ES-1 Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pennsylvania and New York. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

resource issues associated with a project. 

PROPOSED ACTION

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

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

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

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

would install a pig1

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

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

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

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

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

Compressor Station. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

1

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

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

environmental process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and mailed to 74 interested parties. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

These comments are addressed in this draft EIS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

be addressed in the final EIS.

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mitigation measures, respectively.

Geology and Soils

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

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

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

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

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

slope stability analysis at MP 30.3.

Constitution performed geotechnical feasibility studies to evaluate subsurface conditions at the 

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

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

recommending that Constitution provide geotechnical feasibility studies for all trenchless crossing 

locations. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

during winter conditions.
Executive Summary ES-4

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

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

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

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

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

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

adequately minimized. 

Groundwater, Waterbody Crossings, Water Use, and Wetlands

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Construction activities would not significantly impact groundwater resources because the 

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

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

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

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

by adhering to their spill prevention plans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

impacts on surface water resources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

project.
ES-5 Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

clearing window. 
Executive Summary ES-6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

habitats. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that would be placed on withdrawals at those locations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

state sensitive species would be avoided or adequately minimized.

Land Use and Visual Resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

percent of land types. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

proposed work area. 

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

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

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

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

coordinate with the developer and local authorities to minimize impacts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

on certified organic agricultural lands. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Socioeconomics

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

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

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

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

traffic, and impacts on roads. 

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

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

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

efforts to coordinate with the affected landowners to mitigate impacts.

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

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

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

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

collected. 

Cultural Resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and Historic Preservation agreed. 

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

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

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

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

projects.

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

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

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

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

Air Quality and Noise

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

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

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

quality standards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

with regard to emission controls and other requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constitution’s HDDs.

Some noise would be generated by the operation of Constitution’s M&R Stations and Iroquois’ 

facility. An acoustical analysis was completed to identify the estimated combined noise impacts on the 

nearest NSAs from both the Westfall Road M&R station and Iroquois’ compressor station. The results of 

the acoustical analysis demonstrate compliance with the FERC’s noise standard of 55 dBA (Ldn). 

However, to ensure that the actual noise levels produced by the compressor station facilities, we are 

recommending that Iroquois submit noise surveys and add noise mitigation until noise levels are below 

our acceptable thresholds. 

Implementation of Constitution’s and Iroquois’ proposed measures such as acoustical enclosures 

and absorptive noise barriers as well as our additional recommendations would adequately minimize air 

and noise-related impacts associated with the projects.

Reliability and Safety

The pipeline and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed projects would be designed, 

constructed, operated, and maintained to meet the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Minimum 

Federal Safety Standards in 49 CFR 192 and other applicable federal and state regulations. These 

regulations include specifications for material selection and qualification; minimum design requirements; 

and protection of the pipeline from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion. 

The Applicants would also perform integrity risk assessments of the facilities, which would be 

instrumental in early detection of leaks and would reduce the likelihood for pipeline failure. The 
Executive Summary ES-10

Applicants’ representatives would meet with the emergency services departments of the municipalities 

and counties along the proposed pipeline facilities on an ongoing basis as part of their liaison programs. 

The Applicants would provide these departments with emergency contact information and verbal, written, 

and mapping descriptions of the pipeline systems. This liaison program would identify the appropriate 

fire, police, and public officials and the responsibilities of each organization that may respond to a gas 

pipeline emergency, and coordinate mutual assistance in responding to emergencies. 

We conclude that the Applicants’ implementation of the above measures would protect public 

safety and the integrity of the proposed facilities. 

Cumulative Impacts

Three types of projects (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects) could potentially 

contribute to a cumulative impact when considered with the proposed projects. These projects include 

Marcellus Shale development (wells and gathering systems); natural gas facilities that are not under the 

Commission’s jurisdiction; other FERC jurisdictional natural gas pipelines; and unrelated actions such as 

residential or industrial developments, transportation projects, wind farms, and utility lines. The region of 

influence for cumulative impacts varied depending on the resource being discussed. Specifically, we 

included minor projects located within 0.25 mile of the proposed area for both Constitution and Iroquois’ 

projects; major projects located within 10 miles of the proposed area for both projects; major projects 

located within watersheds crossed by the proposed projects; and projects with potential to result in longer 

term impacts on air quality located within an air quality control region crossed by the proposed projects. 

We received numerous comments about the cumulative impacts associated with development of 

natural gas reserves in the Marcellus Shale and hydraulic fracturing. In Pennsylvania, the permitting of 

upstream facilities associated with the development of the Marcellus Shale is under the jurisdiction of the 

PADEP Bureau of Oil and Gas Management. The PADEP has developed Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) for the construction and operation of upstream oil and gas production facilities. Further, the 

PADEP and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission have recently enacted regulations to specifically 

protect surface and groundwater resources from potential impacts associated with the unconventional 

development of the Marcellus Shale. Development of the Marcellus Shale is expected to continue in 

proximity to and during construction and operation of portions of the pipeline project in Pennsylvania 

(hydraulic fracturing is currently prohibited in New York). 

Impacts associated with the proposed projects in combination with other projects such as 

residential developments, wind farms, utility lines, and transportation projects, would be relatively minor 

overall. We have included recommendations in the EIS to further reduce the environmental impacts 

associated with Constitution’s and Iroquois’ projects, as summarized in section 5.2. Additionally, 

Constitution selected a route that collocates with existing rights-of-way where feasible. Therefore, we 

conclude that the cumulative impacts associated with the Constitution and Iroquois projects, when 

combined with other known or reasonably foreseeable projects, would be effectively limited. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The no-action alternative was considered for the projects. While the no-action alternative would 

eliminate the environmental impacts identified in this draft EIS, the user markets would be denied the 

projects’ objective of delivering 650,000 Dth/d of natural gas from existing supplies in Susquehanna 

County, Pennsylvania to markets in New York and New England. This might result in greater reliance on 

alternative fossil fuels, such as coal or fuel oil, or both. We also considered energy conservation and 

efficiency, and other energy source alternatives (including renewable energy sources). Other fossil fuels 

are not as clean as natural gas, and renewable sources such as solar and wind power are not always 
ES-11 Executive Summary

reliable or available in sufficient quantities to support market requirements. We concluded that the no 

action alternative, energy efficiency, and other sources of energy were not viable alternatives to the 

proposed projects in the required timeframe.

Any system alternative for the projects would need to be able to transport similar volumes of 

natural gas to the vicinity of the existing Wright compressor station or to the ultimate market destinations 

of New York and New England. We did not identify any existing pipeline systems that could meet the 

purpose and need of the projects without expansion. Based on our knowledge of other systems, 

construction and operational impacts associated with system alternatives would be similar to or greater 

than those of the proposed projects due to the amount of looping and new construction required to 

connect the systems to the projects’ origin and terminus. Consequently, no system alternatives were 

identified that are environmentally preferable to the proposed projects.

We evaluated two major route alternatives to the proposed pipeline’s route. Neither of these 

major route alternatives offered a significant environmental advantage over the proposed route. 

Therefore, we eliminated them from further consideration. We also evaluated 20 minor route alternatives 

relative to Constitution’s proposed route. Although they can extend for several miles, minor route 

alternatives typically deviate from the proposed route less substantially than major route alternatives. 

Minor route alternatives are often designed to avoid larger environmental resources or engineering 

constraints, and typically remain within the same general area as the proposed route. Based on 

consultations with landowners, resource agencies, municipal governments, field review, and impact 

assessment, Constitution fully incorporated nine minor route alternatives and partially incorporated two 

additional minor route alternatives into its proposed route as a result of input during both the pre-filing 

and certificate application review of its project. These changes were adopted primarily to increase 

collocation with existing utilities, avoid or minimize impacts on natural resources, reduce or eliminate 

safety and constructability concerns, and/or avoid or minimize conflicts with existing or proposed 

residential land uses.

Constitution indicated that it had assessed numerous minor route variations over the course of 

project development and that over 50 percent of its proposed route had changed due to incorporation of 

alternatives or variations since the project was introduced during the pre-filing process in May 2012. 

We also reviewed numerous minor route variations and found that 13 of these variations could 

reduce or eliminate impacts on site-specific resources. Therefore, we are recommending that Constitution 

provide us with additional information on these alternatives.

We also evaluated the locations of the proposed pipeline’s aboveground facilities to determine 

whether environmental impacts would be reduced or mitigated by the use of alternative facility sites. We 

did not identify any alternative sites that would offer a significant environmental advantage to the 

proposed sites for these facilities. Alternative locations for the proposed compressor transfer station 

included six parcels in the vicinity of the existing Wright Compressor Station along Westfall Road or 

Barton Hill Road. While these parcels were potentially viable alternative sites, locating the proposed 

compressor transfer station within the existing parcel owned by Iroquois and already containing a 

compressor facility would have numerous environmental advantages. For these reasons, we concluded 

that construction of the compressor transfer station on the existing Iroquois parcel was preferable to 

construction on a previously non-developed site. 

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS

We determined that construction and operation of the projects would result in limited adverse 

environmental impacts. This determination is based on a review of the information provided by 
Executive Summary ES-12

Constitution and Iroquois and further developed from environmental information requests; field 

reconnaissance; scoping; literature research; alternatives analyses; and contacts with federal, state, and 

local agencies, and other stakeholders. We conclude that the approval of the projects would have some 

adverse environmental impacts, but these impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. 

Although many factors were considered in this determination, the principal reasons are:

• Constitution would minimize impacts on natural and cultural resources during 

construction and operation of its project by implementing its Plan and Procedures; Soil 

Protection and Subsoil Decompaction Mitigation Plan; HDD Contingency Plan; Special 

Crop Productivity Monitoring Procedures; Unanticipated Cultural and Paleontological 

Resources and Human Remains Discovery Plan; Seeding, Fertilizing, and Lime 

Recommendations for Gas Pipeline Right-of-Way Restoration in Farmlands;

Unanticipated Discovery of Contamination Plan; Spill Plan for Oil and Hazardous 

Materials; Blasting Plan; Invasive Species Management Plan; Winter Construction Plan;

Organic Farm Protection Plan; and Karst Mitigation Plan.

• Iroquois would minimize impacts on natural and cultural resources during construction 

and operation of its project by implementing its Plan and Procedures, Spill Prevention, 

Containment, and Countermeasure Plan, and Unanticipated Cultural Resource Discovery 

Plan. 

• We would complete Endangered Species Act consultations with the FWS prior to 

allowing any construction to begin.

• We would complete the process of complying with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act and implementing the regulations at 36 CFR 800 prior to allowing any 

construction to begin.

• Constitution would use trenchless crossing methods for several waterbodies and 

wetlands, would cross other waterbodies using dry crossing methods, and would be 

required to obtain applicable permits and provide mitigation for unavoidable impacts on 

waterbodies and wetlands through coordination with the COE, the PADEP, and the 

NYSDEC. 

• We are recommending that Constitution develop a forest (and migratory bird) impact 

mitigation plan.

• We are recommending that Constitution develop a property owner insurance tracking and 

mitigation plan.

• Our oversight of an environmental inspection and mitigation monitoring program that 

would ensure compliance with all mitigation measures that become conditions of the 

FERC authorizations and other approvals.

In addition, we developed site-specific mitigation measures that Constitution should implement to 

further reduce the environmental impacts that would otherwise result from construction of its project. We 

determined that these measures are necessary to reduce adverse impacts associated with the project, and 

in part, are basing our conclusions on implementation of these measures. Therefore, we are 

recommending that these mitigation measures be attached as conditions to any authorization issued by the 

Commission. These recommended mitigation measures are presented in section 5.2 of the draft EIS.