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)