Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013

Penalty for Private UseOfficial BusinessWashington, DC 20426Routing Code: PJ-11.3FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project

Northeast Connector Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

FERC/EIS-0246D

Docket Nos. 

CP13-36-000

CP13-132-000 

PF09-8-000

October

2013

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS In Reply Refer To:

OEP/DG2E/Gas Branch 3

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 

Company, LLC 

Docket Nos. CP13-36-000 and 

 CP13-132-000

FERC/EIS-0246D

TO THE PARTY ADDRESSED:

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

has prepared this draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Rockaway Delivery 

Lateral Project and Northeast Connector Project (collectively referred to as the Projects) 

as proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company (Transco) in the abovereferenced dockets. For the Rockaway Project, Transco requests authorization to expand 

its natural gas pipeline system in New York to provide firm delivery lateral service of 

647 thousand dekatherms per day (Mdth/d) of natural gas to National Grid’s distribution 

system in New York City. For the Northeast Connector Project, Transco proposes to 

modify existing compressor station facilities along its existing pipeline system in 

Pennsylvania and New Jersey to provide 100 Mdth/d of new incremental natural gas 

supply to National Grid, as part of the 647 Mdth/d to be provided by the Rockaway 

Project. The Northeast Connector Project would be operationally dependent on the 

Rockaway Project with similar construction and in-service schedules. 

The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of construction and 

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

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of 

the Projects would have some adverse environmental impacts, but these impacts would 

be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of Transco’s proposed 

mitigation and the additional measures recommended in the draft EIS. 

The National Park Service; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, New York District; National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service; and City of New York participated as 

cooperating agencies in the preparation of the draft EIS. Cooperating agencies have 

jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by a 

proposal and participate in NEPA analysis. While the conclusions and recommendations 

presented in the draft EIS were developed with input from the cooperating agencies, the 

federal cooperating agencies will present their own conclusions and recommendations in 

their respective Records of Decision for the Projects.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Docket Nos. CP13-36-000 and

CP13-132-000

- 2 -

The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of construction and 

operation of the facilities proposed by Transco for the Projects. For the Rockaway 

Project, these facilities include:

 approximately 3.2 miles of new 26-inch-diameter pipeline to deliver natural 

gas from Transco’s existing Lower New York Bay Lateral (LNYBL) in the 

Atlantic Ocean to an onshore tie-in with the National Grid system on the 

Rockaway Peninsula in the Borough of Queens, Queens County, New 

York; and

 an onshore meter and regulating (M&R) facility to be built in the Borough 

of Brooklyn, Kings County, New York.

Approximately 2.6 miles of the proposed pipeline would be constructed offshore 

on submerged lands owned by New York State. About 0.6 mile of the pipeline would be

built on federal lands, both onshore and offshore, within the Gateway National 

Recreation Area, which is administered by the National Park Service. Less than 0.1 mile 

of the pipeline would be built on land owned by the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel 

Authority. 

The M&R facility would be constructed within a historic airplane hangar complex 

on Floyd Bennett Field, which is part of the Gateway National Recreation Area. Floyd 

Bennett Field is listed in the National Register of Historic Places as a historic district, and 

the hangar complex is considered a contributing element to the significance of the site. 

Transco is proposing to adaptively reuse and restore the hangar complex to an exterior 

appearance that would enhance the visual characteristics of Floyd Bennett Field Historic 

District.

For the Northeast Connector Project, Transco proposes to:

 add an incremental 6,540 horsepower of compression at its existing 

Compressor Station 195 in York County, Pennsylvania by replacing three 

existing natural gas-fired reciprocating engines and appurtenant facilities 

with two new electric motor drives; 

 add an incremental 5,000 horsepower of compression at its existing 

Compressor Station 205 in Mercer County, New Jersey by uprating two 

existing electric motor drives; and

 add an incremental 5,400 horsepower of compression at its existing 

Compressor Station 207 in Middlesex County, New Jersey by uprating two 

existing electric motor drives.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Docket Nos. CP13-36-000 and

CP13-132-000

- 3 -

These modifications would occur on lands owned by Transco within the existing 

compressor station sites.

The FERC staff mailed copies of the draft EIS 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; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties 

to this proceeding. Paper copy versions of this EIS were mailed to those specifically 

requesting them; all others received a CD version. In addition, the draft EIS is available 

for public viewing on the FERC’s website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A 

limited number of copies 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

Comment Procedures and Public Meetings

Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. To ensure 

consideration of your comments on the proposal in the final EIS, it is important that the 

Commission receive your comments before November 25, 2013. 

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

comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the appropriate docket

number (CP13-36-000 for the Rockaway Project and CP13-132-000 for the Northeast 

Connector Project) 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. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your 

comments are properly recorded.

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.

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.”

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Docket Nos. CP13-36-000 and

CP13-132-000

- 4 -

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

4) In addition to or in lieu of sending electronic or written comments, the 

Commission invites you to attend one of the public comment meetings its

staff will conduct in the Rockaway Project area to receive comments on the 

draft EIS. Interested groups and individuals are encouraged to attend and 

present oral comments on the draft EIS. Transcripts of the meetings will be 

available for review in eLibrary under the project docket numbers. All 

meetings will begin at 7:00 p.m., and are scheduled as follows: 

Date Location

October 22, 2013

Knights of Columbus Rockaway Council 2672

333 Beach 90th Street

Rockaway Beach, NY 11693

October 23, 2013

Aviator Sports & Events Center

3159 Flatbush Avenue

Brooklyn, NY 11234

After the comments are reviewed, any significant new issues will be investigated, 

and a final EIS will be published and distributed to stakeholders. The final EIS will 

contain the FERC staff’s responses to timely comments received on the draft EIS.

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 Part 385.214).1 Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the 

Commission’s decision. The Commission grants affected landowners and others with 

environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they 

have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately 

represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, 

but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

Additional Information

Additional information about the Projects 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 appropriate docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the Docket Number 

field (i.e., CP13-36 for the Rockaway Project or CP13-132 for the Northeast Connector 

 

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

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Docket Nos. CP13-36-000 and

CP13-132-000

- 5 -

Project). 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; 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.

In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that 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 www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

In addition to NEPA, FERC and the other federal cooperating agencies are 

required to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Section 

106 requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of agency actions on 

properties that are listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic 

Places, and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to 

comment. As part of this process, FERC staff and the National Park Service will prepare 

a Determination of Effect for Transco’s proposed reuse and rehabilitation of the hangar 

complex for the M&R facility on Floyd Bennett Field. Design documents for 

rehabilitation of the hangars may be viewed on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using 

the eLibrary link as described above. Paper copies of the documents may be viewed in 

person 7 days a week, October 4 to November 25, 2013, from 9:30 am to 4:00 pm at the 

following address:

William Fitts Ryan Visitor Center, Lobby

Floyd Bennett Field

50 Aviation Road

Brooklyn, New York 11234

Comments on the design documents may be filed with the Commission or made in 

person at the public comment meetings as described above. 

Kimberly D. Bose

Secretary

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

On January 7, 2013, Transcontinental Gas Pipeline 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 draft 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 draft 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 draft 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.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
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. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ES-3

All substantive comments submitted to the FERC via scoping meetings, interagency coordination 

meetings, and letters, are addressed in this draft EIS. In addition, cooperating agencies (NPS, EPA, 

USACE, 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; cumulative 

impacts; and air quality and noise 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 offshore pile driving,

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

(HDD) crossing of the shoreline. 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. 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. 

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 402 acres of seabed could be 

affected by sedimentation, 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 0.65 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 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ES-4

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. 

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

processes. In response to comments from cooperating and other agencies regarding 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. Following installation of the pipeline, Transco would 

conduct a bathymetric survey to document seafloor elevations along the pipe trench as well as other 

offshore excavation areas. If the survey identifies any areas where the seafloor has not been restored 

and/or where 4 feet of cover is not present over the pipeline, Transco would backfill these areas using 

sediments obtained from the seafloor with a suction dredge. Transco also would add a top layer of native 

sediments over the drilling fluid and cuttings that collect within the offshore HDD exit pit. 

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, 

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

We are requesting that the FWS and NOAA Fisheries consider this draft EIS as the Biological 

Assessment for the Rockaway Project. We are also recommending that Transco not begin construction 

activities with the Rockaway Project 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 six 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 comments from NOAA Fisheries and an Incidental Harassment Authorization is 

issued to Transco. 

 

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

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ES-5

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. 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. 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 expects to submit full design and construction 

documents for the M&R facility to the FERC, NPS, and New York SHPO in 2013. 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, a Construction Protection Plan (for vibration monitoring), 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 affected or a Programmatic 

Agreement has been executed; and we provide written notification to proceed.

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 exceeds our standards, 

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

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ES-6

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 draft 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 or facilities provide 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 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, and alternatives to the Northeast Connector Project. 

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 the 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 the 

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

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

principal reasons are:

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

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ES-7

 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 27 site-specific mitigation measures that Transco should implement to 

further reduce the environmental impacts that would otherwise result from construction 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 

draft EIS. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................................... i

LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................................vii

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... x

LIST OF APPENDICES.............................................................................................................................xii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................xiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................ES-1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. ES-1

PROPOSED ACTION........................................................................................................... ES-1

AGENCY AND PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT OPPORTUNITIES....................... ES-2

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION........................................................ ES-3

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ....................................................................................... ES-6

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... ES-6

1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED.................................................................................1-2

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EIS...........................................................................1-5

1.2.1 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission............................................................1-5

1.2.2 National Park Service .........................................................................................1-5

1.2.3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency..............................................................1-6

1.2.4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District ...........................................1-7

1.2.5 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service ................................................................................................................1-7

1.2.6 City of New York ...............................................................................................1-7

1.3 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT............................................................................1-8

1.4 NON-JURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES.......................................................................1-12

1.4.1 Brooklyn-Queens Interconnect Project.............................................................1-12

1.4.2 Philadelphia Electric Company Project ............................................................1-14

1.5 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.......................1-14

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 PROPOSED FACILITIES...............................................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Pipeline Facilities................................................................................................2-1

2.1.2 M&R Facility......................................................................................................2-5

2.1.3 Compressor Stations...........................................................................................2-5

2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS...............................................................................................2-9

2.2.1 Pipeline Right-of-Way........................................................................................2-9

2.2.2 M&R Facility....................................................................................................2-11

2.2.3 Compressor Stations.........................................................................................2-11

2.2.4 Pipe Yard ..........................................................................................................2-11

2.2.5 Access Roads....................................................................................................2-11

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)

Page

ii

2.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES..............................................................................2-14

2.3.1 Pipeline Construction Procedures.....................................................................2-14

2.3.1.1 Offshore Construction Vessels.........................................................2-15

2.3.1.2 Pipe Delivery and Concrete Coating at the Pipe Yard .....................2-19

2.3.1.3 Pipe Fabrication with a Lay Barge ...................................................2-19

2.3.1.4 Subsea Trenching with a Post-Lay Jet Sled......................................2-20

2.3.1.5 Horizontal Directional Drilling ........................................................2-20

2.3.1.6 Subsea Cable Crossing .....................................................................2-25

2.3.1.7 Subsea Hot-Tap and Subsea Manifold Installation ..........................2-25

2.3.1.8 Anode Bed and Anode Sled Installation...........................................2-27

2.3.1.9 Offshore Backfilling.........................................................................2-27

2.3.1.10 Onshore Clearing, Grading, Trenching, and Backfilling..................2-29

2.3.1.11 Hydrostatic Testing ..........................................................................2-29

2.3.1.12 Cleanup and Restoration...................................................................2-31

2.3.2 M&R Facility Construction Procedures............................................................2-31

2.3.3 Compressor Station Construction Procedures ..................................................2-31

2.4 CONSTRUCTION WORKFORCE AND SCHEDULE...............................................2-32

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL TRAINING, INSPECTION AND COMPLIANCE 

MONITORING..............................................................................................................2-32

2.5.1 Post-Approval Variance Process ......................................................................2-33

2.6 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE ........................2-34

2.6.1 Pipeline Facilities..............................................................................................2-34

2.6.2 Aboveground Facilities.....................................................................................2-35

2.7 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT ................................................................2-35

3.0 ALTERNATIVES.......................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE.......................................................................................3-2

3.2 ENERGY ALTERNATIVES ..........................................................................................3-3

3.2.1 Energy Conservation and Increased Efficiency..................................................3-3

3.2.2 Renewable Energy ..............................................................................................3-4

3.2.3 Nuclear Energy ...................................................................................................3-9

3.2.4 Fossil Fuels.........................................................................................................3-9

3.3 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES.........................................................................................3-10

3.3.1 Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC..................................................................3-12

3.3.2 Columbia Gas Transmission.............................................................................3-12

3.3.3 Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC ...............................................................3-12

3.3.4 Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC ..........................................................3-12

3.3.5 Iroquois Gas Transmission System, LP............................................................3-13

3.3.6 Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.......................................................................3-13

3.3.7 Proposed Constitution Pipeline.........................................................................3-13

3.3.8 Proposed Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities.......................................................3-14

3.3.9 Transco System Alternatives............................................................................3-15

3.4 ROUTE ALTERNATIVES TO THE ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL............3-16

3.4.1 Alternative Route 1...........................................................................................3-20

3.4.2 Alternative Route 2...........................................................................................3-21

3.4.3 Alternative Route 3...........................................................................................3-22

3.4.4 Alternative Route 4...........................................................................................3-23

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)

Page

iii

3.5 ALTERNATIVE SITES TO THE M&R FACILITY....................................................3-24

3.5.1 M&R Facility Alternative Site 1.......................................................................3-29

3.5.2 M&R Facility Alternative Site 2.......................................................................3-29

3.5.3 M&R Facility Alternative Site 3.......................................................................3-30

3.5.4 M&R Facility Alternative Site 4.......................................................................3-31

3.5.5 M&R Facility Alternative Site 5.......................................................................3-31

3.6 ALTERNATIVES TO THE NORTHEAST CONNECTOR PROJECT ......................3-32

3.7 CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES..........................................................................3-33

3.7.1 Subsea Pipeline Trenching Alternatives...........................................................3-33

3.7.2 Dynamically Positioned Pipe Lay Barge Alternative .......................................3-35

3.7.3 Open-Cut Crossing of the Shoreline.................................................................3-35

3.7.4 Drilling Fluid Removal.....................................................................................3-36

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.............................................................................................4-1

4.1 GEOLOGY ......................................................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Geologic Setting .................................................................................................4-1

4.1.2 Geotechnical Investigations................................................................................4-2

4.1.3 Mineral Resources..............................................................................................4-2

4.1.4 Geologic and Meteorological Hazards................................................................4-2

4.1.4.1 Earthquakes and Surface Faults.............................................................4-3

4.1.4.2 Hurricanes..............................................................................................4-4

4.1.4.3 Flooding.................................................................................................4-5

4.1.5 Karst Terrain/Sinkholes......................................................................................4-5

4.1.6 Paleontological Resources..................................................................................4-5

4.1.7 General Impacts and Mitigation..........................................................................4-6

4.2 SOILS ..............................................................................................................................4-8

4.2.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................4-8

4.2.2 Contaminated Soils and Sediments.....................................................................4-9

4.2.3 General Impact and Mitigation .........................................................................4-10

4.3 WATER RESOURCES .................................................................................................4-12

4.3.1 Groundwater Resources....................................................................................4-12

4.3.1.1 Sole Source Aquifers...........................................................................4-12

4.3.1.2 Water Supply Wells.............................................................................4-13

4.3.1.3 Contaminated Groundwater.................................................................4-13

4.3.1.4 Groundwater Impacts and Mitigation Procedures ...............................4-14

4.3.2 Surface Water Resources..................................................................................4-14

4.3.2.1 Water Classifications...........................................................................4-15

4.3.2.2 Existing Water Quality ........................................................................4-16

4.3.2.3 General Impacts and Mitigation ..........................................................4-17

4.3.3 Wetland Resources ...........................................................................................4-20

4.4 VEGETATION..............................................................................................................4-22

4.4.1 Vegetation Resources .......................................................................................4-22

4.4.1.1 Maritime Beach ...................................................................................4-22

4.4.1.2 Scrub/Shrubland ..................................................................................4-22

4.4.1.3 Developed Land...................................................................................4-22

4.4.2 Vegetation Communities of Special Concern...................................................4-23

4.4.3 Invasive Species................................................................................................4-23

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)

Page

iv

4.4.4 Vegetation Impacts and Mitigation...................................................................4-23

4.4.5 Operations Impacts...........................................................................................4-24

4.5 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES................................................................4-25

4.5.1 Wildlife Resources............................................................................................4-25

4.5.1.1 Significant or Sensitive Wildlife Habitats ...........................................4-25

4.5.2 Wildlife Construction Impacts and Mitigation .................................................4-28

4.5.2.1 Marine Wildlife Impacts......................................................................4-28

4.5.2.2 Marine Mammal Impacts.....................................................................4-33

4.5.2.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Impacts.................................................................4-38

4.5.2.4 Migratory Birds ...................................................................................4-39

4.5.3 Operation Impacts.............................................................................................4-42

4.5.3.1 Rockaway Delivery Lateral .................................................................4-42

4.5.3.2 Metering and Regulating Facility ........................................................4-42

4.5.3.3 Compressor Station 195.......................................................................4-42

4.6 FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES ...............................................................4-43

4.6.1 General Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.........................................................4-43

4.6.2 Aquatic Impacts and Mitigation........................................................................4-44

4.6.3 Essential Fish Habitat .......................................................................................4-44

4.6.3.1 Managed Fish Species and Essential Fish Habitat...............................4-45

4.6.3.2 Assessment of Potential Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat ................4-45

4.6.4 Operations Impacts...........................................................................................4-58

4.6.5 Conservation Measures.....................................................................................4-58

4.6.6 Conclusions of the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment.....................................4-59

4.7 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES .....4-60

4.7.1 Federally Listed Species – Rockaway Project..................................................4-62

4.7.1.1 Marine Mammals.................................................................................4-63

4.7.1.2 Fish ......................................................................................................4-69

4.7.1.3 Shortnose Sturgeon..............................................................................4-74

4.7.1.4 Marine Turtles .....................................................................................4-74

4.7.1.5 Cumulative Impacts for Marine Species..............................................4-78

4.7.1.6 Birds.....................................................................................................4-80

4.7.1.7 Plants....................................................................................................4-81

4.7.1.8 Insects and Invertebrates......................................................................4-81

4.7.2 Federally Listed Species – Northeast Connector Project..................................4-81

4.7.3 Project Operations.............................................................................................4-83

4.7.3.1 Rockaway Delivery Lateral .................................................................4-83

4.7.3.2 M&R Facility.......................................................................................4-84

4.7.3.3 Compressor Stations............................................................................4-84

4.7.4 Staff Recommendations for Threatened and Endangered Species ...................4-84

4.7.5 State-Listed Species..........................................................................................4-85

4.7.5.1 New York.............................................................................................4-85

4.7.5.2 New Jersey...........................................................................................4-88

4.7.5.3 Pennsylvania ........................................................................................4-88

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)

Page

v

4.8 LAND USE, RECREATION, SPECIAL INTEREST AREAS, AND VISUAL 

RESOURCES ................................................................................................................4-89

4.8.1 Land Use, Land Cover, General Impacts, and Mitigation ................................4-89

4.8.1.1 Land Use..............................................................................................4-89

4.8.1.2 Land Cover ..........................................................................................4-94

4.8.1.3 General Impacts and Mitigation ..........................................................4-96

4.8.2 Land Ownership................................................................................................4-97

4.8.3 Coastal Zone Management .............................................................................4-101

4.8.4 Offshore Uses .................................................................................................4-102

4.8.4.1 Fishing ...............................................................................................4-102

4.8.4.2 Vessel Traffic.....................................................................................4-104

4.8.4.3 Subsea Utilities..................................................................................4-106

4.8.4.4 Offshore Dredge Disposal Sites.........................................................4-106

4.8.5 Hazardous Waste Sites and Landfills .............................................................4-108

4.8.6 Existing Residences and Buildings.................................................................4-108

4.8.7 Recreation and Special Use Areas..................................................................4-109

4.8.8 Visual Resources.............................................................................................4-113

4.8.9 Honey Bee Colonies.......................................................................................4-114

4.8.10 Conclusion ......................................................................................................4-114

4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS..................................................................................................4-115

4.9.1 Population and Employment...........................................................................4-115

4.9.2 Housing...........................................................................................................4-118

4.9.3 Public Services................................................................................................4-119

4.9.4 Transportation.................................................................................................4-120

4.9.5 Property Values...............................................................................................4-121

4.9.6 Economy and Tax Revenues...........................................................................4-121

4.9.7 Environmental Justice.....................................................................................4-123

4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES........................................................................................4-125

4.10.1 Cultural Resource Surveys..............................................................................4-125

4.10.2 Unanticipated Discovery Plan ........................................................................4-131

4.10.3 Native American Consultation........................................................................4-132

4.10.4 General Impact and Mitigation .......................................................................4-132

4.11 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE .....................................................................................4-134

4.11.1 Air Quality......................................................................................................4-134

4.11.1.1 Existing Air Quality......................................................................4-134

4.11.1.2 Air Quality Regulatory Requirements..........................................4-139

4.11.1.3 Air Emission Impacts and Mitigation...........................................4-144

4.11.1.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...........................................................4-147

4.11.1.5 Radon Exposure............................................................................4-149

4.11.2 Noise ...............................................................................................................4-149

4.11.2.1 Existing Noise Levels...................................................................4-149

4.11.2.2 Noise Regulatory Requirements...................................................4-152

4.11.2.3 Noise Level Impacts and Mitigation.............................................4-155

4.11.3 Vibration.........................................................................................................4-165

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)

Page

vi

4.12 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY...................................................................................4-167

4.12.1 Safety Standards .............................................................................................4-167

4.12.2 Pipeline Accident Data ...................................................................................4-172

4.12.3 Impacts on Public Safety ................................................................................4-175

4.12.4 Additional Safety and Security Issues ............................................................4-177

4.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.........................................................................................4-179

4.13.1 Geology and Soils...........................................................................................4-183

4.13.2 Groundwater ...................................................................................................4-183

4.13.3 Surface Water .................................................................................................4-183

4.13.4 Wetlands.........................................................................................................4-184

4.13.5 Vegetation.......................................................................................................4-184

4.13.6 Wildlife and Habitats......................................................................................4-184

4.13.7 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources....................................................................4-185

4.13.8 Special Status Species.....................................................................................4-186

4.13.9 Land Use Resources........................................................................................4-186

4.13.10 Visual Resources.............................................................................................4-187

4.13.11 Socioeconomics..............................................................................................4-188

4.13.12 Cultural Resources..........................................................................................4-190

4.13.13 Air Quality and Noise .....................................................................................4-191

4.13.13.1 Air Quality ...................................................................................4-191

4.13.13.2 Noise ............................................................................................4-192

4.13.14 Reliability and Safety......................................................................................4-193

4.13.15 Climate Change...............................................................................................4-193

4.13.16 Conclusion ......................................................................................................4-193

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................5-1

5.1 CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................5-1

5.1.1 Geology...............................................................................................................5-1

5.1.2 Soils ....................................................................................................................5-2

5.1.3 Water Resources.................................................................................................5-3

5.1.4 Vegetation...........................................................................................................5-5

5.1.5 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources .........................................................................5-6

5.1.6 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources........................................................................5-9

5.1.7 Special Status Species.......................................................................................5-10

5.1.8 Land Use and Visual Resources .......................................................................5-11

5.1.9 Socioeconomics................................................................................................5-13

5.1.10 Cultural Resources............................................................................................5-14

5.1.11 Air Quality and Noise .......................................................................................5-16

5.1.12 Reliability and Safety........................................................................................5-18

5.1.13 Cumulative Effects ...........................................................................................5-18

5.1.14 Alternatives Considered....................................................................................5-19

5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION....................................................5-20

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
LIST OF TABLES

Number Title Page

vii

Table 1.3-1 Key Environmental Concerns Identified During the Scoping Process for the

Rockaway Project .....................................................................................................1-10

Table 1.5-1 Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Rockaway Project.................1-15

Table 1.5-2 Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Northeast Connector Project 1-18

Table 3.3-1 Other Existing Interstate Pipeline Systems in the New York City Area...................3-10

Table 3.4-1 Environmental Comparison of Alternative Routes to the Proposed Route for the 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral ......................................................................................3-19

Table 3.4-2 Comparison of the Acres and Cubic Yards of Impact for the Alternative Routes and 

the Proposed Route for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral...........................................3-20

Table 3.5-1 Comparison of Alternative M&R Facility Sites to the Proposed M&R Facility Site for 

the Rockaway Project ...............................................................................................3-28

Table 3.7.1-1 Comparison of Offshore Pipeline Trenching Methods for the Rockaway Project ...3-34

Table 4.3.2-1 Physical Water Quality Standards at the Proposed Project Site for the Rockaway 

Project .......................................................................................................................4-15

Table 4.3.2-2 Comparison of New York State’s Water Quality Standards and the 2009 and 2010 

Survey Results for the Rockaway Project.................................................................4-16

Table 4.5.1-1 List of Wildlife Species Representative of the Region or Observed in the Vicinity of 

the Rockaway Project ...............................................................................................4-26

Table 4.5.2-1 Calculated In-Water Noise Zones Based on Expected Pile Driving Levels Average 

Sound Pressure for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral .................................................4-31

Table 4.5.2-2 Estimated Marine Mammal, Numbers of Marine Mammals at Potential Risk of.....4-35

Table 4.5.2-3 List of Birds of Conservation Concern and Other Sensitive Bird Species in the New 

England/Mid-Atlantic Coast and Piedmont Regions for the Rockaway and Northeast 

Connector Projects....................................................................................................4-40

Table 4.6.3-1 Designated Essential Fish Habitat for Atlantic Ocean Waters near Rockaway Beach 

for the Rockaway Project..........................................................................................4-47

Table 4.6.3-2 Summary of Sediment Transport Model Results for the Rockaway Project ............4-50

Table 4.7-1 Federally Listed, Candidate, and Petitioned Species Potentially Occurring in the 

Rockaway Project Area.............................................................................................4-61

Table 4.7-2 Federally Listed, Candidate, and Petitioned Species Potentially Occurring in the 

Northeast Connector Project Area ............................................................................4-62

Table 4.7.5-1 State of New York Sensitive Species Potentially Occurring in the Rockaway Project 

Area...........................................................................................................................4-86

Table 4.7.5-2 State of New Jersey Sensitive Species Potentially Occurring in the Rockaway Project 

Area...........................................................................................................................4-88

Table 4.8.1-1 Land Use Types and Acres Impacted by Construction and Operation of the Rockaway 

Project .......................................................................................................................4-92

Table 4.8.1-2 Land Cover Types and Acres Impacted by Construction and Operation of the 

Rockaway Project .....................................................................................................4-96

Table 4.8.4-1 Fishing Seasons for Several Managed Fish Species in the Vicinity of the Rockaway 

Project .....................................................................................................................4-103

Table 4.8.4-2 Estimated Vessel Size and Trip Frequency for Construction-Related Traffic for the 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral ....................................................................................4-105

Table 4.9.1-1 Existing Socioeconomic Conditions in the Area and Vicinity of the Rockaway

Project .....................................................................................................................4-116

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
TABLES (cont’d)

Table Title Page

viii

Table 4.9.1-2 Existing Socioeconomic Conditions in the Vicinity of the Northeast Connector

Project .....................................................................................................................4-117

Table 4.9.2-1 Housing Characteristics in the Rockaway and Northeast Connector Project Areas 

(2010)......................................................................................................................4-118

Table 4.9.3-1 Public Service Facilities in the Rockaway and Northeast Connect Project Areas..4-119

Table 4.9.4-1 Land Transportation Associated with Construction of the Rockaway Project .......4-121

Table 4.9.6-1 Local Tax Revenues Generated from the Rockaway Project..................................4-122

Table 4.9.6-2 Top Five Commercial Fish Landings (Value) up to 3.0 Miles off the New York 

Shoreline in 2010 ....................................................................................................4-123

Table 4.9.7-1 Economic Statistics for Communities Affected by the Rockaway Project.............4-124

Table 4.11.1-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards................................................................4-135

Table 4.11.1-2 New York Ambient Air Quality Standards.............................................................4-137

Table 4.11.1-3 Background Ambient Air Quality for the Rockaway Project .................................4-138

Table 4.11.1-4 Background Ambient Air Quality for the Northeast Connector Project.................4-139

Table 4.11.1-5 Estimated Yearly Potential Operational Emissions for the M&R Facility .............4-140

Table 4.11.1-6 General Conformity De Minimus Thresholds ........................................................4-142

Table 4.11.1-7 Estimated Total Construction Emissions for the Rockaway Project.......................4-143

Table 4.11.1-8 Estimated Total Construction Emissions for Compressor Station 195...................4-143

Table 4.11.1-9 Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summaries for the Rockaway and Northeast 

Connector Projects..................................................................................................4-144

Table 4.11.1-10 Actual Operational Emissions from Compressor Station 195 from Calendar

Year 2012................................................................................................................4-146

Table 4.11.1-11 Estimated Annual Operational Emissions for Compressor Station 195 .................4-147

Table 4.11.1-12 Estimated Reduction in Annual Operating Emissions at Compressor Station 195.4-147

Table 4.11.2-1 Sound Pressure Levels and Relative Loudness.......................................................4-150

Table 4.11.2-2 NSAs Near the M&R Facility for the Rockaway Project .......................................4-150

Table 4.11.2-3 Summary of Ambient Day and Night Sound Levels at NSAs Near the M&R Facility 

for the Rockaway Project........................................................................................4-151

Table 4.11.2-4 Summary of Ambient Day and Night Sound Levels at NSAs Near Compressor

Station 195 for the Northeast Connector Project ....................................................4-151

Table 4.11.2-5 Summary of Ambient Day and Night Sound Levels at NSAs Near Compressor

Station 205 for the Northeast Connector Project ....................................................4-152

Table 4.11.2-6 Summary of Ambient Day and Night Sound Levels at NSAs Near Compressor

Station 207 for the Northeast Connector Project ....................................................4-152

Table 4.11.2-7 Noise Guidelines, Standards, and Ordinances Applicable to the Rockaway and 

Northeast Connector Projects..................................................................................4-153

Table 4.11.2-8 Noise Quality Analysis Related to Temporary Construction Activities at the

M&R Facility for the Rockaway Project ................................................................4-158

Table 4.11.2-9 Noise Quality Analysis Related to Operational Activities at the M&R Facility

for the Rockaway Project........................................................................................4-159

Table 4.11.2-10 Noise Quality Analysis Related to Operational Activities at Compressor Station 195 

for the Northeast Connector Project........................................................................4-161

Table 4.11.2-11 Noise Quality Analysis of Modified Compressor Station 205 for the Northeast 

Connector Project....................................................................................................4-162

Table 4.11.2-12 Noise Quality Analysis of Modified Compressor Station 207 for the Northeast 

Connector Project....................................................................................................4-164

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
TABLES (cont’d)

Table Title Page

ix

Table 4.12.1-1 Area Classifications along the Rockaway Delivery Lateral ...................................4-169

Table 4.12.2-1 Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Significant Incidents by Cause (1992-2011)..4-173

Table 4.12.2-2 Outside Forces Incidents by Cause (1992-2011)....................................................4-174

Table 4.12.2-3 Transco Unintentional Onshore Leaks per 1,000 Miles..........................................4-174

Table 4.12.3-1 Annual Average Fatalities – Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines .........................4-176

Table 4.12.3-2 Nationwide Accidental Deaths................................................................................4-176

Table 4.13-1 Existing or Proposed Projects that Could Cumulatively Impact Environmental 

Resources in the Region of Influence for the Rockaway Project............................4-181

Table 4.13-2 Existing or Proposed Projects that Could Cumulatively Impact Environmental 

Resources in the Regions of Influence for the Northeast Connector Project..........4-182

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
LIST OF FIGURES

Number Title Page

x

Figure 1-1 Location of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral and Meter and Regulating Facility .......1-3

Figure 1-2 Location of the Northeast Connector Project Relative to the Rockaway Project .......1-4

Figure 1.4-1 Location of the Brooklyn-Queens Interconnect Project Relative to the Rockaway

Project .......................................................................................................................1-13

Figure 2.1.1-1 Location of Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project Facilities.........................................2-2

Figure 2.1.1-2a Pipeline Facilities for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral ...............................................2-3

Figure 2.1.1-2b Pipeline Facilities for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral ...............................................2-4

Figure 2.1.3-1 An Overview of Compressor Station 195 for the Northeast Connector Project .........2-6

Figure 2.1.3-2 An Overview of Compressor Station 205 for the Northeast Connector Project .........2-7

Figure 2.1.3-3 An Overview of Compressor Station 207 for the Northeast Connector Project .........2-8

Figure 2.2.1-1 Onshore Pipeline Workspace for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral ...........................2-10

Figure 2.2.2-1 M&R Facility Workspace for the Rockaway Project ...............................................2-12

Figure 2.2.4-1 Pipe Yard for the Rockaway Project.........................................................................2-13

Figure 2.3.1-1 Typical Offshore Construction Vessel Positioning for the Rockaway Delivery

Lateral .......................................................................................................................2-16

Figure 2.3.1-2 Typical Pipe Lay Barge and Pipe Transport Barge...................................................2-17

Figure 2.3.1-3 Typical Jack-up Barge ..............................................................................................2-17

Figure 2.3.1-4 Typical Clamshell Barge in Operation......................................................................2-18

Figure 2.3.1-5 Typical Jet Sled Configuration .................................................................................2-21

Figure 2.3.1-6 Typical HDD Drill Rig .............................................................................................2-22

Figure 2.3.1-7 HDD Exit Pit and Construction Layout for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral............2-23

Figure 2.3.1-8 HDD Pipeline Pullback (Offshore) for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral ..................2-24

Figure 2.3.1-9 Typical Subsea Cable Crossing for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral........................2-26

Figure 2.3.1-10 Anode Bed and Anode Sled for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral .............................2-28

Figure 2.3.1-11 Typical Onshore Construction Right-of-Way for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral ..2-30

Figure 3.3-1 Overview of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines Servicing the Region ........................3-11

Figure 3.4-1 Overview of Pipeline Route Alternatives for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral.........3-17

Figure 3.4-2 Federal and State Significant Habitat Areas – Pipeline Route Alternatives for the 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral ......................................................................................3-18

Figure 3.5-1 Public Lands – M&R Facility Site Alternatives for the Rockaway Project..............3-25

Figure 3.5-2 NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands – M&R Facility Site Alternatives for the Rockaway Project3-26

Figure 3.5-3 Federal and State Significant Habitat Areas – M&R Facility Site Alternatives for the 

Rockaway Project .....................................................................................................3-27

Figure 4.3.3-1 Wetlands in the Vicinity of the Rockaway Project...................................................4-21

Figure 4.5.1-1 Federal and State Significant Habitat Areas in the Vicinity of the Rockaway Project4-27

Figure 4.5.2-1 Benthic Resource Survey for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral .................................4-29

Figure 4.5.2-2 Zone of Influence for Noise Impacts on Marine Mammals during Construction of the 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral ......................................................................................4-37

Figure 4.6.3-1 Essential Fish Habitat ...............................................................................................4-46

Figure 4.7.1-1 Right Whale Seasonal Management Area in the Vicinity of the Rockaway Delivery 

Lateral .......................................................................................................................4-65

Figure 4.8.1-1 Land Use Classifications in the Vicinity of the Rockaway Project ..........................4-90

Figure 4.8.1-2 Land Cover Classifications in the Vicinity of the Rockaway Project.......................4-95

Figure 4.8.2-1 Land Ownership in the Vicinity of the Rockaway Project .......................................4-98

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
FIGURES (cont’d)

Number Title Page

xi

Figure 4.8.4-1 Locations of Cable Crossings and Dumping Grounds in Relation to the Rockaway 

Delivery Lateral ......................................................................................................4-107

Figure 4.8.7-1 Gateway National Recreation Area in Relation to the Rockaway Project..............4-110

Figure 4.11.2-1 NSAs Closest to HDD Entry Point .........................................................................4-156

Figure 4.11.2-2 NSAs Closest to the M&R Facility.........................................................................4-157

Figure 4.11.2-3 NSAs Closest to Compressor Station 195...............................................................4-160

Figure 4.11.2-4 NSAs Closest to Compressor Station 205...............................................................4-163

Figure 4.11.2-5 NSAs Closest to Compressor Station 207...............................................................4-164

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
LIST OF APPENDICES

xii

Appendix A Distribution List

Appendix B New York City Office of the Mayor, National Grid Brooklyn-Queens Interconnect 

Negative Declaration

Appendix C Pipe Yard, Pipe Transport Route, and Horizontal Directional Drill Alignment Figures

Figure C-1A – Pipe Yard and Pipe Transport Route

Figure C-1B – Pipe Transport Route

Figure C-2 – Horizontal Directional Drill Alignment

Appendix D Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project Project-Specific Erosion Control, Revegetation, 

and Maintenance Plan

Appendix E Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project Project-Specific Wetland and Waterbody 

Construction and Mitigation Procedures

Appendix F Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures 

Plan

Appendix G Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project Construction Spill Plans for Oil and Hazardous 

Materials

Appendix H Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) Operations Monitoring and Contingency Plan

Appendix I Fall 2010 Offshore Environmental Sampling Report for the Rockaway Delivery 

Lateral Project

Appendix J Geotechnical Investigation Proposed 26-inch Rockaway Gas Pipeline, Rockaway, 

Queens County, NY

Appendix K Phase II Site Investigation Hangar 1 and 2, Gateway National Recreation Area, Floyd 

Bennett Field, Brooklyn, New York

Appendix L Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project Unanticipated Discovery of Contamination Plan

Appendix M Summer 2009 Offshore Environmental Sampling Report for the Rockaway Delivery 

Lateral Project

Appendix N Request for Incidental Harassment Authorization Under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act

Appendix O Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analyses for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

Project

Appendix P References and Contacts

Appendix Q List of Preparers 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

xiii

°C degrees Celsius

°F degrees Fahrenheit

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

μPa micropascal

3D three-dimensional

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards

ABFE advisory base flood elevation

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Algonquin Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC

ANSI American National Standards Institute

API American Petroleum Institute

AQCR Air Quality Control Region

AQRV air quality relative value

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers

ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

ASSRT Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team

ATWS additional temporary workspace

BA Biological Assessment

BCCs Birds of Conservation Concern

BCR Bird Conservation Region

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

BO Biological Opinion

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

BQD18 Brooklyn Community District 18

BQI Project Brooklyn-Queens Interconnect Project

C&ME Construction and Marine Equipment

CAA Clean Air Act

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CEQR City Environmental Quality Review

Certificate Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity

CeTAP Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CH4 methane

CHPE Champlain Hudson Power Express, Inc.

CMP Coastal Management Program

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont’d)

xiv

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalents

Columbia Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC

Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Con Edison Consolidated Edison, Inc.

Constitution Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC 

Construction Spill Plan Construction Spill Plan for Oil and Hazardous Materials 

CP Commissioner's Policy

CPP Construction Protection Plan

CQD14 Queens Community District 14

CWA Clean Water Act

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

CZMP Coastal Zone Management Program

dB decibels

dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

DPS distinct population segments

DWPA Deepwater Port Act of 1974 

EAS Environmental Assessment Statement

ECOM estuarine, coastal, and ocean model

EERE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

EFH essential fish habitat

EI Environmental Inspector

EIA Energy Information Administration

EIEA Energy Improvement and Extension Act

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act

EJ Environmental Justice

EO Executive Order

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPAct Energy Policy Act of 2005

ESA Endangered Species Act

F Fahrenheit

FCV flow control valves

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FERC Plan FERC's Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont’d)

xv

FERC Procedures FERC's Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

FHWG Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group

FR Federal Regulations

FSRU floating storage and regasification unit

FTA Federal Transit Administration

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

FWS-NJFO U.S. Fish and Wildlife, New Jersey Field Office

FWS-PFO U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Pennsylvania Field Office

GGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

GHG greenhouse gas

GMP General Management Plan

GNRA Gateway National Recreation Area

GPS global positioning system

GW gigawatt

GWh gigawatt hour

GWP global warming potential

H&K Hoover and Keith, Inc.

H2SO4 sulfuric acid

HABS Historic American Buildings Survey 

HCA high consequence area

HDD horizontal directional drill

HDD Monitoring and 

Contingency Plan

Horizontal Directional Drilling Monitoring and Contingency Plan

hp horsepower

HSR historic structures report

HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Hz hertz

IHA Incidental Harassment Authorization

Iroquois Iroquois Gas Transmission System, LP

ITS Incidental Take Statement

kV kilovolt

kW kilowatt

L liter

Ld ambient daytime equivalent sound level

Ldn day-night sound level

Leq equivalent sound levels

Leq(1) 1-hour equivalent sound level

Leq(24) 24-hour equivalent sound level

LIE Long Island Extension

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont’d)

xvi

LIPA Long Island Power Authority

Lmax maximum sound level

LMOP Landfill Methane Outreach Program

LNG liquefied natural gas

LNGRV liquid natural gas regasification vessel

LNYBL Lower New York Bay Lateral

LPG liquefied petroleum gas

LSE Leidy Southeast Expansion 

LWRP Local Waterfront Revitalization Program

M&R metering and regulating

MAOP Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure

MARAD Maritime Administration

MARMAP Marine Resources Monitoring, Assessments, and Prediction

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MDth/d thousand dekatherms per day

mg milligrams

mg/L milligrams per liter

Millennium Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC

MMBtu million metric British thermal units

MMBtu/hr million metric British thermal units per hour

MMcf million cubic feet

MMcf/d million cubic feet per day

MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

MOEC New York City Mayor's Office of Environmental Coordination

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MP milepost

mph miles per hour

MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

MW megawatt

MWh megawatt hours

MWh/d megawatt hours per day

N2O nitrous oxide

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEFSC Northeast Fisheries Science Center

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NGA Natural Gas Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont’d)

xvii

NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

NJDOT New Jersey Department of Transportation

NJEMP New Jersey Energy Master Plan

NJ-NY-CT New Jersey-New York-Connecticut

nm2square nautical miles

NNSR Nonattainment New Source Review

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOAA U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

NOAA Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service

NOx nitrogen oxides

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSA noise sensitive area

NSPS New Source Performance Standards

NSR New Source Review

NTU nephelometric turbidity unit

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

NYCDEP New York City Department of Environmental Protection

NYCDOB New York City Department of Buildings

NYCDOT New York City Department of Transportation

NYCDPR New York City Department of Parks and Recreation

NYCRR New York Codes, Rules and Regulations

NYISO New York Independent System Operator

NYNHP New York Natural Heritage Program

NYPA New York Power Authority

NYPSC New York State Public Service Commission

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

NYSDOS New York State Department of State

NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation

NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

NYSOGS New York State Office of General Service

OB octave band

OCRM Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

OCS Outer Continental Shelf

OEP Office of Energy Projects

OPA Otherwise Protected Area

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont’d)

xviii

OPRHP Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation

OPS Office of Pipeline Safety

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PADCNR Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

Pb Lead

PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls

PECO Philadelphia Electric Company

PGA peak horizontal ground acceleration

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter

PNDI Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory 

ppb parts per billion by volume

ppm parts per million

ppt parts per thousand

PPV peak particle velocity

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

PSE&G Public Service Electric and Gas Company 

psig pounds per square inch gauge

PTE potential-to-emit

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RHA Rivers and Harbors Act

RICE reciprocating internal combustion engine

RMS root mean squared

ROV remotely operated vehicle

RPS renewable portfolio standard

RTS regional transmission system

SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition

SCC Sector Coordinating Council

SEFSC Southeast Fisheries Science Center

SEL sound exposure level

SEQRA State Environmental Quality Review Act

SG specific gravity

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SI Environmental Site Investigation

SIP State Implementation Plan

SMA Seasonal Management Area

SO2 sulfur dioxide

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont’d)

xix

SPCC Plan Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan

SPL sound pressure level

SRHP State Register of Historic Places

SSA sole or principal source aquifer

STL submerged turret loading

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

TBTA Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority

Tennessee Gas Tennessee Gas Pipeline, LLC

Texas Eastern Texas Eastern Transmission, LP

TOGS Technical and Operational Guidance Series

tpy tons per year

Transco Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC

Transco Plan Project-Specific Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan

Transco Procedures Project-Specific Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation 

TSA Office of Homeland Security's Transportation Security Administration

TSP Total Suspended Particulates

TSS total suspended solid

Unistar Unistar Nuclear

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VOC volatile organic compound

VSC-HVDC Voltage Source Conversion-High Voltage Direct Current

WEG wind erodibility group

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On January 7, 2013, Transcontinental Gas Pipeline 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 22, 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. The 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. 

We 1 prepared this draft environmental impact statement (EIS) to assess the environmental 

impacts associated with construction and operation of the facilities proposed by Transco for the 

Rockaway and Northeast Connector Projects (Projects) in accordance with the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. NEPA, and the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA in Title 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Part 1501.6 (40 CFR 1501.6), call on federal, state, and local government agencies to 

cooperate in the preparation of EISs. In accordance with these provisions, the following agencies are 

participating as cooperating agencies 2in the preparation of this draft EIS:

 U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), 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 Maine Fisheries Service 

(NOAA Fisheries); and

 City of New York. 

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

(the Rockaway Delivery Lateral) 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 the National Grid pipeline system 3 on the 

Rockaway Peninsula in Queens County, New York. A portion of the new pipeline would be constructed 

 

1 The pronouns “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the FERC'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.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
1-2

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

which is managed by the NPS. The M&R facility would be built within an historic airplane hangar 

complex at Floyd Bennett Field on federal land within the GNRA in the Borough of Brooklyn, Kings 

County, New York. Figure 1-1 depicts the location of these proposed facilities. 

In conjunction with the Rockaway Project, National Grid would construct a new interconnecting 

pipeline and associated facilities, referred to as the Brooklyn-Queens Interconnect Project (BQI Project),

between the proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral and M&R facility. Although the BQI Project is not 

subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, additional information about the National Grid project is 

provided in Section 1.4. 

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. 

Figure 1-2 depicts the location of the existing compressor station facilities relative to the proposed 

Rockaway Project facilities.

Dependent upon Commission and other approvals, Transco intends to begin construction of the 

Projects during the spring of 2014.

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

Transco’s stated 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 supply of natural 

gas. Transco’s objectives are consistent with the energy objectives identified in state and city planning 

documents. The State Energy Plan states that “planned pipeline additions for new delivery points into the 

downstate market...would significantly relieve capacity constraints [and] increase reliability” (State 

Energy Planning Board, 2009). Similarly, New York City’s long-term growth plan states that the 

Rockaway Project “would critically reinforce gas supplies in Brooklyn and Queens” (New York City, 

2011).

According to Transco, the Projects would meet these objectives by:

 providing firm delivery lateral service of 647 thousand dekatherms per day (Mdth/d) of 

natural gas to National Grid’s distribution system on the Rockaway Peninsula in Queens 

County, New York through the Rockaway Project;

 providing as part of the 647 Mdth/d, 100 Mdth/d of new incremental (i.e., additional)

natural gas supply to National Grid through the Northeast Connector Project; and

 enhancing the security and reliability of National Grid’s distribution system by providing 

a new delivery point on the Rockaway Peninsula in Queens County that would allow

National Grid to shift existing volumes of natural gas supply from an existing delivery 

point in Long Beach in Nassau County, New York.

Under Section 7(c) 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 decisions on technical competence, financing, 

rates, market demand, gas supply, environmental impact, long-term feasibility, and other issues 

concerning a proposed project.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Existing 26" Lower New York B

Proposed Route

Transco

"

Proposed M&R

Facility Site

0 1 2

Miles p Figure 

Rockaway Deli

and Northeast Con

Location of the Rockaw

and Meter and Re

NJ

NY Proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral (26")

Existing Lower New York Bay Lateral (26")

1-3
^

^

^

^

Rockaway Metering 

and Regulating Facility

Brooklyn Borough

Kings County, New York

Northeast Connector

Compressor Station 207

Old Bridge Township

Middlesex County, New Jersey

Northeast Connector

Compressor Station 205

Lawrence Township

Mercer County, New Jersey

Northeast Connector 

Compressor Station 195

Peach Bottom Township

York County, Pennsylvania

Rockaway Delivery Lateral

Queens Borough

Queens County, New York

p 0 10 20

Miles

Figure 1-2

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

Location of the Northeast Connector Project

Relative to the Rockaway Project

This information is for environmental review purposes only.

Existing Transco Pipeline

Rockaway Metering ^ and Regulating Facility

Rockaway Delivery Lateral

^ Northeast Connector Project Locations

1-4

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
1-5

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EIS

Our principal purposes in preparing this draft EIS are to:

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

result from implementation of the Projects;

 describe and evaluate reasonable alternatives to the Projects that would avoid or 

minimize adverse effects to the environment; 

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

environmental impacts; and

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

environmental review process.

The topics addressed in this draft EIS include: alternatives; geology; soils; groundwater; surface 

waters; wetlands; vegetation; wildlife and aquatic resources; threatened, endangered, and special-status 

species; land use; recreation; visual resources; socioeconomics; cultural resources; air quality and noise; 

reliability and safety; and cumulative impacts. This draft EIS describes the affected environment as it 

currently exists, addresses the environmental consequences of the Projects, and compares the potential 

impacts of the Projects to those of the alternatives. This draft EIS also presents our conclusions and 

recommended mitigation measures for the Projects. 

1.2.1 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

The FERC is an independent federal agency responsible for evaluating applications for 

authorization to construct and operate interstate natural gas pipeline facilities. If the Commission 

determines that a project is required by the public convenience and necessity, a Certificate is issued under 

Section 7(c) of the NGA and Part 157 of the Commission’s regulations. As part of that determination, we

conduct an environmental review in accordance with NEPA. We prepared this draft EIS to assess the 

potential environmental impacts associated with the Projects in compliance with the procedural 

requirements of NEPA, the CEQ’s regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500–1508), and the 

FERC’s regulations for implementing NEPA (18 CFR 380).

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

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(MSA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA), Section 307 of the Coastal Zone 

Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 

These and other statutes have been taken into account in the preparation of this draft EIS. 

The Commission will consider the findings of the final EIS as well as non-environmental issues 

in its review of Transco’s applications to determine whether or not a Certificate should be issued for the 

Projects. A Certificate will be granted if the Commission finds that the evidence produced on financing, 

rates, market demand, gas supply, existing facilities and service, environmental impacts, long-term 

feasibility, and other issues demonstrates that the Projects are required by the public convenience and 

necessity. Environmental impact assessments and mitigation development are important factors in the 

determination of public convenience and necessity.

1.2.2 National Park Service

The NPS is a land managing agency within the DOI with jurisdiction over 80 million acres of 

federal land in the United States. It manages these lands to protect and preserve natural and cultural 

resources for the benefit of current and future generations. Currently, there is no general authority 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
1-6

available to the NPS to approve rights-of-way for natural gas pipelines across park land. Instead, parkspecific legislation from the U.S. Congress is required for authority to allow construction of a natural gas 

pipeline across NPS land. 

As noted above, the Rockaway Project would affect federal property (both onshore and offshore) 

within the GNRA, which is managed by the NPS. Transco coordinated with NPS staff and local 

congressional leaders to introduce a bill (i.e., the New York City Natural Gas Supply Enhancement Act) 

authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to allow construction and operation of the Rockaway Project

subject to receipt of the necessary permits and easements from the NPS. The bill was approved by the 

U.S. House of Representatives on February 8, 2012 and by the U.S. Senate on September 22, 2012. 

President Barack Obama signed the bill into law on November 27, 2012.

Transco anticipates submitting applications to the NPS in 2013 to obtain a right-of-way easement 

across GNRA land for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral, a lease agreement on GNRA land for the M&R 

facility, and a special use permit for temporary construction activities within the GNRA. The NPS must

comply with the requirements of NEPA prior to reaching decisions on the applications for these 

authorizations. The NPS will review the draft EIS for consistency with NPS NEPA standards, and will

adopt the final EIS per Title 40 CFR Part 1506.3 if it concludes that the document addresses its concerns 

regarding construction and operation of the Rockaway Project on GNRA lands.

As part of its evaluation of Transco’s applications, the NPS will review the Rockaway Project for 

consistency with NPS land use and management policies as defined in a General Management Plan 

(GMP). NPS staff currently is in the process of updating the GMP for the GNRA to guide land use and 

management decisions affecting the park over the next two decades. A draft of the updated GMP/EIS 

was issued by the NPS for public comment on August 2, 2013. The new GMP is expected to be finalized 

in late 2013 or early 2014. NPS staff will conduct a consistency review using information from the new 

GMP to the extent that it is available given the schedule of the Rockaway Project.

1.2.3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The EPA is an independent federal agency responsible for protecting human health and

safeguarding the natural environment. It sets and enforces national standards under a variety of 

environmental laws and regulations in consultation with state, tribal, and local governments. EPA actions

relevant to the permitting process for the Projects include: 

 authority to review and veto permits issued by the USACE under Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act (CWA) (see below);

 authority to review state-issued permits for project-related activities involving discharges 

of pollutants under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); 

 authority under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to review and publicly comment 

on the environmental impacts of major federal actions, including actions that are the 

subject of draft and final EISs; and

 responsibility for implementing certain procedural provisions of NEPA (e.g., publishing 

Notices of Availability for draft and final EISs in the Federal Register) to establish 

statutory timeframes for the environmental review process.

The EPA also has jurisdictional authority to control air pollution under the CAA (42 United 

States Code [USC] Chapter 85) by developing and enforcing rules and regulations for entities that emit 

toxic substances into the air. Under this authority, the EPA has developed regulations for major sources 

of air pollution. The EPA has delegated the authority to implement these regulations to state and local 

agencies, who are allowed to develop their own regulations for non-major sources. The EPA additionally

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
1-7

establishes general conformity applicability thresholds, with which a federal agency can determine 

whether a specific action requires a general conformity assessment for impacts on air quality.

1.2.4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District

The USACE is a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Defense responsible for regulating

the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States under Section 404 of the CWA

(33 USC 1344), and the construction of any structure affecting a navigable water of the United States 

under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC 403). The USACE must comply with 

requirements of NEPA prior to issuing a permit under these statutes. The New York District of the 

USACE will adopt the final EIS for the Rockaway Project per Title 40 CFR Part 1506.3 if it concludes 

that the document addresses its concerns relative to the permit programs it administers. The Northeast 

Connector Project is not expected to require a permit from the USACE.

As an element of its review, the New York District of the USACE will consider whether the 

proposed Rockaway Project represents the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative 

pursuant to guidelines for complying with Section 404(b)(1) of the CWA. The term “practicable” means 

available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics 

in light of the purposes of the Rockaway Project. 

Transco submitted an application for a Section 404/10 permit, which the New York District of the 

USACE received on January 10, 2013. Although this EIS addresses environmental impacts on surface

waters, it does not serve as public notice for Transco’s application to the USACE. The USACE

anticipates issuing a public notice for Transco’s application at approximately the same time as the draft 

EIS is noticed in the Federal Register. After review of Transco’s permit application, public comments, 

and the final EIS, the New York District of the USACE will document its permit decision, including any 

required mitigation commitments, in a decision document.

1.2.5 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NOAA Fisheries) is a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce responsible for 

stewardship of the nation’s living marine resources and their habitat. NOAA Fisheries is charged with the 

management, conservation, and protection of living marine resources within the United States’ Exclusive 

Economic Zone, which extends from three to 200 miles offshore. The Rockaway Project would affect 

living marine resources and habitat (marine mammals, threatened and endangered species, and Essential 

Fish Habitat (EFH)), which are managed by NOAA Fisheries under the MMPA, ESA, and MSA.

Both Transco and FERC staff are consulting with NOAA Fisheries to assess impacts on living 

marine resources. Transco submitted an application to NOAA Fisheries on March 19, 2013 for an 

Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) under the MMPA for the take of marine mammals during 

construction of the Rockaway Project. NOAA Fisheries must comply with the requirements of NEPA 

prior to issuing an IHA, and will adopt the final EIS if it concludes that the document satisfies its 

requirements relative to its mandates under the MMPA. As an element of its review, NOAA Fisheries 

will evaluate potential impacts to marine mammals and the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures 

for reducing those impacts.

1.2.6 City of New York

The City of New York is a municipal corporation. The City of New York, acting through its 

agencies, has agreed to participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of this draft EIS. The New 

York City Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination (MOEC) is serving as the City’s liaison in this 

process. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
1-8

1.3 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

On March 13, 2009, Transco filed a request with the FERC to implement the Commission’s 

NEPA pre-filing process for the Rockaway Project. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage 

early involvement of interested stakeholders, facilitate interagency cooperation, and identify and resolve 

issues before an application is filed with the Commission. On March 26, 2009, the FERC granted 

Transco’s request and established a pre-filing Docket Number (PF09-8-000) to place information filed by 

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

the public record.

In conjunction with the pre-filing process, Transco implemented a stakeholder communication 

plan to identify and engage stakeholders, share information regarding the project, seek input on 

environmental and other issues, and provide opportunities for public comment. As part of its plan, 

Transco communicated with landowners; elected officials and staff; community leaders; federal, state, 

and local agencies; non-governmental organizations; local businesses; nearby residents; civic 

organizations; and other interested individuals and organizations. Transco used direct mail to provide 

information on the Rockaway Project to stakeholders and established a toll-free project hotline, email 

address, and Rockaway Project website. The website includes a project description and overview map, 

information on construction methods, answers to frequently asked questions, information on the FERC’s 

environmental review process, and contact information for the Rockaway Project. 

Transco held two public open house meetings to provide information on the Rockaway Project

and solicit feedback from stakeholders on environmental issues and other concerns. The first was held in 

Far Rockaway in Queens County on April 24, 2012, and the second was held in Brooklyn in Kings 

County on April 25, 2012. Transco publicized the meetings via invitations sent to stakeholders, including 

nearby residents, public officials, and media; advertisements published in local newspapers; and press 

releases sent to media and public officials. We participated in the open house meetings and provided 

information on the environmental review process for the Rockaway Project. A combined total of 19 

individuals signed in at the open house meetings.

Transco engaged federal and state agencies via telephone calls, meetings, and site visits to discuss 

the Rockaway Project, identify environmental and other issues, identify mitigation strategies for impacts 

on environmental resources, and determine permit requirements for the Rockaway Project. In particular, 

Transco engaged NPS staff to discuss construction and operation of the Rockaway Project facilities 

within the GNRA and impacts to resources on NPS lands.

We participated in interagency meetings, conference calls, and site visits for the Rockaway 

Project to identify issues to be addressed in this draft EIS. The meetings, conference calls, and site visits

provided a forum for the exchange of information and supported the FERC’s responsibility to coordinate 

federal authorizations and associated environmental review of the Rockaway Project. In total, we

participated in 15 interagency meetings or conference calls and conducted four site visits. Additionally, 

we participated in 49 regular (often weekly or bi-weekly) conference calls with Transco and other 

agencies to discuss Rockaway Project issues. Summaries of the meetings, calls, and site visits were 

entered into the public record for the Rockaway Project, and are available for viewing on the FERC’s 

eLibrary website (www.ferc.gov).

4

 

4 Public meeting transcripts and comment letters are available for viewing on the FERC website (http://www.ferc.gov). Using 

the “eLibrary” link, select “General Search” from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and “Docket No.” 

excluding the last three digits (i.e., PF09-8), and follow the instructions. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676, or e-mail 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov. Because scoping was conducted during the pre-filing review (i.e., before Transco filed a 

formal application with the FERC), PF09-8 must be entered in the Docket No. field to view the public scoping transcripts 

and comment letters.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
1-9

On May 25, 2012, the FERC 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). The NOI was published in the Federal Register on 

June 1, 2012, and copies were mailed to over 200 parties, including representatives of federal, state, and 

local agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; 

potentially affected landowners; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. The NOI 

described the FERC’s environmental review process for the Rockaway Project; provided a preliminary 

list of issues for review in this 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 federal, state, 

and local agencies to participate as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS. The NOI opened 

the public scoping period and established a closing date of June 25, 2012 for receiving scoping comments. 

The FERC held two public scoping meetings in the Rockaway Project area to solicit and receive 

comments on environmental issues associated with this project. The first scoping meeting was held on 

June 12, 2012 at the Aviator Sports and Events Center in Brooklyn in Kings County, and the second was 

held on June 13, 2012 at the Knights of Columbus Rockaway Council 2672 on Rockaway Beach in 

Queens County. The scoping meetings provided an opportunity for the public to learn more about the 

proposed Rockaway Project and to provide comments on environmental issues to be addressed in this

draft EIS. A combined total of 11 individuals provided verbal comments at the scoping meetings. 

Transcripts of the meetings, as well as 120 written comment letters, were entered into the public record 

for the Rockaway Project and are available for viewing on the FERC’s eLibrary website (www.ferc.gov).

Transco filed an application with the FERC for a Certificate for the Rockaway Project on January 

7, 2013. The Commission subsequently issued a Notice of Application on January 22, 2013, assigning 

Docket Number CP13-36-000 to this project. The Notice of Application was published in the Federal 

Register on January 29, 2013. It announced the filing of Transco’s application and the end of the prefiling process and opened the period for intervention on the Rockaway Project. The Commission also 

mailed an update bulletin for the Rockaway Project to stakeholders on February 7, 2013.

Transco filed an application with the FERC for a Certificate for the Northeast Connector Project 

on April 9, 2013. The Commission issued a Notice of Application on April 17, 2013, assigning Docket 

Number CP13-132-000 to the project. On April 24, 2013, the Notice of Application was published in the 

Federal Register. The FERC subsequently issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed Northeast Connector Project and Request for Comments on Environmental 

Issues. This NOI was mailed to over 800 parties, including representatives of federal, state, and local 

agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially 

affected landowners; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. 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 this draft EIS; and invited other federal, state, and local agencies to participate as cooperating 

agencies in the preparation of the EIS. The NOI identified a closing date of May 27, 2013 for receiving 

scoping comments. 

The Commission received four written comment letters in response to the NOI for the Northeast 

Connector Project. These letters were entered into the public record and are available for viewing on the 

FERC’s eLibrary website (www.ferc.gov).

Prior to the issuance of this draft EIS to the public, we prepared a preliminary administrative draft 

EIS that was distributed to the NPS, EPA, USACE, NOAA Fisheries, and MOEC in their roles as

cooperating agencies for review and comment. Each agency provided us with comments, which have 

been incorporated into this document. All substantive scoping comments submitted to the FERC, from 

scoping meetings, interagency coordination meetings, and letters, were considered and addressed in the 

preparation of this draft EIS.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
1-10

Table 1.3-1 lists the environmental issues and concerns identified by commenters during the 

scoping process and identifies the section where the issue is addressed. Appendix A provides the 

distribution list for the draft EIS.

TABLE 1.3-1

Key Environmental Concerns Identified During the Scoping Process for the Rockaway Project

Issue/Specific Comment

Environmental Impact Statement

Section Addressing Comment

General

Purpose and need 1.1

Roles of cooperating agencies 1.2

Commission jurisdiction over natural gas pipelines 1.0, 1.2.1

Easement across Gateway National Recreation Area 1.2.2, 2.1.1, 4.5.3.1, 4.8.2

Construction methods, particularly offshore methods 2.3

Area of onshore and offshore disturbance and volume of excavated material 2.2, 2.3, 4.2.3, 4.5.2.1, 4.6.3, 4.8.1

Pile driving operations 2.3.1.5, 4.5.2.1

Depth of cover for the offshore pipeline 2.3.1.4

Backfilling of offshore excavation areas and restoration of offshore bathymetry 2.3.1.9, 4.1.7, 4.2.3, 4.3.2.3, 4.6.3.2

Drilling fluid 2.3.1.5, 2.3.1.9, 4.1.7, 4.3.2.3, 4.3.3, 4.5.2.1, 

4.6.3.2, 4.8.7

Opportunities for public comment 1.3

Construction of liquefied natural gas facilities 2.7, 3.3.8

Non-jurisdictional facilities 1.4, 4.13, Appendix B

Impacts from offshore pipeline maintenance 2.6.1, 4.5.3.1, 4.6.4, 4.7.3.1

Construction schedule 2.4

Alternatives

No action alternative 3.1

Alternative sites for the M&R facility 3.5

Alternative energy sources, including renewable energy 3.2

Alternative offshore construction methods 3.6

Meteorological Hazards

Impacts associated with hurricanes or flooding 4.1.4.3, 4.1.4.4

Soils

Contaminated soils, including marine sediments 4.2.2, 4.6.3.1

Water Quality and Aquatic Resources

Storage of hazardous materials and fuel, and spill reporting procedures 4.3.1.4, 4.3.2.3, 4.5.2.1, 4.6.3.2, 4.6.5, 

Appendix F, Appendix G

Impacts of dredging, including turbidity and sedimentation 4.3.2.3, 4.5.2.1, 4.6.3

Impacts of horizontal directional drilling 4.3.2.3, 4.5.2.1, 4.6.3.2, 4.8.7, Appendix H

Noise impacts on marine wildlife 4.5.2.1, 4.5.2.2, 4.6.3.2, 4.7

Impacts on marine wildlife including Essential Fish Habitat 4.5.2, 4.6.3 - 4.6.6, 4.7.1.1, 4.8.4.1

Impacts on the seafloor, particularly hard bottom surfaces and artificial reefs 4.1.7, 4.3.2.3, 4.5.2.1, 4.6.3.2, 4.8.4.1

Impacts of hydrostatic testing on the marine environment 4.3.2.3, 4.5.2.1, 4.6.3.2

Impacts on restoration activities within Jamaica Bay 4.8.7

Impacts on water quality 4.3, 4.6

Wetlands

Impacts on wetlands 4.3.3

Vegetation

Re-seeding disturbed areas 4.4.4

Spread of invasive species 4.4.3

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
1-11

TABLE 1.3-1 (cont’d)

Key Environmental Concerns Identified During the Scoping Process for the Rockaway Project

Issue/Specific Comment

Environmental Impact Statement

Section Addressing Comment

Wildlife

Impacts on migratory birds and bird habitat 4.5.2.4

Impacts on terrestrial wildlife 4.5.1, 4.5.2.3

Special Status Species

Impacts on federally and state-listed species 4.7

Impacts on right whale 4.7.1.1, Appendix N

Impacts on Atlantic sturgeon 4.7.1.2

Impacts on marine turtles 4.7.1.3

Impacts on piping plover 4.7.1.6

Land Use

Impacts on navigation 4.8.4.2, 4.9.4

Use of NPS lands for industrial development 4.8.2, 4.8.7, 4.8.8

Impacts on other land uses within the GNRA, including Floyd Bennett Field 4.8.7, 4.8.9, 4.11.2, 4.11.3

Impacts on recreational activities, including impacts on a bike path 4.8.2, 4.8.7

Impacts on bee keeping 4.8.9

Socioeconomics

Economic impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries and fisherman 4.5, 4.6, 4.8.4.1, 4.9.6 

Economic effects of the Rockaway Project 4.9

Cultural Resources

Adaptive re-use of the historic airplane hangars on Floyd Bennett Field 4.10.1, 4.13.12

Impacts on cultural resources, including architectural sites and shipwrecks 4.10.1, 4.13.12

Air Quality

Impacts on air quality 4.11.1, 4.13.13.1

Emissions from the M&R facility 4.11.1.3

Radon 4.11.1.5

Noise

Noise and noise mitigation 4.11.2

Location of the measurement for noise sensitive areas in Floyd Bennett Field Table 4.11.2-3

Reliability and Safety

Potential for fire or explosion 4.12

Availability of fire hydrants and firefighting equipment at Floyd Bennett Field 4.12.3

Impacts on public health and safety 4.12.3

Monitoring of the pipeline system, including inspections and remote monitoring 4.12.1, 4.12.3

Emergency response, including evacuation plans 4.12.1, 4.12.3

Terrorism 4.12.4

Cumulative Impacts

Impacts from development in the Marcellus shale region 4.13

Climate change 4.13.15

Impacts from the BQI Project 1.4, 4.13, Appendix B

Cumulative impacts on fisheries and aquatic resources 4.13.7

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
1-12

1.4 NON-JURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES

Under Section 7 of the NGA, the FERC is required to consider all factors bearing on the public 

convenience and necessity as part of its decision to authorize interstate natural gas facilities. 

Occasionally, projects reviewed by the FERC have associated facilities that do not fall under the 

jurisdiction of the Commission. These “non-jurisdictional” facilities may be integral to the need for a 

project (e.g., a power plant to be built at the end of a FERC-jurisdictional pipeline); or they may be 

associated as minor components that would be built as a result of the jurisdictional facilities (e.g., an 

electric distribution line providing service to a natural gas compressor station).

Non-jurisdictional facilities associated with the Projects include National Grid’s BQI Project and 

a proposal by the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) to rebuild a portion of an existing electric 

transmission line to provide power for the electric motor drives that would be installed at Compressor 

Station 195. Environmental impacts resulting from these projects are included in our assessment of 

cumulative impacts in Section 4.13.

1.4.1 Brooklyn-Queens Interconnect Project

The proposed Rockaway Project would connect to non-jurisdictional pipeline facilities being built

by National Grid as part of the BQI Project. The BQI Project consists of a series of system upgrades to 

enhance the reliability of service to customers by boosting delivery pressures and eliminating an existing 

dead-end feed on the Rockaway Peninsula. The BQI Project will provide a new delivery point that offers 

a long-term solution to meet the supply needs of National Grid’s system by delivering natural gas to the 

Brooklyn area, where supplies are currently needed. The location of the BQI Project in relation to the 

proposed Rockaway Project is depicted on Figure 1.4-1.

Phase I of the BQI Project consists of the installation of two parallel 12- and 26-inch-diameter 

natural gas pipelines, each estimated to be approximately 8,300 feet long, under Flatbush Avenue. The 

pipelines will extend from an existing 8-inch-diameter distribution pipeline in the vicinity of the 

southernmost airplane hangar complex at Floyd Bennett Field in Kings County, to an existing 8-inchdiameter pipeline at Beach 169th Street south of Beach Channel Drive on the Rockaway Peninsula in 

Queens County. The 12-inch-diameter pipeline will be designed to operate at a typical maximum 

allowable operating pressure (MAOP) for a transmission pipeline, but National Grid will operate it at 

lower pressure to distribute natural gas to residential and commercial buildings. When in-service, this

pipeline will allow National Grid to boost the operating pressure on the west end of the Rockaway 

Peninsula thereby eliminating current low pressure and delivery reliability issues. The 26-inch-diameter 

pipeline similarly will be designed to operate at a typical MAOP for a transmission pipeline, but National 

Grid will operate it at 60 pounds per square inch gauge (psig). This pipeline initially will provide a 

redundant supply source of natural gas to the Rockaways. If the proposed Rockaway Project is 

constructed, then National Grid’s 26-inch-diameter pipeline would serve as a transmission pipeline 

operating at higher pressures to transmit natural gas over long distances.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Existing 26" Lower New York B

Proposed Route

Transco

Transco

"

Proposed M&R

Facility Site

0 1 2

Miles p Figure 

Rockaway Deli

and Northeast Con

Location of the Brooklyn - Qu

Relative to the Ro

NJ

NY Proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral (26")

Existing Transco Pipelines

Existing National Grid Pipelines

National Grid BQI Project Pipelines

12" and 26"

30"

National Grid

1-13
1-14

Phase II of the BQI Project will entail the installation of approximately 12,000 feet of 30-inchdiameter natural gas transmission pipeline between National Grid’s existing 30-inch-diameter, 350 psig 

transmission main at the intersection of Hendrickson Street and Avenue U and the 26-inch-diameter 

Phase I pipeline at a point in the vicinity of the southernmost airplane hangar complex at Floyd Bennett 

Field. This pipeline will transport natural gas to the Brooklyn service area and National Grid’s 

distribution system via the Rockaway Project, if it is constructed. In addition, the design of the 30-inchdiameter pipeline will allow for a future increase in natural gas supply in response to an increase in 

demand.

The BQI Project is regulated at the state level by the New York State Department of Public 

Service. Environmental review of the BQI Project was conducted under the New York State 

Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) with the New York City Office of the Mayor as lead 

agency.

5

 The review was based on information provided by National Grid in its Environmental 

Assessment Statement (EAS) (National Grid, 2011) pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 91 of 1977, as 

amended, and the Rules of Procedure for City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) found at Title 62, 

Chapter 5 of the Rules of the City of New York and 6 New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations 

(NYCRR), Part 617, State Environmental Quality Review. 

On December 2, 2011, the New York City Office of the Mayor issued a Negative Declaration 

(CEQR No. 12OOM001K) for the BQI Project in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State 

Environmental Conservation Law. The Negative Declaration concluded that the installation of the project 

will “not have any potentially significant adverse effects on the quality of the environment” (New York 

City Office of the Mayor, 2011). A copy of the Negative Declaration, which provides a summary of the 

New York City Office of the Mayor’s findings from the environmental review process, is provided in 

Appendix B.

1.4.2 Philadelphia Electric Company Project

In conjunction with the proposed Northeast Connector Project, PECO plans to rebuild a portion 

of its existing 4 kilovolt (kV) electric transmission system to a three-phase 345 kV system to provide 

power to Compressor Station 195 in York County, Pennsylvania. While some of the existing power poles 

within the system would be reused, Transco estimates that up to 80 percent would be replaced with new 

ones, possibly with new spacing between the poles. The rebuild would occur within the existing right-ofway for the electric transmission system.

1.5 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

Tables 1.5-1 and 1.5-2 list the major federal, state, and local permits, approvals, and consultations 

that may be required for construction and operation of the Projects. The tables also provide the status of 

the process for obtaining each authorization. 

 

5 A copy of the EAS is available online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/110071924/Brooklyn-Queens-InterconnectEnvironmental-Assessment-Statement. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
1-15

TABLE 1.5-1

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Rockaway Project a

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation Agency Action Status

U.S. Congress

New York City Natural Gas Supply 

Enhancement Act

Legislation allowing the Secretary 

of the Interior to approve a right-ofway easement and special use 

permit for Rockaway Project

facilities within the Gateway 

National Recreation Area

Signed into law on 

November 27, 

2012

Federal Agencies

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC)

Certificate of Public Convenience 

and Necessity (Certificate) under 

Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act

Determine whether the Rockaway 

Project would be in the public

interest, and consider issuing a 

Certificate

Application filed on 

January 7, 2013

National Park Service Right-of-Way Easement, Lease 

Agreement, and Special Use Permit 

as allowed by the New York City 

Natural Gas Supply Enhancement 

Act

Consider issuing a right-of-way 

easement, lease agreement, and 

special use permit for Rockaway 

Project facilities and construction 

activities on Gateway National 

Recreation Area land

Application to be 

filed in 2013

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE)

Department of the Army permit 

under Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act

Consider issuing a permit for 

discharges of dredged or fill 

material into waters of the United 

States

Application 

submitted on 

January 7, 2013

Department of the Army permit 

under Section 10 of the Rivers and 

Harbors Act

Consider issuing a permit for 

structures or work in or affecting 

navigable waters of the United 

States

Application 

submitted on 

January 7, 2013

U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners, Aids to 

Navigation and Obstruction, and 

New York Sector – Marine Activity 

Approval

Notices/approvals required from the 

U.S. Coast Guard

Applications to be 

submitted in the 

first quarter of 2014

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Long Island Field 

Office

Consultation under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act 

Consider the FERC’s finding of 

impact on federally listed and 

proposed threatened and 

endangered species and their 

critical habitat, and provide a 

Biological Opinion if the action is 

likely to adversely affect federally 

listed or proposed species or their 

critical habitat

Ongoing

Consultation under Section 2 of the 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

Provide comments regarding the 

prevention of loss or damage to 

wildlife resources

Ongoing

Consultation under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act and Section 3 of 

Executive Order 13186

Provide comments regarding 

Rockaway Project effects on listed 

migratory birds

Ongoing

Consultation under the Marine 

Mammal Protection act

Provide comments regarding 

protected species

Ongoing

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
1-16

TABLE 1.5-1 (cont’d)

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations Required for the Rockaway Project a

Agency Permit/Approval/ Consultation Agency Action Status

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries 

Service

Consultation under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act

Consider the FERC’s finding of 

impact on federally listed and 

proposed threatened and 

endangered marine species and 

their habitat

Ongoing

Consultation under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act 

Provide comments regarding 

impacts to marine mammals

Application for an 

Incidental 

Harassment 

Authorization 

submitted on 

March 19, 2013 

Consultation under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act

Assess impacts and provide 

comments to prevent loss of and 

damage to Essential Fish Habitat

Ongoing

Consultation under Section 2 of the 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

Provide comments regarding the 

prevention of loss or damage to 

wildlife resources

Ongoing

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency

Review under Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act

Review Section 404 applications to 

the USACE for dredge-and-fill 

activities, and consider exercising 

veto power over permits issued by 

the USACE

Ongoing

Compliance with the Clean Air Act Determine applicability of General 

Conformity; review and publicly 

comment on the environmental 

impacts of major federal actions

Conformity analysis 

filed on January 7, 

2013; no further 

analysis required 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation

Consultation under Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation 

Act

Provide comments if the Rockaway 

Project would affect historic 

properties

Ongoing

State of New York

New York State Department 

of State

Consistency review under the 

Coastal Zone Management Act

Review the Rockaway Project for 

consistency with the coastal zone 

management plan, and issue a 

determination of consistency

Application 

submitted on 

January 7, 2013; 

review period 

stayed for 60 days 

beginning July 30, 

2013

New York State Department 

of Environmental 

Conservation

Water Quality Certificate under 

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act

Consider issuing a water quality 

certificate for the Rockaway Project

Application 

submitted on 

January 7, 2013

Coastal Erosion Permit under 

Article 34, Environmental 

Conservation Law, Coastal Erosion 

Hazard Area

Consider issuing a permit to the 

Rockaway Project

Application 

submitted on 

January 7, 2013

General Permit for Stormwater 

Discharges from Construction 

Activity under the State Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System 

Program

Consider issuing the General 

Permit for Stormwater Discharges

Application to be 

submitted in 2013

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
1-17

TABLE 1.5-1 (cont’d)

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations Required for the Rockaway Project a

Agency Permit/Approval/ Consultation Agency Action Status

Hydrostatic Test Water Permit/ 

Notification of Withdrawal and 

Discharge Locations for Water 

Used in Hydrostatic Testing under 

the State Discharge Elimination 

System Program

Consider issuing the Hydrostatic 

Test Water Permit/Notification of 

Withdrawal and Discharge 

Locations for Water Used in 

Hydrostatic Testing

Application to be 

submitted in 2013

New York Natural Heritage 

Program

Consultation on rare or state-listed 

plants and animals, significant 

natural communities, and significant 

habitats

Provide information on the potential 

for rare or state-listed species and 

significant communities and 

habitats in the Rockaway Project 

area

Completed in May 

2012

New York State Office of 

Parks, Recreation and 

Historic Preservation, 

Historic Preservation Field 

Services Bureau

Consultation under Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation 

Act

Review and comment on effects to 

historic properties

Ongoing

New York State Office of 

General Services

Submerged lands easement for the 

pipeline and cathodic protection 

system

Consider issuing an easement for 

the offshore pipeline and cathodic 

protection system in state waters

Application to be 

submitted in 2013

Local

City of New York Cooperating agency with the FERC 

for preparation of an EIS under

NEPA

Provide comments on the 

Rockaway Project

Ongoing

New York City Department 

of City Planning

Consistency review under the New 

York City Waterfront Revitalization 

Program 

Review the Rockaway Project for 

consistency with the program, and 

issue a determination of 

consistency

Application 

submitted on 

January 7, 2013

New York City Department 

of Environmental Protection

Utilities (sewer and water) 

potentially impacted during 

construction of the M&R facility, 

Noise Mitigation Plan (SelfCertification), Fossil Fuels 

Combustion Equipment Application 

for a Permit to Construct and 

Certificate to Operate the M&R 

facility

Review the Rockaway Project and 

consider issuing approvals, as 

appropriate

Applications to be 

submitted in 2013

New York City Department 

of Buildings

After-Hours Work Approval Considering issuing approval for 

after-hours work

Applications to be 

submitted in 2013

Triborough Bridge and

Tunnel Authority (also 

known as Metropolitan 

Transportation Authority 

Bridges and Tunnels)

Construction Permit for the onshore horizontal direction drill entry 

site on Rockaway Beach

Consider issuing a Construction 

Permit

To be acquired by 

National Grid

____________________

a Consultations with Native American tribes are discussed in Section 4.10.3.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
1-18

TABLE 1.5-2

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Northeast Connector Project a

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation Agency Action Status

Federal Agencies

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC)

Certificate of Public Convenience 

and Necessity (Certificate) under 

Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act

Determine whether the Northeast 

Connector Project would be in the 

public interest, and consider issuing 

a Certificate

Application filed on 

April 9, 2013

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Pennsylvania and 

New Jersey Field Offices

Consultation under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act 

Consider the FERC’s finding of 

impact on federally listed and 

proposed threatened and 

endangered species and their 

critical habitat, and provide a 

Biological Opinion if the action is 

likely to adversely affect federally 

listed or proposed species or their 

critical habitat

Completed on June 

7, 2013

Consultation under Section 2 of the 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

Provide comments regarding the 

prevention of loss or damage to 

wildlife resources

Completed on June 

7, 2013

Consultation under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act and Section 3 of 

Executive Order 13186

Provide comments regarding 

effects on listed migratory birds

Ongoing

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection, 

Bureau of Waterways 

Engineering and Wetlands

General Permit for Stormwater 

Discharges Associated with 

Construction Activities under the 

National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System

Consider issuing the General 

Permit for the discharge of 

Stormwater during construction

Notice of Intent to 

be submitted in 

March 2014 

Pennsylvania Historical and 

Museum Commission, 

Bureau for Historic 

Preservation

Consultation under Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation 

Act

Review and comment on effects to 

historic properties

Ongoing

New Jersey

New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection, 

Historic Preservation Office

Consultation under Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation 

Act

Review and comment on effects to 

historic properties

Completed on 

November 30, 

2011

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
2-1

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION

2.1 PROPOSED FACILITIES

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

and associated facilities, and an M&R facility with associated equipment. The Northeast Connector 

Project would consist of modifications at three existing compressor stations along Transco’s existing 

pipeline system. Overview maps depicting the locations of these facilities are provided on Figures 1-1

and 1-2. Detailed maps showing the pipeline route, M&R facility site, access roads, a pipe yard, and the 

existing compressor stations, are provided in the figures referenced in the sections below. The nonjurisdictional facilities associated with the Projects are addressed in Section 1.4, Figure 1.4-1, and 

Appendix B.

2.1.1 Pipeline Facilities

The proposed Rockaway Project pipeline facilities would include:

 approximately 3.2 miles of new 26-inch-diameter pipeline (depicted on the figures with 

two separate milepost 1[MP] systems: P0.00 to P0.04 and 0.00 to 3.16) that would deliver 

natural gas from Transco’s existing LNYBL in the Atlantic Ocean to an onshore delivery 

point with the National Grid system on the Rockaway Peninsula in Queens County, New 

York;

 a subsea hot-tap

2

(referred to in the figures as a dual hot-tap) in the Atlantic Ocean that 

would connect the new facilities to Transco’s existing LNYBL;

 a subsea manifold in the Atlantic Ocean near the subsea hot-tap that would include valves 

to isolate gas flows and provide a fitting for Transco to install a temporary launcher 

during pipeline operations; the launcher would be used to insert an internal inspection 

tool known as a pig 3into the pipeline to confirm its integrity and identify any needs for 

corrective repairs; and 

 a cathodic protection system 4consisting of an offshore anode bed and anode sled 

connected by a cable to an onshore rectifier to be built on the Rockaway Peninsula by 

National Grid as part of its BQI Project; the offshore anode bed would consist of about 

1,200 feet of anode cable installed perpendicular to the pipeline and terminating at the 

anode sled.

The portion of the pipeline that is located offshore would cross submerged lands owned by New 

York State and the NPS. The part of the pipeline that is located onshore would mostly be located under 

Jacob Riis Park, which is part of the GNRA and is managed by the NPS. At its very northern end, the 

pipeline would be located on property owned by the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA)

north of Fort Tildon and south of the Marine Parkway Bridge interchange. The subsea hot-tap assembly,

subsea manifold, and anode bed/sled would be located on submerged lands owned by New York State. 

Following construction, Transco would own and operate all of the proposed pipeline facilities. The 

locations of the proposed Rockaway Project pipeline facilities are shown on Figures 2.1.1-1, 2.1.1-2a, and 

2.1.1-2b.

 

1 Pipeline companies designate MPs along their pipeline systems as reference points to help describe the relative location of 

facilities or resources. The distance between two sequential MPs can but does not always equal one mile (i.e., 5,280 feet).

2 Hot-tapping is the method of making a connection to an existing pipeline without interrupting or emptying the existing 

pipeline. This means that the existing pipeline can continue to operate while modifications are conducted.

3 A pig is an internal tool that can be used to clean and dry the pipeline and/or inspect the pipeline for damage.

4 A cathodic protection system employs a low voltage current through a steel pipeline to prevent corrosion of the pipe.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
This information is for environmental review purposes only.

Figure 2.1.1-1

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

Location of Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project Facilities

2-2
Figure 2.1.1-2a

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

Pipeline Facilities for the

Rockaway Delivery Lateral

This information is for environmental review purposes only.

2-3

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Figure 2.1.1-2b

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

Pipeline Facilities for the

Rockaway Delivery Lateral

This information is for environmental review purposes only.

2-4

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
2-5

2.1.2 M&R Facility

As part of the Rockaway Project, Transco is proposing to construct and operate a new M&R 

facility inside the southernmost historic airplane hangar complex at Floyd Bennett Field, designated as 

Hangars 1 and 2, in Kings County, New York (see Figure 2.1.1-1). Floyd Bennett Field is part of the 

GNRA, which is managed by the NPS. The M&R facility would include:

 an aboveground launcher and receiver for inserting and removing cleaning and inspection 

pigs;

 meters and regulator facilities to measure and regulate the flow of gas;

 heating units to warm the gas to meet National Grid’s delivery requirements; and

 inlet and outlet pipes, consisting of a 26-inch-diameter inlet pipe and 8-, 12-, and 30-

inch-diameter outlet pipes, to connect the M&R facility to National Grid’s pipeline along 

Flatbush Avenue.

Transco is proposing to adaptively reuse the existing historic airplane hangars to accommodate 

the M&R facility, while also achieving an exterior appearance that would enhance the visual 

characteristics of the Floyd Bennett Field Historic District. Rehabilitation of the hangar complex would 

be done in accordance with a building design utilizing materials, fixtures, and operational systems 

approved by the NPS, FERC, and New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).

2.1.3 Compressor Stations

For the Northeast Connector Project, Transco proposes to modify three existing compressor 

stations to provide additional natural gas transportation service on its existing pipeline system (see 

Figures 2.1.3-1, 2.1.3-2 and 2.1.3-3). Specifically, Transco proposes to:

1. add an incremental 6,540 horsepower (hp) of compression at its existing Compressor 

Station 195 in York County, Pennsylvania by replacing three existing natural gas-fired 

reciprocating engines and appurtenant facilities with two new electric motor drives; 

modifying the existing compressor units to be driven by the new electric motors; 

modifying station piping and valves; and installing a new 35-kV substation, variable 

frequency drive building, and associated coolers;

2. add an incremental 5,000 hp of compression at its existing Compressor Station 205 in 

Mercer County, New Jersey by uprating two existing electric motor drives and modifying 

the associated compressor units; and

3. add an incremental 5,400 hp of compression at its existing Compressor Station 207 in 

Middlesex County, New Jersey by uprating two existing electric motor drives and 

modifying associated gearboxes.

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

compression on Transco’s existing system. This would allow Transco to deliver an additional 100 

Mdth/d of new incremental natural gas supply to National Grid via the interconnection between the

existing LNYBL and the proposed Rockaway Project. The modifications would occur on lands owned by 

Transco within the existing compressor station sites.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
This information is for environmental review purposes only.

Figure 2.1.3-1

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

An Overview of Compressor Station 195 

for the Northeast Connector Project

2-6
This information is for environmental review purposes only.

Figure 2.1.3-2

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

An Overview of Compressor Station 205 

for the Northeast Connector Project

2-7
This information is for environmental review purposes only.

Figure 2.1.3-3

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

An Overview of Compressor Station 207 

for the Northeast Connector Project

2-8
2-9

2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS

Transco proposes to use about 1,567.0 acres of onshore land and offshore ocean areas to construct 

the Rockaway Project. This includes the construction right-of-way and temporary workspaces for the 

pipeline, subsea hot-tap and manifold, cathodic protection system, and M&R facility, as well as access 

roads, marine vessel work areas in the ocean, and a pipe yard at an existing commercial/industrial site in 

Elizabeth, New Jersey. For the Northeast Connector Project, Transco proposes to use about 25.2 acres of 

land within the existing yard at Compressor Station 195 for construction of new facilities and temporary 

workspace. Construction activities at Compressor Stations 205 and 207 would occur within the existing

compressor buildings at these sites and would not disturb any land.

Operation of the Rockaway Project would require 64.1 acres of new permanent right-of-way for 

the pipeline (including the subsea hot-tap and manifold), 5.4 acres of new permanent right-of-way for the 

cathodic protection system, and 2.0 acres for the M&R facility. Transco would acquire easements and/or 

lease agreements for the property where its facilities would be constructed but would not purchase any 

land in fee. No additional land would be required for operation of the Northeast Connector Project.

The specific land requirements for the pipeline and associated facilities, M&R facility, pipe yard, 

access roads, and compressor stations are described in Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.5 below. A more 

detailed description of the land use requirements for the Projects is presented in Section 4.8.1. If the 

Projects are approved, Transco’s construction and operational work areas would be limited to those 

described in the final EIS and any subsequent Commission authorizations.

2.2.1 Pipeline Right-of-Way

Transco would use a 5,000-foot-wide by approximately 13,470-foot-long temporary work area in 

the ocean during construction of the offshore portion of the Rockaway Project. Of this approximately 

1,546.9-acre area, Transco estimates that 38.0 acres of direct seabed impact 5 would occur during 

construction. Areas beyond this 38.0-acre area would be indirectly affected by the suspension and redeposition of sediment disturbed by the offshore construction activities. Additional discussion of these 

indirect impacts is included in Sections 4.3.2.3 and 4.6.3.2. Onshore construction workspace for the 

pipeline, not including access roads, which are discussed in Section 2.2.4, would be limited to the 0.7-acre 

area immediately surrounding the horizontal directional drill (HDD) entry pit, and two narrow corridors 

parallel to the pipeline across Jacob Riis Park, totaling 1.3 acres, for HDD tracking wires. Figures 2.1.1-

2a, 2.1.1-2b, and 2.2.1-1 show the proposed construction workspace for the pipeline.

Following construction, Transco would retain a permanent easement over the pipeline totaling 

64.1 acres. Specifically, Transco proposes a 200-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for the offshore 

pipeline (including the subsea hot-tap and manifold) between the connection with the existing LNYBL 

and MP 2.43, which is the point along the HDD where the pipeline would reach a depth of about 80 feet 

below the seabed. The area within the permanent easement would be used as workspace to access the 

offshore pipeline in the event that future maintenance is required. Between MP 2.43 and the northern end 

of the pipeline where it would connect with the National Grid system on TBTA property, Transco 

proposes to retain a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way easement for monitoring the area and 

preventing encroachment over the pipeline by other utilities or structures. It would also help ensure that 

any future utilities are installed at least 25 feet away from the pipeline alignment. About 3.4 acres of the 

permanent easement would be on NPS land within the GNRA. 6 Most of the rest of the permanent 

easement would be on submerged lands owned by New York State.

 

5 This includes the area for offshore trenching, subsea hot-tap and manifold, pipe laydown, cable crossings, anchor footprints, 

anchor cable sweeps, lift legs for the jack-up barge, HDD exit pit, and anode sled and cable.

6 The easement on NPS lands would be based on a 10-year, renewable, lease agreement.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
This information is for environmental review purposes only.

Figure 2.2.1-1

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

Onshore Pipeline Workspace for the 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral

2-10
2-11

Transco would maintain a 200-foot-wide permanent easement over the offshore anode bed/sled 

for the cathodic protection system. An anode cable would be installed within the bed perpendicular to the 

pipeline in the area adjacent to the HDD exit pit on submerged lands owned by New York State. The 

anode sled would be installed at the end of the anode bed as shown in Figure 2.1.1-2a. The cable 

connection from the anode bed to an onshore rectifier would be installed within the pipeline right-of-way 

between the HDD exit pit and tie-in to the National Grid system on TBTA property. 

2.2.2 M&R Facility

Not including access roads, Transco proposes to use 5.5 acres of paved surfaces to construct the 

M&R facility for the Rockaway Project at Floyd Bennett Field and the outlet and inlet pipes that would 

connect the M&R facility to National Grid’s pipeline along Flatbush Avenue. The location of this 

proposed workspace is shown on Figure 2.2.2-1. The M&R facility would be housed entirely within the 

two hangars, which would be leased from the NPS to operate the facility. Transco proposes to retain a 

56-foot-wide permanent right-of-way easement for the 30-inch-diameter outlet pipe and a shared 60-footwide permanent right-of-way easement for the 8-inch-diameter and 12-inch-diameter outlet pipes and 26-

inch-diameter inlet pipe on NPS property. Combined, the permanent lease/easements for these facilities 

would total 2.0 acres.

2.2.3 Compressor Stations

The Northeast Connector Project would entail modifications at three existing compressor stations. 

The modifications proposed for Compressor Stations 205 and 207 would be confined to the existing 

compressor buildings at these sites. The modifications proposed for Compressor Station 195 would occur 

both within and outside the existing compressor building. Construction activities at Compressor Station 

195 would affect a total of approximately 25.2 acres of land within the existing station yard. 

2.2.4 Pipe Yard

Transco would temporarily use one 5.0-acre pipe yard (for storage of pipe and equipment) to 

construct the Rockaway Project. Transco proposes to lease space for the pipe yard from Construction and 

Marine Equipment (C&ME), located at 330 South Front Street, Elizabeth, New Jersey (Figure 2.2.4-1). 

The C&ME site has direct barge access along the Arthur Kill waterway and land access via South Front 

Street. Pipe would be transported from the pipe yard to the work site via barges and tugs using 

designated navigation channels and open water areas off the Rockaway Peninsula (see the pipe transport 

route figures in Appendix C). No pipe storage or contractor yards would be required for the Northeast 

Connector Project; instead Transco would use the existing compressor station sites for equipment and 

materials storage during construction.

2.2.5 Access Roads

Transco would use a total of 7.6 acres of existing public roads to access the proposed Rockaway 

Project facilities from other public roadways. About 7.1 acres of these access roads would be used for the 

M&R facility, and 0.5 acre would be used for the pipeline. No new access roads would be constructed for 

the Rockaway Project. Transco would utilize existing roads to access each of the compressor station 

properties during construction of the Northeast Connector Project. Transco would construct one new 

permanent access road within Compressor Station 195 to connect the new substation with other existing 

roads at the site. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
This information is for environmental review purposes only.

Figure 2.2.2-1

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

M&R Facility Workspace for the 

Rockaway Project 

2-12
This information is for environmental review purposes only.

Figure 2.2.4-1

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

Pipe Yard for the Rockaway Project 

2-13
2-14

2.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES

The Projects would be designed, constructed, tested, operated, and maintained in accordance with 

the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) regulations in 49 CFR 92, Transportation of Natural 

and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards, and other applicable federal and state 

regulations.

To reduce impacts during construction of the Rockaway Project, Transco would implement its

Project-Specific Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Transco Plan) and ProjectSpecific Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Transco Procedures) (see

Appendices D and E). These are based on the mitigation measures described in the FERC’s Upland 

Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (FERC Plan) and Wetland and Waterbody 

Construction and Mitigation Procedures (FERC Procedures) 7as well as guidelines from the USACE and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). We have reviewed Transco’s Plan and Procedures, found them to 

be acceptable, and have determined that adherence to the requirements of these plans would reduce the 

impacts of the Rockaway Project. Transco would implement the mitigation measures identified in the 

FERC Plan to reduce the impacts of the Northeast Connector Project at Compressor Station 195. The 

requirements of Transco’s Plan and Procedures and the FERC Plan are discussed in more detail in 

Sections 4.2.3 and 4.4.4. 

To avoid or minimize the potential for harmful spills and leaks during construction, Transco 

developed a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC Plan) for the Rockaway Project

(see Appendix F), and a Construction Spill Plan for Oil and Hazardous Materials (Construction Spill 

Plan) for each of the Projects (see Appendix G). These plans describe spill and leak preparedness and 

prevention practices, procedures for emergency preparedness and incident response, and training 

requirements. Transco also prepared a Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) Operations Monitoring 

and Contingency Plan (HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan) (see Appendix H), which describes the 

measures that would be implemented during the HDD operation to prevent and respond to an unplanned 

or inadvertent release of drilling fluid (also known as a frac-out) or in the event of a drill failure.

2.3.1 Pipeline Construction Procedures

The Rockaway Project would involve the construction of 2.84 miles of offshore pipeline and 0.36

mile of onshore pipeline and would require the use of both offshore and onshore pipeline construction 

methods. The offshore and onshore construction methods would include the use of: 

 a pipe lay barge to fabricate the offshore segment of the pipeline and lay it on the seabed;

 a jet sled to excavate seabed sediments and lower the offshore segment of the pipeline

into a trench;

 

7 The FERC Plan and Procedures are a set of construction and mitigation measures developed in collaboration with other 

federal and state agencies and the natural gas pipeline industry to minimize the potential environmental impacts of the 

construction of pipeline projects in general. The FERC Plan can be viewed on the FERC Internet website at 

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/plan.pdf. The FERC Procedures can be viewed on the FERC Internet website at 

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/procedures.pdf.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
2-15

 hand jetting to excavate the seabed in the area of the subsea hot-tap and manifold, at 

offshore cable crossings, and along the anode bed for the cathodic protection system;

 an HDD to install the pipeline from about 0.7 mile offshore to the tie-in with the National 

Grid system on the Rockaway Peninsula;

 dredging and pile driving in the vicinity of the offshore HDD exit pit; and

 upland construction techniques to excavate soil at the HDD entry pit and connect 

Transco’s pipeline to National Grid’s pipeline on the Rockaway Peninsula. 

2.3.1.1 Offshore Construction Vessels

The offshore construction for the Rockaway Project would require the use of several different 

types of vessels. The primary vessels would consist of a pipe lay barge, a jack-up barge, a clamshell 

barge, two pipe transport barges, and a dive support vessel. Figure 2.3.1-1 illustrates the offshore 

construction spread and anchoring method for these vessels. Other vessels would be used to support the 

construction effort, including seven standard and two anchor-handling tug boats (tugs), two crew boats, 

two escort boats, a fuel barge, and a survey vessel. Descriptions of the vessels are included below.

Pipe Lay Barge

A pipe lay barge is a large ocean-going vessel that would be used for several activities, including 

assembling and laying the pipeline on the seabed, installing the subsea hot-tap and manifold, towing the 

jet sled to excavate the pipeline trench, hydrostatic testing the pipeline, and installing the HDD segment

of the pipeline. A more detailed description of these activities is presented in the sections that follow. 

The pipe lay barge would be positioned and held in place using an eight-point mooring system of wire 

ropes and anchors.

8

 The wire ropes would be equipped with mid-line buoys to keep the wire ropes off of 

the seafloor. This anchoring system would be used to move the barge by reeling the anchors in or out. 

When the barge progresses to the end of the mooring lines and has no more line to reel in, anchorhandling tugs would be used to move the anchors to a new position ahead of the barge. Figure 2.3.1-2

shows a pipe lay barge during a pipe-lay operation while the pipe joints are being unloaded. 

Jack-up Barge

A jack-up barge equipped with cranes and other heavy equipment (e.g., drilling tools, drill pipe, 

and other equipment) would assist the HDD operations, and may be used to install and remove the goal 

posts and fender piles associated with the HDD. A more detailed description of these activities is 

presented in the sections that follow. The jack-up barge would be positioned using lift legs that press 

against the seafloor to support lifting the vessel above the water’s surface. Figure 2.3.1-3 shows a typical

jack-up barge. Figure 2.3.1-1 illustrates the typical positioning and anchoring of the jack-up barge 

relative to the pipeline.

 

8 Mooring/anchoring of vessels would occur within the 5,000-foot-wide by approximately 13,470-foot-long offshore 

temporary work area as described in Section 2.2.1.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
This information is for environmental review purposes only.

Figure 2.3.1-1

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

Typical Offshore Construction Vessel Positioning

for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral

2-16
2-17

Figure 2.3.1-2 Typical Pipe Lay Barge and Pipe Transport Barge 

Figure 2.3.1-3 Typical Jack-up Barge

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
2-18

Clamshell Barge

A clamshell barge would be used to excavate a pit at the HDD exit point and may be used as an 

alternative to the jack-up barge to install and remove the goal posts and fender piles associated with the 

HDD. A more detailed description of these activities is presented in the sections that follow. The 

clamshell barge would be equipped with a clamshell attached to a crawler excavator, survey equipment, 

an echo sounder (for excavation monitoring), and other equipment needed to support dredging activities. 

Mooring for the clamshell barge would consist of three or four anchors placed at pre-selected locations by 

a support tug. Figure 2.3.1-4 shows a typical clamshell barge in operation. Figure 2.3.1-1 illustrates the 

typical positioning and anchoring of the clamshell barge relative to the pipeline.

Figure 2.3.1-4 Typical Clamshell Barge in Operation

Pipe Transport and Fuel Barges

Two pipe transport barges would be used to move pipe joints from the pipe yard to the pipe lay 

barge during pipe-laying operations. The pipe transport barges would be rafted beside the pipe lay barge 

during unloading. One fuel barge would be used to service the offshore vessels and other equipment 

during construction.

Dive Support Vessel 

A dive support vessel would be used where diving operations and subsea construction are 

required. A dive support vessel would also be used for pre-commissioning and commissioning 

activities. 9 A typical dive support vessel would have a suitable deck for diving and construction 

equipment (e.g., cranes, air compressors, and pumps) and may include facilities for pipe welding and 

other construction activities. The vessel would have living and dining accommodations for crew and 

construction staff. Mooring for a typical dive support vessel would consist of three or four anchors placed 

at pre-selected locations either by the dive support vessel or by a support tug. 

 

9 Pre-commissioning refers to activities that are carried out on the pipeline before the final product is introduced into the 

pipeline. Commissioning is the process of filling the pipeline with natural gas so it can begin operation.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
2-19

Standard and Anchor-Handling Tugs

Standard tugs would be used to tow the pipe transport barge between the pipe yard and pipelaying operation, tow the fuel barge to the offshore construction area, and assist in moving and 

positioning other vessels. Anchor-handling tugs would be responsible for placing, retrieving, and 

repositioning anchors and anchor lines during pipe-laying and pipe installation activities. These tugs, 

which are specifically designed and constructed for this purpose, are generally more powerful and 

maneuverable and have greater lifting capacity than standard tugs. 

Crew Boats

Two general-purpose vessels would be chartered locally to carry personnel and service the 

construction vessels as needed. When away from the dock and inactive, the crew boats would be rafted to 

construction vessels.

Escort Boats

Two escort boats, which could be similar to harbor pilot boats, would keep other vessels aware of 

the movements of the pipe lay barge and other construction vessels. If a vessel not related to the 

Rockaway Project enters the construction area, an escort boat would approach the vessel and ensure its 

safe passage out of the construction area.

Survey Vessel

A survey vessel would verify bottom features in advance of, concurrent with, and following pipelaying activities. The vessel would be equipped with a differential global positioning system to pinpoint 

its location, an echo sounder, side-scan sonar, magnetometer, and pipeline- and cable-locating equipment.

2.3.1.2 Pipe Delivery and Concrete Coating at the Pipe Yard

The pipeline for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral would be fabricated from approximately 450 40-

foot-long pipe joints. The pipe joints would be shipped by rail from a pipe mill manufacturer to the 

proposed pipe yard in Elizabeth, New Jersey. The pipe would arrive with an external coating of fusionbonded epoxy and an internal coating of liquid epoxy. At the pipe yard, concrete-weight coating would 

be applied to the pipe joints for the offshore, non-HDD section of the pipeline. The pipe joints for the 

HDD section would be coated with an abrasive-resistant coating, but would not be concrete coated. The 

pipe joints would then be shipped by the pipe transport barges and tugs to the offshore pipe lay barge (see 

the pipe transport route figures in Appendix C).

The subsea hot-tap and manifold would be delivered, pre-made, to the pipe yard in Elizabeth, 

New Jersey, along with the materials for the cathodic protection system, and shipped by the pipe transport 

barges and tugs to the offshore construction site.

2.3.1.3 Pipe Fabrication with a Lay Barge

After the pipe joints are brought to the pipe lay barge, the ends of the pipe joints would be aligned 

and then welded together using multiple passes for a full-penetration weld. The welding would be 

performed by welders qualified according to applicable American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and American Petroleum Institute (API) standards. 

The fittings would be manufactured to the ANSI MSS-SP 75, “Specification for High Test, Wrought, Butt 

Welding Fittings.” To ensure weld quality and integrity and that the assembled pipe meets or exceeds the 

design strength requirements, the welds would be visually inspected and non-destructively tested using 

radiographic (X-ray) or another approved test method in accordance with API standards. Any welds that 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
2-20

are determined to be defective would be removed or repaired as necessary. All new welds or repairs 

would be re-inspected and non-destructively tested. Following welding, the previously uncoated ends of 

the pipe joints would be treated in the field with a company- and industry-approved anti-corrosion 

coating. Before lowering the pipe, the coating on each pipe section would be inspected and any damaged 

areas would be repaired.

After several sections of the pipe are welded together and tested on the pipe lay barge, the leading 

end of the pipeline would be lowered down to the seabed. As the pipeline is being lowered, more joints 

would be welded on to the end until the entire pipeline is fabricated and resting on the ocean floor. 

2.3.1.4 Subsea Trenching with a Post-Lay Jet Sled

The pipeline would then be lowered to a minimum depth of 4 feet below the seabed using a postlay jet sled. The post-lay jet sled would straddle and be towed along the pipeline by cable or chain from 

the pipe lay barge, which would provide pressurized water and air for the system. The jet sled would use

high-pressure water jets to open a trench under the pipeline. The material loosened by the jets would be

expelled by discharge nozzles to the area behind the sled. As the sled is pulled along creating the trench, 

the pipeline would sink under its own weight and settle on the trench bottom. The configuration of a 

typical jet sled is shown on Figure 2.3.1-5.

2.3.1.5 Horizontal Directional Drilling

Transco would use the HDD method to minimize impacts on nearshore habitats and avoid 

impacts on the beach and other areas of Jacob Riis Park. Transco proposes to locate the HDD entry point 

on TBTA property just north of Jacob Riis Park on the Rockaway Peninsula. The HDD exit point would 

be located about 3,600 feet or 0.7 mile offshore of the peninsula. As described in more detail below, the 

HDD operation would be completed in three steps:

 the drilling of a small-diameter pilot hole;

 reaming or enlarging of the pilot hole to a diameter sufficient to accommodate the 

pipeline; and

 pulling the HDD pipeline segment into the completed drill hole. 

The pipe for the HDD segment would be fabricated on the pipe lay barge as described above, laid 

on the seafloor within the proposed right-of-way easement, and hydrostatically tested (see the description 

of hydrostatic testing in Section 2.3.1.11 below) before being pulled through the drill hole.

The proposed HDD construction period would last approximately 8 to 10 weeks. This estimate is 

based on crews working 12 hours per day during the first phase of the HDD operation (i.e., during the setup of the equipment and the drilling of the pilot hole), then switching to 24 hours per day during the 

second phase of the HDD operation (i.e., during the reaming or enlarging of the pilot hole and when the 

offshore HDD pipeline segment is pulled into the hole and back to the HDD entry point). 

The drilling fluid that would be used during the HDD operation to lubricate and facilitate the 

drilling operation and the removal of cuttings from the drill hole would consist of approximately 95 to 98 

percent fresh water and 2 to 5 percent bentonite, which is a naturally occurring, nonhazardous clay 

mineral. As currently planned, the fresh water would be sourced from fire hydrants located in the vicinity 

of the onshore entry workspace. The potential for environmental impact due to the HDD drilling fluid is 

discussed in Sections 4.3.2.3, 4.5.2.1, and 4.6.3.2.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
This information is for environmental review purposes only.

Figure 2.3.1-5

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

Typical Jet Sled Configuration 

2-21
2-22

In preparation for initiating the pilot hole operation, a clamshell dredge would excavate a pit at 

the offshore HDD exit point location. The excavated material would be deposited on the seabed adjacent 

to the exit pit. The pit would provide a ramp and transition area that would be used to connect the end of 

the HDD segment to the section of the pipeline that is installed using the jet sled. It would also serve to 

contain the HDD drilling fluid and cuttings that are released at the offshore exit location during the HDD 

operation. The pit would be able to accommodate approximately 15,300 cubic yards of material.

Around the same time that the offshore 

exit pit is being dredged (or earlier), HDD 

equipment, including an HDD drill rig (see 

Figure 2.3.1-6), would be mobilized to and set 

up at the onshore HDD entry point location. 

The drill rig would drill a pilot hole under the 

shoreline and seabed to the pre-excavated pit at 

the offshore exit point. Transco would install 

casing for approximately the first 100 to 200 feet 

of the drill path on the HDD entry side to 

contain and facilitate the return of the drilling 

fluid to the HDD entry location. 

Figure 2.3.1-6 Typical HDD Drill Rig

While the drilling of the pilot hole is underway, approximately five sets of steel piles (10 piles

total) known as goal posts, probably due to their similarity in appearance to football goal posts, would be 

installed on the south side of the HDD exit pit to help support the drill pipe during the drilling operation

(see Figure 2.3.1-7). Another 60 steel piles, known as fender piles, would be installed to prevent support 

vessels from accidentally coming into contact with the clamshell or jack-up barge during the HDD 

operation. All 70 of these piles, consisting of steel pipe measuring 14 to 16 inches in diameter, would be 

installed using two vibratory hammers. One vibratory hammer would be in the process of positioning 

while the other is actively hammering.

10 The installation of the piles would be completed in 

approximately 1 week with about 10 piles driven each day. Transco estimates that it would take 

approximately 60 seconds of continuous vibratory driving to install each pile. Thus, the total operating 

time of the vibratory hammer would be less than one day of continuous operation spread over a period of 

one week. 

After the pilot hole is completed, it would be enlarged to a diameter sufficient for the 26-inchdiameter pipeline plus the casing that would be installed at the entry site. The enlargement of the pilot 

hole would be accomplished by a tool known as a reamer that would be attached to the drill head. 

When the enlarged hole is suitable for installation of the HDD pipe segment, the 10 goal post

piles would be removed using a vibratory hammer. Approximately 60 seconds of continuous operation of 

the vibratory hammer spread over a period of one to two days would be required to extract each goal post 

pile. After the goal posts are removed, the jack-up barge would be moved and the pipe lay barge would 

be repositioned to support the installation of the HDD pipe segment through the combined effort of the 

onshore and offshore equipment, which would insert the HDD segment into the offshore HDD exit hole 

and pull it back to the HDD entry hole (see Figure 2.3.1-8).

 

10 According to Transco, the model of vibratory hammers likely to be used for the Rockaway Project is the MKT V 52.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
This information is for environmental review purposes only.

Figure 2.3.1-7

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

HDD Exit Pit and Construction Layout

for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral

2-23
This information is for environmental review purposes only.

Figure 2.3.1-8

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

HDD Pipeline Pullback (Offshore) 

for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral

2-24
2-25

After the HDD pipe segment is installed and before it is connected to any other sections of pipe, it 

would be hydrostatically tested a second time (see Section 2.3.1.11 for additional discussion of 

hydrostatic testing). When this second hydrostatic test is successfully completed, Transco would remove 

the casing at the onshore entry location and demobilize any remaining HDD equipment.

Following completion of the HDD, the 60 fender piles would be extracted using the vibratory 

hammer. Transco estimates that removal of the fender piles would be completed in approximately one

week with about 10 piles extracted each day. Approximately 60 seconds of continuous operation of the 

vibratory hammer would be required to extract each pile. The total operating time of the vibratory 

hammer for the extraction of the fender piles would be less than one day spread over a period of one 

week.

2.3.1.6 Subsea Cable Crossing

The proposed pipeline would cross one active offshore cable, the Neptune Regional Transmission 

System (RTS) power cable, and two inactive offshore cables. Transco plans to install the pipeline over 

these cables in such a way as to provide a minimum of 12 inches of separation between each cable and the 

pipeline. Installation of the pipeline at each cable crossing would be conducted by hand jetting. Two 

concrete mats would be placed perpendicular to the proposed pipeline at the base of the trench. The first 

mat would be level with the cable, and the second mat would be placed on top of the first mat to form a 

“bridge” over the cable. Transco would ensure 4 feet cover from the top of the pipe at the cable 

crossings. A schematic drawing of a cable crossing is presented as Figure 2.3.1-9. 

Transco developed a preliminary installation plan for the cable crossings and would submit this

plan to the owner of the active cable for review and approval before beginning pipeline construction near 

the crossing. We have added a recommendation in Section 4.8.4.3 that prior to the end of the draft EIS 

comment period, Transco should file an updated plan showing the finalized pipeline crossings and 

documentation of the cable owner’s concurrence with the plan.

2.3.1.7 Subsea Hot-Tap and Subsea Manifold Installation

Transco would connect the pipeline to the existing LNYBL using a subsea hot-tap (with two hottap connections) connected to a subsea manifold. Because of the size and weight of the structures and 

equipment associated with the subsea hot-tap and manifold, they would be installed by the pipe lay barge. 

Divers using hand-jetting equipment would excavate the areas for the subsea hot-tap and subsea manifold 

to a depth of approximately 8 feet below the seabed. 

Before making the connection of the hot-tap to the existing pipeline, divers would remove the 

external concrete coatings from approximately 25 feet of the existing LNYBL. In total, about 2 cubic 

yards of the concrete coating would be broken up and removed. This material would collect in the 

excavated area beneath the pipeline. After removing the concrete coating, the divers would remove about 

a half a cubic yard of the 5/8-inch thick protective coating on the pipeline, which would also collect in the 

excavated area beneath the pipeline. When the removal of these two coatings is complete, Transco would 

collect and dispose of recoverable pieces of the broken coatings. 

Transco would then lower clamps and attach them to the hot-tap and pipeline. After testing the 

fittings to ensure proper seals and that the integrity of the LNYBL pipeline is maintained, Transco would 

complete the taps into the existing pipeline and connect the subsea hot-tap to the subsea manifold. A twopart epoxy coating would then be applied to the 25-foot-long section of the LNYBL to replace the 

protective coating that is removed to facilitate installation of the hot-tap. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
This information is for environmental review purposes only.

Figure 2.3.1-9

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

Typical Subsea Cable Crossing 

for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral

2-26
2-27

2.3.1.8 Anode Bed and Anode Sled Installation

The anode bed would consist of about 1,200 feet of anode cable installed perpendicular to the 

pipeline in the vicinity of the HDD exit pit (Figure 2.3.1-10). Divers operating from a dive support vessel 

would use a hand jet to excavate the anode bed to a depth of about 5 feet below the seafloor. The anode 

sled, which would consist of a series of metallic rods attached to a corrosion resistant frame, would be 

installed at the end of the anode cable. Divers would hand jet the area for the anode sled to a depth of 

about 6 feet below the sea floor. The anode bed then would be connected to the anode cable and lowered 

into the excavated area. 

The cathodic protection system would be connected to the onshore rectifier by an anode cable. 

The cable would be pulled through the HDD borehole for the pipeline in a non-metallic conduit to the tiein with the National Grid pipeline system on the Rockaway Peninsula. No additional land would be 

disturbed by installation of the cable.

2.3.1.9 Offshore Backfilling

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

sedimentation processes rather than backfilling these areas at the time of construction. In response to 

comments from cooperating and other agencies, Transco modified the proposed action from natural to 

active backfill. For the pipe trench, Transco would configure the discharge nozzles on the jet sled to 

expel sediment behind the sled and into the trench. This would minimize the amount of sediment 

deposited outside of the trench during jetting and provide for immediate backfill of the trench as the 

pipeline is lowered to a depth sufficient to provide 4 feet of cover. Seabed currents would provide 

additional natural backfill as sediments migrate across the pipe trench.

Following installation of the pipeline, Transco would conduct a bathymetric survey to document 

seafloor elevations along the trench. The survey would also include areas where sediments are excavated 

by hand-jetting methods, such as the subsea hot-tap and manifold and the trench for the cathodic 

protection system. If the survey identifies any areas where the seafloor has not been restored and/or 

where 4 feet of cover is not present over the pipeline, Transco would backfill these areas using native 

sediments or approved compatible materials. 

In addition to backfilling the pipe trench, Transco would add a top layer of sediment over the 

drilling fluid and cuttings that collect within the offshore HDD exit pit both to cap these materials and 

restore the contours of the seafloor. The required thickness of the top layer would be determined by the 

USACE as part of its permitting process, though Transco estimates that the layer could range from 4 

inches to 2 feet thick. The area of the HDD exit pit would be included in Transco’s bathymetric survey to 

assess conditions along the seabed and identify areas where backfill is required. As with the pipe trench, 

currents along the seabed would provide additional natural backfill as sediments migrate across the pit.

If the bathymetric survey identifies areas where additional backfill is required, the fill would be 

obtained from the seafloor in the area immediately adjacent to the trench. The fill would consist of 

sediment disturbed by the jet sled that settles adjacent to the trench augmented, as necessary, by 

additional sediment from the seafloor. The fill would be withdrawn from an area estimated to measure 4-

feet wide by 1-foot deep. The fill would be withdrawn from the seafloor and discharged to the trench or 

other offshore excavation area using a suction dredge. The dredge would be lowered from the jack-up 

barge and pulled along the pipe trench (or other offshore excavation area) to withdraw/discharge 

sediment. Following the backfill operation, Transco would conduct a second bathymetric survey to verify 

that the contours of the seafloor have been restored and that 4 feet of cover is present over the pipeline.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
This information is for environmental review purposes only.

Figure 2.3.1-10

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

Anode Bed and Anode Sled 

for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral

2-28
2-29

2.3.1.10 Onshore Clearing, Grading, Trenching, and Backfilling

Before onshore construction begins, Transco would locate and mark nearby existing utility lines 

(e.g., cables, conduits, and pipelines) with flags, stakes, or other devices to prevent accidental damage 

during pipeline construction. Temporary soil erosion and sedimentation control measures would be 

installed around the edges of the temporary workspace, as applicable, in accordance with Transco’s Plan 

and Procedures. Following installation of the erosion and sedimentation control measures, the 

construction workspace would be cleared and graded, as needed, to create a level working surface to 

allow for placement or safe passage of equipment.

The short segment of pipe that would connect the proposed pipeline to National Grid’s facilities 

would be installed after the installation of the HDD segment. The trench for this pipe would be excavated 

with a track-mounted or rubber-tired backhoe or similar equipment to a depth that would allow at least 3

feet of cover between the top of the pipeline and the surface of the ground. Blasting would not be 

required for the installation. The bottom of the trench would be excavated at least 12 inches wider than 

the diameter of the pipe (i.e., about 38 inches for a 26-inch-diameter pipe). The sides of the trench would 

be sloped for safety, depending on soil characteristics and trench depth. The width of the top of the 

trench would vary depending on the soil stability and safety risks. On the two ends where it connects 

with the HDD segment and National Grid pipeline, the excavation would be deeper and the top of the 

trench may be between 12 and 15 feet across or wider if unstable soils are encountered. 

When the trench is complete and has been inspected to ensure that it is free of rock and other 

debris that could damage the pipe or its coating, the pipe would be lowered into place and covered by a 

concrete slab measuring 30 inches wide by 8 inches thick. The trench would then be backfilled using the 

previously excavated spoil, which would be pushed back into the trench using bladed equipment or 

backhoes. See Figure 2.3.1-11 for a schematic of a typical onshore construction right-of-way.

2.3.1.11 Hydrostatic Testing

The HDD segment would be hydrostatically tested before and after it is installed, and the entire 

3.2-mile-long pipeline from the LNYBL to the tie-in with the National Grid pipeline would be 

hydrostatically tested as one unit following installation of the pipeline to ensure it is capable of operating 

at the design pressure. Nearly all of the water used for these tests (approximately 573,500 gallons) would 

be saltwater obtained from the ocean, although a small portion (approximately 5,200 gallons) would be 

fresh water obtained from a municipal source. The seawater would be withdrawn at a fill rate of 

approximately 4,000 gallons per minute filtered through a 200-size mesh screen (mesh opening of 0.0029 

inch or 0.07 millimeter). An oxygen scavenger and non-oxidizing biocide would be added to the seawater 

to prevent corrosion of the pipeline interior, and a non-toxic florescent dye would be added to help detect 

potential leaks. The potential for environmental impact due to these additives is discussed in Section

4.6.3.2.

The water for the hydrostatic test would be pressurized in the pipe in accordance with DOT 

requirements as set forth in 49 CFR 192 and held for a minimum of 8 hours. Any loss of pressure that 

cannot be attributed to other factors (e.g., temperature changes) would be investigated. Any leaks that are 

detected would be repaired, after which the pipeline would be retested. Following the completion of each 

test the water would be discharged back to the ocean through a multi-port diffuser in accordance with the 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) hydrostatic test water discharge 

permit. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
This information is for environmental review purposes only.

Figure 2.3.1-11

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

Typical Onshore Construction Right-of-Way

for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral

2-30
2-31

2.3.1.12 Cleanup and Restoration

Any construction debris and temporary fencing that is installed at the HDD entry location would 

be removed after the onshore portion of the pipeline is backfilled. The affected land would then be 

graded to restore contours and seeded in accordance with the landowner agreement. Any permanent 

erosion and sediment control measures that are needed would be installed at this time.

2.3.2 M&R Facility Construction Procedures

The proposed M&R facility would be constructed in the southernmost historic airplane hangars at 

Floyd Bennett Field, designated as Hangars 1 and 2, in accordance with applicable New York City 

building codes utilizing materials, fixtures, and operational systems approved by the NPS, FERC, and 

New York SHPO. Construction of the M&R facility would occur during daylight hours and would 

consist primarily of construction/modifications to the existing hangars. 

Construction activities would occur within the roughly 1.1-acre footprint of the hangar complex. 

The hangar modifications and preparations for the new equipment and piping would include: pile driving 

to install sheeting into the ground outside the buildings to support the hangar walls; removing most of the 

existing concrete floors and replacing them with new concrete flooring or foundations, concrete pads, or 

crushed stone; excavating trenches inside the hangars for new piping and equipment foundations; pile

driving to install piles under the equipment, piping, and headers to be placed inside the buildings; 

installing the piping and equipment; restoring the exterior of the hangars; and replacing a missing roof on 

the structures. In total, approximately 6,115 cubic yards of spoil would be excavated from within the 

hangar complex to install the piping and equipment.

There would be some temporary surface disturbance within a 0.9-acre area outside the hangar 

buildings during installation of the inlet and outlet pipes. Approximately 1,400 cubic feet of material 

would be excavated for the trenches for the inlet and outlet pipes that would connect the M&R facility to 

National Grid’s pipeline along Flatbush Avenue. After the pipes are installed, the trenches would be 

backfilled with the excavated soil and the surface would be restored using the original paving stones or,

where the original paving stones cannot be used, with new paving stones that are similar to the original 

stones.

Transco would use municipal water obtained from a hydrant or another municipal source to 

hydrostatically test the pipes and other equipment at the M&R facility. This testing would be conducted 

according to the same procedures and requirements as those described above for the pipeline, although no 

chemicals would be added to the water. Following completion of the testing, the water would be 

discharged into a nearby existing stormwater drain system as permitted by the NYSDEC.

2.3.3 Compressor Station Construction Procedures

Construction at Compressor Stations 205 and 207 would involve the use of hand tools to

replace/adjust equipment within the existing compressor buildings at these sites; no ground disturbing 

activities would occur at these sites. Construction at Compressor Station 195 would require modifications 

to equipment within the existing compressor building as well as installation of new facilities. Up to 25.2 

acres, all within the existing station yard, would be disturbed for construction of the new facilities as well 

as for temporary workspace. Activities at the site would include: staking of construction workspace and 

marking of existing utilities within the station yard; installation of temporary erosion controls to prevent

runoff from disturbed areas and stockpiled spoil; removal of vegetation and grading, where necessary, to 

create a level work surface and prepare foundation sites for the new facilities; removal of three existing 

natural gas-fired reciprocating engines and appurtenant facilities and installation of two new electric 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
2-32

motor drives within the existing compressor building; installation of new facilities on prepared 

foundations at the site; welding of components in accordance with API standards; backfilling and 

restoration of contours in work areas that do not include new permanent facilities; revegetation of 

disturbed areas; and removal of construction debris from the site.

Piping at Compressor Station 195 would be hydrostatically tested using water from an onsite 

potable water well. The testing would be conducted using the same procedures as those described above 

for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral. The water would be discharged within the station site in accordance 

with applicable state permits. Hydrostatic testing would not be required for the proposed modifications at 

Compressor Stations 205 and 207.

2.4 CONSTRUCTION WORKFORCE AND SCHEDULE

For the Rockaway Project, construction of the M&R facility would be completed over a 14 month 

period (six months to install equipment and up to 14 months for rehabilitation of the hangars) and 

construction of the pipeline would be completed over a six month period beginning in spring of 2014. 

Transco expects to use 130 or more construction workers for the offshore construction, and 45 

construction workers for the onshore construction. Of this total, Transco expects that approximately 85 

percent, or roughly 110 of the offshore workers and 40 of the onshore workers, would be local hires (i.e., 

individuals already residing in the New York metropolitan area). Most of the estimated 25 non-local 

workers would be engaged in offshore construction activities and would live on an offshore vessel or in 

temporary housing in the vicinity of the Rockaway Project. 

For the Northeast Connector Project, construction activities at Compressor Station 195 would be 

completed over a nine month period and construction activities at Compressor Stations 205 and 207 each 

would be completed over a two month period beginning in the spring of 2014. Transco expects to use 

approximately 60 workers for construction, including 50 workers at Compressor Station 195 and 5

workers each at Compressor Stations 205 and 207. Transco estimates that up to one-third of the 

workforce at Compressor Station 195, or about 20 workers, would be local hires. All other workers

would be non-local hires who would lodge in temporary housing in the vicinity of the compressor station 

sites.

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL TRAINING, INSPECTION AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING

Transco provides annual training for its Environmental Inspectors (EIs) and other company 

construction personnel in the implementation of its Plan and Procedures and other mitigation measures. 

The EIs for the Projects would be drawn from Transco’s inspector pool or possibly from qualified 

contractors. Transco would train the field construction personnel and construction contractor’s personnel 

before and during construction of the Projects. While this training would focus on implementation of 

Transco’s Plan and Procedures for the Rockaway Project and the FERC Plan for the Northeast Connector 

Project, as appropriate, it would also include instruction on permit conditions and requirements as well as 

the implementation of other mitigation measures, as appropriate.

For purposes of quality assurance and compliance with mitigation measures, applicable 

regulatory requirements, and Transco specifications, Transco would be represented on the construction 

spread for the Rockaway Project by a Chief Inspector. The Chief Inspector would be assisted by one or

more Craft Inspectors and at least one EI. The EI position would be a full-time position. The EI would 

report directly to Transco’s Chief Inspector and would have stop-work authority. The duties of the EI

would be consistent with those identified in the FERC Plan and would include ensuring compliance with 

environmental conditions from the FERC Certificate, Transco’s environmental designs and specifications, 

and other permits or authorizations. An adequate number of copies of the construction drawing package 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
2-33

would be distributed to Transco’s inspectors and to the contractor’s supervisory personnel. If the 

contractor’s performance is unsatisfactory, the terms of the contract would allow Transco to stop work in 

progress and require the contractor to begin remedial work. 

Any issues of environmental non-compliance that cannot be solved in the field would be 

addressed by Transco’s Construction Manager, who would be assigned to the Rockaway Project from 

Transco’s engineering and construction department. If technical or management assistance is required, 

construction headquarters staff would request assistance from the appropriate Transco department or 

division. Routine reporting or specific communication with the FERC staff regarding design, installation, 

and maintenance of the facilities described in the EIS would be the responsibility of Transco’s natural 

resources department. Transco’s operations department would be responsible for long-term Rockaway 

Project maintenance and regulatory compliance.

For the Northeast Connector Project, Transco would deploy an EI for the duration of construction 

activities at Compressor Station 195 to ensure that erosion and sediment controls are properly deployed 

and maintained in accordance with the FERC Plan. If additional controls are required during construction 

to manage sediment and runoff, the EI would have the authority to ensure that they are installed as and 

where needed. Following construction, the effectiveness of erosion control devices and the success of 

revegetation would be monitored by Transco’s operations department.

In addition to Transco’s environmental inspection program, we would conduct regular, typically 

monthly, inspections of construction activities associated with the Projects and post summary reports 

from the inspections into the dockets. As appropriate, we would coordinate our inspections with other 

agencies.

2.5.1 Post-Approval Variance Process

The pipeline alignment and work areas identified in the EIS should be sufficient for construction 

and operation (including maintenance) of the Projects. Minor route realignments and other workspace 

refinements sometimes continue past the project-planning phase and into the construction phase. As a 

result, the project locations and areas of disturbance described in this EIS may require refinement after 

approval of the Projects (assuming the Projects are approved). These changes could involve minor route 

realignments for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral, shifting or adding new temporary workspace or staging 

areas, or adding additional access roads. 

We have developed a procedure for assessing impacts on those areas that have not been evaluated 

in the EIS and for approving or denying their use. For the Rockaway Project, biological and cultural 

resources surveys were conducted using a survey corridor larger than that necessary to construct the 

facilities. If Transco proposes to modify the configuration of workspace or add new workspace 

subsequent to any Rockaway Project approval, these areas typically would be within the previously 

surveyed area. For the Northeast Connector Project, any changes in workspace configuration at 

Compressor Station 195 most likely would be within previously disturbed areas within the existing station 

yard.

The request for route realignments or additional temporary workspace (ATWS) locations along 

with a copy of the survey results and/or documentation of consultations with the appropriate resource 

agency would be documented and forwarded to the FERC in the form of a “variance request.” Typically, 

no further consultation with resource agencies would be required if the requested change is within 

previously surveyed or otherwise cleared areas and no sensitive environmental resources or managed 

areas are affected. The procedures used for assessing impacts from proposed workspace outside surveyed

areas and for approving their use are similar to those described in this EIS. Additional surveys, analyses, 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
2-34

and resource agency consultations would be performed, as necessary, to ensure that impacts on biological, 

cultural, and other sensitive resources would be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable. 

After Transco completes any required surveys, analyses, and consultations, the required documentation 

would be forwarded to the FERC for evaluation. Such requests would require review and written 

approval by the Director of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).

2.6 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Transco would operate and maintain the Projects in compliance with DOT regulations provided 

in 49 CFR 192, the FERC guidance in 18 CFR 380.15, and the maintenance provisions of Transco’s Plan 

and Procedures and FERC’s Plan and Procedures. Operation and maintenance considerations for the 

proposed facilities are described below.

2.6.1 Pipeline Facilities

Operational activity on the Rockaway Delivery Lateral would include maintaining, inspecting, 

cleaning, and (as necessary) repairing the pipeline. Onshore, periodic ground inspections by pipeline 

personnel would identify soil/sediment erosion that may expose the pipe, dead vegetation that may 

indicate a leak in the line, conditions of the vegetative cover, unauthorized encroachment on the pipeline 

(e.g., buildings and other substantial structures), and other conditions that could present a safety hazard or 

require preventive maintenance or repairs. Responses to conditions observed during inspection would be 

taken, as necessary, in accordance with the appropriate approved plan, regulatory requirement, FERC 

certificate condition, and/or permit condition. Because of the depth of the pipeline where it is installed by 

the HDD method as well as NPS ownership of the land, Transco does not propose to maintain the ground 

surface above the pipeline, but Transco would coordinate closely with the NPS to ensure safe operating 

conditions. 

The proposed pipeline would be designed and constructed to accommodate inspection using inline inspection tools known as pigs. The existing 26-inch-diameter LNYBL pipeline was inspected with a 

pig in 2012 with no issues identified. The subsea hot-tap fittings would be designed to ensure the existing 

pipeline can still be inspected using a pig. Within 10 years of being placed into service, and every 7 years 

thereafter, the proposed pipeline would be inspected with a pig in accordance with 49 CFR 192. 

The onshore portion of the pipeline facilities would be marked at key points. The markers would 

clearly indicate the presence of the pipeline, call out the words “Natural Gas,” and provide a telephone 

number and address where a company representative may be reached in the event of an emergency or 

before any excavation in the area of the pipeline by a third party. Additionally, Transco participates in all 

One-Call systems. 

Typically, HDD installations are not marked because they extend far below the excavation depths 

for other normal construction activities and/or are in sensitive environmental areas. For the Rockaway 

Project, flush-mounted reflective plastic plate markers would be placed at a few select curb or existing 

pavement locations along the upland portion of the HDD route through Jacob Riis Park, including a 

location near the HDD entry point where the pipeline would be at a shallower depth. Typical post-style 

pipeline markers would not be installed on NPS land.

The USACE has advised Transco that it would require the placement of a sign no smaller than 4-

feet by 4-feet containing language regarding the location of the pipeline at the shoreline crossing as a 

condition to any permit it may issue for the Rockaway Project. Transco would work with the USACE 

and NPS to confirm the requirements for the sign and select a design, size, and location that is acceptable 

to both agencies. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
2-35

2.6.2 Aboveground Facilities

Transco would operate and maintain the M&R facility and Compressor Stations 195, 205, and 

207 in accordance with DOT regulations at 49 CFR 192. Transco personnel would routinely visit these

facilities for the purpose of calibrating equipment and instrumentation, inspecting critical components, 

and performing scheduled and routine maintenance of equipment and grounds. Corrective actions would 

be taken, as necessary, if problems are identified.

2.7 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT

Transco has not identified any plans to expand or abandon the proposed facilities. Any plans to 

expand the proposed facilities would be subject to approval by the FERC under Section 7(c) of the NGA. 

If, for some reason, Transco is required to abandon any of the facilities in the future, the abandonment 

would be subject to approval by the FERC under Section 7(b) of the NGA. For the portions of the 

Rockaway Project on GNRA lands, abandonment additionally would be subject to the terms of the 

easement/lease agreements between the NPS and Transco.

We received comments during project scoping from the public and NPS regarding the 

construction of offshore liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities in association with the Rockaway Project. 

Transco is not proposing to construct LNG facilities as part of either the Rockaway or Northeast 

Connector Projects. Any future plans to construct offshore LNG facilities would be subject to the 

approval of the Commission under Section 3 of the NGA and the DOT’s Maritime Administration 

(MARAD) under the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (DWPA). A discussion of cumulative impacts 

resulting from construction of reasonably foreseeable projects, including a proposal for an unrelated LNG 

terminal, is provided in Section 4.13.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-1

3.0 ALTERNATIVES

As required by NEPA and FERC policy, we evaluated alternatives to the Projects. These include

the No Action Alternative, energy alternatives, system alternatives, route alternatives, and site 

alternatives. In assessing and evaluating alternatives, it is important to recognize that not all conceivable 

alternatives are technically and economically practical and feasible. Some alternatives may be 

impracticable because the sites are unavailable and/or the alternatives are incapable of being implemented 

after taking into consideration costs, existing technologies, constraints of existing system capacities, and 

logistics in light of the overall objectives of the Projects. In conducting an analysis of reasonability, it is 

also important to consider the environmental advantages and disadvantages of the proposed action and to 

focus the analysis on those alternatives that may reduce impacts and/or offer a significant environmental 

advantage.

In evaluating alternatives, we used the following criteria:

 would the alternative offer a significant environmental advantage over the Projects;

 does the alternative have the ability to meet the objectives and schedule of the Projects; 

and

 is the alternative technically and economically feasible and practicable?

In consideration of the second evaluation criterion, Transco’s objectives for the Projects are to:

 provide firm delivery lateral service of 647 Mdth/d of natural gas to National Grid’s 

distribution system in Queens County, New York through the Rockaway Project;

 provide as part of the 647 Mdth/d, 100 Mdth/d of new incremental (i.e., additional)

natural gas supply to National Grid through the Northeast Connector Project; and

 enhance the security and reliability of National Grid’s distribution system by providing a 

new delivery point on the Rockaway Peninsula in Queens County that would allow

National Grid to shift existing volumes of natural gas supply from an existing delivery 

point in Long Beach in Nassau County.

While the in-service date was not considered an objective to the Projects in defining a purpose 

and need, it was considered in the evaluation of alternatives. This is because some alternatives would be 

unable to meet the objectives of the Projects within a reasonable timeframe, if at all. For example, some 

potential alternatives would require many years to plan, permit, and construct.

Our identification of alternatives to the proposed Projects took into account public comments and 

input received from the NPS and other federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. The analysis of 

alternatives is based on information provided by Transco and our review of aerial photographs, U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, other publicly available information, input from the NPS 

and other cooperating agencies, and our site visits.

Through the application of evaluation criteria and subsequent environmental comparisons, each 

alternative was considered until it was clear that the alternative was not reasonable or would result in 

greater environmental impacts that could not be readily mitigated. Those alternatives that appeared to be 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-2

the most reasonable with less than or similar levels of environmental impact are reviewed in the greatest 

detail below.

3.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the No-Action Alternative, the potential environmental impacts associated with the 

Projects would not occur, but the objectives of the Projects would not be met. As noted above, the 

Projects would provide 647 Mdth/d of natural gas to National Grid at a new delivery point on the 

Rockaway Peninsula in Queens County. This would give National Grid the ability to redirect all or some 

of its system capacity, currently contracted to their existing Long Beach delivery point, to the new 

delivery point in Queens during peak demand periods. As part of the 647 Mdth/d, the Projects would

provide 100,000 Mdth/d of new natural gas to the existing National Grid natural gas distribution system 

in New York. The addition of the new delivery point and the increase in incremental supply would help 

meet the growing energy demands of National Grid’s customers in the Rockaways and Brooklyn, and 

enhance the reliability and security of National Grid’s existing distribution system, especially during 

periods of peak demand. 

In response to the No Action Alternative, Transco or other natural gas companies could develop 

another project or projects to provide the proposed natural gas supplies and services to National Grid. 

Such alternative projects could require the construction of additional and/or new pipeline facilities in the 

same or other locations. These projects would result in their own set of specific environmental impacts 

that could be equal to or greater than those described for the Projects. 

It is possible that National Grid’s existing and potential new customers would seek to use 

alternative fossil fuel energy sources (such as fuel oil or coal), other long-term fuel source alternatives 

(such as nuclear power or hydropower), and/or renewable energy sources (such as wind or solar power) to 

compensate for the reduced availability and reliability of natural gas resulting from the No Action 

Alternative. As is the case with other natural gas pipelines, each of these alternative energy source 

projects would have environmental impacts. It is also possible that energy conservation practices could 

be used to offset demand for natural gas in the markets that would be supplied by the Projects. Section 

3.2 discusses each of these energy alternatives, including increased efficiency, conservation, renewable 

energy sources, and use of other non-renewable fuels.

We received a comment from the NPS that increasing the availability of natural gas could 

stimulate construction of more homes and businesses, which in turn could result in growth inducing 

impacts such as increased population density, water pollution, and traffic. While none of these potential 

impacts would result from the No Action Alternative, they could result from any of the other alternatives,

which, like the Projects, would increase the energy supply in Brooklyn and Queens. We also note that a 

small portion (about 15 percent by volume) of the natural gas to be provided to National Grid by the 

Projects is incremental (i.e., additional). The majority (about 85 percent by volume) is replacement gas,

which currently is provided to National Grid via the existing delivery point in Long Beach. Additionally, 

it is anticipated that at least a portion of the incremental new supply of natural gas provided by the 

Projects would be used to convert existing heating systems from oil to natural gas, and thus would not 

likely contribute to new growth and development or its related impacts. 

For all the reasons stated above, we do not believe that the No Action Alternative would be a 

practicable or preferable to the Projects.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-3

3.2 ENERGY ALTERNATIVES

3.2.1 Energy Conservation and Increased Efficiency

Energy conservation measures have and will continue to play an important role in reducing 

energy demand in the United States. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) included guidelines to 

diversify America’s energy supply, reduce dependence on foreign sources of energy, increase residential 

and business energy efficiency and conservation (e.g., the EPA’s ENERGY STAR®, Program), improve 

vehicular energy efficiency, and modernize domestic energy infrastructure (U.S. Congress, 2005).

In 2007, Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) to increase the 

efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, protect consumers, and improve federal energy 

performance by setting up new incentive programs and expanding certain programs created under EPAct. 

According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the key highlights of the EISA include improved 

corporate fuel efficiency, a renewable fuels standard, and new energy efficiency standards for lighting and 

other appliances, including lamps, dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and clothes washers (Congressional 

Research Service, 2007). 

Two additional bills were passed between October 2008 and February 2009 in response to the 

economic downturn in the United States: the Energy Improvement and Extension Act (EIEA) and the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The EIEA included provisions to extend tax 

credits for energy-efficient residential properties and appliances (including installations of geothermal 

heat pumps), bicycle commuting, and renewable and alternative fuels usage, to limit consumption and 

increase efficiency. The ARRA provided more than $16 billion for the DOE’s Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) for the Weatherization Assistance Program, Energy Efficiency 

and Conservation Block Grants, Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate Program and ENERGY STAR®, and 

various alternative fuel programs for both transportation and energy production.

While all four of these acts have key goals of reducing energy consumption nationally, thus 

increasing energy efficiency, the impacts on the target region are unclear. The availability and use of 

these recently enacted federal energy efficiency programs and subsequent energy consumption reductions

has yet to be analyzed in much of the United States.

Several state-led initiatives have contributed to energy conservation. New York, for example, has 

promoted energy conservation and has a number of programs in place to minimize energy use. While 

data from the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) demonstrate that statewide energy use 

dropped a total of 5.1 percent in 2008 and 2009 (primarily due to the downturn in the economy), it also 

indicates energy use grew by 3 percent in 2010. Energy use in the New York City area in 2010 also 

exceeded 2008 levels (NYISO, 2011a). 

EPAct and the other federal, state, and municipal programs promote increased energy efficiency

and conservation by supporting new energy efficient technologies and increasing funds for energy 

efficiency research. While these initiatives may minimize energy use, they are not expected to eliminate 

the increasing demand for energy or natural gas. Additionally, the implementation and success of energy 

conservation in curtailing energy use is a long-term goal that would involve large-scale public education 

efforts, significant incentives, and government intervention extending well beyond the timeframe of the 

proposed Projects. Therefore, while energy conservation and energy efficiency would reduce the demand 

for fossil fuels to some degree, it would not eliminate the need for additional natural gas supply in the 

market area served by the Projects.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-4

3.2.2 Renewable Energy

Renewable energy sources are another long-term fuel source alternative to natural gas, including 

hydropower and other renewable energy sources (e.g., wind, biomass, solar, tidal, and geothermal 

energy). The DOE/U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2013a) projects rapid growth in 

renewable fuel consumption due primarily to the implementation of the federal renewable fuels standard 

for transportation fuels and state renewable portfolio standard (RPS) programs for electric generation. 

Nationally, the consumption of renewable energy is projected to increase between 2011 and 2040 from 

6.8 quadrillion Btus per year to 10.3 quadrillion Btus per year (DOE/EIA, 2013b). 

Renewable energy sources are slowly becoming feasible alternatives due to improving 

technologies and government policies to make them viable sources of energy for New York State. 

Assuming full implementation of the “15 by 15” policy, the state energy plan indicates that approximately 

40 percent of New York State’s energy needs for all sectors (e.g., electricity generation, transportation, 

commercial, industrial, agricultural, and residential) could be met by renewables by 2018, 60 percent of 

which would come from solar and wind resources (New York State Energy Planning Board, 2009). 

Considering electrical energy use, the current supply of renewable electricity in New York State accounts 

for approximately 17 percent of total electricity demand, but this could potentially increase to more than 

75 percent of total demand by 2018 under the “15 by 15” policy (New York State Energy Planning Board, 

2009). 

While each of the renewable energy sources discussed below has associated environmental 

impacts, these are more clearly defined for technologies currently in use (e.g., wind turbines may affect 

birds and bats). The impacts of newer technologies have yet to be determined (e.g., the potential impacts 

of hydrokinetic energy). 

Wind

Wind power is a proven technology that has experienced significant advancements in recent years 

including reduced installation costs, improved turbine performance, and reduced maintenance costs. 

Although wind projects have no emissions, such developments can affect wildlife, such as birds, as well 

as other environmental resources. In the vicinity of the Projects, the windiest sites tend to be located 

along shorelines that are challenging to access, densely populated, and highly valued for other uses.

To date, most of the large-scale renewable projects participating in the New York RPS program 

are wind projects located in northern and western New York where wind resources are greatest. Current 

wind generation capacity in New York is about 1,350 megawatts (MW) or less than 1 percent of statewide 

generating capacity (American Wind Energy Association, 2011; NYISO, 2011a). Interconnect requests 

into NYISO’s queue as of February 2011 would add another 7,000 MW of wind capacity (NYISO, 

2011a). Since the wind farm areas are typically located far from major downstate load areas, significant 

infrastructure improvements would be necessary for these projects to serve the New York City area. To 

address this, proposals are being evaluated to develop wind resources closer to or in the vicinity of major 

load areas. 

The New York Power Authority (NYPA), Long Island Power Authority (LIPA), and 

Consolidated Edison (Con Edison), in collaboration with other public agencies, conducted technical and 

environmental studies to determine the feasibility of siting a wind farm about 13 to 17 miles offshore of 

the western end of the Rockaway Peninsula to generate 350 MW of electricity (with the potential to 

expand to 700 MW in later phases) to serve the New York City and Long Island market. In June 2010, 

the NYPA Board of Trustees authorized the NYPA to apply for a lease for approximately 64,500 acres of 

underwater land from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). In September 2011, the 

NYPA submitted a request to the BOEM to lease approximately 81,500 acres or 127 square miles 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-5

offshore of the Rockaway Peninsula for construction of up to 700 MW of wind power. The BOEM 

published a "Public Notice of an Unsolicited Request for a Commercial Outer Continental Shelf Wind 

Lease, Request for Interest, and Request for Public Comment" in the Federal Register on January 4, 2013

(BOEM, 2013a). Publication of the notice initiated a 60-day public comment period (BOEM, 2013). 

In response to the public notice, the BOEM received expressions of interest from two companies, 

Fishermen’s Energy, LLC and Energy Management, Inc., to develop commercial wind facilities in the 

same area as the NYPA proposal (BOEM, 2013b). The BOEM currently is reviewing these submissions 

to make a determination of competitive interest. If the BOEM determines there is competitive interest, it

will use an auction to award lease(s) under a competitive lease process. If BOEM decides there is no 

competitive interest, it will publish its decision in the Federal Register. Then the BOEM may decide to 

proceed with the noncompetitive lease issuance process and if so, NYPA, LIPA, and Con Edison must 

submit any required plan(s) within 60 days of the aforementioned notice in the Federal Register (NYPA, 

2013). In addition to the lease, a NEPA review would need to be completed before any project could be 

approved. The original proposal was to have the new offshore wind farm operational by 2015, but this

may not be possible due to the analyses and approvals that still need to be completed.

Another wind project that is being evaluated is a five-turbine wind facility at the former Fresh 

Kills landfill on Staten Island (New York City Department of Parks and Recreation [NYCDPR], 2009). 

The feasibility of using the site for this purpose was studied by BQ Energy LLC in 2007, and New York 

City officials began soliciting bids from developers for the project in March 2012. The project, as 

currently envisioned, would generate about 20 MW hours (MWh) of energy. There is also a proposal by 

the U.S. Marines to erect wind turbines near the water on the southern end of Floyd Bennett Field (U.S. 

Marine Corps, 2013). 

It appears likely that wind projects will continue to be pursued depending on tax credits and/or 

other financial incentives, state programs, technology improvements, transmission availability, and public 

interest. While wind energy may be able to replace the increased electrical generation capacity that could 

be provided by the additional natural gas supplied by the Projects, it would not replace the delivery 

efficiencies that the Projects would provide. Therefore, wind energy could not meet the objectives and 

schedule of the Projects, and it is also unlikely that the environmental impacts associated with 

construction and operation of the wind energy projects would be significantly less than those of the 

Projects.

Hydroelectric

While hydroelectric generation is fully commercialized, the DOE/EIA (2013a) has projected that 

little new hydroelectric capacity will be developed through 2040. Nonetheless, several hydroelectric

projects are proposed in New York State. One new project that is awaiting a license from the FERC is the 

Thompson Hydroelectric Project on the Hudson River in Greenwich, New York. This proposed project 

would consist of a dam, a generating unit with a capacity of 20 MW, a transmission line, and other 

facilities that, if licensed and constructed, would have an estimated annual generation of approximately 

65 gigawatt (GW) hours (GWh).

The West Point Transmission Project is another recently announced project designed to bring 

electricity generated in upstate New York from a variety of sources into the New York City market. The 

proposed project by West Point Partners, L.L.C. would carry 1,000 MW (and be expandable to carry up to 

2,000 MW) of electricity via a new electric transmission line from Athens, New York to an existing 

substation adjacent to the Indian Point Energy Center in Buchanan, New York about 38 miles north of 

New York City. The proposed 80-mile-long transmission line would include a 320 kV cable buried 

underneath the Hudson River and would use Voltage Source Conversion-High Voltage Direct Current 

(VSC-HVDC) technology. In addition to the transmission line, a VSC-HVDC converter station would be 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-6

constructed at each end of the line. According to the project sponsors, the transmission line is expected to 

provide broader access to renewable resources, including upstate wind and hydro power. The project 

sponsors have initiated environmental and routing studies to support their applications for an Article VII 

Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need from the New York State Public Service 

Commission (NYPSC) and Section 10 and Section 404 permits from the USACE. The applications for 

these permits were filed in 2013, and pending permit approvals, the sponsors hope to place the project inservice sometime in 2017 (West Point Transmission, 2012).

There is a proposed transmission project to import hydroelectric and wind power into New York 

State from Canada. The proposed project by Champlain Hudson Power Express, Inc. (CHPE) is to 

construct a 2,000-MW high voltage direct current transmission system from a converter station southeast 

of Montreal in Quebec, Canada to Yonkers, New York. The proposed transmission cables would be 

buried in Lake Champlain, the Hudson River, and under adjacent existing railroad rights-of-way. 

According to the project sponsors, the transmission line is expected to be used primarily by hydro and 

wind generators in Canada. 

A projected energy market and emissions impact analysis, prepared by CHPE, states that the 

project would facilitate the import of more than 7,647,480 MWh of renewable energy per year, which 

would expand the renewable energy base within New York State by 13 percent. An application for a 

Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need Pursuant to Article VII of the New York 

Public Service Law was filed with the NYPSC in March 2010, and the project was approved by the 

NYPSC in April 2013. In June 2010, the DOE announced its intention to prepare an EIS to assess the 

environmental effects of granting a Presidential Permit (required to cross the U.S./Canadian border) for 

the project. An application for Section 404 and Section 10 permits for the project was filed with the 

USACE in December 2010. The review of the project by the DOE, USACE, and other agencies is 

ongoing. The draft EIS is expected to be completed in 2013. If the project is approved by all agencies, it 

could be constructed and be in-service as early as the end of 2017 (CHPE, 2012). 

While hydroelectric energy may be able to replace the increased electrical generation capacity 

that could be provided by the additional natural gas supplied by the Projects, it would not replace the 

delivery efficiencies that the Projects would provide. Therefore, hydroelectric energy could not meet the 

objectives and schedule of the Projects, and it is also unlikely that the environmental impacts associated 

with construction and operation of hydroelectric projects would be significantly less than those of the 

Projects.

Biomass

Combustion of biomass is a proven technology using biomass feedstock, which, if properly 

grown, represents a renewable resource. In the State of New York, biomass (e.g., wood) has been the 

leading in-state renewable resource consumed in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors as 

measured by primary energy input. According to the New York State Energy Plan, New York State

annually uses 99 trillion Btus of wood and 13 trillion Btus of biogenic waste and has the technical and 

practical potential to develop 350 trillion and 14 trillion Btus annually by 2018, respectively (New York 

State Energy Planning Board, 2009). Current biomass generating capacity participating in New York

State’s RPS had a combined generation capacity of 81.5 MW as of December 31, 2010 (New York State 

Energy Research and Development Authority [NYSERDA], 2011). Since that time, one of the 

participating facilities has requested to suspend operations due to unfavorable economic conditions. That 

suspension of operations would reduce the total generation capacity by almost 4 MW. The mix of 

feedstock for these facilities includes wood, tire-derived fuel, coal, and landfill-derived methane (CH4). 

Information from the NYISO indicates that biomass accounts for less than 2 percent of current generation 

capacity in the New York Control Area (NYISO, 2011b). Exactly how much generation capacity is 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-7

represented by biomass is difficult to determine as the NYISO data group CH4, refuse, solar, and wood 

into one category.

The use of landfill and municipal waste biomass (i.e., CH4) has been identified as a potential 

alternative energy source for the New York City area. Eight facilities currently use either landfill gas or 

municipal solid waste in the vicinity of New York City. Of these, three facilities (the Al Turi, 

Brookhaven, and Oceanside landfills), along with the Smithtown and Fresh Kills landfills, are enrolled in 

the EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) (EPA, 2009). For example, the Fresh Kills 

landfill in Staten Island, New York has been operating for almost 30 years, providing 1,800 million cubic 

feet (MMcf) of pipeline-quality gas annually, equivalent to 4.93 MMcf per day (MMcf/d) (National Grid, 

2010). In addition, the EPA has identified two landfills (the Fountain Avenue Landfill and the Orange 

County Landfill) as candidates and ten other landfills as potential candidates for providing wastegenerated energy and participating in the LMOP in the region (EPA, 2009). New York City has partnered 

with National Grid to develop the Newtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant as one of the nation’s first 

“waste-gas-to-grid” projects. When completed, the project would inject enough purified digester gas into 

National Grid’s distribution system to heat 2,500 homes in the Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island 

service area (New York City, 2011; National Grid, 2010). This is equivalent to approximately 317 MMcf 

per year, or 0.87 MMcf/d (National Grid, 2011). City officials hope to have a contract in place by 2013 

(Navarron, 2012). 

Currently, there is a lack of adequate infrastructure to transport biomass energy to market. 

Completion of the Projects would provide additional direct capacity to the National Grid system. 

Consequently, additional use of biomass-derived energy would require the construction of pipeline or 

other infrastructure, and these impacts would be similar to or greater than those of the Projects. 

Therefore, the use of biomass would not offer a significant environmental advantage over the Projects.

Solar/Photovoltaic

Solar or Photovoltaic power systems convert sunlight directly into electricity. A recent 

assessment of solar domestic hot water systems within New York State indicated that solar thermal 

energy could potentially provide over half of the energy required for water heating in a typical home that 

has adequate access to sunlight. Additionally according to the 2011 revision of PlaNYC, New York 

City’s long-term planning document, solar energy has the greatest potential to generate electricity in the 

five boroughs of New York City (New York City, 2011). The NYPA is reviewing numerous proposals to 

generate solar power and, once proposals are selected, expects the installations to occur through 2014. 

The NYPSC has begun accepting proposals for solar pilot projects to start developing this resource in the 

New York City area. Con Edison filed such a proposal with the stated goal of generating 12 MW of 

electricity by 2011 (Smith, 2009). Subsequently, Con Edison reported that 8.5 MW of photovoltaicgenerated energy was on its New York system in February 2011 (Con Edison, 2011), 5.6 MW of which 

was in New York City (Meister, 2011). 

While these initiatives could potentially bring additional energy needed to supply the BrooklynQueens area, solar energy is least available during the winter months when demand for natural gas is 

highest and the scale at which customers would choose to install solar panels based on existing or future 

incentives is unclear. These systems generally are not well-suited for use as large-scale generation in the 

New York City metropolitan area due to relatively low direct insolation, lower efficiencies, and higher 

capital costs. The New York State Energy Planning Board (2009) cites the cost of solar systems as being 

among the highest for renewable technologies. Further, the inherent issues with constructing commercialscale solar facilities in the area (e.g., developing technologies or constructing in highly developed 

residential areas) make it unlikely that sufficient solar power would be available to provide the levels of 

energy that are expected to be needed in the demand area within a timeframe reasonably close to the 

Projects. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-8

While solar energy may be able to replace some of the increased electrical generation capacity 

made available by the additional natural gas supplied by the Projects, it would not replace the delivery 

efficiencies that the Projects would provide. Therefore, solar energy could not meet the objectives and 

schedule of the Projects.

Tidal and Wave

While New York State is committed to continued research and marketing the development of 

tidal, current, and other hydrokinetic resources in the New York City metropolitan area (New York State 

Energy Planning Board, 2009), wave and tidal energy technologies are still in the early stages of 

development. In January 2012, the Commission issued a pilot project license for the Roosevelt Island 

Tidal Energy Project, a 1,050 kilowatt (kW) pilot-scale hydrokinetic generation facility that would be 

located in the East River in New York City (FERC, 2011). The project would be constructed in three 

phases and operate for 10 years. When fully built out, the facility would generate about 2.4 GWh 

annually. Preliminary permits have been issued for three other pilot tidal projects in the East River—the 

Astoria Tidal Energy Project (Docket No. P-13730), the East River Tidal Energy Project (Docket No. P12665), and the Wards Island Tidal Power Project (Docket No. P-12718). A preliminary permit also is 

pending for the Orient Point Tidal Energy Project in Long Island Sound (Docket No. P-14333). Of these,

the Astoria Tidal Energy Project would generate a substantial amount of power, totaling an average of 

3,600 MWh per day (MWh/d) of electricity. Still, this would be small compared to the proposed Projects, 

which by comparison could provide an incremental supply of 100 Mdth/d. 

While hydrokinetic projects may be able to replace the increased electrical generation capacity 

made available by the additional natural gas supplied by the Projects, it would not replace the delivery 

efficiencies that the Projects would provide. Therefore, hydrokinetic energy could not meet the objectives 

and schedule of the Projects. Additionally, it is unlikely that the environmental impacts associated with 

construction and operation of hydrokinetic facilities would be significantly less than those of the Projects.

Summary of Renewable Energies

While the renewable energy projects that have been and will be proposed in New York State

would help to diversify the electricity market and decrease the need for traditional fossil fuel energy 

sources, there still would be issues associated with the siting and development of renewable energy 

facilities. The cost to New York State of developing renewable projects is high. Time is another factor in 

the development of renewable energy infrastructure. Because many of the potential renewable energy 

projects in the region are in their initial planning phases, these projects would not address the shorter-term 

peak demand increases in the Brooklyn-Queens area. Additionally, some renewable technologies, such as 

tidal energy, have not been fully developed and currently have an unknown set of impacts, compared with 

typical natural gas pipeline projects. As such, renewable energies would not preclude the need for an 

additional natural gas delivery point or additional long-term supply to the Brooklyn-Queens area. 

Another issue is that moving electricity from the point of generation to consumers may require 

significant investment in transmission as well as other additional infrastructure costs. Development of 

electric transmission lines associated with renewable projects would have potential impacts on air, water, 

ecological, and other resources similar to natural gas pipelines. 

For all these reasons, we do not believe that renewable energies would be a practicable alternative 

to the proposed Projects, and we eliminated them from further consideration.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-9

3.2.3 Nuclear Energy

Another traditional, non-renewable fuel source alternative to natural gas for electric generation is 

nuclear power. The EPAct incorporated a wide range of measures to support current nuclear plants and 

provided important incentives for building new plants, such that several companies are expected to submit 

applications for licenses to construct and operate new plants over the next several years (Nuclear Energy 

Institute, 2008). Nonetheless, while nuclear power is important regionally and currently accounts for 

approximately 14 to 15 percent of annual energy consumption in the Mid-Atlantic States, no increase in 

the use of nuclear power is expected between 2011 and 2040 based on projections by the EIA (2013a). 

Currently, four nuclear power plants are operating in New York State. Combined these generate 

about 33 percent of the electricity generated in the state (EIA, 2012b). Over the last decade plans were 

announced for two new nuclear power plants – one by Public Service Electric and Gas Company 

(PSE&G) in New Jersey and one by UniStar Nuclear (Unistar) in New York State. The near-term 

prospects for these new power plants are unclear. Unistar’s proposed project was suspended, at its 

request, in May 2010, and PSE&G has not identified the design or specific generation capacity of its 

proposed plant, which is not expected to be on-line until 2021. 

Because the subject of nuclear power remains controversial, these proposals and any subsequent 

plans that arise to construct new or expand existing plants in the region would likely involve prolonged 

review. Furthermore, there are environmental and regulatory challenges concerning safety and security, 

the disposal of toxic materials (spent fuel), and alterations to hydrological/biological systems that would 

need to be addressed before any new plants could be constructed. Even if these challenges could be 

overcome, a new plant would not likely be operational for many years. For these reasons, nuclear power

could not meet the schedule of the Projects, and it is also likely that the environmental impacts associated 

with construction and operation of nuclear power generating facilities would be greater than those of the 

Projects. 

3.2.4 Fossil Fuels

Coal is no longer used as a direct source for home heating but could be used to provide additional 

electrical generation to meet the objectives of the Projects. There are 13 coal-fired plants operating in 

New York State, of which one, the Danskammer Generating Station in Orange County, is located in the 

downstate area. It is possible that additional output from this facility or development of a new generating 

plant could provide additional electricity during peak winter demand periods. 

Additional use of oil by existing facilities, development of new oil-fired generating plants, or 

conversion of natural gas home heating systems to oil burning furnaces could provide additional 

electricity and heat during peak winter demand periods. An increase in the use of petroleum and oil-fired 

energy or heat sources would produce greater quantities of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), 

greenhouse gases (GHGs), and airborne mercury than natural gas heating units and boilers (EPA, 1995). 

This would reduce regional air quality and would be in conflict with New York City’s PlaNYC initiatives 

to increase natural gas distribution to improve reliability and encourage conversion from highly polluting 

fuels (New York City, 2011). 

Increased reliance on other fossil fuels would result in secondary impacts associated with their 

production (such as oil drilling and coal mining); transportation via truck, rail cars, and/or pipelines; and 

crude oil refinement. In addition, unlike natural gas, coal use results in waste coal ash that requires 

disposal. For all these reasons, we believe that use of other fossil fuels would not offer a significant 

environmental advantage over the Projects. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-10

3.3 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES

System alternatives are alternatives to the proposed actions that would make use of existing, 

modified, or proposed natural gas pipeline systems to meet the objectives of the Projects. Implementation 

of a system alternative would make it unnecessary to construct all or part of the proposed Projects, 

although some modifications or additions to existing or proposed systems may be required to satisfy the 

objectives of the Projects. These modifications or additions would result in environmental impacts that 

may be less than, similar to, or greater than those associated with construction and operation of the 

Projects. The purpose of identifying and evaluating system alternatives is to determine whether the 

environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the Projects could be avoided or 

reduced by using another pipeline system, while still meeting the objectives of the proposed Projects. 

A viable system alternative to the Projects would have to provide a new delivery point in Kings 

or Queens Counties with a firm delivery capacity of 647 Mdth/d to increase the reliability of National 

Grid’s distribution system into Brooklyn or Queens, including an additional 100 Mdth/d of incremental 

(i.e., additional) capacity. A viable system alternative would need to provide these services within a 

reasonably similar timeframe as the proposed Projects.

Our analysis of system alternatives includes an examination of existing and proposed natural gas 

systems that currently or eventually would serve the markets targeted by the Projects, and considers 

whether those systems would meet the Project’s objectives while providing an environmental advantage 

over the Projects. The remainder of this section includes a discussion of existing or proposed natural gas 

pipeline systems that are near and/or extend into the market served by the Projects. Table 3.3-1 provides 

a summary of the other existing interstate natural gas pipelines (excluding Transco) that serve the New 

York City metropolitan area. Figure 3.3-1 depicts the location of these existing pipeline system 

alternatives in relation to the proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral. A brief assessment of each of these 

systems is included below.

TABLE 3.3-1

Other Existing Interstate Pipeline Systems in the New York City Area

Pipeline

Average 

Operating 

Pressure 

(psig)

Pipeline 

Capacity in the 

Region as of 

2011 (MMcf/d)

Average Flow 

in the Region 

as of 2007 

(MMcf/d)

Facility (Pipeline 

or M&R) Closest 

to Proposed 

Onshore Tie-In

Minimum 

Additional Pipeline 

to Service the 

Brooklyn-Queens

Area (miles)

Algonquin Gas Transmission 750 1,475 673 Roseland, NJ 32

Columbia Gas Transmission 650 95 29 East Hanover, NJ 32

Millennium Pipeline N/A 525 N/A Rockland, NY 41

Tennessee Gas Pipeline 800 377 322 River Vale, NJ 31

Iroquois Gas Transmission 1,440 520 396 Hunts Point, NY 16

Texas Eastern Transmission 1,102 700 244 Linden, NJ/

Staten Island, NY

16

____________________

Data Sources:

Capacity from EIA, 2012a.

Pressures and flows from EIA, 2009.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
!

!

A t l a n t i c 

PA

NY

NJ

C

N

Compressor 

Station 207

Compressor 

Station 205

Proposed Rockaw

Delivery Latera

B e r g e n

C o .

B u r l i n g t o n

C o .

E s s e x

C o .

H u n t e r d o n

C o .

M e r c e r

C o .

M i d d l e s e x

C o .

M o n m o u t h

C o .

M o r r i s

C o .

O c e a n

C o .

P a s s a i c

C o .

S o m e r s e t C o .

S u s s e x

C o .

U n i o n

C o .

Wa r r e n

C o .

B r o n x

C o .

K i n g s

C o .

N a s s a u

C o .

O r a n g e

C o .

Q u e e n s

C o .

R i c h m o n d

C o .

R o c k l a n d

C o .

We s t c h e s t e r

C o .

B u c k s

C o .

M o n r o e

C o .

M o n t g o m e r y

C o .

N o r t h a m p t o n

C o .

P i k e C o .

0 10

Miles

Proposed Pipeline Route

National Grid Brooklyn-Queens

Interconnect (proposed)

Transco NSL - Long Island Extension (proposed)

Texas Eastern/Algonquin Expansion (proposed)

! Compressor Station

Regional Pipeline Systems

Algonquin Gas Transmission Co.

Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.

Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.

Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. (TETCO)

Millennium Pipeline Co.

p Figure 

Rockaway Del

and Northeast Con

Overview of Inters

Pipelines Servic

3-11
3-12

3.3.1 Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC

The existing Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin) natural gas transmission system is 

an approximately 1,100-mile-long interstate pipeline interconnecting with the Texas Eastern system in 

New Jersey and the Maritimes & Northeast system in Massachusetts to bring natural gas supplies to the 

greater New England area. The current Algonquin system has no direct connection to the National Grid 

system in New York City. Its closest pipeline facility is near Roseland, New Jersey, which is about 30 

miles from the proposed interconnect with National Grid in Queens. Expansion of Algonquin’s existing 

facilities to provide the needed additional delivery point into National Grid in Queens would require 

many more miles of new pipeline construction, much of it through densely populated areas, and result in 

much greater environmental impacts than the proposed Projects. For these reasons, we do not believe that 

expansion of the Algonquin system is a reasonable or practicable alternative to the Projects.

3.3.2 Columbia Gas Transmission

The Columbia Gas Transmission (Columbia) system is the largest interstate natural gas pipeline 

operating in the northeastern United States, transporting approximately 3,000 MMcf/d of gas through 

nearly 12,000 miles of pipeline, much of which is located in the Appalachian region. The system 

interconnects with the Columbia Gulf Transmission system in Kentucky and delivers natural gas to ten 

states in the northeast, including New York State. As with the existing Algonquin system, the Columbia 

system has limited connectivity to the New York City market and is more than 30 miles from National

Grid’s system in Brooklyn. To meet the objectives of the Projects, the Columbia system would require a 

substantial system expansion, which would result in much greater environmental impacts than the 

Projects. Therefore, we do not believe that an expansion of the Columbia system is a reasonable or 

practicable alternative. 

3.3.3 Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC

The existing Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC (Millennium) system was constructed in 2008 

to replace the Columbia system in southern New York State. The system receives natural gas supplies 

from the Empire State pipeline system in central New York State and transports these to the Algonquin 

system at the Ramapo interconnect in Rockland County, New York. Millennium’s system does not have 

a connection with National Grid’s system. Any system alternative based on Millennium’s facilities would 

require construction of additional pipeline facilities to connect with National Grid’s system in Brooklyn, 

which is over 40 miles away. Since these facilities would result in much greater environmental impacts 

than the Projects, we do not believe that expansion of the Millennium pipeline is a reasonable or 

practicable alternative.

3.3.4 Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC

Tennessee Gas Pipeline, LLC (Tennessee Gas) operates an extensive interstate pipeline system 

consisting of approximately 13,600 miles of pipeline bringing incremental gas supplies from the Gulf, 

Appalachian, and Canadian regions into the Midwest and Northeast regions. As with the Algonquin 

system, the Tennessee Gas system is a key supplier of natural gas to the New England region, crossing 

from northern Pennsylvania through southern New York State and on into Connecticut. 

The Tennessee Gas system has no connections with National Grid’s system in Brooklyn. The 

closest existing Tennessee Gas delivery or M&R facility is more than 30 miles to the north in River Vale, 

New Jersey. Thus, any system alternative based on Tennessee Gas’ facilities would require construction 

of 30 or more miles of additional pipeline, which would result in much greater environmental impacts 

than the Projects. For this reason, we do not believe that expansion of the Tennessee Gas pipeline system 

is a reasonable or practicable alternative to the Projects. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-13

3.3.5 Iroquois Gas Transmission System, LP

Iroquois Gas Transmission System, LP (Iroquois) is one of the three regional interstate natural 

gas transmission systems that offer direct access to New York City (Transco and Texas Eastern 

Transmission, LP [Texas Eastern] are the other two). The Iroquois system, which provides a link to 

Canadian natural gas supplies through an interconnection with TransCanada Pipelines in northern New 

York State, delivers natural gas into the New York City metropolitan area through three M&R facilities. 

Two of these M&R facilities (South Commack and Northport) are located in Suffolk County and provide 

supplies to National Grid’s Long Island system at interconnects more than 30 miles from Brooklyn. The 

third and closest M&R station, which is located near Hunt’s Point in the Bronx about 16 miles from 

Transco’s proposed delivery point, provides supplies directly to Con Edison’s New York City system. 

Expanding this system to service National Grid’s Brooklyn-Queens service area would require extensive 

upgrades, including additional compression and approximately 16.3 miles of new pipeline. This would 

entail construction of pipeline through densely populated areas and could include open water trenching 

through Eastchester Bay and/or an HDD route across the East River. Since this would result in much 

greater impact than the Projects, we do not believe that an expansion of the Iroquois system would be 

preferable to the proposed Projects.

3.3.6 Texas Eastern Transmission, LP

The Texas Eastern system is a long-haul interstate transmission pipeline providing direct access 

to New York City. The Texas Eastern system consists of approximately 8,700 miles of pipeline that 

deliver natural gas from the Gulf Coast and Texas into the New York City metropolitan area. Its current 

northern terminus is on Staten Island about 16 miles from Transco’s proposed delivery point in Queens 

for the Rockaway Project. Deliveries to Staten Island on the Texas Eastern system are monitored through 

an M&R facility located on the west side of the Hudson River, in Linden, New Jersey. Texas Eastern is 

currently constructing the New Jersey-New York Expansion Project. This project includes approximately 

20 miles of new and replacement pipeline that would deliver up to 800 MDth/d from Texas Eastern’s 

existing system in Linden to Con Edison’s system on the west side of Manhattan. 

In order to meet the objectives of the Projects, Texas Eastern would need to construct at least 10 

miles of new pipeline across the East River and densely populated and congested areas of Manhattan and 

Brooklyn or across the Narrows of New York Bay and through densely populated and commercial areas 

of Staten Island and Brooklyn. Either route would have greater environmental and socioeconomic 

impacts than the Projects. For these reasons, we do not believe that an expansion of the Texas Eastern 

transmission system would be preferable to the proposed Projects.

3.3.7 Proposed Constitution Pipeline

Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC (Constitution) has proposed to construct approximately 122 

miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline and associated facilities from two receipt points in 

Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania to an interconnection with Iroquois, and through a capacity lease on 

Iroquois, to delivery points on the Iroquois and Tennessee Gas systems, in Schoharie County, New York. 

The project would provide 650 Mdth/d of firm transportation service for domestically produced natural 

gas to customers on the Iroquois and Tennessee Gas systems. If approved, Constitution plans to begin 

construction of the new pipeline in the third-quarter of 2014 and place the facilities in service in March 

2015. 

We evaluated the Constitution Pipeline and determined that it would not be a practicable 

alternative to the Projects. The terminus of the new pipeline would be located about 150 miles to the 

north of New York City. It would neither provide a direct connection for service into the metropolitan 

area nor a new delivery point on the Rockaway Peninsula. While the Construction Pipeline could 

potentially service the metropolitan area via its interconnections with Iroquois and Tennessee Gas, doing 

so would require the construction of new facilities that would result in greater environmental impact than 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-14

the Projects. As noted above, expansion of the Iroquois and/or Tennessee Gas systems would require the 

construction of about 16.3 miles and 30 miles, respectively, of new pipeline.

3.3.8 Proposed Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities

In the past 10 to 15 years, at least five different LNG projects have been proposed to provide new 

natural gas supplies to the New York City market. These consist of the Broadwater LNG Project, 

BlueOcean Energy LNG Project, Liberty Deep Water Port LNG Project, Safe Harbor LNG Project, and 

more recently, the Port Ambrose Project. All of these regionally proposed LNG projects involve 

constructing offshore LNG terminals in Long Island Sound or the New York Bight area. 

Because of the longer length of offshore and onshore pipelines, each of these LNG projects would 

have greater marine and terrestrial impacts than the Projects. For these reasons, we do not consider the 

Broadwater, BlueOcean Energy, Liberty Deep Water Port, or Safe Harbor projects to be reasonable or 

practicable, or environmentally preferable to the Projects.

Port Ambrose Project

On September 28, 2012, MARAD and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) received an application 

from Liberty Natural Gas, LLC for federal authorizations required for a license to own, construct, and 

operate a deepwater port (the Port Ambrose Project) under the DWPA. 1 MARAD issued a notice of 

application for the project in the Federal Register on June 14, 2013. The notice announced that MARAD

and the USCG, working in cooperation with other federal agencies and departments, will participate in 

scoping meetings and prepare an EIS for the project as part of their permitting processes. 

The Port Ambrose Project would deliver natural gas from visiting purpose-built LNG 

regasification vessels (LNGRVs) equipped with LNG vaporization facilities to the New York market. 

The project would have two major components: two submerged turret loading (STL) buoy systems that 

would receive and transfer natural gas from the LNGRVs to a pipeline system; and offshore pipeline 

facilities consisting of two subsea lateral pipelines connected to a buried 21.9-mile-long subsea natural 

gas mainline. When in use, each STL buoy would be near the surface and connected to a regasification 

vessel. When not in use, each STL buoy would be lowered to rest on a landing pad on the ocean floor. 

Natural gas from the LNGRVs would flow from the buoys through the lateral pipelines and into the 

subsea mainline, which would connect with Transco’s existing LNYBL offshore approximately 2.5 miles 

south of Long Beach, New York and 15.0 miles east of Sandy Hook, New Jersey. This location is about 

7 miles northeast of the tie-in between the proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral and LNYBL. 

The LNGRVs would have onboard closed-loop vaporization, metering, and odorant capabilities. 

Each vessel would have three vaporization units capable of a maximum send-out of 750 MMcf/d with the 

annual average expected to be 400 MMcf/d. The LNGRVs would be designed to utilize a ballast water 

cooling system that would re-circulate onboard the vessel during port operations. This would eliminate

vessel discharges associated with regasification while vessels are at the port. Deliveries through Port 

Ambrose would be focused during peak demand winter and summer months. The port would receive up 

to 45 LNGRVs per year. 

If approved with the proposed schedule, the majority of port and pipeline construction would

occur no sooner than 2015 with commissioning in December 2015. Consequently, the Port Ambrose 

project would not meet National Grid’s objectives within the timeframe of the proposed Rockaway 

Project. It would also require a longer pipeline, which would result in greater environmental impacts than 

the Rockaway Project. Additionally, the Port Ambrose Project would not satisfy one of the key

objectives of the Rockaway Project, which is to provide a new delivery point that would allow National 

 

1 The Port Ambrose facility would be located at a different proposed location and include a different design than the previous 

deepwater port license application submitted by Liberty Natural Gas, LLC in 2010. Additional information about the 

project can be viewed at the company’s website: http://portambrose.com/project-location/.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-15

Grid to shift existing volumes of natural gas supply from the existing delivery point in Long Beach to the 

new delivery point on the Rockaway Peninsula. For these reasons, we do not consider the Port Ambrose 

Project to be a reasonable or practicable alternative to the Rockaway Project

3.3.9 Transco System Alternatives

Long Beach Delivery Point

Transco currently delivers natural gas to the New York City area through four existing delivery 

points. Two of the delivery points provide natural gas to the Con Edison system in Manhattan and the 

Bronx. The other two at Fort Hamilton and Long Beach deliver natural gas to the National Grid system 

in Brooklyn and Queens. 

As an alternative to the Rockaway Project, Transco evaluated the potential to service National 

Grid’s market areas in Brooklyn and Queens by increasing supplies through its existing Long Beach 

facilities. This alternative would eliminate the need for the proposed offshore pipeline and at least some 

of National Grid’s BQI Project (see a description of the BQI Project in Section 1.4 and Appendix B). 

Transco determined that this alternative would require installing approximately 14.1 miles of new 

pipeline through the streets of Nassau and Queens Counties, modifying and expanding the existing Long 

Beach M&R Station, and constructing 2.1 miles of new pipeline between the towns of Lynbrook and 

Hewlett, New York to address the supply and reliability needs of customers on the Rockaway Peninsula. 

Thus, while this alternative would minimize offshore impacts, it would require many more miles of

pipeline and cross more densely populated areas than the proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral. It would

also have greater impact on residences and commercial businesses, which would be subjected to increased 

noise, dust, and traffic delays associated with in-street construction. 

Due to its greater length and the slow rate of in-street installation methods, the alternative 

pipeline would take longer to build than the proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral and would prolong the 

construction impacts. These related disruptions would increase the negative socioeconomic impact of the 

alternative, which would likely include lost time and business due to traffic delays and less convenient 

access. The alternative would also require Transco to take the existing LNYBL pipeline out of service so 

it could be hydrostatically tested and uprated pursuant to the requirements of 49 CFR 192 in order to 

move larger gas volumes to the Long Beach delivery point. Finally, the alternative would not provide a 

new natural gas delivery point into the existing National Grid system in the New York City area to 

increase system flexibility or the security of National Grid’s system, which is one of the main objectives 

of the Projects. 

For these reasons we do not believe an alternative that would deliver gas to Long Beach would be 

reasonable or environmentally preferable to the Projects.

Proposed Northeast Supply Link Expansion (Long Island Extension Uprate)

Transco evaluated the potential for the proposed volumes and the objectives of the Projects to be 

met by its Northeast Supply Link Expansion Project, which was approved by the FERC on November 2, 

2012 and is scheduled to be in service on November 1, 2014. This project would provide an additional 

capacity of 250 Mdth/d on Transco’s system in the New York City area. Much of this additional capacity 

would be delivered from Transco’s pipeline in Pennsylvania and New Jersey to Transco’s existing 

delivery points at Con Edison’s Central Manhattan and Manhattan pooling points. The expansion also 

includes incremental increases in delivery volume to National Grid along 1.4 miles of the existing 26-

inch-diameter Long Island Extension (LIE) pipeline that runs between Staten Island and Brooklyn. To 

accommodate the increased volume, Transco’s existing pipeline would be uprated from the current 

maximum operating pressure of 350 psig to 517 psig. All work would be at existing aboveground 

facilities, so the pipeline uprate would not include any ground disturbance. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-16

Transco determined that although this project would supply additional volume to National Grid’s 

Narrows Regulating Vault, it would not be at a level sufficient to provide the anticipated peak demands 

that would be provided to National Grid by the Projects. Additionally, the uprate would not introduce any 

new lines, so it would not provide the flexibility of an additional delivery point. Therefore, Transco does 

not consider the Northeast Supply Link Expansion a suitable alternative to the Projects. We concur with 

this assessment that the Northeast Supply Link Expansion Project is not a practicable alternative. 

Proposed Leidy Southeast Expansion Project

On February 28, 2013, Transco filed an application with the Commission for the proposed Leidy 

Southeast Expansion (LES) Project. This project would provide an additional 469 Mdth/d of firm 

incremental transportation service for domestically produced natural gas to customers in the mid-Atlantic 

region. The LES Project would require the construction of new facilities or the modification of existing 

facilities in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. More specifically, the 

project would require the construction of 30.1 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline in four loop segments; 

modifications at 11 existing compressor stations along Transco’s existing system (including Compressor 

Station 205) to provide an additional 84,500 hp of compression; and modifications of other aboveground 

facilities (such as mainline valves and M&R facilities). Assuming the project is approved by the 

Commission, Transco plans to begin construction in October 2014 and place the facilities in service by 

December 2015. We evaluated the LES Project and determined that it would not be a practicable 

alternative to the Projects. As currently proposed by Transco, the LES project is fully subscribed and 

would not supply natural gas to National Grid. Additionally, it would not provide a new natural gas 

delivery point into the New York City area, which is a key objective of the Projects. 

3.4 ROUTE ALTERNATIVES TO THE ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL

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

Lateral. In general, route alternatives have similar origin and delivery points to the proposed route but 

they follow different alignments. Route alternatives do not modify or make use of other existing or new 

pipeline systems. Each of the route alternatives identified for the Rockaway Project originate offshore at

Transco’s existing LNYBL (albeit at different locations) and connect with National Grid’s pipeline at the 

TBTA property on the Rockaway Peninsula. 

Each of the alternative routes was identified in an effort to avoid or reduce environmental 

impacts. While mostly similar to the proposed route, Alternative Route 1 is a straight line alternative that

provides a more direct connection between the LNYBL and the tie-in with National Grid. Alternative 

Route 2, which is east of the proposed route, would reduce the crossing length of the GNRA and avoid 

historic districts in the area of Fort Tilden and Jacob Riis Park. Alternative Route 3, which is west of the 

proposed route, similarly would reduce the crossing length of the GNRA and also would avoid Jacob Riis 

Park. Alternative Route 4 would avoid a landfall in the GNRA and a crossing of Rockaway Beach by 

passing west of Rockaway Peninsula and into Rockaway Inlet. The locations of each route alternative

and the environmental resources near or crossed by the alternatives are shown in Figures 3.4-1 and 3.4-

2.

2

 

We considered each of the four route alternatives to determine whether they would avoid or 

reduce impacts to environmentally sensitive resources that would be crossed by the proposed Rockaway 

Delivery Lateral. An environmental comparison of the four alternatives to the proposed route is included 

in Tables 3.4-1 and 3.4-2. A discussion and our conclusions regarding each alternative are presented in 

Sections 3.4.1 through 3.4.4 below.

 

2

In Figure 3.4-2, offshore areas within the 30-foot depth contour are shaded grey.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
"/

!.

!.!.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

Proposed M&R 

Facility Site

Alternative 3

Alternative 2

Alternative 1

Alternative 4

Existing 26" Lower New York Bay Lateral

Proposed Route

Le if Eric son Dr

Oc e an Pk y

Shor e Pk y

Flatbu sh Ave

Beach Channe l Dr

0 1

Miles

!. HDD Entry

!. HDD Exit

"/ M&R Facility

Major Highway

Proposed Pipeline Route

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

Existing 26" Lower 

New York Bay Lateral

p Figure 3.4-1

Rockaway Delivery 

and Northeast Connecto

Overview of Pipeline Route 

for the Rockaway Delive

3-17
Proposed Route

Alternative 3

Alternative 2

Alternative 1

Alternative 4

Existing 26

BREEZY POINT

ROXBURY

NEPONSIT

MANHATTAN BEACH BELLE HARBOR

Rock

Re

Scallop

Ridge

Rockway

Inlet

Tin Can

Grounds Gong

Grounds

Ambrose

Channel

Between the

Channels

8th ST

Brighton

Beach

AVE

Shore P KY

Emmons

AVE

Orienta l BLVD Ocea n

PKY

Beac h

147th S T

Stillwell AVE

Jaco b Riis

Park RD

Rockaway Point BLV D

Marine

PKY

Surf

AVE

Sh ore BLVD

Ne ptune

AVE

Belt P KY

State

HWY

Rockaway Bea ch BLVD

0 0.5 1

Miles

Proposed Pipeline Route

Existing 26" Lower 

New York Bay Lateral

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

Major Roads

Ü Ü Ü

Ü Ü Ü

NYSDOS Significant Coastal

Fish and Wildlife Habitat

USFWS Significant

Water Habitat Complex

USFWS Significant

Land Habitat Complex

NJDEP Sport Ocean

Fishing Grounds

NYDEC Uncertified

Shellfish Harvest Area

p Figure 3

Rockaway Deliv

and Northeast Con

Federal and State Signif

Pipeline Route A

for the Rockaway D

3-18
3-19

TABLE 3.4-1

Environmental Comparison of the Alternative Routes to the Proposed Route for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral

Factor Unit

Proposed 

Route

Alternative 

Route 1

Alternative 

Route 2

Alternative 

Route 3

Alternative 

Route 4

Total length Miles 3.20 3.20 4.50 4.92 7.99

Offshore length Miles 2.86 2.86 2.91 2.83 7.77

Onshore length Miles 0.34 0.34 1.59 2.09 0.22

Underwater trenching length Miles 2.19 2.19 2.79 2.24 7.26

Upland trenching length Miles 0.01 0.01 1.07 1.92 0.01

HDD length Miles 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.76 0.72

Total in-water construction period Months 5 5 5.5 6 6

Total onshore construction period a Months 6 6 6 6 6

Permanent right-of-way Acres 69.52 69.89 76.16 74.12 150.98

Roadways crossed/co-located b No. 1 1 6 12 4

Co-located roadways Miles 0.00 0.00 1.36 1.81 0.00

Approximate residences adjacent to 

right-of-way c

No. 0 0 58 93 0

Distance of HDD entry from nearest 

noise sensitive area

Feet 1,330 1,330 350 70 1,330

Distance of HDD exit from nearest noise 

sensitive area

Feet 5,970 5,970 1,010 4,100 2,140

GNRA Crossed

Total length Miles 0.57 0.57 0.06 0.27 2.44

HDD length Miles 0.57 0.57 0.05 0.25 0.57

Historic districts crossed (Jacob Riis 

Park/Fort Tilden)

No. 1 1 1 1 2

Shorelines crossed No. 1 1 1 1 1

Submarine cable/utility crossings d No. 3 3 3 4 4

Navigation channels crossed No. 0 0 0 0 1

Marine obstructions within 0.5 mile e No. 4 9 14 3 47

Wrecks within 0.5 mile e No. 0 0 1 3 7

Significant FWS land habitat complex 

crossed

Total length Miles 0.07 0.07 NA 0.08 NA

HDD length Miles 0.07 0.07 NA 0.08 NA

Significant FWS water habitat complex 

crossed

Total length Miles 0.08 0.08 NA 0.05 3.07

HDD length Miles 0.08 0.08 NA 0.05 0.54

Tidal wetlands crossed f

Total length Miles 0.10 0.10 0.04 0.19 0.00

HDD length Miles 0.10 0.10 0.04 0.19 0.00

Distance to non-adjacent area wetland Feet 3,765 3,765 3,796 53 2,049

____________________

a Onshore construction period does not include hangar restoration and M&R facility.

b Crossings include beachside boardwalks and HDD crossings.

c Visual count obtained from aerial photography. For Alternative 2, residences are adjacent to underground HDD route.

d

Includes the Lower New York Bay Lateral.

e National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Electronic Navigation Charts and Automated Wreck and Obstruction 

Information System data.

f NYSDEC.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-20

TABLE 3.4-2

Comparison of the Acres and Cubic Yards of Impact for the Alternative Routes and the Proposed Route

for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral

Pipeline 

Segment/Activity

Proposed Route

Alternative 

Route 1

Alternative 

Route 2

Alternative 

Route 3

Alternative 

Route 4

Acres

Cubic 

Yards Acres

Cubic 

Yards Acres

Cubic 

Yards Acres

Cubic 

Yards Acres

Cubic 

Yards

Offshore

Offshore Pipeline 

Trenching

16.73 102,800 16.76 103,050 21.35 131,250 17.12 105,250 55.55 341,450

Dive Support 

Vessel, Lay Barge, 

Dredge Barge, 

Anchor Footprints

6.91 - 7.27 - 7.39 - 7.27 - 15.03 -

Jack-up Barge 1.21 39,500 1.21 39,500 1.21 39,500 1.21 39,500 1.21 39,500

HDD Exit 

Workspace

6.08 15,300 6.08 15,300 6.08 9,850 6.08 9,150 6.08 11,000

Offshore

Subtotal

30.93 157,600 31.32 157,850 36.03 180,600 31.68 153,900 77.87 391,950

Onshore

HDD Entry 

Workspace

0.67 450 0.67 450 0.67 450 0.67 450 0.67 450

Upland 

Trenching

0.01 250 0.01 250 0.79 19,250 1.43 34,550 0.01 200

Onshore

Subtotal

0.68 700 0.68 700 1.46 19,700 2.10 35,000 0.68 650

Alternative Total 31.61 158,300 32.00 158,550 37.49 200,300 33.78 188,900 78.55 392,600

____________________

Assumptions:

 The HDD entry and exit workspaces are considered similar for all alternatives.

 The upland trenching area and volume are based on conventional open-cut pipe lay.

 The offshore pipeline trenching area and volume are based on jet sled trenching and anchor footprints for the pipe lay barge, 

dive support vessel, and jack-up barge.

 The jack-up barge impact area and volume is considered similar for all alternatives.

3.4.1 Alternative Route 1

Alternative Route 1 ties into the LNYBL about 0.3 mile northeast of the proposed route for the 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral. From there it proceeds northwest for about 2.2 miles to an alternative HDD 

exit site adjacent to and just east of the proposed HDD exit site. A short distance later, the alternative 

route joins and follows the same alignment as the proposed route to the proposed HDD entry location and 

tie-in with National Grid’s pipeline on the TBTA property. 

Alternative Route 1 is the same length onshore and offshore as the proposed route and would 

cross the same number of offshore cables. One difference is that the Alternative is within 0.5 mile of nine 

charted marine obstructions (U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration [NOAA], 2009), which is twice the number that are within 0.5 mile of the proposed route 

(see Table 3.4-2). Transco’s 2009 archaeological investigations also revealed that there is a higher 

number of solid man-made obstacles (e.g., rock and concrete rubble, steel pipes, and cables) east of the 

proposed route in in the vicinity of Alternative Route 1 (PBS&J, 2009a). Transco believes this is 

primarily due to the placement of material associated with the establishment of the fish haven (otherwise 

known as Rockaway Reef) to the east that is indicated on NOAA navigational charts. Regardless of how 

these artificial materials originated, they provide hard-bottom habitat that supports a population of 

northern star coral (Astrangia poculata) as well as other benthic and fish species (PBS&J, 2009b). 

Because Alternative Route 1 would disturb a greater number of these submerged obstacles than the 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-21

proposed route, it would have a greater impact on this less common hard-bottom habitat than the 

proposed route.

The onshore portion of Alternative Route 1 is identical to the proposed route and therefore would 

have the same impacts. Like the proposed route, Alternative Route 1 is not near any New York State 

Department of State (NYSDOS)-listed critical fish and wildlife habitats, and would cross under the same 

amount of NYSDEC tidal wetlands and FWS significant water and land habitat complexes using the 

HDD method. Like the proposed route, it would have minimal onshore impact because the HDD would 

span the entire onshore area and be located about 1,330 feet from the nearest noise sensitive area (NSA). 

While Alternative Route 1 is similar to the proposed route in many respects, it would impact 

more man-made obstacles in the offshore, which provide habitat for coral and other marine species. For 

this reason, we have determined that Alternative Route 1 does not offer any significant environmental 

advantages and would not be preferable to the proposed route.

3.4.2 Alternative Route 2

Alternative Route 2 would tie into the LNYBL about 1.2 miles northeast of the proposed route for 

the Rockaway Delivery Lateral. From there, it would proceed northwest for about 2.8 miles, generally 

parallel to but offset by about 0.9 mile from Alternative Route 1, to an alternative HDD exit point near the 

shoreline. Between this near shore exit point and the HDD entry location in Jacob Riis Park just north of 

Beach 147th Street, the pipeline would be installed using the HDD method. The path of the HDD would 

be aligned so it is directly beneath Beach 147th Street to avoid crossing under any homes. From the HDD 

entry location, the alternative would be installed using conventional onshore techniques along Beach 

Channel Drive to the National Grid tie-in location on the TBTA property.

Alternative Route 2 is approximately 1.30 miles longer than the proposed route. It crosses a 

higher number of roads and would require construction of more than a mile of pipeline along Beach 

Channel Drive. Installation of the pipeline along this roadway would increase the duration of 

construction, particularly if special construction techniques such as stove pipe or drag section methods are 

required. It would impact Neponset and Belle Harbor residents by temporarily disrupting traffic and 

increasing congestion on the road causing travel delays. Additionally, the alternative HDD entry location 

would be located in Jacob Riis Park on the GNRA as opposed to TBTA property, and would be much 

closer to residences than the proposed HDD entry location. This would increase impacts on the park and

expose more homes to noise impacts than at the proposed HDD site. The primary advantage of 

Alternative Route 2 is that it would minimize the crossing length of the GNRA. The benefit would be 

limited since the proposed route would be installed under the GNRA using the HDD method, thereby 

avoiding any direct impact on resources within the GNRA. 

Alternative Route 2 avoids crossing the FWS significant land and water habitat complexes that 

are crossed by the proposed route, but Transco’s use of the HDD method for the proposed route would 

avoid any impact on these areas. The alternative would utilize a shorter HDD, but this would have the 

negative effect of placing the offshore HDD operation closer to shore, where it would be more visible and 

much closer to noise sensitive receptors (e.g., houses) than the proposed route. The alterative HDD 

alignment would cross under a residential road bordered by approximately 58 homes. While no impact 

on these residences would be expected, individual homes could be affected if there are complications with 

the HDD such as surface releases of drilling mud due to an inadvertent release. 

Like the proposed route, the majority of the offshore substrate traversed by Alternative Route 2 is 

sand (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 2005c). The alternative route would cross a designated fish haven 

(i.e., Rockaway Reef) and a much greater number of associated artificial reef structures than the proposed 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-22

route. As a result, the trenching for Alternative Route 2 would have a greater impact on the hard-bottom

communities and sport fishing grounds than the proposed route. Transco briefly evaluated the potential to 

avoid these hard-bottom impacts by dramatically increasing the length of the HDD or conducting two 

back-to-back HDDs, but concluded that this approach would be impractical due to the increased time, 

cost, and technical difficulties of such an undertaking. Therefore, while the shorter length of the 

alternative HDD would help reduce the duration of drilling operations compared to the proposed route, 

the difficulties associated with trenching through the artificial reef area would increase the total duration 

of the offshore construction period by about 15 days. Further, the additional trenching required for the 

alternative would increase the total acreage of offshore impacts and result in the excavation of more than 

20,000 cubic yards of sediments than the proposed route.

While Alternative Route 2 would reduce the crossing length of the GNRA, it is longer than the 

proposed route and would result in greater impacts on residents and environmental resources. 

Construction along Alternative Route 2 would increase traffic on Beach 147th Street, cause direct impacts 

within Jacob Riis Park, cross a designated fish haven, and result in greater impact on hard-bottom habitat 

than the proposed route. For these and the other reasons described above, we have determined that 

Alternative Route 2 does not offer any significant environmental advantages and would not be preferable 

to the proposed route.

3.4.3 Alternative Route 3

Alternative Route 3 would tie into the LNYBL about 1.4 miles southwest of the proposed route of 

the Rockaway Delivery Lateral. From there, it would proceed northwest for about 2.3 miles, generally 

parallel to but offset by about 1.7 miles from Alternative Route 1, to an alternative HDD exit point about 

0.6 mile from the shoreline. Between this offshore exit point and the HDD entry location on the south 

end of Beach 201

st Street, the pipeline would be installed using the HDD method. From the HDD entry 

point, the alternative would proceed northeast within the Beach 201st Street right-of-way following the 

western boundary of Fort Tilden to Rockaway Point Boulevard. It would then turn and proceed northeast 

along Rockaway Point Boulevard following the northern boundary of Fort Tilden to the Marine Parkway 

Bridge interchange. It would then proceed southeast to the tie-in with National Grid’s pipeline on the 

TBTA property. 

Alternative Route 3 would completely avoid Jacob Riis Park, but it is approximately 1.7 miles 

longer and would have more onshore impacts than the proposed route. It crosses a higher number of 

roads and would require construction of more than 1.8 miles of pipeline along Beach 201st Street and 

Rockaway Point Boulevard. Installation of the pipeline along and within these roadways would increase 

the duration of construction, particularly if special construction techniques such as stove pipe or drag 

section methods are required, and it would impact Breezy Point residents. Transco would need to 

purchase and remove two residences on Beach 201st Street to complete the HDD. Additionally, 

construction along Alternative Route 3 would temporarily disrupt traffic and increase congestion on 

Beach 201st Street and other roads causing travel delays. People living in the 93 residences immediately 

adjacent to the alternative route would be exposed to noise, dust, and periods of impeded access during 

construction. The alternative HDD operation would be closer to more residences than the proposed HDD 

entry location, and the nearest residence would be 70 feet from the HDD entry point. The people living in 

this home and other nearby homes would be subjected to a prolonged 4-month period of increased visual 

impacts and noise associated with the HDD. 

Alternative Route 3 crosses approximately the same offshore distance and would have about the 

same amount of offshore impact as the proposed route, but would require approximately 1.4 mile more of 

onshore trenching. The alternative crosses about the same amount of FWS significant land and water 

habitat complexes as the proposed route, and direct impacts on these areas would be avoided along both 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-23

routes by using the HDD method. Upland workspace for the alternative would be much closer to (within 

75 to 300 feet of) sensitive tidal marsh wetland, a FWS-designated significant land habitat complex, and a 

NYSDOS significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat than the proposed route. Thus, the alternative 

would have a greater potential to indirectly impact these areas due to sedimentation and stormwater 

runoff than the proposed route.

Alternative Route 3 would require a shorter (0.76-mile-long) HDD than the proposed route, but it 

crosses a federally designated dredged-material disposal site for the Rockaway Inlet and comes within 0.5 

mile of three named shipwrecks, including the historical vessel Ajace (NOAA, 2009). Trenching within 

the dump site could suspend contaminated sediments, which (depending on the characteristics of the 

previously disposed material) could then contaminate the water column. The shipwrecks could also be 

affected either by sedimentation or physical impacts due to the proximity of the construction activities.

While Alternative Route 3 would reduce the crossing length of the GNRA and avoid direct 

impacts within Jacob Riis Park, it is longer than the proposed route and would result in greater impacts on 

residents and environmental resources. Construction along Alternative Route 3 would affect residents in 

the vicinity of Breeze Point, require the removal of 2 homes, result in greater traffic along Beach 201st

Street and Rockaway Point Boulevard, and result in greater visual and noise impacts. Additionally, 

Alternative Route 3 would pass near three known shipwrecks that could be affected during construction. 

For these and the other reasons described above, we have determined that Alternative Route 3 does not 

offer any significant environmental advantages and would not be preferable to the proposed route.

3.4.4 Alternative Route 4

Alternative Route 4 would tie into the LNYBL about 3.9 miles southwest of the proposed route

for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral. From there, it would proceed northwest for about 2.8 miles, generally 

parallel to but offset by about 2.7 miles from Alternative Route 3, until it reaches a point about 0.8 mile 

west of the tip of Breezy Point. It then would curve north and then northeast roughly parallel to the 

northern shoreline of the Rockaway Peninsula until it enters the Rockaway Inlet on the north side of the 

navigation channel. From there, it would proceed up the inlet to a point about 1,600 feet west of the 

Marine Parkway Bridge. From this in-water location, the pipeline would be installed across the Jamaica 

Bay navigational channel and the northern shoreline of the peninsula using the HDD method. The HDD 

entry point and tie-in with National Grid’s pipeline would be at the same location on TBTA property as 

the proposed route.

While Alternative Route 4 would avoid making landfall within the GNRA, it would more than 

double the length of the pipeline. It would cross approximately 7.8 miles of offshore waters and cross 

under the Jamaica Bay federal navigation channel within the Rockaway Inlet. The inlet and the 

navigation channel serve as a high-use corridor for recreational boaters transiting from Sheepshead Bay 

and Jamaica Bay. Thus, Alternative Route 4 would increase ship traffic congestion within the inlet. This 

would be especially true during in-water HDD operations. As part of the HDD, a jack-up barge would be 

set up at the HDD exit point near the navigation channel. This barge and the vessels servicing it would 

restrict the use of the shipping channel by other vessels. Temporary closures of the inlet may be 

necessary for limited periods of time to ensure the safety of boaters and the construction contractors. 

Alternative Route 4 would pass close to (within 0.5 mile of) 47 mapped marine obstructions, 

which is ten times the number of marine obstructions near the proposed route. It is likely that at least 

some of these obstacles may have value as cultural resources. Consequently, the alternative would have a 

higher potential to impact cultural resources than the proposed route. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-24

Alternative Route 4 would require a shorter HDD but more than three times the amount of 

offshore trenching as the proposed route (7.3 miles versus 2.2 miles). This trenching would more than 

double the area of offshore impact and the volume of excavated sediments. Additionally, the alternative 

route would traverse about 1.0 mile of identified sport fishing areas and 2.5 miles of a FWS significant 

water habitat complex. Increased sedimentation and decreased water quality caused by the offshore 

trenching would impact this habitat and potentially have an adverse local effect on sport fishing. The 

sedimentation and water quality effects of trenching would be exacerbated by the tidal forces within the 

inlet, which could increase the size of the turbidity plume. Additionally, this plume could be drawn into 

Jamaica Bay during an incoming tide, diminishing water quality conditions within an area designated as a 

significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat by the NYSDOS and a critical environmental area by 

NYSDEC (FWS, 1997). Jamaica Bay provides EFH for additional aquatic species unaffected by the 

proposed route, including horseshoe crab. The Bay also supports the largest population of diamondback 

terrapin in New York State.

In addition to the environmental effects described above, Alternative Route 4 would have greater 

visual impacts on the communities of Breezy Point and Roxbury than the proposed route. Lay barges and 

support vessels used in trenching and pipe-lay operations would be within 1.0 mile of residential 

neighborhoods for a majority of the construction period. In contrast, all offshore construction along the 

proposed route would be more than 1.0 mile from residential communities. In addition, public access to 

protected fishing locations north of the Rockaway Peninsula that provide recreational and commercial 

fishing opportunities near the inlet could be negatively impacted by the presence of vessels and 

equipment during construction of the alternative.

While Alternative Route 4 would avoid a landfall within the GNRA, it is significantly longer than 

the proposed route and would result in greater impacts on residents and environmental resources. 

Construction along Alternative Route 4 would require more offshore trenching, which would result in 

greater turbidity and sedimentation impacts, and also would affect boat traffic along the Jamaica Bay 

federal navigation channel at Rockaway Inlet. The alternative passes near more marine obstructions that 

the proposed route and requires crossing a sport fishing area and a designated significant water habitat 

complex. Construction activities along Alternative Route 4 additionally would result in visual and noise 

impacts on more residents than the proposed route, particularly at Breezy Point and Roxbury. For these 

and the other reasons described above, we have determined that Alternative Route 4 does not offer any 

significant environmental advantages and would not be preferable to the proposed route.

3.5 ALTERNATIVE SITES TO THE M&R FACILITY

We evaluated alternative sites to the proposed M&R facility site to determine whether 

environmental impacts would be reduced or mitigated by use of an alternative site. Our evaluation 

covered all of the alternative sites identified by Transco or other interested parties and involved inspection 

of aerial photography and mapping as well as site visits. In total, we assessed five alternative M&R 

facility sites. The locations of these sites and the resources on or near these sites are shown on Figures 

3.5-1 through 3.5-3. An environmental comparison of the five alternative sites to the proposed site is 

included in Table 3.5-1 and is presented below.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
(! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! !(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( (! (! (! !( !( !(

!(

!( !( !( !( 

M A R I N E

P A R K

G

O

L

F

C

O

U

R

S

E

M A R I N E P A R K

GATEWAY

MARINA

VENICE MARINA GEAU DAVILLE

MARINA

TAMAQUA MARINA

SEA TRAVELER S MARINA

KINGS PLAZA

MARINA

MCGUIRE

FIELDS

BROOKLYN

GOLF

CENTER

AVIATOR

SPORTS

COMPLEX

Proposed M

Facility S

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

Alternative 5

Belt

Ocean

Avenue U

Nostrand

Flatbush

Gerritsen

Kings

Avenue P

24th

Belt

Kings

Flatbush

Nostrand

0 0.5

Miles

M&R Facility

Roads

NPS Jurisdictional Boundary

Gateway National Recreation Area

Municipal Park

Existing Floyd Bennett Field 

Historic District Boundary

!(

!(

!( Proposed Floyd Bennett Field 

Historic District Boundary

p Figure 3.5-1

Rockaway Delivery 

and Northeast Connecto

Public Lands - 

M&R Facility Site Alternatives for th

3-25
Proposed 

Facility S

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

Alternative 5

Flatbush

Ave

Belt

Pky

Exit 11N

F

0 0.25

Miles

M&R Facility

Road

Tidal Wetlands (NYSDEC)

Adjacent Area

Formerly Connected

Hole Area

High Marsh

Intertidal Marsh

Littoral Zone

Coastal Shoals, Bars and Mudflats

p Figure 

Rockaway Deli

and Northeast Con

NYSDEC Tida

M&R Facility Site Alternatives 

3-26
Proposed M

Facility Sit

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

Alternative 5

Flatbush

Ave

Belt

Pky

Exit 11N

Fl

0 0.25

Miles

M&R Facility

Road

NYDEC Uncertified

Shellfish Harvest Area

Ü Ü Ü Ü

Ü Ü Ü Ü

NYSDOS Significant Coastal

Fish and Wildlife Habitat

USFWS Significant

Water Habitat Complex

USFWS Significant

Land Habitat Complex

p Figure 3

Rockaway Deli

and Northeast Con

Federal and State Signif

M&R Facility Site Alternatives 

3-27
3-28

TABLE 3.5-1

Comparison of Alternative M&R Facility Sites to the Proposed M&R Facility Site for the Rockaway Project

Factors Unit

Proposed 

M&R 

Facility

Site

Alternative

1

Alternative

2

Alternative

3

Alternative

4

Alternative

5

Property ownership NPS NPS NPS NYCDPR NYCDPR NYCDPR

Distance to NPS property a Feet 0 0 0 1586 2758 4992

Direct impact on NPS 

property

Acres 1.1 1.3 1.3 0 0 0

Requires new building on 

park land (NPS or New York 

City) 

Yes/ No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Open water within 1.0 mile Acres 751.27 461.87 414.60 295.30 225.10 170.26

Land within 1.0 mile Acres 1,377.87 1,663.82 1,711.06 1,829.72 1,900.57 1,957.89

Developed land b Percent 64 54 56 60 67 81

Undeveloped/vegetated 

land

Percent 36 46 44 40 33 19

Facility footprint c: cover type

Disturbed/open Percent 100 0 20 50 100 85

Scrub/shrub Percent 0 100 d 80 0 0 0

Deciduous forest Percent 0 0 0 50 0 15

Distance to closest marina e Feet 964 1773 2245 1238 316 322

Distance to golf course Feet 3,930 1,020 1,300 50 0 0

Distance to open water Feet 631 1,593 2,073 800 297 239

Distance to Floyd Bennett 

Field Community Gardens

Feet 100 3,255 3,545 6,065 7,605 9,990

Buildings f within 1.0 mile No. 140 828 1,035 3,619 6,319 12,376

Buildings f within 1,000 feet No. 11 12 4 9 51 111

Significant land habitat 

complex within 0.25 mile 

(FWS)

Acres 131.9 133.6 133.3 2.1 2.1 5.9

Significant water habitat 

complex within 0.25 mile 

(FWS)

Acres 24.5 0.0 0.0 15.6 36.5 23.3

Distance to non-adjacent 

area tidal wetlands 

(NYSDEC)

Feet 664 1537 2017 504 277 223

Distance to significant 

coastal fish and wildlife 

habitat (NYSDOS)

Feet 4626 2610 2056 845 1139 3126

____________________

Notes:

a NPS boundary source: http://science.nature.nps.gov/nrdata/datastore.cfm?ID=47593.

b Developed land includes golf courses.

c Cover type determined by desktop verification of 2006 National Land Classification Data using aerial photography.

d Classified as estuarine Intertidal by the New York Natural Heritage Program (Edinger et. al. 2008).

e Distance is from each station to the closest marina dock.

f

Includes residences, commercial, and public buildings

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-29

3.5.1 M&R Facility Alternative Site 1

M&R Facility Alternative Site 1 is located on undeveloped land to the southeast of the Belt 

Parkway-Flatbush Avenue interchange on the west side of Flatbush Avenue about 0.25 mile west of the 

Aviator Sports and Recreation Complex. The site is in a portion of Marine Park that was previously 

donated to the GNRA, and thus is on NPS property. The site is outside the Floyd Bennett Field Historic 

District boundary (see Section 4.10.1), but within the viewshed of this area. The entire site is classified as 

containing estuarine intertidal vegetation by the New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP). 

The primary advantage of Alternative Site 1 relative to the proposed site is that it would avoid 

temporary construction impacts on users of a community garden at Floyd Bennett Field. Because 

workspace for the proposed site is located about 100 feet from the garden, gardeners could be disturbed 

by the temporary increase in noise, vibration, and traffic during construction. These impacts would be 

avoided at Alternative Site 2, which is located 3,255 feet to the northeast of the garden.

A major drawback of Alternative Site 1 is that it would require the development of new industrial 

buildings within the GNRA. These buildings would be visible from Flatbush Avenue and from 

approximately 55.0 acres of NPS property. As such, they would detract from the visual aesthetics of the 

GNRA and impact the historic district by creating a new permanent structure within its viewshed. In 

contrast, although the proposed M&R facility would be visible to a greater portion of the GNRA, 

Transco’s adaptive reuse of a rehabilitated hangar complex would match the visual character of Floyd 

Bennett Field. Consequently, the primary visual impact of the proposed site would be temporary during 

the period of construction; the long-term effect would be a rehabilitation of a cultural resource site 

(assuming the rehabilitation is approved by the appropriate agencies). 

With respect to natural resources and protected areas, both the proposed M&R facility site and 

Alternative Site 1 are within a mapped FWS significant land habitat complex, but there are significant 

differences between the vegetation on the two sites. Alternative Site 1 is covered by marsh vegetation 

and its development would result in both temporary and permanent vegetation impacts, including the 

permanent loss of approximately 1.3 acres of reed grass dominated wetland habitat. Transco has 

speculated that it might be possible to reconfigure the facilities at Alternative Site 1 to reduce the wetland 

impacts, but the access road to the facility and the pipelines connecting the facility to National Grid’s 

pipeline along Flatbush Avenue would still impact about 1.0 acre of wetlands. Additionally, any 

reconfiguration to reduce wetland impacts would likely increase the impact on the bordering northern 

hardwood vegetation. The proposed M&R facility site, by comparison, is mostly paved and contains 

sparsely distributed upland grasses growing through the broken pavement. As such, the proposed site 

would have a negligible impact on vegetation within the GNRA. 

In summary, while Alternative Site 1 would avoid temporary impacts on users of the community 

garden at Floyd Bennett Field, use of the site for the M&R facility would result in greater visual impacts 

on the GNRA due to the construction of new buildings in the viewshed. Additionally, use of Alternative 

Site 1 would result in impacts on marsh vegetation, including permanent impacts on reed grass dominated 

wetland, whereas the proposed site would avoid these impacts. For all these reasons, we have determined 

that Alternative Site 1 does not offer any significant advantages and would not be preferable to the 

proposed site.

3.5.2 M&R Facility Alternative Site 2

M&R Facility Alternative Site 2 is located north of the proposed site within the GNRA on land 

under the jurisdiction of the NPS. It is about the same distance from the Aviator Sports and Recreation 

Complex as Alternative Site 1, but on the east side of Flatbush Avenue. This area consists of open 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-30

uplands and is referred to by the NPS as the North Forty Natural Area. Alternative Site 2 is also within 

the Floyd Bennett Field Historic District boundary.

Alternative Site 2 shares the same advantages and disadvantages as Alternative Site 1 relative to 

the proposed site. The primary advantage Alternative Site 2 is that it would avoid temporary construction 

impacts on users of a community garden at Floyd Bennett Field; the alternative is located about 3,545 feet 

from the community garden compared to a distance of about 100 feet for the proposed site. A key 

disadvantage is that Alternative Site 2 would require the development of new industrial buildings within 

the GNRA. These buildings would be visible from both Flatbush Avenue and surrounding areas within 

the GNRA. Additionally, Alternative Site 2 would be within the same mapped FWS significant land 

habitat complex as Alternative Site 1, and development of the site would permanently impact about 1.0 

acre of maritime scrub-shrub habitat on NPS property. 

In summary, while the use of Alternative Site 2 would avoid temporary impacts on users of 

community garden, it would result in impacts on visual and natural resources within the GNRA, including 

maritime scrub-shrub habitats. Use of the proposed site would avoid these impacts because the M&R 

facility would be built within a rehabilitated hangar complex at Floyd Bennett Field and construction 

activities would affect sparse herbaceous vegetation growing through pavement. For these reasons, we 

have determined that Alternative Site 2 does not offer any significant advantages and would not be 

preferable to the proposed site.

3.5.3 M&R Facility Alternative Site 3

M&R Facility Alternative Site 3 is located on NYCDPR-owned property on the Marine Park Golf 

Course. The partly open and partly wooded site is next to a New York State Department of 

Transportation (NYSDOT)-NYCDPR maintenance facility northwest of the Belt Parkway-Flatbush 

Avenue interchange and west of Flatbush Avenue. Alternative Site 3 is located outside of the GNRA and 

would not be subject to NPS jurisdiction. 

Marine Park is Brooklyn’s largest park (798 acres outside of GNRA boundaries) consisting of 

open water, grassland, saltmarsh, and maintained recreational lands (NYCDPR, 2012). Recreational 

opportunities in the park include a golf course, bocce courts, baseball fields, basketball courts, 

playgrounds, camping, hiking, canoeing, and kayaking (with a launch at Gerritsen Inlet). Alternative Site 

3 is not located in any designated natural areas, but it is approximately 1,238 feet away from the Sea 

Travelers Marina to the northeast, 800 feet away from the nearest open water to the west, and within 0.25 

mile of two FWS-designated significant water habitat complexes (the Mill Basin and Marine Park 

waterbodies) and a NYSDOS-designated significant critical fish habitat area. Because of this distance 

and Transco’s implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), impacts on water 

quality associated with stormwater runoff and on fishing and other water-dependent recreational activities 

likely would be negligible. 

Roughly half of Alternative Site 3 is forest land, which would have to be cleared, resulting in the 

permanent loss of woodlands. Additionally, although the alternative location is not located within and 

would not likely be visible from the GNRA, it would still be clearly visible to users of the Marine Park 

Golf Course and from vehicles using Flatbush Avenue. 

While use of Alternative Site 3 would avoid impacts on gardeners in the community garden at 

Floyd Bennett Field (the site is located about 6,065 feet to the northeast of the garden), it would affect 

existing land uses at Marine Park. The alternative site is in an area used for park vehicles and equipment. 

Construction of an M&R facility at this location would require the relocation of park vehicles and 

equipment to another area, which could lead to secondary impacts on land uses or on vegetation. 

Additionally, as city property, the use of Alternative Site 3 would require alienation of parkland through 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-31

the state legislature for a new M&R facility to be built. This would be particularly challenging for 

Alternative Site 3 because the NYCDPR deemed this alternative the least appealing due to land use 

conflicts and concerns about the amount of useable space, as portions of the site have been ceded to the 

New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT). 

While use of Alternative Site 3 would avoid temporary impacts on gardeners at Floyd Bennett, it 

would result in greater impacts on natural, land use, and visual resources than the proposed site. Use of 

Alternative Site 3 would require the clearing of woodland, conflict with existing uses at the site, and 

disrupt existing viewsheds at Marine Park. Use of the proposed site would avoid these impacts. For 

these reasons, we have determined that Alternative Site 3 does not offer any significant advantages and 

would not be preferable to the proposed site.

3.5.4 M&R Facility Alternative Site 4

M&R Facility Alternative Site 4, like Alternative Site 3, is located on NYCDPR-owned property 

on the Marine Park Golf Course west of Flatbush Avenue. The site is in a vacant parking lot adjacent to 

the main parking area of the golf course. Views of the site are currently screened from Flatbush Avenue 

by a double line of deciduous trees between the parking lot and the road.

Alternative Site 4 is located outside of the GNRA and would not be subject to NPS jurisdiction. 

Its development would avoid temporary impacts on gardeners at Floyd Bennett Field relative to the 

proposed site, and would have fewer visual impacts on the GNRA than Alternative Sites 1, 2, or 3. It

would have greater direct and indirect impacts on Marine Park because it would occupy a portion of the 

golf course parking lot. During construction, access to the golf course and parking lot would be limited 

by the storage of equipment and materials and by the movement of construction vehicles in and out of the 

site. Additionally, a portion of the existing parking lot would be permanently lost and converted to nonrecreational industrial use, and the construction of new buildings could disrupt existing viewsheds from 

the golf course or other areas of the park. 

Alternative Site 4 is close to the Sea Travelers Marina and open water and is within 300 feet of 

Mill Basin, a FWS-designated significant water habitat complex, though these areas most likely would be 

unaffected by construction at the site. Development of the site would disturb, and possibly eliminate, the 

semi-natural vegetation that currently borders the edges of the site. In addition, as city property, the use 

of Alternative Site 5 would require alienation of parkland through the state legislature for a new M&R 

facility to be built. 

In summary, while use of Alternative Site 4 would avoid impacts on gardeners at Floyd Bennett 

Field as well as visual impacts on the GNRA, it would impact existing land uses and viewsheds at Marine 

Park and would disturb semi-natural vegetation around the site in areas adjacent to the golf course. Use 

of the proposed site would avoid impacts on Marine Park, including impacts on the golf course. For these 

reasons, we have determined that Alternative Site 4 does not offer any significant advantages and would 

not be preferable to the proposed site.

3.5.5 M&R Facility Alternative Site 5

M&R Facility Alternative Site 5 is located the furthest north of any of the alternative sites near a 

complex of commercial buildings just south of the intersection of Avenue V and Flatbush Avenue. The 

land, which sits on the northeast corner of the Marine Park Golf Course, is partially open and partially 

wooded. As with Alternative Sites 3 and 4, the property is owned by NYCDPR. 

Alternative Site 5 is located on city property farther from the GNRA than any other site. While 

there is a direct line of sight to the property from the north side of the Rockaway Peninsula and the west 

side of Floyd Bennett Field, the distance is so great that a M&R facility at this location would have little 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-32

visual impact on users of the GNRA. Additionally, use of this site relative to the proposed site would

avoid temporary impacts on gardeners at the community garden on Floyd Bennett Field.

Development of the Alternative Site 5 would have a direct impact on the Marine Park property by 

removing vegetation and erecting new buildings in a previously open and wooded area. The alternative 

site additionally is directly adjacent to both the golf course and the King’s Plaza commercial 

development. As such, golf course operations and commercial activities at King’s Plaza could be affected 

by increased vehicle traffic during the period when the alternative site is being developed. 

Construction of new M&R facility buildings within Marine Park would have a long term visual 

impact on golfers and other visitors to the golf course. Development of the site would result in the 

removal of about 0.2 acre of trees that screen the property from the surrounding area. The removal of 

these trees would change the visual character of the Marine Park Golf Course, King’s Plaza, and Flatbush 

Avenue. Additionally, Alternative Site 5 is located about 300 feet from Mill Basin, a FWS significant 

water habitat complex. It is also close to the Kings Plaza Marina, whose customers could be visually 

impacted and subject to other construction-related impacts. In addition, as city property, the use of 

Alternative Site 5 would require alienation of parkland through the state legislature for a new M&R 

facility to be built. 

In summary, while use of Alternative Site 5 would avoid temporary impacts on gardeners at 

Floyd Bennett Field as well as the introduction of new visual impacts on the GNRA, it would have 

significant visual impacts on Marine Park and nearby commercial areas due to construction of new 

buildings and removal of trees and other vegetation. Use of the proposed site would avoid these impacts. 

For these and the other reasons described above, we have determined that Alternative Site 5 does not offer 

any significant advantages and would not be preferable to the proposed site.

3.6 ALTERNATIVES TO THE NORTHEAST CONNECTOR PROJECT

For the Rockaway Project, Transco would provide firm delivery service of 647 Mdth/d of natural 

gas to National Grid’s distribution system on the Rockaway Peninsula in Queens County, New York. For 

the Northeast Connector Project, Transco would add additional compression at three existing compressor 

stations along its mainline to provide, as part of the 647 Mdth/d, 100 Mdth/d of new incremental natural 

gas supply on Transco’s existing system. We considered alternatives to the Northeast Connector Project, 

including modifications to other existing compressor station sites, construction of an additional 

compressor station, and construction of a pipeline loop 3 near Compressor Station 195, each of which 

could provide 100 Mdth/d of new incremental natural gas supply on Transco’s existing system.

We concluded that Transco’s existing compressor stations are situated to maximize the efficient 

transportation of gas volumes through its mainline system. The additional volumes of natural gas 

proposed by the Northeast Connector Project would not require the construction and corresponding 

environmental impacts of a new compressor station. Further, Transco proposes to modify the three 

compressor stations closest to the Rockaway Project area, which would maximize its existing system

efficiency. If Transco were to avoid modifications at Compressor Station 195 and modify a different 

station, the environmental impacts associated with this action would not be avoided, but shifted from one 

site to the other. 

Another option would be to loop the existing mainline downstream and possibly upstream of 

Compressor Station 195. Construction of a pipeline loop would affect approximately 12 acres of land per 

mile of pipeline and would create more impacts than those proposed by the Northeast Connector Project. 

 

3 A pipeline “loop” is a segment of pipeline that is installed adjacent to or in the vicinity of an existing pipeline and connected 

to the existing pipeline at both ends. A loop increases the volume of gas that can be transported through that portion of the 

system.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-33

Therefore, the construction of a pipeline loop would not be preferable to the proposed action because it 

would result in greater environmental impact than Transco’s proposed modifications at Compressor 

Station 195.

For all these reasons, we do not believe that alternatives to the Northeast Connector Project offer 

any significant environmental advantages, nor would these alternatives be preferable to the proposed 

action.

3.7 CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES

We evaluated construction alternatives for the Rockaway Project to determine whether offshore 

environmental impacts could be reduced or mitigated by use of alternative methods. Our evaluation 

included a review of alternative offshore trenching methods, the use dynamically positioned vessels 

verses anchored vessels to assemble and install the pipeline, an open-cut crossing of the shoreline as 

opposed to the proposed HDD, and removal of drilling fluids released to the marine environment rather 

than allowing the fluids to collect and remain in the offshore HDD exit pit. A description of each of these 

alternatives and a comparison to the proposed methods is presented below.

3.7.1 Subsea Pipeline Trenching Alternatives

Transco evaluated two alternative subsea trenching methods in addition to the proposed post-lay 

jetting method. One of these alternatives would be to use a post-lay subsea plow. The other would 

involve the use of a pre-lay clamshell dredge. A comparison of these alternative trenching techniques 

compared to the proposed method is presented in Table 3.7.1-1 and described below.

Post-Lay Plowing

A post-lay subsea plow involves passive displacement of soils by a plowshare as it is pulled 

forward. Plowing uses a pull-barge or vessel force to overcome resistance of the plow being drawn 

through subsea sediments and it is best suited to consistent silty clay sediments. 4 The pull force is 

supplied by a special pull barge or the lay barge itself. Steering is normally accomplished by offset or 

tow angle of the vessel or by articulated steering. Because of the size of the plow equipment, plowing is 

generally not suitable in shallow waters, but could be used for the Rockaway Project where water depths 

range from 20 to 39 feet. The width of the trench created by post-lay plowing would be approximately 

30.5 feet. Another 45 feet of seabed would be impacted by the displaced sediments pushed to the side of 

the trench by the plow. The primary advantages of plowing relative to jetting are that it would reduce the 

volume of displaced sediment, the size of the resulting sediment plume, and the extent of sedimentation 

away from the trench. 

Acquiring a plow may not be possible for construction of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral. There 

are a limited number of plows that are commercially available for large-diameter pipeline construction 

within U.S. waters, and these plows typically are used on larger projects. Transco requested 

qualifications from nine U.S. based offshore construction companies for work on the pipeline. Of these, 

seven companies responded to a questionnaire regarding available construction equipment, including a 

plow. Of the seven respondents, one company owned a plow. The availability of this plow would be at 

the discretion of the plow owner and the cost could be significantly higher than jetting because of the 

limited availability. In consideration of availability, cost, and existing aquatic resources in the project 

area, we determined that use of a post-lay plow would not offer a significant environmental advantage for 

the Rockaway Project. 

 

4 As discussed in Section 4.1.2, the near surface sediments along the offshore pipeline route consist of fine to medium sand.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-34

TABLE 3.7.1-1

Comparison of Offshore Pipeline Trenching Methods for the Rockaway Project

Consideration

Proposed PostLay Jetting aPost-Lay

Plowing b

Pre-Lay 

Dredging 

(Clamshell) Comments

Water depth limitation(s) Within project 

water depth

Within project 

water depth

Within project 

water depth

Equipment availability Fairly available Low Fairly available Availability of a plow capable of 

trenching a 26-inch line is extremely 

limited.

Estimated trenching 

speed (feet/hour)

1,200 600 to 3,300 15

Trench slope 1V:5H 1V:3H 1V:3H Based on vendor input. May vary 

depending on the shear strength of 

seabed sediments.

Excavation depth (feet) 6.50 6.50 6.50 Designed to achieve 4 feet of cover 

between the seabed and the top of 

the pipe.

Trench top width (feet) 70.0 30.5 44.0

Trench top plus sediment 

placement width (feet)

70.0 75.50 77.0 The jetting method does not require 

an area for the placement of the 

excavated sediments.

Equipment size (feet) 22 x 24 30 x 60 15 x 25

Equipment weight (tons) ~ 30 ~ 150 Not applicable The clamshell excavator would be 

mounted on a barge and would not 

be resting on the seabed.

Seabed impact due to 

trenching (acres) 

16.73 17.93 18.33 Impact for the offshore trench. 

Acreage estimates for the mechanical 

plow and clamshell dredge include an 

area for the placement of the 

sediment excavated from the trench.

Sediment displaced 

(yard

3

)

~102,800 ~36,500 ~67,100 Impact based on the trench 

dimensions identified in the rows 

below. Volume estimates include a 

10 percent contingency.

Suspended sediment 

plume – bottom layer

Most extensive More extensive Least extensive Based on distance travelled and 

concentration of suspended 

sediments, not the duration of 

sedimentation. 

Extent of sedimentation Most extensive Least extensive More extensive Extent of sedimentation is a function 

of the disturbed trench volume rather 

than the trenching rate. 

Construction period and 

duration of impacts

Shortest Varies Longest Mobilization time for plow equipment 

would be several months

Construction cost Least expensive Most expensive High The high cost of plowing is due to the 

scarcity of available equipment.

____________________

a Jet sled equipment based on information received by Transco from Cal Dive.

b Plow equipment based on information received by Transco from Soil Machine Dynamics LTD.

Pre-Lay Dredging

Unlike the proposed post-lay jet sled that would excavate the trench after the pipeline is laid on 

the seabed, a pre-lay clamshell dredge would excavate a trench before the pipeline is laid using a bargemounted crane and mechanical bucket. A clamshell dredge is suitable for silt, sand, or rubble substrate 

and thus would be capable of excavating the seabed material crossed by the pipeline route. The excavated 

material could either be deposited to the side of the trench or lifted to the surface and stored upon a barge 

for backfill. Efficient filling of a barge requires that any water entrained in the excavated sediment be 

drained before it is stored onboard the barge. This process results in an increase in the amount of 

sediment released into the water column by roughly ten-fold compared with the clamshell alone (Palermo 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-35

et. al., 2008). To minimize the potential for this impact, the scenario evaluated in Table 3.7.1-1 assumed 

that the material would be deposited on the side of the trench, but this also would increase the area of 

seabed impact. 

Another issue with pre-lay dredging is the potential for sloughing and natural infilling to occur in 

the trench in the period before the pipe is laid on the seabed. If this occurs, more dredging would be 

necessary and additional impacts could occur. Additionally, the rate of clamshell dredge operation is very 

slow in comparison to a mechanical plow or jet sled. This would prolong the duration of the impact. 

For all these reasons, we believe that the impacts associated with the use of a clamshell dredge 

would negate any potential advantages it may have over jetting. Therefore, with the exception of the 

HDD exit pit, we do not think that it would be preferable to the proposed post-lay jetting method to 

excavate the offshore trench. 

3.7.2 Dynamically Positioned Pipe Lay Barge Alternative

Transco proposes to use a pipe lay barge to fabricate the offshore pipeline. As described in 

Section 2.3.1, the pipe lay barge would be moored with pre-positioned anchors for installation of the 

offshore section of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral. An eight-point mooring system of wire ropes and 

anchors would hold the lay barge on a precise heading as the pipeline is laid. The system would move the 

barge as anchor lines are reeled in and out. As the barge progresses to the end of the mooring lines, the 

anchors would be moved ahead by anchor-handling tugs. The wide spread of the mooring system would 

require Transco to use a 5,000-foot-wide construction right-of-way. Mariners would be temporarily 

precluded from using this corridor during construction. Additionally, while Transco’s use of mid line 

buoys would minimize seabed impacts by reducing cable sweep, impacts associated with each anchor 

strike would occur in isolated areas throughout the 5,000-foot-wide corridor. 

We evaluated the potential to avoid these effects by using a dynamically positioned pipe lay 

barge that would maintain its location using a system of hull-mounted thrusters rather than an anchoring 

system. We determined that a dynamically positioned pipe lay barge would not be practicable because 

the minimum water depth of a pipe lay barge operating with dynamic positioning is approximately 100 

feet, and the associated barge draft would be approximately 30 feet. The range of water depth for the pipe 

lay operation is approximately 25 to 40 feet, so the thrusters on a dynamically positioned lay barge could 

not operate without excessive turbulence and disturbance of the seabed. As such, we do not believe that 

use of a dynamically positioned lay barge would be preferable to the proposed lay barge equipment.

3.7.3 Open-Cut Crossing of the Shoreline

Transco proposes to cross the shoreline and nearshore marine environments, including areas 

within the GNRA, using the HDD construction method. In response to comments from the USACE, we 

evaluated an open-cut crossing alternative to the HDD. This alternative would require the use of 

conventional construction techniques for the upland, onshore segment from the tie-in with National Grid 

to the start of the beach at Jacob Riis Park; special construction methods, including trenching from a 

dredge barge, for the beach crossing segment extending across the beach and into shallow waters of the 

ocean to a depth of about 10 feet; and offshore dredging from a dredge barge for the offshore segment 

from a water depth of about 10 to 25 feet, which is the minimum depth required for use of the jet sled.

For the upland, onshore segment, the pipeline would be installed at a depth sufficient to provide a 

minimum of 3 feet of cover measured from top of pipe to grade. This would require a construction rightof-way measuring 85 feet in width and could require an additional 25 feet of temporary workspace (for a 

total construction work area measuring 110 feet in width) for segregating and storing excavated spoil, 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-36

particularly within the pitch-and-putt golf course on Jacob Riis Park. Construction methods for onshore 

clearing, grading, and backfilling would be similar to those described in Section 2.3.1.10 for the proposed 

action. Following installation of the pipeline, the disturbed area would be restored to pre-construction 

condition or better in accordance with NPS requirements. 

For the beach crossing segment, the pipeline would be installed at a depth sufficient to provide a 

minimum of 15 feet of cover measured from top of pipe to grade. Transco would require a construction 

right-of-way measuring 350-feet-wide from the beach boardwalk, which is about 260 feet back from the 

water’s edge, to the waterline and 300-feet-wide in the shoreline waters. For the beach crossing, the 

open-cut construction method would be implemented. A dredge barge would excavate a 100-foot-wide 

flotation canal for the barge to transit to the shoreline for trenching activities. Prior to excavation, sheet 

piles would be installed both along the shoreline and the trench line from at least the water’s edge to a 

water depth of five feet to maintain the integrity of the trench walls during construction. The dredge 

would excavate a trench from the shoreline to the 10-foot water depth. A lay barge would be used to 

assemble and lay the pipe. A winch would be installed near the boardwalk to pull the pipeline segment 

from the lay barge into the trench across the beach. The sheet piles would be removed and the trench 

would be backfilled with native and/or clean compatible material. Disturbed areas of the boardwalk and 

beach would be restored to preconstruction condition or better. 

For the offshore segment, the pipeline would be installed at a depth sufficient to provide 4 feet of 

cover measured from top of pipe to grade. Transco would require an offshore construction workspace 

measuring 5,000 feet in width to provide sufficient space for vessel anchoring and maneuvering and a 

construction right-of-way measuring 300 feet in width to install the pipeline. A dredge barge would be 

utilized to excavate the trench. A pipe lay barge would be used to assemble and lay the pipeline segment

out to a depth of 25 feet. The jet sled would be used to trench the remainder of the offshore pipeline to 

the tie-in with the LNYBL as discussed in Section 2.3.1.4. Following installation of the pipeline, the 

trench would be backfilled with native and/or clean compatible materials and the seafloor graded to 

ambient contours.

We compared the potential environmental impacts of an open-cut crossing at the shoreline to 

those for an HDD. The open-cut alternative would result in direct impacts on the GNRA and would 

require the temporary closure of the pitch-and-putt golf course, boardwalk, and beach at Jacob Riis Park. 

The open-cut alternative also would disturb sensitive beach and nearshore ocean habitats, including areas 

identified by the FWS as significant land or water habitat complexes, resulting in impacts on terrestrial 

and marine species and federally listed species in these areas. Construction activities for the offshore 

segment additionally would result in turbidity and sedimentation impacts in the nearshore waters within 

the GNRA. In contrast, use of the HDD method to install the pipeline at the shoreline crossing would 

avoid impacts on land uses within the GNRA, onshore and nearshore habitats within the GNRA, and 

nearshore water quality impacts due to turbidity and sedimentation. We also note that the pipeline would 

be installed at a depth of 100 feet below grade at the shoreline using the HDD method compared to a 

depth of 15 feet using the open-cut method. The additional depth of the HDD would increase the 

protection of the pipeline at the shoreline. For all these reasons, we do not believe that use of the opencut method to install the pipeline at the shoreline crossing would be preferable to the HDD. 

3.7.4 Drilling Fluid Removal

Under the proposed action, Transco would excavate a pit at the offshore HDD exit location to 

contain the drilling fluid and cuttings released to the marine environment during the drilling process. The 

drilling fluid would consist of a mix of fresh water and bentonite clay. Upon discharge, the drilling fluid 

would be of a gel-like consistency that is denser than seawater. As such, it is expected to pool within the 

pit as it releases from the drill hole. The salinity of the surrounding seawater would cause the clay within 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3-37

the drilling fluid to flocculate and settle to the bottom of the pit. Transco proposes to leave the drilling 

fluid and cuttings in the pit but would cover the area with a top layer of native and/or compatible 

sediments to cap the material and restore the contours of the seabed. 

In response to comments from cooperating and other agencies, we evaluated removal of the 

drilling fluid from the pit as an alternative to the proposed action. Crane-operated air-lift or suction pump 

equipment could be used to extract the drilling fluid from the pit on a continuous basis (though it would 

be difficult to measure or observe the volume of fluid removed due to mixing with native sediment and 

seawater during withdrawal). The fluid and other materials would be discharged from the pump 

equipment to a barge at the surface of the ocean and dewatered to remove the seawater. The barge would 

then transport the material to a dock for transfer to trucks and delivery to a disposal facility licensed to 

receive material contaminated by seawater. Transco estimates that four barges, each with a tug escort, 

would need to be rotated to and from the offshore construction area to handle the volume of material 

recovered from the pit during the HDD operations (including sediment and seawater captured by the airlift or suction pump) and ship it to the shore. Once at shore, between 600 and 1,200 trucks (depending on 

truck size) would be needed to transport the material to licensed disposal facilities. Due to limitations on 

the amount of ocean sediment that the disposal facilities are able to receive on a daily basis (as a result of 

the salt content), multiple facilities would be required to dispose of the recovered material. Transco 

estimates that 11 or more disposal facilities throughout the region (some as far away as Pennsylvania, 

Ohio, and Virginia) would be utilized to dispose of the material recovered from the HDD exit pit.

We compared the potential environmental impacts of drilling fluid removal to Transco’s proposal 

to allow the material to collect and remain in the HDD exit pit. Removal of the drilling fluid would 

require an additional one to two weeks of in-water construction and result in greater impacts on the 

marine environment. Use of the air-lift or suction-pump equipment would create a turbidity plume on the 

seafloor as native substrate and seawater become entrained during withdrawal. Any fish eggs or larvae in 

the entrained seawater would perish. Additionally, because of the entrained sediment and seawater, a 

turbidity plume could occur at the ocean surface as a result of dewatering as the recovered material is 

deposited on the barges. Water quality impacts also could occur dockside due to runoff as the drilling 

fluid is transferred from barges to dump trucks. Runoff at the dock could require additional containment. 

Removal of the drilling fluid also would result in more air emissions than the proposed action due to 

operation of the air-lift or suction-pump equipment, barges and support tugs, shore transfer equipment, 

and dump trucks. These impacts would result in an increase of 10 tons of NOx emissions relative to the 

proposed action. For all these reasons, we conclude that removal of the drilling fluid would not be 

environmentally preferable to the proposed action. 

As part of our analysis, we considered alternative capture strategies for the drilling fluid including 

intermittent (as opposed to continuous) capture and use of a subsea casing. We determined that 

intermittent capture is not a feasible option because it would require multiple shutdowns of the drilling 

equipment as fluid is removed from the pit. This would increase the risk of borehole collapse and failure 

of the drill. Use of a drill casing at the exit pit potentially could be used to capture, collect, and recirculate drilling fluid, but this method would result in additional impacts to the marine environment (e.g., 

additional pile driving to install and remove the casing) as well as increase the duration of offshore 

construction and risk of a rupture of the casing in the event of a storm. A rupture of the casing would 

cause an uncontained release of drilling fluid into the marine environment. For these reasons, we do not 

consider intermittent capture of drilling fluid or use of a subsea casing to be feasible alternatives.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-1 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

This section of the draft EIS primarily provides our analysis of impacts associated with 

construction and operation of the Rockaway Project and the proposed modifications at Compressor 

Station 195 for the Northeast Connector Project. As discussed in Section 2.3.3, the proposed uprate of the 

existing electric motor drives at Compressor Stations 205 and 207 would involve the use of hand tools to 

replace/adjust equipment within the existing compressor buildings at these sites. Except as noted in the 

subsections below, the proposed modifications at Compressor Stations 205 and 207 would not impact

environmental resources. 

4.1 GEOLOGY

4.1.1 Geologic Setting

The Rockaway Project would be located in the Embayed section of the Atlantic Coastal Plain 

physiographic province. The Atlantic Coastal Plain is characterized as a flat, low-lying seawardthickening wedge of Cretaceous-age and younger sediments that slope south-southeast. These coastal 

plain sediments are part of a continuous surface that extends offshore where the underwater section is 

called the continental shelf (Isachsen et al., 1991). 

Paleozoic-age crystalline bedrock underlies Long Island, New York at depths up to several 

hundred feet, which rise toward Connecticut. The bedrock is overlain by Upper Cretaceous-age 

sedimentary strata composed of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated coastal deposits of quartz sand 

interbedded with silt and clay (Williams, 1981). These Cretaceous deposits, which are up to 1,000 feet 

thick, are overlain by Wisconsin glacial deposits. Most of the Long Island coast consists of glacial 

outwash marked by a sinuous ridge or terminal moraine comprised of till, gravel, sand, and clay, which 

extends throughout western Long Island and across Staten Island. Although this and other glacial features 

were originally deposited on the land surface, rising sea levels caused by melting glaciers have since 

modified the glacial moraine by wave action. 

The stratigraphy of the continental shelf has been affected by glaciation due to its position at the 

terminus of the Wisconsin continental ice sheet. The repeated emergence and submergence of the 

continental shelf by this glacier led to the dissection of the Cretaceous to early Tertiary coastal plain 

sediments and Quaternary material, resulting in a glacial outwash plain and modern barrier-island 

complexes resting unconformably over a sequence of pre-Wisconsin Pleistocene glaciofluvial and 

shallow marine units (Schwab et al., 2002). 

Compressor Station 195, located in York County, Pennsylvania, is situated in the Piedmont 

Upland region of the Piedmont physiographic province, an area characterized by broad, gently rolling 

hills and valleys. The Piedmont Upland region developed mainly on metamorphic rocks dissected by a 

dendritic drainage pattern. In the vicinity of Compressor Station 195, bedrock is associated with the 

Paleozoic-age Octoraro Formation, which contains albite-chlorite schist, phyllite, hornblende gneiss, and 

granite (Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources [PADCNR], 2013; 

Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 2000). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-2 

4.1.2 Geotechnical Investigations

Transco conducted geotechnical investigations along the proposed pipeline route and at the M&R 

facility site for the Rockaway Project to characterize subsurface conditions in the proposed construction 

areas. The investigations along the pipeline route included four shallow borings located along the first 2.3 

miles of the pipeline route (see the sampling report included in Appendix I) and five deep borings, one 

onshore and four offshore, located between MPs 2.3 and 3.0 (see the sampling report provided in 

Appendix J). No geologic investigations were conducted for the Northeast Connector Project. 

Sediments in the shallow borings along the Rockaway Delivery Lateral route, which were 

examined to a depth of 8 to 10 feet, consisted of fine to very fine sand with shell fragments, particularly 

near the surface. The deep onshore boring, located approximately 1,200 feet east of the proposed HDD 

entry site, contained approximately 13.5 feet of fill (fine to medium sand with trace silt, shells, coarse 

sand, and glass fragments) at the surface. The fill was underlain by a natural sand stratum, interpreted to 

be of recent (i.e., Holocene) origin, consisting of fine to coarse sand with trace silt, shells, gravel, and 

mica. This stratum was present at the surface of the remaining deep borings and ranged in thickness from 

35 feet onshore to around 10 feet in the three deep borings furthest offshore. These deposits were 

underlain by another natural sand stratum, interpreted to be Pleistocene glacial outwash deposits, 

consisting of fine to coarse sand with trace silt, mica, shells, and gravel. This stratum extended to the 

bottom of all of the deep borings and ranged in thickness from about 58 to 110 feet. 

The geotechnical investigations at the M&R facility included six borings up to 50 feet deep (see 

the Phase II site investigation [SI] report included in Appendix K). These borings identified a layer of fill 

at the surface measuring approximately 15 feet thick across the site and consisting of fine to medium sand 

with variable percentages of coarse sand, silt, and shell fragments. These materials correspond to the fill 

deposits contained in the onshore boring discussed above. The fill was underlain by alluvial marsh 

deposits, approximately 1 to 6 feet thick, consisting of sand and silt bonded by a matrix of organic 

material. The marsh deposits were underlain by fine to medium sand deposits with trace amounts of silt, 

which continued to the bottom of the borings. This stratum, which was interpreted to be of glacial origin, 

corresponds to the upper natural sand stratum found in all the deep borings. 

4.1.3 Mineral Resources

Based on a review of USGS topographic maps, recent aerial photography, nautical maps, the 

NYSDEC Environmental Navigator, and available USGS and other databases, no active mining or 

mineral resources are located within 1 mile of the proposed Rockaway Project facilities or within 0.5 mile 

of Compressor Station 195 (ESRI, 2008; NYSDEC, 2010; USGS, 2005a; USGS, 2005b). 

4.1.4 Geologic and Meteorological Hazards

Geologic and meteorological hazards are natural, physical conditions or events that can result in 

damage to land and structures or injury to people. Conditions necessary for the development of some 

typical hazards (such as landslides, avalanches, volcanic activity, and soil liquefaction) are not present in 

the Rockaway Project area or in the vicinity of Compressor Station 195. The hazards examined for the 

Projects include seismicity (e.g., earthquakes and surface faults), hurricanes, flooding, and karst 

terrain/sinkholes. In general, the potential for geologic or meteorological hazards to significantly affect 

construction or operation of the proposed facilities is low.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-3 

4.1.4.1 Earthquakes and Surface Faults

The majority of significant earthquakes around the world are associated with tectonic subduction 

zones, where one crustal plate is overriding another (e.g., the Japanese islands), where tectonic plates are 

sliding past each other (such as in California), or where tectonic plates are converging (e.g., the Indian 

Sub-Continent). Unlike these highly active tectonic regions, the east coast of the United States is a 

passive tectonic plate boundary located on the “trailing edge” of the North American continental plate, 

which is relatively seismically quiet. Earthquakes that do occur on the east coast of the United States area 

largely due to trailing edge tectonics and residual stress release from past orogenic (mountain building) 

events. Earthquake hypocenters generally are concentrated in older bedrock terranes, such as the 

crystalline bedrock beneath the coastal plain and post-glacial sediments south of New York City (Sykes et 

al., 2008). 

A number of low magnitude events have been recorded in the vicinity of the Rockaway Project 

area since the 18th century. The largest recorded earthquake occurred in 1884 in Brooklyn, New York, 

approximately 6.6 miles west of the Rockaway Project area. This earthquake is estimated to have been a 

magnitude 5.5 event on the Richter scale resulting in Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) VII damage in 

the New York City area (USGS, 2010). An event such as this today would cause considerable damage to 

poorly built structures but negligible damage to buildings of good design and construction. The most 

recent significant earthquake in the New York City area was a magnitude 3.0 event that occurred in 2009 

approximately 40 miles to the west (USGS, 2013a). This earthquake could be felt but resulted in little to 

no damage (i.e., MMI II). 

Low magnitude earthquakes have also been recorded in the vicinity of Compressor Station 195. 

Two earthquakes with epicenters in York County and 15 earthquakes with epicenters in nearby Lancaster 

County have been documented since the 18th century. Where known, the magnitude of these earthquakes

was 4.1 or less on the Richter scale. The nearest earthquake to Compressor Station 195 was a magnitude 

4.1 event that occurred in 1984 about 15 miles to the north in Lancaster County (PADCNR, 2003). 

The USGS National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program has developed a series of maps that 

depict the estimated probability that certain levels of ground-shaking, expressed as acceleration due to 

gravity, will occur within a given period of time. To make such estimations, the USGS takes into account 

the past seismic history of an area. The maps are used to create and update design provisions in building 

codes in the United States. We assessed the probability for ground-shaking during an earthquake to occur 

at the proposed facilities using these maps. 

The Rockaway Project facilities are located in an area where the peak horizontal ground 

acceleration (PGA) is 4 percent of gravity or less with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. 

Compressor Station 195 is located in an area where PGA is 3 percent of gravity or less with a 10 percent 

probability of exceedance in 50 years (USGS, 2008). At a 10 percent probability, the frequency of 

exceedance (return time) for a given horizontal ground acceleration is once every 500 years. For 

reference, a PGA between 4 and 6 percent of gravity would result in very light to light damage and 

moderate perceived ground shaking. PGAs less than 4 percent of gravity would result in no potential 

damage and light to no perceived shaking (USGS, 2006a). 

A review of the USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database did not identify any active faults in 

the vicinity of the proposed Rockaway Project facilities or Compressor Station 195. This database 

describes faults and associated folds in the United States that are believed to be sources of earthquakes 

greater than magnitude 6 in the past 1.6 million years (USGS, 2006b). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-4 

As discussed above, earthquake hypocenters in the region are concentrated in older bedrock 

terrains buried beneath thick deposits of younger sediments of the coastal plain and post-glacial 

sediments. Evidence of faulting in these younger sediments is generally missing (Sykes et al., 2008). 

4.1.4.2 Hurricanes

Hazards associated with hurricanes include storm surges, heavy rainfall, inland flooding, high 

winds, tornadoes, and rip currents. Hurricane intensity is measured on the Saffir-Simpson Scale and 

ranges from a Category 1 storm with winds from 74 to 95 miles per hour (mph) that produce some 

damage, to a Category 5 storm with winds greater than 157 mph that produce catastrophic damage

(National Weather Service, 2012). The Rockaway Project is located in an area that is considered to be 

within the storm surge zone of either Category 1 or 2 hurricanes (New York State Emergency 

Management Office, 2005). Most recently, the Rockaway Project area was in the path of Tropical Storm 

Irene and Hurricane Sandy. Both storms brought intense rains and flooding to the region. Hurricane 

Sandy, a Category 1 storm and the largest Atlantic hurricane on record, occurred in October 2012. The 

storm impacted a long swath of the Mid-Atlantic coastline, including many of the areas impacted by 

Tropical Storm Irene in August 2011 (USGS, 2013b). 

Although the probability of a hurricane reaching landfall in Kings and Queens Counties in a 

given year is estimated to be 0.2 percent, the probability of these counties experiencing hurricane-force 

winds within a 50-year period is estimated to be more than 86 percent (Klotzbach and Gray, 2012). There 

is a 7.6 percent probability that a major hurricane will make landfall between New York City and Cape 

Cod, but the chance of flooding from such a storm would be reduced due to the seaward rotation and 

prevailing winds of the storm. There is less than a 0.1 percent chance of a major hurricane making 

landfall south of New York City where the landward rotation and prevailing winds could exacerbate 

flooding. Hurricanes are not identified as a hazard for Compressor Station 195, which is located about 

115 miles inland.

We received a comment from the EPA regarding the potential for flooding to occur at the M&R 

facility due to a Category 3 to 5 storm, the potential increase in the frequency and intensity of these 

storms due to climate change and sea level rise, and any safety or other measures that Transco would 

implement to avoid or minimize impacts from these storms. An analysis by the New York State 

Emergency Management Office (2005) found that the entire Rockaway Peninsula and much of the 

Brooklyn-Queens area could be flooded due to Category 3, 4, or 5 hurricanes depending on the direction 

of prevailing winds at landfall, distance from the eye of the storm, eye wall intensity, and tide level, but 

the increase in risk of flooding during a major hurricane event is difficult to predict. The 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change considers it likely that hurricanes will become more intense 

as a result of climate change and sea level rise, but the total number of storms could decline (Pachauri and 

Reisinger, 2007). 

Transco states that the ability to forecast hurricanes several days in advance would allow it to 

ensure the safety and integrity of its system despite any potential damage that might occur to the M&R 

facility. In the event of a major landfall, Transco could shut off valves and electrical systems and secure 

the facility to minimize impacts from the storm. As discussed in Section 4.12, shut-off valves in the 

system could be operated manually or remotely from Transco’s Gas Control Center in Houston, Texas. 

Transco additionally states that it would coordinate with National Grid to minimize the impact of reduced 

service in the event of a major storm; test and repair equipment, as necessary, prior to resuming service; 

and confirm with National Grid that the local distribution network is able to receive the gas supply. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-5 

4.1.4.3 Flooding

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) produces flood insurance rate maps for 

municipalities across the nation (FEMA, 2012a). In addition, FEMA recently released advisory base 

flood elevation (ABFE) maps to help communities, property owners, and others in the northeast region 

make informed decisions about rebuilding in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy (FEMA, 2012b). The 

maps are divided into zones with assigned probabilities of experiencing a flood event during any 1-year 

period. The lowest probability of flooding considered is 0.2 percent, which would have an average 

flooding recurrence interval of 500 years. 

We evaluated the potential for flooding to occur at the proposed M&R facility using the flood 

insurance rate and ABFE maps (FEMA, 2012a, 2012b). Based on these maps, portions of the access road 

to the M&R facility would be within the 500-year floodplain, though the workspace and the M&R facility 

itself would be located outside the 500-year floodplain. Flooding was not considered a hazard for the 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral, which would be a buried facility. Additionally, flooding was not considered 

a hazard for Compressor Station 195 because it is located outside of mapped flood zones in York County, 

Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access, 2013). 

Transco conducted a site-specific land survey of the proposed M&R facility site to determine the 

elevations of the site relative to FEMA’s designated 100-year floodplain (i.e., the area with a 1 percent 

probability of flooding in a given year). The survey determined that the lowest floor elevation inside the 

proposed M&R facility is approximately 2.9 feet above the 100-year floodplain delineated in the recent 

ABFE mapping (FEMA, 2012b). The sea level in New York City is predicted to rise from 8 inches to 

more than 11.4 inches by the year 2100 (Sallenger et al., 2012). Based on these estimates, the M&R 

facility would still be approximately 2 feet above the 100-year floodplain if the sea rises to those levels. 

In addition, Transco stated that all wiring and electrical components (e.g., generators) would be located at 

least 1 foot above the floor of the facility, which would provide additional elevation for these 

components. 

4.1.5 Karst Terrain/Sinkholes

Karst topography develops in regions underlain by limestone, dolomite, gypsum, or, rarely, 

bedded salt. Karst is characterized by closed depressions, sinkholes, caves, cave systems, and 

underground drainage. Generally, karst forms by the movement of water through rocks containing 50 

percent or more carbonate minerals. The main factors influencing the formation of karst include: the 

presence of carbonate minerals, the acidity of rainwater, the ability of rock to store water (porosity), and 

the ability to transmit water through rock (permeability).

While karst terrain is known to occur in York County, Pennsylvania, it has not been documented 

in the vicinity of Compressor Station 195. Based on review of geologic data on the PADCNR’s Map 

Viewer (2013), no known sinkholes occur in the immediate vicinity of the site. The two nearest known 

sinkholes are located approximately 12.4 and 16.1 miles to the north of Compressor Station 195 in 

Lancaster County. There is no karst terrain or any known sinkholes in the vicinity of the Rockaway 

Project area.

4.1.6 Paleontological Resources 

The geologic units underlying the proposed Rockaway Project area are composed primarily of 

Wisconsin glacial deposits and recent (Holocene-age) beach and near-shore unconsolidated materials. 

These deposits are continuously reworked by tide and wave action, and as such, the possibility of 

encountering paleontological resources of significance is low. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-6 

As discussed in Section 4.2.1, soils at Compressor Station 195 formed in residuum from schist 

and phyllite bedrock (i.e., metamorphic rock) with a depth to bedrock greater than 60 inches. While 

fossils may be found in Cambrian rock outcrops in York County, the proposed construction activities at 

Compressor Station 195 are unlikely to impact bedrock given the shallow depth of the excavations 

planned at the site. Therefore, these activities are unlikely to affect paleontological remains. 

4.1.7 General Impacts and Mitigation

The overall effect of the Projects on topography and geology would be minor. The primary 

impacts would be associated with onshore grading and excavation activities and with offshore dredging 

and jetting. Following construction, the workspaces on the Rockaway Peninsula and at Compressor 

Station 195 (with the exception of areas covered by new structures) would be returned to pre-construction 

conditions. At the M&R facility, the areas affected by excavations would be paved or graveled. 

Consequently, there would be no permanent impacts on the topography or geology in these areas. 

Utilization of the HDD method would eliminate impacts on existing geologic conditions between 

the HDD entry and exit points for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral. Based on the HDD profile for the 

proposed pipeline, the subsurface material along the drill path primarily consists of fine to medium to 

coarse sands with traces of silt, gravel, shells, and mica. Because these materials have little cohesion, 

they are susceptible to cave-ins and running sand conditions that can lead to drill complications or 

failures. It should be noted that similar subsurface conditions exist under Jamaica Bay, where National 

Grid recently and successfully installed two pipelines by HDD for the BQI Project. 

To minimize the potential for drilling problems, Transco would install a large-diameter casing at 

the onshore entry location and excavate a subsea pit at the offshore exit location. Transco would also 

utilize drilling fluid materials (primarily bentonite and water) suitable for the subsurface conditions along 

the drill path and maintain proper penetration and flow rates during drilling. Additionally, a drilling fluid 

engineer would be present throughout the HDD process to monitor and manipulate the weight and 

viscosity of the drilling fluid. 

While Transco identified measures it would employ to reduce the risks associated with the HDD, 

it has not filed a comprehensive assessment evaluating the feasibility of the HDD method at this location. 

A more in-depth review of Transco's geotechnical report (provided in Appendix J) by a qualified HDD 

engineer would provide a greater level of certainty and/or result in additional measures to aid in a 

successful crossing. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Transco should have an 

experienced HDD engineer evaluate subsurface conditions along the HDD route to 

confirm the feasibility of Transco’s proposed HDD crossing methodology for the 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral and file the results with the Secretary. 

Transco could encounter complications during drilling that would require modifications to the 

planned HDD crossing, including possibly abandoning the drill hole. Potential causes for abandoning the

drill hole could include the drill pipe or tools becoming permanently lodged in the hole, a prolonged loss 

of drilling mud that cannot be controlled, or failure of the HDD pullback where a section of pipe cannot 

be retracted and has to be abandoned. If abandonment of the hole is required, the hole would be filled 

with soil cuttings and drilling fluid to within 5 vertical feet of the land surface. Grout would then be 

installed to within a foot of the surface and the last 12 inches of the hole would be filled with native 

materials. Following abandonment of the hole, Transco would select a new HDD alignment within the 

approved right-of-way and restart the drilling process. Transco’s HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan 

(see Appendix H) outlines additional measures that would be implemented to minimize or avoid 

complications associated with the HDD portion of the pipeline route. In the event that the HDD method 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-7 

is determined during construction to be infeasible, Transco would evaluate alternative construction 

methods for the area. Transco would be required to obtain the FERC’s and other applicable agency 

approvals prior to initiating any alternative construction methods. 

As discussed in Section 2.3.1.9, Transco would configure the discharge nozzles on the jet sled to 

expel sediment behind the sled and into the trench. This would provide for immediate backfill of the 

trench as the pipeline is lowered to a depth sufficient to provide 4 feet of cover. Following installation of 

the pipeline, Transco would conduct a bathymetric survey to document seafloor elevations along the pipe 

trench as well as other offshore excavation areas, such as the trenches for the subsea hot-tap and manifold 

and the cathodic protection system. If the survey identifies any areas where the seafloor has not been 

restored and/or where 4 feet of cover is not present over the pipeline, Transco would backfill these areas 

using sediment obtained from the seafloor. Transco additionally would add a top layer of sediments over 

the drilling fluid and cuttings that collect within the offshore HDD exit pit both to cap these materials and 

restore the contours of the seafloor in this area. With the implementation of these measures, there would 

be no permanent impact on the seabed as a result of pipeline construction. 

Studies of earthquake performance of gas transmission pipelines in southern California indicate 

that modern, arc-welded, ductile steel pipelines have performed very well in earthquakes with magnitudes 

greater than or equal to 5.8 (O’Rourke and Palmer 1996). These studies addressed the effects of 11 

earthquakes between 1933 and 1994 with magnitudes ranging from 5.8 to 7.7. In addition, repair 

statistics show that earthquake damage occurs predominantly at older pipeline welds, and that, regardless 

of age, the pipe welds have generally performed well. Pipelines and associated aboveground facilities are 

designed and installed in accordance with DOT standards, including those in 49 CFR Part 192, 

Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards. Each facility

is designed and constructed to provide adequate protection from washouts, floods, unstable soils, 

landslides, or other hazards that could cause it to move or sustain abnormal loads. Transco has not 

identified any areas that require alternative design or construction considerations because of geologic

hazards. 

As discussed above, there is a high probability that Kings and Queens Counties could experience 

hurricane-force winds. It is unlikely that the pipeline portion of the Rockaway Project would be impacted 

by hurricane conditions following installation, but the M&R facility and surrounding structures could be 

affected. Transco would construct the facility in compliance with applicable New York City building 

codes, which were updated in 2008 to acknowledge that the city is in a “hurricane prone region.” These 

codes include design requirements to ensure the integrity of new construction under extreme weather 

conditions. Additionally, as indicated above, Transco could shut off valves and electrical systems and 

secure the facility to minimize impacts prior to a storm making landfall. Transco’s emergency response 

procedures are discussed in Section 4.12. 

Based on the above discussion, and in consideration of Transco’s proposed mitigation and our 

recommendations, we conclude that the Projects would not significant impact geological resources. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-8 

4.2 SOILS

4.2.1 Existing Conditions

The primary soil and sediment disturbances associated with the Projects would occur at the HDD 

entry point (including the onshore pipeline segment to the National Grid tie-in); along the offshore 

pipeline segment from the HDD exit point to the tie-in with Transco’s existing LNYBL; and at 

Compressor Station 195. Soils at the 0.7-acre work area at the HDD entry site are mapped as Verrazano 

sandy loam, which consists of very deep, well-drained soils formed in less than 40 inches of loamy 

human-transported fill that has been piled on sandy sediments (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 

Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] and NPS, 2001). These soils are not designated as 

hydric or considered prime farmland. The sediments along the offshore portion of the pipeline route 

mostly consist of fine to coarse sand (as discussed in Section 4.1.2). Soils at Compressor Station 195 are 

mapped as Chester silt loam, which consists of very deep, well drained soils on upland ridgetops formed 

in residuum from schist and phyllite bedrock. These soils are not designated as hydric, but are considered 

prime farmland (NRCS, 2003). 

Activities at the proposed M&R facility and access roads for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

would occur in paved areas (some of which are broken and support patches of grass growing through the 

pavement), while activities at the pipe yard would occur on previously disturbed areas. The soils 

underlying these areas are classified as urban soils. Transco would not excavate any soils for the pipe 

yard and access roads, but would conduct excavations in fill material (as described in Section 4.1.2) for 

the M&R facility. These excavations would consist of pile driving and trenching for equipment 

foundations and the inlet and outlet pipes to connect the M&R facility to the National Grid pipeline. 

These activities would not result in any new impacts on natural soil resources.

Erosion Potential

Erosion is a continuing natural process that can be accelerated by human disturbance. Factors 

such as soil texture, structure, slope, vegetative cover, rainfall intensity, and wind intensity can influence 

the degree of erosion. Soils most susceptible to erosion by water are typified by bare or sparse vegetative 

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 are less affected by slope 

angles than water erosion processes. Wind-induced erosion often occurs on dry soil where vegetative 

cover is sparse and strong winds are prevalent. 

The potential for soils at the HDD entry site and at Compressor Station 195 to be eroded by water 

was evaluated based on the K factor and slope. The K factor represents a relative quantitative index of 

the susceptibility of bare soil to particle detachment and transport by water and is one of the factors used 

in the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation to calculate soil loss. The Verrazano soils at the HDD entry 

location have a moderately high K factor (0.37) but are located on nearly level terrain and are considered 

to have a low potential for erosion by water. The Chester silt loam soils at Compressor Station 195 have 

a moderately high K factor (0.32) and occur on moderate (3 to 8 percent) slopes. This suggests a 

moderate potential for soil erosion by water at Compressor Station 195. 

The susceptibility of soils to wind erosion at the HDD entry site and at Compressor Station 195 

was evaluated based on the wind erodibility group (WEG) designation. A WEG is a grouping of soils 

that have similar surface soil properties affecting their resistance to displacement by wind, including 

texture, organic matter content, and aggregate stability. The Verrazano soils have a WEG designation of 

3 and are considered moderately susceptible to wind erosion. The Chester silt loam soils have a WEG 

designation of 6 and are considered to have a low susceptibility to wind erosion. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-9 

Compaction Potential

Soil compaction modifies the structure and reduces the porosity and moisture-holding capacity of 

soils. Construction equipment traveling over wet soils could disrupt soil structure, reduce pore space, 

increase runoff potential, and cause rutting. The degree of compaction depends on moisture content and 

soil texture. Fine-textured soils with poor internal drainage that are moist or saturated are the most 

susceptible to compaction and rutting. The Verrazano soils at the HDD entry site on the Rockaway 

peninsula are well drained and have sandy loam texture. Therefore, these soils are considered to have a 

low susceptibility to compaction. Additionally, many of the soils in the Rockaway Project area already 

have been compacted due to past development activities (e.g., highway construction). The Chester silt 

loam soils at Compressor Station 195 are well drained, but they have a moderate to high available water 

capacity and may be subject to compaction.

Revegetation Potential

Droughty soils that have a coarse surface texture and are moderately well to excessively drained 

may prove to be difficult to revegetate. Drier soils have less water to aid in the germination and eventual 

establishment of new vegetation. Coarser textured soils have a lower water holding capacity following 

precipitation, which could result in moisture deficiencies in the root zone and unfavorable growing 

conditions for many plants. Based on these criteria, the Verrazano soils within the HDD workspace on 

the Rockaway Peninsula have poor revegetation potential. Although the Chester silt loam soils are well 

drained, they have a high water holding capacity and have a moderate revegetation potential.

Prime Farmland

The USDA defines prime farmland as “land that is best suited to food, feed, fiber, and oilseed 

crops” (NRCS, 1993). This designation includes cultivated land, pasture, woodland, or other lands 

(excluding urban land and open water) that are either used for food or fiber crops or are available for 

these uses. While the Chester silt loam soils at Compressor Station 195 are classified as prime farmland, 

the affected soils would be within the existing compressor station yard in an area that is dedicated to 

natural gas transmission. No portion of the existing station yard is farmed, and none of the proposed 

facilities would be built in areas available for agriculture. 

4.2.2 Contaminated Soils and Sediments

We reviewed publicly available databases in the EPA’s Envirofacts Data Warehouse to identify 

known contaminated soils or sediments in the vicinity of the proposed Rockaway Project facilities and 

Compressor Station 195 (EPA, 2013b). Our review identified one EPA-regulated facility within 0.5 mile 

of the Rockaway Project, i.e., New York City Fire Department Engine Company 329, which is located 

approximately 200 feet southeast of the HDD entry point. 1

 Compressor Station 195 is the sole EPAregulated facility within 0.5 mile of this area. Both Engine Company 329 and Compressor Station 195

are in compliance with the permits issued by the EPA for these facilities. We received a comment from 

the NPS that a tar-like substance associated with an old factory site is located off the south shore of Floyd 

Bennett Field east of the Marine Parkway Bridge. We have determined that this site is situated about 0.7 

mile from the proposed M&R facility and would not be affected by construction of the Rockaway Project. 

Therefore, we do not anticipate that Transco would encounter any known or previously identified soil 

contamination during construction of the Projects. 

 

1

 Hazardous waste generators, transporters, treaters, storers, and disposers are required to provide information on their 

activities to state environmental agencies, which then provide the information to regional and national EPA offices.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-10 

Transco commissioned a Phase II SI to document baseline soil and shallow groundwater 

conditions in the vicinity of the M&R facility and determine the presence or absence of contaminants that 

would require additional investigation, remediation, and/or environmental material management planning

(see Appendix K). Twenty-six soil samples were collected and six groundwater monitoring wells were 

sampled (see Section 4.3.1.3) as part of the Phase II SI. The soil samples were submitted to an analytical 

laboratory for analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals, and 

mercury. None of these compounds were detected at concentrations that exceed the NYSDEC’s 

unrestricted use Soil Cleanup Objectives.

2

Sediment samples were collected from four locations along the offshore portion of the pipeline 

route and analyzed for various contaminants (see Appendix I). VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, and dioxin were 

detected in the sediment samples, but the levels did not exceed the NYSDEC’s Technical and Operational 

Guidance Series (TOGS) 5.1.9 Class A thresholds. 3

 The samples were also analyzed for metals, 

including arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead (Pb), and mercury. With the exception of mercury 

concentrations in one sample, none of the metal values exceeded their respective TOGS 5.1.9 Class A 

thresholds. The surface sample (0 to 1 foot below grade) collected near MP 1.0 contained a mercury 

concentration of 0.22 parts per million (ppm), which is slightly higher than the Class A threshold of 0.17

ppm. The mercury levels in the samples collected between 1 and 7 feet below grade at this location and 

at the remaining locations ranged from 0.034 to 0.037 ppm. Because the mercury levels were slightly 

higher than the threshold at the surface of one sample location and were well below the threshold at the 

remaining sample locations, we do not anticipate any issues related to resuspension of mercury into the 

water column.

4.2.3 General Impact and Mitigation

Construction activities such as clearing, grading, trench excavation, backfilling, and the 

movement of construction equipment within the HDD entry workspace on the Rockaway Peninsula and at 

Compressor Station 195 may affect soil resources. Clearing removes protective vegetative cover and 

exposes the soil to the effects of wind and rain, which increases the potential for soil erosion. Grading, 

spoil storage, and equipment traffic can compact soil, reducing porosity and increasing runoff potential. 

In addition, the presence of certain soil conditions (e.g., droughty soils) can result in poor revegetation of 

disturbed areas. 

To reduce the impacts of construction on soils, Transco would implement its Plan (see Appendix 

D) for the Rockaway Project and the FERC Plan for the Northeast Connector Project. Transco’s Plan is 

based on the FERC Plan and includes measures to control erosion and sedimentation during construction 

(e.g., by the installation of silt fences) and to ensure proper restoration of disturbed areas following 

construction. 

 

2

 The NYSDEC promulgated Soil Cleanup Objectives as part of 6 NYCRR Part 375 of the Environmental Remediation 

Programs. The unrestricted use objectives represent the concentration of a contaminant in soil which, when achieved, will 

require no use restrictions on the site for the protection of public health, groundwater and ecological resources. 3

 The NYSDEC’s TOGS 5.1.9 for In-Water and Riparian Management of Sediment and Dredged Material. Threshold values 

are based on known and presumed impacts on aquatic organisms/ecosystems. Class A is defined as no appreciable 

contamination (no toxicity to aquatic life).

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-11 

All debris would be removed from the HDD workspace on the Rockaway Peninsula following 

construction, and the area would be restored to preconstruction condition and seeded with a seed mixture 

approved by the TBTA. Prior to seeding, the soil would be decompacted to aid in successful 

revegetation. Temporary erosion controls would be maintained until adequate vegetative cover is 

established. National Grid would then be responsible for coordinating with the TBTA for long-term 

monitoring and erosion control on the TBTA property. Disturbed areas at Compressor Station 195 that do 

not include new permanent facilities would be restored, decompacted, and reseeded using an appropriate 

seed mix. 

Installation of the offshore pipeline and associated facilities would impact approximately 38.0

acres of the seafloor and require the displacement of about 211,600 cubic yards of sediment. Backfill of 

the pipe trench initially would be accomplished by configuring the discharge nozzles on the jet sled to 

expel sediment behind the sled and into the trench as the pipe is lowered. As discussed in Section 2.3.1.9, 

Transco would conduct a bathymetric survey following installation of the pipeline and other facilities and 

would backfill any areas, where necessary, to provide a minimum of 4 feet of cover over the pipeline 

and/or restore the contours of the sea floor. Transco additionally would add a top layer of sediments over 

the drilling fluid and cuttings that collect within the offshore HDD exit pit both to cap these materials and 

restore the contours of the seafloor. 

Contamination from spills or leaks of fuels, lubricants, and coolant from construction equipment 

could adversely affect soils. The effects of contamination are typically minor because of the low 

frequency and volumes of spills and leaks. Transco has developed and would implement the measures in 

its SPCC Plan and Construction Spill Plans (see Appendices F and G) to minimize the potential for 

impacts associated with an inadvertent spill of hazardous materials. These plans identify preventive 

measures to reduce the likelihood of a spill, such as secondary containment for petroleum products, daily 

equipment inspection for leaks, and restrictions on the transport of potentially hazardous materials to the 

construction work areas. These plans also address the storage and transfer of hazardous materials and 

petroleum products, specify measures to contain and clean up spills, and outline notification procedures in 

the event of a spill.

Based on the urban nature of the Rockaway Project area, it is possible that previously unidentified 

areas of contamination could be encountered during construction. Transco would monitor excavations 

during construction for evidence of potential contamination. If potentially contaminated soils are 

encountered during construction, Transco would implement its Unanticipated Discovery of 

Contamination Plan (see Appendix L). This plan outlines measures for the proper handling and disposal 

of contaminated soil and groundwater or other contaminated media that could be encountered during 

construction. We also note that the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) 

recommends that Transco develop a Construction Health and Safety Plan for construction activities in 

areas where humans would be exposed to disturbed soils.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-12 

4.3 WATER RESOURCES

4.3.1 Groundwater Resources

The Rockaway Project is located within the Long Island aquifer system, which underlies all of 

Nassau, Suffolk, Kings, and Queens Counties, New York. The aquifer system consists of a sequence of 

unconsolidated deposits underlain by crystalline bedrock. The four main aquifers in the system are the 

Upper Glacial, Jameco Gravel, Magothy, and Lloyd (Chu, 2006). The Upper Glacial and Jameco Gravel 

aquifers are separated by the Gardiners Clay unit, while the clay member of the Raritan Formation 

separates the Magothy and Lloyd aquifers. The Upper Glacial aquifer, which directly underlies the 

ground surface, consists of till (i.e., ground and terminal moraine) and outwash deposited during the 

Wisconsin glaciation. The outwash deposits south of the terminal moraine are highly permeable and 

capable of yielding large quantities of water (Buxton and Shernoff, 1999). The Gardiners Clay formation 

is a late Pleistocene interglacial unit that extends along much of Long Island’s south shore (Brown and 

Misut, 2010). It is a confining layer for the Jameco Gravel and Magothy aquifers, which are located 

below it. The Jameco Gravel aquifer consists of early Pleistocene glacial deposits and is considered to be 

continuous with the Magothy aquifer (Buxton and Shernoff, 1999). The Magothy aquifer is the largest of 

Long Island's aquifers and consists of Upper Cretaceous sand deposits alternating with clay. The Raritan 

Formation underlies the Magothy and consists of two primary units: an upper clay member and a lower 

sand member named the Lloyd Sand. The clay member serves as a confining unit for the underlying 

Lloyd aquifer. This aquifer is underlain by bedrock, which at its deepest is 1,800 feet below the surface 

(NYSDEC, 2012d). 

Compressor Station 195 is located above the Piedmont and Blue Ridge Crystalline Rock Aquifer, 

which underlies the southern half of York County, Pennsylvania. The aquifer typically occurs at a depth 

of 75 to 150 feet below surface. Water storage within the aquifer occurs mostly in the unconsolidated 

material above non-permeable crystalline (schist) rock, but also through small fractures in the rock via 

secondary porosity (Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences, 2007; York County 

Planning Commission, 2004). 

4.3.1.1 Sole Source Aquifers

The EPA defines a sole or principal source aquifer (SSA) as one that supplies at least 50 percent 

of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer. EPA guidelines require that SSAs can

have no alternative drinking water source(s) that could physically, legally, and economically supply all 

those who depend upon the aquifer for drinking water (EPA, 2010). 

The portion of the Long Island aquifer system underlying the Rockaway Project area is not 

currently used as a public source of drinking water. As part of the Water for the Future Program, a 

number of projects are being implemented to supplement New York City’s water supply, including 

reactivation of the groundwater supply system in southeastern Queens County. Completion of the 

upgrades and repairs, and subsequent start-up of the groundwater supply system, is required to be finished 

before 2020 (NYCDEP, 2011a). The recharge zone for this system, which includes all of Kings and 

Queens Counties, is designated as the Brooklyn Queens SSA (EPA, 1983). The Piedmont and Blue 

Ridge Crystalline Aquifer, which underlies Compressor Station 195, is not classified as a SSA. 

We received a comment from the NPS regarding the potential for damage to the Rockaway 

Delivery Lateral as a result of subsidence due to reactivation of groundwater wells in Queens County. As 

noted in Section 4.1.7, pipelines are designed and installed in accordance with DOT standards to provide 

adequate protection from hazards like subsidence that could cause it to move or sustain abnormal loads. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-13 

4.3.1.2 Water Supply Wells

In 1996, New York City purchased a group of wells in southeastern Queens County that had been 

operated by the privately owned Jamaica Water Supply Company since 1887. After acquiring the wells, 

the NYCDEP renamed the group of wells the Groundwater System (NYCDEP, 2011b). The closest of 

these wells is approximately 3.0 miles northwest of the Rockaway Project area (Misut and Monti, 1999). 

In 2007, the Groundwater System operated one well for 2 months of the year, which supplied an average 

of 1.1 million gallons of drinking water per day. This equated to less than 0.1 percent of New York City's 

total usage and provided drinking water to fewer than 100,000 people. In 2008, the wells in the system 

were not operational and were reported as mechanically inactive, for emergency use, or having poor water 

quality (NYCDEP, 2011b). Currently, public water supplies for residents of Kings and Queens Counties 

are derived entirely from the surface water reservoir system in upstate New York (NYCDEP, 2011a). As 

discussed above, the city plans to reactivate the Groundwater System by 2020. 

An active water well providing Compressor Station 195 with potable water is located within the 

station yard. Additionally, one well that provides potable water to an adjacent residence is located within 

20 feet of the station boundary. There are no other water wells within 150 feet of Compressor Station 

195. 

4.3.1.3 Contaminated Groundwater

Groundwater quality in Kings and Queens Counties, New York is deteriorated due to the 

lowering of groundwater levels and other factors associated with urbanization and development. In 

addition to the encroachment of salt water from the surrounding tidewater in response to excessive 

drawdown, other sources of contamination include road salts, leaking sewers, and toxic spills at the land 

surface (EPA, 1983). The portion of the Upper Glacial aquifer underlying the Rockaway Peninsula, 

where HDD activities would occur, has historically been subject to saltwater intrusion (Buxton and 

Shernoff, 1999). This has resulted in high levels of chloride in the groundwater, particularly in nearshore 

areas. Chloride contamination can also be attributed to inland surface sources, especially in northwest 

Queens County, where saltwater intrusion is unlikely. High concentrations of nitrate in groundwater 

indicate contamination from surface sources, such as fertilizers, landfills, leachate from cesspools and 

septic tanks, and leaky sewer lines (EPA, 1983). 

Transco commissioned a Phase II SI to document baseline conditions of the soil and water in the 

vicinity of the M&R facility and to determine the presence or absence of contaminants that would require 

additional investigation, remediation, and/or environmental material management planning. Groundwater 

samples collected from one existing and five new groundwater monitoring wells were analyzed for 

VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, priority pollutant metals, and mercury. None of these compounds were detected at 

concentrations above the NYSDEC’s TOGS thresholds for the GA Water Classification (i.e., source of 

drinking water (groundwater)). 4

As discussed in Section 4.2.2, one EPA-regulated facility was identified in close proximity to the 

Rockaway Project area (i.e., New York City Fire Department Engine Company 329), which is located 

approximately 200 feet southeast of the HDD entry point. Given that Engine Company 329 is in 

compliance with its hazardous waste handler permit, we do not anticipate that Transco would encounter 

any groundwater contamination associated with this facility.

There are no known areas of groundwater contamination in the vicinity of Compressor Station 

195. As noted in Section 4.2.2, Compressor Station 195 is the sole EPA-regulated facility in this area, 

 

4

 NYSDEC’s Technical and Operational Guidance Series 1.1.1 for Ambient Water Quality Standards & Guidance Values and 

Groundwater Effluent Limitations. These standards and guidance values outline measures of purity or quality of 

groundwater in relation to its reasonable or necessary use. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-14 

and it is in compliance with the permits issued by the EPA for the facility. Therefore, we do not 

anticipate that Transco would encounter any known groundwater contamination associated with 

operations at Compressor Station 195. 

4.3.1.4 Groundwater Impacts and Mitigation Procedures

At Compressor Station 195, groundwater resources are unlikely to be directly affected by 

construction activities because the groundwater occurs at depths greater than the proposed limits of 

excavation. Perched or near surface groundwater, if present, could be affected by soil disturbing activities 

and/or trench dewatering. These impacts would be minimized or avoided through implementation of the 

FERC Plan as well as any applicable state permits for trench dewatering. During construction of the 

HDD portion of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral, groundwater may be encountered, but construction is not 

expected to result in any adverse impacts on groundwater. 

Groundwater resources in the vicinity of Compressor Station 195 and the onshore construction 

areas associated with the Rockaway Delivery Lateral (i.e., the HDD entry site, tie-in to National Grid, and 

M&R facility) could be vulnerable to contamination if there is an inadvertent surface spill of hazardous 

materials during construction. Accidental spills and leaks of hazardous materials associated with 

equipment trailers, refueling or maintenance of vehicles, and storage of fuel, oil, and other fluids pose the 

greatest risk to groundwater resources. If not cleaned up, soils contaminated by spills or leaks could leach 

and contribute to groundwater contamination.

Transco would implement the measures identified in its SPCC Plan for the Rockaway Project (see 

Appendix F) and in its Construction Spill Plans for the Projects (see Appendix G) to minimize the 

potential for groundwater impacts associated with an inadvertent spill of hazardous materials. These 

plans identify preventive measures to reduce the likelihood of a spill, such as secondary containment for 

petroleum products, daily equipment inspection for leaks, and restrictions on the transport of potentially 

hazardous materials to construction work areas. These plans also address the storage and transfer of 

hazardous materials and petroleum products, specify measures to contain and clean up spills, and outline 

notification procedures. Therefore, the potential for the Projects to contaminate local aquifers or water 

supply wells would be minimal. 

Prior to the start of construction activities for the M&R facility, Transco would collect another 

series of groundwater samples from the monitoring wells to confirm that groundwater does not contain 

contamination. In the event that regulated compounds are identified at concentrations above NYSDEC 

TOGS 1.1.1 action levels, Transco would implement its Unanticipated Discovery of Contamination Plan 

(see Appendix L). This plan outlines measures for the proper handling and disposal of any contaminated 

soil and groundwater that may be encountered as a result of construction activities on the Rockaway 

Peninsula.

4.3.2 Surface Water Resources

The Rockaway Project would cross the Atlantic Ocean Long Island Sound basin, which drains 

most of New York City and all of Long Island, including the Rockaway Peninsula. The surface water 

resources of this drainage area include all the marine waters in New York Harbor, Long Island Sound, 

Block Island Sound, and Lower New York Bay/Raritan Bay. 

Marine environments are influenced by prevailing winds and ocean currents. In the Rockaway 

Project area, nor’easters and winds associated with tropical storms can cause extreme wave events. The 

remaining wave action is due to semi-diurnal tides, a constant occurrence within the Rockaway Project 

area, with a mean annual range of 4.1 feet. These wave energies generate the migration of sand westward 

along the south shore of Long Island. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-15 

The one surface water that would be affected by the Projects is the Atlantic Ocean. No surface 

waters are present within the proposed workspaces associated with the onshore pipeline, M&R facility, 

and pipe storage yard, or the yard at Compressor Station 195. 

4.3.2.1 Water Classifications 

Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that each state review, establish, and revise water quality 

standards for the surface waters within the state. States develop monitoring and mitigation programs to 

ensure that water standards are attained as designated. Waters that fail to meet their designated beneficial 

use(s) are considered impaired and are listed under a state’s 303(d) list of impaired waters. 

All waters in New York State are assigned a letter classification by the NYSDEC that denotes 

their best uses. Letter classes such as A, B, C, and D are assigned to fresh surface waters, while letter 

combinations such as SA, SB, SC, I, and SD are assigned to saline (marine) surface waters. Best uses of 

surface waters may include drinking water source, swimming, boating, fishing, and shell fishing. 

The offshore segment of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral is located in an area designated as a 

Class SA saline (marine) surface water (6 NYCRR Part 701). Class SA waters are suitable for fish, 

shellfish, and wildlife propagation and survival. These waters support primary and secondary recreation 

and fishing activities and shell fishing for market purposes. The physical water quality standards that 

apply to this water class designation, as identified in 6 NYCRR Part 703 (Surface Water and Groundwater 

Quality Standards and Groundwater Effluent Limitations), are listed in Table 4.3.2-1. 

Sensitive Waterbodies

By reviewing various databases and consulting with relevant agencies, Transco identified a 

portion of the Atlantic Ocean within the Rockaway Project area as EFH. EFH consists of waters and 

substrates necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. An EFH assessment 

for the offshore Rockaway Project area is presented in Section 4.6.3. 

TABLE 4.3.2-1

Physical Water Quality Standards at the Proposed Project Site for the Rockaway Project a

Parameter Standard

Taste, color, and toxic and other deleterious 

substances

None in amounts that will adversely affect the taste, color, or odor thereof or impair 

the waters for their best usages.

Turbidity No increase that will cause a substantial visible contrast to natural conditions. 

Suspended colloidal and settleable solids None from sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes that will cause deposition or 

impair the waters for their best usages. 

Oil and floating substances No residue attributable to sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes or visible oil film 

nor globules of grease.

Garbage, cinders, ashes, oils, sludge and 

other refuse

None in any amount. 

Phosphorus and nitrogen None in amounts that will result in growths of algae, weeds, or slimes that will impair 

the waters for their best usages. 

pH The normal range shall not be extended by more than one-tenth (0.1) of a standard 

pH unit. 

Dissolved oxygen Chronic: Shall not be less than a daily average of 4.8 mg/L.

Acute: Shall not be less than 3.0 mg/L at any time. 

Total coliform (number per 100 mL) The median most probable number value in any series of representative samples 

shall not be in excess of 70.

____________________

a Standards listed are for Class SA saline surface waters as identified in 6 NYCRR Part 703 (Surface Water and 

Groundwater Quality Standards and Groundwater Effluent Limitations). 

Notes:

mg/L = milligrams per liter

mL = milliliters

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-16 

4.3.2.2 Existing Water Quality 

In 2011, the NYSDEC released the Atlantic Ocean/Long Island Sound Basin Waterbody 

Inventory/Priority Waterbodies List Report. This report provides a water quality assessment for the 

Atlantic/Long Island Sound Basin and the Atlantic Ocean Coastline (1701-0014) waterbody segment, 

which includes the offshore section of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral. The area that would be crossed by 

the pipeline supports healthy shellfish propagation and is open for harvesting (NYSDEC, 2010). 

Transco conducted field studies in the summer of 2009 and fall of 2010 to evaluate existing water 

quality along the offshore route for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral (see Appendices M and I). Water 

quality samples were collected from three depth strata (bottom, middle, and surface) at sampling stations 

along the route using a submersible pump. The testing parameters shown in Table 4.3.2-2 

(i.e., temperature, dissolved oxygen, salinity, turbidity, and pH) were selected from a sampling plan 

developed with agency approval according to the NYSDEC’s TOGS 5.1.9. 5

 The sampled values 

obtained from the testing are consistent with ranges found in historical reports and with New York State’s 

minimum water quality standards. Other parameters analyzed included biological parameters such as low 

and total fecal coliform bacteria concentrations and chemical parameters such as total phosphorus and 

nitrogen. The testing results for these parameters likewise were consistent with historical findings and 

New York State’s water quality standards. Test results for total suspended solid (TSS) concentrations 

ranged from 1.4 to 18 milligrams per liter (mg/L) but in the majority of samples were less than 6 mg/L. A 

full list of all parameters and their thresholds is presented in Transco’s Fall 2010 Sampling Report, which 

is provided in Appendix I. 

TABLE 4.3.2-2

Comparison of New York State’s Water Quality Standards and the 2009 and 2010 Survey Results

for the Rockaway Project

Water Quality 

Parameters

Historical 

Records/New York 

State Minimum 

Standards

Summer 2009 Sampling Results Fall 2010 Sampling Results

Mean Range Mean Range

Temperature 36 °F a to 72 °F b

(2.2 °C to 22.2 °C)

66.0 °F

(18.9 °C)

64.7 °F to 66.1 °F 

(18.14 to 18.95 °C)

51.1 °F

(10.6 °C)

49.3 °F to 52.9 °F 

(9.6 to 11.6 °C)

Dissolved oxygen 4.8 mg/L 8.4 mg/L 7.9 to 9.1 mg/L 8.1 mg/L 6.7 to 9.7 mg/L

Salinity 20 to >30 ppt 29.5 ppt 28.7 to 30.5 ppt 33.5 ppt 31.4 to 35.0 ppt

Turbidity 5.0 NTU 2.5 NTU 1.9 to 3.4 NTU 2.2 NTU 0.0 to 9.4 c NTU

pH 6.4 to 8.6 7.8 7.6 to 7.9 8.0 7.8 to 8.1

_________________

Sources: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2010; Ecology and Environment, Inc., 2011; Bruno, M. S. and 

A.F. Blumberg, 2009.

Notes:

°F = degrees Fahrenheit

°C = degrees Celsius

Mg/L = milligrams per liter

ppt = parts per thousand

NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit

a Winter average. b Summer average. c This value represents an outlier that may reflect unusual sediment disturbance during sampling.

 

5

 NYSDEC’s Technical and Operational Guidance Series 5.1.9 for In-Water and Riparian Management of Sediment and 

Dredged Material.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-17 

4.3.2.3 General Impacts and Mitigation

Post-Lay Jet Sled 

Transco proposes to use a lay barge to fabricate the offshore pipeline and a post-lay jet sled to 

bury the first 2.15 miles of the pipeline to a depth of 4 feet below the seafloor (see Section 2.3.1). The 

operation of this equipment, particularly the excavation of the pipeline trench, would impact ocean waters 

by disturbing bottom sediment, resulting in increased turbidity and suspended solids. The propulsion of 

construction and support vessels could also disturb sediments and contribute to increases in turbidity from 

wake effects or the creation of a slipstream, although this is not expected to be much different than the 

ambient conditions created by other vessels that transit the area. Turbidity resulting from resuspension of 

sediments could reduce light penetration and photosynthetic oxygen production. Resuspension of 

deposited organic material and inorganic sediments could cause an increase in biological and chemical 

use of oxygen, potentially resulting in a decrease of dissolved oxygen concentrations in the affected area. 

Lower dissolved oxygen concentrations could cause temporary displacement of motile organisms, such as 

fish, and may kill non-mobile organisms within the affected area. For a more detailed discussion of these 

potential effects, see Section 4.6.3. 

The extent of impacts from the Rockaway Project on water quality would depend on sediment 

particle size, ambient currents, and the degree and rate of sediment disturbance. In general, the effects 

would be localized and of short duration. Transco used an estuarine, coastal, and ocean model (ECOM) 

to evaluate the duration and extent of the anticipated turbidity and suspended solids from offshore 

dredging and jetting (see Section 4.6.3). The ECOM is a hydrodynamic and sediment transport 

framework that has been applied to other projects in the New York area. The ECOM performed threedimensional hydrodynamic simulations in a wide area surrounding the proposed pipeline route. The 

primary use of the hydrodynamic model is to estimate water velocities in each cell of the model grid. The 

model results are based on measurements from tide gauges, flow gauges, and weather stations located 

near the offshore Rockaway Project area. The detailed sediment modeling included both a base or 

“typical” case and a “worst” case for the jet sled as well as an evaluation of the effects of hand jetting and 

dredging. 

The analysis indicates that the maximum TSS concentration where jet sled trenching is conducted 

may reach very high levels at the bottom of the ocean, but the suspended solids plume concentrations 

would decrease with distance. Under a worst-case scenario, the modeling predicts that TSS at or above 

50 mg/L would extend up to 2.5 miles from the pipeline trench for the fastest trenching rate and up to 1.1

miles from the trench for the slowest trenching rate for the jet sled. The duration of the plume from the 

jet sled would be inversely related to the trenching rate and, in all cases, the water column plume would 

dissipate within 4.5 hours after the jetting operation ends. The speed with which ambient conditions 

would return is largely due to the coarseness of the bottom sediments; larger sand particles tend to settle 

more quickly than finer particles such as silt and clay. The modeling also indicates that the plume with 

average suspended sediment concentrations greater than 50 mg/L would extend approximately 1.2 miles 

from the hand jetting locations and 0.3 mile from the dredging location, but none of the proposed 

construction methods would cause sediment to be suspended in the upper layers of the ocean for any of 

the trenching rates. 

The modeling results indicate that the areas closest to the work area would be subject to the 

highest levels of sedimentation as a result of jet sled trenching, but the depth of the redeposited sediments 

would diminish as the distance from the jetting operation increases. Specifically, the modeling predicts 

accumulations up to 18.4 inches near the trench, up to 1.2 inches at about 1,500 feet from the trench, and 

0.4 inch at roughly 0.5 mile from the trench under a worst-case scenario for the fastest trenching rate. See 

Section 4.6.3 for more discussion of the modeling results. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-18 

Horizontal Directional Drill

The remainder of the offshore pipeline would be installed using the HDD method (see Section 

2.3.1.5). Dredging activities associated with the HDD exit hole would have similar impacts to those 

discussed above. The primary impact that could occur outside of the exit hole is an inadvertent release of 

drilling mud directly or indirectly into the ocean.

6

 Drilling mud may leak through previously 

unidentified fractures in the material under the seafloor, in the area of the mud pits or tanks, or along the 

drill path due to unfavorable ground conditions. Although drilling mud consists of nontoxic materials, the 

release of drilling mud in large quantities into a waterbody could affect fisheries or other aquatic 

organisms by causing turbidity and/or by temporarily coating the waterbody bed with a layer of clay. The 

probability of an inadvertent release is greatest when the drill bit is working near the surface (i.e., near the 

entry and exit points). As discussed in Section 4.1.7, the HDD would be located entirely in 

unconsolidated sandy sediments. The risk of an inadvertent release of drilling fluid when drilling through 

unconsolidated sediments is difficult to predict. Drilling fluid generally follows the path of least 

resistance, which in most cases would be along the path of the drill, back to the drill entry or exit hole. 

Transco would implement measures outlined in its HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan (see 

Appendix H) to minimize the risk of HDD complications and the potential for inadvertent releases of

drilling fluid. Transco would monitor the downhole annular pressure and the volume of drilling fluid and 

cuttings returning to the entry pit to identify a potential release. Visual inspection of the ground surface 

between the entry point and the shoreline would also be conducted at a minimum of twice daily. If 

drilling fluid is not flowing to the entry or exit pits (a condition indicating a higher potential for 

inadvertent returns), then inspection personnel would continuously monitor the ground surface until 

completion of the pilot hole. Transco has not identified any formal monitoring procedures for the area 

between the shore and the offshore exit pit, but stated that inspection personnel on the vessels beyond the 

exit pit would visually inspect the areas at a minimum of twice daily. If an inadvertent drilling fluid 

release is detected offshore, outside of the HDD exit pit, it would be monitored and documented. 

Because the HDD exit hole would be located in the Atlantic Ocean, the drilling operations 

associated with the installation of the pipeline are expected to result in a planned release of about 12,000 

to 15,000 cubic yards of drilling fluids and cuttings into the water within the offshore HDD exit pit. As 

discussed in more detail in Section 4.6.3, the drilling fluids and cuttings are expected to remain within the 

HDD exit pit and are not expected to cause a significant amount of turbidity outside of this location. 

Backfilling

As discussed in Section 2.3.1.9, backfill of the pipe trench initially would be accomplished by 

configuring the discharge nozzles on the jet sled to expel sediment behind the sled and into the trench as 

the pipe is lowered. Following installation of the pipeline, Transco would conduct a bathymetric survey 

to document seafloor elevations along the pipe trench as well as other offshore excavation areas, and 

would backfill any areas where the seafloor has not been restored and/or where 4 feet of cover is not 

present over the pipeline. Transco additionally would add a top layer of sediments over the drilling fluid 

and cuttings that collect within the offshore HDD exit pit to cap these materials and restore the contours 

of the seafloor in this area. 

Backfill of the pipe trench and other offshore excavation areas would be accomplished using a 

suction dredge, which would withdraw sediment from the seafloor in the area adjacent to the pipeline and 

discharge it to the trench. A minor increase in the amount of suspended sediment in the vicinity of the 

trench would occur due to operation of the suction dredge, but the impacts on water quality would be 

similar to those associated with operation of the jet sled as described above, although on a smaller scale. 

Transco plans to file a revised sediment modeling analysis to quantify the extent of water quality impacts 

 

6

 An inadvertent release refers to an unplanned discharge of drilling fluid which escapes the drill hole and is forced by annular 

pressures through the subsurface substrate (e.g., through cracks) to the surface (ground or seafloor).

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-19 

associated with operation of the suction dredge. We have added a recommendation in Section 4.6.3 that 

Transco file its revised sediment modeling analysis prior to the close of the draft EIS comment period. 

Water for the HDD and Hydrostatic Testing 

Transco estimates that the HDD operations would require approximately 12,000 to 15,000 cubic 

yards of drilling fluid, of which 95 to 98 percent would consist of fresh water. This equates to 

approximately 2.3 to 2.8 million gallons of fresh water. The water for the HDD operation would be 

obtained from fire hydrants located near the entry hole on TBTA property. 

As discussed in Section 2.3.1.11, Transco would hydrostatically test the HDD pipeline segment 

before and after it is installed and would hydrostatically test the entire pipeline before it is placed in 

service. In total, Transco would use 578,700 gallons of water for these three tests. Nearly all of this 

water (about 573,500 gallons) would be seawater withdrawn near the offshore pipeline, but a small 

portion, about 5,200 gallons, would be fresh water obtained from a municipal source. This freshwater 

would be used to replace seawater that is lost during the tie-in operation. The seawater would be filtered 

through a mesh screen with a mesh opening of 0.0029 inch (0.07 millimeter) to prevent debris and foreign 

material from getting into the pipeline. The water would be sucked into a submersible pump located 

about 20 feet below the ocean surface at a rate of about 4,000 gallons per minute. An oxygen scavenger 

and non-oxidizing biocide would be added to the saltwater withdrawn from the ocean for the hydrostatic 

testing to prevent corrosion of the pipeline interior, and a non-toxic florescent dye would be added to help 

detect potential leaks (see Section 4.6.3.2 for a description of the additives). 

Following each hydrostatic test, the seawater would be discharged back to the ocean in 

accordance with applicable permits, such as the NYSDEC’s hydrostatic test water permit. The water 

would be pumped into a multi-port diffuser and discharged at a rate of approximately 2,000 gallons per 

minute. Use of the diffuser during discharge would re-oxygenate the water and dilute the concentrations 

of the scavenger, biocide, and dye prior to entering the ocean. The test water would be dispersed (diluted) 

at a rate of about 15:1 as it is discharged to the marine environment and mixes with the ocean water. 

Information on the ecotoxicity of the scavenger, biocide, and dye is discussed in Section 4.6.3.2.

Another 82,000 gallons of water would be used to hydrostatically test the M&R facility 

components on-site. This water would be obtained from a local (i.e., Brooklyn) municipal source or

trucked to the site from another municipality in the vicinity of New York City. No chemicals would be 

added to the water, and the equipment to be tested would be clean and free of petroleum products or other 

potential contaminants. Following testing, the test water would be discharged into the existing 

stormwater drainage system that runs under the hangars on NPS property and connects to the New York 

City stormwater system.

We received a comment from the NYCDEP that Transco identify the maximum flow rate for 

withdrawals of municipal water for hydrostatic testing and coordinate with NYCDEP staff for exceptional 

flow rates. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Prior to construction of the Rockaway Project, Transco should consult with 

NYCDEP staff to identify and address agency concerns regarding flow rates for 

withdrawals of municipal water from fire hydrants and file with the Secretary 

documentation of the consultation. 

Approximately 46,000 gallons of water would be required for hydrostatic testing of the piping 

modifications at Compressor Station 195. Transco would obtain this water from the onsite potable water 

well and discharge it to an upland area within the station site in accordance with applicable state permits. 

Offshore Spills and Leaks 

Accidental spills and leaks of hazardous materials (e.g., fuel or oil) associated with the barges and 

other vessels that would be utilized during offshore construction activities could result in a degradation of 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-20 

water quality and/or impacts on wildlife and aquatic resources if not managed properly. Transco stated in 

its SPCC Plan that emergency response procedures for offshore spills would be identified after the 

contractor has been selected. Due to the potential impacts associated with the release of oil or other 

hazardous materials to the ocean during construction, we recommend that:

• Prior to the construction of the Rockaway Project, Transco should update its SPCC 

Plan to include specific measures that would be implemented to identify, control, 

and clean up any accidental leaks or spills from offshore construction vessels. This 

information should be filed with the Secretary for review and approval of the 

Director of OEP. 

Operation

Operation of the Rockaway Project periodically would impact water quality in the vicinity of the 

interconnection of the proposed pipeline with the existing LNYBL. Transco plans to perform periodic 

maintenance activities in accordance with 49 CFR 192 that would include accessing the buried subsea 

manifold approximately once every 7 years to install a removable launcher and conduct an internal 

inspection of the pipeline. The subsea manifold would be exposed using the hand-jetting method, 

displacing approximately 2,000 cubic yards of sediments. This would be approximately 16 percent of the 

sediments displaced during the initial hot-tap installation. The displaced sediments are expected to settle 

in a similar pattern but not extend as far from the area disturbed by construction. 

Conclusion

Construction and operation of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral would result in short-term, 

temporary impacts on water quality within the Atlantic Ocean. With the implementation of Transco’s 

proposed mitigation and our recommendations, we conclude that these impacts would not be significant. 

4.3.3 Wetland Resources

Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and 

duration to support a prevalence of wetland vegetation adapted for life in hydric (saturated) soils. 

Wetlands can be a source of substantial biodiversity and serve a variety of functions such as flood flow 

attenuation, sediment retention, nutrient retention, wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge and discharge, 

recreation, and erosion control. In addition, wetlands naturally improve water quality conditions. 

Section 404 of the CWA established standards to minimize impacts on wetlands under the 

regulatory jurisdiction of the USACE. These standards require avoidance of wetlands, where possible, or

minimization of disturbance, to the degree practicable, where impacts are unavoidable. Any wetland

crossings would be subject to review and approval by the appropriate regional district of the USACE, 

including the provisions of any required wetland compensatory mitigation. 

The proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral crosses one wetland area that is classified by the 

NYSDEC as a littoral, tidal wetland and by the National Wetland Inventory as a marine, intertidal 

unconsolidated shore (see Figure 4.3.3-1). Transco is proposing to cross under this area using the HDD 

construction method. This crossing method would avoid direct impacts on the wetland during 

construction and operation of the proposed pipeline. The only potential impacts on the wetland would be 

from an inadvertent return of drilling fluid during the HDD. Because the drill path would be up to 100 

feet below grade where it crosses under the wetland, the likelihood of an inadvertent return reaching the 

surface is low. Additionally, Transco would monitor the area above the HDD crossing during drilling 

operations to identify and clean up inadvertent returns if they occur. No wetlands are present at the 

proposed M&R facility, the pipe yard, or Compressor Station 195. For all these reasons, we conclude that 

the Projects are unlikely to affect wetlands.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Tidal Wetlands (NYSDEC)

Adjacent Area

High Marsh

Intertidal Marsh

Littoral Zone

Coastal Shoals, Bars and Mudflats

Note: Persuant to 6 NYCRR §661.4(hh)(4) Littoral Zone Tidal Wetlands

were refined from original dataset by utilizing 6 foot depth contours 

from NOAA Chart 12350, Jamaica Bay and Rockaway Inlet, corrected

through August 2011. Approximately 1.5 miles of the 6 foot depth

contour was absent from the NOAA Chart and supplemented with 2005

USACE Lidar data. Approximately 880 feet of the USACE data needed

to be interpolated due to a data gap and was configured based on

adjacent contour pattern. 6 foot depth determined

at Mean Lower Low Water.

Proposed M&R Facility

Proposed Pipeline Route

Road

NWI Wetlands

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Wetlands in the Vicinity of the Rockaway Project

Figure 4.3.3-1

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

4-21

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-22 

4.4 VEGETATION

4.4.1 Vegetation Resources

The facilities proposed for the Projects are located in marine and terrestrial habitats with varying 

levels of diversity in vegetation communities. Offshore vegetation along the route of the Rockaway 

Delivery Lateral was assessed via a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) video investigation. The results 

showed that the benthic environment in the study area primarily consists of bare sandy bottoms generally 

lacking aquatic vegetation. Patches of turf algae were identified on manmade, hard-bottom structures, 

such as concrete and pipe fragments, on the seafloor. Onshore vegetation in the Rockaway Project area 

and at Compressor Station 195 was assessed via field reconnaissance and desktop review. Three distinct 

vegetation communities were identified: maritime beach, scrub/shrubland, and developed land. Each of 

these types is described below. 

4.4.1.1 Maritime Beach

The shoreline on the south side of the Rockaway Peninsula is not vegetated, but the area away 

from the beaches can support a diverse community of annual and biennial species, commonly referred to 

as the North Atlantic Upper Ocean Beach community. Typical species associated with the community 

include sea rockets, seabeach saltwort, seaside sandmat, sea sandwort, redroot amaranth, lambsquarters, 

American burnweed, rough cocklebur, crested saltbush, seabeach amaranth, and seabeach knotweed. 

Seabeach amaranth is federally listed as a threatened species and seabeach knotweed is state listed in New 

York as a rare species. Potential impacts on these two species are addressed in Sections 4.7.1.6 and 

4.7.5.1, respectively. 

4.4.1.2 Scrub/Shrubland

A tall scrub/shrubland community, currently overgrown with vines, is located south of the 

proposed M&R facility and associated workspace at Floyd Bennett Field. Bordering the scrub/shrubland 

community is a shorter herbaceous layer. Transco conducted a qualitative assessment of physical 

landscape characteristics in this area based on an on-site review and aerial photography and determined 

that this area is similar in composition to northern tall maritime shrublands. This community consists of a 

diverse mix of native and invasive vines, shrubs, and trees, including deciduous and evergreen species. 

The dominant vines include Asian bittersweet, Virginia creeper, and eastern poison ivy. The dominant 

shrub species include northern bayberry in combination with flameleaf sumac and early successional 

growth stages of black cherry. Many tree species have been noted to occur with later successional stages 

of black cherry, but not in high abundance. 

Due to its proximity to the Atlantic coast and Jamaica Bay complex, the scrub/shrubland 

community in the vicinity of the Rockaway Project could serve as an important stopover habitat for 

migratory birds. See Section 4.5.2 for a discussion of migratory birds and other wildlife species. 

4.4.1.3 Developed Land 

Two Rockaway Project areas occur within developed or maintained land. The first is the 0.7-acre 

temporary workspace for the HDD entry site within the TBTA property near Jacob Riis Park. This area is 

covered by short herbaceous species that are regularly disturbed by ground maintenance crews. The 

vegetation cover is dominated by clover, narrowleaf plantain, and grasses typically found on open, 

disturbed, Mid-Atlantic coastal uplands. About 0.05 acre of short trees and tall shrubs also occur in this 

area. Transco does not plan to clear any of this woody vegetation. 

The second developed area occurs in the vicinity of the hangar complex at Floyd Bennett Field. 

Transco conducted surveys within 100 feet of the hangars in September 2012. While most of the area 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-23 

surrounding the hangars is paved, about 15 percent is covered by herbaceous vegetation consisting mainly 

of small, ground creeping species such as crabgrass, camphorweed, English plantain, silver cinquefoil, 

spotted spurge, and carpetweed. Taller vegetation representing more woody species is primarily limited 

to the fence line between Floyd Bennett Field and Flatbush Avenue. The species inventoried in this area 

included autumn olive, winged sumac, Japanese honeysuckle, and Virginia creeper.

Compressor Station 195 encompasses about 25.2 acres of developed/maintained land, including 

areas covered by existing buildings, crushed stone, gravel, and mowed grass. The site also contains trees 

within hedgerows along the station boundary, the existing access road into the site, and the fence 

surrounding the existing buildings within the station yard. 

4.4.2 Vegetation Communities of Special Concern

According to the NYSDEC, one ecological community of concern, low salt marsh, is located in 

the vicinity of the Rockaway Project. This community, which is prevalent in Jamaica Bay, is dominated 

by smooth cordgrass subject to regular tidal inundation. The health of the community has been 

compromised by development in the surrounding landscape, including construction and use of John F. 

Kennedy Airport, solid waste landfills, and dredge spoil islands. The nearest low salt marsh community 

to the Rockaway Project area is located approximately 1.4 miles to the west-southwest. Because of this 

distance, we do not anticipate any adverse effects on the low salt marsh community or any associated 

hydrological connections during construction. No vegetation communities of special concern are present 

at Compressor Station 195, which consists of developed/maintained land. 

4.4.3 Invasive Species

Invasive species grow and spread rapidly becoming established over large areas (USDA, 2010a). 

Typically, they are exotic species introduced from other parts of the United States, another region, or 

another continent. Invasive plant species can change or degrade natural communities, which can reduce 

the quality of habitat for wildlife and native plant species. 

Removal of existing vegetation and disturbance of soils during construction of the proposed 

facilities could create conditions conducive to the establishment of invasive plants from adjacent areas. 

Transco’s Plan for the Rockaway Project (see Appendix D) includes provisions for removal and proper 

disposal of invasive species. Transco would reseed and restore the disturbed soils at the HDD entry 

location and at Compressor Station 195 following construction activities at these sites. This would 

promote the establishment of desirable species and deter invasive species from colonizing these areas. 

4.4.4 Vegetation Impacts and Mitigation

Offshore activities associated with construction of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral could impact 

small amounts of turf algae if man-made structures are moved or buried during trenching operations or as 

a result of vessel anchoring. These effects would be minor and short-lived because the sandy sediments 

disturbed by construction would settle quickly, and the sediment accumulations caused by trenching 

would be minor. 

The maintained area at the HDD entry workspace on the TBTA property is the primary place 

where terrestrial vegetation would be affected by construction of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral. 

Depending on the timing of the restoration of National Grid’s BQI Project, this area may or may not be 

fully vegetated when Transco’s proposed HDD would occur. Assuming it is vegetated, Transco would 

temporarily disturb about 0.7 acre of grass in this area. An additional 0.7 acre of vegetation within the 

GNRA, mostly on the golf course but also on the maritime beach, could potentially be disturbed by foot 

traffic to install the tracking wires for the HDD and to monitor the drill path for inadvertent returns of 

drilling fluid. Transco plans to coordinate with the NPS and provide a biological monitor during 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-24 

installation of the tracking wires to avoid impacts on sensitive species, including plant species such as 

seabeach amaranth and seabeach knotweed. Additionally, we recommend in Section 4.7.1.6 that Transco 

consult with the NPS to identify a protocol for coordinated monitoring of the drill path in the GNRA 

between the months of March and September for the presence of sensitive species, including plants.

Based on an assumed cover of 15 percent, construction of the M&R facility for the Rockaway 

Project would disturb approximately 1.9 acres of herbaceous vegetation growing on, in, and around the 

pavement surrounding the hangar complex at Floyd Bennett Field. No scrub/shrubland in the vicinity of 

the M&R facility would be directly affected by the Rockaway Project. It is possible that some 

scrub/shrubland or additional herbaceous vegetation could be affected by stormwater runoff or an 

accidental spill, but the potential for this is low. Transco would implement the measures in its Plan and 

Procedures to limit the effect of stormwater runoff (see Appendices D and E), and the measures in its 

SPCC Plan and Construction Spill Plans to minimize the potential for and effects of an accidental spill 

(see Appendices F and G). Following construction, the disturbed soils at the HDD entry location would 

be reseeded with grasses suitable to the area using a seed mix approved by the TBTA. The existing 

grasses growing up through the broken pavement surrounding the hangars would be paved over and 

eliminated. 

Construction activities at Compressor Station 195 would disturb up to about 25.2 acres of 

developed/maintained land, and would require the removal of approximately 25 to 27 trees within 

hedgerows at the site. Transco would implement the measures in the FERC Plan and its Construction 

Spill Plans (see Appendix G) to minimize impacts on vegetation at the site. Following installation of the 

new facilities, the disturbed areas at Compressor Station 195 that do not include new permanent facilities 

would be restored and reseeded using an appropriate seed mix. 

4.4.5 Operations Impacts

We do not anticipate any offshore or onshore vegetation impacts due to operation and 

maintenance of the Projects. Offshore operations would be limited to the periodic pigging of the pipeline 

once every 7 years. Transco would disturb less than an acre of the seabed covering the subsea manifold 

each time this pigging occurs. This is unlikely to impact offshore vegetation due to the sparse distribution 

of turf algae in the vicinity of the pipeline route. 

Transco is not planning to manage any vegetation on the onshore right-of-way for the Rockaway 

Project. Vegetation at the onshore HDD entry site would be managed by National Grid as part of the BQI 

Project. The area around the M&R facility would be paved and/or graveled and would not require 

vegetation maintenance, but the NPS referred to areas around the perimeter of the site that may need 

reseeding based on existing conditions. Vegetation at Compressor Station 195 would be maintained in 

accordance with the FERC Plan by Transco’s operations department.

We received a comment from the NPS regarding the potential for operational emissions from the 

M&R facility to affect adjacent vegetation communities. The operational emissions from this facility 

would be minor and are not expected to affect adjacent vegetation communities. Operation emissions are 

discussed in Section 4.11.1, which concluded that there would be no significant impact on air quality as a 

result of the Rockaway Project.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-25 

4.5 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES

4.5.1 Wildlife Resources

The Rockaway Project area includes both offshore and onshore wildlife habitats which broadly 

can be characterized as the New York Bight, Breezy Point (including beaches and dunes within the 

GNRA), and Floyd Bennett Field. The New York Bight contains approximately 31,276 square miles, of 

which 67 percent consists of marine/estuarine waters. The Bight includes open waters, offshore sandy 

bottoms, and artificial hard-bottom reef structures. These areas support a diverse wildlife community 

consisting of invertebrates (114 species), birds (232), reptiles and amphibians (31), mammals (38), and 

fish (99). Many of these have special status, such as federally or state-listed threatened or endangered 

species, migratory birds, or marine mammals. Others, including fish and shellfish, have commercial or 

recreational value.

Breezy Point and areas to the east within the GNRA are located in Queens County, New York at 

the westernmost end of the Rockaway Peninsula seaward of Jamaica Bay. These areas, which consist of a 

series of adjacent parcels, some of which are within the GNRA and some of which are owned by private 

entities, form part of the New York City Atlantic Ocean shoreline. Wildlife habitat on Breezy Point and 

the surrounding area consists primarily of sparsely vegetated dune areas and sand/marine barrier beaches 

extending north and east from Rockaway Point, but also includes brackish water wetlands. As a relatively 

undeveloped barrier beach in Queens County, Breezy Point is a valuable habitat for breeding shorebird 

species (NYSDOS, 1992b). 

Floyd Bennett Field is identified as part of a significant land habitat complex dominated by 

manmade structures and runways (Dowhan, 1997). Much of the complex, including the area around the 

hangars proposed for the M&R facility, is paved, but Floyd Bennett Field also includes extensive

grassland areas between the runways. These grassland areas have been restored and are maintained by 

the NPS and New York City Audubon Society as a Grassland Restoration and Management Project area. 

The wildlife habitats that would be crossed by or are close to the Rockaway Project include 

offshore sandy bottoms and artificial hard-bottom reef structures, and onshore maritime beach, 

scrub/shrub, maintained (e.g., lawn), and artificial surfaces with herbaceous vegetation. A description of 

the vegetation types in these areas is provided in Section 4.4. Some of the terrestrial and marine wildlife 

species that live or visit these habitats are listed on Table 4.5.1-1. 

Compressor Station 195 is located on developed/maintained lands in York County, Pennsylvania. 

The site is adjacent to both agricultural and forested tracts, which support species such as squirrel, rabbit, 

deer, woodcock, waterfowl, raccoon, and opossum. 

4.5.1.1 Significant or Sensitive Wildlife Habitats

The proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral would cross approximately 0.15 mile of onshore and 

offshore areas that have been identified by the FWS as significant land or water habitat complexes. As 

shown in Figure 4.5.1-1 these habitats are located along the southern shoreline of the Rockaway 

Peninsula, which Transco would cross using the HDD method. The M&R facility is also located in an 

area that the FWS has identified as a significant land habitat complex, but the area that would be affected 

by construction of this facility is developed and mostly paved. Several other sensitive habitats, including 

low salt marsh and NYSDOS significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat associated with the western tip 

of the Rockaway Peninsula and Jamaica Bay are within 1.7 miles of the Rockaway Project area. None of 

these other sensitive habitats would be crossed or adjacent to proposed work areas. Additionally, no 

significant or sensitive wildlife habitat areas are located within or in the vicinity of Compressor Station 

195. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-26 

TABLE 4.5.1-1 

List of Wildlife Species Representative of the Region or Observed

in the Vicinity of the Rockaway Project

Species

TERRESTRIAL

Birds a

American black duck, barn owl, black-crowned night heron, black skimmer, Bonaparte's gull, cattle egret, common tern, glossy 

ibis, grebes, horned lark, killdeer, least tern, little blue heron, loons, mourning dove, northern gannet, northern harrier, northern 

mockingbird, peregrine falcon, piping plover, roseate tern, seaside sparrow, short-eared owl, snowy egret, song sparrow, tree 

swallow, tri-colored heron, yellow-crowned night-heron, red-tailed hawks, coopers hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, American kestrel, 

northern flicker, woodcock, ring-necked pheasants, brown thrashers, catbirds, common yellowthroats, and white-eyed vireos.

MARINE

Fin Fish a

Anchovy, alewife, American shad, Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic sea herring, Atlantic sturgeon, bluefish, 

butterfish, red hake, round herring, scup, silver hake/whiting, shortnose sturgeon, spiny dogfish, striped bass, summer flounder, 

tautog, weakfish, winter flounder, and witch flounder.

Shellfish

American lobster, blue crab, green crab, horse-shoe crab b, lady crab, long-finned squid, spider crab, rock crab, red crab,

and surfclams.

Benthic Organisms

Soft-bottom community

Atlantic surfclam, Amphipods, Gastropod, hermit crab, Polychaetes, and starfish.

Hard-bottom community

Ascidians, cnidarians, gastropod, northern star coral, Porifera, and sea stars.

Marine Turtles a

Green, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, and loggerhead.

Marine Mammals a

Pinnipeds

Gray seal, harbor seal, and harp seal.

Cetaceans

Atlantic white-sided dolphin, bottlenose dolphin, short-beaked common dolphin, harbor porpoise, long-finned pilot whale,

short-finned pilot whale, minke whale, right whale, humpback whale, and fin whale.

Ichthyoplankton

Egg and/or larval essential fish habitat for butterfish, cobia, king mackerel, monkfish, red hake, scup, silver hake, Spanish 

mackerel, summer flounder, winter flounder, windowpane flounder, and several shark species.

Zooplankton

Copepods: Calanus finmarchicus, Centropages finmarchicus, Centropages typicus, gastropod larvae (undefined sp.), Limacina 

retroversa, Oithona similis, Pseudocalanus sp., pteropod larvae (undefined sp.), and Temora longicornis.

____________________

Sources: Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program, 1982; Ecology and Environment, 2009; Ecology and Environment, 2011; 

Judkins et al., 1979; Kaneta et al., 1985; McGowan and Corwin, 2008; McKown, 2009; National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a; New York Times, 2012; Riverhead Foundation for Marine Research and 

Preservation, 2010; Smith et al., 1979; Thompson and Härkönen, 2008; Waring et al., 2012. a Among other species, this list includes federally protected marine mammals and federally listed and state-listed 

threatened and endangered species that potentially occur in the vicinity of the Rockaway Project area. Federally 

protected marine mammals are discussed in Section 4.5.2.1 and in Transco’s application for an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which is provided as Appendix N. Federally listed and state-listed 

threatened and endangered species are discussed in Section 4.7. 

b Horseshoe crab is actually an arthropod.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Existing 26" Lower

NY Bay Lateral

Proposed Pipeline Route

(N.G. Construction)

Proposed M&R Facility

Rockaway

Reef

Scallop

Ridge

Rockway

Inlet

Tin Can

Grounds

NYSDOS Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat

USFWS Significant Water Habitat Complex

USFWS Significant Land Habitat Complex

NJDEP Sport Ocean Fishing Grounds

NYDEC Uncertified Shellfish Harvest Area

Proposed M&R Facility

Proposed Pipeline Route

(Transco Construction)

Brooklyn-Queens Interconnect

Existing 26" Lower NY Bay Lateral

Figure 4.5.1-1

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

Federal and State Significant Habitat Areas

in the Vicinity of the Rockaway Project

4-27

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-28 

4.5.2 Wildlife Construction Impacts and Mitigation 

The impact of the Projects on wildlife and their habitats would vary depending on the life history 

of each species and the habitats present in construction areas. During construction, more mobile species 

would temporarily be displaced from the construction right-of-way and surrounding areas to similar 

nearby habitat. Some displaced wildlife would return to the newly disturbed areas and adjacent, 

undisturbed habitats after completion of construction. Less mobile species, such as benthic organisms 

along and near the offshore segment of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral, may experience direct mortality 

or permanent displacement (see Section 4.6.3). 

4.5.2.1 Marine Wildlife Impacts

Construction of the offshore portion of the proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral would have 

impacts on marine wildlife similar to that described for fisheries and other aquatic organisms in Sections 

4.6.2 and 4.6.3 and for threatened and endangered marine species in Section 4.7.1. The activities most 

likely to affect marine wildlife include offshore excavation, vessel anchoring, pile driving, the HDD 

operation, accidental spills of construction-related fluids (e.g., oil, gasoline, or hydraulic fluids), 

withdrawal and discharge of hydrostatic test water, and construction-related vessel traffic. A brief 

summary of the impacts associated with these activities is provided below. Additional details about the 

potential effects of these activities and on Transco’s proposals to minimize or avoid effects are described 

in Sections 4.6.2, 4.6.3, and 4.7.1. 

Offshore Excavation, Anchoring, and Backfilling

Offshore excavation would be conducted using a clamshell dredge, a jet sled, and hand jetting 

equipment, and backfilling would be conducted, as necessary, by using a suction dredge (see Section 2.3). 

The duration of these activities would be short term, including approximately 10 days for dredging of the

HDD exit pit, approximately 4-8 days for jetting the offshore trench, 2 to 4 days for each hand-jetting 

activity, and 1 to 2 weeks for backfilling, as necessary. Support vessels associated with these activities 

would include a lay barge using an eight-point mooring system of wire ropes and anchors affixed with 

mid-line buoys, a dive support vessel that would position itself with a four-anchor system affixed with 

mid-line buoys, and the jack-up barge that would be positioned using lift legs that press against the 

seafloor. In the vicinity of the construction area, aquatic species could be impacted directly by the 

excavations, anchoring of vessels, or backfilling, or indirectly by the disturbance of sediments, including 

the suspension of sediments in the water column and the re-deposition of sediments that fall out of 

suspension onto the seabed. 

Marine benthic organisms that are attached to or rest on sediments (epifauna) or burrow or bore

into sediments (infauna) would likely be killed within the area of direct offshore impact (about 38.0 acres) 

and could be killed or stressed in areas that are covered by fallout of suspended sediments (about 402 

acres 7

) (see Figure 4.5.2-1). 8 The impact on benthic organisms has the potential to affect fish and other 

organisms that prey on benthic species. Marine organisms may also be affected by high levels of 

turbidity in the water column. These and other potential impacts are assessed in more detail in Section 

4.6.3. As described in that section, the effects of sedimentation would be temporary and localized. 

 

7

 This is the area where sediment deposition could exceed 1 inch (3 cm) in thickness assuming a “worst case” scenario at the 

fastest trenching rate for the jet sled plus sedimentation for hand jetting and clamshell dredging. See Section 4.6.3.2 for a 

discussion regarding impacts on coral due to sedimentation. 8

 In Figure 4.5.2-1, the sonar targets are areas of hard-bottom deposition documented by Transco as a result of its marine 

surveys. The targets consist of features such as rock and concrete rubble, steel or concrete pipes, cables, rebar, and 

construction debris. Impacts on species such as coral, which may inhabit hard-bottom areas, are discussed in Section 4.6.3. 

The purple line on the figure identified as the “Atlantic Sturgeon aggregation depth” represents a sturgeon aggregation area 

documented by the NYSDEC around the 33-foot depth contour between the Rockaway and East Rockaway inlet (Laney et 

al., 2007). Impacts on Atlantic sturgeon are discussed in Section 4.7.1.2.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ Õ

Õ Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ ÕÕÕ Õ ÕÕ

Õ

Õ ÕÕ Õ Õ Õ Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ Õ ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ Õ Õ

Õ ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕ

ÕÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕ Õ ÕÕ Õ

ÕÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ ÕÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕ

ÕÕÕ Õ Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕ Õ Õ

ÕÕ

Õ Õ

Õ

Õ Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ ÕÕ

ÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ Õ Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕÕ

ÕÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕÕÕÕÕ Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

ÕÕ Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕ

ÕÕ ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ ÕÕ Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ Õ Õ

ÕÕ Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ ÕÕ

ÕÕ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ Õ Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ Õ Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ Õ Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ ÕÕ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ Õ

Õ

Õ Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ ÕÕ Õ

ÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

ÕÕ Õ Õ

Õ

Õ Õ Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ Õ Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ ÕÕ

ÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕ Õ

Õ ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ Õ

Õ

Õ Õ ÕÕ

Õ

Õ Õ

Õ Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ Õ ÕÕ Õ Õ Õ

Õ Õ

Õ

Õ Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕÕ Õ ÕÕÕ ÕÕ ÕÕÕ

Õ ÕÕ ÕÕÕ ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕ ÕÕÕÕ D Õ

DD

DD

D DD DD DD D D D D DD DD D DDD D D DD D DDD D DDD D D DDD D D D D D DD DDDDD DDDD DDDD D D DDD DD DD

D

D DD DD D D D D DDDDDD D DD DDD D D DDDD D D D DDD D DD DD D DD D DDDDD DDDDDD D D D DDDDDDDDD DDDD D DDDDD D D D DD D D D D DD DDDDDDDD D D DD D DDDD D DD D D D D DD D D DDDD D D D D D DDDDD DDD D D DDD DD D D D D D D DD D D D D D DD D DDDD D D DDD D D DD DDDD DD D D DDDD D D D D DD DD DD D D D D D D D D

D

D D D DD DD DD D D D D D D DD D DDD DD D DD D D DD D DD D DD D D D D DD DDD D D DDD DDDDDD D DD DD DDDDD DD D DDD

!( !( !(

!(!(!(

!( !(!(

!(!( !(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!( !( !(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

k

Existing 26" Lower

NY Bay Lateral

3,000 feet from HDD Entry Point

HDD Exit (1 mile from HDD entry)

Distance from HDD Exit location to

33-foot sturgeon isobaths is 4,560 feet

Rockaway Reef is

3,460 feet from the

Preferred Route

B8

B7

B14

B13

B12

B10

B9 B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B11

Gateway National

Recreational Area

-10

-10

-10

-40

-40

-40

-20

-20

-20

-20

-20

-30

-30

-30

-30

Rockaway

Reef

Marshall Rd

Range Rd

State Hwy

Shore Rd

Overview

Long Island Jamaica

Bay

Existing 26" Lower

NY Bay Lateral

Rockaway Peninsula

k HDD Exit Location

Proposed Pipeline Route

Previous (2009) Route

Existing 26" Lower NY Bay Lateral

Road

Atlantic Sturgeon aggregation

depth (Spring/Fall)

Shoreline

Rockaway Reef

Gateway National Recreation Area

D Sonar Targets (2009)

Õ Sonar Targets (2010)

Benthic Sample Points -

Surfclam Counts 

(Number of Individuals)

!( 0-10

!( 10-30

!( 30-50

!( 50-100

Figure 4.5.2-1

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

Benthic Resource Survey 

for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral

4-29

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-30 

Transco would configure the discharge nozzles on the jet sled to expel sediment behind the sled 

and into the trench, which would provide for immediate backfill as the pipeline is lowered below the 

seabed. Following installation of the pipeline, Transco would conduct a bathymetric survey to document 

seafloor elevations along the pipe trench as well as other offshore excavation areas. Areas where the 

seafloor has not been restored and/or where 4 feet of cover is not present over the pipeline would be 

backfilled using sediment obtained from the seafloor in the area immediately adjacent to the trench. 

Transco additionally would add a top layer of native sediments over the drilling fluid and cuttings that

collect within the offshore HDD exit pit. Following backfill, we anticipate that the disturbed areas would 

be rapidly recolonized by invertebrates. Initial recolonization of benthic invertebrates is expected to 

occur within 1 year after the disturbance, though the establishment of successional communities of 

species that resemble pre-trenching populations may take several years (Kenny and Rees, 1994, 1996; 

Newell et al., 1998). In considering the size of the offshore impact relative to the area of similar habitat 

available in the New York Bight, as well as the rate of recovery by the affected species, no significant 

long-term impacts on benthic species are expected from the excavation activities. 

Pile Driving

As described in Section 2.3, 10 temporary goal posts and 60 temporary fender piles would be 

installed offshore near the HDD exit pit using a vibratory hammer. The noise associated with the 

installation of these piles has the potential to affect marine wildlife including fish, turtles, and marine 

mammals. Estimates of the potential noise levels that would be generated by the vibratory hammer and 

the acoustic injury and behavioral disturbance thresholds for fish, sea turtles, and marine mammals are 

presented in Table 4.5.2-1. The table also identifies whether the predicted noise of pile driving would 

exceed any of the thresholds and, if so, the distance from the pile driving activity that would be subjected 

to noise in excess of the threshold. 

Our analysis indicates that the noise from pile driving would not exceed the injury thresholds for 

cetaceans, pinnipeds, and sea turtles at any distance from a pile driving activity. The noise would exceed 

the injury threshold for fish within a relatively short distance from the pile driving activity (i.e., within a 

distance of 7.1 feet for fish weighing 2 grams or more and a distance of 13.1 feet for fish weighing less 

than 2 grams). The analysis suggests that both sea turtle and fish behavior could be disturbed by the pile 

driving at distances of 13.1 feet and 151 feet, respectively, from the pile (see Sections 4.6.3.2 and 

4.7.1.4). As discussed in more detail below, the area encompassed by the behavior disturbance threshold 

for marine mammals (cetaceans and pinnipeds) is more expansive. 

Horizontal Directional Drilling

Transco selected the HDD construction method for a portion of the offshore pipeline segment to 

avoid impacting sensitive near-shore areas including the beach and significant habitats on the Rockaway 

Peninsula. Following excavation of the offshore exit pit and installation of piles, the HDD pilot hole 

would be drilled and then enlarged from an onshore entry point to the exit pit (see Section 2.3 for a more 

detailed discussion of HDD operations). The greatest potential impact of the HDD would be the release 

(planned or unplanned) of drilling fluid into the marine environment. 

Transco anticipates that approximately 12,000 to 15,000 cubic yards of drilling fluid mixed with 

cuttings would be released into the water at the offshore HDD exit location. This material would collect 

within the pit excavated at the exit site. To minimize the potential for toxic impacts on marine wildlife, 

Transco proposes to use a water-based drilling fluid with non-toxic additives as opposed to oil-based or 

synthetic-based mud systems that have been shown to have higher chronic toxicity effects (Cranford et 

al., 2001). The combined initial concentrations of bentonite and other additives would likely remain

below 10 percent of the total volume of the drilling fluid. At this concentration, the drilling fluid is not 

expected to cause acutely toxic conditions for benthic fauna. Additionally, based on the cohesive 

properties of the drilling fluid in saltwater, the material is expected to remain stable at the bottom of the 

exit pit and not escape into the surrounding area. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
31 - 4

TABLE 4.5.2-1

Calculated In-Water Noise Zones Based on Expected Pile Driving Levels Average Sound Pressure

for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral

Group

Hearing 

Functional Reference Injury 

Threshold

Behavioral 

Reference 

Disturbance 

Threshold

Pile Diameter

Source Pile Driving Levels a, b

Distance Where 

Noise Exceeds the 

Reference Injury 

Threshold f

Di

Noi

Refe

Peak 

(dB re 

1 μPa) c 

RMS 

(dB re 

1 μPa RMS)

d

(dB re 

CSEL 

1 μPa2-

sec) e

Cetaceans 180 dB RMS h 120 dB RMS h 14- to 16-inch 191 175 192 No impact 

Pinnipeds 190 dB RMS h 120 dB RMS h 14- to 16-inch 191 175 192 No impact 

Sea Turtle 207 dB RMS i 166 dB RMS j 14- to 16-inch 191 175 192 No impact 

grams)

Fish (≥ 2 206 dB Peak and 

187 dB CSEL k 150 dB RMS k 14- to 16-inch 191 175 192 7.1 feet 

grams)

Fish (<2 206 dB Peak and 

183 dB CSEL k 150 dB RMS k 14- to 16-inch 191 175 192 13.1 feet 

a

____________________

These values represent un-attenuated pile driving sound levels at a distance of 3.3 feet from the pile for in-water installation at a depth of app

using a vibratory hammer. b Transco used a study by ICF Jones & Stokes and Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. (2009) for near source sound levels for the installation of twe

Transco estimated near source sound levels for the installation of 14

piles with a vibratory hammer in 5 meters (16.4 feet) of water. This study identified sound levels at a distance of 33 feet from the pile. For the R

- to 16-inch piles (i.e., sound levels occurring at a distance of 33 feet from 

environments: TL = B Log (R

sound levels at a distance of 3.3 feet from the pile using the data provided by Transco and the following calculation for sound in sh

5 dB to account for the increase in the diameter of the pile and an increase in the depth of the installation to approximately 30 feet of water. 

1/Ro), where TL = Transmission Loss in dB, B = the geometric spreading constant, R1 = the distance to the sou

and Ro = the distance of the known sound level. c Peak sound level is the maximum absolute value of the instantaneous sound pressure. d Root mean square (RMS) is the square root of a squared time domain signal and the mean pressure. e For a continuous noise source, such as a vibratory hammer, cumulative sound exposure level (CSEL) is a measure of cumulative energy o

vibratory period. In calculating the CSEL, we assumed a vibratory period of 60 seconds, which is the time required to drive a pile to a depth o

to 30 feet below the seabed. f The value represents the approximate distance from a pile where sound would exceed the reference injury threshold. “No impact” indicates th

pile driving would not exceed the reference injury threshold. g The value represents the approximate distance from a pile where sound would exceed the reference behavioral disturbance threshold. “No 

that that sound from pile driving would not exceed the reference behavioral disturbance threshold. h Current NOAA Fisheries Marine Mammal Protection Act injury and harassment thresholds. i Based on Young, 1991; Keevin and Hempen, 1997; Ross, 1987; Stadler and Woodberry, 2009; and SVT Engineering Consultants, 2010. j Based on McCauley, et al. 2000. See also Palmer, 2012. k Dual sound criteria for injury established by the Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group, 2008. Behavioral thresholds are based on Ande

Purser and Radford, 2011; and Wysocki et al., 2007. See also Palmer, 2012.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-32 

Inadvertent releases of drilling fluid outside of the HDD exit pit are possible but not expected. 

Transco would monitor the HDD operation for inadvertent releases. The proposed monitoring would 

include checking the pressure and volume of drilling fluid returns to look for a rapid increase in pressure 

or a loss of returns, which may indicate either a blockage or release. Transco would conduct visual 

inspections of the ground surface between the HDD entry hole and the shoreline at least twice a day to 

look for evidence of a release. Transco has not identified any formal monitoring procedures for the area 

between the shore and the exit pit but stated that inspection personnel on the vessels beyond the exit pit 

would visually inspect the areas at least twice daily. If an inadvertent release is detected offshore, outside 

of the HDD exit pit, Transco would document the release, determine the cause of the release, and then 

implement measures to control the release and to minimize the chance of reoccurrence. Corrective 

measures would be identified by Transco and its drilling contractor based on site-specific conditions at 

the time of the release. 

Transco would stop the drilling activity if the volume of inadvertent drilling fluid returns creates 

a threat to public health and safety or if an inspection/evaluation is needed to determine if mitigation 

measures, including the use of additional additives, are necessary to maintain the integrity of the drill 

hole. In the latter case, any suspension of drilling activity would be temporary and short term. Transco 

does not propose any offshore clean-up of released drilling fluid. Transco has prepared an HDD 

Monitoring and Contingency Plan (Appendix H) for the Rockaway Project, which describes the 

measures that Transco would implement to prevent, identify, and clean-up inadvertent releases of 

drilling mud. We reviewed this plan and find it acceptable. 

Hydrostatic Test Water Withdrawal and Discharge 

During the hydrostatic testing process, approximately 573,500 gallons of seawater (over three 

testing events) would be withdrawn from the marine environment. The seawater would be withdrawn at a 

fill rate of approximately 4,000 gallons per minute filtered through a 200-size mesh screen (i.e., with a 

mesh opening of 0.0029 inch or 0.07 millimeter). For each test, the water in the pipeline would be treated 

with an oxygen scavenger and a biocide to prevent corrosion of the pipeline, and a non-toxic dye to help 

detect potential leaks (see Section 4.6.3.2 for an assessment of the ecotoxicity of these additives). Once 

each test is completed, the hydrostatic test water would be discharged in the same general area from 

which it was withdrawn. Both the additives in the water and the physical process of withdrawing and 

discharging the water could impact marine life.

During the process of withdrawing water from the marine environment, organisms that can 

physically fit through the mesh on the intake screen could become trapped (entrained) in the pipeline, and 

larger organisms could be impinged on the screen. Entrained and impinged organisms would likely 

perish. In addition, marine organisms could be harmed if exposed to high concentrations of the oxygen 

scavenger and biocide that would be added to the test water to prevent corrosion. As described more fully 

in Section 4.6.3.2, neither of these effects is expected to be significant. The proposed water withdrawals 

would be temporary and a comparatively small amount of water would be used. Transco would use a 

multi-port diffuser during discharge to re-oxygenate the water and disperse (dilute) the concentrations 

of the scavenger and biocide as they are released to the marine environment. We also note that the 

discharges would be subject to any requirements identified in applicable permits, such as the 

NYSDEC's hydrostatic test water permit, including any requirements associated with discharge of the 

scavenger, biocide, and dye.

Spills and Operational Waste

Marine life could be affected by a spill of hazardous materials or by ingesting or becoming 

entangled in trash and debris. All offshore vessels would be expected to comply with USCG

requirements for the prevention and control of oil and fuel spills ( MARPOL, Annex V, Pub. L. 

100−220 [101 Stat. 1458]), and would be required to register for the EPA NPDES Vessel General Permit, 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-33 

which includes measures to protect against impacts associated with discharges incidental to the operations 

of commercial vessels. Transco would also adhere to the USCG marine trash policy. These measures 

would protect marine life from the potential for and impacts of trash, debris, and hazardous spills. 

Transco stated in its SPCC Plan for the Rockaway Project (see Appendix F) that emergency 

response procedures for offshore spills would be identified after the construction contractor has been 

selected. We have added a recommendation in Section 4.3.2.3 that Transco should file an updated SPCC 

Plan that includes specific measures to be implemented to identify, control, and clean up any accidental 

leaks or spills from offshore construction vessels. 

Vessel Activity

Potential impacts associated with vessel activities would include the possibility of vessels striking 

fish, turtles, or marine mammals, and noise associated with the operation of the vessels. In general the 

potential for vessel strikes is low due to the limited offshore traffic and the depth of water in the offshore 

construction area (about 20 to 40 feet). The crew and escort boats would make daily trips between the 

shore and the offshore construction site. The pipe transport barges (and the four tug boats that support 

them) would travel between the pipe yard and the offshore construction site once per day during pipe 

laying activities, where one barge would be loaded at the pipe yard while the other would be used at the 

offshore worksite. The dive support vessel could make daily trips to and from the work area if it docks in 

the harbor at night, but the vessel would be capable of anchoring in the work area overnight. The fuel 

barge (and the tug boat that supports it) would make about one trip per week to the work area to refuel 

vessels and equipment. The other vessels, including the clamshell barge, jack-up barge, and pipe lay 

barge (and associated tug boats) would remain at the offshore construction area for the duration of their 

work. While on-site, construction vessels would not be running and would either be anchored, lifted 

above the water, or moved by their tug boats. This would minimize the potential for vessel strikes. 

The underwater noise associated with vessels is attributed to low-frequency sounds created by the 

reverberation of engines and their propellers. Because propeller use by the larger vessels on the 

Rockaway Project would be limited, the noise impacts from these vessels are expected to be comparable 

to those generated by existing heavy vessel traffic in the area. The Rockaway Delivery Lateral is located 

in the precautionary area of the shipping lanes in the Port of New York and New Jersey. This is the 

largest port on the U.S. east coast and third largest port in the United States (DOT MARAD, 2011). 

Based on the proximity of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral to this major shipping center, the background 

noise is likely dominated by large vessels (e.g., container ships) that produce source levels of 180 to 190 

decibels (dB) re 1 micropascal (μPa) root mean squared (RMS) at frequencies between 200 and 500 hertz 

(Hz) (Thomsen et al., 2009; Jasney et al., 2005). Therefore, the background noise in the underwater 

environment is likely similar to the noise that would be generated by the largest vessels that would be 

used during construction of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral. As such, we do not expect that the small 

number of vessels associated with the Rockaway Project would have any significant effect on the existing 

underwater noise environment or on the marine species inhabiting the waters in the vicinity of the 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral during construction.

4.5.2.2 Marine Mammal Impacts 

There is no specific marine mammal foraging habitat in the vicinity of the Rockaway Delivery 

Lateral, but up to 13 species of marine mammals are transients that use the Atlantic Ocean south of Long 

Island during the year. We have determined that at least seven of these species (Atlantic white-sided 

dolphin, bottlenose dolphin, long-finned pilot whale, short-finned pilot whale, minke whale, humpback 

whale, and fin whale) are highly unlikely to be present in the Rockaway Project area during the proposed 

offshore construction period. The other six (gray seal, harbor seal, harp seal, short-beaked common 

dolphin, harbor porpoise, and right whale) are more likely to occur in the area during construction. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-34 

Marine mammals are federally protected under the MMPA, which prohibits the taking of these 

species except under certain circumstances. The MMPA includes an incidental take program that 

provides a process for the taking of small numbers of marine mammals provided that the taking has a 

negligible impact. The most recent amendment to the MMPA in 1994 established an expedited process 

by which parties can apply for an authorization, referred to as an IHA, to incidentally take small numbers 

of marine mammals by harassment. Harassment is defined as any act with the potential to injure a marine 

mammal (Level A harassment) or disturb a marine mammal by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, 

including but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). NOAA Fisheries has the authority to enforce the MMPA and issue IHAs. Transco is 

consulting with NOAA Fisheries and submitted an application for an IHA for Level B harassment of the 

six mammal species with the highest potential to be present in the vicinity of the Rockaway Delivery 

Lateral during construction. A copy of Transco’s IHA, which includes descriptions of the gray seal, 

harbor seal, harp seal, short-beaked common dolphin, harbor porpoise, and right whale, is included in 

Appendix N. A summary of Transco’s request for an IHA and our evaluation of the Rockaway Project’s 

potential impacts on marine mammals are presented below. 

Marine mammals in the Rockaway Project area could be affected if haul-outs used by seals are 

disturbed, 9 or if construction activities result in direct or indirect impacts on mammal species. The 

closest known haul-out sites for seals along the southern coast of Long Island are located approximately 

10 miles to the west and 15 miles to the east of the proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral. Therefore, we 

have determined that the Rockaway Project would not affect haul-outs used by seals. Project-related 

construction activities with the potential to affect all marine mammals include underwater noise 

associated with the operation of vessels or the vibratory hammer; turbidity and water quality impacts 

associated with jetting, dredging, and HDD activities; water withdrawal and discharge associated with 

hydrostatic testing; and spills of hazardous materials. We evaluated the effects of vessel noise, spills, 

hydrostatic testing, and water quality impacts associated with various construction methods on marine 

wildlife in Section 4.5.2.1. Our analysis regarding these effects would also apply to marine mammals and 

their prey. 

The activity with the greatest potential effect on marine mammals would be the operation of the 

vibratory hammer, which could generate noise that may not be masked by existing background vessel or 

ambient noise. 10 Two vibratory hammers would be deployed to the offshore work area; one hammer 

would be in the process of positioning while the other is actively hammering. The anticipated time for 

installation of each individual pile would be approximately 1 to 2 seconds per foot of depth driven, with 

each pile being driven to a depth of approximately 25 to 30 feet below the seafloor. Therefore, it would 

take at least 60 seconds of continuous driving to install each individual pile. Transco estimates that all the 

piles would be installed over a period of approximately 1 week (or approximately 10 piles per day for 7 

days). The total operating time of the vibratory hammer for extraction of the piles at the end of the 

construction period is estimated to be similar to the installation time.

Based on the source levels reported in Table 4.5.2-1, vibratory pile driving would not produce

180 dB re 1 μPa RMS or greater; therefore, it would not result in the potential for injury or physiological 

impacts on marine mammals, such as temporary threshold shift or permanent threshold shift. 11 

Behavioral disturbance levels of sound (i.e., greater than 120 re 1 μPa RMS) could occur within 2.86 

 

9

 Hauling-out is when seals temporarily leave the water. 10 Both vessel operations and pile driving activities produce a low frequency sound. While ambient sound levels in the 

Rockaway Project area are unknown, we assumed that vessel noise due to construction would be masked by vessel noise 

associated with the transit of large commercial vessels into and out of the Port of New Jersey and New York. We did not 

assume that operation of the vibratory hammer would be masked by ambient conditions as this represents an atypical noise 

source relative to existing conditions in the Rockaway Project area. 11 Temporary threshold shift is the temporary, fully recoverable reduction in hearing sensitivity due to exposure to greaterthan-normal sound intensity. Permanent threshold shift is a permanent, non-recoverable reduction in hearing sensitivity due 

to damage caused by either a prolonged exposure to a sound or temporary exposure to a very intense sound. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-35 

miles of the vibratory pile driving activity. Behavioral reactions can include a flight response, changes in 

breathing and diving patterns, avoidance of important habitat or migration areas, and/or a disruption of 

social relationships and interactions (Richardson et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007; McCauley et al., 

2000). Acoustic responses from marine mammals can include masking, 12 changes in call rates, and 

changes in call frequency (Southall et al., 2007; Richardson et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007). 

Physiological responses can include increased stress levels (Richardson et al., 1995; Southall et al., 2007;

Wright et al., 2007). When or how a marine animal responds to a sound depends on numerous variables 

such as the characteristics of the sound itself, characteristics of the animal (e.g., age, sex, and habitat), and 

previous exposure to the sound of concern or other sounds (Wartzok et al., 2004). 

Recognizing the potential effects of the Rockaway Project, and in particular the noise of the 

vibratory hammer, Transco estimated for each species the likelihood of a marine mammal being present 

within the expected zone of influence (i.e., the area expected to experience underwater noise exceeding 

120 re 1 μPa RMS) during active vibratory pile driving. Transco estimated this number by multiplying 

the area encompassing the zone of influence by the estimated density of each animal species in the 

Rockaway Project area. Transco then used this number to determine the number of takes to request in its 

IHA for each species. The results of Transco’s analysis are included in Table 4.5.2-2. Based on this, 

Transco has requested the following Level B take authorizations from NOAA Fisheries: 

• 14 gray seals;

• 138 harbor seals;

• 4 harp seals

• 1 right whale; 

• 65 short-beaked common dolphins; and 

• 12 harbor porpoises. 

TABLE 4.5.2-2

Estimated Marine Mammal, Numbers of Marine Mammals at Potential Risk of “Take” by Harassment,

and Percent of Stock Potentially Affected for the Rockaway Project

Species

Estimated 

Density per 

38.6 m2 Winter

Estimated 

Density per 

38.6 m2 Spring

Total Takes by Level 

B Harassment 

Requested

Abundance 

of Stock

Percentage of Stock 

Potentially Affected 

(percent)

Gray seal Not

available

Not

available

14 125,541 

(minimum)

0.011

Harbor seal 156.409 156.409 138 99,340 0.139

Harp seal Not

available

Not

available

4 6,500,000 

(minimum)

0.000062

North Atlantic right 

whale

0.034 0.034 1 396 0.252

Short-beaked 

common dolphin

145.347 1.908 65 120,743 0.054

Harbor porpoise 6.404 19.895 12 89,054 0.013 

____________________

Source: Navy Operating Area (OPAREA) Density Estimates (NODE) for the Northeast OPAREAs: Boston, Narragansett Bay 

and Atlantic City, August 2007; Waring et al., 2012

Note: m2 = square meter

 

12 Masking is a decreased ability of an animal to detect relevant sounds due to an increase in background noise that effectively 

blocks those sounds.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-36 

As part of its IHA request, Transco proposed the following mitigation/monitoring procedures to 

minimize impacts on marine mammals resulting from operation of the vibratory hammer: 

• The extent of the zone of influence (i.e., the area extending up to 3.0 miles 13 from pile 

driving activities as shown in Figure 4.5.2-2) would be verified using a range finder or 

hand-held global position system (GPS) device. 

• Soft-start procedures would be used before the start of each pile-driving session. Transco 

would operate the vibratory hammer for 15 seconds at 40 to 60 percent reduced power, 

followed by a 60 second waiting period to encourage species to leave or avoid the area. 

This procedure would be repeated two additional times before the vibratory hammer is 

operated at full power for pile driving. 

• NOAA Fisheries-approved observers would be deployed to conduct surveys before, 

during, and after all vibratory pile-driving activities to monitor for marine mammals 

within the zone of influence. This monitoring would begin 30 minutes before and end 30 

minutes after any pile driving activity.

• Two NOAA Fisheries-approved observers would be stationed on the escort boat, which 

would be located approximately 1.5 miles from the active pile driving. The escort boat 

would monitor the entire 1.5 mile perimeter, with the observers monitoring 360 degrees

around the vessel (i.e., between the pile driving and the vessel and from the vessel out to 

the extent of the zone of influence). 

• Pile-driving activities would be conducted when lighting and weather conditions allow 

the two NOAA Fisheries-approved observers to visually monitor the entire zone of 

influence. In the event that fog or poor lighting conditions develop while pile driving 

activities are occurring, the pile driving would be shut down until the entire zone of 

influence could be monitored by the observers. 

• Sightings of marine mammals within the zone of influence would be documented and the 

observers would monitor the animals for any abnormal behaviors displayed while 

vibratory pile driving is occurring or shortly after the pile driving has ended. Abnormal 

behaviors could include aggressive behavior (e.g., tail/flipper slapping or abrupt directed 

movement), avoidance of the sound source, or an obvious startle response (e.g., a rapid 

change in swimming speed, erratic surface movements, or sudden diving associated with 

the onset of a sound source). 

• The vibratory hammer would be shut down if abnormal behaviors by a marine mammal 

are observed within the zone of influence. Pile-driving activities would not resume until 

the animal leaves the zone of influence.

• Information to be recorded during each observation of a marine mammal would include

the behavior of the animal, the number of individuals observed, the frequency of 

observation, the activity of the vibratory pile driver at the time of the observation (e.g.,

pre-pile driving, soft-start, active pile-driving, or post-pile driving), and the reaction of 

the animal to the pile-driving activity. 

 

13 This includes the 2.86-mile area where the sound from pile driving activities would exceed 120 re 1 μPa RMS plus a 0.14 

mile buffer.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
This information is for environmental review purposes only.

Figure 4.5.2-2

Rockaway Delivery Lateral

and Northeast Connector Projects

Zone of Influence for Noise Impacts on Marine Mammals 

during Construction of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral

4-37
4-38 

Transco would provide NOAA Fisheries with a draft monitoring report within 90 days after the 

conclusion of the monitoring. This report would include a summary of the activity and monitoring plan 

(dates, times, and locations); a summary of mitigation implementation; monitoring results and a summary 

that addresses the goals of the monitoring plan; environmental conditions at the time of monitoring (e.g., 

water and weather conditions); survey data including when observations were made and the number and 

species of marine mammals observed; a description of observed behaviors; and an assessment of the 

implementation and effectiveness of the prescribed mitigation and monitoring measures. 

We have reviewed Transco’s proposed mitigation measures, but we have not completed our 

consultations with NOAA Fisheries regarding impacts on marine mammal species during construction of 

the Rockaway Delivery Lateral. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Transco should not begin offshore construction activities for the Rockaway Project

until: 

a. the FERC staff receives comments from NOAA Fisheries, Protected 

Resources Division regarding impacts on marine mammals and Transco’s 

proposed mitigation measures; 

b. NOAA Fisheries issues an IHA to Transco; and

c. the Director of OEP approves Transco’s plans and notifies Transco in 

writing that the mitigation measures may be implemented and construction 

may proceed. 

4.5.2.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Impacts

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

Transco proposes to utilize the HDD construction method for the onshore portion of the 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral. As a result, no temporary or long-term impacts are anticipated on federally

and state-designated significant habitats. The HDD would cross under Jacob Riis Park and would not 

impact the ground surface within the park, except to lay tracking wires and monitor the path of the HDD 

on foot during drilling operations. The tracking wires and foot traffic would not affect terrestrial wildlife 

or their habitats in Jacob Riis Park. See Section 4.7.1 for a discussion of impacts on federally listed 

threatened and endangered species and other special status species.

The sole onshore area that would be affected by construction of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral is 

the temporary HDD entry workspace and tie-in to the National Grid pipeline on the TBTA property north 

of Jacob Riis Park. The HDD operations at this location would disturb less than an acre of grass in an 

area that is routinely mowed by the TBTA. This area provides marginal habitat for wildlife and would be 

restored after the pipeline is installed in accordance with Transco’s Plan (Appendix D). 

Metering and Regulating Facility

Transco proposes to construct the M&R facility within an existing airplane hangar complex at 

Floyd Bennett Field, and would utilize temporary workspace located in adjacent paved areas. The 

pavement in this area is broken and includes sparse patches of herbaceous vegetation, but it does not 

provide significant wildlife habitat. As such, it is unlikely that Transco’s use of the area would affect 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-39 

wildlife at the construction site. While wildlife in the area surrounding the hangar complex could be 

temporarily disturbed by construction noise, most species in this area have become accustomed to 

elevated background noise levels due to the developed setting of the area. Consequently, construction 

activities associated with the M&R facility would likely have a minor and temporary effect on nearby 

wildlife species. 

During scoping, we received comments concerning the impact of the M&R facility operation on 

honey bees. There are several managed colonies of honey bees on Floyd Bennett Field and there is 

concern that the noise and vibration of the M&R facility could affect bee behavior. This concern is 

evaluated in Section 4.8.9. 

Compressor Station 195

Construction activities at Compressor Station 195 would occur within the existing station yard, 

which is maintained by Transco. This area, which includes Transco’s existing buildings and areas 

covered by crushed stone, gravel, mowed grass, and hedgerows, provides marginal habitat for wildlife. 

While construction could temporarily displace wildlife to adjacent forested and agricultural areas, the 

station would be restored after construction is complete (with the exception of areas covered by new 

buildings) in accordance with the FERC Plan. For these reasons, we believe that construction activities 

associated with the Northeast Connector Project would have a minor and temporary effect on wildlife 

species at Compressor Station 195. 

4.5.2.4 Migratory Birds

Migratory birds are species that nest in the United States and Canada during the summer and then 

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 MBTA (16 USC 703-711; MBTA). Bald 

and Golden Eagles additionally are protected under the BGEPA (16 USC 668-668d; BGEPA). Executive 

Order (EO) 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 impacts on migratory birds through enhanced collaboration with the FWS. EO 13186 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

(MOU) 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 

MOU does not waive legal requirements under the MBTA, BGEPA, ESA, Federal Power Act, NGA, or 

any other statute and does not authorize the take of migratory birds. 

To assist in our review of the Rockaway Project, Transco provided the Commission with the list 

of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) for the New England/Mid-Atlantic Coast region (Bird 

Conservation Region [BCR] 30) as published by the FWS. This list identifies 45 species including 29 

species that breed in BCR 30 and 16 species that winter in the region. We also reviewed the list of BCC 

for the Piedmont region (BCR 29), which includes Compressor Station 195. This list identifies 16 species 

that breed in BCR 29 and 2 species that winter in the Piedmont region. All of the migratory BCCs and 

other sensitive bird species that occur in BCRs 29 and 30 are listed in Table 4.5.2-3. See Section 4.7.1 for 

a discussion of impacts on migratory birds which are also federally-listed as threatened or endangered 

species.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-40 

TABLE 4.5.2-3 

List of Birds of Conservation Concern and other Sensitive Bird Species in the New England/Mid-Atlantic Coast and Piedmont 

Regions for the Rockaway and Northeast Connector Projects

Breeding species a Non-Breeding/Wintering Species a

American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) b Audubon’s Shearwater (Puffinus lherminieri) b

American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliates) b Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis) b

Bachman’s Sparrow c Greater Shearwater (Puffinus gravis) b

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Horned Grebe (Podiceps auritus) b

Bewick’s Wren (bewickii spp.) c Hudsonian Godwit (Limosa haemastica) b

Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensi) Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) b

Black Skimmer (Rynchops niger) b Marbled Godwit (Limosa fedoa) b

Blue-winged Warbler (Vermivora cyanoptera) Purple Sandpiper (Caldris maritima) b

Brown-headed Nuthatch (Sitta pusilla) Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa) b

Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulean) Red-throated Loon (Gavia stellata) b

Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) b Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus)

Gull-billed Tern (Gelochelidon nilotica) b Semipalmated Sandpiper (Calidris pusilla) b

Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) Short-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus) b

Kentucky Warbler (Oporornis formosu) Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus)

Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exili) b Solitary Sandpiper (Tringa solitaria) b

Least Tern (Sternula antillarum) b Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) b

Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianu) b

Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow (Ammodramus nelson) b

Oyster Catcher (Haematopus palliates) d

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrine)

Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podicep) b

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) e

Prairie Warbler (Dendroica discolor)

Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalu) b

Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow (Ammordramus caudacutus) b

Seaside Sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus) b

Sedge Wren (Cistothorus platensis) b

Snowy Egret (Egretta thula) b

Swainson’s Warbler c

Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) b

Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferu)

Wilson’s Plover (Charadrius wilsonia) b

Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina)

Worm-eating Warbler (Helmitheros vermivoru) b

____________________

Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008

a Species listed in alphabetic order by common name (scientific name).

b BCR 30 only.

c BCR 29 only.

d Not included on the lists for BCR 29 or 30, but identified as a Species of Special Concern in New Jersey.

e Not included on the lists for BCR 29 or 30, but federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-41 

The potential impacts of the Rockaway Project on BCCs and other migratory birds would include 

the temporary loss of habitat associated with removal of the existing maintained lawn at the onshore HDD 

entry site (0.7 acre) and disturbance of an estimated 1.9 acres of herbaceous vegetation growing through 

and around the paved areas surrounding the proposed M&R facility site. While these areas provide 

marginal habitat for migratory birds, noise and other construction activities could potentially affect 

foraging, courtship, and breeding activities of birds in nearby areas or temporarily displace birds into 

adjacent habitats. Given the urbanized nature of these areas, it is likely that birds have become 

accustomed to elevated background noise levels. Use of the HDD method to install the pipeline beneath 

the shoreline would avoid impacts on birds using this area. 

Construction activities at Compressor Station 195 would result in the temporary loss of marginal 

habitat due to clearing in areas where the surface vegetation consists of mowed grass or hedgerows. 

Noise and other construction activities could displace birds into adjacent habitats, which could increase 

competition for food and susceptibility to predation and interfere with normal breeding activities. These 

impacts would be temporary as birds would likely return to the area following construction. 

Migratory birds are unlikely to be affected as a result of operations of the Projects. Because 

Transco does not plan to conduct any vegetation maintenance following construction of the Rockaway 

Delivery Lateral and M&R facility, operational activities at these sites would be infrequent and short in 

duration. Ongoing maintenance activities at Compressor Station 195 would require periodic mowing of 

grass areas in the station yard, but this activity already occurs at the site. The noise associated with 

operations at the proposed M&R facility and at Compressor Station 195 would be minor and localized to 

the immediate areas surrounding these sites (see the discussion of noise impacts in Section 4.11.2). 

Construction of the Projects could contribute to cumulative impacts on migratory birds associated 

with the development of other projects in the same timeframes and areas as the proposed Projects. A 

discussion of cumulative impacts on wildlife, including birds, is provided in Section 4.13.6. 

Potential impacts on migratory birds would be minimized by Transco’s route, site, and workspace 

selections for the Projects, which avoid wooded, scrub/shrub, or natural grass habitats, and instead would 

disturb terrestrial habitats of marginal value such as maintained areas and artificial surfaces. While 

some waterbirds use the shorelines of the Rockaway Peninsula and the surrounding areas for foraging and 

cover (FWS, 2007), Transco proposes to use the HDD construction method to place the Rockaway 

Delivery Lateral under this area, which would avoid or minimize disturbance of the birds. We believe 

these measures would minimize the effects of the Projects on BCCs and other migratory birds. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-42 

4.5.3 Operation Impacts

4.5.3.1 Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

Transco proposes to retain a 50-foot-wide permanent operational right-of-way, both onshore and 

offshore within the GNRA, 14 and a 200-foot-wide permanent right-of-way seaward of the GNRA 

boundary. As the HDD section of the pipeline beneath Jacob Riis Park would generally be inaccessible 

deep below the surface, Transco would not actively maintain the onshore right-of-way and the land would 

continue to be managed for existing uses by the NPS. Additionally, Transco would not actively maintain 

the sea bottom within the offshore right-of-way. Therefore, no impacts on wildlife or benthic organisms 

are expected as a result of right-of-way maintenance activities. 

As previously stated, Transco would remove sediment over the manifold using a submersible 

pump or divers using hand-jetting or air-lifting equipment about every 7 years during operations. The 

impacts associated with maintenance activities would be similar to construction impacts, but on a much

smaller scale. As such, maintenance activities would result in minor, temporary impacts on the benthic 

habitat at the maintenance location. Therefore, no significant adverse effects on wildlife habitat or overall 

populations are expected from pipeline operation or maintenance activities.

4.5.3.2 Metering and Regulating Facility

Transco’s M&R facility would be located in Hangars 1 and 2 at Floyd Bennett Field. Because the 

proposed facilities would be located inside the hangar complex, operation of the facility would have a 

negligible impact on the surrounding environment, including wildlife. As discussed in Section 4.11.2, 

operation of the M&R facility is not expected to increase the day-night ambient A-weighted noise level at 

nearby NSAs by more than 1.4 dB (Hoover and Keith, Inc., 2012a). Additionally, Transco would adhere 

to applicable permit requirements for stormwater and sewage discharge to the existing municipal drainage 

system as well as requirements for proper storage and disposal of petroleum products (e.g., lubricants) 

used during operations. Therefore, post-construction operation and maintenance of the M&R facility is 

not expected to have any significant adverse impacts on surrounding wildlife.

4.5.3.3 Compressor Station 195

Operations and maintenance activities at Compressor Station 195 would likely have a minor and 

temporary effect on wildlife species. Regular equipment maintenance would occur as recommended by 

the manufacturer in the buildings and on the existing piping and other facilities within the compressor 

station yard. As noted above, periodic mowing would continue in areas covered by grass at the site. 

Transco would adhere to applicable requirements for stormwater discharges and for storage of hazardous 

materials, such as petroleum products. As discussed in Section 4.11.2, the noise levels at Compressor 

Station 195 would exceed the FERC standard of 55 decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA) for 

compressor station operations at a nearby NSA, but the noise would be less than the measured values for 

current ambient conditions at the site.

 

14 The easement on NPS lands would be based on a 10-year, renewable lease agreement, the terms of which would be 

negotiated between the NPS and Transco.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-43 

4.6 FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES

4.6.1 General Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 

The Rockaway Delivery Lateral would extend approximately 2.84 miles into the Atlantic Ocean 

in an area called the New York Bight. In addition to impacts associated with installation of the pipeline, 

the Rockaway Project also would require the transport of construction materials from the pipe yard in 

Elizabeth, New Jersey to the offshore construction site. This would require shipping materials through 

Elizabeth Reach, North of Shooters Island Reach, Constable Hook Reach, Bergen Point East Reach, 

Bergen Point West Reach, and Ambrose Channel.

The offshore portions of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral are located in a marine system that 

supports numerous fish species managed by NOAA Fisheries under the MSA. Specifically, the pipeline 

would cross designated EFH for 21 species (see more about EFH and the MSA in Section 4.6.3). In 

addition, this area is suitable for shellfish harvesting, primary and secondary contact recreation, and 

fishing.

The Atlantic Ocean and proximal coastal and estuarine waters support diadramous (fish that 

migrate between fresh and salt water) and marine fisheries and are home to finfish species of ecological, 

commercial, and recreational importance. A NYSDEC-funded trawl survey from 2005 to 2007 identified 

bay anchovy and round herring as the most abundant forage species in the area. Other important 

recreational, commercial, and forage species found during the study or that are typical in local waters 

include Atlantic mackerel, bluefish, alewife, Atlantic sea herring, American shad, scup, Atlantic 

menhaden, butterfish, striped bass, spiny dogfish, summer flounder, red hake, tautog, weakfish, silver 

hake/whiting, witch flounder, and winter flounder. 

Long-finned squid were also identified in the NYSDEC trawl survey. Squid are highly mobile, 

schooling, pelagic invertebrates that prey on small finfish and crustaceans. Their short lifespan, rapid 

growth, and capacity to spawn year-round lead to a seasonally dynamic resource. Egg masses are 

generally attached to rocks on sandy/muddy bottoms and to vegetation in late spring and summer. 

Marine benthic organisms in the New York Bight are ecologically significant and consist of a 

wide variety of marine invertebrates such as worms (polychaetes and oligochaetes), crustaceans (shrimp, 

lobster, and amphipods), bivalves (clams and mussels), and corals that burrow into or are in contact with 

the substrate. Wigley and Theroux (1981) and others (e.g., NOAA Fisheries, 2011f) have noted high 

benthic abundances in the New York Bight area. 

The New York Bight is also home to the Atlantic surfclam, one of several bivalves that make up 

the bulk of the current filter-feeding mollusk population. The New York Bight supports a major 

commercial surfclam fishery, and the proposed pipeline route is within a portion of the Atlantic Ocean 

that is designated as a certified shellfish area by NYSDEC.

Several species of crustaceans commonly are found in Atlantic coastal waters, including blue 

crab, lady crab, rock crab, red crab, green crab, and American lobster. Horseshoe crabs (an arthropod) are 

another species located in the Rockaway Project area. Horseshoe crabs are an economically and 

medically important species on the east coast of the United States (Horseshoe Crab Research Center, 

2009). Horseshoe crab eggs and larvae are important for migratory birds, other crab species, and several 

gastropods. In addition, horseshoe crabs are common prey for the sea turtles and finfish known to use the 

area. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-44 

Northern star coral is a temperate coral that Transco identified in the vicinity of the proposed 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral attached to artificial reef structures. Northern star coral is a sessile, filterfeeding organism that requires hard substrate for colonization. 

Plankton (phytoplankton and zooplankton, including ichthyoplankton) are small free-floating or 

weakly swimming organisms that drift in the water column. Phytoplankton assemblages in the New York 

Bight have been associated with specific salinity and temperature regimes. Judkins et al. (1979) noted 

that zooplankton assemblages in the New York Bight varied in relation to major seasonal events directly 

associated with water mass movements. Ichthyoplankton in the area contain eggs and larvae for many 

fish and invertebrate species. Smith et al. (1979) reported that seasonal spikes were observed in spring, 

summer, and, to a lesser extent, fall. Larval abundance and species diversity begin to increase in the 

spring, peak during summer and early autumn, and decline sharply in late fall to a low in winter.

Sea turtles are a marine reptile known to be present in the Rockaway Project area. All of the 

species that potentially occur in the area are federally and state-listed threatened or endangered species. 

These are addressed in Section 4.7.1.

Construction of the Northeast Connector Project would not affect surface water resources. 

Therefore, no impacts on fisheries or aquatic species would result from this project. 

4.6.2 Aquatic Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction of the offshore portion of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral could impact aquatic 

resources and fisheries in several different ways. The extent of the impact on aquatic resources would 

depend on the construction methods used, the existing conditions at the offshore construction sites, the 

species inhabiting the affected areas, the mitigation measures employed, and the timing of construction. 

Most of the impacts on aquatic resources would be short-term effects associated with increases in 

turbidity and sedimentation resulting from construction activities (e.g., trenching and HDD operations). 

Construction of the pipeline would disturb approximately 38.0 acres of ocean floor excluding the 

area affected by fallout of displaced sediments from jetting and dredging. The majority of this 

disturbance would be associated with the proposed offshore excavations. These would include dredging 

and trenching involving the use a clamshell dredge, jet sled, and hand jetting equipment. The use of this 

equipment and the proposed construction methods could have both direct and indirect impacts on aquatic 

resources. Direct impacts would include temporary displacement of the seabed and the organisms 

inhabiting it. Indirect impacts would include suspension of sediments in the water column, which could 

clog the gills of fish and other aquatic species, and the redistribution of sediments that fall out of 

suspension, which could bury benthic and demersal species, resulting in mortality of eggs and other life 

stages. Benthic invertebrates and demersal (bottom-dwelling) fish species in or near the excavation area 

would be most affected. Pelagic fish, sea turtles, and marine mammals could also be affected and would 

likely vacate and temporarily avoid the area of disturbance. 

4.6.3 Essential Fish Habitat

The MSA (16 USC § 1801 et seq.) established a management system for marine fisheries 

resources in the United States. In particular, the Congress charged NOAA Fisheries and fishery 

management councils, along with other federal and state agencies and the fishing community, to identify 

habitats essential to managed species, which include marine, estuarine, and anadromous finfish, mollusks, 

and crustaceans. These habitats, which are identified as EFH, include “those waters and substrate 

necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-45 

Federal agencies that authorize, fund, or undertake activities that may adversely impact EFH must 

consult with NOAA Fisheries. Although absolute criteria have not been established for conducting EFH 

consultations, NOAA Fisheries recommends consolidated EFH consultations with interagency 

coordination procedures required by other statutes, such as NEPA or the ESA, to reduce duplication and 

improve efficiency.

We have reviewed the information submitted by Transco and performed our own research. Our 

analysis of the potential for the Rockaway Project to impact EFH and managed species is provided in this

draft EIS. Consequently, we request that NOAA Fisheries consider this draft EIS as our official EFH 

assessment for the Rockaway Project, and that they begin development of any necessary EFH

conservation recommendations. 

4.6.3.1 Managed Fish Species and Essential Fish Habitat

The offshore portion of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral is located within the EFH boundaries

defined as 40° 40.0N, 73° 50.0W, 40° 30.0N, and 74° 00.0W. The boundaries of this area are shown on 

Figure 4.6.3-1. NOAA Fisheries Northeast Regional Office EFH designation tables were reviewed to 

identify managed species for which EFH could potentially occur in the vicinity of the Rockaway Delivery 

Lateral. This review identified 21 managed species. Information on these species and the EFH 

characteristics associated with their various life stages is provided in Table 4.6.3-1. 15

4.6.3.2 Assessment of Potential Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat

Many of the potential impacts on EFH and managed fish species would be similar to those 

discussed for surface waters and aquatic species and their habitats in Sections 4.3.2 and 4.6.2, 

respectively. 

Timing of Construction

The season in which construction takes place can influence the degree of impacts associated with 

construction activities. Construction during periods of sensitive fish activity could cause greater impacts 

than construction during other periods. Transco intends to initiate offshore construction in early spring. 

This is a time of the year when water temperatures are still cool enough to be non-optimal for most 

biological activity in the marine environment. Water temperatures at nearby Jones Beach State Park, for 

example, are at their lowest near the first of March (36 to 41 °F) (Surf-forecast.com, 2013). 

Sediment Loads and Turbidity

The proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral would use several different offshore excavation

methods. The pit at the HDD exit point would be excavated by a clamshell dredge; the pipeline trench 

between the interconnect with the LNYBL and the HDD exit point would be excavated using a jet sled; 

and the excavation for the subsea manifold and hot-tap and for the cathodic protection system would be 

accomplished using hand jetting. All three of these methods would increase turbidity and disperse and 

redistribute sediments. Increases in turbidity can affect fish physiology and/or behavior. Potential 

physiological effects include mechanical abrasion of surface membranes, delayed larval and embryonic 

development, reduced bivalve pumping rates, and interference with respiratory functions. Possible 

behavioral effects from increased turbidity include interference with feeding for sight-foraging fish and 

area avoidance. 

 

15 Impacts on Atlantic sturgeon, which is a federally listed threatened species, are addressed in Section 4.7.1.2.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Proposed Pipeline

Workspaces and ROW

A t l a n t i c O c e a n

New York

New

Jersey

New

Jersey

73°40'0"W73°50'0"W74°0'0"W74°10'0"W

40°50'0"N 40°50'0"N

40°40'0"N 40°40'0"N

40°30'0"N 40°30'0"N

40°20'0"N 40°20'0"N

Figure 4.6.3-1

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

Essential Fish Habitat in the Vicinity 

of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral

Proposed Pipeline Workspaces and ROW

4-46

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-47 

TABLE 4.6.3-1 

Designated Essential Fish Habitat for Atlantic Ocean Waters near Rockaway Beach a 

for the Rockaway Project

Species Life Stage b Essential Fish Habitat Characteristics c

Silver hake (Whiting) (Merluccius 

bilinearis) 

Eggs Surface waters; <68 °F (20 °C); 164-492 feet

Larvae Surface waters; <68 °F (20 °C); 164-426 feet 

Juveniles Bottom habitat of all substrate types; <70 °F (21 °C); >20 ppt; 

66-886 feet 

Red hake (Urophycis chuss) Eggs Surface waters of intercontinental shelf; <50 °F (10 °C); <25 ppt

Larvae Surface waters; <66 °F (19 °C); > 0.5 ppt; <656 feet

Juveniles Bottom habitats with substrate of shell fragments, including areas with 

an abundance of live scallops; <61 °F (16 °C); 31-33 ppt; <328 feet

Winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes 

americanus) 

Eggs Bottom habitats with a substrate of sand, muddy sand, mud, and 

gravel; <50 °F (10 °C); 10-30 ppt; <16 feet

Larvae Pelagic and bottom waters; <59 °F (15 °C); 4-30 ppt; <20 feet

Juveniles Bottom habitats with a substrate of mud or fine grained sand; 

<77 °F (25 °C); 10-30 ppt; 3-164 feet

Adults Bottom habitats including estuaries with substrate of mud, sand, 

gravel; <77 °F (25 °C); 15-33 ppt; 3-328 feet

Windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus 

aquosus) 

Eggs Surface waters: <68 °F (20 °C); <230 feet

Larvae Pelagic waters: <68 °F (20 °C); <230 feet

Juveniles Bottom habitats with a substrate of mud or fine grained sand; <77 °F 

(25 °C); 5.5-36 ppt; 3-328 feet

Adults Bottom habitats including estuaries with substrate of mud, sand, 

gravel; <81 °F (27 °C); 5.5-36 ppt; 3-246 feet

Atlantic sea herring (Clupea 

harengus) 

Juveniles Pelagic waters and bottom habitats; <50 °F (10 °C); 26-32 ppt; 

49-443 feet

Adults Pelagic waters and bottom habitats; <50 °F (10 °C); >28 ppt; 66-

426 feet

Monkfish (Lophius americanus) Eggs Surface waters; <64 °F (18 °C); 49-3,281 feet

Larvae Pelagic waters; 59 °F (15 °C); 82-3,281 feet

Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) Juveniles Pelagic waters; 66-75 °F (19-24 °C); 23-36 ppt

Adults Pelagic waters; 57-61 °F (14-16 °C); >25 ppt

Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) Larvae Pelagic waters; 48-66 °F (9-19 °C); 6.4-37 ppt; 33-6,001 feet

Juveniles Pelagic waters (larger individuals found over sandy and muddy 

substrates); 37-82 °F (3-28 °C); 3-37 ppt; 33-1,197 feet (most 

<394 feet)

Adults Pelagic waters (schools form over sandy, sandy-silt, and muddy 

substrates); 37-82 °F (3-28 °C); 4-26 ppt; 33-1,197 feet (most 

<394 feet) 

Atlantic mackerel (Scomber 

scombrus) 

Juveniles Pelagic waters; 39-72 °F (4-22 °C); >25 ppt; 0-1,050 feet

Adults Pelagic waters; 39-61 °F (4-16 °C); >25 ppt; 0-1,247 feet

Summer flounder (Paralichthys 

dentatus) 

Larvae Pelagic waters, larvae most abundant 12-52 miles from shore; 

southern areas 12-52 miles from shore; 48-54 °F (9-12 °C); 23-33 ppt 

(fresh in Hudson R. Raritan Bay area); 33-230 feet; mid-Atlantic Bight 

from September to February; southern part from November to May at 

depths of 29-98 feet

Juveniles Demersal waters, muddy substrate but prefer mostly sand; found in 

the lower estuaries in flats, channels, salt marsh creeks, and eelgrass 

beds; 39-72 °F (4-22 °C); 25 ppt; 0-1,050 feet 

Adults Demersal waters and estuaries; 0-82 feet; inhabit shallow coastal and 

estuarine waters during warmer months and move offshore on outer 

continental shelf at depths of 492 feet in colder months

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-48 

TABLE 4.6.3-1 (cont’d)

Designated Essential Fish Habitat for Atlantic Ocean Waters near Rockaway Beach a 

for the Rockaway Project

Species Life Stage b Essential Fish Habitat Characteristics c

Scup (Stenotomus chrysops) Eggs Pelagic waters in estuaries; 55-73 °F (13-23 °C); >15 ppt; <98 feet

Larvae Pelagic waters in estuaries; 55-73 °F (13-23 °C); >15 ppt; <66 feet

Juveniles Demersal waters north of Cape Hatteras, and inshore on various 

sands, mud, mussel, and eelgrass bed type substrates; >45 °F (7 °C); 

>15 ppt; 0-125 feet

Adults Demersal waters north of Cape Hatteras and Inshore estuaries 

(various substrate types); >45 °F (7 °C); >15 ppt; 7-607 feet; wintering 

adults (November to April) are usually offshore south of New York to 

North Carolina

Black sea bass (Centrropristis striata) Juveniles Rough bottom, shellfish and eelgrass beds, manmade structures in 

sandy-shelly areas, offshore clam beds and shell patches may be 

used during wintering; >43 °F (6 °C); >18 ppt; 3-125 feet

Adults Structured habitats (natural and manmade), sand and shell substrates 

preferred; >43 °F (6 °C); >20 ppt; 66-164 feet

King mackerel (Scomberomorus 

cavalla) 

Eggs

Larvae

Juveniles

Adults

Sandy shoals of capes and offshore bars, high-profile rock bottoms 

and barrier island ocean side waters from surf zone to shelf break but 

from the Gulf Stream shoreward; including Sargassum. In addition, all 

coastal inlets, all state-designated nursery habitats of particular 

importance to coastal migratory pelagic; >68 °F (20 °C); >30 ppt

Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus 

maculates) 

Eggs

Larvae

Juveniles

Adults

Sandy shoals of capes and offshore bars, high-profile rocky bottom 

and barrier island ocean-side waters, from the surf to the shelf break 

zone, but from the Gulf Stream shoreward, including Sargassum. In 

addition, all coastal inlets, all state-designated nursery habitats of 

particular importance to coastal migratory pelagic; >68 °F (20 °C); 

>30 ppt

Cobia (Rachycentrol canadum) Eggs

Larvae

Juveniles

Adults 

Sandy shoals of capes and offshore bars, high-profile rock bottoms 

and barrier island ocean-side waters from surf zone to shelf break but 

from the Gulf Stream shoreward; high salinity bays, estuaries, 

seagrass habitat; >68 °F (20 °C); >25 ppt

Sand tiger shark (Carcharias taurus) Larvae Shallow coastal waters; <82 feet

Dusky shark (Carcharhinus 

obscures) 

Larvae Shallow coastal waters, inlets, and estuaries; <82 feet

Sandbar shark (Carcharhinus 

plumbeus) 

Larvae Shallow coastal waters; <82 feet

Juveniles All coastal and pelagic waters; <82 feet

Adults Shallow coastal waters; <164 feet

Little skate (Raja erinacea) Juveniles

Adults

Sand, gravel, and mud substrates

Winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) Juveniles

Adults

Sand, gravel, and mud substrates

Clearnose skate (Raja eglanteria) Juveniles

Adults

Soft bottom, rocky, or gravelly substrates

____________________

Sources: NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Regional Office, 2013a ; NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Regional Office, 2013b ; NOAA Fisheries, 

Southeast Regional Office, 2006

a Area of analysis for 10-minute square boundaries is 40o 40.0’ N, 73o 50.0’ W, 40o 30.0’ N, and 74o 00.0’ W, which includes 

Atlantic Ocean waters partly within the Hudson River estuary affecting the following: western Rockaway Beach, western 

Jamaica Bay, Rockaway Inlet, Barren Island, Coney Island except for Norton Point, Paerdegat Basin, Mill Basin, 

southwest of Howard Beach, Ruffle Bar, and many smaller islands. b Designated essential fish habitat along the Rockaway Delivery Lateral is present in areas where characteristics are 

present. c °F = degrees Fahrenheit; °C = degrees Celsius; ppt = parts per thousand (salinity); > = greater than; < = less than.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-49 

In addition to the physiological and behavioral effects, turbidity tends to interfere with light 

penetration and thus reduces photosynthetic activity by phytoplankton. Such reductions in primary 

production would be localized around the immediate area of the dredging operations and would be limited 

to the duration of the sediment plume. Excessive nutrient loading resulting from suspension of sediments 

can have the opposite effect, causing a dramatic increase in the productivity of planktonic algal 

populations. Eggs and larvae are the life stages that are most likely to be directly affected by a temporary 

increase in turbidity and potential decrease in dissolved oxygen concentrations. These life stages are 

more sensitive and are unable to move from the affected areas and, therefore, would be more susceptible 

to impacts compared to juveniles and adults.

As described in Section 4.3.2.3, Transco conducted hydrodynamic and sediment transport 

modeling to assess the potential effects of the Rockaway Project on turbidity and the redistribution of 

sediments. Several model simulations were run to evaluate the concentrations of suspended sediments, 

spatial extent and duration of sediment plumes, and the seabed deposition resulting from each of the 

construction activities. The model input variables were validated using in situ current velocity, water 

surface elevations, temperature, and salinity measured by an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler deployed 

near the south end of the pipeline route between July and August 2009. The grain size distributions used 

for modeling were based on benthic (grab) samples collected along the proposed pipeline route, which 

indicate the sediments are primarily composed of very fine sand (with a settling rate of 0.15 inches per 

second). A copy of Transco’s hydrodynamic and sediment transport analysis, which describes the 

modeling methods, assumptions, and results in more detail, is included in Appendix O. A summary of the 

sediment modeling results for each construction method is provided below and in Table 4.6.3-2. 

Dredging at the HDD Exit Pit

The HDD method would be used for the nearshore portion of the proposed pipeline. The HDD 

exit point would be located approximately 0.7 mile offshore. The HDD method would allow the pipeline 

to be installed beneath the sea floor without directly affecting aquatic resources, except in the location of 

the offshore exit pit, which would be dredged and used to contain drilling fluids and cuttings released 

during the HDD operation. 

Transco’s HDD exit pit would require the excavation of approximately 6.1 acres of the seabed. 

Turbidity and suspended sediment concentrations would temporarily increase during the excavation of the 

exit pit. As described in Appendix O, sediment releases due to dredging were simulated in the model as a 

point source to the bottom layers of the water column. The model predicts that the concentration of TSS 

near the exit pit would be in excess of 1,800 mg/L above ambient levels. The concentration of suspended 

sediments is expected to decrease rapidly with increasing distance from the exit pit due to the relatively 

high settling velocities of the sandy sediments. Most of the suspended sediments would settle close to the 

exit pit, although a plume of suspended sediments with a TSS concentration at or above 50 mg/L 

(exceeding ambient levels) would extend up to 0.3 mile from the pit. These changes in water quality are 

expected to be short-term and the model predicts that the plume would dissipate in the water column 

within 1.2 hours after the dredging stops. The deposition of sediments, like the TSS concentration, would 

also diminish with distance from the excavation site. The modeling predicts that the thickness of 

accumulated sediments would be about 40.3 inches at the exit pit but less than 0.05 inch about 0.5 mile 

from the construction site. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-50 

TABLE 4.6.3-2 

Summary of Sediment Transport Model Results for the Rockaway Project

Construction 

Rate 

(feet/hour

or as noted)

Duration of 

Construction 

(hours)

Total 

Sediment 

Volume 

Released 

(yards3)

Maximum 

Depth of 

Sediment 

Deposition 

(inches)

Area of 

Deposition 

Greater 

than 

0.1 inch 

(acres)

Total 

Plume 

Duration

(hours)

Extent of 

Suspended 

Solids 

Plume 

50 mg/L

(miles)

Maximum Total 

Suspended Solids within 

Water Column (mg/L)

Surface 

Layer

Mid 

Layer

Bottom 

Layer

Hydraulic Jetting “Worst Case” a

1,200 8.6 102,800 18.4 266 14 2.5 0.2 179 139,323

600 17.2 17.7 283 22 1.7 1.3 340 73,817

400 25.8 16.5 311 29 1.1 0.2 482 46,540

Hydraulic Jetting “Typical Case” b

600 17.2 62,000 10.6 293 21 0.8 204 44,410

Hand Jetting at Hot-Tap Site

4 pulses 8 

(per pulse)

31,200 

(for 4 

pulses)

85.1 69 11 

(per 

pulse)

1.2 1.8 173 10,509

Mechanical Dredging at the Horizontal Directional Drilling Exit Pit

30 cycles 

per hour

170 15,300 40.3 45 172 0.3 21 271 1,351 c

___________________

Notes:

mg/L milligrams per liter 

≤ less than or equal to

a ”Worst Case” conditions assume the jetting trench has a length of 10,296 feet and a cross-sectional area of 243 square 

feet. The scenario assumes the sediment from the entire disturbed footprint and along trench sidewalls is displaced. b

 ”Typical Case” conditions assume the jetting trench has a length of 10,296 feet and a cross-sectional area of 163 square 

feet. The scenario assumes the trench sidewalls will collapse and reach stable side slopes and partially bury the pipeline. 

Total sediment volume released is approximately 60 percent of the “worst case” conditions. c This is not the maximum concentration for dredging. The maximum concentration for dredging (1,819 mg/L) would occur 

near, but not at, the bottom layer. This is due to the side casting of excavated material from the clamshell bucket as it 

moves above the seafloor.

Jet Sled and Hand Jetting Methods 

Both the jet sled and hand jetting excavation methods would use high-pressure water jets to 

fluidize and disperse sediments. Transco modeled one scenario for the hand jetting and multiple 

scenarios for the jet sled trenching. The later included a “worst case” scenario assuming a higher volume 

of displaced sediment and three different trenching rates, and a “typical case” scenario assuming a lower 

volume of displaced sediment and an intermediate trenching rate. 16 A summary of the various model 

scenarios (i.e., different rates and release volumes as proposed by Transco) are presented in Table 4.6.3-2. 

For the jet sled trenching scenarios, plume durations generally decrease as the trenching rates 

increase because the overall construction period is shorter. By contrast, the time required for the water 

column to return to ambient (normal background) conditions after construction increases with the faster 

trenching rates as does the spatial extent of the plume because the sediment mass released per unit time is 

greater. Higher concentrations of suspended solids therefore occur at greater distances from the trench as 

the rate of trenching increases.

 

16 Transco’s analysis assumed that sediment would be discharged from the jet sled nozzles into the water column at a height of 

approximately 3 meters (10 feet) above the seafloor. During construction, Transco’s contractor would configure the 

discharge nozzles on the jet sled to discharge directly into the trench behind the sled to provide for immediate backfill over 

the pipeline. As a result, Transco’s modeling scenarios for the jet sled overestimate the extent of the turbidity plume and 

rates of sedimentation. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-51 

The model results indicate that instantaneous TSS concentrations may reach very high levels near 

the seabed but would drop to the 50 mg/L level at the seabed within approximately 2.5 miles for the 

“worst case” fastest jet trenching rate; within 1.7 miles for the “worst case” intermediate jet trenching 

rate; and within 1.1 miles for the “worst case” slowest jet trenching rate. The modeling indicates that the 

sediment plume would be negligible at the surface even very close to the jetting operation for all 

trenching rates. For all “worst case” model scenarios, the sediment plume would dissipate within 4.5 

hours after the jetting operation ends. Based on the above, Transco does not expect construction of the 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral to result in turbidity levels that would exceed New York State water quality 

standards for surface waters of the Atlantic Ocean (i.e., no increase that causes a substantial visible 

contrast to natural conditions) due to the sandy character of the substrate. 

The modeling results indicate that areas closest to the work area would be subject to the highest 

levels of sedimentation, but the depth of re-deposited sediments would diminish as the distance from the 

jet sled operation increases. Specifically, the modeling of the “worst case” scenario at the fastest 

trenching rate predicts accumulations up to 18.4 inches near the trench, although sediment depths would 

be reduced to 1.2 inches about 1,500 feet from the trench, and further decrease to about 0.4 inch 

approximately 0.5 mile from the trench.

The modeling for hand jetting of sediments at the hot-tap site assumed that 31,200 cubic yards of 

sediment would be released into the bottommost layer of the water column (about 3.3 feet from the 

seabed) in four eight-hour pulses. Based on this assumption, the maximum instantaneous suspended 

sediment concentrations would exceed 10,500 mg/L near the seabed, although for the reasons described 

above, the water column concentrations would be near background levels (1 to 3 mg/L) approximately 2.4 

hours after the jetting ceases. The modeling predicts that the maximum increase in bed thickness due to 

hand jetting would be 85.1 inches, but that sediment accumulations would decrease to less than 0.4 inch 

within about 0.1 mile of the hot-tap site.

Additional Hand Jetting for the Cathodic Protection System 

Transco would install a cathodic protection system to protect the pipeline against corrosion. As 

discussed in Section 2.0, the system would consist of approximately 1,200 feet of anode cable laid 

perpendicular to the pipeline in the vicinity of the HDD pit, with an anode sled installed at the terminus of 

the cable. All excavation for this activity would be conducted by hand jetting, which would result in the 

displacement of up to 7,800 cubic yards of sediment along the cable trench and at the anode sled 

installation site. Transco did not conduct sediment transport modeling for this activity, although model 

results for other activities suggest that the sediment plume from hand jetting for the anode bed/sled would 

last no more than four hours after the jetting operation ends. 

Transco provided a qualitative estimate of the sedimentation resulting from hand jetting along the 

anode bed based on downscaling of the sediment transport modeling results from the subsea manifold and 

hot-tap excavation. This estimate assumes that grain size distributions and ocean currents are the same at 

both sites, which are located about 2 miles apart. The sedimentation associated with hand jetting for the 

anode bed/sled would be less than it is for the subsea manifold and hot-tap, but it would impact a wider 

area because sediments would be released to the water column along the length of the trench. 

Backfilling

Transco would configure the discharge nozzles on the jet sled to expel sediment behind the sled 

and into the trench. This would provide for immediate backfill of the trench as the pipeline is lowered 

below the seabed to a depth sufficient to provide 4 feet of cover. Following installation of the pipeline, 

Transco would conduct a bathymetric survey to document seafloor elevations along the pipe trench as 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-52 

well as other offshore excavation areas, such as the trenches for the subsea hot-tap and manifold and the 

cathodic protection system. If the survey identifies any areas where the seafloor has not been restored 

and/or where 4 feet of cover is not present over the pipeline, Transco would backfill these areas using 

sediment obtained from the seafloor. Transco additionally would add a top layer of sediments over the 

drilling fluid and cuttings that collect within the offshore HDD exit pit both to cap these materials and 

restore the contours of the seafloor in this area. 

As discussed in Section 2.3.1.9, Transco would obtain fill for the pipe trench, as necessary, from 

the seafloor in the area immediately adjacent to the trench. The fill would consist of sediment disturbed 

by the jet sled that settles adjacent to the trench augmented, as necessary, by additional sediment from the 

seafloor. The fill would be withdrawn from the seafloor and discharged to the trench or other offshore 

excavation areas using a suction dredge that would be pulled along the pipe trench to withdraw/discharge 

sediment. 

The types of direct and indirect impacts from operation of the suction dredge would be similar to 

those described for the jet sled. Water quality impacts would result from the creation of a sediment plume 

as material is suctioned off the seafloor and discharged into the trench. The sediment plume would 

dissipate within a 4.5 hour timeframe or less as described above for the jet sled. Water quality and 

sedimentation impacts are expected to be minor because less material would be disturbed, but the extent 

of the sediment plume in the water column and sedimentation on the seafloor is unknown. Transco plans 

to file a revised sediment modeling analysis to quantify the extent of water quality impacts associated 

with operation of the suction dredge. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Transco should file a revised 

sediment modeling analysis for the Rockaway Project to estimate water quality 

impacts associated with operation of the suction dredge. The modeling should also 

consider the effect of redirecting discharge nozzles to expel sediments back into the 

trench and any other design modifications.

Seabed disturbance from the suction dredge would be similar in scale to that of a hydraulic 

surfclam dredge. A NOAA Fisheries study indicated that surfclam dredge tracks in approximately 36 feet 

of water lost definition within 24 hours, such that they were difficult to recognize and “blended in with 

the general bottom features” (Meyer et al., 1981). 

Summary of Sedimentation and Turbidity Effects 

Dredging and jetting would create turbidity plumes in the water column, which have the potential 

to 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 sediment-generating activities 

as a source of food, but juvenile and adult pelagic fish would likely swim away from the plumes. 

Turbidity and suspended sediment concentrations could impact bivalves (such as Atlantic surfclams) and 

other benthic organisms by causing suffocation. An increased sediment load could increase the likelihood 

of sediment becoming trapped in a bivalve. It is possible that the increased sediment load would result in 

the mortality of some clams and other benthic organisms. 

The duration of the turbidity plumes and resulting sedimentation would be short-lived and the 

depth of sedimentation, even under the worst case scenarios modeled by Transco, would be less than 1.2 

inches at distances greater than 1,500 feet from the pipeline and less than 0.4 inch at distances more than 

0.5 mile from the pipeline. Transco would mitigate for any short-term loss of surfclams by coordinating 

with the New York surfclam fishing community to see if it is possible to harvest in the vicinity of the 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-53 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral in the months immediately prior to construction, which may substitute for the 

harvesting of clams from other areas. Transco would conduct monitoring during construction and would 

adjust activities (e.g., reducing the speed of the jet sled) to reduce excessive turbidity. These measures 

would minimize the detrimental effects of turbidity and sedimentation, and it is expected that the benthos 

in the affected areas would recover quickly through recruitment and other processes. 

We received a comment from the USACE regarding the potential effects of sedimentation on 

coral in the vicinity of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral. The sonar targets identified on Figure 4.5.2-1 

represent hard-bottom habitats in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline that could be inhabited by hard 

coral species such as northern star coral. Coral in the vicinity of trenching activities could be stressed or 

killed depending on the thickness of sediment as it settles out of the water column on the seafloor. 

Riegl (1995) found that hard coral species are able to withstand episodic deposition of about 31 

milligrams per square centimeter of sediment (equivalent to a layer measuring about 0.04 inch in 

thickness), but showed stress responses or death when exposed to continuous deposition at this rate. 

Riegl (1995) also found that hard coral are able to eject and remove sediment at rates ranging from about 

1.1 to 4.2 milligrams per square inch per minute. At this rate, coral could remove a layer measuring 0.04 

inch thick in about 30 minutes. 

Peterson and Pilson (1985) found no significant stress in northern star coral buried by 31 

milligrams per square inch of sediment every day for a period of 4 weeks. Each day, the coral ejected and 

removed the sediment in about 1 to 2 hours. Peterson and Pilson (1985) also found that northern star 

coral survived when buried at a rate of 93 milligrams of sediment per square inch (equivalent to a layer 

measuring about 0.16 inch in thickness) every day for a period of 4 weeks. The coral showed signs of 

cellular damage after 2 weeks, but growth rates returned to normal several weeks after the sediment was 

removed. Another study documented a mortality rate of 50 percent when sediment-tolerant coral species 

were completely buried for a period of 16 days (Erftemeijer et al., 2012). 

Coral in the vicinity of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral could experience stress or possibly death

in areas where deposition on the seafloor due to sedimentation would exceed 0.16 inch. Assuming the 

“worst-case” fastest trenching rate for the jet sled, we estimate that up to 522 acres of seafloor potentially 

containing hard-bottom habitat occupied by coral could experience sediment deposition in excess of this 

threshold. This area represents a tiny fraction of the New York Bight, which encompasses over 2 million 

acres. In many cases, but especially at distances further from the trench, sediment deposited on coral 

would be removed a result of wave action or ejected by the coral themselves. Therefore, we do not 

believe that sedimentation would have a significant impact on coral due to construction of the Rockaway 

Delivery Lateral.

Resuspension of Contaminated Sediments

The proposed excavations could disturb and suspend contaminated sediments into the water 

column, which could expose biota to contaminants and have a direct negative impact on managed species 

and other aquatic organisms. Any contaminants that are mobilized could be bio-transferred within food 

chains with the potential to cause injury. To assess these risks, Transco evaluated historical data of 

sediment chemistry and conducted sediment sampling along the proposed pipeline route using the 

NYSDEC TOGS for In-Water and Riparian Management of Sediment and Dredged Material guidelines. 

Transco determined that the sediments along the route of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral consist primarily 

of sands. Historical data of sediment chemistry in the area of the proposed pipeline route indicate that 

effects from contaminate exposure would be negligible (e.g., Mecray et al., 2003). This conclusion is 

supported by Transco’s December 2010 analyses of bulk sediment chemistry near the proposed pipeline 

route. Specifically, Transco found that the levels of all contaminants tested, which included VOCs, 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-54 

PAHs, PCBs, dioxin, and metals, were below the NYSDEC’s TOGS thresholds, except for one sample, 

where the mercury concentration was slightly higher than the TOGS threshold (see Section 4.2.2). Based 

on these results, it is unlikely that managed species or other aquatic organisms would be affected by the 

resuspension of contaminated sediments.

Loss/Reduction of Benthic Community Taxa

Direct impacts on benthos from pipeline installation and other bottom-disturbing activities would 

result in adverse effects on benthic macroinvertebrates, with subsequent secondary adverse effects on 

EFH species (e.g., fish or invertebrates) through reduction of forage species. Direct impacts on benthic 

organisms would include crushing, localized disruption, removal, turn over, and deposition of sediment in 

the immediate vicinity of anchors and other similar structures. 

Transco conducted benthic surveys in the summer of 2009 and fall of 2010 to determine the 

composition of the existing benthic community along the proposed pipeline route. During the 2009 

survey, benthic community samples were collected at eight stations just to the east of the proposed 

pipeline route. During the 2010 survey, benthic community samples were collected at six locations along 

the proposed pipeline route. 

The surveys indicate that the benthic communities along the proposed route are dominated by 

shellfish, marine worms, and crustaceans. Shellfish densities were found to be lowest at the nearshore 

and far offshore sampling locations, and highest at the intermediate locations. The densities of marine 

worms and crustaceans generally displayed the opposite trend with higher densities at the nearshore and 

the far offshore locations and lower densities at intermediate stations. During the 2009 survey, three 

species, Atlantic surfclam (Spisula solidissima), the amphipod crustacean Rhepoxynius epistomus, and 

the marine worm Nephtys incise, comprised more than 50 percent of the total individuals identified at 

most of the sampling locations. During the 2010 survey, the most prevalent species included Atlantic 

surfclam, an amphipod crustacean (Protohaustorius sp.), and two marine worms (Polygoridius sp. and 

Tharyx sp.). Video observations from the 2010 benthic sampling identified starfish on the seabed at most 

of the sampling stations as well as egg casings of a marine snail and hermit crabs along the proposed 

pipeline route. 

As indicated above, Transco estimates that approximately 38.0 acres of the seabed would be 

directly impacted by construction and that another 402 acres of benthic habitat would be affected by the 

deposition of sediments falling out of suspension. As most benthic infauna live on or within the upper 6 

inches of the sediment surface, benthic infauna within this 440-acre area would be stressed or lost.

Recovery of benthic communities varies, but studies from Long Island Sound (Murray and 

Saffert, 1999; Rhoades et al., 1978), the Hudson River (AKRF, Inc., et al., 2012), and Massachusetts Bay 

(Germano et al., 1994) indicate that recovery to an equilibrium community occurs within 2 years or less. 

Many factors affect the recolonization process including the texture of disturbed sediments and hypoxia in 

overturned sediments. It is expected that impacted benthic communities would re-establish within a short 

time because native assemblages either would recolonize the affected area or a new community would 

develop as a result of immigration of animals from nearby areas or from larval settlement. Thus, no longterm impacts on the benthic community are expected. 

The potential for direct and indirect impacts on managed species with designated EFH along the 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral from trenching and substrate disruption is likely to differ from species to 

species depending on life history, habitat use (demersal vs. pelagic), distribution, and abundance. It is 

anticipated that short-term impacts on older life stages (juvenile and adult) of fish would be limited to 

temporary displacement during initial installation of the pipeline.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-55 

Noise Effects on Fish 

Marine fish and invertebrates can be affected by noise, both physiologically and behaviorally. 

Transco proposes to use a vibratory hammer, which produces a lower noise level than standard pile 

driving equipment. As discussed in Section 4.5.2.1, the noise generated by the vibratory hammer would 

exceed the injury and behavioral thresholds for fish, but within relatively short distances from the pile 

driving activity. Noise would exceed the injury threshold within distances of 7.1 feet for fish weighing 2 

grams or more and 13.1 feet for fish weighing less than 2 grams. Noise would exceed the behavioral 

threshold for all fish within a distance of 151 feet from the pile driving activity. Given these short 

distances, and Transco’s plan to implement soft-start procedures for the vibratory hammer, fish are likely 

to move away from the area before noise levels from the pile driving exceeds the injury and behavioral 

thresholds. Additionally, the installation and removal of the piles would occur over a relatively short 

period. Transco estimates that it would take about 60 seconds of continuous driving to install (and 

remove) each individual pile, and that all the piles would be installed (and removed) over a period of 

approximately one week. Therefore, the proposed pile driving is not expected to have a significant 

impact on fish in the vicinity of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral.

Release of HDD Drilling Fluid and Cuttings

Transco proposes to excavate a pit at the offshore HDD exit site to collect and contain anticipated 

releases of drilling fluid and cuttings during the HDD operation. Transco estimates that a total of about 

12,000 to 15,000 cubic yards of drilling fluid and cuttings would collect in this pit. Based on the cohesive 

properties of the bentonite mixture in saltwater, the drilling fluid is expected to settle out and remain 

stable at the bottom of the pit (Berner and Berner, 1996; Middleton and Southard, 1977; and A.H. Glenn, 

2011). Juvenile and adult finfish in the vicinity of the exit pit would have enough mobility to avoid the 

bentonite discharge. Additionally, because the drilling fluid is expected to remain in the pit, pelagic or 

benthic species in areas outside the pit would not be harmed. Any demersal eggs that settle in the pit 

during construction likely would be smothered by the drilling fluid resulting in their mortality, and 

recolonization of the pit by marine organisms would be inhibited prior to backfill. As discussed in 

Section 2.3.1.9, Transco would add a top layer of sediments over the drilling fluid and cuttings that

collect within the offshore HDD exit pit both to cap these materials and restore the contours of the 

seafloor. 

Ecotoxicity of Drilling Fluid and Cuttings

Transco’s proposed drilling fluid would consist of a water-based mud containing bentonite and 

associated additives rather than oil- or synthetic-based mud systems that have been shown to have higher 

chronic toxic effects (Cranford et al., 2001). Transco has not determined the specific additives that 

would be used but identified examples of additives typically used in HDD operations. Transco reported 

that the combined initial concentrations of bentonite and other additives would remain below 10 percent 

(100,000 ppm) of the total volume of the drilling fluid, and would not create acutely toxic conditions for 

benthic fauna. Until Transco identifies the specific additives that would be used in the drilling fluid, we 

are unable to verify this conclusion. Additionally, we received a comment from NOAA Fisheries that 

information regarding the concentration and dilution rates of the additives is necessary to assess impacts 

on aquatic species, including the potential for bioaccumulation of additives in the food chain. Therefore, 

we recommend that:

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Transco should file an assessment 

identifying the specific additives that would be used in the HDD drilling fluid for the 

Rockaway Project, the material safety data sheets for each additive, the 

concentration and dilution rates for each additive, an evaluation of the toxicity of 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-56 

each additive, and an evaluation of the potential for bioaccumulation of each 

additive in the food chain.

Restoration of the Seafloor to Ambient Conditions

Transco initially proposed to allow the offshore excavation areas to infill via natural sediment 

transport processes. Transco conducted a study (see Appendix O) to estimate the time required to 

complete natural infill of the excavation areas. The study used historical wave data and engineering 

formulae to assess sediment transport rates along the route of the proposed pipeline. The results of 

Transco’s study suggest that under typical wind-driven wave conditions, the annual infill rate would be 

about 343,100 cubic yards per year at the shoreward end of the pipeline (including the cathodic protection 

system and the HDD exit pit), and about 47,800 cubic yards per year at the seaward end of the pipeline 

(including the subsea hot-tap and manifold). Infilling under these conditions would occur within 1 year at 

the shoreward end of the pipeline and within 2 to 3 years at the seaward end of the pipeline. Transco 

proposed to monitor the natural infilling over a two year period, and backfill any areas that do not infill by 

the end of the monitoring period. 

We received several comments from the USACE and NYSDEC regarding Transco’s initial 

proposal to allow the offshore excavation areas to infill via natural sedimentation processes. The agencies 

expressed concerns regarding safe operation of the pipeline during the period of natural infill; impacts on 

aquatic species due to the open trench (e.g., long shore movement of horseshoe crabs along the trench); 

and future impacts on aquatic species in the event that backfilling is required at the end of the monitoring 

period. Additionally, the USACE stated that it will require active backfilling of the offshore excavation 

areas to surrounding ambient conditions at the time of construction as a condition to any permit it may 

issue for the Rockaway Project. 

As discussed above, Transco modified the proposed action from natural to active backfill in 

response to the agency comments. Backfill of the pipe trench initially would be accomplished by 

configuring the discharge nozzles on the jet sled to expel sediment behind the sled directly into the trench

as the pipe is lowered beneath the seabed. Transco would conduct a bathymetric survey following 

installation of the pipeline and other facilities and would backfill any areas, where necessary, to provide a 

minimum of 4 feet of cover over the pipeline and/or restore the contours of the sea floor. As a result, 

there would be no permanent impact on the contours of the seafloor as a result of pipeline construction. 

Entrainment or Entrapment

Approximately 573,500 gallons of seawater would be used to conduct hydrostatic testing of the 

pipeline. Juvenile and early stage adult fish and invertebrates could be impinged on the intake screens 

and zooplankton could be entrained or entrapped. The seawater would be filtered through a 200-size 

mesh screen (mesh opening of 0.0029 inch or 0.07 millimeter). It is assumed that any eggs or larvae 

entrained during hydrostatic testing would be killed. Spawning areas for several EFH taxa, including 

Pollock, Atlantic cod, winter flounder, and others, may occur in the vicinity of the Rockaway Delivery 

Lateral. Historical information (1977 to 1984) for ichthyoplankton within the Southern New England 

geographic area showed that several of the EFH species addressed by this assessment (e.g., Atlantic 

mackerel, red hake, whiting [silver hake], scup, bluefish, and summer flounder) are listed as principal taxa 

found during spring and fall ichthyoplankton surveys (NOAA Fisheries, 1988). Therefore, it is likely that 

these species may be more vulnerable to entrainment impacts during hydrostatic testing. It should be 

noted that NOAA’s survey included marine waters out to the 1,000-meter bathymetric contour, so 

densities and predominant ichthyoplankton species found at the hydrostatic test water withdrawal location 

could vary. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-57 

NOAA Fisheries’ data (Ecosystem Monitoring Program [ECOMON] and Marine Resources 

Monitoring, Assessment, and Prediction [MARMAP] Program) indicate that egg densities for all taxa in 

northeast Atlantic marine waters typically range from one to three eggs per 1,000 L (cubic meter) of 

water; larvae densities are about half the density of eggs. Considering the volume of water required for 

testing, the Rockaway Project would likely result in the loss of 4,342 eggs and 2,171 larvae (all taxa 

combined). Considering the high fecundity potential for all EFH species addressed, along with natural 

mortality, this limited entrainment of eggs and larvae during hydrostatic testing is not expected to cause 

any measureable impact on fisheries’ populations within the northeast Atlantic Ocean.

Hydrostatic testing could impinge juvenile and early stage adult fish and invertebrates on intake 

screens during the intake process. The number of juveniles and early stage adult fish and invertebrates 

injured or killed would be small due to the short filling times and the limited occurrence of these animals 

near the intake hoses.

Biocides and Other Chemicals Additives in the Hydrostatic Test Water

Transco would infuse the 573,500 gallons of seawater that is used for hydrostatic testing with a 

non-oxidizing biocide (such as X-CIDE®) at a concentration of 200 ppm and an oxygen scavenger (such 

as B-542 or equivalent) at a concentration of 100 ppm to prevent corrosion of the pipeline during testing. 

In addition, a fluorescent dye (or equivalent) at a concentration of 23 ppm would be added to the test 

water to aid in detecting leaks in the pipeline. The active ingredients typically associated with these 

compounds include tetrakis (hydroxymethyl) phosphonium sulfate in the biocide, sodium bisulfates in the 

oxygen scavenger, and fluorescein disodium in the dye. Information on ecotoxicity suggest that 

fluorescein disodium is not acutely toxic to aquatic organisms (i.e., the LC50 is greater than 100 ppm), and 

that tetrakis (hydroxymethyl) phosphonium sulfate and sodium bisulfates are not acutely toxic or are 

slightly toxic (i.e., the LC50 is 10 to 100 ppm) to aquatic organisms (Pesticide Action Network Database, 

2012a, 2012b). Biocides have been shown to cause high mortality of Atlantic herring eggs and larvae at 

sufficient concentrations (Blaxter, 1977). 

The hydrostatic test water would remain within the pipeline for a period of 30 days during which 

the active ingredients in the biocide, oxygen scavenger, and fluorescent dye would begin to degrade. 

Additionally, Transco would pump the hydrostatic test water from the pipeline into a multi-port diffuser

before it is discharged back into the marine environment. This would re-oxygenate the water and mix the 

discharged water within the surrounding seawater thereby dispersing (diluting) at a rate of 15:1 the 

concentrations of the biocide and oxygen scavenger. The resulting concentrations are not expected to 

cause adverse effects on marine organisms. The discharges additionally would be subject to any 

requirements identified in applicable permits, such as the NYSDEC's hydrostatic test water permit, 

including any requirements associated with discharge of the scavenger, biocide, and dye.

Fuel and Chemicals Spills

The transport of materials and equipment between the pipe yard and construction site would have 

little to no effect on aquatic resources but the potential exists for accidental spills of construction-related 

fluids (e.g., oil, gasoline, or hydraulic fluids) into marine waters that could result in water quality impacts 

that affect fish, other aquatic organisms, and their habitats. All offshore vessels would be expected to 

comply with the USCG requirements for the prevention and control of oil and fuel spills ( MARPOL,

Annex V, Pub. L. 100−220 [101 Stat. 1458]) and would be required to register for the EPA NPDES 

Vessel General Permit, which includes measures to protect against impacts associated with discharges 

incidental to the operations of commercial vessels. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-58 

Transco stated in its SPCC Plan for the Rockaway Project (see Appendix F) that emergency 

response procedures for offshore spills would be identified after the contractor has been selected. We 

have added a recommendation in Section 4.3.2.3 that Transco should file an updated SPCC Plan that 

includes specific measures that would be implemented to identify, control, and clean up any accidental 

leaks or spills from offshore construction vessels.

4.6.4 Operations Impacts

Operation of the pipeline would have minimal impact on aquatic resources in the Rockaway 

Project area. The offshore segment of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral would be buried beneath the 

seabed. The primary impact during operation would be associated with internal inspections of the 

pipeline, which would occur at a frequency of roughly once every 7 years. Each time one of these 

inspections is conducted, divers using submersible pumps or hand jetting equipment would expose the 

subsea manifold assembly and attach the removable launcher loaded with necessary inspection tools. 

Divers would then operate the offshore facilities to conduct the in-line inspection. The excavation of the 

subsea manifold would displace approximately 2,000 cubic yards of sediments, which is about 16 percent 

of the amount that would be disturbed during the initial tie-in installation of the hot-tap and subsea 

manifold. The temporary displacement of these sediments would impact EFH for benthic and demersal 

species in the vicinity, but the impact would be relatively minor considering the small area affected and 

the long time period between maintenance activities.

4.6.5 Conservation Measures

Transco would use the HDD method to avoid or minimize impacts on EFH within 0.65 mile of 

the shore; Transco would initiate offshore construction during a time of the year when there is less 

biological activity in the marine environment; and Transco would use mid-line buoys to minimize cable 

sweep impacts associated with anchoring. 

Transco has prepared several plans to avoid or minimize risk to the offshore environment. 

Transco’s HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan (see Appendix H) outlines measures to minimize the 

risk of HDD complications and the potential for inadvertent, unplanned releases of drilling fluid. In 

addition, Transco would implement an SPCC Plan (see Appendix F) and a Construction Spill Plan (see 

Appendix G) that include preventive and mitigation measures to avoid or minimize the potential impact 

of petroleum or hazardous material spills during pipeline construction. These plans include provisions 

that prohibit the onshore storage of fuel and other potentially toxic materials within specified distances of 

waterbodies, and procedures for refueling equipment that are designed to minimize potential spills. The 

plans also outline procedures for containing, cleaning up, and reporting spills. As noted above, Transco’s

SPCC Plan does not identify emergency response procedures for offshore spills, but we have added a 

recommendation in Section 4.3.2.3 that Transco should file an updated plan that includes specific 

measures that would be implemented to identify, control, and clean up any accidental leaks or spills from 

offshore construction vessels.

Transco would comply with all applicable regulatory requirements and programs designed 

specifically to protect aquatic resources. Transco would conduct turbidity monitoring during construction 

and would adjust activities (e.g., by reducing the speed of the jet sled) to reduce excessive turbidity to 

ensure water quality standards are not exceeded. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-59 

4.6.6 Conclusions of the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

Transco’s use of the HDD method would avoid or minimize impacts on EFH located within 0.65 

mile of the shore. Although potential impacts associated with the HDD method are possible, none of 

these impacts are expected to be regionally significant due to the small area that would be affected and the 

relatively short duration of any potential impact.

The jetting and dredging within the Atlantic Ocean for installation of the offshore pipeline 

segment would impact water quality, benthic substrate, and EFH, but the effect would be temporary and 

mitigated by several different measures. 

Noise associated with vibratory pile driving could injure fish or disrupt their behavior patterns 

within a relatively short distance of the pile driving activity. Fish are likely to move away from the area 

before noise from the pile driving exceeds the injury and behavioral thresholds. Additionally, pile driving 

would occur for very short periods of time during construction of the project. 

EFH could be affected by a spill of hazardous materials, but Transco’s implementation of its 

SPCC Plan (see Appendix F) and Construction Spill Plan (see Appendix G) would minimize the risk. 

Finally, EFH could be impacted by the proposed water withdrawals or the discharge of hydrostatic test 

water infused with biocides or oxygen scavengers, but screening of the intake hose and use of a diffuser 

to re-oxygenate and dilute the discharge water would minimize the potential for impacts on the managed 

fish species and designated EFH.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-60 

4.7 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Special status species are those for which federal or state agencies afford an additional level of 

protection by law, regulation, or policy. Included in this category are federally listed species classified 

as threatened or endangered; species considered as candidates or petitioned for federal listing by the 

FWS or NOAA Fisheries; and species that are designated as state-listed or receive special management 

considerations by New York State, New Jersey, or Pennsylvania. 

Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that any actions authorized, funded, or 

carried out by the agencies do not jeopardize the continued existence of a federally listed threatened or 

endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat for a 

federally listed species. The FWS, which is responsible for terrestrial and freshwater species, and NOAA 

Fisheries, which is responsible for marine species, jointly administer the law. As the lead federal agency

for the Projects, the FERC is required to consult with the FWS and NOAA Fisheries to determine whether 

federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat are found in the vicinity of 

the Project areas, and determine each proposed action’s potential effects on those species or their critical 

habitats. 

For actions involving major construction activities with the potential to affect listed species or 

designated critical habitats, the FERC is required to report its findings to the FWS and NOAA Fisheries 

in a Biological Assessment (BA). If the FERC determines that an action is likely to adversely affect a 

species (this would include any taking actions of a listed species under the MMPA), formal consultation 

is required. In response, the FWS and/or NOAA Fisheries would issue a Biological Opinion (BO) as to 

whether or not the federal agency action would likely jeopardize the continued existence of a listed 

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitats. The BO would

include binding and/or discretionary recommendations to reduce impacts to a negligible level as well as 

an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) for those actions that may affect, but will not jeopardize the continued 

existence of ESA listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. An ITS cannot 

be authorized for a listed marine mammal until an MMPA IHA authorization has been obtained from 

NOAA Fisheries.

Rockaway Project

Transco, as a non-federal representative of the FERC, sought information regarding the presence 

of threatened or endangered species, species of special concern, and the existence of critical or significant 

habitats on or in the vicinity of the Rockaway Project from the FWS and NOAA Fisheries. In addition, 

Transco informally consulted with appropriate FWS, NOAA Fisheries, NPS, and state agency offices 

possessing expertise regarding sensitive species, and reviewed threatened and endangered species-related 

database information. Transco additionally consulted with New York State and New Jersey to identify

state-listed species that could potentially occur within the Rockaway Project area.

We reviewed the information submitted by Transco for the Rockaway Project, performed our 

own independent analyses, and consulted directly with the FWS, NOAA Fisheries, and the NPS. We 

determined that 12 federally listed species may occur in the vicinity of the Rockaway Project area. One 

of these eleven species includes five distinct population segments (DPS). We determined that no critical 

habitat for any federally listed species is present in the Rockaway Project area. Our analysis of the 

potential for the Rockaway Project to impact the 12 federally listed species and our determination of 

effect for each of these species are discussed in Section 4.7.1 and listed in Table 4.7-1. We request that 

the FWS and NOAA Fisheries consider this draft EIS as our official BA for the Rockaway Project.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-61 

TABLE 4.7-1 

Federally Listed, Candidate, and Petitioned Species Potentially Occurring

in the Rockaway Project Area

Species Federal Status

Critical Habitat in 

Project Area a Determination

Marine Mammals b

Fin whale 

(Balaenoptera physalus physalus) 

Endangered No No effect

Humpback whale

(Megapera novaeangliae) 

Endangered No No effect

North Atlantic right whale

(Eubalaena glacialis)

Endangered No May affect and is likely to 

adversely affect

Marine Fish

New York Bight DPS c of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser 

oxyrinchus oxyrinchus)

Endangered N/A May affect and is likely to 

adversely affect

Gulf of Maine DPS c of Atlantic sturgeon

(Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus)

Threatened N/A May affect and is likely to 

adversely affect

Chesapeake Bay DPS c of Atlantic sturgeon 

(Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus)

Endangered N/A May affect and is likely to 

adversely affect

Carolina DPS c of Atlantic sturgeon

(Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus)

Endangered N/A May affect and is likely to 

adversely affect

South Atlantic DPS c of Atlantic sturgeon

(Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus)

Endangered N/A May affect and is likely to 

adversely affect

Shortnose sturgeon 

(Acipenser brevirostrum) 

Endangered NA No effect

Sea Turtles

Leatherback sea turtle

(Dermochelys coriacea)

Endangered No May affect but is not likely to 

adversely affect 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle

(Lepidochelys kempii)

Endangered No May affect but is not likely to 

adversely affect

Green sea turtle

(Chelonia mydas)

Threatened No May affect but is not likely to 

adversely affect

Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS b of loggerhead sea 

turtle (Caretta caretta)

Threatened N/A May affect but is not likely to 

adversely affect

Birds

Roseate tern

(Sterna dougalli)

Endangered N/A May affect but is not likely to 

adversely affect

Piping plover

(Charadrius melodus)

Threatened No May affect but is not likely to 

adversely affect

Plants

Seabeach amaranth 

(Amaranthus pumilus)

Threatened N/A May affect is but not likely to 

adversely affect

____________________

Sources: FWS County Lists for Kings and Queens Counties, New York; letter from NOAA Fisheries; and Transco’s Request for an 

IHA, which is provided in Appendix N. a N/A – No critical habitat has been designated for these species. b Marine mammals, which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, also are discussed in Section 4.5.2.1 

and in Transco’s Request for an IHA, which is provided in Appendix N. Listed marine mammal species are afforded 

protected under both the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. c DPS – distinct population segment. A DPS is defined as a vertebrate population or group of populations that is 

discrete from other populations of the species and significant in relation to the entire species (NOAA Fisheries, n.d. [a]). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-62 

Northeast Connector Project

For the Northeast Connector Project, Transco reviewed lists of federally listed threatened and 

endangered species for York County, Pennsylvania (Compressor Station 195) and Mercer and Middlesex 

Counties, New Jersey (Compressor Stations 205 and 207). Based on this review and our own analysis, 

we determined that three federally listed species may be found in these areas. No critical habitat for any 

of these species occurs in the vicinity of the compressor stations. Our analysis of the potential for the 

Northeast Connector Project to impact the three federally listed species and our determination of effect 

for each of these species are discussed in Section 4.7.2 and listed in Table 4.7-2. 

TABLE 4.7-2

Federally Listed, Candidate, and Petitioned Species Potentially Occurring

in the Northeast Connector Project Area

Species Federal Status

Critical Habitat in 

Project Area a Determination

Mammals b

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) Endangered No May affect but is not likely to 

adversely affect

Reptiles

Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii ) Threatened No No effect

Plants

Swamp pink (Helonias bullata) Threatened No No effect

____________________

Sources: FWS County List for York County, Pennsylvania and Mercer and Middlesex Counties, New Jersey. a N/A – No critical habitat has been designated for these species. 

4.7.1 Federally Listed Species – Rockaway Project

The proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral would cross approximately 3.20 linear miles of habitat, 

most of which (about 2.84 linear miles) would be offshore. Onshore construction activities include those 

associated with the HDD installation of the pipeline at the shoreline, the tie-in to the National Grid 

pipeline on the Rockaway Peninsula, and construction of the M&R facility on Floyd Bennett Field. 

Additional details regarding these facilities and how and when they would be constructed are provided in 

Section 2.0.

Construction activities that may affect federally listed marine species include offshore excavation, 

vessel anchoring, pile driving, the HDD operation, accidental spills of construction-related fluids (e.g., 

oil, gasoline, or hydraulic fluids), withdrawal and discharge of hydrostatic test water, and vessel traffic

associated with construction and operation of the proposed facilities. Federally listed terrestrial species 

could be affected by some of these same activities as well as by the temporary removal of vegetation in 

construction areas. No federally listed terrestrial species are reported for Kings County, New York. 

Therefore, potential effects of the Rockaway Project on federally listed terrestrial species would be 

limited to the proposed activities at the HDD entry site and the tie-in to the National Grid pipeline on the 

Rockaway Peninsula. No federally listed species would be affected by construction or operation of the 

M&R facility, including rehabilitation of the hangar complex, at Floyd Bennett Field. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-63 

4.7.1.1 Marine Mammals 

Fin Whale

The fin whale is a federally listed and New York State-listed endangered species (NOAA 

Fisheries, 2012a; NYSDEC, 2013c) comprised of two distinct sub-subspecies found in the Atlantic 

Ocean. Fin whale occurring in waters along the east coast of the United States is from the western North 

Atlantic stock (Waring et al., 2012). Fin whale is the most common large whale species observed in U.S. 

waters from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, northward (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program [CeTap], 

1982). Historically, commercial whaling was the most prominent threat to fin whales. Currently, fin 

whales are the most often reported large whale to be hit by vessels (NOAA Fisheries, 2012a). Other 

threats to fin whales include entanglement in fishing gear, reduced prey abundance, habitat degradation, 

and disturbance by low frequency noise (NOAA Fisheries, 2012a). More detailed information regarding 

the fin whale and western North Atlantic stock is provided in Appendix N. 

No critical habitat has been designated for the western North Atlantic fin whale stock (NOAA 

Fisheries, 2012a), but fin whales have been recorded aggregating in areas to the east and north of Cape 

Cod during the spring and summer months, and within the vicinity of the Delaware Bay/Delaware 

Peninsula during winter and spring (CeTap, 1982). Fin whales have been observed in waters south of 

Long Island, most commonly off of the eastern end of the island, but some sightings have occurred off 

northern New Jersey/western Long Island (CeTap, 1982). Between 2005 and 2009, one stranding was 

reported in Newark Bay (Waring et al., 2012), and in 2012 a fin whale was reported stranded in Breezy 

Point, Queens (New York Times December 26, 2012), but it is very rare to see fin whales near shore in 

the vicinity of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral. Based on the documented occurrence information, sparse 

stranding records, and the preference of fin whales for deeper offshore waters, it is anticipated that the fin 

whale would not occur in the area near the Rockaway Delivery Lateral. Consequently, we conclude that 

the Rockaway Project would have no effect on fin whale. 

Humpback Whale

The humpback whale is a federally listed and New York State-listed (NOAA Fisheries, 2013; 

NYSDEC, 2013d) endangered species. The humpback whale is a global species that can be found in all 

major oceans of the world. In the western North Atlantic, humpback whales can be found throughout the 

eastern coast of the United States throughout the year. Humpback whales that feed in the Gulf of Maine 

have been designated as a separate stock due to their strong site fidelity (Waring et al., 2012). Globally, 

threats to Humpback whales include entanglement in fishing gear, collisions with vessels, harassment by 

whale watching boats, degradation to habitats, and harvest (NOAA Fisheries 2013). More detailed 

information regarding the Humpback whale and western Gulf of Maine stock is provided in Appendix N. 

No critical habitat has been designated for the Gulf of Main humpback whale stock (NOAA 

Fisheries, 2013d). Between 2005 and 2010, humpback whales were reported in confirmed human-caused 

mortality or serious injury offshore in New York and northern New Jersey waters (Waring et al., 2012). 

In April 2012, one humpback whale was reported stranded along the Long Island coast (Riverhead 

Foundation for Marine Research and Preservation, 2010). In general, the presence of humpback whales 

near the southern shore of Long Island is rare. This lack of presence within the vicinity of the Rockaway 

Delivery Lateral indicates that this species is unlikely to be present in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline 

during construction. As such, we conclude that the Rockaway Project would have no effect on humpback 

whale.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-64 

North Atlantic Right Whale

The North Atlantic right whale (hereafter referred to as right whale) is a federally listed and New 

York state-listed endangered species (NOAA Fisheries, 2011a). Although recent data has suggested a 

slight positive trend in population size (Waring et al., 2011), the right whale is considered one of the most 

critically endangered large whale populations in the world. Two of the biggest threats to the right whale 

are interactions with vessels and entanglement in fishing gear (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; Waring et al., 

2011). Other threats include habitat degradation, contaminants and pollutants, climate and ecosystem 

change, low frequency sounds made by humans, and natural predation by large sharks or killer whales 

(NOAA Fisheries, 2012b; Parks et al., 2007). More detailed information regarding the right whale is 

provided in Appendix N. 

No critical habitat for the right whale has been identified within the waters off southern Long 

Island, but the route for the proposed pipeline is located on the periphery of a Seasonal Management Area 

(SMA) associated with the Port of New Jersey and New York (NOAA Fisheries, 2012e). The location of 

this SMA is shown on Figure 4.7.1-1. SMA boundaries are designated within a 20 nautical mile radius of 

major ports along the east coast of the United States and are in effect from November to April to protect 

right whales from interactions with vessels during migration. According to the NOAA Fisheries 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) – North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Survey, three right 

whales were detected in the vicinity of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral between 2007 and 2012 (NEFSC, 

2012). Based on this survey, we conclude that right whales could be observed within the vicinity of the 

proposed pipeline during migration (November through April). Given the infrequency of past sightings, 

the chance of a right whale occurring in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline during construction is low, 

but higher than that of the fin or humpback whales. 

Potential Project Effects

Construction activities that could adversely affect right whales include noise generated by the pile 

driving of the HDD goal posts with a vibratory hammer; vessel traffic and noise; and waste including 

trash, debris, and spills. Since the bottom disturbance and hydrostatic test water withdrawal and 

discharge activities would be localized, these construction activities would not be expected to adversely 

affect right whales.

Underwater Noise Associated with Pile Driving

Transco provided information regarding the estimated noise that would be generated by pile 

driving during construction (ICF Jones & Stokes and Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., 2009). The current 

thresholds for determining acoustic impacts on marine mammals, as well as fish and sea turtles, are 

presented in Table 4.5.2-1 in Section 4.5. 

The hearing ranges identified for large open ocean whales are based on the assumption that the 

sound production range of the species is an indicator of their hearing range (Richardson et al., 1995; 

Ketten, 1998). Based on functional hearing models, whales may detect sounds as low as 20 hertz (Hz), 

with a range of lowest sensitivity at 20 to 50 Hz (NOAA Fisheries Northeast Region, 2010a). Right 

whales have been recorded producing tonal sounds between 20 and 1,000 Hz (Parks & Tyack, 2005) as 

well as vocalizations recorded in the 20 to 200 Hz range (Mellinger, 2004). Right whales have also been 

recorded producing sounds called “moans” at less than 400 Hz (Watkins and Schevill, 1972) and 

“gunshots” with the dominant frequencies ranging from 50 to 2,000 Hz (Parks et al., 2005). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Existing 26" Lower NY Bay Lateral

Proposed Pipeline Route

NJ

NY

A t l a n t i c O c e a n

Figure 4.7.1-1

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

Right Whale Seasonal Management Area

in the Vicinity of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral

Proposed Pipeline Route

Existing 26" Lower NY Bay Lateral

Right Whale

Seasonal

Management Area

NOTE: From November 1 through April 30, all vessels greater than

or equal to 65 ft (19.8 m) in overall length must slow to speeds of

10 knots or less in Seasonal Management Areas (50 CFR 224.105)

4-65

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-66 

As described in Section 2.3.1.4, Transco would install (and remove) 70 piles in the offshore area 

using a vibratory hammer. Although there would be two vibratory hammers on-site, they would not be 

operated at the same time (one hammer would be in the process of positioning while the other is pile 

driving). We calculated the noise resulting from driving piles 14 to 16 inches in diameter as 175 dB re 

1 μPa RMS at 3.3 feet from the source (see Table 4.5.2-1). Whales could be injured by noise levels in 

excess of 180 dB re 1 μPa RMS and may react to noise levels at or above 120 dB re 1 μPa RMS 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Based on this information, we conclude that right whales would not be injured 

by pile driving, but noise from the vibratory hammer would exceed the behavior disturbance threshold for 

cetaceans and could disturb right whales within 2.86 miles of the pile driving activities.

As discussed in Section 4.5.2.2, the vibratory hammer would generate noise for a relatively short 

period of time. Transco estimates that it would take about 60 seconds of continuous driving to install 

(and remove) each individual pile, and that all the piles would be installed (and removed) over a period of 

approximately one week (or about 10 piles per day for a period of 7 days). Based on the proximity of the 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral to the Port of New York and New Jersey and shipping traffic throughout the 

region, it is possible that the noise generated by pile driving would not be audible by right whales above 

existing ambient levels. Regardless, to mitigate the potential to disturb right whales due to sound 

generated from the vibratory hammer during pile driving, Transco would implement the following 

measures during construction: 

• verifying the extent of the zone of influence (i.e., the area extending up to 3.0 miles from 

pile driving activities as shown in Figure 4.5.2-2) 17 using a range finder or hand-held 

GPS device; 

• using soft-start procedures before the start of each pile-driving session; Transco would 

operate the vibratory hammer for 15 seconds at 40 to 60 percent reduced power, followed 

by a 60 second waiting period to encourage species to leave or avoid the area. This 

procedure would be repeated two additional times before the vibratory hammer is 

operated at full power for pile driving; 

• deploying NOAA Fisheries-approved observers to monitor for marine mammals within 

the zone of influence beginning 30 minutes before and ending 30 minutes after any pile 

driving activity; 

• stationing two NOAA Fisheries-approved observers on the escort boat, which would be 

located approximately 1.5 miles from the active pile driving to monitor 360 degrees 

around the vessel (i.e., between the pile driving and the vessel and from the vessel out to 

the extent of the zone of influence); 

• conducting pile-driving activities when lighting and weather conditions allow the two 

NOAA Fisheries-approved observers to visually monitor the entire zone of influence. In 

the event that fog or poor lighting conditions develop while pile driving activities are 

occurring, the pile driving would be shut down until the entire zone of influence could be 

monitored by the observers; 

 

17 This includes the 2.86 mile area where the sound from pile driving activities would exceed 120 re 1 μPa RMS plus a 0.14 

mile buffer.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-67 

• documenting sightings of marine mammals, including right whale, within the zone of 

influence and monitoring the animals for any abnormal behaviors (e.g., aggressive 

behavior, avoidance of the sound source, or an obvious startle response) displayed while 

vibratory pile driving is occurring or shortly after the pile driving has ended; 

• shutting down the vibratory hammer if abnormal behaviors by a right whale (or other 

marine mammal) are observed within the zone of influence until the animal leaves the 

zone of influence; and 

• recording information during each observation of a right whale (or other marine 

mammal), including the behavior of the animal, the number of individuals observed, the 

frequency of observation, the activity of the vibratory hammer at the time of the 

observation (e.g., pre-pile driving, soft-start, active pile-driving, or post-pile driving), and 

the reaction of the animal to the pile-driving activity. 

As discussed in Section 4.5.2.2, Transco would provide NOAA Fisheries with a draft monitoring 

report within 90 days after the conclusion of the monitoring. 

Vessel Noise

Underwater noise associated with vessels is attributed to the low frequency noise created by the 

reverberation of their engines and propellers. Documented reactions of marine mammals to vessel noise 

include indifference, temporary change in breathing patterns, temporarily altered course, change in 

swimming speed when encountered by a smaller vessel, and overall avoidance of the vessel (Nowacek et

al., 2001; Nowacek et al., 2007; Richardson et al., 1995). 

As discussed in Section 4.5.2.1, the proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral is located in the 

precautionary area of shipping lanes associated with the Port of New York and New Jersey, which is the 

largest port on the east coast of the United States. Based on the proximity of the pipeline route to this 

major shipping center, the background noise is likely dominated by large vessels (e.g., container ships) 

that produce source levels of 180 to 190 dB re 1 μPa RMS at frequencies between 200 and 500 Hz 

(Thomsen et al., 2009; Jasney et al., 2005). Therefore, the background noise in the underwater 

environment is likely similar to the noise that would be generated by the largest vessels that would be 

used during construction of the pipeline. As such, we do not expect that the small number of vessels 

associated with the Rockaway Project would have any significant effect on the existing underwater noise 

environment or marine species. Therefore, we do not expect vessel noise would adversely affect right 

whales.

Vessel Traffic

The Rockaway Project is not expected to generate a large amount of vessel traffic. The crew and 

escort boats would make daily trips between the shore and the offshore construction site. The pipe 

transport barges (and the four tug boats that support them) would travel between the pipe yard and the 

offshore construction site once per day during pipe laying activities, where one barge would be loaded at 

the pipe yard while the other would be used at the offshore work site. The dive support vessel could 

make daily trips to and from the work area if it docks in the harbor at night, but the vessel would be 

capable of anchoring in the work area overnight. The fuel barge (and the tug boats that supports it) would 

make about one trip per week to the work area to refuel vessels and equipment. The other vessels, 

including the clamshell barge, jack-up barge, and pipe lay barge (and associated tug boats) would remain 

at the offshore construction area for the duration of their work. While on-site, construction vessels would 

not be running and would either be anchored, lifted above the water, or moved by their tug boats. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-68 

Transco would monitor right whale sighting reports during construction to remain informed on 

the whereabouts of right whales in the vicinity of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral. As discussed above, 

Transco would also have NOAA Fisheries-approved observers to monitor for protected species and 

maintain a watch for right whales. Vessels associated with the Rockaway Project would not exceed a 

speed of 10 knots between November 1 and April 30 and would slow down or stop to avoid striking any 

animal(s) observed in the area. Vessels would also conform to the regulations prohibiting the approach of 

right whales closer than 500 yards (1,500 feet). With Transco’s implementation of these measures, vessel 

traffic is not expected to affect right whales.

Bottom Disturbance

Bottom-disturbance effects such as turbidity, sedimentation, or physical alteration of bottom 

sediments are not expected to affect right whales because the species is not known to feed in the area of 

the proposed pipeline and would be migrating through the region. Therefore, the proposed disturbance of 

sediments associated with trenching and other excavations is not expected to affect right whales.

Hydrostatic Test Water Withdrawal and Discharge

Discharge of seawater used during hydrostatic testing is not expected to affect transiting right 

whales or right whale foraging. There are no known feeding locations in the vicinity of the Rockaway 

Delivery Lateral, and the water would be run through a diffuser before it is released back to the marine 

environment. Therefore, hydrostatic testing is not expected to affect right whales.

Trash, Debris, and Spills

Waste, such as bilge and ballast water, trash, debris, and sanitary and domestic waste, would 

accumulate on vessels during construction. The vessels would adhere to the USCG marine trash policy 

and the SPCC Plan (see Appendix F) to minimize the potential for right whales to be exposed to these 

wastes and avoid right whale entanglements or ingestion of marine debris or pollutants. As noted 

elsewhere, Transco’s SPCC Plan does not identify emergency response procedures for offshore spills, but 

we have added a recommendation in Section 4.3.2.3 that Transco should file an updated plan that includes 

specific measures that would be implemented to identify, control, and clean up any accidental leaks or 

spills from offshore construction vessels.

Right Whale Conclusions 

The potential effects of the Rockaway Project on right whales would be limited primarily to noise 

associated with the installation and removal of piles (e.g., HDD goal posts and fender piles) with the 

vibratory hammer. We consider the risk of this activity to be low due to the low probability of a whale 

transiting near the area when construction is in progress. The risk of effects would be reduced further by 

Transco’s various mitigation measures including using NOAA Fisheries-approved observers and softstart procedures prior to each pile driving session. Based on Transco’s proposed mitigation measures and 

the analysis presented above, we have determined that the Rockaway Project may affect and is likely to 

adversely affect the right whale. 

As discussed in Section 4.5.2.2, Transco included the right whale in its request to NOAA 

Fisheries for an IHA. Specifically, based on a calculated likelihood of right whale being present, Transco 

requested a Level B harassment take authorization for one right whale. We have added a 

recommendation in Section 4.7.4 that Transco should defer construction until we have received NOAA 

Fisheries comments on Transco’s proposed mitigation measures and request for an IHA, and the Director 

of OEP has approved Transco’s plans. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-69 

4.7.1.2 Fish

Atlantic Sturgeon

The Atlantic sturgeon is a subtropical species that can be found along the Atlantic coast from 

Labrador, Canada to Florida (Murdy et al., 1997). Atlantic sturgeon numbers historically were depleted 

by fishing and other causes (Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team [ASSRT], 2007). Although fishing is 

now banned, other threats remain including habitat degradation, vessel strikes, anthropogenic noise, and 

accidental capture, injury, and mortality in fisheries (NOAA Fisheries, 2012d). No critical habitat has 

been designated for the Atlantic sturgeon. 

The Atlantic sturgeon can be found in 32 rivers along the Atlantic coast, at least 20 of which are 

known to be spawning rivers (NOAA Fisheries, 2012d). Five DPS of Atlantic sturgeon have been 

identified based on the marked differences in physical, genetic, and physiological factors within the 

species. Also important to the distinction are the unique ecological settings and marked differences in 

genetic characteristics which, if lost due to the extinction of one or more DPS, would leave a significant 

gap in the range of the taxon (ASSRT, 2007). The five DPS of Atlantic sturgeon (i.e., the New York 

Bight, Gulf of Maine, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic DPS) are grouped by ranges 

according to designations published by NOAA Fisheries on February 6, 2012. 

The New York Bight DPS is federally endangered and includes all anadromous Atlantic sturgeon 

that are spawned in the watersheds that drain into coastal waters from Chatham, Massachusetts to the 

Delaware-Maryland border on Fenwick Island, Delaware. Within this range, Atlantic sturgeon have been 

documented from the Hudson and Delaware Rivers as well as at the mouth of the Connecticut and 

Taunton Rivers, and throughout Long Island Sound (77 Federal Regulations [FR] 5880).

The Gulf of Maine DPS is listed as federally threatened and includes all anadromous Atlantic 

sturgeon that are spawned in the watersheds from the Maine/Canadian border, and extending southward to 

include all associated watersheds draining into the Gulf of Maine as far south as Chatham, Massachusetts. 

Within this range, Atlantic sturgeon has been documented in the Penobscot, Kennebec, Androscoggin, 

Sheepscot, Saco, Piscataqua, Presumpscott, and Merrimac Rivers (77 FR 5880).

The Chesapeake Bay DPS is listed as federally endangered and includes all anadromous Atlantic 

sturgeon that are spawned in the watersheds that drain into the Chesapeake Bay and into coastal waters from 

the Delaware-Maryland border on Fenwick Island to Cape Henry, Virginia. Within this range, Atlantic 

sturgeon have been documented from the James, York, Potomac, Rappahannock, Pocomoke, Choptank, 

Little Choptank, Patapsco, Nanticoke, Honga, and South Rivers as well as the Susquehanna Flats (77 FR 

5008).

The Carolina DPS is listed as federally endangered and includes all Atlantic sturgeon that are 

spawned in the watersheds along the southern Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina coastal areas to 

Charleston Harbor (77 FR 5914). 

The South Atlantic DPS is listed as federally endangered and includes all Atlantic sturgeon spawned 

in the watersheds (including all rivers and tributaries) of the Ashepoo, Combahee, and Edisto Basin 

southward along the South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida coastal areas to the St. Johns River in Florida (77 

FR 5914).

Aggregations of the New York Bight DPS are closest to the Rockaway Delivery Lateral, with 

spawning populations found in the Hudson and Delaware Rivers, but the marine range of the other four DPS 

also overlaps this area (77 FR 5880; 77 FR 5914). Consequently, any of the five DPS could occur in the New 

York Bight (Dunton and Frisk, 2012). The NYSDEC reported higher catches of Atlantic sturgeon along the 

33-foot depth contour off the south shore of Long Island from the New York Bight to Montauk, New York

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-70 

(Laney et al., 2007). This included a sturgeon aggregation area around the 33-foot depth contour between the 

Rockaway and East Rockaway inlets, in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline (see Figure 4.5.1-1 in Section 

4.5). Transco currently is working with the NYSDEC and the NOAA Fisheries Northeast Region to obtain 

additional information about ongoing research within the Rockaway region.

Based on two separate New York State bottom trawl surveys completed between 2005 and 2007, 

Dunton et al. (2010) found that 85 percent of the captured Atlantic sturgeon was caught at depths between 16 

to 33 feet and 50 percent were captured in the region surrounding the mouth of the Hudson River, particularly 

near the Rockaway Peninsula. A subsequent study found that the number of Atlantic sturgeon within the 

Rockaway region typically peaks between April and June and consists of mostly juveniles. The fish appear 

to remain in the area for about 2 months, after which time the numbers decline. A smaller aggregation of 

Atlantic sturgeon returns to the area during the fall (between September and November) (Dunton and Frisk, 

2012).

The available information suggests that Atlantic sturgeon would likely be present in higher numbers 

in the vicinity of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral during the late spring (April to June) and fall (September to 

November). During these times, the majority of the Atlantic sturgeon in the area would be juveniles. We can 

conclude from this and the offshore construction schedule that construction activities and Atlantic sturgeon 

aggregations may coincide in the spring and fall. 

Potential Project Effects

Construction activities that could adversely affect Atlantic sturgeon include underwater noise, 

vessel traffic, bottom disturbance, hydrostatic testing, and exposure to waste, including trash, debris, and 

spills.

Underwater Noise

The amount of information regarding impacts on fish from manmade acoustic sources is limited. 

The acoustic threshold criteria for injury to fish were developed by the Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working 

Group (FHWG) in 2008. These criteria were based around impacts from pile driving but were assumed to 

be suitable for use in association with other sound sources. The threshold for potential injury for all fish 

species is based on the following dual criteria: peak sound pressure level (SPL) of 206 dB re 1 μPa, and a 

CSEL of 187 dB re 1 μPa2

-sec for fish weighing 2 grams or more or a CSEL of 183 dB re 1 μPa2-sec for 

fish weighing less than 2 grams (Fisheries Habitat Working Group, 2008). To assess behavioral disturbance, 

NOAA Fisheries has adopted a threshold criterion of 150 dB re 1 μPa RMS for fish of all sizes (Anderson et 

al., 2007; Purser and Radford, 2011; Wysocki et al., 2007; Palmer, 2012).

Like marine mammals, fish can be affected by noise both physiologically and behaviorally. The 

Atlantic sturgeon is a hearing generalist and uses particle motion to detect sounds (Lovell et al., 2005). Fish 

with swim bladders, such as the Atlantic sturgeon, are considered to be more vulnerable to noise which can 

rapidly expand and contract the swim bladder, and rupture capillaries (California Department of 

Transportation, 2001). Tissue damage may occur as a result of exposure to such sounds (Popper and 

Hastings, 2009). Previous pile driving projects have reported fish mortality related to impact pile driving 

involving 8-foot-diameter steel pipe piles, although other projects involving smaller diameter piles and 

caged salmon as close as 2 feet from the piles did not report any fish mortality (NOAA Fisheries Northeast 

Region, 2012). It should be noted that the majority of research involved pile driving with an impact 

hammer. There is less information regarding the potential impacts of noise resulting from the use of

vibratory hammers. 

Based on the source and noise threshold levels reported in Table 4.5.2-1, we conclude that the noise 

generated by the vibratory hammer would exceed the injury and behavioral disturbance thresholds for 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-71 

Atlantic sturgeon, but within relatively short distances from the pile driving activity. Noise would 

exceed the injury threshold within distances of 7.1 feet for fish weighing 2 grams or more and 13.1 feet 

for fish weighing less than 2 grams (juvenile sturgeon would weigh more than 2 grams). Noise would 

exceed the behavioral disturbance threshold for fish within a distance of 151 feet from the pile driving 

activity. Given these short distances, and Transco’s plan to implement soft-start procedures for the

vibratory hammer, Atlantic sturgeon are likely to move away from the area before noise levels from the 

pile driving exceeds the injury and behavioral disturbance thresholds. Additionally, the installation and 

removal of the piles would occur over a relatively short period. Transco estimates that it would take 

about 60 seconds of continuous driving to install (and remove) each individual pile, and that all the piles 

would be installed (and removed) over a period of approximately one week (or about 10 piles per day for 

a period of 7 days). 

Benthic sampling indicates that Atlantic sturgeon forage for species such as Atlantic surf clams, 

which are present in the vicinity of the proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral. While noise levels 

exceeding 150 dB re 1 μPa RMS may cause the Atlantic sturgeon to avoid the immediate area, the 

sturgeon would not be permanently deterred from the affected area for the following reasons: the pile 

driving would occur over a relatively short amount of time, the area of disturbance surrounding each pile 

would be small, and other nearby foraging habitats would be available. It is possible that sturgeon could 

be attracted to the construction area for foraging purposes if prey items are stirred up from the bottom 

during pile driving. In this case, Atlantic sturgeon could possibly remain within the area of acoustic 

behavioral disturbance during the pile driving. 

Noise from construction vessels (which is not expected to exceed 180 dB re 1 μPa RMS for the 

largest vessels) could potentially disturb Atlantic sturgeon but the response of the sturgeon to this noise 

would be similar to the response described for vibratory pile driving activities, albeit within a slightly 

larger area. Vessel noise typically would be limited to the few vessels making daily or routine trips to the 

offshore construction area, or vessels, such as tugs, positioning other equipment. The larger construction 

vessels, such as the clamshell barge, jack-up barge, and pipe lay barge, typically would not be running 

and would either be anchored, lifted above the water, or moved by their tug boats. As such, we conclude 

that while vessel noise may disturb Atlantic sturgeon, these disturbances would not result in mortality. 

In conclusion, the potential effects on Atlantic sturgeon associated with noise from pile driving 

and vessels would be limited based on the low level of sound produced, the limited area where noise 

would exceed injury or behavioral disturbance thresholds, and the short time frame of the activities. 

Sturgeon behavior may be temporarily affected close to the pile driving and vessels, but the effort to 

avoid these relatively small areas would not require a large expense of extra energy by the sturgeon. 

Therefore, the noise generated by the Rockaway Project is not expected to significantly affect Atlantic 

sturgeon. 

Vessel Traffic

Construction activities are not expected to generate a large amount of increased vessel traffic in 

the vicinity of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral. Construction vessels such as the clamshell barge, jack-up 

barge, and pipe lay barge (and associated tug boats) would remain at the offshore site throughout 

construction and would be stationary or traveling at slow speeds. The vessels transiting daily or weekly 

would be much smaller and would be spending limited time within the narrower waterways of the Arthur 

Kill, Kill Van Kull, and Narrows between Staten Island and Brooklyn. The remainder of the time, vessels 

would be offshore where the width and depth of the waterway would not be constrained. While the area 

off Rockaway Beach is a known sturgeon aggregation area, the species remains near the seafloor when 

foraging and would not likely come into contact with construction vessels at these times. Sturgeon could 

be found in the water column when migrating through the area, but the depth of the water in the 

construction work area (20 to 40 feet) and slow movement of transiting vessels would limit the potential 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-72 

for vessel strikes on migrating sturgeon. Therefore, vessel traffic associated with the Rockaway Project is 

not expected to affect Atlantic sturgeon. 

Bottom Disturbance

Turbidity is not expected to directly affect Atlantic sturgeon because they spend large portions of 

their life cycles in turbid riverine environments (Dunton and Frisk, 2012). Additionally, as stated above, 

it is expected that the turbidity plumes created by the jet sled and other equipment would be localized and 

temporary (lasting no more than 4.5 hours following the activity), and would have a minimal and shortterm impact on the substrate and the water column within the area. Because Atlantic sturgeon is a bottom 

feeder, it may be at risk of injury or mortality from direct interactions with the clamshell dredge, jet sled,

hand jets, or suction dredge, which would be operated on the seafloor. In addition, Transco’s planned 

construction schedule would overlap with the period when Atlantic sturgeon numbers are at their peak. 

There have been no direct studies addressing the interactions between Atlantic sturgeon and jet 

sleds or clamshell dredges. Atlantic sturgeon does not appear to display a fear response, so sturgeon in 

the path of the jet sled or the clamshell dredge bucket may not be sufficiently disturbed to move away 

(Dunton and Frisk, 2012). Further, the jet sled and clamshell dredge bucket may stir up benthic prey 

items buried within sediments that could attract Atlantic sturgeon to the area while equipment is

operating. This would increase the potential for direct interaction between the jet sled and dredge with

individual Atlantic sturgeon. We do not expect that Atlantic sturgeon would be at serious risk of injury or 

mortality from these activities due to the slow rates of movement of the dredge and jet equipment and the 

short period of time that these activities would occur. For example, even operating at the slowest 

practicable speed, Transco estimates it would take only a few days to complete the jetting of the entire 

offshore pipeline.

Atlantic sturgeon prey includes crustaceans, marine worms, and bivalve shellfish, which are 

known to occur in the vicinity of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral. The benthic community within this 

area likely is similar to that of other shallow, sandy habitats in the New York Bight. Preliminary studies 

of stomach content samples show that the stomachs of Atlantic sturgeon are full while in the Rockaway 

area, indicating that this may be an important feeding ground for the sturgeon that aggregate at this 

location (Dunton and Frisk, 2012). Therefore, bottom-disturbing activities, such as use of the jet sled,

could reduce the amount of important prey items for Atlantic sturgeon in the offshore work area. Trench 

excavation, turbidity, and re-deposition of sediments during construction may bury benthos, but the 

affected area would be only a small portion of the New York Bight (which encompasses about 31,276 

square miles or over 20 million acres). Additionally, the benthic community would recover quickly, 

probably within a couple of years after construction. 

Based on the short duration of construction and the rate of benthic community recovery in the 

disturbed area, effects on Atlantic sturgeon prey assemblages would be short-term. During and directly 

following construction, Atlantic sturgeon could continue feeding in the greater Rockaway region, 

including the area immediately surrounding the location of significant direct and indirect impact from 

construction. Additionally, the Rockaway Delivery Lateral would not permanently deter Atlantic 

sturgeon from returning to the area. Following recovery of the benthic assemblages, Atlantic sturgeon 

could resume feeding in the areas affected by construction. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-73 

In conclusion, bottom-disturbing activities such as dredging and jet-trenching would have the 

potential to affect Atlantic sturgeon by removing and disturbing their prey and by interaction with the 

clamshell dredge, jet sled, diver-directed hand-jets, and suction dredge. The area in the vicinity of the 

Rockaway Lateral may be an important foraging habitat for the Atlantic sturgeon, but it is not unique 

from the surrounding New York Bight region. Therefore, any sturgeon that may be deterred from feeding 

within the construction area could easily move to other nearby habitat to feed, so disturbance of foraging 

habitat would be minimal and temporary. 

The jet sled would move at a very slow speed (at most, 0.25 mile per hour) and would be 

operating on the seafloor for a maximum of a few days. Therefore, the potential for interaction between 

the jet sled and Atlantic sturgeon would be limited and temporary, but possible, due to the high likelihood 

of sturgeon occurrence in the area and the sturgeon’s limited fear response. Hand-jetting activities would 

be diver-assisted and would occur at a much slower rate than jet sledding. Divers would be instructed on 

the importance of avoiding impacts on sturgeon and would report any observed sturgeon. Therefore, 

hand-jetting is not expected to significantly affect sturgeon. Use of the clamshell dredge to excavate the 

HDD exit pit would occur over a period of about 1 week; therefore, the potential for interaction between 

sturgeon and the clamshell dredge is possible, but would be limited. Like the jet sled, the suction dredge 

would move at a slow rate in areas that have already been disturbed, and the suction dredging would be 

completed over a short period of 1 to 2 weeks. Therefore, we do not expect that the use of the suction 

dredge would significantly affect sturgeon.

Hydrostatic Testing

Individual Atlantic sturgeon could be entrained or impinged during the intake of seawater for the 

hydrostatic tests, but this is unlikely. A relatively small amount of seawater would be used and Transco 

would elevate the water intakes off the seafloor and use screens on the intakes to reduce the number of 

organisms entrained within the pipeline. Approximately 573,500 gallons of water would be withdrawn at 

a rate of about 4,000 gallons per minute (i.e., for a total of about two and half hours) over three testing 

events. Atlantic sturgeon larvae are approximately 0.3 inches (7.8 millimeters) in length at hatching, so it 

is unlikely that sturgeon would pass through the intake screen, which would have a mesh opening of 

0.0029 inch (0.07 millimeter). Based on studies of sturgeon impingement associated with water intakes 

for a nuclear facility, Atlantic sturgeon should be able to escape the flow of water into the intake given the 

slow rate of withdrawal. Specifically, NOAA Fisheries found relatively small numbers of impinged 

Atlantic sturgeon (average of 11.45 sturgeon per year from 2001 to 2008) on intakes for a nuclear facility 

with flow rates ranging from about 1 million to 1.8 million gallons per minute (NOAA Fisheries, 2013e), 

which is 250 to 450 times the anticipated intake rate for the Rockaway Project. 

The discharge of seawater used during hydrostatic testing is not expected to affect Atlantic 

sturgeon. As discussed in Section 4.6.3.2, the water would be pumped through a multi-port diffuser 

before it is discharged (at a rate of 2,000 gallons per minute) back to the marine environment. This would 

re-oxygenate and mix the discharged water with the surrounding sea water thereby dispersing (diluting) at 

a rate of 15:1 the concentrations of the biocide and oxygen scavenger in the test water. The resulting 

concentrations of these additives are not expected to cause adverse effects on marine organisms.

Trash, Debris, and Spills

Atlantic sturgeon could potentially be exposed to operational waste or solid debris during 

construction, but this is unlikely because the offshore vessels would adhere to the USCG marine trash 

policy and the SPCC Plan (see Appendix F). While Transco’s SPCC Plan does not identify emergency 

response procedures for offshore spills, we have added a recommendation in Section 4.3.2.3 that Transco 

should file an updated plan that includes specific measures that would be implemented to identify, 

control, and clean up any accidental leaks or spills from offshore construction vessels.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-74 

Atlantic Sturgeon Conclusions 

We conclude that Atlantic sturgeon from the New York Bight DPS is most likely to occur in the 

vicinity of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral, but sturgeons from other DPS also have the potential to occur 

in the area. Atlantic sturgeon occurrences within the Rockaway region typically peak between April and 

June and consist mostly of juveniles. A smaller aggregation of Atlantic sturgeon returns to the area 

during the fall (September to November). Therefore, some of the proposed offshore construction 

activities would occur when sturgeon numbers in the New York Bight are at their highest. 

We conclude that vessel traffic associated with the Rockaway Project would not affect Atlantic 

sturgeon. It is also unlikely that Atlantic sturgeon would be injured by the noise of any construction 

activities associated with the Rockaway Project, but sturgeon may avoid areas close to the vibratory 

hammer and vessels when they are in operation. Bottom-disturbing activities such as dredging and jettrenching have the potential to affect Atlantic sturgeon by removing and disturbing prey species, causing 

sturgeon that are deterred from feeding within the construction area to move to nearby unaffected areas. 

Sturgeon may also be affected by potential interactions with the dredge and jet sled and other equipment. 

Although the equipment would move at slow speeds and would be operating on the seafloor for a limited 

period of time, there is the potential for impacts due to the aggregation of Atlantic sturgeon in the area at 

the time of construction. 

Based on the analysis presented above, we conclude that the Rockaway Project may affect, and is

likely to adversely affect the Atlantic sturgeon. 

4.7.1.3 Shortnose Sturgeon 

The shortnose sturgeon is a federally listed endangered species and state-listed endangered 

species in New York and New Jersey. It is a large, long-lived benthic-feeding, anadromous species that 

primarily inhabits slow-moving riverine, estuarine, and marine nearshore habitats. In New York, the 

shortnose sturgeon is found in the lower portion of the Hudson River from the southern tip of Manhattan 

to the Troy Dam (NYSDEC, 2013b). The most recent estimates using mark-recapture methods have 

suggested the population size in the Hudson River is above 60,000 individuals (Bain et al., 2007). 

Shortnose sturgeon travel upriver to spawn (NOAA Fisheries, 2010). It has been reported that 

adults in the Hudson River occur in both freshwater and upper tidal saline areas all year. From late spring 

to early fall, the sturgeon are typically in the deep channels in freshwater and brackish habitats. In late 

fall, most adults congregate in a single wintering site (Bain et al., 2007), whereas young are found in 

freshwater throughout the year (NOAA Fisheries, 1998). Spawning begins in mid- to late-spring, when 

water temperatures increase to 46 to 48 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), and usually ends once temperatures reach 

54 to 59 °F. Juveniles are typically found at the saltwater/freshwater interface, and move back and forth 

in the low salinity area during the summer. In the Hudson River, juveniles are usually found in channels 

over silt substrates (NOAA Fisheries, 1998). 

Because shortnose sturgeon are unlikely to be found in in the ocean area off the Rockaway 

Peninsula, we conclude that the Rockaway Project would have no effect on this species. 

4.7.1.4 Marine Turtles 

Four sea turtle species were identified by NOAA Fisheries as having the potential to occur in the 

vicinity of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral: the leatherback, Kemp’s Ridley, green, and loggerhead sea 

turtles. No critical habitat has been designated for any of these species in the vicinity of the proposed 

pipeline, nor has any of these species been known to nest in this area (FWS, 2012a-d; NOAA Fisheries, 

2011b-e).

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-75 

Leatherback

The leatherback is a federally listed endangered species throughout its range, which includes both

the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (NOAA Fisheries, 2012c; FWS, 2012d). Threats to leatherback turtles 

include harvest outside of the United States, incidental capture in fishing gear, and underwater noise 

generated by vessels and other human-related in-water activities (NOAA Fisheries, 2012c). Leatherbacks 

have been observed on the east coast from North Carolina to Nova Scotia with the greatest concentrations 

reported between Long Island and the Gulf of Maine. Concentrations of migrating leatherbacks have 

been observed south of central Long Island and to the east of New Jersey (Shoop and Kenney, 1992). 

Most sightings along Long Island have been towards the northern end of the island away from the 

Rockaway Project area (CeTAP, 1982). The waters south of Long Island are not expected to be important 

feeding habitat for leatherback sea turtles, but leatherbacks may feed in this area during migrations. 

Between 2008 and 2012, no stranding’s of this species were reported in Queens County, New York

(NOAA Fisheries Southeast Fisheries Science Center [SEFSC], 2012). 

Because loggerheads have been documented in the waters south of Long Island, we conclude that

these sea turtles could potentially occur within the offshore construction area during the summer and fall 

(May through November). 

Kemp’s Ridley

The Kemp’s ridley sea turtle is a federally listed endangered species (NOAA Fisheries, 2011d; 

FWS, 2012b). These sea turtles face threats similar to many other sea turtles including egg harvesting, 

incidental capture in fishing gear, and under water noise generated from human in-water activities 

(NOAA Fisheries, 2011c; NOAA Fisheries, 2011d). Kemp’s ridley turtles commonly are encountered in 

New York waters and have been observed off the coast of Long Island (CeTAP, 1982; Morreale et al., 

1992). Five strandings of Kemp’s ridley turtles were reported in Queens County, New York between

2008 and 2012, with the earliest stranding reported in July (SEFSC, 2012). While the species is more 

commonly found within the Long Island Sound, we conclude that its presence in the offshore construction 

area is possible during the summer and fall months (May through early November). 

Green

The green sea turtle is a federally listed endangered species, with a breeding population in the 

northeast Atlantic (NOAA Fisheries, 2011e). Threats to this species include commercial harvest, capture 

in fishing gear, and under water noise generated by in-water human activities (NOAA Fisheries, 2011e). 

Green sea turtles are found during summer months in the northern Atlantic where they typically feed in 

shallow waters abundant in algae or marine grass, and the species has been observed in the offshore 

construction area in this timeframe (CeTAP, 1982; NOAA Fisheries, 2011e). While no strandings of 

green sea turtles have been reported in Queens County, New York, they have been reported in 

neighboring counties between 2008 and 2012 (SEFSC, 2012). Because green sea turtles previously have 

been observed in the New York Bight during summer months, we conclude that the species potentially 

could occur in the offshore construction area between June and early November. 

Loggerhead 

The loggerhead sea turtle initially was listed as federally threatened throughout its range (FWS,

2012a), but in 2011, the species was divided into nine DPS, including the North Atlantic Ocean DPS, 

which is listed as federally endangered (NOAA Fisheries, 2011b; FWS, 2012a). The main threat to 

loggerhead sea turtles is incidental capture in fishing gear. Other threats include noise from boating 

traffic, seismic testing and other sound sources, direct harvest, ingestion of marine debris, and loss of 

nesting habitat (NOAA Fisheries, 2011b; NOAA Fisheries, 2011b, 2011c). In New York marine waters, 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-76 

the loggerhead is the most frequently observed sea turtle between June and mid-November. During these 

summer months, waters of the continental shelf in the New York Bight have been reported to harbor 

significant concentrations of loggerheads (CeTAP, 1982). The occurrence of this species in Queens 

County, New York has been confirmed by reported strandings and sightings within the New York Bight 

(SEFSC, 2012). Because they have been documented in the region, we conclude that loggerheads 

potentially could occur within the offshore construction area between June and November. 

Potential Project Effects

Underwater Noise

Sea turtles could have similar reactions to underwater noise as marine mammals, but reactions 

have not been well documented. Additionally, the hearing capabilities of sea turtles are much less studied 

and not as well-known as those of marine mammals. Various studies have shown that sea turtle hearing is 

varied based on species and age of the animal. Like large whales, sea turtles appear to hear best at lower 

frequencies. Juvenile loggerheads were found to have an effective hearing range of 250 to 750 Hz with 

peak sensitivity at 250 Hz (Bartol et al., 1999). Lenhardt (1994) reported loggerhead sea turtles exhibited 

a startle response from low frequency (20 to 80 Hz) sources and determined that an effective hearing 

range for sea turtles was 100 to 800 Hz, with an upper limit of 2,000 Hz. Ketten and Bartol (2005) 

reported similar findings, but differences were noted when comparing juveniles and adults. They found 

that hatchling loggerhead sea turtles, their smallest experimental group, had the greatest hearing range at

100 to 900 Hz, whereas adult green sea turtles, their largest experimental group, had the most condensed 

hearing range at 100 to 500 Hz. Overall, these studies show that sea turtles hear best at low frequencies, 

with the potential for some sensitivity to high frequency sounds up to 2,000 Hz.

Based on the threshold levels reported in Table 4.5.2-1, we conclude that none of the listed sea turtle 

species would be injured by noise associated with pile driving activities. The noise from the vibratory 

hammer would exceed the behavioral disturbance threshold for sea turtles, but for a short distance (i.e., 13.1 

feet) from the pile driving activity. Given this short distance and Transco’s plan to implement soft-start 

procedures for the vibratory hammer, any sea turtles present at the time of construction would be likely to 

move away from the area before the noise level from the pile driving exceeds the behavioral disturbance 

threshold. As noted elsewhere, the installation and removal of the piles would occur over a relatively 

short period. Transco estimates that it would take about 60 seconds of continuous driving to install (and 

remove) each individual pile, and that all the piles would be installed (and removed) over a period of 

approximately one week. 

Sea turtles could be disturbed by the noise generated by the largest construction vessels (up to 

180 dB re 1 μPa RMS), but most of the offshore work would likely be completed during the spring when 

sea turtles are less likely to be present. Furthermore, the route of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral is close 

to the Port of New York and New Jersey, which is used by commercial vessels that are larger and noisier 

than those that would be used for construction of the pipeline. Sea turtles that routinely spend time in the 

region are probably accustomed to the continuous noise of these large vessels. Therefore, we conclude 

that individual sea turtles could potentially be exposed to vessel noise caused by construction of the 

pipeline, but this exposure is unlikely to result in any significant impacts.

In conclusion, the potential effects on sea turtles due to pile driving and vessel noise during 

construction are expected to be limited based on the low level of sound produced by the activities and the 

limited area where noise would exceed injury or behavioral disturbance thresholds. If sea turtles are 

present in the area during construction, the effects of the Rockaway Project would be limited to shortterm changes in behavior or temporary avoidance of the area. Therefore, noise generated by the 

Rockaway Project is not expected to significantly affect sea turtles.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-77 

Vessel Traffic

Construction activities are not expected to generate a large amount of increased vessel traffic 

within the construction area. The largest vessels (i.e., the clamshell barge, jack-up barge, and pipe lay 

barge) would remain at the offshore work site during construction and would be stationary or traveling at 

slow speeds. Vessels that would be transiting would comply with vessel speed and approach restrictions 

required by NOAA Fisheries, and a NOAA Fisheries-approved observer would be in the construction area 

to observe for sea turtles and other species. Therefore, we do not expect sea turtles to be effected by

vessel traffic. 

Bottom Disturbance

Bottom-disturbing activities are unlikely to affect the foraging or feeding of green and 

leatherback sea turtles. Green sea turtles primarily feed on sea grasses, which would not be affected by 

construction of the offshore pipeline. Leatherbacks feed primarily on gelatinous pelagic invertebrates, 

which are found within the water column and not on the seafloor.

The various bottom-disturbing activities proposed by Transco may temporarily disrupt prey 

assemblages for loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles in the area of direct impact. Disturbance of 

bottom sediments during dredging, trenching, hand jetting, pile driving, or anchoring could remove slowmoving crustaceans such as horseshoe crabs and non-motile prey such as mollusks, both of which have 

been reported in the benthic environment of the construction area. Although these species are likely 

widespread and prevalent throughout the New York Bight region due to similarity of the surrounding 

benthic habitats. Further, the construction area has not been identified as an important feeding area for 

either the loggerhead or Kemp’s ridley sea turtles. Therefore, should either species be present in the 

construction area during bottom-disturbing activities, their ability to forage on preferred prey species in 

the surrounding sandy bottom habitat most likely would not be affected. Following construction 

activities, benthic assemblages would recover (Brooks et al., 2006; Diaz et al., 2004; Rhoads and 

Germano, 1982); therefore, the Project Rockaway would not have a permanent impact on forage species 

in the area.

There currently is no information available about the direct impact of suspended sediments on sea 

turtle species. Turbidity may change turtle behavior and cause loggerhead or Kemp’s ridley sea turtles 

present within the area during construction to move away from the disturbance. As stated above, turbidity 

plumes due to offshore construction activities would be localized and temporary, and would therefore 

have minimal and short-term impact on the substrate and water column in the area.

As loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles are primarily bottom feeders, both species could 

potentially interact with the jet sled, clamshell dredge, and suction dredge due to the equipment’s contact 

with the seafloor. Because of the slow trenching and dredging rates, a small portion of the seafloor is 

affected at one time, so sea turtles are at minimal risk for take (USACE, 2009; Dickerson et al., 2004). 

Green or leatherback sea turtles would not be expected to come in contact with the jet sled or dredges as 

they are not benthic feeders and would be found more generally within the water column. 

In conclusion, bottom-disturbing activities such as dredging and jet-trenching potentially could 

affect loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles if construction occurs when these species are present in 

the region, particularly due to the impacts of construction on the prey for these species. The offshore 

construction area for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral is not known as important foraging habitat for both 

species and it is not unique from the surrounding New York Bight region. Therefore, any loggerhead or 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtles that are deterred from feeding within the construction area would probably 

move to nearby habitat to feed, so disturbance of foraging habitat would be minimal and temporary. 

Turbidity in the construction area could displace leatherback and green sea turtles but the effect would be 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-78 

temporary and would not permanently deter sea turtles from returning to the area once the turbidity has 

dissipated. Sea turtles are unlikely to be entrained by the jet sled or dredges due to the slow rates of 

movement for this equipment and the small area of disturbance during construction. Therefore, bottomdisturbing activities during construction of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral are expected to only affect sea 

turtle behavior. 

Hydrostatic Testing 

Turtles could be affected by hydrostatic testing, but this is unlikely. The uptake and use of 

seawater for the hydrostatic tests is not expected to affect sea turtles because the amount of plankton 

being removed from marine environment would be relatively small, and Transco would use screens on the 

water intakes to reduce the amount of invertebrates that could be entrained within the pipeline. There 

would be potential for temporary impingement of sea turtles during the intake of water for the hydrostatic 

tests, but the suction head or submersible pump would be elevated off the seafloor to minimize this risk. 

The discharge of the seawater used during hydrostatic testing is not be expected to affect sea turtles as the 

water would be diffused before it is released back to the marine environment. This would re-oxygenate 

and mix the test water with surrounding seawater thereby diluting the concentrations of the biocide and 

oxygen scavenger (at a rate of 15:1) in the test water. The resulting concentrations of these additives are 

not expected to cause adverse effects on marine organisms, including sea turtles. 

Trash, Debris, Spills, and Hydrostatic Testing 

While sea turtles could be exposed to operational waste or solid debris during construction, 

construction vessels would adhere to the USCG marine trash policy and the SPCC Plan (see Appendix F), 

so entanglement in or ingestion of marine debris or pollutants would not be expected during normal 

operations. As indicated above, Transco’s SPCC Plan does not identify emergency response procedures 

for offshore spills, but we have added a recommendation in Section 4.3.2.3 that Transco file an updated 

plan that includes specific measures to be implemented to identify, control and clean up any accidental 

leaks or spills from offshore construction vessels. 

Marine Turtle Conclusion 

Transco would implement the following measures to minimize the potential for impacts on sea 

turtles during construction: 

 employing an onboard NOAA Fisheries-approved observer to monitor for the presence of 

sea turtles (and other marine species) during construction; and 

 monitoring by the NOAA observer and documenting and reporting the behavior and 

movement of the sea turtles to NOAA Fisheries. 

Based on these measures, and the analysis presented above, we have determined that the 

Rockaway Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the leatherback, Kemp’s ridley, green, 

or loggerhead sea turtles.

4.7.1.5 Cumulative Impacts for Marine Species 

For analyses of federally listed threatened and endangered species, “cumulative effects” are 

defined by the FWS and NOAA Fisheries as those of future state or private activities, not involving 

Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur in the area of a federal action subject to consultation 

under the ESA (50 CFR §402.2). This definition is specific to Section 7 analyses and should not be 

confused with the broader use of this term “cumulative impacts” in NEPA or other environmental laws. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-79 

There are no known scheduled in-water projects in the vicinity of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral, 

but there is ongoing activity on the water in and around this area. The immediate area of offshore 

construction is expected to be used by recreational and state-regulated commercial fishing activities, 

including gill net, dredging, pound net, trawl, and hook and line fishing. These activities could result in 

the by-catch of sea turtles or Atlantic sturgeon evaluated in this draft EIS. In addition, fishing vessels and 

other recreational boat traffic could impact sea turtles and whales through vessel collisions and increased 

vessel noise.

The transit portion of the construction area for the proposed pipeline is used continuously by 

commercial vessels entering and exiting the Port of New York and New Jersey. Shipping traffic along 

this route potentially could impact sea turtles and right whales through vessel collisions and increased 

vessel noise. The species evaluated in this BA may also be affected by ingestion of debris, such as 

plastics and petroleum products, generated by ship traffic unrelated to the Rockaway Project in the area. 

The offshore construction area is located outside the major shipping channel into the Port of New York 

and New Jersey and, therefore, no commercial vessel traffic or additional commercial vessel-related 

impacts are expected near the offshore construction area.

Offshore construction would include activities that would create turbidity, sedimentation, and 

bottom disturbance in the offshore construction zone. Bottom trawling associated with surfclam 

harvesting in New York State waters could increase the turbidity and sedimentation as well as the 

disturbance of the sediment and benthic assemblages in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline. The 

commercial surfclam fishery operates throughout the year, so there would be potential for surfclam 

harvesting to occur during the proposed construction schedule. Trawling would not occur within the

5,000-foot-wide temporary offshore workspace while construction activities for the pipeline are

underway. Any sediment disturbed by construction would settle quickly and fairly close to the disturbed 

area regardless of its source, which would limit the potential cumulative effect on any one area.

Any disturbance or take of Atlantic sturgeon or sea turtles due to construction of the Rockaway 

Delivery Lateral could compound the take that occurs in the region due to commercial fishing by-catch. 

Within the Atlantic pelagic long-line fleet, an estimated 727 loggerhead sea turtles were caught annually 

between 1992 and 2006 (Moore et al., 2009). Of these, approximately 38 died per year (Moore et al., 

2009). For U.S. mid-Atlantic sink gillnet gear, an average of approximately 350 loggerheads were caught 

annually between 1995 and 2006 (Murray, 2009). Observed by-catch of other sea turtles in sink gillnets 

during this same period was a fraction of the loggerhead by-catch (12 percent for green and leatherback

and 20 percent for Kemp’s ridley species). Hundreds more loggerhead turtles are estimated to have been 

caught annually in mid-Atlantic scallop dredge equipment (310 per year from 2003 to 2005) and midAtlantic bottom trawl gear (616 per year from 1996 to 2004) (Murray, 2009). 

By-catch of the Hudson River DPS of Atlantic sturgeon is suspected to be a factor in retarding or 

curtailing recovery (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission [ASMFC], 2007). Average annual 

Atlantic sturgeon by-catch in sink gillnets between 2001 and 2006 was 5,143, with a mortality rate of 

approximately 13.8 percent. During the same period, average annual Atlantic sturgeon by-catch in otter 

(bottom) trawl gear was 3,829, but the mortality was almost negligible. The highest incidence of sturgeon 

by-catch was observed during April and May in water depths less than 131 feet (ASMFC, 2007). The 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral is unlikely to contribute significantly to these cumulative totals because it 

would take place in a single year over a relatively short timeframe. Additionally, Transco has proposed a 

number of measures to minimize the potential effects of construction on whales, turtles, and Atlantic 

sturgeon. 

The Rockaway Delivery Lateral would result in a minor, temporary increase in local vessel 

traffic. This could increase the cumulative likelihood of vessel collisions with right whales or sea turtles, 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-80 

but the effect would not be significant. The vessels associated with construction of the pipeline, as with 

other vessels within the area, would abide by NOAA Fisheries speed guidelines to reduce collisions. 

The increased vessel traffic due to pipeline construction could add marine debris and 

contaminants to the local marine environment. All vessels operating as part of the Rockaway Project 

would follow the SPCC Plan (see Appendix F) and USCG guidelines for marine trash. While Transco’s

SPCC Plan does not identify emergency response procedures for offshore spills, we have added a 

recommendation in Section 4.3.2.3 that Transco file an updated plan that identifies specific measures to

be implemented to identify, control and clean up any accidental leaks or spills from offshore construction 

vessels. Therefore, the Rockaway Project would have no effect on the cumulative impact of marine debris 

and contaminants.

Lastly, offshore construction and increased vessel activity in the vicinity of the Rockaway 

Delivery Lateral would create a temporary increase in human-generated noise in the local marine 

environment, which could add to the cumulative noise effect of other vessels in the area. The duration of 

the offshore construction activities for the pipeline would last a few months, and would contribute 

temporarily to the cumulative marine noise impact.

4.7.1.6 Birds

Roseate Tern

The roseate tern is a federally listed seabird that nests in colonies on small barrier islands and 

coastal habitats in the northeast, including in Queens County, New York (FWS County List, FWS, 

2013b). The species is migratory, arriving to breed in the northeast in April and then migrating to the 

waters off the coast of South America in August (FWS, 2013b). Transco would utilize the HDD pipeline

installation method to avoid disturbance to the beach and near shore habitats where the birds most likely 

would be present in the area. Activities between the HDD entry point and the shoreline would be limited 

to the laying of tracking wires on the land surface and pedestrian monitoring of the drill path for 

inadvertent returns of drilling fluid. We believe these measures would avoid or minimize potential 

impacts on roseate terns. Consequently, the Rockaway Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect the roseate tern.

Piping Plover

The piping plover is a federally listed threatened species in Queens County, New York (County 

Listing Reference) that nests on dry sandy beaches of the Atlantic Coast, including those found on the 

Rockaway Peninsula. The species is migratory, arriving to breed in New York in early to mid-March and 

migrating to winter on the Gulf Coast by September (FWS, 2013a; NYSDEC, 2013). 

Transco would utilize the HDD construction method to install the pipeline beneath the beach and 

shoreline, which would avoid disturbing piping plover habitat. Activities between the HDD entry point 

and the shoreline would be limited to the laying of tracking wires on the land surface and pedestrian 

monitoring of the drill path for inadvertent returns of drilling fluid. Transco committed to coordinating 

with the NPS and providing a biological monitor during installation of the tracking wires to ensure that no 

impacts on sensitive species, including piping plover, occur during installation. While construction noise 

associated with the HDD potentially could disturb piping plovers, as discussed in Section 4.11.2, the 

noise would be less than 55 dBA in the vicinity of the beach and would not likely affect the species. We 

believe these measures would avoid or minimize potential impacts on piping plovers. Consequently, the 

Rockaway Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect piping plovers. 

We received a comment from the NPS that staff from the Natural Resource Management Division

at the GNRA should accompany Transco during pedestrian monitoring of the drill path between the 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-81 

months of March and September to ensure that impacts on piping plovers or any other sensitive species 

(such as seabeach amaranth and seabeach knotweed) are avoided. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Prior to construction of the Rockaway Project, Transco should consult with the NPS 

to identify a protocol for coordinated monitoring of the drill path in the GNRA 

between the months of March and September for the presence of sensitive species, 

and file documentation of the consultation with the Secretary. 

4.7.1.7 Plants

Seabeach amaranth is a federally listed plant species known to occur in the vicinity of the 

Rockaway Project. This plant species occupies sandy beach habitats along the Rockaway Peninsula in 

Queens County, New York (County Listing Reference, FWS, 2013c). Transco would utilize the HDD 

construction method to install the pipeline beneath the beach and shoreline on the Rockaway Peninsula, 

which would avoid disturbing seabeach amaranth habitat. Activities between the HDD entry point and 

the shoreline would be limited to the laying of tracking wires on the land surface and pedestrian 

monitoring of the drill path for inadvertent returns of drilling fluid. As noted above, we have added a 

recommendation in Section 4.7.1.6 that Transco consult with the NPS to identify a monitoring protocol 

for the drill path between the months of March and September when sensitive species, including seabeach 

amaranth, may be present in the area. We believe these measures would avoid or minimize potential 

impacts on seabeach amaranth. Consequently, the Rockaway Project may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect this species. 

4.7.1.8 Insects and Invertebrates

No federally listed insects or invertebrates were identified by the FWS for Kings or Queens 

County (County Listing Reference). Therefore, we conclude that the Rockaway Project would have no 

effect on federally listed insect or invertebrate species. 

4.7.2 Federally Listed Species – Northeast Connector Project

Construction activities at Compressor Station 195 with the potential to affect federally listed 

species primarily would be limited to the temporary removal of herbaceous vegetation in the station yard 

and the permanent removal of 25 to 27 trees within a hedgerow at the site. The proposed modifications at 

Compressor Stations 205 and 207 generally do not have potential to affect federally listed species. 

Transco would replace/modify equipment within the existing compressor building at each of these sites. 

This would be achieved primarily with a software change to the motor controls to allow the existing 

electric motors to run at a higher hp. 

Transco maintains an agreement with the FWS-Pennsylvania Field Office (PFO) that exempts 

certain modifications of existing Transco facilities (such as compressor stations) from further review for 

impacts on federally listed threatened and endangered species. The FWS-PFO determined that activities 

covered by the agreement would have no effect on or would not likely adversely affect federally listed 

species. The agreement requires Transco to screen projects involving earth disturbance or vegetation 

clearing using an online tool (the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Environmental 

Review Tool) to determine if consultation with the FWS-PFO is necessary to assess impacts on federally 

listed species. Transco’s review of the Northeast Connector Project using the PNDI Environmental 

Review Tool determined that additional review by the FWS was necessary for activities at Compressor 

Station 195. Transco subsequently sent a request for comment to the FWS-PFO. In its reply to Transco, 

the FWS-PFO indicated that the proposed modifications at Compressor Station 195 are not likely to 

adversely affect the bog turtle.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-82 

Transco similarly maintains an agreement with the FWS-New Jersey Field Office (NJFO) that

exempts certain modifications of existing Transco facilities from further review for impacts on federally 

listed species. The FWS-NJFO determined that activities covered by the agreement are not likely to 

adversely affect federally listed species. Because the proposed modifications at Compressor Stations 205 

and 207 would occur within existing compressor buildings, they are covered by the agreement. 

Therefore, no further review of the Northeast Connector Project by the FWS-NJFO is warranted. 

Indiana Bat

The Indiana bat is a federally listed endangered species that is found in York County, 

Pennsylvania, and Mercer and Middlesex Counties, New Jersey (County Listing Reference). The Indiana 

bat is relatively small, weighing 0.25 ounce, with a wingspan of 9 to 11 inches. It hibernates during 

winter in caves or, occasionally, in abandoned mines from October through April. For hibernation, it 

requires cool, humid caves with stable temperatures, under 50 °F but above freezing. The hibernacula 

typically have large volumes 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, 

and wooded wetlands, as well as upland communities. Indiana bats forage in semi-open to closed 

forested habitats, forest edges, and riparian areas. Threats to the species include loss or degradation of 

habitat and exposure to pesticides and other contaminants (FWS, 2013d). 

Construction activities at Compressor Station 195 would require the removal of 25 to 27 trees 

from within a hedgerow. The trees consist of live, relatively small conifers that are unlikely to provide 

suitable habitat for Indiana bat. Additionally, the trees are located on an existing and previously disturbed 

industrial site that is unlikely to be used by Indiana bat. We also note that FWS-PFO did not identify 

impacts on Indiana bat as a concern in its response to Transco’s request for comment. No trees would be 

removed at Compressor Stations 205 and 207. Construction activities at these sites would be consistent 

with the categorical exemption agreement between Transco and the FWS-NJFO regarding impacts on 

federally listed species at existing Transco facilities. For all these reasons, we conclude that the Northeast 

Connector Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Indiana bats. 

Bog Turtle 

The bog turtle is a federally listed threatened species that is found in York County, Pennsylvania 

and Mercer and Middlesex Counties, New Jersey (County Listing Reference). Bog turtles measure about 

3 to 4 inches in length and are characterized by a dark brown to black shell and yellow or orange blotches 

on either side of the head. They are found in open canopy wetlands and sedge meadows, nesting in 

sphagnum moss or sedges near water. Bog turtles are active from April through October, lying dormant 

in abandoned burrows, tree roots, logs, or mud over the winter months. Threats to bog turtles include 

habitat loss, degradation, or fragmentation and illegal trade in turtles (FWS, 2013e, 2013f, and 2013g). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-83 

Bog turtles are unlikely to be present at Compressor Station 195 because there are no wetlands at 

this site. Additionally, we note that the FWS-PFO concluded that activities at Compressor Station 195 

are not likely to adversely affect this species. Bog turtles could be present at or in the vicinity of 

Compressor Stations 205 and 207, both of which contain wetlands with the boundaries of the sites. 

Construction activities would be confined to the existing compressor buildings at each site, so the 

wetlands would not be disturbed. We also note that construction would be consistent with the agreement 

between Transco and the FWS-NJFO regarding impacts on federally listed species at existing Transco 

facilities. Therefore, we conclude that the Northeast Connector Project would have no effect on bog 

turtles. 

Swamp Pink

Swamp pink, a lily, is a federally listed threatened species that occurs in Mercer and Middlesex 

Counties, New Jersey (County List References). The species is typically is found in wetlands with 

canopy cover. Swamp pink has dark green, oblong leaves that form a rosette, some of which produce a 

flowering stock. Flowers occur in clusters of 30 to 50 at the end of the stock. The flowers are pink with 

blue anthers. The plant is visible year round with flowering occurring from March to May. Threats to 

swamp pink include development, degradation of habitat, pollution, and invasive species (FWS, 2013h). 

Swamp pink could be present at or in the vicinity of Compressor Stations 205 and 207, both of 

which contain wetlands with the boundaries of each site. Construction activities would be confined to the 

existing compressor buildings at each site, so the wetlands would not be disturbed. We also note that the 

proposed activities at Compressor Stations 205 and 207 would be consistent with the agreement between 

Transco and the FWS-NJFO regarding impacts on federally listed species at existing Transco facilities. 

Therefore, we conclude that the Northeast Connector Project would have no effect on swamp pink. 

4.7.3 Project Operations

To assist in our assessment of impacts on federally listed species for operation of the Projects, 

Transco provided summaries of projected operational impacts for wildlife (see Sections 4.5 and 4.6) and 

federally listed species. We reviewed this information, conducted our own analyses, and consulted with 

the FWS, NOAA Fisheries, and the NPS regarding these impacts. Our conclusions regarding operational 

impacts are described below.

4.7.3.1 Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

Transco proposes to retain a 50-foot-wide permanent operational right-of-way, both onshore and 

offshore within the GNRA, and a 200-foot-wide permanent right-of-way seaward of the GNRA boundary. 

As the HDD section of the pipeline beneath Jacob Riis Park generally would be inaccessible deep below 

the surface, Transco would not actively maintain the onshore right-of-way and the land would continue to 

be managed for existing uses by the NPS. Additionally, Transco would not actively maintain the sea 

bottom within the offshore right-of-way. Therefore, no adverse effects to federally listed marine or 

terrestrial species are expected as a result of right-of-way maintenance.

During operation, Transco periodically would need to access the subsea manifold to install a 

temporary launcher and conduct an internal inspection of the pipeline. Transco anticipates this would 

occur approximately once every 7 years. To conduct each inspection, Transco would remove sediment 

over the manifold using a submersible pump or divers using hand-jetting or air-lifting equipment. The 

impacts associated with maintenance activities would be similar to construction impacts, but on a 

significantly smaller scale. As such, maintenance activities would result in minor, temporary impacts on 

the marine environment at the location of the subsea manifold. Therefore, we conclude that these 

activities would not adversely affect federally listed species.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-84 

4.7.3.2 M&R Facility

Transco’s M&R facility would be located in Hangars 1 and 2 at Floyd Bennett Field in Kings 

County. The FWS has not identified any federally listed species as occurring in this county. Therefore, 

we conclude that operation of the M&R facility would not affect federally listed species.

4.7.3.3 Compressor Stations

At Compressor Station 195, Transco would restore areas affected by construction in accordance 

with the FERC Plan (with the exception of areas covered by new buildings). Ongoing maintenance 

activities would require periodic mowing of grass areas in the station yard, but this activity already occurs 

at the site. No areas outside of existing compressor buildings would be disturbed at Compressor Stations 

205 and 207. Noise resulting from operation of the compressor stations has the potential to affect 

federally listed species, but the impact would be beneficial at Compressor 195 and minor at Compressor 

Stations 205 and 207. As discussed in Section 4.11.2, Transco’s plan to replace three existing gas-fired 

compressors with electric driven motors at Compressor Station 195 would result in a slight reduction in 

ambient noise conditions at the site. The increase in noise at Compressor Stations 205 and 207 would be 

less than 2 dB at NSAs in the vicinity of each site. Therefore, we conclude that operation of the 

compressor stations as a result of the Northeast Connector Project would not adversely affect federally 

listed species.

4.7.4 Staff Recommendations for Threatened and Endangered Species

Based on Transco’s proposed mitigation measures and the analyses presented above, we have 

determined that the Rockaway Project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the right whale and 

Atlantic sturgeon; may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, roseate tern, piping plover, seabeach 

amaranth, and leatherback, Kemp’s ridley, green, and loggerhead sea turtles; and would have no effect on 

the fin whale, humpback whale, and shortnose sturgeon. We have not completed our consultations with 

NOAA Fisheries and the FWS regarding these species. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Transco should not begin construction activities for the Rockaway Project until:

a. the FERC staff receives comments from NOAA Fisheries, Protected 

Resources Division and the FWS regarding impacts on the federally listed 

species; 

b. the FERC staff completes formal consultation with NOAA Fisheries/FWS, if 

required; and

c. the Director of OEP approves Transco’s plans and notifies Transco in 

writing that the mitigation measures may be implemented and construction 

may proceed. 

Based on information provided by Transco, including its categorical exemption agreements with 

the FWS-PFO and FWS-NJFO, as well as our own analyses, we have 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. No further consultation for these determinations is required. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-85 

4.7.5 State-Listed Species

In addition to federal law, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania have passed laws to protect 

state-listed threatened and endangered species. These include the revised New York ESA (New York 

Environmental Conservation Law § 11-0535 and 6 NYCRR Part 182), the New Jersey Endangered and 

Nongame Species Conservation Act (New Jersey Statutes 23:2A-1-15), and Chapter 34 (Game and 

Wildlife Protection) in Title 34 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes. The goals of each of the state 

endangered species laws are to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance any listed species and their 

habitats. 

4.7.5.1 New York

In correspondence with Transco, the NYSDEC identified 17 New York state-listed species that 

potentially could occur in the Rockaway Project area (see Table 4.7.5-1). Two additional state-listed 

whale species were identified and addressed by Transco as discussed in the IHA (see Appendix N). Of 

these 19 species, ten are federally listed and discussed above in Section 4.7.1. The remaining nine species 

include a state-listed fish, diurnal raptors, owls, and plants. Two insect species that are not protected in 

New York were included on the NYSDEC’s list because they are rare in the vicinity of the Rockaway 

Project.

Birds

Northern harriers, which are listed as threatened in New York State, use salt marsh and emergent 

wetland habitats for foraging, nesting, and wintering. The species nest in drier areas of salt marshes 

dominated by salt hay, marsh elder, or common reed, and/or in freshwater tidal marshes containing 

common reed, sedges, and other emergent vegetation (New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection [NJDEP], 2010f). 

The peregrine falcon is listed as endangered in New York State. The species often nests on 

ledges or holes on the faces of rocky cliffs. They also nest on manmade structures such as bridges and 

tall buildings, especially near or in urban areas. Wintering birds frequent buildings, towers, and steeples 

in urban areas, and open areas with plentiful prey in more natural settings. Staff from the NPS regularly 

has observed a peregrine falcon perched atop the Marine Parkway Bridge near the Rockaway Project area. 

Barn owls, which are listed as protected wildlife in New York State, typically are found in open 

and partly open lands such as grasslands, marshes, and agricultural areas, often around human habitations. 

The species are cavity-nesting birds that use natural or manmade cavities. Preferred manmade structures 

include large platforms within barns and silos, tunnels dug into silage in roofed or topless silos, and barn 

cupola shelves. They have also used feed bins, church steeples and belfries, platforms within commercial 

and industrial buildings, attics of abandoned or occupied houses, ledges within chimneys, and platforms 

beneath bridges. Foraging habitats typically are open areas, such as grassy fields (natural and 

agricultural), wet meadows, and fresh and salt water marshes. Barn owls typically use dense conifers as 

roost sites during the winter, but have used nest boxes as well.

The short-eared owl, which is listed as endangered in New York State, occupies open areas such 

as grasslands (i.e., hayfields, fallow farm lands, and pastures), as well as fresh and salt water marshes. 

They tend to prefer habitats with some water possibly because it is the habitat preferred by voles, which 

are their primary prey. Day roosts typically are found on the ground but also occur under low shrubs, in 

conifers, or on low open perches. In addition, they can be found at old dumps where rodent populations 

may be high. The species may move farther south during winters with deep snow cover. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-86 

TABLE 4.7.5-1 

State of New York Sensitive Species Potentially Occurring

in the Rockaway Project Area

Species New York Status

Likelihood of Occurrence

in Project Area

Marine Mammals

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus physalus) a Endangered Not expected

Humpback whale (Megapera novaeangliae) a Endangered Not expected

North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) a Endangered Moderate

Marine Reptiles-Sea Turtles

Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) a Threatened Moderate

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) a Endangered Moderate

Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) a Threatened High

Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) a Endangered Moderate

Marine Fish

Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) a Endangered Not expected

Birds

Roseate tern (Sterna dougalli) a Endangered Moderate

Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) a Threatened High

Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) Threatened Low

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Endangered High

Barn owl (Tyto alba) Protected wildlife Low

Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) Endangered Low

Insects

Red-banded hairstreak (Calycopis cecrops) None/rare occurrence in area Moderate

White-banded hairstreak (Parrhasius m-album) None/rare occurrence in area Moderate

Plants

Red pigweed (goosefoot) (Chenopodium rubrum) Threatened Moderate

Schweinitz's flatsedge (Cyperus schweinitzii) Rare Low

Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) a Threatened High

Seabeach knotweed (Polygonum glaucum) b Rare Low

Dune sandspur (Cenchus tribultoides) b Threatened High

____________________

Sources: NYSDEC, NYNHP; Edinger et al., 2008. a Federally listed species b

 Species identified by Edinger et al., 2008 and not by the NYNHP c Marine mammals, which are protected under the MMPA, are discussed in Section 4.5.2.1 and in Transco’s Request for 

an IHA under the MMPA in Appendix N. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-87 

Transco would avoid disturbing sensitive wetland and vegetation areas associated with the 

southern shore of the Rockaway Peninsula by using the HDD pipeline installation method. Transco 

conducted surveys along the HDD route and found the coastal wetland area to be relatively devoid of 

vegetation (Ecology and Environment, Inc., 2009; Ecology and Environment, Inc., 2011; Section 4.4). 

Surface disturbance to terrestrial habitats in the Rockaway Project area would be limited to artificial 

surfaces with sparse vegetation at the HDD entry site and tie-in to the National Grid pipeline. Based on 

the general habitat requirements of the state-listed birds, and Transco’s proposal to avoid disturbance to 

sensitive wetland and beach habitat, we conclude that the Rockaway Project would not likely affect the 

northern harrier, peregrine falcon, barn owl, or short-eared owl. 

Insects

The red-banded hairstreak and white-banded hairstreak were identified by the NYSDEC as

potentially occurring in the vicinity of the Rockaway Project. These species are not protected under New 

York State law, but are listed as being rare in the Rockaway Project area (NYNHP, 2013c). The NYNHP 

notes that red-banded hairstreak could be expanding in range in New York, and the species is likely to be 

removed from active tracking lists in the future. Both species can occupy a variety of urban vegetated 

habitats. White-banded hairstreaks have been observed feeding on white sweet clover in the South Field 

of Floyd Bennett Field. Given these observations and the potential range of the species, we conclude that 

red-banded hairstreak and white-banded hairstreak potentially could occur within the Rockaway Project 

area, but it is unlikely that they would be affected by the Rockaway Project due to the limited disturbance 

of vegetation associated with the construction of the M&R facility and pipeline. 

Plants

Five wetland and beach associated state-listed or rare plants were identified by the NYSDEC as 

potentially occurring in the Rockaway Project area. These include the state-listed threatened seabeach 

amaranth, which is also federally listed and discussed in Section 4.7.1.6; red pigweed (goosefoot) and 

dune sandspur, which are state-listed as threatened; and Schweinitz's flatsedge and seabeach knotweed, 

which are state-listed as rare.

Schweinitz's flatsedge occupies sites with exposed, sandy soil, including coastal dunes of the 

Atlantic (NYNHP, 2013a). Red pigweed has been found along the coast of New York in wet interdunal 

swales, stony beaches, and the shores of coastal ponds (NYNHP, 2013b), as well as in salt marshes 

(Clemants, 1992) and brackish soil (Gleason and Cronquist, 1991). Dune sandspur was identified by 

Transco outside the Rockaway Project area during site visits on the maritime dunes along the Rockaway 

Peninsula. This observation consisted of 100 clumps of plants located in a small dune area on Plumb 

Beach in proximity to a large highway with pedestrian traffic in the vicinity. Seabeach knotweed is a 

state-listed rare plant species that typically occurs along seashores, at the margins of saline ponds, salt 

marshes, dune hollows, wet pannes, and on borders of tidal streams. According to the NPS, seabeach 

knotweed may be found on Rockaway beach in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline route. 

Transco conducted plant surveys along the onshore portion of pipeline route and did not observe 

any of the state-listed plants within the proposed work areas. Additionally, Transco proposes to utilize

the HDD method to install the proposed pipeline beneath the shoreline and beach at the Rockaway 

Peninsula, which would eliminate any ground disturbing activities in these areas. Construction activities

between the HDD entry point and the shoreline would be limited to the laying of tracking wires on the 

land surface and pedestrian monitoring of the drill path for inadvertent returns of drilling fluid. As noted 

above, we have added a recommendation in Section 4.7.1.6 that Transco consult with the NPS to identify 

a coordinated monitoring protocol for the drill path between the months of March and September when 

sensitive species, including seabeach knotweed, may be present in the area. The NPS conducted plant 

surveys within 100 feet of each hangar at Floyd Bennett Field and confirmed that no listed plant species 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-88 

are present at the proposed M&R facility site. For all these reasons, we conclude that the Rockaway 

Project would not affect the New York state-listed plant species. 

4.7.5.2 New Jersey

In correspondence with Transco, the NJDEP and the NPS identified 10 waterbird species that 

forage in proximity to the proposed pipe yard for the Rockaway Project at the C&ME facility in 

Elizabeth, New Jersey (see Table 4.7.5-2). Transco would use the pipe yard to stage and transport 

equipment and supplies and to apply concrete coating to pipe. The pipe yard lies in a highly developed 

industrial area near the Arthur Kill waterway. Normal operations at the C&ME site include construction 

support and vessel loading operations. Additionally, the areas surrounding the pipe yard lack vegetation, 

and the shoreline consists of a bulkhead that is designed to accommodate barge mooring. The yard 

provides little, if any, in the way of foraging habitat for waterbirds. Additionally, waterbirds have access 

to alternate foraging grounds in the area, including the Arthur Kill waterway and other vegetated 

shorelines, such as those near Goethels Bridge to the south of the pipe yard. As such, Transco’s proposed 

use of the pipe yard should have little or no negative affect on any New Jersey state-listed waterbirds.

TABLE 4.7.5-2

State of New Jersey Sensitive Species Potentially Occurring

in the Rockaway Project Area

Birds New Jersey Status Occurrence

Black-crowned night-heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) Threatened Foraging

Cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis) Threatened Foraging

Glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus) Special concern Foraging

Least tern (Sternula antillarum) Endangered Foraging

Little blue heron (Egretta caerulea) Special concern Foraging

Oyster catcher (Haematopus palliatus) Special concern Breeding

Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) Federally listed threatened Breeding

Snowy egret (Egretta thula) Special concern Foraging

Tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor) Special concern Foraging

Yellow-crowned night-heron (Nyctanassa violacea) Threatened Foraging

____________________

Sources: New Jersey List of Species or Wildlife Habitat.

While state-listed species could be present in the vicinity of Compressor Stations 205 and 207, 

construction activities would be limited to the existing compressor buildings at these sites. Additionally, 

as discussed above and in Section 4.11.2, the increase in noise resulting from the uprate of the 

compressors at these sites would be minor. For these reasons, we conclude that the Northeast Connector 

Project should not negatively affect any New Jersey state-listed species.

4.7.5.3 Pennsylvania 

Review of the Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program’s list of species of special concern 

identified 5 reptiles/amphibians, 6 birds, 1 fish, 2 mammals, and 39 plants known to occur in York 

County that have been designated as state threatened, endangered, or rare. Transco’s use of the PNDI 

Environmental Review Tool to screen the project determined that no review by state agencies is necessary 

to assess impacts on state-listed species. Based on that determination, and Transco’s plan to restore 

disturbed areas (with the exception of areas covered by new buildings) at Compressor Station 195, we 

conclude that the Northeast Connector Project would have little or no negative affect on any Pennsylvania 

state-listed species.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-89 

4.8 LAND USE, RECREATION, SPECIAL INTEREST AREAS, AND VISUAL RESOURCES

As discussed in Section 2.1, the Rockaway Project would consist of two components, a 26-inchdiameter natural gas pipeline in Queens County, New York, and an M&R facility and associated piping 

and equipment in Kings County, New York. For the Northeast Connector Project, Transco would replace 

three existing natural gas-fired reciprocating engines at Compressor Station 195 in York County, 

Pennsylvania. This section of the EIS describes the land requirements for the Projects, existing land uses 

in construction areas, and the likely impacts on land uses resulting from construction and operation of the 

proposed facilities. This section also identifies designated recreation or other special use areas in the 

vicinity of the Projects, and describes potential visual impacts of the proposed facilities on specially 

designated areas, recreation and residential areas, and public lands. 

4.8.1 Land Use, Land Cover, General Impacts, and Mitigation 

This section discusses land use separately from land cover. “Land use” is defined as the type of 

activity occurring in any given area, while “land cover” consists of the type of ground surface present in 

the same area. 

4.8.1.1 Land Use

Onshore land uses that would be affected by the Rockaway Project within the GNRA are 

characterized according to the 1979 GMP (NPS, 1979) 18 (see Figure 4.8.1-1). Onshore land uses that 

would be affected by the Rockaway Project outside of the GNRA are characterized according to A Land 

Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use With Remote Sensor Data (Anderson et al., 1976). 

The GMP does not include a formal land use classification for the offshore area in the GNRA that would 

be affected by the Rockaway Project. Therefore, for the purposes of this section, we have classified the

offshore areas both in and outside of the GNRA as marine lands. 

Based on the above, 10 land use types would be affected by the Rockaway Project. These include 

the following: 

• Beach: Open sand from the water level landward to the vegetation line used for

recreational purposes. This includes the beach at Jacob Riis Park between the offshore 

portion of the Rockaway Project and the pitch-and-putt golf course above the beach 

under which the proposed pipeline would be installed. 

• Development Support: Cleared and/or developed land used to provide support facilities 

for beach use and other active recreation. This includes a small area between the beach 

and pitch-and-putt golf course at Jacob Riis Park under which the proposed pipeline 

would be installed. 

• Protection: Disturbed or undisturbed lands protected from public use. This includes a 

small area between the beach and pitch-and-putt golf course at Jacob Riis Park under 

which the proposed pipeline would be installed. 

 

18 NPS staff currently is in the process of updating the GMP for the GNRA to guide land use and management decisions affecting the park 

over the next two decades. A draft of the updated GMP/EIS was issued by the NPS for public comment on August 2, 2013. The new GMP 

is not expected to be finalized until late 2013 or early 2014. Therefore, the classifications identified in the existing 1979 GMP were used in 

this analysis.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
"/

Proposed M&R Facility

Proposed Pipeline Route

Beac h

147t h

St

Roxbur y Ave

Flatbus h Ave

Davi s Rd

Rockawa y

Poin t Blvd

Beac h

169t h

St

Beac h

149t h

St

Her o

Rd

Rockawa y

Beac h Blvd

Beac h

146t h

St

Murra y Rd

Marshal l Rd

Aviatio n Rd

Bayside

Rang e Rd

Jaco b Rii s Par k Rd

Marin e Pky

Beac h Channe l Dr

Boardwalk

Shor e Rd

Floy d Bennet t Field

State Hwy

1979 GNRA Land Use

Protection

Use-By-Reservation

Beach

Unstructured Recreation

Structured Recreation

Development Support

Gateway Village

"/ Proposed M&R Facility

Proposed Pipeline Route

Road

Anderson Class II Category 

Transportation, Communication

and Utilities

Land Use Classifications 

in the Vicinity of the Rockaway Project

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

Figure 4.8.1-1

4-90

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-91 

• Structured Recreation: Disturbed lands adjacent to beach centers and reserved for active 

recreation. This includes the pitch-and-putt golf course at Jacob Riis Park under which 

the proposed pipeline would be installed, and an area in Floyd Bennett Field that would 

be used during M&R facility construction for parking, equipment lay-down, and vehicle 

access.

• Unstructured Recreation: Disturbed or undisturbed lands reserved for low-impact 

activities (e.g., hiking or fishing). The access road that would be used for the M&R 

facility construction at Floyd Bennett Field would pass through an area with this 

designation. 

• Use-by-Reservation: Natural or cultural resources maintained for environmental 

education and study and available for compatible uses on a group permit basis. The 

access road that would be used for M&R facility construction at Floyd Bennett Field 

passes through an area with this designation. 

• Gateway Village: An area in Floyd Bennett Field in and around the hangar complex was 

proposed in the 1979 GMP to be developed with shops, hostels, mobile-camper parks, 

housing units for park personnel, educational and community facilities, food services, and 

open public use. The intent of the GMP was to adaptively reuse existing facilities and 

mix them with new facilities in this area. The proposed M&R facility and associated 

temporary workspace would be located in this area.

• Transportation, Communication, and Utilities: The HDD entry location and tie-in with 

the National Grid system would be constructed on land owned by the TBTA, 

immediately north of the pitch-and-putt golf course at Jacob Riis Park. The land is used 

primarily for transportation, including the interchange for the Marine Parkway Bridge

and a bike path, and accommodates rights-of-way for communication and utility lines. 

• Commercial or Services: Commercial areas are used predominantly for the sale of 

products and services. Developments in this category range from shopping centers to 

junkyards to resorts. All office buildings, warehouses, driveways, sheds, parking lots, 

landscaped areas, and waste disposal areas that support commercial or service uses are 

included in this classification. The proposed pipe storage yard would be located on 

commercial land at the existing C&ME facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey. While the 

surrounding area is generally industrial, C&ME mainly provides marine transportation 

and construction support services and is better classified as a commercial or services land 

use.

• Marine: Uses of the Atlantic Ocean near the Rockaway Peninsula include commercial 

and recreational fishing, shipping, diving, recreational boating, dredged material disposal, 

and underwater utility crossings. 

Table 4.8.1-1 below lists the area of effect for each of the land use types within the Rockaway 

Project area. Construction of the proposed pipeline within the GNRA would affect about 2.7 acres within 

the beach, development support, protection, structured recreation, and marine land use categories. 

Pipeline construction outside of the GNRA, including use of the pipe yard in Elizabeth, New Jersey, 

would affect about 1,551.7 acres within the marine; transportation, communication, and utilities; and 

commercial and services land use categories. Construction of the M&R facility within the GNRA would 

affect about 12.6 acres within the development support, structured recreation, unstructured recreation, 

use-by-reservation, and Gateway Village land use categories. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
TABLE 4.8.1-1

4-92

Land Use Types and Acres Impacted by Construction and Operation of the Rockaway Project

Facility

Beach a

Development 

Support a Protection a

Structured 

Recreation a

Unstructured 

Recreation a

Use-byReservation a Gateway Village a

Transportation, 

Communication, 

and Utilities b

Commercial and 

Services b Marine Total

Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper

PIPELINE FACILITIESOffshore

Non-NPS-owned 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,545.5 66.1 1,545.5 66.1

NPS-owned 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,546.9 67.5 1,546.9 67.5

Onshore c

Non-NPS-owned

Pipeline installation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0

Pipe yard 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0

NPS-owned 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.0

Subtotal 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 2.0

Pipeline Facilities Subtotal 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 5.0 0.0 1,546.9 67.5 1,554.4 69.5

M&R FACILITIES

NPS-owned

Inlet and outlet piping 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9Hangar complex 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1Workspace and access road 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 4.5 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 0.0

M&R Facilities Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 4.5 0.0 5.2 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.6 2.0

Project Total 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.2 1.4 0.3 0.0 4.5 0.0 5.2 2.0 1.2 0.0 5.0 0.0 1,546.9 67.5 1,567.0 71.5____________________a GNRA, 1979 General Management category for onshore areas within NPS boundaries.b Anderson, 1976 Class II category for onshore areas outside NPS boundaries.c The operational impacts include the 50-foot-wide permanent easement over the pipeline. This area would not be disturbed during operation or maintenance of the pipeline.

4-92

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-93 

Operation of the proposed pipeline within the GNRA would affect about 3.4 acres within the 

beach, development support, protection, structured recreation, and marine categories. Pipeline operation 

outside of the GNRA would affect about 66.1 acres, all within the marine land use category. Operation of 

the M&R facility would affect about 2.0 acres, all within the Gateway Village land use category. 

In its draft GMP/EIS issued on August 2, 2013, the NPS identified management zones that 

describe the desired conditions for park resources and visitor experience in different areas of the park 

(NPS, 2013). Under the NPS’s preferred alternative (Alternative B) and other action alternative 

(Alternative C), the proposed onshore pipeline within the GNRA would cross a recreation management 

zone as well as an active beach subzone. The offshore portion of the pipeline would cross a marine 

management zone. The boundaries of the active beach subzone are the equivalent to the beach land use 

category in the 1979 GMP. The recreation management zone that would be crossed encompasses the 

development support, protection, and structured recreation land use categories identified in the 1979 

GMP. The M&R facility would be within a historic management zone, which includes the Gateway 

Village land use category from the 1979 GMP. 

The draft GMP/EIS describes the affected management zones as follows:

• Recreation Management Zone: Park areas that accommodate a variety of recreation 

activities for fun, learning, and physical activity. These areas offer a broad range of 

outdoor, educational, and interpretive experiences. 

• Active Beach Subzone: Offers traditional summer beach activities including swimming 

and bathing. 

• Marine Management Zone: Waters managed to protect and enhance the ocean and bay 

environments and provide opportunities for water-based visitor use and recreation. 

Activities are regulated to protect elements of the natural environment, prevent visitor 

conflicts, and enhance public safety.

• Historic Management Zone: These areas include fundamental and historic sites, 

structures, and cultural landscapes linked to GNRA’s history. Resources in this area are 

the focus of interpretation and preservation projects and are managed to ensure the longterm protection of their historic integrity.

Construction activities at Compressor Station 195 would affect up to 25.2 acres of 

developed/maintained land, all within the existing station yard. This includes areas covered by existing 

buildings, crushed stone, gravel, and mowed grass. The site also contains trees within hedgerows along 

the station boundary, the existing access road into the site, and the fence surrounding the existing 

buildings within the station yard. The site would continue to be used for natural gas transmission service 

following construction of the Northeast Connector Project. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-94 

4.8.1.2 Land Cover 

Land cover types that would be affected by the proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral include 

open water, barren land, grassland/herbaceous, open space developed, and low/medium/high-intensity 

developed (Figure 4.8.1-2). The land cover type in the vicinity of the proposed M&R facility is 

low/medium/high-intensity developed. Definitions of these land cover classifications are below. 

• Open Water: Open water with less than 25 percent vegetation or soil cover. This includes 

the offshore portion of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral.

• Barren Land: Areas of accumulations of earthen material, including sand and gravel, with 

less than 15 percent vegetation cover. This includes the beach at Jacob Riis Park.

• Grassland/Herbaceous: Areas with more than 80 percent cover of grasses or other 

herbaceous vegetation that are not subject to intensive management. This includes a 

small area between the beach and pitch-and-putt golf course at Jacob Riis Park. 

• Open Space Developed (open space): Areas with a mixture of constructed materials and 

vegetation with less than 20 percent impervious surface cover. This includes the pitchand-putt golf course at Jacob Riis Park. 

• Low/Medium/High-Intensity Developed (developed): Areas with a mixture of 

constructed materials and vegetation. The proposed M&R facility and pipe yard are 

located on this land cover type. 

The acreage of land cover types that would be affected by construction and operation of the 

Rockaway Project are shown in Table 4.8.1-2. Construction and operation of the proposed pipeline 

within the GNRA would affect areas assigned to the open water, barren land, grassland/herbaceous, open 

space, and developed land cover categories. Pipeline construction outside of the GNRA would affect 

areas within the open water, open space, and developed land cover categories, while pipeline operations 

outside the GNRA would affect the open water category. Construction and operation of the M&R facility 

would affect the developed land cover category.

As discussed in Section 4.8.1.1, construction activities at Compressor Station 195 would affect up 

to 25.2 acres of developed/maintained land within the existing station yard. Ground cover within the yard 

includes existing buildings; areas covered by gravel, crushed stone, or mowed grass; and a hedgerow. 

These areas would continue to be used for natural gas transmission service following construction of the 

Northeast Connector Project.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
"/

Proposed Pipeline Route

F

Proposed M&R Facility latbus h Ave

Roxbur y Ave

B eac h

Chan ne l Dr

Davi s Rd

Rockawa y

Poin t Blvd

Beac h

169t h

St

Beac h

149t h

St

Her o

Rd

Murra y Rd

Marshal l Rd

Aviatio n Rd

Bayside

Rang e Rd

Jaco b Rii s Par k Rd

Floy d Bennet t Field

Marin e Pky

Boardwalk

Shor e Rd

Stat e Hwy

Path: L:\Buffalo\NorthEast_Supply\Maps\MXDs\ROCKAWAY_2012\Draft_Final_July2012\RR8\NLCD_Landcover_v2.mxd Date: 8/14/2012

Jaco b Rii s Par k Rd

Davi sRd

Rockawa y

Poin t Blvd

Be ac h

Chan ne l Dr

Boardwalk

Beac h

169t h

St

I N S E T

See inset for depiction of how original landcover

data was modified to reflect groundtruthing survey

results and aerial photo interpretation.

Figure 4.8.1-2

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

Land Cover Classifications

in the Vicinity of the Rockaway Project

"/ Proposed M&R Facility

Proposed Pipeline Route

Road

Boundary of Original

Landcover Data Adjustment

Land Cover

Developed

Developed, Open Space

Forest

Wetlands

Grassland/Herbaceous

Shrub/Scrub

Barren Land

(Rock/Sand/Clay)

Open Water

4-95

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-96 

TABLE 4.8.1-2 

Land Cover Types a and Acres Impacted by Construction and Operation of the Rockaway Project

Facility

Open Water Barren Land

Grassland/ 

Herbaceous Open Space Developed Total

Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper Const Oper

PIPELINE FACILITIES

Offshore

Non-NPS-owned 1,545.5 66.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,545.5 66.1

NPS-owned 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4

Subtotal 1,546.9 67.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,546.9 67.5

Onshore b

Non-NPS-owned

Pipeline 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.2 0.0

Pipe yard 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 0.0

NPS-owned 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.3 0.4 0.2 1.3 2.0

Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 1.3 1.3 5.9 0.2 7.5 2.0

Pipeline Facilities 

Subtotal

1,546.9 67.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 1.3 1.3 5.9 0.2 1,554.4 69.5

M&R FACILITIES

NPS-owned

Inlet and outlet

piping

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

Hangar complex 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1

Workspace and 

access roads

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 10.5 0.0

M&R Facility Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.6 2.0 12.6 2.0

Project Total 1,546.9 67.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 1.3 1.3 18.5 2.2 1,567.0 71.5

____________________

a Based on National Land Cover Database 2006 (Fry, et. al., 2011), as modified by field surveys and aerial photo 

interpretation. b The operational impacts include the 50-foot-wide permanent over the pipeline. This area would not be disturbed during 

operation or maintenance of the pipeline. 

4.8.1.3 General Impacts and Mitigation

Construction of the Rockaway Project would impact a combined total of 1,567.0 acres of land 

and marine areas, most of which would be utilized for the pipeline facilities. Following construction, 

lands within the pipeline right-of-way, facility workspace, pipe yard, and temporary access roads would 

be allowed to revert to their pre-construction land uses and cover types. The primary land use/land cover

types impacted during pipeline construction would be marine/open water (99 percent), while the land 

use/cover types impacted by construction of the M&R facility would be Gateway Village/developed. 

Other land use/land cover types would make up a small fraction of the area impacted by construction of 

the Rockaway Project.

Operation of the Rockaway Project facilities would permanently encumber 71.5 of the 1,567.0 

acres impacted during construction. Approximately 69.5 acres, or 97 percent, would be associated with

the new permanent right-of-way for the pipeline and the easement for the anode bed/sled. The remaining 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-97 

2.0 acres (3 percent) would be associated with the M&R facility. The primary land use/land cover type to

be newly encumbered on a permanent basis would be marine/open water (94 percent). The Gateway 

Village/developed (3 percent) and structured recreation/open space (2 percent) would account for most of 

the remaining lands to be permanently impacted. Other land use/land cover types would make up the 

remaining 1 percent of land encumbered by the permanent right-of-way and M&R facility. 

Construction activities at Compressor Station 195 would affect 25.2 acres of 

developed/maintained land within the existing station site. Following installation of the new facilities, 

disturbed areas that do not include new permanent facilities would be restored to pre-construction land 

uses and cover types. The entire area within Compressor Station 195 would continue to be used for 

natural gas transmission service during the operation phase of the Northeast Connector Project. 

4.8.2 Land Ownership

Pipeline operators must obtain easements from existing landowners to construct and operate 

facilities or acquire the land on which the facilities would be located. Easements can be temporary, 

granting the operator the use of the land during construction (e.g., for temporary workspace, access roads, 

or pipe yards); or permanent, granting the operator the right to operate and maintain the facilities after 

construction. Transco would need to acquire long-term easements and/or special use permits to construct 

and operate the new pipeline and M&R facility for the Rockaway Project. These authorizations would

convey temporary and permanent rights-of-way to Transco for construction and operation of the proposed 

facilities. Activities for the Northeast Connector Project would occur on lands owned by Transco; no new 

pipeline rights-of-way or other easements would be required for this project. 

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. Compensation is based on a market study conducted by a 

licensed real estate appraiser and, in the case of governmental entities, typically follows agency-specific 

procedures for determining assessed value and associated payments.

If an easement cannot be negotiated with a non-federal landowner and a project is approved by 

the Commission, an applicant may use the right of eminent domain to acquire the property necessary to 

construct the project. This right would extend to all project-related workspace covered by the 

Commission’s approval, including the temporary and permanent rights-of-way, aboveground facility 

sites, pipe and contractor yards, access roads, and additional workspace. The applicant would still be 

required to compensate the landowner for the right-of-way and damages incurred during construction, and 

the level of compensation would be determined by a court according to state or federal law.

Lands affected by construction of the Rockaway Project would consist of both public and private 

land, as shown in Figure 4.8.2-1. Approximately 81.5 percent of the proposed pipeline would be located 

offshore on submerged lands owned by New York State. The remainder of the pipeline would be 

constructed beneath federal lands, both onshore and offshore, administered by the NPS (17.9 percent) and 

on land owned by the TBTA (0.6 percent). The M&R facility would be constructed on NPS lands at 

Floyd Bennett Field. In addition, Transco is proposing to lease a privately owned 5.0-acre commercial 

site in Elizabeth, New Jersey for a pipe yard. No tribal land would be affected by the Rockaway Project.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
NOTE: Some city-owned lands that lie within the depicted GNRA 

boundaries are not identified as part of the coastal zone on the

latest official New York State coastal zone maps (circa 1982). 

However, these lands are still defined as part of the coastal zone

pursuant to 15 CFR §923.33(a).

Proposed M&R Facility

Proposed Pipeline Route

Road

Coastal Zone Boundary

of New York

Existing Special Natural Waterfront Area

Federally Owned Land

City of New York Property

Gateway National Recreation Area Boundary

Figure 4.8.2-1

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

Land Ownership

in the Vicinity of the Rockaway Project

4-98

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-99 

Federal Lands

The Rockaway Project would cross lands administered by the NPS within the Jamaica Bay Unit 

of the GNRA. Transco is proposing to install the pipeline across Jacob Riis Park and adjacent offshore 

submerged lands in the Atlantic Ocean using the HDD method, which would avoid direct impacts on the 

ground surface or seabed within NPS owned lands. The surface activities associated with construction of 

the pipeline under NPS lands would be the installation of tracking wires along the drill path to monitor 

the position of the drill head, and pedestrian traffic between the HDD entry location and the shore to 

monitor for inadvertent returns of drilling mud. 

Transco is proposing to construct and operate the M&R facility and associated inlet and outlet 

piping within the southernmost historic hangar complex (Hangars 1 and 2) on Floyd Bennett Field. 

Workspace surrounding the hangar complex would be required during construction, and NPS public roads 

would be used for access to the facility site.

Construction and operation of the pipeline and M&R facility would be authorized by the NPS 

under easement and lease agreements. As noted in Section 10.2 (Special Park Uses) of Director’s Order 

No. 53, no general authority exists for the NPS to issue a right-of-way across park lands for oil, gas, 

natural gas, synthetic liquids, gaseous fuels, or other refined product pipelines. Oil and gas lines that 

serve NPS facilities may be allowed through a utility contract between the service provider and the NPS 

under 16 USC § 1-3, so long as these lines serve NPS facilities. As a result, park-specific legislation is 

required for authority to allow construction of an oil or gas transmission pipeline through NPS lands. 

As discussed in Section 1.2.2, Transco coordinated with the NPS and local congressional leaders 

to introduce a bill (i.e., the New York City Natural Gas Supply Enhancement Act) authorizing the 

Secretary of the Interior to allow construction and operation of the Rockaway Project subject to receipt of 

the necessary permits and easements from the NPS. The legislation subsequently was approved by both 

houses of Congress and signed into law by President Obama on November 27, 2012. The bill supports 

NPS authority to charge permit fees and rent for the right-of-way associated with the pipeline and lease 

agreement for the M&R facility, and to apply funds from the fees/rent for infrastructure needs, resource

protection, and visitor services in the GNRA. Prior to approval of a right-of-way through the GNRA, the 

Rockaway Project would be reviewed for consistency with NPS management policies and requirements 

of NEPA. A discussion of impacts and mitigation related to the Rockaway Project within the GNRA is 

included in Section 4.8.7. 

State Lands

Approximately 2.6 miles of submerged lands owned by New York State and administered by the 

New York State Office of General Services (NYSOGS) would be crossed by the proposed pipeline 

between its connection with Transco’s existing LNYBL and the point about 0.25 mile offshore where 

NPS jurisdiction begins. Impacts to state-owned lands would include bottom disturbance for the piping 

and other facilities necessary to tie-in to Transco’s LNYBL, installation of 2.15 miles of pipeline using 

lay barge and jet trenching methods, and the dredging of an exit pit on the seabed for the HDD. Another 

0.44 mile of state land would be crossed by the HDD. During construction, Transco would establish a sea 

surface work zone for the vessels involved in the installation of the pipeline measuring approximately 

2.55 miles (13,470 feet) long by 0.95 mile (5,000 feet) in width. 

Pursuant to the New York State Public Lands Law, Transco would submit an application to the 

NYSOGS for an easement to use underwater state-owned lands. This type of easement typically is issued 

for a term of 25 years, after which a renewal can be granted, and involves the payment of an easement fee 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-100 

based on the per-foot length of the pipeline. A discussion of impacts on offshore uses of state submerged 

lands is provided in Section 4.8.4. 

New York City Lands 

Onshore pipeline construction activities, including the HDD entry and tie-in with the National 

Grid system, would occur within a section of TBTA property located south of Rockway Boulevard and 

the Marine Parkway Bridge interchange. This area is classified as open space from a land cover 

perspective (see Table 4.8.1-2) and as transportation, communications, and utilities from a land use 

perspective (see Table 4.8.1-1). The TBTA operates the Marine Parkway Bridge and its approaches on 

either side of the Jamaica Bay Inlet. Transco’s use of the TBTA lands for construction and operation of 

the pipeline would be subject to an easement agreement negotiated between TBTA and National Grid.

Installation of the proposed pipeline would be consistent with the transportation, communication 

and utilities land use classifications of the TBTA property. Approximately 0.7 acre of TBTA land would 

be temporarily impacted by construction. This area is currently covered in grasses, but there is a 

stormwater drain and paved bike path on the south side of the property. Transco would avoid the 

stormwater drain and other utilities and would install a temporary fence between the bike path and the 

proposed HDD workspace to separate it from the construction area. The bike path would remain open 

throughout construction, and Transco would install signs at either end of the construction area to notify 

the general public about the activities taking place adjacent to the bike path. The only direct effect on the 

bike path would be the installation of HDD tracking wires, which would be placed across the path to 

monitor the drilling operation. These wires (anchored on either side of the path) would not affect public 

use of the path due to their small diameter. 

Following completion of construction, the HDD entry pit and pipeline trench would be filled, 

contours would be restored, and the area would be seeded. National Grid would own and operate the 

pipeline on TBTA property, so Transco would not acquire a permanent right-of-way on TBTA land. 

Routine inspection and maintenance of the pipeline by National Grid would not disturb TBTA land or its 

use.

Private Lands

Transco would use existing facilities at C&ME in Elizabeth, New Jersey, for a pipe yard. The 

site is classified as developed land from a land cover perspective (see Table 4.8.1-2) and as commercial 

and services land from a land use perspective (Table 4.8.1-1). Transco would contract with C&ME to use 

about 5.0 acres of their property for pipe and equipment storage and for coating the pipe with concrete. 

The transfer of pipe and equipment to barges would be consistent with C&ME’s commercial and services 

land use classification. Transco would adhere to all C&ME policies for use of the property. No ground 

excavation is proposed, and all project-related materials would be removed from the site following 

construction. The Rockaway Project would have no impact on the existing land use or land cover on the 

property. 

It is expected that the marine construction contractor for the Rockaway Project may use 

additional established docks and marinas on private lands to load or unload personnel and supplies, but 

Transco does not anticpate the need for any additional private land to support pipeline construction 

beyond the pipe yard discussed above. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-101 

4.8.3 Coastal Zone Management 

In 1972, Congress passed the CZMA to “preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to 

restore or enhance, the resources of the nation’s coastal zone” and “encourage and assist the states to 

exercise effectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone through the development and implementation 

of management programs to achieve wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone” (16 

USC 1452, Section 303 [1] and [2]). Section 307 (c)(3)(A) of the CZMA states that “any applicant for a 

required federal license or permit to conduct an activity, in or outside the coastal zone, affecting any land 

or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone of that state shall provide a certification that the 

proposed activity complies with the enforceable policies of the state’s approved program and that such 

activity will be conducted in a manner consistent with the program.” 

The proposed aboveground facilities and the majority of the HDD section of the pipeline would 

be located within the GNRA. Federal lands, such as the GNRA, are excluded from state coastal zones as 

stated in the Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) Regulations (15 CFR §923.33[a]). According 

to Title 15 CFR §923.33(b), “the exclusion of Federal lands does not remove Federal agencies from the 

obligation of complying with the consistency provisions of Section 307 of the Act when Federal actions 

on these excluded lands have spillover impacts that affect any land or water use or natural resource of the 

coastal zone within the purview of a state’s management program.” 

In order to participate in the CZMP, a state is required to prepare a program management plan for 

approval by NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM). Once the OCRM 

has approved a state’s plan including its enforceable program policies, the state program gains “federal 

consistency” jurisdiction. This means that any federal action (e.g., a project requiring federally issued 

licenses or permits) that takes place within the state’s coastal zone must be found to be consistent with 

state coastal policies before the action can take place.

The NYSDOS, through the Division of Coastal Resources, is the lead agency responsible for 

administering the State’s Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act, Section 919, as approved 

by NOAA in 1982. This act provides the NYSDOS with the authority to establish a coastal management 

program, develop coastal policies, define coastal boundaries, and establish state consistency requirements. 

The New York Coastal Management Program (CMP) requires actions within the coastal zone to be 

consistent with the state’s coastal area policies or a state-approved Local Waterfront Revitalization 

Program (LWRP). A LWRP is a refinement of the state’s coastal policies, developed jointly by the state 

and a municipality. In 2002, the Secretary of New York State and the U.S. Secretary of Commerce 

approved the New Waterfront Revitalization Program as New York City’s official LWRP, which is the 

city’s principal coastal zone management tool. The LWRP establishes city policies for development and 

use of the waterfront and provides the framework for evaluating the consistency of all discretionary 

actions in the coastal zone with those policies (New York City Department of City Planning, 2002). 

The Rockaway Project is subject to a federal Coastal Zone Consistency Review because it would 

involve activities within the coastal zone of New York, and require several federal permits and approvals. 

Transco consulted with the NYSDOS for review of the Rockaway Project under New York State CMP 

and LWRP policies. Transco prepared a consistency assessment that concluded that the Rockaway 

Project would not have a significant adverse impact on coastal resources and would be consistent with the 

applicable policies of the LWRP. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-102 

Transco filed its consistency assessment with the NYSDOS on January 7, 2013. The NYSDOS 

stayed its review of the assessment for a 60-day period beginning on July 30, 2013 and again for a 95-day 

period beginning on September 1, 2013. Review of the assessment is expected to be completed in 

December of 2013. Therefore, we recommend that:

• Prior to construction, Transco should file with the Secretary the NYSDOS 

determination of the Rockaway Project’s consistency with the New York State CMP 

under the applicable provisions of the CZMA. 

Transco proposes to use a commercial pipe yard in Elizabeth, New Jersey that is within the 

coastal zone administered by New Jersey. Since the site is an existing commercial/industrial yard and 

Transco’s proposed use would be consistent with the purpose for which the commercial yard exists, no 

coastal zone management consistency review is required in New Jersey.

4.8.4 Offshore Uses

4.8.4.1 Fishing

The nearshore waters of the New York Bight produce significant quantities of commercially and 

recreationally important fish and shellfish. The top five commercial fish species, in terms of dollars, for 

nearshore New York State waters in 2010 included a finfish, striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and four 

shellfish, Atlantic surfclam (Spisula solidissima), Atlantic blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), Loligo squid 

(Loligo pealei), and American lobster (Homerus americanus) (NOAA, 2010). While data from NOAA 

Fisheries indicates that the proposed pipeline would not cross any federally designated or state-designated 

shellfish lease areas, it would be in an area of the Atlantic Ocean that is certified by New York State as 

being safe for shellfish harvesting. 

Atlantic surfclam is an important shellfish species for commercial use in the vicinity of the 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral. There are no seasonal restrictions on surfclam harvests in certified New 

York State marine waters. Horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus) is an arthropod that is harvested in the 

ocean waters off the Rockaway Peninsula for bait and as a biomedical resource. Most horseshoe crab 

harvests (more than 86 percent) occur in hand, trawl, and dredge fisheries; other methods include gill 

nets, pounds, and traps (Eyler et al., 2011). Dredges cannot be used to harvest horseshoe crabs from the 

Atlantic Ocean except in September and October (Eckel, 2010). 

Marine fish species important to the commercial and recreational fishing industries in New York 

waters include striped bass, bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), 

scup (Stenotomus chrysops), and black sea bass (Centropristis striata) (NOAA, 2010 and 2011). 

Commercial and recreational fishing seasons for these species are identified in Table 4.8.4-1. A fishing 

area known as “scallop ridge” lies approximately 0.25 mile south of the existing LNYBL, outside the 

temporary workspace proposed for offshore construction. A designated fish haven known as the 

Rockaway Reef is located about 0.65 mile east of the proposed pipeline and outside the temporary 

construction workspace. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-103 

TABLE 4.8.4-1 

Fishing Seasons for Several Managed Fish Species in the Vicinity of the Rockaway Project

Species Commercial Season a Recreational Season a

Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) July 1 to December 15 April 15 to December 15

Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) All Year All Year

Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) All Year May 1 to September 30

Scup (Stenotomus chrysops) All Year May 1 to December 31

Black sea bass (Centropristis striata) All Year June 15 to December 31

____________________

Sources: 

a New York Environmental Conservation Law, Section 40.1

Construction of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral would impact benthic shellfish in the excavated 

or jetted areas and adjacent workspaces that may be subject to heavy sedimentation. In these areas, the 

pipeline would affect an Atlantic surfclam aggregation that was identified and revisited during Transco’s 

2009 and 2010 environmental surveys (see Figure 4.5.2-1). The number of surfclams that would be 

impacted is relatively small and the community is expected to recover shortly after construction (see 

additional discussion of shellfish impacts in Section 4.6.2). Consequently, no significant or long-term 

impacts on surfclam harvests are expected. Similar impacts on horseshoe crab and bottom-dwelling fish 

populations (e.g., flounder) could occur, but these species have greater mobility than surfclams, and may 

be able to avoid the area of disturbance. 

Other commercially or recreationally important fish species in the vicinity of the Rockaway 

Delivery Lateral would likely avoid the areas of greatest disturbance and would experience temporary, 

minor impacts from increased levels of suspended sediment and turbidity. These impacts would be 

spatially limited and would affect few individuals relative to overall populations within the area. In 

addition, the proposed pipeline route has been located, to the maximum extent practical, to avoid hardbottom habitat that supports shellfish and fish communities. Therefore, we do not anticipate any 

significant impacts on the fish populations available for commercial harvest or recreational catch. See 

Section 4.3.2 for further discussion of project-related turbidity and sedimentation, and Section 4.6 for 

further discussion of the effects of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral on shellfish and finfish populations. 

Additional short-term impacts on the commercial and recreational fishing industry could occur 

during offshore construction. In this period, commercial and recreational vessels not associated with the 

Rockaway Project would be advised to avoid the 5,000-foot-wide temporary offshore work area. Fishing 

activities would also be affected during pipeline commissioning activities, which would occur over a two 

week period at the end of construction prior to placing facilities in-service. During this time, Transco 

would advise fishermen to avoid the area centered on the subsea manifold near the tie-in with the LNYBL 

with a radius of 2,500 feet. For all these activities, a Special Notice to Mariners would be submitted to 

the USCG to advise vessels of the construction schedule and the location of the restricted areas. 

Transco would mark the offshore workspaces with buoys during construction, and would monitor 

the areas using escort boats. Transco would advertise its plans and schedule to allow commercial 

fishermen to remove any fixed fishing gear from the construction area before construction begins. In 

addition, Transco would work with the New York surfclam fishing community to coordinate a harvest in 

the proposed offshore work area in the months prior to construction. This would minimize the potential 

for conflicts with surfclam vessel operators during construction and reduce the amount of surfclams that 

might be harvested from other areas, which in turn would reduce the short-term cumulative impact of the 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral on the surfclam population. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-104 

Following construction, there would be no restrictions on fishing, except during routine scheduled

pipeline maintenance inspections or if there is an unexpected need to repair the pipeline. Routine pipeline 

maintenance inspections would take place approximately once every 7 years at the subsea tap near the tie 

in with the LNYBL, and would require approximately 5 days to complete. During this time, commercial 

and recreational vessels would be advised through a Special Notice to Mariners of the work taking place 

and the location of the restricted work zone, which would be centered over the subsea manifold and have 

a radius of approximately 1,500 feet. During normal operations, the offshore pipeline is not expected to 

have a long-term impact on fishing activities or fishing equipment. The pipeline would be installed at 

least 4 feet below the seafloor and would be buried after the trench is backfilled (see Sections 2.3.1.9, 

4.1.7, and 4.6.3). 

4.8.4.2 Vessel Traffic

In addition to the fishing activities discussed above, vessel traffic in the New York Bight waters 

off the Rockaway Peninsula includes both commercial shipping and recreational boating. The Rockaway 

Project is expected to have little, if any, impact on commercial shipping for the following reasons: 

1. there are no major ports located within 10 miles of the pipeline route;

2. although the proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral is within the precautionary area of the 

Port of New Jersey and New York, there are no shipping routes or navigation channels 

crossed by the pipeline route; and

3. there are no designated lightering zones (i.e., designated locations for anchoring and shipto-ship transfer operations) crossed by or in the vicinity of the pipeline route. 

Impacts on commercial ship traffic would be short-term and mainly limited to the 5,000-footwide temporary workspace that would be used for offshore construction and the circular area with a 

radius of 2,500 feet that would be used during commissioning of the pipeline. As indicated in Section 

4.8.4.1 above, vessels would be advised to avoid the temporary workspaces during the offshore 

construction period and the commissioning period. A Special Notice to Mariners would be submitted to 

the USCG to advise commercial vessels of the construction schedule and location of the restricted area, 

which would be marked by buoys and monitored by escort boats. These temporary restrictions are not 

expected to adversely effect commercial shipping because there is ample room in the surrounding area for 

ships to transit to and from local harbor destinations. Additionally, there would be constant 

communication between construction vessels and other boat traffic to ensure that adequate safety margins 

are maintained. 

Table 4.8.4-2 lists the estimated vessel sizes and traffic between the offshore construction site and 

either a dock or the pipe yard at the C&ME facilities in Elizabeth, New Jersey. Construction-related 

vessel traffic along the waterways between the proposed pipe yard and the offshore workspace 

temporarily would increase during construction, but the total number and frequency of vessel trips for the 

Rockaway Project would be small, typically less than 10 vessel trips per day on most days. The crew and 

escort boats would make daily trips between the shore and the offshore construction site. The pipe 

transport barges (and the four tug boats that support them) would travel between the pipe yard and the 

offshore construction site once per day during pipe laying activities, where one barge would be loaded at 

the pipe yard while the other would be used at the offshore worksite. The dive support vessel could make 

daily trips to and from the work area if it docks in the harbor at night, but the vessel would be capable of 

anchoring in the work area overnight. The fuel barge (and the tug boats that support it) would make about 

one trip per week to the work area to refuel vessels and equipment. The other vessels, including the 

clamshell barge, jack-up barge, and pipe lay barge (and associated tug boats) would remain at the offshore 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-105 

construction area for the duration of their work. The additon of these vessel trips is not expected to have 

a significant impact on commercial vessel traffic or channel congestion. 

TABLE 4.8.4-2

Estimated Vessel Size and Trip Frequency for Construction-Related Traffic for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral a

Vessel Type

Number of

Vessels

Vessel Size

(feet) Vessel Origin

Estimated Trip 

Frequency

Crew boats 2 110 Local Twice per day b

Escort boats 2 110 Local Once per day c

Pipe transport barges 2 150 Local Once per day d

Dive support vessel 1 150 Local Variable e

Fuel barge 1 100 Local Once per week

Pipe lay barge 1 400 Gulf Coast Once for construction 

campaign

Clamshell barge 1 150 Local Once for construction 

campaign

Clamshell barge 1 150 Local Not applicable

Jack-up barge 1 130 Gulf Coast Once for construction 

campaign

Tug boats 7 75 Local Variable f

Anchor handling tug boats 2 150 Gulf Coast Once for construction 

campaign g 

____________________

a Data provided in this table are Transco estimates; final contractors and vessels have not been selected. b Two crew boats would be available, but just one would typically be operating at any given time during the day. Each crew 

boat would facilitate shift changes and supply runs approximately one per day. c Two escort boats would be available, but just one would typically be operating at any given time during the day. d Two pipe lay barges would be utilized. Each pipe lay barge would be transported to the offshore worksite once per day 

during pipe laying activities. One pipe lay barge would be used at the offshore work site while the other is loaded with 

pipe at the pipe yard. e The dive support vessel would make daily trips to the work site if it docks in the harbor, but would be capable of anchoring 

in the work area over night. A dive support vessel also would be used for pre-commissioning/commission activities. f Two tugs would be used in conjunction with each pipe transport barge (a total of four tugs), which would make daily trips 

between the pipe yard and offshore work site. One tug would be used to transport the clamshell barge to the work site 

and to assist with positioning each day the clamshell barge is operating. One tug would be used to transport the fuel 

barge to and from the offshore worksite approximately once per week. One tug may be used to assist with positioning the 

dive support vessel. When not in use or at dock, tugs would be rafted to construction vessels. g Two anchor handling tugs would be used to move and position anchors during construction. When not in use these tugs 

would be rafted to construction vessels

 

Minor recreational boat traffic is expected in the vicinity of the offshore pipeline because there 

are no public or private marinas, protected coves, inlets, or harbors within or near the proposed pipeline 

landfall. Furthermore, offshore construction would occur primarily during the spring months when water 

temperatures are still low and recreational boating is lower. Any recreational boating that does occur in 

the area would be subject to the same restrictions imposed on other vessels (see more discussion of these 

restrictions above). Recreational boaters would have access to the same Special Notice to Mariners that

would be available to fishermen and commercial ships. Therefore, no significant impacts on recreational 

boating are expected. 

Restrictions on recreational and commercial vessel traffic during operation of the Rockaway 

Delivery Lateral would be the same as for fishing vessels. Specifically, recreational boats and 

commercial vessels would be advised to avoid a small area in the vicinity of the subsea tap for a 5-day 

maintenance period approximately once every 7 years for internal pipeline inspections. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-106 

4.8.4.3 Subsea Utilities

NOAA navigation charts and Transco’s magnetometer survey data for the Rockaway Delivery 

Lateral indicate that the offshore pipeline would cross one active and two inactive subsea cables (see 

Figure 4.8.4-1). One of the inactive cables is believed to be the Cape Cod to New York telegraph, which 

was installed in 1899 for the French Telegraph Cable Company. The other is believed to be the New 

York to Fisherman’s Point (Cuba) telegraph, which was installed in 1907 for the Central and South 

American Telegraph Company. The current depth of these cables is unknown, but would be determined 

by a survey scheduled to be conducted in 2013. 

The active cable is part of the Neptune RTS, which was completed in 2007 to transmit highvoltage direct current electric power for 65 miles between Sayreville, New Jersey and New Cassel on 

Long Island, New York. As-built drawings of the cable indicate it is buried approximately 5 feet below 

the seabed at the location of the proposed pipeline crossing.

According to Transco, the owner of the active cable has identified two concerns: maintaining the 

structural integrity of the cable and ensuring that service is not interupted. Transco developed a 

preliminary installation plan for the cable crossings to address these concerns. We recommend that:

• Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Transco should file with the 

Secretary an updated cable crossing plan for the Rockaway Project that shows the 

finalized pipeline crossing and addresses the cable owner’s concerns. Transco 

should also file evidence of the cable owner’s concurrence with the plan.

4.8.4.4 Offshore Dredge Disposal Sites

Two offshore dredged material disposal sites are located in the vicinity of the Rockaway Delivery 

Lateral (Figure 4.8.4-1). The East Rockaway Inlet, Long Island, New York, Dredged Material Disposal 

Site is located off of the Rockaway Peninsula shore approximately 3.4 miles northeast of the proposed 

pipeline route. It is approximately 0.81 square nautical mile (nm2

) in size and 0.21 statute mile from the 

nearest shore (EPA, 2012b). Disposal at the site is restricted to dredged material from the East Rockaway 

Inlet. The second site, the Rockaway Inlet, Long Island, New York, Dredged Material Disposal Site is 

located off of the Rockaway Peninsula shore approximately 1.6 statute miles southeast of the pipeline 

route. It is approximately 0.38 nm2 in size and 0.6 statute mile from the nearest shore. Disposal at this 

site is restricted to dredged material from the Rockaway Inlet (40 CFR 228.15). 

The USACE has not used either of these dredge disposal sites in recent years. Instead, material 

dredged from the Rockaway and East Rockway Inlets is used for beach replenishment along the 

Rockaway Peninsula (USACE, 2012a), restoration fill for Jamaica Bay, and capping of an “historic area 

restoration site” south of the Ambrose Light off of the New Jersey shore (USACE, 2012b). 

As discussed in Section 4.2.2, sediment samples were collected and analyzed from four locations 

along the offshore portion of the pipeline route (Ecology and Environment, Inc., 2011). With one 

exception, no evidence of elevated contamination levels was identified in the samples. One sample 

yielded an elevated concentration of mercury, but the concentration was slighly higher than the TOGS 

5.1.9 Class A threshold for this metal. Therefore, we do not anticipate any issues related to resuspension 

of mercury into the water column, and no impacts from the dredge disposal sites are expected. Additional 

information on the results of the sediment sampling and analysis is provided in Section 4.2.2 and 

Appendix I. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Proposed Route

Existing 26" Lower New York Bay Lateral

BREEZY POINT

ROXBURY

NEPONSIT

NHATTAN BEACH BELLE HARBOR

!(

!(

!(

0 0.5 1

Miles p Figure 4

Rockaway Deli

and Northeast Con

Locations of Cable Crossing

 in Relation to the Rocka

Proposed Pipeline Route

Existing 26" Lower 

New York Bay Lateral

Dumping Grounds

Cable Crossing !(

4-107
4-108 

4.8.5 Hazardous Waste Sites and Landfills 

We conducted a search of publicly available databases in the EPA’s Envirofacts Data Warehouse

to identify hazardous waste sites and landfills in the vicinity of the proposed Rockaway Project facilities 

and Compressor Station 195. As noted in Section 4.2.2, the New York City Fire Department Engine 

Company 329, located approximately 200 feet southeast of the HDD entry point, is the sole EPAregulated facility within 0.5 mile of the Rockaway Project, and Compressor Station 195 is the sole EPAregulated facility within 0.5 mile of this area. Because Engine Company 329 and Compressor Station 195 

are in compliance with the permits issued by the EPA, we do not anticipate that Transco would encounter 

any known or previously identified soil contamination associated with these facilities. We received a 

comment from the NPS that a tar-like substance associated with an old factory site is located on the south 

shore of Floyd Bennet Field east of the Marine Parkway Bridge. We have determined that this site is 

located about 0.7 mile from the proposed M&R facility and would not be affected by construction of the 

Rockaway Project. Our search did not identify any known contamination sites in the vicinity of the 

Projects, including in the offshore area. 

Transco conducted site evaluations at the proposed M&R facility site and tested offshore 

sediments along the route for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral for contamination. The results of these 

studies are discussed in Sections 4.2.2 and 4.3.2.2. 

4.8.6 Existing Residences and Buildings

There are no residences within 50 feet of the proposed construction work areas for the Rockaway 

Project. Residential communities in the vicinity of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral include Roxbury, 

approximately 0.3 mile to the west, and Neponsit and Belle Harbor, approximately 1.0 mile to the east. 

The closest residence to the M&R facility is a multi-family residential building off Aviation Road, 

approximately 0.5 mile to the southeast. 

The proposed pipeline would not cross under any buildings in Jacob Riis Park. The M&R facility 

would be located in a historic hangar complex (Hangars 1 and 2) in Floyd Bennett Field, which would be 

rehabilitated to ensure structural integrity and to enhance the visual aesthetics of the Floyd Bennett Field 

Historic District. The temporary workspace would be within 50 feet of Hangars 3 and 4 to the north and a 

historic garage and maintenance shop to the south. These buildings currently are in disrepair and appear 

to be used for storage of unused supplies and derelict equipment and for boats. Because of its location 

within Jacob Riis Park and TBTA property, the onshore portion of the proposed pipeline route would not 

cross any planned residential developments. Similarly, the M&R facility would be located in the GNRA 

and would not lie within any planned residential developments. 

Other than rehabilitation and reuse of Hangars 1 and 2 for the M&R facility, no buildings would 

be affected by the Rockaway Project. As discussed in Section 4.11.2.3, residences closest to the HDD 

entry and the M&R facility sites may experience an increase in noise during construction. Transco would 

erect barriers during HDD activities to mitigate the noise from the drill and other machinery on TBTA 

property. In addition, Transco would configure the onshore HDD workspace, storage tanks, trailers and 

other non-noise-producing equipment in a manner that keeps the noisiest equipment and activities as far 

as possible from noise-sensitive areas. Construction at the M&R facility would take place during daytime 

hours when there is less sensitivity to noise. Residents would not be impacted by operation of the 

Rockaway Project. 

Construction activities at Compressor Station 195 would be confined to the existing station yard, 

so no planned future residential developments would be affected by the Northeast Connector Project. 

There are no residences within 50 feet of the proposed construction workspace, but there are several 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-109 

homes in the vicinity of the site that could experience an increase in noise during construction and 

operation of the facilities. Construction at Compressor Station 195 would take place during daylight 

hours when there is less sensitivity to noise. As discussed in Section 4.11.2.3, the noise levels at 

Compressor Station 195 during operations could exceed the FERC standard of 55 dBA at the nearest 

NSA, but the noise level would be less than measured values for current ambient conditions at the site. 

4.8.7 Recreation and Special Use Areas

Impacts of the Rockaway Project on the GNRA and Jacob Riis Park are discussed below. 

Activities at Compressor Station 195 would not affect recreation and special use areas. 

Gateway National Recreation Area

The GNRA was added to the NPS system in 1972. It encompasses more than 26,000 acres in 

New York and New Jersey. Specifically, it includes areas in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island in New 

York, and Monmouth County, New Jersey. Figure 4.8.7-1 shows the location of the Rockaway Project 

area in the GNRA. 

The GNRA attracts more than 9 million visitors a year, making it the third most visited national 

park in the United States. The park provides both active and passive open space recreation opportunities 

ranging from swimming and boating to bird watching and hiking. The GNRA is separated into three 

administrative units based on their geographic locations around New York City’s Outer Harbor: Jamaica 

Bay, Staten Island, and Sandy Hook. The Rockaway Project area is located within the Jamaica Bay Unit. 

This unit includes 6,192 acres of upland, 1,000 acres of salt marshes, and 11,350 acres of bay and ocean 

bottom. Visitor activities in the Jamaica Bay Unit include swimming, nature walks, sailing, bicycling, 

bird watching, gardening, camping, astronomy, and fishing. Offshore, the Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

would cross a quarter mile of the GNRA. The pipeline would not cross Jamaica Bay or any salt marshes 

within the unit (NPS, 2009). 

The GNRA is managed by the NPS pursuant to a GMP published in 1979. The NPS currently is 

in the process of developing a new GMP, which will provide management direction and guide decision 

making for the GNRA over the next 20 years. A draft of the updated GMP/EIS was issued by the NPS 

for public comment on August 2, 2013. The updated draft GMP/EIS prescribes a means of managing and 

using existing facilities and resources within the GNRA to obtain maximum recreational and educational 

benefits while continuing to protect natural and cultural resources. The new GMP/EIS is expected to be 

finalized in late 2013 or early 2014. 

Jacob Riis Park

The proposed pipeline would cross 0.57 mile of land within GNRA boundaries. Of this, 0.32 

mile would be located onshore within Jacob Riis Park (see Figure 4.8.7-1). The park was opened in 1932 

and transferred to the NPS as part of the creation of the GNRA in 1972. Jacob Riis Park provides both 

active and passive open space recreation facilities, including the Riis Park Pitch-and-Putt Golf Course, a 

playground, picnic area, beach, swimming area, boardwalks, courtyards, landscaped walkway, food 

concessions, and a historic bathhouse. The pipeline would cross a section of the beach, boardwalk, and 

pitch-and-putt golf course. This area includes the GNRA land use classifications of beach, development 

support, protection, and structured recreation, and the land cover classifications of barren land, 

grassland/herbaceous, open space, and developed. In the updated draft GMP/EIS for the GNRA, this area 

is within a recreation management zone and an active beach subzone (NPS, 2013). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
"/

Existing 26" Lower NY Bay Lateral

Proposed

Pipeline

Staten Island Unit

N E W Y O R K

N E W J E R S E Y

Proposed

M&R Facility

National Grid BrooklynQueens Interconnect

Swinburne Island

(no public access)

Hoffman Island

(no public access)

Jamaica Bay Unit

Sandy Hook Unit

Monmouth

County

Essex

County

Hudson

Union County

County

Nassau

County

Manhattan

Queens

Brooklyn

Staten

Island

"/

Floyd Bennett

Field

Jacob Riis

Park

I N S E T

"/ Proposed M&R Facility

Proposed Pipeline Route

Existing 26" Lower NY Bay Lateral

Gateway National Recreation Area

National Grid BrooklynQueens Interconnect

Figure 4.8.7-1

Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

and Northeast Connector Projects

Gateway National Recreation Area

in Relation to the Rockaway Project

4-110

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-111 

Impacts on Jacob Riis Park would be minimized by Transco’s use of the HDD construction 

method. No ground disturbance would occur in the park except that required for the placement and 

monitoring of tracking wires for the HDD, which would be placed on the ground surface along the 

proposed HDD alignment in the golf course and along the paved shoulder of Beach 169th Street. The 

tracking wires would be attached to the ground surface along the HDD route during construction using

small wooden stakes, nails, or other suitable material every 50 to 100 feet to keep the wires in place. The 

tracking wires would likely terminate somewhere in the surf zone that is part of NPS waters. The wires 

could possibly be buried to a shallow depth on the beach to accommodate beach grooming. If the ocean 

currents and underwater conditions allow, the tracking wires could be extended offshore out to (or just 

beyond) the proposed HDD exit point to allow for additional tracking capabilities along the full extent of 

the HDD route. Small clump weights, capable of being placed and positioned by hand, may be necessary 

for the wire installation along the HDD alignment in the offshore construction zone. The tracking wires 

and any anchoring materials or devices would be removed prior to the completion of construction. 

During construction, Transco would inspect the tracking wires on foot by walking the length of 

the wires each day and would coordinate with GNRA lawn maintenance staff to help ensure that the wires

are not damaged during mowing. The wires are not expected to restrict access to or use of the park, and 

would be removed after drilling operations are complete. 

It is possible that use of the golf course at the park could decline for a temporary, short-term 

period during the spring of 2014 as a result of construction noise at the HDD entry point. To help 

mitigate this potential effect, Transco would erect tents and/or screens around the HDD machinery on the 

TBTA property adjacent to the park to mitigate noise. 

During the HDD crossing, there is the potential for ground surface disturbance if an 

unanticipated, inadvertent return of drilling fluid surfaces along the HDD alignment. An inadvertent 

release of drilling fluid in Jacob Riis Park could temporarily affect park users. To minimize the potential 

for this, Transco would install a 200-foot-long casing at the HDD entry point on the TBTA property and 

implement its HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan, which includes measures to contain and clean up 

any release that may occur (see Appendix H).

Transco has proposed a permanent 50-foot-wide right-of-way over the pipeline across Jacob Riis 

Park and the offshore area under GNRA jurisdiction. During operations, Transco would periodically 

walk and inspect the onshore right-of-way and conduct leak detection surveys once a year, but no 

alterations would be made to the land cover during these inspections. Additionally, there would be no 

restrictions on existing uses of the Park along the right-of-way. Therefore, the Rockaway Project would 

have no impact on current land uses or land cover within Jacob Riis Park. Construction of new buildings 

within the permanent pipeline right-of-way would be prohibited. 

Floyd Bennett Field 

The proposed M&R facility would be located within Floyd Bennett Field (see Figure 4.8.7-1). 

This field was New York City’s first municipal airport, and it was used publicly until 1941 when it was 

sold to the U.S. Navy. In 1946, it became a Naval Air Reserve Training Station and then a Naval Air 

Station, before being deactivated in 1971 and incorporated into the GNRA (NPS, 2012). Portions of 

Floyd Bennett Field are still used as a helicopter base by the New York City Police Department, but the 

field otherwise is no longer used as a commercial or military airport. The Rockaway Project is not 

expected to affect the use of the field as a helicopter base; the heliport/landing strip is located on the 

eastern shore of Floyd Bennett Field approximately 0.7 mile from the proposed M&R facility site. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-112 

Floyd Bennett Field currently provides activities for visitors similar to those listed above for 

Jacob Riis Park, including nature walks, bicycling, bird watching, camping, and astronomy. The area of 

the field that would be impacted by the Rockaway Project includes the GNRA land use classifications of 

Gateway Village (for the M&R facility) and use-by-reservation, structured recreation, and unstructured 

recreation (for the access road). The land cover that would be affected by construction and operation of 

the M&R facility is developed. In the updated draft GMP/EIS for the GNRA, this area is within a historic 

management zone (NPS, 2013). 

The M&R facility would be constructed within a 1.1-acre historic hangar complex (i.e., Hangars 

1 and 2). Approximately 5.5 acres would be directly affected by construction of the M&R facility, 

including Hangars 1 and 2, a fenced area for parking and equipment lay-down, and access roads. The 

hangar complex currently is in disrepair. It has been used most recently by the NPS as a storage area for 

unused supplies and equipment and by emergency response teams after Hurricane Sandy. With the 

permission of and in coordination with GNRA staff, Transco cleaned out the hangars in order to complete 

the historical, structural, and SIs necessary to evaluate the feasibility of using the building as an M&R 

facility. Because access to the hangar complex has been restricted by the NPS due to safety concerns, 

construction activities would not impact any current uses of the site. 

The rehabilitation of the hangars and installation of the M&R equipment would occur over a 14 

month period (six months for installation of equipment and piping and up to 14 months for rehabilitation 

of the structures). During this time, existing paved areas around the hangar complex would be used as a 

temporary workspace. Ground disturbance would be necessary to install support piles for the building 

foundation, but pavement would be restored following construction. Construction and worker vehicles 

would access the site along the Aviation Road entrance, which could contribute to occasional minor 

increases in traffic. 

We received several comments from stakeholders regarding potential impacts on the community 

garden at Floyd Bennett Field. The garden is located approximately 100 feet to the northeast of the 

proposed workspace for construction of the M&R facility. Gardeners would be temporarily disturbed by 

noise, vibration, and traffic during construction. In addition, construction noise also could disturb users 

of the Ecology Village Campsite on Floyd Bennett Field, which is located within 0.5 mile of the hangar 

complex, but these disturbances would be less noticeable and limited to daylight hours (see Section 4.11

for further discussion of noise impacts). 

Operation of the M&R facility would require the use of approximately 2.0 acres of land, 

including the lease of the hangar complex and the establishment of two permanent right-of-way 

easements, measuring 56 and 60 feet in width, for the inlet and outlet piping that would connect to the 

National Grid pipeline along Flatbush Avenue. GNRA traffic would not be significantly impacted by 

operation of the M&R facility. The facility operations generally would be automated so vehicle trips and 

parking requirements for company personnel would be limited to occasional inspection, maintenance, and 

repair visits. For safety purposes, the M&R facility design would incorporate low illumination lighting. 

Transco does not anticipate that this lighting would be visible from the nearby Ecology Village Campsite. 

The noise study concluded that the increase in noise due to operation of the M&R facility is unlikely to be 

noticeable above ambient conditions (Hoover & Keith, Inc., 2012b). Therefore, we do not anticipate any 

significant impacts on Floyd Bennett Field users from operation of the M&R facility. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-113 

Jamaica Bay

During the scoping period, we received comments regarding impacts on Jamaica Bay, including 

impacts on ongoing restoration activities within the bay. The offshore portion of the Rockaway Delivery 

Lateral would be constructed in the Atlantic Ocean off Rockaway Beach; no portion of the Rockaway 

Project would be constructed within Jamaica Bay. 

4.8.8 Visual Resources

Construction of the Rockaway Project would impact the visual character of the Rockaway 

Peninsula during the time it would take to construct the offshore pipeline and complete the HDD 

operation. The barges and support vessels used in trenching and pipe lay operations would be visible 

from the shore for a majority of this time, but the visual impact of these vessels would be mitigated by 

their distance from the beach, which would range from 3,000 feet to more than 2.5 miles. Offshore 

construction vessels would be visible from residential neighborhoods, but the closest residences (on 

Beach 149th Steet) are located more than a mile from the HDD exit point and, at this distance, would 

appear relatively small. 

The onshore construction activities at the HDD entry location would be visible from residential 

neighborhoods, some area roadways, and from Jacob Riis Park and Fort Tilden. Transco would minimze 

the visual impact of these construction activities by erecting a tent and/or screens to shield the HDD 

equipment from view. 

Following construction, the equipment and any excess materials would be removed, disturbed 

areas would be restored and, in the case of the HDD entry workspace, seeded with grasses. There would 

be no significant long term visual impacts during operation of the pipeline. The onshore portion of the 

pipeline would be marked at key points to indicate the presence of the pipeline. Transco proposes to use 

flush-mounted reflective plastic plate markers at a few select curb or existing pavement locations along 

the upland portion of the HDD route through Jacob Riis Park, including a location near the HDD entry 

point where the pipeline would be at a shallower depth. Typical post-style pipeline markers would not be 

installed on NPS land. 

As discussed in Section 2.6.1, the USACE has advised Transco that it would require a sign no 

smaller than 4-feet by 4-feet containing language regarding the location of the pipeline at the shoreline 

crossing as a condition to any permit it may issue for the Rockaway Project. Transco would work with 

the USACE and NPS to confirm the requirements for the sign and select a design, size, and location that 

is acceptable to both agencies. 

The hangar complex at Floyd Bennett Field that would house the M&R facility is currently in 

disrepair and has experienced significant structural damage. As part of the Rockaway Project, these 

hangars would be rehabilitated to accommodate the M&R facility. During the 14 months that Transco 

estimates it would take to construct the M&R facility and complete the proposed rehabilitation, the 

hangars and surrounding area would be visually impacted by the operation, movement, and temporary 

storage of equipment and materials. There would be long-term visual impact associated with the changes 

that must be made to the hangars to accommodate the natural gas piping and equipment, but the majority 

of these changes would be to the inside of the hangars and would not be visible form the exterior. We 

also note that Transco is proposing a rehabilitated exterior appearance that would restore the hangars’ 

appearance and enhance the visual character of the Floyd Bennett Field Historic District in accordance 

with a design that would be approved by the NPS, FERC, and the New York SHPO. As such, no 

significant adverse impacts on visual resources are anticipated due to construction or operation of the 

M&R facility.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-114 

We do not expect construction and operation of the proposed facilities at Compressor Station 195 

would impact the visual character of the surrounding area. The existing hedgerow around the periphery 

of the site would screen construction activities and the new facilities to views from nearby NSAs and 

from Bryansville Road, which runs along the northern border of the site. Although Transco would 

remove between 25 and 27 trees from the site during construction (see Section 4.4.1), these trees are 

located on the interior of the site near the existing compressor building and other facilities. Removal of 

these trees would not affect views from nearby NSAs or Bryansville Road.

4.8.9 Honey Bee Colonies

There are a number of managed honey bee colonies on Floyd Bennett Field, and members of the 

public have expressed concern that the noise and vibrations caused by operation of the M&R facility 

could disturb these colonies. Considerable research has been conducted to determine which frequencies 

of vibration affect honey bee behavior, but there is much less information available regarding the 

magnitudes of vibrations and noise that can cause an effect. Frings and Little (1957) found that exposure 

of hives to continuous sounds of certain frequencies and of sufficient intensities caused workers and 

drones (male honeybees) in hives to stop moving for up to 20 minutes. No reaction was observed in 

worker bees at the entrance to the hives or foraging in the field. This suggests that honey bees react to 

vibration of the surfaces on which they are walking, not to air-born sound. Frings and Little (1957) found 

that bees returned to normal activities almost immediately after the noise ceased. In a later paper, Little 

(1962) found that bees leaving or entering the hive, challenging landing bees, or ventilating the hive 

typically did not respond to vibrations. Additionally, queen bees were observed moving from cell to cell 

and laying eggs, even when workers on the same comb stood still. 

Transco conducted a study (AKRF, Inc., 2013) to assess the potential effects of vibration during 

operations at the proposed M&R facility on the honey bee colonies at Floyd Bennett Field. Transco 

measured vibrations on the gas pipeline and in the ground near an existing M&R facility in Linden, New 

Jersey, which was determined to be comparable to the proposed M&R facility in terms of size and 

equipment. Transco then compared the vibration measurements from the existing M&R facility with the

honey bee vibration thresholds taken from Little (1962). 

The vibration measurements taken on the existing gas pipeline at the Linden facility ranged 

between about 90 and 110 dB at low end frequencies, but were less than 60 dB in the ground at distances 

ranging from 26 to 54 feet from the existing facility. The honey bee vibration thresholds taken from 

Little (1962) range from about 100 to 130 dB at low end frequencies. Therefore, the analysis indicates 

that operation of the proposed M&R facility would have no effect on the honey bee colonies, which are 

located about 270 feet to the east of the hangar complex. 

4.8.10 Conclusion

Based on the preceding discussion, and with the implementation of Transco’s proposed 

mitigation and our recommendations, we conclude that the Projects would not significantly affect land 

uses.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-115 

4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS

The potential socioeconomic effects of construction and operation of the Projects include changes 

in population levels or local demographics, increased opportunities for employment, increased demand 

for housing and public services, transportation impacts, and an increase in government revenue associated 

with sales, payroll, and property taxes. These are discussed in Sections 4.9.1 through 4.9.6. Section 4.9.7 

provides an analysis of Environmental Justice (EJ) for the Rockaway Project in accordance with CEQ 

guidelines (1997a) for federal agency actions. We did not prepare an EJ analysis for the Northeast 

Connector Project because Transco’s proposed activities would be conducted at existing aboveground 

facility sites.

New York City is divided into 59 community districts for land use and other city planning. The 

onshore segment of the proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral would traverse the Rockaway Peninsula, 

which is located in Queens Community District 14 (QCD14). The M&R facility would be built on Floyd 

Bennett Field, which is located in Brooklyn Community District 18 (BCD18). Demographic and other 

population statistics for the Rockaway Project are discussed by community district in the sections below. 

Similar statistics for the Northeast Connector Project are provided by county (i.e., York County, 

Pennsylvania for Compressor Station 195 and Mercer and Middlesex Counties, New Jersey for 

Compressor Stations 205 and 207, respectively). Socioeconomic impacts are not analyzed for the

proposed pipe yard in Union County, New Jersey due to the small area and short duration of the impacts 

and the fact that activities at this site would be consistent with the existing use of the property.

4.9.1 Population and Employment

Rockaway Project

Table 4.9.1-1 provides a summary of select socioeconomic and demographic information for the 

communities that would be affected by the Rockaway Project based on 2010 census data. The 

populations of QCD14 and BCD18 in 2010 were 114,978 and 193,543, respectively. The population 

density was 16,425 persons per square mile in QCD14, and 21,838 persons per square mile in BCD18. 

Both community districts had population densities lower than their respective counties, but higher than 

New York State.

The civilian labor force in QCD14 and BCD18 in 2010 included approximately 160,000 people, 

which was about 7 percent of the total labor force (approximately 2.4 million people) in the 32 

community districts in Queens and Kings Counties. The major industries within the area were reported 

as: educational, health, and social assistance services; professional, scientific, management, 

administrative, and waste management services; transportation, warehousing, and utilities; arts, 

entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services; construction; and retail trade. The per 

capita incomes for QCD14 and BCD18 in 2010 were $22,903 and $24,563, respectively (U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2012). According to the census data, the unemployment rates for QCD14 (8.1 percent) and 

BCD18 (8.3 percent) in 2010 were higher than the unemployment rates reported for Queens County (7.2 

percent), King Counties (6.7 percent), and New York State (6.2 percent). Based on July 2013 data from 

the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (the most recent data available), the unemployment rates for Queens 

and Kings Counties and New York State were 7.7, 9.6, and 7.5 percent, respectively (U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, 2013). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-116 

TABLE 4.9.1-1 

Existing Socioeconomic Conditions in the Area and Vicinity of the Rockaway Project

State/County/

Municipality Population a, b

Population 

Growth 

(Percent) 

(2000 – 2010) a,b

Population 

Density 

(persons/

sq. mile) a,b

Per Capita 

Income b

Civilian Labor 

Force b

Unemployment

(Percent)

 b

Top 

Three 

Sectors b

QCD14 114,978 0.9 16,425 $22,903 53,731 8.1 EH, TW, 

C

BCD18 193,543 -0.1 21,838 $24,563 105,195 8.3 EH, RT, 

PS

Queens County 2,230,722 0.1 20,554 $24,530 1,178,901 7.2 EH, AE, 

RT

Kings County 2,504,700 1.6 35,377 $23,218 1,219,822 6.7 EH, PS, 

RT

New York State 19,378,102 2.1 411 $30,011 9,888,442 6.2 EH, PS, 

RT

____________________

Sources: 

a New York City Department of City Planning, 2011 b U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 

Sector Key:

AE = Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services

C = Construction

EH = Educational, health, and social assistance

PS = Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services

RT = Retail trade

TW = Transportation, warehousing, and utilities

During construction of the Rockaway Project, Transco estimates that 130 or more construction 

workers would be mobilized to the area for offshore construction, and 45 or more construction workers 

would be mobilized to the area for onshore construction. Transco states that about 110 offshore workers 

and 40 onshore workers are expected to be local hires (i.e., individuals already residing in the New York 

City metropolitan area). Most of the estimated 25 non-local workers would be engaged in offshore 

construction activities and would live on the lay barge/special support vessel or in temporary housing in 

the vicinity of the Rockaway Project area. The influx of approximately 25 non-local workers would 

result in a temporary, but negligible, population increase within the Rockaway Project area. No new 

permanent hires would be needed to operate or maintain the proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral or 

M&R facility, so there would be no permanent change in the region’s population. 

Construction of the Rockaway Project could temporarily decrease the unemployment rate by a 

minimal amount through the hiring of local workers. In addition to direct hires, it is estimated that 

another 122 to 160 local jobs would be affected, either as new hires or by the prevention of lay-offs, as a 

result of secondary economic activity associated with construction of the Rockaway Project. These jobs 

would result in a temporary, minor increase in employment within the area. Because no new permanent 

hires would be needed to operate or maintain the proposed facilities, operation of the Rockaway Project 

would not cause any permanent change in the unemployment rate.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-117 

Northeast Connector Project

Table 4.9.1-2 provides a summary of select socioeconomic and demographic information for the 

counties that would be affected by the Northeast Connector Project based on 2010 census data. York 

County, Pennsylvania had a population of 434,972 with a population density of 478 persons per square 

mile. Mercer and Middlesex Counties, New Jersey had populations of 366,511 and 809,862 with 

population densities of 2,622 and 1,196 persons per square mile. In all three counties, population density 

was significantly higher than that of the respective state.

TABLE 4.9.1-2 

Existing Socioeconomic Conditions in the Vicinity of the Northeast Connector Project

State/County/

Municipality Population a

Population 

Growth 

(Percent) 

(2000 – 2010) a

Population 

Density 

(persons/

sq. mile) a

Per Capita 

Income a

Civilian 

Labor 

Force a

Unemployment

(Percent)

 b

Top Three 

Sectors a

Compressor Station 195

York County 434,972 1.4 478 $28,042 233,976 7.5 EH, M, RT

Pennsylvania 12,702,379 3.4 284 $27,824 6,447,161 7.8 EH, M, RT

Compressor Stations 205 and 207

Mercer County 366,511 4.5 1,632 $36,721 193,061 7.2 EH, PS, 

RT

Middlesex County 809,862 7.9 2,622 $34,153 429,102 8.1 EH, PS, 

RT

New Jersey 8,864,590 5.4 1,196 $35,678 4,633,565 8.6 EH, PS, 

RT

____________________

Sources: 

a U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 b U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013 

Sector Key:

EH = Educational, health, and social assistance

M = Manufacturing

PS = Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services

RT = Retail trade

 

In 2010, York County had a civilian labor force of 233,976 people and a per capita income of 

$28,042, which was higher than the corresponding statewide average for Pennsylvania. Mercer and 

Middlesex Counties had labor forces of 193,061 and 429,102 people and per capita incomes of $36,721 

and $34,153, respectively. Per capita income in each of these counties was similar to the New Jersey 

state average of $35,678. In all three counties, the predominant industry was identified as education, 

health, and social assistance. Other important industries included: manufacturing; professional, scientific, 

management, administrative, and waste management services; and retail trade. 

Based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate in York County 

as of July 2013 (the most recent data available) was 7.5 percent, which was lower than the statewide 

average of 7.8 percent in Pennsylvania. The unemployment rates for Mercer and Middlesex Counties as 

of July 2013 (the most recent data available) were 7.2 percent and 8.1 percent, respectively, and the 

statewide average for New Jersey was 8.6 percent (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-118 

Transco estimates that approximately 50 workers would be required for construction activities at 

Compressor Station 195, of whom about 20 workers would be local hires. This could result in a slight but 

temporary reduction in the unemployment rate in York County and surrounding areas. About 30 workers 

would be non-local hires who would move to the area for the duration of construction. This would result 

in a slight but temporary increase in the local population. No new hires would be required to operate 

Compressor Station 195 following construction of the Northeast Connector Project. 

Transco expects to use 5 workers each at Compressor Stations 205 and 207, all of whom would 

be non-local. This would result in a temporary but negligible increase in the local populations in these 

areas. No new hires would be required to operate the compressor stations following construction of the 

Northeast Connector Project.

4.9.2 Housing

Table 4.9.2-1 reports select housing statistics for the areas that would be affected by the Projects. 

There are approximately 2,000 vacant units combined in QCD14 and BCD18; 1,120 vacant units in York 

County, Pennsylvania; 560 vacant units in Mercer County, New Jersey; and 1,200 vacant units in 

Middlesex County, New Jersey. The vacant units include those used for seasonal, recreational, or 

occasional use (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 and 2013). 

TABLE 4.9.2-1

Housing Characteristics in the Rockaway and Northeast Connector Project Areas (2010)

State/County/Municipality

Owner 

Occupied 

(Percent)

Renter 

Occupied 

(Percent)

Seasonal or 

Occasional Use 

Vacant Units

Owner

Vacancy Rate 

(Percent)

Rental

Vacancy Rate 

(Percent)

Rockaway Project

QCD14 37.8 62.2 1,607 2.3 3.7

BCD18 57.8 42.2 387 1.8 2.0

Queens County 43.0 57.0 5,894 2.4 4.4

Kings County 27.7 72.3 3,872 3.2 4.2

New York State 53.3 46.7 289.301 1.9 5.5

Compressor Station 195

York County 75.5 24.5 1,117 1.9 7.0

Pennsylvania 69.6 30.4 161,582 1.8 8.1

Compressor Stations 205 and 207

Mercer County 65.9 34.1 558 1.6 8.5

Middlesex County 66.6 33.4 1,224 1.4 5.3

New Jersey 65.4 34.6 134,903 1.8 7.6

____________________

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 and 2013

As previously indicated, construction of the Rockaway Project at its peak would require about 

25 non-local workers, but the majority of these non-local workers are expected to sleep on the lay barge. 

An estimated 5 non-local workers associated with onshore activities could require temporary housing 

accommodations on the Rockaway Peninsula or in Brooklyn. Construction of the Northeast Connector 

Project would require 30 non-local workers at Compressor Station 195 and 5 non-local workers each at 

Compressor Stations 205 and 207. Based on vacancy rates in the community districts/counties affected 

by the Projects, there would be an adequate supply of rental units in each area to accommodate the nonDocument Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-119 

local workers. Consequently, the Projects could have a short-term positive impact on the rental industry 

in each area through higher occupancy rates, though the effect would be minor due to the small number of 

non-local workers that would require housing. Because no new permanent hires would be required, the 

operational phases of the Projects would have no impacts on available housing. 

4.9.3 Public Services

Construction of the Projects could result in minor, temporary impacts on local community 

facilities and services such as police, fire, and medical facilities. Table 4.9.3-1 summarizes the main 

public service facilities in the community districts/counties affected by the Projects. Construction 

activities may require the assistance of fire, police, or medical services in the event of an emergency, 

including worker illnesses or injuries. Additionally, local police may need to assist in maintaining traffic 

flows during construction, particularly for the Rockaway Project, which is located in a major metropolitan 

area. Impacts on police, fire, and medical services would be temporary, short term, and localized. 

Government services would be adequate to support the temporary addition of small numbers of non-local 

workers in each area. 

TABLE 4.9.3-1

Public Service Facilities in the Rockaway and Northeast Connector Project Areas

Community District/County

Police 

Departments Fire and EMS Public Schools Medical Facilities

Rockaway Project

QCD14, Queens County, New York 3 3 28 Peninsula Hospital Center and 

St. John’s Episcopal Hospital 

South Shore

BCD18, Kings County, New York 4 4 22 Beth Israel Medical Center, Kings 

Highway Division

Northeast Connector Project

York County, Pennsylvania 25 88 111 York Hospital, Memorial Hospital 

York, Hanover Hospital

Mercer County, New Jersey 14 47 112 University Medical Center at 

Princeton; Robert Wood Johnson 

University Hospital; Capital Health 

System Mercer Campus; St. 

Francis Medical Center

Middlesex County, New Jersey 25 39 196 Robert Wood Johnson University 

Hospital; Saint Peter’s University 

Hospital; Raritan Bay Medical 

Center; JFK medical Center

____________________

Sources: New York City Department of City Planning, 2012a; NYCDEP, n.d.; New York City Department of City Planning, 2012b; 

York County, Pennsylvania, 2013; PublicSchoolReview.com, 2013; Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office, 2013; ThirdAge.Com, 

2013; RadioReference.com, 2013; FireDepartmentDirectory.com, 2013;

No schools would be affected directly by construction or operation of the Projects. Additionally, 

given the short-term duration of construction, it is unlikely that non-local construction workers would 

bring their children and place incremental demands on school enrollment or other school services. 

During construction, the Projects would use water and power from local municipal supply 

companies to support upland construction activities. The Projects would generate a small amount of solid 

waste, such as trash, debris, and sanitary wastes, which would be disposed of at local landfills, recycling 

centers, or other facilities permitted to handle the wastes. The demand for these services is not expected 

to exceed the capabilities of existing infrastructure. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-120 

Operation of the Projects would have little impact on existing services. Operation of the facilities 

would be automated and self-contained. No new local service employees would be hired as a result of the 

Projects. The primary demand on local services would be in the event of an emergency, such as a gas 

leak or fire. Transco has existing emergency response procedures in place that comply with the DOT’s

regulations in Title 49 CFR Part 192, Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum 

Federal Safety Standards. These procedures outline steps to ensure a prompt and comprehensive 

response in the event of a pipeline emergency (see Section 4.12). Transco would meet regularly with 

local emergency response officials to share emergency response plans, pipeline location information, and 

background information on natural gas pipeline operations. If needed, required responses from the local 

fire department would be for crowd control and to address perimeter fires. The role of the police 

department would be for crowd/traffic control. 

4.9.4 Transportation 

Construction activities associated with the Projects, particularly the Rockaway Project, which is 

located in a major metropolitan area, could result in short-term impacts on transportation infrastructure, 

primarily due to increased traffic flows associated with movement of construction vehicles, personnel, 

and equipment, and from potential damage to local roadways due to traffic by heavy construction 

equipment. Impacts associated with vessel traffic in the offshore construction area are discussed in 

Section 4.8.4.2. Transportation impacts associated with the Northeast Connector Project would be minor. 

During construction of the Rockaway Project, materials and equipment would need to be 

delivered to and from the job sites. Construction workers would also need to commute to and from work, 

but they would typically travel outside of peak commuting hours (i.e., arrival before 7:00 a.m. in the 

morning and departure before 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon). Table 4.9.4-1 provides a summary of the 

estimated construction traffic, existing traffic, and traffic capacity of the major roads that would be used 

for the Rockaway Project. As indicated on the table, the number of daily trips associated with material 

and equipment deliveries and commuting construction workers is small compared with the capacity and 

annual average daily traffic present on the routes with access to the Rockaway Project area. 

Traffic on the Rockaway Peninsula or in Brooklyn temporarily could be interrupted on roads 

when necessary for construction equipment and materials to cross roadways, but these temporary 

interruptions would likely last 5 to 10 minutes and would be managed in accordance with applicable 

NYSDOT and local New York City requirements. Transco would acquire permits for loads exceeding 

80,000 pounds, as necessary, and would adhere to applicable New York City and New York State 

regulations regarding traffic, weight, and truck restrictions. Any road surfaces that are damaged would be 

repaired to pre-existing or better condition. As such, we do not expect construction of the Rockaway 

Project to have a major impact on road traffic or use.

Transportation impacts associated with construction of the Northeast Connector Project would be 

short term and localized. The movement of construction equipment and materials to each site could have 

a temporary impact on traffic but, once delivered, the equipment and material would remain on each site 

until construction is complete. Workers would commute to and from each site during off-peak hours, and 

Transco expects that workers would carpool to minimize impacts on traffic. Transco would coordinate 

with state and local officials to obtain any required permits for use of roads and would comply with 

weight limitations and any other restrictions on area roadways. Transco additionally would remove any 

soils that fall from equipment on to roads. Therefore, we do not expect construction of the Northeast 

Connector Project to have a major impact on road traffic or use.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-121 

TABLE 4.9.4-1 

Land Transportation Associated with Construction of the Rockaway Project

Affected Roadway/

Access Route a

Number of 

Automobile 

Lanes

Peak Hourly 

Capacity b,c

Annual Average 

Daily Traffic d

Average Daily Trips 

(Construction 

Vehicles) e

Average Daily 

Trips (Project 

Commuter) e

Flatbush Avenue (landward 

of Rockaway Inlet)

4 1,412 (NB)

1,049 (SB)

24,262 10 110

Marine Parkway-Gil Hodges 

Memorial Bridge

4 1,227 (NB)

998 (SB)

24,690 6 16

Cross Bay Boulevard 4 1,518 (NB)

1,279 (SB)

30,016 6 16

Cross Bay Veterans 

Memorial Bridge

4 1,047 (NB)

768 (SB)

21,240 6 16

South Front Street 2 125 (NB)

122 (SB)

2,133 1 6 

____________________

a All roads are paved with asphalt. b Traffic count data obtained from 2002 and 2009 NYSDOT Coverage and Special County Hourly Report, and 2009 New 

Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) traffic counts. NB = northbound direction, SB = southbound direction. c Construction worker traffic tends to occur outside of peak traffic hours and may not affect Peak Hourly Capacity. d Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) 2010 (for both directions) obtained from NYSDOT Traffic Data Viewer. AADT 2009 

obtained from NJDOT Traffic Count Website. e Average daily trips (one way) are estimated based on the most likely construction activities, which would use Flatbush 

Avenue, the Marine Parkway-Gil Hodges Memorial Bridge, Cross Bay Boulevard, Cross Bay Veterans Memorial Bridge, 

and South Front Street as the construction/commute route.

4.9.5 Property Values 

The potential impact of natural gas pipelines on the value of any land parcel depends on a number 

of factors, including the size of the property, the presence of other pipelines in the area, the current value 

of the parcel and its land use, and the value of other nearby properties. The Rockaway Project would 

traverse lands under the jurisdiction of New York State, the TBTA, and the NPS. Land disturbance 

associated with pipeline construction would be temporary because Transco would restore areas disturbed 

from pipeline construction to their original, pre-construction condition. Any impacts the Rockaway 

Project may have on the value of public lands are expected to be offset by compensation provided for in 

easement and/or lease agreements. The Northeast Connector Project is not expected to affect property 

values because the proposed modifications would occur at existing compressor station sites.

4.9.6 Economy and Tax Revenues 

Construction and operation of the Rockaway Project would have a beneficial impact on local tax 

revenue as shown in Table 4.9.6-1. Based on the projected workforce, Transco estimates that local 

employment compensation would be between $3.25 million and $4.87 million. A significant portion of 

the materials and consumables required to carry out construction activities, the value of which could total 

$21.7 million, would be sourced from vendors in the New York/New Jersey area. Additionally, workers 

would spend money on goods, services, and other consumables in the region, a portion of which would be 

subject to state and county sales tax. It is estimated that total direct spending in the local area could range 

between $2.65 million and $3.92 million during construction. According to a study conducted for 

Transco by the Chesapeake Group, the economic benefits of the Rockaway Project associated with 

indirect spending in the New York metropolitan area would range from $5.54 million to $8.23 million 

(The Chesapeake Group, 2012). Overall, the economic impacts due to construction of the Rockaway 

Project would be beneficial at the local, county, and state level, but these impacts would be limited to the 

duration of the construction period. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-122 

TABLE 4.9.6-1 

Local Tax Revenues Generated from the Rockaway Project

Local Tax Revenues Low Estimate High Estimate

New York City income $149,000 $668,000

Sales and commuter $248,000 $461,000

Transient accommodations $3,600 $4,000

Property (annual) $5,315,000 $5,315,000

Total Annual Local Revenues $5,715,600 $6,448,000

____________________

Sources: 

Liu et al., 2011; The Chesapeake Group, 2012; New York City Department of Education, 2011

Operation of the Rockaway Project would provide additional tax revenues on an annual basis. It 

is estimated that the Rockaway Project would contribute over $5.3 million in annual property taxes (The 

Chesapeake Group, 2012). Over a 50-year period, the cumulative total of these property taxes would be 

$265 million (estimated in constant tax dollars). 

The Rockaway Project is not expected to increase the demand for schools, road maintenance and 

repair, and public services, or to increase public utility costs for New York City. Instead, the Rockaway 

Project would generate annual recurring property tax revenue for New York City, which could be used to 

fund other municipal activities and operations. Therefore, the Rockaway Project would have a long-term 

positive fiscal impact on QCD14, BCD18, and New York City. 

The proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral would cross beneath Jacob Riis Park, but impacts on 

this area would be minimized by using the HDD construction method. Activities associated with the 

HDD are not expected to create a major restriction to access or use of the GNRA. It is possible that 

patronage of the pitch-and-putt golf course at Jacob Riis Park would decline temporarily for a short period 

in the spring of 2014 due to construction noise. This decline may not necessarily impact the GNRA or 

surrounding communities if golfers are able to use other nearby facilities such as the Brooklyn Golf 

Center and the Marine Park Golf Course. If recreational participation does fall, a short-term, negative 

impact on park concession sales is likely. During the operational phase of the Rockaway Project, the 

pipeline would be buried underneath the pitch-and-putt golf course and would not interfere with 

recreational uses of the park. 

As discussed in Sections 4.5 and 4.6, the nearshore waters of the New York Bight produce 

significant quantities of commercially and recreationally important fish and shellfish. Approximately 

5.6 million pounds of finfish and 5.2 million pounds of shellfish with values of $5.5 million and 

$5.4 million, respectively, were commercially landed within 3.0 miles of the entire New York shore in 

2010 (NOAA, 2010). Table 4.9.6-2 summarizes the top five commercial fish landings, in terms of 

dollars, for nearshore New York waters in 2010. 

Offshore construction activities for the Rockaway Project could temporarily impact commercial 

and recreation fish species in the New York Bight. Most of the impact would be short term and 

associated with increases in turbidity and sedimentation resulting from construction activities (e.g., 

trenching, HDD operations, and sediment re-deposition). Transco intends to coordinate with commercial 

and recreation fisherman prior to construction so that no significant catch would be lost. Following 

construction, all recreational and commercial fishing areas would be restored with no restrictions. 

Therefore, the operation of the Rockaway Project would not have any permanent economic impact on the 

fisheries in the area.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-123 

TABLE 4.9.6-2

Top Five Commercial Fish Landings (Value) up to 3.0 Miles off the New York Shoreline in 2010

Species Pounds Value ($)

Price per

Pound ($)

Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) 747,000 1,927,000 2.58

Atlantic blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) 891,000 1,443,000 1.62

Atlantic surfclam (Spisula solidissima) 1,924,000 1,283,000 0.66

Loligo squid (Loligo pealei) 1,170,000 1,199,000 1.16

American Lobster (Homoarus americanus) 258,000 1,081,000 4.32

____________________

Source: NOAA, 2010

Construction of the Northeast Connector Project would result in a beneficial but temporary 

impact on local sales tax revenues due to material and supply purchases and local spending by workers. 

For activities at Compressor Station 195 in York County, Pennsylvania, Transco estimates approximately 

$120,000 in local sales tax as a result of material purchases and about $1,000,000 in direct local spending 

by workers for hotels, food, and entertainment. No local sales tax would be generated as a result of 

material purchases for Compressor Stations 205 and 207 in Mercer and Middlesex Counties, New Jersey, 

but direct local spending by workers at each site would be approximately $3,000. Transco currently pays 

property taxes for each of the compressor station sites and does not expect that these taxes would change 

as a result of the Northeast Connector Project.

4.9.7 Environmental Justice 

EO 12898 on EJ recognizes the importance of using the NEPA process to identify and address, as 

appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental effects of federal programs, 

policies, or activities on minority populations and low-income groups. The provisions of EO 12898 apply 

equally to Native American programs. Consistent with EO 12898, the CEQ has called on federal 

agencies to actively scrutinize the following issues with respect to EJ (CEQ, 1997a):

• the racial and economic composition of affected communities; 

• health-related issues that may amplify project effects to minority or low-income 

individuals; and 

• public participation strategies, including community or tribal participation in the NEPA 

process.

The EPA provides guidance on determining whether there is a minority or low-income 

community to be addressed in a NEPA analysis. According to this guidance, minority population issues 

must be addressed when they comprise over 50 percent of an affected area or when the minority 

population percentage of the affected area is substantially greater than the minority percentage in the 

larger area of the general population. Low-income populations are those that fall within the annual 

statistical poverty thresholds from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census Population 

Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty. 

In accordance with these guidelines, we prepared an EJ analysis for the Rockaway Project. Table 

4.9.7-1 shows the racial composition and economic status of QCD14 and BCD18 compared with Queens 

and Kings Counties and New York State. The data presented in the table are based on the 2010 American 

Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-124 

TABLE 4.9.7-1

Economic Statistics for Communities Affected by the Rockaway Project

State/County/

Municipality

Racial Composition of Population (Percent)

Median 

Household 

Income

Persons 

Below 

Poverty 

White (Percent)

Black or 

African 

American Asian

American 

Indian 

and

Alaska 

Native

Native 

Hawaiian 

and Other 

Pacific 

Islander

Persons 

Reporting 

Some 

Other 

Race

Persons 

Reporting 

Two or 

More 

Races

Persons 

of 

Hispanic 

or Latino 

Origins

QCD14 35.8 37.9 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 1.4 23.5 $47,924 22.4

BCD18 24.9 61.7 3.7 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.7 8.2 $58,824 11.4

Queens County 27.4 17.6 23.1 0.2 0.1 1.9 2.1 27.6 53,054 15.0

Kings County 35.6 32.2 10.5 0.2 <0.1 0.3 1.3 19.9 $42,143 23.0

New York State 58.2 14.4 7.3 0.2 <0.1 0.4 1.6 17.7 $54,148 14.9

____________________

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012

In addition to federal requirements, the NYSDEC established Commissioner’s Policy 29 in 2003 

to provide guidance on how to incorporate EJ into permit reviews, enforcement, grants, and public 

participation (NYSDEC, 2012a). The Rockaway Project would not be located in any potential EJ 

communities as designated by the NYSDEC (2012b and 2012c). The closest potential EJ community to 

the Rockaway Project is located in the NPS-controlled portion of Marine Park, about 400 feet west of the 

proposed M&R facility (NYSDEC, 2012c). Marine Park is designated by the NYSDEC as a potential EJ 

area because at least 51.1 percent of the population was reported to be members of a minority group 

and/or at least 23.6 percent of the households reported incomes below the poverty line (NYSDEC, 

2012c). There are few, if any, residences in the predominantly public park space that are part of the 

designated potential EJ area. Activities during construction would occur in non-residential areas where 

no EJ communities are present. These areas do not possess minority or low income communities, and it 

is unlikely that minority communities would interact with Rockaway Project construction activities or 

operations, except through potential employment as part of the local labor force. Based on this, we do not 

believe the Rockaway Project would have an impact on potential EJ communities. 

As described above, the Rockaway Project would have negligible to minor effects on 

socioeconomic characteristics and economies within the region of influence, and many of the projectrelated effects, while minor, would generally be viewed as positive. As discussed throughout the draft 

EIS, potentially negative environmental effects associated with the Rockaway Project would be 

minimized and/or mitigated, as applicable. Although the racial and economic composition of the counties 

affected by the proposed Rockaway Project route shows some differences from state-level statistics, there 

is no evidence that the Rockaway Project would cause a disproportionate share of adverse environmental 

or socioeconomic impacts on any racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group. 

The primary health issue related to the Rockaway Project would be the risk associated with an 

unanticipated pipeline failure. Section 4.12 discusses the localized risks to public safety that could result 

from a pipeline failure and describes how applicable safety regulations and standards would minimize the 

potential for these risks. The routing of the proposed Rockaway Project through non-residential areas 

would further minimize the number of persons who would be at risk of injury due to a pipeline failure; 

and there is no evidence that such risks would be disproportionately created by any racial, ethnic, or 

socioeconomic group. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-125 

4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, requires the FERC to take into account the effects of its 

undertakings (including the issuance of Certificates) on properties that are listed in, or eligible for listing 

in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment on the undertaking. Transco, as a non-federal party, is 

assisting the FERC in meeting its obligations under Section 106 and the implementing regulations in 36 

CFR 800 by preparing the necessary information, analyses, and recommendations, as authorized by 36 

CFR 800.2(a)(3). 

4.10.1 Cultural Resource Surveys

For the Rockaway Project, Transco conducted a marine archaeological assessment for the 

offshore portion of the pipeline, terrestrial archaeological assessments for the onshore portion of the 

pipeline and the M&R facility, and a historic structures assessment for the hangar complex at Floyd 

Bennett Field that would contain the M&R facility. The results of these investigations are described in 

the subsections below. 

Transco proposes to use approximately 7.6 acres of existing public roads to access the HDD entry 

site for the pipeline on the Rockaway Peninsula and the M&R facility on Floyd Bennett Field. These 

consist of existing paved roads that would not be modified for construction. Therefore, survey of the 

roads was not required. No new or modified access roads are proposed for the Rockaway Project.

Transco proposes to utilize an existing industrial/commercial site along Arthur Kill in Elizabeth, 

New Jersey as a pipe yard during construction of the Rockaway Project. In February 2013, Transco 

requested concurrence from the New Jersey SHPO that survey of the pipe yard is unnecessary because no 

ground-disturbing activities or alteration of existing facilities would occur at the site. The New Jersey 

SHPO responded that no historic properties would be affected by use of the pipe yard. We concur with 

this assessment.

No surveys were conducted for the Northeast Connector Project. Construction activities at 

Compressor Stations 205 and 207 would be limited to the use of hand tools to replace/adjust equipment 

within the existing compressor buildings at these sites. These activities are unlikely to affect historic 

properties and are covered by an agreement between Transco and the New Jersey SHPO that categorically 

exempts modifications of existing Transco facilities (such as compressor stations) from further review for 

impacts on historic properties. We concur that the proposed uprates at Compressor Stations 205 and 207 

would not affect historic properties. 

Construction at Compressor Station 195 would require modifications to equipment within the 

existing compressor building as well as installation of new facilities within the existing station yard at the 

site. Construction activities occurring within the fence line at the compressor station are covered by an 

agreement between Transco and the Pennsylvania SHPO that categorically exempts modifications of 

existing Transco facilities from further review for impacts on historic properties. As shown in Figure 

2.1.3-1, the existing fence at Compressor Station 195 surrounds the compressor building and other 

aboveground facilities at the site, but it does not enclose the entire station yard. Construction activities 

that would occur outside of the fence line would be limited to previously disturbed areas within the 

station yard, but they are not covered by Transco’s agreement with the Pennsylvania SHPO. Therefore, 

Transco sent a letter to the Pennsylvania SHPO regarding the need to conduct a survey in the area outside 

the existing fence line at Compressor Station 195. To date, the Pennsylvania SHPO has not responded to 

Transco. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-126 

Marine Archaeological Surveys

In 2009, a marine archaeological assessment for the offshore portion of the Rockaway Project 

was conducted, consisting of a geophysical survey using a magnetometer, side-scan sonar, and subbottom profiler (PBS&J, 2009). The study area for this survey measured 2.8 miles in length by 2,400 feet 

in width near the shoreline and up to 4,000 feet in width at the tie-in with the LNYBL. In total, the 

survey examined approximately 1,097 acres of seafloor within waters under the jurisdiction of New York 

State and the NPS. No evidence of potentially significant magnetic anomalies or sonar targets that might 

be indicative of buried cultural resources was identified. Further, no evidence of sub-bottom profile 

records that might indicate the presence of intact sediments or landforms with the potential to contain 

sites was identified. Based on these findings, Transco recommended that there would be no effect on 

significant cultural resources for the area covered by the survey. A report summarizing the results of the 

investigation was submitted to the NPS and the New York SHPO for review in September 2009. No 

comments on the report were received from the NPS. In November 2009, the New York SHPO 

concurred with the results but requested additional information on one of the sonar targets identified in 

the survey area. Transco provided the requested information, and no additional comments were received 

from the New York SHPO. We concur with the results and recommendations of the survey. 

An additional marine archaeological assessment was conducted in 2010 to survey potential 

anchorage areas along the offshore portion of the pipeline (PBS&J, 2011). Magnetometer, side-scan 

sonar, and sub-bottom profiler data were gathered within an expanded study area measuring about 3.2 

miles in length by up to about 1.0 mile in width. In total, the survey examined about 1,291 acres of 

seafloor within waters under the jurisdiction of New York State. The survey identified two magnetic 

anomaly clusters and associated sonar targets that were interpreted as potential cultural resource sites, 

possibly shipwrecks. Both locations are in an area that could be used for anchoring a pipe lay barge. The 

survey report for the archaeological assessment recommended that these magnetic anomaly clusters, plus 

a buffer area extending for a distance of 164 feet from the margins of each cluster, be avoided during 

anchoring. The field assessment also identified a paleochannel that may indicate the presence of intact 

sediments or landforms with the potential to contain significant buried cultural resource sites. The 

paleochannel is located 6 to 18 feet below the seafloor in an area where no trenching for the Rockaway 

Delivery Lateral would occur; therefore, the channel would not be affected by construction of the project. 

A report describing the results of the investigation was submitted to the New York SHPO for review in 

January 2013. The New York SHPO subsequently concurred with Transco’s recommendations in March 

2013. We also concur. 

In May 2013, Transco filed an avoidance plan for the two magnetic anomaly clusters identified as 

potential cultural resource sites. Prior to construction, Transco would require its contractor to locate the 

clusters using navigational quality GPS and a magnetometer, and position a 3 foot diameter buoy in the 

vicinity of each cluster. Construction vessels, such as the lay barge and anchoring tugs, would have the 

location of each cluster plus the 164 foot buffer area marked on their navigation screens, and would avoid 

anchoring in these areas during construction. Onboard Transco representatives would monitor vessel 

movements to ensure that vessels, anchors, and anchoring cables do not cross the avoidance area for each 

cluster. To date, this plan has not been reviewed or commented on by the New York SHPO.

The route for the offshore pipeline segment crosses two inactive subsea cables that are greater 

than 50 years in age. One is believed to be the Cape Cod to New York telegraph cable, which was 

installed in 1899 for the French Cable Company. The other is believed to be the New York to 

Fisherman’s Point (Cuba) telegraph cable, which was installed in 1907 for the Central and South 

American Telegraph Company. Magnetic anomalies associated with these cables were identified as a 

result of Transco’s initial marine archaeological assessment (PBS&J, 2009). Transco subsequently 

prepared a historic context for each of the cables and evaluated the significance of the sites. The study 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-127 

characterized the cables as typical examples of early twentieth century subsea telegraphy lines. Transco 

concluded that the cables are not eligible for listing in the NRHP. A report summarizing the results of 

Transco’s study (Wuebber et. al, 2013) was submitted to the New York SHPO for review in January 

2013. The New York SHPO concurred with Transco’s recommendations in March 2013. We also 

concur. 

As discussed in Section 2.1.1, Transco proposes to install an anode bed extending about 1,200 

feet perpendicular to the pipeline near the HDD exit pit in the Atlantic Ocean. The location of the anode 

bed is in the area covered by Transco’s marine archaeological assessments (PBS&J 2009, 2011). No 

evidence of submerged cultural resources or intact sediments or landforms with the potential to contain 

sites was identified in the vicinity of the anode bed. 

Terrestrial Archaeological Surveys

Transco completed an archaeological assessment for the proposed M&R facility in 2011 (Harris, 

2011). Initially, the assessment was used to determine the need for archaeological monitoring associated 

with geotechnical and environmental investigations in and around the hangar complex within which the 

M&R facility would be constructed. Transco recommended no survey due to the low sensitivity for intact 

cultural resources in this area and no monitoring during the geotechnical and environmental investigations 

because of the limited size of the area disturbed by the testing. Transco submitted a report describing the 

results of the archaeological assessment to the NPS and New York SHPO in November 2011. Both 

agencies concurred with Transco’s recommendation. We also concur. 

Transco subsequently proposed excavating test holes and trenches to identify utilities located 

around the hangar complex. The NPS requested that this activity be monitored by an archaeologist 

because the test holes and trenches would extend to an unknown depth and disturb a larger area than that 

impacted by the geotechnical and environmental testing described above. A letter summarizing the 

proposed excavation of the test holes and trenches and the associated monitoring was submitted to the 

New York SHPO for review in June 2012. The New York SHPO concurred with the proposed 

monitoring in July 2012. We also concur. Excavation of the test holes and trenches was completed in 

April 2013, and a monitoring report was submitted to the NPS for review. The monitoring report would 

be filed with the Commission and submitted to the New York SHPO after Transco receives and addresses 

comments from the NPS. 

Transco’s archaeological assessment for the onshore pipeline route and associated workspace on 

the Rockaway Peninsula examined a study area measuring approximately 3,500 feet in length by 1,000 

feet in width and encompassing about 88.0 acres (Zieseing and Harris, 2012). The study area included the 

HDD entry site and National Grid tie-in point within TBTA property and the proposed pipeline right-ofway for the HDD segment of the pipeline across Rockaway Beach and Jacob Riis Park. The assessment 

identified the Fort Tilden and Jacob Riis Park Historic Districts in the vicinity of the Rockaway Delivery 

Lateral on GNRA lands on the Rockaway Peninsula. Both districts are listed in the New York State 

Register of Historic Places (SRHP) and the NRHP. The proposed pipeline would be installed beneath the 

Jacob Riis Park Historic District using the HDD construction method; the pipeline would be near, but not 

cross, the Fort Tilden Historic District.

Transco recommended archaeological testing along the onshore pipeline route in areas assessed 

as having a high sensitivity for cultural resources and where ground-disturbing activities would occur 

within 10 feet of the surface. The near-surface impact areas that meet these criteria are at the HDD entry 

site and National Grid tie-in point on the TBTA property. Transco recommended archaeological 

monitoring in areas assessed as having a medium sensitivity for containing cultural resource sites and 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-128 

where ground-disturbing activities would occur within 10 feet of the surface, but no medium sensitivity 

areas occur along the onshore pipeline route. 

Transco’s archaeological assessment of the onshore pipeline route also considered potential 

visual impacts on cultural resources within and near the proposed construction areas on the Rockaway 

Peninsula, including impacts on the Jacob Riis Park and Fort Tilden Historic Districts. The onshore 

portion of the pipeline, including the segment beneath Jacob Riis Park, would be installed using the HDD 

method. This would avoid disturbing the ground surface except at the HDD entry point (on TBTA 

property), which would be restored to preconstruction condition. No permanent buildings or other 

aboveground structures would be built by Transco on the Rockaway Peninsula. Consequently, Transco 

recommended that there would be no long-term visual impact on the Jacob Riis Park and Fort Tilden 

Historic Districts. 

Transco submitted a report (Zieseing and Harris, 2012) describing the results of its archaeological 

assessment for the Rockaway Peninsula to the NPS for review and comment. Both the NPS and New 

York SHPO concurred with the results of the investigation and with Transco’s recommendation for 

additional testing of high sensitivity areas at the HDD entry site. We also concur. Transco will submit a 

report describing the results of the investigation to the FERC, NPS, and New York SHPO after the 

additional testing is completed in 2013. 

Historic Structures Assessment – Hangars 1 and 2 at Floyd Bennett Field

The proposed M&R facility would be constructed within the hangar complex (Hangars 1 and 2) 

on Floyd Bennett Field, which is listed as a district in the NRHP and in the SRHP (Greenwood and 

Torres, 1978). A revised NRHP nomination form for Floyd Bennett Field Historic District was prepared 

in 2010 (Kierstead, 2010). The revised form identifies the period of significance for the district as 1928 

to 1945 and the areas of significance as Transportation, Military, Architecture, and Engineering. The 

form indicates that Floyd Bennett Field is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A (sites associated with 

events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history) and Criterion C (sites 

that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; that represent the 

work of a master; that possess high artistic values; or that represent a significant distinguishable entity 

whose components may lack individual distinction). The form identifies Hangars 1 and 2 as contributing 

elements to the significance of the Floyd Bennett Field Historic District. 

Transco prepared a draft historic structures report (HSR) for Hangars 1 and 2 to serve as a 

planning tool for the proposed rehabilitation and conversion of the hangar complex for the M&R facility 

(URS, 2012). Transco would adapt the hangars, which currently are in deteriorated condition, to use them 

for the M&R facility. The exterior of the hangars would be restored, while the interior would be cleaned 

and deteriorated and damaged areas would be repaired or replaced. Most of the existing concrete floor 

would be removed; underground and aboveground piping, machinery, and equipment would be installed; 

and the floor would be replaced with new concrete flooring or foundations, concrete pads, or crushed 

stone. A standby generator would be installed within a lean-to building connected to Hangar 2. The 

missing roof would be replaced, and ventilation systems would be installed for the meter station 

equipment. Missing mortar and/or cracks in exterior brick would be repaired or replaced, and areas in 

both the interior and exterior of the hangars would be repainted. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-129 

Other design elements identified by Transco in filings with the Commission for the proposed 

rehabilitation of the hangar complex are as follows:

• Transco would salvage and replace existing paving stones to the extent feasible in areas 

around the hangar buildings where trench excavation is necessary to install the inlet and 

outlet pipes that would connect the M&R facility to National Grid’s pipeline along 

Flatbush Avenue. 

• Piping and equipment installed by Transco would occupy the entire space within Hangar 

1. The concrete floor in this hangar would be removed and replaced at grade with 

concrete foundations and pads or with crushed stone. 

• Piping and equipment installed by Transco would occupy about 60 percent of the space 

within Hangar 2. In these areas, the existing concrete floor would be removed and 

replaced at grade with a new concrete floor. Another 20 percent of the existing floor 

would be removed and replaced in kind to correct settling of the existing floor within the 

building. About 10 percent of the existing floor would be cordoned off from the metering 

equipment and preserved in place. 

• The existing tracks for the rolling hangar doors occupy about 10 percent of the floor in 

Hangar 2. Transco would remove and replace these tracks to make the doors operational. 

Additionally, Transco would refurbish the tracks on the other hangar doors in an effort to 

make them operational. 

• About 6,115 cubic yards of spoil would be excavated (by mechanical excavation or 

alternative methods such as hand or vacuum excavation) from within the hangar complex 

to install the piping and equipment. Another 1,400 cubic feet of material would be 

excavated in the areas around the hangars where trenches are excavated for the inlet and 

outlet pipes. Spoil that is suitable for backfill would be replaced following the 

installation of piping and equipment. Spoil that is not suitable for backfill would be 

removed from the site and disposed of at an approved disposal facility in accordance with 

any applicable regulations.

• Transco would install steel bollards in front of the rolling hangar doors on both the north 

and south sides of Hangar 1 for protection against rolling vehicles. The bollards would 

be embedded in the tarmac at 4 foot intervals across each door. Based on a preliminary 

design, Transco anticipates that every fourth bollard would be illuminated to ensure that 

the entire array of bollards is visible at night.

• Signs would be placed on the doors of the hangars to identify the M&R facility, prohibit 

smoking in the vicinity of the facility, and provide contact information for Transco. The 

signs would be designed by Transco in coordination with NPS. No pipeline markers 

would be installed at the facility, though National Grid would install pipeline markers 

outside the boundaries of Floyd Bennett Field along Flatbush Avenue. 

• Ventilation of equipment installed in Hangar 1 would be accomplished by means of roofmounted fans and an emergency flue. Ventilation of equipment installed in Hangar 2 

would be accomplished by means of metal flues on the roof. The fans and metal flues on 

the roof would be concealed from view by the parapets surrounding the building. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-130 

Transco submitted a draft of the HSR to the NPS in September 2012. Transco provided the NPS 

with revisions to the HSR in April 2013. The NPS commented on the revisions provided by Transco in 

May 2013, and Transco submitted comment responses to the NPS in July 2013. Transco anticipates 

submitting a final HSR to the NPS, New York SHPO, and FERC in the fall of 2013. 

Consultation with the NPS and the New York SHPO regarding the architectural design for the 

M&R facility is ongoing. Conceptual drawings have been submitted to both agencies. An initial 

schematic design was submitted to the NPS in June 2012; the NPS provided comments on the design in 

July 2012; and Transco responded to the NPS comments in October 2012. Transco filed a Schematic 

Design Submittal and SHPO comments on the Submittal in July 2013. 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 CFR 68). Transco expects to submit full design and construction 

documents for the M&R facility to the FERC, NPS, and New York SHPO in 2013. Transco would 

prepare Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation of the structure after the final HSR 

and the full design and construction documents are accepted by the agencies and the Section 106 process 

is complete.

Transco conducted a study (AKRF, Inc., 2013) to assess the potential effects of construction and 

operational vibration on the integrity of the hangar complex. With regard to construction, the study found 

that vibrations resulting from individual pieces of construction equipment (such as a pile driver or 

jackhammer) operating at distances ranging from 5 to 10 feet from the hangars would not damage the 

structures, but the simultaneous operation of multiple pieces of equipment or equipment operating at 

distances closer than 5 to 10 feet could potentially cause damage. The study recommended that the 

engineering design for the Rockaway Project identify vibration level thresholds for the structures, and that 

Transco prepare and implement a Construction Protection Plan (CPP) to protect the integrity of the 

hangar complex during construction. The CPP would include vibration monitoring, survey monitoring 

from movement of the building, crack gauge monitoring, and other appropriate measures. An onsite 

engineer would have stop-work authority in the event that measurement thresholds are exceeded, and 

corrective actions would be implemented, as appropriate, to protect the integrity of the structures. 

Transco additionally would use low-impact construction equipment (e.g., auger-driven piles as opposed to 

hammer-driven piles), and materials that can be installed in low headroom areas.

With regard to operations, Transco’s study found that vibrations resulting from the operation of 

equipment installed at the M&R facility would not affect the integrity of the structure provided that a 

minimum buffer of 1 inch is maintained between the pipeline and the hangar buildings (including support 

piles for the buildings) where the inlet and outlet pipes enter and exit the hangar. Additional information 

on Transco’s vibration study, and a recommendation that Transco file a vibration level threshold and 

CPP, is provided in Section 4.11. 

Transco’s proposed workspace on Floyd Bennett Field would abut Hangars 3 and 4, which are 

located about 140 feet to the northwest of Hangars 1 and 2. These structures, which are historic buildings 

identified as contributing elements to the significance of the Floyd Bennett Field Historic District, could 

potentially be affected by vibrations associated with the operation of construction equipment in the 

workspace. To ensure that Hangars 3 and 4 are protected from vibrations during construction, they would 

be included in Transco’s CPP and subject to vibration monitoring during construction. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-131 

Transco’s application to the Commission contained information on potential atmospheric and 

audible impacts due to operation of the M&R facility at and around Hangars 1 and 2. Operation of 

equipment at the facility would result in emissions due to combustion exhaust, leaking equipment, and 

venting activities. Under normal operating conditions, these emissions would not be visible or result in 

odors in the vicinity of the site. Noise resulting from operating equipment is estimated to be 110 dB 

within the hangars, but noise attenuation from the walls and roof of the building would reduce the levels 

to 90 dB just outside the hangars. Noise levels would be further reduced with increasing distance from 

the hangars. Additional information on emissions and noise is provided in Section 4.11. 

The ACHP’s regulations at 36 CFR 800.5 require federal agencies to assess effects on properties 

that are listed in, or eligible for listing in, the NRHP. A Determination of Effect for reuse and 

rehabilitation of Hangars 1 and 2 for the Rockaway Project will be completed after the final HSR, the full 

design and construction documents, and the CCP are reviewed and approved by the FERC, NPS, and 

New York SHPO. The Determination of Effect will include an assessment of the proposed design 

relative to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR 68), 

and in particular, the Standards for Rehabilitation.

19 These standards are used by federal agencies to 

determine if modifications of an historic property to accommodate a contemporary use would maintain 

the historic character and materials of the property. 

Transco indicated in an August 9, 2013 filing to the Commission that the CPP would be 

developed as part of the construction bid process and contractor selection for rehabilitation and meter 

station construction at the hangars. Thus, the CPP would not be filed for review and approval until and 

unless the Commission authorizes the Rockaway Project. We will not be able to make a Determination of 

Effect until all necessary reports and studies have been filed and consultation is complete. In that case, 

the Commission would negotiate a Programmatic Agreement with the ACHP in accordance with the 

regulations at 36 CFR 1800.14(b)(1)(ii). 

We received several comments from stakeholders regarding Transco’s proposed use of Hangars 1 

and 2 for the M&R facility. One stakeholder commented that use of the hangars would be appropriate 

noting that another hangar complex at Floyd Bennett Field previously was adapted for use as the Aviation 

Sports and Events Center. This stakeholder additionally noted that Hangars 1 and 2 currently are in 

disrepair but would be stabilized as a result of Transco’s proposed rehabilitation. Other stakeholders 

commented that use of the hangars as an M&R facility would be inappropriate for a historic property 

regardless of the rehabilitation of the structures. These stakeholders also observed that installation of the 

M&R facility in the hangers would prevent any future public use of the interior space within the 

buildings. These and any other comments we receive would be considered by the FERC in the 

Determination of Effect for the Rockaway Project

4.10.2 Unanticipated Discovery Plan

Transco prepared an Unanticipated Discovery Plan for the Rockaway Project to provide 

guidelines in the event that cultural resources or human remains are discovered during the course of 

construction. The FERC provided a copy of this plan to the NPS for review. Transco additionally 

prepared Unanticipated Discovery Plans for the Northeast Connector Project for construction activities in 

New Jersey (Compressor Stations 205 and 207) and Pennsylvania (Compressor Station 195). We find the 

plans to be acceptable.

 

19 Available online at http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/rehab/rehab_standards.htm. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-132 

4.10.3 Native American Consultation 

On December 8, 2011, Transco sent introduction letters for the Rockaway Project to one federally 

recognized tribe, the Shinnecock Indian Nation; one New York state-recognized tribe, the Unkechaug 

Indian Nation; and one New Jersey state-recognized tribe, the Nanticoke Lenni Lanape Indians. On 

February 12, 2013, the Commission sent letters to four federally recognized tribes, the Shinnecock Indian 

Nation, Stockbridge-Munsee Community, Delaware Tribe of Indians, and Delaware Nation, requesting 

comments on the Rockaway Project. On February 13, 2013, Transco sent letters to three federally 

recognized tribes, the Stockbridge-Munsee Community, Delaware Tribe of Indians, and Delaware Nation, 

requesting comments on the Rockaway Project. In a reply letter to the FERC dated March 4, 2013, the 

Delaware Nation expressed an interest in the Rockaway Project and requested copies of the cultural 

resources survey reports prepared by Transco. On March 8, 2013, Transco sent copies of the reports to 

the Delaware Nation. To date, no other responses have been received regarding the Rockaway Project.

The Commission sent copies of its Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed Northeast Connector Project and Request for Comments on Environmental 

Issues to the Shinnecock Indian Nation, Stockbridge-Munsee Community, Delaware Tribe of Indians, and 

Delaware Nation. No responses have been received to date. 

4.10.4 General Impact and Mitigation

Construction and operation of the Projects could potentially affect historic properties. Direct 

effects could include destruction or damage to all or a portion of an archaeological site or alteration or 

removal of a historic property. Indirect effects could include the introduction of visual, atmospheric, or 

audible elements that affect the setting or character of a historic property.

Compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA has not been completed for the Projects. Transco 

completed onshore and marine archaeological assessments for the Rockaway Project, but consultation is 

ongoing and additional field investigations are required to identify and assess effects to cultural resources. 

The final HSR and design and construction documents for reuse and rehabilitation of Hangars 1 and 2 

also are pending. For the Northeast Connector Project, consultation with the Pennsylvania SHPO is 

ongoing to determine the need for archaeological surveys at Compressor Station 195. 

If the FERC, in consultation with the New York and Pennsylvania SHPOs, as appropriate, and 

with the NPS for the Rockaway Project, determines that a historic property would be adversely affected 

by the Projects and could not be avoided, Transco would be required to prepare a treatment plan in 

consultation with the appropriate parties to mitigate adverse effects. The FERC would afford the ACHP 

an opportunity to comment in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6. Implementation of a treatment plan would 

occur after certification of the Projects and receipt from the FERC of written notification to proceed. 

If all necessary plans and studies have not been filed and consultation has not been completed 

before any authorization issued by the Commission, the FERC would negotiate a Programmatic 

Agreement with the ACHP in accordance with the regulations at 36 CFR 800.14(b)(1)(ii). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-133 

To ensure that the FERC’s responsibilities under the NHPA and its implementing regulations are 

met, we recommend that:

• Transco should not begin implementation of any treatment plans/measures

(including archaeological data recovery); construction of facilities; or use of staging, 

storage, or temporary work areas, and new or to-be-improved access roads for the 

Projects until:

a. Transco files all outstanding survey and evaluation reports, the final HSR, 

design and construction drawings for Hangars 1 and 2, the CPP, any 

necessary treatment plans, and comments from the NPS and the New York 

SHPO on all reports and plans for the Rockaway Project; 

b. Transco files documentation from the Pennsylvania SHPO that an 

archaeological survey at Compressor Station 195 is not required, or 

conducts a survey and files a survey report and the comments of the 

Pennsylvania SHPO on the report;

c. the ACHP is afforded an opportunity to comment if historic properties 

would be adversely affected or a Programmatic Agreement has been 

executed; and

d. the FERC staff reviews and the Director of OEP approves all cultural 

resource reports and plans, and notifies Transco in writing that the 

treatment plans/mitigation measures may be implemented and/or that 

construction may proceed.

All material filed with the Commission that contains 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.”

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-134 

4.11 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE

4.11.1 Air Quality

Air quality would be affected by construction and operation of the Projects. Although air 

emissions would be generated by construction activities, the majority of new emissions would result from 

operation of four natural gas-fired heating units and an emergency generator that would be installed 

within the proposed M&R facility as part of the Rockaway Project. While no new compressor facilities 

would be required, modifications/upgrades would be made at Compressor Stations 195, 205, and 207 for 

the Northeast Connector Project. 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 involve the 

use of hand tools to replace/adjust equipment within the existing compressor buildings at these sites. 

These activities would not result in construction emissions or an increase in operating emissions at 

Compressor Stations 205 and 207. 

4.11.1.1 Existing Air Quality

Climate

The Rockaway Project area has a climate that is characterized as humid continental, with warm 

summers, cool winters, and high humidity year round. Average monthly temperatures range from a low 

of 27 °F in January to a high of 84 °F in July. Precipitation is relatively evenly distributed throughout the 

year with an average monthly low of 3.21 inches in February and an average monthly high of 4.60 inches 

in July. Snow accumulations in a typical year range from 25 to 35 inches (New York State Climate 

Office, 2013; Weather.com, 2013). 

Compressor Station 195 is located in York County, Pennsylvania, which has a humid continental 

climate characterized by warm to hot summers and cold to very cold winters. Average monthly 

temperatures in the vicinity of the compressor station range from a low of 22 °F in January to a high of 

90 °F in July. Average monthly precipitation ranges from a low of 2.95 inches in February to a high of 

4.29 inches in July. Snowfall averages about 25 inches per year (NOAA, 2013; Weather.com, 2013; 

CurrentResults.com).

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

The CAA requires the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The 

NAAQS represent maximum levels of background pollutants that are considered safe with an adequate 

margin of safety to protect public health (primary standards) and welfare (secondary standards). The EPA 

has set standards for six criteria pollutants. Table 4.11.1-1 lists the federal NAAQS for these pollutants. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-135 

TABLE 4.11.1-1

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Criteria Pollutant

Primary/

Secondary Averaging Time Level Form

SO2 Primary 1-hour 75 ppb a Ninety-ninth percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations, averaged over 

3 years

Secondary 3-hour 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per 

year

CO Primary 8-hour 9 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per 

year

1-hour 35 ppm

Pb Primary and 

secondary

Rolling 3-month 

average

0.15 μg/m3 b Not to be exceeded

NO2 Primary 1-hour 100 ppb Ninety-eighth percentile, averaged over 3 

years

Primary and

secondary

Annual 53 ppb c Annual mean

Ozone Primary and 

secondary

8-hour 0.075 ppm d Annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-

hour concentration, averaged over 3 years

Particle Pollution

PM2.5 Primary Annual 12 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged over 3 years

Secondary Annual 15 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged over 3 years

Primary and

secondary

24-hour 35 μg/m3 Ninety-eighth percentile, averaged over 3 

years

PM10 Primary and 

secondary

24-hour 150 μg/m3 Not to be exceeded more than once per 

year on average over 3 years

____________________

Source: EPA, 2012

Notes:

SO2 = sulfur dioxide 

CO = carbon monoxide

Pb = lead

NO2 = nitrogen dioxide

PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic 

diameter

PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in aerodynamic 

diameter

ppm = parts per million

ppb = parts per billion

μg/m3

 = micrograms per cubic meter

a Final rule signed June 2, 2010. The 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards were revoked in that same rulemaking, but

these standards remain in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except in areas designated 

nonattainment for the 1971 standards, where the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or 

maintain the 2010 standard are approved. b Final rule signed October 15, 2008. The 1978 Pb standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until 

1 year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for 1978, the 

1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved. c The official level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm, equal to 53 ppb, which is shown here for the purpose of clearer 

comparison to the 1-hour standard. d

 Final rule signed March 12, 2008. The 1997 ozone standard (0.08 ppm, annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour 

concentration, averaged over 3 years) and related implementation rules remain in place. In 1997, the EPA revoked the 1-

hour ozone standard (0.12 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once per year) in all areas, although some areas have 

continued obligations under that standard (“anti-backsliding”). The 1-hour ozone 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.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-136 

The EPA and local agencies established Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) 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 region typically requires emissions reductions throughout the AQCR. Each 

AQCR, or portion thereof, is designated as attainment, nonattainment, maintenance, or unclassifiable. 

Areas where the ambient air pollutant concentration is below the applicable Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (AAQS) are designated as attainment. Areas where the ambient air concentration is greater 

than the applicable AAQS are designated as nonattainment. Areas that have been designated 

nonattainment for a pollutant but have since demonstrated compliance with the AAQS are designated as 

maintenance for that pollutant. Areas where no data are available are designated as unclassifiable. 

The Rockaway Project area is located in the New Jersey-New York-Connecticut (NJ-NY-CT) 

Interstate AQCR 43, also known as the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT area. 

The New York State portion of this area currently is designated as moderate nonattainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard, as marginal nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, and as 

nonattainment for the 1997 and 2006 standards for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in 

aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5). Compressor Station 195, which is located in York County, Pennsylvania, 

is designated as nonattainment for the 1997 and 2006 standards for PM2.5. 

State Ambient Air Quality Standards

New York

The EPA allows states to adopt their own AAQS, but such standards cannot be less stringent than 

the NAAQS. The NYSDEC has adopted AAQS that differ in some respects from the NAAQS. Table 

4.11.1-2 identifies the AAQS adopted by New York State. There are no state-level ambient air quality 

standards for Pennsylvania.

Background Ambient Air Quality

Air quality monitoring data from the EPA’s Air Quality System was reviewed to characterize 

background air quality for regulated criteria pollutants in the vicinity of the Projects. Air quality data 

from the NYSDEC also was reviewed for the Rockaway Project. Air quality monitoring stations closest 

to the proposed M&R facility at Floyd Bennett Field were used as representative background values for 

the entire Rockaway Project area. Air quality monitoring stations closest to Compressor Station 195 were 

used as representative background values for this area. The highest monitored values for each pollutant 

from the stations were selected. The background ambient air quality values for the Rockaway Project and 

Compressor Station 195 are listed in Tables 4.11.1-3 and 4.11.1-4, respectively.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-137 

TABLE 4.11.1-2 

New York Ambient Air Quality Standards

Air Pollutant Averaging Period

New York Ambient Air

Quality Standards a

SO2 1-hour b Federal

3-hour b Federal

24-hour c Federal

Annual 30 ppm

CO 1-hour 35 ppm

8-hour 9 ppm

Pb Rolling 3-month See note d

NO2 Annual 50 ppb

1-hour e Federal

Ozone 8-hour f None

1-hour 0.12 ppm g 

Particle Pollution

PM2.5 24-hour None

Annual None

PM10 24-hour Federal h

Total Suspended Particulates 

(TSP) i 

24-hour 250 μg/m3

12 consecutive months 75 μg/m3

Hydrocarbons 3-hour (6 to 9 a.m.) 0.24 ppm

____________________

a New York State also has ambient standards for beryllium, fluorides, hydrogen sulfide, and settleable particles (dustfall). 

Ambient monitoring for these pollutants is not currently conducted. b One-hour standard is the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor not 

to exceed 75 ppb (0.075 ppm). The 3-hour standard is a maximum not to exceed 500 ppb more than once per calendar 

year. Annual SO2 is not to exceed value. c The EPA is revoking the 24-hour and annual primary SO2 standard but is retaining the secondary standards. As of 

August 13, 2012, the EPA still includes primary SO2 standards for the 24-hour period, so they are retained here. The 

NYSDEC maintains an annual SO2 standard. d The federal standard for Pb has not yet been officially adopted by New York State. Based upon the November 22, 2011 

EPA designation, which became effective on December 31, 2011, the 0.15 μg/m3 standard replaced the previous level of 

1.5 μg/m3 throughout New York State as of January 1, 2013. The 1978 Pb standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) 

remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard (i.e., December 31, 2012 in New York 

State). e 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 (0.1 ppm), effective January 22, 2010. f Average of 4th highest daily maximum over 3 years. g The EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas, 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. h The federal standard for PM10 has not yet been officially adopted by New York, but it is currently being applied to 

determine compliance status. i There are no monitoring sites for TSP in the New York City metropolitan area, but New York TSP standards are still in 

effect. New York State also has 30-, 60-, and 90-day standards, as well as geometric mean standards of 45, 55, and 65 

μg/m3 in Part 257 of the NYCRR. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-138 

TABLE 4.11.1-3 

Background Ambient Air Quality for the Rockaway Project

Air Pollutant

Averaging

Period Monitor Values a Monitoring Site

SO2 1-hour 28 ppb

(3-year average,

99th percentile)

Eisenhower Park, East Meadow, Nassau County, NY

3-hour 36.5 (second highest) Eisenhower Park, East Meadow, Nassau County, NY

24-hour 12 ppb Eisenhower Park, East Meadow, Nassau County, NY

Annual 1.97 Eisenhower Park, East Meadow, Nassau County, NY

CO 1-hour 2.1 Queens College, New York, Queens, NY

8-hour 1.8 Queens College, New York, Queens, NY

Pb Rolling 3-month See note b See note b

NO2 Annual 21.6 Queens College, New York, Queens, NY

1-hour 67 Queens College, New York, Queens, NY

Ozone 8-hour 0.075 Queens College, New York, Queens, NY

1-hour 0.128 Queens College, New York, Queens, NY

Particle Pollution

PM2.5 24-hour 23 Hempstead, Lawrence High School, Nassau County, NY

Annual 8.9 Hempstead, Lawrence High School, Nassau County, NY

PM10 24-hour 47 Queens College, New York, Queens, NY

Total Suspended 

Particulates 

(TSP) c 

24-hour None None

12 consecutive 

months

None None

Hydrocarbons 3-hour

(6 to 9 a.m.)

See note d – 

____________________

Source: For NAAQS – EPA, 2011a: http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. For monitor values – EPA, 2011b; NYSDEC, 2012a.

a Monitored values of pollutants obtained from the Air Data Section of EPA or NYSDEC ambient monitoring report for 2011.

b The 3-month average statistic currently is not available from the EPA Air Quality System Data Mart. The federal standard 

for Pb is not yet officially adopted by New York State. Based upon the November 22, 2011 EPA designation for areas of 

New York State, which became effective on December 31, 2011, the 0.15 μg/m3 standard became effective throughout 

New York State on January 1, 2013 and will replace the previous level of 1.5 μg/m3. The 1978 Pb standard (1.5 μg/m3 as 

a quarterly average) remains in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard (December 31, 2012 

throughout New York State).

c There are no monitoring sites for TSP in the New York City metropolitan area; but New York TSP standards are still in 

effect. New York State also has 30-, 60-, and 90-day standards, as well as geometric mean standards of 45, 55, and 65 

μg/m3 in Part 257 of NYCRR. 

d New York monitors for toxics (VOCs) on an every sixth day midnight-to-midnight schedule. No monitoring is performed 

specifically for the New York State hydrocarbon standard.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-139 

TABLE 4.11.1-4 

Background Ambient Air Quality for the Northeast Connector Project

County/Air Pollutant

Averaging

Period

Maximum Monitor 

Value

Actual 

Exceedances Monitoring Site EPA ID

York

SO2 1-hour 41 ppb 0 421330008

3-hour N/A N/A N/A

24-hour 9 ppb 0 421330008

Annual N/A N/A N/A

CO 1-hour 3 ppm 0 421330008

8-hour 1.3 ppm 0 421330008

Pb Rolling 3-month N/A N/A N/A

NO2 Annual N/A N/A N/A

1-hour 63 ppb 0 421330008

Ozone 8-hour 0.088 ppm 5 421330008

1-hour 0.092 0 421330008

PM2.5 24-hour 32.3 μg/m3 0 421330008

Annual N/A N/A N/A

PM10 24-hour 49 μg/m3 0 421330008

____________________

N/A = This information was not available through the EPA 

Source: http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html

4.11.1.2 Air Quality Regulatory Requirements

Federal Regulations 

Clean Air Act

The CAA of 1970, 42 USC 7401 et seq., as amended in 1977 and 1990, is the primary federal 

statute governing air pollution. As noted above, the EPA had designated six pollutants as criteria 

pollutants under the CAA for which NAAQS have been developed to protect public health and welfare. 

The six criteria pollutants are: 

• particulate matter (also known as particle pollution), which includes particulate matter 

less than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10) and PM2.5; 

• carbon monoxide (CO);

• SO2; 

• nitrogen dioxide (NO2);

• Pb; and 

• ground-level ozone (Table 4.11.1-1). 

VOCs are not considered criteria pollutants, but they are analyzed as pollutants because they are 

precursors to ground-level ozone formation. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-140 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review

Air quality is regulated under the EPA’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program 

for areas in attainment and the Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) program for areas in 

nonattainment. The PSD regulations apply to new major stationary sources or major modifications to 

stationary sources located in attainment areas. The NNSR regulations apply to new or modified 

stationary sources located in nonattainment areas. 

According to the PSD applicability criteria for industrial sources that are not one of 28 source 

categories listed in Title 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i)(a), a PSD review would be triggered if the source would 

have a potential-to-emit (PTE) more than 250 tons per year (tpy) of any New Source Review (NSR) 

pollutant or for any proposed physical change that would occur at a minor stationary source where the 

change would constitute a major stationary source in itself. The Projects would not be subject to PSD 

because they are located in areas designated as nonattainment. 

The M&R facility and associated pipeline would be located within a designated nonattainment 

area for the 8-hour ozone standard. NOx and VOCs are precursor pollutants to ozone. The major NNSR 

thresholds for NOx and VOCs in areas designated as nonattainment for ozone are 25 tpy. Table 4.11.1-5 

lists the estimated operational emissions of the M&R facility. As indicated on the table, the operational 

emissions from this facility would not exceed the thresholds for NOx and VOCs and, therefore, would not 

trigger NNSR.

TABLE 4.11.1-5

Estimated Yearly Potential Operational Emissions 

for the M&R Facility

Equipment

NOx 

(tpy)

CO 

(tpy) 

VOCs

(tpy) 

PM/PM10/PM2.5 

(tpy)

SO2 

(tpy)

CO2e

(metric tpy)

Total for four pipeline heating 

units a 

8.5 14.3 0.9 1.3 0.1 20,406

Emergency generator 1.1 2.2 0.6 0.02 <0.01 253

Total 9.6 16.5 1.5 1.3 0.1 20,659

Major source permit threshold 100 100 100 100,000

____________________ a For emission estimation purposes, it is assumed each heating unit would operate for 8,760 hours per year (full-year 

operation) using natural gas as fuel. The emergency use generator is limited to 500 hours per year operation.

Compressor Station 195 is located in an area designated as nonattainment for PM2.5. As 

discussed in more detail below, the proposed modifications at Compressor Station 195 would result in a 

decrease in operational emissions, including a decrease of 2.0 tpy for PM2.5. Because NNSR applies to 

major modifications of sources that would result in an increase of emissions, the proposed modifications 

at Compressor Station 195 would not be subject to NNSR. 

New Source Performance Standard Subpart JJJJ

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for various engine sizes and types have been 

promulgated by the EPA. These standards implement Section 111(b) of the CAA. The NSPS for 

stationary spark ignition internal combustion engines were promulgated under 40 CFR 60, Subpart JJJJ. 

This subpart requires that engines comply with certain emissions standards for NOX, CO, and VOCs, and 

standards for performance testing and recordkeeping. The proposed natural gas-fired emergency 

generator engine to be installed at the M&R facility would be subject to Subpart JJJJ as it would be 

manufactured after the applicability date of the standards. The electric driven motors that Transco 

proposes to install at Compressor Station 195 would not be subject to NSPS Subpart JJJJ. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-141 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Subpart ZZZZ 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for reciprocating internal 

combustion engine (RICE) amendments are promulgated under 40 CFR 63, Subpart ZZZZ. The original 

major source NESHAP for RICE was amended to include those with a site rating of 500 hp or less located 

at major sources, and new and reconstructed stationary RICE located at area sources. An area source is 

defined as a minor source. The spark ignition natural gas internal combustion engine proposed for the 

M&R facility (i.e., the emergency generator engine) is subject to Subpart ZZZZ and a permit would be 

required from NYCDEP. The air quality permit issued for this facility would incorporate the applicable 

requirements from Subpart ZZZZ as conditions to the permit. The electric driven motors that Transco 

proposes to install at Compressor Station 195 would not be subject to NESHAP Subpart ZZZZ. 

Federal Class I Areas

Federal Class I areas are locations afforded more stringent air quality protection for certain select 

values such as visibility. Two factors determine potential effects on a Federal Class I area: the 

magnitude of emissions and the distance from the source to the Class I area. Federal Class I areas in the 

northeast region of the United States include the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in New 

Jersey, the Otter Creek and Dolly Sods Forest Service Wilderness Areas in West Virginia, and Lye Brook 

Forest Service Wilderness Area in Vermont. The closest of these to the Project areas is the Brigantine 

NWR in southern coastal New Jersey, which is located about 75 miles (120 kilometers) to the south 

(generally upwind) of the Rockaway Project area and about 102 miles (163 kilometers) east of 

Compressor Station 195. 

Transco conducted a preliminary analysis of the potential impacts of operational emissions from 

the Projects on the Brigantine NWR using a methodology developed by the DOI for sources like the 

proposed heaters that would be installed and operated at the M&R facility. The methodology consists of 

summing annual emissions of NOX, SO2, PM10, and sulfuric acid (H2SO4) mist (based on the 24-hour 

maximum emission rate) and dividing the total by the distance in kilometers to the Class I area. If the 

quotient is less than 10, then further analysis is required. 

For the Rockaway Project, the sum of the estimated emissions of NOX, SO2, PM10, and H2SO4

mist from operation of the proposed M&R facility is approximately 16 tpy. This results in a quotient of 

0.13 when the sum of the emissions is divided by the distance (102 kilometers) of the M&R facility to the 

Brigantine NWR. For the Northeast Connector Project, the sum of the estimated emissions of NOX, SO2, 

PM10, and H2SO4 mist from operation of Compressor Station 195 is approximately 7.4 tpy. This results in 

a quotient of 0.04 when the sum of the emissions is divided by the distance (163 kilometers) of the 

compressor station to the Brigantine NWR. In each case, the value of the quotient is less than 10; 

therefore, no further analysis for the Projects is required.

General Conformity 

Section 176 of the 1990 CAA amendments required the EPA to promulgate rules to ensure that 

federal actions conform to the appropriate SIP. These rules, known together as the General Conformity 

Rule, require any federal agency responsible for an action in a nonattainment or maintenance area for any 

criteria pollutant to determine if the action conforms to the applicable SIP or is exempt from the General 

Conformity Rule requirements. This means federally supported or funded activities cannot: 

• cause or contribute to any new air quality standard violation; 

• increase the frequency or severity of any existing standard violation; or 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-142 

• delay the timely attainment of any standard, interim emission reduction, or other 

milestone. 

The General Conformity Rule is codified in Title 40 CFR 93, Subpart B. A conformity 

determination must be conducted by the lead federal agency if a federal action’s construction and 

operations activities are estimated to:

1. result in generating direct and indirect emissions that would exceed the conformity 

threshold levels (de minimis) of the pollutant(s) for which an air basin is in nonattainment 

or maintenance; or

2. result in generating direct and indirect emissions that would exceed 10 percent of the total 

emissions budget for the entire nonattainment or maintenance area. 

The emission de minimis applicability thresholds listed in Table 4.11.1-6 are used to determine if 

there is a need to conduct a General Conformity determination for a federal action based on the current 

nonattainment status of any criteria pollutants in the affected region. If emissions of nonattainment 

pollutants are below the de minimis thresholds, then a General Conformity determination is not required.

TABLE 4.11.1-6

General Conformity De Minimus Thresholds

Ozone (Precursors) PM2.5 (Direct Emissions and Precursors)

NOX (tpy) VOCs (tpy)

PM2.5 Direct 

Emissions (tpy) SO2 (tpy) NOX (tpy)

100 50 100 100 100

____________________

Source: 40 CFR 93.153

The Rockaway Project would generate emissions during construction and operations. 

Construction emissions would result from the use of diesel- and gas-powered equipment and from 

fugitive dust. Operational emissions would result from the use of four natural gas-fired pipeline heaters 

and one (approximately 900 hp) natural gas-fired reciprocating engine connected to an emergency use 

electrical generator. For the purposes of General Conformity, National Grid’s BQI Project emissions 

were not included as they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the FERC. See Section 1.4 and 

Appendix B for details on National Grid’s non-jurisdictional project.

Operational emissions in New York that are subject to a SIP-approved permit program are 

exempt from inclusion in a General Conformity applicability analysis. The NYSDEC permit program is a 

SIP-approved program; thus, a determination has already been made that the permitting program, when 

applied to stationary sources such as the M&R facility, will not contribute to a violation of the NAAQS or 

delay the attainment or maintenance of the standards. Therefore, operational emissions have not been 

included in our General Conformity determination. 

The location of the Rockaway Project is within designated nonattainment areas for PM2.5 and 8-

hour ozone. As a result, the direct and indirect emissions of PM2.5, emissions of PM2.5 precursor 

compounds (NOx, and SO2), and emissions of ozone precursor compounds (VOCs and NOx) due to 

construction must be compared to General Conformity de minimis thresholds. Estimates of the 

reasonably foreseeable emissions from direct and indirect sources associated with construction of the 

Rockaway Project are listed in Table 4.11.1-7. The estimated construction emissions are considered de 

minimis because they are below the General Conformity thresholds of 50 tpy for VOCs and 100 tpy for 

all other criteria pollutants. Therefore, no further analysis of the Rockaway Project is required for 

General Conformity. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-143 

TABLE 4.11.1-7 

Estimated Total Construction Emissions for the Rockaway Project

Activity/Location NOX (tpy) CO (tpy) VOCs (tpy) PM10 (tpy) PM2.5 (tpy) SO2 (tpy)

Hangar restoration 0.19 0.41 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01

Onshore HDD 4.82 1.42 0.38 0.26 0.26 0.13

Onshore pipeline 0.22 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01

M&R facilities 1.59 0.81 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.08

Concrete coating 

(New Jersey)

 a 

0.21 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01

Land transportation 0.28 1.48 0.18 0.01 0.01 0.00

Marine operations – 

vessels

56.20 34.53 3.60 5.04 4.91 10.10

Marine operations – 

other equipment

21.12 4.63 1.11 0.84 0.82 0.49

Total 84.6 43.5 5.5 6.4 6.2 10.8

____________________

a The emissions for concrete coating do not include the production of the concrete. As currently planned, the concrete 

would be delivered by a vendor facility that is assumed to have its own air permits for operating a concrete production 

facility.

The Northeast Connector Project would generate emissions during construction and operations 

activities at Compressor Station 195. Construction emissions would result from the use of diesel- and 

gas-powered equipment and from fugitive dust. The operational emissions would result from the 

continuing use of existing gas-fired engines at the site, including two reciprocating engines, an auxiliary 

engine, and an air compressor engine, and fugitive emissions from valves and flanges associated with gas 

supply lines. 

Operational emissions in Pennsylvania that are subject to a SIP-approved permit program are 

exempt from inclusion in a General Conformity applicability analysis. The Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection permit program is a SIP-approved program; thus, a determination has already 

been made that the permitting program, when applied to stationary sources such as Compressor Station 

195, will not contribute to a violation of the NAAQS or delay the attainment or maintenance of the 

standards. Therefore, operational emissions have not been included in our General Conformity 

determination for the Northeast Connector Project. 

Compressor Station 195 is within a designated nonattainment area for PM2.5. As a result, the 

direct and indirect emissions of PM2.5 and emissions of PM2.5 precursor compounds (NOx, and SO2) must 

be compared to General Conformity de minimis thresholds. The thresholds for NOX and SO2 under 

General Conformity are 100 tpy each. As shown in Table 4.11.1-8, construction emissions estimates for 

Compressor Station 195 are 6.8 tpy of NOX and 0.1 tpy of SO2, both of which are considered de minimis. 

Therefore, no further analysis of the Northeast Connector Project is required for General Conformity. 

TABLE 4.11.1-8 

Estimated Total Construction Emissions for Compressor Station 195

Emission Source NOX (tpy) CO (tpy) VOCs (tpy)

PM2.5 and

PM10 (tpy) SO2 (tpy) CO2e (tpy)

Non-road 3.8 8.6 0.7 0.4 0.1 734

On-road 3.0 10.6 1.4 0.05 0.0 825

Total 6.8 19.2 2.1 0.5 0.1 1,559

Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting Rule and Tailoring Rule 

The EPA promulgated rules requiring monitoring, reporting, and record keeping for GHGs

beginning in 2010. A facility would report GHG emissions to the EPA if its aggregate maximum rated 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-144 

heat input from all combustion sources is more than 30 million metric British thermal units per hour 

(MMBtu/hr), and the facility emits more than 25,000 metric tpy of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), as 

further described in Section 4.11.1.4. 

The EPA also promulgated the PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule. New sources 

and existing sources not previously subject to Title V that emit at least 100,000 tpy CO2e are now subject

to PSD and Title V requirements. In addition, sources that have the potential to emit at least 100,000 tpy 

CO2e and that undertake a modification that increases net emissions of GHGs by 75,000 tpy CO2e are 

subject to PSD requirements. 

As shown on Table 4.11.1-9, operations at both the proposed M&R facility and at Compressor 

Station 195 would result in GHG emissions that are less than 25,000 tpy CO2e. Both facilities would emit 

less than the thresholds listed in the Mandatory Reporting Rule and Tailoring Rule. Therefore, neither the 

M&R facility nor Compressor Station 195 would be subject to either rule. 

TABLE 4.11.1-9 

Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summaries

for the Rockaway and Northeast Connector Projects

Equipment CO2e (metric tpy)

Rockaway Project

Total for four pipeline heating units a 20,406

Emergency generator 253

Total 20,659

Northeast Connector Project

Compressor Station 195 (all sources) 7,744

____________________

a For emission estimation purposes, it is assumed each heating unit would operate for 8,760 hours per year (full-year 

operation) using natural gas as fuel. The emergency use generator is limited to 500 hours per year operation.

 

State Regulations

Air quality in New York State and New York City is regulated by the NYSDEC and NYCDEP, 

respectively. Regulations for both jurisdictions require that parties planning to construct or modify 

equipment or use a process with the potential to emit air contaminants determine the applicability of air 

permitting requirements and, if necessary, submit a permit application to the agencies. The emissions 

units at the proposed M&R facility would have a heat input rating less than the NYSDEC permit 

requirement threshold of 10 MMBtu/hr, and thus would be exempt from NYSDEC permitting 

requirements. The emergency generator would be exempt from permitting because its operation would be 

limited to less than 500 hours per year. Transco would need to obtain a “Fossil Fuels Combustion 

Equipment Application for Permit to Construct and Certificate to Operate” permit from the NYCDEP. 

Air quality in Pennsylvania is regulated by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection Bureau of Air Quality. Transco currently has all of the required air quality permits from this 

agency to operate Compressor Station 195. Because no new emission sources would be installed at the 

site, no new permits would be needed. 

4.11.1.3 Air Emission Impacts and Mitigation

Construction Emissions

The use of onshore diesel- and gas-powered equipment to fabricate and install the Rockaway 

Delivery Lateral and construct the M&R facility would result in temporary increases in emissions of some 

pollutants. Construction activities would result in the temporary generation of fugitive dust due to land 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-145 

clearing and ground excavations. The operation of cranes, cement trucks, and barges at the pipe yard 

associated with coating the pipe and loading it onto barges for transport to offshore locations would also

produce emissions. Additional indirect emissions would be generated by delivery vehicles and 

construction workers commuting to and from work areas. 

Offshore construction activities would consist of pipeline installation, the hot-tap into the existing 

LNYBL, and the HDD operation. The pipeline would be transported by barge from the pipe yard to the 

offshore work zone. Thus, the primary sources of emissions during offshore construction activities would

come from the marine construction vessels used to transport and install the pipeline and hot-tap and 

complete the HDD. Ships of various sizes, ranging from small day-use workboats to large supply vessels, 

pipeline construction vessels, and ocean-going tug boats, would be used. 

An estimate of the combined onshore and offshore construction emissions for the Rockaway 

Project is provided above in Table 4.11.1-7. These emissions would occur over the duration of 

construction activity and would be emitted at different times and locations along the length of the

Rockaway Delivery Lateral, along the route from the pipe yard to the offshore construction area, and at 

the M&R facility site. Emissions produced from construction equipment would be temporary and should 

not result in a significant impact on regional air quality.

Onshore construction fugitive dust emissions levels would vary in relation to moisture content, 

composition, and volume of soils during construction. Dust would be generated primarily during 

construction activities such as trenching and grading. Fugitive dust emissions associated with 

construction would be temporary and would cease when construction is completed. Transco has prepared 

a Dust Control Plan for construction of the Rockaway Project and would implement dust-control 

measures as necessary. Therefore, fugitive dust emissions are not expected to contribute to degradation 

of NAAQS.

Construction at Compressor Station 195 would involve the use of heavy equipment to remove 

three existing internal combustion engines, install two new electric motors, and construct/install 

associated supporting infrastructure (e.g., foundations, the electric substation, variable frequency drive 

building, electric cables, and access road). Use of this equipment would produce combustion emissions. 

Fugitive dust emissions are expected to be minor because construction would be conducted within the 

existing compressor station boundary requiring minimal travel on unpaved surfaces. Roads leading to 

Compressor Station 195 and existing roads within the station are paved and/or graveled. Equipment 

would remain within the station boundary during construction. 

Emissions estimates for construction activities at Compressor Station 195 are shown in Table 

4.11.1-8 above. Non-road emissions are based on emission factors from a run of the EPA’s Non-road 

Emission Model (Version 2008a) for York County, Pennsylvania for the construction year 2015. 

Emissions factors were combined with an estimate of construction equipment activity to produce the 

emissions estimate. On-road emissions from worker commute vehicles and delivery trucks were 

estimated using the EPA’s average emissions rates as published in various fact sheets combined with 

estimates of vehicle miles travelled for construction activities at Compressor Station 195. Emissions 

produced from construction equipment would be temporary and should not result in a significant impact 

on regional air quality. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-146 

Operational Emissions

The operational emissions from the Rockaway Project at the M&R facility would consist of 

combustion exhaust from the four natural gas-fired pipeline heating units and the natural gas-fired 

reciprocating engine attached to the emergency use electrical generator. Natural gas would be burned 

using low NOx burners, with the heat from the combustion transferring to a heat transfer fluid sent to the 

pipeline gas heating unit. The heating unit transfers the heat to the pipeline using natural gas to raise its 

temperature to meet delivery specifications. Each of the heating units would have a burner tip rating less 

than 10 MMBtu/hr. Table 4.11.1-5 lists the estimated annual operational emissions of criteria pollutants 

from the M&R facility. GHG emissions from the M&R facility are listed in Table 4.11.1-9. 

Non-combustion-related emissions would result from operation of the M&R facility. Some 

fugitive emissions of methane (CH4) would occur as a result of leaking equipment and natural gas venting 

activities. Transco would include measures in the facility’s design to minimize fugitive emissions. For 

example, the valves and other pipeline equipment control devices that are operated using natural gas 

would be vented into the piping connected to National Grid’s natural gas distribution system instead of 

vented to the atmosphere. Transco would monitor valves and flanges for leaks with gas-detection 

monitors and make repairs if any leak is detected. No other consequential emissions would occur during 

the operation of the M&R facility. 

Current operating emissions from Compressor Station 195 result from combustion exhaust 

associated with five gas-fired reciprocating engines and gas-fired engines associated with an auxiliary 

engine and an air compressor. VOCs and GHGs from fugitive sources at Compressor Station 195 also 

occur from valves and flanges in vapor and condensate service, compressor seals in vapor service, and 

venting/blowdowns. Estimates of current (2012) operating emissions at the site are provided in Table 

4.11.1-10. 

Table 4.11.1-10 

Actual Operational Emissions from Compressor Station 195 from Calendar Year 2012 

Unit ID NOX (tpy) CO (tpy) VOCs (tpy)

PM10 and PM2.5

(tpy) SO2 (tpy) CO2e (tpy)

M/L 1,2,3 60.1 27.2 4.8 2.0 0.02 4,577

M/L 4,5 18.9 18.9 11.8 2.1 0.03 4,887

AUX 1 0.3 0.34 0.04 0.01 <0.01 72.9

Air Compressor 0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1.0

BLR 1 0.2 0.17 0.01 0.02 0.00 1,292

Fugitives - - 2.6 - - 1,491

Total 79.5 46.7 19.2 4.1 0.05 12,321

____________________

Notes:

M/L 1,2,3,4 and 5 are natural gas-fired reciprocating engines

Transco proposes to replace three of the gas-fired reciprocating engines at Compressor Station 

195 with electric motors, which would result in a decrease in operational emissions at the site. There also 

would be a slight reduction in fugitive emissions due to the removal of a small number of valves and 

flanges associated with gas supply lines, but this reduction would be minor. Table 4.11.1-11 lists the 

estimated annual operational emissions of criteria pollutants and GHG emissions from Compressor 

Station 195 as a result of the Northeast Connector Project. Table 4.11.1-12 compares operational 

emissions from Compressor Station 195 before and after implementation of the Northeast Connector 

Project.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-147 

Table 4.11.1-11

Estimated Annual Operational Emissions for Compressor Station 195 

Unit ID NOX (tpy) CO (tpy) VOC (tpy)

PM10 and 

PM2.5 (tpy) SO2 (tpy) CO2e (tpy)

New Electric Units a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

M/L 4,5 18.9 18.9 11.8 2.1 0.03 4,887

AUX 1 0.3 0.34 0.04 0.01 <0.01 72.9

Air Compressor 0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1.0

BLR 1 0.2 0.17 0.01 0.02 0.00 1,292

Fugitives - - 2.6 - - 1,491

Total 19.4 19.5 14.4 2.1 0.03 7,744

____________________

a These would replace the existing M/L 1, 2, and 3 units.

Table 4.11.1-12

Estimated Reduction in Annual Operating Emissions at Compressor Station 195 

Emissions

NOX

(tpy) CO (tpy)

VOC

(tpy)

PM10 and PM2.5

(tpy) SO2 (tpy) CO2e (tpy)

Existing Emissions (2013) 79.5 46.7 19.2 4.1 0.05 12,321

Estimated Emissions 19.4 19.5 14.4 2.1 0.03 7,744

Net Change -60.1 -27.2 -4.8 -2.0 -0.02 4,577

Emissions produced as a result of operations and maintenance of the Projects are unlikely to 

contribute to or cause a violation of any AAQS; therefore, maintenance and operations activities 

associated with the proposed Projects should not result in a significant impact on regional air quality. The 

emissions reductions estimated at Compressor Station 195 could result in an incremental improvement to 

air quality in the vicinity of the station and within its regional airshed. Additionally, as stated in Section 

4.11.1.2, operational emissions are governed by SIP-approved programs both in New York and 

Pennsylvania; thus, a determination has already been made that the permitting program, when applied to 

stationary sources, would not contribute to a violation of the NAAQS or delay the attainment or 

maintenance of the standards.

4.11.1.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

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. The most abundant GHGs 

are water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), CH4, nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone. The primary GHGs 

produced by fossil fuel combustion are CO2, CH4, and N2O. During construction and operation of the 

Projects, these GHGs would be emitted from non-electrical construction equipment and operating 

equipment such as line heaters and generators. Emissions of GHGs are typically expressed in terms of 

CO2e, where the potential of each gas to increase heating in the atmosphere is expressed as a multiple of 

the heating potential of CO2, or its global warming potential (GWP). CO2 has a GWP of 1, CH4 has a 

GWP of approximately 21, and N2O has a GWP of approximately 310 (EPA, 2013a). 

On October 30, 2009, the EPA published the final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases 

rule, establishing the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) codified in Title 40 CFR 98. Since 

2011, the GHGRP has required large direct emitters of GHGs and certain suppliers (e.g., of fossil fuels, 

petroleum products, industrial gases, and CO2) to report GHG information annually. Subpart W of Title 

40 CFR 98 applies to petroleum and natural gas systems, including: onshore and offshore petroleum and 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-148 

natural gas production; onshore natural gas processing; natural gas transmission compression; 

underground natural gas storage; and LNG storage, import, and export facilities that emit greater than or 

equal to 25,000 metric tonnes 20 of GHG, as CO2e, per year. In addition, 40 CFR 98, Subpart C applies to 

stationary combustion sources that emit greater than or equal to 25,000 metric tonnes of GHG as CO2e 

per year. According to the EPA’s GHGRP webpage, “EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program will 

help us better understand where greenhouse gas emissions are coming from and will improve our ability 

to make informed policy, business and regulatory decisions” (EPA, 2013a).

Emissions of GHG pollutants associated with the construction and operation of the Projects, 

including all direct and indirect emission sources, were calculated and converted to total CO2e emissions 

based on the GWP of each pollutant. The estimated GHG emissions from construction of the Rockaway 

Project, and operation of the M&R facility on a potential (8,760 hours per year) basis, are approximately 

8,571 and 20,659 metric tpy, respectively. The GHGRP does not apply to construction emissions, but we 

have included the construction emissions for accounting and disclosure purposes. The combustionrelated GHG emissions from operation of the M&R facility would be less than 25,000 metric tpy. If all 

actual GHG emissions from the proposed M&R facility are equal to or greater than 25,000 metric tpy, 

Transco would be required to comply with all applicable requirements of 40 CFR 98. As combustion 

sources are not planned for the proposed Rockaway Project, Subpart C would not apply. Additionally, 

Subpart C would not apply to the Northeast Connector Project as GHG emission estimates for 

Compressor Station 195 are lower than the threshold of 25,000 metric tpy of CO2e. 

Although the GHG emissions for the Rockaway Project may appear large, they actually are very 

small (0.00338 percent during construction, and 0.00815 percent during operations) in comparison to the 

New York State 2008 GHG Inventory of approximately 254 million metric tons of CO2e (New York State 

Climate Action Council, 2010). Similarly, GHG emissions from operations at Compressor Station 195 

for the Northeast Connector Project would represent just 0.000027 percent of Pennsylvania’s 2000 GHG 

Inventory of 284 million metric tonnes of CO2e (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 

2009). 

We received a comment regarding combustion of the incremental supply of natural gas that

would be provided by the Projects and its potential impact on GHGs and regional air quality. While the 

incremental supply would be used in New York City (primarily Brooklyn), the impact of combustion on 

GHGs and regional air quality is unknown at this time. We note that a small portion (about 15 percent by 

volume) of the natural gas to be provided by the Projects to National Grid is incremental (i.e., additional). 

The majority (about 85 percent by volume) is replacement gas, which currently is provided to National 

Grid via the existing delivery point in Long Beach. It is expected that at least a portion of the incremental 

supply would be used to convert existing heating systems in New York City from oil to natural gas, which 

is consistent with city initiatives to encourage conversions from highly polluting fuels (New York City, 

2011). This could reduce GHG emissions in New York City and result in a positive impact on regional 

air quality, but there is insufficient data available at this time to quantify the impact of conversions from 

fuel oil to natural gas in heating systems in New York City. National Grid (2011) estimates that 

displacement of fuel oil in heating systems due to the additional gas supply provided by the Projects to 

the BQI Project could reduce daily GHG emissions by 11,357 metric tons of CO2e.

 

20 A metric tonne is 2,205 pounds, or approximately 1.1 tons.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-149 

4.11.1.5 Radon Exposure

Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas that is odorless and tasteless. It is formed from the 

radioactive decay of uranium (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2011). Radon can be 

entrained in fossil fuels including natural gas. Since radon is not destroyed by combustion, burning 

natural gas containing radon can increase the level of radon within a home (Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry, 2010). Several factors limit the indoor exposure to radon from natural gas. 

Radon’s half-life, defined as the time it takes for the element to decay to half its initial concentration, is 

relatively short (3.8 days). The time needed to gather, process, store, and deliver natural gas allows a 

portion of the entrained radon to decay, which decreases the amount of radon in the gas before it is used 

in a residence. The required venting of appliance exhausts from water heaters, furnaces, and other 

appliances also limits potential exposure pathways to radon emissions. 

While the FERC has no regulatory authority to set, monitor, or respond to indoor radon levels, 

many local, state, and federal entities establish and enforce radon exposure standards for indoor air. It is 

expected that the combustion of gas transported by the Projects would comply with all applicable air 

emission standards. In the unlikely event that these standards are exceeded, the necessary modifications 

would be implemented to ensure public safety. 

4.11.2 Noise

Sound is a sequence of waves of pressure that propagate through compressible media such as air 

or water. When sound becomes excessive, annoying, or unwanted, it is referred to as noise. Decibels 

(dB) are the units of measurement used to quantify the intensity of noise. To account for the human ear’s 

sensitivity to low-level noises, dB values are corrected to weighted values on the A-weighted scale (i.e., 

dBA). Table 4.11.2-1 identifies the dBA noise levels of common sounds relative to the noise made by a 

garbage disposal, food blender, or pneumatic drill (which measure about 80 dBA). 

Two measurements that relate the time-varying quality of environmental noise to its known effect 

on human receptors are the 24-hour equivalent sound level (Leq[24]) and the day-night sound level (Ldn). 

The Leq(24) is the level of steady sound with the same total (equivalent) energy as the time-varying sound 

of interest, averaged over a 24-hour period. The Ldn is the Leq(24) with 10 dBA added to nighttime sound 

levels. Noise 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. Late night and early morning (10:00 

pm to 7:00 am) noise exposures are penalized +10 decibels, to account for people's greater sensitivity to 

sound during the nighttime hours. 

4.11.2.1 Existing Noise Levels

Existing Noise Levels in the Rockaway Project Area

The proposed Rockaway Project is located in an area characterized by a variety of land uses, 

including residential areas, a public beach, a pitch-and-putt golf course, a commercial airport, and some 

industrial facilities. Transco identified five NSAs near the M&R facility site (see Figure 4.11.2-1). These 

included two residences, the Floyd Bennett Gateway Park Community Garden, and two campsites within 

the Ecology Village of the GNRA. A description of the location of each of these NSAs relative to the 

M&R facility site is included in Table 4.11.2-2. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-150 

TABLE 4.11.2-1 

Sound Pressure Levels and Relative Loudness

Noise Source or Activity

Sound Level

(dBA)

Subjective

Impression a

Relative Loudness

(perception of

different sound levels)

Jet aircraft takeoff from carrier (50 feet) 140 Threshold of pain 64 times as loud

50-hp siren (100 feet) 130 32 times as loud

Loud rock concert near stage/

Jet takeoff (200 feet)

120 Uncomfortably loud 16 times as loud

Float plane takeoff (100 feet) 110 8 times as loud

Jet takeoff (2,000 feet) 100 Very loud 4 times as loud

Heavy truck or motorcycle (25 feet) 90 2 times as loud

Garbage disposal/

Food blender (2 feet)/

Pneumatic drill (50 feet)

80 Loud Reference loudness

Vacuum cleaner (10 feet) 70 Moderate 1/2 as loud

Passenger car at 65 mph (25 feet) 65

Large store air-conditioning unit (20 feet) 60 1/4 as loud

Light auto traffic (100 feet) 50 Quiet 1/8 as loud

Quiet rural residential area with no activity 45

Bedroom or quiet living room/

Bird calls

40 Faint 1/16 as loud

Typical wilderness area 35

Quiet library, soft whisper (15 feet) 30 Very quiet 1/32 as loud

Wilderness with no wind or animal activity 25 Extremely quiet

High quality recording studio 20 1/64 as loud

Acoustic test chamber 10 Just audible

0 Threshold of 

hearing

____________________

Sources: Barnes and Laymon, 1977; EPA, 1971 a Noise sources or activities with no information in the subjective impression column have been included to demonstrate the 

doubling effect between 10 dBA intervals.

 

TABLE 4.11.2-2 

NSAs Near the M&R Facility for the Rockaway Project

NSA No. Location Descriptions

Distance and Direction from

M&R Facility

1 Multi-family residential building off Aviation Road; NSA no. 1 is 

considered the closest residence to the M&R facility

Approximately 2,800 feet southeast

2 Single-family residences off Aviation Road Approximately 3,900 feet east-southeast

3 Area of the Floyd Bennett Gateway Park Community Garden; this

is considered the closest NSA in the GNRA; this area typically is 

visited during daytime hours

Approximately 450 feet northeast

4 Area of the Ecology Village Campsite in the GNRA Approximately 1,900 feet east

5 Area of the Ecology Village Campsite in the GNRA Approximately 2,000 feet east

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-151 

Transco conducted sound measurements in the daytime on June 14, 2012 to determine the

ambient A-weighted equivalent sound levels (i.e., Leq) and unweighted octave-band SPLs at three of the 

five NSAs as well as near the Aviation Sports and Events Center, which is northwest of the M&R facility 

site. The sound measurements attempted to exclude "extraneous sound" such as a vehicle passing 

immediately by the sound measurement position. Table 4.11.2-3 summarizes the measured ambient

daytime equivalent sound level (Ld) and the calculated ambient Ldn at each measured site. The Ld ranged 

from 42.0 to 45.6 dBA and the Ldn ranged from 48.4 to 52.0 dBA.

TABLE 4.11.2-3 

Summary of Ambient Day and Night Sound Levels at NSAs Near the M&R Facility for the Rockaway Project

Description of Sound Measurement Location

Measured Daytime 

Sound Level

(dBA)

Calculated Day-Night 

Average Sound Levels 

(dBA)

NSA no. 1: Residential building (i.e., multi-family residences) located 2,800 

feet southeast of the M&R facility

42.3 48.7

NSA no. 2: Single-family residences located 3,900 feet east-southeast of the 

M&R facility 

42.5 48.9

NSA no. 3: Near the Floyd Bennett Gateway Park Community Garden, which 

is approximately 450 feet northeast of the M&R facility 

42.0 48.4

Near the Aviation Sports and Events Center at the GNRA, approximately

1,900 feet northwest of the M&R facility

45.6 52.0

Existing Noise Levels in the Northeast Connector Project Areas 

Compressor Station 195 is located near Bryansville in York County, Pennsylvania. Land 

surrounding the site is primarily rural with nearby agricultural fields, forested tracts, and a few residences. 

Transco recorded sound measurements in the daytime on February 21, 2013 to determine the Leq and 

unweighted octave-band SPLs at the three closest NSAs (all residences) to the site. The measured 

ambient Ld and the calculated ambient Ldn for each of these NSAs are provided in Table 4.11.2-4. The Ld

ranged from 41.6 to 50.5 dBA and the Ldn ranged from 48.0 to 56.9 dBA for the NSAs. 

TABLE 4.11.2-4 

Summary of Ambient Day and Night Sound Levels at NSAs

Near Compressor Station 195 for the Northeast Connector Project

Description of Sound Measurement Location

Measured Daytime 

Sound Level

(dBA)

Calculated Day-Night 

Average Sound Levels 

(dBA)

NSA no. 1: Residence located 500 feet east-northeast of the compressor 

building

50.5 56.9

NSA no. 2: Residence located 900 feet west of the compressor building 47.8 54.2

NSA no. 3: Residence located 1,400 feet south-southwest of the compressor 

building

42.0 48.4

Compressor Station 205 is located east of Pennington and west of Princeton in Mercer County, 

New Jersey. The site is situated in a rural area consisting of forested tracts, agricultural fields, and 

scattered residences. Transco used data from surveys conducted on August 16, 2011 augmented by data 

from a survey conducted in 2002 to determine the Leq and unweighted octave-band SPLs at the two 

closest NSAs (both residences) to the site. Table 4.11.2-5 identifies the measured ambient Ld and the 

calculated ambient Ldn for each of these NSAs. The Ld ranged from 41.6 to 50.5 dBA and the Ldn ranged 

from 48.0 to 56.9 dBA for the NSAs. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-152 

TABLE 4.11.2-5 

Summary of Ambient Day and Night Sound Levels at NSAs

Near Compressor Station 205 for the Northeast Connector Project

Description of Sound Measurement Location

Measured Daytime 

Sound Level

(dBA)

Calculated Day-Night 

Average Sound Levels 

(dBA)

NSA no. 1: Residence located 1,300 feet east of Compressor Building A 44.2 50.6

NSA no. 2: Residence located 1,600 feet north of Compressor Building A 44.0 50.4

Compressor Station 207 is located south of Madison Park in Middlesex County, New Jersey. 

Much of the land surrounding the site is developed, with industrial facilities located to the north, west, 

and south of the site. Areas to the east are forested. Residential areas in the vicinity of Compressor 

Station 207 are found to the west-northwest, northwest, and east-southeast. Transco determined the Leq

and unweighted octave-band SPLs at the three closest NSAs (all residential areas) to Compressor Station 

207 using data from a survey conducted on February 1, 2010. The measured ambient Ld and the 

calculated ambient Ldn for each of the NSAs are provided in Table 4.11.2-6. The Ld ranged from 41.6 to 

50.5 dBA and the Ldn ranged from 48.0 to 56.9 dBA for the NSAs. 

TABLE 4.11.2-6 

Summary of Ambient Day and Night Sound Levels at NSAs 

Near Compressor Station 207 for the Northeast Connector Project

Description of Sound Measurement Location

Measured Day-Night

Sound Level 

(dBA) a

NSA no. 1: Residential area located 1,700 feet west-northwest of the compressor building 35.5

NSA no. 2: Residential area located 1,850 feet northwest of the compressor building 34.7

NSA no. 3: Residential area located 1,900 feet east-southeast of the compressor building 36.0

____________________

a Current sound level contribution due to Compressor Station 207

4.11.2.2 Noise Regulatory Requirements

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

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 determined that noise levels should not exceed 55 dBA Ldn, which is the level that protects the 

public from indoor and outdoor activity interference (EPA, 1974). We have adopted this criterion and use 

it to evaluate the potential noise impact from the operation of facilities.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Pursuant to 18 CFR 157.206(d)(5), the FERC requires that the noise attributable to any new 

facility, compressor engine, or modifications during full load operation not exceed an Ldn of 55 dBA at 

any NSA located within one-half mile of the site. In addition, the FERC may impose requirements for 

temporary site construction activities, and the FERC generally uses the sound level of 55 dBA (Ldn) as a 

“benchmark criterion” for assessing the noise generated by construction activities. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-153 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Environmental Criteria and Standards

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has adopted environmental 

standards, criteria, and guidelines for determining the acceptability of federally assisted projects and has 

proposed mitigation measures to ensure that activities assisted by the HUD will achieve the goal of a 

suitable living environment (HUD, 1991). These guideline values are strictly advisory. The standards, 

outlined in 24 CFR 51, establish a site acceptability standard based on a Ldn not exceeding 65 dBA. 

Local Regulations 

The local noise regulations relative to the areas in which the Projects would be constructed and 

operated are listed in Table 4.11.2-7. There are no state or local noise ordinances that are applicable to 

Compressor Station 195. 

TABLE 4.11.2-7 

Noise Guidelines, Standards, and Ordinances Applicable to the Rockaway and Northeast Connector Projects

Agency Citation Title Description

New York City Local Law 113 of the 

City of New York

New York City Noise 

Control Code

Calls for the adoption of standards and procedures to 

reduce noise levels from construction. Establishes sound 

level standards for specific equipment. Mandates the 

adoption of a “noise mitigation plan” by the contractor.

New York City Title 15 of the Rules 

of the City of New 

York 

Chapter 28, Citywide 

Construction Noise 

Mitigation

Prescribes the methods, procedures, and technology to be 

used at construction sites to achieve noise mitigation.

MOEC CEQR Manual 2012, 

Chapter 16, Noise

CEQR Technical 

Manual

Assists city agencies, project sponsors, and the public in 

conducting environmental reviews subject to CEQR.

State of New 

Jersey

New Jersey Noise 

Control Act 

(Chapters 29, 29B)

New Jersey Noise 

Control Act

Sets limits for allowable noise levels for the State of New 

Jersey.

Lawrence 

Township (New 

Jersey)

Ordinance No. 1047-

86, as amended by 

Ordinance No. 1060-

87

Noise Control 

Ordinance of the 

Lawrence Township

Sets limits for allowable noise levels within Lawrence 

Township.

Borough of 

Sayreville (New 

Jersey)

Chapter V, Section 

5.3: Noise, in the 

Sayreville Supp. No. 

1, dated Feb. ‘03

Police Regulations for 

the Borough of 

Sayreville

Sets limits for allowable noise levels within the Borough of 

Sayreville

Township of Old 

Bridge (New 

Jersey)

Section 4.a 

(“Performance 

Standards”, pp. 7-35 

to 7-37)

The Land 

Development

Ordinance for the 

Township of Old 

Bridge

Sets limits for allowable noise levels within Old Bridge 

Township.

New York City Construction Noise Rules

Local Law 113 of the City of New York calls for the adoption of standards and procedures to 

reduce noise levels from construction and establishes sound level standards for specific equipment. The 

law mandates adoption of a “noise mitigation plan” by the construction contractor. 

Title 15 of the Rules of New York City, Chapter 28 (Citywide Construction Noise Mitigation) 

establishes standard procedures to reduce noise levels from construction and standards for specific noise 

sources. The following is a partial listing of the requirements for construction that are included in 

Chapter 28: 

• a construction noise mitigation plan must be posted at the construction work site; 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-154 

• the operator must self-certify in its noise mitigation plan that all construction tools and 

equipment have been maintained so they operate at normal manufacturer’s operating 

specifications;

• all equipment that is operated must be equipped with the appropriate manufacturer’s 

noise-reduction devices including but not limited to a manufacturer’s muffler; and

• portable compressors, generators, and pumps must be covered with noise insulating 

fabric to the maximum extent possible. 

In addition, New York City’s rules limit the use of onshore equipment to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 

6:00 p.m. on weekdays unless an after-hours work authorization is obtained, in which case the equipment 

must be used in accordance with the hours specified in the permit and in the after-hours work 

authorization. 

City of New York Environmental Quality Review

According to the CEQR Manual, if a substantial stationary source noise generator is within 

approximately 1,500 feet of a receptor, and there is a direct line of sight between the receptor and the 

generator, further analysis may be needed. If the noise from a stationary source at any receptor site would 

exceed 45 dBA, then a detailed analysis would be necessary. For impact evaluation, an increase of 3 dBA 

of the 1-hour equivalent sound level (Leq[1]) above the existing background noise level during nighttime 

hours typically would be considered significant (CEQR Manual, 2012). 

State of New Jersey Noise Regulations

Provisions of the New Jersey Noise Control Act (Chapters 29, 29B) are used to regulate noise in 

the State of New Jersey. The regulations state that the continuous airborne sound at the receiving 

residential property line must not exceed a sound level of 65 dBA during the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 

10:00 p.m.) and a sound level of 50 dBA during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Additionally, 

there are unweighted octave-band SPLs that should not be exceeded. 

Lawrence Township Noise Ordinance

The Noise Control Ordinance of Lawrence Township (Ordinance No. 1047-86, as amended by 

Ordinance No. 1060-87), where Compressor Station 205 is located, states that the maximum permissible 

sound level at a residential property line (i.e., the sound emanating from a commercial property to a 

residential property) must not exceed a sound level of 65 dBA during the daytime and a sound level of 

50 dBA during the nighttime. In the case of Compressor Station 205, the Noise Control Ordinance is 

superseded by an agreement reached in 1990 between Transco and the Township of Lawrence, at which

time Transco received Amended Preliminary and Final Site Plan approvals with variances and waivers

from the township. Condition no. 1 in Lawrence Township Planning Board Resolution 51-90 states that

“the applicant is agreeable to a condition that they cannot exceed 55 dBA (daytime) and 50 dBA

(nighttime)” as measured at the residential property line. 

Borough of Sayreville 

Police Regulations for the Borough of Sayreville (Chapter V, Section 5.3: Noise, in the Sayreville 

Supp. No. 1, dated February 2003), which apply to Compressor Station 207, require that noise does not 

exceed a nighttime A-weighted sound level of 50 dBA (outdoors) at any residential property, and does not 

exceed the maximum permissible unweighted octave band (OB) SPLs (outdoors). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-155 

Township of Old Bridge 

The Land Development Ordinance for the Township of Old Bridge (Section 4.a [“Performance 

Standards”, pp. 7-35 to 7-37]), which also applies to Compressor Station 207, requires that noise not 

exceed 50 dBA during daytime or nighttime outside of the lot on which the use or source of sound is 

located, and that the noise not exceed the allowable maximum unweighted OB SPLs. Based on an 

interpretation of the noise standard, “outside of the lot” is intended to refer to the lot/property of any 

noise-sensitive area, such as a residential lot/property.

4.11.2.3 Noise Level Impacts and Mitigation

Construction Noise

Offshore Pipeline Construction 

Transco calculated the maximum sound level (Lmax) of equipment noise associated with the 

offshore pipe lay barge at varying distances. The calculations were adjusted to take into account the 

predicted time (or usage factor) that the equipment would produce noise on the job site and the number of 

pieces of each type of equipment to be used. The combined noise level at the shoreline, approximately 

3,600 feet from the nearest proposed pipe laying activity, is estimated to be 51 dBA. This would be less 

than the typical ambient noise level in the vicinity of the shore, which is dominated by noise from the 

ocean and wind, with intermittent contributions from birds. 

Horizontal Directional Drilling

Noise would be generated by equipment operating at both the HDD entry and exit locations. The 

HDD exit location would be located approximately 3,600 feet offshore. As such, HDD noise at the exit 

location may have an effect on aquatic organisms (see the discussion of acoustic impacts in Sections 

4.5.2, 4.5.3, and 4.7) but is unlikely to be noticeable from the shore. An acoustical analysis was 

conducted to determine impacts to NSAs from HDD activities associated with the Rockaway Project. 

The details of that analysis are described in this section. Figure 4.11.2-1 shows each NSA and its 

proximity to the HDD entry point, which is closer to the nearest NSAs than the exit location mentioned 

above. 

The HDD onshore entry location, which is the closest point to the NSAs, would include the drill 

rig. The operation of the drill rig and other equipment would generate relatively high noise levels during 

the 8 to 10 weeks Transco estimates for the onshore HDD operation, including noise that would occur 

24 hours per day, 7 days per week, during reaming and pullback activities. 

The two NSAs nearest the HDD entry point are NSA no. 1 (residences located 1,000 feet to the 

west-southwest) and NSA no. 2 (residences located 1,300 to the west). Without noise mitigation 

measures in place, the noise levels from HDD operations would produce a significant increase in noise 

levels over ambient levels. Ambient levels at both NSAs were measured at 50.6 dBA. HDD operations 

would increase the noise levels to 60.9 dBA at NSA no. 1 and 58.2 dBA at NSA no. 2. These levels 

would exceed the FERC’s sound level guideline of 55 dBA. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-156 

Figure 4.11.2-1 NSAs Closest to HDD Entry Point

The acoustical analysis estimated the noise levels at nearby NSAs provided the following noise 

mitigation measures are employed:

• use of a partial “close-fit” temporary noise barrier around the hydraulic pumping unit;

• use of a partial “close-fit” temporary noise barrier around each engine-driven pump; 

• use of a “low-noise” generator for the mud/cleaning system; 

• orientation of the engine-driven pump(s) such that the engine JW cooler faces away from 

the closest NSA; and

• use of an adequate exhaust silencer on diesel-driven engines for stationary equipment and 

mobile equipment. 

With the use of the above mitigation measures, the estimated HDD noise contribution at NSAs 

no. 1 and no. 2 would be 53.6 and 52.4 dBA, respectively. Both of these levels are less than the 55 dBA 

sound guideline. 

Consistent with Local Law 113 of the City of New York, Transco would submit a site-specific 

noise mitigation plan to the FERC as part of the Implementation Plan for the Rockaway Project, which 

would contain measures that would mitigate noise below the levels outlined above. Transco would also 

obtain an after-hours work authorization from New York City for drilling operations prior to conducting 

any HDD operations between the hours of 6:00 pm and 7:00 am. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-157 

To ensure that the site-specific noise mitigation plan contains the measures recommended in the 

acoustical assessment to limit noise contributions from the HDD entry point at nearby NSAs to predicted 

levels, we recommend that: 

• Prior to construction of the Rockaway Project, Transco should file with the 

Secretary a site-specific noise mitigation plan for the HDD onshore entry location 

for review and approval by the Director of OEP that incorporates the noise 

mitigation measures recommended in Report No. 2825 by Hoover and Keith, Inc.;

identifies any deviations from these recommendations with stated justification; and 

specifies any additional or alternate mitigation that would be employed. 

M&R Facility Construction

Construction of the M&R facility would include modifications and rehabilitation of the existing 

hangars, and the operation of equipment necessary to install the heaters and other meter and regulating 

equipment. These activities would increase noise levels in the vicinity of the site. As noted above and as 

shown in Figure 4.11.2-2, Transco identified five NSAs in the vicinity of the M&R facility.

Figure 4.11.2-2 NSAs Closest to the M&R Facility

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-158 

The proposed modifications at the hangar complex include pile driving outside the hangars for 

sheeting that would be hammered into the ground to support the building walls, excavating trenches for 

the new pilings and equipment foundations, and pile driving inside the hangars at the location of each

proposed piece of equipment/skid, including underground piping and headers. The noise associated with 

these activities was calculated based on the period when pile driving and the largest amount of 

construction equipment would be operating. Table 4.11.2-8 lists the estimated sound contribution of 

construction activities at the identified NSAs during this period. 

TABLE 4.11.2-8

Noise Quality Analysis Related to Temporary Construction Activities at the M&R Facility

for the Rockaway Project

NSA No.

Maximum Sound

Level (Ldn) During 

Construction (dBA) Ambient Ldn (dBA)

Sound Level (Ldn) of 

Construction Plus Ambient 

Level (Ldn) (dBA)

Estimated Increase 

Above Ambient Level 

(dB)

1 41.4 48.7 49.4 0.7

2 36.5 48.9 49.1 0.2

3 62.3 48.4 62.4 14.0

4 46.3 48.4 50.5 2.1

5 34.9 48.9 49.1 0.2

The results indicate that the maximum estimated increase in noise at four of the five NSAs would 

be less than 2.1 dBA, which is less than what is considered detectable by the human ear. The estimated 

increase in noise at the Floyd Bennett Gateway Park Community Garden (NSA no. 3) would be 14 dBA 

and would be noticeable. These noise levels would occur during peak construction periods and would be 

lower much of the rest of the time. 

Though the noise levels above include the noise produced during pile driving activities, it is 

important to note that the maximum amount of noise produced from this activity would be 115 dBA 

within the hangar. At a distance of 50 feet, noise from pile driving is estimated to be 80 to 85 dBA. 

Noise from pile driving activities could occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., which are 

considered daytime hours. 

Northeast Connector Project Construction Noise 

Noise-generating construction activities at Compressor Station 195 would consist of the 

following: removing the existing engine drives for compressor units 1, 2, and 3 and replacing them with 

two new electric motor drives; jack-hammering existing foundations inside the compressor building; 

installing a new electrical substation and variable frequency drive building; earth moving activities; and 

the use of various power tools (e.g., generators, air compressors, impacts drills, and welding equipment). 

As noted in Section 4.11.2.1 above, Transco identified three NSAs in the vicinity of Compressor Station 

195. Transco’s noise analysis indicates that the noise level at each NSA would be equal to or less than 55 

dBA during construction. 

The planned modifications at Compressor Stations 205 and 207 for the Northeast Connector 

Project would consist of replacing/modifying existing equipment at each site. This would be achieved 

primarily with a software change to the motor controls to allow the existing electric motors to run at a 

higher hp. This would not result in any construction-related noise at the sites.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-159 

Operational Noise

Pipeline Operation and Maintenance Activities 

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

because no natural gas compressor stations are planned for the Rockaway Project. Ongoing maintenance 

activities for the pipeline that have the potential to generate noise would include inspecting, cleaning, and, 

as necessary, repairing the pipeline. As described in Section 4.12.1, pigging operations to inspect the 

interior of the pipeline would be conducted approximately once every 7 years at the subsea manifold 

located near the LNYBL more than 2.5 miles offshore. In addition to the pigging operations, periodic 

onshore ground inspections and annual leak detection surveys (see Section 4.12.1) would be conducted to

identify soil/sediment erosion that may expose the pipe or dead vegetation that may indicate a leak in the 

line. The noise generated by these maintenance activities would occur intermittently and for short 

durations and as such would have a negligible noise impact.

M&R Facility Operation and Maintenance Activities

During operation of the M&R facility, noise would be radiated from aboveground piping

associated with the regulator valves. The level of piping noise would be directly related to the pressure 

drop and gas flow across the flow control valves (FCVs) associated with the regulator runs inside 

Hangar 1. Noise would also be generated by equipment located inside Hangar 2 such as the electric 

motor-driven pumps and heat exchangers. We calculated the total estimated noise that could be generated 

by the facility based on operating conditions that would generate the highest amounts of noise and the 

effect of this noise at the five NSAs closest to the facility. The results are listed in Table 4.11.2-9. 

TABLE 4.11.2-9

Noise Quality Analysis Related to Operational Activities at the M&R Facility

for the Rockaway Project

NSA No.

Maximum Sound

Level (Ldn) of M&R

Facility (dBA) Ambient Ldn (dBA)

Sound Level (Ldn) of

M&R Facility Plus Ambient

Level (Ldn) (dBA)

Estimated Increase 

Above Ambient

Level (dB)

1 25.1 48.7 48.7 0.0

2 20.8 48.9 48.9 0.0

3 44.0 48.4 49.8 1.4

4 29.0 48.4 48.4 0.0

5 20.8 48.9 48.9 0.0

The results of the acoustical assessment indicate that the noise attributable to the M&R facility 

should be significantly lower than an Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby NSA and the change in the noise level 

would likely be undetectable to the human ear.

Compressor Station 195

As discussed in Section 2.1.3, Transco proposes to modify Compressor Station 195 by replacing 

three existing natural gas-fired reciprocating engines and appurtenant facilities with two new electric 

motor drives; installing a new 35-kv substation, variable frequency drive building, and associated coolers; 

modifying the existing compressor units to be driven by the new electric motors; and modifying station 

piping and valves. During operations, noise would be generated by the new electric motors and 

associated components (such as coolers), variable frequency drive, aboveground piping, and transformers 

in the substation as well as existing equipment at the site. Noise additionally would result from the 

ventilation of air exhaust from each new motor drive. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-160 

Transco’s consultant Hoover and Keith, Inc. (H&K) calculated the total estimated noise that 

could be generated at Compressor Station 195 as a result of the Northeast Connector Project based on

operating conditions that would generate the highest amounts of noise. Specifically, H&K estimated the 

sound contribution of the proposed modifications at the nearby NSAs (see Figure 4.11.2-3). The results 

of this analysis are provided in Table 4.11.2-10. 

Figure 4.11.2-3 NSAs Closest to Compressor Station 195

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-161 

TABLE 4.11.2-10

Noise Quality Analysis Related to Operational Activities at Compressor Station 195

for the Northeast Connector Project

Closest 

Residences 

(NSAs)

Measured Sound 

Level 

Attributable to

Existing Station 

at 74% Load 

(Ldn) (dBA)

Estimated Sound 

Level of Existing 

Station at Full 

Load (Ldn)

 a (dBA)

Estimated 

Sound Level of 

Station if Units 

1, 2, and 3 are 

Removed b 

(dBA)

Estimated 

Sound Level 

of New 

Electric Drive 

Units 1 and 2 

(Ldn) (dBA)

Estimated 

Station 

Sound Level

(Ldn) after 

Project 

Modifications 

(dBA)

Potential 

Noise 

Increase 

(+) or 

Decrease 

(-)(dBA)

NSA no. 1 56.9 58.2 54.3 53.0 56.7 -1.6

NSA no. 2 54.2 55.5 51.6 50.5 54.1 -1.4

NSA no. 3 48.0 49.3 45.4 45.9 48.7 -0.6

____________________

a Compressor Station 195 was operated at 74 percent of full capacity during the sound survey (i.e., 14,450 hp of the full 

capacity of 19,640 hp); 1.3 dB was added to the measured sound level at the nearby NSAs (i.e., 10*log(19,460/14,450) = 

1.3 dB) to represent the maximum estimated sound level at the nearby NSAs if the station was operated at full capacity 

(i.e., all units operating at full load). b As related to the proposed modifications, the engine-drive for units 1 and 2 would be replaced and unit 3 would be 

decommissioned. As a result, the estimated station sound level without units 1, 2, and 3 operating would be 

approximately 3.9 dBA lower than the current station full load sound level (i.e., after removing hp associated with Units 1, 

2, and 3, the remaining station hp would be 8,000 hp, which is 3.9 dBA lower than the current station level 

(10*log(19,460/8,000) = 3.9 dB). This estimated resulting station sound level is utilized for the acoustical analysis related 

to the installation of the new electric motor/compressor for units 1 and 2, which replaces the existing engine-driven 

compressor units 1 and 2.

As shown in the table, the predicted noise levels at each of the NSAs would decrease as a result 

of the proposed modifications at Compressor Station 195. The predicted noise levels at NSAs no. 2 and 

no. 3 would be less than the 55 dBA limit set by the FERC. The predicted noise level at NSA no. 1 

would exceed this threshold by 1.7 dBA, but would be less than the measured values for current ambient 

conditions at full load operations. This predicted noise level is based on Transco’s commitments to 

implement all of the noise control measures specified in H&K’s Report No. 2385 to reduce noise from 

Compressor Station 195, including the following:

• the building enclosing compressor units 1 and 2 would be modified to provide adequate 

attenuation of the noise generated by the new electric motor-driven compressor units; 

modifications may include a new ventilation system and replacement of the roof and wall 

siding; 

• any new air supply wall fan would not exceed 50 dBA from 50 feet; 

• acoustical pipe installation would be employed for new outdoor gas piping; 

• each outdoor cooler for the variable frequency drive would not exceed 56 dBA at a 

distance of 50 feet; 

• each lube oil cooler would not exceed 56 dBA at 50 feet; 

• the motor air cooling blower would be located inside the building for the new 

compressor; the sound level of the blower would not exceed 50 dBA at a distance of 

50 feet; and

• exhaust air would be sent through an opening located on one of the building walls such 

that the sound level generated from the motor exhaust would not exceed 50 dBA at a 

distance of 50 feet. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-162 

To ensure that the noise from modified Compressor Station 195 would not exceed previously 

existing noise levels at NSA no. 1 and would not exceed an Ldn of 55 dBA at NSAs no. 2 and 3, we 

recommend that:

• Transco should file a noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days after 

placing the modified Compressor Station 195 in service for the Northeast Connector 

Project. If a full load condition noise survey is not possible, Transco should provide 

an interim survey at the maximum possible hp load and provide the full load survey 

within 6 months. If the noise attributable to the operation of all of the equipment at 

Compressor Station 195 under interim or full hp load conditions exceeds existing 

noise levels at NSA no. 1 or an Ldn of 55 dBA at NSAs no. 2 and no. 3, 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 with 

the Secretary no later than 60 days after it installs the additional noise controls.

Compressor Station 205

Transco proposes to add an incremental 5,000 hp of compression at Compressor Station 205 by 

uprating two existing electric motor drives and modifying the associated compressor units. In May 2013, 

Transco filed a study by H&K that calculated the sound contribution of these modifications at nearby 

NSAs (see Figure 4.11.2-4). As shown in Table 4.11.2-11, the results of H&K’s analysis indicate that the 

sound level attributable to operation of Compressor Station 205 following the uprate would be less than 

the FERC sound requirement of 55 dBA at the nearby NSAs. In addition, the results indicate that the 

sound levels at the compressor station would be below the sound level limits of the New Jersey Noise 

Control Act and the specified sound levels in the agreement between Transco and Lawrence Township. 

The A-weighted sound levels at the property lines for the compressor station site are estimated to range 

from 43.9 to 47.2 dBA; Transco’s agreement with Lawrence Township requires an A-weighted sound 

level of 50 dBA, nighttime, at the property line. 

TABLE 4.11.2-11 

Noise Quality Analysis of Modified Compressor Station 205

for the Northeast Connector Project

Closest Residences 

(NSAs)

Noise Contribution of 

Existing Compressor 

Station 205 (Ldn) (dBA)

Estimated Noise 

Contribution Increase due 

to Station Modifications 

(dBA)

Noise Contribution (Ldn) 

after Station Modifications 

(dBA)

NSA no. 6 50.6 0.7 51.3

NSA no. 7 50.4 0.7 51.1

In August 2013, Transco filed a more recent survey for Compressor Station 205 under Docket 

No. CP12-463-000 that measured noise levels at nearby NSAs following the replacement of two existing 

electric motors with two new electric motors at the site. The results of this survey showed that noise 

contributed by the compressor station at full load conditions exceeded an Ldn of 55 dBA at one NSA. In 

September 2013, Transco filed a plan with the Secretary to implement additional mitigation measures at 

Compressor Station 205 to reduce noise levels at this NSA. Specifically, Transco committed to installing 

temporary noise barriers and replacing coolers associated with the new electric motor drives at the site. 

These measures are expected to reduce noise levels at the NSA to less than 55 dBA. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-163 

Figure 4.11.2-4 NSAs Closest to Compressor Station 205

To ensure that noise from Compressor Station 205 following the proposed hp uprate for the 

Northeast Connector Project would not exceed an Ldn of 55 dBA, we recommend that: 

• Transco should file a noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days after 

placing the modified Compressor Station 205 in service for the Northeast Connector 

Project. If a full load condition noise survey is not possible, Transco should provide 

an interim survey at the maximum possible hp load and provide the full load survey 

within 6 months. If the noise attributable to the operation of all of the equipment at

Compressor Station 205 under interim or full hp load conditions exceeds an Ldn of 

55 dBA 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 in-service date. Transco should confirm compliance with the above 

requirement by filing a second noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days

after it installs the additional noise controls.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-164 

Compressor Station 207

Transco proposes to add an incremental 5,400 hp of compression at Compressor Station 207 by 

uprating two existing electric motor drives and modifying associated gearboxes. H&K calculated the 

sound contribution of these modifications at the nearby NSAs (see Figure 4.11.2-5). As shown in Table 

4.11.2-12, the results of H&K’s analysis indicate that the sound level attributable to operations at 

Compressor Station 207 following the uprate would be less than the FERC sound requirement of 55 dBA

at the nearby NSAs and below the sound levels required under the New Jersey Noise Control Act and the 

local noise ordinances. 

Figure 4.11.2-5 NSAs Closest to Compressor Station 207

TABLE 4.11.2-12 

Noise Quality Analysis of Modified Compressor Station 207

for the Northeast Connector Project

Closest Residences (NSAs)

Noise Contribution of 

Existing Compressor 

Station 207 (Ldn) (dBA)

Estimated Noise 

Contribution Increase due to 

Station Modifications (dBA)

Noise Contribution (Ldn) 

after Station Modifications 

(dBA)

NSA no. 8 35.5 1.9 37.4

NSA no. 9 34.7 1.9 36.6

NSA no. 10 36.0 1.9 37.9

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-165 

To ensure that noise from Compressor Station 207 following the hp uprates would not 

appreciably exceed the relatively quiet noise levels attributable to the operation of the existing station at 

nearby NSAs, we recommend that: 

 Transco should make all reasonable efforts to ensure its predicted noise levels from 

Compressor Station 207 are not exceeded at nearby NSAs and file noise surveys 

showing this with the Secretary no later than 60 days after placing the modified 

Compressor Station 207 in service for the Northeast Connector Project. If a full 

load condition noise survey is not possible, Transco should provide an interim 

survey at the maximum possible horsepower load and provide the full load survey 

within 6 months. If the noise attributable to the operation of Compressor Station 

207 at interim or full hp load exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby NSAs, 

Transco should file a report on what changes are needed and should install 

additional noise controls to meet the level within 1 year of the in-service date. 

Transco should confirm compliance with this requirement by filing a second noise 

survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days after it installs the additional noise 

controls. 

4.11.3 Vibration 

Rockaway Project 

Vibration refers to oscillatory movement in a solid object, such as the ground or a structure, 

measured as acceleration, velocity, or displacement. Transco commissioned a study to assess the effects 

of vibration during construction and operation of the proposed M&R facility on the historic hangar 

complex at Floyd Bennett Field as well as on nearby receptor sites such as the Floyd Bennett Gateway 

Park Community Garden (AKRF, 2013). The study measured vibration as acceleration in dB referenced 

to 1 micro-inch per second and as peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second. Vibration levels 

measured as acceleration in dB are expressed across a spectrum of frequencies for the vibration. 

Frequency is the rate at which acceleration, velocity, or displacement fluctuates in a cycle over a given 

quantity of time, and is measured in Hz, where 1 Hz equals one cycle per second. 

The New York City Department of Buildings (NYCDOB) established vibration level criterion for 

avoidance of architectural or structural damage to historic buildings in its Technical Policies and 

Procedures Notice No. 10/88. Under this notice, the PPV from construction vibration is not permitted to 

exceed a vibration damage threshold criterion of 0.5 inches per second at historic buildings. This is the 

threshold level above which a building could experience architectural or structural damage. It is also 

consistent with the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) threshold for architectural damage to 

reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber buildings as referenced in Chapter 12, “Construction” of the FTA’s 

Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual (FTA, 2006). 

Existing Vibration Levels 

Transco measured ambient vibration levels at three positions near the proposed M&R facility site: 

at the southwest corner of Hangar 2, at the southeast corner of Hangar 2, and at a point located 272 feet 

east of Hangar 2. The vibrations measured at these locations were attributed to vehicle traffic along 

Flatbush Avenue and to vehicle and helicopter traffic at Floyd Bennett Field. At all three locations, 

ambient vibrations were determined to be less than 50 dB at frequencies less than 1,000 Hz, which is 

below the human limit of perception for vibration (humans begin to detect vibrations at levels ranging 

from about 78 dB at 2 Hz to 120 dB at 500 Hz). The ambient vibrations measured by the study are also 

below the vibration damage threshold criterion of 0.5 inches per second for historic buildings. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-166 

Vibration during Construction 

Transco assessed the potential of vibration from construction activities (such as pile driving, 

jackhammering, or operating delivery trucks) to cause architectural or structural damage to the hangar 

complex. The analysis found that individual pieces of equipment (such as a pile driver or jackhammer) 

operating at distances ranging from 5 to 10 feet from the hangars would not damage the structures (i.e., 

the individual vibrations of these operating pieces of equipment would be less than the vibration damage 

threshold criterion of 0.5 inches per second for historic buildings), but the simultaneous operation of 

multiple pieces of equipment or operation of equipment within 5 to 10 feet from the hangar walls could 

potentially cause damage. The study suggested that Transco identify a vibration level threshold for the 

hangar and prepare and implement a CPP, to include vibration monitoring, survey monitoring for 

movement of the building, and crack gauge monitoring, at the hangar during construction. Therefore, we 

recommend that:

• Prior to construction of the Rockaway Project, Transco should file with the 

Secretary a vibration level threshold and CPP for review and approval by Director 

of OEP. 

Vibration during Operations

Transco assessed the potential of vibration from operation of the M&R facility to affect the 

integrity of the hangar complex or disturb other users of Floyd Bennett Field. Transco measured 

vibration levels on the gas pipeline and in the ground near an existing M&R facility in Linden, New 

Jersey, which was determined to be comparable to the proposed M&R facility in terms of size and 

equipment. Transco then compared the measured values to existing ambient conditions at the proposed 

M&R facility site to extrapolate PPV levels in the vicinity of the hangars during operations. 

The measured vibration levels at the existing M&R facility in Linden, New Jersey ranged 

between about 90 and 110 dB at low-end frequencies on the gas pipeline, but were less than 60 dB in the 

ground at distances ranging from 26 to 54 feet from the structure. Based on these measurements, 

operation of the proposed M&R facility would result in a vibration level about 15 dB higher than the 

measured levels adjacent to Hangar 2 at frequencies below 400 Hz. These levels would be below the 

human limit of perception to vibration and would not be felt by other users of Floyd Bennett Field. The 

study also found that the PPV at the proposed M&R facility would exceed the vibration damage threshold 

criterion of 0.5 inches per second on the pipeline entering the hangar. Vibrations on the pipeline during 

operations would not affect the integrity of the hangar provided that a minimum buffer of 1 inch is 

maintained between the pipeline and the building (including support piles for the building) where the 

pipeline enters and exits the structure. The pipeline would enter/exit the hangar underground and between 

the piles supporting the structure to maintain this buffer. 

Northeast Connector Project

Neither Pennsylvania nor New Jersey have regulations specific to vibration requirements that 

would be applicable to the Northeast Connector Project. Transco’s noise evaluation indicates that 

vibration levels at Compressor Station 195 would decrease as a result of the proposed modifications at the 

site. No change in vibration levels are expected as a result of the proposed upgrades at Compressor 

Stations 205 and 207. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-167 

4.12 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. 

CH4, the primary component of natural gas, is colorless, odorless, and tasteless. It is not toxic, 

but is classified as a simple asphyxiate, possessing a slight inhalation hazard. Exposures to high 

concentrations can result in serious injury or death due to oxygen deficiency. The specific gravity (SG) of 

CH4 is 0.55, which is lighter than air (SG 1.0). This means that CH4 tends to rise at normal atmospheric 

temperature and pressure dispersing rapidly in the atmosphere. CH4 has an auto-ignition temperature of 

1,000 °F and is flammable at concentrations between 5 and 15 percent CH4 by volume. In general, 

unconfined mixtures of CH4 in air are not flammable or explosive because CH4 is diluted by nitrogen and 

oxygen in the atmosphere. A flammable concentration within an enclosed space in the presence of an 

ignition source can explode. A chemical odorant would be added to the natural gas to produce the 

familiar “natural gas smell.” 21 CH4 is inactive biologically and essentially nontoxic. It is not listed in the 

International Agency for Research on Cancer, National Toxicology Program, or by the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) as a carcinogen or potential carcinogen. 

4.12.1 Safety Standards

The DOT is mandated to provide pipeline safety under 49 USC Chapter 601. The Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) administers the 

national regulatory program to ensure the safe transportation of natural gas and other hazardous materials 

by pipeline. It develops 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 that set a level of safety to be attained and 

allow the pipeline operator to use various technologies to achieve the required safety standard. 

The PHMSA ensures that people and the environment are protected from the risk of pipeline 

incidents. In New York, this work is shared with the NYSPSC’s Office of Electric, Gas and Water. 

Through certification by the OPS, New York State regulates and inspects both intrastate and interstate gas 

and liquid pipeline operators, though the OPS is responsible for enforcement actions on interstate 

facilities. In Pennsylvania and New Jersey, PHMSA’s safety and inspection responsibilities are shared 

with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s Gas Safety Division and New Jersey Board of Public 

Utilities’ Bureau of Pipeline Safety, respectively. Through certification by OPS, each state agency 

regulates and inspects intrastate gas pipeline operators within its state boundaries, whereas the OPS 

regulates and inspects interstate gas and both interstate and intrastate liquid pipeline operators. 

The DOT pipeline standards are published in 49 CFR Parts 190–199. Part 192 of 49 CFR 

specifically addresses natural gas pipeline safety issues. Under an MOU on Natural Gas Transportation 

Facilities dated January 15, 1993 between the DOT and the FERC, the DOT is recognized as having 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 requires that an applicant certify that it will design, 

install, inspect, test, construct, operate, replace, and maintain the facility for which a Certificate is 

requested in accordance with federal safety standards and plans for maintenance and inspection, or certify 

that it has been granted a waiver of the 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 other than the DOT standards. If the Commission becomes aware 

 

21 The gas to be delivered into the proposed pipeline is odorized upstream of the LNYBL. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-168 

of an existing or potential safety problem, there is a provision in the MOU to promptly alert the DOT. 

The MOU provides instructions 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 participates as a member of the DOT's Technical Pipeline Safety Standards

Committee, which determines if proposed safety regulations are reasonable, feasible, and practicable.

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

constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with or to exceed the DOT Minimum Federal Safety 

Standards in 49 CFR Part 192. These regulations, which are intended to protect the public and to prevent 

natural gas facility accidents and failures, include specifications for material selection and qualification; 

minimum design requirements; and protection of pipelines from internal, external, and atmospheric 

corrosion. 

The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation Act of 2011 (U.S. House of 

Representatives 2845) was passed by Congress and signed into law on January 3, 2012 by President 

Barack Obama. Among other things, this Act states that no later than 2 years after the date of enactment, 

after considering factors specified in the Act, the DOT Secretary, if appropriate, shall require by 

regulation the use of automatic or remote control shut-off valves, or equivalent technology, where 

economically, technically, and operationally feasible on transmission pipeline facilities constructed or 

entirely replaced after the date on which the Secretary issues the final rule containing such requirement. 

Although these regulations have not yet gone into effect and would apply to pipelines built in the future, 

Transco committed to the use of automatic shut-off valves on the proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral.

The DOT defines area classifications, based on population density in the vicinity of a pipeline, 

and specifies more rigorous safety requirements for populated areas. 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 conform to higher standards in more populated areas. The class 

location unit is an area that extends 220 yards on either side of the centerline of any continuous 1.0-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; and 

• Class 4: Location where buildings with four or more stories aboveground are prevalent. 

In accordance with federal standards, class locations representing more populated areas require 

higher safety factors in pipeline design, testing, and operation. 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. All 

pipelines installed in navigable rivers, streams, and harbors must have a minimum cover of 48 inches in 

soil or 24 inches in consolidated rock. Offshore pipelines constructed in less than 12 feet of water, as 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-169 

measured from the mean low tide, must have a minimum cover of 36 inches in soil and 18 inches in 

consolidated rock. Offshore pipelines constructed in 12 to 200 feet of water, as measured from the mean 

low tide, must be installed so that the top of the pipe is below the natural bottom unless the pipeline is 

protected by some other means such as a heavy concrete coating. Class locations specify the maximum 

distance to sectionalized block valves (e.g., 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). 

The proposed 26-inch-diameter Rockaway Delivery Lateral would extend from Transco’s 

existing 26-inch-diameter LNYBL in the Atlantic Ocean for about 3.20 miles to an onshore delivery point 

on the Rockaway Peninsula in Queens County, New York. About 2.60 miles (81 percent) of the proposed 

26-inch-diameter pipeline would be located in Class 1 areas, and 0.60 mile (19 percent) would be located 

in Class 3 areas. A summary of class locations based on current population density along the proposed 

pipeline route is provided in Table 4.12.1-1. 

TABLE 4.12.1-1

Area Classifications along the Rockaway Delivery Lateral

Milepost Range Length (miles) Required Class Location Design Class Location

0.00R to 0.04R 0.04 1 4 

0.00R to 2.56R 2.56 1 4

2.56R to 3.16R 0.60 3 4

If the Rockaway Project is approved, the DOT regulations require that the pipeline be designed, 

at a minimum, to the appropriate Class location standard and that the spacing between mainline valves 

meets DOT requirements. Transco proposed a more robust design for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral. 

Specifically, Transco committed to design its proposed pipeline in accordance with Class 4 standards. 

With the exception of the HDD segment of the pipeline, which would be installed at a greater depth, 

Transco would bury the offshore portion of the proposed pipeline at a minimum depth of 48 inches below 

grade (i.e., the top of the pipe would be at least 48 inches below the surface). Onshore, from the HDD 

entry point to the tie-in with National Grid, Transco would bury the pipeline at a minimum depth of 36 

inches below grade (i.e., the top of the pipe would be at least 36 inches below the surface) and also would 

cover the pipeline with a concrete slab. Transco additionally would monitor pipeline pressures 24 hours 

per day. Thus, the design for the proposed pipeline would exceed the requirements of PHMSA Safety 

Standards in 49 CFR Part 192. 

Additionally, Transco would implement the safety measures listed below to meet or exceed 

minimum federal requirements for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral: 

• the pipe material would meet and generally exceed API specification 5L requirements, 

which provides standards for pipe suitable for use in conveying gas, water, and oil; 

• 40 percent of the steel strength in the pipe material would be utilized to contain natural 

gas when operated at 1440 psig; 

• all girth welds would be non-destructively tested; 

• Class 4 design pipe would be installed in all areas to increase the safety factor; 

• the new pipeline would be hydrostatically tested above the minimum required test 

pressure; and

• additional depth of cover may be provided at certain locations.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-170 

The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 requires operators to develop and follow a written 

integrity management program that contains all the elements described in 49 CFR Part 192.911 and 

addresses the risks on each transmission pipeline segment. Specifically, the law establishes an integrity 

management program that applies to all high consequence areas (HCAs).

The DOT 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 locations where the potential impact radius 22 is greater than 

660 feet and there are 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy within the 

potential impact circle 23; or 

• any area in Class 1 or 2 locations 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. 

In the second method, an HCA includes any area within a potential impact circle that contains: 

• 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy; or 

• an identified site.

The HCAs have been determined based on the relationship of the pipeline centerline to other 

nearby structures and identified sites. Approximately 0.6 mile or about 19 percent of the area along the 

proposed route for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral would be classified as HCA, all of which is located 

between MPs 2.56 and 3.16. 

Once a pipeline operator has determined the HCAs on its pipeline, it must apply the elements of 

its Integrity Management Plan to those segments of the pipeline within HCAs. The DOT regulations 

specify the requirements for the Integrity Management Plan at 49 CFR Part 192.911. The pipeline 

integrity management rule for HCAs requires inspection of the pipeline every 7 years. Transco has 

developed a comprehensive Integrity Management Plan for their existing facilities that meets these 

regulations. Transco would modify the existing Integrity Management Program, as necessary, to 

incorporate the proposed facilities. This program includes proper training to individuals to ensure they 

have the necessary information to perform their tasks and to ensure the safe operation of pipeline 

facilities. Transco’s pipeline Integrity Management Program includes an Operator Qualification Plan that 

 

22 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 multiplied by the pipeline diameter in inches. 23 The potential impact circle is a circle of radius equal to the potential impact radius.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-171 

ensures all individuals who perform tasks on their pipelines and other facilities, including contractors, are 

qualified in accordance with 49 CFR Part 192 Subpart N. 

Other key elements of Transco’s Integrity Management Program include hydrostatic testing and 

use of various internal pipeline inspection tools prior to and during the proposed pipeline being placed 

into service. Transco would use hydrostatic testing to validate the strength of the Rockaway Delivery 

Lateral and identify any smaller defects before they become a threat. Before the newly installed pipeline 

would be placed into service, the line would be pressure-tested with water by increasing the pressure at a 

significantly higher level (at least 1.5 times higher) that exceeds the maximum pressure at which the 

pipeline would operate. This would help Transco determine if the pipeline meets the design strength 

requirements, and to determine if any leaks are present. In addition to hydrostatically testing their 

pipelines, Transco would use an inline inspection tool, called a caliper pig, designed to record conditions, 

such as dents, wrinkles, ovality, bend radius and angle, and occasionally indications of significant internal 

corrosion by making measurements of the inside surface of the pipe. Transco would run a caliper pig 

before the Rockaway Delivery Lateral is placed into service.

Transco uses an additional internal pipeline inspection tool, known as a “smart pig,” that is 

capable of identifying and classifying pipe defects, including metal loss, dents, gouges, and other types of 

defects. The smart pig would be inserted into the pipeline and pushed by the flow of natural gas in the 

pipeline. 

In addition to their Integrity Management Program, Transco has a Pipeline Safety Monitoring 

Program in place to ensure the proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral is constructed properly. During 

construction of the pipeline, Transco would inspect the pipe and coating to ensure that it meets all quality 

control standards and specifications. Transco would require that all pipe girth welds are non-destructively 

tested and then verified in the field by x-ray before installation is considered complete. Once the pipeline 

is installed, Transco would implement the following routine monitoring measures: 

• physically walking and inspecting the onshore pipeline corridor on a periodic basis; 

• inspecting valve settings and observing area construction activities (generally, on a

weekly basis); and

• conducting leak surveys at least once every calendar year or as required by DOT 

regulations.

Transco would monitor portions of its onshore and offshore pipeline systems using a supervisory 

control and data acquisition (SCADA) system. The SCADA system gathers data and transfers the 

information back to Transco’s Gas Control Center alerting personnel if a leak or other malfunction within 

the system is detected. Transco’s Gas Control Center is located in Houston, Texas. 

After construction, and as required by DOT regulations, the Rockaway Delivery Lateral would be 

marked at line-of-sight intervals and at crossings of roads, railroads, and other key points. The markers, 

which are described in more detail in Section 2.6.1, would indicate the presence of the pipeline and 

provide a telephone number and address where a company representative could be reached in the event of 

an emergency or before any excavation in the area of the pipeline by a third party. Transco participates in 

the “Call Before You Dig” and “One Call” programs and other related pre-excavation notification 

organizations in all the states in which they operate. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-172 

In addition to pipeline safety standards, Transco would adhere to 49 CFR Parts 192.739 through 

192.743 guidelines for inspection and monitoring at pressure limiting and regulating stations. Transco’s 

construction of the proposed M&R facility and modifications at Compressor Stations 195, 205, and 207 

would be designed, constructed, and operated to meet or exceed applicable specifications. The piping at 

each facility would be manufactured in accordance with API specifications, and wall thickness would 

conform to PHMSA safety regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 192. 

Other Measures

Transco would implement various public safety measures during construction of the Rockaway 

Project including, but not limited to, the following: 

• Traffic Controls: Transco would provide the required traffic warning signs along all road 

crossings, position a flagman when necessary to direct traffic when deliveries are made to 

and from the temporary work areas, maintain emergency vehicle access at all times, and 

ensure appropriate contact information is provided to local authorities prior to the start of 

construction. 

• Public Access: Transco personnel would monitor all construction sites in areas open to 

the public. To ensure public safety, Transco would install safety fences and security 

fences, if necessary, around the construction area. In addition, Transco would commit 

their operations personnel to patrol both the proposed pipeline and facility site on a 

routine basis, and would hire a security guard to patrol after work hours and on 

weekends.

• Working Above Existing In-Service Pipelines (as applicable): Transco has not yet 

identified the specific locations of existing pipelines that may be adjacent to the proposed 

pipeline. Transco would locate these facilities before construction and would evaluate if 

construction equipment must temporarily operate over these lines and what the potential 

hazards would be of doing so. Transco would recommend to its construction contractors 

additional soil cover, matting, or other means to be implemented to protect the in-service 

utilities in accordance with Transco’s and the utility company’s specifications and public 

safety codes.

• Utility Crossovers (as applicable): Transco would avoid any unnecessary crossing 

over/under of foreign lines when possible. In areas where crossovers are unavoidable, 

such as the active and inactive cable crossings, Transco would review safety procedures, 

develop individual work plans, and work with the utility owner to produce a crossing 

method that satisfies both companies’ policies and public safety codes. 

• Welding: Transco would use company-approved and tested welders to work on the 

pipeline facilities. All qualified welders would be required to meet the standards of the 

ASME Section IX, API 1104 and CFR 49 Part 192. 

4.12.2 Pipeline Accident Data

The DOT requires all operators of natural gas transmission pipelines to notify the DOT of any 

significant incidents and to submit a report within 20 days. Significant incidents are defined as any leaks 

that:

• cause a death or personal injury requiring hospitalization; or 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-173 

• involve property damage of more than $50,000 in 1984 dollars. 24

During the 20-year period from 1992 through 2011, a total of 1,197 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 4.12.2-1 provides a distribution of the causal factors as well as the 

number of each incident by cause. The dominant incident causes, corrosion and pipeline material, weld, 

or equipment failure, comprise 45.3 percent of all significant incidents. The pipelines included in the data 

set in Table 4.12.2-1 vary widely in terms of age, pipe diameter, and level of corrosion control. Each of 

these variables influences the incident frequency that may be expected for a specific segment of pipeline. 

The frequency of significant incidents, for example, is strongly dependent on pipeline age. Older 

pipelines have a higher frequency of corrosion incidents because corrosion is a time-dependent process. 

TABLE 4.12.2-1

Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Significant Incidents by Cause (1992-2011) a

Cause Number of Incidents Percentage b

Corrosion 272 22.7

Excavation c 207 17.3

Pipeline material, weld, or equipment 

failure

271 22.6

Natural force damage 147 12.3

Outside forces d 63 5.3

Incorrect operation 30 2.5

All other causes e 207 17.3

Total 1,197 –

____________________

a PHMSA, 2012. b Due to rounding, column does not total 100 percent. c Includes third-party damage. d Fire, explosion, vehicle damage, previous damage, intentional damage. e Miscellaneous causes or unknown causes.

The use of both an external protective coating and a cathodic protection system, required on all 

pipelines installed after July 1971, significantly reduces the corrosion rate compared to unprotected or 

partially protected pipe.

25 Transco’s LNYBL pipeline system has an impressed current cathodic 

protection system where a constant potential of direct current is applied on the pipeline to prevent external 

corrosion. Transco checks the voltage and amperage every 2 months and completes annual surveys on 

the system.

Excavations, natural forces, and outside forces are the causes in 34.9 percent of significant 

pipeline incidents. Table 4.12.2-2 presents information on the outside forces incidents by cause. These 

mostly result from the encroachment of mechanical equipment such as bulldozers and backhoes; earth 

movements due to soil settlement, washouts, or geologic hazards; weather effects such as winds, storms, 

and thermal strains; and willful damage.

 

24 $50,000 in 1984 dollars is approximately $110,000 as of December 2012 (CPI, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt, January 16, 2013). 25 Cathodic protection is a technique to reduce corrosion (rust) of the natural gas pipeline that includes the use of an induced

current or a sacrificial anode (like zinc) that corrodes at faster rate to reduce corrosion.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-174 

TABLE 4.12.2-2 

Outside Forces Incidents by Cause (1992-2011) a

Cause Number of Incidents Percent of all Incidents b

Third-party excavation damage 173 14.4

Operator excavation damage 26 2.1

Unspecified equipment damage/previous damage 5 0.4 

Heavy rain/floods 70 5.8

Earth movement 39 3.2

Lightning/temperature/high winds 21 1.6

Unspecified natural force 14 1.1

Vehicle (not engaged with excavation) 41 3.4

Fire/explosion 8 0.6

Previous mechanical damage 5 0.4

Intentional damage 1 0.0

Unspecified outside force 1 0.0

Total 404 --

____________________

a Excavation, outside forces, and natural force damage from Table 4.12.2-1. b Due to rounding, column does not equal 34.9 percent.

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 pipeline systems 

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.

Transco Pipeline Incidents

Table 4.12.2-3 lists Transco’s unintentional onshore pipeline leaks from 2002 to 2010 involving 

the release of gas from a pipeline. Over an 11-year period, an average rupture rate for Gulf of Mexico 

natural gas pipelines was calculated to be 0.000024 incidents per mile (S.L. Ross, 2009). When applied

to the proposed pipeline, these data suggest that the annual chance of a rupture of the proposed Rockaway 

Delivery Lateral would be very low (i.e., roughly 1 in 13,888 or about a 0.0072 percent annual chance). 

TABLE 4.12.2-3

Transco Unintentional Onshore Leaks per 1,000 Miles

Year Transco Northwest Gulfstream Industry

2002 0.130 0.518 0.00 8.762

2003 0.000 1.499 0.00 7.993

2004 0.458 1.285 1.00 9.167

2005 0.459 1.479 0.00 8.556

2006 0.783 2.327 0.00 7.951

2007 0.811 0.259 0.00 6.537

2008 0.339 0.258 0.00 7.054

2009 0.680 1.554 0.00 5.079

2010 0.363 0.516 0.00 6.466

Average 0.447 1.077 0.110 7.507

____________________

Source: PHMSA, 2011.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-175 

We received several comments regarding Transco’s incident, safety, and violation history and 

high potential for accidents in densely populated areas. For onshore pipelines, Transco had a total of 17 

reported incidents involving its gas transmissions lines within the past 6 years, all of which had zero 

fatalities or injuries. The cause for most of the incidents related to either internal or external corrosion. 

Over the 35-year period prior to 2000, there have been 42 reported incidents of offshore oil and 

gas pipeline damage by anchors. Within the 25 years up to and including the year 2000, two of these 

incidents were significant. One accident involved a large fishing vessel in the Gulf of Mexico severing a 

pipeline in shallow water, and the other involved a gas production platform. Transco has never had an 

offshore pipeline incident (Garber et al., 2000). 

To mitigate risk associated with the potential for damage from anchors or fishing equipment, 

approximately 0.65 mile of Transco’s offshore pipeline would be installed by HDD methods up to 

100 feet below the seabed. For the remainder of its length, Transco’s offshore pipeline would be installed 

with a minimum of 4 feet of cover (see Section 2.3.1). 

4.12.3 Impacts on Public Safety

Transco has a Public Awareness and Damage Prevention Program where they would review, 

revise, and develop a new Emergency Response Plan for the proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral. 

Transco would meet with local emergency services agencies on a regular basis to review and revise their 

plans when necessary. Transco would provide a 24-hour emergency response number to the local 

emergency agencies, which would be included in informational mail-outs and posted on all pipeline 

markers. 

We received several comments from individuals who are concerned about the adequacy of 

firefighting capabilities at Floyd Bennett Field where Transco is proposing to construct the M&R facility. 

No special fire-fighting apparatus is required to fight a high-pressure natural gas fire along the pipeline 

itself or at the M&R facility. The most effective and immediate way to address a high-pressure gas 

pipeline rupture is to shut off the gas source. 

Transco uses automatic rupture-detection valves in lieu of remote-controlled shut-off valves. In 

the event of a release, both automatic and remote-controlled valves may be closed manually by 

emergency or operations personnel. Automatic valves close automatically upon sensing a significant 

pressure drop, and remote-controlled valves may be closed within 90 seconds of a shut-off command 

from Transco’s Gas Control Center. As a backup, Transco’s Gas Control Center would have remote 

access capability to shut in the pipeline. Transco also would install a remote shut down valve within the 

proposed M&R facility. 

Table 4.12.3-1 presents the average annual injuries and fatalities that occurred on natural gas 

transmission lines between 2007 and 2011. 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 two per year over the 20-year period from 1992-2011 (PHMSA, 2012). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-176 

TABLE 4.12.3-1

Annual Average Fatalities – Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines

Year

Injuries Fatalities

Employees Public Employees Public

2007 6 1 1 1

2008 3 2 0 0 

2009 4 7 0 0

2010 a 10 51 2 8 

2011 1 0 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 majority of fatalities from pipelines involve local distribution pipelines. These are natural 

gas pipelines that are not regulated by the FERC and that distribute natural gas to homes and businesses 

after transportation through interstate natural gas transmission pipelines. In general, these distribution 

lines are smaller diameter pipes, often made of plastic or cast iron rather than welded steel, and tend to be 

older pipelines that are more susceptible to damage. In addition, distribution systems do not have large 

rights-of-way and pipeline markers common to the FERC-regulated natural gas transmission pipelines.

The nationwide totals of accidental fatalities from various manmade and natural hazards are listed 

in Table 4.12.3-2 to provide a relative measure of the industry-wide safety of natural gas transmission 

pipelines. We received several comments from individuals regarding the safety of pipeline operations 

relative to automotive accidents, which are included in the table. Direct comparisons between the 

different accident categories listed in the table should be made cautiously because individual exposures to 

hazards are not uniform among all categories. The data nonetheless indicate a low risk of death due to 

incidents involving natural gas transmission pipelines compared to the other categories. For example, the 

fatality rate for incidents involving natural gas pipelines is more than 25 times lower than the rate from 

natural hazards such as lightning, tornados, floods, and earthquakes. 

TABLE 4.12.3-2 

Nationwide Accidental Deaths a

Type of Accident Annual Number of Deaths

All accidents 117,809

Motor Vehicle 45,343

Poisoning 23,618

Falls 19,656

Injury at work 5,113

Drowning 3,582

Fire, smoke inhalation, burns 3,197

Floods b 93

Lightning b 57

Tornado b 57

Natural gas distribution lines c 15

Natural gas transmission pipelines c 2

____________________

a U.S. Census, 2010. b NOAA, National Weather Service, 2012. c PHMSA, 2012.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-177 

The available data show that natural gas transmission pipelines continue to be a safe, reliable 

means of energy transportation. From 1992 to 2011, there were an average of 60 significant incidents and 

two fatalities per year (PHMSA, 2012). The number of significant incidents over the more than 300,000 

miles of natural gas transmission lines indicates the risk is low for an incident at any given location. The 

operation of the Rockaway Project would represent a slight increase in risk to the nearby public.

4.12.4 Additional Safety and Security Issues

Safety and security concerns have changed the way pipeline operators as well as regulators 

consider terrorism, both in approving new projects and in operating existing facilities. The Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) is tasked with the mission of coordinating the efforts of all executive 

departments and agencies to detect, prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from 

terrorist attacks within the United States. Among its responsibilities, the DHS oversees the Homeland 

Infrastructure Threat and Risk Analysis Center, which analyzes and implements the National Critical 

Infrastructure Prioritization Program that identifies and lists Tier 1 and Tier 2 assets. The Tier 1 and 

Tier 2 lists are key components of infrastructure protection programs and are used to prioritize 

infrastructure protection, response, and recovery activities. The Commission, in cooperation with other 

federal agencies, industry trade groups, and interstate natural gas companies, is working to improve 

pipeline security practices, strengthen communications within the industry, and extend public outreach in 

an ongoing effort to secure pipeline infrastructure. As identified in the OPS Circular Guide Document, 

Transco is in full compliance with all existing regulations and guidelines from the DHS’s Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA). The TSA has audited Transco twice in the past 3 years to ensure Transco 

is in compliance with all applicable regulations. Transco is currently in compliance with the following 

guidelines issued by PHMSA and adopted by the DHS, Surface Pipeline Security Branch:

• Security Practices – Natural Gas Industry Transmission; and 

• Distribution and Pipeline Security Contingency Planning Guidance. 

In addition to complying with the TSA, Transco has participated in the following programs in 

order to enhance the security of its pipeline system:

• Transco attended the “Electric and Gas Security Working Group” facilitated by the New 

Jersey Board of Public Utilities.

• Transco participated in the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, Energy Assurance Plan, 

Gas Tabletop Exercise “Operation Keep Warm” on May 22, 2012. The drill focused on 

interruption of interstate natural gas supply, operations, and emergency procedures.

• Transco Operations Management participated in the Incident Command System Training 

(Series 100, 200, and 300). 

• Transco Operations Management staff attended the New York City Police Department 

Ports Awareness Response and Training.

• Transco is in compliance with TSA security guidelines and has been audited by TSA to 

validate such compliance. Further, Transco assisted TSA in developing the referenced 

guidelines. Transco routinely participates in recurring monthly intelligence briefings, as 

well as ad hoc briefings on specific issues with DHS, TSA, and other federal agencies.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-178 

• Transco’s security representatives have government clearances and participate in 

classified briefings conducted by the referenced agencies.

• Transco routinely participates in DHS/TSA Pipeline Security Division initiatives, 

including attending TSA’s annual International Security Forum. 

• Transco participates in multiple industry association security committees (e.g., Interstate 

Natural Gas Association of America, the American Gas Association, and API) for the 

purpose of enhancing security for the pipeline industry generally and Transco 

specifically.

• Transco is a member of the Oil and Natural Gas Pipeline Working Group Sector 

Coordinating Council (SCC). SCCs exist for each type of critical infrastructure and are 

intended to promote collaboration and partnering by the DHS with critical infrastructures 

(including pipelines) owned and operated by the private sector. 

• Transco participates in a number of other forums and associations in order to promote 

security leadership with the company and the industry. Such organizations include the 

Energy Security Council; the International Security Management Association; the 

Domestic Security Alliance Council, a Federal Bureau of Investigation-sponsored 

association; the Oversees Security Advisory Council, a U.S. Department of Statesponsored association; and the American Society for Industrial Security. 

The Commission is faced with a dilemma in how much information can be offered to the public 

while still providing a significant level of protection to the facility. Consequently, energy facility design 

plans and location information have been removed from the FERC’s website to ensure sensitive 

information filed under Critical Energy Infrastructure Information is not readily available (RM02-4-000 

and PL02-1-000 issued February 20, 2003). 

The likelihood of future acts of terrorism or sabotage occurring at the proposed facilities, or at 

any of the myriad natural gas pipeline or energy facilities throughout the United States, is unpredictable 

given the disparate motives and abilities of terrorist groups. Although being sensitive to the history of 

incidents in the Rockaway Project area, the continuing need to construct facilities to support the future 

natural gas pipeline infrastructure is not diminished from the threat of any such future acts. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-179 

4.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

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, organization, or person 

undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively 

significant actions, taking place over a given period. Analyses of cumulative impacts can be used to 

modify actions if impacts are avoidable; determine if additional or more appropriate mitigation is 

warranted; or identify effective monitoring for any impacts of concern. 

We prepared the analysis below to identify and describe cumulative impacts that would 

potentially result from implementation of the Rockaway Project and the proposed modifications at 

Compressor Station 195 for the Northeast Connector Project. The analysis uses an approach consistent 

with the methodology set forth in guidance documents from the CEQ (1997b) and EPA (2005). Under 

these guidelines, inclusion of other potential future actions is based on identifying commonalities between 

the impacts that would result from the Projects and the impacts likely to be associated with other potential 

projects. 

In order to avoid unnecessary discussion of insignificant impacts and projects, and to adequately 

address and accomplish the purposes of this analysis, the cumulative impacts assessment for the Projects 

was conducted using the following guidelines: 

• Projects and activities included in this analysis are generally those of comparable 

magnitude and nature of impact, and are located within the same municipalities or 

townships that would be affected by the Projects (i.e., onshore projects in or near the 

GNRA, offshore projects in close proximity of the Rockaway Inlet and Jamaica Bay, and 

projects near Transco’s existing aboveground facilities). The analysis also includes the 

proposed non-jurisdictional facilities associated with the Projects.

• Another project must impact the same resource category as the Projects for there to be a 

cumulative impact on that resource category. For the most part, this is possible when 

other projects are located in the same regions or areas as the Projects. The effects of 

more distant projects generally are not assessed because their impacts are or would be 

localized and do not contribute significantly to impacts in the Project areas. An 

exception is air quality, which can have far-field effects. Therefore, air quality was 

considered on a regional basis. 

• The future timeframe that another planned or proposed project could result in a 

cumulative impact relative to the proposed Projects depends in part on whether the 

impacts are short term, long term, or permanent. Most of the impacts associated with the 

Projects are short-term effects that would occur during the period of construction. 

• The scope of the cumulative impact assessment depends on the availability of 

information about other projects. For this assessment, other projects were identified from 

information provided by Transco; field reconnaissance; internet research; and 

communications with federal, state, and local agencies. The impacts were quantified to 

the extent practicable where cumulative impacts were potentially indicated. In most

cases, the potential impacts could be described qualitatively but not quantitatively. This 

is particularly true for projects that are in the planning stage or are contingent upon 

economic conditions, availability of financing, or the issuance of permits. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-180 

Current, proposed, or reasonably foreseeable future projects or activities that may cumulatively 

impact resources that would be affected by construction and operation of the Projects are identified in 

Tables 4.13-1 and 4.13-2. These include non-jurisdictional facilities associated with the Projects, other 

energy projects, dredging and beach nourishment projects, post-Hurricane Sandy recovery projects, and 

private projects. Some of these projects do not fit all of the guidelines described above, but we 

considered them large enough to mention in the analysis. 

We received numerous comments during scoping for the Projects and in comments 

accompanying requests to intervene about cumulative impacts associated with development of natural gas 

reserves (including hydraulic fracturing) in the Marcellus Shale. Activities associated with the Projects 

would occur outside of the Marcellus Shale region. As a result, the local resources that may be affected 

by Marcellus Shale development would not be affected by the Projects, and local resources affected by 

the Projects would not be affected by development in the Marcellus Shale. As such, the effects of 

activities in the Marcellus Shale region are beyond the scope of the cumulative impacts analysis described 

below. 

Non-Jurisdictional Facilities

National Grid’s BQI Project consists of system upgrades to enhance reliability of service to 

customers by boosting delivery pressures and eliminating an existing dead-end feed on the Rockaway 

Peninsula in Queens County, New York. The BQI Project would provide a new delivery point that offers 

a long-term solution to meet the supply needs of National Grid’s system by delivering natural gas from 

Queens to the Brooklyn area, where supplies are currently needed. The BQI Project would be constructed 

in two phases, as described below. 

Phase I of the project would comprise the installation of two parallel 12- and 26-inch-diameter 

natural gas pipelines, each estimated to be approximately 4,150 feet long, under Flatbush Avenue. The 

pipelines would extend from an existing 8-inch-diameter distribution pipeline in the vicinity of the 

southernmost airplane hangar in Floyd Bennett Field, to an existing 8-inch-diameter pipeline at Beach 

169th Street south of Beach Channel Drive on the Rockaway Peninsula in Queens County. Phase II would 

entail the installation of approximately 12,000 feet of 30-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline 

from National Grid’s existing 30-inch-diameter, 350 psig transmission main at the intersection of 

Hendrickson Street and Avenue U, to the 26-inch-diameter Phase I pipeline at a point in the vicinity of 

the southernmost airplane hangar at Floyd Bennett Field along Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn County, 

New York. Construction of Phase I, which is ongoing, is expected to be completed in November 2013. 

Phase II would be constructed from October 2013 to November 2014. 

PECO plans to rebuild a portion of its existing 4 kilovolt (kV) electric transmission system to a 

three-phase 345 kV system to provide power to Compressor Station 195 in York County, Pennsylvania. 

PECO plans to reuse some of the existing power poles within the system, but it is estimated that up to 80 

percent would be replaced with new ones, possibly with new spacing between the poles. The rebuild 

would occur within the existing right-of-way for the electric transmission system.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-181 

TABLE 4.13-1

Existing or Proposed Projects that Could Cumulatively Impact Environmental Resources

in the Region of Influence for the Rockaway Project

Project Location Project Description

Anticipated Construction 

Date/Project Status

National Grid’s BQI Project Rockaway Inlet and 

Floyd Bennett Field

Phase I consists of the installation of 

parallel 12- and 26-inch-diameter natural 

gas pipelines beneath the Rockaway 

Peninsula and Floyd Bennett Field. The 

HDD method would be used to install 

the pipeline beneath Rockaway Inlet. 

Phase II consists of the installation of a 

30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline 

between the intersection of Avenue U 

and Hendrickson Place and Floyd 

Bennett Field. The HDD method would 

be used to install the pipeline under the 

Belt Parkway.

Phase I is currently under 

construction and scheduled to 

be completed in November 

2013; Phase II is scheduled to 

be constructed from October 

2013 through November 2014

Liberty Natural Gas, LLC, 

Port Ambrose LNG Project

19 miles offshore of 

Jones Beach

Proposal to construct and operate two 

STL buoy systems to receive and 

transfer natural gas from LNGRVs and 

two subsea lateral pipelines to deliver 

natural gas to Transco’s LNYBL.

Application filed with MARAD 

on September 12, 2012; 

proposed to be in-service in 

late 2015

NYPA, LIPA, and Con 

Edison, Long Island-New 

York City Offshore Wind 

Project a 

Atlantic Ocean, 

approximately 13 to 17 

nautical miles off the 

Rockaway Peninsula

Proposal to install offshore wind turbines 

capable of generating up to 700 

megawatts of power.

Feasibility stage; originally 

scheduled to be in service by 

2015, but may not be in 

service before 2017

U.S. Marine Corps Wind 

Energy Program Site b 

Marine Forces Reserve 

Center at the southern 

end of Floyd Bennett 

Field

Installation of up to three 50-kilowatt 

wind turbines.

Scheduled to be completed in 

fiscal year 2013

U.S. Marine Corps b Marine Forces Reserve 

Center at the southern 

end of Floyd Bennett 

Field

Construction of a cellular tower and a 

vehicle maintenance facility.

Unknown

USACE Maintenance 

Dredging of Jamaica Bay 

Federal Navigation Channel 

at Rockaway Inlet c 

Jamaica Bay Federal 

Channel

Dredging project to deepen the 

navigation channel.

Completed in 2012

USACE Emergency 

Dredging and Beach 

Nourishment d, e

Jamaica Bay Inlet 

(dredge) and Rockaway 

shoreline (nourishment)

Proposal to perform emergency 

dredging of East Rockaway Inlet to 

Rockaway Inlet and beach nourishment 

at Rockaway Beach. 

Currently under construction; 

expected to be complete in 

2014

USACE Jacob Riis Park 

Site Management and 

Debris Processing e, f

Jacob Riis Park Proposal to remove approximately 

150,000 cubic yards of debris 

associated with Hurricane Sandy from 

Jacob Riis Park.

Completed in 2013

City of New York and NPS, 

Jamaica Bay Science and 

Resilience Center g

Floyd Bennett Field Expression of interest in constructing a 

new research facility, possibly at Floyd 

Bennett Field, to study ecosystems in 

Jamaica Bay and surrounding areas.

Unknown

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-182 

TABLE 4.13-1 (cont’d)

Existing or Proposed Projects that Could Cumulatively Impact Environmental Resources

in the Region of Influence for the Rockaway Project

Project Location Project Description

Anticipated Construction 

Date/Project Status

Residential and 

Commercial Building 

Projects

Various Transco identified several commercial 

and residential building projects, ranging 

from single-family dwellings to a large 

commercial auto mall, some of which 

could be built during the same 

timeframe as the Rockaway Project. 

Additionally, it is reasonable to expect 

that considerable construction will be 

undertaken on the Rockaway Peninsula 

to address damage caused by Hurricane 

Sandy.

It is assumed that some 

commercial and residential 

construction will occur 

throughout 2013, 2014, and 

beyond

____________________

Sources: 

a Long Island-New York City Offshore Wind Project, 2013. b U.S. Marine Corps, 2013. c USACE, 2012c. d Federal Business Opportunities, 2013a. e USACE, 2013a. f Federal Business Opportunities, 2013b. g USACE, 2013b. h City of New York and NPS, 2012.

TABLE 4.13-2

Existing or Proposed Projects that Could Cumulatively Impact Environmental Resources in the Regions of Influence

for the Northeast Connector Projects 

Project Location Project Description

Anticipated 

Construction 

Date/Project Status

PECO, power line project York County, 

Pennsylvania

Modification of the existing electric 

transmission system and power lines 

servicing Compressor Station 195.

2014

Transco, Delta Lateral Project York County, 

Pennsylvania

Construction of 3.4 miles of pipeline lateral 

and modifications at Compressor Station 195.

Completed in September 

2010

Transco, maintenance project York County, 

Pennsylvania

Minor modification of facilities at Compressor 

Station 195.

Completed in October 

2011

Transco, maintenance project York County, 

Pennsylvania

Minor maintenance at Compressor Station 

195.

Undetermined

Transco, Leidy Southeast 

Project

Pennsylvania, New 

Jersey, Maryland, 

Virginia, and North 

Carolina

Construction of 30.1 miles of 42-inchdiameter pipeline in four loop segments; 

modifications at 11 existing compressor

stations (including Compressor Station 205); 

and modifications of other aboveground 

facilities (such as mainline valves and M&R 

facilities).

October 2014 through 

December 2015

Transco, Virginia Southside 

Expansion Project

Virginia, Maryland,

Pennsylvania, and 

New Jersey

Construction of 98 miles of 24-inch-diameter 

pipeline; one new compressor station 

(Compressor Station 166); one new meter 

station; seven valve sites; and minor 

modifications at existing aboveground 

facilities (including Compressor Station 205).

Second quarter of 2014

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-183 

4.13.1 Geology and Soils 

The facilities associated with the Rockaway Project and the proposed modifications at 

Compressor Station 195 for the Northeast Connector Project are expected to have temporary and minor 

impacts on near-surface geology and soils. Implementation of Transco’s Plan (Appendix D) for the 

Rockaway Project and the FERC Plan for Compressor Station 195 would prevent or minimize any 

indirect impacts. Because the direct effects would be highly localized and primarily limited to the period 

of construction, cumulative impacts on geology and soils would occur if other projects are constructed at 

the same time and place as the proposed facilities. 

The construction of some of the projects listed in Tables 4.13-1 and 4.13-2 would coincide with 

construction of the proposed Projects. These include the BQI Project, the power line upgrade associated 

with Compressor Station 195, and the beach nourishment project at Rockaway Beach. Projects that 

require significant excavation or grading would have direct impacts on near-surface geology and soils, but

like the Projects, the duration and effect of these actions would be minimized by the implementation of 

erosion controls and restoration measures. Consequently, the cumulative effect of the Projects on 

geological resources and soils would be temporary and minor. 

Several of the projects listed in Table 4.13-1, such as the proposed Rockaway Project, would 

impact offshore sediments within the New York Bight. Construction of the Port Ambrose LNG Project, 

for example, would impact about 309 acres of seabed. Because the impacts on sediments associated with 

the Rockaway Project and these other projects would be localized and short term, we do not anticipate 

any significant cumulative impacts on offshore sediments as a result of the Rockaway Project.

4.13.2 Groundwater

Groundwater resources could be vulnerable to contamination caused by inadvertent surface spills 

of hazardous materials used during construction of the Projects. Implementation of the measures 

identified in Transco’s SPCC Plan (Appendix F) and Construction Spill Plans (Appendix G) would 

minimize the potential for groundwater impacts associated with an inadvertent spill of these materials. 

All of the major projects listed in Tables 4.13-1 and 4.13-2, like the Projects, would likely be required to 

obtain water use and discharge permits, and would implement appropriate measures as required by federal 

and state agencies. National Grid, for example, would implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

during installation of the Phase II 30-inch-diameter pipeline on the west side of Flatbush Avenue to 

protect and prevent impacts on Four Sparrow Marsh, which is a NYCDPR and Recreation Forever Wild 

Nature Preserve located east of Flatbush Avenue and north of the Belt Parkway. For all these reasons, we 

do not anticipate any cumulative impacts on groundwater as a result of the Projects. 

4.13.3 Surface Water

The Atlantic Ocean would be affected during construction of the offshore portion of the 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral. Impacts on ocean waters would result from the excavation of seabed 

sediments resulting in a temporary increase in turbidity and TSS as well as sedimentation on the seafloor. 

Several of the projects listed in Table 4.13-1, such as the Port Ambrose LNG Project, the offshore wind 

project, and dredging activities in Jamaica Bay and the Rockaway Inlet, would result in similar impacts 

on water quality in the New York Bight. No surface waters would be affected as a result of construction 

activities associated with the BQI Project. The proposed pipelines for Phase I of the BQI Project would 

be installed beneath the waters and seabed of Rockaway Inlet/Jamaica Bay via the HDD method, and no 

construction activity would occur within the waterbody itself. No surface waters would be affected by 

construction activities at Compressor Station 195 or by the upgrade of the power servicing the site. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-184 

Because the impacts on the Atlantic Ocean associated with the Rockaway Project would be 

localized and short term, and comply with state water quality requirements, we do not anticipate any 

cumulative impacts on water quality. Potential cumulative impacts on fisheries and aquatic resources are 

discussed in Section 4.13.7 below. 

4.13.4 Wetlands

The Rockaway Project would cross one wetland along the southern shore of the Rockaway 

Peninsula, but Transco proposes to cross under this area using the HDD construction method. The use of 

this method would avoid any temporary and permanent impacts on the wetland during construction of the 

pipeline. Phase I of the BQI Project would cross under wetlands along the shoreline adjacent to Jamaica 

Bay, but these areas similarly would be avoided by the use of the HDD method to install the pipelines. 

No wetlands would be affected by construction activities at Compressor Station 195 for the Northeast 

Connector Project. Road ditches along Bryansville Road may be affected by the replacement of power 

poles associated with PECO’s electric transmission system upgrade, but in previously disturbed areas. 

No wetlands would be affected by the installation of poles within the fenced boundaries of Compressor 

Station 195. Therefore, the Projects would not contribute to cumulative impacts on wetlands. 

4.13.5 Vegetation 

The effects of the Projects on terrestrial vegetation would be limited to the temporary disturbance 

of maintained areas at the HDD entry workspace on the Rockaway Peninsula and at Compressor Station 

195 (including the removal of trees within a hedgerow), and by the clearing of a small amount of 

herbaceous vegetation growing through the broken pavement surrounding the M&R facility site. Several 

of the projects listed in Tables 4.13-1 and 4-13.2 would also impact vegetation. Some of these projects, 

like the BQI Project and the power line upgrade at Compressor Station 195, would have temporary 

impacts on vegetation during construction. The BQI Project, for example, would result in the temporary 

disturbance of maintained areas at the HDD entry workspace on the Rockaway Peninsula and the removal 

of nine trees along the pipeline route. Others, such as the construction of new housing, may have more 

permanent impacts. 

Transco would implement the measures outlined in its Plan (Appendix D) for the Rockaway 

Project and in the FERC Plan for the Northeast Connector Project to ensure the successful revegetation of 

disturbed areas, where applicable. As a result, the overall impact of the Projects would be temporary and 

minor. For the BQI Project, National Grid agreed to limit the removal of or damage to vegetation, protect

the roots of trees planted along streets, replace the nine trees that are removed during construction, and 

ensure the restoration of any open spaces or parkland disturbed as a result of the project. For these 

reasons, we do not expect the Projects to contribute significantly to cumulative impacts on onshore 

vegetation.

Offshore, the Rockaway Project area is largely unvegetated, although it is possible that small 

patches of turf algae growing on manmade structures, such as concrete and pipe fragments, could be 

affected. Other offshore projects, such as the Port Ambrose LNG Project, the offshore wind project, and 

dredging activities in Jamaica Bay and the Rockaway Inlet could affect offshore vegetation. Overall, 

impacts are expected to be minor, temporary, and/or localized. Therefore, we do not expect the Projects 

to contribute significantly to cumulative impacts on offshore vegetation. 

4.13.6 Wildlife and Habitats

Cumulative effects on wildlife and habitats could occur where projects are constructed in the 

same general timeframe and proximity as the Projects or result in the permanent or long-term loss of 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-185 

habitat. While several of the projects listed in Table 4.13-1, including the BQI Project, could impact 

terrestrial wildlife, the Rockaway Project would have a minimal temporary impact on terrestrial wildlife 

habitat. The onshore areas that would be affected by the Rockaway Project have marginal value for 

nesting birds and other wildlife. Construction noise could potentially disturb foraging and loafing birds 

along the shoreline, but noise associated with nearshore activities like the offshore HDD are likely to be 

drowned out by the ambient noise of the ocean. Additionally, we note that wildlife species occurring in 

the Rockaway Project area are urban-adapted and tolerant of disturbance, and therefore are unlikely to be 

adversely affected by construction activities or noise.

For the Northeast Connector Project, the planned construction activities at Compressor Station 

195 would affect developed/maintained areas and trees within a hedgerow. Upgrade of the existing 

power line servicing the compressor station similarly would affect developed/maintained areas, both 

within the station site and along Bryansville Road. These areas, like the Rockaway Project areas in 

Queens and Brooklyn, provide marginal habitat for wildlife species. 

Construction of many of the projects listed in Tables 4.13-1 and 4.13-2 would have greater 

impacts on terrestrial habitats than the Projects proposed by Transco, but these other projects have 

varying construction schedules and would take place over relatively large geographic areas. During 

construction of the BQI Project silt fence would be installed to prevent the passage of wildlife into 

construction areas. Any impacts associated with these projects would likely be short term and temporary. 

For all these reasons, we do not expect the Projects to contribute significantly to cumulative impacts on 

onshore wildlife and habitats. 

Similar to the Rockaway Project, several of the projects listed in Table 4.13-1, such as the Port 

Ambrose LNG Project, the offshore wind project, and the dredging activities in Jamaica Bay and the 

Rockaway Inlet, would impact offshore wildlife and habitats. Offshore impacts would include alteration 

of wildlife habitats, displacement of wildlife due to noise and turbidity, and other secondary effects, such 

as increased vulnerability to predation. Cumulative effects would be greatest where the other projects are 

constructed within the same timeframe and areas as the Rockaway Project. As noted in Sections 4.5 and 

4.6, Transco would implement a number of measures during construction, such as turbidity monitoring 

and soft-start procedures for pile driving, to minimize impacts on offshore wildlife and habitats. These 

measures, and the additional mitigation likely to be imposed by NOAA Fisheries and other agencies if the 

Rockaway Project is approved, would minimize impacts on marine wildlife. 

The dredging that is underway in Jamaica Bay/Rockaway Inlet could occur at the same time as 

the Rockaway Project, but it would be limited to maintained navigation channels or other disturbed areas 

that do not generally support significant habitat for wildlife species. If constructed, the Port Ambrose 

LNG Project and NYPA/LIPA/Con Edison Long Island Offshore Wind Project would occur after the 

proposed Rockaway Project is scheduled to be completed. For these reasons, we do not believe that the 

Rockaway Project would contribute significantly to cumulative impacts on offshore wildlife and habitats.

4.13.7 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

The Rockaway Project would impact aquatic resources. Benthic organisms lying within the area 

to be trenched would be harmed or killed. Additional losses of benthic organisms are expected due to the 

deposition of suspended sediments on the seafloor. Turbidity resulting from resuspension of sediments 

from offshore construction could reduce light penetration and photosynthetic oxygen production and 

could clog fish gills. Resuspension of deposited organic material and inorganic sediments could cause an 

increase in biological and chemical use of oxygen, potentially resulting in a decrease of dissolved oxygen 

concentrations in the affected area. Lower dissolved oxygen concentrations could cause temporary 

displacement of mobile organisms, such as fish. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-186 

Construction of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral at the same time as other projects in the ocean off 

the Rockaway Peninsula could result in cumulative impacts on aquatic resources and/or EFH. In the 

larger context of the New York Bight area, which encompasses about 31,276 square miles, the geographic 

extent and duration of aquatic disturbances caused by construction of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

would be minimal. 

The cumulative impact of other projects on fisheries and aquatic organisms is expected to be 

relatively small. For example, the BQI Project proposes to use the HDD construction method to cross the 

Rockaway Inlet/Jamaica Bay and is not expected to have adverse impacts on aquatic resources. With the 

exception of the beach nourishment project at Rockaway Beach, the other projects that would involve 

direct offshore impacts in the New York Bight are located many miles from the proposed Rockaway 

Delivery Lateral and would not likely occur during the same construction timeframe as the Rockaway 

Project. Additionally, all of the offshore projects, like Transco’s, would be required to obtain permits 

from the USACE or the NYSDEC, and consult with the EPA, FWS, and NOAA Fisheries. Consequently, 

we expect that the cumulative effect on aquatic resources as a result of the Rockaway Project would be 

minor. 

4.13.8 Special Status Species

The species discussed in Section 4.7 could be affected by construction and operation of other 

projects if they occur within the same areas and habitats as the proposed Projects. The onshore portions 

of the projects listed in Table 4.13-1 would likely have little impact on special status species given the 

urban environment of the New York metropolitan area. The EAS for the BQI Project identified two areas 

as potentially containing suitable habitat for listed plant species in the vicinity of the construction area, 

and noted that several rare, special concern, threatened, and endangered species could be present in 

nearby areas such as the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge. No federally listed or state-listed plant species 

were identified during field surveys of the pipeline route, and the EAS concluded that no critical habitat 

areas for federally listed or state-listed wildlife would be disturbed and no foraging activities would be 

impeded. For the Northeast Connector Project, and the associated power line upgrade, construction 

activities are not expected to adversely affect special status species. For these reasons, we do not believe 

that the Projects would contribute significantly to cumulative impacts on special status terrestrial species.

There is a greater potential for cumulative impacts on special status species from the offshore 

projects in the New York Bight, such the Port Ambrose LNG Project and the offshore wind farm project. 

The sponsors of these projects would be required to consult with the appropriate federal, state, and local 

agencies to identify special status species in the area of their projects; evaluate the potential impacts of 

their projects on these species; and implement measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on these 

species and their habitats. Because protection of threatened, endangered, and other special status species 

is part of federal and state permitting processes, we would expect that cumulative impacts on such species 

would be reduced or eliminated through conservation and mitigation measures identified during the 

relevant permitting processes. Therefore, we believe that the Rockaway Project would have no more than 

minor cumulative impacts on special status marine species.

4.13.9 Land Use Resources

With the exception of the M&R facility and permanent pipeline right-of-way, the Rockaway 

Project would have temporary impacts on land use and land cover because all of the land affected would 

be allowed to revert to former uses. No active maintenance of the permanent right-of-way for the onshore 

portion of the Rockaway Project would occur, but permanent structures would not be permitted in the 

future over the pipeline on Jacob Riis Park or at the tie-ins to the National Grid pipelines on TBTA 

property and at Floyd Bennett Field. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-187 

Other projects occurring on the GNRA include debris removal at Jacob Riis Park and beach 

nourishment along Rockaway Beach. The debris removal project was completed in 2013, but the beach 

nourishment project could overlap with construction of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral in 2014. 

Transco’s plan to use the HDD method to install the pipeline beneath the shoreline at Rockaway Beach 

would avoid impacts on land uses in this area and avoid conflicts with the beach nourishment project. 

The beach nourishment project would improve surface conditions on the beach. For these reasons, we 

conclude that the Rockaway Project would have no significant impact on current land uses or land cover 

in the GNRA. 

Transco is requesting a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

across Jacob Riis Park and the offshore area within the boundaries of the GNRA. No operational 

activities would occur within this right-of-way because the pipeline would be buried as much as 100 feet 

below the ground surface. As such, no alterations would be made to the land cover, and there would be 

no restrictions on current uses of Jacob Riis Park along the right-of-way. The debris removal project at 

Jacob Riis Park and the beach nourishment project are not expected to affect land uses in the park. 

Therefore, we conclude that the Rockaway Project would have no significant impact on current land 

cover or land uses within Jacob Riis Park. 

Transco proposes to construct the M&R facility within the hangar complex (i.e., within Hangars 1 

and 2) at Floyd Bennett Field. The exterior of the hangars would be rehabilitated as part of the Rockaway 

Project. Because construction of the BQI Project along Flatbush Avenue would be underway at the same 

time as rehabilitation of the hangars, users of the GNRA could experience temporary cumulative impacts 

associated with noise, vibration, and increased traffic congestion from both projects, but these impacts 

would be intermittent, temporary, and in the case of noise, highly localized. The Rockaway Project 

would not affect any existing uses of the hangars because access to the complex has been restricted by the 

NPS due to safety concerns.

With the exception of a small portion of land (<0.3 acre) within Marine Park, the BQI Project 

facilities would be located entirely beneath the Flatbush Avenue right-of-way and TBTA property, 

including the Rockaway Inlet. Locating the pipelines beneath the Flatbush Avenue right-of-way and 

TBTA property eliminates the need to alter or otherwise disturb existing land uses during construction 

and operation of the pipelines. Use of the HDD method to install the Phase I pipelines beneath the 

Rockaway Inlet would avoid impacts on existing uses of the waterway during construction and operation 

of these facilities.

Construction activities at Compressor Station 195 for the Northeast Connector Project would 

occur on lands owned by Transco, which are and would continue to be used for natural gas transmission. 

Consequently, these activities would have no effect on existing land uses. The associated power line 

upgrade would occur within existing PECO right-of-way and the fenced boundary of Compressor Station 

195. There would be no impacts on land uses in areas adjacent to the PECO right-of-way outside the 

boundaries of the compressor station except during the brief period of construction. 

For all these reasons, we do not believe that the Rockaway Project would contribute significantly 

to cumulative impacts on land uses. 

4.13.10 Visual Resources

The visual character of the existing landscape is defined by historic and current land uses such as 

recreation and development. The visual qualities of the landscape are further influenced by existing linear 

installations, such as highways, railroads, pipelines, and electrical transmission and distribution lines. 

Relative to the Rockaway Project, the projects listed in Table 4.13-1 could contribute to cumulative visual 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-188 

impacts if they alter the existing landscape and significantly change land cover. Most of these projects, 

like the proposed Rockaway Project, would not change the character of the onshore landscape. The BQI 

Project, for example, would be installed underground mostly along existing transportation rights-of-way 

and would not affect visual resources. Additionally, construction of the M&R facility would improve the 

visual appearance of the hangars because rehabilitation of the hangar complex is part of the Rockaway 

Project. The NYPA/LIPA/Con Edison wind farm and Port Ambrose LNG Project would be located 13 to 

19 nautical miles offshore, which would minimize their visual disturbance. Therefore, we do not believe 

that cumulative visual impacts would result from the Rockaway Project. 

As previously indicated, construction activities at Compressor Station 195 would occur on lands 

owned by Transco that are used for natural gas transmission. The proposed modifications at this site 

would affect existing infrastructure or would be consistent in character with the existing facilities on the 

site. Views to the site would continue to be obscured by an existing hedgerow that surrounds the 

periphery of the site. The proposed upgrade to the power line servicing the site would occur within 

existing PECO right-of-way and the fenced boundary of the compressor station site. Therefore, we do not 

believe that cumulative visual impacts would result from the proposed modifications at Compressor 

Station 195. 

4.13.11 Socioeconomics 

Present and reasonably foreseeable future projects and activities could cumulatively impact 

socioeconomic conditions in the Project areas. As described below, employment, housing, infrastructure, 

and public services could experience both beneficial and detrimental effects. There would also be some 

impacts on transportation and traffic. 

Economy and Employment

No new permanent employees would be hired for the Projects; therefore, the Projects would not 

contribute directly to an increase in permanent employment. The other projects listed in Tables 4.13-1 

and 4.13-2 could have cumulative effects on temporary employment if more than one project is built at 

the same time. 

For the Rockaway Project, Transco estimates that the offshore construction would employ 

approximately 130 workers, of whom 110 workers are expected to be local hires. These local hires would 

include vessel operators, welders, pipe fitters, and lay-barge support staff. The onshore construction, 

including pipeline construction and hangar complex rehabilitation for the M&R facility, would employ 

approximately 45 workers, of whom 40 workers are expected to be local hires. These hires would consist 

of plumbers, electricians, roofers, heavy equipment operators, masons, and asbestos abatement personnel. 

For the Northeast Connector Project, Transco estimates that 50 workers, including 20 local hires, would 

be required for construction activities at Compressor Station 195, and 5 workers each (non-local) would 

be required for the proposed uprates at Compressor Stations 205 and 207. The size of the workforces 

required to construct the BQI Project and the electric transmission upgrade at Compressor Station 195 are 

unknown. 

As discussed in Section 4.9.1, the counties affected by the Projects have civilian labor forces 

ranging from hundreds of thousands to millions and unemployment rates (based on current data from the 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) ranging from 7.5 to 9.4 percent. This suggests that the local labor forces 

could meet much of the employment needs required for construction of the Projects, as well as the other 

projects listed in Tables 4.13-1 and 4.13-2, although it is unknown whether a sufficient number of local 

unemployed persons have the necessary skills to work on these projects. Therefore, if any projects are 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-189 

built at the same time, the demand for workers could exceed the local supply of appropriately skilled 

labor and require additional non-local workers. 

In addition to local employment, the Projects would provide an increase in revenue for the 

affected counties and other benefits to local economies through the payment of payroll tax, sales tax, 

property tax, and/or other taxes and fees. The payroll for the Rockaway Project would be approximately 

$3.25 million to $4.87 million during the construction phases, with total direct spending on goods, 

services, and other consumables expected to range from $2.65 million to $3.92 million. Annual property 

taxes attributable to the Rockaway Project are anticipated to be approximately $5.3 million. For the 

Northeast Connector Project, Transco estimates approximately $120,000 in local sales tax as a result of 

material purchases and about $1.1 million in direct local spending by workers. A net increase in payroll 

and tax revenues is likely to result from the other projects listed in Tables 4.13-1 and 4.13-2. Therefore, 

the Projects would contribute to both the cumulative short- and long-term impacts on state, county, and 

local economies, but the effects would be beneficial. 

Temporary Housing

Temporary housing for the Projects would be required for construction workers who are not hired

from local areas. Given the current vacancy rates, the number of rental housing units in each area, and the 

number of hotel/motel rooms available in the vicinity of the Projects, construction workers should not 

encounter difficulty in finding temporary housing. If construction of the Projects occurs concurrently 

with other projects, temporary housing would still be available but may be slightly more difficult to find 

and/or more expensive to secure. Regardless, these effects would be temporary, lasting for the duration 

of construction, and there would be no long-term cumulative impact on housing from the Projects. 

Further, Transco’s offshore construction workers for the Rockaway Project would sleep on the lay-barge, 

which would cause no impacts on temporary housing facilities. 

Infrastructure and Public Services

The cumulative impact of the Projects, and the other projects listed in Tables 4.13-1 and 4.13-2, 

on infrastructure and public services would depend on the number of projects under construction at one 

time. The small incremental demands of several projects occurring at the same time could become 

difficult for local police, fire, and emergency service personnel to address. This problem would be 

temporary, occurring for the duration of construction, and could be mitigated by the various project 

sponsors providing their own personnel to augment the local capability or by providing additional funds 

or training for local personnel. No long-term cumulative impact on infrastructure and public services is 

anticipated due to the Projects because they would not result in any new public roads or residences, or an 

influx of any direct permanent hires. 

Transportation and Traffic

Construction of the Rockaway Project would have a temporary impact on road traffic in some 

areas of New York City and could contribute to cumulative traffic, parking, and transit impacts if other 

projects (e.g., the BQI Project) take place at the same time and in the same area. Traffic impacts 

associated with the Rockaway Project are expected at Flatbush Avenue, Marine Parkway Bridge, Cross 

Bay Boulevard, Cross Bay Veterans Memorial Bridge, and South Front Street. 

The addition of traffic associated with the transportation of equipment and construction materials

could contribute to cumulative regional traffic congestion, but any contribution of the Rockaway Project 

to cumulative traffic impacts would be temporary. Workers associated with the Rockaway Project would 

generally commute to and from the pipeline right-of-way or the M&R facility site during off-peak traffic 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-190 

hours (i.e., arriving before 7:00 a.m. and departing before 4:00 p.m.). Construction of the BQI Project 

would create some lane closures along Flatbush Avenue during the time that Transco would commence 

rehabilitation of the hangar complex, but entrances to businesses, open spaces, parks, and recreational 

facilities would be maintained at all times. Appropriate traffic management and signage would be set up 

and necessary safety measures would be developed in compliance with applicable permits and regulations 

for work in public roadways. National Grid would provide traffic safety personnel during periods of 

construction, and a tow-truck would be available for breakdowns in one-lane roads. Consequently, the 

lane closures and short-term construction effects of equipment movement, material deliveries and 

removal, and construction worker trips are not expected to have a significant adverse impact on traffic. 

Due to extensive damage caused by Hurricane Sandy in October 2012, there may be increased 

construction associated with rebuilding or replacing residential and commercial structures that would 

affect traffic in the vicinity of the Rockaway Project, but information on the traffic associated with these 

activities is unavailable. Estimating the extent and duration of these construction efforts would be 

speculative.

Construction activities at Compressor Station 195 for the Northeast Connector Project could 

result in cumulative impacts on transportation if other projects (e.g., the upgrade of the power line 

servicing the facility) are completed at the same time and in the same area, but the impacts would be 

temporary and localized. The movement of construction equipment and materials deliveries to 

Compressor Station 195 could have a temporary impact on traffic, but once delivered, these materials 

would remain onsite for the duration for construction. Workers would carpool and commute during offpeak hours, which would reduce impacts on traffic. Transco would obtain any required permits for use of 

roads and would comply with weight limitations and any restrictions on roadways. Therefore, no 

significant, long term cumulative impacts on transportation are anticipated.

Conclusions for Socioeconomics

In general, the effects of the Projects on socioeconomic conditions, while minor, would be 

viewed as positive, and would include increased temporary employment and increased sales and/or tax 

revenues. Other major projects in the areas would likely have similar impacts on the economy. Thus, the 

cumulative effects of the Projects on the economy likely would be positive. 

4.13.12 Cultural Resources

Cumulative impacts on cultural resources in New York City could occur if other projects were to 

impact the same historic properties as the Rockaway Project. Past disturbances to cultural resources in 

the Rockaway Project area have typically been related to accidental disturbances, intentional destruction, 

or vandalism, lack of awareness of historical value, and construction and maintenance operations 

associated with existing roads and utility lines. The other projects listed in Table 4.13-1 that are defined 

as federal actions would include mitigation measures designed to avoid or minimize additional direct 

impacts on cultural resources. Where direct impacts are unavoidable, mitigation would occur before 

construction. Additionally, Transco developed a plan for the Rockaway Project to address unanticipated 

discoveries of cultural resources and human remains in the event they are discovered during construction. 

Therefore, the Rockaway Project may incrementally add to the cumulative effects of other projects that 

occur at the same time, but this incremental increase would not be significant.

As discussed in Section 4.10, the Rockaway Project would directly affect one property that is 

listed in the NRHP. Hangars 1 and 2, which would be rehabilitated for the M&R facility, are contributing 

resources to the Floyd Bennett Field Historic District. The interior of the hangars would be cleaned, 

stabilized, and repaired, and the exterior would be rehabilitated to preserve its historic character. Because 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-191 

the M&R facility would be located inside the hangar complex, construction would not introduce any new 

permanent visible features into the setting of the historic district. As discussed above, rehabilitation of the 

hangar complex would enhance the visual aethetics of the district. 

Two properties in the vicinity of the BQI Project area were determined to be listed in or eligible 

for listing in the SRHP and NRHP: Floyd Bennett Field Historic District and the Marine Parkway-Gil 

Hodges Memorial Bridge. Because the proposed pipelines would be located beneath the Flatbush Avenue 

right-of-way and TBTA property, including under the Rockaway Inlet, the BQI Project would not affect

any portion of these properties nor would it introduce any permanent visible features into the settings of 

the sites. While no evidence of archaeological sites was identified along the pipeline route, National Grid 

committed to providing an archaeological monitor for any construction activities with the potential to 

affect undisturbed soil horizons in archaeologically sensitive areas. As a result, the Negative Declaration 

for the BQI Project concluded that construction of the pipelines would not cause a significant adverse 

impact on architectural, historic, or archaeological resources. 

Construction activities at Compressor Station 195 would be limited to the existing station site. 

This area has been disturbed by previous construction activities at the site. The proposed upgrade of the 

power line servicing the compressor station would occur on disturbed lands adjacent to Bryansville Road 

and within the existing station site. Neither project is expected to affect historic properties. Transco 

developed a plan to address unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources and human remains during 

construction at the site. 

Based on the above discussion, we do not believe that significant cumulative impacts on cultural 

resources would result from the Projects. 

4.13.13 Air Quality and Noise 

Construction of the Projects and the other projects identified in Tables 4.13-1 and 4.13-2 would 

all involve the use of heavy equipment that would generate emissions of air contaminants, fugitive dust, 

and noise. Construction emissions and noise would be emitted at different times and locations in the

Project areas. 

4.13.13.1 Air Quality

With the exception of GHG emissions, air impacts would be localized and confined primarily to 

areas in which projects occur. The combined effects of multiple construction projects occurring in the 

same areas and timeframes as the Projects could temporarily add to the ongoing air quality effects of 

existing activities. The contribution of the Projects to the cumulative effects of all foreseeable projects as 

a result of construction activities would be minor and temporary. The other projects have varying 

construction schedules and would take place over relatively large geographic areas. 

Emissions produced as a result of the operation and maintenance of the Rockaway Project would 

not contribute to or cause a violation of any AAQS; therefore, maintenance and operation activities 

associated with the Rockaway Project should not result in a significant adverse impact on regional air 

quality and would not add significantly to the long-term cumulative impact of other projects. 

Mobile source emissions from construction equipment and vehicles as well as minor air 

emissions would be generated during construction of the BQI Project, but these emissions would be shortterm in duration and are not expected to be significant. Mitigation measures would be employed as 

necessary to maintain ambient air quality during construction activities. The incremental natural gas 

supply that would be provided to National Grid by the Projects would facilitate conversions from fuel oil 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-192 

to natural gas in heating systems in New York City. National Grid estimates that displacement of fuel oil 

consumption due to the BQI Project could reduce daily GHG emissions by 11,357 metric tons of CO2e 

(National Grid, 2011), which could result in cumulative improvements in regional air quality. 

Operational emissions from Compressor Station 195 would result from combustion exhaust 

associated with gas-fired engines and from fugitive sources. Transco’s proposal to replace three gas-fired 

reciprocating engines with two new electric motor drives as part of the Northeast Connector Project 

would result in a reduction in annual operating emissions from the site, which could result in cumulative 

improvements in air quality in the vicinity of Compressor Station 195. None of the other projects listed in 

Table 4.13-2 are expected to result in operational emissions in the vicinity of this site.

4.13.13.2 Noise

The impact of noise is highly localized and attenuates quickly as the distance from the noise 

source increases. Therefore, cumulative noise impacts could occur if one or more of the other projects are 

constructed at the same time and in the same location. For example, Transco’s hangar rehabilitation at 

Floyd Bennett Field would occur concurrently with a portion of the BQI Project. Based on the schedule 

and the proximity of these activities, there may be some cumulative noise impacts. The duration of any 

cumulative effect would be short because the noise impacts would occur during the construction period. 

During operation, the BQI Project (which involves buried pipelines) is not expected to generate noise, and 

noise at the M&R facility is expected to be imperceptible at the nearest NSA. Some of the other projects 

listed in Table 4.13-1, such as the commercial development projects, could result in an increase in 

ambient noise levels during operations, but these would occur at sites outside the area of impact for the 

Rockaway Project. Therefore, we do not believe that the Rockaway Project would contribute 

significantly to cumulative onshore noise impacts.

We do not expect that offshore construction activities associated with the Rockaway Delivery 

Lateral would contribute to cumulative noise impacts onshore due to the ambient background noise of the 

ocean (i.e., wind and wave action). Transco’s use of a vibratory hammer could cause behavioral changes 

in some marine mammals and other species that migrate near the offshore construction site during active 

pile driving events. These pile driving activities could contribute to cumulative noise impacts beneath the 

ocean surface if other offshore projects are occurring in the same area and at the same time. We 

identified three other offshore projects in the vicinity of the Rockaway Project: the dredging and beach 

restoration project at Rockaway Beach, the Port Ambrose LNG Project, and the offshore wind project. 

The beach restoration project would be under construction at the same time as the Rockaway Project, but 

noise impacts mostly would occur along the shoreline and at dredge sites farther removed from the 

Rockaway Project area. The other projects would be constructed after the Rockaway Project, and 

regardless, are located far enough away from the route of the proposed pipeline that it is unlikely they 

would contribute to cumulative noise impacts in the same marine areas. 

Construction activities at Compressor Station 195 would result in a temporary increase in noise at 

NSAs in the vicinity of the site. Cumulative impacts due to construction noise would result if other 

projects (e.g., the upgrade to the power line servicing the site) are constructed at the same time and in the 

same area, but the impacts would be short-term, localized, and limited to daytime hours. During 

operation, there would be a slight increase in noise (1.9 dBA or less) at NSAs in the vicinities of 

Compressor Stations 205 and 207 due to the uprates at these sites, but the noise levels at the NSAs would 

be below the FERC standard of 55 dBA. The modifications at Compressor Station 205 could result in 

cumulative impacts if Transco’s Leidy Southeast or Virginia Southside Expansion Projects result in an 

increase in noise at nearby NSAs; but those projects, like the Northeast Connector Project, would be 

required to meet the FERC’s standards for noise at compressor stations. The modifications proposed for 

Compressor Station 195 would result in a slight decrease in noise (between 0.6 and 1.6 dBA) at NSAs in 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4-193 

the vicinity of this site, which would be a beneficial effect. Therefore, we do not believe that the 

Northeast Connector Project would result in cumulative noise impacts. 

4.13.14 Reliability and Safety 

The Projects would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with or to 

exceed the DOT Minimum Federal Safety Standards in Title 49 CFR Part 192. These regulations, which 

are intended to protect the public and to prevent natural gas facility accidents and failures, include 

specifications for material selection and qualification; minimum design requirements; and protection of 

the pipeline from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion. Once the pipeline is in place, the 

operation and maintenance program would include: ground patrol of the onshore pipeline corridor, 

weekly inspection of valve settings, observing other construction activities, and annual leak detection 

surveys. Consequently, we do not believe that the Projects would result in any cumulative operational

safety impacts among the pipelines and other projects identified in Tables 4.13-1 and 4.13-2. 

4.13.15 Climate Change 

The GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the Projects were identified in 

Section 4.11.1.2. Emission of GHGs from the proposed Projects would not have any direct impacts on 

the environment in the Project areas. Currently, there is no standard methodology to determine how the 

relatively small incremental contributions of the Projects to GHGs would translate into physical effects on 

the global environment. The GHG emissions from the construction and operation of the Projects would 

be negligible compared to the global GHG emission inventory. Additionally, burning natural gas emits 

less CO2 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 the New York City 

area, it is anticipated that the Projects would result in the displacement of some fuel oil use, thereby 

potentially offsetting some regional GHG emissions. National Grid (2011) estimates that conversions 

from fuel to natural gas due to the incremental natural gas supply provided by the Projects to the BQI 

Project could result in a decrease in daily GHG emissions of 11,357 metric tons of CO2e. The proposed 

modifications at Compressor Station 195, which include replacing three gas-fired reciprocating engines 

with two new electric motors, would result in a reduction in annual emissions of GHGs from this facility.

4.13.16 Conclusion

A majority of the cumulative impacts identified would be temporary and minor when considered 

in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities. Long-term cumulative economic 

benefits may result from the Projects. The creation of jobs, increased wages, purchases of local goods 

and services, and tax revenues from the Projects would result in short-term and minor cumulative 

benefits. The Projects could contribute to an increase in ambient air quality due to conversions from fuel 

oil to natural gas in heating systems in New York City. As noted above, National Grid (2011) estimates 

that fuel conversions associated with the incremental gas supply provided by the Projects could result in a 

decrease in daily GHG emissions in New York City.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-1

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

The conclusions and recommendations presented in this section are those of the FERC 

environmental staff. Our conclusions and recommendations were developed with input from the NPS, 

EPA, USACE, NOAA Fisheries, and the City of New York as cooperating agencies. The federal 

cooperating agencies could adopt this EIS per 40 CFR 1506.13 if, after an independent review of the 

document, they conclude that their permitting requirements and/or regulatory responsibilities have been 

satisfied. These agencies would present their own conclusions and recommendations in their respective 

and applicable decisions. 

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

environmental impacts, which would mostly occur during construction. As part of our review, we 

developed specific mitigation measures we believe would appropriately and reasonably reduce the 

environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of the Projects. We believe that 

environmental impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels if the Projects are constructed and 

operated in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, Transco’s proposed mitigation, and our 

recommendations. Therefore, we are recommending that our mitigation measures be attached as 

conditions to any authorization issued by the Commission. A summary of the anticipated impacts from 

the Projects and our conclusions regarding impacts are provided by resource area below. 

5.1.1 Geology

The overall effect of the Projects on topography and geology would be minor. The primary 

impacts would be associated with onshore grading and excavation activities and with offshore dredging 

and jetting. Following construction, the onshore workspaces on the Rockaway Peninsula and at 

Compressor Station 195 (with the exception of areas covered by new structures) would be returned to preconstruction conditions. At the M&R facility, the areas affected by excavations would be paved or 

covered in gravel. 

Utilization of the HDD method would eliminate impacts on existing geologic conditions between 

the HDD entry and exit points for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral, including the shoreline crossing at 

Rockaway Beach and Jacob Riis Park within the GNRA. To minimize the potential for cave-ins and 

running sand conditions along the drill hole during construction, Transco would install a large diameter 

casing at the onshore entry site and excavate a subsea pit at the offshore exit site. Transco would utilize 

drilling fluid (primarily bentonite and water) to lubricate the drill head and remove cuttings from the drill 

hole. Additionally, a drilling fluid engineer would be present throughout the HDD activities to monitor 

and manipulate the weight and viscosity of the drilling fluid. While these measures would reduce the 

risks associated with the proposed HDD, there are unresolved questions about the feasibility of the 

technique at this location. A more in depth review of Transco's geotechnical report (provided in 

Appendix J) by a qualified HDD engineer would provide a greater level of certainty and/or result in 

additional measures to aid in a successful crossing. Therefore, we are recommending in Section 4.1.7 that 

prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Transco should have an experienced HDD engineer 

evaluate subsurface conditions along the HDD route to confirm the feasibility of Transco’s proposed 

HDD crossing methodology.

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

sedimentation processes, but modified its proposed action to an active backfill in response to comments 

from cooperating and other agencies. Transco would configure the discharge nozzles on the jet sled to 

expel sediment behind the sled and into the trench to provide for immediate backfill as the pipeline is 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-2

lowered beneath the seabed. Following installation of the pipeline, Transco would conduct a bathymetric 

survey to document seafloor elevations along the pipe trench as well as other offshore excavation areas. 

If the survey identifies any areas where the seafloor has not been restored and/or where 4 feet of cover is 

not present over the pipeline, Transco would backfill these areas using sediments obtained from the 

seafloor with a suction dredge in the area immediately adjacent to the trench. Transco additionally would 

add a top layer of native sediments over the drilling fluid and cuttings that collect within the offshore 

HDD exit pit.

No active mines or mineral resources are located within 1 mile of the proposed Rockaway Project 

facilities or within 0.5 mile of Compressor Station 195. Therefore, the Projects would not affect mineral 

resources.

The geologic units underlying the Rockaway Project area consist of Wisconsin glacial deposits 

and Holocene beach and near-shore unconsolidated sediments that are continuously worked by wave 

action. The near-surface deposits at Compressor Station 195 consist of soils formed in residuum from 

metamorphic rock with a depth to bedrock greater than 60 inches. The probability of encountering 

significant paleontological resources in either of these areas is low.

Seismic hazards, soil liquefaction, and karst terrain/sinkholes are unlikely to impact the proposed

facilities for the Projects. Although the probability of a hurricane making landfall in Kings and Queens 

Counties, New York is low in any given year (0.2 percent), the probability of these counties experiencing 

hurricane-force winds within a 50-year period is high (86 percent). It is unlikely that the Rockaway 

Delivery Lateral would be affected by a hurricane, particularly at the shoreline crossing where it would be 

installed at a depth of about 100 feet below ground level, but the M&R facility could be impacted by 

winds or flooding associated with a major storm. Hurricanes are not identified as a hazard for 

Compressor Station 195, which is located about 115 miles inland.

To minimize impacts from a hurricane or flooding, Transco would construct the M&R facility in 

compliance with all applicable City of New York building codes, which were updated in 2008 to 

acknowledge that the city is in a “hurricane prone region.” These codes include design requirements to 

ensure the integrity of new construction under extreme weather conditions. Additionally, in response to 

hurricane forecasts, Transco could shut off valves and electrical systems and secure the facility prior to a 

major storm making landfall. 

5.1.2 Soils

The primary soil and sediment disturbances associated with the Projects would occur at the 

onshore workspace for the HDD entry point and tie-in to the National Grid pipeline; along the offshore 

pipeline segment from the HDD exit point to the tie-in with the LNYBL; and at Compressor Station 195. 

Transco would implement the mitigation measures contained in its Plan for the Rockaway Project and the 

FERC Plan for the Northeast Connector Project to minimize onshore impacts on soil resources. 

Transco’s Plan is based on the FERC Plan, which specifies measures for segregating topsoil, controlling

erosion and sedimentation, and restoring disturbed areas following construction. We find Transco’s Plan 

to be acceptable.

Transco developed and would implement the measures in its SPCC Plan and Construction Spill 

Plans to minimize the potential for spills and leaks of hazardous materials to occur during construction. 

These plans identify and describe procedures for preventing and responding to spills and leaks, including 

clean-up of affected soils. We find these plans to be acceptable for addressing spills and leaks that occur 

on land. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-3

No known soil contamination sites were identified within 0.5 mile of the Projects. Based on the 

urban nature of the Rockaway Project area, it is possible that previously unidentified areas of 

contaminated soil could be encountered during construction. If this occurs, Transco would implement its 

Unanticipated Discovery of Contamination Plan, which outlines measures for the proper handling and 

disposal of contaminated media. We find this plan to be acceptable. We also note that the NYCDEP

recommends that Transco develop a Construction Health and Safety Plan for construction activities in 

areas where humans would be exposed to disturbed soils.

5.1.3 Water Resources

Groundwater

The Rockaway Project is located within the Long Island aquifer system, which underlies all of 

Kings and Queens Counties, New York. This system is not currently used in New York City as a public 

source of drinking water, but a number of developments are being implemented as part of the Water for 

the Future Program to supplement the city’s water supply, including reactivating the groundwater supply 

system in southeastern Queens County. The recharge zone for this system, which includes all of Kings 

and Queens Counties, is designated as the Brooklyn Queens SSA. Compressor Station 195 is located 

above the Piedmont and Blue Ridge Crystalline Rock Aquifer, which is not classified as a SSA. 

The closest wells to the Rockaway Project are located approximately 3.0 miles to the northwest. 

These wells, which are associated with New York City’s Groundwater System, would not be affected by 

construction. An active water well providing Compressor Station 195 with potable water is located 

within the station yard. Additionally, one well that provides potable water to an adjacent residence is 

located within 20 feet of the station boundary. Impacts on these wells are not expected because blasting 

would not be required and Transco would implement its SPCC Plan to prevent or cleanup spills or leaks 

of hazardous materials during construction. As noted above, we find Transco’s SPCC Plan to be adequate 

for addressing spills and leaks that occur on land. 

Groundwater may be encountered during installation of the HDD segment of the Rockaway 

Delivery Lateral, but construction is not expected to result in any adverse impacts on groundwater. 

Groundwater resources at Compressor Station 195 are unlikely to be directly affected by construction 

activities because the groundwater occurs at depths greater than the proposed limits of excavation. 

Perched or near surface groundwater, if present, could be affected by soil disturbing activities and/or 

trench dewatering. These impacts would be minimized or avoided through implementation of the FERC 

Plan as well as any applicable state permits for dewatering. 

Groundwater resources in the vicinity of Compressor Station 195 and the onshore construction 

areas associated with the Rockaway Project could be vulnerable to contamination if there is an 

inadvertent surface spill of hazardous materials during construction. Transco would implement the 

measures identified in its SPCC Plan and its Construction Spill Plans to minimize the potential for 

groundwater impacts associated with an inadvertent spill. As indicated above, we find these plans to be 

adequate for addressing spills or leaks that occur on land. In addition, Transco would implement its 

Unanticipated Discovery of Contamination Plan, which outlines measures for the proper handling and 

disposal of contaminated groundwater that may be encountered during the Rockaway Project. We find 

this plan to be acceptable. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-4

Surface Waters

The only surface water that would be affected by the Projects is the Atlantic Ocean. No surface 

waters are present within the proposed workspaces associated with the onshore pipeline, M&R facility, 

pipe storage yard, or Compressor Station 195.

Offshore excavations for the pipeline and anode bed (i.e., post-lay jetting, hand jetting, and 

dredging) would impact ocean waters by disturbing bottom sediment resulting in increased turbidity and 

suspended solids. In general, these effects would be localized and of short duration. Transco used an 

ECOM to evaluate the duration and extent of the anticipated turbidity and suspended solids from offshore 

construction activities. The modeling results indicate that the areas closest to the excavations would be 

subject to the highest levels of sedimentation, with the depth of the redeposited sediments diminishing as 

the distance from the jetting and dredging operations increase. The modeling predicts that the effects of 

post-lay jetting would be greater than hand jetting and dredging, which would occur on a much smaller 

scale. Sediment accumulations up to 18.4 inches near the trench, up to 1.2 inches within 1,500 feet of the 

trench, and up to 0.4 inch within 0.5 mile of the trench would result from the worst-case, fastest post-lay 

jet trenching rate. 

The remainder of the offshore pipeline, including the crossing of the shoreline, would be installed 

by HDD. Dredging activities associated with the HDD exit pit would have similar turbidity and 

sedimentation impacts to those discussed above for jetting. Because the HDD exit hole would be located 

in the ocean, the drilling operation would result in a planned release of drilling fluid into the offshore exit 

pit. The drilling fluids are expected to remain within the HDD exit pit and are not expected to cause a 

significant amount of turbidity. Impacts outside the pit could occur in the event of an inadvertent release 

of drilling fluid. Transco would implement measures outlined in its HDD Monitoring and Contingency 

Plan to minimize the risk of HDD complications and the potential for inadvertent releases of drilling fluid

outside the exit pit. We find this plan to be acceptable.

Transco would hydrostatically test the HDD pipeline segment before and after installation and 

would hydrostatically test the entire pipeline before it is placed in service. Transco would use about 

5,200 gallons of fresh water and 573,500 gallons of seawater for these tests. The fresh water would be 

obtained from municipal sources. The seawater would be sucked into a submersible pump placed about 

20 feet below the ocean surface. The seawater would be filtered by a mesh screen on the intake to 

prevent debris and foreign material from getting into the pipeline. An oxygen scavenger and nonoxidizing biocide would be added to the sea water to prevent corrosion of the pipeline, and a florescent 

dye would be added to help detect potential leaks. Following each test, the water would be pumped into a 

diffuser to re-oxygenate and disperse (dilute) the water as it is discharged to the marine environment. 

Another 82,000 gallons of water would be used to hydrostatically test components installed at the 

M&R facility. This water would be obtained from a local municipal source or trucked to the site from 

another municipality. In Section 4.3.2.3, we are recommending that prior to construction, Transco should 

consult with NYCDEP staff to address agency concerns regarding flow rates for withdrawals of municipal 

water from fire hydrants. Following testing, the test water would be discharged into the existing 

stormwater drainage system that runs under the hangars on NPS property. 

Approximately 46,000 gallons of water would be required for hydrostatic testing of the piping 

modifications at Compressor Station 195. Transco would obtain this water from the onsite potable water 

well and discharge it to an upland area within the station site in accordance with applicable state permits. 

Accidental spills and leaks of hazardous materials associated with barges and other vessels (e.g., 

fuel or oil) could result in a degradation of water quality and/or impacts on wildlife and aquatic resources. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-5

Transco stated in its SPCC Plan that emergency response procedures for offshore spills would be 

identified after a contractor has been selected. We are recommending in Section 4.3.2.3 that prior to 

construction, Transco should update its SPCC Plan for the Rockaway Project to include specific measures 

that would be implemented to identify, control, and clean up any accidental leaks or spills from offshore 

construction vessels. 

Operation of the Rockaway Project periodically would impact water quality in the vicinity of the 

interconnection between the Rockaway Delivery Lateral and the LNYBL. Transco plans to perform 

periodic maintenance activities in accordance with 49 CFR 192 that would include accessing the buried 

subsea manifold approximately once every 7 years to install a removable launcher and conduct an internal 

inspection of the pipeline. The subsea manifold would be exposed using the hand-jetting method, 

displacing approximately 2,000 cubic yards of sediments. This would be approximately 16 percent of the 

sediments displaced during the initial hot-tap installation. The displaced sediments are expected to settle 

in a similar pattern but not extend as far from the area disturbed by construction.

Wetland Resources

The proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral crosses one wetland area that is classified by the 

NYSDEC as a littoral, tidal wetland and by the National Wetland Inventory as a marine, intertidal 

unconsolidated shore. Transco is proposing to cross under this area using the HDD construction method. 

This method would avoid direct impacts on the wetland during construction. The potential impacts on the 

wetland would be from an inadvertent release of drilling fluid during the HDD. Because the drill path 

would be approximately 100 feet below grade when it crosses under the wetland, the likelihood of an 

inadvertent return reaching the surface is low. No wetlands are present at the proposed M&R facility, 

pipe yard, or Compressor Station 195.

5.1.4 Vegetation

Offshore activities associated with construction of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral could impact 

small amounts of turf algae if man-made structures are moved or buried during trenching operations or as 

a result of vessel anchoring. These effects would be minor and short-lived because the sandy sediments 

disturbed by construction would settle quickly, and the sediment accumulations caused by trenching 

would be minor. 

The maintained area at the HDD entry workspace is the primary place where terrestrial vegetation 

would be impacted by construction of the pipeline. Assuming this area is vegetated at the time of 

construction, Transco would temporarily disturb about 0.7 acre of grass. Following construction, the 

workspace would be reseeded using a seed mix approved by the TBTA. 

An additional 0.7 acre of vegetation within the GNRA, mostly on the golf course but also on the 

maritime beach, could potentially be disturbed by foot traffic to install the tracking wires for the HDD. 

Transco plans to coordinate with the NPS and provide a biological monitor during installation of the 

tracking wires to avoid impacts on sensitive species, including plants such as seabeach amaranth and 

seabeach knotweed. Additionally, we added a recommendation in Section 4.7.1.6 that Transco should

consult with the NPS to identify a protocol for coordinated monitoring of the drill path in the GNRA for 

the presence of sensitive species, including plants.

Construction of the M&R facility would remove approximately 1.9 acres of herbaceous 

vegetation growing on, in, and around the broken pavement surrounding the hangar complex at Floyd 

Bennett Field. These areas would be paved over following completion of the M&R facility, though the 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-6

NPS has indicated that some areas around the perimeter of the site may need reseeding based on existing 

conditions.

Construction activities at Compressor Station 195 would disturb 25.2 acres of 

developed/maintained land and would require the removal of approximately 25 to 27 trees within 

hedgerows at the site. Transco would implement the measures in the FERC Plan to minimize impacts on 

vegetation at the site. Following construction, disturbed areas at the site that do not include new 

permanent facilities would be restored and reseeded using an appropriate seed mix. 

5.1.5 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources

The wildlife habitats that would be crossed by or close to the Rockaway Project include offshore 

sandy bottoms and artificial hard-bottom reef structures and onshore maritime beach, scrub/shrub, 

maintained, and artificial surfaces with herbaceous vegetation. The proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

would cross approximately 0.15 mile of onshore and offshore areas that have been identified by the FWS 

as significant land or water habitat complexes. Direct impacts on these complexes would be avoided by 

the HDD. The M&R facility is located in an area that the FWS has identified as a significant land habitat 

complex, but the area that would be affected is developed and mostly paved. Compressor Station 195 is 

located on developed/maintained lands. No significant or sensitive wildlife habitat areas are located 

within this site.

The impact of the Projects on wildlife species and their habitats would vary depending on the life 

history of each species and the habitats present in construction areas. More mobile species would

temporarily be displaced from workspace and surrounding areas to similar nearby habitat during 

construction. Some displaced wildlife would return to the newly disturbed areas and adjacent, 

undisturbed habitats after completion of construction. Less mobile species, such as benthic organisms in 

the offshore construction area, may experience direct mortality or permanent displacement. 

Marine Wildlife

Offshore construction activities with the greatest potential to affect marine wildlife include 

dredging and jetting, vessel anchoring, pile driving, the HDD, accidental spills of construction-related 

fluids (e.g., oil, gasoline, or hydraulic fluids), withdrawal and discharge of hydrostatic test water, and 

construction-related vessel traffic. 

In the vicinity of the construction area, aquatic species could be impacted directly by the 

excavations and anchoring of vessels, or indirectly by the disturbance of sediments, including the

suspension of sediments in the water column and the re-deposition of sediments that fall onto the seabed. 

The effects of sedimentation would be temporary and localized. The areas disturbed by excavation and 

sedimentation would be recolonized by invertebrates. Initial recolonization of benthic invertebrates is 

expected to occur within 1 year after the disturbance, though the establishment of successional 

communities of species resembling pre-trenching populations may take several years. No significant 

long-term impacts on benthic species are expected from the excavation activities. 

The noise associated with the installation of 70 piles to support the HDD installation has the 

potential to affect marine wildlife. Our analysis indicates that noise from pile driving would not exceed 

the injury thresholds for marine mammals and sea turtles at any distance from a pile driving activity. The 

noise would exceed the injury threshold for fish within distances from the pile of 7.1 feet for fish 

weighing 2 grams or more and 13.1 feet for fish weighing less than 2 grams. The analysis suggests that 

sea turtle behavior could be affected by pile driving at a distance from the pile of 13.1 feet, and fish 

behavior could be affected by pile driving at a distance from the pile of 151 feet. The area encompassed 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-7

by the behavior disturbance threshold for marine mammals is more expansive and would extend up to 

2.86 miles from pile driving activities.

Transco anticipates that approximately 12,000 to 15,000 cubic yards of drilling fluid and cuttings 

would be released at the offshore HDD exit location. This material would collect within the pit excavated 

at the exit site. To minimize the potential for toxic impacts on marine wildlife, Transco proposes to use a 

water-based drilling fluid with non-toxic additives as opposed to oil-based or synthetic-based mud 

systems. The combined initial concentrations of bentonite and other additives would likely be below 10

percent of the total volume of the drilling fluid. A discussion of the ecotoxicity of the drilling fluid is 

provided in Section 5.1.6 below.

Inadvertent releases of drilling fluid outside of the HDD exit pit are possible but not expected. 

Transco would monitor the HDD operation for inadvertent releases by checking the pressure and volume 

of drilling fluid returns. Transco has not identified any formal monitoring procedures for the area 

between the shore and the exit pit but stated that inspection personnel on construction vessels would

visually inspect the area at least twice daily. Corrective measures would be identified by Transco and its 

drilling contractor based on site-specific conditions at the time of the release. Transco would stop the 

drilling activity if the volume of inadvertent drilling fluid returns creates a threat to public health and 

safety or if an inspection/evaluation is needed to determine if mitigation measures, including the use of 

additional additives, are necessary to maintain the integrity of the drill hole. Transco has prepared an

HDD Monitoring and Contingency Plan that describes the measures that would be implemented to 

prevent, identify, and clean-up inadvertent releases of drilling mud. We find this plan to be acceptable. 

During the process of withdrawing water from the marine environment for hydrostatic testing, 

organisms that can physically fit through the mesh on the intake screen could become entrained in the 

pipeline, and larger organisms could be impinged on the screen. Entrained and impinged organisms 

would perish. Marine organisms also could be harmed if exposed to high concentrations of the oxygen 

scavenger and biocide that would be added to the test water to prevent corrosion, but neither of these 

effects is expected to be significant. Transco would use a diffuser during discharge to re-oxygenate the 

water and disperse (dilute) the concentrations of the scavenger and biocide at a rate of 15:1 as they are 

released to the marine environment. Additionally, the discharges would be subject to any requirements 

identified in applicable permits, such as the NYSDEC's hydrostatic test water permit, including any 

requirements associated with discharge of the scavenger, biocide, and dye.

Offshore construction vessels would be expected to comply with USCG requirements for the 

prevention and control of oil and fuel spills and would be required to register for the EPA NPDES Vessel 

General Permit, which includes measures to protect against impacts associated with discharges incidental 

to the operations of commercial vessels. As indicated above, we are recommending in Section 4.3.2.3 

that Transco update its SPCC Plan for the Rockaway Project to include specific measures that would be 

implemented to identify, control, and clean up any accidental leaks or spills from offshore vessels. 

Transco would also adhere to the USCG marine trash policy. These measures collectively would protect 

marine life from the potential for and impacts of trash, debris, and hazardous spills.

Potential impacts associated with vessel activities would include the possibility of vessels striking 

fish, turtles, or marine mammals, and noise associated with the operation of the vessels. In general, the 

potential for vessel strikes is low due to the limited offshore traffic and the depth of water in the offshore 

construction area. Underwater noise associated with vessels is expected to be similar to noise generated 

by existing heavy vessel traffic in the New York Bight. As such, we do not expect that the small number 

of vessels associated with the Rockaway Project would have any significant effect on the existing 

underwater noise environment in the vicinity of the pipeline.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-8

Transco would not actively maintain the seafloor in the offshore right-of-way. During operation, 

Transco would need to access the subsea manifold approximately once every 7 years to install a 

temporary launcher and conduct an internal inspection of the pipeline. The impacts associated with 

maintenance activities would be similar to construction impacts, but on a much smaller scale. The 

maintenance activities would result in minor, temporary impacts on the benthic habitat at and around the 

subsea manifold. No significant adverse effects on benthic habitat are expected from pipeline operation 

or maintenance activities.

Marine Mammals

Although there is no specific marine mammal foraging habitat in the vicinity of the Rockaway 

Delivery Lateral, there is the potential for six marine mammal species (gray seal, harbor seal, harp seal, 

short-beaked common dolphin, harbor porpoise, and right whale) to occur in the area during construction. 

Our analysis regarding effects on marine wildlife as discussed above would also apply to marine 

mammals and their prey. The activity with the greatest potential effect on marine mammals would be the 

pile driving, which could generate noise that may not be masked by existing background vessels or 

ambient noise. It would take about 60 seconds of continuous driving to install (and remove) each 

individual pile, and Transco estimates that all piles would be installed (and removed) over a period of 

approximately 1 week. 

Transco is consulting with NOAA Fisheries and recently submitted an application for an IHA for 

Level B harassment of the six marine mammal species with the greatest potential to occur in the offshore 

construction area. As part of its request, Transco proposed several mitigation/monitoring procedures to 

minimize impacts on marine mammals resulting from pile driving. These include use of soft-start 

procedures for the vibratory hammer, monitoring the area within 3.0 miles of pile driving for behavioral 

impacts on marine mammals, and shutdown procedures if abnormal behaviors are observed in a marine 

mammal in the monitoring area. We have reviewed Transco’s proposed mitigation measures, but we 

have not completed our consultations with NOAA Fisheries regarding impacts on marine mammals. 

Therefore, we are recommending in Section 4.5.2.2 that Transco should not begin offshore construction 

activities until FERC staff receives comments from NOAA Fisheries, and NOAA Fisheries has issued an 

IHA to Transco. 

Terrestrial Wildlife

Transco proposes to utilize the HDD construction method for a majority of the onshore portion of 

the pipeline. As a result, no temporary or long-term impacts on federally and state-designated significant 

habitats are anticipated. The HDD would cross under Rockaway Beach and Jacob Riis Park and would 

not impact the ground surface within the GNRA, except by foot traffic to lay tracking wires and monitor 

the drill path drilling HDD operations. The tracking wires and foot traffic are not expected to affect 

terrestrial wildlife or their habitats. Additionally, as indicated above, we are recommending in Section 

4.7.1.6 that prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Transco consult with the NPS to identify a 

protocol for coordinated monitoring of the drill path for the presence of sensitive species.

The sole onshore area that would be impacted by pipeline construction is the HDD entry 

workspace and tie-in to the National Grid pipeline north of Jacob Riis Park. The HDD operations at this 

site would disturb less than an acre of grass in an area that is routinely mowed by the TBTA. This area 

provides marginal habitat for wildlife and would be restored after construction in accordance with 

Transco’s Plan. As noted above, we find Transco’s Plan to be acceptable. During operation, Transco 

would not actively maintain the onshore right-of-way, and the land within the GNRA would continue to 

be managed for existing uses by the NPS.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-9

The M&R facility would be constructed within an existing airplane hangar complex at Floyd 

Bennett Field and would utilize temporary workspace in adjacent paved areas. These areas provide 

marginal habitat for terrestrial wildlife species. Construction activities at the M&R facility (e.g., noise) 

would likely have a minor and temporary effect on nearby wildlife species. Because the proposed 

facilities would be located within the hangar complex, post-construction operation and maintenance 

activities are not expected to have any significant impacts on surrounding wildlife.

Activities at Compressor Station 195 would occur within the existing station yard, which provides 

marginal habitat for wildlife. Therefore, construction, operation, and maintenance activities associated 

with the Northeast Connector Project would have a minor and temporary effect on wildlife species at this 

site. 

Migratory Birds

Potential impacts on migratory birds would be minimized by Transco’s route, site, and workspace 

selections for the Projects, which avoid wooded, scrub/shrub, or natural grass habitats. While waterbirds 

use the shorelines of the Rockaway Peninsula for foraging and cover, Transco’s use of the HDD method 

to install the Rockaway Delivery Lateral under the beach would avoid or minimize impacts on birds in 

this area. We believe these measures would minimize the effects of the Projects on migratory birds.

5.1.6 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

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

EFH for 21 species, diadramous and marine fisheries, and a number of fish and shellfish species with 

ecological, commercial, or recreational importance. Our analysis regarding the effects of pipeline 

construction on marine wildlife as discussed above would also apply to EFH and fisheries resources. 

These include impacts associated with vessel anchoring, pile driving, the HDD, accidental leaks or spills 

of hazardous materials, withdrawal and discharge of hydrostatic test water, and construction vessel traffic. 

Construction of the offshore pipeline would directly disturb approximately 38.0 acres of seabed 

due to dredging and jetting. Benthic species in these areas most likely would perish. Dredging and 

jetting additionally 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 sediment-generating activities, but most juvenile and 

adult pelagic fish would likely swim away from the plumes. Turbidity and suspended sediment 

concentrations could impact bivalves (e.g., surfclams) and other benthic organisms by causing 

suffocation. It is estimated that up to 402 acres of seabed could be affected by sedimentation. 

Transco’s ECOM indicates that the duration of the turbidity plumes would be short-lived (e.g., no 

more than 4.5 hours following jet sled trenching) with the depth of sedimentation decreasing with further 

distance from the trench. Based on historical data and a study conducted by Transco and reviewed by 

FERC staff, sediments along the pipeline route do not contain contaminants that exceed NYSDEC TOGS 

thresholds (with the exception of one near-surface sample), so impacts associated with suspension and redeposition of contaminated sediments are not expected. 

Transco would mitigate for any short-term loss of surfclams due to sedimentation by coordinating 

with the New York surfclam fishing community to see if it is possible to harvest in the vicinity of the 

proposed pipeline in the months immediately prior to construction. Transco additionally would conduct 

monitoring during construction and would adjust activities (e.g., reducing the speed of the jet sled) to 

reduce excessive turbidity. These measures would decrease the detrimental effects of turbidity and 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-10

sedimentation. As a result, it is expected that the benthos in the affected areas would recover quickly 

through recruitment and other processes. 

As indicated above, Transco proposes to excavate a pit at the offshore HDD exit site to collect 

and contain anticipated releases of drilling fluid and cuttings during the HDD operation. Based on the 

cohesive properties of the bentonite mixture in seawater, the drilling fluid is expected to settle out and 

remain stable at the bottom of the pit. According to Transco, the drilling fluid would consist of a waterbased mud containing bentonite and associated additives that are not expected to create acutely toxic

conditions for benthic fauna, but Transco has not identified the specific additives that would be used. 

Therefore, we are recommending in Section 4.6.3.2 that prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, 

Transco should file an assessment identifying the specific additives that would be used in the HDD 

drilling fluid, the material safety data sheets for each additive, the concentration and dilution rates for 

each additive, an evaluation of the toxicity of each additive, and an evaluation of the potential for 

bioaccumulation of each additive in the food chain.

As noted above, Transco would configure the discharge nozzles on the jet sled to expel sediment 

behind the sled and into the trench to provide for immediate backfill as the pipeline is lowered beneath the 

seabed. Following installation of the pipeline, Transco would conduct a bathymetric survey to document 

seafloor elevations along the pipe trench as well as other offshore excavation areas. If the survey 

identifies any areas where the seafloor has not been restored and/or where 4 feet of cover is not present 

over the pipeline, Transco would backfill these areas using sediments obtained from the seafloor with a 

suction dredge. Transco additionally would add a top layer of native and/or compatible sediments over 

the drilling fluid and cuttings that collect within the offshore HDD exit pit. As a result, there would be no 

permanent impact on the contours of the seafloor as a result of pipeline construction.

Transco’s sediment modeling analysis did not address turbidity and sedimentation impacts due to 

operation of the suction dredge during backfilling nor did it account for configuring the discharge nozzles

on the jet sled to discharge sediment back to the trench. Therefore, we are recommending in Section 

4.6.3.2 that prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Transco should file a revised sediment 

modeling analysis to estimate water quality impacts associated with operation of the suction dredge and to 

account for the effect of redirecting the discharge nozzles to expel sediment back into the trench. 

5.1.7 Special Status Species

Special status species are those for which federal or state agencies afford an additional level of 

protection by law, regulation, or policy. Included in this category are federally listed species classified 

as threatened or endangered; species considered as candidates or petitioned for federal listing by the 

FWS or NOAA Fisheries; and species that are designated as state-listed or receive special management 

considerations. Impacts on special status species would be similar to those described above for 

terrestrial and marine wildlife.

For the Rockaway Project, we consulted (either directly or indirectly through Transco) with the 

FWS, NOAA Fisheries, and state resource agencies regarding the presence of federally listed or proposed 

species in the construction areas. Based on these consultations and our own analyses, we have 

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

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

We are requesting that the FWS and NOAA Fisheries consider this draft EIS as the BA for the Rockaway 

Project. Consequently, we are recommending in Section 4.7.4 that Transco not begin construction 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-11

activities for the Rockaway Project until we complete our consultations with the FWS and NOAA 

Fisheries.

For the Northeast Connector Project, federally listed threatened and endangered species that may 

occur in the vicinity of Compressor Stations 195, 205, and 207 include the Indiana bat, bog turtle, and 

swamp pink. Activities at Compressor Stations 205 and 207 and activities within the existing fenceline at 

Compressor Station 195 are covered by agreements between Transco and the FWS, which exempt 

modifications of existing Transco facilities from further review for impacts on federally listed species. In 

correspondence with Transco, the FWS-PFO concluded that the proposed construction activities outside 

the existing fenceline at Compressor Station 195 would not adversely affect the bog turtle. Based on 

these agreements and correspondence, we have determined that the Northeast Connector Project may 

affect, but would not likely adversely affect Indiana bat, and would have no effect on bog turtle and swamp 

pink. No further consultation for these determinations is required. 

In addition to the federally listed species, a number of state-listed species could occur in the 

vicinity of the Project areas in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Given the nature of these

species and the measures that would be implemented by Transco, we believe that impacts on state-listed

species would be adequately avoided or minimized. 

We received a comment from the NPS that staff from the Natural Resource Management Division 

at the GNRA should accompany Transco during pedestrian monitoring of the drill path between the 

months of March and September to ensure that impacts on piping plovers or any other sensitive species 

(such as seabeach amaranth and seabeach knotweed) are avoided. Therefore, we are recommending in 

Section 4.7.1.6 that prior to construction, Transco should consult with the NPS to identify a protocol for 

coordinated monitoring of the drill path.

5.1.8 Land Use and Visual Resources

Construction of the Rockaway Project would impact approximately 20.1 acres of land and 

1,546.9 acres of marine areas. Following construction, lands within the pipeline right-of-way, facility 

workspace, pipe yard, and temporary access roads would be allowed to revert to their pre-construction 

land uses and cover types. Operation of the Rockaway Project facilities would permanently encumber 

71.5 acres, including approximately 69.5 acres for the new permanent rights-of-way for the pipeline and 

cathodic protection system and 2.0 acres for the M&R facility. 

Construction activities at Compressor Station 195 would affect 25.2 acres of 

developed/maintained land within the existing station site. Following construction, disturbed areas that 

do not include new permanent facilities would be restored to pre-construction land uses and cover types. 

The entire area within Compressor Station 195 would continue to be used for natural gas transmission 

service during the operation phase of the Northeast Connector Project.

There are no residences within 50 feet of the proposed construction areas for the Rockaway 

Project; the nearest residential community is approximately 0.3 mile to the west. In addition, other than 

rehabilitation and reuse of Hangars 1 and 2 for the M&R facility, no buildings would be affected by the 

Rockaway Project. 

Construction activities at Compressor Station 195 would be confined to the existing station yard. 

There are no residences within 50 feet of the proposed construction workspace, but there are several 

homes in the vicinity of the Compressor Station 195 that would experience an increase in noise during 

construction. Transco’s proposal to replace three gas-fired compressors with two new electric motor 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-12

drives would result in a slight reduction in ambient noise conditions in the vicinity of Compressor Station 

195 during operations.

The Rockaway Project is subject to a federal Coastal Zone Consistency Review. Transco 

consulted with the NYSDOS for review of the Rockaway Project under New York State CMP and LWRP 

policies. Transco determined that the Rockaway Project would not have a significant adverse impact on 

coastal resources and would be consistent with the applicable policies of the LWRP. The NYSDOS is 

expected to complete its review of Transco’s consistency assessment in December of 2013. Therefore, 

we are recommending in Section 4.8.3 that prior to construction, Transco should file the NYSDOS 

determination of the Rockaway Project’s consistency with the New York State CMP under the applicable 

provisions of the CZMA.

Approximately 81.5 percent of the proposed pipeline would be located offshore on submerged 

lands owned by New York State. The remainder of the pipeline would be constructed beneath federal 

lands, both onshore and offshore, administered by the NPS (17.9 percent) and on land owned by the 

TBTA (0.6 percent). The M&R facility would be constructed on NPS lands at Floyd Bennett Field. In 

addition, Transco is proposing to lease a privately owned 5.0-acre commercial site in Elizabeth, New 

Jersey for a pipe yard. 

The NPS lands that would be affected by the Rockaway Project are associated with the GNRA. 

The proposed pipeline would cross 0.57 mile of land and offshore areas within GNRA boundaries. Of 

this, 0.32 mile would be located within Jacob Riis Park. Impacts on the park would be minimized by 

Transco’s use of the HDD construction method. No construction activities would occur in the park 

except for foot traffic to place and monitor the HDD tracking wires. It is possible that use of the golf 

course at the park could decline for a temporary, short-term period during the spring of 2014 as a result of 

construction noise, but Transco would erect tents and/or screens around the HDD machinery to help 

mitigate this effect. 

Transco has proposed a permanent 50-foot-wide right-of-way over the pipeline across Jacob Riis 

Park, Rockaway Beach, and the offshore area under the GNRA. During operations, Transco would 

periodically walk and inspect the onshore right-of-way and conduct leak detection surveys once a year, 

but no alterations would be made to the land cover during these inspections. Additionally, there would be 

no restrictions on existing uses of the park along the right-of-way. Therefore, the Rockaway Project 

would have no impact on current land uses or cover types within Jacob Riis Park. 

Within Floyd Bennett Field, the M&R facility would be constructed within a 1.1-acre historic 

hangar complex following rehabilitation of the structures. The complex most recently was used as a 

storage area for supplies and equipment and by emergency response teams after Hurricane Sandy, but the 

hangars are in disrepair. Access to the hangar complex has been restricted by the NPS due to safety 

concerns, so construction activities would not impact any current uses of the structures. Operation of the 

M&R facility would require the use of approximately 2.0 acres of land, including the lease of the hangar 

complex and the establishment of two permanent right-of-way easements for the inlet and outlet piping 

that would connect the facility to the National Grid pipelines along Flatbush Avenue. GNRA traffic 

would not be impacted by operation of the M&R facility. 

There are a number of managed honey bee colonies on Floyd Bennett Field. Members of the 

public have expressed concern that the noise and vibrations caused by operation of the M&R facility 

could disturb these colonies. Transco conducted a study to assess the potential effects of vibration during 

operations at the M&R facility. The analysis indicates that operation of the proposed M&R facility would 

have no effect on the honey bee colonies, which are located about 270 feet to the east of the hangar 

complex.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-13

No significant or long-term impacts on surfclam harvests or fish populations available for 

commercial harvest or recreational catch are expected. Transco would advertise its plans and schedule to 

allow commercial fishermen to remove any fixed fishing gear from the construction area before 

construction begins. In addition, as noted above, Transco would work with the local fishing community 

to coordinate a surfclam harvest in the offshore work area in the months prior to construction. Vessels 

not associated with the Rockaway Project would be advised to avoid the offshore workspace during 

construction, but there would be no permanent or long-term restrictions on fishing in this area. 

The Rockaway Project is expected to have little, if any, impact on commercial shipping. In 

addition, recreational boat traffic in the vicinity of the offshore pipeline during construction is expected to 

be minor because there are no public or private marinas, protected coves, inlets, or harbors within or near 

the proposed pipeline landfall. 

The offshore pipeline would cross one active and two inactive cables. Transco developed a 

preliminary installation plan for these crossings. We are recommending in Section 4.8.4.3 that prior to 

the end of the draft EIS comment period, Transco should file an updated plan showing the finalized 

pipeline crossings.

Construction of the Rockaway Project would impact the visual character of the Rockaway 

Peninsula during the estimated 4 months it would take to build the offshore pipeline and complete the 

HDD operation. The barges and support vessels used in trenching and pipe lay operations would be 

visible from the shore for a majority of this time, but the visual impact would be mitigated by the distance 

of the vessels from the beach, which would range from 3,000 feet to more than 2.5 miles. Offshore 

construction vessels would be visible from residential neighborhoods, but the HDD exit point is located 

more than a mile from the closest residences and, at this distance, the vessels would appear small. The 

onshore construction activities at the HDD entry site would be visible from residential neighborhoods, 

some roadways, and from Jacob Riis Park and Fort Tilden. Transco would minimize the visual impact of 

these activities by erecting a tent and/or screens to shield the HDD equipment from view. There would be 

no significant long term visual impacts during operation of the pipeline. 

The USACE has advised Transco that it would require a sign no smaller than 4-feet by 4-feet 

containing language regarding the location of the pipeline at the shoreline crossing as a condition to any 

permit it may issue for the Rockaway Project. Transco would work with the USACE and NPS to confirm 

the requirements for the sign and select a design, size, and location that is acceptable to both agencies. 

The hangar complex at Floyd Bennett Field that would house the M&R facility is currently in 

disrepair and has experienced significant structural damage. As part of the Rockaway Project, the

hangars would be rehabilitated to accommodate the M&R facility. Transco is proposing a rehabilitated 

exterior appearance that would restore the hangars’ appearance and enhance the visual character of the 

Floyd Bennett Field Historic District in accordance with a design that would be approved by the NPS, 

FERC, and New York SHPO. As such, no significant adverse impacts on visual resources are anticipated 

due to construction or operation of the M&R facility. 

5.1.9 Socioeconomics

Construction of the Projects would not have a significant impact on local populations, 

employment, housing, or the provision of community services. The primary demand on local services 

would be in the event of an emergency such as a gas leak or fire. Transco has existing emergency 

response procedures in place that comply with the DOT’s regulations in Title 49 CFR Part 192. Transco 

would meet regularly with local emergency response officials to share emergency response plans, pipeline 

location information, and background information on natural gas pipeline operations. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-14

Construction activities associated with the Projects, particularly the Rockaway Project, could 

result in short-term impacts on transportation infrastructure, primarily due to increased traffic flows

associated with movement of construction vehicles, personnel, and equipment, and from potential damage 

to local roadways due to traffic by heavy construction equipment. Traffic on the Rockaway Peninsula or 

in Brooklyn could be temporarily interrupted when necessary for construction equipment and materials to 

cross roadways, but these interruptions would likely last 5 to 10 minutes and would be managed in 

accordance with applicable NYSDOT and local New York City requirements. Transco would acquire 

permits for loads exceeding 80,000 pounds, as necessary, and would adhere to applicable New York City 

and New York State regulations regarding traffic, weight, and truck restrictions. Any road surfaces that 

are damaged would be repaired to pre-existing or better condition. As such, we do not expect 

construction of the Rockaway Project to have a major impact on road traffic or use. Transportation 

impacts associated with the Northeast Connector Project would be minor.

The nearshore waters of the New York Bight produce significant quantities of commercially and 

recreationally important fish and shellfish. Offshore construction activities for the Rockaway Project 

could temporarily impact commercial and recreational fishing in the New York Bight. Most of the impact 

would be short term and associated with temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation. As indicated 

above, Transco intends to coordinate with commercial and recreational fisherman prior to construction. 

Following construction, all recreational and commercial fishing areas would be restored with no 

restrictions. Therefore, operation of the pipeline would not have any permanent economic impact on the 

fisheries in the area.

There is no evidence that the proposed Projects would result in disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects to minority or low-income communities.

5.1.10 Cultural Resources

For the Rockaway Project, Transco conducted a marine archaeological assessment for the 

offshore segment of the pipeline, terrestrial archaeological assessments for the onshore segment of the 

pipeline and M&R facility, and a historic structures assessment for the hangar complex at Floyd Bennett 

Field. No surveys or assessments were conducted at Compressor Station 195. Construction activities 

occurring within the fence line at this site are covered by an agreement between Transco and the 

Pennsylvania SHPO, which exempts modifications of existing Transco facilities from further review for 

impacts on historic properties. Construction activities that would occur outside of the fence line would be 

limited to previously disturbed areas within the station yard, but they are not covered by Transco’s 

agreement. Transco is consulting with the Pennsylvania SHPO to determine if surveys are necessary 

outside the fenceline at Compressor Station 195. 

Transco’s marine archaeological assessment of the offshore construction areas for the pipeline

identified a paleochannel that may indicate the presence of intact sediments or landforms with the 

potential to contain significant buried cultural resource sites. The paleochannel is located 6 to 18 feet 

below the seafloor in an area where no trenching would occur; therefore, the channel would not be 

affected by construction of the pipeline. The surveys additionally identified two magnetic anomaly 

clusters and associated sonar targets identified as potential cultural resource sites, possibly shipwrecks. 

Avoidance of these anomalies plus 164-foot buffer zones was recommended. No other cultural resource 

sites were identified in the offshore construction areas. The New York SHPO reviewed and concurred 

with the results and recommendations of Transco’s marine archaeological surveys. We also concur.

Transco filed a plan for avoiding the magnetic anomaly clusters and buffer zones during 

construction. These areas would be marked with buoys and identified on navigation charts used by 

construction vessels. The vessels would avoid anchoring in these areas. Additionally, onboard Transco 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-15

representatives would monitor vessel movements to ensure that vessels, anchors, and anchoring cables do 

not cross the avoidance areas for each magnetic anomaly cluster. To date, we have not received 

comments from the New York SHPO on Transco’s avoidance plan.

The route for the offshore pipeline segment crosses two inactive subsea cables that are greater 

than 50 years in age. We determined, in consultation with the New York SHPO, that these cables are not 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

Transco’s terrestrial archaeological assessment for the proposed M&R facility found that Hangars 

1 and 2 are located in an area of Floyd Bennett Field with a low sensitivity for containing sites. The NPS 

nonetheless requested that an archaeologist monitor the excavation of test holes and trenches by Transco 

in and around the hangars to identify subsurface utilities within the complex. Excavation of the test holes 

and trenches was completed in April 2013, and a monitoring report was submitted to the NPS for review. 

The monitoring report will be filed with the Commission and submitted to the New York SHPO after 

Transco receives and addresses comments from the NPS.

Transco’s terrestrial archaeological assessment for the onshore pipeline concluded that the 

workspace for the HDD entry site and tie-in to the National Grid pipeline is located in an area with a high 

sensitivity for containing sites. Additional testing of this area is necessary to determine if construction 

activities in the workspace would affect archaeological sites. The testing is scheduled to be completed in 

2013, after which Transco will file a report of investigations for review by the FERC, NPS, and New 

York SHPO.

The proposed M&R facility would be constructed within a hangar complex (Hangars 1 and 2) on 

Floyd Bennett Field, which is listed as a district in the NRHP and in the SRHP. Hangars 1 and 2 are 

considered contributing elements to the significance of the district. Transco prepared a HSR for Hangars 

1 and 2 to serve as a planning tool for the proposed rehabilitation and conversion of the complex. 

Transco prepared initial schematic drawings for the rehabilitation, which have been reviewed by the NPS 

and New York SHPO. Transco filed a Schematic Design Submittal and comments from the New York 

SHPO on the Submittal in July 2013. The New York 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 CFR 68). Transco expects to submit full design and construction documents for the M&R 

facility to the FERC, NPS, and New York SHPO in 2013. Transco would prepare HABS documentation 

of the structure after the final HSR and the full design and construction documents are accepted by the 

agencies and the Section 106 review process is complete.

Transco conducted a study to assess the potential effects of construction and operational vibration 

on the integrity of the hangar complex. The study found that vibrations resulting from individual pieces 

of construction equipment would not likely damage the structures, but simultaneous operation of multiple 

pieces of equipment or equipment operating close to walls could potentially cause damage. The study 

recommended that the engineering design identify vibration level thresholds for the structure, and that 

Transco prepare and implement a CPP to protect the integrity of the complex during construction. 

Therefore, we are recommending in Section 4.11.3 that prior to construction, Transco should file a 

vibration level threshold and CPP for review and approval by the Director of OEP. Transco’s study 

found that vibrations resulting from the operation of the M&R facility would not affect the integrity of the 

complex provided a 1-inch buffer between the piping and buildings is maintained.

Transco’s proposed workspace on Floyd Bennett Field would abut Hangars 3 and 4, which are 

located about 140 feet to the northwest of Hangars 1 and 2. These structures, also historic buildings, 

could potentially be affected by vibrations associated with the operation of construction equipment in the 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-16

workspace. Therefore, Hangars 3 and 4 would be included in Transco’s CPP to ensure they are protected 

from vibrations during construction.

A Determination of Effect for reuse and rehabilitation of Hangars 1 and 2 for the Rockaway 

Project will be completed after the final design and construction documents and the CPP are reviewed and 

approved by the FERC, NPS, and New York SHPO. The Determination of Effect will include an 

assessment of the proposed design relative to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment 

of Historic Properties (36 CFR 68), and in particular, the Standards for Rehabilitation. 

Transco indicated in an August 2013 filing that the CPP would be developed as part of the 

construction bid process and contractor selection for rehabilitation and meter station construction at the 

hangars. Thus, the CPP would not be filed for review and approval until and unless the Commission 

authorizes the Rockaway Project. We will not be able to make a Determination of Effect until all 

necessary reports and studies have been filed and consultation is complete. In that case, the Commission 

would negotiate a Programmatic Agreement with the ACHP in accordance with the regulations at 36 CFR

1800.14(b)(1)(ii). 

Transco prepared an Unanticipated Discovery Plan for the Rockaway Project to provide

guidelines in the event that cultural resources or human remains are discovered during the course of 

construction. The FERC provided a copy of this plan to the NPS for review. Transco additionally 

prepared Unanticipated Discovery Plans for the Northeast Connector Project for construction activities in 

New Jersey (Compressor Stations 205 and 207) and Pennsylvania (Compressor Station 195). We find 

these plans to be acceptable.

Between December 2011 and April 2013, Transco and/or the Commission requested comments 

on the Projects from four federally recognized tribes. In a reply letter to the FERC dated March 4, 2013, 

the Delaware Nation expressed an interest in the Rockaway Project and requested copies of the cultural 

resources survey reports prepared by Transco. On March 8, 2013, Transco sent copies of the reports to 

the Delaware Nation. To date, none of the other tribes have commented on or expressed an interest in the 

Rockaway Project, and none of these tribes have commented on the Northeast Connector Project.

To ensure that our responsibilities under Section 106 of the NHPA are met, we are recommending 

in Section 4.10.4 that Transco not begin construction until all outstanding survey and evaluation reports, 

design and construction drawings for Hangars 1 and 2, the CPP, and any necessary treatment plans, have 

been reviewed by the appropriate parties, and we provide written notification to proceed.

5.1.11 Air Quality and Noise

Air Quality

The use of onshore diesel- and gas-powered equipment during construction of the Projects would 

result in emissions of some pollutants. These emissions would be temporary and would not result in a 

significant impact on regional air quality. Construction activities would produce fugitive dust due to land 

clearing and ground excavations, but the fugitive dust would cease when construction is completed. 

The majority of new emissions associated with the Projects would result from the operation of 

four natural gas-fired heating units and an emergency generator at the proposed M&R facility. While no 

new compressor facilities would be required, modifications/upgrades would be made at Compressor 

Stations 195, 205, and 207. At Compressor Station 195, Transco proposes to replace three existing gasfired reciprocating engines with two new electric motor drives, which would result in a decrease in 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-17

operating emissions at this site. The uprates at Compressor Stations 205 and 207 would not result in an 

increase in operating emissions at these sites.

Emissions produced as a result of operation and maintenance of the Projects are unlikely to 

contribute to or cause a violation of any AAQS or result in a significant impact on regional air quality. 

Additionally, operational emissions are governed by SIP-approved programs both in New York and 

Pennsylvania; thus, a determination has already been made that the permitting programs when applied to 

stationary sources would not contribute to a violation of NAAQS or delay the attainment or maintenance 

of standards.

Noise

The noise level at the shoreline due to offshore pipeline construction is estimated to be 51 dBA, 

which would be less than the typical ambient noise level in the vicinity of the shore. Noise from offshore 

construction activities may have an effect on aquatic organisms as discussed above, but is unlikely to be 

noticeable from the shore.

Noise would be generated by equipment operating at the HDD entry site on the Rockaway 

Peninsula. Without noise mitigation measures, construction activities at this site would produce a 

significant increase in noise over ambient levels. Transco identified a number of measures that could be 

implemented to reduce noise, but final mitigation measures have not been selected. Therefore, we are 

recommending in Section 4.11.2.3, that prior to construction, Transco should file a noise mitigation plan 

for construction activities at the HDD entry site for review and approval by the Director of OEP. 

Additionally, Transco would obtain an after-hours work authorization from New York City for drilling 

operations.

The estimated increase in noise due to construction activities at four of the five nearest NSAs to 

the M&R facility would be 2.1 dBA, which is unlikely to be detectable to the human ear. The estimated 

increase in noise at the Floyd Bennett Gateway Park Community Garden (NSA no. 3) would be 14 dBA 

and would be noticeable. This noise level would occur during peak construction periods and would be 

lower the rest of the time. 

Transco’s noise analysis indicates that the noise level at each NSA due to construction activities 

at Compressor Station 195 would be equal to or less than 55 dBA. The planned modifications at 

Compressor Stations 205 and 207 would not result in any construction-related noise at these sites.

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

because no new natural gas compressor stations would be required for the pipeline. Noise attributable to 

operation of the M&R facility should be significantly lower than a Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby NSA, and

the change in the noise level would likely be undetectable to the human ear. 

Existing ambient noise levels at NSAs in the vicinity of Compressor Station 195 are expected to 

decrease as a result of the proposed modifications at the site, which include a number of mitigation 

measures to reduce noise. Based on information filed by Transco under Docket No. CP12-463-000, 

current noise levels at Compressor Station 205 due to station operations currently exceed the FERC sound 

requirement of 55 dBA at a nearby NSA, but Transco has committed to implementing additional 

mitigation measures to reduce the noise level at the station. For the Northeast Connector Project, noise 

levels at nearby NSAs would increase slightly as a result of the proposed uprate of the existing electric 

motor drives at Compressor Station 205. Our analysis indicates that the sound level attributable to 

operations at Compressor Station 207 following the uprates would be less than the FERC sound 

requirement of 55 dBA at nearby NSAs. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-18

To ensure that noise due to operations is consistent with existing ambient conditions and/or does 

not exceed our standards at Compressor Stations 195, 205, and 207, we are recommending in Section 

4.11.2.3 that Transco provide noise surveys for each site to document noise levels at full load conditions. 

If the noise levels due to full load operations at the stations exceed these levels, Transco would be 

required to identify and implement additional mitigation measures to meet the appropriate standard.

As discussed above, Transco assessed the potential of vibration from construction activities to 

cause damage to the hangar complex on Floyd Bennett Field. Based on the results of the study, we are 

recommending in Section 4.11.3 that prior to construction, Transco identify and file a vibration level 

threshold and CPP for the hangars for review and approval by the Director of OEP.

Operation of the proposed M&R facility would result in vibration levels below the human limit of 

perception and would not be felt by other users of Floyd Bennett Field. Vibrations on the pipeline during 

operations would not affect the integrity of the hangar provided that a minimum buffer of 1 inch is 

maintained between the inlet and outlet pipes and the hangars where the pipes enter and exit the 

structures. Vibration levels at Compressor Station 195 would decrease as a result of the proposed 

modifications at the site. No change in vibration levels are expected as a result of the proposed upgrades 

at Compressor Stations 205 and 207.

5.1.12 Reliability and Safety

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

constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with or to exceed the DOT Minimum Federal Safety 

Standards in 49 CFR Part 192. The DOT regulations require that the pipeline be designed, at a minimum, 

to the appropriate Class location standard and that the spacing between mainline valves meets DOT 

requirements. Transco proposed a more robust design for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral than is required 

by the regulations, committing to design the entire pipeline to Class 4 standards. Additionally, with the 

exception of the HDD segment of the pipeline, which would be deeper, Transco would bury the offshore 

pipeline at a depth of 4 feet below grade. Onshore, from the HDD entry point to the tie-in with National 

Grid, Transco would bury the pipeline at a depth of 3 feet below grade, would cover the pipeline with a 

concrete slab, and would backfill the remainder of the trench. Transco additionally would monitor

pipeline pressures 24 hours per day. 

Transco has developed a comprehensive Integrity Management Plan for their existing facilities 

that meets all applicable regulations. Transco would modify the existing Integrity Management Plan, as 

necessary, to incorporate the proposed facilities for the Projects. Transco also has a Pipeline Safety 

Monitoring Program in place that would ensure that the Rockaway Delivery Lateral is properly 

constructed. Transco is in full compliance with all existing regulations and guidelines from the DHS’s

TSA. 

Transco’s implementation of the above measures would help to protect public safety and the 

integrity of the proposed facilities such that the Projects would represent a slight increase in risk to the 

nearby public.

5.1.13 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative impacts represent the incremental effects of a proposed action when added to other 

past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. Actions that potentially could impact resources 

also affected by the Projects include non-jurisdictional facilities, other energy projects, dredging and 

beach nourishment projects, post-Hurricane Sandy recovery projects, and private projects. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-19

Transco designed the Projects to avoid or minimize impacts on the environment, and we have 

included recommendations in this draft EIS to further reduce impacts. Each of the other projects 

considered in our cumulative impacts analysis similarly have been designed to avoid or minimize impacts 

on sensitive environmental resources. Additionally, it is expected that any significant impacts on 

sensitive resources resulting from these other projects would be mitigated. Mitigation generally leads to 

avoidance or minimization of cumulative impacts. Consequently, we anticipate a small incremental 

cumulative effect after the impacts of the Projects are added to those of other past, present, or reasonably 

foreseeable actions.

We received numerous comments during scoping for the Projects and in comments 

accompanying requests to intervene about cumulative impacts associated with development of natural gas 

reserves (including hydraulic fracturing) in the Marcellus Shale. Activities associated with the Projects 

would occur outside of the Marcellus Shale region. As a result, the local resources that may be affected 

by Marcellus Shale development would not be affected by the Projects, and local resources affected by 

the Projects would not be affected by development in the Marcellus Shale. As such, the effects of 

activities in the Marcellus Shale region are beyond the scope of the cumulative impacts analysis described 

below.

5.1.14 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. 

The No Action Alternative would eliminate or delay the short and long-term environmental 

impacts identified in this draft EIS, but the objectives of the Projects would not be met. Transco would 

not be able to provide 647 Mdth/d of natural gas to National Grid at a new delivery point on the 

Rockaway Peninsula. We evaluated the use of alternative energy sources and the potential effects of 

energy conservation, but these measures similarly would not satisfy the objectives of the proposed 

Projects.

Our analysis of system alternatives included an evaluation of existing natural gas pipeline 

systems that currently or eventually would serve the markets targeted by the Projects. In addition to an 

evaluation of these systems, we also evaluated whether the proposed Constitution Pipeline could meet the 

Projects’ objectives while providing an environmental advantage over the Projects. None of the existing 

or proposed natural gas pipelines provide a new connection with National Grid’s system on the Rockaway 

Peninsula in Queens County, New York. To create a new connection on the Rockaway Peninsula, these 

systems would need to be modified by constructing between 10 and 40 miles of new pipeline, which 

would result in greater environmental impacts than the Projects. For these reasons, none of the existing or 

proposed pipelines provide an environmental advantage over the Projects

In addition to pipeline systems, we also evaluated five previously or currently proposed LNG 

terminals, including the Port Ambrose LNG Project, as system alternatives. None of these projects have 

been completely reviewed or approved for construction, and it would likely be years before they could be 

permitted and constructed, if at all. Consequently, it is unlikely that these LNG projects could meet 

National Grid’s objectives within a timeframe reasonably close to the Projects. Additionally, because of 

the longer length of offshore and onshore pipelines to connect the LNG facilities to existing transportation 

systems, each of the LNG projects would have greater marine and terrestrial impacts than the Projects. 

We also note that none of the LNG terminal projects would provide a new connection with National 

Grid’s system on the Rockaway Peninsula, which is a key objective of the Projects. For all these reasons, 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-20

we do not consider the previously or currently proposed LNG terminal facilities to be reasonable, 

practicable, or environmentally preferable to the Projects.

We evaluated alternatives on Transco’s system, including increasing supplies through its existing 

Long Beach facilities or delivering gas through its approved Northeast Supply Link Expansion Project

and proposed LSE Project. None of these alternatives would meet the objectives of 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, and alternative compressor station sites or a pipeline 

loop for the Northeast Connector Project. Because none of these alternatives would offer significant 

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

We evaluated construction alternatives for the Rockaway Project to determine whether offshore 

environmental impacts could be reduced or mitigated by use of alternative methods. We did not identify 

any alternative construction methods that would be feasible or preferable to use of the post-lay jet sled for 

offshore trenching, the HDD crossing at the shoreline, or Transco’s proposal to allow drilling fluid and 

cuttings to remain in the HDD exit pit. In addition, we found that the use of the proposed lay barge 

equipment would be preferable to the use of a dynamically positioned lay barge.

In summary, we have determined that the Projects, as modified by our recommended mitigation 

measures, are the preferred alternative.

5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION

If the Commission authorizes the Projects, we recommend that the following measures be 

included as specific conditions in the Commission’s Order. We believe that these measures would further 

mitigate the environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the Projects.

1. Transco shall follow the construction procedures and mitigation measures described in its 

applications and supplemental filings for the Projects (including responses to staff 

information and data requests), and as identified in the EIS, unless modified by the 

Commission’s 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 Projects. This authority shall allow: 

a. the modification of conditions of the Commission’s 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 avoidance or mitigation of adverse 

environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of the Projects.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-21

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 for the Projects. 

4. The authorized facility locations shall be as shown in the EIS, as supplemented by filed 

alignment sheets. As soon as they are available, and before the start of construction, 

Transco shall file with the Secretary any revised detailed survey alignment maps/sheets

for the Projects 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 

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 for the Projects 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 for the 

Rockaway Project, the FERC Plan for the Northeast Connector Project, 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.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-22

6. Within 60 days of the acceptance of the Certificate and before construction begins, 

Transco shall file Implementation Plans for the Projects for review and written approval 

by the Director of OEP. Transco must file revisions to the plans as schedules change. 

The plans shall identify:

a. how Transco will implement the construction procedures and mitigation 

measures described in its applications and supplements (including responses to 

staff data requests), identified in the EIS, and required by the Order;

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 Projects progress 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 Project Evaluation and Review Technique

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 for the Rockaway Project and one EI for the 

Northeast Connector Project. 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

f. responsible for maintaining status reports.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-23

8. Beginning with the filing of its Implementation Plans, Transco shall file updated status 

reports with the Secretary on a weekly basis for the Rockaway Project and a monthly 

basis for the Northeast Connector Project 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 Projects, work planned for the following reporting 

period, and any schedule changes for stream crossings or work in other 

environmentally sensitive areas;

c. a listing of all problems encountered and each instance of noncompliance 

observed by the EI 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 that may relate to compliance 

with the requirements of the Order, and the measures taken to satisfy their 

concerns; and

g. copies of any correspondence received by 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 facilities for the Projects, 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 

Projects 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 

Projects are proceeding satisfactorily. 

11. Within 30 days of placing the authorized facilities for the Projects 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

b. identifying which of the Certificate conditions Transco has complied with or will 

comply with. This statement shall also identify any areas affected by the Projects

where compliance measures were not properly implemented, if not previously 

identified in filed status reports, and the reason for noncompliance.

12. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Transco shall have an experienced 

HDD engineer evaluate subsurface conditions along the HDD route to confirm the 

feasibility of Transco’s proposed HDD crossing methodology for the Rockaway Delivery 

Lateral and file the results with the Secretary. (Section 4.1.7)

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-24

13. Prior to construction of the Rockaway Project, Transco shall consult with NYCDEP 

staff to identify and address agency concerns regarding flow rates for withdrawals of 

municipal water from fire hydrants and file with the Secretary documentation of the 

consultation. (Section 4.3.2.3)

14. Prior to construction of the Rockaway Project, Transco shall update its SPCC Plan to 

include specific measures that would be implemented to identify, control, and clean up 

any accidental leaks or spills from offshore construction vessels. This information shall

be filed with the Secretary for review and approval of the Director of OEP. (Section 

4.3.2.3)

15. Transco shall not begin offshore construction activities for the Rockaway Project until:

a. the FERC staff receives comments from NOAA Fisheries, Protected Resources 

Division regarding impacts on marine mammals and Transco’s proposed 

mitigation measures;

b. NOAA Fisheries issues an IHA to Transco; and

c. the Director of OEP approves Transco’s plans and notifies Transco in writing 

that the mitigation measures may be implemented and construction may proceed. 

(Section 4.5.2.2)

16. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Transco shall file a revised 

sediment modeling analysis for the Rockaway Project to estimate water quality impacts 

associated with operation of the suction dredge. The modeling shall also consider the 

effect of redirecting discharge nozzles to expel sediments back into the trench and any 

other design modifications. (Section 4.6.3.2)

17. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Transco shall file an assessment 

identifying the specific additives that would be used in the HDD drilling fluid for the 

Rockaway Project, the material safety data sheets for each additive, the concentration and 

dilution rates for each additive, an evaluation of the toxicity of each additive, and an 

evaluation of the potential for bioaccumulation of each additive in the food chain. 

(Section 4.6.3.2)

18. Prior to construction of the Rockaway Project, Transco shall consult with the NPS to 

identify a protocol for coordinated monitoring of the drill path in the GNRA between the 

months of March and September for the presence of sensitive species, and file 

documentation of the consultation with the Secretary. (Section 4.7.1.6)

19. Transco shall not begin construction activities for the Rockaway Project until:

a. the FERC staff receives comments from NOAA Fisheries, Protected Resources 

Division and the FWS regarding impacts on federally listed species; 

b. the FERC staff completes formal consultation with NOAA Fisheries/FWS, if 

required; and

c. the Director of OEP approves Transco’s plans and notifies Transco in writing 

that the mitigation measures may be implemented and construction may proceed. 

(Section 4.7.4)

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-25

20. Prior to construction, Transco should file with the Secretary the NYSDOS 

determination of the Rockaway Project’s consistency with the New York State CMP 

under the applicable provisions of the CZMA. (Section 4.8.3)

21. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Transco shall file with the Secretary 

an updated cable crossing plan for the Rockaway Project that shows the finalized pipeline 

crossing and addresses the cable owner’s concerns. Transco shall also file evidence of 

the cable owner’s concurrence with the plan. (Section 4.8.4.3)

22. Transco shall not begin implementation of any treatment plans/measures (including 

archaeological data recovery); construction of facilities; or use of staging, storage, or 

temporary work areas, and new or to-be-improved access roads for the Projects until:

a. Transco files all outstanding survey and evaluation reports, the final HSR, design 

and construction drawings for Hangars 1 and 2, the CPP, any necessary treatment 

plans, and comments from the NPS and the New York SHPO on all reports and 

plans for the Rockaway Project;

b. Transco files documentation from the Pennsylvania SHPO that an archaeological 

survey at Compressor Station 195 is not required, or conducts a survey and files a 

survey report and the comments of the Pennsylvania SHPO on the report:

c. the ACHP is afforded an opportunity to comment if historic properties would be 

adversely affected or a Programmatic Agreement has been executed; and

d. the FERC staff reviews and the Director of OEP approves all cultural resource 

reports and plans, and notifies Transco in writing that the treatment 

plans/mitigation measures may be implemented and/or that construction may 

proceed.

All material filed with the Commission that contains location, character, and 

ownership information about cultural resources must have the cover and any 

relevant pages therein clearly labeled in bold lettering: “CONTAINS 

PRIVILEGED INFORMATION – DO NOT RELEASE.” (Section 4.10.4)

23. Prior to construction of the Rockaway Project, Transco shall file with the Secretary a 

site-specific noise mitigation plan for the HDD onshore entry location for review and 

approval by the Director of OEP that incorporates the noise mitigation measures 

recommended in Report No. 2825 by Hoover and Keith, Inc.; identifies any deviations 

from these recommendations with stated justification; and specifies any additional or 

alternate mitigation that would be employed. (Section 4.11.3.2)

24. Transco shall file a noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days after placing 

the modified Compressor Station 195 in service for the Northeast Connector Project. If a 

full load condition noise survey is not possible, Transco shall provide an interim survey 

at the maximum possible hp load and provide the full load survey within 6 months. If 

the noise attributable to the operation of all of the equipment at Compressor Station 195 

under interim or full hp load conditions exceeds existing noise levels at NSA no. 1 or an 

Ldn of 55 dBA at NSA nos. 2 and 3, 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 with the Secretary no later than 60 days after it installs the 

additional noise controls. (Section 4.11.2.3)

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5-26

25. Transco shall file a noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days after placing 

the modified Compressor Station 205 in service for the Northeast Connector Project. If a 

full load condition noise survey is not possible, Transco shall provide an interim survey 

at the maximum possible hp load and provide the full load survey within 6 months. If 

the noise attributable to the operation of all of the equipment at Compressor Station 205 

under interim or full hp load conditions exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA 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 with the 

Secretary no later than 60 days after it installs the additional noise controls. (Section 

4.11.2.3)

26. Transco shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure its predicted noise levels from

Compressor Station 207 are not exceeded at nearby NSAs and file noise surveys showing 

this with the Secretary no later than 60 days after placing the modified Compressor 

Station 207 in service for the Northeast Connector Project. If a full load condition noise 

survey is not possible, Transco shall provide an interim survey at the maximum possible 

hp load and provide the full load survey within 6 months. If the noise attributable to the 

operation of Compressor Station 207 at interim or full hp load exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA 

at any nearby NSAs, Transco shall file a report on what changes are needed and shall

install additional noise controls to meet the level within 1 year of the in-service date. 

Transco shall confirm compliance with this requirement by filing a second noise survey 

with the Secretary no later than 60 days after it installs the additional noise controls. 

(Section 4.11.2.3)

27. Prior to construction of the Rockaway Project, Transco shall file with the Secretary a 

vibration level threshold and CPP for review and approval by the Director of OEP. 

(Section 4.11.3)

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX A

DISTRIBUTION LIST

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX A

DISTRIBUTION LIST

A-1

Federal Government Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 

Milford Wayne Donaldson, DC

Bureau of Oceans & International 

Environmental & Scientific Affairs, 

Department of State, Alexander 

Yuan, DC

Council on Environmental Quality, Ellen 

Athas, DC

Council on Environmental Quality, Horst G. 

Greczmiel, DC

Department of Health and Human Services, 

Edward Pfister, DC

Department of Homeland Security, 

Commandant (CG-47), U.S. Coast 

Guard, Ed Wandelt, DC

Department of the Army, New York District, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Michael 

Scarano, NY

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, 

Installations, Steve Zanders, DC

Development – Office of Federal Programs, 

Charlene D. Vaughn, DC

Division of Decision Support, Planning, and the 

National Environmental Policy Act, 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, Kerry 

Rodgers, DC

Division of Emergency & Environmental Health 

Services, Department of Health and 

Human Services National Center for 

Environmental Health (Centers for 

Disease Control), Sharunda 

Buchanan, GA

Division of Environmental & Cultural Resources 

Management, Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Marv 

Keller, VA

Ecological Services Division, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Andree DuVarney, VA

Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Office, Jeff Bingaman, DC

Environment and Natural Resources Division, 

Natural Resources Section – Department 

of Justice, Beverly Li, DC

Environmental Planning and Compliance 

Branch, Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service, Patrick 

Walsh, CO

Environmental Planning Division, U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, James M. Potter, DC

Environmental Policy and Compliance, 

Department of the Interior – MS 2342, 

Vijai N. Rai, DC

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Doug

Sipe, DC

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Kara 

Harris, DC

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office 

of Energy Projects, Ellen 

Armbruster, DC

Gateway National Recreation Area, Jamaica Bay 

Unit, Joe Daskalakis, NY

Gateway National Recreation Area, Jamaica Bay 

Unit, Richard O'Neill, NY

Gateway National Recreation Area, Jamaica Bay 

Unit, Rita Mullally, NY

Gateway National Recreation Area, Park Police, 

Dennis Bosack, NY

Minerals Management Service, Department of 

the Interior, DC

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Foundation, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 

Diane Rusanowsky, CT

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Foundation, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Steve 

Leathery, MD

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Foundation, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Office of Policy, Mark Holliday, MD

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Foundation, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Northeast Region, Protected Resources 

Division, Danielle Palmer,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Foundation, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Office of Protected Resources, 

Endangered Secies Act Interagency 

Cooperation Division, Gina Shultz,

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX A

DISTRIBUTION LIST (cont’d)

A-2

Federal Government Agencies (cont’d)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Foundation, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Michelle Magliocca, MD

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Foundation, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Mike Payne, MD

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Foundation, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Steve Leathery, MD

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Foundation, 

Program Planning and Integration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Office of 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Steve Kokkinakis, MD

National Park Conservation Association, 

Alexander Brash, NY

National Park Service, Business Management 

Division, Barbara Repeta, NY

National Park Service, Denver Service Center, 

Mike Finken, CO

National Park Service, Denver Service Center, 

Randy Copeland, CO

National Park Service, Division of Natural 

Resources, David Avrin, NY

National Park Service, Division of Natural 

Resources, Doug Adamo, NY

National Park Service, Division of Natural 

Resources, George Frame, NY

National Park Service, Division of Natural 

Resources, Kathy Foppes, NY

National Park Service, Division of Natural 

Resources, Linda Canzanelli, NY

National Park Service, Division of Natural 

Resources, Marilou Ehrler, NY

National Park Service, Division of Natural 

Resources, Minka Sendich, NY

National Park Service, Division of Natural 

Resources, Pam McLay, NY

National Park Service, Division of Natural 

Resources, Reina Bucknell, NY

National Park Service, Gateway National 

Recreation Area, Jamaica Bay Unit, 

Hanem Abouelezz, NY

National Park Service, Gateway National 

Recreation Area, Jamaica Bay Unit, 

Mark Ringenary, NY

National Park Service, Gateway National 

Recreation Area, Joan MacDonald, NY

National Park Service, Gateway National 

Recreation Area, Mark Christiano, NY

National Park Service, Jamaica Bay Unit, Dave 

Taft, NY

National Park Service, Park Police, John 

Lauro, NY

National Park Service, Suzanne McCarthy, NY

Natural Gas STAR, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Jerome Blackman, DC

Natural Resources Management, Department of 

the Interior, Office of Environmental 

Policy and Compliance, David Sire, DC

New York City Department of Transportation, 

Division of Finance, Contracting & 

Program Management, Capital Program 

Management, Tika Gurung, NY

New York City Department of Transportation, 

Maura McCarthy, NY

Office of Deputy Undersecretary Defense 

(Installations and Environment), 

Department of Defense, Terry 

Bowers, DC

Office of Enforcement & Compliance 

Assurance, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Cynthia Giles, DC

Office of Environmental Management, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Dave 

Huizenga, DC

Office of Federal Activities, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Cliff Rader, DC

Office of Federal Activities, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Susan E. 

Bromm, DC

Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Jeffrey Wiese, DC

Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Magdy El-Sibaie, DC

Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Sherri Pappas, DC

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX A

DISTRIBUTION LIST (cont’d)

A-3

Federal Government Agencies (cont’d)

Research & Special Programs Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation -

Office of Pipeline Safety, DC

Section of Environmental Analysis, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Surface 

Transportation Board, Victoria 

Rutson, DC

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – New York 

District, Eastern Permits Section, Naomi 

Handell, NY

U.S. Coast Guard (MS 7000), Robert Papp, DC

U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Waterways 

Management, Mike McBrady, DC

U.S. Coast Guard, Sector NY, Jeff Yunker, NY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

Department of Homeland Security, 

Christopher Oh, DC

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Ecosystem Management Coordination, 

Joe Carbone, DC

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National 

Resources Conservation Service, New 

York State Office, Astor Boozer, NY

U.S. Department of Commerce, Helen 

Serassio, DC

U.S. Department of Energy, John Anderson, DC

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 

Intergovernmental Affairs, Carol M. 

Borgstrom, DC

U.S. Department of Transportation –

Community Assistance/Technical 

Services, Pipeline & Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration, Office 

of Pipeline Safety, CO

U.S. Department of Transportation, DC

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 

2, Lingard Knutson, NY

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of 

the Interior, Pat Carter, VA

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Long Island 

Field Office (Region 5), Steve 

Sinkevich, NY

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Jersey 

Field Office, Eris Davis, NJ

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pennsylvania 

Field Office, Clint Riley, PA

U.S. Forest Service, Farm Service Agency, 

Matthew Ponish, DC

U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the 

Interior, Esther Eng, VA

U.S. House of Representatives, 9th District of 

New York, Bob Capano, NY

U.S. Park Police, New York Field Office, Dave 

Buckley, NY

United States Air Force Basing and Units, 

Department of Air Force, Department of 

Defense, Jack Bush, DC

Federal Senators and Representatives

Congressman Bob Turner, Margaret 

Wagner, NY

U.S. House of Representatives, 12th District, 

Rush Holt, NJ

U.S. House of Representatives, 13th District of 

New York, Michael Grimm, NY

U.S. House of Representatives, 6th District, 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ

U.S. House of Representatives, District 7, 

Leonard Lance, NJ

U.S. House of Representatives, New York's 10th 

District, Michael Grimm, NY

U.S. House of Representatives, New York's 11th 

District, Yvette D. Clarke, NY

U.S. House of Representatives, New York's 6th 

District, Gregory Meeks, NY

U.S. House of Representatives, New York's 8th 

District, Hakeem Jeffries, NY

U.S. House of Representatives, New York's 9th 

District, Robert L. Turner, NY

U.S. House, District 4, Scott Perry, DC

U.S. Representative, District 4, Christopher 

Smith, DC

U.S. Senate, Charles Schumer, NY

U.S. Senate, Frank Lautenberg, DC

U.S. Senate, Joy Kemper, PA

U.S. Senate, Kristin Gillibrand, NY

U.S. Senate, Patrick Toomey, DC

U.S. Senate, Robert Casey, DC

U.S. Senate, Robert Menendez, DC

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX A

DISTRIBUTION LIST (cont’d)

A-4

State Senators and Assembly Members

New Jersey Legislature, District 13, Amy 

Handlin, NJ

New Jersey Legislature, District 13, Declan 

O'Scanlon, Jr., NJ

New Jersey Legislature, District 13, Joseph 

Kyrillos, Jr., NJ

New Jersey Legislature, District 14, Daniel 

Benson, NJ

New Jersey Legislature, District 14, Linda 

Greenstein, NJ

New Jersey Legislature, District 14, Wayne 

DeAngelo, NJ

New Jersey Legislature, District 17, Joseph 

Egan, NJ

New Jersey Legislature, District 17, Robert 

Smith, NJ

New Jersey Legislature, District 17, Upendra 

Chivukla, NJ

New Jersey Legislature, District 18, Barbara 

Buono, NJ

New Jersey Legislature, District 18, Patrick 

Diegnan, NJ

New Jersey Legislature, District 18, Peter 

Barnes, Jr., NJ

New Jersey Legislature, District 19, Craig 

Coughlin, NJ

New Jersey Legislature, District 19, John 

Wisniewski, NJ

New Jersey Legislature, District 19, Joseph 

Vitale, NJ

New Jersey Legislature, District 22, Linda 

Stender, NJ

New Jersey Legislature, District 22, Nicholas 

Scutari, NJ

New York State Assembly, District 101, Kevin 

Cahill, NY

New York State Assembly, District 23, Phil 

Goldfeder, NY

New York State Assembly, District 31, Michele 

Titus, NY

New York State Assembly, District 45, Steven 

Cymbrowitz, NY

New York State Assembly, District 59, Alan 

Maisel, NY

New York State Senate, 14th Senate District, 

Malcolm Smith, NY

New York State Senate, 15th Senate District, 

Joseph P. Addabo, Jr., NY

New York State Senate, 19th Senate District, 

John Sampson, NY

New York State Senate, 21st Senate District, 

Kevin Parker, NY

New York State Senate, 25th Senate District, 

Daniel L. Squadron, NY

New York State Senate, 60th Senate District, 

Mark Grisanti, NY

Pennsylvania House of Representatives, District 

95, Kevin Schreiber, PA

Pennsylvania Senate, District 28, Michael 

Waugh, PA

State Government Agencies

New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection, Bob Martin, NJ

New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection, Historic Preservation Office, 

Daniel Saunders, NJ

New York City Department of Transportation, 

Joseph Palmieri, NY

New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation – New York Natural 

Heritage Program, Division of Fish, 

Wildlife and Marine Resources, Jean 

Petrusiak, NY

New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation, Bureau of Marine 

Resources, Debbie Barnes, NY

New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation, Bureau of Marine 

Resources, Wade Carden, NY

New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation, Chris LaPorta, NY

New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation, Division of 

Environmental Permits, John Ferguson, 

NY

New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation, Environmental Permits 

Division, Chris Hogan, NY

New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation, Kim McKown, NY

New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation, Office of General 

Counsel, Lisa Wilkinson, NY

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX A

DISTRIBUTION LIST (cont’d)

A-5

State Government Agencies (cont’d)

New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation, Region 2, Lannon 

Venetia, NY

New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation, Region 2, Charles de 

Quillfeldt, NY

New York State Department of State, Division 

of Coastal Resources, George 

Stafford, NY

New York State Department of State, Division 

of Coastal Resources, Jeff Zappieri, NY

New York State Department of State, Division 

of Coastal Resources, Matt 

Maraglio, NY

New York State Governor's Office, Andrew M. 

Cuomo, NY

New York State Governor's Office, Paul 

DeCotis, NY

New York State Governor's Office, Thomas 

Congdon, NY

New York State Military Museum & Veterans 

Research Center, NY

New York State Office of General Services, 

Alan Bauder, NY

New York State Office of General Services, 

Real Property Management Group, 

William L. Hill, Jr., NY

New York State Parks Recreation & Historic 

Preservation, Archeology Unit, Douglas 

Mackey, NY

New York State Parks Recreation & Historic 

Preservation, Bureau of Historic Sites 

and Parks, Mark Peckham, NY

New York State Parks Recreation & Historic 

Preservation, Counsel, Glen Bruening, 

NY

New York State Parks Recreation & Historic 

Preservation, Historic Preservation Field 

Services, Beth Cumming, NY

New York State Public Service Commission, 

Garry Brown, NY

Office of the Governor, Tom Corbett, PA

Pennsylvania Bureau for Historic Preservation, 

Jean Cutter, PA

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection, E. Christopher Abruzzo, PA

State of New Jersey, Christopher Christie, NJ

Local Government Agencies

Borough of Hightstown, Gail Doran, NJ

Borough of Hightstown, Lawrence D. 

Quattrone, NJ

Borough of Hightstown, Lynne Woods, NJ

Borough of Hightstown, Robert Thibault, NJ

Borough of Hightstown, Selena Bibens, NJ

Borough of Hightstown, Steven Kirson, NJ

Borough of Hightstown, Susan Bluth, NJ

Borough of Pennington, Anthony Perischilli, NJ

Borough of Pennington, Dina Dunn, NJ

Borough of Pennington, Edwin "Weed" 

Tucker, NJ

Borough of Pennington, Eileen Heinzel, NJ

Borough of Pennington, Glen Griffiths, NJ

Borough of Pennington, John Fleming, NJ

Borough of Pennington, Mary Anne Heino, NJ

Borough of Pennington, Tom Ogren, NJ

Borough of Pennington, W. Jeffrey Wittkop, NJ

Borough of Pennington, William Meytrott, NJ

Borough of Sayreville, Andrew Mashanski, NJ

Borough of Sayreville, Daniel Buchanan, NJ

Borough of Sayreville, David McGill, NJ

Borough of Sayreville, John Dunne, NJ

Borough of Sayreville, Kennedy O'Brien, NJ

Borough of Sayreville, Kevin Krushinski, NJ

Borough of Sayreville, Kevin Ott, NJ

Borough of Sayreville, Lisa Eicher, NJ

Borough of Sayreville, Mary Novak, NJ

Borough of Sayreville, Ricci Melendez, NJ

Borough of Sayreville, Ronald Batko, NJ

Borough of Sayreville, Theresa Farbniec, NJ

Borough of Sayreville, William Henry, NJ

Brooklyn Community Board 14, Shawn 

Campbell, NY

Brooklyn Community Board 15, Theresa 

Scavo, NY

Brooklyn Community Board 18, Dorothy 

Turano, NY

Brooklyn Community Board 18, Saul 

Needle, NY

Brooklyn Community Board 5, Nathan 

Bradley, NY

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX A

DISTRIBUTION LIST (cont’d)

A-6

Local Government Agencies (cont’d)

City of New Brunswick, Anthony Caputo, NJ

City of New Brunswick, Daniel A. Torrisi, NJ

City of New Brunswick, Elizabeth Sheehan 

Garlatti, NJ

City of New Brunswick, Glenn Fleming, NJ

City of New Brunswick, Jim Cahill, NJ

City of New Brunswick, John Anderson, NJ

City of New Brunswick, Kevin Egan, NJ

City of New Brunswick, Rebecca Escobar, NJ

City of New Brunswick, Robert Rawls, NJ

City of New Brunswick, Steve Zarecki, NJ

City of New York Parks and Recreation, The 

Arsenal, NY

City of Trenton Police Department, NJ

City of Trenton, Leona Baylor, NJ

City of Trenton, Qareeb Bashir, NJ

City of Trenton, Tony F. Mack, NJ

Community Board 14, Jonathan Gaska, NY

East Windsor Township, Alan Rosenberg, NJ

East Windsor Township, Hector Duke, NJ

East Windsor Township, James Brady, NJ

East Windsor Township, James Monahan, NJ

East Windsor Township, Janice S. Mironov, NJ

East Windsor Township, John Zoller, NJ

East Windsor Township, Kevin W. Brink, NJ

East Windsor Township, Marc Lippman, NJ

East Windsor Township, Perry M. Shapiro, NJ

East Windsor Township, Peter V. Yeager, NJ

East Windsor Township, Richard Coppola, NJ

Edison Township Planning & Engineering, John 

Medina, PE, CME, NJ

Edison Township, Brian Latham, NJ

Ewing Township, Angelo Capuano, NJ

Ewing Township, Bert H. Steinmann, NJ

Ewing Township, Robert Coulton, NJ

Lawrence Township, Cathleen Lewis, NJ

Lawrence Township, Daniel A. Posluszny, NJ

Lawrence Township, David Maffei, NJ

Lawrence Township, Doris M. Weisberg, NJ

Lawrence Township, Gregory Whitehead, NJ

Lawrence Township, Jack Oakley, NJ

Lawrence Township, Jim Kownacki, NJ

Lawrence Township, Kathleen S. Norcia, NJ

Lawrence Township, Michael Powers, NJ

Lawrence Township, Richard S. Krawczun, NJ

Lawrence Township, Stephen Brame, NJ

Mercer County Office of Emergency 

Management, Dean Raymond, NJ

Mercer County Planning Division, Donna M. 

Lewis, NJ

Mercer County Regional Chamber of 

Commerce, NJ

Mercer County, Andrew Koontz, NJ

Mercer County, Ann M. Cannon, NJ

Mercer County, Anthony P. Carabelli, NJ

Mercer County, Brian M. Hughes, NJ

Mercer County, John A. Cimino, NJ

Mercer County, Lucylle R. S. Walter, NJ

Mercer County, Mercer County Courthouse, 

John A. Kemler, NJ

Mercer County, Pasquale "Pat" Colavita Jr., NJ

Mercer County, Paula Sollami-Covello, NJ

Mercer County, Samuel T. Frisby, NJ

Middlesex County Emergency Management, 

John Ferguson, NJ

Middlesex County Engineering, Richard 

Wallner, NJ

Middlesex County Office of Economic 

Development, Kathaleen Shaw, NJ

Middlesex County Regional Chamber of 

Commerce, Alex Hollywood, NJ

Middlesex County, Blanquita Valenti, NJ

Middlesex County, Carol Barrett Bellante, NJ

Middlesex County, Charles Tomaro, NJ

Middlesex County, Elaine Flynn, NJ

Middlesex County, H. James Polos, NJ

Middlesex County, Kevin Hoagland, NJ

Middlesex County, Michael Gallagher, NJ

Middlesex County, Mildred Scott, NJ

Middlesex County, Stephen "Pete" Dalina, NJ

National Maritime Historical Society, Ronald 

Oswald, NY

New York City Council, District 24, James F. 

Gennaro, NY

New York City Council, District 3, Christine 

Quinn, NY

New York City Council, District 31, James 

Sanders, NY

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX A

DISTRIBUTION LIST (cont’d)

A-7

Local Government Agencies (cont’d)

New York City Council, District 32, Eric 

Ulrich, NY

New York City Council, District 42, Charles 

Barron, NY

New York City Council, District 46, Lewis 

Fidler, NY

New York City Department of City Planning, 

Division of Water & Open Spaces, 

Michael Marrella, NY

New York City Department of City Planning, 

John 

Young, NY

New York City Department of City Planning, 

NY

New York City Department of City Planning, 

NY

New York City Department of City Planning, 

Permina Kapur, NY

New York City Department of City Planning, 

Waterfront & Open Space Division, 

Eddie Greenfield, NY

New York City Department of City Planning, 

Waterfront Division, Wilbur Woods, 

NY

New York City Department of Environmental 

Protection, Bureau of Environmental 

Planning & Assessment, Michael 

Delaney, NY

New York City Department of Environmental 

Protection, Bureau of Environmental 

Planning and Assessment, Terrell 

Estesen, NY

New York City Department of Environmental 

Protection, Carter Strickland, Jr., NY

New York City Department of Environmental 

Protection, Ecological Services, John 

McLaughlin, NY

New York City Department of Parks and 

Recreation, Adrian Benepe, NY

New York City Department of Parks and 

Recreation, Dorothy Lewandowski, NY

New York City Department of Parks and 

Recreation, Kevin Jeffrey, NY

New York City Department of Parks and 

Recreation, Liam Kavanagh, NY

New York City Department of Parks and 

Recreation, Natural Resources Group, 

Jeremy Barrick, NY

New York City Department of Sanitation, John 

Doherty, NY

New York City Fire Department, Bureau of Fire 

Prevention, Tamara Saakian, P.E., NY

New York City Fire Department, John 

Sudnik, NY

New York City Fire Department, Salvatore 

Cassano, NY

New York City Law Department, William 

Plache, NY

New York City Mayor's Office of Long-Term 

Planning & Sustainability, David 

Brogdan, NY

New York City Mayor's Office of Long-Term 

Planning and Sustainability, Adam 

Freed, AICP, NY

New York City Mayor's Office of Operations, 

Stephen Goldsmith, NY

New York City Mayor's Office, Cas Holloway, 

NY

New York City Mayor's Office, Liz Weinstein, 

NY

New York City Mayor's Office, Michael 

Bloomberg, NY

New York City Mayor's Office, Nanette Smith, 

NY

New York City Mayor's Office, Office of 

Environmental Coordination, Robert R. 

Kulikowski, Ph.D., NY

New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority, 

Joseph J. Lhota, NY

New York City Metropolitan Transportation 

Authority, Bridges & Tunnels, Adrian 

Mosche, NY

New York City Office of Emergency 

Management, Joe Bruno, NY

New York City Police Department, 100th 

Precinct, Scott J. Olexa, NY

New York City Police Department, 63rd 

Precinct, Michael Deddo, NY

New York City Police Department, Office of 

Counterterrorism, John Molloy, NY

New York Historical Society, Louise 

Mirrer, NY

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX A

DISTRIBUTION LIST (cont’d)

A-8

Local Government Agencies (cont’d)

Office of the Brooklyn Borough President, 

Marty Markowitz, NY

Office of the New York City Comptroller, John 

Liu, NY

Old Bridge Township, At-Large, Debbie 

Walker, NJ

Old Bridge Township, Brian J. Cahill, NJ

Old Bridge Township, James Anderson, NJ

Old Bridge Township, NJ

Old Bridge Township, Owen Henry, NJ

Old Bridge Township, Sam Rizzo, NJ

Old Bridge Township, Ward 1, Robert 

Volkert, NJ

Old Bridge Township, Ward 2, Mary Sohor, NJ

Old Bridge Township, Ward 3, Reginald 

Butler, NJ

Old Bridge Township, Ward 4, G. Kevin 

Calogera, NJ

Old Bridge Township, Ward 5, Richard 

Greene, NJ

Old Bridge Township, Ward 6, Lucille 

Panos, NJ

Old Bridge Township, William A. Volkert, NJ

Peach Bottom Township Bldg., PA

Perth Amboy, Benjamin Ruiz, NJ

Perth Amboy, David Volk, NJ

Perth Amboy, Fernando Irizarry, NJ

Perth Amboy, Frank Dann, NJ

Perth Amboy, Joel Pabon Sr., NJ

Perth Amboy, Kenneth Gonzalez, NJ

Perth Amboy, Lisa Nanton, NJ

Perth Amboy, NJ

Perth Amboy, Wilda Diaz, NJ

Perth Amboy, William Petrick, NJ

Princeton, Bernard Miller, NJ

Princeton, Dan Tomalin,

Princeton, David Dudeck, NJ

Princeton, Donald Hanse, NJ

Princeton, Heather Howard, NJ

Princeton, Jenny Crummiller, NJ

Princeton, Jo Butler, NJ

Princeton, Lance Liverman, NJ

Princeton, Lee O. Solow, NJ

Princeton, Linda McDermott, NJ

Princeton, Liz Lempert, NJ

Princeton, Patrick Simon, NJ

Princeton, Robert Gregory, NJ

Princeton, William Drake, NJ

Quarryville Borough, C. Richard Aument, PA

Quarryville Borough, Jamie Welk, PA

Quarryville Borough, Jeffrey Minnich, PA

Quarryville Borough, John E. Chase, PA

Quarryville Borough, John Riddell, PA

Quarryville Borough, Kenneth Work, PA

Quarryville Borough, Michael Sullenberger, PA

Quarryville Borough, Victoria Prosperi, PA

Queens Borough, Helen Marshall, NY

Queens Community Board 10, Elizabeth 

Braton, NY

Queens Community Board 14, Dolores Orr, NY

Queens Historical Society, Marisa Berman, NY

Rockaway Park Chamber of Commerce, John 

Lepore, NY

South Amboy, Brian Kuhn, NJ

South Amboy, Darren Lavigne, NJ

South Amboy, First Ward, Donald 

Applegate, NJ

South Amboy, Fred Henry, NJ

South Amboy, Jerry Magee, NJ

South Amboy, Joe Connors, NJ

South Amboy, Kathy Vigilante, NJ

South Amboy, Michael Gross, NJ

South Amboy, Second Ward, Christine 

Noble, NJ

South Amboy, Third Ward, Zusette Dato, NJ

Stony Brook University, Keith Dunton, NY

Township of Edison, Alvaro Gomez, NJ

Township of Edison, Cheryl Russomanno, NJ

Township of Edison, Edison Municipal 

Complex, Antonia Ricigliano, NJ

Township of Edison, Michael Lombardi, NJ

Township of Edison, Robert Diehl, NJ

Township of Edison, Robert Karabinchak, NJ

Township of Edison, Sudhanshu Prasad, NJ

Township of Edison, Thomas Lankey, NJ

Township of Edison, Wayne Mascola, NJ

Township of Hamilton, David Kenny, NJ

Township of Hamilton, Dennis Pone, NJ

Township of Hamilton, Edward R. Gore, NJ

Township of Hamilton, Ileana Schirmer, NJ

Township of Hamilton, Kevin Meara, NJ

Township of Hopewell, Allen J. Cannon, NJ

Township of Hopewell, George C. Meyer, NJ

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX A

DISTRIBUTION LIST (cont’d)

A-9

Local Government Agencies (cont’d)

Township of Hopewell, Harvey Lester, NJ

Township of Hopewell, James Burd, NJ

Township of Hopewell, Laurie E. Gompf, NJ

Township of Hopewell, Michael A. 

Chipowsky, NJ

Township of Hopewell, Michael Markulec, NJ

Township of Hopewell, Robert Miller, NJ

Township of Hopewell, Vanessa Sandom, NJ

Township of Hopewell, Victor Silvestrov, NJ

York County, Charles Noll, PA

York County, Chris Reilly, PA

York County, Doug Hoke, PA

York County, Michael Fetrow, PA

York County, Richard Keuerleber, PA

York County, Steve Chronister, PA

Native American Groups

Delaware Nation, C.J. Watkins, OK

Delaware Tribe of Indians, Paula Pechonick, OK

Shinnecock Indian Nation, Randy King, NY

Libraries

Old Bridge Township Public Library, NJ

Hopewell Public Library, NJ

Lawrence Headquarters Branch Library, NJ

Media

Courier News, NJ

Greater Media Newspapers, Mark Rosman, NJ

Home News Tribune, NJ

PA Media Group, PA

Rockaway Point News, Michael Schramm, NY

Star Ledger, David Tucker, NJ

The Princeton Packet, Inc., Aubrey Huston, NJ

The Times, Matt Dowling, NJ

The Trentonian, Matt Osborne, NJ

The Wave, Susan Locke, NY

The York Daily Record, Jim McClure, PA

The York Dispatch, PA

Town Topics, Lynn Adams Smith, NJ

Companies and Organizations

393 Fairfield Rd. Corp., NJ

AFL-CIO, Mario Cilento, NY

Aviator Sports, Kevin McCabe, NY

B & O Properties, NJ

Bay Improvement Group, NY

Beachside Bungalow Preservation 

Association, NY

Belle Harbor Property Owners Association, 

Hank Iori, NY

BL Companies, Chris Albino, CT

Breezy Point Co-op, Inc., Arthur Lighthall, NY

Breezy Point Co-op, Inc., Tom MacLellan, NY

Breezy Point Cooperative, Inc., Joseph 

Lynch, NY

Breezy Point Surf Club, Brian McGuinness, NY

Broad Channel Civic Association, Dan Mundy, 

Jr., NY

Brooklyn Bird Club, Peter Dorosh, NY

Brooklyn Historical Society, Deborah 

Schwartz, NY

Citizens Advisory Committee, Benjamin 

Gabriel, NY

Citizens Advisory Committee, Solomon 

Peeples, NY

Clean Air Council, Joseph Otis Minott, PA

Columbia University, School of Architecture, 

Planning, and Preservation, Andrew 

Dolkart, NY

Coordinated Consultants LLC, Donald 

Cranston, NY

Cornell Cooperative Extension, Donald 

Tobias, NY

D S Connor Supply, NJ

Dance Stop, NJ

Dayton Towers Board of Directors, Karen 

Sloan-Payne, NY

DCH Investors, NJ

Dover Gourmet Corporation, Pete Kramer, NY

Exelon Corporation, Kathleen Barron, DC

Flood and Water Watch, David Fischer, NY

Floyd Bennett Cricket Club, Gyanda 

Shivnarain, NY

Floyd Bennett Gardens Association, Inc, 

Adriann Musson, NY

Floyd Bennett Gardens Association, Inc, Jill 

Weingaten, NY

Floyd Bennett Gardens Association, Inc, Karen 

Orlando, NY

Floyd Bennett Gardens Association, Inc., Bob 

Halligan, NY

Friends of Rockaway, NY

Gateway Marina Development, LLC, Louis 

Kalif, NY

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX A

DISTRIBUTION LIST (cont’d)

A-10

Companies and Organizations (cont’d)

Global Golf Services, Vincent LaRocca, NY

Gotham Center for New York City History, 

Mike Wallace, NY

Green Gables, NJ

Harbor Defense Museum, Paul Morando, NY

HDR HydroQual, Mark Velleux, NJ

Hightstown-East Windsor Lions Club, Linda 

Harris, NJ

Historic Districts Council, Francoise 

Bollack, NY

Historic House Trust, Franny Eberhart, NY

J H Monteath, NJ

Jamaica Bay Ecowatchers, Dan Mundy, NY

Kings Highway Printers, Inc., Jeff Sanoff, NY

Kuminkiewicz Estate, DE

Linnaean Society of New York, Alice 

Deutsch, NY

Manzo Oldbridge Properties, LLC, NJ

Marinas of the Future, Robert Bernstein, NY

Marine Park Civic Association, Andrea 

Minks, NY

Marine Park Civic Association, Greg 

Borruso, NY

Marine Park Civic Association, Therese 

Campbell, NY

Marine Park Civil Association, Peggy 

Assarpo, NY

Mario Concrete & Paving, NJ

Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Alex 

Gad, NY

Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance, Roland 

Lewis, NY

Middlesex County, Ronald Rios, NJ

Midhattan Woodworking Corp., NJ

Miramar Yacht Club, NY

MJB LLC, NJ

Mount Farms, NJ

National Grid, Adam Yablonsky,

National Grid, John Stavrakas, MA

National Grid, Joni Yoswein,

National Grid, Thomas Buckleman, NY

National Park Foundation, Neil Mulholland, DC

National Parks of New York Harbor 

Conservancy, Marie Salerno, NY

Natural Fuel Gas Distribution Corp, Randy C. 

Rucinski, NY

Natural Resource Group, LLC, Larry Brown, RI

Natural Resource Group, LLC, Stuart 

Buchanan, NY

Natural Resource Protective Association, Ida 

Sanoff, NY

Natural Resources Defense Council, Ashok 

Gupta, NY

Natural Resources Defense Council, Peter 

Luhner, NY

Neighborhood Open Space Coalition/Friends of 

Gateway, Dave Lutz, NY

Neponsit Property Owners Association, Amanda 

Agoglia, NY

New Jersey District Kiwanis, NJ

New Jersey Farm Bureau, Ryck Suydam, NJ

New York Building Congress, Richard T. 

Anderson, NY

New York City Audubon, Glenn Phillips, NY

New York City Audubon, John Rowden, NY

New York City Audubon, Susan Elbin, NY

New York City Economic Development 

Corporation, Hardy Adasko, NY

New York City Economic Development 

Corporation, Regulatory Affairs, NY

New York City Sierra Club, Thelma Fellows, 

NY

New York Independent System Operator, James 

Gallagher, NY

New York Landmarks Conservancy, Stuart 

Siegel, NY

New York League of Conservation Voters, 

Marcia Bystryn, NY

New York/New Jersey Baykeeper, Debbi Mans, 

NJ

Paerdegat Yacht Club, NY

Partnerships for Parks, NY

Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, Carl T. Shaffer, PA

Plumb Beach Civic Association of Sheepshead 

Bay, NY

Queens Botanical Gardens, Susan Lacerte, NY

Queens County Bird Club, Arie Gilbert, NY

Reclamation Tech Inc., NJ

Regional Plan Association, Robert J. Pirani, NY

Rockaway Artists Alliance, NY

Rockaway Civic Association, Noreen Ellis, NY

Rockaway Civic Association, Rick Horan, NY

Rockaway Civic Association, Vivian Carter, NY

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX A

DISTRIBUTION LIST (cont’d)

A-11

Companies and Organizations (cont’d)

Rockaway Development and Revitalization 

Corporation, Kevin Alexander, NY

Rockaway Little League, Marty Andreson, NY

Rockaway Park Homeowner's Association, 

Michael O'Toole, NY

Rockaway Park Homeowners-Residents, Fran 

Stathis, NY

Rockaway Point Yacht Club, NY

Rockaway Rugby Club, Bob Johnson, NY

Rockaway Theatre Company, NY

Rockaway Waterfront Alliance, Jeanne 

DuPont, NY

Sane Energy Project, Clare Donahue, NY

Sebago Canoe Club, NY

Sheepshead Bay Yacht Club, NY

Shepards Bay/Plumb Beach Civic Association, 

Tom Paolillo, NY

Sierra Club New Jersey, Jeff Tittel, NJ

Sierra Club Pennsylvania, Jeff Schmidt, PA

Silver Gull Club, Bob Ordan, NY

Six Partners, NJ

South Canarsie Civic Association, Maryanne 

Salustro, NY

Spril Metal c/o Lautzenheiser, CA

Stavola Materials c/o Denardo, NJ

Stockbridge Munsee Community, Robert 

Chicks, WI

Stony Brook University, Mike Frisk, NY

Surfrider Foundation, New York City Chapter, 

Nick Lynn, NY

The American Littoral Society, Northeast 

Chapter, Don Riepe, NY

The Business Council of New York State, Inc., 

Heather Briccetti, NY

The Kiwanis Club of Trenton, NJ

The Long Island Association, Kevin Law, NY

The Long Island Association, Matt Crosson, NY

The Municipal Art Society of New York, Vin 

Cipolla, NY

The Partnership for New York, Kathryn 

Wylde, NY

Tonio Burgos & Associates, Chris Hahn, NY

Township of Hamilton, Kelly A. Yaede, NJ

Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, NY

Trust for Public Land, NY

United for Actions, Edith Kantrowitz, NY

United Methodist Church, PA

URS, Zana Wolf, NJ

Wild Metro, David Burg, NY

York County Economic Alliance, Darrell W 

Auterson, PA

Individuals

Alan Hore, NY

Alex Rosado, NY

Anne Lazarus, NY

Bonita Rothman, NY

Carol Dimarzo, NY

Christian Bray, NY

Ciara Donley, NY

Cliff Bruckenstein, NY

Craig Miller, NY

Dave Publow, NY

David S. Lawrence, N

Dominic Castellano, NY

Eddie & Christine 

Bressel, NY

Eileen Cullen, NY

Elizabeth Kelly, NY

Elizabeth Manclark, NY

Enid Israelson, NY

Garrick Landsberg, NY

Gay H. Snyder, NY

James & Barbara 

Pearson, NY

Jeff Sanoff, NY

Jim & Donna Cafiero, NY

Jim Armanno, NY

Joe Pascarella, NY

John & Maria Signorelli, NY

John Breitbart, NY

Joseph Nerone, NY

Kate Ryan, NY

Kevin Hiltunen, NY

Lise Brenner, NY

Luis Mollinedo, NJ

Lyna Hinkel, NY

Margaret Wagner, NY

Mary Sullivan, NY

Mr. & Mrs. Adams, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Adams, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Adams, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Adams, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Ahmeed, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Alban, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Allen, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Anwar, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Augliera, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Baccigalupi, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Baker, PA

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX A

DISTRIBUTION LIST (cont’d)

A-12

Individuals (cont’d)

Mr. & Mrs. Baker, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Ballard, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Barber, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Barton, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Benjamin, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Benn, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Bisesi, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Bober, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Bohan, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Bolyard, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Boss, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Bradley, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Brady, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Brickner, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Browne, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Brunetti, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Burk, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Cavallucci, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Cerar, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Chicalese, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Christensen, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Collazo, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Comer, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Coonan, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Craft, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Czajkowski, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Dalton, PA

Mr. & Mrs. De Falco, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Decatur, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Demarffy -

Mantuano, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Densmore, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Denton, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Dick, PA

Mr. & Mrs. DiFalco, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Dilworth, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Dodson, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Doerler, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Dollard, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Dorn, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Doyle, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Draper, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Eagle, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Eaton, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Ende, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Endres, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Evans, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Figueroa, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Fish, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Fleese, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Flores, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Forcella, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Forcey, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Gallucci, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Gemmill, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Gemmill, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Gentry, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Gissubel, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Gordon, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Grisham, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Guillen, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Hall, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Hallameyer, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Harris, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Harrison, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Hart, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Hart, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Hassan, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Heitmuller, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Herbert, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Hernandez, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Hooper, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Hoover, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Horner, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Hua, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Hunt, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Hurley, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Husby, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Hushon, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Jackson, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Jacobs, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Jensen, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Jusick, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Kale, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Ki, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. King, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Kress, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Kujala, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Kulinski, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Laietta, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Lang, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Lange, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Lepovsky, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Li & Wang, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Llera, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Lo Bue, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Loydd, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Lubowicki, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Luster, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Lyle, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Lynch, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Mabe, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Mabe, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Maest, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Maida, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Mancuso, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Mannucci, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Marchi, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Markley, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Mauro, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Mayzelshteyn, 

NJ

Mr. & Mrs. McCollum, PA

Mr. & Mrs. McDonald, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. McGinn, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. McManus, PA

Mr. & Mrs. McManus, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Mead, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Meozzi, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Miller, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Minassin, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Mo, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Moini, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Montgomery, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Morton, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Mount, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Murawski, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Naik, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Neal, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Neumann, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Nicholson, PA

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX A

DISTRIBUTION LIST (cont’d)

A-13

Individuals (cont’d)

Mr. & Mrs. Okupski, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Olsen, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Onday, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Ott, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Ott, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Pandya, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Pandya, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Patel, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Patel, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Patel, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Patel, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Persaud, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Piassek, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Policare, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Pope, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Poteet, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Radice, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Rajan, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Rexrode, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Riggleman, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Riley, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Rivera, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Royer, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Sargent, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Scarborough, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Scarborough, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Scarborough, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Seling, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Serra, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Shah, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Shah, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Shaw, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Sheely, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Singh, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Singh, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Sizemore, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Snedeker, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Souders, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Spicer, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Stachniuk, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Stike, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Stokes, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Stratmeyer, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Swearingen, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Swift, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Szady, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Thoma, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Thomas, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Thomson, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Titus, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Toth-Gelber, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Trenner, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Trenner, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Trinks, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Tyson, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Urscheler, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Veit, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Velasquez, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Vernon, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Ward, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Warikoo, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Wernig, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Wilfrid, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Williams, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Wilson, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Wilson, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Wines, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Wojtowicz, NJ

Mr. & Mrs. Wright, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Yanney, PA

Mr. & Mrs. Yeagle, PA

Mr. Bleimaier, NJ

Mr. Brunetti, NJ

Mr. Di Donato, NJ

Mr. Di Mmonte Etux, NY

Mrs. Cranstoun, NJ

Mrs. Krepcio, NJ

Mrs. Lincoln, NJ

Mrs. Motherwell & Long, NJ

Mrs. Wendy McNeil, SC

Nancy Walby, NY

Norman Silverman, NY

Pesach Osina, NY

Rayda Vega, NY

Rey & Katie Pinder, NY

Sharon Shoenfeld, NY

Steve Hopkins, NY

Terry Duffy, NY

Tom Lawlor, NY

Tom Paladino, NY

Trish Gough, NY

Vince Castellano, NY

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX B

NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF THE MAYOR

NATIONAL GRID BROOKLYN-QUEENS INTERCONNECT

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
T H E C I T Y O F N E W Y O R K

O F F I C E O F T H E M A Y O R

N E W Y O R K , N Y 1 0 0 0 7

NEGATIVE DECLARATION 

CEQR Number: 12OOM001K Date Issued: December 2, 2011 

NAME: National Grid Brooklyn-Queens Interconnect 

LOCATION: Hendrickson Street, Hendrickson Place and Flatbush Avenue from 

Avenue U in Brooklyn, along areas adjacent to the Marine Parkway-Gil 

Hodges Memorial Bridge, under the Rockaway Inlet, and on the 

Rockaway Peninsula to Beach 169th Street in Queens. 

SEQR CLASSIFICATION: Type I pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.4(b)(9) 

LEAD AGENCY: New York City Office of the Mayor 

LEAD AGENCY CONTACT: Robert R. Kulikowski, Ph.D. 

 Assistant to the Mayor 

253 Broadway, 14th Floor 

New York, New York 10007 

Phone: (212) 788-2937 

DESCRIPTION: 

To reinforce its natural gas transmission and distribution systems and to provide for 

projected increases in energy demand, National Grid proposes to install new natural gas 

pipelines in the Boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens. The installation would proceed in two 

phases. Phase I would be the installation of two pipelines (a 12-inch and a 26-inch line) 

beneath Flatbush Avenue from a point in the vicinity of the southernmost airplane hangar 

at Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn, south under the Rockaway Inlet, to Beach 169th 

Street on the Rockaway Peninsula in Queens. These two pipelines would be connected to 

existing 8-inch distribution pipelines operating at the typical natural gas distribution 

pressure used in households on both the Brooklyn and Queens sides of the Rockaway 

Inlet and would deliver natural gas from Brooklyn to the Rockaway Peninsula as 

distribution pipelines. In Phase II, one 30-inch pipeline would be installed beneath 

Hendrickson Street from Avenue U south to Hendrickson Place, east under Hendrickson 

B-1

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
CEQR Number: 12OOM001K Page 2 

December 2, 2011 

Place to Flatbush Avenue, and then south to the point in the vicinity of the southernmost 

airplane hangar at Floyd Bennett Field at the terminus of Phase I, as described above. 

Prior to the completion of the Phase II pipeline, and at the request of National Grid, The 

Williams Company Transco pipeline subsidiary (Williams’ Transco) would bring a new 

26-inch transmission pipeline branch from the existing offshore Lower New York Bay 

Extension pipeline to the Rockaway Peninsula (the ―Williams’ Transco Project‖) and 

construct a metering and regulator (M & R) station (also known as a custody transfer 

station) within Floyd Bennett Field. The Williams’ Transco Project is undergoing a 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) environmental review as part of 

obtaining a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. When the National Grid 

Phase II pipeline is installed, the Phase I 26-inch pipeline would be disconnected from 

the existing 8-inch distribution lines and connected to the Phase II 30-inch pipeline at the 

Williams’ Transco M&R station in Floyd Bennett Field. The southern end of the Phase I 

26-inch pipeline would be connected to the new Williams’ Transco 26-inch pipeline. The 

Phase I 26-inch pipeline would then operate at normal transmission pressure and serve as 

a new transmission line to bring natural gas north into New York City. The total length of 

the proposed National Grid project is approximately 20,300 feet. 

The National Grid project is considered to be non-jurisdictional by FERC and 

environmental review of the National Grid project cannot be conducted by FERC. 

Therefore, the separate environmental review of the National Grid project is being 

conducted under City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR). The Williams’ Transco 

Project is subject to a separate full environmental review by FERC, including a public 

comment period pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 

potential for overlapping and cumulative impacts are assessed in the EAS. Pursuant to the 

State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), two separate environmental reviews 

are warranted under the circumstances and are allowed under SEQRA, CEQR, and 

NEPA. 

In addition to state and federal approvals, the following discretionary approvals are 

needed for the proposed National Grid project: 

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 

Pursuant to Section 553(14) of the New York State Public Authorities Law, the lease 

agreement between the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, popularly known as 

MTA Bridges and Tunnels (MTA B&T), and National Grid is subject to approval by the 

Office of the Mayor. 

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING 

A portion of the proposed pipeline route is located within New York City’s coastal zone 

boundary. Therefore, New York City Department of City Planning will review the project 

for consistency with the City’s Waterfront Revitalization Program policies. 

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The upland portions of the project would be located within the right-of-way (ROW) of 

Flatbush Avenue, Hendrickson Street, and Hendrickson Place. National Grid is required 

to obtain road opening permits from the New York City Department of Transportation 

(NYCDOT) to allow selective cuts in these streets. If any of the work proposed by 

B-2

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
CEQR Number: 12OOM001K Page 3 

December 2, 2011 

National Grid to install pipelines under inalienable New York City property is not 

authorized under an existing franchise agreement with the City of New York, National 

Grid will need to petition the City of New York for a revocable consent for installation, 

operation, and maintenance that portion of the pipeline. 

A portion of the Belt Parkway west of Flatbush Avenue is currently mapped as Marine 

Park, under the jurisdiction of New York City Department of Parks and Recreation 

(NYCDPR) and maintained by NYCDOT. A revocable consent would be required for the 

long-term maintenance and operation of the portion of the pipeline passing through 

Marine Park and under the Belt Parkway. NYCDOT would lead review of a petition for 

the revocable consent, to be issued either by NYCDOT alone or jointly by NYCDPR and 

NYCDOT. 

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 

Although NYCDOT maintains the Belt Parkway, the land is owned by NYCDPR. A 

revocable consent will be required for the horizontal directional drilling (HDD) and longterm maintenance and operation of the pipeline within Marine Park as well as a permit 

for tree removal in the temporary work area within Marine Park. 

NEW YORK LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

Floyd Bennett Field, a designated Historic District on the New York State and National 

Register of Historic Places (S/NR), is adjacent to the project site. Marine Parkway Bridge 

(now the Marine Parkway-Gil Hodges Memorial Bridge) has been determined eligible for 

listing on the S/NR and is adjacent to the Phase I underwater portion of the pipeline and 

to upland portions of the pipelines on MTA B&T property on the Rockaway Peninsula 

and in Brooklyn. In addition, sites sensitive for archaeological resources are located 

nearby. For these reasons, the analysis of potential impacts to historic and archaeological 

resources has been submitted to the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission 

(NYCLPC) for review and concurrence. 

MTA BRIDGES AND TUNNELS 

The proposed pipelines would be located within a designated cable crossing area within 

property adjacent to the Marine Parkway-Gil Hodges Memorial Bridge, irrevocably 

assigned and conveyed by the City of New York to MTA B&T. A lease agreement with 

MTA B&T must be obtained for the project to have the necessary property rights for the 

long term operation of the pipelines. The lease agreement is subject to approval by the 

MTA B&T Board. 

STATEMENT OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: 

Pursuant to Executive Order 91 of 1977, as amended, and the Rules of Procedure for City 

Environmental Quality Review, found at Title 62, Chapter 5 of the Rules of the City of 

New York and 6 NYCRR, Part 617, State Environmental Quality Review, the New York 

City Office of the Mayor assumed the role of lead agency for the environmental review 

of the proposed project. Based on a review of information about the project contained in 

the Environmental Assessment Statement (EAS) dated December 2, 2011, the Office of 

the Mayor has determined that the installation of three natural gas pipelines, as proposed, 

B-3

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
CEQR Number: 12OOM001K Page 4 

December 2, 2011 

would not have any potentially significant adverse effects on the quality of the 

environment. 

SUPPORTING STATEMENTS: 

The above determination is based on the EAS dated December 2, 2011, which finds that 

the project, as proposed, would not result in significant effects on the environment that 

would require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EAS 

demonstrates that there is no potential significant adverse impacts on land use and public 

policy, historic resources, natural resources, hazardous materials, coastal zone 

management, construction, or public health and safety that would occur as a result of the 

proposed project, and no other significant effects upon the environment that would 

require the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement are foreseeable. 

The construction manager for the proposed project, in conjunction with the New York 

City Department of Environmental Protection, New York City Department of 

Transportation, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, and MTA Bridges 

and Tunnels will ensure that all commitments within the EAS, upon which the Negative 

Declaration is based, are understood and implemented. 

The above determination is based on a review of the EAS, which is incorporated by 

reference herein and which demonstrates: 

1. Land Use

The proposed project would have the potential to temporarily affect land use during its 

construction, which would include the temporary opening of trenches across public 

roadways and driveways as well as within a small portion of Marine Park near the Belt 

Parkway/Flatbush Avenue interchange and within a small portion of land at the southern 

end of the Marine Parkway–Gil Hodges Memorial Bridge on the Rockaway Peninsula. 

However, by using all applicable practices and methods outlined in National Grid’s 

Environmental Guidance—specifically, the Natural Resources Protection guidance 

related to work within protected waters, ROW access, maintenance, and construction 

Best Management Practices—significant adverse impacts would be avoided. Walkways, 

road shoulders, and travel lanes may be closed for short intervals in the immediate area of 

pipe-laying operations. Construction-related impacts such as noise, dust, disturbance of 

traffic, and temporary disruption to manmade features (e.g., sidewalks, guardrails, curbs, 

utilities, etc.) would occur within the Flatbush Avenue ROW where the proposed pipeline 

would be buried and within temporary staging areas located within the Flatbush Avenue 

ROW and MTA B&T property on the Rockaway Peninsula. 

National Grid or its contractors would perform cleanup and final restoration in 

accordance with its existing environmental guidance documents, as well as the 

requirements and conditions of project permits. Backfilling of trenches, soil stabilization, 

and surface restoration would immediately follow pipeline installation. All cleared areas 

would be re-graded to pre-construction grade. 

A buried pipeline route that follows existing ROWs and is within MTA B&T property 

eliminates the potential for impacts to surrounding land uses as well as the need to alter 

or otherwise disturb existing land uses. Although development of the MTA B&T 

property would be restricted in areas above the pipelines, no development in these areas 

B-4

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
CEQR Number: 12OOM001K Page 5 

December 2, 2011 

is projected for the build year absent the proposed action. Thus, no significant adverse 

impacts to land uses present along the route are anticipated. Additionally, provisions will 

be included in the lease between MTA B&T and National Grid allocating to National 

Grid responsibility for increased costs of construction at the Marine Parkway-Gil Hodges 

Memorial Bridge facility that result from the presence of the pipelines. There would be 

no impacts to land uses adjacent to the pipeline corridor or within the small portion of 

Marine Park near the Belt Parkway/Flatbush Avenue interchange or the small portion of 

land south of the bridge except during the brief period of construction. Construction 

would be conducted in such a manner as to preserve access to abutting land uses. All 

driveways would be plated during construction and access to all properties would be 

made available. Property owners would be notified prior to construction commencement. 

Temporary interference with access to properties would be minimized through adherence 

to the terms of NYCDOT and MTA B&T permits. 

Once completed, the pipelines would be underground and would not be visible or 

audible. Operation of the proposed pipelines would not generate any air or water 

pollutants, odors, traffic, or disturbance to visual resources. Accordingly, there would be 

no potentially significant adverse impacts to utilization of adjacent land for future use, 

and the project would have no potentially significant impacts on land uses within the 

study area. 

With the implementation of the program described above and adherence to the 

construction practices the project would not result in significant adverse impacts to land 

uses. 

2. Public Policy

The proposed project is consistent with the Jamaica Bay Watershed Protection Plan as 

well as the City’s local Waterfront Revitalization Program. With regard to public policies 

that pertain to greenways and bikeways in the project vicinity, because the proposed 

project would be constructed below ground and would not impact these resources, the 

proposed project would be consistent with these public policies. However, the bikeway in 

the vicinity of the HDD entry location on the Rockaway Peninsula would be closed for 

four months during the winter during construction of Phase I. This short-term closure is 

not considered to be significant. The proposed project is consistent with the 2009 New 

York State Energy Plan by utilizing an existing utility ROW in Flatbush Avenue and a 

Coast Guard-designated cable crossing under Rockaway Inlet. Moreover, the proposed 

project is consistent with and would advance the goals of PlaNYC to make energy 

systems more reliable, facilitate appropriately sited natural gas transmission lines, reduce 

residual fuel usage, and improve air quality. 

3. Historic Resources: Architectural

Two identified architectural resources, the S/NR-listed Floyd Bennett Field Historic 

District and the S/NR-eligible Marine Parkway-Gil Hodges Memorial Bridge, are located 

within the project’s 90-foot study area. The proposed project would not, however, 

physically impact any portion of the S/NR-listed Floyd Bennett Field Historic District, 

nor would construction of the underground utility lines introduce any permanent visible 

features into the setting of this resource. The Williams’ Transco Project would place the 

M&R station within one of the historic hangers on Floyd Bennett Field. That action is 

B-5

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
CEQR Number: 12OOM001K Page 6 

December 2, 2011 

being reviewed by the FERC under NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Within the street bed of Flatbush Avenue, the National Grid project would connect to an 

inlet and an outlet from the M&R station. The National Grid project would not affect or 

intrude upon the historic hanger. 

The Phase I route would be parallel to the S/NR-eligible Marine Parkway-Gil Hodges 

Memorial Bridge for the portions of the pipelines under the Rockaway Inlet and within 

upland areas on the Rockaway Peninsula and in Brooklyn that were irrevocably assigned 

and conveyed by the City of New York to MTA B&T. The two pipelines would be 

installed west of the bridge roadway centerline within a designated cable crossing area 

and below the mud line using HDD. The drill exit would be located north of the toll 

plaza, in a previously disturbed area; from the drill exit area north, conventional 

trenching would be used to install the pipelines. HDD, drill exit, and conventional 

trenching are not anticipated to physically impact any portion of the bridge. Furthermore, 

construction of the pipelines would not introduce any permanent visible features into the 

bridge’s setting and therefore would not adversely impact the bridge’s setting. Finally, a 

risk assessment has been prepared that demonstrates, based on the implementation of 

specific protective measures, that the risks to the Marine Parkway-Gil Hodges Memorial 

Bridge from the proposed pipelines would be minimal. National Grid will be obligated to 

implement those risk mitigation measures under its lease with MTA B&T and under the 

terms of a construction permit issued by MTA B&T. With these measures in place, the 

project would have no significant adverse impacts on architectural resources. 

4. Historic Resources: Archaeological

The Stage 1A Archaeological Documentary Study identified an area of potential historic 

archaeological sensitivity in the vicinity of the former Barren Island, which is now 

incorporated into the landfill that makes up Floyd Bennett Field. The Stage 1A 

determined that archaeological resources dating to the precontact period may be deeply 

buried below the landfill at depths of 10 feet or more. However, as the cut and cover 

(trenching) activities are not expected to impact depths greater than 6 feet below ground 

surface, the Stage 1A concluded that there was a low potential that the proposed project 

as it was then proposed would impact levels with precontact period sensitivity. 

For the HDD, two boreholes would have approximate diameters of 18 and 39-inches, 

respectively (about 11⁄2 times the diameters of the pipelines). As a result, archaeological 

resources in the sensitive areas could be disturbed. Although the design drawings show 

exactly where the lines would be horizontally and vertically, the exact intersection with 

the sensitive areas cannot be predicted with precision for two reasons. First, because of 

the great depth of fill covering the potential archaeological resources in the historic 

location of Barren Island and the unknown extent to which the area was disturbed in the 

19th and 20th centuries, it is unclear exactly where the historic ground surface would be 

impacted by the HDD. Soil borings suggest that the historic period ground surface may 

have been situated approximately 12 to 16 feet below the current grade. Second, 

variations in location from the design drawings can be expected with the HDD technique. 

Boulders, difference in the resistance of the soil to drilling, and other obstacles could 

cause the HDD to deviate vertically or horizontally to avoid the obstacles. 

B-6

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
CEQR Number: 12OOM001K Page 7 

December 2, 2011 

Because of the depth of the sensitive area and the uncertainty about the location of both 

the historic ground surface and the area where the HDD would impact potentially 

sensitive levels, additional Stage 1B testing in the form of direct exposure and 

examination of the sensitive depths is not practical. The amount of excavation required 

(both horizontal and vertical) to investigate such resources in a safe and appropriate 

manner would be significantly larger than the area of impact, potentially resulting in 

unnecessary disturbance to archaeological resources outside the location of impacts 

associated with the proposed project. 

In consultation with NYCLPC and the New York State Historic Preservation Office 

(NYSHPO), an alternate plan to investigate the archaeologically sensitive areas identified 

in the Stage 1A study has been developed. While not a replacement for Phase 1B testing, 

the soil borings that have already been completed in the vicinity of former Barren Island 

contribute to our understanding of the buried ground surfaces in the area. In order to add 

to this knowledge of the subsurface conditions in the archaeologically sensitive portion of 

the project site, a monitoring program will be implemented in the event that excavation 

below the depth of fill becomes necessary during the course of the project. An 

Archaeological Monitoring Plan was prepared and submitted to NYCLPC and NYSHPO 

for review and comment in October 2011. In a comment letter dated November 3, 2011, 

NYCLPC concurred with the implementation of the monitoring plan in the event that 

excavation to the depth of archaeological sensitivity becomes necessary. NYSHPO is 

currently reviewing the Archaeological Monitoring Plan, and its recommendation would 

be incorporated and implemented. 

Therefore, in consultation with NYSHPO and NYCLPC and with the Archaeological 

Monitoring Plan incorporated into the proposed project, if necessary, the proposed 

project would not have a significant adverse impact on archaeological resources. 

5. Natural Resources

The terrestrial activities of the proposed project would include trenching within a busy 

roadway and the establishment of directional drilling staging sites in areas containing 

heavily disturbed habitat adjacent to access roads for the Belt Parkway and Marine 

Parkway–Gil Hodges Memorial Bridge. All project-related disturbances would occur 

within MTA B&T property for the Marine Parkway–Gil Hodges Memorial Bridge on 

Rockaway Peninsula and the Flatbush Avenue, Hendrickson Street and Hendrickson 

Place ROW as well as within a small portion of Marine Park at the Belt 

Parkway/Flatbush Avenue interchange. All 97 trees found within 20 feet of proposed 

trenching and staging locations—and thus vulnerable to root damage or requiring 

removal—have been inventoried and measured. It was determined that four eastern red 

cedars, one sweet gum, and one white ash, all 9 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) 

or less, would be removed within Zone 2 as part of the staging area. Three black cherry 

trees, 7 inches DBH or less, would be removed within Zone 3 as part of the staging area. 

A Tree Protection and Replacement Plan would be prepared and submitted by National 

Grid to NYCDPR for approval. Trees removed or damaged on MTA B&T property 

would be restored or replaced by National Grid in accordance with the MTA B&T 

construction permit. The plan would be designed and implemented in accordance with 

Local Law 3 of 2010 to prevent damage to nearby trees and to replace trees that would be 

lost to the project. Replacement of the nine trees that would be lost during construction 

B-7

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
CEQR Number: 12OOM001K Page 8 

December 2, 2011 

would be on a basal diameter basis, and not on a one-to-one basis. The protection part of 

the plan would prevent or minimize damage to the remaining 88 trees within 20 feet of 

work activity, which are not being removed and replaced. If a tree is accidently damaged 

during construction, it would either be replaced if too badly damaged to survive, or 

repaired and its health monitored. Other terrestrial measures would be taken to (1) 

prevent runoff of excavated material into terrestrial natural areas, wetlands, and 

waterways; (2) prevent the passage of wildlife into the construction area by means of silt 

fencing; and (3) ensure restoration of any open space or parkland disturbed as a result of 

the proposed project. 

Due to the depths of the directional drilling, there would be no significant adverse 

impacts to aquatic habitat or aquatic organisms, including transient marine turtles or 

northern diamondback terrapins. The 12- inch and 26-inch pipelines would be installed 

well below the mud line or channel bottom of Rockaway Inlet and well below Mean 

Lower Low Water elevation. 

No wetlands would be disturbed as a result of construction or normal operation of the 

proposed project. Four Sparrow Marsh would not be affected by the proposed project as 

the installation of the 30-inch pipeline in Phase II would occur on the west side of 

Flatbush Avenue while Four Sparrow Marsh is located on the east side, a distance of 

about 600 feet between the construction and Four Sparrow Marsh. Implementation of the 

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would prevent sediment from entering 

Four Sparrow Marsh and the surrounding waterways. Because the proposed project 

crosses under navigable water, the project is under the jurisdiction of the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The USACE had authorized the project under 

Nationwide Permit 12, which authorizes ―activities required for construction, 

maintenance, repair, and removal of utility lines and associated facilities in water of the 

United States, provided that the activity does not result in the loss of greater than 1⁄2 acre 

of waters of the United States.‖ That permit for the proposed project has expired, and 

USACE is currently reauthorizing the project under the same Nationwide Permit 12. 

Additionally, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has issued a 

Section 401 water quality certification as part of the Nationwide Permit 12 with the 

USACE. 

Pipeline construction would involve heavy equipment, which can be noisy and create a 

disturbance to wildlife. However, construction activities would take place in an area that 

already experiences high levels of disturbance due to heavy traffic volume and other 

human activities. The wildlife species occurring in the project site are primarily urbanadapted, disturbance-tolerant species that are unlikely to be adversely affected by the 

added construction noise. Further, ample habitat is available in close proximity to the 

project site, to which wildlife could easily disperse. 

Several rare, special concern, threatened, and endangered species were noted to occur 

near the project site, primarily in the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, including a peregrine 

falcon nest in the south tower of the lift span of the Marine Parkway-Gil Hodges 

Memorial Bridge. However, for State and federally listed wildlife, no critical habitat 

areas for these species would be disturbed, and foraging activities could occur 

unimpeded. While no State or federally listed plant species were observed within the 

proposed pipeline route, there are at least two areas (a scrub-shrub/grassland area and the 

B-8

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
CEQR Number: 12OOM001K Page 9 

December 2, 2011 

shoreline south of Rockaway) that may contain suitable habitat for listed plant species 

(i.e., retrorse and Schweinitz’s flatsedges, seabeach knotweed). None of the listed plant 

species were identified during spring, autumn or winter field observations at the project 

site. In spite of the timing of the field observations occurring during the inactive period 

for most of the listed species, it is highly unlikely that populations of these species would 

be present in any of the areas that would be disturbed during construction. However, a 

preconstruction site inspection would be conducted prior to installation of the proposed 

pipelines, particularly directed towards identifying the presence of any flora or fauna of 

concern (including listed plant species, dispersing reptiles or amphibians and bridgenesting Peregrine falcons) and determining the need for the placement of structures to 

discourage the movement of wildlife into areas of construction disturbance. Where 

necessary, protective, silt fencing would be placed along the shoreline to prevent any 

wildlife from entering the construction site. 

With the measures described above incorporated into the proposed project, there would 

be no significant adverse impacts to aquatic or terrestrial natural resources in the area. 

6. Hazardous Materials

While the limited Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) did not identify the 

potential for widespread contamination of the soil or the groundwater at the study area, 

localized pockets of contamination were identified by the ESA, and there is a potential 

for undocumented/unforeseen contamination to exist in other areas within the study area. 

A Phase II soil characterization sampling and testing program would be undertaken to 

further characterize the soils that would be encountered during construction. The soil 

characterization program would target those areas identified in the Phase I EAS as having 

previous spills or industries that used hazardous materials, such as dry cleaners. Tests for 

hazardous materials commonly found in urban soils, such as metals and semivolatile 

organic compounds, would be specified as well as chemicals of public health concern, 

such as polychlorinated biphenyls. The soil characterization protocol would be submitted 

to the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) for review 

and approval prior to conducting the Phase II sampling and testing. 

The potential for adverse impacts due to the presence of subsurface contamination would 

be avoided by ensuring that construction activities are performed in accordance with sitespecific health and safety plans and, if necessary, remedial plans based on 

characterization of the project area. 

With the incorporation of these measures into the proposed project, no significant adverse 

impacts related to hazardous materials would result from construction activities.

7. Coastal Zone

Some of the area surrounding the proposed project is federal parkland and not subject to 

the New York State Coastal Zone Management Program. However, the MTA B&T 

property and the pipeline route north of the Belt Parkway are subject to the New York 

State Coastal Zone Management Program. The proposed project is subject to the City’s 

Waterfront Revitalization Program and would be consistent with all of its policies. 

Several of the policies were further analyzed, as described below. 

B-9

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
CEQR Number: 12OOM001K Page 10 

December 2, 2011 

The portion of the project site located within the Jamaica Bay Special Natural Waterfront 

Area would be wholly located within previously disturbed landscaped areas and beneath 

paved roadways, as well as below the seabed in areas adjacent to the MTA B&T’s 

Marine Parkway-Gil Hodges Memorial Bridge. The proposed pipelines would be 

installed at least 20 feet beneath the seabed of Rockaway Inlet via HDD. Therefore, the 

quality and function of the wetlands, waters, and estuarine environment—including fish, 

wildlife species and other living aquatic resources—of the inlet and Jamaica Bay would 

not be affected. The drill entry and exit pits would also be located outside of tidal 

wetlands jurisdiction, and no equipment and materials would be placed or operated 

within the wetlands and littoral zone. 

The pipelines would be located within the 100- and 500-year floodplains, but would be 

designed for flooding conditions and could be submerged without harm. 

The proposed project would not generate hazardous waste or toxic materials during 

project operations. During construction, all suitable soils would be placed back in the 

trench. Unsuitable soils would be disposed of at a licensed landfill. To the extent that any 

contaminants exist on the site, excavated material would be tested and properly 

transported and disposed. 

During the HDD, the relatively small boreholes have the potential of disturbing remains 

in an archaeological sensitive area about 14 to 16 feet below existing grade. Because of 

the depth and the uncertainty about where the boreholes and the sensitive area would 

intersect, direct investigation and observation is not practicable. In consultation with 

NYCLPC and NYSHPO, an alternate plan to investigate the archaeologically sensitive 

areas identified in the Stage 1A study has been developed. While not a replacement for 

Phase 1B testing, the soil borings that have already been completed in the vicinity of 

former Barren Island contribute to our understanding of the buried ground surfaces in the 

area. In order to add to this knowledge of the subsurface conditions in the 

archaeologically sensitive portion of the project site, a monitoring program will be 

implemented in the event that excavation below the depth of fill becomes necessary 

during the course of the project. An Archaeological Monitoring Plan was prepared and 

submitted to NYCLPC and NYSHPO for review and comment in October 2011. In a 

comment letter dated November 3, 2011, NYCLPC concurred with the implementation of 

the monitoring plan in the event that excavation to the depth of archaeological sensitivity 

becomes necessary. NYSHPO is currently reviewing the Archaeological Monitoring 

Plan, and its recommendation would be incorporated and implemented. 

Therefore, with the implementation of all appropriate best management and construction 

practices, in concurrence with NYSHPO and NYCLPC, and with the implementation of 

the Archaeological Monitoring Plan, if necessary, the proposed project would not have a 

significant adverse impact on the New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program, 

New York City Coastal Zone Management Program, or the State Coastal Management 

Program. 

8. Construction

The proposed project would have construction effects that are short-term and temporary 

in nature. They would occur in the following areas: traffic, air quality, noise, tree 

protection and loss, and stormwater management. Installation of the pipelines in property 

B-10

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
CEQR Number: 12OOM001K Page 11 

December 2, 2011 

irrevocably assigned and conveyed to MTA B&T would be performed pursuant to a 

construction permit issued by MTA B&T, which would contain provisions for 

Maintenance and Protection of Traffic. As part of the permitting process with NYCDOT 

for work within the roadway rights-of-way and for HDD under the Belt Parkway, 

National Grid would prepare detailed Maintenance and Protection of Traffic plans for 

affected roadways in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 

Variable message signs would be used to warn drivers of upcoming lane closures and 

flaggers would be used to manage traffic. During the majority of the construction period, 

two travel lanes in each direction would be maintained. During certain periods, however, 

only one south bound lane would be available for traffic because Flatbush Avenue is not 

wide enough at certain locations accommodate both construction and two lanes of traffic 

in each direction. During those periods when only one south bound is open, construction 

would be done at night, when traffic is lightest. During Phase I, two south bound lanes 

would remain open during the HDD, but during the cut and cover construction only one 

south bound lane would be available. During Phase II, one south bound lane would be 

available south of the Belt Parkway to a point in the vicinity of the southernmost airplane 

hangar on Floyd Bennett Field. Entrances to businesses, open spaces, parks, and 

recreational facilities would be maintained at all times. Access to the Greenway along the 

west side of Flatbush Avenue, north of the Belt Parkway would also be maintained. New 

York City regulations to minimize air pollution, such as a three minute time limit on 

trucks idling, and watering of exposed soils to prevent fugitive dust, would be enforced. 

The City Noise Code would be followed to minimize any intrusive noise from the 

construction. Measures would be implemented to reduce the severity of these effects in 

all cases, and therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse 

construction impacts. 

9. Public Health and Safety

The project includes measures to address basic and common pipeline risks, including 

installation of a concrete protective barrier with caution demarcation to prevent damage 

by third party excavation; construction to a depth below actual and dredge depth of the 

seabed that eliminates the possibility of anchor damage by ships that use Rockaway Inlet; 

regular monitoring of moisture as well as annual cathodic protection system inspections, 

bi-monthly cathodic protection rectifier monitoring, and in-line inspections every seven 

years to detect and prevent corrosion; pressure testing up to two times the maximum 

allowable operating pressure to ensure materials and welds are defect free; development 

of incident and location specific operating procedures on how to manage different types 

of pipeline incidents; and surveys every five years as well as during severe weather 

events to monitor the condition of the cover. 

Additional project elements that minimize risk to the general public include compliance 

with all applicable codes and regulations, emergency isolation valves that can be 

remotely activated quickly in case of rapid drop in pressure, locking covers and alarms on 

valve vaults, twenty-four hour a day operations monitoring from National Grid’s control 

center, and weekly safety patrols to check for abnormal conditions, activities, or 

encroachments. 

B-11

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
CEQR Number: 12OOM001K Page 12 

December 2, 2011 

With the above-mentioned public health and safety procedures in place, the proposed 

pipelines do not present an undue hazard to persons or property along the proposed route, 

and no significant adverse impacts are expected. 

10. No other significant effects upon the environment that would require the 

preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement are foreseeable. 

11. This Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with Article 8 of the New 

York State Environmental Conservation Law. 

 December 02, 2011

Robert R. Kulikowski, Ph.D. Date 

Assistant to the Mayor 

City of New York 

CC: Honorable M. Markowitz – Brooklyn Borough President 

Honorable H. Marshall – Queens Borough President 

Honorable L. Fidler – New York City Council District 46 

Honorable E. Ulrich – New York City Council District 32 

Honorable C. Holloway, New York City Deputy Mayor for Operations 

S. Neddle – Chair, Brooklyn Community Board 18 

D. Turano – District Manager, Brooklyn Community Board 18 

D. Orr – Chair, Queens Community Board 14 

J. Gaska – District Manager, Queens Community Board 14 

D. Mackey – NYSHPO 

W. O’Brien – NYCMOEC 

R. Dobruskin – NYCDCP 

N. Rasheed – NYCDOT 

J. Laird– NYCDPR 

A. Sutphin – NYCLPC 

A. Licata – NYCDEP 

T. Estesen – NYCDEP 

J. Stavrakas – National Grid 

F. Murphy – National Grid 

M. Terry – MTA B&T 

G. Johnson – MTA 

B-12

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX C

PIPE YARD, PIPE TRANSPORT ROUTE, AND HORIZONTAL 

DIRECTIONAL DRILL ALIGNMENT FIGURES

 Figure C-1A Pipe Yard and Pipe Transport Route

 Figure C-1B Pipe Transport Route

 Figure C-2 Horizontal Directional Drill Alignment

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Figure C-1A

Pipe Yard and Pipe Transport Route

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Th

isinformationisforenvironmentalreviewpurposesonly.

AppendixC-1A

RockawayDeliveryLateral

andNortheastConnectorProjects

PipeYardandPipeTransportRoute

fortheRockawayDeliveryLateral
Figure C-1B

Pipe Transport Route

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Th

isinformationisforenvironmentalreviewpurposesonly.

AppendixC-1B

RockawayDeliveryLateral

andNortheastConnectorProjects

PipeTransportRoute

fortheRockawayDeliveryLateral
Figure C-2

Horizontal Directional Drill Alignment

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Appendix C-2

Rockaway Delivery Lateral

and Northeast Connector Projects

Horizontal Directional Drill Alignment

for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral
APPENDIX D

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT

PROJECT-SPECIFIC UPLAND EROSION CONTROL,

REVEGETATION, AND MAINTENANCE PLAN

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project

Project-Specific Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and 

Maintenance Plan

January 2013

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PLAN

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. APPLICABILITY ..............................................................................................................1

II. SUPERVISION AND INSPECTION.................................................................................2

A. ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION ...................................................................... 2

B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS.............................. 2

III. PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING .................................................................................4

A. CONSTRUCTION WORK AREAS...................................................................... 4

B. ROAD CROSSINGS AND ACCESS POINTS..................................................... 4

C. DISPOSAL PLANNING....................................................................................... 4

D. AGENCY COORDINATION ................................................................................ 4

E. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN.......................................... 5

IV. INSTALLATION...............................................................................................................5

A. APPROVED AREAS OF DISTURBANCE........................................................... 5

B. TOPSOIL SEGREGATION ................................................................................. 6

C. ROAD CROSSINGS AND ACCESS POINTS..................................................... 7

D. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL.................................................................. 7

V. RESTORATION ..............................................................................................................9

A. CLEANUP........................................................................................................... 9

B. SOIL COMPACTION MITIGATION....................................................................10

C. REVEGETATION...............................................................................................11

VI. POST-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES...........................................................................13

A. MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE ................................................................13

B. REPORTING .....................................................................................................13

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PLAN

Page 1

I. APPLICABILITY

A. Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company (Transco), LLC has prepared this 

Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan (Transco Plan) for 

the Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project (Project) to meet or exceed the best 

management practices (BMPs) and mitigation measures included in the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation 

and Maintenance Plan (FERC Plan). The intent of the Transco Plan is to identify 

baseline mitigation measures for minimizing erosion and enhancing revegetation. 

The Transco Plan will also be provided to the contractor(s) and inspectors who 

will be constructing the pipeline on behalf of Transco. 

Where the Transco Plan departs substantially from the FERC Plan, the 

Project-specific text is highlighted as bold text. Other changes throughout the 

Transco Plan are noted in italics. Very minor formatting changes (e.g. “Project 

sponsor” to “Transco,” “should” to “will,” etc.) are not specifically called out in the 

Transco Plan text.

Once the Project is certificated, changes to the Transco Plan can be approved

only upon the submittal of a written request from Transco to the Office of Energy 

Projects (Director), and if the Director agrees that an alternative measure:

1. provides equal or better environmental protection;

2. is necessary because a portion of this Transco Plan is infeasible or 

unworkable based on project-specific conditions; or

3. is specifically required in writing by another federal, state, or Native 

American land management agency for the portion of the Project on its 

land or under its jurisdiction.

Project-related impacts on wetland and waterbody systems are addressed in 

Transco’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

(Transco Procedures) for the Project.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PLAN

Page 2

II. SUPERVISION AND INSPECTION

A. ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION

1. At least one Environmental Inspector is required for each construction 

spread during construction and restoration (as defined by section V). The 

number and experience of Environmental Inspectors assigned to each 

construction spread should be appropriate for the length of the 

construction spread and the number/significance of resources affected. 

2. Environmental Inspectors shall have peer status with all other activity 

inspectors.

3. Environmental Inspectors shall have the authority to stop activities that 

violate the environmental conditions of the Certificate, state and federal 

environmental permit conditions, or landowner requirements; and to order 

appropriate corrective action.

B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS

At a minimum, the Environmental Inspector(s) shall be responsible for:

1. Ensuring compliance with the requirements of this Transco Plan, the 

Transco Procedures, the environmental conditions of the Certificate 

authorization, the mitigation measures proposed by Transco (as approved 

and/or modified by the Certificate), other environmental permits and 

approvals, and environmental requirements in landowner easement 

agreements;

2. Identifying, documenting, and overseeing corrective actions, as 

necessary to bring an activity back into compliance;

3. Verifying that the limits of authorized construction work areas and 

locations of access roads are properly marked before clearing;

4. Verifying the location of signs and highly visible flagging marking the 

boundaries of sensitive resource areas, waterbodies, wetlands, or areas 

with special requirements along the construction work area;

5. Identifying erosion/sediment control and soil stabilization needs in all 

areas;

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PLAN

Page 3

6. Ensuring that the location of dewatering structures and slope breakers will 

not direct water into known cultural resources sites or locations of 

sensitive species;

7. Verifying that trench dewatering activities do not result in the deposition of 

sand, silt, and/or sediment near the point of discharge into a wetland or 

waterbody. If such deposition is occurring, the dewatering activity shall 

be stopped and the design of the discharge shall be changed to prevent 

reoccurrence;

8. Ensuring that subsoil and topsoil are tested in agricultural and residential 

areas to measure compaction and determine the need for corrective 

action;

9. Advising the Chief Construction Inspector when conditions (such as wet 

weather) make it advisable to restrict construction activities to avoid 

excessive rutting;

10. Ensuring restoration of contours and topsoil;

11. Verifying that the soils imported for agricultural or residential use have 

been certified as free of noxious weeds and soil pests, unless otherwise 

approved by the landowner;

12. Determining the need for and ensuring that erosion controls are properly 

installed, as necessary to prevent sediment flow into wetlands, 

waterbodies, sensitive areas, and onto roads;

13. Inspecting and ensuring the maintenance of temporary erosion control 

measures at least:

a. on a daily basis in areas of active construction or equipment 

operation;

b. on a weekly basis in areas with no construction or equipment 

operation; and

c. within 24 hours of each 0.5 inch of rainfall;

14. Ensuring the repair of all ineffective temporary erosion control measures 

within 24 hours of identification;

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PLAN

Page 4

15. Keeping records of compliance with the environmental conditions of the 

FERC certificate, and the mitigation measures proposed by Transco in 

the application submitted to the FERC, and other federal or state 

environmental permits during active construction and restoration; and

16. Identifying areas that should be given special attention to ensure 

stabilization and restoration after the construction phase.

III. PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING 

Transco shall do the following before construction:

A. CONSTRUCTION WORK AREAS

1. Identify all construction work areas (e.g., construction right-of-way, extra work 

space areas, pipe storage and contractor yards, borrow and disposal 

areas, access roads, etc.) that would be needed for safe construction. 

Transco will ensure that appropriate cultural resources and biological 

surveys have been conducted.

2. Transco expanded the cultural resources and endangered species review 

corridors (consistent with agency requirements) in the event that activities 

outside of certificated work areas are needed.

B. ROAD CROSSINGS AND ACCESS POINTS

Plan for safe and accessible conditions at all roadway crossings and access 

points during construction and restoration.

C. DISPOSAL PLANNING

Determine methods and locations for the disposal of construction debris (e.g., 

timber, slash, mats, garbage, drilling fluids, excess rock, etc). Off-site disposal in 

other than commercially operated disposal locations is subject to compliance with 

all applicable survey, landowner permission, and mitigation requirements and is 

subject to all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

D. AGENCY COORDINATION

Transco will coordinate with the appropriate local, state, and federal agencies as 

outlined in this Transco Plan and in the Certificate, and will:

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PLAN

Page 5

1. Obtain written recommendations from the local soil conservation 

authorities or land management agencies regarding permanent erosion 

control and revegetation specifications. 

2. If necessary, develop specific procedures in coordination with the 

appropriate agency to prevent the introduction or spread of noxious 

weeds and soil pests resulting from construction and restoration activities. 

The only onshore portion of the Project with the potential for 

disturbance to vegetated areas is on TBTA property. It is 

anticipated there will be no introduction or spread of noxious weeds 

or soil pests; the area is maintained as lawn.

E. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN

Make available on each construction spread the Stormwater Pollution Prevention 

Plan prepared for compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 

National Stormwater Program General Permit requirements.

IV. INSTALLATION

A. APPROVED AREAS OF DISTURBANCE

1. Project-related ground disturbance shall be limited to the construction 

right-of-way, extra work space areas, pipe storage yards, borrow and 

disposal areas, access roads, and other areas approved in the Certificate. 

Any project-related ground disturbing activities outside these Certificated 

areas, except those needed to comply with the Transco Plan and 

Procedures (e.g., slope breakers, energy-dissipating devices, dewatering 

structures, drain tile system repairs) will require prior Director approval. 

All construction or restoration activities outside of the Certificated areas 

are subject to all applicable survey and mitigation requirements.

2. The construction ROW width for the onshore portion of the Project shall 

not exceed 75 feet or unless otherwise modified by a Certificate condition. 

Transco proposes that the construction ROW width will be 5,000 feet 

in the offshore area. This width provides area where the work can 

proceed in a safe manner without interference from non-project 

vessel traffic in the area. It also allows for construction vessels to 

maneuver safely in the area, accounting for the anchor spread of the

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PLAN

Page 6

vessels during all phases of offshore construction. Project use of 

these additional limited areas is subject to landowner approval and 

compliance with all applicable survey and mitigation requirements. When 

such additional areas are used, each one will be identified and the need 

explained in the weekly or biweekly construction reports to the FERC, if 

required. The following material will be included in the reports:

a. the location of each additional area by station number and 

reference to a previously filed alignment sheet, or updated 

alignment sheets showing the additional areas;

b. identification of where the Commission's records contain evidence 

that the additional areas were previously surveyed; and

c. a statement that landowner approval has been obtained and is 

available in project files.

Prior written approval of the Director will be obtained if Transco subsequently 

expands the certificated construction right-of-way width by more than 25 feet.

B. TOPSOIL SEGREGATION

1. Unless the landowner or land management agency specifically approves 

otherwise, prevent the mixing of topsoil with subsoil by stripping topsoil 

from the trench and subsoil storage area (ditch plus spoil side method in):

a. residential areas; and

b. other areas at the landowner's or land managing agency’s 

request.

2. In residential areas importation of topsoil is an acceptable alternative to 

topsoil segregation.

3. In deep soils (more than 12 inches of topsoil), segregate at least 12 

inches of topsoil. In soils with less than 12 inches of topsoil make every 

effort to segregate the entire topsoil layer. 

4. Where topsoil segregation is required, maintain separation of salvaged 

topsoil and subsoil throughout all construction activities. 

5. Segregated topsoil may not be used for padding the pipe.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PLAN

Page 7

C. ROAD CROSSINGS AND ACCESS POINTS

1. Maintain safe and accessible conditions at all road crossings and access 

points during construction. 

2. If crushed stone access pads are used in residential or active agricultural 

areas, place the stone on synthetic fabric to facilitate removal.

D. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL

Install temporary erosion controls immediately after initial disturbance of the soil. 

Temporary erosion controls must be properly maintained throughout construction 

(on a daily basis) and reinstalled as necessary (such as after backfilling of the 

trench) until replaced by permanent erosion controls or restoration is complete. 

2. Temporary Slope Breakers

a. Temporary slope breakers are intended to reduce runoff velocity 

and divert water off the construction right-of-way. Temporary 

slope breakers may be constructed of materials such as soil, silt 

fence, staked hay or straw bales, or sand bags.

b. Install temporary slope breakers on all disturbed areas, as 

necessary to avoid excessive erosion. Temporary slope breakers 

must be installed on slopes greater than 5 percent where the base 

of the slope is less than 50 feet from waterbody, wetland, and 

road crossings at the following spacing (closer spacing should be 

used if necessary):

Slope (%) Spacing (feet)

5 – 15 300

>15 – 30 200

>30 100

c. Direct the outfall of each temporary slope breaker to a stable, well 

vegetated area or construct an energy-dissipating device at the 

end of the slope breaker and off the construction right-of-way. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PLAN

Page 8

d. Position the outfall of each temporary slope breaker to prevent 

sediment discharge into wetlands, waterbodies, or other sensitive 

resources. 

3. Sediment Barriers

a. Sediment barriers are intended to stop the flow of sediments and 

to prevent the deposition of sediments into sensitive resources. 

They may be constructed of materials such as silt fence, staked 

hay or straw bales, compacted earth (e.g., drivable berms across 

travel ways), sand bags, or other appropriate materials.

b. At a minimum, install and maintain temporary sediment barriers 

across the entire construction right-of-way at the base of slopes 

greater than 5 percent where the base of the slope is less than 50 

feet from a waterbody, wetland, or road crossing until revegetation 

is successful as defined in this Transco Plan. Leave adequate 

room between the base of the slope and the sediment barrier to 

accommodate ponding of water and sediment deposition.

c. Where wetlands or waterbodies are adjacent to and downslope of 

construction work areas, install sediment barriers along the edge 

of these areas, as necessary to prevent sediment flow into the 

wetland or waterbody.

4. Mulch

a. Apply mulch on all slopes (except in actively cultivated cropland) 

concurrent with or immediately after seeding, where necessary to 

stabilize the soil surface and to reduce wind and water erosion. 

Spread mulch uniformly over the area to cover at least 75 percent 

of the ground surface at a rate of 2 tons/acre of straw or its 

equivalent, unless the local soil conservation authority, landowner, 

or land managing agency approves otherwise in writing.

b. Mulch can consist of weed-free straw or hay, wood fiber 

hydromulch, erosion control fabric, or some functional equivalent.

c. Mulch before seeding if:

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PLAN

Page 9

(1) final grading and installation of permanent erosion control 

measures will not be completed in an area within 20 days 

after the trench in that area is backfilled (10 days in 

residential areas), as required in section V.A.1; or

(2) construction or restoration activity is interrupted for 

extended periods, such as when seeding cannot be 

completed due to seeding period restrictions.

d. If mulching before seeding, increase mulch application on all 

slopes within 100 feet of waterbodies and wetlands to a rate of 3 

tons/acre of straw or equivalent.

e. If wood chips are used as mulch, do not use more than 1 ton/acre 

and add the equivalent of 11 lbs/acre available nitrogen (at least 

50 percent of which is slow release).

f. Ensure that mulch is adequately anchored to minimize loss due to 

wind and water.

g. When anchoring with liquid mulch binders, use rates 

recommended by the manufacturer. Do not use liquid mulch 

binders within 100 feet of wetlands or waterbodies.

h. Install erosion control fabric on waterbody banks at the time of 

final bank recontouring. Anchor the erosion control fabric with 

staples or other appropriate devices.

V. RESTORATION

A. CLEANUP

1. Commence cleanup operations immediately following backfill operations. 

Complete final grading, topsoil replacement, and installation of permanent 

erosion control structures within 20 days after backfilling the trench (10 

days in residential areas). If seasonal or other weather conditions 

prevent compliance with these time frames, maintain temporary erosion 

controls (temporary slope breakers and sediment barriers) until conditions 

allow completion of cleanup.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PLAN

Page 10

2. Transco shall file with the Secretary for the review and written approval of the 

Director, a winterization plan for construction occurring in the winter season

and if it extends into a second winter season since conditions could delay 

successful decompaction, topsoil replacement, or seeding until the following 

spring. 

3. A travel lane may be left open temporarily to allow access by construction 

traffic if the temporary erosion control structures are installed (as 

specified in section IV.F.) and inspected and maintained (as specified in 

sections II.B.12 through 14). When access is no longer required, the 

travel lane must be removed and the right-of-way restored.

4. Rock excavated from the trench may be used to backfill the trench only to 

the top of the existing bedrock profile. Rock that is not returned to the 

trench should be considered construction debris, unless approved for use 

as mulch or for some other use on the construction work areas by the 

landowner or land managing agency. 

5. Remove excess rock from at least the top 12 inches of soil in all actively 

cultivated or rotated cropland and pastures, hayfields, and residential 

areas, as well as other areas at the landowner's request. The size, 

density, and distribution of rock on the construction work area should be 

similar to adjacent areas not disturbed by construction. The landowner 

may approve other provisions in writing. 

6. Grade the construction right-of-way to restore pre-construction contours 

and leave the soil in the proper condition for planting.

7. Remove construction debris from all construction work areas unless the 

landowner or land managing agency approves otherwise.

8. Remove temporary sediment barriers when replaced by permanent 

erosion control measures or when revegetation is successful.

B. SOIL COMPACTION MITIGATION

1. Test topsoil and subsoil for compaction at regular intervals in agricultural 

and residential areas disturbed by construction activities. Conduct tests 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PLAN

Page 11

on the same soil type under similar moisture conditions in undisturbed 

areas to approximate preconstruction conditions. Use penetrometers or 

other appropriate devices to conduct tests.

2. Plow severely compacted agricultural areas with a paraplow or other 

deep tillage implement. In areas where topsoil has been segregated, 

plow the subsoil before replacing the segregated topsoil. 

Alternatively, make arrangements with the landowner to plant and plow 

under a "green manure" crop, such as alfalfa, to decrease soil bulk 

density and improve soil structure. If subsequent construction and 

cleanup activities result in further compaction, conduct additional tilling.

3. Perform appropriate soil compaction mitigation in severely compacted 

residential areas.

C. REVEGETATION

1. General

a. Transco will be responsible for ensuring successful revegetation of 

soils disturbed by project-related activities, except as noted in 

section V.D.1.b.

b. Restore all turf, ornamental shrubs, and specialized landscaping in 

accordance with the landowner's request, or compensate the 

landowner. Restoration work must be performed by personnel 

familiar with local horticultural and turf establishment practices. 

2. Soil Additives 

Fertilize and add soil pH modifiers in accordance with written 

recommendations obtained from the local soil conservation authority, land 

management agencies, or landowner. Incorporate recommended soil pH 

modifier and fertilizer into the top 2 inches of soil as soon as possible after 

application.

3. Seeding Requirements

a. Prepare a seedbed in disturbed areas to a depth of 3 to 4 inches 

using appropriate equipment to provide a firm seedbed. When 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PLAN

Page 12

hydroseeding, scarify the seedbed to facilitate lodging and 

germination of seed.

b. Seed disturbed areas 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. Seeding is not required in actively 

cultivated croplands unless requested by the landowner.

c. Perform seeding of permanent vegetation within the recommended 

seeding dates. If seeding cannot be done within those dates, use 

appropriate temporary erosion control measures discussed in 

section IV.F. and perform seeding of permanent vegetation at the 

beginning of the next recommended seeding season. Lawns may 

be seeded on a schedule established with the landowner.

d. In the absence of written recommendations from the local soil 

conservation authorities, seed all disturbed soils within 6 working 

days of final grading, weather and soil conditions permitting, 

subject to the specifications in section V.D.3.a-c. 

e. Base seeding rates on Pure Live Seed. Use seed within 12 months of 

seed testing.

f. Treat legume seed with an inoculant specific to the species using the 

manufacturer’s recommended rate of inoculant appropriate for the 

seeding method (broadcast, drill, or hydro).

g. In the absence of written recommendations from the local soil 

conservation authorities, landowner, or land managing agency to 

the contrary, a seed drill equipped with a cultipacker is preferred 

for seed application. 

Broadcasting or hydroseeding can be used in lieu of drilling at double the recommended 

seeding rates. Where seed is broadcast, firm the seedbed with a cultipacker or imprinter 

after seeding. In rocky soils or where site conditions may limit the effectiveness of this 

equipment, other alternatives may be appropriate (e.g., use of a chain drag) to lightly 

cover seed after application, as approved by the Environmental Inspector.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PLAN

Page 13

VI. POST-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

A. MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE 

1. Conduct follow-up inspections of all disturbed areas after the first and 

second growing seasons to determine the success of revegetation.

2. Revegetation in non-agricultural areas shall be considered successful if 

upon visual survey the density and cover of non-nuisance vegetation are 

similar in density and cover to adjacent undisturbed lands. In agricultural 

areas, revegetation shall be considered successful if crop yields are 

similar to adjacent undisturbed portions of the same field.

Continue revegetation efforts until revegetation is successful.

3. Monitor and correct problems with drainage and irrigation systems 

resulting from pipeline construction in active agricultural areas until 

restoration is successful.

4. Restoration shall be considered successful if the right-of-way surface 

condition is similar to adjacent undisturbed lands, construction debris is 

removed (unless requested otherwise by the land owner or land 

managing agency), revegetation is successful, and proper drainage has 

been restored.

5. Routine vegetation maintenance clearing shall be maintained by the 

golf course in areas where the right-of-way crosses the golf course 

property. No vegetation maintenance is needed in sand dune and 

beach areas. This will allow for periodic corrosion and leak surveys, 

as they are needed.

6. Efforts to control unauthorized off-road vehicle use, in cooperation with 

the landowner, shall continue throughout the life of the project. Maintain 

signs, gates, and vehicle trails as necessary.

B. REPORTING

1. Transco shall maintain records that identify by milepost:

a. method of application, application rate, and type of fertilizer, pH 

modifying agent, seed, and mulch used;

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PLAN

Page 14

b. acreage treated;

c. dates of backfilling and seeding;

d. names of landowners requesting special seeding treatment and a 

description of the follow-up actions; and

e. any problem areas and how they were addressed.

2. Transco shall file with the Secretary quarterly activity reports documenting 

problems, including those identified by the landowner, if any, and 

corrective actions taken for at least 2 years following construction.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX E

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT

PROJECT-SPECIFIC WETLAND AND WATERBODY

CONSTRUCTION AND MITIGATION PROCEDURES

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC

Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project

Project-Specific Wetland and Waterbody Construction and 

Mitigation Procedures 

January 2013

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PROCEDURES 

Page iii

WETLAND AND WATERBODY CONSTRUCTION AND MITIGATION 

PROCEDURES 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. APPLICABILITY ..............................................................................................................1

II. PRECONSTRUCTION FILING........................................................................................2

III. ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS..................................................................................3

IV. PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING .................................................................................3

V. WATERBODY CROSSINGS...........................................................................................5

A. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND PERMITS................................................ 5

B. INSTALLATION .................................................................................................. 5

C. RESTORATION.................................................................................................. 8

D. POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE.......................................................... 8

VI. HYDROSTATIC TESTING ..............................................................................................9

A. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND PERMITS................................................ 9

B. GENERAL........................................................................................................... 9

C. INTAKE SOURCE AND RATE............................................................................ 9

D. DISCHARGE LOCATION, METHOD, AND RATE .............................................10

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PROCEDURES 

Page 1

I. APPLICABILITY

A. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) has prepared this 

Project-specific Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

(Transco Procedures) for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project (Project) to meet 

or exceed the best management practices (BMPs) and mitigation measures 

included in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Wetland and 

Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (FERC Procedures). The 

intent of the Transco Procedures document is to identify baseline mitigation 

measures for minimizing erosion and sediment transport to wetlands and 

waterbodies, in addition to limiting adverse impacts to aquatic habitats and water 

quality downstream of waterbody crossings. The Transco Procedures will also be 

provided to the contractor(s) and inspectors who will be constructing the pipeline 

on behalf of Transco.

Where the Transco Procedures depart substantially from the FERC Procedures, 

the Project-specific text is highlighted as bold text. Other changes throughout 

the Transco Procedures are noted in italics. Very minor formatting changes (e.g., 

“project sponsor” to “Transco”, “should” to “will”, etc.) are not specifically called 

out in the Transco Procedures text.

Once the Project is certificated, further changes can be approved only upon the 

submittal of a written request from Transco to the Director of the Office of Energy 

Projects (Director), and if the Director agrees that an alternative measure:

1. provides equal or better environmental protection;

2. is necessary because a portion of the Transco Procedures is infeasible or 

unworkable based on project-specific conditions; or

3. is specifically required in writing by another federal, state, or Native 

American land management agency for the portion of the project on its 

land or under its jurisdiction. 

Project-related impacts on uplands are addressed in Transco’s Upland Erosion 

Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Transco Plan).

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PROCEDURES 

Page 2

B. DEFINITIONS

1. "Waterbody" includes any natural or artificial stream, river, or drainage 

with perceptible flow at the time of crossing, and other permanent 

waterbodies such as ponds and lakes:

a. "minor waterbody" includes all waterbodies less than or equal to 

10 feet wide at the water's edge at the time of crossing;

b. "intermediate waterbody" includes all waterbodies greater than 10 

feet wide but less than or equal to 100 feet wide at the water's 

edge at the time of crossing; and

c. "major waterbody" includes all waterbodies greater than 100 feet 

wide at the water's edge at the time of crossing.

2. "Wetland" includes any area that is not in actively cultivated or rotated 

cropland and that satisfies the requirements of the current federal 

methodology for identifying and delineating wetlands.

II. PRECONSTRUCTION FILING

A. The following information shall be filed with the Secretary prior to the beginning 

of construction:

1. the hydrostatic testing information specified in section VII.B.3. and a 

wetland delineation report as described in section VI.A.1., if applicable; 

and

2. a schedule identifying when trenching or blasting would occur within each 

waterbody greater than 10 feet wide, or within any designated coldwater 

fishery. Transco shall revise the schedule as necessary to provide FERC 

staff at least 14 days advance notice. Changes within this last 14-day 

period must provide for at least 48 hours advance notice.

B. The following site-specific construction plans required by these Transco 

Procedures must be filed with the Secretary for the review and written approval 

by the Director:

1. plans for extra work areas that would be closer than 50 feet from a 

waterbody or wetland;

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PROCEDURES 

Page 3

2. plans for major waterbody crossings;

3. plans for the use of a construction right-of-way greater than 75 feet wide 

in wetlands; and

4. plans for horizontal directional drill (HDD) "crossings" of wetlands or 

waterbodies.

III. ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS

A. At least one Environmental Inspector having knowledge of the wetland and 

waterbody conditions in the Project area is required for each construction spread. 

The number and experience of Environmental Inspectors assigned to each 

construction spread will be appropriate for the length of the construction spread 

and the number/significance of resources affected.

B. The Environmental Inspector's responsibilities are outlined in the Upland Erosion 

Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan).

IV. PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING

A. A copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for 

compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National 

Stormwater Program General Permit requirements must be available in the field 

on each construction spread. The SWPPP shall contain Spill Prevention and 

Response Procedures that meet the requirements of state and federal agencies.

1. Transco assumes the responsibility for its contractors to structure their 

operations in a manner that reduces the risk of spills or the accidental 

exposure of fuels or hazardous materials to waterbodies or wetlands. 

Transco shall, at a minimum, ensure that:

a. all employees handling fuels and other hazardous materials are 

properly trained;

b. all equipment is in good operating order and inspected on a 

regular basis;

c. fuel trucks transporting fuel to on-site equipment travel only on

approved access roads;

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PROCEDURES 

Page 4

d. all equipment is parked overnight and/or fueled at least 100 feet 

from a waterbody or in an upland area at least 100 feet from a 

wetland boundary.

e. hazardous materials, including chemicals, fuels, and lubricating 

oils, are not stored within 100 feet of a wetland, waterbody, or 

designated municipal watershed area, unless the location is 

designated for such use by an appropriate governmental 

authority. This applies to storage of these materials and does not 

apply to normal operation or use of equipment in these areas; and

f. concrete coating activities of the pipeline will occur at a 

coating plant before being shipped to the site. Grout material

will be installed in impermeable mats as part of the in-water 

construction activity to reduce the amount of time needed to 

install the mats. 

2. Transco assumes the responsibility for its contractors to structure their 

operations in a manner that provides for the prompt and effective cleanup 

of spills of fuel and other hazardous materials. At a minimum, Transco

and its contractors must:

a. ensure that each construction crew (including cleanup crews) has 

on hand sufficient supplies of absorbent and barrier materials to 

allow the rapid containment and recovery of spilled materials and 

knows the procedure for reporting spills;

b. ensure that each construction crew has on hand sufficient tools 

and material to stop leaks;

c. know the contact names and telephone numbers for all local, 

state, and federal agencies (including, if necessary, the U. S. 

Coast Guard and the National Response Center) that must be 

notified of a spill; and

d. follow the requirements of those agencies in cleaning up the spill, 

in excavating and disposing of soils or other materials 

contaminated by a spill, and in collecting and disposing of waste 

generated during spill cleanup.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PROCEDURES 

Page 5

B. AGENCY COORDINATION

Transco will coordinate with the appropriate local, state, and federal agencies as 

outlined in these Transco Procedures and in the Certificate.

V. WATERBODY CROSSINGS

A. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND PERMITS

1. Apply to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), or its delegated 

agency, for the appropriate wetland and waterbody crossing permits.

2. Provide written notification to authorities responsible for potable surface 

water supply intakes located within 3 miles downstream of the crossing at 

least 1 week before beginning work in the waterbody, or as otherwise 

specified by that authority.

3. Apply for state-issued waterbody crossing permits and obtain individual 

or generic section 401 water quality certification or waiver.

4. Notify appropriate state authorities at least 48 hours before beginning 

trenching or blasting within the waterbody, or as specified in state 

permits.

B. INSTALLATION

1. Time Window for Construction

Unless expressly permitted or further restricted by the appropriate state 

agency in writing on a site-specific basis, in-stream work, except that 

required to install or remove equipment bridges, must occur during the 

following time windows:

a. coldwater fisheries - June 1 through September 30; and

b. coolwater and warmwater fisheries - June 1 through November 30

2. Extra Work Areas

a. Generally locate extra work areas (such as staging areas and 

additional spoil storage areas) at least 50 feet away from water’s 

edge, except where the adjacent upland consists of actively 

cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed land. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PROCEDURES 

Page 6

b. Transco will file with the Secretary for review and written approval 

by the Director, a site-specific construction plan for each extra 

work area with a less than 50-foot setback from the water's edge, 

(except where the adjacent upland consists of actively cultivated 

or rotated cropland or other disturbed land) and a site-specific 

explanation of the conditions that will not permit a 50-foot setback.

c. Limit clearing of vegetation between extra work areas and the 

edge of the waterbody to the certificated construction right-of-way.

d. Limit the size of extra work areas to the minimum needed to 

construct the waterbody crossing.

3. General Crossing Procedures

a. Comply with the COE, or its delegated agency, permit terms and 

conditions.

b. Construct crossings as close to perpendicular to the axis of the 

waterbody channel as engineering and routing conditions permit.

c. If the pipeline parallels a waterbody, attempt to maintain at least 

15 feet of undisturbed vegetation between the waterbody (and any 

adjacent vegetation) and the construction right of way. 

d. Where waterbodies meander or have multiple channels, route the 

pipeline to minimize the number of waterbody crossings.

e. Maintain adequate flow rates to protect aquatic life, and prevent 

the interruption of existing downstream uses.

f. Waterbody buffers (extra work area setbacks, refueling 

restrictions, etc.) must be clearly marked in the field with signs 

and/or highly visible flagging until construction-related grounddisturbing activities are complete.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PROCEDURES 

Page 7

4. Spoil Pile Placement and Control

a. Transco will place spoil from minor and intermediate waterbody 

crossings, and upland spoil from major waterbody crossings, in 

the construction right-of-way at least 10 feet away from the 

water's edge or in additional extra work areas as described in 

section V.B.2.a. 

b. Use sediment barriers to prevent the flow of spoil or heavily siltladen water into any waterbody.

5. Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD)

To the extent they were not provided as part of the precertification process, for each waterbody or wetland that would be 

crossed using the HDD method, provide a plan that includes:

(1) site-specific construction diagrams that show the location 

of mud pits, pipe assembly areas, and all areas to be 

disturbed or cleared for construction;

(2) a description of how an inadvertent release of drilling mud 

would be contained and cleaned up; and

(3) a contingency plan for crossing the waterbody or wetland 

in the event the directional drill is unsuccessful and how 

the abandoned drill hole would be sealed, if necessary.

6. Crossings of Major Waterbodies

Before construction, Transco will file with the Secretary for the review and 

written approval by the Director a detailed, site-specific construction plan 

and scaled drawings identifying all areas to be disturbed by construction 

for each major waterbody crossing (the scaled drawings are not required 

for any offshore portions of pipeline projects). This plan will be developed 

in consultation with the appropriate state and federal agencies and will

include extra work areas, spoil storage areas, sediment control structures, 

etc., as well as mitigation for navigational issues.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PROCEDURES 

Page 8

The Environmental Inspector may adjust the final placement of the 

erosion and sediment control structures in the field to maximize 

effectiveness.

7. Trench Dewatering

Dewater the trench (either on or off the construction right-of-way) in a 

manner that does not cause erosion and does not result in heavily siltladen water flowing into any waterbody. Remove the dewatering 

structures as soon as possible after the completion of dewatering 

activities.

C. RESTORATION

1. Revegetate disturbed riparian areas with conservation grasses and 

legumes or native plant species, preferably woody species.

2. Install a permanent slope breaker across the construction right-of-way at 

the base of slopes greater than 5 percent that are less than 50 feet from 

the waterbody, or as needed to prevent sediment transport into the 

waterbody. In addition, install sediment barriers as outlined in the 

Transco Plan. In some areas, with the approval of the Environmental 

Inspector, an earthen berm may be suitable as a sediment barrier 

adjacent to the waterbody.

3. Sections V.C.1. through V.C.2. above also apply to those perennial or 

intermittent streams not flowing at the time of construction.

D. POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE

1. Limit vegetation maintenance adjacent to waterbodies to allow a riparian 

strip at least 25 feet wide, as measured from the waterbody's mean high 

water mark, to permanently revegetate with native plant species across 

the entire construction right-of-way. However, to facilitate periodic 

pipeline corrosion/leak surveys, a corridor centered on the pipeline and 

up to 10 feet wide may be maintained in an herbaceous state. In 

addition, trees that are located within 15 feet of the pipeline that are 

greater than 15 feet in height may be cut and removed from the 

permanent right-of-way.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PROCEDURES 

Page 9

2. Do not use herbicides or pesticides in or within 100 feet of a waterbody 

except as allowed by the appropriate land management or state agency.

VI. HYDROSTATIC TESTING

A. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND PERMITS

1. Apply for state-issued water withdrawal permits, as required.

2. Apply for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or 

state-issued discharge permits, as required.

3. Notify appropriate state agencies of intent to use specific sources at least 

48 hours before testing activities unless they waive this requirement in 

writing.

B. GENERAL

1. Perform non-destructive testing of all pipeline section welds or hydrotest 

the pipeline sections, before installation under waterbodies or wetlands.

2. If pumps used for hydrostatic testing are within 100 feet of any waterbody 

or wetland, address the operation and refueling of these pumps in the 

project’s Spill Prevention and Response Procedures (see Appendix 1C of 

Resource Report 1 – “Project Description”).

3. Transco shall file with the Secretary before construction a list identifying 

the location of all waterbodies proposed for use as a hydrostatic test 

water source or discharge location.

C. INTAKE SOURCE AND RATE

1. Screen the intake hose to prevent entrainment of fish.

2. Do not use state-designated exceptional value waters, waterbodies which 

provide habitat for federally listed threatened or endangered species, or 

waterbodies designated as public water supplies, unless appropriate 

federal, state, and/or local permitting agencies grant written permission.

3. Maintain adequate flow rates to protect aquatic life, provide for all 

waterbody uses, and provide for downstream withdrawals of water by 

existing users.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT TRANSCO PROCEDURES 

Page 10

4. Locate hydrostatic test manifolds outside wetlands and riparian areas to 

the maximum extent practicable.

D. DISCHARGE LOCATION, METHOD, AND RATE

1. Regulate discharge rate, use energy dissipation device(s), and install 

sediment barriers, as necessary, to prevent erosion, streambed scour, 

suspension of sediments, or excessive streamflow.

2. Do not discharge into state-designated exceptional value waters, 

waterbodies which provide habitat for federally listed threatened or 

endangered species, or waterbodies designated as public water supplies, 

unless appropriate federal, state, and local permitting agencies grant 

written permission.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX F

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT

SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND COUNTERMEASURES PLAN

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan 

(SPCC Plan)

Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project

March 2013

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page iii

Table of Contents

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION ..........................................................................................1-1

1.1 Project Location and Description...................................................................... 1-1

2.0 DRAINAGE PATTERNS AND SPILL PREVENTION PRACTICES...............................2-1

2.1 Drainage Patterns............................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Spill Prevention Practices ................................................................................ 2-1

3.0 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES................................................................3-1

3.1 Contractor Responsibilities .............................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Company Responsibilities................................................................................ 3-1

3.3 Emergency Contacts........................................................................................ 3-2

3.4 Duties of Company Inspector (District Manager) for Non-de minimus 

Spills ................................................................................................................ 3-2

4.0 EMERGENCY SPILL RESPONSE AND PERSONNEL PROTECTION 

EQUIPMENT................................................................................................................4-1

5.0 SPILL NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES........................................................................5-1

5.1 Internal Notifications ........................................................................................ 5-1

5.2 External Notifications ....................................................................................... 5-1

5.3 Emergency Spill Response Contractors........................................................... 5-2

5.4 Local Emergency Responders ......................................................................... 5-2

6.0 CLEAN-UP PROCEDURES .........................................................................................6-1

6.1 Spills ................................................................................................................ 6-1

6.2 Equipment Cleaning/Storage ........................................................................... 6-1

6.3 Waste Disposal................................................................................................ 6-2

APPENDIX A TABLE I: LIST OF EMERGENCY CONTACTS............................................... A-1

APPENDIX A TABLE II: EMERGENCY SPILL RESPONSE AND PERSONNEL 

PROTECTION EQUIPMENT....................................................................................... A-2

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page 1-1 

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 

This Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan (Spill Plan) was developed for 

the Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project (Project), which would extend approximately 3.20 miles 

from a p roposed o ffshore i nterconnect w ith Transcontinental Gas P ipe Li ne C ompany, LLC ’s

(Transco’s) existing 26 -inch di ameter Low er N ew Y ork B ay Lateral ( LNYBL) i n t he A tlantic 

Ocean to an onshore delivery point for the National Grid pipeline system on the Rockaway 

Peninsula in Queens County, New York. The offshore portion of pipeline construction will occur 

entirely within the Atlantic Ocean, which is the only waterbody that could be affected by spills 

during construction.

As par t of the o ffshore c onstruction pl anning process, Transco w ill e nsure t hat any 

vessel oper ators per forming t he w ork hav e appr opriate pl ans i n pl ace t o comply w ith U nited 

States Coast Guard requirements including a V essel Response Plan (VRP) or a S hipboard Oil 

Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP) as contained in 33 CFR 151 and 33 CFR 155. The specific 

plan requirements depend on the size of the vessel and the type of cargo and the quantity of oil 

and fuel that will be carried on board.

Definitions: 

Oil is defined in the SPCC regulations as oil of any kind or in any form including, 

but not limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse and oil mixed with wastes other 

than dredged spoil and oily mixtures.

Hazardous Material is defined by DOT includes hazardous substances, hazardous 

wastes, marine pollutants, elevated temperature materials, materials designated as hazardous 

in the Hazardous Materials Table (see 49 CFR 172.101), and materials that meet the defining 

criteria for hazard classes and divisions in part 173 of subchapter C of this chapter. Hazardous 

Materials typically found on construction projects include, but are not limited to, petroleum oils, 

hydraulic fluids, engine coolants (ethylene glycol), x-ray film developer, chemical additives, pipe 

coatings, used abrasive blasting media, etc. 

EPA’s def inition o f a facility includes any m obile i nstallation, eq uipment, o r pi peline 

(other than a vessel) in which oil will be used. This SPCC plan is required if the storage or use 

of oil at the job site is greater than 1,320 gallons. The boundaries of the facilities covered by this 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page 1-2 

SPCC plan will include all vessels and barges used during the construction and depend on sitespecific factors such as equipment used, types of activities at the site, and s taging and fueling 

areas. This generic SPCC plan provides an overview of the project and proposed operational 

activities. 

Contractor Responsibility:

The Contractor shall be familiar with this Spill Plan and its contents prior to commencing 

any construction-related activities. The Spill Plan will be followed to prevent any spills that may 

occur during the project and to mitigate any spills that do occur.

Company representatives assigned to this project include:

District Manager (DM): TBD

Company Inspector (CI): TBD

Environmental Compliance: TBD

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page 2-1 

2.0 DRAINAGE PATTERNS AND SPILL PREVENTION PRACTICES

2.1 DRAINAGE PATTERNS

The general drainage patterns can be determined by the contour drawings shown in the 

topographic maps. 

Responsibility: Construction Inspector / District Manager 

Construction and Operations personnel will be familiar with drainage patterns for the 

project and be prepared to implement measures to control any release.

2.2 SPILL PREVENTION PRACTICES

The Contractor shall take the following precautions to ensure that any oil or hazardous 

materials spill does not occur:

A. Containers

(1) All containers shall be stored on level ground at least 100 feet from any 

waterway, unless the location is designated for such use by an appropriate 

governmental authority. All containers should be located within temporary 

containment. 

(2) Temporary containment may include temporary hay bale berms with plastic 

sheets underlining the entire contained area and over the hay bale berms. 

Earthen materials may be used in place of hay bales with the method of 

construction determined by the Environmental Inspector. It is at the discretion of 

the contractor to comply with the conditions of the spill plan, but at a minimum 

the contractor must comply with the general conditions outlined in the FERC Plan 

and Procedures and 40 CFR Part 112, although these requirements do not 

technically apply to the conditions at a construction site. 

(3) Containment areas shall be capable of containing 110% of the volume of 

hazardous materials being stored.

(4) All container storage areas shall be routinely inspected for integrity purposes. 

(5) Leaking and/or deteriorated containers shall be replaced as soon as the 

condition is first detected with clean-up measures immediately taking place.

(6) No incompatible materials shall be stored in the same containment area.

(7) No container storage areas shall be left unsecured during non-work hours. All 

hoses and oil containing equipment is required to be secured prior to concluding 

each day. This includes parking and securing equipment as identified in condition 

A-1 and fueling equipment must have hoses placed into containment and locked

with pad and key if possible. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page 2-2 

(8) All containers of oil or hazardous materials should be accompanied by oil spill 

response kits.

(9) Collected rainwater in containment pads must be inspected prior to release to the 

ground; it must be free of sheens or other hazardous materials.

B. Tanks

(1) The Contractor shall operate only those tanks that meet the requirements and 

specifications of applicable regulations and that are surrounded with temporary 

containment as described above.

(2) Self-supporting tanks shall be constructed of materials compatible with its 

contents.

(3) All tanks shall be routinely inspected for integrity purposes. 

(4) Vehicle mounted tanks shall be equipped with flame/spark arrestors on vents to 

ensure that self-ignition does not occur.

(5) Tanks will not be used to store incompatible materials in sequence unless first 

thoroughly decontaminated.

(6) Any tank utilized for storing different products between construction locations will 

be thoroughly decontaminated prior to refilling.

C. Unloading/Loading Areas

(1) If it is necessary during the project, re-fueling and transferring of liquids shall only 

occur in pre-designated locations that are on level ground and at least 100 feet 

from any waterway. Where conditions require construction equipment (e.g., 

Bobcat/front-end loader/excavator) be re-fueled within 100 feet of any waterway, 

or as prescribed by a project specific permit, this activity must be continuously 

manned to ensure that overfilling, leaks or spills do not occur. In addition, all this 

equipment must be surrounded by temporary containment as described above

and inspected on a regular basis to ensure that any hoses or parts containing oil 

or hazardous materials are in good working order. 

(2) All service vehicles used to transport fuel must be equipped with an appropriate 

number of fire extinguishers and an oil spill response kit. At a minimum, this kit 

must include:

• Ten, 48”x 3” oil socks

• Five, 18” x 18” oil pillows

• One, 10’x 3” oil boom

• Twenty-five, 24” x 24”oil mats/pads

• 1 box garden-size, 6-mil, disposable polyethylene bags (w/ ties)

• 4 pairs of oil-proof gloves 

• One, 55-gallon PE open-head drum

• Blank drum labels

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page 2-3 

• 2 shovels

(3) Contractors will be trained in proper handling, refueling, and maintenance 

practices. 

D. Offshore

(1) All vessels will be required to register for the EPA Vessel General Permit, which 

authorizes discharges incidental to the normal discharge of operations of 

commercial vessels.

(2) Emergency response procedures for offshore spills will be identified after the 

contractor has been selected.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page 3-1 

3.0 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES

This s ection pr ovides a g eneric des cription o f emergency r esponse p rocedures t o be 

performed to address oil and hazardous materials spills at the job site. Each response will vary 

depending upon the nature and extent of the incident. However, the general procedures outlined 

below will be followed.

3.1 CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITIES

(1) The Contractor must designate both an Emergency Coordinator (EC) and an 

Alternate EC for the project.

(2) The Contractor is responsible for appropriately addressing all spills that occur 

directly as a result of construction-related activities.

(3) For spills (spills that take less than a shovel-full of dirt to clean-up), no internal 

notification requirements of this Spill Plan need to be followed. However, this 

does not relieve the Contractor from appropriately remediating the area and 

reporting the spill in the daily report.

(4) The Contractor shall supply the necessary manpower, PPE, and spill response 

equipment to appropriately address all spills that directly occur as a result of 

construction-related activities.

(5) Ensure that all emergency spill response equipment and PPE is well-stocked and 

in good condition. Replace used materials when necessary.

(6) If the situation warrants it, the Contractor shall immediately notify any local 

emergency spill response contractors for assistance.

(7) The Contractor shall be responsible for hiring an emergency spill response 

contractor if the nature of the incident requires it.

(8) The Contractor is responsible for immediately notifying the CI (or the DM) of any 

reportable spills.

3.2 COMPANY RESPONSIBILITIES

(1) Company shall be responsible for ensuring that the Contractor adequately 

follows the procedures outlined in this Spill Plan at all times. 

(2) Company shall be responsible for all verbal and written external notifications 

made to any regulatory agency or any local emergency responders.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page 3-2 

3.3 EMERGENCY CONTACTS

Table I (Appendix A) provides a list of Company and Contractor emergency contacts. 

3.4 DUTIES OF COMPANY INSPECTOR (DISTRICT MANAGER) FOR NON-DE 

MINIMUS SPILLS

The duties of the CI (or DM) for reportable spills include the following:

(1) Determine the source, character, amount, and extent of the spill.

(2) Assess the potential hazards to the job site, environment, and surrounding 

community and contact the Safety Representative if any hazards are detected.

(3) Evacuate the area if necessary.

(4) Report the spill in accordance with the internal notification procedures outlined in 

Section 5.1 and the external notification procedures outlined in Section 5.2.

(5) Commit manpower and equipment for minor incidents that can be reasonably 

remediated by the Contractor.

(6) Oversee Contractor’s spill response efforts to contain and control all spills to 

ensure they adequately follow the procedures outlined in this Spill Plan. 

(7) Document the Contractor’s response effort, including taking photographs 

wherever possible.

(8) Generate an Emergency Incident Report (WGP Form 0187).

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page 4-1 

4.0 EMERGENCY SPILL RESPONSE AND PERSONNEL 

PROTECTION EQUIPMENT

Table II (Appendix A ) provides a list of the minimally-required Emergency Spill 

Response E quipment a nd P ersonnel P rotection E quipment ( PPE) for this pr oject. This i s i n 

addition to the minimally-required spill response equipment previously specified in Section 2.2.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page 5-1 

5.0 SPILL NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES

5.1 INTERNAL NOTIFICATIONS

All spills are to be immediately reported to the CI (or DM) who will contact Gas Control 

and the Environmental Compliance Department. Table I (Appendix A) includes a list of 

emergency contacts.

An Emergency Incident Report (WGP Form 0187) must be forwarded to the 

Environmental Compliance Department as soon as technically feasible by the CI (or DM). The 

Environmental Compliance Department will determine if the spill constitutes the following:

(1) Reportable Quantity under CERCLA,

(2) Reportable release under the Clean Water Act or RCRA, or

(3) Reportable Threshold Quantity under SARA Title III

(4) State Reportable Incident (Contact Environmental Compliance Department)

(5) Immediately Reportable Incident – Any sheen observed on water 

If any r eporting i s nec essary, t he E nvironmental C ompliance D epartment s hall be 

responsible for immediately contacting the appropriate federal and state regulatory authorities 

and following-up in writing, if required. Any spills requiring reporting to state or federal agencies 

shall also be reported to the impacted landowner. 

5.2 EXTERNAL NOTIFICATIONS

Any spills that may pose a threat to human health or the environment shall be 

immediately r eported to t he C I ( or D M) who will c ontact t he Loc al Emergency P lanning 

Committee (LEPC) if necessary. When determining if the LEPC should be contacted or not, any 

gas release to the atmosphere must be taken into c onsideration. Note: Linear Projects may 

extend through multiple LEPC jurisdictions. Contractor must insure all jurisdictions are listed.

The appropriate LEPC is:

Name: TBD

Organization: TBD

Phone Number: TBD

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page 5-2 

The E nvironmental C ompliance D epartment i s r esponsible f or s ubmitting any r equired 

written follow-up notifications to the LEPC or any local emergency responders.

5.3 EMERGENCY SPILL RESPONSE CONTRACTORS 

The Company has arrangements with several emergency spill response contractors to 

address emergency responses beyond the capabilities of the Contractor.

If necessary, the following firms could be utilized for this project:

Company: TBD

Name: TBD

Location: TBD

Phone Number: TBD

Company: TBD

Name: TBD

Location: TBD

Phone Number: TBD

5.4 LOCAL EMERGENCY RESPONDERS

The C ontractor o r t he CI ( or D M) m ay c all t he following l ocal em ergency r esponders 

should t heir as sistance be required: N ote: Li near P rojects m ay ex tend t hrough m ultiple 

Emergency Responder areas. Contractor must insure all jurisdictions are listed.

Service Telephone Number

Emergency Medical Services TBD

Hospital TBD

Fire TBD

U.S. Park Police TBD

United States Coast Guard TBD

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page 6-1 

6.0 CLEAN-UP PROCEDURES

The following section outlines specific procedures to be followed when addressing spills:

6.1 SPILLS

(1) Small spills and leaks must be remediated as soon as feasible. Use adsorbent 

pads wherever possible.

(2) Restrict spills to the containment area if possible by stopping or diverting flow.

(3) If the spill exceeds the containment structure’s capacity, immediately construct 

additional containment using sandbags or fill material. Every effort must be made 

to prevent the spills from entering a water body.

(4) If a spill reaches a water body, immediately place oil booms downstream in order 

to contain the material. As soon as possible, remove the floating layer with 

absorbent pads.

(5) After all recoverable oil has been collected and drummed, place all contaminated 

PPE, spill clean-up equipment, and any impacted soil into appropriate containers.

(6) For significant quantities of impacted soils, construct temporary waste piles using 

plastic sheets. This material should subsequently be transferred into lined roll-off 

boxes as soon as feasible.

(7) Environmental Compliance Department will coordinate all waste characterization, 

profiling, and disposal activities.

6.2 EQUIPMENT CLEANING/STORAGE

(1) Upon completion of remedial activities, the Contractor shall be responsible for 

decontaminating the used emergency response equipment as well as the PPE.

(2) The Contractor shall be responsible for replacing any spent emergency response 

equipment and PPE prior to resuming construction-related activities.

(3) Decontamination rinse fluids shall be collected and containerized. The 

Environmental Compliance Department will coordinate waste characterization 

and disposal activities.

(4) Reusable PPE shall be tested and inventoried prior to being placed back into 

service.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page 6-2 

6.3 WASTE DISPOSAL

The Contractor is responsible for waste management and waste disposal; however, the 

Environmental Compliance Department will coordinate all waste characterization, 

profiling, and disposal activities. All waste management and disposal activities shall 

conform to the procedures outlined in the O&M Manual (see WGP procedure 35.04.01, 

“Waste Management”).

The Contractor is permitted to manage routine garbage and construction debris without 

oversight of the Environmental Compliance Department

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page A-1 

APPENDIX A

TABLE I: LIST OF EMERGENCY CONTACTS

Names Job Description Phone Number

Gas Control

GulfStream 800/440-8457 (24-hrs)

Northwest 800/972-7733 (24-hrs)

Transco 800/440-8457 (24-hrs)

TBD Chief Inspector TBD

TBD District Manager TBD

Mark Bisett, Manager Environmental Compliance Department

713/215-2781 (off)

713/213-2581 (cell)

Contractor Job Description Phone Number

TBD Emergency Coordinator TBD

TBD Alternate Emergency Coordinator TBD

Regulatory Agencies Name Phone Number

National Response Center 800/424-8802

State Environmental Mgt. Dept. (EMD) TBD

National Park Service - Kathleen Cuzzolino 718/354-4609

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page A-2 

APPENDIX A

TABLE II: EMERGENCY SPILL RESPONSE AND PERSONNEL PROTECTION 

EQUIPMENT

Equipment Quantity Location

(1) chemical spill kit 1 adjacent to work space 

(2) oil spill kit 1 adjacent to work space

SPILL RESPONSE EQUIPMENT:

(1) 1 bag loose chemical pulp 3 chemical pillows (18” x 18”)

 3 chemical socks (48” x 3”) 10 chemical mats/pads (24” x 24”)

 1 box garden-sized, 6-mil, disposal polyethylene bags (w/ ties)

 Blank drum labels one 30-gallon PE open-head drum

 2 shovels 

(2) 1 oil boom (100’ x 3”) 10 oil pillows (18” x 18”)

 10 oil socks (48” x 3”) 25 oil mats/pads (24” x 24”)

 1 box garden-sized, 6-mil, disposal polyethylene bags (w/ ties)

 Blank drum labels three, 55-gallon PE open-head drums

 4 shovels

PERSONNEL PROTECTION EQUIPMENT: 

The inventory of PPE should include enough for at least 4 responders reacting to a significant 

leak/spill.

Splash goggles, half-face respirators (w/ cartridges for benzene), 

Tyvek suits, nitrile gloves, waterproof/ chemical resistant hip-waders 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX G

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT

CONSTRUCTION SPILL PLANS FOR

OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Williams Gas Pipeline

ATTACHMENT A

(procedure 35.06.04)

WGP Company—Proprietary Information • For Internal WGP Use Only Page A-1

Construction Spill Plan

for Oil and Hazardous Materials 

Insert project name here

Insert county and state here

September 2010

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Williams Gas Pipeline

ATTACHMENT A

(procedure 35.06.04)

WGP Company—Proprietary Information • For Internal WGP Use Only Page A-2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1 - GENERAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................... 3

1.1 Project Location and Description .................................................................................................. 3

SECTION 2 - FACILITY DRAINAGE and SPILL PREVENTION PRACTICES ................................... 3

2.1 Drainage Patterns.......................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Spill Prevention Practices .............................................................................................................. 4

SECTION 3 - EMERGENCY SPILL RESPONSE PROCEDURES ...................................................... 5

3.1 Contractor Responsibilities ............................................................................................................ 5

3.2 Company Responsibilities.............................................................................................................. 6

3.3 Emergency Contacts ..................................................................................................................... 6

3.4 Duties of Chief Inspector (or Assistant District Manager)............................................................... 6

SECTION 4 - EMERGENCY SPILL RESPONSE AND PERSONNEL PROTECTION EQUIPMENT... 7

SECTION 5 - SPILL NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES ........................................................................ 7

5.1 Internal Notifications ...................................................................................................................... 7

5.2 External Notifications ..................................................................................................................... 7

5.3 Emergency Spill Response Contractors ........................................................................................ 8

5.4 Local Emergency Response Teams ............................................................................................. 8

SECTION 6 – CLEAN-UP PROCEDURES.......................................................................................... 9

6.1 Spills... .......................................................................................................................................... 9

6.2 Equipment Cleaning/Storage ......................................................................................................... 9

6.3 Waste Disposal.............................................................................................................................. 9

APPENDIX A

Table I - List of Emergency Contacts

Table II – Emergency Spill Response and Personnel Protection Equipment

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Williams Gas Pipeline

ATTACHMENT A

(procedure 35.06.04)

WGP Company—Proprietary Information • For Internal WGP Use Only Page A-3

SPILL PLAN FOR OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

(Construction Spill Plan)

SECTION 1 - GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Project Location and Description 

This Spill Plan for Oil and Hazardous Materials was developed for the following construction 

project:

Insert Project Name, County, and State here

Also insert brief project scope-of-work here 

Definitions: 

Oil is defined in the SPCC regulations as oil of any kind or in any form 

including, but not limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil 

mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil and oily mixtures.

Hazardous Material as defined by the DOT includes hazardous substances, hazardous 

wastes, marine pollutants, elevated temperature materials, materials designated as 

hazardous in the Hazardous Materials Table (see 49 CFR 172.101), and materials that meet 

the defining criteria for hazard classes and divisions in part 173 of subchapter C of this 

chapter. Hazardous Materials typically found on construction projects include, but are not 

limited to, petroleum oils, hydraulic fluids, engine coolants (ethylene glycol), x-ray film 

developer, chemical additives, pipe coatings, used abrasive blasting media, etc. 

Contractor Responsibility:

The Contractor shall be familiar with this Spill Plan and its contents prior to commencing any 

construction-related activities. The Plan will be followed to prevent any spills that may occur 

during the project and to mitigate any spills that do occur.

Company representatives assigned to this project include:

District Manager (DM): to be inserted by WGP

Chief Inspector (CI): to be inserted by WGP

Environmental Compliance: to be inserted by WGP

Environmental Permitting to be inserted by WGP

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Williams Gas Pipeline

ATTACHMENT A

(procedure 35.06.04)

WGP Company—Proprietary Information • For Internal WGP Use Only Page A-4

SECTION 2 - DRAINAGE PATTERNS AND SPILL PREVENTION 

PRACTICES

2.1 Drainage Patterns

Insert a brief description about the general drainage patterns at the work site.

Responsibility: Chief Inspector / District Manager

Construction and Operations personnel will be familiar with drainage patterns for the project 

and be prepared to implement measures to control any release.

2.2 Spill Prevention Practices

The Contractor shall take the following precautions to ensure that an oil or hazardous 

materials spill does not occur:

A. Containers

(1) All containers shall be stored on level ground at least 100 feet from any waterway, or 

as prescribed by a project specific permit. All containers should be located within 

temporary containment. 

(2) Temporary containment will include, but not be limited to, temporary hay bale berms 

with plastic sheets underlining the entire contained area.

(3) Containment areas shall be capable of containing 110% of the volume of the single 

largest container of hazardous material being stored.

(4) All container storage areas shall be routinely inspected for integrity purposes.

(5) Leaking and/or deteriorated containers shall be replaced as soon as the condition is 

first detected with clean-up measures immediately taking place.

(6) No incompatible materials shall be stored in the same containment area.

(7) No container storage areas shall be left unsecured during non-work hours.

(8) Accumulated rainwater in the containment areas must be inspected prior to release to 

the ground; it must be free of sheens or other hazardous materials.

B. Tanks

(1) The Contractor shall operate only those tanks that meet the requirements and 

specifications of applicable regulations and that are surrounded with temporary 

containment as described above.

(2) Self-supporting tanks shall be constructed of materials compatible with its contents.

(3) All tanks shall be routinely inspected for integrity purposes.

(4) Vehicle mounted tanks shall be equipped with flame/spark arrestors on vents to ensure 

that self-ignition does not occur.

(5) Tanks will not be used to store incompatible materials in sequence unless first 

thoroughly decontaminated.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Williams Gas Pipeline

ATTACHMENT A

(procedure 35.06.04)

WGP Company—Proprietary Information • For Internal WGP Use Only Page A-5

(6) Any tank utilized for storing different products between construction locations will be 

thoroughly decontaminated prior to refilling.

C. Unloading/Loading Areas

(1) If it is necessary during the project, re-fueling and transferring of liquids shall only 

occur in pre-designated locations that are on level ground and at least 100 feet from 

any waterway. Where conditions require construction equipment (e.g., Bobcat/frontend loader/excavator) be re-fueled within 100 feet of any waterway, or as prescribed 

by a project specific permit, this activity must be continuously manned to ensure that 

overfilling, leaks, or spills do not occur. In addition, all this equipment must be 

surrounded by temporary containment as described above.

(2) All service vehicles used to transport fuel must be equipped with an appropriate 

number of fire extinguishers and an oil spill response kit. At a minimum, this kit must 

include:

• Ten, 48”x 3” oil socks

• Five, 18” x 18” oil pillows

• One, 10’x 3” oil boom

• Twenty-five, 24” x 24”oil mats/pads

• 1 box garden-size, 6-mil, disposable polyethylene bags (w/ ties)

• 4 pairs of oil-proof gloves 

• One, 55-gallon PE open-head drum

• Blank drum labels

• 2 shovels

SECTION 3 - EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES

This section provides a generic description of emergency response procedures to be performed 

to address oil and hazardous materials spills at the job site. Each response will vary depending 

upon the nature and extent of the incident. However, the general procedures outlined below will 

be followed.

3.1 Contractor Responsibilities

(1) The Contractor must designate both an Emergency Coordinator (EC) and an Alternate 

EC for the project.

(2) The Contractor is responsible for appropriately addressing all spills that occur directly 

as a result of construction-related activities.

(3) For spills (spills that take less than a shovel-full of dirt to clean-up), no internal 

notification requirements of this Plan need to be followed. However, this does not 

relieve the Contractor from appropriately remediating the area and reporting the spill in 

the daily report.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Williams Gas Pipeline

ATTACHMENT A

(procedure 35.06.04)

WGP Company—Proprietary Information • For Internal WGP Use Only Page A-6

(4) The Contractor shall supply the necessary manpower, PPE, and spill response 

equipment to appropriately address all spills that directly occur as a result of 

construction-related activities.

(5) Ensure that all emergency spill response equipment and PPE is well-stocked and in 

good condition. Replace used materials when necessary.

(6) If the situation warrants it, the Contractor shall immediately notify any local emergency 

spill response contractors for assistance.

(7) The Contractor shall be responsible for hiring an emergency spill response contractor if 

the nature of the incident requires it.

(8) The Contractor is responsible for immediately notifying the CI (or the DM) of any 

reportable spills.

3.2 Company Responsibilities

(1) The Company shall be responsible for ensuring that the Contractor adequately follows 

the procedures outlined in this Plan at all times. 

(2) The Company shall be responsible for all verbal and written external notifications made 

to any regulatory agency or any local emergency responders.

3.3 Emergency Contacts

Table I (Appendix A) provides a list of Company and Contractor emergency contacts. 

3.4 Duties of Chief Inspector or District Manager

The duties of the CI (or DM) for reportable spills include the following:

(1) Determine the source, character, amount, and extent of the spill.

(2) Assess the potential hazards to the job site, environment, and surrounding community 

and contact the Safety Representative if any hazards are detected.

(3) Evacuate the area if necessary.

(4) Report the spill in accordance with the internal notification procedures outlined in 

Section 5.1 and the external notification procedures outlined in Section 5.2.

(5) Commit manpower and equipment for minor incidents that can be reasonably 

remediated by the Contractor.

(6) Oversee Contractor’s spill response efforts to contain and control all spills to ensure 

they adequately follow the procedures outlined in this Plan.

(7) Document the Contractor’s response effort, including taking photographs wherever 

possible.

(8) Generate an Emergency Incident Report (form WGP-0187).

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Williams Gas Pipeline

ATTACHMENT A

(procedure 35.06.04)

WGP Company—Proprietary Information • For Internal WGP Use Only Page A-7

SECTION 4 - EMERGENCY SPILL RESPONSE AND PERSONNEL 

PROTECTION EQUIPMENT

Table II (Appendix A) provides a list of the minimally-required Emergency Spill Response 

Equipment and Personnel Protection Equipment (PPE) for this project. This is in addition to the 

minimally-required spill response equipment previously specified in Section 2.2.

SECTION 5 - SPILL NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES

5.1 Internal Notifications

(1) All spills are to be immediately reported to the CI (or DM) who will immediately contact 

Gas Control and the Environmental Compliance Department. Table I (Appendix A) 

includes a list of emergency contacts.

(2) Gas Control is responsible for notifying the Environmental Compliance Department, as 

specified in the “Significant Event Notification Plan” and the Spill Plan. 

(3) The CI (or DM) is responsible for completing form WGP-0187, “Emergency Incident 

Report,” and forwarding it to the Environmental Compliance Department in a timely 

manner.

Included as Appendix A is Table 1, which is a list of Company and Contractor emergency 

contact numbers. 

5.2 External Notifications

(1) Gas Control shall make all required “Immediate Notifications” to regulatory agencies. 

(2) The CI (or DM) is responsible for any necessary first-response notifications to an 

emergency spill response team to help contain the spill. If the spill occurs offshore, 

refer to the Offshore Spill Response Spill (OSRP).

(3) After all required immediate notifications are made by Gas Control, the Environmental 

Compliance Department shall use the information from the completed form WGP-0187 

to make any necessary subsequent verbal and written notifications to regulatory 

agencies.

(4) If a spill poses a threat to human health or the environment, Gas Control shall 

immediately contact the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC). When 

determining if the LEPC should be contacted or not, any gas release to the 

atmosphere must be taken into consideration. Note: Linear Projects may extend 

through multiple LEPC jurisdictions. As a result, all jurisdictions must be listed below.

The appropriate LEPC is:

Name: to be inserted by WGP

Organization: to be inserted by WGP

Phone Number: to be inserted by WGP

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Williams Gas Pipeline

ATTACHMENT A

(procedure 35.06.04)

WGP Company—Proprietary Information • For Internal WGP Use Only Page A-8

5.3 Emergency Spill Response Contractors 

The Company has arrangements with several emergency spill response contractors to 

address emergency responses beyond the capabilities of the Contractor.

If necessary, the following firms could be utilized for this project:

Company: to be inserted by WGP

Name: to be inserted by WGP

Location: to be inserted by WGP

Phone Number: to be inserted by WGP

Company: to be inserted by WGP

Name: to be inserted by WGP

Location: to be inserted by WGP

Phone Number: to be inserted by WGP

5.4 Local Emergency Responders

The Contractor or the CI (or DM) may call the following local emergency responders should 

their assistance be required: Note: Linear Projects may extend through multiple Emergency 

Responder areas. Contractor must insure all jurisdictions are listed.

Service Telephone Number

Emergency Medical Services to be inserted by WGP

Hospital to be inserted by WGP

Fire to be inserted by WGP

Police to be inserted by WGP

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Williams Gas Pipeline

ATTACHMENT A

(procedure 35.06.04)

WGP Company—Proprietary Information • For Internal WGP Use Only Page A-9

SECTION 6 – CLEAN-UP PROCEDURES

The following section outlines specific procedures to be followed when addressing spills:

6.1 Spills

(1) Small spills and leaks must be remediated as soon as feasible. Use adsorbent pads 

wherever possible.

(2) Restrict spills to the containment area if possible by stopping or diverting flow.

(3) If the spill exceeds the containment structure’s capacity, immediately construct 

additional containment using sandbags or fill material. Every effort must be made to 

prevent the spills from entering a water body.

(4) If a spill reaches a water body, immediately place oil booms downstream in order to 

contain the material. As soon as possible, remove the floating layer with absorbent 

pads.

(5) After all recoverable oil has been collected and drummed, place all contaminated PPE, 

spill clean-up equipment, and any impacted soil into appropriate containers.

(6) For significant quantities of impacted soils, construct temporary waste piles using 

plastic sheets. This material should subsequently be transferred into lined roll-off 

boxes as soon as feasible.

(7) The Environmental Compliance Department will coordinate all waste characterization, 

profiling, and disposal activities.

6.2 Equipment Cleaning/Storage

(1) Upon completion of remedial activities, the Contractor shall be responsible for 

decontaminating the used emergency response equipment as well as the PPE.

(2) The Contractor shall be responsible for replacing any spent emergency response 

equipment and PPE prior to resuming construction-related activities.

(3) Decontamination rinse fluids shall be collected and containerized. The Environmental 

Compliance Department will coordinate waste characterization and disposal activities.

(4) Reusable PPE shall be tested and inventoried prior to being placed back into service.

6.3 Waste Disposal

The Contractor is responsible for waste management and waste disposal; however, the 

Environmental Compliance Department will coordinate all waste characterization, 

profiling, and disposal activities. All waste management and disposal activities shall 

conform to the procedures outlined in the O&M Manual (see WGP procedure 35.04.01, 

“Waste Management”).

The Contractor is permitted to manage routine garbage and construction debris without 

oversight of the Environmental Compliance Department

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Williams Gas Pipeline

ATTACHMENT A

(procedure 35.06.04)

WGP Company—Proprietary Information • For Internal WGP Use Only Page A-10

APPENDIX A

TABLE I: LIST OF EMERGENCY CONTACTS

Names Job Description Phone Number

Gas Control

GulfStream 800/440-8475 (24-hrs)

Northwest 800/584-6574 (24-hrs)

Transco 800/440-8475 (24-hrs)

to be inserted by WGP Chief Inspector to be inserted by WGP

to be inserted by WGP District Manager to be inserted by WGP

to be inserted by WGP Environmental Compliance to be inserted by WGP

Contractor Job Description Phone Number

to be inserted by 

Contractor Emergency Coordinator to be inserted by Contractor

to be inserted by 

Contractor Alternate Emergency Coordinator

to be inserted by 

Contractor

Regulatory Agencies Name Phone Number

National Response Center 800/424-8802

State Environmental Mgt. Dept. 

(EMD) to be inserted by WGP

to be inserted by WGP to be inserted by WGP

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Williams Gas Pipeline

ATTACHMENT A

(procedure 35.06.04)

WGP Company—Proprietary Information • For Internal WGP Use Only Page A-11

APPENDIX A

TABLE II: EMERGENCY SPILL RESPONSE AND PERSONNEL 

PROTECTION EQUIPMENT

Equipment Quantity Location

(1) chemical spill kit 1 adjacent to work space 

(2) oil spill kit 1 adjacent to work space

SPILL RESPONSE EQUIPMENT:

(1) 1 bag loose chemical pulp 3 chemical pillows (18” x 18”)

 3 chemical socks (48” x 3”) 10 chemical mats/pads (24” x 24”)

 1 box garden-sized, 6-mil, disposal polyethylene bags (w/ ties)

 Blank drum labels one 30-gallon PE open-head drum

 2 shovels 

(2) 1 oil boom (100’ x 3”) 10 oil pillows (18” x 18”)

 10 oil socks (48” x 3”) 25 oil mats/pads (24” x 24”)

 1 box garden-sized, 6-mil, disposal polyethylene bags (w/ ties)

 Blank drum labels three, 55-gallon PE open-head drums

 4 shovels

PERSONNEL PROTECTION EQUIPMENT: 

The inventory of PPE should include enough for at least 4 responders reacting to a significant 

leak/spill.

Splash goggles, half-face respirators (w/ cartridges for benzene), 

Tyvek suits, nitrile gloves, waterproof/ chemical resistant hip-waders 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Williams 

ATTACHMENT A 

(procedure 35.06.04)

Williams —Proprietary Information • For Internal Williams Use Only Page A-1 

Construction Spill Plan 

 for Oil and Hazardous Materials 

Insert project name here 

Insert county and state here 

December 2012 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Williams 

ATTACHMENT A 

(procedure 35.06.04)

Williams —Proprietary Information • For Internal Williams Use Only Page A-2 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION 1 - GENERAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................... 3 

1.1 Project Location and Description .................................................................................................. 3 

SECTION 2 - FACILITY DRAINAGE and SPILL PREVENTION PRACTICES ................................... 3 

2.1 Drainage Patterns .......................................................................................................................... 3 

2.2 Spill Prevention Practices .............................................................................................................. 4 

SECTION 3 - EMERGENCY SPILL RESPONSE PROCEDURES ...................................................... 5 

3.1 Contractor Responsibilities ............................................................................................................ 5 

3.2 Company Responsibilities .............................................................................................................. 6 

3.3 Emergency Contacts ..................................................................................................................... 6 

3.4 Duties of Chief Inspector (or Assistant District Manager) ............................................................... 6

SECTION 4 - EMERGENCY SPILL RESPONSE AND PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT ..... 7 

SECTION 5 - SPILL NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES ........................................................................ 7 

5.1 Internal Notifications ...................................................................................................................... 7 

5.2 External Notifications ..................................................................................................................... 7 

5.3 Emergency Spill Response Contractors ........................................................................................ 8 

5.4 Local Emergency Response Teams ............................................................................................. 8 

SECTION 6 – CLEAN-UP PROCEDURES .......................................................................................... 9 

6.1 Spills... .......................................................................................................................................... 9 

6.2 Equipment Cleaning/Storage ......................................................................................................... 9 

6.3 Waste Disposal .............................................................................................................................. 9 

APPENDIX A 

Table I - List of Emergency Contacts 

Table II – Emergency Spill Response and Personal Protective Equipment 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Williams 

ATTACHMENT A 

(procedure 35.06.04)

Williams —Proprietary Information • For Internal Williams Use Only Page A-3 

SPILL PLAN FOR OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

(Construction Spill Plan) 

SECTION 1 - GENERAL INFORMATION 

1.1 Project Location and Description 

This Spill Plan for Oil and Hazardous Materials was developed for the following construction 

project: 

Insert Project Name, County, and State here 

Also insert brief project scope-of-work here 

Definitions: 

Oil is defined in the SPCC regulations as oil of any kind or in any form 

including, but not limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil 

mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil and oily mixtures. 

Hazardous Material as defined by the DOT includes hazardous substances, hazardous 

wastes, marine pollutants, elevated temperature materials, materials designated as 

hazardous in the Hazardous Materials Table (see 49 CFR 172.101), and materials that meet 

the defining criteria for hazard classes and divisions in part 173 of subchapter C of this 

chapter. Hazardous Materials typically found on construction projects include, but are not 

limited to, petroleum oils, hydraulic fluids, engine coolants (ethylene glycol), x-ray film 

developer, chemical additives, pipe coatings, used abrasive blasting media, etc. 

Contractor Responsibility:

The Contractor shall be familiar with this Spill Plan and its contents prior to commencing any 

construction-related activities. The Plan will be followed to prevent any spills that may occur 

during the project and to mitigate any spills that do occur. 

Company representatives assigned to this project include: 

District Manager (DM): to be inserted by Williams

Chief Inspector (CI): to be inserted by Williams

Environmental Compliance: to be inserted by Williams

Land, GIS, & Permits to be inserted by Williams 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Williams 

ATTACHMENT A 

(procedure 35.06.04)

Williams —Proprietary Information • For Internal Williams Use Only Page A-4 

SECTION 2 - DRAINAGE PATTERNS AND SPILL PREVENTION 

PRACTICES 

2.1 Drainage Patterns 

Insert a brief description about the general drainage patterns at the work site.

 

Responsibility: Chief Inspector / District Manager 

Construction and Technicians will be familiar with drainage patterns for the project and be 

prepared to implement measures to control any release.

2.2 Spill Prevention Practices 

The Contractor shall take the following precautions to ensure that an oil or hazardous 

materials spill does not occur: 

A. Containers

(1) All containers shall be stored on level ground at least 100 feet from any waterway, or 

as prescribed by a project specific permit. All containers should be located within 

temporary containment. 

(2) Temporary containment will include, but not be limited to, temporary hay bale berms 

with plastic sheets underlining the entire contained area. 

(3) Containment areas shall be capable of containing 110% of the volume of the single 

largest container of hazardous material being stored. 

(4) All container storage areas shall be routinely inspected for integrity purposes. 

(5) Leaking and/or deteriorated containers shall be replaced as soon as the condition is 

first detected with clean-up measures immediately taking place. 

(6) No incompatible materials shall be stored in the same containment area. 

(7) No container storage areas shall be left unsecured during non-work hours. 

(8) Accumulated rainwater in the containment areas must be inspected prior to release to 

the ground; it must be free of sheens or other hazardous materials. 

B. Tanks

(1) The Contractor shall operate only those tanks that meet the requirements and 

specifications of applicable regulations and that are surrounded with temporary 

containment as described above. 

(2) Self-supporting tanks shall be constructed of materials compatible with its contents. 

(3) All tanks shall be routinely inspected for integrity purposes. 

(4) Vehicle mounted tanks shall be equipped with flame/spark arrestors on vents to ensure 

that self-ignition does not occur. 

(5) Tanks will not be used to store incompatible materials in sequence unless first 

thoroughly decontaminated. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Williams 

ATTACHMENT A 

(procedure 35.06.04)

Williams —Proprietary Information • For Internal Williams Use Only Page A-5 

(6) Any tank utilized for storing different products between construction locations will be 

thoroughly decontaminated prior to refilling. 

C. Unloading/Loading Areas

(1) If it is necessary during the project, re-fueling and transferring of liquids shall only 

occur in pre-designated locations that are on level ground and at least 100 feet from 

any waterway. Where conditions require construction equipment (e.g., Bobcat/frontend loader/excavator) be re-fueled within 100 feet of any waterway, or as prescribed 

by a project specific permit, this activity must be continuously manned to ensure that 

overfilling, leaks, or spills do not occur. In addition, all this equipment must be 

surrounded by temporary containment as described above. 

(2) All service vehicles used to transport fuel must be equipped with an appropriate 

number of fire extinguishers and an oil spill response kit. At a minimum, this kit must 

include: 

• Ten, 48”x 3” oil socks 

• Five, 18” x 18” oil pillows 

• One, 10’x 3” oil boom 

• Twenty-five, 24” x 24”oil mats/pads 

• 1 box garden-size, 6-mil, disposable polyethylene bags (w/ ties) 

• 4 pairs of oil-proof gloves 

• One, 55-gallon PE open-head drum 

• Blank drum labels 

• 2 shovels 

SECTION 3 - EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES 

This section provides a generic description of emergency response procedures to be performed 

to address oil and hazardous materials spills at the job site. Each response will vary depending 

upon the nature and extent of the incident. However, the general procedures outlined below will 

be followed. 

3.1 Contractor Responsibilities 

(1) The Contractor must designate both an Emergency Coordinator (EC) and an Alternate 

EC for the project. 

(2) The Contractor is responsible for appropriately addressing all spills that occur directly 

as a result of construction-related activities. 

(3) For spills (spills that take less than a shovel-full of dirt to clean-up), no internal 

notification requirements of this Plan need to be followed. However, this does not 

relieve the Contractor from appropriately remediating the area and reporting the spill in 

the daily report. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Williams 

ATTACHMENT A 

(procedure 35.06.04)

Williams —Proprietary Information • For Internal Williams Use Only Page A-6 

(4) The Contractor shall supply the necessary manpower, PPE, and spill response 

equipment to appropriately address all spills that directly occur as a result of 

construction-related activities. 

(5) Ensure that all emergency spill response equipment and PPE is well-stocked and in 

good condition. Replace used materials when necessary. 

(6) If the situation warrants it, the Contractor shall immediately notify any local emergency 

spill response contractors for assistance. 

(7) The Contractor shall be responsible for hiring an emergency spill response contractor if 

the nature of the incident requires it. 

(8) The Contractor is responsible for immediately notifying the CI (or the DM) of any 

reportable spills. 

3.2 Company Responsibilities 

(1) The Company shall be responsible for ensuring that the Contractor adequately follows 

the procedures outlined in this Plan at all times. 

(2) The Company shall be responsible for all verbal and written external notifications made 

to any regulatory agency or any local emergency responders. 

3.3 Emergency Contacts 

Table I (Appendix A) provides a list of Company and Contractor emergency contacts. 

3.4 Duties of Chief Inspector or District Manager 

The duties of the CI (or DM) for reportable spills include the following: 

(1) Determine the source, character, amount, and extent of the spill. 

(2) Assess the potential hazards to the job site, environment, and surrounding community 

and contact the Employee Safety Representative if any hazards are detected. 

(3) Evacuate the area if necessary. 

(4) Report the spill in accordance with the internal notification procedures outlined in 

Section 5.1 and the external notification procedures outlined in Section 5.2. 

(5) Commit manpower and equipment for minor incidents that can be reasonably 

remediated by the Contractor. 

(6) Oversee Contractor’s spill response efforts to contain and control all spills to ensure 

they adequately follow the procedures outlined in this Plan. 

(7) Document the Contractor’s response effort, including taking photographs wherever 

possible. 

(8) Generate an Emergency Incident Report (form WGP-0187). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Williams 

ATTACHMENT A 

(procedure 35.06.04)

Williams —Proprietary Information • For Internal Williams Use Only Page A-7 

SECTION 4 - EMERGENCY SPILL RESPONSE AND PERSONAL 

PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT 

Table II (Appendix A) provides a list of the minimally-required Emergency Spill Response 

Equipment and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for this project. This is in addition to the 

minimally-required spill response equipment previously specified in Section 2.2. 

SECTION 5 - SPILL NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES 

5.1 Internal Notifications 

(1) All spills are to be immediately reported to the CI (or DM) who will immediately contact 

Pipeline Control and Environmental Compliance. Table I (Appendix A) includes a list of 

emergency contacts. 

(2) Pipeline Control is responsible for notifying Environmental Compliance, as specified in 

the “Significant Event Notification Plan” and the Spill Plan. 

(3) The CI (or DM) is responsible for completing form WGP-0187, “WilSOP Emergency 

Incident Report,” and forwarding it to Environmental Compliance in a timely manner. 

Included as Appendix A is Table 1, which is a list of Company and Contractor emergency 

contact numbers. 

 5.2 External Notifications 

(1) Pipeline Control shall make all required “Immediate Notifications” to regulatory 

agencies. 

(2) The CI (or DM) is responsible for any necessary first-response notifications to an 

emergency spill response team to help contain the spill. If the spill occurs offshore, 

refer to the Offshore Spill Response Spill (OSRP). 

(3) After all required immediate notifications are made by Pipeline Control, Environmental 

Compliance shall use the information from the completed form WGP-0187 to make any 

necessary subsequent verbal and written notifications to regulatory agencies. 

(4) If a spill poses a threat to human health or the environment, Pipeline Control shall 

immediately contact the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC). When 

determining if the LEPC should be contacted or not, any gas release to the 

atmosphere must be taken into consideration. Note: Linear Projects may extend 

through multiple LEPC jurisdictions. As a result, all jurisdictions must be listed below. 

The appropriate LEPC is: 

Name: to be inserted by Williams 

Organization: to be inserted by Williams 

Phone Number: to be inserted by Williams 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Williams 

ATTACHMENT A 

(procedure 35.06.04)

Williams —Proprietary Information • For Internal Williams Use Only Page A-8 

5.3 Emergency Spill Response Contractors 

The Company has arrangements with several emergency spill response contractors to 

address emergency responses beyond the capabilities of the Contractor. 

If necessary, the following firms could be utilized for this project: 

Company: to be inserted by Williams 

Name: to be inserted by Williams 

Location: to be inserted by Williams 

Phone Number: to be inserted by Williams 

Company: to be inserted by Williams 

Name: to be inserted by Williams 

Location: to be inserted by Williams 

Phone Number: to be inserted by Williams 

5.4 Local Emergency Responders 

The Contractor or the CI (or DM) may call the following local emergency responders should 

their assistance be required: Note: Linear Projects may extend through multiple Emergency 

Responder areas. Contractor must insure all jurisdictions are listed. 

Service Telephone Number 

Emergency Medical Services to be inserted by Williams 

Hospital to be inserted by Williams 

Fire to be inserted by Williams 

Police to be inserted by Williams 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Williams 

ATTACHMENT A 

(procedure 35.06.04)

Williams —Proprietary Information • For Internal Williams Use Only Page A-9 

SECTION 6 – CLEAN-UP PROCEDURES 

The following section outlines specific procedures to be followed when addressing spills: 

6.1 Spills 

(1) Small spills and leaks must be remediated as soon as feasible. Use adsorbent pads 

wherever possible. 

(2) Restrict spills to the containment area if possible by stopping or diverting flow. 

(3) If the spill exceeds the containment structure’s capacity, immediately construct 

additional containment using sandbags or fill material. Every effort must be made to 

prevent the spills from entering a water body. 

(4) If a spill reaches a water body, immediately place oil booms downstream in order to 

contain the material. As soon as possible, remove the floating layer with absorbent 

pads. 

(5) After all recoverable oil has been collected and drummed, place all contaminated PPE, 

spill clean-up equipment, and any impacted soil into appropriate containers. 

(6) For significant quantities of impacted soils, construct temporary waste piles using 

plastic sheets. This material should subsequently be transferred into lined roll-off 

boxes as soon as feasible. 

(7) Environmental Compliance will coordinate all waste characterization, profiling, and 

disposal activities. 

6.2 Equipment Cleaning/Storage 

(1) Upon completion of remedial activities, the Contractor shall be responsible for 

decontaminating the used emergency response equipment as well as the PPE. 

(2) The Contractor shall be responsible for replacing any spent emergency response 

equipment and PPE prior to resuming construction-related activities. 

(3) Decontamination rinse fluids shall be collected and containerized. Environmental 

Compliance will coordinate waste characterization and disposal activities. 

(4) Reusable PPE shall be tested and inventoried prior to being placed back into service. 

6.3 Waste Disposal 

The Contractor is responsible for waste management and waste disposal; however, 

Environmental Compliance will coordinate all waste characterization, profiling, and 

disposal activities. All waste management and disposal activities shall conform to the 

procedures outlined in the WilSOP O&M Manual (see WilSOP ENV 35.04.01, “Waste 

Management”). 

The Contractor is permitted to manage routine garbage and construction debris without 

oversight of Environmental Compliance. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Williams 

ATTACHMENT A 

(procedure 35.06.04)

Williams —Proprietary Information • For Internal Williams Use Only Page A-10 

APPENDIX A 

TABLE I: LIST OF EMERGENCY CONTACTS 

Names Job Description Phone Number 

Pipeline Control 

GulfStream 800/440-8475 (24-hrs) 

Northwest 800/584-6574 (24-hrs) 

Transco 800/440-8475 (24-hrs) 

to be inserted by 

Williams Chief Inspector to be inserted by Williams 

to be inserted by 

Williams District Manager to be inserted by Williams 

to be inserted by 

Williams Environmental Compliance to be inserted by Williams 

Contractor Job Description Phone Number 

to be inserted by 

Contractor Emergency Coordinator to be inserted by Contractor 

to be inserted by 

Contractor Alternate Emergency Coordinator to be inserted by Contractor 

Regulatory Agencies Name Phone Number 

National Response Center 800/424-8802 

State Environmental Mgt. Dept. 

(EMD) 

to be inserted by 

Williams

to be inserted by Williams to be inserted by 

Williams

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Williams 

ATTACHMENT A 

(procedure 35.06.04)

Williams —Proprietary Information • For Internal Williams Use Only Page A-11 

APPENDIX A 

TABLE II: EMERGENCY SPILL RESPONSE AND PERSONAL 

PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT 

Equipment Quantity Location 

(1) chemical spill kit 1 adjacent to work space 

(2) oil spill kit 1 adjacent to work space 

SPILL RESPONSE EQUIPMENT: 

(1) 1 bag loose chemical pulp 3 chemical pillows (18” x 18”) 

 3 chemical socks (48” x 3”) 10 chemical mats/pads (24” x 24”) 

 1 box garden-sized, 6-mil, disposal polyethylene bags (w/ ties) 

 Blank drum labels one 30-gallon PE open-head drum 

 2 shovels 

(2) 1 oil boom (100’ x 3”) 10 oil pillows (18” x 18”)

 10 oil socks (48” x 3”) 25 oil mats/pads (24” x 24”)

 1 box garden-sized, 6-mil, disposal polyethylene bags (w/ ties)

 Blank drum labels three, 55-gallon PE open-head drums

 4 shovels

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: 

The inventory of PPE should include enough for at least 4 responders reacting to a significant 

leak/spill. 

Splash goggles, half-face respirators (w/ cartridges for benzene), 

Tyvek suits, nitrile gloves, waterproof/ chemical resistant hip-waders 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX H

HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILLING (HDD)

OPERATIONS MONITORING AND CONTINGENCY PLAN

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
1

Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) Operations Monitoring 

and Contingency Plan

Introduction

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) seeks to connect their 26-inch 

diameter Lower New York Bay Lateral to National Grid’s proposed 26-inch diameter pipeline, 

tying-in on Rockaway Peninsula in Queens County, New York. The connection will be made by 

way of the proposed 26-inch diameter Rockaway Delivery Lateral (3.20 miles in length). A 

section of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral will cross under Jacob Riis Park in the Gateway 

National Recreation Area (GNRA) using the horizontal directional drilling (HDD) method. The 

proposed HDD will begin onshore near the Marine Parkway interchange and will terminate 

offshore beyond Rockaway Beach. 

The HDD method of construction was chosen because it is environmentally friendly and 

has been proven to be a safe and efficient method for crossing rivers, wetlands, and other 

sensitive areas such as the public beach located along the onshore portion of the proposed 

alignment. 

The purpose of this document is 1) to describe a program designed to monitor for 

potential failures during pipeline installation and for potential indicators of drilling fluid loss from 

the borehole (thereby reducing the likelihood of inadvertent drilling fluid returns at the surface),

and 2) to describe the response plan that would be employed in the event of a pipeline 

installation failure or drilling fluid reaching the surface.

Drilling Fluid and Drilling Fluid System

The HDD process involves a drilling fluid composed primarily of fresh water and 

bentonite, naturally occurring, nonhazardous clay that serves as a viscosifier. If needed to 

manipulate the rheological properties for optimized drilling operations, the drilling fluid may also 

be augmented with starch, cellulose, non-toxic polymers, and/or crystalline silica. As currently 

envisioned, the fresh water will be sourced from fire hydrants located near the onshore entry 

workspace on Tri-Borough Tunnel Authority (TBTA) property north of Jacob Riis Park. The HDD 

contractor will source the bentonite and additives through its network of suppliers. 

The primary purposes of the drilling fluid are to remove the cuttings from the enlarged 

hole, to stabilize the enlarged hole, and to act as a coolant and lubricant during the drilling 

process. The drilling fluid is denser than water, which helps to provide a higher hydrostatic 

pressure in the hole than in the surrounding formation. The drilling fluid generally consists of 

1% to 5% bentonite, from 0% to 40% inert solids, and water. The inert solids are the cuttings 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
2

generated from drilling and are carried in the bentonite fluid to the entry and or exit points. 

These solids are then typically removed mechanically through the drilling fluid cleaning system.

The drilling fluid is first prepared in a mixing tank. The drilling fluid is typically pumped at 

150 to 800 gallons per minute (gpm) through the center of the steel drill pipe to the downhole 

tools. Return flow is via the annulus created between the wall of the drilled hole and the drill 

pipe. The drill cuttings are carried back to the entry pit by the drilling fluid. Once in the entry pit, 

the drilling fluid is pumped to the drilling fluid processing equipment. The drilling fluid 

processing equipment typically employs shaker screens, desanders, desilters and possibly 

centrifuges to remove increasingly finer cuttings from the drilling fluid. The cleaned and 

recycled drilling fluid is then pumped back downhole. Additional drilling fluid is mixed to account 

for the increased volume of the drilled hole as drilling operations progress. The cuttings that 

return to the entry pit will be disposed of at an approved disposal site.

Pipeline Installation Failure Modes

Pilot Hole

The failure mode that may occur during the pilot hole drilling is the hole collapsing on the 

drill pipe string. This is typically caused by either not being able to maintain hole stability or 

unfavorable drilling strata that contain noncohesive alluvial material, e.g., gravel and cobbles. If 

the hole collapses on the drill pipe and creates high friction on the drill pipe’s surface, the torque 

required to rotate the drill pipe will likely increase. The increased friction may either bind the drill 

pipe in such a way that it cannot be moved, or if the torque applied to the drill pipe by the drill rig 

exceeds the strength of the drill pipe, the force may cause the drill pipe to either shear or twist 

into two pieces. The longer the drill length, the more probability there is of this type of failure if

noncohesive alluvial materials are present.

Hole Opening

In soil formations, if the hole-opening passes take a long time, there is one main type of 

failure. This failure mode consists of the material falling into the hole. Hole stability is reduced in 

these conditions, and the bridging material can keep the drilling fluid from returning to the 

surface. If the drilling fluid is no longer able to carry the drilled cuttings out of the hole, excess 

cuttings will remain in the hole. The cuttings may slowly build up in the bottom of the hole, 

increasing the friction on the drill pipe and inducing added wear on the drill pipe. Wearing will 

decrease the wall thickness of the drill pipe and may cause the drill pipe to fail. The increased 

friction may also cause the drill pipe to slow or stop rotation to a point where the drill rig cannot 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3

supply enough torque to continue drilling without causing a failure of the drill pipe. The drill pipe 

may fail by shearing or twisting into two pieces.

Pullback

Failure of the pullback process occurs when the carrier pipe becomes lodged in the hole 

and is unable to be moved in either direction. If the pipeline encounters an obstruction, the pull 

of the drilling rig may increase to a level that causes the drill pipe to fail. This results in the 

greatest setback because the only alternative is to abandon the drilled hole and pipeline, 

relocate the pipeline alignment, and start the drilling process from the beginning. If the carrier 

pipe becomes lodged in the hole, the HDD contractor may use specialized equipment on the 

exit side to assist in trying to free the pipe and either push or pull the pipe out of the drilled hole. 

Mechanical

The last type of failure occurs if the HDD contractor has a major mechanical breakdown. 

If the drill pipe remains idle for an extended time, there is a possibility the drill pipe may not 

continue to rotate or move in either direction. This can be the result of having no activity in the 

hole for an extended period of time, allowing the material contained within the drilled hole 

annulus to seize the drill pipe string in place and prevent further movement. If this occurs during 

pilot hole drilling, the contractor will be required to change the alignment of the crossing to miss 

the abandoned hole and start the drilling process from the beginning.

HDD Failure Criteria

Pilot Hole

The HDD installation method may be considered a failure if, after several attempts by 

the HDD contractor, completing the pilot hole is unsuccessful. Transco may determine the pilot 

hole a failure after two attempts if the actual subsurface materials are determined to be not 

conducive to the HDD method of installation. If this happens the HDD contractor shall then 

demobilize and remove the equipment from the site after approval from Transco.

Hole Opening

The HDD installation method may be considered a failure after several attempts at 

opening the hole to the required diameter have failed, as long as the failure does not include 

losing parts of the hole-opening tool or the entire hole-opening tool downhole. Transco may 

determine the hole-opening process a failure after two attempts if the actual subsurface 

materials are determined to be not conducive to the HDD method of installation. The HDD 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4

contractor will then be allowed 14 working days to attempt to retrieve the missing tool or tool 

parts from the hole and continue the hole opening process. If failure occurs, the HDD contractor

shall then demobilize and remove the equipment from the site after approval from Transco.

Pullback

The HDD installation method may be considered a failure after several attempts at 

completing the pullback unless the pipe can be removed from the hole. Then additional attempts 

will be made after the hole has been reopened and reconditioned with any necessary hole 

opening passes as determined jointly by the HDD contractor and Transco. Transco may 

determine the pullback process a failure after two attempts if the actual subsurface materials are 

determined to be not conducive to the HDD method of installation. If failure occurs, the HDD 

contractor shall then demobilize and remove the equipment from the site after approval from 

Transco.

Mechanical

The HDD installation method may be considered a failure if the HDD contractor has a 

major breakdown and after either repairing or replacing the broken drilling rig or vital piece of 

ancillary equipment, the drill pipe, hole opening tool, or pipeline cannot be rotated or pulled. If 

failure occurs, the HDD contractor shall then demobilize and remove the equipment from the 

site after approval from Transco.

Drilling Fluid Seepage

Prevention

The installation of HDD crossings does present potential for ground surface disturbance 

if inadvertent drilling fluid returns surface along the HDD alignment. Pressurization of the drilled

hole beyond the containment capability of the surrounding soils can cause breaks in the 

formation. This allows the drilling fluid to migrate both horizontally and vertically through the 

formation and, potentially, to the surface. In some instances, elevated downhole drilling fluid 

pressures may impact the formation but the drilling fluid may never migrate to the surface. 

Providing adequate depth of cover for the installation can substantially reduce this potential. In 

some cases, inadvertent returns can also be caused by preexisting conditions in the 

geotechnical strata even if the downhole pressures are low. Maintaining drilling fluid circulation 

during HDD operations usually helps to keep downhole pressures from building to excessive 

levels. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
5

Suitable Material and Adequate Overburden

In the contingency planning for this project, the prevention of inadvertent drilling fluid 

returns has been a major consideration in determining the preliminary design profile of the 

crossing. The primary factors that were used in selecting the pipeline crossing profile design 

were the composition, density, and shear strength of the soil materials at the site and the depth 

of cover. Based on Transco’s expectations for predominantly encountering sand along the HDD 

profile selected, it is anticipated there will be a greater resistance to breaks in the formation

since sands generally have a high shear strength. The second factor considered in developing 

the design profile was adequate depth of cover below the ground surface and seafloor. An

inadvertent returns analysis was completed for the proposed HDD installation to determine the 

minimum depth of cover.

There is greater potential for inadvertent drilling fluid returns near the entry and exit 

locations where the drill profile nears the surface and the depth of cover is reduced. Largediameter conductor casing will be installed on the entry side (onshore) of the crossing in order to 

mitigate the risks of inadvertent drilling fluid returns where there the cover is less deep.

Pipeline Geometry

The geometry of the pipeline profile can also affect the potential for breaks in the 

formation and inadvertent drilling fluid returns. In a profile that forces the pipe to make 

compound or excessively tight radius turns, annular drilling fluid pressures can build up, thereby 

increasing the potential for breaks and inadvertent drilling fluid returns. The HDD design profile 

for this crossing reduces this potential with very smooth and gradual curves, reducing the, the 

potential for pressure buildup caused by pipeline geometry.

Responsibility of HDD Contractor

The HDD contractor is responsible for executing the HDD operation, including detecting 

and controlling inadvertent drilling fluid returns. Transco will have an on-site representative to 

closely supervise the progress and actions of the HDD contractor.

Detection

HDD is a technically advanced process that needs skilled operators. The detection of

drilling conditions that may cause formation breaks and potentially inadvertent returns prior to 

actual occurrence is highly dependent upon the skills and experiences of the drilling crew. Each 

drilling situation is unique in that the behavior of the subsurface materials may vary and be

difficult to predict. There is no downhole monitoring equipment that can detect impacts to the 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
6

formation. It is a combination of factors, which must be properly interpreted, that may indicate 

conditions that have the potential for this outcome. 

The most obvious signs are a reduction in the quantity of drilling fluid returning to the 

work site (loss of circulation) and inadvertent returns along the crossing alignment. One of the 

functions of the drilling fluid is to seal the hole to maintain the downhole pressure. The loss of 

circulation is a sign that pressure is not being contained in the drill hole and that drilling fluid is 

seeping into the formation. Some loss of drilling fluid to the formation should be expected 

during the HDD process. There can be instances in the HDD process where a loose or coarse 

granular soil unit is encountered. These units have the potential to absorb larger volumes of 

drilling fluid than fine grained silt and clay units. Consequently, a partial loss of drilling fluid 

circulation in and of itself is not an indication that the formation has been impacted or that 

inadvertent returns are imminent. It is the loss of drilling fluid in combination with other factors 

that may indicate a potential seepage condition.

One tool proposed for use to monitor the potential for formation impacts and inadvertent 

drilling fluid returns is an annular pressure tool that is used in conjunction with the HDD 

contractor’s downhole survey probe during pilot hole operations. The annular pressure tool 

provides real-time monitoring of the annular drilling fluid pressure in the drilled hole. By 

monitoring the annular drilling fluid pressure, the HDD contractor is able to observe rapid 

increases in the annular pressure that may indicate the annulus is becoming blocked with

cuttings. A rapid decrease in annular pressure may indicate that drilling fluid is being lost to the 

formation. The HDD contractor can use this information in conjunction with observations of the 

drilling fluid returns to the entry point to help evaluate the potential for formation impacts and 

inadvertent returns.

The detection of a drilling fluid release before it actually occurs depends upon the skill 

and experience of the drilling crew. HDD contractors must rely on their experience while closely 

monitoring their operating parameters during HDD operations in order to identify when the risk is 

increased. It is for this reason that Transco will be using firms that specialize in HDD to perform 

the proposed crossing. The selection and supervision of this HDD contractor will be the 

responsibility of Transco.

Corrective Action

The only pressure causing surface seepage to occur is the pressure from the highpressure drilling fluid pumps. Therefore, the most direct corrective action is to stop the drilling 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
7

fluid pumps. By stopping the pumps, the pressure in the hole will quickly bleed off. With no 

pressure in the hole, the surface seepage will stop.

Onshore Returns

If inadvertent drilling fluid returns are detected onshore, the drilling crew will take 

immediate corrective action. The HDD contractor will be equipped with straw bales, silt fence, 

sand bags, pumps, and any other materials or equipment necessary to contain and clean up 

inadvertent returns onshore. Once the drilling fluid returns have been cleared from the area,

they are hauled or pumped to the entry site for processing. With the clean-up process under 

way, HDD activities can resume.

In the event of an inadvertent return onshore the following actions will be taken:

■ Stop the drilling fluid pumps immediately.

■ Contain the drilling fluid that has surfaced.

■ Notify the Transco representative who will contact the appropriate agencies.

■ Evaluate the steps leading up to the inadvertent return to determine the potential to seal off 

the formation with loss circulation materials (LCM’s) or other additives. Because the 

conditions at each HDD are unique, it is not possible to predict the specific LCMs to be used 

in the event of an inadvertent return. There are myriad LCM products available in particle 

sizes ranging from fine to coarse, including Polyswell, sawdust, or walnut hulls among many 

others. (These additives are only examples and may or may not be implemented if an 

inadvertent return occurs.)

■ Evaluate if there are any additional steps that may increase the potential for regaining 

returns to entry/exit points. This may include advancing the tools in the opposite direction in 

an attempt to regain drilling fluid returns.

■ Resume drilling and monitor conditions at the return site.

Offshore Returns

If significant inadvertent returns occur offshore, there may be a visible plume. Minor 

seepage, however, may be difficult to detect because of currents and the high specific gravity of 

the drilling fluid. If an inadvertent drilling fluid release is detected offshore, outside of the exit pit, 

it will be monitored and documented. Drilling activities may be temporarily suspended to 

evaluate the possible implementation of mitigation measures to regain hole integrity. Drilling 

activities will not be suspended unless the volume of inadvertent drilling fluid returns creates an 

immediate threat to public health and safety. If an extended shutdown were required to try to 

reduce the turbidity or amount of drilling fluid being released, this may lead to a hole collapse 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
8

and ultimately a failure in the HDD. This may require drilling a new hole and therefore extend 

the duration of the project. 

Removal of drilling fluid surfacing offshore is not feasible due to the strong currents in 

the area. The exit pit is designed to contain the exiting fluid and cuttings. Drilling fluid returns 

and cuttings entering the exit pit will be left to naturally dissipate or settle into the excavated pit. 

Any inadvertent leakage would be expected to disperse naturally with the currents.

In the event an inadvertent return is observed offshore the following actions will be 

taken:

■ Qualitatively determine the magnitude of the offshore return.

■ If warranted by the volume of the drilling fluid return, stop the drilling fluid pumps.

■ Notify the Transco representative, who will contact the appropriate agencies.

■ Evaluate the steps leading up to the inadvertent return to determine the potential to seal off 

the formation with LCMs or other additives. Because the conditions at each HDD are 

unique, it is not possible to predict the specific LCMs to be used in the event of an 

inadvertent return. There are myriad of LCM products available in particle sizes ranging from 

fine to coarse, including Polyswell, sawdust, or walnut hulls among many others. (These 

additives are only examples and may or may not be implemented if an inadvertent return 

occurs.)

■ Evaluate if there are any additional steps that may increase the potential for regaining 

returns to entry/exit points. This may include tripping the tools in the opposite direction in an 

attempt to regain drilling fluid returns.

Follow-up

After the inadvertent drilling fluid return has been assessed, the HDD contractor and 

Transco will make every effort to determine why the seepage occurred. Once the cause of the 

drilling fluid release has been determined, measures will be developed to control the factors 

causing the seepage and to minimize the chance of recurrence. Developing the corrective 

measure will be a joint effort of Transco and the HDD contractor and will be site- and problemspecific.

Response Equipment

For the duration of drilling operations, the drilling personnel will be aware of what 

materials are necessary when responding to an onshore release of drilling fluid and have these 

items available on-site. Since inadvertent drilling fluid returns can be easily controlled onshore, 

containment items will be stored in the entry site work area. Containment items may include

lumber for temporary shoring, sand bags, portable pumps, hand tools, silt fencing, and hay 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
9

bales. The HDD contractor will also have heavy equipment such as excavators and backhoes

that can be used to control and clean up the drilling fluid in accessible locations. Transfer 

pumps, hoses, and, potentially, vacuum trucks may be used if necessary for transferring back to 

entry any inadvertent drilling fluid released onshore. After removal of the released drilling fluid, 

the release area will be returned as close to the original condition as feasible. It may be 

necessary to store the drilling fluid on site prior to disposal.

Abandoning the Hole

In some cases, the corrective measure may involve a determination that the existing 

hole encountered a void or subsurface fracture, which could be bypassed with a slight change in 

the profile. In other cases, it may be determined that the existing hole encountered a zone of 

unsatisfactory soil material, or there was a failure during pipeline installation and the hole may 

have to be abandoned. If the hole is abandoned, the HDD contractor will grout the top 5 vertical 

feet of the abandoned hole at the entry side of the crossing by inserting a grout tremie pipe into 

the drilled hole annulus. The grout will be a cement type grout. As the grout is pressured into the 

drilled hole annulus, the tremie pipe will be extracted from the hole so the grout mixture is 

allowed to sufficiently displace any drilling fluid that may have remained within the hole. The top 

12-inches of the hole will be backfilled with the native topsoil or previously excavated surface 

material and the HDD contractor will not demobilize until Transco approval has been received.

Alternatives

Alternative HDD design criteria may be considered, in the event circumstances lead to 

hole abandonment. However, subsurface conditions could still negatively impact design 

revisions, depending upon the circumstances encountered for the specific crossing. Transco 

and the HDD contractor will evaluate the alternative HDD options and determine a path forward. 

In the event HDD is determined no longer feasible at the project location, alternative 

construction methods will be evaluated. Agency approval will be required by Transco prior to 

initiating any alternative construction options. 

Company/Agency Notification and Approval Information

Transco will provide a technical consultant on-site during the HDD process to keep 

adequate documentation such as daily progress reports, as-built information, etc., describing 

the events leading up to the failure. Transco will then submit this documentation to the 

necessary agencies for their review and approval that the drill has failed at the present 

alignment. The HDD contractor will not demobilize until Transco approval has been received.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
10

If an inadvertent return occurs, Transco staff will notify the following parties: 

■ Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

■ National Park Service

■ New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

■ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

■ U.S. Coast Guard (offshore only)

The following contact information will be used to notify these agencies unless updated or 

alternative information is provided by the agency:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Enforcement Hotline

(202) 502-8390

(888) 889-8030 (Toll Free)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

New York District – Regulatory Branch

Eastern Permit Section

(917) 790-8511

NPS Gateway National Recreation Area

Jamaica Bay Unit

(718) 338-3799

U.S. Coast Guard Station – New York

Waterways Management Division

Main: (718) 354-4101

Secondary: (718) 354-4099

NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Region 2 Permit Administrator

(718) 482-4997

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX I

FALL 2010 OFFSHORE

ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING REPORT

FOR THE ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Public 

000891.ZW44.01-B3477 

Fall 2010 

Offshore 

Environmental Sampling Report 

for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project 

Queens, New York

November 2011 

Prepared for: 

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC 

Prepared by: 

ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, INC. 

368 Pleasant View Drive 

Lancaster, New York 14086 

©2011 Ecology and Environment, Inc.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477 iii Public

Rockaway_Sampling_Report_112211.docx-11/22/11

T able of Contents 

Section Page 

1 Introduction .............................................................................. 1-1

2 Sediment Sampling Results .................................................... 2-1

3 Water Quality Sampling Results ............................................. 3-1

3.1 Physical Parameters of Water Quality .............................................................. 3-1

3.2 Chemical and Biological Parameters of Water Quality .................................... 3-2

4 Benthic Community Analysis .................................................. 4-1

5 Drop Camera Video .................................................................. 5-1

6 References ................................................................................ 6-1 

Appendix 

A Sampling and Analysis Plan ................................................... A-1

B Complete Laboratory Results ................................................ B-1

C Marine Biology Report ............................................................ C-1

D Drop Camera Video ................................................................. D-1

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477 v Public

Rockaway_Sampling_Report_112211.docx-11/22/11 

 ist of Tables L 

Table Page 

2-1 Sediment Sample Identification Numbers ................................................................. 2-2

2-2 Summary of Sediment Chemical Analyses ................................................................ 2-2

2-3 Summary of Analytical Results for Sediment Samples along the Preferred 

Pipeline Route, Fall 2010 ........................................................................................... 2-3

2-4 Summary of Analytical Results for Sediment Samples along the Alternative 

Pipeline Route, Fall 2010 ........................................................................................... 2-5

3-1 Water Sample Analyses ............................................................................................. 3-3

3-2 Summary of Analytical Results for Water Quality Samples along the Preferred 

Pipeline Route, Fall 2010 ........................................................................................... 3-5

3-3 Summary of Analytical Results for Water Quality Samples along the 

Alternative Pipeline Route, Fall 2010 ........................................................................ 3-7

4-1 Benthic Data Results Summary for Preferred and Alternative Pipeline Routes, 

Fall 2010 .................................................................................................................... 4-2

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477 vii Public

Rockaway_Sampling_Report_112211.docx-11/22/11 

 ist of Figures L 

Figure Page 

1-1 Proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project Location, Lower New York Bay ....... 1-3

1-2 Sediment/Water Quality and Benthic Sampling Locations, Fall 2010 Field 

Survey ........................................................................................................................ 1-5

4-1 Shannon’s Index Benthic Sampling Locations, Fall 2010 Field Survey, 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral ........................................................................................ 4-5

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477 ix Public

Rockaway_Sampling_Report_112211.docx-11/22/11 

 ist of Abbreviations and Acronyms L 

BOD biological oxygen demand 

BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Xylene 

COD chemical oxygen demand 

DDD dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane 

DDE dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene 

DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 

DO dissolved oxygen 

°C degrees Celsius 

E & E Ecology and Environment, Inc. 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

H Shannon’s Diversity Index 

HDD horizontal directional drill 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

mL milliliter 

MLLW mean lower low water 

MMcfd million cubic feet per day 

NPS National Park Service (U.S. Department of the Interior) 

NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units 

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

PAHs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms (cont.) 

02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477 x Public

Rockaway_Sampling_Report_112211.docx-11/22/2011 

PCDD polychlorinated dibenzo-dioxin 

PCDF polychlorinated dibenzo-furan 

ppt parts per thousand 

SVOC semi-volatile organic compound 

TBTA Tri-borough Bridge and Tunnel Authority 

TCDD Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 

TOC total organic carbon 

TOGS Technical and Operational Guidance Series 

Transco Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC 

TSS total suspended solids 

VOC volatile organic compound 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477 1-1 Public

Rockaway_Sampling_Report_112211.docx-11/22/2011

Introduction

Project Description

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco), is preparing to file an 

application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) seeking all 

of the necessary authorizations pursuant to the Natural Gas Act to construct and 

operate a new lateral on its existing natural gas pipeline system. This new lateral 

will provide an additional delivery point to National Grid US’s local distribution 

companies of Brooklyn Union Gas Company, D/B/A National Grid NY and 

KeySpan Gas East Corporation (herein referred to as “National Grid”) in the New 

York City market area. The Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project (the Project) will 

enhance reliability and position National Grid to serve growth by providing an 

additional delivery point into their system. The Project is currently under review 

through the FERC Pre-Filing process, following approval of Transco’s request 

letter dated March 13, 2009 (Docket No. PF09-8). The Pre-Filing process allows 

Transco to obtain resource agency and stakeholder input prior to filing of the 

formal FERC application under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act. The FERC 

application for the Project requires the submittal of 12 Resource Reports, with 

each report evaluating Project effects on a particular aspect of the environment. 

This Environmental Sampling Report has been prepared in support of the PreFiling outreach and Resource Report composition efforts. 

The proposed pipeline would consist of approximately 3.2 miles of 26-inch 

diameter pipeline from a proposed offshore interconnect with Transco’s existing 

Lower New York Bay Extension, in the Atlantic Ocean seaward of Rockaway 

Peninsula, to an onshore delivery point into the National Grid pipeline system on 

the Rockaway Peninsula in Queens County, New York, as shown on Figure 1-1.

Construction of the pipeline would allow the input of up to 625 MMcfd to 

National Grid’s regional distribution system and would support the City of New 

York’s clean air initiatives, which will limit the use of high sulfur oils. 

Transco proposes to cross the beach and install the nearshore portion of the 

pipeline using a Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD). The proposed HDD would 

be approximately 0.58 miles long. The remaining 2.58 miles of the offshore 

segment would be installed using conventional marine lay and trenching methods. 

The 0.34-mile onshore segment of the pipeline primarily extends beneath a pitchand-putt golf course located within the Jacob Riis Park to a proposed tie-in point 

1

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
1. Introduction 

02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477 1-2 Public

Rockaway_Sampling_Report_112211.docx-11/22/2011 

with National Grid to be located within the Tri-borough Bridge and Tunnel 

Authority (TBTA) right-of-way. Beach 169th Street and Fort Tilden are located to 

the west of the proposed pipeline. A parking lot and additional land within Jacob 

Riis Park are located to the east. Jacob Riis Park and Fort Tilden are part of 

Gateway National Recreation Area, which is managed by the National Park 

Service (NPS). Transco is also proposing to construct a meter and regulating 

(M&R) station in the southernmost historic airplane hangars (Hangars 1 and 2) at 

Floyd Bennett Field. Jacob Riis Park, Fort Tilden and Floyd Bennett Field are 

part of Gateway National Recreation Area, which is managed by the NPS. 

National Grid would be responsible for constructing the pipeline between the 

M&R station at Floyd Bennett Field and the tie-in point in Jacob Riis Park. 

 

Scope of Work 

Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E & E) was contracted by Transco to support the 

environmental compliance/permitting requirements for the Project. In order for 

the FERC process, certificates and, ultimately, the installation processes to move 

forward, it was necessary to evaluate the physical, chemical, and biological 

characteristics along the proposed pipeline route. Prior to undertaking the field 

activities, a sampling and analysis plan was prepared and submitted to regulatory 

agencies to provide them with the opportunity to comment on and, if necessary, 

request modifications to ensure adequacy of data for the agency review. The 

Sampling and Analysis Plan (Plan) prepared for the Project is provided in 

Appendix A. 

Previous Investigation 

An initial field sampling effort took place from June 23 through July 13, 2009 

along the originally-proposed pipeline route (Figure 1-1) (E & E 2009). After 

review of the 2009 survey results, Transco determined that shifting the proposed 

pipeline corridor to the south would reduce the potential for impacts to 

hardbottom habitat (i.e., artificial reef structures and anthropogenic debris), which 

supports colonies of northern star coral (Astrangia poculata), and historic 

resources (i.e., shipwrecks). Therefore, two new offshore pipeline routes were 

identified for investigation (one preferred and one alternative). 

Recent Surveys 

A second field sampling effort took place between November 21 and 

December 10, 2010 to survey the two new pipeline routes associated with the 

Project. A summary of the field data collected as part of the second (2010) 

sampling effort in the Atlantic Ocean is provided below. Sampling and analysis 

methods generally adhered to the 2009 Plan, unless otherwise described in this 

report. Although geotechnical, archaeological and deep sediment core data were 

collected and analyzed as part of this field effort, this report presents only the 

results supporting the biological and water quality evaluations for the Project. 

Geotechnical boring logs will be provided as appendices to Resource Report 7, 

Soils, of the FERC Environmental Report, and the results of archaeological 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
"/

Previous (2009)Route Alternative

Alternative Route 

Preferred Route 

© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #L:\Buffalo\NorthEast_Supply\Maps\MXDs\Rockaway_Lateral_Nov2011\Fig1_1_Project_Location_110811.mxd 11/8/2011

Figure 1-1 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project Location 

Lower New York Bay

Williams Transco ± 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.25 Miles

Existing 26" Lower NY Bay Extension

Source: ESRI 2010; Mustang 2011.

Proposed Meter Station

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

15

19

B19

9

11

13

16

B16

B9

B10

B11

B12

B13

B14

B15

B16

B17

B18

B19

B20

B100

© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #

L:\Buffalo\NorthEast_Supply\Maps\MXDs\Rockaway_Lateral_Nov2011\Fig1_2_Sample_Points_Overview_110811.mxd 11/08/2011

0 1,000 2,000 500

Feet

Figure 1-2

Sediment/Water Quality and Benthic Sampling Locations

Fall 2010 Field Survey

Rockaway Delivery Lateral

Williams Transco

±

Legend

!( Sediment Cores/Water Samples (fall 2010)

") Benthic Sample Points (fall 2010)

Bathymetric contours

Preferred Pipeline Route

Alternative Pipeline Route

Combined 2009-2010 Survey Area

Shoreline

Overview

Long Island Jamaica

Bay

Existing 26" Lower

NY Bay Lateral

Source: ESRI 2008; NOAA 2008; PBS&J 2009

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
1. Introduction 

02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477 1-7 Public

Rockaway_Sampling_Report_112211.docx-11/22/2011 

investigations will be presented in Resource Report 4, Cultural Resources. 

Transco anticipates submitting these Resource Reports to FERC in Spring 2012. 

This report discusses all environmental field parameters collected, including: 

■ Sediment chemical contamination; 

■ Physical and chemical water quality parameters; 

■ Benthic community analysis; and 

■ Drop camera video of the proposed pipeline route. 

The appendices at the end of this report provide all field data collected as part of 

the 2010 sampling effort. Appendix A presents the Sampling and Analysis Plan 

developed in 2009 for the data collection effort; Appendix B presents the 

laboratory results for all chemical parameters analyzed; Appendix C presents the 

Marine Biology Report that discusses the results of the benthic sampling and 

subsurface video performed at each sample location; Appendix D contains a CD 

including the raw video collected with the drop camera. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477 2-1 Public

Rockaway_Sampling_Report_112211.docx-11/22/2011 

Sediment Sampling Results 

The sediment sampling plan developed to evaluate the site-specific sediment 

conditions along the proposed pipeline route was designed specifically to address 

the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (NYSDEC’s), 

Technical and Operational Guidance Series (TOGS) 5.1.9 for In-Water and 

Riparian Management of Sediment and Dredged Material (November 2004). The 

TOGS was produced by the NYSDEC Division of Water and Division of 

Fish/Wildlife and Marine Resources to provide guidance on the statutory and 

regulatory requirements for dredging activities and to promote uniformity in the 

certification and/or permitting of dredging projects in the state of New York. The 

sediment sampling plan includes analysis of sediment samples for several 

chemicals that would be of concern if found above threshold levels. The TOGS 

threshold values reflect toxicity to aquatic life. 

Samples were collected at four (4) locations along both the preferred and alternative pipeline routes (total of 8 locations) (see Figure 1-2). Sediment sampling was 

performed through a coring operation in which a sediment core was collected 

from each sampling location using a vibracore unit mounted on the survey vessel. 

There was no specific depth for the sampling; instead, the goal was to retain a 

core length of 10 feet. Once retrieved, the sediment core soil types were classified, and sediment samples were collected from the core and shipped to a laboratory for chemical analysis. Each core was separated into increments, with approximate intervals of 0 to 1 foot, 1 to 4 feet, and 4 feet to the bottom of the core. 

Most cores were driven to a total depth of 10 feet below the seafloor; however, 

recoveries were less due to refusal or poor sample recovery. The deepest samples 

were collected at a depth ranging from 4 to 7 feet below the seafloor. Samples 

were collected from eight locations on December 2 and 3, 2010. A total of 22 

samples were collected, as identified in Table 2-1 below. The tests performed, 

method, and quantities of samples collected are summarized in Table 2-2, which 

is based upon the NYDEC TOGS 5.1.9 for chemicals known to be both toxic and 

persistent in New York. Upon completion of the analyses, positive results were 

evaluated and compared to the TOGS criteria (see Tables 2-3 and 2-4, preferred 

and alternative routes, respectively). The results are discussed below, and the 

complete analytical results are provided in Appendix B. 

2 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
2. Sediment Sampling Results 

02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477 2-2 Public

Rockaway_Sampling_Report_112211.docx-11/22/2011 

Table 2-1 Sediment Sample Identification Numbers 

Location 

Sample ID 

0- to 1-Foot 

Increment 

Sample ID 

1- to 4-Foot 

Increment 

Sample ID 

4- to 7-Foot 

Increment 

Sample ID 

7- to 10-Foot 

Increment 

09 09-D0-1E 09-D1-4 09-D4-6E NS* 

11 11-D0-1E 11-D1-4E 11-D4-6E NS 

13 13-D0-1E 13-D1-4 NS NS 

15 15-D0-1E 15-D1-4E 15-D4-6E NS 

16 16-D0-1E 16-D1-4E 16-D4-6E NS 

B16 B16-D0-1E B16-D1-4E B16-D4-5E NS 

19 19-D0-1E 19-D1-4E 19-D4-7 NS 

B19 B19-D0-1E B19-D1-4E NS NS 

*NS = No Sample 

Table 2-2 Summary of Sediment Chemical Analyses 

Test Description* 

EPA 

Method 

Number 

TOGS 5.1.9 

Required Method 

Detection Limit 

(mg/Kg) 

TOGS 5.1.9 

Class A 

Threshold** 

(mg/Kg dry 

weight) 

Arsenic EPA 6010B 3.0 8.2 

Cadmium EPA 6010B 1.0 1.2 

Copper EPA 6010B 5.0 33 

Lead EPA 6010B 2.0 47 

Mercury EPA 6010B 0.2 0.17 

Benzene EPA 8260B 0.0003 0.59 

Total BTEX (Benzene, Toluene, 

Xylene) 

EPA 8260B 0.0008 0.96 

Total PAHs (sum of Target 

Compound List PAH)

EPA 8270C 0.33 4.0 

Sum of DDT+DDE+DDD EPA 8081A 0.0033 0.0030 

Mirex EPA 8081A 0.189 0.0014 

Chlordane EPA 8081A 0.0017 0.0030 

Dieldrin EPA 8081A 0.0033 0.11 

PCBs (sum of Aroclors) EPA 8082 0.033 0.10 

Dioxin (sum of TCDD toxic 

equivalency) 

EPA 1613B 0.000002 0.0000045 

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) EPA 9060 N/A N/A 

pH EPA 9045C N/A N/A 

Salinity N/A N/A 

% Moisture SM 2540 N/A N/A 

* For compounds that were not detected, all total/sum results were calculated by adding the value of the detection limit as 

a conservative estimate. 

** Values below the Class A threshold represent no appreciable contamination. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Table 2-3 Summary of Analytical Results for Sediment Samples along the Preferred Pipeline Route, Fall 2010

Analyte Threshold(1) DL(2) Sample 9-D0-1E Q Sample 9-D1-4E Q Sample 9-D4-6E Q Sample 11-D0-1E Q Sample 11-D1-4E Q Sample 11-D4-6E Q Sample 13-D0-1E Q Sample 13-D1-4E Q Sample 15-D0-1E Q Sample 15-D1-4E Q Sample 15-D4-6E Q

Volatiles by 8260B [μg/Kg (ppb)]Benzene 590 2 0.10 ND 0.10 ND 0.10 ND 0.10 ND 0.10 ND 0.10 ND 0.10 ND 0.10 ND 0.10 ND 0.10 ND 0.09 NDp/m-Xylene N/A N/A 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 0.90 NDo-Xylene N/A N/A 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 0.90 NDToluene N/A N/A 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 2.00 J 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 0.90 NDTotal BTX 960 2 3.10 ND 3.10 ND 3.10 ND 3.10 ND 4.10 J 3.10 ND 3.10 ND 3.10 ND 3.10 ND 3.10 ND 2.79 NDSemivolatiles by 8270D [μg/Kg (ppb)]2-Chloronaphthalene N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A2-Methylnaphthalene N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AAcenaphthene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 42.0 ND 44.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 NDAcenaphthylene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 42.0 ND 44.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 NDAnthracene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 42.0 ND 44.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 NDBenz(a)anthracene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 42.0 ND 44.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 NDBenzo(a)pyrene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 42.0 ND 44.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 NDBenzo(b)fluoranthene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 42.0 ND 44.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 NDBenzo(ghi)perylene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 42.0 ND 44.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 NDBenzo(k)fluoranthene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 42.0 ND 44.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 NDChrysene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 42.0 ND 44.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 NDDibenz(a,h)anthracene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 42.0 ND 44.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 NDFluoranthene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 42.0 ND 44.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 NDFluorene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 42.0 ND 44.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 NDIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 42.0 ND 44.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 NDNaphthalene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 42.0 ND 44.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 NDPhenanthrene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 42.0 ND 44.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 NDPyrene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 42.0 ND 44.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 NDTotal PAH 4000 330 688 ND 672 ND 672 ND 688 ND 656 ND 672 ND 704 ND 672 ND 688 ND 704 ND 688 NDPesticides by 8081A [μg/Kg (ppb)]4,4'-DDD N/A N/A 0.17 ND 0.16 ND 0.16 ND 0.17 ND 0.16 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND4,4'-DDE N/A N/A 0.17 ND 0.50 J 0.16 ND 0.29 J 0.16 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND4,4'-DDT N/A N/A 0.17 ND 0.16 ND 0.16 ND 0.17 ND 0.16 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 NDSum of DDT+DDE+DDD 3 29 0.510 ND 0.820 ND 0.480 ND 0.630 ND 0.480 ND 0.510 ND 0.510 ND 0.510 ND 0.510 ND 0.510 ND 0.510 NDTechnical Chlordane 3 31 2.10 ND 2.00 ND 2.00 ND 2.00 ND 2.00 ND 2.00 ND 2.10 ND 2.00 ND 2.10 ND 2.10 ND 2.00 NDDieldrin 110 19 0.65 J 0.72 J 0.16 ND 0.55 J 0.16 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 NDMirex 1.4 189 0.18 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.18 ND 0.17 ND 0.18 ND 0.18 ND 0.18 ND 0.18 ND 0.19 ND 0.18 NDPCBs by 8082 [μg/Kg (ppb)]Aroclor 1016 N/A N/A 4.20 ND 4.10 ND 4.10 ND 4.20 ND 4.10 ND 4.20 ND 4.30 ND 4.20 ND 4.20 ND 4.40 ND 4.20 NDAroclor 1221 N/A N/A 6.40 ND 6.20 ND 6.20 ND 6.40 ND 6.20 ND 6.40 ND 6.60 ND 6.30 ND 6.40 ND 6.60 ND 6.40 NDAroclor 1232 N/A N/A 6.70 ND 6.50 ND 6.50 ND 6.60 ND 6.40 ND 6.60 ND 6.80 ND 6.60 ND 6.70 ND 6.90 ND 6.60 NDAroclor 1242 N/A N/A 6.40 ND 6.20 ND 6.20 ND 6.40 ND 6.20 ND 6.40 ND 6.60 ND 6.30 ND 6.40 ND 6.60 ND 6.40 NDAroclor 1248 N/A N/A 4.20 ND 4.10 ND 4.10 ND 4.20 ND 4.10 ND 4.20 ND 4.30 ND 4.20 ND 4.20 ND 4.40 ND 4.20 NDAroclor 1254 N/A N/A 4.20 ND 4.10 ND 4.10 ND 4.20 ND 4.10 ND 4.20 ND 4.30 ND 4.20 ND 4.20 ND 4.40 ND 4.20 NDAroclor 1260 N/A N/A 4.20 ND 4.10 ND 4.10 ND 4.20 ND 4.10 ND 4.20 ND 4.30 ND 4.20 ND 4.20 ND 4.40 ND 4.20 NDTotal Aroclor 100 25 18.2 ND 35.3 ND 35.3 ND 36.2 ND 35.2 ND 36.2 ND 37.2 ND 36.0 ND 36.3 ND 37.7 ND 36.2 ND% Moisture NA NA 22.0 19.9 19.9 21.7 18.9 21.5 23.7 20.9 22.2 24.5 21.6Metals by 6010B [mg/Kg (ppm)]Arsenic 8.2 1 3.34 3.60 3.37 2.52 3.87 3.22 2.11 J 3.82 2.37 J 2.14 J 1.64 J

Cadmium 1.2 0.5 0.18 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 J 0.23 J 0.25 J 0.18 ND 0.27 J 0.18 ND 0.18 ND 0.17 ND

Copper 33 2.5 1.23 J 0.27 ND 1.48 1.87 2.12 1.54 1.04 J 1.90 0.93 J 0.86 J 0.75 J

Lead 47 5 4.90 2.99 2.58 7.13 2.42 2.74 2.29 2.23 3.20 2.28 1.55 J

Mercury 0.17 0.2 0.0037 ND 0.0034 ND 0.0035 ND 0.224 0.0037 ND 0.0035 ND 0.0036 ND 0.0035 ND 0.0035 ND 0.0036 ND 0.0035 ND

% Moisture NA NA 25.1 19.9 19.8 17.8 24.5 21.0 23.7 21.2 22.0 23.5 19.9

(1) = NYSDEC TOGS 5.1.9 Class A Threshold for no appreciable concentration(2) = NYSDEC required detection limitKey:μg/Kg = Micrograms per kilogram B = Detected in method bankmg/Kg = Milligrams per kilogram J = Estimated concentration (above detection limit but below quantitative reporting limit)ng/Kg = Nanograms per kilogram ND = Not detectedQ = Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration (EMPC) NS = Not sampled

 02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477Tables 2-3 and 2-4 Sediment December 2010.xls-2-3 Preferred-11/22/2011

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Table 2-4 Summary of Analytical Results for Sediment Samples along the Alternative Pipeline Route, Fall 2010

Analyte Threshold(1) DL(2)

Sample

16-D0-1E Q

Sample

16-D1-4E Q

Sample

16-D4-6E Q

Sample

B16-D0-1E Q

Sample

B16-D1-4E Q

Sample

B16-D4-5E Q

Sample

B19-D0-1E Q

Sample

B19-D1-4E Q

Sample

19-D0-1E Q

Sample

19-D-1-4E Q

Sample

19-D4-7E Q

Volatiles by 8260B [μg/Kg (ppb)]Benzene 590 2 0.10 ND 0.10 ND 0.10 ND 0.10 ND 6.00 ND 0.10 ND 0.10 ND 6.00 ND 0.10 ND 0.10 ND 0.10 NDp/m-Xylene N/A N/A 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 59.0 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 58.0 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND

o-Xylene N/A N/A 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 59.0 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 58.0 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 NDToluene N/A N/A 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 3.00 J 59.0 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 58.0 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 ND 1.00 NDTotal BTX 960 2 3.10 ND 3.10 ND 3.10 ND 5.10 J 183.0 ND 3.10 ND 3.10 ND 180.0 ND 3.10 ND 3.10 ND 3.10 ND

Semivolatiles by 8270D [μg/Kg (ppb)]2-Chloronaphthalene N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A2-Methylnaphthalene N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AAcenaphthene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 ND

Acenaphthylene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 NDAnthracene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 NDBenz(a)anthracene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 NDBenzo(a)pyrene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 NDBenzo(b)fluoranthene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 NDBenzo(ghi)perylene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 NDBenzo(k)fluoranthene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 NDChrysene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 NDDibenz(a,h)anthracene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 NDFluoranthene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 NDFluorene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 NDIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 NDNaphthalene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 53.0 J 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 NDPhenanthrene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 NDPyrene N/A N/A 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 42.0 ND 43.0 ND 44.0 ND 43.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 ND 41.0 NDTotal PAH 4000 330 688 ND 683 ND 672 ND 688 ND 672 ND 688 ND 704 ND 688 ND 656 ND 656 ND 656 ND

Pesticides by 8081A [μg/Kg (ppb)]4,4'-DDD N/A N/A 0.50 ND 0.17 ND 0.29 J 0.17 ND 0.16 ND 0.17 ND 0.18 ND 0.17 ND 0.16 ND 0.16 ND 0.16 ND

4,4'-DDE N/A N/A 1.10 0.71 J 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.16 ND 0.17 ND 0.18 ND 0.17 ND 0.16 ND 0.16 ND 0.16 ND4,4'-DDT N/A N/A 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.16 ND 0.17 ND 0.18 ND 0.17 ND 0.16 ND 0.16 ND 0.16 NDSum of DDT+DDE+DDD 3 29 1.770 ND 1.050 ND 0.630 ND 0.510 ND 0.480 ND 0.510 ND 0.540 ND 0.510 ND 0.480 ND 0.480 ND 0.480 ND

Technical Chlordane 3 31 2.10 ND 2.00 ND 2.00 ND 2.10 ND 2.00 ND 2.10 ND 2.10 ND 2.10 ND 2.00 ND 1.90 ND 2.00 NDDieldrin 110 19 0.87 ND 0.53 J 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.16 ND 0.17 ND 0.18 ND 0.17 ND 0.16 ND 0.16 ND 0.16 NDMirex 1.4 189 0.18 ND 0.18 ND 0.18 ND 0.18 ND 0.17 ND 0.18 ND 0.19 ND 0.18 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND

PCBs by 8082 [μg/Kg (ppb)]Aroclor 1016 N/A N/A 4.20 ND 4.20 ND 4.10 ND 4.20 ND 4.10 ND 4.30 ND 4.40 ND 4.30 ND 4.10 ND 4.00 ND 4.10 ND

Aroclor 1221 N/A N/A 6.40 ND 6.30 ND 6.30 ND 6.40 ND 6.20 ND 6.50 ND 6.70 ND 6.50 ND 6.20 ND 6.10 ND 6.20 NDAroclor 1232 N/A N/A 6.70 ND 6.60 ND 6.50 ND 6.70 ND 6.50 ND 6.70 ND 6.90 ND 6.70 ND 6.40 ND 6.30 ND 6.40 NDAroclor 1242 N/A N/A 6.40 ND 6.30 ND 6.30 ND 6.40 ND 6.20 ND 6.50 ND 6.70 ND 6.50 ND 6.20 ND 6.10 ND 6.20 NDAroclor 1248 N/A N/A 4.20 ND 4.20 ND 4.10 ND 4.20 ND 4.10 ND 4.30 ND 4.40 ND 4.30 ND 4.10 ND 4.00 ND 4.10 NDAroclor 1254 N/A N/A 4.20 ND 4.20 ND 4.10 ND 4.20 ND 4.10 ND 4.30 ND 4.40 ND 4.30 ND 4.10 ND 4.00 ND 4.10 NDAroclor 1260 N/A N/A 4.20 ND 4.20 ND 4.10 ND 4.20 ND 4.10 ND 4.30 ND 4.40 ND 4.30 ND 4.10 ND 4.00 ND 4.10 NDTotal Aroclor 100 25 36.3 ND 36.0 ND 35.5 ND 36.3 ND 35.3 ND 36.9 ND 37.9 ND 36.9 ND 35.2 ND 34.5 ND 35.2 ND

% Moisture NA NA 22.0 21.1 20.2 22.1 19.9 22.8 25.0 22.8 19.1 17.9 19.2

Metals by 6010B [mg/Kg (ppm)]Arsenic 8.2 1 2.79 4.20 3.19 2.66 J 2.7 2.40 J 2.98 2.7 3.29 2.16 J 2.65

Cadmium 1.2 0.5 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.23 J 0.2 J 0.21 J 0.18 ND 0.2 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 ND 0.17 NDCopper 33 2.5 1.22 J 0.27 1.14 1.98 1.8 1.23 J 1.09 J 1.0 J 1.28 0.85 J 1.77

Lead 47 5 2.80 3.15 2.99 5.17 2.2 2.68 3.52 1.8 J 4.16 2.33 1.94

Mercury 0.17 0.2 0.0036 ND 0.0034 ND 0.0034 ND 0.0039 ND 0.0037 ND 0.0035 ND 0.0036 ND 0.0037 ND 0.0035 ND 0.0036 ND 0.0034 ND

% Moisture NA NA 22.0 21.7 20.0 26.1 24.8 21.5 23.3 23.2 18.9 20.0 18.9

Dioxins/Furans [ng/Kg (pptr)] NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS2,3,7,8-TCDD N/A N/A 0.0363 JBQ

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD N/A N/A 0.112 JB

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD N/A N/A 0.0784 JBQ

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD N/A N/A 0.102 JBQ

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD N/A N/A 0.196 JBQ1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD N/A N/A 2.60 JB

OCDD N/A N/A 44.5 B2,3,7,8-TCDF N/A N/A 0.0169 ND

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF N/A N/A 0.0417 JB2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF N/A N/A 0.0734 JB1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF N/A N/A 0.0715 JB1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF N/A N/A 0.0406 JB2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF N/A N/A 0.0846 JBQ1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF N/A N/A 0.0779 JB1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF N/A N/A 0.318 JB

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF N/A N/A 0.0696 JB

OCDF N/A N/A 0.169 JB

DioxinToxicEquivalencyTotal 4.5 2 0.272

(1) = NYSDEC TOGS 5.1.9 Class A Threshold for no appreciable concentration(2) = NYSDEC required detection limitKey:μg/Kg = Micrograms per kilogram B = Detected in method bankmg/Kg = Milligrams per kilogram J = Estimated concentration (above detection limit but below quantitative reporting limit)ng/Kg = Nanograms per kilogram ND = Not detectedQ = Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration (EMPC) NS = Not sampled

 02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477Tables 2-3 and 2-4 Sediment December 2010.xls-2-4 Alternative-11/22/2011

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
2. Sediment Sampling Results 

02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477 2-7 Public

Rockaway_Sampling_Report_112211.docx-11/22/2011 

Sediment Physical Parameters 

At each sampling location, sediment samples were measured for salinity and pH 

using deionized water extraction, as well as total organic carbon (TOC) and percent moisture. The laboratory analyses of the samples on the preferred route resulted in an average pH value of 7.3 ± 0.3 across all sampling locations, with a 

minimum of 6.9 and a maximum of 7.7. The samples on the alternative route resulted in an average pH value of 7.3 ± 0.3, with a minimum of 6.8 and a maximum of 7.6. TOC, calculated in percent dry weight, was measured to be a mean 

of 0.07% ± 0.03 on the preferred route and a mean of 0.06% ± 0.02 on alternative 

route, while salinity was measured to be a mean of 8.3 ppt ± 0.7 on the preferred 

route and a mean of 8.2 ppt ± 0.6 on the alternative route. Sediment samples had 

a percent moisture mean of 21.7% ± 2.3 on the preferred route and a mean of 

21.9% ± 2.3 on the alternative route.

Metals 

Each sediment sample was analyzed for five metals listed in TOGS 5.1.9, 

including arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, and mercury. The results of the 

analyses for these metals, along with the other chemicals analyzed for this report, 

are summarized in Table 2-3. Positive results were obtained for all of these 

metals in at least one sample along the preferred route. Positive results were 

obtained for all metals except mercury in at least one sample along the alternative 

route. However, none of the metal values exceeded their respective TOGS 

Class A threshold, except for Sample 11-D0-1E along the preferred route, which 

had a measured mercury value of 0.224 mg/Kg compared to the threshold of 

0.17 mg/Kg. 

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) 

TOGS 5.1.9 sets thresholds for SVOCs based on the sum of all target polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Only one SVOC, naphthalene, was detected, and 

only in one sample (16-D1-4E) on the alternative route. The detected value did 

not cause the total PAH value in the sample to exceed the corresponding TOGS 

threshold. 

Pesticides 

Samples were analyzed for pesticides as the sum of DDT, DDE and DDD, as well 

as the individual presence of Mirex, Chlordane and Dieldrin. Pesticides were 

detected at two locations on the preferred route (Samples 9-D0-1E, 9-D1-4E and 

11-D0-1E), and one location on the alternative route (Samples 16-D0-1E, 16-D1-

4E and 16-D4-6E). However, none of the resultant values exceeded the 

corresponding TOGS 5.1.9 threshold levels. 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 

PCBs, expressed as the sum of Aroclor compounds, were not detected in any 

sediment samples collected along either the preferred or the alternative pipeline 

routes. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
2. Sediment Sampling Results 

02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477 2-8 Public

Rockaway_Sampling_Report_112211.docx-11/22/2011 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 

VOCs are evaluated under TOGS 5.1.9 for Benzene alone, as well as the sum of 

Benzene, Toluene and Xylene (BTEX). While positive VOC results were 

obtained for one sample on both pipeline routes (11-D1-4E and B16-D0-1E), none 

of the resultant values exceeded the corresponding TOGS compound levels. 

Dioxin 

Dioxin (and Furan) was measured as the combined toxicity equivalent of all target 

congeners listed in TOGS 5.1.9 with respect to the toxicity of 2,3,7,8 

Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). As stated in the 2009 Sampling and 

Analysis Plan, dioxin analysis would only be performed on sediment samples 

containing a high clay or silt content as determined in the field by the sampling 

team or as required by NYSDEC. Therefore, dioxin analysis was only conducted 

for one sample, 19-D4-7E, which contained a clay layer. However, no dioxin 

congeners were detected in the sample. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477 3-1 Public

Rockaway_Sampling_Report_112211.docx-11/22/2011 

Water Quality Sampling Results 

The water quality of the Atlantic Ocean seaward of Rockaway Peninsula is 

influenced by many physical factors, including sediment inputs and geographic 

characteristics. Water quality sampling was performed to obtain data regarding 

background conditions in the water column along both the preferred and 

alternative pipeline routes. The data were then compared to known water quality 

values for the Lower New York Bay, including parameters for physical, chemical, 

and biological components of the water column (NYCDEP 2010). The sampling 

results are reflective of water quality that has generally been very good for the past 

15 years, especially in comparison to other parts of the New York Harbor/Raritan 

Bat/Jamaica Bay complex (NYCDEP 2010). 

Water quality sampling locations were co-located with the eight sediment 

sampling locations (four on each pipeline route) (see Figure 1-2), and collected on 

November 29, December 3 and December 10, 2010. Water quality samples were 

collected from three depth strata at each location (bottom, middle, and surface) 

using a Whale submersible pump to evaluate the existing quality of the water 

along the Project routes. The results for each sampling group (physical, chemical 

and biological) are summarized below. Physical parameters were measured in the 

field at the time of sampling, except that the amount of suspended and settleable 

solids were determined in the laboratory along with biological and chemical 

constituents. 

3.1 Physical Parameters of Water Quality 

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 

In the last few decades, the Lower New York Bay has experienced a favorable 

increase in the levels of dissolved oxygen. This can be attributed to various 

efforts to improve water quality through more stringent regulations on municipal 

and industrial discharges (O’Shea and Brosnan, 2000). Recent DO levels, as 

reported in the 2010 New York Harbor Water Quality Report, have illustrated 

averages between 7.2 mg/L in bottom waters and 7.6 mg/L in surface waters 

(NYCDEP 2010). Results of data collected during this field effort confirmed DO 

levels in the survey area within this range and higher (mean = 8.1 mg/L with a 

range of 6.7 to 9.7 mg/L along the preferred route; mean = 7.6 mg/L with a range 

3 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3. Water Quality Sampling Results 

02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477 3-2 Public

Rockaway_Sampling_Report_112211.docx-11/22/2011 

of 6.6 to 9.2 mg/L along the alternative route). This exceeds the New York State 

water quality standard for a minimum daily average of 4.8 mg/L in class SA saline 

surface waters. 

Temperature 

The average temperature for water quality samples collected along the preferred 

route was 10.6 oC ± 1.0 oC, and the average temperature for water quality samples 

collected along the alternative route was 8.6 oC ± 1.2 oC. The water quality 

samples exhibited a range in temperature from 8.8 oC to 11.9 oC on the preferred 

route and 6.8 oC to 10.0 oC on the alternative route. 

Turbidity 

An analysis of turbidity, as well as total suspended solids (TSS), indicated limited 

variation in these measurements along both routes. The average turbidity 

measurement across all sampling locations (for all sampling depths) for the 

preferred route was 2.2 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU), with a range of 0.0 

NTU to 9.4 NTU. However, the 9.4 NTU reading, which exceeds the New York 

State standard of 5.0 NTUs, is an outlier that may reflect unusual sediment 

disturbance during sampling. The average turbidity measurement for all samples 

on the alternative route was 0.2 NTU, with a range of 0.0 NTU to 1.2 NTU. TSS 

values on the preferred route ranged from 1.4 mg/L to 18.0 mg/L, with an average 

of 5.8 mg/L ± 5.3 mg/L. TSS values on the alternative route ranged from 4.0 

mg/L to 38.0 mg/L, with an average of 7.2 mg/L ± 9.7 mg/L. These TSS levels 

are consistent with 2009-2010 results for the entire Lower New York Bay/Raritan 

Bay sub-basin, which averaged less than 10 mg/L (NYCDEC 2010). Consistent 

with New York State standards, these levels are not likely to cause deposition or 

impair the waters in the Project area for their best usages. 

pH 

Water samples were measured for pH using a pH electrode. Analyses of the samples across all sampling locations and depths on the preferred route resulted in an 

average pH value of 8.0 ± 0.1, with a minimum of 7.8 and a maximum of 8.1. On 

the alternative route, the average pH for all samples was 7.9 ± 0.1, with a minimum of 7.8 and a maximum of 8.2. These values fall within the New York State 

water quality standard range of 6.4 to 8.6 for pH levels in saline waters. 

3.2 Chemical and Biological Parameters of Water Quality 

Water quality samples for chemical and biological analyses were collected using 

an oil-free pump made of inert materials in one-liter volumes from each of the 

discrete depths at the eight sampling locations, with the exception of biological 

oxygen demand (BOD) samples, which were collected in 250-milliliter amber 

glass bottles to protect the integrity of the samples until analysis. Samples were 

placed on ice and sent to the laboratory on the same day as sample collection to 

meet holding time requirements. A summary of all water quality analyses 

performed is presented in Tables 3-1. The water quality sample results are 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3. Water Quality Sampling Results 

02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477 3-3 Public

Rockaway_Sampling_Report_112211.docx-11/22/2011 

presented in Tables 3-2 and 3-3 (preferred and alternative routes, respectively) and 

discussed below. The complete analytical results are presented in Appendix B. 

Table 3-1 Water Sample Analyses

Test Description Method Number 

Laboratory 

Reporting Limits 

(mg/L)* 

Turbidity Field Test NA 

pH Field Test NA 

Temperature Field Test NA 

Dissolved Oxygen Field Test NA 

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) SM 2540 (D) 4.0 

Settleable Solids SM 2540 (F) 0.10 

Chlorides EPA 300 2 

Total Organic Nitrogen EPA 351.2/SM 4500-NH3 (B+G) 0.40 

Total Phosphorus EPA 365.3 0.050 

Fecal Coliform Bacteria SM 9220 (D) NA 

Total Coliform Bacteria SM 9220 NA 

Biological Oxygen Demand SM 5210 (B) 3.4 

Chemical Oxygen Demand SM 5220 (C) 20 

Ammonia (as N) SM 4500-NH3 (B) 0.20 

T. Kjeldahl Nitrogen EPA 351.2 0.20 

*Does not include dilution factors

Biological Parameters 

Biological parameters are often evaluated to determine the baseline water quality 

of a given water body, since parameters such as biological oxygen demand (BOD) 

may be affected by negative inputs such as raw sewage and other waste products. 

Water samples were collected and tested for the biological parameters identified 

in Table 3-1. 

In order to evaluate bacteria levels along the proposed pipeline route that may be 

indicative of increased sewage inputs or elevated nutrient inputs, Transco 

collected water quality samples for fecal coliforms and total coliform bacteria. 

The results of the analyses indicated very low levels of fecal and total coliforms, 

which are consistent with results for the Lower New York Bay/Raritan sub-basin, 

excluding the waters within two miles of the western end of Coney Island that 

measured above 100 coliform units per 100 mL (NYCDEP 2010). Coliform was 

not detected in the majority of samples, though some samples contained 10 to 30 

coliform units per 100 mL. These coliform levels are below the NYCDEP 

standard of 70 total coliform units per 100 mL for class SA saline surface waters 

(the classification carried by surface waters in the Project area). The results of the 

laboratory analyses are presented in Appendix B. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3. Water Quality Sampling Results 

02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477 3-4 Public

Rockaway_Sampling_Report_112211.docx-11/22/2011 

Chemical Parameters 

Chemical parameters also are evaluated to determine baseline water quality, since 

parameters such as total phosphorus and nitrogen are often affected by negative 

inputs like municipal runoff. Water samples were collected and tested for the 

chemical parameters identified in Table 3-1. Based on the results of the chemical 

water quality analyses, water quality along the preferred and alternative routes did 

not appear to be significantly impacted by contaminant inputs from the 

surrounding coastlines at the time of study, and generally adhere to the New York 

State water quality requirements. For example, nitrogen and phosphorous were 

not present at levels that would result in growths of algae, weeds and slimes that 

would impair the waters for their best usages, nor would calculated unionized 

ammonia levels exceed the state standard of 0.23 mg/L for class SA saline surface 

waters. The complete analytical results for all water quality samples are provided 

in Appendix B. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Table 3-2 Summary of Analytical Results for Water Quality Samples along the Preferred Pipeline Route, Fall 2010

Analyte Units 09-DS-9W 09-DM-9W 09-DB-9W 11-DS-11W 11-DM-11W 11-DB-11W 13-DS-13W 13-DM-13W 13-DB-13W 15-DS-15W 15-DM-15W 15-DB-15W

15-DB-15W

QA/QC

Total Suspended Solids mg/L 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 16.0 5.0 4.0 18.0 63.0

Settleable Solids ml/L 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.10

Chloride mg/L 18,800 19,200 19,300 18,100 18,400 19,400 17,400 18,500 18,800 17,500 18,700 18,700 18,300

Total Organic Nitrogen mg/L 0.40 0.40 0.40 1.0 1.0 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 1.0 0.40 1.0

Total Phosphorus mg/L as P 2.20 0.059 0.82 0.072 0.14 2.1 1.5 0.050 0.066 0.050 0.050 0.068 1.2

Fecal Coliform organisms per 

100 mL

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20

Total Coliform organisms per 

100 mL

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 30 10

Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 15.1 11.9 12.1 14.3 15.5 10.7 26.5

Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 2,020 2,050 2,560 2,070 1,540 2,050 337 699 747 193 651 988 940

Ammonia (as N) mg/L 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.54 0.81 0.81 0.24 0.35 0.20 0.20 0.53 0.20 0.89

T. Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L as N 0.32 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20

Key:mg/L = Milligrams per Literml/L = Milliliters per Liter

Sample ID:

 02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477Tables 3-2 and 3-3 Water Quality December 2010.xls-3-2 Preferred-11/22/2011

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Table 3-3 Summary of Analytical Results for Water Quality Samples along the Alternative Pipeline Route, Fall 2010

Analyte Units 16-DS-16W 16-DM-16W 16-DB-16W

16-DB-16W

QA/QC B16-DS-B16W

B16-DS-B16W

QA/QC B16-DM-B16W B16-DB-B16W B19-DS-B19W B19-DM-B19W B19-DB-B19W 19-DS-19W 19-DM-19W 19-DB-19W

Total Suspended Solids mg/L 4.0 4.0 6.0 7.0 4.0 9.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 38.0

Settleable Solids ml/L 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11

Chloride mg/L 19,100 20,200 20,600 20,100 18,900 19,300 20,000 20,300 18,900 19,700 20,000 18,000 18,300 18,200

Total Organic Nitrogen mg/L 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.60 1.0 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 1.0 0.40 0.40

Total Phosphorus mg/L as P 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.070 0.063 0.28

Fecal Coliform organisms per 

100 mL

10 10 10 N/A 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Total Coliform organisms per 

100 mL

10 10 10 N/A 10 10 10 20 10 10 30 10 20 20

Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 15.5 11.7 15.5

Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 1,870 1,820 1,920 1,820 1,280 2,190 1,780 1,730 1,550 1,690 1,640 1,040 1,060 699

Ammonia (as N) mg/L 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.49 0.20 0.20

T. Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L as N 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.80 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.20

Key:mg/L = Milligrams per Literml/L = Milliliters per Liter

Sample ID:

 02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477Tables 3-2 and 3-3 Water Quality December 2010.xls-3-3 Alternative-11/22/2011

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477 4-1 Public

Rockaway_Sampling_Report_112211.docx-11/22/2011 

Benthic Community Analysis 

As part of the field effort, a site-specific baseline benthic survey was conducted 

with the purpose of ascertaining the health of the existing benthic community 

along the preferred and alternative pipeline routes and, in combination with the 

sediment chemical analysis, to assess the overall quality and potential impact from 

pipeline installation due to physical disturbance, sedimentation, or water quality 

impacts. Benthic community samples were collected on December 4, 2010 at six 

(6) locations along the preferred pipeline route and six (6) locations along the 

alternative pipeline route using a Smith-MacIntyre grab sampler (0.1 square 

meter; see Figure 4-1). These single-sample locations were located approximately 

0.4 miles apart along each route. An additional benthic sample was collected in 

an area of high sonar reflectivity (indicating possible hardbottom habitat) 

discovered during geophysical surveys. Drop-camera video was also collected at 

each sampling location for qualitative analysis of the benthic community. 

Generally, the sediment type within the survey area is primarily sand with small 

amounts (less than 10%) of gravel, silt and clay. The benthic communities in the 

survey area on both routes are dominated by organisms in the classes Polychaeta, 

Bavalvia and Crustacea. Along the preferred route, samples at each location were 

dominated by the Atlantic surf-clam (Spisula solidissima), an amphipod 

(Protohaustorius sp.) and polychaetes (Polygoridius sp. and Tharyx sp.) (See 

Table 4-1). Along the alternative route, samples at each location were dominated 

by the Atlantic surf-clam and polychaetes (Tharyx sp. and Nephtys bucera). 

Video observations identified Asteroidea (starfish) on the substrate surface at 

most of the sampling stations, as well as egg casings of a gastropod (Lunatia sp.) 

and Pagurid (hermit) crabs along both pipeline routes. Along both routes, total 

population of the class Bivalvia exhibited a bell-shaped curve, with lower 

abundance at nearshore and offshore stations and peak abundance at intermediate 

stations. Organisms of the classes Polychaeta and Crustacea showed inverse 

trends compared to the bivalves, with higher percent abundance at nearshore and 

offshore stations and lower values at intermediate stations. A complete list of taxa 

collected at each station is provided in Appendix C, Benthic Identification 

Spreadsheets. 

4 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Measurement B14 (Preferred) B20 (Alternative) Average

Depth (ft) 27 27 27

Total # of Organisms Identified 73 208 140.5

Taxa Richness 11 19 15

Diversity (H1

) 1.85 2.03 1.94

Evenness 1.78 1.59 1.69

Notes:

dominanat species preferred route = at least 50% of sample when totaled

Protohaustorius sp., Tharyx sp.

dominanat species alternate route = at least 50% of sample when totaled

Tharyx sp., Nichomache lumbricalis

Measurement B13 (Preferred) B19 (Alternative) Average

Depth (ft) 30 31 30.5

Total # of Organisms Identified 107 123 115

Taxa Richness 16 14 15

Diversity (H1

) 1.34 1.51 1.43

Evenness 1.12 1.31 1.22

Notes:

dominanat species preferred route = at least 50% of sample when totaled

Spisula solidissima

dominanat species alternate route = at least 50% of sample when totaled

Tharyx sp., Polygordius sp.

Measurement B12 (Preferred) B18 (Alternative) Average

Depth (ft) 33 35 34

Total # of Organisms Identified 69 70 69.5

Taxa Richness 13 12 12.5

Diversity (H1

) 1.85 1.62 1.74

Evenness 1.66 1.50 1.58

Notes:

dominanat species preferred route = at least 50% of sample when totaled

Spisula solidissima, Nephtys bucera

dominanat species alternate route = at least 50% of sample when totaled

Spisula solidissima

Measurement B11 (Preferred) B17 (Alternative) Average

Depth (ft) 38 36 37

Total # of Organisms Identified 129 120 124.5

Taxa Richness 16 15 15.5

Diversity (H1

) 2.05 1.34 1.70

Evenness 1.70 1.14 1.42

Notes:

dominanat species preferred route = at least 50% of sample when totaled

Spisula solidissima, Tharyx sp., Nephtys bucera

dominanat species alternate route = at least 50% of sample when totaled

Spisula solidissima

Table 4-1 Benthic Data Results Summary for Preferred and Alternative Pipeline 

Routes, Fall 2010

 02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477

Table 4-1 Benthics December 2010.xls-11/22/2011

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Table 4-1 Benthic Data Results Summary for Preferred and Alternative Pipeline 

Routes, Fall 2010

Measurement B10 (Preferred) B16 (Alternative) Average

Depth (ft) 38 35 36.5

Total # of Organisms Identified 115 69 92

Taxa Richness 22 14 18

Diversity (H1

) 1.75 1.86 1.81

Evenness 1.30 1.62 1.46

Notes:

dominanat species preferred route = at least 50% of sample when totaled

Polygordius sp., Tharyx sp., Spisula solidissima

dominanat species alternate route = at least 50% of sample when totaled

Nephtys bucera, Spisula solidissima, Protohaustrorius sp.

Measurement B9 (Preferred) B15 (Alternative) Average

Depth (ft) 38 39 38.5

Total # of Organisms Identified 102 81 91.5

Taxa Richness 17 22 19.5

Diversity (H1

) 2.12 2.65 2.39

Evenness 1.72 1.98 1.85

Notes:

dominanat species preferred route = at least 50% of sample when totaled

Protohaustorius sp., Magelona sp., Nephtys bucera

dominanat species alternate route = at least 50% of sample when totaled

Nephtys bucera, Magelona sp., Tharyx sp.

 02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477

Table 4-1 Benthics December 2010.xls-11/22/2011

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4. Benthic Community Analysis 

02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477 4-4 Public

Rockaway_Sampling_Report_112211.docx-11/22/2011 

While not identified along the preferred and alternative routes during the 2010 

survey, anthropogenic debris and artificial reef structures provide hardbottom 

habitat within the Project study area (see Figure 4-1). From the 2009 survey, 

epibenthic communities colonizing such hardbottom areas were predominantly 

composed of the northern star coral Astrangia poculata (E & E 2009). 

Diversity was assessed using Shannon’s Diversity Index (H). Average diversity 

estimates were similar across sampling locations along the preferred and 

alternative routes (mean H = 1.8 ± 0.3 for preferred route; mean H = 1.9 ± 0.5 for 

alternative route). Diversity estimates did not appear to be affected by sediment 

type, as all sampling locations had similar substrate, or depth. Diversity 

estimates, ranging from 1.3 to 2.7, did not show a definitive trend associated with 

distance from shore for either route, but there appears to be a slightly inverse 

correlation between diversity and bivalve abundance (i.e., the correlation 

coefficient (R) is equal to -0.60). These results contrast with the results from the 

September 2009 survey conducted nearby, where the trend for diversity clearly 

increased as distance from shore increased. The previous diversity trend was 

related to a dominant nearshore population of the amphipod Rhepoxynius 

epistomus. In contrast, no R. epistomus individuals were identified in any samples 

during the December 2010 survey. This suggests that zonation of benthic infauna 

is not strongly related to wave disturbance at the sampled depths (between -20 feet 

and -40 feet MLLW), but that seasonal conditions (e.g., higher temperature, light 

availability and/or salinity) may have promoted a temporary spike in the nearshore 

R. epistomus population in 2009. Similar temporal fluctuations in nearshore 

benthic populations have been observed in other studies along the east coast (e.g., 

Posey and Alphin 2002; Charvat, Nelson and Allenbaugh 1990). This 

demonstrates that if monitoring for impacts to benthic fauna will be required, then 

control stations will be critical in determining Project-related effects, and that 

pre-construction/baseline monitoring and post-construction monitoring should be 

conducted during the same seasons if possible.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Õ

ÕÕ

ÕÕÕ ÕÕÕÕ ÕÕ Õ Õ ÕÕ ÕÕ ÕÕÕ ÕÕÕÕ Õ ÕÕ Õ ÕÕÕ ÕÕÕÕ Õ Õ ÕÕÕÕÕÕ Õ Õ ÕÕ ÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕ Õ Õ ÕÕÕ ÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕ ÕÕÕ Õ Õ Õ ÕÕÕÕÕÕÕ Õ ÕÕ ÕÕÕ Õ Õ ÕÕÕÕ Õ ÕÕ ÕÕÕ ÕÕ ÕÕ Õ ÕÕÕ Õ ÕÕÕÕÕ ÕÕÕÕÕÕ Õ Õ ÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕ ÕÕÕÕ Õ ÕÕÕÕÕ ÕÕ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ ÕÕ ÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕ ÕÕÕ Õ ÕÕÕÕÕ ÕÕ Õ Õ Õ Õ ÕÕÕ Õ ÕÕÕÕ Õ Õ ÕÕ Õ ÕÕÕÕÕ ÕÕÕ Õ Õ ÕÕÕÕÕ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ ÕÕÕ Õ Õ Õ ÕÕ ÕÕ Õ ÕÕÕÕ ÕÕ ÕÕÕ ÕÕ Õ Õ ÕÕÕÕÕÕ ÕÕ ÕÕÕÕ Õ Õ ÕÕ ÕÕ Õ ÕÕ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ ÕÕ ÕÕ ÕÕ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ ÕÕÕ Õ ÕÕÕ ÕÕ Õ ÕÕ Õ ÕÕÕÕ ÕÕ ÕÕÕ Õ Õ ÕÕ Õ ÕÕÕÕ Õ Õ ÕÕÕ ÕÕÕÕÕÕ ÕÕÕ ÕÕÕÕÕ ÕÕ Õ ÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ Õ

Õ Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ ÕÕÕ Õ ÕÕ

Õ

Õ ÕÕ Õ Õ Õ Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ Õ ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ Õ Õ

Õ ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕ

ÕÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕ Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕ Õ ÕÕ Õ

ÕÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ ÕÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕ

ÕÕÕ Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕ Õ Õ

ÕÕ

Õ Õ

Õ

Õ Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕ ÕÕ

ÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ Õ Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕÕ

ÕÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕÕÕ ÕÕÕ Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

ÕÕ Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕ

ÕÕ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ ÕÕ Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ Õ Õ

ÕÕ Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ ÕÕ

ÕÕ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ Õ Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ Õ Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ Õ Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ ÕÕ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ Õ

Õ

Õ Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ ÕÕ Õ

ÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ ÕÕ Õ Õ

Õ

Õ Õ Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ Õ Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ ÕÕ

ÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕ Õ

Õ ÕÕ

Õ

ÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ Õ

Õ

Õ Õ ÕÕ

Õ

Õ Õ

Õ Õ

Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ

Õ Õ

Õ

Õ Õ

ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕÕ Õ ÕÕÕ Õ ÕÕÕ

Õ ÕÕ ÕÕÕ ÕÕ

Õ

Õ

Õ

Õ

ÕÕÕ ÕÕÕÕ Õ

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

ension

-40

-40

-40

-10

-10

-10

-20

-20

-20

-20

-20

-30

-30

-30

-30

-30

-30

B9

B10

B11

B12

B13

B14

B15

B16

B17

B18

B19

B20

© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #

L:\Buffalo\NorthEast_Supply\Maps\MXDs\Rockaway_Lateral_Nov2011\Fig4-1_Sample_Points_Shannon_110811.mxd 11/08/2011

0 1,000 2,000 500

Feet

Figure 4-1

Shannon's Index Benthic Sampling Locations

Fall 2010 Field Survey

Rockaway Delivery Lateral

Williams Transco ±

Legend

Sample Points

Shannon's Index

!( 1 - 1.5

!( 1.5 - 2.0

!( Greater than 2.0

Õ Sonar Targets (2009 and 2010)

Bathymetric contours

Preferred Pipeline Route

Alternative Pipeline Route

Combined 2009-2010 Survey Area

Shoreline

Overview

Long Island Jamaica

Bay

Existing 26" Lower

NY Bay Lateral

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477 5-1 Public

Rockaway_Sampling_Report_112211.docx-11/22/2011 

Drop Camera Video 

A video of the bottom was obtained for the 12 sampling locations indicated on 

Figure 4-1 and analyzed to supplement the benthic sampling data. To collect 

videos of the bottom, a drop camera was lowered to the depth specified for the 

specific sample location. The drop camera was allowed to stabilize in the water 

column until it remained steady enough to obtain a good image. An onboard 

monitor was used to ensure that the camera was steady and to make initial 

observations of the benthic community. Once the image was steady, a slow drift 

across the bottom captured the bottom video for that location. A CD containing 

the drop camera video is provided in Appendix D. 

Underwater video observations are best used to supplement existing benthic data. 

Due to camera movement, shadows, camera magnification, technical problems 

with the camera light and video quality, it is often difficult to confirm species 

identification and to determine abundances. Specific observations resulting from 

the analysis of the videos has been incorporated into the discussions in Section 4. 

5 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
02:000891_ZW44_01-B3477 6-1 Public

Rockaway_Sampling_Report_112211.docx-11/22/2011 

References 

Charvat, Deborah L., Walter G. Nelson and T.A. Allenbaugh. 1990. Composition 

and Seasonality of Sand-Beach Amphipod Assemblages of the East Coast 

of Florida. Journal of Crustacean Biology. 10(3): 446-454 

Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E & E). 2009. DRAFT Summer 2009 Offshore 

Environmental Sampling Report for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral 

Project, Queens, New York. September 2009. Lancaster, New York. 

New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP). 2010. 

2010 New York Harbor Water Quality Report. Available online at 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/hwqs2010.pdf. Accessed October 19, 

2011. 

O’Shea, M.L. and T.M. Brosnan. 2000. Trends in Indicators of Eutrophication in 

Western Long Island Sound and the Hudson-Raritan Estuary. Estuaries. 

23(6): 877-901. 

Posey, Martin and Troy Alphin. 2002. Resilience and Stability in an Offshore 

Benthic Community: Responses to Sediment Borrow Activities and 

Hurricane Disturbance. Journal of Coastal Research. 18(4): 685-697 

6 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
The appendices/attachments to this document are available for viewing on 

the FERC website (http://www.ferc.gov). Using the “eLibrary” link, select 

“General Search” from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range 

and Docket No. CP13-36 (Transco’s application), and follow the 

instructions. For assistance, please call 1-866-208-3676, or e-mail 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX J

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED 26-INCH ROCKAWAY GAS PIPELINE

ROCKAWAY, QUEENS COUNTY, NY

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Alfred H. Brand 

Hugh S. Lacy 

David M. Cacoilo 

Joel Moskowitz 

Peter W. Deming 

James L. Kaufman 

Roderic A. Ellman, Jr. 

Francis J. Arland 

Partners 

George J. Tamaro 

Peter H. Edinger 

Elmer A. Richards 

Edmund M. Burke 

John W. Fowler 

Consultants

Raymond J. Poletto 

Thomas R. Wendel 

Theodore Popoff 

David R. Good 

Domenic D’Argenzio 

Walter E. Kaeck 

Robert K. Radske 

Harro R. Streidt 

Ketan H. Trivedi 

Hiren J. Shah 

Senior Associates 

Michael J. Chow 

Alice Arana 

Douglas W. Christie 

Dong K. Chang 

Anthony DeVito 

Joel L. Volterra 

Tony D. Canale 

Frederick C. Rhyner 

Jan Cermak 

Gregg V. Piazza 

Sissy Nikolaou 

Pablo V. Lopez 

Steven R. Lowe 

Associates

Joseph N. Courtade 

Director of Finance 

and Administration 

Martha J. Huguet 

Marketing Manager 

 

Mueser Rutledge 

Consulting Engineers 

14 Penn Plaza · 225 West 34th Street · New York, NY 10122 

Tel: (917) 339-9300 · Fax: (917) 339-9400 

www.mrce.com

Foundation Engineering Since 1910

November 12, 2009 

Mustang Engineering, L.P. 

16001 Park Ten Place 

Houston, TX 77084 

Attention: Mr. Ron Gibbs 

Re: Geotechnical Investigation 

 Proposed 26-inch Rockaway Gas Pipeline 

 Rockaway, Queens County, NY 

 Mustang Project No. 14174 

 MRCE File No. 11314

 

Dear Mr. Gibbs: 

In accordance with our contract with Mustang Engineering, L.P. (MELP), 

Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers (MRCE) has completed a subsurface 

geotechnical investigation at the referenced site. This report summarizes the field 

and laboratory investigation performed and presents the data and results from the 

investigation. 

1. EXHIBITS 

The following exhibits are attached to this Report: 

Figure No. 1 - Site location Plan 

Figure No. 2 - Site History 

Figure No. 3 - General Geologic Formations 

Drawing No. B-1 - As-Drilled Boring Location Plan 

 Drawing No. GS-1 - Geologic Profile A-A 

Drawing No. GS-R - Geotechnical Reference Standards 

Appendix A - Geotechnical Boring Logs 

Appendix B - Gradation Plates 

Appendix C - Direct Shear Testing Results 

Appendix D - Electro-Chemical Testing Results 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Geotechnical Report 

Proposed 26-inch Rockaway Gas Pipeline 

Queens, New York 

Date: November 12, 2009 

Sheet No. 2 

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

Mustang Engineering, LP (MELP) is designing a pipeline route for Transcontinental Gas 

Pipeline Company, LLC (TRANSCO) in Rockaway, Queens, NY. The proposed route is planned 

to expand gas supply service to existing customers from TRANSCO’s existing pipeline systems 

as part of TRANSCO’s Northeast Supply Expansion Project. The site location is shown on Plate 

No. 1. 

The new 26-inch diameter gas pipeline would connect into the National Grid pipeline at Jacob 

Riis Park to the north and the existing sub-seabed TRANSCO 26-inch diameter pipeline in the 

Atlantic Ocean to the south. MELP engaged MRCE to perform a geotechnical investigation for 

the new pipeline segment proposed to be installed by Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) 

methods. 

3. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION 

MELP provided MRCE with a proposed boring layout for the geotechnical investigation. The 

investigation included 1 on-shore (land) boring (B-1) and 4 off-shore (water) borings (B-2 

through B-5) at locations shown on Drawing No. B-1. MRCE sub-contracted with a boring 

contractor, Warren George, Inc. (WGI) of Jersey City, NJ to perform the field boring work and 

extract and provide MRCE with the soil samples from the borings. 

The land boring was performed by WGI between August 26 through August 28, 2009 and was 

observed by Adam Dyer of MRCE, Robert Hotz of GeoEngineers Inc. (GEI) and Julie Rupp of 

Ecology and Environment, Inc. (ENE). The water borings were performed from September 1 

through September 2 and from September 14 through 16, 2009. The water borings were observed 

by Jerry Chan and David Janke of MRCE and Webb Winston and Justin Brown of GE. ENE 

personnel, Gene Florentino and Julie Rupp, also observed Water Borings B-2 and B-4 (partial). 

ENE also collected portions of samples from the upper fill in Boring B-1 and the shallow sea 

bottom in Boring B-4 for environmental testing. 

The Land Boring B-1 was made with a truck-mounted drill rig working during the day shift. It 

was staked out and surveyed by personnel from TRANSCO. The Water Borings B-2 through B-5 

were made using a jack-up barge with the drill rig mounted on the barge platform, working 24 

hours per day. The as-drilled locations of the water borings were obtained with GPS units by 

WGI and GEI and are shown on the Boring Location Plan on Drawing No. B-1. 

In the land boring, a temporary steel casing was used to stabilize the borehole in the upper soils 

and a drilling additive, ZeoGel (attapulgite clay powder) was added to stabilize the remaining 

depth of the borehole. In the water borings also, a temporary steel casing was used to stabilize 

the shallow soils below the seafloor and the drilling additive used to stabilize the remaining 

depth of the borehole. In the water borings, the jack-up barge platform was the working surface 

and the sampling depths were referenced to the top of the platform. The MRCE inspectors 

periodically took depth measurements from the barge platform to the ocean surface and the 

ocean bottom and correlated them with the tide charts. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Geotechnical Report 

Proposed 26-inch Rockaway Gas Pipeline 

Queens, New York 

Date: November 12, 2009 

Sheet No. 3 

Soil samples were typically taken at five foot intervals. Soil samples were typically obtained 

with a standard two-inch O.D. split spoon sampler which is driven through four six-inch intervals 

with a 140-pound hammer free falling 30 inches (ASTM D1586). The Standard Penetration Test 

(SPT) was performed at each sample interval in which the number of blows required to drive the 

sampler through each of the four six-inch increments was recorded. The sum of the blows for 

the second and third six-inch intervals is defined as the SPT Resistance, or N-Value. The NValue is an index of the in-situ density of the material and is reported in blows per foot (bpf). 

The sample is said to encounter refusal if the spoon cannot be driven at least six inches with 100 

blows of the hammer. Occasionally, soils samples were collected at closer than five foot intervals 

for additional samples. Also, occasionally, a three-inch diameter split spoon sampler was used 

where a larger quantity of sample was required or to explore the gravel content in the soil. 

Detailed information regarding the drilling and sampling in each boring is provided in the 

individual boring logs attached in Appendix A to this Report. 

As per MELP requirements, the borehole cuttings and drilling fluids were collected by WGI in 

55-gallon drums and taken off-site for testing and disposal. Upon completion, the land boring 

was tremie-grouted with a cement-bentonite grout. The water borings filled-in with soil upon 

extraction of the temporary steel casing. Environmental contamination / characteristics of the soil 

or groundwater were not within the scope of MRCE investigation. 

All soil samples were delivered by WGI to MRCE’s soil mechanics laboratory in New York 

City. Samples were reviewed and field descriptions were revised as necessary for conformance 

with MRCE’s Geotechnical Reference Standards, described on Drawing No. GS-R. Individual 

sample descriptions are based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and are 

provided in the boring logs in Appendix A. 

4. LABORATORY TESTING 

All soil samples recovered were primarily coarse grained (sand) soils. Besides the laboratory 

reclassification of all the soil samples, Mechanical Gradation tests (particle size analysis of soils 

per ASTM D422) were performed by MRCE on 58 samples selected as per MELP and GEI 

requirements. The results of the Gradation tests are shown on Plate Nos. 1 through 9 in 

Appendix B. For samples on which gradation tests were performed, the sample description and 

USCS symbol shown on the boring logs incorporated the results of the gradation tests. 

Direct Shear tests (per ASTM 3080) were performed on a total of seven samples selected by 

GEI. The samples were consolidated under normal pressures representing the effective 

overburden pressures occurring in the field at the sample elevation. The results of these tests are 

provided in Appendix C. 

As per MELP requirements, 33 selected samples were also tested for corrosivity (resistivity as 

per ASTM G57), pH (as per ASTM G51) and sulphate content (as per ASTM C1580). These 

tests were performed by a certified testing laboratory, SOR Testing Laboratories, Inc. (STL) of 

Cedar Grove, NJ under sub-contract to MRCE. The relevant soil samples were sent to STL 

laboratory by MRCE. The results of these electro-chemical tests are provided in Appendix D. 

STL also performed 1 Direct Shear test and 3 Gradation tests on samples sent to their laboratory 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Geotechnical Report 

Proposed 26-inch Rockaway Gas Pipeline 

Queens, New York 

Date: November 12, 2009 

Sheet No. 4 

due to limited sample present with MRCE. The results of these are included with the remaining 

Gradation tests and Direct Shear Tests in Appendix B and C respectively. 

5. GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 

5.1 SURFACE FEATURES 

Rockaway Inlet provides access to Jamaica Bay, north of the Rockaway peninsula. The 

peninsula has changed significantly since the 1800s due to both natural processes and human 

intervention. The peninsula extended westwards by a few miles during this time period. The 

progression of growth of the western portion of the peninsula due to natural forces is shown on 

Figure No. 2. Additional bulkhead placement and filling has led to the current alignment along 

Rockaway inlet. 

5.2 SITE GEOLOGY 

The general site geology at the site is characterized by numerous glacial depositions overlying 

cretaceous deposits which lie above the deep bedrock surface. In the New York City area, the 

bedrock surface and the Coastal Plain sediments dip gradually to the southeast. A generalized 

geologic profile taken across the western edge of the Rockaway peninsula is shown on Figure 

No. 3. 

Bedrock near the site is approximately at elevation El. -850 feet. Above the bedrock is the 

Cretaceous Lloyd Sand layer at approximately El. -650. The Raritan Clay member lies at about 

El. -485 and the Magothy layer around El. -250. During the relatively recent Pleistocene age, 

several glacial advances terminated in the region well north of the site, thereby depositing layers 

of outwash sand south of their terminal moraines, across the southern portion of Queens and 

Long Island. The oldest glacial deposit in the area is the Jameco Gravel, which is known to 

occur near the site at approximately El.-210. This was overlain by the interglacial Gardiners 

Clay, when temperatures increased and the glaciers melted, which is known to occur near the site 

at approximately El. -195. Above this elevation, outwash sands from the recent glaciations 

(10,000 to 30,000 years ago) were deposited. 

At the end of the Pleistocene era, as the glaciers melted away, sea level started to rise. Wave 

action along the coast transported and reworked various glacial sediments into barrier islands. 

Over time, as sand was eroded from the ocean side and re-deposited across the barrier and into 

the bay, the islands migrated landward to their current positions, keeping pace with the sea level 

rise. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Geotechnical Report 

Proposed 26-inch Rockaway Gas Pipeline 

Queens, New York 

Date: November 12, 2009 

Sheet No. 5 

6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 

MRCE’s interpretation of the subsurface conditions along the proposed pipeline alignment is 

illustrated in the form of Geologic Profile A-A on Drawing No. GS-1. All elevations are 

referenced to the Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) Datum which at the site is 2.81 feet below 

the North American Vertical Datum (NAVD 1988). The horizontal and vertical scales are 

different in order to fit the paper size, therefore exaggerating the vertical profile of the features 

shown. The information shown for the borings on the profile include: Sample number and 

position, sampler penetration resistance (N-Value) and the USCS symbol for the soil samples. 

The boring legend and explanation of the USCS symbols are shown on Drawing No. GS-R. 

The borings are projected onto the profile for clarity. The profile illustrates MRCE’s 

interpretation of soil conditions, interpolating between and beyond the borings, and may or may 

not represent actual subsurface conditions. The subsurface stratigraphy encountered in the 

borings is described below in general order of their occurrence with increasing depth below 

ground surface. 

Stratum F: Fill – This stratum was encountered only in the Land Boring B-1 for a depth of 

approximately 13.5 feet below ground surface. It can be generally described as medium to dense, 

brown, to gray-brown fine to medium sand with a trace of silt, shell fragments, coarse sand and 

glass fragments. This description is based on the soil samples obtained in the boring. Since this is 

an artificially placed soil layer, its description beyond the boring location may contain different 

materials of varying consistency and thickness. The N-Values in this stratum varied between 11 

and 20 blows / per foot (bpf) with an average of 15 bpf. 

Stratum S1: Sands – This natural sand stratum is believed to be of recent (Holocene) origin 

deposited after the glacial era. The soils of this stratum may be the reworked glacial sediments 

transported and re-deposited by wave action. It can be generally described as dense to very 

dense, gray to gray-brown fine to medium to coarse sand with a trace of silt, shells, gravel and 

mica. This stratum was found below the Fill in the land boring where it was approximately 35 

feet thick. In the water borings, this stratum was found at the ocean bottom and extended to 

approximately El. -32 to El. -40. The N-Values in this stratum varied between 5 to 88 bpf with 

an average of 43 bpf. At the sea-bed there may be some debris at different locations. Evidence of 

debris of varying kind such as concrete and steel was noted in the MELP boring location plan 

based on a preliminary geophysical survey study. In the MRCE borings, such debris was not 

encountered at the sea-bed in any of the borings. 

Stratum S2: Sands – This lower natural sand stratum is believed to be of glacial (Pleistocene) 

origin deposited as outwash sands south of the terminal moraines of the latest glacial advances. It 

generally consists of medium to very dense, brown to gray-brown fine to medium to coarse sand 

with a trace of silt, mica and occasionally trace shells, gravel and silt pockets. This stratum 

extended to the bottom depth of all the borings. At about El. -105 to El. -115, trace silt pockets 

were observed in the soil samples. Also around those elevations, some soil samples contained 

trace to some gravel and trace shells which may have caused the drill rig to chatter in two of the 

borings. This interface may indicate an interglacial re-working occurring between successive 

glacial advances. The N-Values in this stratum varied between 13 and 79 bpf with one N-Value 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Geotechnical Report 

Proposed 26-inch Rockaway Gas Pipeline 

Queens, New York 

Date: November 12, 2009 

Sheet No. 6 

of 111 bpf in Boring B-5 at El. -95. The average N-Value for this stratum was 39 bpf. The Direct 

Shear test samples selected by GEI were located at varying elevations within Stratum S2. The 

results are shown in Appendix C. The samples were formed in the test mold by compacting in 

their saturated condition to represent as close to their in-situ condition as possible with their 

water contents. The normal pressures applied on the test samples were approximately equal to 

their in-situ effective overburden pressures. The test results demonstrated peak effective friction 

angles varying from 31.3 degrees to 36.8 degrees and residual effective friction angles varying 

between 27 and 35.8 degrees. The soil gradation, degree of compaction in the laboratory at the 

saturated water content, normal pressures, sand grains orientation and mica content are known to 

have an influence on the friction angle. 

 

Groundwater Level - The groundwater level (represented by the drilling fluid level) was 

observed overnight in the land boring. It was found to be at a depth of 6.5 feet below ground 

surface (El. +4.9). The groundwater is tidal in this area and will fluctuate with tidal wave action. 

Electro-Chemical Test Results – The results of the electro-chemical tests are provided in 

Appendix D. The tests performed included soil resistivity, pH and sulphate content. The soil 

resistivity in the water boring samples varied between 84 and 190 ohms-cm indicative of a 

highly corrosive environment which would be expected for sands saturated with sea water. The 

land boring samples showed higher soil resistivity ranging from 210 to 850 ohms-cm (with one 

sample at 4600) which is indicative of a corrosive environment. 

The pH in the water boring samples varied between 6.9 and 8.2 and in the land boring samples 

between 7.8 and 8.7. The sulphate content in the water boring samples varied between 0.030 and 

0.118 and in the land boring samples between < 0.01 and 0.02. 

Subsurface Conditions Pertaining to HDD – In general, stiff cohesive soils or sound bedrock 

conditions are ideal for HDD operations. Based on the HDD profile proposed for the pipeline by 

MELP, the soils that will be encountered along the drill path will primarily consist of fine to 

medium to coarse sands with a trace of silt, gravel, shells, mica. Some other materials may be 

encountered where the drill path will come close to the ground surface on land in the shallow fill 

soils. Debris may be present on the sea-bed which should be further investigated, especially in 

the vicinity of the HDD sea-bed exit point. 

Since the subsurface soils are primarily sands with little fines and virtually no cohesion, the soils 

would be susceptible to cave-ins and running sand conditions. The selection of an appropriate 

drilling fluid will be critical in maintaining the stability of the HDD borehole. Maintenance of a 

continuous positive hydraulic head of slurry will also be critical for the HDD borehole stability. 

Since the groundwater is saltwater as opposed to freshwater, drilling fluid products which do not 

break down in saltwater environments would be required. 

An experienced HDD engineer should evaluate the subsurface conditions presented in this report 

in order to perform a detailed feasibility study of the HDD methods for installing the proposed 

pipeline. An experienced HDD contractor should be engaged who can consider all the necessary 

aspects in detail, commensurate with similar past experience, in order to install the gas pipeline 

successfully. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
EXHIBITS

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
The appendices/attachments to this document are available for viewing on 

the FERC website (http://www.ferc.gov). Using the “eLibrary” link, select 

“General Search” from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range 

and Docket No. CP13-36 (Transco’s application), and follow the 

instructions. For assistance, please call 1-866-208-3676, or e-mail 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX K

PHASE II SITE INVESTIGATION

HANGARS 1 AND 2

GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

FLOYD BENNETT FIELD, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
355 Research Parkway Meriden, CT 06450 Tel.(203) 630-1406 Fax (203) 630-2615 Toll Free (800) 301-3077 

Architecture  Engineering  Planning  Landscape Architecture  Land Surveying  Environmental Sciences 

May 15, 2012 

Ms. Roberta Zwier 

Senior Environmental Scientist 

Williams 

99 Faber Road 

Princeton, New Jersey 08540 

RE: Phase II Site Investigation 

 Hanger 1 and 2 

 Gateway National Recreation Area 

Floyd Bennett Field 

Brooklyn, New York 11234 

 BL Project Number 10C3542 

Dear Ms. Zwier: 

BL Companies has performed a Phase II Site Investigation (SI) at Hangers 1 and 2 at 

Floyd Bennett Field in the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, Kings County, New 

York (the Site). The goal of the Phase II SI was to investigate identified “Recognized 

Environmental Conditions” (RECs) and areas of proposed excavation associated with 

the Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project to determine the presence or absence of a 

contaminant release(s) that may require further investigation, remediation and/or 

environmental material management planning. The proposed Rockaway Lateral 

Delivery Project would construct a natural gas pipeline connection to an on-Site 

distribution station, creating an additional distribution station to the National Grid System 

in Brooklyn New York. 

The results of Phase II SI and their regulatory and materials management implications 

are discussed in this letter report. The Site Location Map and Site Plan are included in 

Attachment A. 

BACKGROUND 

Site Description 

The Site is located on a portion of the Gateway National Recreation Area, which is part 

of the Jamaica Bay Unit of Gateway National Recreation Area, on Flatbush Avenue in 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Ms. Robert Zwier 

May 15, 2012 

Page 2 of 11 

the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, Kings County, New York. This portion of the 

Gateway National Recreation Area has an address of 3260 Flatbush Avenue. The Site 

is comprised of aviation Hangars 1 and 2 (also known as the South Building) located on 

the southwest portion of Floyd Bennett Field, and the area of approximately 100 feet 

surrounding South Building within Floyd Bennett Field. Floyd Bennett Field was the first 

municipal airport serving New York City and is also a former United States Military 

airbase. 

 

The Site is owned and managed by the United State National Parks Service (US NPS). 

The Site is currently unoccupied and in a state of disrepair. The Site is used for 

miscellaneous storage by the National Park Service and other entities. The exterior 

portions of the Site consist of paved and overgrown paved areas. 

The Site is developed with an approximately 52,500 square-foot building. The two 

original hangars were built in 1930 for use as airplane hangars. In 1937, the hangars 

were connected by a two story central addition built for use as a machine shop. Use as 

an airplane hangar reportedly ceased in 1972, when the Site was sold to the US NPS. 

The Site was heated by steam which is produced in the neighboring Hanger #4 to the 

north and pumped to the Site via underground steam pipes. Steam expansion 

chambers and other equipment associated with steam heat are located beneath the 

floor in the middle section of the Site. Consolidated Edison Company of New York 

provides electricity to the Site. The Site is connected to municipal sewer and water. 

The Site was formerly part of the wetlands/tidal basin area of Dead Horse Inlet. Fill was 

imported to the area to develop land for Floyd Bennett Field. According to a 2007 

Remedial Investigation Report (RIR) for leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) 

conducted by Prestige Environmental Inc., the fill material used to create the land was 

comprised of a mixture of sands, silts, gravel and construction debris including coal, 

coal ash, cinders, charcoal, and glass. 

According to the USGS Topographic Map of Coney Island, New York-New Jersey, 7.5’ 

United States Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangle, the Site is relatively flat with a 

minor westerly slope. The approximate average elevation is 15 feet above mean sea 

level (AMSL). The Site is depicted in an Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) flood area on 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map 

(FIRM) for New York, New York (map number 3604970359F). Floyd Bennett Field is 

depicted with a sea wall protecting the western, southern, and eastern boundaries of the 

peninsula. 

According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

(NYSDEC) map entitled Groundwater Resources of New York State, the Site is located 

within the Long Island Aquifer. Floyd Bennett Field is located on a peninsula in Jamaica 

Bay; therefore the Site is hydraulically disconnected from any Sites located east, south, 

or west of Floyd Bennett Field. According to a groundwater elevation study conducted 

during the Phase II SI, groundwater is approximately six to eight feet below ground 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Ms. Robert Zwier 

May 15, 2012 

Page 3 of 11 

surface. According to the RIR prepared by Prestige, groundwater flow direction in the 

vicinity of the Site is to both to the northwest and southeast, and flow directions may be 

tidally influenced. 

Previous Reports

Remedial Investigation Report Addendum – Former Underground Storage Tanks At 

Hangar 4, Gateway National Recreation Area, Floyd Bennett Field, Prestige 

Environmental Inc. August 27, 2007. 

Prestige completed a RIR for the contaminated soil encountered during the 1999 

removal of five No. 2 fuel oil underground storage tanks (USTs) in the area between 

Hangar 4 and the South Building. According to this report, five USTs (550-gallon, 

1,000-gallon, 2,000-gallon, 10,000-gallon, and 25,000-gallon UST), were removed from 

the area south of Hangar 4. The tank grave extended approximately 65 feet south of 

Hangar 4 and therefore soil excavation occurred within the 100-foot radius of the South 

Building (on the Site). Soil and groundwater samples collected from in and around the 

tank grave in 1999 and 2001 had contamination levels above applicable NYSDEC 

regulatory thresholds. Results from a 2005 groundwater monitoring event indicated that 

natural degradation was reducing the levels of ground water contamination. In 2007, an 

additional groundwater monitoring well was installed and sampled downgradient of the 

tank grave (MW-6). No contaminants other than chloroform and bromodichloromethane 

were detected at concentrations above laboratory detection limits. Chloroform was 

detected at a level (39ug/L) which was above the NYSDEC Groundwater Standard of 

7ug/L. Bromodichloromethane was detected at 4ug/L, however, there are no 

established regulatory criteria for this compound. Prestige suggested that the 

chloroform and bromodichloromethane could be attributed to a leak of treated water 

either from Hangar 4 or a fire hydrant line located in close proximity to the monitoring 

well. According to Prestige, the lack of oil related contaminants in the sample collected 

from the well located downgradient of the tank grave and former area of soil 

contamination indicates that the soil contamination from the tanks has been properly 

remediated and no additional investigation or corrective action is necessary. 

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment – Hangers 1 and 2, Gateway Recreation Area, 

Floyd Bennett Field, Brooklyn, New York, November 11, 2011. 

BL Companies completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the South 

Building at Floyd Bennett Field on Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn, New York (the “Site”). 

The purpose of the assessment was to evaluate and identify “Recognized 

Environmental Conditions” (RECs), indicative of releases and/or threatened releases of 

hazardous substances and petroleum products on or around the Site. 

The assessment revealed no evidence of RECs in connection with the Site except for 

the following: 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Ms. Robert Zwier 

May 15, 2012 

Page 4 of 11 

 Former use of the Site as an airplane hangar, which included the storage of 

aircraft, repair and maintenance (with an engine and parts machine shop) and 

fueling 

 Presence of floor drains within unconfirmed discharge locations located in the 

former service areas 

 Presence of drums in poor condition and of unknown content located adjacent to 

the Site 

 Numerous instances of documented soil contamination on Floyd Bennett Field. 

The exact location of this contamination was not provided in the environmental 

database listings and some of these spills/releases may have occurred on the 

Site 

The assessment revealed no evidence of Historic Recognized Environmental Concerns 

(HRECs) in connection with the Site expect for the following: 

 Documented No. 2 fuel oil release from USTs located on or adjacent to the 

northern portion of the Site. In 1999, contamination from approximately 500 

gallons of spilled fuel oil was reportedly observed when five tanks were removed 

from the ground. According to the 2007 RIR, the contamination has been 

removed. According to the NYSDEC Spills Incident Database this incident was 

closed by the NYSDEC on September 6, 2007 

The assessment revealed the following deminimis conditions in connection with the 

Site: 

 Presence of numerous paint cans in poor condition 

 Presence of empty drums of unknown former content within Site 

 Documented presence of contaminant (chloroform) above applicable state 

regulations 

The assessment revealed no evidence of Business Environmental Risks (BERs) in 

connection with the Site expect for the following: 

 Presence of lead-based paint (LBP) and asbestos-containing materials (ACM) 

according to Hazardous Building Materials Inspection (HBMI) Survey conducted 

in 2011 by BL Companies. 

 Likely presence of polychlorinated byphenols (PCBs) in the light ballasts based 

on the presumed age of the lights. 

Based on the information presented in the Phase I ESA, BL Companies recommended 

the following: 

 Phase II Subsurface Investigation (SI). BL Companies recommended soil 

borings be completed in the area surrounding the South Building as well as in the 

proposed locations within the building. Groundwater monitoring wells should be 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Ms. Robert Zwier 

May 15, 2012 

Page 5 of 11 

installed in two geotechnical borings and sampled for the presence/absence of 

compounds of concern. Up to three additional groundwater monitoring wells 

should be installed as part of the Phase II SI. Soil and groundwater samples 

should be collected from the borings for laboratory analysis for the 

presence/absence of compounds of concern. 

 Hazardous building materials should be removed from the Site according to local, 

state, and federal regulations prior to renovation/demolition activities. 

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 

The NYSDEC promulgated Soil Cleanup Objectives (SCOs) as part of 6 New York 

Codes Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 375 of the Environmental Remediation 

Programs. The Part 375 regulations establish two categories of Site use: 

 “Unrestricted Use” is defined as a use that may occur without the imposition of 

environmental easement or other land use controls. 

 “Restricted Use” is defined as a use that require a site management plan that will 

rely on institutional and/or engineering controls to manage exposure to residue 

contamination remaining on the site. The Restricted Use category, in turn, may 

include “Residential Use”, Restricted-Residential Use”, “Restricted-Commercial 

Use” and Restricted-Industrial Use”. 

Ground water quality standards were published by the NYSDEC in the Division of 

Waste Technical and Operation Guidance Series (TOGS) 1.1.1. Ambient Water Quality 

Standards (AWQS) and Guidance Values and Ground Water Effluent Limitations. 

The laboratory analytical results for soils collected during Phase II SI activities were 

compared against NYCRR Part 375 Unrestricted Use, Restricted-Commercial Use and 

Restricted-Industrial Use SCOs. Ground water samples were compared against TOGS 

1.1.1. values for a GA Water Classification (source of drinking water). The SCOs and 

TOGS 1.1.1 values were used for comparative screening purposes to evaluate soil and 

ground water quality at the Site, and are not Site-specific cleanup goals. The 

contemplated use of the Site is intended to be industrial as a natural gas pipeline 

connection and distribution station. Therefore, the comparisons of Phase II SI soil 

results against the Restricted-Industrial Use SCOs are the most applicable for the 

contemplated use of the Site. 

PHASE II SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION 

The following is a discussion of the investigative approach conducted as part of the 

Phase II SI. The field-sampling program described herein was designed to fulfill the 

data quality objective (DQO) of determining the presence or absence of regulated 

compounds in the soil and ground water that may have resulted from releases of oil 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Ms. Robert Zwier 

May 15, 2012 

Page 6 of 11 

and/or hazardous substances associated with past use of the Site as an aviation facility. 

Specifically, the field-sampling program was designed to establish environmental 

conditions prior to Site occupancy and use, and determine if soil and ground water 

encountered during the proposed construction activities will require special handling 

and/or disposal as regulated materials. Specific areas of concern identified at the Site 

include the proposed natural gas pipeline excavation areas, former airplane hangars, 

and the area of documented fuel oil release from USTs located on or adjacent to the 

northern portion of the Site. 

Summary of Work and Rationale 

BL Companies mobilized a truck-mounted Geoprobe 5400 and a CME 45 drill rig 

operated by Soil Mechanics of Seaford, New York in January 2012 to advance soil 

borings and install ground water monitoring wells at the Site. Twenty-eight soil borings, 

identified as GP-1 through GP-28 were advanced at the Site utilizing the Geoprobe

drill rig. Six borings (B-1 through B-6) were advanced utilizing the CME drill rig. 

Borings GP-1, GP-3, GP-5, GP-6, GP-8, GP-10 and B-6 were drilled southeast of the 

South Building, in the area of the proposed natural gas delivery lateral pipeline 

excavation. Borings GP-11 through GP-18 and borings B-1 through B-4 were drilled 

inside the former airplane hangars, including areas formerly used for storage of aircraft, 

aircraft repair and maintenance, and fueling. Borings GP-23, GP-24, GP-25, GP-26, and 

B-5 were drilled northwest of the South Building, in the area of the proposed natural gas 

outlet lateral pipeline excavation. Borings GP-2, GP-4. GP-7, GP-9, GP-19, GP-20, GP21 and GP-22 were drilled around the perimeter of the South Building in areas that had 

the highest potential for releases of constituents of concern to surface soils from former 

operations. Borings GP-27 and GP-28 were drilled in the area of the approximate 500-

gallon fuel oil spill, UST removal, and contaminated soil excavation. In addition, borings 

B-1 through B-6 were used to collect geotechnical data for future building and 

foundation design. It should be noted that several Geoprobe borings were proposed 

for installation within the infill building between Hangers 1 and 2, where a machine shop 

reportedly was formerly located. However, due to access considerations and underslab utilities that could not be accurately located, borings could not be completed in that 

portion of the South Building. 

Five permanent ground water monitoring wells, identified as B-1/MW-1, B-4/MW-2, GP24/MW-3, GP-10/MW-4, and GP-2/MW-5 were installed at the Site. Monitoring wells 

MW-1 and MW-2 were installed to assess ground water quality in the area of the 

hangars. Monitoring wells MW-3, MW-4 and MW-5 were installed to assess ground 

water quality in the area of the proposed natural gas lateral pipeline excavations. 

Monitoring well MW-6 is an existing well installed in 2007 to assess the ground water 

quality hydraulically downgradient of the fuel oil spill, UST removal, and contaminated 

soil excavation. 

The location of the soil borings and ground water monitoring wells are depicted on the 

Environmental Boring Location Plan included in Attachment A. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Ms. Robert Zwier 

May 15, 2012 

Page 7 of 11 

Soil and Ground Water Sampling and Analysis 

BL Companies has conducted soil and ground water sampling at the Site. Continuous 

soil samples were collected from borings GP-1 through GP-28 using 4-foot long 

Geoprobe macrocore sampling sleeves. Soil samples were collected from boring B-4 

and B-6 using a 2-foot long slit-spoon sampler. A qualified environmental professional 

logged the lithology, measured ground water elevations, investigated for soil 

contamination by visual and olfactory evidence, and screened each soil sample for VOC 

emissions using a photoionization detector (PID) calibrated to an isobutylene standard. 

PID readings and visual/olfactory observations of the soil samples are included on 

boring logs presented in Attachment B. 

Overburden deposits of the Site are classified into three main stratigraphic units: (1) Fill; 

(2) organic-rich alluvial marsh deposits; and glacial deposits. The stratigraphic 

sequence consists predominately of a layer of glacial deposits of unknown thickness 

overlain by alluvial marsh deposits. Fill deposits overlie the alluvial deposits. The fill is 

capped with asphalt or concrete paving. 

The glacial deposits are stratigraphically located between the organic-rich alluvial marsh 

deposits and the underlying competent bedrock. Bedrock was not encountered during 

the Phase II SI. The glacial deposits differ significantly from the overlying alluvial marsh 

deposits. The glacial deposits consist predominately of gray fine sand in the soil 

borings taken throughout the Site. 

The alluvial marsh deposits overly the glacial deposits. The alluvial unit consists 

predominately of tidal marsh deposits containing organic matter bonded by a matrix of 

sand and silt. The top of the alluvial marsh deposits is believed to represent the former 

land surface prior to filling of the wetlands/tidal basin area of the Dead Horse Inlet. The 

alluvial marsh deposits range from approximately 1 to 6 feet in thickness and were 

encountered at an approximate depth of 15 feet below the ground surface (bgs). 

Fill is present immediately above the alluvial marsh deposits and is approximately 15 

feet thick across the Site. The fill unit consists predominately of fine to medium sand 

with variable percentages of course sand, silt and bivalve fragments. The fill deposits 

represent the material used to fill the wetlands/tidal basin during the Site’s development 

and was reportedly dredged from Jamaica Bay. The upper 7 to 9 feet of the fill unit is 

unsaturated. 

Visual or olfactory evidence of contamination was not identified in any of the soil 

samples collected from the Site. PID readings ranged from 0.0 parts per million (ppm) to 

4.7 ppm. The PID readings above 0.0 ppm were commonly recorded in samples 

containing asphalt and organic-rich alluvial marsh deposits. 

Twenty-six soil samples were collected from borings for laboratory analyses at intervals 

that: (a) exhibited the highest PID reading; b) were in areas proposed to be excavated 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Ms. Robert Zwier 

May 15, 2012 

Page 8 of 11 

for installation of natural gas pipeline laterals; or c) based on the identified release 

mechanisms had the highest potential to contain constituents of concern. Soil samples 

were stored on ice and shipped under proper chain-of-custody protocols to York 

Analytical Laboratories Inc. (York) in Stratford Connecticut and analyzed for the 

presence of regulated compounds, including: volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8260C, polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs) by EPA Method 8270C, PCBs by EPA Method 8082, Resource 

Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) Metals/total lead by EPA Method 6000/7000 

Series, and/or mercury by EPA Method 7470/7071. Soil samples selected for VOC 

analysis were preserved in the field in accordance with EPA Method 5035. 

Five ground water monitoring wells (MW-1 through MW-5) were installed on-Site during 

Phase II SI activities. The monitoring wells were installed to a depth of 15 feet bgs. The 

monitoring wells were installed at locations and depths to characterize Site hydrology 

and the ground water quality of the shallow overburden aquifer. The construction detail 

for the five monitoring wells is illustrated on the Environmental Boring Location Plan. 

Monitoring wells were constructed using 10 feet of 2-inch diameter schedule 40 

polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 0.010-inch slotted screens with an appropriate length of 2-inch 

diameter PVC riser pipe. The annular space between the well screen and borehole wall 

was backfilled with chemically inert #1 grain-size sand. A bentonite clay seal was 

placed above the sand pack. The remaining annular space was filled to grade with 

formation drill cuttings. Each monitoring wells was fitted with a flush mount curb box 

secured with cement. 

Ground water from each of the six monitoring wells was collected on February 6, 2012, 

in accordance with EPA Low Stress (low flow) Purging and Sampling Procedures for the 

Collection of Ground Water Samples from Monitoring Wells (July 1996). Ground water 

samples were placed into laboratory prepared containers and stored in an ice filled 

cooler maintained at 4 degrees centigrade. Chain-of Custody forms were filed out in the 

field and accompanied the samples during transportation to the laboratory. Ground 

water samples were analyzed by York for the presence of VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, Priority 

Pollutant 13 metals via EPA Method 6000/7000 Series, and mercury via EPA Method 

7470/7471. Ground water sampling logs are included in Attachment C. 

Analytical Results and Comparison to NYSDEC Criteria 

Phase II SI soil and ground water analytical results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 

included in Attachment D. Soil and groundwater sample locations are illustrated on the 

Environmental Boring Location Plan included in Attachment A. Summary laboratory 

analytical reports are included in Attachment E, complete ASB Data Package B 

laboratory analytical reports can be provided upon request.

Soil 

Soil analytical results were compared to the NYSDEC Restricted-Industrial Use SCOs 

as defined in 6 NYCRR Part 375, Table 375-6.8, December 2006. Table 1 presents the 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Ms. Robert Zwier 

May 15, 2012 

Page 9 of 11 

sample identification number, sample depth, analytical result, and any applicable data 

qualifier for the analyzed compounds. In addition, Table 1 compares soil analytical 

results against Restricted-Commercial Use and Unrestricted Use SCOs as defined in 6 

NYCRR Part 375-6.8(a), December 4, 2006. The inclusion of these SCOS is presented 

for informational purposes only, and do not represent Site-specific SCOs. 

VOCs, PAHs, PCBs and mercury were not detected in soils at concentrations above the 

laboratory reporting limits, and did not exceed any of the SCOs. Metals were detected 

at concentrations below SCOs. These soil samples, exhibiting non-detectable 

concentrations of VOCs, PAHs, PCBs and mercury, and metals at concentrations below 

SCOs, were collected throughout the Site and within discrete intervals of the fill deposits 

and alluvial marsh deposits. 

Ground Water 

One round of ground water samples were collected for laboratory analyses from six 

monitoring wells to characterize ground water chemistry. The ground water results are 

compared to the TOGS 1.1.1 values in Table 2. Table 2 presents the sample 

identification, analytical result, and any applicable data qualifier for VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, 

Priority Pollutant Metals and mercury. Analytical results that exceed TOGS 1.1.1 values 

are shaded. 

VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, Priority Pollutant Metals, and mercury were not detected at 

concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits in ground water samples collected 

from each of the six monitoring wells. Acetone was detected below the laboratory 

reporting limits at estimated concentrations ranging from 3.7 ug/l (MW-6) to 5.4 ug/l 

(MW-5). Methylene chloride was detected at estimated concentration ranging from 2.5 

ug/l (MW-2) to 4.2 ug/l (MW-1). 

The analytical reporting limits for several VOCs (1,2,3 trichloropropane, 1,2,dibromo-3-

chloropropoane, 1,2-dichloroethane, and trans-1,3,Dichloropropylene); and PAHs (i.e., 

benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)flouranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, 

chrysene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene) are above the TOGS 1.1.1 screening values for 

a GA Water Classification. 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Phase II SI provided sufficient information to determine the presence or absence of 

regulated constitutes of concern in the soil and ground water at identified RECs and 

areas of proposed excavations associated with the Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project. 

VOCs, PAHs, PCBs and inorganic compounds were not detected in soils at 

concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits, and did not exceed any of the 

NYSDEC SCOs. VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, Priority Pollutant Metals, and mercury were not 

detected at concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits in ground water 

samples collected from each of the six monitoring wells. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Ms. Robert Zwier 

May 15, 2012 

Page 10 of 11 

Soil and ground water results from Phase II activities conducted in the area of the fuel 

oil spill, UST removal, and contaminated soil excavation support the conclusion of the 

RIR dated August 27, 2007 which states that “soil contamination from the tanks has 

been properly remediated and no additional investigation or corrective action is 

necessary. “ 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Based on the findings of the Phase II SI, BL Companies recommends: 

 Chemical characterization of on-Site soils indicates that soils do not contain 

contaminants at concentrations above NYSDEC SCOs. Therefore, based on the 

data presented herein, it is expected that soils excavated in the areas of the 

proposed construction will not contain contaminants at concentrations that 

require environmental material management planning and/or special health and 

safety planning. Transportation and disposal of soils off-Site should be 

conducted in accordance with all local, State and Federal regulations, including 6 

NYCRR Part 360 and Part 364 (as applicable). 

 Although the data provided herein did not identify releases of regulated 

compounds, given the past use of the Site, visual, olfactory and instrumentbased soil screening should be performed by a qualified environmental 

professional during all excavation activities to confirm material characterization. 

 All liquids to be removed from the Site, including excavation dewatering, should 

be handled, transported and disposed of in accordance with local, State and 

Federal regulations. If it is determined that dewatering is necessary, the 

determination of the discharge point for the dewatering effluent should be 

determined based on the permits that can be obtained from the regulatory 

authorities. Discharge of water generated form large-scale construction activities 

to surface waters should be performed under a State Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System (SPDES) permit. Discharge to the sanitary sewer would 

require submittal of an application to discharge to the New York City Department 

of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) and subsequent approval of the 

application by NYCDEP. 

 A second round of ground water samples should be collected from the six on-Site 

monitoring wells prior to construction to confirm ground water quality and provide 

any additional data required for the development of an excavation dewatering 

plan. 

 Hazardous building materials should be removed from the Site according to local, 

State, and Federal regulations prior to renovation/demolition activities. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Ms. Robert Zwier 

May 15, 2012 

Page 11 of 11 

LIMITATIONS

The conclusions stated above are based solely on the information described in this 

report. The data and observations generated during this monitoring period reflect the 

conditions found on the project Site on the dates and at the locations specified. Where 

visual observations are included in the report, they represent conditions at the time of 

investigation, and may not be indicative of past or future conditions. The data cannot be 

extrapolated to locations on the Site that were not tested, or to compounds for which 

tests were not conducted. 

Latent conditions and other information may become evident in the future based on 

currently unavailable evidence. BL Companies assumes no responsibility for such 

conditions or for the inspection, engineering, or repair that might be required to discover 

or correct such factors. Should such evidence arise, it should be forwarded to BL 

Companies so that additional conclusions and recommendations may be evaluated as 

necessary. 

This report has been completed solely for the benefit and individual use of the client. 

No part thereof, nor any copy of the same, shall be used for any purpose by anyone 

other than the client. No disclosure or reliance of this report may be made without the 

prior written consent of BL Companies. 

CLOSING 

BL Companies appreciates the opportunity to provide environmental services to you. 

Should there be any questions regarding the findings, conclusions, or recommendations 

provided in this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. 

Sincerely, 

BL Companies 

Samuel R. Haydock, MS, LEP 

Director, Northeast Environmental Operations 

Attachments 

K:\Jobs10\10C3542\DOCS\REPORTS\N-RPT-TGPLC-10C3542-B-PhII SI-rev.20120315.doc 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
The appendices/attachments to this document are available for viewing on 

the FERC website (http://www.ferc.gov). Using the “eLibrary” link, select 

“General Search” from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range 

and Docket No. CP13-36 (Transco’s application), and follow the 

instructions. For assistance, please call 1-866-208-3676, or e-mail 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX L

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT

UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY OF CONTAMINATION PLAN

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Page 1

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC

Procedure 35.04.01

Attachment A

Unanticipated Discovery of Contamination Plan

Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project

December 2012

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT Procedure 35.04.01

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC Attachment A

Page 2

Unanticipated Discovery of Contamination Plan

The intent of this Unanticipated Discovery of Contamination Plan is to outline 

practices to employ in the event of an unanticipated discovery of contamination in 

soil, groundwater, and sediment when excavating during construction and/or 

maintenance activities, as well as debris or waste materials deposited on the 

pipeline right-of-way at Williams Gas Pipeline facilities. The purposes of this plan 

are to:

• Protect human health and worker safety;

• Prevent the spread of contamination; and

• Comply with applicable state and/or federal regulations. 

Pre-job planning

When planning a project at Williams Gas Pipeline facilities and/or along the 

pipeline Right-of-Way (ROW), The Chief Inspector (CI), Environmental Inspector 

(EI), District Manager, and/or their designee shall complete a review of the 

proposed pipeline and/or aboveground facility locations prior to the construction 

and/or maintenance activity in order to assess the potential for the presence of 

known or potential contamination. An assessment should also be made of the 

likelihood of encountering contamination during an excavation or along surface. 

The scope of the review and assessment will depend upon the size of the 

project, past experience, and available information. 

For pipeline construction projects, the review and assessment will consist of a 

site reconnaissance of the proposed work area, interviews with property owners, 

and a review of any readily available information. It may also be necessary to 

consult with the Permits and Natural Resources and/or Environmental 

Compliance Departments to conduct an environmental database search (e.g., 

EDR search) and/or perform additional investigation. Generally, it is not 

anticipated that this review will identify contamination along the ROW, but it will 

likely identify areas where there is a higher potential for contamination. 

For maintenance-related excavations at compressor and meter stations, these 

have a higher likelihood of encountering something unexpected due to the age of 

these facilities as well as the use of regulated substances at these facilities.

If it is determined that there is a high likelihood that the planned work will be 

conducted in close proximity to, or within, known or suspected contaminated 

sites, the Permits and Natural Resources and Environmental Compliance 

Departments should be consulted. 

The results of this search/investigation will be reviewed prior to start of 

construction and/or maintenance activity and any identified contaminated sites 

and/or areas will be located and available information reviewed for potential 

impacts. In the event the planned work will impact a confirmed contaminated site, 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT Procedure 35.04.01

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC Attachment A

Page 3

the Environmental Compliance Department will work with the appropriate 

regulatory agency, property owner, and responsible party to ensure the 

construction and/or maintenance activities are conducted in accordance with 

applicable and established site requirements. Where feasible, a re-route or other 

modification to the project should be considered. Postponement of the project 

may also be necessary. 

If contaminated sites are identified for areas of the project, a list of the sites 

should be kept along with how the determination was made (EDR, property 

owner, agency report, etc.). An example of this list is included in Worksheet A at 

the end of this document.

Unanticipated Discovery Response

In the event unanticipated contaminated soil, groundwater or other potential 

environmental contamination are encountered during the project (e.g., 

malodorous soils and/or groundwater with visible staining and/or sheen), the 

following general procedures will be implemented: 

1. All construction and/or maintenance work in the immediate vicinity of areas 

where suspected contamination or unknown wastes are encountered will be 

halted.

2. All construction, oversight, and observing personnel will be evacuated to a 

road or other accessible up-wind location until the types and levels of 

potential contamination can be verified by qualified personnel. This 

assessment may include, but not be limited to: observation by a qualified 

health and safety professional, field screening using the appropriate air 

sampling devices, and/or laboratory analysis of suspect material.

3. The Chief Inspector (CI), Environmental Inspector (EI), and/or District 

Manager will be notified and they will consult with the company’s 

Environmental Compliance Department. The contacts for the 

Environmental Compliance Department are provided at the end of this plan.

4. Following consultation with on-site personnel, the Environmental 

Compliance Department will be responsible for designating follow-up 

actions, including mobilizing emergency response personnel and 

coordinating with the EPA and/or state and local agencies as appropriate. 

5. If an immediate or imminent threat to human health or the environment 

exists, the EI, CI, District Manager, and/or their designee will immediately 

contact the appropriate responding agency. 

• For construction projects, the contact numbers for fire, police, and the 

state environmental hotline can be found on the Environmental 

Contacts List for the project. 

• For maintenance projects, the contact numbers for fire, police, and the 

state environmental hotline can be found on the compressor station’s 

Spill Plan.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT Procedure 35.04.01

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC Attachment A

Page 4

6. If an immediate or imminent threat to human health or the environment does 

not exist, or has been abated, a determination will be made, after consulting 

with all responsible parties, for conducting any remedial action. If the 

company or their qualified contractor personnel are responsible for any 

remedial action it will be limited to the planned work area only and no 

additional disturbance should be made except as needed to facilitate 

construction and/or maintenance activities. 

• Representative samples of the suspected contaminated media (i.e., 

soil, water, and waste) may need to be submitted for laboratory analysis 

to determine waste classification and/or agency notification 

requirements, which can vary from state-to-state. 

• The CI, EI, District Manager, and/or their designee shall consult with the 

Environmental Compliance Department for the appropriate analyses, 

sampling methodology, and sampling frequency. 

• Any excavated soils or waste that are suspected of containing 

contamination above the appropriate clean-up standard, or otherwise 

regulated for disposal, will be placed on plastic sheeting and covered at 

the end of each work day or placed in an appropriate container to 

prevent the spread of any further contamination. Containers must be 

closed or covered and any storage areas cordoned off with orange 

safety fence. All containers should be clearly labeled with the name of 

the contents and any known hazard associated with the material 

identified on the container. Known hazardous wastes should be labeled 

with the words “Hazardous Waste” and the date the waste was placed 

in the container. 

• Water or groundwater suspected of being contaminated will not be 

discharged to grade without prior state approval. Options such as onsite storage tanks or discharge to a publicly owned treatment works 

should be considered. Limiting and/or diverting the flow of clean surface 

water away from the affected area, as well as other measures, may be 

implemented to minimize impacts and exposure to the work area.

7. If it is determined that the company or it’s qualified contractor will be 

responsible for arranging for disposal of any affected media (soil, water, 

waste), the material will be characterized and disposed of properly at a 

permitted facility in a timely manner. All disposal documentation should be 

obtained and filed in the project files and copies sent to the Environmental 

Compliance Group. 

• If USEPA regulated hazardous wastes, Toxic Substance Control Act 

wastes, or state hazardous wastes are generated, a USEPA generator 

identification number will need to be obtained. The Environmental 

Compliance Group must be contacted to assist in either obtaining a 

project specific ID number or providing an EPA ID number for an 

existing facility. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT Procedure 35.04.01

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC Attachment A

Page 5

WORKSHEET A – KNOWN OR SUSPECTED CONTAMINATED SITES

Instructions: Please complete a separate sheet for each location where 

contamination has been noted

I. Site Name

II. Physical Location

III. How Contamination Determination Was Determined 

(Visual, Sampling, Smell, etc.)

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT Procedure 35.04.01

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC Attachment A

Page 6

INTERNAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE CONTACT SHEET

District/Location: _________________________________________________________

District Manager: _________________________________________________________

Office:_________________Home:_________________ Pager/Cell:_________________

Assistant District Manager: ______________________________________________

Office:_________________Home:__________________ Pager/Cell:________________

DIVISION CONTACTS

PRINCETON DIVISION (PA, NJ, NY)

Mario DiCocco – Director, Operations

Office: 609-936-2401

Home: 215-968-2639

Cell: 609-658-6941

Mike Maben – Division Environmental Engineer

Office: 607-431-1180

Home: 607-432-6482

Cell: 609-865-1929

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENTS

Mark Bisett – Manager, Environmental 

Compliance

Office: 713-215-2781

Home: 281-225-9683

Cell: 713-213-2581

Tim Powell – Manager, Natural Resources

Office: 713-215-2719

Home: 281-859-1517

Cell: 713-854-1153

Mark Nelson – Team Leader, Operations 

Support and Remediation Groups

Office: 713- 215-4563

Home: 713-622-7122

Cell: 713-822-8479

Mary Beth Whitfield – Air Quality Compliance

Office: 713-215-4562

Home: 281-494-1599

Cell: 713-806-5202

Craig Linn – Director, Technical Services OPS

Office: 713-215-2554

Home: 

Cell: 281-513-2588

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT Procedure 35.04.01

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC Attachment A

Page 2

EXTERNAL NOTIFICATION LIST

Fire – ____________________________________________

Police – ___________________________________________

Hospital – _________________________________________

State Environmental Hotline – ________________________

National Response Center – __________________________

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX M

SUMMER 2009 OFFSHORE

ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING REPORT

FOR THE ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Public 

000891.ZW44.01-B2878 

Summer 2009 

Offshore 

Environmental Sampling Report 

for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project 

Queens, New York

September 2009 

Prepared for: 

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC 

Prepared by: 

ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, INC. 

368 Pleasant View Drive 

Lancaster, New York 14086 

©2009 Ecology and Environment, Inc.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
02:000891_ZW44_01-B2878 iii Public

Rockaway Sampling Report.doc-09/15/09

T able of Contents 

Section Page 

1 Introduction..............................................................................1-1

2 Sediment Sampling Results....................................................2-1

3 Water Quality Sampling Results.............................................3-1

3.1 Physical Parameters of Water Quality.............................................................. 3-1 

3.2 Chemical and Biological Water Quality........................................................... 3-2 

4 Benthic Community Analysis..................................................4-1

4.1 Nearshore Community...................................................................................... 4-4 

4.2 Offshore Community........................................................................................ 4-4 

4.3 Anthropogenic Debris Epibenthic Community.............................................. 4-11 

5 Drop Camera Video..................................................................5-1

6 References ...............................................................................6-1 

Appendix 

A Sampling and Analysis Plan .................................................. A-1

B Complete Laboratory Results ................................................ B-1

C Marine Biology Report............................................................ C-1

D Drop Camera Video................................................................. D-1

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
02:000891_ZW44_01-B2878 v Public

Rockaway Sampling Report.doc-09/15/09 

 ist of Tables L

Table Page 

2-1 Summary of Sediment Chemical Analyses................................................................ 2-2 

2-2 Summary of Positive Analytical Results for Sediment Samples, July 2009.............. 2-3 

3-1 Summary of Water Sample Analyses - Biological..................................................... 3-2 

3-2 Summary of Water Sample Analyses – Chemical ..................................................... 3-2 

3-3 Summary of Positive Analytical Results for water Quality Samples, July 2009....... 3-3 

4-1 Benthic Data Results Summary for Proposed Pipeline Route, July 2009.................. 4-2 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
02:000891_ZW44_01-B2878 vii Public

Rockaway Sampling Report.doc-09/15/09 

 ist of Figures L

Figure Page 

1-1 Proposed Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project Location in the Lower New 

York Bay.................................................................................................................... 1-3

1-2 Sediment and Water Sampling Locations, Summer 2009 Field Survey.................... 1-5 

4-1 Benthic Community Species Diversity in the Project Area Based on the 

Summer 2009 Field Survey........................................................................................ 4-5 

4-2 Benthic Communities in the Project Area Based on the Summer 2009 Field 

Survey ........................................................................................................................ 4-7 

4-3 ROV Features Investigated during the Summer 2009 Geophysical Survey .............. 4-9 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
02:000891_ZW44_01-B2878 ix Public

Rockaway Sampling Report.doc-09/15/09 

 ist of Abbreviations and Acronyms L

BOD biological oxygen demand 

BTX Benzene, Toluene, Xylene 

DDD dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane 

DDE dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene 

DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 

DO dissolved oxygen 

°C degrees Celsius 

°F degrees Fahrenheit 

E & E Ecology and Environment, Inc. 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

H Shannon’s Diversity Index 

HDD horizontal directional drill 

m meter 

MDQ Minimum Detectable Quantity 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

MMcfd million cubic feet per day 

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units 

PAHs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls 

ppt parts per thousand 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms (cont.) 

02:000891_ZW44_01-B2878 x Public

Rockaway Sampling Report.doc-09/15/09 

ROV remotely operated vehicle 

SVOC semi-volatile organic compound 

TAL Target Analyte List 

TBTA Tri-borough Bridge and Tunnel Authority 

TOC total organic carbon 

TOGS Technical and Operational Guidance Series 

Transco Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC 

TSS total suspended solids 

VOC volatile organic compound 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
02:000891_ZW44_01-B28782 1-1 Public

Rockaway Sampling Report.doc-9/15/2009 

Introduction 

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco), is filing an application 

with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) seeking all of the necessary authorizations pursuant to the Natural Gas Act to create a new lateral on its 

existing system to provide an additional service point to National Grid US’s local 

distribution companies of Brooklyn Union Gas Company, D/B/A National Grid 

NY and KeySpan Gas East Corporation in the New York City market area (National Grid). The Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project (the Project) will enhance 

reliability and position National Grid to serve growth by providing an additional 

delivery point into their system. The FERC application for the Project requires 

the submittal of 12 Resource Reports, with each report evaluating Project effects 

on a particular aspect of the environment. 

The proposed pipeline would consist of approximately 3.22 miles of 26-inch diameter pipeline from a proposed offshore interconnect with Transco’s existing 

Lower New York Bay Extension, in the Atlantic Ocean near Lower New York 

Bay, to a delivery point onshore into the National Grid pipeline system on the 

Rockaway Peninsula in Queens County, New York, as shown on Figure 1-1. 

Construction of the pipeline would allow the movement of up to 557 MMcfd to 

National Grid’s regional distribution system and would support the City of New 

York’s clean air initiatives, which will limit the use of high sulfur oils. 

Transco proposes to cross the beach and the nearshore portion of the pipeline using Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) techniques. The proposed HDD would be 

0.60 miles long, while the remaining 2.62 miles of the offshore segment would be 

installed using conventional marine lay and trenching methods. The 0.35-mile onshore segment of the pipeline primarily extends beneath a pitch-and-putt golf 

course located within the Jacob Riis Park to a proposed tie-in point with National 

Grid to be located within the Tri-borough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA) 

right-of-way. Beach 169th Street and Fort Tilden are located to the west of the 

proposed pipeline. A parking lot and additional land within Jacob Riis Park are 

located to the east. Jacob Riis Park and Fort Tilden are part of Gateway National 

Recreation Area, which is managed by the National Park Service. Transco is also 

proposing to construct a meter and regulating station northwest of Floyd Bennett 

Field along Flatbush Avenue. Floyd Bennett Field is also part of Gateway National Recreation Area. 

1

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
1. Introduction 

02:000891_ZW44_01-B28782 1-2 Public

Rockaway Sampling Report.doc-9/15/2009 

Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E & E) was contracted by Transco to support the 

environmental compliance/permitting requirements for the Project. In order for 

the FERC application, permits, and, ultimately, the installation processes to move 

forward, it was necessary to evaluate the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics along the proposed pipeline route. Prior to undertaking the field activities, a sampling and analysis plan was prepared and submitted to regulatory agencies to provide them with the opportunity to comment on and, if necessary, request modifications to ensure adequacy of data for the agency review. The Sampling and Analysis Plan prepared for the Project is provided in Appendix A. The 

field sampling effort took place from June 23 through July 13, 2009. A summary 

of the field data collected as part of the sampling effort in the Atlantic Ocean is 

provided below. Although geotechnical, archaeological, and deep sediment core 

data were collected and analyzed as part of this field effort, this report presents 

only the results supporting the biological and water quality evaluations for the 

Project. Geotechnical boring logs will be provided as appendices to Resource 

Report 7, Soils, of the FERC Environmental Report, and the results of archaeological investigations will be presented in Resource Report 4, Cultural Resources. 

This report discusses all environmental field parameters collected, including: 

■ Sediment chemical contamination; 

■ Physical and chemical water quality parameters; 

■ Benthic community analysis; and 

■ Drop camera video of the proposed pipeline route. 

The appendices at the end of this report provide all field data collected as part of 

the sampling effort. Appendix A presents the Sampling and Analysis Plan developed for the data collection effort; Appendix B presents the laboratory results for 

all chemical parameters analyzed; Appendix C presents the Marine Biology Report that discusses the results of the benthic sampling and subsurface video performed at each sample location; Appendix D contains CD including the raw video 

collected with the drop camera and ROV camera. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #

L:\Buffalo\NorthEast_Supply\Maps\MXDs\RockawayLateral_Sept2009\figures\Fig1-1_roxaerial_landscape.mxd 09/11/2009

Figure 1-1 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project Location 

Lower New York Bay

0 0.5 1 1.5 0.25

Miles

Proposed Pipeline Route Existing 26" Lower NY Bay Extension

Proposed Meter Station

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
-30

-40

-40

-40

-10

-10

-10

-20

-20

-20

-20

-20

-30

-30

-30

-30

-30

-30

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #

L:\Buffalo\NorthEast_Supply\Maps\MXDs\RockawayLateral_Sept2009\figures\Fig1-2_sample_points_overview.mxd 10/10/2009

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Figure 1-2 

Sediment and Water Quality Sampling Locations

Summer 2009 Field Survey

Legend

Sample Points

Survey Area

Proposed Pipeline

Bathymetric contours

shoreline

Overview

Long Island Jamaica Bay

Existing 26" Lower 

NY Bay Lateral

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
02:000891_ZW44_01-B28782 2-1 Public

Rockaway Sampling Report.doc-9/15/2009 

Sediment Sampling Results 

The sediment sampling plan developed to evaluate the site-specific sediment conditions along the proposed pipeline route was designed specifically to address the 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (NYSDEC’s), 

Technical and Operational Guidance Series (TOGS) 5.1.9 for In-Water and Riparian Management of Sediment and Dredged Material (November 2004). The plan 

includes analysis of several contaminants at a minimum interval of one sediment 

sample per one-half mile along the centerline of the proposed pipeline route (see 

Figure 1-2). Sediment sampling was performed through a coring operation in 

which a 10-foot sediment core was collected from each sampling location using a 

vibracore unit mounted on the survey vessel. Once retrieved, the sediment core 

soil types were classified, and sediment samples were collected from the core and 

shipped to a laboratory for chemical analysis. Each core was separated into four 

increments (depending on the depth of the sample), with approximate intervals of 

0 to 1 foot, 1 to 4 feet, 4 to 7 feet, and 7 to 10 feet. Due to poor sample retention 

as a result of a sandy substrate, only three core fractions were collected from Station 3, resulting in a total of 31 samples. The tests performed, method, and quantities of samples collected are summarized in Table 2-1. Upon completion of the 

analyses, positive results were evaluated and compared to the NYSDEC TOGS 

criteria (see Table 2-2). The results are discussed below, and the complete analytical results are provided in Appendix B. 

Sediment Physical Parameters 

At each sampling location, the sediment samples were measured for salinity, pH, 

and total organic carbon (TOC). Sediment samples were collected at eight sampling locations along the proposed pipeline route and sent for laboratory investigation of the aforementioned physical parameters. The laboratory analyses of the 

samples resulted in an average pH value of 7.81 ± 0.24 across all sampling locations, with a minimum of 7.20 and a maximum of 8.10. This range of pH values 

falls within the typical pH range in the area. TOC, measured in percent dry 

weight (mean = 0.074 % dry weight ± 0.038), and salinity (mean = 5.72 ppt ± 

0.68) measurements also fell within typical ranges for the area.

2

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
2. Sediment Sampling Results 

02:000891_ZW44_01-B28782 2-2 Public

Rockaway Sampling Report.doc-9/15/2009 

Table 2-1 Summary of Sediment Chemical Analyses 

Test Description 

EPA Method 

Number 

Number of 

Samples 

Collected* 

Arsenic as TAL Metals EPA 6010B 31 

Cadmium as TAL Metals EPA 6010B 31 

Copper as TAL Metals EPA 6010B 31 

Lead as TAL Metals EPA 6010B 31 

Mercury EPA 6010B 31 

Benzene EPA 8021B or 

8260B 

31 

Total BTX EPA 8021B or 

8260B 

31 

Total PAHs (sum of Target Compound List PAH) EPA 8270C 31 

Sum of DDT+DDE+DDD EPA 8081A 31 

Mirex EPA 8081A 31 

Chlordane EPA 8081A 31 

Dieldrin EPA 8081A 31 

PCBs (sum of aroclors) EPA 8082 31 

Total Organic Carbon Lloyd Kahn 31 

pH 31 

Salinity EPA 9045C 31 

* = Only 3 core fractions (to a depth of 6.5 feet) were collected from Station 3 due to the sandy substrate 

Metals 

Each sediment sample was analyzed for five metals listed on the Target Analyte 

List (TAL): arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, and mercury. The results of the analyses for these metals, along with the other chemicals analyzed for this report, are 

summarized in Table 2-1. Positive results were obtained for all of these metals in 

at least one sample; however, none of the values exceeded their respective TOGS 

criterion. 

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) 

While positive results were obtained for fourteen SVOCs, including total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), none of the resultant values exceeded the 

corresponding TOGS compound levels. 

Pesticides 

Pesticides were not detected in any sediment samples collected along the proposed 

pipeline route. 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 

PCBs were not detected in any sediment samples collected along the proposed 

pipeline route. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Table 2-2 Summary of Positive Analytical Results for Sediment Samples, July 2009

Analyte

Screening

Criteria (1)

Screening

Criteria (2)

Sample

ID: 01-D0-1E 01-D1-4E 01-D4-7E 01-D7-8.1E 02-D0-1E 02-D1-1E 02-D4-7E 02-D7-8.0E 03-D0-1E 03-D1-4E 03-D4-7E 03-D4-7E 04-D0-1E 04-D1-4E 04-D4-6.5E 05-D0-1E 05-D1-4E 05-D4-7E 05-D7-7.1E 06-D0-1E 06D1-4E 06-D4-7E 06-D7-7.9E 07-D0-1E 07-D1-4E 07-D4-7 07-D7-9.9E 08-D0-1E 08-D1-4E 08-D4-7E 08-D7-9.9E

Benzene 2370 644 2.49 U 2.46 U 2.48 U 2.36 U 2.43 U 2.42 U 2.58 U 2.52 U 2.42 U 2.4 U 2.41 U 2.27 U 2.52 U 2.46 U 2.33 U 2.5 U 2.34 U 2.44 U 2.24 U 2.55 U 2.5 U 2.45 U 2.41 U 2.56 U 2.46 U 2.59 U 2.51 U 2.41 U 2.5 U 2.48 U 2.51 U

p/m-Xylene 19171 2117 4.98 U 4.91 U 4.96 U 4.71 U 4.86 U 4.84 U 5.17 U 5.03 U 4.84 U 4.8 U 4.82 U 4.54 U 5.04 U 4.92 U 4.65 U 5.01 U 4.68 U 4.87 U 4.47 U 5.1 U 5 U 4.91 U 4.81 U 5.12 U 4.93 U 5.18 U 5.02 U 4.82 U 5.01 U 4.96 U 5.02 U

o-Xylene 19171 2117 2.49 U 2.46 U 2.48 U 2.36 U 2.43 U 2.42 U 2.58 U 2.52 U 2.42 U 2.4 U 2.41 U 2.27 U 2.52 U 2.46 U 2.33 U 2.5 U 2.34 U 2.44 U 2.24 U 2.55 U 2.5 U 2.45 U 2.41 U 2.56 U 2.46 U 2.59 U 2.51 U 2.41 U 2.5 U 2.48 U 2.51 UToluene 5408 1128 2.49 U 2.46 U 2.48 U 2.36 U 2.43 U 2.42 U 2.58 U 2.52 U 2.42 U 2.4 U 2.41 U 2.27 U 2.52 U 2.46 U 2.33 U 2.5 U 2.34 U 2.44 U 2.24 U 2.55 U 2.5 U 2.45 U 2.41 U 2.56 U 2.46 U 2.59 U 2.51 U 2.41 U 2.5 U 2.48 U 2.51 U

Total BTX 960 960 12.5 U 12.3 U 12.4 U 11.8 U 12.2 U 12.1 U 12.9 U 12.6 U 12.1 U 12 U 12.05 U 11.35 U 12.6 U 12.3 U 11.64 U 12.51 U 11.7 U 12.19 U 11.19 U 12.75 U 12.5 U 12.26 U 12.04 U 12.8 U 12.31 U 12.95 U 12.55 U 12.05 U 12.51 U 12.4 U 12.55 U

2-Chloronaphthalene N/A N/A 4.39 U 4.51 U 2.97 U 2.9 U 2.99 U 2.87 U 3.05 U 2.96 U 4.32 U 4.39 U 4.5 U 4.19 U 4.69 U 4.68 U 4.4 U 3.02 U 4.42 U 4.34 U 3.97 U 3.02 U 2.95 U 3.82 U 3.83 U 3.06 U 2.93 U 3.07 U 2.97 U 3.86 U 3.02 U 3.95 U 2.95 U2-Methylnaphthalene 6996 782 4.39 U 4.51 U 2.97 U 2.9 U 2.99 U 2.87 U 3.05 U 2.96 U 4.32 U 4.39 U 4.5 U 4.19 U 4.69 U 4.68 U 4.4 U 3.02 U 4.42 U 4.34 U 3.97 U 3.02 U 2.95 U 3.82 U 3.83 U 3.06 U 2.93 U 3.07 U 2.97 U 3.86 U 3.02 U 3.95 U 2.95 UAcenaphthene N/A N/A 4.39 U 4.51 U 2.97 U 2.9 U 2.99 U 2.87 U 3.05 U 2.96 U 4.32 U 4.39 U 4.5 U 4.19 U 4.69 U 4.68 U 4.4 U 3.02 U 4.42 U 4.34 U 3.97 U 3.02 U 2.95 U 3.82 U 3.83 U 3.06 U 2.93 U 3.07 U 2.97 U 3.86 U 3.02 U 3.95 U 2.95 UAcenaphthylene N/A N/A 4.39 U 4.51 U 2.97 U 2.9 U 2.99 U 2.87 U 3.05 U 2.96 U 4.32 U 4.39 U 4.5 U 4.19 U 4.69 U 4.68 U 4.4 U 3.02 U 4.42 U 4.34 U 3.97 U 3.02 U 2.95 U 3.82 U 3.83 U 3.06 U 2.93 U 3.07 U 2.97 U 3.86 U 3.02 U 3.95 U 2.95 UAnthracene 22692 2462 4.39 U 4.51 U 2.97 U 2.9 U 2.99 U 2.87 U 3.05 U 2.96 U 4.32 U 4.39 U 4.5 U 4.19 U 5.32 4.68 U 4.4 U 3.02 U 4.42 U 4.34 U 3.97 U 3.02 U 2.95 U 3.82 U 3.83 U 3.06 U 2.93 U 3.07 U 2.97 U 3.86 U 3.02 U 3.95 U 2.95 U

Benz(a)anthracene 2163 276 4.39 U 4.51 U 2.97 U 2.9 U 2.99 U 2.87 U 3.05 U 2.96 U 4.79 4.39 U 4.5 U 4.19 U 4.69 U 4.68 U 4.4 U 3.02 U 4.42 U 4.34 U 3.97 U 3.02 U 2.95 U 3.82 U 3.83 U 3.06 U 2.93 U 3.07 U 2.97 U 3.86 U 3.02 U 3.95 U 2.95 U

Benzo(a)pyrene N/A N/A 4.39 U 4.51 U 2.97 U 2.9 U 2.99 U 2.87 U 3.05 U 2.96 U 12.9 4.39 U 4.5 U 4.19 U 6.27 4.68 U 15.1 3.61 4.42 U 4.34 U 3.97 U 3.02 U 2.95 U 3.82 U 3.83 U 3.06 U 2.93 U 3.07 U 2.97 U 3.86 U 3.02 U 4.14 2.95 UBenzo(b)fluoranthene N/A N/A 4.39 U 4.51 U 2.97 U 2.9 U 2.99 U 2.87 U 3.05 U 2.96 U 10.9 4.39 U 4.5 U 4.19 U 13.1 4.68 U 9.26 3.02 U 4.42 U 4.34 U 3.97 U 3.02 U 2.95 U 3.82 U 3.83 U 3.06 U 2.93 U 3.07 U 2.97 U 3.86 U 3.02 U 3.95 U 2.95 UBenzo(ghi)perylene N/A N/A 4.39 U 4.51 U 2.97 U 2.9 U 2.99 U 2.87 U 3.05 U 2.96 U 62.8 17.3 13.5 U 12.6 U 13.7 U 14 U 53.7 3.02 U 4.42 U 4.34 U 3.97 U 3.02 U 2.95 U 3.82 U 3.83 U 3.06 U 2.93 U 3.07 U 2.97 U 3.86 U 3.02 U 8.21 2.95 UBenzo(k)fluoranthene N/A N/A 4.39 U 4.51 U 2.97 U 2.9 U 2.99 U 2.87 U 3.05 U 2.96 U 13.5 4.66 4.5 U 4.19 U 16.5 4.68 U 13.7 3.02 U 4.42 U 4.34 U 3.97 U 3.02 U 2.95 U 3.82 U 3.83 U 3.06 U 2.93 U 3.07 U 2.97 U 3.86 U 3.02 U 3.95 U 2.95 UChrysene N/A N/A 4.39 U 4.51 U 2.97 U 2.9 U 2.99 U 2.87 U 3.05 U 2.96 U 7.04 4.39 U 4.5 U 4.19 U 6.05 4.68 U 7.18 3.02 U 4.42 U 4.34 U 3.97 U 3.02 U 2.95 U 3.82 U 3.83 U 3.06 U 2.93 U 3.07 U 2.97 U 3.86 U 3.02 U 3.95 U 2.95 UDibenz(a,h)anthracene N/A N/A 4.39 U 4.51 U 2.97 U 2.9 U 2.99 U 2.87 U 3.05 U 2.96 U 78.5 26.6 13.5 U 12.6 U 13.7 U 14 U 67 3.02 U 4.42 U 4.34 U 3.97 U 3.02 U 2.95 U 3.82 U 3.83 U 3.06 U 2.93 U 3.07 U 2.97 U 3.86 U 3.02 U 7.28 2.95 UFluoranthene N/A 23474 4.39 U 4.51 U 2.97 U 2.9 U 2.99 U 2.87 U 3.05 U 2.96 U 4.32 U 4.39 U 4.5 U 4.19 U 6.64 4.68 U 4.4 U 3.02 U 4.42 U 4.34 U 3.97 U 3.02 U 2.95 U 3.82 U 3.83 U 3.06 U 2.93 U 3.07 U 2.97 U 3.86 U 3.02 U 3.95 U 2.95 UFluorene N/A 184 4.39 U 4.51 U 2.97 U 2.9 U 2.99 U 2.87 U 3.05 U 2.96 U 4.32 U 4.39 U 4.5 U 4.19 U 4.69 U 4.68 U 4.4 U 3.02 U 4.42 U 4.34 U 3.97 U 3.02 U 2.95 U 3.82 U 3.83 U 3.06 U 2.93 U 3.07 U 2.97 U 3.86 U 3.02 U 3.95 U 2.95 UIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene N/A N/A 4.39 U 4.51 U 2.97 U 2.9 U 2.99 U 2.87 U 3.05 U 2.96 U 71.7 22.6 13.5 U 12.6 U 13.7 U 14 U 54.3 3.02 U 4.42 U 4.34 U 3.97 U 3.02 U 2.95 U 3.82 U 3.83 U 3.06 U 2.93 U 3.07 U 2.97 U 3.86 U 3.02 U 7.52 2.95 UNaphthalene 5938 690 4.39 U 4.51 U 2.97 U 2.9 U 2.99 U 3.56 3.41 2.96 U 4.32 U 4.39 U 4.5 U 4.19 U 4.69 U 4.68 U 4.4 U 3.02 U 5.74 4.34 U 3.97 U 3.02 U 2.95 U 3.82 U 3.83 U 3.06 U 2.93 U 3.07 U 2.97 U 3.86 U 3.02 U 3.95 U 2.95 UPhenanthrene N/A 2762 4.39 U 4.51 U 2.97 U 2.9 U 2.99 U 2.87 U 3.05 U 2.96 U 4.32 U 4.39 U 4.5 U 4.19 U 5.02 4.68 U 4.4 U 3.02 U 4.42 U 4.34 U 3.97 U 3.02 U 2.95 U 3.82 U 3.83 U 3.06 U 2.93 U 3.07 U 2.97 U 3.86 U 3.02 U 3.95 U 2.95 UPyrene 201948 22116 4.39 U 4.51 U 2.97 U 2.9 U 2.99 U 2.87 U 3.05 U 2.96 U 4.32 U 4.39 U 4.5 U 4.19 U 9.96 4.68 U 4.4 U 3.02 U 4.42 U 4.34 U 3.97 U 3.02 U 2.95 U 3.82 U 3.83 U 3.06 U 2.93 U 3.07 U 2.97 U 3.86 U 3.02 U 3.95 U 2.95 UTotal PAH 4000 4000 79.0 U 81.2 U 53.5 U 52.2 U 53.8 U 52.34 55.3 53.3 U 305.33 132.62 108 U 100.65 U 142.79 112.2 U 268.64 54.95 80.88 78.12 U 71.46 U 54.36 U 53.1 U 68.76 U 68.94 U 55.08 U 52.74 U 55.26 U 53.46 U 69.48 U 54.36 U 82.45 53.1 U4,4'-DDD 25315 N/A 0.22 U 0.225 U 0.148 U 0.145 U 0.149 U 0.144 U 0.152 U 0.148 U 0.216 U 0.22 U 0.225 U 0.209 U 0.234 U 0.234 U 0.22 U 0.151 U 0.221 U 0.217 U 0.199 U 0.151 U 0.147 U 0.191 U 0.192 U 0.153 U 0.146 U 0.154 U 0.148 U 0.193 U 0.151 U 0.197 U 0.15 U4,4'-DDE 25315 N/A 0.22 U 0.225 U 0.148 U 0.145 U 0.149 U 0.144 U 0.152 U 0.148 U 0.216 U 0.22 U 0.225 U 0.209 U 0.234 U 0.234 U 0.22 U 0.151 U 0.221 U 0.217 U 0.199 U 0.151 U 0.147 U 0.191 U 0.192 U 0.153 U 0.146 U 0.154 U 0.148 U 0.193 U 0.151 U 0.197 U 0.15 U4,4'-DDT 25315 23 0.22 U 0.225 U 0.148 U 0.145 U 0.149 U 0.144 U 0.152 U 0.148 U 0.216 U 0.22 U 0.225 U 0.209 U 0.234 U 0.234 U 0.22 U 0.151 U 0.221 U 0.217 U 0.199 U 0.151 U 0.147 U 0.191 U 0.192 U 0.153 U 0.146 U 0.154 U 0.148 U 0.193 U 0.151 U 0.197 U 0.15 USum of DDT+DDE+DDD 25315 23 0.66 U 0.675 U 0.444 U 0.435 U 0.447 U 0.432 U 0.456 U 0.444 U 0.648 U 0.66 U 0.675 U 0.627 U 0.702 U 0.702 U 0.66 U 0.453 U 0.663 U 0.651 U 0.597 U 0.453 U 0.441 U 0.573 U 0.576 U 0.459 U 0.438 U 0.462 U 0.444 U 0.579 U 0.453 U 0.591 U 0.45 UTechnical Chlordane 32 0.69 11 U 11.3 U 7.42 U 7.26 U 7.47 U 7.18 U 7.62 U 7.62 U 10.8 U 11 U 11.2 U 10.5 U 11.7 U 11.7 U 11 U 7.55 U 11 U 10.8 U 9.93 U 7.56 U 7.37 U 9.55 U 9.58 U 7.66 U 7.33 U 7.68 U 7.43 U 9.65 U 7.55 U 9.87 U 7.48 UDieldrin N/A 391 0.22 U 0.225 U 0.148 U 0.145 U 0.149 U 0.144 U 0.152 U 0.148 U 0.216 U 0.22 U 0.225 U 0.209 U 0.234 U 0.234 U 0.22 U 0.151 U 0.221 U 0.217 U 0.199 U 0.151 U 0.147 U 0.191 U 0.192 U 0.153 U 0.146 U 0.154 U 0.148 U 0.193 U 0.151 U 0.197 U 0.15 UMirex N/A 16 0.22 U 0.225 U 0.148 U 0.145 U 0.149 U 0.144 U 0.152 U 0.148 U 0.216 U 0.22 U 0.225 U 0.209 U 0.234 U 0.234 U 0.22 U 0.151 U 0.221 U 0.217 U 0.199 U 0.151 U 0.147 U 0.191 U 0.192 U 0.153 U 0.146 U 0.154 U 0.148 U 0.193 U 0.151 U 0.197 U 0.15 UAroclor 1016 63537 444 9.45 U 8.9 U 6.01 U 5.97 U 5.98 U 5.86 U 5.97 U 6.08 U 7.76 U 7.61 U 7.49 U 7.25 U 5.79 U 7.62 U 7.1 U 5.98 U 8.51 U 9.43 U 8.22 U 6.28 U 6.09 U 7.87 U 7.71 U 6.21 U 5.88 U 6.14 U 6.06 U 7.78 U 6 U 7.7 U 6.13 UAroclor 1221 63537 444 9.45 U 8.9 U 6.01 U 5.97 U 5.98 U 5.86 U 5.97 U 6.08 U 7.76 U 7.61 U 7.49 U 7.25 U 5.79 U 7.62 U 7.1 U 5.98 U 8.51 U 9.43 U 8.22 U 6.28 U 6.09 U 7.87 U 7.71 U 6.21 U 5.88 U 6.14 U 6.06 U 7.78 U 6 U 7.7 U 6.13 UAroclor 1232 63537 444 9.45 U 8.9 U 6.01 U 5.97 U 5.98 U 5.86 U 5.97 U 6.08 U 7.76 U 7.61 U 7.49 U 7.25 U 5.79 U 7.62 U 7.1 U 5.98 U 8.51 U 9.43 U 8.22 U 6.28 U 6.09 U 7.87 U 7.71 U 6.21 U 5.88 U 6.14 U 6.06 U 7.78 U 6 U 7.7 U 6.13 UAroclor 1242 63537 444 9.45 U 8.9 U 6.01 U 5.97 U 5.98 U 5.86 U 5.97 U 6.08 U 7.76 U 7.61 U 7.49 U 7.25 U 5.79 U 7.62 U 7.1 U 5.98 U 8.51 U 9.43 U 8.22 U 6.28 U 6.09 U 7.87 U 7.71 U 6.21 U 5.88 U 6.14 U 6.06 U 7.78 U 6 U 7.7 U 6.13 UAroclor 1248 63537 444 9.45 U 8.9 U 6.01 U 5.97 U 5.98 U 5.86 U 5.97 U 6.08 U 7.76 U 7.61 U 7.49 U 7.25 U 5.79 U 7.62 U 7.1 U 5.98 U 8.51 U 9.43 U 8.22 U 6.28 U 6.09 U 7.87 U 7.71 U 6.21 U 5.88 U 6.14 U 6.06 U 7.78 U 6 U 7.7 U 6.13 UAroclor 1254 63537 444 9.45 U 8.9 U 6.01 U 5.97 U 5.98 U 5.86 U 5.97 U 6.08 U 7.76 U 7.61 U 7.49 U 7.25 U 5.79 U 7.62 U 7.1 U 5.98 U 8.51 U 9.43 U 8.22 U 6.28 U 6.09 U 7.87 U 7.71 U 6.21 U 5.88 U 6.14 U 6.06 U 7.78 U 6 U 7.7 U 6.13 UAroclor 1260 63537 444 9.45 U 8.9 U 6.01 U 5.97 U 5.98 U 5.86 U 5.97 U 6.08 U 7.76 U 7.61 U 7.49 U 7.25 U 5.79 U 7.62 U 7.1 U 5.98 U 8.51 U 9.43 U 8.22 U 6.28 U 6.09 U 7.87 U 7.71 U 6.21 U 5.88 U 6.14 U 6.06 U 7.78 U 6 U 7.7 U 6.13 UTotal Aroclor 63537 444 66.2 U 62.3 U 42.1 U 41.8 U 41.9 U 41.0 U 41.8 U 42.6 U 54.32 U 53.27 U 52.43 U 50.75 U 40.53 U 53.34 U 49.7 U 41.86 U 59.57 U 66.01 U 57.54 U 21.98 U 21.315 U 27.545 U 26.985 U 21.735 U 20.58 U 21.49 U 21.21 U 27.23 U 21 U 26.95 U 21.455 UArsenic 6 6 2.41 2.64 1.79 1.41 2.18 2.57 1.83 1.84 2.38 3.04 2.18 2.67 1.85 3.88 2.64 1.59 1.84 3.14 2.98 0.952 1.04 1.04 1.68 0.749 0.795 1.13 1.59 0.804 0.831 0.868 1.9 

Cadmium 0.6 0.6 0.067 0.04 U 0.041 U 0.041 U 0.041 U 0.041 U 0.046 0.04 U 0.039 U 0.04 U 0.04 U 0.038 U 0.041 U 0.039 U 0.038 U 0.042 U 0.039 U 0.048 0.038 U 0.121 0.041 U 0.041 U 0.04 U 0.041 U 0.04 U 0.042 U 0.041 U 0.041 U 0.04 U 0.083 0.039 UCopper 16 16 1.47 1.87 1.49 1.3 1.17 2.05 1.58 1.53 1.37 1.28 1.42 4.09 7.2 1.55 2.69 1.03 1.08 3.16 2.21 0.847 0.714 0.913 0.986 0.646 0.81 0.812 1.84 1.33 0.604 3.38 2.04 Lead 31 31 3.83 1.81 1.9 1.91 2.69 2.07 2.2 2.06 3.04 1.71 1.88 2.3 9.2 3.42 1.95 2.66 1.71 1.89 1.53 2.36 1.54 1.47 1.55 2.1 1.06 1.61 1.36 1.92 1.14 1.3 2.13 Mercury 0.15 0.15 0.015 U 0.015 U 0.015 U 0.015 U 0.015 U 0.015 U 0.016 U 0.015 U 0.015 U 0.015 U 0.015 U 0.014 U 0.026 0.015 U 0.015 U 0.015 U 0.015 U 0.015 U 0.014 U 0.016 U 0.015 U 0.015 U 0.015 U 0.016 U 0.015 U 0.015 U 0.015 U 0.015 U 0.015 U 0.015 U 0.016 U% Moisture N/A N/A 20.0% 18.6% 20.3% 20.4% 20.3% 20.0% 22.6% 20.8% 17.4% 16.8% 18.7% 14.3% 21.0% 19.3% 16.2% 20.8% 16.2% 19.2% 12.3% 22.6% 20.6% 18.8% 19.3% 22.0% 20.1% 23.6% 21.0% 19.7% 21.7% 19.5% 20.7%

(1) - NYSDEC Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments Benthic Aquatic Life Acute Toxicity(2) - NYSDEC Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments Benthic Aquatic Life Chronic ToxicityKey:mg/Kg = Milligrams per kilogram.μg/Kg = Micrograms per kilogram.

Volatiles by 8260B (mg/kg)Semivolatiles by 8270D (mg/kg)Pesticides by 8081A (mg/kg)PCBs by 8082 (mg/kg)Metals by 6010B (mg/kg)

U = Not detected at the reported value.

 02:000891_ZW44_01-B2878Table 2-2 Summary of Positive Analytical Results for Sediment Analysis July 2009.xls-9/15/2009

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
2. Sediment Sampling Results 

02:000891_ZW44_01-B28782 2-5 Public

Rockaway Sampling Report.doc-9/15/2009 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 

All of the VOCs examined in the sediment analysis were found at levels below the 

minimum detectable quantity (MDQ). As such, it was determined that there are 

no VOCs in sediment that propose a potential hazard within the Project area. 

Dioxin 

No dioxin analysis was performed due to the sandy composition of the sediments 

within the Project area. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
02:000891_ZW44_01-B28782 3-1 Public

Rockaway Sampling Report.doc-9/15/2009 

Water Quality Sampling Results 

The water quality of the Lower New York Bay is influenced by many physical 

factors, including physicochemical inputs and geographic characteristics. Water 

quality sampling was performed to obtain data regarding background conditions in 

the water column. The data were then compared to known water quality values 

for the Lower New York Bay, including parameters for physical, chemical, and 

biological components of the water column. Water quality sampling locations 

were collocated with the eight sediment sampling locations (see Figure 1-2), and 

collected during the same field effort. Water quality samples were collected from 

three different depths at each location (bottom, middle, and surface) to evaluate 

the physical quality of the water in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline route. 

The results for each sampling group (physical, chemical, and biological) are 

summarized below. 

3.1 Physical Parameters of Water Quality 

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 

In the last few decades, the Lower New York Bay has experienced a favorable increase in the levels of dissolved oxygen. This can be attributed to various efforts 

to improve water quality through more stringent regulations on municipal and industrial discharges (O’Shea and Brosnan, 2000). Recent DO levels, as reported in 

the 2008 New York Harbor Water Quality Report, have illustrated averages between 7.80 mg/L in bottom waters to 8.30 mg/L in surface waters (NYCDEP 

2008). Results of the data collected during this field effort confirmed DO levels 

in the survey area within this range and higher (mean = 8.40 mg/L; range = 7.90 to 

9.10 mg/L). 

Temperature 

The average temperature for water quality samples collected along the proposed 

pipeline was 18.90oC ± 0.05 oC. The water quality samples exhibited a range in 

temperature from 18.14oC to 18.95 oC. 

Turbidity 

An analysis of turbidity, as well as total suspended solids (TSS), indicated minimal variation in these measurements along the pipeline route. The average turbid3

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3. Water Quality Sampling Results 

02:000891_ZW44_01-B28782 3-2 Public

Rockaway Sampling Report.doc-9/15/2009 

ity measurement across all sampling locations (including all three sampling 

depths) was 2.5 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU), with a range of 1.9 NTU 

to 3.4 NTU. TSS values in the Project area ranged from 8.00 mg/L to 83.00 

mg/L, with an average of 47.58 mg/L ± 14.70 mg/L. 

pH 

Data for pH was collected in conjunction with other water quality parameters using a Whale submersible pump along the proposed pipeline route. Analyses of the 

samples across all sampling locations and depths resulted in an average pH value 

of 8.24 ± 0.166, with a minimum of 7.60 and a maximum of 7.94. These values 

fall within typical pH levels in the area. 

3.2 Chemical and Biological Water Quality 

Chemical and biological water quality samples were collected in 1-liter volumes 

from each of the discrete depths at the eight sampling locations, with the exception of biological oxygen demand (BOD) samples, which were collected in 250-

milliliter amber glass bottles to protect the integrity of the samples until analysis. 

Samples were sent to the laboratory on the same day as sample collection due to 

short holding times between collection and analysis. A summary of the water 

quality analyses performed is presented in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. The water quality 

sample results are presented in Table 3-3 and discussed below. The complete analytical results are presented in Appendix B. 

Table 3-1 Summary of Water Sample Analyses - Biological 

Test Description 

EPA Method 

Number 

Number of 

Samples Collected

Total Suspended Solids EPA 160.2 24 

Colloidal/Settleable Solids EPA 160.5 24 

Fecal Coliform Bacteria SM4221C 24 

Total Coliform Bacteria SM4221B 24 

Biological oxygen demand SM5210B 24 

Table 3-2 Summary of Water Sample Analyses – Chemical 

Test Description 

EPA Method 

Number 

Number of 

Samples Collected

Ammonia (as N) EPA 350.3 24 

Chlorides EPA 300 24 

Total Organic Nitrogen SM4500-NC 24 

Total Phosphorus EPA 365.3 24 

Chemical Oxygen Demand EPA 410.1 24 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Table 3-3 Summary of Positive Analytical Results for Water Quality Samples, July 2009

Analyte Units

Screening

Criteria (1)

Sample

ID: 01-DB-1W 01-DM-1W 01-DS-1W 02-DB-2W 02-DM-2W 02-DS-2W 03-DB-3W 03-DM-3W 03-DS-3W 04-DB-4W 04-DM-4W 04-DS-4W 05-DB-5W 05-DM-5W 05-DS-5W 06-DB-6W 06-DM-6W 06-DS-6W 07-DB-7W 07-DM-7W 07-DS-7W 08-DB-7W 08-DM-7W 08-DS-7W

Anions (mg/L)

Chloride mg/L NA 16500 16500 16000 16400 16200 16700 16300 16500 1600 16900 16500 16500 16000 15900 16000 16300 16400 16000 16400 16200 16500 16200 16300 16600General Analytical (mg/L)Ammonia-N mg/L NA 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/L NA 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 666666 66666 6 6Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/L NA * * * * * * * * * * * ****** ***** * *Fecal Coliform organisms per 

100 mL

NA 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Settleable Solids mg/L NA 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1T. Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L as N NA 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50Total Coliform organisms per 

100 mL

NA 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Total Organic Nitrogen mg/L NA 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50Total Phosphorous mg/L as P NA 0.10 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10Total Suspended Solids mg/L NA 59 47 58 75 50 41 83 45 67 44 34 46 47 51 35 8 49 42 36 44 50 46 50 35

(1) - NYSDEC Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments Benthic Aquatic Life Acute Toxicity* Matrix interference due to high chloride content. No value provided.Key:mg/L = Milligrams per liter.

 02:000891_ZW44_01-B2878Table 3-3 Summary of Positive Analytical Results for Water Quality Samples.xls-9/15/2009

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
3. Water Quality Sampling Results 

02:000891_ZW44_01-B28782 3-5 Public

Rockaway Sampling Report.doc-9/15/2009 

Biological Parameters 

Biological parameters are often evaluated to determine the baseline water quality 

of a given water body, since parameters such as biological oxygen demand (BOD) 

and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) may be affected by negative inputs such as raw 

sewage and other waste products. Water samples were collected and tested for the 

biological parameters identified in Table 3-1. The results for TSS, BOD, and colloidal/settleable solids all fell within the normal range for water quality. 

In order to evaluate bacteria levels along the proposed pipeline route that may be 

indicative of increased sewage inputs or elevated nutrient inputs, Transco collected water quality samples for fecal coliforms and total coliform bacteria during 

the field effort. The results of the analyses indicated very low levels of fecal coliforms and total coliform units. Every sample had a level of 10 coliform units per 

100 mL, except for one (20 coliform units per 100 mL), well below the NYCDEP 

standard of 2400 coliform units per 100 mL. The results of the laboratory analyses are presented in Appendix B. 

Chemical Parameters 

Chemical parameters also are evaluated to determine the baseline water quality of 

a given water body, since parameters such as total phosphorus and nitrogen are 

often affected by negative inputs such as municipal runoff. Water samples were 

collected and tested for the chemical parameters identified in Table 3-2. The results of the chemical water quality analysis confirm that the water quality parameters along the proposed pipeline route fall in the range of the natural conditions 

present in the Lower New York Bay. Water quality in this area is generally not 

impacted by contaminant inputs from the surrounding coastlines. 

The complete analytical results for all water quality samples are provided in Appendix B. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
02:000891_ZW44_01-B28782 4-1 Public

Rockaway Sampling Report.doc-9/15/2009 

Benthic Community Analysis 

As part of the field effort, a site-specific baseline benthic survey was conducted 

with the purpose of ascertaining the health of the existing benthic community 

along the proposed pipeline route and, in combination with the sediment chemical 

analysis, to assess the overall quality and potential impact from sediment disturbance during pipeline installation. Benthic community samples were collected at 

the 8 sediment and water quality stations along the proposed pipeline route using a 

Smith-MacIntyre grab sampler (see Figure 4-1). At each location, triplicate samples were collected with one located on the proposed pipeline centerline and two 

offset perpendicular to the centerline at a distance of approximately 200 feet. , 

Drop camera video was also collected at each sampling location for qualitative 

analysis of the benthic community. A remote operated vehicle (ROV) video investigation was also conducted to qualitatively analyze the benthic and epibenthic 

communities associated with targets identified through geophysical investigations. 

Generally, the sediment type within the survey area is primarily sand with small 

amounts (less than 10%) of silt and clay. The benthic communities in the survey 

area are dominated by several burrowing polychaetes, amphipod and decapod 

crustaceans, and one bivalve species. For most samples, three species, the Atlantic surfclam (Spisula solidissima), the amphipod Rhepoxynius epistomus, and the 

polychaete Nephtys incise, comprised over 50% of the total individuals identified. 

Video observations identified egg casings of the gastropod Lunatia sp. on the substrate surface at most of the sampling stations. The greatest differences in species’ composition were observed for stations close to shore (dominated by amphipods) versus those in deeper offshore waters (dominated by polychaetes and bivalves) (Table 4-1). Pagurid (hermit) crabs and floating algae were also observed, 

but are not considered in this evaluation of benthic communities. A complete list 

of the taxa collected at each station is provided in Appendix D, Benthic Identification Spreadsheets. 

Diversity was assessed using Shannon’s Diversity Index (H1

) at each station based 

on triplicate samples (see Figure 4-1). Diversity estimates were higher for samples further from the shoreline than those close to the shoreline (see Figure 4-1). 

4

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Measurement B1W B1C B1E Station 1 Average

Depth (ft) 39.8 39.5 40.9 40.1

Total # of Organisms Identified 29 50 110 63

Taxa Richness 12 15 19 15

Diversity (H1

) 2.22 2.06 2.29 2.19

Evenness 2.06 1.75 1.79 1.87

Notes:

dominanat species = at least 50% of sample when totaled

Paraonis sp., Nephtys incisa, Spisula solidissima, Oligochaeta

Measurement B2W B2C B2E Station 2 Average

Depth (ft) 38.4 38.3 38.4 38.4

Total # of Organisms Identified 87 121 62 90

Taxa Richness 14 17 14 15

Diversity (H1

) 2.19 1.92 2.33 2.19

Evenness 1.91 1.56 2.03 1.84

Notes:

dominanat species = at least 50% of sample when totaled

Nephtys incisa, Spisula solidissima, Rhepoxynius epistomus

Measurement B3W B3C B3E Station 3 Average

Depth (ft) 37.3 37.9 37.3 37.5

Total # of Organisms Identified 141 137 127 135

Taxa Richness 16 18 17 17

Diversity (H1

) 2.37 2.18 1.90 2.15

Evenness 1.93 1.74 1.58 1.75

Notes:

dominanat species = at least 50% of sample when totaled

Nephtys incisa, Spisula solidissima, Rhepoxynius epistomus

Measurement B4W B4C B4E Station 4 Average

Depth (ft) 35.6 37.1 35.9 36.2

Total # of Organisms Identified 119 109 113 114

Taxa Richness 20 14 15 16

Diversity (H1

) 2.06 1.88 2.35 2.10

Evenness 1.75 1.64 1.81 1.73

Notes:

dominanat species = at least 50% of sample when totaled

Spisula solidissima, Rhepoxynius epistomus, Nephtys incisa

Measurement B5W B5C B5E Station 5 Average

Depth (ft) 33.4 34.2 33.5 33.7

Total # of Organisms Identified 225 167 158 183

Taxa Richness 17 18 18 18

Diversity (H1

) 2.38 2.34 2.41 2.38

Evenness 1.93 1.86 1.92 1.91

Notes:

dominanat species = at least 50% of sample when totaled

Paraonis sp., Spisula solidissima, Tharyx sp., Oligochaeta

Table 4-1 Benthic Data Results Summary for Proposed Pipeline Route, July 2009

 02:000891_ZW44_01-B2878

Table 4-1 Summary of Benthics.xls-9/15/2009

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Table 4-1 Benthic Data Results Summary for Proposed Pipeline Route, July 2009

Measurement B6W B6C B6E Station 6 Average

Depth (ft) 36.4 27.7 27.6 30.6

Total # of Organisms Identified 208 226 218 217

Taxa Richness 19 17 19 18

Diversity (H1

) 1.74 1.78 2.01 1.84

Evenness 1.36 1.45 1.57 1.46

Notes:

dominanat species = at least 50% of sample when totaled

Rhepoxynius epistomus, Tharyx sp.

Measurement B7W B7C B7E Station 7 Average

Depth (ft) 25.2 25.1 25.4 25.2

Total # of Organisms Identified 123 143 160 142

Taxa Richness 9 6 11 9

Diversity (H1

) 1.23 0.42 1.30 0.98

Evenness 1.29 0.54 1.25 1.03

Notes:

dominanat species = at least 50% of sample when totaled

Rhepoxynius epistomus

Measurement B8W B8C B8E Station 8 Average

Depth (ft) 21.9 21.9 21.8 21.9

Total # of Organisms Identified 143 171 201 172

Taxa Richness 8 13 11 11

Diversity (H1

) 0.74 1.41 1.21 1.12

Evenness 0.82 1.27 1.16 1.08

Notes:

dominanat species = at least 50% of sample when totaled

Rhepoxynius epistomus

 02:000891_ZW44_01-B2878

Table 4-1 Summary of Benthics.xls-9/15/2009

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4. Benthic Community Analysis 

02:000891_ZW44_01-B28782 4-4 Public

Rockaway Sampling Report.doc-9/15/2009 

Inshore samples (Stations B-7 and B-8) had lower diversity estimates (H1 = 1.05 ± 

0.39) compared to those further offshore (Stations B-1 through B-6; H1

 = 2.13 ± 

0.22). Diversity estimates did not appear to be affected by sediment type, as all 

stations had similar compositions of sand, silt and clay. Diversity appeared to be 

correlated with the depth at each collected sample, as locations in deeper areas 

had higher diversity estimates than those in shallower areas. 

Based on the data collected, two general benthic communities were identified in 

the Project area (see Figure 4-2): a Nearshore Community and an Offshore Community. In addition, a third, epibenthic, community, the Anthropogenic Deposit 

Community, was identified during ROV investigations of 19 potential hard bottom sites identified during geophysical surveys of the Project Area (see Figure 

4-3). While no grab samples were collected at these sites, a qualitative assessment of the benthic community based on the ROV video is provided below. 

4.1 Nearshore Community 

(Stations B-7 and B-8) 

A distinct soft bottom community was found at stations located closest to the 

shoreline (Figure 4-2). Bottom substrates in these areas are comprised of mostly 

fine and medium sands (greater than 92% composition) at depths between 22 and 

26 feet. The benthic samples collected at these sites were dominated by the polychaete Nephtys incisa and the amphipod Rhepoxynius epistomus. While the 

abundance (total individual count) at these stations was higher than the offshore 

community, richness and evenness were lower. This was due to the large percentage of R. epistomus in these areas. This resulted in relatively low diversity values 

for these stations. The lower diversity may be a result of the intense wave action 

closer to shore or direct anthropogenic use (i.e. swimming) precluding the establishment of sedimentary benthic taxa typically observed in offshore areas. 

4.2 Offshore Community 

(Station B-1, B-2, B3, B-4, B-5, and B-6) 

A second community was identified at stations further from the shoreline at 

depths of greater than 30 feet (Figure 4-2). The bottom sediment observed in grab 

samples (and confirmed by video) is similar to that of the nearshore community, 

being composed of over 90% medium and fine sands with small pieces of shell 

material and Lunatia egg casings. The major difference between the nearshore 

and offshore communities is taxa diversity. Dominant taxa collected in the offshore samples include the Atlantic surfclam, R. epistomus, oligochaetes, and the 

polycheates N. incisa, Paraonis sp. and Tharyx sp. Generally, the diversity in the 

offshore community was higher than the nearshore community, likely a result of 

the depth of these areas precluding them from the impacts of wave activity. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

-30

-40

-40

-40

-10

-10

-10

-20

-20

-20

-20

-20

-30

-30

-30

-30

-30

-30

© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #

L:\Buffalo\NorthEast_Supply\Maps\MXDs\RockawayLateral_Sept2009\figures\Fig4-1_sample_points_shannon.mxd 10/10/2009

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Figure 4-1

Shannon's Index

Benthic Sampling Locations

Summer 2009 Field Survey

Legend

Sample Points

Shannon's Index

less than 1

1 - 1.5

1.5 - 2.0

greater than 2

sonar targets

Proposed Pipeline

Survey Area

Bathymetric contours

shoreline

Overview

Long Island Jamaica Bay

Existing 26" Lower 

NY Bay Lateral

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
B7

B8

-30

-40

-40

-40

-10

-10

-10

-20

-20

-20

-20

-20

-30

-30

-30

-30

-30

-30

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #

L:\Buffalo\NorthEast_Supply\Maps\MXDs\RockawayLateral_Sept2009\figures\Fig4-2_benthic_community.mxd 09/11/2009

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Figure 4-2

Benthic Communities in Project Area

Summer 2009 Field Survey

Legend

Near Shore

Off Shore

sonar targets

Proposed Pipeline

Survey Area

Bathymetric contours

shoreline

Overview

Long Island Jamaica Bay

Existing 26" Lower 

NY Bay Lateral

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4. Benthic Community Analysis 

02:000891_ZW44_01-B28782 4-11 Public

Rockaway Sampling Report.doc-9/15/2009 

Station B-6 appears to represent the transitional area between offshore and nearshore communities. Here, species diversity is lower than the other five offshore 

stations but higher than the two nearshore stations. A shift in overall composition 

can be seen at this station, as the proportion of polychaetes, oligochaetes, and bivalves have a marked drop in abundance between station B-7 and B-6. In contrast, the total number of crustaceans shows a marked increase between station B6 and B-5, primarily due to the large abundance of R. epistomus. 

4.3 Anthropogenic Debris Epibenthic Community 

(ROV Hard bottom investigation sites 1-19) 

In addition to the two benthic communities identified along the proposed pipeline 

route, a third community was identified. Based on geophysical investigations 

(side-scan sonar), 344 targets are distributed throughout the survey area, all of 

which are associated with anthropogenic debris (see Figure 4-1). A remote operated vehicle (ROV) video investigation of a subsample of these targets (19 sites) 

revealed that the majority of this debris consists of rock and/or concrete rubble; 

steel or concrete pipes; cables and rebar; and other construction debris (see Figure 

4-3). The majority of this debris is concentrated in the vicinity of a mapped, stateconstructed fish haven. Development of the area, as proposed by the New York 

State Department of Conservation in 1964, commenced in 1967 and consisted of 

rock, rubble, and concrete structures. The goal of the haven was to attract bottomfeeding fish by simulating an uneven bottom, thus stimulating the growth of 

epibenthic marine organisms. While the mapped extent of the fish haven falls 

outside the survey to the east, the concentration of debris near the mapped boundary suggests that the haven extends further to the west. The ROV video was used 

to qualitatively analyze the marine community inhabiting these structures, including both sessile and motile species, and to determine whether the area of the 

mapped fish haven extended partially into the survey area. 

A qualitative review of the video revealed a variety of organisms living on and 

around the debris. A number of sessile organisms were found encrusting these 

materials, including ascidians (sea squirts), sea stars, cnidarians (coral and hydroids), and poriferans (orange sponges). Lunatia sp. egg casings were also observed near many of these sites. Numerous fish species were observed utilizing 

these sites, indicating that the goals of the artificial fish haven (providing habitat 

and stimulating marine growth) have been at least partially met. 

Except for sites 1 and 9, all ROV surveyed sites were dominated by a white cnidarian species. Because of the lack of confirmation of actual species colonizing 

the debris piles, a second survey was conducted by Dr. Bradley Peterson of the 

Stony Brook University Marine Sciences Research Center to determined whether 

the cnidarian species was a hydroid or the Northern star coral, Astrangia poculata. 

The dive survey conducted by Dr. Peterson, identified A. poculata as being present in large abundance on a selected sonar target determined to be representative 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
4. Benthic Community Analysis 

02:000891_ZW44_01-B28782 4-12 Public

Rockaway Sampling Report.doc-9/15/2009 

of the debris scattered through the project area. Based on the similarity among all 

of the ROV investigated sites, it was speculated that A. poculata was the dominate 

cniderian species present at the other ROV surveyed sites. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
02:000891_ZW44_01-B28782 5-1 Public

Rockaway Sampling Report.doc-9/15/2009 

Drop Camera Video 

A video of the bottom was obtained for the 24 triplicate sampling locations indicated on Figure 4-1 and analyzed to supplement the benthic sampling data. To 

collect videos of the bottom, a drop camera was lowered to the depth specified for 

the specific sample location by the fathometer on the survey vessel. The drop 

camera was allowed to stabilize in the water column until it remained steady 

enough to obtain a good image. An onboard monitor was used to ensure that the 

camera was steady and to make initial observations of the benthic community. 

Once the image was steady, a slow trawl across the bottom captured the bottom 

video for that location. A CD containing the drop camera video is provided in 

Appendix D. 

Underwater video observations are best used to supplement existing benthic data. 

Due to the camera movement, shadows, camera magnification, and video quality, 

it is often difficult to confirm species identification and to determine abundances 

using only video observations. Specific observations resulting from the analysis 

of the videos has been incorporated into the discussions in Section 4. 

5

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
02:000891_ZW44_01-B28782 6-1 Public

Rockaway Sampling Report.doc-9/15/2009 

References 

O’Shea, M.L. and T.M. Brosnan. 2000. Trends in Indicators of Eutrophication in 

Western Long Island Sound and the Hudson-Raritan Estuary. Estuaries. 

23(6): 877-901. 

PBS&J. 2009. Shallow Hazard Survey for the Rockaway Delivery Point Project, 

Queens County, New York. Prepared for Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 

Company, LLC. August 2009. 

6

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
The appendices/attachments to this document are available for viewing on 

the FERC website (http://www.ferc.gov). Using the “eLibrary” link, select 

“General Search” from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range 

and Docket No. CP13-36 (Transco’s application), and follow the 

instructions. For assistance, please call 1-866-208-3676, or e-mail 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX N

REQUEST FOR INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

UNDER THE MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC 

Request for an Incidental Harassment Authorization 

Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act

Rockaway Delivery Lateral Offshore Pipeline Route

March 2013

Updated May 2013

Submitted to:

National Marine Fisheries Service

Office of Protected Resources

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

iii

Table of Contents

1.0 Description of the Activity .................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Proposed Introduction.............................................................................1-1

1.2 Project Purpose and Need......................................................................1-2

1.3 Project Setting and Location...................................................................1-6

1.4 Specific Project Activities......................................................................1-11

1.5 Noise-Producing Project Elements .......................................................1-14

1.5.1 Vibratory Hammer Installation and Removal ......................................1-16

1.5.2 Vessel Operations..............................................................................1-17

1.6 Sound Levels ........................................................................................1-18

1.6.1 Reference Vibratory Sound Source Levels ........................................1-18

1.6.2 Background Noise..............................................................................1-19

1.6.3 Underwater Transmission Loss..........................................................1-20

1.6.4 Attenuation to NOAA Fisheries Service Thresholds ...........................1-21

2.0 Dates, Duration, and Region of Activity ............................................................. 2-1

2.1 Dates ......................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Duration ..................................................................................................2-1

2.3 Region of Activity ....................................................................................2-2

3.0 Species and Numbers of Marine Mammals....................................................... 3-1

3.1 Species Present......................................................................................3-1

3.2 Pinnipeds................................................................................................3-2

3.2.1 Gray Seal.............................................................................................3-2

3.2.1.1 Numbers................................................................................3-3

3.2.1.2 Status....................................................................................3-4

3.2.1.3 Distribution ............................................................................3-5

3.2.2 Harbor Seal..........................................................................................3-5

3.2.2.1 Numbers................................................................................3-6

3.2.2.2 Status....................................................................................3-7

3.2.2.3 Distribution ............................................................................3-7

3.2.3 Harp Seal.............................................................................................3-8

3.2.3.1 Numbers................................................................................3-9

3.2.3.2 Status....................................................................................3-9

3.2.3.3 Distribution ..........................................................................3-10

3.3 Cetaceans.............................................................................................3-10

3.3.1 Humpback Whale...............................................................................3-11

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

iv

3.3.1.1 Numbers..............................................................................3-12

3.3.1.2 Status..................................................................................3-13

3.3.1.3 Distribution ..........................................................................3-13

3.3.2 Fin Whale...........................................................................................3-14

3.3.2.1 Numbers..............................................................................3-14

3.3.2.2 Status..................................................................................3-15

3.3.2.3 Distribution ..........................................................................3-15

3.3.3 Minke Whale ......................................................................................3-16

3.3.3.1 Numbers..............................................................................3-17

3.3.3.2 Status..................................................................................3-17

3.3.3.3 Distribution ..........................................................................3-18

3.3.4 North Atlantic Right Whale .................................................................3-18

3.3.4.1 Numbers..............................................................................3-19

3.3.4.2 Status..................................................................................3-20

3.3.4.3 Distribution ..........................................................................3-20

3.3.5 Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin..............................................................3-21

3.3.5.1 Numbers..............................................................................3-22

3.3.5.2 Status..................................................................................3-22

3.3.5.3 Distribution ..........................................................................3-25

3.3.6 Bottlenose Dolphin.............................................................................3-25

3.3.6.1 Numbers..............................................................................3-26

3.3.6.2 Status..................................................................................3-27

3.3.6.3 Distribution ..........................................................................3-27

3.3.7 Harbor Porpoise.................................................................................3-28

3.3.7.1 Numbers..............................................................................3-28

3.3.7.2 Status..................................................................................3-29

3.3.7.3 Distribution ..........................................................................3-29

3.3.8 Short-Beaked Common Dolphin.........................................................3-30

3.3.8.1 Numbers..............................................................................3-31

3.3.8.2 Status..................................................................................3-31

3.3.8.3 Distribution ..........................................................................3-31

3.3.9 Short-Finned Pilot Whale ...................................................................3-32

3.3.9.1 Numbers..............................................................................3-33

3.3.9.2 Status..................................................................................3-33

3.3.9.3 Distribution ..........................................................................3-34

3.3.10 Long-Finned Pilot Whale....................................................................3-34

3.3.10.1 Numbers..............................................................................3-35

3.3.10.2 Status..................................................................................3-35

3.3.10.3 Distribution ..........................................................................3-36

4.0 Affected Species Status and Distribution........................................................... 4-1

5.0 Type of Incidental Take Authorization Requested ............................................. 5-1

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

v 

6.0 Number of Marine Mammals that May be Affected............................................ 6-1

6.1 Estimated Duration of Pile Driving ..........................................................6-1

6.2 Estimated Zone of Influence ...................................................................6-2

6.3 Method of Estimated Incidental Takes Requested..................................6-2

6.4 Number of Take for Which Authorization is Requested ..........................6-8

7.0 Anticipated Impact on Species or Stocks .......................................................... 7-1

8.0 Anticipated Impact on Subsistence.................................................................... 8-1

9.0 Anticipated Impacts on Habitat.......................................................................... 9-1

9.1 Introduction.............................................................................................9-1

9.2 In-Air Disturbance of Haul-outs...............................................................9-1

9.3 Underwater Noise Disturbance ...............................................................9-1

9.4 Turbidity and Water Quality Impacts.......................................................9-4

9.5 Conclusions Regarding Impacts on Habitat............................................9-7

10.0 Anticipated Impacts of Loss or Modification of Habitat .................................... 10-1

11.0 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................ 11-1

11.1 Pile Driving............................................................................................11-1

11.2 Transiting Vessels ................................................................................11-2

11.3 Construction Activities...........................................................................11-3

12.0 Arctic Plan of Cooperation............................................................................... 12-1

13.0 Monitoring and Reporting Plans ...................................................................... 13-1

13.1 Monitoring Plan.....................................................................................13-1

13.2 Reporting Plan......................................................................................13-2

14.0 Coordinating Research to Reduce and Evaluate Incidental Take.................... 14-1

15.0 Literature Cited................................................................................................ 15-1

Appendix A Protected Species Vessel Strike Avoidance ............................................A-1

Appendix B Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan .............................B-1

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

Page vi

List of Tables

Table 1 Offshore Pipeline Segment Lengths..................................................................1-6

Table 2 In-Water Construction Schedule .....................................................................1-13

Table 3 Vessels Associated with the Project................................................................1-17

Table 4 Expected Pile-Driving Source Levels (Average Sound Pressure)....................1-19

Table 5 Calculated In-Water Noise Zones Based on Expected Vibratory PileDriving Source Levels (Average Sound Pressure) ..........................................1-22

Table 6 Estimated Pile Installation and Removal by Vibratory Hammer.........................2-2

Table 7 Marine Mammal Species Potentially in the Region of Rockaway 

Peninsula..........................................................................................................3-1

Table 8 Single-day Counts of Gray Seal Pups Observed at Muskeget Island, Seal 

Island, and Green Island...................................................................................3-4

Table 9 Estimated Marine Mammal Densities for the Continental Shelf Portion of 

the Mid-Atlantic Region and the Numbers of Marine Mammals at Potential 

Risk of “Take” by Harassment...........................................................................6-8

Table 10 Estimated Marine Mammal, Numbers of Marine Mammals at Potential 

Risk of “Take” by Harassment, and Percent of Stock Potentially Affected.........7-1

List of Figures

Figure 1 Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project Area ...........................................................1-3

Figure 2 Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project Location Map..............................................1-5

Figure 3 Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project Action Area (1 of 2) ....................................1-7

Figure 4 Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project Action Area (2 of 2) ....................................1-9

Figure 5 Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project, Pipeline Construction Sequence..............1-13

Figure 6 Typical Vibratory Hammer...............................................................................1-14

Figure 7 Clamshell Dredge ...........................................................................................1-15

Figure 8 Typical Jet-Sled ..............................................................................................1-15

Figure 9 Rockaway Delivery Later Project, Right Whale Seasonal Management 

Area................................................................................................................3-23

Figure 10 Navy Northeast OPAREA Spatial Strata ...........................................................6-3

Figure 11 Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project 120 dB Zone of Influence to be 

Monitored for Level B Acoustical Harassment.................................................13-3

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

vii

List of Acronyms

μ micro

AEP auditory evoked potential

CeTAP Cetaceans and Turtle Assessment Program

dB decibel

DGPS differential global positioning system

DON (U.S.) Department of the Navy

DP dynamic positioning

DSM density surface model

DSV diving support vessel

ECMON ecosystem monitoring program

EEZ exclusive economic zone

ESA Endangered Species Act

FHWG Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group 

GNRA Gateway National Recreation Area

HDD horizontal directional drilling

Hz hertz

ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Seas

IHA Incidental Harassment Authorization 

LNYBL Lower New York Bay Lateral 

M&R meter and regulating

MARMAP marine resources monitoring, assessment, and prediction

MDth/d thousand dekatherms per day

mg/L milligrams per liter

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

Page viii

NEFSC Northeast Fisheries Science Center

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NODE Navy OPAREA density estimate

OSP Optimum Sustainable Population

Pa Pascal

PBR potential biological removal

ppm parts per million

PTS permanent threshold shift

RFMRP Riverhead Foundation for Marine Research and Preservation 

RMS root-mean-squared 

SAS sighting advisory system

SEL sound exposure level 

SMA seasonal management area

SPL sound pressure level

SPUE sightings per unit effort

TL transmission loss

Transco Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC

TTS temporary threshold shift

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

WCNE Whale Center of New England

YoNAH Years of the North Atlantic Humpback 

ZOI zone of Influence 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

1-1

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIVITY

A detailed description of the specific activity or class of activities that can be expected to 

result in incidental taking of marine mammals 

1.1 PROPOSED INTRODUCTION

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) is proposing to expand its 

pipeline system to meet both the immediate and future demand for natural gas in the New York 

City market area. This project, the Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project (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 here as National Grid. The Project would provide firm delivery lateral 

service1 of 647 thousand dekatherms per day (Mdth/d)2 of natural gas to National Grid’s system 

in Brooklyn, New York, giving National Grid the flexibility to shift existing natural gas supplies 

from the existing Long Beach delivery point to the new delivery point, significantly enhancing the 

security and reliability of supply for the National Grid system. While this new lateral would have 

a total capacity of 647 Mdth/d, only 100 Mdth/d is incremental (i.e., an addition) to the National 

Grid system. The remaining 547 Mdth/d of capacity would enable National Grid to shift delivery 

of existing volumes from the Long Beach delivery point to this new lateral to address reliability 

and shifting usage patterns within National Grid’s system. The Project area is shown on 

Figure 1. 

The Project would consist of two main components, a 26-inch diameter natural gas 

pipeline (the Rockaway Delivery Lateral) and a meter and regulating (M&R) facility with 

associated equipment. Transco would be responsible for constructing both components. The 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral would extend approximately 3.20 miles from a proposed offshore 

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

the Atlantic Ocean to an onshore delivery point for the National Grid pipeline system on the 

Rockaway Peninsula in Queens County, New York (see Figure 2). Transco is also proposing to 

construct the M&R Facility in the southernmost historic airplane hangar complex at Floyd 

Bennett Field, designated as Hangars 1 and 2, in Kings County, New York. Floyd Bennett Field

is part of the Gateway National Recreation Area (GNRA), which is managed by the U.S. 

 

1 Under firm delivery lateral service a shipper, or shippers, have firm transportation rights to the full capacity of the 

lateral. At this time, Transco has binding agreements with two National Grid entities—Brooklyn Union Gas 

Company for 354 Mdth/d and KeySpan Gas East Corporation for 293 Mdth/d. The total provided under the FDLS 

service is 647 Mdth/d, as noted above. 2 647 MDth/d is equivalent to approximately 625 million cubic feet per day, assuming 1,035 British thermal units 

(Btus) per cubic foot.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

1-2

Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS). National Grid would be responsible for 

constructing a new pipeline between the M&R Facility and the proposed Transco pipeline. This 

interconnect, referred to as the “tie-in point,” would be located immediately south of the Marine 

Parkway Bridge interchange on the Rockaway Peninsula, on Tri-Borough Bridge and Tunnel 

Authority (TBTA) property. For the purposes of this Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) 

request, the discussion focuses on the in-water pipeline portion of the Project because the M&R 

Facility would be located on land and therefore is outside the scope of an IHA request. 

The in-water portion of the Project would occur in waters that support several marine 

mammal species. The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 prohibits the taking of 

marine mammals, which is defined as to “harass, hunt, capture, kill, or attempt to harass, hunt 

capture or kill,” except under certain situations. Section 101(a)(5)(D) allows the issuance of an 

IHA, provided an activity results in negligible impacts on marine mammals and would not 

adversely affect subsistence use of these animals. The timing and specific activities associated 

with the Project (such as pile driving) may result in incidental taking by acoustical harassment 

(Level B take) of marine mammals protected under the MMPA. Transco is requesting an IHA for 

6 of the 13 marine mammal species that may occur in the Project region throughout the year. 

1.2 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of the Project is to address current and future customer service needs. The 

Project would provide National Grid with the flexibility to redirect all or some of its system 

capacity, currently contracted to their existing Long Beach delivery point, to a new delivery point 

in Brooklyn during peak demand periods. In addition to this flexibility, the Project would allow 

National Grid to increase the overall capacity on their system by 100 MDth/d. Increasing the 

flexibility of delivery and overall volume during peak demand periods would reduce gas supply 

constraints, allowing existing dual-fuel power plants and customers with interruptible service in 

the area to continue using natural gas rather than switching to their alternative oil-burning 

systems. On peak days, demand has historically increased as much as 60% above average 

(NYC Energy Policy Task Force 2004). Service is expected to begin in November 2014. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Lower

New York

Bay

A t l a n t i c O c e a n

Proposed

M&R Facility

Proposed

Pipeline Route Existing 26" Lower

NY Bay Lateral

Northing 14742300

Easting 1947146

Northing 14730216

Easting 1953178

908

135

444

81 907

124

19

982

909

3

24

21

700

27

440

15

987

25 46

7

9

1

80

895

684

95

695

495

278

478

678

280

295

78

87

195

287 New

Jersey

New York

Connecticut

Path: L:\Buffalo\NorthEast_Supply\Maps\MXDs\ROCKAWAY_2012\USACE_Application100212\Project_Vicinity_feet_display_units.mxd Date: 3/15/2013

Proposed M&R Facility

Proposed Pipeline Route

Existing 26" Lower NY Bay Lateral

Figure 1

Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project

Project Area

Source: ESRI 2010

0 8

Miles

GEODETIC DATA

Datum: NAD 1983

Projection: UTM

Zone: UTM Zone 18, NYTM

Grid Units: US Feet

1459000014590000

1462000014620000

1465000014650000

1468000014680000

1471000014710000

1474000014740000

1477000014770000

1480000014800000

1483000014830000

1486000014860000

1489000014890000

1492000014920000

1495000014950000

1830000 1860000 1890000 1920000 1950000 1980000 2010000 2040000 2070000 2100000 2130000

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

1-6

1.3 PROJECT SETTING AND LOCATION

The Project would be located mostly in nearshore waters (within approximately 3 miles 

[approximately 4.8 kilometers]) of the Atlantic Ocean southeast of the Rockaway Peninsula. In 

order to avoid surface impacts on lands within the Gateway National Recreation Area (GNRA) 

and other nearshore areas, the pipeline would be installed using a combination of construction 

techniques, including conventional offshore pipe lay and horizontal directional drilling (HDD). 

Pipe for the project would be shipped by rail to a pipe yard in Elizabeth, New Jersey, where it 

would be placed on vessels for transport to the offshore construction site. 

A linear segment of underwater land measuring approximately 2.15 miles (approximately 

3.46 kilometers) (see Table 1) would be required for offshore pipe lay and trenching activities 

from the interconnect with Transco’s LNYBL pipeline to the proposed HDD exit point in the 

nearshore area, seaward of Jacob Riis Park (see Figure 1). The Project area is located within 

the greater New York Bight region, with construction occurring within approximately 2.86 miles 

(approximately 4.6 kilometers) from the shoreline of Jacob Riis Park. Vessels associated with 

the Project would travel between the pipe yard in Elizabeth, New Jersey, to the offshore 

construction site. The Project area, therefore, is described as the waters between the pipe yard 

and construction site and the waters offshore of Jacob Riis Park where construction would occur 

(Figures 3 and 4). 

Table 1

Offshore Pipeline Segment Lengths

Segment Description Mileposts (MP) Distance (miles)

Offshore Dual Hot-tap, Subsea Manifold , and Tie-in 

Spools MP P0.00 – MP P0.04 0.04

Offshore Pipeline Section 

(Flange at Tie-in Spool to Offshore HDD Exit Point)

MP 0.0 – MP 2.15 2.15

HDD Pipeline Section 

(0.65 Miles Offshore and 0.35 miles Onshore)

MP 2.15 – MP 3.15 1.00

Project Total 2.86

Note: MP 0.00 would be approximately 234 feet from the existing LNYBL pipeline, at the same location as MP P0.04. The dual 

hot-tap assembly, subsea manifold, and tie-in spools would be located between the existing LNYBL pipeline and MP 0.00.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Preferred Pipe Storage Yard

© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #Source: ESRI 2010 Path: L:\Buffalo\NorthEast_Supply\Maps\MXDs\ROCKAWAY_2012\Biological_Assessment\Fig3and4_Pipeline_Shipping_Route.mxd

Figure 3

Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project

Action Area (1 of 2)

NOTE: Soundings in feetSource: ESRI 2010, NOAA 2009

Preferred PipeStorage YardPreferred PipelineRoute

HDD ExitPreferred Pipeline ConstructionMaterials Shipping Route (24.8 miles)

Existing 26" Lower NY Bay Lateral

0 1

Miles

Match Line Figure 4

N Y

N Y

N J

N J

N Y

N J

Channel

Left 

Outside Quarter

Left 

Inside 

Quarter

Right 

Inside 

Quarter

Right 

Outside Quarter

Ambrose Channel 39.0 45.9 45.8 41.7

Reach

Left 

Outside Quarter

Left 

Inside 

Quarter

Right 

Inside 

Quarter

Right 

Outside Quarter

Constable Hook Reach 45.4 46.2 48.3 49.1Bergen Point East Reach 48.5 52.8 53.0 50.1Bergen Point West Reach 49.0 52.8 52.5 47.4

Reach

Left 

Outside Quarter

Left 

Inside 

Quarter

Right 

Inside 

Quarter

Right 

Outside Quarter

North of Shooters Island Reach 40.9 43.4 39.3 36.8Elizabethport Reach 40.1 43.1 43.9 39.7

Kill Van Kull Reach Depths (feet) from seaward when 

entering from Lower Bay

Arthur Kill Reach Depths (feet) from seaward when entering 

from Lower Bay

Lower Bay Channel Depths (feet) from seaward

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
HDD Exit

© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #Source: ESRI 2010 Path: L:\Buffalo\NorthEast_Supply\Maps\MXDs\ROCKAWAY_2012\Biological_Assessment\Fig3and4_Pipeline_Shipping_Route.mxd

Figure 4

Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project

Action Area (2 of 2)

NOTE: Soundings in feetSource: ESRI 2010, NOAA 2009

Preferred PipeStorage YardPreferred PipelineRoute

HDD ExitPreferred Pipeline ConstructionMaterials Shipping Route (24.8 miles)

Existing 26" Lower NY Bay Lateral

0 1

Miles

Match Line Figure 3

N Y

N Y

N J

N J

N Y

N J Channel

Left 

Outside Quarter

Left 

Inside 

Quarter

Right 

Inside 

Quarter

Right 

Outside Quarter

Ambrose Channel 39.0 45.9 45.8 41.7

Reach

Left 

Outside Quarter

Left 

Inside 

Quarter

Right 

Inside 

Quarter

Right 

Outside Quarter

Constable Hook Reach 45.4 46.2 48.3 49.1Bergen Point East Reach 48.5 52.8 53.0 50.1Bergen Point West Reach 49.0 52.8 52.5 47.4

Reach

Left 

Outside Quarter

Left 

Inside 

Quarter

Right 

Inside 

Quarter

Right 

Outside Quarter

North of Shooters Island Reach 40.9 43.4 39.3 36.8Elizabethport Reach 40.1 43.1 43.9 39.7

Kill Van Kull Reach Depths (feet) from seaward when 

entering from Lower Bay

Arthur Kill Reach Depths (feet) from seaward when entering 

from Lower Bay

Lower Bay Channel Depths (feet) from seaward

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

1-11

1.4 SPECIFIC PROJECT ACTIVITIES

The specific Project activity is to install a sub-sea natural gas pipeline extending from the 

existing LNYBL in the Atlantic Ocean to an onshore delivery point for the National Grid pipeline 

system on the Rockaway Peninsula in Queens County, New York. The work would include the 

following:

■ Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD)

– Beginning onshore and exiting offshore. 

– Including excavation of the HDD exit pit (via clamshell dredge) and vibratory hammer 

installation and removal of piles.

■ Offshore Construction and Support Vessels 

– Various vessels would be used throughout the in-water work

■ Sub-sea Hot-tap installation at the existing LNYBL

– Includes use of divers and hand-jetting to clear sediment around the existing LNYBL

■ Offshore Pipeline Construction

– Includes offshore pipe laying and subsea jet-sled trenching

■ Anode bed installation 

– Includes use of divers and hand-jetting to clear sediment around the location of the anode 

bed

■ Grout Mattress Installation

– Would be installed on top of the new pipeline and anode bed following the trenching via 

jet-sled

■ Hydrostatic Test Water Withdrawal and Discharge 

– Would occur four times through the course of in-water construction.

In-water construction is planned to take place between January 2014 and May 2014. 

The in-water work would last approximately four to six months, with actual pile installation and 

removal taking place approximately 10% of that time. All the work would occur in water depths 

between 25 feet (7.6 meters) and 50 feet (15.24 meters).

Construction Sequence and Schedule

Transco proposes to construct the Rockaway Delivery Lateral during the winter and 

early spring of 2014 (January – May), with the primary intent of having construction within the 

vicinity of Jacob Riis Park largely completed outside the tourist season (generally considered to 

extend from Memorial Day to Labor Day). The Project has an anticipated November 2014 inDocument Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

1-12

service date. Construction of the pipeline (including onshore HDD) is expected to last 

approximately five months. The following major construction activities are anticipated: 

■ Verification of the LNYBL pipeline hot-tap location using a local diving support vessel (DSV) 

and survey vessel would be the initial activity of the offshore construction and would take 

place in 2013. The work would include locating the LNYBL pipeline, removing concrete 

coating, testing, and identifying the exact location for the hot-tap.

■ The HDD equipment and clamshell barge would be mobilized to excavate the offshore HDD 

exit pit to approximately 21 feet (6 meters) below the sea floor, beginning in early 2014. The 

excavation of the HDD exit pit would result in the disturbance of 6.08 acres and 190,500 

cubic yards (cy) of sediment. The sediment would not be removed from the system, 

however. 

■ A jack-up barge would then be mobilized to the HDD exit point location and five sets of 

temporary goal posts and up to 60 temporary dolphin/fender piles (all 14- to 16-inch [0.36 to 

0.40 meters] steel pipe piles) would be installed using two vibratory hammers (one for the 

goal posts and one for the dolphin/fender piles) located on the clamshell barge and the jackup barge. Five goal posts would be installed on either side of the trench leading to the HDD 

exit pit. The goal posts would guide and support the HDD pipe overbend as it is pulled into 

the exit pit such that a smooth, controlled transition is made from the seabed to the HDD 

hole. Fender piles would be installed around the jack-up barge to protect it from incidental 

contact with other vessels while offshore construction is under way. Both the goal posts and 

the dolphin/fender piles would be installed close to each other, at the mouth of the HDD exit 

pit. 

■ HDD equipment would be placed on the jack-up barge deck for supporting the drilling 

operation from the offshore location. No drilling would occur from the offshore HDD location. 

■ The assembly and temporary placement of the HDD pipe string on the sea floor would 

immediately follow the HDD exit point activities described above. 

■ After laying the HDD pipe string, the pipe lay barge would move to the proposed hot tap 

location. 

■ The temporary piles would be removed via vibratory pile driving following the completion of 

the pipe being pulled through the HDD hole. 

■ Divers would excavate the hot-tap location using hand-jetting equipment and would install 

the hot-tap assembly, the subsea manifold, and tie-in spool from the hot-tap assembly to 

subsea manifold. 

■ Once the hot-tap and subsea manifold are installed, the HDD pipe would be pulled back 

from the HDD exit point to onshore entry point. 

■ The pipe lay barge would then begin pipe lay by trenching via jet-sled from the vicinity of the 

HDD exit point and continue towards the tie-in spool. 

■ The Rockaway Delivery Lateral would be hydrostatically tested prior to connection with the 

LNYBL. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

1-13

■ Tie-in with the National Grid 26-inch (0.66-meter)-diameter pipeline on Tri-Borough Bridge 

and Tunnel Authority (TBTA) property would occur in fall 2014 to meet a November 2014 inservice date. Figure 5 shows the full pipeline construction sequence and schedule; the 

proposed in-water construction schedule for the Project is summarized in Table 2. 

Table 2

In-Water Construction Schedule

Task Start Date Completion Date

HDD January 2014 April 2014

26-inch hot-tap and subsea manifold installation March 2014 May 2014

Offshore pipe string March 2014 March 2014

Offshore pipeline laying April 2014 April 2014

Note: Dates estimated as of June 13, 2012

Figure 5 Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project, Pipeline Construction Sequence

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

1-14

1.5 NOISE-PRODUCING PROJECT ELEMENTS

1. Vibratory Hammer Installation and 

Removal. Vibratory hammer 

installation consists of installing 

approximately 70 steel pipe piles. 

Following pile installation of pulling of 

the pipeline through the HDD hole, the 

same number of piles would be 

removed using the same vibratory 

hammer method. The approximately 

70 piles would be temporary and 

remain in the water only during the 

course of the HDD offshore 

construction activities (January – April) 

(see Figure 6). 

2. Vessel Operations. Vessels of 

various sizes, ranging from small dayuse workboats to larger supply 

vessels, pipeline construction vessels, 

and ocean-going tug boats, would be 

used throughout the course of the 

Project. No vessels would use 

dynamic positioning (DP), and only two 

boats (the crew boat and the escort 

boat) would make daily trips to the 

Project area from shore.

3. Clamshell dredging. A clamshell 

dredge would be used to excavate the HDD exit pit (see Figure 7). The exit pit would be 

created by dredging approximately 15,300 cy of the seabed. The excavated material would 

be side cast within the work area around the exit point. The clamshell barge would be 

equipped with a clamshell attached to a crawler excavator, differential global positioning 

system (DGPS) survey equipment (for positioning), an echo sounder (for excavation 

monitoring), and other equipment needed to support dredging activities. Mooring for the 

clamshell barge would consist of three or four anchors placed at pre-selected locations by 

the support tug. The major concern from this activity is a temporary, localized increase in 

turbidity during excavation. Sound is not expected to be an issue associated with clamshell 

dredging because the dredge would be anchored in place and DP would not be used. 

Figure 6 Typical Vibratory Hammer

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

1-15

Figure 7 Clamshell Dredge

4. Sub-sea Trenching-Jet Sled. The 

offshore pipeline would be installed in a 

subsea trench such that the top of the 

pipeline is at least 3 feet (0.9 meters) 

below the seabed. The proposed 

method is to use a post-lay jet sled, 

where high-pressure water jets open a 

trench in the seabed underneath the 

pipeline after it has been laid on the 

seafloor (see Figure 8). A typical jet sled 

straddles the pipeline with water jets built 

into the claws. Immediately behind each 

claw, the material loosened by the jets is 

entrained by suction tubes and expelled 

to the side of the trench or behind the 

sled. The jets and the piping system are 

mounted on the jet sled, which is towed 

along the pipeline by cable or chain from 

the pipe lay barge, which provides the 

pressurized water and air for the system. 

Similar to the clamshell dredging of the 

exit pit, the major concern during this 

activity is temporary and localized 

turbidity. Sound is not a concern as the sled would be pulled along the bottom by the pipelay barge already in place, which itself would be moved by an eight-point mooring system of 

wire ropes and anchors that hold the lay barge on a precise heading. 

Figure 8 Typical Jet-Sled

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

1-16

5. Hydrostatic Test Water Withdrawal and Discharge. The HDD section would be tested 

before and after installation. Following installation of the offshore segment and connection 

with the HDD section, the Rockaway Delivery Lateral would be hydrostatically tested in its 

entirety. A total of 578,700 gallons of water would be withdrawn from and discharged back 

into the Project area. The major concern for this activity would be the effects on prey 

species through water quality and entrainment. Sound is not a concern for this activity. 

Only two Project construction elements involve noise as a concern for local marine 

mammals: vibratory pile driving associated with the HDD and vessel operations throughout the 

course of the Project. Each element is discussed below. 

1.5.1 Vibratory Hammer Installation and Removal

Vibratory hammers are commonly used in steel pile installation and removal when the 

sediment conditions allow for this method. The model of vibratory hammer likely to be used for 

the project is the MKT V 52. The vibratory hammer is considered a continuous noise source 

because the hammer continuously drives the pile into the substrate until the desired depth is 

reached. Vibratory hammers generally have 10 to 20 decibels (dB) lower source levels than 

impact hammers, so their use is considered a way to reduce underwater sound when pile 

driving is necessary for a project and the sediment conditions allow it (ICF Jones & Stokes and 

Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. 2009). A vibratory hammer operates by using counterweights that 

spin to create a vibration. The vibration of the hammer causes the pile to vibrate at a highspeed. The vibrating pile then causes the soil underneath it to “liquefy” and allow the pile to 

move easily into or out of the sediment. The vibratory hammer would be used to install 

approximately 70 piles (10 goal posts and up to 60 fender piles). All the piles would be 14- to 

16- inch-diameter (0.36 to 0.40 meters) steel pipe piles.

Two vibratory hammers would be used simultaneously, with one hammer to install the 

goal posts and one hammer to install the fender piles. The anticipated time for installation of one 

individual pile would be approximately 1 to 2 seconds per foot of depth driven, with each pile 

being driven to a depth of approximately 25 to 30 feet (7.2 to 9.1 meters) below the seafloor. 

Therefore, it would take at least 60 seconds of continuous driving to install each individual pile.

Total installation time for all the piles is estimated to total less than one day of operation and 

would occur during a period of approximately one week. The goal posts and fender piles would 

remain in the offshore environment only for the duration of the HDD portion of offshore 

construction (approximately 6 to 8 weeks). Total operating time of the vibratory hammer for the 

extraction of all piles at the end of the construction period is estimated to be similar to the 

installation time.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

1-17

1.5.2 Vessel Operations

Various vessels would be operating within the Project area and transiting between the 

Project area and shore. The vessel types that would be used throughout the Project are listed in 

Table 3. 

Table 3 

Vessels Associated with the Project

Vessel Type Number of Vessels Positioning Method

at Offshore Construction Site

Dive Support Vessel 1 Anchors with Mid-Line Buoys

Clamshell Barge 1 Anchors

Jack-up Barge 1 Lift Legs

Pipe Lay Barge 1 Anchors with Mid-Line Buoys

Pipe Transport Barge 1 Rafted beside Pipe Lay Barge1

Crew Boat 1 Rafted beside Pipe Lay Barge1

Escort Boat 1 N/A

Tug Boat2 4 Rafted beside Pipe and Transport Lay Barges1

Notes: 

1 When not under way.

2 Tug boats would be used to support the pipe lay barge and the transport barge. Two tug boats would be 

used to support each barge. 

Only the crew boat and the escort boat would make daily trips between shore and the 

offshore construction site. While at the offshore construction site, the escort boat would operate 

as a security control vessel during installation of the pipeline. The DSV, clamshell barge, jack-up 

barge, and pipe lay barge would remain at the offshore construction site for the duration of their 

work associated with the Project. The pipe lay barge would spend the most time at the offshore 

construction site, approximately 83 days, whereas the clamshell barge is expected to spend the 

least amount of time, approximately 22 days. The tug boats that support the pipe lay barge 

would remain offshore as well. The pipe transport barge (and the two tug boats that support it) 

would travel between the pipe yard and the offshore construction site several times during the 

course of the Project. The larger vessels that would remain offshore throughout the Project (i.e., 

the pipe lay barge, clamshell barge, and jack-up barge) would not remain running while offshore 

and would either be anchored, lifted above the water, or moved by tug boats. No vessels 

associated with the Project would be positioned using DP. 

Typically, DP systems are used for deep-water pipe lay operations where conventional 

positioning of the barge using drop-down anchors and cables becomes impractical. The 

minimum water depth for a pipe lay barge operating with dynamic positioning is approximately 

100 feet (30.48 meters) and the associated barge draft would be approximately 30 feet (9.14 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

1-18

meters). The range of water depth for the Project’s pipe lay operation is approximately 25 feet to 

50 feet (7.6 meters to 15.24 meters), so the thrusters on a DP lay barge could not operate 

without excessive turbulence and disturbance of the seabed. Because of the water depths 

within the Project area, Transco plans to use pipe lay barges moored with pre-positioned 

anchors when installing the offshore section of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral.

Underwater noise associated with vessels is attributed to the low-frequency noise 

created by the reverberation of engines and their propellers. The low-frequency noise created 

by propeller movements is caused by bubbles created by the propeller as it moves through the 

water. As the bubbles collapse a low-frequency noise is produced, a process known as 

cavitation. Because propeller use by the larger vessels remaining in the Project area 

throughout the duration of the Project would be limited, the noise impacts from vessels are 

expected to be comparable to those generated by existing heavy vessel traffic in the vicinity of 

the Port of New Jersey and New York in the New York Harbor. The Project area is located in 

the precautionary area of the Port of New York and New Jersey shipping lanes. The Port of New 

York and New Jersey saw 4,534 port calls in 2010, making it the largest port on the U.S. east 

coast and third largest port in the U.S. (USDOT Maritime Administration 2011). Based on the 

proximity of the Project area to the this major shipping center, it can be expected that the 

background noise is dominated by large vessels (e.g., container ships) that produce source 

levels of 180 to 190 dB re 1 μ Pascal (Pa) RMS at frequencies between 200 and 500 hertz (Hz) 

(Thomsen et al. 2009; Jasney et al. 2005). Therefore, it is not expected that the 11 vessels 

associated with the Project would constitute a major noise source of concern relative to the 

already existing vessel noise and vessel traffic in the vicinity of the Project area. 

1.6 SOUND LEVELS 

1.6.1 Reference Vibratory Sound Source Levels

This project includes vibratory installation and removal of 14- to 16-inch (0.36- to 0.41-

meter) steel pipe piles. No source levels were available for 14- to 16–inch-diameter (0.36- to 

0.41-meter-diameter) steel pipe piles at water depths of approximately 10 meters (32.81 feet). 

The most applicable source levels available are for 12-inch-diameter (0.30 meter) steel pipe 

piles in water depths of approximately 16.40 feet (5 meters). In-water measurements for the 

Mad River Slough Project in Arcata, CA, indicate that installation of a 12-inch (0.3-meters) steel 

pipe pile in ~ 16.40 feet (5 meters) of water measured at 32.81 feet (10 meters ) from the source 

(ICF Jones & Stokes, and Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. 2009) generated 155 dB re 1 μPaRMS. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

1-19

Therefore, in order to account for the increased diameter of the piles planned for use during the 

Project and a change in water depth, the potential source levels are increased by 5 dBRMS (see 

Table 4). It is expected that this increase of 5 dBRMS is a conservative estimate and would result 

in noise zones greater than that actually expected to occur around each pile during installation 

and extraction. 

Table 4

Expected Pile-Driving Source Levels

(Average Sound Pressure)

Vibratory Pile Driving

(Near Source [10 meter] Unattenuated)

Peak RMS SEL1

12-inch steel pipe2

(< 5 m)

171 155 155

14- to16 inch steel pipe

(~ 10 m)3 176 160 160

1 SEL (sound exposure level) for 1 second of continuous driving

2 12–inch-diameter pipe source levels from ICF Jones & Stokes, and 

Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. 2009

3 The 14- to 16-inch-diameter pipe source levels are estimated based on a 

5dB increase from the 12-inch-diameter pipe to account for an increase in 

the diameter of the pipe expected to be used and a change in depth at the 

pile-driving site. 

1.6.2 Background Noise

Background noise, or ambient noise, is noise that already exists in the environment prior 

to the introduction of another noise producing activity. Background noise can come from a 

number of sources, both natural and manmade. Natural sources of ambient/background noise 

include biological sources (i.e., various marine species), wind, waves, rain, or naturally 

occurring seismic activity (i.e., earthquakes) (Richardson et al. 1995). Human-generated 

sources can include vessel noise (i.e., commercial shipping/container vessels), seismic air 

guns, and marine construction. Various factors contribute to the background noise within the 

Rockaway Peninsula region. One of the major contributors to background noise would be the 

commercial shipping traffic near the Project area associated with the Port of New York and New 

Jersey shipping lanes precautionary area. The Port of New Jersey and New York saw 4,534 

port calls in 2010, making it the largest port on the U.S. east coast and third largest port in the 

U.S. (USDOT Maritime Administration 2011). Based on the proximity of the Project area to this 

major shipping center, it can be expected that the background noise is dominated by large 

vessels (i.e., container ships) that produce source levels of 180 to 190 dB re 1 μPa RMS at 

frequencies between 200 and 500 Hz (Thomsen et al. 2009; Jasney et al. 2005). Individual 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

1-20

vessels produce unique acoustic signatures; so it is difficult to determine exactly how their 

sound would travel in varying environments (Hildebrand 2009; Richardson et al. 1995). 

Knowing the background noise of an area is important to understanding the overall 

impact that the introduction of more noise could have on the marine mammals present in the 

area. If background noise levels in the vicinity of the project exceed those of the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) Fisheries Service thresholds, i.e., 120 dB or greater, then 

marine mammals would not be affected by any sound less than the already existing dominant 

noise levels. For example, if the background noise levels average 140 dB, then animals would 

not be exposed to harassing levels of sound less than 140 dB. Any sounds less than 140 dB 

would become part of the background noise and would not be audible above the dominant 

background noise. However, there is no current information regarding measurements of 

background noise in the vicinity of the Project area. Therefore it can be assumed that while 

vessel noise associated with the Project would not add greatly to the already existing 

background vessel noise in the region, it cannot be assumed that the sound produced by 

vibratory pile driving would be completely masked by the vessel noise, especially close to the 

vibratory hammer. 

1.6.3 Underwater Transmission Loss 

To determine how noise could impact protected marine species in the Project area, it is 

important to understand how the sound can spread away from the noise source. As the sound 

moves away from the source, there is a loss of acoustic intensity with increasing distance from 

the source. This is known as transmission loss (TL). It is necessary to calculate the TL of a 

sound source in order to determine how much area around that sound source would encompass 

the noise threshold criteria. How a sound travels away from a source depends on a variety of 

factors, including the original source level, environmental factors such as local salinity and 

temperature, and physical factors such as water depth, currents, and composition of bottom 

sediments (when depth is a limiting factor). Transmission loss also varies based on the depth of 

the sound source and the receiver. Considering all these components can aid in better 

understanding of how the sound would travel away from the source; however it is not always 

possible to obtain all the information necessary to determine site-specific transmission loss. 

An important factor in transmission loss is spreading loss, or how the sound spreads out 

away from the source. There are two types of spreading loss; spherical spreading, where the 

sound spreads out in spherical waves (6 dB loss per doubling distance), and cylindrical 

spreading loss, where the sound waves form a cylindrical wave away from the source (3 dB loss 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

1-21

per doubling distance). These two types of spreading loss occur under different conditions. 

Spherical spreading occurs in a uniform medium, whereas cylindrical spreading occurs when 

the medium is not uniform (Richardson et al. 1995). Due to the complex nature of the marine 

environment, it is not expected the underwater sound would spread in a perfect spherical or 

cylindrical manner. Therefore, NOAA Fisheries Service recognizes the practical spreading loss 

model (which accounts for a 4.5 dB loss per doubling distance) as the best method to determine 

how sound travels away from a source if the site-specific environmental and physical 

information is not available. The practical spreading loss model was used to determine the 

approximate distance from the sound source where the NOAA Fisheries Service threshold 

criteria (see Table 5) are estimated to be reached (while driving an individual pile). 

Practical Spreading Loss: 

TL = 15 log (R1/R0)

where: 

TL = Source Level – Noise Threshold Level

R1 = Range distance the noise criteria extends away from the source (in meters)

R0= Reference range (i.e., @ 1 meter, @ 10 meters, etc.) (in meters)

1.6.4 Attenuation to NOAA Fisheries Service Thresholds

To determine potential impacts on marine mammals from acoustic sources, NOAA 

Fisheries Service has established injury and harassment thresholds. These thresholds are used 

to determine impacts based on the root-mean-squared (RMS) metric, the peak sound pressure 

(SPL), or the sound exposure level (SEL). RMS is the most commonly used metric for marine 

mammals. The thresholds are then used to determine the ensonified area surrounding the 

acoustic source. The zone of influence (ZOI) is the ensonified area that exceeds each threshold 

level. Based on the source levels noted in Table 4, the distance between the marine mammal 

and the noise source for each threshold was calculated for the use of a vibratory hammer (see 

Table 5). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

1-22

Table 5 

Calculated In-Water Noise Zones Based on Expected Vibratory Pile-Driving Source Levels

(Average Sound Pressure)

Marine Mammal 

Functional 

Hearing Group

Reference 

Injury 

Threshold

Reference 

Behavioral 

Disturbance 

Threshold

Distance to Vibratory Pile 

Driving Injury Threshold 

(meters)

Distance to Vibratory Pile 

Driving Behavioral 

Disturbance Threshold 

(meters)

Cetacean 180 dB re 1μPa 

RMS1

120 dB re 1μPa 

RMS1

(continuous 

source)

12-inch steel pipe No Impact2 12-inch steel 

pipe 2,000

14- to 16-inch 

steel pipe No Impact2 14- to16- inch steel pipe 4,600

Pinnipeds 190 dB re 1μPa 

RMS1

120 dB re 1μPa 

RMS1

(continuous 

source)

12-inch steel pipe No Impact2 12-inch steel 

pipe 2,000

14- to 16-inch 

steel pipe No Impact2 14 to16- inch steel pipe 4,600

1 Current NOAA Fisheries Service thresholds

2 The source level of the vibratory hammer (12 inch: 155 dB RMS; 14 to 16 inch: 160dB RMS) is less than that of the injury 

threshold - 180dB RMS for cetaceans and 190 dB RMS for pinnipeds.

Note: The distance calculated represents the approximate distance the sound would propagate around a single pile.

Based on the source levels reported in Table 4, vibratory pile driving would not produce 

180 dB re 1μPaRMS or greater, therefore removing the potential for injury or physiological 

impacts such as permanent threshold shift (PTS) or temporary threshold shift (TTS). However, 

it is expected that behavioral disturbance levels of sound (120 re 1μPaRMS for a continuous noise 

source such as a vibratory hammer) could occur within at most 3 miles (approximately 4.6 

kilometers) of the vibratory pile driving activity (Table 5). It is likely that this estimate represents 

the most conservative and worst-case scenario and that the actual threshold distance (and 

associated ZOI) may be less than the 3 miles (4.6 kilometers) reported here. However, to be 

conservative, this will be the threshold distance carried forward in this analysis. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

2-1

2.0 DATES, DURATION, AND REGION OF ACTIVITY

The date(s) and duration of such activity and the specific geographical region where it 

will occur.

2.1 DATES

Because of National Park Service restrictions on construction within the vicinity of Jacob 

Riis Park, all in-water construction must be completed during winter months. This restriction 

leads to construction activities that would be largely completed outside of the tourist season, 

which is generally considered to extend from Memorial Day to Labor Day (see Table 2 for more 

specific times frames of individual in-water construction activities).

2.2 DURATION

It is expected that it would take no more than one week to install and one week to 

remove approximately 70 temporary steel pipe pilings associated with the Project. The 

anticipated time to install one individual pile would take approximately 1 to 2 seconds per foot of 

depth driven, with each pile being driven to a depth of approximately 25 to 30 feet (7.2 to 9.1 

meters) below the seafloor. Therefore, it would take up to 60 seconds of continuous vibratory 

driving to install each individual pile. The installation and removal of both pile types is shown in 

Table 6. While it appears that total pile-driving time would only take slightly more than one hour 

for installation and the same amount of time for removal, it should be noted that this time does 

not account for any potential issues that could occur during pile driving. Therefore, it is expected 

that total operating time of the vibratory hammer for pile installation is estimated to take less 

than a total of one day of continuous operation, which would be spread out over approximately 

one week. The goal posts and fender piles would remain in the offshore environment only for 

the duration of the HDD portion of offshore construction (approximately six to eight weeks, 

throughout the HDD activities). Total operating time of the vibratory hammer for the extraction of 

all piles at the end of the construction period is estimated to be similar to the installation time—

less than a total of one day of operation spread out over a week’s time. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

2-2

Table 6

Estimated Pile Installation and Removal by Vibratory Hammer

Removal/Installed Maximum 

Number of Piles Time per Pile Total Time

Goal Post Installation 10 60 seconds 10 minutes

Goal Post Removal 10 60 seconds 10 minutes

Fender Pile Installation 60 60 seconds 60 minutes

Fender Pile Removal 60 60 seconds 60 minutes

2.3 REGION OF ACTIVITY 

The proposed Project would take place in the waters offshore of Jacob Riis Park, which 

is located on the Rockaway Peninsula in Queens County, New York (see Figures 1 and 2). The 

Project area is located in the greater New York Bight region, and it can be expected that habitat 

within the Project area is not unique and can be found elsewhere in the New York Bight. The 

New York Bight is a triangular-shaped area of the continental shelf generally bounded by 

Montauk Point on eastern Long Island, Cape May in southern New Jersey, and the open 

shallows of the Atlantic Ocean. The depth of water in the area averages about 90 feet (30 

meters), except in the northwest-southeast–trending Hudson Canyon, which has depths in 

excess of 240 feet (80 meters) (Ketchem et al. 1951). The New York Bight, as described by 

Stoffer and Messina (1996), refers to the bend or curve in the shoreline of the open coast and 

great expanse of shallow ocean between Long Island and the New Jersey coast. Water depths 

can be expected to exceed 100 feet (30 meters) at about 50 miles (80 kilometers) offshore. 

Various currents are prominent within the region. In the New York Bight, prevailing wave 

energy forces sand movement westward along the south shore of Long Island (Tanski 2007). 

The longshore currents near the Atlantic shoreline of the Rockaway Peninsula interact 

substantially with the Hudson-Raritan estuary, particularly along the Ambrose Channel entering 

New York Harbor (Bruno and Blumberg 2009). A second ocean current near the Project area 

that extends farther offshore and flows to the south is driven by the Hudson-Raritan plume. This 

brackish plume is prevalent during seasonal periods of peak river discharge and enters the 

ocean at the opening between Rockaway Point and Sandy Hook, New Jersey (Young and 

Hillard 1984). Local circulation patterns can run counter to this southerly current and cause it to 

slow down and reverse direction. Bottom substrate throughout the New York Bight and the 

Project area is generally sand. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-1

3.0 SPECIES AND NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS

The species and numbers of marine mammals likely to be found within the activity area. 

While Section 3.0 requires a discussion of species and numbers of marine mammals 

within the area, Section 4.0 requires a discussion of the status and distribution of species or 

stocks. More specifically: A description of the status, distribution, and seasonal 

distribution (when applicable) of the affected species or stocks of marine mammals likely 

to be affected by such activities.

Because of the number of marine mammals discussed and to make finding the relevant 

information easier, Section 3.0 has been combined with Section 4.0 in order to consolidate all 

species-specific information in one place. Each topic required in Section 4.0 (status, 

distribution, and seasonal distribution [when applicable]) is identified and addressed under 

subheadings in Section 3 below. 

3.1 SPECIES PRESENT 

Thirteen species of marine mammals can be found in the Atlantic Ocean south of Long 

Island, New York (Table 7) (Minton 2012). All species may be present in the area throughout 

the year; however, because these species prefer different habitat, it is not likely that all species 

will be present during the January 2014 to May 2014 in-water construction window or within the 

vicinity of the Project area. 

Table 7 

Marine Mammal Species Potentially in the Region of Rockaway Peninsula

Common Name Scientific Name

Endangered 

Species Act 

Status

Marine 

Mammal 

Protection 

Act Status

Time of Year 

Expected in Region (1)

Presence in 

Project Area

Pinnipeds

Gray Seal Halichoerus grypus - - September – May Uncommon

Harbor Seal Phoca vitulina - - September - May Possible

Harp Seal Phoca groenlandica - - January - May Uncommon

Cetaceans

Humpback Whale Megapera 

novaeangliae Endangered Depleted Year round Uncommon

Fin Whale Balaenoptera 

physalus Endangered Depleted Year round Uncommon

Minke Whale Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata - - Spring/Summer/

Fall

Uncommon

North Atlantic right 

whale Eubalaena glacialis Endangered Depleted November - April Possible

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-2

Table 7 

Marine Mammal Species Potentially in the Region of Rockaway Peninsula

Common Name Scientific Name

Endangered 

Species Act 

Status

Marine 

Mammal 

Protection 

Act Status

Time of Year 

Expected in Region (1)

Presence in 

Project Area

Atlantic-White Sided 

Dolphin

Lagenorhynchus 

acutus - - Year round Uncommon

Bottlenose Dolphin 

(Western North Atlantic 

Northern Migratory 

Stock)

Tursiops truncatus - Depleted July –September Uncommon

Harbor Porpoise Phocoena phocoena - - January – March Possible

Short-Beaked 

Common Dolphin Delphinus delphis - - mid-January –May Uncommon

Short-Finned Pilot 

Whale

Globicephala 

macrorhynchus - - N/A Uncommon

Long-Finned Pilot 

Whale Globicephala melas - - NA Uncommon

(1) Source: Waring et al. 2012

3.2 PINNIPEDS 

There are three species of pinnipeds that could occur within the waters south of 

Rockaway Peninsula, Queens County, New York: the gray seal (Halichoerus grypus), harbor 

seal (Phoca vitulina), and harp seal (Phoca groenlandica). All three pinniped species are most 

likely to be found in the region during winter months. 

3.2.1 Gray Seal 

Gray seals are members of the true seal family (Phocidae). Adult gray seals are 

sexually dimorphic with males generally being larger than females. Adult males can reach up to 

10 feet (3 meters) in length and weigh up to 880 pounds (400 kilograms) (NOAA Fisheries 

Service 2012a). Adult females can reach up to 7.5 feet (2.3 meters) in length and can weigh up 

to 550 pounds (250 kilograms) (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012a). This species, like other 

members of the Phocidae family lacks external ear flaps, and the rear flippers do not rotate. 

Gray seal appearance and coloration depends on their geographic location and differs between 

sexes. In general, adult females have a silver-grey coat with darker spots scattered over their 

body. Males can have similar color pattern, but they have a prominent, long-arched nose 

(NOAA Fisheries Service 2012a). Gray seals are opportunistic mammals that feed primarily on 

various species of crustaceans, squid, fish, and octopus (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012a). 

They consume between 4% and 6% of their body weight each day and will use the entire water 

column when hunting for prey. Also, they are often found in the same areas as harbor seals 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-3

because their habitat and feeding preferences overlap (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012a). They 

are found primarily in coastal waters. However, they do venture into deeper water, as they have 

been known to dive up to 1,560 feet (475 meters) to capture prey during feeding (NOAA 

Fisheries Service 2012a).

Gray seals, along with 40 other pinniped species and subspecies, are capable of hearing 

in both air and water. In general, the estimated bandwidth for functional hearing for pinnipeds in 

water is 75 hertz (Hz) to 75 kilohertz (kHz), and in air is 75 Hz to 30 kHz (Southall et al. 2007). 

Pinnipeds are known to produce a wide variety of low frequency social sounds, with varying 

hearing capabilities in air and in water (Southall et al. 2007). Direct testing of hearing 

capabilities in water have been conducted on a variety of pinniped species, including both 

behavioral reactions to sounds and direct measurements of hearing through auditory evoked 

potential (AEP) methods (Southall et al. 2007). 

The gray seal occurs on both sides of the North Atlantic and is split into three primary 

populations: (1) eastern Canada, (2) northwestern Europe, and (3) the Baltic Sea (Katona et al. 

1993). Gray seals that comprise the eastern Canada population are considered the western 

North Atlantic stock when in U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) waters (Waring et al. 2012). 

Gray seals in U.S. waters can be found year-round in the coastal waters of the Gulf of Maine, 

and year-round breeding of approximately 400 animals has been documented on areas of outer 

Cape Cod and Mukeget Island in Massachusetts (Waring et al. 2012). 

3.2.1.1 Numbers

Current population estimates of the western North Atlantic gray seal are not available 

(Waring et al. 2012); however, estimates for portions of the total population are available for 

certain time periods (Waring et al. 2012). For instance, the gray seal population in Canada from 

1993 through 2004 was estimated to be between 144,000 and 223,220 individuals, based on 

three separate surveys and also depending upon which population-estimation model was used 

(Mohn and Bowen 1996; Department of Fisheries and Oceans 2003; Trzcinski et al. 2005). 

Gray seals in the United States presently pup at three separate locations: Muskeget Island, 

Massachusetts (1), Green Island, Maine (2), and Seal Island, Maine (3). Populations show an 

increasing trend (see Table 8). For example, a minimum of 2,620 gray seal pups were born in 

the United States in 2008 (Wood LaFond 2009 in Waring et al. 2012). It is theorized that in 

addition to natural increases, the population increases in gray seals in the United States is 

partially due to immigration of individuals from Canadian populations (Waring et al. 2012). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-4

Table 8

Single-day Counts of Gray Seal Pups Observed at Muskeget Island, Seal Island, and 

Green Island

Pupping Season Muskeget Island Seal Island Green Island

2001 – 2002 883 - 34

2002 – 2003 509 147 -

2003 – 2004 824 150 26

2004 – 2005 992 365 33

2005 – 2006 868 239 43

2006 – 2007 1,704 364 57

2007 – 2008 2,095 466 59

Source: Waring et al. 2012

Current data is insufficient to allow calculating the minimum population estimate for gray 

seals in United States waters. However, the Canada gray seal minimum population is estimated 

somewhere between 125,541 and 169,064 (Trzcinski et al. 2005). The potential biological 

removal (PBR) for the western North Atlantic gray seal in United States waters is currently 

unknown, but the maximum productivity rate is 0.12, which is the default number for pinnipeds 

established by NOAA Fisheries Service (Waring et al. 2012). Additionally, the recovery factor 

for the stock is 1.0, which is given to stocks of unknown status but which are known to be 

increasing (Waring et al. 2012).

3.2.1.2 Status

Gray seals are not categorized as depleted under the MMPA, are not listed as 

threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and are not state-listed in 

New York. Presently, the status of the western North Atlantic gray seal stock, relative to the 

optimum sustainable population (OSP) level, in the United States Atlantic EEZ is unknown 

(Waring et al. 2012); however, the stock population is increasing in both Canadian and United 

States waters (Waring et al. 2012). The level of human-induced mortality and serious injury in 

the United States Atlantic EEZ is currently unknown, but it is believed to be low relative to the 

stock size and is therefore not a strategic stock (Waring et al. 2012). Total United States 

fishery-related mortality and serious injury is low relative to the current population in Canadian 

and United States waters and is considered to be insignificant and approaching zero mortality 

and serious injury rate (Waring et al. 2012). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-5

3.2.1.3 Distribution

The western North Atlantic stock of gray seals has an overall range of New York to 

Labrador (Katona et al. 1993; Lesage and Hammill 2001). This stock of gray seals generally 

occurs in New York waters from September through May; however, the majority of their 

populations occur farther north along the coasts and inshore habitats of Maine and Canada, 

where individuals may remain year-round (Waring et. al 2012). Gray seals have been observed 

farther south, outside of pupping season at Muskeget Island and Monomoy, where numbers of 

individuals reached a maximum count of 2,010 in April – May 1994 (Rough 1995). There are no 

known haul-out sites for harp seals in the vicinity of the Project. The closest two known haul-out 

sites for seals along the southern coast of Long Island are located approximately 10 miles (16 

kilometers) to the west of the Project area and 15 miles (24 kilometers) to the east of the Project 

area.

Gray seals have been reported stranded along the New York coast in recent years. 

Between 2005 and 2009, 52 gray seals were reported stranded in New York, and of those 52 

stranded gray seals, 30 were pups (Waring et al. 2012). Between June 2009 and May 2010, 26 

gray seals were reported stranded along the Long Island coast (Riverhead Foundation for 

Marine Research and Preservation 2010). Of those strandings, all but four occurred between 

January and May. These data, however, do not specify if those strandings in New York waters 

were along the southern coast of Long Island or within Long Island Sound. Thus, although it 

can be expected that gray seals could be found within the region of the Project during the winter 

in-water construction period, it is expected that their occurrence would be rare because the 

Project area is generally outside their range. 

3.2.2 Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals also are members of the true seal family (Phocidae). Adult harbor seals, 

like gray seals, are sexually dimorphic, with males generally being larger than females. Adult 

harbor seals can reach up to 5.6 feet to 6.3 feet (1.7 meters to 1.9 meters) in length and weigh 

up to 245 pounds (110 kilograms) (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012b). This species, like other 

members of the Phocidae family, lacks external ear flaps and the rear flippers do not rotate. 

Harbor seal coloration varies, but they commonly have a blue-gray color on their back with a 

speckling of both light and darker colors. They can be identified by their concave, dog-like snout 

and their “banana-like” position while hauled out (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012b). 

Harbor seals are opportunistic hunters that feed on squid and schooling fish such as 

herring, alewife, flounder, cod, and hake. Much of their daily activities involve actively foraging 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-6

in the water column and seabed (Reeves et al. 2002a). Their diving activities (assumed for 

foraging), are related to risk-reward models, where increased diving activity increases their 

overall likelihood or predator-related mortality (i.e., shark attacks); as a result, harbor seals 

experience relatively high mortality from predators. At Sable Island, Nova Scotia, shark-related 

mortality was as high as 45% of harbor seal pups in 1996 (Lucas and Stobo 2000). Haul-out 

sites effectively reduce predation by decreasing the total amount of time spent in the water and, 

therefore, the overall likelihood of predation by marine predators.

Harbor seals (similar to gray seals) are capable of hearing in both air and water. In 

general, the estimated bandwidth for functional hearing for pinnipeds in water is 75 Hz to 75 

kHz, and in air is 75 Hz to 30 kHz (Southall et al. 2007).

Harbor seals can be identified in all nearshore waters of the North Atlantic and North 

Pacific Oceans above 30°N (Burns 2009). There are presently five recognized subspecies of 

harbor seal, two of which occur in the Atlantic Ocean, along the eastern United States; of these 

two subspecies, the western Atlantic harbor seal (Phoca vitulina concolor) is most likely to occur 

within the Project area. Studies of harbor seals mitochondrial DNA suggests that female harbor 

seals are regionally philopatric (Stanley et al. 1996); therefore, population and/or management 

units are on the scale of a few hundred kilometers (Waring et al. 2012). Despite a lack of 

understanding of the western North Atlantic population stock structure, it is theorized that all 

harbor seals along the eastern United States and Canada coasts represent one single 

population (Temte et al. 1991). 

3.2.2.1 Numbers

Harbor seals are the most common seal species in New York State (NYSDEC 2012); 

therefore, the harbor seal is expected to be the most prevalent pinniped both within and in the 

vicinity of the Project area. There is no current population abundance estimate for harbor seals, 

as population estimates older than eight years are considered to be unreliable (Waring et al. 

2012). However, a corrected population estimate of 99,340 individuals was made in 2001 

based on radio-tagging survey results (Waring et al. 2012). An extrapolation of the 2001 

population estimate at a growth rate of 0.093% annually (based on the average of Waring et al. 

2012 and Gilbert et al. 2005 annual population growth estimates) and accounting for humaninduced bycatch and stranding mortality (estimated), estimates the current 2012 harbor seal 

population at 194,902 individuals. It is important to note that this estimate is certainly an overestimation because it does not account for predation, for which no data estimations are 

available. For the purposes of the IHA, the best available data (2001) suggests a population 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-7

size of 99,340 (Waring et al. 2012). No minimum population estimate for this stock is available 

because of insufficient data. 

3.2.2.2 Status

Harbor seals are not categorized as depleted under the MMPA, are not listed as 

threatened or endangered under the ESA, and are not state-listed in New York. Presently, the 

status of the western North Atlantic harbor seal stock, relative to the OSP level, in the U.S. 

Atlantic EEZ is unknown (Waring et al. 2012). Despite being unable to determine the PBR for 

this stock of harbor seal, it is believed that the level of human-induced mortality and serious 

injury in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ is low when compared with the total stock population, and it is 

therefore not considered a strategic stock; additionally, fishery-related mortality and serious 

injury is believed to be low relative to the current population in U.S. waters (Waring et al. 2012). 

Sufficient data on current population trends for this stock are not available, and the current and 

maximum net productivity rates are also currently unavailable for this stock. 

3.2.2.3 Distribution

The western North Atlantic stock of harbor seal is primarily identified along the coastal 

and inshore regions of the northeastern United States and Canada, with the greatest 

concentrations occurring in coastal Maine, where they reside year-round (Katona et al. 1993; 

Waring et al. 2012). In the western North Atlantic, the harbor seal is distributed from the eastern 

Canadian Arctic and Greenland south to the southern extent of New England and New York 

State and, on more rare occasions, the Carolinas (Mansfield 1967; Baird 2001). Harbor seals 

occur year-round in the coastal waters of eastern Canada and Maine, where they generally 

reproduce (Waring et al. 2012). In general, harbor seals stay close to their home haul-out site 

(within a 160-foot [50-meter] radius), which allows for a more efficient escape from predators if 

necessary (Grigg et al. 2009). Their presence in the region of the Project area is limited to 

September through late May (Schroeder 2000 in Waring et al. 2012; deHart 2002 in Waring et 

al. 2012), when adults, sub-adults, and juveniles are expected to migrate south from Maine in 

late summer/early fall, returning north to the coastal waters of Maine and Canada in late spring 

(Katona et al. 1993; Gilbert et al. 2005; Waring et al. 2006). 

Harbor seals would be expected to occur seasonally in the vicinity of the Project area 

from September through late May (Schroeder 2000 in Waring et al. 2012; deHart 2002 in 

Waring et al. 2012). Pupping season generally occurs from mid-May through June, primarily 

along the Maine Coast (Kenney 1994 in Waring et al. 2012; deHart 2002 in Waring et al. 2012) 

and to a much lesser extent at high-use haulout sites off of Manomet, Massachusetts (Waring et 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-8

al. 2012). There are no known haul-out sites for harbor seals within the vicinity of the Project. 

The closest two known haul-out sites for seals along the southern coast of Long Island are 

located approximately 10 miles (16 kilometers) to the west of the Project area and 15 miles (24 

kilometers) to the east of the Project area. 

Harbor seals have been reported as stranded along the New York coast in recent years. 

Between 2005 and 2009, 63 harbor seals were reported stranded in New York, and of those 63 

stranded harbor seals, 11 were pups (Waring et al 2012). Between June 2009 and May 2012, 

21 harbor seals were reported as stranded along the Long Island coast (Riverhead Foundation 

for Marine Research and Preservation 2010). Of those strandings, all but 5 occurred between 

January and May. These data, however, do not specify if those strandings in New York waters 

were along the southern coast of Long Island, or within Long Island Sound. Despite this, it can 

be expected that harbor seals could be found within the Project area during the winter in-water 

construction period, based on known occurrence information, sighting data, and their known 

winter range. 

3.2.3 Harp Seal

Harp seals are members of the true seal family (Phocidae). Adult harp seals reach 

between 5 feet and 6 feet (1.5 meters to 1 .8 meters) in length, and can weigh approximately 

300 pounds (135 kilograms). This species, like other members of the Phocidae family lacks 

external ear flaps and has rear flippers that do not rotate. Harp seals in particular have light 

gray fur on their body, with the exception of their face, and a black saddle-shaped patch on their 

dorsal side (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012c). Harp seals feed on many types of fish and 

invertebrates and are only limited divers (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012c). Particular species 

they forage on are arctic and polar cod, capelin, and krill (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012c). 

Harp seals (similar to gray and harbor seals) are capable of hearing in both air and 

water. In general, the estimated bandwidth for functional hearing for pinnipeds in water is 75 Hz 

to 75 kHz, and in air is 75 Hz to 30 kHz (Southall et al. 2007).

The entire harp seal population has been categorized into three stocks. Each stock is 

identified by the specific pack ice site where pupping occurs (Lavigne and Kovacs 1988 in 

Waring et al. 2012; Bonner 1990 in Waring et al. 2012). One stock breeds off eastern 

Greenland, one stock breeds in Russia’s White Sea, and the third stock (which is composed of 

two separate breeding herds) is located off the eastern Canadian coast and breeds off the coast 

of Newfoundland and Labrador (the Front herd), or near the Magdalen Islands in the Gulf of St. 

Lawrence (the Gulf herd) (Lavigne and Kovacs 1988 in Waring et al. 2012; Sergeant 1965). The 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-9

harp seals within the Front/Gulf stock off eastern Canada are considered the western North 

Atlantic stock when in U.S. waters (Waring et al. 2012).

Harp seals from the North Atlantic stock begin their migration south toward U.S. waters 

following summer feeding in the more northern Canadian waters. During this southerly 

migration, adults and some immature harp seals reach the Gulf of St. Lawrence in the winter 

months, with some continuing into U.S. waters during winter and spring months. The most 

southerly point of migration for this species has been New Jersey, from January through May 

(Harris et al. 2002). Sightings of harp seals venturing this far south have been increasing since 

the early 1990s. It is thought that this southward shift in harp seal migration may be due to 

changing environmental conditions (Lacoste and Stenson 2000). Pupping season for harp seals 

occurs between late February and mid-March in the southern limits of their range (NOAA 

Fisheries Service 2012c). Following birth, pups are weaned quickly and adults again begin 

mating. Harp seals also go through a period of molting during the spring. During both these 

times, large congregations of harp seals gather on pack ice (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012c). 

3.2.3.1 Numbers

Current population estimates for harp seals are developed based on a variety of 

methods, including aerial surveys and mark-recapture of whelping concentration areas. 

Population estimates are determined based on adult numbers and pup production at these 

whelping areas. Using this method, the most current population estimate for the western North 

Atlantic stock population is 6.9 million animals, and the minimum population estimate is 6.5 

million animals (Waring et al. 2012). The minimum population estimate is based on the 2008 

pup survey results (Waring et al. 2012). These numbers, however, do not indicate the 

population of this species that can be found in U.S. waters, i.e., the western North Atlantic stock. 

At this point, data on harp seals in U.S. waters are insufficient. However, it has been noted that 

the population appears to be increasing in U.S. EEZ waters, based on the increased number of 

stranded harp seals found more recently (Waring et al. 2012). Current and maximum net 

productivity rates for western North Atlantic stock harp seals in U.S. waters are unknown.

3.2.3.2 Status

Harps seals are not categorized as depleted under the MMPA, are not listed as 

threatened or endangered under the ESA, and are not state-listed in New York. Due to a lack of 

data for the western North Atlantic stock there is no PBR for the western North Atlantic stock of 

harp seals in U.S. waters. The PBR for this stock in Canadian water is 289,220 harp seals. 

Based on these numbers, the level of human-caused mortality and serious injury is less than 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-10

7% of the PBR of western North Atlantic stock harp seals in Canadian waters; therefore this is 

not a strategic stock. The status of the stock in U.S. waters in relation to its OSP level is 

unknown; however, the abundance of the stock appears to be stabilized (Waring et al. 2012). 

3.2.3.3 Distribution

While harps seals historically were a more northern North Atlantic and Arctic Ocean 

species, more recently the numbers of harps seal strandings and sightings have increased as 

far south as New Jersey. In particular, between 2005 and 2009, 112 harp seals were reported 

stranded in New York and of those 112 stranded harp seals, only 1 was a pup (Waring et al. 

2012). Between June 2009 and May 2010 there were 33 strandings of harp seals on Long 

Island (Riverhead Foundation for Marine Research and Preservation 2010). Of those 

strandings, all but 1 occurred between January and May. These data, however, do not specify if 

those strandings in New York waters were along the southern coast of Long Island or within 

Long Island Sound. During this time frame harp seals were the most stranded seal recovered 

by the Riverhead Foundation for Marine Research and Preservation (RFMRP) along the New 

York coast. There are no known haul-out sites for harp seals within the vicinity of the Project. 

The closest two known haul-out sites for seals along the southern coast of Long Island are 

located approximately 10 miles (16 kilometers) to the west of the Project area and 15 miles (24 

kilometers) to the east of the Project area.

In New York waters, harp seals occurrence would be within the extralimital extent of their 

range between January and May. Therefore, while these are a coastal pinniped species, and 

they can be found be as far south as the waters off Long Island, there is a limited potential they 

would occur within the vicinity of the Project during the winter in-water construction period. 

3.3 CETACEANS

There are 10 cetacean species that could be found within the northeast and Mid-Atlantic 

region throughout the year. These species vary from offshore species to nearshore species, and 

their presence within the area also varies throughout the year. These species are the 

humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), minke whale 

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata), North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis), Atlantic whitesided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus), bottlenose dolphin(Tursiops truncatus), harbor 

porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), short-beak common dolphin (Delphinus delphis), short-finned 

pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus), and long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-11

3.3.1 Humpback Whale 

The humpback whale is a species of baleen whale from the Balaenopteridea family. 

Humpback whales, like all baleen whales, are sexually dimorphic with females being larger than 

males. Adult humpback whales can reach up to 60 feet (18 meters) in length and can weigh 

between 50,000 pounds and 80,000 pounds (22 000 kilograms and 80,000 kilograms) (NOAA 

Fisheries Service 2012d). Humpback whales are best recognized (and named for) their long 

pectoral fins, which can reach up to 15 feet (4.6 meters) in length. They are primarily dark gray 

in body color with variable amounts of white on their ventral sides and on the undersides of their 

pectoral fins (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012d). Humpback whales spend the vast majority of 

their time during the summer months feeding and building up their fat stores, which inevitably 

are burned off during the winter months (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012d). The whales filterfeed primarily on small crustaceans (krill), plankton, and some fish species; in New England

waters, the whales are often more piscivores relative to other populations. They will feed on 

herring (Clupea harengus), sand lance (Ammodytes spp.), and other small fish species when in 

New England waters (Waring et al. 2012). 

As a baleen whale, humpback whales are considered low-frequency cetaceans, i.e., 

they are most sensitive to sounds less than 1 kHz (Richardson et al. 1995). Because of the 

complications related to measuring hearing ranges, sensitivities, and localization of large, open 

ocean whales, it is assumed that the sound production range of the species is an indicator of 

the species hearing range (Richardson et al. 1995). Humpbacks are known to produce various 

vocalizations, including the humpback “song,” moans, grunts, pulse trains, and clicks 

(Richardson et al. 1995). While humpback whales are considered low-frequency cetaceans, 

there are components of their vocalizations that are greater than 1 kHz. For example, humpback 

whales produce songs during mating in frequencies ranging from 30 Hz to 8 kHz (Payne and 

Payne 1985), they produce moans at frequencies between 20 Hz and 1800 Hz, grunts at 

frequencies between 25 Hz and greater than 1900 Hz (Thompson et al. 1986), and clicks at 

frequencies between 2 kHz and 8.2 kHz (Winn et al. 1970 and Beamish 1979 in Richardson et 

al. 1995). 

Humpback whales are a global species and can be found in all the major oceans, 

including sub-polar and equatorial as well an temperate regions. In the western North Atlantic 

humpback whales can be found throughout the eastern coast of the United States, the Gulf of 

St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, Labrador, and western Greenland (Katona and Beard 1990) with 

other feeding grounds near Iceland and northern Norway (Christensen et al. 1992; Palsboll et al. 

1997). The individual North Atlantic regions of feeding represent discrete subpopulations, all of 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-12

which were treated as a single population (Waring et al. 1998). For management purposes 

those humpback whales known to feed in the Gulf of Maine with strong fidelity were designated 

as a separate stock (Waring et al. 2012). Furthermore, subsequent genetic analyses (of 

sufficient sample size) supported this theory (Palsboll et al. 2001). The change was ultimately 

made because it was believed that in the event of this population being eliminated, repopulation 

would not occur on any reasonable management timescale (Waring et al. 2012). Many of the 

humpback whales from the northern Atlantic feeding grounds can be found in wintering calving 

grounds throughout the West Indies (Katona and Beard 1990). However, not all whales from the 

North Atlantic migrate to the winter calving grounds. Recent data indicate that many humpback 

whales remain in higher latitudes during the winter (Swingle et al. 1993, Clapham et al. 1993).

3.3.1.1 Numbers

The North Atlantic population (which includes the Gulf of Maine stock) was estimated at 

4,894 males and 2,804 females, based on genetic tagging data collected by the Years of the 

North Atlantic Humpback (YoNAH) project on humpback whale breeding grounds (Palsboll et al. 

1997). The sex-ratio however, in the North Atlantic population is known to be even (Palsboll et 

al. 1997), thus the population estimate is assumed to be an underestimate of actual population 

size (Waring et al. 2012). 

The Gulf of Maine stock population represents a smaller sub-population of the total 

North Atlantic humpback whale population and is estimated at 847 individuals, based on August 

2006 line-transect sighting data collected along the southern edge of Georges Bank to the 

upper Bay of Fundy and to the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Waring et al. 2012). The minimum 

population estimate for the Gulf of Maine stock is 549 individuals (Waring et al. 2012). 

The overall North Atlantic humpback whale population is steadily increasing, with an 

estimated average growth rate of 3.1% annually between 1979 and 1993 (Stevick et al. 2003). 

Population growth rates in the Gulf of Maine stock are estimated at 6.5% annually (Barlow and 

Clapham 1997), where the survival rate is 0.96, the proportion of males to females is 1.0, and 

the annual pregnancy rate is 0.42 (Barlow and Clapham 1997; Clapham et al. 1995); however, 

due to a level of uncertainty associated with more recent estimates of population growth within 

the Gulf of Maine stock, the maximum productivity rate for cetaceans is assumed to be the 

default value of 0.04 annually (Barlow et al. 1995). If the last estimate of population within the 

Gulf of Maine population is extrapolated based on a 4.0% annual growth rate, the 2012 

population would fall within the range of 695 to 1,072 individuals; however, this estimate does 

not account for mortality and/or emigration to other populations.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-13

3.3.1.2 Status

The Gulf of Maine stock of humpback whale is categorized as depleted under the 

MMPA, federally listed as endangered under the ESA (as of 1970), and state-listed in New York 

as endangered throughout its entire range. Despite estimates of continued whale population 

growth, the current population size may be below OSP in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ (Waring et al. 

2012). Levels of mortality and serious injury due to U.S. fisheries is unknown; however, the 

reported levels exceed 10% of the PBR and cannot be considered to be insignificant or 

approaching zero mortality and serious injury rate (Waring et al. 2012). Due to these factors this 

is considered a strategic stock (Waring et al. 2012). The recovery factor is assumed to be 0.10 

due to being listed under the ESA as endangered (Waring et al. 2012). The PBR for the Gulf of 

Maine humpback whale stock is 1.1 whales. No critical habitat has been designated for the Gulf 

of Maine humpback whale stock. 

3.3.1.3 Distribution

The North Atlantic populations of humpback whales generally remain within their 

respective feeding groups throughout the summer in northern latitudes, where they consume up 

to 3,000 pounds (1,360 kilograms) of forage a day and develop a fatty layer (blubber) that 

facilitates their survival during migration periods and throughout the winter months (NOAA 

Fisheries Service 2012d). The whales migrate south during the winter months to breeding and 

calving grounds in the West Indies, where genetic mixing occurs among separate feeding 

groups (Katona and Beard 1990; Plasboll et al. 1997; Stevick et al. 1998). However, a number 

of whales do not migrate and remain in mid- to high-latitude regions (Swingle et al. 1993) such 

as the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays as well as southeastern states (Swingle et al. 1993; 

Wiley et al. 1995).

Humpback whales have been reported in confirmed human-caused mortality or serious 

injury offshore New York and northern New Jersey between 2005 and 2010. One juvenile 

humpback whale was reported as having a serious injury off Sandy Hook, NJ in February 2009 

(Waring et al. 2012). In April 2012, one humpback whale was reported as stranded along the 

Long Island coast (Riverhead Foundation for Marine Research and Preservation 2010). 

Because of the species occurrence along the east coast throughout the year, it is 

possible that the species could be found within the region of the Project year-round; however, 

the lack of presence within the vicinity of the Project and greater prevalence in other regions 

during the winter months indicates that it is unlikely to be present in the vicinity of the Project 

area during the winter in-water construction period. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-14

3.3.2 Fin Whale

The fin whale is a species of baleen whale from the Balaenopteridae family. Fin whales 

are the second largest of the whale species, reaching up to 75 feet (22 meters) in the Northern 

hemisphere subspecies and 85 feet (26 meters) in the Southern hemisphere subspecies (NOAA 

Fisheries Service 2012e). They are very streamlined whales with a dark-colored dorsal side and 

white-colored ventral side (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012e). Fin whales feed primarily during the 

summer on krill and small schooling fish such as herring and sand lance, as well as squid 

(NOAA Fisheries Service 2012e). They fast during the winter.

As with the humpback whale, fin whales are considered low-frequency cetaceans, i.e., 

they are most sensitive to sounds under 1 kHz (Richardson et al. 1995). Based on their vocal 

capabilities, it is thought that the fin whale’s hearing range may extend as low as 10 Hz to15 Hz. 

Fin whales produce two types of sounds, moans and tonal songs. It is reported that moans have 

frequency limits of 14 Hz to118 Hz, with dominant frequencies at 20 Hz (Watkins 1981 in 

Richardson et al. 1995). It is also reported that tonal songs have dominant frequencies between 

17 Hz and 25 Hz (Watkins 1981 in Richardson et al. 1995). 

Fin whales in the Atlantic Ocean have been classified as two different subspecies, one 

located in the North Atlantic and one located in the Southern ocean. For management purposes 

in U.S. waters, fin whales have been divided into four stocks: Hawaii, 

California/Oregon/Washington, Alaska (Northeast Pacific), and western North Atlantic. The fin 

whales in U.S. waters along the east coast are from the western North Atlantic stock (Waring et 

al. 2012). Fin whales are also one of the most common large whale species observed in U.S. 

waters along the east coast from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, northward (CeTAP 1982). New 

England waters are recognized as a major feeding ground for this species, with potential calving 

occurring in the Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. (Hain et al. 1992). However, this is not true for 

the entire population, where the majority of the North Atlantic fin whale population mates and 

calves is unknown (Waring et al. 2012). 

3.3.2.1 Numbers

The best abundance estimate for the western North Atlantic fin whale stock is derived 

from an August 2006 aerial survey of the Gulf of Maine and a July – August 2007 survey of 

northern Labrador to the Scotian Shelf. Based on these two surveys, the best abundance 

estimate is 3,985 animals, and the minimum population estimate is 3,269 animals (Waring et al. 

2012). The current and maximum net productivity rates and the population trend for this 

species are not known because the data are insufficient. However, the gross annual 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-15

reproduction rate for their stock was estimated at 8% (Agler et al. 1993). Due to the lack of 

data, the maximum net productivity rate is assumed to be the default value for cetaceans of 

0.04 annually (Barlow et al. 1995). 

3.3.2.2 Status

The western North Atlantic stock of fin whale is categorized as depleted under the 

MMPA, federally listed as endangered under the ESA (as of 1970), and is state-listed in New 

York as endangered throughout its range. The western North Atlantic stock is considered a 

strategic stock because it is listed as endangered under the ESA. The total levels of humancaused mortality and serious injury are unknown; however, the reported levels exceed 10% of 

the PBR and cannot be considered insignificant or approaching zero mortality and serious injury 

rate (Waring et al. 2012). The PBR for the western North Atlantic stock of fin whale is 6.5. No 

critical habitat has been designated for the western North Atlantic fin whale stock. 

3.3.2.3 Distribution 

Fin whales can be found in U.S. waters in both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. While in 

the U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean they are common primarily from Cape Hatteras northward. 

There are no known population-wide seasonal migrations, but it has been noted that some 

migrations within the population may occur into Canadian waters, from coastal waters out to 

open ocean waters, and possibly into subtropical and tropical waters (Waring et al. 2012). Thus 

they can found in U.S. waters off the east coast between the Mid-Atlantic and New England 

waters throughout the year. The species tends to occupy areas over the continental shelf 

proper as opposed to the shelf edge (CeTAP 1982) and is reported to prefer deeper offshore 

waters (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012e). During the three years of studies (1978-1982) 

associated with the Cetaceans and Turtle Assessment Program (CeTAP) between Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina and the Gulf of Maine, seasonal affinities for fin whales were noted. 

And increase in sighting in the areas around Jeffrey’s Ledge, Stellwagen Bank, and just east 

of Cape Cod appear to show this is an important habitat during spring and summer months 

(CeTAP 1982). There also appears to be an increased abundance within the vicinity of the 

Delaware Bay/Delaware Peninsula region during winter and spring months (CeTAP 1982). 

Fin whales have been observed in the waters south of Long Island, more commonly off 

the eastern end of the island; however, some sightings have occurred off northern New 

Jersey/western Long Island (CeTAP 1982). Only one stranding between 2005 and 2009 has 

been recorded in the vicinity of the Project area. A male fin whale was reported stranded in 

Newark Bay in 2007 (Waring et al. 2012). In December 2012, a fin whale was reported 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-16

stranded in Breezy Point, Queens (New York Times December 26, 2012). It was reported by the 

director of the Riverhead Foundation, the stranding response unit on Long Island, that it is rare 

to see a large whale near the shore in this area. The last time a fin whale was found stranded in 

this area was 1964, in the Hudson River (New York Times December 26, 2012).

Based on occurrence information, stranding records, the species’ affinity for areas south 

of the Project area during winter months, and a preference for deeper offshore waters, it is 

unlikely that the fin whale would be present in the vicinity of the Project area during the winter 

in-water construction period.

3.3.3 Minke Whale 

The minke whale is a species of baleen whale from the Balaenopteridae family. The 

minke whale is the smallest of the baleen whales in waters surrounding North America (NOAA 

Fisheries Service 2012f). Adult minke whales can reach up to 35 feet (10.7 meters) in length, 

and weigh up to 20,000 pounds (9,200 kilograms) (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012f). There is a 

slight sexual dimorphism in this species, where females may be slightly larger than males, 

similar to other baleen whale species. The minke whale can be identified by its sleek body with 

dark grayish-brown coloration and a pale chevron shape on the back, behind the head. The 

ventral side is a lighter white color, and the tall dorsal fin is located approximately two-thirds of 

the way down the back (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012f). Like other baleen whales, minke 

whales feed seasonally and are carnivorous. They feed on a variety of plankton, krill, and fish 

species, including cod and herring.

As with the other baleen whales, fin whales are considered low-frequency cetaceans, 

i.e., they are most sensitive to sounds under 1 kHz (Richardson et al. 1995). Because of their 

vocal capabilities, it is thought that the minke whale’s hearing range extends as low as 60 Hz 

(Richardson et al. 1995). Minke whales have been reported to produce various types of sounds, 

including down sweeps, moans/grunts, and clicks. While humpback whales are considered lowfrequency cetaceans, there are components of their vocalizations that are greater than 1 kHz. 

For example, clicks have been reported within the frequency range of 3.3 kHz to 20 kHz 

(Beamish and Mitchell 1973). Other sounds produced by minke whales, such as down sweeps, 

moans and grunts fall with the frequency range of 60 Hz to 140 Hz (Schevill and Watkins 1972). 

Minke whales are a global species with a widespread occurrence throughout temperate 

and tropical waters (Waring et al. 2012). Overall, they are defined by three major and distinct 

populations: (1) the North Atlantic, (2) North Pacific, and (3) southern oceans, none of which 

interbreed with one another (WCNE 2012). Four separate populations are currently recognized 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-17

in the North Atlantic: (1) Canadian east coast, (2) west Greenland, (3) central North Atlantic, and 

(4) northeastern North Atlantic (Donovan 1991), as delineated based on sex and length, catch 

distributions, sightings, marking data, and pre-existing International Council for the Exploration 

of the Sea (ICES) boundaries (Waring et al. 2012). For management purposes, minke whales 

in U.S. EEZ waters have been divided into four stocks the Alaska stock, the Canadian eastern 

coastal stock, the California/Oregon/Washington stock, and the Hawaii stock. Minke whales 

occurring off the eastern coast of the United States are in the Canadian east coast stock, which 

encompasses the area from the western half of the Davis Straight to the Gulf of Mexico (Waring 

et al. 2012). 

3.3.3.1 Numbers

The total estimated Canadian east coast stock population is presently unknown (Waring 

et al. 2012); however, results from previous surveys conducted in August 2006 and July –

August 2007 estimate the best abundance of the stock to be approximately 8,987 individuals 

and the minimum population estimate of the Canadian east coast stock to be 6,909 individuals 

(Waring et al. 2012). No current population trend for this stock are available because the 

analysis has not been conducted, and there is no current or maximum net productivity rate for 

this stock. However, the population growth rate is estimated at 4%, based on a maximum net 

productivity rate of 0.04 annually (Barlow et al. 1995). Pregnancy rates of females within the 

population range from 0.86 to 0.93, with an average pregnancy rate of approximately 0.90 

(Waring et al. 2012). 

3.3.3.2 Status

The Canadian east coast stock of minke whale is not categorized as depleted under the 

MMPA, not federally listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, and not state-listed in 

New York State. Relative to the OSP, the status of the Canadian east coast stock of the minke 

whale in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ is not presently known (Waring et al. 2012). Total U.S. fisheryrelated mortality and serious injury for the Canadian east coast stock is less than 10% of the 

PBR and is therefore considered to be an insignificant mortality and serious injury rate that is 

approaching zero (Waring et al. 2012). Because the estimated human-related mortality and 

serious injury rate does not exceed the PBR, the minke whale is not considered a strategic 

stock (Waring et al. 2012). The PBR for the Canadian east coast minke whale stock is 

presently set at 69 individuals (Waring et al. 2012). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-18

3.3.3.3 Distribution

Minke whales generally occur near the surface and in the upper water column of the 

ocean throughout their range, except in polar seas. Relationships between the four North 

Atlantic stocks are unknown, and the presence of sub-populations is unknown (Waring et al. 

2012). Minke whales are known to occur along the continental shelf proper rather than the 

continental shelf edge area (Waring et al. 2012). Minke whales in U.S. east coast waters 

appear to have a strong seasonal component to their distribution throughout their range. They 

appear to be widely distributed during spring and summer months, from just east of Montauk 

Point, Long Island, southeast to Nantucket Shoals, and north towards Stellwagen Bank and 

Jeffrey’s Ledge (CeTAP 1982). During the fall their range is much smaller and their abundance 

is reduced throughout this range (CeTAP 1982). During winter months they are largely absent 

from this area (Waring et al. 2012). During the three years of studies associated with the CeTAP 

that took place between 1978 and 1982 between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and the Gulf of 

Maine, only three minke whales were observed south of Long Island during the fall months, and 

no sightings of minke whales were make south of Long Island during winter months (CeTAP 

1982). 

Between 2005 and 2010 only two minke whales have been reported in confirmed 

human-caused mortality or serious injury and strandings in the waters off New Jersey and along 

the coast of Long Island. One adult minke whale was reported dead off the coast of Point 

Pleasant, New Jersey in May 2009 (Waring et al. 2012) and one minke whale was reported as 

stranded along the Long Island coast in April 2007 (Riverhead Foundation for Marine Research 

and Preservation 2008). 

Based on occurrence information, stranding records and injury/mortality records, it 

appears that minke whales are not common in the vicinity of the Project area. If minke whales 

were to be observed in the area, it would be expected to be during late spring or summer 

months. However, the lack of presence of minke whales during the winter months in the vicinity 

of the Project area and greater prevalence in more northern regions during this time indicates 

that this species is unlikely to be present within the vicinity of the Project area during the winter 

in-water construction period. 

3.3.4 North Atlantic Right Whale

The North Atlantic right whale is a species of baleen whale from the Balaenidae family. 

Adult North Atlantic right whales measure between 45 feet and 55 feet (14 meters and 17

meters) in length, and can weigh up to 70 tons (63,503 kilograms) (NOAA, NMFS 2004). The 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-19

species is sexually dimorphic, with females being generally larger than males (NOAA, NMFS 

2004). The North Atlantic right whale has several distinguishing features including a stocky 

body, large head, a highly arched margin of the lower lip, a v-shaped blow, lack of a dorsal fin, 

and callosities in the head region (NOAA, NMFS 2004; Reeves et al. 2002b).

North Atlantic right whales feed by skimming the surface with mouths open, filtering 

plankton through baleen plates (Reeves et al. 2002). The species feeds primarily on 

zooplankton such as large copepods (Calanus finmarchicus), smaller copepods, krill, and 

barnacle larvae (NOAA, NMFS 2004) and is most often seen foraging alone. However, 

observations have been made of potential feeding aggregations in areas such as offshore of 

Rhode Island (Reeves et al. 2002; Kenney and Vigness-Raposa 2010). 

As the North Atlantic right whale is a large baleen whale, it is assumed that it is primarily 

sensitive to low-frequency sounds, similar to the humpback, fin, and minke whales. Right 

whales have been recorded producing tonal sounds between 20 and 1,000 Hz (Parks & Tyack 

2005) as well as vocalizations recorded in the 20 to 200 Hz range (Mellinger 2004). The sounds 

recorded by Mellinger were reported as an “up call,” which represents an upsweep of 

frequencies from lower to higher and is a common vocalization produced by right whales. Right 

whales have also been recorded producing sounds called “moans” at less than 400 Hz (Watkins 

and Schevill 1972) and “gunshots” with the dominant frequencies ranging from 50 to 2000 Hz 

(Parks et al. 2005). 

For management purposes, there is only one stock of North Atlantic right whales. While 

primarily found in the coastal waters of the U.S., the one stock is comprised of individuals from 

the western North Atlantic and have been observed in the waters of Norway, Greenland, and 

the Azores (Waring et al. 2012). 

3.3.4.1 Numbers

The best abundance estimate of North Atlantic right whales is based on a census of 

individual whales known through photo-identification. Based on this census, the best population 

estimate (which is also the minimum population estimate) is 396 individuals (Waring et al. 

2012). This species is considered one of the most critically endangered large whale populations 

globally. However, recent data has suggested a slight positive trend in the population size 

(Waring et al. 2012). There is some concern that the reproductive rate may be decreasing, but 

the mean calving interval has increased from 3.67 years in 1992 to 5 years in 1997/1997 (Kraus 

et al. 2001). Despite recent research, the maximum net productivity rate is not known for this 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-20

stock, and therefore the maximum net productivity rate is assumed to be the default value for 

cetaceans of 0.04 annually (Barlow et al. 1995). 

3.3.4.2 Status

The North Atlantic right whale is categorized as depleted under the MMPA, has been 

federally listed as endangered under the ESA since 1970, and is listed in New York State as 

endangered throughout its range. The abundance of the stock is considered very low in 

comparison with its OSP (Waring et al. 2012). The PBR for the North Atlantic right whale is 0.8. 

The total level of human-caused mortality and serious injury are unknown; however, the 

reported levels exceed 10% of the PBR (2.4 right whales reported per year between 2005 and 

2009) and cannot be considered insignificant or approaching zero mortality and serious injury 

rate (Waring et al. 2012). The western North Atlantic stock is considered a strategic stock 

because it is listed as endangered under the ESA, and the human-caused mortality and serious 

injury per year exceeds the PBR. No critical habitat for the North Atlantic right whale exists in 

the Project area or anywhere within the waters off southern Long Island. The closest critical 

habitat to the Project area is the Great South Channel, located to the east of Cape Cod. Critical 

habitat is also located in Cape Cod Bay and in coastal Florida and Georgia from Sebastian Inlet 

to the Altamaha River (NOAA, NMFS 2004; NOAA Fisheries Service 2012g). 

3.3.4.3 Distribution

The North Atlantic right whale is distributed within U.S. waters spanning the entire east 

coast from Florida to the Gulf of Maine and into Canadian waters of the Bay of Fundy and the 

Scotian Shelf (Waring et al. 2012; Kenney 2002). The species is primarily found along the 

coastal region and inner continental shelf, which is likely due to the availability and distribution 

of their preferred prey—late stage juvenile and adult copepods mostly found close to the coast 

(Baumgartner and Mate 2005; NOAA, NMFS 2004). 

Annually, the species is known to migrate between winter calving grounds in the lower 

latitudes to spring and summer foraging grounds in higher latitudes (NOAA, NMFS 2004). In 

U.S. waters right whales generally can be seen in the winter months off the coast of Georgia 

and northern Florida where reproductive females go to calve, and in the summer months they 

can be found in the waters of New England foraging and nursing their young (NOAA, NMFS 

2004). When in New England waters, right whales are most abundant in Cape Cod Bay, the 

Gulf of Maine, and the Great South Channel (NOAA, NMFS 2004). While these known 

congregation areas have been established as high-use areas, frequent travel along the east 

coast of the U.S. is also common. Satellite tags have shown North Atlantic right whales making 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-21

round-trip migrations to an area off the southeastern U.S. and back to Cape Cod Bay at least 

twice during the winter (Waring et al. 2012).

During their migration between foraging grounds in the northeast region and calving 

grounds in the southern region, right whales are most likely to be found in the vicinity of the 

Project area from November through April. During this time seasonal management areas (SMA) 

are in effect within a 20-nautical mile (37-kilometer) radius of major ports along the U.S. east 

coast. The Project area is within one such SMA that is associated with the Port of New Jersey 

and New York (see Figure 9). According to the NOAA Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center (NEFSC) North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Advisory System (SAS), 25 right 

whale observations have been reported in the waters south of Long Island and north of New 

Jersey between January 2007 and December 2012 (NOAA Fisheries Service, NEFSC 2012). 

Of those sightings, only three were close to the Project area. It is not expected that any right 

whales along the southern coast of Long Island, and in particular within the Project area, would 

be foraging because this behavior has never been documented there. Because of the location 

of right whale migration routes, right whales may be found transiting within the vicinity of the 

Project area from November through April. Actual occurrence of right whales in the Project 

area is expected to be rare, yet possible, during the winter in-water construction period. 

3.3.5 Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin 

The Atlantic white-sided dolphin is a species of toothed whale from the Delphinidae 

family. Adult Atlantic white-sided dolphins can range between 9 feet (3 meters [males]) and 8 

feet (2.5 meters [females]) in length and can weigh between 400 pounds and 500 pounds (180 

kilograms and 225 kilograms) (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012h). Similar to other Delphinidae 

species, the Atlantic white-sided dolphin has a robust body shape with a short rostrum. 

However, this species can be identified by its color pattern, which includes a bi-colored rostrum, 

black dorsal side, fluke, flippers, and dorsal fin, white ventral side and lower rostrum, and gray 

sides. 

Their most distinguishing characteristic is the white patch that begins below the dorsal fin 

and is bordered by a yellow/tan streak down to the fluke (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012h). 

Atlantic white-sided dolphins within the western North Atlantic stock generally show a 

preference for several fish and invertebrate species, including silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis), 

spoonarm octopus (Bathypolypus bairdii), and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus). Atlantic 

herring (Clupea harengus) are most often consumed in summer but are not heavily preyed upon 

during winter months, suggesting a seasonal variation in diet (Craddock et al. 2009). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-22

Atlantic white-sided dolphins, along with 56 other species and subspecies, are 

considered mid-frequency cetaceans. In general, the estimated bandwidth for functional hearing 

in mid-frequency cetaceans is 150 Hz to 160 kHz (Southall et al. 2007). Atlantic white-sided 

dolphins, like many toothed whales, are very vocal animals, using sound for various activities 

such as echolocation for feeding and navigation as well as for socialization (Southall et al. 

2007). However, unlike large baleen whales, hearing has been directly tested in many toothed 

whales by both behavioral reactions to sounds and direct measurements to hearing through 

AEP methods (Southall et al. 2007).

The Atlantic white-sided dolphin occurs throughout temperate and sub-polar waters of 

the North Atlantic, most prominently in continental shelf waters to depths of approximately 330 

feet (100 meters) (Waring et al. 2012). Species sightings, strandings, and incidental take data 

suggest that the western North Atlantic stock of this species may exist in three separate stock 

units: (1) Gulf of Maine, (2) Gulf of St. Lawrence, and (3) Labrador Sea stocks (Palka et al. 

1997). This hypothesis is based largely on a lack of summer sightings along the Atlantic side of 

Nova Scotia between the Gulf of Maine and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. 

3.3.5.1 Numbers

The total number of Atlantic white-sided dolphins in the western North Atlantic stock is 

based on population estimates, which have been calculated since 1978. The best available 

current population estimate is 23,390 individuals, which is based on the sum of the 2006 and 

2007 surveys (Waring et al. 2012). The minimum population estimate for this stock is 19,019 

individuals (Waring et al. 2012). Productivity rates are presently unknown for this stock; 

however, for the purposes of stock assessment, it is assumed that the maximum net productivity 

rate of 0.04 annually is the default value for cetaceans (Barlow et al. 1995). 

3.3.5.2 Status

The western North Atlantic stock of the Atlantic white-sided dolphin is not categorized as 

depleted under the MMPA, is not federally listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, 

and is not listed in New York State. The status of the dolphins relative to the OSP in the U.S. 

Atlantic EEZ is presently unknown (Waring et al. 2012). PBR for this stock is 190 individuals 

(Waring et al. 2012).The total U.S. fishery-related mortality and serious injury for the western 

North Atlantic stock is not less than 10% of the PBR; therefore, fishery-related mortality and 

serious injury cannot be considered insignificant and approaching zero (Waring et al. 2012). 

Furthermore, the 2005 – 2009 estimated average annual human-related mortality exceeds the 

PBR for this stock and it is therefore considered a strategic stock.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Existing 26" Lower NY Bay Lateral

Proposed Pipeline Route

NJ

NY

A t l a n t i c O c e a n

© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #

L:\Buffalo\NorthEast_Supply\Maps\MXDs\ROCKAWAY_2012\FERC_Comment_Figures\RR3_Responses\Right_Whale_SMA.mxd Date: 3/13/2013

Figure 9

Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project

Right Whale

Seasonal Management Area

Proposed Pipeline Route

Existing 26" Lower NY Bay Lateral

Right Whale

Seasonal

Management Area

Source: ESRI 2010

0 5

Miles

NOTE: From November 1 through April 30, all vessels greater than 

or equal to 65 ft (19.8 m) in overall length must slow to speeds of

10 knots or less in Seasonal Management Areas (50 CFR 224.105)

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-25

3.3.5.3 Distribution

Atlantic white-sided dolphins of the western North Atlantic stock inhabit waters from 

central west Greenland to North Carolina and as far east as the Mid-Atlantic ridge (Hamazaki 

2002; Doksaeter et al. 2008; Waring et al. 2008). Within the western North Atlantic stock, the 

Gulf of Maine population is most prevalent in the continental shelf waters from Hudson Canyon 

to Georges Bank and in the Gulf of Maine and lower Bay of Fundy (Waring et al. 2012). 

Seasonal shifts in abundance occur throughout the western North Atlantic region, where the 

dolphins appear to be more prevalent from Georges Bank to the lower Bay of Fundy from June 

through September and from October to December. They appear to occur at intermediate 

densities from southern Georges Bank to the southern Gulf of Maine (Northridge et al. 1997; 

Payne and Heinemann 1990 in Waring et al. 2012). Sightings of dolphins south of Georges 

Bank (Hudson Canyon in particular) occur year-round, but generally at lower densities (Waring 

et al. 2012). 

Based on observations made during the CeTAP (1982) surveys, Atlantic white-sided 

dolphins were found primarily east and north of Long Island and the Project area. Those 

Atlantic white-sided dolphins observed south of Long Island were farther offshore in the deeper 

water of the continental shelf proper and closer to the continental shelf slope. Overall, this 

species was largely absent from the overall study area (Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, to the 

Gulf of Maine) during the winter months (CeTAP 1982). 

Atlantic white-sided dolphins have been reported as stranded along the New York coast 

in recent years. Between 2006 and 2008, 12 Atlantic white-sided dolphins were reported 

stranded in New York (Waring et al. 2012). Between June 2009 and May 2010, only one Atlantic 

white-sided dolphin was reported as stranded along the Long Island coast (Riverhead 

Foundation for Marine Research and Preservation 2010). The one stranding occurred in 

February 2012. 

Based on the known occurrence of this species in New England waters, east and north 

of the Project area, during the spring, summer, and fall months, and the overall lack of presence 

throughout the region during winter months, it is not expected that the Atlantic white-sided 

dolphin would occur within the vicinity of the Project during the winter in-water construction 

period. 

3.3.6 Bottlenose Dolphin

The bottlenose dolphin is a species of toothed whale from the Delphinidae family. Adult 

bottlenose dolphins range between 6 feet to 12.5 feet (1.8 meters to 4.8 meters) in length and 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-26

can weigh up to 1,400 pounds (635 kilograms) (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012i). This species is 

sexually dimorphic, with males being slightly larger than females (NOAA Fisheries Service 

2012i). The bottlenose dolphin is one of the most recognized marine mammal species, with a 

short, thick rostrum, light gray color, and robust body shape (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012i). 

Bottlenose dolphins are considered generalist feeders, feeding on prey items that are 

native to the area or region they are in (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012i). Prey species for coastal 

bottlenose dolphins include various benthic invertebrates and fish species and various squid 

and fish species for bottlenose dolphin that inhabit offshore areas. 

Like the Atlantic white-sided dolphin, bottlenose dolphins are considered mid-frequency 

cetaceans. In general, the estimated general bandwidth for functional hearing in mid-frequency 

cetaceans is 150 Hz to 160 kHz (Southall et al. 2007). Bottlenose dolphins, like many toothed 

whales, are very vocal animals, using sound for various activities such as echolocation for 

feeding and navigation as well as for socialization (Southall et al. 2007).

Bottlenose dolphins are a global species and can be found in most of the temperate and 

tropical waters of the world (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012i). For management purposes, 

bottlenose dolphins in U.S. east coast waters have been divided into two morphologically and 

genetically distinct morphotypes—coastal and offshore (Duffield et al. 1983 in Waring et al. 

2009; Duffield 1986 in Waring et al. 1998). Those two morphotypes have been further divided 

into 16 stocks. Within the coastal morphotype, the stocks are divided into coastal migratory or 

estuarine bottlenose dolphins. It appears, based on photo-identification, that many of the 

estuarine morphotypes are residents of their particular region or area. For example, the 

Biscayne Bay stock remain year-round within the Bay and are genetically distinct from those 

dolphins residing nearby by in the estuary of Florida Bay (Waring et al. 2011). Of the 16 

bottlenose dolphin stocks present along the U.S. east coast, the northern migratory coastal

stock is most likely to be found in the Project region. 

3.3.6.1 Numbers

The best abundance estimate for the western North Atlantic northern migratory coastal

stock of bottlenose dolphin is derived from a 2002 summer survey. Based on this survey, the 

best abundance estimate is 9,604 animals, and the minimum population estimate is 7,147 

animals (Waring et al. 2011). Data on the current and maximum net productivity rates and the 

population trend for this stock are not sufficient nor is there data on population trend, for this 

stock. Current and maximum net productivity rates for this species are also unknown; however, 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-27

for the purposes of stock assessment, it is assumed that the maximum net productivity rate is 

the default value for cetaceans of 0.04 annually (Barlow et al. 1995).

3.3.6.2 Status

The western North Atlantic northern migratory coastal stock of bottlenose dolphin is 

categorized as depleted under the MMPA, is not federally listed as threatened or endangered 

under the ESA, and is not listed in New York State. The status of the western North Atlantic 

northern migratory coastal stock of bottlenose dolphin relative to the OSP in the U.S. Atlantic 

EEZ is unknown (Waring et al. 2011). The PBR for this stock is currently 71 individuals (Waring 

et al. 2011). It is expected that the total mortality and serious injury of this stock is not less than 

10% of the calculated PBR because of spatial overlap of the northern migratory stock and other 

stocks of bottlenose dolphins in North Carolina waters and because several fisheries have not 

been observed and it is expected that the reported mortalities are minimum estimates (Waring 

et al. 2011). Therefore, it cannot be considered to be an insignificant and approaching zero 

mortality and serious injury rate. Because is it classified as depleted under the MMPA, the 

western North Atlantic northern migratory coastal stock of bottlenose dolphin is considered a 

strategic stock.

3.3.6.3 Distribution

The western North Atlantic northern migratory stock of bottlenose dolphin can be found 

between Long Island, New York, and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, during summer months 

(July – September) (CeTAP 1982). During winter months dolphins from this stock are rarely 

seen north of the North Carolina/Virginia border. Their movements north are thought to be 

controlled by water temperature (Garrison et al. 2003 in Waring et al. 2011). While in the Long 

Island region during the summer months, this coastal stock remains between the shoreline and 

the 25-meter depth contour (Waring et al. 2011). 

Bottlenose dolphins have been reported as stranded along the New York coast in recent 

years. Between 2006 and 2008, 16 bottlenose dolphins were reported stranded in New York 

(Waring et al. 2011). Between June 2009 and May 2010 two bottlenose dolphins were reported 

as stranded along the Long Island coast (Riverhead Foundation for Marine Research and 

Preservation 2010), one in June and one in April. 

Based on the known distribution of this species in warmer southern waters during the 

winter months and occurrence within the Project region during summer months, it is not 

expected that bottlenose dolphins would occur within the vicinity of the Project during the winter 

in-water construction period. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-28

3.3.7 Harbor Porpoise

The harbor porpoise is a species of toothed whale from the Phocoenidae family. Adult 

harbor porpoises range between 5 feet to 5.5 feet (1.5 meters to 1.7 meters) in length and can 

weigh up to 170 pounds (77 kilograms) (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012j). This species is 

considered sexually dimorphic, with females being slightly larger than males. This species can 

be recognized by its small, robust, dark gray body (with white ventral side), triangular dorsal fin, 

and short rostrum (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012j). Harbor porpoises feed on both demersal 

and benthic species, primarily schooling fish and cephalopods (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012j). 

Harbor porpoises, along with 19 other species and subspecies, are considered highfrequency cetaceans. In general, the estimated bandwidth for functional hearing in highfrequency cetaceans is 200 Hz to 180 kHz (Southall et al. 2007). Similar to the bottlenose 

dolphin (and other odontocetes), harbor porpoises are vocal animals, using echolocation for 

feeding and navigation and vocalizing for socialization (Southall et al. 2007). Audiograms for 

harbor porpoises have been developed through direct behavioral reaction testing and AEP 

methods (Southall et al. 2007). 

Harbor porpoises can be found in the coastal and offshore waters of both the Atlantic 

and Pacific Oceans. In the western North Atlantic, the species can be found between West 

Greenland and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and in the eastern North Atlantic, the species 

can be found from the Barents Sea to West Africa (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012j). Within these 

areas they are most often found in water less than 650 feet (198 meters) deep, in particular, in 

bays, estuaries, and harbors (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012j). For management purposes, 

harbor porpoises in U.S. waters have been divided into 10 stocks. Of those 10 stocks, only one, 

the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock, is found along the U.S. east coast and thus could be 

found in the Project region. 

3.3.7.1 Numbers

The best abundance estimate for the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock of harbor 

porpoise stock, derived from an August 2006 aerial survey, 89,054 animals, and the minimum 

population estimate is 60,970 animals (Waring et al. 2012). Currently there is no known 

population trend available for this stock. Many studies have attempted to estimate the possible 

population growth rates. The most recent and currently accepted population growth rate was 

determined using a Bayesian population model that used fertility data and age-at-death data 

from stranded animals and animals taken in gillnets (Waring et al. 2012). Based on this 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-29

modeling process it was determined that the potential natural growth rate for the Gulf of 

Maine/Bay of Fundy stock of harbor porpoises was 0.046 (Waring et al. 2012). 

3.3.7.2 Status

The Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock of harbor porpoise is not categorized as depleted 

under the MMPA and is not federally listed as threatened or endangered; however, it is -listed 

as a species of concern in New York State waters. The status of the Gulf of Maine/Bay of 

Fundy stock of harbor porpoise relative to the OSP in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ is presently 

unknown (Waring et al. 2012). PBR for this stock is 701 individuals (Waring et al. 2012). The 

total U.S. fishery-related mortality and serious injury for the western North Atlantic stock is not 

less than 10% of the PBR; therefore, fishery-related mortality and serious injury cannot be 

considered insignificant and approaching zero (Waring et al. 2012). The estimated average 

annual human-related mortality exceeds the PBR for this stock and it is thus considered a 

strategic stock. 

3.3.7.3 Distribution

The Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock of harbor porpoise can be found over the 

continental shelf between the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy region and North Carolina in varying 

abundance, depending on the season (Waring et al. 2012). During the summer months (July –

September) this stock can be found primarily concentrated in the northern Gulf of Maine and the 

southern Bay of Fundy (Waring et al. 2012). While in this region, harbor porpoises are generally 

found in less than approximately 500 feet (150 meters) of water (Waring et al. 2012). During the 

fall months (October – December) and spring months (April – June), the species can be found 

between Maine and New Jersey; however, during these months they are widely dispersed 

throughout this range (Waring et al. 2012). During winter months (January – March), harbor 

porpoises can also be found dispersed between New Jersey and North Carolina, with much 

lower densities between New York and Canada (Waring et al. 2012; CeTAP 1982). There has 

been no research that supports either a migration triggered by water temperature or a specific 

migration route throughout its range. 

Harbor porpoises have been reported as stranded along the New York coast in recent 

years. Between 2005 and 2009 48 harbor porpoises were reported stranded in New York 

(Waring et al. 2012). Between June 2009 and May 2012 three harbor porpoises were reported 

as stranded along the Long Island Coast (Riverhead Foundation for Marine Research and 

Preservation 2010). Only one of the three strandings occurred between January 2009 and May 

2012. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-30

Based on the current understanding of the species distribution, it can be expected that 

harbor porpoises could be present, in varying densities, in the region and in the vicinity of the 

Project during fall, winter, and spring months (October – June). Because the species is widely 

distributed throughout the region during this timeframe, harbor porpoises could be present in the 

vicinity of the Project during the winter in-water construction period; however, it is expected to 

be a rare occurrence.

3.3.8 Short-Beaked Common Dolphin 

The short-beaked common dolphin is a species of toothed whale from the Delphinidea 

family. Common dolphins are smaller than other members of the Delphinidae family. Adult 

common dolphins reach up to 9 feet (2.7 meters) in length and weigh approximately 440 pounds 

(200 kilograms) (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012k). Similar to other dolphin species, males can 

be slightly larger than females. Common dolphins can be identified by bright their colors and 

patterns, distinct patterns (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012k). These patterns include a dark gray, 

“V” shaped pattern that extends from the rostrum and along the back, a yellow/tan section on 

the sides, and a white patch on the ventral side that is located forward of the dorsal fin (NOAA 

Fisheries Service 2012k). They also have a somewhat longer rostrum, a sleek body form, and 

tall, triangular dorsal fin located along the mid-back (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012k). Shortbeaked common dolphins feed primarily on schooling fish and cephalopod species that can be 

found within the top 650 feet (200 meters) of the water column (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012k). 

Like the Atlantic white-sided dolphin, short-beaked common dolphins are considered 

mid-frequency cetaceans. In general, the estimated general bandwidth for functional hearing in 

mid-frequency cetaceans is 150 Hz to 160 kHz (Southall et al. 2007). Short-beaked common 

dolphins, like many toothed whales, are very vocal animals, using echolocation for feeding and 

navigation and sounds for socialization (Southall et al. 2007).

The short-beaked common dolphin is among the most widely distributed cetacean 

species. They occur throughout the world in temperate and subtropical waters (Waring et al. 

2012). In U.S. EEZ waters they can be found offshore of both the east and west coasts. For 

management purposes, short-beaked common dolphins in the U.S. waters are divided into two 

separate stocks, the California/Oregon/Washington stock and the western North Atlantic stock. 

In 2005, Westgate tested the population stock via molecular analysis of mitochondrial DNA 

(mtDNA, in addition to a geometric morphometric analysis of cranial morphology. Both of these 

studies were unable to provide evidence suggesting that the population is more than a single 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-31

stock within the western north Atlantic (Westgate 2005 in Waring et al. 2012). Therefore, the 

western North Atlantic short-beaked common dolphin is considered a single stock.

3.3.8.1 Numbers

The best abundance estimate for the western North Atlantic stock of short-beaked 

common dolphin is based on previous abundance estimates from two 2004 surveys in the U.S. 

Atlantic. The best population estimate for this stock is 120,743 individuals, and the minimum 

population estimate is 99,975 (Waring et al. 2012). This population estimate is based on the 

sum of two 2004 abundance estimates from the northern U.S. Atlantic (90,547 individuals) and 

the southern U.S. Atlantic (30,196 individuals); this joint estimate is considered by NOAA to be 

the most complete coverage of the stocks’ distribution (Waring et al. 2012). There is no 

population trend available for this stock. Current and maximum net productivity rates for this 

species are also unknown; however, for the purposes of stock assessment, it is assumed that 

the maximum net productivity rate is the default value for cetaceans of 0.04 annually (Barlow et 

al. 1995). 

3.3.8.2 Status

The western North Atlantic stock of the short-beaked common dolphin is not categorized 

as depleted under the MMPA, is not federally listed as threatened or endangered under the 

ESA, and is not state-listed in New York State. The status of the western North Atlantic stock of 

short-beaked common dolphin, relative to the OSP in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ is unknown (Waring 

et al. 2012). The PBR for this stock is currently 1,000 individuals (Waring et al. 2012). The total 

U.S. fishery-related mortality and serious injury for this stock is not less than 10% of the PBR 

and cannot be considered to be insignificant and approaching zero mortality and serious injury 

rate as a result (Waring et al. 2012). From 2005 – 2009, the average annual human-related 

mortality rates did not exceed the PBR and thus the western North Atlantic stock of common 

dolphin is not a strategic stock (Waring et al. 2012). 

3.3.8.3 Distribution

Short-beaked common dolphins are distributed world-wide, but within the western North 

Atlantic stock, they can occur from Newfoundland to Florida (Waring et al. 2012). The dolphins 

occur over the continental shelf along the 100-meter to 2,000-meter (328-feet to 6,560-feet) 

isobaths (Doksaeter et al. 2008). Generally, the dolphins are distributed along the continental 

slope and are commonly associated with features of the Gulf Stream (Waring et al. 1992; 

Hamazaki 2002). During the CeTAP surveys (1978-1982) this species was primarily observed 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-32

along the shelf edge and into the deep ocean basin, especially throughout the spring, summer, 

and winter (CeTAP 1982). Their movements throughout their range appear to be generally 

driven by water temperature. During mid-summer to autumn, common dolphins migrate to 

Georges Bank and the Scotian shelf, and during mid-January to May, the dolphins are spread 

out from Cape Hatteras to Georges Bank (Hain et al. 1981; Payne et al. 1984). During the 

summer and autumn months, when water temperatures are higher than 11°C, short-beaked 

common dolphins generally migrate to the Scotian shelf and continental shelf off of 

Newfoundland (Sergeant et al. 1970; Gowans and Whitehead 1995).

Observations made during the CeTAP (1982) surveys indicate that short-beaked 

common dolphins are found primarily east and north of Long Island and the Project area during 

all seasons. Those short-beaked common dolphins observed south of Long Island occurred 

farther offshore in the deeper water of the continental shelf proper, closer to the continental 

shelf slope (CeTAP 1982). 

Short-beaked common dolphins have been reported as stranded along the New York 

coast in recent years. Between 2005 and 2009, 39 short-beaked common dolphins were 

reported stranded in New York (Waring et al. 2012). Of these 39 strandings, 20 animals were 

involved in a mass stranding in Suffolk County, New York, and in 2009 seven animals were 

involved in two mass strandings (Waring et al. 2012). Between June 2009 and May 2012, 10 

common dolphins were reported as stranded along the Long Island coast (Riverhead 

Foundation for Marine Research and Preservation 2010). Of those 10 strandings, 5 occurred 

between January and May. 

Based on the known occurrence of this species in deeper offshore waters, with the 

majority of observations along the continental slope and into the deep ocean basin, it is 

expected that the short-beaked common dolphin would be rare in the vicinity of the Project 

during the winter in-water construction period; however, based on the high number of strandings 

along the Long Island coast, this species may occur in the vicinity of the Project during in-water 

construction. 

3.3.9 Short-Finned Pilot Whale

The short-finned pilot whale is one of two species of pilot whale (Globicephala sp.) and 

is a species of toothed whale from the Delphinidae family. Adult short-finned pilot whales are 

larger than most members of the Delphinidea family. Adult females can reach up to 12 feet 

(3.67 meters) in length, and males, on average, can reach up to 18 feet (5.5 meters) in length. 

Adults weigh between 2,200 pounds and 6,600 pounds (1,000 kilograms and 3,000 kilograms) 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-33

(NOAA Fisheries Service 2012l). This species is sexually dimorphic, with males being larger 

than females (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012l). The short-finned pilot whale can be identified by 

its bulbous head, lack of an obvious rostrum, dark black or dark brown body color, and a 

forward- located, broad-based dorsal fin (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012l). Short-finned pilot 

whales feed on species that are mostly found mostly in water 1,000 feet (305 meters) or deeper. 

Their primary prey species is squid; however, they also feed on octopus and fish species 

(NOAA Fisheries Service 2012l). 

Like the Atlantic white-sided dolphin, short-finned pilot whales are considered midfrequency cetaceans. In general, the estimated general bandwidth for functional hearing in midfrequency cetaceans is 150 Hz to 160 kHz (Southall et al. 2007).

Short-finned pilot whales are a global species and can be found in tropical and 

subtropical areas, primarily in deeper waters (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012l). In U.S. waters 

they can be found along both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. For management purposes, shortfinned pilot whales in U.S. waters have been divided into four stocks. Of those four stocks, only 

one, the western North Atlantic stock, is found along the U.S. east. Therefore, this stock could 

be found in the Project region. 

3.3.9.1 Numbers

The best abundance estimate for the western North Atlantic stock of the short-finned 

pilot whale is derived from a 2004 summer survey and an analysis of spatial distribution based 

on genetic analyses of biopsy samples. Based on this information, the best abundance estimate 

is 24,674 animals and the minimum population estimate is 17,190 animals (Waring et al. 2012). 

The current population trend for this species is unknown due to insufficient data, and the current 

and maximum net productivity rates are also unknown. However, it is assumed that the 

maximum net productivity rate is the default value for cetaceans of 0.04 annually (Barlow et al. 

1995). 

3.3.9.2 Status

The western North Atlantic stock of the short-finned pilot whale is not categorized as 

depleted under the MMPA, is not federally listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, 

and is not listed in New York State. The status of short-finned pilot whales relative to the OSP 

in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ is presently unknown (Waring et al. 2012). PBR for this stock is 172 

individuals (Waring et al. 2012). Due to the difficulty in determining mortality estimates between 

long-finned and short-finned pilot whales, the total U.S. fishery-related mortality and serious 

injury for the western North Atlantic stock of the short-finned pilot whale is unknown. However, it 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-34

is expected that it is not less than 10% of the PBR; therefore, fishery-related mortality and 

serious injury cannot be considered insignificant and approaching zero (Waring et al. 2012). 

This is not a strategic stock because total mortality does not exceed the PBR and is likely to be 

composed partially of long-finned pilot whales as well. 

3.3.9.3 Distribution

The western North Atlantic stock of the short-finned pilot whale can be found primarily 

along the continental shelf break between New England and Florida. Short-finned pilot whales 

are difficult to differentiate from long-finned pilot whales during aerial and boat surveys, so it is 

difficult to specifically determine their exact range. However, it is expected that short-finned pilot 

whales are more common between Florida and North Carolina. There is also some spatial 

overlap with long-finned pilot whales in the Mid-Atlantic region between Cape Hatteras, North 

Carolina and New Jersey (Waring et al. 2012). Because these species prefer deeper offshore 

waters they are not often observed in the waters overlying the continental shelf proper and are 

more commonly seen at the continental shelf break and farther offshore on the slope. 

Pilot whales have been reported stranded along the New York coast in recent years. 

However, between 2005 and 2009 no short-finned pilot whales were reported stranded in New 

York (Waring et al. 2012). Between June 2009 and May 2012 only one pilot whale was reported 

stranded along the coast of Long Island, but it was not identified as either a short-finned or longfinned pilot whale (Riverhead Foundation for Marine Research and Preservation 2010). Based 

on this information, and the species preference for deeper pelagic waters, it is unlikely that this 

species would be found in the Project vicinity during the winter in-water construction period.

3.3.10 Long-Finned Pilot Whale

The long-finned pilot whale is one of two species of pilot whale (Globicephala sp,) and is 

a species of tooted whale from the Delphinidae family. Adult long-finned pilot whales, similar to 

the short-finned pilot whale, are larger than most members of the Delphinidae family. Adults 

range from 19 feet (5.8 meters [females]) to 25 feet (7.6 meters [males]) in length and can 

weigh between 2, 900 pounds (1,300 kilograms [females]) and 5,000 pounds (2,300 kilograms 

[males]) (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012m). The long-finned pilot while is very similar in 

appearance to the short-finned pilot whale; however, its pectoral fins are long and tapered in a 

sickle shape. This characteristic gives the species its common name. Because the largely 

distinguishing characteristic for this species is often below the water, it is difficult for long-finned 

and short-finned pilot whales to be differentiated during aerial and boat surveys. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-35

Similar to short-finned pilot whales, long-finned pilot whales primarily occur in deeper 

waters. However, this species is more commonly found in temperate to sub-polar oceanic 

waters (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012m). Long-finned pilot whales are known to be deep divers, 

commonly diving between 656 feet and 1,640 feet (200 meters and 500 meters) for feeding. 

While at depth, long-finned pilot whales feed on a variety of species, including cod, herring, 

hake, squid, octopus, and shrimp (NOAA Fisheries Service 2012m). 

Like the Atlantic white-sided dolphin, long-finned pilot whales are considered midfrequency cetaceans. In general, the estimated bandwidth for functional hearing in midfrequency cetaceans is 150 Hz to 160 kHz (Southall et al. 2007).

Long-finned pilot whales are a global species and can be found in colder temperate and 

sub-polar regions, such as southern Australia, Cape Province (South Africa), Chile, the Gulf of 

St. Lawrence, and Greenland. Within U.S. waters they can be found along the east coast. For 

management purposes, long-finned pilot whales consist of only one stock, the western North 

Atlantic stock. This stock could be found in the Project region. 

3.3.10.1 Numbers

The best abundance estimate for the western North Atlantic stock of the long-finned pilot 

whale is derived from a 2004 summer survey and an analysis of spatial distribution based on

genetic analyses of biopsy samples. Based on this information, the best abundance estimate is 

12,619 animals and the minimum population estimate is 9,333 animals (Waring et al. 2012). The 

current population trend for this species is unknown due to insufficient data. Productivity rates 

are presently unknown for this stock; however, for the purposes of stock assessment, it is 

assumed that the maximum net productivity rate is the default value for cetaceans of 0.04 

annually (Barlow et al. 1995). 

3.3.10.2 Status

The western North Atlantic stock of the long-fined pilot whale is not categorized as 

depleted under the MMPA, is not federally listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, 

and is not listed in New York State. The status of long-finned pilot whales relative to the OSP 

in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ is presently unknown (Waring et al. 2012). However, the total fishery 

mortality for the western North Atlantic stock of long-finned pilot whale may exceed the PBR, 

and thus it is considered a strategic stock under the MMPA. The PBR for this stock is 93 

individuals (Waring et al. 2012). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

3-36

3.3.10.3 Distribution

The western North Atlantic stock of the long-finned pilot whale can be found along the 

continental shelf of the U.S. coast between the Mid-Atlantic and the Gulf of Maine. As with 

short-finned pilot whales, long-finned pilot whales are difficult to differentiate from their 

counterparts during aerial and boat surveys, so it is difficult to specifically determine their exact 

range in U.S. waters. However, it is expected that long-finned pilot whales are more common in 

the offshore waters of New England during winter and early spring (January – May) (CeTAP 

1982). During late spring through autumn (May – November/December) long-finned pilot whales 

can be found in the area of Georges Bank and the Gulf of Maine (CeTAP 1982). There is also 

some spatial overlap with short-finned pilot whales in the mid-Atlantic region between Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina, and New Jersey during summer months (Waring et al. 2012).

Long-finned pilot whales have been reported stranded along the New York coast in 

recent years. Between 2005 and 2009 six long-finned pilot whales were report stranded in New 

York (Waring et al. 2012). Between June 2009 and May 2012 only one pilot whale was reported 

stranded along the coast of Long Island, but it was not identified as either a short-finned or longfinned pilot whale (Riverhead Foundation for Marine Research and Preservation 2010). Based 

on this information, and the species preference for deeper pelagic waters, it is unlikely that this 

species would be found in the Project region during the winter in-water construction period.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

4-1

4.0 AFFECTED SPECIES STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION

A description of the status, distribution, and seasonal distribution (when applicable) of 

the affected species or stocks of marine mammals likely to be affected by such activities.

Because of the large number of marine mammals discussed, Section 3.0 was combined 

with Section 4.0 in order to consolidate all species-specific information in one place. Each topic 

required in Section 4.0 (status, distribution, and seasonal distribution [when applicable]) has 

been identified and addressed in subheadings in Section 3.0 in order to make finding the 

relevant information easier. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

5-1

5.0 TYPE OF INCIDENTAL TAKE AUTHORIZATION REQUESTED 

The type of incidental taking authorization that is being requested (i.e., takes by 

harassment only, takes by harassment, injury and/or death), and the method of incidental 

taking.

The MMPA defines “harassment” as “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A 

harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in 

the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, 

breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment]”(50 C.F.R, Part 216, 

Subpart A, Section 216.3-Definitions).

Level A is the more severe form of harassment because it may result in injury or death, 

whereas Level B results only in disturbance without the potential for injury. This IHA application 

is requesting only takes resulting from Level B acoustical harassment.

Incidental Take Authorization Request and Method of Incidental Taking

Transco requests the issuance of an IHA pursuant to Section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA for 

the incidental take of six marine mammal species by vibratory pile-driving activities associated 

with construction of a sub-sea pipeline offshore of the Rockaway Peninsula, Queens County, 

New York, during the period of January 2014 – May 2014. The activities outlined in Section 1.0 

have the potential to take marine mammals by acoustic behavioral harassment during vibratory 

pile-driving activities. More specifically, the requested authorization is for the incidental 

harassment of marine mammals that might enter the 120 dB and greater ZOI during active 

vibratory pile driving. No Level A takes are expected to occur during the Project.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

6-1

6.0 NUMBER OF MARINE MAMMALS THAT MAY BE AFFECTED 

By age, sex, and reproductive condition (if possible), the number of marine mammals (by 

species) that may be taken by each type of taking identified in Section 5, and the number 

of times such takings by each type of taking are likely to occur.

This section summarizes the potential incidental take by Level B behavioral harassment 

of marine mammals during vibratory pile-driving activities from Transco’s proposed Project, 

described in Section 1.0. Section 6.3 describes the methods used to calculate the potential take 

of each marine mammal species with the potential to be found in the vicinity of the Project 

during in-water construction and provides the number of each marine mammal species for 

which Level B behavioral harassment takes are being requested.

Due to the low source level of the vibratory hammer and the coordination and visual 

monitoring outlined in Section 13.1, Monitoring Plan, the vibratory hammer activities discussed 

in this IHA application are only expected to incidentally take by Level B acoustical behavioral 

harassment small numbers of gray seals, harbor seals, harp seals, the North Atlantic right 

whale, harbor porpoises, and short-beaked common dolphins. As the vibratory hammer would 

not produce sounds greater than or equal to 180 dB or 190 dB, there is no potential for injury 

(Level A take), and therefore no shut-down procedure would be implemented. 

The short time frame of the actual vibratory pile-driving activities and the transitory 

behavior of the marine mammals that have the potential to be found within the vicinity of the 

Project area, also contributes to the conclusion that animals would experience only Level B 

acoustic harassment for a brief and temporary time period. It is therefore expected that each 

animal exposed would experience only one exposure to potentially harassing levels of sound if it 

enters the 120 dB ZOI. No animals are expected to forage specifically within the Project area 

and there are no haul-out sites close to the Project area. The closest two known haul-out sites 

for seals along the southern coast of Long Island are approximately 10 miles (16 kilometers) to 

the west of the Project area in the Lower Bay area and 15 miles (24 kilometers) to the east of 

the Project area near Point Lookout. Therefore, multiple exposures to any one animal are not 

expected. 

6.1 ESTIMATED DURATION OF PILE DRIVING

As noted above in Section 2, it is estimated that it would take no more than one day of 

operation, spread out over one week, for installation and removal of the temporary piles (Table 

6). The maximum number of hours of pile installation and removal is two hours total for each 

activity. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

6-2

6.2 ESTIMATED ZONE OF INFLUENCE 

Distance to the threshold criteria established by the NOAA Fisheries Service for Level B 

harassment takes due to vibratory pile driving activities was presented in Section 1.6.4, 

Attenuation to NOAA Fisheries Service Thresholds. The ZOI (i.e., the area ensonified by 

sounds at or greater than the threshold) was calculated from these distances. The distance from 

the source to the 120 dB isopleth for Level B acoustical harassment threshold for vibratory pile 

driving was estimated at approximately 3 miles (4.6 kilometers), representing approximately 17

square miles (44 square kilometers). This takes into account pile driving taking place within 

0.65 miles (approximately 1 kilometer) of shore, which would inhibit the sound from propagating 

fully around the source because it would be partially interrupted by land. This 120 dB ZOI will 

be monitored during construction to estimate actual takes by harassment of marine mammals, 

and if any marine mammals enter the ZOI during active vibratory pile driving, their behavior will 

be monitored. 

6.3 METHOD OF ESTIMATED INCIDENTAL TAKES REQUESTED

Incidental takes were estimated for each species by estimating the likelihood of a marine 

mammal being present within the expected ZOI during active vibratory pile driving. Expected 

animal presence in the vicinity of the Project area during in-water construction was described in 

Section 3.0. Based on this information, it was determined that only six marine mammal species 

are likely to be present; gray seal, harbor seal, harp seal, North Atlantic right whale, harbor 

porpoise, and short-beaked common dolphin. Although all other species discussed in Section 

3.0 can be found within the region of the Project area, they are not expected to be present either 

because of the time of year or because of their preference for waters further offshore. (The ZOI 

is expected to extend out, at most, only 3 miles [4.6 kilometers] from shore.) 

Potential take can be estimated by multiplying the area of the ZOI by the local animal 

density. This provides an estimate of the number of animals that might occupy the ZOI at any 

given moment during vibratory pile driving activities. However, density estimates for marine 

mammals within the coastal Mid-Atlantic are limited, and there are no density estimates for the 

specific Project area along the southern coast of Long Island. Therefore, estimated takes were 

calculated based on the best available information for the region including density estimates 

developed by the Department of Navy (Navy) through their Navy OPAREA Density Estimate 

(NODE) for the Northeast OPAREAS—Boston, Narragansett Bay, and Atlantic City (DON 

2007), which covers all continental shelf waters from the southern point of New Jersey to Nova 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

6-3

Scotia, Canada, from the coast out past the continental shelf. The report presents density 

estimates either determined by models created with species-specific data or derived from 

abundance estimates found in the NOAA Fisheries 2007 Stock Assessment Reports (DON 

2007). Density surface models (DSMs) were run for six species of marine mammals, one of 

which was the short-beaked common dolphin. Other density estimates were determined based 

on shipboard and aerial surveys conducted by the NEFSC during summer months between 

1998 and 2004. Density for all species was calculated based on seasons and spatial strata. 

The seasons were defined as follows: 

■ Winter – December, January, February

■ Spring – March, April, May

■ Summer – June, July, August

■ Fall – September, October, November

The spatial strata consisted of 11 areas within the Navy’s Northeast study area. The 

spatial strata that most represented the Project area were the Mid-Atlantic strata, which 

encompassed the area from 3 nautical miles offshore of southern Long Island south to the 

Maryland/Virginia border (on the eastern shore) and out to the continental shelf break (Figure 

10). 

Figure 10 Navy Northeast OPAREA Spatial Strata

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

6-4

Density for each marine mammal species was calculated for this stratum during each 

season (DON 2007). Sighting data during each season and in each stratum were not available 

for all species, so different methods were used based on the available information. Overall, 

density was calculated from summer abundance estimates provided in 2005 based on the 1998-

2004 NEFSC survey data. Summer density was than calculated by dividing the abundance 

determined for each species in each stratum (where data were available) by the area of survey 

coverage for which the original abundance estimate was calculated (DON 2007). Because 

pinnipeds are not often sighted in aerial and shipboard surveys, their densities were calculated 

based on the most recent NEFSC stock assessment review (SAR) at the time (Waring et al. 

2004). The occurrence of many of the species found in the Northeast OPAREAS was known, 

but the surveys did not provide enough information to derive density estimates. In these cases, 

density for a stratum and season was most often calculated using the seasonal density 

estimates from an adjacent stratum using a proportional sighting per unit effort (SPUE) for the 

stratum and season of concern. That proportional SPUE calculation is as follows: 

Dals = (SPUEals X Dbls) / SPUEb

where: 

D = density

a = stratum for which the density is being calculated

b = adjacent stratum contain the existing density estimate

l = species

s = season (DON 2007)

For the six species for which takes are being requested, various methods were used to 

determine their density within each stratum and each season due to lack of data. Densities 

were only determined for four the six species in the NODE report: the harbor seal, North Atlantic 

right whale, short-beaked common dolphin, and harbor porpoise. Because the other two 

species, gray seal and harp seal, have a small potential for occurrence and are rare to the area, 

no density estimates were available and other methods were used to determine potential takes. 

Gray seal

Due to a lack of data and their rare occurrence in the Mid-Atlantic region, no densities for 

gray seals were calculated in the NODE report or any other available sources. However, the 

occurrence of this species has been documented on the southern coast of Long Island during 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

6-5

winter months. The closest documented haul-out location for gray seals along the Long Island 

coast is on Cupsogue Beach, approximately 60 miles (96 kilometers) east of the Project area.

During the winter/early spring months (January through April) of 2010 through 2012 a total of 42 

gray seals were observed in this location (CRESLI n.d.). On average, 14 gray seals were 

observed in this location per year. Due to their known occurrence east of the Project area, there 

is the potential for gray seals to be found in the vicinity of the Project area during the winter 

months. Since there are no density estimates for gray seals in the Mid-Atlantic region or in the 

Project area, Transco is estimating that up to 14 gray seals could enter into the Level B 

harassment ZOI during active vibratory pile driving (Table 9). It is expected that this is a 

conservative estimate because the species is less common in the area, the sighting location is 

located more than approximately 60 miles (96 kilometers) away from the Project area, and the 

closest known haul-out for any seal species is approximately 10 miles (16 kilometers) away 

from the Project area. 

Harbor seal 

Due to a lack of survey data, the densities for harbor seals were determined using SARderived methods and were based on spring and summer abundance estimates. Therefore the 

density of harbor seals may not be the most representative of the Project area; however, it is 

based on the best available information (DON 2007). This estimate also assumes that the 

animals are evenly distributed throughout the entire Mid-Atlantic stratum and throughout all four 

seasons, which is inaccurate and therefore makes the density estimate overly conservative. 

Based on this information, the density estimates of harbor seals in the vicinity of the Project 

area during the in-water construction period are 156.409 animals/kilometer2 (for winter and 

spring) (Table 9). Based on these density estimates, Transco is requesting authorization for 

Level B acoustical harassment take of 138 harbor seals. 

Harp seal

Due to a lack of data and their rare occurrence in the Mid-Atlantic region, no densities for 

harp seals were calculated in the NODE report or any other sources. However, the occurrence 

of this species has been documented on the southern coast of Long Island during the winter 

months. The closest documented haul-out location for harp seals along the Long Island coast is 

on Cupsogue Beach, approximately 60 miles (96 kilometers) east of the Project area. No harp 

seals were observed in this haul-out area during the winter months of 2010 through 2012. The 

most recent observation of harp seals in this location was in 2008 when 4 harp seals were 

observed in March of that year (CRESLI n.d.). Although their occurrence in the Mid-Atlantic 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

6-6

region is rare, their occurrence has been documented. Since there are no density estimates for 

harp seals in the Mid-Atlantic region or in the Project area, Transco is estimating that up to 4 

harp seals could enter into the Level B harassment ZOI during active vibratory pile driving 

(Table 9). It is expected that this is an overly conservative estimate because the species is less 

common in the area, the sighting location is located more than approximately 60 miles (96 

kilometers) away from the Project area, and the closest known haul-out for any seal species is 

approximately 10 miles (16 kilometers) away from the Project area.

North Atlantic right whale

Because past surveys of North Atlantic right whales were concentrated in the Gulf of 

Maine, density estimates were conservatively calculated (due to their critically endangered 

status) for all other stratum and all seasons based on the SAR-derived value for the winter in 

the Gulf of Maine (DON 2007). The SAR abundance number at the time of the report was 300 

(Waring et al. 2004). This abundance value is less than the current 396 individuals reported in 

the most recent SAR (Waring et al. 2012). However, despite the slight increase in abundance of 

the North Atlantic right whale, the assumption that the density is the same across all stratum 

and all seasons is an overly conservative approach. Based on this information, density 

estimates of North Atlantic right whales in the vicinity of the Project area during the in-water 

construction period are 0.034 animals/kilometer2 (for winter and spring) (Table 9). Based on 

these density estimates, Transco is requesting authorization for Level B acoustical harassment 

of 1 North Atlantic right whale that may transit through the area.

Short-beaked common dolphin

Density estimates from the available survey data for short-beaked common dolphins 

were not available for the mid-Atlantic stratum. Therefore, the density estimates for each season 

were derived from proportional SPUE calculations taken from the summer density estimates in 

the Shelf West stratum, which is adjacent to the Mid-Atlantic stratum (DON 2007). Based on the 

SPUE, density estimates of short-beaked common dolphins in the vicinity of the Project area 

during the in-water construction period are 145.347 animals/kilometer2 (winter) and 1.908 

animals/kilometer2 (spring) (Table 9). Based on these density estimates, Transco is requesting 

authorization for Level B acoustical harassment take of 65 short-beaked common dolphins that 

may transit through the area. This is overly conservative because the density data was derived 

from another stratum that may not as effectively reflect the actual density of short-beaked 

common dolphins in the mid-Atlantic stratum and the vicinity of the Project area and because 

the seasons considered in the NODE report include months outside the in-water work window. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

6-7

Harbor porpoise

Density estimates for harbor porpoises were not available for the Mid-Atlantic stratum 

based on the available survey data. Therefore, the winter and spring density estimates were 

derived from proportional SPUE calculations taken from the spring density estimates in the 

George’s West stratum, which is adjacent to the mid-Atlantic stratum (DON 2007). Based on 

this information, density estimates of harbor porpoises in the vicinity of the Project area during 

the in-water construction period are 6.404 animals/kilometer2 (winter) and 19.895 

animals/kilometer2 (spring) (Table 9). Based on these density estimates, Transco is requesting 

authorization for Level B acoustical harassment take of 12 harbor porpoises that may transit 

through the area. This is overly conservative because the density data were derived from 

another stratum that may not as effectively reflect the actual density of short-beaked common 

dolphins in the mid-Atlantic stratum and the vicinity of the Project area, and the seasons 

considered in the NODE report include months outside the in-water work window.

Using the density estimates from the Navy NODE report, potential takes by harassment 

were calculated within the ZOI for each of the four species most likely to found in the vicinity of 

the Project area during the in-water construction period: harbor seal, North Atlantic right whale, 

short-beaked common dolphin, and harbor porpoise. It is expected that the potential takes by 

harassment presented here are overly conservative numbers based on a variety of factors:

■ The overly conservative ZOI (as described in Section 6.2)

■ The actual time frame for vibratory pile driving would occur during no more than two nonconsecutive days, spread over two non-consecutive weeks between January and May (see 

Section 6.1)

■ The density seasons as determined in the NODE report include additional months outside 

those of the in-water construction window 

■ The density estimates assume even distribution throughout strata and are largely derived 

from adjacent stratum that may not represent density accurately in the vicinity of the Project 

area. 

Therefore, it is expected that the actual number of individual animals being exposed to 

Level B harassment levels of sound would be far less than requested. There is no danger of 

injury, death, or hearing impairment from the exposure to noise levels associated with the 

proposed vibratory pile driving.

In addition to the four species likely to be found in the vicinity of the Project area during 

in-water construction, gray seals and harp seals could also be taken by Level B harassment as 

a result of vibratory pile driving during the in-water construction period. As mentioned 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

6-8

previously, the NODE report does not estimate densities of these species in the mid-Atlantic 

stratum. The population estimates for these marine mammal species and stock in U.S. waters 

of the western North Atlantic region are also not available (Waring et al. 2012). However, the 

minimum population in Canadian waters is estimated at 125,541 to 169,064 individuals (gray 

seals), and 6,500,000 animals for harp seals. Because the Project area represents only a small 

fraction of the western North Atlantic region where these animals occur, and these animals do 

not congregate in the vicinity of the Project area, it is expected that only very small numbers of 

these two pinniped species would potentially be affected by the vibratory pile driving associated 

with the Project. The numbers of takes requested above (and in Table 9) are expected to be 

extremely conservative based on the rare occurrence of these two species in the area, and for 

the same reasons outlined for the other four species discussed above. 

6.4 NUMBER OF TAKE FOR WHICH AUTHORIZATION IS REQUESTED

Table 9 displays both the densities and incidental takes being requested, including the 

gray seal and harp seal, despite the lack of density data. For these species, only very small 

numbers of takes in relation to stock size are being requested. 

Table 9

Estimated Marine Mammal Densities for the Continental Shelf Portion of the Mid-Atlantic Region and the Numbers of 

Marine Mammals at Potential Risk of “Take” by Harassment 

Species

Estimated 

Density

per 100 km2

Winter (1)

Estimated 

Density

per 100 km2

Spring (1)

Estimated 

Take by Level 

B 

Harassment 

Winter

Estimated

Take by Level 

B Harassment 

Spring

Total Takes by 

Level B 

Harassment 

Requested

Gray seal N/A N/A 7 7 14

Harbor seal 156.409 156.409 69 69 138

Harp seal N/A N/A 0 4 4

North Atlantic right whale 0.034 0.034 0.015 0.015 1

Short-beaked common 

dolphin 145.347 1.908 64 1 65

Harbor porpoise 6.404 19.895 3 9 12

(1) Source: Navy OPAREA Density Estimates (NODE) for the Northeast OPAREAS: Boston, Narragansett Bay and Atlantic City 

August 2007

Note:

 N/A = Not available

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

7-1

7.0 ANTICIPATED IMPACT ON SPECIES OR STOCKS 

The anticipated impact of the activity upon the species or stock of marine mammals.

Transco is proposing the installation and removal of up to 70 temporary steel pipe piles 

using a vibratory hammer to occur over no more than two non-consecutive days spread over 

two non-consecutive weeks between January and May. The vibratory hammering activities 

generated during the Project would exceed the 120dB RMS threshold considered behaviorally 

disturbing from a continuous noise source (Level B harassment) to marine mammals. 

Transco is requesting authorization for Level B acoustical harassment takes of small 

numbers of six marine mammal species, only four of which potential take numbers could be 

calculated using density information due to the lack of available density data for the remaining 

two species (see Section 6.3 for details). The numbers of takes in relation to the overall stock 

size of each of the six species are presented in Table 10. 

Table 10

Estimated Marine Mammal, Numbers of Marine Mammals at Potential Risk of “Take” by Harassment, and Percent of Stock 

Potentially Affected

Species

Estimated 

Density

per 100 km2

Winter (1)

Estimated 

Density

per 100 km2

Spring (1)

Estimated 

Take 

Winter

Estimated

Take 

Spring

Total Takes 

by Level B 

Harassment 

Requested

Abundance 

of

Stock (2)

Percentage 

of Stock 

Potentially 

Affected

Gray seal N/A N/A 7 7 14 125,541 

(minimum) 0.011 %

Harbor seal 156.409 156.409 69 69 138 99,340 0.139 %

Harp seal N/A N/A 0 4 4 6,500,000 

(minimum) 0.000062 %

North Atlantic right 

whale 0.034 0.034 0.015 0.015 1 396 0.252 %

Short-beaked 

common dolphin 145.347 1.908 64 1 65 120,743 0.054 %

Harbor porpoise 6.404 19.895 3 9 12 89,054 0.013 %

Source: Navy OPAREA Density Estimates (NODE) for the Northeast OPAREAS: Boston, Narragansett Bay and Atlantic City 

August 2007; Waring et al. 2012

Note: 

 N/A = Not available

In order for NOAA Fisheries Service to authorize the incidental take of marine mammals, 

they must determine that there is a negligible impact on the marine mammal species or stock. 

As stated in 50 CFR § 216.103, NOAA Fisheries Service defines negligible impact to be “an 

impact resulting from a specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

7-2

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stocks [of marine mammals] through effects 

on annual rate of recruitment or survival.” 

It is expected that acoustical disturbance of marine mammal species would be 

temporary due to the short time-frame of the actual pile driving activities and transient nature of 

the animals within the area. Also, the percentage of each population that would be temporarily 

disturbed through Level B acoustical harassment is not expected to have an impact on 

recruitment or survival of any of the marine mammal stocks discussed in this application (see

Table 10). Therefore, based on the best available information and the information provided in 

this authorization request (including density, status, and distribution), it is expected that the 

vibratory pile-driving activities would have a negligible impact on the marine mammal species 

and stocks that could occur in the vicinity of the Project area during the in-water construction 

period. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

8-1

8.0 ANTICIPATED IMPACT ON SUBSISTENCE 

The anticipated impact of the activity on the availability of the species or stocks of 

marine mammals for subsistence uses.

This section is not applicable. The Project would take place in the Atlantic Ocean 

offshore of New York State, specifically, the Rockaway region. There are no traditional 

subsistence hunting areas within the Project region. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

9-1

9.0 ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ON HABITAT

The anticipated impact of the activity upon the habitat of the marine mammal 

populations, and the likelihood of restoration of the affected habitat.

9.1 INTRODUCTION

In-water construction activities would have temporary impacts on marine mammal 

habitat by producing temporary disturbances, primarily through in-water sound pressure levels 

from vibratory pile driving. Other temporary changes resulting from in-water construction 

activities are turbidity, water quality, and prey distribution. Mitigation measures implemented by 

Transco to minimize potential environmental effects from the Project are outlined in Section 

11.0, Mitigation Measures. 

9.2 IN-AIR DISTURBANCE OF HAUL-OUTS

There are no known haul-out sites for any seal species within the vicinity of the Project 

area. The closest two known haul-out sites for seals along the southern coast of Long Island are 

located approximately 10 miles (16 kilometers) to the west of the Project area and 15 miles (24 

kilometers) to the east of the Project area. Therefore, there is no concern for acoustic 

disturbance to pinniped species while hauled out. 

9.3 UNDERWATER NOISE DISTURBANCE

NOAA Fisheries Service is currently using underwater noise injury thresholds of 190dB 

RMS for pinnipeds, 180 dB RMS for cetaceans, and underwater noise disturbance thresholds of 

160 dB RMS (impulsive sounds) and 120 dB RMS (continuous sounds) for both cetaceans and 

pinnipeds. There are no sound sources associated with the Project that would produce sounds 

within the injury thresholds or behavioral disturbance for impulsive sounds. However, the 

disturbance threshold for continuous sound would be reached during vibratory pile-driving 

activities. The distance to this threshold is approximately 3 miles (4.6 kilometers) and is 

described in detail in Section 1.6.4, Attenuation to NOAA Fisheries Service Thresholds. 

Sound is a key component of survival for many marine species. It is used for various 

components of daily survival such as foraging, navigation and predator avoidance. It is also 

thought that marine mammals use sound to learn about their surrounding environment gathering 

information from both natural sources (such as inter- and intra-specific species), or naturally 

occurring phenomenon such as wind, waves, rain, or naturally occurring seismic activity (i.e., 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

9-2

earthquakes) (Richardson et al. 1995). With a global increase in human-generated sound in the 

water column, marine organisms may be affected by exposure to such noise behaviorally, 

acoustically, and/or physiologically (Richardson et al. 1995). 

Behavioral reactions can include a flight response, changes in breathing and diving 

patterns, avoidance of important habitat or migration areas, and a disruption of social 

relationships and interactions (Richardson et al. 1995; Nowacek et al. 2007; McCauley et al. 

2000). Acoustic responses from marine mammals can include masking, changes in call rates, 

and changes in call frequency (Southall et al. 2007; Richardson et al. 1995; Nowacek et al. 

2007). Masking is a decreased ability of an animal to detect relevant sounds due to an increase 

in background noise that effectively blocks those sounds. Physiological responses can include 

TTS, PTS, increased stress levels, and direct or indirect tissue damage (Richardson et al. 1995; 

Southall et al. 2007, Wright et al. 2007). TTS is the temporary, fully recoverable reduction in 

hearing sensitivity due to exposure to greater-than-normal sound intensity. PTS is a permanent, 

non-recoverable reduction in hearing sensitivity due to damage caused by either a prolonged 

exposure to a sound or temporary exposure to a very intense sound. When or how a marine 

animal responds to a sound depends on numerous variables such as the characteristics of the 

sound itself, characteristics of the animal (age, sex, habitat), and previous exposure to the 

sound of concern or other sounds (Wartzok et al. 2004). 

Noise generated during pile-driving activities may be audible to marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the Project area. Most assessments of impacts associated with marine mammals and 

pile driving have been focused on impact pile driving. The pulsed noise of impact pile driving 

produces much greater source levels than vibratory pile driving, thereby increasing the potential 

for injury and behavioral impacts. The use of vibratory pile driving is considered a method to 

reduce impacts during pile-driving activities (ICF Jones & Stokes and Illingworth and Rodkin, 

Inc. 2009). Because the lower source levels and more continuous noise sources associated 

with vibratory pile driving, the impacts would be expected, at most, to be behavioral rather than 

injurious. Behavioral reactions such as avoidance of the sound source, avoidance of feeding 

habitat, or changes in breathing patterns have been reported as reactions to increased sound 

level (Malme et al 1984; Richardson et al. 1995; Nowacek et al. 2007; Tyack 2009). It is not 

expected that behavioral reactions beyond potential avoidance of the 120 dB re 1 μPa RMS and 

greater noise zone would occur in association with the vibratory pile-driving activities during the 

Project.

Cetacean and pinniped occurrence in the Project area is expected to be transient. No 

distinct marine mammal foraging habitat has been identified in the vicinity of the Project. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

9-3

Therefore, disturbance from underwater noise associated with the Project would be limited 

because marine mammals can avoid any potentially disturbing noise and would not be excluded 

from any important habitat.

Potential Sound Pressure Level Impacts on Fish Prey Species 

Fish are a primary dietary component of the cetaceans and pinnipeds discussed in this 

application. Similar to marine mammals, fish can also be affected by noise both physiologically 

and behaviorally. However, the amount of information regarding impacts on fish from humangenerated acoustic sources is limited. The acoustic threshold criteria for physiological impacts 

on fish were developed by the Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group (FHWG) in 2008. The 

criteria determined by the FHWG is based on impacts from pile driving; however, it is assumed 

that because this is the most current information for any physiological acoustic impacts on fish, 

the criteria can be used for other human-generated sound sources. The FHWG determined that 

potential injury for all fish species is based on dual criteria: (1) Peak SPL of 206 dB re 1μPa and 

(2) 187 dB accumulated SEL (dBcSEL; re 1μPa2-sec) for fish weighing 2 grams or more or 183 

dB accumulated SEL (dBcSEL; re 1μPa2-sec) for fish weighing 2 grams or less (Palmer 2012). 

To assess behavioral disturbance, NOAA Fisheries Service has adopted a threshold criterion of 

150 dB re 1μPaRMS for fish of all sizes (Palmer 2012). 

No Project-related noise would exceed the NOAA Fisheries Service threshold criteria for 

injury to fish. Therefore, because no sounds causing an impact would be produced during the 

Project, it is not expected that any fish would be injured as result of Project-related noise. The 

vibratory hammer does have the potential to cause behavioral disturbance within approximately 

164 feet (50 meters) of the source (as calculated using the Practical Spreading Model [see 

Section 1.6.3]). 

Behavioral disturbance of fish prey species could occur as a result of vibratory pile 

driving. It is possible that fish could be excluded from the area due to disturbing levels of sound 

while the vibratory hammer is operating; however, because the area of disturbance surrounding 

an individual pile is small, it is not expected that movements to avoid noise would require extra 

energy expenditure or would permanently deter any fish from returning to the area following the 

cessation of pile driving. The Project area is not distinct from the surrounding New York Bight 

region, so it is expected that cetaceans and pinnipeds would still be able to feed on fish prey 

species in the areas surrounding the Project area, and any behavioral effects on any fish prey 

species would not impact the cetaceans or pinnipeds discussed in this application. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

9-4

9.4 TURBIDITY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACTS 

Turbidity

During the course of the Project various activities are expected to disturb the sediment. 

These activities include pile driving, dredging the HDD exit pit via a clamshell dredge, trenching 

via jet-sled, hand-jetting around the hot tap and the anode bed, laying the grout mattress, and 

vessel anchoring. All these activities are expected to re-suspend disturbed sediment and result 

in turbid conditions within the immediate Project area. It is expected that of the activities, the 

trenching via jet-sled would create the greatest amount of turbidity. During trenching, the 

sediment would be fluidized. The fluidized sediment loosened by the jets is entrained by suction 

tubes and expelled to the side of the trench or behind the sled. Some of the sediment would 

settle on top of the submerged pipeline and grout mattresses would be installed over the entire 

length of the trench.

Suspended sediments would be transported and re-deposited downstream of the 

prevailing currents, which would increase siltation in the vicinity of the Project. Installation of the 

proposed pipeline facilities would directly affect the seabed along the 2.19-mile (3.5-kilometer) 

long corridor in which the pipeline and subsea equipment would be installed and along which 

anchor placement would occur. Because of the sediment in the Project area is sandy, the 

majority of material is expected to be re-deposited quickly, near the pipeline trench or other 

excavation site. Project-specific numerical modeling indicates that the turbidity resulting from 

construction activities is expected to be short-term, localized, and quickly dispersed by the 

prevalent longshore currents in the offshore Project area. Modeling results indicate that an area 

within 700 feet (215 meters) of the trench may be subject to sedimentation at a thickness of 

more than 1.2 inches (3 centimeters). It should be noted that while the fastest jet plowing 

scenario depicts a plume extending mainly to one side of the trench, the sediment deposition 

could occur on either side of the trench, depending upon the tidal currents at the time of 

construction. In all other model simulations, the sediment deposition occurred on both sides of 

the trench as the construction time was longer than one tidal cycle. Following the completion of 

trenching via jet-sled, the turbidity levels within the temporary offshore workspace are expected 

to return to normal ambient levels within four hours following the end of construction in all 

construction scenarios. 

In New York State waters, turbidity standards require “no increase that will cause a 

substantial visible contrast to natural conditions” for Class SA (6 NYCRR §703.2). Because the 

turbidity resulting from construction activities is expected to be short-term, localized, and quickly 

dispersed by the longshore currents in the offshore Project area, no mitigation measures are 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

9-5

currently planned to reduce the temporary increase in turbidity during construction. Using a 

turbidity curtain would likely be ineffective since successful application requires more benign 

metocean conditions in comparison with the currents at the offshore project location. However, 

turbidity will be monitored during construction and activities will be adjusted as practicable to 

reduce excessive turbidity. The duration and extent of the turbidity plume depends on the speed 

of the jet-sled. For the jet sled “worst case” scenario the total sediment volume released was 

consistent for the three construction rates that were modeled. In the bottom layer of the ocean 

the modeled suspended solids plume concentrations ranging from 30 to 100 mg/L extended up 

to 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) from the pipeline trench for the fastest trenching rate and up to 1 mile 

from the trench for the slowest trenching rate. However, as trenching rates increase, the time 

over which a plume exists is shorter because construction duration is shorter, ranging from 12.6 

hours for the fastest modeled construction rate to 29.8 hours for the shortest construction rate. 

The model also indicates that the Project would not cause sediment to be suspended in the 

upper layers of the ocean at any of the trenching rates or with hand-jetting or clamshell dredging 

activities. 

Turbidity within the water column has the potential to reduce the level of oxygen in the 

water column and irritate the gills of cetacean or pinniped prey fish species in the Project area. 

However, turbidity plumes associated with the Project would be temporary and localized, and 

fish in the Project area would be able to move away from and avoid the areas where plumes 

may occur. Therefore, it is expected that the impacts on prey fish species from turbidity, and 

therefore on marine mammals, would be minimal and temporary. 

Water Quality

Prior to operation, the pipeline would be hydrostatically tested four times using water 

withdrawn from the Atlantic Ocean. The total volume of water needed for pipeline testing would 

be approximately 578,700 gallons (573,500 of seawater and 5,200 of fresh water). Hydrostatic 

testing of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral involves flooding the pipeline with filtered seawater 

infused with an oxygen scavenger, a non-oxidizing biocide and a dye at the following 

concentrations: 200 parts per million (ppm) of biocide such as X-CIDE® 750 or equivalent, 100 

ppm of oxygen scavenger (such as B-542 or equivalent, and approximately 23 ppm of clear 

champaign (fluorescent) dye (fluorescein disodium). The oxygen scavenger is used to prevent 

chemical corrosion of the pipeline interior, while the biocide is used to prevent corrosion as a 

result of microorganisms present in seawater. The dye is needed to allow easier detection of 

any leaks underwater. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

9-6

During the testing, clean seawater would be filtered through a 200 size mesh screen 

(mesh opening = 0.0029 inches [0.07 millimeters]). The filtering prevents debris and foreign 

material from entering the pipeline. The suction head or submersible pump would take in water 

at a depth of more than 20 feet below the ocean surface to minimize the introduction of more 

oxygenated water and microorganisms into the pipeline. The fill rate for the hydrostatic test 

water into the pipeline would be approximately 4,000 gallons per minute. Based on the volume 

of water expected to be withdrawn from the marine environment (approximately 573,500 

gallons) and the rate at which it is expected to be removed (approximately 4,000 gallons per 

minute), it is expected that water withdrawal would take no more than 143 minutes 

(approximately 2.5 hours) of total operating time. 

Before pipeline commissioning, the hydrostatic test water would be pumped from the 

pipeline into a diffuser to re-oxygenate the water before it is discharged into the marine 

environment in the general area from which it was withdrawn. The exact location of discharge is 

to be determined by Transco in consultation with the contractor and according to any applicable 

permit requirements. The rate of discharge back into the ocean would be approximately 2,000 

gallons per minute. A dewatering pig would be used to dry the pipe after the hydrostatic test. No 

swabbing chemicals/drying agents would be used during the dewatering process and only 

clean, filtered, oil-free air would be used for the displacement of dewatering pigs. While the 

process of withdrawing water from the marine environment is expected to result in a loss of 

100% of the plankton that are entrained during the process, the loss of plankton is not expected 

to impact food resources for right whales or marine mammal prey species. The total volume of 

water required for the hydrostatic testing is an insignificant fraction of the total water available in 

the Atlantic Ocean along the Rockaway Peninsula and thus is not expected to have an impact 

on water quality. 

The potential impacts from entrainment are best predicted by looking at general larvae 

and egg densities expected in this portion of the Atlantic Ocean. Generally, NOAA Fisheries 

Service data (ecosystems monitoring [ECOMON ] program and the marine resources 

monitoring, assessment, and prediction [MARMAP] [program]) indicate that egg densities (all 

taxa) in northeast Atlantic marine waters typically range from 1 to 3 eggs per cubic meter (m3

) of 

water; larvae densities are about half the density for eggs, or about 0.5 to 1.5 larvae/m3

. Using 

the median of these densities, the use of 573,500 gallons (2,171 m3

) of seawater would result in 

the loss of approximately 4,342 eggs and 2,171 larvae (all taxa combined). The fact that 

entrainment would take place in a marine environment where significant natural mortality is 

prevalent must also be taken into account. It is impossible to state with any certainty what 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

9-7

factors control the survival of fish eggs and larvae and this has been a major goal of 

oceanographers for more than a century. But the premise is simple: fish are highly fecund 

animals, producing many more progeny than can possibly survive to recruitment age. However, 

the timing of the hydrostatic test would minimize the potential for many species (at the egg and 

larvae life-stages) to be present. Furthermore, the relatively small amount of water being drawn 

into the pipe is extremely small compared with the ubiquitous habitat found in the Project’s 

vicinity; therefore, it is assumed that effects, at population-level, on zooplankton and/or 

ichthyoplankton lost, would be minimal and insignificant.

 Despite the unlikely potential direct impact via entrainment, adverse impacts on marine 

mammals would not be expected as a result of hydrostatic test water discharge.

9.5 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING IMPACTS ON HABITAT

The most likely impacts on marine mammal habitat for the Project are underwater noise, 

turbidity, water quality, and potential effects on the food supply. However, it is not expected that 

any of these impacts would be significant. It is not expected that there would be a direct loss of 

habitat available to marine mammals due to any of the activities associated with the Project. All 

marine mammal species using habitat near the Project area are primarily transiting the area; no 

known foraging or haul-out areas are located in the vicinity of the Project. 

Any adverse impacts on prey species are expected to be temporary and localized. Given 

the large numbers of fish and other prey species in the larger New York Bight region, the shortterm effects on fish species, the ability of both prey species and marine mammals to avoid the 

areas of disturbance, and the availability of similar suitable habitat surrounding the Project area, 

the Project is not expected to have measureable effects on the distribution or abundance of 

potential marine mammal species in the Project area. 

Both turbidity and water quality impacts would be temporary and localized in relation to 

the larger New York Bight region. Therefore, it is not expected that there would be any adverse 

impacts on marine mammals or their prey species. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

10-1

10.0 ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF LOSS OR MODIFICATION OF HABITAT

The anticipated impact of the loss or modification of the habitat on the marine mammal 

populations involved.

During the course of the Project, various activities would cause benthic disturbance. 

These include dredging via clamshell dredge, pile driving, laying the pipe and the grout mattress 

on the seafloor, trenching via jet-sled, hand-jetting around the hot-tap and for the anode bed, 

and vessel anchoring. These activities would not result in the significant permanent loss or 

modification of habitat for marine mammals or their prey. The greatest impact on marine 

mammals associated with the Project would be the potential minimal and temporary loss of 

habitat due to elevated noise levels and the potential temporary impact on prey species due to 

turbidity. These temporary impacts were discussed in detail in Section 9.0, Anticipated Impact 

on Habitat. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

11-1

11.0 MITIGATION MEASURES

The availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and 

manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable 

adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, their habitat, and on their availability 

for subsistence uses, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas 

of similar significance.

The Project is not anticipated to result in take by Level A injury of marine mammals; 

however, it may result in take by Level B acoustical harassment of gray seals, harbor seals, 

harp seals, one North Atlantic right whale, short-beaked common dolphins, and harbor 

porpoises. Due to mitigation measures that will be implemented, any Level B acoustical 

harassment would be temporary and would not be expected to result in any long-term effects 

on marine mammal stocks or habitat in the region. Mitigation measures for in-water construction 

activities associated with the Project are provided below.

11.1 PILE DRIVING

■ A vibratory hammer instead of an impact hammer will be used for pile driving to reduce inwater noise levels while installing and removing up to 70 temporary steel pipe piles.

– Total operation time for vibratory pile driving will be less than one day in duration over 

approximately one week (one week each for installation and extraction).

– Soft-start procedures will be used before the start of each pile-driving session.

– Pile driving installation and removal will only take place during daylight hours. 

■ NOAA Fisheries-approved observers will be present to conduct surveys 30 minutes before, 

during, and 30 minutes after all vibratory pile-driving activities to monitor for marine 

mammals within the ZOI.

– Level A (180 / 190 dB re 1μPa) – not applicable (vibratory hammer RMS level is 160 dB 

re 1μPa)

– Level B (120 dB re 1μPa) – approximately 3 miles (4.6 kilometers)

■ Two NOAA Fisheries-approved observers will be stationed on the escort boat, located 

approximately 1.5 miles (2.3 kilometers) from the active pile driving. 

– The escort boat will monitor the 1.5 mile (2.3 kilometers) entire perimeter, with the 

observers monitoring 360° around the vessel (between the pile driving and the vessel 

and from the escort vessel out to the extent of the ZOI).

– Pile driving installation and removal will only be conducted when lighting and weather 

conditions allow the two NOAA-approved observers to visually monitor the full exclusion 

zone through the use of binoculars or other observation devices (1.5 miles in each 

direction from the escort boat). 

– If marine mammals are observed within the ZOI, the sighting will be fully documented 

and observers will monitor the animal for any abnormal behaviors displayed while 

vibratory pile driving is occurring, or shortly after vibratory pile driving has ended. These 

abnormal behaviors could include aggressive behavior related to noise exposure (i.e.,

tail/flipper slapping or abrupt directed movement), avoidance of the sound source, or an 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

11-2

obvious startle response (i.e., a rapid change in swimming speed, erratic surface 

movements, or sudden diving associated with the onset of a sound source). Should 

abnormal behaviors such as these be observed, the vibratory hammer would be shut 

down until the animal has moved outside of the ZOI. 

– Information recorded during each observation should include:

● Marine mammal behavior, overall numbers of individuals observed, frequency of 

observation, and activity of vibratory pile driver (i.e. soft-start, active, post pile driving, 

etc.), etc.

■ NOAA Fisheries-approved observers should meet the following qualifications:

– Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving 

targets at the water’s surface with ability to estimate target size and distance. Use of 

binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target.

– Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to 

assigned protocols (this may include academic experience).

– Experience or training in field identification of marine mammals (cetaceans and 

pinnipeds).

– Sufficient analytical and writing skills to interpret and report collected marine mammal 

data.

– Ability to communicate orally, by radio, and in person, with project personnel to provide 

real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.

– A college-level education (bachelor’s degree or higher) in marine mammal, wildlife, 

fisheries, or related fields is recommended, but not required.

11.2 TRANSITING VESSELS

Various vessels would be located within the area throughout the duration of the Project. 

This activity is not considered a concern for harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the 

Project area because of the high level of vessel activity associated with both commercial traffic 

(to and from the Port of New Jersey and New York) and recreational traffic that already occurs 

within the region. However, due to the critically endangered status of the North Atlantic right 

whale, vessel activity and speed regulations are already in place along the east coast. As 

mentioned in Section 3.3.4.3 (North Atlantic Right Whale Distribution), the Project area is 

located within a SMA associated with the Port of New Jersey and New York between November 

and April. While this SMA is in effect, transiting vessels and vessel operators associated with 

the Project will comply with the following protocol: 

■ Have a NOAA Fisheries-approved observer, or the vessel operators and crews (trained to 

observe for protected species), maintain a vigilant watch for right whales and slow down or 

stop the vessel to avoid striking the animal(s)

■ Conform to the regulations prohibiting the approach of right whales closer than 500 yards 

(1,500 feet) (50 CFR 224.103(c)) 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

11-3

■ Monitor the right whale sighting reports (including SAS and dynamic management areas 

[DMAs]) to remain informed on the whereabouts of right whales in the vicinity of the Project 

area

■ Not exceed a speed of 10 knots between November 1 and April 30 to reduce the potential 

for collisions with whales (see Appendix A)

11.3 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

All in-water construction activities will comply with federal regulations to control the 

discharge of operational waste such as bilge and ballast waters, trash and debris, and sanitary 

and domestic waste that could be generated from all vessels associated with the Project. All 

vessels associated with the Project are expected to comply with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 

requirements for the prevention and control of oil and fuel spills (MARPOL, Annex V, Pub. L. 

100−220 [101 Stat. 1458]). 

■ A spill prevention, control, and countermeasures plan (SPCC Plan) has been developed for 

the Project (Appendix B).

■ No petroleum products, fresh cement, lime or concrete, chemicals, or other toxic or 

deleterious materials shall be allowed to enter surface waters.

■ Equipment that enters the surface water shall be maintained to prevent any visible sheen 

from petroleum products appearing on the water.

■ There shall be no discharge of oil, fuels, or chemicals to surface water or onto land where 

there is a potential for reentry into surface waters.

■ No cleaning solvents or chemicals used for tools or equipment cleaning shall be discharged 

to ground- or surface waters.

■ The contractor shall regularly check fuel hoses, oil drums, oil or fuel transfer valves, fittings, 

etc. for leaks and shall maintain and store materials properly to prevent spills.

■ Projects and associated construction activities will be designed so potential impacts on 

species and habitat are avoided and minimized to the extent practicable.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

12-1

12.0 ARCTIC PLAN OF COOPERATION

Where the proposed activity would take place in or near a traditional Arctic subsistence 

hunting area and/or may affect the availability of a species or stock of marine mammal 

for Arctic subsistence uses, the applicant must submit either a plan of cooperation or 

information that identifies what measures have been taken and/or will be taken to 

minimize any adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence 

uses. A plan must include the following:

(i) A statement that the applicant has notified and provided the affected subsistence 

community with a draft plan of cooperation;

(ii) A schedule for meeting with the affected subsistence communities to discuss 

proposed activities and to resolve potential conflicts regarding any aspects of either the 

operation or the plan of cooperation;

(iii) A description of what measures the applicant has taken an/or will take to ensure that 

proposed activities will not interfere with subsistence whaling or sealing; and

(iv) What plans the applicant has to continue to meet with the affected communities, both 

prior to and while conducting activity, to resolve conflicts and to notify the communities 

of any changes in the operation.

This section is not applicable. The Project would take place in the Atlantic Ocean in the 

coastal waters off New York State, specifically the Rockaway Peninsula in Queens County, and 

no activities would take place in or near a traditional Arctic subsistence hunting area. There are 

no subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

13-1

13.0 MONITORING AND REPORTING PLANS

The suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will 

result in increased knowledge of the species, the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while conducting 

activities and suggested means of minimizing burdens by coordinating such reporting 

requirements with other schemes already applicable to persons conducting such 

activity. Monitoring plans should include a description of the survey techniques that 

would be used to determine the movement and activity of marine mammals near the 

activity site(s) including migration and other habitat uses, such as feeding.

13.1 MONITORING PLAN 

Transco has developed a marine mammal monitoring plan, described briefly in Section 

11.1 and described in more detail here:

Visual Monitoring Procedures

Transco proposes the following Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan in order to estimate 

Level B acoustic harassment takes and behavioral disturbance from vibratory pile driving 

activities associated with the Project: 

■ To verify the required monitoring distance, the vibratory Level B acoustical harassment ZOI 

will be determined by using a range finder or hand-held GPS device.

■ During vibratory pile driving (installation and removal), the source level is expected to 

attenuate to the 120 dB re 1 μPa RMS threshold within approximately 3 miles (4.6 

kilometers) of the source (Figure 11). 

■ Two NOAA Fisheries-approved observers will be stationed on the escort boat, located 

approximately 1.5 miles (2.3 kilometers) from the active pile driving. 

– The escort boat will monitor the 1.5 mile (2.3 kilometers) perimeter around the source. 

– Observers will monitor 360° around the vessel: 

● Between the pile driving and the escort vessel and 

● From the escort vessel out to the extent of the ZOI.

– If marine mammals are observed within the ZOI, the sighting will be fully documented 

and observers will monitor the animal for any abnormal behaviors (such as aggressive 

behavior related to noise exposure (i.e., tail/flipper slapping or abrupt directed 

movement), avoidance of the sound source, or an obvious startle response (i.e., a rapid 

change in swimming speed, erratic surface movements, or sudden diving associated 

with the onset of a sound source) displayed while vibratory pile driving is occurring or 

shortly after vibratory pile driving has ended. 

– Information recorded during each observation should include (but is not limited to):

● Overall numbers of individuals observed

● Frequency of observation 

● Location within the ZOI (i.e. distance from the source)

● Activity of vibratory pile driver (i.e., soft-start, active, post pile driving, etc.)

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

13-2

● Reaction of the animal(s) to the pile driving (if any) and any behaviors the animal(s) 

may display while in the ZOI, including bearing and direction of travel.

■ If the Level B acoustical harassment ZOI is obscured by fog or poor lighting conditions, 

vibratory pile driving will not be initiated until the ZOI is visible. Or if the Level B acoustical 

harassment ZOI is obscured by fog or poor lighting conditions while pile driving activities are 

occurring, the pile driving will be shut down until the full Level B ZOI can be monitored by an 

observer using binoculars or other observation devices. 

■ The Level B acoustical harassment ZOI for vibratory pile driving will be monitored for the 

presence of marine mammals 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after any piledriving activity.

Minimum Qualifications for Marine Mammal Observers

■ Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving 

targets at the water’s surface with ability to estimate target size and distance. Use of 

binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target.

■ Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned 

protocols (this may include academic experience).

■ Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals (cetaceans and 

pinnipeds).

■ Sufficient analytical and writing skills to interpret and report collected marine mammal data.

■ Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide realtime information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.

■ A college-level education (bachelor’s degree or higher) in marine mammal, wildlife, fisheries, 

or related fields is recommended, but not required.

13.2 REPORTING PLAN

Transco will provide NOAA Fisheries Service with a draft monitoring report within 90 

days of the conclusion of monitoring. This report will include:

■ A summary of the activity and monitoring plan (dates, times, locations)

■ A summary of mitigation implementation

■ Monitoring results and a summary that addresses the goals of the monitoring plan, including 

(but not limited to)

– Environmental conditions when observations were made:

● Water conditions (i.e., Beaufort sea-state, tidal state)

● Weather conditions (i.e., percent cloud cover, visibility, percent glare)

– Survey-specific data:

● Date and time survey initiated and terminated

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Proposed Pipeline

Existing 26" Lower NY Bay Lateral

HDD Exit Point

(piledriving)

4.6 Kilometers

Oriental BLVD

Rocka way Point BLVD

Marine PKY

Shore BLVD

Rockaway Beach BLVD

Emmons AVE

Beach Channel DR

State HWY Beach

142nd ST

Jacob Riis

Park RD Shore Front PKY

© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #Path: L:\Buffalo\NorthEast_Supply\Maps\MXDs\ROCKAWAY_2012\FERC_Comment_Figures\Zone_of_Influence013012.mxd Date: 3/14/2013

Figure 11

Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project

120 dB Zone of Influence to be

Monitored for Level B Acoustical Harassment

Source: Mustang 2012, NOAA 2009

Location of vibratory piledrivingProposed PipelineExisting 26" Lower NY Bay Lateral120 dBRms ZOI

0 1

Miles

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

13-5

– Date, time, number, species, and any other relevant data regarding marine mammals 

observed (for pre-activity, during activity, and post-activity surveys)

– Description of the observed behaviors (in both the presence and absence of activities):

● If possible, the correlation to underwater sound level occurring at the time of any 

observable behavior

– Estimated exposure/take numbers during activities

■ An assessment of the implementation and effectiveness of prescribed mitigation and 

monitoring measures.

If comments are received from NOAA Fisheries Service on the draft report, a final report 

will be submitted to NOAA Fisheries Service within 30 days after all comments are received. If 

no comments are received from NOAA Fisheries Service, the report submitted will be 

considered the final report. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

14-1

14.0 COORDINATING RESEARCH TO REDUCE AND EVALUATE INCIDENTAL 

TAKE 

Suggested means of learning of, encouraging, and coordinating research opportunities, 

plans, and activities relating to reducing such incidental taking and evaluating its effects. 

To encourage learning and coordinate research opportunities related to the incidental 

taking of marine mammals, any data gathered during in-water construction will be made 

available to NOAA Fisheries Service, researchers, and other interested parties. Also, if any 

ESA-listed North Atlantic right whales are observed at any time while observers are present or 

during the course of all in-water construction, sightings will be reported to the NOAA Fisheries 

Service NEFSC North Atlantic right whale SAS to aid in alerting other boaters (especially 

commercial shipping vessels) in the area of the animals’ presence. This will also help to 

increase knowledge of the locations that these animals frequent along the east coast during 

their winter migration. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

15-1

15.0 LITERATURE CITED

Agler, B.A., R.L. Schooley, S.E. Frohock, S.K. Katona and I.E. Seipt 1993. Reproduction of 

photographically identified fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus, from the Gulf of Maine. 

Journal of Mammalogy. 73(3): 577-587.

Baird, R.W. 2001. Status of harbour seals, Phoca vitulina, in Canada. The Canadian FieldNaturalist. 115: 663 – 675.

Barlow, J., S.L. Swartz, T.C. Eagle, and P.R. Wade. 1995. U.S. marine mammal stock 

assessments: Guidelines for preparation, background, and a summary of the 1995 

assessments. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR-6. 73pp. Online at: 

ftp://swfscftp.noaa.gov/users/gamms/supplementary%20docs/Barlow-SARguidelines

1995.pdf. Accessed December 2012. 

Barlow, J. and P.J. Clapham. 1997. A new birth-interval approach to estimating demographic 

parameters of humpback whales. Ecology. 78: 535 – 546.

Baumgartner, M.F., and B.R. Mate. 2005. Summer and fall habitat of North Atlantic right whales 

(Eubalaena glacialis) inferred from satellite telemetry. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Science. 62:527-543

Beamish, P. and E. Mitchell. 1973. Short pulse length audio frequency sounds recorded in the 

presence of a Minke whale (Balalenoptera acutorostrata). Deep-Sea Research. 20:375-

386. 

Bruno. M. S. and A.F. Blumberg. 2009. The Stevens Integrated Maritime Surveillance and 

Forecast System: Expansion and Enhancement Center for Maritime. Systems Stevens 

Institute of Technology Castle Point on Hudson Hoboken, New Jersey, ONR Grant No. 

N00014-03-1-0633.

Burns, J.J. 2009. Harbor seal and spotted seal (Phoca vitulina and P. largha)., In: Perrin W.F., 

B. Wursig, and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.) Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, second 

edition, pp. 533 – 542, Academic Press Inc. San Diego, CA.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

15-2

Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program (CeTAP). 1982. A Characterization of Marine 

Mammals and Turtles in the Mid- and North Atlantic Areas of the U.S. Outer Continental 

Shelf. Final Report, December 1982. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management under Contract #AA51-CT8-48. University of Rhode 

Island, Graduate School of Oceanography, Kingston, Rhode Island.

Christensen, I., T. Haug, and N. Oien. 1992. Seasonal distribution, exploitation and present 

abundance of stocks of large baleen whales (Mysticeti) and sperm whales (Physeter 

macrocephalus) in Norwegian and adjacent waters. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 49: 

341 – 355.

Clapham, P.J., L.S. Baraff, C.A. Carlson, M.A. Christian, D.K. Mattila, C.A. Mayo, M.A. Murphy, 

and S. Pittman. 1993. Seasonal occurrence and annual return of humpback whales, 

Megaptera novaeangliae, on the southern Gulf of Maine. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 

71: 440-443. 

Clapham, P.J., M.C. Berube, and D.K. Mattila. 1995. Sex ratio of the Gulf of Maine humpback 

whale population. Marine Mammal Science. 11: 227 – 231.

Craddock, J.E., P.T. Polloni, B. Hayward, and F. Wenzel. 2009. Food habits of Atlantic whitesided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus acutus) off the coast of New England. Fisheries 

Bulletin. 107: 384 – 394.

Coastal Research and Education Society of Long Island, Inc. (CRESLI). n.d. CRESLI Seal 

sightings. Online at: http://www.cresli.org/cresli/seals/seal_sightings.html. Accessed 

January 28, 2013. 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). 2003. Atlantic Seal Hunt: 2003 – 2005 

management plan. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Fisheries Resource 

Management – Atlantic, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 34 pp.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

15-3

Department of the Navy (DON). 2007. Navy OPAREA Density Estimates (NODE) for the 

Northeast OPAREAS: Boston, Narragansett Bay, and Atlantic City-Final Report. August 

2007. http://seamap.env.duke.edu/serdp/documents/Northeast%20NODE%20Final%

20Report.pdf. Accessed January 29, 2013. 

Donovan, G. P. 1991. A review of IWC stock boundaries. Report for the International Whaling 

Commission (Special Issue). 13: 39-68.

Doksaeter, L., E. Olsen, L. Nottestad, and A. Ferno. 2008. Distribution and feeding ecology of 

dolphins along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge between Iceland and the Azores. Deep Sea 

Research II. 55: 243 – 253.

Gilbert, J.R., G.T. Waring, K.M Wynne, and N. Guldager. 2005. Changes in abundance and 

distribution of harbor seals in Maine, 1981 – 2001. Marine Mammal Science. 21: 519 –

535.

Gowans, S. and H. Whitehead. 1995. Distribution and habitat partitioning by small odontocetes 

in the Gully, a submarine canyon on the Scotian Shelf. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 73: 

1599 – 1608.

Grigg, E., A. Klimley, S. Allen, D. Green, D. Elliott-Fisk, H. Markowitz. 2009. Spatial and 

seasonal relationships between Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii) and their 

prey, at multiple scales. Fisheries Bulletin. 107(3): 359 – 372.

Hain, J.H.W., R.K. Edel, H.E. Hays, S.K. Katona, and J.D. Roanowicz. 1981. General 

distribution of cetaceans in the continental shelf waters of the northeastern United 

States. In: A characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the mid- and north 

Atlantic areas of the US outer continental shelf. BLM. AA551-CT8-48: 1 – 345.

Hain, J.H.W., M.J. Ratnaswamy, R.D. Kenney and H.E. Winn. 1992. The fin whale, 

Balaenoptera physalus, in waters of the northeastern United States continental shelf. 

Report of the International Whaling Commission. 42: 653-669.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

15-4

Hamazaki, T. 2002. Spatiotemporal prediction models of cetacean habitats in the mid-western 

North Atlantic Ocean (from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, USA to Nova Scotia, 

Canada). Marine Mammal Science. 18(4): 920 – 939.

Harris, D.E., B. Lelli, and G. Jakush. 2002. Harp Seal Records from the Southeastern Gulf of 

Maine: 1997-2001. Northeastern Naturalist. 9(3): 331-340. 

Hildebrand, J.A. 2009. Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series. 395: 5-20.

ICF Jones & Stokes, and Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. 2009. Final Technical Guidance for 

Assessment and Mitigation of Hydroacoustic Effect of Pile Driving on Fish. Prepared for 

California Department of Transportation. February 2009. 298pp.

Jasney, M., J. Reynolds, C. Horowitz, and A. Wetzler. 2005. Sounding the Depths II: The Rising 

Toll of Sonar, Shipping and Industrial Noise on Marine Life. November 2005. National 

Resources Defense Council.

Katona, S.K. and J.A. Beard 1990. Population size, migrations, and feeding aggregations of the 

humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the western North Atlantic ocean. Report 

of the International Whaling Commission. (Special Issue) 12: 295-306.

Katona, S.K., V. Rough, and D.T. Richardson. 1993. A field guide to whales, porpoises, and 

seals from Cape Cod to Newfoundland. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 

316 pp.

Kenney, R.D. 2002. North Atlantic, North Pacific and Southern Right Whales. pp. 806-813, In: 

W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.). Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. 

Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

15-5

Kenney, Robert D. and Kathleen J. Vigness-Raposa. 2010. Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles of 

Narragansett Bay, Block Island Sound, Rhode Island Sound, and Nearby Waters: An 

Analysis of Existing Data for the Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan 

(Technical Report #10). http://seagrant.gso.uri.edu/oceansamp/pdf/appendix/10-KenneyMM&T.pdf. Accessed December 2012.

Ketchem, B.H., A.C. Redfield, and J.C. Ayers. 1951. The Oceanography of The New York 

Bight. Papers in Physical Oceanography and Meteorology, Cambridge and Woods 

Hole, Massachusetts.

Kraus, S.D., P.K. Hamilton, R.D. Kenney, A.R. Knowlton, and C.K. Slay. 2001. Reproductive 

parameters of the North Atlantic right whale. Journal of Cetacean Research and 

Management (Special Issue). 2: 231-236. 

Lacoste, K.N., and G.B. Stenson. 2000. Winter distribution of harp seals (Phoca groenlandica) 

off eastern Newfoundland and southern Labrador. Polar Biology. 23:805-811. 

Lesage, V. and M.O. Hammill. 2001. The status of the gray seal, halichoerus grypus, in the 

Northwest Atlantic. The Canadian Field-Naturalist. 115(4): 653 – 662.

Lucas, Z. and W. T. Stobo. 2000. Shark-inflicted mortality on a population of harbor seals 

(Phoca vitulina) at Sable Island, Nova Scotia. Journal of the Zoological Society of 

London. 252: 405 – 414.

Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack, and J.E. Bird. 1984. Investigations of the 

Potential Effects of Underwater Noise from Petroleum Industry Activities on Migrating 

Gray Whale Behavior/Phase II: January 1984 Migration, BBN Rep. 5586, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, AK.

Mansfield, A.W. 1967. Distribution of the harbor seal, Phoca vitulina Linnaeus, in Canadian 

Arctic waters. Journal of Mammalogy. 48(2): 249 – 257.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

15-6

McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.K. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.N. Jenner, J.D. Penrose, R.I.T. Prince, 

A. Adhitya, J. Murdoch, and M. McCabe. 2000. Marine Seismic Surveys – A Study of 

Environmental Implications. APPEA Journal. 40:692-708. 

Mellinger, D. K. 2004. A Comparison of Methods for Detecting Right Whale Calls. Canadian 

Acoustics. 32(2): 55- 65.

Minton, M. 2012. Personal communication, NOAA Fisheries Service, Protected Resources 

Division, email sent to Jaime Budzynkiewicz, Ecology and Environment, Inc. on 

December 17, 2012. 

Mohn, R. and W.D. Bowen. 1996. Grey seal predation on the eastern Scotian Shelf: Modeling 

the impact on Atlantic cod. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 53: 

2722 – 2738

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service. 2012a. Office of 

Protected Resources: Gray Seal (Halichoerus grypus). Online at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/pinnipeds/grayseal.htm. Accessed 

December 2012. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service. 2012b. Office of 

Protected Resources: Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina). Online at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/pinnipeds/harborseal.htm. Accessed 

December 2012. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service. 2012c. Office of 

Protected Resources: Harp Seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus). Online at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/pinnipeds/harpseal.htm. Accessed 

December 2012. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service. 2012d. Office of 

Protected Resources: Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Online at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/humpbackwhale.htm. 

Accessed December 2012. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

15-7

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service. 2012e. Office of 

Protected Resources: Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus). Online at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/finwhale.htm. Accessed 

December 2012

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service. 2012f. Office of 

Protected Resources: Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata). Online at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/minkewhale.htm. Accessed 

December 2012. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service. 2012g. Office of 

Protected Resources: North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Online at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/rightwhale_northatlantic.htm 

Accessed December 2012.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service. 2012h. Office of 

Protected Resources: Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus). 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/whitesideddolphin_atlantic.ht

m Accessed January 2013. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service. 2012i. Office of 

Protected Resources: Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Online at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/bottlenosedolphin.htm

Accessed January 2013.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service. 2012j. Office of 

Protected Resources: Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). Online at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/harborporpoise.htm. 

Accessed January 2013. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

15-8

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service. 2012k. Office of 

Protected Resources: Short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis). Online at:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/commondolphin_shortbeaked

.htm. Accessed January 2013.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service. 2012l. Office of 

Protected Resources: Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus). Online at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/pilotwhale_shortfinned.htm. 

Accessed January 2013. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service. 2012m. Office of 

Protected Resources: Long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas). Online at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/pilotwhale_longfinned.htm. 

Accessed January 2013. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center (NOAA Fisheries Service, NEFSC). 2012. North Atlantic Right Whale 

Sighting survey and Sighting Advisory System: 1/1/2007 – 12/31/2012. Online at: 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/psb/surveys/ Accessed January 2013. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA 

NMFS). 2004. Recovery Plan for the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis). 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.

New York City (NYC) Energy Policy Task Force. 2004. New York City Energy Policy: An 

Electricity Resource Roadmap. May 2004. Online at 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/energy_task_force.pdf Accessed March 8, 2012.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2012. Harbor Seal. 

Online at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/60840.html. Accessed December 2012

New York Times. December 26, 2012. Grim Prognosis for a 60-Ton Whale Stranded on a 

Beach in Queens. Online at: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/beachedwhale-at-breezy-point/. Accessed December 2021. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

15-9

Northridge, S., M. Tasker, A. Webb, K. Camphuysen, and M. Leopold. 1997. White-beaked 

Lagenorhynchus albirostris and Atlantic white-sided dolphin L. acutus distributions in 

northwest European and U.S. North Atlantic waters. Report for the International Whaling 

Commission. 47: 797 – 805.

Nowacek, D.P., L.H. Thorne, D.W. Johnston, P.L. Tyack. 2007. Reponses of cetaceans to 

anthropogenic noise. Mammal Review. 37(2): 81-115. 

Palka, D., A. Read, and C. Potter. 1997. Summary of knowledge of white-sided dolphins 

(Lagenorhynchus acutus) from U.S. and Canadian Atlantic waters. Report for the 

International Whaling Commission. 47: 729 – 734.

Palmer, D., 2012. Personal communication, NOAA Fisheries Service, Protected Resources 

Division, email sent to Roberta Zwier of Williams Transcontinental Gas Pipeline 

Company, LLC, Mike Donnelly, and Jaime Budzynkiewicz, Ecology and Environment, 

Inc. on July 10, 2012.

Palsboll, P.J., J. Allen, T.H. Anderson, M. Berube, P.J. Clapham, T.P. Feddersen, N. Friday, P. 

Hammond, H. Jorgensen, S.K. Katona, A.H. Larsen, F. Larsen, J. Lien, D.K. Mattila, F.B. 

Nygaard, J. Robbins, R. Sponer, R. Sears, J. Sigurjonsson, T.D. Smith, P.T. Stevick, G. 

Vikingsson, and N. Oien. 2001. Stock structure and composition of the North Atlantic 

humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae. International Whaling Commission Scientific 

Committee, IWC, 135 Station Road, Impington, Cambridge, UK. SC/53/NAH11.

Palsboll, P.J., J. Allen, M. Berube, P. Clapham, t. Feddersen, P. Hammond, R. Hudson, H. 

Jorgensen, S. Katona, A.H. Larsen, F. Larsen, J. Lien, D. Mattila, J. Sigurjonsson, R. 

Sears, T. Smith, R. Sponer, P. Stevick, and N. Oien. 1997. Genetic tagging of humpback 

whales. Nature. 388: 767 – 769.

Parks, S.E. and P.L. Tyack. 2005. Sound production by North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena 

glacialis) in surface active groups. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 117(5): 

3297-3306.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

15-10

Parks, S.E., P.K. Hamilton, S.D. Kraus, and P.L. Tyack. 2005. The Gunshot sound produced by 

Make North Atlantic Right Whales (Eubalaena glacialis) and its Potential Function in 

Reproductive Advertisement. Marine Mammal Science. 21(3): 458-475.

Payne, K. and R.S. Payne. 1985. Large-scale changes over 17 years in songs of humpback 

whales in Bermuda. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie. 68: 89-114. 

Payne, P.M., L.A. Selzer, and A.R. Knowlton. 1984. Distribution and density of cetaceans, 

marine turtles, and seabirds in the shelf waters of the northeast U.S., June 1980 – Dec. 

1983, based on shipboard observations. National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods 

Hole. NA81FAC00023. 245 pp.

Reeves, R. R., P. A. Folkens, et al. 2002a. Guide to Marine Mammals of the World. New York, 

Alfred A. Knopf. p. 118-121.

Reeves, R. R., P. A. Folkens, et al. 2002b. Guide to Marine Mammals of the World. New York, 

Alfred A. Knopf. p. 190-193.

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and 

Noise. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Riverhead Foundation for Marine Research and Preservation. 2010. Summary of marine 

mammal and sea turtle strandings for June 2009 through May 2010. Online at: 

http://66.11.128.41/Report2010.pdf. Accessed December 19, 2012. 

Riverhead Foundation for Marine Research and Preservation. 2008. Final Summary Report 

April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008. Online at: http://66.11.128.41/Report0708.pdf. 

Accessed January 2013. 

Rough, V. 1995. Gray seals in Nantucket Sound, Massachusetts, winter and spring, 1994. Final 

report to Marine Mammal Commission. Contract T10155615. 28 pp.

Schevill W.E. and W.A. Watkins. 1972. Intense low-frequency sounds from an Antarctic Minke 

whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata. Breviora. 388:1-8. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

15-11

Sergeant, D. E. 1965. Migrations of harp seal Pagophilus groenlandicus (Erxleben) in the 

Northwest Atlantic. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 22: 433-464.

Sergeant, D.E., A.W. Mansfield, and B. Beck. 1970. Inshore records of cetacean for eastern 

Canada, 1949 – 68. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 27(11): 1903 –

1915.

Southall, B., Bowles, A., Ellison, W., Finnerman, J., Gentry, R., Greene Jr., C., Katsak, D., 

Ketten, D., Miller, J., Nachtigall, P. Richardson, W., Thomas, J., Tyack, P. 2007. Marine 

Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria: Initial Scientific Recommendations. Aquatic Mammals. 

33(4): 411-509.

Stanley, H.F., S. Casey, J.M. Carnahan, S. Goodman, J. Harwood, and R.K. Wayned. 1996. 

Worldwide patterns of mitochondrial DNA differentiation in the harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina). Molecular Biology and Evolution. 13: 368 – 382.

Stevick, P.T., J. Allen, P.J. Clapham, N. Friday, S.K. Katona, F. Larsen, J. Lien, D.K. Mattila, P. 

J. Palsboll, J. Sigurjonsson, T.D. Smith, N. Oien, and P.S. Hammond. 2003. North 

Atlantic humpback whale abundance and rate of increase four decades after protection 

from whaling. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 258: 263 – 273.

Stevick, P., N. Oien, and D.K. Mattila. 1998. Migration of a humpback whale between Norway 

and the West Indies. Marine Mammal Science. 14: 162 – 166.

Stoffer, P. and P. Messina. 1996. Geology and Geography of the New York Bight Area. May 

1996. Online at: http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/bight/coast.html. Accessed January 

31, 2013.

Swingle, W.M., S.G. Barco, and T.D. Pitchford. 1993. Appearance of juvenile humpback whales 

feeding on the nearshore waters of Virginia. Marine Mammal Science. 9(3): 309-315. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

15-12

Tanski, J. 2007. Long Island’s Dynamic South Shore — A Primer on the Forces and Trends 

Shaping Our Coast. New York Sea Grant. Online at: 

http://www.seagrant.sunysb.edu/cprocesses/pdfs/LIDynamicSouthShore.pdf. Accessed 

January 31, 2013. 

Temte, J.L., M.A. Bigg, and O. Wiig. 1991. Clines revisited: the timing of pupping in the harbor 

seal (Phoca vitulina). Journal of the Zoological Society of London. 224: 617 – 632.

Thompson, P.O., W.C. Cummings, and S. J. Ha. 1986. Sounds, source levels, and associated 

behavior of humpback whales, Southeast Alaska. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America. 80(3): 735-740. 

Thomsen, F., S. McCully, D. Wood, F. Pace, and P. White. 2009. A Generic Investigation Into 

Noise Profiles of Marine Dredging in Relation to the Acoustic Sensitivity of the Marine 

Fauna in UK Waters With Particular Emphasis on Aggregate Dredging: PHASE 1 

Scoping and Review of Key Issues. Marine Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund. MEPF 

Ref No. MEPF/08/P21. 1Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science. 

Suffolk, United Kingdom

Trzcinski, M.K., R. Mohn, and W.D. Bowen. 2005. Estimation of grey seal population size and 

trends at Sable Island. DFO Research Document 2005/067. Canadian Department of 

Fisheries and Oceans. Ottawa, Ontario. 10 pp. Online at: http://www.dfompo.gc.ca/CSAS/Csas/DocREC/2005/RES2005_067_e.pdf Accessed December 2012.

Tyack, P.T. 2009. Acoustic Playback Experiments to Study Behavioral Responses of FreeRanging Marine Animals to Anthropogenic Sound. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 395: 

187-200.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Maritime Administration. 2011. Maritime Statistics 

- Vessel Calls: Vessels Calls at U.S. Ports by Vessel Type. Update June 13, 2012. 

Online at: http://www.marad.dot.gov/library_landing_page/data_and_statistics/

Data_and_Statistics.htm. Accessed December 20, 2012. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

15-13

Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, P.E. Rosel, editors. 2012. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2011. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 221. 

319p. Online at: http://nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm221/. Accessed December 19, 

2012. 

Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, P.E. Rosel, editors. 2011. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2011. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 219. 

598p. Online at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm219/index.html. Accessed 

January 2013. 

Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, C.P. Fairfield-Walsh, K. Maze-Foley, editors. 2009. U.S. Atlantic 

and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2008. NOAA Tech Memo 

NMFS NE 210. 440p. Online at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm210/. 

Accessed December 2012. 

Waring, G.T., L. Nøttestad, E. Olsen, H. Skov and G. Vikingsson 2008. Distribution and density 

estimates of cetaceans along the mid-Atlantic Ridge during summer 2004. Journal of 

Cetacean Research and Management. 10(2): 137-146.

Waring, G.T., J.R. Gilbert, J. Loftin, and N. Cabana. 2006. Short-term movements of radiotagged harbor seals in New England. Northeastern Naturalist. 13(1): 1 – 14.

Waring, G.T., R.M. Pace, J.M. Quintal, C.P. Fairfield, K. Maze-Foley, editors. 2004. US Atlantic 

and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stock assessments – 2003. NOAA Tech Memo 

NMFS NE 182. 287p. Online at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm182/. 

Accessed January 29,2013. 

Waring, G.T., D.L. Palka, P.J. Clapham, S. Swartz, M.C. Rossman, T.V.N. Cole, K.D. Bisack, 

L.J. Hansen. 1998. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments 

– 1998. US Dep comer, NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 116. 184p. Online at: 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm116/. Accessed December 2012. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

15-14

Waring, G.T., C.P. Fairfield, C.M. Ruhsam, and M. Sano. 1992. Cetaceans associated with Gulf 

Stream Features off the northeastern USA Shelf. Int. Counc. Explor. Sea C.M. 

1992/N:12.

Wartzok, D., A.N. Popper, J. Gordon, and J. Merrill. 2004. Factors affecting the responses of 

marine mammals to acoustic disturbance. Marine Technology Society Journal. 37 (4): 

6-15.

Whale Center of New England (WCNE). 2012. Species Information – Minke Whale. Online at: 

http://www.whalecenter.org/information/species.html . Accessed January 2013.

Wiley, D.N., R.A. Asmutis, T.D. Pitchford and D.P. Gannon 1995. Stranding and mortality of 

humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in the mid-Atlantic and southeast United 

States, 1985-1992. Fishery Bulletin. 93(1): 196-205.

Wright, A.J., L.T. Hatch, N.A. Soto, A. Kakuschke, A.L. Baldwin, M. Bateson, C.M. Beale, C. 

Clark, T. Deak, E.F. Edwards, A. Fernandez, A. Godinho, D. Lusseau, D. Martineau, 

L.M. Romero, L.S. Weilgart, B.A. Wintle, G. Notarbartolo-di-Sciara, and V. Martin. 2007. 

Anthropogenic Noise as a Stressor in Animals: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. 

International Journal of Comparative Psychology. 20: 250-273.

Young, R. A. and B. F. Hillard. 1984. Suspended Matter Distributions and Fluxes Related to the 

Hudson-Raritan Estuarine Plume. December 1984. National Oceanic Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) Technical Memorandum 8. Rockville, Maryland: NOAA National 

Ocean Service, Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment. Available at: 

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/noaa_documents/NOS/OMA/TM_NOS_OMA/nos_oma_8.PDF. 

Accessed January 31, 2013. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC 

Appendix 

to

Request for an Incidental Harassment Authorization 

Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act

Rockaway Delivery Lateral Offshore Pipeline Route

March 2013

Submitted to:

National Marine Fisheries Service

Office of Protected Resources

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

A-1

Appendix A

Protected Species Vessel Strike Avoidance

Williams Transco will require all vessels associated with the Project to adhere to NOAA 

Fisheries Service Northeast Region’s Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures and Reporting for 

Mariners. Additional criteria, including those that may be developed during the federal ESA 

Section 7 consultation process for this action may also be applicable to vessels associated with 

the Project. 

The requirements are as follows:

1. The vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch for marine mammals and 

sea turtles and slow down or stop the vessel to avoid striking protected species.

2. When whales are sighted, maintain a distance of 91 meters (300 feet) or greater from the 

whale. If the whale is believed to be a North Atlantic right whale, the vessel operator must 

ensure that the vessel maintains a minimum distance of 500 meters (1,500 feet) from the 

animal (50 CFR 224.103).

3. When sea turtles or small cetaceans are sighted, the vessel must maintain a distance of 45 

meters (150 feet) or greater whenever possible.

4. When cetaceans are sighted while a vessel is under way, the vessel must remain parallel to 

the animal’s course whenever possible. The vessel must avoid excessive speed or abrupt 

changes in direction until the cetacean has left the area.

5. Reduce vessel speed to 10 knots (18.5 kilometers per hour) or less when mother/calf pairs, 

pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed near an underway vessel when 

safety permits. A single cetacean at the surface may indicate the presence of submerged 

animals in the vicinity of the vessel; therefore, precautionary measures should always be 

exercised.

6. Whales may surface in unpredictable locations or approach slowly moving vessels. When 

animals are sighted in the vessel’s path or close to a moving vessel, the vessel must reduce 

speed and shift the engine to neutral. The engines must not be engaged until the animals 

are clear of the area.

7. The lessee must report sightings of any injured or dead marine mammals or sea turtles to 

NOAA Fisheries within 24 hours, regardless of whether the injury or death was caused by 

their vessel as provided in the lease.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL REQUEST FOR AN

OFFSHORE PIPELINE ROUTE INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION 

B-1

Appendix B

Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan 

(SPCC Plan) 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project

March 2013

B-3

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page iii

Table of Contents

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION............................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Project Location and Description........................................................................ 1-1

2.0 DRAINAGE PATTERNS AND SPILL PREVENTION PRACTICES............................... 2-1

2.1 Drainage Patterns .............................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Spill Prevention Practices................................................................................... 2-1

3.0 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Contractor Responsibilities................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Company Responsibilities .................................................................................. 3-1

3.3 Emergency Contacts .......................................................................................... 3-2

3.4 Duties of Company Inspector (District Manager) for Non-de minimus 

Spills................................................................................................................... 3-2

4.0 EMERGENCY SPILL RESPONSE AND PERSONNEL PROTECTION 

EQUIPMENT.................................................................................................................. 4-1

5.0 SPILL NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES......................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Internal Notifications........................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 External Notifications.......................................................................................... 5-1

5.3 Emergency Spill Response Contractors............................................................. 5-2

5.4 Local Emergency Responders ........................................................................... 5-2

6.0 CLEAN-UP PROCEDURES........................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Spills................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Equipment Cleaning/Storage ............................................................................. 6-1

6.3 Waste Disposal .................................................................................................. 6-2

 ATTACHMENT A TABLE I: LIST OF EMERGENCY CONTACTS ......................................... A-1

ATTACHMENT A TABLE II: EMERGENCY SPILL RESPONSE AND PERSONNEL 

PROTECTION EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................ A-2

B-5

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page 1-1 

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 

This Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan (Spill Plan) was developed for 

the Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project (Project), which would extend approximately 3.20 miles 

from a proposed offshore interconnect with Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC’s

(Transco’s) existing 26-inch diameter Lower New York Bay Lateral (LNYBL) in the Atlantic 

Ocean to an onshore delivery point for the National Grid pipeline system on the Rockaway 

Peninsula in Queens County, New York. The offshore portion of pipeline construction will occur 

entirely within the Atlantic Ocean, which is the only waterbody that could be affected by spills 

during construction.

As part of the offshore construction planning process, Transco will ensure that any 

vessel operators performing the work have appropriate plans in place to comply with United 

States Coast Guard requirements including a Vessel Response Plan (VRP) or a Shipboard Oil 

Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP) as contained in 33 CFR 151 and 33 CFR 155. The specific 

plan requirements depend on the size of the vessel and the type of cargo and the quantity of oil 

and fuel that will be carried on board.

Definitions: 

Oil is defined in the SPCC regulations as oil of any kind or in any form including, 

but not limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse and oil mixed with wastes other 

than dredged spoil and oily mixtures.

Hazardous Material as defined by the DOT includes hazardous substances, hazardous 

wastes, marine pollutants, elevated temperature materials, materials designated as hazardous 

in the Hazardous Materials Table (see 49 CFR 172.101), and materials that meet the defining 

criteria for hazard classes and divisions in part 173 of subchapter C of this chapter. Hazardous 

Materials typically found on construction projects include, but are not limited to, petroleum oils, 

hydraulic fluids, engine coolants (ethylene glycol), x-ray film developer, chemical additives, pipe 

coatings, used abrasive blasting media, etc. 

EPA’s definition of a facility includes any mobile installation, equipment, or pipeline 

(other than a vessel) in which oil will be used. This SPCC plan is required if the storage or use 

of oil at the job site is greater than 1,320 gallons. The boundaries of the facilities covered by this 

B-7

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page 1-2 

SPCC plan will include all vessels and barges used during the construction and depend on sitespecific factors such as equipment used, types of activities at the site, and staging and fueling 

areas. This generic SPCC plan provides an overview of the project and proposed operational 

activities. 

Contractor Responsibility:

The Contractor shall be familiar with this Spill Plan and its contents prior to commencing 

any construction-related activities. The Spill Plan will be followed to prevent any spills that may 

occur during the project and to mitigate any spills that do occur.

Company representatives assigned to this project include:

District Manager (DM): TBD

Company Inspector (CI): TBD

Environmental Compliance: TBD

B-8

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page 2-1 

2.0 DRAINAGE PATTERNS AND SPILL PREVENTION PRACTICES

2.1 DRAINAGE PATTERNS

The general drainage patterns can be determined by the contour drawings shown in the 

topographic maps. 

Responsibility: Construction Inspector / District Manager 

Construction and Operations personnel will be familiar with drainage patterns for the 

project and be prepared to implement measures to control any release.

2.2 SPILL PREVENTION PRACTICES

The Contractor shall take the following precautions to ensure that any oil or hazardous 

materials spill does not occur:

A. Containers

(1) All containers shall be stored on level ground at least 100 feet from any waterway

unless the location is designated for such use by an appropriate governmental 

authority. All containers should be located within temporary containment. 

(2) Temporary containment may include temporary hay bale berms with plastic 

sheets underlining the entire contained area and over the hay bale berms. 

Earthen materials may be used in place of hay bales with the method of 

construction determined by the Environmental Inspector. It is at the discretion of 

the contractor to comply with the conditions of the spill plan, but at a minimum 

the contractor must comply with the general conditions outlined in the FERC Plan 

and Procedures and 40 CFR Part 112, although these requirements do not 

technically apply to the conditions at a construction site. 

(3) Containment areas shall be capable of containing 110% of the volume of 

hazardous materials being stored.

(4) All container storage areas shall be routinely inspected for integrity purposes. 

(5) Leaking and/or deteriorated containers shall be replaced as soon as the 

condition is first detected with clean-up measures immediately taking place.

(6) No incompatible materials shall be stored in the same containment area.

(7) No container storage areas shall be left unsecured during non-work hours. All 

hoses and oil containing equipment is required to be secured prior to concluding 

each day. This includes parking and securing equipment as identified in condition 

A-1 and fueling equipment must have hoses placed into containment and locked

with pad and key if possible. 

B-9

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page 2-2 

(8) All containers of oil or hazardous materials should be accompanied by oil spill 

response kits.

(9) Collected rainwater in containment pads must be inspected prior to release to the 

ground; it must be free of sheens or other hazardous materials.

B. Tanks

(1) The Contractor shall operate only those tanks that meet the requirements and 

specifications of applicable regulations and that are surrounded with temporary 

containment as described above.

(2) Self-supporting tanks shall be constructed of materials compatible with its 

contents.

(3) All tanks shall be routinely inspected for integrity purposes. 

(4) Vehicle mounted tanks shall be equipped with flame/spark arrestors on vents to 

ensure that self-ignition does not occur.

(5) Tanks will not be used to store incompatible materials in sequence unless first 

thoroughly decontaminated.

(6) Any tank utilized for storing different products between construction locations will 

be thoroughly decontaminated prior to refilling.

C. Unloading/Loading Areas

(1) If it is necessary during the project, re-fueling and transferring of liquids shall only 

occur in pre-designated locations that are on level ground and at least 100 feet 

from any waterway. Where conditions require construction equipment (e.g., 

Bobcat/front-end loader/excavator) be re-fueled within 100 feet of any waterway, 

or as prescribed by a project specific permit, this activity must be continuously 

manned to ensure that overfilling, leaks or spills do not occur. In addition, all this 

equipment must be surrounded by temporary containment as described above

and inspected on a regular basis to ensure that any hoses or parts containing oil 

or hazardous materials are in good working order. 

(2) All service vehicles used to transport fuel must be equipped with an appropriate 

number of fire extinguishers and an oil spill response kit. At a minimum, this kit 

must include:

• Ten 48”x 3” oil socks

• Five 18” x 18” oil pillows

• One 10’x 3” oil boom

• Twenty-five 24” x 24”oil mats/pads

• 1 box garden-size, 6-mil, disposable polyethylene bags (w/ ties)

• 4 pairs of oil-proof gloves 

• One 55-gallon PE open-head drum

• Blank drum labels

B-10

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page 2-3 

• 2 shovels

(3) Contractors will be trained in proper handling, refueling, and maintenance 

practices. 

D. Offshore

(1) All vessels will be required to register for the EPA Vessel General Permit, which 

authorizes discharges incidental to the normal discharge of operations of 

commercial vessels.

(2) Emergency response procedures for offshore spills will be identified after the 

contractor has been selected.

B-11

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page 3-1 

3.0 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES

This section provides a generic description of emergency response procedures to be 

performed to address oil and hazardous materials spills at the job site. Each response will vary 

depending upon the nature and extent of the incident. However, the general procedures outlined 

below will be followed.

3.1 CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITIES

(1) The Contractor must designate both an Emergency Coordinator (EC) and an 

Alternate EC for the project.

(2) The Contractor is responsible for appropriately addressing all spills that occur 

directly as a result of construction-related activities.

(3) For spills (spills that take less than a shovel-full of dirt to clean-up), no internal 

notification requirements of this Spill Plan need to be followed. However, this 

does not relieve the Contractor from appropriately remediating the area and 

reporting the spill in the daily report.

(4) The Contractor shall supply the necessary manpower, PPE, and spill response 

equipment to appropriately address all spills that directly occur as a result of 

construction-related activities.

(5) Ensure that all emergency spill response equipment and PPE is well-stocked and 

in good condition. Replace used materials when necessary.

(6) If the situation warrants it, the Contractor shall immediately notify any local 

emergency spill response contractors for assistance.

(7) The Contractor shall be responsible for hiring an emergency spill response 

contractor if the nature of the incident requires it.

(8) The Contractor is responsible for immediately notifying the CI (or the DM) of any 

reportable spills.

3.2 COMPANY RESPONSIBILITIES

(1) Company shall be responsible for ensuring that the Contractor adequately 

follows the procedures outlined in this Spill Plan at all times. 

(2) Company shall be responsible for all verbal and written external notifications 

made to any regulatory agency or any local emergency responders.

B-13

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page 3-2 

3.3 EMERGENCY CONTACTS

Table I (Attachment A) provides a list of Company and Contractor emergency contacts. 

3.4 DUTIES OF COMPANY INSPECTOR (DISTRICT MANAGER) FOR NON-DE 

MINIMUS SPILLS

The duties of the CI (or DM) for reportable spills include the following:

(1) Determine the source, character, amount, and extent of the spill.

(2) Assess the potential hazards to the job site, environment, and surrounding 

community and contact the Safety Representative if any hazards are detected.

(3) Evacuate the area if necessary.

(4) Report the spill in accordance with the internal notification procedures outlined in 

Section 5.1 and the external notification procedures outlined in Section 5.2.

(5) Commit manpower and equipment for minor incidents that can be reasonably 

remediated by the Contractor.

(6) Oversee Contractor’s spill response efforts to contain and control all spills to 

ensure they adequately follow the procedures outlined in this Spill Plan. 

(7) Document the Contractor’s response effort, including taking photographs 

wherever possible.

(8) Generate an Emergency Incident Report (WGP Form 0187).

B-14

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page 4-1 

4.0 EMERGENCY SPILL RESPONSE AND PERSONNEL 

PROTECTION EQUIPMENT

Table II (Attachment A) provides a list of the minimally-required Emergency Spill 

Response Equipment and Personnel Protection Equipment (PPE) for this project. This is in 

addition to the minimally-required spill response equipment previously specified in Section 2.2.

B-15

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page 5-1 

5.0 SPILL NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES

5.1 INTERNAL NOTIFICATIONS

All spills are to be immediately reported to the CI (or DM) who will contact Gas Control 

and the Environmental Compliance Department. Table I (Attachment A) includes a list of 

emergency contacts.

An Emergency Incident Report (WGP Form 0187) must be forwarded to the 

Environmental Compliance Department as soon as technically feasible by the CI (or DM). The 

Environmental Compliance Department will determine if the spill constitutes the following:

(1) Reportable Quantity under CERCLA,

(2) Reportable release under the Clean Water Act or RCRA, or

(3) Reportable Threshold Quantity under SARA Title III

(4) State Reportable Incident (Contact Environmental Compliance Department)

(5) Immediately Reportable Incident – Any sheen observed on water 

If any reporting is necessary, the Environmental Compliance Department shall be 

responsible for immediately contacting the appropriate federal and state regulatory authorities 

and following up in writing, if required. Any spills requiring reporting to state or federal agencies 

shall also be reported to the impacted landowner. 

5.2 EXTERNAL NOTIFICATIONS

Any spills that may pose a threat to human health or the environment shall be 

immediately reported to the CI (or DM) who will contact the Local Emergency Planning 

Committee (LEPC) if necessary. When determining if the LEPC should be contacted or not, any 

gas release to the atmosphere must be taken into consideration. Note: Linear Projects may 

extend through multiple LEPC jurisdictions. Contractor must insure all jurisdictions are listed.

The appropriate LEPC is:

Name: TBD 

Organization: TBD 

Phone Number: TBD 

B-17

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page 5-2 

The Environmental Compliance Department is responsible for submitting any required 

written follow-up notifications to the LEPC or any local emergency responders.

5.3 EMERGENCY SPILL RESPONSE CONTRACTORS 

The Company has arrangements with several emergency spill response contractors to 

address emergency responses beyond the capabilities of the Contractor.

If necessary, the following firms could be utilized for this project:

Company: TBD 

Name: TBD 

Location: TBD 

Phone Number: TBD 

Company: TBD 

Name: TBD 

Location: TBD 

Phone Number: TBD 

5.4 LOCAL EMERGENCY RESPONDERS

The Contractor or the CI (or DM) may call the following local emergency responders 

should their assistance be required: Note: Linear Projects may extend through multiple 

Emergency Responder areas. Contractor must insure all jurisdictions are listed.

Service Telephone Number

Emergency Medical Services TBD 

Hospital TBD 

Fire TBD

U.S. Park Police TBD 

United States Coast Guard TBD 

B-18

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page 6-1 

6.0 CLEAN-UP PROCEDURES

The following section outlines specific procedures to be followed when addressing spills:

6.1 SPILLS

(1) Small spills and leaks must be remediated as soon as feasible. Use adsorbent 

pads wherever possible.

(2) Restrict spills to the containment area if possible by stopping or diverting flow.

(3) If the spill exceeds the containment structure’s capacity, immediately construct 

additional containment using sandbags or fill material. Every effort must be made 

to prevent the spills from entering a water body.

(4) If a spill reaches a water body, immediately place oil booms downstream in order 

to contain the material. As soon as possible, remove the floating layer with 

absorbent pads.

(5) After all recoverable oil has been collected and drummed, place all contaminated 

PPE, spill clean-up equipment, and any impacted soil into appropriate containers.

(6) For significant quantities of impacted soils, construct temporary waste piles using 

plastic sheets. This material should subsequently be transferred into lined roll-off 

boxes as soon as feasible.

(7) Environmental Compliance Department will coordinate all waste characterization, 

profiling, and disposal activities.

6.2 EQUIPMENT CLEANING/STORAGE

(1) Upon completion of remedial activities, the Contractor shall be responsible for 

decontaminating the used emergency response equipment as well as the PPE.

(2) The Contractor shall be responsible for replacing any spent emergency response 

equipment and PPE prior to resuming construction-related activities.

(3) Decontamination rinse fluids shall be collected and containerized. The 

Environmental Compliance Department will coordinate waste characterization 

and disposal activities.

(4) Reusable PPE shall be tested and inventoried prior to being placed back into 

service.

B-19

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page 6-2 

6.3 WASTE DISPOSAL

The Contractor is responsible for waste management and waste disposal; however, the 

Environmental Compliance Department will coordinate all waste characterization, 

profiling, and disposal activities. All waste management and disposal activities shall 

conform to the procedures outlined in the O&M Manual (see WGP procedure 35.04.01, 

“Waste Management”).

The Contractor is permitted to manage routine garbage and construction debris without 

oversight of the Environmental Compliance Department

B-20

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page A-1 

 ATTACHMENT A 

TABLE I: LIST OF EMERGENCY CONTACTS

Names Job Description Phone Number

Gas Control

GulfStream 800/440-8457 (24-hrs) 

Northwest 800/972-7733 (24-hrs) 

Transco 800/440-8457 (24-hrs) 

TBD Chief Inspector TBD 

TBD District Manager TBD 

Mark Bisett, Manager Environmental Compliance Department

713/215-2781 (off)

713/213-2581 (cell)

Contractor Job Description Phone Number

TBD Emergency Coordinator TBD 

TBD Alternate Emergency Coordinator TBD 

Regulatory Agencies Name Phone Number

National Response Center 800/424-8802

State Environmental Mgt. Dept. (EMD) TBD 

National Park Service - Kathleen 

Cuzzolino

718-354-4609

B-21

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND

ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT COUNTERMEASURES PLAN (SPCC PLAN) 

Page A-2 

ATTACHMENT A 

TABLE II: EMERGENCY SPILL RESPONSE AND PERSONNEL PROTECTION 

EQUIPMENT

Equipment Quantity Location

(1) chemical spill kit 1 adjacent to work space 

(2) oil spill kit 1 adjacent to work space

SPILL RESPONSE EQUIPMENT:

(1) 1 bag loose chemical pulp 3 chemical pillows (18” x 18”)

 3 chemical socks (48” x 3”) 10 chemical mats/pads (24” x 24”)

 1 box garden-sized, 6-mil, disposal polyethylene bags (w/ ties)

 Blank drum labels one 30-gallon PE open-head drum

 2 shovels 

(2) 1 oil boom (100’ x 3”) 10 oil pillows (18” x 18”)

 10 oil socks (48” x 3”) 25 oil mats/pads (24” x 24”)

 1 box garden-sized, 6-mil, disposal polyethylene bags (w/ ties)

 Blank drum labels three, 55-gallon PE open-head drums

 4 shovels

PERSONNEL PROTECTION EQUIPMENT: 

The inventory of PPE should include enough for at least 4 responders reacting to a significant 

leak/spill.

Splash goggles, half-face respirators (w/ cartridges for benzene), 

Tyvek suits, nitrile gloves, waterproof/ chemical resistant hip-waders 

B-22

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX O

HYDRODYNAMIC AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS

FOR THE ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL PROJECT

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
HYDRODYNAMIC AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT 

ANALYSES FOR ROCKAWAY DELIVERY LATERAL 

PROJECT

Prepared for: 

Ecology and Environment, Inc. 

368 Pleasant View Drive 

Lancaster, New York 

Prepared by: 

HDR|HydroQual 

1200 MacArthur Boulevard 

Mahwah, New Jersey 

April 30, 2013 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page i

Table of Contents 

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

2. HYDRODYNAMIC AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODEL THEORY ................. 3

2.1. HYDRODYNAMICS ..................................................................................................... 3

2.2. SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ............................................................................................ 7

2.2.1. Shear Stress Partitioning and Surface Drag ................................................. 7

2.2.2. Erosion .............................................................................................................. 8

2.2.3. Bedload and Suspended Load Transport .................................................. 10

2.2.4. Settling and Deposition ................................................................................ 11

3. MODEL APPLICATION FOR ROCKAWAY PIPELINE .............................................. 14

3.1. MODEL GRID .............................................................................................................. 14

3.2. MODEL SET-UP AND CALIBRATION ................................................................... 15

3.3. MODEL APPLICATION FOR PIPELINE INSTALLATION ................................. 17

3.3.1. General Description of Model Set-up ......................................................... 17

3.3.2. Trenching: Hydraulic Jetting “Worst Case” Conditions ......................... 19

3.3.3. Trenching: Hydraulic Jetting “Typical” Conditions ................................ 19

3.3.4. Trenching: Mechanical Plowing “Worst Case” Conditions .................... 20

3.3.5. Trenching: Mechanical Plowing “Typical” Conditions ........................... 21

3.3.6. Trenching: Mechanical (Clamshell) Dredging .......................................... 21

3.3.7. Hand Jetting at Hot Tap Site ........................................................................ 22

3.3.8. Mechanical (Clamshell) Dredging from the HDD Pit .............................. 22

3.3.9. Anticipated Rate of Trench Infill by Ambient Sediment Transport 

Processes ....................................................................................................................... 23

4. INTERPRETATION OF SEDIMENT TRANPORT SIMULATION RESULTS ....... 29

5. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................ 32

5.1. DOCUMENTATION OF MODEL CONDITIONS ASSUMPTIONS .................... 32

5.2. COEFFICIENT OF DRAG, MODEL SIMULATION TIMEFRAMES, AND 

SEASONALITY ...................................................................................................................... 32

5.3. WORST CASE CONDITIONS FOR JET SLED SCENARIOS ................................ 34

5.4. ANTICIPATED RATES OF TRENCH INFILL ........................................................ 35

6. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 36

TABLES ........................................................................................................................................... 41

FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ 45

APPENDIX A. SHEAR STRESS PARTITIONING .............................................................. 140

APPENDIX B. SIMULATED SURFACE LAYER SUSPENDED SOLIDS: WORST CASE 

JETTING ....................................................................................................................................... 144

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page ii

APPENDIX C. SIMULATED SURFACE LAYER SUSPENDED SOLIDS: TYPICAL 

JETTING ....................................................................................................................................... 163

APPENDIX D. SIMULATED SURFACE LAYER SUSPENDED SOLIDS: WORST CASE 

PLOWING .................................................................................................................................... 170

APPENDIX E. SIMULATED SURFACE LAYER SUSPENDED SOLIDS: TYPICAL 

PLOWING .................................................................................................................................... 177

APPENDIX F. SIMULATED SURFACE LAYER SUSPENDED SOLIDS: TRENCH 

MECHANICAL DREDGING ................................................................................................... 184

APPENDIX G. SIMULATED SURFACE LAYER SUSPENDED SOLIDS: HOT TAP 

HAND JETTING ......................................................................................................................... 191

APPENDIX H. SIMULATED SURFACE LAYER SUSPENDED SOLIDS: HDD PIT 

MECHANICAL DREDGING ................................................................................................... 198

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION 

This report was developed as part of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project (Project). The 

Project involves offshore construction of a 26-inch diameter natural gas pipeline 

(Rockaway Delivery Lateral). Rockaway Delivery Lateral would extend approximately 

3.20 miles from a proposed offshore interconnect with Transco’s existing 26-inch diameter 

Lower New York Bay Lateral (LNYBL) in the Atlantic Ocean to an onshore delivery point 

for the National Grid pipeline system on the Rockaway Peninsula in Queens County, 

New York. Hydrodynamic and sediment transport simulations were developed to help 

assess potential impacts of project construction. 

The ECOM (Estuarine, Coastal, and Ocean Model) framework was used to develop a 

hydrodynamic and sediment transport model to evaluate potential impacts of pipeline 

installation and burial in the seabed along the preferred route. When used with its 

integrated sediment transport module (SEDZLJ), ECOM is also known as ECOMSED. 

ECOM has a long history of development and application to the New York Bight area and 

has been used to support regulatory decision-making. Previous ECOM applications with 

hydrodynamic and sediment transport simulations in the area of the proposed pipeline 

route include the System-Wide Eutrophication Model (SWEM) (HQI, 1999a-f; HQI, 2002), 

Contaminant Assessment and Reduction Project (CARP) (HQI, 2007), Harbor Toxics and 

Nutrients Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) efforts and Lower Passaic River/Newark 

Bay (LPR/NB) Superfund efforts for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).1

Each of these models includes the New York (Mid-Atlantic) Bight area around Long 

Island as well as New York-New Jersey Harbor because of complex flow interactions that 

occur as freshwater from the Hudson River, Raritan River and other sources, mix and are 

influenced by ocean currents and tides. 

Model parameters (e.g., bottom roughness, sediment grain size distributions, particle 

diameters, etc.) were assigned or calibrated based on field measurements and other site 

data. Model results were compared to site data to assess model reliability. Potential 

impacts of pipeline installation along the proposed route were evaluated by simulating 

sediment releases during construction and determining: 

• sediment plume areal extent in the water column and duration over time; 

• areal extent and depth of sediment deposition attributable to construction; 

• anticipated rate of pipeline burial by periodic sediment transport processes. 

 

 

1

 Harbor Toxics and Nutrient TMDL and LPR/NB efforts are ongoing projects and reports related 

to those efforts are not yet publically available. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 2

Modeling efforts examine sediment releases from construction activities and alternatives 

that include: 

(1) hydraulic jetting of sediments along the pipeline route (jet sled) for “worst case” 

conditions; 

(2) hydraulic jetting of sediments along the pipeline route (jet sled) for “typical” 

conditions; 

(3) mechanical plowing of sediments along the pipeline route (mechanical plow) for 

“worst case” conditions; 

(4) mechanical plowing of sediments along the pipeline route (mechanical plow) for 

typical conditions; 

(5) mechanical (clamshell) dredging of sediments along the pipeline route; 

(6) hand jetting of sediments at the site where the existing main will be tapped to 

connect to submarine portion of the lateral; 

(7) mechanical (clamshell) dredging at the site of a pit where the submarine portion of 

the pipeline will connect to pipeline sections that will be installed by horizontal 

directional drilling (HDD); 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 3

2. HYDRODYNAMIC AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT 

MODEL THEORY 

A three-dimensional (3-D) hydrodynamic model for the Rockway pipeline areas was 

constructed using the ECOM (Estuarine, Coastal, and Ocean Model) framework (HQI, 

2010). ECOM is the hydrodynamic module of the framework and SEDZLJ (Jones and Lick, 

2001; James et al. 2010) is its integrated sediment transport module. When used with its 

sediment transport module, ECOM is also known as ECOMSED. For simplicity, the 

acronym ECOM is used hereafter to describe the model and its hydrodynamic and 

sediment transport modules. 

ECOM has been successfully applied to rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal and ocean areas 

worldwide and its predictive capabilities have been assessed through extensive 

comparisons with data to demonstrate that the model represents the predominant physics 

of different water bodies in a realistic manner. These applications include: Delaware 

River, Delaware Bay, and adjacent continental shelf (Galperin and Mellor, 1990a,b,c), 

South Atlantic Bight (Blumberg and Mellor, 1983), Hudson-Raritan estuary (Oey et al., 

1985a,b), Gulf of Mexico (Blumberg and Mellor, 1985), Chesapeake Bay (Blumberg and 

Goodrich 1990), Massachusetts Bay (Blumberg et al., 1993), St. Andrew Bay (Blumberg 

and Kim, 2000), New York Harbor and Bight (Blumberg et al., 1999), Onondaga Lake 

(Ahsan and Blumberg, 1999), Lake Michigan (Schwab et al., 1999), Lake Pontchartrain 

(Signell and List, 1997), Green Bay (HQI, 2001), and Lake Ontario (HQI, 2005 and 2008). 

ECOM uses a conformal curvilinear coordinate system with variable grid resolution. Fine 

spatial (horizontal) resolution can be achieved by using a smaller model grid size in areas 

of special interest or concern. In the vertical direction, the model uses a transformed 

σ-coordinate system, which allows it to follow changes in bottom topography and surface 

elevation and to resolve associated vertical currents. The model solves coupled threedimensional advection-diffusion equations for water mass, momentum, heat, and salinity 

and employs a two-equation turbulent-closure scheme (Blumberg and Mellor, 1987; 

Galerpin et al., 1988; Mellor and Yamada, 1982) to provide realistic representation of 

vertical mixing processes. ECOM can be used as a stand-alone hydrodynamic model or in 

conjunction with its integrated sediment transport model to simulate erosion, deposition, 

and transport of cohesive and non-cohesive sediments. 

2.1. HYDRODYNAMICS 

Currents and tides move water (fluid) and transport sediments in the water column and 

sediment bed. Water movement is also influenced by meteorological conditions and also 

temperature and salinity differences. As water flows, it is subject to frictional resistance 

(drag) along boundaries (surfaces) of all material it passes. The balance between gravity 

and drag forces along the flow path determines the velocity and depth of flow. The force 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 4

that flowing water exerts on the sediment bed is described in terms of the shear stress. 

The hydrodynamic module in ECOM is used to simulate water velocities, depths, and 

shear stresses. Velocities and shear stresses are used in sediment transport calculations to 

determine plume extents from pipeline installation. 

The governing equations for hydrodynamics are: 

Conservation of Mass (Continuity): Fluid 

= 0

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

z

W

y

V

x

U

(2-1) 

Conservation of Momentum: Fluid 

M Fx

z

U

K

zx

P

fV

z

U W

y

U

V

x

U

U

t

U

 +











∂

∂

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

−=−

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

0

1

ρ

 (2-2) 

M Fy

z

V

K

zy

P

fU

z

V W

y

V

V

x

V

V

t

V

 +











∂

∂

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

−=−

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

0

1

ρ

 (2-3) 

z

P

g

∂

∂

ρ −= (2-4) 

Conservation of Mass (Continuity): Temperature 

H FT

z

T

K

zz

T

W

y

T

V

x

T

U

t

T

 +











∂

∂

∂

∂

=

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

(2-5) 

Conservation of Mass (Continuity): Salinity 

H FS

z

S

K

zz

S

W

y

S

V

x

S

U

t

S

 +











∂

∂

∂

∂

=

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

+

∂

∂

(2-6) 

where: 

U, V, W = mean (Reynolds-average) velocities in the x, y, and z directions, 

respectively [L T-1] 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 5

T = temperature [θ] 2

S = salinity [dimensionless] (e.g., parts per thousand) 

ρ0 = reference density of water [M L-3] 

ρ = local density of water [M L-3] 

g = gravitational acceleration [L T-2] 

 f = Coriolis parameter [T-1]; 

P = pressure [M L-1 T-2] 

KM = vertical eddy viscosity for fluid [L2 T-1] 

KH = vertical eddy diffusivity for temperature and salinity [L2 T-1] 

Fx, Fy = horizontal diffusion of momentum in the x- and y-directions, 

respectively [L2

 T-1] 

FT, FS = horizontal diffusion of temperature and salinity, respectively 

[θ T-1, T-1] 

Horizontal diffusion terms represent small (sub-grid) scale processes not directly resolved 

by the model grid and are expressed in a form analogous to molecular diffusion: 





























∂

∂

+

∂

∂

∂

∂

 +











∂

∂

∂

∂

=

x

V

y

U

A

yx

U

A

x

Fx 2 M M(2-7) 





























∂

∂

+

∂

∂

∂

∂

+















∂

∂

∂

∂

=

x

V

y

U

A

xy

V

A

y

Fy 2 M M(2-8) 





























∂

∂

∂

∂

 +











∂

∂

∂

∂

=

y

T

A

yx

T

A

x

FT H H

(2-9) 





























∂

∂

∂

∂

 +











∂

∂

∂

∂

=

y

S

A

yx

S

A

x

FS H H

(2-10) 

where: 

AM = horizontal eddy viscosity [L2 T-1] 

AH = horizontal eddy diffusivity [L2

 T-1] 

 

2

 The symbol θ is used to represent fundamental units of temperature in the LTMθ system (see 

Dingman, 2002). θ indicates degree and θ-1 indicates degree-1. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 6

In developing these equations, two simplifying assumptions were made: (1) the weight of 

the fluid identically balances the pressure (hydrostatic pressure assumption); and (2) 

density differences are negligible unless those differences are multiplied by the 

gravitational acceleration (Boussinesq approximation). As implemented in the model, 

these equations are transformed into a terrain-following, sigma (σ)-level coordinate 

system in the vertical direction and an orthogonal, curvilinear coordinate system in the 

horizontal direction as described by HQI (2010). 

The governing equations contain Reynolds stress and flux terms that account for 

turbulent diffusion of momentum as expressed by eddy viscosity. The turbulence closure 

approach of Mellor and Yamada (1982) is used to solve these equations. Turbulent mixing 

terms (KM) in the governing equations also occur in relationships between velocity 

gradients (∂U/∂z and ∂V/∂z) and shear stresses at the air-water and sediment-water 

interfaces (boundaries conditions). Shear stress at the sediment-water interface depends 

on a drag coefficient that relates surface roughness to velocity gradients at the bottom of 

the water column. Drag coefficients are determined using a logarithmic velocity profile to 

describe how velocities change near a boundary using the following relationship: 

2

0

ln 1

−





























=

z

z

CD

κ

(2-11) 

where: 

CD = coefficient of drag [dimensionless] 

κ = von Karman constant = 0.4 [dimensionless] 

z = height above the sediment bed [L] 

z0 = hydrodynamic roughness height of the sediment bed [L] 

The height above the sediment bed (z) used in the logarithmic velocity profile is termed 

the matching height. Operationally, the matching height is equal one half the thickness of 

the bottom layer of water in the model. When 10 sigma-layers are used in the model, each 

water column layer is one tenth (10%) of the total water depth and the matching height is 

one twentieth (5%) of the water depth. As total water depth increases, hydrodynamic 

drag on the water column will decrease to a minimum value (CD,min). Operationally, the 

minimum drag coefficient is in the range of 0.0025 to 0.003 and is used as a floor function 

(i.e., CD can never be less than CD,min). If the drag coefficient value calculated using 

Equation 2-11 is less than CD,min, CD is set equal to the minimum value. In practical terms, 

drag coefficients will be set equal to minimum values when water depth is greater than 

approximately 1.5 meters (5 feet). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 7

Using this approach, the primary model calibration parameters for hydrodynamics are 

hydrodynamic roughness height, z0, and minimum coefficient of drag (CD,min). Principal 

outputs of the hydrodynamic model are water velocities in the x, y, and z directions, 

water depths (water surface elevations), and total hydrodynamic shear stresses at the 

sediment-water interface. Further descriptions of shear stress are provided in the 

description of the sediment transport model and Appendix A. 

2.2. SEDIMENT TRANSPORT 

In the water column, particles are transported by advection (movement with currents) 

and can be exchanged between the sediment bed and water column by erosion and 

deposition. Particles may be transported as suspended load (fully entrained in the water 

column) or as bedload (in contact with the bed). Sediment behavior can be classified 

across a continuum from cohesive to non-cohesive. Cohesive sediments are typically 

described in terms of aggregate properties (i.e., properties of the sediment as a whole) 

because of the tendency of individual sediment grains to aggregate and flocculate in the 

water column and exhibit erosional resistance in the sediment bed. Non-cohesive 

sediments are described in terms of the properties of individual grains because the 

individual grains comprising the sediment mixture do not flocculate in the water column 

and do not exhibit erosional resistance beyond that attributable to individual grains. For 

application to Rockaway pipeline, model development focuses on non-cohesive sediment 

because the seabed along the proposed pipeline route is largely comprised of sands with a 

small amount of silt. 

2.2.1. Shear Stress Partitioning and Surface Drag 

The shear stress at the sediment–water interface generated by water flowing over the bed 

surface is a primary determinant of the extent to which materials settling out of the water 

column are deposited on the bed or are eroded from it and whether particles in motion 

are transported as suspended load or bed load. Near the bed, vertical velocity gradients 

exist because water velocities decrease and typically diminish to zero at the sedimentwater interface. Vertical velocity gradients generate shear stresses that act on the bed. 

Very close to the bed, at scales that typically range from a few particle diameters to the 

length of bedforms (e.g., ripples and dunes), the total (hydrodynamic) bed shear stress 

can be separated (partitioned) into two components: (1) surface drag, and (2) form drag. 

The relationship between total shear stress and its components is: 

fgb += τττ (2-12) 

where: 

τb = total (hydrodynamic) bed shear stress [M L-1 T-2] 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 8

τg = surface drag (“grain-related”) shear stress [M L-1 T-2] 

τf = form drag shear stress [M L-1 T-2] 

Surface drag acts to initiate particle movement off the bed surface, through the bottom 

boundary layer, and into the main body of the flow. The surface drag component of total 

bed shear stress is often termed “grain-related” or “grain” shear stress or “skin friction”. 

A more detailed description of the process used to separate total hydrodynamic shear 

stress into surface drag and form drag components is presented in Appendix A. 

2.2.2. Erosion 

Erosion is the process by which particles at rest in the sediment bed are set into motion. 

Rates at which sediments erode vary widely because sediment characteristics vary by 

location and also with depth in the sediment bed. Erosion rates for cohesive sediments are 

highly variable and generally must be determined from site-specific flume studies. Rates 

for non-cohesive sediment vary with composition (i.e., grain size distribution) and can be 

estimated from tabulated results of laboratory flume studies. SEDZLJ (Jones and Lick, 

2001; Scott et. al. 2010) is designed to use erosion rate measurements performed using the 

SEDFLUME device. SEDFLUME measurements for cohesive sediments are illustrated by 

McNeil et al. (1996) and Jepsen et al. (1997, 2000). SEDFLUME and similar measurements 

for non-cohesive sediments are illustrated by Roberts et al. (1998, 2003). 

With the SEDZLJ framework, erosion rates at known shear stress levels and depths in the 

sediment bed are tabulated based on SEDFLUME measurements. Erosion rates at shear 

stresses and depths between measured values are estimated by interpolating between 

pairs of measured values as follows: 

( ) 1

1 1

1

+

+ +

+

















−

−

+ 















−

−

= m

m m

mg

m

m m

gm

E g E E

ττ

ττ

ττ

ττ

τ (2-13) 

[ ] ( ) [ ] [ ]

1

0 0

0

ln ln ln +

















+















 −

=

n

n

n

n

n

E

D

D

E

D

DD

DE (2-14) 

where: 

E(τg) = erosion at a grain-related shear stress equal to τg [L T-1] 

τg = grain-related shear stress [M L-1 T-2] 

τm+1 = measured grain-related shear stress greater than τg [M L-1 T-2] 

τm = measured grain-related shear stress less than τg [M L-1 T-2] 

Em = measured erosion at a measured grain-related shear stress τm [L T-1] 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 9

Em+1 = measured erosion at a measured grain-related shear stress τm+1 [L T-1] 

E(D) = erosion rate at a depth in the sediment bed equal to D [L T-1] 

D = depth in the sediment bed within sediment layer n [L] 

D0

n

 = initial thickness of sediment layer n prior to erosion [L] 

En = measured erosion at the top of sediment layer n [L T-1] 

En+1 = measured erosion at the top of sediment layer n+1 (i.e., measured rate 

at the bottom of sediment layer n) [L T-1] 

Equations (2-13) and (2-14) are used to express erosion rate variation as a function of both 

shear stress and depth in the sediment bed. 

Erosion occurs when grain shear stress at the sediment surface exceeds the critical shear 

stress for erosion (i.e. the incipient motion threshold), τce. For cohesive sediments, τce is 

generally determined from site-specific measurements. For non-cohesive sediments, τce

can be estimated from grain size using the Shields (1936) curve as described in standard 

references (see Julien, 1998). Formulae by van Rijn (1984a), Soulsby (1997), or Guo (2002) 

provide algebraic approximations to the Shields curve. The formula of Guo (2002) is: 

( ) 















































−= −−+

23

exp1054.0

23.0

1

85.0

*

*

d

d

ce p ρ gdG pw

τ (2-15) 

( )

31

* 2

1

−











 −

=

ν

gG

dd

p

p

(2-16) 

where: 

τce = critical shear stress for erosion [M L-1 T-2] 

Gp = sediment particle specific gravity ≈ 2.65 [dimensionless] 

ρw = fluid density ≈ 1000 kg/m3

 (≈ 1025 kg/m3 for seawater) [M L-3] 

g = gravitational acceleration = 9.81 m/s [L T-2] 

dp = sediment particle diameter [L] 

d* = dimensionless particle diameter [dimensionless] 

ν = kinematic viscosity [L2

 T-1] 

Equation (2-15) is applicable to non-cohesive sediments and the subscript p is used to 

denote properties of individual types of grains (particles) in the sediment bed. When 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 10

using SEDFLUME measurements, the onset of erosion is operationally defined as the 

shear stress at which erosion occurs at a rate of 10-4 cm/s. 

2.2.3. Bedload and Suspended Load Transport 

Two distinct modes of sediment transport occur: (i) bedload, and (ii) suspended load. 

During bedload transport, particles move by rolling, sliding, or saltation in a thin layer in 

contact with the bed surface. During suspended transport, particles are fully entrained in 

the water column and do not have contact with the bed. Cohesive particles are not 

typically transported as bedload because they are often very small in size and readily 

entrained into the water column. Non-cohesive sediments usually span a wide range of 

particle sizes and can be transported as bedload, suspended load, or a combination of the 

two. 

When shear stresses acting on the bed surface are less than the critical shear stress for 

erosion (τce), sediment particles on the bed surface will be stationary. When shear stresses 

on the bed exceed the critical shear stress for erosion (τce) but are less than the critical 

shear stress for suspension (τcs), sediment particles will be transported as bedload. When 

shear stresses on the bed exceed the critical shear stress for suspension, some or all of the 

sediment in motion will be entrained and transported as suspended load. The fraction of 

sediment transported as bedload or suspended load are determined as (van Rijn, 1984a-c; 

van Rijn, 1993; Jones and Lick, 2001; James et al. 2010): 









− >

≤

=

SL csg

ceg

BL f for

for

f

ττ

ττ

1

0

(2-17) 

( ) ( )

( ) ( )















> ≥

> <

−

−

≤

=

1 4

4

ln4ln

ln ln

0

*

*

*

csg s

csg s

swcs

s swcs

csg

SL

for wuand

for wuand

w

wu w

for

f

ττ

ττ

ρτ

ρτ

ττ

 (2-18) 

 ( ) 











>

≤ 















=

w dfor m

dfor m

d

w

w s p

p

s

w

cs

ρ μ

ρ μ

τ

4.0 400

400 4

2

2

*

(2-19) 

where: 

fBL = fraction of sediment transported as bedload [dimensionless] 

fSL = fraction of sediment transported as suspended load [dimensionless] 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 11

τg = surface drag (grain-related) component of total shear stress 

τce = critical shear stress for erosion [M L-1 T-2] 

τcs = critical shear stress for suspension [M L-1 T-2] 

u*g = surface drag (grain-related) component of total shear velocity [L T-1] 

ws = particle settling velocity [L T-1] 

ρw = fluid density ≈ 1000 kg/m3 (≈ 1025 kg/m3 for seawater) [M L-3] 

d* = dimensionless particle diameter [dimensionless] 

dp = sediment particle diameter [L] 

For non-cohesive sediments, Equations (2-17) through (2-19) are used for each particle 

type in combination with the particle grain size distribution to express the erosion flux of 

sediment by grain size that is transported by bedload and suspended load as a function of 

the bottom shear stress. 

2.2.4. Settling and Deposition 

Sediment particles in the water column move downward (i.e., settle) under the force of 

gravity and may be deposited on the bed surface depending on shear stress conditions. 

The effective setting velocity of a particle is a function of its settling characteristics under 

quiescent conditions and probability of deposition (i.e., likelihood that a particle will 

come to rest on the bed surface). Cohesive and non-cohesive particles types have different 

setting and deposition characteristics. Descriptions of cohesive sediment behavior are 

presented by HQI (2010), and other references (e.g., van Rijn, 1993; Winterwerp and van 

Kesteren, 2004). The model development that follows focuses on non-cohesive sediment 

because the seabed along the proposed route for Rockaway pipeline is largely comprised 

of non-cohesive sands with a small amount of silt. 

The effective settling velocity of a particle is computed as: 

= Pww depsqse(2-20) 

where: 

wse = effective settling velocity [L T-1] 

wsq = quiescent settling velocity [L T-1] 

Pdep = probability of deposition [dimensionless] 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 12

For natural non-cohesive particles, quiescent settling velocities are determined using the 

formula of Cheng (1997): 

[( ) ]

5.1 5.0 2

*

52.125

−

d −+=

d

w

p

sq

ν

(2-21) 

where: 

wsq = quiescent settling velocity [L T-1] 

ν = kinematic viscosity of water [L2

 T-1] 

dp = sediment particle diameter [L] 

d* = dimensionless particle diameter [dimensionless] 

As a result of turbulence and other factors, not all particles settling through a column of 

flowing water necessarily reach the sediment-water interface or are incorporated into the 

bed. The effective settling velocity of a particle is described as a reduction in the quiescent 

settling velocity by a probability of deposition. Probability of deposition varies with 

particle size and shear stress near the sediment bed. As particle size decreases or shear 

stress increases, probability of deposition decreases. For non-cohesive particles, 

probability of deposition has been described as a function of bottom shear stress and 

critical shear stress for deposition (Gessler, 1965; Gessler 1967; Gessler, 1971): 

∫ ∞−

−

==

Y

x

dep PP dxe

2

5.0

2

1

π

(2-22) 













−= 1

1

τ

τ

σ

cd Y (2-23) 

where: 

P = probability integral for the Gaussian distribution 

σ = experimentally determined constant = 0.57 

 τg = surface (grain-related) component of total shear stress [M L-1 T-2] 

 τcd = critical shear stress for deposition, defined as the shear stress at which 

50% of particles deposit (or erode) = τce [M L-1 T-2] 

For non-cohesive particles, the definition of critical shear stress for deposition is the point 

at which 50% of particles of a specified type will deposit to the bed (with the other 50% 

remaining in transport. For all practical purposes, this is identical to the definition of 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 13

critical shear stress for erosion, which is the shear stress at which 50% of particles will 

start to move, with the other 50% remaining at rest on the bed surface. Thus, τcd equals τce. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 14

3. MODEL APPLICATION FOR ROCKAWAY PIPELINE 

The ECOM framework was applied to the coastal ocean area of the New York Bight in the 

region of the proposed Rockaway pipeline south of Long Island. The model includes the 

area near the proposed pipeline route as well as large portions of the New York-New 

Jersey Harbor because of complex flow interactions that occur as freshwater from the 

Hudson River, Raritan River and other sources, mix and are influenced by ocean currents 

and tides. ECOM was used to perform hydrodynamic and sediment transport calculations 

to simulate anticipated changes in environmental conditions generated by trenching 

operations during pipeline installation. Model results were used to evaluate: 

• Suspended sediment concentrations, spatial extent, and temporal duration of 

plumes generated during pipeline construction; 

• Deposited sediment spatial extent and depth of accumulation on the sea bed 

following pipeline construction; 

• Natural rates of sediment accumulation in the construction area and expected time 

required to bury the pipeline. 

Model results are expected to provide reliable estimates of site conditions because model 

set-up and parameterization are based on site-specific information and fundamental, 

principles such conservation of mass and other physically-based constraints. In addition, 

ECOM has a long history of development and application to the New York Bight area and 

has been used to support regulatory decision-making. Previous ECOM applications with 

hydrodynamic and sediment transport simulations in the area of the proposed pipeline 

route include the System-Wide Eutrophication Model (SWEM) (HQI, 1999a-f; HQI, 2002), 

Contaminant Assessment and Reduction Project (CARP) (HQI, 2007), Harbor Toxics and 

Nutrients Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) efforts and Lower Passaic River/Newark 

Bay (LPR/NB) Superfund efforts for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 

Model set-up and parameterization for the application to Rockaway pipeline was derived 

from the most recent generation of modeling work performed for USEPA as part of 

LPR/NB Superfund efforts. 

3.1. MODEL GRID 

Three-dimensional (3D) hydrodynamic and sediment transport simulations were 

performed for a wide area surrounding the pipeline preferred route. Model calculations 

for these simulations were performed using a spatially-variable network of segments (i.e., 

“grid cells”). The collection of grid cells representing the study area around the pipeline 

route is termed the model grid. The area represented by the model grid is termed the 

model domain. Cells comprising the grid are larger in distant areas and gradually become 

much smaller so that individual grid are approximately 150 meters long (parallel to the 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 15

pipeline) and 50 meters wide (perpendicular to the pipeline) in the area near the pipeline. 

The model grid used for the pipeline project was derived from ongoing efforts to model 

hydrodynamics, sediment transport, and contaminant transport and fate for LPR/NB 

Superfund efforts for USEPA. The pipeline evaluation model grid is “nested down” to a 

much finer scale than the LPR/NB model grid. An overview of the pipeline model grid is 

presented in Figure 1. 

3.2. MODEL SET-UP AND CALIBRATION 

Model set-up and calibration was performed for a 60 day period during July-August, 

2009. This timeframe was selected because site-specific data for the pipeline area and 

other portions of the model domain were collected during this period. Measurements 

used for model set-up and calibration include current velocities, water surface elevations 

(depth), water temperature, salinity, freshwater inflows, and meteorological conditions. 

Model initial conditions and inputs for open ocean boundaries along the southern and 

eastern edges of the pipeline model domain were obtained from results of LPR/NB model 

simulations performed for USEPA for the July-August 2009 period. 

Water surface elevations along open ocean boundaries in the model were calculated using 

the inverted Reid and Bodine option (HQI, 2010). This option improves model stability by 

allowing long waves to pass through model boundaries (i.e., it minimizes the potential for 

uncertainty in specified boundary conditions to generate unrealistic water surface 

elevations and cause numerical instability). Parameters for minimum coefficient of drag 

(CD,min) and hydrodynamic roughness height of the sediment bed (z0) were calibrated to 

achieve the best agreement between model results and site-specific measurements. Values 

for these parameters were set equal to their values as assigned in LPR/NB model a efforts. 

As part of calibration, a series of exploratory simulations were performed to evaluate 

model response to a range of values for CD,min and z0. These simulations show that model 

results are not materially affected by changes in z0 because water depths in nearly all the 

model domain exceed the depth where the model uses the minimum drag coefficient 

value to perform calculations (i.e., nearly all water surface calculations in the model end 

up being calculated using CD,min rather than z0). Values for CD,min were incrementally varied 

from a low of 0.002 to a high of 0.006. A summary of hydrodynamic model parameters is 

presented in Table 1. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Sandy Hook tide gage 

(Station 8531680) is located within the model domain. Water surface elevations and water 

temperatures are routinely measured at this station. Current velocities, water surface 

elevations, water temperatures, and salinity were also measured by an Acoustic Doppler 

Current Profiler (ADCP) and other instruments deployed at a point near the south end of 

the proposed pipeline during July and August, 2009. Data from these two sources were 

compared to model outputs to determine if the hydrodynamic model calibration was 

reasonable. Graphical comparisons of agreement between model results and field 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 16

measurements indicate that a CD,min value of 0.003 and a z0 value of 0.4 mm successfully 

reproduce salient characteristics of hydrodynamic conditions (e.g. amplitude and timing 

of tides, velocities, etc.) at the Sandy Hook tide gage (Figure 2). Model results also 

reproduced water temperatures at the Sandy Hook gage (Figure 3). Simulated water 

temperatures tend to be 1-2 °C cooler than measured values. This difference is attributable 

to uncertainty in water temperatures assigned along open ocean boundaries of the model. 

However, such small temperature differences are not expected to affect sediment 

transport simulations because water affected by construction will be at or near ambient 

water temperatures (e.g., hydraulic jets will not be buoyant, mechanical dredging will not 

alter temperatures, etc.). 

Near the proposed pipeline route, model results reproduce ranges and patterns of 

velocities measured at different water column depths as well as temperature and salinity 

patterns (Figures 4-8). However, model results exhibit a consistent shift in the timing 

between velocity peaks in the tidal cycle. These differences in timing may be attributable 

to unresolved differences in the time zone in which data were reported. For example, 

ADCP data were reported in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) but may have been 

recorded in Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). During summer months when daylight saving 

time is in use, there is a one hour time difference between UTC and GMT. It should be 

noted that differences in the timing of peak velocities during a tidal cycle does not impact 

the model’s ability to simulate sediment transport for proposed pipeline installation 

because potential impacts of trenching operations such as the extent of a plume are 

influenced by the magnitudes tidal velocities rather than an absolute date or time of day. 

Sediment transport parameters in the model were based on site-specific measurements of 

grain size distributions and non-cohesive sediment erosion rate measurements reported in 

peer-reviewed scientific literature. Grain size was measured in samples collected from the 

seabed along the proposed pipeline route (Figure 9-10). Those data were used to 

determine the number of particle size classes needed to represent sediment transport in 

the model as well as mean diameters for each particle class. Erosion rate measurements 

for non-cohesive sediments are summarized by Roberts et al. (1998) and are specifically 

designed to provide data in the form needed for the SEDZLJ sediment transport module 

integrated within the ECOM framework. Sediment specific gravity was assumed to be 

2,650 kg/m3, representative of quartz particles. Dry bulk density was assumed to be 1,495 

kg/m3

, corresponding to a sediment bed porosity of 0.44. All remaining sediment 

transport parameters in the model (e.g. critical shear stresses for erosion and suspension, 

settling velocities, etc.) are defined based on particle diameter. A total of five particle size 

classes were defined. Particle diameters for these size classes range from 0.031 mm (silt) to 

2.25 mm (very fine gravel), with the bulk of all particles being 0.078 mm (very fine sand). 

Critical shear stresses for erosion (τce) were calculated using Equation (2-14). Critical shear 

stresses for suspension (τcs) were calculated using Equation (2-18). Quiescent setting 

velocities (wsq) were calculated using Equation (2-20). A summary of sediment transport 

parameters is presented in Table 2. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 17

3.3. MODEL APPLICATION FOR PIPELINE INSTALLATION 

The submarine portion of the proposed pipeline is 1.95 miles (3,138 meters) long. In the 

model, the pipeline extends along 30 model grid cells (i.e., a portion of the pipeline is in 

each of 30 cells). The calibrated model was used to perform a series of simulations to 

evaluate potential impacts of pipeline construction. These simulations examine sediment 

releases from construction activities that include: 

(1) hydraulic jetting of sediments along the pipeline route (jet sled) for “worst case” 

conditions; 

(2) hydraulic jetting of sediments along the pipeline route (jet sled) for “typical” 

conditions; 

(3) mechanical plowing of sediments along the pipeline route (mechanical plow) for 

“worst case” conditions; 

(4) mechanical plowing of sediments along the pipeline route (mechanical plow) for 

“typical” conditions; 

(5) mechanical (clamshell) dredging of sediments along the pipeline route; 

(6) hand jetting of sediments at the site where the existing main will be tapped to 

connect to submarine portion of the lateral; 

(7) mechanical (clamshell) dredging at the site of a pit where the submarine portion of 

the pipeline will connect to pipeline sections that will be installed by horizontal 

directional drilling (HDD). 

3.3.1. General Description of Model Set-up 

To simplify model set-up, sediment releases from construction activities were simulated 

as point sources to the water column. When simulating trenching with a jet sled, sediment 

is uniformly released into the bottom three layers of the water column (i.e., between the 

sediment-water interface and a height of approximately 3 meters above the bed) with 

releases occurring into each model grid cell where trenching occurs. When simulating 

trenching with a mechanical plow, sediment is released into the bottom-most layer of the 

water column with releases into each cell where trenching occurs. When simulating hand 

jetting of sediments at the hot tap site, sediment is released into the bottom-most layer of 

the water column with the release occurring into a single model cell at the seaward end of 

the pipeline. When simulating mechanical dredging at the HDD pit site, sediment is 

released into the bottom three layers of the water column with the release occurring into a 

single cell at the shoreward end of the pipeline. In all cases, the grain size distribution of 

sediments released by construction was assumed to equal the distribution of sediment in 

the bed along the pipeline route (see Figure 9). 

The model was set up so that sediments from point sources representing construction 

were the only transportable source of sediment to distinguish sediments released during 

construction activities from ambient sources. Using this approach, simulated sediment 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 18

concentrations represent levels above ambient conditions. To interpret model results, 

simulated solids concentrations must be added to representative ambient solids 

concentrations. Measurements collected in support of pipeline permitting efforts during 

Fall 2010 indicate that ambient total suspended solids (TSS) levels along the proposed 

pipeline route averaged approximately 6 mg/L and ranged from 1.4 to 18 mg/L. Ambient 

turbidity at those TSS levels averaged 2.2 NTU and ranged from 0 to 9.4 NTU. For 

reference, those water column TSS and turbidity data are summarized in Table 3. 

HDD pit construction and hand trenching at the hot tap site are scheduled to begin in a 

February to early March timeframe. Trenching is scheduled to begin in an early May 

timeframe. Because differences in tidal and meteorological conditions can affect currents 

over time, statistical analyses were performed to select representative conditions during 

construction. As part of modeling efforts completed for USEPA, a catalog of annual 

hydrodynamic simulations exists for the sixteen year period 1995-2010. Probability 

distributions of the volume flux (“flow”) of water moving through the pipeline area in 

March and May of each year were compiled and graphically compared to the average 

condition for all 16 years. Conditions for March and May, 2010 were close to 16-year 

averages for those months and judged to be representative of hydrodynamic conditions 

during proposed construction periods (Figures 11-12). For simplicity, model initial and 

boundary conditions (e.g. starting water temperatures, water surface levels at open ocean 

boundaries, etc.) for HDD pit dredging and hand jetting at the hot tap site reflect March, 

2010 conditions. For trenching, model initial and boundary conditions reflect May, 2010 

conditions. 

Simulations were performed for each type of construction activity. The model was run for 

10 days for trenching, hot tap hand jetting, and HDD pit dredging scenarios, with 

construction releases beginning 24 hours after simulation start. The model was run for 35 

days for the trench mechanical dredging scenario, with construction releases beginning 24 

hours after simulation start, to account for its longer construction period. Water column 

results for each simulation were graphically summarized to present suspended solids 

concentrations and the spatial extent of plumes generated during construction for six 

timeframes: 

• Just after the start of construction (~0% completion) 

• 25% completion 

• 50% completion 

• 75% completion 

• Just before the end of construction (~100% completion) 

• 4 hours following the end of construction 

Maximum suspended solids concentrations simulated in each water column (sigma) layer 

of the model were also graphically summarized to illustrate vertical distributions of solids 

released during construction. Sediment bed results were also graphically summarized to 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 19

present spatial distributions and depths (thickness) of sediment accumulation on the 

seabed following the end of construction. Note that the Rockaway reef area and locations 

of sonar targets are shown in white on all figures. Remaining scenario-specific details of 

sediment releases for each simulation are described below. 

3.3.2. Trenching: Hydraulic Jetting “Worst Case” Conditions 

Trenching is assumed to occur by means of a hydro-plow (“jet sled”) that uses jets of 

water to displace sediments from the trench. Sediment releases during trenching were 

simulated as a point source to the bottom three layers of the water column (i.e. sediment 

is uniformly released into water between the sediment-water interface and a height 

approximately 3 meters above the bed). Releases occur in sequence into each of the 30 

model grid cells, representing jet sled movement along the pipeline route. In this scenario, 

the trench has a length of 3,138 m (1.95 miles), a maximum depth of 2 m (6.5 ft), and a 

cross-sectional area of approximately 22.5 m2

 (243 ft2). This scenario assumes that 

sediment from the entire disturbed footprint and along trench sidewalls will be jetted and 

displaced. Total sediment volume released during trenching equals approximately 78,600 

m3 (102,800 yd3). This represents “worst case” conditions because sediment volume 

released equals 100% of all sediment from the maximum disturbed footprint (which 

includes an additional 10% contingency) and exceeds the sediment volume that would be 

displaced during trenching to construct the pipeline. 

The duration (i.e. time) and rate (i.e. mass per time) of sediment releases to the water 

column are directly related to the rate of trenching. The duration of trenching is equal to 

trench length divided by trenching rate. For this set of “worst case” conditions, three 

trenching rate cases were simulated: (i) 366 meters per hour (1,200 feet per hour); (ii) 183 

meters per hour (600 feet per hour); and (iii) 122 meters per hour (400 feet per hour). In all 

cases, the jet for trenching was assumed to discharge at a rate of 70 liters per minute (18.5 

gallons per minute). A summary of trenching rates, durations, and other sediment release 

characteristics is presented in Table 4. Water column and sediment bed results for the 366 

m/hr (1,200 ft/hr) trenching rate scenario are presented in Figures 13-21. Results for the 

183 m/hr (600 ft/hr) scenario are presented in Figures 22-30. Results for the 122 m/hr (400 

ft/hr) scenario are presented in Figures 31-39. In all cases, suspended solids concentrations 

are presented for the bottom layer of the water column, which is the depth where 

maximum concentrations occur. Simulated suspended solids concentrations for the 

surface layer of the water column for each trenching rate case are presented in Appendix 

B. 

3.3.3. Trenching: Hydraulic Jetting “Typical” Conditions 

Trenching is assumed to occur by means of a jet sled that uses jets of water to displace 

sediments from the trench. Sediment releases during trenching were simulated as a point 

source to the bottom three layers of the water column. Releases occur in sequence into 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 20

each of the 30 model grid cells where trenching occurs, representing jet sled movement 

along the pipeline route. In this scenario, the trench has a length of 3,138 m (1.95 miles), a 

depth of 2 m (6.5 ft), and a cross-sectional area of approximately 15.1 m2

 (162 ft2). This 

scenario assumes trench sidewalls will be allowed to fall into the trench and reach stable 

side slopes and partially bury the pipeline. Total sediment volume released during 

trenching equals approximately 47,400 m3

 (62,000 yd3). This represents more “typical” 

conditions because the sediment volume released more closely approximates the jet sled 

footprint. However, it is still an “upper bound” for jetting because it assumes the volume 

associated with the jet sled footprint exceeds the footprint needed to construct the 

pipeline (which includes an additional 10% contingency) and also assumes that 100% of 

jetted sediment is released into the water column. 

For this “typical” case, a 183 meter per hour (600 feet per hour) trenching rate was 

simulated. The jet for trenching was assumed to discharge at a rate of 70 liters per minute 

(18.5 gallons per minute). A summary of trenching rates, durations, and other sediment 

release characteristics is presented in Table 4. Water column and sediment bed results for 

this 183 m/hr (600 ft/hr), “typical case” hydraulic jetting scenario are presented in Figures 

40-48. Suspended solids concentrations are presented for the bottom layer of the water 

column, which is the depth level where maximum concentrations occur. Simulated 

suspended solids concentrations for the surface layer of the water column for this 

“typical” hydraulic jetting case are presented in Appendix C. 

3.3.4. Trenching: Mechanical Plowing “Worst Case” 

Conditions 

Trenching is assumed to occur by means of a mechanical plow that is pulled through the 

bed to displace sediments from the trench. Sediment releases during plowing were 

simulated as a point source to the bottom layer of the water column. Releases occur in 

sequence into each of the 30 model grid cells where trenching occurs, representing plow 

movement along the pipeline route. In this scenario, the trench has a length of 3,138 m 

(1.95 miles), a maximum depth of 2 m (6.5 ft), and a cross-sectional area of approximately 

8.9 m2

 (96 ft2). This scenario assumes that sediment along trench sidewalls will be 

disturbed until the sides are stable. Total sediment volume disturbed by plowing equals 

approximately 27,900 m3 (36,500 yd3) and the scenario assumes that 20% of this material, 

5,580 m3

 (7,300 yd3), is released into the water column, with the remainder falling back 

into the trench and partially burying the pipeline. This represents “worst case” conditions 

because the sediment volume displaced during trenching exceeds the minimum footprint 

needed to construct the pipeline (plus an additional 10% contingency) and includes 

material along trench sidewalls. 

For this “worst” case, a 183 meter per hour (600 feet per hour) trenching rate was 

simulated. A summary of trenching rates, durations, and other sediment release 

characteristics is presented in Table 4. Water column and sediment bed results for this 183 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 21

m/hr (600 ft/hr), “typical case” hydraulic jetting scenario are presented in Figures 49-57. 

Suspended solids concentrations are presented for the bottom layer of the water column, 

which is the depth level where maximum concentrations occur. Simulated suspended 

solids concentrations for the surface layer of the water column for this “typical” hydraulic 

jetting case are presented in Appendix D. 

3.3.5. Trenching: Mechanical Plowing “Typical” Conditions 

Trenching is assumed to occur by means of a mechanical plow that is pulled through the 

bed to displace sediments from the trench. Sediment releases during plowing were 

simulated as a point source to the bottom layer of the water column. Releases occur in 

sequence into each of the 30 model grid cells where trenching occurs, representing plow 

movement along the pipeline route. In this scenario, the trench has a length of 3,138 m 

(1.95 miles), a maximum depth of 2 m (6.5 ft), and a cross-sectional area of approximately 

8.9 m2 (96 ft2). This scenario assumes that sediment along trench sidewalls will be 

disturbed until the sides are stable. Total sediment volume disturbed by plowing equals 

approximately 27,900 m3

 (36,500 yd3) (which includes an additional 10% contingency) and 

the scenario assumes that 15% of this material, 4,190 m3 (5,475 yd3), is released into the 

water column, with the remainder falling back into the trench and partially burying the 

pipeline. This represents more “typical” conditions because the sediment volume 

displaced during trenching more closely approximates the footprint needed to construct 

the pipeline. 

For this “typical” case, a 183 meter per hour (600 feet per hour) trenching rate was 

simulated. A summary of trenching rates, durations, and other sediment release 

characteristics is presented in Table 4. Water column and sediment bed results for this 183 

m/hr (600 ft/hr), “typical case” hydraulic jetting scenario are presented in Figures 58-66. 

Suspended solids concentrations are presented for the bottom layer of the water column, 

which is the depth level where maximum concentrations occur. Simulated suspended 

solids concentrations for the surface layer of the water column for this “typical” hydraulic 

jetting case are presented in Appendix E. 

3.3.6. Trenching: Mechanical (Clamshell) Dredging 

Trenching is assumed to occur by means of a mechanical, clamshell dredge to displace 

sediments from the trench. Dredged sediments will be lifted a short distance above the 

bed surface and then sidecast. Sediment releases during dredging were simulated as a 

point source to the bottom three layers of the water column. Releases occur in sequence 

into each of the 30 model grid cells where trenching occurs, representing dredge 

movement along the pipeline route. In this scenario, the trench has a length of 3,138 m 

(1.95 miles), a maximum depth of 2 m (6.5 ft), and a cross-sectional area of approximately 

14.7 m2

 (158 ft2). This scenario assumes that sediment along trench sidewalls will be 

disturbed until the sides are stable. Dredging is assumed to occur over a 746 hour period, 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 22

at a rate of 30 cycles per hour with a clamshell bucket capacity of 3 yd3 per cycle. This is 

equivalent to a linear trenching rate of 4.2 m/hr (13.8 feet/hour). Total sediment volume 

disturbed by dredging equals approximately 51,300 m3

 (67,100 yd3) (which includes an 

additional 10% contingency). The scenario assumes that 100% of this material is released 

into the water column, with 5% of the release occurring in each of the bottom two water 

column layers (representing sediment disturbance and loss from the clamshell during 

lifting), and 90% into the third layer above the bed (representing sidecasting). 

A summary of trenching rates, durations, and other sediment release characteristics is 

presented in Table 4. Water column and sediment bed results for this trench dredging 

scenario are presented in Figures 67-75. Suspended solids concentrations are presented for 

the bottom layer of the water column, which is the depth level where maximum 

concentrations occur. Simulated suspended solids concentrations for the surface layer of 

the water column for this trench dredging case are presented in Appendix F. 

3.3.7. Hand Jetting at Hot Tap Site 

This construction activity is assumed to occur by means of diver-guided hydraulic 

(“hand”) jets to displace sediments from the hot tap location. Sediment releases during 

jetting were simulated as a point source to the bottom layer of the water column. Releases 

occur in a single model grid cell at the seaward end of the pipeline where the lateral will 

be joined to the existing main. In this scenario, jetting occurs in four eight-hour pulses, 

with 16 hours between each pulse. Each pulse releases 5,960 m3 (7,800 yd3) from the hot 

tap site to clear sediments away from the existing main and construct the manifold, tap 

the main, and connect the new lateral. Total sediment volume displaced by hand jetting 

equals approximately 23,850 m3 (31,200 yd3) and the scenario assumes that 100% of this 

material is released into the water column. 

A summary of jetting rates, durations, and other sediment release characteristics is 

presented in Table 4. Water column and sediment bed results for this hand jetting 

scenario are presented in Figures 76-84. Suspended solids concentrations are presented for 

the bottom layer of the water column, which is the depth level where maximum 

concentrations occur. Simulated suspended solids concentrations for the surface layer of 

the water column for this hand jetting case are presented in Appendix G. 

3.3.8. Mechanical (Clamshell) Dredging from the HDD Pit 

This construction activity is assumed to occur by means of mechanical, clamshell 

dredging to displace sediments from a pit that will be constructed to hold cuttings and 

drilling muds at the HDD exit site. Dredged sediments will be lifted a short distance 

above the bed surface and then sidecast. Sediment releases during dredging were 

simulated as a point source to the bottom three layers of the water column. Releases occur 

in a single model grid cell at the shoreward end of the pipeline where the lateral will be 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 23

joined to the pipeline segment constructed from shore. In this scenario, dredging is 

assumed to occur over a 170 hour period, at a rate of 30 cycles per hour with a clamshell 

bucket capacity of 3 yd3

 per cycle. Total sediment volume displaced by dredging equals 

approximately 11,700 m3

 (15,300 yd3). The scenario assumes that 100% of this material is 

released into the water column, with 5% of the release occurring in each of the bottom two 

water column layers (representing sediment disturbance and loss from the clamshell 

during lifting), and 90% into the third layer above the bed (representing sidecasting). 

A summary of dredging rates, durations, and other sediment release characteristics is 

presented in Table 4. Water column and sediment bed results for this dredging scenario 

are presented in Figures 85-93. Suspended solids concentrations are presented for the 

bottom layer of the water column, which is the depth level where maximum 

concentrations occur. Simulated suspended solids concentrations for the surface layer of 

the water column for this mechanical dredging case are presented in Appendix H. 

3.4. ANTICIPATED RATE OF TRENCH INFILL BY AMBIENT SEDIMENT 

TRANSPORT PROCESSES 

Previous modeling studies of the New York Bight area have estimated long-term average 

net deposition of solids to be approximately 0.25 cm/year (HQI, 1999a-f, HQI, 2002). Other 

studies of sediment disposal sites suggest that sediment transport and dispersion rates in 

the area vary in response to combined effects of tidal currents and surface waves (Clarke 

et al. 1982, 1983). Analysis of site-specific ADCP velocity and sediment grain size data 

suggest that rates of trench infill by sediment transport from currents that occur along the 

pipeline route is expected to be relatively slow. However, surface waves can induce 

oscillatory near-bed currents with boundary shear stresses that exceed critical shear 

stresses for sediment erosion. The potential magnitude of wave-induced sediment 

transport for trench infilling was assessed using oceanographic data for a 40-m deep site 

located approximately 2.8 miles offshore Rockaway Beach, NY (42.52343° N, 73.86120° W) 

as detailed in a report prepared by A.H. Glenn and Associates Services (2011). 

3.4.1. Method to Calculate Sediment Transport by Wave 

Action 

Wave characteristics and their potential for sediment transport change as waves progress 

from deeper to shallower water. Fenton (1988, 2012) describes an approach to determine 

wave characteristics by approximating the nonlinear equations for surface-gravity waves 

with a Fourier series. This method is advantageous because it is applicable to deep-, 

intermediate-, and shallow-water waves of nearly any wave height that is less than the 

wave-breaking limit. The FOURIER software package (Fenton, 2012) was used to solve 

wave equations to estimate wave velocities, shear stresses, and net sediment transport as 

bedload. These calculations are summarized as follows: 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 24

1. For water depth (h) and wave period (Tw), use FOURIER program to determine 

wavelength (λ) and horizontal orbital velocity near the seabed (Uw ) under the wave 

crest (Uw crest) and trough (Uw trough ) : 

[ ( )]

( ) jkh

ctxjk

Bj

k

g

uU j

N

j

w

cosh

cos

1

1

−

+−= ∑=

(3-1) 

λ

2π

k = (3-2) 

Tw

π

ω

2

= (3-3) 

k

c

ω

= (3-4) 

where: 

h = water depth [L] 

Tw = wave period [T] 

1

u = mean Eulerian current in direction of wave propagation 

(conservatively assumed to be zero for these calculations) [L T-1] 

g = acceleration of gravity = 9.81 m/s [L T-2] 

j = index for terms in Fourier series 

Bj = jth coefficient of Fourier series (solved by FOURIER software package) 

x = position (of crest or trough) in the direction of wave propagation [L] 

t = time [T] 

λ = wavelength [L] 

k = wave number [L-1] 

ω = wave angular frequency [T-1] 

c = wave celerity [L T-1] 

2. Determine rough-bed and smooth-bed wave friction factors under wave crest ( )

crest wsmooth wrough

, ff and trough ( )

trough wsmooth wrough

, ff and select the larger (maximum) of the 

two factors ( ) w cresth w troughh

ff max, max,, in each case: 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 25

52.0

0

52.0

0

39.1 39.1

− −

















=

















=

g

wtrough

w

g

wcrest

w

z

U

f

z

U

f

rough rough ω ω

(3-5) 

N

w w

N

wsmooth wcrest smooth trough

BRf BRf

− −

= = (3-6) 

ων ων

2 2

wcrest wcrest wtrough wtrough

=UR = UR (3-7) 

15

50

0

d

z g = (3-9) 

where: 

Rw

 = wave Reynolds number (for crest or trough) [dimensionless] 

ν = kinematic viscosity [L2

 T-1] 

B = empirical coefficient ( )

5 5

2 for 5 10 ; 0.0521 for 5 10 = Rw ≤ × = Rw > ×

N = empirical coefficient ( )

5 5

0.5 for 5 10 ; 0.187 for 5 10 = Rw ≤ × = Rw > ×

z0g = grain roughness height [L] 

d50 = mean diameter of particles in sediment bed (≈ 0.078 mm) [L] 

3. Calculate maximum wave shear stress (τ ) under crest ( wcrestτ ) and trough ( wtrough

τ ): 

2

max,

2

max,

5.0 5.0 wcrest w crest wcrest wtrough w trough wtrough= ρτ Uf τ = ρ Uf (3-7) 

where: 

w

τ = wave shear stress (for crest or trough) [M L-1 T-2] 

ρ = fluid density (≈ 1025 kg/m3

 for seawater) [M L-3] 

4. Calculate wave Shields parameter ( ) θ w under crest ( ) wcrestθ and trough ( ) wtrough

θ : 

( ) ( ) 1 dGg 50 p 1 dGg 50

w

w

p

w

w

trough

trough

crest

crest −

=

−

=

ρτ

θ

ρτ

θ (3-8) 

where: 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 26

θw = wave Shields parameter for erosion [dimensionless] 

Gp = sediment particle specific gravity ≈ 2.65 [dimensionless] 

5. Determine critical Shields parameter for erosion of noncohesive sediment: 

[ ]

*

02.0

*

1055.0

2.11

30.0 d

cr e

d

−

−+

+

θ = (3-9) 

( )

31

50* 2

1

−











 −

=

ν

gG

dd

p

(3-10) 

where: 

θcr = critical Shields parameter for erosion [dimensionless] 

d* = dimensionless particle diameter [dimensionless] 

6. If the Shields parameter under the wave crest exceeds the critical Shields parameter 

for erosion, calculate the half-cycle unit bedload transport rate in the direction of wave 

propagation: 

( ) ( ) bcrest wcrest cr p wcrest cr q = −θθ − dGg for >θθ

3

50

5.1

1.5 1 (3-11) 

where: 

bcrest q = half-cycle unit bedload transport rate under wave crest [L2

 T-1] 

7. If the dimensionless Shields parameter under the wave trough exceeds the critical 

Shields parameter for erosion, then calculate the half-cycle bedload transport in the 

direction opposite to wave propagation: 

( ) ( ) btrough wtrough cr p wtrough cr q = −θθ − dGg for > θθ

3

50

5.1

1.5 1 (3-12) 

where: 

btrough q = half-cycle unit bedload transport rate under wave trough [L2

 T-1] 

8. Calculate net unit bedload transport in direction of wave propagation: 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 27

b net bcrest btrough −= qqq (3-13) 

where: 

bnet q = net unit bedload transport rate [L2

 T-1] 

9. Calculate net volumetric bedload transport rate: 

bnet = bnetLqQ trench (3-14) 

where: 

Qbnet = net volumetric bedload transport rate [L3

 T-1] 

Ltrench = projected trench length normal to direction of wave propagation [L] 

The trench infill rate is calculated by multiplying the net volumetric bedload transport 

rate (i.e., the particle volume entering the trench over time, with fundamental dimensions 

of [L3

 T-1]) by particle density (i.e., particle mass per particle volume) and then expressed 

in terms of in-situ volume by dividing by sediment bulk density (i.e., particle mass per 

total volume of particles and pore space in the bed). In this case, particle density is 2,650 

kg/m3 and sediment bulk density is 1,495 kg/m3. 

3.4.2. Sediment Transport for Annual Wave Event Conditions 

On an annual basis, in 40-ft deep water, significant wave heights in the range of 4.0–5.9 

feet occurred 12.5% of the time, and significant wave heights in the range of 6.0–7.9 feet 

occurred 5.7% of the time (A.H. Glenn and Associates Services, 2011). As a broad average, 

a significant wave height of 6 ft occurs approximately 18% of this time (i.e., 66 days per 

year). Waves larger than this have a greater sediment transport potential but occur much 

less frequently. Conversely, waves smaller than this are more frequent but have a much 

lower potential to transport sediment. 

A significant wave height of 6.0 ft, was used to estimate sediment transport for annual 

wave conditions. The A.H. Glenn and Associates Services (2011) wave report did not 

provide the wave periods corresponding to these wave heights, so a value of 12 seconds 

was selected. A 12 second wave period was judged to be characteristic of long-period 

coastal waves based on the A.H. Glenn and Associates Services (2011) wave report. At the 

seaward end of the pipeline, where water depths are approximately 10-15 m (32-49 ft), the 

net unit bedload transport rate is estimated to be 0.39 m2

/day. Assuming that the project 

pipeline length normal (i.e. perpendicular) to the direction of wave propagation is 

approximately 800 m (2640 ft; 0.5 miles), the annual rate of trench infill by wave-induced 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 28

bedload would be approximately 36,500 m3/year (47,800 yd3/year). At the shoreward end 

of the pipeline, where water depths are approximately 5-10 m (16-32 ft), the net unit 

bedload transport rate is estimated to be 2.8 m2

/day. This corresponds to an infill rate of 

approximately 262,400 m3

/year (343,100 yd3/year). These estimated infill rates suggest that 

annual wave events could transport appreciable amounts of sediment back into the trench 

but that the seaward end of the pipeline could require several years for annual winddriven sediment transport event to return the trench to its original grade. 

3.4.3. Sediment Transport for a 5-Year Wave Event Conditions 

Storms that generate larger waves are expected to generate greater sediment transport 

rates. However, large storms are also associated with storm surges where water levels 

increase. For a five-year wave event, the still-water depth was estimated to be 50.5 ft (i.e. 

40 ft base depth plus an additional 10.5 ft storm surge) with a significant wave height of 

23.7 ft and a wave period of 11.3 seconds (A.H. Glenn and Associates Services, 2011). 

These wave characteristics represent conditions that cause the greatest forces normal to 

pipeline route (A.H. Glenn and Associates Services, 2011), indicating that bedload 

transport would occur over the entire length of the trench. For these conditions, the net 

unit bedload transport rate is estimated to be approximately 13.1 m2/day. The duration of 

the 5-year wave event was not specified in the A.H. Glenn and Associates Services (2011) 

wave report. As a conservative approximation, this 5-year event was assumed to occur 

over an eight hour period. With this short duration, the unit bedload transport rate 

corresponds to trench infill of 24,300 m3 (31,800 yd3). If the 5-year wave event had a 24-

hour duration, trench infill would be three times greater. These values are representative 

of conditions for the seaward end of the trench. Infill rates for the shoreward end of the 

trench would be greater. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 29

4. INTERPRETATION OF SEDIMENT TRANSPORT 

SIMULATION RESULTS 

Sediment transport simulation results for each sediment release scenario provide a means 

to assess potential impacts of pipeline construction on the water column and sediment 

bed. The “worst case” jet trenching scenarios are illustrative because the total mass of 

sediment released to the water column is identical for each trenching rate case. Simulated 

suspended solids plumes and patterns of deposition differ between each case as a 

function of trenching rate, which controls construction duration and the rate of sediment 

release. 

As trenching rates increase, the time over which a plume exists is shorter because 

construction duration is shorter. For the 366 m/hr (1,200 ft/hr) jet trenching case, 

construction duration is roughly 9 hours and is completed is less than one tidal cycle. 

However, plume extent is larger because the sediment mass released per unit time is 

larger and higher concentrations of suspended solids occur at greater distances from the 

trench. During peak tidal currents, water column bottom layer solids concentrations in the 

range of 50-100 mg/L can occur at distances of 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) from the trench. 

The water column plume dissipates within 4 hours following the end of construction. 

Including time for construction, a plume would occur over a 13-hour period. Solids 

deposition to the sediment bed greater than 0.3 cm (~0.1 inches) occurs in a roughly 630 

meter (~0.4 mile) corridor adjacent to the trench. However, deposition is largely limited to 

one side (the west side) of the trench as controlled by tidal flows that occur in a single 

tidal cycle. It should be noted that sediment deposition on the west side of the trench is a 

reflection of conditions where tidal currents begin moving from east to west during the 

construction period. If construction were timed to occur when tidal currents were moving 

from west to east, sediment deposition would occur on the east side of the trench. 

As trenching rates decrease, the time a water column plume exists is longer because 

construction duration is longer. For the 122 m/hr (400 ft/hr) jet trenching case, 

construction duration is roughly 26 hours and occurs over two tidal cycles. Plume extent 

is smaller because the sediment mass released per unit time is smaller. High suspended 

solids concentrations only occur at shorter distances from the trenching. During peak tidal 

currents, water column bottom layer solids concentrations in the range of 50-100 mg/L 

occurred at distances of 1.7 kilometers (~1.1 mile) from the trench. The water column 

plume dissipates within 4 hours following the end of construction. Including time for 

construction, a plume would occur over a 30 hour period for this case. Solids deposition 

to the sediment bed greater than 0.3 cm (~0.1 inches) occurs in a roughly 750 meter (~0.5 

mile) corridor adjacent to the trench. However, deposition occurs on both sides of the 

trench in a sinusoidal pattern as controlled by the flood and ebb of tidal currents over 

roughly two tidal cycles. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 30

Plume extent and sediment deposition patterns for the 183 m/hr (600 ft/hr) jet trenching 

case are intermediate between the other cases. Construction duration is just over 17 hours. 

During peak tidal currents, water column bottom layer solids concentrations in the range 

of 50-100 mg/L can occur at distances of 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles) from the trenching site. 

As with the other two cases, the water column plume dissipates within 4 hours following 

the end of construction. Including time for construction, a plume would occur over a 21 

hour period. Sediment deposition greater than 0.3 cm (~0.1 inches) occurs in a roughly 720 

meter (~0.45 mile) corridor on both sides of the trench in a sinusoidal pattern as controlled 

by changing tidal currents over time. However, deposition patterns are less sinuous than 

occur for the 122 m/hr scenario because construction is completed in less two tidal cycles. 

Plume extent and sediment deposition patterns for more typical jetting and both 

mechanical plowing scenarios exhibit patterns similar to the “worst case” jetting cases. 

However, the magnitude of plume suspended solids levels and as well as the depth of 

sediment accumulation on the bed are reduced because the total mass of sediment 

released during construction for these cases is reduced. Spatial extents of plumes and 

areas of sediment accumulation are also reduced. Those reductions occur in proportion to 

total sediment release. Water column plumes for these scenarios dissipate within 4 hours 

following the end of construction. 

Trench construction by mechanical (clamshell) dredging differs from any jetting or 

plowing case. In this case, construction occurs over a period of just over 31 days. Near bed 

suspended solids concentrations are lower but occur over a much longer period compared 

to other cases. Sediment accumulation on the bed surface is somewhat lower than for 

other trenching cases but is spread more uniformly on either side of the trench because 

construction occurs over many more tidal cycles. Nonetheless, water column plumes 

dissipate within four hours following the end of construction. 

Results for hand jetting at the hot tap site and clamshell dredging at the HDD exit pit are 

also similar in that the extent and magnitude of plumes is a reflection of the total mass of 

sediment released and the rate at which that release occurs. Patterns of sediment 

accumulation for these scenarios differ because hand trenching at the hot tap site has a 

duration of only 8 hours per pulse. In contrast, sediment accumulation for clamshell 

dredging at the HDD pit is spread over a wider area because dredging occurs over a 

much long period of time and subject to a wider range of transport conditions including 

flood and ebb tide cycles. 

Uncertainties in wave conditions and estimated bedload transport influence trench infill 

rates. Significant wave height estimates for a 40-ft deep water column were used to drive 

bedload calculations. As waves move into shallow water, sediment transport rates will 

increase. Noting that bedload transport is nonlinear (because rates are based on shear 

stress exponentiated to the 1.5 power), the combined impact of currents and waves may 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 31

lead to larger trench infill rates. However, infilling would be controlled by the frequency, 

duration, and direction of wave events. 

It must also be recognized that fine-scale hydrodynamic factors may also affect trench 

infill rates. At scales on the order of 0.1-1 m, vortices near the sediment bed can develop 

when currents flow around seabed obstructions like pipelines and other obstacles. These 

three-dimensional flow features can act to scour material away from any obstruction. The 

scale of such flow features is much finer than the spatial resolution of the hydrodynamic 

model grid and cannot be directly resolved. However, seabed images transmitted during 

a remotely operated vehicle survey of the pipeline route do not show evidence that scour 

holes occur around obstructions under typical conditions (Figure 94). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 32

5. DISCUSSION 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) personnel and 

representatives of other agencies requested information and posed a series of questions 

regarding Rockaway delivery lateral hydrodynamic and sediment transport analysis. This 

section of the report groups those questions and information requests by topic to facilitate 

communication of hydrodynamic and sediment transport analysis results to reviewers. 

5.1. DOCUMENTATION OF MODEL CONDITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS 

NYSDEC and others requested that assumptions be fully documented in the report. This 

request was accommodated by providing descriptions of: 

• Model equations to document controlling parameters for hydrodynamics (Section 

2.1) and sediment transport (Section 2.2); 

• Site-specific measurement use for model set-up and calibration for the July-August 

2009 ADCP deployment period at the site (Sections 3.1 and 3.2, Figures 1-10, 

Tables 1-2). Parameterizations for both hydrodynamics and sediment transport are 

described in those report sections. Grain size data used to drive sediment 

transport simulations were based on measurements from sediment grab samples 

collected along the pipeline route. Tables 1-2 also provide notes describing the 

basis for assigning each model parameter; 

• Details of model application for pipeline installation tasks (Section 3.3.1) with 

specific details for each of the seven scenarios evaluated (Sections 3.3.2-3.3.8). 

Sediment releases in all scenarios were simulated as point sources to the water 

column. These point sources move from cell to cell along the pipeline route in the 

model over time. The grain size distribution of sediments released by the point 

sources is identical to sediments. The sediment volume released in each scenario is 

summarized in Table 4. 

5.2. COEFFICIENT OF DRAG, MODEL SIMULATION TIMEFRAMES, 

AND SEASONALITY 

As noted in Sections 2.1 and 3.2 and Table 1, the principle model calibration parameter is 

the coefficient of drag (CD). This parameter affects momentum loss as water moves over 

the seabed and interacts with the shoreline. Based on comparisons to measurements for 

the July-August 2009 period at the Sandy Hook tide gage and ADCP deployment site, the 

minimum drag coefficient (CD,min) was set to a value of 0.003 and is constrained by the 

roughness and composition of material on the seabed surface. For this area of the ocean in 

the New York Bight Apex, the drag coefficient is not expected to vary by season. This 

expectation is borne out by simulations conducted using the regional model prepared for 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 33

USEPA as part of LPR/NB Superfund efforts. The regional model was used to perform 

simulations for a 16-year period (1995-2010) and the best match of hourly water surface 

elevations and other conditions was achieved when CD,min = 0.003. This drag coefficient 

parameterization is also consistent with literature values for a smooth, fine sand bed that 

is largely planar (bedform heights on the order of 1 cm) (see Soulsby, 1997). 

Model sensitivity to changes in the minimum drag coefficient depends how boundary 

conditions are represented. In ECOM, two general classes of boundary conditions can be 

specified, clamped (non-radiative) or radiative. When clamped boundary conditions are 

specified, amplitudes of simulated tidal elevations tend to decrease, velocities increase, 

and time between peaks decrease as CD,min decreases. Conversely, amplitudes of simulated 

tidal elevations tend to increase, velocities decrease, and time between peaks tends to 

increase as CD,min increases when using clamped boundary conditions. When radiative 

boundary conditions are specified, the model is less sensitive to CD,min because waves 

generated within the model domain can more readily move across open boundaries. 

Open ocean boundary conditions represent water surface elevations determined from the 

LPR/NB regional model developed for USEPA. Water surface elevations from the LPR/NB 

model were themselves derived from NOAA tide gage measurements for the region. 

Initial hydrodynamic simulations for Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project were performed 

using clamped boundary conditions and CD,min values very varied between 0.002 to 0.006. 

Based on graphical comparisons, best fit between measured and simulated conditions was 

achieved when CD,min was 0.003. Given that a CD,min value of 0.003 was also consistent with 

parameterization of the regional model used for LPR/NB Superfund efforts, and which 

was used to simulate 16 years (1995-2010) with all tidal cycles, including spring tides and 

neap tides), this model parameterization was considered to be reasonable. Subsequent 

simulations for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project were performed using the Inverted 

Reid and Bodine radiative boundary condition (see p. 13 of HydroQual, 2010) at open 

ocean boundaries to improve model numerical stability. As a consequence of using 

radiative boundary conditions, hydrodynamic and sediment transport simulation results 

presented in this report are not very sensitive variation of the minimum drag coefficient. 

Model calibration was performed for a July-August, 2009 timeframe because that period 

includes measurements for the NOAA Sandy Hook tide gage and also site-specific ADCP 

measurements collected at a point near the south end of the proposed pipeline. However, 

the model simulate other timeframes because CD,min depends on bed composition and is 

not expected to vary over time. For example, seabed composition is not expected to very 

widely over time, changing from fine sand to gravel and cobbles and back to sand. 

Although bed composition is expected to be constant, it is possible for bedforms such as 

ripples or dunes to develop over time in response to changes in tides and meteorological 

conditions. Bedforms can impact sediment transport simulations and the model accounts 

for these types of variations using the shear stress partitioning approach described in 

Appendix A. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 34

It is important to recognize that hydrodynamic and sediment transport simulations are 

performed using tidal and meteorological conditions applicable to the timeframe for each 

simulation. The calibration period was July-August, 2009 and tidal and meteorological 

conditions in that simulation are those that were measured for that period. Pipeline site 

preparation and construction activities are scheduled for early March and early May 

timeframes. Representative tidal and meteorological conditions for those simulations 

were selected based on review of 16 years of results from the LPR/NB regional model for 

March and May periods. For the Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project, conditions for March 

and May, 2010 were judged to be representative of long-term conditions for those months. 

Tidal and meteorological conditions for March and May, 2010 were used in preference to 

long-term averages so that simulations reflected measurements and also so that timings of 

features such as spring tides and neap tides would be retained in each simulation. 

The March and May 2010 timeframes both begin shortly after the new moon (i.e. just after 

spring tide) and follow the sequence of conditions as they were measured at those times. 

Jet sled or mechanical plow trenching scenarios have durations of 10 days, with sediment 

releases from construction completed in 2 days. The mechanical dredge trenching 

scenario has a duration of 30 days, with all sediment releases completed in 28 days. The 

hot tap hand jetting scenario has a duration of 10 days, with sediment releases occurring 

in three 8-hour pulses over a period of 3 days. The HDD exit pit mechanical dredging 

scenario has a duration of 10 days, with sediment releases occurring over a period of 

approximately 7 days. 

5.3. WORST CASE CONDITIONS FOR JET SLED SCENARIOS 

Sediment transport simulation results for jet sled scenarios are expected to overstate the 

extent of water column and sediment impacts from construction. The “worst case” jet sled 

scenario represents the maximum possible upper bound for any sediment release because 

the sediment volume released to the water column is equal to 100% of the volume of all 

sediment disturbed (plus an additional 10% contingency), with a trench cross-sectional 

area that far exceeds the likely footprint needed be displaced to install the pipeline 

package. Even the “typical” jet sled scenario is expected to be an upper bound for typical 

conditions because the sediment volume released still exceeds the likely footprint of 

sediment needed to be displaced to install the pipeline package. In contrast, mechanical 

plowing scenarios assume that only 15-20% the disturbed sediment volume would be 

released to the water column. However, the reliability of this assumption could not be 

directly verified in peer-reviewed literature or other publications. It is important to note 

that differences between simulations would be smaller if the sediment volumes released 

were more similar. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 35

5.4. ANTICIPATED RATES OF TRENCH INFILL 

Rates of trench infill are estimates. Under ambient conditions, little sediment transport is 

expected because shear stresses acting on the sediment grains on the bed surface are 

generally below critical shear stresses for erosion (incipient motion threshold). This is 

consistent with nearly plane bed conditions observed during remotely operated vehicle 

surveys of the pipeline route. This is also consistent with the occurrence of clam dredge 

scars observed during seabed surveys. However, the occurrence of small, tightly spaced 

ripples on the bed surface also suggest that waves interact with the bed. The combined 

effect of waves and currents could readily mobilize bed sediments and transport them as 

bedload. Sediments moving as bedload would be intercepted by the open trench until the 

trench returned to grade or close to it. 

Bedload is nonlinear. A doubling of near-bed velocities would more than double shear 

stresses on particles and generate substantial bedload transport. Annual wave events may 

generate substantial trench infill rates, particularly at the shoreward area of the pipeline 

route. Larger waves are reasonably expected to transport more sediment over the entire 

length of the trench. Although such storms with large waves are infrequent, it might only 

take one event to return the trench to grade. 

Apart from infill by bedload transport, it should be recognized that a considerable portion 

of the sediments disturbed during trenching may fall back into the trench. This would at 

least partially bury the pipeline at the time of construction. For example, jetted or plowed 

sediments are likely to slump into the trench until sediment comprising trench walls 

reach a stable angle of repose. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 36

6. REFERENCES 

A. H. Glenn and Associates Services. 2011. Selected Meteorological And Oceanographic 

Data at a Location Offshore Rockaway Beach, New York. A. H. Glenn and Associates 

Services, Metairie, Louisiana. 22 p. 

Ahsan, A. K. M. Q., and Blumberg, A. F. 1999. A three-dimensional hydrothermal model 

of Onondaga Lake, New York. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 125(9):912-923. 

Blumberg, A. F. and Mellor, G. L. 1983. Diagnostic and prognostic numerical circulation 

studies of the South Atlantic Bight. Journal of Geophysical Research, 88:4579-4592. 

Blumberg, A. F. and Mellor, G. L. 1985. A simulation of the circulation in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences, 34:122-144. 

Blumberg, A. F., and Mellor, G. L. 1987. A description of a three-dimensional coastal 

ocean circulation model. In: Three-Dimensional Coastal Ocean Models. N.S. Heaps 

(ed.) American Geophysical Union, Washington DC. pp. 1-16. 

Blumberg, A. F., and Goodrich, D. M. 1990. Modeling of wind-Induced destratification in 

Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries, 13:1236-1249. 

Blumberg, A. F., Signell, R. P., and Jenter, H. L. 1993. Modeling transport processes in the 

coastal ocean. Journal of Marine Environmental Engineering, 1:3-52. 

Blumberg, A. F., Khan, L. A., and St. John, J. P. 1999. Three-dimensional hydrodynamic 

model of New York Harbor Region. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 125:799-816. 

Blumberg, A. F., and Kim, B. N. 2000. Flow balances in St. Andrew Bay revealed through 

hydrodynamic simulations. Estuaries, 23:21-33. 

Cheng, N. S. 1997. Simplified settling velocity formula for sediment particle. Journal of 

Hydraulic Engineering, 123(2):149-152. 

Clarke, T. L., Swift, D. J. P., and Young, R. A. 1982. A numerical model of fine sediment 

transport on the continental shelf. Environmental Geology, 4(2):117-129. 

Clarke, T. L., Swift, D. J. P., and Young, R. A. 1983. A stochastic modeling approach to the 

fine sediment budget of the New York Bight. Journal of Geophysical Research, 

88(C14):9653-9660. 

Fenton, J. D. 1988. The numerical solution of steady water wave problems. Computers 

and Geosciences, 14:357-368. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 37

Fenton, J. D. 2012. Use of the program FOURIER for steady waves. 

http://johndfenton.com/Steady-waves/Instructions.pdf. (Accessed on April 30, 2013.) 

Galerpin, G., Kantha, L. H., Hassid, S., and Rosati, A. 1988. A quasi-equilibrium turbulent 

energy model for geophysical flows. Journal of Atmospheric Science, 45:55-62. 

Galperin, B., and Mellor, G. L. 1990a. A time-dependent, three-dimensional model of the 

Delaware Bay and River System, part 1: description of the model and tidal analysis. 

Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science, 31:231-253. 

Galperin, B., and Mellor, G. L. 1990b. A time-dependent, three-dimensional model of the 

Delaware Bay and River System, part 2: three-dimensional flow fields and residual 

circulations. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science, 31:255-281. 

Galperin, B., and Mellor, G. L. 1990c. Salinity intrusion and residual circulation in 

Delaware Bay during the drought of 1984. In: Residual Currents and Long-Term 

Transport (Coastal and Estuarine Studies, Volume 38). Cheng, R. T., ed. SpringerVerlag, Inc., New York. p. 469-480. 

Gessler, J. 1965. The Beginning of Bedload Movement of Mixtures Investigated as Natural 

Armouring in Channels. Technical report No. 69, The Laboratory of Hydraulic 

Research and Soil Mechanics, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich 

(translation by W. M. Keck Laboratory of Hydraulics and Water Resources, California 

Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California). 

Gessler, J. 1967. The beginning of bedload movement of mixtures investigated as natural 

armoring in channels. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California. 89pp. 

Gessler, J. 1971. Beginning and ceasing of sediment motion. In: River Mechanics, Shen, 

H.W., ed. Fort Collins, Colorado. pp. 7:1–7:22. 

Guo, J. 2002. Hunter Rouse and Shields diagram. Proceedings of the 13th International 

Association of Hydraulic Research Asian and Pacific Division Congress, Singapore, 

Malaysia, August 6-8. 

HQI. 1999a. Newton Creek Water Pollution Control Project East River Water Quality Plan, 

Report to NYCDEP. Task 10.0 System-Wide Eutrophication Model (SWEM) Sub-task 

10.1 Construct SWEM. Prepared under subcontract to Greeley and Hansen, New York, 

NY. HydroQual, Inc., Mahwah, New Jersey. 

HQI. 1999b. Newton Creek Water Pollution Control Project East River Water Quality 

Plan, Report to NYCDEP. Task 10.0 System-Wide Eutrophication Model (SWEM) SubDocument Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 38

task 10.2 Obtain and Reduce Loading/Water Quality Data. Prepared under 

subcontract to Greeley and Hansen, New York, NY. HydroQual, Inc., Mahwah, New 

Jersey. 

HQI. 1999c. Newton Creek Water Pollution Control Project East River Water Quality Plan, 

Report to NYCDEP. Task 10.0 System-Wide Eutrophication Model (SWEM) Sub-task 

10.4 Calibrate SWEM Water Quality. Prepared under subcontract to Greeley and 

Hansen, New York, NY. HydroQual, Inc., Mahwah, New Jersey. 

HQI. 1999d. Newton Creek Water Pollution Control Project East River Water Quality 

Plan, Report to NYCDEP. Task 10.0 System-Wide Eutrophication Model (SWEM) Subtask 10.5 Apply SWEM for Preliminary Facility Design. Prepared under subcontract to 

Greeley and Hansen, New York, NY. HydroQual, Inc., Mahwah, New Jersey. 

HQI. 1999e. Newton Creek Water Pollution Control Project East River Water Quality Plan, 

Report to NYCDEP. Task 10.0 System-Wide Eutrophication Model (SWEM) Sub-task 

10.6 Validate SWEM Hydrodynamics. Prepared under subcontract to Greeley and 

Hansen, New York, NY. HydroQual, Inc., Mahwah, New Jersey. 

HQI. 1999f. Newton Creek Water Pollution Control Project East River Water Quality Plan, 

Report to NYCDEP. Task 10.0 System-Wide Eutrophication Model (SWEM) Sub-task 

10.7 Final Facility Design. Prepared under subcontract to Greeley and Hansen, New 

York, NY. HydroQual, Inc., Mahwah, New Jersey. 

HQI. 2001. Enhancement and application of a PCB fate and transport model for Green 

Bay. HydroQual, Inc., Mahwah, New Jersey. 100 p. 

HQI. 2002. Calibration Enhancement of the System-Wide Eutrophication Model (SWEM) 

in the New Jersey Tributaries, Report to NJDEP. Final Technical Report April 23, 2001 

through July 31, 2002. Prepared under subcontract to Passaic Valley Sewerage 

Commissioners, Newark, NJ. HydroQual, Inc., Mahwah, New Jersey. 

HQI. 2005. Near field and far field study for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, 

Constellation Energy. HydroQual, Inc., Mahwah, New Jersey. 

HQI. 2007. A model for the evaluation and management of contaminants of concern in 

water, sediment and biota in the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary: Contaminant fate & transport 

& bioaccumulation sub-models. Prepared for the Contamination Assessment and 

Reduction Project (CARP) Management Committee. HydroQual, Inc., Mahwah, New 

Jersey. 

HQI. 2008. Near Field and Far Field Thermal Modeling Study for the Nine Mile Point 

Nuclear Power Plant, Constellation Energy. HydroQual, Inc., Mahwah, New Jersey. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 39

HQI. 2010. A Primer for ECOMSED (Version 1.4-LPR): Users Manual. HydroQual, Inc., 

Mahwah, New Jersey. 218 p. (Release Date: March 5, 2010.) 

James, S. C., Jones, C. A., Grace M. D., and Roberts, J. D. 2010. Advanced in sediment 

transport modeling. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 48(6):754-763. 

Jepsen, R., Roberts, J., and Lick, W. 1997. Effects of bulk density on sediment erosion rates. 

Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 99(1-4): 21-31. 

Jepsen, R., McNeil, J., and Lick, W. 2000. Effects of gas generation on the density and 

erosion of sediments from the Grand River. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 

26(2):209-219. 

Jones, C. A., and Lick, W. 2001. Contaminant flux due to sediment erosion. Proceedings of 

the 7th International Conference: Estuarine and Coastal Modeling, 280–293. 

Julien, P. Y. 1998. Erosion and Sedimentation (First Paperback Edition). Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, UK. 280 p. 

McNeil, J., Taylor, C., and Lick, W. 1996. Measurement of erosion of undisturbed bottom 

sediments with depth. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 122(6): 316-324. 

Mellor, G. L., and Yamada, T. 1982. Development of a turbulence closure model for 

geophysical fluid problems. Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics. 20:851-875. 

Middleton, G. V. 1984. Mechanics of Sediment Movement. Second Edition. Society of 

Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Tulsa, OK. 401 pp. 

Oey, L. Y., Mellor, G. L., and Hires, R. I. 1985a. A three dimensional simulation of the 

Hudson-Raritan Estuary, part I: description of the model and model simulations, 

Journal of Physical Oceanography, 15:1676-1692. 

Oey, L. Y., Mellor, G. L., and Hires, R. I. 1985b. A three dimensional simulation of the 

Hudson-Raritan Estuary, part II: comparison with observations. Journal of Physical 

Oceanography, 15:1693-1709. 

Roberts, J. D., Jepsen, R., Gotthard, D., and Lick, W. 1998. Effect of particle size and bulk 

density on erosion of quartz particles. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 124(12):1261-

1267. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 40

Roberts, J.; Jepsen, R., and James, S. 2003. Measurement of sediment erosion and transport 

with the Adjustable Shear Stress Erosion and Transport flume. Journal of Hydraulic 

Engineering. 129(11): 862-871. 

Shields, A. 1936. Anwendung der aenlichkeitsmechanik und der turbulenzforschung auf 

die geschiebebewegung. Mitteilungen der Preussischen Versuchsanstalt fur 

Wasserbau und Schiffbau, Berlin, Germany (translation by W. P. Ott and J. C. van 

Uchelen, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California). 

Signell, R., and List, J. 1997. Modeling waves and circulation in Lake Pontchartrain. Gulf 

Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, 47:529-532. 

Soulsby, R. 1997. Dynamics of Marine Sands. Thomas Telford Publications, London, UK. 

249 pp. 

van Rijn, L. C. 1984a. Sediment transport, part I: bed load transport. Journal of Hydraulic 

Engineering, 110(10):1431-1456. 

van Rijn, L. C. 1984b. Sediment transport, part II: suspended load transport. Journal of 

Hydraulic Engineering, 110(11):1612-1638. 

van Rijn, L. C. 1984c. Sediment transport, part III: bed forms and alluvial roughness. 

Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 110(12):1733-1754. 

van Rijn, L. C. 1993. Principles of sediment transport in rivers, estuaries and coastal seas. 

Aqua Publications, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 

Winterwerp, J. C., and Van Kesteren, W. G. M. 2004. Introduction to the Physics of 

Cohesive Sediment in the Marine Environment. Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam, 

Netherlands. 466 p. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 41

TABLES 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 42

Table 1. Summary of hydrodynamic model parameter values. 

Parameter Value Description Notes 

CD,min 0.003 minimum coefficient of 

drag 

Primary control on simulated currents; value 

confirmed by calibration; calibrated value 

equals value used in other model applications 

to the area 

zo 0.4 mm hydrodynamic roughness 

height of bed 

Secondary control on simulated currents, 

used for calculations in shallow water (depth 

< 1.5 m); model results in area of proposed 

pipeline do not depend on z0 because water 

depth exceeds 1.5 m; assigned value equal 

value used in other model applications to the 

area 

Table 2. Summary of sediment transport model parameter values. 

Sediment Transport Model 

Parameter 

Size Class Source/Notes 

1 2 3 4 5 

dp (mm) 0.031 0.078 0.188 0.375 2.225 Defined from field data 

Bed GSD (%) 2.6 86.2 6.1 2.6 2.5 Defined from field data 

d* (dimensionless) 0.78 1.97 4.75 9.48 56.9 Equation (2-15) 

τce (Pa), τcd (Pa) 0.05 0.13 0.15 0.19 1.46 Equation (2-14) 

τcs (Pa) 0.05 0.19 0.24 0.49 5.46 Equation (2-18) 

ws,q (cm/s) 0.064 0.383 1.759 4.448 19.39 Equation (2-20) 

Notes: GSD = grain size distribution. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 43

Table 3. Summary of surface water turbidity and TSS measurements collected from sites 

near the proposed pipeline route during Fall 2010. 

Station Turbidity (NTU) TSS (mg/L) Sample Type 

9-DS-9W 2.4 4 Surface 

9-DM-9W 2.8 4 Middle 

9-DB-0W 3.3 4 Bottom 

11-DS-11W 1.4 1.4 Surface 

11-DM-11W 2.9 2.9 Middle 

11-DB-11W 2.6 2.6 Bottom 

13-DS-13W 0 4 Surface 

13-DM-13W 0 4 Middle 

13-DB-13W 1.2 16 Bottom 

15-DS-15W 0 5 Surface 

15-DM-15W 0 4 Middle 

15-DB-15W 9.4 18 Bottom 

Average 2.2 5.8 

Standard Deviation 2.6 5.3 

Minimum 0.0 1.4 

Maximum 9.4 18.0 

Notes: Samples were collected near the surface, middle and bottom of the water column. Statistical 

summary values were computed for all depth intervals at all sites. Samples from the bottom depth 

could be higher than exist under ambient conditions as a consequence of sediment disturbance 

during sampling. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 44

Table 4. Simulated trenching rates, durations, and sediment release characteristics. 

Construction Rate

(m/hr or as noted) 

Duration 

(hrs) 

Sediment Release Rate 

(MT/hr) (1)

Total Sediment Volume Released

(m3) (2)

Hydraulic Jetting: “Worst” Case 

366 (1200 ft/hr) 8.6 13,695 

78,600 (102,800 yd3 183 (600 ft/hr) 17.2 6,847 ) 

122 (400 ft/hr) 25.8 4,564 

Hydraulic Jetting: “Typical" Case 

183 (600 ft/hr) 17.2 4,127 47,400 (62,000 yd3) 

Mechanical Plowing: “Worst” Case 

183 (600 ft/hr) 17.2 486 5,580 (7,300 yd3) 

Mechanical Plowing: “Typical” Case 

183 (600 ft/hr) 17.2 364 4,190 (5,475 yd3) 

Mechanical (Clamshell) Trenching 

4.2 (13.8 ft/hr) 

30 cycles/hr 745.6 103 51,300 (67,100 yd3

) 

Hand Jetting at Hot Tap Site 

4 pulses 8 (per pulse) 1,114 (per 8-hour pulse) 23,850 (31,200 yd3) (for 4 pulses) 

Mechanical Dredging at HDD Pit 

30 cycles/hr 170 103 11,700 (15,300 yd3) 

Notes: (1) MT = metric ton; 1 MT = 1,000 kg. (2) Total sediment volume released is in situ volume; 

sediments are assumed to have a dry bulk density of 1,495 kg/m3

. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 45

FIGURES 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 46Notes: Pipeline model grid cells are shown as colored rectangles. The color applied to each cell indicates water depth at mean low low water (MLLW) level. Blues represent shallow water, greens and yellows intermediate water depths, and oranges and reds represent deeper water. Water depths in the area range from roughly 1 meter to 30 meters. The pipeline preferred route is shown by the thick red line near the center of the figure. Grid cells from the coarser-scale LPR/NB 

modeling efforts are shown as larger, uncolored rectangles overlaid on the pipeline model grid cells. 

Figure 1. Overview of model grid used for pipeline evaluation efforts. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 47Note: Elevations indicate distance above (+) or below (-) mean sea level (0.0). Figure 2. Simulated and measured water surface elevations at the Sandy Hook tide gage: July-August, 2009 calibration period. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 48Note: Differences between simulated and measured temperatures during the first 10 days of simulation reflect uncertainty in assigning model initial conditions. Figure 3. Simulated and measured water temperatures at the Sandy Hook tide gage: July-August, 2009 calibration period. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 49

Figure 4. Simulated and measured current velocities in the upper portion of the water column at the ADCP deployment site near the proposed pipeline route: July-August, 2009 calibration period. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 50

Figure 5. Simulated and measured current velocities in the mid-depth portion of the water column at the ADCP deployment site near 

the proposed pipeline route: July-August, 2009 calibration period. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 51

Figure 6. Simulated and measured current velocities in the bottom portion of the water column at the ADCP deployment site near the proposed pipeline route (includes secondary measurements collected using an S4 probe): July-August, 2009 calibration period. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 52

Figure 7. Simulated and measured temperatures in the bottom portion of the water column at the ADCP deployment site near the proposed pipeline route (measurements collected using an S4 probe): July-August, 2009 calibration period. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 53

Figure 8. Simulated and measured salinities in the bottom portion of the water column at the ADCP deployment site near the 

proposed pipeline route (measurements collected using an S4 probe): July-August, 2009 calibration period. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 54Note: Samples B9-C through B20-C indicate sediment cores collected from the bed along the proposed pipeline route. Those data were used to define size ranges and mean diameters for each particle size class in the sediment transport model. Figure 9. Grain size distributions of sediments collected along the proposed pipeline route and modeled size classes. 

0

908070605040302010

100

0.01 0.1 1 10

Percent Finer (%)

Particle Diameter (mm)

B9-C

B10-C

B11-CB12-C

B13-C

B14-CB15-C

B16-CB17-C

B18-C

B19-CB20-C

Size Class RangesSize Class Mean Diameters

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 55Note: Particle size class ranges and mean diameters in the sediment transport model. These are the same data as presented in Figure 9 with field measurements removed from the plot so that values used in the model are more clearly identifiable. Figure 10. Particle size class grain size distribution ranges and mean diameters used in the sediment transport model. 

0

908070605040302010

100

0.01 0.1 1 10

Percent Finer (%)

Particle Diameter (mm)

Size Class Ranges

Size Class Mean Diameters

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 56Note: Fluxes for March, 2010 shown in red. Long-term average fluxes (1995-2010) for March shown in blue. Similarity between 2010 and long-term 

average fluxes in each layer of the water column indicated that Match 2010 is representative of long-term conditions. 

Figure 11. Probability distributions of volume fluxes in each water column layer passing proposed pipeline route: March, 2010. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 57Note: Fluxes for May, 2010 shown in red. Long-term average fluxes (1995-2010) for May shown in blue. Similarity between 2010 and long-term 

average fluxes in each layer of the water column indicated that May 2010 is representative of long-term conditions. 

Figure 12. Probability distributions of volume fluxes in each water column layer passing proposed pipeline route: May, 2010. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 58

Figure 13. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, start of trenching; rate = 366 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 59

Figure 14. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom: Trenching 25% complete; rate = 366 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 60

Figure 15. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, trenching 50% complete, rate = 366 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 61

Figure 16. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, trenching 75% complete; rate = 366 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 62

Figure 17. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, end of trenching, rate = 366 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 63

Figure 18. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom: 4 hrs after end of trenching, rate = 366 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 64

Figure 19. Worst case jetting: maximum simulated suspended solids in any cell of each water column sigma layer, rate = 366 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 65

a) surface water layer 40% of water depth c) 50% of water depth 

d) 70% of water depth e) bottom water layer 

Notes: Values indicate the maximum solids concentration that occurred in each model grid at any time during the simulation. It should be noted 

the concentrations are elevated near the point of construction and rapidly decrease over time as a consequence of the relatively high settling velocities of sediment grains. Plumes clear the water column within 4 hours following the end of construction. 

Figure 20. Worst case jetting: maximum simulated suspended solids extent in selected water column sigma layers, rate = 366 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 66

Figure 21. Worst case jetting: simulated thickness of deposited solids on bed surface following trenching, rate = 366 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 67

Figure 22. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, start of trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 68

Figure 23. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, trenching 25% complete, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 69

Figure 24. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, trenching 50% complete; rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 70

Figure 25. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, trenching 75% complete, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 71

Figure 26. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, end of trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 72

Figure 27. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom: 4 hrs after end of trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 73

Figure 28. Worst case jetting: maximum simulated suspended solids in any cell of each water column sigma layer, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 74

a) surface water layer 40% of water depth c) 50% of water depth 

d) 70% of water depth e) bottom water layer 

Notes: Values indicate the maximum solids concentration that occurred in each model grid at any time during the simulation. It should be noted 

the concentrations are elevated near the point of construction and rapidly decrease over time as a consequence of the relatively high settling velocities of sediment grains. Plumes clear the water column within 4 hours following the end of construction. 

Figure 29. Worst case jetting: maximum simulated suspended solids extent in selected water column sigma layers, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 75

Figure 30. Worst case jetting: simulated thickness of deposited solids on bed surface following trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 76

Figure 31. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, start of trenching, rate = 122 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 77

Figure 32. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, trenching 25% complete, rate = 122 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 78

Figure 33. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, trenching 50% complete, rate = 122 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 79

Figure 34. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, trenching 75% complete, rate = 122 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 80

Figure 35. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, end of trenching, rate = 122 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 81

Figure 36. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom: 4 hrs after end of trenching, rate = 122 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 82

Figure 37. Worst case jetting: maximum simulated suspended solids in any cell of each water column sigma layer, rate = 122 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 83

a) surface water layer 40% of water depth c) 50% of water depth 

d) 70% of water depth e) bottom water layer 

Notes: Values indicate the maximum solids concentration that occurred in each model grid at any time during the simulation. It should be noted 

the concentrations are elevated near the point of construction and rapidly decrease over time as a consequence of the relatively high settling velocities of sediment grains. Plumes clear the water column within 4 hours following the end of construction. 

Figure 38. Worst case jetting: maximum simulated suspended solids extent in selected water column sigma layers, rate = 122 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 84

Figure 39. Worst case jetting: simulated thickness of deposited solids on bed surface following trenching, rate = 122 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 85

Figure 40. Typical jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, start of trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 86

Figure 41. Typical jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, trenching 25% complete, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 87

Figure 42. Typical jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, trenching 50% complete, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 88

Figure 43. Typical jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, trenching 75% complete, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 89

Figure 44. Typical jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, end of trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 90

Figure 45. Typical jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom: 4 hrs after end of trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 91

Figure 46. Typical jetting: maximum simulated suspended solids in any cell of each water column layer of model, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 92

a) surface water layer 40% of water depth c) 50% of water depth 

d) 70% of water depth e) bottom water layer 

Notes: Values indicate the maximum solids concentration that occurred in each model grid at any time during the simulation. It should be noted 

the concentrations are elevated near the point of construction and rapidly decrease over time as a consequence of the relatively high settling velocities of sediment grains. Plumes clear the water column within 4 hours following the end of construction. 

Figure 47. Typical jetting: maximum simulated suspended solids extent in selected water column sigma layers, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 93

Figure 48. Typical jetting: simulated thickness of deposited solids on bed surface following trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 94

Figure 49. Worst case plowing: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, start of trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 95

Figure 50. Worst case plowing: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, trenching 25% complete, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 96

Figure 51. Worst case plowing: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, trenching 50% complete, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 97

Figure 52. Worst case plowing: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, trenching 75% complete, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 98

Figure 53. Worst case plowing: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, end of trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 99

Figure 54. Worst case plowing: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom: 4 hrs after end of trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 100

Figure 55. Worst case plowing: maximum simulated suspended solids in any cell of each water column layer of model, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 101

a) surface water layer 40% of water depth c) 50% of water depth 

d) 70% of water depth e) bottom water layer 

Notes: Values indicate the maximum solids concentration that occurred in each model grid at any time during the simulation. It should be noted 

the concentrations are elevated near the point of construction and rapidly decrease over time as a consequence of the relatively high settling velocities of sediment grains. Plumes clear the water column within 4 hours following the end of construction. 

Figure 56. Worst case plowing: maximum simulated suspended solids extent in selected water column sigma layers, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 102

Figure 57. Worst case plowing: simulated thickness of deposited solids on bed surface following trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 103

Figure 58. Typical plowing: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, start of trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 104

Figure 59. Typical plowing: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, trenching 25% complete, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 105

Figure 60. Typical plowing: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, trenching 50% complete, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 106

Figure 61. Typical plowing: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, trenching 75% complete, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 107

Figure 62. Typical plowing: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, end of trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 108

Figure 63. Typical plowing: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom: 4 hrs after end of trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 109

Figure 64. Typical plowing: maximum simulated suspended solids in each water column layer of model, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 110

a) surface water layer 40% of water depth c) 50% of water depth 

d) 70% of water depth e) bottom water layer 

Notes: Values indicate the maximum solids concentration that occurred in each model grid at any time during the simulation. It should be noted 

the concentrations are elevated near the point of construction and rapidly decrease over time as a consequence of the relatively high settling velocities of sediment grains. Plumes clear the water column within 4 hours following the end of construction. 

Figure 65. Typical plowing: maximum simulated suspended solids extent in selected water column sigma layers, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 111

Figure 66. Typical plowing: simulated thickness of deposited solids on bed surface following trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 112

Figure 67. Mechanical trenching: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, start of dredging, rate = 4.2 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 113

Figure 68. Mechanical trenching: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, dredging 25% complete, rate = 4.2 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 114

Figure 69. Mechanical trenching: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, dredging 50% complete, rate = 4.2 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 115

Figure 70. Mechanical trenching: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, dredging 75% complete, rate = 4.2 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 116

Figure 71. Mechanical trenching: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, end of dredging, rate = 4.2 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 117

Figure 72. Mechanical trenching: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom: 4 hrs after end of dredging, rate = 4.2 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 118

Figure 73. Mechanical trenching: maximum simulated suspended solids in each water column layer of model, rate = 4.2 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 119

a) surface water layer 40% of water depth c) 50% of water depth 

d) 70% of water depth e) bottom water layer 

Notes: Values indicate the maximum solids concentration that occurred in each model grid at any time during the simulation. It should be noted 

the concentrations are elevated near the point of construction and rapidly decrease over time as a consequence of the relatively high settling velocities of sediment grains. Plumes clear the water column within 4 hours following the end of construction. 

Figure 74. Mechanical trenching: maximum simulated suspended solids extent in selected water column sigma layers, rate = 4.2 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 120

Figure 75. Mechanical trenching: simulated thickness of deposited solids on bed surface following dredging, rate = 4.2 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 121

Figure 76. Hand jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, start of jetting (first 8-hour pulse). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 122

Figure 77. Hand jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, jetting 25% complete (first 8-hour pulse). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 123

Figure 78. Hand jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, jetting 50% complete (first 8-hour pulse). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 124

Figure 79. Hand jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, jetting 75% complete, (first 8-hour pulse). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 125

Figure 80. Hand jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, end of jetting (first 8-hour pulse). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 126

Figure 81. Hand jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom: 4 hrs after end of jetting (first 8-hour pulse). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 127

Figure 82. Hand jetting: maximum simulated suspended solids in each water column layer of model (all three pulses). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 128

a) surface water layer 40% of water depth c) 50% of water depth 

d) 70% of water depth e) bottom water layer 

Notes: Values indicate the maximum solids concentration that occurred in each model grid at any time during the simulation. It should be noted 

the concentrations are elevated near the point of construction and rapidly decrease over time as a consequence of the relatively high settling velocities of sediment grains. Plumes clear the water column within 4 hours following the end of construction. 

Figure 83. Hand jetting: maximum simulated suspended solids extent in selected water column sigma layers, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 129

Figure 84. Hand jetting: simulated thickness of deposited solids on bed surface following jetting (after all four 8-hour pulses). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 130

Figure 85. Pit dredging: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, start of dredging. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 131

Figure 86. Pit dredging: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, dredging 25% complete. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 132

Figure 87. Pit dredging: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, dredging 50% complete. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 133

Figure 88. Pit dredging: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, dredging 75% complete. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 134

Figure 89. Pit dredging: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom, end of dredging. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 135

Figure 90. Pit dredging: simulated suspended solids near water column bottom: 4 hrs after end of dredging. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 136

Figure 91. Pit dredging: maximum simulated suspended solids in each water column layer of model. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 137

a) surface water layer 40% of water depth c) 50% of water depth 

d) 70% of water depth e) bottom water layer 

Notes: Values indicate the maximum solids concentration that occurred in each model grid at any time during the simulation. It should be noted 

the concentrations are elevated near the point of construction and rapidly decrease over time as a consequence of the relatively high settling velocities of sediment grains. Plumes clear the water column within 4 hours following the end of construction. 

Figure 92. Pit dredging: maximum simulated suspended solids extent in selected water column sigma layers, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 138

Figure 93. Pit dredging: simulated thickness of deposited solids on bed surface following dredging. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 139Notes: Image obtained from ROCKAWAY-20090630-154326-00clip16.wmv. Figure 94. Image from seabed survey along pipeline route: no scour along bottom of large obstruction on seabed. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 140

APPENDIX A. SHEAR STRESS PARTITIONING 

To perform sediment transport calculations, hydrodynamic (total) shear stresses acting at 

the bottom of the water column need to be separated into surface drag and form drag 

components because individual grains on the bed surface are only subject only to the 

surface drag component of the total shear stress. 

Total hydrodynamic shear stresses are related to eddy viscosity, velocity gradients, drag 

and velocities near the sediment bed: 

Mw b

z

U

ρ K = τ

∂

∂

(A-1) 

[ ( )]

2 2

wb * bDw == ρρτ zuCu (A-2) 

where: 

ρw = density of water [M L-3] 

KM = vertical eddy viscosity [L2

 T-1] 

z

U

∂

∂

 = vertical velocity gradient [T-1] 

τb = total (hydrodynamic) bed shear stress [M L-1 T-2] 

* u = shear (friction) velocity [L T-1] 

( ) b

zu = velocity at a height zb above the bed [L T-1] 

CD = coefficient of drag [dimensionless] 

Eddy viscosity and velocity gradients in the water column are calculated in the 

hydrodynamic model. A logarithmic velocity profile is used to relate hydrodynamic 

roughness to water velocities in the last sigma layer of the water column and also the drag 

coefficient: 

( )

















=

* 0

ln 1

z

z

u

zu b b

κ

(A-3) 

2

0

ln 1

−





























=

z

z

CD

κ

(A-4) 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 141

where: 

κ = von Karman constant = 0.4 [dimensionless] 

zb = height above the bed [L] 

zo = hydrodynamic roughness height of the bed [L] 

CD = coefficient of drag [dimensionless] 

The height above the bed (zb) is set equal to one half the thickness of the bottom sigma 

layer in the water column of the hydrodynamic model. 

To perform sediment transport calculations, total hydrodynamic bed shear stress (τb) 

must be separated (partitioned) into surface and form drag. The relationship between 

total bed shear stress and its components is: 

fgb += τττ (A-5) 

where: 

τb = total (hydrodynamic) bed shear stress [M L-1 T-2] 

τg = surface drag (“grain-related”) shear stress [M L-1 T-2] 

τf = form drag shear stress [M L-1 T-2] 

The surface drag (grain stress) component of the total shear stress acts on particle surfaces 

and is iteratively calculated from total hydrodynamic bed shear stress (τb), total shear 

velocity ( * u ), and an initial (first) estimate of grain roughness height:3, 4

15

)1( 50

0

d

z g = (A-6) 





























=

)1(

*

)1(

*

ln

ln

og

b

o

b

g

z

z

z

z

uu (A-7) 

 

3

 Boundary roughness heights are typically expressed in terms of the Nikuradse roughness height 

(ks) and is approximated as ks = 2 d50. For rough turbulent flow, zog = ks/30 = d50/15. 

4

 As an expedient, the model calculates an initial estimate of grain shear stress (τg) from total bed 

shear stress (τb) and grain roughness height (z0g) using the square of Equation (A-7). This is 

mathematically equivalent because u*

2

 = τb/ρw and u*g2 = τg/ρw [see Equation (A-2)]. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 142

where: 

u*g(1) = initial (first) estimate of grain stress shear velocity [L T-1] 

zog(1) = initial (first) estimate for grain roughness height [L] 

d50 = median (i.e., 50th percentile) diameter of bulk sediment [L] 

Equations (A-6) and (A-7) are applicable to hydraulically rough turbulent flow (i.e. where 

particles on the bed protrude beyond the boundary layer that exists in a thin layer next to 

the bed surface). A second estimate of grain roughness height is calculated using the 

approach of Winterwerp and van Kesteren (2004): 

)1(

)1( 0

*

)2(

0

11.0

g

g

g

z

u

z +=

ν

(A-8) 

where: 

ν = kinematic viscosity [L2

 T-1] 

zog(2) = second estimate for grain roughness height [L] 

Equation (A-8) is applicable to transitionally rough turbulent flow. Additional iterations 

could be performed to allow more resolved estimates of bed roughness height (z0g) to be 

calculated. A boundary layer Reynolds number could also be calculated to further refine 

bed roughness height estimates over the spectrum of hydraulically smooth, transitionally 

rough, and hydraulically rough turbulent flow conditions. However, for simplicity and to 

avoid the added computational overhead associated with additional iterations, the second 

estimate of bed roughness height is used to calculate a second estimate of grain stress 

shear velocity and the surface drag component of the total shear stress as follows: 





























=

)2(

*

)2(

*

ln

ln

og

b

o

b

g

z

z

z

z

uu (A-9) 

( )

2 )2(

*

2

* gwgwg == ρρτ uu (A-10) 

where: 

u*g(2) = second (refined) estimate of grain stress shear velocity [L T-1] 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 143

zog(2) = second (refined) estimate for grain roughness height [L] 

τg = grain stress (surface drag) component of total shear stress [M L-1 T-2] 

u*g = grain stress shear velocity [L T-1] 

Additional adjustments to the bed shear stress partitioning process can be performed to 

account for the presence of bedforms. Bedform formation and decay over time alters bed 

roughness over time. Increasing bedform roughness causes greater form drag and reduces 

the surface drag component of the total shear stress. Decreasing bedform roughness 

results in less form drag and increases the surface drag component of total shear stress. 

However, for simplicity, the model code used for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project 

does not perform bed roughness adjustments to account for bedforms. 

References 

Winterwerp, J. C., and van Kesteren, W. G. M. 2004. Introduction to the Physics of Cohesive 

Sediment in the Marine Environment. Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam, Netherlands. 466 p.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 144

APPENDIX B. SIMULATED SURFACE LAYER 

SUSPENDED SOLIDS: WORST CASE JETTING 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 145

Figure B1. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, start of trenching, rate = 366 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 146

Figure B2. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, trenching 25% complete, rate = 366 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 147

Figure B3. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, trenching 50% complete, rate = 366 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 148

Figure B4. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, trenching 75% complete, rate = 366 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 149

Figure B5. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, end of trenching, rate = 366 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 150

Figure B6. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, 4 hours after end of trenching, rate = 366 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 151

Figure B7. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, start of trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 152

Figure B8. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, trenching 25% complete, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 153

Figure B9. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, trenching 50% complete, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 154

Figure B10. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, trenching 75% complete, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 155

Figure B11. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, end of trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 156

Figure B12. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, 4 hours after end of trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 157

Figure B13. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, start of trenching, rate = 122 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 158

Figure B14. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, trenching 25% complete, rate = 122 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 159

Figure B15. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, trenching 50% complete, rate = 122 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 160

Figure B16. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, trenching 75% complete, rate = 122 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 161

Figure B17. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, end of trenching, rate = 122 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 162

Figure B18. Worst case jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, 4 hours after end of trenching, rate = 122 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 163

APPENDIX C. SIMULATED SURFACE LAYER 

SUSPENDED SOLIDS: TYPICAL JETTING 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 164

Figure C1. Typical jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, start of trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 165

Figure C2. Typical jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, trenching 25% complete, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 166

Figure C3. Typical jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, trenching 50% complete, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 167

Figure C4. Typical jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, trenching 75% complete, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 168

Figure C5. Typical jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, end of trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 169

Figure C6. Typical jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, 4 hours after end of trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 170

APPENDIX D. SIMULATED SURFACE LAYER 

SUSPENDED SOLIDS: WORST CASE PLOWING 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 171

Figure D1. Worst case plowing: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, start of trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 172

Figure D2. Worst case plowing: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, trenching 25% complete, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 173

Figure D3. Worst case plowing: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, trenching 50% complete, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 174

Figure D4. Worst case plowing: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, trenching 75% complete, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 175

Figure D5. Worst case plowing: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, end of trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 176

Figure D6. Worst case plowing: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, 4 hours after trenching end, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 177

APPENDIX E. SIMULATED SURFACE LAYER 

SUSPENDED SOLIDS: TYPICAL PLOWING 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 178

Figure E1. Typical plowing: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, start of trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 179

Figure E2. Typical plowing: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, trenching 25% complete, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 180

Figure E3. Typical plowing: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, trenching 50% complete, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 181

Figure E4. Typical plowing: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, trenching 75% complete, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 182

Figure E5. Typical plowing: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, end of trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 183

Figure E6. Typical plowing: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, 4 hours after end of trenching, rate = 183 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 184

APPENDIX F. SIMULATED SURFACE LAYER SUSPENDED 

SOLIDS: TRENCH MECHANICAL DREDGING 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 185

Figure F1. Mechanical trenching: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, start of trenching, rate = 4.2 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 186

Figure F2. Mechanical trenching: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, trenching 25% complete, rate = 4.2 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 187

Figure F3. Mechanical trenching: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, trenching 50% complete, rate = 4.2 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 188

Figure F4. Mechanical trenching: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, trenching 75% complete, rate = 4.2 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 189

Figure F5. Mechanical trenching: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, end of trenching, rate = 4.2 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 190

Figure F6. Mechanical trenching: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, 4 hours after trenching end, rate = 4.2 m/hr. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 191

APPENDIX G. SIMULATED SURFACE LAYER 

SUSPENDED SOLIDS: HOT TAP HAND JETTING 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 192

Figure G1. Hand jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, start of jetting (first 8-hour pulse). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 193

Figure G2. Hand jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, jetting 25% complete (first 8-hour pulse). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 194

Figure G3. Hand jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, jetting 50% complete (first 8-hour pulse). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 195

Figure G4. Hand jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, jetting 75% complete (first 8-hour pulse). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 196

Figure G5. Hand jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, end of jetting (first 8-hour pulse). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 197

Figure G6. Hand jetting: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, 4 hours after end of jetting (first 8-hour pulse). 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 198

APPENDIX H. SIMULATED SURFACE LAYER 

SUSPENDED SOLIDS: HDD PIT MECHANICAL 

DREDGING 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 199

Figure H1. Pit dredging: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, start of dredging. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 200

Figure H2. Pit dredging: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, dredging 25% complete. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 201

Figure H3. Pit dredging: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, dredging 50% complete. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 202

Figure H4. Pit dredging: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, dredging 75% complete. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 203

Figure H5. Pit dredging: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, end of dredging. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Rockaway Pipeline Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Analysis April 30, 2013 

HDR|HydroQual Page 204

Figure H6. Pit dredging: simulated suspended solids near water column surface, 4 hours after end of dredging. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS

P-1

A.H. Glenn and Associates Services. 2011. Selected Meteorological and Oceanographic Data at a 

Location Offshore Rockaway Beach, New York.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2011. Radon. Available online at 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=71. Accessed January 2013.

AKRF, Inc. 2013. Letter dated February 5 from D. Abatemarco and L. Bischoff (AKRF, Inc.) to P. 

Curcio (BL Companies).

AKRF, Inc., AECOM, and A. Popper. 2012. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment for the Tappan Zee 

Hudson River Crossing Project. Available online at http://www.newnybridge.com/

documents/feis/vol2/f-9-efh-assessment.pdf. Accessed June 2013.

Allee King Rosen & Fleming, Inc. 2011. Environmental Assessment Statement - Brooklyn-Queens 

Interconnect. CEQR No. 12OOM001K. Prepared for National Grid. December 2011.

American Wind Energy Association. 2011. Wind Energy Facts: New York. Available online at 

http://www.awea.org/learnabout/publications/factsheets/factsheets_state.cfm.

Anderson, J., E. Hardy, J. Roach, and R. Witmer. 1976. A Land Use and Land Cover Classification 

System for Use With Remote Sensor Data. U.S. Geological Survey. Available online at 

http://landcover.usgs.gov/pdf/anderson.pdf.

Andersson, M.H., M. Gullstrom, M.E. Asplund, and M.C. Ohman. 2007. Swimming Behavior of Roach 

(Rutilus rutilus) and Three-spined Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) in Response to Wind 

Power Noise and Single-tone Frequencies. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 36: 

636-638. 

Associated Press. 2012. Report: Closing NY Nuke Plants Could Cause Outages. Available online at 

http://online.wsj.com/article/APf35e149c407c4be0b337352a9b546108.html.

Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team. 2007. Status Review of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus

oxyrinchus). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office. February 

23, 2007. 174 pp. Available online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/

statusreviews/atlanticsturgeon2007.pdf. Accessed July 2012.

Bailey, B., J. Freedman, P. Johnson, and J. DuBois. 2010. Summary of Physical and Environmental 

Qualities for the Proposed Long Island-New York City Offshore Wind Project Area. Final 

Report 10-22. October 2010. Available online at http://www.linycoffshorewind.com/PDF/linyc-collaborative-summaryreport-physical&environmentalqualities.pdf. Accessed September 1, 

2012.

Bain, M.B., N. Haley, D.L. Peterson, K.A. Arend, K.E. Mills, and P.J. Sullivan. 2007. Recovery of a US 

Endangered Fish. PLoS ONE 2(1): e168. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000168.

Baldwin, G., K. Farnham, T. Kotlensky, and P. Heaton. 2011. Archeological Overview and Assessment, 

Gateway National Recreation Area, Jamaica Bay Unit, Kings and Queens Counties, New York. 

John Milner Associates, Inc., Croton-on-Hudson, New York.

Barnes, J.D., N.M. Laymon, E.W. Power Plant Construction Noise Guide. Prepared for the Empire State 

Electric Energy Research Corporation, Report No. 3321, 1977. Wood.Bolt, Beranek and 

Newman, Inc. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS (cont’d)

P-2

Bartol, S.M, J . A . Musick, and M . L. Lenhardt. 1999. Auditory Evoked Potentials of the Loggerhead 

Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta). Copeia. 1999(3): 836-840.

Berner, E.K. and R.A. Berner. 1996. Global Environment: Water, Air and Geochemical Cycles. 

Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Pages 284-311.

Blaxter, J.H.S. 1977. The effect of copper on the eggs and larvae of plaice and herring. Journal of the 

Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 57:849 – 859.

Brooks, R.A., C.N. Purdy, S.S. Bell, and K.J. Sulak. 2006. The Benthic Community of the 

Eastern U.S. Continental Shelf: A Literature Synopsis of Benthic Faunal Resources. Continental 

Shelf Research. 26: 804-818

Brown, C.J. and P.E. Misut. 2010. Aquifer geochemistry at potential aquifer storage and recovery sites 

in coastal plain aquifers in the New York City area, USA. In Applied Geochemistry 25 (2010) 

1431-1452.

Bruno. M. S. and A.F. Blumberg. 2009. The Stevens Integrated Maritime Surveillance and Forecast 

System: Expansion and Enhancement Center for Maritime, Systems Stevens Institute of 

Technology Castle Point on Hudson Hoboken, New Jersey, ONR Grant No. N00014-03-1-0633.

Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE). 2013a. Potential 

Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Offshore New York, 

Request for Interest, 760-764 (2013-31654). January 4, 2013. Available online at

http://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2013/01/04/2012-31654.html

Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE). 2013b. Website at 

http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/State-Activities/New-York.aspx. Accessed 

March 2013. 

Buxton, H.T. and P.K. Shernoff. 1999. Ground-water Resources of Kings and Queens Counties, Long 

Island, New York. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2498. Prepared in cooperation 

with New York City Department of Environmental Protection and New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation. Available online at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp2498.

California Department of Transportation. 2001. San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge East Span

Seismic Safety Project- Pile Installation Demonstration Project, Fisheries Impact Assessment. 

Caltrans Contract 04A0148, Task Order 205.10.90. 68 pp.

Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program (CeTAP). 1982. A Characterization of Marine Mammals and 

Turtles in the Mid- and North Atlantic Areas of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. Final Report,

December 1982. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

under Contract #AA51-CT8-48. University of Rhode Island, Graduate School of Oceanography,

Kingston, Rhode Island.

Champlain Hudson Power Express, Inc. 2012. Project Schedule. Available online at 

http://www.chpexpress.com/schedule.php.

Chervenak, M.C. 2000. The environmental fate of commonly used oxidizing and nonoxidizing biocides: 

reactions of industrial water biocides within the system. TAPPI International Environmental 

Conference. May 2000.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS (cont’d)

P-3

Chu, A. 2006. Hydrolgeology of the Lloyd Aquifer on Long Island, New York – A brief summary of 

USGS investigations. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on the Geology of Long Island 

and Metropolitan New York. Available online at www.geo.sunysb.edu/lig/Conferences/

abstracts06/Lloyd%20Chu.pdf. 

City of New York and National Park Service. 2012. Jamaica Bay Science and Resilience Center - City 

of New York and National Park Service Request for Expressions of Interest. Available online at 

http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Portals/37/docs/Recpost/JamBaySciResilCtr.pdf.

Clark, J.S. and W.A. Patterson III. 1985. The development of a tidal marsh: Upland and oceanic 

influences. In Ecol. Monogr. 55: 189 – 217.

Clemants, Steven E. 1992. Chenopodiaceae and Amaranthaceae of New York State. Bulletin No. 485. 

New York State Museum. Albany, NY.

Congressional Research Service (CRS). 2007. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007: A 

Summary of Major Provisions. CRS Report for Congress, Order Code RL34294, Fred Sissine, 

Coordinator.

Consolidated Edison. 2011. “Con Edison customers double their use of solar power.” Con Edison 

Media Relations. February 9, 2011. Available online at http://www.coned.com/

newsroom/news/pr20110209.asp. Accessed August 25, 2011.

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997a. Environmental Justice Guidelines Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Available online at http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/guidance.html. 

Accessed February 2012.

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997b. The 1997 Annual Report of the Council on Environmental 

Quality. Available online at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/reports/1997/index.html.

Council on Environmental Quality. 2005. Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative 

Effects Analysis. Available online at http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/

contentView.do?contentType=GSA_DOCUMENT&contentId=19138&noc=T.

Cowardin, L M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. December 1979 (Reprinted 1992). FWS/OBS-79/31. 

Available online at http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Wetland-Codes.html. Accessed August 

15, 2012. 

Cranford, P.J., K. Lee, J.W. Loder, T.G. Milligan, D.K. Muschenheim and J. Payne. 2001. Scientific 

consideration and research results relevant to the review of the 1996 offshore waste treatment 

guidelines. Canadian Tech. Rpt. of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 2364.

CurrentResults.com. 2013. Average yearly snowfall in York, Pennsylvania available online at 

http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Pennsylvania/Places/york-snowfall-totals-snowaccumulation-averages.php. Accessed June 2013.

Diaz, R.J., G.R. Cutter. Jr., and C.H. Hobbs, III. 2004. Potential impacts of sand mining offshore

of Maryland and Delaware: Part 2—biological considerations. Journal of Coastal Research

20:61-69.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS (cont’d)

P-4

Dickerson, D., M. Wolters, C. Theriot, D. Slay. 2004. Dredging impact on sea turtles in the 

southeastern USA: A historical review of protection. Submitted for proceedings of the World

Dredging Congress, Hamburg, Germany. September 27 – October 1, 2004.

Dowhan, J., T. Halavik, A. Milliken, A. MacLachlan, M. Caplis, K. Lima, and A. Zimba. 1997. 

Significant Habitats and Habitat Complexes of the New York Bight Watershed. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service – Southern New England – New York Bight Coastal Ecosystems Program. 

Available online at http://library.fws.gov/pubs5/web_link/text/toc.htm#15 in July 2012.

Dunton, K.J., A. Jordaan, K.A. McKown, D.O. Conover, and M.G, Frisk. 2010. Abundance and 

distribution of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) within the Northwest Atlantic Ocean,

determined from five fishery-independent surveys. Fisheries Bulletin. 108:450-465.

Dunton, K.J., and M. Frisk. 2012. Personal communication, Stony Brook University, School of Marine

and Atmospheric Sciences, meeting concerning presence of Atlantic sturgeon offshore 

Rockaway Peninsula with Joseph Carlo, Jaime Budzynkiewicz, Steven MacLeod, Mike 

Donnelly, and Sarah Bowman of Ecology and Environment, Inc., Danielle Palmer of 

NOAA Fisheries Service, Protected Resources Division, and Kim McKown, Charlie

DeQuillfeldt, and Lisa Masi of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation on

September 24, 2012.

Eckel, Sarah. 2010. Horseshoe Crabs: State and Federal Policies [white paper]. June 2010. Available 

online at http://www.citizenscampaign.org/campaigns/horseshoe-crabs.asp. Accessed August 26, 

2012. 

Ecology and Environment, Inc. 2009. Summer 2009 Offshore Environmental Sampling Report for the 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project. September 2009.

Ecology and Environment, Inc. 2011. Fall 2010 Offshore Environmental Sampling Report for the 

Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project, Queens, NY. Prepared for Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 

Company. LLC. November 2011. Lancaster, NY. 

Edinger, G.J., A.L. Feldmann, T.G. Howard, J.J. Schmid, E. Eastman, E. Largay, and L.A. Sneddon. 

2008. Vegetation Classification and Mapping at Gateway National Recreation Area. National 

Park Service – Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR – 2008/107.

Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero (eds). 2002. 

Ecological Communities of New York State. 2nd ed. A revised and expanded edition of Carol 

Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program. 

Albany, New York: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

Erftemeijer P.L.A., B. Riegl, B.W. Hoeksema, and P.A. Todd. 2012. Environmental impacts of dredging 

and other sediment disturbances on corals: a review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64: 1737–1765

ESRI, 2008. GIS database for York County, Pennsylvania.

Eyler, S., S. Michels, and D. Brzezinski. 2011. 2011 Review of the Fishery Management Plan in 2010 

for Horseshoe Crab (Limulus polyphemus). Prepared for ASMFC Horseshoe Crab Management 

Board. March 23, 2011. Washington, DC. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS (cont’d)

P-5

Federal Business Opportunities. 2013a. Presolicitation for Emergency Dredging and Beach Nourishment 

for the Atlantic Coast of New York City, East Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway Inlet and Jamaica 

Bay Project, New York (solicitation number W912DS-13-B-0005). Available online at 

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=99624d39e75a7135c4d1a8d92f5b33

3f&tab=core&_cview=0. 

Federal Business Opportunities. 2013b. Solicitation for Jacob Riis Park Site Management and Debris 

Processing (solicitation number W912DS-13-R-0010). Available online at 

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=f575fc59194bcfb1b11b7d5387f413b

c&tab=core&_cview=1. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2012a. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Available online at 

https://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView?storeId=10001&catalogId=

10001&langId=-1&userType=G.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2012b. Hurricane Sandy Advisory Base Flood Elevations in 

New Jersey and New York. Available online at http://www.region2coastal.com/sandy/abfe.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2011. Notice of Availability and Environmental Assessment 

for Hydropower Pilot License, Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy Project. FERC Project Number P12611. Accession Number 20110503-3011(25603919)[1].pdf.

Federal Highway Administration. 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. U.S. 

Department of Transportation. August 2006.

Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidance 

Manual. Available online at http://www.fta.dot.gov/regions/region10/region10_5312.html. 

Accessed March 2013. 

FireDepartmentDirectory.com. 2013. Lists of fore departments available online at 

http://firedepartmentdirectory.com/. Accessed June 2013.

Fisheries Habitat Working Group. 2008. Agreement in Principal for Interim Criteria for Injury to Fish 

from Pile Driving Activities. Memorandum of Agreement between NOAA Fisheries’ Northwest 

and Southwest Regions; USFWS Regions 1 and 8; California, Washington, and Oregon 

Departments of Transportation; California Department of Fish and Game; and Federal Highways 

Administration. June 12, 2008.

Frings, H. and Little, F. 1957. Reactions of honey bees in the hive to simple sounds. Science 125:122.

Fry, J., G. Xian, S. Jin, J. Dewitz, C. Homer, L, Yang, C. Barnes, N. Herold, and J. Wickham. 2011. 

Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the Conterminous United States, 

PE&RS, Vol. 77(9):858-864. Available online at http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2006.php. Accessed 

August 6, 2012. 

Garber, J.D., A. Alvarado, R.H. Winters. 2000. Study Tracks Internal Corrosion Trends in Aging Gulf 

Pipelines. Oil and Gas Journal. March 27, 2000, pp. 68-73.

Germano, J., J. Parker, and J. Charles. 1994. Monitoring Cruise at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site, 

August 1990. DAMOS Contribution No. 92. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England 

Division, Waltham, Massachusetts.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS (cont’d)

P-6

Gleason, Henry A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States 

and Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. 910 pp.

Greenhouse Consultants Inc. 2009. Rockaway Delivery Point Project, Borough of Queens, New York, 

Borough of Brooklyn, New York, Gateway National Recreation Area, Jamaica Unit. Greenhouse 

Consultants Inc., New York, New York.

Greenwood, R., and R. Torres. 1978. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, Floyd 

Bennett Field Historic District.

Harris, M. 2011. Phase IA Archeological Assessment of Hangars 1 and 2, Hangar Row Historic District 

Portion of Rockaway Delivery Lateral, Floyd Bennett Field, Kings County, New York. URS 

Corporation, Burlington, New Jersey.

Hoover & Keith, Inc. 2012b. Transco Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project (Kings County, New York): 

Results of a Pre-Construction Sound Survey and Updated Acoustical Analysis of the New Meter 

Station Associated with the Proposed Project. H&K Report No. 2737. November 5, 2012.

Hoover and Keith, Inc.. 2012a. Transco Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project (Kings County, New York): 

Results of a Pre-Construction Sound Survey and Acoustical Analysis of the new Meter Station 

associated with the Proposed Project. August 24, 2012. Prepared for Transcontinental Gas Pipe 

Line Company, LLC.

Horseshoe Crab Research Center. 2009. Available online at http://www.research.vt.edu/resmag/sc2001 

_2/horseshoe_crab.html. Accessed January 2013.

ICF International (Energy and Environmental Analysis Inc./ICF). 2010. Combined Heat and Power 

Installation Database. Available online at http://www.eea-inc.com/chpdata/index.html.

ICF Jones & Stokes, and Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. 2009. Final Technical Guidance for Assessment

and Mitigation of Hydroacoustic Effect of Pile Driving on Fish. Prepared for California

Department of Transportation. February 2009. 298pp.

Isachsen, Y.W., E. Landing, J. Lauber, L.V. Rickard, and W. Rogers. 1991. Geology of New York, A 

Simplified Account. New York State Museum, Albany, New York.

Judkins, D.C., C.D. Wirick and W.E. Esaias, 1979. Composition, abundance and distribution of 

zooplankton in the New York Bight, September 1974-September 1975. In Fish. Bull. 77(3):669-

683.

Judkins, D.C., C.D. Wirick and W.E. Esaias. 1979. Composition, abundance and distribution of 

zooplankton in the New York Bight, September 1974-September 1975. In Fish Bull. 77(3):669-

683.

Kaneta, P.J., M. Levandowsky and W. Esaisas. 1985. Multivariate analysis of the phytoplankton 

community in the New York Bight. Marine Ecology Progressive Series 23:231-239.

Keevin, T.M., and G.L. Hempen. 1997. The environmental effects of underwater explosions with 

methods to mitigate impacts. US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, St. Louis, 

Missouri. 

Kenny, A.J and H.L Rees. 1994. The effects of marine gravel extraction on the macrobentos: Early postdredging recolonization. Marine Pollution Bulletin 28:442-447.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS (cont’d)

P-7

Ketten, D.R. 1998. Marine mammal auditory systems: A summary of audiometric and anatomical data 

and its implications for underwater acoustic impacts, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSWFSC-256. US Department of Commerce, National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

National Marine fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla CA

Ketten, D.R., and S.M. Bartol. 2005. Functional Measures of Sea Turtle Hearing. ONR Award No:

N00014-02-0510.

Kierstead, M. 2010. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, Floyd Bennett Field Historic 

District.

Klotzbach, P. and W. Gray. 2012. United States Landfall Probability Webpage. Assistance From U. 

Shama and L. Harman, GeoGraphics Laboratory, Bridgewater State College. Available online at 

http://www.e-transit.org/hurricane/welcome.html.

Knowlton, A. R. and S. D. Kraus. 2001. Mortality and serious injury of north right whales (Eubalaena 

glacialis) in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Journal of Cetacean Research and

Management. 2: 193-208.

Laney, R.W., J. E. Hightower, B.E. Versak, M. F. Mangold, W.W. Cole, JR., and S. E. Winslow. 2007. 

Distribution, Habitat Use, and Size of the Atlantic Sturgeon Captures during Cooperative Winter

Tagging Cruises, 1988-2006. American Fisheries Society Symposium. 56:167-182.

Lenhardt, M.L. 1994. Seismic and Very Low Frequency Sounds Induced Behaviors in Captive 

Loggerhead Marine Turtles (Caretta caretta). In 1994 Proceedings of the 14

th Annual 

Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, edited by K.A. Bjourndal, A.B. Bolten,

D.A. Johnson, P.J. Eliazar. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351. pp 238-241

Little, H. 1962. Reactions of the honey bee, Apis mellifera L., to artificial sounds and vibrations of 

known frequencies. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 55:82–89.

Liu, J.C., S. Felder, M.L. Tavares, and P.D. Toner. 2011. City of New York Comprehensive Annual 

Financial Report of the Comptroller for the Year Ended June 30, 2011. New York, NY. Available 

online at http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/bureaus/acc/cafr-pdf/ CAFR2011.pdf. Accessed March 

2012.

Long Island-New York City Offshore Wind Project. 2013. Project website at 

http://www.linycoffshorewind.com/Default.html. 

Lovell, J. M., M. M. Findlay, R. M. Moate, J. R. Nedwell, and M. A. Pegg. 2005. The inner ear 

morphology and hearing abilities of the Paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) and the Lake Sturgeon

(Acipenser fulvescens). Comparative Biology and Physiology, Part A. 142: 286-296.

Lukens, R.R and C. Selberg, eds. 2004. Guidelines for Marine Artificial Reef Materials (Second 

Edition). January 2004. Compiled by the Artificial Reef Subcommittees of the Atlantic and Gulf 

States Marine Fisheries Commissions. Available online at http://myfwc.com/media/

131591/ArtificialReefMaterialsGuidelines.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2012. 

McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.N. Jenner, J.D. Penrose, R.I.T. Prince, A.

Adhitya, J. Murdoch, & K. McCabe. 2000. Marine Seismic Surveys – A Study of Environmental 

Implications. APPEA Journal. 40: 692–708.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS (cont’d)

P-8

McGowan, K., and K. Corwin. 2008. The Second Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State. Ithaca, 

New York: Cornell University Press.

McKown, K.A., 2009. Personal communication between Kim McKown (NYSDEC, Bureau of Marine 

Resources) and David Trimm (Ecology and Environment, Inc.), June 29, 2009.

Mecray, E.L., J.M. Reid, M.E. Hastings, and M.R. Buchholtz ten Brink. 2003. Contaminated Sediments 

Database for Long Island Sound and the New York Bight. U.S. Geological Survey Open-file 

Report No. 0.-241. Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-241/. Accessed 

January 2013. 

Mellinger, D. K. 2004. A Comparison of Methods for Detecting Right Whale Calls. Canadian 

Acoustics. 32(2): 55- 65.

Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office. 2013. List of Mercer County, New Jersey police departments. 

Available online at http://www.mercercountyprosecutor.com/police-departments. Accessed June 

2013.

Meyer, T.L., R.A. Cooper, and K.J. Pecci. 1981. The performance and environmental effects of a 

hydraulic clam dredge. Marine Fisheries Review, 43(9):14-22.

Middleton, G.V. and J.B. Southard. 1977. Mechanics of sediment movement. SEPM Short Course No. 3. 

Binghamton, New York.

Misut, P.E. and J. Monti Jr. 1999. Simulation of Ground-Water Flow and Pumpage in Kings and Queens 

Counties, Long Island, New York. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 98-4071. Available online at http://ny.water.usgs.gov/pubs/wri/wri984071/WRIR98-

4071.pdf.

Moore, Jeffrey E., Bryan P. Wallace, Rebecca L. Lewison, Ramunas Zydelis, Tara M. Cox, and Larry B.

Crowder. 2009. A Review of Marine Mammal, Sea Turtle, and Seabird Bycatch in USA Fisheries

and the Role of Policy in Shaping Management. Marine Policy 33 (2009) 435-451.

Morreale, S.T., A.B. Meylan, S.S. Sadove, and E.A. Standora. 1992. Annual Occurrence and Winter 

Mortality of Marine Turtles in New York Waters. Journal of Herpetology. 26(3): 301-308.

Murdy, Edward O., Ray S. Birdsong, and John A. Musick. 1997. Fishes of the Chesapeake Bay. 

Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1997.

Murray, P.M. and H.L. Saffert. 1999. Monitoring cruises at the western Long Island Sound disposal site, 

September 1997 and March 1998. DAMOS Contribution No. 125. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, New England District, Concord, MA, 80 pp.

National Grid. 2010. Renewable Gas – Vision for a Sustainable Gas Network [White paper]. Available 

online at http://www.nationalgridus.com/non_html/NG_renewable_WP.pdf. Accessed February 

29, 2012.

National Grid. 2011. “National Grid Offers New York Customers Rebates for Installing High Efficiency 

Gas Heating Systems” [Press release]. April 14, 2011. Available online at http://www.

nationalgridus.com/niagaramohawk/a3-1_news2.asp?document=5954. Accessed February 29, 

2011. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS (cont’d)

P-9

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Recovery 

Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon 

Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 104 pages.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010. Shortnose 

Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) (fact sheet). Available online at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/shortnosesturgeon.htm.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011a. Marine

Mammal Species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) – List of Marine Mammal Species

Under NMFS Jurisdiction. December 19, 2011. Available online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/

pr/species/esa/mammals.htm Accessed on July 2012.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011b. 

Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). Updated September 22, 2011. Available online at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/loggerhead.htm#documents. Accessed July 2012.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011c. Threats to 

Marine Turtles. Updated August 15, 2011. Available online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/

pr/species/turtles/threats.htm. Accessed July 2012.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011d. Kemp’s

Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). Updated September 22, 2011. Available online at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/kempsridley.htm. Accessed July 2012.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011e. Green 

turtle (Chelonia mydas). Updated August 15, 2011. Available online at

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/green.htm. Accessed July 2012.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011f. Ecology 

of the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf - Bottom Life. Available online at 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/ecology/Benthos/. Accessed September 2013. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012a. Fin 

Whale (Balaenoptera physalus). Available online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/

mammals/cetaceans/finwhale.htm#threats. Accessed December 2012.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012b. North

Atlantic Right Whales (Eubalaena glacialis). Available online at http://www.

nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/rightwhale_northatlantic.htm. Accessed July 2012

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012c. 

Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). Updated June 7, 2012. Available online at

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/leatherback.htm. Accessed July 2012.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012d. Atlantic 

sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Updated May 14, 2012. Available online at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/atlanticsturgeon.htm Accessed July 2012.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS (cont’d)

P-10

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012e. North 

Atlantic Right Whales (Eubalaena glacialis). Office of Protected Resources. April 20, 2012. 

Available online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/rightwhale_

northatlantic.htm. Accessed September 2012.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012f. Annual 

Commercial Landing Statistics. Available online at http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/

commercial/landings/annual_landings.html. Accessed August 30, 2012.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2013. 

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Available online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/

species/mammals/cetaceans/humpbackwhale.htm. Accessed March 2013.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. n.d.[a]. Protected

Resources Glossary. Available online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/glossary.htm#d. 

Accessed October 2012.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. n.d.[b]. Atlantic

Sturgeon New York Bight Distinct Population Segment: Endangered. Available online at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/atlanticsturgeon_nybright_dps.pdf. Accessed July

2012.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional 

office. 2010. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation, Biological Opinion. July 22, 

2010. Wallops Island Shoreline Restoration and Infrastructure Protection Program 

(F/NER/2010/00534). Available online at http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code250/docs/

SRIPP_Final_PEIS_Appendix_E.pdf Accessed July 2012.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast 

Regional Office. 2013a. Summary of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Designation. Available 

online at http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/STATES4/conn_li_ny/40307350.html. Accessed 

January 2013.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast 

Regional Office. 2013b. Summary of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and General Habitat 

Parameters for Federally Managed Species. Available online at 

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/efhtables.pdf. Accessed January 2013.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast 

Regional Office. 2006. Essential Fish Habitat, Appendix B. Available online at 

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/pdfs/efhdocs/HMS_FMP_AppendixB_Part1.pdf. Accessed 

January 2013.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center. 2012. North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Survey and Sighting Advisory

System: 1/1/2007 – 8/24/2012. Available online at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/psb/surveys/ 

Accessed August 24, 2012.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS (cont’d)

P-11

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region. 

2012. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation, Biological Opinion. Tappan Zee Bridge

Pile Installation Demonstration Project. June 22, 2012. (F/NER/2-12/01752). Available online 

at http://www.nero.noaa.gov/prot_res/section7/FHWA/TZ%20PIDP%20Opinion%20March%

207%202012.pdf. Accessed July 2012.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region. 

2013. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion, Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Continued Operation of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating 

Station, Units 2 and 3. Available online at http://www.nero.noaa.gov0

/protected/section7/bo/actbiops/nrc_indian_point_2_and_3.pdf. Accessed June 2013.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, Office of Climate, Water 

and Weather Services. 2012. Weather Fatalities, 30-year average (1980-2009). Available online 

at http://www.weather.gov/om/hazstats.html. Accessed January 2013.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Southeast Fisheries Science Center. 2012. Sea

Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN). Updated March 2012. Available online at 

http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/species/turtles/strandings.htm. Accessed July 2012.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1988. An analysis and evaluation of ichthyoplankton 

survey data from the Northeast Continental Shelf Ecosystem. NOAA Tech. Memorandum 

NMFS-F/NEC-57, August 1988.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2009. Automated Wreck and Obstruction 

Information System (AWOIS). Available online at http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/

hsd/awois.html. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010. Landings by Distance from U.S. Shores, 

2010, State of New York. National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics and Economics 

Division. Available online at http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/

ds_8850_bystate.html. Accessed February 2012.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011. Recreational Fisheries Statistics Queries. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. Available online at http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/

st1/recreational/queries/index.html. Accessed February 2012.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2012. NOAA Tides and Currents Website. 

Available online at http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/tides09/tab2ec2a.html. Last updated 

November 3, 2008. Accessed March 20, 2012.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. 2013. NOAA Online Weather Data. Available online at

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=ctp. Accessed June 2013.

National Park Service. 1979. General Management Plan. Gateway National Recreation Area – New 

York/New Jersey. Available online at http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/

gate/gmp79.pdf. Accessed July 2012.

National Park Service. 2009. Gateway National Recreation Area. General Management 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Newsletter – Summer 2009. Staten Island, New York.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS (cont’d)

P-12

National Park Service. 2012. Detailed History of Floyd Bennett Field. Available online at 

http://www.nps.gov/gate/historyculture/fbf.htm. Updated May 12, 2012. Accessed May 18, 

2012.

National Park Service. 2013. Gateway National Recreation Area. Draft General Management 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. Available online at http://www.nps.gov/gate/

parkmgmt/planning.htm. Accessed August 2013.

National Weather Service. 2012. National Hurricane Center, Tropical Cyclone Climatology. Available 

online at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/.

Natural Resources Conservation Service and National Park Service. 2001. Soil Survey of Gateway 

National Recreation Area, New York and New Jersey. Developed in partnership with the Cornell 

University Agricultural Experiment Station and New York City Soil and Water Conservation 

District.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1993. Soil Survey Manual. USDA Agricultural Handbook 18. 

U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2003. Soil Survey of York County, Pennsylvania. Available 

online at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Manuscripts/PA133/0/PA_York.pdf. 

Navarron, Mireya. 2012. “City Is Looking at Sewage Treatment as a Source of Energy.” New York 

Times. February 8, 2011. Available online at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/

science/09sewage.html?_r=1. Accessed February 29, 2012. 

New Jersey Energy Master Plan. 2008. New Jersey Energy Master Plan. October 2008. Available 

online at http://www.state.nj.us/emp/docs/pdf/081022_emp.pdf.

New York City Department of Buildings. 1988. Technical Policy and Procedure No. 10/88: Procedures 

for the Avoidance of Damage to Historic Structures. Available online at 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/pdf/tppn1088.pdf. Accessed March 2013.

New York City Department of City Planning. 2002. The New Waterfront Revitalization Program. 

September 2002. New York City, NY. Available online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/

html/wrp/wrp.shtml. Accessed on August 10, 2012 

New York City Department of City Planning. 2011. 2010 Demographic Tables, Table PL-P1 CD: Total 

Population New York City Community Districts 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010. Updated 

July 2011. Available online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/census/̴

census2010/t_pl_p1_cd.pdf. Accessed July 2012.

New York City Department of City Planning. 2012b. Queens Community District 14, Community 

Profile. New York, NY. Available online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/

neigh_info/qn14_info.shtml. Accessed July 2012. 

New York City Department of City Planning. 2012c. Brooklyn Community District 18, District Profile. 

New York, NY. Available online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/neigh_info/

bk18_info.shtml. Accessed July 2012. 

New York City Department of Education. 2011. School Based Expenditure Reports, School Year 2009-

2010. New York, NY. Available online at https://www.nycenet.edu/offices/d_chanc_oper/budget/

exp01/y2009_2010/guide.asp. Accessed July 2012.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS (cont’d)

P-13

New York City Department of Environmental Protection. 2010. 2010 New York Harbor Water Quality 

Report. Available online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/hwqs2010.pdf.

New York City Department of Environmental Protection. 2011a. New York City 2011 Drinking Water 

Supply and Quality Report. Available online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/

html/drinking_water/wsstate.shtml. 

New York City Department of Environmental Protection. 2011b. Groundwater Supply System for 2011. 

Available online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/drinking_water/groundwater.shtml. 

New York City Department of Environmental Protection. No date. New York City’s Wastewater 

Treatment System, Cleaning the Water We Use, Protecting the Environment We Live In. 

Available online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/wwsystem.pdf. Accessed January 2012.

New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYCDPR). 2009. Fresh Kills Park Final Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I. March 13, 2009. Available online at 

http://www.nycgovparks.org/park-features/freshkills-park/public-review. Accessed February 29, 

2012.

New York City. 2011. PlaNYC Update April 2011. 202 pages. Available online at 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/theplan/the-plan.shtml. Accessed on January 10, 

2012.

New York City. 2012. Assessment of New York City Natural Gas Market Fundamentals and Life Cycle 

Fuel Emissions. Available online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2012/icf_natural_gas_

study.pdf.

New York Independent System Operator. 2011a. Power Trends 2011. Available online at 

http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/newsroom/power_trends/Power_Trends_2011_Presentatio

n.pdf.

New York Independent System Operator. 2011b. 2011. Load and Capacity Data “Gold Book.” 

Available online at http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/newsroom/planning_reports

/2011_GoldBook_Public_Final.pdf.

New York Natural Heritage Program. 2013a. Schweinitz's Flatsedge (Cyperus schweinitzii). Available 

online at http://www.acris.nynhp.org/guide.php?id=9550&part=2. Accessed February 2013.

New York Natural Heritage Program. 2013b. Red Pigweed (Chenopodium rubrum). Available online at 

http://acris.nynhp.org/guide.php?id=8935. Accessed February 2013.

New York Natural Heritage Program. 2013c. Red-banded Hairstreak. Available online at 

http://www.acris.nynhp.org/report.php?id=7855. Accessed February 2013.

New York Power Authority. 2013. Statement by Long Island-New York City offshore wind collaborative 

on federal request for public input on lease application off the coast of Rockaways. January 4, 

2013. Available online at http://www.nypa.gov/Press/2013/JointPDFs/LINYC%20Offshore%20Wind%20BOEM%20RFI_%201_4_13.pdf

New York State Climate Action Council. 2010. Interim Report 11-9-10. Available online at 

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/irchap3.pdf. Accessed January 2013.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS (cont’d)

P-14

New York State Climate Office. 2013. The Climate of New York. Available online at 

http://nysc.eas.cornell.edu/climate_of_ny.html. Accessed January 2013.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2007. 2006 Atlantic Ocean Surfclam 

Population Assessment. Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2009. New York’s 2008 Report to the 

Atlantic States Fisheries Commission on the Interstate Horseshoe Crab Fishery Management 

Plan. Division of Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources, Bureau of Marine Resources. February 6, 

2009.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2010. Environmental Navigator, Mineral 

Resources. Available online at http://www.dec.ny.gov/imsmaps/minerals/viewer.htm.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2012a. DEC Environmental Justice Policy 

CP-29. Available online at http://www.dec.ny.gov/public/36929.html. Accessed August 2012. 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2012b. Potential Environmental Justice 

Areas in Eastern and Central Queens County, New York. Available online at 

http://www.dec.ny.gov/public/899.html. Accessed December 2012. 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2012c. Potential Environmental Justice 

Areas in Kings County, New York. Available online at http://www.dec.ny.gov/public/899.html. 

Accessed December 2012. 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2012d. Long Island Aquifers. Available 

online at www.dec.ny.gov/lands/36183.html.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2013a. Piping Plover Fact Sheet. 

Available online at http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7086.html. Accessed February 2013.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2013b. Shortnose Sturgeon Fact Sheet. 

Available online at http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/26012.html. Accessed February 2013.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2013c. Finback Whale Fact Sheet. 

Available online at http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/9366.html. Accessed March 2013.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2013d. Humpback Whale Fact Sheet. 

Available online at http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/9365.html. Accessed March 2013.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. August 2011. Atlantic Ocean/Long Island 

Sound Basin Waterbody Inventory/Priority Waterbodies List Report. Volume 1: New York City 

Metropolitan Area Waters. Available online at http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/36748.html. 

Accessed September 1, 2012.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. n.d. Sea Turtles of NewYork. Available 

online at http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/seaturtles1.pdf and http://www.dec.ny.

gov/docs/administration_pdf/seaturtles2.pdf. Accessed July 2012.

New York State Department of State. 1992a. Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Rating Form – Jamaica 

Bay. Available online at http://www.dos.ny.gov/communitieswaterfronts/consistency/

Habitats/nyc/Jamaica_Bay.pdf. Accessed in August 2012.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS (cont’d)

P-15

New York State Department of State. 1992b. Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Rating Form – Breezy 

Point. Available online at http://www.dos.ny.gov/communitieswaterfronts/consistency/

Habitats/nyc/Breezy_Point.pdf. Accessed August 30, 2012.

New York State Emergency Management Office. 2005. New York State Coastal Counties Hurricane 

Storm Surge Zones. Available online at http://www.dhses.ny.gov/oem/safety-info/publicsafety/

documents/nys-hurricane-storm-surge-zones.pdf.

New York State Energy Planning Board. 2009. 2009 State Energy Plan. Volume I (Plans and 

Objectives) and Volume II (Assessments). December, 2009. Available online at 

http://www.nysenergyplan.com/2009stateenergyplan.html. Accessed August 19, 2011. 

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. 2003. Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy Resource Development Potential in New York State. Volume 3 – Energy Efficiency 

Technical Report. August 2003. Available online at

http://www.dps.ny.gov/rps/Volume_3_Final_082803.pdf. Accessed March 8, 2012. 

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. 2006. Natural Gas Energy Efficiency 

Resource Development Potential in New York. Final Report. October 31, 2006. Available online 

at http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Page-Sections/Energy-Prices-Supplies-and-Weather-Data/CurrentOutlook-Summary/Presentations-and-Reports.aspx#nat_gas_energy_efficiency. Accessed July 9, 

2012. 

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. 2010. Patterns and Trends: New York 

State Energy Profiles: 1994-2008. Available online at http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/en/About/

Newsroom/2010-Announcements/2010-04-06-Study-on-Energy-Use-Indicates-Progress-andChallenges.aspx. Accessed March 8, 2012.

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. 2011. New York State Renewable 

Portfolio Standard Performance Report, Program period December 31, 2010. Available online at 

http://www.nyserda.org/en/Publications/~/media/Files/Publications/NYSERDA/2011-rps-annualreport.ashx.

New York State Seagrass Task Force. 2009. Final Report of the New York State Seagrass Task Force:

Recommendations to the New York State Governor and Legislature. December 2009. 

Available online at http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/finalseagrassreport.pdf. 

Accessed August 13, 2012. 

New York Times. 2012. Grim Prognosis for a 60-Ton Whale Stranded on a Beach in Queens. Available 

online at http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/beached-whale-at-breezy-point/. 

Accessed December 2012.

Newell, R.C., L.J. Seiderer, D.R. Hitchcock. 1998. The impact of dredging works in coastal waters: A 

review of sensitivity to disturbance and subsequent recovery on the sea bed. Oceanography and 

Marine Biology: an Annual Review. 36:127-178.

Northeast Gas Association. 2011. “Proposed LNG Import Terminal Projects, Northeast U.S. & Eastern 

Canada (as of 2-9-11).” February 2011. Available online at http://northeastgas.org/

pdf/lng_table0211.pdf. Accessed March 2, 2012.

Nowacek, D.O., L.H. Thorne, D.W. Johnston, and P.L. Tyack. 2007. Responses of cetaceans to 

anthropogenic noise. Mammal Review. 37(2): 81-115.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS (cont’d)

P-16

Nowacek, S.M., R.S. Wells, A.R. Solow. 2001. Short-term effect of boat traffic on bottlenose 

dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Marine Mammal Science. 17(4): 673-

688.

O’Rourke, T.D. and M.C. Palmer. 1996. Earthquake Performance of Gas Transmission Pipelines. 

Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 493 – 527.

OSPAR Commission. 2009. Overview of the impacts of anthropogenic underwater sound in the marine

environment. OSPAR Commission-Biodiversity Series. 134 p.

Pachauri, R.K. and A. Reisinger (eds.). 2007. Climate Change 2007- A Synthesis Report. A report to 

the Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland. Available online at

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf. Accessed June 2013.

Palermo, Michael R., Paul R. Schroeder, Trudy J. Estes, and Norman R. Francingues. 2008. Technical 

Guidelines for Environmental Dredging of Contaminated Sediment (ERDC/EL TR-08-29). 

September 2008. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Engineer Research and Development Center 

(ERDC). Available online at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trel08-29.pdf. Accessed 

July 10, 2012.

Palmer, D. 2012. E-mail communication on July 10 from D. Palmer (National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Protected Resources Division) to Roberta Zwier (Williams Transcontinental Gas Pipeline 

Company, LLC) and Mike Donnelly and Jaime Budzynkiewicz (Ecology and Environment, Inc.). 

PAN Pesticides Database. 2012a. Ecotoxicity for sodium bisulfite. Available online at 

http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC34354#Water. Accessed January 

2013.

PAN Pesticides Database. 2012b. Ecotoxicity for X-CITE 750 (THPS). Available online at 

http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC35814#Ecotoxicity. Accessed 

February 2013.

PAN Pesticides Database. 2012c. Ecotoxicity for fluorescein disodium. Available online at 

http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC37479#Ecotoxicity. Accessed 

February 2013.

Parks, S. E., C. W. Clark, and P.L. Tyack. 2007. Short- and long-term changes in right whale calling

behavior: The potential effects of noise on acoustic communication. Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America. 122(6): 3725-3731.

Parks, S.E. and P.L. Tyack. 2005. Sound production by North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena 

glacialis) in surface active groups. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 117(5): 

3297-3306.

Parks, S.E., P.K. Hamilton, S.D. Kraus, and P.L. Tyack. 2005. The Gunshot sound produced by Make

North Atlantic Right Whales (Eubalaena glacialis) and its Potential Function in Reproductive

Advertisement. Marine Mammal Science. 21(3): 458-475.

PBS&J. 2009a. Marine Archaeological Assessment for the Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project, Queens 

County, New York, August 2009.

PBS&J. 2009b. The Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project Marine Biology Report, Queens County, New 

York, September 2009.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS (cont’d)

P-17

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2003. Eathquake Hazard in 

Pennsylvania. Available online at http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cs/groups/public/

documents/document/dcnr_014601.pdf. Accessed May 2013. 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2013. Interactive map available 

online at http://www.gis.dcnr.state.pa.us/maps/index.html. Accessed May 2013. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2009. Pennsylvania Final Climate Change 

Action Plan. Available online at http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document77736/ALL%20OF%20VOLUME%201%20AND%202.pdf. Accessed June 2013. 

Pennsylvania Geological Survey. 2000. Physiographic Provinces of Pennsylvania. Map 13. Available 

online at http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo.

Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access. 2013. Flood hazard zone lines – Tork County. Available online at 

http://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/MapService.aspx?Dataset=2322. Accessed May 2013.

Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences. 2007. A Quick Guide to Groundwater 

in Pennsylvania. Available online at http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/freepubs/pdfs/uh183.pdf. Accessed 

May 2013. 

Peters, E.C., and M.E.Q. Pilson. 1985. A comparative study of the effects of sedimentation on symbiotic 

and asymbiotic colonies of the coral Astrangia danae Milne Edwards and Hime 1845. Journal 

of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 92:215-230.

Popper, A.N. and M. C. Hastings. 2009. The effects of human-generated sound on fish. Integrative

Zoology. 4: 43-52.

Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc. 2009. Marine Archeological Assessment for the Rockaway 

Delivery Point [Lateral] Project, Queens County, New York. Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, 

Inc., Austin, Texas.

Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc. 2011. Marine Archaeological Assessment for Potential Lay 

Barge Anchorage Areas, Rockaway Delivery Point Project, Queens County, New York. Post, 

Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc., Austin, Texas.

PublicSchoolReview.com. 2013. Lists of public schools available online at http://www.publicschoolr

eview.com/. Accessed June 2013. 

Purser, J., Radford, A.N. 2011. Acoustic noise induces attention shifts and reduces foraging 

performance in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). PlosOne 6 (2), e17478.

RadioReference.com. 2013. List of Mercer County, New Jersey fire stations and EMS service available 

online at http://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Mercer_County_(NJ). Accessed June 2013.

Redfield, A.C. 1972. Ecology of salt marshes and sand dunes. London: Chapman and Hall.

Rhoads D.C., P.L. McCall, J.Y. Yingst. 1978. Disturbance and production on the estuarine seafloor. 

Am Sci 66:577 - 586.

Rhoads, C.D., and J.D. Germano. 1982. Characterization of Organism-Sediment Relations Using

Sediment Profile Imaging: An efficient Method of Remote Ecological Monitoring of the Seafloor 

(RemoteTM System). Marine Ecology Progress Series. 8: 115 – 128.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS (cont’d)

P-18

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. 

Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Riegl, B. 1995. Effects of sand deposition on scleractinian and alcyonacean corals. Marine Biology. 

121: 517 – 526.

Riverhead Foundation for Marine Research and Preservation. 2010. Summary of marine mammal and 

sea turtle strandings for June 2009 through May 2010. Available online at 

http://66.11.128.41/Report2010.pdf/. Accessed December 19, 2012.

Ross, D. 1987. Mechanics of Underwater Noise. Peninsula Publishing, Los Altos, California.

S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd (S.L. Ross). 2009. Assessing Risk and Modeling a Sudden Gas 

Release Due to Gas Pipeline Ruptures. Report to: U.S. Department of the Interior Minerals 

Management Service. July 2009. Ottawa, Canada. Available online at

http://www.bsee.gov/Research-and-Training/Technology-Assessment-and-Research/Project607.aspx. Accessed January 2013.

Sallenger, A.H. Jr., D.S. Doran, and P.A. Howd. 2012. Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the 

Atlantic Coast of North America. Nature Climate Change DOI:10.1038.

Schwab, W.C., J.F. Denny, D.S. Foster, L.L. Lotto, M.A. Allison, E. Uchupi, B.A. Swift, W.W. Danforth, 

E.R. Thieler, and B. Butman. 2002. High Resolution Quaternary Seismic Stratigraphy of the 

New York Bight Continental Shelf. U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 02-152. 

Shoop, C.R., and R.D. Kenney. 1992. Seasonal Distributions and Abundances of Loggerhead Sea

turtles in Waters of the Northwestern United States. Herpetological Monographs. 6:43-67.

Smith, C. 2009. Verified Petition Regarding Ratemaking Treatment for Solar Energy Pilot Program. 

Letter to State of New York Public Service Commission from Consolidated Energy Law 

Department. Available online at http://www.coned.com/newsroom/news/pr20090305.asp. 

Accessed April 7, 2009.

Smith, W.G., A. Wells, D.G. McMillan. 1979. The distribution and abundance of ichthyoplankton in the 

Middle Atlantic Bight as determined from coastal surveys and site- specific studies, 1965-1976. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, Report No. SHL 79-02 (January 1979). 

Summers, W.C. 1983. Loligo pealei. In: Boyle, P.R., editor. Cephalopod life cycles, Vol. I: 

Species accounts. London, England: Academic press. p.115 – 142.

Sonde Resources. 2011. Revised Terms And The Closing Of The Sale Of Liberty Natural Gas LLC [Press 

release]. February 24, 2011. Available online at http://www.sonderesources.com/

2011/02/revised-terms-and-the-closing-of-the-sale-of-liberty-natural-gas-llc/. Accessed March 2, 

2012. 

Southall, B., A. Bowles, W. Ellison, J. Finnerman, R. Gentry, C. Greene Jr., D. Katsak, D. Ketten, J. 

Miller, P. Nachtigall, W. Richardson, J. Thomas, P. Tyack. 2007. Marine Mammal Noise

Exposure Criteria: Initial Scientific Recommendations. Aquatic Mammals. 33(4): 411-509.

Stadler, J. H., and D. P. Woodbury. 2009. Assessing the Effects to Fishes from Pile Driving: Application 

of New Hydroacoustic Criteria. Inter-Noise 2009, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS (cont’d)

P-19

State Energy Planning Board, Governor David A. Paterson, State of New York. 2009 State Energy Plan, 

Volume 1. Available online at http://www.nysenergyplan.com/final/New_York_State_Energy_

Plan_VolumeI.pdf.

Summers, W.C. 1983. Loligo pealei. In: Boyle, P.R., editor. Cephalopod life cycles. Vol. 1: Species 

accounts. London England: Academic press. Pp. 115 – 142.

Surf-forecast.com. 2013. Website for surfing forecasts. Available online at www.surfforecast.com/breaks/Jones-Beach-State-Park/seatemp. Accessed September 2013.

SVT Engineering Consultants. 2010. Under Water Environmental Noise Assessment: Wheatstone Piling. 

SVT Document No: 1052817-Rev3-26 October 2010.

Sykes L. R., Armbruster J.G, Kim W. and Seeber L. 2008. Observations and Tectonic Setting of Historic 

and Instrumentally Located Earthquakes in the Greater New York – Philadelphia Area. Bulletin 

of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 98, No. 4, pp. 1696 – 1719, August 2008.

Tanski, J. 2007. Long Island’s Dynamic South Shore - A Primer on the Forces and Trends Shaping Our 

Coast. New York Sea Grant. Available online at http://www.seagrant.sunysb.edu/cprocesses/

pdfs/LIDynamicSouthShore.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2012

The Chesapeake Group, Inc. 2012. Economic Benefits Analysis, Williams Pipeline Company Rockaway 

Lateral. July 2012. Prepared by the Chesapeake Group, Inc., Prepared for the Williams Pipeline 

Company. Baltimore, MD.

The New York Times. 2012. Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant (NY). Available online at 

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/indian_point_nuclear_power_plant

_ny/index.html.

ThirdAge.com. Lists of hospitals available online at http://www.thirdage.com/. Accessed June 2013.

Thompson, D., and T. Härkönen. 2008. Phoca vitulina. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened 

Species. Version 2011.2. Accessed January 5, 2012. Available online at http://

www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/17013/0.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2000. Assessment of Potential Impacts of Dredging Operations Due to 

Sediment Resuspension. ERDC TN-DOER-E9. May 2000.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2009. A Biological Assessment for Potential Impacts to Federally 

Listed Threatened and Endangered Species of Sea Turtles, Whales and the Shortnose Sturgeon

Resulting from the Delaware River Main Stem and Channel Deepening Project. Philadelphia

District. January 2009. 80pp.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012a. Army Corps awards $3.9 million contract for maintenance 

dredging of Jamaica Bay Federal Navigation Channel at Rockaway Inlet. Press Release No. 12-

016. Posted September 24, 2012. Available online at http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/

Media/NewsReleases/tabid/3948/Article/4391/army-corps-awards-39-million-contract-formaintenance-dredging-of-jamaica-bay-f.aspx. Accessed December 3, 2012.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS (cont’d)

P-20

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012b. Army Corps awards $4.6 million contract for the maintenance 

dredging of East Rockaway Inlet, New York federal navigation channel. Press Release No. 12-

017. Posted September 28, 2012. Available online at http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/

Media/NewsReleases/tabid/3948/Article/4542/army-corps-awards-46-million-contract-for-themaintenance-dredging-of-east-rock.aspx. Accessed December 3, 2012. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012c. News release for Maintenance Dredging of Jamaica Bay 

Federal navigation Channel at Rockaway Inlet. Available online at 

http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Media/NewsReleases/tabid/3948/Article/4391/army-corpsawards-39-million-contract-for-maintenance-dredging-of-jamaica-bay-f.aspx.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2013a. Army Corps begins Post-Sandy Restoration Work on Rockaway 

Beach. News release available online at http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Media/NewsStories/

StoryArticleView/tabid/5250/Article/17484/army-corps-begins-post-sandy-restoration-work-onrockaway-beach.aspx.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2013b. Recovery Field Office Completes Mammoth New York Debris 

Removal Mission. News release available online at http://www.nad.usace.army.mil/Media/

NewsStories/tabid/4869/Article/16123/recovery-field-office-completes-mammoth-new-yorkdebris-removal-mission.aspx. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. Local Area Unemployment Statistics Information and Analysis. 

Available online at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?la. Accessed July 2013.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Statistical Abstract of the United States: (129th Edition) Washington, DC, 

2009. Available online at http://www.census.gov/statab. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. American Fact Finder Census Data. Available online at 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed January 2012. 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 2010a. “Atlantic Sea Island Group’s Safe Harbor Energy Project in Long 

Island, NY.” Updated November 15, 2010. Available online at http://www.projectnoproject.com/

2010/12/atlantic-sea-island-group%E2%80%99s-safe-harbor-energy-project-in-long-island-ny/. 

Accessed March 2, 2012. 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 2010b. “BlueOcean Energy LNG, Asbury Park, New Jersey.” Updated 

November 24, 2010. Available online at http://www.projectnoproject.com/2010/12/

blueocean-energy-lng-asbury-park-new-jersey/. Accessed March 2, 2012.

U.S. Congress. 2005. Energy Policy Act of 2005. Online at http://www.doi.gov/pam/

EnergyPolicyAct2005.pdf. Accessed on January 8, 2010.

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. 2011. 

Distribution, Transmission, and Liquid Accident and Incident Data. Available online at 

http://phmsa.dot.gov/portal/site/PHMSA/menuitem.ebdc7a8a7e39f2e55cf2031050248a0c/

?vgnextoid=fdd2dfa122a1d110VgnVCM1000009ed07898RCRD&vgnextchannel=3430fb649a2d

c110VgnVCM1000009ed07898RCRD&vgnextfmt=print. Accessed January 2013.

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. 2012. 

Significant Incident Files. Available online at http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety. 

Accessed January 2013.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS (cont’d)

P-21

U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Policy and Plans. 2010. 

Vessel Call Snapshot. Available online at http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/

Vessel_Calls_at_US_Ports_Snapshot.pdf. Accessed July 2012.

U.S. Department of Transportations, Research and Innovative Technology Administration. 2010. 

Atlantic Coast U.S. Seaports. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Available online at 

http://www.bts.gov/publications/bts_fact_sheets/2010_002/pdf/entire.pdf Accessed July 2012.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2009. State to State Natural Gas Capacities and Flows 

[Spreadsheet] – Northeast Region. March 1, 2009.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2012a. Annual Energy Outlook 2012 Early Release Overview, 

January 2012. Available online at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2012b. U.S. State-to-State Capacity [Spreadsheet]. May 10, 

2012. Available online at http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/data.cfm. Accessed July 12, 2012. 

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2013a. Energy Consumption by Sector and Source, Middle 

Atlantic Region. Available online at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/tables_ref.cfm.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2013b. Energy Consumption by Sector and Source, United 

States. Available online at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/index.cfm.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite 

to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Available online at

http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels74/levels74.htm. Accessed March 2013.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Brooklyn-Queens Aquifer System, Support Document. 

Available online at http://www.epa.gov/region2/water/aquifer/brooklyn/brooklyn.htm.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), 

5

th Edition, Volume I, Chapter I: External Combustion Sources (Supplement D, 1998 and 

Supplement E, 1999 with 2010 correction). Available online at

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/. Accessed February 29, 2012. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Consideration of Cumulative Impacts on EPA Review of 

Federal Activities (2252A). EPA 315-R-99-002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. LMOP Landfill Database. Land Method Outreach 

Program (LMOP) Energy Projects and Candidate Landfills. Available online at

http://www.epa.gov/lmop/proj/index.htm. Accessed April 2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Sole Source Aquifers. Available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/region02/water/aquifer/.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available 

online at http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. Accessed January 2013.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012b. Region 2 Ocean Dumping Sites for Dredged Material. 

Available online at http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/oceandumping/dredgedmaterial/regiontwo

.cfm. Updated March 8, 2012. Accessed March 20, 2012.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS (cont’d)

P-22

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013a. Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. Available online at

http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/. Accessed March 2013.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013b. Envirofacts Data Warehouse. Available online at

http://www.epa.gov/enviro/index.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Significant Habitats and Habitat Complexes of The New York 

Bight Watershed. New York Bight Coastal Ecosystems Program. Available online at

http://library.fws.gov/pubs5/web_link/text/jb_form.htm. Accessed January 18, 2012. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern. Available online at 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/BCC2008/BCC2008.

pdf. Accessed June 2013.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012a. Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). Updated March 23, 

2012. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/ Turtle%20Factsheets/

loggerhead-sea-turtle.htm. Accessed July 2012.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012b. Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). Updated

February 2012. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/

Turtle%20Factsheets/kemps-ridley-sea-turtle.htm. Accessed July 2012.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012c. Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas). Updated February 2012. 

Available online at http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/ Turtle%20Factsheets/green-seaturtle.htm. Accessed July 2012.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012d. Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). Updated

March 7, 2012. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/

Turtle%20Factsheets/leatherback-sea-turtle.htm. Accessed July 2012.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013a. Endangered Species Facts: Piping Plover. Available online at 

http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/pdfs/20080000_PIPLCH_FactSheet.pdf. Accessed February 2013.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013b. Endangered Species Facts: Roseate Tern. Available online at 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pdf/Roseatetern0511.pdf. Accessed February 2013.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013c. Endangered Species Facts: Seabeach Amaranth. Available 

online at http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/pdf/sbanjfact.pdf. Accessed February 2013.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013d. Endangered Species Fact Sheet: Indiana Bat. Available online at

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/inba/inbafctsht.html. Accessed June 2013.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013e. Pamphlet: Bog Turtle. Available online at 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pdf/bogturtle.pdf. Accessed June 2013.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013f. Species Profile: Bog Turtle. Available online at 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C048#lifeHistory. 

Accessed June 2013.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013g. Bog Turtle Recovery Plan. Available online at

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/010515.pdf. Accessed June 2013.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS (cont’d)

P-23

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013h. Swmp pink website.. Available online at

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/endangered/swamppink.html. Accessed June 2013.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No date. Significant Habitats and Habitat complexes of the New York 

Bight Watershed – Jamaica Bay and Breezy Point Complex #16. Available online at 

http://library.fws.gov/pubs5/web_link/text/jb_form.htm. Accessed on August 15, 2012.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2005a. Active Mines and Mineral Processing Plants in the United States in 

2003. Available online at http://mrdata.usgs.gov/mineral-resources/active-mines.html.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2005b. Mineral Resource Data System. Available online at 

http://mrdata.usgs.gov/mineral-resources/mrds-us.html.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2005c. USGS East-Coast Sediment Analysis: Procedures, Database, and GIS 

Data. Open-File Report 2005-1001. Available online at http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/

openfile/of2005-1001/htmldocs/datacatalog.htm. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2006a. ShakeMap Manual: Technical Manual, Users Guide, and Software 

Guide. Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/2005/12A01/.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2006b. Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States. Available 

online at http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults/.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2008. National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project, National Seismic Hazard 

Maps. Available online at http://geohazards.usgs.gov/hazards/apps/cmaps/.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2010. Significant United States Earthquakes, 1568-2009. Available online at 

http://nationalatlas.gov/mld/quksigx.html.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2013a. 2009 Significant Earthquake and News Headlines Archive. Available 

online at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2009/.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2013b. St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center, Coastal Change 

Hazards: Hurricanes and Extreme Storms. Available online at http://coastal.

er.usgs.gov/hurricanes/.

U.S. Marine Corps, Forces Reserve. 2013. Draft Tiered Environmental Assessment - United States 

Marine Corps Forces Reserve Wind Energy Program Site: Marine Forces Reserve Center, 

Brooklyn, New York. Available online at http://www.marforres.marines.mil/

Portals/116/Docs/FACILITIES/Brooklyn_Wind_Energy_Draft_TEA_(Feb_2013).pdf. 

URS Corporation. 2012. Floyd Bennett Field, Hangars 1 and 2, Historic Structure Report, Kings 

County, New York. URS Corporation, Burlington, New Jersey.

Waring, G. T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, P.E. Rosel (editors). 2011. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of

Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments -- 2010. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS NE 

219. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, 

Massachusetts. Available online at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm219/. Accessed 

February 2013.

Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, P.E. Rosel, editors. 2012. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments–2011. NOAA Tech memo NMFS NE 221. 319 p. 

Available online at http://nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm221/. Accessed December 19, 2012.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX P

REFERENCES AND CONTACTS (cont’d)

P-24

Wartzok, D., A.N. Popper, J. Gordon, J. Merrill. 2004. Factors affecting the responses of marine 

mammals to acoustic disturbance. Marine Technology Society Journal. 37 (4): 6-15.

Watkins, W.A., and Schevill. 1972. Sound source location with a three dimensional hydrophone array.

Deep-Sea Research 19: 69 l-706.

Weather.com. 2013a. Monthly temperature and precipitation averages for New York City available 

online at http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USNY0996. Accessed 

June 2013.

Weather.com. 2013b. Monthly temperature and preciptation averages for Delta, Pennsylvania available 

online at http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/17314. Accessed June 

2013.

West Point Transmission. 2012. Response to Request for Information, New York Energy Highway. 

Available online at http://www.nyenergyhighway.com/Content/documents/9.pdf.

Wigley, R.L. and R.B. Theroux. 1981. Atlantic Continental Shelf and Slope of Faunal composition and 

Quantitative Distribution. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 529-N, pp. 1 – 198.

Williams, S.J. 1981. Sand Resources and Geological Character of Long Island Sound, U.S. Geological 

Survey Technical Paper No. 81-3.

Wuebber, I., A. DiLucia, Z. Wolf, and G. Ziesling. 2013. Historic Context and Significance Evaluation 

of Two Abandoned Communication Cables, Rockaway Delivery Lateral Project. URS 

Corporation, Burlington, New Jersey.

Wysocki, L.E., S. Amoser, and F. Ladich. 2007. Diversity in ambient noise in European freshwater 

habitats: Noise levels, spectral profiles, and impact on fishes. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 121(5): 2559–

2566.

York County Planning Commission. 2004. York County Environmental Resources Inventory. Available 

online at http://www.ycpc.org/Long_Range_Docs/Comp_Plan/Environmental_Inventory.pdf. 

Accessed May 2013.

York County, Pennsylvania. 2013. County government website at http://yorkcountypa.gov/parksrecreation/education.html. Accessed June 2013.

Young, G.A. 1991. Concise methods for predicting the effects of underwater explosions on marine life. 

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Silver Springs, Maryland 20903. NAVSWC MP 91-220, July 1, 

1991.

Ziesing, Grace H., and Matthew D. Harris. 2012. Phase IA Archaeological Assessment Rockaway 

Peninsula Portion of the Rockaway Delivery Lateral, Queens County, New York. URS 

Corporation, Burlington, New Jersey.

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX Q

LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX Q

LIST OF PREPARERS

Q-1

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Kara Harris – Project Manager, Executive Summary, Introduction, Proposed Action, Alternatives, 

Cumulative Impacts, Conclusions and Recommendations

M.P.A., Environmental Science and Policy, 2006, Columbia University

B.S., Environmental Science, 2003, Alabama A&M University

Ellen Armbruster – Deputy Project Manager, Cultural Resources

M.A., Anthropology, 1986, University of Pennsylvania

B.A., Anthropology, 1979, Bryn Mawr College

Shannon Jones – Deputy Project Manager

B.S., Natural Resources Management, 1998, University of Maryland

Anthony Rana – Geology, Soils

B.S., Geology, 1984, New Jersey City University

Graduate Studies, International Development, 2009–present, Tulane University Payton Center for 

International Development

Graduate Studies, Hydrogeology and Geochemistry, 1985–1988, Oklahoma State University

Christine Allen – Groundwater Resources, Surface Water Resources, Vegetation, Wildlife and 

Aquatic Resources, Marine Mammals, Fisheries, Essential Fish Habitat, Special Status 

Species

B.S., Marine Biology, 2005, University of North Carolina at Wilmington

Elaine Baum – Land Use, Socioeconomics

M.P.A., 2006, Florida State University

B.S., Environmental Policy and Planning, 2004, Virginia Tech

Kenneth Warn – Air Quality and Noise, Reliability and Safety

M.P.P., Environmental Policy, 2005, George Washington University

M.S., Chemical Engineering, 1995, Lehigh University

B.S., Chemical Engineering, 1992, Colorado School of Mines

Natural Resource Group, LLC

Larry Brown – Principal, Quality Assurance Review, Alternatives

B.S., Biology, 1981, Bates College

Patrick Robblee – Project Manager, Quality Assurance Review, All Sections

M.A., Anthropology with a specialization in Historical Archaeology, 1995, College of William

and Mary

B.A., Anthropology, 1993, University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
APPENDIX Q

LIST OF PREPARERS (cont’d)

Q-2

Stu Buchanan – Deputy Project Manager, Introduction, Proposed Action

B.S., Wildlife Management, 1974, University of Maine

A.A.S., Forestry, 1972, Paul Smith’s College

Jennifer Lee – Executive Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations

B.A., Environmental Studies and Geography, 1995, University of St. Thomas

Steve Holden – Geology, Soils, Groundwater Resources

M.S., Natural Resources, 2004, University of Rhode Island

B.S., Water and Soil Science, 2001, University of Rhode Island 

Wendy Baltzersen – Wildlife and Aquatic Resources, Marine Mammals, Special Status Species

Ph.D., Fish and Wildlife Biology and Management, 2011, State University of New York, College 

of Environmental Science and Forestry

M.S., Fish and Wildlife Biology and Management, 2003, State University of New York, College 

of Environmental Science and Forestry

B.A., Zoology, 1994, Oregon State University

Lindsay Grissom – Land Use, Socioeconomics

M.S., Cell & Molecular Biology, 2002, Tulane University

B.S., Zoology/Physiology, 2000, Louisiana State University

Mike Koester – Reliability and Safety

B.S., Environmental Management, 2001, University of South Alabama

Ashley Rosia – Air Quality and Noise

B.A., Environmental Studies, 2008, University of Nevada Las Vegas, College of Urban Affairs

DeAnn Thyse – Cultural Resources

M.A., Anthropology, 2008, University of Minnesota

B.A., Anthropology, 1993, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Janet Nunley – Fisheries, Essential Fish Habitat, Cumulative Impacts

M.S., Interdisciplinary Ecology, 2002, University of Florida

B.S., Zoology, 2000, University of Florida

Meghan Nightingale – Surface Water Resources, Vegetation

M.A., Environmental Science and Management, 2011, University of Rhode Island, Kingston

B.S., Environmental Horticulture and Turf Grass Management, 2006, University of Rhode Island, 

Kingston

ASA

Nathan Vinhateiro – Sediment Modeling

Ph.D., Oceanography, 2012, University of Rhode Island, Graduate School of Oceanography

B.S., Geosciences, 2002, University of Rhode Island

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013
Document Content(s)

Report_Cover_and_Spine.PDF................................................1

Cover_Letter_Letter_to_the_Parties.PDF....................................4

Executive_Summary.PDF.....................................................9

Table_of_Contents.PDF....................................................16

Section_1.0_Introduction.PDF.............................................35

Section_2.0_Proposed Action.PDF..........................................53

Section_3.0_Alternatives.PDF.............................................88

Section_4.0_Environmental Analysis.PDF..................................125

Section_5.0_Conclusions.PDF.............................................318

Appendix_A.PDF..........................................................344

Appendix_B.PDF..........................................................358

Appendix_C.PDF..........................................................371

Appendix_D.PDF..........................................................378

Appendix_E.PDF..........................................................395

Appendix_F.PDF..........................................................408

Appendix_G.PDF..........................................................425

Appendix_H.PDF..........................................................448

Appendix_I.PDF..........................................................459

Appendix_J.PDF..........................................................491

Appendix_K.PDF..........................................................508

Appendix_L.PDF..........................................................521

Appendix_M.PDF..........................................................529

Appendix_N.PDF..........................................................560

Appendix_O.PDF..........................................................687

Appendix_P.PDF..........................................................895

Appendix_Q.PDF..........................................................920

Document Accession #: 20131004-4003 Filed Date: 10/04/2013