State Agencies 

S1.1 See the response to F1.1. S1.2 See the responses to F1.1 and S1.3 See the response to F1.1. 
S1.4 See the responses to F3.1 and 

project have been considered. S1.5 Thank you for your comment. State Agencies 
S2.4 See the responses to S2.3.

S2.3 See section 4.12.5 and responS2.1 See the response to F3.2. S2.2 See the responses to F3.1. S2.5 Thank you for your comment. State Agencies 
State Agencies 
S3.1 Thank you for your comment. 

pending. State Agencies 
State Agencies 
S3.2 

State Agencies 
State Agencies 

S4.1 Thank you for your comment. 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
S5.1 We have recommended site F 

Project. State Agencies 
S5.6 Thank you for your comment. 

this system. S5.7 Thank you for your comment. estimated emissions due to constructiorequirements of their air quality permiS5.5 Your comment is consistent wDOT regulations requires that each pipmaintain liaison with appropriate fire, the resources and responsibilities of eaa natural gas pipeline emergency, and operator must also establish a continuicustomers, the public, government offexcavation activities to recognize a gaappropriate public officials. Algonquilocal authorities appropriate procedureS5.4 Your comments are consistent recommended that Algonquin provide CSC, and the Towns of Oxford and MS5.2 Your comment is consistent wS5.3 Your comment is consistent wAlgonquin would implement the erosiES&C Plan.S5.8 Thank you for your comment. proposed Brookfield Meter Station is S5.10 See the response to S5.5.S5.9 Thank you for your comment. State Agencies 
State Agencies 

S5.11 See the response to S5.5.S5.12 Thank you for your comment. recommend noise controls or post-conmeter stations. In this instance, it may 

any) due to the meter station from the Station. We have required noise surveStation, which should assess the noise 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
S6.1 Thank you for your comment

State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 

S6.2 Thank you for your comment

findings in section 3.2.4.2.

S6.4 Thank you for your commentS6.5 Thank you for your commentS6.6 Thank you for your commentS6.12 Text updated to reflect CouncS6.11 Text updated to reflect CouncS6.9 Thank you for your comment, findings in section 4.11.4.2. Text updsurvey requirements.S6.10 Thank you for your comment, findings in section 4.11.4.2. S6.8 Thank you for your comment, findings in section 4.11.4.2. Text updsurvey requirements.S6.7 Iroquois reported that all asbebeen removed from the site as of DeceS6.3 Thank you for your comment

findings in section 4.8.5.4.
S6.22 Thank you for your comment.

S6.21 Thank you for your comment.S6.20 Thank you for your comment.S6.19 Thank you for your comment.S6.18 Thank you for your commenstandards described in sections 4.12.1 S6.17 Thank you for your comment.S6.14 Thank you for your comment.S6.15 Thank you for your comment.S6.16 Thank you for your comment.S6.13 Thank you for your comment.State Agencies 
State Agencies 
S7.1 Thank you for your comments

below. State Agencies 
S7.2 Thank you for your comment. 

S7.3 Issues related to safety at comsection 4.12.5 and 4.12.8. We believe 

issues.

State Agencies 
S7. 9 Issues related to visual impact

Station, including those on adjacent re4.8.5.4. We believe the EIS adequatelS7.8 Alternative sites for the Brooanalyzed in section 3.2.4.2. The Connour conclusion that the proposed BrooreasonableS7.7 See the response to S7.3. Alsthe potential impact circle for the BrooS7.6 See the response to S7.4. S7.5 Our data compilation and revare present near the project site, as desS7.4 Issues related to safety of pipesections 4.12.2 and 4.12.3. State Agencies 
S7.12 Cumulative impacts of the NE

section 4.14. We believe the EIS adeqS7.11 The height of the proposed covisual impacts analysis in section 4.8.5S7.10 Issues related to noise impacts We modified the text to reflect additiosilencer requirements.State Agencies 
S7.15 Thank you for your comment.

S7.15 Thank you for your commentS7.14 The Islander East Project was impact analysis as it received a certificnecessity from the FERC on SeptembeBroadwater LNG Project was revieweS7.13 Section 4.14 did not dismiss tactions as speculative, but evaluated sState Agencies 
State Agencies 
State Agencies 

S8.1 Thank you for your comment
S8.2 Text corrected as suggested b

State Agencies 
State Agencies 

S9.1 Thank you for your commentS9.2 Thank you for your commentS9.3 The final details of the third-pprocess would be established prior to p

the objective of establishing an inspecthat required under the NYSDEC’s Seand would invite NYSDEC to be activ

program.
State Agencies 

S9.4 Millennium completed additicrossings where NYSDEC noted site-sthose studies were summarized in sectbelieve that FSEIS adequately address
State Agencies 

S9.5 We believe that Empire’s pro

restoration monitoring plans meet the Procedures. However, we would not ocriteria by the NYSDEC, as part of theArticle 24 Freshwater Wetlands permi

S9.6 We believe that the three-yea

requirement is sufficient for all wetlanoppose the NYSDEC’s suggested monSection 401 certificate and/or Article 2