88.4 88.4 0.0 

88.9 88.9 0.0 

91.6 91.7 0.1 

91.8 91.9 0.0 

92.0 92.0 0.0 

92.2 92.2 0.1 

92.4 92.5 0.0 

92.6 92.6 0.0 

92.8 92.9 0.1 

93.2 93.2 0.0 

93.3 93.3 0.0 

93.6 93.6 0.0 

93.7 93.7 0.0 

93.8 93.8 0.0 

94.1 94.1 0.0 

94.3 94.3 0.0 

94.4 94.4 0.0 

94.5 94.5 0.1 

94.5 94.6 0.0 

95.0 95.0 0.0 

95.1 95.2 0.0 

95.2 95.2 0.0 

95.3 95.3 0.0 

95.5 95.5 0.0 

96.1 96.1 0.0 

96.1 96.2 0.1 

97.2 97.2 0.0 

97.7 97.7 0.1 

97.8 97.8 0.0 

97.8 97.9 0.1 
APPENDIX G – STEEP SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

G1-8 

APPENDIX G-1 (continued) 

Steep Slopes (15% to 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)a

98.5 98.5 0.1 

100.7 100.7 0.0 

100.8 100.8 0.0 

101.2 101.2 0.0 

101.5 101.7 0.2 

101.8 101.8 0.0 

101.9 102.0 0.0 

102.0 102.0 0.0 

103.6 103.6 0.0 

103.8 104.0 0.2 

104.0 104.1 0.1 

104.4 104.4 0.0 

104.5 104.6 0.0 

105.2 105.3 0.1 

105.7 105.7 0.0 

106.2 106.2 0.0 

106.6 106.8 0.2 

107.1 107.2 0.0 

107.2 107.3 0.1 

107.4 107.4 0.1 

107.5 107.5 0.0 

107.6 107.6 0.0 

107.8 107.8 0.0 

107.8 107.8 0.0 

107.9 107.9 0.0 

108.5 108.5 0.0 

109.5 109.5 0.0 

109.5 109.6 0.0 

109.8 109.8 0.0 

110.0 110.0 0.0 

110.0 110.1 0.0 

111.1 111.1 0.0 

111.2 111.2 0.0 

111.5 111.5 0.0 

111.8 111.9 0.1 

112.4 112.4 0.0 
APPENDIX G – STEEP SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

G1-9 

APPENDIX G-1 (continued) 

Steep Slopes (15% to 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)a

112.9 113.3 0.4 

113.3 113.4 0.0 

113.9 114.2 0.3 

114.4 114.4 0.0 

114.5 114.5 0.0 

114.5 114.5 0.0 

114.7 114.7 0.0 

115.4 115.5 0.1 

115.7 115.7 0.1 

115.8 115.8 0.0 

115.9 115.9 0.0 

116.0 116.0 0.0 

116.0 116.0 0.0 

116.1 116.1 0.0 

116.3 116.5 0.2 

116.6 116.7 0.0 

117.2 117.3 0.1 

118.3 118.4 0.0 

118.6 118.6 0.0 

118.8 118.8 0.0 

118.9 118.9 0.0 

119.2 119.2 0.0 

119.3 119.3 0.1 

119.4 119.4 0.0 

119.4 119.4 0.0 

119.7 119.7 0.0 

120.1 120.1 0.0 

121.7 121.8 0.1 

122.8 122.8 0.0 

New York Subtotal 11.5 

_____________________ 

Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding.

a

 The slope locations were identified by Constitution utilizing 2 foot contours that were created utilizing photogrametry 

survey data. The photogrametry survey was completed between July 2012 and April 2013. The locations indicate 

areas along the project where the centerline crosses slopes (runs perpendicular to the slope contours) between 15% 

and 30%. 

APPENDIX G-2 

Steep Slopes (> 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

 
 
APPENDIX G – STEEP SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

G2-1 

APPENDIX G-2 

Steep Slopes (> 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)a

Pennsylvania 

1.0 1.0 0.0 

1.2 1.3 0.1 

2.8 2.9 0.1 

2.9 2.9 0.0 

2.9 3.0 0.1 

3.0 3.0 0.0 

3.1 3.2 0.2 

3.8 3.9 0.0 

6.3 6.3 0.0 

6.6 6.6 0.0 

6.6 6.6 0.0 

7.5 7.6 0.0 

7.9 7.9 0.0 

7.9 7.9 0.0 

8.0 8.0 0.0 

8.0 8.1 0.1 

8.2 8.3 0.1 

8.4 8.5 0.0 

8.5 8.5 0.0 

9.7 9.8 0.0 

10.0 10.0 0.0 

11.6 11.6 0.0 

13.1 13.1 0.0 

13.5 13.5 0.0 

14.2 14.2 0.0 

15.9 16.1 0.1 

16.6 16.6 0.0 

17.0 17.2 0.2 

17.4 17.4 0.0 

18.1 18.1 0.0 

18.1 18.1 0.0 

18.5 18.7 0.2 

18.8 18.8 0.0 

18.8 18.9 0.1 

   
APPENDIX G – STEEP SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

G2-2 

APPENDIX G-2 (continued) 

Steep Slopes (> 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)a

18.9 19.1 0.1 

19.1 19.1 0.1 

19.4 19.5 0.1 

19.6 19.6 0.1 

20.2 20.2 0.1 

20.4 20.4 0.0 

21.4 21.5 0.0 

21.5 21.5 0.0 

21.5 21.5 0.0 

21.5 21.5 0.0 

21.6 21.6 0.0 

21.8 21.9 0.0 

21.9 22.0 0.1 

22.7 22.8 0.0 

22.8 22.8 0.0 

22.9 23.0 0.0 

23.3 23.3 0.0 

Pennsylvania Subtotal 2.3 

New York 

26.1 26.1 0.0 

27.2 27.2 0.1 

28.1 28.1 0.1 

28.5 28.5 0.0 

28.8 28.8 0.0 

30.3 30.3 0.1 

30.3 30.3 0.0 

30.7 30.7 0.0 

30.8 30.8 0.0 

31.1 31.1 0.0 

31.6 31.7 0.2 

32.2 32.3 0.1 

32.3 32.3 0.0 

32.5 32.6 0.1 

32.6 32.7 0.1 

34.7 34.7 0.0 

36.3 36.3 0.0 
APPENDIX G – STEEP SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

G2-3 

APPENDIX G-2 (continued) 

Steep Slopes (> 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)a

36.5 36.5 0.0 

37.3 37.3 0.0 

37.3 37.3 0.0 

39.2 39.2 0.0 

42.3 42.4 0.0 

42.4 42.4 0.0 

44.8 44.9 0.0 

43.3 43.3 0.0 

55.0 55.1 0.0 

55.9 55.9 0.1 

56.4 56.4 0.0 

56.5 56.5 0.0 

56.8 56.8 0.0 

56.9 57.0 0.1 

57.8 57.8 0.0 

60.6 60.6 0.0 

60.7 60.7 0.0 

60.9 60.9 0.0 

61.7 61.8 0.1 

62.7 62.8 0.0 

62.9 62.9 0.0 

68.7 68.7 0.0 

69.4 69.4 0.0 

72.0 72.0 0.0 

72.1 72.1 0.1 

74.1 74.2 0.1 

75.4 75.4 0.0 

76.2 76.2 0.0 

77.0 77.0 0.0 

77.1 77.2 0.1 

79.8 79.8 0.0 

80.5 80.5 0.0 

80.7 80.7 0.0 

81.2 81.3 0.0 

81.6 81.6 0.0 

81.6 81.6 0.0 
APPENDIX G – STEEP SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

G2-4 

APPENDIX G-2 (continued) 

Steep Slopes (> 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)a

81.7 81.7 0.0 

84.8 84.9 0.0 

87.5 87.5 0.0 

87.6 87.7 0.0 

87.8 87.8 0.0 

92.0 92.0 0.0 

92.0 92.1 0.0 

93.2 93.3 0.0 

94.4 94.5 0.1 

94.5 94.5 0.0 

95.2 95.3 0.0 

98.5 98.5 0.0 

101.7 101.7 0.0 

102.0 102.0 0.0 

103.3 103.4 0.0 

104.0 104.0 0.0 

105.7 105.8 0.0 

106.6 106.6 0.0 

107.6 107.6 0.0 

107.6 107.6 0.0 

107.8 107.8 0.0 

107.8 107.8 0.0 

107.8 107.8 0.0 

110.0 110.0 0.0 

111.2 111.3 0.0 

113.3 113.3 0.1 

114.4 114.5 0.0 

114.5 114.5 0.0 

114.6 114.7 0.1 

115.5 115.7 0.1 

116.3 116.3 0.0 

119.0 119.0 0.0 

119.1 119.1 0.0 

119.2 119.3 0.0 

119.3 119.4 0.0 

119.4 119.4 0.0 
APPENDIX G – STEEP SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

G2-5 

APPENDIX G-2 (continued) 

Steep Slopes (> 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)a

120.8 120.8 0.0 

New York Subtotal 2.9 

____________________ 

Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding. 

a

 The slope locations were identified by Constitution utilizing 2 foot contours that were created utilizing photogrametry 

survey data. The photogrametry survey was completed between July 2012 and April 2013. The locations indicate 

areas along the project where the centerline crosses slopes (runs perpendicular to the slope contours) greater than 

30%. 

APPENDIX G-3 

Steep Side Slopes (15% to 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

 
 
APPENDIX G – STEEP SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

G3-1 

APPENDIX G-3 

Steep Side Slopes (15% to 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)a

Pennsylvania 

3.2 3.3 0.1 

3.4 3.7 0.3 

4.0 4.2 0.2 

5.0 5.0 0.1 

5.1 5.2 0.2 

5.2 5.3 0.0 

6.2 6.2 0.0 

7.1 7.2 0.1 

7.2 7.3 0.1 

8.9 8.9 0.0 

9.4 9.5 0.1 

10.1 10.1 0.0 

10.1 10.4 0.3 

11.2 11.3 0.1 

11.5 11.6 0.1 

11.6 11.7 0.0 

11.8 11.8 0.0 

12.2 12.3 0.1 

12.9 13.0 0.1 

13.4 13.4 0.0 

13.8 13.8 0.0 

13.9 14.0 0.1 

14.2 14.2 0.0 

14.4 14.4 0.0 

15.5 15.6 0.1 

19.0 19.1 0.1 

19.2 19.3 0.1 

20.7 21.2 0.5 

21.8 21.8 0.0 

22.2 22.3 0.1 

22.0 22.1 0.1 

22.2 22.3 0.1 

23.5 24.0 0.5 

24.1 24.1 0.0 

Pennsylvania Subtotal 3.4 
APPENDIX G – STEEP SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

G3-2 

APPENDIX G-3 (continued) 

Steep Side Slopes (15% to 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)a

New York 

26.9 27.0 0.0 

28.9 29.0 0.1 

29.3 29.3 0.0 

29.3 29.4 0.1 

29.9 30.1 0.2 

31.3 31.3 0.0 

32.0 32.1 0.1 

34.6 34.6 0.0 

34.7 34.8 0.1 

34.8 34.9 0.1 

35.1 35.2 0.1 

35.3 35.5 0.2 

35.7 35.8 0.0 

36.3 36.3 0.1 

36.8 36.8 0.1 

37.0 37.1 0.1 

37.8 37.8 0.0 

38.1 38.1 0.0 

38.5 38.6 0.0 

38.9 38.9 0.0 

39.0 39.0 0.0 

39.1 39.1 0.0 

39.2 39.2 0.0 

39.4 39.5 0.1 

39.6 39.6 0.0 

39.7 39.8 0.1 

40.3 40.4 0.1 

45.2 45.2 0.0 

46.4 46.4 0.0 

52.0 52.0 0.0 

54.0 54.0 0.0 

54.7 54.7 0.0 

55.0 55.0 0.0 

55.7 57.7 2.0 

56.2 56.2 0.0 
APPENDIX G – STEEP SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

G3-3 

APPENDIX G-3 (continued) 

Steep Side Slopes (15% to 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)a

57.5 57.5 0.0 

57.5 57.6 0.0 

58.9 58.9 0.0 

59.0 59.0 0.1 

59.2 59.3 0.1 

59.6 59.6 0.0 

60.1 60.1 0.0 

60.2 60.3 0.1 

61.7 61.9 0.2 

64.2 64.3 0.1 

67.7 67.8 0.1 

69.2 69.2 0.0 

70.6 70.7 0.0 

72.5 72.5 0.0 

74.2 74.2 0.0 

75.6 75.6 0.0 

78.4 78.4 0.0 

78.5 78.6 0.1 

79.4 79.6 0.2 

79.6 79.7 0.1 

79.9 79.9 0.1 

80.0 80.1 0.0 

80.4 80.5 0.1 

80.5 80.5 0.1 

88.2 88.2 0.0 

88.4 88.5 0.0 

89.2 89.2 0.0 

89.8 89.8 0.0 

91.5 91.5 0.0 

91.5 91.5 0.0 

91.9 92.0 0.0 

92.6 92.8 0.1 

92.9 92.9 0.0 

93.3 93.3 0.0 

94.7 94.7 0.1 

94.8 94.9 0.0 
APPENDIX G – STEEP SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

G3-4 

APPENDIX G-3 (continued) 

Steep Side Slopes (15% to 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)a

94.9 95.0 0.1 

95.4 95.4 0.0 

95.7 95.8 0.1 

95.8 95.9 0.1 

95.9 96.1 0.2 

95.9 95.9 0.0 

95.9 95.9 0.0 

95.9 95.9 0.0 

95.9 95.9 0.0 

95.9 95.9 0.0 

95.9 95.9 0.0 

95.9 95.9 0.0 

95.9 95.9 0.0 

102.0 102.0 0.0 

103.5 103.5 0.0 

103.5 103.6 0.1 

104.6 104.6 0.1 

104.7 105.0 0.3 

105.2 105.2 0.1 

105.3 105.3 0.1 

105.5 105.6 0.1 

105.7 105.7 0.0 

106.0 106.0 0.0 

106.0 106.2 0.2 

106.2 106.3 0.1 

106.3 106.4 0.1 

106.4 106.6 0.2 

108.7 109.0 0.3 

109.1 109.2 0.1 

110.5 110.7 0.1 

110.7 110.8 0.0 

111.8 111.8 0.0 

New York Subtotal 7.8 

   
APPENDIX G – STEEP SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

G3-5 

APPENDIX G-3 (continued) 

Steep Side Slopes (15% to 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)a

____________________ 

Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding. 

a The slope locations were identified by Constitution utilizing 2 foot contours that were created utilizing photogrametry 

survey data. The photogrametry survey was completed between July 2012 and April 2013. The locations indicate 

areas along the project where the centerline runs parallel to slope contours between 15% and 30%. 

APPENDIX G-4 

Steep Side Slopes (> 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

 
 
APPENDIX G – STEEP SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

G4-1 

APPENDIX G-4 

Steep Side Slopes (> 30%) Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)a

Pennsylvania 

2.8 2.9 0.0 

3.7 3.8 0.1 

6.1 6.2 0.1 

7.2 7.2 0.0 

10.1 10.1 0.0 

14.3 14.4 0.1 

21.8 21.9 0.0 

24.0 24.1 0.1 

Pennsylvania Subtotal 0.4 

New York 

27.0 27.2 0.2 

31.3 31.6 0.3 

64.3 64.4 0.1 

79.6 79.6 0.0 

79.9 80.0 0.1 

92.9 92.9 0.0 

92.9 92.9 0.0 

94.2 94.3 0.0 

95.9 95.9 0.0 

103.4 103.5 0.0 

103.5 103.5 0.0 

105.0 105.2 0.1 

106.2 106.3 0.0 

105.3 105.4 0.1 

105.5 105.5 0.1 

106.2 106.3 0.0 

106.3 106.3 0.0 

106.4 106.4 0.0 

109.0 109.1 0.1 

New York Subtotal 1.4 

____________________ 

Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding.

a

 The slope locations were identified by Constitution utilizing 2 foot contours that were created utilizing photogrametry 

survey data. The photogrametry survey was completed between July 2012 and April 2013. The locations indicate 

areas along the project where the centerline runs parallel to slope contours greater than 30%. 
APPENDIX H 

Status of Minor Route Variations 
 
APPENDIX H-1 

Status of Minor Route Variations Reported to Constitution 

 

APPENDIX H – STATUS OF MINOR ROUTE VARIATIONS 

H1-1

APPENDIX H-1 

Status of Minor Route Variations Reported to Constitution 

Affected Parcel Numbers MP

Reason for Minor 

Deviation Status

Landowner Resolution? 

(Yes/No)

PA-SU-002.000 

PA-SU-002.000

0.5 Deviation was developed 

to follow a property 

boundary.

Adopted into the Primary 

Route.

Yes

ALT-T-UA-PA-SU-003.002 

ALT-T-UA-PA-SU-004.001 

ALT-T-PA-SU-005.000

2.3 Deviation was developed 

to avoid a structure.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes. Landowner property 

ALT-T- UA-PA-SU004.000 almost 

completely avoided by 

pipeline and workspace.

ALT-A-PA-SU-013.000 

ALT-A-PA-SU-004.000

4.15 Deviation was developed 

to avoid a barn.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes

ALT-A-PA-SU-019.000 

ALT-A-UA-PA-SU-021.000 

ALT-A-PA-SU-020.000

5.35 Deviation was developed 

to move closer towards 

western property line.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route.

Yes

ALT-A-PA-SU-024.000 

ALT-A-PA-SU-026.000 

ALT-A-PA-027.000 

ALT-A-PA-SU-028.000

6.1 This deviation was 

developed to avoid a 

camper.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes

ALT-A-PA-SU-033.000 7.7 This deviation was 

developed to avoid a 

home.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route.

Yes

ALT-A-PA-SU-033.000 

ALT-A-PA-SU-036.000

8.3 Deviation was developed 

to move route away from a 

landowner’s property line.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route.

Yes

PA-SU-070.000 

PA-SU-071.000 

PA-SU-072.000 

PA-SU-073.000 

PA-SU-074.000 

UA-PA-SU-075.001 

PA-SU-079.000 

PA-SU-081.000 

PA-SU-082.000 

PA-SU-083.000 

PA-SU-084.000 

PA-SU-085.000 

PA-SU-087.000

12.7 This deviation was 

developed at the request of 

landowners to move the 

pipeline to the “back” 

property line away from 

their homes and to move 

the route away from a 

Bluestone Pipeline well 

pad. This route also 

avoids a high quality 

wetland. 

Adopted in Proposed 

Route. Originally named 

the Brushville Road Minor 

route deviation.

Yes

PA-SU-074.000 

PA-SU-073.000

12.7 This deviation was 

developed to move pipeline 

closer to the Bluestone 

Pipeline.

The route deviation was 

not adopted. This re-route 

was replaced by another 

re-route which was 

approved and adopted to 

avoid power poles at the 

Lewis Corners Road 

crossing.

No

PA-SU-070.000 

PA-SU-071.000 

PA-SU-072.000 

PA-SU-073.000 

PA-SU-074.000 

UA-PA-SU-075.001 

PA-SU-079.000 

PA-SU-081.000 

PA-SU-082.000 

PA-SU-083.000 

PA-SU-084.000 

PA-SU-085.000

12.7 This deviation was 

developed to move the 

pipeline closer to a 

property boundary.

Brushville Road Minor 

Route Deviation. 

Investigation has 

determined that an 

existing well pad conflicts 

with this deviation. 

Therefore, it has not been 

incorporated into the 

Proposed Route.

No

   
APPENDIX H – STATUS OF MINOR ROUTE VARIATIONS 

H1-2

APPENDIX H-1 (continued) 

Status of Minor Route Variations Reported to Constitution 

Affected Parcel Numbers MP

Reason for Minor 

Deviation Status

Landowner Resolution? 

(Yes/No)

PA-SU-081.000 

PA-SU-082.000 

PA-SU-083.000

13.5 This deviation was 

developed to avoid a 

home.

Brushville Road Minor 

route deviation. Replaced 

by a new route deviation.

Yes

PA-SU-082.000 

UA-PA-SU-088.001 

PA-SU-090.000 

PA-SU-091.000

13.9 Avoidance of conservation 

easement.

Brushville Road Minor 

route deviation. This route 

was not adopted. Re-route 

adds approximately 500 

feet of pipe.

No

PA-SU-088.000 

UA-PA-SU-088.001 

PA-SU-089.000 

PA-SU-090.000 

PA-SU-091.000

14.6 This deviation was 

developed to move away 

from a quarry.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route.

Yes

PA-SU-112.000 

PA-SU-107.000 

PA-SU-108.000 

PA-SU-109.000

18.8 This deviation was 

developed to avoid a 

quarry.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation. Quarry property 

PA- SU-112.000 

completely avoided.

Yes

PA-SU-121.000 

PA-SU-122.000 

PA-SU-123.000

23.8 This deviation was 

developed to avoid homes.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes

PA SU 128.000 

PA-SU-127.000

24.8 Landowner requested the 

pipeline abut the existing 

Bluestone Pipeline Rightof-Way.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route.

Yes

ALT-B-NY-BR-003.000 26.8 This deviation was 

developed to avoid close 

proximity to a home.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes

ALT-B-NY-BR-002.000 

ALT-B-UA-NY-BR-002.001 

ALT-B-NY-BR-004.000 

ALT-B-NY-BR-003.000 

ALT-B-NY-BR-007.000

27.0 This deviation was 

developed to avoid homes.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes

ALT-B-UA-NY-BR-012.001 27.8 This deviation was 

developed to avoid a 

structure.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes

ALT-B-NY-BR-015.001 

ALT-B-NY-BR-016.002 

ALT-B-NY-BR-016.003

28.95 This re-route was 

developed to move the 

pipeline away from homes.

The route deviation was 

not adopted. 

(Re-route rejected by 

Constitution due to impacts 

on cultural resources).

No

ALT-B-NY-BR-023.000 

ALT-B-NY-BR-020.000 

ALT-B-NY-BR-024.000

30.9 This deviation was 

developed to avoid homes.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes

ALT-B-NY-BR-024.000 

ALT-B-UA-NY-BR-025.000 

ALT-B-NY-BR-026.000 

ALT-B-NY-BR-028.000

31.4 This deviation was 

developed to avoid a burial 

site with ash remains.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route.

Yes

ALT-B-NY-BR-028.000 31.6 This deviation was 

developed to avoid 

property corner.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route. Landowner 

completely avoided.

Yes

ALT-B-NY-BR-032.000 32.9 This deviation was 

developed to avoid homes.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes
APPENDIX H – STATUS OF MINOR ROUTE VARIATIONS 

H1-3

APPENDIX H-1 (continued) 

Status of Minor Route Variations Reported to Constitution 

Affected Parcel Numbers MP

Reason for Minor 

Deviation Status

Landowner Resolution? 

(Yes/No)

ALT-B-NY-BR-037.000 

ALT-B-NY-BR-039.000

34.0 This deviation was 

developed to avoid a 

property entirely.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation. 

ALT-B-NY-BR-038.000 is 

now completely avoided.

Yes

ALT-B-NY-BR-040.000 34.5 This deviation was 

developed to avoid a barn 

and relocate the route 

along a tree line.

Information collected by 

Constitution determined 

this route is not feasible 

and was not incorporated. 

ALT-B-NY-BR-040.000 is 

now completely avoided.

Yes

ALT-B-NY-BR-042.000 34.54 No deviation developed. 

Cemetery plot discovered 

at this location.

Determined by 

Constitution’s cultural 

resource consultant that 

there are no conflicts with 

the location of the 

Proposed Route in relation 

to the cemetery plot.

Yes

ALT-B-NY-BR-054.000 

ALT-B-NY-BR-055.000

36.9 This deviation was 

developed to avoid 

geological features.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes

ALT-B-NY-BR-071.000 

ALT-B-NY-BR-072.000 

ALT-B-NY-BR-073.000 

ALT-B-UA-NY-BR-073.001

40.05 This deviation was 

developed to avoid a 

structure.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes

ALT-B-NY-BR-072.000 

ALT-B-NY-BR-073.000 

ALT-B-NY-BR-074.000

40.3 This deviation was 

developed to move pipeline 

further away from a cabin.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route.

Yes

ALT-B-UA-NY-BR-077.001 40.95 This deviation was 

developed to avoid 

underground structures.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route.

Yes

NY-BR-077.002 41.3 This deviation was 

developed to offset the 

pipeline 300 feet to 400 

feet from a roadway.

The route deviation was 

not adopted. Determined 

that re-route would add 

unacceptable additional 

length.

No

ALT-B-NY-BR-082.003 41.8 A deviation was proposed 

at this location to move the 

pipeline away from a water 

well.

The route deviation 

proposal was not adopted. 

(But see our 

recommendation below)

No

ALT-B-NY-BR-083.005 

ALT-B-NY-BR-083.006 

NY-CH-001.004

42.2 This deviation was 

developed to move the 

pipeline away from a future 

proposed home location.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route. Constitution’s land 

agent confirmed future 

home location.

Yes

NY-CH-005.004 

NY-CH-005.002 

NY-CH-010.002 

NY-CH-010.003

44.0 This deviation was 

developed to minimize 

impacts on subdivided lots.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route.

Yes

NY-CH-032.000 

NY-CH-031.000 

NY-CH-033.000

49.1 This deviation was 

developed to minimize 

impacts on sensitive land 

features.

The route deviation was 

not adopted. This re-route 

was replaced by a 

combination of two other 

re-routes. A combination 

of both re-routes address 

the two landowners 

concerns. 

Yes
APPENDIX H – STATUS OF MINOR ROUTE VARIATIONS 

H1-4

APPENDIX H-1 (continued) 

Status of Minor Route Variations Reported to Constitution 

Affected Parcel Numbers MP

Reason for Minor 

Deviation Status

Landowner Resolution? 

(Yes/No)

NY-CH-031.000, NY-CH032.000 

NY-CH-033.000

49.3 This deviation was 

developed as a 

compromise between two 

landowners to route 

pipeline along a shared 

property line.

The route deviation was 

not adopted. This re-route 

was replaced by a 

combination of two reroutes which were 

adopted.

Yes

NY-CH-031.000 

NY-CH-032.000 

NY-CH-033.000

49.3 This deviation was 

developed after an 

agreement between two 

landowners was made. 

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route.

Yes.

NY-CH-032.000 

NY-CH-033.000

49.3 This deviation was 

developed to minimize 

impact on mature trees.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes

NY-CH-033.000 49.4 This deviation was 

developed to collocate 

pipeline with roadway.

This route was not adopted 

due to major pipe length 

increases.

No

NY-CH-031.000 

NY-CH-032.000 

NY-CH-033.000 

NY-CH-034.000 

NY-CH-035.000

49.7 This deviation was 

developed to minimize 

impacts on sensitive land 

features between two 

landowners.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route.

Yes

NY-CH-034.000 

NY-CH-035.000

50.0 This deviation was 

developed to move away 

from a home.

This route was not 

adopted. Constitution 

determined route could not 

be investigated because 

landowner had not granted 

survey permission. 

No

NY-DE-013.000 

NY-DE-016.000

53.8 This route deviation was 

developed to avoid 

socioeconomic factors.

This route deviation was 

not adopted. Determined 

that re-route would go 

through a beaver pond and 

be placed in close 

proximity electric 

transmission guy wires and 

anchors.

 No

NY-DE-024.000 55.9 This deviation was 

developed to avoid a 

home.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes

NY-DE-029.000 56.5 This deviation was 

developed to move the 

pipeline away from a home 

and for a better creek 

crossing location.

This route deviation was 

adopted.

Yes

NY-DE-030.000 56.7 This deviation was 

developed to potentially 

improve routing.

This route deviation was 

not adopted. Determined 

that re-route would result in 

additional pipeline length 

and pose constructability 

issues.

No

NY-DE-034.000 

UA-NY-DE-035.001 

NY-DE-035.000

58.6 This deviation was 

developed to route around 

a rest area (NYSDOT 

managed land).

This route deviation was 

adopted.

Yes

NY-DE-042.000 

NY-DE-043.000 

NY-DE-044.000

60.5 This deviation was 

developed to route away 

from a water well.

This route deviation was 

adopted.

Yes
APPENDIX H – STATUS OF MINOR ROUTE VARIATIONS 

H1-5

APPENDIX H-1 (continued) 

Status of Minor Route Variations Reported to Constitution 

Affected Parcel Numbers MP

Reason for Minor 

Deviation Status

Landowner Resolution? 

(Yes/No)

NY-DE-045.000 

NY-DE-048.000 

NY-DE-049.000 

NY-DE-050.000

61.8 This deviation was 

developed to route away 

from some fields.

This route deviation was 

not adopted. Determined 

that re-route would 

increase wetland impacts. 

Re-route replaced by 

another re-route. 

Constitution 

representatives met with 

the two landowners 

affected by the re-route 

and received landowner 

approval.

Yes

NY-DE-063.000 

NY-DE-066.000 

NY-DE-067.000 

UA-NY-DE-067.002 

NY-DE-070.000 

NY-DE-071.000 

NY-DE-072.000

64.0 This deviation is one of two 

options developed to move 

pipeline closer to property 

boundary.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes

NY-DE-070.000 

NY-DE-071.000 

NY-DE-072.000

64.9 This deviation is one of two 

options developed to avoid 

trees and a tree stand.

This route deviation was 

not adopted. This re-route 

was replaced by another 

re-route which was 

adopted. 

Yes

NY-DE-070.000 

NY-DE-071.000

64.9 This deviation is one of a 

couple of options 

developed to avoid trees 

and a tree stand.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route. 

Yes

NY-DE-072.000 

NY-DE-077.000 

NY-DE-074.000 

NY-DE-075.000 

NY-DE-076.000

65.6 This deviation was 

developed to move away 

from a pond and numerous 

trees.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes

NY-DE-072.000 

NY-DE-077.000

65.6 This deviation was 

developed to avoid 

sensitive land features.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route.

Yes

NY-DE-080.000 67.0 This deviation was 

developed to avoid 

sensitive land features.

This route deviation was 

not adopted. Determined 

at the time of review that 

the re-route adds 420 feet 

and would require the 

relocation of a MLV 

assembly in close proximity 

to a radio tower.

No

NY-DE-092.000 

NY-DE-093.000 

NY-DE-094.000 

NY-DE-095.000 

NY-DE-096.000

69.8 This deviation was 

developed to move away 

from a cabin and 

unfavorable terrain.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route. Constitution 

representatives met with 

landowner to develop reroute.

Yes

NY-DE-093.000 

NY-DE-094.000 

NY-DE-095.000

69.9 This deviation was 

developed to move the 

route along the wooded 

edge of property.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route.

Yes

NY-DE-098.000 

NY-DE-099.000 

NY-DE-101.000

71.1 This deviation is one of a 

couple of options 

developed to avoid a 

landowner’s trees.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route. Constitution to 

confirm that workspace will 

not impact trees.

Yes
APPENDIX H – STATUS OF MINOR ROUTE VARIATIONS 

H1-6

APPENDIX H-1 (continued) 

Status of Minor Route Variations Reported to Constitution 

Affected Parcel Numbers MP

Reason for Minor 

Deviation Status

Landowner Resolution? 

(Yes/No)

NY-DE-098.000 

NY-DE-099.000 

NY-DE-101.000

71.1 This deviation is one of two 

options developed to avoid 

a landowner’s trees.

This route deviation was 

not adopted. This re-route 

was replaced by another 

route deviation which was 

approved and adopted. 

Constitution to confirm that 

workspace will not impact 

trees.

Yes

NY-DE-101.000 

NY-DE-100.000 

NY-DE-103.000

71.5 This deviation was 

developed to avoid a 

property.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route.

Yes

NY-DE-129.000 

NY-DE-130.000 

NY-DE-131.000

76.6 This deviation was 

developed to move the 

route away from a future 

proposed home.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes

NY-DE-139.000 

NY-DE-140.000 

NY-DE-141.000 

UA-NY-DE-141.001 

NY-DE-144.000 

UA-NY-DE-144.001 

NY-DE-145.000 

NY-DE-146.000 

NY-DE-147.000 

NY-DE-148.000

77.4 This deviation was 

developed to move the 

route from sensitive 

properties features.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route.

Yes

NY-DE-153.000 

NY-DE-154.000 

NY-DE-154.002 

NY-DE-155.000 

NY-DE-155.003 

NY-DE-155.007 

NY-DE-155.008 

NY-DE-158.001 

NY-DE-158.002 

NY-DE-165.004 

NY-DE-165.002 

NY-DE-165.006 

NY-DE-165.010 

NY-DE-165.008 

NY-DE-165.011 

NY-DE-165.012 

NY-DE-175.002 

NY-DE-175.004 

NY-DE-179.001 

NY-DE-179.002 

NY-DE-180.000 

NY-DE-181.000 

NY-DE-182.000 

NY-DE-183.000

80.8 Avoid Town of East 

Meredith.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route. 

Yes

NY-DE-155.000 

NY-DE-157.000 

NY-DE-156.000 

NY-DE-158.000 

NY-DE-159.000 

NY-DE-160.000

80.8 This deviation was 

developed to move the 

route further from a 

structure.

This route deviation was 

not adopted. Re-route 

replaced by another reroute. Land tract is no 

longer affected by the 

proposed pipeline route.

Yes

NY-DE-160.000 81.1 This deviation was 

developed to address 

distance to a home and 

side-slopes.

This route deviation was 

not adopted. This property 

is no longer affected by the 

pipeline route.

Yes
APPENDIX H – STATUS OF MINOR ROUTE VARIATIONS 

H1-7

APPENDIX H-1 (continued) 

Status of Minor Route Variations Reported to Constitution 

Affected Parcel Numbers MP

Reason for Minor 

Deviation Status

Landowner Resolution? 

(Yes/No)

NY-DE-177.001 82.8 This deviation was 

developed to avoid an 

existing block wall and 

water well.

Proposed Route no longer 

impacts property with 

existing block wall and 

water well. Property no 

longer affected.

Yes

NY-DE-207.000 

NY-DE-205.000 

NY-DE-208.000

88.5 This deviation was 

developed to avoid a 

home.

This route deviation was 

adopted.

Yes

UA-NY-DE-224.001 

UA-NY-DE-224.001 

ALT-C-DE-001.000 

ALT-C-DE-002.000 

ALT-C-DE-003.000 

ALT-C-DE-004.000 

NY-DE-226.000 

NY-DE-226.000 

NY-DE-229.000

90.0 This deviation was 

developed to avoid 

forested land.

This route deviation was 

not adopted. Constitution 

determined that re-route 

affects several new 

landowners to avoid one 

landowner. The route adds 

several additional turns 

and is not the most 

favorable route. This reroute is also close to a 

cemetery at Titus Lake Rd. 

crossing. It also parallels 

propane line that has had 

issues in the past.

No

NY-DE-224.000 

UA-NY-DE-224.001 

ALT-C-DE-001.000 

ALT-C-DE-002.000 

ALT-C-DE-003.000 

ALT-C-DE-004.000 

ALT-C-DE-005.000 

NY-DE-230.000 

UA-NY-DE-227.003 

NY-DE-231.000 

NY-DE-232.000

90.8 This deviation was 

developed to avoid 

sensitive land features.

This route deviation was 

not adopted. Determined 

that re-route would impact 

26 new landowners if 

implemented.

No

NY-DE-232.000 

NY-DE-231.000

92.7 This deviation was 

developed to avoid 

sensitive land features.

This route deviation was 

adopted.

Yes

NY-DE-233.000 

NY-DE-231.000 

NY-SC-001.000

93.1 This deviation was 

developed to allow a future 

subdivision.

This route deviation was 

adopted.

Yes

NY-SC-001.000 

NY-SC-002.000 

NY-SC-003.000 

UA-NY-SC-004.002 

UA-NY-SC-004.003 

NY-SC-005.000 

NY-SC-006.000 

Y-SC-007.000 

UA-NY-SC-009.002 

NY-SC-010.001 

ALT-F-NY-SC-003.000

93.6 This deviation was 

developed to avoid 

sensitive land features.

This route deviation was 

adopted.

Yes

NY-SC-004.006 

NY-SC-005.000 

NY-SC-005.001

94.1 This deviation is the 

modification of a previous 

minor route deviation 

developed to avoid 

sensitive land features.

This route deviation was 

adopted.

Yes

ALT-F-NY-SC-020.004 

ALT-F-NY-SC-034.002

98.4 This route deviation was 

developed to avoid a log 

cabin and a property with 

sensitive land features.

This route deviation was 

adopted.

Yes
APPENDIX H – STATUS OF MINOR ROUTE VARIATIONS 

H1-8

APPENDIX H-1 (continued) 

Status of Minor Route Variations Reported to Constitution 

Affected Parcel Numbers MP

Reason for Minor 

Deviation Status

Landowner Resolution? 

(Yes/No)

NY-SC-032.000 

NY-SC-033.000 

NY-SC-034.000

98.4 This deviation was 

developed to offset route 

100 feet or more away 

from a home.

Property no longer 

impacted by Proposed 

Route.

Yes

ALT-F-NY-SC-020.004 

ALT-F-NY-SC-034.002

98.4 This deviation was 

developed to move route 

away from a future home 

and water well site.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes

NY-SC-049.000 

NY-SC-050.000 

UA-NY-SC-050.002 

NY-SC-051.000 

NY-SC-052.000

100.7 The deviation was 

developed to move pipeline 

route away from a home.

This route deviation was 

not adopted. Constitution 

determined that a re-route 

on this property is no 

longer needed. The 

landowner confirmed that 

original route across the 

property was acceptable.

Yes

NY-SC-051.000 

NY-SC-052.000 

NY-SC-050.000 

NY-SC-053.000

100.7 This deviation was 

developed to route the 

pipeline away from a 

structure.

This route deviation was 

adopted.

Yes

NY-SC-053.000 

NY-SC-054.000 

NY-SC-055.000

101.0 This deviation was 

developed to route away 

from landowner’s home 

and closer to a pond.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes

NY-SC-052.000 

NY-SC-053.000 

NY-SC-054.000

101.0 This deviation was 

developed to route away 

from apple trees.

This route deviation was 

adopted.

Yes

NY-SC-055.000 

NY-SC-056.000 

NY-SC-057.000

101.5 This deviation was 

developed to route away 

from homes and septic 

leech fields.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes

NY-SC-063.000 102.0 This deviation was 

developed to route the 

pipeline away from a home 

and oak trees.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes

NY-SC-064.000 

NY-SC-065.000

102.3 This deviation was 

developed to route the 

pipeline along a road and 

adjacent property line.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes

ALT-L-NY-SC-007.000 

ALT-L-NY-SC-008.000 

ALT-L-NY-SC-009.000 

ALT-L-NY-SC-010.000

104.9 This deviation was 

developed to reduce 

impacts on farmland.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes

ALT-L-NY-SC-008.000 

ALT-L-NY-SC-009.000 

ALT-L-NY-SC-010.000 

ALT-L-NY-SC-011.000 

ALT-L-NY-SC-012.000

105.1 This deviation was 

developed to avoid a 300-

year-old tree that has 

historical importance.

The route deviation was 

adopted.

Yes

ALT-R-NY-SC-003.000 

ALT-R-NY-SC-005.000

105.8 This deviation was 

developed to avoid 

sensitive land features.

This route deviation was 

adopted.

Yes

ALT-R-NY-SC-015.000 

ALT-R-NY-SC-020.000 

ALT-R-NY-SC-021.000

108.6 This minor route deviation 

was developed to move 

pipeline further away from 

home.

This route deviation was 

adopted.

Yes
APPENDIX H – STATUS OF MINOR ROUTE VARIATIONS 

H1-9

APPENDIX H-1 (continued) 

Status of Minor Route Variations Reported to Constitution 

Affected Parcel Numbers MP

Reason for Minor 

Deviation Status

Landowner Resolution? 

(Yes/No)

ALT-R-NY-SC-023.000 

ALT-O-NY-SC-006.000 

ALT-O-NY-SC-007.000 

ALT-O-NY-SC-011.000

111.0 This deviation was 

developed to route the 

pipeline to the southern 

property line.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes

ALT-O-NY-SC-013.003 

ALT-O-NY-SC-013.004 

ALT-O-NY-SC-013.005

112.2 This deviation was 

developed to follow a 

private road north of the 

Jeep Club House.

This route deviation was 

not adopted. Constitution 

determined after a meeting 

between a land agent and 

landowner that the 

landowner agrees with the 

Proposed Route south of 

the Jeep Club House.

Yes

ALT-O-NY-SC-015.000 

ALT-O-NY-SC-015.002 

ALT-O-NY-SC-016.000

114.5 This deviation was 

developed to trade impacts 

between two landowners. 

Routing has been moved 

from a property where the 

landowner is opposed to 

the project and placed on a 

property in which the 

landowner wants the 

pipeline on property.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route. 

Yes

ALT-O-NY-SC-017.000 

ALT-O-NY-SC-016.000

115.1 This deviation was 

developed to avoid 

farmland.

This route deviation was 

not adopted. This re-route 

was replaced by another 

re-route which was 

adopted.

Yes. NYSDAM was on site 

to help develop this reroute.

NY-SC-156.000 116.4 This deviation was 

developed to avoid sugar 

maple trees.

This route deviation was 

adopted.

Yes

ALT-Q-NY-SC-001.000 

ALT-Q-NY-SC-002.000 

ALT-Q-NY-SC-002.002 

ALT-Q-NY-SC-003.000 

ALT-Q-UA-NY-SC-003.001 

ALT-Q-NY-SC-006.000 

ALT-Q-NY-SC-007.000

117.3 This deviation was 

developed to follow the 

property line.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route. 

Yes

ALT-Q-NY-SC-021.002 

ALT-Q-NY-SC-017.001 

ALT-Q-NY-SC-016.004

119.8 This deviation was 

developed to avoid a sand 

filtration system.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route.

Yes. Constitution 

representatives met with 

landowner to confirm 

extents of sand filtration 

system, which helped 

create re-route.

ALT-Q-NY-SC-032.000 

ALT-Q-NY-SC-033.000 

ALT-Q-NY-SC-034.000 

ALT-Q-UA-NY-SC-035.000 

NY-SC-205.000

121.35 This deviation was 

developed to move the 

pipeline away from a 

structure.

This route deviation was 

not adopted. Re-route not 

technically feasible due to 

limited workspace 

associated with the 

location of the TGP 200 

Line 

No

N/A N/A This deviation was 

developed to allow colocation with the proposed 

EmKey gathering line.

This route deviation was 

not adopted. Constitution 

determined that this 

landowner is not affected 

by the pipeline route.

No

____________________ 

For parcels noted in bold we are requesting that Constitution provide additional information. 
 
APPENDIX H-2 

Status of Minor Route Variations Reported by Stakeholders 

 
 
APPENDIX H – STATUS OF MINOR ROUTE VARIATIONS 

H2-1

APPENDIX H-2 

Status of Minor Route Variations Reported toby Stakeholders 

Land Parcel ID MP 

Requested Minor Route 

Deviation Description

Constitution Minor Route 

Deviation Status

Landowner Resolution? 

(Yes/No)

PA-SU-001.001 0 This deviation was 

developed to move the 

pipeline away from a 

home.

This route deviation was 

not adopted. Determined 

that landowner is no longer 

affected.

Yes

ALT-A-PA-SU-020.000 5.3 Deviation was developed 

to avoid a structure.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes

PA-SU-061.000 10.7 This deviation was 

developed to move the 

pipeline away from a 

home.

This route deviation was 

not adopted. It was 

determined that the reroute will cross the 

Bluestone Pipeline three 

times. 

No

PA-SU-074.000 

Brushville Road minor 

route deviation

12.7 This deviation was 

developed to move the 

pipeline from features of 

concern.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route.

Yes

PA-SU-095.000 15.1 This deviation was 

developed to address 

environmental concerns.

This route deviation was 

adopted.

Yes

PA-SU-103.000 

PA-SU-104.000 

PA-SU-106.000 

PA-SU-108.000 

PA-SU-109.000 

ALT-S-PA-SU-001.000 

ALT-S-PA-SU-002.000

17.5 This deviation combines 

two re-route requests: to 

deviate away from a rock 

quarry property and to 

increase distance between 

pipeline workspace and a 

home.

Adopted into Proposed 

Route.

Yes

UA-PA-SU-110.001 18.9 This route deviation was 

developed to move pipeline 

away from a home.

This route deviation was 

not adopted, but was 

replaced by another reroute.

Yes

ALT-S-PA-SU-007.002 21.1 Landowner concerned with 

proximity of alignment to 

future house site. 

Pending (But see our 

recommendation above).

No 

ALT-B-NY-BR-039.000 

ALT-B-NY-BR-042.000 

ALT-B-NY-BR-039.001 

ALT-B-NY-BR-039.002

34.4 This deviation combines 

two requests. One is to 

avoid a wetland, and the 

other is to route off a 

property with subdivided 

lots.

Adopted into Proposed 

Route.

Yes

ALT-B-NY-BR-041.000 34.9 This deviation was 

developed to address a 

future subdivision.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation. 

Yes

ALT-B-NY-BR-054.000 37.1 This deviation was 

developed to avoid 

geological features.

Adopted into Proposed 

Route.

Yes

NY-BR-077.000 40.6 Landowner concerned 

current alignment would 

prohibit future development 

of the land. 

Pending (But see our 

recommendation above).

No 

ALT-B-NY-BR-082.000 41.4 Landowner was concerned 

about rights to build a 

house, removal of trees 

and berry bushes, and 

ability to cross the pipeline. 

Pending (But see our 

recommendation above).

No 

   
APPENDIX H – STATUS OF MINOR ROUTE VARIATIONS 

H2-2

APPENDIX H-2 (continued) 

Status of Minor Route Variations Reported by Stakeholders 

Land Parcel ID MP 

Requested Minor Route 

Deviation Description

Constitution Minor Route 

Deviation Status

Landowner Resolution? 

(Yes/No)

NY-CH-001.007 42.5 Landowner requested the 

pipeline be moved to the 

back of their property so as 

to not impact a future gas 

well or home site. 

Pending (But see our 

recommendation above).

No 

NY-CH-001.002 42.6 This deviation was 

requested to move the 

pipeline away from a 

home.

This route deviation is no 

longer needed. The 

landowner’s property is no 

longer affected by route.

Yes

UA-NY-CH-034.003 50.05 This route deviation was 

developed to move the 

pipeline away from a 

home.

This route deviation was 

not adopted. Constitution’s 

reason for not adopting this 

re-route is because the 

pipeline centerline is 

approximately 184 feet 

away from the home 

without the consideration of 

the re-route. The 

landowner’s home is 

already more than 100 feet 

away from the Project’s 

workspace.

Yes

NY-DE-006.000 51.6 This deviation was 

developed to route the 

pipeline away from a 

home.

This route deviation was 

not adopted. (Proposed 

route is already 

approximately 260 feet 

from landowner’s home).

No

NY-DE-035.000 

NY-DE-036.000

59.0 This deviation was 

developed to increase 

distance between pipeline 

workspace and a home.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route. Re-route was 

developed to add 50 

additional feet between the 

pipeline and the home; 

from approximately 109 

feet to approximately 157 

feet.

Yes

NY-DE-035.000 59.0 This deviation was 

developed to increase 

distance between the 

pipeline workspace and a 

home.

This route deviation was 

not adopted, but it was 

replaced by another reroute which was adopted.

Yes

NY-DE-061.000 63.48 This deviation was 

developed to move route 

closer to property 

boundary.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation which was 

adopted.

Yes

NY-DE-061.000 63.48 This deviation was 

developed to move route 

closer to property 

boundary.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation which was 

adopted.

Yes
APPENDIX H – STATUS OF MINOR ROUTE VARIATIONS 

H2-3

APPENDIX H-2 (continued) 

Status of Minor Route Variations Reported by Stakeholders 

Land Parcel ID MP 

Requested Minor Route 

Deviation Description

Constitution Minor Route 

Deviation Status

Landowner Resolution? 

(Yes/No)

NY-DE-052.000 

NY-DE-053.000 

NY-DE-054.000 

NY-DE-055.000 

NY-DE-056.000 

NY-DE-057.000 

NY-DE-058.000 

NY-DE-059.000 

NY-DE-060.000 

NY-DE-061.000 

NY-DE-062.000 

NY-DE-065.000 

NY-DE-066.000 

NY-DE-067.000 

UA-NY-DE-067.002 

NY-DE-070.000 

NY-DE-071.000 

NY-DE-072.000

63.48 The route deviation moves 

the pipeline to the corner of 

one property, closer to the 

property boundary of 

another, avoids an 

environmental area of 

concern, and moves the 

workspace away from the 

Otsego County boundary 

line.

Adopted into Proposed 

Route.

Yes

NY-DE-061.000 

NY-DE-067.000

63.48 This deviation was 

developed to move route 

closer to property 

boundary.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation which was 

adopted.

Yes

NY-DE-111.000 72.9 Landowner concerned 

about damage to a 

woodlot, wetlands, and 

stream on the property. 

Pending (But see our 

recommendation above).

No 

NY-DE-124.001 75.35 This deviation was 

developed to move the 

pipeline along a property 

boundary.

This route deviation was 

not adopted. Constitution’s 

land agents checked the 

deeds and confirmed that 

there is no mention of a 

conservation easement or 

conservancy in deed.

No

NY-DE-127.000 

NY-DE-124.001 

UA-NY-DE-127.001 

NY-DE-129.000

75.4 Deviation developed to 

move route away from a 

future home location, an 

existing home location, and 

closer to a property 

boundary.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation. 

Yes

NY-DE-127.000 

NY-DE-124.001 

UA-NY-DE-127.001 

NY-DE-129.000

75.4 Deviation developed to 

move pipeline away from a 

future home location, an 

existing home location, and 

closer to a property 

boundary.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route as replaced by 

another re-route.

Yes

NY-DE-129.000 76.3 This deviation was 

developed to move route 

closer to property 

boundaries.

This route deviation was 

not adopted, but was 

replaced by another reroute.

Yes

NY-DE-130.000 76.6 This deviation was 

developed to move the 

pipeline away from a future 

proposed home.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route.

Yes
APPENDIX H – STATUS OF MINOR ROUTE VARIATIONS 

H2-4

APPENDIX H-2 (continued) 

Status of Minor Route Variations Reported by Stakeholders 

Land Parcel ID MP 

Requested Minor Route 

Deviation Description

Constitution Minor Route 

Deviation Status

Landowner Resolution? 

(Yes/No)

NY-DE-137.000 77.2 Landowner concerned with 

proximity of pipeline to 

home (100 feet) and 

because the alignment cuts 

the property in half. 

Pending (But see our 

recommendation above).

No 

NY-DE-138.000 

UA-NY-DE-138.001

77.3 This deviation was 

developed to move pipeline 

further away from home 

and to minimize impacts on 

trees and a garden.

This route deviation was 

not adopted. Constitution 

determined that the Project 

alignment already achieved 

the greatest distance from 

the landowners home by 

not impacting landowner’s 

trees.

No

NY-DE-149.001 

UA-NY-DE-148.002 

NY-DE-144.003

79.4 This deviation is one of a 

couple of options 

developed to increase 

distance between pipeline 

workspace and a home.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route.

Yes

NY-DE-149.001 79.4 This deviation was 

developed to increase 

distance between pipeline 

workspace and a home.

This deviation was not 

adopted, but was replaced 

by another re-route.

Yes

NY-DE-191.000 85.2 This deviation was 

developed to straighten 

and shorten the route.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route. Constitution will 

conduct further 

investigation to determine 

landowner resolution 

status.

Uncertain

NY-DE-199.000 86.6 Landowner concerned with 

proximity of pipeline to 

home (25-50 feet). 

Pending (But see our 

recommendation above).

No 

NY-DE-204.000 88.1 This deviation was initially 

requested to move the 

pipeline away from a 

home. However, moving 

the route away from a 

home was not possible due 

to another home on the 

opposite side of the route. 

As a result, the adopted 

route does not improve on 

the home proximity issue 

but does improve on the 

adjacent creek crossing.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation.

Yes

NY-DE-208.000 89.0 This deviation was 

developed to further the 

distance from a home and 

to minimize tree removal 

on the property.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route.

Yes
APPENDIX H – STATUS OF MINOR ROUTE VARIATIONS 

H2-5

APPENDIX H-2 (continued) 

Status of Minor Route Variations Reported by Stakeholders 

Land Parcel ID MP 

Requested Minor Route 

Deviation Description

Constitution Minor Route 

Deviation Status

Landowner Resolution? 

(Yes/No)

NY-DE-226.000 90.8 This deviation was 

developed to avoid 

forested land.

This route deviation was 

not adopted. Constitution 

reviewed five proposed reroutes for this property 

submitted through the 

landowner and/or FERC. 

The proposed re-routes 

were not adopted for 

various reasons including: 

1) the re-route followed a 

propane line with 

documented safety issues, 

added too many points of 

inflection to the line, and 

was located too close to a 

cemetery; 2) the re-route 

increased impact area on 

the property and located 

the pipeline through a 

wetland; 3) the re-route 

increased impact area on 

the property and included 

90 degree angles that 

posed constructability 

issues; 4) the re-route 

followed the same propane 

line noted above and 

impacted 13 landowners 

versus 2 landowners; and 

5) the re-route impacted 26 

new landowners versus the 

one landowner of the 

subject property (But see 

our recommendation 

above).

No

UA-NY-SC-004.000 93.9 This deviation was 

developed due to 

landowner request to 

reduce impacts on sugar 

bush and beech-maple 

forest.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route.

Yes

NY-SC-045.000 

NY-SC-047.000 

NY-SC-049.000 

NY-SC-048.000

100.2 This deviation was 

developed to move the 

route along forest lines.

This route deviation was 

not adopted due to 

increased forest and 

wetland impacts. 

Replaced by another reroute.

Yes

NY-SC-046.000 

NY-SC-047.000 

NY-SC-048.000 

NY-SC-049.000 

NY-SC-050.000 

NY-SC-051.000

100.2 This deviation was 

developed to move route 

closer to property 

boundaries.

This route deviation was 

not adopted, but was 

replaced by another reroute.

Yes
APPENDIX H – STATUS OF MINOR ROUTE VARIATIONS 

H2-6

APPENDIX H-2 (continued) 

Status of Minor Route Variations Reported by Stakeholders 

Land Parcel ID MP 

Requested Minor Route 

Deviation Description

Constitution Minor Route 

Deviation Status

Landowner Resolution? 

(Yes/No)

NY-SC-044.000 

NY-SC-045.000 

NY-SC-046.000 

NY-SC-047.000 

NY-SC-048.000 

NY-SC-049.000 

NY-SC-050.000 

UA-NY-SC-050.004 

NY-SC-051.000

100.3 This deviation was 

developed to avoid a rock 

wall, house foundation, and 

property corner.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route. Constitution 

representatives met with 

the landowner to discuss 

the landowner’s plans for 

re-route.

Yes

NY-SC-057.000 101.5 This deviation was 

developed to route away 

from homes and septic 

leech fields.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation. 

Yes

NY-SC-061.000 101.8 A deviation was requested 

to address concerns with 

the pipeline route being 

adjacent to an organic 

garlic business and apiary 

(honey bees).

This route deviation was 

not adopted. After 

reviewing this property, 

Constitution determined 

the pipeline is routed 

through the landowner’s 

northwestern property 

corner.

No

NY-SC-063.000 101.8 This deviation was 

developed to route the 

pipeline away from a home 

and oak trees.

This route deviation was 

not adopted, but was 

replaced by another reroute.

Yes

NY-SC-061.000 

NY-SC-062.000 

NY-SC-063.000 

NY-SC-064.000

101.9 This deviation was 

developed to route further 

away from a home.

This route deviation was 

replaced by another route.

Yes

NY-SC-064.000 

NY-SC-065.000

102.0 This deviation was 

developed to route the 

pipeline along a road and 

adjacent property line. 

This route deviation was 

adopted.

Yes

ALT-O-NY-SC-007.000 111.0 This deviation was 

developed to route the 

pipeline to the southern 

property line.

This route deviation was 

not adopted, but was 

replaced by another 

deviation.

Yes

ALT-R-NY-SC-021.000 

ALT-R-NY-SC-022.000 

ALT-R-NY-SC-023.000 

ALT-R-NY-SC-023.000 

ALT-O-NY-SC-006.000 

ALT-O-NY-SC-007.000 

ALT-O-NY-SC-011.000

111.1 This deviation was 

developed to move the 

pipeline along a property 

boundary.

Adopted into Proposed 

Route. Determined at the 

time of review to hold off 

on an evaluation of a reroute until survey 

permission is granted by 

the landowner.

No

ALT-O-NY-SC-013.003 112.1 This deviation request was 

generated so that the route 

would not traverse the 

center of the property.

This route deviation was 

not adopted. Determined 

that Proposed Route does 

not cut the landowners 

property in half.

Yes

ALT-O-NY-SC-013.010 

ALT-O-NY-SC-014.000

113.7 This deviation was 

developed to move the 

pipeline along a property 

boundary.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route.

Yes
APPENDIX H – STATUS OF MINOR ROUTE VARIATIONS 

H2-7

APPENDIX H-2 (continued) 

Status of Minor Route Variations Reported by Stakeholders 

Land Parcel ID MP 

Requested Minor Route 

Deviation Description

Constitution Minor Route 

Deviation Status

Landowner Resolution? 

(Yes/No)

ALT-O-NY-SC-014.001 113.9 This deviation was 

developed to move the 

pipeline along a property 

boundary.

This route deviation was 

not adopted. Determined 

that the Proposed Route 

would not affect a future 

proposed home location.

No

ALT-O-NY-SC-015.000 

ALT-O-NY-SC-017.000 

ALT-O-NY-SC-022.000

114.1, 

115.0, 

and 

115.6 

The route could disrupt 

farming operations and 

make the landowner out of 

compliance with their 

agricultural permits. 

Pending (But see our 

recommendation above).

No 

ALT-O-UA-NY-SC-018.000 115.1 This deviation was 

developed to move pipeline 

away from a home.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route. NYSDAM met 

Constitution field routers to 

help come up with this 

route.

Yes

ALT-Q-NY-SC-010.000 

ALT-Q-NY-SC-011.000 

ALT-Q-NY-SC-012.000

117.9 This deviation was 

developed to move the 

pipeline away from a future 

home location.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route. Constitution’s field 

routers confirmed future 

home location with the 

landowner.

Yes

ALT-Q-NY-SC-013.000 118.4 This deviation was 

developed to route further 

away from a pond.

Adopted into the Proposed 

Route.

Yes

____________________ 

For parcels noted in bold we are requesting that Constitution provide additional information. 
 
APPENDIX H-3 

Status of Minor Route Variations Assessed for 

Impacts on Agricultural Lands 

 
 
APPENDIX H – STATUS OF MINOR ROUTE VARIATIONS 

H3-1

APPENDIX H-3 

Status of Minor Route Variations Assessed for Impacts on Agricultural Lands 

Affected Parcel Numbers MP

Reason for Minor 

Deviation Status

NY Agriculture and 

Markets Resolution 

(Yes/No)

ALT-B-NY-BR-020.000 30.1 Deviation to minimize 

impact on farmland.

Opted into the Proposed 

Route. Constitution field 

router met with NYSDAM 

and landowner to develop 

re-route.

Yes

NY-CH-011.000 

NY-CH-013.000 

NY-CH-012.000 

NY-CH-014.000 

UA-NY-CH-015.001

NY-CH-017.000

45.9 Deviation to minimize 

impact on farmland.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation (But see our 

recommendation 

above).

Yes

NY-CH-011.000 

NY-CH-013.000 

NY-CH-012.000 

NY-CH-014.000 

NY-CH-015.000

UA-NY-CH-015.001

NY-CH-016.000 

NY-CH-017.000

46.5 Deviation to minimize 

impact on farmland.

Replaced by new route 

deviation. Constitution 

field router met with 

NYSDAM to develop reroute on landowners’ 

property (But see our 

recommendation 

above).

Yes

NY-DE-045.000 

NY-DE-048.000 

NY-DE-049.000 

NY-DE-050.000

62.0 Deviation to minimize 

impacts on open fields.

Adopted into the 

Proposed Route. Reroute has been moved out 

of agricultural fields.

Yes

NY-DE-049.000 

NY-DE-050.000 

NY-DE-051.000

62.3.9 Deviation to minimize 

impact on farmland.

Replaced by a new route 

deviation. Constitution 

representatives met with 

landowners and 

NYSDAM on site to 

develop a re-route that 

would address both 

landowner concerns.

Yes

ALT-O-NY-SC-015.000 

ALT-O-NY-SC-015.002 

ALT-O-NY-SC-016.000 

ALT-O-NY-SC-017.000 

ALT-O-UA-NY-SC-017.001

115.1 Deviation to minimize 

impact on farmland.

Adopted into the 

Proposed Route. 

Constitution field router 

met with NYSDAM to 

develop re-route on 

landowners’ property. 

However, note condition 

above for route variations 

reported to the FERC.

Yes according to 

Constitution, but note 

condition above for route 

variations reported to the 

FERC.

NY-SC-156.000

NY-SC-152.000

NY-SC-160.000

ALT-Q-NY-SC-001.000 

ALT-Q-NY-SC-002.000 

ALT-Q-UA-NY-SC-004.000 

ALT-Q-NY-SC-005.000 

ALT-Q-NY-SC-006.000

116.4 Deviation to minimize 

impact on farmland; 

a re-route was already 

considered and approved 

for this landowner.

The route deviation was 

not adopted, but a reroute was developed 

already to address 

farmland (maple sugar 

tree operation) impacts 

(But see our 

recommendation 

above). 

Yes

______________________ 

For parcels noted in bold we are requesting that Constitution provide additional information. 
 
APPENDIX H-4 

Status of Minor Route Variations Assessed for Impacts on Water Resources 

 
 
APPENDIX H – STATUS OF MINOR ROUTE VARIATIONS 

H4-1

APPENDIX H-4 

Status of Minor Route Variations Assessed for Impacts on Water Resources 

Affected Parcel Numbers MP 

Reason for Minor 

Deviation Status 

Agency Resolution 

(Yes/No) 

ALT-B-NY-BR-015.000 

ALT-B-NY-BR-020.002 

28.7 Minimize impacts on 

stream BR-1H-S178. 

Adopted into Proposed 

Route. 

Yes 

ALT-B-NY-BR-020.000 30.3 Minimize impacts on 

stream BR-1I-S001. 

Adopted into Proposed 

Route. 

Yes 

ALT-B-NY-BR-031.000 

ALT-B-NY-BR-035.000 

33.1 Minimize impacts on 

wetland crossing. 

Adopted into Proposed 

Route. 

Yes 

ALT-B-NY-BR-037.000 

ALT-B-NY-BR-039.000 

34.0 Minimize impacts on 

stream BR-1I-S057. 

Adopted into Proposed 

Route. 

Yes 

ALT-B-NY-BR-050.000 

ALT-B-NY-BR-051.000 

ALT-B-NY-BR-053.000 

ALT-B-UA-NY-BR-052.000 

36.53 Minimize impacts on 

stream BR-1U-S141. 

Adopted into Proposed 

Route. 

Yes 

NY-CH-004.006 

NY-CH-004.003 

NY-CH-005.002 

43.7 Minimize impacts on 

wetland CH-1H-S016. 

Adopted into Proposed 

Route. 

Yes 

NY-CH-011.000 

NY-CH-012.000 

NY-CH-014.000 

NY-CH-015.000 

45.3 Minimize impacts on 

stream CH-XX-S43.14. 

Adopted into Proposed 

Route. 

Yes 

NY-CH-015.000 

UA-NY-CH-015.001 

NY-CH-016.000 

NY-CH-017.000 

45.8 Minimize impacts on 

wetland CH‐XX‐S43.52. 

Adopted into Proposed 

Route. 

Yes 

NY-DE-009.000 

NY-DE-010.000 

NY-DE-011.000 

NY-DE-010.000 

52.4 Minimize impacts on 

stream DE-1B-S029. 

Adopted into Proposed 

Route. 

Yes 

NY-DE-019.001 

NY-DE-024.000 

NY-DE-025.000 

NY-DE-026.000 

55.7 Minimize impacts on 

stream DE-1F-S078. 

Adopted into Proposed 

Route. 

Yes 

NY-DE-044.000 

NY-DE-045.001 

60.65 Minimize impacts on 

stream DE-1P-S129. 

Adopted into Proposed 

Route. 

Yes 

NY-DE-092.000 

NY-DE-093.000 

69.2 Minimize impacts on 

stream DE-1P-S054. 

Adopted into Proposed 

Route. 

Yes 

NY-DE-149.000 

NY-DE-150.000 

NY-DE-151.000 

NY-DE-153.000 

NY-DE-154.000 

80.2 Minimize impacts on 

wetland DE-1G-S183, 

S183D. 

Adopted into Proposed 

Route. 

Yes 

NY-DE-158.001 

NY-DE-158.002 

81.65 Minimize impacts on 

stream crossing. 

Adopted into Proposed 

Route. 

Yes 

NY-DE-165.004 81.7 Minimize impacts on 

stream DE-1G-S203. 

Adopted into Proposed 

Route. 

Yes 

NY-DE-205.000 88.23 Minimize impacts on 

stream DE-1P-S053. 

Adopted into Proposed 

Route. 

Yes 

NY-SC-006.000 94.3 Minimize impacts on 

stream SC-1F-S002. 

Adopted into Proposed 

Route. 

Yes 

NY-SC-007.002 

NY-SC-009.002 

ALT-F-NY-SC-003.000 

NY-SC-010.001 

94.9 Minimize impacts on 

stream SC-1C-S325, 

S325A, S325B. 

Adopted into Proposed 

Route. 

Yes 

   
APPENDIX H – STATUS OF MINOR ROUTE VARIATIONS 

H4-2

APPENDIX H-4 (continued) 

Status of Minor Route Variations Assessed for Impacts on Water Resources 

Affected Parcel Numbers MP 

Reason for Minor 

Deviation Status 

Agency Resolution 

(Yes/No) 

ALT-F-NY-SC-004.000 

POTENTIAL-ALT-F-004.000 

POTENTIAL-ALT-F-005.000 

ALT-F-NY-SC-004.004 

96.07 Minimize impacts on 

stream SC-1Q-S278. 

Adopted into Proposed 

Route. 

Yes 

ALT-Q-NY-SC-022.000 

ALT-Q-NY-SC-020.000 

ALT-Q-NY-SC-023.000 

120.7 Minimize impacts on 

stream SC-1C-S180. 

Adopted into Proposed 

Route. 

Yes 
APPENDIX I 

Areas of Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed by the 

Constitution Pipeline Project 

 

APPENDIX I – AREAS OF SHALLOW DEPTH TO BEDROCK CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

I-1 

APPENDIX H 

Areas of Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Projecta

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)b

Pennsylvania 

0.0 0.0 0.0 

1.2 1.3 0.1 

1.3 1.4 0.2 

1.4 1.6 0.1 

1.6 1.6 0.0 

2.5 2.6 0.1 

2.7 2.8 0.1 

2.8 2.8 0.0 

2.8 3.0 0.1 

3.5 3.8 0.3 

3.8 3.9 0.1 

3.9 3.9 0.0 

4.0 4.0 0.0 

4.1 4.2 0.1 

4.2 4.3 0.1 

5.1 5.2 0.2 

5.2 5.4 0.2 

6.0 6.1 0.1 

6.1 6.1 0.1 

6.1 6.3 0.2 

6.3 6.3 0.1 

6.3 6.5 0.2 

6.5 6.6 0.1 

6.6 6.6 0.0 

6.6 6.6 0.1 

7.3 7.4 0.1 

7.4 7.5 0.1 

7.5 7.6 0.1 

8.0 8.1 0.1 

8.1 8.1 0.1 

8.1 8.2 0.1 

8.2 8.3 0.1 

8.4 8.6 0.1 

8.6 8.6 0.1 

   
APPENDIX I – AREAS OF SHALLOW DEPTH TO BEDROCK CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

I-2 

APPENDIX H (continued) 

Areas of Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Projecta

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)b

8.6 8.7 0.1 

9.3 9.4 0.1 

9.4 9.5 0.1 

9.5 9.6 0.1 

9.6 9.6 0.0 

9.6 9.6 0.1 

9.6 9.7 0.0 

9.7 9.8 0.1 

9.8 9.8 0.0 

10.3 10.4 0.1 

10.4 10.6 0.2 

11.5 11.6 0.1 

12.1 12.2 0.1 

12.2 12.2 0.0 

12.2 12.3 0.1 

12.4 12.5 0.0 

12.5 12.5 0.1 

12.5 12.6 0.1 

12.6 12.7 0.0 

13.0 13.2 0.2 

13.2 13.4 0.2 

13.4 13.5 0.1 

13.6 13.7 0.1 

13.7 13.8 0.1 

13.8 13.9 0.1 

13.9 13.9 0.0 

13.9 13.9 0.0 

14.2 14.2 0.1 

14.5 14.5 0.1 

14.5 14.6 0.1 

15.7 15.7 0.1 

15.8 15.8 0.1 

16.0 16.0 0.0 

16.0 16.1 0.1 

16.1 16.1 0.0 

16.1 16.2 0.0 
APPENDIX I – AREAS OF SHALLOW DEPTH TO BEDROCK CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

I-3 

APPENDIX H (continued) 

Areas of Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Projecta

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)b

16.2 16.2 0.1 

16.2 16.3 0.1 

17.2 17.4 0.1 

17.4 17.4 0.1 

17.4 17.5 0.1 

18.1 18.2 0.1 

18.2 18.3 0.1 

18.3 18.7 0.4 

19.0 19.1 0.1 

19.1 19.1 0.1 

19.1 19.2 0.1 

19.2 19.5 0.3 

19.5 19.6 0.0 

19.6 19.6 0.0 

19.6 19.7 0.1 

20.2 20.2 0.1 

20.2 20.3 0.1 

20.3 20.4 0.1 

20.5 20.6 0.1 

22.0 22.2 0.2 

22.8 22.9 0.1 

22.9 23.0 0.1 

Pennsylvania Subtotal 8.1 

New York 

25.3 25.8 0.4 

25.9 26.2 0.3 

26.2 26.3 0.0 

26.7 26.9 0.2 

27.0 27.2 0.2 

27.9 28.0 0.1 

28.0 28.1 0.1 

28.1 28.1 0.0 

29.9 30.0 0.1 

30.0 30.1 0.1 

30.1 30.2 0.1 

30.2 30.2 0.0 
APPENDIX I – AREAS OF SHALLOW DEPTH TO BEDROCK CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

I-4 

APPENDIX H (continued) 

Areas of Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Projecta

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)b

30.2 30.2 0.1 

30.2 30.3 0.1 

31.1 31.7 0.6 

32.1 32.5 0.4 

32.5 32.6 0.1 

35.3 35.3 0.1 

35.8 35.9 0.1 

37.3 37.3 0.0 

42.2 42.2 0.0 

42.2 42.2 0.0 

44.2 44.9 0.7 

44.9 45.1 0.2 

46.9 46.9 0.1 

46.9 47.0 0.1 

47.0 47.2 0.2 

48.2 48.3 0.0 

48.3 48.3 0.0 

48.3 48.3 0.1 

48.3 48.5 0.1 

48.5 48.7 0.3 

48.7 48.8 0.1 

48.8 48.9 0.1 

48.9 49.2 0.3 

49.2 49.3 0.1 

49.3 49.4 0.2 

49.4 49.5 0.1 

49.5 49.6 0.0 

49.6 49.6 0.0 

50.2 50.3 0.1 

50.3 50.5 0.2 

50.5 50.5 0.0 

50.5 50.5 0.1 

50.5 50.6 0.0 

50.6 50.8 0.2 

51.3 51.4 0.1 

51.4 51.5 0.1 
APPENDIX I – AREAS OF SHALLOW DEPTH TO BEDROCK CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

I-5 

APPENDIX H (continued) 

Areas of Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Projecta

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)b

51.5 51.5 0.0 

51.5 51.5 0.0 

51.7 51.8 0.1 

51.9 52.0 0.1 

52.0 52.1 0.1 

52.1 52.3 0.3 

52.6 52.6 0.0 

52.7 53.0 0.3 

53.0 53.1 0.1 

53.1 53.2 0.1 

53.2 53.4 0.3 

53.4 53.5 0.0 

54.0 54.1 0.1 

54.1 54.1 0.0 

54.1 54.2 0.1 

54.2 54.3 0.1 

54.7 54.9 0.2 

54.9 55.0 0.1 

55.0 55.1 0.0 

55.1 55.2 0.1 

55.2 55.2 0.1 

55.2 55.3 0.1 

55.3 55.3 0.0 

55.3 55.4 0.1 

57.3 57.3 0.1 

57.3 57.4 0.1 

57.4 57.6 0.2 

57.6 57.7 0.1 

60.1 60.2 0.2 

60.2 60.3 0.1 

60.3 60.4 0.1 

60.4 60.5 0.1 

60.5 60.6 0.1 

61.7 61.8 0.0 

61.8 61.9 0.2 

62.6 62.8 0.1 
APPENDIX I – AREAS OF SHALLOW DEPTH TO BEDROCK CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

I-6 

APPENDIX H (continued) 

Areas of Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Projecta

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)b

62.8 62.8 0.1 

62.8 62.9 0.1 

62.9 63.0 0.1 

63.3 63.4 0.0 

63.4 63.4 0.0 

63.4 63.5 0.1 

63.5 63.5 0.0 

64.2 64.3 0.1 

64.3 64.4 0.1 

64.4 64.5 0.1 

64.5 64.5 0.1 

65.0 65.1 0.1 

65.1 65.1 0.0 

65.8 66.0 0.2 

66.0 66.0 0.1 

67.2 67.3 0.1 

67.3 67.4 0.1 

67.7 67.8 0.2 

67.9 68.0 0.1 

68.0 68.1 0.1 

68.1 68.2 0.1 

68.4 68.5 0.1 

68.5 68.6 0.1 

68.6 68.7 0.1 

68.7 68.7 0.0 

70.4 70.5 0.1 

70.5 70.7 0.1 

70.7 70.8 0.1 

71.0 71.4 0.4 

71.4 71.5 0.1 

72.0 72.1 0.1 

72.1 72.1 0.1 

72.1 72.2 0.1 

72.2 72.2 0.1 

72.2 72.3 0.1 

72.3 72.6 0.2 
APPENDIX I – AREAS OF SHALLOW DEPTH TO BEDROCK CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

I-7 

APPENDIX H (continued) 

Areas of Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Projecta

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)b

72.6 72.8 0.2 

73.0 73.0 0.0 

73.0 73.1 0.1 

73.1 73.1 0.0 

73.1 73.2 0.1 

73.2 73.2 0.1 

73.2 73.3 0.0 

73.7 73.9 0.1 

73.9 74.0 0.1 

74.0 74.1 0.1 

74.1 74.2 0.2 

74.5 74.8 0.4 

75.0 75.1 0.1 

75.4 75.5 0.1 

75.5 75.5 0.1 

75.5 75.6 0.1 

75.6 75.7 0.1 

75.7 75.8 0.1 

76.0 76.1 0.1 

76.1 76.2 0.1 

76.8 77.0 0.1 

77.0 77.0 0.1 

77.0 77.1 0.1 

77.1 77.2 0.0 

77.2 77.3 0.1 

78.7 78.8 0.1 

78.8 78.9 0.1 

78.9 79.0 0.1 

79.5 79.7 0.2 

79.7 79.8 0.2 

80.0 80.1 0.1 

80.1 80.2 0.1 

81.0 81.1 0.1 

81.1 81.2 0.1 

81.2 81.3 0.1 

81.3 81.5 0.2 
APPENDIX I – AREAS OF SHALLOW DEPTH TO BEDROCK CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

I-8 

APPENDIX H (continued) 

Areas of Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Projecta

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)b

82.4 82.4 0.0 

82.4 82.6 0.3 

82.9 83.1 0.2 

83.5 83.5 0.0 

83.5 83.7 0.1 

83.7 83.7 0.0 

83.7 83.7 0.0 

83.7 83.8 0.1 

83.8 83.9 0.1 

83.9 84.0 0.2 

84.0 84.3 0.2 

84.3 84.4 0.1 

84.4 84.4 0.1 

84.8 84.9 0.0 

84.9 84.9 0.0 

84.9 84.9 0.0 

86.2 86.3 0.1 

86.3 86.4 0.1 

86.7 86.9 0.1 

86.9 86.9 0.0 

86.9 86.9 0.0 

86.9 87.3 0.4 

87.3 87.4 0.1 

87.4 87.5 0.1 

88.8 89.2 0.4 

89.2 89.4 0.2 

89.4 89.8 0.3 

91.2 91.5 0.3 

91.5 91.6 0.2 

91.7 91.8 0.1 

91.9 92.1 0.1 

92.1 92.2 0.1 

92.2 92.2 0.1 

92.5 92.6 0.2 

92.6 92.9 0.2 

92.9 93.0 0.1 
APPENDIX I – AREAS OF SHALLOW DEPTH TO BEDROCK CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

I-9 

APPENDIX H (continued) 

Areas of Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Projecta

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)b

93.0 93.2 0.3 

93.2 93.3 0.1 

93.4 93.5 0.2 

94.1 94.2 0.0 

94.2 94.2 0.1 

94.2 94.4 0.1 

94.4 94.4 0.1 

94.4 94.5 0.1 

94.5 94.5 0.0 

94.5 94.5 0.0 

95.7 95.8 0.1 

95.8 95.9 0.1 

95.9 96.1 0.2 

96.1 96.2 0.0 

96.3 96.4 0.2 

96.4 96.5 0.0 

96.5 96.6 0.1 

96.6 96.6 0.1 

96.6 96.6 0.0 

96.6 96.7 0.0 

96.7 96.8 0.1 

96.8 96.8 0.1 

97.1 97.1 0.1 

97.2 97.2 0.0 

97.2 97.3 0.1 

97.3 97.3 0.0 

97.3 97.4 0.1 

97.6 97.6 0.0 

97.6 97.7 0.1 

97.7 97.7 0.0 

97.8 98.5 0.7 

98.5 98.5 0.0 

98.5 98.5 0.0 

98.6 98.6 0.1 

99.1 99.3 0.2 

99.3 99.4 0.1 
APPENDIX I – AREAS OF SHALLOW DEPTH TO BEDROCK CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

I-10 

APPENDIX H (continued) 

Areas of Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Projecta

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)b

99.4 99.4 0.0 

99.4 99.5 0.1 

99.5 99.9 0.4 

99.9 100.1 0.2 

100.1 100.2 0.1 

100.2 100.3 0.1 

100.3 100.3 0.1 

100.7 100.7 0.0 

100.7 100.8 0.0 

100.8 100.8 0.0 

100.8 100.8 0.0 

100.8 100.8 0.0 

100.8 100.9 0.1 

101.2 101.4 0.2 

101.7 101.8 0.1 

101.8 101.9 0.1 

101.9 102.0 0.0 

102.0 102.0 0.0 

102.0 102.0 0.0 

102.0 102.1 0.0 

102.1 102.2 0.1 

102.2 102.3 0.0 

102.3 102.3 0.1 

102.5 102.6 0.0 

102.6 102.8 0.2 

102.8 102.9 0.2 

103.0 104.1 1.0 

104.1 104.1 0.1 

104.5 104.6 0.1 

104.8 104.8 0.0 

105.0 105.0 0.0 

105.0 105.1 0.1 

105.1 105.2 0.1 

105.2 105.2 0.0 

105.2 105.2 0.0 

105.2 105.3 0.1 
APPENDIX I – AREAS OF SHALLOW DEPTH TO BEDROCK CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

I-11 

APPENDIX H (continued) 

Areas of Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Projecta

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)b

105.3 105.5 0.2 

105.5 105.7 0.3 

106.0 106.1 0.1 

106.1 106.6 0.5 

107.2 107.3 0.1 

107.3 107.4 0.1 

107.4 107.5 0.1 

107.5 107.5 0.1 

107.5 107.5 0.0 

107.5 107.6 0.1 

107.6 107.6 0.0 

107.6 107.7 0.1 

107.7 107.8 0.1 

107.8 107.9 0.1 

108.3 108.4 0.1 

108.4 108.6 0.2 

108.7 108.7 0.0 

108.7 109.0 0.3 

109.0 109.2 0.2 

109.2 109.2 0.0 

109.2 109.3 0.1 

109.5 109.5 0.0 

109.7 109.9 0.2 

109.9 110.0 0.1 

110.0 110.1 0.1 

110.2 110.3 0.1 

110.3 110.4 0.1 

110.4 110.5 0.0 

110.8 110.9 0.1 

110.9 111.0 0.1 

111.0 111.0 0.1 

111.0 111.0 0.0 

111.0 111.3 0.2 

111.7 111.7 0.1 

111.7 111.8 0.1 

111.8 111.9 0.1 
APPENDIX I – AREAS OF SHALLOW DEPTH TO BEDROCK CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

I-12 

APPENDIX H (continued) 

Areas of Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Projecta

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)b

111.9 112.0 0.1 

112.5 112.7 0.1 

112.7 112.7 0.0 

112.7 112.7 0.0 

112.7 112.7 0.0 

112.8 112.9 0.1 

112.9 113.3 0.4 

113.9 114.0 0.1 

114.0 114.0 0.1 

114.0 114.0 0.0 

114.0 114.4 0.4 

114.4 114.6 0.1 

114.6 114.6 0.1 

115.5 115.5 0.0 

115.5 115.5 0.0 

115.5 115.6 0.1 

115.6 115.6 0.0 

115.6 115.7 0.0 

115.7 115.7 0.0 

115.7 115.8 0.1 

115.8 115.9 0.1 

115.9 116.0 0.1 

116.0 116.0 0.0 

116.0 116.3 0.3 

116.3 116.3 0.1 

116.7 116.7 0.1 

117.5 117.5 0.0 

117.6 118.3 0.8 

118.4 118.4 0.0 

118.5 118.6 0.1 

118.6 118.6 0.0 

118.6 119.0 0.4 

119.0 119.0 0.0 

119.0 119.1 0.0 

119.1 119.1 0.1 

119.1 119.2 0.1 
APPENDIX I – AREAS OF SHALLOW DEPTH TO BEDROCK CROSSED 

BY THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

I-13 

APPENDIX H (continued) 

Areas of Shallow Depth to Bedrock Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Projecta

Start Milepost End Milepost Distance (miles)b

119.2 119.2 0.0 

121.8 121.9 0.2 

121.9 122.0 0.0 

122.0 122.0 0.0 

123.9 124.1 0.1 

124.1 124.1 0.1 

124.1 124.1 0.0 

124.1 124.4 0.3 

New York Subtotal 37.4 

Project Total 45.4 

____________________ 

Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding.

Source: Constitution’s review of NRCS information and SSURGO Database for soils crossed by the centerline where depth to 

lithic bedrock is less than 60 inches. 

a

 Based on Constitution’s review of Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic Database 

(SSURGO). 

b

 If the length crossed is a distance less than 6 feet the number stated is represented by 0.00 miles. 
APPENDIX J 

Soil Limitations Crossed by for the Constitution Pipeline Project 

 
 
APPENDIX J-1 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

 

J1-1 

APPENDIX J-1 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

PENNSYLVANIA Susquehanna WsB 0.0 0.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MsB 0.1 0.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WsB 0.2 0.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC2 0.2 0.4 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MoB2 0.4 0.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC2 0.4 0.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MoB2 0.4 0.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC2 0.5 0.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MoB2 0.6 0.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC2 0.7 0.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WsD 0.8 0.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WlD2 0.8 0.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrC2 0.9 0.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MfD2 0.9 1.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VfC 1.0 1.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VfB 1.0 1.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Wy 1.1 1.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0MsB 1.1 1.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LgD 1.1 1.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsF 1.2 1.3 0.1 0.3 -- -- 0.3 -- -- -
J1-2 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

LsB 1.3 1.4 0.2 -- -- -- 1.0 -- -- -LsD 1.4 1.6 0.1 -- -- -- 0.8 -- -- -LoB 1.6 1.6 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -MfC2 1.6 1.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LaB2 1.7 1.7 0.1 PAR1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LkC2 1.7 1.7 0.1 PAR1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -LoB 1.7 1.7 0.2 PAR1 -- -- -- 0.8 -- -- -LoC2 1.7 1.7 0.1 PAR1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -LsB 1.7 1.7 0.2 PAR1 -- -- -- 0.9 -- -- -LsD 1.7 1.7 0.1 PAR1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -MfC2 1.7 1.7 0.4 PAR1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VcB2 1.7 1.7 0.0 PAR1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VsB 1.7 1.7 0.0 PAR1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VsB 1.7 1.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WlB2 1.8 1.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LgB 1.9 1.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeB2 1.9 2.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LgD 2.0 2.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LaC2 2.0 2.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC2 2.1 2.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MoB2 2.1 2.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC2 2.2 2.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MoC2 2.2 2.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-3 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

MoB2 2.3 2.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrB2 2.4 2.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WsD 2.4 2.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrB2 2.4 2.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC2 2.5 2.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LoB 2.5 2.6 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -MrB2 2.6 2.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WlB2 2.6 2.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WsD 2.6 2.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsB 2.7 2.8 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -LsF 2.8 2.8 0.0 0.8 -- -- 0.8 -- -- -LgD 2.8 2.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsF 2.8 3.0 0.1 0.8 -- -- 0.8 -- -- -LsF 2.9 2.9 0.1 PAR1a 0.4 -- -- 0.4 -- -- -WsD 3.0 3.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Wy 3.0 3.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0Cu 3.0 3.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LgF 3.0 3.2 0.1 1.0 -- -- -- -- -- -LfD2 3.2 3.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LfC2 3.2 3.4 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LgF 3.4 3.4 0.1 1.0 -- -- -- -- -- -LfC2 3.4 3.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsD 3.5 3.8 0.3 -- -- -- 2.0 -- -- -
J1-4 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

LsF 3.8 3.9 0.1 0.3 -- -- 0.3 -- -- -LsB 3.9 3.9 0.0 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -WsB 3.9 4.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LoB 4.0 4.0 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -WeB2 4.0 4.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LoC2 4.1 4.2 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -LoC2 4.1 4.1 0.0 PAR3 -- -- -- <0.01 -- -- -MoB2 4.1 4.1 0.0 PAR3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeB2 4.1 4.1 0.2 PAR3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC2 4.1 4.1 0.1 PAR3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsD 4.2 4.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -LaB2 4.3 4.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LgF 4.3 4.4 0.1 0.5 -- -- -- -- -- -MoC2 4.4 4.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MoB2 4.5 4.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MoC2 4.6 4.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MoB2 4.7 4.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MoB2 4.7 4.7 0.1 PAR4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MoC2 4.7 4.7 0.2 PAR4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LaB2 4.8 4.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MoB2 4.8 4.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC2 4.9 5.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeD2 5.0 5.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-5 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

MsD 5.0 5.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsD 5.1 5.2 0.2 -- -- -- 1.0 -- -- -LsD 5.2 5.2 0.1 PAR5 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -MrC2 5.2 5.2 0.0 PAR5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsF 5.2 5.4 0.2 1.1 -- -- 1.1 -- -- -BeC2 5.4 5.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MoC2 5.5 5.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McC2 5.6 5.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC2 5.6 5.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeB2 5.8 5.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MoB2 5.9 5.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MoA 5.9 6.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MgD 6.0 6.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LoB 6.0 6.1 0.1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -LsB 6.1 6.1 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -LsD 6.1 6.3 0.2 -- -- -- 1.9 -- -- -LsF 6.3 6.3 0.1 0.4 -- -- 0.4 -- -- -LsD 6.3 6.5 0.2 -- -- -- 1.9 -- -- -LoB 6.5 6.6 0.1 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -LsF 6.6 6.6 0.0 0.1 -- -- 0.1 -- -- -LoB 6.6 6.6 0.1 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -VsB 6.6 6.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VcB2 6.7 6.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-6 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

McC2 6.8 7.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McD2 7.0 7.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McC2 7.1 7.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MgD 7.2 7.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LkC2 7.2 7.2 0.0 PAR6 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -McC2 7.2 7.2 0.2 PAR6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MgD 7.2 7.2 0.1 PAR6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MoC2 7.2 7.2 0.1 PAR6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VsD 7.2 7.2 0.1 PAR6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsD 7.3 7.4 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -LoC2 7.4 7.5 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -LsF 7.5 7.6 0.1 0.5 -- -- 0.5 -- -- -MsB 7.6 7.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeB2 7.6 7.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC2 7.7 7.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeD2 7.8 7.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC2 7.8 7.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WsD 7.9 8.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LkC2 8.0 8.1 0.1 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -LsF 8.1 8.1 0.1 0.8 -- -- 0.8 -- -- -LsB 8.1 8.2 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -LsF 8.2 8.3 0.1 0.8 -- -- 0.8 -- -- -MoB2 8.3 8.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-7 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

LsF 8.4 8.6 0.1 1.2 -- -- 1.2 -- -- -LoB 8.6 8.6 0.1 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -LsF 8.6 8.7 0.1 1.2 -- -- 1.2 -- -- -WlC2 8.7 8.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MoB2 8.8 8.9 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Wy 8.9 9.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0MrB2 9.0 9.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WlC2 9.0 9.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MoC2 9.1 9.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LkC2 9.3 9.4 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -LkB2 9.4 9.4 0.1 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -LoB 9.4 9.5 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -LsB 9.5 9.6 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -LfB 9.5 9.5 0.1 PAR7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LgD 9.5 9.5 0.1 PAR7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LkB2 9.5 9.5 0.0 PAR7 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -LoB 9.5 9.5 0.1 PAR7 -- -- -- 0.9 -- -- -LsD 9.5 9.5 0.0 PAR7 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -MsB 9.5 9.5 0.1 PAR7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MsD 9.5 9.5 0.0 PAR7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsF 9.6 9.6 0.0 0.1 -- -- 0.1 -- -- -LoD2 9.6 9.6 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -LsF 9.6 9.7 0.0 0.2 -- -- 0.2 -- -- -
J1-8 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

LoC2 9.7 9.8 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -LsF 9.8 9.8 0.0 0.2 -- -- 0.2 -- -- -Cu 9.8 9.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC2 9.8 9.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MoC2 9.9 9.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC2 9.9 10.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Mn 10.0 10.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC2 10.0 10.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MoB2 10.1 10.1 0.0 TAR8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrC2 10.1 10.1 0.1 TAR8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeB2 10.1 10.1 0.0 TAR8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC2 10.1 10.1 0.1 TAR8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeB2 10.1 10.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -NcB 10.2 10.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0LgD 10.2 10.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsD 10.3 10.4 0.1 -- -- -- 0.8 -- -- -LkC2 10.4 10.6 0.2 -- -- -- 1.0 -- -- -WeC2 10.6 10.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MoB2 10.7 10.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -NsB 10.8 10.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0MoB2 10.8 11.0 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MsB 11.0 11.1 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrC2 11.1 11.4 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-9 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

WeB2 11.4 11.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeD2 11.5 11.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsF 11.5 11.6 0.1 0.4 -- -- 0.4 -- -- -MsB 11.6 11.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeD2 11.6 11.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrB2 11.7 11.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WlD2 11.8 11.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrC2 11.8 12.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WsD 12.0 12.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -BsD 12.0 12.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsF 12.1 12.2 0.1 0.4 -- -- 0.4 -- -- -LsD 12.2 12.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -LsB 12.2 12.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -BsD 12.2 12.2 0.1 PAR10 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsB 12.2 12.2 0.0 PAR10 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -LsD 12.2 12.2 0.1 PAR10 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -MrC2 12.2 12.2 0.0 PAR10 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeB2 12.2 12.2 0.0 PAR10 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC2 12.2 12.2 0.1 PAR10 -- -- -- -- -- -- -BsB 12.3 12.4 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsD 12.4 12.5 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -LsB 12.5 12.5 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -LsF 12.5 12.6 0.1 0.4 -- -- 0.4 -- -- -
J1-10 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

BsB 12.6 12.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsD 12.6 12.7 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -MfB2 12.7 12.8 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VcB2 12.8 12.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McC2 12.9 13.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsD 13.0 13.2 0.2 -- -- -- 1.1 -- -- -LsF 13.2 13.4 0.2 1.2 -- -- 1.2 -- -- -LsD 13.4 13.5 0.1 -- -- -- 1.4 -- -- -LsB 13.4 13.4 0.2 PAR11 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -LsD 13.4 13.4 0.2 PAR11 -- -- -- 0.9 -- -- -LsF 13.4 13.4 0.4 PAR11 1.2 -- -- 1.2 -- -- -WlB2 13.5 13.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -BsD 13.5 13.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsD 13.6 13.7 0.1 -- -- -- 1.4 -- -- -LsB 13.7 13.8 0.1 -- -- -- 0.8 -- -- -LoB 13.8 13.9 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -LoC2 13.9 13.9 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -WlB2 13.9 13.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LoC2 13.9 13.9 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -BsD 13.9 14.2 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -BsD 14.1 14.1 0.0 PAR12 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LoB 14.1 14.1 0.0 PAR12 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -LsD 14.1 14.1 0.2 PAR12 -- -- -- 1.2 -- -- -
J1-11 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

WeC2 14.1 14.1 0.1 PAR12 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsD 14.2 14.2 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -VcB2 14.2 14.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC2 14.3 14.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VcB2 14.4 14.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrB2 14.4 14.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsD 14.5 14.5 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -LoD2 14.5 14.6 0.1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -VcB2 14.6 14.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MoC2 14.8 14.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McC2 14.8 14.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McB2 14.9 15.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McC2 15.0 15.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MfD2 15.1 15.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WlC2 15.1 15.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsD 15.1 15.1 0.0 PAR13 -- -- -- <0.01 -- -- -WeC2 15.1 15.1 0.1 PAR13 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WlC2 15.1 15.1 0.0 PAR13 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC2 15.1 15.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC2 15.2 15.2 0.0 MLV #2 

Walkers 

Rd 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -

WlC2 15.2 15.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WlB2 15.3 15.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-12 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

WlC2 15.4 15.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VfC 15.5 15.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CnB2 15.5 15.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrB2 15.5 15.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McC2 15.5 15.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VcB2 15.6 15.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LkD2 15.7 15.7 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -WsD 15.7 15.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsD 15.8 15.8 0.1 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -Mn 15.8 15.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Hw 15.8 15.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- 0.2 -- 0MgD 15.9 15.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VsD 15.9 15.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MgD 15.9 16.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsF 16.0 16.0 0.0 0.3 -- -- 0.3 -- -- -LsB 16.0 16.1 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -LsD 16.1 16.1 0.0 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -LsB 16.1 16.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -LsD 16.2 16.2 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -LsF 16.2 16.3 0.1 0.5 -- -- 0.5 -- -- -MgB 16.3 16.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsD 16.3 16.3 0.1 PAR14 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -MgB 16.3 16.3 0.3 PAR14 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-13 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

MoB2 16.3 16.3 0.1 PAR14 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MsB 16.3 16.3 0.1 PAR14 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC2 16.3 16.3 0.1 PAR14 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MgD 16.4 16.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MgB 16.4 16.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MgD 16.5 16.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McC2 16.6 16.8 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VcB2 16.8 16.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Mn 16.9 16.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VfC 16.9 16.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LgF 16.9 17.2 0.3 1.9 -- -- -- -- -- -LsF 17.2 17.4 0.1 0.9 -- -- 0.9 -- -- -LsB 17.4 17.4 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -LsD 17.4 17.5 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -BsD 17.5 17.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MgD 17.6 18.1 0.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -BsD 17.8 17.8 0.5 PAR15 -- -- -- -- -- -- -BsF 17.8 17.8 0.1 PAR15 0.7 -- -- -- -- -- -LfD2 17.8 17.8 0.0 PAR15 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LgF 17.8 17.8 0.1 PAR15 0.4 -- -- -- -- -- -MgD 17.8 17.8 0.1 PAR15 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsD 18.1 18.2 0.1 -- -- -- 3.3 -- -- -LsB 18.2 18.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -
J1-14 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

LsD 18.3 18.7 0.4 -- -- -- 3.3 -- -- -LgD 18.7 18.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LgF 18.7 18.8 0.1 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -Mn 18.8 18.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MgF 18.8 18.9 0.1 0.4 -- -- -- -- -- -MfC2 18.9 18.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -BsD 18.9 19.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsD 19.0 19.1 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -LsF 19.1 19.1 0.1 0.3 -- -- 0.3 -- -- -LsB 19.1 19.2 0.1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -LsD 19.2 19.5 0.3 -- -- -- 1.9 -- -- -LsB 19.5 19.6 0.0 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -LsD 19.6 19.6 0.0 -- -- -- 1.9 -- -- -LsF 19.6 19.7 0.1 0.5 -- -- 0.5 -- -- -MgD 19.7 19.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MgF 19.7 19.8 0.1 0.7 -- -- -- -- -- -VfC 19.8 20.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MgD 20.0 20.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -BsD 20.0 20.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsF 20.2 20.2 0.1 0.9 -- -- 0.9 -- -- -LsB 20.2 20.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -LsD 20.3 20.4 0.1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -BsD 20.4 20.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-15 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

LsF 20.5 20.6 0.1 0.9 -- -- 0.9 -- -- -MgD 20.6 20.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VsD 20.7 20.9 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WsD 20.9 20.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MgD 20.9 20.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WsD 20.9 21.2 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LgD 21.0 21.0 0.1 PAR15a -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsD 21.0 21.0 0.0 PAR15a -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -WsD 21.0 21.0 0.0 PAR15a -- -- -- -- -- -- -LgD 21.2 21.3 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC2 21.3 21.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LgD 21.4 21.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LgF 21.5 21.5 0.1 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -BsD 21.5 21.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Wy 21.6 21.8 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1CnA 21.8 21.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -BsF 21.8 21.9 0.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -MgB 21.9 21.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MgD 21.9 22.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsD 22.0 22.2 0.2 -- -- -- 1.2 -- -- -WsD 22.2 22.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MsD 22.3 22.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WsD 22.4 22.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-16 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

VsB 22.5 22.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Wy 22.6 22.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0BsF 22.7 22.7 0.0 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -VsD 22.7 22.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -BsD 22.7 22.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MgD 22.8 22.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsF 22.8 22.9 0.1 0.7 -- -- 0.7 -- -- -LsD 22.9 23.0 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -MgD 23.0 23.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VsB 23.1 23.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VfB 23.1 23.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VcB2 23.2 23.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VcC2 23.3 23.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VfB 23.3 23.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MfD2 23.4 23.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VcC2 23.4 23.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McD2 23.4 23.4 0.3 PAR16 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MfD2 23.4 23.4 0.1 PAR16 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Mn 23.4 23.4 0.1 PAR16 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VcC2 23.4 23.4 0.1 PAR16 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VfB 23.4 23.4 0.1 PAR16 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VsB 23.4 23.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VcC2 23.5 23.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-17 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

MgD 23.5 23.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MgB 23.6 23.7 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MgD 23.7 24.3 0.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MfC2 24.3 24.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MgD 24.4 24.5 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -BsD 24.5 24.5 0.1 PAR18 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MgB 24.5 24.5 0.1 PAR18 -- -- -- -- -- -- -BsD 24.5 24.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MgB 24.6 24.9 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VsD 24.9 25.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VsB 25.0 25.2 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VsB 25.1 25.1 0.0 TAR1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VsD 25.1 25.1 0.0 TAR1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -New York Broome County VoB 25.2 25.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- -MtC 25.3 25.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsE 25.3 25.8 0.4 -- -- -- 4.6 -- -- -CcC 25.8 25.9 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- 1.0 -LsE 25.9 26.2 0.3 -- -- -- 4.6 -- -- -CcC 26.2 26.2 0.1 PAR19 -- -- -- -- -- 0.2 -LsE 26.2 26.2 0.0 PAR19 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -OuC 26.2 26.2 0.0 PAR19 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -
J1-18 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

OuC 26.2 26.3 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -CcC 26.3 26.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 1.2 -MtC 26.3 26.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcC 26.4 26.6 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- 1.2 -MtC 26.6 26.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MtB 26.6 26.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcC 26.7 26.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.2 -CcC 26.7 26.7 0.0 PAR20 -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 -LsE 26.7 26.9 0.2 -- -- -- 2.0 -- -- -CcC 26.7 26.7 0.0 MLV #3 

Vale Rd 

-- -- -- -- -- 0.0 -

LsE 26.7 26.7 0.0 MLV #3 

Vale Rd 

-- -- -- -- -- 0.1 -

CcD 26.9 27.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsE 27.0 27.2 0.2 -- -- -- 2.0 -- -- -CcE 27.2 27.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CuC 27.2 27.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Wd 27.2 27.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0ChD 27.3 27.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.2 -CcE 27.3 27.5 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcD 27.5 27.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcC 27.5 27.9 0.4 -- -- -- -- -- 2.5 -CcC 27.8 27.8 0.1 PAR21 -- -- -- -- -- 0.2 -CcD 27.8 27.8 0.2 PAR21 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-19 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

CuB 27.8 27.8 0.0 PAR21 -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 -MtC 27.8 27.8 0.1 PAR21 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Wd 27.8 27.8 0.0 PAR21 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.LsE 27.9 28.0 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -CcC 28.0 28.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 2.5 -OuD 28.0 28.1 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -LrF 28.1 28.1 0.0 0.1 -- -- 0.1 -- -- -CcD 28.1 28.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MtC 28.3 28.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcE 28.4 28.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CuC 28.5 28.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcD 28.5 28.5 0.7 PAR22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcE 28.5 28.5 0.2 PAR22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ChD 28.5 28.5 0.1 PAR22 -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 -Ta 28.6 28.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Ms 28.6 28.7 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- 1.0 -Cw 28.7 28.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Ms 28.8 28.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- 0.4 -ChD 28.8 28.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- 3.1 -ChC 28.9 28.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ChD 28.9 29.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- 3.1 -CcE 29.0 29.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ChD 29.0 29.2 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- 3.1 -
J1-20 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

Tg 29.2 29.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ChD 29.2 29.4 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- 3.1 -CcC 29.4 29.7 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- 2.0 -MtC 29.7 29.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcD 29.8 29.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LdD 29.9 30.0 0.1 -- -- -- 1.2 -- -- -LdC 30.0 30.1 0.1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -LdD 30.1 30.2 0.1 -- -- -- 1.2 -- -- -LdC 30.2 30.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -LdB 30.2 30.2 0.1 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -LoE 30.2 30.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -MtC 30.3 30.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcD 30.3 30.6 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CuB 30.6 30.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- 0.7 -CuC 30.7 30.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Ad 30.7 30.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0Ta 30.7 30.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MhD 30.8 30.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcD 30.8 30.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcE 30.9 31.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcD 31.0 31.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MtC 31.0 31.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcD 31.1 31.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-21 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

LsE 31.1 31.7 0.6 -- -- -- 3.7 -- -- -Ad 31.7 31.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0MtB 31.8 31.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcD 31.8 31.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MtC 31.9 32.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MtB 32.0 32.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LsE 32.1 32.5 0.4 -- -- -- 2.4 -- -- -LrF 32.5 32.6 0.1 0.7 -- -- 0.7 -- -- -CuD 32.6 32.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Tg 32.7 32.9 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Wd 32.9 33.5 0.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- 5CcE 33.5 33.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Wd 33.6 33.8 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 5Tg 33.8 33.8 0.0 PAR27 -- -- -- -- -- -- -UnC 33.8 33.8 0.0 PAR27 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Wd 33.8 33.8 0.0 PAR27 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.Tg 33.8 33.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Ms 33.9 34.3 0.4 -- -- -- -- -- 2.6 -CuD 34.3 34.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ChC 34.4 34.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcD 34.5 34.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MtC 34.5 34.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcD 34.5 34.7 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-22 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

Ad 34.7 34.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0CcD 34.7 34.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MtC 34.8 34.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcC 34.8 34.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 2.3 -CcD 34.9 34.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MtB 34.9 35.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcC 35.0 35.3 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- 2.3 -CcC 35.2 35.2 0.1 PAR28 -- -- -- -- -- 0.2 -ChC 35.2 35.2 0.0 PAR28 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CuC 35.2 35.2 0.0 PAR28 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MuD 35.3 35.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- 0.3 0.3 -CcD 35.3 35.7 0.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcE 35.7 35.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcC 35.8 35.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 2.3 -CpB 35.8 35.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- 0.2 -- 0MnC 35.8 35.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Wd 35.9 35.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0ChC 35.9 36.1 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcD 36.1 36.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcD 36.1 36.1 0.1 PAR29 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcC 36.2 36.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.2 -ChC 36.2 36.5 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Ad 36.5 36.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0
J1-23 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

Wd 36.6 36.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0CcC 36.6 36.8 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- 1.2 -CcD 36.8 37.3 0.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MtB 37.3 37.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcD 37.3 37.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcE 37.3 37.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LrF 37.3 37.3 0.0 0.2 -- -- 0.2 -- -- -MhB 37.3 37.7 0.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MtC 37.7 37.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CcC 37.8 37.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- 0.8 -MtC 37.9 38.3 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CuC 38.3 38.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MtC 38.4 38.6 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MtB 38.6 38.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CuB 38.7 38.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- 0.4 -MtB 38.7 39.0 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CuC 39.0 39.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MtC 39.1 39.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Wd 39.2 39.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0MhD 39.2 39.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MhC 39.3 39.5 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MhD 39.5 39.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MhC 39.6 39.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-24 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

MhD 39.6 39.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VoC 39.7 39.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- 0.9 0.9 -MhD 39.7 39.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VoC 39.8 39.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- 0.9 0.9 -MhD 39.9 40.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VoB 40.0 40.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- 1.7 -- -MhB 40.1 40.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MhC 40.2 40.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MhB 40.2 40.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VoC 40.2 40.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- 0.5 0.5 -VoB 40.3 40.6 0.2 -- -- -- -- 1.7 -- -MhC 40.6 40.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VoC 40.7 40.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- 0.4 0.4 -MhC 40.7 40.7 0.0 PAR31 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VoB 40.8 40.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- 0.5 -- -MhC 40.8 41.1 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MhB 41.1 41.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VoC 41.1 41.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- 0.4 0.4 -VoB 41.1 41.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- 1.0 -- -MhC 41.2 41.2 0.0 PAR32 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VoB 41.2 41.2 0.0 PAR32 -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- -MhC 41.2 41.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-25 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

MhC 41.2 41.2 0.0 MLV #4 

Obrien Rd 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -

VoB 41.2 41.2 0.0 MLV #4 

Obrien Rd 

-- -- -- -- 0.0 -- -

VoB 41.3 41.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- 1.0 -- -MhC 41.3 41.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VoB 41.4 41.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- 3.2 -- -MhB 41.4 41.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VoB 41.5 41.6 0.2 -- -- -- -- 3.2 -- -VoC 41.6 41.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- 0.7 0.7 -VoB 41.8 42.0 0.3 -- -- -- -- 3.2 -- -MhC 42.0 42.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MhD 42.1 42.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MhB 42.1 42.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Chenango LdB 42.2 42.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -LoE 42.2 42.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -MhE 42.2 42.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -BvD 42.2 42.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaC 42.3 42.7 0.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VoB 42.7 42.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Ud 42.7 42.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CkB 42.8 42.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaC 42.8 42.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-26 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

MaB 42.8 42.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaC 42.9 43.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -BvD 43.0 43.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Ud 43.0 43.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VoB 43.0 43.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaC 43.1 43.4 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaB 43.4 43.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaC 43.5 43.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Cn 43.6 43.6 0.0 PAR33 -- -- -- -- 0.0 -- 0.MaC 43.6 43.6 0.0 PAR33 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McB 43.6 43.6 0.0 PAR33 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VoB 43.6 43.6 0.1 PAR33 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McB 43.6 43.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Cm 43.7 43.9 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1VoB 43.9 44.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaC 44.0 44.2 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LoC 44.2 44.9 0.7 -- -- -- 4.1 -- -- -LoB 44.2 44.2 0.2 PAR34 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -LoC 44.2 44.2 0.1 PAR34 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -LrE 44.2 44.2 0.1 PAR34 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -VoB 45.1 45.2 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaB 45.2 45.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaD 45.2 45.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-27 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

Tr 45.3 45.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ChE 45.3 45.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ChB 45.3 45.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VaB 45.4 45.6 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CdA 45.6 45.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VaB 45.6 45.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Ca 45.7 45.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0VaB 45.7 46.0 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaB 46.0 46.2 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ChB 46.2 46.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaC 46.3 46.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaD 46.4 46.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaC 46.5 46.9 0.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LrE 46.9 46.9 0.1 -- -- -- 1.4 -- -- -LoB 46.9 47.0 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -LrE 47.0 47.2 0.2 -- -- -- 1.4 -- -- -MaC 47.2 47.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CbB 47.3 47.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaD 47.3 47.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CbC 47.4 47.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Wa 47.4 47.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0CkA 47.5 47.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Ud 47.7 47.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-28 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

CkA 47.8 48.0 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VaE 48.0 48.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaC 48.1 48.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaB 48.1 48.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaC 48.2 48.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -GrC 48.2 48.3 0.0 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -GrB 48.3 48.3 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -GrC 48.3 48.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -LrE 48.3 48.5 0.1 -- -- -- 1.3 -- -- -LoC 48.5 48.7 0.3 -- -- -- 1.6 -- -- -LrE 48.7 48.8 0.1 -- -- -- 1.3 -- -- -LoC 48.8 48.9 0.1 -- -- -- 1.1 -- -- -LoB 48.9 49.2 0.3 -- -- -- 2.7 -- -- -LoC 49.2 49.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -LoB 49.3 49.4 0.2 -- -- -- 2.7 -- -- -LoC 49.4 49.5 0.1 -- -- -- 1.1 -- -- -LrE 49.5 49.6 0.0 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -LoC 49.6 49.6 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -VpB 49.6 49.9 0.3 -- -- -- -- 3.2 -- -Cm 49.9 49.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0VpB 49.9 50.1 0.2 -- -- -- -- 3.2 -- -VoA 50.1 50.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VoB 50.1 50.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-29 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

VpB 50.2 50.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- 3.2 -- -LoC 50.2 50.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -LoB 50.3 50.5 0.2 -- -- -- 1.3 -- -- -Delaware LoC 50.5 50.5 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -LoB 50.5 50.5 0.0 -- -- -- 1.3 -- -- -LoB 50.5 50.5 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -LoB 50.5 50.6 0.0 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -LoC 50.6 50.8 0.2 -- -- -- 1.3 -- -- -MdC 50.8 50.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MdD 50.9 50.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VoB 50.9 51.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MdC 51.0 51.3 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LoC 51.3 51.4 0.1 -- -- -- 0.9 -- -- -LoB 51.4 51.5 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -LoE 51.5 51.5 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -LoC 51.5 51.5 0.0 -- -- -- 0.9 -- -- -MdC 51.5 51.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MdB 51.6 51.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LoB 51.7 51.8 0.1 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -MdB 51.8 51.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VoB 51.8 51.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LoB 51.9 52.0 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -
J1-30 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

LoD 52.0 52.1 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -MnB 52.1 52.3 0.3 -- -- -- 1.7 -- -- -LoB 52.1 52.1 0.3 PAR36 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -LoD 52.1 52.1 0.1 PAR36 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -MdB 52.1 52.1 0.2 PAR36 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MnB 52.1 52.1 0.1 PAR36 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -MnB 52.1 52.1 0.0 MLV 5 

Access Rd 

Town Rd 

-- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -

MdC 52.3 52.6 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MnD 52.6 52.6 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -MdC 52.6 52.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MnC 52.7 53.0 0.3 -- -- -- 2.5 -- -- -MnD 53.0 53.1 0.1 -- -- -- 0.8 -- -- -MnC 53.1 53.2 0.1 -- -- -- 2.5 -- -- -MnB 53.2 53.4 0.3 -- -- -- 1.6 -- -- -MnD 53.4 53.5 0.0 -- -- -- 0.8 -- -- -WhB 53.5 53.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WhC 53.6 53.8 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OnB 53.8 53.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Sa 53.9 53.9 0.0 -- 0.2 -- -- -- -- 0OnB 53.9 54.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MnD 54.0 54.1 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -MnC 54.1 54.1 0.0 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -
J1-31 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

MnC 54.1 54.1 0.0 PAR36a -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -MnD 54.1 54.1 0.6 PAR36a -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -OnB 54.1 54.1 0.2 PAR36a -- -- -- -- -- -- -WhB 54.1 54.1 0.0 PAR36a -- -- -- -- -- -- -WhC 54.1 54.1 0.2 PAR36a -- -- -- -- -- -- -HcC 54.1 54.2 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -HcE 54.2 54.3 0.1 -- -- -- 1.5 -- -- -HcC 54.3 54.3 0.1 PAR36b -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -HcE 54.3 54.3 0.2 PAR36b -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -MnD 54.3 54.3 0.5 PAR36b -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -MdC 54.3 54.5 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VoB 54.5 54.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MdC 54.5 54.7 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MnC 54.7 54.9 0.2 -- -- -- 1.1 -- -- -HcE 54.9 55.0 0.1 -- -- -- 1.5 -- -- -LoE 55.0 55.1 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -TeB 55.1 55.2 0.1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- 0LoC 55.2 55.2 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -TeB 55.2 55.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- 0LoD 55.3 55.3 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -LoB 55.3 55.4 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -MdC 55.4 55.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -BtD 55.6 55.8 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-32 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

MdC 55.8 55.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VoB 55.9 55.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -BtC 55.9 56.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MdC 56.1 56.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MdB 56.1 56.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MdD 56.2 56.3 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VaD 56.3 56.5 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VaC 56.5 56.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VaD 56.5 56.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VaC 56.5 56.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VaB 56.5 56.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VaE 56.6 56.7 0.0 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -ChB 56.7 56.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Ff 56.7 56.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0VaD 56.8 56.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MdC 56.8 57.3 0.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LoC 57.3 57.3 0.1 -- -- -- 1.5 -- -- -LoB 57.3 57.4 0.1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -LoC 57.4 57.6 0.2 -- -- -- 1.5 -- -- -LoE 57.6 57.7 0.1 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -MdC 57.7 57.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -BtD 57.7 57.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MdC 57.8 57.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-33 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

VoB 57.8 57.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MdC 57.9 58.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VoC 58.0 58.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MdC 58.1 58.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MdB 58.2 58.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MdC 58.3 58.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VoB 58.4 58.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MdC 58.4 58.8 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaC 58.8 58.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaD 58.8 58.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaB 58.9 58.9 0.2 PAR37 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaC 58.9 58.9 0.2 PAR37 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaD 58.9 58.9 0.1 PAR37 -- -- -- -- -- -- -TkC 58.9 58.9 0.5 PAR37 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaB 58.9 58.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -TkC 58.9 59.2 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaC 59.2 59.4 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaB 59.4 59.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MsB 59.6 59.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaB 59.6 59.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MsB 59.7 59.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -TkB 59.8 59.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -TtB 59.9 59.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-34 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

MaB 59.9 60.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC 60.0 60.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OpD 60.1 60.2 0.2 -- -- -- 0.9 -- -- -MaB 60.1 60.1 0.2 PAR38 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC 60.1 60.1 0.1 PAR38 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OpB 60.2 60.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.9 -- -- -OrC 60.3 60.4 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -OpB 60.4 60.5 0.1 -- -- -- 0.9 -- -- -OrE 60.5 60.6 0.1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -MaB 60.6 60.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaD 60.7 60.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Bc 60.7 61.0 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -TkD 61.0 61.1 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC 61.1 61.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LaD 61.2 61.4 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MsB 61.4 61.6 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LdC 61.6 61.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MsB 61.7 61.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OpE 61.7 61.8 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -LoC 61.8 61.9 0.2 -- -- -- 1.1 -- -- -WeB 61.9 62.2 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LaC 62.2 62.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeB 62.2 62.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-35 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

MrB 62.3 62.5 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC 62.5 62.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LaC 62.6 62.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LaC 62.6 62.6 0.2 PAR39 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrA 62.6 62.6 0.0 PAR39 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeB 62.6 62.6 0.1 PAR39 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC 62.6 62.6 0.3 PAR39 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LoD 62.6 62.8 0.1 -- -- -- 1.1 -- -- -LoC 62.8 62.8 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -LoE 62.8 62.9 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -LoD 62.9 63.0 0.1 -- -- -- 1.1 -- -- -WeD 63.0 63.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC 63.0 63.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MsB 63.1 63.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC 63.2 63.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LdE 63.3 63.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OpD 63.3 63.4 0.0 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -LoC 63.4 63.4 0.0 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -OpD 63.4 63.5 0.1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -LoC 63.5 63.5 0.0 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -WeC 63.5 63.7 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MsB 63.5 63.5 0.1 PAR40 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeB 63.5 63.5 0.2 PAR40 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-36 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

WeC 63.5 63.5 0.1 PAR40 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VoB 63.7 63.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeB 63.8 63.9 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MsB 63.9 64.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WhC 64.0 64.2 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MnD 64.2 64.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -HcE 64.3 64.4 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -MnB 64.4 64.5 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -HcE 64.5 64.5 0.1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -WmB 64.5 64.7 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC 64.7 64.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OeB 64.8 64.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WmB 64.8 64.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC 64.9 65.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OpC 65.0 65.1 0.1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -VlE 65.1 65.1 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -WeC 65.1 65.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WmB 65.2 65.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OeB 65.2 65.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC 65.2 65.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WmB 65.3 65.8 0.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OpC 65.8 66.0 0.2 -- -- -- 0.9 -- -- -OpC 65.9 65.9 0.1 PAR41 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -
J1-37 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

VlB 65.9 65.9 0.0 PAR41 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -OrE 66.0 66.0 0.1 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -WeC 66.0 66.2 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrB 66.2 66.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Ce 66.2 66.3 0.0 -- 0.2 -- -- -- -- 0MrB 66.3 66.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrC 66.3 66.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeB 66.3 66.6 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC 66.6 66.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrB 66.7 66.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrB 66.7 66.7 0.0 MLV #6 

Stewart Rd 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -

WeB 66.8 66.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrB 66.8 66.8 0.0 PAR42 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeB 66.8 66.8 0.0 PAR42 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrA 66.8 66.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MsB 66.9 66.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC 66.9 67.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MsB 67.1 67.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC 67.1 67.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VlB 67.2 67.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -HcE 67.3 67.4 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -WmB 67.4 67.7 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-38 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

HcC 67.7 67.8 0.2 -- -- -- 2.2 -- -- -WmB 67.8 67.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -HcC 67.9 68.0 0.1 -- -- -- 2.2 -- -- -HcE 68.0 68.1 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -HcC 68.1 68.2 0.1 -- -- -- 2.2 -- -- -WeC 68.2 68.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeB 68.3 68.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LaE 68.3 68.3 0.3 PAR43 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeB 68.3 68.3 0.0 PAR43 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC 68.3 68.3 0.2 PAR43 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OpB 68.4 68.5 0.1 -- -- -- 1.1 -- -- -OrC 68.5 68.6 0.1 -- -- -- 0.8 -- -- -VlC 68.6 68.7 0.1 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -OpB 68.7 68.7 0.0 -- -- -- 1.1 -- -- -LaE 68.7 68.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LaD 68.8 68.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrB 68.8 68.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WfC 68.8 69.0 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LaC 69.0 69.2 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LaD 69.2 69.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LdE 69.2 69.5 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaE 69.5 69.6 0.1 0.5 -- -- -- -- -- -LaC 69.6 70.0 0.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-39 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

LdC 70.0 70.3 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Bc 70.0 70.0 0.1 PAR44 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LaC 70.0 70.0 0.1 PAR44 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LaD 70.0 70.0 0.1 PAR44 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LdE 70.0 70.0 0.1 PAR44 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC 70.0 70.0 0.2 PAR44 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MsB 70.3 70.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LdC 70.4 70.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OpC 70.4 70.5 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -LaD 70.5 70.5 0.3 PAR45 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LdC 70.5 70.5 0.1 PAR45 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OpB 70.5 70.5 0.2 PAR45 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -OpC 70.5 70.5 0.3 PAR45 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -TtB 70.5 70.5 0.1 PAR45 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC 70.5 70.5 0.2 PAR45 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OpB 70.5 70.7 0.1 -- -- -- 0.8 -- -- -OrE 70.7 70.8 0.1 -- -- -- 0.8 -- -- -MrC 70.8 70.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrB 70.9 71.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC 71.0 71.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OpC 71.0 71.4 0.4 -- -- -- 2.1 -- -- -HcE 71.4 71.5 0.1 -- -- -- 0.8 -- -- -WeC 71.5 71.8 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-40 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

MsB 71.8 71.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC 71.8 71.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LdE 71.8 71.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC 71.9 72.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LkC 72.0 72.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VlD 72.0 72.1 0.1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -HcF 72.1 72.1 0.1 0.3 -- -- 0.3 -- -- -VlC 72.1 72.2 0.1 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -HcE 72.2 72.2 0.1 -- -- -- 1.8 -- -- -VlC 72.2 72.3 0.1 -- -- -- 2.0 -- -- -HcE 72.3 72.6 0.2 -- -- -- 1.8 -- -- -VlC 72.6 72.8 0.2 -- -- -- 2.0 -- -- -Ff 72.6 72.6 0.0 PAR46 -- -- -- -- -- -- <0HcE 72.6 72.6 0.2 PAR46 -- -- -- 1.0 -- -- -OfB 72.6 72.6 0.1 PAR46 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VlC 72.6 72.6 0.3 PAR46 -- -- -- 1.4 -- -- -W 72.6 72.6 0.0 PAR46 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WmB 72.6 72.6 0.4 PAR46 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WmC 72.6 72.6 0.1 PAR46 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WmB 72.8 73.0 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VlB 73.0 73.0 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -HcC 73.0 73.1 0.1 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -VlB 73.1 73.1 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -
J1-41 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

VlC 73.1 73.2 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -VlB 73.2 73.2 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -VlC 73.2 73.3 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -WmC 73.3 73.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OeB 73.3 73.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -No 73.5 73.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0OfB 73.5 73.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OfB 73.6 73.6 0.2 PAR47 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WmB 73.6 73.6 0.4 PAR47 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WmC 73.6 73.6 0.2 PAR47 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WmB 73.6 73.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VlC 73.7 73.9 0.1 -- -- -- 0.9 -- -- -HcC 73.9 74.0 0.1 -- -- -- 0.9 -- -- -VlB 74.0 74.1 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -HcE 74.1 74.2 0.2 -- -- -- 0.9 -- -- -LkE 74.2 74.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WnC 74.3 74.4 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LhC 74.4 74.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VlC 74.5 74.8 0.4 -- -- -- 2.1 -- -- -LhB 74.8 75.0 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VlC 75.0 75.1 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -WmC 75.1 75.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WmB 75.2 75.3 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-42 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

WmC 75.3 75.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -HcE 75.4 75.5 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -VlC 75.5 75.5 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -VlD 75.5 75.6 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -HcC 75.6 75.7 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -VlD 75.7 75.8 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -LhB 75.8 75.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OeB 75.8 75.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WmB 75.9 76.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -HcC 76.0 76.1 0.1 -- -- -- 0.8 -- -- -VlE 76.1 76.2 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -LhC 76.2 76.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WnC 76.3 76.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OeA 76.3 76.5 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WmB 76.5 76.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WmC 76.6 76.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WmB 76.6 76.8 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -HcC 76.8 76.8 0.1 PAR48 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -VlC 76.8 76.8 0.0 PAR48 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -WmB 76.8 76.8 0.2 PAR48 -- -- -- -- -- -- -HcC 76.8 77.0 0.1 -- -- -- 0.8 -- -- -HcE 77.0 77.0 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -HcC 77.0 77.1 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -
J1-43 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

HcE 77.1 77.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -ElF 77.2 77.3 0.1 0.5 -- -- -- -- -- -LaD 77.3 77.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC 77.3 77.5 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LaD 77.5 77.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC 77.6 77.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MsB 77.7 77.9 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaC 77.9 78.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrB 78.0 78.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaD 78.0 78.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC 78.1 78.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaD 78.2 78.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaB 78.2 78.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -De 78.3 78.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeD 78.4 78.5 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrC 78.5 78.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeD 78.6 78.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrC 78.7 78.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeD 78.7 78.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrC 78.7 78.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VlE 78.7 78.8 0.1 -- -- -- 1.1 -- -- -VlC 78.8 78.9 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -VlE 78.9 79.0 0.1 -- -- -- 1.1 -- -- -
J1-44 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

WeC 79.0 79.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LcD 79.0 79.2 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LhC 79.2 79.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LhD 79.2 79.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LhC 79.3 79.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC 79.4 79.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OeB 79.4 79.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VlC 79.5 79.7 0.2 -- -- -- 1.0 -- -- -HcE 79.7 79.8 0.2 -- -- -- 1.5 -- -- -LdE 79.8 80.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LcD 80.0 80.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -HcE 80.0 80.1 0.1 -- -- -- 1.5 -- -- -ElE 80.1 80.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeB 80.2 80.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrC 80.2 80.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -No 80.3 80.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0WmC 80.4 80.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrC 80.5 80.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LaD 80.5 80.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -No 80.6 80.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0MrC 80.6 80.8 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WmC 80.8 80.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrC 80.8 80.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-45 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

WmC 80.9 80.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WmB 80.9 81.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OfB 81.0 81.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -HcC 81.0 81.1 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -VlD 81.1 81.2 0.1 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -VlB 81.2 81.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -VlE 81.3 81.5 0.2 -- -- -- 1.3 -- -- -LdE 81.5 81.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -TkE 81.6 81.7 0.1 0.6 -- -- -- -- -- -MaC 81.7 81.9 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MaC 81.8 81.8 0.0 MLV #7 

County Rd 

10 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -

WeB 81.9 82.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrB 82.0 82.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WfC 82.0 82.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LaD 82.1 82.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LaC 82.2 82.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeC 82.3 82.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OpF 82.4 82.4 0.0 0.2 -- -- 0.2 -- -- -OpC 82.4 82.6 0.3 -- -- -- 1.6 -- -- -LaC 82.6 82.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WeB 82.7 82.9 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VlB 82.9 83.1 0.2 -- -- -- 1.1 -- -- -
J1-46 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

WmB 83.1 83.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrB 83.2 83.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WmB 83.2 83.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrB 83.3 83.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OfB 83.4 83.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MnB 83.5 83.5 0.0 -- -- -- 2.1 -- -- -MnC 83.5 83.7 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -MnB 83.7 83.7 0.0 -- -- -- 2.1 -- -- -LoC 83.7 83.7 0.0 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -MnB 83.7 83.8 0.1 -- -- -- 2.1 -- -- -MkB 83.8 83.9 0.1 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -MnB 83.9 84.0 0.2 -- -- -- 2.1 -- -- -HcC 84.0 84.3 0.2 -- -- -- 1.4 -- -- -LoB 84.3 84.4 0.1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -BtB 84.3 84.3 0.1 PAR54 -- -- -- -- -- -- -HcC 84.3 84.3 0.0 PAR54 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -LoB 84.3 84.3 0.0 PAR54 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -LoC 84.3 84.3 0.0 PAR54 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -MdB 84.3 84.3 0.0 PAR54 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MdC 84.3 84.3 0.1 PAR54 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MsB 84.3 84.3 0.1 PAR54 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WfC 84.3 84.3 0.1 PAR54 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LoC 84.4 84.4 0.1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -
J1-47 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

MdC 84.4 84.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MdB 84.5 84.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MsB 84.5 84.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MdB 84.5 84.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MrB 84.7 84.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -No 84.7 84.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0WfC 84.8 84.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ElE 84.8 84.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -HcE 84.9 84.9 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -HcC 84.9 84.9 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -WhB 84.9 85.0 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WmA 85.0 85.2 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OeA 85.2 85.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WnC 85.2 85.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LhB 85.3 85.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WmB 85.4 85.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WnC 85.5 85.8 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WmB 85.8 85.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OfB 85.8 85.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WmB 85.8 85.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -No 85.8 85.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0OfB 85.9 86.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LkC 86.0 86.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-48 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

WnC 86.0 86.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OfB 86.1 86.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WnC 86.2 86.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MnD 86.2 86.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -MnB 86.3 86.4 0.1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -WmB 86.4 86.6 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WmA 86.6 86.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WmB 86.6 86.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VlB 86.7 86.9 0.1 -- -- -- 1.1 -- -- -HcC 86.9 86.9 0.0 -- -- -- 2.4 -- -- -VlB 86.9 86.9 0.0 -- -- -- 1.1 -- -- -HcC 86.9 87.3 0.4 -- -- -- 2.4 -- -- -HcF 87.3 87.4 0.1 0.4 -- -- 0.4 -- -- -HcE 87.4 87.5 0.1 -- -- -- 0.8 -- -- -LdE 87.5 87.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -BtD 87.6 87.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LdE 87.6 87.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VaB 87.7 87.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ChC 87.7 87.7 0.1 TAR5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VaB 87.7 87.7 0.2 TAR5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ChC 87.7 87.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Ff 87.8 87.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0TtA 87.9 88.1 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-49 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

VaB 88.1 88.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -BtC 88.1 88.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -BtD 88.2 88.4 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WfC 88.4 88.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MdC 88.5 88.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -BtD 88.6 88.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -BtC 88.7 88.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MnC 88.8 89.2 0.4 -- -- -- 2.4 -- -- -HcC 89.2 89.4 0.2 -- -- -- 1.5 -- -- -HcC 89.3 89.3 0.1 PAR56 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -LeC 89.3 89.3 0.0 PAR56 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MnB 89.3 89.3 0.1 PAR56 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -WhB 89.3 89.3 0.0 PAR56 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MnC 89.4 89.8 0.3 -- -- -- 2.0 -- -- -OnB 89.8 90.1 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WhB 90.1 90.4 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LeC 90.4 90.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WhB 90.6 90.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OnB 90.7 90.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WhB 90.8 91.0 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WnC 91.0 91.2 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -HcC 91.2 91.5 0.3 -- -- -- 1.7 -- -- -MnC 91.5 91.6 0.2 -- -- -- 1.0 -- -- -
J1-50 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

LeC 91.6 91.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MnC 91.7 91.8 0.1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -OnA 91.8 91.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WhB 91.8 91.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -HcC 91.9 92.1 0.1 -- -- -- 0.9 -- -- -MnB 92.1 92.2 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -MnD 92.2 92.2 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -WhB 92.2 92.4 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -WhC 92.4 92.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MnC 92.5 92.6 0.2 -- -- -- 0.9 -- -- -VlD 92.6 92.9 0.2 -- -- -- 1.5 -- -- -VlB 92.7 92.7 0.0 TAR4 -- -- -- <0.01 -- -- -VlD 92.7 92.7 0.1 TAR4 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -HcE 92.9 93.0 0.1 -- -- -- 0.9 -- -- -VlB 93.0 93.2 0.3 -- -- -- 1.7 -- -- -HcE 93.2 93.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.9 -- -- -BtE 93.3 93.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Schoharie WhB 93.4 93.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -HcC 93.4 93.5 0.2 -- -- -- 0.9 -- -- -CuC 93.5 93.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MeE 93.6 93.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CaD 93.7 93.7 0.0 -- -- 1.1 -- -- -- -
J1-51 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

MeE 93.7 93.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CaD 93.7 93.8 0.1 -- -- 1.1 -- -- -- -MeE 93.8 93.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VmC 93.9 93.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CaD 93.9 93.9 0.1 -- -- 1.1 -- -- -- -VmC 93.9 94.1 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LmD 94.1 94.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -LoE 94.2 94.2 0.1 -- -- -- 1.0 -- -- -McC 94.2 94.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LoE 94.2 94.4 0.1 -- -- -- 1.0 -- -- -LrF 94.4 94.4 0.1 0.5 -- -- 0.5 -- -- -LmE 94.4 94.5 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -LmD 94.5 94.5 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -LmE 94.5 94.5 0.0 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -McD 94.5 94.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McB 94.6 94.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McD 94.6 94.9 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VcC 94.9 94.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McD 94.9 94.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VcC 94.9 95.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McD 95.0 95.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ThA 95.0 95.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-52 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

ThA 95.1 95.1 0.0 MLV #8 

Clapper 

Hollow Rd 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -

McD 95.1 95.1 0.0 PAR59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ThA 95.1 95.1 0.0 PAR59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -TnF 95.1 95.2 0.1 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -Ha 95.2 95.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0MdF 95.2 95.3 0.0 0.2 -- 0.2 -- -- -- -McC 95.3 95.4 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VmC 95.4 95.7 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LoE 95.7 95.8 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -VmC 95.8 95.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LoE 95.8 95.9 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -LmD 95.9 96.1 0.2 -- -- -- 2.2 -- -- -LmC 96.0 96.0 0.0 PAR60 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -LmD 96.0 96.0 0.2 PAR60 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -LmE 96.0 96.0 0.0 PAR60 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -LoE 96.0 96.0 0.1 PAR60 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -VcC 96.0 96.0 0.3 PAR60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McC 96.1 96.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LmD 96.1 96.2 0.0 -- -- -- 2.2 -- -- -McC 96.2 96.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LmD 96.3 96.4 0.2 -- -- -- 2.2 -- -- -LmC 96.4 96.5 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -
J1-53 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

LmD 96.5 96.6 0.1 -- -- -- 1.2 -- -- -LmC 96.6 96.6 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -LmD 96.6 96.6 0.0 -- -- -- 1.2 -- -- -TaB 96.6 96.7 0.0 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -LmD 96.7 96.8 0.1 -- -- -- 1.2 -- -- -TaB 96.8 96.8 0.1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -McB 96.8 97.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McC 97.0 97.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VmC 97.0 97.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -TaB 97.1 97.1 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -McC 97.1 97.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LmD 97.2 97.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -LmC 97.2 97.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -LmD 97.3 97.3 0.0 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -TaB 97.3 97.4 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -ChC 97.4 97.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0McC 97.4 97.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McB 97.5 97.6 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -TaB 97.6 97.6 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -LmD 97.6 97.7 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -CnC 97.7 97.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0LoE 97.7 97.7 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -CnC 97.7 97.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0
J1-54 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

LoE 97.8 98.5 0.7 -- -- -- 4.7 -- -- -LrF 98.5 98.5 0.0 0.2 -- -- 0.2 -- -- -LoE 98.5 98.5 0.0 -- -- -- 4.7 -- -- -McC 98.5 98.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LoE 98.6 98.6 0.1 -- -- -- 4.7 -- -- -CnC 98.6 98.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0VmC 98.6 99.1 0.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -TaB 99.1 99.3 0.2 -- -- -- 1.3 -- -- -LmC 99.3 99.4 0.1 -- -- -- 3.2 -- -- -LoE 99.4 99.4 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -LmC 99.4 99.5 0.1 -- -- -- 3.2 -- -- -VcB 99.5 99.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LmC 99.5 99.9 0.4 -- -- -- 3.2 -- -- -LmC 99.9 99.9 0.1 PAR63 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -LmD 99.9 99.9 0.0 PAR63 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -LmE 99.9 99.9 0.1 PAR63 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -LmD 99.9 100.1 0.2 -- -- -- 1.4 -- -- -LmA 100.1 100.2 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -LmD 100.2 100.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -LmC 100.3 100.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -VcB 100.3 100.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McB 100.4 100.7 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LmD 100.7 100.7 0.0 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -
J1-55 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

LmC 100.7 100.8 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -LmD 100.8 100.8 0.0 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -LmC 100.8 100.8 0.0 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -LmD 100.8 100.8 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -LmC 100.8 100.9 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -VcB 100.9 100.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ChC 100.9 101.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0McC 101.0 101.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ChC 101.1 101.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0McC 101.1 101.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LmC 101.2 101.4 0.2 -- -- -- 1.3 -- -- -ChC 101.4 101.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0ChA 101.4 101.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0VcB 101.4 101.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ChA 101.5 101.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0VcB 101.5 101.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McC 101.5 101.5 0.0 TAR2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VcB 101.5 101.5 0.0 TAR2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McC 101.5 101.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McD 101.5 101.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VcC 101.6 101.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McD 101.6 101.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VcB 101.6 101.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-56 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

VcC 101.7 101.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ChC 101.7 101.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0VcB 101.7 101.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LoE 101.7 101.8 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -LmC 101.8 101.9 0.1 -- -- -- 0.8 -- -- -LmD 101.9 102.0 0.0 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -GP 102.0 102.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LmC 102.0 102.0 0.0 -- -- -- 0.8 -- -- -GP 102.0 102.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LmD 102.0 102.0 0.0 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -LmC 102.0 102.1 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -VcB 102.1 102.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LmC 102.1 102.2 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -VcB 102.2 102.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LmC 102.2 102.3 0.0 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -LoE 102.3 102.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -VmC 102.3 102.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VcB 102.4 102.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LoE 102.5 102.6 0.0 -- -- -- 7.3 -- -- -LmC 102.6 102.8 0.2 -- -- -- 1.1 -- -- -LoE 102.8 102.9 0.2 -- -- -- 7.3 -- -- -CnC 102.9 103.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0LoE 103.0 104.1 1.0 -- -- -- 7.3 -- -- -
J1-57 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

ArC 103.4 103.4 0.2 PAR66 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -LmD 103.4 103.4 0.0 PAR66 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -LoE 103.4 103.4 0.4 PAR66 -- -- -- 1.0 -- -- -LrF 103.4 103.4 0.1 PAR66 0.2 -- -- 0.2 -- -- -LmD 104.1 104.1 0.1 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -VcB 104.1 104.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ChA 104.2 104.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0VcB 104.2 104.4 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VcC 104.4 104.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MeE 104.5 104.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LrF 104.5 104.6 0.1 0.5 -- -- 0.5 -- -- -McD 104.6 104.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ChC 104.7 104.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0LaA 104.7 104.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0McC 104.7 104.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ChC 104.7 104.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0McD 104.7 104.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LmE 104.8 104.8 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -McD 104.8 104.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VcC 104.9 105.0 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McD 105.0 105.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LrF 105.0 105.0 0.0 0.5 -- -- 0.5 -- -- -LmE 105.0 105.1 0.1 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -
J1-58 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

LmD 105.1 105.2 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -LmE 105.2 105.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -LmC 105.2 105.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -LoE 105.2 105.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -LmD 105.3 105.5 0.2 -- -- -- 1.1 -- -- -LrF 105.5 105.7 0.3 1.5 -- -- 1.5 -- -- -Ha 105.7 105.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1ChC 105.9 106.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0LrF 106.0 106.1 0.1 0.4 -- -- 0.4 -- -- -LmE 106.1 106.6 0.5 -- -- -- 3.0 -- -- -Ha 106.4 106.4 0.0 PAR68 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.LmE 106.4 106.4 0.1 PAR68 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -Ha 106.6 106.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1McD 106.6 107.0 0.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ChC 107.0 107.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0VcC 107.0 107.2 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LmD 107.2 107.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -LmE 107.3 107.4 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -ArC 107.4 107.5 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -TaB 107.5 107.5 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -ArC 107.5 107.5 0.0 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -LrF 107.5 107.6 0.1 0.7 -- -- 0.7 -- -- -LoE 107.6 107.6 0.0 -- -- -- 0.9 -- -- -
J1-59 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

ArC 107.6 107.7 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -LrF 107.7 107.8 0.1 0.7 -- -- 0.7 -- -- -LoE 107.8 107.9 0.1 -- -- -- 0.9 -- -- -McC 107.9 108.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VcC 108.1 108.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ChC 108.2 108.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0VcC 108.2 108.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LoE 108.3 108.4 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -LmC 108.4 108.6 0.2 -- -- -- 1.1 -- -- -LmC 108.5 108.5 0.0 MLV #9 

Access Rd 

Dodge 

Lodge Rd 

-- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -

LoE 108.5 108.5 0.0 MLV #9 

Access Rd 

Dodge 

Lodge Rd 

-- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -

VcB 108.6 108.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ChC 108.6 108.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0VcB 108.6 108.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LmD 108.7 108.7 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -LoE 108.7 109.0 0.3 -- -- -- 1.6 -- -- -LrF 109.0 109.2 0.2 1.0 -- -- 1.0 -- -- -LmE 109.2 109.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -LmC 109.2 109.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -
J1-60 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

VcB 109.3 109.4 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McB 109.4 109.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McC 109.4 109.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LmD 109.5 109.5 0.0 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -Al 109.5 109.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0McC 109.5 109.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McB 109.6 109.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ChC 109.7 109.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0LoE 109.7 109.9 0.2 -- -- -- 1.5 -- -- -LmC 109.9 110.0 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -LoE 110.0 110.1 0.1 -- -- -- 1.5 -- -- -ChC 110.1 110.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1ArC 110.2 110.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -ChC 110.3 110.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1LmD 110.3 110.4 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -ChC 110.4 110.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1LmD 110.4 110.5 0.0 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -McC 110.5 110.8 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -TaB 110.8 110.9 0.1 -- -- -- 1.0 -- -- -LmD 110.9 111.0 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -TaB 111.0 111.0 0.1 -- -- -- 1.0 -- -- -LmE 111.0 111.0 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -LmC 111.0 111.3 0.2 -- -- -- 1.4 -- -- -
J1-61 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

VcC 111.3 111.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McC 111.3 111.5 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -VcB 111.5 111.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ChC 111.5 111.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0VcB 111.5 111.7 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LmC 111.7 111.7 0.1 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -LmD 111.7 111.8 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -LmE 111.8 111.9 0.1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -LoE 111.9 112.0 0.1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -MeE 112.0 112.4 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -McC 112.4 112.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MeE 112.4 112.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LoE 112.5 112.7 0.1 -- -- -- 1.0 -- -- -LrF 112.7 112.7 0.0 3.0 -- -- 3.0 -- -- -LoE 112.7 112.7 0.0 -- -- -- 1.0 -- -- -LrF 112.7 112.7 0.0 3.0 -- -- 3.0 -- -- -MeE 112.7 112.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LrF 112.8 112.9 0.1 3.0 -- -- 3.0 -- -- -MeE 112.9 112.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LrF 112.9 113.3 0.4 3.0 -- -- 3.0 -- -- -DdD 113.3 113.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Al 113.4 113.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0Wa 113.4 113.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0
J1-62 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

Bm 113.4 113.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Wa 113.5 113.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0IlC 113.6 113.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0NdC 113.6 113.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ShB 113.7 113.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LaA 113.7 113.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0McD 113.8 113.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LmE 113.9 114.0 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -LmC 114.0 114.0 0.1 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -LmE 114.0 114.0 0.0 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -LoE 114.0 114.4 0.4 -- -- -- 2.3 -- -- -LmE 114.4 114.6 0.1 -- -- -- 0.8 -- -- -LrF 114.6 114.6 0.1 0.3 -- -- 0.3 -- -- -NdD3 114.6 114.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -DcC3 114.7 114.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Wa 114.7 114.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0NdC3 114.8 115.0 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -DaB 115.0 115.2 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -IlC 115.2 115.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0NdB 115.2 115.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -IlC 115.3 115.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0MhD 115.4 115.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LrF 115.5 115.5 0.0 0.2 -- -- 0.2 -- -- -
J1-63 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

LmE 115.5 115.5 0.0 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -LoE 115.5 115.6 0.1 -- -- -- 1.4 -- -- -LmE 115.6 115.6 0.0 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -LmC 115.6 115.7 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -LmE 115.7 115.7 0.0 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -ArC 115.7 115.8 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -LoE 115.8 115.9 0.1 -- -- -- 1.4 -- -- -ArC 115.9 116.0 0.1 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -LoE 116.0 116.0 0.0 -- -- -- 1.4 -- -- -LmC 116.0 116.3 0.3 -- -- -- 1.8 -- -- -LrF 116.3 116.3 0.1 0.3 -- -- 0.3 -- -- -MhC3 116.3 116.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MhD 116.4 116.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MhC3 116.4 116.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MlB 116.5 116.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MhC3 116.6 116.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -HfB 116.7 116.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -IaB 116.7 116.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0MhC 116.8 117.3 0.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MhC 117.1 117.1 0.2 PAR71 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MlB 117.3 117.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MhC 117.3 117.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MlB 117.4 117.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-64 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

HfB 117.5 117.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MlB 117.5 117.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -HfB 117.6 118.3 0.8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -HfB 117.9 117.9 0.2 PAR73 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MhC 117.9 117.9 0.1 PAR73 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MlB 117.9 117.9 0.1 PAR73 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MhD 118.3 118.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -HfB 118.4 118.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -IlA 118.4 118.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0HfC 118.5 118.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -FaF 118.6 118.6 0.0 0.4 -- -- 0.4 -- -- -FaB 118.6 119.0 0.4 -- -- -- 2.4 -- -- -FaF 119.0 119.0 0.0 0.4 -- -- 0.4 -- -- -FaB 119.0 119.1 0.0 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -FaF 119.1 119.1 0.1 0.3 -- -- 0.3 -- -- -FaB 119.1 119.2 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -FaF 119.2 119.2 0.0 0.3 -- -- 0.3 -- -- -MhD 119.2 119.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MhF 119.3 119.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -DeC 119.4 119.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ShB 119.5 119.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -DeC 119.5 119.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -DeC 119.6 119.6 0.0 PAR74 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-65 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

ShC 119.6 119.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Bg 119.7 119.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -W 119.7 119.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Bg 119.8 119.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Al 119.9 119.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0Bg 119.9 120.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -OdB 120.0 120.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -DdC 120.0 120.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -SnC3 120.1 120.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -ShB 120.2 120.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LdB 120.2 120.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0ShB 120.3 120.6 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -HgC 120.3 120.3 0.2 PAR73a -- -- -- -- -- -- -NlC 120.3 120.3 0.0 PAR73a -- -- -- -- -- -- -PlB 120.3 120.3 0.2 PAR73a -- -- -- -- -- -- -ShB 120.3 120.3 0.1 PAR73a -- -- -- -- -- -- -NlC 120.6 120.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -Al 120.7 120.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0MhC 120.7 121.4 0.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -DeB 121.4 121.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -NdC 121.4 121.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -NdB 121.5 121.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -NdC 121.6 121.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-66 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

MkD 121.7 121.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -FaB 121.8 121.9 0.2 -- -- -- 1.1 -- -- -HfB 121.9 122.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -FaB 122.0 122.0 0.0 -- -- -- 1.1 -- -- -LhB 122.0 122.3 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LhC 122.3 122.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LhB 122.3 122.5 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LhC 122.5 122.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LhB 122.5 122.8 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -MhD 122.8 122.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LhB 122.8 122.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LhC 122.9 123.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LhB 123.0 123.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -DaB 123.0 123.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LaA 123.0 123.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0OdB 123.1 123.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -DaB 123.2 123.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CoC 123.2 123.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -DaB 123.2 123.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -CoC 123.4 123.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -DaB 123.5 123.8 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -LhC 123.8 123.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -NdC 123.9 123.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -
J1-67 

APPENDIX J-1 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Roadc/ 

MLV 

Impacts (Acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali Drain

Pote

LhC 123.9 123.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -HfB 123.9 124.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -HfC 124.1 124.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -FaF 124.1 124.1 0.0 0.1 -- -- 0.1 -- -- -HfB 124.1 124.4 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -____________________ a Soils that have the same “ start milepost” and “end milepost” are associated with access roads. The mileposts for access roads correspond to wh

pipeline alignment. 

b If the length crossed is a distance less than 6 feet and is not associated with an access road the number stated is represented by 0.00 miles. c TAR = temporary access road; PAR = permanent access road; MLV = Main Line Valve. Permanent access roads extend across the temporary w

operational right-of-way. 

d Areas identified as Highly Water Erodible Soils are ranked as "Very Severe" or "Severe" by NRCSSSURGO Erosion Hazard (Off-Road, Off-Trail) e Areas identified as Highly Wind Erodible Soils have a Wind Erodibility Index of 134 or greater as determined by NRCS SSURGO. f Areas identified to have Stony/Rocky Soils are lands that are composed of 20% or more of rock fragments larger than 3 inches in the surface laye

SSURGO. 

g Areas identified to have shallow depth to bedrock are described as having bedrock less than 5 feet from the surface as determined by NRCS SSh Areas identified to have a severe compaction potential are limited to agricultural and residential lands that contain soils with a mean high water ta

surface elevation and have a surface texture of sandy clay loam, or finer as determined by NRCS SSURGO. 

i Areas identified to have poor revegetation potential are lands that contain a Capability Class 3or greater, a low available water capacity, and slop

determined by NRCS SSURGO. 

j Areas identified to have poor drainage potential are ranked as “poor” or “very poor” as determined by NRCS SSURGO. k Areas identified to have a hydric rating meet the all hydric criteria as determined by NRCS SSURGO. l Areas identified as Prime Farmland are identified as lands that meet the All Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance criteria as dete
 
APPENDIX J-2 

Potential Soil Limitations at the Turnpike Road M&R Station, 

Westfall Road M&R Station, MLVs, and Contractor Yards 

 
 
J2-1 

APPENDIX J-2 

Potential Soil Limitations at the Turnpike Road M&R Station, Westfall Road M&R Station, MLVs, and Contractor Yar

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit Milepost 

Impacts (acres) 

Facility 

Highly Water 

Erodible 

Soilsa

Highly Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsc

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockd

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentiale

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialf

Draina

Potent

LkB2 0.0 Turnpike Road M&R -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- LsD 0.0 Turnpike Road M&R -- -- -- 3.6 -- -- -- WsB 0.00 Turnpike Road M&R -- -- -- -- -- -- -- HfB 124.4 Westfall Road M&R -- -- -- 1.7 -- -- -- WeC2 15.2 MLV #2 Walkers Rd -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CcC 26.7 MLV #3 Vale Rd -- -- -- -- -- 0.0 -- LsE 26.7 MLV #3 Vale Rd -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- MhC 41.2 MLV #4 Obrien Rd -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VoB 41.2 MLV #4 Obrien Rd -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- MnB 52.1 MLV #5 Access Rd./Town Rd -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- MrB 66.7 MLV #6 Stewart Rd -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MaC 81.8 MLV #7 County Rd 10 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ThA 95.1 MLV #8 Clapper Hollow Rd -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LmC 108.5 MLV #9 Access Rd/Dodge Lodge Rd -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- LoE 108.5 MLV #9 Access Rd/Dodge Lodge Rd -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- DeC 119.6 MLV #10 Smith Rd. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MoB2 N/A Spread 1 Contractor 

Yard 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MoC2 N/A -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeC2 N/A -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J2-2 

APPENDIX J-2 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations at the Turnpike Road M&R Station, Westfall Road M&R Station, MLVs, and Contractor Yar

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit Milepost 

Impacts (acres) 

Facility 

Highly Water 

Erodible 

Soilsa

Highly Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsc

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockd

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentiale

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialf

Draina

Potent

Ad N/A Spread 2 Contractor 

Yard 

-- -- -- -- -- -- 0.3 

CcC N/A -- -- -- -- -- 9.4 -- Ms N/A -- -- -- -- -- 9.2 -- Ta N/A -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ChE N/A Spread 3 Contractor 

Yard 

1.8 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VaB N/A -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VaC N/A -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ChB N/A Spread 4a Contractor 

Yard 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

ChC N/A -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ClE N/A 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- ChB N/A -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ChC N/A -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ClE N/A 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- Pt N/A -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Wb N/A -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ChB N/A Spread 4b Contractor 

Yard 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

ChC N/A -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Ue N/A -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Bg N/A Spread 5 Contractor 

Yard 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LrF N/A 3.0 -- -- 3.0 -- -- -- OdC N/A -- -- -- -- -- -- -- OrC3 N/A -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VcC N/A -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J2-3 

APPENDIX J-2 (continued) 

Potential Soil Limitations at the Turnpike Road M&R Station, Westfall Road M&R Station, MLVs, and Contractor Yar

Soil 

Series 

Map 

Unit Milepost 

Impacts (acres) 

Facility 

Highly Water 

Erodible 

Soilsa

Highly Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Stony/

Rocky 

Soilsc

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockd

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentiale

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialf

Draina

Potent

_____________________ a Areas identified as Highly Water Erodible Soils are ranked as "Very Severe" or "Severe" by NRCS SSURGO's Erosion Hazard (Off-Road, Off-b Areas identified as Highly Wind Erodible Soils have a Wind Erodibility Index of 134 or greater as determined by NRCS SSURGO. c Areas identified to have Stony/Rocky Soils are lands that are composed of 20% or more of rock fragments larger than 3 inches in the surface 

SSURGO. 

d Areas identified to have shallow depth to bedrock are described as having bedrock less than 5 feet from the surface as determined by NRCS e Areas identified to have a severe compaction potential are limited to agricultural and residential lands that contain soils with a mean high wate

below the surface elevation and have a surface texture of sandy clay loam, or finer as determined by NRCS SSURGO. 

f Areas identified to have poor revegetation potential are lands that contain a Capability Class 3, a low available water capacity, and slopes gre

determined by NRCS SSURGO. 

g Areas identified to have poor drainage potential are ranked as “poor” or “very poor” as determined by NRCS SSURGO. h Areas identified to have a hydric rating meet the all hydric criteria as determined by NRCS SSURGO. i Areas identified as Prime Farmland are identified as lands that meet the All Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance criteria as d

SSURGO. 

j Spread 4a Contractor Yard would be located within an active sand and gravel operation/open land. 
 
APPENDIX J-3 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Extra Workspaces 

 
 
J3-1 

TABLE J-3 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

WsB 0.2 0.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MsB 0.2 0.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeC2 0.2 0.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MoB2 0.5 0.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WsD 0.8 0.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WlD2 0.9 0.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MfD2 0.9 0.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LgD 1.2 1.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LoD2 1.2 1.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- LoD2 1.2 1.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

LgD 1.2 1.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeC2 2.1 2.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeC2 2.2 2.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeC2 2.5 2.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LoB 2.5 2.5 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

LgD 2.8 2.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LsF 2.8 2.8 0.0 <0.01 -- -- <0.01 -- -- -- LsF 2.9 3.0 0.1 0.5 -- -- 0.5 -- -- -- LsF 2.9 2.9 0.0 0.0 -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- LsF 2.9 2.9 0.0 0.3 -- -- 0.3 -- -- -- LsF 2.9 2.9 0.0 0.3 -- -- 0.3 -- -- -- 

Wy 3.0 3.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.0 
J3-2 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

Cu 3.0 3.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LgF 3.0 3.1 0.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- LgF 3.1 3.1 0.0 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LfC2 3.3 3.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LfC2 3.3 3.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LfC2 3.3 3.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MsD 4.2 4.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LsD 4.2 4.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- 

LaB2 4.3 4.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MoC2 4.4 4.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MoB2 4.6 4.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LsD 5.2 5.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- 

MrC2 5.3 5.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

BfC2 5.3 5.4 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

BeC2 5.4 5.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- BeC2 5.5 5.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MoC2 5.5 5.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LsB 6.1 6.1 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

LsD 6.1 6.1 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- LsD 6.1 6.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- LoB 6.6 6.6 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

VsB 6.6 6.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VcB2 6.8 6.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-3 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

WeC2 7.8 7.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeD2 7.8 7.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeB2 7.8 7.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeB2 7.8 7.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WsD 7.9 7.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MoB2 8.4 8.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MoB2 8.4 8.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LsF 8.4 8.5 0.0 0.2 -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- LsF 8.7 8.7 0.0 0.1 -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

WlC2 8.7 8.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MoB2 8.8 8.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LsD 8.9 8.9 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- 

MoB2 8.9 8.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MrC2 8.9 8.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WlC2 9.1 9.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MoC2 9.2 9.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LkC2 9.3 9.3 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- 

LsD 9.3 9.3 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- 

LoC2 9.7 9.7 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

Cu 9.8 9.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Cu 9.8 9.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeC2 9.8 9.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeC2 10.0 10.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-4 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

WeC2 10.0 10.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Mn 10.0 10.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WsD 10.0 10.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeC2 10.0 10.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeC2 10.1 10.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeB2 10.1 10.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeB2 10.1 10.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeC2 10.7 10.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MoB2 10.9 10.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MsB 11.0 11.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MrC2 11.2 11.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MrC2 11.2 11.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VcB2 11.5 11.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LsF 11.5 11.6 0.0 0.1 -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

MrB2 11.7 11.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MrC2 11.8 11.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WsD 12.0 12.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MfB2 12.8 12.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MfB2 12.8 12.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VcB2 12.9 12.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

McC2 12.9 12.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

BsD 13.5 13.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LsD 13.6 13.6 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 
J3-5 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

LsD 14.2 14.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- 

VcB2 14.3 14.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeC2 14.3 14.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeC2 14.4 14.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VcB2 14.4 14.4 14.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MrB2 14.4 14.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LsD 14.5 14.5 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

LoD2 14.6 14.6 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- VcB2 14.6 14.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MoC2 14.8 14.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

McC2 14.8 14.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- McC2 15.0 15.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MfD2 15.1 15.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WlC2 15.1 15.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeC2 15.1 15.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeC2 15.2 15.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WlC2 15.2 15.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WlC2 15.3 15.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VcB2 15.7 15.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LkD2 15.7 15.7 0.0 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -- 

MgB 16.3 16.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MgB 16.4 16.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

McC2 16.6 16.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-6 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

McC2 16.7 16.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VcB2 16.8 16.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VcB2 16.8 16.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Mn 16.9 16.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VfC 16.9 16.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LgF 17.0 17.0 0.0 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- LgF 17.1 17.1 0.0 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- LgF 17.2 17.2 0.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LsF 17.2 17.3 0.1 0.3 -- -- 0.3 -- -- -- 

MgD 17.9 18.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MgD 18.0 18.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LgF 18.8 18.8 0.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MfC2 18.9 18.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

BsD 18.9 19.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VfC 19.9 19.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VfC 19.9 20.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

BsD 20.0 20.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VsB 20.7 20.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VsD 20.8 20.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LgF 21.5 21.5 0.0 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

BsD 21.6 21.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Wy 21.6 21.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.2 Wy 21.7 21.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.2 
J3-7 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

CnA 21.7 21.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Wy 21.7 21.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 Wy 21.8 21.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 

CnA 21.8 21.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

BsF 21.8 21.9 0.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WsD 22.4 22.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VsB 22.5 22.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VsB 22.6 22.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VsD 22.7 22.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MgD 22.8 22.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VcB2 23.3 23.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VfB 23.3 23.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MfD2 23.4 23.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MgD 23.8 23.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MgD 23.9 23.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MgD 24.2 24.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MfC2 24.3 24.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MgD 24.3 24.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MgD 24.4 24.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MgD 24.4 24.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MgB 24.5 24.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VsB 25.0 25.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VsB 25.1 25.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-8 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

MtC 26.4 26.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CcC 26.5 26.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.2 -- 

LsE 26.7 26.7 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

CcC 26.8 26.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.0 -- 

LsE 26.8 26.8 0.1 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- 

CuC 26.8 26.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CcD 26.8 26.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LsE 26.8 26.8 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- LsE 26.9 27.1 0.2 -- -- -- 0.8 -- -- -- 

CcD 26.9 26.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LsE 27.2 27.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- 

CcE 27.2 27.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Wd 27.3 27.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 

ChD 27.3 27.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- 

CcE 27.4 27.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MtC 28.3 28.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CcE 28.4 28.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CcE 28.5 28.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CuC 28.5 28.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Ms 28.7 28.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- 

ChD 28.9 28.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- ChC 28.9 28.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ChC 28.9 28.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-9 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

ChD 28.9 28.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- ChD 29.1 29.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- 

Tg 29.2 29.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

ChD 29.2 29.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- <0.01 -- ChD 29.4 29.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- 

CcC 29.7 29.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- 

CcE 29.7 29.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MtC 29.8 29.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CcD 29.8 29.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CcD 29.8 29.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CcD 29.9 29.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LdD 29.9 29.9 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- LdC 30.2 30.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

LdB 30.2 30.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- LoE 30.2 30.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

MtC 30.3 30.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CcD 30.3 30.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CcD 30.4 30.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CcD 30.4 30.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CuB 30.7 30.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.0 -- 

CuC 30.7 30.7 30.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Ad 30.7 30.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.2 

Ta 30.7 30.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-10 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

MrF 30.8 30.8 0.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MhD 30.8 30.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CcD 30.8 30.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CcD 30.9 30.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CcE 30.9 30.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LsE 31.7 31.7 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- 

Ad 31.8 31.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 

MtB 31.8 31.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CcD 31.8 31.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CcD 31.8 31.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CcE 31.9 31.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CuD 32.7 32.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Tg 32.7 32.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CcE 32.7 32.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Tg 32.7 32.9 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Tg 32.7 32.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CcE 32.7 32.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Ms 32.9 32.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- Ms 32.9 33.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- 

Wd 33.0 33.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.0 Wd 33.1 33.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 Wd 33.3 33.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.2 

CcE 33.6 33.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-11 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

Wd 33.7 33.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.2 

Tg 33.9 33.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Ms 33.9 33.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.2 -- Ms 34.0 34.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.2 -- 

CcD 34.5 34.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CuD 34.6 34.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CcD 34.6 34.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CcD 34.8 34.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CcC 34.9 34.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- CcC 34.9 34.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- CcD 34.9 34.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CcC 34.9 34.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.0 -- CcC 35.0 35.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.2 -- CuB 35.1 35.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- CcC 35.2 35.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.0 -- 

MuD 35.3 35.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- 0.1 0.1 -- 

CcD 35.5 35.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CcD 35.6 35.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CcD 35.6 35.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CcE 35.8 35.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MnC 35.8 35.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CcD 36.1 36.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CcD 36.2 36.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-12 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

ChC 36.3 36.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ChC 36.3 36.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ChC 36.5 36.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Ad 36.5 36.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.0 

Wd 36.6 36.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 Wd 36.7 36.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 

CcC 36.7 36.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- CcD 37.2 37.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MtB 37.3 37.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CcD 37.3 37.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CcE 37.3 37.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MhB 37.3 37.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MtC 37.7 37.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MtC 37.8 37.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CcC 37.8 37.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- CcC 37.9 37.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.0 -- 

MtC 37.9 38.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MtC 38.1 38.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MtC 38.2 38.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CuC 38.4 38.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MtC 38.4 38.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CuB 38.7 38.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- 0.2 -- 

MtB 38.9 38.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-13 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

CuC 39.1 39.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MtC 39.1 39.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MhD 39.2 39.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MhD 39.6 39.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MhC 39.6 39.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MhD 39.7 39.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VoB 40.1 40.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- 

MhB 40.2 40.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VoC 40.2 40.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- 0.0 0.0 -- VoC 40.3 40.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- 0.2 0.2 -- 

VoB 40.4 40.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- VoB 40.4 40.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- 

MhC 40.6 40.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VoB 40.7 40.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- VoB 40.8 40.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- 

MhC 40.8 40.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MhC 40.9 40.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VoB 41.1 41.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- 

MhB 41.5 41.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VoC 41.7 41.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- 0.1 0.1 -- 

VoB 41.8 41.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- VoB 41.9 42.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- VoB 42.0 42.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- 
J3-14 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

MhB 42.1 42.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MhC 42.1 42.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MhD 42.2 42.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MhE 42.2 42.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MaC 42.4 42.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MaC 42.4 42.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MaC 42.6 42.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Ud 42.7 42.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CkB 42.8 42.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CkB 42.8 42.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VoB 43.1 43.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MaC 43.1 43.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MaC 43.1 43.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MaB 43.4 43.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MaC 43.6 43.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MaC 43.6 43.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Cm 43.9 43.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.0 

VoB 43.9 43.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VoB 44.0 44.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MaC 44.0 44.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MaC 44.0 44.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LrE 45.1 45.1 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- 

VoB 45.1 45.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-15 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

MaB 45.2 45.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VoB 45.2 45.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Tr 45.3 45.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

ChE 45.3 45.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ChB 45.3 45.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VaB 45.7 45.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VaB 45.9 46.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MaB 46.1 46.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MaB 46.2 46.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

ChB 46.2 46.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MaC 46.3 46.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MaC 46.3 46.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MaD 46.4 46.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MaC 46.5 46.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MaC 46.7 46.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MaC 46.7 46.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MaC 46.8 46.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MaC 46.8 46.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LrE 46.8 46.8 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- 

MaC 47.2 47.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CbB 47.3 47.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CbC 47.3 47.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CbC 47.3 47.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-16 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

CbB 47.3 47.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MaD 47.4 47.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CbC 47.4 47.4 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CbC 47.4 47.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MaD 47.4 47.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Wa 47.4 47.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 Wa 47.5 47.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.3 

CkA 47.6 47.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CkA 47.9 48.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CkA 48.0 48.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VaE 48.0 48.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MaB 48.2 48.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MaC 48.2 48.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

GrC 48.3 48.3 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- 

LrE 48.4 48.4 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- LrE 49.6 49.6 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

LoC 49.6 49.6 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- 

VpB 49.7 49.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- 

LoB 50.4 50.4 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

LoC 50.5 50.5 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- LoC 50.6 50.7 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- 

MdD 50.9 50.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MdC 51.0 51.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-17 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

LoE 51.5 51.5 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- 

LoC 51.5 51.5 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- 

MdB 51.6 51.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MnB 52.1 52.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- MnB 52.2 52.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

MdC 52.6 52.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MnC 52.7 52.8 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- 

MnB 53.4 53.5 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -- 

WhB 53.5 53.5 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WhB 53.5 53.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WhB 53.6 53.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WhC 53.8 53.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

OnB 53.8 53.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MnD 53.9 54.0 0.0 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -- MnC 54.1 54.1 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

HcC 54.2 54.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -- 

HcE 54.2 54.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- HcE 54.2 54.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -- 

LoC 55.2 55.2 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -- LoC 55.2 55.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -- TeB 55.2 55.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- 0.2 

BtD 55.7 55.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VoB 55.9 55.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-18 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

BtC 55.9 56.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- BtC 56.0 56.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MdC 56.1 56.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MdD 56.3 56.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VaD 56.3 56.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VaD 56.3 56.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VaD 56.4 56.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VaD 56.5 56.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VaC 56.5 56.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ChB 56.7 56.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Ff 56.7 56.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 Ff 56.8 56.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 

VaD 56.8 56.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MdC 57.0 57.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MdC 57.0 57.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

BtC 57.8 57.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- BtD 57.8 57.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VoC 58.0 58.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MdC 58.0 58.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MdC 58.2 58.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MdB 58.2 58.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MdC 58.3 58.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MdC 58.7 58.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-19 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

MdC 58.8 58.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MaC 58.8 58.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MaC 58.9 58.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MaB 58.9 58.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MaD 58.9 58.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

TkC 59.1 59.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MaB 59.1 59.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MaC 59.1 59.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MaC 59.4 59.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

OrE 59.4 59.4 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- 

MaB 59.4 59.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MsB 59.7 59.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

TkB 59.9 59.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

TtB 59.9 59.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- TtB 59.9 60.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MaB 59.9 60.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- OpD 60.3 60.3 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

OpB 60.3 60.3 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

OrC 60.3 60.3 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

MaB 60.6 60.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MaB 60.6 60.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Bc 60.7 60.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Bc 60.8 60.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-20 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

TkD 61.1 61.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeC 61.2 61.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeC 61.2 61.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LaD 61.2 61.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LaD 61.3 61.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MsB 61.4 61.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MsB 61.6 61.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MsB 61.6 61.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeC 63.1 63.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MsB 63.2 63.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeC 63.2 63.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeC 63.6 63.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VoB 63.7 63.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeB 63.9 63.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MsB 63.9 63.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MsB 64.0 64.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeC 65.2 65.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeB 65.2 65.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeC 65.3 65.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

OpC 66.0 66.0 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- 

OrE 66.0 66.0 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- OrE 66.0 66.0 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- 

WeC 66.0 66.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-21 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

WeC 66.2 66.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MrB 66.2 66.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MrC 66.3 66.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeB 66.3 66.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MrB 66.7 66.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeB 66.8 66.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeB 66.8 66.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MrB 68.8 68.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WfC 68.8 68.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WfC 68.9 68.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LaC 68.9 68.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LdE 69.5 69.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MaE 69.5 69.5 0.0 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

OpB 70.6 70.6 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

MrC 70.8 70.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MrB 71.0 71.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MrB 71.0 71.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeC 71.0 71.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

HcE 71.5 71.5 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

LaE 71.5 71.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeC 71.5 71.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeC 71.6 71.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeC 71.7 71.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-22 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

WeC 71.8 71.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeC 71.9 71.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

HcE 72.2 72.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

VlC 72.2 72.3 0.1 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -- 

WmB 73.0 73.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WmB 73.0 73.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VlB 73.2 73.3 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

VlC 73.3 73.3 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

WmC 73.3 73.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VlC 73.3 73.3 0.0 -- -- -- <0.01 -- -- -- 

OeB 73.4 73.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

OfB 73.6 73.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WmB 73.6 73.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LkE 74.2 74.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WnC 74.3 74.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WnC 74.3 74.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LhC 74.4 74.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LhC 74.5 74.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VlC 74.5 74.5 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- 

WmB 75.3 75.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WmB 75.3 75.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WmC 75.3 75.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LhB 75.9 75.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-23 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

OeB 75.9 75.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- OeB 75.9 75.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- OeB 75.9 75.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WmB 75.9 75.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

OeA 76.4 76.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WmB 76.5 76.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WmB 76.8 76.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

HcC 76.8 76.9 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- HcC 76.9 77.0 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

WeC 77.4 77.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MrB 77.4 77.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MrB 77.4 77.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LaD 77.6 77.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeC 77.6 77.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeC 77.6 77.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MsB 77.7 77.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MsB 77.8 77.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MsB 77.9 77.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MrB 78.0 78.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MaD 78.0 78.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MaD 78.1 78.2 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeC 78.1 78.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MaD 78.2 78.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-24 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

MrB 78.2 78.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MaB 78.2 78.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MrB 78.2 78.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MaB 78.2 78.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeD 78.3 78.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

De 78.3 78.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeD 78.3 78.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MrC 78.5 78.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VlE 78.8 78.8 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- 

VlC 78.8 78.8 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- 

VlE 78.9 78.9 0.1 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- 

VlD 78.9 78.9 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- 

LcD 79.0 79.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VlE 79.0 79.1 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- 

LcD 79.2 79.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LhD 79.2 79.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LcD 79.2 79.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LhD 79.3 79.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LhC 79.4 79.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeC 79.4 79.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VlD 79.6 79.6 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- VlC 79.6 79.6 0.0 -- -- -- <0.01 -- -- -- 

HcE 79.6 79.7 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -- 
J3-25 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

HcE 79.8 79.8 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

LdE 79.9 79.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LcD 80.0 80.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MrC 80.3 80.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MrC 80.4 80.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WmC 80.4 80.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WmC 80.4 80.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WmC 80.5 80.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MrC 80.5 80.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MrC 80.5 80.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LaD 80.5 80.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MrC 80.6 80.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MrC 80.8 80.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WmC 80.9 80.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WmB 80.9 81.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

OfB 81.0 81.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LdE 81.6 81.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- TkE 81.6 81.6 0.0 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- TkE 81.7 81.7 0.0 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MaC 81.7 81.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MaC 81.8 81.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WfC 81.9 82.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeB 81.9 81.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-26 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

WfC 82.1 82.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WeB 82.8 82.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeB 82.8 82.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WmB 83.1 83.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WmB 83.2 83.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MrB 83.3 83.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

OfB 83.5 83.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MdB 84.6 84.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MrB 84.7 84.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MdB 84.7 84.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MrB 84.7 84.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

No 84.7 84.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.0 

WmA 85.2 85.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

OeA 85.2 85.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- OeA 85.2 85.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WnC 85.3 85.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LhB 85.3 85.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WmB 85.4 85.5 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WnC 85.6 85.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WnC 85.6 85.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WnC 85.6 85.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LkC 86.0 86.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

OfB 86.0 86.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-27 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

WnC 86.0 86.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WnC 86.0 86.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LkC 86.0 86.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WnC 86.0 86.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MnD 86.2 86.3 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

WmA 86.6 86.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WmA 86.6 86.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WmB 86.6 86.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

HcC 87.0 87.0 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- HcC 87.2 87.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- HcC 87.2 87.3 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- 

VaB 87.7 87.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

BtC 88.1 88.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VaB 88.1 88.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VaB 88.1 88.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

BtC 88.1 88.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- BtC 88.2 88.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VaB 88.2 88.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

BtC 88.2 88.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- BtD 88.2 88.4 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WfC 88.4 88.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

BtD 88.4 88.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WfC 88.4 88.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-28 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

MdC 88.5 88.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MnC 89.7 89.7 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

WhB 90.8 90.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LeC 91.7 91.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WhB 91.7 91.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MnC 91.7 91.7 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- MnC 91.8 91.8 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

OnA 91.8 91.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- OnA 91.8 91.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

HcC 92.1 92.1 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

MnB 92.1 92.1 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- MnB 92.1 92.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

WhB 92.3 92.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WhB 92.4 92.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WhC 92.4 92.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VlB 93.0 93.0 0.1 -- -- -- 1.5 -- -- -- 

BtE 93.3 93.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

WhB 93.4 93.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

HcC 93.4 93.4 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

CuC 93.6 93.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CaD 93.8 93.8 0.0 -- -- <0.01 -- -- -- -- 

MeE 93.8 93.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CaD 93.9 93.9 0.0 -- -- <0.01 -- -- -- -- 
J3-29 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

McD 94.5 94.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- McD 94.7 94.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VcC 94.7 94.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VcC 94.9 95.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VcC 95.0 95.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

McD 95.0 95.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

TnF 95.1 95.2 0.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Ha 95.3 95.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.3 

McC 95.3 95.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- McC 95.4 95.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VmC 95.4 95.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

McC 96.1 96.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LmD 96.4 96.4 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- LmC 96.4 96.4 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- LmD 96.4 96.4 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- LmC 96.4 96.4 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- LmD 97.3 97.3 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

TaB 97.3 97.3 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- TaB 97.4 97.4 0.0 -- -- -- <0.01 -- -- -- 

ArC 97.4 97.4 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

ChC 97.4 97.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- <0.0McB 97.5 97.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

McC 97.5 97.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-30 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

McB 97.5 97.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LoE 97.7 97.7 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- 

CnC 97.7 97.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.2 

LoE 97.8 97.8 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- LoE 98.6 98.6 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

CnC 98.6 98.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 

VmC 98.7 98.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

TaB 99.2 99.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- TaB 99.2 99.3 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- 

LmD 100.8 100.8 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- LmC 100.8 100.8 0.0 -- -- -- <0.01 -- -- -- LmC 100.8 100.8 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- LmC 100.8 100.9 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- 

VcB 100.9 100.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

ChC 101.0 101.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 

McC 101.1 101.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LoE 101.8 101.8 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- 

LmD 102.0 102.0 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- LmC 102.0 102.1 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- LmC 102.1 102.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- 

VcB 102.5 102.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LoE 102.5 102.5 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- 

LmC 102.6 102.6 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- 
J3-31 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

LoE 102.6 102.6 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- LoE 102.9 102.9 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- LoE 103.1 103.1 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

LmD 104.1 104.1 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

VcB 104.1 104.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VcB 104.2 104.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VcC 104.5 104.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MeE 104.5 104.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LrF 104.6 104.6 0.0 0.1 -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- LrF 104.6 104.6 0.0 0.1 -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

McD 104.6 104.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- McD 104.8 104.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- McD 104.8 104.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- McD 104.9 104.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- McD 105.0 105.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VcC 105.0 105.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LmD 105.0 105.1 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- 

LrF 105.0 105.0 0.0 0.1 -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

LmE 105.1 105.1 0.0 -- -- -- <0.01 -- -- -- LmE 105.2 105.2 0.0 -- -- -- <0.01 -- -- -- 

LmC 105.2 105.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

LoE 105.3 105.3 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

VcC 105.3 105.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-32 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

LoE 105.6 105.6 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- 

LrF 105.6 105.7 0.0 0.1 -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- LrF 105.7 105.7 0.0 0.1 -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- LrF 105.7 105.7 0.0 0.1 -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

Ha 105.7 105.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 Ha 105.8 105.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 

LrF 106.0 106.0 0.0 0.1 -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- LrF 106.1 106.1 0.0 <0.01 -- -- <0.01 -- -- -- 

LmE 106.1 106.2 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -- LmE 106.2 106.4 0.2 -- -- -- 0.8 -- -- -- LmE 106.4 106.5 0.1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -- McD 106.7 106.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- McD 106.9 107.0 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VcC 107.1 107.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VcC 107.2 107.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LmD 107.2 107.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- LmD 107.2 107.3 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- 

ArC 107.4 107.4 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

TaB 107.5 107.5 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

LmC 108.6 108.6 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

VcB 108.6 108.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VcB 108.6 108.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VcC 108.7 108.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-33 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

LoE 108.7 108.8 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- LoE 108.8 108.9 0.1 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -- 

LrF 109.0 109.1 0.1 0.4 -- -- 0.4 -- -- -- 

LmC 109.1 109.1 0.0 -- -- -- <0.01 -- -- -- 

LmE 109.1 109.1 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- LmE 109.2 109.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- 

LmC 109.2 109.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- LmC 109.2 109.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

VcB 109.2 109.3 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VcB 109.3 109.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

McC 109.4 109.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LmD 109.5 109.5 0.0 -- -- -- <0.01 -- -- -- 

McC 109.6 109.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LoE 110.0 110.1 0.0 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- 

ArC 110.2 110.2 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- ArC 110.2 110.3 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

ChC 110.3 110.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- <0.0ChC 110.3 110.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- <0.0

LmD 110.3 110.3 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

McC 110.5 110.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- McC 110.6 110.6 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- McC 110.7 110.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

TaB 110.8 110.8 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 
J3-34 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

McC 111.4 111.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

VcB 111.5 111.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VcB 111.5 111.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LmC 111.7 111.7 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

LmE 111.9 111.9 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

LoE 111.9 111.9 0.0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- LoE 112.0 112.0 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

MeE 112.1 112.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LrF 113.3 113.3 0.0 0.1 -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

NdC 113.6 113.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- NdC 113.7 113.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

McD 113.8 113.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- McD 113.8 113.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LmE 114.5 114.5 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

LrF 114.5 114.6 0.0 0.1 -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

NdD3 114.6 114.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- NdC3 114.8 114.8 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

NdB 115.2 115.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- NdB 115.3 115.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

IlC 115.3 115.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 

MhD 115.4 115.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LrF 115.5 115.5 0.0 0.1 -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 

LmE 115.6 115.6 0.0 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 
J3-35 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

HfB 116.7 116.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

IaB 116.7 116.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.0 IaB 116.7 116.8 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.3 

MhC 116.9 116.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MlB 117.3 117.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MlB 117.3 117.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MhC 117.3 117.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MlB 117.4 117.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

HfB 117.6 117.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

MhF 119.4 119.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- DeC 119.5 119.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

ShB 119.5 119.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

DeC 119.6 119.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- DeC 119.6 119.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

ShC 119.6 119.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

SnC3 119.6 119.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Bg 119.7 119.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Bg 119.7 119.7 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Bg 119.8 119.9 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Bg 119.8 119.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

OdB 120.0 120.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

SnC3 120.1 120.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

NlC 120.7 120.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-36 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

HgC 120.7 120.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Al 120.7 120.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 

MhC 120.7 120.7 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MhC 121.0 121.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MhC 121.1 121.1 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MhC 121.3 121.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MhC 121.3 121.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

DeB 121.4 121.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

NdC 121.4 121.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- NdC 121.5 121.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LhB 122.5 122.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LhC 122.5 122.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LhB 122.6 122.6 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

DaB 123.0 123.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- DaB 123.2 123.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

OdB 123.2 123.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CoC 123.4 123.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

DaB 123.5 123.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

CoC 123.5 123.5 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

LhC 123.9 123.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

HfB 123.9 123.9 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- HfB 124.0 124.0 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- HfB 124.2 124.2 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J3-37 

TABLE J-3 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Extra Workspaces 

Soil 

Series 

Map Unit 

From 

Milepost 

To 

Milepost 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles)a

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsb

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilsc

Stony/ 

Rocky 

Soilsd

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrocke

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialf

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentialg

Drain

Poten

HfB 124.2 124.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- HfB 124.4 124.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

____________________ a If the length crossed is a distance less than 6 feet the number stated is represented by 0.0 miles. b Areas identified as Highly Water Erodible Soils are ranked as "Very Severe" or "Severe" by NRCS SSURGO's Erosion Hazard (Off-Road, Off-c Areas identified as Highly Wind Erodible Soils have a Wind Erodibilty Index of 134 or greater as determined by NRCS SSURGO. d Areas identified to have Stony/Rocky Soils are lands that are composed of 20% or more of rock fragments larger than 3 inches in the surface 

SSURGO. 

e Areas identified to have shallow depth to bedrock are described as having bedrock less than 5 feet from the surface as determined by NRCS f Areas identified to have a severe compaction potential are limited to agricultural and residential lands that contain soils with a mean high wate

the surface elevation and have a surface texture of sandy clay loam, or finer as determined by NRCS SSURGO. 

g Areas identified to have poor revegetation potential are lands that contain a Capability Class 3 or greater, a low available water capacity, and 

determined by NRCS SSURGO. 

h Areas identified to have poor drainage potential are ranked as “poor” or “very poor” as determined by NRCS SSURGO. i Areas identified to have a hydric rating meet the all hydric criteria as determined by NRCS SSURGO. 
 
APPENDIX J-4 

Potential Soil Limitations Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project Access 

Roads 

 
 
J4-1 

APPENDIX J-4 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Access Roads 

Soil Series 

Map Unit Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Road 

Namec

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali

Draina

Potent

PENNSYLVANIA Susquehanna LkC2 1.7 0.1 PAR1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -- LoB 1.7 0.2 PAR1 -- -- -- 0.8 -- -- -- LoC2 1.7 0.1 PAR1 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -- LsB 1.7 0.2 PAR1 -- -- -- 0.9 -- -- -- LsD 1.7 0.1 PAR1 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -- MfC2 1.7 0.4 PAR1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VcB2 1.7 0.0 PAR1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VsB 1.7 0.0 PAR1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LsF 2.9 0.1 PAR1a 0.4 -- -- 0.4 -- -- -- MoB2 4.1 0.0 PAR3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeB2 4.1 0.2 PAR3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeC2 4.1 0.1 PAR3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MoB2 4.7 0.1 PAR4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MoC2 4.7 0.2 PAR4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LsD 5.2 0.1 PAR5 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- MrC2 5.2 0.0 PAR5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LkC2 7.2 0.0 PAR6 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- McC2 7.2 0.2 PAR6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MgD 7.2 0.1 PAR6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MoC2 7.2 0.1 PAR6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VsD 7.2 0.1 PAR6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LfB 9.5 0.1 PAR7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J4-2 

APPENDIX J-4 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Access Roads 

Soil Series 

Map Unit Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Road 

Namec

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali

Draina

Potent

LgD 9.5 0.1 PAR7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LkB2 9.5 0.0 PAR7 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- LoB 9.5 0.1 PAR7 -- -- -- 0.9 -- -- -- LsD 9.5 0.0 PAR7 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- MsB 9.5 0.1 PAR7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MsD 9.5 0.0 PAR7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MoB2 10.1 0.0 TAR8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MrC2 10.1 0.1 TAR8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeB2 10.1 0.0 TAR8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeC2 10.1 0.1 TAR8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- BsD 12.2 0.1 PAR10 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LsB 12.2 0.0 PAR10 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- LsD 12.2 0.1 PAR10 -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -- MrC2 12.2 0.0 PAR10 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeB2 12.2 0.0 PAR10 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeC2 12.2 0.1 PAR10 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LsB 13.4 0.2 PAR11 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -- LsD 13.4 0.2 PAR11 -- -- -- 0.9 -- -- -- LsF 13.4 0.4 PAR11 1.2 -- -- 1.2 -- -- -- BsD 14.1 0.0 PAR12 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LoB 14.1 0.0 PAR12 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- LsD 14.1 0.2 PAR12 -- -- -- 1.2 -- -- -- WeC2 14.1 0.1 PAR12 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LsD 15.1 0.0 PAR13 -- -- -- <0.01 -- -- -- WeC2 15.1 0.1 PAR13 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J4-3 

APPENDIX J-4 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Access Roads 

Soil Series 

Map Unit Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Road 

Namec

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali

Draina

Potent

WlC2 15.1 0.0 PAR13 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LsD 16.3 0.1 PAR14 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -- MgB 16.3 0.3 PAR14 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MoB2 16.3 0.1 PAR14 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MsB 16.3 0.1 PAR14 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeC2 16.3 0.1 PAR14 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- BsD 17.8 0.5 PAR15 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- BsF 17.8 0.1 PAR15 0.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- LfD2 17.8 0.0 PAR15 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LgF 17.8 0.1 PAR15 0.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- MgD 17.8 0.1 PAR15 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LgD 21.0 0.1 PAR15a -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LsD 21.0 0.0 PAR15a -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- WsD 21.0 0.0 PAR15a -- -- -- -- -- -- -- McD2 23.4 0.3 PAR16 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MfD2 23.4 0.1 PAR16 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Mn 23.4 0.1 PAR16 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VcC2 23.4 0.1 PAR16 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VfB 23.4 0.1 PAR16 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- BsD 24.5 0.1 PAR18 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MgB 24.5 0.1 PAR18 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VsB 25.1 0.0 TAR1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VsD 25.1 0.0 TAR1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J4-4 

APPENDIX J-4 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Access Roads 

Soil Series 

Map Unit Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Road 

Namec

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali

Draina

Potent

NEW YORK Broome CcC 26.2 0.1 PAR19 -- -- -- -- -- 0.2 -- LsE 26.2 0.0 PAR19 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- OuC 26.2 0.0 PAR19 -- -- -- <0.01 -- -- -- CcC 26.7 0.0 PAR20 -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- CcC 27.8 0.1 PAR21 -- -- -- -- -- 0.2 -- CcD 27.8 0.2 PAR21 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CuB 27.8 0.0 PAR21 -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- MtC 27.8 0.1 PAR21 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Wd 27.8 0.0 PAR21 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 CcD 28.5 0.7 PAR22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CcE 28.5 0.2 PAR22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ChD 28.5 0.1 PAR22 -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- Tg 33.8 0.0 PAR27 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- UnC 33.8 0.0 PAR27 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Wd 33.8 0.0 PAR27 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.1 CcC 35.2 0.1 PAR28 -- -- -- -- -- 0.2 -- ChC 35.2 0.0 PAR28 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CuC 35.2 0.0 PAR28 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CcD 36.1 0.1 PAR29 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MhC 40.7 0.0 PAR31 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MhC 41.2 0.0 PAR32 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VoB 41.2 0.0 PAR32 -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- 
J4-5 

APPENDIX J-4 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Access Roads 

Soil Series 

Map Unit Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Road 

Namec

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali

Draina

Potent

Chenango Cn 43.6 0.0 PAR33 -- -- -- -- 0.0 -- 0.0 MaC 43.6 0.0 PAR33 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- McB 43.6 0.0 PAR33 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VoB 43.6 0.1 PAR33 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LoB 44.2 0.2 PAR34 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -- LoC 44.2 0.1 PAR34 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -- LrE 44.2 0.1 PAR34 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- Delaware LoB 52.1 0.3 PAR36 -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -- LoD 52.1 0.1 PAR36 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -- MdB 52.1 0.2 PAR36 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MnB 52.1 0.1 PAR36 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- MnC 54.1 0.0 PAR36a -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- MnD 54.1 0.6 PAR36a -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -- OnB 54.1 0.2 PAR36a -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WhB 54.1 0.0 PAR36a -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WhC 54.1 0.2 PAR36a -- -- -- -- -- -- -- HcC 54.3 0.1 PAR36b -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- HcE 54.3 0.2 PAR36b -- -- -- 0.7 -- -- -- MnD 54.3 0.5 PAR36b -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -- MaB 58.9 0.2 PAR37 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MaC 58.9 0.2 PAR37 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MaD 58.9 0.1 PAR37 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- TkC 58.9 0.5 PAR37 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J4-6 

APPENDIX J-4 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Access Roads 

Soil Series 

Map Unit Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Road 

Namec

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali

Draina

Potent

MaB 60.1 0.2 PAR38 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeC 60.1 0.1 PAR38 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LaC 62.6 0.2 PAR39 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MrA 62.6 0.0 PAR39 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeB 62.6 0.1 PAR39 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeC 62.6 0.3 PAR39 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MsB 63.5 0.1 PAR40 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeB 63.5 0.2 PAR40 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeC 63.5 0.1 PAR40 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- OpC 65.9 0.1 PAR41 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- VlB 65.9 0.0 PAR41 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- MrB 66.8 0.0 PAR42 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeB 66.8 0.0 PAR42 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LaE 68.3 0.3 PAR43 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeB 68.3 0.0 PAR43 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeC 68.3 0.2 PAR43 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Bc 70.0 0.1 PAR44 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LaC 70.0 0.1 PAR44 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LaD 70.0 0.1 PAR44 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LdE 70.0 0.1 PAR44 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeC 70.0 0.2 PAR44 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LaD 70.5 0.3 PAR45 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LdC 70.5 0.1 PAR45 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- OpB 70.5 0.2 PAR45 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -- OpC 70.5 0.3 PAR45 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -- 
J4-7 

APPENDIX J-4 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Access Roads 

Soil Series 

Map Unit Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Road 

Namec

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali

Draina

Potent

TtB 70.5 0.1 PAR45 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WeC 70.5 0.2 PAR45 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Ff 72.6 0.0 PAR46 -- -- -- -- -- -- <0.0HcE 72.6 0.2 PAR46 -- -- -- 1.0 -- -- -- OfB 72.6 0.1 PAR46 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VlC 72.6 0.3 PAR46 -- -- -- 1.4 -- -- -- W 72.6 0.0 PAR46 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WmB 72.6 0.4 PAR46 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WmC 72.6 0.1 PAR46 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- OfB 73.6 0.2 PAR47 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WmB 73.6 0.4 PAR47 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WmC 73.6 0.2 PAR47 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- HcC 76.8 0.1 PAR48 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- VlC 76.8 0.0 PAR48 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- WmB 76.8 0.2 PAR48 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- BtB 84.3 0.1 PAR54 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- HcC 84.3 0.0 PAR54 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- LoB 84.3 0.0 PAR54 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- LoC 84.3 0.0 PAR54 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- MdB 84.3 0.0 PAR54 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MdC 84.3 0.1 PAR54 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MsB 84.3 0.1 PAR54 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WfC 84.3 0.1 PAR54 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ChC 87.7 0.1 TAR5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VaB 87.7 0.2 TAR5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
J4-8 

APPENDIX J-4 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Access Roads 

Soil Series 

Map Unit Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Road 

Namec

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali

Draina

Potent

HcC 89.3 0.1 PAR56 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -- LeC 89.3 0.0 PAR56 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MnB 89.3 0.1 PAR56 -- -- -- 0.4 -- -- -- WhB 89.3 0.0 PAR56 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VlB 92.7 0.0 TAR4 -- -- -- <0.01 -- -- -- VlD 92.7 0.1 TAR4 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -- Schoharie McD 95.1 0.0 PAR59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ThA 95.1 0.0 PAR59 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LmC 96.0 0.0 PAR60 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- LmD 96.0 0.2 PAR60 -- -- -- 0.3 -- -- -- LmE 96.0 0.0 PAR60 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- LoE 96.0 0.1 PAR60 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- VcC 96.0 0.3 PAR60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LmC 99.9 0.1 PAR63 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- LmD 99.9 0.0 PAR63 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- LmE 99.9 0.1 PAR63 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- McC 101.5 0.0 TAR2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- VcB 101.5 0.0 TAR2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ArC 103.4 0.2 PAR66 -- -- -- 0.5 -- -- -- LmD 103.4 0.0 PAR66 -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- LoE 103.4 0.4 PAR66 -- -- -- 1.0 -- -- -- LrF 103.4 0.1 PAR66 0.2 -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- Ha 106.4 0.0 PAR68 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.0 LmE 106.4 0.1 PAR68 -- -- -- 0.2 -- -- -- 
J4-9 

APPENDIX J-4 (continued) 

Potential Limitations of Soil Series Map Units Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Access Roads 

Soil Series 

Map Unit Mileposta

Length 

Crossed 

(Miles)b

Access 

Road 

Namec

Impacts (acres) 

Highly 

Water 

Erodible 

Soilsd

Highly 

Wind 

Erodible 

Soilse

Stony/Rocky 

Soilsf

Shallow 

Depth to 

Bedrockg

Soil 

Compaction 

Potentialh

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potentiali

Draina

Potent

MhC 117.1 0.2 PAR71 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- HfB 117.9 0.2 PAR73 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MhC 117.9 0.1 PAR73 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MlB 117.9 0.1 PAR73 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- DeC 119.6 0.0 PAR74 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- HgC 120.3 0.2 PAR73a -- -- -- -- -- -- -- NlC 120.3 0.0 PAR73a -- -- -- -- -- -- -- PlB 120.3 0.2 PAR73a -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ShB 120.3 0.1 PAR73a -- -- -- -- -- -- -- _____________________ a The mileposts for access roads correspond to where the access road enters the pipeline alignment. b If the length crossed is a distance less than 6 feet the number stated is represented by 0.00 miles. c TAR = temporary access road; PAR = permanent access road. d Areas identified as Highly Water Erodible Soils are ranked as "Very Severe" or "Severe" by NRCS SSURGO's Erosion Hazard (Off-Road, Off-e Areas identified as Highly Wind Erodible Soils have a Wind Erodibility Index of 134 or greater as determined by NRCS SSURGO. f Areas identified to have Stony/Rocky Soils are lands that are composed of 20% or more of rock fragments larger than 3 inches in the surface 

NRCS SSURGO. 

g Areas identified to have shallow depth to bedrock are described as having bedrock less than 5 feet from the surface as determined by NRCS h Areas identified to have a severe compaction potential are limited to agricultural and residential lands that contain soils with a mean high wate

below the surface elevation and have a surface texture of sandy clay loam, or finer as determined by NRCS SSURGO. 

i Areas identified to have poor revegetation potential are lands that contain a Capability Class 3 or greater, a low available water capacity, and 

as determined by NRCS SSURGO. 

j Areas identified to have poor drainage potential are ranked as “poor” or “very poor” as determined by NRCS SSURGO. k Areas identified to have a hydric rating meet the all hydric criteria as determined by NRCS SSURGO. l Areas identified as Prime Farmland are identified as lands that meet the All Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance criteria as d

SSURGO. 
APPENDIX K 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

 
 
APPENDIX K-1 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Pennsylvania 

 

K1-1 

APPENDIX K-1 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline - Pipeline Facilities - Pennsylvania 

Waterbody 

IDa Waterbody Name 

Approximate 

Milepostb Town / County Waterbody Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water Quality 

Classificationf, g

State 

Cons

Win

WATERBODIES ASSOCIATED WITH PIPELINE SU-1M-S212 UNT to Hop Bottom 

Creek 

0.17 Brooklyn / 

Susquehanna 

E 12 I CWF 

SU-1M-S212 UNT to Hop Bottom 

Creek 

0.21 Brooklyn / 

Susquehanna 

E 19 I CWF 

SU-1B-S211 UNT to Hop Bottom 

Creek 

0.21 Brooklyn / 

Susquehanna 

I 2 MI CWF 

SU-1B-S213 UNT to Hop Bottom 

Creek 

0.66 Brooklyn / 

Susquehanna 

P 17 I CWF 

SU-1C-S364 UNT to Hop Bottom 

Creek 

0.83 Brooklyn / 

Susquehanna 

E 0 N/A CWF 

SU-1C-S363 UNT to Hop Bottom 

Creek 

0.83 Brooklyn / 

Susquehanna 

E 0 N/A CWF 

SU-1X-S366 UNT to Hop Bottom 

Creek 

0.84 Brooklyn / 

Susquehanna 

E 2 MI CWF 

SU-1B-S315 UNT to Hop Bottom 

Creek 

0.85 Brooklyn / 

Susquehanna 

E 2 MI CWF 

SU-1B-S315A UNT to Hop Bottom 

Creek 

0.86 Brooklyn / 

Susquehanna 

E 0 N/A CWF 

SU-1B-S315A UNT to Hop Bottom 

Creek 

0.86 Brooklyn / 

Susquehanna 

E 0 N/A CWF 

SU-1M-S220 Hop Bottom Creek 1.06 Brooklyn / 

Susquehanna 

P 10 MI CWF 

SU-1M-S220 Hop Bottom Creek 1.07 Brooklyn / 

Susquehanna 

P 64 I CWF 

SU-1C-S172A UNT to Martins 

Creek 

2.36 Brooklyn / 

Susquehanna 

I 3 MI CWF 

SU-1C-S172A UNT to Martins 

Creek 

2.38 Brooklyn / 

Susquehanna 

I 0 N/A CWF 
K1-2 

APPENDIX K-1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline - Pipeline Facilities - Pennsylvania 

Waterbody 

IDa Waterbody Name 

Approximate 

Milepostb Town / County Waterbody Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water Quality 

Classificationf, g

State 

Cons

Win

SU-1C-S172 UNT to Martins 

Creek 

2.39 Brooklyn / 

Susquehanna 

P 7 MI CWF 

SU-1B-S228 Martins Creek 2.99 Harford / 

Susquehanna 

P 28 I CWF 

SU-1M-S229 Road Ditch 3.04 Harford / 

Susquehanna 

E 7 MI CWF 

SU-1B-S275 UNT to Martins 

Creek 

3.06 Harford / 

Susquehanna 

I 3 MI CWF 

SU-1M-S275A UNT to Martins 

Creek 

3.08 Harford / 

Susquehanna 

I 1 MI CWF 

SU-1M-S275A UNT to Martins 

Creek 

3.09 Harford / 

Susquehanna 

I 0 N/A CWF 

SU-1M-S276 UNT to Martins 

Creek 

3.26 Harford / 

Susquehanna 

I 6 MI CWF 

SU-1M-S276 UNT to Martins 

Creek 

3.27 Harford / 

Susquehanna 

I 4 MI CWF 

SU-1M-S276 UNT to Martins 

Creek 

3.31 Harford / 

Susquehanna 

I 3 MI CWF 

SU-1M-S276A Road Ditch 3.31 Harford / 

Susquehanna 

E 1 MI CWF 

SU-1B-S136 UNT to East 

Branch Martins Creek 

5.5 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

P 6 MI CWF 

SU-1F-S138 UNT to Meylert 

Creek 

6.7 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

I 0 N/A HQ-CWF 

SU-1B-S137 Meylert Creek 6.73 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

P 11 I HQ-CWF 

SU-1F-S140 UNT to Meylert 

Creek 

7.26 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

E 0 N/A HQ-CWF 
K1-3 

APPENDIX K-1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline - Pipeline Facilities - Pennsylvania 

Waterbody 

IDa Waterbody Name 

Approximate 

Milepostb Town / County Waterbody Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water Quality 

Classificationf, g

State 

Cons

Win

SU-XX-S7.76 Meylert Creek 7.89 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

P 6 MI HQ-CWF 

SU-1B-S141 UNT to Wellmans 

Creek 

8.4 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

P 2 MI HQ-CWF 

SU-1F-S148 UNT to Wellmans 

Creek 

8.73 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

I 4 MI HQ-CWF 

SU-1F-S142 UNT to Wellmans 

Creek 

8.76 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

I 0 N/A HQ-CWF 

SU-1F-S142 UNT to Wellmans 

Creek 

8.78 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

I 15 I HQ-CWF 

SU-1B-S144 Wellmans Creek 8.93 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

P 4 MI HQ-CWF 

SU-1B-S145 UNT to Wellmans 

Creek 

8.95 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

P 5 MI HQ-CWF 

SU-1D-S230 UNT to Wellmans 

Creek 

9.24 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

E 2 MI HQ-CWF 

SU-1C-S029G Road Ditch 9.94 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

E 3 MI HQ-CWF 

SU-1X-S231 Salt Lick Creek 9.99 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

P 36 I HQ-CWF 

SU-1X-S233 UNT to Salt Lick 

Creek 

10.03 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

I 0 N/A HQ-CWF 

SU-1D-S235 Agricultural Ditch 10.59 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

E 3 MI HQ-CWF 

SU-1D-S237 UNT to Salt Lick 

Creek 

10.77 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

I 3 MI HQ-CWF 

SU-1B-S031 UNT to East Lake 

Creek 

11.08 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

I 59 I HQ-CWF 

SU-1B-S033 UNT to East Lake 

Creek 

11.31 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

E 3 MI HQ-CWF 
K1-4 

APPENDIX K-1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline - Pipeline Facilities - Pennsylvania 

Waterbody 

IDa Waterbody Name 

Approximate 

Milepostb Town / County Waterbody Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water Quality 

Classificationf, g

State 

Cons

Win

SU-1B-S035 UNT to East Lake 

Creek 

11.36 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

E 2 MI HQ-CWF 

SU-1B-S036 UNT to East Lake 

Creek 

11.41 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

E 3 MI HQ-CWF 

SU-1B-S037 UNT to East Lake 

Creek 

11.45 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

E 2 MI HQ-CWF 

SU-1B-S038 UNT to East Lake 

Creek 

11.48 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

P 15 I HQ-CWF 

SU-1E-S039 UNT to East Lake 

Creek 

11.6 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

P 15 I HQ-CWF 

SU-1E-S043A UNT to East Lake 

Creek 

11.95 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

I 2 MI HQ-CWF 

SU-1K-S254A UNT to Salt Lick 

Creek 

12.84 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

I 0 N/A HQ-CWF 

SU-1C-S253 UNT to Salt Lick 

Creek 

12.85 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

P 11 I HQ-CWF 

SU-1B-S134 UNT to Lewis 

Creek 

14.41 Jackson / 

Susquehanna 

E 0 N/A CWF 

SU-1K-S064 Road Ditch 15.13 Jackson / 

Susquehanna 

I 2 MI CWF 

SU-1G-S068 UNT to Drinker 

Creek 

15.26 Jackson / 

Susquehanna 

E 5 MI CWF 

SU-1K-S067 UNT to Drinker 

Creek 

15.32 Jackson / 

Susquehanna 

P 8 MI CWF 

SU-1K-S072 UNT to Drinker 

Creek 

15.45 Jackson / 

Susquehanna 

I 2 MI CWF 

SU-1K-S069 UNT to Drinker 

Creek 

15.48 Jackson / 

Susquehanna 

P 25 I CWF 
K1-5 

APPENDIX K-1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline - Pipeline Facilities - Pennsylvania 

Waterbody 

IDa Waterbody Name 

Approximate 

Milepostb Town / County Waterbody Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water Quality 

Classificationf, g

State 

Cons

Win

SU-1K-S069A UNT to Drinker 

Creek 

15.48 Jackson / 

Susquehanna 

P 0 N/A CWF 

SU-1K-S069A UNT to Drinker 

Creek 

15.5 Jackson / 

Susquehanna 

P 0 N/A CWF 

SU-1G-S074 UNT to Drinker 

Creek 

15.63 Jackson / 

Susquehanna 

P 3 MI CWF 

SU-1K-S076 UNT to Drinker 

Creek 

15.82 Jackson / 

Susquehanna 

P 14 I CWF 

SU-1K-S076A UNT to Drinker 

Creek 

15.82 Jackson / 

Susquehanna 

P 0 N/A CWF 

SU-XXS16.87 Drinker Creek 16.87 Oakland / Susquehanna P 24 I CWF SU-1S-S325 UNT to Canawacta 

Creek 

17.99 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

E 3 MI CWF Jun

Febr

SU-1G-S298 Canawacta Creek 18.79 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

I 14 I CWF Jun

Febr

SU-1X-S285 UNT to Starrucca 

Creek 

19.9 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

E 1 MI CWF Jun

Febr

SU-1X-S285A UNT to Starrucca 

Creek 

19.91 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

E 0 N/A CWF Jun

Febr

SU-1X-S286 UNT to Starrucca 

Creek 

19.98 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

P 4 MI CWF Jun

Febr

SU-1S-S289A UNT to Starrucca 

Creek 

20.75 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

I 25 I CWF Jun

Febr

SU-1X-S289 UNT to Starrucca 

Creek 

20.78 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

P 22 I CWF Jun

Febr

SU-1C-S367 UNT to Starrucca 

Creek 

21.52 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

I 4 MI CWF Jun

Febr

SU-1C-S179 UNT to Starrucca 

Creek 

21.56 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

P 21 I CWF Jun

Febr
K1-6 

APPENDIX K-1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline - Pipeline Facilities - Pennsylvania 

Waterbody 

IDa Waterbody Name 

Approximate 

Milepostb Town / County Waterbody Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water Quality 

Classificationf, g

State 

Cons

Win

SU-1C-S180 Starrucca Creek 21.8 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

P 75 I CWF Jun

Febr

SU-1X-S281 UNT to Roaring 

Run 

22.53 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

I 2 MI CWF Janu

Septe

SU-1C-S282 UNT to Roaring 

Run 

22.58 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

I 3 MI CWF Janu

Septe

SU-1X-S284A UNT to Roaring 

Run 

22.61 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

I 15 I CWF Janu

Septe

SU-1X-S284 Roaring Run 22.63 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

P 22 I CWF Janu

Septe

SU-1C-S283 Little Roaring 

Brook 

23.33 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

P 11 I CWF 

SU-1Q-S200 UNT to Little 

Roaring Brook 

23.75 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

I 3 MI CWF 

SU-1J-S202 UNT to Little 

Roaring Brook 

23.81 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

E 2 MI CWF 

SU-1B-S277 UNT to Little 

Roaring Brook 

23.87 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

I 6 MI CWF 

SU-1B-S109 UNT to Little 

Roaring Brook 

24.28 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

I 2 MI CWF 

SU-1S-S262 UNT to Little 

Roaring Brook 

24.29 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

I 1 MI CWF 

SU-1S-S261 UNT to Little 

Roaring Brook 

24.31 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

I 1 MI CWF 

SU-1J-S112A UNT to Little 

Roaring Brook 

24.4 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

I 0 N/A CWF 

SU-1B-S110 UNT to Little 

Roaring Brook 

24.42 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

P 18 I CWF 

SU-1B-S115 UNT to Little 

Roaring Brook 

24.43 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

I 0 N/A CWF 
K1-7 

APPENDIX K-1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline - Pipeline Facilities - Pennsylvania 

Waterbody 

IDa Waterbody Name 

Approximate 

Milepostb Town / County Waterbody Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water Quality 

Classificationf, g

State 

Cons

Win

SU-1C-S163 UNT to Cascade 

Creek 

25.23 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

P 1 MI CWF 

Pipeline Total Crossing Length 742 WATERBODIES ASSOCIATED WITH ACCESS ROADSkSU-1D-S234 TAR8 

UNT to Salt Lick Creek 

10.1 New Milford / 

Susquehanna 

I 2 MI HQ-CWF 

SU-1B-S357 PAR12 

Stormwater basin 14.09 Jackson / 

Susquehanna 

N/A 

(waterbody) 

0 N/A HQ-CWF 

SU-1E-S047 PAR15 

UNT to Canawacta Creek 

17.8 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

E 6 MI CWF Jun

Febr

SU-1E-S049 PAR15 

UNT to Canawacta Creek 

17.8 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

I 18 I CWF Jun

Febr

SU-1ES049A PAR15 

UNT to Canawacta Creek 

17.8 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

I 1 N/A CWF Jun

Febr

SU-1H-S368 PAR16 

UNT to Little Roaring Brook 

23.36 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

E 0 N/A CWF 

SU-1QS354 PAR16 

UNT to Little Roaring Brook 

23.36 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

I 0 N/A CWF 

SU-1H-S164 TAR1 

UNT to Little Roaring Brook 

25.07 Harmony / 

Susquehanna 

I 0 N/A CWF 

Access Road Total Crossing Length 26 Total Crossing Length Pennsylvania 768 
K1-8 

APPENDIX K-1 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline - Pipeline Facilities - Pennsylvania 

Waterbody 

IDa Waterbody Name 

Approximate 

Milepostb Town / County Waterbody Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water Quality 

Classificationf, g

State 

Cons

Win

_______________________ N/A = Not Applicable TBD = To Be Determined UNT = Unnamed tributary a Crossings and lengths for waterbody features with “XX” in identification name taken from National Hydrography Dataset GIS datalayer and es

based on scaled aerial photographs. 

b MP provided for access roads indicate the point at which the access road meets the proposed pipeline. c P = perennial; I = intermittent; POW = open water; E = Ephemeral. d 0.0 = waterbody is not crossed but is in workspace. For minor waterbodies less than 3 feet in width delineated in the survey area and shown a

the Project alignment sheets or where tree canopy cover obscured estimation of the waterbody crossing from scaled aerial photographs, a nowidth of three feet was used. 

e MI = Minor (<10 feet); I = Intermediate (>10 - <100 feet); MA = Major (>100 feet). f PA Water Quality Classification Definition: CWF = Cold Water Fishery; HQ = High Quality (Chapter 93 Pennsylvania Code). 

 Water quality classifications were identified through Constitution’s desktop review of available GIS data layers. A waterbody that was not ass

classification on the GIS data layer was given the same classification as the waterbody it drains into. All water quality classifications shown arexisting uses are present in the Project area based on Constitution’s review of available GIS data layers. 

g N/A = Not Applicable, no state fishery classification; TS = Trout stocked; PA Fishery Classifications: Approved trout waters (PFBC 2013 and P

Reproduction (PFBC 2012b,c). 

h Construction Windows for fisheries are a based on PFBC state fishery classification restrictions. Streams with no construction timing restrictio

table, do not have timing restrictions for construction based on PFBC regulations and consultations. Potential timing restrictions reflect dates 

activities may occur and are subject to PFBC and PADEP review. Constitution will adhere to the PADEP and PFBC fishery timing restriction d

fishery timing restrictions are designed by the state to protect the resources during the time period that the state has determined is critical. 

i I = Wet Open Cut Method; II = Dry Crossing Method, including Flume, Dam and Pump, Cofferdam, or Dry Open Cut for waterbodies that are d

Method III = Conventional Bore; IV = HDD, V= Direct Pipe Method. Intermittent waterbodies containing discernible flow at the time of construc

a dry crossing method, unless otherwise authorized by applicable regulatory agencies.
APPENDIX K-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

New York 

 
 
K2-1 

APPENDIX K-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pipeline Facilities - New York 

Waterbody 

IDa

Waterbody 

Name 

Approx 

Milepostb Town / County 

Waterbody 

Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water 

Quality 

Standardf, g

State Fishery 

Construction 

Windowh

WATERBODIES ASSOCIATED WITH PIPELINE BR-1C-S207 UNT to Cascade 

Creek 

26.37 Sanford / 

Broome 

P 0 N/A D N/A 

BR-1C-S207A UNT to Cascade 

Creek 

26.4 Sanford / 

Broome 

I 0 N/A D N/A 

BR-1S-S206A UNT to Cascade 

Creek 

26.45 Sanford / 

Broome 

I 0 N/A D N/A 

BR-1S-S206 UNT to Cascade 

Creek 

26.45 Sanford / 

Broome 

P 8 MI C(T) June 1 - Sep 30 

BR-1C-S204 UNT to Cascade 

Creek 

26.66 Sanford / 

Broome 

I 6 MI D N/A 

BR-XXS27.26 UNT to Fly Creek 27.26 Sanford / Broome P 3 MI B(T) June 1 - Sep 30 BR-1H-S131 UNT to Fly 

Creek 

27.39 Sanford / 

Broome 

E 0 N/A D June 1 - Sep 30 

BR-1L-S222 UNT to Fly 

Creek 

28.12 Sanford / 

Broome 

E 0 N/A D N/A 

BR-1H-S179 UNT to Fly 

Creek 

28.29 Sanford / 

Broome 

P 18 I B(T) June 1 - Sep 30 

BR-1H-S178 Fly Creek 28.71 Sanford / 

Broome 

P 31 I B(T) June 1 - Sep 30 

BR-1B-S049 UNT to Fly 

Creek 

28.81 Sanford / 

Broome 

I 12 I B(T) June 1 - Sep 30 

BR-1J-S170 UNT to Fly 

Creek 

28.89 Sanford / 

Broome 

I 2 MI D N/A 

BR-1H-S208 UNT to Fly 

Creek 

29 Sanford / 

Broome 

E 5 MI D N/A 
K2-2 

APPENDIX K-2 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pipeline Facilities - New York 

Waterbody 

IDa

Waterbody 

Name 

Approx 

Milepostb Town / County 

Waterbody 

Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water 

Quality 

Standardf, g

State Fishery 

Construction 

Windowh

BR-1J-S048 UNT to Fly 

Creek 

29.17 Sanford / 

Broome 

P 18 I B(T) June 1 - Sep 30 

BR-1I-S050 UNT to Fly 

Creek 

29.35 Sanford / 

Broome 

E 0 N/A D N/A 

BR-1I-S050B UNT to Fly 

Creek 

29.35 Sanford / 

Broome 

E 16 I D N/A 

BR-1I-S051 UNT to Fly 

Creek 

29.71 Sanford / 

Broome 

I 3 MI D N/A 

BR-1I-S001 UNT to Marsh 

Creek 

30.3 Sanford / 

Broome 

P 53 I C(T) June 1 - Sep 30 

BR-1B-S054B UNT to Marsh 

Creek 

30.59 Sanford / 

Broome 

E 0 N/A D N/A 

BR-1I-S055 Marsh Creek 30.72 Sanford / 

Broome 

P 30 I C(T) June 1 - Sep 30 

BR-XXS31.74 / BR-1H-S132k

UNT to Oquaga Creek 

31.74 Sanford / 

Broome 

P 3 MI D June 1 - Sep 30 

BR-1I-S188A UNT to Oquaga 

Creek 

32.92 Sanford / 

Broome 

P 13 I C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

BR-1G-S186 UNT to Oquaga 

Creek 

33.6 Sanford / 

Broome 

I 3 MI D N/A 

BR-1B-S056A UNT to Oquaga 

Creek 

33.62 Sanford / 

Broome 

P 18 I C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

BR-1I-S057 Oquaga Creek 33.96 Sanford / 

Broome 

P 42 I C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

BR-1H-S181A Road Ditch 34.53 Sanford / 

Broome 

E 1 MI N/A N/A 

BR-1B-S181 Road Ditch 34.56 Sanford / 

Broome 

I 1 MI N/A N/A 
K2-3 

APPENDIX K-2 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pipeline Facilities - New York 

Waterbody 

IDa

Waterbody 

Name 

Approx 

Milepostb Town / County 

Waterbody 

Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water 

Quality 

Standardf, g

State Fishery 

Construction 

Windowh

BR-1G-S189 UNT to Oquaga 

Creek 

34.59 Sanford / 

Broome 

P 4 MI C(T) N/A 

BR-1I-S190 UNT to Oquaga 

Creek 

34.69 Sanford / 

Broome 

P 11 I C(T) June 1 - Sep 30 

BR-1U-S135 UNT to Oquaga 

Creek 

35.17 Sanford / 

Broome 

I 6 MI D N/A 

BR-1K-S138 UNT to Oquaga 

Creek 

35.27 Sanford / 

Broome 

I 18 I D N/A 

BR-1K-S140 UNT to Oquaga 

Creek 

35.54 Sanford / 

Broome 

I 13 I C(T) June 1 - Sep 30 

BR-1I-S062 UNT to Oquaga 

Creek 

35.9 Sanford / 

Broome 

P 3 MI C(T) N/A 

BR-1I-S065 UNT to Oquaga 

Creek 

36.22 Sanford / 

Broome 

I 2 MI C(T) N/A 

BR-1U-S141 Oquaga Creek 36.54 Sanford / 

Broome 

P 50 I C(T) June 1 - Sep 30 

BR-1I-S067 Dry Brook 37.32 Sanford / 

Broome 

P 19 I C(T) June 1 - Sep 30 

BR-1I-S067 Dry Brook 37.33 Sanford / 

Broome 

P 36 I C(T) June 1 - Sep 30 

BR-1C-S071A UNT to Dry 

Brook 

38.4 Sanford / 

Broome 

E 2 MI D N/A 

BR-1Q-S209 UNT to Dry 

Brook 

38.69 Sanford / 

Broome 

P 7 MI C(T) June 1 - Sep 30 

BR-1Q-S210 UNT to Dry 

Brook 

38.89 Sanford / 

Broome 

E 5 MI D N/A 

BR-1C-S150A UNT to Dry 

Brook 

39.09 Sanford / 

Broome 

E 29 I D June 1 - Sep 30 
K2-4 

APPENDIX K-2 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pipeline Facilities - New York 

Waterbody 

IDa

Waterbody 

Name 

Approx 

Milepostb Town / County 

Waterbody 

Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water 

Quality 

Standardf, g

State Fishery 

Construction 

Windowh

BR-1C-S150 Dry Brook 39.2 Sanford / 

Broome 

P 12 I C(T) June 1 - Sep 30 

BR-1C-S221 UNT to Dry 

Brook 

39.62 Sanford / 

Broome 

E 3 MI D N/A 

BR-1B-S072 Road Ditch 40.64 Sanford / 

Broome 

E 1 MI N/A N/A 

BR-1G-S196 UNT of Cornell 

Creek 

41.19 Sanford / 

Broome 

E 3 MI D N/A 

BR-1I-S198 UNT of Cornell 

Creek 

41.27 Sanford / 

Broome 

I 9 MI D N/A 

BR-1C-S151 UNT of Cornell 

Creek 

41.38 Sanford / 

Broome 

E 0 N/A D N/A 

BR-1S-S200A UNT to Cornell 

Creek 

41.76 Sanford / 

Broome 

I 0 N/A D N/A 

BR-1S-S200 Road Ditch 41.77 Sanford / 

Broome 

I 3 MI N/A N/A 

BR-1S-S203 UNT to Cornell 

Creek 

41.85 Sanford / 

Broome 

I 1 MI D N/A 

CH-1L-S250 UNT to Cornell 

Creek 

42.26 Afton / 

Chenango 

P 23 I C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

CH-1H-S011 UNT of Cornell 

Creek 

42.4 Afton / 

Chenango 

P 11 I C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

CH-1H-S011A UNT of Cornell 

Creek 

42.4 Afton / 

Chenango 

P 0 N/A C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

CH-1L-S051 UNT to Cornell 

Creek 

42.53 Afton / 

Chenango 

I 0 N/A D N/A 

CH-1J-S014A UNT of Cornell 

Creek 

42.72 Afton / 

Chenango 

E 1 MI C N/A 
K2-5 

APPENDIX K-2 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pipeline Facilities - New York 

Waterbody 

IDa

Waterbody 

Name 

Approx 

Milepostb Town / County 

Waterbody 

Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water 

Quality 

Standardf, g

State Fishery 

Construction 

Windowh

CH-1J-S014 UNT of Cornell 

Creek 

42.73 Afton / 

Chenango 

P 21 I C N/A 

CH-1J-S015 UNT of Cornell 

Creek 

42.76 Afton / 

Chenango 

P 0 N/A C N/A 

CH-XXS42.78 UNT of Cornell Creek 42.78 Afton / Chenango P 5 MI C N/A CH-XXS42.99 UNT of Cornell Creek 42.99 Afton / Chenango P 4 MI C N/A CH-1H-S016 UNT of Cornell 

Creek 

43.76 Afton / 

Chenango 

P 5 MI C June 1 - Sep 30 

CH-1S-S060 UNT to Landers 

Creek 

45.2 Afton / 

Chenango 

I 12 I D N/A 

CH-1A-S048 Landers Creek 45.29 Afton / 

Chenango 

P 29 I C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

CH-1C-S065 UNT to 

Susquehanna River 

45.72 Afton / 

Chenango 

E 17 I D N/A 

CH-1C-S065A UNT to 

Susquehanna River 

45.72 Afton / 

Chenango 

E 0 N/A D N/A 

CH-1X-S063 UNT to 

Susquehanna River 

46.21 Afton / 

Chenango 

I 3 MI C(T) N/A 

CH-1X-S062A UNT to 

Susquehanna River 

46.28 Afton / 

Chenango 

I 1 MI C(T) N/A 

CH-1X-S062 UNT to 

Susquehanna River 

46.29 Afton / 

Chenango 

I 0 N/A D N/A 
K2-6 

APPENDIX K-2 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pipeline Facilities - New York 

Waterbody 

IDa

Waterbody 

Name 

Approx 

Milepostb Town / County 

Waterbody 

Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water 

Quality 

Standardf, g

State Fishery 

Construction 

Windowh

CH-1X-S061 UNT to 

Susquehanna River 

46.38 Afton / 

Chenango 

E 2 MI D N/A 

CH-1C-S035 UNT to 

Susquehanna River 

46.55 Afton / 

Chenango 

E 3 MI D N/A 

CH-1C-S035A UNT to 

Susquehanna River 

46.55 Afton / 

Chenango 

E 4 MI D N/A 

CH-1C-S035B UNT to 

Susquehanna River 

46.57 Afton / 

Chenango 

E 3 MI D N/A 

CH-1Q-S036A UNT to 

Susquehanna River 

46.68 Afton / 

Chenango 

E 0 N/A D N/A 

CH-1Q-S036 UNT to 

Susquehanna River 

46.68 Afton / 

Chenango 

I 0 N/A D N/A 

CH-1C-S008 UNT to 

Bennettsville Creek 

47.31 Afton / 

Chenango 

E 1 MI D N/A 

CH-1K-S009 UNT to 

Bennettsville Creek 

47.44 Afton / 

Chenango 

E 11 I D N/A 

CH-1C-S010B Bennettsville 

Creek 

47.65 Bainbridge / 

Chenango 

I 48 I C(T) N/A (HDD) 

May 15 - 

Oct 15 

(Contingency) 
K2-7 

APPENDIX K-2 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pipeline Facilities - New York 

Waterbody 

IDa

Waterbody 

Name 

Approx 

Milepostb Town / County 

Waterbody 

Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water 

Quality 

Standardf, g

State Fishery 

Construction 

Windowh

CH-1C-S010C Bennettsville 

Creek 

47.68 Bainbridge / 

Chenango 

I 165 MA C(T) N/A (HDD) 

May 15 - 

Oct 15 

(Contingency) 

CH-1A-S010 Bennettsville 

Creek 

47.71 Bainbridge / 

Chenango 

P 144 MA C(T) N/A (HDD) 

May 15 - 

Oct 15 

(Contingency) 

CH-1A-S010D Bennettsville 

Creek 

47.75 Bainbridge / 

Chenango 

P 85 I C(T) N/A (HDD) 

May 15 - 

Oct 15 

(Contingency) 

CH-1A-S010E Bennettsville 

Creek 

47.75 Bainbridge / 

Chenango 

P 0 N/A C(T) N/A (HDD) 

May 15 - 

Oct 15 

(Contingency) 

CH-1B-S025 UNT to 

Bennettsville Creek 

48.22 Bainbridge / 

Chenango 

I 2 MI D N/A 

CH-1B-S029 UNT to 

Bennettsville Creek 

48.67 Bainbridge / 

Chenango 

I 0 N/A D N/A 

CH-1S-S042 UNT to 

Bennettsville Creek 

49.62 Bainbridge / 

Chenango 

P 4 MI C N/A 

CH-1S-S044 UNT to 

Bennettsville Creek 

49.65 Bainbridge / 

Chenango 

I 0 N/A C N/A 
K2-8 

APPENDIX K-2 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pipeline Facilities - New York 

Waterbody 

IDa

Waterbody 

Name 

Approx 

Milepostb Town / County 

Waterbody 

Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water 

Quality 

Standardf, g

State Fishery 

Construction 

Windowh

CH-1S-S046 UNT to 

Bennettsville Creek 

49.69 Bainbridge / 

Chenango 

I 6 MI C N/A 

CH-1A-S047 Road Ditch 50.09 Bainbridge / 

Chenango 

E 2 MI N/A N/A 

CH-1A-S038 UNT to 

Bennettsville Creek 

50.22 Bainbridge / 

Chenango 

I 5 MI D N/A 

DE-1B-S026A UNT to 

Masonville Creek 

50.97 Masonville / 

Delaware 

I 3 MI D N/A 

DE-1H-S026B UNT to 

Masonville Creek 

50.98 Masonville / 

Delaware 

E 19 I D N/A 

DE-1H-S026 Rock Creek 50.98 Masonville / 

Delaware 

P 20 I C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1C-S270 UNT to 

Masonville Creek 

51.13 Masonville / 

Delaware 

I 4 MI D N/A 

DE-1H-S028 Road Ditch 51.64 Masonville / 

Delaware 

I 3 MI N/A N/A 

DE-1B-S029 UNT to 

Susquehanna River 

52.54 Sidney / 

Delaware 

I 9 MI C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1H-S033 UNT to 

Masonville Creek 

53.9 Sidney / 

Delaware 

P 1 MI C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1H-S013 UNT to 

Susquehanna River (Collar Brook) 

54.5 Sidney / 

Delaware 

P 80 I AA N/A 
K2-9 

APPENDIX K-2 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pipeline Facilities - New York 

Waterbody 

IDa

Waterbody 

Name 

Approx 

Milepostb Town / County 

Waterbody 

Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water 

Quality 

Standardf, g

State Fishery 

Construction 

Windowh

DE-1H-S013 UNT to 

Susquehanna River (Collar Brook) 

54.53 Sidney / 

Delaware 

P 70 I AA N/A 

DE-1M-S075 UNT to 

Susquehanna River 

55.11 Sidney / 

Delaware 

E 3 MI C N/A 

DE-1M-S077 UNT to Carrs 

Creek 

55.69 Sidney / 

Delaware 

E 9 MI D N/A 

DE-1K-S077A Road Ditch 55.71 Sidney / 

Delaware 

I 3 MI N/A N/A 

DE-1M-S077 UNT to Carrs 

Creek 

55.77 Sidney / 

Delaware 

E 19 I D N/A 

DE-1F-S078 UNT to Carrs 

Creek 

55.91 Sidney / 

Delaware 

P 21 I C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1C-S269 Road Ditch 56.01 Sidney / 

Delaware 

E 0 N/A N/A N/A 

DE-XXS56.50 UNT to Carrs Creek 56.51 Sidney / Delaware P 4 MI C N/A DE-XXS56.74 Carrs Creek 56.74 Sidney / Delaware P 64 I C June 1 - Sep 30 DE-XXS56.81 UNT to Carrs Creek 56.81 Sidney / Delaware P 3 MI C June 1 - Sep 30 DE-1C-S110B UNT to 

Susquehanna River 

57.89 Sidney / 

Delaware 

I 7 MI D N/A 

DE-1C-S113C UNT to 

Susquehanna River 

58 Sidney / 

Delaware 

P 2 MI C N/A 
K2-10 

APPENDIX K-2 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pipeline Facilities - New York 

Waterbody 

IDa

Waterbody 

Name 

Approx 

Milepostb Town / County 

Waterbody 

Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water 

Quality 

Standardf, g

State Fishery 

Construction 

Windowh

DE-1C-S113D UNT to 

Susquehanna River 

58.1 Sidney / 

Delaware 

I 2 MI D N/A 

DE-1N-S079A UNT to 

Susquehanna River 

58.43 Sidney / 

Delaware 

I 0 N/A D N/A 

DE-1N-S079 UNT to 

Susquehanna River 

58.43 Sidney / 

Delaware 

P 13 I C N/A 

DE-1C-S190 UNT to 

Susquehanna River 

58.78 Sidney / 

Delaware 

I 7 MI D N/A 

DE-1S-S100 UNT to Pond 58.86 Sidney / 

Delaware 

E 41 I D N/A 

DE-1N-S101 UNT to Pond 59.05 Sidney / 

Delaware 

I 19 I D N/A 

DE-1M-S081 UNT to Ouleout 

Creek 

59.58 Sidney / 

Delaware 

I 8 MI D N/A 

DE-1S-S102 UNT to Ouleout 

Creek 

59.9 Sidney / 

Delaware 

P 21 I C N/A 

DE-1Q-S071 UNT to Ouleout 

Creek 

60.28 Sidney / 

Delaware 

I 20 I D N/A 

DE-1P-S129 Ouleout Creek 60.79 Sidney / 

Delaware 

P 97 I C(T) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1W-S130 UNT to Ouleout 

Creek 

61.12 Sidney / 

Delaware 

I 17 I C N/A 

DE-1P-S211 UNT to 

Susquehanna River 

63.13 Sidney / 

Delaware 

I 0 N/A C N/A 
K2-11 

APPENDIX K-2 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pipeline Facilities - New York 

Waterbody 

IDa

Waterbody 

Name 

Approx 

Milepostb Town / County 

Waterbody 

Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water 

Quality 

Standardf, g

State Fishery 

Construction 

Windowh

DE-1X-S235 UNT to 

Susquehanna River 

63.94 Sidney / 

Delaware 

P 8 MI C N/A 

DE-1L-S176 UNT to 

Susquehanna River 

66.24 Franklin / 

Delaware 

I 7 MI D N/A 

DE-XXS68.81 UNT to Ouleout Creek 68.81 Franklin / Delaware P 4 MI C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 DE-1P-S054 UNT to Ouleout 

Creek 

69.48 Franklin / 

Delaware 

P 14 I C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1WS055A UNT to Ouleout Creek 70.57 Franklin / Delaware E 0 N/A D N/A DE-1C-S273 UNT to Ouleout 

Creek 

70.85 Franklin / 

Delaware 

I 3 MI D N/A 

DE-1P-S056 UNT to Ouleout 

Creek 

70.92 Franklin / 

Delaware 

P 13 I C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1P-S056A UNT to Ouleout 

Creek 

70.95 Franklin / 

Delaware 

P 3 MI C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1P-S058 UNT to Ouleout 

Creek 

71.77 Franklin / 

Delaware 

P 12 I C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1P-S058B UNT to Ouleout 

Creek 

71.78 Franklin / 

Delaware 

I 0 N/A C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1C-S192 UNT to Ouleout 

Creek 

71.89 Franklin / 

Delaware 

I 2 MI C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1C-S192A UNT to Ouleout 

Creek 

71.9 Franklin / 

Delaware 

I 2 MI C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-XXS72.98 UNT to Ouleout Creek 72.99 Franklin / Delaware P 3 MI C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 
K2-12 

APPENDIX K-2 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pipeline Facilities - New York 

Waterbody 

IDa

Waterbody 

Name 

Approx 

Milepostb Town / County 

Waterbody 

Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water 

Quality 

Standardf, g

State Fishery 

Construction 

Windowh

DE-1P-S125 UNT to Ouleout 

Creek 

74.19 Davenport / 

Delaware 

I 3 MI D N/A 

DE-1P-S126 UNT to Ouleout 

Creek 

74.3 Davenport / 

Delaware 

P 30 I C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1C-S268 Road Ditch 75.31 Davenport / 

Delaware 

I 4 MI N/A N/A 

DE-XXS75.87 UNT to Ouleout Creek 75.87 Davenport / Delaware P 3 MI C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 DE-XXS76.42 UNT to Ouleout Creek 76.43 Davenport / Delaware P 3 MI C(T) June 1 - Sep 30 DE-XXS76.50 UNT to Ouleout Creek 76.5 Davenport / Delaware P 3 MI C June 1 - Sep 30 DE-XXS77.86 UNT to Ouleout Creek 77.86 Davenport / Delaware P 3 MI CTS) June 1 - Sep 30 DE-1B-S263C UNT to Charlotte 

Creek 

78.07 Davenport / 

Delaware 

I 0 N/A C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1B-S263 UNT to Charlotte 

Creek 

78.08 Davenport / 

Delaware 

P 32 I C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1B-S264 UNT to Charlotte 

Creek 

78.09 Davenport / 

Delaware 

I 4 MI C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1G-S209 UNT to Charlotte 

Creek 

78.2 Davenport / 

Delaware 

P 28 I C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1G-S209A UNT to Charlotte 

Creek 

78.2 Davenport / 

Delaware 

P 0 N/A C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1G-S241 Road Ditch 78.24 Davenport / 

Delaware 

I 3 MI N/A N/A 

DE-1L-S210 UNT to Charlotte 

Creek 

78.33 Davenport / 

Delaware 

P 13 I C N/A 
K2-13 

APPENDIX K-2 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pipeline Facilities - New York 

Waterbody 

IDa

Waterbody 

Name 

Approx 

Milepostb Town / County 

Waterbody 

Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water 

Quality 

Standardf, g

State Fishery 

Construction 

Windowh

DE-1L-S210A UNT to Charlotte 

Creek 

78.33 Davenport / 

Delaware 

I 4 MI C N/A 

DE-1G-S242 UNT to Charlotte 

Creek 

78.63 Davenport / 

Delaware 

P 5 MI C(TS) N/A 

DE-1G-S243 UNT to Charlotte 

Creek 

78.64 Davenport / 

Delaware 

P 3 MI C(TS) N/A 

DE-1G-S244 UNT to Charlotte 

Creek 

78.66 Davenport / 

Delaware 

P 0 N/A C(TS) N/A 

DE-1L-S254 UNT to Charlotte 

Creek 

79.08 Davenport / 

Delaware 

I 17 I D N/A 

DE-1L-S256 UNT to Charlotte 

Creek 

79.12 Davenport / 

Delaware 

I 12 I D N/A 

DE-1L-S255 UNT to Charlotte 

Creek 

79.18 Davenport / 

Delaware 

I 11 I D N/A 

DE-XXS79.36 Prosser Hollow Brook 79.35 Davenport / Delaware P 4 MI C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 DE-1P-S134 UNT to Charlotte 

Creek 

79.86 Davenport / 

Delaware 

I 11 I D N/A 

DE-1M-S135 UNT to Charlotte 

Creek 

79.95 Davenport / 

Delaware 

E 15 I D N/A 

DE-1P-S136 UNT to Charlotte 

Creek 

80.26 Davenport / 

Delaware 

P 1 MI C N/A 

DE-1P-S138 UNT to Charlotte 

Creek 

80.35 Davenport / 

Delaware 

P 6 MI C June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1P-S137 UNT to Charlotte 

Creek 

80.36 Davenport / 

Delaware 

P 13 I C June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1G-S207 UNT to Charlotte 

Creek 

80.36 Davenport / 

Delaware 

P 6 MI C N/A 
K2-14 

APPENDIX K-2 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pipeline Facilities - New York 

Waterbody 

IDa

Waterbody 

Name 

Approx 

Milepostb Town / County 

Waterbody 

Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water 

Quality 

Standardf, g

State Fishery 

Construction 

Windowh

DE-1L-S208 UNT to Charlotte 

Creek 

80.37 Davenport / 

Delaware 

P 4 MI C N/A 

DE-1L-S206 UNT to Charlotte 

Creek 

80.42 Davenport / 

Delaware 

I 4 MI D June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1B-S267 UNT to Charlotte 

Creek 

80.5 Davenport / 

Delaware 

I 13 I D N/A 

DE-1G-S183 Pumpkin Hollow 

Brook 

80.6 Davenport / 

Delaware 

P 4 MI C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1G-S183B Pumpkin Hollow 

Brook 

80.6 Davenport / 

Delaware 

I 0 N/A D N/A 

DE-1G-S183C Pumpkin Hollow 

Brook 

80.6 Davenport / 

Delaware 

I 3 MI D N/A 

DE-XXS81.64 Kortright Creek 81.64 Davenport / Delaware P 50 I C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 DE-1G-S203 UNT to Kortright 

Creek 

82.01 Davenport / 

Delaware 

P 12 I C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1I-S203A UNT to Kortright 

Creek 

82.01 Davenport / 

Delaware 

I 3 MI C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1G-S204 UNT to Kortright 

Creek 

82.05 Davenport / 

Delaware 

E 0 N/A D N/A 

DE-1B-S271 UNT to Kortright 

Creek 

83.15 Davenport / 

Delaware 

P 9 MI C June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1B-S272 UNT to Kortright 

Creek 

83.42 Davenport / 

Delaware 

P 15 I C N/A 

DE-XXS84.70 UNT to Charlotte Creek 84.69 Davenport / Delaware P 3 MI C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 DE-1L-S252 UNT to Middle 

Brook 

86.11 Davenport / 

Delaware 

I 19 I D N/A 
K2-15 

APPENDIX K-2 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pipeline Facilities - New York 

Waterbody 

IDa

Waterbody 

Name 

Approx 

Milepostb Town / County 

Waterbody 

Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water 

Quality 

Standardf, g

State Fishery 

Construction 

Windowh

DE-1R-S001 UNT to Middle 

Brook 

87.11 Davenport / 

Delaware 

I 16 I C N/A 

DE-1C-S117 Mud Lake / UNT 

to Middle Brook 

87.12 Davenport / 

Delaware 

P 10 MI C N/A 

DE-1C-S051A UNT to Middle 

Brook 

87.82 Davenport / 

Delaware 

P 10 MI C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1T-S051 Middle Brook 87.87 Davenport / 

Delaware 

P 64 I C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1T-S052 UNT to Middle 

Brook 

88.06 Davenport / 

Delaware 

P 15 I C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1P-S053B UNT to Middle 

Brook 

88.46 Davenport / 

Delaware 

I 1 MI D N/A 

DE-1P-S053 UNT to Middle 

Brook 

88.49 Davenport / 

Delaware 

P 15 I C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-1L-S250 Road Ditch 90.22 Harpersfield / 

Delaware 

I 1 MI N/A N/A 

DE-XXS91.82 / DE-1G-S006k

UNT to Charlotte Creek 

91.82 Harpersfield / 

Delaware 

I 3 MI C June 1 - Sep 30 

DE-XXS92.32 UNT to Charlotte Creek 92.32 Harpersfield / Delaware P 3 MI C(T) June 1 - Sep 30 SC-1F-S002 UNT to Charlotte 

Creek 

94.6 Summit / 

Schoharie 

P 13 I C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

SC-1S-S315 UNT to Charlotte 

Creek 

94.61 Summit / 

Schoharie 

I 4 MI C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

SC-1Y-S341 Road Ditch 94.97 Summit / 

Schoharie 

I 0 N/A N/A N/A 

SC-1Y-S342 Road Ditch 94.97 Summit / 

Schoharie 

I 1 MI N/A N/A 
K2-16 

APPENDIX K-2 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pipeline Facilities - New York 

Waterbody 

IDa

Waterbody 

Name 

Approx 

Milepostb Town / County 

Waterbody 

Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water 

Quality 

Standardf, g

State Fishery 

Construction 

Windowh

SC-1Q-S286A Unnamed Pond / 

UNT to Clapper Hollow Creek 

95.2 Summit / 

Schoharie 

N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 

SC-1C-S325E UNT to Clapper 

Hollow Creek 

95.2 Summit / 

Schoharie 

P 0 N/A C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

SC-1C-S325D UNT to Clapper 

Hollow Creek 

95.2 Summit / 

Schoharie 

P 0 N/A C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

SC-1C-S325F UNT to Clapper 

Hollow Creek 

95.2 Summit / 

Schoharie 

P 3 MI C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

SC-1C-S325 Clapper Hollow 

Creek 

95.21 Summit / 

Schoharie 

P 21 I C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

SC-1C-S232A UNT to Clapper 

Hollow Creek 

95.23 Summit / 

Schoharie 

I 0 N/A C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

SC-1Q-S284 UNT to Clapper 

Hollow Creek 

95.38 Summit / 

Schoharie 

P 6 MI C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

SC-1Q-S278 UNT to Clapper 

Hollow Creek 

96.07 Jefferson / 

Schoharie 

P 16 I C(T) June 1 - Sep 30 

SC-1C-S280 Road Ditch 96.4 Jefferson / 

Schoharie 

E 1 MI N/A N/A 

SC-1G-S342 UNT to Clapper 

Hollow Creek 

97.43 Jefferson / 

Schoharie 

I 0 N/A C(T) June 1 - Sep 30 

SC-1G-S343 UNT to Clapper 

Hollow Creek 

97.44 Jefferson / 

Schoharie 

P 13 I C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

SC-1C-S329 Road Ditch 97.73 Jefferson / 

Schoharie 

I 10 MI N/A N/A 

SC-XXS97.80 UNT to Clapper Hollow Creek 97.78 Jefferson / Schoharie P 3 MI C(T) June 1 - Sep 30 SC-1L-S335 UNT to Clapper 

Hollow Creek 

98.62 Jefferson / 

Schoharie 

P 42 I C(T) June 1 - Sep 30 
K2-17 

APPENDIX K-2 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pipeline Facilities - New York 

Waterbody 

IDa

Waterbody 

Name 

Approx 

Milepostb Town / County 

Waterbody 

Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water 

Quality 

Standardf, g

State Fishery 

Construction 

Windowh

SC-XXS101.41 UNT to Clapper Hollow Creek 101.41 Summit / Schoharie P 0 N/A C N/A SC-1E-S102 West Kill 101.75 Summit / 

Schoharie 

P 34 I C(T) June 1 - Sep 30 

SC-1E-S104 UNT to West Kill 102.09 Summit / 

Schoharie 

I 4 MI C N/A 

SC-1E-S105 UNT to West Kill 102.97 Summit / 

Schoharie 

I 6 MI D N/A 

SC-1M-S013 UNT to 

Cobleskill Creek 

104.06 Summit / 

Schoharie 

E 1 MI D N/A 

SC-1G-S151 Beards Hollow 

Brook 

104.52 Summit / 

Schoharie 

P 6 MI C N/A 

SC-1Q-S244 UNT to Beards 

Hollow Brook 

104.86 Summit / 

Schoharie 

E 2 MI D N/A 

SC-1P-S218 UNT to Beards 

Hollow Brook 

105.24 Richmondville /

Schoharie 

I 5 MI D N/A 

SC-1P-S218A UNT to Beards 

Hollow Brook 

105.26 Richmondville /

Schoharie 

I 4 MI D N/A 

SC-1G-S249 UNT to Beards 

Hollow Brook 

105.65 Richmondville / 

Schoharie 

I 7 MI D N/A 

SC-1L-S166 UNT to 

Cobleskill Creek 

105.81 Richmondville /

Schoharie 

P 15 I C N/A 

SC-1L-S166A UNT to 

Cobleskill Creek 

105.82 Richmondville /

Schoharie 

P 0 N/A C N/A 

SC-1L-S164 UNT to 

Cobleskill Creek 

106.18 Richmondville /

Schoharie 

I 4 MI C N/A 

SC-1I-S297 UNT to 

Cobleskill Creek 

106.39 Richmondville /

Schoharie 

E 2 MI D N/A 
K2-18 

APPENDIX K-2 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pipeline Facilities - New York 

Waterbody 

IDa

Waterbody 

Name 

Approx 

Milepostb Town / County 

Waterbody 

Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water 

Quality 

Standardf, g

State Fishery 

Construction 

Windowh

SC-1J-S300 UNT to 

Cobleskill Creek 

106.46 Richmondville /

Schoharie 

E 0 N/A C N/A 

SC-1J-S298 UNT to 

Cobleskill Creek 

106.48 Richmondville /

Schoharie 

E 1 MI D N/A 

SC-1L-S195 UNT to 

Cobleskill Creek 

106.55 Richmondville /

Schoharie 

E 1 MI D N/A 

SC-1L-S264 UNT to 

Cobleskill Creek 

106.57 Richmondville /

Schoharie 

E 1 MI D N/A 

SC-1L-S165A UNT to 

Cobleskill Creek 

106.59 Richmondville /

Schoharie 

I 5 MI D N/A 

SC-1L-S265 UNT to 

Cobleskill Creek 

106.61 Richmondville /

Schoharie 

E 1 MI D N/A 

SC-1L-S165B UNT to 

Cobleskill Creek 

106.62 Richmondville /

Schoharie 

I 6 MI C N/A 

SC-1Q-S165C UNT to 

Cobleskill Creek 

106.66 Richmondville /

Schoharie 

I 0 N/A D N/A 

SC-1L-S267 UNT to 

Cobleskill Creek 

107 Richmondville /

Schoharie 

P 4 MI C N/A 

SC-1C-S271 UNT to 

Cobleskill Creek 

108.8 Richmondville /

Schoharie 

E 10 MI D N/A 

SC-1C-S279 UNT to 

Cobleskill Creek 

109.13 Richmondville /

Schoharie 

E 5 MI D N/A 

SC-1C-S278 UNT to 

Cobleskill Creek 

109.14 Richmondville /

Schoharie 

E 7 MI D N/A 

SC-1Q-S274 UNT to House 

Creek 

109.49 Richmondville /

Schoharie 

I 0 N/A D N/A 

SC-1Q-S273 UNT to House 

Creek 

109.51 Richmondville /

Schoharie 

I 2 MI C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 
K2-19 

APPENDIX K-2 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pipeline Facilities - New York 

Waterbody 

IDa

Waterbody 

Name 

Approx 

Milepostb Town / County 

Waterbody 

Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water 

Quality 

Standardf, g

State Fishery 

Construction 

Windowh

SC-1Q-S280 UNT to House 

Creek 

109.7 Richmondville /

Schoharie 

P 5 MI C N/A 

SC-1I-S280A UNT to House 

Creek 

109.72 Richmondville /

Schoharie 

I 8 MI D N/A 

SC-1C-S186 House Creek 110.1 Cobleskill / 

Schoharie 

P 30 I C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

SC-1C-S186A UNT to House 

Creek 

110.28 Cobleskill / 

Schoharie 

P 15 I C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 

SC-1C-S187 Road Ditch 110.56 Cobleskill / 

Schoharie 

E 2 MI N/A N/A 

SC-1C-S331 UNT to House 

Creek 

110.57 Cobleskill / 

Schoharie 

I 1 MI D N/A 

SC-1C-S332 UNT to House 

Creek 

110.76 Cobleskill / 

Schoharie 

P 8 MI D N/A 

SC-1P-S019 UNT to Limekiln 

Creek 

113.39 Middleburgh / 

Schoharie 

P 7 MI C N/A 

SC-1M-S018 UNT to Limekiln 

Creek 

113.75 Middleburgh / 

Schoharie 

E 1 MI C N/A 

SC-1N-S016 UNT to Limekiln 

Creek 

114.51 Middleburgh / 

Schoharie 

E 3 MI D N/A 

SC-1Q-S289 Schoharie Creek 119.75 Schoharie / 

Schoharie 

P 248 MA C Jul 16 - Feb 28 

SC-1Q-S291 UNT to 

Schoharie Creek 

119.89 Schoharie / 

Schoharie 

E 6 MI D N/A 

SC-1D-S181A UNT to 

Schoharie Creek 

120.49 Schoharie / 

Schoharie 

I 3 MI D N/A 

SC-1D-S181 UNT to 

Schoharie Creek 

120.49 Schoharie / 

Schoharie 

E 3 MI D N/A 
K2-20 

APPENDIX K-2 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pipeline Facilities - New York 

Waterbody 

IDa

Waterbody 

Name 

Approx 

Milepostb Town / County 

Waterbody 

Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water 

Quality 

Standardf, g

State Fishery 

Construction 

Windowh

SC-XXS120.70 UNT to Schoharie Creek 120.7 Schoharie / Schoharie P 3 MI C(TS) June 1 - Sep 30 SC-1G-S196 UNT to 

Schoharie Creek 

122.54 Schoharie / 

Schoharie 

P 11 I C N/A 

SC-1Q-S060 Louse Kill 123.95 Schoharie / 

Schoharie 

I 19 I C N/A 

Pipeline Total Crossing Length 2,953 WATERBODIES ASSOCIATED WITH ACCESS ROADSlBR-1L-S223 PAR21 

UNT to Fly Creek 

27.8 Sanford / 

Broome 

P 0 N/A B(T) 

BR-1L-S224 PAR21 

UNT to Fly Creek 

27.8 Sanford / 

Broome 

E 0 N/A D 

BR-1B-S056A PAR27 

UNT to Oquaga Creek 

33.8 Sanford / 

Broome 

P 0 N/A C(TS) 

BR-1B-S056A PAR27 

UNT to Oquaga Creek 

33.8 Sanford / 

Broome 

P 0 N/A C(TS) 

BR-1B-S073 PAR31 

UNT to Cornell Creek 

40.65 Sanford / 

Broome 

E 0 N/A D 

DE-1C-S186 PAR-36 

Road Ditch 52.1 Masonville / 

Delaware 

E 0 N/A N/A 

DE-XXS54.07 PAR36a 

UNT to Masonville Creek 

54.07 Sidney / 

Delaware 

P 4 MI C(TS) 

DE-1K-S189 PAR37 

UNT to Pond 58.84 Sidney / 

Delaware 

I 0 N/A D 

DE-1J-S226 PAR44 

UNT to Ouleout Creek 

69.98 Franklin / 

Delaware 

I 0 N/A C(TS) 

DE-1J-S226 PAR44 

UNT to Ouleout Creek 

69.98 Franklin / 

Delaware 

I 0 N/A C(TS) 
K2-21 

APPENDIX K-2 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pipeline Facilities - New York 

Waterbody 

IDa

Waterbody 

Name 

Approx 

Milepostb Town / County 

Waterbody 

Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water 

Quality 

Standardf, g

State Fishery 

Construction 

Windowh

DE-1D-S238 PAR45 

UNT to Ouleout Creek 

70.51 Franklin / 

Delaware 

I 0 N/A C(TS) 

DE-1B-S217 PAR46 

UNT to Ouleout Creek 

72.6 Franklin / 

Delaware 

I 8 MI C(TS) 

DE-1Q-S260 PAR54 

UNT to Kortright Creek 

84.3 Davenport / 

Delaware 

I 3 MI D 

SC-1D-S361 PAR66 

UNT to Cobleskill Creek 

103.44 Summit / 

Schoharie 

E 0 N/A D 

SC-1A-S364 PAR73a 

Unnamed Pond 120.56 Schoharie / 

Schoharie 

N/A 0 N/A N/A 

SC-1A-S364 PAR73a 

Unnamed Pond 120.56 Schoharie / 

Schoharie 

N/A 0 N/A N/A 

Access Road Total Crossing Length 15 Total Crossing Length New York 2,968 
K2-22 

APPENDIX K-2 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pipeline Facilities - New York 

Waterbody 

IDa

Waterbody 

Name 

Approx 

Milepostb Town / County 

Waterbody 

Typec

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)d

FERC 

Classe

Water 

Quality 

Standardf, g

State Fishery 

Construction 

Windowh

_____________________ N/A = Not Applicable TBD = To Be Determined UNT = Unnamed tributary a Crossings and lengths for waterbody features with “XX” in identification name taken from National Hydrography Dataset GIS datalayer and es

based on scaled aerial photographs. 

b MP provided for access roads indicate the point at which the access road meets the proposed pipeline. c P = perennial; I = intermittent; POW = open water; E = Ephemeral. d 0.0 = waterbody is not crossed but is in workspace. For minor waterbodies less than 3 feet in width delineated in the survey area and shown a

the Project alignment sheets or where tree canopy cover obscured estimation of the waterbody crossing from scaled aerial photographs, a no

width of three feet was used. 

e MI = Minor (<10 feet); I = Intermediate (>10 - <100 feet); MA = Major (>100 feet). f NY Water Quality Standards Definition: Water quality standards based on the classification and best use of waterbody as determined by NYSD

879, 931). 

g N/A = Not applicable, no state fishery classification; NY Fishery Classifications: T = Trout; TS = Trout Spawning (6 NYCRR 701.25). h Construction Windows for coldwater fisheries are a based on correspondence from P. Desnoyers of NYSDEC to Secretary K. Bose of FERC d

include NYSDEC’s BMPs for Gas Transmission Line Construction Projects (dated May 16, 2013). Section 3.0 includes Stream and Wetland P

Potential timing restrictions reflect dates during which construction activities may occur. Streams with no construction timing restrictions, show

not have timing restrictions for construction based on NYSDEC regulations and consultations. Waterbody-specific assignment of construction consultation with the NYSDEC. 

i I = Wet Open Cut Method; II = Dry Crossing Method, including Flume or Dam and Pump, Cofferdam, or Dry Open Cut for waterbodies that are 

Method III = Conventional Bore; IV = HDD, V = Direct Pipe Method. Intermittent waterbodies containing discernible flow at the time of constru

using a dry crossing method, unless otherwise authorized by applicable regulatory agencies. 

j This feature has been identified both through field delineation (outside of workspace) and as an NHD waterbody (where crossed by the pipelin
APPENDIX L 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project 
 
APPENDIX L-1 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Pennsylvania 

 

L1-1 

APPENDIX L-1 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pennsylvania 

Wetland IDa Milepost Township County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(ft)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH PIPELINE SU-1XW343 0.2 Brooklyn Susquehanna PFO 17 0.09 0.02 SU-1BW226 0.3 Brooklyn Susquehanna PEM 81 0.15 

0.4 Brooklyn Susquehanna PEM 23 0.04 

SU-1CW342 0.4 Brooklyn Susquehanna PEM 0 0.02 SU-1BW227 0.5 Brooklyn Susquehanna PEM 159 0.26 SU-1QW316 0.9 Brooklyn Susquehanna PEM 11 0.02 SU-1BW229 1.1 Brooklyn Susquehanna PSS 70 0.14 0.02 

1.1 Brooklyn Susquehanna PEM, PSS 351 0.04 0.57 

SU-1MW230 1.7 Brooklyn Susquehanna PEM 4 0.07 SU-1CW187 2.1 Brooklyn Susquehanna PEM 116 0.15 

2.2 Brooklyn Susquehanna PEM 38 0.06 

SU-1CW188 2.2 Brooklyn Susquehanna PEM 0 0.01 

2.2 Brooklyn Susquehanna PEM 19 0.03 2.3 Brooklyn Susquehanna PEM 183 0.3 2.3 Brooklyn Susquehanna PEM 201 0.34 

SU-1CW189 2.4 Brooklyn Susquehanna PFO, PSS, PEM 223 0.06 0.16 0.04 0.04 0.03 SU-1CW190 2.4 Brooklyn Susquehanna PEM, PSS 56 0.01 0.1 
L1-2 

APPENDIX L-1 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pennsylvania 

Wetland IDa Milepost Township County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(ft)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

SU-1CW191 2.5 Brooklyn Susquehanna PEM 0 0.01 SU-1BW234 3.3 Harford Susquehanna PEM 79 0.16 SU-1CW351 3.9 Harford Susquehanna PEM 0 0.02 

3.9 Harford Susquehanna PEM 0 0.02 

SU-1MW236 4.2 Harford Susquehanna PSS 0 0.09 0.01 

4.3 Harford Susquehanna PSS 0 0.04 0.01 

SU-1BW237 4.5 New Milford Susquehanna PEM 316 0.49 SU-1BW238 4.5 New Milford Susquehanna PEM 112 0.18 SU-1BW239 4.6 New Milford Susquehanna PEM 89 0.19 SU-1I-W116 4.9 New Milford Susquehanna PEM 0 0.02 SU-1XW132B 5.5 New Milford Susquehanna PFO 0 0.01 

5.5 New Milford Susquehanna PFO, PEM 99 0.02 0.18 0.01 

SU-1FW134 6.5 New Milford Susquehanna PEM 31 0.05 SU-1BW133 6.7 New Milford Susquehanna PSS, PEM 292 0.21 0.31 0.07 SU-1FW135 6.7 New Milford Susquehanna PEM, PSS 357 0.08 0.58 0.01 SU-1FW137 7.3 New Milford Susquehanna PFO 13 0.01 0.01 SU-1BW140 8.4 New Milford Susquehanna PSS 68 0.07 0.02 
L1-3 

APPENDIX L-1 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pennsylvania 

Wetland IDa Milepost Township County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(ft)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

SU-1BW138 8.4 New Milford Susquehanna PEM, PSS 80 0.01 0.14 SU-1FW139 8.7 New Milford Susquehanna PFO 48 0.16 0.04 

8.8 New Milford Susquehanna PFO 0 0.01 

SU-1FW141 8.9 New Milford Susquehanna PEM 371 0.6 

9.0 New Milford Susquehanna PEM 67 0.11 9.1 New Milford Susquehanna PEM 0 0.01 

SU-1CW349 9.2 New Milford Susquehanna PEM 82 0.09 SU-1FW141 9.2 New Milford Susquehanna PEM 91 0.1 SU-1DW245 9.2 New Milford Susquehanna PEM 57 0.11 SU-1DW250 10.0 New Milford Susquehanna PEM 0 0.01 SU-1XW253 10.0 New Milford Susquehanna PEM 64 0.12 SU-1DW254 10.0 New Milford Susquehanna PSS 80 0.13 0.02 

10.1 New Milford Susquehanna PSS 0 0.03 

SU-1XW258 10.2 New Milford Susquehanna PEM, PFO 80 0.18 0.01 0.05 

10.3 New Milford Susquehanna PFO 0 0.01 

SU-1XW259 10.6 New Milford Susquehanna PEM 105 0.14 SU-1BW039 10.8 New Milford Susquehanna PEM 256 0.48 SU-1DW261 10.9 New Milford Susquehanna PEM 364 0.59 
L1-4 

APPENDIX L-1 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pennsylvania 

Wetland IDa Milepost Township County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(ft)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

SU-1GW305 11.0 New Milford Susquehanna PFO 0 0.01 SU-1EW040 11.0 New Milford Susquehanna PFO 86 0.11 0.06 

11.1 New Milford Susquehanna PFO 170 0.27 0.12 11.1 New Milford Susquehanna PFO 6 0.01 0.01 

SU-1DW262 11.3 New Milford Susquehanna PEM 94 0.13 SU-1BW041 11.3 New Milford Susquehanna PFO 0 0.01 SU-1BW045 11.6 New Milford Susquehanna PFO 89 0.15 0.06 

11.7 New Milford Susquehanna PFO 0 0.02 11.7 New Milford Susquehanna PFO 0 0.01 

SU-1BW048 11.9 New Milford Susquehanna PEM 90 0.16 SU-1EW046 11.9 New Milford Susquehanna PEM 191 0.26 SU-1EW070 12.0 New Milford Susquehanna PEM 0 0.01 SU-1GW308 12.7 New Milford Susquehanna PFO 12 0.02 0.01 SU-1GW306 12.7 New Milford Susquehanna PFO 56 0.12 0.05 SU-1L-W307 12.8 New Milford Susquehanna PFO 28 0.03 0.02 SU-1KW278 12.8 New Milford Susquehanna PFO 103 0.18 0.07 

12.9 New Milford Susquehanna PFO 1 0.01 0.01 

SU-1DW326 13.6 Jackson Susquehanna PFO 139 0.23 0.09 
L1-5 

APPENDIX L-1 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pennsylvania 

Wetland IDa Milepost Township County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(ft)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

SU-1DW327 13.8 Jackson Susquehanna PFO 55 0.09 0.03 SU-1GW054 14.2 Jackson Susquehanna PEM 162 0.28 SU-1GW055 14.4 Jackson Susquehanna PFO 34 0.06 0.02 SU-1BW134 14.4 Jackson Susquehanna PEM 56 0.07 

14.4 Jackson Susquehanna PEM 0 0.02 

SU-1KW268 14.6 Jackson Susquehanna PEM 0 0.02 SU-1CW269 14.7 Jackson Susquehanna PEM 286 0.5 SU-1GW058 15.2 Jackson Susquehanna PSS, PEM 0 0.01 0.03 SU-1GW059A 15.2 Jackson Susquehanna PFO 144 0.21 0.03 SU-1KW061 15.5 Jackson Susquehanna PEM 41 SU-1KW062 15.5 Jackson Susquehanna PEM 0 SU-1KW061 15.5 Jackson Susquehanna PEM 11 

15.5 Jackson Susquehanna PEM 0 

SU-1KW064 15.6 Jackson Susquehanna PEM, PSS 34 SU-1GW068 15.8 Jackson Susquehanna PFO 0 0.01 SU-1KW273 16.2 Oakland Susquehanna PFO 0 0.02 0.01 
L1-6 

APPENDIX L-1 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pennsylvania 

Wetland IDa Milepost Township County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(ft)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

SU-1HW161 16.3 Oakland Susquehanna PFO 111 0.17 0.08 SU-1HW164 16.7 Oakland Susquehanna PFO, PEM 223 0.27 0.07 0.14 SU-1QW319 18.7 Harmony Susquehanna PEM 0 0.01 SU-1SW326 18.8 Harmony Susquehanna PSS 0 0.01 

18.8 Harmony Susquehanna PSS 72 0.13 0.02 

SU-1L-W310 18.9 Harmony Susquehanna PSS 73 0.13 0.02 SU-1XW300 19.9 Harmony Susquehanna PSS 144 0.2 0.03 SU-1XW301 20.0 Harmony Susquehanna PFO 0 0.01 

20.0 Harmony Susquehanna PFO 139 0.19 0.09 

SU-1SW303 20.8 Harmony Susquehanna PEM 36 0.05 SU-1SW306 20.8 Harmony Susquehanna PEM 18 0.02 SU-1SW305 20.8 Harmony Susquehanna PFO 0 0.01 SU-1AW348 21.0 Harmony Susquehanna PFO 0 0.01 0.01 SU-1CW347 21.5 Harmony Susquehanna PSS 0 0.03 SU-1CW293 21.6 Harmony Susquehanna PFO 25 0.04 0.02 SU-1XW291 22.5 Harmony Susquehanna PFO 112 0.15 0.08 
L1-7 

APPENDIX L-1 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pennsylvania 

Wetland IDa Milepost Township County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(ft)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

SU-1CW292 22.5 Harmony Susquehanna PFO 34 0.07 0.02 SU-1XW299 22.6 Harmony Susquehanna PFO 32 0.03 0.02 

22.6 Harmony Susquehanna PFO 88 0.2 0.06 22.7 Harmony Susquehanna PFO 0 0.08 

SU-1XW298 22.8 Harmony Susquehanna PEM 61 0.08 SU-1XW296 23.1 Harmony Susquehanna PFO 0 0.02 0.01 SU-1CW294 23.3 Harmony Susquehanna PEM 0 0.01 

23.3 Harmony Susquehanna PEM 22 0.05 

SU-1J-W117 24.3 Harmony Susquehanna PFO 15 0.03 0.01 SU-1PW287 24.3 Harmony Susquehanna PFO 0 0.01 SU-1BW119 24.4 Harmony Susquehanna PFO 0 0.01 SU-1BW120 24.4 Harmony Susquehanna PFO 148 0.23 0.1 SU-1BW121 24.4 Harmony Susquehanna PFO 2 0.01 0.01 SU-1CW171 24.8 Harmony Susquehanna PFO, PSS 414 0.45 0.25 0.2 0.03 SU-1CW170 25.1 Harmony Susquehanna PFO, PEM 452 0.33 0.42 

25.2 Harmony Susquehanna PSS 48 0.09 0.12 0.01 

Pipeline Totals 8,910 4.44 1.86 9.07 1.73 0.3 0 
L1-8 

APPENDIX L-1 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pennsylvania 

Wetland IDa Milepost Township County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(ft)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED CONTRACTOR YARDS N/A Contractor Yard Facilities Totals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH ABOVEGROUND FACILITIES N/A Aboveground Facilities Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH ACCESS ROADS SU-1DW257 TAR8 New Milford Susquehanna PSS 35 0.02 

TAR8 New Milford Susquehanna PSS 0 0.01 

SU-1DW257 TAR8 New Milford Susquehanna PFO 0 0.01 SU-1XW256 TAR8 New Milford Susquehanna PSS 211 0.09 SU-1DW328A PAR10 New Milford Susquehanna PEM 0 0.01 SU-1BW336 PAR14 Oakland Susquehanna PEM 39 0.03 0.01 SU-1GW311 PAR14 Oakland Susquehanna PFO 50 0.03 0.01 SU-1CW271 PAR14 Oakland Susquehanna PFO 132 0.17 0.04 SU-1EW075 PAR15 Harmony Susquehanna PFO 60 0.04 0.01 
L1-9 

APPENDIX L-1 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project - Pennsylvania 

Wetland IDa Milepost Township County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(ft)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

SU-1CW170 TAR1 Harmony Susquehanna PEM, PFO 142 0.01 0.05 Access Roads Total 669 0.26 0.12 0.08 0.06 0 0.02 Pennsylvania Total 9,579 4.7 1.98 9.15 1.79 0.3 0.02 ____________________ N/A: Not Applicable a Crossings and impacts for wetland features with “XX” in identification name taken from NWI GIS datalayer. The Turnpike Road M&R Station s

area, was surveyed in 2013; no wetlands were identified. Wetlands associated with MLVs are included in the corresponding pipeline segment

b Wetland classification according to Cowardin et al. 1979: PEM = Palustrine Emergent Wetland; PSS = Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland; PFO 

Wetland. 

c 0.0 = wetland is not crossed by the pipeline but is in workspace. d Construction Acreage = all workspace during construction activities (temporary plus permanent); Operation Acreage = 10-foot-wide corridor pe

herbaceous vegetated cover through PSS wetlands, and 30-foot-wide corridor permanently maintained through PFO wetlands where trees tal

selectively cut and removed. The permanently maintained corridors represent a change in cover type from PFO to PSS and PEM or PSS to Poperation impact on PEM wetlands, since there would be no change in the pre- and post-construction vegetation cover type. Construction imp

proposed construction footprint surface area and existing land use based on field surveys or desktop analysis, including NWI data, in those ar

been granted to conduct field surveys. Surface area of operational maintenance corridor as described above were used to calculate acres of 

construction wetland vegetation cover type for each wetland included in the table. The right-of-way width at all wetland crossings is 75 feet, ex

described in Table 2.3-8. 

e Pennsylvania classifies wetlands as exceptional value or other per 25 Pa. Code Ch. 105. f Crossing Methods for wetlands are described in Section 2.3.5; I = Standard Crossing; II = Conventional Crossing; III = Push/Pull Crossing; IV 

Horizontal Directional Drill; N/A = Wetland not crossed by pipeline 

APPENDIX L-2 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project - 

New York 

 
   
L2-1 

APPENDIX L-2 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project – New York 

Wetland 

IDa Milepost Town County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

State Wetlan

Classificatio

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH PIPELINE BR-1CW220 26.38 Sanford Broome PFO 1 0.01 0.01 N/A BR-1SW219 26.46 Sanford Broome PFO PSS 289 0.52 0.07 0.14 0.01 N/A BR-1CW217 26.57 Sanford Broome PFO 0 0.05 N/A 

26.63 Sanford Broome PFO 89 0.25 0.06 N/A 

BR-1SW216 26.66 Sanford Broome PFO 21 0.07 0.03 N/A BR-1HW151 26.77 Sanford Broome PEM 29 0.07 N/A BR-XXW27.23 27.23 Sanford Broome PSS 62 0.11 0.01 N/A BR-XXW27.64 27.67 Sanford Broome PSS 258 0.35 0.06 N/A BR-1LW253 28.17 Sanford Broome PEM 22 0.03 N/A BR-1HW211 28.32 Sanford Broome PSS 40 0.08 0.01 N/A BR-1JW210 28.57 Sanford Broome PEM PSS 261 0.01 0.36 N/A 

28.65 Sanford Broome PSS 0 0.01 N/A 28.69 Sanford Broome PSS 43 0.10 0.01 N/A 

BR-1BW048 28.76 Sanford Broome PEM 15 0.02 N/A 

28.79 Sanford Broome PEM 0 0.01 N/A 

BR-1HW206 29.26 Sanford Broome PEM 0 0.01 N/A 
L2-2 

APPENDIX L-2 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project – New York 

Wetland 

IDa Milepost Town County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

State Wetlan

Classificatio

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

BR-1IW052 29.75 Sanford Broome PEM 80 0.16 N/A BR-1IW005 30.30 Sanford Broome PFO 0 0.03 0.01 N/A BR-1IW055 30.39 Sanford Broome PEM 80 0.13 N/A BR-1IW056 30.45 Sanford Broome PEM 24 0.10 N/A BR-1IW054B 30.50 Sanford Broome PEM 68 0.09 N/A BR-1IW054C 30.52 Sanford Broome PEM 30 0.06 N/A BR-1BW057 30.60 Sanford Broome PEM 582 0.84 N/A 

30.68 Sanford Broome PEM 8 0.02 N/A 

BR-1KW172 32.37 Sanford Broome PFO 153 0.26 0.10 N/A BR-1IW059 33.47 Sanford Broome PSS PFO 

PEM 

1,965 0.04 2.58 1.06 0.41 N/A 

33.64 Sanford Broome PEM 0 0.02 N/A 

BR-1IW228 34.32 Sanford Broome PEM 6 0.01 N/A BR-1IW226 34.44 Sanford Broome PSS 40 0.06 0.01 N/A BR-1BW214 34.52 Sanford Broome PEM 19 0.05 N/A BR-1GW229 34.59 Sanford Broome PFO 0 0.01 0.01 N/A BR-1IW230 34.70 Sanford Broome PEM 0 0.01 N/A 
L2-3 

APPENDIX L-2 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project – New York 

Wetland 

IDa Milepost Town County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

State Wetlan

Classificatio

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

BR-1HW156 34.79 Sanford Broome PSS PEM 372 0.22 0.37 0.03 N/A 

34.95 Sanford Broome PSS 413 0.55 0.09 N/A 

BR-1KW161 35.17 Sanford Broome PSS 13 0.02 0.01 N/A BR-1KW162 35.23 Sanford Broome PEM 12 0.02 N/A BR-1UW165 35.30 Sanford Broome PEM 15 0.03 N/A BR-1UW168 35.53 Sanford Broome PSS 8 0.02 0.01 N/A BR-1IW062 35.83 Sanford Broome PSS PEM 256 0.33 0.12 0.04 N/A BR-1BW064 35.89 Sanford Broome PEM 133 0.23 N/A 

36.01 Sanford Broome PSS 0 0.01 N/A 36.07 Sanford Broome PSS 24 0.07 0.01 N/A 

BR-1BW066 36.21 Sanford Broome PSS PFO 243 0.23 0.18 0.07 0.03 N/A BR-1HW174 36.53 Sanford Broome PFO PSS 19 0.05 0.02 0.01 NS-1, Class BR-1IW070 37.78 Sanford Broome PSS 246 0.39 0.06 N/A BR-1BW074 37.96 Sanford Broome PEM 15 0.03 N/A BR-1IW073 38.01 Sanford Broome PFO PSS 263 0.20 0.20 0.08 0.03 N/A BR-1CW075 38.10 Sanford Broome PSS PFO 15 0.03 0.01 0.01 N/A 

38.16 Sanford Broome PFO 83 0.15 0.06 N/A 38.18 Sanford Broome PFO 14 0.03 0.01 N/A 
L2-4 

APPENDIX L-2 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project – New York 

Wetland 

IDa Milepost Town County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

State Wetlan

Classificatio

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

BR-1BW076 38.27 Sanford Broome PEM 0 0.01 N/A BR-1BW077 38.28 Sanford Broome PFO 18 0.03 0.01 N/A BR-1BW078 38.35 Sanford Broome PEM 27 0.04 N/A BR-1BW079 38.40 Sanford Broome PEM 25 0.04 N/A 

38.53 Sanford Broome PEM 

PFO 

673 0.11 1.14 0.02 N/A 

BR-1HW240 38.59 Sanford Broome PSS PFO 178 0.27 0.01 0.12 N/A 

38.66 Sanford Broome PFO 91 0.19 0.06 N/A 38.69 Sanford Broome PFO 0 0.01 N/A 38.69 Sanford Broome PFO 19 0.04 0.01 N/A 

BR-1HW243 38.74 Sanford Broome PFO PSS 78 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.01 N/A BR-1HW242 38.81 Sanford Broome PSS 24 0.14 0.01 N/A BR-1QW241 38.88 Sanford Broome PFO 0 0.01 N/A BR-1CW180 38.99 Sanford Broome PFO PEM 435 0.66 0.10 0.28 N/A 

39.08 Sanford Broome PEM 0 0.01 N/A 

BR-1CW182 39.14 Sanford Broome PEM 50 0.08 N/A BR-1CW251 39.62 Sanford Broome PFO 1 0.02 0.01 N/A BR-1TW160C 40.37 Sanford Broome PEM 104 0.12 N/A 

40.45 Sanford Broome PEM 0 0.01 N/A 
L2-5 

APPENDIX L-2 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project – New York 

Wetland 

IDa Milepost Town County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

State Wetlan

Classificatio

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

BR-1CW081 40.49 Sanford Broome PEM 0 0.03 N/A 

40.52 Sanford Broome PFO 

PSS 

57 0.13 0.01 0.04 N/A 

40.54 Sanford Broome PEM 0 0.01 N/A 40.55 Sanford Broome PFO 14 0.03 0.01 N/A 

BR-1BW083 40.79 Sanford Broome PEM 182 0.46 N/A BR-1IW233 40.98 Sanford Broome PEM PFO 367 0.01 0.62 0.01 N/A 

41.10 Sanford Broome PFO 261 0.41 0.18 N/A 41.17 Sanford Broome PFO 0 0.01 N/A 

BR-1GW234 41.21 Sanford Broome PFO 0 0.01 N/A BR-1IW236 41.27 Sanford Broome PFO 15 0.04 0.01 N/A BR-1CW184 41.36 Sanford Broome PFO 0 0.01 0.01 N/A 

41.38 Sanford Broome PFO 

PSS 

108 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.01 N/A 

BR-1XW179 41.43 Sanford Broome PEM 15 0.03 N/A BR-1XW192 41.60 Sanford Broome PFO PSS 581 0.51 0.57 0.17 0.08 N/A BR-1CW215 41.77 Sanford Broome PEM PFO 61 0.20 0.02 0.05 N/A 

41.84 Sanford Broome PEM 

PFO 

78 0.11 0.01 0.05 N/A 

41.87 Sanford Broome PEM 0 0.03 N/A 41.87 Sanford Broome PFO 0 0.01 N/A 
L2-6 

APPENDIX L-2 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project – New York 

Wetland 

IDa Milepost Town County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

State Wetlan

Classificatio

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

BR-1LW250 42.17 Sanford Broome PEM 115 0.20 N/A CH-1AW064 42.26 Afton Chenango PFO 0 0.01 N/A CH-1HW021 42.41 Afton Chenango PSS 68 0.12 0.02 N/A CH-1GW062 42.54 Afton Chenango PSS 51 0.08 0.01 N/A CH-1HW022 42.65 Afton Chenango PSS 17 0.06 0.01 N/A 

42.68 Afton Chenango PEM 0 0.01 N/A 

CH-1HW023 42.73 Afton Chenango PFO 59 0.07 0.04 N/A CH-1CW075 43.50 Afton Chenango PEM 457 0.77 N/A CH-1JW045B 43.65 Afton Chenango PSS PFO 559 0.87 0.17 0.34 0.02 N/A CH-1GW045C 43.77 Afton Chenango PFO 253 0.50 0.17 N/A CH-1CW014 44.66 Afton Chenango PFO 0 0.01 0.01 N/A CH-1AW056 45.09 Afton Chenango PFO PSS 393 0.10 0.57 0.03 0.08 N/A CH-1CW073 45.27 Afton Chenango PFO 0 0.01 N/A CH-1XW072 45.72 Afton Chenango PFO 0 0.09 0.01 N/A CH-1XW071 45.95 Afton Chenango PEM 0 0.01 N/A 

46.00 Afton Chenango PEM 78 0.13 N/A 46.05 Afton Chenango PEM 0 0.01 N/A 46.07 Afton Chenango PEM 19 0.06 N/A 
L2-7 

APPENDIX L-2 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project – New York 

Wetland 

IDa Milepost Town County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

State Wetlan

Classificatio

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

CH-1XW069 46.27 Afton Chenango PEM 0 0.06 N/A CH-1XW067 46.28 Afton Chenango PSS 20 0.01 0.01 N/A CH-1XW066 46.38 Afton Chenango PEM 83 0.13 N/A CH-1QW038 46.57 Afton Chenango PFO 0 0.04 N/A CH-1CW039 46.59 Afton Chenango PFO 0 0.01 N/A CH-1CW041 46.62 Afton Chenango PFO 0 0.01 N/A CH-1QW040 46.68 Afton Chenango PFO 63 0.10 0.04 N/A CH-1CW043 46.79 Afton Chenango PFO 22 0.08 0.02 N/A CH-1CW017 47.30 Afton Chenango PEM 0 0.06 N/A CH-1CW018 47.41 Afton Chenango PEM 50 0.08 N/A 

47.43 Afton Chenango PEM 55 0.09 N/A 47.48 Afton Chenango PEM 238 0.32 N/A 

CH-1AW063 47.81 Bainbridge Chenango PFO 17 0.02 N/A CH-1HW025 48.01 Bainbridge Chenango PEM 9 0.01 N/A CH-1BW026 48.22 Bainbridge Chenango PSS PFO 102 0.17 0.03 0.06 0.01 N/A 

48.31 Bainbridge Chenango PEM 0 0.01 N/A 

CH-1BW028 48.33 Bainbridge Chenango PFO 12 0.03 0.01 N/A 

48.36 Bainbridge Chenango PFO 79 0.20 0.05 N/A 
L2-8 

APPENDIX L-2 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project – New York 

Wetland 

IDa Milepost Town County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

State Wetlan

Classificatio

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

CH-1BW027 48.68 Bainbridge Chenango PFO 54 0.11 0.04 N/A 

48.71 Bainbridge Chenango PFO 0 0.01 0.01 N/A 

CH-1XW034 49.18 Bainbridge Chenango PFO 81 0.12 0.06 N/A 

49.28 Bainbridge Chenango PFO 0 0.01 N/A 49.32 Bainbridge Chenango PFO 15 0.01 0.01 N/A 

CH-1CW051 49.60 Bainbridge Chenango PFO 0 0.01 N/A 

49.62 Bainbridge Chenango PFO 0 0.04 N/A 49.67 Bainbridge Chenango PFO 317 0.48 0.20 N/A 

CH-1SW052 49.94 Bainbridge Chenango PFO 1,169 2.00 0.80 N/A CH-1AW047 50.09 Bainbridge Chenango PEM 148 0.25 N/A 

50.14 Bainbridge Chenango PEM 0 0.01 N/A 

CH-1AW048 50.16 Bainbridge Chenango PEM 0 0.01 N/A CH-1AW049 50.22 Bainbridge Chenango PFO 71 0.10 0.05 N/A CH-1AW050 50.49 Bainbridge Chenango PFO 289 0.50 0.20 N/A DE-1BW025 50.53 Masonville Delaware PFO 6 0.01 0.01 N/A 

50.56 Masonville Delaware PFO 105 0.18 0.07 N/A 

DE-1HW026 50.86 Masonville Delaware PEM 0 0.02 N/A DE-1BW027 50.95 Masonville Delaware PFO 100 0.25 0.08 N/A DE-1HW028 51.00 Masonville Delaware PFO 48 0.10 0.03 N/A 

51.02 Masonville Delaware PFO 

PEM 

45 0.02 0.02 0.02 N/A 
L2-9 

APPENDIX L-2 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project – New York 

Wetland 

IDa Milepost Town County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

State Wetlan

Classificatio

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

DE-1HW030 51.12 Masonville Delaware PFO 223 0.34 0.16 SD-3, Class DE-1BW032 51.57 Masonville Delaware PFO 0 0.03 N/A DE-1HW034 51.57 Masonville Delaware PFO 0 0.02 0.01 N/A DE-1BW033 51.60 Masonville Delaware PFO 0 0.01 N/A DE-1KW227 52.19 Masonville Delaware PSS 218 0.45 0.05 N/A DE-1HW035 52.26 Sidney Delaware PEM 39 0.04 N/A DE-1BW037 52.35 Sidney Delaware PFO 0 0.01 N/A DE-1BW046 53.89 Sidney Delaware PFO 60 0.11 0.04 N/A 

53.92 Sidney Delaware PFO 

PEM 

0 0.01 N/A 

DE-1XW158 54.32 Sidney Delaware PFO 0 N/A 

54.38 Sidney Delaware PFO 

PEM 

427 N/A 

54.47 Sidney Delaware PEM 

PFO 

189 N/A 

54.55 Sidney Delaware PEM 

PFO 

1387 N/A 

DE-1FW075 55.09 Sidney Delaware PFO 164 N/A 

55.13 Sidney Delaware PFO 28 N/A 55.18 Sidney Delaware PEM 

PFO 

0 0.01 0.03 N/A 

DE-1KW228 55.25 Sidney Delaware PEM 16 0.03 N/A 
L2-10 

APPENDIX L-2 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project – New York 

Wetland 

IDa Milepost Town County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

State Wetlan

Classificatio

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

DE-1CW229 55.60 Sidney Delaware PEM 0 0.01 N/A DE-1MW079 55.78 Sidney Delaware PEM 14 0.04 N/A 

55.82 Sidney Delaware PEM 74 0.14 N/A 

DE-1MW080 55.86 Sidney Delaware PEM 132 0.16 N/A 

55.90 Sidney Delaware PEM 38 0.07 N/A 

DE-1DW215 56.25 Sidney Delaware PEM 54 0.05 N/A DE-1CW214 56.31 Sidney Delaware PSS 0 0.02 N/A DE-XXW56.74 56.74 Sidney Delaware PSS 33 0.04 0.01 N/A DE-1YW085 56.99 Sidney Delaware PEM PFO 351 0.13 0.37 0.06 N/A DE-1MW088 57.12 Sidney Delaware PEM 8 0.07 N/A DE-1CW211 57.86 Sidney Delaware PFO PSS 555 0.45 0.49 0.19 0.07 N/A 

57.98 Sidney Delaware PFO 

PSS 

536 0.08 0.77 0.05 0.10 N/A 

58.09 Sidney Delaware PSS 213 0.36 0.05 N/A 

DE-1CW223 58.29 Sidney Delaware PEM PSS 395 0.21 0.40 0.03 N/A DE-1KW232 58.37 Sidney Delaware PFO 0 0.03 N/A 

58.42 Sidney Delaware PFO 0 0.04 0.01 N/A 

DE-1KW233 58.47 Sidney Delaware PSS PFO 536 0.82 0.22 0.28 0.03 N/A 

58.68 Sidney Delaware PFO 

PSS 

123 0.17 0.06 0.06 0.01 N/A 
L2-11 

APPENDIX L-2 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project – New York 

Wetland 

IDa Milepost Town County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

State Wetlan

Classificatio

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

DE-1CW234 58.77 Sidney Delaware PFO 86 0.19 0.06 N/A DE-1MW094 59.48 Sidney Delaware PSS 218 0.33 0.05 N/A DE-1MW095 59.55 Sidney Delaware PSS 0 0.01 N/A 

59.58 Sidney Delaware PSS 0 0.01 N/A 

DE-1MW096 59.58 Sidney Delaware PSS 0 0.01 N/A 

59.61 Sidney Delaware PSS 0 0.01 N/A 

DE-1NW101 59.73 Sidney Delaware PEM 129 0.39 N/A DE-1CW205 60.30 Sidney Delaware PSS 120 0.19 0.03 N/A DE-1WW132 60.46 Sidney Delaware PEM 0 0.01 N/A 

60.48 Sidney Delaware PEM 0 0.01 N/A 

DE-1PW133 60.57 Sidney Delaware PEM 62 0.10 N/A DE-1PW134 60.72 Sidney Delaware PEM 39 0.07 N/A DE-1WW136 61.13 Sidney Delaware PEM 57 0.07 N/A DE-1QW110 61.33 Sidney Delaware PFO PSS 343 0.01 0.54 0.08 N/A DE-1CW335 61.43 Sidney Delaware PSS 0 0.01 N/A DE-1SW255 63.11 Sidney Delaware PEM 346 0.55 N/A DE-1XW285 63.72 Sidney Delaware PFO 150 0.29 0.11 N/A 
L2-12 

APPENDIX L-2 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project – New York 

Wetland 

IDa Milepost Town County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

State Wetlan

Classificatio

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

DE-1DW284 63.90 Sidney Delaware PFO 0 0.01 N/A 

63.93 Sidney Delaware PFO 3 0.03 0.01 N/A 

DE-1DW283 64.06 Sidney Delaware PFO 202 0.25 0.12 N/A DE-1AW281A 64.98 Franklin Delaware PSS 0 0.01 N/A DE-1SW021 65.20 Franklin Delaware PEM 67 0.12 N/A DE-1MW175 66.25 Franklin Delaware PEM PFO 576 0.61 0.33 0.26 N/A DE-1XW282 67.70 Franklin Delaware PFO 0 0.06 N/A DE-1CW332 69.43 Franklin Delaware PEM 0 0.01 N/A DE-1PW067 70.89 Franklin Delaware PSS 51 0.08 0.01 N/A DE-1WW069 70.91 Franklin Delaware PSS 12 0.02 0.01 N/A DE-1WW065 70.95 Franklin Delaware PSS 48 0.08 0.01 N/A 

70.96 Franklin Delaware PSS 0 0.01 N/A 

DE-1PW071 71.36 Franklin Delaware PFO 0 0.01 N/A DE-1WW073 71.83 Franklin Delaware PEM PFO 697 1.10 0.04 0.45 N/A DE-1PW074 73.36 Franklin Delaware PSS 221 0.32 0.05 ON-4, Class DE-1WW075 73.41 Franklin Delaware PEM 54 0.05 N/A DE-1WW125 73.48 Franklin Delaware PFO 398 0.76 0.27 ON-4, Class 
L2-13 

APPENDIX L-2 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project – New York 

Wetland 

IDa Milepost Town County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

State Wetlan

Classificatio

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

DE-1WW126 74.29 Davenport Delaware PFO 103 0.15 0.07 N/A DE-1CW331 75.31 Davenport Delaware PEM 25 0.04 N/A DE-1MW154 76.89 Davenport Delaware PFO 145 0.22 0.10 N/A DE-1BW327 78.06 Davenport Delaware PFO, PEM 139 0.13 0.09 0.06 N/A 

78.09 Davenport Delaware PFO 0 0.02 0.01 N/A 

DE-1GW248 78.21 Davenport Delaware PFO 22 0.03 0.02 N/A DE-1LW250 78.62 Davenport Delaware PSS 511 0.84 0.12 N/A 

78.65 Davenport Delaware PSS 201 0.37 0.05 N/A 78.72 Davenport Delaware PSS 23 0.05 0.01 N/A 

DE-1GW251 78.73 Davenport Delaware PSS 0 0.01 N/A DE-1LW252 78.77 Davenport Delaware PSS 0 0.01 N/A DE-1LW304 79.06 Davenport Delaware PFO 38 0.03 0.02 N/A DE-1LW303 79.09 Davenport Delaware PFO 110 0.18 0.07 N/A DE-1LW305 79.12 Davenport Delaware PFO 0 0.01 N/A DE-1LW306 79.16 Davenport Delaware PFO 0 0.01 0.01 N/A DE-1MW148 79.82 Davenport Delaware PEM 104 0.13 N/A DE-1PW149 79.89 Davenport Delaware PEM 0 0.05 N/A 
L2-14 

APPENDIX L-2 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project – New York 

Wetland 

IDa Milepost Town County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

State Wetlan

Classificatio

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

DE-1MW150 79.98 Davenport Delaware PEM 12 0.02 N/A 

80.00 Davenport Delaware PEM 24 0.02 N/A 

DE-1MW151 80.25 Davenport Delaware PFO 73 0.17 0.05 N/A 

80.30 Davenport Delaware PFO 33 0.04 0.02 N/A 80.36 Davenport Delaware PFO 201 0.41 0.14 N/A 

DE-1QW180 80.60 Davenport Delaware PFO 286 0.49 0.20 N/A DE-1QW181 80.83 Davenport Delaware PFO 189 0.29 0.13 N/A DE-1IW245 82.00 Davenport Delaware PFO 0 0.01 N/A 

82.04 Davenport Delaware PFO 139 0.23 0.09 N/A 

DE-1BW336 83.19 Davenport Delaware PFO 37 0.06 0.02 N/A DE-1BW337 83.36 Davenport Delaware PFO 47 0.13 0.03 N/A 

83.43 Davenport Delaware PFO 79 0.12 0.06 N/A 

DE-1NW006 83.94 Davenport Delaware PFO 134 0.16 0.09 N/A DE-1GW008 85.22 Davenport Delaware PFO 0 0.04 N/A DE-XXW85.72 85.72 Davenport Delaware PFO 106 D-11, Class DE-1NW156A 85.87 Davenport Delaware PFO 319 D-11, Class DE-1LW301 86.09 Davenport Delaware PFO 12 0.02 0.01 N/A DE-1LW300 86.13 Davenport Delaware PFO 0 0.01 N/A 

86.17 Davenport Delaware PFO 369 0.59 0.25 N/A 
L2-15 

APPENDIX L-2 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project – New York 

Wetland 

IDa Milepost Town County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

State Wetlan

Classificatio

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

DE-1CW215 87.07 Davenport Delaware PFO 0 0.01 D-13, Class 

87.08 Davenport Delaware PFO 0 0.02 0.01 N/A 

DE-1QW216 87.10 Davenport Delaware PFO 0 0.01 0.01 N/A 

87.11 Davenport Delaware PFO 0 0.01 N/A 

DE-1CW217 87.13 Davenport Delaware PFO 22 0.04 0.01 D-13, Class DE-1CW050A 87.77 Davenport Delaware PSS 0 N/A DE-1PW050 87.80 Davenport Delaware PEM 0 N/A DE-1PW052 87.82 Davenport Delaware PSS 266 0.06 N/A 

87.88 Davenport Delaware PFO 0 N/A 

DE-1TW053 87.94 Davenport Delaware PEM 45 0.01 N/A 

87.98 Davenport Delaware PEM 40 0.01 N/A 

DE-1TW055 88.04 Davenport Delaware PSS 205 N/A DE-1TW060 89.92 Harpersfield Delaware PSS 812 1.38 0.19 N/A 

90.07 Harpersfield Delaware PSS 220 0.36 0.05 N/A 

DE-1QW212 90.21 Harpersfield Delaware PEM 0 0.01 N/A DE-1PW128 90.23 Harpersfield Delaware PEM 9 0.01 D-8, Class 

90.32 Harpersfield Delaware PEM 894 1.41 N/A 90.59 Harpersfield Delaware PFO 330 0.57 0.23 N/A 90.69 Harpersfield Delaware PFO 229 0.42 0.16 N/A 

DE-1GW017 92.10 Harpersfield Delaware PFO 53 0.11 0.04 N/A DE-1NW012 92.37 Harpersfield Delaware PSS PFO 242 0.01 0.39 0.01 0.05 N/A 
L2-16 

APPENDIX L-2 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project – New York 

Wetland 

IDa Milepost Town County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

State Wetlan

Classificatio

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

DE-1PW258A 92.87 Harpersfield Delaware PEM 0 0.01 N/A DE-1GW143 93.38 Harpersfield Delaware PSS PFO 367 0.32 0.26 0.15 0.04 N/A DE-1QW142 93.47 Harpersfield Delaware PFO 86 0.19 0.06 N/A SC-1SW402 93.86 Summit Schoharie PSS 98 0.17 0.02 N/A SC-1FW003 94.60 Summit Schoharie PSS 16 0.03 0.01 N/A SC-1NW001 94.68 Summit Schoharie PSS 321 0.53 0.07 N/A SC-1YW436 94.89 Summit Schoharie PEM 0 0.01 N/A SC-1YW437 94.96 Summit Schoharie PEM 88 0.14 N/A SC-1HW257 95.19 Summit Schoharie PFO 260 0.44 0.18 N/A SC-1QW377 95.37 Summit Schoharie PEM 25 0.05 N/A SC-1HW257 95.47 Summit Schoharie PFO 61 0.16 0.05 N/A SC-1XW256 95.60 Summit Schoharie PFO PSS 480 0.01 0.86 0.11 N/A SC-1XW256 95.76 Summit Schoharie PSS 371 0.76 0.09 N/A SC-1QW374 96.04 Jefferson Schoharie PSS 53 0.08 0.01 N/A SC-1CW373 96.36 Jefferson Schoharie PEM 0 0.01 N/A 

96.38 Jefferson Schoharie PEM 0 0.01 N/A 
L2-17 

APPENDIX L-2 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project – New York 

Wetland 

IDa Milepost Town County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

State Wetlan

Classificatio

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

SC-1HW253 96.94 Summit Schoharie PEM 0 0.02 N/A 

97.06 Jefferson Schoharie PFO 210 0.36 0.14 N/A 

SC-1CW411 97.34 Jefferson Schoharie PEM 191 0.31 N/A SC-1GW443 97.42 Jefferson Schoharie PEM 203 0.31 N/A SC-1KW417 97.62 Jefferson Schoharie PEM 91 0.17 N/A SC-1LW427 98.61 Jefferson Schoharie PFO 25 0.03 0.02 N/A SC-1PW133 100.96 Summit Schoharie PSS 380 0.66 0.09 N/A SC-1PW135 101.07 Summit Schoharie PEM PSS 400 0.04 0.64 N/A SC-XXW101.42 101.42 Summit Schoharie PSS 0 0.01 0.01 N/A SC-1AW422 101.45 Summit Schoharie PFO PEM 0 0.03 0.16 N/A SC-1AW421 101.56 Summit Schoharie PEM PSS 32 0.01 0.05 N/A SC-1GW200 101.61 Summit Schoharie PEM PFO 139 0.08 0.11 0.05 N/A SC-1EW100 101.70 Summit Schoharie PFO 260 0.41 0.17 N/A SC-1EW103 101.74 Summit Schoharie PFO 8 0.01 0.01 N/A SC-1EW105 102.08 Summit Schoharie PFO 339 0.58 0.23 N/A SC-1RW111 102.56 Summit Schoharie PEM PFO 43 0.04 0.02 0.02 N/A 
L2-18 

APPENDIX L-2 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project – New York 

Wetland 

IDa Milepost Town County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

State Wetlan

Classificatio

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

SC-1EW112 102.91 Summit Schoharie PFO 0 0.05 N/A 

102.97 Summit Schoharie PFO 315 0.53 0.22 N/A 

SC-1MW233 103.47 Summit Schoharie PFO 90 0.19 0.06 N/A SC-1MW181 104.14 Summit Schoharie PFO PEM 329 0.11 0.38 0.04 N/A SC-1MW184 104.33 Summit Schoharie PEM 0 0.01 N/A SC-1MW188 104.40 Summit Schoharie PEM 0 0.01 N/A SC-1IW434 104.42 Summit Schoharie PEM 38 0.03 N/A SC-1PW056 104.54 Summit Schoharie PEM PFO 70 0.01 0.14 N/A SC-1NW055 104.66 Summit Schoharie PSS 315 0.50 0.07 N/A 

104.72 Summit Schoharie PEM 110 0.09 N/A 

SC-1BW458 105.25 Richmondville Schoharie PFO 0 0.01 N/A 

105.27 Richmondville Schoharie PFO 0 0.01 0.01 N/A 

SC-1GW340 105.57 Richmondville Schoharie PEM 243 0.36 N/A SC-1GW339 105.72 Richmondville Schoharie PEM 22 0.03 N/A SC-1LW304 105.74 Richmondville Schoharie PEM 0 0.02 N/A SC-1LW303 105.77 Richmondville Schoharie PEM 50 0.08 N/A SC-1LW300 105.93 Richmondville Schoharie PEM PFO 858 0.12 1.32 0.07 N/A 
L2-19 

APPENDIX L-2 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project – New York 

Wetland 

IDa Milepost Town County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

State Wetlan

Classificatio

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

SC-1JW385 106.36 Richmondville Schoharie PEM 0 0.02 N/A 

106.38 Richmondville Schoharie PEM 0 0.01 N/A 

SC-1LW352 106.56 Richmondville Schoharie PEM 36 0.04 N/A SC-1QW354 106.70 Richmondville Schoharie PFO 221 0.23 0.15 N/A SC-1LW356 107.01 Richmondville Schoharie PSS PEM 583 0.34 0.69 0.04 N/A SC-1DW295 107.18 Richmondville Schoharie PSS 173 0.28 0.04 N/A SC-1DW296 107.47 Richmondville Schoharie PFO PSS 150 0.17 0.11 0.06 0.02 N/A SC-1IW397 107.66 Richmondville Schoharie PFO 0 0.01 N/A SC-1JW396 107.85 Richmondville Schoharie PFO 0 0.01 N/A SC-1IW395 107.99 Richmondville Schoharie PEM 0 0.01 N/A SC-1IW387 108.12 Richmondville Schoharie PSS 40 0.05 0.01 N/A SC-1QW359 108.50 Richmondville Schoharie PFO 68 0.07 0.04 N/A SC-1CW360 108.61 Richmondville Schoharie PEM 68 0.14 N/A SC-1CW361 108.81 Richmondville Schoharie PEM 0 0.01 N/A SC-1CW366 109.13 Richmondville Schoharie PEM 0 0.01 N/A SC-1CW370 109.19 Richmondville Schoharie PEM 145 0.21 N/A 
L2-20 

APPENDIX L-2 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project – New York 

Wetland 

IDa Milepost Town County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

State Wetlan

Classificatio

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

SC-1QW363 109.51 Richmondville Schoharie PEM, PFO 248 0.38 0.05 0.15 N/A SC-1QW365 109.72 Richmondville Schoharie PFO PEM 278 0.41 0.02 0.19 N/A SC-1QW367 109.92 Richmondville Schoharie PFO, PEM 240 0.11 0.27 N/A SC-1LW307 110.15 Cobleskill Schoharie PSS 384 0.69 0.09 N/A SC-1LW308 110.30 Cobleskill Schoharie PSS 186 0.30 0.04 N/A SC-1CW315 110.38 Cobleskill Schoharie PFO 203 0.35 0.16 N/A 

110.51 Cobleskill Schoharie PEM 0 0.01 N/A 

SC-1CW419 110.57 Cobleskill Schoharie PSS 10 0.01 0.01 N/A SC-1BW455 110.75 Cobleskill Schoharie PSS 19 0.02 0.01 N/A SC-1CW418 110.80 Cobleskill Schoharie PFO 0 0.01 N/A SC-1CW420 110.93 Cobleskill Schoharie PSS 0 0.04 N/A SC-1GW441 111.27 Cobleskill Schoharie PFO 0 0.01 0.01 N/A SC-1LW215 111.50 Cobleskill Schoharie PSS PEM 325 0.36 0.19 0.05 N/A 

111.65 Cobleskill Schoharie PEM 318 0.56 N/A 

SC-1QW216 111.97 Cobleskill Schoharie PFO 50 0.11 0.03 N/A SC-1LW213 112.03 Cobleskill Schoharie PFO 151 0.32 0.10 N/A SC-1MW071 113.37 Middleburgh Schoharie PSS, PEM 1,273 0.39 1.79 0.05 CO-25, Class 
L2-21 

APPENDIX L-2 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project – New York 

Wetland 

IDa Milepost Town County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

State Wetlan

Classificatio

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

SC-1MW067 113.74 Middleburgh Schoharie PSS 384 0.64 0.09 CO-25, Class SC-1MW058 114.69 Middleburgh Schoharie PEM 205 0.41 N/A SC-1NW063 115.47 Middleburgh Schoharie PEM 0 0.01 N/A 

115.49 Middleburgh Schoharie PEM 0 0.05 N/A 

SC-1QW334 117.45 Schoharie Schoharie PSS 140 0.23 0.03 N/A 

117.54 Schoharie Schoharie PSS 41 0.11 0.01 N/A 117.58 Schoharie Schoharie PSS 0 0.04 N/A 

SC-1QW156 118.40 Schoharie Schoharie PSS, PEM 0 0.03 0.05 N/A SC-1QW164 119.42 Schoharie Schoharie PSS 221 0.36 0.05 N/A SC-1IW399 119.67 Schoharie Schoharie PEM 0 0.04 N/A SC-1QW380 119.92 Schoharie Schoharie PEM 154 0.26 N/A SC-1AW382A 119.97 Schoharie Schoharie PEM 0 0.01 N/A SC-1AW382B 120.02 Schoharie Schoharie PEM 7 0.02 N/A 

120.04 Schoharie Schoharie PEM 0 0.01 N/A 

SC-1CW457 120.06 Schoharie Schoharie PEM 14 0.02 N/A SC-1AW292A 120.09 Schoharie Schoharie PEM 12 0.01 N/A SC-1AW292I 120.20 Schoharie Schoharie PEM 86 0.16 N/A SC-1AW292J 120.26 Schoharie Schoharie PEM 0 0.01 N/A 
L2-22 

APPENDIX L-2 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project – New York 

Wetland 

IDa Milepost Town County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

State Wetlan

Classificatio

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

SC-1AW292G 120.32 Schoharie Schoharie PSS 49 0.11 0.01 N/A SC-1UW292F 120.46 Schoharie Schoharie PSS 0 0.01 N/A SC-1DW292 120.48 Schoharie Schoharie PSS 47 0.08 0.01 N/A 

120.52 Schoharie Schoharie PSS 0 0.01 0.01 N/A 120.53 Schoharie Schoharie PSS 13 0.03 0.01 N/A 120.54 Schoharie Schoharie PSS 0 0.01 N/A 120.56 Schoharie Schoharie PSS 0 0.01 N/A 

SC-1CW313 120.60 Schoharie Schoharie PEM 211 0.37 N/A SC-1CW314 120.65 Schoharie Schoharie PEM 26 0.06 N/A SC-1GW160 120.95 Schoharie Schoharie PSS 10 0.05 0.01 N/A SC-1LW167 123.10 Schoharie Schoharie PEM 603 1.04 N/A 

123.17 Schoharie Schoharie PEM 0 0.01 N/A 

Pipeline Totals 45,977 27.65 22.96 24.90 10.49 3.27 0.00 

WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED CONTRACTOR YARDS N/A 

Contractor Yard Facilities Totals 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH ABOVEGROUND FACILITIES N/A 

Aboveground Facilities Total 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 
L2-23 

APPENDIX L-2 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project – New York 

Wetland 

IDa Milepost Town County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

State Wetlan

Classificatio

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH ACCESS ROADSg CH-1QW065 PAR34 Afton Chenango PSS 8 0.01 0.01 N/A DE-1CW226 PAR36 Masonville Delaware PEM 0 N/A DE-1CW224 PAR36 Masonville Delaware PEM 0 0.01 N/A DE-1CW203 PAR37 Sidney Delaware PEM 0 0.01 N/A DE-1CW204 PAR38 Sidney Delaware PEM 0 N/A DE-1XW285 PAR40 Sidney Delaware PFO 423 0.17 0.12 N/A DE-1BW267 PAR43 Franklin Delaware PEM 0 0.01 N/A DE-1CW288 PAR45 Franklin Delaware PEM 80 0.03 0.02 N/A DE-1HW268 PAR46 Franklin Delaware PEM 0 0.01 ON-2, Class 

PAR46 Franklin Delaware PSS 0 0.01 ON-2, Class 

DE-1LW261A PAR54 Davenport Delaware PFO 289 0.16 0.08 N/A 

PAR54 Davenport Delaware PFO 57 0.02 0.02 N/A 

Access Roads Total 857 0.35 0.02 0.07 0.22 0.01 0.02 

New York Total 46,834 28.00 22.98 24.97 10.71 3.28 0.02 
L2-24 

APPENDIX L-2 (continued) 

Wetlands Associated with the Constitution Pipeline Project – New York 

Wetland 

IDa Milepost Town County 

Wetland 

Classb

Crossing 

Length 

(feet)c

Wetland Impact (acres)d

State Wetlan

Classificatio

Construction Operation 

PFO PSS PEM PFO PSS PEM 

____________________ N/A = Not Applicable – for wetland class with N/A it indicates that the wetland is not classified by the NYSDEC. a Crossings and impacts for wetland features with “XX” in identification name taken from NWI GIS datalayer. No wetlands were identified in the We

during field surveys in 2012, including the pig receiver area. Wetlands associated with MLVs are included in the corresponding pipeline segment

b Wetland classification according to Cowardin et al. 1979: PEM = Palustrine Emergent Wetland; PSS = Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland; PFO = Pc 0.0 ft Crossing Length = wetland is not crossed by the pipeline but is within the workspace. d Construction Acreage = all workspace during construction activities (temporary plus permanent); Operation Acreage = 10-foot-wide corridor perm

herbaceous vegetated cover through PSS wetlands, and 30-foot-wide corridor permanently maintained through PFO wetlands where trees taller t

cut and removed. The permanently maintained corridors represent a change in cover type from PFO to PSS and PEM or PSS to PEM; there wou

PEM wetlands, since there would be no change in the pre- and post-construction vegetation cover type. Construction impacts were calculated us

footprint surface area and existing land use based on field surveys or desktop analysis, including NWI data, in those areas where permission has field surveys. Surface area of operational maintenance corridor as described above were used to calculate acres of operation impact on each pre

vegetation cover type for each wetland included in the table. The right-of-way width at all wetland crossings is 75 feet, except for those wetlands 

e New York classifies wetlands as Class I, II, III, IV (6 NYCRR Chapter X Part 664). Classification descriptions are provided above in Section 2.3.1f Crossing Methods for wetlands are described in Section 2.3.5; I = Standard Crossing; II = Conventional Crossing; III = Push/Pull Crossing; IV = C

Horizontal Directional Drill; N/A = Wetland not crossed by pipeline 
APPENDIX M 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

 
 
N-1 

M-1 

APPENDIX M 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

0.1 0.1 Susquehanna 315 90.0 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.0 1.2 1.5 Susquehanna 1,492 100.0 3.5 1.7 0.3 0.0 1.8 1.9 Susquehanna 608 101.0 1.4 0.7 0.1 0.0 2.8 2.8 Susquehanna 0 20.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 3.1 3.2 Susquehanna 91 100.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.9 Susquehanna 1,798 100.0 4.1 2.1 0.4 0.0 3.9 3.9 Susquehanna 113 110.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.0 3.9 3.9 Susquehanna 225 85.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 7.2 7.3 Susquehanna 93 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 7.3 7.3 Susquehanna 43 90.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 7.3 7.5 Susquehanna 1,511 100.0 3.5 1.7 0.4 0.0 8.1 8.3 Susquehanna 774 100.0 1.8 0.9 0.2 0.0 8.5 8.7 Susquehanna 991 100.0 2.3 1.1 0.2 0.0 8.7 8.7 Susquehanna 151 150.0 0.5 0.2 N/A 0.2 
N-2 

M-2 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

8.7 8.7 Susquehanna 34 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 8.7 Susquehanna 70 85.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 9.6 9.6 Susquehanna 27 76.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 9.6 Susquehanna 51 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 9.6 9.6 Susquehanna 72 85.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 9.6 9.7 Susquehanna 128 100.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.7 9.7 Susquehanna 315 83.0 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 

12.2 12.2 Susquehanna 51 103.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 12.3 12.3 Susquehanna 42 90.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 12.3 12.3 Susquehanna 200 100.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 12.3 12.3 Susquehanna 20 77.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.4 12.4 Susquehanna 24 70.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.4 12.5 Susquehanna 308 100.0 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.0 12.5 12.5 Susquehanna 111 86.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 12.7 12.7 Susquehanna 46 88.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 12.7 12.7 Susquehanna 68 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 12.7 12.7 Susquehanna 238 85.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 
N-3 

M-3 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

12.7 12.7 Susquehanna 89 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 12.7 12.7 Susquehanna 8 95.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 13.4 Susquehanna 2,383 100.0 5.5 2.7 0.6 0.0 13.4 13.5 Susquehanna 468 93.0 1.1 0.7 0.2 0.0 13.5 13.5 Susquehanna 277 90.0 0.1 0.0 13.5 13.6 Susquehanna 89 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 13.6 13.6 Susquehanna 152 75.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 13.6 13.6 Susquehanna 40 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 13.6 13.6 Susquehanna 99 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 13.6 13.8 Susquehanna 765 100.0 1.7 0.9 0.2 0.0 14.1 14.1 Susquehanna 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 14.2 14.2 Susquehanna 21 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 14.5 Susquehanna 0 20.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 15.8 15.8 Susquehanna 32 77.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.8 15.8 Susquehanna 199 100.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 15.8 15.8 Susquehanna 51 75.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 15.8 16.2 Susquehanna 1,752 100.0 4.1 2.0 0.4 0.0 16.2 16.2 Susquehanna 76 90.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 
N-4 

M-4 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

16.2 16.3 Susquehanna 589 100.0 1.3 0.7 0.1 0.0 16.3 16.3 Susquehanna 103 150.0 0.4 0.1 N/A 0.1 16.3 16.3 Susquehanna 111 100.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 16.3 16.4 Susquehanna 137 90.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 16.4 16.4 Susquehanna 10 140.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 16.4 16.4 Susquehanna 89 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 16.4 16.4 Susquehanna 30 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.4 16.6 Susquehanna 991 100.0 2.3 1.1 0.2 0.0 16.6 16.6 Susquehanna 88 85.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 16.6 16.6 Susquehanna 145 100.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 16.9 17.0 Susquehanna 350 100.0 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 17.1 17.2 Susquehanna 525 100.0 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.0 
N-5 

M-5 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

17.2 17.3 Susquehanna 279 150.0 1.0 0.3 N/A 0.3 17.3 17.9 Susquehanna 3,616 100.0 8.3 4.2 0.8 0.0 17.9 18.0 Susquehanna 98 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 18.0 18.0 Susquehanna 77 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 18.0 18.0 Susquehanna 123 85.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 18.0 18.0 Susquehanna 45 141.0 0.1 0.1 N/A 0.0 18.0 18.0 Susquehanna 65 150.0 0.2 0.1 N/A 0.1 
N-6 

M-6 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

18.0 18.7 Susquehanna 3,311 100.0 7.6 3.8 0.8 0.0 18.7 18.7 Susquehanna 64 90.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 18.7 18.8 Susquehanna 515 100.0 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.0 18.8 18.8 Susquehanna 98 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 18.8 18.8 Susquehanna 46 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 18.8 18.8 Susquehanna 19 90.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 18.8 Susquehanna 144 85.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 18.8 18.8 Susquehanna 5 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 19.2 Susquehanna 1,212 100.0 2.8 1.4 0.3 0.0 19.3 19.3 Susquehanna 15 91.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.3 19.5 Susquehanna 902 100.0 2.1 1.0 0.2 0.0 19.5 19.5 Susquehanna 115 95.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 19.6 19.6 Susquehanna 118 95.0 0.0 0.0 19.6 19.8 Susquehanna 1,387 100.0 3.2 1.6 0.3 0.0 20.0 20.0 Susquehanna 0 6.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 20.0 20.0 Susquehanna 154 85.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 20.0 20.0 Susquehanna 54 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 
N-7 

M-7 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

20.0 20.1 Susquehanna 100 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 20.1 20.2 Susquehanna 659 100.0 1.5 0.8 0.2 0.0 20.3 20.7 Susquehanna 2,195 100.0 5.1 2.5 0.5 0.0 20.7 20.7 Susquehanna 54 139.0 0.2 0.1 N/A 0.1 20.7 20.7 Susquehanna 22 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.7 20.7 Susquehanna 71 88.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 20.7 20.8 Susquehanna 62 33.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 21.0 21.0 Susquehanna 54 93.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 21.0 21.0 Susquehanna 20 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 21.0 Susquehanna 39 90.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 21.0 21.0 Susquehanna 79 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 21.0 21.0 Susquehanna 64 92.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 21.3 21.3 Susquehanna 0 13.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 
N-8 

M-8 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

21.9 22.1 Susquehanna 987 100.0 2.3 1.1 0.2 0.0 22.1 22.1 Susquehanna 62 80.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 22.2 22.3 Susquehanna 96 77.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 22.3 22.4 Susquehanna 712 100.0 1.7 0.8 0.2 0.0 22.4 22.4 Susquehanna 28 77.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.7 22.7 Susquehanna 102 87.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 22.7 22.7 Susquehanna 64 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 22.7 22.7 Susquehanna 101 150.0 0.4 0.1 N/A 0.1 22.7 22.8 Susquehanna 180 100.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 22.8 22.8 Susquehanna 65 90.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 22.8 22.8 Susquehanna 55 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 22.8 22.8 Susquehanna 83 75.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 22.8 22.8 Susquehanna 42 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 22.8 22.8 Susquehanna 89 85.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 23.0 23.0 Susquehanna 21 82.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0 23.1 Susquehanna 359 100.0 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 23.1 23.1 Susquehanna 22 85.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.6 23.6 Susquehanna 25 65.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 
N-9 

M-9 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

23.6 23.8 Susquehanna 899 100.0 2.1 1.0 0.2 0.0 23.8 23.8 Susquehanna 34 75.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.8 23.8 Susquehanna 236 100.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 23.8 23.8 Susquehanna 43 85.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 23.8 23.8 Susquehanna 40 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 23.8 23.8 Susquehanna 100 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 23.8 23.9 Susquehanna 99 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 23.9 23.9 Susquehanna 65 90.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 23.9 23.9 Susquehanna 43 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 23.9 23.9 Susquehanna 100 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 23.9 24.2 Susquehanna 1,804 100.0 4.1 2.1 0.4 0.0 
N-10 

M-10 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

24.2 24.3 Susquehanna 100 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 24.3 24.3 Susquehanna 74 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 24.3 24.3 Susquehanna 96 85.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 24.3 24.3 Susquehanna 53 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 24.3 24.3 Susquehanna 63 85.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 24.3 24.3 Susquehanna 20 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.3 24.3 Susquehanna 100 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 24.3 24.4 Susquehanna 123 100.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 
N-11 

M-11 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

24.4 24.4 Susquehanna 3 150.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 24.4 24.4 Susquehanna 54 140.0 0.2 0.1 N/A 0.1 24.4 24.4 Susquehanna 93 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 24.4 24.4 Susquehanna 27 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.4 24.4 Susquehanna 193 90.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 
N-12 

M-12 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

24.4 24.4 Susquehanna 82 140.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 24.4 24.5 Susquehanna 67 150.0 0.2 0.1 N/A 0.1 24.5 24.5 Susquehanna 340 100.0 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 24.5 24.5 Susquehanna 12 80.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.4 26.1 Broome 3,989 100.0 9.2 4.6 0.9 0.0 26.1 26.1 Broome 65 97.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 26.3 26.4 Broome 61 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 26.4 26.4 Broome 50 150.0 0.2 0.1 N/A 0.1 
N-13 

M-13 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

26.4 26.4 Broome 30 139.0 0.1 0.0 N/A 0.0 26.4 26.4 Broome 19 73.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.4 26.4 Broome 0 3.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 26.5 26.5 Broome 0 19.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 26.5 26.5 Broome 0 19.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 27.2 27.2 Broome 74 87.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 27.8 28.1 Broome 1,569 100.0 3.6 1.8 0.4 0.0 28.1 28.1 Broome 45 75.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 28.3 28.3 Broome 23 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.3 28.3 Broome 73 75.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 28.3 28.3 Broome 30 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.3 28.4 Broome 66 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 28.4 28.4 Broome 341 100.0 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 
N-14 

M-14 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

28.4 28.4 Broome 14 95.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.3 30.3 Broome 80 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 31.1 31.2 Broome 41 88.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 31.2 31.7 Broome 2,919 100.0 6.7 3.4 0.7 0.0 32.1 32.4 Broome 1,221 100.0 2.8 1.4 0.3 0.0 32.4 32.4 Broome 128 85.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 32.4 32.4 Broome 83 75.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 32.4 32.4 Broome 76 90.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 32.4 32.6 Broome 1,281 100.0 2.9 1.5 0.3 0.0 36.7 36.8 Broome 0 16.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 42.3 42.3 Chenango 15 91.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.3 42.3 Chenango 57 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 42.3 42.3 Chenango 12 83.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.9 43.9 Chenango 0 9.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 43.9 43.9 Chenango 0 29.0 0.1 0.0 N/A 0.0 44.1 44.1 Chenango 54 74.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 44.1 44.7 Chenango 2,931 100.0 6.7 3.4 0.7 0.0 44.7 44.7 Chenango 41 90.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 44.7 45.0 Chenango 1,792 100.0 4.1 2.1 0.4 0.0 45.0 45.0 Chenango 87 90.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 45.0 45.0 Chenango 64 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 46.5 46.5 Chenango 164 52.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 
N-15 

M-15 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

46.6 46.7 Chenango 235 98.0 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.0 46.7 46.7 Chenango 131 95.0 0.1 0.0 46.7 46.8 Chenango 109 100.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 46.8 46.8 Chenango 100 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 46.8 46.8 Chenango 65 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 46.8 46.8 Chenango 96 85.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 46.8 46.8 Chenango 65 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 46.8 46.8 Chenango 98 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 46.8 47.1 Chenango 1,491 100.0 3.4 1.7 0.3 0.0 47.1 47.1 Chenango 41 96.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 49.0 49.2 Chenango 645 100.0 1.5 0.7 0.2 0.0 49.2 49.2 Chenango 199 90.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 49.2 49.2 Chenango 136 100.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 
N-16 

M-16 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

49.2 49.2 Chenango 10 94.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.2 49.3 Chenango 236 100.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 49.3 49.3 Chenango 84 90.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 49.3 49.3 Chenango 166 100.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 49.3 49.3 Chenango 33 90.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.3 49.6 Chenango 1,269 100.0 2.9 1.5 0.3 0.0 49.6 49.6 Chenango 94 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 49.6 49.6 Chenango 77 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 49.6 49.6 Chenango 44 85.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 49.6 49.6 Chenango 80 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 49.6 49.7 Chenango 463 85.0 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.0 49.7 49.7 Chenango 195 52.0 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.0 50.6 50.6 Delaware 151 100.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 50.6 50.6 Delaware 81 87.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 50.8 50.8 Delaware 188 88.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 50.9 51.0 Delaware 100 75.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 51.2 51.2 Delaware 57 88.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 
N-17 

M-17 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

51.2 51.3 Delaware 363 100.0 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 51.4 51.5 Delaware 223 100.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 52.0 52.0 Delaware 159 80.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 52.2 52.2 Delaware 95 85.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 52.2 52.3 Delaware 81 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 52.3 52.3 Delaware 79 90.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 52.3 52.3 Delaware 347 100.0 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 52.3 52.4 Delaware 76 85.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 52.4 52.4 Delaware 479 100.0 1.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 52.4 52.5 Delaware 42 92.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 52.6 52.6 Delaware 91 94.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 56.8 56.8 Delaware 10 91.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.8 56.9 Delaware 108 100.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 56.9 56.9 Delaware 79 93.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 57.9 57.9 Delaware 0 8.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 57.9 57.9 Delaware 11 88.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.4 58.7 Delaware 1,464 75.0 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.0 58.7 58.7 Delaware 167 73.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 
N-18 

M-18 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

58.7 58.7 Delaware 0 104.0 0.2 0.0 N/A 0.0 58.7 58.7 Delaware 0 50.0 0.1 0.0 N/A 0.0 61.7 62.0 Delaware 1,485 100.0 3.4 1.7 0.3 0.0 62.2 62.5 Delaware 1,342 100.0 3.1 1.5 0.3 0.0 62.7 63.1 Delaware 1,649 100.0 3.8 1.9 0.4 0.0 63.1 63.1 Delaware 98 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 63.1 63.1 Delaware 9 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.1 63.1 Delaware 393 90.0 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.0 63.1 63.2 Delaware 52 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 
N-19 

M-19 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

63.2 63.2 Delaware 100 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 63.2 63.3 Delaware 851 100.0 2.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 63.3 63.4 Delaware 69 94.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 63.5 63.5 Delaware 90 91.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 63.5 63.6 Delaware 342 100.0 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 63.6 63.6 Delaware 100 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 63.6 63.7 Delaware 497 100.0 1.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 63.7 63.7 Delaware 367 85.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.0 63.7 63.8 Delaware 70 140.0 0.2 0.1 N/A 0.1 
N-20 

M-20 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

63.8 63.8 Delaware 30 150.0 0.1 0.0 N/A 0.0 63.8 63.9 Delaware 719 100.0 1.7 0.8 0.2 0.0 63.9 63.9 Delaware 119 90.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 63.9 63.9 Delaware 101 140.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 63.9 64.0 Delaware 93 90.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 64.0 64.0 Delaware 73 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 64.0 64.0 Delaware 100 150.0 0.4 0.1 N/A 0.1 64.0 64.0 Delaware 286 100.0 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 64.0 64.1 Delaware 73 85.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 
N-21 

M-21 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

64.1 64.1 Delaware 227 90.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 64.1 64.5 Delaware 2,132 100.0 5.0 2.6 0.5 0.0 64.5 64.5 Delaware 40 41.0 0.1 0.0 64.6 64.7 Delaware 237 90.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 64.7 64.8 Delaware 573 100.0 1.3 0.7 0.1 0.0 65.6 65.6 Delaware 96 95.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 65.6 65.7 Delaware 515 100.0 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.0 65.7 65.7 Delaware 34 77.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.5 66.6 Delaware 466 100.0 1.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 67.1 67.7 Delaware 3,318 100.0 7.6 3.8 0.8 0.0 67.7 67.7 Delaware 239 85.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 67.7 68.2 Delaware 2,530 100.0 5.8 2.9 0.6 0.0 68.2 68.3 Delaware 339 94.0 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 68.3 68.3 Delaware 65 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 68.5 68.8 Delaware 1,586 100.0 3.6 1.8 0.4 0.0 69.3 69.3 Delaware 78 65.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 70.7 70.7 Delaware 194 91.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 71.2 71.3 Delaware 692 100.0 1.6 0.8 0.2 0.0 71.3 71.4 Delaware 78 85.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 71.4 71.5 Delaware 566 100.0 1.3 0.7 0.1 0.0 72.1 72.1 Delaware 20 79.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 72.1 72.2 Delaware 416 100.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 
N-22 

M-22 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

72.2 72.3 Delaware 358 145.0 1.2 0.4 N/A 0.4 72.3 72.3 Delaware 47 112.0 0.1 0.1 N/A 0.0 72.3 72.3 Delaware 86 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 72.3 72.4 Delaware 358 100.0 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 72.4 72.4 Delaware 36 90.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 72.5 72.5 Delaware 27 93.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 72.5 72.9 Delaware 2,254 100.0 5.1 2.6 0.5 0.0 72.9 72.9 Delaware 181 90.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 72.9 73.0 Delaware 153 100.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 73.0 73.0 Delaware 150 150.0 0.5 0.2 N/A 0.2 73.0 73.0 Delaware 43 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 73.0 73.0 Delaware 48 85.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 73.0 73.0 Delaware 11 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
N-23 

M-23 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

73.0 73.0 Delaware 148 150.0 0.5 0.2 N/A 0.2 73.0 73.2 Delaware 729 100.0 1.7 0.8 0.2 0.0 73.5 73.6 Delaware 604 75.0 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 73.6 73.6 Delaware 46 140.0 0.2 0.1 N/A 0.0 73.6 73.6 Delaware 62 150.0 0.2 0.1 N/A 0.1 73.6 73.9 Delaware 1,465 100.0 3.4 1.7 0.3 0.0 73.9 73.9 Delaware 122 91.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 74.2 74.2 Delaware 181 100.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 74.2 74.2 Delaware 46 85.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 74.2 74.2 Delaware 224 100.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 
N-24 

M-24 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

74.2 74.3 Delaware 148 150.0 0.5 0.2 N/A 0.2 74.3 74.3 Delaware 43 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 74.3 74.3 Delaware 182 90.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 74.3 74.3 Delaware 57 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 74.3 74.4 Delaware 148 150.0 0.5 0.2 N/A 0.2 74.4 74.4 Delaware 258 100.0 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 74.6 74.6 Delaware 209 100.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 74.7 74.7 Delaware 29 84.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.7 74.9 Delaware 829 100.0 1.9 1.0 0.2 0.0 74.9 74.9 Delaware 35 79.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.0 76.0 Delaware 58 91.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 76.0 76.4 Delaware 2,064 100.0 4.7 2.4 0.5 0.0 76.9 76.9 Delaware 17 76.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
N-25 

M-25 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

76.9 76.9 Delaware 35 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.9 77.0 Delaware 112 150.0 0.4 0.1 N/A 0.1 77.0 77.2 Delaware 1,011 100.0 2.3 1.2 0.2 0.0 78.9 79.0 Delaware 0 38.0 0.2 0.0 N/A 0.0 79.0 79.1 Delaware 0 44.0 0.1 0.0 N/A 0.0 79.1 79.1 Delaware 130 75.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 79.1 79.1 Delaware 17 85.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.1 79.1 Delaware 46 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 79.1 79.1 Delaware 48 90.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 79.1 79.1 Delaware 18 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.1 79.2 Delaware 171 85.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 79.2 79.2 Delaware 99 140.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 79.2 79.2 Delaware 30 90.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.2 79.2 Delaware 22 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 
N-26 

M-26 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

79.2 79.2 Delaware 67 85.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 79.2 79.2 Delaware 99 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 79.2 79.2 Delaware 94 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 79.2 79.3 Delaware 262 100.0 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 79.6 79.7 Delaware 484 140.0 1.6 0.6 N/A 0.4 79.7 79.8 Delaware 466 100.0 1.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 79.8 79.8 Delaware 95 140.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 79.8 79.8 Delaware 6 130.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 
N-27 

M-27 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

79.8 79.8 Delaware 187 90.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 79.8 79.9 Delaware 115 100.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 79.9 79.9 Delaware 185 85.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 79.9 79.9 Delaware 130 100.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 79.9 79.9 Delaware 99 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 79.9 79.9 Delaware 20 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.9 80.0 Delaware 58 90.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 80.0 80.0 Delaware 140 100.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 80.0 80.0 Delaware 43 75.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 80.0 80.0 Delaware 38 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 80.0 Delaware 31 150.0 0.1 0.0 N/A 0.0 
N-28 

M-28 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

80.0 80.0 Delaware 48 140.0 0.2 0.1 N/A 0.0 80.0 80.0 Delaware 19 150.0 0.1 0.0 N/A 0.0 80.0 80.2 Delaware 896 100.0 2.1 1.0 0.2 0.0 80.6 80.7 Delaware 265 93.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 80.6 80.6 Delaware 0 73.0 0.2 0.0 N/A 0.0 80.7 80.8 Delaware 608 100.0 1.4 0.7 0.1 0.0 80.8 80.8 Delaware 99 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 80.8 80.8 Delaware 57 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 81.0 81.0 Delaware 52 88.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 81.0 81.6 Delaware 2,883 100.0 6.6 3.3 0.7 0.0 
N-29 

M-29 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

82.4 82.4 Delaware 50 92.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 82.4 82.4 Delaware 124 100.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 82.4 82.4 Delaware 13 77.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.1 83.1 Delaware 40 81.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 83.1 83.1 Delaware 101 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 83.1 83.1 Delaware 99 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 83.1 83.2 Delaware 69 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 83.2 83.2 Delaware 32 75.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.2 83.2 Delaware 42 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 83.2 83.2 Delaware 100 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 83.2 83.2 Delaware 36 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.2 83.2 Delaware 8 85.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.2 83.2 Delaware 64 75.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 83.2 83.3 Delaware 558 100.0 1.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 
N-30 

M-30 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

83.3 83.3 Delaware 99 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 83.3 83.3 Delaware 40 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 83.3 83.4 Delaware 219 85.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 83.4 83.4 Delaware 200 100.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 83.4 83.4 Delaware 14 85.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.4 83.5 Delaware 258 75.0 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 83.5 83.5 Delaware 51 140.0 0.2 0.1 N/A 0.1 83.5 83.5 Delaware 47 150.0 0.2 0.1 N/A 0.1 
N-31 

M-31 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

83.5 83.9 Delaware 2,329 100.0 5.4 2.7 0.5 0.0 83.9 84.0 Delaware 152 90.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 84.0 84.0 Delaware 178 100.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 84.0 84.0 Delaware 192 90.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 84.0 84.1 Delaware 530 100.0 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.0 84.1 84.2 Delaware 242 95.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 84.8 84.8 Delaware 8 99.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.8 84.8 Delaware 48 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 84.8 84.8 Delaware 41 95.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.1 85.1 Delaware 54 99.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 85.1 85.1 Delaware 5 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.1 85.1 Delaware 3 97.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.1 85.1 Delaware 12 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.1 85.1 Delaware 20 95.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.1 85.1 Delaware 0 61.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 85.3 85.3 Delaware 0 38.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 85.3 85.3 Delaware 172 201.0 0.7 0.2 N/A 0.4 85.3 85.6 Delaware 1,656 150.0 5.7 1.9 N/A 1.9 
N-32 

M-32 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

85.6 85.7 Delaware 250 200.0 1.2 0.3 N/A 0.6 85.7 85.8 Delaware 924 50.0 1.1 1.1 1.3 0.0 85.9 86.0 Delaware 317 50.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 86.0 86.0 Delaware 250 200.0 1.2 0.3 N/A 0.6 86.0 86.0 Delaware 125 100.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 86.0 86.1 Delaware 109 150.0 0.4 0.1 N/A 0.1 86.1 86.1 Delaware 162 100.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 86.1 86.1 Delaware 44 75.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 86.1 86.1 Delaware 81 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 86.1 86.2 Delaware 375 85.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 86.3 86.4 Delaware 202 100.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 86.5 86.5 Delaware 294 93.0 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 86.8 86.8 Delaware 39 92.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 
N-33 

M-33 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

86.8 87.0 Delaware 1,258 100.0 2.9 1.4 0.3 0.0 87.0 87.0 Delaware 98 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 87.0 87.1 Delaware 73 85.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 87.2 87.2 Delaware 263 100.0 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 87.2 87.3 Delaware 129 150.0 0.5 0.2 N/A 0.2 87.3 87.6 Delaware 1,878 100.0 4.3 2.2 0.4 0.0 89.2 89.4 Delaware 673 100.0 1.6 0.8 0.2 0.0 90.7 90.8 Delaware 885 85.0 1.4 1.0 0.5 0.0 90.8 91.6 Delaware 4,280 100.0 9.8 4.9 1.0 0.0 
N-34 

M-34 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

91.8 91.8 Delaware 0 104.0 0.1 0.0 N/A 0.0 91.8 91.8 Delaware 55 149.0 0.2 0.1 N/A 0.1 91.8 91.8 Delaware 46 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 91.8 91.8 Delaware 25 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 91.8 91.8 Delaware 43 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 91.8 91.9 Delaware 100 150.0 0.4 0.1 N/A 0.1 91.9 92.1 Delaware 1,110 100.0 2.6 1.3 0.3 0.0 
N-35 

M-35 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

92.1 92.1 Delaware 100 150.0 0.4 0.1 N/A 0.1 92.1 92.1 Delaware 53 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 92.1 92.1 Delaware 133 85.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 92.1 92.1 Delaware 84 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 92.1 92.2 Delaware 99 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 92.2 92.3 Delaware 705 100.0 1.6 0.8 0.2 0.0 92.3 92.3 Delaware 149 150.0 0.5 0.2 N/A 0.2 92.3 92.4 Delaware 523 90.0 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 92.4 92.4 Delaware 28 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 
N-36 

M-36 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

92.4 92.4 Delaware 151 150.0 0.5 0.2 N/A 0.2 92.4 92.5 Delaware 29 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 93.1 93.1 Delaware 101 95.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 93.1 93.3 Delaware 827 100.0 1.9 1.0 0.2 0.0 93.3 93.3 Delaware 36 150.0 0.1 0.0 N/A 0.0 93.3 93.3 Delaware 135 140.0 0.4 0.2 N/A 0.1 93.3 93.4 Delaware 392 90.0 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.0 
N-37 

M-37 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

93.4 93.4 Delaware 35 110.0 0.1 0.0 N/A 0.0 93.4 93.4 Delaware 46 160.0 0.2 0.1 N/A 0.1 93.4 93.5 Delaware 575 85.0 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.0 94.2 94.2 Schoharie 67 74.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 94.2 94.5 Schoharie 1,319 100.0 3.0 1.5 0.3 0.0 94.5 94.5 Schoharie 16 72.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.4 95.4 Schoharie 28 89.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.4 95.5 Schoharie 67 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 95.5 95.5 Schoharie 328 90.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 95.5 95.6 Schoharie 377 100.0 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.0 95.6 95.8 Schoharie 1,202 85.0 2.2 1.4 0.7 0.0 95.8 96.0 Schoharie 1,132 100.0 2.6 1.3 0.3 0.0 96.0 96.1 Schoharie 110 90.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 96.1 96.1 Schoharie 61 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 
N-38 

M-38 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

96.1 96.1 Schoharie 89 85.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 96.1 96.1 Schoharie 12 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 96.1 96.1 Schoharie 87 151.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 96.1 96.2 Schoharie 405 100.0 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.0 96.2 96.2 Schoharie 39 95.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 96.5 96.5 Schoharie 38 48.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 96.6 96.6 Schoharie 0 6.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 96.8 96.8 Schoharie 19 90.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 96.8 96.8 Schoharie 178 100.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 97.9 97.9 Schoharie 45 81.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 97.9 98.6 Schoharie 3,648 100.0 8.4 4.2 0.8 0.0 98.6 98.6 Schoharie 97 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 98.6 98.6 Schoharie 86 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 
N-39 

M-39 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

98.6 98.6 Schoharie 126 90.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 98.6 98.6 Schoharie 17 140.0 0.1 0.0 N/A 0.0 98.6 98.6 Schoharie 79 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 98.6 99.2 Schoharie 2,835 100.0 6.5 3.3 0.7 0.0 99.3 99.3 Schoharie 31 92.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.3 99.4 Schoharie 433 100.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 99.4 99.4 Schoharie 32 92.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

102.1 102.1 Schoharie 19 85.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 102.1 102.1 Schoharie 26 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 
N-40 

M-40 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

102.1 102.2 Schoharie 129 150.0 0.5 0.2 N/A 0.2 102.2 102.4 Schoharie 1,131 100.0 2.6 1.3 0.3 0.0 102.4 102.4 Schoharie 18 85.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 102.7 102.7 Schoharie 57 83.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 102.7 102.9 Schoharie 925 100.0 2.1 1.1 0.2 0.0 102.9 102.9 Schoharie 97 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 102.9 102.9 Schoharie 38 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 102.9 102.9 Schoharie 114 85.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 102.9 103.0 Schoharie 175 100.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 103.0 103.1 Schoharie 487 85.0 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.0 103.1 103.1 Schoharie 86 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 
N-41 

M-41 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

103.1 103.1 Schoharie 101 150.0 0.4 0.1 N/A 0.1 103.1 103.5 Schoharie 1,939 100.0 4.4 2.2 0.5 0.0 103.5 103.6 Schoharie 514 85.0 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 103.7 104.0 Schoharie 1,842 100.0 4.2 2.1 0.4 0.0 104.0 104.0 Schoharie 30 89.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 104.8 104.8 Schoharie 0 17.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 104.8 104.8 Schoharie 2 66.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 105.5 105.5 Schoharie 24 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 106.1 106.1 Schoharie 98 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 106.1 106.1 Schoharie 78 82.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 106.1 106.1 Schoharie 28 102.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 106.1 106.2 Schoharie 0 95.0 0.5 0.0 N/A 0.0 106.3 106.3 Schoharie 0 8.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 106.5 106.6 Schoharie 261 90.0 1.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 
N-42 

M-42 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

106.6 106.6 Schoharie 65 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 106.6 106.7 Schoharie 494 85.0 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 106.7 106.7 Schoharie 149 140.0 0.5 0.2 N/A 0.1 106.7 106.7 Schoharie 127 90.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 106.7 106.8 Schoharie 353 100.0 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 107.3 107.3 Schoharie 0 9.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 107.4 107.4 Schoharie 0 63.0 0.1 0.0 N/A 0.0 107.4 107.4 Schoharie 0 32.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 107.5 107.5 Schoharie 11 80.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 107.5 107.7 Schoharie 666 100.0 1.5 0.8 0.2 0.0 107.7 107.7 Schoharie 62 90.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 107.7 107.7 Schoharie 73 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 107.7 107.9 Schoharie 897 100.0 2.1 1.0 0.2 0.0 107.9 107.9 Schoharie 50 85.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 107.9 108.0 Schoharie 666 100.0 1.5 0.8 0.2 0.0 108.0 108.0 Schoharie 85 90.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 108.0 108.0 Schoharie 90 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 
N-43 

M-43 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

108.0 108.0 Schoharie 47 90.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 108.0 108.1 Schoharie 421 100.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 108.1 108.1 Schoharie 118 90.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 108.1 108.3 Schoharie 974 100.0 2.2 1.1 0.2 0.0 108.3 108.3 Schoharie 83 93.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 108.4 108.4 Schoharie 103 88.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 108.4 108.5 Schoharie 178 100.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 108.9 108.9 Schoharie 20 66.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 108.9 109.0 Schoharie 176 100.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 109.0 109.0 Schoharie 54 85.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 109.5 109.6 Schoharie 0 10.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 109.8 109.8 Schoharie 11 76.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 109.8 109.8 Schoharie 145 100.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 109.8 109.8 Schoharie 213 85.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 110.6 110.7 Schoharie 496 100.0 1.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 110.7 110.7 Schoharie 58 135.0 0.2 0.1 N/A 0.1 
N-44 

M-44 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

110.7 110.7 Schoharie 42 126.0 0.1 0.1 N/A 0.0 110.7 110.8 Schoharie 118 90.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 110.8 110.8 Schoharie 20 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 110.8 110.8 Schoharie 100 136.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 110.8 110.8 Schoharie 29 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 110.8 110.8 Schoharie 86 85.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 110.8 110.9 Schoharie 674 100.0 1.6 0.8 0.2 0.0 110.9 111.0 Schoharie 46 89.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 111.1 111.2 Schoharie 227 87.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 111.2 111.2 Schoharie 88 39.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 111.8 111.8 Schoharie 358 100.0 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 111.8 111.9 Schoharie 181 91.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 111.9 111.9 Schoharie 275 100.0 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 
N-45 

M-45 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

111.9 111.9 Schoharie 101 150.0 0.4 0.1 N/A 0.1 111.9 112.0 Schoharie 81 100.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 112.0 112.0 Schoharie 139 85.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 112.0 112.0 Schoharie 39 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 112.0 112.0 Schoharie 90 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 112.0 112.0 Schoharie 24 101.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 112.0 112.1 Schoharie 213 90.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 112.2 112.2 Schoharie 101 97.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 112.2 113.3 Schoharie 5,771 100.0 13.3 6.6 1.3 0.0 114.0 114.0 Schoharie 83 92.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 
N-46 

M-46 

APPENDIX M (continued) 

Interior Forest Areas Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost County 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet) 

Acreage Affected by Tracta Reduced and Expanded Acreage

Right-ofWay Width 

Per Tract 

Construction 

(acres) 

Operation 

(acres) 

Interior Forest 

Acreage Saved 

from Reduction 

of ROW Width 

from 110 feet to 

100 feet 

Additional Int

Forest Acrea

Disturbance Ca

from Construct

Concerns from 

feet to 150 f

114.0 114.4 Schoharie 2,092 100.0 4.8 2.4 0.5 0.0 115.6 116.3 Schoharie 3,713 100.0 8.6 4.3 0.9 0.0 118.2 118.3 Schoharie 679 100.0 1.6 0.8 0.2 0.0 118.5 119.3 Schoharie 4,121 100.0 9.5 4.7 1.0 0.0 120.7 120.7 Schoharie 78 150.0 0.3 0.1 N/A 0.1 120.7 120.7 Schoharie 57 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 120.7 120.7 Schoharie 219 87.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 

Total 190,161 - 439.7 217.9 51.8 12.2 ___________________ a Land impacted during construction includes temporary workspace, permanent easement, and extra workspace (where applicable). Acreage A

was based on a reduced 100–foot-wide right-of-way (with exception of areas where side slope construction would occur and extra workspace safe installation of the pipeline); Operation Acreage = 50-foot width permanently maintained easement through upland areas; 30-foot width pe

through forested wetlands, 10-foot width permanently maintained through scrub-shrub wetlands; there would be no operational impacts on em

would be no change in the pre- and post-construction vegetation cover type. 

N/A-Not Applicable 
APPENDIX N 

Waterbodies Containing Sensitive Fisheries Crossed by the Proposed 

Constitution Pipeline Project 

 
 
APPENDIX N – WATERBODIES CONTAINING SENSITIVE FISHERIES CROSSED 

BY THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

N-1 

APPENDIX N 

Waterbodies Containing Sensitive Fisheries Crossed by the Proposed Constitution Pipeline Project 

Milepost 

Waterbody 

Name County, State 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet)a

State Water 

Quality 

Classificationb

Fisheries 

Classificationc

Proposed 

Crossing 

Methodd

Construction 

Windowe

Pipeline 

3.0 Martins Creek Susquehanna, 

PA 

28 CWF Approved 

Trout Water 

II N/A 

10.0 Salt Lick 

Creek 

Susquehanna, 

PA 

36 HQ-CWF Approved 

Trout Water 

II N/A 

18.0 UNT to 

Canawacta 

Creek 

Susquehanna, 

PA 

3 CWF N/A II June 16 - 

February 28 

18.8 Canawacta 

Creek 

Susquehanna, 

PA 

14 CWF Trout Stocked II June 16 - 

February 28 

19.9 UNT to 

Starrucca 

Creek 

Susquehanna, 

PA 

1 CWF N/A II June 16 - 

February 28 

19.9 UNT to 

Starrucca 

Creek 

Susquehanna, 

PA 

0 CWF N/A N/A June 16 - 

February 28 

20.0 UNT to 

Starrucca 

Creek 

Susquehanna, 

PA 

4 CWF N/A II June 16 - 

February 28 

20.8 UNT to 

Starrucca 

Creek 

Susquehanna, 

PA 

25 CWF N/A II June 16 - 

February 28 

20.8 UNT to 

Starrucca 

Creek 

Susquehanna, 

PA 

22 CWF N/A II June 16 - 

February 28 

21.5 UNT to 

Starrucca 

Creek 

Susquehanna, 

PA 

4 CWF N/A III June 16 - 

February 28 

21.6 UNT to 

Starrucca 

Creek 

Susquehanna, 

PA 

21 CWF N/A II June 16 - 

February 28 

21.8 Starrucca 

Creek 

Susquehanna, 

PA 

75 CWF Trout Stocked II June 16 - 

February 28 

22.5 UNT to 

Roaring Run 

Susquehanna, 

PA 

2 CWF Natural Trout 

Reproduction 

II January 1 - 

September 30 

22.6 UNT to 

Roaring Run 

Susquehanna, 

PA 

3 CWF Natural Trout 

Reproduction 

III January 1 - 

September 30 

22.6 UNT to 

Roaring Run 

Susquehanna, 

PA 

15 CWF Natural Trout 

Reproduction 

II January 1 - 

September 30 

22.6 Roaring Run Susquehanna, 

PA 

22 CWF Natural Trout 

Reproduction 

II January 1 - 

September 30 

26.5 UNT to 

Cascade 

Creek 

Broome, NY 8 C(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

27.3 UNT to Fly 

Creek 

Broome, NY 3 B(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

27.4 UNT to Fly 

Creek 

Broome, NY 0 D N/A N/A June 1 - 

September 30 
APPENDIX N – WATERBODIES CONTAINING SENSITIVE FISHERIES CROSSED 

BY THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

N-2 

APPENDIX N (continued) 

Waterbodies Containing Sensitive Fisheries Crossed by the Proposed Constitution Pipeline Project 

Milepost 

Waterbody 

Name County, State 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet)a

State Water 

Quality 

Classificationb

Fisheries 

Classificationc

Proposed 

Crossing 

Methodd

Construction 

Windowe

28.3 UNT to Fly 

Creek 

Broome, NY 18 B(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

28.7 Fly Creek Broome, NY 31 B(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

28.8 UNT to Fly 

Creek 

Broome, NY 12 B(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

29.2 UNT to Fly 

Creek 

Broome, NY 18 B(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

30.3 UNT to Marsh 

Creek 

Broome, NY 53 C(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

30.7 Marsh Creek Broome, NY 30 C(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

31.7 UNT to 

Oquaga Creek 

Broome, NY 3 D N/A II June 1 - 

September 30 

32.9 UNT to 

Oquaga Creek 

Broome, NY 13 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

33.6 UNT to 

Oquaga Creek 

Broome, NY 18 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

34.0 Oquaga Creek Broome, NY 42 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

34.6 UNT to 

Oquaga Creek 

Broome, NY 4 C(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

34.7 UNT to 

Oquaga Creek 

Broome, NY 11 C(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

35.5 UNT to 

Oquaga Creek 

Broome, NY 13 C(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

35.9 UNT to 

Oquaga Creek 

Broome, NY 3 C(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

36.2 UNT to 

Oquaga Creek 

Broome, NY 2 C(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

36.5 Oquaga Creek Broome, NY 50 C(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

37.3 Dry Brook Broome, NY 19 C(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

37.3 Dry Brook Broome, NY 36 C(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

38.7 UNT to Dry 

Brook 

Broome, NY 7 C(T) (T) III June 1 - 

September 30 

39.1 UNT to Dry 

Brook 

Broome, NY 29 D N/A II June 1 - 

September 30 

39.2 Dry Brook Broome, NY 12 C(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

42.3 UNT to Cornell 

Creek 

Chenango, NY 23 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

42.4 UNT of Cornell 

Creek 

Chenango, NY 11 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

42.4 UNT of Cornell 

Creek 

Chenango, NY 0 C(TS) (TS) N/A June 1 - 

September 30 
APPENDIX N – WATERBODIES CONTAINING SENSITIVE FISHERIES CROSSED 

BY THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

N-3 

APPENDIX N (continued) 

Waterbodies Containing Sensitive Fisheries Crossed by the Proposed Constitution Pipeline Project 

Milepost 

Waterbody 

Name County, State 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet)a

State Water 

Quality 

Classificationb

Fisheries 

Classificationc

Proposed 

Crossing 

Methodd

Construction 

Windowe

43.8 UNT of Cornell 

Creek 

Chenango, NY 5 C N/A II June 1 - 

September 30 

45.3 Landers Creek Chenango, NY 29 C(TS) (TS) III June 1 - 

September 30 

46.2 UNT to 

Susquehanna 

River 

Chenango, NY 3 C(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

46.3 UNT to 

Susquehanna 

River 

Chenango, NY 1 C(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

47.7 Bennettsville 

Creek 

Chenango, NY 48 C(T) (T) IV N/A (HDD) 

May 15 - 

October 15 

(Contingency) 

47.7 Bennettsville 

Creek 

Chenango, NY 165 C(T) (T) IV N/A (HDD) 

May 15 - 

October 15 

(Contingency) 

47.7 Bennettsville 

Creek 

Chenango, NY 144 C(T) (T) IV N/A (HDD) 

May 15 - 

October 15 

(Contingency) 

47.8 Bennettsville 

Creek 

Chenango, NY 85 C(T) (T) IV N/A (HDD) 

May 15 - 

October 15 

(Contingency) 

47.8 Bennettsville 

Creek 

Chenango, NY 0 C(T) (T) N/A N/A (HDD) 

May 15 - 

October 15 

(Contingency) 

51.0 Rock Creek Delaware, NY 20 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

52.5 UNT to 

Susquehanna 

River 

Delaware, NY 9 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

53.9 UNT to 

Masonville 

Creek 

Delaware, NY 1 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

55.9 UNT to Carrs 

Creek 

Delaware, NY 21 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

56.7 Carrs Creek Delaware, NY 64 C (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

56.8 UNT to Carrs 

Creek 

Delaware, NY 3 C N/A II June 1 - 

September 30 

60.8 Ouleout Creek Delaware, NY 97 C(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

68.8 UNT to 

Ouleout Creek 

Delaware, NY 4 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 
APPENDIX N – WATERBODIES CONTAINING SENSITIVE FISHERIES CROSSED 

BY THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

N-4 

APPENDIX N (continued) 

Waterbodies Containing Sensitive Fisheries Crossed by the Proposed Constitution Pipeline Project 

Milepost 

Waterbody 

Name County, State 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet)a

State Water 

Quality 

Classificationb

Fisheries 

Classificationc

Proposed 

Crossing 

Methodd

Construction 

Windowe

69.5 UNT to 

Ouleout Creek 

Delaware, NY 14 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

70.9 UNT to 

Ouleout Creek 

Delaware, NY 13 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

71.0 UNT to 

Ouleout Creek 

Delaware, NY 3 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

71.8 UNT to 

Ouleout Creek 

Delaware, NY 12 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

71.8 UNT to 

Ouleout Creek 

Delaware, NY 0 C(TS) (TS) N/A June 1 - 

September 30 

71.9 UNT to 

Ouleout Creek 

Delaware, NY 2 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

71.9 UNT to 

Ouleout Creek 

Delaware, NY 2 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

73.0 UNT to 

Ouleout Creek 

Delaware, NY 3 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

74.3 UNT to 

Ouleout Creek 

Delaware, NY 30 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

75.9 UNT to 

Ouleout Creek 

Delaware, NY 3 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

76.4 UNT to 

Ouleout Creek 

Delaware, NY 3 C(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

76.5 UNT to 

Ouleout Creek 

Delaware, NY 3 C N/A III June 1 - 

September 30 

77.9 UNT to 

Ouleout Creek 

Delaware, NY 3 CTS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

78.1 UNT to 

Charlotte 

Creek 

Delaware, NY 0 C(TS) (TS) N/A June 1 - 

September 30 

78.1 UNT to 

Charlotte 

Creek 

Delaware, NY 32 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

78.1 UNT to 

Charlotte 

Creek 

Delaware, NY 4 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

78.2 UNT to 

Charlotte 

Creek 

Delaware, NY 28 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

78.2 UNT to 

Charlotte 

Creek 

Delaware, NY 0 C(TS) (TS) N/A June 1 - 

September 30 

78.6 UNT to 

Charlotte 

Creek 

Delaware, NY 5 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

78.6 UNT to 

Charlotte 

Creek 

Delaware, NY 3 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

78.7 UNT to 

Charlotte 

Creek 

Delaware, NY 0 C(TS) (TS) N/A June 1 - 

September 30 
APPENDIX N – WATERBODIES CONTAINING SENSITIVE FISHERIES CROSSED 

BY THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

N-5 

APPENDIX N (continued) 

Waterbodies Containing Sensitive Fisheries Crossed by the Proposed Constitution Pipeline Project 

Milepost 

Waterbody 

Name County, State 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet)a

State Water 

Quality 

Classificationb

Fisheries 

Classificationc

Proposed 

Crossing 

Methodd

Construction 

Windowe

79.4 Prosser Hollow 

Brook 

Delaware, NY 4 C(TS) (TS) III June 1 - 

September 30 

80.4 UNT to 

Charlotte 

Creek 

Delaware, NY 6 C N/A II June 1 - 

September 30 

80.4 UNT to 

Charlotte 

Creek 

Delaware, NY 13 C N/A II June 1 - 

September 30 

80.4 UNT to 

Charlotte 

Creek 

Delaware, NY 4 D N/A III June 1 - 

September 30 

80.6 Pumpkin 

Hollow Brook 

Delaware, NY 4 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

81.6 Kortright Creek Delaware, NY 50 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

82.0 UNT to 

Kortright Creek 

Delaware, NY 12 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

82.0 UNT to 

Kortright Creek 

Delaware, NY 3 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

83.2 UNT to 

Kortright Creek 

Delaware, NY 9 C N/A II June 1 - 

September 30 

84.7 UNT to 

Charlotte 

Creek 

Delaware, NY 3 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

87.8 UNT to Middle 

Brook 

Delaware, NY 10 C(TS) (TS) IV June 1 - 

September 30 

87.9 Middle Brook Delaware, NY 64 C(TS) (TS) IV June 1 - 

September 30 

88.1 UNT to Middle 

Brook 

Delaware, NY 15 C(TS) (TS) IV June 1 - 

September 30 

88.5 UNT to Middle 

Brook 

Delaware, NY 15 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

91.8 UNT to 

Charlotte 

Creek 

Delaware, NY 3 C N/A II June 1 - 

September 30 

92.3 UNT to 

Charlotte 

Creek 

Delaware, NY 3 C(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

94.6 UNT to 

Charlotte 

Creek 

Schoharie, NY 13 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

94.6 UNT to 

Charlotte 

Creek 

Schoharie, NY 4 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

95.2 UNT to 

Clapper Hollow 

Creek 

Schoharie, NY 0 C(TS) (TS) N/A June 1 - 

September 30 

95.2 UNT to 

Clapper Hollow 

Creek 

Schoharie, NY 0 C(TS) (TS) N/A June 1 - 

September 30 
APPENDIX N – WATERBODIES CONTAINING SENSITIVE FISHERIES CROSSED 

BY THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

N-6 

APPENDIX N (continued) 

Waterbodies Containing Sensitive Fisheries Crossed by the Proposed Constitution Pipeline Project 

Milepost 

Waterbody 

Name County, State 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet)a

State Water 

Quality 

Classificationb

Fisheries 

Classificationc

Proposed 

Crossing 

Methodd

Construction 

Windowe

95.2 UNT to 

Clapper Hollow 

Creek 

Schoharie, NY 3 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

95.2 Clapper Hollow 

Creek 

Schoharie, NY 21 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

95.2 UNT to 

Clapper Hollow 

Creek 

Schoharie, NY 0 C(TS) (TS) N/A June 1 - 

September 30 

95.4 UNT to 

Clapper Hollow 

Creek 

Schoharie, NY 6 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

96.1 UNT to 

Clapper Hollow 

Creek 

Schoharie, NY 16 C(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

97.4 UNT to 

Clapper Hollow 

Creek 

Schoharie, NY 0 C(T) (T) N/A June 1 - 

September 30 

97.4 UNT to 

Clapper Hollow 

Creek 

Schoharie, NY 13 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

97.8 UNT to 

Clapper Hollow 

Creek 

Schoharie, NY 3 C(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

98.6 UNT to 

Clapper Hollow 

Creek 

Schoharie, NY 42 C(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

101.8 West Kill Schoharie, NY 34 C(T) (T) II June 1 - 

September 30 

109.5 UNT to House 

Creek 

Schoharie, NY 2 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

110.1 House Creek Schoharie, NY 30 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

110.3 UNT to House 

Creek 

Schoharie, NY 15 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

119.8 Schoharie 

Creek 

Schoharie, NY 248 C N/A V July 16 - 

February 28 

120.7 UNT to 

Schoharie 

Creek 

Schoharie, NY 3 C(TS) (TS) II June 1 - 

September 30 

Access Roads 

17.8 PAR15 – UNT 

to Canawacta 

Creek 

Susquehanna, 

PA 

6 CWF N/A Permanent 

Fill 

June 16 – 

February 28 

17.8 PAR15 – UNT 

to Canawacta 

Creek 

Susquehanna, 

PA 

18 CWF N/A Permanent 

Culvert/Brid

ge 

June 16 – 

February 28 

17.8 PAR15 – UNT 

to Canawacta 

Creek 

Susquehanna, 

PA 

1 CWF N/A Permanent 

Fill 

June 16 – 

February 28 
APPENDIX N – WATERBODIES CONTAINING SENSITIVE FISHERIES CROSSED 

BY THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION PIPELINE PROJECT 

N-7 

APPENDIX N (continued) 

Waterbodies Containing Sensitive Fisheries Crossed by the Proposed Constitution Pipeline Project 

Milepost 

Waterbody 

Name County, State 

Length 

Crossed 

(feet)a

State Water 

Quality 

Classificationb

Fisheries 

Classificationc

Proposed 

Crossing 

Methodd

Construction 

Windowe

27.8 PAR21 – UNT 

to Fly Creek 

Broome, NY 0 B(T) (T) N/A June 1 - 

September 30 

33.8 PAR27 – UNT 

to Oquaga 

Creek 

Broome, NY 0 C(TS) (TS) N/A June 1 - 

September 30 

33.8 PAR27 – UNT 

to Oquaga 

Creek 

Broome, NY 0 C(TS) (TS) N/A June 1 - 

September 30 

54.1 PAR36a – UNT 

to Masonville 

Creek 

Delaware, NY 4 C(TS) (TS) Temporary 

Culvert/ 

Bridge 

June 1 - 

September 30 

70.0 PAR44 – UNT 

ot Ouleout 

Creek 

Delaware, NY 0 C(TS) (TS) N/A June 1 - 

September 30 

70.0 PAR44 – UNT 

ot Ouleout 

Creek 

Delaware, NY 0 C(TS) (TS) N/A June 1 - 

September 30 

70.5 PAR45 - UNT 

ot Ouleout 

Creek 

Delaware, NY 0 C(TS) (TS) N/A June 1 - 

September 30 

72.6 PAR46 – UNT 

to Ouleout 

Creek 

Delaware, NY 8 C(TS) (TS) Permanent 

Culvert/ 

Bridge 

June 1 - 

September 30 

________________________ 

a

 Crossing length of 0 indicates the waterbody would be crossed by the construction workspace, but not directly crossed by 

the pipeline. A crossing length of 0 for an access road indicates that no disturbance to the waterbody is anticipated based 

on the presence of existing infrastructure. For minor waterbodies less than 3 feet in width delineated in the survey area and 

shown as a single line feature on the project alignment sheets, an assumed 3-foot width was used for this analysis. 

b

 Pennsylvania Water Quality Classification Definition: CWF = Cold Water Fishery; HQ = High Quality (Chapter 93 

Pennsylvania Code). NY Water Quality Standards Definition: Water quality standards based on the classification and best 

use of waterbody as determined by NYSDEC (6 NYCRR Parts 815, 879, 931). AA, A, B, and C streams are suitable for fish, 

shellfish, and wildlife propagation and survival. 

c

 Pennsylvania Fishery Information: Approved trout waters; Trout Stocked; Natural Trout Reproduction. NY Fishery 

Classifications: T = Trout; TS = Trout Spawning (6 NYCRR 701.25). 

d II = Dry Crossing Method, including Flume, Dam and Pump, or Cofferdam; III = Conventional Bore; IV = HDD, V= Direct Pipe 

Method. Constitution would cross intermittent streams containing discernible flow at the time of construction using a dry 

crossing method. NA-Not Applicable-crossing method not required as these features would not be directly crossed by the 

pipeline. 

e

 PA Construction Windows for fisheries are based on the PFBC state fishery classification restrictions and consultation with 

the PFCB (PFBC 2013c). Although Martins and Salt Lick Creeks are approved trout waters, the pipeline would not cross 

portions of the creeks that are stocked and therefore do not require crossing windows. Potential timing restrictions reflect 

dates during which construction activities may occur and are subject to PFBC and PADEP review. Constitution would 

adhere to the PADEP and PFBC fishery timing restriction during construction; state fishery timing restrictions are designed 

by the state to protect the resources during the time period that the state has determined is critical. 

 NY Construction Windows for cold water fisheries are based on consultation with the NYSDEC which include the NYSDEC’s 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Gas Transmission Line Construction Projects (dated May 16, 2013). Waterbody 

specific construction windows were added based on in-field coordination with the NYSDEC. 

UNT = Unnamed Tributary 
APPENDIX O 

Residential Construction Plans 

for the Constitution Pipeline Project

Date: February 2014

Not to Scale Residential Co

PA-SU-061.0

O-1
Date: February 2014

Not to Scale Residential Co

ALT-B-NY-BR-0

O-2
Date: February 2014

Not to Scale Residential Co

ALT-F-NY-SC-00

O-3
Date: February 2014

Not to Scale Residential Co

ALT-F-NY-SC-0

O-4
Date: February 2014

Not to Scale Residential Co

ALT-Q-UA-NY-SC-

O-5
Date: February 2014

Not to Scale Residential Co

ALT-Q-NY-SC-01

O-6
Date: February 2014

Not to Scale Residential Co

ALT-Q-UA-SC-02

O-7
APPENDIX P 

Clean and Green Program Properties Crossed by the 

Constitution Pipeline Project 

 
 
P-1 

APPENDIX P 

Clean and Green Program Properties Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost 

Crossing 

Length 

(feet) 

Acres Affected 

Upland Forest Agricultural Open Land Wetland Residential Waterb

Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr 

Susquehanna County 

0.0 1.2 6,157 4.9 2.2 6.9 2.9 2.1 1.0 1.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.2 1.4 1,208 3.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.7 1,409 2.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.9 1,182 2.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 2.0 383 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.4 1,994 1.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.6 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.9 2,660 1.8 0.8 5.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.4 410 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 3.6 862 1.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 3.7 764 1.8 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 4.0 1,557 4.3 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.3 1,436 1.6 0.8 2.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 4.6 1,757 0.1 0.1 3.5 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 4.9 1,390 0.0 0.0 3.9 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 5.0 437 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.2 816 2.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 5.3 351 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 5.6 1,671 2.9 1.0 2.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 6.1 2,720 0.4 0.1 7.6 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 6.5 640 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 6.7 1,133 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 
P-2 

APPENDIX P (continued) 

Clean and Green Properties Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost 

Crossing 

Length 

(feet) 

Acres Affected 

Upland Forest Agricultural Open Land Wetland Residential Waterb

Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr 

6.7 7.3 2,940 1.9 0.5 5.3 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 7.5 1,496 3.5 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 7.9 1,638 0.5 0.3 3.8 1.5 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 8.3 2,107 4.7 2.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 8.8 1,837 4.2 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 8.9 760 0.5 0.2 1.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 9.2 1,682 0.6 0.3 2.7 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 9.6 1,620 0.7 0.4 1.9 0.7 1.3 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 9.6 49 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 10.0 664 1.3 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

10.0 10.2 967 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 10.2 10.3 753 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 10.4 428 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.4 10.5 541 1.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 10.6 647 0.2 0.2 1.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 10.7 541 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.7 10.9 817 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 10.9 11.0 514 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 11.0 302 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 11.1 729 1.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 11.1 11.2 212 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 11.3 335 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.3 11.3 229 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 
P-3 

APPENDIX P (continued) 

Clean and Green Properties Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost 

Crossing 

Length 

(feet) 

Acres Affected 

Upland Forest Agricultural Open Land Wetland Residential Waterb

Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr 

11.3 11.5 962 2.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.5 11.7 984 1.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 12.1 1,778 2.1 0.8 2.4 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.1 12.2 1,011 2.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2 12.4 806 1.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.4 12.6 1,274 3.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.6 12.8 871 2.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.8 13.0 1,099 2.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 13.0 101 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 13.1 169 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 13.3 1,124 2.6 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 13.4 760 1.8 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.4 13.6 1,121 1.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6 13.8 881 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 14.3 1,903 4.2 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 14.4 438 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.4 14.4 81 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.4 14.4 119 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 14.5 14.5 503 1.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 14.6 451 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.6 14.7 608 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.1 15.2 839 0.7 0.2 1.0 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.2 15.3 595 1.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 
P-4 

APPENDIX P (continued) 

Clean and Green Properties Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost 

Crossing 

Length 

(feet) 

Acres Affected 

Upland Forest Agricultural Open Land Wetland Residential Waterb

Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr 

15.3 15.8 2,386 1.2 0.5 2.8 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 15.8 16.1 1,893 4.3 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 17.1 1,672 1.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 3.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 17.3 1,426 3.9 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.3 17.8 2,410 5.5 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.8 17.8 81 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.3 18.6 2,037 4.6 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.6 18.9 1,411 2.8 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.9 19.2 1,368 3.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.2 19.6 1,815 4.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.6 19.8 1,068 2.6 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.8 20.1 2,091 4.8 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.3 20.9 3,155 6.9 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 20.9 21.1 670 1.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.1 21.2 781 1.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.2 21.3 400 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.3 21.5 981 2.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.9 22.2 1,473 3.6 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 22.6 1,944 3.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.3 0.5 0.0 22.6 22.8 1,302 2.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 22.8 23.0 1,048 2.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0 23.5 2,436 3.5 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.5 23.9 1,903 4.6 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
P-5 

APPENDIX P (continued) 

Clean and Green Properties Crossed by the Constitution Pipeline Project 

Start 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost 

Crossing 

Length 

(feet) 

Acres Affected 

Upland Forest Agricultural Open Land Wetland Residential Waterb

Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr Oper Constr 

23.9 24.0 844 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 24.2 885 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.3 24.7 1,951 4.3 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.7 25.2 2,790 4.9 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Total Acres Impacted by Land Use 

Category 

181.4 84.0 62.1 25.6 23.6 9.6 14.1 9.5 1.6 0.5 1.1