ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

On January 7, 2013, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company (Transco) filed an application with 

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) in Docket Number CP13-36-000 for 

the proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project (Rockaway Project) under Section 7(c) of the Natural 

Gas Act (NGA), as amended, and Parts 157 and 284 of the Commission’s regulations. The application 

was noticed in the Federal Register on January 29, 2013. Transco is seeking a Certificate of Public 

Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) from the Commission for the Rockaway Project to construct and 

operate a new natural gas transmission pipeline and associated facilities in Queens and Kings Counties, 

New York.

On April 9, 2013, Transco filed an application with the FERC in Docket Number CP13-132-000 

for the proposed Northeast Connector Project under Section 7(c) of the NGA, as amended, and the abovereferenced regulations. This application was noticed in the Federal Register on April 24, 2013. Transco 

is seeking a Certificate from the Commission for the Northeast Connector Project to modify existing 

compressor station facilities along its existing pipeline system in York County, Pennsylvania and Mercer 

and Middlesex Counties, New Jersey. The Northeast Connector Project would not be necessary and 

would not be implemented if not for the Rockaway Project; therefore, environmental review of the two 

projects is being considered jointly in a single document.

We 1 prepared this final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to assess the environmental 

impacts associated with construction and operation of the Rockaway and Northeast Connector Projects 

(Projects) as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. The 

FERC is the lead agency for the preparation of the final EIS. The U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service (NPS); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE), New York District; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries); and City of New York are participating in the NEPA review 

as cooperating agencies. 2 The purpose of this final EIS is to inform the public and permitting agencies 

about the proposed facilities and the potential adverse and beneficial environmental impacts of the 

Projects and their alternatives, and recommend mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce adverse 

impacts. 

PROPOSED ACTION

The Rockaway Project would consist of two components: a 26-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline 

(the Rockaway Delivery Lateral) and associated facilities, and a metering and regulating (M&R) facility

with associated piping and equipment. The new pipeline would extend approximately 3.2 miles from an 

offshore interconnect with Transco’s existing 26-inch-diameter Lower New York Bay Lateral (LNYBL) 

in the Atlantic Ocean, to an onshore delivery point at an interconnection with National Grid’s pipeline 

system on the Rockaway Peninsula in Queens County, New York.

3

 The new pipeline would connect to 

the LNYBL via a subsea hot-tap and manifold. A portion of the new pipeline would be constructed on 

 

1

“We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Office of Energy 

Projects.

2 A cooperating agency is an agency that has jurisdiction over all or part of a project area and must make a decision on a 

project, and/or an agency that provides special expertise with regard to environmental or other resources.

3 The Rockaway Project would provide an additional delivery point to National Grid’s local distribution companies, Brooklyn 

Union Gas Company (doing business as National Grid NY) and KeySpan Gas East Corporation, collectively referred to as 

National Grid.
ES-2

federal land (both onshore and offshore) within the Gateway National Recreation Area (GNRA), which is

managed by the NPS. The remainder would be built on submerged lands owned by New York State and 

on land owned by the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority.

The M&R facility would include meters and regulators, heating units, inlet and outlet piping, and 

aboveground launcher and receiver units for inserting and removing internal inspection tools. The facility 

would be built within a historic airplane hangar complex on federal land within the GNRA in Kings 

County, New York. 

For the Northeast Connector Project, Transco proposes to add incremental compression at its 

existing Compressor Station 195 in York County, Pennsylvania; Compressor Station 205 in Mercer 

County, New Jersey; and Compressor Station 207 in Middlesex County, New Jersey. Transco would 

replace three existing natural gas-fired reciprocating engines with two new electric motor drives at 

Compressor Station 195, and uprate existing electric-driven motors at Compressor Stations 205 and 207. 

These modifications would occur on lands owned by Transco within the existing compressor station sites. 

The modifications to the compressor stations would result in the net addition of 16,940 horsepower of 

compression on Transco’s existing system. 

Transco’s objectives for the Projects are to enhance the reliability and flexibility of National 

Grid’s distribution system in New York City and to provide a new incremental (i.e., additional) supply of 

natural gas. Dependent upon Commission and other approvals, Transco would begin construction of the 

Projects during the spring of 2014. 

AGENCY AND PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT OPPORTUNITIES

On March 13, 2009, Transco filed a request with the FERC to implement the Commission’s prefiling process for the Rockaway Project. On March 26, 2009, we granted Transco’s request and 

established a pre-filing Docket Number (PF09-8-000) in which to place information filed by Transco,

comments provided by stakeholders, and documents issued by the FERC and other agencies into the 

public record.

On May 25, 2012, we issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Planned Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and

Notice of Public Scoping Meetings (NOI), which was mailed to stakeholders. The NOI described our

environmental review process; provided a preliminary list of environmental issues for review in the draft 

EIS; requested written comments from the public on the scope of the draft EIS; announced the time and 

location of public scoping meetings; and invited other agencies to participate as cooperating agencies in 

the preparation of the EIS. We received verbal comments from 11 individuals at the scoping meetings 

and 120 comment letters from stakeholders to the Rockaway Project.

On April 26, 2013, we issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Proposed Northeast Connector Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, 

which was mailed to stakeholders. The NOI described the relationship between the Projects; described 

the FERC’s environmental review process; provided a preliminary list of issues for review in the draft 

EIS; requested written comments from the public on the scope of the draft EIS; and invited other agencies 

to participate as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS. We received four written comment 

letters in response to the NOI for the Northeast Connector Project. 
ES-3

On October 4, 2013, we issued a Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral and Northeast Connector Projects and Notice of 

Comment Meetings. The notice, which was published in the Federal Register, listed the dates and 

locations of public comment meetings and invited comments on the draft EIS. Copies of the draft EIS 

were mailed to over 800 stakeholders. In total, we received verbal comments from 46 individuals at the 

public meetings and 307 written comment letters from stakeholders on the draft EIS.

All substantive and relevant comments submitted to the FERC via scoping and comment 

meetings, interagency coordination meetings, and letters, are addressed in this final EIS. In addition, 

cooperating agencies (NPS, EPA, USA

CE, NOAA Fisheries, and City of New York) provided us with comments, which have been 

incorporated into this document. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

We evaluated the impacts of the Projects on geology, soils, groundwater, surface waters,

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

resources, socioeconomics (including transportation and traffic), cultural resources, air quality and noise,

and reliability and safety. We also considered the cumulative impacts of the Projects with past, current, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the project areas. 

Significant issues identified as a result of our analyses include the following: impacts on marine 

wildlife and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) due to pile driving and other effects associated with offshore 

construction; impacts on special status species, including marine mammals; impacts on cultural resource 

sites, particularly the historic airplane hangar complex that would house the M&R facility; air quality and 

noise impacts; and cumulative impacts. Where necessary, we are recommending additional mitigation 

measures to minimize or avoid these and other impacts. Section 5.0 of the EIS contains our conclusions 

and a compilation of our recommended mitigation measures. 

Noise Impacts on Marine Wildlife

Impacts on marine wildlife could result from construction noise due to the installation of offshore 

piles which would be used to stabilize construction vessels and the pipeline for a horizontal directional 

drill (HDD) crossing of the shoreline. Based on data provided by Transco, noise due to pile driving

would exceed the injury threshold for fish in areas immediately adjacent to piles. Similarly, noise due to 

pile driving would exceed behavioral disturbance thresholds for sea turtles and fish in areas immediately 

adjacent to piles. Noise from pile driving would exceed the behavioral disturbance threshold for marine 

mammals in the area extending up to 2.86 miles from the piles, but Transco would monitor the area for 

impacts on marine mammals. Additionally, we are recommending that Transco file a noise monitoring 

and mitigation plan to ensure that actual noise due to pile driving is consistent with predicted levels 

and/or to reduce noise impacts to acceptable levels. 

The noise from pile driving would be short term and intermittent, and impacts on species would 

be avoided or mitigated by the use of soft-start procedures (i.e., by gradually increasing power to the pile 

driver), which would allow species to move away from the area before noise levels exceed the injury or 

behavioral disturbance thresholds. 
ES-4

Impacts on Fisheries, Essential Fish Habitat, and Benthic Species

The offshore segment of Transco’s proposed pipeline is located in a marine area that supports 

EFH for 21 species and both diadramous and marine fisheries. In addition to noise impacts on fish as 

discussed above, offshore excavations would create turbidity plumes in the water column that could clog 

fish gills, obscure visual stimuli, and reduce food intake for benthic filter feeders. Some demersal fish 

that are adapted to higher turbidity environments could be drawn to the excavation activities, but most 

juvenile and adult pelagic fish would likely swim away. Approximately 29.0 acres of seabed would be 

affected by offshore excavations and another 45.2 acres of seabed could be affected by the deposition of 

up to 1.2 inches of sediments, which could have an impact on bivalves and other benthic organisms. 

Benthic species are expected to recover within 2 years. 

Transco has identified a number of mitigation measures that would avoid or minimize impacts on 

EFH and fisheries resources during construction. Transco would use the HDD method to install the 

pipeline across the shoreline, which would avoid direct impacts on the seafloor within 0.7 mile of the 

shore. Additionally, Transco would use mid-line buoys to minimize cable sweep impacts on the seafloor 

associated with anchoring of construction vessels. Transco would also minimize impacts on fish species 

and EFH through implementation of its mitigation plans, including a Horizontal Directional Drill 

Monitoring and Contingency Plan; Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan; and 

Construction Spill Plans for Oil and Hazardous Materials. In addition to these plans, we are 

recommending that Transco file a post-construction monitoring and sampling plan to ensure that benthic 

communities recover as expected.

Transco initially proposed to allow offshore excavation areas to infill by natural sedimentation 

processes. In response to comments from cooperating and other agencies regarding safety and impacts on 

marine species due to an open trench, Transco modified the proposed action to active backfill. Transco 

would configure the jet sled used to excavate the offshore pipe trench to discharge sediment back into the 

trench as the pipeline is lowered beneath the seafloor. Additional backfill would be provided by 

sloughing of the trench sidewalls and by natural infill as sediments migrate across and settle into the 

trench. Following installation of the pipeline, Transco would conduct a hydrographic survey to document 

seafloor elevations along the pipe trench as well as other offshore excavation areas. Based on the results 

of the survey, Transco would backfill the seabed to restore pre-existing contours and to ensure that there 

is 4 feet of cover over the pipeline facilities using native sediments withdrawn from the seabed. Transco 

would also add a top layer of native sediments over drilling fluid and cuttings that collect within an

offshore HDD exit pit. In addition to these activities, we are recommending that Transco file a postconstruction monitoring plan to ensure that the seabed is restored to pre-construction elevations. 

Impacts on Sensitive Species and Marine Mammals

To comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), we consulted with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NOAA Fisheries regarding the presence of federally listed species in the 

areas that would be affected by the Projects. Based on these consultations and our own analyses, we 

determined that construction and operation of the Rockaway Project would have no effect on fin whale

and humpback whale; may affect, but would not likely adversely affect, shortnose sturgeon, leatherback 

sea turtle, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, green sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, roseate tern, piping plover, and 

Seabeach amaranth; and may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, right whale and Atlantic sturgeon. 

Transco maintains agreements with the FWS that exempt modifications of existing Transco facilities, 

such as compressor stations, from further review for impacts on federally listed species. Based on these 

agreements and additional correspondence with the FWS, we determined that the Northeast Connector 

Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Indiana bat and would have no effect on bog turtle

and swamp pink. 
ES-5

We previously requested that the FWS and NOAA Fisheries consider the draft EIS as the official 

Biological Assessment for the Rockaway Project. Each agency has initiated its review of our 

determinations of effect for federally listed species, but consultation with each agency is ongoing. 

Consequently, we are recommending that Transco not begin construction activities within the Rockaway 

Project area until we complete our consultations with the FWS and NOAA Fisheries. No further 

consultations with the FWS are required for the Northeast Connector Project.

Transco submitted an application to NOAA Fisheries for an Incidental Harassment Authorization 

for Level B harassment of seven marine mammal species 4that could be present in the offshore workspace 

at the time of construction. As part of its application, Transco proposed several mitigation/monitoring

procedures to minimize impacts on marine mammals resulting from operation of a vibratory hammer for 

pile driving and/or from vessel collisions. We have reviewed Transco’s proposed mitigation measures, 

but we have not completed our consultations with NOAA Fisheries regarding impacts on marine mammal 

species. Therefore, we are recommending that Transco not begin offshore construction activities until the 

FERC staff receives written comments from NOAA Fisheries and an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization is issued to Transco.

Impacts on Cultural Resource Sites

The proposed M&R facility would be constructed within a hangar complex on Floyd Bennett 

Field, which is listed as a district on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Transco prepared a 

Historic Structures Report for the hangars to serve as a planning tool for the proposed rehabilitation and 

conducted a study to assess the effects of vibration on the hangars. Transco prepared initial schematic 

drawings for the rehabilitation, which have been reviewed by the NPS and New York State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO). Transco filed a Schematic Design Submittal and comments from the New 

York SHPO on the Submittal in July 2013. Based on this submittal, the SHPO commented that the 

proposed rehabilitation of the hangars appears to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 68). Transco subsequently filed 

a set of construction drawings and plans for the proposed rehabilitation of the hangar complex in October 

2013. 

The NPS completed its review of the effects of the Rockaway Project on the hangars at Floyd 

Bennett Field in February 2014. The NPS determined that adaptive reuse of the hangars for the 

Rockaway Project would have no adverse effect on the Floyd Bennett Field Historic District, subject to 

completion of minor design details prior to construction.

Transco expects to submit final design and construction documents for the M&R facility to the 

FERC, NPS, and New York SHPO in 2014. We will make a Determination of Effect on the M&R 

facility after all necessary reports and studies have been filed with the Commission and consultation is 

complete, or we will negotiate a Programmatic Agreement with the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation regarding impacts on the site. 

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

(NHPA) and its implementing regulations are met, we are recommending that Transco not begin 

construction until all outstanding survey and evaluation reports, design and construction drawings for 

Hangars 1 and 2, and any necessary treatment plans have been reviewed by the appropriate parties; the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is provided an opportunity to comment if historic properties 

would be adversely affected or a Programmatic Agreement has been executed; and we provide written 

notification to proceed.

 

4 Marine mammals are protected species under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
ES-6

Air Quality and Noise Impacts

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

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

temporary and localized and would not cause or contribute to a violation of applicable air quality 

standards. The majority of new emissions associated with the Projects would occur during operation and 

would result from the operation of four natural gas-fired heating units and an emergency generator at the 

M&R facility. While no new compressor facilities would be required, modifications/upgrades are 

proposed at Compressor Stations 195, 205, and 207. At Compressor Station 195, Transco proposes to 

replace three existing gas-fired reciprocating engines with two new electric motor drives, which would 

result in a decrease in operating emissions at this site. The modifications at Compressor Stations 205 and 

207 would not result in an increase in operating emissions at these sites.

Operation of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral is not expected to generate significant noise levels.

Noise attributable to operation of the M&R facility is estimated to be lower than 55 decibels on the Aweighted scale at nearby noise sensitive areas and the change in ambient noise conditions would likely be 

undetectable to the human ear. The proposed modifications at Compressor Station 195 are expected to 

result in a slight decrease in ambient noise in the vicinity of this site, whereas the modifications at 

Compressor Stations 205 and 207 would result in slight increases in noise levels. To ensure that noise 

due to operations of the compressor stations is consistent with existing ambient conditions and/or does not 

exceed our requirements, we are recommending that Transco provide noise surveys for each site to 

document noise levels at full load conditions. If the noise levels at the stations exceed our standards, 

Transco would be required to identify and implement additional mitigation measures. 

Cumulative Impacts

In conjunction with the Rockaway Project, National Grid is constructing a new interconnecting 

pipeline and associated facilities, referred to as the Brooklyn-Queens Interconnect Project, between the 

proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral and M&R facility. This project is not subject to the jurisdiction of 

the Commission, but is considered in our assessment of cumulative environmental impacts. Additionally, 

a number of other planned projects are proposed in the same regions and could potentially be constructed 

within the same general timeframe as the Projects. As a result, there is a potential for the Projects to 

contribute to cumulative impacts. 

Detailed descriptions of environmental impacts, including a description of cumulative impacts, 

Transco’s proposed mitigation measures, and our recommendations to further minimize and mitigate 

impacts, are provided in Sections 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 of the final EIS.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

We evaluated the No Action Alternative, energy alternatives, system alternatives, route 

alternatives for the proposed pipeline, site alternatives for the M&R facility, and alternatives to the 

Northeast Connector Project. 

Both the No Action Alternative and energy alternatives would eliminate or delay the short- and 

long-term environmental impacts identified in this EIS, but the objectives of the proposed Projects would 

not be met. Our analysis of system alternatives included an evaluation of existing and proposed natural 

gas pipelines or that currently or eventually would serve the markets targeted by the Projects. None of the 

existing or proposed systems provides a new connection with National Grid’s system on the Rockaway

Peninsula. New pipeline construction, ranging from 10 to 40 miles in length, would be required for these 
ES-7

systems to service the Rockaway Peninsula, which would result in greater environmental impacts than the 

Projects. 

We evaluated four route alternatives to Transco’s proposed route for the Rockaway Delivery 

Lateral, five alternative sites for the M&R facility, alternatives to the Northeast Connector Project, and 

alternative construction methods. Because none of these alternatives would offer significant 

environmental advantages over the proposed facilities, we eliminated them from further consideration. 

For all these reasons, we have determined that the Projects, as modified by our recommended 

mitigation measures, are preferable to any of the alternatives evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

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

environmental impacts that would mostly occur during construction. This determination is based on a 

review of the information provided by Transco and further developed from data requests; field 

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

local agencies, Native American tribes, and individual members of the public. We conclude that approval 

of the Projects would have some adverse environmental impacts, but these impacts would be reduced to 

less-than-significant levels. Although many factors were considered in this determination, the principal 

reasons are:

 Transco would obtain all required federal authorizations prior to beginning construction;

 Transco would implement its Project-Specific Erosion Control, Revegetation, and 

Maintenance Plan for the Rockaway Project, the FERC’s Upland Erosion Control, 

Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan for the Northeast Connector Project, and other 

project-specific construction, restoration, and mitigation plans that would avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate impacts on natural and cultural resources;

 Transco would utilize the HDD construction method to avoid direct impacts on sensitive 

habitats at the shoreline;

 Transco would reuse and rehabilitate the historic airplane hangar complex at Floyd 

Bennett Field for the M&R facility in accordance with a design to be approved by the 

FERC, NPS, and New York SHPO;

 the FERC would complete the process of complying with Section 7 of the ESA prior to 

construction;

 the FERC would complete the process of complying with Section 106 of the NHPA prior 

to construction; and

 an environmental inspection program would be implemented to ensure compliance with 

the mitigation measures that become conditions of the FERC Certificate.

In addition, we developed 16 mitigation measures that Transco should implement to further 

reduce the environmental impacts that would otherwise result from construction and operation of the 

Projects. We are recommending that these mitigation measures be attached as conditions to any 

authorization issued by the Commission. These recommended mitigation measures are presented in 

Section 5.2 of the final EIS.