Applicants 
Applicants 

A1.1 Thank you for your comment. A1.2 Thank you for your comment. 
Applicants 

A1.3 Thank you for your comment. 
Applicants 

A1.4 We used this information to uanticipated construction schedule. 
Applicants 

A1.5 We modified the text to clarify River crossings would not be part of thA1.6 We modified the text with the this filing, as well as the July 31, 2006 A1.7 All references to the Line A-5 Columbia in accordance with its ECS Millennium’s ECS. 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 

A1.8 Text modified as suggested by MA1.9 Text modified as suggested by MA1.10 Text modified as suggested by A1.11 Text modified as suggested by A1.12 We received the Black Dirt Plasupplemental filing and information frFSEIS A1.13 Text modified as suggested by A1.14 Text modified as suggested by 
Applicants 

A1.15 Text modified as suggested by A1.16 Text modified as suggested by A1.17 Text modified as suggested by A1.18 Text modified as suggested by 
A1.19 Text modified as suggested by 

A1.20 Text modified as suggested by A1.21 Text modified as suggested by A1.22 Text modified as suggested by A1.23 Text modified as suggested by Applicants 
A1.24 Text modified as suggested by 

A1.25 Text modified as suggested by A1.26 We received the Supplement to Assessment Report, and incorporated i

and the FSEIS. A1.27 Thank you for this informationA1.28 Text modified as suggested by A1.29 Text modified as suggested by 

Applicants 
A1.30 We received Millennium’s revi

and have included information abo

ut t

A1.31 We received Millennium’s reviBranch Delaware River and have inclucrossing plan in both the B

A and the F

A1.32 Section 4 of the FSEIS has been Environmental Condition No. 33 i

n th

Wetland W611. A1.33 Section 4 of the FSEIS has been of a change in the timing of the constrRiver/Rio Reservoir. A1.34 Comment noted. Applicants 
A1.35 No changes were made in respo

Procedures do not distinguish between Construction and restoration methods types of wetlands. A1.36 Text modified as suggested by A1.37 Text modified as suggested by A1.38 Comment noted. A1.39 Text modified as suggested by A1.40 We received Millennium’s reviand have included information about tA1.41 We received Millennium’s updnatural communities and have includeApplicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 

A2.1 Empire may request a modificenvironmental inspectors per spread it during construction and restoration of request could be identified in the implhave found that when there are construoccurring at many locations along a sphave at least two environmental inspecactivities slow down, fewer inspectors possible for one environmental inspec

time, we would prefer not to modify th
A2.3 The recommendation says one 

per construction spread. One of the th

manage the third party compliance mounreasonable. 

A2.2 The recommendation says one per construction spread. One of the th

manage the third party compliance mounreasonable. 

Applicants 
Applicants 

A2.4 We plan to continue to work wwith regard to developing an interagencompliance monitoring program. A2.5 We received Empire’s technicCreek crossing and have included infoplan in the FSEIS. A2.6 We received Empire’s geotechthe Canandaigua and Keuka Lake Outabout the new crossing plan in the FSE
Applicants 

A2.7 We received Empire’s site plaCompressor Station and have included A2.8 The wording of this condition mitigation requirements. A2.9 Text modified as suggested by 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
A3.1 Text modified as suggested 

Applicants 
Applicants 

A3.2 Text modified as suggested by A3.3 Text modified as suggested by A3.4 Text modified as suggested by A3.5 Text modified as suggested by A3.6 Text modified as suggested by A3.7 Text modified as suggested by A3.8 Text modified as suggested by 
A3.9 Redundant material has been r

A3.10 Text modified as suggested by A3.11 Text modified as suggested by A3.12 Text modified as suggested by A3.13 Text modified as suggested by A3.14 Text modified as suggested by A3.15 Text modified as suggested by Applicants 
Applicants 

A3.16 Text modified as suggested by A3.17 Text modified as suggested by A3.18 Text modified as suggested by A3.19 Text modified as suggested by 
A3.20 Comment noted. 

A3.21 References added, as suggesteA3.22 No changes were made in respTable 4.2-1 is identical to Empire’s Ocnot include the OdB soil series. A3.23 No changes were made in respAppendix E2 has been removed from environmental construction plans provfound through eLibrary at www.ferc.g

A3.24 Text modified as suggested by A3.25 Text modified as suggested by 

Applicants 
A3.26 No changes were made in resp

split our summary of waterbody crossipipeline and those crossed by access r

numbers of drainage ditches crossed. crossings matches those in Empire’s MA3.27 The notes were added to Table by Empire. A3.28 No changes were made in resp

NYSDEC assigns a stream classificati

otherwise designated. A3.29 See response to comment A3.A3.30 Text modified as suggested by A3.31 Text modified as suggested by A3.32 Text modified as suggested by 

Applicants 
A3.33 No changes were made in resp

a cooperating agency for this project. part of its contribution in preparing the 

A3.34 No changes were made in respdid an independent compilation of wetsummary into those crossed by the piproads. The total number of wetland crMarch 2006 application addendum. A3.35 No changes were made in respfeel there would be no added benefit owetland summary table. A3.36 See response to comment A3.

Applicants 
A3.37 See response to comment A3

A3.38 The wording of this conditiomitigation recommendations. A3.39 Text modified as suggested bA3.40 Text modified as suggested bA3.41 Text modified as suggested bA3.42 The text of section 4.8.3.1 haacreages. A3.43 Text modified as suggested bA3.44 See response to comment A2

Applicants 
A3.45 Text modified as suggested by 

A3.46 The mitigation measures listed located 25 feet are different than those the construction ROW and therefore sA3.47 Text modified as suggested by A3.48 Text modified as suggested by A3.49 Text modified as suggested by A3.50 Text modified as suggested by Applicants 
A3.51 The October 2005 FERC appl

page 8) and the March 2006 Addendu

(section 4.3.5.1 page 5) for a total of 6A3.52 Text modified as suggested by A3.53 Text modified as suggested by A3.54 Text modified as suggested by 

Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
A4.4 Text modified as suggested by 

A4.3 Text modified as suggested by page 4-154A4.2 Algonquin may request a modparty environmental inspectors, and th

identified in the implementation plan fwhen there are construction and restorlocations along a spread it is often advthird party environmental inspector. Bnot to modify this recommendation. 

A4.1 Project construction areas wouknown hibernacula in Ulster County. during mist netting surveys in Algonqchance of impacting Indiana bats direcroosting or foraging habitat. The standis to avoid any potential for direct killiand foraging habitat by only clearing pthrough March 30 (see the FWS’s AugReview Fact Sheet, attached to their O

Algonquin). The preliminary results ohave been incorporated into the BA aneffect has been made based on these p20, 2006, we have not received Algon

Applicants 
A4.5 We received Algonquin’s site

Mahwah River and have included infoplan in the FEIS. 

A4.6 Text modified as suggested by A4.7 Text modified as suggested by A4.8 See response to comment A4.A4.9 Text modified as suggested by A4.10 Due to the location of the poteconstruction areas and the use of turtle full-time turtle monitor would not be nCompressor Station. 

Applicants 
A4.11 Information from your respon

FSEIS regarding the requirements for protection area in the vicinity of the pr

Station.

Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
A4.12 We received Algonquin’s site

Mahwah River and have included infoplan in the FEIS. Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 

A4.13 Text modified as suggested by A4.14 See response to comment A4.A4.15 See response to comment 4.10
Applicants 

A4.16 Comment noted. 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
A5.1 Thank you for your comment. 

Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
A5.2 Thank you for your comment. 

Applicants 
Applicants 

A5.3 Text modified as suggested by A5.4 Iroquois may request a modifienvironmental monitors and the numband the details of the request could be plan for the project. We have found th

restoration activities occurring at manadvantageous to have more than one thBut, the MarketAccess Project would station and a new compressor station. modify the numbers of inspectors. Butto modify this recommendation. 
A5.5 Text modified as suggested by 

A5.6 We have incorporated Iroquoiinto the FSEIS. A5.7 Text modified as suggested by A5.8 When the final site's layout, bselection are determined; a final noise The Whisconier Middle should be speApplicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants 
Applicants