August 2014

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC Docket No. CP13-551-000

Leidy Southeast Expansion Project

Environmental Assessment

Cooperating Agencies:

U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers U.S. Department 

of Transportation

Washington, DC 20426

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Office of Energy Projects
_____________________

1 A loop is a segment of pipe that is usually installed adjacent to an existing pipeline 

and connected to it at both ends. The loop allows more gas to be moved through the 

system.

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS In Reply Refer To:

OEP/DG2E/Gas 1

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 

Company, LLC

Leidy Southeast Expansion Project

Docket No. CP13-551-000

TO THE PARTY ADDRESSED:

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

has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) for the Leidy Southeast Expansion 

Project (Project) proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) 

in the above-referenced docket. Transco requests authorization to construct and operate 

certain natural gas pipeline facilities in various counties in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 

Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina to expand the natural gas delivery capacity to the 

northeast region of the United States by up to 525,000 dekatherms per day. 

The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and 

operation of the Project in accordance with the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the 

proposed Project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major 

federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration participated as cooperating 

agencies in the preparation of the EA. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or 

special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and 

participate in the NEPA analysis. 

The proposed Project includes the following facilities: 

 installing approximately 29.8 miles of new 42-inch-diameter pipeline loop1

in four separate segments in Mercer, Somerset, and Hunterdon Counties, 

New Jersey, and Monroe and Luzerne Counties, Pennsylvania;

 adding compression and modifying existing Compressor Stations 205, 515, 

517, and 520 in Mercer County, New Jersey, and Luzerne, Columbia, and 

Lycoming Counties, Pennsylvania, respectively; 
Docket No. CP13-551-000 - 2 -

_____________________

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.

 modifying existing compressor stations in North Carolina (1 facility), 

Virginia (5 facilities), and Maryland (1 facility); and

 modifying existing meter and regulating stations, mainline valves, and pig2

launchers and receivers in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and 

Maryland.

The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for public 

viewing on the FERC’s website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. A limited 

number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Public Reference Room

888 First Street NE, Room 2A

Washington, DC 20426

(202) 502-8371

Copies of the EA have been mailed to federal, state, and local government 

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

Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals 

and groups; libraries in the Project area; and parties to this proceeding. 

Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should 

focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to 

avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more 

useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are properly recorded and considered 

prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that the FERC receives 

your comments in Washington, DC on or before September 10, 2014.

For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your 

comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the Project docket 

number (CP13-551-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic 

filing of comments and has dedicated eFiling expert staff available to assist you at (202) 

502-8258 or efiling@ferc.gov. 

(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment

feature, which is located on the Commission's website at www.ferc.gov

under the link to Documents and Filings. An eComment is an easy method 

for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project;
Docket No. CP13-551-000 - 3 -

_____________________

3 See the previous discussion on the methods for filing comments.

(2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, 

which is located on the Commission's website at www.ferc.gov under the 

link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in 

a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New 

eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” You 

will be asked to select the type of filing you are making. A comment on a 

particular project is considered a “Comment on a Filing”; or

(3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following address: 

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street NE, Room 1A

Washington, DC 20426

Although your comments will be considered by the Commission, simply filing 

comments will not serve to make the commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person 

seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to 

Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).3 

Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision.

Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be granted 

intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct 

interest in this proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other 

parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's 

Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) 

using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search,” and enter 

the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP13-

551). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact 

FERC Online Support at FercOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or 

for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of 

formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
Docket No. CP13-551-000 - 4 -

In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which 

allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This 

can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically 

providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to 

the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

 Kimberly D. Bose,

 Secretary
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Leidy Southeast Expansion Project

Environmental Assessment

Page

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ ii

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. iv

TECHNICAL ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.............................................................v

1.0 PROPOSED ACTION.......................................................................................................1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1

1.2 PROPOSED FACILITIES.......................................................................................2

1.3 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED.........................................................................7

1.4 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.......................................9

1.5 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT..................................................................10

1.6 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES......................................................................14

1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INSPECTION AND MITIGATION 

MONITORING......................................................................................................25

1.8 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND SAFETY CONTROLS.........................26

1.9 LAND REQUIREMENTS.....................................................................................27

1.10 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS...............28

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS..................................................................................31

2.1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ......................................................................................31

2.2 WATER RESOURCES, FISHERIES, AND WETLANDS..................................45

2.3 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE ........................................................................69

2.4 LAND USE, RECREATION, SPECIAL INTEREST AREAS, AND 

VISUAL RESOURCES.........................................................................................97

2.5 SOCIOECONOMICS..........................................................................................124

2.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................134

2.7 AIR QUALITY....................................................................................................141

2.8 NOISE..................................................................................................................158

2.9 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY...........................................................................165

2.10 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.................................................................................179

3.0 ALTERNATIVES..........................................................................................................196

3.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE...........................................................................196

3.2 ENERGY CONSERVATION OR ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES......................197

3.3 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES...............................................................................197

3.4 ROUTE ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................198

3.5 ROUTE VARIATIONS.......................................................................................206

3.6 ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION METHODS..............................................210

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................211

5.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................218

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS.................................................................................................226
ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.2.1-1 Proposed Pipeline Facilities ................................................................................. 4

Table 1.2.2-1 Proposed Modifications at Existing Compressor Stations ................................... 5

Table 1.2.2-2 Proposed Mainline Valve and Launcher/Receiver Modifications........................ 6

Table 1.2.2-3 Other Proposed Aboveground Facilities Modifications to Manage 

Odorized Gas........................................................................................................ 8

Table 1.5-1 Issues Identified in Comments Received During the Public and Agency 

Scoping Process.................................................................................................. 12

Table 1.6-1 Proposed Modifications to the FERC’s Procedures........................................... 15

Table 1.9-1 Summary of Land Requirements........................................................................ 27

Table 1.10-1 Major Environmental Permits, Licenses, Approvals, and Consultations 

Required for the Project...................................................................................... 28

Table 2.1.1-1 Historical Earthquakes in the Project Area ........................................................ 34

Table 2.1.1-2 Shallow Bedrock in the Project Area ................................................................. 37

Table 2.1.2-1 Characteristics of Soils Affected by the Project................................................. 41

Table 2.2.1-1 Private Water Supply Wells within 150 feet of the Construction Rightof-Way................................................................................................................ 47

Table 2.2.2-1 Potential Surface Water Sources of Hydrostatic Test Water for the 

Pipeline Facilities ............................................................................................... 50

Table 2.2.3-1 Fisheries of Special Concern Crossed by the Project......................................... 58

Table 2.2.4-1 Summary of Wetland Impacts Associated with the Project ............................... 64

Table 2.2.4-2 Areas that Exceed 75 Feet of Workspace Width Within Wetlands.................... 66

Table 2.3.1-1 Upland Vegetation Cover Types Associated with the Project in New 

Jersey .................................................................................................................. 69

Table 2.3.1-2 Upland Vegetation Cover Types Associated with the Project in 

Pennsylvania....................................................................................................... 69

Table 2.3.1-3 Upland Vegetation Affected by the Project........................................................ 70

Table 2.3.2-1 Common Wildlife Species Occurring in Major Habitat Types Traversed 

by the Project...................................................................................................... 75

Table 2.3.3-1 Birds of Conservation Concern Potentially Occurring Within the Project 

Area .................................................................................................................... 81

Table 2.3.3-2 Federally Listed Species Known or Potentially Occurring Within the 

Project Area ........................................................................................................ 84

Table 2.3.3-3 State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Identified in the 

Vicinity of the Project ........................................................................................ 91

Table 2.4.1-1 Land Affected by Construction and Operation of the Pipeline Facilities .......... 98

Table 2.4.1-2 Land Affected by Aboveground Facilities Associated with the Project .......... 100

Table 2.4.1-3 Land Use Impacts Associated with Contractor/Pipe Storage Yards and 

Contractor Staging Areas ................................................................................. 101

Table 2.4.2-1 Specialty Agricultural Areas Crossed by the Project ....................................... 103

Table 2.4.2-2 Farmland Preserve Program Easements Affected by the Project..................... 104

Table 2.4.2-3 Agricultural Security Areas Affected by the Project........................................ 105

Table 2.4.2-4 Clean and Green Program Areas Affected by the Project................................ 106

Table 2.4.4-1 Planned Developments in the Project Area ...................................................... 112

Table 2.4.5-1 Recreation and Special Use Areas Affected by the Project ............................. 114
iii

Table 2.4.5-2 Recreation and Special Interest Areas within 0.25 Mile of Compressor 

Stations Associated with the Project ................................................................ 115

Table 2.4.5-3 Green Acres Areas Crossed by the Project....................................................... 119

Table 2.4.8-1 Visual Conditions at Proposed Mainline Valve and Launcher/Receiver 

Modifications.................................................................................................... 123

Table 2.5.1-1 Existing Economic Conditions in the Vicinity of Select Project Facilities...... 125

Table 2.5.1-2 Housing Statistics by County in the Vicinity of Select Project Facilities........ 126

Table 2.5.3-1 Road and Railroad Crossings Associated with the Project .............................. 128

Table 2.5.6-1 Ethnic and Poverty Statistics in the Vicinity of Select Project Facilities......... 133

Table 2.6.1-1 Cultural Resources Sites Identified in New Jersey........................................... 135

Table 2.6.1-2 Cultural Resources Sites Identified in Pennsylvania........................................ 139

Table 2.7.1-1 National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ......................................... 142

Table 2.7.1-2 Ambient Air Quality Concentrations................................................................ 143

Table 2.7.1-3 Attainment Status for the Counties Affected by the Project ............................ 145

Table 2.7.2-1 Distance (km) and Direction to Federal Class I areas...................................... 147

Table 2.7.2-2 General Conformity Applicability Review ...................................................... 152

Table 2.7.3-1 Estimated Project-Related Construction Emission in 2015.............................. 154

Table 2.7.3-2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Facility Construction in 2015...................... 155

Table 2.7.3-3 Summary of Existing Equipment Potential to Emit ......................................... 156

Table 2.7.3-4 Summary of Proposed Modifications (New Sources) Potential to Emit.......... 156

Table 2.7.3-5 Summary of Net Emission Increases from Proposed Modifications................ 157

Table 2.7.3-6 Summary of Predicted Air Quality Impacts – Proposed Compressor 

Station Modifications ....................................................................................... 157

Table 2.8.2-1 Noise Analysis for Compressor Station 205 .................................................... 161

Table 2.8.2-2 Noise Analysis for Compressor Station 517 .................................................... 161

Table 2.8.2-3 Noise Analysis for Compressor Station 515 .................................................... 162

Table 2.8.2-4 Summary of Estimated Sound Levels at Compressor Station 520 – Prior 

to Added Mitigation ......................................................................................... 163

Table 2.8.2-5 Noise Analysis for Compressor Station 520 – With Added Mitigation........... 164

Table 2.9.1-1 High Consequence Areas Crossed by the Project ............................................ 168

Table 2.9.2-1 Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Significant Incidents by Cause (1994-

2013)................................................................................................................. 175

Table 2.9.2-2 Outside Forces Incidents by Cause (1994-2013).............................................. 176

Table 2.9.2-3 Transco Onshore Ruptures Since 1984 ............................................................ 177

Table 2.9.3-1 Injuries and Fatalities – Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines.......................... 178

Table 2.9.3-2 Nationwide Accidental Deaths......................................................................... 178

Table 2.10-1 Existing or Proposed Projects Evaluated for Potential Cumulative 

Impacts ............................................................................................................. 180

Table 3.4.2-1 Comparison of the Skillman Loop to Princeton Ridge Coalition

Alternatives 1 and 2.......................................................................................... 202
iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.2-1 Project Overview Map.......................................................................................... 3

Figure 1.6.1-1 Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence............................................................ 16

Figure 2.2.4-1 Bleiler Farm Wetland Mitigation Site ................................................................ 68

Figure 2.4.5-1 Princeton Ridge Area ....................................................................................... 117

Figure 3.4-1 Skillman Loop Route Alternatives................................................................... 200

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A PROJECT MAPS

APPENDIX B TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT ACCESS ROADS REQUIRED FOR 

THE PROJECT

APPENDIX C RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PLANS

APPENDIX D COMPREHENSIVE ROCK HANDLING PLAN FOR THE PRINCETON 

RIDGE SEGMENT OF THE SKILLMAN LOOP

APPENDIX E ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES BY MILEPOST

APPENDIX F TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION CROSS SECTIONS

APPENDIX G WATERBODIES CROSSED BY THE LEIDY SOUTHEAST EXPANSION 

PROJECT

APPENDIX H ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY WORKSPACE LOCATED IN AND 

WITHIN 50 FEET OF WATERBODIES

APPENDIX I WETLANDS AFFECTED BY THE LEIDY SOUTHEAST EXPANSION 

PROJECT

APPENDIX J ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY WORKSPACE LOCATED IN OR WITHIN 

50 FEET OF WETLANDS

APPENDIX K STRUCTURES WITHIN 50 FEET OF CONSTRUCTION WORK AREAS
v

TECHNICAL ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

°F degrees Fahrenheit

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

AMSL above mean sea level

AQCR air quality control regions

ASA Agricultural Security Area

ATWS additional temporary workspace

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern

Bcf/d billion cubic feet per day

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

bgs below the ground surface

CAA Clean Air Act

Certificate Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CH4 methane

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalents

COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

CWA Clean Water Act

dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

Dth/d dekatherms per day

E&SCPs Erosion and Sediment Control Plans

EA Environmental Assessment

EI Environmental Inspector

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESA 5 Environmentally Sensitive Area 5

F3 Fringe 3

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

GHGs Greenhouse Gases

gpm gallons per minute

GWP global warming potential

HAP hazardous air pollutants

HCA high consequence area

HDD horizontal directional drill

HDD Plan Horizontal Directional Drill and Contingency Plan

hp horsepower
vi

INGAA Interstate Natural Gas Association of America

Ldn day-night sound level

Leq equivalent sound level

M Richter Magnitude

M&R meter and regulating

MAOP maximum allowable operating pressure

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MDNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources

MLV mainline valve

MMBtu/hr million British thermal units per hour

MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity

MP milepost

N2O nitrous oxide

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NGA Natural Gas Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NJAC New Jersey Administrative Code

NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

NJGS New Jersey Geological Survey

NJNHP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

NNSR Nonattainment New Source Review

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOAA Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 

Fisheries Service

NOI Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned 

Leidy Southeast Expansion Project, Request for Comments on 

Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings

NOx nitrogen oxides

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSA noise-sensitive area

NSPS New Source Performance Standards

NSR New Source Review

O3 ozone

OEP Office of Energy Projects

PADCNR Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

PADEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

PAFBC Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission

PAGC Pennsylvania Game Commission

PAGCLGS Pennsylvania Governor’s Center for Local Government Services

PATGS Pennsylvania Topographic and Geologic Survey
vii

Pb lead

PHMSA U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration

Plan Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan

PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 

microns

PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5

microns

Policy Statement Statement of Policy on the Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas 

Pipeline Facilities

ppb parts per billion

ppm parts per million

PRC-1 Princeton Ridge Coalition Alternative 1

PRC-2 Princeton Ridge Coalition Alternative 2

PRCRP Construction and Restoration Plan Developed Specifically for New Jersey 

State Planning Areas: Environmentally Sensitive Area 5 and Fringe 3, Along 

the Skillman Loop

Procedures Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

Project Leidy Southeast Pipeline Project

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

psi pounds per square inch

Q/d ratio of visibility-affecting emissions to distance

RCPs Residential Construction Plans

Rock Handling 

Plan

Comprehensive Rock Handling Plan for the Princeton Ridge Segment of the 

Skillman Loop

Secretary Secretary of the Commission

SERs significant emission rates

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SIL significant impact level

SIP State Implementation Plan

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SPCC Plan Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan

State Plan New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan

tpy tons per year

Transco Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC

USC United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VDEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

VOC volatile organic compounds

WHPA wellhead protection area
Proposed Action

1

1.0 PROPOSED ACTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

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

prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to assess the potential environmental impact of the 

natural gas pipeline facilities proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC 

(Transco). We1 prepared this EA in compliance with the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1500-

1508 [40 CFR 1500-1508]), and the Commission’s implementing regulations under 18 CFR 380.

On September 30, 2013, Transco filed an application in Docket No. CP13-551-000 under 

Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the certificate procedures of Part 157, Subpart F 

of the Commission’s regulations for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

(Certificate) authorizing construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in various 

counties in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. These proposed 

facilities are collectively referred to as the Leidy Southeast Expansion Project (Project) and are 

described in section 1.2. Prior to filing its application, Transco participated in the Commission’s 

pre-filing process for the Project under Docket No. PF13-5-000.

The FERC is the lead federal agency for the preparation of this EA. The U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (COE) and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) are federal cooperating agencies who 

assisted us in preparing this EA because they have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with 

respect to environmental impacts associated with Transco’s proposal. 

The EA is an important and integral part of the Commission’s decision on whether to 

issue Transco a Certificate to construct and operate the proposed facilities. Our principal 

purposes in preparing this EA are to:

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

could result from implementation of the proposed action;

 assess reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that would avoid or 

minimize adverse effects to the environment; and

 identify and recommend specific mitigation measures, as necessary, to minimize 

environmental impacts.

 

1

“We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Commission’s Office of Energy Projects.
Proposed Action

2

1.2 PROPOSED FACILITIES

The Project generally consists of the following:

 installing approximately 29.8 miles of new 42-inch-diameter pipeline loop2in 

four separate segments in Mercer, Somerset, and Hunterdon Counties, New 

Jersey, and Monroe and Luzerne Counties, Pennsylvania;

 adding compression and modifying existing Compressor Stations 205, 515, 517, 

and 520 in Mercer County, New Jersey, and Luzerne, Columbia, and Lycoming 

Counties, Pennsylvania, respectively; 

 modifying existing compressor stations in North Carolina (1 facility), Virginia (5

facilities), and Maryland (1 facility); and 

 modifying existing meter and regulating (M&R) stations, mainline valves (MLV), 

and pig3launchers and receivers.

All of the proposed facilities would be owned and operated by Transco. Figure 1.2-1 

depicts the location of the proposed pipeline loops and the existing compressor stations where 

compression would be added. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps showing the locations of 

all Project facilities are included in appendix A. 

There are no non-jurisdictional facilities associated with the proposed Project.

1.2.1 Pipeline Facilities

In the Project area, Transco’s existing pipeline system includes the Mainline, which 

extends generally northeasterly for approximately 1,775 miles from Texas to New York City; 

and the Leidy Line, which extends generally east-to-west for approximately 200 miles from 

Hunterdon County, New Jersey to Potter County, Pennsylvania. In New Jersey, the Mainline 

system also includes the Caldwell Loop and in Pennsylvania, the Leidy Line also includes the 

Leidy Loop Line. In this EA, the proposed loops and compressor stations where compression 

would be added are generally discussed from east to west, and the other facility modifications on 

Transco’s Mainline system are generally discussed from south to north, corresponding to the 

milepost (MP) convention used by Transco.

The proposed pipeline facilities are listed in table 1.2.1-1 

 

2 A loop is a segment of pipe that is usually installed adjacent to an existing pipeline and connected to it at both 

ends. The loop allows more gas to be moved through the system.

3 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.
Proposed Action

3

Insert

Figure 1.2-1 Project Overview Map
Proposed Action

4

TABLE 1.2.1-1

Proposed Pipeline Facilities

Facility County, State

Milepost a

Length (miles) a Begin End

Skillman Loop Mercer and Somerset, NJ 1776.8 1783.0 6.2

Pleasant Run Loop Somerset and Hunterdon, NJ 0.1 6.9 6.8

Franklin Loop Monroe and Luzerne, PA 57.5 69.0 11.5

Dorrance Loop Luzerne, PA 17.7 23.0 5.3

Total 29.8

____________________

a Mileposts for the proposed facilities are based on the milepost numbering convention on Transco’s existing pipeline 

systems. Actual lengths are approximate due to milepost rounding.

Transco’s systems in the Project area consist of at least one and as many as four 

pipelines, referred to as Lines A through D, typically located in a contiguous right-of-way. The 

Skillman Loop would parallel one existing pipeline (Caldwell Loop B) and would extend the 

Caldwell Loop D pipeline. The Pleasant Run Loop would parallel two existing Transco 

pipelines (Leidy Lines A and B) and would extend the Leidy Line C. The Franklin Loop would 

parallel three existing pipelines (Leidy Lines A, B, and C) and would extend the Leidy Line D. 

The Dorrance Loop would parallel two existing pipelines (Leidy Lines B and C within the Leidy 

Loop Line) and would extend the Leidy Line D.

The Skillman, Pleasant Run, Franklin, and Dorrance Loops would be installed at a typical 

offset of 25 feet from the nearest existing pipeline for 29.6 miles (99 percent) of the total loop 

length. Along the Skillman Loop, 1.3 miles (4 percent) of the Project would deviate from the 

existing right-of-way in conjunction with a horizontal directional drill (HDD) proposed to avoid 

a creek that parallels the right-of-way and to reduce impacts on nearby residences. Along the 

Pleasant Run Loop, 0.3 mile (less than 0.1 percent) would deviate from the existing right-of-way 

to approach a stream crossing at a more perpendicular angle, reduce forest impacts, and avoid 

electric transmission towers. 

The land requirements for construction and operation of the pipeline facilities are 

discussed in sections 1.9 and 2.4.1 and are depicted on Transco’s detailed alignment sheets.4

1.2.2 Aboveground Facilities

Compressor Stations

Proposed compressor stations associated with the Project are listed in table 1.2.2-1, and 

USGS maps depicting the locations of the aboveground facilities are included in appendix A.

 

4 Transco’s alignment sheets have been filed with FERC and can be viewed on the FERC website at 

http://www.ferc.gov. The Skillman Loop alignment sheets, updated and filed on May 6, 2014, can be found 

under Accession No. 20140506-5178. Alignments for the Pleasant Run, Franklin, and Dorrance Loops, updated 

and filed on March 6, 2014, can be found under Accession No. 20140307-5010.
Proposed Action

5

TABLE 1.2.2-1

Proposed Modifications at Existing Compressor Stations

Compressor Station County, State Milepost a Scope of Work

205 Mercer, NJ Mainline 1773.4 2,000-horsepower (hp) uprate; modify existing electric 

compressor units and yard piping/valving.

515 Luzerne, PA Leidy Line 69.0 Install one additional 16,000-hp compressor unit; modify existing 

compressor units and yard piping/valving.

517 Columbia, PA Leidy Line 115.3 Install one additional 30,000-hp compressor unit; replace one 

12,600-hp compressor unit with a new 16,000-hp compressor 

unit; modify existing compressor units and yard piping/valving.

520 Lycoming, PA Leidy Line 147.3 Install one additional 20,500-hp compressor unit; modify existing 

compressor units and yard piping/valving.

145

(Grove Meter Station)

Cleveland, NC Mainline 1247.1 Install back pressure regulator.

165 Pittsylvania, VA Mainline 1413.0 Install deodorization facilities that filter odorant from gas stream 

prior to any planned release.

170 Appomattox, VA Mainline 1457.0 Install deodorization facilities that filter odorant from gas stream 

prior to any planned release.

175 Fluvanna, VA Mainline 1499.4 Install deodorization facilities that filter odorant from gas stream 

prior to any planned release.

180 Orange, VA Mainline 1540.2 Install deodorization facilities that filter odorant from gas stream 

prior to any planned release.

185 Prince William, 

VA

Mainline 1583.4 Install deodorization facilities that filter odorant from gas stream 

prior to any planned release.

190 Howard, MD Mainline 1628.8 Install deodorization facilities that filter odorant from gas stream 

prior to any planned release.

____________________

a Mileposts for the proposed facilities are based on the milepost numbering convention on Transco’s existing pipeline 

systems. 

Existing Compressor Station 205

Transco would uprate two existing compressor unit electric motors from 9,500 

horsepower (hp) to 10,500 hp (for a total uprate of 2,000 hp) and modify valve piping at existing 

Compressor Station 205 in Lawrence Township, Mercer County, New Jersey. Total facility 

compression would increase to 64,000 hp following construction. 

Existing Compressor Station 515

Transco would install a new 16,000-hp gas turbine compressor unit and modify yard 

piping at existing Compressor Station 515 in Buck Township, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. 

Total facility compression would increase to 64,000 hp following construction. 

Existing Compressor Station 517

Transco would install a new 30,000-hp gas turbine compressor unit and replace an 

existing compressor unit with a new 16,000-hp turbine at existing Compressor Station 517 in 

Jackson Township, Columbia County, Pennsylvania for a net increase of 14,000 hp. In addition, 

Transco would modify existing compressor units and yard piping, resulting in total facility 

compression of 72,000 hp following construction. 
Proposed Action

6

Existing Compressor Station 520

Transco would install a new 20,500-hp gas turbine compressor unit at existing 

Compressor Station 520 in Mifflin Township, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. In addition, 

Transco would modify existing compressor units and yard piping, resulting in total facility 

compression of 55,700 hp following construction. 

Existing Compressor Station 145 (Grove Meter Station)

Transco would install back pressure regulators at Compressor Station 145 in Cleveland 

County, North Carolina. 

Existing Compressor Stations 165, 170, 175, 180, 185, and 190

Transco would install equipment needed to handle odorized gas at Compressor Stations 

165, 170, 175, 180, 185, and 190 in Virginia and Maryland. Specifically, certain facilities within 

the compressor stations would be modified to remove odorant from the gas stream before normal 

operational releases (e.g., the cycling of a gas-powered valve actuator). Odorant would not be 

removed from the natural gas transported in Transco’s pipeline systems.

Mainline Valves and Launchers/Receivers

Proposed MLV and pig launcher/receiver facilities associated with the Project are listed 

in table 1.2.2-2, and USGS maps depicting the locations of the aboveground facilities are 

included in appendix A.

TABLE 1.2.2-2

Proposed Mainline Valve and Launcher/Receiver Modifications

County, State/Facility Milepost a Scope of Work

Mercer County, NJ

MLV200D27 Caldwell 1776.8 Modify existing MLV for installation of new MLV and tie-in facilities; 

install relocated bi-directional pig launcher/receiver from 

MLV200D28.

Somerset County, NJ

MLV200D28 Caldwell 1783.0 Remove bi-directional pig launcher/receiver; relocate to 

MLV200D27.

MLV505LC11 Leidy Line 0.1 Modify existing MLV for installation of new MLV and tie-in facilities.

Monroe County, PA

MLV505LD90 Leidy Line 57.5 Install new MLV, tie-in facilities, and bi-directional pig launcher/

receiver.

MLV505LD at MP 63.19 Leidy Line 63.2 Install new MLV.

Luzerne County, PA

MLV515LD0 Leidy Line 69.0 Install new MLV, tie-in facilities, and bi-directional pig launcher/

receiver.

MLV515LD at MP 17.70 Leidy Loop Line 17.7 Install new MLV, tie-in facilities, and bi-directional pig launcher/

receiver.

MLV515LD at MP 22.97 Leidy Loop Line 23.0 Install new MLV, tie-in facilities, and bi-directional pig launcher/

receiver.

____________________

a Mileposts for the proposed facilities are based on the milepost numbering convention on Transco’s existing pipeline 

systems. 
Proposed Action

7

Other Aboveground Facilities

Transco would modify various valve sites and M&R stations between Compressor 

Stations 165 and 190 in Virginia and Maryland to install facilities that manage odorized gas and 

filter odorant from the gas stream before any planned release. Transco would also add facilities 

that analyze odorant levels. These proposed aboveground facility modifications are listed in 

table 1.2.2-3, and shown on USGS maps included in appendix A.

1.2.3 Contractor/Pipe Storage Yards, Contractor Staging Areas, and Access Roads

Transco would require five contractor/pipe storage yards during construction of the 

Project to store machinery, equipment, construction material, and pipe (see table 2.4.1-3). Each 

of the contractor/pipe storage yards would be located outside of the pipeline construction rightof-way. Two yards would be in Somerset County, New Jersey to support the Skillman and 

Pleasant Run Loops; two yards would be in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, one to support the 

Franklin Loop and one to support construction of all four loops; and one yard would be in 

Luzerne County, Pennsylvania to support the Dorrance Loop. In addition, Transco would 

require 12 contractor staging areas to provide space for field offices, restroom facilities, and 

temporary parking of personal vehicles during construction activities (see table 2.4.1-3). 

Contractor staging areas would generally be adjacent to the pipeline construction right-of-way. 

The locations of proposed contractor/pipe storage yards and contractor staging areas are shown 

on the USGS maps in appendix A. 

Transco would generally use public roads and the construction right-of-way for primary 

access to the pipeline loops and aboveground facilities during construction. In addition, Transco 

proposes to modify 16 private roads for access during construction. Twelve of the access roads 

would only be required during the construction phase of the Project and would be restored to 

their previous condition following use. The remaining four access roads would be permanently 

retained as access to MLV or pipe storage yard sites. Transco would also use two existing roads 

for construction and operational access to MLV sites; however, these roads would not require 

modification. Finally, Transco would construct five new roads for access to the construction 

workspace. Three of these roads would be removed and restored after construction and two 

would be retained for permanent access to MLV sites. The locations of temporary and 

permanent access roads required for the Project are shown on the USGS maps in appendix A and 

listed in appendix B.

1.3 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

Transco’s stated purpose of the Project is to provide an additional 525,000 dekatherms 

per day (Dth/d) of firm natural gas transportation capacity to delivery points that would be 

accessible by customers in the mid-Atlantic and Southeast states. In addition, Transco states it

has entered into binding agreements with shippers for the entire capacity of the Project. Transco 

references projections by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA, 2011) that 

indicate an increasing demand for natural gas in the Southeast and Northeast regions of the 

United States, primarily for electric generation. Transco asserts that the proposed Project would 

help to meet the current and future demand for natural gas; provide access to new sources of 

domestic natural gas supply; and support the overall reliability of the energy infrastructure. 

Transco also asserts that existing natural gas transmission systems in the region (e.g., Texas 
Proposed Action

8

Eastern Transmission Company) are not presently capable of transporting the required volumes 

without expansion of existing systems or construction of a new system. 

TABLE 1.2.2-3

Other Proposed Aboveground Facilities Modifications to Manage Odorized Gas

County, State Facility Milepost a

Pittsylvania County, VA Columbia Gas of Virginia - AltaVista M&R Station Mainline 1425.7

Campbell County, VA Existing Launcher Site Mainline 1436.3

Columbia Gas of Virginia - Brookneal M&R Station Mainline 1440.0

Existing Valve Site 165-20 Mainline 1440.0

Appomattox County, VA Columbia Gas of Virginia - Lynchburg M&R Station Mainline 1451.5

Columbia Gas of Virginia - Virginia Fibre M&R Station Mainline 1466.4

Buckingham County, VA CVG Bear Garden Interconnect M&R Station Mainline 1493.0

Fluvanna County, VA Columbia Gas of Virginia - Scottsville M&R Station Mainline 1495.9

Tenaska, Inc. - Antioch M&R Station Mainline 1502.3

Existing Valve Site 175-10 Mainline 1506.1

Louisa County, VA Columbia Gas - Louisa Road M&R Station Mainline 1519.9

Columbia Gas - Boswells Tavern M&R Station Mainline 1519.9

Existing Valve Site 175-20 Mainline 1521.8

Columbia Gas - Gordonsville Co-Gen M&R Station Mainline 1523.4

Culpepper County, VA Columbia Gas Transmission - Fredericksburg M&R Station Mainline 1551.2

Fauquier County, VA ODEC Marsh Run M&R Station Mainline 1558.9

Columbia Gas - Remington M&R Station Mainline 1560.5

Existing Valve Site 180-15 Mainline 1568.2

Existing Valve Site 180-20 Mainline 1573.0

Prince William County, VA Dominion Transmission - Nokesville M&R Station Mainline 1575.7

Columbia Gas - Prince William M&R Station Mainline 1580.6

Washington Gas Light - Bull Run M&R Station Mainline 1583.4

Fairfax County, VA Existing Valve Site 185-05 Mainline 1584.9

Dominion Transmission - Pleasant Valley Interconnect M&R Station Mainline 1586.2 b

Existing Valve Site Cove Point Mainline 1586.2

Existing Valve Site 185-10 Mainline 1589.6

Existing Valve Site 185-13 Mainline 1596.8

Washington Gas Light - Herndon M&R Station Mainline 1598.8

Existing Receiver Site Mainline 1603.8

Existing Valve Site Potomac South Mainline 1603.9

Montgomery County, MD Existing Valve Site Potomac North Mainline 1604.6

Existing Valve Site 185-17 Mainline 1610.3

Rockville M&R Station Mainline 1611.6

Westmore Road M&R Station Mainline 1611.8

Existing Valve Site 185-20 Mainline 1616.2

Washington Gas - Rock Creek M&R Station Mainline 1614.5

Howard County, MD Existing Valve Site 185-25 Mainline 1623.1

Baltimore County, MD Existing Valve Site 190-10 Mainline 1642.5

Existing Valve Site 190-13 Mainline 1650.0

Harford County, MD Existing Valve Site 190-20 Mainline 1660.6

____________________

a Mileposts for the proposed facilities are based on the milepost numbering convention on Transco’s existing pipeline 

systems. 

b The Pleasant Valley Interconnect M&R Station is about 2 miles off of the mainline. The tap off the mainline for this 

station is at MP 1586.2.
Proposed Action

9

A number of commentors questioned whether there is demand for the natural gas that 

would be transported by the Project, and view the relatively low price of natural gas as an 

indicator of sufficient gas supply. Under Section 7 of the NGA, the Commission determines 

whether interstate natural gas transportation facilities are in the public convenience and necessity 

and, if so, grants a Certificate to construct and operate them. The Commission bases its decision 

on technical competence, financing, rates, market demand, gas supply, environmental impact, 

long-term feasibility, and other issues concerning a proposed project. 

Further, the Commission’s Statement of Policy on the Certification of New Interstate 

Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities (Policy Statement)5 describes the process and criteria that the 

Commission uses to evaluate proposed projects and establishes criteria for determining whether 

there is a need for a proposed project and whether the proposed project will serve the public 

interest. In summary, the Commission considers the environmental impacts and potential 

adverse effects of a project on the applicant’s existing customers, competing existing pipelines 

and their customers, and landowners and surrounding communities. The Commission then

weighs these impacts against the public benefits of the project. The Policy Statement recognizes 

that meeting demand may be one public benefit of a project, and that binding precedent 

agreements constitute significant evidence of demand for a project. While detailed discussion of 

Transco’s proposed Project’s need is outside the scope of this EA, we note that the additional gas 

volumes associated with the Project have been fully contracted by various shippers as indicated 

in Transco’s application. The Commission will more fully consider the need for the Project 

when making its decision on whether the Project is consistent with public interest.

1.4 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

1.4.1 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Based on its authority under the NGA, the FERC is the lead agency for preparation of 

this EA in compliance with the requirements of NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality’s 

regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), and FERC regulations implementing 

NEPA (18 CFR 380). 

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

of the Endangered Species Act (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. Each of these statutes has been taken into account in 

the preparation of this EA. The FERC will use this document to consider the environmental 

impacts that could result if it authorizes the Project. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) provides that the FERC shall act as the lead 

agency for coordinating all applicable authorizations related to jurisdictional natural gas facilities 

and for purposes of complying with NEPA. The FERC, as the “lead federal agency,” is 

responsible for preparation of this EA. This effort was undertaken with the participation and 

assistance of the COE and PHMSA as “cooperating agencies” under NEPA. Cooperating 

 

5 The Policy Statement can be found on our website at http://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/PL99-3-000.pdf. 

Clarifying statements can be found by replacing “000” in the website address with “001” and “002.” 
Proposed Action

10

agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to environmental impacts 

involved with a proposal. The roles of the COE and PHMSA in the Project review process are 

described below. The EA provides a basis for coordinated federal decision making in a single 

document, avoiding duplication among federal agencies in the environmental review processes. 

In addition to the lead and cooperating agencies, other federal, state, and local agencies may use 

this EA in approving or issuing permits for all or part of the proposed Project. Federal, state, and 

local permits, approvals, and consultations for the Project are discussed in section 1.10.

1.4.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Role

The Project crosses areas within the Philadelphia and Baltimore Districts of the COE, 

with the Philadelphia District being the lead District for the Project.

Wetlands in the Project area are regulated at the federal and state levels. The COE 

elected to cooperate in preparing this EA because it has jurisdictional authority pursuant to 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 United States Code [USC] 1344), which governs 

the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and section 10 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC 403), which regulates any work or structures that potentially 

affect the navigable capacity of navigable waters of the United States. In New Jersey, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the state’s assumption of the federal section 

404 permit program from the COE. The COE retains full section 404 and section 10 permitting 

authority in Pennsylvania. Although this EA addresses environmental impacts associated with 

the Project as they relate to the COE's jurisdictional permitting authority, it does not serve as a 

public notice for any COE permits or take the place of the COE’s permit review process.

At the request of the COE, the FERC expanded the scope of the EA to discuss a proposed 

wetland mitigation parcel identified by Transco in Pennsylvania (see section 2.2.4). This was 

done to assist the COE in its obligation to ensure compliance with Section 7 of the ESA and 

Section 106 of the NHPA. Therefore, information regarding federal threatened and endangered 

species and cultural resources reviews and consultations for this parcel are included in sections 

2.3.3 and 2.6, respectively.

1.4.3 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Role

PHMSA is the federal agency responsible for regulating and ensuring the safe and secure 

movement of natural gas and hazardous liquids by pipeline under 49 USC 60101 et seq. (the 

pipeline safety laws). PHMSA pipeline safety regulations are published in 49 CFR Parts 190 to 

199. PHMSA carries out these responsibilities through its Office of Pipeline Safety. The Office 

of Pipeline Safety’s authority is found under the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (49 

USC 1671 et seq.) and the Hazardous Liquids Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 (49 USC 2001 et 

seq.).

1.5 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

On January 14, 2013, Transco filed a request to utilize our pre-filing process, which we 

approved on January 29, 2013, in Docket No. PF13-5-000. We participated in four public open 

houses sponsored by Transco in the Project area in April 2013 to explain our environmental 

review process to interested stakeholders. On May 24, 2013, we issued a Notice of Intent to 
Proposed Action

11

Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Leidy Southeast Expansion Project, 

Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings (NOI). 

The NOI was published in the Federal Register6and was sent to approximately 1,200 parties 

including federal, state, and local officials; agency representatives; conservation organizations; 

local libraries and newspapers; Native American Tribes; and property owners affected by the 

proposed facilities. 

We conducted two public scoping meetings in the Project area to provide an opportunity 

for agencies and the general public to learn more about the Project and to identify issues to be 

addressed in the EA. Meetings were held on June 12 and 13, 2013, in Wilkes-Barre, 

Pennsylvania, and Hillsborough Township, New Jersey, respectively. The scoping meetings 

were attended by approximately 95 individuals, 34 of whom provided verbal comments on the 

Project. The transcripts of the public scoping meetings and all written scoping comments are 

part of the public record for the Project and are available for viewing on the FERC internet

website (http://www.ferc.gov).7

During the review process, we also participated in meetings with representatives of the 

NJDEP; Delaware Riverkeeper Network; the Municipality of Princeton, New Jersey; Readington 

Township, New Jersey; Branchburg Township, New Jersey; and Montgomery Township, New 

Jersey. We attended an on-site environmental review of the Princeton Ridge area along the 

Skillman Loop on July 11, 2013, and viewed the remainder of the Project via automobile and 

helicopter in conjunction with open houses, public scoping meetings, and other meetings. We 

also held frequent teleconferences with interested state and federal permitting agencies which 

periodically included the COE, PHMSA, EPA, NJDEP, Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP), and Delaware River Basin Commission.

We received 151 written comment letters during the formal scoping period and 

throughout preparation of the EA. Written comments were received from 3 federal agencies (the 

New Jersey and Pennsylvania Field Offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the 

COE); 5 state agencies (the NJDEP, New Jersey State Agriculture Development Committee, 

New Jersey Historic Preservation Office, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, and 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ); 8 local government bodies; 1 U.S. 

Senator from New Jersey (Senator Robert Menendez); 1 U.S. Congressman from New Jersey

(Representative Rush Holt); 10 non-governmental organizations (Delaware Riverkeeper 

Network; Sierra Club; Sourland Planning Council; Princeton Shade Tree Commission; Princeton 

Ridge Coalition; The Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association; Montgomery Friends of 

Open Space; and Friends of Princeton Open Space); and approximately 120 affected landowners 

and individuals. 

Table 1.5-1 summarizes the environmental issues identified during the scoping process. 

Substantive environmental issues raised by commentors are addressed in applicable sections of 

the EA.

 

6 78 Fed. Reg. 33,403 (2013).

7 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., PF13-5 and CP13-551). Select an appropriate 

date range. 
Proposed Action

12

TABLE 1.5-1

Issues Identified in Comments Received During the Public and Agency Scoping Process

Issue/Summary of Comment EA Section Addressing Comment

GENERAL/PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

Project purpose and need 1.3

Project requires Environmental Impact Statement 1.5

Project encourages shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing 1.5, 2.10.3

Minimize construction right-of-way to reduce impacts 1.6.6

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Geology and soils of Princeton Ridge pose construction and operational safety concerns 1.6.2, 2.1.1, 

Soil compaction 2.1.2

WATER RESOURCES, FISHERIES, AND WETLANDS

Water and wetland resources of Princeton Ridge 2.2

Impacts on groundwater resources and wells 2.2.1

Impacts on sensitive surface waters 2.2.2

Wetland impacts and restoration 2.2.4

Consider construction alternatives to reduce impacts on surface waters and wetlands 2.2.2, 2.2.4

VEGETATION

Sensitivity and loss of habitat in Princeton Ridge 2.3.1, 

Loss of forest; fragmentation 2.3.2

Right-of-way restoration concerns 2.3.1, 1.6.2

Invasive species concerns 2.3.1

WILDLIFE AND THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

Wildlife resources of Princeton Ridge 2.3.2

Impacts on wildlife habitat 2.3.2

Impacts on migratory birds 2.3.2, 2.3.3

Impacts on federal and state special status species 2.3.3

LAND USE, VISUAL RESOURCES, AND RECREATION

Impacts on Princeton Ridge, including residences and schools 2.4, 2.4.5

Preclusion of future property development 2.4.4

Project location near populated areas, residences 2.4.4

Impacts on Green Acres Program properties 2.4.5

Impacts on agricultural land and horse ranches 2.4.2

SOCIOECONOMICS

Impacts on local traffic from construction traffic 2.5.3

Project will provide limited benefit to local communities and counties 2.5

Impacts on property values, ability to sell property 2.5.4

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Impacts on culturally significant and historic areas 2.6.4

AIR QUALITY AND NOISE

Greenhouse gas emissions must be assessed 2.7.3

Air impacts from construction equipment 2.7.3

Noise from machinery and construction activities 2.8.1

Noise from compressor station operations 2.8.2

RELIABILITY AND SAFETY

Potential to damage existing pipelines during construction, including on Princeton Ridge 2.9.1

Construction and operational safety in residential areas 2.9.1

Emergency planning and response 2.9.1

Transco’s safety history 2.9.2

ALTERNATIVES

Consider No Action and System Alternatives 3.0

Consider replacement of existing pipeline with larger diameter pipe 3.3.2

Alternatives to avoid/reduce impacts on residential areas 3.4

Alternatives to avoid Princeton Ridge 3.4
Proposed Action

13

We received comments during the scoping period recommending that an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS), rather than an EA, be prepared to assess the impacts of the Project. An 

EA is a concise public document for which a federal agency is responsible that serves to provide 

sufficient evidence and analysis for determining a finding of no significant impact. Pursuant to 

18 CFR 306(b) “If the Commission believes that a proposed action...may not be a major federal 

action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, an EA, rather than an EIS, 

will be prepared first. Depending on the outcome of the EA, an EIS may or may not be 

prepared.” In preparing this EA, we are fulfilling our obligation under NEPA to consider and 

disclose the environmental impacts of the Project. This EA addresses the impacts that could 

occur on a wide range of resources should the Project be approved and constructed. Based on 

our analysis and considering that the Project would involve pipeline looping and modifications to 

existing facilities, we conclude that the impacts associated with this Project can be sufficiently 

mitigated to support a finding of no significant impact and, thus, an EA is warranted. 

We also received comments urging the Commission to deny the Project on the grounds 

that it would transport or further encourage the development of natural gas obtained by hydraulic 

fracturing (fracking), a process that some view as environmentally unacceptable. Other 

commentors recommended that impacts associated with fracking be included in the 

environmental review of the Project. Our authority under the NGA and 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 shale gas reserves, 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 the interstate pipeline system, including Transco’s existing system. 

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 Delaware River Basin 

Commission. Natural gas is not produced in New Jersey.

Some commentors believe that the Project would promote the export of domestically 

produced natural gas and, therefore, the environmental and economic effects of natural gas 

export should be considered in the EA. The environmental impacts that may be associated with 

the local distribution and/or end use of natural gas transported by interstate transmission projects 

are generally beyond the scope of the Commission’s review. We note, however, that the Project 

would deliver natural gas to Transco customers, including utility companies, in Mid-Atlantic and 

Southeastern states. In addition, the siting of facilities specifically designed to export 

domestically produced natural gas would be subject to environmental review by the Commission 

in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Energy and other state and federal regulatory 

agencies.

Commentors also contend that operators of interstate natural gas transmission systems in 

the Project area, including Transco, intentionally segment larger projects into smaller projects to 

reduce the level of environmental scrutiny. The Commission requires that applicants design 

projects that are sized to transport the capacity of natural gas for which there is demonstrated 
Proposed Action

14

market support, i.e., applicants cannot overbuild infrastructure in anticipation of future market 

support. Should an applicant develop another FERC-regulated project in the same region in 

response to market conditions, the new project would be subject to environmental review by the 

Commission. Whereas the scope of this EA is focused on the environmental impacts of the 

Project as proposed by Transco, we consider in section 2.10 the cumulative impact that other 

projects in the region, including other FERC jurisdictional projects, may have in conjunction 

with the Project.

1.6 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES

The Project would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to conform to, or 

exceed, the requirements of the DOT in 49 CFR 192, Transportation of Natural and Other Gas 

by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards. Transco would also construct, restore, and 

maintain the Project according to the measures described in its Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasures Plan (SPCC Plan), and our Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and 

Maintenance Plan (Plan) and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

(Procedures), which were developed to minimize the environmental impact of construction and 

operation of interstate natural gas transmission facilities. Transco would implement the 

measures described in our Plan and Procedures, but proposed several site-specific modifications 

to the Procedures (see table 1.6-1). Transco’s modified, Project-specific Plan and Procedures are

hereinafter referred to as Transco’s Plan and Transco’s Procedures.

If approved by the Commission, Transco proposes to construct the Project between 

October 2014 and December 2015. Construction of the pipeline loops would occur between 

April and November 2015, although the majority of work in any one area would typically be 

completed in 6 to 8 weeks. Transco would put the Project into service in December 2015.

1.6.1 General Pipeline Construction Sequence

Standard pipeline construction consists of specific activities that make up a linear 

construction sequence. Figure 1.6.1-1 depicts the typical sequence of cross-country pipeline 

construction. Transco would notify affected landowners prior to initiating preconstruction 

surveys. A crew would then survey the route and stake the proposed pipeline loop centerlines, 

foreign pipeline and utility crossings, and workspace limits, along with wetland boundaries and 

other environmentally sensitive areas. Temporary soil erosion and sedimentation controls would 

be installed in accordance with Transco’s Plan and Procedures and its county-specific Erosion 

and Sediment Control Plans (E&SCPs), and maintained throughout construction. Clearing crews 

would then cut vegetation and either chip it for use as mulch on upland areas of the right-of-way 

or dispose of it in accordance with landowner requirements and local regulations. Burning may 

be conducted if permitted. Large trees would be removed from the approved workspace only if 

necessary. In certain areas, clearing would be conducted within specified timing windows to 

avoid or minimize impacts on special status species habitat. After clearing, the right-of-way 

would be graded to create a generally level and safe work surface.
Proposed Action

15

TABLE 1.6-1

Proposed Modifications to the FERC’s Procedures

Section Proposed Modification Discussion

FERC Acceptance 

Status

V.B.2.a

and 

VI.B.1.a

Transco proposes to modify the requirement 

that additional temporary workspace (ATWS) 

be located at least 50 feet from a waterbody or 

wetland. Transco would locate ATWS within 

50 feet of specific waterbodies and wetlands 

where necessary due to site-specific 

conditions.

Appendices H and J identify the locations where 

Transco would utilize ATWS within 50 feet of a 

waterbody and wetland, respectively, and 

provides site-specific justification for each 

location.

At these locations, Transco would provide 

secondary containment for all overnight 

equipment, pump, and refueling activities, and 

would implement its SPCC Plan, which requires

equipment spill kits to be maintained on site.

Transco would also use diversion terraces and 

sediment barriers extending the entire width of 

the construction right-of-way (including ATWS) 

to protect waterbodies and wetlands.

Accepted

V.B.3.c Transco proposes to modify the requirement 

to maintain at least 15 feet of undisturbed 

vegetation between a waterbody and pipeline 

where the pipeline parallels the waterbody. 

Transco would implement the modification at 

the following locations:

Skillman Loop

 SS-002-014, unnamed tributary to Rock 

Brook

 SS-002-021, unnamed tributary to Pike 

Run

Pleasant Run Loop

 SS-002-025, unnamed tributary to 

Pleasant Run

 SS-002-037, unnamed tributary to 

Pleasant Run

 SS-002-042, unnamed tributary to 

Pleasant Run crossing no. 1 at MP 5.4

Franklin Loop

 SS-001-011, unnamed tributary to Little 

Tunkhannock Creek

 SS-001-014A, unnamed tributary to 

Little Tunkhannock Creek

 SS-001-014B, unnamed tributary to 

Little Tunkhannock Creek

 SS-001-021, Two Mile Run

 SS-001-028, unnamed tributary to 

Kendall Creek

 SS-001-029, Kendall Creek crossing no. 

2 at MP 67.4

Dorrance Loop

 SS-001-004, unnamed tributary to Little 

Wapwallopen Creek

The topography and adjacent wetlands prevent 

relocation of the loops. The proposed pipeline 

loops have been located at the narrowest 

possible location associated with the streams 

without interfering with existing pipelines or 

requiring additional permanent right of way. 

Following construction, Transco would restore 

each stream to its initial configuration to the 

extent possible. The pipeline loops would be 

encased in concrete and placed sufficiently 

below the streams so as not to interfere with 

stream flow.

Accepted

V.B.4.a Transco proposes to modify the requirement 

to place all spoil from minor and intermediate 

waterbody crossings in the construction rightof-way at least 10 feet from the water’s edge, 

or in ATWS. Transco would store spoil within 

10 feet of waterbodies where the workspace is 

limited due to topographic constraints and 

adjacent features.

Transco would install sediment barriers to 

prevent the spoil from entering the waterbody. 

In addition, diversion terraces and sediment 

barriers used to protect waterbodies and 

wetlands would extend the entire width of the 

construction right-of-way, to include the ATWS.

Not Accepted

Recommended 

condition in section 

2.2.2

VI.A.3 Transco proposes to modify the requirement 

to limit the width of the construction right-ofway in wetlands to 75 feet. Transco would

utilize a construction right-of-way greater than 

75 feet wide in certain wetlands due to sitespecific conditions.

Table 2.2.4-2 identifies the locations where 

Transco would utilize a construction right-of-way 

greater than 75 feet wide in wetlands, and 

provides acceptable site-specific justification for 

each proposed location.

Accepted
Proposed Action

16

Insert

Figure 1.6.1-1 Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence
Proposed Action

17

The trench for installation of the pipeline loops would be excavated by track-mounted 

backhoes or similar equipment. Spoil from the trench would typically be stored on the opposite 

side of the trench from the construction equipment, or in approved additional temporary 

workspace (ATWS). The trench would be excavated to provide a minimum of 3 feet of cover 

over the pipe after backfilling; however, the pipeline could be installed with less than 3 feet of 

cover in areas of shallow bedrock in accordance with DOT regulations. In agricultural and 

residential areas, up to 12 inches of topsoil would be removed and stored separately from the 

subsoil. Water trucks would be used as necessary to control dust along the construction travel 

lane. 

After trench excavation, pipe sections would be delivered to the right-of-way and placed 

on skids adjacent to the trench. Professional welders, qualified according to applicable industry 

standards and Transco requirements, would weld the pipe sections together, and certified 

inspectors would utilize visual and non-destructive methods to test the integrity of the welds 

according to industry protocol. Previously uncoated pipe ends would be field coated with an 

industry-approved anti-corrosion coating; inspectors would check the entire pipe for defects in 

the coating and make repairs as needed. The trench would be cleaned of any debris and side 

booms would be used to lower the pipeline into the trench.

After the pipe is positioned in the trench, crews would backfill the trench with the 

previously excavated material. Where topsoil is stored separately from subsoil, the crews would 

backfill the subsoil first and then replace the topsoil over the subsoil. In residential and 

agricultural areas, compacted subsoil would be disked8 prior to topsoil replacement. Surplus 

construction material and debris would be removed and disposed of at appropriate disposal sites,

and all work areas would be graded to match surrounding contours. Following backfilling and 

before being placed into service, the new pipeline segments would be hydrostatically tested to 

ensure that they are capable of operating safely at the design pressure. Hydrostatic testing would 

be conducted in accordance with applicable permits, and no chemicals would be added to the test 

water. Finally, crews would install permanent erosion controls within the right-of-way, if 

necessary, and initiate revegetation measures in accordance with Transco’s Plan and Procedures 

and other permit requirements.

1.6.2 Special Construction Procedures 

In addition to the standard pipeline construction methods described above, Transco would 

implement special construction procedures due to site-specific conditions and to reduce overall 

Project impacts.

Wetlands 

Construction of the Project would impact 37 wetlands in New Jersey and 51 wetlands in 

Pennsylvania. Wetland crossings would be accomplished in accordance with Transco’s 

Procedures (with the modifications listed in table 1.6-1) and E&SCPs, which are designed to 

minimize wetland impacts and facilitate wetland restoration, and in accordance with other 

applicable federal and state permit requirements. In general, Transco would implement 

 

8 Disking the subsoil typically involves the use of tractors equipped with steel disk blades, or similar equipment, to 

loosen soils that have been compacted by construction activities.
Proposed Action

18

construction procedures similar to those used in upland areas to cross wetlands found to be 

unsaturated at the time of construction, including segregating and replacing topsoil. In wetlands 

with saturated soil or standing water at the time of construction, Transco would utilize timber 

mats or other temporary surface material adjacent to the trench to provide a stable work area and 

may string and assemble the pipeline crossing segment in an upland workspace to minimize 

construction time within the wetland. Topsoil segregation would not be conducted in wetlands 

with saturated soil or standing water.

Figures depicting the proposed wetland crossing methods are included in Transco’s 

E&SCPs. Transco’s alignment sheets also depict the delineated extent of wetlands that would be 

affected by the loops and the workspace that Transco has requested at each wetland crossing. 

Additional information regarding wetlands affected by the Project and wetland crossing 

procedures is discussed in section 2.2.4.

Waterbodies

Construction of the Project would cross 49 waterbodies in New Jersey and 38

waterbodies in Pennsylvania. The waterbody crossings would be constructed in accordance with 

the methods and timing restrictions described in Transco’s Procedures (with the modifications 

listed in table 1.6-1) and E&SCPs, and state and federal permit requirements. Transco would use 

one of the following methods to cross each waterbody:

 standard upland construction techniques would be used at ephemeral and 

intermittent waterbodies that are less than 10 feet wide or are without flow at the 

time of construction; 

 dry crossing methods, which would utilize either a flume or a dam and pump 

system to temporarily divert water around the crossing location, would be used at 

certain perennial streams and ephemeral and intermittent streams with flow at the 

time of crossing; 

 HDD, which is a trenchless crossing method used to avoid direct impacts on 

sensitive resources, such as wetlands and waterbodies, by boring well beneath 

them; and

 wet open cut method to cross Tobyhanna Creek and the Lehigh River at MPs 61.1 

and 65.5 of the Franklin Loop, respectively. Section 2.2.2 describes this method 

further, in addition to alternative crossing methods evaluated for these 

waterbodies.

Transco would also utilize temporary culvert bridges to provide equipment crossing and 

vehicle access across waterbodies that would not be directly crossed by the proposed loops.

Additional information regarding waterbodies affected by the Project and waterbody 

crossing methods is discussed in section 2.2.2. 
Proposed Action

19

Horizontal Directional Drill

The HDD method utilizes specialized drilling equipment and work crews to install 

pipeline segments well below the ground surface, typically to avoid sensitive environmental 

resources and challenging conventional construction areas. The design and feasibility of an

HDD is determined by a number of factors including the length, depth, and curvature (i.e., 

profile) of the proposed drill; surrounding topography; pipeline diameter; availability and 

orientation of land on which to assemble the HDD pipeline segment; land use constraints; and 

geotechnical suitability of the subsurface environment. 

The HDD method is initiated by drilling a small-diameter pilot hole along a predetermined underground path. A reaming tool is then used to enlarge the pilot hole to a diameter 

slightly greater than the diameter of the pipeline, and a pre-assembled segment of pipeline is then 

pulled back through the hole. After the pipeline segment is pulled into place, it is hydrostatically 

tested and welded to the remainder of the pipeline at each end of the HDD. The HDD process 

includes the use of drilling fluid to lubricate the drill bit, return cuttings to the surface, and 

maintain the borehole. Transco would use a non-hazardous drilling fluid comprised primarily of 

water, inert solids, and bentonite, a naturally occurring clay mineral. Drilling fluid can be 

inadvertently released outside of the borehole environment and migrate to the land surface, 

resulting in locally increased turbidity in waterbodies and wetlands, or collecting on the ground 

surface.

In response to comments from Montgomery Township, Transco proposes two HDDs 

between MPs 1778.9 and 1780.0 of the Skillman Loop to avoid Beden Brook and its associated 

wetlands and tributaries, and to reduce impacts on nearby residences and on lands held in 

conservation easements. The two HDDs would be drilled in opposite directions from a single 

workspace near MP 1779.3 to minimize the total workspace needed to accomplish the HDDs. 

Transco has developed a site-specific Horizontal Directional Drill and Contingency Plan (HDD 

Plan) for the crossing. The HDD Plan includes drawings depicting the HDD profile and 

temporary work areas, and describes how Transco would monitor for and respond to an 

inadvertent release of drilling fluid, as required by the COE and NJDEP. 

Residential Areas

Transco would implement the construction and restoration measures described in its Plan 

and detailed on its site-specific Residential Construction Plans (RCPs) (see appendix C) to 

reduce construction-related impacts in residential areas. In general, Transco would reduce 

construction workspace, as practicable, to minimize inconvenience to landowners; minimize the 

clearing of trees; limit workspace to the confines of Transco’s existing easement where possible; 

maintain access for landowners affected during Project construction; and make every effort to 

ensure that cleanup is thorough. Transco would also take steps to protect drinking water wells 

(section 2.2.1) and has prepared a Septic System Contingency Plan to avoid or mitigate impacts 

on private septic systems. Transco also provided a Landowner Complaint Resolution Procedure 

that outlines the steps that Transco would take to address landowner issues during and after 

construction. Transco would also utilize the following construction methods to further minimize 

impacts on residences, which are discussed further below:
Proposed Action

20

 Transco would work over or between existing pipelines at select locations to 

reduce the construction workspace;

 Transco would utilize crossovers to reduce impacts on residences; and

 Transco would reduce the offset between the existing and proposed pipelines to 

reduce the construction workspace.

Working Over or Between Active Pipelines

Due to the proximity of some residences to Transco’s existing right-of-way, Transco 

would use the previously cleared and maintained area over its existing pipeline facilities as the 

working side of the construction right-of-way (i.e., the heavy equipment used to excavate the 

trench and install the proposed pipeline loops would operate over Transco’s existing pipeline(s)). 

Project alignment sheets and construction cross sections indicate that Transco would work over 

active pipelines at 19 locations for a total of 3.7 miles (12 percent) of the proposed loop lengths, 

including two segments along the Franklin Loop where the new pipeline would be installed 

between existing pipelines to reduce impacts on residences along each side of the existing rightof-way. Transco’s internal construction procedures state that, in areas with less than 5 feet of 

cover over existing pipelines, Transco engineers would calculate and analyze constructionrelated stresses in the active pipelines and develop measures to keep the calculated stresses 

within public safety codes and Transco specifications. These measures include additional soil 

cover, matting, or other means to protect the existing pipelines. As discussed below, Transco 

would work over 1.3 miles of existing pipeline within the Princeton Ridge area of the Skillman 

Loop.

Crossovers

Crossovers occur where a new pipeline typically crosses beneath an existing pipeline. 

Crossovers are not uncommon and are generally implemented to minimize impacts on a 

localized resource, such as a residence or a sensitive wetland, or to align the new pipeline with 

existing pipeline termination points. Crossovers require deeper excavation, greater volume of 

spoil, additional workspace, and exposure of the crossed pipelines. Crossovers generally result 

in localized increased land impacts and require extra care during installation. However, they 

may reduce or avoid impacts on sensitive resources.

Transco would implement crossovers on the Skillman, Pleasant Run, and Franklin Loops 

to reduce impacts on residences. Transco would develop site-specific plans for the installation of 

the crossovers and would confirm that potential construction stresses on the existing pipelines 

would not exceed public safety codes or Transco specifications.

Reduced Offset

PHMSA regulations do not specify a minimum offset between parallel interstate 

transmission pipelines. However, Transco and other pipeline operators typically separate 

pipelines by approximately 25 feet to provide sufficient room for the use of standard overland 

pipeline construction methods and ready access for maintenance operations or in the event of an 
Proposed Action

21

emergency. Pipeline operators can reduce the offset between parallel pipelines for short 

distances to avoid a resource (e.g., a residence, critical habitat, or cultural site) and/or minimize 

the construction workspace in constricted or sensitive work areas. Depending on site-specific 

conditions, pipeline operators may implement special construction methods (e.g., drag section) to 

install the pipeline in reduced offset areas. Excluding areas where the proposed pipeline 

facilities would be installed between existing pipelines, Transco would reduce the offset between 

the proposed and existing pipelines for 2.5 miles on the Skillman Loop and to reduce impacts on 

three residences along the Pleasant Run Loop.

Railroad and Road Crossings

Transco would cross major paved highways where traffic cannot be interrupted using the 

bore crossing method. Smaller roads with low traffic volume would be crossed by the open-cut 

method, and then restored to preconstruction condition. The pipeline would conform to DOT 

standards, typically buried to a depth of at least 5 feet below the road surface, and would be 

designed to withstand anticipated external loading.

The bore crossing method involves the use of an auger drill to install the pipeline below 

the ground surface. The bore method requires the excavation of pits on each side of the feature 

and ATWS to store the spoil from the pits. There is typically a minimum depth of 5 feet below 

the surface to allow the pipeline to withstand expected external loadings. Depending on permit 

conditions, the pipe may or may not be cased at road crossings. The bore crossing method 

allows the roadway to remain in service while the installation process takes place. As a result, 

there is little or no disruption to traffic at roadway crossings that are crossed by this method.

With the open-cut crossing method, the trench is excavated and the pipe installed using 

the standard cross-country construction methods described above. Temporary closure of the 

road to traffic and establishment of detours may be required. If no reasonable detour is feasible, 

at least one lane of the road being crossed would be kept open to traffic. 

Utility Crossings

Transco has identified 137 foreign utilities that cross the proposed pipeline loops. 

Transco is consulting with utility companies to determine the exact locations of utilities in 

relation to the pipeline loops and protective measures that would be implemented during 

construction. Any relocation of utilities would be completed by the utility company having 

jurisdiction and would be supported financially by Transco, as required.

Blasting

Based on its prior pipeline construction experience in the Project area, Transco does not 

anticipate that blasting would be necessary for Project construction. However, if bedrock is 

encountered that requires blasting, Transco provided a Project-specific Blasting Plan that 

describes how blasting would be conducted and the measures that would be implemented to 

minimize blasting effects. Blasting would be conducted by licensed personnel and in compliance 

with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Affected landowners, nearby businesses, 

and other nearby parties would be notified in advance of blasting activity. Additional discussion 

of impacts related to blasting is included in section 2.1.1.
Proposed Action

22

Princeton Ridge, Mercer County, New Jersey

Between MPs 1776.8 and 1778.1, 1.3 miles of the Skillman Loop would cross an area 

within the Municipality of Princeton and northern Mercer County, New Jersey referred to as the 

Princeton Ridge. As discussed in section 2.4.5, the 2001 New Jersey State Development and 

Redevelopment Plan (State Plan) designated this area of the Princeton Ridge as Environmentally 

Sensitive Area 5 (ESA 5) and Fringe 3 (F3). The State Plan characterizes ESA 5 lands as large, 

contiguous areas and valuable ecosystems, geologic features, and wildlife habitat where the 

future of the environmental and economic integrity rests in the protection of these resources. F3 

lands are characterized as predominantly rural landscape that are not prime or environmentally 

sensitive but that can provide a buffer between ESA 5 lands and more developed areas. ESA 5 

and F3 areas are specified as areas for conservation and limited growth. 

Transco’s existing right-of-way crosses or abuts residentially developed land for 

approximately 1.2 miles (92 percent) of the Princeton Ridge crossing. The residences occur on 

large lots that include forested areas, wetlands, and streams. Most homes are set back some 

distance from the right-of-way, although five homes are within 50 feet of the existing right-ofway. Four paved roads also cross the existing right-of-way within the Princeton Ridge.

As discussed in section 2.0, affected landowners, interested citizens, non-government 

organizations, the Municipality of Princeton, and others provided detailed comments describing 

the environmental characteristics of the Princeton Ridge and expressing concerns with the 

Project. These concerns centered on the Project’s potential impact on geologic resources, soil, 

vegetation, wetlands, streams, wildlife, visual resources, and recreational land use. Commentors 

were also concerned that construction of the Skillman Loop could damage the existing Caldwell 

Line B and create a public safety issue. Numerous commentors also raised concern that postconstruction restoration would be difficult, and some recommended alternative construction 

methods and route alternatives to avoid the area (section 3.5.1).

Due to the State Plan environmental designation of the Princeton Ridge, Transco 

prepared a Comprehensive Rock Handling Plan for the Princeton Ridge segment of the Skillman 

Loop (Rock Handling Plan) and a Construction and Restoration Plan Developed Specifically for 

New Jersey State Planning Areas: Environmentally Sensitive Area 5 and Fringe 3, Along the 

Skillman Loop (PRCRP).9 Transco consulted with Princeton Ridge stakeholders in developing 

these site-specific plans.

The Rock Handling Plan, PRCRP, and other documentation in the public record, 

including Transco’s June 2, 2014 supplemental filing, describe Transco’s field and technical 

investigations and the special construction techniques and restoration methods that Transco 

proposes to implement in the Princeton Ridge. In summary:

 

9 These plans were filed with FERC on May 6, 2014, and can be viewed on the FERC website at 

http://www.ferc.gov. 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., CP13-551). Be sure to select 

the appropriate date range. Each plan can be found under Accession No. 20140506-5178. In addition, the Rock 

Handling Plan, without its appendices, can be found in appendix D of this EA.
Proposed Action

23

 Transco would limit the width of the construction right-of-way to 50 feet for the 

majority of the 1.3-mile-long segment. ATWS would be necessary at the tie-in to 

Transco’s Mainline system at MP 1776.8 and at localized areas along the 

segment. 

 This reduced construction right-of-way would require Transco to work over the 

existing pipeline. Modeling was performed utilizing the site-specific data to 

estimate the stress that could be imposed on the existing pipeline during 

construction. As an added safety factor, the modeling assumed 2 times the weight 

of the heaviest piece of equipment expected to be used during construction.

 Prior to construction, Transco would utilize an inline tool to inspect the existing 

pipeline. Any anomalies would be addressed before construction of the Skillman 

Loop commences.

 Transco would discontinue the flow of natural gas in the existing pipeline during 

the use of the rock hammering technique in trenching for the new pipeline,

estimated to last about 3 to 6 weeks. During this time, the pipeline segment 

would be filled with water and pressurized to between 100 and 800 pounds per 

square inch (psi). 

 Upon completion of rock removal activities, the existing pipeline would be 

hydrostatically tested for 8 hours up to 1,200 psi, or 1.5 times the Maximum 

Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) of 800 psi.

 Transco undertook geophysical and geotechnical field investigations to identify 

the depth to bedrock and large boulders in the substrate and to determine soil 

characteristics in the construction right-of-way. 

 Transco would remove large rocks from over the pipeline and ensure a minimum 

of 3 feet of cover. A wooden mat bridge would then be installed over the 

pipeline, creating an airspace between the ground surface and construction 

equipment. Transco would monitor the matting to ensure that the airspace is 

maintained above the pipeline during work over activities. In section 2.9.1, we 

recommend that Transco provide a written plan detailing the specific measures 

that would be implemented to monitor for and maintain the proposed air gap over 

the existing pipeline.

 Transco would utilize non-blasting techniques to remove large boulders and 

excavate bedrock from the new trench. Rock hammer equipment, if necessary, 

would be stationed only over the trench, and not over the existing pipeline.

 After successful hydrostatic testing and returning the existing pipeline to service, 

Transco would perform another inline inspection of the existing pipeline with a 

geometry inspection tool.
Proposed Action

24

 Upon completion of construction, the Skillman Loop would be hydrostatically 

tested to ensure the integrity of the new pipeline prior to placement in service.

 Transco would perform pot-holing to verify the location of the existing pipeline in 

order to ensure that the air-gap is centered over the existing pipeline.

 Transco would implement site-specific restoration measures in the Princeton 

Ridge including, but not limited to the testing for and treatment of compacted 

soils; topsoil replacement; planting of seed mixtures in consultation with the 

NJDEP, Mercer County, and Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS); 

planting of native herbaceous and woody plants and shrubs; replacement of 

boulders and rocks across the land surface; restoration of stream beds and banks; 

the placement of permanent erosion control devices, if necessary; implementation 

of its site-specific Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan; and monitoring to 

ensure successful revegetation.

We conclude that the reduced construction right-of-way and implementation of the 

measures in Rock Handling Plan, PRCRP, Transco’s Plan and Procedures, and our 

recommendation in section 2.9.1, would minimize environmental impacts, protect public safety, 

and provide for restoration of the right-of-way through the Princeton Ridge area. Our analysis of 

the Project’s environmental impacts, including those on the Princeton Ridge, is discussed in 

detail throughout this EA.

1.6.3 Additional Temporary Workspaces, Contractor/Pipe Storage Yards, Contractor 

Staging Areas, and Access Roads

Transco would require the use of ATWS along the pipeline rights-of-way for various 

road, wetland, and waterbody crossings; in conjunction with construction of new and modified 

aboveground facilities; and for specialized construction technique areas (e.g., steep side slopes). 

A list of ATWS associated with the Project is included in appendix E. In addition, 17 areas are 

proposed for use as contractor/pipe storage yards and contractor staging areas (section 1.2.3). In 

general, ATWS and contractor/pipe yards would be cleared and graded for use during 

construction as described in section 1.6.1.

As noted in section 1.2.3, Transco would modify 16 private roads for access during 

construction and/or operation of the Project and would construct 5 new roads for access to the 

construction workspace, 2 of which would be retained for permanent access to MLV sites. 

Modification and construction of access roads would involve trimming or removal of vegetation, 

grading, and placement of gravel surfacing. Roads only used for construction would be restored 

to previous conditions or in accordance with landowner agreements.

The environmental impacts associated with the use of ATWS, contractor/pipe yards, and 

access roads, and the measures that Transco would implement to minimize impacts, are 

discussed in appropriate sections of this EA.
Proposed Action

25

1.6.4 Aboveground Facilities

Construction and modifications of aboveground facilities would typically include 

clearing, grading, compacting the site where necessary, pouring concrete foundations, and the 

erection/installation of aboveground equipment, buildings, and piping. Limited direct ground 

disturbance (e.g., grading and excavation) would be needed to complete the facility 

modifications. 

Compressor Stations

All compressor station construction would take place at existing facilities on property 

owned by Transco. No new property would be acquired for construction or operation of the

proposed compressor station modifications. The majority of work would occur in previously 

disturbed and developed areas of the sites; land use requirements and environmental impacts 

associated with modification of existing compressor stations are presented in section 2.0.

Mainline Valves and Launchers/Receivers and Other Aboveground Facilities

The proposed work at MLV, pig launcher/receiver, and other aboveground facility sites

would involve the modifications as described in tables 1.2.2-2 and 1.2.2-3. The sites of pig 

launcher/receiver facilities that are removed would be restored to pre-existing conditions.

1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INSPECTION AND MITIGATION 

MONITORING

In preparing construction drawings and specifications for the Project, Transco would 

incorporate all mitigation measures identified in its permit applications, as well as additional 

requirements of federal, state, and local agencies. Transco would provide the construction 

contractors with copies of applicable environmental permits, as well as copies of “approved for 

construction” environmental construction alignment sheets and construction drawings and 

specifications. Transco would be required to have copies of the permits issued by the COE at 

each COE jurisdictional wetland and waterbody crossing.

Transco would conduct training for its construction personnel, including Environmental 

Inspectors (EIs), contractors, and their employees, regarding proper field implementation of its 

E&SCPs, SPCC Plan, and other Project-specific plans and mitigation measures. The training 

would cover Project environmental documents and all Project-specific conditions contained in 

the Commission Order and other applicable federal, state, and local permits and approvals.

Transco would be represented by a Chief Inspector, who would be responsible for quality 

assurance and compliance with mitigation measures, other applicable regulatory requirements, 

and company specifications. The Chief Inspector would be assisted by at least one full-time 

Craft Inspector and EI(s). The EIs would have authority to stop activities that violate the 

measures set forth in the Project documents and authorizations and would have the authority to 

order corrective action. Transco’s Plan identifies additional responsibilities of the EI. We would 

also conduct routine inspections during construction to determine compliance with any 

conditions attached to an Order and to inspect the construction conditions of the Project 

facilities. 
Proposed Action

26

After construction, Transco would conduct follow-up inspections of all disturbed upland 

areas to determine the success of restoration and would monitor the success of wetland 

revegetation annually for the first 3 years (or as required by permit) after construction, or longer, 

until wetland revegetation is successful. At a minimum, inspections would occur after the first 

and second growing seasons in upland areas to ensure the restoration of all areas affected by the 

Project, we would also continue to conduct oversight inspection and monitoring following 

construction. If it is determined that any of the proposed monitoring timeframes are not adequate 

to assess the success of restoration, Transco would be required to extend its post-construction 

monitoring programs.

1.8 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND SAFETY CONTROLS

Operational activities on the pipeline would be limited to maintenance of the right-of-way 

and inspection, repair, and cleaning of the pipeline. Periodic aerial and ground inspections by 

pipeline personnel would assist in identification of the following conditions: soil erosion that 

may expose the pipe, surface visual clues that may indicate a leak in the line, conditions of the 

vegetation cover and erosion control measures, unauthorized encroachment on the right-of-way, 

excavation activities in the vicinity of the right-of-way, and other conditions that could present a 

safety hazard or require preventative maintenance or repairs. The pipeline cathodic protection 

system also would be monitored and inspected by pipeline personnel periodically to ensure 

proper and adequate corrosion protection. Appropriate corrective action to conditions observed 

during inspection would be taken as necessary.

To maintain accessibility of the right-of-way and to accommodate pipeline integrity 

surveys, vegetation on the new permanent right-of-way would be maintained by mowing, 

cutting, and trimming in all areas except for active agricultural areas and wetlands. The right-ofway would be allowed to revegetate; however, large brush and trees would be periodically 

removed as described in Transco’s Project-specific Plan and Procedures. Trees or deep-rooted 

shrubs could damage the pipeline’s protective coating, obscure periodic surveillance and 

inspection, or interfere with potential repairs and thus would not be allowed to grow near the 

pipeline. In particular, large tree growth would typically be restricted within 25 feet of either 

side of the pipeline in uplands. The pipeline facilities would be clearly marked at line-of-sight 

intervals and at crossings of roads, railroads, and other key points. The markers would clearly 

indicate the presence of the pipeline and provide a telephone number and address where a 

company representative can be reached in the event of an emergency or prior to any third-party 

excavation in the area of the pipeline. Transco would participate in all One-Call systems.

Transco’s safety controls are detailed in section 2.9.1 but include monitoring portions of 

its pipeline system using a supervisory control and data acquisition system. This system gathers 

information related to system pressures, flows, and customer deliveries 24 hours per day, 365 

days per year and transfers the information to Transco’s Gas Control Center located in Houston, 

Texas for the facilities to be installed. The new pipeline would also be connected to Transco’s 

existing cathodic protection system to prevent corrosion. Transco personnel would check the 

voltage and amperage every 2 months as well as the pipe-to-soil potentials and rectifiers. 

Transco states that no new, permanent employees would be needed for operation of the 

Project. Existing compressor station crews would operate and maintain the compressor station 

equipment and perform routine checks of the facilities, including calibration of equipment and 
Proposed Action

27

instrumentation, inspection of critical components, and scheduled and routine maintenance of 

equipment. Safety equipment, such as pressure relief, fire detection, and gas detection systems, 

would be tested periodically for proper operation. Transco would take corrective action for any 

identified problem. 

1.9 LAND REQUIREMENTS

Construction of the Project would impact a total of approximately 796.6 acres of land, 

including pipeline construction rights-of-way, ATWS, aboveground facility sites, access roads, 

and contractor/pipe storage yards and contractor staging areas. Following construction, Transco 

would allow about 712.7 acres (89 percent) of the affected land to revert to previous conditions. 

Transco would retain the remaining 84.0 acres (11 percent) of land for aboveground facilities 

and maintained pipeline rights-of-way. Table 1.9-1 identifies the land requirements for each 

Project facility. 

TABLE 1.9-1

Summary of Land Requirements

Facility

Land Affected During 

Construction (acres)

Land Affected During 

Operation (acres)

Pipeline Loops a

Skillman Loop 53.9 16.6

Pleasant Run Loop 87.0 17.1

Franklin Loop 141.4 36.0

Dorrance Loop 67.4 9.9

Pipeline Loop Subtotal 349.7 79.6

Additional Temporary Workspace 64.2 0.0

Aboveground Facilities b 290.0 1.3

Access Roads 7.3 3.1

Contractor/Pipe Storage Yards and Contractor Staging Areas 85.5 0.0

PROJECT TOTAL 796.6 84.0

___________________

a For construction, assumes a 105-foot-wide temporary right-of-way in upland areas, which includes 50 feet of existing 

permanent right-of-way and 55 feet of temporary construction workspace, and a 75-foot-wide construction right-of-way in 

wetland areas. For operation, assumes a 20-foot-wide area at most locations.

b

Includes modifications to existing compressor stations, mainline valves, and M&R Stations. No permanent or operational 

impacts would result from modifications at existing mainline valves or M&R Stations listed in table 1.2.2-3. 

Note: The totals shown in this table may not equal the sum of addends due to rounding.

Construction of the pipeline loops would typically require a 105-foot-wide construction 

right-of-way in upland areas, except as noted in section 1.6.2. In wetlands, Transco would 

reduce the construction right-of-way to 75 feet with limited exceptions due to site specific 

conditions (see table 2.2.4-2). Transco provided drawings depicting typical pipeline construction 

cross sections with its application materials (see appendix F). 

Following construction, the permanent right-of-way of the new pipeline facilities would 

be 50 feet wide. However, because the proposed Project involves looping of existing pipeline 

facilities, Transco would not need to acquire a full 50 feet of new permanent easement at most 

locations because the 50-foot-wide permanent easement would overlap with Transco’s existing 

permanent easement. 

Modifications at the compressor stations would require additional land outside the 

existing fence lines of the facilities, but within the properties owned by Transco. Operation of 
Proposed Action

28

the modified compressor stations would require minimal amounts of additional land. In addition, 

the proposed modifications at MLVs and pig launcher/receivers would occur within Transco’s 

right-of-way and would result in minimal operational impacts.

Proposed contractor/pipe storage yards and contractor staging areas would be used on a 

temporary basis during Project construction and would be restored to pre-existing condition after 

construction, with no permanent impact.

Although Transco has identified areas where extra workspace would be required, 

additional or alternative areas could be identified in the future due to changes in site-specific 

construction requirements. Transco would be required to file information on each of those areas 

for review and approval prior to use.

1.10 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

Table 1.10-1 identifies the major federal, state, and local environmental permits, 

approvals, and regulatory clearances for the Project.

TABLE 1.10-1

Major Environmental Permits, Licenses, Approvals, and Consultations for the Project

Agency Permit/Approval/Clearance

Submittal Date

(Anticipated)

Receipt Date

(Anticipated)

FEDERAL

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission

Certificate of Public Convenience and 

Necessity

September 2013 September 2014

U.S. Department of the Army 

Corps of Engineers

Baltimore District Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit 

(Dorrance Loop and a portion of the Franklin 

Loop)

September 2013 September 2014

CWA Section 404 permit (other aboveground 

facilities)

January 2014 August 2014

Philadelphia District CWA Section 404 permit (a portion of the 

Franklin Loop)

September 2013 September 2014

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 

New Jersey and Pennsylvania 

Field Offices

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 

consultation 

Ongoing September 2014

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

consultation

Migratory Bird Treaty Act consultation

North Carolina Field Office ESA Section 7 consultation December 2013 Blanket Authorization

Virginia Field Office ESA Section 7 consultation January 2014 June 2014

Maryland Field Office ESA Section 7 consultation Ongoing Awaiting New Blanket 

Authorization

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Regions 2 and 3

CWA Section 401, Water Quality Certification 

(WQC) review

In conjunction 

with state permit 

applications (see 

below)

September 2014

CWA Section 402, National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

review

CWA Section 404 review

CWA Stormwater Discharge Permit review
Proposed Action

29

TABLE 1.10-1

Major Environmental Permits, Licenses, Approvals, and Consultations for the Project

Agency Permit/Approval/Clearance

Submittal Date

(Anticipated)

Receipt Date

(Anticipated)

U.S. Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries 

Service

North Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act September 2013 October 2013

Virginia Coastal Zone Management Act January 2014 August 2014

Maryland Coastal Zone Management Act January 2014 August 2014

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation

Opportunity to comment under Section 106 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

NEW JERSEY

New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection 

(NJDEP), Land Use Regulation 

Program 

Individual Freshwater Wetlands Permit, 

Special Activity Transition Area Waiver, and 

Individual Flood Hazard Area Permit 

June 2014 November 2014

Section 401 WQC, Individual Flood Hazard 

Permit

June 2014 November 2014

Letter of Interpretation (Pleasant Run Loop) July 2013 June 2014

Letter of Interpretation (Skillman Loop) July 2013 September 2014

NJDEP, Endangered and 

Nongame Species Program

Consultation Ongoing September 2014

NJDEP, Natural Heritage 

Program (Rare and Endangered 

Plant Species)

Consultation Ongoing September 2014

NJDEP, Division of Water 

Quality 

New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NJPDES) General Permit for 

Dewatering 

January 2014 September 2014

NJPDES General Permit for Hydrostatic Test 

Water Discharge

January 2014 September 2014

NJDEP, Division of Air 

Resources

General Operating Permit September 2013 September 2014

NJDEP, Bureau of PreConstruction PermitsPre-construction Permit and Operating 

Certificate 

September 2013 September 2014

NJDEP, Green Acres Program Green Acres Diversion Approval June 2014 November 2014

NJDEP, Historic Preservation 

Office

Consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA Ongoing August 2014

New Jersey Department of 

Transportation

Highway Occupancy Permit April 2014 August 2014

PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection 

(PADEP), Bureau of Watershed 

Management, Northeast Region

Chapter 105 Water Obstruction and 

Encroachment Permit and CWA Section 401 

WQC

September 2013 September 2014

Submerged Lands License Agreement January 2014 September 2014

PADEP, Bureau of Water Quality 

Protection 

NPDES – PAG 2; Construction Stormwater 

Discharges

January 2014 September 2014

NPDES – PAG-10; Hydrostatic Testing of 

Tanks and Pipelines

January 2014 September 2014

PADEP, Bureau of Air Quality Air Quality Plan Approval September 2013 September 2014

Pennsylvania Department of 

Conservation and Recreation

Consultation Clearance received 

December 2013

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 

Commission

Consultation Clearance received 

November 2013

Pennsylvania Game 

Commission

Consultation Ongoing August 2014
Proposed Action

30

TABLE 1.10-1

Major Environmental Permits, Licenses, Approvals, and Consultations for the Project

Agency Permit/Approval/Clearance

Submittal Date

(Anticipated)

Receipt Date

(Anticipated)

Pennsylvania Historical and 

Museum Commission

Consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA Ongoing August 2014

Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation

Highway Occupancy Permit April 2014 August 2014

LOCAL

Soil Conservation Districts

Mercer, Somerset, and 

Hunterdon Counties, New 

Jersey

Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 

Certifications

January 2014 August 2014

Monroe and Luzerne 

Counties, Pennsylvania

Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 

Certifications

January 2014 August 2014

Delaware River Basin 

Commission

Hydrostatic Test Water Withdrawal and 

Discharge Permit

May 2014 August 2014
Environmental Analysis

31

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

The environmental consequence of constructing and operating the Leidy Southeast 

Expansion Project would vary in duration and significance. Four levels of impact duration were 

considered: temporary, short-term, long-term, and permanent. A temporary impact would 

generally occur during construction, with the resource returning to preconstruction conditions 

almost immediately afterward. A short-term impact could continue for up to 3 years following 

construction. An impact was considered long-term if the resource would require more than 3 

years to recover. A permanent impact could occur as a result of an activity that modifies a 

resource to the extent that it would not return to preconstruction conditions during the life of the 

Project. We considered as a threshold of significance, if an impact would result in a substantial 

beneficial or adverse change in the physical environment and the relationship of people with the 

environment.

In this section, we discuss the affected environment, general construction and operational 

impacts, and proposed mitigation measures for each resource. Transco, as part of its proposal, 

agreed to implement certain measures to reduce impacts on environmental resources. We 

evaluated the proposed mitigation measures to determine whether additional measures would be 

necessary to further reduce impacts. Where we identified the need for additional mitigation, the 

measures appear as bulleted, boldfaced paragraphs in the text. We will recommend that these 

measures be included as specific conditions to authorizations that the Commission may issue to 

Transco. Conclusions in this EA are based on our analysis of the environmental impact and the 

following assumptions:

 Transco would comply with all applicable federal laws and regulations;

 the proposed facilities would be constructed as described in section 1.0 of this 

document; and

 Transco would implement the mitigation measures included in its application and 

in supplemental filings to the FERC.

2.1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

2.1.1 Geology

Geologic Setting

In New Jersey, the Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops are within the Piedmont 

Physiographic Province which has varied topography ranging from lowlands in the east to peaks 

and ridges of moderate altitude and relief in the west (New Jersey Geological Survey (NJGS), 

2000; NJGS, 2006a). As noted in section 1.6.2, the Skillman Loop crosses an upland area 

referred to as the Princeton Ridge between MPs 1776.8 and 1778.1. The Skillman Loop would 

traverse low to locally moderate topographic slopes; none of the loops cross slopes in excess of 

30 percent. Ground elevations along the Skillman Loop range from approximately 60 to 340 feet 

above mean sea level (AMSL). The majority of the Pleasant Run Loop traverses low to locally 

moderate topographic slopes, with less than 1 percent of the alignment crossing slopes in excess 
Geology and Soils

32

of 30 percent. Ground elevations along the Pleasant Run Loop range from approximately 90 to 

440 feet AMSL. Both of the loops in New Jersey are underlain primarily by Lower Jurassic- to 

Upper Triassic-age siltstone, mudstone, shale, and sandstone. Between MPs 1777.1 and 1777.9 

within the Princeton Ridge, the Skillman Loop also crosses Jurassic-age diabase bedrock. 

Diabase is an igneous rock that intruded into the surrounding rock units. Overlying the bedrock 

units is soil formed in place by decomposition of the bedrock (residuum) and colluvium 

deposited along hillsides derived from the underlying rock. Loess and alluvium can be found 

deposited in low areas, and along stream valleys (Fullerton et al., 2003). The depth to bedrock is 

typically greater than 10.5 feet below the ground surface (bgs) in the area of both loops based on 

borings completed by Transco; more detailed information regarding the geology of the Princeton 

Ridge is provided below.

In Pennsylvania, the Franklin Loop is within the Glaciated Pocono Section of the 

Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province, which is characterized as a broad upland 

underlain primarily by flat-lying sedimentary bedrock. The Franklin Loop crosses primarily low 

to locally moderate slopes, with approximately 1 percent of the alignment crossing slopes in 

excess of 30 percent. Ground elevations along the Franklin Loop range from 1,465 to 1,940 feet 

AMSL. The Dorrance Loop is within the Appalachian Mountain Section of the Ridge and 

Valley Physiographic Province, which is characterized by narrow mountain ridges separated by 

wide valleys (Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources [PADCNR], 

2000). The Dorrance Loop crosses primarily low to moderate slopes, with approximately 3 

percent of the alignment crossing slopes in excess of 30 percent. Ground elevations along the 

Dorrance Loop range from 860 to 1,190 feet AMSL. Surficial geologic deposits in the area of 

the Franklin and Dorrance Loops are glacially formed ground and/or end moraine deposits 

consisting of loamy till. These deposits are discontinuous, and associated residuum and 

colluvium deposits can also be present (Fullerton et al., 2003). In the area of the Franklin Loop, 

Devonian- and Mississippian-age sedimentary rock, consisting primarily of sandstone, can be 

found at approximate depths greater than 9 feet bgs. In the area of the Dorrance Loop, the till is 

underlain by Devonian-age sedimentary rock comprised primarily of siltstone. Based on borings 

completed by Transco, depth to bedrock varies from approximately 3 feet to more than 15 feet, 

depending on location. The aboveground facilities, contractor/pipe yards, and access roads 

associated with the Project facilities in New Jersey and Pennsylvania would be located within the 

same general physiographic and geologic setting as the proposed pipeline loops described above. 

Proposed modifications at other existing aboveground facilities on Transco’s Mainline 

system in North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland would occur within Transco’s existing facility 

boundaries and/or rights-of-way. No substantive changes to geologic conditions would occur at

these facilities and the potential for these facilities to be affected by geologic hazards is low. 

Therefore, these other aboveground facilities are not discussed further in this section.

Mineral Resources

Coal, copper, graphite, limonite, magnetite, and manganese have been mined historically 

in the general vicinity of the proposed facilities in Hunterdon County, New Jersey and Luzerne 

County, Pennsylvania. Based on our review of on-line state and federal database files for 

mines/mining resources, no Project facility would be located on or cross historic/inactive 
Geology and Soils

33

underground mines or their tailings in either state (USGS, 2005a; 2006a; NJGS, 2006b; and 

Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access, 2008). 

Active mines and mineral processing plants in the Project vicinity include iron oxide 

pigment, clay, sulfur, stone, sand/gravel, clay, silica, and peat. Only one active mining operation 

has been identified by Transco within 0.25 mile of the Project: a sand/gravel mine owned by 

Pocono Transcrete, Inc. The mine is approximately 330 feet southwest of the edge of the 

proposed workspace of the Franklin Loop between approximate MPs 63.1 to 63.3. Transco has 

evaluated the mine location and operation relative to the Project and concluded that it is highly 

unlikely that any surface disturbance from pipeline construction activities would affect this 

sand/gravel operation. Although the sand/gravel operation is located along a public road that 

would be used for access during pipeline construction, it is expected that traffic related to the 

mining operation would exit to the south and, therefore, not cross the pipeline workspace. 

Furthermore, any potential future mining would likely not expand toward the pipeline location 

because a residence is located between the sand/gravel operation and the pipeline. As such, we 

conclude that construction and operation of the Project would not affect operations at the Pocono 

Transcrete facility. 

Oil and natural gas have historically been produced in Pennsylvania, including the recent 

development of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale in western Pennsylvania. This petroleumbearing formation does not extend into New Jersey (Environmental Information Administration, 

2010). Data from the State of Pennsylvania (PADEP, 2011a) indicate there are no oil and gas 

fields within 0.25 mile of Project facilities.

Because the proposed Project does not occur within 0.25 mile of historic or existing 

mining operations or active oil and gas fields, with the exception of the above referenced 

sand/gravel mine, we find that construction and operation of the Project would not adversely 

affect the development of mineral resources in the region. 

Geologic Hazards

Geologic hazards are natural, physical conditions that can result in damage to land and 

structures or injury to people. In the Project area these consist of seismic hazards (earthquakes, 

surface faulting, and soil liquefaction) and landslides. 

Seismic Hazards

The Project area is located in a region of the United States with a mapped low to 

moderate earthquake hazard (USGS, 2005b; 2008; and 2009). Seismic events in proximity to the 

Project in New Jersey and Pennsylvania generally range from low to moderate intensity, and 

modeling by the USGS indicates that the potential for a major earthquake in the region is low. 

More specifically, the USGS estimates that there is a 10 percent chance for an earthquake to 

occur in the region within the next 50 years that would result in a peak ground acceleration of 2 

to 4 percent of the acceleration due to gravity, and a 2 percent chance for an earthquake to occur 

in the region within the next 50 years that would result in ground movement of 5 to 12 percent 

peak ground acceleration. The perceived shaking from these events would range from light to 

strong, with the potential for damage ranging from none to light.
Geology and Soils

34

Seismic activity in New Jersey is generally concentrated in the northeastern portion of the 

state. In New Jersey, the proposed Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops either cross or are in close 

proximity to mapped fault lines. According to the NJGS, these faults are likely associated with 

the Ramapo Fault Zone that separates the Piedmont and Highlands Physiographic Provinces and 

span more than 185 miles from the Appalachian Mountains to the Piedmont area within New

York (NJGS 1999). In New Jersey, the Ramapo Fault Zone crosses through Hunterdon, 

Somerset, Morris, Passaic, and Bergen Counties (Guglielmo, 2010). The faults associated with 

the Ramapo Fault Zone are approximately 230 to 190 million years old and are the likely source 

of the recent earthquakes in the northwestern portion of New Jersey. According to the USGS, 

there are no faults or folds in the Project region that are believed to be the source of magnitude 

6.0 or greater earthquakes within the last 1.6 million years (USGS, 2008). 

Seismic activity in Pennsylvania is generally concentrated in the southeastern portion of 

the state and is of low to moderate intensity. The nearest documented fault to the Franklin Loop 

is approximately 2.3 miles south of the loop, and the nearest documented fault to the Dorrance 

Loop is approximately 2.8 miles to the north of the loop. 

Table 2.1.1-1 provides a summary of historical earthquakes that have occurred in the 

Project area (USGS, 2012a; 2012b). 

TABLE 2.1.1-1

Historical Earthquakes in the Project Area

Date

Magnitude/

Intensity

Epicenter 

location

Nearest Project 

Facility Affected Area Resulting Damage

1783 Magnitude 

5.3 

Morris County, 

NJ 

Pleasant Run Loop Unknown Unknown 

September 1, 

1895 

Magnitude 

4.1 

High Bridge, NY Pleasant Run Loop Maine to Virginia Buildings rocked, broken 

windows and articles fell from 

shelves. 

May 31, 1908 Intensity VI Allentown, PA Greater than 25 miles 

from all proposed 

Project facilities 

Localized A few chimneys were shaken 

down. 

February 21, 

1954 

Intensity VI Wilkes-Barre, 

PA 

Franklin and 

Dorrance Loops 

Localized 

neighborhood 

within WilkesBarre 

Caused by subsidence from 

an underground coal mine. 

Caused over $1 million of 

damage to residential 

buildings including impact on

infrastructure (gas and water 

mains). 

March 23, 1957 Magnitude 

3.8 

Hunterdon 

County, NJ 

Pleasant Run Loop West-central New 

Jersey 

Windows broken, dishes 

broken, cracked chimneys, 

some walls cracked, and 

plaster fell. 

February 3, 

2009 

Magnitude 

3.0 

Morris County, 

NJ 

Pleasant Run Loop Northern New 

Jersey 

No damage reported. 

Rattled windows and 

shuddered walls were 

encountered.

For reference, the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale is used for measuring the 

intensity and effects of an earthquake, while the Richter Magnitude (M) scale measures the 

energy released. Therefore, the two scales are not strictly correlatable. For general reference, 
Geology and Soils

35

MMI’s (noted by Roman numeral) are defined by the USGS as follows with a generally 

corresponding M scale (noted by numeric range) value: 

 MMI IV/M 3.0-3.9: Vibrations felt by almost all people indoors and some 

outdoors. Some objects displaced. Sounds produced in structures. Some 

vehicles perceptibly rocked.

 MMI V/M 4.0-4.9: Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, 

windows broken. Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop. 

 MMI VI /M 4.0-4.9: Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; 

a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight.

 MMI VII/M 5.0-5.9: Damage negligible in buildings of good design and 

construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable 

damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken.

Transco’s existing Leidy Line was constructed in 1958 after all but one of the 

earthquakes experienced in the vicinity of the Project. No damage occurred to any Transco 

facilities due to the February 3, 2009 earthquake in Morris County, New Jersey.

Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated, non-cohesive soils temporarily lose 

their strength when subjected to forces such as intense and prolonged ground shaking. Soil and 

shallow groundwater conditions necessary for liquefaction to occur may exist in portions of the 

Project area. However, due to the low potential for strong and prolonged ground shaking to 

occur in the Project area as indicated by the USGS, the potential for soil liquefaction to occur is 

considered low. 

The proposed loops and new and modified aboveground facilities would be designed, 

installed, and operated in accordance with 49 CFR 192. Empirical reviews of historical 

earthquakes demonstrate that welded steel pipelines are not prone to failure due to earthquakes. 

A 1996 study of earthquake performance data for steel transmission lines and distribution supply 

lines operated by SoCal Gas over a 61-year period found that post-1945 arc-welded transmission 

pipelines in good repair have never experienced a break or leak during a southern California 

earthquake and are the most resistant type of piping, vulnerable only to very large and abrupt 

ground displacement (e.g., severe landslides), and are generally highly resistant to traveling 

ground wave effects and moderate amounts of permanent deformation (O’Rourke and Palmer 

1994; O’Rourke, M.J., and X. Liu, 1999). Because the Project would be constructed in 

accordance with federal standards and considering that the potential for seismic-related activity 

to impact the Project is low, we conclude that the risk of damage to the proposed facilities from 

seismic activity is not significant. 

Landslides

A landslide is defined as the movement of a mass of rock, debris, or earth down a slope. 

Landslides can be initiated by heavy rainfall, earthquakes, changes in groundwater conditions, 

and/or slope disturbance resulting from construction activity. Generally, Transco selected areas 

with low slopes for the siting of compressor stations and other aboveground facilities; therefore, 

slope failure is not expected at aboveground facility locations. However, slope failures and 
Geology and Soils

36

subsequent landslides represent a potential hazard to the buried pipeline along portions of the 

Project route that traverses areas of steep slopes. Factors that would increase the potential for 

slope failures along steep slopes include cutting along slopes, the weight of construction 

equipment, and unusually high precipitation or snowmelt saturating near surface earth materials.

Landslides in the portion of New Jersey where the Project is located have included debris 

flows, rock slides, and rock falls. The Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops are generally in an area 

with low landslide incidence, with 1.5 percent of the area involved in landslides (Godt, 1997). 

The Skillman Loop does not cross any slopes that are greater than 30 percent, while the Pleasant 

Run Loop crosses less than 0.1 mile of steep (greater than 30 percent) slopes. However, Transco 

has reported that a small percentage of the Princeton Ridge portion of the Skillman Loop has 

slopes over 15 percent, which is defined as “steep” for non-residential uses under Princeton 

Township ordinances. Most of the steep slopes in Princeton Ridge are well-vegetated, although 

farm fields and residential properties may extend to the edge of slopes. 

No historic landslides are mapped near the Skillman Loop or near the Project 

aboveground facilities in New Jersey (NJGS, 2012). Historic debris flows have been found 1 

mile north of the Pleasant Run Loop area. 

Landslides have occurred throughout Pennsylvania and include rock and debris slides, 

debris avalanches, and slumps on lower slopes and stream banks (PADCNR, 2001). Both the 

Franklin and Dorrance Loops are in an area with moderate incidence of landslide activity, with

1.5 to 15 percent of the area involved in landslides (Godt, 1997). The Franklin and Dorrance 

Loops cross approximately 0.1 mile and 0.2 mile of steep slopes, respectively. A historic slump 

is mapped approximately 3 miles west of the Dorrance Loop. No historic landslides are mapped 

near the Project aboveground facilities in Pennsylvania. 

Although landslides could potentially occur in the Project area, there is no evidence along 

the Project corridor of recent landslide history. Transco would adhere to its Plan and Procedures 

as well as measures described in its E&SCPs to mitigate potential risk of slope failure during 

construction. These measures would control water and erosion during construction and 

reestablish vegetation cover as soon as possible following final grading. As such, we find that 

the potential for landslides to affect the proposed Project is low.

Blasting

Transco reviewed federal soil survey databases (U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), 1986; 2004) and completed preliminary geotechnical surveys of the Project area to 

determine, in part, the depth and nature of underlying bedrock. Table 2.1.1-2 summarizes the 

locations where potential shallow bedrock, mapped by soil survey (defined here as less than or 

equal to 15 feet bgs) or by geotechnical survey (defined here as less than or equal to 6.5 feet 

bgs), is anticipated along the Project route.

As shown in table 2.1.1-2, approximately 14.8 miles (49 percent) of the proposed 

pipeline loops are potentially underlain by shallow bedrock. Based on the lithology of the 

underlying geologic formations present along the Project construction area and preliminary 

geotechnical survey results in the Project area, Transco expects that the shallow bedrock could 
Geology and Soils

37

be ripped with construction equipment and does not anticipate that blasting would be required for 

construction. Transco would remove excess rock and place it in an approved dump site. 

TABLE 2.1.1-2

Shallow Bedrock in the Project Area

Project Loop Depth Milepost Begin Milepost End Approximate Total Miles

Skillman Loop <15 feet 1776.79 1776.95 0.16

<15 feet 1777.86 1778.68 0.82

<15 feet 1779.72 1779.97 0.25

Subtotal 1.23

Pleasant Run Loop <6.5 feet 0.29 0.41 0.12

<6.5 feet 0.50 0.63 0.13

<6.5 feet 0.65 0.68 0.03

<6.5 feet 0.73 0.75 0.02

<6.5 feet 1.04 1.09 0.05

<6.5 feet 1.19 1.21 0.02

<6.5 feet 1.24 1.47 0.23

<6.5 feet 1.61 2.28 0.67

<6.5 feet 2.36 2.83 0.47

<6.5 feet 3.03 3.07 0.04

<6.5 feet 3.19 3.21 0.02

<6.5 feet 3.36 5.14 1.78

<6.5 feet 5.24 6.21 0.97

<6.5 feet 6.37 6.42 0.05

Subtotal 4.6

Franklin Loop <15 feet 57.51 58.41 0.9

<15 feet 60.75 60.82 0.07

<15 feet 61.29 61.34 0.05

<15 feet 61.81 62.06 0.25

<15 feet 62.39 62.72 0.33

<15 feet 64.53 64.61 0.08

<15 feet 64.91 65.62 0.71

<15 feet 65.69 66.04 0.35

<15 feet 66.58 68.95 2.37

Subtotal 5.11

Dorrance Loop <15 feet 17.69 18.21 0.52

<15 feet 19.12 20.76 1.64

<15 feet 20.99 22.18 1.19

<15 feet 22.48 22.97 0.49

Subtotal 3.84

Project Total 14.78

We received numerous comments regarding the presence of hard, shallow bedrock and 

large boulders in the Princeton Ridge area of the Skillman Loop. The Princeton Ridge area 

crosses a major sheet-like intrusion of dark greenish gray to black, medium to fine grained 

diabase. Thermally altered sedimentary rocks of the Passaic Formation occur below the diabase, 

and also above where the diabase is not exposed at ground surface. Overlying the diabase is 

sandy, silty diabase saprolite and rock rubble consisting of rounded and broken boulders derived 

from the diabase. The thickness of the saprolite can be as much as 20 feet.
Geology and Soils

38

As noted in section 1.6.2, Transco conducted geophysical and geotechnical studies of the 

proposed construction right-of-way of the Skillman Loop in the Princeton Ridge area. More 

specifically, 2-dimensional Electrical Resistivity Imaging, seismic refraction techniques, and 

ground penetrating radar were utilized to identify the depth to bedrock, the potential presence 

and dimensions of boulders in the subsurface, and to assess methods for bedrock and boulder 

removal. Global Positioning System mapping was also completed to document the locations of 

bedrock exposures and large boulders at the ground surface. In addition to the geophysical 

surveys summarized above, Transco installed 10 preliminary geotechnical borings in the 

Princeton Ridge right-of-way to confirm the depth to bedrock and to characterize the physical 

properties of soil and bedrock through standard laboratory testing. Depths of the preliminary 

geotechnical borings ranged from 13 to 125 feet, and rock coring was conducted in three of the 

borings. In addition to the preliminary geotechnical borings, Transco installed 86 borings to 

depths ranging from 1 to 18 feet to confirm the presence of subsurface boulders and shallow 

bedrock indicated by the geophysical surveys. Details regarding these surveys are included in 

Transco’s site-specific Rock Handling Plan prepared for the Princeton Ridge with input from 

Princeton Ridge stakeholders. 

Based on the geophysical and geotechnical surveys above, Transco determined that 

approximately 20 percent of the trenching across the Princeton Ridge would encounter only soil; 

19 percent would encounter shallow bedrock; 46 percent would encounter surface and subsurface 

boulders; and 15 percent would encounter both shallow bedrock and boulders. As detailed in the 

Rock Handling Plan and other supplemental information provided by Transco on June 2, 2014, 

the company has committed to implement the following measures: 

 Transco would take the existing pipeline out of service, estimated to be 3 to 6 

weeks, during the most intrusive aspects of construction, including excavation of 

rock by utilizing the rock hammer technique.

 Transco would evacuate the existing natural gas pipeline and replace with water 

during proposed outage, conduct a hydrostatic test of the pipeline prior to 

returning it to service, and perform an in-line inspection of the pipeline after it is 

returned to service.

 The centerline of the existing pipeline would be located and then boulders on the 

surface above the existing pipeline and the Skillman Loop trench would be 

carefully removed. Fill would be used to ensure a minimum of 3 feet of cover 

over the existing pipeline. 

 A wooden mat bridge would then be installed over the existing pipeline to provide 

an air space between the ground surface and the construction equipment used to 

install the Skillman Loop, thereby reducing direct stress on the existing pipeline 

(see section 2.9).

 Boulders and shallow bedrock within the Skillman Loop trenchline would then be 

removed through a series of non-blasting techniques including use of a hydraulic 

hammer, the use of pre-drilling to facilitate breaking with the hydraulic hammer, 

and the use of expansive grout to split boulders and bedrock in place followed by 

the use of the hydraulic hammer, if needed.
Geology and Soils

39

We find the bedrock and boulder identification process and removal measures in 

Transco’s Rock Handling Plan to be acceptable.

Along the remaining portions of the Project loops, Transco would use blasting only after 

all other reasonable means of excavation (e.g., rock trenchers, rock saws, jack hammers) have 

been attempted and are unsuccessful. However, if blasting is deemed necessary, Transco would

hire a licensed contractor to conduct the blasting operations. Transco developed a Blasting Plan 

for the Project detailing how blasting would be conducted, and outlining measures that avoid 

and/or minimize impacts related to blasting. Transco would obtain all necessary permits and 

blasting would be conducted by state-licensed blasting specialists to ensure safety and to 

minimize the potential for damage to facilities and resources outside of the blast area. Some of 

the specific measures that would be implemented to avoid or minimize blasting effects include: 

 optimization of blast charge size and delay timing to minimize vibration;

 use of warning signs, site access control, and audible warning signals before and 

after a blast;

 seismograph vibration monitoring during blasting to assess vibrations generated 

by a blast;

 procedures for safe blasting materials handling, storage, and use;

 pre- and post-blast surveys of water supply wells within 150 feet of the blasting 

area;

 pre- and post-blast condition surveys on nearby structures or utilities;

 use of matting to contain the potential for airborne debris; and

 repair or replacement of utilities or structures damaged by blasting.

In the event blasting activities result in damage to structures, utilities, water supply wells, 

or springs, Transco has committed to repairing the affected entity to pre-blast conditions. Based 

on the mitigation measures described in Transco’s Blasting Plan, we find that potential impacts 

due to blasting would not be significant.

Paleontological Resources

Transco consulted with the New Jersey State Museum and Pennsylvania Topographic 

and Geologic Survey (PATGS) regarding identification of important or recognized fossil 

assemblages that may be located in the Project area. 

The New Jersey State Museum indicated that some rare finds may be present near the 

proposed Project area and recommended that the proposed Skillman Loop be monitored by 

Transco for possible fossil resources. The probability of encountering significant paleontological 

resources along the Pleasant Run Loop is low and only common fossils would be expected in 

these areas.
Geology and Soils

40

The PATGS indicated that, although fossils are present in various bedrock formations 

underlying the Project footprint, encountering significant paleontological resources in the 

bedrock beneath the proposed Project area in Pennsylvania is low, though still a possibility. 

To minimize impacts on paleontological resources, Transco would develop an 

unanticipated paleontological discovery training program for its EIs and construction contractors. 

The training program would be prepared, in part, by a qualified geoscientist in conjunction with 

experts from the NJGS and the PATGS. EI and contractor training would include:

 the nature and appearance of the types of known fossil remains and fossil traces 

that could potentially occur in the geologic formations being excavated along the 

pipeline alignment;

 methods of safely inspecting geologic materials exposed in the respective 

excavations, as well as the excavation spoils prior to their re-use or disposal; and

 procedures to be taken should an unanticipated paleontological discovery be made 

including notification of the NJGS or PATGS, dependent on location. 

The training would also implement a strict policy prohibiting the removal of 

paleontological resource including whole or partial fossils, traces, or impressions of animals or 

plants that occur as part of the geological record. Based on the low potential for paleontological 

resources to be present in the Project area, and Transco’s implementation of its training program, 

we find that the Project would not significantly impact paleontological resources.

2.1.2 Soils

Pipeline Facilities

Soils crossed by the Project were identified and assessed using USDA databases and soils 

surveys (USDA, 1986; 2004). In addition, borings were installed to characterize soils within the 

proposed construction right-of-way of the Skillman Loop in the Princeton Ridge area. 

The soils affected by the Project were evaluated to identify prime farmland and major soil 

characteristics that could affect construction or increase the potential for construction-related soil 

impacts (see table 2.1.2-1). Soils in the Project area are highly variable, ranging from shallow to 

deep, nearly level to steeply sloping, poorly to well drained, and with textures ranging from silts 

and loam to coarse rock fragments. Individual soil characteristics are included in table 2.1.2-1 

and discussed below. 

Prime Farmland

According to the USDA, prime farmland soils consist of soils classified as those best 

suited for production of food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops (USDA, 2004). Prime 

farmland soils generally meet the following criteria: have an adequate water supply, either from 

precipitation or irrigation; contain few or no rocks; are permeable to water and air; are not 

excessively erodible or saturated for long time periods; and either do not flood frequently or are 

protected from flooding. The soils designated as prime farmland in table 2.1.2-1 also include 

those designated as farmland of statewide importance. This land potentially could meet or 
Geology and Soils

41

exceed yields of prime farmland; however, it does not meet the criteria for prime farmland, 

because it would require treatment and maintenance to meet or exceed prime farmland yields. 

The Project facilities would impact approximately 77.0 acres of prime farmland soils in New 

Jersey and 163.7 acres of prime farmland soils in Pennsylvania. 

TABLE 2.1.2-1

Characteristics of Soils Affected by the Project (acres) a

Loop

Prime 

Farmland b Highly Erodible c Hydric d

CompactionProne/Prone to 

Rutting e Stony/Rocky f

Poor 

Revegetation g

Skillman 74.6 13.4 1.8 80.9 6.1 19.4

Pleasant Run 89.1 51.1 0.0 110.0 14.4 51.8

Franklin 49.8 41.6 22.5 142.8 98.1 115.0

Dorrance 27.3 40.8 4.2 29.5 20.5 37.2

Pipeline Total 240.7 146.8 28.6 363.2 139.2 223.4

____________________

a An area may have more than one characteristic. 

b Soils classified as prime farmland including farmland of statewide importance.

c Soils classified as having severe erosion potential.

d Soils classified as all hydric; partially hydric soils are not included.

e Soils classified as having severe rutting potential.

f Soils with a high stony or rocky rating, indicating soils with rock outcrops or extremely stony modifier to the textural class

within a soil association, or with a surface horizon that contains greater than 15 percent by weight rock fragments larger 

than 3 inches.

g Soils with slopes greater than 8 percent or having greater than 15 percent coarse rock and stone fragments in the surface 

layer.

During pipeline construction, the topsoil from these areas would be stripped and 

segregated from the subsoil in accordance with Transco’s Plan and E&SCPs. Segregated topsoil 

would be returned following backfilling of the subsoil, ensuring preservation of topsoil within 

the construction area. Prime farmland soils crossed by the pipeline loops that are active 

croplands would be returned to their previous agricultural use after completion of the Project. 

Consequently, we conclude there would be no significant impact on or loss of prime farmland.

Transco identified the location of drain tiles in agricultural land that would be crossed by 

the Project. Transco stated that it would probe active drain tiles to determine if any damage has 

occurred during construction. Should damage occur, Transco committed to repairing the tiles to 

their original condition or better and would monitor the drainage systems after construction to 

ensure their performance remains consistent with preconstruction conditions.

Erosion

Short-term increases in erosion can occur as a result of the removal of vegetation during 

clearing and grading activities and the subsequent exposure of topsoil to wind and precipitation. 

In addition, in areas where vegetation is slow to become reestablished, increased erosion can 

occur. Increased erosion of soils is of special concern near waterbodies where erosion can result 

in increased sedimentation. 

Soils most susceptible to erosion by water are typified by bare or sparse vegetation cover, 

non-cohesive soil particles with low infiltration rates, and moderate to steep slopes. Soils 

typically more resistant to erosion by water include those that occupy low relief areas, are well 

vegetated, and have high infiltration capacity and internal permeability. Wind erosion processes 
Geology and Soils

42

are less affected by slope angles than water erosion processes. Wind-induced erosion often 

occurs on dry soil where vegetation cover is sparse and strong winds are prevalent. 

Approximately 146.8 acres of the Project soils are considered highly susceptible to erosion by 

water and wind.

We received comments from the Municipality of Princeton, Montgomery Township, and 

several landowners concerning the potential for increased erosion and sedimentation into 

wetlands and waterbodies during Project construction, especially during storm events. To 

minimize or avoid potential impacts due to soil erosion and waterbody sedimentation, Transco 

would utilize erosion and sedimentation control devices in accordance with its Plan, Procedures,

and E&SCPs. Temporary erosion controls, including interceptor diversions, slope breakers, and 

sediment filters (such as hay bales and silt fences) would be installed immediately after initial 

disturbance of the soil. Temporary erosion controls would be regularly inspected and after each 

rainfall event of 0.5 inch or greater. These temporary controls would be maintained throughout 

construction until replaced by permanent erosion control measures or until restoration is 

complete. In addition, Transco would implement the restoration and revegetation measures in its 

Plan, Procedures, and county-specific E&SCPs. Therefore, we find that construction and 

operation of the Project would not result in significant impacts from erosion and sedimentation.

Hydric Soils and Compaction/Rutting Potential

Hydric soils are “formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long 

enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part” (Federal 

Register, USDA 1994). Construction through hydric soils and wetlands is discussed in section 

2.2.4. Due to their extended periods of saturation, hydric soils can be prone to compaction and 

rutting. Approximately 28.6 acres of the soils affected by the Project are considered hydric and 

363.2 acres are considered susceptible to compaction and rutting.

We received comments concerning the potential of increased runoff due to soil 

compaction caused by construction activities. Soil compaction modifies soil structure and can 

reduce the porosity and moisture-holding capability of the soil, thus restricting rooting depth. 

Compaction also decreases infiltration and thus increases runoff and the potential for water 

erosion. 

The proposed wetland construction crossing techniques, as contained in Transco’s 

Procedures and E&SCPs, would reduce impacts on hydric soils. In general, rutting and 

compaction of soils would be avoided or minimized through the use of low-ground-pressure 

equipment and installing temporary equipment mats, as deemed necessary during construction. 

Additional construction procedures and mitigation measures that Transco would implement to 

reduce impacts on wetlands are discussed in section 2.2.4. In addition, Transco would minimize 

the potential for rutting in active agricultural lands by stripping topsoil, as noted above, and by 

employing subsurface decompaction techniques utilizing rippers, paraplows, or similar 

decompaction equipment in accordance with Transco’s Plan and Procedures.

With the implementation of mitigation measures in Transco’s Plan, Procedures, and 

E&SCPs, we find that construction and operation of the Project would not result in significant 

impacts from compaction and rutting of soils. 
Geology and Soils

43

Stakeholders in the Princeton Ridge area, including the Princeton Ridge Coalition and 

their consultant, raised concern that soft, saturated soils could increase the risk of damage to the 

existing pipeline due to a decreased ability to support construction equipment operating over the 

existing pipeline. As discussed in sections 1.6.2 and 2.1, Transco installed 10 geotechnical soil 

borings and 86 confirmatory borings to evaluate soil characteristics, depth to bedrock, and the 

occurrence of boulders in the Princeton Ridge area. The soils data obtained by Transco did not 

indicate any soils that would be classified as soft surrounding the existing pipeline. As discussed 

in section 2.9, stress analysis based on field data concluded that the existing pipeline would not 

experience stress in excess of allowable limits under Transco’s proposed construction methods, 

which includes utilizing a mat bridge to avoid direct stress on the ground surface over the 

existing pipeline. Although localized areas of soft soils could exist in the Princeton Ridge area, 

Transco would monitor the mat bridge during construction to ensure that the air gap remains 

over the existing pipeline and would discontinue construction if equipment cannot be supported 

on the mat bridging. In section 2.9.1, we recommend that Transco provide a written plan 

detailing the specific measures that would be implemented to monitor for and maintain the 

proposed air gap over the existing pipeline including, but not limited to, areas of highly saturated 

soil conditions. Details of Transco’s data and analysis are presented in the site-specific Rock 

Handling Plan prepared for the Princeton Ridge area.

Stony/Rocky and Shallow-to-Bedrocks soils

The presence of stone- or rock-bearing soils can interfere with agricultural practices and 

inhibit revegetation efforts. Approximately 139.2 acres of land that would be crossed by the 

Project would be underlain by stony/rocky soils. 

As shown in table 2.1.1-2 and discussed in section 2.1.1, the proposed pipeline loops 

would cross approximately 14.8 miles of soils that are potentially underlain by shallow bedrock. 

If bedrock is encountered within the trench during construction, Transco would remove the rock 

with construction equipment; blasting is not anticipated for construction of the Project. 

Transco’s plans to remove boulders and bedrock from the right-of-way in the Princeton Ridge 

are detailed in the Rock Handling Plan. As discussed in section 2.1.1, we find this plan to be 

acceptable.

With implementation of these mitigation measures, we find that potential impacts on soil 

productivity and quality resulting from introducing stones and rock to surface horizons as a result 

of construction and operation of the Project would not be significant.

Revegetation Potential

Successful restoration and revegetation are important for maintaining soil productivity 

and protecting the underlying soil from potential damage, such as erosion. The revegetation 

potential of soils disturbed by the Project was evaluated based on the slope and the percentage of 

coarse rock fragments in the surface layer. Steep slopes that are either poorly vegetated or 

exhibit no vegetation cover are susceptible to erosion. Stony soils can reduce the efficiency and 

productivity of a soil by reducing infiltration and increasing surface run off. The coarsertextured soils also have a lower water holding capacity following precipitation, which could 

result in moisture deficiencies in the root zone and create unfavorable conditions for many 
Geology and Soils

44

plants. The Project would cross approximately 223.4 acres of soils that are classified as having 

poor revegetation potential. 

Transco would implement measures described in its Plan, Procedures, and E&SCPs to 

promote revegetation of all disturbed areas. In areas with more than 12 inches of topsoil, 

Transco would remove and segregate topsoil to a depth of at least 12 inches. In soils with less 

than 12 inches of topsoil, the entire topsoil horizon would be segregated. Following 

construction, the corridor would be restored with the segregated topsoil and revegetated. 

Transco would also implement the site-specific measures detailed in its PRCRP to restore the 

construction right-of-way in the Princeton Ridge area (see sections 1.6.2 and 2.3). We conclude 

that these measures would enhance and encourage the successful revegetation of areas disturbed 

by the Project.

In general, Transco would implement the measures in its Plan and Procedures and 

county-specific E&SCPs to minimize and mitigate impacts on soils affected by construction and 

operation of the Project. By implementing these measures and reducing the construction 

workspace to the extent feasible, the Project would not have significant impacts on soil 

resources.

Aboveground Facilities

We reviewed the soils at the aboveground facilities to identify prime farmland and major 

soil characteristics that could affect construction or increase the potential for construction-related 

soil impacts. Construction at aboveground facilities would consist of modifications to existing 

facilities, primarily within fence lines or previously disturbed pipeline rights-of-way. Transco 

would implement the construction and restoration measures in its Project-specific Plan, 

Procedures, and E&SCPs to minimize impacts on soils and encourage revegetation at 

aboveground facility locations. Therefore, we find that potential impacts on soils from

construction and operation of the proposed aboveground facilities would not be significant.

Contractor/Pipe Storage Yards and Contractor Staging Areas

Transco proposes to use contractor/pipe storage yards and contractor staging areas at 17 

locations, about 85.5 acres of land, on a temporary basis to support construction activities. Upon 

completion of construction, Transco would restore the yards in accordance with its Projectspecific Plan, Procedures, and E&SCPs, and prior use of the sites would continue. With 

implementation of Transco’s restoration measures, we find that potential impacts on soils at the 

yards and staging areas would not be significant.

Access Roads

Public roads and the construction right-of-way would be used for primary access to the 

pipeline loops and aboveground facilities during construction. Transco also proposes to modify 

16 private, existing roads and construct 5 new roads for access during construction. The 

majority of these roads have an aggregate, dirt, or vegetation surface and would require 

improvements such as grading, the placement of aggregate, and tree clearing based on the 

equipment that would use the road. Modifications to existing temporary access roads would 
Geology and Soils

45

affect about 1.3 acres of land in New Jersey and 6.0 acres of land in Pennsylvania during 

construction. 

Of the roads requiring modification, Transco would permanently maintain six roads 

following construction for aboveground facility access. These permanent access roads would 

affect 2.3 acres of land in New Jersey and 0.8 acre of land in Pennsylvania. Transco would 

restore the remaining roads to their previous condition in accordance with its Project-specific 

Plan, Procedures, and E&SCPs. Therefore, we conclude that impacts on soils by construction 

and operation of access roads would not be significant.

Contaminated Soils

Based on a search of various state and federal environmental databases for potential soil 

contamination sources within 0.25 mile of Project facilities, we identified seven potential sources 

near the Skillman Loop and six potential sources near the Pleasant Run Loop, respectively, in 

New Jersey. Seven potential sources were identified within 0.25 mile of the Franklin Loop and 

no sites were identified near the Dorrance Loop in Pennsylvania. Based on our review of the 

environmental databases and alignment sheets, the Project would not cross any potentially 

contaminated sites. However, Transco is currently consulting with the state project managers to 

determine if construction activities associated with the Project may interfere with investigation 

and/or remediation efforts. In addition, Transco has developed an Unanticipated Discovery of 

Contamination Plan, which includes measures that it would implement in the event contaminated 

media is encountered during construction. We have reviewed Transco’s Unanticipated 

Discovery of Contamination Plan and find it acceptable. Therefore, we conclude that the Project 

would not have a significant impact on contaminated soils.

2.2 WATER RESOURCES, FISHERIES, AND WETLANDS

2.2.1 Groundwater

Existing Groundwater Resources

Generally, the Project facilities overlie groundwater resources found in bedrock aquifers; 

there are no significant surficial alluvial or glacial sediment aquifers underlying the Project 

(USGS, 2006b). The Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops and Compressor Stations 205, 165, and 

185 overlie primarily the Brunswick Aquifer which is comprised of sandstone, siltstone, and 

shale with some limestone and conglomerate. An aquifer comprised of diabase is also present 

under a portion of the Skillman Loop. These bedrock aquifers are confined, with groundwater 

found primarily within fractures, joints, and bedding planes (Herman et al., 1999; Trapp and 

Horn, 1997). Within the aquifers, groundwater levels range from approximately 4 to over 60 feet 

bgs, dependent on location (USGS, 2011). Groundwater quality is generally suitable for 

drinking and other uses. Wells are drilled between 36 and 660 feet deep and yields vary between 

101 to 250 gallons per minute (gpm) for the sedimentary rock and less than 25 gpm in the 

diabase. 

In Pennsylvania, the Franklin Loop and Compressor Stations 515 and 517 are underlain 

by confined sedimentary aquifers comprised primarily of sandstone and siltstone (PADCNR, 
Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands

46

2001; Trapp and Horn, 1997). These groundwater sources produce sufficient water of generally 

good quality for domestic and commercial supplies. Water yields for the bedrock aquifer are not 

available. Well depths range from 15 to 500 feet with water levels at approximately 8 to 35 feet 

deep bgs dependent on location (USGS, 2011). The Dorrance Loop and Compressor Station 520 

are underlain by confined, sedimentary rock aquifers comprised of fractured sandstone and shale 

(PADCNR, 2001; Trapp and Horn, 1997). Groundwater is generally of good quality. Wells 

range in depth from 17 to 100 feet and depth to groundwater is reported as ranging from 24 to 

105 feet bgs (USGS, 2011). Well yields were not reported.

Compressor Stations 145, 170, 175, 180, and 190, and other aboveground facilities on 

Transco’s Mainline system that would be modified overlie primarily crystalline rock aquifers, 

though small areas of sedimentary rock are present. The crystalline rock aquifers consist of both 

metamorphic and igneous rocks. The sedimentary rock is comprised of conglomerate, 

sandstone, and shale. Groundwater movement and storage in the crystalline aquifer areas is 

predominantly in the overlying regolith or through fractures. Well yields in the crystalline rock 

are relatively low with an average yield of 18 gpm (Trapp and Horn, 1997). Because Project 

activities at the aboveground facilities would involve minor modifications with limited direct 

ground disturbance, the potential impact of these facility modifications on groundwater resources 

is low. Therefore, these Project facilities are not discussed further in this section.

Sole Source Aquifers

The EPA defines a principal, or sole source aquifer as one that supplies at least 50 

percent of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer. The proposed 

Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops and Compressor Station 205 are within the Northwest New

Jersey 15 Basin sole source aquifer. This aquifer occurs at depths of 20 to 40 feet bgs, 

intersecting with the ground surface in area streams and wetlands, and it includes both groundand surface water resources (EPA, 1988). Drinking water within the sole source aquifer is 

derived primarily from surface water sources that provide potable water to 114 municipalities in 

eight counties in New Jersey and New York. 

Water Supply Wells, Springs, and Well Head Protection Areas

Table 2.2.1-1 lists potable water supply wells within 150 feet of the Project construction 

workspace as identified by Transco through database review, field surveys, and/or interviews 

with landowners. All of the identified wells are private. No springs have been identified within 

150 feet of the construction workspace. 
Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands

47

TABLE 2.2.1-1

Private Water Supply Wells within 150 feet of the Construction Right-of-Way

State/Facility/Milepost a

Approximate Distance/Direction b

from Construction Right-of-Way 

(feet) State/Facility/Milepost a

Approximate Distance/Direction b

from Construction Right-of-Way 

(feet)

New Jersey Pennsylvania

Skillman Loop Franklin Loop

1777.3 7/E 57.8 94/NE

1777.3 30/E 57.8 118/NE

1777.3 78/W 58.0 37/NE

1780.3 2/S 61.5 117/SW

1782.2 91/E 61.5 51/NE

Pleasant Run Loop 61.6 56/NE

1.4 93/NE 61.6 96/SW

1.4 82/SW 61.6 138/SW

1.5 87/NE 61.6 55/NE

1.6 2/SW 61.7 120/SW

1.6 20/SW 61.7 145/SW

2.7 54/NE 62.0 83/SW

2.9 130/NE 62.2 Within workspace (0)

3.5 16/NE 62.3 93/NE

3.9 98/NE 62.3 40/SW

5.2 64/NE 62.5 41/NE

5.9 113/E 62.5 11/NE

5.9 53/SW 62.6 20/SW

6.6 90/NE 62.6 Within workspace (0)

6.7 117/NE 63.7 26/W

6.7 57/NE 64.0 86/SW

6.7 119/SW 68.4 39/NE

6.8 68/SW Dorrance Loop

19.3 145/N

19.4 36/N

19.4 145/S

22.3 95/S

____________________

a Mileposts for the proposed facilities are based on the milepost numbering convention on Transco’s existing pipeline 

systems. 

b State agencies did not disclose the exact location of certain water resources; Transco would verify the exact location of 

wells and any springs in the vicinity of the Project during landowner discussions.

Transco reviewed state databases and contacted state and local agencies to identify public 

wellhead protection areas (WHPAs) or source water protection plans, which are areas 

surrounding public water supplies in which land use planning protective of groundwater 

resources may be implemented. The PADEP does not provide site-specific information 

regarding source water protection plans, but stated that there are no PADEP recognized source 

water protection programs in the area of the proposed facilities in Pennsylvania. In New Jersey, 

Transco determined that the Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops would cross WHPAs in 

Branchburg and Montgomery Townships. Transco would implement the measures in its Plan, 

Procedures, and E&SCPs to avoid or minimize impacts on groundwater resources, including 
Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands

48

WHPAs and has specifically worked with Branchburg and Montgomery Townships to minimize 

Project impacts in the area. 

Contaminated Groundwater

Based on a search of various state and federal environmental databases, no known 

groundwater contamination occurs at any of the Project facilities or within 0.25 mile of Project 

facilities in Pennsylvania. In New Jersey, five contaminated sites were identified within 0.25 

mile of the proposed Project. Of these five sites, two are listed with the NJDEP as requiring no 

further action. One of the three remaining sites was identified less than 0.02 mile west of the 

Skillman Loop. The NJDEP lists this site as “pending”; however, information from Transco 

indicates that contamination is localized to underlying soils. The two remaining sites are 

approximately 0.1 to 0.2 mile from the Pleasant Run Loop and are listed as “active.” The 

NJDEP indicates the sources of the groundwater contamination at these sites are known and 

localized to the points of release. No sites were identified near the compressor stations. 

General Impacts and Mitigation

The majority of construction would involve shallow, temporary, and localized excavation 

or grading. The water table in the Project area is generally below the expected trench excavation 

depth, but could be intersected especially near wetlands and surface waterbodies. Shallow 

aquifers and unmapped perched groundwater bodies could also sustain impacts from changes in 

overland water flow and recharge caused by clearing and grading of the right-of-way. Any 

impacts would be minor, temporary, and localized to the construction area. Transco would 

further reduce these impacts by the use of construction and restoration techniques described in its 

Plan, Procedures, and E&SCPs.

Shallow groundwater could be vulnerable to contamination caused by inadvertent surface 

spills of hazardous materials used during construction. Transco’s SPCC Plan includes 

preventative and corrective measures that would be used to minimize the potential for 

groundwater impacts associated with an inadvertent spill of fuel, oil, and other hazardous fluids. 

In the event that previously existing contamination is encountered, Transco would implement the 

measures contained in its Unanticipated Discovery of Contamination Plan to protect human 

health and worker safety; prevent the spread of contamination; and comply with applicable state 

and federal regulations.

Project construction could potentially impact the water quality and capacity of nearby 

water supply wells. As noted in section 2.1.1, Transco does not anticipate that blasting would be 

necessary to complete the Project. However, in the event blasting is required, Transco would 

implement the measures in its Blasting Plan to minimize potential blasting-related impacts on 

nearby wells. Transco would also prohibit fueling within 200 feet of a private water well and 

400 feet of a public water well and WHPAs. Transco would verify exact locations of wells 

within 150 feet of the construction workspace through civil survey and continued communication 

with landowners. With the well-owner’s permission, Transco would use a qualified, independent 

contractor to conduct pre- and post-construction testing of water quality and yield in all wells 

within 150 feet of the construction workspace. Transco has stated that wells located within the 

construction footprint would either be relocated prior to construction or protected with a 
Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands

49

minimum setback/buffer and safety fence, and that timber mats would be utilized to protect the 

well head if construction equipment would be used in the vicinity of a well. Transco has also 

committed to repair or replace any wells that are permanently damaged by the Project and to file

a report with the Secretary identifying all water supply wells/systems damaged by construction 

and how they were repaired or replaced. The report would include a discussion of any other 

complaints concerning well yield or water quality and how each problem was resolved.

The potential to encounter contaminated groundwater from nearby sites is low. However, 

Transco would continue to consult with the NJDEP regarding nearby contaminated sites (both 

soils and groundwater) to determine if construction activities associated with the Project may 

interfere with investigation and/or remediation efforts at these sites. In section 2.1.1 we 

recommend that Transco file the results of its consultations with state project managers regarding 

the potential for Project construction to impact nearby contaminated sites. Project construction 

would be conducted in accordance with applicable state regulations regarding these 

contamination sites. 

Based on implementation of Transco’s construction procedures and mitigation measures

and our recommendations, we find that the Project would not result in any significant long-term 

or permanent impacts on groundwater resources or users of groundwater in the Project area. 

2.2.2 Surface Water

Existing Surface Water Resources

Perennial and Intermittent Waterbodies

The pipeline loops would cross 32 perennial waterbodies, 8 intermittent waterbodies, and 

6 ephemeral waterbodies in New Jersey; and 26 perennial waterbodies, 7 intermittent 

waterbodies, and 4 ephemeral waterbodies in Pennsylvania. 

Two of Transco’s proposed access roads would cross waterbodies, one along the Pleasant 

Run Loop and one along the Franklin Loop. Temporary culverts would be utilized to cross both 

of these waterbodies. Two intermittent waterbodies are also located within a contractor staging 

area along the Franklin Loop. 

Appendix G lists the waterbodies affected by the Project. No surface waterbodies would 

be affected by the modifications to Project-related existing aboveground facilities, including 

compressor stations, meter stations, and MLVs. 

Sensitive Waterbodies

Waterbodies may be considered sensitive for a number of reasons including, but not 

limited to, high quality or exceptional value designations, the presence of impaired water (CWA 

section 303d) or contaminated sediments, its use as a potable water source, or the presence of 

sensitive species or critical habitat. Waterbodies may also be considered sensitive if they are of 

special interest to a land management agency. 
Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands

50

The Project would cross 45 waterbodies considered sensitive based on the above criteria. 

No waterbodies crossed by the Project contain federal essential fish habitat or threatened or 

endangered species. Three waterbodies crossed by the Project are listed as impaired on the 

Pennsylvania and New Jersey 303 (d) lists: Tobyhanna Creek (MP 61.0 of the Franklin Loop), 

Rock Brook (MP 1780.3 of the Skillman Loop), and Back Brook (MP 1781.1 of the Skillman 

Loop). The remaining sensitive waterbodies are so classified due to their state designation as

high quality waters (see table 2.2.3-1).

We received comments concerning Project-related impacts on the Raritan River in New 

Jersey, which is a major source of drinking water for the region. The Project would cross 

secondary tributaries of the Raritan River, but would not cross the river itself or any of its 

primary tributaries. Therefore, the potential for the Project to impact the Raritan River is low. 

Furthermore, Transco would implement construction and restoration measures outlined in its 

Procedures and E&SCPs which would minimize impacts on the secondary tributary waterbodies 

and further reduce the potential to impact the Raritan River.

Public Watershed Areas

Based on consultation with NJDEP (Girard, 2014) and PADEP (Agustini, 2013), there 

are no potable surface water intakes within 3 miles downstream of any waterbody crossings 

associated with the proposed loops in New Jersey or Pennsylvania. 

Hydrostatic Testing

As discussed in section 1.6, Transco would verify the integrity of the pipelines before 

placing them into service by conducting hydrostatic testing as required by DOT regulations. 

Transco's estimated hydrostatic test water requirements, potential sources, and discharge 

locations are listed in table 2.2.2-1. Transco would follow federal, state, and local permit 

requirements with regard to water withdrawal and discharge. 

TABLE 2.2.2-1

Potential Surface Water Sources of Hydrostatic Test Water for the Pipeline Facilities

State/Facility Potential Source/Milepost

Quantity of Water 

Required (gallons) Discharge Location/Milepost

New Jersey

Skillman Loop Beden Brook/1779.7 2,600,000 Beden Brook/1779.7

Pleasant Run Loop Pleasant Run/3.3 2,800,000 Pleasant Run/3.3

Pennsylvania

Franklin Loop Tobyhanna Creek/65.5

Lehigh River/61.1

2,300,000

2,300,000

Tobyhanna Creek/65.5

Lehigh River/61.1

Dorrance Loop Little Wapwallopen Creek/20.8 2,100,000 Little Wapwallopen Creek/20.8

Pipeline Facilities Total 12,100,000

Transco would obtain water for hydrostatic testing from surface waterbodies. Water 

withdrawals from surface waterbodies would be conducted in a manner that would not reduce 

water flow to a point that would impair flow or impact fish, recreational activities, or public 

usage. Pump intakes would be equipped with screening to minimize entrainment of aquatic 

species during withdrawal. 
Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands

51

Upon completion of testing, the test water would be discharged to a well-vegetated 

upland area or the surface waterbodies identified in table 2.2.2-1 through an energy dissipation 

device and filtration device, and as approved by state regulatory authorities. When discharging 

to upland areas, Transco would use a dewatering structure of straw bales, stone, and geotextile 

fabric, in compliance with its Plan and Procedures, E&SCPs, and applicable federal and state 

permits. 

Transco would obtain the state permits necessary to conduct hydrostatic testing and 

would be required to obtain Commission approval prior to using alternative hydrostatic water 

source or discharge locations. Hydrostatic test water would not be obtained from or discharged 

to any high quality surface waters unless approved by the applicable state agency. 

No significant water quality impacts are anticipated as a result of discharge from 

hydrostatic testing. The new loops would consist of new steel pipe that would be free of 

chemicals or lubricant, and no additives would be used. 

Withdrawal and discharge of water for hydrostatic testing could result in erosion, 

increased turbidity in surface waters, changes in water temperature and oxygen levels, or 

entrainment of aquatic species. These impacts could in turn result in injury or death to aquatic 

species located in close proximity at the time of active withdrawal or discharge. The withdrawal 

of large volumes of water from surface water sources could also temporarily affect the 

downstream designated recreational and biological uses of the resource if the diversions 

constitute a large percentage of the source’s total flow or volume. By implementing the 

hydrostatic testing procedures summarized above and in Transco’s Procedures, and obtaining 

and complying with required state permits, we conclude that the impacts associated with 

hydrostatic test water withdrawal and discharge would be minor and temporary.

We received comments related to the need for additional water allocation for dust control 

or revegetation purposes. If necessary, Transco plans to allocate additional water for these 

purposes from municipal water supplies. If Transco determines water supplies other than 

municipal are required, the appropriate water withdrawal permits would be obtained. 

Waterbody Crossing Methods, General Impacts, and Mitigation

Waterbodies would be crossed in accordance with Transco’s Procedures and state and 

federal permit requirements. Transco would use one of the methods described below to cross 

waterbodies affected by the Project. Appendix G lists the proposed crossing method for each

waterbody affected by the Project. 

Wet, Open Cut Method

Transco proposes to cross two waterbodies, Tobyhanna Creek at MP 61.0 and the Lehigh 

River at MP 65.5 along the Franklin Loop, using a wet, open cut method. At the proposed 

crossing locations, Tobyhanna Creek is approximately 70 feet wide and the Lehigh River is 

approximately 55 feet wide. At each location, Transco would construct a temporary bridge on 

which equipment would work, thereby reducing in-stream equipment traffic. The pipeline trench 

would then be excavated across each river bed to a sufficient depth to allow for 5 feet of cover 

over the pipelines when complete. The length of pipe necessary to accomplish each crossing 
Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands

52

would be fabricated in nearby upland locations to again minimize in-stream work. The pipeline 

would then be installed and covered, streambed and banks restored, and the temporary bridge 

removed. Transco stated that the in-stream work would be completed within 48 hours assuming 

favorable conditions.

As part of its joint application to the PADEP and COE for a Pennsylvania Water 

Obstruction and Encroachment Permit and a CWA section 404 permit, Transco considered 

various dry crossing methods for each waterbody, including dam and pump or diversion flume 

systems and various configurations of temporary causeways and cofferdams. Each dry crossing 

method would require 3 to 4 weeks of in-stream construction. Site-specific hydrogeologic and 

hydraulic studies concluded that a 1-year storm event, even during the period when stream flows 

are lowest, would overtop each water control system as designed, resulting in water entering the 

workspace and presenting worker safety and constructability concerns. Transco also considered 

“trenchless” crossing methods for each waterbody including the use of HDD technology, 

conventional bore, and installation of a micro-tunnel. Site-specific geotechnical studies of the 

crossing locations identified high percentages of gravel, cobbles, and boulders along the HDD 

profiles and concluded that each location would pose a high risk of HDD failure and inadvertent 

drilling mud losses. Transco also noted that the topography around each crossing location would 

pose technical challenges for HDD drill entry and exit locations and pullback laydown areas. 

The conventional bore method would also have a high probability of failure due to the substrate 

materials and would require the excavation of large, deep pits on each side of each waterbody to 

accommodate the bore equipment. The base of the pits would be well below the bed of each 

waterbody and would require significant dewatering measures for the 3 to 4 weeks resulting in

an increased risk of bore pit wall collapse and/or borehole misalignment. The use of the microtunnel method would also have a high probability of failure due to the coarse substrate at the two 

river crossings, and would also require the use of similarly large and deep entry and exit pits on 

each side of the waterbodies, raising similar feasibility and worker safety concerns as in the use 

of a conventional bore. We conclude that the dry crossing methods, HDD technique, 

conventional bore, and micro-tunnel method would be technically infeasible and/or pose an 

elevated worker safety concerns and we do not recommend their use at these locations.

Dry Crossing Methods

Standard Upland Construction Method – Transco would evaluate the use of standard 

upland construction techniques to cross dry intermittent waterbodies that are less than 10 feet 

wide and any stream without flow at the time of construction. When implementing this method, 

Transco would:

 install the pipelines with at least 5 feet of cover, unless bedrock is present;

 limit the use of equipment in the waterbody to that needed to complete the 

crossing;

 stockpile material excavated from the trench within the construction right-ofway and at least 10 feet from the water’s edge or in ATWS, which would be 

located at least 50 feet from the water’s edge unless otherwise approved (see 

appendix H);
Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands

53

 use material excavated from the trench as backfill unless federal or state permits 

specify otherwise;

 remove any excess material from the waterbody; and

 return stream bottoms to their original contours.

Transco would implement one of the following other dry crossing methods for any 

intermittent or ephemeral waterbodies that have the potential to carry flow during construction 

based on precipitation forecasts, or any other waterbody with flow at the time of construction.

Dry Pump-Around or Dry Dam and Pump Method – The pump-around/dam and pump 

crossing method consists of installing diversion structures that dam the waterbody and 

temporarily divert stream flow around construction area activities. Damming structures typically 

consist of one or more of the following: imported riprap, concrete jersey barriers, water bladder, 

port-a-dams, steel plates, and/or sand bags. The selection of the dam type or material would 

depend on the stream or waterbody depth, flow velocity, channel width, and type.

The pump-around/dam and pump method is initiated by installing a damming structure 

upstream and downstream of the trench areas. Pumps and hoses are then used to convey water 

flow around the in-stream work area and discharge it downstream of the construction site 

through an energy dissipating (or similar) device to prevent erosion and scouring and to 

minimize turbidity, creating a dry work area. Additional pumps are typically on standby for use

in the event that a high water flow event occurs during construction. The trench is then 

excavated, the pipeline is installed in the dry ditch, the trench is backfilled to pre-construction 

contours, and the stream banks are restored prior to removing the damming structures and 

restoring water flow. 

Dry Flumed Method – The dry flumed crossing method consists of installing flume 

pipe(s) over the workspace prior to trenching (or during trenching should an unforeseen event 

create flow) and maintaining downstream flow of the waterbody through the flume pipe(s). 

Equipment located on the stream banks work around the flume pipe during excavation. The pipe 

is then threaded under the flume pipe and the ditch backfilled. If topographic conditions do not 

permit the pipe to be threaded under the flume, then the flow may be temporarily pumped while 

the flume is pulled to lower the pipe into the ditch. Flume pipes remain in place and are 

maintained until restoration of the waterbody is complete, and are permanently removed as part 

of restoration. 

The dry flumed method may be applied to intermittent waterbodies that are dry during the 

initial installation but may flow should an unforeseen storm event cause the waterbody to 

suddenly flow due to storm water runoff. Transco would use flumes that are of the size and 

number needed for maximum anticipated flows. 

Horizontal Directional Drill Method

Transco proposes two HDDs between MPs 1778.9 and 1780.0 of the Skillman Loop to 

avoid Beden Brook and its associated wetlands and tributaries, and to reduce impacts on nearby 
Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands

54

residences. The two HDDs would be drilled in opposite directions from a single workspace near 

MP 1779.3 to minimize the total workspace needed to accomplish the HDDs. The HDD method 

is described in section 1.6.2.

Conventional Bore Method

Transco would use the bore method to cross two unnamed ditches that lead to Pike Run 

(MPs 1782.7 and 1782.8) on the Skillman Loop. These two waterbodies are directly adjacent to 

a railroad track that would be crossed using the bore method; therefore, these waterbodies would 

also be included in the bore crossing of the railroad. The bore method is described in section 

1.6.2. 

General Impacts and Mitigation

Project construction could affect surface waters in several ways, and the degree of impact 

would depend on a number of factors including the size of the waterbody, flow at the time of 

crossing, and crossing method and duration. Clearing and grading of streambanks, in-stream 

trenching, trench dewatering, and backfilling could affect waterbodies through increased 

sediment loading and turbidity levels, reduced dissolved oxygen concentrations, stream 

warming, and introduction of chemical discharges from spills of fuels/lubricants. The Project 

could also impact aquatic resources including fisheries as discussed in section 2.2.3.

The greatest potential impacts of construction on surface waters would result from an 

increase in sediment loading and turbidity. The highest levels of sediment would be generated 

by use of the wet open-cut method proposed at the Lehigh River and Tobyhanna Creek crossings 

in Pennsylvania. The increased turbidity would be due to construction/removal of the temporary 

bridges, trench excavation, pipeline installation, and streambed restoration, all of which would 

occur within flowing water conditions at each crossing. Increased turbidity could also impact 

aquatic resources in proximity to the crossing locations. To minimize these impacts, Transco 

would complete all in-stream work within 48 hours assuming favorable conditions and during 

state-specified construction windows. By limiting the duration of in-stream construction, 

implementing other measures outlined in Transco’s Procedures, and complying with statedesignated construction windows, we conclude that impacts associated with the open cut 

crossings of the Lehigh River and Tobyhanna Creek would be minor, temporary, and limited 

primarily to the area of the crossings. Transco has included the proposed open cuts in its joint 

application to the COE and PADEP.

Where the flume or dam and pump methods are used, temporary construction-related 

impacts would be limited primarily to short periods of increased turbidity before installation of 

the pipeline, during the installation of the upstream and downstream dams, and following 

installation of the pipeline when the dams are pulled and flow across the restored work area is reestablished. Following installation of pipelines using either wet or dry crossing methods, stream 

banks and riparian areas would be re-contoured and stabilized. Banks would be stabilized with 

approved seed mixes. 

Two intermittent waterbodies (SS-009-001 and SS-009-002) are within the proposed 

workspace for one of the contractor staging areas (CSA/CY/PYFR-04) and would be temporarily 
Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands

55

impacted by Project activities. No waterbodies were identified within the proposed workspace at 

the aboveground facilities, including compressor stations, MLVs, and M&R stations. 

Transco identified areas where it would locate ATWS within 50 feet of a waterbody and 

provided justification for each workspace (see appendix H). Transco would implement the 

measures in its Project-specific Procedures to control erosion and avoid or minimize other 

impacts that could result from the use of the ATWS. We have determined that Transco's 

proposed locations of ATWS within 50 feet of a waterbody listed in appendix H are justified. 

Transco also proposed to modify the requirement of our Procedures to place all spoil 

from minor and intermediate waterbody crossings in the construction right-of-way at least 10 

feet from the water’s edge, or in ATWS. Transco stated it would store spoil within 10 feet of 

waterbodies where the workspace is limited due to topographic constraints and adjacent features; 

however, Transco has not identified the specific waterbodies where it would place spoil, nor 

provided site-specific justification for each waterbody that would be affected. Therefore, we 

recommend that:

 Prior to construction, Transco should revise its procedures consistent with 

the FERC staff’s Procedures at section V.B.4.a; and

 Prior to construction, Transco should file with the Secretary, for review and 

written approval by the Director of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP), a 

complete list of areas by milepost where Transco would place spoil within 10 

feet from the edge of a waterbody and site-specific justification for each 

location.

During construction, clearing and grading of vegetation cover could increase erosion 

along stream banks. Alteration of the natural drainage or compaction of soils by heavy 

equipment near stream banks during construction may accelerate erosion of the banks and the 

transportation of sediment carried by overland flow into the waterbodies. The extent of the 

impact would depend on sediment loads, stream velocity, turbulence, stream bank composition, 

and sediment particle size. To minimize these impacts, equipment bridges and equipment pads

would be used. To the extent possible, at least 15 feet of vegetation would be preserved along 

the stream banks at the pipeline crossings. ATWS for spoil storage and pipe staging would 

typically be set back from the bank and temporary sediment barriers would be installed around 

disturbed areas in accordance with Transco’s Project-specific Procedures and E&SCPs. Upon 

completion of construction, Transco would restore and properly armor the stream banks to 

prevent erosion and washouts.

We received comments regarding measures Transco would implement to control erosion 

and sedimentation of waterbodies during excessive rain events or in more vulnerable areas such 

as steep slopes. In addition to ongoing erosion and sediment controls during normal storm 

events as outlined in Transco’s Project-specific Plan and Procedures and E&SCPs, Transco 

would implement the following contingency measures in the event of a severe storm event:

 local weather stations would be monitored for anticipated storm events;
Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands

56

 supplemental erosion and sediment control devices would be stockpiled in the 

vicinity of sensitive areas so that they are readily available, if needed;

 additional crews and EIs would be deployed to implement the contingency plan 

and conduct inspection and cleanup activities;

 equipment and supplies would be removed from flood-prone areas within the 

designated floodways and 100-year floodplain during severe rain events; and 

 equipment mats and temporary construction bridges would be secured to prevent 

movement during rain events.

Riparian cover on affected stream banks would be expected to recover over several 

months to several years. Once construction is complete, streambeds and banks would be quickly 

restored to preconstruction conditions to the fullest extent possible. Adherence to Transco’s 

E&SCPs would also maximize the potential for regrowth of riparian vegetation, thereby 

minimizing the potential for any long-term impacts associated with lack of shade and cover. In 

addition, restoration of forested riparian buffers along waterbodies would be completed in 

accordance with all applicable state and federal permit authorizations. A strip of riparian 

vegetation at least 25 feet wide adjacent to waterbodies would typically be allowed to revegetate 

to pre-construction condition over the entire width of the right-of-way except for a 10-foot-wide 

strip centered over the pipeline that may be maintained in an herbaceous state. In addition, trees 

would not be allowed to grow within 15 feet of the pipeline. 

Transco has developed a SPCC Plan that describes measures to prevent and, if necessary, 

control any inadvertent spill of hazardous materials that could impact soil or water quality. The 

SPCC Plan would be updated with site-specific information prior to the initiation of construction 

activities. Transco’s Plan and Procedures includes protective measures for the storage and 

handling of chemicals and fueling activities during construction within 100 feet from wetlands 

and waterbodies. Transco provides site-specific justification for utilizing ATWS within 50 feet 

of wetlands (see appendices H and J). 

Because the waterbody crossings would be completed in accordance with the 

construction and restoration methods described above, Transco’s Procedures and E&SCPs, and 

any site-specific measures that may be required by state permitting agencies or the COE, we 

conclude that impacts on waterbodies would be minor and temporary.

2.2.3 Fisheries Resources

Existing Fisheries Resources

Fisheries of Special Concern

In New Jersey, freshwaters are classified as Freshwater 1 (not subject to any man-made 

wastewater discharges) and Freshwater 2 waters (all other freshwaters except Pinelands waters). 

For the purposes of preventing degradation of waterbodies, New Jersey has further designated 

waters as Category One Waters (C1) and Category Two Waters (C2). C1 waters are protected 

from any measurable change in water quality because of their exceptional ecological 
Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands

57

significance, exceptional recreational significance, exceptional water supply significance, or 

exceptional fisheries resources. C2 waters consist of all other waters not designated as C1 or 

Outstanding National Resource Waters, which includes Freshwater 1-designated waters. All 46 

waterbodies crossed by the Project are designated as Freshwater 2, Non-trout, C2 waters. No C1 

waters would be crossed. The “non-trout” designation generally applies to freshwaters that are 

not suitable for trout production or maintenance because of their physical, chemical, or 

biological characteristics. 

In addition, in New Jersey the amount of clearing in the riparian zone adjacent to surface 

waters is regulated according to the Flood Hazard Area Control Act Rules in New Jersey 

Administrative Code (NJAC) 7:13 (NJAC, 2011a). The width of the riparian zone adjacent to a 

waterbody is determined by the characteristics of that regulated water. The riparian zone is 300 

feet wide along both sides of any C1 waters, and any upstream tributaries within the same 

watershed. The riparian zone is 150 feet wide along both sides of waters that are not C1, but are 

trout production waters (and waters upstream), trout maintenance waters (and upstream waters 

and tributaries within 1 linear mile), waters that contain documented threatened or endangered 

species habitat (and upstream waters and tributaries within 1 linear mile), and waters that flow 

through an area that contains acid producing soils. All other regulated waters have a 50 foot 

wide riparian zone on either side. 

In Pennsylvania, the Project would cross 31 waterbodies supporting coldwater fisheries. 

Pennsylvania also affords special protections to high quality or exceptional value waterbodies 

and may designate waters to be managed for trout. The Project would cross 21 high qualitydesignated waterbodies, 7 exceptional value waterbodies, and two Wild Trout-designated 

waterbodies. No Class A Wild Trout streams would be crossed by the Project. 

There are no waters designated as Essential Fish Habitat within the vicinity of the 

pipeline loops and aboveground facilities in New Jersey or Pennsylvania, or the aboveground 

facilities in North Carolina, Virginia, or Maryland. Therefore, we conclude that the Project 

would have no impact on Essential Fish Habitat.

Fisheries of special concern crossed by the Project are identified in table 2.2.3-1. 

General Impacts and Mitigation

Construction impacts on fishery resources may include: direct contact by construction 

equipment with fish, fish eggs, and other aquatic organisms including fish prey and forage 

species; alteration or removal of adjacent riparian vegetation and aquatic habitat cover; 

introduction of pollutants; and impingement or entrainment of fish and other biota associated 

with the use of water pumps, including appropriation of hydrostatic test water. Loss of riparian 

vegetation in forested areas could affect fish populations that may be present downstream of 

construction activities by reducing shade and cover and increasing water temperature. 

Construction could also delay migrating fish from reaching upstream spawning areas or delay 

downstream movement of juveniles. 
Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands

58

TABLE 2.2.3-1

Fisheries of Special Concern Crossed by the Project

State/Facility Milepost Waterbody

Fisheries 

Concern a

Timing Restriction

(No in-stream work allowed)

New Jersey

Skillman Loop 1776.9 Unnamed Tributary to Stony Brook FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

1777.0 Unnamed Tributary to Stony Brook FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

1777.8 Unnamed Tributary to Stony Brook FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

1777.9 Unnamed Tributary to Stony Brook FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

1778.1 Unnamed Tributary to Stony Brook FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

1778.3 Unnamed Tributary to Beden Brook FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

1778.4 Unnamed Tributary to Beden Brook FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

1778.7 Unnamed Tributary to Beden Brook FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

1779.0 Unnamed Tributary to Beden Brook FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 c

1779.0 Cherry Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 c

1779.0 Cherry Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 c

1779.7 Beden Brook FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 c

1780.3 Rock Brook FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

1780.4 Unnamed Tributary to Rock Brook FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

1781.1 Back Brook FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

1782.1 Unnamed Tributary to Pike Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

1782.4 Unnamed Tributary to Pike Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

1782.7 Ditch to Pike Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

1782.8 Ditch to Pike Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

Pleasant Run 

Loop

N/A d Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

0.4 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

0.7 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

0.7 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

1.1 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

1.2 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

1.4 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

1.7 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

1.8 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

1.8 Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

2.1 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

2.3 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

2.8 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

3.0 Pleasant Run e FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

3.2 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

3.3 Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

3.6 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

4.2 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

4.2 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

4.5 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

5.0 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

5.1 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

5.1 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

5.3 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

5.4 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

5.6 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

5.7 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

5.8 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

6.2 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run e FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

6.2 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b
Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands

59

TABLE 2.2.3-1

Fisheries of Special Concern Crossed by the Project

State/Facility Milepost Waterbody

Fisheries 

Concern a

Timing Restriction

(No in-stream work allowed)

6.5 Unnamed Tributary to Pleasant Run FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1 b

Pennsylvania

Franklin Loop 58.4 Tunkhannock Creek HQ-CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

58.7 Unnamed Tributary to Tunkhannock Creek HQ-CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

58.6 Unnamed Tributary to Tunkhannock Creek HQ-CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

58.8 Unnamed Tributary to Tunkhannock Creek HQ-CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

59.2 Unnamed Tributary to Tunkhannock Creek HQ-CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

59.4 Unnamed Tributary to Tunkhannock Creek HQ-CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

59.5 Unnamed Tributary to Tunkhannock Creek HQ-CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

59.6 Unnamed Tributary to Tunkhannock Creek HQ-CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

59.6 Unnamed Tributary to Tunkhannock Creek HQ-CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

59.6 Unnamed Tributary to Tunkhannock Creek HQ-CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

59.6 Unnamed Tributary to Tunkhannock Creek HQ-CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

59.6 Unnamed Tributary to Tunkhannock Creek HQ-CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

60.1 Unnamed Tributary to Tobyhanna Creek HQ-CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

61.0 Tobyhanna Creek HQ-CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

62.3 Unnamed Tributary to Two Mile Run HQ-CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

63.1 Two Mile Run HQ-CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

63.2 Unnamed Tributary to Two Mile Run HQ-CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

63.7 Stony Run HQ-CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

65.0 Unnamed Tributary to Lehigh River EV, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

65.5 Lehigh River EV, MF/WTS 10/1 – 12/31 f

65.9 Unnamed Tributary to Lehigh River EV, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

66.7 Unnamed Tributary to Kendall Creek EV, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

66.7 Unnamed Tributary to Kendall Creek EV, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

67.2 Kendall Creek EV, MF/WTS 10/1 – 12/31 f

67.4 Kendall Creek EV, MF/WTS 10/1 – 12/31 f

67.6 Unnamed Tributary to Kendall Creek EV, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

67.8 Unnamed Tributary to Kendall Creek EV, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

67.9 Unnamed Tributary to Stony Run HQ-CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

67.9 Unnamed Tributary to Stony Run HQ-CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

N/A Unnamed Tributary to Stony Run HQ-CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

68.2 Unnamed Tributary to Stony Run HQ-CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

68.9 Unknown HQ-CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

69.0 Unknown HQ-CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

Dorrance Loop 18.4 Unnamed Tributary to Little Wapwallopen Creek CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

18.7 Unnamed Tributary to Little Wapwallopen Creek CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

18.7 Unnamed Tributary to Little Wapwallopen Creek CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

18.8 Little Wapwallopen Creek CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

18.9 Unnamed Tributary to Little Wapwallopen Creek CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

19.1 Unnamed Tributary to Little Wapwallopen Creek CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

19.5 Unnamed Tributary to Little Wapwallopen Creek CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

20.8 Little Wapwallopen Creek CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

21.8 Unnamed Tributary to Little Wapwallopen Creek CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f

22.4 Unnamed Tributary to Little Wapwallopen Creek CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f
Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands

60

TABLE 2.2.3-1

Fisheries of Special Concern Crossed by the Project

State/Facility Milepost Waterbody

Fisheries 

Concern a

Timing Restriction

(No in-stream work allowed)

_________________

a Pennsylvania

CWF = Cold Water Fishery

MF = Migratory Fishery

HQ-CWF = High Quality, Cold Water Fishery

EV = Exceptional Value Waterbody

New Jersey

FW2-NT = Freshwater, Non-trout Fishery

b Timing restriction in accordance with Transco’s Procedures. 

c Waterbody would be crossed by the HDD.

d NA = waterbody crossed by access road, not pipeline loop.

e Riparian zone vegetation disturbance only; no direct waterbody impact.

f Timing restriction confirmed through consultation with PAFBC.

The greatest potential impacts of construction on fishery resources would result from an 

increase in sediment loading and turbidity within and immediately downstream of the 

construction work area including an inadvertent drilling mud release, downstream scour 

associated with diverting water around the work area, or discharge of hydrostatic test water. 

Increased levels of sedimentation could adversely affect fish eggs and juvenile fish survival, 

benthic community diversity and health, and spawning habitat. The highest levels of sediment 

would be generated by use of the wet open cut method at the Lehigh River and Tobyhanna Creek

crossings. However, as discussed in section 2.2.2, Transco would complete all in-stream work, 

including the wet open cuts, within 48 hours assuming favorable conditions and during statespecified construction windows, and would also implement other measures outlined in its 

Procedures to reduce sedimentation and enhance restoration. Therefore, we conclude that 

impacts on fisheries associated with waterbody crossings would be minor, temporary, and 

limited primarily to the area of the crossings. 

Long-term impacts on fishery resources could occur if the stream contours are 

permanently modified in the area of the crossing or the adjacent riparian vegetation does not 

recover. Transco proposes to reduce effects on fishery resources through the use of the various 

waterbody crossing methods and restoration procedures described in section 2.2.2 and by 

minimizing the duration of in-stream work in accordance with its Procedures. Section 2.2.2 also 

describes the procedures that Transco would implement during hydrostatic test water withdrawal 

and discharge to minimize sedimentation and turbidity. Specifically, Transco would screen the 

intake hoses to avoid the uptake of organic debris and entrapment of aquatic species during water 

withdrawal. Transco would comply with appropriate agency requirements that consider the 

protection of fisheries resources on a case-by-case basis. Discharges would comply with 

regulatory permit conditions and would be controlled to prevent scour and excessive 

sedimentation.

Based on the existing subsurface geologic formations present in the Project area, Transco 

does not anticipate that blasting would be required at any waterbody crossing. However, if 

conditions are encountered that warrant the use of controlled blasting, Transco would implement 

its Blasting Plan that outlines proper precautions to be implemented to minimize potential 

impacts. In addition, Transco would acquire the appropriate federal, state, and local permits 

prior to the use of blasting.
Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands

61

Impacts on fisheries would be reduced further by limiting in-stream work to the time 

periods required by federal and state agencies (table 2.2.3-1). For waterbodies that do not have a 

specific timing restriction, Transco would adhere to the in-stream construction timing restrictions 

included in its Procedures (measure V.B.1) We find that implementing these timing restrictions 

would minimize impacts on fish species in the Project area. 

Construction of the New Jersey facilities would disturb regulated riparian zone. Under 

the Flood Hazard Area Control Act, removal of forested vegetation is considered a permanent 

impact and is subject to mitigation. Transco has received its Letter of Interpretation from the 

NJDEP confirming riparian impacts associated with construction of the Pleasant Run Loop and 

is awaiting NJDEP issuance of the Letter of Interpretation for the Skillman Loop. As a result, 

consultation with the NJDEP is ongoing and riparian zone mitigation in New Jersey is currently 

pending. Any proposed mitigation in New Jersey would be reviewed during the NJDEP’s permit 

review process. Section 2.2.4 discusses riparian zone mitigation that would be accomplished at 

offsite locations. 

We expect streambeds and banks to quickly revert to preconstruction conditions. 

Transco’s commitment to conduct restoration, bank stabilization, and revegetation efforts in 

accordance with its Procedures, E&SCPs, and all applicable state and federal permits would 

minimize the potential for erosion from the surrounding landscape. Transco’s adherence to its 

E&SCPs would also maximize the potential for regrowth of riparian vegetation, thereby 

minimizing the potential for any long-term impacts associated with lack of shade and cover. All 

temporary work areas would be restored and allowed to revegetate to original conditions. No 

long-term impacts are anticipated after restoration of stream bottoms and regrowth of stream 

bank and aquatic vegetation. In the event that vegetation maintenance during operation would be 

required along specific streambanks, impacts on fisheries would be minor. By implementing the 

above measures, we find that Project-related impacts on fisheries would be minimized.

2.2.4 Wetlands

Existing Wetland Resources

Wetlands in the Project area are regulated at the federal and state levels. In New Jersey, 

the EPA has delegated CWA section 404 program authority to the NJDEP, but retains oversight 

authority of the program in cooperation with the state, and the COE retains section 10 permitting 

authority throughout the state. The COE retains full section 404 and section 10 permitting 

authority in Pennsylvania. Section 401 of the CWA requires that proposed dredge and fill 

activities under section 404 be reviewed and certified by the designated state agency so that the 

Project would meet state water quality standards. The designated state agencies in New Jersey 

and Pennsylvania are the NJDEP and PADEP, respectively. 

Transco conducted field delineations of wetlands that would be crossed by the Project in 

New Jersey using the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands 

(Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989), and in Pennsylvania using the 

COE’s Wetlands Delineation Manual (COE, 1987) and the Interim Regional Supplement to the 

Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (COE, 
Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands

62

2009). Wetlands were classified as described in Cowardin et al., (1979). The basic wetland 

types that were delineated in the Project area are discussed below. 

Palustrine Forested Wetlands

Palustrine forested wetlands crossed by the Project in New Jersey and Pennsylvania are 

characterized by woody vegetation that is 6 meters (approximately 18 feet) tall or taller and 

normally include an overstory of trees, an understory of young trees or shrubs, and an 

herbaceous layer. 

Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetlands

Palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands crossed by the Project in New Jersey and Pennsylvania 

are generally dominated by woody vegetation less than 6 meters (approximately 18 feet) tall. 

Scrub-shrub land types may represent a successional stage leading to a forested wetland and 

include shrubs, young trees, and trees or shrubs that are small and/or stunted due to 

environmental conditions. 

Palustrine Emergent Wetlands

Palustrine emergent wetlands crossed by the Project in New Jersey and Pennsylvania are 

characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes not including mosses and lichens. 

Emergent wetlands typically are found to be dominated by low-growing sedges, rushes, and 

other herbaceous vegetation. 

Vernal Pools

Vernal pools are characterized by seasonally fluctuating water levels and may dry out 

completely in the summer. Many vernal pools are small, shaded, and unvegetated, and the pond 

bottoms are covered in dead leaves and algae. These areas can provide critical breeding habitat 

for several species of amphibians and are also an important habitat for many species of birds, 

mammals, reptiles, and invertebrates. 

Stakeholders in the Princeton Ridge area raised concern that vernal pools in the area 

would be impacted by the project. Transco conducted surveys of wetlands and waterbodies in 

the Princeton Ridge area, including vernal pools, and identified one vernal pool located 

approximately 25 feet outside of the construction workspace.

Wetland Crossing Methods, General Impacts, and Mitigation

Crossing Methods

Wetlands would be crossed in accordance with Transco’s Procedures, E&SCPs, and state 

and federal permit requirements. Transco would use various methods to cross wetlands 

depending on site-specific conditions present during construction, as described below. 
Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands

63

Unsaturated Wetlands – In unsaturated wetlands where the soils are non-saturated and 

able to support construction equipment at the time of crossing, Transco would use standard 

upland construction techniques as described in section 1.6.1. In general, the existing vegetation 

would first be cut to the ground level. Tree stumps would not be removed from the wetland with 

the exception of those directly over the trench line; Transco would grind the stumps to surface 

level and leave the existing root systems in place. Debris would be removed from the wetland 

and stockpiled within an upland area of the right-of-way for disposal. Next, topsoil would be 

segregated in the wetland. Pipe stringing and fabrication may occur within the wetland adjacent 

to the trench or adjacent to the wetland in a designated ATWS. Following trenching and 

lowering the pipeline into the trench, wide track bulldozers or backhoes supported on timber 

mats would conduct backfilling, grading, and final cleanup. 

Saturated or Unstable Wetlands – In wetlands where the soils are saturated or otherwise 

unable to support mainline construction equipment and the right-of-way, equipment would need 

to be stabilized during construction. Clearing activities would be similar to those described for 

unsaturated wetlands and limited to only that necessary to install the pipeline. Transco would 

conduct construction similar to that in unsaturated wetlands; however, topsoil segregation would 

not be possible because of saturation. Prior to crossing and movement of construction equipment 

through these wetlands, Transco proposes to stabilize the right-of-way using timber mats to 

allow for a safe working condition. 

Standing Water Wetlands – The push/pull method would be used as an alternative 

wetland crossing method, or if specifically required through agency consultations, to cross large 

wetland areas where sufficient water is present for floating the pipeline in the trench, and grade 

elevation over the length of the push-pull area would not require damming to maintain adequate 

water levels for pipe floatation. Crossing of a wetland using the push/pull method involves

stringing and welding the pipeline in designated areas outside the boundary of the wetland. 

Transco would excavate the wetland using backhoes supported by equipment mats. The 

prefabricated pipeline segment would be installed within the wetland by attaching floats or buoys 

to the pipe segment and pulling or pushing the pipeline segment across the water-filled trench. 

This process is known as “floating” the pipeline segment into place. After the pipeline segment 

is correctly positioned, Transco would remove the floats allowing the pipeline to eventually sink 

to the bottom of the excavated trench with the aid of concrete coating or concrete set-on weights 

to achieve negative buoyancy. Transco would then backfill the excavated trench with backhoes 

working off of equipment mats. 

General Impacts and Mitigation

Table 2.2.4-1 summarizes the Project acreage impacts on wetlands. More detailed 

information is included in appendix I. 

Construction of the Project would impact 26.5 acres of wetlands, consisting of 15.1 acres 

of emergent wetland, 2.9 acres of scrub-shrub wetland, and 8.5 acres of forested wetlands. Of 

the 8.5 acres of forested wetland impacts, 4.3 acres would be permanently impacted during 

operation and would be converted to emergent or scrub-shrub wetland types due to vegetation 

maintenance requirements along the pipeline loops.
Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands

64

TABLE 2.2.4-1

Summary of Wetland Impacts Associated with the Project (acres)

State/Facility

Emergent Wetland Scrub-shrub Wetland Forested Wetland

Con a Op b Con Op Con Op 

New Jersey

Skillman Loop 3.4 1.0 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1

Access Roads <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pleasant Run Loop 2.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1

Access Roads <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pennsylvania

Franklin Loop 6.6 1.3 2.9 0.0 8.0 4.0

Access Roads 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dorrance Loop 3.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 <0.1

Access Roads 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Project Total 15.1 3.3 2.9 <0.1 8.5 4.3

____________________

a Con = Construction Impacts. Includes impacts associated with all areas within the construction workspace limits. This 

includes the total of the existing pipeline right-of-way, new permanent right-of-way, ATWS areas, and contractor staging. 

b Op = Operational Impacts. Includes impacts associated with the new permanent right-of-way located outside of the 

existing and currently maintained pipeline right-of-way.

Note: The totals shown in this table may not equal the sum of addends due to rounding.

The primary impact of the Project on wetlands would be the alteration of wetland value 

due to vegetation clearing. Construction could also impact water quality within the wetland due 

to sediment loading or inadvertent spills of fuel or chemicals. The use of heavy equipment 

within wetlands could also result in the compaction of wetland soils. Impacts on wetlands would 

be greatest during and immediately following construction. The majority of these effects would 

be short term in nature and would cease shortly after the wetlands are restored and vegetated. 

Following revegetation, the wetland would eventually transition back into a community with 

functionality similar to that of the pre-construction state. In emergent wetlands, the herbaceous 

vegetation would regenerate quickly (typically within 1 to 3 years). 

Following revegetation, there would be no permanent impact on emergent wetland 

vegetation in the maintained pipeline right-of-way because these areas naturally consist of, and 

would remain as, open land and herbaceous communities. In addition, all scrub-shrub wetlands 

would be allowed to revert to scrub-shrub wetlands after construction. Revegetation would be 

considered successful if the cover of herbaceous and/or woody species is at least 80 percent of 

the type, density, and distribution of the vegetation in adjacent wetland areas that were not 

disturbed by construction. 

The duration of the impact on scrub-shrub and forested wetlands would be longer than 

that of emergent wetlands. Forested wetlands located outside of the permanent right-of-way 

would be allowed to revert to forested wetlands after construction. In these areas, woody 

vegetation may take several years to regenerate, resulting in long term impacts. Permanent 

impacts on forested wetlands within the new proposed right-of-way would be based on a 25-foot 

new permanent right-of-way width, where the wetland would be converted to scrub-shrub or 

emergent. For the permanent right-of-way, the re-establishment of mature woody vegetation 

would be precluded by the annual maintenance of a 10-foot-wide herbaceous strip centered over 

the pipeline and the cutting of woody vegetation within 15 feet of the pipeline centerline. This 
Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands

65

would result in a permanent conversion of previously forested wetland areas to non-forested 

wetland areas. The conversion from one vegetation cover type to another could result in changes 

in wetland functions and values by altering the amount of sunlight or other environmental 

conditions in the wetland, affecting wildlife habitat. In general, however, it is expected that the 

affected wetlands would continue to provide important ecological functions such as 

sediment/toxicant retention, nutrient removal, flood attenuation, groundwater recharge/discharge, 

and wildlife habitat. 

In general, Transco would minimize wetland impacts by collocating the proposed loops 

with Transco’s existing pipelines for approximately 29.6 of 29.8 miles (99 percent of their 

lengths). In addition to the measures identified in crossing methods discussion above, Transco 

would implement the following measures outlined in its Procedures and E&SCPs:

 Sediment barriers would be installed across the entire construction right-of-way 

at all waterbody/wetland crossings, where necessary to prevent the flow of 

sediments into the waterbody or wetland. Where waterbodies or wetlands are 

adjacent to the construction right-of-way, sediment barriers would be installed 

along the edge of the construction right-of-way as necessary to contain spoil and 

sediment within the construction right-of-way.

 Diversion terraces would be installed at all waterbody crossings and upslope 

from all wetland boundaries to prevent sediment from entering these aquatic 

resources.

 Trench plugs would be installed at the banks of all waterbodies and at the 

boundaries of all wetland crossings immediately after trench excavation to 

prevent diversion of water into upland portions of the pipeline trench and to 

keep any accumulated trench water out of the waterbody or wetland.

 Vegetation clearing would be limited between ATWS and the edge of the 

wetland to the certificated construction right-of-way. Vegetation would be cut 

just above ground level, leaving existing root systems in place, and trimmings 

would be removed from the wetland for disposal.

 The top 12 inches of topsoil would be segregated from the area disturbed by 

trenching in wetlands, except in areas where standing water is present or soils 

are saturated or frozen. 

 The trench would be dewatered (either on or off the construction right-of-way) 

in a manner that would not cause erosion and would not result in heavily siltladen water flowing into any waterbody or wetland. Dewatering structures 

would be removed as soon as possible after the completion of dewatering 

activities.

 Vegetation maintenance during operations would be limited in wetlands to a 10-

foot-wide herbaceous corridor and the removal of trees and shrubs within 15 feet 

of the pipeline centerline.
Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands

66

In addition to the above measures, Transco would limit the width of the construction 

right-of-way in wetlands to 75 feet except in those areas identified in table 2.2.4-2, which 

includes Transco's justification for additional construction right-of-way width. We reviewed 

Transco’s alignment sheets and other mapping and have determined that the requested 

construction rights-of-way are justified. 

TABLE 2.2.4-2

Areas that Exceed 75 Feet of Workspace Width Within Wetlands

State/Facility Wetland Identification Milepost Justification a Width of Workspace within Wetland (feet)

New Jersey

Skillman Loop WW-002-009 1778.4 a 90

WW-002-017 1780.2 a 90

WW-002-018 1782.5 a 90

WW-002-019 1782.6 a 90

Pleasant Run Loop WW-002-027 2.6 a 90

WW-002-028 3.0 a 90

WW-002-031 5.4 a 90

Pennsylvania

Franklin Loop WW-001-014 58.9 a 90

WW-001-016 59.0

59.1

a 90

90

WW-001-020 59.3 a 90

WW-001-028 59.8 a 90

WW-001-022 61.1 a 90

WW-001-024 61.3 a 90

WW-001-025 61.6 b 90

WW-001-027 62.3 a 90

WW-001-031 62.9

62.9

63.2

a 90

90

90

WW-001-036 64.2 a 90

WW-001-039 65.5

65.6

a 90

90

WW-001-040 65.9 a 90

WW-001-041 66.8 a 90

WW-001-047 68.1 a 90

WW-001-050 68.5 a 90

Dorrance Loop WW-001-005 18.8 a 90

WW-001-009 20.9 a 90

WW-001-011 21.6 a 90

WW-003-004 22.3 a 90

WW-003-008 22.8 a 90

_________________

a a=spoil storage in wetland to avoid unnecessary trips through wetland with heavy equipment.

b=topsoil segregation.

Transco would also locate ATWS at least 50 feet away from wetland boundaries except 

where site-specific conditions warrant otherwise. Transco identified areas where it would be 

necessary to locate ATWS within 50 feet of a wetland and provided justification for each

workspace (see appendix J). These justifications include the need for additional workspace for 

waterbody and road crossings, steep slope construction, and others. We have determined that 

Transco’s proposed locations of ATWS within 50 feet of a wetland are justified. 

There would be no impacts on wetlands as a result of aboveground facility activities in 

North Carolina and Virginia. In Maryland, no permanent impacts on wetlands would occur from 

operation of the aboveground facilities. However, Transco has indicated that minor temporary 
Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands

67

impacts would occur at wetlands within the workspace for the existing Potomac North Valve Site 

and existing valve site 190-13. Transco plans to submit permit applications to the Maryland 

Department of the Environment and COE for these temporary impacts in August 2014. In 

addition, two wetlands are within the proposed construction workspace for Compressor Station 

515/MLV515LD0 and MLV505LD90; see appendix J. Transco has stated it would attempt to 

avoid these wetlands. If construction activities would encroach upon the wetlands, Transco 

would install sediment barriers to prevent spoil from entering the wetlands, and would restore the 

wetlands to their pre-construction contours following construction. 

Wetland restoration would be conducted in accordance with Transco’s Procedures and 

other permit conditions as may be required. Transco would conduct annual post-construction 

monitoring of all wetlands affected by construction to assess the condition of vegetation and the 

success of restoration for a period of at least 3 years. An annual monitoring report addressing the 

status of wetland restoration and revegetation would be submitted to the appropriate agencies. 

Other elements for inclusion in the annual monitoring report would be determined through 

consultations with COE and PADEP in conjunction with permit conditions and authorization. 

Wetland Mitigation Sites

New Jersey – Transco has received its Letter of Interpretation from the NJDEP 

confirming wetland and riparian impacts associated with construction of the Pleasant Run Loop 

and is awaiting NJDEP issuance of the Letter of Interpretation for the Skillman Loop. As a 

result, consultation with the NJDEP is ongoing and selection of a wetland mitigation site(s) in 

New Jersey is currently pending. Transco has engaged a wetland contractor to develop a sitespecific wetland mitigation plan for New Jersey and anticipates that this plan would include 

wetland preservation and enhancement. Transco also committed to conduct all necessary 

surveys and federal consultations, and would obtain all required federal authorizations related to 

the wetland mitigation site(s).

Pennsylvania – The Bleiler Farm mitigation site (see figure 2.2.4-1) is in Lehigh County, 

Pennsylvania and would be entered into a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants Agreement upon 

COE acceptance of the proposed mitigation plan. This site includes Switzer Creek and two 

unnamed tributaries to Switzer Creek. A 15.2-acre portion of the site is proposed for mitigation. 

The proposed mitigation would consist of 4.1 acres of forested wetland enhancement, 2.9 acres 

of scrub-shrub wetland enhancement, and 8.2 acres of mixed emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested 

wetland enhancement.

Information concerning federal threatened and endangered species and cultural resources 

at the proposed Pennsylvania wetland mitigation site is included in sections 2.3.3 and 2.6.1, 

respectively. 

In conclusion, we find that wetland impacts associated with the construction and 

operation of the Project would be minimized and compensated for by implementing the 

construction, restoration, and mitigation measures proposed by Transco and as may be required 

by the COE and state agencies. Any proposed mitigation in New Jersey would be reviewed 

during the NJDEP’s Individual Freshwater Wetlands permit review process in accordance with 

NJAC 7:7A-15 in order to compensate for the loss or disturbance of freshwater wetlands or state 

open waters.
Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands

68

Insert

Figure 2.2.4-1 Bleiler Farm Wetland Mitigation Site
Vegetation and Wildlife

69

2.3 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE

2.3.1 Vegetation

Existing Vegetation Resources

Transco identified existing vegetation resources during environmental field surveys in 

New Jersey according to Classification of Vegetation Communities of New Jersey: Second 

Iteration (Breden et al., 2001). Plant communities in Pennsylvania were classified according to 

Terrestrial and Palustrine Plant Communities of Pennsylvania (Fike, 1999; Sitch, 2011) as 

recommended by the PADCNR Natural Heritage Program. Major upland cover types affected 

by the Project in New Jersey and Pennsylvania include upland forest and open upland as 

summarized in tables 2.3.1-1 and 2.3.1-2, respectively. Wetland vegetation communities that 

would be affected by the Project are discussed in section 2.2.4.

TABLE 2.3.1-1

Upland Vegetation Cover Types Associated with the Project in New Jersey

Vegetation Community General Description Common Species

Upland forest Oak-Hickory Forest Forest type dominated by red oak, shagbark hickory, white 

oak, and black oak.

Sugar Maple-American Beech-Basswood 

Forest

Forest type dominated by American beech, red maple, 

sugar maple, black gum, and American basswood.

Open upland This vegetation community consists of all 

non-forested, non-wetland habitats 

including agricultural lands (which 

includes pastureland), grassland, 

shrubland, residential, and existing 

pipeline right-of-way.

Agriculture lands predominantly used for crop production 

or pasture/grazing (fallow fields) land used by cattle, and 

horse farms. Species commonly observed included sweet 

vernal grass, common vetch, Japanese stilt grass, orchard 

grass, fescue, Kentucky blue grass, white clover, and 

timothy grass.

Existing pipeline rights-of-way are mowed on a regular 

basis to suppress woody plant growth. Plant species 

commonly observed included various perennial cool grass 

species. 

In residential areas the existing rights-of-way consist 

primarily of maintained lawns and a limited amount of 

scrub-shrub communities.

TABLE 2.3.1-2

Upland Vegetation Cover Types Associated with the Project in Pennsylvania

Vegetation Community General Description Common Species

Upland forest Hemlock/White Pine-Northern Hardwood 

Forest

Dominant trees observed in this forest type include red 

maple, black birch, white pine, chestnut oak, and red 

oak. 

Open upland This vegetation community consists of all 

non-forested, non-wetland habitats 

including agricultural lands (which includes 

pastureland), grassland, shrubland, 

residential, and existing pipeline right-ofway.

Agriculture lands predominantly used for crop

production or pasture/grazing (fallow fields) land used 

by cattle, and horse farms. Species commonly 

observed included orchard grass, fescue, ox-eyed daisy, 

and Hungarian brome, rough goldenrod, common 

dewberry, and sweet vernal grass.

Existing pipeline rights-of-way are mowed on a regular 

basis to suppress woody plant growth. Plant species 

commonly observed included various perennial cool 

grass species. 

In residential areas the existing rights-of-way consist 

primarily of maintained lawns and a limited amount of 

scrub-shrub communities.
Vegetation and Wildlife

70

The pipeline facilities would cross primarily open upland vegetation cover types. This 

community covers about 66 percent of the pipeline routes. The remainder of the pipeline routes 

cross forested upland (23 percent), open wetland (3 percent), scrub-shrub wetland (0.6 percent), 

forested wetland (1.7 percent), and open water (0.5 percent). 

Transco’s proposed contractor/pipe storage yards and contractor staging areas are located 

mainly on open upland or are within existing commercial/industrial areas; however, 

approximately 12.8 acres of upland forest would be temporarily impacted by the use of these 

areas. Transco plans to construct 5 new access roads and modify 18 existing access roads for 

construction and/or operation of the Project. After construction, 8 of the 23 roads would be 

retained in their modified condition for future access during operation of the facilities resulting in 

less than 0.1 acre of permanent upland forest impact; the remaining 15 would be restored to their 

pre-existing condition. The proposed roads possess a variety of surface types including gravel, 

asphalt, dirt, and vegetation cover, and would require surface modifications, widening, and tree 

clearing based on the equipment that would use the road. These improvements would require 

minor modifications of the existing land use. 

Table 2.3.1-3 summarizes the approximate acreage of upland vegetation communities 

that would be affected by the Project. 

TABLE 2.3.1-3

Upland Vegetation Affected by the Project (acres)

Vegetation 

Cover Type

Pipeline Facilities a Aboveground Facilities b

Contractor/Pipe Storage 

Yards/Staging Areas Access Roads

Con c Op d Con Op Con Op e Con f Op g

Upland Forest 105.2 26.8 0.0 0.3 12.8 0.0 1.1 <0.1

Open Upland 271.9 44.8 0.8 0.9 60.6 0.0 5.2 0.1

Project Total 377.1 71.6 0.8 1.2 73.4 0.0 6.3 0.2

____________________

a

Includes pipeline loops.

b Acreage of vegetation impacts for aboveground facilities reflects the workspace both within and outside of the fence 

line for existing facilities. Operational impacts associated with the footprint of MLVs are included here; construction 

impacts for MLVs are included in totals for pipeline facilities.

c Construction acres impacted include impacts associated with all areas within the construction workspace limits. This 

includes the total of the existing pipeline right-of-way, new permanent pipeline right-of-way, temporary workspace 

areas, and additional temporary workspace areas.

d Operational acres impacted include impacts associated with the portion of the new permanent right-of-way located 

outside of the existing and currently maintained pipeline right-of-way.

e Areas used for contractor/pipe storage yards/staging areas would be used during construction and would then be 

allowed to return to pre-construction conditions; no operational impacts are anticipated.

f Acreage of vegetation impacts for temporary access roads associated with the pipeline loops. Construction impacts 

for temporary access roads associated with the aboveground facilities (including MLVs) are included in the 

construction impacts for the aboveground facilities.

g Operational impacts associated with proposed permanent access roads at MLV505LD and MLV515LD.

Con = construction; Op = operation

Construction at the existing compressor stations would occur within or immediately 

adjacent to the previously disturbed, graded, or graveled areas of the existing fenceline of the 

facilities. The only vegetation cover type that would be affected by construction of new or 

modifications to other existing aboveground facilities, including those in North Carolina, 

Virginia, and Maryland is open upland. Operation of new facilities and proposed permanent 
Vegetation and Wildlife

71

access roads would result in a permanent conversion of about 0.4 acre of forested land to 

commercial/industrial use.

Vegetation Communities of Special Concern or Value

Vegetation communities of special concern include sensitive or protected vegetation 

types, natural areas, and unique plant communities. Based on consultation with the PADCNR 

and/or field surveys, Transco identified the following ecological communities identified as 

special concern resources along the Franklin Loop: red-spruce palustrine forest, leatherleaf 

sedge wetland, and low heath shrubland.

The low heath shrubland is located outside of the proposed workspace; therefore, no 

impacts on this community are anticipated. In a letter dated December 19, 2013, the PADCNR 

requested that Transco implement the following measures to protect these communities:

 minimize disturbance in areas of rare communities;

 clean construction equipment prior to working in these areas to prevent the spread 

of invasive plant species; and

 begin work in areas not infested with invasive plant species and work toward 

areas that are infested to prevent further spread, if possible.

In addition, the Skillman Loop would cross an environmentally sensitive area referred to 

as the Princeton Ridge between MPs 1776.8 and 1778.1. The Princeton Ridge is an ecological 

area in Mercer County that extends westward from the Millstone River and the Delaware and 

Raritan Canal State Park across the northern part of Princeton Township into Hopewell (New 

Jersey Conservation Foundation, 2014). The area consists of forest and wetlands that support 

several endangered and threatened species as well as other wildlife species. We received many 

comments from stakeholders in the Princeton Ridge area concerning existing vegetation, wildlife 

habitat, and wildlife, including special status species and migratory birds in the Princeton Ridge 

area and potential Project impacts on these resources. As discussed in section 2.4.5, the area of 

the Princeton Ridge crossed by Transco’s existing pipeline and the proposed Skillman Loop was 

designated by the State of New Jersey as an environmentally sensitive area.

General Impacts and Mitigation

Upland Forest

The greatest impact on vegetation would be on forested areas because of the length of 

time required for woody vegetation to revert to its preconstruction condition. We received 

comments concerning potential Project-related impacts on forest habitat including fragmentation, 

edge effects, and increased opportunity for invasive species establishment, including from 

Princeton Ridge stakeholders. Construction in forest lands would remove mature trees in the 

construction right-of-way. In addition, the canopy overhanging the right-of-way may be 

trimmed as needed. Trees would be cut into lengths, chipped, and/or removed. The removal of 

mature trees could also result in secondary impacts such as increased erosion. Incremental 

fragmentation of upland forest habitat could occur due to the expansion of Transco’s existing 
Vegetation and Wildlife

72

right-of-way where the loops are not adjacent to Transco’s existing pipelines in forested areas. 

The loss of forest habitat and the expansion of existing corridors could also decrease the quality 

of habitat for forest wildlife species, including alteration of habitat resulting from increased light 

levels into interior forest and a subsequent loss of soil moisture as a result of an expanded rightof-way, as discussed in section 2.3.2. Expansion of the existing corridor could also result in an 

increased opportunity for invasive plants to displace native species. 

After construction, forested vegetation would be allowed to recover within the 

construction right-of-way and ATWS; however, the impact in these areas would be long term. A 

total of 26.8 acres of upland forest would be permanently impacted (i.e., converted to herbaceous 

cover) by operation of the Project. Permanent impacts on forest lands would occur within the 

maintained portion of the permanent right-of-way where ongoing vegetation maintenance during 

operations would preclude the re-establishment of trees. In addition, approximately 0.3 acre of 

forest land would be permanently removed by construction or modification of various MLVs. 

Transco would minimize impacts on upland forest by utilizing existing rights-of-way or 

previously disturbed, non-forested areas to the extent possible. Specifically, the proposed loops 

would be collocated with Transco’s existing pipeline for approximately 96 percent of their 

lengths. Transco would typically limit the width of new permanent right-of-way to 25 feet and 

would allow the ATWS to revert to woody vegetation. The adjacent forested land would remain 

available for wildlife. In addition, the proposed construction right-of-way overlaps the existing, 

maintained permanent right-of-way. 

In forested areas where the right-of-way would be cleared for construction, Transco 

would implement measures outlined in its Plan, Procedures, and E&SCPs to minimize impacts 

on vegetation, including the installation of erosion control measures following initial disturbance 

of the soil. Following construction, all disturbed areas would be seeded in accordance with 

written recommendations for seed mixes, rates, and dates obtained from the local soil 

conservation authority or as requested by the landowner or land management agency. In 

accordance with its Plan, Transco would monitor disturbed areas to determine the postconstruction revegetation success for a minimum of two growing seasons, or until revegetation is 

considered successful. Transco has also prepared a Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan in

consultation with relevant agencies. The plan outlines methods to prevent, mitigate, and control 

the spread of noxious and invasive weeds during ground-disturbing activities associated with 

construction of the Project, and also includes a monitoring program that would be implemented 

following construction and restoration of the Project. Some of the measures in the plan include:

 flagging areas of concern (identified during May 2013 noxious weed inventory or 

by the EI during pre-construction review) prior to construction to alert 

construction personnel and prevent access into areas until noxious weed control 

measures have been properly implemented;

 treating known weed populations with appropriate methods (e.g., physical 

removal, mechanical removal, herbicide application) to prevent their spread;

 removing soil and propagules from vehicles and machinery to prevent the 

transport of noxious weeds to other areas; and
Vegetation and Wildlife

73

 monitoring for invasive species following completion of construction after the 

first and second growing seasons, as applicable, and in accordance with Transco’s 

Plan.

We reviewed Transco’s Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan and find it acceptable.

The Project would cross numerous public lands and special interest areas. State agencies 

with administrative authority over other public lands may require Transco to further mitigate for 

the loss of forested vegetation in these areas. These public lands and special interest areas are 

further discussed in section 2.4.5.

Due to state designation as ESA 5 and F3, and in response to stakeholder concerns, 

Transco developed site-specific construction and restoration plans for the Skillman Loop 

crossing of the Princeton Ridge area. More specifically, Transco’s Rock Handling Plan

describes how Transco would construct the pipeline through the area, and the PRCRP describes 

the restoration measures that Transco would implement in the area. These plans were developed 

with input from area stakeholders and are discussed in sections 1.6.2, 2.1.1, and 2.9.1. To 

minimize vegetation and tree clearing, Transco would limit the total construction right-of-way

width to 50 feet across the Princeton Ridge, as compared to the typical 105-foot-wide

construction right-of-way that would be used to construct the majority of the remaining loops. 

The 50-foot-wide construction right-of-way would overlap substantially with Transco’s existing 

easement, thereby largely limiting tree removal to the edges of the existing right-of-way. As 

discussed in section 1.6.2, Transco would implement site-specific restoration measures in the 

Princeton Ridge area that includes: planting of native herbaceous and woody plants and shrubs; 

implementing its Princeton Ridge Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan; and monitoring to 

ensure successful revegetation. We conclude that the reduced construction right-of-way width 

and implementation of the Rock Handling Plan, PRCRP, and Princeton Ridge Noxious and 

Invasive Weed Control Plan proposed by Transco would minimize environmental impacts on 

vegetation and provide for adequate restoration of the right-of-way through the Princeton Ridge 

area.

Open Land

Open land consists of grasslands, pasture, agricultural land, shrublands, residential areas, 

and maintained utility rights-of-way. Approximately 0.9 acre of open land would be 

permanently removed by construction or modification of various MLVs. In general, the impact 

on remaining open land vegetation would be considered short term. After cleanup and reseeding 

of the right-of-way, the herbaceous components of the cover type would typically regenerate 

quickly considering the ample annual rainfall in the region. Aside from the permanent impacts 

noted above, impacts on these cover types during facility operation would be minor because 

these cover types would be allowed to recover and would not be significantly altered by right-ofway maintenance activities. Further discussion of potential impacts on agricultural land and 

residential areas is provided below.

Agricultural Land – The effects of the Project on agricultural land would be minor and 

short term, and include the loss of standing or row crops within the construction work area and 

the disruption of farming operations for the growing season during the year of construction. To 
Vegetation and Wildlife

74

reduce these impacts, Transco would adhere to the measures outlined in its Plan and Procedures 

and its E&SCPs. These measures include testing the topsoil and subsoil for compaction at 

regular intervals in areas disturbed by construction activities; strictly controlling equipment 

traffic on agricultural land to minimize compaction and rutting; and plowing severely compacted 

soil. To preserve soil fertility in agricultural land, the entire topsoil layer (to a maximum depth 

of 12 inches) would be stripped from either the pipeline trench and subsoil storage area or the 

full construction right-of-way, as stipulated in landowner agreements, and stored separately from 

the subsoil for replacement after backfilling the trench. Transco would monitor crops during the 

first and second growing seasons after seeding to determine if additional restoration is needed. 

Residential Areas – Impacts on vegetation cover in residential areas would include the 

removal of trees, ornamental shrubs, and maintained lawn areas within the construction right-ofway. Most of these impacts would be short term as Transco would restore the landscape in the 

temporary construction right-of-way immediately after construction in accordance with its Plan

and E&SCPs, and in accordance with any specific requirements identified by landowners. The 

loss of large trees would be considered a long-term impact and may be subject to compensation 

through landowner negotiations. Transco would further minimize impacts in residential areas by 

utilizing the special construction techniques described in section 1.6.2, including the use of a 

reduced construction right-of-way width. Section 2.4.4 provides additional detail regarding the 

measures Transco would implement to minimize impacts in active residential areas. 

Approximately 2.3 acres of residential land would be considered permanent right-of-way for the 

proposed pipeline loops. Following construction, all residential areas would be restored to 

preconstruction conditions or as specified in written landowner agreements. Landowners would 

continue to have use of the right-of-way provided it does not interfere with the easement rights 

granted to Transco for construction and operation of the pipeline system. 

Because Transco would construct most of its Project within open land where vegetation 

restoration timeframes would be short-term, and follow the methods discussed above and in its

Plan and E&SCPs, we conclude that construction and operation of the Project would not result in 

a significant impact on vegetation in the Project area. 

2.3.2 Wildlife 

The Project would cross upland and wetland habitats that support a diversity of wildlife 

species. Wildlife species are directly dependent on the existing plant communities and are 

attracted to an area if suitable cover and/or habitat are present.

Existing Wildlife Resources

As described in the sections below, the proposed facilities would cross several distinct 

upland and wetland vegetation cover types. These include upland forest, open upland 

(grasslands, pasture, agricultural land, shrublands, residential areas, and maintained utility rightsof-way), forested wetlands, scrub-shrub wetlands, and open wetlands (emergent). Each of these 

cover types (i.e., vegetation communities) provides nesting, cover, and foraging habitat for a 

variety of wildlife species. Table 2.3.2-1 identifies the terrestrial wildlife species common to 

these habitats. Other cover types including open water and developed areas also provide habitat 

for wildlife species. Impacts on aquatic resources are described in sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3. 
Vegetation and Wildlife

75

TABLE 2.3.2-1

Common Wildlife Species Occurring in Major Habitat Types Traversed by the Project a

Common Name

Uplands Wetlands

Open 

Water

Upland 

Forest

Open 

Upland Developed

Palustrine 

Forested

Palustrine 

Emergent

Palustrine 

Scrubshrub

MAMMALS

Black bear X -- -- -- -- X --

Gray fox X -- -- -- -- X --

Raccoon X -- -- -- -- -- --

Gray squirrel X -- -- -- -- -- --

Eastern chipmunk X -- -- -- -- -- --

Southern flying squirrel X -- -- -- -- -- --

Porcupine X -- -- -- -- -- --

Opossum X -- -- -- -- -- --

Bat X -- -- -- -- -- --

White-tailed deer X X -- -- -- X --

Woodchuck -- X -- -- -- -- --

Eastern cottontail -- X -- -- -- X --

Meadow jumping mouse -- X -- -- -- -- --

Meadow vole -- X -- -- -- -- --

White-footed mouse -- X -- -- -- X --

Coyotes -- X -- -- -- --

Red fox -- X -- -- -- X --

Beaver -- -- -- X X X X

Muskrat -- -- -- X X X X

Mink -- -- -- X X X X

BIRDS

Eastern wood-pewee X -- -- -- -- -- --

Ovenbird X -- -- -- -- -- --

Song sparrow X -- -- -- -- -- --

Grey catbird X -- -- -- -- -- --

Common yellowthroat -- -- -- X X -- --

Barn swallow -- X -- -- -- -- --

Red-winged blackbird -- -- -- X X -- --

Olive-sided flycatcher b X -- -- X -- X --

Brown-headed cowbird X -- -- -- -- -- --

Pileated woodpecker X -- -- -- -- -- --

Wood thrush b X -- -- -- -- -- --

Golden winged warbler b X -- -- X -- X --

Prairie warbler b X X -- -- -- -- --

Wild turkey X X -- -- -- -- --

Ruffed grouse X -- -- -- -- -- --

Barred owl X -- -- -- -- -- --

Great-horned owl X -- -- -- -- -- --

Eastern screech owl X -- -- -- -- -- --

European starling -- X X -- -- -- --

Rock dove -- X X -- -- -- --

AMPHIBIANS

Green frog -- -- -- X X -- X

Bullfrog -- -- -- X X -- X
Vegetation and Wildlife

76

TABLE 2.3.2-1

Common Wildlife Species Occurring in Major Habitat Types Traversed by the Project a

Common Name

Uplands Wetlands

Open 

Water

Upland 

Forest

Open 

Upland Developed

Palustrine 

Forested

Palustrine 

Emergent

Palustrine 

Scrubshrub

Northern dusky salamander -- -- -- X X -- X

Redback salamander -- -- -- X X -- X

Leopard frog -- -- -- X X -- X

Spring peeper -- -- -- X X -- X

Eastern newt X -- -- -- -- -- X

REPTILES

Northern water snake -- -- -- X X X X

Painted turtle -- -- -- X X -- X

Northern bog turtle -- -- -- X X X X

Snapping turtle -- -- -- X X -- X

Wood turtle X -- -- -- -- X --

Timber rattlesnake X -- -- -- -- -- --

Northern ring neck snake X -- -- -- -- -- --

Eastern box turtle X -- -- -- -- -- --

Common garter snake X X X X X -- X

____________________

a Modifications at the existing compressor stations, M&R stations, and MLV sites would occur within the facility fenceline 

or existing maintained permanent right-of-way adjacent to the facility and are not expected to require tree clearing. 

Construction and operation of new MLVs would be installed along the pipeline loops at new locations within Transco’s 

construction and permanent right-of-way, respectively; and would result in a permanent land use conversion to 

commercial/industrial. Wildlife found at the facilities would be similar to those identified under the open upland and 

developed habitat type included in this table. 

b Bird of Conservation Concern (refer to section 2.3.3).

Sources: FWS, 2008; New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife Endangered and Nongame Species Program, 2014b; 

Pennsylvania Herp Identification Online Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians, 2008. 

Upland Forest

The upland forests in the Project area provide moderate to high quality habitat for a 

variety of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates. The predominance of oak is 

an important habitat component in upland forests in the Project area. Some mammals rely 

directly on oak mast as a food source, while amphibians and invertebrates rely on the soil 

chemistry of an oak forest. Predatory species, such as raptors, red fox, and timber rattlesnake, 

are also attracted to oak-dominated forests and their edges due to the abundance and diversity of 

prey species. The tree and shrub layers provide food and cover for birds and larger mammals, 

such as white-tailed deer. Detritus on the forest floor provides food and cover for invertebrates, 

amphibians, reptiles, and smaller mammals, such as woodchuck and eastern chipmunk. 

Open Land

This cover type category covers all non-forested vegetation, including grasslands, 

pasture, agricultural land, shrublands, residential areas, and maintained utility rights-of-way. 

Although row crops generally provide poor to moderate cover habitat, they often provide forage 

for a number of species. Pastures also provide grazing habitat for species such as white-tailed 

deer. Hayfields, small grains, fallow and old fields, pastures, and idled croplands provide 
Vegetation and Wildlife

77

nesting habitats for grassland-nesting birds (USDA, 1999). On landscapes where intensive row 

crop agriculture is the dominant land use, these strip habitats are extremely important for 

grassland birds and other wildlife. Grassland birds rely on open fields for nesting and foraging. 

Rights-of-way for utility lines maintained in early successional communities provide valuable 

nesting and foraging habitats for grassland bird species (USDA, 1999). Grasslands and old fields 

can be utilized as foraging and denning habitat by mammals and also provide nesting and 

breeding habitat to upland game birds such as pheasants. Shrublands provide sources of food 

and nesting sites for various birds, as well as cover for invertebrates, reptiles, and amphibians. 

Open fields and shrub cover provide habitat for small mammal species such as mice, rabbits, and 

voles, which make them prime hunting grounds for predator species such as foxes, coyotes, and 

raptors. 

Developed Areas

Developed lands in the Project area consist of land uses classified as 

industrial/commercial, and road crossings. These types of lands tend to provide minimal habitat 

for wildlife species. Wildlife diversity is often limited to species that are adapted to human 

presence and the associated anthropogenic changes to the landscape, such as paved and 

landscaped areas.

Wetlands

Forested wetlands are dominated by woody vegetation and provide a diverse assemblage 

of vegetation and an abundance of food and water sources for wildlife. The forested wetland

canopy is typically dominated by red maple, which is a highly desirable wildlife browse. 

Mammals such as mink, muskrat, raccoon, and white-tailed deer use these areas as foraging 

habitat. Many waterfowl and wading birds use forested wetlands adjacent to scrub-shrub and 

emergent wetlands for nesting and foraging. Forested wetland communities are also important 

habitats for reptiles and amphibians including the American bullfrog, green frog, and various 

salamander species. 

Emergent wetlands provide important habitat for waterfowl, muskrats, herons, frogs, and 

salamanders. Bird species such as red wing blackbird and grey catbird also utilize emergent 

wetland habitat. 

Scrub-shrub wetlands provide cover for invertebrates, reptiles, and amphibians. Scrubshrub cover provides habitat for small mammal species such as mice and rabbits, which make 

them prime hunting grounds for predator species. 

Open Water

The open water cover type includes the creeks, streams, and rivers crossed by the Project. 

In addition to the aquatic resources discussed in sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, the open water cover 

type provides important foraging and breeding habitat for various terrestrial species including 

waterfowl, reptiles, amphibians, and some mammals.
Vegetation and Wildlife

78

General Impacts and Mitigation

Potential impacts on wildlife from the Project include the temporary displacement of 

wildlife from the right-of-way. It is expected that most wildlife, such as birds and larger 

mammals, would temporarily relocate to adjacent available habitat as construction activities 

approach. Construction could result in the mortality of less mobile animals such as small 

rodents, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates, which may be unable to escape the immediate 

construction area. Displacement impacts would be minor and short term as wildlife would be 

expected to return and colonize post-construction habitats. 

Project construction would require clearing of vegetation from the right-of-way, 

temporarily decreasing the amount of wildlife habitat and reducing protective cover and foraging 

habitat in the immediate Project area. Depending on the season, construction could also disrupt 

bird courting or nesting, including destruction of nests, eggs, and chicks within the construction 

work area. However, this would be a short-term impact (except along the permanently 

maintained pipeline right-of-way) as all habitats would be allowed to reestablish in temporary 

construction workspace and ATWS, thus remaining available for wildlife habitat and watershed 

functions.

The impact of forest fragmentation on wildlife in the eastern United States has emerged 

as an important issue. Fragmentation generally affects birds through dispersal barriers, absence 

of suitable microhabitats, small population size, and edge effects (Degraaf and Healy, 1990). 

Migratory birds are among the best-studied groups of wildlife regarding adverse effects from 

fragmentation. Edge effects can result in interactions between birds that nest in the interior of 

forests and species that inhabit surrounding landscape, typically lowering the reproductive 

success of the interior species. Other evidence suggests that certain mammals, amphibians, 

reptiles, and plants are also adversely affected by forest fragmentation. Species that require large 

tracts of unbroken forest land may be forced to seek suitable habitat elsewhere. The loss of 

forest habitat, expansion of existing corridors, and the creation of open early successional and 

induced edge habitats could decrease the quality of habitat for forest interior wildlife species in a 

corridor much wider than the actual cleared right-of-way. The distance an edge effect extends 

into a woodland is variable, but most studies point to at least 300 feet (Rodewald, 2001; Jones, et 

al., 2000; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2000; Robbins, 1988; Rosenberg, et al., 1999). 

Edge impacts within this distance could include a change in available habitat for some species 

due to an increase in light and temperature levels on the forest floor and the subsequent reduction 

in soil moisture; thereby resulting in habitat that would no longer be suitable for species that 

require these specific habitat conditions, such as salamanders and amphibians. An alteration of 

habitat could affect the fitness of some species and increase competition both within and between 

species, possibly resulting in an overall change to the structure of the forest community.

The majority of the proposed pipeline loops are collocated with Transco’s existing, 

maintained right-of-way, which would reduce fragmentation effects. During operation, 

previously forested habitat (including forested wetlands) would not be allowed to reestablish 

within the permanent right-of-way for the proposed pipeline loops. The principal impact would 

be a shift from those species favoring forest habitat to those using either edge habitat or areas 

that are more open. It is not likely that the relatively small widening (approximately 25 feet) of 

existing permanently cleared right-of-way would impede the movement of most forest interior 
Vegetation and Wildlife

79

species. The impact of the permanent conversion of forested habitat to non-forested habitat 

would be minimized by installing the majority of the proposed loops adjacent to Transco’s 

existing right-of-way, which is maintained in an herbaceous state. As previously discussed, the 

Project would permanently convert about 26.8 acres of forested land to herbaceous cover. In 

addition, operation of new facilities and proposed permanent access roads would result in a 

permanent conversion of about 0.4 acre of forested land to commercial/industrial use. We 

conclude that the overall impact of permanent forest conversion on wildlife would be minor due 

to the aforementioned collocation and the large expanse of forested land available in the Project 

area. 

The degree of construction-related impacts on wildlife that inhabit wetlands would 

depend on the particular species and the time of year of construction. Highly mobile species, 

such as beavers, mink, muskrat, and birds would likely vacate the area during construction. 

Amphibians and reptiles have lower mobility and hibernate in soft wetland soil. Some limited 

mortality to these species is likely unavoidable; however, the silt-fence barrier erosion control 

device, erected and maintained to reduce erosion, would also keep these species along with small 

mammals out of the active work area in wetland areas. 

Modifications at the existing compressor stations, M&R stations, and MLV sites would 

largely occur within the facilities’ fenceline or existing maintained permanent right-of-way 

adjacent to the facility and are not expected to require tree clearing. Wildlife found at the 

facilities would be similar to those identified under the open upland and developed habitat type 

included in table 2.3.2-1. 

In conclusion, construction and operation of the Project would result in short- and longterm impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat. These impacts are expected to be minor given the 

mobile nature of most wildlife in the area, the availability of similar habitat adjacent to and near 

the Project, and the compatible nature of the restored right-of-way with species occurring in the 

area. These impacts would be minimized by collocating the proposed loops to a large extent 

with Transco’s existing maintained right-of-way, and by implementing the restoration methods 

outlined in Transco’s Plan, Procedures, and E&SCPs, and other site-specific plans including 

Transco’s Rock Handling Plan and PRCRP for the Princeton Ridge area.

2.3.3 Protected Species 

Migratory Birds 

Migratory birds are species that nest in the United States during the summer and make 

short or long-distance migrations for the non-breeding season. Neotropical migrants migrate 

south to the tropical regions of Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean for the 

non-breeding season. Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Protection Act 

(MBTA) (16 USC 703-711). The MBTA, as amended, prohibits the taking, killing, possession, 

transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, or nests unless authorized 

under a FWS permit. Bald and Golden Eagles are additionally protected under the Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) (16 USC 668-668d). Executive Order 13186 (66 Federal 

Register 3853) directs federal agencies to identify where unintentional take is likely to have a 

measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations and to avoid or minimize adverse 
Vegetation and Wildlife

80

impacts on migratory birds through enhanced collaboration with the FWS. The Executive Order 

states that emphasis should be placed on species of concern, priority habitats, and key risk 

factors, and that particular focus should be given to addressing population-level impacts.

On March 30, 2011, the FWS and the Commission entered into a Memorandum of 

Understanding Between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of 

the Interior United States Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding Implementation of Executive 

Order 13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds” that focuses on 

avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts on migratory birds and strengthening migratory bird 

conservation through enhanced collaboration between the two agencies. This voluntary 

agreement does not waive legal requirements under the MBTA, BGEPA, ESA, Federal Power 

Act, NGA, or any other statutes and does not authorize the take of migratory birds. 

A variety of migratory bird species, including songbirds, raptors, and waterfowl utilize 

the habitat found within the Project area. The FWS established Birds of Conservation Concern 

(BCC) lists for various regions in the country in response to the 1988 amendment to the Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Act, which mandated the FWS to identify migratory nongame birds that, 

without additional conservation actions, were likely to become candidates for listing under the 

ESA. The BCC lists, last updated in 2008, are divided by regions. There are 29 total species 

included on the BCC list for the Bird Conservation Regions crossed by the Project (Bird 

Conservation Regions 28 and 29) (see table 2.3.3-1). 

The potential impacts of the Project on migratory birds, including BCC-listed birds, 

would include the temporary and permanent loss of habitat associated with the removal of 

existing vegetation. The greatest potential to impact migratory birds would occur if Project 

construction activities such as grading, tree clearing, and construction noise take place during the 

nesting season. This could result in the destruction of nests and mortality of eggs and young 

birds that have not yet fledged. Construction would also reduce the amount of habitat available 

for resources such as foraging and predator protection for migratory birds and would temporarily 

displace birds into adjacent habitats, which could increase the competition for food and other 

resources. This in turn could increase stress, susceptibility to predation, and negatively impact 

reproductive success. The temporary loss of approximately 105.2 acres of upland forest and 4.3 

acres of forested wetlands associated with the pipeline facilities (see tables 2.2.4-1 and 2.3.1-3) 

would present a long-term impact for migratory birds that depend on forest. Noise and other 

construction activities could affect courtship and breeding activities including nesting and the 

rearing of young. Clearing and grading would also temporarily remove nesting and foraging 

habitat and could destroy occupied nests resulting in the mortality of eggs and young, unfledged 

birds, if these activities are done during the nesting season. 

Migratory birds, including BCC-listed birds, could also be affected during Project 

operation, which would permanently convert approximately 26.8 acres of upland forest land and 

4.3 acres of forested wetland to an herbaceous state. The reduction in available forest habitat 

could result in increased competition, a potential increase in parasitic bird species, edge effects 

(as previously discussed in section 2.3.2), and ongoing disturbances associated with periodic 

mowing and other right-of-way maintenance activities. 
Vegetation and Wildlife

81

TABLE 2.3.3-1

Birds of Conservation Concern Potentially Occurring Within the Project Area

Species

Primary Breeding Habitat, (Secondary Breeding 

Habitat)

Potentially Impacted Habitat Types within 

Project Right-of-Way

Bachman’s sparrow Open Pine Forest Open Pine Forest

Bald eagle Forest (Riparian) Forest (Riparian)

Bewick’s wren Open Woodlands (Riparian) Forest (Riparian)

Black rail Coastal Salt and Brackish Marshes None

Black-capped chickadee Forests (Open Woodlands) Forest (Riparian)

Blue-winged warbler Abandoned Fields, Swamp/Wetlands Forest (Riparian)

Brown-headed nuthatch Mature Pine Stands Forest (Riparian)

Canada warbler Mixed Deciduous-Coniferous Woodlands Forest (Riparian)

Cerulean warbler Mature Upland Oak Woods (Wooded Hillsides 

along Streams and Rivers)

Mature Upland Oak Woods (Wooded Hillsides 

along Streams and Rivers)

Golden-winged warbler Abandoned Fields with Small Saplings (Forest 

Edge)

Abandoned Fields with Small Saplings (Forest 

Edge)

Henslow’s sparrow Ephemeral Grasslands Ephemeral Grasslands

Kentucky warbler Deciduous Woods of Floodplains, Swamps, and 

Ravines

Deciduous Woods of Floodplains, Swamps, 

and Ravines

Loggerhead shrike Pasture and Cropland with Scattered Trees and 

Hedgerows

Pasture and Cropland with Scattered Trees 

and Hedgerows

Louisiana waterthrush Wooded Ravines and Mountain Brooks Wooded Ravines and Mountain Brooks

Northern saw-whet owl Woodlands with Dense Undergrowth of Conifers 

or Shrubs

Woodlands with Dense Undergrowth of 

Conifers or Shrubs

Olive-sided flycatcher Conifer Forest Conifer Forest

Peregrine falcon Cliffs or man-made structures (Riparian) Cliffs or man-made structures (Riparian)

Prairie warbler Old Fields/Pastures with Young Trees Old Fields/Pastures with Young Trees

Red crossbill Mature Coniferous Forests Mature Coniferous Forests

Red-headed woodpecker Open Woodlands with Scattered Trees Open Woodlands with Scattered Trees

Rusty blackbird Wet Forest NB

Sedge wren Moist Upland Sedge Meadow NB

Short-eared owl Field Stubble/Grasslands NB

Swainson’s warbler Bottomland Forests (Cove Hardwoods with Dense 

Deciduous Understory)

Bottomland Forests (Cove Hardwoods with 

Dense Deciduous Understory)

Upland sandpiper Agricultural Lands (Dry Grasslands) Agricultural Lands (Dry Grasslands)

Whip-poor-will Open Woodlands Open Woodlands

Wood thrush Moist, Lowland Deciduous Forest Moist, Lowland Deciduous Forest

Worm-eating warbler Woodlands with Dense Understory Woodlands with Dense Understory

Yellow-bellied sapsucker Northern Hardwood Forests Northern Hardwood Forests

____________________

a NB = This species is non-breeding in the bird conservation regions crossed by the Project (Regions 28 and 29).

Federal and state agencies were also consulted to identify sensitive wildlife habitats and 

wildlife managed lands that could be affected by the Project. The Franklin Loop would cross the 

Pocono Lake Preserve Important Bird Area in Monroe County, Pennsylvania. This is a 42,296-

acre area that is largely comprised of deciduous forest and forested wetlands, with smaller areas 

of mixed and evergreen forest, open water, and scrub-shrub habitat. This area provides breeding 

habitat to a number of forest interior, mountain, northern, and conifer species, including the 

black-billed cuckoo, yellowbellied sapsucker, northern saw-whet owl, alder flycatcher, redbreasted nuthatch, golden-crowned kinglet, Swainson’s thrush (possible); warblers including 
Vegetation and Wildlife

82

goldenwinged (possible), Nashville, magnolia, yellow-rumped, black-throated blue (probable), 

black-throated green, blackburnian (probable), worm-eating (possible), Canada and northern 

waterthrush; white-throated sparrow, dark-eyed junco, and purple finch (Brauning, 1992). The 

Franklin Loop crosses a total of 20.5 acres of forest habitat within the Pocono Lake Preserve 

Important Bird Area, of which 5.8 acres would be permanently impacted (i.e., converted to 

herbaceous cover) by the operation of the Project. The remaining 14.7 acres would be allowed to 

recover within the construction right-of-way and ATWS; however, the impact in these areas 

would be long term. 

We received comments from stakeholders in the Princeton Ridge area regarding impacts 

on migratory bird habitat. To minimize vegetation and tree clearing, Transco would limit the 

total construction right-of-way width to 50 feet across the Princeton Ridge, as compared to the 

typical 105-foot-wide construction right-of-way that would be used to construct the majority of 

the remaining loops. The 50-foot-wide construction right-of-way would overlap substantially 

with Transco’s existing easement, thereby largely limiting tree removal to a narrow strip on the 

edges of the existing right-of-way. 

In addition, Transco filed a draft Migratory Bird Habitat Restoration Plan as part of its 

application that includes conservation measures to avoid and minimize impacts on migratory 

birds. Some of the measures in the plan include: 

 locating roads, fences, lay down areas, staging areas, and other infrastructure in or 

immediately adjacent to previously disturbed areas to the greatest extent possible 

to reduce habitat fragmentation;

 conducting vegetation clearing activities outside of the migratory bird breeding 

windows identified by the FWS;

 implementing the restoration measures included in Transco’s Plan and Procedures 

to ensure that areas disturbed by construction are successfully revegetated; and

 conducting routine vegetation clearing for operation and maintenance purposes 

outside of the migratory bird breeding windows.

As noted above, Transco has agreed to adopt the FWS-recommended vegetation clearing 

windows during construction. The New Jersey Field Office of the FWS recommended that 

Transco conduct vegetation clearing between August 1 and March 14, and the Pennsylvania 

Field Office of the FWS recommended vegetation clearing between September 1 and March 31. 

The New Jersey Field Office of the FWS provided Transco with comments on the draft 

Migratory Bird Habitat Restoration Plan in an e-mail dated December 3, 2013. Transco 

indicated in its January 31, 2014 supplemental filing that it has addressed these comments. In 

addition, Transco conducted surveys in New Jersey prior to leaf-off in spring 2014 in areas 

where tree cutting would occur to determine the presence of any raptor nests that would be 

impacted by the Project; these surveys also included a subset of other breeding birds. Transco 

stated that one red-tailed hawk nest was identified on the edge of the construction right-of-way 

during this survey, the report of which will be provided to the New Jersey Field Office of the 

FWS in August 2014. Although the Pennsylvania Field Office of the FWS has not provided 
Vegetation and Wildlife

83

specific comments on the draft Migratory Bird Habitat Restoration Plan, the draft plan 

incorporates the Adaptive Management Practices for Conserving Migratory Birds, provided to 

Transco by the Pennsylvania Field Office of the FWS in a letter dated March 19, 2013. Transco 

stated that it will file a final Migratory Bird Habitat Restoration Plan with the New Jersey and 

Pennsylvania Field Offices of the FWS in August 2014. Therefore, we recommend that:

 Transco should not begin construction of the Project until:

a. Transco files the final Migratory Bird Habitat Restoration Plan with 

the New Jersey and Pennsylvania Field Offices of the FWS and the 

Secretary; and

b. Transco files with the Secretary all FWS comments on the final 

Migratory Bird Habitat Restoration Plan.

The Project largely involves looping and modifications to existing facilities, thus 

minimizing land and vegetation disturbance, permanent habitat alteration, and fragmentation. 

Restoration would be conducted in accordance with Transco’s Plan, Procedures, and E&SCPs, 

and PRCRP, which we find acceptable, in addition to other agency requirements. As such, we 

conclude that the loss of forest habitat would not result in population-level impacts on migratory 

birds in the region. Based on Transco’s commitment to conduct vegetation clearing within the 

FWS-recommended timeframes, implementation of our recommendations above, and 

considering that the Project would involve an incremental expansion of an existing right-of-way, 

we conclude that impact on migratory birds (including BCC-listed species) would be minimal 

and effects on their habitat would be minimized. 

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species

Federal agencies are required under Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, to ensure that any 

actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency would not jeopardize the continued 

existence of a federally listed endangered or threatened species, or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of the designated critical habitat of a federally listed species. As the lead 

federal agency authorizing the Project, the FERC is required to consult with the FWS and/or 

NOAA Fisheries to determine whether federally listed endangered or threatened species or 

designated critical habitat are found in the vicinity of the Project, and to evaluate the proposed 

action’s potential effects on those species or critical habitats. 

For actions involving major construction activities with the potential to affect listed 

species or designated critical habitat, the lead federal agency must report its findings to the FWS 

and/or NOAA Fisheries in a Biological Assessment for those species that may be affected. If it 

is determined that the action is likely to adversely affect a listed species, the federal agency must 

submit a request for formal consultation to comply with Section 7 of the ESA. In response, the 

FWS and/or NOAA Fisheries would issue a Biological Opinion as to whether the federal action 

would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated critical habitat. 
Vegetation and Wildlife

84

Transco, acting as the FERC’s non-federal representative for the purpose of complying 

with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, initiated informal consultation with the New Jersey and 

Pennsylvania Field Offices of the FWS on February 8, 2013 and November 27, 2012, 

respectively, regarding federally listed threatened or endangered species potentially occurring in 

or near the Project area. The FWS identified four federally listed threatened or endangered 

species (bog turtle, Indiana bat, northeastern bulrush, and dwarf wedge mussel), one species 

proposed for federal listing (northern myotis or long-eared bat), and one other federally protected 

species (bald eagle) under its jurisdiction that are known to occur in the Project area. These 

species, their protection status, and their potential location in the Project area are summarized in 

table 2.3.3-2 and discussed below. Our informal Section 7 consultation and conference with the 

FWS is ongoing. Thus to comply with Section 7 of the ESA, we are requesting that the FWS 

consider this EA as our Biological Assessment for the Project. 

TABLE 2.3.3-2

Federally Listed Species Known or Potentially Occurring Within the Project Area

Species

Federal 

Status a

Pipeline Facilities

Aboveground 

Facilities Determination b

Skillman Loop 

(NJ)

Pleasant Run 

Loop (NJ)

Franklin 

Loop (PA)

Dorrance 

Loop (PA)

Bog Turtle T X X X -- -- NLAA

Indiana Bat E X X X X X NLAA

Northeastern

bulrush

E -- -- X -- X NE

Dwarf 

wedgemussel

E -- -- X -- -- NE

Northern Longeared batP X X X X X NLAA

_____________________

a Status Key

T = Threatened

E = Endangered

P = Proposed for Listing

b NLAA = Not Likely to Adversely Affect

NE = No Effect

Species Under FWS Jurisdiction 

Bog Turtle – The federally threatened bog turtle is the smallest native North American 

freshwater turtle, with average sizes (adult carapace length) ranging from 3.2 to 3.9 inches (Carr, 

1952). Bog turtles generally occupy open-canopy herbaceous sedge meadows, unpolluted 

emergent and scrub/shrub wetlands, sphagnum bogs, and fens bordered by wooded areas (FWS, 

2010). 

The New Jersey and Pennsylvania Field Offices of the FWS respectively indicated that 

the proposed Pleasant Run Loop and Franklin Loop are within the known range of the bog turtle 

and requested Phase I habitat surveys of all wetlands crossed by these loops. Although the bog 

turtle is also known to occur in the counties crossed by the Skillman Loop in New Jersey, the 

New Jersey Field Office of the FWS confirmed that Phase I surveys for the bog turtle would not 

be required for the Skillman Loop (FWS, 2013).
Vegetation and Wildlife

85

Transco completed Phase I bog turtle surveys of the Pleasant Run Loop during May and 

June 2013 in accordance with FWS protocols, and did not identify any wetlands possessing the 

characteristics of potential habitat for the bog turtle. In an e-mail dated December 12, 2013, the 

New Jersey Field Office of the FWS concurred with Transco’s findings that bog turtle habitat is 

not present along the Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops.

Transco completed Phase I bog turtle surveys of the Franklin Loop in Pennsylvania in 

May and June 2013 in accordance with FWS protocols, and identified eight wetlands within the 

proposed construction work area as having potential habitat for bog turtles (WW-001-014, WW001-016, WW-001-019, WW-001-020, WW-001-021, WW-001-028, WW-001-036, and WW001-037). Transco stated that it recently completed Phase II and Phase III surveys of these 

wetlands at the request of the FWS and did not identify any occupied wetlands. Transco plans to 

file the survey reports with the FERC and FWS upon their completion in the summer of 2014.

Section 7 consultation will not be concluded until the Pennsylvania Field Office of the 

FWS reviews the Phase II and Phase III survey reports and concurs with our determination in 

writing. Therefore, we recommend that:

 Transco should not begin construction of the Franklin Loop until:

a. Transco files the results of the Phase II and Phase III bog turtle 

survey with the Pennsylvania Field Office of the FWS and the 

Secretary;

b. the FERC staff completes any necessary Section 7 ESA consultation 

with the FWS; and 

c. Transco receives written notification from the Director of OEP that 

construction and/or use of mitigation (including implementation of 

conservation measures) may begin.

By implementing our recommendation, we conclude the Project is not likely to adversely 

affect the bog turtle. 

Indiana Bat – The federally endangered Indiana bat is relatively small, with a wingspan 

of 9 to 11 inches. Indiana bats hibernate during winter in caves or abandoned mines from 

October through April. For hibernation, they require cool, humid caves with stable temperatures, 

under 50 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) but above freezing. The hibernacula typically contain large 

numbers of bats and often have large rooms and vertical or extensive passages. 

When active, the Indiana bat roosts in dead trees, dying trees, or live trees with 

exfoliating bark. During the summer months, most reproductive females occupy roost sites that 

receive direct sunlight for more than half the day. Roost trees are generally found within canopy 

gaps in a forest, fence line, or along a wooded edge. Maternity roosts are found in riparian 

zones, bottomland and floodplain habitats, wooded wetlands, as well as upland communities. 

Indiana bats forage in semi-open to closed forested habitats, forest edges, and riparian areas 

(FWS, 2007).
Vegetation and Wildlife

86

In a letter dated March 19, 2013, the Pennsylvania Field Office of the FWS 

recommended that Transco restrict tree clearing between April 1 and November 15 in 

Pennsylvania to avoid direct impacts on the Indiana bat. This restriction applies to trees that are 

greater than or equal to 5 inches in diameter at breast height. The FWS also recommended that 

Transco retain shagbark hickory trees, dead and dying trees, and large diameter trees (greater 

than 12 inches diameter at breast height) to serve as roost trees for bats; and retain forested 

riparian corridors and forested wetland, where possible. 

In an e-mail dated March 25, 2013, the New Jersey Field Office of the FWS 

recommended that Transco restrict tree clearing between April 1 and September 30 in New 

Jersey to avoid direct impacts on the Indiana bat. Transco has agreed to the tree clearing timing 

restrictions recommended by the New Jersey and Pennsylvania Field Offices of the FWS. In 

addition, Transco filed a draft Indiana Bat Conservation Plan as part of its application that

includes conservation measures aimed at avoiding and minimizing impacts on the Indiana bat. 

Some of the measures in the plan include: 

 conducting vegetation surveys prior to construction to identify suitable bat 

foraging and roosting habitat, and avoiding and minimizing impacts on suitable 

trees in these areas;

 retaining a minimum buffer of at least 50 feet on each side of streams or wetlands 

crossed by temporary workspace; and

 providing for the short and long-term habitat needs of the Indiana bat by 

offsetting the effect of forest habitat loss that will result from the project by 

contributing to the Indiana Bat Conservation Fund.

Transco is planning to file a final Indiana Bat Conservation Plan with the Commission 

and the New Jersey and Pennsylvania Field Offices of the FWS in August 2014. Section 7 

consultation will not be concluded until the FWS reviews and concurs with the Final Indiana Bat 

Conservation Plan in writing. Therefore, we recommend that:

 Transco should not begin construction of the Project until:

a. Transco files the final Indiana Bat Conservation Plan with the New 

Jersey and Pennsylvania Field Offices of the FWS and the Secretary;

b. the FERC staff completes any necessary Section 7 ESA consultation 

with the FWS; and 

c. Transco receives written notification from the Director of OEP that 

construction and/or use of mitigation (including implementation of 

conservation measures) may begin. 

By implementing our recommendation and Transco’s commitments identified above, we 

believe the Project is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat. 
Vegetation and Wildlife

87

Northeastern Bulrush – The federally endangered northeastern bulrush is an obligate 

wetland plant found in small wetlands, sinkhole ponds, beaver ponds, or wet depressions with 

seasonally fluctuating water levels. In an e-mail dated April 30, 2014, the Pennsylvania Office 

of the FWS concluded that, because the Project would be located over 5 miles from a known site, 

the Project would have no effect on the northeastern bulrush. We agree with this determination.

Dwarf wedge mussel – The dwarf wedge mussel inhabits creek and river areas with a 

slow to moderate current and a sand, gravel, or muddy bottom. Documented populations in 

Pennsylvania are located in the upper Delaware River (Wayne and Pike Counties). In an e-mail 

dated April 30, 2014, the Pennsylvania Office of the FWS concluded that, because the Project 

would not cross the Delaware River, the Project would have no effect on the dwarf wedge 

mussel. We agree with this determination.

Blanket Authorizations for Modification of Aboveground Facilities

Transco obtained a blanket authorization from the Asheville Field Office (North 

Carolina) of the FWS for activities associated with modifications to existing aboveground 

facilities. The Asheville Field Office blanket authorization provides FWS concurrence that 

construction, maintenance, or miscellaneous rearrangement of facilities within existing rights-ofway or previously disturbed sites would not affect listed species. Transco also obtained a blanket 

authorization from the Virginia Field Office of the FWS providing concurrence that activities 

associated with modifications to existing aboveground facilities would not affect listed species. 

Due to the lack of suitable habitat within the facility boundaries and adjacent maintained rightof-way, we agree with this finding and consider ESA consultation complete in North Carolina 

and Virginia. Aboveground facility modifications in Maryland would also involve minor work 

largely within maintained facility fencelines or adjacent rights-of-way. Therefore, we have 

determined that the aboveground facilities in Maryland would have no effect on listed species 

and ESA consultation is complete for these facilities. 

Federally Proposed Species

On October 2, 2013, the FWS proposed the northern long-eared bat for listing as 

endangered under the ESA, with a final rule anticipated no later than April 2, 2015. The 

northern long-eared bat is a medium-sized bat species that is characterized by its medium to dark 

brown fur on its back, dark brown ears and wing membranes, and tawny- to pale-brown fur on 

the ventral side. The range includes New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. 

The northern long-eared bat predominantly overwinters in hibernacula that include caves 

and abandoned mines. During the summer, this species typically roosts singly or in colonies 

underneath bark or in cavities or crevices of both live trees and snags. Northern long-eared bats 

are also known to roost in human-made structures such as buildings, barns, sheds, and under 

eaves of windows. Threats to the northern long-eared bat include disease due to the emergence 

of white-nose syndrome, improper closure at hibernacula, degradation and destruction of 

summer habitat, and use of pesticides. If northern long-eared bats are present, tree clearing could 

potentially kill, injure, or disturb breeding or roosting bats. Northern long-eared bats could also 

be impacted by the loss of tree habitat if significant amounts of tree clearing were to occur.
Vegetation and Wildlife

88

In an e-mail dated December 2, 2013, the New Jersey Office of the FWS indicated that 

the Skillman Loop transects a northern long-eared bat maternity colony, and the Pleasant Run 

Loop is approximately 2 miles from a documented northern long-eared bat hibernaculum. 

Because the northern long-eared bat may be listed close to the approximate starting date of 

construction of the Project, the FWS has recommended that Transco implement the Northern 

Long-eared Bat Interim Conference and Planning Guidance for this species. Transco has agreed 

to comply with the Interim Guidance, which includes tree clearing restrictions. Transco 

continues to consult with the FWS to develop and implement appropriate avoidance and 

mitigation measures. We believe that the Project is not likely to jeopardize the northern longeared bat; however, we anticipate some adverse effects due to tree clearing. Therefore, we are 

requesting Section 7 conference for this species. We further recommend that: 

 Transco should not begin construction of the Project until:

a. the FERC staff completes any necessary Section 7 ESA conference 

with the FWS regarding the northern long-eared bat and any 

subsequent consultation, if necessary; and 

b. Transco receives written notification from the Director of OEP that 

construction and/or use of mitigation (including implementation of 

conservation measures) may begin. 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

The bald eagle is a large bird of prey whose range covers virtually all of North America. 

Although no longer federally listed under the ESA, the bald eagle is protected under the BGEPA 

and the MBTA. The BGEPA and MBTA prohibit killing, selling, or harming eagles or their 

nests, and the BGEPA also protect eagles from disturbances that may injure them, decrease 

productivity, or cause nest abandonment. 

Optimal roosting, foraging, and breeding habitats for the bald eagle include areas near 

waterbodies, such as lakes, rivers, and forested wetlands. Bald eagles typically prefer large trees 

for roosting and nesting. Bald eagles can be sensitive to human activity and disturbance and may 

abandon otherwise suitable habitat if disturbance is persistent (Fraser et al., 1985). The FWS 

identified one known bald eagle nest approximately 2 miles from the Franklin Loop where it 

intersects the Lehigh River. Transco conducted aerial helicopter surveys for raptor nests along 

the pipeline loops within an approximate 0.25-mile-wide corridor. No raptor nests were 

observed during the aerial survey. 

Wetland Mitigation Parcels

In New Jersey, Transco has initiated but not completed wetland permitting through the 

NJDEP and, thus, wetland mitigation sites, if necessary, have not been identified. In 

Pennsylvania, Transco would enhance and preserve a site in Lehigh County as mitigation for 

wetland impacts associated with the Project (see section 2.2.4). Transco reviewed the 

Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory to identify federal and state-listed species that may be 

present at the proposed mitigation site. The Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory response 

issued on September 13, 2013 indicated that no impacts on federal or state-listed species is 
Vegetation and Wildlife

89

anticipated at the site. However, additional consultation with the FWS identified potential bog 

turtle habitat within the proposed mitigation site. Transco stated that a Phase II bog turtle survey

was recently completed at this location and that no occupied wetlands were identified. Transco 

plans to file the results with the FERC and FWS in the summer of 2014. Therefore, we 

recommend that:

 Transco should not begin offsite mitigation activities in New Jersey or 

Pennsylvania until:

a. Transco files the results of the Phase II bog turtle survey at the 

proposed wetland mitigation site in Lehigh County with the 

Pennsylvania Field Office of the FWS and the Secretary;

b. Transco reviews any proposed wetland mitigation sites in New Jersey 

for federally listed threatened and endangered species and, if 

necessary, conducts surveys for identified species in accordance with 

FWS requirements, and files the results of these reviews and surveys 

with the New Jersey Field Office of the FWS and the Secretary; and

c. the FERC staff completes any necessary Section 7 ESA consultation 

with the FWS.

State Threatened and Endangered Species

New Jersey and Pennsylvania have regulatory requirements for state-listed species. In 

New Jersey, the New Jersey Natural Heritage Program (NJNHP), the Endangered and Nongame 

Species Program, and the Division of Land Use Regulation are responsible for administering the 

state endangered species laws. In Pennsylvania, three agencies are responsible for protecting 

threatened and endangered species: 1) the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PAGC) has 

jurisdiction over state-listed birds and mammals; 2) the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 

(PAFBC) monitors state-listed fish, reptiles, amphibians, and aquatic organisms; and 3) the 

PADCNR has jurisdiction over state-listed plants, natural communities, terrestrial invertebrates, 

and geological features. 

The Project activities associated with modifications to the aboveground facilities located 

in North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland would occur primarily within previously disturbed 

and maintained areas at the existing facility sites. Therefore, construction and operation of the 

Project in North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland would not significantly impact wildlife, 

including state listed rare species. 

A discussion of agency consultation, survey results, and proposed mitigation for statelisted species potentially occurring in the Project area is provided below and is summarized in 

table 2.3.3-2.

New Jersey 

Transco’s consultations with the NJNHP and FWS identified 23 threatened, endangered, 

special concern, and rare species under NJDEP jurisdiction that may occur near the Project 

facilities in New Jersey. These species included 13 birds, 1 mammal, 2 reptiles, and 7 plants. Of 
Vegetation and Wildlife

90

these, one is also a federally protected species (bald eagle), which is discussed earlier in this 

section. A summary of surveys and/or proposed mitigation for the remaining species is 

discussed below and summarized in table 2.3.3-3. 

The bobcat is found in the northern hardwood forests of New Jersey. Bobcats den in 

crevices in rocks, under fallen logs, in thick tangles of vegetation, or under the root mass of a 

fallen tree. Today the bobcat, though classified as endangered, appears to be fairly wellestablished in the northern hardwood forests of the state, perhaps even more widespread than 

many think. Their elusive nature makes them a challenge to study (NJDEP, 2014). Because 

bobcats range widely and are adept at avoiding humans, impacts on bobcat as a result of 

construction activities are expected to be minimal and mitigated by the species behavioral 

response to avoid the area. Following construction, it is expected that bobcat use of the right-ofway for foraging and travel would immediately resume. 

The wood turtle resides in both aquatic and terrestrial environments, unlike other turtle 

species that favor either land or water. Aquatic habitats are required for mating, feeding, and 

hibernation, while terrestrial habitats are used for egg laying and foraging. Freshwater streams, 

brooks, creeks, or rivers that are relatively remote provide the habitat needed by these turtles 

(NJDEP, 2014). The NJNHP identified portions of the Skillman Loop as containing potential 

wood turtle habitat. NJDEP provided the following best management practices for the wood 

turtle in a letter dated September 25, 2013:

 in-stream work should not be conducted between November 1 and April 1. In 

addition, minimize any stream flow change during this time to avoid impacts on

hibernating turtles;

 for construction in non-waterbody areas (especially critical in areas located 

between 0 and 250 meters from a stream edge) between March 15 and November 

15, employ a qualified herpetologist to review and clear the work area of turtles 

prior to initiating activities and erect temporary fencing in areas where turtles are 

present to keep turtles out of the work area;

 non-waterbody construction is permitted from December 1 to March 1 at any 

distance from the stream; and

 for non-waterbody work conducted between November 16 and November 30 or 

between March 1 and March 14, that is less than 10 meters from a wood turtle 

stream, employ a qualified herpetologist to review and clear the work area of 

turtles prior to initiating activities and erect temporary fencing in areas where 

turtles are present to keep turtles out of the work area.

Transco performed surveys for wood turtle habitat in September 2013 and identified 

potential habitat on both the Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops. Transco submitted the wood 

turtle survey report to the NJDEP in December 2013 and continues to consult with the NJDEP to 

develop and implement appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures for these species.
Vegetation and Wildlife

91

TABLE 2.3.3-3

State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Identified in the Vicinity of the Project

Species Name State Status Habitat Project Component Field Survey Results

Seasonal Timing Restrictions or 

Proposed Mitigation

New Jersey Species

Bobcat a Endangered Mixture of open areas, 

shrubland and expansive 

forests.

Skillman Loop No field surveys are planned. Best Management Practices

Wood Turtle a Threatened Riparian wetland and 

upland habitats

Skillman Loop Potential habitat identified on 

both Skillman and Pleasant Run 

Loops during habitat surveys 

completed in September 2013.

Best Management Practices; 

Transco is currently consulting with 

NJDEP to determine mitigation 

measures.

Northern Copperhead a Special 

Concern

Mixed and coniferous 

forest

Skillman Loop No field surveys are planned. Best Management Practices

Downy Phlox a, b Endangered Open woods and open 

meadows

Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops Not identified during rare plant 

species surveys completed in 

May, June, and September 

2013. 

None proposed due to absence of 

species from Project area.

Narrow-leaf Horsegentian a, bEndangered Rocky forests and 

woodlands

Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops Not identified during rare plant 

species surveys completed in 

May, June, and September 

2013. 

None proposed due to absence of 

species from Project area.

Frank’s Sedge a Rare Wetlands Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops Not identified during rare plant 

species surveys completed in 

May, June, and September 

2013. 

None proposed due to absence of 

species from Project area.

Cattail Sedge a Rare Wetlands Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops Not identified during rare plant 

species surveys completed in 

May and June 2013. 

None proposed due to absence of 

species from Project area.

Wild Comfrey a, b Special 

Concern

Wetlands Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops Seven populations identified 

along the Skillman Loop during 

rare plant species surveys 

completed in May, June, and 

September 2013.

Transco is currently consulting with 

NJDEP to determine mitigation 

measures.

Yellow Giant Hyssop a, b Special 

Concern

Wetlands Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops One population identified during 

rare plant species surveys 

completed September 2013.

Transco is currently consulting with 

NJDEP to determine mitigation 

measures.

Winged Monkey Flower a Rare River edges, swamps, 

shady stream banks, wet 

woods, marshes, wet 

meadows, ditches

Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops Six populations identified during 

rare plant species surveys 

completed September 2013.

Transco is currently consulting with 

NJDEP to determine mitigation 

measures.

Bobolink a, b Threatened Hayfields and pastures Skillman Loop No songbird surveys are 

proposed. 

Transco would implement 

vegetation clearing restrictions –

refer to section 2.3.3
Vegetation and Wildlife

92

TABLE 2.3.3-3

State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Identified in the Vicinity of the Project

Species Name State Status Habitat Project Component Field Survey Results

Seasonal Timing Restrictions or 

Proposed Mitigation

Eastern Meadowlark a, b Special 

Concern

Grasslands, prairies, 

lightly grazed pastures, 

mixed-grass hayfields

Skillman Loop No songbird surveys are 

proposed. 

Transco would implement 

vegetation clearing restrictions –

refer to section 2.3.3

Cooper’s Hawk a, b Special 

Concern

Forest edges and small 

openings along streams 

or roads

Skillman Loop Surveys in areas where tree 

cutting would occur would be 

conducted in spring 2014 to 

determine the presence of any 

raptor nests that would be 

impacted by the project. These 

surveys would also be 

conducted to identify the density 

of nesting birds in the area. 

Transco would implement 

vegetation clearing restrictions –

refer to section 2.3.3

Bald Eagle a, b Threatened Tall trees near riparian 

areas

Skillman Loop Transco conducted aerial 

helicopter surveys for raptor 

nests along the pipeline loops 

within an approximate 0.25 mile 

corridor. No raptor nests were 

observed during the aerial 

survey.

None proposed

Barred Owl a, b Threatened Mature wet woods 

containing large trees 

with cavities

Skillman Loop Surveys in areas where tree 

cutting would occur would be 

conducted in spring 2014 to 

determine the presence of any 

raptor nests that would be 

impacted by the project. These 

surveys would also be 

conducted to identify the density 

of nesting birds in the area. 

Transco would implement 

vegetation clearing restrictions –

refer to section 2.3.3

Wood Thrush a, b Special 

Concern

Deciduous or mixed 

forests with dense tree 

canopy and welldeveloped understory, 

especially near wetlands

Skillman Loop No songbird surveys are 

proposed. 

Transco would implement 

vegetation clearing restrictions –

refer to section 2.3.3

Grasshopper Sparrow a, b Threatened Grassland, upland 

meadow, pasture, 

hayfield, and old field 

habitats

Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops No songbird surveys are 

proposed. 

Transco would implement 

vegetation clearing restrictions –

refer to section 2.3.3

Great Blue Heron a, b Special 

Concern

Nests in both wetland 

and upland habitat near 

waterbodies

Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops No surveys proposed for this 

species.

Transco would implement 

vegetation clearing restrictions –

refer to section 2.3.3
Vegetation and Wildlife

93

TABLE 2.3.3-3

State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Identified in the Vicinity of the Project

Species Name State Status Habitat Project Component Field Survey Results

Seasonal Timing Restrictions or 

Proposed Mitigation

American Kestrel a, b Threatened Large open areas with 

short vegetation such as 

farmland, parkland, and 

livestock pastures

Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops Surveys in areas where tree 

cutting would occur would be 

conducted in spring 2014 to 

determine the presence of any 

raptor nests that would be 

impacted by the project. These 

surveys would also be 

conducted to identify the density 

of nesting birds in the area. 

Transco would implement 

vegetation clearing restrictions –

refer to section 2.3.3

Brown Thrasher b Special 

Concern

Dense thickets and 

shrub areas within 

deciduous forest 

clearings and forest edge

Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops No songbird surveys are 

proposed. 

Transco would implement 

vegetation clearing restrictions –

refer to section 2.3.3

Vesper Sparrow b Endangered Cultivated fields, 

grasslands, fallow fields, 

and pastures

Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops No songbird surveys are 

proposed. 

Transco would implement 

vegetation clearing restrictions –

refer to section 2.3.3

Long-eared Owl b Threatened Mosaic of wooded and 

open habitats

Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops Surveys in areas where tree 

cutting would occur would be 

conducted in spring 2014 to 

determine the presence of any 

raptor nests that would be 

impacted by the project. These 

surveys would also be 

conducted to identify the density 

of nesting birds in the area. 

Transco would implement 

vegetation clearing restrictions –

refer to section 2.3.3

Savannah Sparrow b Threatened Hay and alfalfa fields, 

fallow fields, grasslands, 

upland meadows, 

airports, pastures, and 

vegetated landfills

Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops No songbird surveys are 

proposed. 

Transco would implement 

vegetation clearing restrictions –

refer to section 2.3.3

Pennsylvania Species

Northern Flying Squirrel c Endangered Old growth boreal forests 

with heavy coniferous 

component

Franklin Loop No field surveys are proposed Avoid tree clearing between April 

15 and June 15; Transco is 

currently consulting with PGC to 

develop a Northern Flying Squirrel 

Mitigation Plan
Vegetation and Wildlife

94

TABLE 2.3.3-3

State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Identified in the Vicinity of the Project

Species Name State Status Habitat Project Component Field Survey Results

Seasonal Timing Restrictions or 

Proposed Mitigation

Eastern Small Footed 

Myotis c

Threatened Caves, mines, rock 

outcrops, and talus fields

Franklin Loop Preliminary cave/crevice 

surveys were conducted and 

results were filed with the 

Pennsylvania Game 

Commission in February 2014. 

Additional surveys will be 

conducted in spring 2014.

Transco is currently consulting with 

PGC to determine mitigation 

measures.

Canadian Serviceberry d Endangered Dorrance Loop One population identified during 

rare plant species surveys 

completed in June 2013.

See species discussion below for 

mitigation measures.

Few-seeded Sedge d Threatened Muck or beat bogs, along 

shores and in other wet 

places

Dorrance and Franklin Loops Not identified during rare plant 

species surveys completed in 

June 2013. 

None proposed due to absence of 

species from Project area.

Variable Sedge d Threatened Woodland margins, thin 

woods, and barrens in 

sandy-peaty soils

Dorrance and Franklin Loops Not identified during rare plant 

species surveys completed in 

June 2013. 

None proposed due to absence of 

species from Project area.

Long’s Sedge d Threatened Woodland margins, thin 

woods, and barrens in 

sandy-peaty soils

Dorrance and Franklin Loops Not identified during rare plant 

species surveys completed in 

June 2013. 

None proposed due to absence of 

species from Project area.

Blunt Manna-grass d Endangered Cedar swamps, swamps, 

bogs, and shallow water

Dorrance and Franklin Loops Not identified during rare plant 

species surveys completed in 

June 2013. 

None proposed due to absence of 

species from Project area.

Sweet-gale d Threatened Bogs and shallow water 

of lake and stream edges

Dorrance and Franklin Loops Not identified during rare plant 

species surveys completed in 

June 2013. 

None proposed due to absence of 

species from Project area.

White Water Crowfoot d Special 

Concern

Floodplains, streams, 

rivers, ponds, ditches, 

and marshes

Franklin Loop One population identified during 

rare plant species surveys 

completed in June 2013.

See species discussion below for 

mitigation measures.

___________________

a Species identified as potentially occurring within the Project area by NJNHP. 

b Species identified as potentially occurring within the Project area by the New Jersey Field Office of the FWS.

c Species identified as potentially occurring within the Project area by the PAGC.

d Species identified as potentially occurring within the Project area by PADCNR.

* Rare plant species are monitored by NJNHP but are not afforded protection under the New Jersey Endangered Plant Species List Act.
Vegetation and Wildlife

95

The northern copperhead favors rocky, wooded uplands and wooded wetlands; and may 

be found hiding in rotting woodpiles, or perfectly camouflaged on the leafy forest floor. The 

range for the northern copperhead includes rocky talus slopes and forest habitats in the Northern 

Region, but primarily in Sussex, Warren, Hunterdon, and Passaic Counties (NJDEP, 2014). 

Because northern copperheads are adept at avoiding humans, impacts on this species as a result 

of construction activities are expected to be minimal and mitigated by the species behavioral 

response to avoid the area. Transco would employ a biological monitor to clear an area for this 

species prior to construction.

Transco conducted targeted floristic surveys of the Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops in 

May, June, and September 2013 to determine the presence or absence of downy phlox, narrowleaf horse gentian, Frank’s sedge, cattail sedge, wild comfrey, and yellow giant hyssop. Seven 

populations of wild comfrey were found at various locations within deciduous forest habitat 

along the Skillman Loop, and one population of yellow giant hyssop was identified within a 

fallow field habitat. In addition, although not a target species, six populations of winged monkey 

flower were also found associated with two streams and a wetland (SS-010-002, SS-010-003, 

WW-002-010). Transco continues to consult with the NJDEP to develop and implement 

appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures for these species.

We conclude that no impacts would occur on downy phlox, narrow-leaf horse gentian, 

Frank’s sedge, or cattail sedge due to their confirmed absence in the Project area. 

The NJNHP and FWS identified 13 bird species as potentially occurring within the 

project area. As discussed in section 2.3.3, Transco has agreed to adopt vegetation clearing 

windows during construction. In addition, based on comments from the New Jersey Field Office 

of the FWS, Transco plans to conduct surveys in areas where tree cutting would occur in spring 

2014 to determine the presence of any raptor nests that would be impacted by the Project. These 

surveys would also be conducted to identify the density of nesting birds in the area. The survey 

results would be incorporated into Transco’s Migratory Bird Habitat Restoration Plan. 

Pennsylvania 

Transco’s consultations with the PAFBC, PADCNR, and PAGC regarding review of the 

Project facilities in Pennsylvania for potential impacts on species and resources of concern 

identified eight state-listed threatened, endangered, or special concern plant species that may 

occur along the Franklin and/or Dorrance Loops in Pennsylvania. The PAFBC also identified 

the northern long-eared bat as a species of concern in Pennsylvania, which is also proposed for 

federal listing and is discussed earlier in this section. In addition, consultation with the 

PADCNR and/or field surveys identified the following ecological communities identified as 

special concern resources along the Franklin Loop: red-spruce palustrine forest, leatherleaf 

sedge wetland, and low heath shrubland. Impacts and mitigation for these communities are 

discussed further in section 2.3.1. A summary of surveys and/or proposed mitigation for the 

remaining species is discussed below and summarized in table 2.3.3-2.

The northern flying squirrel is a small squirrel whose habitat is currently limited to 

northern conifer forests. Transco has agreed to avoid tree clearing activities between April 15 

and June 15 to avoid potential impacts on northern flying squirrel young that may be confined to 

the nest during this period, per the PAGC’s recommendation. In addition, at the request of the 
Vegetation and Wildlife

96

PAGC, Transco submitted detailed plans of the permanent and temporary right-of-way limits to 

illustrate avoidance and minimization of impacts on forested habitat adjacent to the existing, 

cleared right-of-way along the portion of the Franklin Loop where the northern flying squirrel is 

known to occur. Transco also evaluated various route variations and refinements for this 

particular area of concern, in response to the PAGC’s request. Transco continues to consult with 

the PAGC to develop a Northern Flying Squirrel Mitigation Plan.

The eastern small footed myotis is among the smallest bats in eastern North America. 

Habitat for this species includes caves and abandoned mines for hibernating during the winter 

months (generally mid-November through March); and caves, mines, talus areas associated with 

rocky ridge-tops, rock outcrops or ground level talus slopes for summer roosting (generally April 

through mid-November). The PAGC requested that Transco perform a habitat assessment for 

day roost habitat (all surface rock encountered). Transco conducted preliminary surface rock 

habitat surveys and provided the report to the PAGC in February 2014. Transco stated that it 

conducted additional cave/crevice and surface rock surveys in spring 2014 and determined that 

potential habitat for the eastern small footed myotis occurs within the Project Area. Transco

continues to consult with the PAGC to develop and implement appropriate avoidance and 

mitigation measures for this species. 

Transco conducted targeted floristic surveys of the Franklin and Dorrance Loops in June 

2013 to determine the presence or absence of few-seeded sedge, Canadian serviceberry, variable 

sedge, Long’s sedge, blunt manna-grass, and sweet-gale. Canadian serviceberry was found 

within a wetland (WW-001-010) along the Dorrance Loop. In addition, although not a target 

species, white water crowfoot was also found within waterbody SS-001-025. In a letter dated 

December 19, 2013, the PADCNR concluded that the Canadian serviceberry and white water 

crowfoot should not be directly impacted, but requested that Transco implement the following 

measures to further protect these species:

 install orange construction fencing to protect plants from accidental impacts;

 clean construction equipment prior to working in these areas to prevent the spread 

of invasive plant species; and

 begin work in areas not infested with invasive plant species and work toward 

areas that are infested to prevent further spread, if possible.

We conclude that no impacts would occur on few-seeded sedge, Canadian serviceberry, 

variable sedge, blunt manna-grass, or sweet-gale due to their confirmed absence in the Project 

area. 

General Impacts and Mitigation

In general, impacts on state-listed species would typically be similar to those described

for other plant and animal species in sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2. Transco continues to consult with 

state agencies to develop and implement appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures 

including timing restrictions, as necessary, to avoid adverse impacts on any rare plants and 

wildlife identified within the Project area. Given that some surveys for state-listed species are 

not yet completed, we recommend that: 
Vegetation and Wildlife

97

 Prior to construction, Transco should file with the Secretary any outstanding 

survey results for state-listed species and identify any additional mitigation 

measures developed in consultation with the applicable state agencies.

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

RESOURCES

2.4.1 Land Use

Land use in the Project area consists primarily of open, forest, agricultural, and 

commercial/industrial uses. The Project would require 796.7 acres for construction. Upon 

completion, Transco would maintain 79.6 acres as new permanent easement, 1.3 acres for 

aboveground facilities, and 3.1 acres for access roads. The remaining 712.7 acres would be 

restored and allowed to revert to preconstruction uses, with the exception of about 26.8 acres of 

forest land within the 79.6-acre right-of-way, which would be permanently converted to open 

land. 

Pipeline Facilities

Transco would utilize 50 feet of existing, cleared right-of-way for the loops, thus 

reducing construction-related impacts. Transco would also require the use of ATWS during 

construction at several locations where specialized construction techniques would be used such 

as road and wetland crossings. 

The permanent right-of-way for the proposed loops would typically be 50 feet wide, 

consisting of 25 feet of right-of-way already maintained for operation of its existing pipelines 

and 25 feet of new right-of-way. Transco would reduce its permanent right-of-way at several 

locations where the potential for structure placement and nearby large trees and vegetation exists. 

The land retained as permanent right-of-way would generally be allowed to revert to 

former use; however, certain activities such as the construction of aboveground structures would 

be prohibited. To facilitate pipeline inspection, operation, and maintenance, the entire permanent 

right-of-way in upland areas would be cleared of woody vegetation and maintained in an 

herbaceous/scrub-shrub vegetated state. This maintained right-of-way would be mowed no more 

than once every 3 years. Additionally, to facilitate routine patrols and emergency access, a 10-

foot-wide strip centered over the pipeline would be mowed annually. In wetland areas, trees 

within 15 feet of the pipeline centerline with roots that could compromise the integrity of the 

pipeline coating may be selectively cut and removed. As discussed in section 1.2.1, aerial 

photograph-based alignment sheets depicting the construction and permanent right-of-way 

configurations for the proposed loops can be viewed on the FERC Internet website 

(http://www.ferc.gov).

Table 2.4.1-1 summarizes the acres of each land use type that would be affected by 

construction and operation of the loops. Construction of the pipeline facilities, including ATWS, 

would temporarily affect 413.9 acres of land, of which 79.6 acres would be retained as new 

permanent right-of-way. The remaining 334.3 acres used for temporary construction right-ofway would be allowed to revert to prior uses following construction.
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

98

TABLE 2.4.1-1

Land Affected by Construction and Operation of the Pipeline Facilities (acres) a

State/Facility

Open Land Agricultural

Commercial/

Industrial Forest Land Residential

Waterbodies/

Wetlands Total

Con b Op c Con Op Con Op Con Op Con Op Con Op Con Op

New Jersey

Skillman Loop

Pipeline Right-of-Way

Outside Existing Maintained Right-of-Way 16.2 7.4 2.7 1.0 1.1 0.0 13.8 5.9 2.7 1.0 2.2 1.3 38.7 16.6

Within Existing Maintained Right-of-Way 11.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.5 0.0 15.2 0.0

Additional Temporary Workspace 7.5 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.6 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 18.8 0.0

Pleasant Run Loop

Pipeline Right-of-Way

Outside Existing Maintained Right-of-Way 24.3 9.4 6.5 2.7 2.3 0.1 15.0 2.9 4.0 1.2 2.0 0.8 54.1 17.1

Within Existing Maintained Right-of-Way 24.3 0.0 3.5 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 32.9 0.0

Additional Temporary Workspace 12.4 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 20.7 0.0

New Jersey Subtotal 95.7 16.8 23.8 3.7 5.0 0.1 34.4 8.8 14.9 2.2 6.6 2.1 180.4 33.7

Pennsylvania

Franklin Loop

Pipeline Right-of-Way

Outside Existing Maintained Right-of-Way 21.3 15.5 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.1 42.6 14.9 1.0 0.1 11.1 5.4 77.6 36.0

Within Existing Maintained Right-of-Way 55.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 5.2 0.0 63.8 0.0

Additional Temporary Workspace 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.0 0.0 19.2 0.0

Dorrance Loop

Pipeline Right-of-Way

Outside Existing Maintained Right-of-Way 9.3 6.1 1.4 0.3 0.4 0.0 17.6 3.1 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.4 29.9 9.9

Within Existing Maintained Right-of-Way 34.2 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 37.5 0.0

Additional Temporary Workspace 2.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 5.5 0.0

Pennsylvania Subtotal 130.8 21.6 3.1 0.3 2.9 0.1 70.8 18.0 3.9 0.1 22.0 5.8 233.5 45.9

Project Total 226.5 38.4 26.9 4.0 7.9 0.2 105.2 26.8 18.8 2.3 28.6 7.9 413.9 79.6

____________________

a

Includes the temporary and permanent right-of-way and additional temporary workspace areas. 

b For the loops, assumes a 105-foot-wide construction right-of-way in upland areas, including 50 feet of existing permanent right-of-way and 55 feet of temporary construction 

workspace, and a 75-foot-wide construction right-of-way in wetlands. 

c For the loops, assumes a 25-foot-wide area at most locations where structures would be precluded from being installed within the new permanent, operational right-of-way. 

This is in addition to the 50 feet of existing permanent right-of-way for the existing Transco pipelines where structures are already precluded from being installed. 

Note: The totals shown in this table may not equal the sum of addends due to rounding.

Con = construction; Op = operation
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

99

Aboveground Facilities

The majority of land use impacts associated with the Project at aboveground facilities 

would occur within existing fenced and developed areas, would not affect land already being 

used for facility operation, and would not result in a land use change. Approximately 290.0 

acres of land would be required for modifications to and installation of aboveground facilities 

(see table 1.9-1). This includes 260.8 acres at existing compressor stations, which would 

temporarily affect primarily agricultural, open, forest, and commercial/industrial land within the 

facility fencelines. No permanent land conversions would occur as a result of the proposed 

activities at compressor stations. Another 23.2 acres of land would be temporarily affected by 

modifications to, removal of, and/or installation of MLVs and pig launcher/receivers, and M&R 

stations within existing facility fencelines. Additionally, of the total area affected at 

aboveground facility sites, about 5.9 acres of land would be newly affected within the existing 

facility fenceline. Of the newly affected land, 1.3 acres would be affected by permanent changes 

to the land use (e.g., open land would be converted to commercial/industrial land) beyond that 

already being experienced at the site. Table 2.4.1-2 lists the impacts associated with new 

temporary land use impacts and permanent land use changes at the MLV and M&R sites. 

Contractor/Pipe Storage Yards and Contractor Staging Areas

Transco proposes to use 5 contractor/pipe storage yards and 12 contractor staging areas 

on a temporary basis to support construction activities (see table 2.4.1-3). These yards would 

temporarily affect 85.5 acres of land, consisting of commercial/industrial land, open, forest, 

wetlands, waterbodies, and agricultural land. Upon completion of construction, the yards would 

be restored in accordance with Transco’s Plan and Procedures, and prior use of the sites would 

continue.

Access Roads

While public roads and the construction right-of-way would be used for primary access to 

project workspaces, Transco proposes to:

 build and permanently maintain 2 roads for operations; 

 permanently maintain 6 existing roads for operations (2 of which do not require 

modifications);

 build 3 new roads for temporary use, which would be returned to preconstruction 

conditions following construction; and 

 modify 12 private, existing roads for temporary access during construction (see 

appendix B). 

Of the proposed access roads, 15 are associated with yard and pipeline right-of-way 

access and 8 are associated with aboveground facility access. The majority of these roads have a 

gravel, dirt, or vegetation surface and would require surface modification, widening, and tree 

clearing based on the equipment that would use the road. Modifications to existing temporary 

access roads would affect 1.3 acres of land in New Jersey and 6.0 acres of land in Pennsylvania 

during construction. Permanent access roads would affect 2.3 acres of land in New Jersey and 

0.8 acre of land in Pennsylvania. 
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

100

TABLE 2.4.1-2

Land Affected by Aboveground Facilities Associated with the Project (acres)

Facility County, State

Land Use

Open

Commercial/

Industrial Forest Total

Con a Op b Con Op Con Op Con Op

MLVs

200D27 Mercer County, NJ 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3

505LD90 Monroe County, PA 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

505LD @ MP 63.19 Monroe County, PA <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1

515LD @ MP 17.70 Luzerne County, PA 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5

515LD @ MP 22.97 Luzerne County, PA 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2

M&R Stations

Columbia Gas of Virginia - Alta 

Vista M&R Station

Pittsylvania County, VA <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 <0.1

Columbia Gas of Virginia –

Brookneal M&R Station

Campbell County, VA 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 <0.1

Columbia Gas of Virginia –

Lynchburg M&R Station

Appomattox County, VA <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 <0.1

Columbia Gas of Virginia - Virginia 

Fibre M&R Station

Appomattox County, VA 0.0 0.0 0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 <0.1

CVG Bear Garden Interconnect 

M&R Station

Buckingham County, VA 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0

Columbia Gas of Virginia –

Scottsville M&R Station

Fluvanna County, VA 0.0 0.0 0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 <0.1

Tenaska, Inc. - Antioch M&R 

Station

Fluvanna County, VA 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0

Columbia Gas - Louisa Road M&R 

Station

Louisa County, VA 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0

Columbia Gas - Boswells Tavern

M&R Station

Louisa County, VA <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.0

Columbia Gas - Gordonsville CoGen M&R StationLouisa County, VA 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.0

Columbia Gas Transmission -

Fredericksburg M&R Station

Culpepper County, VA <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1

ODEC Marsh Run M&R Station Fauquier County, VA 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.0

Columbia Gas - Remington M&R 

Station

Fauquier County, VA 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0

Dominion Transmission –

Nokesville M&R Station

Prince William County, 

VA

0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.0

Columbia Gas - Prince William 

M&R Station

Prince William County, 

VA

0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0

Washington Gas Light - Bull Run 

M&R Station

Prince William County, 

VA

0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0

Dominion Transmission - Pleasant 

Valley Interconnect M&R Station

Fairfax County, VA 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0

Washington Gas Light - Herndon 

M&R Station

Fairfax County, VA <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 <0.1

Rockville M&R Station Montgomery County, MD 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0

Westmore Road M&R Station Montgomery County, MD 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.0

Washington Gas - Rock Creek 

M&R Station

Montgomery County, MD 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0

Project Total 1.7 0.9 3.9 <0.1 0.3 0.3 5.9 1.3

___________________

a Construction-related impacts associated with modifications to existing aboveground facilities consist of temporary impacts 

within the existing fenceline. 

b Operation-related impacts associated with modifications to existing aboveground facilities consist of permanent impacts 

within the existing fenceline. 

Con = construction; Op = operation
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

101

TABLE 2.4.1-3

Land Use Impacts Associated with Contractor/Pipe Storage Yards and Contractor Staging Areas

Segment/Facility County, State Existing Land Use

Temporary 

Impacts (acres)

Skillman Loop

CSA/CY/PY-SK-01 a Mercer County, NJ Commercial/Industrial, Open, Forest 5.7

CSA/CY/PY-SK-02 a Somerset County, NJ Commercial/Industrial, Open, Forest 1.9

CSA/CY/PY-SK-03 b Somerset County, NJ Agricultural, Open 7.0

Subtotal 14.6

Pleasant Run Loop

CSA/CY/PY-PR-01 a Somerset County, NJ Commercial/Industrial 0.7

CSA/CY/PY-PR-02 b Somerset County, NJ Commercial/Industrial 8.5

CSA/CY/PY-PR-07 a Hunterdon County, NJ Commercial/Industrial, Open, Forest, Residential 0.4

Subtotal 9.6

Franklin Loop

CSA/CY/PY-FR-05 Mount Effort 

Pipe Storage/Contractor Yard a, c

Monroe County, PA Commercial/Industrial, Open, Wetland 22.6

CSA/CY/PY-FR-06 b Monroe County, PA Commercial/Industrial, Open 5.0

CSA/CY/PY-FR-01 a Monroe County, PA Commercial/Industrial, Open, Residential, 

Wetland

1.4

CSA/CY/PY-FR-02 a Monroe County, PA Commercial/Industrial, Open 1.8

CSA/CY/PY-FR-03 a Monroe County, PA Commercial/Industrial, Open 0.6

CSA/CY/PY-FR-04 a Luzerne County, PA Commercial/Industrial, Open, Forest, 

Waterbody/Wetland

19.9

Subtotal 51.3

Dorrance Loop

CSA/CY/PY-DO-01 a Luzerne County, PA Commercial/Industrial, Open, Forest, Wetland 1.1

CSA/CY/PY-DO-02 a Luzerne County, PA Commercial/Industrial, Open, Agricultural 0.7

CSA/CY/PY-DO-03 b Luzerne County, PA Commercial/Industrial, Open, Forest, Agricultural 6.4

CSA/CY/PY-DO-04 a Luzerne County, PA Forest 1.3

CSA/CY/PY-DO-05 a Luzerne County, PA Commercial/Industrial, Open, Forest 0.5

Subtotal 10.0

Project Total 85.5

____________________

a Contractor staging area.

b Contractor/pipe storage yard.

c Yard would also be used for the Skillman, Pleasant Run, and Dorrance Loops; land use impacts are accounted for with 

the Franklin Loop.

Additional Temporary Workspace

In addition to the construction right-of-way previously noted, Transco identified certain 

areas where site-specific conditions require the use of ATWS in addition to the nominal 

construction rights-of-way. ATWS generally would be required in areas where the pipeline route 

crosses wetlands and waterbodies; steep side slopes; bedrock outcrops; agricultural land; and 

roads, railroads, and existing utilities. As listed in table 2.4.1-1, a total of 64.2 acres of ATWS 

would be used during the construction of the Project; a full list is included in appendix E. 
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

102

2.4.2 General Impacts

Open Land

Open land includes open space (e.g., existing right-of-way, vacant land), grassland, 

pasture/hay, and scrub-shrub upland. Tables 2.4.1-1, 2.4.1-2, and 2.4.1-3 list the Project’s 

construction and operation impacts on open land. 

The majority of the open land that would be impacted by the Project is associated with 

either Transco’s existing rights-of-way or aboveground facilities. Construction-related impacts 

on open land would include the removal of vegetation and disturbance of the soils. These 

impacts would be temporary and short term and would be minimized by implementation of 

Transco’s Plan and Procedures. Following construction, most open land uses would be able to 

continue and would likely return to preconstruction conditions in 1 to 5 years. 

Forest Land

Forest land includes upland forest or woodland, except forested wetlands. Tables 2.4.1-1, 

2.4.1-2, and 2.4.1-3 list the construction and operation impacts associated with the Project on 

forest land.

As discussed in more detail in section 2.3.1, construction of the Project in forested areas 

would require the removal of trees to prepare the construction work areas. However, Transco 

would minimize forest land impacts by locating the proposed facilities within existing rights-ofway, minimizing the construction workspace, and utilizing open or agricultural land for 

aboveground facilities or contractor/pipe yards and contractor staging areas to the extent 

possible. Following construction, disturbed areas would be restored to current conditions to the 

extent possible, in accordance with Transco’s Plan and Procedures. Although trees cleared 

within temporary construction work areas would be allowed to regenerate to preconstruction 

conditions following construction, impacts on forest resources within these areas would be long 

term. 

We received comments from Montgomery Township regarding impacts on wooded 

portions of a number of Township- and privately owned properties that are also held by the 

Township as Green Acres easements. In response to these comments, Transco has stated it 

would reduce the typical construction corridor across these wooded areas from 105 feet wide to 

85 feet wide.

Following construction, permanent impacts would occur over the maintained portion of 

the right-of-way and aboveground facilities where forest land would be converted to open land. 

In addition, the clearing of Transco’s permanent easement every 3 years would prevent forest 

overstory vegetation from attaining a mature size and, thus, would permanently alter the nature 

of the affected forest land. 

Agricultural Land

Agricultural land includes croplands that are being actively cultivated. Tables 2.4.1-1 

and 2.4.1-3 list the construction and operation impacts associated with the Project on agricultural 
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

103

land. Agricultural lands that would be impacted by the Project are primarily used for raising 

crops, including buckwheat, hay, corn, and greenhouse and nursery stock plants as the most 

common commodities grown in farmed areas of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. 

Construction on annually cultivated agricultural land is described in section 1.6.1. The 

effects of construction on agricultural land would be expected to be minor and short term. Shortterm impacts on agricultural areas would include the loss of standing or row crops within the 

construction work area and the disruption of farming operations for the growing season during 

the year of construction. To reduce these impacts, Transco would adhere to the measures 

outlined in its Plan and Procedures. These measures include testing the topsoil and subsoil for 

compaction at regular intervals in areas disturbed by construction activities; strictly controlling 

equipment traffic on agricultural land to minimize compaction and rutting; and plowing severely 

compacted soil. To preserve soil fertility in agricultural land, the entire topsoil layer (to a 

maximum depth of 12 inches) would be stripped from either the pipeline trench and subsoil 

storage area or the full construction right-of-way, as stipulated in landowner agreements, and 

stored separately from the subsoil for replacement after backfilling the trench. 

Transco would be responsible for repairing or replacing any drain tiles or irrigation 

systems damaged by Project construction. Transco would employ specialists to verify that the 

repairs made have been successful. Following construction, Transco would monitor the function 

of encountered drainage systems after construction to ensure that performance of drain tile 

systems remains consistent with performance prior to construction.

Active pasture land crossed by the pipeline loops would be protected by securing existing 

fences and installing temporary gates to control livestock. 

Also included as an agricultural land use are several specialty crop areas and horse 

pastures (see table 2.4.2-1). 

TABLE 2.4.2-1

Specialty Agricultural Areas Crossed by the Project

Loop/Milepost Type Mitigation Measures

Skillman Loop

1778.7 Pasture Horses – Transco is still discussing options with the landowner

1779.3 Organic Farm Do not apply pesticides or herbicides and do no block farm access route for animals and 

tractors; HDD would minimize land disturbance

Pleasant Run Loop

2.0 Pasture Horses – the landowner has refused to discuss options with Transco

2.6 Pasture Board horses off site

2.7 Pasture Temporary fencing

3.7 Pasture Temporary fencing but may need boarding of horses off site

5.2 Pasture Horses can be moved to alternate pastures; improvements to alternate pastures will be done

5.9 Pasture Board horses off site

Franklin Loop

65.0 Pasture Board horses off site

Dorrance Loop

18.9 Pasture New fence and gates to be put up during pipeline construction

19.4 Pasture New fence and walkway for horses to enter barn during pipeline construction
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

104

Transco is working with these landowners to determine additional crossing procedures 

that may be required for these specialty agricultural lands, such as topsoil segregation in all 

agricultural and pasture areas, temporary safety fencing, off-site boarding of animals, and/or 

avoiding the use of pesticides on or near organic farms. 

Following construction, Transco would implement the restoration practices outlined in its 

Plan and Procedures. Agricultural crops would be allowed to return within the permanent rightof-way and uses would continue as before construction. Transco would monitor crops in 

agricultural areas during the first and second growing seasons after seeding, and if necessary, 

complete additional restoration. 

New Jersey

The Skillman and Pleasant Run loops would cross 12 properties enrolled in the Farmland 

Preserve Program, as listed in table 2.4.2-2. 

TABLE 2.4.2-2

Farmland Preserve Program Easements Affected by the Project (acres)

Loop/Begin Milepost End Milepost Const. Impacts Op. Impacts

Additional Temp. 

Workspace Yards 

Skillman Loop

1778.6 1778.6 3.9 1.9 1.1 0.0

1779.0 1779.4 3.6 1.8 1.3 0.0

1780.5 1781.0 6.6 2.2 1.6 0.0

Pleasant Run Loop

0.4 1.0 11.1 5.2 3.2 0.0

2.6 2.6 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.0

2.9 3.1 2.6 0.8 0.1 0.0

3.5 3.7 2.2 0.6 0.4 0.0

3.7 3.8 1.4 0.4 0.3 0.0

4.7 4.6 2.8 0.9 0.0 0.0

5.2 5.7 7.1 2.2 2.1 4.6

5.7 5.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Project Total 42.2 16.3 10.2 4.6

The Farmland Preserve Program is administered by the State Agriculture Development 

Committee, and consists of land that meets the Committee’s minimum eligibility criteria, 

qualifies for farmland tax assessment, and is part of an agricultural development area (i.e., 

farming is viable over the long term). Landowners who sell their development easements to the 

Farmland Preserve Program still own their land, but must develop the land for agricultural use. 

Such deed restrictions remain in force for any future landowners and ensure that the land is 

forever protected for agricultural use. 

There is no mechanism for diverting lands from New Jersey’s Farmland Preserve 

Program. Deed restrictions prohibit non-agricultural development on these lands. Therefore, 

Transco would negotiate with each landowner for a right-of-way across his/her lands. If an 

agreement cannot be reached, Transco would need to initiate condemnation proceedings at the 

appropriate time in order to secure the right-of-way and remove the program restrictions.
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

105

Pennsylvania 

Agricultural Security Areas – the Franklin and Dorrance Loops would cross eight 

Agricultural Security Area (ASA) properties, as listed in table 2.4.2-3. 

TABLE 2.4.2-3

Agricultural Security Areas Affected by the Project (acres)

Loop/Begin Milepost End Milepost Const. Impacts Op. Impacts 

Additional Temp. 

Workspace Yards 

Franklin Loop

58.8 59.4 7.0 2.9 0.7 0.0

Dorrance Loop

17.8 18.3 2.2 0.4 0.0 0.7

18.3 18.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

18.4 18.6 3.0 1.4 0.3 0.0

18.7 19.0 3.6 1.7 0.5 0.0

19.0 19.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

19.7 20.2 6.3 3.0 0.2 6.5

20.2 20.4 2.6 1.3 0.5 0.0

Project Total 24.8 10.7 2.2 7.2

An ASA is a unit of land of 250 or more acres reserved for agricultural production of 

crops, livestock, or livestock products that have been designated as such10 (Pennsylvania Code, 

2012). Enrollment as an ASA is voluntary. An ASA property is provided protection from laws 

prohibiting agriculture activities and requires entities seeking to acquire ASA land by eminent 

domain to obtain advance approval from the Agricultural Lands Condemnation Approval Board 

of the Commonwealth, per section 13 of the act (3 P.S. § 913) (Pennsylvania Code, 2012). A 

designation of ASA does not prohibit the landowner from allowing oil or gas development on the 

land (Wolfgang, 2011), and the pipeline would not disqualify a property from its current 

enrollment status. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the Project would impact ASA

designations. 

Clean and Green Program – The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture oversees and 

administers the Clean and Green Program, established under the Pennsylvania Farmland and 

Forest Land Assessment Act, also referred to as Act 319. The program was developed to 

preserve and protect farmland and forested areas throughout the state. The Clean and Green 

Program provides a tax benefit to owners of agricultural or forest land by basing property taxes 

on the use value of the land as compared to its market value. Individual owners who agree to 

solely devote their lands to agricultural use, agricultural reserve, or forest reserve are given 

preferential assessment. Table 2.4.2-4 lists the Clean and Green properties crossed by portions 

of the construction work area associated with the Franklin and Dorrance Loops. 

 

10 Pennsylvania Code 1967 P. L. 992, No. 442 and 32 P. S. § § 5001 – 5012
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

106

TABLE 2.4.2-4

Clean and Green Program Areas Affected by the Project (acres)

Loop/Begin Milepost End Milepost Const. Impacts Op. Impacts 

Additional Temp. 

Workspace Yards 

Franklin Loop

58.2 58.7 6.9 2.5 2.0 0.0

58.8 59.4 7.0 2.9 0.7 0.0

61.0 61.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0

62.6 62.9 2.7 1.0 0.2 0.0

62.9 63.0 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0

63.0 63.4 4.4 1.7 0.6 0.0

63.4 63.8 4.7 1.8 0.0 0.0

63.3 64.2 2.9 1.1 0.1 0.0

64.8 65.0 2.5 1.3 0.3 0.0

64.8 65.0 0.9 0.0 0.8 0.0

65.1 65.5 5.2 1.9 0.6 0.0

65.9 66.4 7.0 2.3 0.1 0.0

66.4 67.0 8.7 2.7 1.6 0.0

Dorrance Loop

18.3 18.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

18.4 18.6 3.0 1.4 0.3 0.0

18.7 19.0 3.6 1.7 0.5 0.0

19.0 19.1 2.1 1.0 0.3 0.0

19.1 19.2 1.5 0.7 0.1 0.0

19.2 19.4 1.5 0.7 0.1 0.0

19.3 19.6 0.0 0.0 <0.01 0.0

19.7 20.2 6.3 3.0 0.2 6.5

20.2 20.4 2.6 1.3 0.5 0.0

20.4 20.6 3.0 1.4 0.0 0.0

20.7 20.9 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.0

20.9 21.3 5.3 2.5 0.6 0.0

21.3 21.7 5.2 2.5 0.0 0.0

21.7 22.0 3.8 1.8 0.1 0.0

22.0 22.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0

22.2 22.7 1.8 0.9 0.6 0.0

Project Total 94.2 38.9 10.7 6.5

Transco has limited the proposed construction right-of-way width to 105 feet in uplands 

and 75 feet in wetlands along the Franklin and Dorrance Loops, and would implement the 

construction methods described in its Plans and Procedures. Following construction, Transco 

would typically retain 20 feet of new permanent right-of-way. Agricultural uses would continue 

normally after construction and forest land would be permanently removed from the new 

operational right-of-way. Based on recent amendments to Act 319 (Act 88 of 2010), landowners 

participating in the Clean and Green Program are protected from roll-back taxes due to the 

development of a gas well or installation of a pipeline on their property. Under Act 88, land 

subject to preferential assessment may be used for exploration for, and removal of, gas and oil, 

which includes the development of appurtenant facilities, including new roads and bridges, 

pipelines, and other buildings or structures related to those activities (Conservation Tools.org, 

2012). Because of these amendments, construction and operation of the Project would not 
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

107

disqualify landowners currently enrolled in the Clean and Green Program from receiving tax 

benefits, and parcels enrolled in the Clean and Green Program are expected to maintain their 

eligibility. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the Project would affect a property’s status within 

the Clean and Green Program. 

Waterbodies/Wetlands

Waterbodies and wetlands include areas of open water and field-delineated wetlands, 

including forested wetlands. Tables 2.4.1-1 and 2.4.1-3 list the construction and operation 

impacts associated with the Project on waterbodies and wetlands. 

The temporary and permanent construction impacts would be minimized by reducing the 

nominal construction right-of-way width to 75 feet in wetland areas along the proposed loops 

and implementing the special wetland and waterbody construction techniques described in 

section 1.6.2 and in Transco’s Procedures. Sensitive waterbodies are discussed in section 2.2.2. 

Wetland impacts by type are discussed in section 2.2.4.

Residential Land

Residential land includes developed residential areas, including residentially zoned areas 

that have been developed or short segments of the route near road crossings with clusters of 

homes near the route alignment. Residential structures identified within 50 feet of the Project are 

listed in appendix K. Residential lands may also overlap with other land use categories such as 

forested, open, and wetland. Although the impacts identified are based on land use type, we 

discuss residential impacts for all residences in section 2.4.4 regardless of land use category. A 

detailed description of impacts and mitigation on residences is discussed in section 2.4.4. 

Construction methods proposed for residential areas are described in section 1.6.2.

Commercial/Industrial Land

Commercial/industrial land includes utility stations, paved areas, roads, commercial or 

retail facilities, and manufacturing or industrial plants. Tables 2.4.1-1, 2.4.1-2, and 2.4.1-3 list 

the construction and operation impacts associated with the Project on commercial/industrial land.

Commercial/industrial lands affected by the Project primarily consist of previously 

disturbed land. Commercial/industrial structures identified within 50 feet of the Project are listed 

in appendix K. Patrons of retail and other businesses could be temporarily impacted during 

pipeline construction by increased dust from exposed soils, construction noise, and traffic 

congestion. Transco would minimize impacts on commercial land uses such as retail and 

businesses by coordinating private driveway crossings with business owners so as to maintain 

vehicle access. Steel plates and/or wood mats would be kept on site at all times to create as 

necessary a temporary platform for access. Road surfaces would be restored as soon as 

practicable so that normal access can resume, and commercial/industrial land uses would be 

restored to preconstruction conditions, or as specified in landowner agreements. 

The proposed loops would cross 46 roadways, ranging from maintained local paved roads 

to state highways, and 2 railroads (see table 2.5.3-1). These roadways and railroads would be 

crossed using conventional road bore or open-cut methods as described in section 1.6.2. The 
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

108

bore crossing method allows the roadway to remain in service while the installation process takes 

place, resulting in little or no disruption to traffic. In the event of an open-cut crossing of a 

roadway, impacts would include short-term traffic congestion and disruption. To minimize these 

impacts, Transco would consult with local law enforcement and safety officials to develop 

temporary traffic control plans. Because traffic may be diverted via temporary roads and 

driveways, traffic control would be implemented via warning signs and/or flagmen. Following 

construction, roadways would be restored to preconstruction conditions. 

We received comments from Montgomery Township requesting that certain roads that 

are crossed by the Project be reconstructed to the full width indicated in the Township’s Master 

Plan, and that other road segments not affected by the Project be reconstructed by Transco. As 

discussed above, Transco would restore all roads to preconstruction conditions following 

construction. In addition, Transco has stated it would seek road opening permits prior to 

construction.

Commercial/industrial land uses would be allowed to return within the permanent rightof-way and uses would continue as before construction, with the exception of commercial/

industrial structures within the permanent right-of-way, which would either be removed or 

relocated (primarily sheds that have encroached upon existing rights-of-way (see appendix K). 

2.4.3 Land Ownership and Easement Requirements

Pipeline operators must obtain easements from landowners to construct and operate 

natural gas facilities, or acquire the land on which the facilities would be located. An easement 

agreement between a company and a landowner typically specifies compensation for losses 

resulting from construction, including losses of non-renewable and other resources, damages to 

property during construction, and restrictions on existing uses that would not be permitted on the 

permanent right-of-way after construction. Landowners would be compensated for the use of 

their land through the easement negotiation process. 

For this Project, Transco’s existing permanent easements associated with its existing 

pipelines give Transco the right to maintain the right-of-way as necessary for pipeline operation, 

including the periodic removal of larger vegetation and trees, as needed. In some areas, Transco 

has sited the Project facilities entirely within its existing permanent easement, in which case 

Transco would not need to acquire additional land or permanent easements. In other areas, 

Transco would need to acquire new easements or acquire the necessary land to construct and 

operate the Project. The easements would convey both temporary (for construction) and 

permanent rights-of-way to Transco and would give Transco the right to construct, operate, and 

maintain the pipeline and related facilities. 

If an easement cannot be negotiated (or renegotiated) with a landowner and the 

Commission authorizes the Project, Transco may use the right of eminent domain granted to it 

under Section 7(h) of the NGA and the procedures set forth under the Federal Rules of Civic 

Procedure (Rule 71A) to obtain the right-of-way and ATWS areas necessary to construct and 

operate the Project. Transco would still be required to compensate the landowner for the rightof-way and damages incurred during construction. However, the level of compensation would 

be determined by a court according to state or federal law. Whether an easement or right-of-way 
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

109

is obtained via negotiations or eminent domain, Transco would compensate landowners for use 

of the land. Eminent domain cannot be exercised to obtain lands under federal or tribal 

ownership but may be used to obtain lands under state and local ownership.

2.4.4 Existing Residences and Planned Developments

Existing Residences

We received many comments regarding the proximity of Transco’s proposed alignment 

to homes and the potential construction impacts near residences. Appendix K lists the structures 

and related features that are within 50 feet of the proposed Project.

Structures within 50 feet of the construction work area are likely to experience effects of 

construction and operation of the Project. In general, as the distance to the construction work 

area increases, the impacts on residences decrease. In residential areas, the most common 

impacts associated with construction and operation of a pipeline are temporary disturbances 

during construction and the burden of the permanent right-of-way, which would prevent the 

construction of permanent structures within the right-of-way.

Temporary construction impacts on residential areas could include inconveniences 

caused by noise and dust generated by construction equipment, personnel, and trenching of roads 

or driveways; traffic congestion; ground disturbance of lawns; removal of trees, landscaped 

shrubs, or other vegetation screening between residences and/or adjacent rights-of-way; potential 

damage to existing septic systems or wells and other utilities; and removal of aboveground 

structures such as fences, sheds, playgrounds, or trailers from within the right-of-way. 

Before mobilizing any equipment, Transco would stake the limits of disturbance and the 

centerline of the pipeline. Affected landowners would be notified at least 1 week prior to trench 

excavation on their property, or as otherwise noted in individual easement agreements. 

Where the construction right-of-way crosses a road, Transco would maintain access and 

traffic flows, particularly for emergency vehicles. Transco would generally complete 

construction across driveways within 1 day and install a temporary surface patch. Final 

surfacing of driveways would occur separately in conjunction with other driveway final 

restorations within the area. If a road is open cut, one lane would remain open during 

construction. Transco would consult with local law enforcement and safety officials during 

development of a Traffic Control Plan, which may include temporary road or driveway 

diversions. Traffic safety personnel would be present during construction periods, including 

warning signs and flagmen. To the maximum extent practicable, Transco would coordinate 

construction traffic to avoid interference with property owner activities. Sidewalks within the 

vicinity of the construction work limits would be temporarily closed. 

Transco would utilize special construction methods designed for working in residential 

areas. These special construction methods are described in section 1.6.2, and specific methods to 

be used on certain individual properties are shown on Transco’s site-specific RCPs (see below). 

Transco would implement the following general measures to minimize construction-related 

impacts on all residences and other structures located within 50 feet of the construction right-ofway:
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

110

 attempt to reduce the construction right-of-way width near residences and use 

other ATWS areas located farther from the residences to minimize disruption of 

residences in the immediate vicinity;

 install safety fence at the edge of the construction right-of-way for a distance of 

100 feet on either side of a residence;

 attempt to preserve mature trees, vegetation screens, and landscaping within the 

construction work area to the extent possible;

 complete final cleanup, grading, and installation of permanent erosion control 

devices within 10 days after backfilling the trench; and

 restore all lawn areas and landscaping within the construction work area, 

excluding mature trees within the permanent pipeline easement, immediately 

following clean up.

Transco anticipates that pipeline construction activities (e.g., pipe stringing, excavation, 

welding, coating, lower-in, and backfill) would last 45 construction days through residential 

areas without weather delays. Other activities such as tree trimming, clearing activities, and 

right-of-way restoration activities would be completed in accordance with state and federal 

timing restrictions and weather permitting, and likely occur outside the estimated 45-day 

construction period. 

In addition, Transco would employ a vibration-monitoring specialist to review the 

construction plans for residences close to the Project workspace and, if needed, develop 

mitigation measures to avoid impacts on structures or residents. Transco would also employ a 

security guard to patrol the construction work areas after work hours and on weekends. 

As discussed in section 2.7, air pollutants from construction equipment would be 

temporary and generally limited to the immediate vicinity of the construction area. To control 

dust created from construction activities (e.g., trenching, transporting soil or rock), Transco 

would implement the measures in its Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 

Transco’s site-specific RCPs include measures to minimize disruption and ensure access 

to the residences within 50 feet of the construction work areas (see appendix C). These 

construction plans include a dimensioned drawing depicting the residence in relation to the 

pipeline construction; workspace boundaries; the proposed permanent right-of-way; and other 

nearby residences, structures, roads, and miscellaneous features (e.g., other utilities, playgrounds, 

catch basin, sewer). We have reviewed the site-specific RCPs and find them acceptable. 

However, we encourage the owners of each of these residences to provide us comments on 

the plan specific for their property. 

Based on landowner contacts, Transco has identified several septic systems that would be 

crossed by the loops. These are shown on the RCPs. Transco has developed a Septic System 

Contingency Plan that describes Transco’s preferred option of avoidance, or, if avoidance is not 

possible, how it would identify and replace the existing septic system. Transco would relocate 
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

111

and protect septic systems prior to construction. In the event of damage during construction, 

Transco would provide the landowner with a temporary repair or other accommodations. Once 

construction is complete, Transco would coordinate with the landowner to provide a suitable 

permanent solution. 

As discussed further in section 2.2.6.2, Transco would offer landowners pre- and postconstruction monitoring of water quality and yield at water wells using a qualified, independent 

contractor. If construction activities adversely affect a water supply, Transco would make the 

necessary repairs to restore the water supply system to its preconstruction capacity and, as 

necessary, would provide a temporary source of water. Within 30 days of placing the pipeline in 

service, Transco would file with the FERC a report discussing any complaints received 

concerning well yield or water quality and how each was resolved. 

Following construction, all residential areas would be restored to preconstruction 

conditions or as specified in written landowner agreements. Landowners would continue to have 

use of the right-of-way provided such use does not interfere with the easement rights granted to 

Transco for construction and operation of the pipeline system. For example, no structures would 

be allowed on the permanent right-of-way, including houses, decks, playgrounds, tool sheds, 

garages, poles, guy wires, catch basins, swimming pools, trailers, leaching fields, septic tanks, or 

any other objects not easily removed. As shown on its site-specific RCPs, Transco would 

remove and relocate the majority of these features to an off-right-of-way location. 

Transco also prepared a Landowner Complaint Resolution Procedure. As part of the 

procedure, Transco would send a letter to each landowner that includes the dates when 

construction would occur on their property and a telephone contact for questions or concerns. 

The procedure letter also states that a response to a question or concern would be provided in 24 

to 48 hours, and prior to construction if possible. In the event Transco’s response is not 

satisfactory to the landowner, the letter also identifies the FERC’s Dispute Resolution Division

Helpline contact information. Transco would provide the complaint resolution letter to all 

affected landowners 2 to 3 weeks prior to the planned construction start date. We have reviewed 

this procedure letter and find it acceptable.

We conclude that with implementation of Transco’s proposed construction methods, its 

site-specific RCPs, and Landowner Complaint Resolution Procedure, impacts on residents and 

landowners would be minimized to the greatest extent practicable and would not be significant.

Planned Developments 

Transco contacted local officials in the affected counties and municipalities to identify 

planned residential, commercial, or industrial developments within 0.25 mile of the Project. 

These are listed in table 2.4.4-1.
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

112

TABLE 2.4.4-1

Planned Developments in the Project Area

Project Type/Name Description Status

Nearest Project

Component

Distance 

(miles)

Energy Projects – FERC Jurisdictional Natural Gas Pipelines

Northeast Supply Link –

Transco a

Expansion of natural gas 

transmission system

Under Construction Pleasant Run Loop 13.5

Energy Projects - Non-FERC Regulated Pipeline

Unknown Bulk Propane Storage Proposed Unknown Unknown

Non-Pipeline Energy Projects

KDC Solar Branchburg LLC Solar Panel Field Approved Not Started Pleasant Run Loop 2.9

S/K Stoney Brook Assoc. Solar Panel Field Approved Not Started Pleasant Run Loop 2.7

PP&L Electric Transmission Line Approved Not Started Unknown Unknown

Spruce Run/Round Valley 

Project

Hydroelectric project Preliminary permit Unknown Unknown

PP&L Electric Northeast 

Pocono Reliability Project a

Transmission Line Planned Unknown Unknown

PSE & G a Substation Under Construction Unknown Unknown

Land Use Developments

North Princeton 

Professional Center

Office Planned Skillman Loop 1.5

Montgomery Promenade by 

Madison Marquette

Retail/Homes Planned Skillman Loop 1.7

Westwinds Farm 54 Home Subdivision Under Construction Skillman Loop 0.1

Tapestry at Montgomery by 

Sharbell Development 

Corp.

218 Home Subdivision Under Construction Skillman Loop 1.7

Carrier Clinic Women’s 

Residence

1,200 single family residences Under Construction Skillman Loop 1.0

Princeton Car Wash Retail Planned Skillman Loop 3.8

Staats Farm Road 

Developers

7 Homes Planned Skillman Loop 3.5

Deer Creek LLC 16-lot single family homes Application pending Pleasant Run Loop 0.4

Dante Realty Co. Office/warehouse Application submitted/ 

incomplete

Pleasant Run Loop 4.6

Briad Development East 

LLC

134 room Hotel Approved Pleasant Run Loop 3.2

Capstone Holdings 10-lot single family homes Approved Pleasant Run Loop 5.1

Redco Branch LP Office/Warehouse Approved Pleasant Run Loop 5.0

Robert Henderson 1-building – 9 units Approved Pleasant Run Loop 5.6

Schultz Container Systems 

Inc.

Office/warehouse Approved Pleasant Run Loop 5.0

3331 Route 22 LLC Retail/restaurants development Approved Pleasant Run Loop 5.2

Branchburg Builders 50 Single family homes Approved Started Pleasant Run Loop 6.3

Fox Hollow II, Advance 

Development Partners

120-units Townhouses Approved Started Pleasant Run Loop 5.3

Distinctive Properties LLC 6-lot single family homes Approved Started Pleasant Run Loop 1.6

Handler Estates 8 Homes Under Construction Unknown Unknown

Country Classics at Fox 

Brook

20 Homes Planned Unknown Unknown

Bonaventure Retail Unknown Unknown Unknown

Sunoco Retail/gas/ convenience store Unknown Unknown Unknown

Airport Medical Building Office Planned Unknown Unknown

Blawenburg Bank Planned Unknown Unknown
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

113

TABLE 2.4.4-1

Planned Developments in the Project Area

Project Type/Name Description Status

Nearest Project

Component

Distance 

(miles)

E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. Office Planned Unknown Unknown

Continuing Care Facility Offices Planned Unknown Unknown

Research Park Office Planned Unknown Unknown

Montgomery Five 6 Apartments Planned Unknown Unknown

Belvedere Homes 17 Homes Unknown Unknown Unknown

Sourland View 8 Homes Unknown Unknown Unknown

JER/Herring Orchard 

Community

152 Apartments Unknown Unknown Unknown

__________________

a Project is discussed in the Cumulative Impacts section of this EA (see section 2.10).

Because Transco would construct the Project adjacent to its existing pipelines for the 

majority of its length, the placement of structures over the permanently maintained right-of-way 

has already been precluded. Transco has been in contact with the developers and permitting 

authorities of projects in the area and would continue to coordinate with them to identify any 

potential conflicts associated with the construction and operation of the Project. Certain projects 

identified in the table are discussed further in the Cumulative Impacts section of this EA (see 

section 2.10).

2.4.5 Recreation and Special Interest Areas

The Project would affect recreation and special land use areas as listed in table 2.4.5-1. 

Many commentors, including agencies, Montgomery Township, the Municipality of 

Princeton, and several landowners within the Project areas, expressed concern about the impact 

of construction on the purpose for which a recreation or special interest area was established 

(e.g., the recreational activities, public access, and resources the area aims to protect). 

Construction would alter visual aesthetics by removing existing vegetation and disturbing soils. 

Construction would also generate dust and noise, which could be a nuisance to recreational users. 

Project activity could also interfere with or diminish the quality of the recreational experience by 

affecting wildlife movements or disturbing trails. 

Collectively, the Project would impact about 123 acres of recreational and special interest 

areas during construction. Operation of Transco’s permanent right-of-way would affect about 

31.2 acres. In general, Project impacts on recreational and special interest areas occurring 

outside of forest land would be temporary and limited to the period of active construction, which 

typically would last only several days to several weeks in any one area. These impacts would be 

minimized by implementing Transco’s Plan and Procedures. Also, Transco would secure 

easement agreements from landowners to construct and operate the Project, and would apply for 

permits as necessary and comply with any permit requirements when crossing these areas. 
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

114

TABLE 2.4.5-1

Recreation and Special Use Areas Affected by the Project a

Loop/

Begin 

Milepost

End 

Milepost Owner Name of Area

Const. 

Impacts 

(acres)

Op. 

Impacts 

(acres)

Add. Temp. 

Workspace 

(acres)

Yards 

(acres)

Skillman Loop

1776.9 1776.9 Local – Recreation Township of Princeton 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1776.8 1778.1 State Environmental 

Planning Area

New Jersey 

Environmentally Sensitive 

Area

7.0 2.3 0.4 5.3

1776.8 1777.5 National Heritage Grid 

Program

Vernal Pool Habitat 9.3 6.5 0.1 5.3

1776.9 1776.9 City Coventry Farm Park 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

1779.9 1780.3 City Dale 5.8 2.0 1.5 0.0

1778.8 1779.0 Private Conservation 

Land

PresFarm-Easement 

Purchase – County

3.9 1.9 1.9 0.0

1779.2 1779.3 Private Conservation 

Land

PresFarm-Easement 

Purchase – County

Combined with above 

1782.8 1782.8 Private Conservation 

Land

PresFarm-Easement 

Purchase – County

Combined with above 

1179.9 1780.3 Local – Recreation Township of Montgomery 5.8 2.0 1.5 0.0

1780.3 1780.3 State – Recreation New Jersey Department of 

Human Services

0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0

1780.3 1780.5 Local – Recreation Somerset County 2.4 0.8 0.7 0.0

1781.9 1782.1 Local – Conservation Township of Montgomery 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.0

1782.5 1782.7 Local – Conservation Township of Montgomery 0.9 0.2 0.4 0.0

1782.8 1783.0 County – Conservation Somerset County 1.9 0.7 2.7 0.0

1783.0 1783.0 County – Conservation Somerset County 2.3 0.8 1.5 0.0

Pleasant Run Loop

1.6 1.7 Readington Township Best Valley Realty 1.1 0.4 0.5 0.0

2.8 2.8 Readington Township Lane Farm Open Space <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0

1.2 1.3 New Jersey 

Environmentally Sensitive 

Area

New Jersey 

Environmentally Sensitive 

Area 0.3

0.1 0.2 0.0

1.8 1.8 City Craig Road <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.7 2.8 City Lane Farm Easement 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.0

0.3 1.2 Private Conservation 

Land

PresFarm-Easement 

Purchase – County 16.6

6.9 3.5 0.0

3.7 3.9 Private Conservation 

Land

PresFarm-Easement 

Purchase – County

Combined with above

4.7 4.9 Private Conservation 

Land

PresFarm-Easement 

Purchase – County

Combined with above

2.6 2.6 Private Conservation 

Land

PresFarm-Eight Year

- Farmland Preservation

3.0 0.9 0.5 0.0

3.5 3.7 Private Conservation 

Land

PresFarm-Eight Year

- Farmland Preservation

Combined with above 

5.7 5.7 Private Conservation 

Land

PresFarm-Eight Year

- Farmland Preservation

Combined with above 

5.2 5.7 Private Conservation 

Land

PresFarm-PIG Easement 

Purchase – Municipal

7.1 2.2 2.1 4.6

5.9 6.0 City Greenway Incentive Plan 1.4 0.4 0.3 0.0

6.0 6.0 City Burgher Farm 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

6.0 6.2 City The Bloys Farm 2.0 0.6 0.3 0.0

6.0 6.5 Local – Recreation Readington Township 1.8 0.5 0.3 0.0

6.2 6.5 City Bouman-Stickney Museum 3.8 1.1 1.1 0.0
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

115

TABLE 2.4.5-1

Recreation and Special Use Areas Affected by the Project a

Loop/

Begin 

Milepost

End 

Milepost Owner Name of Area

Const. 

Impacts 

(acres)

Op. 

Impacts 

(acres)

Add. Temp. 

Workspace 

(acres)

Yards 

(acres)

6.8 6.9 Highlands Region 

Planning Area

Highlands Planning Area 1.2 0.3 0.0 0.5

6.7 6.9 New Jersey 

Environmentally Sensitive 

Area

New Jersey 

Environmentally Sensitive 

Area

2.6 0.9 0.2 0.0

Franklin Loop

1.0 61.1 Non-Profit Pocono Lake Preserve 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0

58.8 59.4 Non-Profit – The Nature 

Conservancy

Adams Swamp

7.2

3.0 0.7 0.0

63.7 64.0 Non-Profit – The Nature 

Conservancy

Thomas Darling Preserve 

at Two-Mile Run 3.1

1.2 0.1 0.0

Dorrance Loop No Public Land or Recreation Areas

Project Total 93.4 31.2 13.8 15.8

__________________

a Some areas have multiple managements and ownerships and, therefore, may be represented multiple times within 

overlapping milepost ranges.

Following construction, most open land uses would be able to revert to their former uses. 

Forest land affected by the temporary construction right-of-way and ATWS areas, however, 

would experience long-term impacts because of the time required to restore the woody 

vegetation to its preconstruction condition. Further, forest land within the permanent right-ofway would experience permanent impacts because a portion would be maintained in an 

herbaceous state. 

In addition to the areas affected by the pipeline loops listed in table 2.4.5-1, modification 

activities at six compressor stations would be within 0.25 mile of recreation and special interest 

areas, as listed in table 2.4.5-2. Direct impacts on these areas would not occur. While noise and 

visual impacts would occur, they would be temporary and limited to the time of construction. 

Furthermore, the compressor stations are existing facilities and, therefore, modifications would 

be consistent with the existing facilities’ appearance and location. 

TABLE 2.4.5-2

Recreation and Special Interest Areas within 0.25 Mile of Compressor Stations Associated with the Project a

Compressor Station Name of Area Ownership/ Designation

205 Central Stony Brook USGS Protected Areas

205 Delaware & Raritan Greenway USGS Protected Areas

515 PA State Games Land 091 PAGC

515 Lackawanna State Forest PADCNR

517 Pennsylvania Wildlife Management Area PAGC

520 Pennsylvania Wildlife Management Area PAGC

520 Pine Creek Pennsylvania Wilds

185 Manassas National Battlefield Park National Park Service

Ben Lomond Regional Park Prince William County Park Authority
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

116

Modifications to other Project facilities would not affect recreation or special interest 

areas. 

We received comments concerning the impacts of the Project on two special use areas, 

the Princeton Ridge and Green Acres Program. These special use areas are more fully described 

below. 

Princeton Ridge

As discussed throughout this EA, numerous comments were received from stakeholders 

in the Princeton Ridge area, including from a group of affected landowners and concerned 

citizens referred to as the Princeton Ridge Coalition, the Municipality of Princeton, and other 

non-governmental organizations.

The Princeton Ridge is an upland area in Mercer County that extends westward from the 

Millstone River and the Delaware and Raritan Canal State Park across the northern part of 

Princeton Township into Hopewell (New Jersey Conservation Foundation, 2014). The area 

consists of forest and wetland habitat that support several endangered and threatened species and 

numerous other wildlife species (see sections 2.3.3 and 2.3.2, respectively).

As described in section 1.6.2, the Skillman Loop would impact two state designated 

Planning Areas within the Princeton Ridge: Fringe Planning Area 3 (F3) and Environmentally 

Sensitive Planning Area 5 (ESA 5) (see figure 2.4.5-1). The Skillman Loop would cross F3 

designated land between MPs 1776.8 and 1777.6 (0.8 mile) and ESA 5 designated land between 

MPs 1777.6 and 1778.1 (0.5 mile).

A Fringe Planning Area is identified as an area for Limited Growth or an Area for 

Conservation (State Plan, 2001). More specifically, it is intended to:

Accommodate growth in Centers; protect the Environs primarily as open lands; 

revitalize cities and towns; protect the character of existing stable communities; 

protect natural resources; provide a buffer between more developed Metropolitan 

and Suburban Planning Areas and less developed Rural and Environmentally 

Sensitive Planning Areas; and confine programmed sewers and public water 

services to Centers (New Jersey State Planning Commission, 2001). 

A Fringe Planning Area is characterized as rural with scattered small communities and 

some residential and commercial/industrial developments, and areas that are not prime 

agricultural or environmentally sensitive, but which can provide a buffer between ESA 5 lands 

and more developed areas. 

An Environmentally Sensitive Planning Area is identified as an area for Limited Growth 

or an Area for Conservation (State Plan, 2001). More specifically, it is intended to:

Protect environmental resources through the protection of large contiguous areas 

of land; accommodate growth in Centers; protect the character of existing stable 

communities; confine programmed sewers and public water services to Centers; 

and revitalize cities and towns (New Jersey State Planning Commission, 2001).
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

117

Insert

Figure 2.4.5-1 Princeton Ridge Area
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

118

An Environmentally Sensitive Planning Area consists of large contiguous land areas with 

valuable ecosystems, geological features, and wildlife habitats. These areas are characterized by 

“watersheds of pristine waters, trout streams and drinking water supply reservoirs; recharge areas 

for potable water aquifers; habitats of endangered and threatened plant and animal species; 

coastal and freshwater wetlands; prime forested areas; scenic vistas; and other significant 

topographical, geological or ecological features, particularly coastal barrier spits and islands 

(State Plan, 2001).”

Due to the state environmental designation of the Princeton Ridge area and in response to 

scoping comments, Transco developed site-specific construction and restoration plans with input 

from stakeholders in the area. These plans describe the environmental and geotechnical 

investigations conducted by Transco and identify measures that would be implemented to 

minimize impacts in the Princeton Ridge area, as well as protect the integrity of the existing 

pipeline before and after construction. The Rock Handling Plan and PRCRP are discussed in 

sections 1.6.2, 2.1.1, 2.3.1, and 2.9.1, and are available for review on our website. To minimize 

impacts, Transco would reduce the offset between the existing and proposed pipelines to 

typically 20 feet, and limit the width of the construction right-of-way to 50 feet (with few 

exceptions), as compared to 105 feet typically proposed for the remaining Project loops. As a 

result of the reduced workspace, construction of the Skillman Loop would affect approximately 

13.6 acres of forest, wetlands, and open land on the Princeton Ridge. 

Following construction, the temporary workspace and operational right-of-way would be 

restored and maintained in accordance with the PRCRP and other permit conditions that may 

apply. The permanent right-of-way for the new pipeline would not preclude recreational uses of 

the area.

Green Acres Program

Publicly and privately held Green Acres Program properties would be crossed by the 

Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops at various locations as listed in table 2.4.5-3. 

New Jersey created the Green Acres Program in 1961 to address the state’s growing 

recreation and conservation requirements. The goal of the Green Acres Program is to create a 

network of open spaces and recreational resources for public use and enjoyment. The 

regulations for the program and for Green Acres properties are provided in Title 7, Chapter 36 of 

the NJAC (NJAC, 2011b). 

Construction of the Project would temporarily affect about 44.6 acres of publically and 

privately held Green Acres Program properties. The Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops would be 

adjacent to Transco’s existing right-of-way for the majority of its length and, therefore, the 

construction right-of-way would overlap onto previously disturbed and existing right-of-way, 

thus reducing the area of new impact. Following construction, Transco would restore the rightof-way to preconstruction conditions. About 9.3 acres would be affected by operation of the 

permanent right-of-way; however, recreational uses would be allowed to continue during 

pipeline operation.
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

119

TABLE 2.4.5-3

Green Acres Areas Crossed by the Project (acres)

Loop Mileposts Const. Impacts Op. Impacts

Additional Temp. 

Workspace

Construction 

Yards Access Roads

Skillman Loop

1776.8 – 1776.9 0.4 0.1 0.1 5.3 0.8

1776.9 – 1776.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1778.3 - 1778.6 1.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0

1778.1 – 1778.6 4.3 1.5 3.5 0.0 0.0

1779.4 – 1779.6 2.8 1.2 0.9 0.0 0.0

1779.5 – 1779.6 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1779.5 – 1779.7 1.7 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0

1779.9 – 1780.3 5.8 2.0 1.5 0.0 0.0

1782.5 – 1782.7 1.9 0.7 2.7 0.0 0.3

Pleasant Run Loop

2.7 – 2.8 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0

2.8 – 2.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

5.9 – 6.1 1.5 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0

6.1 – 6.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6.1 – 6.2 1.8 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0

6.2 – 4.8 3.8 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0

Project Total 27.0 9.3 11.2 5.3 1.1

Transco would mitigate Project impacts in accordance with the requirements of the Green 

Acres Program, which include identifying land that would provide opportunities for the 

preservation of permanent outdoor recreation areas for public use and enjoyment, and 

maintaining public access to the properties without discrimination or exclusion based on 

residency. 

We received comments from Montgomery Township regarding impacts on Green Acres 

parcels, some of which are owned in fee by the Township and others that are privately owned 

and held by the Township as Green Acres restricted conservation easements. Transco has 

consulted with Montgomery Township and has identify a number of measures it would 

implement during construction to reduce impacts on the parcels. These include reducing the 

typical construction right-of-way width from 105 feet to 85 feet in forested areas crossed on the 

parcels, implementing measures to reduce the spread of noxious weeds, and consulting with the 

Township and Somerset County Soil Conservation District to identify an appropriate native seed 

mix for restoration. Transco is also discussing compensation for impacts on Green Acres 

restricted parcels with the Township, including possible replacement parcels identified by the 

Township or monetary compensation that could be used by the Township to acquire replacement 

land. In addition, Transco’s proposed HDD, requested by Montgomery Township, would avoid 

or reduce impacts on a Green Acres parcel as well as the Waldorf School, Bedens Brook, Back 

Brook, and nearby residences.

Transco has not received authorization from the NJDEP to affect Green Acres Program 

properties. Transco may have additional requirements imposed on it by the NJDEP and other 

state agencies charged with regulating activities within Green Acres properties. These additional 
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

120

requirements may have implications on Transco’s proposed construction methods and restoration 

measures and, therefore, we recommend that:

 Prior to construction of the Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops, Transco 

should file with the Secretary an updated status of its consultation with the 

NJDEP to construct and operate its pipeline and associated facilities within 

Green Acres Program properties. Transco should include copies of all 

correspondence, including any additional requirements imposed by the 

NJDEP. 

2.4.6 Coastal Zone Management Act

Based on a review of the respective state Coastal Zone Management programs and 

coastal zone maps, the Project falls outside of the geographical boundaries of the New Jersey, 

Pennsylvania, and North Carolina Coastal Zones and, therefore, is not subject to coastal zone 

consistency review in these states (PADEP, 2013a; NJDEP 2013a; North Carolina Division of 

Coastal Management, 2007). Portions of the Project in Virginia and Maryland are, however, 

within a coastal zone, and are discussed further below. 

Virginia

Based on a review of the Virginia Coastal Management Program coastal zone maps, the 

existing facility modifications proposed at Compressor Station 185, Nokesville Meter Station, 

Pleasant Valley Meter Station, Herndon Meter Station, Bull Run Meter Station, Prince William 

Meter Station, MLV 185-05, MLV Cove Point, MLV 185-10, MLV 185-13, Receiver V297, and 

MLV Potomac South would be within the Virginia Coastal Zone (VDEQ, undated). 

Transco has initiated consultation with the Virginia Coastal Program of the VDEQ 

regarding its proposed modifications at existing aboveground facilities. Transco anticipates that 

the Project would be consistent with the policies and intent of the Virginia Coastal Zone 

Program; however, no response has been provided to date. 

Maryland

Based on a review of the Maryland Coastal Management Program coastal zone maps, the 

facility modifications proposed at existing MLV 190-10, existing MLV 190-13, and MLV 190-

20 would be within the geographical boundaries of the Maryland Coastal Zone (Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources [MDNR], undated). 

Transco has initiated consultation with the Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Programs of the

MDNR regarding its proposed modifications at aboveground facilities. Transco anticipates that 

the Project would be consistent with the policies and intent of the Maryland Coastal Zone 

Program; however, no response has been provided to date. Therefore, we recommend that:

 Prior to construction, Transco should file with the Secretary a copy of the 

determination of consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Programs 

of the VDEQ, and the Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Programs of the MDNR.
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

121

2.4.7 Hazardous Waste

As stated in sections 2.1.2 and 2.2.1, Transco reviewed federal and state regulatory 

databases to identify known and potential water and soil contamination and hazardous waste 

sites within 0.25 mile of the Project. Based on these results several sites of potential 

contamination were identified in the Project area:

 Skillman Loop – seven sites were identified within 0.25 mile of the Project;

 Pleasant Run Loop – six sites were identified within 0.25 mile of the Project; 

 Franklin Loop – seven sites were identified within 0.25 mile of the Project; and

 Dorrance Loop – no sites were identified within 0.25 mile of the Project.

In addition, potentially contaminated sites were identified within 0.25 mile of existing 

Compressor Stations 520, 515, 517, 190, 185, 180, 185, 175, and 165. 

Based on our review of the environmental databases and alignment sheets, the Project 

would not cross any potentially contaminated sites. However, Transco is currently consulting 

with the state project managers to determine if construction activities associated with the Project 

may interfere with investigation and/or remediation efforts. In addition, Transco has developed 

an Unanticipated Discovery of Contamination Plan, which includes measures that it would 

implement in the event contaminated media is encountered during construction. We have 

reviewed Transco’s Unanticipated Discovery of Contamination Plan and find it acceptable. 

2.4.8 Visual Resources

Pipeline Facilities

Most visual and aesthetic impacts associated with the Project would be limited to the 

period of active construction, in which the landscape would be characterized by areas of cleared 

or flattened vegetation, trench excavation, grading, and spoil storage. Although stretches of 

upland forest are present along the proposed routes, the majority of the pipeline loops (about 99

percent) would be installed within or parallel to existing rights-of-way where the upland forest 

has already been cleared. These existing rights-of-way are maintained periodically on different 

schedules, using different methods of maintenance. As a result, along the majority of the 

Project, visual resources have been previously affected by other activities. 

Visual impacts associated with the construction right-of-way and ATWS include the 

removal of existing vegetation and the exposure of bare soils. Other visual effects could result 

from the removal of large individual trees that have intrinsic aesthetic value; the removal or 

alteration of vegetation that may currently provide a visual barrier; or landform changes that 

introduce contrasts in visual scale, spatial characteristics, form, line, color, or texture. 

Visual impacts are typically greatest where the pipeline routes parallel or cross roads and 

may be seen by passing motorists, and on residences where vegetation used for visual screening 

of existing utility rights-of-way or for ornamental value would be removed. The duration of 

visual impacts would depend on the type of vegetation that is cleared or altered. The impact of 

vegetation clearing would be shortest in areas consisting of short grasses and scrub-shrub 

vegetation and in agricultural crop and pasture lands, where the re-establishment of vegetation 

following construction would be relatively fast (generally less than 3 years). The impact would 
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

122

be greater in forested lands, which would take many years to regenerate mature trees. The 

greatest potential visual impact in forested lands would result from the removal of large 

specimen trees, which would take longer than other vegetation types to regenerate and would be 

prevented from re-establishing on the permanent right-of-way. This would result in a long-term 

to permanent impact within the permanent right-of-way where forest land would be replaced 

with open land consisting of grasses and shrubs. 

Because the Project is one that would expand existing rights-of-way, the visual impact on 

motorists who observe road crossings would be minor. In locations where trees that serve as a 

visual buffer would be removed, Transco would discuss these screening issues with individual 

landowners during easement negotiations. In areas where all visual screening would be 

removed, Transco has stated that it would consider strategic planting of fast-growing evergreens 

at the landowner’s request. 

After construction, all disturbed areas would be restored and returned to preconstruction 

conditions in compliance with federal, state, and local permits; landowner agreements; and 

Transco’s easement requirements, with the exception of aboveground facility sites, discussed 

further below.

Aboveground Facilities

Proposed modifications at existing compressor station sites and other aboveground 

facility locations associated with the Project would occur mainly within the property line at the 

already developed sites and/or would result in minor, temporary impacts outside the existing 

fence line. No permanent changes to the current visual landscape are anticipated as a result of

modifications to existing aboveground facilities beyond what is already experienced at the sites.

The new aboveground facilities associated with the Project would be the most visible 

features and would result in long-term impacts on visual resources. New aboveground facilities 

include new MLVs and pig launcher/receiver sites. The magnitude of these impacts depends on 

factors such as the existing landscape, the remoteness of the location, and the number of 

viewpoints from which the facility could be seen, as discussed in table 2.4.8-1. 

New pig launchers and receivers would be associated with the MLV sites discussed 

above. One bi-directional launcher/receiver, at MLV200D28, would be removed from its current 

location. The site would be reclaimed to correspond with surrounding vegetation and landscape.

Transco does not propose to visually screen the new facilities. The new MLVs would be 

located below ground, while the blowdown piping and valve operator would be aboveground 

and, in general, enclosed by 50 feet by 50 feet of 7-foot-tall perimeter fence.

In general, construction and operation of the aboveground facilities would result in a 

minor long-term to permanent impact on the surrounding existing commercial/industrial and 

developed (residential) visual character of the Project area. However, impacts are not considered 

significant given the nature of the developed visual character of the area and/or vegetation 

screening. 
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

123

TABLE 2.4.8-1

Visual Conditions at Proposed Mainline Valve and Launcher/Receiver Modifications a

Facility Milepost Location Conditions

Proposed MLV200D27 Caldwell 1776.8 Facility would be installed at existing MLV sites and, therefore, would be consistent 

with the existing facility.

Proposed MLV505LC11 Leidy Line 0.1 Facility would be installed at existing MLV sites and, therefore, would be consistent 

with the existing facility.

Proposed MLV505LD90 Leidy Line 57.5 Facility would be located adjacent to State Route 4002 (Long Pond Road). The site 

consists of open land. A residence and surrounding structures is located about 300 

feet north of the site. Visual impacts of the MLV on the residence would be 

lessened by a small patch of existing trees on the south side of the residence.

Proposed MLV505LD at 

MP 63.19

Leidy Line 63.2 Facility would be located adjacent to Burger Road. The site consists rural/wooded 

areas and is approximately 25 feet northwest of wetland WW-001-031 and 600 feet 

northwest of stream SS-001-021. One residence is located about 220 feet 

southwest of the site. Visual impacts of the MLV on the residence would be 

buffered by existing trees. 

Proposed MLV515LD0 Leidy Line 69.0 Facility would be located near State Highway 115 (Buck Boulevard). The site 

consists of commercial/industrial land within Transco’s existing Compressor Station 

515. Therefore, the MLV visual impacts would be consistent with current 

conditions. The new MLV would be screened from view by the existing structures 

within the site as well as surrounding trees screening. 

Proposed MLV515LD at 

MP 17.70

Leidy Loop

Line 17.7

Facility would not be located adjacent to any existing roads. The site consists of 

generally open land within and adjacent to Transco’s existing pipeline right-of-way, 

and is surrounded by shrub-scrub land and patches of forest land.

Proposed MLV515LD at 

MP 22.97

Leidy Loop

Line 23.0

Facility would be located near Cemetery Road. The site consists of generally open 

land within and adjacent to Transco’s existing pipeline right-of-way, and is 

surrounded by shrub-scrub land and patches of forest land.

____________________

a See table 1.2.2-2 for the scope of work proposed at each facility.

Contractor/Pipe Storage Yards and Contractor Staging Areas

The primary visual impact associated with the proposed contractor/pipe storage yards and 

contractor staging areas would be the storage of equipment, materials, and heavy machinery 

during Project construction. All of these uses would be temporary and expected to last the 

duration of construction, which Transco has estimated to be approximately 7 to 10 months. The 

contractor/pipe storage yards and contractor staging areas would generally be located in existing 

fields and other previously disturbed areas. Upon completion of construction, the contractor/pipe 

storage yards and contractor staging areas would be restored in accordance with Transco's Plan 

and Procedures. As a result, there would be no permanent impacts on visual resources associated 

with the use of these yards. 

Use of the contractor/pipe storage yards and contractor staging areas would result in a 

minor and temporary impact on the surrounding commercial/industrial and agricultural visual 

character of the Project area. 

Access Roads

In addition to using existing public roads, Transco proposes to build 5 new access roads 

and modify 18 private roads for temporary or permanent right-of-way access during construction 

or permanent aboveground facility access during operations (see appendix B). The existing 

private access roads are asphalt, gravel, or dirt roads that may be improved as needed for 

construction and operations/maintenance. Twelve of the roads to be modified are existing and, 
Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

124

therefore, use as access roads would not result in significant increased impacts on visual 

resources. Three proposed new temporary roads would not result in a significant impact on 

visual resources as they would be restored following construction. However, new permanent 

visual impacts would result from the modification or construction of eight access roads. 

While the establishment of the new permanent access roads would be permanent, due to 

the generally developed nature of the Project area, the new roads would not be inconsistent with 

similar roadways in the area. Therefore, construction and, where applicable, permanent use of 

the access roads would not result in a significant impact on visual resources in the area. 

2.5 SOCIOECONOMICS

Construction and operation of the Project could impact socioeconomic resources in the 

area. Some of these potential effects are related to the number of construction workers that 

would work on the Project and their impact on population, public services, and temporary 

housing during construction. Other potential effects are related to construction, such as 

increased traffic or disruption of normal traffic patterns. Other effects associated with the 

Project include increased property tax revenue, increased job opportunities, and increased 

income associated with local construction employment. The primary potential socioeconomic 

effects of the Project would be from construction and operation of the Skillman, Pleasant Run, 

Franklin, and Dorrance Loops. The aboveground facilities associated with the Project would 

occur within existing facilities or developed rights-of-way and represent relatively minor 

activities. Therefore, construction and operation of these facilities would not have a significant 

socioeconomic impact.

2.5.1 Population, Economy, and Employment

Table 2.5.1-1 provides a summary of selected demographic and socioeconomic 

conditions for affected communities in the Project area. 

Construction of the Project would temporarily increase the population in the general 

Project area. Pending Commission approval, Transco plans to begin construction activities for 

the Project in October 2014 with initial winter tree clearing and pipeline loop construction 

beginning in April 2015. Transco proposes to place the Project facilities in service by December 

2015.

Transco estimates that the four pipeline loop segments including aboveground facility 

installation or modifications would require a total of eight construction spreads. Transco would 

employ an average of about 300 to 450 construction workers for the pipeline loops, and an 

average of about 25 to 60 construction workers for the compressor station modifications. Each 

spread would take approximately 7 to 10 months to complete, and peak construction would occur 

between March and October 2015. Compressor station modifications would take approximately 

3 to 9 months and begin in February 2015. 

Operation of the new and modified facilities would be conducted by Transco personnel 

who operate existing facilities.
Socioeconomics

125

TABLE 2.5.1-1

Existing Economic Conditions in the Vicinity of Select Project Facilities

State/County Population a

Population 

Density 

(Persons/sq. 

mile) a, b

Per Capita 

Income

a, c

Civilian 

Workforce 

d

Potential 

Const.

Labor 

Force e

Unemployment Rate 

(percent) d

Top Three

Industries d

New Jersey 8,791,894 1,185 34,090 4,662,195 129,700 10.9 Educational, health, 

and social services

Mercer 366,513 1,632 36,602 197,137 4,900 10.8 Educational, health, 

and social services

Somerset 323,444 1,071 46,041 177,191 297,100 7.7 Educational, health, 

and social services

Hunterdon 128,349 299 44,831 70,799 297,100 7.1 Educational, health, 

and social services

Pennsylvania 12,702,379 283 26,933 6,458,914 221,800 9.4 Educational, health, 

and social services

Monroe 169,842 279 22,444 86,881 9,600 16.9 Educational, health, 

and social services

Luzerne 320,918 360 23,796 160,437 9,600 8.0 Educational, health, 

and social services

____________________

a 2010 Census data (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010)

b 2000 Census data (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000)

c U.S. Census Bureau State and County QuickFacts (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013)

d 2011 American Community Survey (One-Year Estimates) data (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey,

2011)

e

“Construction” and “Mining, Logging, and Construction” Occupations per the Standard Occupational Classification 

System, Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011. Data are for the metropolitan area/division for each 

portion of the Project:

Dorrance Loop - the Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania metropolitan area

Franklin Loop - the Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania metropolitan area

Pleasant Run Loop - the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island metropolitan area

Skillman Loop - the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island metropolitan area and the Trenton-Ewing, New Jersey 

metropolitan area

The construction workforce would include both local and non-local workers, of which 

approximately 50 percent would be local. Transco, through its construction contractors and 

subcontractors, may hire local construction workers that possess the required skills and 

experience into the Project workforce. Project-area population impacts are expected to be 

temporary and proportionally small. The total population change would equal the total number 

of non-local construction workers plus any family members accompanying them. Given the 

brief construction period and in our experience, most non-local workers would not be expected 

to be accompanied by their families. Based on the county populations within the Project area, 

the additional people that might temporarily relocate to the area would not result in a significant 

change. Additionally, this temporary increase in population would be distributed throughout the 

pipeline loops and would not have a permanent impact on the population. A brief decrease in the 

unemployment rate could occur as a result of hiring local workers for construction and increased 

demands on the local economy.

Transco conducted an economic impact analysis, which estimated that the Project would 

provide 842 direct job-years of employment in Pennsylvania and New Jersey (Seneca et al., 

2013). A job-year “...is defined as one job lasting one year. This measurement captures the fact 

that construction jobs generate economic impacts, including employment, that persist mainly for 

the length of time that money is spent on the specific project” (Seneca et al., 2013). Of the total 
Socioeconomics

126

number of direct job-years potentially generated by the Project, approximately 574 job-years 

would be in Pennsylvania and 267 job-years would be in New Jersey (Seneca et al., 2013).

Temporary housing availability varies seasonally and geographically within the counties 

and communities near the proposed facilities and is available in the form of daily, weekly, and 

monthly rentals in motels, hotels, and campgrounds. The demand for temporary housing in the 

Project area is generally greatest during the summer months when tourism is at its highest. Other 

available temporary housing such as bed and breakfast facilities, apartments, and vacation 

properties, as well as those in other towns/cities within commuting distance of the Project area 

(e.g., Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania and Trenton, New Jersey) are not included. 

Therefore, the availability of temporary housing is substantially greater than presented in table 

2.5.1-2.

TABLE 2.5.1-2

Housing Statistics by County in the Vicinity of Select Project Facilities

State/County Total Housing Units a

Units for Seasonal, Recreational, 

or Occasional Use b

Rental Vacancy Rate 

(percent) a Hotels/Campgrounds b

New Jersey

Mercer 143,169 558 8.5 28/0

Somerset 123,127 730 6.1 37/2

Hunterdon 49,487 512 5.9 16/7

Pennsylvania

Monroe 80,359 13,590 9.5 66/16

Luzerne 148,748 3,412 8.4 36/15

____________________

a Based on 2010 Census data (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).

b Google Earth, 2013.

Construction of the Project could affect the availability of housing in the Project area. 

The Project would likely have a short-term positive impact on the area rental industry through 

increased demand and higher rates of occupancy; however, no significant impacts on the local 

housing markets are expected. Construction activities may occur during the peak tourism 

season. Also, current activities in the Project area such as Marcellus Shale drilling have resulted 

in temporary housing being more difficult to find and/or more expensive to secure, which could 

require workers to commute to the work area from greater distances. No new permanent housing 

would be needed by Transco because no additional permanent employees would be hired for 

Project operations.

2.5.2 Public Services

A wide range of public services and facilities are offered in the counties crossed by the 

Project including trauma and medical centers, full-service law enforcement, paid and volunteer 

fire departments, and schools. Each county in the socioeconomic impact area has its own 

sheriff’s department and numerous fire departments. In addition, each county has multiple 

school districts operating their own public school systems and a few regional schools. 

The number of non-local workers and associated family members anticipated to enter the 

area would likely be small relative to the current populations in the Project area (see table 2.5.1-
Socioeconomics

127

1). This would result in minor, temporary, or no impact on local community facilities and 

services, such as police, fire, and medical services. The counties, cities, and towns in the Project 

vicinity presently have adequate infrastructure and services to meet the needs of the non-local 

workers and family members.

Short-term impacts on public services could include the need for localized police 

assistance to control traffic flow during construction. Also, construction-related injuries could 

occur as a result of unanticipated accidents or emergencies. In the event of a construction

accident, Transco could require police, fire, and medical services, depending on the type of 

emergency. The anticipated demand for police, fire, and medical services is not expected to 

exceed the existing capability of the infrastructure in the Project area to provide them, as these 

services are expected to be used only in emergencies. These emergency services are located in 

reasonable proximity to the Project area. 

We received scoping comments regarding the proximity of the Project to schools. The 

Skillman Loop would be located within 0.25 mile of three schools: 

 the Stuart Country Day School of the Sacred Heart is approximately 370 feet west 

of the Skillman Loop near MP 1777; 

 the Waldorf School of Princeton is approximately 1,280 feet east of the Skillman 

Loop near MP 1779; and 

 the Montgomery Kid Connection School is approximately 1,100 feet east of the 

Skillman Loop near MP 1780. 

Transco has committed to consulting with the administrators of these schools to identify 

construction measures that would reduce disruption of daily school operations. Such measures 

may include scheduling major construction activities when the school is not in session. Further, 

Transco would ensure that all employees on the right-of-way are in compliance with DOT 

regulations for current and previous drug and alcohol testing records. 

Primary impacts on public services would also include temporary increases in demand for 

retail, recreation, and related services, but we have determined the Project area could support 

these temporary increases in demand. Additionally, we conclude that the education 

infrastructure in the vicinity of the Project could accommodate any temporary educational needs 

of construction worker family members.

2.5.3 Transportation and Traffic

The local road and highway system in the vicinity of the Project facilities consists of 

interstate highways, U.S. highways, state highways, township highways, county and local roads, 

and private roads. The Project would also cross two Conrail railroad lines (MPs 1782.8 and 

1783.0) along the Skillman Loop. Table 2.5.3-1 lists the road and railroad crossings associated 

with the Project as well as Transco’s proposed crossing method.
Socioeconomics

128

TABLE 2.5.3-1

Road and Railroad Crossings Associated with the Project

Loop/Milepost Name of Road or Railroad Type

Proposed Construction 

Method

Skillman Loop

1777.1 Stuart Road Paved Open Cut

1777.3 White Oak Drive Paved Open Cut

1777.7 Ridgeview Road Paved Open Cut

1778.1 Cherry Valley Road Paved Open Cut

1779.8 Georgetown Franklin Turnpike (CR 518) Paved HDD

1780.3 Burnt Hill Road Paved Bore

1780.5 Dugan Drive/ Main Blvd E Paved Open Cut

1781.0 County Road 602 - Skillman Road Paved Bore

1781.4 Dublin Road Paved Bore

1781.5 Sunset Road Paved Bore

1781.8 Concord Lane Paved Bore

1781.9 South Street Dirt Open Cut

1782.0 Kildee Road Paved Bore

1782.2 North Street Paved Bore

1782.3 Fisher Farms Road Paved Bore

1782.8 Conrail RR (New York Central Lines) N/A Bore

1782.8 County Road 604 - West Dutchtown Harlingen Road Paved Bore

1783.0 Conrail RR (New York Central Lines) N/A Bore

Pleasant Run Loop

1.4 Old York Road Paved Bore

1.6 US Highway 202 (Eastbound) Paved Bore

1.6 US Highway 202 (Westbound) Paved Bore

1.8 County Road 629- Pleasant Run Road Paved Bore

3.3 Locust Road Paved Bore

4.0 Barley Sheaf Road Paved Bore

5.2 County Road 523 - Flemington-Whitehouse Road Paved Bore

5.9 County Road 629 - Stanton Road Paved Bore

6.7 Dreahook Road Paved Open Cut

6.8 Stanton Mountain Road/Lebanon Road Paved Bore

Franklin Loop

57.5 State Route 4002 - Long Pond Road Paved Open Cut

57.7 Cartwright Farm Road Paved Open Cut

58.0 Cartwright Road Unpaved Open Cut

59.7 Interstate Highway 80 (Eastbound) Paved Bore

59.7 Interstate Highway 80 (Westbound) Paved Bore

61.5 Lady Joyce Court/Chestnut Road Paved Open Cut

61.6 Lady Violet Court/Anna Road Paved Open Cut

61.8 State Route 940 Paved Bore

62.0 Beechwood Road Paved Open Cut

62.3 Redwood Road Paved Open Cut

62.6 Lidio Road Paved Open Cut

63.2 Burger Road Paved Open Cut

65.0 Twp Hwy 553 - Caughbaugh Drive Unpaved Open Cut

66.5 State Route 2040 - Buck River Road Paved Open Cut

Dorrance Loop

18.6 St. Marys Road Paved Open Cut
Socioeconomics

129

TABLE 2.5.3-1

Road and Railroad Crossings Associated with the Project

Loop/Milepost Name of Road or Railroad Type

Proposed Construction 

Method

19.4 Blue Ridge Trail - SR3007 Paved Open Cut

19.9 Georges Road Unpaved Open Cut

20.9 T387 - Hollow Rd Unpaved Open Cut

22.4 Ruckle Hill Road Paved Open Cut

22.9 Cemetery Road Paved Open Cut

Most local public roads in the vicinity of the Project are paved. Construction of the 

Project could result in minor, short-term impacts along some roads and highways due to the 

movement and delivery of equipment, materials, and workers. Maps included in appendix A

depict the roads that Transco would use to access the construction right-of-way; access roads are 

discussed in greater detail in section 2.4.1. 

The Sierra Club and landowners in the Project area expressed concerns with damage to 

public roads resulting from construction of the Project. Construction of the Project would 

require installation of pipeline across existing public roadways utilizing the methods described in 

section 1.6.2. Road crossing permits would be obtained from applicable state and local agencies 

and would dictate the day-to-day construction activities at road crossings. Transco has 

committed to consult with local law enforcement and safety officials, and would manage traffic 

in accordance with traffic control plans required for encroachment permits.

To minimize traffic delays, Transco would establish detours before open cutting roads or 

would implement other measures to permit traffic flow during construction. Transco’s 

construction contractor would also provide traffic control, including warning signs and/or 

flagmen, along the roads to ensure safe ingress and egress from the construction right-of-way 

and at contractor/pipe yards.

The daily commuting of the construction workforce to the Project area could also 

temporarily affect traffic and create roadside parking hazards. Transco estimates that a 

maximum of up to about 300 to 450 people would be working on any one pipeline spread at any 

one time, resulting in a short-term, temporary increase in traffic. However, because pipeline 

construction work is generally scheduled to take advantage of daylight hours, workers would 

commute to and from the contractor/pipe yards or other locations during off-peak hours (e.g., 

before 7:00 a.m. and after 6:00 p.m.). Additionally, construction would move sequentially along 

the pipeline loops and, therefore, traffic flow impacts would be temporary on any given section 

of roadway. 

In addition to the construction workforce, the delivery of construction equipment and 

materials to the construction work area could temporarily congest existing transportation 

networks at specific locations. To minimize disruptions on traffic on local roads, Transco would 

use multi-lane highways as much as possible to transport heavy construction equipment to the 

Project workspace. As construction continues along the right-of-way, much of the movement of 

equipment would occur along the construction right-of-way. 
Socioeconomics

130

At road crossings, traffic flow would be temporarily interrupted (typically, for 5 to 10 

minutes) by the movement of equipment across the road. Traffic flow at these locations would 

be managed in accordance with the traffic plans that are required for encroachment permits. 

Transco and its contractors would be required to comply with local weight restrictions and limits, 

and would attempt to keep roads free of soil that may be deposited by construction equipment. 

When necessary for equipment to cross roads, mats or other appropriate measures (e.g., 

sweeping) would be used to reduce deposition of mud. 

2.5.4 Property Values

A number of landowners and local government units expressed concern that the 

construction and operation of an additional pipeline adjacent to Transco’s existing pipeline 

system could adversely impact the ability to sell homes and/or reduce home values. 

The effect that a pipeline easement may have on a property value is a damage-related 

issue that would be negotiated between the landowner and Transco during the easement 

acquisition process, which is designed to provide fair compensation to the landowner for the 

company’s right to use the property for pipeline construction and operation. In addition, affected 

landowners who believe that their property values have been negatively impacted could appeal to 

the local tax agency for reappraisal and potential reduction of taxes. It is not anticipated that the 

Project would negatively impact property values outside the proposed pipeline rights-of-way or 

aboveground facility boundaries. 

INGAA conducted a national case study to determine if the presence of a pipeline on a 

piece of property affected the property value or sale price of the property (INGAA, 2001). The 

study revealed that there was no significant impact on property sales located along natural gas 

pipelines and that the pipeline size or the product carried did not impact the sale price. The 

INGAA study also revealed that there were no significant impacts on demand for properties 

within the geographically diverse areas and that the presence of a pipeline did not impede 

development of the surrounding properties. 

Several other studies examined the effects of pipeline easements on sales and property 

values and evaluated the impact of natural gas pipelines on real estate. The first study (Diskin et 

al., 2011) looked at the effects of natural gas transmission pipelines on residential values in 

Arizona. The study concluded that there was no identifiable systematic relationship between 

proximity to a pipeline and residential sale price or value.

Studies conducted in 2008 by PGP Valuation Inc. (PGP, 2008) for Palomar Gas 

Transmission, Inc. and by Ecowest for the Oregon LNG Project (Fruits, 2008) reached similar 

conclusions. Both studies evaluated the potential effect on property values of a natural gas 

pipeline that was constructed in 2003/2004 in northwestern Oregon, including along the western 

edge of the Portland metropolitan area. The PGP study found that:

 there was no measurable long-term impact on property values resulting from 

natural gas pipelines for the particular pipeline project studied;
Socioeconomics

131

 interviews with buyers and brokers indicated no measurable impact on value or 

price; and 

 there was no trend in the data to suggest an extension of marketing periods (i.e., 

time while the property is on sale) for properties with gas pipeline easements.

The Ecowest study concluded that the pipeline had no statistically significant or 

economically significant impact on residential properties. The study also concluded that there 

was no relationship between proximity to the pipeline and sale price. Another study (Hansen et 

al., 2006) analyzed property sales near a pipeline accident location in Washington State, using 

methodologies that considered proximity and persistence over time. This study noted a decline 

in property values following the incident. However, the effect was very localized, and declined 

as the distance from the affected pipeline increased. The effect also diminished over time in the 

years following the incident.

Transco also referenced a recent study of the effect of an existing large-diameter natural 

gas pipeline on home sales in numerous subdivisions in the southwestern U.S. (International 

Right of Way Online, 2011), which also found no systematic relationship between sale price and 

value. Some landowners that would be affected by the Project dispute the results of the 

referenced studies. Many landowners also assert that they would be unable to sell their homes if 

the pipelines were constructed. Transco’s existing system that would be looped as part of this 

proposal includes numerous locations where residential and commercial facilities were 

purchased and/or constructed adjacent to the existing system after Transco’s original pipeline

and subsequent looping were built; whether landowners who would be affected by the Project 

paid a reduced price due to the presence of Transco’s existing facilities in these cases is 

unknown. However, this demonstrates that homes adjacent to pipelines in the Project area have 

been successfully sold. Further, the potential effect of the proposed loop segments on property 

sales and values would be incremental because one to three pipelines already exist in the areas of 

the proposed loops. 

2.5.5 Tax Revenue

Comments were received asserting that the Project would have limited or no economic 

benefit to the communities that would be affected by Project construction. As previously 

discussed, the Project would be expected to have a temporary, minor beneficial impact on 

unemployment rates and the housing rental industry in the area. As discussed below, Transco 

also provided estimates of local expenditures and the payroll and property taxes that would be 

paid in conjunction with construction and operation of the Project. In addition, Transco stated 

that the Project would provide its customers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania with access to 

natural gas derived from Pennsylvania, and that the close proximity of the natural gas supply 

may benefit its customers in reduced transportation costs. We note that the price of natural gas 

in the United States is at a 10-year low, which we attribute in large part to increased domestic 

production including from non-conventional resources such as the Marcellus Shale in 

Pennsylvania, New York, and West Virginia.

Transco commissioned the Institute of Public Policy and Economic Development and 

Rutgers University to assess the economic impacts of the Project in Pennsylvania and New 
Socioeconomics

132

Jersey, respectively. Transco has made changes to the Project subsequent to the completion of 

these original studies; however, the estimated economic impact results presented in this EA 

should be considered a conservative gauge of the magnitude of impacts.

Project construction would result in short-term, beneficial impacts in terms of increased 

payroll and local material purchases. Transco anticipates that the total payroll for Project 

construction would be approximately $66.5 million. Because about half of the workers are 

expected to be non-local workers who would temporarily relocate to the Project vicinity, a 

substantial portion of the payroll would be spent with local vendors and businesses, resulting in 

increased state and local sales tax revenues. Payroll taxes would also be collected from the 

workers employed on the Project in accordance with federal, state, and local tax rates. 

Construction of the Project would also result in increased state and local sales tax 

revenues associated with the purchase of construction materials. While most of the construction 

materials would be purchased from national vendors, approximately $87.2 million of common 

supplies (e.g., stone and concrete, automotive supplies) would be purchased, as available, from 

vendors within the Project area. 

For each pipeline loop in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, Transco expects it would pay 

approximately $15,000 in environmental and building permit fees to the counties in which the 

Project components would be located. In addition, Transco expects it would pay $125,000 in 

environmental permit fees to the State of Pennsylvania and $222,000 in environmental permit 

fees to the State of New Jersey (Seneca et al., 2013).

Once the Project is completed, property taxes would be assessed on the value of the 

pipeline and related facilities in New Jersey. In Pennsylvania, pipeline properties are exempt 

from property tax as personal property; therefore, there would be no increase in property taxes as 

a result of the Project in Pennsylvania. Property tax revenues generated by the Project facilities 

would be based on the annual assessment multiplied by the local property tax rate. In New 

Jersey, Transco estimates that the incremental annual property tax increases resulting from 

operation of the Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops would reflect the following: 

 Breakdown by Township/Municipality

o Branchburg – $80,000

o Readington – $390,000

o Clinton – $5,000

o Princeton – $80,000

o Montgomery – $350,000

 Breakdown by County

o Mercer County (Princeton) – $80,000 

o Somerset County (Branchburg/Montgomery) – $430,000

o Hunterdon County (Readington/Clinton) – $395,000

As such, the increased tax base during Project operation would be a long-term beneficial 

impact on local governments in New Jersey.
Socioeconomics

133

2.5.6 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations, was signed by the President in 1994. It requires that 

each federal agency address the potential for disproportionately high and adverse health or 

environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations. An environmental justice area is defined as an area where the community’s 

minority population is equal to or greater than 50 percent of the community population and/or a 

community in which the percentage of persons living below the poverty level is higher than the 

county average, based on poverty statistics published by the U.S. Census Bureau. If a proposed 

action would result in significant adverse effects to minority or low-income populations or 

Native American tribes, the NEPA analysis should address those impacts as part of the 

alternatives analysis and identify appropriate mitigation measures to address the effects.

Each federal agency must also ensure that public documents, notices, and hearings are 

readily available and accessible to the public. As part of the preparation of this EA, the NEPA 

review process must provide opportunities for effective community participation and involve 

consultation with affected communities. As described in section 1.5, several opportunities to 

comment were provided to affected landowners in the Project areas throughout our 

environmental review. In addition to scoping meetings and meetings with local officials, FERC 

staff participated in a site visit at the request of landowners. Consultation with Native American 

groups is described in section 2.6.2.

Table 2.5.6-1 provides data on minority population and income for all communities 

affected by the proposed Project, along with data on comparison areas. Per capita income in the 

vicinity of the Project is provided in table 2.5.1-1. 

TABLE 2.5.6-1

Ethnic and Poverty Statistics in the Vicinity of Select Project Facilities

State/County

Percent of Total Population

White Black a

Native 

American b

Other 

Minorities c Hispanic d

Percent Below 

Poverty

New Jersey 68.6 13.7 0.3 17.4 17.7 10.4

Mercer County, NJ 61.4 20.3 0.3 18.0 15.1 11.4

Somerset County, NJ 70.1 8.9 0.2 20.7 13.0 4.6

Hunterdon County, NJ 91.4 2.7 0.1 5.8 5.2 4.0

Pennsylvania 81.9 10.8 0.2 7.0 5.7 13.8

Monroe County, PA 77.2 13.2 0.3 9.3 13.1 14.8

Luzerne County, PA 90.7 3.4 0.2 5.8 6.7 15.5

____________________

a Black or African American.

b American Indian and Alaska Native.

c

Includes Asian; Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; Some Other Race; and Two or More Races.

d Hispanic can be of any race.

Source: 2010 Census (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).

Based on the U.S. Census Bureau data, minority and low income populations comprise 

less than 50 percent of the population in the states and counties affected by the proposed pipeline 

loops. Transco’s Project involves looping its existing pipeline system and modifications to its 
Socioeconomics

134

existing compressor stations and other aboveground facilities and was not chosen based on the 

ethnicity of the population or economic status. As such, we find that the proposed Project would 

not disproportionately affect minority or low income populations.

2.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, requires the FERC to take into account the effects 

of its undertakings on properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP) and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an 

opportunity to comment. Transco is assisting us by providing information, analyses, and 

recommendations, as allowed by the ACHP’s regulations for implementing Section 106 at 36 

CFR 800.2(a)(3), and outlined in our Guidelines for Reporting on Cultural Resources 

Investigations for Pipeline Projects (18 CFR 380.12[f]).

2.6.1 Cultural Resources Investigations

To ensure full coverage of the construction work areas during surveys for cultural 

resources, Transco surveyed a 200- to 400-foot-wide corridor along the pipeline routes and 

various reroutes, a 50-foot-wide corridor along access roads, the entire footprints of 

contractor/pipe storage yards and contractor staging areas, extra work spaces, and certain 

aboveground facilities. The survey area totaled approximately 996.8 acres. 

The investigation included a combination of walkover reconnaissance and shovel testing 

according to the predictive model of low, medium, and high probability for archaeological 

discovery. Geomorphologic investigations to evaluate the potential for deeply buried 

archaeological resources were also completed at waterbody crossings in New Jersey and 

Pennsylvania. Transco also inventoried aboveground resources adjacent to or within the 

immediate vicinity of all Project components. 

Construction activities at existing Compressor Station 205 in New Jersey; existing 

Compressor Stations 515, 517, and 520 in Pennsylvania; and other existing facilities in North 

Carolina and Maryland are covered by Transco’s categorical exemptions with the respective 

State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and, therefore, were excluded from cultural 

resources studies. Transco contacted the Virginia SHPO regarding construction activities at the 

existing Transco facilities in that state. Transco has not yet filed the Virginia SHPO’s 

comments. 

New Jersey

Transco completed a Phase I cultural resources identification survey of 442 acres along 

the Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops, including two contractor/pipe storage yards, four 

contractor staging areas, eight access roads, and ATWS. Five isolated finds were identified on 

the Skillman Loop, and two isolated finds were identified on the Pleasant Run Loop. Three 

previously recorded sites (28HU486, 28HU487, and 28HU488) along the Pleasant Run Loop 

were not relocated. One historic archaeological site (SK-CY2-HI-012) was identified at a 

contractor yard, and consists of a predominately late 19th century artifact scatter. The site was 

recommended for avoidance. Transco removed this contractor yard from the project, thus, the 

site would be avoided. The seven isolated finds along the Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops 
Cultural Resources

135

contained very few artifacts and, therefore, were recommended not eligible for the NRHP. Table 

2.6.1-1 lists the cultural resources sites identified in New Jersey.

TABLE 2.6.1-1

Cultural Resources Sites Identified in New Jersey

Site Type/Loop/Site Number or Name Description

Recommendation/

NRHP Status

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

Skillman Loop

SK-A-020 Historic isolated find Not eligible

SK-A-282 Historic isolated find Not eligible

SK-B-149 Prehistoric isolated find Not eligible

SK-C-247 Prehistoric isolated find Not eligible

SK-C-254 Historic isolated find Not eligible

SK-CY2-HI-012 Historic artifact scatter Not assessed; Avoided 

(Yard CY/PY-SK-04 (Alt 

#1) no longer proposed 

for use)

Pleasant Run Loop

PR-D-350 Historic isolated find Not eligible

PR-A-425 Historic isolated find Not eligible

28HU486 Historic foundations Not relocated; Not eligible 

28HU487 Prehistoric artifact scatter Not relocated; Not eligible 

28HU488 Historic ice-skating pond Not relocated; Not eligible

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL SITES

Skillman Loop

549 Great Road, Princeton Residence, outbuildings Potentially eligible

381 Cherry Valley Road, Princeton Residence Not eligible

1062 Cherry Hill Road, Princeton Waldorf School of Princeton, 

outbuildings

Not eligible

317 Mountain View Road, Montgomery Residence Not eligible

Delaware and Bound Brook [Reading] Railroad Historic 

District (4540) 

Historic District Eligible

New Jersey State Village for Epileptics Historic District 

(3450), Blawenburg

Historic District Eligible

Van Middlesworth House (2565), Dutchtown Residence (within Dutchtown Historic 

District)

Eligible

Pleasant Run Loop

659 Case Road, Branchburg Residence, outbuildings Potentially eligible

151 Pleasant Run Road, Flemington Residence, outbuildings Potentially eligible

127 Pleasant Run Road, Flemington Residence, outbuildings Potentially eligible

105-109 Pleasant Run Road, Flemington Residence, outbuildings Potentially eligible

101 Pleasant Run Road, Flemington Residence Potentially eligible

507 Locust Road, Flemington Residence, outbuildings Not eligible

929 County Road 523, Flemington Residence, outbuildings Potentially eligible

124 Dreahook Road, Readington Residence, outbuildings Potentially eligible

Stanton Rural Historic District (1624), Stanton Historic District Listed

Centerville Historic District (4196), Centerville Historic District Eligible

Old York Road Historic District (4214), Centerville Historic District Eligible

New House (1624.11), Stanton Residence (within Stanton Rural 

Historic District)

Listed

White Face Farm (1624.12), Stanton Residence (within Stanton Rural 

Historic District)

Listed
Cultural Resources

136

TABLE 2.6.1-1

Cultural Resources Sites Identified in New Jersey

Site Type/Loop/Site Number or Name Description

Recommendation/

NRHP Status

Thomas Bowman House (1624.18), Stanton Residence (within Stanton Rural 

Historic District)

Listed

Centerville Tavern (4196.005), Stanton Residence (within Stanton Rural 

Historic District)

Listed

Carkhuff #2 (1624.09), Stanton Residence (within Stanton Rural 

Historic District)

Listed

J. Pickell House (1624.13), Stanton Residence (within Stanton Rural 

Historic District)

Listed

J. Carkhuff House (1624.1), Stanton Residence (within Stanton Rural 

Historic District)

Listed

New Houses (1624.14), Stanton Residence (within Stanton Rural 

Historic District)

Listed

J.E. Runkle House (1624.19), Stanton Residence (within Stanton Rural 

Historic District)

Listed

J. DeMott House (1624.27), Stanton Residence (within Stanton Rural 

Historic District)

Listed

Geomorphological field investigations included shovel testing and pedestrian surveys at 

five crossings, including Beden Brook and Pleasant Run. This study determined that the soils at 

Beden Brook were disturbed and the probability of deeply buried stratified deposits were low. 

No additional testing was recommended. Intact buried soils identified at Pleasant Run did not 

extend into the proposed construction limits and no additional testing was recommended. No 

buried soils were identified at the remaining three locations and no additional testing was 

recommended.

Transco provided a Phase I report (Ziesing et al., 2013) to the FERC and New Jersey 

SHPO. In a letter dated November 20, 2013, the SHPO commented on the report and requested 

clarifications, revisions, additional information, and additional testing. Transco has not yet 

provided a revised Phase I report. 

Transco’s aboveground reconnaissance survey newly identified four aboveground 

resources more than 50 years of age along the Skillman Loop, which include 19th to 20th century 

residences, farm outbuildings, and a school administration building (see table 2.6.1-1). Two 

previously recorded historic districts and one individual property also were inventoried along the 

Skillman Loop. Eight newly identified and 13 previously recorded aboveground resources, 

including 3 historic districts and 10 individual properties that contribute to those districts, were 

investigated along the Pleasant Run Loop. Transco recommended that the Project would have no 

effect on the view shed, landscape, or building features associated with the NRHP-eligible or -

listed historic districts and previously recorded individual properties on the Skillman and 

Pleasant Run Loops. 

Of the 12 newly inventoried aboveground resources along both the Skillman and Pleasant 

Run Loops, 7 were recommended not eligible for the NRHP. Of the remaining resources, 

Transco assessed five properties (549 Great Road along the Skillman Loop; and 659 Case Road, 

127 Pleasant Run Road, 929 County Road 523, and 124 Dreahook Road along the Pleasant Run 
Cultural Resources

137

Loop) as potentially eligible and recommended that additional research and intensive-level 

survey be completed. 

The aboveground reconnaissance survey results were submitted to the FERC and the 

New Jersey SHPO as part of the Phase I report. In comments of March 18, 2014, the SHPO 

recommended intensive level survey on 549 Great Road on the Skillman Loop, and 101 Pleasant 

Run Road, 105 Pleasant Run Road, 127 Pleasant Run Road, 151 Pleasant Run Road, 124 

Dreahook Road, 659 Case Road, and 929 County Road 523 on the Pleasant Run Loop. Transco 

indicated it has completed the work on seven of these resources (one was denied access) and 

would include the results in a revised Phase I report. Transco has not yet provided the revised 

report.

As discussed in section 2.2.4, Transco would mitigate for Project impacts on wetlands in 

New Jersey by preserving and/or enhancing wetland habitat in accordance with the NJDEP 

permitting process. The selection of wetland mitigation site(s) in New Jersey is pending. 

Transco indicated it would consult the SHPO once the mitigation site(s) are finalized.

Transco has not yet completed cultural resources surveys (due to denied access) for three 

segments (0.62 mile) and a contractor yard on the Skillman Loop, and seven segments (1.2 

miles) on the Pleasant Run Loop. 

We received several comments regarding potential cultural resources in New Jersey that 

may be directly or indirectly affected by the Project, including D&R Canal State Park, Princeton 

Ridge, and Sourland Mountain; various “cultural and historical sites” in Mercer and Somerset 

Counties; a pre-revolutionary era homestead; and the historic community of Stanton along the 

Skillman Loop. The Project would not cross the D&R Canal State Park or Sourland Mountain, 

thus there would be no direct impacts from the Project on these resources. As discussed in 

section 2.6.1, Phase I cultural resources survey of accessible properties along the Princeton 

Ridge segment of the Skillman Loop (MPs 1776.8 to 1778.1) identified a single historic isolated 

find that was recommended not eligible for the NRHP. The concerns about the potential 

resources in Mercer and Somerset Counties were also addressed by the archaeological and 

architectural surveys performed by Transco and are discussed in its Phase I report. Transco’s 

Phase I report confirmed that the pre-revolutionary era homestead would not be directly affected 

by the Project because the closest property corner is approximately 100 feet south of the 

centerline and there are no structures dating from the 18th century present. Additionally, review 

of the Stanton Rural Historic District resulted in no extant buildings, landscape features, or 

historic view sheds affected by the Skillman Loop.

Pennsylvania

Transco completed a Phase I cultural resources identification survey of approximately 

574.8 acres along the Franklin and Dorrance Loops, including 3 contractor/pipe storage yards, 8

contractor staging areas, 15 access roads, and ATWS. Four archaeological resources, including 

two stone stacked piles and two dry laid stone walls, were identified on the Franklin Loop. The 

two stone stacked piles (sites F8-1 and F8a-1) are located beyond the current limits of 

disturbance and, therefore, Transco did not assess the sites’ eligibility for the NRHP. The dry 

laid stone walls were assessed as having no further research potential and no further work was 

recommended. 
Cultural Resources

138

A total of 22 archaeological resources were identified on the Dorrance Loop. These 

include one historic farmstead (site 36LU0097) and 21 dry laid stone walls. Site 36LU0097 is a 

grouping of foundation remnants, identified by local oral tradition as a late 19th century 

farmstead that may also include two human burials. All 21 stone wall remnants were assessed as 

having no further research potential and no further work was recommended. The historic 

foundations at site 36LU0097 were recommended as not eligible for the NRHP. However, 

Transco recommended that the two possible human graves at site 36LU0097 be avoided by 

construction activities, or that archaeological testing be conducted to ascertain their status as 

burials. Transco would restrict the limits of disturbance to avoid the site and recommended that 

protective fencing be placed around the site area during construction. Table 2.6.1-2 lists the 

cultural resources sites identified within the APE in Pennsylvania. 

Geomorphological field investigations in Pennsylvania included shovel testing and 

pedestrian surveys at five waterbody crossings, with the addition of bucket augers, at Lehigh 

River and Tobyhanna Creek. Transco did not identify any soil deposits in Pennsylvania with the 

potential for containing buried archaeological sites.

Transco provided a Phase I report (Gallagher et al., 2013) to the FERC and Pennsylvania 

SHPO. In a letter dated November 8, 2013, the Pennsylvania SHPO concurred with the 

recommendations in the report regarding archaeological resources. We concur also. 

Transco’s aboveground reconnaissance survey identified three newly identified structures 

and one previously recorded aboveground structure along the Franklin Loop, which included 20th

century residences and farm outbuildings (see table 2.6.1-2). Six aboveground resources more 

than 50 years of age were recorded along the Dorrance Loop, which include 20th century 

residences, farm outbuildings, and a saw mill. Two previously recorded stone bridges were also 

inventoried. All of the inventoried aboveground resources were recommended not eligible for 

the NRHP. 

The aboveground reconnaissance survey results were submitted to the FERC and the 

Pennsylvania SHPO as part of the Phase I report. In a letter dated November 4, 2013, the SHPO 

concurred with the recommendations in the report regarding aboveground resources. We concur 

also. 

Transco submitted an addendum report to the FERC and the Pennsylvania SHPO that 

included survey results for approximately 47.3 acres composed of corridor survey, a staging area, 

a pipe yard, and a compressor station for the Franklin and Dorrance Loops. One dilapidated 

stone wall was identified and assessed as having no further research potential, and no further 

work was recommended. In a letter dated April 17, 2014, the SHPO concurred with the 

recommendations in the report. We concur also. 

As discussed in section 2.2.4, Transco proposes to mitigate for Project impacts on 

wetlands in Pennsylvania by preserving and/or enhancing wetland habitat at an approximate 15-

acre site in Lehigh County (see figure 2.2.4-1). Transco contacted the SHPO regarding the 

activities to be conducted at the wetland mitigation site. The SHPO response is pending. 
Cultural Resources

139

TABLE 2.6.1-2

Cultural Resources Sites Identified in Pennsylvania

Site Type/Loop/Site Number or Name Description

Recommendation/NRHP 

Status

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

Franklin Loop

FSW5-1 Historic stone wall Not eligible

FSW7-1 Historic stone wall Not eligible

F8-1 Historic stacked stone pile Not assessed; Avoided

F8A-1 Historic stacked stone pile Not assessed; Avoided

FSW6a-1 Historic stacked stone pile Not assessed; Avoided

Dorrance Loop

36LU0097 Historic foundations and possible 

human graves

Not eligible, Avoid grave 

site

DSW4-1 Historic stone wall No further work

DSW4-2 Historic stone wall No further work

DSW4-3 Historic stone wall No further work

DSW4-4 Historic stone wall No further work

DSW4-5 Historic stone wall No further work

DSW4-6 Historic stone wall No further work

DSW4-7 Historic stone wall No further work

DSW5-1 Historic stone wall No further work

DSW5-2-a Historic stone wall No further work

DSW5-2-b Historic stone wall No further work

DSW5-3 Historic stone wall No further work

DSW5-4 Historic stone wall No further work

DSW5-5 Historic stone wall No further work

DSW5-6 Historic stone wall No further work

DSW5-7 Historic stone wall No further work

DSW5-8 Historic stone wall No further work

DSW5-9 Historic stone wall No further work

DSW5-10 Historic stone wall No further work

DSW6-1 Historic stone wall No further work

DSW6-2 Historic stone wall No further work

DSW6-3 Historic stone wall No further work

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL SITES

Franklin Loop

206 Cartwright Rd, Tunkhannock Residence Not eligible

205 Burger Rd, Blakeslee Residence, outbuildings Not eligible

400 Buck Blvd, White Haven Shed Not eligible

Winter House/Middleton Site (038819) 120 Orchard Ln, 

Blakeslee

Residence Not eligible

Dorrance Loop

1725 Prospect Rd (Rusczyk Rd), Mountain Top Residence, outbuildings, saw mill Not eligible

2274 Saint Marys Rd, Mountain Top Residence, outbuildings Not eligible

8069 Blue Ridge Trl, Mountain Top Residence Not eligible

8075 Blue Ridge Trl, Mountain Top Residence Not eligible

8113 Blue Ridge Trl, Wapwallopen Residence, barn Not eligible

436 Ruckle Hill Rd, Wapwallopen Residence, shed Not eligible

Bridge Stone Bridge Not eligible

Bridge Stone Bridge Not eligible
Cultural Resources

140

2.6.2 Native American Consultation

We sent our NOI to the Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Cayuga Nation, Delaware 

Nation, Delaware Tribe of Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Oneida Tribe of 

Indians of Wisconsin, Oneida Indian Nation, Onondaga Indian Nation, Saint Regis Mohawk 

Tribe, Seneca Nation of Indians, Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, Shawnee Tribe, 

Stockbridge-Munsee Community of Wisconsin, Tonawanda Seneca Nation, and Tuscarora 

Nation. No responses have been received to date. On August 28, 2013, we sent follow-up letters 

to these same tribes. No responses to our letter have been received. 

On June 24, 2013, Transco sent letters to the 15 tribes initially contacted by us, as well as 

the Cherokee Nation of New Jersey, Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey, Powhatan 

Renape Nation, Ramapough Lunaape Nation, and Sand Hill Band of Indians, to introduce the 

proposed Project and request comments regarding the potential for the Project to affect resources 

of cultural or religious significance to tribe. No responses have been received to date. 

2.6.3 Unanticipated Discoveries Plan

Transco filed Unanticipated Discoveries Plans for New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, 

North Carolina, and Virginia with us as part of its application, and provided copies to the 

respective SHPOs. The plans would be used in the event any unanticipated cultural resources or 

human remains are encountered during construction. The Pennsylvania and North Carolina 

SHPOs concurred with the plans for those states in letters dated June 27, 2013 and November 12, 

2013, respectively. No comments on the plans have been received from the Virginia or 

Maryland SHPOs. The New Jersey SHPO requested revision to the New Jersey plan, and the 

FERC staff requested revisions to the plans. Revised plans were provided to the FERC and all 

SHPOs on December 11 and 12, 2013. We find the revised plans acceptable. No additional 

comments regarding the revised plans have been received from the SHPOs.

2.6.4 Compliance with the NHPA

Compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA has not been completed for the proposed 

Project. To ensure that the FERC's responsibilities under the NHPA and its implementing 

regulations are met, we recommend that:

 Transco should not begin construction of facilities and/or use of staging, 

storage, or temporary work areas and new or to-be-improved access roads 

until:

a. Transco files with the Secretary: 

i. Phase I cultural resources survey and architectural inventory 

reports for any previously unreported areas, including any 

wetland mitigation parcels, and the appropriate SHPO’s 

comments on the reports; 

ii. the Revised Phase I report for New Jersey, and the SHPO’s 

comments on the report;
Cultural Resources

141

iii. the Virginia SHPO’s comments on facility modifications that 

were excluded from cultural resources surveys;

b. the ACHP is afforded an opportunity to comment if historic 

properties would be adversely affected; and

c. the FERC staff reviews and the Director of OEP approves the cultural 

resources reports, and notifies Transco in writing that construction 

may proceed.

All material filed with the Commission containing location, character, and 

ownership information about cultural resources must have the cover and any 

relevant pages therein clearly labeled in bold lettering: “CONTAINS 

PRIVILEGED INFORMATION--DO NOT RELEASE.”

2.7 AIR QUALITY

Air quality would be affected by construction and operation of the Project. Though air 

emissions would be generated during construction, most of the air emissions associated with the 

Project would result from the long-term operation of the compressor stations. We received 

several comments with concerns regarding fugitive dust emissions during construction and 

additional operating emissions in the Project area. This section of the EA addresses the 

construction and operating emissions from the Project, as well as projected impacts and 

compliance with regulatory requirements. 

The Project includes approximately 29.8 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline looping, net 

addition of 71,900 hp at four existing compressor stations, and modification of various 

aboveground facilities. Construction of the Project’s facilities would primarily impact areas of 

Mercer, Somerset, and Hunterdon Counties, New Jersey, and Monroe, Luzerne, Columbia, and 

Lycoming Counties, Pennsylvania. The Project would also include minor modifications at 

facilities in North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. 

Project activities at Compressor Stations 515, 517, and 520 have the potential to affect air 

quality during operation. The remainder of the activities proposed by this Project would not 

affect air emission producing equipment. Permit modifications would not be required for work 

at existing Compressor Station 205 in New Jersey; Compressor Station 145 in North Carolina; 

Compressor Stations 165, 170, 175, 180, and 185 in Virginia; and Compressor Station 190 in 

Maryland.

2.7.1 Existing Air Quality

The primary components of the Project are in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Project 

area is characterized by rolling hills to flat areas with large developed urban areas in New Jersey 

to rolling hills and steep terrain in Pennsylvania, which can result in wide variation in 

temperature, precipitation, and wind flow over short distances.

Ambient air quality is protected by federal and state regulations. The Clean Air Act, as 

amended in 1977 and 1990 (CAA), designates seven pollutants as “criteria pollutants” for which 
Air Quality

142

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are promulgated. The NAAQS for nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), particulate 

matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10), and particulate 

matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5) were set to protect 

human health (primary standards) and public welfare (secondary standards). 

Individual state air quality standards cannot be less stringent than the NAAQS. New 

Jersey and Pennsylvania have adopted the federal NAAQS through their respective state air 

quality regulations and have established state ambient air quality standards as outlined in table 

2.7.1-1.

TABLE 2.7.1-1

National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant

Averaging 

Period Primary NAAQS

Secondary 

NAAQS

Primary New 

Jersey AAQS

Secondary New 

Jersey AAQS

Pennsylvania 

AAQS

SO2

1-houra 75 ppb None Federal Federal Federal

3-hour None 0.5 ppm None 0.5 ppmb None

24-hour None None 0.14 ppmb 0.1 ppmb 0.14 ppm

Annual None None 0.03 ppmb 0.02 ppmb 0.03 ppm

CO

1-hour 35 ppm None Federal None Federal

8-hour 9 ppm None Federal None Federal

NO2

1-hourc 100 ppb 100 ppb Federal Federal 0.1 ppm

Annual 53 ppb 53 ppb 50 ppb Federal Federal

O3

1-hour d d 0.12 ppmd,e 0.08 ppm None

8-hourf 0.075 ppm 0.075 ppm None None Federal

PM10 24-hour 150 g/m3 150 g/m3 Federal Federal Federal

PM2.5

24-hour 35 g/m3 35 g/m3 Federal Federal Federal

Annual 15 g/m3 15 g/m3 Federal Federal Federal

Pb Rolling 3-month 0.15 g/m3 0.15 g/m3 Federalg None Federal

Total 

Suspended 

Particulates

24-hour None None 260 g/m3 150 g/m3 None

12 Consecutive 

Months

None None 75 g/m3 60 g/m3 None

____________________

a Final rule signed June 2, 2010. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-

hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 75 ppb.

b Values are approximate based on conversions for units of measure.

c To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor 

within an area must not exceed 100 ppb.

d EPA revoked the 1-hour O3 standard in all areas effective June 15, 2005, although some areas have continuing 

obligations under that standard (“anti-backsliding”). The standard is attained when the expected number of days per 

calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is less than or equal to 1.

e The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average 

concentrations above 0.12 ppm is less than or equal to 1.

f Average of 4th highest daily maximum over 3 years.

g The federal standard has not been officially adopted, but it is currently being applied to determine compliance status.

Sources: EPA, 2013a; NJDEP, 2013b; PADEP, 2013b.

ppb = parts per billion

ppm = parts per million

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

The EPA, state, and local agencies have established a network of ambient air quality 

monitoring stations to measure and track the background concentrations of criteria pollutants 

across the United States. Data were obtained from representative air quality monitoring stations 
Air Quality

143

to characterize the background air quality in the Project region. Air monitoring stations in or 

near Morris, Mercer, and Philadelphia Counties were used for the New Jersey portions of the 

Project; and monitoring stations in Centre, Luzerne, Lackawanna, Lycoming, and Northampton 

Counties were used for the Pennsylvania portion of the Project. Air quality monitoring stations 

in closest proximity to Compressor Stations 520, 517, and 515, and near the pipeline loop 

construction sites in New Jersey were used. The Pennsylvania monitoring stations used to 

estimate air quality in the Project area are located in or near urban areas, thus concentration data 

are representative of urban land use rather than the rural areas where Project activities would 

occur. This should generally result in a conservative (high) estimate of ambient concentrations 

in the Project area. A summary of the regional ambient air quality monitoring data for the 

Project area is presented in table 2.7.1-2.

TABLE 2.7.1-2

Ambient Air Quality Concentrations

Pollutant

Averaging 

Period

New Jersey Pennsylvania 

Monitor Location Year Value Monitor Location Year Value

SO2

1-houra Morris 2013 6 ppb Luzerne 2013 7 ppb

3-hour c N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

24-hourb Morris 2013 3 ppb Luzerne 2013 4 ppb

Annual N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

CO

1-hourc Bucks Co, PA 2013 2.4 ppm Lackawanna 2013 1.8 ppm

8-hourc Bucks Co, PA 2013 1.8 ppm Lackawanna 2013 1.3 ppm

NO2

1-hourd Morris 2013 35 ppb Tioga

Lackawanna

2013

2013

11 ppb

40 ppb

Annual N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

O3

1-hour N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

8-houre Mercer 2013 0.07 ppm Tioga

Lackawanna

2013

2013

0.066 ppm

0.066 ppm

PM10

24-hourc Philadelphia Co, PA 2013 36 g/m3 Lycoming

Luzerne

2013

2013

22 g/m3

45 g/m3

PM2.5

24-hourf Mercer 2013 24 g/m3 Northampton 

Centre

2013

2013

34 g/m3

22 g/m3

Annual Mercer 2013 9.1 g/m3 Northampton 

Centre

2013

2013

9.1 g/m3

10.9 g/m3

__________________

a 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average.

b High 1st High value.

c High 2nd High value.

d 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average.

e 4th highest daily maximum.

f 98th percentile value.

Source: EPA, 2014b.

N/A = Not Data Available

ppb = parts per billion

ppm = parts per million

g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Air Quality

144

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) occur in the atmosphere both naturally and as a result of 

human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels. These gases are the integral components of 

the atmosphere’s greenhouse effect that warms the earth’s surface and moderates day/night 

temperature variation. In general, the most abundant GHGs are water vapor, carbon dioxide 

(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and O3. On December 7, 2009, the EPA defined air 

pollution to include the mix of six long-lived and directly-emitted GHGs, finding that the 

presence of the following GHGs in the atmosphere may endanger public health and public 

welfare through climate change: CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and 

sulfur hexafluoride.

As with any fossil-fuel fired project or activity, the Project would contribute GHG 

emissions. The principle GHGs that would be produced by the Project are CO2, CH4, and N2O. 

No fluorinated gases would be emitted by the Project. Emissions of GHGs are quantified and 

regulated in units of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). The CO2e unit of measure takes into 

account the global warming potential (GWP) of each GHG. The GWP is a ratio relative to CO2

that is based on the properties of the GHG’s ability to absorb solar radiation as well as the 

residence time within the atmosphere. Thus, CO2 has a GWP of 1, CH4 has a GWP of 25, and 

N2O has a GWP of 298. To obtain the CO2e quantity, the mass of the particular chemical is 

multiplied by the corresponding GWP, the product of which is the CO2e for that chemical. The 

CO2e value for each of the GHG chemicals is summed to obtain the total CO2e GHG emissions. 

We received comments on the amount of GHG emissions the Project would contribute. In 

compliance with EPA’s definition of air pollution to include GHGs, we have provided estimates 

of GHG emissions for construction and operation, as discussed throughout this section. Impacts 

from GHG emissions (climate change) are discussed in more detail in section 2.7.2.

Air quality control regions (AQCRs) are areas established for air quality planning 

purposes in which implementation plans describe how ambient air quality standards would be 

achieved and maintained. AQCRs were established by the EPA and local agencies, in 

accordance with section 107 of the CAA, as a means to implement the CAA and comply with the 

NAAQS through State Implementation Plans (SIPs). The AQCRs are intra- and interstate 

regions such as large metropolitan areas where improvement of the air quality in one portion of 

the AQCR requires emission reductions throughout the AQCR. Each AQCR, or portion thereof, 

is designated based on compliance with the NAAQS. AQCR designations fall under three main 

categories as follows: “attainment” (areas in compliance with the NAAQS); “nonattainment” 

(areas not in compliance with the NAAQS); or “unclassifiable.” Unclassifiable areas are treated 

as attainment areas for the purpose of permitting a stationary source of pollution. Areas that 

have been designated nonattainment but have since demonstrated compliance with the ambient 

air quality standard(s) are designated maintenance for that pollutant. Maintenance areas may be 

subject to more stringent regulatory requirements to ensure continued attainment of the NAAQS 

pollutant. The Project area spans several counties in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, 

Virginia, and Maryland that have varying attainment designations. Table 2.7.1-3 shows the 

counties traversed by the Project and the air quality designation for criteria pollutants. 

The entire Project is also located within the Northeast Ozone Transport Region, which 

includes 11 northeastern states in which ozone transports from one or more states and contributes 

to a violation of the ozone NAAQS in one or more downwind states. States in this region are 

required to submit a SIP, stationary sources are subject to more stringent permitting 
Air Quality

145

requirements, and various regulatory thresholds are lower for the pollutants that form ozone, 

even if they meet the O3 NAAQS.

TABLE 2.7.1-3

Attainment Status for the Counties Affected by the Project

Location (County, 

State) Air Quality Control Region a Attainment or Unclassifiable Nonattainment

Mercer, NJ Metropolitan Philadelphia Interstate 

(81.15)

NO2, Pb, PM10, SO2 O3 (moderate), 

CO (maintenance), PM2.5

Somerset, NJ New Jersey – New York –

Connecticut Interstate (81.13)

NO2, Pb, PM10, SO2 O3 (moderate), 

CO (maintenance), PM2.5

Hunterdon, NJ Northeast Pennsylvania-Upper 

Delaware Valley Interstate (81.55)

CO, NO2, Pb, PM10, PM2.5, SO2 O3 (moderate)

Monroe, PA Northeast Pennsylvania-Upper 

Delaware Valley Interstate (81.55)

CO, NO2, Pb, PM10, PM2.5, SO2 O3 (maintenance)

Luzerne, PA Northeast Pennsylvania-Upper 

Delaware Valley Interstate (81.55)

CO, NO2, Pb, PM10, PM2.5, SO2 O3 (maintenance)

Columbia, PA Central Pennsylvania Intrastate 

(81.104)

CO, NO2, O3, Pb, PM10, PM2.5, SO2 none

Lycoming, PA Central Pennsylvania Intrastate 

(81.104)

CO, NO2, O3, Pb, PM10, PM2.5, SO2 none

Cleveland, NC Eastern Mountain Intrastate (81.147) CO, NO2, O3, Pb, PM10, PM2.5, SO2 none

Pittsylvania, VA Central Virginia Intrastate (81.143) CO, NO2, O3, Pb, PM10, PM2.5, SO2 none

Campbell, VA Central Virginia Intrastate (81.143) CO, NO2, O3, Pb, PM10, PM2.5, SO2 none

Appomattox, VA Central Virginia Intrastate (81.143) CO, NO2, O3, Pb, PM10, PM2.5, SO2 none

Buckingham, VA Central Virginia Intrastate (81.143) CO, NO2, O3, Pb, PM10, PM2.5, SO2 none

Fluvanna, VA Northeastern Virginia Intrastate 

(81.144)

CO, NO2, O3, Pb, PM10, PM2.5, SO2 none

Louisa, VA Northeastern Virginia Intrastate 

(81.144)

CO, NO2, O3, Pb, PM10, PM2.5, SO2 none

Culpepper, VA Northeastern Virginia Intrastate 

(81.144)

CO, NO2, O3, Pb, PM10, PM2.5, SO2 none

Orange, VA Northeastern Virginia Intrastate 

(81.144)

CO, NO2, O3, Pb, PM10, PM2.5, SO2 none

Fauquier, VA Northeastern Virginia Intrastate 

(81.144)

CO, NO2, O3, Pb, PM10, PM2.5, SO2 none

Prince William, VA National Capital Interstate (81.12) CO, NO2, Pb, PM10, SO2 O3 (moderate), 

PM2.5

Fairfax, VA National Capital Interstate (81.12) CO, NO2, Pb, PM10, SO2 O3 (moderate), 

PM2.5

Montgomery, MD National Capital Interstate (81.12) NO2, Pb, PM10, SO2 O3 (moderate), 

CO (maintenance), PM2.5

Howard, MD Metropolitan Baltimore Intrastate 

(81.28)

CO, NO2, Pb, PM10, SO2 O3 (moderate), 

PM2.5

Baltimore, MD Metropolitan Baltimore Intrastate 

(81.28)

CO, NO2, Pb, PM10, SO2 O3 (moderate), 

PM2.5

Harford, MD Metropolitan Baltimore Intrastate 

(81.28)

CO, NO2, Pb, PM10, SO2 O3 (moderate), 

PM2.5

__________________

a Though not a designated Air Quality Control Region, all counties listed above affected by the Project are located in the 

Northeast Ozone Transport Region.

Sources: EPA, 2013b
Air Quality

146

2.7.2 Regulatory Requirements

The CAA is the basic federal statute governing air pollution. The provisions of the CAA 

that are potentially relevant to the Project include the following (which are discussed below):

 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD);

 Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR);

 Title V Operating Permits;

 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS);

 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories 

(NESHAP);

 General Conformity; 

 GHG Reporting Rule; and

 State Regulations.

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

Proposed new or modified air pollutant emissions sources must undergo a New Source 

Review (NSR) permitting process prior to construction or operation. Through the NSR 

permitting process, local, state, and federal regulatory agencies review and approve project 

construction plans, regulated pollutant increases or changes, emissions controls, and various 

other details. The agencies then issue construction permits that include specific requirements for 

emissions control equipment and operating limits. Once construction is complete, the sources 

are issued operating permits that specify detailed operating conditions, emissions limits, fees, 

reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and various other operating parameters that must be 

met throughout the life of the permit. The three basic categories of NSR permitting are PSD, 

NNSR, and Minor Source NSR. Separate procedures have been established for federal preconstruction air permit review of certain large proposed projects in attainment areas versus 

nonattainment areas. Federal preconstruction review for affected sources located in attainment 

areas is called PSD. This process is intended to keep new or modified major air emission 

sources from causing existing air quality to deteriorate beyond acceptable levels. Federal 

preconstruction review for affected sources located in nonattainment areas is commonly referred 

to as NNSR, which contains more stringent thresholds and requirements. Projects for which 

pollutants are not subject to PSD or NNSR may be subject to minor source NSR, which is the 

minor source permitting process for the state or local jurisdictional agency. Minor source NSR 

ensures compliance with the state regulations discussed later in this section. 

The PSD regulations (40 CFR 52.21) define a major source as any source type belonging 

to a list of named source categories that emit or have the potential to emit 100 tons per year (tpy) 

or more of any regulated pollutant or 250 tpy for sources not among the listed source categories. 

These are referred to as the PSD major source thresholds. The existing Compressor Stations 
Air Quality

147

515, 517, and 520 have the potential to emit greater than the major source thresholds for at least 

one regulated pollutant. Therefore, they are existing major sources under the PSD regulations 

and modifications to these facilities are subject to the PSD regulations if the project emissions 

increase and net emission increase are greater than the significant emission rates (SERs) (100 tpy 

for CO; 40 tpy for nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and SO2 [each]; 

15 tpy for PM10; 10 tpy for PM2.5; 7 tpy for sulfuric acid mist; and 0.6 tpy for Pb). 

As shown in tables 2.7.3-4 and 2.7.3-5, the proposed Project emissions increases and net 

emission increases at Compressor Stations 515, 517, and 520 would not exceed applicable major 

modification thresholds and would not be subject to PSD permitting for CO, NOx, SO2, VOC, 

PM10, or PM2.5. Other pollutants such as fluorides, sulfuric acid mist, total reduced sulfur, and 

lead emissions are negligible for these facilities due to the nature of the emission generating 

activities (natural gas combustion). 

On May 13, 2010, the EPA tailored the applicability criteria for stationary sources and 

modification projects, resulting in the PSD GHG Tailoring Rule. However, on June 23, 2014, 

the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA cannot require PSD permitting based solely on GHG 

emissions, striking down a portion of the rule. Although the net GHG emissions increase at 

Compressor Stations 517 and 520 would be greater than the major modification threshold for 

each facility and would have been subject to PSD permitting, because of the Supreme Court 

ruling, PSD review is not applicable for these facilities solely based on GHG emissions. The net 

GHG increase at Compressor Station 515 would be less than 75,000 tpy; therefore, it would not 

have been subject to PSD review solely based on GHG emissions.

The potential impact on protected Class I areas must also be considered in the PSD review

process. Areas of the country are categorized as Class I, Class II, or Class III, where Class I

areas are designated specifically as pristine natural areas or areas of natural significance, 

including wilderness areas and national parks, and are afforded special protection under the CAA. 

Stationary sources within 100 kilometers of a Class I area requires a modeling analysis to ensure 

pristine air quality is maintained. The Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Work 

Group (2010) guidance states that a ratio of visibility-affecting emissions to distance (Q/d) value of 

10 or less indicates that Air Quality Related Values analyses should not be required. Visibilityaffecting pollutants are defined by the Federal Land Managers as: SO2, NO2, PM10, and sulfuric 

acid mist. 

Five Class I areas were identified in the states affected by the proposed project (see table 

2.7.2-1). The closest Class I area to a new or modified compressor station is the Brigantine 

National Wildlife Refuge, located approximately 208 kilometers (129 miles) to the southeast of 

Compressor Station 515. 

TABLE 2.7.2-1

Distance (km) and Direction to Federal Class I areas

Class I Area Compressor Station 515 Compressor Station 517 Compressor Station 520

Shenandoah NP (VA) 330, SW 305, SW 275, S

Dolly Sods (WV) 385, SW 345, SW 300, SW

Otter Creek (WV) 400, SW 365, SW 318, SW

Lye Brook (VT) 300, NE 340, NE 395, NE

Brigantine (NJ) 208, SE 255, SE 305, SE
Air Quality

148

Based on these distances, the Q/d for Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge from the 

cumulative net emissions increases at Compressor Stations 515, 517, and 520 is only 1.5. This is 

well below the screening criteria of 10. In addition, the compressor stations are located over 100 

kilometers from the nearest Class I area, therefore, no additional analysis of Class I area impacts 

was required.

Nonattainment New Source Review

In nonattainment areas, a separate procedure has been established for federal preconstruction air permit review of certain large proposed projects, known as NNSR. NNSR 

applicability is determined separately and independently from PSD review. The applicability of 

the NNSR permitting program is based on the major source status of the facility and emissions 

increase from the Project. A physical modification or a change in the method of operation of an 

existing major source is subject to NNSR if the alteration would result in a significant emission 

increase of affected pollutants. Each NNSR pollutant and its precursor(s) are reviewed 

individually and compared to the applicable major source thresholds to determine major source 

status on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. 

The entire state of Pennsylvania is located in the Ozone Transport Region and is therefore 

considered a moderate O3 nonattainment area (including precursors such as NOx and VOC). In 

Pennsylvania, the NNSR requirements are triggered in one of two ways (referred to as Step 1 and 

Step 2). In Step 1, NNSR is triggered if the potential emissions of NOx or VOC from the project 

exceed 40 tpy. In Step 2, NNSR is triggered if the net emission increase of NOx or VOC from the 

project plus all emission increases and decreases from projects in the 10 preceding years exceed 40 

tpy. If NNSR is triggered in Step 1, for each pollutant that is subject to NNSR permitting, the 

applicant must assess the following items in the NNSR permit application:

 Lowest Achievable Emission Rate;

 Alternatives Analysis; and

 Purchasing of Emission Offsets.

If the project triggers NNSR in Step 2, only the requirement to obtain emission offsets 

applies. 

Transco provided detail NNSR applicability determinations in the air plan approval 

applications to the PADEP. Based on these analyses, NNSR was not triggered in Step 1 or 2 for 

Compressor Stations 515, 517, or 520. A detailed summary of potential emissions and 

contemporaneous emission increases for these compressor stations are provided in the Impact and 

Mitigation section, below.

Title V Operating Permit 

Title V of the CAA requires states to establish an air operating permit program. The 

requirements of Title V are outlined in 40 CFR 70 and the permits required by these regulations 

are often referred to as Part 70 permits. If a facility’s potential-to-emit is equal to or greater than 

the criteria pollutant or hazardous air pollutants (HAP) thresholds, the facility is considered a 

major source. The major source threshold level for an air emission source is 100 tpy for criteria 
Air Quality

149

pollutants. The major source HAP thresholds for a source are 10 tpy of any single HAP or 25 

tpy of all HAPs in aggregate.

The EPA also promulgated the Title V GHG Tailoring Rule, which established 

permitting thresholds for GHG emissions under the Title V program. Sources with an existing 

Title V permit or new sources obtaining a Title V permit for non-GHG pollutants are required to 

address GHGs. New sources and existing sources not previously subject to Title V that have a 

potential-to-emit equal to or greater than 100,000 tpy CO2e would become subject to Title V 

requirements. 

Compressor Stations 515, 517, and 520 are major sources and currently operate under 

existing Title V operating permits. In accordance with Pennsylvania rule Title 25 Part I Subpart 

C 127.12b, Transco would submit Title V amendment applications after the proposed 

modifications are complete and operation begins. However, operation may commence under air 

plan approvals issued by PADEP consistent with federal (PSD and NNSR) and state Minor 

Source NSR requirements.

New Source Performance Standards

The NSPS, codified in 40 CFR 60, require new, modified, or reconstructed sources to 

control emissions as specified in the applicable source category provisions. Any source that is 

subject to provisions under an NSPS subpart is also subject to the general monitoring, reporting,

and record keeping provisions of NSPS Subpart A, except as noted in the applicable subpart. This 

section outlines the applicability of NSPS subparts for the Project facilities.

Subpart JJJJ, Standards of Performance for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal 

Combustion Engines, applies to manufacturers and owner/operators of spark ignition internal 

combustion engines manufactured after the applicability date stated in the rule for the particular 

type and size engine. The proposed emergency generators at Compressor Stations 515, 517, and 

520 would be subject to NSPS Subpart JJJJ. Proposed modifications at all other locations do not 

include addition of or modification to internal combustion engines. Subpart JJJJ limits nonemergency operation of emergency engines to 100 hours per year to allow for maintenance, 

readiness, and non-emergency activities. The new and modified natural gas-fired engines at 

Compressor Stations 515, 517, and 520 must meet the applicable emission limits and operational 

requirements, as well as record keeping and reporting requirements of this subpart. 

Subpart KKKK, Standards of Performance for Stationary Combustion Turbines, applies 

to stationary combustion turbines with a maximum heat input equal to or greater than 10 million 

British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr), which were constructed, modified, or reconstructed 

after February 18, 2005. NSPS Subpart KKKK regulates emissions of NOx and SO2. The 

proposed natural gas-fired turbines at Compressor Stations 515, 517, and 520 would be subject to 

NSPS Subpart KKKK. The new and modified turbines at Compressor Stations 515, 517, and 

520 must meet the applicable emission limits and operational requirements, as well as record 

keeping and reporting requirements of this subpart. 
Air Quality

150

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

The NESHAPs, codified in 40 CFR 61 and 63, regulate the emissions of HAPs

from existing and new sources. 

Part 61 NESHAP regulations apply to the following eight compounds listed as HAPs prior 

to the CAA Amendments of 1990: asbestos, benzene, beryllium, coke oven emissions, inorganic 

arsenic, mercury, radionuclides, and vinyl chlorides. The emission sources included in the Project 

would not emit these pollutants; therefore, 40 CFR 61 NESHAP regulations would not apply.

The 1990 CAA Amendments established a list of 189 HAPs, resulting in the promulgation

of 40 CFR 63 NESHAP (Part 63). Part 63, also known as the Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology standards, regulates HAP emissions specific source types located at major or area 

sources of HAPs. Compressor Stations 515, 517, and 520 are currently major sources for HAPs, 

because each station has the potential to emit HAPs above the major source thresholds of 10 tpy

of any single HAP or 25 tpy of all HAPs in aggregate. These stations would remain major 

sources of HAPs after the Project. NESHAPs apply to sources in specifically regulated industrial 

source categories [CAA Section 112(d)] or on a case-by-case basis [Section 112(g)] for major 

sources not regulated as a specific industrial source type. Below is a detailed discussion of the 

NESHAP regulations that are potentially applicable to the compressor stations. In addition to the 

source type-specific regulations, any source that is subject to a subpart of 40 CFR 63 is also subject 

to the general provision of NESHAP Subpart A, unless otherwise noted in the applicable subpart.

NESHAP Subpart YYYY, NESHAP for Stationary Combustion Turbines, applies to 

turbines at majors HAP sources. Compressor Stations 515, 517, and 520 are subject to this 

subpart. However, on August 18, 2004, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a Stay of Implementation 

on 40 CFR 63, Subpart YYYY. The EPA is evaluating the possibility of delisting gas-fired 

turbines from the Rule. Currently, natural gas-fired turbines are only subject to the general 

permitting and notification requirements under 40 CFR 63, Subpart A. Thus, there are no 

pollutants regulated under the current Subpart YYYY. The proposed gas turbines at Compressor 

Stations 515 and 520 would be subject to the general permitting and notification requirements 

under 40 CFR 63, Subpart A.

NESHAP Subpart ZZZZ, NESHAP for reciprocating internal combustion engines, would 

apply to the proposed emergency generators at Compressor Stations 515, 517, and 520. Each 

compressor station is and would remain a major source for HAP; therefore, the major source 

requirements would apply. The emergency generators must meet the applicable major source 

emission limits, operational requirements, and record keeping and reporting requirements of this 

subpart. 

General Conformity 

The General Conformity Rule is codified in 40 CFR 93, Subpart B, Determining 

Conformity of General Federal Actions of State and Federal Implementation Plans. The lead 

agency for any project that requires federal action must evaluate the applicability of the General 

Conformity Rule for emission-generating activities generated in nonattainment or maintenance 

areas. Consistent with the rule, the following terms are used in this document:
Air Quality

151

 General Conformity applicability analysis is the calculating and compiling of 

emissions data for comparison to the General Conformity applicability 

thresholds.

 General Conformity Determination is the evaluation (made after a General 

Conformity applicability analysis is completed) that a federal action conforms 

to the applicable SIP and meets the requirements of this subpart.

A General Conformity Determination must be completed by the lead federal agency if a 

federal action is likely to result in direct and indirect emissions (construction and operation) that 

would exceed the General Conformity applicability threshold levels of the pollutant(s) for which

an air basin is in nonattainment or maintenance. According to the General Conformity

regulations, the portion of an action that includes major or minor new or modified emissions 

from sources that are subject to NNSR or PSD permitting programs are exempt and are deemed 

to have conformed. This exemption applies to Compressor Station 515, located in Luzerne 

County, PA which is maintenance for ozone.

Section 176(c)(1) of the CAA (40 CFR 51.853) states that a federal agency cannot

approve or support any activity that does not conform to an approved SIP. Conforming 

activities or actions should not, through additional air pollutant emissions:

 Cause or contribute to new violations of the NAAQS in any area;

 Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any NAAQS; or

 Delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or interim emission reductions.

A General Conformity applicability analysis is required for parts of the Project occurring 

in nonattainment or maintenance areas for criteria pollutants. We reviewed Transco’s estimated 

construction emissions of criteria pollutants in each maintenance and nonattainment area for 

comparison to the General Conformity thresholds in 40 CFR 93.153(b)(1). The results are 

summarized in table 2.7.2-2. 

As shown in table 2.7.2-2, the estimated applicable Project emissions in each 

nonattainment/maintenance area would be below the applicable General Conformity thresholds; 

therefore, a General Conformity Determination is not required.

GHG Reporting Rule 

On September 22, 2009, the EPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule. This 

rule established the following reporting categories that may apply to the Project: general 

stationary fuel combustion sources (Subpart C), petroleum and natural gas systems (Subpart W), 

and suppliers of natural gas (Subpart NN). The Rule requires the source to report under Subpart 

C if it emits greater than or equal to 25,000 metric tons of GHG (as CO2e) and has combined 

combustion equipment heat input rating at a location exceeds 30 MMBtu/hr. Under Subpart W, 

reporting is required if it emits 25,000 metric tons CO2e or more per year. 
Air Quality

152

TABLE 2.7.2-2

General Conformity Applicability Review

County/State Attainment Designation

Emissions (tpy)

O3 PM2.5

VOC NOx PM2.5 SO2

PA-NJ-MD-DE 8-hr O3 Nonattainment area

Mercer, NJ NA for 1997 and 2008 8-hr O3 and PM2.5 1.6 14.2 1.4 0.5

Total, tpy 1.6 14.2 1.4 0.5

General Conformity Applicability Threshold, tpy 50 100 100 100

NY-NJ-CT O3 and PM2.5 Nonattainment Area

Somerset, NJ NA for 1997 8-hr O3 and PM2.5 2.9 23.7 2.7 0.8

Hunterdon, NJ NA for 1997 8-hr O3 2.0 16.6 ATT ATT

Total, tpy 4.9 40.3 2.7 0.8

General Conformity Applicability Threshold, tpy 50 100 100 100

Scranton-Wilkes Barre

Monroe, PA Maint for 1997 8-hr O3 2.6 22.5 ATT ATT

Luzerne, PA Maint for 1997 8-hr O3 3.1 25.3 ATT ATT

Total, tpy 5.7 47.8 N/A N/A

General Conformity Applicability Threshold, tpy 50 100 100 100

Washington DC-MD-VA

Prince William, VA NA for 1997 and 2008 8-hr O3 0.4 3.5 ATT ATT

Fairfax, VA NA for 1997 and 2008 8-hr O3 1.0 8.1 ATT ATT

Montgomery, MD NA for 1997 and 2008 8-hr O3 0.7 5.8 ATT ATT

Total, tpy 2.1 17.4 N/A N/A

General Conformity Applicability Threshold, tpy 50 100 100 100

Baltimore MD

Howard, MD NA for 1997 and 2008 8-hr O3 0.1 1.2 ATT ATT

Baltimore, MD NA for 1997 and 2008 8-hr O3 0.6 4.6 ATT ATT

Harford, MD NA for 1997 and 2008 8-hr O3 0.3 2.4 ATT ATT

Total, tpy 1.0 8.2 N/A N/A

General Conformity Applicability Threshold, tpy 50 100 100 100

The primary GHGs emitted from the Project would be CO2, CH4, and N2O produced by 

combustion processes and released as fugitive from equipment leaks. Transco calculated 

expected emissions of GHG pollutants associated with the construction and operation of the 

Project, including all direct and indirect emission sources. In addition, GHG emissions were 

converted to total CO2e emissions based on the GWP of each pollutant. Summaries of the 

potential GHG emissions from construction and operation of the Project are provided in tables 

2.7.3-2 and 2.7.3-5, respectively. 

The combustion-related GHG emissions from operation of Compressor Stations 515, 517, 

and 520 could exceed 25,000 metric tpy. If actual GHG emissions from these stations do exceed 

25,000 metric tpy, Transco would be required to comply with all applicable requirements of the 

Mandatory Reporting Rule. 
Air Quality

153

State Regulations

In addition to federal regulations, New Jersey and Pennsylvania have their own 

regulations that Transco would need to comply with during construction and operation of the 

Project.

Air pollution control regulations are promulgated in NJAC Title 7, Chapter 27. New 

Jersey state regulations for permanent emission sources are not applicable for this project 

because no permanent emissions sources are proposed in New Jersey. Subchapters 14 and 15 of 

this chapter limit idling of on-road vehicles and non-road construction equipment to no more 

than 3 minutes. Transco would be required to meet these idling regulations during construction 

of the Project in New Jersey. 

Air pollution control regulations are promulgated in Pennsylvania Administrative Code 

Title 25, Chapters 121 through 145. These state regulations are applicable to the modification, 

construction, and operation of Compressor Stations 515, 517, and 520. Federal programs that are 

incorporated into Pennsylvania’s code are limits on odor emissions, limits on visible emissions, 

NESHAP, and NSR. Pennsylvania has full delegation from the EPA for air permitting programs. 

Air permits are required prior to initiating modifications or adding to the emission sources at 

existing facilities and are based on Plan Approval applications. Transco filed its Plan Approval 

applications in May and June 2013 for the modifications at Compressor Stations 515, 517, and 

520. These applications request that each modification be permitted to operate 8,760 hours per 

year, except for emergency generators. Potential emissions from the emergency generators are 

based on 500 hours per year of operation. The generators would be limited to 100 hours per year 

for maintenance, readiness, and non-emergency activities under NSPS Subpart JJJJ. 

Pennsylvania has Best Available Technology requirements that apply to turbines rated 

greater than or equal to 15,000 brake hp. To comply with Best Available Technology 

requirements, Transco would use Solar’s SoLoNOx® technology for NOx control and oxidation 

catalyst for CO, VOC, and formaldehyde control on each new turbine at these stations. No other 

significant emission units would be installed in Pennsylvania as part of this Project.

2.7.3 Impacts and Mitigation

Construction Emissions

Emissions associated with construction of the Project would generally include: 1) exhaust 

emissions from construction equipment; 2) fugitive dust emissions associated with construction 

vehicle movement; and 3) fugitive dust associated with trenching, backfilling, and other earthmoving activities. The exhaust emissions would depend on the equipment used and the hours of 

operation. 

Large earth-moving equipment, trucks, and other mobile sources may be powered by 

diesel or gasoline and are sources of combustion emissions, including NOx, CO, VOC, PM10, 

SO2, and small amounts of HAPs. Emission standards for non-road diesel engines are 

promulgated in 40 CFR 89. Transco would ensure that all gasoline and diesel engines used 

during construction would be operated and maintained to comply with the EPA standards. Fuel 
Air Quality

154

used in these engines would meet current EPA standards for sulfur content as outlined in 40 CFR 

80 Subpart I. Exhaust emissions from construction equipment were calculated using the EPA’s 

NONROAD Model, predicted equipment usage, and emission factors specific to each county 

affected by the proposed Project.

Air pollutants from construction equipment would be temporary and would generally be 

limited to the immediate vicinity of the construction area. Construction equipment would be 

operated on an as-needed basis during daylight hours. Proper maintenance of construction 

equipment and watering of the right-of-way will be done, as needed, to minimize dust emissions. 

Transco estimated the construction emissions associated with Project activities, shown in tables 

2.7.3-1 and 2.7.3-2.

TABLE 2.7.3-1

Estimated Project-Related Construction Emission in 2015

Location (County, State)

Emissions (tpy)

VOC NOx PM10/PM2.5 SO2 CO

Mercer, NJ 1.6 b 14.2 b 3.5 / 1.4

b 0.5 b 18.4

Somerset, NJ 2.9 b 23.7 b 9.3 / 2.7 b 0.8b 33.8

Hunterdon, NJ 2.0b 16.6 b 6.8 / 1.9 0.6 23.7

Monroe, PA 2.6a 22.5a 12.0 / 2.9 0.77 30.5

Luzerne, PA 3.1a 25.3a 25.3 / 4.4 0.9 36.1

Columbia, PA 0.84 5.93 9.75 / 1.43 0.21 10.9

Lycoming, PA 0.84 5.93 13.3 / 1.83 0.21 10.9

Cleveland, NC 0.05 0.34 0.03 / 0.03 0.01 0.76

Pittsylvania, VA 0.3 2.4 0.2 / 0.2 0.2 4.8

Campbell, VA 0.4 3.5 0.3 / 0.3 0.1 6.1

Appomattox, VA 0.4 3.5 0.3 / 0.3 0.2 4.8

Buckingham, VA 0.1 1.2 0.1 / 0.1 0.1 2.0

Fluvanna, VA 0.4 3.5 0.3 / 0.3 0.2 4.8

Louisa, VA 0.4 3.5 0.3 / 0.3 0.1 6.1

Culpepper, VA 0.1 1.2 0.1 / 0.1 0.1 2.0

Orange, VA 0.1 1.2 0.1 / 0.1 0.1 0.7

Fauquier, VA 0.3 2.3 0.2 / 0.2 0.1 4.1

Prince William, VA 0.4 b 3.5 b 0.3 / 0.3 0.2 4.8

Fairfax, VA 1.0 b 8.1 b 0.7 / 0.7 0.3 14.2

Montgomery, MD 0.7 b 5.8 b 0.5 / 0.5 0.2 10.2

Howard, MD 0.3 b 2.4 b 0.2 / 0.2 0.1 2.7

Baltimore, MD 0.6 b 4.6 b 0.4 / 0.4 0.2 8.1

Harford, MD 0.1 b 1.2 b 0.1 / 0.1 0.1 2.0

_________________

a Area is classified as in maintenance.

b Area is classified as in nonattainment.

Note: Construction activities would begin in October 2014 and end in December 2015. To conservatively estimate emissions, all 

activity was assumed to occur in 2015.
Air Quality

155

TABLE 2.7.3-2

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Facility Construction in 2015

Project Section

Potential Emissions, tpy

CH4 N2O CO2 Total (CO2e)

Skillman Loop < 0.1 <0.01 5,373 5,373

Pleasant Run Loop < 0.1 <0.01 5,373 5,373

Franklin Loop < 0.1 <0.01 9,382 9,382

Dorrance Loop < 0.1 <0.01 3,968 3,968

Station 205 < 0.1 <0.01 1,263 1,263

Station 515 < 0.1 <0.01 1,637 1,637

Station 517 < 0.1 <0.01 1,431 1,431

Station 520 < 0.1 <0.01 1,431 1,431

Mainline valves/meter 

stations

< 0.1 <0.01 2,003 2,003

Total <0.8 <0.08 31,861 31,861

____________________

Note: Construction activities will occur beginning in October 2014 and ending in December 2015. To conservatively estimate 

emissions, all activity was assumed to occur in 2015.

Transco’s Fugitive Dust Control Plan describes mitigation measures that it would 

implement to control fugitive dust during construction, including: watering construction areas 

and reducing speed limits; covering open-body trucks; using existing public roads; and 

maintaining construction entrances at paved road access points. The plan also identifies 

individuals with implementation authority regarding fugitive dust mitigation. We have reviewed 

Transco’s Fugitive Dust Control Plan and find it acceptable.

Once construction activities in an area are complete, fugitive dust and construction 

equipment emissions would subside. Emissions associated with the construction phase of the 

Project would be short-term in nature and would not result in a significant impact.

Operation Emissions

Project work at Compressor Stations 205, 145, and 165 through 190 is not expected to 

increase operational emissions. The 2,000 hp uprate at Compressor Station 205 would be 

performed on an electric motor and rewheeling activities do not affect turbines or other 

emissions sources. Condensate and oily water tanks at each site would produce negligible VOC 

emissions.

Operation of the Project’s aboveground facility modifications at Compressor Stations 

515, 517, and 520 would result in air emissions increases over existing emissions levels. 

Emission calculations have been submitted to PADEP through the Plan Approval Application. 

The potential to emit of the currently operating equipment and additional emissions resulting 

from the proposed Project actions are summarized in tables 2.7.3-3 and 2.7.3-4. 
Air Quality

156

TABLE 2.7.3-3

Summary of Existing Equipment Potential to Emit

Source

Emissions (tpy)

NOx VOC CO SO2 PM a Total HAP CO2e

b

Station 515 641 175 518 1 26 95 87,645

Station 517 229 15 53 2 4 4.3 68,193

Station 520 529 64 244 1 5 32 79,912

___________________

a Assumes PM = PM10 = PM2.5

b GHG emissions are based on air plan approval applications that were completed prior to the EPA rule change for GHG 

reporting that affected the CH4 and N2O global warming potentials and CO2 emission factor for natural gas combustion.

TABLE 2.7.3-4

Summary of Proposed Modifications (New Sources) Potential to Emit

Source

Emissions (tpy)

NOx VOC CO SO2 PM/PM10/PM2.5

a Total HAP CO2eb

Station 515 32.6 4.6 35.1 1.6 3.9 0.3 65,374

Station 517 84.6 10.6 59.6 4.3 10.2 1.0 163,757

Station 520 39.2 5.4 46.2 2.0 4.7 0.9 78,607

PSD SERs 40 40 100 40 25/15/10 NA 75,000

Station 515 Over SERs N N N N N NA N

Station 517 Over SERs Y N N N Y NA Y

Station 520 Over SERs N N N N N NA Y

___________________

a Assumes PM = PM10 = PM2.5

b GHG emissions are based on air plan approval applications that were completed prior to the EPA rule change for GHG 

reporting that affected the CH4 and N2O global warming potentials and CO2 emission factor for natural gas combustion.

SERs = Significant Emission Rates

The emissions summaries above represent the potential emissions from the proposed 

Project (emissions increase for NNSR and PSD review applicability). NNSR may be triggered if 

either the project emissions increase or net emissions increase are significant. PSD review is 

triggered if the project emissions increase and the net emissions increase are significant. 

Therefore, the net emission increases were calculated for determining the applicability of NNSR 

and PSD for the proposed compressor station modifications. The net emission increases include 

any contemporaneous emission increases and decreases at the respective station. Table 2.7.3-5 

shows the net emission increases for NOx and VOC (NNSR – O3 precursors) and each PSD 

pollutant with a Project emissions increase over the SERs. 

In order to provide a thorough evaluation of the potential impacts on ambient air quality 

in the vicinity of the Project, Transco conducted a quantitative assessment of Project air 

emissions. The assessment included air dispersion modeling for the NO2 and CO NAAQS using 

the AERMOD dispersion model in screening mode to provide a conservative evaluation of the 

potential impacts on the ambient air quality from operation of the Project activities at 

Compressor Stations 515, 517, and 520. 
Air Quality

157

TABLE 2.7.3-5

Summary of Net Emission Increases from Proposed Modifications

Source

Emissions (tpy)

NOx VOC PM2.5 CO2e

Station 515 32.6 34.8 NA NA

Station 517 39.7 10.6 9.7 161,757

Station 520 39.2 5.4 NA 78,607

SERs 40 40 10 75,000

Station 515 NNSR/PSD Triggered N N NA NA

Station 517 NNSR/PSD Triggered N N N Y

Station 520 NNSR/PSD Triggered N N NA Y

___________________

a Assumes PM = PM10 = PM2.5

SERs = Significant Emission Rates

In the screening mode, the AERMOD model is capable of only calculating the 1-hour 

average concentrations. As such, the 8-hour concentrations were calculated using the 

recommended (default) conversion factor of 0.9. The modeling included building downwash 

effects and receptors representative of station fencelines and the ambient air (beyond the 

fenceline) out to 8 kilometers (5 miles). For the NO2 modeling, the O3 limiting method was used 

with an in-stack NO2 to NOx ratio of 0.5, consistent with EPA guidance, and an O3 background 

of 0.0725 parts per million. The potential impacts of the proposed modifications are summarized 

in table 2.7.3-6. 

TABLE 2.7.3-6

Summary of Predicted Air Quality Impacts – Proposed Compressor Station Modifications a

Pollutant

Averaging 

Period

NAAQS 

(μg/m3)

SIL 

(μg/m3)

Station 515 Station 517 Station 520

Project Impact 

(μg/m3) Project Impact (μg/m3) Project Impact (μg/m3)

NO2 1-Hour 188.7 7.5 121 181 110

CO

1-Hour 40,000 2,000 123 184 111

8-Hour 10,000 500 111 166 100

____________________

a Concentrations represent the maximum modeled concentration.

SIL = significant impact level

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

The screening model demonstrates that the potential CO concentrations due to the 

compressor station modifications are below the significant impact level (SIL). The NO2

concentrations modeled for each proposed compressor unit(s), however, are over the interim SIL 

established by EPA but below the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. In addition to being below the 1-hour 

NO2 NAAQS, it should be noted that these concentrations represent the highest 1-hour 

concentration modeled for each proposed unit(s). However, the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS represents 

the maximum allowable 98th percentile of the maximum daily 1-hour NO2 concentrations.

AERSCREEN does not provide a similar statistical value for the modeled 1-hour NO2

concentrations, thus the comparison of AERSCREEN results to the NAAQS is overly 

conservative.
Air Quality

158

Potential impacts on air quality associated with construction and operation of the Project 

would be minimized by strict adherence to all applicable federal and state regulations. Based on 

the analysis presented above, we believe that operation of the modified Compressor Stations 515, 

517, and 520 would have no significant impact on regional air quality.

2.8 NOISE

Construction and operation of the Project may affect overall noise levels in the Project 

area. The ambient sound level of a region is defined by the total noise generated within the 

specific environment and is usually comprised of natural and man-made sounds. At any 

location, both the magnitude and frequency of environmental noise may vary considerably over 

the course of a day and throughout the week. This variation is caused in part by changing 

weather conditions and the effect of seasonal vegetation cover. 

Two measurements used by some federal agencies to relate the time-varying quality of 

environmental noise to its known effects on people are the equivalent sound level (Leq) and the 

day-night sound level (Ldn). The Leq is a sound level over a specific time period corresponding 

to the same sound energy as measured for an instantaneous sound level assuming it is a constant 

noise source. Sound levels are perceived differently, depending on length of exposure and time 

of day. The Ldn takes into account the duration and time the noise is encountered. Specifically, 

in the calculation of the Ldn, late night and early morning (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise 

exposures are increased by 10 decibels to account for people’s greater sensitivity to sound during 

nighttime hours. The A-weighted scale is used because human hearing is less sensitive to low 

and high frequencies than mid-range frequencies.

In 1974, the EPA published its Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite 

to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. This document

provides information for state and local governments to use in developing their own ambient 

noise standards. The EPA has indicated that an Ldn of 55 decibels on the A-weighted scale 

(dBA) protects the public from indoor and outdoor activity interference. We have adopted this 

criterion. The Commission’s regulations at 18 CFR 380.12(k)(4)(v)(A) require that noise 

attributable to any new compressor station or any modification, upgrade, or update to an existing 

compressor station not exceed an Ldn of 55 dBA at any pre-existing noise-sensitive areas (NSA) 

such as schools, hospitals, and residences. In addition, Commission regulations at 18 CFR 

380.12(k)(4)(v)(B) requires that operation of compressor stations not result in any perceptible 

increase in vibration at any noise-sensitive area. Due to the 10 dBA nighttime penalty added 

prior to calculation of the Ldn, for a facility to meet the Ldn 55 dBA limit, it must be designed 

such that actual constant noise levels on a 24-hour basis do not exceed 48.6 dBA Leq at any NSA. 

As a point of reference, a person’s threshold of perception for a noticeable change in loudness is 

about 3 dBA, whereas a 5 dBA change is clearly noticeable and a 10 dBA change is perceived as 

either twice or half as loud. 

The State of New Jersey’s Noise Control Act of 1971 includes the promulgation of noise 

control standards for stationary commercial and industrial sources. NJAC 7:29 for Noise Control 

states that continuous noise between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. must remain below 65 dBA at any 

residential property line, and continuous noise between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. must remain 

below 50 dBA at any residential property line. At community service facilities, continuous noise 
Noise

159

must remain below 65 dBA regardless of time of day. The FERC sound level requirement is 

more stringent than the State of New Jersey noise regulations for “residential-type” land use 

areas; therefore, the FERC sound level requirement is used throughout this section for 

determining whether noise levels are significant. No other state or local noise standards are 

applicable to the compressor stations. 

Compressor Station 205 is located off Cold Soil Road in Mercer County, New Jersey. 

The area around the compressor station consists primarily of forest, farmland, and a few 

residences.

Compressor Station 515 is located along State Route 115 in Luzerne County, 

Pennsylvania. The nearby NSAs around the compressor station consist primarily of residences 

located along State Route 115. The area surrounding Compressor Station 517 in Columbia 

County, Pennsylvania is primarily forest land and some farmland. The nearby NSAs consist of a 

few residences located within 1 mile of the compressor station. Compressor Station 520 is 

located in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. The land surrounding the compressor station is 

primarily rural with areas of forest and a few scattered residences. The nearby NSAs consist 

primarily of single-family residences.

2.8.1 Construction Noise Impacts and Mitigation

Noise could affect the local environment during the construction period along the 

pipeline loops and at aboveground facilities and contractor/pipe yards. The construction 

activities would be performed with standard heavy equipment, such as track-excavator, backhoe, 

bulldozer, dump trucks, loaders, cranes, and boring equipment; however, not all of the equipment 

would be used in each phase of construction. 

Transco proposes two HDDs between MPs 1778.9 and 1780.0 of the Skillman Loop to 

avoid Beden Brook and its associated wetlands and tributaries, and to reduce impacts on nearby 

residences. Transco has committed to completing a noise assessment of the planned HDD prior 

to construction, which would identify the nearest NSAs and existing noise levels, and filing the 

final results with the FERC. In addition, to ensure that HDD-related noise does not exceed an 

Ldn of 55 dBA and/or increase noise over ambient conditions greater than 10 dBA, we 

recommend that: 

 Transco should file in the construction status reports the following 

information for each HDD entry and exit site:

a. noise measurements from the nearest NSA, obtained at the start of 

drilling operations;

b. noise mitigation that Transco implemented at the start of drilling 

operations; and

c. any additional mitigation measures that Transco will implement if the 

initial noise measurements exceeded an Ldn of 55 dBA at the nearest 

NSA and/or increased noise is 10 dB over ambient conditions.
Noise

160

Transco would construct the Project facilities during daytime hours. NSAs in close 

proximity at these locations would likely hear construction noise during this time, but the overall 

impact would be temporary. Nighttime noise associated with construction of the Project would 

remain unaffected. Blasting is not anticipated for construction of the Project. However, if 

required, blasting would be conducted during daylight hours and would not begin until occupants 

of nearby buildings, stores, residences, places of business, and farms have been notified, as 

described in Transco’s Blasting Plan. 

Construction activities at Compressor Stations 205, 515, 517, and 520 would consist of 

clearing and grading, earthwork, and installation of the new compressor units, piping, and 

associated buildings. Construction activities at Compressor Stations 205, 515, 517, and 520 

would not be expected to cause any significant impact on the noise quality in the surrounding 

Project areas. 

The most prevalent sound source during construction would be internal combustion 

engines used to power construction equipment. Due to the distance between the new equipment 

at each of the compressor stations and the closest NSAs, the noise impact and noise contribution 

of construction-related activities at the stations related to the installation of the new compressor 

units, gas after coolers, and motor upgrades are not expected to exceed the existing noise levels 

generated by the stations. 

Transco committed to implement the following construction noise mitigation measures:

 employment of a “low-noise” generator (i.e., designed with a factory-installed 

acoustical enclosure) for the mud/cleaning system; and

 employment of an exhaust silencer on all engines associated with the stationary 

equipment. The exhaust silencer would be typical of a silencer employed on 

hospital generators and/or other stationary industrial engines in residential areas.

Construction activities associated with the Project would result in short-term, temporary 

increases in ambient noise levels. Based on Transco’s commitment to limit construction to 

daytime hours and its proposed mitigation measures and our recommendation, we conclude that 

adjacent landowners would not be significantly affected by construction-related noise.

2.8.2 Operation Noise Impacts and Mitigation

Installation of additional horsepower or compressor modifications are proposed for 

Compressor Stations 205, 515, 517, and 520. As such, acoustic analyses have been completed 

for these stations. The permanent noise sources at all of the compressor stations would include 

(where applicable) turbine/engine exhaust, turbine/engine intake air system, 

turbine/engine/compressor casing, lube oil/auxiliary cooler, and aboveground station piping.

At Compressor Station 205, Transco proposes to uprate the two Siemens electric motors 

with gearboxes from 9,000 hp to 10,000 hp. Recent modifications at Compressor Station 205 

also included the addition of 5,000 hp (FERC Docket CP13-132-000) and replacement of a 

motor (FERC Docket CP12-436-000). 
Noise

161

Table 2.8.2-1 summarizes the current sound contribution of Compressor Station 205 and 

the estimated total compressor station sound level after installation of Project modifications. 

TABLE 2.8.2-1

Noise Analysis for Compressor Station 205

Nearest NSAs

Distance & Direction of 

NSA to the Proposed 

Modifications

Current Sound Level 

(Ldn) of Existing Station 

Estimated Total Ldn of Station after 

Installation of Modifications and 

Noise Mitigation Measures

Potential Noise 

Increase

NSA #1 1,300 feet (east) 51.3 dBA 51.6 dBA 0.3 dB

NSA #2 1,600 feet (north) 51.1 dBA 51.4 dBA 0.3 dB

The results of the acoustical analysis indicate that if the noise control recommendations 

and equipment sound specifications are successfully implemented, the noise attributable to the 

station at the nearby NSAs after the Project would be lower than 55 dBA Ldn. In addition, the 

installation of the proposed compressor station modifications are not expected to result in any 

perceptible increase in vibration at any nearby NSA.

At Compressor Station 517, Transco proposes to install a new turbine-driven compressor 

unit consisting of a Solar Model Titan 250S, with a 30,000 hp ISO rating, driving a centrifugal 

gas compressor. The turbine and compressor would be installed inside a separate acoustically 

insulated metal building to be located just east of Compressor Building A. 

Table 2.8.2-2 summarizes the current sound contribution from Compressor Station 517, 

the estimated sound level attributable to the Project modifications, and the estimated total sound 

contribution of the compressor station after installation of Project modifications.

TABLE 2.8.2-2

Noise Analysis for Compressor Station 517

Nearest NSAs

Distance & Direction of 

NSA to the 

Compressor Addition

Current Sound Level 

(Ldn) of Station at Full 

Load

Estimated Sound 

Level (Ldn) of the 

Modifications

Estimated Total Ldn of 

Station after Installation 

of Modifications

Potential 

Noise 

Increase

NSA #1 1,990 feet (west) 44.1 dBA 43.0 dBA 46.6 dBA 2.5 dB

According to Transco, the existing sound level shown above is based on a March 2010 

noise assessment for Compressor Station 517. The results of the acoustical analysis indicate that, 

if the noise control recommendations are successfully implemented, the total sound contribution 

of Compressor Station 517 at the nearby NSAs after installation of Project modifications would 

be equal to or lower than an Ldn of 55 dBA. In addition, the installation of the proposed 

compressor station modifications would not be expected to result in any perceptible increase in 

vibration at any nearby NSA.

To ensure that the actual noise levels resulting from operation of Compressor Station 205

and 517 are not significant, we recommend that: 

 Transco should file a noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days

after placing the modified equipment at Compressor Stations 205 and 517 

into service. If full load condition noise surveys are not possible, Transco 
Noise

162

should provide interim surveys at the maximum possible horsepower load 

and provide the full load survey within 6 months. If the noise attributable to 

the operation of all of the equipment at Compressor Stations 205 and 517 

under interim or full horsepower load exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at the 

nearest NSA, Transco should file a report on what changes are needed and 

should install the additional noise controls to meet the level within 1 year of 

the in-service date. Transco should confirm compliance with the above 

requirement by filing a second noise survey for each station with the 

Secretary no later than 60 days after it installs the additional noise controls.

Compressor Station 515 is currently equipped with five engine-driven gas compressor 

units and two turbine-driven gas compressor units. This includes a 16,000-hp turbine driven unit 

installed as part of the Northeast Supply Link Project, which was placed into service in 

November 2013. The current compressor station power at full capacity is 48,000 hp. Transco 

proposes to install a Solar Model Mars 100S, with a 16,000 hp ISO rating, driving a centrifugal 

gas compressor. The turbine and compressor would be installed inside a separate acoustically 

insulated metal building to be located on the north side of the compressor station property. 

The existing noise attributable to Compressor Station 515 at the nearby NSAs is greater 

than 55 dBA Ldn. Therefore, Transco proposes to implement the following noise mitigation 

measures at the compressor station: 

 Installation of an additional silencer section to the existing vertical exhaust 

silencer for Units #1 – #5;

 Cover outside engine air intake piping (Units #1 – #5) with acoustical insulation; 

and 

 Replace the Lube Oil cooler for Unit #6 with a lower-noise cooler.

Table 2.8.2-3 summarizes the current sound levels from Compressor Station 515 at 

nearby NSAs and the estimated total sound contribution of the compressor station after 

installation of modifications associated with the Project.

TABLE 2.8.2-3

Noise Analysis for Compressor Station 515

Nearest NSAs

Distance & Direction of NSA 

to the Compressor Addition

Current Sound 

Level (Ldn) of 

Station at Full Load

Estimated 

Sound Level 

(Ldn) of the 

Proposed 

Modifications

Estimated Total Ldn of 

Station after Installation of 

Modifications and Noise 

Mitigation Measures

Potential 

Noise 

Increase

NSA #1 1,900 feet (south) 57.7 dBA 41.9 dBA 55.9 dBA -1.8 dB

NSA #2 1,400 feet (south-southwest) 61.5 dBA 44.8 dBA 59.6 dBA -1.9 dB

NSA #3 1,350 feet (southwest) 61.4 dBA 45.4 dBA 59.1 dBA -2.3 dB

The existing sound levels are based on a sound survey, completed by Transco’s noise

consultant Hoover & Keith, Inc., for the modifications at Compressor Station 515 from the 

previous Northeast Supply Link Project. The results of the acoustical analysis indicate if the 
Noise

163

noise control recommendations and equipment sound specifications are successfully 

implemented, the noise attributable to the compressor station at the nearby NSAs after the 

installation of the station modifications associated with the Project would be lower than the 

current sound level of the station, which are greater than 55 dBA. In addition, the installation of 

the compressor station modifications would not be expected to result in any perceptible increase 

in vibration at any nearby NSA. 

At Compressor Station 520, Transco proposes to install a Solar Model Titan 130S, with a 

20,500 hp ISO rating, driving a centrifugal gas compressor. The turbine and compressor of the 

new Unit #8 would be installed inside a separate acoustically insulated metal building. 

During the sound surveys with only Units #1 – #5, the total operating capacity of Units 

#1 – #5 was approximately 50 percent of the full capacity at the compressor station; therefore, 3 

dB were added to the measured sound levels to represent the estimated sound level contribution 

of Units #1 – #5 at the nearby NSAs at full load/capacity. In addition, all of the compressor units 

were not operated simultaneously during the survey. Therefore, simultaneous operation of the 

existing units were estimated by adding the sound levels measured during operation of only 

Units #6/#7 and the estimated full load sound levels of only Units #1 – #5.

Table 2.8.2-4 summarizes the estimated sound level from Compressor Station 520 at the 

nearby NSAs.

TABLE 2.8.2-4

Summary of Estimated Sound Levels at Compressor Station 520 – Prior to Added Mitigation

Description of the Nearby NSA

Estimated Sound 

Level (Ldn) if Units #1 

– #5 Operated at 

Full Load

Resulting Sound 

Level (Ldn) with Units 

#6 & #7 Operated at 

Full Load

Estimated Total 

Sound Level (Ldn) 

with All Units 

Operating

NSA #1: Residence 730 feet southwest of Compressor 

Building A

60.6 dBA 62.5 dBA 64.7 dBA

NSA #2: Residences 730 feet west of Compressor

Building A

58.8 dBA 56.4 dBA 60.7 dBA

NSA #3: Residences 900 feet south of Compressor

Building A

55.9 dBA 56.8 dBA 59.4 dBA

NSA #4: Residence 1,050 feet east of Compressor

Building A

60.4 dBA 60.4 dBA 63.4 dBA

As shown in table 2.8.2-4, the noise level at the NSAs is greater than 55 dBA Ldn. As 

such, Transco has agreed to the following mitigation measures.

 Installation of an additional silencer section to the turbine exhaust system for 

Unites #6 and #7; and

 Cover any aboveground uninsulated gas piping components for Unit #6 and #7 

with acoustical material.

Table 2.8.2-5 summarizes the current sound contribution of Compressor Station 520 with 

these additional noise mitigation measures. 
Noise

164

TABLE 2.8.2-5

Noise Analysis for Compressor Station 520 – With Added Mitigation

Closest NSAs

Estimated Total Sound 

Level (Ldn) with All 

Units Operating – No 

Added Mitigation 

Estimated Sound 

Level (Ldn) of 

Station with All 

Units Operating –

with Added 

Mitigation

Estimated 

Sound Level 

(Ldn) Of the 

Modifications

Estimated “Total” Ldn of 

Station after Installation of 

Modifications with Noise 

Mitigation Measures

Potential 

Noise 

Increase

NSA #1 64.7 dBA 62.7 dBA 52.5 dBA 63.1 dBA -1.6 dB

NSA #2 60.7 dBA 59.7 dBA 49.3 dBA 60.1 dBA -0.6 dB

NSA #3 59.4 dBA 57.4 dBA 53.0 dBA 58.7 dBA -0.7 dB

NSA #4 63.4 dBA 62.4 dBA 47.3 dBA 62.5 dBA -0.9 dB

The results of the acoustical analysis indicate if the noise control recommendations and 

equipment sound specifications are successfully implemented, the noise attributable to 

Compressor Station 520 at the nearby NSAs after the installation of the compressor station 

modifications and associated mitigation measures should be lower than the current sound level 

attributable to the compressor station at the nearest NSAs which are greater than 55 dBA. In 

addition, the installation of the proposed compressor station modifications would not be expected 

to result in any perceptible increase in vibration at any nearby NSA.

To ensure that the actual noise levels resulting from operation of Compressor Stations

515 and 520 are not significant, we recommend that:

 Transco should make all reasonable efforts to ensure its predicted noise 

levels from Compressor Stations 515 and 520 are not exceeded at nearby 

NSAs and file noise surveys showing this with the Secretary no later than 60 

days after placing Compressor Stations 515 and 520 into service. If a full 

load condition noise survey is not possible, Transco should provide interim 

surveys at the maximum possible horsepower load and provide the full load 

surveys within 6 months. If the noise attributable to the operation of all of 

the equipment at Compressor Stations 515 and 520 under interim or full 

horsepower load conditions exceeds the existing noise levels at any nearby 

NSAs, Transco should file a report on what changes are needed and should 

install the additional noise controls to meet the level within 1 year of the inservice date. Transco should confirm compliance with the above 

requirement by filing a second noise survey for each station with the 

Secretary no later than 60 days after it installs the additional noise controls.

Based on Transco’s proposed station design and mitigation measures, the noise at each 

compressor station would either not exceed our noise criteria or would result in a reduction in 

noise at stations currently above an Ldn of 55 dBA at the nearest NSAs. Therefore, we conclude 

that there would not be a significant impact on noise in the Project areas during operation of the 

proposed facilities.
Reliability and Safety

165

2.9 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY

The transportation of natural gas by pipeline involves some incremental risk to the public 

due to the potential for an accidental release of natural gas. The greatest hazard is a fire or 

explosion following a major pipeline rupture.

Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is colorless, odorless, and tasteless. It is 

not toxic, but is classified as a simple asphyxiant, possessing a slight inhalation hazard. If 

breathed in high concentration, oxygen deficiency can result in serious injury or death. To 

increase safety and make the methane detectable by odor, Transco would add a chemical odorant 

that produces the familiar natural gas smell. The natural gas in Transco’s proposed pipelines 

would contain a chemical odorant that produces a “natural gas smell.” 

Methane has an auto-ignition temperature of 1,000 °F and is flammable at concentrations 

between 5.0 percent and 15.0 percent in air. It is buoyant at atmospheric temperatures and 

disperses rapidly in air. An unconfined mixture of methane and air is not explosive; however, it 

may ignite if there is an ignition source. A flammable concentration within an enclosed space in 

the presence of an ignition source can explode. 

2.9.1 Safety Standards

The DOT is mandated to provide pipeline safety under 49 USC 601. The DOT’s 

PHMSA administers the national regulatory program to ensure the safe transportation of natural 

gas and other hazardous materials by pipeline. As discussed in section 1.4.3, PHMSA assisted in 

preparing this EA as a federal cooperating agency. PHMSA develops safety regulations and 

other approaches to risk management that ensure safety in the design, construction, testing, 

operation, maintenance, and emergency response of pipeline facilities. Many of the regulations 

are written as performance standards which set the level of safety to be attained and allow the 

pipeline operator to use various technologies to achieve safety. 

PHMSA ensures that people and the environment are protected from the risk of pipeline 

incidents. This work is shared with state agency partners and others at the federal, state, and 

local level. The DOT allows for a state agency to assume all aspects of the safety program for 

intrastate facilities by adopting and enforcing, at a minimum, the federal standards. A state may 

also act as DOT’s agent to inspect interstate facilities within its boundaries; however, the DOT is 

responsible for enforcement actions. For the proposed Project, PHMSA federal inspectors 

perform inspections on interstate natural gas pipeline facilities in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The DOT pipeline standards are published in 49 CFR 190-199. Part 192 specifically 

addresses the minimum federal safety standards for transportation of natural gas by pipeline.

Under a Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation Facilities dated 

January 15, 1993, between the DOT and the FERC, the DOT has the exclusive authority to 

promulgate federal safety standards used in the transportation of natural gas. Section 

157.14(a)(9)(vi) of the FERC’s regulations require that an applicant certify that it would design, 

install, inspect, test, construct, operate, replace, and maintain the facility for which a Certificate 

is requested in accordance with DOT federal safety standards and plans for maintenance and 

inspection. Alternatively an applicant may certify that it has been granted a waiver of the 
Reliability and Safety

166

requirements of the safety standards by the DOT in accordance with section 3(e) of the Natural 

Gas Pipeline Safety Act. The FERC accepts this certification and does not impose additional 

safety standards. If the Commission becomes aware of an existing or potential safety problem, 

there is a provision in the memorandum to promptly alert the DOT. The memorandum also 

provides for referring complaints and inquiries made by state and local governments and the 

general public involving safety matters related to pipelines under the Commission's jurisdiction.

The FERC also participates as a member of the DOT's Technical Pipeline Safety 

Standards Committee which determines if proposed safety regulations are reasonable, feasible, 

and practicable.

Transco has stated that the Project facilities would be designed, constructed, operated, 

and maintained in accordance with the DOT Minimum Federal Safety Standards in 49 CFR 192. 

The regulations are intended to ensure adequate protection for the public and to prevent natural 

gas facility accidents and failures. The DOT specifies material selection and qualification;

minimum design requirements; and protection from internal, external, and atmospheric 

corrosion.

The DOT also defines area classifications, based on population density in the vicinity of 

pipeline facilities, and specifies more rigorous safety requirements for populated areas. The 

class location unit is an area that extends 220 yards on either side of the centerline of any 

continuous 1-mile length of pipeline. The four area classifications are defined below:

Class 1 –location with 10 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy.

Class 2 –location with more than 10 but less than 46 buildings intended for human 

occupancy.

Class 3 –location with 46 or more buildings intended for human occupancy or where the 

pipeline lies within 100 yards of any building, or small well-defined outside 

area occupied by 20 or more people on at least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in 

any 12-month period.

Class 4 –location where buildings with four or more stories aboveground are prevalent.

Class locations representing more populated areas require higher safety factors in 

pipeline design, testing, and operation. For example, pipelines constructed on land in Class 1 

locations must be installed with a minimum depth of cover of 30 inches in normal soil and 18 

inches in consolidated rock. Class 2, 3, and 4 locations, as well as drainage ditches of public 

roads and railroad crossings, require a minimum cover of 36 inches in normal soil and 24 inches 

in consolidated rock. 

Class locations also specify the maximum distance to a sectionalizing block valve (i.e., 

10.0 miles in Class 1, 7.5 miles in Class 2, 4.0 miles in Class 3, and 2.5 miles in Class 4 

locations). Pipe wall thickness and pipeline design pressures; hydrostatic test pressures; MAOP; 

inspection and testing of welds; and frequency of pipeline patrols and leak surveys must also 

conform to higher standards in more populated areas. Class locations for the Project have been 

determined based on the relationship of the pipeline loop centerlines to other nearby structures 

and manmade features. Class locations along each pipeline loop include: 
Reliability and Safety

167

 Skillman Loop – 2.6 miles would be located in a Class 1 area; 1.0 mile would be 

located in a Class 2 area; and 2.7 miles would be located in a Class 3 area.

 Pleasant Run Loop – 1.9 miles would be located in a Class 1 area and 4.9 miles 

would be located in a Class 2 area.

 Franklin Loop – 8.2 miles would be located in a Class 1 area; 1.2 miles would be 

located in a Class 2 area; and 2.1 miles would be located in a Class 3 area.

 Dorrance Loop – 4.5 miles would be located in a Class 1 area and 0.7 mile would 

be located in a Class 2 area.

If a subsequent increase in population density adjacent to the right-of-way were to result 

in a change in classification for the pipeline, Transco would reduce the MAOP or replace the 

segment with pipe of sufficient grade and wall thickness, if required to comply with the DOT 

requirements for the new class location. 

The DOT Pipeline Safety Regulations require operators to develop and follow a written 

Integrity Management Program that contains all the elements described in 49 CFR 192.911 and 

addresses the risks on each transmission pipeline segment. Specifically, the rule establishes an 

integrity management program which applies to all high-consequence areas (HCA).

The DOT has published rules that define HCAs where a gas pipeline accident could do 

considerable harm to people and their property and requires an integrity management program to 

minimize the potential for an accident. This definition satisfies, in part, the Congressional 

mandate for the DOT to prescribe standards that establish criteria for identifying each gas 

pipeline facility in a high-density population area.

The HCAs may be defined in one of two ways. In the first method, an HCA includes: 

 current Class 3 and 4 locations; 

 any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact radius11 is greater than 660 

feet and there are 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy within the 

potential impact circle;12 or 

 any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact circle includes an identified 

site.

An “identified site” is an outside area or open structure that is occupied by 20 or more 

persons on at least 50 days in any 12-month period; a building that is occupied by 20 or more 

persons on at least 5 days a week for any 10 weeks in any 12-month period; or a facility that is 

occupied by persons who are confined, are of impaired mobility, or would be difficult to 

evacuate.

 

11 The potential impact radius is calculated as the product of 0.69 and the square root of the MAOP of the pipeline 

in pounds per square inch (gauge) multiplied by the square of the pipeline diameter in inches.

12 The potential impact circle is a circle of radius equal to the potential impact radius.
Reliability and Safety

168

In the second method, an HCA includes any area within a potential impact circle which 

contains:

 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy; or

 an identified site.

Once a pipeline operator has determined the HCAs along its pipeline, it must apply the 

elements of its integrity management program to those sections of the pipeline within HCAs. 

The DOT regulations specify the requirements for the integrity management plan in Subpart O of 

Part 192, Gas Transmission Pipeline Integrity Management. The HCAs for the Project have 

been determined based on the relationship of the pipeline centerline to other nearby structures 

and identified sites. According to the first method described above, all Class 3 and Class 4 

locations are HCAs. Table 2.9.1-1 identifies HCA locations, which were determined according 

to the second method.

We received comments noting that use of the second method of determining HCAs 

minimizes the extent of HCAs in the Princeton Ridge area along the Skillman Loop (MPs 1776.8 

to 1778.1), and questioning the spacing of MLVs in the area. Transco identifies approximately 

85 percent of the Princeton Ridge crossing as within Class 3, for which 49 CFR 192.179 

specifies a maximum distance of 4 miles to the nearest MLV (i.e., a maximum distance of 8 

miles between MLVs). The Skillman Loop would extend between existing MLVs at MP 1776.8 

and 1783.0, a distance of 6.2 miles. Thus, the MLV spacing for the Skillman Loop would meet 

the requirements for a Class 3 area.

TABLE 2.9.1-1

High Consequence Areas Crossed by the Project a

State/Facility/Milepost Locations Length (miles)

New Jersey

Skillman Loop

1776.8 – 1777.3 0.5

1779.1 – 1779.6 0.5

1781.5 – 1781.8 0.3

1782.0 – 1782.6 0.5

Pleasant Run Loop

1.2 – 1.7 0.5

2.6 – 3.3 0.7

Pennsylvania

Franklin Loop

57.5 – 58.1 0.6

61.0 – 63.4 2.4

68.0 – 68.6 0.6

Dorrance Loop

No HCAs 0

____________________

a The HCAs in this table were identified using the second method. 

Other comments focused on the potential for construction of the loops to damage existing 

pipelines including in the Princeton Ridge area of the Skillman Loop; the safety of operating 

high pressure natural gas pipelines in residential areas and near schools; emergency response 
Reliability and Safety

169

plans and the ability of local responders to address and emergency situation; the adequacy of 

corrosion control measures and integrity management systems; Transco’s historical safety 

record; potential public safety issues associated with construction personnel; and the level of 

outside (FERC or DOT) oversight to ensure safety. The comments not addressed in other 

sections of this document are addressed below.

As previously discussed and required by DOT PHMSA regulations, the pipeline loops 

and aboveground facilities would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to meet or 

exceed the requirements at 49 CFR 192. The general construction methods that Transco would 

implement to ensure the safety of the Project are described in section 1.6.1, including welding, 

inspection, and integrity testing procedures. Transco identified the following safety measures 

that would be implemented which exceed the requirements in 49 CFR 192:

 the pipe material would generally exceed the American Petroleum Institute-5L 

requirements;

 a 0.5 design factor would be used for all fabricated mainline valve assemblies;

 all girth welds would be 100 percent non-destructively tested regardless of 

pipeline classification;

 additional cover depth may be provided at certain locations (e.g., roads, streams 

or other waterbodies); and

 Transco would generally test new pipeline sections above the minimum required 

test pressure. 

Regarding the potential for Project construction to damage existing pipeline facilities, 

section 1.6.1 describes the general measures that Transco would implement to protect existing 

facilities during construction and section 1.6.2 describes more specific construction procedures 

that would be implemented when working over existing pipelines or conducting crossovers. 

Sections 1.6.2 and 2.1 also describe the geophysical and geotechnical field studies that Transco 

undertook to evaluate the extent and nature of shallow, hard bedrock and subsurface boulders 

within the Princeton Ridge area of the Skillman Loop, and to characterize the physical 

parameters of soils within this area. The results of these studies are included in Transco’s Rock 

Handling Plan, which also describes the measures that Transco would implement to remove 

bedrock and boulders without blasting, and other measures that would be implemented to protect 

the existing pipeline during construction and to test the integrity of the existing pipeline in 

conjunction with construction of the Skillman Loop. 

The Rock Handling Plan specifically addresses concerns raised by Princeton Ridge 

stakeholders that construction over the existing pipeline could cause stress that would damage 

the pipeline. Transco contracted with Stress Engineering Services, Inc., a company that 

specializes in evaluating material stress including in the pipeline industry. Stress Engineering 

Services, Inc. utilized the site-specific geophysical and geotechnical information obtained by 

Transco, and other construction-related information from Transco, including the use of a mat 

bridge to create an air space between the ground surface above the existing pipeline and the 
Reliability and Safety

170

construction equipment that would travel and operate on the mat bridge. A combination of twodimensional and three-dimensional finite element analysis models were used to evaluate the 

stresses in the existing pipeline under various construction scenarios, soil types, and geologic 

conditions. Of particular interest was the assessment of stress and damage that could occur if the 

bottom side of the pipeline was in contact with constrained rock (bedrock or a large boulder). 

The two-dimensional analysis was used to identify key variables, which were then used to 

construct the three-dimensional models. When the three-dimensional analysis was performed on 

measured properties, the maximum plastic strain in the pipe was 0.6 percent and the largest dent 

depth was 0.2 inch (0.5 percent), which are below the values permitted by American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers B31.8 for the minimum measured soil properties. Additional threedimensional load cases were run to model more conservative conditions including the presence 

of softer soils than those measured in the field; equipment loads twice the maximum expected; 

the presence of a hard rock in contact with the bottom of the pipeline; and the position of the mat 

bridge footing directly over the pipeline. Under these combined, conservative assumptions, the 

maximum strain from the analysis is 4.6 percent, slightly exceeding the 4 percent limit permitted 

for girthwelds in American Society of Mechanical Engineers B31.8. By utilizing the expected 

equipment load (rather than two times the equipment load), the strain is reduced to 3.2 percent. 

The Princeton Ridge Coalition raised concerns about the stress analysis conducted by 

Transco, particularly regarding the ability of saturated soils near the existing pipeline to safely 

support construction equipment, and questioned how the magnitude and distribution of 

construction loads and the presence of shallow bedrock and large boulders near the pipeline were 

determined and considered in the analysis. The Princeton Ridge Coalition concludes that 

Transco’s proposed construction methods would violate 49 CFR 192 and result in an 

unacceptable impact on public safety.

We recognize the Princeton Ridge Coalition’s concerns, but conclude that Transco’s field 

studies and analysis adequately characterize the existing environment and the stresses that would 

result from construction of the Skillman Loop, but believe that further definition of the measures 

that Transco would implement in the event that highly saturated soil conditions are encountered 

is warranted. Therefore, we recommend that: 

 Prior to construction of the Skillman Loop, Transco should file with the 

Secretary for review and approval by the Director of OEP the specific 

measures that it will implement between MPs 1776.8 and 1778.1 to monitor 

and maintain the proposed air gap over the existing pipeline, including areas 

of highly saturated soil conditions. 

In conclusion, we find that construction of the Skillman Loop in the Princeton Ridge area 

as proposed by Transco in the Rock Handling Plan and other submittals, and implementation of 

our recommended condition above, would protect the integrity of the existing pipeline. 

Furthermore, Transco would confirm the integrity of the pipeline by conducting a preconstruction in-line inspection; hydrostatic testing prior to returning it to service; a second in-line 

inspection after the successful completion of hydrostatic testing; and through continued 

implementation of the Integrity Management Program described below and as required by 

PHMSA regulations.
Reliability and Safety

171

The DOT prescribes the minimum standards for operating and maintaining pipeline 

facilities, including the requirement to establish a written plan governing these activities. Each 

pipeline operator is required to establish an emergency plan that includes procedures to minimize 

the hazards in a natural gas pipeline emergency. Key elements of the plan include procedures 

for:

 receiving, identifying, and classifying emergency events, gas leakage, fires, 

explosions, and natural disasters;

 establishing and maintaining communications with local fire, police, and public 

officials, and coordinating emergency response;

 emergency system shutdown and safe restoration of service;

 making personnel, equipment, tools, and materials available at the scene of an 

emergency; and

 protecting people first and then property, and making them safe from actual or 

potential hazards.

The DOT also requires pipeline operators to place pipeline markers at frequent intervals 

along the pipeline rights-of-way, such as where a pipeline intersects a street, highway, railway or 

waterway, and at other prominent points along the route. Pipeline right-of-way markers can help 

prevent encroachment and excavation-related damage to pipelines. Because the pipeline rightof-way is much wider than the pipeline itself, and a pipeline can be located anywhere within the 

right-of-way, state laws require excavators to call their state One-Call center well in advance of 

digging to locate underground utilities and ensuring it is safe for the contractor to dig in that 

location.

In accordance with DOT regulations, the proposed facilities would be regularly inspected 

for leakage as part of scheduled operations and maintenance, including: 

 physically walking and inspecting the pipeline corridor periodically; 

 conducting fly-over inspections of the right-of-way as required, generally weekly;

 inspecting valves and maintaining compressor engines; and

 conducting leak surveys at least once every calendar year or as required by 

regulations.

During inspections, Transco employees would look for signs of unusual activity on the 

right-of-way and would immediately respond to assess the nature of the activity and remedy with 

prescribed corrective action. 

In addition to the DOT-required surveys described above, Transco would monitor 

portions of its pipeline system using a supervisory control and data acquisition system. This 

system gathers information related to system pressures, flows, and customer deliveries 24 hours 
Reliability and Safety

172

per day, 365 days per year and transfers the information to the Gas Control Center located in 

Houston, Texas for the facilities to be installed. 

The new pipeline would be connected to Transco’s existing cathodic protection system to 

prevent corrosion. Transco personnel would check the voltage and amperage every 2 months as 

well as annual surveys of the pipe-to-soil potentials. In addition, in-line inspection tools would 

be used to ensure that the cathodic protection systems are working effectively. We received 

comments from the Princeton Ridge Coalition regarding the effect of large boulders on the 

cathodic protection system, particularly in the Princeton Ridge area. As noted above, Transco’s

monitoring of the performance of the cathodic protection would ensure that cathodic protection 

shielding that could occur does not adversely affect the pipeline integrity. 

The DOT regulations require Transco to establish and maintain liaison with appropriate 

fire, police, and public officials to learn the resources and responsibilities of each organization 

that may respond to a natural gas pipeline emergency, and to coordinate mutual assistance. 

Transco has developed a Public Awareness and Damage Prevention Program, which requires 

communication with emergency responders on an annual basis. The program is intended to 

assist with pipeline marker identification, understanding the pipeline right-of-way, emergency 

contact information, outlines the physical properties of natural gas, and communicates the 

expectations of emergency first responders during an emergency.

Transco maintains 24-hour emergency response capabilities, including an emergencyonly phone number, which accepts collect charges. The number would be included in 

informational mail-outs, posted on all pipeline markers, and provided to local emergency 

agencies in the vicinity of the pipeline and compressor station.

In addition, Transco has developed emergency response plans that it uses for its entire 

system, and Transco’s operating personnel attend training for emergency response procedures 

and plans. During construction of the pipeline loops, Transco would continue to implement the 

measures in its emergency response plans associated with the existing pipelines. Transco would 

review and revise its emergency response plans prior to placing the new facilities in operation. 

Transco would meet with Local Emergency Planning Committees, which include fire 

departments, police departments, and public officials, to review plans and would work with these 

committees to communicate the specifics about the pipeline facilities in the area and the need for 

emergency response. Transco would also meet periodically with the groups to review the plans 

and revise its plans when necessary. Local Emergency Planning Committee personnel would be 

involved in any operator-simulated emergency exercises and post-exercise critiques, if 

conducted. Transco would use all available, reasonable, and relevant means to support the 

pipeline and facilities if an emergency occurs.

The most effective and immediate way to begin to address a gas pipeline rupture is to 

shut off the gas source. Transco has valves spaced along the pipeline that can be used to shut off 

the gas and isolate each pipeline segment. In an emergency, Transco would rely on the local 

emergency services (e.g., fire and police) to communicate with the public. Transco follows the 

Incident Command protocol, developed by the Fire Marshall and implemented by local fire 

departments, and maintains contact with the emergency responders. In 2012, Transco 
Reliability and Safety

173

representatives conducted 162 face-to-face meetings with emergency officials for the purpose of 

emergency response education.

As part of its Public Awareness Program for its existing pipeline system, Transco 

provides residents who live along the pipeline right-of-way Transco’s 24-hour emergency only 

number and information about the pipeline, including what activities to look for and what to do 

in an emergency. Transco works with local emergency response officials to educate them about 

the nature of pipeline operations and the appropriate actions to take if there is an accident. 

Transco would adopt the same program measures and communications for the proposed pipeline 

loops and new aboveground facilities.

As part of its Public Awareness Program, Transco annually mails emergency contact 

information and maps of its pipeline facilities to emergency officials located along its entire 

pipeline system, including all municipalities crossed by the Project. The mailing also includes a 

web address to an online pipeline emergency computer-based training module. In 2012, Transco 

mailed about 10,000 letters to emergency officials. Transco also sends information to all 

excavators in each county where it operates (about 280,000). 

As previously discussed, Transco has developed an enhanced pipeline Integrity 

Management Program to improve pipeline safety along its entire pipeline system during 

operation. The program was developed and implemented to comply with the prescriptive based 

requirements of Subpart O, 49 CFR 192 and is routinely audited by PHMSA. Transco 

implements the program through:

 assessing the integrity of pipelines in HCAs and other areas; 

 improving integrity management data systems within the company; 

 increasing the integrity and reliability of the pipeline system;

 improving the government's role in reviewing the adequacy of integrity programs 

and plans; and 

 providing increased public assurance of pipeline safety.

The new pipeline loops would be incorporated into the Integrity Management Program. 

The Integrity Management Program also includes specifications for conducting hydrostatic 

testing, both on newly installed pipelines and existing pipelines (in the case of uprates), and for 

conducting internal inspections by use of smart pigs and caliper pigs. The smart pigs use 

technologies such as Magnetic Flux Leakage and ultrasonics to detect the various aspects of the 

pipeline. As previously discussed, Transco has committed to running an in-line inspection tool 

prior to construction in order to assess the integrity of the existing pipeline along the Skillman 

Loop in the Princeton Ridge area. Transco would also evacuate the natural gas from the 

Princeton Ridge pipeline segment and replace it with water during excavation of rock utilizing 

the rock hammering technique. Following the rock hammering activities, Transco would 

hydrostatically test the existing pipeline before returning it to service, followed by another run of 

an in-line inspection tool.
Reliability and Safety

174

We received comments from the Delaware Riverkeeper Network regarding the maximum 

velocity planned for the new pipeline. The commentor alleges that gas velocities on certain 

segments of Transco’s system would exceed 50 feet per second, which could cause stresses to 

the pipeline that in turn would result in unsafe operating conditions. The commentor does not 

cite any industry or government standard, regulation, or study to support its position. Transco 

states that while it typically tries to limit velocities on its system to 60 feet per second, this is to 

prevent noise and vibration of mechanical equipment and for operational efficiency rather than 

for safety reasons. Based on steady state conditions, Transco estimated flow velocities would 

not exceed 60 feet per second. Under peak transient design conditions, only one section, 

between Compressor Stations 515 and 517, would reach 61 feet per second. Further, Transco 

stated that the flow velocity in the proposed loops would range from 30 to 50 feet per second. 

Finally, Transco, citing a study funded by and prepared on behalf of the Mineral Management 

Service and American Petroleum Institute, states that a flow velocity of 100 feet per second is a 

conservative (low) design guideline for protecting pipelines from metal loss due to droplets of 

condensate or water, neither of which are typically present in mainline transmission piping such 

as those that would be expanded under this Project (Svedeman and Arnold, 1994). Given 

Transco’s explanation and supporting documentation, the anticipated velocities on Transco’s 

system would not result in unsafe operating conditions. Further, PHMSA, which is responsible 

for the safety of interstate pipeline systems, does not specify a maximum velocity in its 

regulations.

We received comments from Stuart Country Day School of the Sacred Heart and nearby 

landowners regarding the safety of the Project area during construction, including children’s 

safety. Transco has stated that they are currently consulting with the administrators of these 

schools to identify measures that will minimize disruption of daily school operations. Such 

measures may include scheduling of major construction activities when the school is not in 

session. Transco has also committed to ensuring that all of the employees on the right-of-way 

are in compliance with DOT regulations for current and previous drug and alcohol testing 

records for those that will perform safety sensitive functions.

We received comments from landowners about the need for safety inspections of the 

construction activities. Transco’s contractors, including construction workers, would be required 

to adhere to federal and state safety regulations and recommendations. In addition, FERC staff 

or its contractors would routinely inspect construction activities to ensure environmental 

compliance.

2.9.2 Pipeline Accident Data

The DOT requires all operators of natural gas transmission pipelines to notify the 

National Response Center at the earliest practicable moment following the discovery of an 

incident and to submit a report within 30 days to PHMSA. Generally, gas pipeline incidents are 

defined as any release that results in one or more of the following consequences:
Reliability and Safety

175

 a death or personal injury requiring hospitalization; 

 property damage, excluding cost of gas lost, of more than $50,000, in 1984 

dollars;

13 or

 unintentional estimated gas loss of three million cubic feet or more. 

Incidents may also include events that are significant in the judgment of the operator, 

even though they did not meet the criteria above. During the 20-year period from 1994 through 

2013, a total of 1,237 significant incidents were reported on the more than 300,000 total miles of 

natural gas transmission pipelines nationwide. 

Additional insight into the nature of service incidents may be found by examining the 

primary factors that caused the failures. Table 2.9.2-1 provides a distribution of the causal 

factors as well as the number of each incident by cause from 1994 to 2013.

TABLE 2.9.2-1

Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Significant Incidents by Cause (1994-2013) a

Cause Number of Incidents Percentage

Corrosion b 292 23.6

Excavation 211 17.0

Pipeline material, weld, or equipment failure 304 24.6

Natural force damage 142 11.5

Outside Force c 74 6.0

Incorrect operation 33 2.7

All other causes d 181 14.6

Total 1,237 -

____________________

a All data gathered from PHMSA Serious Incident files, March 25, 2014 http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/

b

Includes third-party damage.

c Fire, explosion, vehicle damage, previous damage, intentional damage. 

d Miscellaneous causes or other unknown causes. 

The dominant causes of pipeline incidents from 1994 to 2013 were corrosion and pipeline 

material, weld, or equipment failure, constituting 48.2 percent of all significant incidents. The 

pipelines included in the data set in table 2.9.2-1 vary widely in terms of age, diameter, and level 

of corrosion control. Each variable influences the incident frequency that may be expected for a 

specific segment of pipeline.

The frequency of significant incidents is strongly dependent on pipeline age. Older 

pipelines have a higher frequency of corrosion incidents because corrosion is a time-dependent 

process. The use of both an external protective coating and a cathodic protection system,14

required on all pipelines installed after July 1971, significantly reduces the corrosion rate 

compared to unprotected or partially protected pipe. 

 

13 $50,000 in 1984 dollars is approximately $116,183 in 2013 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014).

14 Cathodic protection is a technique to reduce corrosion (rust) of the natural gas pipeline that includes the use of an 

induced current and/or a sacrificial anode that corrodes preferentially.
Reliability and Safety

176

Outside force, excavation, and natural forces were the cause in 31.5 percent of significant 

pipeline incidents from 1994 to 2013. These result from the encroachment of mechanical 

equipment such as bulldozers and backhoes; earth movements due to soil settlement, washouts, 

or geological hazards; weather effects such as winds, storms, and thermal strains; and willful 

damage. Table 2.9.2-2 provides a breakdown of outside force incidents by cause.

TABLE 2.9.2-2

Outside Forces Incidents by Cause a (1994-2013)

Cause Number of Incidents Percent of All Incidents

Third party excavation damage 176 14.2

Operator excavation damage 25 2.0

Unspecified excavation damage/previous damage 10 0.8

Heavy rain/floods 72 5.8

Earth movement 35 2.8

Lightning/temperature/high winds 21 1.7

Natural force (other) 14 1.1

Vehicle (not engaged with excavation) 45 3.6

Fire/explosion 8 0.6

Previous mechanical damage 5 0.4

Fishing or maritime activity 7 0.6

Intentional damage 1 0.1

Electrical arcing from other equipment/facility 1 0.1

Unspecified/other outside force 7 0.6

TOTAL 427 -

____________________

a Excavation, Outside Force, and Natural Force from table 2.9.2-1.

Older pipelines have a higher frequency of outside forces incidents partly because their 

location may be less well known and less well marked than newer lines. In addition, the older 

pipelines contain a disproportionate number of smaller diameter pipelines, which have a greater 

rate of outside forces incidents. Small diameter pipelines are more easily crushed or broken by 

mechanical equipment or earth movements. Comments were raised concerning the increased 

safety with the installation of a new pipeline near existing pipelines. Regardless of whether a 

pipeline shares the right-of-way with additional underground utilities, PHMSA requires 

operators to address the unique safety issues of their individual pipeline systems. This includes 

understanding and addressing environmental conditions, potential threats from other structures, 

or other risks to a pipeline’s operational safety and integrity. In addition, while PHMSA does 

require pipeline operators to submit detailed reports concerning their pipeline systems, including 

mileage, inspections, repairs, and failures, these reports do not include details related the sharing 

of rights-of-way or impacts on other utilities. However, as stated throughout this document, the 

Project would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to meet or exceed the federal 

pipeline safety regulations which are set to protect the public from the risk of pipeline incidents. 

In addition, specific construction measures are being proposed for the Skillman Loop through the 

Princeton Ridge, as described in Transco’s site-specific Rock Handling Plan prepared with input 

from Princeton Ridge stakeholders (see section 1.6.2). 
Reliability and Safety

177

Since 1982, operators have been required to participate in “One Call” public utility 

programs in populated areas to minimize unauthorized excavation activities in the vicinity of 

pipelines. The “One Call” program is a service used by public utilities and some private sector 

companies (e.g., oil pipelines and cable television) to provide preconstruction information to 

contractors or other maintenance workers on the underground location of pipes, cables, and 

culverts.

We received scoping comments regarding the safety history on Transco’s entire existing 

pipeline system. Transco provided a summary of their onshore ruptures since 1984. This 

information is summarized in table 2.9.2-3.

TABLE 2.9.2-3

Transco Onshore Ruptures Since 1984 a 

Cause Number of 

Incidents

Fatalities 

(total)

Injuries 

(total)

Damage by outside force 6 0 3

Corrosion/External Corrosion 5 0 0

Other 3 0 0

TOTAL 14 0 3

____________________

a According to DOT Incident Reports (DOT-PHMSA 2012).

The Commission reviews each project based on its own merits and has siting authority 

for interstate natural gas infrastructure. PHMSA would be notified of and investigate all pipeline 

accidents and take any necessary resulting action. Although this information is not relevant to 

the scope of the Project, pipeline operator compliance and incident history is publically available 

on PHMSA website at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline. 

We received comments on the potential for the underground pipelines to be impacted by 

forces of nature, specifically hurricanes. As noted previously, the new pipeline would be 

constructed to meet the safety standards established by PHMSA in 49 CFR 192, which includes 

measures to protect pipelines from flooding events.

2.9.3 Impact on Public Safety

The service incident data summarized in table 2.9.2-1 include pipeline failures of all 

magnitudes with widely varying consequences. Table 2.9.3-1 presents the average annual 

fatalities that occurred on natural gas transmission lines between 2009 and 2013. 

The data have been separated into employees and nonemployees to better identify a 

fatality rate experienced by the general public. Fatalities among the public averaged 2 per year 

over the 20 year period from 1994 to 2013. The majority of fatalities from natural gas pipelines 

are associated with local distribution pipelines. These pipelines are not regulated by the FERC; 

they distribute natural gas to homes and businesses after transportation through interstate 

transmission pipelines. In general, these distribution lines are smaller-diameter pipes and/or 

plastic pipes that are more susceptible to damage. In addition, local distribution systems do not 

have large rights-of-way and pipeline markers common to the FERC-regulated interstate natural 

gas transmission pipelines.
Reliability and Safety

178

TABLE 2.9.3-1

Injuries and Fatalities – Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines

Year Injuries

Fatalities

Employees Public

2009 11 0 0

2010 a 61 0 0

2011 1 2 8

2012 7 0 0

2013 2 0 0

____________________

a All of the public injuries and fatalities in 2010 were due to the Pacific Gas and Electric pipeline rupture and fire in San 

Bruno, California on September 9, 2010.

The nationwide totals of accidental fatalities from various anthropogenic and natural 

hazards are listed in table 2.9.3-2 in order to provide a relative measure of the industry-wide 

safety of natural gas transmission pipelines. 

Direct comparisons between accident categories should be made cautiously, however, 

because individual exposures to hazards are not uniform among all categories. Furthermore, the 

fatality rate is much lower than the fatalities from natural hazards such as lightning, tornados, 

floods, earthquakes, etc.

The available data show that natural gas transmission pipelines continue to be a safe, 

reliable means of energy transportation. From 1994 to 2013, there were an average of 62 

significant incidents and 2 fatalities per year. The number of significant incidents distributed 

over the more than 300,000 miles of natural gas transmission pipelines indicates the risk is low 

for an incident at any given location. The rate of total fatalities for the nationwide natural gas 

transmission lines in service is approximately 0.01 per year per 1,000 miles of pipeline. Using 

this rate, operating the proposed 29.8 miles of pipeline looping associated with the Project might 

result in a fatality every 3,356 years. Thus, operation of the Project would represent only a slight 

increase in risk to the nearby public.

TABLE 2.9.3-2

Nationwide Accidental Deaths a

Type of Accident Annual No. of Deaths

All accidents 117,809

Motor vehicle 43,343

Poisoning 23, 618

Falls 19,656

Drowning 3,582

Fire, smoke inhalation, burns 3,197

Floods b 89

Lightning b 54

Tornado b 74

Natural gas distribution lines c 14

Natural gas transmission pipelines c 2

_____________________

a All data, unless otherwise noted, reflect 2009 statistics from U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States:

2012, Table 120, Washington, DC, 2009; http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab.

b NOAA National Weather Service, Office of Climate, Water and Weather Services, 30-year average (1983-2012); 

http://www.weather.gov/om/hazstats.shtml. 

c DOT PHMSA, 2011. Significant Incidents Summary Statistics: 1994-2013, 20-year average (1994-2013); 

http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/. 
Cumulative Impacts

179

2.10 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

In accordance with NEPA, we considered the cumulative impacts of the proposed Project 

and other projects or actions in the area. Cumulative impacts represent the incremental effects of 

a proposed action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can 

result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place in the same 

general area over a given period of time. The direct and indirect impacts of the Project are 

discussed in other sections of this EA.

The purpose of this analysis is to identify and describe cumulative impacts that would 

potentially result from implementation of the Project. This cumulative impact analysis generally 

follows the methodology set forth in relevant guidance (Council on Environmental Quality, 

1997; EPA, 1999). Under these guidelines, inclusion of other actions within the analysis is based 

on identifying commonalities of impacts from other actions to potential impacts that would result 

from the Project. An action must meet the following criteria to be included in the cumulative 

impacts analysis:

 impact a resource area potentially affected by the Project;

 cause this impact within all, or part, of the Project area; and

 cause this impact within all, or part, of the time span for the potential impact of 

the Project.

The actions considered in this cumulative impact analysis may vary from the Project in 

nature, magnitude, and duration. We included these actions based on the likelihood of Project 

completion, and only projects that have been recently completed, are under construction, or are 

reasonably foreseeable future actions were evaluated. We further considered existing or 

reasonably foreseeable actions expected to affect similar resources during similar time periods 

with the proposed Project. The anticipated cumulative impacts of the proposed Project and these 

other actions are discussed below, as are pertinent mitigation measures. Anticipated cumulative 

impacts were based on NEPA documentation, agency and public input, and best professional 

judgment.

From a cumulative impacts perspective, the proposed Project would incrementally impact 

resources, such as land use and vegetation cover, and could contribute to a cumulative 

environmental impact when considered broadly with historical land use and development activity 

in the Project area. According to the NJDEP’s most recent data, land use and land cover in the 

State of New Jersey has been altered from 1986 to 2007. In that timeframe, forested land use 

experienced a reduction of 2 percent; developed land increased by 6 percent; wetland cover 

decreased by 1 percent while waterbody cover increased by the same; and agriculture land use 

decreased by 4 percent (NJDEP, 2007). Developed land uses include a variety of sources, such 

as residential and urban development, and were tracked by the NJDEP through building permits. 

While this category may not necessarily apply to natural gas infrastructure, it provides the basis 

for a general analysis of historical cumulative environmental impacts in the state.
Cumulative Impacts

180

According to the Pennsylvania Governor’s Center for Local Government Services 

(PAGCLGS) most recent data, between 1992 and 2005, developed (urban) land increased by 

131.4 percent (about 1.6 million acres) primarily from agricultural and forest land. The total 

acreage of forest land remained relatively stable at the statewide level as conversions to 

urbanized areas were counterbalanced by afforestation of agricultural and other open space land. 

But the change in forest land composition had some noteworthy regional variations. 

Development pressures may have influenced this conversion as illustrated by the concentration 

of this change in land use occurring in areas surrounding Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and within 

the growing Poconos area. Conversion of forest land to agricultural land largely occurred in the 

western and southeastern portions of the state (PAGCLGS, 2010). Land cover related to 

wetlands and waterbodies was not covered in the PAGCLGS data. 

Within this historical context we have identified three types of projects that would 

potentially cause a cumulative impact when considered with the Project. These are: 1) other 

FERC jurisdictional natural gas pipelines; 2) unrelated actions; and 3) Marcellus Shale 

development. We identified these projects, listed in table 2.10-1, through scoping and 

independent research, as well as information provided by Transco. 

TABLE 2.10-1

Existing or Proposed Projects Evaluated for Potential Cumulative Impacts

Project Primary Elements Status Location Relative to Project

FERC Jurisdictional Natural Gas Pipeline Projects a 

Transco

Northeast Supply 

Link Project

(CP12-30)

12 miles of pipeline in 3 loops on 

Leidy Line; 0.5-mile-long pipeline 

replacement; 27-mile-long pipeline 

uprate; 1 new compressor station; 

increase compression at existing 

stations.

In service 

November 2013.

6.6 miles of looping in Hunterdon County, 

NJ starts at termination of proposed 

Pleasant Run Loop of the Project; 3.2 miles 

of looping about 10 miles south of 

proposed Franklin Loop in Monroe County, 

PA; 2.2 miles of looping about 20 miles 

east of proposed modification at 

Compressor Station 520 in Lycoming 

County, PA; additional compression at 

Compressor Station 515 in Luzerne 

County, PA; new electric Compressor 

Station 303 in Essex County, NJ, about 30 

miles from Project.

Transco

Atlantic Sunrise Project 

(PF14-8)

177 miles of greenfield pipeline; 

15 miles of pipeline loop; 2 new 

compressor stations; increase 

compression and modifications to 

existing stations.

Pre-filing review 

initiated April, 

2014; proposed 

construction start 

June 2016; inservice July 2017.

Greenfield pipeline begins in Susquehanna 

County, PA and extends south to Transco’s 

Mainline system in Lancaster County PA; 

includes pipeline construction in Luzerne, 

Lycoming, and Clinton Counties, PA; new 

compressor stations in Susquehanna and 

Columbia Counties, PA.

Transco

Northeast Connector Project

(CP13-132)

Increase compression at 3 existing 

stations.

Under 

construction; 

proposed inservice November 

2014.

Includes uprating two existing electric 

motor drives for incremental increase of 

5,000 horsepower at Compressor Station 

205 in Mercer County, NJ; all work at 

station to be conducted inside existing 

building.

Transco

Virginia Southside 

Expansion Project

(CP13-30)

98 miles of pipeline; increase 

compression at existing stations.

Under 

construction; 

proposed inservice 

September 2015.

Includes minor modifications at Transco 

Compressor Station 205 in Mercer County, 

NJ (no added compression) and minor 

modifications at other existing 

aboveground facilities on Transco’s

Mainline system, some of which would be 

modified in the Project to remove odorant; 

pipeline component located more than 50 
Cumulative Impacts

181

TABLE 2.10-1

Existing or Proposed Projects Evaluated for Potential Cumulative Impacts

Project Primary Elements Status Location Relative to Project

miles from Project.

Tennessee Gas Pipeline

Northeast Upgrade Project

(CP11-161)

40 miles of pipeline in 5 loop 

segments; increase compression 

at 2 existing stations.

In service 

November 2013.

Looping and compression modifications 20 

to 40 miles from Project.

Dominion Transmission

Tioga Area Expansion Project

(CP 12-19)

15 miles of pipeline looping. In service 

November 2013.

Looping in Tioga County, PA about 25 

miles from Compressor Station 520.

Tennessee Gas Pipeline

Rose Lake Expansion Project

(CP13-3)

Increase compression at 3 existing 

stations.

Under 

construction; 

proposed inservice November 

2014.

Nearest station at which compression will 

be added is about 25 miles from 

Compressor Station 517.

Columbia Gas Transmission

East Side Expansion Project

(CP14-17)

19 miles of pipeline loop; increase 

compression at 2 existing stations.

Application 

November 2013; 

proposed 

construction start 

November 2014; 

in-service 

September 2015.

Nearest station at which compression 

would be added is about 30 miles from 

termination of Pleasant Run Loop; pipeline 

element greater than 50 miles from Project.

Spectra Energy

NJ-NY Expansion Project

(CP11-56)

16 miles of pipeline; replace 5 

miles of pipeline; abandon 3 miles 

of pipeline.

In service 

November 2013.

Approximately 30 miles from Skillman and 

Pleasant Run Loops in urban New York 

City area.

Transco

Constitution Pipeline Project 

(CP13-499)

122 miles of pipeline; no added 

compression.

Application June 

2013; proposed 

construction start 

3

rd quarter 2014; 

in-service March 

2015.

Pipeline begins in Susquehanna County, 

PA about 35 miles from Project, and 

extends northeast into New York, with 

increasing distance from the Project.

Empire Pipeline/National Fuel 

Gas

Tuscarora Lateral Project

(CP14-112)

17 miles of pipeline; increase 

compression at existing station.

Proposed 

construction start 

November 2014; 

in service 

November 2015

Pipeline begins in northeastern-most Tioga 

County, PA, about 45 miles from 

Compressor Station 520, and about 100 

miles from the Dorrance Loop. Tuscarora 

Lateral extends northwest, with increasing 

distance from the Project.

Dominion Transmission

Sabinsville to Morrisville Project

(CP12-20)

3.6 miles of pipeline; no added 

compression.

In service 

November 2013.

Pipeline located in northwestern Tioga 

County, PA, about 50 miles from 

Compressor Station 520, and more than 

100 miles from the Dorrance Loop. 

Texas Eastern Transmission

TEAM Project

(CP13-84)

34 miles of pipeline loop; increase 

compression at 4 existing stations.

Under 

construction; 

proposed inservice November 

2014.

Project occurs on Texas Eastern 

Transmission system beginning in 

southeastern PA, extending west and 

south to MS. Nearest element would be 

about 50 miles from Project.

Transco

Rockaway Lateral and Northeast 

Connector Project

(CP13-36 and CP13-132)

3.2 miles of pipeline Under 

construction; 

proposed inservice November 

2014.

Project occurs in New York City. Nearest 

element would be about 50 miles from the 

Project.

Unrelated Projects

Electric Generation and 

Transmission

Pennsylvania Power and Light 

Northeast Pocono Reliability 

Project

60 miles of electric transmission 

line; associated substations.

Approved; phase 

construction 

planned 2014 –

2017.

69/230 kV powerline will parallel east side 

of Transco’s existing right-of-way from 

about MP 65 to MP 69 of Franklin Loop, 

which would be installed on west side of 

existing right-of-way.
Cumulative Impacts

182

TABLE 2.10-1

Existing or Proposed Projects Evaluated for Potential Cumulative Impacts

Project Primary Elements Status Location Relative to Project

Public Service Electric and 

Gas North Central Reliability 

Project 

The project will upgrade 

transmission lines and substations 

in the northern and central regions 

of New Jersey. 

In-service June 

2014 

Nearest approach of the electric 

transmission project is 5 miles northeast of 

Skillman Loop termination. Project 

primarily involves upgrades to existing 

facilities and rights-of-way.

Pennsylvania Power and Light

Electric Utilities

Susquehanna to Roseland 

500kV Transmission Line 

Project

145 miles of electric transmission 

line; 90 percent collocated in 

existing powerline rights-of-way.

Under 

construction; inservice 2014 

Nearest approach of the electric 

transmission project is 5 miles west of 

Dorrance Loop. This segment of the 

project primarily involves upgrades to 

existing facilities.

Commercial/Residential 

Development 

Various; see text discussion below On-going Commercial and residential development 

projects in the counties crossed by the 

Project.

Marcellus Shale Development

Wells b Natural gas well drilling On-going Active drilling in Lycoming County, PA, 

where Transco proposes to increase 

compression at existing Compressor 

Station 520. No active drilling in immediate 

vicinity of Compressor Station 520 and no 

drilling in last 3 years in other PA counties 

where the Project would be located. No 

Marcellus Shale development in NJ.

____________________

a Projects recently completed, under construction, or expected to be under construction in the same timeframe as, and located 

within approximately 50 miles of, the Leidy Southeast Expansion Project. 

b Well drilling activity within the same counties as the Leidy Southeast Expansion Project; see text below for additional details.

2.10.1 FERC Jurisdictional Natural Gas Pipeline Projects

The Commission recently approved or is in the process of reviewing several natural gas 

transmission projects within 50 miles of the proposed Project facilities. A summary of each 

project is included in table 2.10-1, and additional details regarding each project, and its 

associated environmental impacts, can be obtained through our website at www.ferc.gov by 

utilizing the e-Library link and the docket number for each project. 

Based primarily on the scope, schedule, status, and distance from the proposed Leidy 

Southeast Expansion Project, the following projects, together with the proposed Project, would 

not be expected to contribute significantly to cumulative impacts in the area: the Northeast 

Connector Project; Virginia Southside Expansion Project; Northeast Upgrade Project; Tioga 

Area Expansion Project; Rose Lake Expansion Project; East Side Expansion Project; NJ-NY 

Expansion Project; Constitution Pipeline Project; Tuscarora Lateral Project; Sabinsville to 

Morrisville Project; TEAM Project; Rockaway Lateral; and Northeast Connector Project. In 

addition, all FERC jurisdictional projects have been and would be constructed and maintained in 

accordance with our approved procedures and other construction, operation, and mitigation 

measures that may be required by federal, state, or local permitting authorities, further reducing 

the potential for cumulative impacts to occur. Therefore, the above-listed FERC jurisdictional 

projects are not considered further in our analysis. 

We further consider the potential cumulative impacts of the Project and the Northeast 

Supply Link (NSL) Project and Atlantic Sunrise Project.
Cumulative Impacts

183

As indicated in table 2.10-1, the NSL Project went into service in late 2013 and consists 

of the following primary facilities:

 Muncy Loop – 2.2 miles of pipeline loop on Transco’s Leidy Line in eastern 

Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. The Muncy Loop is located approximately 

mid-way between Compressor Stations 517 and 520, which would be modified by 

the Project, and about 40 miles west of the proposed Dorrance Loop in Luzerne

County, Pennsylvania;

 Palmerton Loop – 3.2 miles of pipeline loop on Transco’s Leidy Line in southern 

Monroe County, Pennsylvania. The Palmerton Loop is located approximately 15 

miles southeast of the proposed Franklin Loop;

 Stanton Loop – 6.6 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline loop on Transco’s Leidy 

Line in Hunterdon County, New Jersey. The proposed Pleasant Run Loop would 

connect to the Stanton Loop at MP 6.9 and would utilize similar workspace at this 

location as used during construction of the Stanton Loop;

 Modifications without added compression at Compressor Station 505, where the 

proposed Pleasant Run Loop would begin in Somerset County, New Jersey;

 Installation of an additional 16,000-hp gas turbine compressor in a new building 

at Compressor Station 515 in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. In conjunction with 

the proposed Project, Transco would install a 30,000-hp gas turbine compressor at 

the station; and

 Construction of new, 25,000 hp electric driven Compressor Station 303 in Essex 

County, New Jersey, approximately 35 miles from the nearest Project facilities.

Construction of the NSL Project was completed in 2013 and the project was placed into 

service in November. If the current Project is approved, the majority of construction would 

likely occur in 2015, or approximately 18 months after completion of the NSL Project. Based 

primarily on the scope, timing, and distance between major components of the NSL Project and 

the Leidy Southeast Expansion Project, and considering that both projects have been and would 

be constructed and maintained in accordance with our approved procedures and other 

construction, operation, and mitigation measures that may be required, we expect that there 

would be no cumulative impacts associated with construction of the projects. Potential longterm cumulative impacts of the projects are discussed in section 2.10.4.

As indicated in table 2.10-1, we initiated our pre-filing review of Transco’s planned 

Atlantic Sunrise Project in April 2014. If that project is approved, Transco would likely start 

construction in summer 2016 with an in-service date in summer 2017. Based on an initial 

project description from Transco, the project consists of the following primary facilities:

 Central Penn Line North (CPLN) and Central Penn Line South (CPLS) – 177 

miles of pipeline extending southerly from Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania to 

an interconnection with Transco’s Mainline system in Lancaster County, 
Cumulative Impacts

184

Pennsylvania. The CPLN would parallel the Leidy Line for 21 miles in northern 

Luzerne County, approximately 20 miles from the Dorrance and Franklin Loops;

 Grugan Loop – 5.5 miles of pipeline loop on Leidy Line in Clinton County, 

Pennsylvania about 15 miles west of Compressor Station 520;

 Unity Loop – 9.0 miles of pipeline loop on the Leidy Line in Lycoming County, 

immediately west of Compressor Station 517; 

 Two new electric-driven compressor stations including on the CPLN pipeline in 

Susquehanna County and on the CPLS pipeline in Columbia County, 

Pennsylvania, about 10 miles south of existing Compressor Station 517; and

 Increased compression at Compressor Stations 517 and 520, where Transco 

proposes to increase compression in conjunction with the Leidy Southeast 

Expansion Project, and modifications at four other existing compressor stations

on Transco’s Mainline system that would also be modified by the Leidy Southeast 

Expansion Project.

Detailed information regarding the environmental impacts associated with the Atlantic 

Sunrise Project is not yet available. However, we note that none of the pipeline construction 

would occur within 20 miles of the proposed Dorrance and Franklin Loops and that construction 

schedules, including at existing compressor stations, would be separated by a minimum of 6 

months. Based primarily on the timing and distance between major components of the Atlantic 

Sunrise Project and the Leidy Southeast Expansion Project, and considering that both projects 

would be constructed and maintained in accordance with Transco’s Plan and Procedures and 

other construction, operation, and mitigation measures that may be required by other permitting 

agencies, we expect that there would be no cumulative impacts associated with construction of 

the projects. Potential long-term cumulative impacts of the projects are discussed in section 

2.10.4.

2.10.2 Unrelated Projects

Electric Generation and Transmission Projects

We are aware of three major electric transmission projects in the general Project area: the 

Northeast Pocono Reliability Project; North Central Reliability Project; and the Susquehanna to 

Roseland 500kV Transmission Line Project. 

As indicated in table 2.10-1, the Northeast Pocono Reliability Project has been approved,

and phased construction is planned between 2014 and 2017. A portion of the electric 

transmission project would parallel the east side of Transco’s existing right-of-way from 

approximate MPs 65.0 to 69.0 in Monroe County, Pennsylvania. In this area, Transco proposes 

to construct the Franklin Loop along the west side of the existing pipeline right-of-way. Due to 

the proximity of the Northeast Pocono Reliability Project to the Franklin Loop, and the potential 

for construction schedules to overlap, we discuss potential short and long-term cumulative 

impacts of the projects in section 2.10.4.
Cumulative Impacts

185

According to Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G), construction of the 

North Central Reliability Project was largely completed by June 2014. The project involved 

upgrading approximately 35 miles of existing PSE&G transmission lines and substations in 

northern and central areas of New Jersey. The nearest distance of the electric transmission 

project to the Leidy Southeast Expansion Project is about 5 miles from the termination of the 

Skillman Loop. As the project largely involved upgrades to existing facilities rather than new 

facilities that would require substantial ground disturbance, and considering that the construction 

periods for the electric transmission project and Transco’s proposal would not overlap, it is 

expected that the cumulative impacts of the two projects would be minimal and, thus, we do not 

consider the North Central Reliability Project further in our analysis.

Similarly, construction of the Susquehanna-Roseland Electric Transmission Line Project 

is nearing completion through northern Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and in-service is expected 

in the summer of 2014. The nearest distance of the project to the Leidy Southeast Expansion 

Project is about 5 miles from the termination of the Dorrance Loop in Luzerne County, 

Pennsylvania. In this area, the electric transmission project largely consists of upgrading 

existing facilities. In addition, approximately 90 percent of the transmission line project would 

occur within existing power line right-of-way, without significant land disturbance outside of the 

right-of-way. Based on the narrow scope and distance of the electric transmission project, and 

considering that the construction schedules for the electric transmission project and Transco’s 

proposal would not overlap, it is expected that the cumulative impacts of the two projects would 

be minimal. Therefore, we do not consider the North Central Reliability Project further in our 

analysis.

Commercial/Residential Development Projects

Transco identified planned commercial/residential development projects in the counties 

that would be crossed by the Project. While there is a potential for increased construction-related 

traffic should any of these planned projects occur within the same timeframe and location as the 

proposed Project, the exact location and schedule for all of these projects was not determined and 

the schedule for many projects is unknown, variable, and dependent on economic factors. In 

addition, the majority of these projects consist of short-term, localized activities (e.g. small 

number of homes, small retail developments), and/or are scheduled for completion prior to 

substantial construction of the proposed Project. We expect that these projects would require 

state or local approval and that best management practices would be implemented to minimize 

environmental impacts such as erosion and sedimentation. As a result and considering that the 

Project would be constructed and operated in accordance with Transco’s Plan and Procedures 

and other measures that may be required by federal, state, or local permitting authorities, we 

conclude that construction and operation of the Project and commercial/residential development 

projects would result in negligible cumulative impacts in the region. Therefore, we do not 

consider these projects further in our analysis. 

2.10.3 Marcellus Shale Development

The Marcellus Shale is an approximately 385-million-year-old, organic-rich shale 

formation that exists beneath 93 million acres of Pennsylvania, southern New York, eastern 
Cumulative Impacts

186

Ohio, and northern West Virginia. The Marcellus Shale does not extend beneath the New Jersey 

components of the Project.

Over geologic time and with the pressure and temperature associated with deep burial, oil 

and natural gas can be generated within organic-rich shale formations. However, because shale 

is generally impermeable (i.e., fluids do not readily flow through the formation), the oil and 

natural gas contained in these types of rocks cannot be economically produced using 

conventional well drilling and completion methods. Within the last 20 years, however, the 

petroleum industry has developed the horizontal drilling technique in conjunction with hydraulic 

fracturing (fracking), which has been in use for over 50 years, to recover natural gas from shale 

reservoirs. Fracking involves the injection of fluids and sand under high pressure to fracture the 

shale around the wellbore, thus enabling the flow of natural gas and oil to the well.

Using these techniques, the first natural gas production from the Marcellus Shale in 

Pennsylvania began in 2005. Prior to 2005, Pennsylvania was producing approximately 0.5 

billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of natural gas from conventional reservoirs. With development 

of the Marcellus Shale, Pennsylvania produced 9.2 Bcf/d during the last six months of 2013. 

The USGS estimates that the Marcellus Shale contains a technically recoverable mean of 84 

trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas (Coleman, et al., 2011). For comparison, the United States 

currently utilizes approximately 23 tcf of natural gas per year; thus, the Marcellus Shale 

represents a significant natural gas deposit in close proximity to the high population centers of 

the northeastern United States. 

We received comments from the Sierra Club, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, and 

numerous individual stakeholders concerning the FERC’s jurisdiction over these “upstream” 

production activities. As discussed in section 1.5, the facilities associated with the production of 

natural gas are not under the FERC’s jurisdiction. Although we do not examine the impacts of 

Marcellus Shale upstream facilities to the same extent as the Project facilities in this EA, we 

considered the general development of the Marcellus Shale in proximity to the Project within the 

context of cumulative impacts in the Project area. A more specific analysis of Marcellus Shale 

upstream facilities is outside the scope of this analysis because the exact location, scale, and 

timing of future facilities are unknown. 

Marcellus Shale production involves improvement or construction of roads, preparation 

of a well pad, drilling and completion of wells, and construction and operation of gathering 

pipeline systems. In Pennsylvania, the permitting of upstream facilities associated with the 

development of the Marcellus Shale is under the jurisdiction of the PADEP Bureau of Oil and 

Gas Management. The PADEP has developed BMPs for the construction and operation of 

upstream oil and gas production facilities. These BMPs include erosion and sediment control 

practices; setback requirements from springs, wetlands, and waterbodies; wetland and waterbody 

crossing procedures; access road construction practices; soil amendment procedures; and rightof-way restoration measures. 

According to PADEP records, 405 unconventional wells, (wells that recover natural gas 

from shale formations often through the use of fracking) were drilled in Lycoming County in 

2012, 2013 and through May 2014 (PADEP, 2014a). The only element of the proposed Project 

in the area of active Marcellus development is Transco’s proposed increase of compression at 

existing Compressor Station 520 in west-central Lycoming County. This work would occur in or 
Cumulative Impacts

187

adjacent to the developed area of the site and would not involve significant impacts on water 

resources, vegetation, wildlife, or other resources. Transco would also implement measures to 

avoid or further reduce environmental impacts during construction and to encourage restoration 

after work is complete. The Project and Marcellus Shale development would potentially have a 

cumulative impact on air quality. As discussed in section 2.7, the compressor station 

modifications would comply with Pennsylvania’s SIP, which was established to protect public 

health and the environment. Facilities associated with Marcellus Shale development would 

comply with the CAA, as applicable. In addition, Governor Thomas Corbett signed the 2012 Oil 

and Gas Act, also known as Act 13, which addressed unconventional drilling in Pennsylvania. 

The PADEP is proposing amendments to Act 13, which include additional preventive measures 

to protect environmental resources (PADEP, 2014b). No wells have been drilled in the last three 

years in the other Pennsylvania counties where Project work would occur, and the Marcellus 

Shale does not extend into New Jersey. 

Based on the analysis above, for most environmental resources we conclude that 

construction and operation of the Project would not contribute significantly to cumulative 

impacts associated with development of the Marcellus Shale. However, we discuss the potential 

for cumulative impacts on air quality in section 2.10.4.

2.10.4 Potential Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action 

The potential impacts that we view as most cumulatively significant pertain to soils; 

groundwater, surface water, and wetlands; vegetation and wildlife; land use, recreation, special 

interest areas, and visual resources; air quality and noise; and climate change. 

In the following analysis we discuss the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed 

Leidy Southeast Expansion Project relative to Transco’s recently completed NSL Project and 

recently proposed Atlantic Sunrise Project, the planned Northeast Pocono Reliability Project, and 

the development of the Marcellus Shale.

Soils

The facilities associated with the Project would have a direct but temporary impact on 

near-surface soils. During construction, temporary impacts on soils could lead to poor 

revegetation potential and indirectly affect wildlife and aquatic resources as a result of poor 

vegetation cover and increased erosion and sedimentation. The soil stabilization and 

revegetation requirements included in Transco’s Plan and Procedures, E&SCPs, and other sitespecific plans including the PRCRP developed for the Princeton Ridge area along the Skillman 

Loop, would prevent or minimize any indirect impacts on soils. Revegetation of the right-ofway in accordance with these plans and other measures that may be required by permitting 

agencies, would minimize impacts on soils. FERC staff would monitor and inspect construction 

and restoration activities to ensure compliance. The NSL and Atlantic Sunrise Projects, which 

are under our jurisdiction, have already implemented or would be required to implement similar 

construction and restoration practices to minimize impacts on soils. Consequently, any potential 

cumulative impacts on soils would be temporary and minor with respect to the FERC 

jurisdictional projects that we considered in our analysis.
Cumulative Impacts

188

Construction and operation of the Northeast Pocono Reliability Project would result in 

temporary impacts on soils during construction and the placement of powerline towers would 

result in permanent impacts on soils. Cumulative impacts on soils from construction of the 

Northeast Pocono Reliability Project and the Leidy Southeast Expansion Project would be 

expected to be temporary and minor because the construction work areas would not overlap and 

workspaces would be restored following construction. The placement of tower structures would 

represent a permanent impact on soils; however, the long term cumulative impacts on soils from 

the Northeast Pocono Reliability Project and the proposed Project would be minor due to the 

relatively small footprint of the powerline structures and considering that Transco would 

implement measures avoid or minimize any long term impacts on soil resources.

In conclusion, we do not anticipate that construction or operation of the Project would 

contribute significantly to cumulative impacts on soil resources when considered in conjunction 

with other projects in the area.

Groundwater, Surface Water, Aquatic Resources, and Wetlands

Project construction could have a minor, temporary, and localized effect on groundwater, 

surface water, and aquatic resources. Groundwater impacts could include increased turbidity, 

reduced water levels, and contamination. Nearby water wells could also be damaged by 

construction. The greatest potential impacts of pipeline construction on surface waters and 

aquatic resources would result from an increase in sediment loading to surface waters either 

during active construction within a waterbody or due to runoff from construction near 

waterbodies, and would quickly diminish after construction, as the right-of-way is restored and 

revegetated. The level of impact of the Project on surface waters would depend on precipitation 

events, sediment loads, stream area/velocity, channel integrity, and bed material. Effects on 

fishery resources crossed by the Project would be reduced through the use of the various 

waterbody crossing methods and restoration procedures, by minimizing the duration of in-stream 

work, and by conducting in-stream work within the time periods required by federal and state 

agencies. 

Project impacts on water resources would be greatest during construction. Furthermore, 

Project impacts on water resources would be avoided or minimized by the use of standard and 

specialized construction techniques, including those specified in Transco’s Procedures, SPCC 

Plan, and other site-specific plans. Transco would require approximately 12.1 million gallons of 

surface water to hydrostatically test the new pipeline facilities and would follow federal, state, 

and local permit requirements with regard to water withdrawal and discharges. Transco would 

implement the measures to protect aquatic species and minimize sedimentation in the source and 

receiving waterbodies. Transco would also monitor nearby well performance and repair any 

wells affected by the Project. As mentioned above, the NSL Project and the Atlantic Sunrise 

Project, which are under our jurisdiction, have already been or would be required to implement 

similar construction and restoration practices to minimize impacts on water resources. The NSL 

Project and the Leidy Southeast Expansion Project would not cross any of the same waterbodies 

and, based on geographic separation, it is unlikely that the Atlantic Sunrise Project and the Leidy 

Southeast Expansion Project would cross the same waterbodies. This geographic separation 

and/or differing construction schedules would further reduce the potential for cumulative impacts 
Cumulative Impacts

189

to occur. As a result, we expect that cumulative impacts on water resources, aquatic species

would be temporary and minor with respect to the FERC-regulated projects we considered.

Cumulative impacts on groundwater, surface water, and aquatic resources from 

construction of the Northeast Pocono Reliability Project would be expected to be temporary and 

minor as the Public Utility Commission and other permitting agencies would require best 

management practices to protect water resources and aquatic resources. Following construction, 

vegetation would be restored in the work area, thereby reducing potential long-term effects. 

Minor permanent impacts on vegetation would occur from the powerline structures; however, 

impacts on surface waters would likely be avoided because the towers are typically placed in 

upland areas and the powerlines would span surface waters.

Construction of the Project would impact 26.5 acres of wetlands, consisting of 15.1 acres 

of emergent wetland, 2.9 acres of scrub-shrub wetland, and 8.5 acres of forested wetlands. Of 

the 8.5 acres of forested wetland impacts, 4.3 acres would be permanently impacted during 

operation and would be converted to emergent wetland types due to vegetation maintenance 

requirements along the pipeline loops. The primary impact of the Project on wetlands would be 

the alteration of wetland value due to vegetation clearing. Impacts on wetlands would be 

greatest during and immediately following construction. The majority of these effects would be 

short term in nature and would cease when or shortly after the wetlands are restored and 

vegetated. The COE and NJDEP oversee permitting of wetland impacts in Pennsylvania and 

New Jersey, respectively, and Transco has proposed wetland enhancement and preservation at 

one site in Pennsylvania and is coordinating with the NJDEP to identify acceptable 

compensation for temporary wetlands impacts associated with the Project in New Jersey. 

Construction of the NSL Project impacted approximately 13.8 acres of emergent 

wetlands and 3.7 acres of forested wetlands. Operation of the NSL Project resulted in in 1.1 

acres of permanent wetland impacts, including 0.4 acre of emergent wetland and 0.1 acre of 

forested wetland fill at the electrical substation associated with the project, and 0.6 acre of 

forested wetland that was converted to emergent wetland types for operation of the pipeline 

right-of-way. Construction and operation of the Atlantic Sunrise project would likely result in 

temporary impacts on wetlands and potential permanent impacts from the conversion of forested 

wetlands to non-forested wetland types, or by operation of the aboveground facilities. These 

projects have implemented, or would be required to implement, measures to minimize wetland 

impacts, including complying with permitting requirements from the COE and other agencies. 

In addition, the geographic separation of the projects from the proposed Project would further 

reduce cumulative impacts on wetlands. As such, we conclude that cumulative impacts on 

wetlands from the FERC-regulated projects would be minor.

Construction of the Northeast Pocono Reliability Project would be expected to result in 

temporary impacts on wetlands during the period of construction, and permanent impacts on any 

wetlands associated with the placement of powerline towers. Wetland impacts associated with 

the powerline project and the proposed Project could occur in nearby areas and during similar 

timeframes; however, both projects would include construction and restoration measures that 

would reduce impacts on wetland resources, and it is expected that both projects would 

implement mitigation plans in accordance with COE or other permitting agency requirements, 

thereby minimizing any long term cumulative impacts on wetland resources. 
Cumulative Impacts

190

In conclusion, we do not anticipate that construction or operation of the Project would 

contribute significantly to cumulative impacts on water resources, aquatic species, or wetlands 

when considered in conjunction with other projects in the area.

Vegetation and Wildlife

Right-of-way clearing and grading and other construction activities associated with the 

proposed Project would result in the removal of vegetation; alteration of wildlife habitat; 

displacement of wildlife; and other potential secondary effects such as increased population 

stress, predation, and the establishment of invasive plant species. In addition to the wetland 

impacts noted above, construction of the Project would temporarily impact about 457.6 acres of 

vegetated upland, of which about 73.0 acres would be retained for permanent operation. The 

Project would result in the permanent loss of approximately 1.4 acres of upland vegetation, and 

would convert about 26.8 acres of upland forest to scrub-shrub or herbaceous vegetation cover. 

Due to the short time frames for construction, the proposed Project, NSL Project, Atlantic 

Sunrise Project, and Northeast Pocono Reliability Project would not contribute significantly to 

cumulative impacts on vegetation and wildlife resources in the region. We consulted with the 

FWS in accordance with Section 7 of the ESA to ensure that impacts on threatened and 

endangered species are avoided, minimized, and where necessary, appropriately mitigated for the 

proposed Project and the NSL Project. We also consulted with the FWS regarding impacts on 

migratory bird species of concern for each of these projects, and would conduct similar 

consultations for the Atlantic Sunrise Project. Transco has also consulted with state regulatory 

agencies to minimize potential impacts on state-listed species of concern and would implement 

measures, such as construction timing restrictions, that would minimize potential cumulative 

effects on fish and other species. Consultations related to Section 7 of the ESA would be 

expected to occur for the Northeast Pocono Reliability Project. 

The development of the proposed Project and other projects in the area could result in 

habitat fragmentation, although the cumulative impact of the Project on fragmentation is 

considered to be minor for a number of reasons. The proposed pipeline segments would be 

installed as loops within and adjacent to Transco’s existing maintained right-of-way for the 

majority of their length and the proposed aboveground facility modifications would occur within 

or adjacent to the fence lines of existing facilities. In addition, Transco would primarily use 

existing roads to construct and operate the proposed facilities and no other linear elements (e.g., 

electric transmission lines), would be constructed. Therefore, the Project would utilize 

previously disturbed rights-of-way as much as possible, thereby minimizing the areas of 

previously undisturbed vegetation that would be affected, and reducing additional cumulative 

impacts on vegetation communities and wildlife habitats, including migratory birds. The 

potential for habitat fragmentation resulting from the Project would be further reduced because 

the majority of the disturbed areas would be allowed to return to pre-existing conditions. The 

geographic extent and duration of disturbances caused by construction of the Project would be 

minimal and further reduced by implementation of Transco's Plan and Procedures, E&SCPs, and 

other construction, restoration, and mitigations plans.
Cumulative Impacts

191

In conclusion, we do not anticipate that construction or operation of the Project would 

contribute significantly to cumulative impacts on vegetation or wildlife resources when 

considered in conjunction with other projects in the area.

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

Construction and operation of the proposed Project has been designed to minimize 

impacts on existing and future land uses by collocation with an existing Transco right-of-way to 

the extent possible. The new permanent right-of-way for the Project would result in the 

permanent alteration of about 26.8 acres of upland forest land to scrub-shrub or herbaceous 

cover. All other land use types are anticipated to be restored after construction, thus, Project 

effects on land use would be minimal. 

During construction, recreational activities or the use of special interest areas could be 

prevented, postponed, or diminished in the immediate Project area. Effects on these areas would 

be minimized by utilizing existing rights-of-way and access roads to the extent possible and by a 

relatively short duration for construction. The Project would not cross national or federal 

recreation areas. However, the Project would cross state and local recreation and special interest 

areas. Transco has begun coordinating with the appropriate state and local land management 

agency for the special interest areas and would obtain the necessary state permits and approvals 

to cross these areas.

The Atlantic Sunrise Project and Northeast Pocono Reliability Project would affect land 

use and result in temporary and long term visual impacts, and could impact recreational activities 

and special interest areas if crossed by the projects. These projects, however, would not be 

expected to significantly impact these resources as they would be required to implement our Plan 

and Procedures and/or would be required to implement similar construction and restoration 

practices to minimize impacts on land use. Similarly, construction of the NSL Project was 

completed in accordance with our recommendations and measures in our Plan and Procedures to 

minimize impacts on land use.

The other FERC-jurisdictional projects have crossed or may cross federal, state, or local 

recreation and special interest areas. It is anticipated that these other projects have or would 

coordinate similarly with the land management agency to obtain the necessary permits and 

approvals to cross these areas, as well as to develop mitigation for each project’s impacts. While 

construction of these projects through the recreation and special interest areas could affect 

recreational activities, the majority of these impacts would be temporary, extending though the 

period of construction. 

Temporary visual impacts would be evident during Project construction due to clearing, 

grading, and construction activities. After construction, restoration in accordance with Transco’s 

Plan and Procedures and other permitting agency requirements would promote revegetation of 

the construction work areas, thereby limiting permanent visual impacts to those areas where 

previously existing forest would not be allowed to reestablish within the new permanent right-ofway due to pipeline safety and operational requirements. Permanent visual impacts would also 

occur in developed areas where trees and certain permanent structures would be precluded in the 

operational right-of-way, and where permanent structures (e.g., transmission line posts) would 
Cumulative Impacts

192

occur. Placement of the permanent powerline structures associated with the Northeast Pocono 

Reliability Project adjacent to the proposed Project right-of-way would also represent a 

permanent, long-term impact on visual resources. 

Because the proposed loops would be collocated within or adjacent to Transco’s existing 

permanently maintained right-of-way for the majority of their length, the permanent visual 

impact would typically consist of the incremental widening of the existing corridor. The scope 

of work at aboveground facilities associated with the Project, including those that would also be 

modified in conjunction with the Atlantic Sunrise Project, would consist of modifications to 

existing structures and, thus, would not result in significant cumulative impacts on visual 

resources.

Based on the above, construction and operation of the Project would not contribute to 

cumulative, long-term impacts on land use, recreation, special interest areas, and visual resources 

within the region.

Air Quality and Noise

The proposed Project and other projects in the area would involve the use of heavy 

equipment that would generate emissions of air contaminants, fugitive dust, and noise during 

construction. Because pipeline construction moves through an area quickly, air emissions 

associated with the pipeline loops would be intermittent and short term. The majority of these 

impacts would be minimized further because the construction activities would occur over a large 

geographical area and, in many cases, construction schedules would not directly overlap. 

Although these projects would result in short-term construction air emissions, they are not likely 

to significantly affect long-term air quality in the region.

Operation of the proposed Project and other projects would also contribute cumulatively 

to existing air emissions. Although outside the scope of our analysis, it is anticipated that 

Marcellus Shale development activities would result in increased long-term emissions of criteria 

pollutants, HAPs, and GHGs within the region. The NSL Project involved the addition of 

16,000 hp of compression to Station 515 (which is also being modified for the Project) and the 

Atlantic Sunrise Project would involve addition of compression at Stations 517 (additional 

16,000 hp) and 520 (additional 16,000 hp and compressor modifications). However, each of the 

projects would need to comply with federal, state, and local air regulations, which may require 

controls to limit the emission of certain pollutants. These air regulations also require the 

jurisdictional agency to consider the timing of projects in determining the applicable 

requirements (such as the applicability of NSR or PSD). The limits on operating emissions 

would be implemented through federal, state, and local permits and approvals. Thus, the Project 

is not anticipated to significantly contribute to the cumulative impact on regional air quality as a 

result of operation. In addition, SIPs are designed to ensure compliance with the NAAQS, or to 

bring nonattainment areas into compliance. As a result, the proposed Project, other similar 

projects, and Marcellus Shale development in the area are not expected to have a significant 

cumulative impact on air quality as it relates to human or public health.

The Project and other projects would all produce noise during construction; however, 

this noise would be temporary disturbances to noise receptors in the vicinity of the projects. 
Cumulative Impacts

193

Noise impacts during the construction phase would also be localized and would attenuate quickly 

as the distance from the noise source increases. In addition, because construction proceeds as a 

moving assembly line along the proposed pipeline loops, the duration of construction activities, 

and therefore noise impacts, at any one location would be limited and short term. Because the 

impact of noise is highly localized and attenuates quickly as the distance from the noise source 

increases, cumulative impacts associated with the Project, including operation of the new and 

modified compressor stations, would not result in significant cumulative impacts. In addition, 

section 2.8 describes the noise impacts from the proposed compressor station modifications. The 

resulting noise from each compressor station after Transco’s modifications would either not 

produce a noticeable increase or reduce noise from current levels. 

Climate Change

Climate change is the change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as 

a result of human activity, and cannot be represented by single annual events or individual 

anomalies. For example, a single large flood event or particularly hot summer are not 

indications of climate change, while a series of floods or warm years that statistically change the 

average precipitation or temperature over years or decades may indicate climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international, 

multi-governmental scientific body for the assessment of climate change. The United States is a 

member of the IPCC and participates in the IPCC working groups studying various aspects of 

climate change. The leading U.S. scientific body on climate change is the U.S. Global Change 

Research Program (USGCRP). Thirteen federal departments and agencies participate in the 

USGCRP, which began as a presidential initiative in 1989 and was mandated by Congress in the 

Global Change Research Act of 1990 (GCRA). The USGCRP coordinates and supports U.S. 

participation in the IPCC assessments.

The IPCC and USGCRP have recognized that:

 globally, GHGs have been accumulating in the atmosphere since the beginning of 

the industrial era (circa 1750);

 combustion of fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, and natural gas), combined with 

agriculture and clearing of forests, is primarily responsible for the accumulation 

of GHG;

 anthropogenic GHG emissions are the primary contributing factor to climate 

change; and

 impacts extend beyond atmospheric climate change alone, and include changes to 

water resources, transportation, agriculture, ecosystems, and human health.

In May 2014, the USGCRP released the Third National Climate Assessment, a 

comprehensive report on climate change and its impacts in the United States. The report 

describes the effects of global change on different regions of the U.S. (e.g., Northeast) and on 

various societal and environmental sectors, such as water resources, agriculture, energy use, and 

human health (USGCRP, 2014). These efforts are intended to fulfill the Congressional mandate 
Cumulative Impacts

194

of the GCRA. Although climate change is a global concern, for this analysis, the focus is on the 

cumulative impacts of climate change in the Project area.

The USGCRP’s report notes the following observations and projections of environmental 

impacts that may be attributed to climate change in the Northeast region:

 between 1895 and 2011, temperatures in the Northeast increased by almost 2 °F 

and precipitation increased by approximately five inches, or more than 10 percent;

 by the 2080s, if GHG emissions continue to increase warming of 4.5 °F to 10 °F 

is projected while warming ranges from about 3 °F to 6 °F are projected if global 

emissions were reduced substantially;

 coastal flooding has increased due to a rise in sea level of approximately 1 foot 

since 1900; 

 the Northeast has experienced a greater recent increase in extreme precipitation 

than any other region in the United States; between 1958 and 2010, the Northeast 

saw more than a 70 percent increase in the amount of precipitation falling in very 

heavy events;

 the frequency, intensity, and duration of heat waves is expected to increase, with 

larger increases under higher emissions;

 under the scenario of continued increases in emissions, much of the southern 

portion of the region, including New Jersey, is projected by mid-century to 

experience more than 60 additional days per year above 90 °F compared to the 

end of last century. This will affect the region’s vulnerable populations, 

infrastructure, agriculture, and ecosystems; 

 although less certain than temperature increase projections, winter and spring 

precipitation is projected to increase, especially but not exclusively in the northern 

part of the region and the frequency of heavy downpours is projected to continue 

to increase as the century progresses;

 seasonal drought risk is also projected to increase in summer and fall as higher 

temperatures lead to greater evaporation and earlier winter and spring snowmelt; 

and

 sea level rise along most of the coastal Northeast is expected to exceed the global 

average rise (which is projected to rise 1 to 4 feet by 2100) due to local land 

subsidence, with the possibility of even greater regional sea level rise if the Gulf 

Stream weakens as some models suggest.

The GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the Project were 

identified in section 2.7.3. Emission of GHGs from the Project would not have any direct 

impacts on the environment in the Project area. Currently, there is no standard methodology to 

determine how the Project’s relatively small incremental contribution to GHGs would translate 

into physical effects on the global environment. 
Cumulative Impacts

195

The GHG emissions from the construction and operation of Transco’s Leidy Southeast 

Expansion Project would contribute less than 0.1 percent of the New Jersey or Pennsylvania 

GHG emission inventories. Additionally, natural gas is a lower CO2 emitting fuel as compared 

to other fuel sources (e.g., fuel oil or coal). Because fuel oil is widely used as an alternative to 

natural gas in the region in which the Project would be located, it is anticipated that the Project 

would result in the displacement of some fuel oil use, thereby regionally offsetting some GHG 

emissions. In addition, the Project would comply with all EPA GHG regulations. While the 

proposed Project would represent an incremental increase in GHG emissions, we do not believe 

it would contribute significantly to climate change. 

In conclusion, various development types, including interstate natural gas transmission 

projects, electric transmission projects, and natural gas development activities have contributed 

over time to the reduction in forested land use and waterbody cover. The proposed Project 

would have a minor impact on these resources. Transco would loop its existing pipelines, 

utilizing existing cleared areas during construction and, thereby, reducing the acreage of tree loss 

required during construction. For linear pipelines, such as the proposed action, areas used during 

construction and operation are generally restored to previous conditions. Project-related impacts 

on agriculture and soils would be limited to the construction phase of the Project. Once the 

pipeline loops are in operation, the land would be reverted to previous uses in most instances. 

Transco would implement its Plan, Procedures, and PRCRP, among other plans, to reduce 

construction impacts and ensure successful revegetation of disturbed areas. In addition, Transco 

is consulting with the COE and NJDEP to identify and implement appropriate wetland mitigation 

and offset the Project’s impacts on wetlands. Along the Skillman Loop, Transco would largely 

avoid a reduction in canopy cover and reduce tree clearing along its existing right-of-way by 

maintaining its current right-of-way width and constructing over the existing pipeline. By 

avoiding forest fragmentation Transco would, by extension, reduce impacts on wildlife and 

wildlife habitat.
Alternatives

196

3.0 ALTERNATIVES

We identified and evaluated alternatives to the Project including the no action alternative; 

energy conservation and alternative sources of energy; system alternatives; pipeline route 

alternatives, variations and refinements; and alternative construction methods. The criteria used 

to evaluate potential alternatives included whether they:

 offer a significant environmental advantage over the proposed Project;

 are technically and economically feasible and practical;

 are permittable within the same general timeframe of the Project; and

 meet Transco’s stated Project objectives, which are to:

o provide an additional 525,000 Dth/d of firm natural gas transportation 

capacity to delivery points that would be accessible by customers in the 

mid-Atlantic and Southeast states

o help to meet the current and future demand for natural gas;

o provide its customers with access to new sources of domestic natural gas; 

and

o support the overall reliability of energy transmission infrastructure.

Our alternatives analysis is based on information provided by Transco; our review of 

aerial photographs, USGS topographic maps, and other publicly available information; 

information from site visits; and input from resource agencies and the public. Unless noted 

otherwise, we utilized the same assumed land requirement widths and the same desktop sources 

of information to standardize the comparison between the Project and alternatives. Therefore, 

some of the information presented in this section relative to the Project may differ from the 

information presented in section 2.0, which is based on Project-specific sources of information 

including field surveys and engineered drawings.

3.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

If the Commission denies Transco’s proposal, the short- and long-term environmental 

impacts identified in this EA would not occur. However, the Project shippers would need to 

obtain equivalent capacity from either new or existing pipeline systems to transport the volume 

of natural gas contracted through the Project’s binding precedent agreements. As discussed in 

section 3.3.1, we did not identify any other existing pipeline systems in the region that could 

provide the capacity of the Project. Therefore, the construction of new natural gas facilities 

would likely result in similar or greater impacts than those associated with the Project to provide 

the subscribed capacity. 

Therefore, the No Action Alternative is not considered reasonable because it would not 

accomplish the Project objectives and would likely result in the construction of other facilities 

that would not offer a significant environmental advantage over the Project.
Alternatives

197

3.2 ENERGY CONSERVATION OR ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES

We considered whether energy conservation or other sources of energy, including other 

fossil fuels, nuclear energy, or renewable technologies, could meet the equivalent energy that 

would be provided by the Project. Coal, oil, and nuclear energy currently provide a substantial 

portion of the nation’s energy, and conservation and renewable technologies are expected to play 

an increasing role in meeting future energy needs. However, due to environmental, safety, 

regulatory, and technologic limitations, conservation programs and other energy sources would 

either be unable to provide the equivalent energy of the Project, would not offer an 

environmental advantage over the Project, or would not be available within the timeframe of the 

Project. Therefore, energy conservation or alternative energies are not viable alternatives to the 

Project.

3.3 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES

System alternatives would make use of other existing, modified, or proposed pipeline 

systems to meet the stated objectives of the Project. A system alternative would make it 

unnecessary to construct all or part of the Project, although some modifications or additions to 

another existing pipeline system may be required to increase its capacity, or another entirely new 

system may need to be constructed. Such modifications or additions would result in 

environmental impact; however, the impact could be less than, similar to, or greater than that 

associated with construction of the Project. 

3.3.1 Other Existing Pipeline Systems

Natural gas pipeline systems in the Project area are operating at or near capacity during 

peak heating and cooling periods. Thus, any other system in the region would require 

modification or expansion similar to the Project to transport the volume of natural gas proposed 

by Transco. Because the Project would largely involve pipeline looping and modification of 

existing facilities, the modification or expansion of another existing system would likely result in 

similar or greater environmental impact than Transco’s proposal. Therefore, we did not evaluate 

the expansion of another existing pipeline system to meet the Project objectives.

3.3.2 Transco System Alternatives

During Project development and in response to public comments, Transco considered two 

alternative designs on its existing system that could potentially meet the Project objectives. 

These design alternatives include replacing existing pipeline segments with larger diameter 

pipeline and increasing the MAOP of additional pipeline segments to avoid construction of the 

proposed looping segments. We independently reviewed and analyzed the system alternatives as 

discussed below.

Pipeline Replacement Alternative

The Princeton Ridge Coalition questioned whether Transco’s existing capacity and the 

incremental Project capacity could be accommodated by replacing an existing pipeline segment 

with a larger diameter pipeline, thus avoiding the right-of-way expansion associated with the 

proposed loops. As indicated on Transco’s alignment sheets, the Project loops would typically 
Alternatives

198

require from 0 to 25 feet of new operational right-of-way depending on the degree to which the 

new loops would be installed within or adjacent to Transco’s existing right-of-way. Some 

commentors also suggested that Transco replace older, existing pipelines in conjunction with 

installation of the proposed loops due to concerns that the older pipelines may represent a public 

safety hazard. 

Transco estimates that replacing an existing line with a new, larger pipeline that could 

potentially transmit the existing and proposed capacity would require service outages of 6 to 8 

months, during which a substitute supply would be unavailable. Taking one pipeline out of 

service for an extended period of time would also adversely affect Transco’s ability to transport 

gas on the Leidy system for injection storage and subsequent withdrawal during peak demand 

periods. Implementation of the Pipeline Replacement Alternative for the Skillman Loop would 

have a particularly adverse effect on Transco’s ability to meet current customer needs because 

Transco operates only one pipeline through this area. Regarding the safety of existing facilities, 

Transco is required to operate, monitor, and maintain existing facilities in accordance with 

PHMSA regulations, which are protective of public safety (see section 2.9.1). In addition, as 

discussed in sections 1.6.2 and 2.9.1, Transco would implement special construction methods to 

protect existing pipeline facilities from damage during construction, and we find these plans 

acceptable. For these reasons we conclude that replacement of Transco’s existing pipeline(s) 

either with a larger diameter pipeline to transmit both the existing and proposed capacity, or as 

part of the installation of two new pipelines, is not a reasonable alternative to Transco’s proposal. 

Increased MAOP Alternative

Increasing the MAOP of Transco’s existing system instead of constructing the proposed 

loops was considered, but Transco stated that the existing pipelines in the area where the loops 

would be located are currently operating at a pressure commensurate with their class locations. 

Therefore, the operating pressure in these segments could not be increased without replacing the 

pipelines (according to PHMSA requirements), which we discussed in the preceding section. In 

addition, implementation of the Increased MAOP Alternative would require increased 

horsepower at existing compressor stations, resulting in greater fuel use and air emissions. For 

these reasons we conclude that the Increased MAOP Alternative does not offer a significant 

environmental advantage over the Project.

3.4 ROUTE ALTERNATIVES

A route alternative deviates from a proposed pipeline alignment for a substantial length 

and distance in an effort to reduce overall environmental impacts. As discussed in section 1.6.2 

and elsewhere in this EA, we received a substantial number of comments concerning 

environmental impacts that construction and operation of the Skillman Loop could have on the 

area referred to as the Princeton Ridge in northern Mercer County, New Jersey. As proposed, 

the Skillman Loop would cross the Princeton Ridge for 1.3 miles (21 percent) of the 6.2-milelong proposed loop length. Of this 1.3-mile-long segment, 0.5 mile is within land designated by 

the State of New Jersey as ESA 5 and 0.8 mile is within land designated as F3 (see section 

2.4.5). The Skillman Loop would parallel Transco’s existing Caldwell Loop B line, the only 

pipeline located in the right-of-way.
Alternatives

199

In response to comments and as discussed below, we considered three route alternatives 

to Transco’s proposed alignment for the Skillman Loop.

3.4.1 Skillman Alternative

Transco developed the Skillman Alternative, which begins at the same location as the 

proposed Skillman Loop at MP 1776.8 on Transco’s Mainline system (see figure 3.4-1). The 

Skillman Alternative then extends northeasterly parallel to the Mainline system for 

approximately 6.0 miles before departing from the Mainline system in a northwesterly direction 

for 6.4 miles, where it joins the existing Caldwell Loop B line at MP 1782.5, and then parallels

the Caldwell Loop B line for 0.5 mile to the termination of the proposed Skillman Loop at MP 

1783.0.

The primary advantage of the Skillman Alternative is that it avoids ESA 5-designated 

lands. However, the Skillman Alternative is 12.3 miles long, or nearly twice as long as the 

Skillman Loop, and would include 6.4 miles of greenfield construction. Because the lengths of 

the Skillman Loop (6.2 miles) and the segment of the Skillman Alternative where it would be 

collocated with Transco’s Mainline system (6.0 miles) are similar, the primary difference in land 

requirements between the Skillman Loop and the Skillman Alternative are in the 6.4-mile-long 

greenfield segment of the Skillman Alternative. Assuming a typical construction right-of-way 

width of 105 feet and a typical operational right-of-way width of 50 feet for the greenfield 

segment, the Skillman Alternative would impact approximately 81 acres more land during 

construction and require approximately 39 acres more land for operation than the Skillman Loop. 

Implementation of the Skillman Alternative would result in increased environmental impacts 

commensurate with the substantially greater land use requirements for the alternative. The 

greenfield segment of the Skillman Alternative would also place a 50-foot-wide operational 

easement on properties not currently affected by a pipeline, whereas the Skillman Loop would 

involve incremental expansion of an existing easement. For these reasons, we conclude that the 

Skillman Alternative does not offer a significant environmental advantage over the Skillman 

Loop. 

3.4.2 Princeton Ridge Coalition Alternatives

The Princeton Ridge Coalition proposed two route alternatives for the Skillman Loop, 

referred to as Princeton Ridge Coalition Alternative 1 (PRC-1) and Princeton Ridge Coalition 

Alternative 2 (PRC-2). These route alternatives are discussed below and are depicted on figure 

3.4-1. For our analysis of the alternatives, we assumed a typical construction right-of-way width 

of 50 feet in ESA 5 and F3-designated areas (as proposed by Transco in the Princeton Ridge 

area); 105 feet in remaining uplands; and 75 feet in remaining wetlands. Due to greenfield 

routing, we also assumed a 50-foot-wide operational right-of-way for the entire length of the 

alternatives. Our independent analysis of the Skillman Loop assumed a typical construction 

right-of-way width of 50 feet in ESA 5 and F3-designated land in the Princeton Ridge; 105 feet 

in remaining uplands; and 75 feet in remaining wetlands. Due to collocation with Transco’s 

existing easement, we assumed an incremental 20-foot-wide operational right-of-way for the 

entire length of the Skillman Loop except for the segment between approximate MPs 1778.9 to

1779.9 where the pipeline would be installed by HDD.
Alternatives

200

Insert Figure 3.4-1 Skillman Loop Route Alternatives
Alternatives

201

Princeton Ridge Coalition Alternative 1

Referring to figure 3.4.-1, PRC-1 begins on Transco’s existing Mainline system 

approximately 3 miles southwest from the beginning of the Skillman Loop. PRC-1 then follows

a winding route generally to the north and northeast before connecting with Transco’s existing 

right-of-way near MP 1782.8 of the Caldwell Loop B line, and is then collocated with Transco’s 

right-of-way to the termination of the Skillman Loop at MP 1783. 

As indicated in table 3.4.2-1, PRC-1 is 10.2 miles long, or 3.8 miles (60 percent) longer 

than the Skillman Loop. PRC-1 would be collocated with existing linear infrastructure (roads 

and railroads) for approximately 2 miles (20 percent) of its length, whereas the Skillman Loop 

would be collocated with the Caldwell Loop B right-of-way for approximately 5.5 miles (86 

percent) of its length.

Due to its added length, construction of the alternative would impact approximately 45.6 

acres more land than the Skillman Loop. As a greenfield facility, operation of the alternative 

would establish a 50-foot-wide permanent easement for 10.0 miles on lands not currently 

affected by a pipeline easement. In comparison, operation of the Skillman Loop would typically 

expand Transco’s existing easement by 20 feet. As a result, operation of PRC-1 would impact 

50.3 acres more land than the Skillman Loop.

Using USGS land cover data, construction of the Skillman Loop is estimated to impact 

24.5 acres of forest, or 2.4 acres less forest than PRC-1. Due to the greenfield routing of PRC-1, 

operation of the alternative would permanently impact 13.1 acres more forest than the Skillman 

Loop. The Princeton Ridge Coalition considered the size of forested areas crossed and estimates 

that the Skillman Loop would impact 7.8 acres of mature, contiguous forest whereas PRC-1 

would impact 1.4 acres of similar forest. 

Utilizing NJDEP digital wetland data, construction of the Skillman Loop and PRC-1 

would essentially impact the same amount of wetland, but due to greenfield routing, operation of 

PRC-1 would impact 3.2 acres more wetland than the Skillman Loop. In its assessment of 

wetlands, the Princeton Ridge Coalition concluded that the Skillman Loop would impact 

approximately 10.7 acres more wetlands than PRC-1, although the process by which the 

Princeton Ridge Coalition estimated wetland impacts was not specified. The Skillman Loop 

would require 13 waterbody crossings, or 4 fewer waterbody crossings than PRC-1. 
Alternatives

202

TABLE 3.4.2-1

Comparison of the Skillman Loop to Princeton Ridge Coalition Alternatives 1 and 2

Factor Skillman Loop PRC-1 PRC-2

Length (mi) 6.4 10.2 7.1

Collocation (percent) 86 20 86

Land Required

Construction (acres) a 58.9 104.5 79.1

Operation (acres) b 12.8 63.1 43.2

Forest Land c

Construction (acres) a 24.5 26.9 12.9

Operation (acres) b 5.6 18.7 7.1

Wetlands d

Construction (acres) a 8.7 8.6 3.4

Operation (acres) b 2.4 5.6 1.2

Waterbody Crossings e

Minor (no.) 2 5 5

Intermediate (no.) 11 4 4

Special Land Use

USGS Protected Areas (mi) 2.0 1.4 1.1

NJDEP Natural Heritage Area 0.0 1.2 1.4

NJDEP Vernal Pool Habitat (mi) 1.2 0.0 0.3

New Jersey Environmental Planning Area

ESA 5 (mi) 0.5 2.1 0.9

Construction (acres) a 3.0 12.7 5.5

Operation (acres) b 1.2 12.7 5.5

Fringe F3 (mi) 2.0 1.7 0.8

Construction (acres) a 22.5 10.1 4.7

Operation (acres) b 5.4 10.1 4.7

Conservation Easements

New Jersey Farmland Protection Preservation (mi) 0.8 1.0 1.1

New Jersey Green Acres (mi) 1.8 1.4 0.5

NRCS Wetland Conservation Easement (mi) 0.0 0.6 0.0

Unknown Conservation Easement (mi) 0.0 0.8 0.0

Residences within 50 feet of Construction Right-of-Way (no.) f 8 1 23/22 g

Landowners (no.) 60 86 30

Road Crossings (no.) f 12 25 15

____________________

a Construction land requirements and impacts for the Skillman Loop were based on a 50-foot-wide right-of-way in ESA 5 

and F3-designated land in the Princeton Ridge area; a 105-foot-wide right-of-way in remaining uplands; and a 75-footwide right-of-way in remaining wetlands. We included temporary workspace at the HDD entry point but considered 

construction land requirements between the drill entry and exit points to be negligible.

Construction land requirements and impacts for the Princeton Ridge Coalition route alternatives were based on a 50-

foot-wide right-of-way in ESA 5 and F3-designated land; a 105-foot-wide right-of-way in remaining uplands; and a 75-

foot-wide right-of-way in remaining wetlands.

b Operation land requirements and impacts for the Skillman Loop were based on an incremental 20-foot-wide expansion 

of the existing right-of-way along the entire length except for the segment between MPs 1778.9 to 1779.9 where the 

pipeline would be installed by HDD.

Operation land requirements and impacts for the Princeton Ridge Coalition route alternatives were based on a 50-footwide right-of-way along the entire length. 

c Forest impacts calculated using the USGS National Land Cover Dataset (2006).

d Wetland impacts calculated using the NJDEP digital wetlands data.

e Waterbody crossings assessed using the USGS National Hydrography Dataset.

f Based on a review of aerial photographs.

g Number of homes that would be within 50 feet of the construction right-of-way if the alternative were installed on the 

east or west side of County Road 601, respectively.
Alternatives

203

Table 3.4.2-1 indicates various special land use designations that would be crossed by the 

Skillman Loop and PRC-1. The Skillman Loop would cross greater lengths of USGS Protected 

Areas and NJDEP Vernal Pool Habitat than PRC-1, although PRC-1 would cross a greater length 

of land designated as NJDEP Natural Heritage Area. Regarding environmental planning areas 

designated by the State of New Jersey, the Skillman Loop would cross 0.5 mile of ESA 5-

designated land and 2.0 miles of less sensitive F3-designated land, whereas PRC-1 would cross 

2.1 miles of ESA 5-designated land and 1.7 miles of F3-designated land. PRC-1 would avoid 

construction within ESA 5-designated land along Transco’s existing right-of-way across the 

Princeton Ridge, but would cross a greater length of ESA 5-designated land at two other 

locations, including a 1.6-mile-long crossing within an area referred to as Sourland Mountain, 

which stakeholders identified as an important ecological area. Construction and operation of the 

Skillman Loop would impact 3.0 acres and 1.2 acres of ESA 5-designated land, respectively, 

whereas construction and operation of PRC-1 would impact 12.7 acres of ESA 5-designated 

land, as the 50-foot-wide construction and operational rights-of-way would overlap in these 

areas.

Table 3.4.2-1 indicates various conservation easements that would be crossed by the 

Skillman Loop and PRC-1. PRC-1 would cross greater lengths of land enrolled in the New 

Jersey Farmland Protection Preservation program, NRCS Wetland Conservation Easement, and 

other unidentified conservation easements; whereas the Skillman Loop would cross a greater 

length of land enrolled in the Green Acres program.

Regarding impacts on the human environment, the construction workspace for the 

Skillman Loop would be within 50 feet of eight homes as compared to one home within 50 feet 

of the construction workspace for PRC-1. However, due to its added length and setting, PRC-1 

would impact 26 more landowners as indicated by parcel boundaries, and would cross 13 more 

roads.

Based on the predominantly greater land use requirements and environmental impacts 

due to the added length and greenfield routing of PRC-1, we conclude that PRC-1 does not offer 

a significant environmental advantage over the proposed Skillman Loop.

Princeton Ridge Coalition Alternative 2

PRC-2 begins at the starting location for the Skillman Loop at MP 1776.8 on Transco’s 

Mainline system and parallels the Skillman Loop at an offset of 0.5 to 1.0 mile to the west to the 

termination of the Skillman Loop at MP 1783 (see figure 3.4-1). PRC-2 follows County Road 

601/Great Road for the majority of its length.

As indicated in table 3.4.2-1, PRC-2 is 7.1 miles long, or 0.7 mile (11 percent) longer 

than the proposed Skillman Loop. PRC-2 would be collocated with existing linear infrastructure 

for approximately 6.1 miles (86 percent) of its length; the Skillman Loop would also be 

collocated with the Caldwell Loop B right-of-way for approximately 5.5 miles (86 percent) of its 

length.

Due to its added length, construction of the alternative would impact approximately 20.2 

acres more land than would the Skillman Loop. Operation of the alternative would establish a 
Alternatives

204

50-foot-wide permanent easement for its entire length on lands not currently affected by a 

pipeline easement. In comparison, operation of the Skillman Loop would typically expand 

Transco’s existing easement by 20 feet. As a result, operation of PRC-2 would impact 30.4 acres 

more land than the Skillman Loop.

The Princeton Ridge Coalition considered the size of forested areas crossed and estimated 

that the Skillman Loop would impact 5 acres more of mature, contiguous forest than would PRC2. Using USGS land cover data, construction of the Skillman Loop is estimated to impact 11.6 

acres more forest than PRC-2. However, operation of the alternative would permanently impact 

1.5 acres more forest than the Skillman Loop. 

In its assessment of wetlands, the Princeton Ridge Coalition concluded that the Skillman 

Loop would impact approximately 5 acres more wetlands than PRC-1, although the process by 

which the Princeton Ridge Coalition estimated wetlands was not specified. Utilizing NJDEP 

digital wetland data, construction and operation of PRC-2 would impact 5.3 acres and 1.2 acre 

less wetland, respectively, than the Skillman Loop. The Skillman Loop would require four fewer 

waterbody crossings than PRC-2. 

Table 3.4.2-1 indicates various special land use designations that would be crossed by the 

Skillman Loop and PRC-2. The Skillman Loop would cross greater lengths of USGS Protected 

Areas and NJDEP Vernal Pool Habitat than PRC-2, although PRC-2 would cross a greater length 

of land designated as NJDEP Natural Heritage Area. Regarding environmental planning areas, 

the Skillman Loop would cross 0.5 mile of ESA 5-designated land and 2.0 miles of less sensitive 

F3-designated land, whereas PRC-2 would cross 0.9 mile of ESA 5-designated land and 0.8 mile 

of F3-designated land. The PRC-2 crossing of ESA 5-designated land would also occur within 

the Princeton Ridge, approximately 0.5 mile to the west of the Skillman Loop crossing. Due to 

its added length and wider construction right-of-way, construction and operation of PRC-2 

would impact 2.5 acres and 4.3 acres more of ESA 5-designated land, respectively, than would 

the Skillman Loop.

Table 3.4.2-1 indicates various conservation easements that would be crossed by the 

Skillman Loop and PRC-2. PRC-2 would cross greater lengths of land enrolled in the New 

Jersey Farmland Protection Preservation program, whereas the Skillman Loop would cross a 

greater length of land enrolled in the Green Acres program.

Regarding impacts on the human environment, the construction workspace for the 

Skillman Loop would be within 50 feet of 8 homes, whereas construction workspace for PRC-2

would be within 50 feet of 22 or 23 homes, depending on which side of County Road 601 the 

pipeline would be installed. PRC-2 would impact about 30 fewer landowners than the Skillman 

Loop. However, none of the landowners affected by PRC-2 are currently affected by a pipeline 

right-of-way, whereas the majority of landowners affected by the Skillman Loop would 

experience an incremental expansion of the existing right-of-way on their property. Depending 

on final routing, PRC-2 would cross approximately the same number of roads as the Skillman 

Loop.

In comments filed with the Commission on July 7, 2014, the Princeton Ridge Coalition 

indicated its preference for PRC-2 and restated its previous position that our alternatives review 
Alternatives

205

should consider impacts on contiguous forest, rather than acres of forest removed. As detailed in 

this EA, Transco’s proposal would largely limit construction across the Princeton Ridge to the 

existing right-of-way, thereby avoiding or substantially reducing impacts on surrounding wooded 

areas. The Princeton Ridge Coalition also expressed concern with some aspects of Transco’s 

description of PRC-2, including routing assumptions made by Transco. As stated above, we 

independently analyzed Transco’s proposed route and the Princeton Ridge Coalition alternatives, 

including routing considerations. For example, we assumed that PRC-2 could be routed along 

the east side of an existing railroad line near the northern end of the route, thereby avoiding 

construction within ESA 5-designated land on the west side of the railroad. We also considered 

routing relative to residences along PRC-2 and applied consistent assumptions regarding 

construction workspaces and operational rights-of-way to all of the alternatives considered.

Montgomery Township borders the Princeton Ridge and would be affected by Transco’s 

proposed route and both of the Princeton Ridge Coalition alternatives. In comments filed with 

the Commission on July 16 and July 23, 2014, Montgomery Township expressed opposition to 

PRC-2 noting its deviation from Transco’s existing right-of-way; impacts on Green Acres 

properties, ESA 5-designated land, and township-owned open spaces within Montgomery 

Township; impacts on wetlands and waterbodies in Montgomery Township; and impacts on 

approximately 35 property owners in Montgomery Township and other property owners in 

neighboring Hopewell Township who are not presently affected by a pipeline right-of-way and 

thus have not been directly involved in the environmental review and public commenting 

processes up to this point. 

As noted in section 3.0, an alternative should not be a transference of impacts, but should 

provide a significant environmental advantage over a proposed route. Based on the greater 

construction and operational land use requirements, increased length in ESA 5-designated land, 

and close proximity to more homes, we conclude that PRC-2 does not offer a significant 

environmental advantage over the proposed Skillman Loop.

Princeton Ridge Coalition 2-Pipe Alternative

The Princeton Ridge Coalition also expressed concern that the existing pipeline may 

require significant repair or replacement in the foreseeable future and that future expansion of 

Transco’s system in the Princeton Ridge area could occur. To address these concerns and as a 

variation to the route alternatives discussed above, the Princeton Ridge Coalition recommended 

an alternative that would include decommissioning the existing pipeline (allowing the existing 

right-of-way to return to pre-construction conditions) and installing two new pipelines along 

either PRC-1 or PRC-2 to accommodate Transco’s current capacity and the new capacity 

provided by the Project, and to provide a new route for future expansion in the area.

As discussed above, we conclude that neither PRC-1 nor PRC-2 routes provide a

significant environmental advantage over the proposed Skillman Loop. Furthermore, the 

construction and operation of two new pipelines along either PRC-1 or PRC-2 would require 

even greater construction right-of-way and result in a new 75-foot-wide operational right-of-way, 

including in other ESA 5-designated areas where no pipeline right-of-way currently exists. 

Regarding the potential for repair or replacement of the existing pipeline, as discussed in sections 

1.3.2 and 2.9.1, Transco is required to operate, monitor, and maintain the existing Caldwell Loop 
Alternatives

206

B line in accordance with PHMSA regulations, which are protective of public safety. 

Furthermore, we are not aware of any future plans to expand Transco’s system in the vicinity of 

the Princeton Ridge, and any future expansion would be subject to environmental review and 

Commission approval. Thus, we conclude that abandonment of 6.2 miles of the existing 

Caldwell Loop B pipeline, together with the installation of two new pipelines along either PRC-1 

or PRC-2, is not reasonable and does not offer a significant environmental advantage over the 

proposed Skillman Loop.

3.5 ROUTE VARIATIONS 

Route variations are identified to reduce impact on specific localized resource issues such 

as residences, cultural resources sites, and biological resources. Because route variations are 

considered in response to specific, localized issues, they may not always clearly display an 

environmental advantage other than to reduce targeted impacts or address a landowner or agency 

concern. 

3.5.1 Skillman Loop Variations

We considered six route variations along the Skillman Loop. These variations were 

considered by Transco as alternatives to the proposed route and/or raised by landowners, 

agencies, or other stakeholders.

Variation 1

Variation 1 would depart from Transco’s existing right-of-way between MPs 1777.8 and

1778.1 to avoid multiple waterbody crossings between MPs 1777.8 and 1777.9. Variation 1 

would avoid two crossovers of the existing pipeline, one of which has been designed to require 

0.2 acre of extra workspace and the other which would occur on agricultural land. However, the 

variation would result in greater construction and operation land use requirements and establish a 

new and separate 50-foot-wide permanent easement in ESA 5-designated land in the Princeton 

Ridge area. Therefore, we conclude that Variation 1 does not offer a significant environmental 

advantage over the Skillman Loop adjacent to the existing pipeline.

Variations 2, 3, and 4

Variations 2, 3, and 4 are associated with construction near Cherry Run and Beden Brook 

between MPs 1778.9 and 1779.8, where Transco subsequently incorporated an HDD into the 

Project in response to comments from affected landowners and Montgomery Township (see 

section 1.6.2). The proposed HDD would reduce impacts on residences, wetlands, waterbodies, 

and forest resources when compared to any of the variations considered. Therefore, we conclude 

that the overland route variations in the Cherry Run – Beden Brook area do not offer a 

significant environmental advantage over Transco’s proposed HDD.

Variation 5

Variation 5 would involve installing the Skillman Loop on the west side of the existing 

right-of-way between MPs 1780.1 and 1780.3, rather than the east side as proposed. Variation 5 

would avoid two crossovers of the existing pipeline, one of which would occur in agricultural 
Alternatives

207

land and the other which would occur in largely open land. However, Variation 5 would deviate 

from Transco’s existing right-of-way to avoid a small bridge across Rock Brook, resulting in an 

expanded operational right-of-way as compared to the proposed alignment, and would cross 

Rock Brook at a point where two branches of the waterbody converge. We therefore conclude 

that Variation 5 does not offer a significant environmental advantage over the proposed 

alignment.

Variation 6

Variation 6 would involve installing the Skillman Loop on the west side of the existing 

right-of-way in a residential area between MPs 1781.5 and 1782.7, rather than the east side as 

proposed. In this area, Transco’s existing pipeline crosses 17 residential properties, including 10 

properties where the pipeline marks the boundary between properties. Five additional homes are 

in close proximity to the existing pipeline, but are not directly affected by the right-of-way. 

Based on review of alignments sheets and considering the current right-of-way, lot 

configurations, and home locations, Variation 6 would result in greater construction right-of-way 

and placement of the pipeline nearer to 14 of 22 homes, whereas the proposed route would result 

in greater construction right-of-way and placement of the pipeline nearer to 8 of 22 homes. 

Transco also noted that Variation 6 would be in conflict with an existing water line that extends 

along the west side of the existing pipeline easement. For the above reasons, we conclude that 

Variation 6 does not offer a significant environmental advantage over the proposed alignment 

through this area.

We received comments from two residential landowners in this area. E. Youseff was 

concerned that construction of the Skillman Loop would require use of his property; however, 

the proposed alignment along the east side of Transco’s existing right-of-way would not impact 

Mr. Youseff’s property. During pre-filing, Transco considered Variation 6, which would have 

placed the new pipeline approximately 35 feet from the residence of R. Jerzewski, who was 

concerned about construction and other impacts on his property by this alignment. Mr. 

Jerzewski suggested a route variation that would follow nearby East Street. This alternative 

would avoid Mr. Jerzewski’s property but would impact other residential property and wooded 

land, and would establish a new, 50-foot-wide operational easement on properties currently 

unaffected by a pipeline. For these reasons, we conclude that the alignment suggested by Mr. 

Jerzewski does not offer a significant environmental advantage over the proposed alignment. 

Further, Transco’s final proposed route would place the new pipeline on the opposite side of the 

existing right-of-way from Mr. Jerzewski’s property, and would require only a small area of 

ATWS on his property, which would be restored after construction. 

3.5.2 Pleasant Run Loop Variations

We considered two variations on the Pleasant Run Loop. These variations were 

considered by Transco as alternatives to the proposed route and/or raised by landowners, 

agencies, or other stakeholders.

Variation 1

Variation 1 would extend along the north side of Transco’s existing right-of-way between 

MPs 1.0 and 2.9, rather than the south side of the right-of-way as proposed. Within this segment, 
Alternatives

208

the proposed alignment would deviate from the existing right-of-way between MPs 1.0 and 1.3 

to avoid electric power line transmission towers and would reduce impacts on forest land by 

constructing within agricultural land. Impacts on wetlands and forested areas would be similar 

over the length of Variation 1 and the proposed alignment, but Variation 1 would result in 

construction workspace within 50 feet of four more residences. We conclude that Variation 1 

does not offer a significant environmental advantage over Transco’s proposed alignment.

Variation 2

Variation 2 would extend along the north side of Transco’s existing right-of-way between 

MPs 5.3 and 5.7, rather than the south side of the right-of-way as proposed. The proposed 

alignment would require two crossovers of the existing right-of-way, which would occur in 

agricultural land, but would reduce impacts on a small stream and associated wetlands that 

would be more closely paralleled by Variation 2. We conclude that Variation 2 does not offer a 

significant environmental advantage over the proposed alignment.

3.5.3 Franklin Loop Variations

Transco identified several alternatives to the Franklin Loop. However, we eliminated 

these alternatives for the following reasons:

 they would require greenfield construction and impact additional landowners and 

environmental resources; 

 they were very minor reroutes that provided no significant environmental benefit; 

and/or

 they involved transferring impacts (crossovers), with no appreciable 

environmental benefits.

We evaluated two variations on the Franklin Loop. 

Variation 1

Transco’s existing right-of-way in the vicinity of Variation 1 includes three existing 

pipelines, Leidy Lines A, B, and C. In general, where homes have been constructed in close 

proximity to the right-of-way, Transco would install the Franklin Loop between existing 

pipelines using the construction methods described in section 1.6.2. In areas where numerous 

homes are not located adjacent to the right-of-way, Transco would install the Franklin Loop 

outside and adjacent to the existing right-of-way.

Variation 1 would begin near MP 61.9, at which point the proposed alignment would be 

located outside and adjacent to the eastern boundary of Transco’s existing right-of-way. Rather 

than crossing over and entering the existing right-of-way at this location as proposed, Variation 1 

would continue adjacent to the eastern outside edge of the right-of-way to approximate MP 62.2, 

at which point the pipeline would crossover to the west side of Transco’s right-of-way, and then 

continue to MP 63.1 where the variation would again crossover Transco’s right-of-way, 

connecting with the proposed alignment adjacent to the east side of the right-of-way.
Alternatives

209

Based on review of alignment sheets, construction of Variation 1 on the outside of the 

existing right-of-way between MPs 61.9 and 62.6 would substantially increase constructionrelated impacts on numerous adjacent residential properties, and would result in an incremental 

expansion of the existing operational right-of-way on those properties when compared to the 

proposed alignment between existing pipelines. Between MP 62.6 and 63.1, Variation 1 would 

be located on the west side of the existing right-of-way, whereas the proposed alignment would 

be on the east side of the right-of-way. Based on information from Transco and our review of 

alignment sheets, construction and operational land requirements and associated environmental 

impacts would be similar between Variation 1 and the proposed route over the referenced 

segment. Therefore, due to reduced construction and operation impacts on residences between 

MPs 61.9 and 62.6, and similar impacts over the remainder of the comparative routes, we 

conclude that Variation 1 does not offer a significant environmental advantage over Transco’s 

proposed installation of the Franklin Loop through this area.

Variation 2

Variation 2 would place the Franklin Loop on the west side of Transco’s existing rightof-way between MPs 64.1 and 68.1, rather than on the east side of the right-of-way as proposed. 

Based on information from Transco and review of alignment sheets, construction and operation 

land use requirements would be similar for either route. Construction of the proposed route 

would impact about 1.5 acres more of forest whereas construction of Variation 2 would impact 

about 1.5 acres more wetland. The proposed alignment would require three fewer waterbody 

crossings and would cross two fewer designated recreational/special interest areas. Both routes 

would cross the Lehigh River at approximately the same location. Based on the above 

information, we conclude that Variation 2 would not provide a substantial environmental 

advantage over Transco’s proposed route.

We received comments from J. Beardsley-Humphreys, whose property near MP 65.3 on 

the east bank of the Lehigh River would be affected by the proposed alignment along the west 

side of Transco’s existing right-of-way, or by an alternative alignment on the east side of the 

right-of-way. At this location, Transco’s right-of-way contains three existing pipelines: Leidy 

Lines A, B, and C. Ms. Beardsley-Humphreys expressed concerns about proposed construction 

which would approach to approximately 30 feet from her home, effects on horses kept at the 

property, the loss of trees, impacts on wildlife, and impacts on the potential development of her 

property with cabins and a recreational vehicle park. Ms. Beardsley-Humphreys and Transco 

have discussed compensation for Project-related impacts on her property but have not come to 

agreement.

Based on our review of alignment sheets, the construction and operational land use 

requirements and impacts on wooded areas of Ms. Beardsley-Humphreys’ property would be 

similar for an alignment on either side of the existing right-of-way. Ms. Beardsley-Humphreys 

would prefer that Transco install the pipeline on the east side of her property, but to do so would 

require two crossovers of the existing right-of-way, which would require increased workspace, 

including on the property on the west side of the Lehigh River. We therefore conclude that an 

alignment of the Franklin Loop along the east side of Transco’s existing right-of-way would not 

be environmentally superior to the proposed alignment on Ms. Beardsley-Humphreys’ property. 

However, we recommend that:
Alternatives

210

 Prior to construction, Transco should file a finalized site-specific 

construction/crossing plan for the Beardsley-Humphreys property with the 

Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP. 

3.6 ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION METHODS

Transco proposes to implement a wet open cut method to install the Franklin Loop across 

the Lehigh River and Tobyhanna Creek in Monroe County, Pennsylvania. As discussed in 

section 2.2.2, we considered alternative drilling and dry crossing methods to cross these 

waterbodies, but determined that the alternative construction methods were either infeasible or 

did not offer a significant environmental advantage over Transco’s proposed method. 

At the request of the Princeton Ridge Coalition, Transco considered the potential of 

implementing an HDD to avoid the proposed overland construction of the Skillman Loop in the 

Princeton Ridge. Transco engaged Laney Directional Drilling Company to evaluate the 

feasibility of the HDD. This company previously completed the longest known HDD installation 

of 42-inch-diameter pipeline in the world at 6,770 feet; the HDD was installed in soft soils and 

took 60 days to complete. The Princeton Ridge HDD, however, would be 7,140 feet long 

through bedrock and would take approximately 240 days to complete. When installing a 

pipeline segment by HDD, the risk of failure increases if the entire HDD segment cannot be 

pulled through the borehole in a continuous action. Transco raised concern about the ability to 

complete the Princeton Ridge HDD pullback in a continuous action due to the unprecedented 

length of the HDD and weight of the pipeline segment.

Whereas an HDD through the Princeton Ridge would avoid the environmental impacts 

associated with overland pipeline construction, due primarily to the unprecedented length of the 

HDD, hard rock drilling conditions, lengthy duration of the drill, and concerns with the ability to 

pull the HDD segment back in a single action, we conclude that the risks associated with the 

Princeton Ridge HDD indicate a high likelihood of failure. Therefore, we do not recommend its 

adoption. We also note that Transco would limit the construction right-of-way to 50 feet through 

the majority of the Princeton Ridge, which the Princeton Ridge Coalition has stated addresses 

many of their environmental concerns. Transco has also developed site-specific construction and 

restoration plans for the Princeton Ridge area and, as discussed in this EA, we find these plans 

acceptable.
Conclusions and Recommendations

211

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based upon the analysis in this EA, we have determined that if Transco constructs and 

operates the proposed facilities in accordance with its application, supplements, and staff’s 

mitigation measures below, approval of this Project would not constitute a major federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

We recommend that the Commission Order contain a finding of no significant impacts 

and include the measures listed below as conditions in any authorization the Commission may 

issue to Transco.

1. Transco shall follow the construction procedures and mitigation measures described in its 

application and supplements (including responses to staff data requests) and as identified 

in the EA, unless modified by the Order. Transco must:

a. request any modification to these procedures, measures, or conditions in a filing 

with the Secretary;

b. justify each modification relative to site-specific conditions;

c. explain how that modification provides an equal or greater level of environmental 

protection than the original measure; and

d. receive approval in writing from the Director of OEP before using that 

modification.

2. The Director of OEP has delegated authority to take whatever steps are necessary to 

ensure the protection of all environmental resources during construction and operation of 

the Project. This authority shall allow:

a. the modification of conditions of the Order; and

b. the design and implementation of any additional measures deemed necessary 

(including stop-work authority) to assure continued compliance with the intent of 

the environmental conditions as well as the avoidance or mitigation of adverse 

environmental impact resulting from Project construction and operation.

3. Prior to any construction, Transco shall file an affirmative statement with the Secretary, 

certified by a senior company official, that all company personnel, EIs, and contractor 

personnel will be informed of the EI’s authority and have been or will be trained on the 

implementation of the environmental mitigation measures appropriate to their jobs before

becoming involved with construction and restoration activities. 

4. The authorized facility locations shall be as shown in the EA, as supplemented by filed 

alignment sheets and drawings. As soon as they are available, and before the start of 

construction, Transco shall file with the Secretary any revised detailed survey alignment 

maps/sheets at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 with station positions for all facilities

approved by the Order. All requests for modifications of environmental conditions of the 
Conclusions and Recommendations

212

Order or site-specific clearances must be written and must reference locations designated 

on these alignment maps/sheets.

Transco’s exercise of eminent domain authority granted under NGA Section 7(h) in any 

condemnation proceedings related to the Order must be consistent with these authorized 

facilities and locations. Transco’s right of eminent domain granted under NGA Section 

7(h) does not authorize it to increase the size of its natural gas facilities to accommodate 

future needs or to acquire a right-of-way for a pipeline to transport a commodity other 

than natural gas.

5. Transco shall file with the Secretary detailed alignment maps/sheets and aerial 

photographs at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 identifying all route realignments or 

facility relocations, and staging areas, pipe storage yards, new access roads, and other 

areas that would be used or disturbed and have not been previously identified in filings 

with the Secretary. Approval for each of these areas must be explicitly requested in 

writing. For each area, the request must include a description of the existing land 

use/cover type, documentation of landowner approval, whether any cultural resources or 

federally listed threatened or endangered species would be affected, and whether any 

other environmentally sensitive areas are within or abutting the area. All areas shall be 

clearly identified on the maps/sheets/aerial photographs. Each area must be approved in 

writing by the Director of OEP before construction in or near that area.

This requirement does not apply to extra workspace allowed by Transco’s Plan and/or 

minor field realignments per landowner needs and requirements that do not affect other 

landowners or sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands.

Examples of alterations requiring approval include all route realignments and facility 

location changes resulting from:

a. implementation of cultural resources mitigation measures;

b. implementation of endangered, threatened, or special concern species mitigation 

measures;

c. recommendations by state regulatory authorities; and

d. agreements with individual landowners that affect other landowners or could 

affect sensitive environmental areas.

6. Within 60 days of the acceptance of the authorization and before construction

begins, Transco shall file an Implementation Plan with the Secretary for review and 

written approval by the Director of OEP. Transco must file revisions to the plan as 

schedules change. The plan shall identify:

a. how Transco will implement the construction procedures and mitigation measures 

described in its application and supplements (including responses to staff data 

requests), identified in the EA, and required by the Order;
Conclusions and Recommendations

213

b. how Transco will incorporate these requirements into the contract bid documents, 

construction contracts (especially penalty clauses and specifications), and 

construction drawings so that the mitigation required at each site is clear to onsite 

construction and inspection personnel;

c. the number of EIs assigned per spread, and how the company will ensure that 

sufficient personnel are available to implement the environmental mitigation;

d. company personnel, including EIs and contractors, who will receive copies of the 

appropriate material;

e. the location and dates of the environmental compliance training and instructions 

Transco will give to all personnel involved with construction and restoration 

(initial and refresher training as the Project progresses and personnel change), 

with the opportunity for OEP staff to participate in the training session(s); 

f. the company personnel (if known) and specific portion of Transco’s organization 

having responsibility for compliance;

g. the procedures (including use of contract penalties) Transco will follow if 

noncompliance occurs; and

h. for each discrete facility, a Gantt or PERT chart (or similar project scheduling 

diagram), and dates for:

i. the completion of all required surveys and reports;

ii. the environmental compliance training of onsite personnel;

iii. the start of construction; and

iv. the start and completion of restoration.

7. Transco shall employ at least one EI per construction spread. The EIs shall be:

a. responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with all mitigation measures 

required by the Order and other grants, permits, certificates, or other authorizing 

documents;

b. responsible for evaluating the construction contractor’s implementation of the 

environmental mitigation measures required in the contract (see condition 6 

above) and any other authorizing document;

c. empowered to order correction of acts that violate the environmental conditions of 

the Order, and any other authorizing document;

d. a full-time position, separate from all other activity inspectors;

e. responsible for documenting compliance with the environmental conditions of the 

Order, as well as any environmental conditions/permit requirements imposed by 

other federal, state, or local agencies; and
Conclusions and Recommendations

214

f. responsible for maintaining status reports.

8. Beginning with the filing of its Implementation Plan, Transco shall file updated status 

reports with the Secretary on a biweekly basis until all construction and restoration 

activities are complete. On request, these status reports will also be provided to other 

federal and state agencies with permitting responsibilities. Status reports shall include:

a. an update on Transco’s efforts to obtain the necessary federal authorizations;

b. the construction status of the Project, work planned for the following reporting 

period, and any schedule changes for stream crossings or work in other 

environmentally-sensitive areas;

c. a listing of all problems encountered and each instance of noncompliance 

observed by the EI(s) during the reporting period (both for the conditions imposed 

by the Commission and any environmental conditions/permit requirements 

imposed by other federal, state, or local agencies);

d. a description of the corrective actions implemented in response to all instances of 

noncompliance, and their cost;

e. the effectiveness of all corrective actions implemented;

f. a description of any landowner/resident complaints which may relate to 

compliance with the requirements of the Order, and the measures taken to satisfy 

their concerns; and

g. copies of any correspondence received by Transco from other federal, state, or 

local permitting agencies concerning instances of noncompliance, and Transco’s 

response.

9. Prior to receiving written authorization from the Director of OEP to commence 

construction of any project facilities, Transco shall file with the Secretary 

documentation that it has received all applicable authorizations required under federal 

law (or evidence of waiver thereof).

10. Transco must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP before placing the 

Project into service. Such authorization will only be granted following a determination 

that rehabilitation and restoration of the right-of-way and other areas affected by the 

Project are proceeding satisfactorily.

11. Within 30 days of placing the authorized facilities in service, Transco shall file an 

affirmative statement with the Secretary, certified by a senior company official:

a. that the facilities have been constructed in compliance with all applicable 

conditions, and that continuing activities will be consistent with all applicable 

conditions; or
Conclusions and Recommendations

215

b. identifying which of the conditions in the Order Transco has complied with or 

will comply with. This statement shall also identify any areas affected by the 

project where compliance measures were not properly implemented, if not 

previously identified in filed status reports, and the reason for noncompliance.

12. Prior to construction, Transco shall revise its procedures consistent with the FERC 

staff’s Procedures at section V.B.4.a.

13. Prior to construction, Transco shall file with the Secretary, for review and written 

approval by the Director of OEP, a complete list of areas by milepost where Transco 

would place spoil within 10 feet from the edge of a waterbody and site-specific 

justification for each location.

14. Transco shall not begin construction of the Project until:

a. Transco files the final Migratory Bird Habitat Restoration Plan with the New 

Jersey and Pennsylvania Field Offices of the FWS and the Secretary; and

b. Transco files with the Secretary all FWS comments on the final Migratory Bird 

Habitat Restoration Plan.

15. Transco shall not begin construction of the Project until:

a. Transco files:

i. the results of the Phase II and Phase III bog turtle survey with the 

Pennsylvania Field Office of the FWS and the Secretary; and

ii. the final Indiana Bat Conservation Plan with the New Jersey and 

Pennsylvania Field Offices of the FWS and the Secretary;

b. the FERC staff completes any necessary Section 7 ESA consultation with the 

FWS for the bog turtle and Indiana bat;

c. the FERC staff completes any necessary Section 7 ESA conference with the FWS 

regarding the northern long-eared bat and any subsequent consultation, if 

necessary; and

d. Transco receives written notification from the Director of OEP that construction 

and/or use of mitigation (including implementation of conservation measures) 

may begin.

16. Transco shall not begin offsite mitigation activities in New Jersey or Pennsylvania until:

a. Transco files the results of the Phase II bog turtle survey at the proposed wetland 

mitigation site in Lehigh County with the Pennsylvania Field Office of the FWS 

and the Secretary;
Conclusions and Recommendations

216

b. Transco reviews any proposed wetland mitigation sites in New Jersey for 

federally listed threatened and endangered species and, if necessary, conducts 

surveys for identified species in accordance with FWS requirements, and files the 

results of these reviews and surveys with the New Jersey Field Office of the FWS 

and the Secretary; and

c. the FERC staff completes any necessary Section 7 ESA consultation with the 

FWS.

17. Prior to construction, Transco shall file with the Secretary any outstanding survey 

results for state-listed species and identify any additional mitigation measures developed 

in consultation with the applicable state agencies.

18. Prior to construction of the Skillman and Pleasant Run Loops, Transco shall file with 

the Secretary an updated status of its consultation with the NJDEP to construct and 

operate its pipeline and associated facilities within Green Acres Program properties. 

Transco shall include copies of all correspondence, including any additional requirements 

imposed by the NJDEP. 

19. Prior to construction, Transco shall file with the Secretary a copy of the determination 

of consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Programs of the VDEQ, and the

Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Programs of the MDNR.

20. Transco shall not begin construction of facilities and/or use of staging, storage, or 

temporary work areas and new or to-be-improved access roads until:

a. Transco files with the Secretary: 

i. Phase I cultural resources survey and architectural inventory reports for 

any previously unreported areas, including any wetland mitigation parcels, 

and the appropriate SHPO’s comments on the reports; 

ii. the Revised Phase I report for New Jersey, and the SHPO’s comments on 

the report;

iii. the Virginia SHPO’s comments on facility modifications that were 

excluded from cultural resources surveys;

b. the ACHP is afforded an opportunity to comment if historic properties would be 

adversely affected; and

c. the FERC staff reviews and the Director of OEP approves the cultural resources 

reports, and notifies Transco in writing that construction may proceed.

All material filed with the Commission containing location, character, and ownership

information about cultural resources must have the cover and any relevant pages therein 

clearly labeled in bold lettering: “CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION--DO 

NOT RELEASE.”
Conclusions and Recommendations

217

21. Transco shall file in the construction status reports the following information for each 

HDD entry and exit site:

a. noise measurements from the nearest NSA, obtained at the start of drilling 

operations;

b. noise mitigation that Transco implemented at the start of drilling operations; and

c. any additional mitigation measures that Transco will implement if the initial noise 

measurements exceeded an Ldn of 55 dBA at the nearest NSA and/or increased 

noise is 10 dB over ambient conditions.

22. Transco shall file a noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days after placing 

the modified equipment at Compressor Stations 205 and 517 into service. If full load 

condition noise surveys are not possible, Transco shall provide interim surveys at the 

maximum possible horsepower load and provide the full load survey within 6 months. 

If the noise attributable to the operation of all of the equipment at Compressor Stations 

205 and 517 under interim or full horsepower load exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at the 

nearest NSA, Transco shall file a report on what changes are needed and shall install the 

additional noise controls to meet the level within 1 year of the in-service date. Transco 

shall confirm compliance with the above requirement by filing a second noise survey for 

each station with the Secretary no later than 60 days after it installs the additional noise 

controls.

23. Transco shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure its predicted noise levels from 

Compressor Stations 515 and 520 are not exceeded at nearby NSAs and file noise surveys 

showing this with the Secretary no later than 60 days after placing Compressor Stations 

515 and 520 into service. If a full load condition noise survey is not possible, Transco 

shall provide interim surveys at the maximum possible horsepower load and provide the 

full load surveys within 6 months. If the noise attributable to the operation of all of the 

equipment at Compressor Stations 515 and 520 under interim or full horsepower load 

conditions exceeds the existing noise levels at any nearby NSAs, Transco shall file a 

report on what changes are needed and shall install the additional noise controls to meet 

the level within 1 year of the in-service date. Transco shall confirm compliance with the 

above requirement by filing a second noise survey for each station with the Secretary no 

later than 60 days after it installs the additional noise controls.

24. Prior to construction of the Skillman Loop, Transco shall file with the Secretary for 

review and approval by the Director of OEP the specific measures that it will implement 

between MPs 1776.8 and 1778.1 to monitor and maintain the proposed air gap over the 

existing pipeline, including areas of highly saturated soil conditions.

25. Prior to construction, Transco shall file a finalized site-specific construction/crossing 

plan for the Beardsley-Humphreys property with the Secretary for review and written 

approval by the Director of OEP.
References

218

5.0 REFERENCES

Agustini, Dino. 2013. PADEP Safe Drinking Water Program, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Email correspondence on September 11, 2013, to Lindsay Heins, Ecology and 

Environment, Inc., Lancaster, New York.

Brauning, D.W. 1992. Atlas of Breeding Birds in Pennsylvania. University of Pittsburgh Press, 

Pittsburgh, PA.

Breden, T.F., Y. Alger, K. Strakosch Walz, and A.G. Windisch. 2001. Classification of 

Vegetation Communities of New Jersey: Second Iteration. 

Carr, A. 1952. Handbook of Turtles. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

Coleman, et al. 2011. Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Reserves of the Devonian 

Marcellus Shale of the Appalachian Basin Province. USGS Fact Sheet 2011-3092.

Conservation Tools.org. 2012. Clean and Green. Available online at 

http://conservationtools.org/guides/show/44-Clean-and-Green. Accessed March 2012.

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Available online at 

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/ccenepa/ccenepa.htm

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological 

Report 79/31, Washington D.C.

DeGraaf, R.M. and W.M. Healy. 1990. Is forest fragmentation a management issue in the 

Northeast? General Technical Report NE-140. U.S. Forest Service, Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station, Radnor, Pennsylvania. Available online at 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/4191. 

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40, Protection of the Environment. Multiple 

chapters, including chapters 51, 52, 60, 61, 63, 70, 80, 89, and 93. Available online at 

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/ECFR?page=browse. Accessed March 2014.

Energy Information Administration. 2010. Marcellus Shale Gas Play, Appalachian Basin. 

Updated March 17, 2010. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/rpd/shaleusa5.pdf. Accessed on 

January 7, 2014.

Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying 

and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. COE, EPA, FWS, USDA, Washington D.C. 

cooperative technical publication.

Federal Land Managers AQRV Workgroup (FLAG). 2010. Phase I Report, Revised.

Federal Register. 1994. Soil Conservation Service, USDA. Changes in hydric soils of the 

United States. Washington, DC, Vol. 59, No. 133 (July 13).
References

219

Fike, J. 1999. Terrestrial and Palustrine Plant Communities of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania 

Natural Diversity Inventory.

Fraser, J.D., L.D. Frenzel, and J.E. Mathisen. 1985. The Impact of Human Activities on 

Breeding Bald Eagles in North-central Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 

49:585-592.

Fruits, E. 2008. Natural Gas Pipelines and Residential Property Values: Evidence from 

Clackamas and Washington Counties. Available at: 

http://pstrust.org/docs/NGPipesPropertyValues.pdf.

Fullerton, D.S., Bush, C.A., and Pennell, J.N. 2003. Map of Surficial Deposits and Materials in 

the Eastern and Central United States (East of 102° West Longitude). USGS 

Investigations Series Map I-2789. http://pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i- 2789/i-2789.pdf. 

Accessed January 8, 2014.

Gallagher, J., A. Wellspring, and K. Duerksen. 2013. Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the 

Proposed Leidy Southeast Expansion Project in Luzerne and Monroe Counties, 

Pennsylvania. Prepared for Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC. URS 

Corporation. Cincinnati, Ohio.

Girard, M. 2014. E-mail correspondence dated January 2, from M. Girard (New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection), to L. Hinds (Ecology and Environment, Inc.).

Godt. 1997. U.S. Geological Survey. 2001. Digital Representation of Landslide Overview 

Map of the Conterminous United States: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-

289, scale 1:4,000,000. Godt, J.W., 1997. 

Google Earth. 2013. “Search terms: hotels in Luzerne County, campgrounds in Luzerne County, 

hotels in Monroe County, campgrounds in Monroe County, hotels in Hunterdon County, 

campgrounds in Hunterdon County, hotels in Somerset County, campgrounds in 

Somerset County, hotels in Mercer County, campgrounds in Mercer County,” Accessed 

Online: http://www.google.com/earth/download/ge/agree.html. March 11, 2013

Guglielmo, W.J. 2010. “Living on the Fault Line.” New Jersey Monthly. June 15, 2010. 

http://njmonthly.com/articles/lifestyle/living-on-the-fault-line.html. Accessed January 8, 

2014.

Hansen, J. L. and D.A. 2006. Environmental Hazards and Residential Property Values: Evidence 

from a Major Pipeline Event. November 2006. 82(4): 529-541.

Herman, G.C., R.J. Canace, S.D. Stanford, R.S. Pristas, P.J. Sugarman, M.A. French, J.L 

Hoffman, M.S. Serfes, and W.J. Mennel. 1999. Aquifers of New Jersey. Digital 

Compilation by G.C. Herman. N.J. Geological Survey Digital Geodata Series DGS98-5. 

http://www.njgeology.org/geodata/dgs98-5.htm, Accessed January 6, 2014.

International Right of Way Online. 2011. “The Effects of Natural Gas Pipelines on Residential 

Value.” Available at: http://www.irwaonline.org/eweb/upload/web_jan_NaturalGas.pdf 

Accessed in July 2011. 
References

220

Interstate Natural Gas Association of America Foundation. 2001. “Natural Gas Pipeline Impact 

Study.” Available at: http://www.ingaa.org/Foundation/

Studies/FoundationReports/207.aspx. Accessed in July 2011. 

Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. 2008. Waste Energy Recovery Opportunities for 

Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, February 2008, available online at 

http://www.ingaa.org/File.aspx?id=6210

Interstate Natural Gas Association of America Foundation. 2011. North American Natural Gas 

Midstream Infrastructure Through 2035: A Secure Energy Future. INGAA Foundation. 

June 28, 2011. Available at: http://www.ingaa.org/File.aspx?id=14911. Accessed on 

June 28, 2013.

Jones, C., J. McCann, and S. McConville. 2000. A Guide to the Conservation of Forest Interior 

Dwelling Birds in the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area. Critical Area Commission, 

Annapolis, MD.

Markuson, J. 2013. E-mail correspondence dated December 3, from J. Markuson (New Jersey 

Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), to M. Gartman (Ecology and 

Environment, Inc.).

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. undated. “Maryland’s Coastal Zone.” Accessed 

August 27, 2013. Available online: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/ccs/where_we_work.asp. 

New Jersey Administrative Code. 2011a. NJAC 7:10. Safe Drinking Water Act Regulations.

http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/rules/njac7_10.pdf.

New Jersey Administrative Code. 2011b. NJDEP Green Acres Program Rules, New Jersey 

Administrative Code 7:36. January 3, 2006 – January 3, 2011. Available online at 

http://www.nj.gov/dep/greenacres/pdf/regs.pdf. 

New Jersey Conservation Foundation. 2014. http://www.njconservation.org/princeton_ridge_

greenway.htm

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 1999. “Geologic Map of New Jersey.” 

NJDEP, Division of Science Research and Technology Geologic Survey. 1999. 

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/njgs/enviroed/freedwn/psnjmap.pdf. Accessed January 8, 

2014.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2011. Green Acres Program. Accessed 

March 14, 2013. Available online: http://www.nj.gov/dep/greenacres/pdf/regs.pdf. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2012. NJDEP Species Based Habitat, 

Vernal Habitat (Version 3.1, 20120221). Available online: 

http://www.nj.gov/dep/gis/digidownload/metadata/landscape/vernal_habitat.htm. 

Accessed March 15, 2013.
References

221

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2013a. “Coastal Management Program.” 

Available online: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/cmp/czm_map.html. Accessed July 18, 

2013.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2013b. Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

Available online at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/aqm/2713915.htm.

New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife. 2014a. New Jersey’s Mammals – Bobcat 

information. Available online at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/mammal_info.htm.

New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife. 2014b. Endangered and Nongame Species Program. 

Available online at http://www.njfishandwildlife.com/ensphome.htm

New Jersey Geological Survey. 2000. Bedrock Geology (1 to 100,000-scale) and Topographic 

Base Maps (1 to 24,000- and 1 to 100,000-scales) of New Jersey. New Jersey Geological 

Survey CD Series, CD00-1.

New Jersey Geological Survey. 2006a. Physiographic Provinces of New Jersey, prepared by 

Richard Dalton 2003,reprinted in 2006. http://www.state.nj.us/dep/njgs/geodata/dgs02-

7.htm. January 7, 2014.

New Jersey Geological Survey. 2006b. “Abandoned Mines of New Jersey.” 

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/njgs/geodata/dgs03-2md.htm. January 7, 2014.

New Jersey Geological Survey. 2012. Landslides in New Jersey, 

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/njgs/geodata/dgs06-3.htm. Accessed January 8, 2014.

New Jersey State Planning Commission. 2001. New Jersey State Development and 

Redevelopment Plan. March 1, 2001.

North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM). 2007. “CAMA Counties.” 

Accessed August 27, 2013. Available online: 

http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/cama_counties.htm. 

North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. 2007. “CAMA Counties.” Accessed August 

27, 2013. Available online: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/cama_counties.htm. 

O’Rourke, T.D. and Palmer, M.C. 1996. Earthquake Performance of Gas Transmission 

Pipelines. Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 12, No. 3, 493-527.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Conserving the forest interior: A threatened 

wildlife habitat. Ohio Extension Notes, Land Owner Resource Centre, Manotick, Ontario.

Pennsylvania Governor’s Center for Local Government Services. 2010. 

http://newpa.com/webfm_send/1577, Accessed June 2014

Pennsylvania Code. 2012. Chapter 1381. Agricultural Security Area Program. Available 

online at http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/007/chapter138l/chap138ltoc.html#138l.2. 

Accessed February and March 2012.
References

222

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2000. Map 13, 

Physiographic Provinces of Pennsylvania. Compiled by W. D. Sevon, Fourth Edition. 

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cs/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_016202.pdf. 

Accessed January 8, 2014.

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2001. Digital Bedrock 

Aquifer Characteristics by Physiographic Section of Pennsylvania. 

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/groundwater/gw_data/dac_data/index.htm. 

Accessed January 6, 2014

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2011a. 

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/2011PermitDrilledmaps.htm. 

Accessed January 7, 2014.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2011b. EmapPA Interactive Map. 

http://www.emappa.dep.state.pa.us/emappa/viewer.htm. Accessed January 7, 2014.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2013a. Title 25, Environmental 

Protection, Chapter 78, Oil and Gas Wells. Accessed April 6, 2013, 2013. Available 

online: http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter78/025_0078.pdf.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2013b. Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

Available online at 

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/aq/standards/standards.htm .

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2013c. Coastal Resource Management 

Program. Available online: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/river/gis/obliques.htm. Access 

July 18, 2013.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2014a. Proposed Regulations for Oil 

and Gas Surface Activities. 

http://files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/BOGM/BOGMPortalFiles/PublicResources/PlainLang

uageSummaryforCh78Regulation_February2014.pdf. Accessed June 2014

Pennsylvania Herp. 2008-2013. Pennsylvania Herp Identification – Online Guide to Reptiles 

and Amphibians of PA. Available online at http://www.paherps.com/herps/turtles/.

Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access. 2008. Metadata Summary; AML Points Feature. 

http://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/MetadataDisplay.aspx?entry=PASDA&file=AMLInventor

yPoints2011_10.xml&dataset=458. 

PGP Valuation, Inc (PGP). 2008. Updated Market Analysis – The Impact of Natural Gas 

Pipelines on Property Values. February 21, 2008. Available at: 

http://www.palomargas.com/docs/resources/Pipeline_Impact_on_Property_Values.pdf.

Robbins, C.S. 1988. Forest fragmentation and its effects on birds. In Johnson, J.E. (ed.) 1988. 

Managing North Central forests for non-timber values. Publication 88-4, Society of 

American Foresters, Bethesda, MD.
References

223

Rodewald, A.D. 2001. Managing for forest songbirds. Ohio State University Extension, 

Columbus, Ohio. Fact Sheet W-6-2001.

Rosenberg, K.V., R.W. Rohrbaugh, Jr., S.E. Barker, R.S. James, J.D. Lowe, and A.A. Dhondt. 

1999. A land manager’s guide to improving habitat for scarlet tanagers and other forest 

interior birds. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

Seneca, Joseph J., Michael L. Lahr, and Will Irving. 2013. Economic Impacts of the Proposed 

Leidy Southeast Pipeline Project in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Draft. Submitted to 

Williams Gas Pipeline. August 2013.

Sitch, K. 2011. Email correspondence dated March 2, from K. Sitch (Pennsylvania Department 

of Conservation and Natural Resources), to A. Gardner (Ecology and Environment, Inc., 

Lancaster, New York).] 

Svedeman, S.J. (Southwest Research Institute) and K.E. Arnold (Paragon Engineering Services, 

Inc.). 1994. “Criteria for Sizing Multiphase Flowlines for Erosive/Corrosive Service.” 

Published by Society of Petroleum Engineers – SPE Production & Facilities, February 

1994. pp. 74-80. 

Trapp, H. and M.A. Horn. 1997. Groundwater Atlas of the United States, Segment 11, 

Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West 

Virginia. Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 730-L. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. 

24 pg. http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_l/index.html Accessed January 7, 2014.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation ManualWetlands Research Program Technical Report. Y-87-1.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2009. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers 

Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region.

U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. 2011. “2011 American Community Survey 

1-Year Estimates, DP03 Selected Economic Characteristics.” Available online at: 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed on February 28, 

2013.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. “2000 Census. DP-1 Profile of General Population and Housing 

Characteristics.” Available online at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/

faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed on February 25, 2013.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. “2010 Census. DP-1 Profile of General Population and Housing 

Characteristics.” Available online at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/

jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed on February 28, 2013.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. “U.S. Census Bureau State and County QuickFacts.” Available at: 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html. Accessed on March 12, 2013.
References

224

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2004. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for 

Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. htpp://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1986. Soil Survey of Lycoming 

County, Pennsylvania.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1999. Grassland Birds. Fish and Wildlife Habitat 

Management Leaflet. Number 8. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2014. Consumer Price Index Semiannual 

Averages, First Half 2013 (Table 31 – All Items). Accessed February 2014.

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. 

2013. Distribution, Transmission, and Liquid Accident and Incident Data. Accessed 

online at: 

http://phmsa.dot.gov/portal/site/PHMSA/menuitem.ebdc7a8a7e39f2e55cf2031050248a0c

/?vgnextoid=fdd2dfa122a1d110VgnVCM1000009ed07898RCRD&vgnextchannel=3430

fb649a2dc110VgnVCM1000009ed07898RCRD&vgnextfmt=print.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Northwest New Jersey 15 Basin Aquifer Support 

Document. June 1988. http://www.epa.gov/region02/water/aquifer/basin/15basin.htm. 

Accessed January 6, 2014.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA 

Review of NEPA Documents. Available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/nepa/cumulative.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. AirData: Available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/air/data/. Accessed April 2014. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

Available online at http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html .

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013b. Greenbook: Access to Non-attainment Data. 

Available online at http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ .

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First 

Revision. April 2007. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. USFWS Species Narratives: Biology and Threats of 

Federally Listed Species in New Jersey. Available online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/pdf/SpeciesInfo.pdf. Accessed June 2011.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2005a. Mineral Resources On-line Spatial Data, USGS Open-File 

Report 2005-1325
References

225

U.S. Geological Survey. 2005b. Significant United States Earthquakes, 1568-2004: National 

Atlas of the United States. Reston, Virginia. http://nationalatlas.gov/geology.html. 

Accessed January 8, 2014.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2006a. Mineral Resources On-line Spatial Data, USGS Open-File 

Report 2006-1272.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2006b. Aquifers of Alluvial and Glacial Origins. 

http://nationalatlas.gov/mld/alvaqfp.html. Accessed January 6, 2014.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2008. “National Seismic Hazard Maps. National Seismic Hazard 

Mapping Project,” http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps. January 8, 2014.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2009. “Earthquake Hazards Program.” 

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/. January 8, 2014.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2011. National Water Information System, USGS Water levels for the 

nation. http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. Accessed January 7, 2014.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2012a. “New Jersey Earthquake History” USGS Earthquake Hazard 

Program. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/new_jersey/history.php. Accessed 

January 8, 2014. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2012b. “Pennsylvania Earthquake History” USGS Earthquake Hazard 

Program. Accessed Online: 

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/pennsylvania/history.php. Accessed 

January 8, 2014.

U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2014. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Third 

National Climate Assessment, http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/downloads, accessed 

June 2014

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. undated. “Virginia’s Coastal Zone.” Accessed 

August 27, 2013. Available online: 

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/CoastalZoneManagement/virginia_czm_bou

ndary_map.jpg. 

Wolfgang, D. 2011. E-mail correspondence dated October 25, 2011, from Douglas Wolfgang, 

Director of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Farmland 

Preservation, to Rachel Silva, Biologist, Ecology and Environment, Inc., regarding 

Agricultural Security Areas in Monroe County, Pennsylvania.

Ziesing, Grace, Ann Marie, DiLucia, and Peter Matranga. 2013. Phase I Cultural Resources 

Investigations Williams Leidy Southeast Expansion Project, Skillman and Pleasant Run 

Loops, Hunterdon, Somerset, and Mercer Counties, New Jersey. Prepared for 

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC. URS Corporation. Burlington, New 

Jersey.
List of Preparers

226

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Harris, Jessica – Project Manager; Socioeconomics, Air Quality, Noise, Reliability and 

Safety, Cumulative Impacts, Alternatives

M.S. Candidate, Energy Policy and Climate, 2015, Johns Hopkins University 

B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 2006 Clark Atlanta University

Johnson, Gertrude – Deputy Project Manager; Air Quality, Noise

B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 2003, Virginia Commonwealth University

Boros, Laurie – Cultural Resources

B.A., Anthropology/Archaeology, 1980, Queens College, C.U.N.Y.

Bowman, Kevin – Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

B.S., Chemistry, 2010, McDaniel College

B.S., Environmental Science, 2009, McDaniel College

Rana, Anthony – Geology, Soils, Groundwater

M.S., International Development, 2012, Tulane University

Graduate Studies, Hydrogeology and Geochemistry, 1988, Oklahoma State University

B.S., Geology, 1984, New Jersey City University

Wachholder, Joanne – Surface Water, Fisheries Resources, Wetlands, Vegetation and 

Wildlife

M.S., Crop and Soil Sciences/Environmental Toxicology, 1997, Michigan State 

University

B.S., Environmental Biology, 1994, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point

Merjent, Inc.

Braun, Bill – Project Manager; Proposed Action, Alternatives, Cumulative Impacts

M.S. coursework completed, Geology, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology

B.S., Earth Sciences, St. Cloud State University

Mordorski, Paul – Deputy Project Manager; Air Quality, Noise, Reliability and Safety

B.C.E., Chemical Engineering, University of Minnesota

Book, Paul – Geology, Soils, Groundwater

Ph.D., Environmental Engineering, Kennedy Western University

Ph.D. coursework completed, Hydrogeology/Environmental Geology, University of 

Minnesota

M.S.T., Earth Sciences, University of New Hampshire, Keene State College

B.S., Landscape Architecture/Environmental Design, University of Massachusetts

Durand, Angie – Surface Water, Fisheries Resources, Wetlands, Vegetation and Wildlife

B.S., Environmental Studies, University of Minnesota
List of Preparers

227

Jessen, Kim – Land Use, Recreation, Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources; 

Socioeconomics

B.A., Anthropology/Archaeology, Moorhead State University

Krause, Kari – Cultural Resources

M.S., Archaeological Resource Management, Ball State University

B.A., Anthropology/History, Ripon College
APPENDIX A

PROJECT MAPS
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-11
A-12
A-13
A-14
A-15
A-16
A-17
A-18
A-19
A-20
A-21
A-22
APPENDIX B

TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT ACCESS ROADS

REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT
B-1

APPENDIX B

Temporary and Permanent Access Roads Required for the Project

Facility/Road 

Name County/State

Approx. 

MP

Status 

(Existing 

or 

Proposed)

Use 

(Permanent 

or

Temporary) Surface Type

Upgrade 

Requirements

Access Road 

Justification

Approx 

Length 

(feet)

Approx 

Width 

(feet)

Area 

Affected 

(acres)

Post 

Construction 

Status

Pipeline Facilities 

Skillman Loop

AR-SK-001A Somerset, 

NJ

1779.33 Proposed Temporary Vegetation Trim trees 

and add 

aggregate

Required for access 

to ROW for HDD 

Entries

1,562 20 0.72 Restore 

AR-SK-002 Somerset, 

NJ

1782.77 Proposed Temporary Vegetation Construct and 

add 

aggregate

Required for access 

to ROW near major 

road crossing

467 20 0.23 Restore 

Pleasant Run Loop

AR-PR-004 Somerset, 

NJ

0.30 Existing Temporary Dirt Add 

aggregate

Required for access 

to ROW and 

contractor yard

617 20 0.28 Restore 

AR-PR-002 Somerset, 

NJ

1.29 Existing Temporary Dirt Add 

aggregate

Required for access 

to ROW adjacent to 

powerline

280 12 0.08 Restore 

AR-PR-003 Somerset, 

NJ

1.85 Existing Temporary Asphalt/Gravel/Dirt Trim trees 

and add 

aggregate

Required for access 

to ROW near road 

and stream 

crossing

55 14 0.03 Restore 

Franklin Loop

AR-FR-011 Monroe, PA

NA

Existing

Permanent

Asphalt/Gravel/Dirt Trim trees 

and add 

aggregate

Required for access 

to Mt. Effor Pipe 

yard.

57 40 0.07 Retain for 

access

AR-FR-010 Monroe, PA 59.56 Existing Temporary Asphalt/Gravel/Dirt Trim trees 

and add 

aggregate

Required for access 

to ROW adjacent to 

business along 

major roadway 

4,005 12 1.11 Restore 

AR-FR-001 Monroe, PA 60.53 Existing Temporary Asphalt/Gravel/Dirt Trim trees 

and add 

aggregate

Required for access 

to ROW adjacent to 

business along 

major roadway 

4,169 12 1.19 Restore 

AR-FR-002 Monroe, PA 60.87 Existing Temporary Asphalt/Gravel/Dirt Trim trees 

and add 

aggregate

Required for access 

to ROW near river 

crossing

4,160 12 1.14 Restore 

AR-FR-004 Monroe, PA 63.99 Existing Temporary Dirt Add 

aggregate

Required for access 

to ROW adjacent to 

wetland area

482 12 0.14 Restore 
B-2

APPENDIX B

Temporary and Permanent Access Roads Required for the Project

Facility/Road 

Name County/State

Approx. 

MP

Status 

(Existing 

or 

Proposed)

Use 

(Permanent 

or

Temporary) Surface Type

Upgrade 

Requirements

Access Road 

Justification

Approx 

Length 

(feet)

Approx 

Width 

(feet)

Area 

Affected 

(acres)

Post 

Construction 

Status

AR-FR-005 Luzerne, PA 65.83 Existing Temporary Asphalt/Gravel/Dirt Trim trees 

and add 

aggregate

Required for access 

to ROW northwest 

of river crossing

1,345 12 0.38 Restore 

AR-FR-006 Luzerne, PA 66.82 Existing Temporary Gravel/Dirt Trim trees 

and add 

aggregate

Required for access 

to ROW on top of 

steep hill adjacent 

to wetland area

2,921 12 0.81 Restore 

AR-FR-008 Luzerne, PA 67.64 Existing Temporary Dirt Trim trees 

and add 

aggregate

Required for access 

to ROW

1,996 12 0.56 Restore 

Dorrance Loop

AR-DO-001 Luzerne, PA 18.14 Existing Temporary Gravel Trim trees 

and add 

aggregate

Required for access 

to ROW

1,210 12 0.35 Restore 

AR-DO-002 Luzerne, PA 22.28 Existing Temporary Gravel Trim trees 

and add 

aggregate

Required for access 

to ROW

410 20 0.20 Restore 

AR-DO-005 Luzerne, PA 23.01 Proposed Temporary Vegetation Construct and 

add 

aggregate

Required for access 

to existing meter 

station during 

construction

380 12 0.10 Restore 

Loop Total 24,116 7.39

Aboveground Facilities

MLV515LD @ MP 17.70 (Dorrance Loop)

AR-DO-003 Luzerne, PA 17.70 Proposed Permanent Vegetation Construct, 

trim trees and 

add 

aggregate

Required to access 

existing ROW and 

proposed mainline 

valve site

738 20 0.35 Retain for 

access

MLV515LD @ MP 22.97 (Dorrance Loop)

AR-DO-004 Luzerne, PA 23.01 Existing Permanent Gravel Add 

aggregate

Required to access 

existing ROW and 

proposed mainline 

valve site

435 12 0.13 Retain for 

access

MLV505LD @ MP 63.19 (Franklin Loop)

AR-FR-003 Monroe, PA 63.19 Proposed Permanent Vegetation Construct and 

add 

aggregate

Required for access 

to proposed 

mainline valve site

70 12 0.03 Retain for 

access
B-3

APPENDIX B

Temporary and Permanent Access Roads Required for the Project

Facility/Road 

Name County/State

Approx. 

MP

Status 

(Existing 

or 

Proposed)

Use 

(Permanent 

or

Temporary) Surface Type

Upgrade 

Requirements

Access Road 

Justification

Approx 

Length 

(feet)

Approx 

Width 

(feet)

Area 

Affected 

(acres)

Post 

Construction 

Status

MLV515LD0 (Franklin Loop)

AR-FR-009 Luzerne, PA 68.95 Existing Permanent Asphalt/Gravel None Required for access 

to existing ROW 

and proposed 

mainline valve site

319 20 0.16 Retain for 

access

MLV505LC11 (Pleasant Run Loop)

AR-PR-001 Somerset, 

NJ

0.12 Existing Permanent Asphalt/Gravel None Required to access 

existing ROW and 

proposed mainline 

valve site

1,679 25 0.84 Retain for 

access

MLV200D27 (Skillman Loop)

AR-SK-001 Mercer, NJ 1776.79 Existing Permanent Asphalt/Gravel Trim trees Required to access 

existing ROW and 

proposed mainline 

valve site

1,885 20 0.87 Retain for 

access

MLV200D28 (Skillman Loop)

AR-SK-003 Somerset, 

NJ

1783.00 Existing Permanent Asphalt/Gravel Trim trees 

and add 

aggregate

Required to access 

existing ROW and 

proposed mainline 

valve site

1,250 20 0.59 Retain for 

access

Aboveground Facilities Total 6,376 2.97

Grand Total 30,492 10.36
APPENDIX C

RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PLANS
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9
C-10
C-11
C-12
C-13
C-14
C-15
C-16
C-17
C-18
C-19
C-20
C-21
C-22
C-23
C-24
C-25
C-26
C-27
C-28
C-29
C-30
C-31
C-32
C-33
C-34
C-35
C-36
C-37
C-38
C-39
C-40
C-41
C-42
C-43
C-44
C-45
C-46
C-47
C-48
C-49
C-50
C-51
C-52
C-53
C-54
C-55
C-56
C-57
C-58
C-59
C-60
C-61
C-62
C-63
C-64
C-65
C-66
C-67
C-68
C-69
C-70
C-71
C-72
C-73
C-74
C-75
C-76
C-77
C-78
C-79
C-80
C-81
C-82
C-83
C-84
C-85
C-86
C-87
C-88
C-89
C-90
C-91
C-92
C-93
C-94
C-95
C-96
APPENDIX D

COMPREHENSIVE ROCK HANDLING PLAN FOR THE

PRINCETON RIDGE SEGMENT OF THE SKILLMAN LOOP
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC 

COMPREHENSIVE ROCK HANDLING PLAN 

LEIDY SOUTHEAST – SKILLMAN LOOP 

PRINCETON RIDGE 

Princeton, New Jersey 

Prepared for: 

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC 

2800 Post Oak Boulevard 

Houston, Texas 77056 

Prepared by: 

335 Commerce Drive, Ste 300 Fort Washington, PA 19034 

(215) 367-2500 

May 2, 2014 

 
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 

i

S:\Projects\Private-Sector\Wms_Pipeline\20000021_Comp_Rock_Hand\Data\REPORT\A_Final Report_050214\Rock Handling Plan_Final_050214.docx

Section 1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1-1

Section 2 Approach ......................................................................................................................... 2-1

Section 3 Review of Geologic Information .................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 BEDROCK GEOLOGY .......................................................................... 3-1

3.2 SURFICIAL GEOLOGY......................................................................... 3-1

Section 4 Subsurface Investigation ............................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 PRELIMINARY TEST BORINGS ......................................................... 4-1

4.2 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY ..................................................................... 4-1

4.2.1 2-Dimensional Electrical Resistivity Imaging (ERI) ................... 4-2

4.2.2 Seismic Refraction ....................................................................... 4-2

4.2.3 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) ................................................ 4-3

4.2.4 Global Positioning System (GPS) Mapping ................................ 4-3

4.3 CONFIRMATORY DRILL ..................................................................... 4-4

4.4 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING ..................................... 4-4

4.5 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION FINDINGS ........ 4-5

Section 5 Industry Methods for Rock Excavation ........................................................................ 5-1

5.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................ 5-1

5.2 RIPPING .................................................................................................. 5-1

5.3 HYDRAULIC BREAKING .................................................................... 5-2

5.4 SPLITTING USING EXPANSIVE GROUTS ........................................ 5-2

Section 6 Proposed Pipeline Construction Procedures .............................................................. 6-1

6.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................ 6-1

6.2 PREPARATION ...................................................................................... 6-1

6.3 TRENCHING .......................................................................................... 6-1

6.3.1 Excavating Boulders .................................................................... 6-2

6.3.2 Excavating Bedrock ..................................................................... 6-2

6.4 PIPELINE INSTALLATION .................................................................. 6-3

6.5 RESTORATION ...................................................................................... 6-3

Section 7 Considerations for Existing Pipeline ............................................................................ 7-1

7.1 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING PIPELINE ................................................ 7-1

7.2 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION ALONG EXISTING 

PIPELINE ................................................................................................ 7-1

7.2.1 MASW Survey of Existing Pipeline ............................................ 7-1

7.3 PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS .................................................................... 7-2

Section 8 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................ 8-1

D-i
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ii

S:\Projects\Private-Sector\Wms_Pipeline\20000021_Comp_Rock_Hand\Data\REPORT\A_Final Report_050214\Rock Handling Plan_Final_050214.docx

8.1 CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................... 8-1

8.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 8-1

Section 9 Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 9-1

D-ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 

iii

S:\Projects\Private-Sector\Wms_Pipeline\20000021_Comp_Rock_Hand\Data\REPORT\A_Final Report_050214\Rock Handling Plan_Final_050214.docx

Tables 

Table 1 Summary of Test Borings 

Table 2 Summary of Confirmatory Drill 

Table 3 Excavation Zone Classification 

In Appendix B 

 Table 1 – Boulder P-Wave Velocities 

 Table 2 – P-Wave Velocities for Soil and Rock 

 Table 3 – Location of Potential Boulders Observed Within Invert 

 Table 4 – Location of Rock Observed Within Invert 

Figures 

Figure 1 Site Location Map 

Figures 2A through 2E Bedrock Geology Maps 

Figures 3A through 3E Surficial Geology Maps 

Figures 4A through 4D Boring Location Plans 

Figure 5 Rippability Chart 

In Appendix B 

 Figures 1A through 1E – Sitemaps 

 Figures 2 through 16 – Electrical Resistivity Profiles 

 Figure 17 – GPR Profile of Potential Boulders 

 Figures 18 through 27 – Seismic Refraction Profiles 

 Figures 28 through 32 – Vs Profiles Along Existing Pipeline 

Appendices 

Appendix A Test Boring Logs 

Appendix B Geophysical Survey Report 

Appendix C Confirmatory Drill Logs 

Appendix D Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Results 

Appendix E Pipe Stress Analysis (Princeton Ridge Overburden Assessment) 

D-iii
SECTION SECTIONONE Background

1-1

S:\Projects\Private-Sector\Wms_Pipeline\20000021_Comp_Rock_Hand\Data\REPORT\A_Final Report_050214\Rock Handling Plan_Final_050214.docx

1 Section 1 ONE Backgrou nd 

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) is planning to install approximately 

6.18 miles of 42-inch gas transmission pipeline, known as the Skillman Loop, as part of the 

Leidy Southeast expansion project. Installation of the new pipeline will primarily be 

accomplished using conventional open-cut trench techniques. Pipeline trench depths are 

expected to extend approximately 8 feet below existing ground surface (bgs) to provide for a 

minimum 3 feet of cover in accordance with pipeline industry standards. Pipeline trench widths 

are expected to be approximately 6 feet. 

The southern 1.3-mile portion of the proposed pipeline, termed the ‘Princeton Ridge’ area (see 

Figure 1), is known to contain boulders extending from existing ground surface to relatively 

shallow depths that will likely be encountered during the open-cut trench excavation for the 

pipeline. Transco proposes to utilize non-blasting techniques in excavating encountered boulders 

and shallow bedrock. This Comprehensive Rock Handling Plan (CRHP) provides guidance for 

the proper sizing (breaking), handling and removal of encountered boulders and shallow bedrock 

in support of the open-cut trench excavation in the Princeton Ridge area (Site). 

Section 2.0 presents the approach used to develop this CRHP, while Section 3.0 summarizes the 

geologic setting of the Site. Section 4.0 provides the procedures and findings of the subsurface 

investigation completed at the Site. Section 5.0 provides industry methods for rock excavation, 

while Section 6.0 summarizes the evaluation of rock handling procedures. Section 7.0 

summarizes the considerations for the existing pipeline associated with the above pipeline 

construction. Conclusions and recommendations established from the investigation findings and 

evaluation effort are presented in Section 8.0. Limitations of the completed investigation 

program are provided in Section 9.0. 

D-1
SECTION SECTIONTWO Approach

2-1

S:\Projects\Private-Sector\Wms_Pipeline\20000021_Comp_Rock_Hand\Data\REPORT\A_Final Report_050214\Rock Handling Plan_Final_050214.docx

2 Section 2 TW O Approach 

To develop this CRHP, URS completed the following four (4) tasks: 

• Review of Geologic Information, 

• Subsurface Investigation, 

• Evaluation of Rock Handling Procedures, and 

• Considerations for Existing Pipeline. 

URS reviewed published literature to understand the documented site-specific subsurface 

conditions that could be associated with the potential boulders and shallow bedrock. A summary 

of the geologic review is presented in Section 3.0. 

URS completed a subsurface investigation at the Site to explore subsurface conditions and 

identify locations of potential boulders and shallow bedrock. Because conditions may exist in 

the subsurface environment that are not visible, the investigation approach utilized multiple 

industry-accepted techniques that could be implemented in complimentary fashion to better 

identify conditions that may be associated with the potential boulders and shallow bedrock. 

Procedures and results of the subsurface investigation are summarized in Section 4.0. 

Based on the findings of the literature review and subsurface investigation, an evaluation of 

industry methods for rock excavation and site-specific rock handling procedures was completed 

and is presented in Sections 5.0 and 6.0, respectively. 

The potential for the proposed pipeline construction to affect the integrity of the existing 

pipeline, which is approximately 20 feet offset from the proposed pipeline, was evaluated 

utilizing pipe stress analysis techniques. This analysis demonstrated that the anticipated stresses 

that would be generated during construction will be within acceptable limits. Procedures and 

results of the pipe stress analysis are presented in Section 7.0. 

D-2
SECTION SECTIONTHREE Review of Geologic Information

3-1

S:\Projects\Private-Sector\Wms_Pipeline\20000021_Comp_Rock_Hand\Data\REPORT\A_Final Report_050214\Rock Handling Plan_Final_050214.docx

3 Section 3 THR EE Review of Geo logic Information 

Published bedrock and surficial geologic information for the Site was reviewed and is 

summarized below. 

3.1 BEDROCK GEOLOGY 

The Site is situated within the Piedmont Physiographic province in New Jersey. It is underlain by 

rock formations belonging to the Juro-Triassic Newark Supergroup, specifically, the Lower 

Jurassic-Upper Triassic Passaic Formation and the Jurassic Diabase Formation. The Passaic 

formation underlying the Site consists of predominantly red beds of clayey siltstone, silty 

mudstone, clayey very fine-grained sandstone, and shale. In addition, beds of gray lake deposits 

can be found underlying the Site, which consist of gray to black silty mudstone, gray and 

greenish to purplish-gray clayey siltstone, black shale, and medium- to dark gray, clayey finegrained sandstone. 

The Site crosses a major sheet-like intrusion of dark greenish-gray to black, medium- to finegrained diabase. The rocks of the Passaic Formation within approximately 1,000 ft 

stratigraphically above and approximately 650 feet stratigraphically beneath the diabase have 

thermally altered to hard, bluish gray or brittle black, very fine-grained hornfels. Both the 

Passaic and Diabase Formations are situated within the Newark Basin. Figures 2A through 2E

present bedrock geology at the Site. 

3.2 SURFICIAL GEOLOGY 

The topographic relief of the Site is characterized by low relief ridges, valleys, and gentle plains 

underlain by sedimentary rocks of the Newark Supergroup. Higher hills rising from the plains 

are underlain by diabase. The surfaces of these hills are littered with rounded and broken 

boulders which are the core stones in the residuum weathered from the diabase. Surficial 

deposits on this landscape include residuum (i.e., saprolite, grus, and rock rubble); colluvium 

accumulated on hillslopes; alluvium in stream channels, flood plains, and terraces; and 

windblown (eolian) sand and silt. 

Overlying the diabase hill at the Site is sandy, silty diabase saprolite and rock rubble whose 

thickness can be as much as 20 feet. Granular, blocky rock rubble can be as thick as 10 feet. 

Also in this area is a poorly sorted (well-graded), chiefly compact and consistently firm diabase 

block colluvium with angular to subangular blocks of diabase whose thickness may range from 6 

to 50 feet. 

The Site is also underlain by weathered residuum of the Passaic Formation sedimentary rocks. 

The thickness ranges from less than 3 feet on ridges to as much as 10 feet where mixed with 

colluvium at the base of slopes. Residuum may or may not exhibit structure, and it typically 

grades downward to weathered bedrock. Figures 3A through 3E present surficial geology at the 

Site. 

D-3
SECTION SECTIONFOUR Subsurface Investigation

4-1

S:\Projects\Private-Sector\Wms_Pipeline\20000021_Comp_Rock_Hand\Data\REPORT\A_Final Report_050214\Rock Handling Plan_Final_050214.docx

4 Section 4 F OUR Subsu rface Investig ation 

URS completed a subsurface investigation at the Site to explore subsurface conditions and 

identify locations of potential boulders and shallow bedrock. Because conditions may exist in 

the subsurface environment that are not visible, the investigation approach utilized multiple 

industry-accepted techniques that could be implemented in complimentary fashion to more 

confidently identify conditions that may be associated with the boulders and shallow bedrock. 

A continuous ‘scan’ of the subsurface environment using remote-sensing (geophysical) 

investigation techniques was completed along the proposed pipeline. Subsequently, a ‘direct 

reading’ of potential boulders and shallow bedrock inferred from the continuous geophysical 

scan was completed to confirm the presence/absence of the boulders and shallow bedrock to 

better measure these features and ‘calibrate’/refine the geophysical survey findings. 

4.1 PRELIMINARY TEST BORINGS 

A total of ten (10) borings (borings B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-A1, B-A2, B-A4, B-H1-1, B-H1-5 and 

B-H1-6) were completed as part of a preliminary subsurface exploration study. Approximate 

locations of the test borings are shown on Figures 4A through 4D; a summary of test borings is 

presented in Table 1. Within each test boring, representative soil and rock samples were 

collected. The collected samples were transported to the URS geotechnical laboratory in Fort 

Washington, Pennsylvania for further examination and testing. 

The test borings were completed by Uni-Tech Drilling Co., Inc. of Franklinville, New Jersey 

under subcontract to URS. The ten borings were completed between June 26 and August 23, 

2013. The borings were completed using a track-mounted CME-55 ATV drill rig and hollowstem auger (HSA) technique. Logs of the completed test borings are presented in Appendix A. 

As shown on Table 1, none of the ten borings required rock coring before reaching 8 feet bgs 

(i.e., approximate bottom of the proposed pipeline trench), although potential boulders will likely 

exist shallower than 8 feet bgs at borings B-1 and B-A1 based on the sampling/drilling resistance 

encountered during the drilling (see test boring logs in Appendix A). In order to further develop 

a continuous subsurface profile, non-intrusive and continuous remote sensing techniques (i.e., 

geophysical survey) were implemented, which are described below. 

4.2 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY 

Geophysical survey techniques were utilized as a ‘baseline’ for the subsurface investigation 

owing to their ability to provide continuous remote sensing (‘scanning’) along the proposed 

pipeline alignment. The geophysical survey techniques were selected to complement one 

another to effectively map potential boulders and shallow bedrock as well as to indirectly (i.e., 

non-destructively) measure the strength of potential boulders and shallow bedrock (i.e., P-wave 

velocity). The following three techniques were utilized for the geophysical survey: 

• 2-Dimensional Electrical Resistivity Imaging (ERI), 

• Seismic Refraction, and 

• Ground Penetrating Radar. 

The ERI survey was utilized to identify potential boulders and depth to bedrock. The seismic 

refraction survey was utilized to assess rippability of potential boulders and bedrock as well as to 

profile the top of bedrock to complement the ERI survey. The GPR survey was utilized to assess 

D-4
SECTION SECTIONFOUR Subsurface Investigation

4-2

S:\Projects\Private-Sector\Wms_Pipeline\20000021_Comp_Rock_Hand\Data\REPORT\A_Final Report_050214\Rock Handling Plan_Final_050214.docx

dimensions of apparent boulders, if possible, and to complement the ERI survey. Global 

Positioning System (GPS) mapping was used to map exposed boulders. Each of these 

techniques is further described below. 

Prior to the geophysical survey, Transco surveyed the Site and marked (staked) every 100-foot 

interval along the proposed pipeline alignment. The geophysical survey was referenced to the 

staked locations. Quantum Geophysics, Inc. (Quantum) of Phoenixville, Pennsylvania 

completed all geophysical surveys along the proposed pipeline alignment under subcontract to 

URS between October 1 and October 29, 2013. Details of the geophysical survey techniques, 

survey area selection, implementation, and findings are presented in Appendix B. 

4.2.1 2-Dimensional Electrical Resistivity Imaging (ERI) 

2-Dimensional Electrical Resistivity Imaging (ERI) was utilized to identify potential boulders 

and depth to bedrock. The ERI survey explores the subsurface response as an electric current, 

and is applied into the soil via two metal stakes (current electrodes). The passage of the current 

through the ground yields a voltage distribution which can be directly measured by two 

additional potential electrodes. The ground resistance is calculated as a function of the voltage. 

The amount of resistance is an indicator of material type, presence as well as saturation level of 

fluids, and the presence of buried objects. 

The ERI survey is applicable to profiling top of rock, which is observed as a laterally continuous 

horizon characterized by a high-gradient (electrical resistivity increases significantly over a short 

depth interval). High electrical resistivity anomalies observed within the soil indicate potential 

boulders. 

The data sets were inverted using the AGI program EarthImager2D. EarthImager2D divides the 

subsurface into a number of rectangular blocks and determines the individual resistivities of the 

rectangular blocks that will produce an apparent resistivity pseudo-section that agrees with the 

actual measurements. Several iterations of modeling are conducted to reduce the difference 

between the calculated and measured apparent resistivity values by adjusting the resistivity of the 

model blocks. The processed data were compiled into 450-foot profile sections, annotated in 

computer-aided design and drafting (CADD), and then plotted on 11 inches by 17 inches border 

sheets at a scale of 1 inch equals 30 feet. 

Interpreted (potential) boulders and top-of-bedrock are presented in Figures 2 through 16 in 

Appendix B. Interpreted boulders potentially located above the proposed bottom of trench (i.e., 

8-foot depth) were encountered at a total of 95 locations (summarized in Table 3 of Appendix 

B). Interpreted top-of-bedrock potentially located above the proposed bottom of trench (i.e., 8-

foot depth) were encountered at a total of 36 locations (summarized in Table 4 of Appendix B). 

4.2.2 Seismic Refraction 

Seismic refraction was utilized to assess rippability of potential boulders and bedrock as well as 

to profile the top of bedrock to complement the ERI survey. The seismic refraction technique 

consists of emitting a seismic wave through the subsurface from a source at the surface level. 

Waves are refracted as they travel through the interface of different materials. The energy from 

the refracted waves returns to the surface and are sensed by geophones. Through the comparison 

of velocity of waves travelling along the surface and the velocity of refracted waves, a soil 

D-5
SECTION SECTIONFOUR Subsurface Investigation

4-3

S:\Projects\Private-Sector\Wms_Pipeline\20000021_Comp_Rock_Hand\Data\REPORT\A_Final Report_050214\Rock Handling Plan_Final_050214.docx

layering profile can be created. Information collected from test borings can further calibrate the 

data acquired along the seismic refraction survey line. 

In order to evaluate the rippability of boulders, the refraction survey was conducted on large 

boulders exposed at the ground surface. Two geophones were placed on the rock surface and a 

light tap was applied on the rock creating an energy wave that travels across the body mass. 

From the data obtained through the geophones, the wave (P-wave) velocity was calculated. 

Furthermore, using preliminary findings from the ERI survey described in Section 4.2.1, ten 

areas of potentially shallow bedrock (i.e., shallower than 8 feet bgs) with no apparent boulders in 

soils were selected for seismic refraction surveys to assess rippability of bedrock. 

The P-wave (compressional wave) velocity information generated from the refraction survey for 

boulders and bedrock is summarized in Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix B, respectively. As shown 

in Table 1 in Appendix B, P-wave velocities measured at the four exposed boulders range from 

12,700 to 18,500 feet per second (ft/sec) with an average value of 15,500 ft/sec. P-wave 

velocities measured for the bedrock range from 5,090 to 29,630 ft/sec as summarized in Table 2 

in Appendix B. According to Caterpillar's Handbook of Ripping (Reference 1), all boulders and 

most of bedrock (except weathered rock zone near bedrock surface) is anticipated to be nonrippable. 

4.2.3 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) 

GPR was utilized to assess dimensions of apparent boulders, if possible, and to complement the 

ERI survey. This method is based on dielectric properties, or the ability to sustain a static 

electric field, of materials. In-ground penetrating radar surveys electromagnetic waves that are 

transmitted into the ground. As these radio waves encounter contrasts in dielectric properties, 

some of the energy is reflected to the ground surface and captured by the surface receiver. The 

strength of reflected energy is dependent on the contrast of electrical properties; the variation in 

strength with time can be translated into 2-dimensional subsurface profiles. 

A single pass along the proposed pipeline alignment with a 200 MegaHertz (MHz) Antenna was 

completed. The GPR data, for the most part, was not helpful and Quantum did not observe the 

type of response (specifically high-amplitude reflections) expected where boulders are known to 

exist. Quantum suspects that this is because of clayey soils near the surface, as reported in the 

boring logs (Appendix A). The only exception is between stations 8+50 and 9+50 where two 

high-amplitude, parabolic-shaped anomalies (one centered at station 9+20 and the other centered 

at station 9+27 suggestive of boulders) were observed approximately 1 to 2 feet bgs. Two to 3-

foot diameter boulders were noted along the western edge of the right-of-way where these two 

anomalies are observed (see Figure 17 in Appendix B). Also present between stations 8+50 and 

9+50 are zones of discontinuous high-amplitude reflections suggestive of potential rock rubble 

fill perhaps from the previous excavation of the existing pipeline. GPR responses suggestive of 

small diameter boulders and rock fill are consistent with high electrical resistivity measurements 

indicating potential boulders in the ERI profiles (see Figures 3 and 4 in Appendix B). 

4.2.4 Global Positioning System (GPS) Mapping 

A Leica Model G-14 GPS receiver operating on the Leica Smartnet satellite network was used to 

map exposed boulders and boulder fields. The G-14 employs real-time kinematic (RTK) dataD-6
SECTION SECTIONFOUR Subsurface Investigation

4-4

S:\Projects\Private-Sector\Wms_Pipeline\20000021_Comp_Rock_Hand\Data\REPORT\A_Final Report_050214\Rock Handling Plan_Final_050214.docx

processing to guarantee correct results, accurate to 0.001 foot (horizontal and vertical). The GPS 

mapping results are shown in Figures 1A through 1E in Appendix B. 

4.3 CONFIRMATORY DRILL 

To further assess the shallow-seated boulder and bedrock identified by the geophysical survey 

and calibrate/refine the geophysical survey findings, intrusive, ‘direct-reading’ geotechnical 

drilling utilizing an Ingersoll-Rand ECM 590 self-contained hydraulic crawler drill rig (so called 

‘air-track’ rig) was implemented. The confirmatory drilling (CD) allows for ‘quantitatively’ 

measuring relative soil/boulder/bedrock stiffness/hardness via resistance of drilling tools during 

their penetration. Therefore, the CD effectively explores the presence, depth and thickness (for 

boulders only where feasible) of apparent shallow-seated boulders and bedrock. 

CD locations were determined based on the findings of the geophysical survey that had been 

completed along the proposed pipeline alignment, specifically potential boulders and bedrock 

shallower than the planned bottom of pipeline trench, i.e., 8 feet bgs. 

The CD was completed by Uni-Tech Drilling Co., Inc. of Franklinville, New Jersey under 

subcontract to URS. A total of 86 CD locations were completed between November 11 and 18, 

2013. Locations and findings of the CD exploration are presented in Table 2. Logs of the 

completed CD exploration are presented in Appendix C. 

As shown in Table 2, termination depths of the CD ranged from approximately 1 foot to 18 feet, 

with an average depth of approximately 10 feet. Where a boulder was encountered before 

reaching the termination depth of CD, top-of-boulder was encountered as shallow as at the 

existing ground surface and as deep as approximately 13 feet depth, with an average depth of 

approximately 4 feet. Thickness of boulder was encountered up to 5 feet. Where bedrock was 

encountered before reaching the termination depth of CD, top of bedrock was encountered as 

shallow as near the existing ground surface and as deep as approximately 13 feet depth, with an 

average depth of approximately 7 feet. 

Interpreted (potential) boulders and top-of-bedrock information based on the ERI survey (see 

Section 4.2.1) were subsequently revised utilizing the above confirmatory investigation results, 

where warranted and presented in Figures 2 through 16 in Appendix B. 

4.4 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING 

Geotechnical laboratory testing was completed on representative samples of the encountered soil 

materials collected from the preliminary test borings (described in Section 4.1). Results of the 

testing program are presented in Appendix D of this report. 

Selected split-spoon soil samples were tested for physical properties including natural moisture 

content (ASTM D2216), grain-size distribution (ASTM D421/422) and plasticity by Atterberg 

limits (ASTM D-4318), to assist in classifying the encountered soils and evaluating 

stratigraphical continuity. Rock core samples collected from borings B-H1-1, B-H1-5 and B-H1-

6 were tested for unconfined compressive strength (ASTM D 7012). 

Soil testing results are summarized on pages D-1, D-2, D-10 and D-11. Grain-size distribution 

curves are presented on pages D-3 through D-9 and pages D-12 through D-14. Unconfined 

compressive strength test results on rock core specimens are summarized on pages D-10 and D11. 

D-7
SECTION SECTIONFOUR Subsurface Investigation

4-5

S:\Projects\Private-Sector\Wms_Pipeline\20000021_Comp_Rock_Hand\Data\REPORT\A_Final Report_050214\Rock Handling Plan_Final_050214.docx

4.5 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION FINDINGS 

Based on review of the completed preliminary test boring results (Section 4.1), geophysical 

survey results (Section 4.2), confirmatory drill results (Section 4.3), and geotechnical laboratory 

testing results (Section 4.4), the proposed pipeline alignment can be divided into excavation 

zones as summarized in Table 3. 

As shown in Table 3, in order to provide guidance to the Transco Contractor relative to the 

anticipated subsurface materials that will be encountered during the open-trench construction and 

associated schedule, the Site has been divided into four (4) excavation zones based on the 

anticipated subsurface materials during open-trench excavation to install the planned pipelines, 

which are: 

• Zone A – Soil Only, 

• Zone B – Soil and Shallow Bedrock, 

• Zone C – Soil and Boulder, and 

• Zone D – Soil, Shallow Bedrock and Boulder. 

In summary, as presented in Table 3, the Site is comprised of the following excavation zones 

based on the subsurface investigation findings: 

• Approximately 1,400 feet of pipeline construction (approximately 20%) would encounter 

soil only (Zone A); 

• Approximately 1,300 feet of pipeline construction (19%) would encounter shallow 

bedrock (Zone B); 

• Approximately 3,100 feet of pipeline construction (46%) would encounter boulder (Zone 

C); and 

• Approximately 1,100 feet of pipeline construction (15%) would encounter both shallow 

bedrock and boulder (Zone D). 

D-8
SECTION SECTIONFIVE Industry Methods for Rock Excavation

5-1

S:\Projects\Private-Sector\Wms_Pipeline\20000021_Comp_Rock_Hand\Data\REPORT\A_Final Report_050214\Rock Handling Plan_Final_050214.docx

5 Section 5 F IVE Industry M ethods for Ro ck Excav ation 

5.1 OVERVIEW 

Several industry-proven methods are commonly utilized to excavate/remove rock and boulders 

for open-trench construction. All of the methods function by converting or ‘sizing’ the intact 

rock or boulder into smaller, more manageable pieces that can be safely handled and transported. 

The suitability/efficacy of each method depends on several factors including the compressive 

strength, hardness and ‘massiveness’ (presence of weaker secondary features) of the rock or 

boulder, available workspace, site constraints, adjacent/surrounding land use, schedule and costefficiency. Within the construction industry, these methods are typically grouped into the 

following categories: 

• Ripping – utilizes specialized tools that tear or shear the rock mass; 

• Hydraulic Breaking – utilizes specialized tools that apply compressive or tensile loads in 

excess of the rock’s inherent strength to effectively break the rock mass into smaller 

pieces; 

• Splitting Using Expansive Grouts – utilizes expansive grout materials to split the rock 

mass; and 

• Blasting – Not Proposed at the Site. 

Additional discussion of each of these rock removal methods is provided below including 

considerations for assessing the applicability and efficacy of each method. 

5.2 RIPPING 

Ripping consists of using tractors or similar equipment with an attached mechanical tooth 

(‘ripper’) or teeth that are lowered and dragged through the mass to be ripped. Once ripping is 

completed, loosened material is removed by excavators. 

‘Rippability’ is an industry-standard term applied to the suitability of a rock mass to be broken 

into smaller pieces by ripping methods. Seismic velocity is a property relating to the propagation 

of compression or similar waves through dense media and, as such, is an industry-proven method 

used to measure the relative density of rock. Caterpillar Inc. of Peoria, Illinois has published 

‘rippability charts’ in its ‘Handbook of Ripping’ to assist in the selection and use of their 

equipment to rip rock. Example rippability charts with related tractor types and seismic 

velocities are provided in Figure 5. 

Seismic (P-Wave) velocities measured for exposed boulders and bedrock at the Site are 

summarized in Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix B. As shown in Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix B, PWave velocities for the exposed boulders range from 12,700 to 18,500 ft/sec, with an average 

velocity of 15,500 ft/sec. P-Wave velocities for bedrock range from 5,090 ft/sec to 29,630 ft/sec. 

Due to high P-wave velocities of boulder and bedrock, the use of ripping to accomplish the opentrench excavation is anticipated to be limited. 

D-9
SECTION SECTIONFIVE Industry Methods for Rock Excavation

5-2

S:\Projects\Private-Sector\Wms_Pipeline\20000021_Comp_Rock_Hand\Data\REPORT\A_Final Report_050214\Rock Handling Plan_Final_050214.docx

5.3 HYDRAULIC BREAKING 

Rock breaking is most commonly performed using hydraulically-driven breakers/hammers fitted 

on excavators that, for trenching, typically will sit on the side of the trench. Breaking is 

essentially achieved through rapid-cycle impact loading imposed by the breaker or hammer that 

acts to crush or shear the rock material into smaller particles. 

The carrier size, weight and lift capacity depend on the selected breaker/hammer size. The size 

of the trench opening is, in turn, often dictated by the size of the breaker/hammer since the trench 

side slopes need to accommodate its width. The placement of the equipment must also consider 

loading of the excavated material so that the excavator or other equipment (carrier) to which the 

breaker/hammer is attached has adequate swing stability to remove material from the work area. 

5.4 SPLITTING USING EXPANSIVE GROUTS 

This method consists of fracturing (splitting) rock through the use of a one-component mortar 

placed (loaded) in a row of holes drilled into the rock mass. As the mortar expands inside the 

holes, high tensile stresses develop within the rock body between the holes causing it to crack 

preferentially along the row of holes. This method is therefore best-suited for projects where 

blasting is not feasible. Products such as Da-mite® Rock Splitting Mortar are available at 

different grades. Rock temperature and loading hole diameter define which mortar grade should 

be used. 

The loading hole pattern is established based on the rock formation and access. After the mortar 

is placed into the holes, fracturing typically occurs within a few hours, although very hard rock 

may require up to 72 hours to crack. After the fracturing process is completed, excavation with 

impact tools can be used to facilitate the separation of material for loading and hauling. 

Multiple, successive rows of mortar splitting may be necessary to size larger rock volumes, and 

thus may be very time-consuming but still possibly desirable. 

D-10
SECTION SECTIONSIX Proposed Pipeline Construction Procedures

6-1

S:\Projects\Private-Sector\Wms_Pipeline\20000021_Comp_Rock_Hand\Data\REPORT\A_Final Report_050214\Rock Handling Plan_Final_050214.docx

6 Section 6 SIX Propo sed Pipelin e Con stru ction Pro ced ures 

6.1 OVERVIEW 

To explore subsurface conditions and identify locations of potential boulder and shallow bedrock 

along the Site, URS completed an investigation comprised of multiple industry-accepted 

techniques that were implemented in complimentary fashion to more confidently identify 

conditions that may be encountered during the pipeline construction and are discussed in Section 

4. Several industry-proven methods that are commonly utilized to excavate/remove rock and 

boulders for the open-trench construction are also discussed in Section 5. 

Based on the discussions in Sections 4 and 5, proposed pipeline construction procedures will 

consist of the following four (4) activities, which are: 

• Preparation, 

• Trenching, 

• Pipeline Installation and 

• Restoration. 

Details of the above four (4) activities as well as the details of boulder and bedrock excavations 

are described below. 

6.2 PREPARATION 

Preparation will include removing surface features that could hinder or obstruct the pipeline 

construction. Two crews will methodically traverse the right-of-way (ROW) locating the center 

line of the existing pipeline and recording the precise location. Boulders observed above the 

existing and proposed pipeline will be carefully removed. Low hanging limbs and trees that 

could obstruct or interfere with the work will also be removed. 

A large backhoe will then install a wooden mat bridge on the ROW where a travel lane, parking 

area or lay down area are required for installing the proposed pipeline. This travel lane will be 

approximately 20 feet wide and will cover the existing pipeline in most areas. 

A 50-foot wide work corridor will be maintained except for a few larger areas where cross-overs 

or work side changes will be necessary. 

6.3 TRENCHING 

Once the wooden mat bridge is installed, the trench for the proposed pipeline will be excavated 

to remove boulders and shallow bedrock. This ‘pre-excavation’ will prepare approximately 6-

foot wide and 8-foot deep open-cut trench as well as approximately 12-foot wide and 8-foot deep 

bell hole ditch (where welds are made) for pipeline installation. 

The pre-excavation will be completed using two crews. Each crew will be equipped with two 

excavators that will complete the following: 

• The first excavator will excavate the trench and place excavated materials in a ‘bedding 

box’ staged on the mat road. 

D-11
SECTION SECTIONSIX Proposed Pipeline Construction Procedures

6-2

S:\Projects\Private-Sector\Wms_Pipeline\20000021_Comp_Rock_Hand\Data\REPORT\A_Final Report_050214\Rock Handling Plan_Final_050214.docx

• The second excavator will remove the material from the bedding box, sort material and 

re-place the suitable soils as backfill back into the trench. Unsuitable material (e.g., 

boulders, excavated rock) will be removed from the work area. 

A rock drill will accompany each crew. In areas where solid rock is encountered, the rock drill 

will pattern drill the rock. Expansive grout will be placed in the drilled holes to fracture the rock. 

A hydraulic hammer will break the rock to manageable sizes. The trench will be re-excavated at 

the time of pipeline installation. 

6.3.1 Excavating Boulders 

Based on the P-wave velocities measured for the four exposed boulders (see Section 4.2.2), all 

boulders are anticipated to be non-rippable. Boulders, if encountered during the ‘pre-excavation’ 

trenching, will be excavated, re-sized, and transported off-site as described below: 

• Case A – If volume of boulder is less than 4 cubic yard (CY) – Boulder will be 

removed from trench by an excavator. Removed boulders will be loaded into a dump 

truck or onto a flat-bed trailer and transported off-site. 

• Case B – If boulder is greater than 4 CY in volume and breakable by a hydraulic 

hammer – A hydraulic hammer will break the boulder in-situ and an excavator will 

remove re-sized boulder particles from the trench. Removed boulders will be loaded into 

a dump truck or onto a flat-bed trailer and transported off-site. 

• Case C – If boulder is greater than 4 CY in volume and not breakable by a 

hydraulic hammer – ‘Pre-drilling’ (i.e., creating perforations through the boulder) will 

be completed to create a weak joint/interface to facilitate breaking and re-sizing the 

boulder in-situ by a hydraulic hammer. An excavator will remove re-sized boulder 

particles from the trench and removed boulders will be loaded into a dump truck or onto a 

flat-bed trailer and transported off-site. 

• Case D – If boulder is greater than 4 CY in volume and not breakable by a 

combined use of pre-drilling and a hydraulic hammer – Expansive grouting 

techniques will be utilized to split (fracture) the boulder in-situ. After the splitting 

process is completed, excavation with a hydraulic hammer can be used to facilitate the 

separation of material for loading and hauling. An excavator will remove re-sized 

boulders from the trench and removed boulders will be loaded into a dump truck or onto 

a flat-bed trailer and transported off-site. 

6.3.2 Excavating Bedrock 

Based on the P-wave velocities measured for the bedrock (see Section 4.2.2), most bedrock 

encountered is anticipated to be non-rippable. Shallow bedrock, if encountered during the ‘preexcavation’ trenching, will be excavated, re-sized, and transported off-site as described below: 

• Case A – If bedrock is breakable by a hydraulic hammer – A hydraulic hammer will 

break the bedrock and an excavator will remove broken rock from the trench. Removed 

rock will be loaded into a dump truck or onto a flat-bed trailer and transported off-site. 

D-12
SECTION SECTIONSIX Proposed Pipeline Construction Procedures

6-3

S:\Projects\Private-Sector\Wms_Pipeline\20000021_Comp_Rock_Hand\Data\REPORT\A_Final Report_050214\Rock Handling Plan_Final_050214.docx

• Case B – If bedrock is not breakable by a hydraulic hammer – ‘Pre-drilling’ (i.e., 

creating perforations through the bedrock) will be completed to create a weak 

joint/interface to facilitate breaking and re-sizing the rock by a hydraulic hammer. An 

excavator will remove broken rock from the trench and removed rock will be loaded into 

a dump truck or onto a flat-bed trailer and transported off-site. 

• Case C – If bedrock is not breakable by a combined use of pre-drilling and a 

hydraulic hammer – Expansive grouting techniques will be utilized to split (fracture) 

the bedrock. After the splitting process is completed, excavation with a hydraulic 

hammer can be used to facilitate the separation of material for loading and hauling. An 

excavator will remove broken rock from the trench and removed rock will be loaded into 

a dump truck or onto a flat-bed trailer and transported off-site. 

6.4 PIPELINE INSTALLATION 

At the time of pipeline installation, the ‘pre-excavated’ and backfilled trench will be reexcavated. The material excavated will be suitable for re-use as trench backfill. Pipe joints will 

be welded in place and coated. The pipe will then be padded (surrounded) with selected or 

imported soil. The trench will then be backfilled and the ground surface will be graded to the 

existing ground surface. 

6.5 RESTORATION 

After the pipe installation is completed, a restoration crew will restore the right-of-way in 

accordance with the restoration plan. 

D-13
SECTION SECTIONSEVEN Considerations for Existing Pipeline

7-1

S:\Projects\Private-Sector\Wms_Pipeline\20000021_Comp_Rock_Hand\Data\REPORT\A_Final Report_050214\Rock Handling Plan_Final_050214.docx

7 Section 7 SEVEN Consid eration s for Existing Pip elin e 

7.1 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING PIPELINE 

Transco’s existing 36-inch steel pipeline runs parallel to the proposed pipeline and the proposed 

pipeline will cross over the existing pipeline near Mile Post (M.P.) 1777.6. The existing 36-inch 

pipe has a wall thickness of 0.500 inches and is X-52 Yield. 

To evaluate the effects of the proposed pipeline construction on the integrity of the existing 

pipeline, pipe stress analysis (PSA) was completed based on proposed construction techniques 

and conservatively-modeled subsurface conditions. Details of the PSA are discussed below. 

7.2 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION ALONG EXISTING PIPELINE 

To assess the potential for subsurface conditions to adversely affect the existing pipeline during 

the proposed pipeline construction, subsurface conditions along the existing pipe, specifically the 

potential presence of a boulder or shallow rock adjacent to or contacting the existing pipe, were 

investigated using non-intrusive geophysical techniques. 

A trial geophysical survey was completed along the existing pipeline (with approximate offset of 

3 feet from the edge of the existing pipe). The trial geophysical survey was conducted on 

November 4, 2013 using a seismic method termed multi-channel analysis of surface waves 

(MASW) and GPR with a 400 MHz antenna. The electrical resistivity imaging (ERI) techniques 

survey successfully used along the proposed pipe was excluded because the existing metal pipe 

attracts electrical current and therefore affects electrical resistivity measurements. 

Based on review of the trial survey results, the MASW appeared to indicate more meaningful 

results than the GPR. A MASW survey was subsequently completed along the entire existing 

pipeline at the Site and is further discussed below. 

7.2.1 MASW Survey of Existing Pipeline 

Quantum completed the MASW survey along the existing pipeline alignment (with 

approximately 3 +/- feet offset west of the centerline) under subcontract to URS between 

November 11 and November 15, 2013. Details of the MASW survey techniques, 

implementation, and findings are presented in Appendix B. 

As described in Appendix B, site conditions impacted the quality of the data such that shear 

wave velocity (Vs) profiles could be obtained only along the following five (5) sections: 

Existing Pipeline Stations Equivalent Proposed Pipeline Stationing 

597+02 to 601+85 0+00 to 4+83 (483 feet) 

605+40 to 607+60 8+40 to 10+60 (220 feet) 

613+00 to 614+00 16+00 to 17+00 (100 feet) 

616+30 to 617+00 19+30 to 20+00 (70 feet) 

648+62 to 652+17 51+81 to 55+36 (355 feet) – Total 1,228 feet 

Shear wave velocity (Vs) profiles could be obtained for only eighteen (18) percent of the existing 

pipeline length (1,228 feet over the total length of the existing pipeline, 6,820 feet) and each Vs 

D-14
SECTION SECTIONSEVEN Considerations for Existing Pipeline

7-2

S:\Projects\Private-Sector\Wms_Pipeline\20000021_Comp_Rock_Hand\Data\REPORT\A_Final Report_050214\Rock Handling Plan_Final_050214.docx

profile is provided in Figures 28 through 32 of Appendix B. Accordingly, reasonably 

conservative subsurface conditions were utilized during the PSA, which is described below. 

7.3 PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS 

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. (SES) calculated stresses in the existing adjacent pipeline 

considering overburden stresses associated with construction of the new pipeline using finite 

element analysis (FEA). The existing line is a 36-inch × 0.500-inch WT, Grade X52 steel pipe 

having a Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) of 800 psi. The FEA work 

examined a range of variables that included variations in burial depth, soil type, position of the 

wooden bridge over the existing pipeline, internal pressure, distance between the existing 

pipeline and new pipeline ditch, and the potential impact of rock interacting with pipeline. 

A combination of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) FEA models were used to 

evaluate the stresses in the buried pipe. The results of the 2D model indicate that soil stiffness, 

lateral position of the wooden bridge, and the presence of an infinitely stiff rock with a localized 

contact area would have the largest impact on the development of stresses in the existing 

pipeline. Using results of the 2D model, additional analyses were conducted using a 3D model 

that permitted an assessment of load variations along the length of the pipeline. 

Based on the information provided to SES and the load cases considered, the modeling results 

generated by this study indicate that the proposed installation activities are unlikely to generate 

unacceptable conditions on the existing pipeline per ASME B31.8. A complete pipe stress 

analysis report (Princeton Ridge Overburden Assessment) is presented in Appendix E. 

 

D-15
SECTION SECTIONEIGHT Conclusions and Recommendations

8-1

S:\Projects\Private-Sector\Wms_Pipeline\20000021_Comp_Rock_Hand\Data\REPORT\A_Final Report_050214\Rock Handling Plan_Final_050214.docx

8 Section 8 EIGHT Conclu sion s and R ecommend ation s 

8.1 CONCLUSIONS 

An investigation was completed at the Site to explore subsurface conditions that may include 

shallow-seated boulders and bedrock. The investigation approach utilized several proven and 

industry-accepted methods, which fell into one of three general categories including ‘geologic 

setting’, ‘remote sensing’ and ‘direct reading and measurement’. 

Methods were selected based on feasibility to implement, proven reliability, and the degree to 

which the method findings or ‘data sets’ as a whole could effectively compliment (i.e., build 

upon) one another and maximize the level of confidence regarding accuracy of the findings. 

Based on evaluation of the collected data sets, the Site has been divided into the following four 

(4) different zones based on the subsurface materials that are expected to be encountered during 

the ‘pre-excavation’ trenching for the pipeline: 

• Zone A – Soil Only – approximately 1,400 feet length (20%) of open trench, 

• Zone B – Soil and Shallow Bedrock – approximately 1,300 feet length (19%) of open 

trench, 

• Zone C – Soil and Boulder – approximately 3,100 feet length (46%) of open trench, 

and 

• Zone D – Soil, Shallow Bedrock and Boulder – approximately 1,100 feet length 

(15%) of open trench. 

Recommendations for excavating within the four different zones are provided in the following 

section. 

8.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 

Consistent with the findings of our completed subsurface investigation and the planned method 

of construction (described in Section 6), we recommend the following be incorporated into the 

project design and implementation: 

• Boulders observed above the existing pipeline should be carefully removed. 

• Prior to placing the timber mat bridge above the existing pipeline (to provide a 

construction access/platform), pipe cover should be measured to verify a minimum pipe 

cover (3 feet) is in place above the existing pipeline. Where the pipe cover is measured 

less than 3 feet, especially where boulders may have been removed, selected soil fill 

should be added to maintain the minimum 3 feet cover. 

• To maintain the greatest degree of safety, the Transco Contractor should utilize the bridge 

or ‘air gap’ method (see Section 7) during the pipeline construction. 

• The Transco Contractor should plan and sequence the pre-excavation trenching work (see 

Section 6.3) by prioritizing the excavation zones in the following order such as (1) Zone 

D, (2) Zone B and Zone C, and (3) Zone A in consideration of potentially extensive time 

that may be required to conduct pre-drilling and expansive grouting with subsequent 

hydraulic breaking. 

D-16
SECTION SECTIONEIGHT Conclusions and Recommendations

8-2

S:\Projects\Private-Sector\Wms_Pipeline\20000021_Comp_Rock_Hand\Data\REPORT\A_Final Report_050214\Rock Handling Plan_Final_050214.docx

• Staging areas for bedding boxes and construction access roads for off-site disposal of 

unsuitable material (e.g., re-sized boulder and bedrock) should be planned and 

coordinated by the Transco Contractor in accordance with the pre-scheduled excavation 

zones described above. 

• Considering the volume of boulders and shallow bedrock expected to be encountered 

during the ‘pre-excavation’ (see Section 6.3), a significant volume of selected or 

imported soils will likely need to be transported to the Site to backfill the open-trench 

after the ‘pre-excavation’. The Transco Contractor should plan and coordinate staging 

areas for the selected or imported soils as well as associated construction access roads. 

• The potential for significant boulders or shallow bedrock zones to be encountered during 

the ‘pre-excavation’ not already addressed in the subsurface investigation findings 

(Section 4) is believed to be low. However, the Transco Contractor should develop a 

contingency excavation plan that presents measures for removing boulders or rock should 

an unexpected localized boulder/shallow bedrock zone be encountered at the Site. 

In summary, URS believes the proposed pipeline can be safely installed in a manner that does 

not affect the integrity of the existing pipeline provided the above recommendations are 

implemented in conjunction with standard industry practices during the pipeline installation. 

D-17
SECTION SECTIONNINE Limitations

9-1

S:\Projects\Private-Sector\Wms_Pipeline\20000021_Comp_Rock_Hand\Data\REPORT\A_Final Report_050214\Rock Handling Plan_Final_050214.docx

9 Section 9 N INE Limit ations 

The subsurface investigation work completed by URS for this project was performed in 

accordance with reasonable and accepted engineering practices. No warranty or guarantee, 

either written or implied, is applicable to this work. The findings, conclusions and 

recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that the subsurface 

conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed by the geophysical survey, test 

borings, confirmatory drill and the other exploration methods and are subject to confirmation or 

revision upon review by URS of the final plans and specifications covering pertinent details of 

the proposed construction. The conclusions and recommendations are also based on the premise 

of competent field engineering, monitoring and testing during construction. 

This report has been prepared solely for use by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC 

for the design of this particular project. Any reuse of this report, particular by third parties, 

without the express permission of URS is solely at their own risk. 

D-18
Boring 

No.

Termination

Depth (ft)

Soil

Drilling

(ft)

Rock

Coring

(ft)

Ground 

Surface 

Elevation 

(ft)

Approximate 

Top-of-Bedrock 

Elevation (ft)

B-1 15.0 15.0 - 253.0 NE

B-2 15.0 15.0 - 331.5 NE

B-3 14.3 14.3 - 308.2 NE

B-4 13.2 13.2 - 232.1 NE

B-A1 15.0 15.0 - 339.6 NE

B-A2 13.7 13.7 - 190.0 NE

B-A4 13.4 13.4 - 265.2 NE

B-H1-1 75.0 10.0 65.0 240.2 230.2

B-H1-5 125.0 17.5 107.5 191.5 174.0

B-H1-6 75.0 8.0 67.0 182.5 174.5

TOTAL 374.6 135.1 239.5

Notes:

NE = Not Encountered.

Princeton, New Jersey

TABLE 1

Summary of Test Borings 

Transco LSE Skillman Loop - Princeton Ridge

Rock Handling Plan

D-19
Table 2 - Summary of Confirmatory Drill (Page 1 of 5) 

Transco LSE Skillman Loop - Princeton Ridge

Princeton, New Jersey 

Bedrock EOCD

TOB

(ft, bgs)

BOB

(ft, bgs)

Thickness

(ft)

TOR

(ft,bgs) (ft,bgs)

92 1+70 3.5 10.0 Soil with shale fragments from GS to 3.0' bgs.

91 2+25 3.0 11.0 Weathered rock from 1' to 3' bgs. Hornfells from 10' bgs.

2.5 5.0 2.57.0 9.0 2.0

89 Not Drilled - See Notes to the right88 Not Drilled - See Notes to the right87 Not Drilled - See Notes to the right86 Not Drilled - See Notes to the right85 Not Drilled - See Notes to the right84 Not Drilled - See Notes to the right83 Not Drilled - See Notes to the right82 Not Drilled - See Notes to the right81 12+55 0.5 NM NM 0.8 Boulder could not be penetrated due to its hardness. CD terminated at 0.8' 80 14+05 2.0 2.3 0.3 9.0 Wet cuttings encountered at approximately 8' bgs.

79 15+75 11.0 Hard wood encountered from 1.8' to to 4.4' bgs then soft wood from 4.4' to 

78 16+67 2.8 3.5 0.7 9.0 Soil with rock fragments at 2.0', 4.0' and 7.0' bgs. 

77 16+90 6.8 8.0 1.2 9.0 Soil with rock fragments at 6.7' bgs.

76 17+51 7.0 7.4 0.4 9.0 Hard drilling at 2.5' bgs.

2.0 3.2 1.23.8 5.0 1.2

74 18+44 8.5 Rock fragments encountered at 1.5' and between 3.8' and 5.0' bgs.

0.1 1.9 1.8

2.0 2.5 0.50.8 3.5 2.74.0 7.0 3.0

71 20+42 0.2 NM NM 1.8 Boulder could not be penetrated due to its hardness. CD terminated at 1.8' 70 20+85 7.5 7.8 0.3 10.0 Soil with rock fragments encountered at GS and 4.0' bgs.

7.0 9.0 2.0

13.0 13.5 0.5

Station Notes

Boulder

Groundwater at approximately 9' bgs.NOT DRILLED DUE TO WET AND SOFT GROUND SURFACE CONDITIOPOTENTIAL RUTTING ON PRIVATE PROPERTIES

19+67

Soil with rock fragments between 2.5' and 3.0' bgs.

21+30

Soil with rock fragments encountered at 1.5', 3.5', 6.5' and 12.7' bgs.Boulder material became softer at 4.5' bgs. Rock fragments encountered at 

72

Boulder material became softer at 2.9' and 5.8' bgs.

7369 13.5

19+98

9.0

Confirmatory 

Drill No.

9.09.0

90 3+12 11.9 14.0

75 17+93

D-20
Table 2 - Summary of Confirmatory Drill (Page 2 of 5) 

Transco LSE Skillman Loop - Princeton Ridge

Princeton, New Jersey 

Bedrock EOCD

TOB

(ft, bgs)

BOB

(ft, bgs)

Thickness

(ft)

TOR

(ft,bgs) (ft,bgs)

Station Notes

Boulder Confirmatory 

Drill No.

0.0 5.0 5.07.0 10.0 3.0

67 22+21 0.3 2.3 2.0 5.0 10.066 23+13 5.9 8.0 2.1 9.0 11.0 Soil with rock fragments encountered from 1.5' to 2.5' and from 3.5' to 4.0' b65 23+61 4.0 5.9 1.9 9.0 Hard rock fragments encountered at 0.8' bgs.

65A 23+83 1.3 11.0 Soil with rock fragments encountered at 1.2' bgs. Softer rock encountered b

2.0 2.3 0.32.5 3.9 1.44.0 4.8 0.8

63 24+68 7.0 8.5 Weathered rock encountered at 6.7' bgs.

62 25+58 9.0 Harder drilling observed at 2.0' bgs.

1.0 1.8 0.83.1 5.7 2.6

60 26+90 0.0 2.0 2.0 8.5

59 27+05 8.5 Harder drilling observed at 1.1' and at 5.9' bgs.

58 27+83 4.8 7.8 3.0 12.0 Soil with rock fragments encountered at 2.5' and 9.0' bgs. Harder drilling obs

2.1 3.5 1.46.2 7.0 0.88.0 9.0 1.0

56 29+50 5.1 8.0 Cobble encountered at 2.8' bgs. Weathered rock encountered at 5.0' bgs.

55 29+88 2.0 2.7 0.7 4.0 11.0 Softer material encountered between 9.8' and 10.2' bgs.54 30+25 5.9 9.0 Weathered rock encountered at 5.1' bgs. Slightly softer rock encountered at 

53 30+48 1.2 9.3 Slightly softer rock encountered at 6.8' and at 8.8' bgs. Rock became harde

52 30+67 5.2 8.2 Soil with rock fragments encountered at 3.5' bgs. One-inch-thickness soil se

51 30+88 3.1 5.1 2.0 7.7 9.0 Soil with rock fragments encountered from GS to 3' bgs.

50 31+08 6.0 9.0 Cobbles encountered at 2.0' and 4.0' bgs.

49 31+35 5.1 6.5 1.4 8.0 10.0 Soil with rock fragments encountered at GS. Cobble encountered between 1

48 31+60 3.8 5.0 1.2 8.1 13.047 31+88 5.0 8.8 Soil with rock fragments encountered at 3.0' bgs. Weathered rock encounte

46 34+65 0.0 2.3 2.3 5.3 9.0

Soil seams encountered between boulders at 2.3' and at 3.9' bgs. Bedrock b8.0' bgs.Boulder material became softer at 4.8' and 8.5' bgs.

28+26 10.0

64 24+13 6.1 8.8

68 21+74 13.061 25+91 10.057

D-21
Table 2 - Summary of Confirmatory Drill (Page 3 of 5) 

Transco LSE Skillman Loop - Princeton Ridge

Princeton, New Jersey 

Bedrock EOCD

TOB

(ft, bgs)

BOB

(ft, bgs)

Thickness

(ft)

TOR

(ft,bgs) (ft,bgs)

Station Notes

Boulder Confirmatory 

Drill No.

0.0 0.5 0.53.0 4.0 1.0

44 35+38 4.5 5.0 0.5 8.0 10.5 Dense soil encountered at GS. Soil with rock fragmetns encountered betwe43 36+07 0.0 1.0 1.0 6.5 9.042 36+64 5.8 9.3 Dense soil encountered at 4.0' bgs. Softer rock encountered at 7.9' and 9.0' 

41 37+06 2.1 8.2 Weathered rock encountered at 1.5' bgs.

40 37+48 7.5 9.0 Dense soil encountered between 3.0' and 4.0' bgs.

39 37+90 5.3 8.5

0.2 1.8 1.62.4 3.8 1.4

37 38+93 2.1 3.8 1.7 6.5 9.5 Three-inch-thickness soft material encountered at 7.8' bgs.36 39+15 3.5 4.0 0.5 5.5 9.0 Cobble encountered at 1.0' bgs.

2.0 3.0 1.05.3 8.0 2.78.1 8.5 0.4

35 39+75 6.2 7.8 1.6 8.1 9.534 40+55 1.5 2.7 1.2 8.5 10.0 Weathered rock encountered at 8.0' bgs. Comparatively softer bedrock enco33 41+45 1.0 1.1 0.1 10.0 11.0 Soil with rock fragments encountered from 2.0' to 5.0' bgs. Weathered rock 32 42+08 0.0 1.8 1.8 3.8 9.5

2.0 4.8 2.8

11.0 13.5 2.5

0.5 1.8 1.32.0 2.3 0.3

29 43+69 0.5 13.0

4.5 4.8 0.36.6 6.9 0.37.5 8.5 1.04.0 5.7 1.7

10.5 11.0 0.5

45 34+90 8.0

42+88

27 44+44 11.830 6.5 12.5

28 44+06 9.2 11.5

Coarse gravel or small cobble encountered at 4.0' bgs.

35A 39+28

38+53 7.8 10.3

8.6 10.0

One-inch-thickness soil seam encountered at 8.0' and 8.5' bgs.

3831 42+45 14.0

4.8

D-22
Table 2 - Summary of Confirmatory Drill (Page 4 of 5) 

Transco LSE Skillman Loop - Princeton Ridge

Princeton, New Jersey 

Bedrock EOCD

TOB

(ft, bgs)

BOB

(ft, bgs)

Thickness

(ft)

TOR

(ft,bgs) (ft,bgs)

Station Notes

Boulder Confirmatory 

Drill No.

1.5 2.2 0.79.5 10.0 0.5

25 45+47 7.8 13.5

24 45+98 11.0 Harder drilling observed between 4.5' and 7.0' bgs.

23 46+41 10.022 46+84 2.0 2.5 0.5 11.021 47+27 11.020 48+25 2.5 2.8 0.3 10.019 49+06 6.8 9.0 2.2 10.5 11.018 49+44 10.017 49+82 1.8 2.5 0.7 12.016 51+37 12.5 18.015 51+84 17.0 Soil with rock fragments encountered at 17.0' bgs. Harder drilling observed 

14 52+31 16.0 Harder drilling observed from 4.7' to 7.0' bgs.

13 52+78 16.012 53+25 2.0 2.5 0.5 17.011 53+72 1.7 2.7 1.0 10.5 10.510 54+65 10.5 12.0 Groundwater encountered at approximately 10.5' bgs.

9 55+20 2.3 6.7 4.4 10.0 Weathered rock encountered at 9.0' bgs.

8 56+20 11.5 11.5 Harder drilling observed at 1.5' bgs. Weathered rock encountered at 8.0' bg

7 56+40 9.0 9.1 Weathered rock encountered at 8.8' bgs.6 57+00 7.5 Hard drilling observed at 7.0' bgs. 

5 57+40 9.0 10.0 Weathered rock encountered at 7.5' bgs.4 57+90 0.0 1.7 1.7 7.5 10.0 Weathered rock encountered at 6.5' bgs.

3 58+60 7.5 10.0 Weathered rock encountered at 5.9' bgs.

2.0 2.8 0.83.8 6.0 2.9

1 59+88 5.0 6.3 1.3 8.3 10.0

8.5 10.0

Weathered rock encountered at 6.0' bgs.Harder drilling observed at 5.0' bgs. Soil with rock fragments encountered b

26 45+13 11.0

2 59+31

D-23
Table 2 - Summary of Confirmatory Drill (Page 5 of 5) 

Transco LSE Skillman Loop - Princeton Ridge

Princeton, New Jersey 

Bedrock EOCD

TOB

(ft, bgs)

BOB

(ft, bgs)

Thickness

(ft)

TOR

(ft,bgs) (ft,bgs)

Station Notes

Boulder Confirmatory 

Drill No.

Minimum 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.8

Maximum 13.0 13.5 5.0 12.5 18.0

Average 3.6 5.0 1.4 6.9 10.3

Notes:

TOB = Top of Boulder

BOB = Bottom of BoulderTOR = Top of Rock

CD = Confirmatory Drill

EOCD = End of Confirmatory Drill

bgs = Below Existing Ground Surface

NM = Not Measurable

GS = Ground Surface

D-24
Table 3 - Excavation Zone Classification (Page 1 of 4)

Transco LSE Skillman Loop - Princeton Ridge

Princeton, New Jersey

Zone A Zone B Zone C Zone D

Soil Only/

Length (ft)

Bedrock/ 

Length (ft)

Boulders/

Length (ft)

Boulders and 

Bedrock/

Length (ft)

1 00+00 02+60 260 260

2 02+60 03+10 50 50

3 03+10 03+30 20 20

4 03+30 03+45 15 15

5 03+45 03+65 20 20

6 03+65 06+00 235 235

7 06+00 06+85 85 85

8 06+85 07+10 25 25

9 07+10 07+40 30 30

10 07+40 08+00 60 60

11 08+00 08+55 55 55

12 08+55 09+15 60 60

13 09+15 11+90 275 275

14 11+90 11+95 5 5

15 11+95 12+40 45 45

16 12+40 12+70 30 30

17 12+70 13+80 110 110

18 13+80 14+30 50 50

19 14+30 15+35 105 105

20 15+35 16+10 75 75 Construction debris may be present.

21 16+10 16+25 15 15

22 16+25 18+35 210 210

23 18+35 18+90 55 55

24 18+90 19+00 10 10

25 19+00 22+65 365 365

26 22+65 23+00 35 35

27 23+00 23+70 70 70

28 23+70 24+35 65 65

29 24+35 25+10 75 75

LOCATION

Confirmatory drill could not be 

completed due to access restraints.

Rubble rock fill may be present in the 

vicinity of Sta. 8+70.

NOTES

EXCAVATION ZONE*

No.

Begin 

Station

End 

Station

Distance

(ft)

D-25
Table 3 - Excavation Zone Classification (Page 2 of 4)

Transco LSE Skillman Loop - Princeton Ridge

Princeton, New Jersey

Zone A Zone B Zone C Zone D

Soil Only/

Length (ft)

Bedrock/ 

Length (ft)

Boulders/

Length (ft)

Boulders and 

Bedrock/

Length (ft)

LOCATION

NOTES

EXCAVATION ZONE*

No.

Begin 

Station

End 

Station

Distance

(ft)

30 25+10 25+20 10 10

31 25+20 26+25 105 105

32 26+25 26+80 55 55

33 26+80 27+10 30 30

34 27+10 27+35 25 25

35 27+35 28+70 135 135

36 28+70 29+30 60 60

37 29+30 29+70 40 40

38 29+70 30+10 40 40

39 30+10 30+70 60 60

40 30+70 30+95 25 25

41 30+95 31+20 25 25

42 31+20 31+70 50 50

43 31+70 31+95 25 25

44 31+95 32+25 30 30

45 32+25 32+45 20 20

46 32+45 35+05 260 260

47 35+05 35+80 75 75

48 35+80 36+05 25 25

49 36+05 36+75 70 70

50 36+75 37+35 60 60

51 37+35 37+55 20 20

52 37+55 38+30 75 75

53 38+30 39+25 95 95

54 39+25 39+80 55 55

55 39+80 40+10 30 30

56 40+10 41+00 90 90

57 41+00 41+55 55 55

58 41+55 42+25 70 70

Confirmatory drill could not be 

completed between Sta. 31+95 and 

Sta. 34+60 due to access restraints.

D-26
Table 3 - Excavation Zone Classification (Page 3 of 4)

Transco LSE Skillman Loop - Princeton Ridge

Princeton, New Jersey

Zone A Zone B Zone C Zone D

Soil Only/

Length (ft)

Bedrock/ 

Length (ft)

Boulders/

Length (ft)

Boulders and 

Bedrock/

Length (ft)

LOCATION

NOTES

EXCAVATION ZONE*

No.

Begin 

Station

End 

Station

Distance

(ft)

59 42+25 42+60 35 35

60 42+60 43+10 50 50

61 43+10 43+30 20 20

62 43+30 43+85 55 55

63 43+85 44+80 95 95

64 44+80 45+00 20 20

65 45+00 45+25 25 25

66 45+25 45+55 30 30

67 45+55 47+75 220 220

68 47+75 48+10 35 35

69 48+10 54+90 680 680

70 54+90 55+10 20 20

71 55+10 55+20 10 10

72 55+20 55+70 50 50

73 55+70 55+75 5 5

74 55+75 56+00 25 25

75 56+00 57+80 180 180

76 57+80 58+10 30 30

77 58+10 58+70 60 60

78 58+70 59+15 45 45

79 59+15 59+25 10 10

80 59+25 59+90 65 65

81 59+90 60+15 25 25

82 60+15 61+50 135 135

83 61+50 62+50 100 100

84 62+50 62+75 25 25

85 62+75 63+05 30 30

86 63+05 63+30 25 25

87 63+30 63+85 55 55

Confirmatory drill could not be 

completed due to access restraints.

D-27
Table 3 - Excavation Zone Classification (Page 4 of 4)

Transco LSE Skillman Loop - Princeton Ridge

Princeton, New Jersey

Zone A Zone B Zone C Zone D

Soil Only/

Length (ft)

Bedrock/ 

Length (ft)

Boulders/

Length (ft)

Boulders and 

Bedrock/

Length (ft)

LOCATION

NOTES

EXCAVATION ZONE*

No.

Begin 

Station

End 

Station

Distance

(ft)

88 63+85 64+30 45 45

89 64+30 65+70 140 140

90 65+70 66+55 85 85

91 66+55 67+20 65 65

92 67+20 67+30 10 10

93 67+30 67+60 30 30

94 67+60 67+95 35 35

95 67+95 68+20 25 25

6,820 1,375 1,275 3,115 1,055

100% 20% 19% 46% 15%

Notes:

Total Length

(%)

* Excavation Zone is classified based on potential subsurface material that will likely be encountered from existing ground surface to eight 

feet depth (i.e., proposed pipeline invert depth) during the proposed open-trench excavation based on the subsurface investigation findings.

Confirmatory drill could not be 

completed due to access restraints.

D-28
The figures and appendices that were filed with Transco’s Comprehensive Rock 

Handling Plan for the Princeton Ridge segment of the Skillman Loop that was filed 

on May 6, 2014 are too voluminous to include in this EA, but can be viewed on the 

FERC website at http://www.ferc.gov. 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., CP13-551). Be sure to select the 

appropriate date range. The plan can be found under Accession No. 20140506-

5178. 

D-29
APPENDIX E

ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES BY MILEPOST
E-1

APPENDIX E

Additional Temporary Extra Workspaces by Milepost

Facility/State, 

County/ATWS 

Number

Approximate 

MP Acres Existing Land Use Type Description

Skillman Loop

Mercer, NJ

SK-01A 1776.8 0.10 Developed Open Space/Deciduous 

Forest

Sewer Line Crossing

SK-01 1777.58 0.19 Developed Open Space/Deciduous 

Forest

Crossover/PI

SK-02 1777.59 0.02 Developed Open Space/Deciduous 

Forest

Crossover/PI

SK-03 1777.95 0.01 Developed Open Space PI

SK-04 1777.99 0.01 Developed Open Space PI

SK-04A 1778.05 0.03 Developed Open Space Stream Crossing

SK-05 1778.07 0.01 Developed Open Space Road Crossing

Somerset, NJ

SK-06 1778.1 2.50 Cultivated Crops Truck Turn Around/Road 

Crossing/Crossover/PI

SK-07 1778.1 0.97 Cultivated Crops Topsoil Segregation/Road 

Crossing/Crossover/PI

SK-08 1778.29 0.04 Deciduous Forest Stream Crossing

SK-09 1778.31 0.04 Deciduous Forest Stream Crossing

SK-10 1778.37 0.02 Wetland - PEM Wetland Crossing

SK-11 1778.4 0.04 Deciduous Forest Stream Crossing

SK-12 1778.45 0.04 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing

SK-13 1778.6 0.10 Deciduous Forest PI

SK-14 1778.55 0.25 Deciduous Forest HDD Stringing/Stream Crossing/PI

SK-15 1778.68 0.15 Pasture/Hay Stream Crossing

SK-16 1778.68 1.31 Pasture/Hay Topsoil Segregation/HDD Exit

SK-16A 1778.86 0.12 Pasture/Hay Topsoil Segregation/HDD Exit

SK-16B 1779.28 0.15 Deciduous Forest HDD Entry

SK-16C 1779.28 0.70 Deciduous Forest/Developed Open 

Space

HDD Entry

SK-16D 1779.85 0.41 Cultivated Crop HDD Equipment 

Offloading/Topsoil Segregation

SK-16E 1779.95 0.66 Cultivated Crop Topsoil Segregation/HDD Exit

SK-27 1779.95 0.30 Cultivated Crop Topsoil Segregation/ HDD Exit

SK-28 1780.01 0.16 Cultivated Crop Topsoil Segregation

SK-29 1780.08 0.30 Cultivated Crop Topsoil Segregation/Crossover

SK-30 1779.99 0.37 Cultivated Crop HDD Stringing/Topsoil 

Segregation/Crossover/PI

SK-31 1780.23 0.01 Wetland - PEM Wetland Crossing

SK-32 1789.25 0.14 Deciduous Forest Stream Crossing

SK-33 1780.29 0.67 Pasture/Hay Road Crossing/Stream 

Crossing/Topsoil Segregation

SK-35 1780.48 0.19 Pasture/Hay Road Crossing/Topsoil 

Segregation

SK-37 1780.55 1.44 Pasture/Hay Topsoil Segregation/Road 

Crossing

SK-38 1781 0.08 Developed Low 

Intensity/Residential/Deciduous Forest

Road Crossing/Topsoil 

Segregation/PI
E-2

APPENDIX E

Additional Temporary Extra Workspaces by Milepost

Facility/State, 

County/ATWS 

Number

Approximate 

MP Acres Existing Land Use Type Description

SK-39 1781.01 0.16 Developed Low 

Intensity/Residential/Deciduous Forest

Topsoil Segregation/PI

SK-40 1781.05 0.23 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing

SK-41 1781.1 0.14 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing

SK-42 1781.42 0.04 Evergreen Forest/Developed Open 

Space

Road Crossing

SK-43 1781.43 0.03 Developed Open Space Road Crossing

SK-44 1781.45 0.10 Evergreen Forest/Developed Open 

Space

Road Crossing/Crossover/PI

SK-45 1781.55 0.24 Developed Low Intensity/Residential Topsoil Segregation/Road 

Crossing

SK-46 1781.65 0.13 Developed Low Intensity/Residential Topsoil Segregation

SK-47 1781.7 0.07 Developed Low Intensity/Residential Topsoil Segregation

SK-48 1781.73 0.23 Developed Low Intensity/Residential Topsoil Segregation

SK-49 1781.79 0.08 Developed Low Intensity/Residential Road Crossing

SK-50 1781.8 0.03 Developed Open Space/Mixed Forest Road Crossing

SK-51 1782.01 0.03 Developed Open Space Road Crossing

SK-52 1782.02 0.02 Developed Open Space/Deciduous 

Forest

Road Crossing

SK-53 1782.05 0.06 Deciduous Forest Road Crossing/Stream Crossing

SK-55 1782.09 0.29 Developed Open Space Topsoil Segregation/Stream 

Crossing

SK-56 1782.18 0.02 Developed Low Intensity/Residential Road Crossing

SK-57 1782.18 0.02 Developed Open Space/Deciduous 

Forest

Road Crossing

SK-58 1782.2 0.04 Developed Low 

Intensity/Residential/Developed Open 

Space

Road Crossing

SK-59 1782.2 0.02 Developed Low 

Intensity/Residential/Mixed Forest

Road Crossing

SK-61 1782.29 0.14 Developed Low 

Intensity/Residential/Deciduous Forest

Road Crossing/Topsoil 

Segregation

SK-62 1782.35 0.22 Developed Low Intensity/Residential Road Crossing/Topsoil 

Segregation

SK-63 1782.45 0.01 Wetland - PEM Wetland Crossing

SK-64 1782.55 0.07 Pasture/Hay Topsoil Segregation

SK-65 1782.58 0.14 Wetland - PEM Wetland Crossing

SK-66 1782.67 1.20 Pasture/Hay Railroad Crossing/Topsoil 

Segregation/Truck Turn 

Around/Crossover/PI

SK-67 1782.68 1.77 Pasture/Hay Railroad Crossing/Topsoil 

Segregation/Truck Turn 

Around/Crossover/PI

SK-68 1782.77 0.02 Commercial/Industrial/Transportation/

Mixed Forest

Road Crossing

SK-69 1782.76 0.66 Mixed Forest/Cultivated Crops Road Crossing/Railroad 

Crossing/Topsoil 

Segregation/Truck Turn Around

SK-70 1782.79 0.38 Mixed Forest/Cultivated Crops Road Crossing

SK-71 1782.9 0.54 Evergreen Forest Truck Turn Around/Railroad 

Crossing
E-3

APPENDIX E

Additional Temporary Extra Workspaces by Milepost

Facility/State, 

County/ATWS 

Number

Approximate 

MP Acres Existing Land Use Type Description

Skillman Loop Total -- 18.66 -- --

Pleasant Run 

Loop

Somerset, NJ

PR-01 0.25 0.13 Pasture/Hay/Scrub Shrub Upland Topsoil Segregation

PR-02 0.38 0.01 Pasture/Hay Stream Crossing

PR-03 0.40 0.01 Pasture/Hay Stream Crossing

PR-04 0.39 0.42 Pasture/Hay Topsoil Segregation/Stream 

Crossing

PR-05 0.50 0.33 Pasture/Hay Topsoil Segregation

PR-06 0.60 0.08 Cultivated Crops Topsoil Segregation

PR-07 0.62 0.04 Cultivated Crops/Developed Open 

Space

Stream Crossing

PR-08 0.64 0.21 Cultivated Crop Topsoil Segregation

PR-09 0.64 0.04 Developed Open Space Stream Crossing

PR-10 0.70 0.06 Mixed Forest/Developed Open Space Stream Crossing

PR-11 0.73 0.06 Mixed Forest/Developed Open Space Stream Crossing

PR-13 0.78 0.80 Cultivated Crops Topsoil Segregation/Foreign Line 

Crossing

PR-14 0.95 0.03 Mixed Forest PI

PR-15 0.95 0.22 Developed Open Space PI/Topsoil Segregation

PR-16 1.00 0.14 Mixed Forest PI/Stream Crossing

PR-17 1.03 0.73 Cultivated Crops Topsoil Segregation/Stream 

Crossing/PI

PR-21 1.20 0.64 Developed Open Space/Low 

Intensity/Residential

PI/Stream Crossing/Side 

Slope/Road Crossing

PR-22 1.29 0.30 Developed Open Space/Mixed Forest Truck Turn Around/PI/Topsoil 

Segregation/Staging 

Area/Crossover

Hunterdon, NJ

PR-26 1.38 0.09 Mixed Forest Road Crossing

PR-27 1.39 0.16 Developed Open Space Stream Crossing/Road Crossing

PR-28 1.45 0.08 Developed Open Space Stream Crossing

PR-30 1.49 0.15 Mixed Forest Road Crossing/Topsoil 

Segregation

PR-31 1.49 0.33 Developed Open Space Road Crossing/Topsoil 

Segregation

PR-32 1.60 0.23 Developed Open Space Road Crossing/Stream Crossing

PR-33 1.60 0.29 Scrub Shrub Uplands Road Crossing

PR-35 1.68 0.09 Scrub Shrub Uplands Stream Crossing

PR-36 1.73 0.05 Developed Open Space Road Crossing/Stream Crossing

PR-38 1.74 0.15 Developed Open Space Road Crossing

PR-39 1.74 0.32 Developed Open Space Road Crossing/Topsoil 

Segregation

PR-40 1.85 0.99 Mixed Forest/Developed Open 

Space/Cultivated Crop

Road Crossing/Topsoil 

Segregation

PR-41 1.89 0.08 Mixed Forest Side Slope

PR-42 2.01 0.16 Cultivated Crop Topsoil Segregation

PR-43 2.08 0.68 Cultivated Crop Topsoil Segregation
E-4

APPENDIX E

Additional Temporary Extra Workspaces by Milepost

Facility/State, 

County/ATWS 

Number

Approximate 

MP Acres Existing Land Use Type Description

PR-44 2.28 0.09 Pasture/Hay Topsoil Segregation

PR-45 2.29 0.10 Pasture/Hay Stream Crossing

PR-46 2.31 0.17 Pasture/Hay Topsoil Segregation

PR-47 2.36 0.10 Pasture/Hay Topsoil Segregation

PR-48 2.38 0.75 Pasture/Hay Topsoil Segregation

PR-49 2.60 0.06 Scrub Shrub Uplands Side Slope/Stream Crossing

PR-50 2.63 0.03 Wetland - PEM Wetland Crossing

PR-51 2.65 0.30 Developed Low Intensity/Residential Road Crossing/Topsoil 

Segregation

PR-52 2.73 0.37 Pasture/Hay Stream Crossing/Road 

Crossing/Topsoil Segregation

PR-53 2.81 0.04 Pasture/Hay Stream Crossing

PR-54 2.83 0.49 Developed Low Intensity/Residential Stream Crossing

PR-55 2.88 0.15 Developed Low Intensity/Residential Crossover/PI

PR-56 2.95 0.13 Wetland - PEM Wetland Crossing

PR-57 3.18 0.02 Developed Open Space Stream Crossing

PR-58 3.21 0.18 Developed Low 

Intensity/Residential/Deciduous Forest

Road Crossing/Topsoil 

Segregation/Stream Crossing

PR-59 3.21 0.13 Developed Low

Intensity/Residential/Developed Open 

Space

Topsoil Segregation/Road 

Crossing/Stream Crossing

PR-60 3.28 0.11 Mixed Forest Road Crossing/Stream 

Crossing/PI

PR-61 3.28 0.17 Developed Open Space Road Crossing/Stream 

Crossing/PI

PR-63 3.35 0.09 Developed Low Intensity/Residential Stream Crossing

PR-64 3.39 0.38 Developed Low Intensity/Residential Stream Crossing/Topsoil 

Segregation/Hydrostatic Test 

Withdrawal/Discharge

PR-65 3.60 0.04 Developed Open Space Stream Crossing

PR-66 3.63 0.28 Pasture/Hay Stream Crossing/Topsoil 

Segregation

PR-67 3.65 0.04 Pasture/Hay Stream Crossing

PR-68 3.71 0.30 Developed Open Space Topsoil Segregation

PR-69 3.91 0.09 Developed Open Space Road Crossing

PR-68A 3.93 0.26 Developed Open Space Road Crossing

PR-70 4.05 0.25 Developed Open Space/Pasture/Hay Topsoil Segregation

PR-71 4.17 0.16 Developed Open Space/Mixed Forest Stream Crossing

PR-72 4.23 0.05 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing

PR-73 4.38 0.10 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing

PR-74 4.45 0.06 Developed Open Space Stream Crossing

PR-75 4.46 0.13 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing

PR-76 4.49 0.09 Developed Open Space Stream Crossing

PR-77 4.91 0.23 Developed Open Space/Mixed Forest Stream Crossing/Topsoil 

Segregation

PR-78 4.92 0.10 Developed Open Space/Mixed Forest Stream Crossing

PR-79 4.98 0.10 Developed Open Space/Mixed Forest Stream Crossing

PR-80 4.99 0.16 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing
E-5

APPENDIX E

Additional Temporary Extra Workspaces by Milepost

Facility/State, 

County/ATWS 

Number

Approximate 

MP Acres Existing Land Use Type Description

PR-81 5.04 0.03 Developed Open Space/Mixed Forest Stream Crossing

PR-82 5.06 0.05 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing

PR-83 5.07 0.02 Commercial/Industrial/Transportation Stream Crossing

PR-84 5.12 0.11 Pasture/Hay Road Crossing/Stream 

Crossing/Topsoil Segregation

PR-84A 5.20 0.26 Pasture/Hay Road Crossing/Topsoil 

Segregation

PR-84B 5.26 0.33 Pasture/Hay Topsoil Segregation/Crossover/PI

PR-84C 5.26 0.33 Pasture/Hay Topsoil Segregation/Crossover/PI

PR-85 5.35 0.23 Pasture/Hay Topsoil Segregation

PR-85A 5.41 0.05 Wetland - PEM Wetland Crossing

PR-86 5.45 0.50 Developed Open 

Space/Pasture/Hay/Deciduous Forest

Topsoil Segregation/Side 

Slope/Stream Crossing

PR-87 5.53 0.02 Developed Open Space Stream Crossing

PR-88 5.58 0.81 Pasture/Hay Topsoil 

Segregation/Crossover/PI/Stream 

Crossing

PR-89 5.59 0.58 Pasture/Hay Topsoil 

Segregation/Crossover/PI/Stream 

Crossing

PR-89A 5.73 0.06 Pasture/Hay Stream Crossing

PR-90 5.78 0.13 Developed Low Intensity/Residential Stream Crossing/Topsoil 

Segregation

PR-91 5.79 0.28 Developed Low Intensity/Residential Stream Crossing/Topsoil 

Segregation

PR-93 5.88 0.06 Developed Low Intensity/Residential Road Crossing

PR-94 5.90 0.04 Developed Low 

Intensity/Residential/Mixed Forest

Road Crossing

PR-95 5.93 0.27 Pasture/Hay Topsoil Segregation

PR-96 6.05 0.24 Developed Open Space Topsoil Segregation

PR-97 6.12 0.03 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing/PI

PR-98 6.17 0.03 Mixed Forest/Grassland Stream Crossing/PI

PR-99 6.19 0.09 Developed Open Space/Pasture/Hay Topsoil Segregation/Stream 

Crossing

PR-100 6.21 0.44 Pasture/Hay Topsoil Segregation

PR-101 6.31 0.25 Pasture/Hay Topsoil Segregation

PR-102 6.39 0.33 Pasture/Hay Topsoil Segregation

PR-103 6.47 0.24 Pasture/Hay Topsoil Segregation/Stream 

Crossing

PR-104 6.55 0.12 Pasture/Hay Topsoil Segregation/Stream 

Crossing

PR-104A 6.63 0.02 Developed, Low Intensity/Residential Spoil Storage

PR-105 6.67 0.14 Developed Open Space Topsoil Segregation/Road 

Crossing

PR-106 6.79 0.07 Developed Open Space/Mixed Forest Spoil Storage

Pleasant Run Loop 

Total

-- 20.56 -- --

Franklin Loop

Monroe, PA
E-6

APPENDIX E

Additional Temporary Extra Workspaces by Milepost

Facility/State, 

County/ATWS 

Number

Approximate 

MP Acres Existing Land Use Type Description

FR-1 57.88 0.09 Developed Open Space Crossover

FR-2 57.93 0.12 Developed Open Space Topsoil Segregation

FR-3 58.29 0.56 Developed Open Space Hydrostatic Test 

Withdrawal/Discharge

FR-4 58.35 0.28 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing

FR-5 58.36 0.44 Developed Open Space Stream Crossing

FR-6 58.42 0.20 Developed Open Space Stream Crossing

FR-7 58.43 0.14 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing

FR-9 58.55 0.13 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing/P.I.

FR-10 58.54 0.32 Mixed Forest/Developed Open Space Stream Crossing/P.I.

FR-11 58.65 0.21 Mixed Forest/Developed Open Space Stream Crossing/P.I.

FR-12 58.70 0.23 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing/Wetland 

Crossing

FR-13 58.88 0.09 Wetland-PEM Wetland Crossing

FR-14 58.93 0.11 Mixed Forest Wetland Crossing

FR-15 59.00 0.02 Wetland-PEM Wetland Crossing

FR-16 59.05 0.02 Wetland-PEM Wetland Crossing

FR-17 59.21 0.17 Developed Open Space Wetland Crossing

FR-18 59.26 0.21 Wetland - PSS Wetland Crossing

FR-19 59.39 0.28 Developed Open Space Wetland Crossing

FR-20 59.40 0.08 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing

FR-21 59.49 0.09 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing

FR-21A 59.55 0.23 Developed Open Space Wetland Crossing

FR-22 59.63 0.21 Mixed Forest Truck Turn Around/Road Crossing

FR-22A 59.65 0.12 Mixed Forest Road Crossing

FR-23 59.67 0.21 Developed Open Space Road Crossing

FR-23A 59.69 1.38 Mixed Forest Truck Turn Around/Road Crossing

FR-24 59.75 0.45 Mixed Forest/Wetland -PSS Truck Turn Around/Road Crossing

FR-24A 59.75 0.08 Developed Open Space Truck Turn Around/Road Crossing

FR-25 59.76 0.03 Developed Open Space Wetland Crossing

FR-26 59.77 0.71 Wetland - PSS Wetland Crossing

FR-27 60.16 0.76 Mixed Forest Truck Turn Around/Wetland 

Crossing

FR-28 60.79 0.06 Mixed Forest Side Slope

FR-29 60.91 0.71 Developed Open Space Stream Crossing/Truck Turn 

Around/Hydrostatic Test 

Withdrawal/Discharge

FR-30 60.92 0.04 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing/Truck Turn 

Around

FR-31 60.97 0.19 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing/Truck Turn 

Around

FR-32 61.07 0.11 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing/Truck Turn 

Around/PI

FR-33 61.08 0.02 Wetland - PEM Wetland Crossing

FR-34 61.09 0.23 Mixed Forest Crossover/PI

FR-35 61.25 0.03 Wetland - PEM Wetland Crossing

FR-35A 61.63 0.07 Wetland - PEM Wetland Crossing

FR-36 61.69 0.15 Mixed Forest Road Crossing/ Cross Over/ PI
E-7

APPENDIX E

Additional Temporary Extra Workspaces by Milepost

Facility/State, 

County/ATWS 

Number

Approximate 

MP Acres Existing Land Use Type Description

FR-37 61.70 0.09 Developed Open Space PI/Crossover

FR-38 61.75 0.06 Mixed Forest Road Crossing

FR-39 61.75 0.06 Developed Open Space Road Crossing

FR-40 61.88 0.18 Mixed Forest PI/Crossover

FR-41 61.89 0.09 Developed Open Space PI/Crossover

FR-42 61.98 0.01 Mixed Forest/Developed Open Space Road Crossing

FR-43 62.00 0.03 Mixed Forest/Developed Open Space Road Crossing

FR-44 62.31 0.04 Wetland - PEM Wetland Crossing

FR-45 62.37 0.04 Deciduous Forest Wetland Crossing

FR-46 62.63 0.18 Deciduous Forest Crossover/PI

FR-47 62.63 0.12 Deciduous Forest\Developed Open 

Space

Crossover/PI

FR-48 62.85 0.03 Wetland - PEM Wetland Crossing

FR-49 62.88 0.04 Wetland - PEM Wetland Crossing

FR-50 63.03 0.10 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing

FR-51 63.10 0.10 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing

FR-52 63.15 0.03 Wetland - PEM Wetland Crossing

FR-53 63.19 0.03 Developed Open Space Road Crossing

FR-54 63.20 0.07 Developed, Low Intensity/Residential Road Crossing

FR-54A 63.29 0.34 Pasture/Hay Topsoil Segregation/Crossover/PI

FR-55 63.45 0.10 Wetland - PEM Topsoil Segregation/Crossover/PI

FR-55A 63.65 0.22 Developed Open Space Spoil Storage

FR-56A 63.68 0.14 Developed Open Space Crossover/PI

FR-56B 63.65 0.11 Developed Open Space Crossover/PI

FR-56 63.75 0.10 Deciduous Forest Stream Crossing

FR-57 64.00 0.78 Developed Open Space/Deciduous 

Forest

Crossover/Wetland Crossing/PI

FR-58 64.15 0.52 Wetland - PSS Wetland Crossing

FR-59 64.43 0.59 Deciduous Forest Wetland Crossing

FR-60 64.76 0.13 Deciduous Forest Side Slope

FR-61 64.77 0.39 Developed Open Space Side Slope

FR-62 64.83 0.14 Deciduous Forest Side Slope

FR-63 64.91 0.09 Developed Open Space Stream Crossing

FR-65 64.95 0.32 Developed Open Space Stream Crossing/Road Crossing

FR-66 64.99 0.06 Deciduous Forest Road Crossing

FR-67 65.03 0.07 Deciduous Forest Road Crossing

FR-68 65.45 0.41 Developed Open Space/Deciduous 

Forest

Stream Crossing Hydrostatic Test 

Withdrawal/Discharge

FR-69 65.45 0.12 Deciduous Forest Stream Crossing

Luzerne, PA

FR-70 65.49 0.41 Wetland - PEM/Deciduous Forest Stream Crossing

FR-71 65.49 0.01 Wetland - PEM Wetland Crossing

FR-71A 65.55 0.03 Wetland - PEM Wetland Crossing

FR-73 65.83 0.14 Developed Open Space Stream Crossing

FR-74 65.89 0.11 Wetland - PFO Wetland Crossing

FR-75 66.51 0.09 Developed Open Space Road Crossing
E-8

APPENDIX E

Additional Temporary Extra Workspaces by Milepost

Facility/State, 

County/ATWS 

Number

Approximate 

MP Acres Existing Land Use Type Description

FR-76 66.51 0.08 Deciduous Forest Road Crossing

FR-77 66.53 0.08 Deciduous Forest Road Crossing

FR-78 66.53 0.24 Developed Open Space Road Crossing

FR-79 66.77 0.06 Developed Open Space Side Slope

FR-80 66.80 0.17 Deciduous Forest Truck Turn Around

FR-81 66.83 0.03 Wetland - PEM Wetland Crossing

FR-82 66.88 0.04 Developed Open Space Wetland Crossing

FR-83 67.75 0.10 Developed Open Space Stream Crossing

FR-84 67.77 0.09 Deciduous Forest Stream Crossing

FR-85 67.81 0.05 Developed Open Space Stream Crossing

FR-86 67.85 0.17 Developed Open Space Stream Crossing

FR-87 67.91 0.10 Deciduous Forest Stream Crossing

FR-88 68.05 0.25 Developed Open Space/Deciduous 

Forest

Stream Crossing/Crossover/PI

FR-89 68.06 0.21 Developed Open Space/Deciduous 

Forest

Stream Crossing/Crossover/PI

FR-90 68.12 0.03 Wetland - PEM Wetland Crossing

FR-91 68.15 0.21 Developed Open Space Topsoil Segregation

FR-92 68.23 0.21 Developed Open Space Topsoil Segregation

FR-93 68.35 0.20 Developed Open Space Topsoil Segregation

FR-94 68.41 0.04 Developed Open Space Topsoil Segregation

FR-95 68.45 0.06 Wetland - PEM Wetland Crossing

FR-96 68.50 0.30 Deciduous Forest Crossover/Wetland Crossing/PI

FR-97 68.52 0.20 Developed Open Space Crossover/PI

Franklin Loop Total -- 19.22 -- --

Dorrance Loop

Luzerne, PA 

DO-1 18.45 0.10 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing

DO-2 18.55 0.06 Mixed Forest Road Crossing

DO-3 18.56 0.03 Mixed Forest Road Crossing

DO-4 18.57 0.06 Mixed Forest Road Crossing

DO-5 18.57 0.03 Developed Open Space Road Crossing

DO-6 18.69 0.38 Pasture/Hay Stream Crossing/ Topsoil 

Segregation

DO-7 18.81 0.05 Wetland PEM Wetland Crossing

DO-8 18.91 0.21 Mixed Forest/Pasture/Hay Topsoil segregation/Stream 

Crossing

DO-9 19.02 0.17 Mixed Forest/Pasture/Hay Topsoil segregation/Stream 

Crossing

DO-10 19.11 0.06 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing

DO-9.1 19.31 0.04 Mixed Forest Road Crossing

DO-12 19.32 0.09 Mixed Forest/Developed Open Space Road Crossing

DO-13 19.35 0.23 Pasture/Hay/ Mixed Forest Stream Crossing/Road 

Crossing/Topsoil Segregation

DO-10.1 19.39 0.02 Pasture/Hay Road Crossing

DO-14 19.45 0.19 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing

DO-15 19.83 0.07 Mixed Forest/Developed Open Space Road Crossing
E-9

APPENDIX E

Additional Temporary Extra Workspaces by Milepost

Facility/State, 

County/ATWS 

Number

Approximate 

MP Acres Existing Land Use Type Description

DO-16 19.85 0.07 Mixed Forest/Developed Open Space Road Crossing

DO-17 19.90 0.07 Mixed Forest Road Crossing

DO-18 20.20 0.07 Mixed Forest Side Slope

DO-19 20.20 0.04 Developed Open Space Side Slope

DO-20 20.29 0.13 Mixed Forest Side Slope

DO-21 20.28 0.13 Developed Open Space Side Slope

DO-22 20.38 0.11 Mixed Forest Side Slope

DO-23 20.38 0.06 Developed Open Space Side Slope

DO-24 20.80 0.18 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing

DO-25 20.80 0.14 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing

DO-26 20.85 0.05 Wetland-PEM Wetland Crossing

DO-27 20.89 0.46 Mixed Forest/Developed Open Space Road Crossing/Hydrostatic Test 

Withdrawal/Discharge

DO-28 20.91 0.04 Developed Open Space Road Crossing

DO-29 20.92 0.05 Mixed Forest/Developed Open Space Road Crossing

DO-30 20.92 0.04 Developed Open Space Road Crossing

DO-31 21.60 0.03 Wetland-PEM Wetland Crossing

DO-32 21.76 0.02 Mixed Forest/Developed Open Space Stream Crossing

DO-33 21.79 0.02 Mixed Forest/Developed Open Space Stream Crossing

DO-34 21.80 0.10 Mixed Forest Stream Crossing

DO-35 22.15 0.02 Developed Open Space Topsoil Segregation

DO-36 22.28 0.08 Mixed Forest/Developed Open Space Road Crossing

DO-37 22.27 0.03 Developed Open Space Road Crossing

DO-38 22.29 0.05 Developed Open Space Side Slope/Road Crossing

DO-39 22.30 0.03 Wetland-PEM Wetland Crossing

DO-40 22.35 0.21 Mixed Forest/Cultivated Crops Stream Crossing

DO-42 22.39 0.32 Cultivated Crops Stream Crossing/Road 

Crossing/Topsoil Segregation

DO-43 22.42 0.05 Mixed Forest Road Crossing

DO-44 22.45 0.05 Developed Open Space Road Crossing

DO-45 22.52 0.28 Cultivated Crops Topsoil Segregation

DO-46 22.61 0.13 Cultivated Crops Topsoil Segregation

DO-47 22.65 0.03 Cultivated Crops Topsoil Segregation

DO-48 22.68 0.18 Cultivated Crops Topsoil Segregation

DO-49 22.75 0.07 Mixed Forest Drag Section

DO-50 22.80 0.12 Wetland-PEM Wetland Crossing

DO-51 22.89 0.09 Mixed Forest Road Crossing

DO-52 22.90 0.04 Developed Open Space Road Crossing

DO-53 22.92 0.07 Mixed Forest/Developed Open Space Road Crossing

Dorrance Loop 

Total

-- 5.45 -- --

Total -- 63.89 -- --
APPENDIX F

TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION CROSS SECTIONS
F-1
F-2
F-3
F-4
F-5
F-6
F-7
F-8
F-9
F-10
F-11
F-12
F-13
F-14
F-15
F-16
F-17
F-18
F-19
F-20
F-21
F-22
F-23
F-24
F-25
F-26
F-27
F-28
F-29
F-30
F-31
F-32
F-33
F-34
F-35
F-36
F-37
F-38
APPENDIX G

WATERBODIES CROSSED BY THE 

LEIDY SOUTHEAST EXPANSION PROJECT
G-1

APPENDIX G

Waterbodies Crossed by the Leidy Southeast Expansion Project

State / 

Facility / 

Milepost Feature ID Waterbody Name

Crossing 

Width a

(feet) Flow Type

FERC 

Classification b

Fishery 

Class / 

Sensitivity c

Timing 

Restriction

(avoidance 

period)

Proposed Crossing 

Method

Riparian 

Zone 

Disturbance 

(acres)d

New Jersey

Skillman Loop

1776.9 SS-002-001 Unnamed Tributary to 

Stony Brook

12 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed0.8

1777.0 SS-002-002 Unnamed Tributary to 

Stony Brook

4 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed1.1

1777.8 SS-010-001 Unnamed Tributary to 

Stony Brook

6 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed0.4

1777.9 SS-010-002 Unnamed Tributary to 

Stony Brook

6 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed0.5

1778.1 SS-010-003 Unnamed Tributary to 

Stony Brook

14 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed0.7

1778.3 SS-002-005 Unnamed Tributary to 

Beden Brook

3 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed1.1

1778.4 SS-002-006 Unnamed Tributary to 

Beden Brook

3 Intermittent Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Non-flowing Open-Cut 1.0

1778.7 SS-002-007 Unnamed Tributary to 

Beden Brook

13 Perennial Intermediate FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed1.2

1779.0 SS-002-008 Unnamed Tributary to 

Beden Brook

12 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed1.1

1779.0 SS-002-009 Cherry Run 12 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e HDD 0.1

1779.0 SS-002-010

[Crossing 1]

Cherry Run 17 Perennial Intermediate FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e HDD 0.1

1779.1 SS-002-010

[Crossing 2]

Cherry Run 11 Perennial Intermediate FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e HDD 0.1

1779.5 SS-002-010

[Crossing 3]

Cherry Run 17 Perennial Intermediate FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e HDD 0.1

1779.5 SS-002-010

[Crossing 4]

Cherry Run 28 Perennial Intermediate FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e HDD 0.1

1779.5 SS-002-010

[Crossing 5]

Cherry Run 29 Perennial Intermediate FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e HDD 0.1

1779.7 SS-002-010

[Crossing 6]

Cherry Run 26 Perennial Intermediate FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e HDD 0.1

1779.7 SS-002-012 Beden Brook 23 Perennial Intermediate FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e HDD <0.1
G-2

APPENDIX G

Waterbodies Crossed by the Leidy Southeast Expansion Project

State / 

Facility / 

Milepost Feature ID Waterbody Name

Crossing 

Width a

(feet) Flow Type

FERC 

Classification b

Fishery 

Class / 

Sensitivity c

Timing 

Restriction

(avoidance 

period)

Proposed Crossing 

Method

Riparian 

Zone 

Disturbance 

(acres)d

1780.3 SS-002-017 Rock Brook 40 Perennial Intermediate FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed1.2

1780.4 SS-002-014 Unnamed Tributary to Rock 

Brook

8 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed3.6

1781.1 SS-002-016 Back Brook 20 Perennial Intermediate FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed1.0

1782.1 SS-002-021 Unnamed Tributary to Pike 

Run

6 Intermittent Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Non-flowing Open-Cut 1.2

1782.4 SS-002-018 Unnamed Tributary to Pike 

Run

7 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed0.5

1782.7 SS-002-019 Ditch to Pike Run 8 Intermittent Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Bore 0.0

1782.8 SS-002-020 Ditch to Pike Run 10 Intermittent Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Bore 0.0

Pleasant Run Loop

Access 

Road ARPR-04

SS-002-022B Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

2 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed0.1

0.39 SS-002-022 Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

10 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed1.0

0.66 SS-002-023 Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

7 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed1.0

0.73 SS-002-024 Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

10 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed0.9

1.05 SS-002-025 Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

12 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed1.7

1.20 SS-002-048 Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

8 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed1.9

1.44 SS-002-026 Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

6 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1

e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

1.0

1.72 SS-002-027 Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

9 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed1.0

1.83 SS-002-028 Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

15 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed0.9

1.84 SS-002-029 Pleasant Run 35 Intermediat

e

Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed0.6
G-3

APPENDIX G

Waterbodies Crossed by the Leidy Southeast Expansion Project

State / 

Facility / 

Milepost Feature ID Waterbody Name

Crossing 

Width a

(feet) Flow Type

FERC 

Classification b

Fishery 

Class / 

Sensitivity c

Timing 

Restriction

(avoidance 

period)

Proposed Crossing 

Method

Riparian 

Zone 

Disturbance 

(acres)d

2.06 SS-011-001 Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

5 Ephemeral Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Non-flowing Open-Cut 1.0

2.26 SS-002-030 Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

12 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed1.0

2.84 SS-002-032 Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

11 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed1.1

2.97 SS-002-029Ag Pleasant Run NA

g

Intermediate Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e NAg 1.8

3.21 SS-002-033 Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

12 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed1.7

3.34 SS-002-029B Pleasant Run 30 Perennial Intermediate FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed1.6

3.63 SS-002-034 Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

15 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed1.3

4.20 SS-002-035 Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

7 Intermittent Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Non-flowing Open-Cut 1.7

4.23 SS-002-036 Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

8 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed1.0

4.46 SS-002-037 Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

10 Intermittent Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed4.0

4.97 SS-002-038 Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

12 Ephemeral Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Non-flowing Open-Cut 1.2

5.06 SS-002-039 Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

4 Ephemeral Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Non-flowing Open-Cut 0.8

5.11 SS-002-040 Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

6 Ephemeral Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Non-flowing Open-Cut 1.1

5.34 SS-002-041 Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

14 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed1.0

5.42 SS-002-042

[Crossing 1]

Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

10 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed1.4

5.56 SS-002-042

[Crossing 2]

Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

10 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed1.4

5.73 SS-002-043 Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

5 Intermittent Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Non-flowing Open-Cut 1.2

5.76 SS-002-044 Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

12 Ephemeral Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed1.0
G-4

APPENDIX G

Waterbodies Crossed by the Leidy Southeast Expansion Project

State / 

Facility / 

Milepost Feature ID Waterbody Name

Crossing 

Width a

(feet) Flow Type

FERC 

Classification b

Fishery 

Class / 

Sensitivity c

Timing 

Restriction

(avoidance 

period)

Proposed Crossing 

Method

Riparian 

Zone 

Disturbance 

(acres)d

6.16 SS-002-045f Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

NA Ephemeral Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed0.5

6.16 SS-002-046 Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

15 Perennial Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed2.7

6.54 SS-002-047 Unnamed Tributary to 

Pleasant Run

6 Ephemeral Minor FW2-NT 10/1 – 4/1e Non-flowing Open-Cut 1.1

Pennsylvania

Franklin Loop

58.40 SS-001-010 Tunkhannock Creek 30 Perennial Intermediate HQ-CWF, 

MF

10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump

Not 

Applicable

58.66 SS-001-011 Unnamed Tributary to 

Tunkhannock Creek

9 Perennial Minor HQ-CWF, 

MF

10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

58.62 SS-001-011A Unnamed Tributary to 

Tunkhannock Creek

4 Intermittent Minor HQ-CWF, 

MF

10/1 – 12/31 f Non-flowing Open-Cut

58.80 SS-001-012 Unnamed Tributary to 

Tunkhannock Creek

6 Intermittent Minor HQ-CWF, 

MF

10/1 – 12/31 f Non-flowing Open-Cut

59.20 SS-001-013 Unnamed Tributary to 

Tunkhannock Creek

3 Ephemeral Minor HQ-CWF, 

MF

10/1 – 12/31 f Non-flowing Open-Cut

59.44 SS-006-002 Unnamed Tributary to 

Tunkhannock Creek

8 Intermittent Minor HQ-CWF, 

MF

10/1 – 12/31 f Non-flowing Open-Cut

59.49 SS-001-014A Unnamed Tributary to 

Tunkhannock Creek

3 Perennial Minor HQ-CWF, 

MF

10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

59.56 SS-001-014B Unnamed Tributary to 

Tunkhannock Creek

4 Ephemeral Minor HQ-CWF, 

MF

10/1 – 12/31 f Non-flowing Open-Cut

59.56 SS-001-014

[Crossing 1]

Unnamed Tributary to 

Tunkhannock Creek

10 Perennial Minor HQ-CWF, 

MF

10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

59.55 SS-001-014

[Crossing 2]

Unnamed Tributary to 

Tunkhannock Creek

10 Perennial Minor HQ-CWF, 

MF

10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

59.59 SS-001-014

[Crossing 3]

Unnamed Tributary to 

Tunkhannock Creek

10 Perennial Minor HQ-CWF, 

MF

10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

59.62 SS-001-014

[Crossing 4]

Unnamed Tributary to 

Tunkhannock Creek

10 Perennial Minor HQ-CWF, 

MF

10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

60.12 SS-001-020 Unnamed Tributary to 

Tobyhanna Creek

11 Perennial Intermediate HQ-CWF, 

MF

10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed
G-5

APPENDIX G

Waterbodies Crossed by the Leidy Southeast Expansion Project

State / 

Facility / 

Milepost Feature ID Waterbody Name

Crossing 

Width a

(feet) Flow Type

FERC 

Classification b

Fishery 

Class / 

Sensitivity c

Timing 

Restriction

(avoidance 

period)

Proposed Crossing 

Method

Riparian 

Zone 

Disturbance 

(acres)d

61.03 SS-001-015 Tobyhanna Creek 70 Perennial Intermediate HQ-CWF, 

MF

10/1 – 12/31 f Open Cut

62.27 SS-001-018 Unnamed Tributary to Two 

Mile Run

3 Perennial Minor HQ-CWF, 

MF

10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

63.08 SS-001-021 Two Mile Run 15 Perennial Minor HQ-CWF, 

MF

10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

63.23 SS-001-022 Unnamed Tributary to Two 

Mile Run

5 Ephemeral Minor HQ-CWF, 

MF

10/1 – 12/31 f Non-flowing Open-Cut

63.74 SS-001-024 Stony Run 11 Perennial Minor HQ-CWF, 

MF

10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

64.95 SS-001-025 Unnamed Tributary to 

Lehigh River

9 Perennial Minor EV, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

65.48 SS-001-026 Lehigh River 55 Perennial Intermediate EV, MF/ 

WTS

10/1 – 12/31 f Open Cut

65.90 SS-001-027 Unnamed Tributary to 

Lehigh River

3 Perennial Minor EV, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

66.71 SS-001-028 Unnamed Tributary to 

Kendall Creek

4 Ephemeral Minor EV, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

66.71 SS-001-028A Unnamed Tributary to 

Kendall Creek

3 Perennial Minor EV, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

67.18 SS-001-029

[Crossing 1]

Kendall Creek 5 Intermittent Minor EV, MF/ 

WTS

10/1 – 12/31 f Non-flowing Open-Cut

67.42 SS-001-029

[Crossing 2]

Kendall Creek 5 Intermittent Minor EV, MF/ 

WTS

10/1 – 12/31 f Non-flowing Open-Cut

67.57 SS-001-030

[Crossing 1]

Unnamed Tributary to 

Kendall Creek

6 Perennial Minor EV, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

67.82 SS-001-030

[Crossing 2]

Unnamed Tributary to 

Kendall Creek

6 Perennial Minor EV, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

67.85 SS-001-031 Unnamed Tributary to 

Stony Run

15 Perennial Minor HQ-CWF, 

MF

10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

67.92 SS-001-032 Unnamed Tributary to 

Stony Run

9 Perennial Minor HQ-CWF, 

MF

10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

Access 

Road ARFR-08

SS-006-001 Unnamed Tributary to 

Stony Run

10 Intermittent Minor HQ-CWF, 

MF

10/1 – 12/31 f Non-flowing Open-Cut
G-6

APPENDIX G

Waterbodies Crossed by the Leidy Southeast Expansion Project

State / 

Facility / 

Milepost Feature ID Waterbody Name

Crossing 

Width a

(feet) Flow Type

FERC 

Classification b

Fishery 

Class / 

Sensitivity c

Timing 

Restriction

(avoidance 

period)

Proposed Crossing 

Method

Riparian 

Zone 

Disturbance 

(acres)d

68.15 SS-001-033 Unnamed Tributary to 

Stony Run

9 Perennial Minor HQ-CWF, 

MF

10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

68.85 SS-009-002 Unknown 1 Intermittent Minor HQ-CWF, 

MF

10/1 – 12/31 f Non-flowing Open-Cut

68.95 SS-009-001 Unknown 1 Intermittent Minor HQ-CWF, 

MF

10/1 – 12/31 f Non-flowing Open-Cut

Dorrance Loop

18.44 SS-001-001 Unnamed Tributary to Little 

Wapwallopen Creek

8 Perennial Minor CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f Non-flowing Open-Cut

Not 

Applicable

18.66 SS-001-002 Unnamed Tributary to Little 

Wapwallopen Creek

6 Intermittent Minor CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

18.67 SS-001-003 Unnamed Tributary to Little 

Wapwallopen Creek

3 Perennial Minor CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f Non-flowing Open-Cut

18.83 SS-001-004 Little Wapwallopen Creek 35 Perennial Intermediate CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

18.92 SS-001-005 Unnamed Tributary to Little 

Wapwallopen Creek

10 Perennial Intermediate CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

19.10 SS-001-006 Unnamed Tributary to Little 

Wapwallopen Creek

4 Perennial Minor CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

19.45 SS-001-007 Unnamed Tributary to Little 

Wapwallopen Creek

8 Perennial Minor CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

20.84 SS-001-008 Little Wapwallopen Creek 35 Perennial Intermediate CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed

21.78 SS-001-009 Unnamed Tributary to Little 

Wapwallopen Creek

15 Perennial Intermediate CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f Dam and Pump

22.37 SS-003-002 Unnamed Tributary to Little 

Wapwallopen Creek

20 Perennial Intermediate CWF, MF 10/1 – 12/31 f Dam-and-pump, or dryflumed
G-7

APPENDIX G

Waterbodies Crossed by the Leidy Southeast Expansion Project

State / 

Facility / 

Milepost Feature ID Waterbody Name

Crossing 

Width a

(feet) Flow Type

FERC 

Classification b

Fishery 

Class / 

Sensitivity c

Timing 

Restriction

(avoidance 

period)

Proposed Crossing 

Method

Riparian 

Zone 

Disturbance 

(acres)d

___________________________

a Crossing Width is the distance from top of bank to top of bank. The milepost provided represents the nearest location of the waterbody to the proposed pipeline.

b MI = Minor (<10 feet wide); I = Intermediate (10 - 100 feet wide).

c New Jersey Designation

FW2-NT - Freshwater, Non-trout fishery

Pennsylvania Designation

CWF - Cold water fishery

MF - Migratory fishery

HQ-CWF - High quality, Cold water fishery

WTS - Wild Trout Stream

EV – Exceptional Value

d

In New Jersey, the amount of clearing in the riparian zone adjacent to surface waters is regulated according to the Flood Hazard Area Control Act Rules in NJAC 7:13. The 

width of the riparian zone is determined by the characteristics of that regulated waterbody:

*Category 1 Waters = 300-foot-wide riparian zone

*Trout production waters, trout maintenance waters, waters that contain documented T&E species habitat, waters that flow through an area containing acid producing 

soils = 150-foot-wide riparian zone

*All other regulated waters = 50-foot-wide riparian zone

Riparian areas in Pennsylvania are regulated through implementation of the PADEP NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit Program (Chapter 102 Erosion and Sediment 

Control).

e Timing restriction in accordance with Transco’s Procedures.

f Timing restriction confirmed through consultation with PAFBC.

g Riparian zone encroachment only; no direct stream impact.
APPENDIX H

ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY WORKSPACE LOCATED

IN AND WITHIN 50 FEET OF WATERBODIES
H-1

APPENDIX H

Additional Temporary Workspace Located In and Within 50 Feet of Waterbodies

State/Facility Milepost Justification Waterbody

Distance of 

Temporary 

Workspace to 

Waterbody 

(feet)

New Jersey

Skillman 

Loop

1776.8 Waterbody crossing and sewer 

line crossing

Unnamed tributary to Stony Brook 0

1778.0 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Stony Brook 10

1778.1 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Stony Brook 5

1778.3 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Beden Brook 40

1778.4 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Beden Brook 45

1778.6 Waterbody crossing and 

installation of P.I. (point of 

inflection), HDD stringing

Unnamed tributary to Beden Brook 25

1780.3 Waterbody crossing Unnamed Tributary to Rock Brook 12

1780.3 Waterbody crossing, road bore, 

crossover, and four P.I.s

Unnamed tributary to Beden Brook 25

1781.1 Waterbody crossing Back Brook 14

1782.1 Waterbody crossing and road bore Unnamed tributary to Pike Run 28

1782.8 Road bore Ditch to Pike Run 10

1782.8 Railroad crossing, road bore, truck 

turn around

Ditch to Pike Run 20

Pleasant 

Run Loop

0.4 Waterbody crossing, steep slope Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run a 20

0.4 Waterbody crossing, steep slope Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run a 25

1.0 Waterbody crossing, crossover, 

and two P.I.s

Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 8

1.0 Waterbody crossing, crossover, 

and two P.I.s

Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 25

1.0 Waterbody crossing, crossover, 

and two P.I.s

Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 25

1.2 Waterbody crossing, P.I., side 

slope, and road bore

Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 25

1.4 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 10

1.5 Road crossing, topsoil segregation Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 35

1.9 Road bore, topsoil segregation Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 30

2.0 Topsoil segregation in residential 

area

Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 35

2.1 Topsoil segregation in residential 

area

Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 35

2.3 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 40

2.8 Waterbody crossing Pleasant Run 12

2.8 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 33

3.0 Saturated wetland crossing Pleasant Run 30

3.2 Waterbody crossing, topsoil 

segregation

Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 40

3.2 Road bore, topsoil segregation Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 45

3.2 Waterbody crossing, road bore, 

topsoil segregation

Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 45
H-2

APPENDIX H

Additional Temporary Workspace Located In and Within 50 Feet of Waterbodies

State/Facility Milepost Justification Waterbody

Distance of 

Temporary 

Workspace to 

Waterbody 

(feet)

3.3 Road crossing, P.I. Pleasant Run 43

3.6 Road crossing, P.I. Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 45

3.7 Waterbody and wetland crossing Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 30

4.2 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 47

4.2 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 40

4.4 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 35

4.5 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 38

4.5 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 32

4.5 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 35

4.8 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 47

4.9 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 15

5.0 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 15

5.0 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 44

5.1 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 12

5.1 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 44

5.1 Waterbody crossing, road bore, 

topsoil segregation

Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 22

5.4 Topsoil segregation Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 18

5.4 Saturated wetland crossing Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 0

5.6 Waterbody crossing, crossover, 

two P.I.s, topsoil segregation

Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 40

5.6 Waterbody crossing, crossover, 

two P.I.s, topsoil segregation

Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 37

5.6 Waterbody crossing, crossover, 

two P.I.s, topsoil segregation

Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 40

5.7 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 40

5.8 Waterbody crossing, topsoil 

segregation

Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 30

5.8 Waterbody crossing, topsoil 

segregation

Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 28

6.1 Waterbody crossing, crossover, 

P.I.

Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 46

6.2 Waterbody crossing, topsoil 

segregation

Unnamed tributary to Pleasant Run 30

Pennsylvania

Franklin 

Loop

58.4 Waterbody crossing Tunkhannock Creek 0

58.4 Waterbody crossing Tunkhannock Creek 0

58.5 Waterbody crossing, spoil storage 

associated with five P.I.s

Unnamed tributary to Tunkhannock Creek 0

58.5 Waterbody crossing, spoil storage 

associated with five P.I.s

Unnamed tributary to Tunkhannock Creek 0

58.7 Waterbody crossing, spoil storage 

associated with three P.I.s

Unnamed tributary to Tunkhannock Creek 30

58.7 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Tunkhannock Creek 35
H-3

APPENDIX H

Additional Temporary Workspace Located In and Within 50 Feet of Waterbodies

State/Facility Milepost Justification Waterbody

Distance of 

Temporary 

Workspace to 

Waterbody 

(feet)

58.7 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Tunkhannock Creek 45

59.4 Waterbody and wetland crossing Unnamed tributary to Tunkhannock Creek 20

59.5 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Tunkhannock Creek 40

59.6 Waterbody and wetland crossing Unnamed tributary to Tunkhannock Creek 40

59.6 Road bore Unnamed tributary to Tunkhannock Creek 40

59.7 Waterbody crossing, wetland 

crossing, road bore

Unnamed tributary to Tunkhannock Creek 10

59.8 Saturated wetland crossing Unnamed tributary to Tobyhanna Creek 0

61.0 Waterbody crossing, four P.I.s, 

steep bank

Tobyhanna Creek a 30

61.0 Waterbody crossing, spoil storage 

associated with four P.I.s

Tobyhanna Creek 45

63.0 Waterbody crossing Two Mile Run 40

63.1 Waterbody crossing Two Mile Run 45

63.2 Road crossing Unnamed tributary to Two Mile Run 30

63.7 Waterbody crossing, crossover, 

and two P.I.s

Stony Run 10

63.7 Waterbody crossing, crossover, 

and two P.I.s

Stony Run 10

65.5 Waterbody and wetland crossing, 

hydrostatic test 

withdrawal/discharge location

Lehigh River 20

65.5 Waterbody and wetland crossing Lehigh River 15

65.5 Waterbody and wetland crossing Lehigh River 15

65.5 Saturated wetland crossing Lehigh River 0

65.9 Saturated wetland crossing Unnamed tributary to Lehigh River 0

66.8 Wetland crossing, steep slopes Unnamed tributary to Kendall Creek 0

67.8 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Kendall Creek 35

67.8 Waterbody Crossing Unnamed tributary to Kendall Creek 45

67.8 Waterbody Crossing Unnamed tributary to Kendall Creek 45

67.8 Waterbody Crossing Unnamed tributary to Stony Run 45

67.9 Waterbody Crossing Unnamed tributary to Stony Run 40

67.9 Waterbody Crossing Unnamed tributary to Stony Run 40

67.9 Waterbody Crossing Unnamed tributary to Stony Run 40

68.1 Saturated wetland crossing Unnamed tributary to Stony Run 0

Dorrance 

Loop

18.5 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Little Wapwallopen 

Creek

48

18.7 Waterbody crossing, topsoil 

segregation

Unnamed tributary to Little Wapwallopen 

Creek

40

18.7 Waterbody crossing, topsoil 

segregation

Little Wapwallopen Creek 45

19.0 Waterbody crossing, topsoil 

segregation

Unnamed tributary to Little Wapwallopen 

Creek

47
H-4

APPENDIX H

Additional Temporary Workspace Located In and Within 50 Feet of Waterbodies

State/Facility Milepost Justification Waterbody

Distance of 

Temporary 

Workspace to 

Waterbody 

(feet)

19.1 Wetland crossing associated with 

waterbody, unconsolidated soils, 

steep slopes

Unnamed tributary to Little Wapwallopen 

Creek

40

19.5 Steep slope Unnamed tributary to Little Wapwallopen 

Creek

30

20.8 Waterbody crossing, steep bank Little Wapwallopen Creek a 0

20.8 Waterbody crossing, steep bank Little Wapwallopen Creek a 0

20.9 Saturated wetland crossing Little Wapwallopen Creek 1

22.4 Waterbody crossing Unnamed tributary to Little Wapwallopen 

Creek

0

___________________

a Trench spoil would be placed within these waterbodies due to space constraints at these locations.
APPENDIX I

WETLANDS AFFECTED BY THE

LEIDY SOUTHEAST EXPANSION PROJECT
I-1

APPENDIX I

Wetlands Affected by the Leidy Southeast Expansion Project

State / Facility / 

Milepost Range Wetland ID

Wetland 

Type a

State Wetland 

Classificationb

Crossing 

Length (feet) c

Construction 

Impacts 

(acres) d

Operation 

Impacts 

(acres) e

Proposed 

Crossing 

Method f

New Jersey

Skillman Loop

1776.8 WW-002-001g PEM Ordinary NA NA NA NA

1776.9 WW-002-004 PEM Ordinary 24 <0.1 0.0 Open Cut

1776.9 WW-002-002 PEM/PFO Intermediate 180 0.3 <0.1 Open Cut

1777.0 WW-002-003 PEM Intermediate 353 0.4 0.0 Open Cut

1777.3 WW-002-005 PEM Ordinary 93 0.1 0.0 Open Cut

1777.4 WW-002-006g PEM Ordinary NA NA 0.0 NA

1777.7 WW-002-007 PEM/PFO Intermediate 348 0.5 <0.1 Open Cut

1777.8 WW-012-003 PEM Ordinary 85 <0.1 0.0 Open Cut

1777.8 WW-012-002 PEM Ordinary 60 0.1 0.0 Open Cut

1777.9 WW-016-004 PEM Ordinary 91 0.1 0.0 Open Cut

1778.0 WW-016-002 PEM Ordinary 30 0.1 0.0 Open Cut

1778.1 WW-012-001 PEM Ordinary 38 0.2 0.0 Open Cut

1778.2 WW-002-008 PEM Ordinary 27 0.1 0.0 Open Cut

1778.4 WW-002-009 PEM/PFO Ordinary 71 0.1 <0.1 Open Cut

1779.1 WW-002-010 PSS Intermediate 255 <0.1 0.0 HDD

1779.3 WW-002-012 PEM Intermediate 27 <0.01 0.0 Access Road

1779.4 WW-002-011 PEM Intermediate 90 <0.1 0.0 HDD

1780.2 WW-002-017 PEM Intermediate 28 0.1 0.0 Open Cut

1780.4 WW-002-015 PEM Ordinary 59 <0.1 0.0 Open Cut

1781.1 WW-002-016 PEM Ordinary 74 <0.1 0.0 Open Cut

1782.0 WW-002-020 PEM Intermediate 62 <0.1 0.0 Open Cut

1782.5 WW-002-018 PEM Intermediate 123 0.2 0.0 Open Cut

1782.6 WW-002-019 PEM Ordinary 348 0.9 0.0 Open Cut

Skillman Loop Subtotal 2,466 3.5 0.1

Pleasant Run Loop

0.4 WW-002-021 PEM Ordinary 44 0.1 0.0 Open Cut

0.7 WW-002-022 PEM Intermediate 27 0.1 0.0 Open Cut

0.7 WW-011-001 PEM Ordinary 25 <0.1 0.0 Open Cut

1.0 WW-002-023 PEM Intermediate 197 <0.1 0.0 Open Cut

1.2 WW-011-002 PEM Ordinary 32 <0.1 0.0 Open Cut

1.7 WW-011-003 PEM Ordinary 18 <0.1 0.0 Open Cut

1.8 WW-002-025 PFO/PEM Intermediate 96 0.3 <0.1 Open Cut

1.84 WW-002-024g PFO Ordinary NA NA NA NA

2.07 WW-011-004 PEM Ordinary 29 <0.1 0.0 Open Cut

2.26 WW-002-026 PEM Ordinary 56 0.1 0.0 Open Cut

2.63 WW-002-027 PEM Ordinary 65 0.2 0.0 Open Cut

2.84 WW-011-005 PEM Intermediate 31 <0.1 0.0 Open Cut

2.96 WW-002-028 PEM Intermediate 485 0.8 0.0 Open Cut

3.21 WW-011-006 PEM Ordinary 17 <0.1 0.0 Open Cut

3.63 WW-002-029 PEM Ordinary 14 <0.1 0.0 Open Cut

5.33 WW-002-030 PEM Ordinary 9 0.1 0.0 Open Cut

5.42 WW-002-031 PEM Intermediate 177 0.4 0.0 Open Cut

6.14 WW-002-032 PEM Intermediate NA <0.1 0.0 NA
I-2

APPENDIX I

Wetlands Affected by the Leidy Southeast Expansion Project

State / Facility / 

Milepost Range Wetland ID

Wetland 

Type a

State Wetland 

Classificationb

Crossing 

Length (feet) c

Construction 

Impacts 

(acres) d

Operation 

Impacts 

(acres) e

Proposed 

Crossing 

Method f

Pleasant Run Loop Subtotal 1,322 2.2 <0.1

New Jersey Subtotal 3,788 5.7 0.2

Pennsylvania

Franklin Loop

57.5 h WW-007-007 PEM Other NA <0.1 0.0 Open Cut

58.4 WW-001-012 PEM Other 42 <0.1 0.0 Open Cut

58.5 WW-001-013 PFO Other 63 0.1 <0.1 Open Cut

58.9 WW-001-014 PSS/PFO Exceptional 274 0.8 0.3 Open Cut

59.0 WW-001-016 PEM/PFO Other 98 0.4 0.1 Open Cut

59.2 WW-001-019 PEM Other 9 0.1 0.0 Open Cut

59.3 WW-001-020 PSS/PFO Exceptional 410 1.2 0.4 Open Cut

59.6 WW-001-021 PEM Other 33 0.2 0.0 Open Cut

59.8 WW-001-028 PSS/PFO Exceptional 2031 4.3 1.8 Push/Pull

60.5 WW-001-030 PEM/PFO Other 123 0.2 <0.1 Open Cut

61.1 WW-001-022 PEM Other 222 0.2 0.0 Open Cut

61.3 WW-001-024 PEM Other 105 0.3 0.0 Open Cut

61.6 WW-001-025 PEM Other 243 0.5 0.0 Open Cut

62.1 WW-001-026 PEM Other 226 0.2 0.0 Open Cut

62.3 WW-001-027 PEM/PFO Other 105 0.4 0.0 Open Cut

62.8 WW-001-031 PEM Other 440 1.1 0.0 Open Cut

63.4 WW-001-032 PEM/PFO Other 39 0.2 0.0 Open Cut

63.7 WW-001-035 PEM Other 205 0.1 0.0 Open Cut

64.1 WW-001-036 PSS/PFO Exceptional 1996 3.2 1.1 Push/Pull

64.9 WW-007-002 PEM Other 175 0.2 0.0 Open Cut

65.3 WW-006-003 PEM Other 37 <0.1 0.0 Open Cut

65.4 WW-001-038 PEM Other 64 0.1 0.0 Open Cut

65.5 WW-001-039 PEM Other 174 0.6 0.0 Open Cut

65.9 WW-001-040 PEM/PFO Other 258 0.7 <0.1 Open Cut

66.8 WW-001-041 PEM Other 135 0.4 0.0 Open Cut

67.0 WW-007-009 PEM Other 122 0.1 0.0 Open Cut

67.1 WW-001-043 PEM Other 384 0.3 0.0 Open Cut

67.1 WW-009-002 PFO Other 677 0.6 0.1 Open Cut

67.9 WW-009-001 PEM Exceptional 129 0.2 0.0 Open Cut

68.1 WW-001-047 PEM Other 5 0.2 0.0 Open Cut

68.9 WW-001-050 PEM Other 180 0.3 0.0 Open Cut

68.7 WW-001-046 PFO Other NA <0.1 0.0 Open Cut

68.8 WW-001-045 PEM Other 187 0.2 0.0 Open Cut

68.8 i WW-006-004 PEM Other NA <0.1 0.0 Open Cut

69.0 WW-013-001 PEM/PFO Other NA 0.1 <0.1 Open Cut

54.6 WW-007-006 PEM Other NA 0.1 0.0 Open Cut

Franklin Loop Subtotal 9,191 17.4 4.0

Dorrance Loop

17.7 WW-003-003 PEM/PFO Other 25 <0.1 0.0 Open Cut

18.3 WW-001-001 PFO Other 62 <0.1 0.0 Open Cut

18.4 WW-001-002 PEM Other 178 <0.1 0.0 Open Cut

18.6 WW-001-003 PEM Other 11 0.1 0.0 Open Cut
I-3

APPENDIX I

Wetlands Affected by the Leidy Southeast Expansion Project

State / Facility / 

Milepost Range Wetland ID

Wetland 

Type a

State Wetland 

Classificationb

Crossing 

Length (feet) c

Construction 

Impacts 

(acres) d

Operation 

Impacts 

(acres) e

Proposed 

Crossing 

Method f

18.6 WW-001-004 PEM/PFO Other 123 0.4 0.0 Open Cut

18.8 WW-001-005 PEM/PFO Exceptional 368 0.7 <0.1 Open Cut

19.1 WW-001-006 PEM Other 138 0.2 0.0 Open Cut

19.52 WW-001-008 PEM Other 33 0.1 0.0 Open Cut

20.84 WW-001-009 PEM Exceptional 73 0.2 0.0 Open Cut

21.59 WW-001-011 PEM Other 85 0.3 0.0 Open Cut

22.30 WW-003-004 PEM/PFO Other 209 0.3 <0.1 Open Cut

22.39 WW-003-006 PEM Other 10 <0.1 0.0 Open Cut

22.39 WW-003-005 PEM/PFO Other 158 0.1 0.0 Open Cut

22.46 WW-003-007 PFO/PEM Other 63 0.1 0.0 Open Cut

22.84 WW-003-008 PEM Other 130 0.8 0.0 Open Cut

Dorrance Loop Subtotal 1,666 3.4 <0.1

Pennsylvania Subtotal 10,857 20.8 4.1

Project Total 14,645 26.5 4.3

___________________________

a NWI Classification: PEM = Palustrine Emergent Wetland; PSS Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland; PFO = Palustrine 

Forested Wetland.

b New Jersey – as defined in NJAC 7:7A-2.4.

Pennsylvania – as defined in Pennsylvania Administrative Code 25, Chapter 105.17.

c Crossing Length in feet is based upon distance of wetland crossed by the proposed centerline. This reflects the mileposts 

between which the wetland would be impacted by construction (including ATWS). The wetland may not be continuously 

impacted because the wetland boundary may vary in relation to the workspace limit.

d

Includes all areas affected by construction, including ATWS.

e

Includes forested wetlands within new permanently maintained right-of-way; all other wetland types would be allowed to 

revert to preconstruction conditions.

f HDD = Horizontal Directional Drill

g Transition zone area impact only. 

h Wetland WW-007-007 would also be affected by construction activities at MLV505LD90. 

i Wetland WW-006-004 would also be affected by construction activities at Compressor Station 515/MLV515LD0. 

Note: The totals shown in this table may not equal the sum of addends due to rounding.
APPENDIX J

ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY WORKSPACE LOCATED

IN OR WITHIN 50 FEET OF WETLANDS
J-1

APPENDIX J

Additional Temporary Workspace Located In or Within 50 Feet of Wetlands

State/Facility Wetland ID Milepost Justification a

Additional Temporary 

Workspace Distance 

from Wetland (feet)

New Jersey

Skillman Loop WW-002-004 1776.9 i 0

WW-002-007 1777.6 c 40

WW-012-001 1778.0 a 0

WW-012-001 1778.1 f 0

WW-002-009 1778.4 b 0

WW-002-009 1778.4 a 25

WW-002-011 1779.3 k 25

WW-002-017 1780.2 b 0

WW-002-017 1789.3 a,e 0

WW-002-015 1780.3 a,c,f 0

WW-002-016 1781.1 a 30

WW-002-016 1781.1 a 25

WW-002-020 1782.0 f 0

WW-002-020 1782.0 f 5

WW-002-020 1782.1 a,e 5

WW-002-018 1782.5 b 0

WW-002-019 1782.6 e 25

WW-002-019 1782.6 b 0

WW-002-019 1782.7 c,e,f 0

WW-002-019 1782.7 c,e,f 12

Pleasant Run Loop WW-002-021 0.4 a,h 15

WW-002-021 0.4 a,h 30

WW-002-021 0.4 e 48

WW-002-022 0.6 a 35

WW-002-024 0.7 a 48

WW-002-024 0.7 a 45

WW-002-023 1.0 c 10

WW-002-023 1.0 a,c 10

WW-002-023 1.0 c,e 25

WW-011-002 1.0 c,e 15

WW-011-002 1.2 a,c,f,h 20

WW-011-003 1.6 a,f 48

WW-011-003 1.7 a,f 48

WW-002-025 1.8 f 48

WW-002-024 1.8 e,f 40

WW-002-025 1.8 e,f 10

WW-002-025 1.9 h 20

WW-011-004 2.0 e 30

WW-011-004 2.1 e 23

WW-002-025 2.3 a 35

WW-002-027 2.6 b 0

WW-002-027 2.7 e, f 30

WW-011-005 2.8 a 33

WW-002-028 2.8 a 5

WW-002-028 3.0 b 0

WW-011-006 3.2 a,e 38

WW-011-006 3.2 a,e,f 40

WW-011-006 3.2 e,f 35

WW-002-029 3.6 a 40
J-2

APPENDIX J

Additional Temporary Workspace Located In or Within 50 Feet of Wetlands

State/Facility Wetland ID Milepost Justification a

Additional Temporary 

Workspace Distance 

from Wetland (feet)

WW-002-029 3.7 a 20

WW-002-030 5.3 e 0

WW-002-031 5.3 e 5

WW-002-031 5.4 b 0

WW-002-031 5.5 a,e,h 45

WW-002-031 5.6 a,c,e 45

WW-002-032 6.2 a,e 25

Pennsylvania

Franklin Loop WW-001-012 58.4 a 45

WW-001-012 58.4 a 0

WW-001-013 58.5 a,c 0

WW-001-014 58.9 b 0

WW-001-014 58.9 l 30

WW-001-016 59.0 b 0

WW-001-016 59.1 b 0

WW-001-019 59.2 l 45

WW-001-020 59.2 l 30

WW-001-020 59.3 b 0

WW-001-020 59.4 l 10

WW-001-021 59.4 l 40

WW-001-021 59.6 a,b 30

WW-001-021 59.6 f 30

WW-001-028 59.7 f 10

WW-001-028 59.8 f 0

WW-001-028 59.8 f 5

WW-001-028 59.8 b 0

WW-001-022 61.1 a,c 10

WW-001-022 61.1 b 0

WW-001-022 61.1 a,c 20

WW-001-024 61.3 b 0

WW-001-025 61.6 e 0

WW-001-025 61.7 c,f 0

WW-001-025 61.7 c,f 0

WW-001-027 62.3 b 0

WW-001-027 62.4 l 40

WW-001-031 62.9 b 0

WW-001-031 62.9 b 0

WW-001-031 63.0 a 45

WW-001-031 63.1 a 40

WW-001-031 63.2 b 0

WW-001-031 63.2 f 35

WW-001-034 63.7 l 35

WW-001-034 63.7 c 20

WW-001-035 63.7 c 10

WW-001-036 64.0 b,c 35

WW-001-036 64.2 b 0

WW-001-037 64.9 a 30

WW-001-037 65.0 a 2

WW-001-038 65.5 a,d 20

WW-001-038 65.5 a 0
J-3

APPENDIX J

Additional Temporary Workspace Located In or Within 50 Feet of Wetlands

State/Facility Wetland ID Milepost Justification a

Additional Temporary 

Workspace Distance 

from Wetland (feet)

WW-001-039 65.5 a 0

WW-001-039 65.5 b 0

WW-001-039 65.6 b 0

WW-001-040 65.8 a 10

WW-001-040 65.9 b 0

WW-001-041 66.8 a,h 18

WW-001-041 66.8 b 0

WW-001-041 66.9 l 45

WW-009-001 67.9 a 35

WW-009-001 67.9 a 33

WW-001-044 68.1 a,c 20

WW-001-047 68.1 b 0

WW-001-047 68.2 e 25

WW-001-050 68.4 e 30

WW-001-050 68.5 b 0

Dorrance Loop WW-001-003 18.6 f 48

WW-001-003 18.6 f 0

WW-001-003 18.6 f 40

WW-001-004 18.6 f 30

WW-001-005 18.8 b 0

WW-001-006 19.0 a,e 40

WW-001-006 19.1 a 25

WW-001-009 20.8 a 0

WW-001-009 20.8 a 0

WW-001-009 20.9 b 0

WW-001-011 21.6 b 0

WW-003-004 22.3 f 40

WW-003-004 22.3 f 30

WW-003-004 22.3 b 0

WW-003-004 22.4 a 20

WW-003-005 22.4 a 10

WW-003-006 22.4 a, e, f, g 15

WW-003-005 22.4 f, h 45

WW-003-007 22.4 f, h 40

WW-003-008 22.8 b 0

WW-003-008 22.9 f 20

_________________

a a=waterbody crossing 

b=spoil storage in wetland to avoid unnecessary trips through wetland with heavy equipment

c=installation of P.I.s (points of inflection) or crossover

d=access to water source for hydrostatic testing

e=topsoil segregation

f=road/railroad crossing

g=contractor staging area at access road

h=steep slope construction

i=utility crossing

k=HDD entry

l=extra spoil area needed due to multiple wetland/stream crossings adjacent to ATWS
APPENDIX K

STRUCTURES WITHIN 50 FEET

OF CONSTRUCTION WORK AREAS
K-1

APPENDIX K

Structures within 50 Feet of Construction Work Areas

Loop/

Count

Approximate 

Milepost Type Of Structure

Direction from 

Proposed 

Pipeline

Distance From 

Proposed 

Pipeline (feet)

Distance from Structure 

to Edge of Construction 

Workspace (feet) Proposed Mitigation a Proposed Structure Mitigation Measure

Skillman Loop

1 1776.8 House South N/A 50 N/A

2 1776.8 Barn South N/A 16 N/A

3 1776.8 Shed South N/A 50 N/A

4 1776.9 In-ground Pool East 60 25 N, R ,W

5 1776.9 House East 48 16 N, R ,W

6 1777.0 In-ground Pool East 53 18 N, R ,W

7 1777.2 House East 48 13 N, R ,W

8 1777.3 House East 40 5 N, R ,W

9 1777.3 Water Well East 42 7 N, R ,W

10 1777.3 Water Well East 65 30 N, R ,W

11 1777.4 In-ground Pool East 45 10 N, R ,W

12 1777.5 Shed East 74 39 N, R ,W

13 1777.5 Shed East 60 28 N, R ,W

14 1777.5 Shed East 48 13 N, R ,W

15 1778.0 House East 24 9 N, R ,W

16 1780.3 Water Well West 126 2 N/A

17 1781.0 House West 91 42 N, R, W

18 1781.0 House East 68 19 D, N, R, W

19 1781.0 Garage West 12 5 D, N, R, W

20 1781.0 Leaching Field East 50 8 D, N, R, W

21 1781.0 French Drain East 45 Within Workspace D, N, R, W To be matted and protected prior to and 

during construction.

22 1781.5 House West 22 92 N, R

23 1781.5 House East 49 39 N, R, W

24 1781.5 Leaching Field East 48 17 N, R, W

25 1781.6 House East 125 25 N/A

26 1781.6 Leaching Field West 75 40 N, R, W

27 1781.7 Aboveground 

Pool

East 18 Within Workspace N, R, W Remove and Relocate

28 1781.7 Play Set West 20 Within Workspace N, R, W Remove and Relocate

29 1781.7 In-ground Pool East 44 29 N, R
K-2

APPENDIX K

Structures within 50 Feet of Construction Work Areas

Loop/

Count

Approximate 

Milepost Type Of Structure

Direction from 

Proposed 

Pipeline

Distance From 

Proposed 

Pipeline (feet)

Distance from Structure 

to Edge of Construction 

Workspace (feet) Proposed Mitigation a Proposed Structure Mitigation Measure

30 1781.8 Play Set East 0 Within Workspace N, R Remove and Relocate

31 1781.9 Leaching Field West 80 45 N, W

32 1782.2 House East 53 8 N, R

33 1782.2 Leaching Field East 19 Within Workspace N, R To be matted and protected prior to and 

during construction.

34 1782.2 House East 61 6 N, R

35 1782.2 Leaching Field East 70 25 N, R

36 1782.2 Shed East 25 Within Workspace N, R Remove and Relocate

37 1782.2 Leaching Field West 88 28 C, N, R

38 1782.2 House West 75 40 C, N, R

39 1782.2 In-ground Pool West 76 41 C, N, R

40 1782.5 In-ground Pool West 78 43 C, N, R

Pleasant Run Loop

1 0.1 Shed North 48 1 W

2 1.2 Shed North 85 30 W

3 0.2 Shed North 83 18 W

4 0.2 Shed North 29 4 W

5 0.5 Shed South 75 35 N/A

6 0.5 Shed South 75 35 N/A

7 0.6 Shed South 84 44 N/A

8 1.3 Tower South 39 Within Workspace N/A To Be Protected

9 1.3 Shed North 60 Within Workspace N/A Remove and Relocate

10 1.4 House North 93 28 C

11 1.4 Shed South 94 39 N/A

12 1.4 Garage North 99 24 C

13 1.5 Shed South 81 6 N/A

14 1.5 Water Well South 78 2 N/A

15 1.6 Shed South 58 Within Workspace N/A To Be Protected

16 1.6 House South 77 22 N/A

17 1.6 Water Well South 78 20 N/A

18 2.3 Shed South 72 7 N/A

19 2.7 Barn North 71 31 C
K-3

APPENDIX K

Structures within 50 Feet of Construction Work Areas

Loop/

Count

Approximate 

Milepost Type Of Structure

Direction from 

Proposed 

Pipeline

Distance From 

Proposed 

Pipeline (feet)

Distance from Structure 

to Edge of Construction 

Workspace (feet) Proposed Mitigation a Proposed Structure Mitigation Measure

20 2.9 Shed North 67 27 C

21 2.9 Leaching Field North 71 Within Workspace C To be matted and protected prior to and 

during construction.

22 2.9 Deck North 116 31 C

23 2.9 Shed North 55 4 C

24 3.2 Shed North 50 Within Workspace N/A Remove and Relocate

25 3.2 Shed North 154 44 N/A

26 3.4 House South 109 44 N/A

27 3.5 Water Well North 48 16 R

28 3.5 House North 71 39 R

29 3.7 Shed NA 0 Within Workspace N/A Remove and Relocate

30 3.8 Shed South 62 22 N/A

31 3.8 Barn North 79 14 N/A

32 3.8 Barn North 115 50 N/A

33 3.8 Foundation North 60 Within Workspace N/A To Be Protected

34 3.9 Septic Tank North 104 39 N/A

35 3.9 House North 86 21 N/A

36 5.1 Garage South 100 50 N/A

37 5.2 Leaching Field North 22 6 R, W

38 5.2 Septic Tank North 27 11 R, W

39 5.2 House North 43 18 R, W

40 5.8 Leaching Field North 26 Within Workspace N, R, W To be matted and protected prior to and 

during construction.

41 5.9 In-ground Pool North 36 10 N, R, W

42 5.9 Garage North 30 5 N, R, W

43 6.0 Shed North 81 5 N/A

44 6.0 House North 113 48 N/A

45 6.6 Leaching Field North 46 Within Workspace R, W To Be Protected

46 6.7 Shed North 29 4 R, W

47 6.7 House North 80 25 N/A

48 6.7 Leaching Field North 0 Within Workspace N/A Relocate Prior to Construction

49 6.7 Septic Tank North 67 7 N/A
K-4

APPENDIX K

Structures within 50 Feet of Construction Work Areas

Loop/

Count

Approximate 

Milepost Type Of Structure

Direction from 

Proposed 

Pipeline

Distance From 

Proposed 

Pipeline (feet)

Distance from Structure 

to Edge of Construction 

Workspace (feet) Proposed Mitigation a Proposed Structure Mitigation Measure

50 6.7 In-ground Pool South 96 46 N/A

51 6.8 Garage South 102 17 N/A

52 6.8 Shed South 106 21 N/A

53 6.8 Shed North 81 26 N/A

54 6.8 Portable Shelter N/A 0 Within Workspace R, W Remove and Relocate

55 6.8 Garage South 23 3 R, W

56 6.8 House North 55 30 R, W

57 6.9 House North 134 48 N/A

58 6.9 Septic Tank North 81 13 N/A

59 6.9 Septic Tank North 81 17 N/A

60 6.9 Leaching Field North 73 8 N/A

Franklin Loop

1 58.0 Shed East 30 Within Workspace R, W Remove and Relocate

2 58.0 Shed East 0 Within Workspace R, W Remove and Relocate

3 58.0 In-ground Pool East 13 Within Workspace R, W Remove and Relocate

4 58.0 House East 39 8 R, W

5 58.0 House East 6 Within Workspace R, W To Be Protected

6 58.0 Water Well East 44 37 R, W

7 58.0 Shed East 80 50 R, W

8 59.6 Shed West N/A 36 N/A

9 61.5 Shed East 66 31 C, W

10 61.5 House East 85 50 C, W

11 61.5 Water Well East 84 49 C, W

12 61.5 House West 105 35 C, W

13 61.6 Leaching Field East 45 10 C, W

14 61.6 House East 83 48 C, W

15 61.6 House West 120 50 C, W

16 61.6 Post West 88 18 C, W

17 61.7 Shed East 74 10 C, R, W

18 61.7 Station Piping West 57 7 W

19 61.7 Station Building West 60 10 W
K-5

APPENDIX K

Structures within 50 Feet of Construction Work Areas

Loop/

Count

Approximate 

Milepost Type Of Structure

Direction from 

Proposed 

Pipeline

Distance From 

Proposed 

Pipeline (feet)

Distance from Structure 

to Edge of Construction 

Workspace (feet) Proposed Mitigation a Proposed Structure Mitigation Measure

20 61.7 Station Building West 31 Within Workspace W To Be Protected

21 61.7 Station Building West 64 14 W

22 62.0 House West 103 38 C, W

23 62.0 Shed West 100 35 C, W

24 62.1 Shed West 87 22 C, W

25 62.1 Shed West 114 49 C, W

26 62.2 Water Well West 60 Within Workspace C, W To Be Protected

27 62.2 Shed West 70 5 C, W

28 62.3 Garage East 75 35 C, W

29 62.3 Shed East 42 2 C, W

30 62.3 Water Well West 105 40

31 62.3 Shed West 82 17 C, W

32 62.5 House East 89 49 C, W

33 62.5 Water Well East 81 41 C, W

34 62.5 Water Well East 51 11 C, W

35 62.5 Shed East 53 13 C, W

36 62.5 House East 54 14 C, W

37 62.5 Garage East 74 34 C, W

38 62.5 Shed West 105 50 C, W

39 62.5 Shed West 59 Within Workspace C, W Remove and Relocate

40 62.6 Shed West 103 38 C, W

41 62.6 Water Well West 85 20 C, W

42 62.6 Water Well East 32 Within Workspace C, W To Be Protected

43 63.3 Barn East 43 5 R

44 63.7 Water Well East 61 26 N/A

45 65.3 House West 69 34 W

46 65.3 Shed West 67 12 W

47 65.8 House West N/A 44 N/A

48 67.8 Shed West N/A 17 N/A

49 68.4 Water Well East 79 39 W
K-6

APPENDIX K

Structures within 50 Feet of Construction Work Areas

Loop/

Count

Approximate 

Milepost Type Of Structure

Direction from 

Proposed 

Pipeline

Distance From 

Proposed 

Pipeline (feet)

Distance from Structure 

to Edge of Construction 

Workspace (feet) Proposed Mitigation a Proposed Structure Mitigation Measure

Dorrance Loop

1 18.1 Shed North 35 10 W

2 19.3 Shed North 92 34 N/A

3 19.3 Shed South 104 44 N/A

4 19.4 Water Well North 95 36

5 19.4 House North 80 16 N/A

6 19.8 House South NA 40 N/A

7 22.0 Shed South 91 41 N/A

8 22.1 Shed South 79 29 N/A

9 22.2 Shed South 69 19 N/A

10 22.2 Shed South 78 28 N/A

11 22.2 Shed South 83 33 N/A

12 22.2 Shed South 91 41 N/A

13 22.2 Shed South 91 41 N/A

14 22.2 Shed South 83 33 N/A

15 22.2 Shed South 85 35 N/A

16 22.6 Shed South 65 25 N/A

17 22.6 Shed South 65 25 N/A

18 22.6 Shed South 99 49 N/A

19 22.8 Abandoned 

Mobile Home

NA 0 Within Workspace N/A To Be Removed Prior To Construction

_________________________

a C = Pipeline Crossovers; D = Drag Section; N = Reduced Pipeline Separation; R = Reduced Construction Right-of-Way; W = Working Over Existing Pipeline