1-1 Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On June 13, 2013, Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC1 (Constitution) and Iroquois Gas 

Transmission System, L.P. (Iroquois); filed applications with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(Commission or FERC) under Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the 

Commission’s regulations to construct, install, own, operate, and maintain certain interstate natural gas 

pipeline facilities in Pennsylvania and New York. Constitution and Iroquois are seeking Certificates of 

Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate), and were assigned Docket Nos. CP13-499-000 and 

CP13-502-000, respectively, for their applications, respectively. We issued a Notice of Application for 

each project on June 26, 2013, which were noticed in the Federal Register on July 2, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

install one pig2 launcher and one receiver at the M&R stations.

Iroquois’ proposal, referred to as Iroquois’ Wright Interconnect Project (or proposed compressor 

transfer station), would involve the construction and operation of the Constitution Transfer Station 

adjacent to the existing Wright Compressor Station; modifications to the existing Wright Compressor 

Station; installation of additional odorization pumps; upsizing of gas piping and measurement controls; 

and construction of an interconnect with Constitution’s pipeline. 

Constitution and Iroquois propose to place the projects in service by or near March of 2015. The 

Applicants would seek approval to begin construction as soon as possible after receiving all necessary 

federal authorizations. The proposed facilities for both projects and their schedules are described in detail 

in section 2.0. 

The environmental staff of the FERC has prepared this draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) to assess the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the facilities 

proposed by Constitution and Iroquois in accordance with the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army 

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

Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYSDAM), are participating as cooperating agencies in the 

preparation of the EIS.3

 The roles of the FERC and the cooperating agencies in the review process for 

both projects are described in section 1.2.

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

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

demands in New York and the New England area, and due to interest from shippers that require 

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

Company LLC (TGP) systems in Schoharie County, New York. While this EIS will briefly discuss the 

 1 Jointly owned by Williams Partners Operating, LLC; Cabot Pipeline Holdings, LLC; Piedmont Constitution 

Pipeline Company, LLC; and Capital Energy Ventures Corporation. 2 A pig is an internal tool that can be used to clean and dry a pipeline and/or to inspect it for damage or corrosion. 3 A cooperating agency has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to environmental impacts 

involved with the proposal and is involved in the NEPA analysis. 
Introduction 1-2

Applicants’ purpose, it will not determine whether the need for the projects exists, as this will later be 

determined by the Commission. 

Based on information provided by Constitution and Iroquois, the purpose of the proposed projects 

is to:

• deliver up to 650,000 dekatherms per day4 (Dth/d) of natural gas supply from 

Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania to the interconnect with the TGP and Iroquois 

systems at the existing Wright Compressor Station;

• provide new natural gas service for areas currently without access to natural gas;

• expand access to multiple sources of natural gas supply, thereby increasing supply 

diversity and improving operational performance, system flexibility, and reliability in the 

New York and New England market areas; 

• optimize the existing systems for the benefit of both current and new customers by 

creating a more competitive market, resulting in enhanced market competition, reduced 

price volatility, and lower prices; and 

• provide opportunities to improve regional air quality by utilizing cleaner-burning natural 

gas in lieu of fuel oil in existing and future residential, commercial, and industrial 

facilities, thereby reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other pollutants. 

As noted in the second bullet above, Constitution has identified that the proposed pipeline could 

provide natural gas service to nearby municipalities that do not currently have access to natural gas. 

According to Leatherstocking Gas Company, LLC (Leatherstocking), Leatherstocking has entered into a 

Memorandum of Understanding with Constitution, which would allow Leatherstocking to interconnect 

with Constitution’s pipeline at several delivery points (Leatherstocking 2013). Leatherstocking would 

then be able to deliver gas from Constitution’s pipeline to homes and businesses within communities in 

Pennsylvania and New York. In New York, the Town of Bainbridge, the Village of Windsor, the Town 

of Windsor, the Village of Bainbridge, the Town of Unadilla, the Village of Unadilla, the Town of 

Sidney, the Village of Sidney, and the Village of Delhi have granted Leatherstocking approvals for the 

opportunity to serve their communities (Leatherstocking 2013). Leatherstocking would evaluate the need 

for gas in these communities and construct the necessary infrastructure as part of the New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation’s (NYSDEC) permitting process for natural gas gathering 

and local distribution lines and could be subject to other processes including review by the COE for 

impacts on waters of the United States. 

In March 2012, Constitution executed binding precedent agreements5 for the entire proposed 

650,000 Dth/d or about 0.65 billion cubic feet per day of additional firm transportation capacity. Prior to 

executing these agreements, the shippers typically already have the production capacity in place to supply 

the full volumes for the project. As a result, the proposed pipeline is fully subscribed. Table 1.1-1 lists 

 4 A dekatherm is a unit of heating value often used by natural gas companies instead of volume for billing 

purposes. A dekatherm is equivalent to 10 therms or one million British thermal units. For conceptualization 

purposes only, a natural gas capacity of 650,000 Dth/d would be sufficient to power roughly 6.2 million homes 

annually (if it were used solely for residential energy production). This estimate assumes an average household 

energy consumption of 11,000 kilowatt hours per year. If these projects are approved, the natural gas could be 

used in a variety of applications, not solely for residential energy generation. 5 A precedent agreement is a binding contract under which one or both parties has the ability to terminate the 

agreement if certain conditions, such as receipt of regulatory approvals, are not met.
1-3 Introduction

Constitution’s shippers by contracted volumes. The non-jurisdictional facilities associated with the 

delivery of the proposed volumes are discussed in sections 1.4 and 4.13.

TABLE 1.1-1

Constitution Pipeline Project Precedent Agreements

Shipper Maximum Daily Transportation Quantity (Dth/d)

Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation 500,000

Southwestern Energy Services Company 150,000

Total Volume Contracted 650,000

The purpose of Iroquois’ project is to provide 650,000 Dth/d of leased firm capacity of natural 

gas from the terminus of Constitution’s project in Wright, New York to downstream customers in 

Iroquois’ existing system through the addition of system compression, interconnections (including TGP), 

and other necessary infrastructure. In addition, Iroquois’ proposed compressor transfer station has 

rendered Constitution’s originally planned greenfield6 compressor station unnecessary. This is discussed 

in detail in section 3.5. 

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EIS

Our 7 principal purposes for preparing the EIS are to:

• identify and assess the potential impacts on the natural and human environment that 

would result from the implementation of the proposed projects;

• describe and evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed projects that would avoid or 

substantially lessen adverse effects of the projects on the environment while still meeting 

the project objectives;

• identify and recommend specific mitigation measures, as necessary, to avoid or minimize 

environmental effects; and

• encourage and facilitate involvement by the public and interested agencies in the 

environmental review process.

The topics addressed in the EIS include alternatives; geology; soils; groundwater; surface waters; 

wetlands; vegetation; wildlife and aquatic resources; special status species; land use, recreation, special 

interest areas and visual resources; socioeconomics; cultural resources; air quality and noise; reliability

and safety; and cumulative impacts. The EIS describes the affected environment as it currently exists 

based on available information, discusses the environmental consequences of the proposed projects, and 

compares the projects’ potential impact to that of various alternatives. The EIS also presents our 

recommended mitigation measures.

Our description of the affected environment is based on a combination of data sources including 

desktop resources such as scientific literature and regulatory agency reports as well as field data collected 

by Constitution and Iroquois. Constitution has field surveyed approximately 534 of 707 land tracts, or 

about 76 percent of the total number of tracts (approximately 94 miles) along the project route. 

Completion of field surveys is primarily dependent upon acquisition of survey permission from 

 6 Greenfields are lands that do not contain existing utility rights-of-way.

7 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the FERC’s Office of Energy Projects. 
Introduction 1-4

landowners. If the necessary access cannot be obtained through coordination with landowners and the 

proposed projects are certificated by FERC, Constitution may use the right of eminent domain granted to 

it under Section 7(h) of the NGA to obtain a right-of-way. Therefore, if the projects are Certificated by 

the Commission, then it is likely that a substantial number of the outstanding surveys for Constitution’s 

project (and associated agency permitting) would have to be completed after issuance of the Certificate. 

Iroquois’ project would occur entirely upon land owned by Iroquois, and field surveys for the parcel have 

been completed. 

1.2.1 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

The FERC is the federal agency responsible for evaluating applications filed for authorization to 

construct and operate interstate natural gas pipeline facilities. If the Commission determines that a project 

is required by the public convenience and necessity, Certificates would be issued under 7(c) of the NGA 

and Part 157 of the Commission’s regulations. The Commission bases its decision on not only 

environmental impact, but also technical competence, financing, rates, market demand, gas supply, longterm feasibility, and other issues concerning a proposed project. As such, the FERC is the lead federal 

agency for the preparation of this EIS in compliance with the requirements of NEPA, the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (Title 40 

Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), and the FERC’s regulations implementing NEPA 

(18 CFR 380).

As the lead federal agency for the projects, the FERC is required to comply with Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and Section 307 of the Coastal Zone 

Management Act of 1972. These and other statutes have been taken into account in the preparation of the 

EIS. 

1.2.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The EPA has delegated water quality certifications under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) and the NYSDEC, but the 

EPA may assume this authority if no state program exists, if the state program is not functioning 

adequately, or at the request of a state. Water used for hydrostatic testing of pipelines that is point-source 

discharged into waterbodies requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (Section 

402 of the CWA) issued by the state with EPA oversight. In addition, the EPA has the authority to 

review and veto the COE decisions on Section 404 permits.

The EPA also has jurisdictional authority to control air pollution under the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

(42 United States Code [USC] Chapter 85) by developing and enforcing rules and regulations for all 

entities that emit toxic substances into the air. Under this authority, the EPA has developed regulations 

for major sources of air pollution. The EPA has delegated the authority to implement these regulations to 

state and local agencies, who are also allowed to develop their own regulations for non-major 

sources. The EPA also establishes general conformity applicability thresholds, with which a federal 

agency can determine whether a specific action requires a general conformity assessment.

In addition to its permitting responsibilities, the EPA is required under Section 309 of the CAA to 

review and publicly comment on the environmental impacts of major federal actions including actions 

that are the subject of draft and final EISs, and responsible for implementing certain procedural provisions 

of the NEPA (e.g., publishing the Notices of Availability of the draft and final EISs in the Federal 

Register) to establish statutory timeframes for the environmental review process.
1-5 Introduction

1.2.3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The COE has jurisdictional authority pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA (33 USC 1344), which 

governs the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (including wetlands). 

Because the COE must comply with the requirements of the NEPA before issuing permits under this 

statute, it has elected to cooperate in the preparation of the EIS. The COE would adopt the EIS per 40 

CFR 1506.3 if, after an independent review of the document, it concludes that its comments and 

suggestions have been satisfied. 

As an element of its review, the COE must consider whether the proposed projects represent the 

least environmentally damaging practicable alternative pursuant to the CWA Section 404(b)(1) 

guidelines. The term practicable means available and capable of being done after taking into 

consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall purposes of both projects. 

Although this document addresses environmental impacts associated with the proposed projects 

as they relate to Section 404, it does not serve as a public notice for any of the COE’s permits. 

Constitution filed an application for a Department of the Army Permit under Section 404 of the CWA on 

August 27, 2013. It is the COE’s intent that a public notice describing the activity for which a Section 

404 permit is sought will be issued when the draft EIS is issued. The FERC will hold comment meetings 

during the 45-day draft EIS comment period to solicit input comments on the EIS. The COE will 

consider the comment meetings on the draft EIS to serve as their public hearings to gather information 

that will assist in the review of Constitution’s request for any necessary COE permit. 

1.2.4 Federal Highway Administration

The FHWA is an agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) that supports state 

and local governments in the design, construction, and maintenance of the Nation’s highway system on 

various federally and tribal owned lands. Constitution developed a route alternative (alternative M) 

which would place the proposed route in and/or adjacent to the right-of-way for Interstate 88 which is 

managed by the New York State Department of Transportation but receives funding from the FHWA

(section 3.4.1.2). 

1.2.5 New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets

The NYSDAM is a state agency that works to promote a viable agricultural industry, foster 

agricultural environmental stewardship, and safeguard the food supply of New York. The NYSDAM has 

prepared guidance documents for construction of pipelines within agricultural areas. Constitution intends 

to adhere to the NYSDAM’s guidance for construction within agricultural land. 

1.3 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

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

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

design stage of the project and no formal application had been filed with the FERC. The purpose of the 

pre-filing process is to encourage the early involvement of interested stakeholders, facilitate interagency 

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

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

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

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

process.
Introduction 1-6

During the pre-filing process, Constitution held seven informational open houses in July and 

September 2012. The purpose of the open houses was to provide affected landowners, elected and agency 

officials, and the general public with information about the pipeline project and to give them an 

opportunity to ask questions and express their concerns. We participated in the open houses and provided 

information regarding the Commission’s environmental review process to interested stakeholders and to 

take comments about the proposed pipeline project and the alternatives. The substantive questions and 

concerns raised by the public at the open houses are addressed in this EIS.

In addition, Constitution established a single point of contact to answer questions and provide 

information, established a website with information about the pipeline project, and sent periodic update 

newsletters. Constitution also communicated directly with certain landowners where specific issues were 

raised regarding individual properties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

newspapers. The notice briefly described the project and the EIS process, provided a preliminary list of 

issues identified by us, invited written comments on the environmental issues that should be addressed in 

the draft EIS, listed the date and location of three public scoping meetings to be held in the area of the 

project, and established a closing date for receipt of comments of October 9, 2012.

We initially held three public scoping meetings to provide an opportunity for agencies, 

stakeholders, and the general public to learn more about the proposed pipeline project and participate in 

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

meeting was in Afton, New York on September 24, 2012; the second meeting was in Schoharie, New 

York on September 25, 2012; and the third meeting was in New Milford, Pennsylvania on September 26, 

2012. Forty-two people commented at the meeting in Afton, 45 people commented at the meeting in 

Schoharie, and 14 people commented at the meeting in New Milford. Each meeting was documented by 

a court reporter, and the transcripts were placed into the public record for Constitution’s project.

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

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

Register on October 16, 2012 and mailed to more than 3,300 interested parties as noted above. The notice 

listed the date and location of one additional public scoping meeting to be held in the pipeline project area 

and extended the closing date for receipt of comments from October 9, 2012 to November 9, 2012. The 

additional scoping meeting was held on October 24, 2012 in Oneonta, New York at which 70 people 

commented. The meeting was documented by a court reporter and the transcript was placed into the 

public record for Constitution’s project.

An interagency meeting in the pipeline project area was held on August 22, 2012, to solicit 

comments and concerns about Constitution’s project from other jurisdictional agencies. The participating 

(either in person or via teleconference) agencies included the COE, EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

(FWS), PADEP, NYSDEC, and NYSDAM.

In addition, during the pre-filing process, we conducted conference calls on an approximately biweekly basis with representatives from Constitution and interested agencies to discuss the pipeline 

project’s progress and issues. Summaries of the calls were placed in the public record.
1-7 Introduction

The transcripts of the public scoping meetings, summaries of the bi-weekly conference calls, and 

all written scoping comments are part of the public record for Constitution’s project and are available for 

viewing on the FERC internet website (http://www.ferc.gov).8

 On February 21, 2013, and October 9, 

2013, we issued Project Updates, which outlined the status of the environmental review process and 

included a summary of the issues identified through the scoping process. 

On July 10, 2013, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed Wright Interconnect Project and Request for Comments on Environmental 

Issues. The notice was published in the Federal Register on July 16, 2013 and mailed to 74 interested 

parties, including federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; 

environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; affected property owners as defined in 

the Commission’s regulations (i.e., landowners within one-half mile of the compressor transfer station); 

other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. 

Table 1.3-1 lists the environmental issues that were identified during scoping and indicates the 

section of the EIS in which each issue is addressed. In addition to the comments received at the public 

scoping meetings discussed above, nearly 2,130 written comments and nearly 500 motions to intervene 

were filed with the FERC and place in the public record for the projects. Table 1.3-1 also lists comments 

that were received after the formal scoping period closed, including the relevant environmental comments 

raised by individuals requesting to be intervenors in the Commission’s proceeding.9

 Additional issues we 

independently identified are also addressed in the EIS. 

Several of the issues identified both during and after the pre-filing process involved alternative 

pipeline routes prompted by localized resources such as water wells or wetlands, as well as larger 

resource areas such as aquifers, watersheds, and state parks. These concerns were identified by property 

owners, stakeholders, the FERC staff, and other agency staff. Many of these alternative routes that 

avoided sensitive resources were developed early in the process and voluntarily incorporated by 

Constitution into its proposed route. Given this process, subsequent alternative route comparisons often 

were not necessary if the resource was avoided or the stakeholder’s concerns were otherwise resolved. 

Other alternative routes, however, both small and large, remained viable throughout the course of the 

project. Section 3.0 presents our analysis of all the alternatives that were identified since the beginning of 

our review of these projects in May 2012. This section also discusses the original routes that were

discarded in favor of routes voluntarily incorporated by Constitution to reduce impacts on specific 

resources. 

 8 Using the “eLibrary” link, select “General Search” from the eLibrary menu and enter the docket number 

excluding the last three digits in the “Docket Number” field (i.e., PF12-9). Be sure to select an appropriate date 

range. 9 The FERC’s Notice of Application (for the Constitution pipeline project and the Iroquois project), issued in the 

Federal Register on June 26, 2013, opened the 21-day period for intervention. A total of 477 groups and 

individuals for the Constitution pipeline project and 11 groups and individuals for the Iroquois project requested 

intervenor status. Interveners are official parties to the proceeding and have the right to receive copies of caserelated Commission documents and filings by other intervenors. Likewise, each intervenor must provide a copy

of its filings to the Secretary of the Commission and must send a copy of its filings to all other intervenors. 

Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission’s decision.
Introduction 1-8

TABLE 1.3-1

Issues Identified and Comments Received During the Scoping Process for the Proposed Projects

Issue/Specific Comment

EIS Section

Addressing Comment

General

Project purpose and need 1.1

Coordination of NEPA reviews by cooperating agencies 1.2

Pre-filing process, its use in project development, agency coordination, 

landowner notifications and communications, public participation

1.3

Compliance with environmental permits 1.5

Right-of-way width requirements and configurations 2.2.1

Depth of cover 2.3.1

Non-jurisdictional facilities 1.4

Timeframe and schedule for the proposed facilities 2.4

Future project expansion 2.7

Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts on the 

environment

4.0 

Development of natural gas reserves in the Marcellus Shale (fracking) 4.13

Exportation of natural gas 1.3

Alternatives

No-action alternative 3.1

Energy conservation 3.1.1

Non-gas energy alternatives 3.1.2

Consideration of renewable energy alternatives 3.1.2

Use of other natural gas systems 3.2

Consideration of alternative routes to avoid populated areas, planned 

development, and critical infrastructure

3.4, 3.5, 3.6

Consideration of alternative routes and construction practices to avoid 

sensitive resources

3.3, 3.4, 3.5, appendix H

Evaluation of a route along the I-88 corridor 3.4.1

Workspace alternatives 2.3, 4.8

Geology

Potential for seismic activity (earthquakes) or landslides to affect the 

integrity of the pipeline after construction

4.1.3

Impacts from blasting 4.1.3

Impacts due to construction in karst terrain 4.1.3

Soils

Erosion and sediment control 4.2.1, 4.2.3, 4.2.4

Contaminated soils 2.3.1, 4.2.2, 4.8.5

Soil compaction 4.2.2

Water Quality and Aquatic Resources

Storage of hazardous materials and fuel oil, and spill reporting procedures 2.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2 

Impacts on groundwater, existing hydrology, and drinking water supply 

(including public and private wells)

4.3.1
1-9 Introduction

TABLE 1.3-1 (continued)

Issues Identified and Comments Received During the Scoping Process for the Proposed Projects

Issue/Specific Comment

EIS Section

Addressing Comment

Dewatering methods and procedures 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 4.2.4, 

Waterbody crossing time windows, methods, mitigation, and restoration 

measures

2.3.2, 4.3.3, 4.6.2, appendix K

Impacts of horizontal directional drill crossings, including inadvertent 

releases of drilling mud, drilling spoil management and disposal

4.3.3, 4.6.2, 

Impacts on the pipeline from a flood event 4.1.3, 4.3.3

Impacts on fishery resources, including coldwater fishery streams 4.6.2

Wetlands

Impacts on wetlands 4.4.3, appendix L

Restoration of wetlands and wetland mitigation 4.4.5

Vegetation

Impacts on mature trees, including restoration plans 4.5.3, 4.8.1, appendix M

Revegetation of areas cleared during construction 4.5.5

Plans for invasive species control 4.5.4

Wildlife

Timing restrictions and compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 4.6.1

Impacts on wildlife from forest fragmentation/forest edge effect 4.6.1

Impacts on Important Bird Areas 4.6.1

Special Status Species

Agency coordination and requirements 4.7.1

Evaluation of potential impacts on threatened or endangered species and 

their habitat

4.7.2, 4.7.3

Land Use

Impacts on future development plans 4.8.3

Eminent domain and compensation process 4.8.2

Compatibility with state- and federally owned lands 4.8.4

Impacts on existing residences and structures during construction and 

operation

4.8.3

Impacts on recreational and special interest areas (including agricultural 

lands and organic farms)

4.8.4

Visual impacts of aboveground facilities 4.8.6

Impacts on landowners from removal of lands from conservation programs 

with potential tax or penalty implications

4.8.4, appendix O

Impacts on transportation infrastructure (roads, highways, railroads) 2.3.2, 4.9.4, appendix F

Increased impacts on landowners from trespassers and decreased privacy 4.8.3

Impacts on tourism, ecotourism, and businesses which rely on the land 4.8.4, 4.9.2

Socioeconomics

Employment opportunities for local contractors and laborers and increased 

tax revenues

4.9.1, 4.9.7

Assessment of and impacts on community public safety resources 4.9.3

Traffic impacts associated with the project 4.9.4

Impacts on Environmental Justice communities 4.9.8
Introduction 1-10

TABLE 1.3-1 (continued)

Issues Identified and Comments Received During the Scoping Process for the Proposed Projects

Issue/Specific Comment

EIS Section

Addressing Comment

Impacts on homes, businesses, and land values, potential for increased 

taxes and lowered property values

4.9.5, 4.9.7

Impacts on mortgage rates 4.9.5

Impacts on ability to obtain and afford homeowner’s insurance 4.9.6

Cultural Resources

Tribal consultation and impacts on tribal lands and areas of cultural 

importance to Native American tribes

4.10.1

Impacts on culturally and historically significant properties 4.10.4

Air Quality

Consistency with the emissions limits and standards 4.11.1

Impacts on air quality resulting from construction activities 4.11.1

Methane leaks, GHG emissions and consistency 4.11.1

Radon 4.11.1

Noise

Potential noise impacts resulting from construction activities and proposed 

mitigation measures to reduce impacts

4.11.2

Reliability and Safety

Emergency response plans, evacuation plans, and coordination with 

community public safety services

4.8.5, 4.12.1

Remote detection of potential issues (e.g., pipeline leaks), safety of pipeline 

operation

4.12.1

Safety and reliability of constructing and maintaining the pipeline 4.12.1

Pipeline damage from accidental third-party or terrorist actions 4.12.1

Cumulative Impacts

Analysis of cumulative impacts 4.13

We also received scoping comments regarding the potential for overseas exportation of natural 

gas associated with the Constitution’s project. Constitution has stated that it would deliver natural gas to 

the existing Iroquois and TGP systems, to ultimately serve markets in New England and New York. 

Constitution’s application does not include provisions for the exportation of natural gas. Further, there 

are no existing or proposed natural gas exportation facilities located downstream of Constitution’s project. 

Should such exportation facilities be proposed in the future downstream of Constitution’s project, which 

is speculative, then any such proposal would be subject to a new and separate approval process from the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the FERC, and all other applicable permitting agencies. 

This draft EIS has been filed with the EPA and mailed to federal, state, and local government 

agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes and regional organizations; local libraries and 

newspapers; property owners affected by the proposed facilities; individuals requesting intervenor status 

in the FERC’s proceeding; and other interested parties (i.e., individuals, and environmental and public 

interest groups who provided scoping comments or asked to remain on the mailing list). The distribution 

list for the draft EIS is in appendix A. The draft EIS was also submitted to the EPA for issuing its formal 

public Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. The public has 45 days after the date of publication 

in the Federal Register to review and comment on the draft EIS either in the form of written comments 

and/or at public meetings to be held in the area of both projects. The dates and locations of these public 
1-11 Introduction

meetings are listed in the To the Party Addressed letter that is included in the front of this draft EIS and in 

the Notice of Availability. All comments received on the draft EIS related to environmental issues will be 

addressed in the final EIS.

1.4 NON-JURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES

Under Section 7 of the NGA, the FERC is required to consider, as part of its decision to authorize 

interstate natural gas facilities, all factors bearing on the public convenience and necessity. Occasionally, 

proposed projects have associated facilities that do not come under the jurisdiction of the Commission. 

These “non-jurisdictional” facilities may be integral to the need for the proposed facilities (e.g., a power 

plant at the end of a FERC-jurisdictional pipeline), or they may be merely associated as minor, nonintegral components of the jurisdictional facilities that would be constructed and operated as a result of 

Certification of the proposed facilities.

Two proposed non-jurisdictional facilities are associated with the proposed pipeline project and 

would be located in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. These facilities include the White Road M&R 

Station near milepost (MP) 3.3 and the Sutton Road M&R Station near MP 9.4. The White Road M&R 

Station would consist of a 2.2 acre site and it would house transfer, measurement, and regulation 

facilities. Williams Field Services Company would own and operate the White Road M&R Station. The 

Sutton Road M&R Station would receive up to 150 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas. 

The approximate 2 acre site would be enclosed by a chain link fence. Southwestern Energy Services 

Company (Southwestern) would own and operate the Sutton Road M&R Station. 

Commentors recommend that the impacts associated with producing natural gas from the 

Marcellus Shale be included in the environmental review of the Project. Our authority under the NGA 

and the NEPA review requirements relate only to natural gas facilities that are involved in interstate 

commerce. Thus, the facilities associated with the production of natural gas are not under FERC 

jurisdiction. The development of the Marcellus Shale, which is regulated by the states, continues to drive 

the need for takeaway interstate pipeline capacity to allow the gas to reach markets. Therefore, 

companies are planning and building interstate transmission facilities in response to this new source of 

gas supply. In addition, many production facilities have already been permitted and/or constructed in the 

region, creating a network through which natural gas may flow along various pathways to local users or 

interstate pipeline systems.

That is not to say that the environmental impact of individual production facilities is not 

assessed. In Pennsylvania, the permitting of oil and gas production facilities is under the jurisdiction of 

the PADEP, and other agencies, such as the COE or the Susquehanna and Delaware River Basin 

Commissions. Although we do not examine the impacts of Marcellus Shale production facilities to the 

same extent as the project facilities in this EIS, we have identified existing and proposed Marcellus Shale 

production facilities in proximity to the Constitution project (including the White Road and Sutton Road 

M&R Stations) and have considered them within the context of cumulative impacts in the project area 

(see section 4.13 - Cumulative Impacts). 

1.5 PERMITS, APPROVALS, CONSULTATIONS, AND REGULATORY REVIEW

Table 1.5-1 lists the major federal, state, and local permits, approvals, and consultations identified 

for the construction and operation of the projects. Table 1.5-1 also provides the dates or anticipated dates 

when Constitution and Iroquois commenced or anticipate commencing formal permit and consultation 

procedures. Constitution and Iroquois would be responsible for obtaining all permits and approvals 

required to implement the proposed projects prior to construction regardless of whether they appear in 

this table. 
Introduction 1-12

TABLE 1.5-1

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations Applicable to the Proposed Projectsa

Agency

Permit/Approval/ 

Consultation Agency Action Constitution Status Iroquois’ Status

Federal

FERC Certificate of 

Public 

Convenience and 

Necessity

Determine whether the 

proposed project is in the 

public interest, and 

consider issuance of a 

Certificate.

Application for 

Certificate under 

review (filed June 13, 

2013)

Application for 

Certificate under 

review (filed June 13, 

2013)

COE Section 404, CWA 

Permit

Issuance of a Section 404 

permit for discharges of 

dredged or fill material into 

waters of the United 

States, including 

jurisdictional wetlands.

Consultation began in 

August 2012 

Application submitted 

August 27, 2013

Not Applicable

EPA Section 404, CWA Review CWA, Section 404 

wetland dredge-and-fill 

applications to the COE 

with 404(c) veto power for 

wetland permits issued by 

the COE.

Consultation through 

the COE process

Consultation through 

the COE process

CAA Determination of General 

Conformity Applicability. 

Review and publicly 

comment on the 

environmental impacts of 

major federal actions.

Not Applicable Delegated to NYSDEC

FWS Section 7 ESA 

Consultation, 

Biological Opinion

Finding of impacts on 

federally listed or proposed 

species. Provide 

Biological Opinion if the 

project is likely to 

adversely affect federally 

listed or proposed species 

or their habitats.

Consultation ongoing Clearance from FWS 

received February 22, 

2013

Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act

Provide comments to 

prevent taking or loss of 

habitat for migratory birds.

Consultation ongoing Consultation ongoing

Bald & Golden 

Eagle Protection 

Act

Provide comments to 

prevent taking or loss of 

habitat for bald and golden 

eagles.

Consultation ongoing Consultation ongoing

Susquehanna River 

Basin Commission 

Water Allocation 

Permit

Issuance of a Water 

Allocation Permit for 

withdrawal of surface water 

and groundwater.

Consultation ongoing; 

applications to be 

submitted 1st quarter 

2014

Not Applicable

Delaware River Basin 

Commission 

Water Withdrawal 

Permit

Issuance of a Water 

Withdrawal Permit for 

withdrawal of surface water 

and groundwater.

Consultation ongoing; 

applications to be 

submitted 1st quarter 

2014

Not Applicable

State of Pennsylvania

PADEP Regional 

Bureaus of Watershed 

Management

Section 401 

Water Quality 

Certification

Issuance of a Section 401 

permit for discharge to 

waters of the United 

States.

Consultation ongoing; 

applications submitted 

August 2013

Not Applicable

PADEP Regional 

Bureaus of Watershed 

Management

Chapter 105 Issuance of a Chapter 105 

permit for wetlands and 

water obstructions.

Consultation ongoing; 

applications submitted 

August 2013

Not Applicable
1-13 Introduction

TABLE 1.5-1 (continued)

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations Applicable to the Proposed Projectsa

Agency

Permit/Approval/ 

Consultation Agency Action Constitution Status Iroquois’ Status

PADEP Bureau of 

Land and Water 

Conservation Division 

of Stormwater 

Management and 

Sediment Control

Chapter 102 Issuance of a Chapter 102 

permit

Consultation ongoing; 

applications submitted 

August 2013

Not Applicable

PADEP Bureau of 

Water Quality 

Protection

CWA Section 402 

National Pollutant 

Discharge 

Elimination 

System & General 

Permit for 

Hydrostatic Test 

Water Discharges

Issuance of a Section 402 

& hydrostatic test water 

discharge permit.

Consultation ongoing; 

applications to be 

submitted 1st quarter 

2014

Not Applicable

Pennsylvania 

Department of 

Transportation

Highway 

Occupancy Permit

Issuance of a Highway 

Occupancy Permit for 

installation of utilities which 

serve the public.

Consultation ongoing; 

applications to be 

submitted 1st quarter 

2014

Not Applicable

Pennsylvania 

Department of 

Conservation and 

Natural Resources

Rare Species 

Consultation

Provide comments to 

prevent impacts on rare 

species.

Consultation ongoing. Not Applicable

Pennsylvania Fish and 

Boat Commission

(PFBC)

Rare Species 

Consultation

Provide comments to 

prevent impacts on rare 

species.

Consultation ongoing. Not Applicable

Pennsylvania Game 

Commission

Rare Species 

Consultation

Provide comments to 

prevent impacts on rare 

species.

Consultation ongoing. Not Applicable

Pennsylvania Historical 

and Museum 

Commission Bureau of 

Historic Preservation

Section 106, 

NHPA

Consultation

Review and comment on 

the project and its effects 

on historic properties.

Consultation ongoing. Not Applicable

PFBC Permit for Use of 

Explosives in 

Commonwealth 

Waters

Permit for blasting in 

waterbodies

TBD Not Applicable

Local and County

Susquehanna 

County/Municipalities

County/Municipal 

Road Opening 

Permits

Permits for impacts on 

roads.

Consultation ongoing. 

Applications to be 

submitted 1st quarter 

2014

Not Applicable

Susquehanna County 

Planning Commission

Plan Certification 

Under Article VII 

(Commercial and 

Industrial Land 

Development) 

Section 707.4 

(Noise)

Permit for noise impacts TBD Not Applicable

State of New York

NYSDEC Joint Permit 

including: Article 

15, Article 24, and 

CWA Section 401

Issuance of Water Quality 

Certificate

Consultation ongoing; 

applications submitted 

August 2013

Not Applicable

NYSDEC Article 15 Title 33 Permit hydrostatic test 

water withdrawal

Applications submitted 

August 2013

Not Applicable
Introduction 1-14

TABLE 1.5-1 (continued)

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations Applicable to the Proposed Projectsa

Agency

Permit/Approval/ 

Consultation Agency Action Constitution Status Iroquois’ Status

NYSDEC State Pollution 

Discharge 

Elimination 

System Program 

General Permit for 

Stormwater 

Discharges from 

Construction 

Activities (GP-02-

01)

Issuance of permit for 

hydrostatic test Water 

discharge and trench 

dewatering.

Applications submitted 

August 2013

Application will be 

submitted prior to 

construction

NYSDEC Air State Facility 

Permit

Permit for construction and 

operation of source air 

pollutant emissions

Not Applicable Application submitted 

July 31, 2013

NYSDEC Major Title V 

Greenhouse Gas 

Operating Permit

Permit for major potential 

source of greenhouse 

gases.

Not Applicable Application submitted 

after start of 

operations

NYSDEC Bureau of 

Forest Lands 

Management

Temporary 

Revocable Permit

Issuance of Temporary 

Revocable Permit for use 

of state lands.

Application to be 

submitted1st quarter 

2014

Not Applicable

NYSDEC Division of 

Fish, Wildlife and 

Marine Resources 

Bureau of Wildlife’s 

Endangered Species 

Program

New York State 

Rare Species

Program

Consultation on state-listed 

rare species.

Consultation ongoing Not Applicable

New York State Office 

of Parks, Recreation 

and Historic 

Preservation, State 

Historic Preservation 

Office

Section 106, 

NHPA

Review and comment on 

the project and its effects 

on historic properties.

Consultation ongoing Clearance received 

July 31, 2013

NYSDAM Agricultural lands 

consultation

Consultation on crossing of 

agricultural lands.

Consultation ongoing Not Applicable

New York State 

Department of 

Transportation

Highway 

Occupancy Permit

Issuance of a Highway 

Occupancy Permit for 

installation of utilities which 

serve the public.

Consultation ongoing; 

applications to be 

submitted 1st quarter 

2014

Not Applicable

Local

County/ Municipalities County/Municipal 

Road Opening 

Permits

Permits for impacts on 

roads.

Consultation ongoing; 

applications to be 

submitted 1st quarter 

2014

Not Applicable

Town of Wright, NY Local Approvals 

for Compressor 

Buildings

Site Plan review, building 

permit, and State 

Environmental Quality 

Review Act review

Not Applicable Application submitted 

November 22, 2013

____________________

a Consultations with Native American tribes are discussed in section 4.10.1.

TBD = To Be Determined.