See response to comment FA1-1.

INDIVIDUALSIND375 – Christopher Dapkins

IND375-1

See the response to comment FA4-51 regmitigation plans.

IND375-2

The proposed project would cross Kortrigmile from Hanford Mills. In addition, the Creek would be downstream of Hanford MMills draws water from the ponded area ooutside of the mill. As discussed in sectioConstitution would maintain base flow fofor hydrostatic testing. In addition, we arConstitution file written approval from thwater withdrawal from Oquaga, Ouleout, Schoharie Creeks, as well as listing any tiwould be placed on water withdrawals at these reasons, impacts on Hanford Mills fprojects are not expected. 

IND375-3

As stated in section 4.3.3.5 of the EIS, hywould be withdrawn between December 2Table 4.3.3-5 of the EIS provides estimatneeded from each waterbody. 

IND375-4

As stated in section 4.8.1.5 of the EIS, the are listed in appendix E. The access roadthe maps in appendix B of the EIS. Consrequired to manage stormwater runoff fro

IND375-5

See the response to comments CO1-5 and flooding. See the response to comment Fhydrostatic testing.

IND375-6

Section 4.4 of the EIS has been revised to information regarding filling of wetlands. comment CO50-79 regarding enforcemenmitigation measures. 

IND375-7

S-1616
INDIVIDUALS

IND375 – Christopher Dapkins (cont’d)

IND375-8 See the response to comment IND205-3.

S-1617
INDIVIDUALS

IND376 – Stuart Anderson

The commentor’s statements regarding thare noted. See the response to comment C

IND376-1

The commentor’s statements regarding buthe response to comment CO47-1 regardirecord. See also the response to commencompliance with permit requirements thromonitoring program.

IND376-2

See the response to comment LA7-5 regaand export. See the response to IND13-3 the response to comment SA6-1 regarding 

IND376-3

See the response to comments CO50-55, 1 regarding the benefits of the proposed p

IND376-4

S-1618
INDIVIDUALS

IND376 – Stuart Anderson (cont’d)

IND376-5 The commentor’s statements in oppositio

S-1619
INDIVIDUALS

IND377 – Mary Colleen McKinney

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing.

IND377-1

S-1620
INDIVIDUALS

IND377 – Mary Colleen McKinney (cont’d)

S-1621
INDIVIDUALS

IND378 – Michael Stolzer

See the response to comment CO47-1 regaddition see the response to comment FAthird-party monitoring program.

IND378-1

S-1622
INDIVIDUALS

IND379 – Patty Woodbury

The commentor’s opposition to the Northis noted.

IND379-1

S-1623
INDIVIDUALS

IND380 – Michael Stolzer

IND380-1 See the responses to comments CO26-19 

S-1624
INDIVIDUALS

IND381 – Kathy Shimberg

The commentor’s statements regarding thare noted. See the response to comment Ccomment meetings.

IND381-1

S-1625
INDIVIDUALS

IND381 – Kathy Shimberg (cont’d)

Comment letters received were considerewhere appropriate, the EIS text has been u

IND381-2IND381-3 See the response to comments LA7-5 and 

The commentor’s statements regarding thSee response to comment FA1-1.

IND381-4

See the response to comment LA1-4 regafracturing. See response to comment FA

IND381-5

S-1626
INDIVIDUALS

IND381 – Kathy Shimberg (cont’d)

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy. See the response to comment IND

IND381-6IND381-7 The commentor’s statement regarding im

See the response to comment FA4-45. Thwould transport natural gas, not oil or che

IND381-8

S-1627
INDIVIDUALS

IND381 – Kathy Shimberg (cont’d)

IND381-9 See the response to comment LA7-5 regaIND381-10 See the response to comment LA1-4 and 

See the response to comment CO47-1. Scomment IND13-3 and section 4.12 of thof the proposed projects.

IND381-11

See the response to comment LA7-5. See comment CO47-1 regarding safety.

IND381-12

S-1628
INDIVIDUALS

IND381 – Kathy Shimberg (cont’d)

See the response to comment CO1-2. See comment LA5-3 regarding insurance and 

IND381-13

See the response to comments CO1-4 and erosion. See the response to comment CO

IND381-14

IND381-15 See the response to comment LA5-3 rega

Mitigation for wetlands and forested landpreservation at another location in New Ysection 4.3.2.1 of the EIS, in the event thapipeline temporarily impacted private or pquality or yield, Constitution would provisources or other compensation to the own

IND381-16

See the response to comment CO57-4 regresponse to comment LA1-1 regarding ro

IND381-17IND381-18 See the response to comment IND13-3. 

S-1629
INDIVIDUALS

IND381 – Kathy Shimberg (cont’d)

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for shallow bedro4.1.3; appendix I), karst (section 4.1.3.6), 4.1.3.8). See the response to comments Cregarding erosion. See the response to coIND113-1 regarding flooding. 

IND381-19IND381-20 See the response to comment IND368-1.

The commentor’s statements regarding pithe response to comment SA6-1 regarding 

IND381-21

S-1630
INDIVIDUALS

IND382 – Thomas C. Earle

See the response to comment FA8-3. In aNatural Gas Act, if an applicant receives Convenience and necessity, it conveys thdomain with it for the facilities approved 

IND382-1

S-1631
INDIVIDUALS

IND383 – Claudia H. Gorman

See the response to comment CO41-23 reindustrialization. See the response to comIND106-1 regarding jobs. See the responregarding environmental impacts.

IND383-1

The commentor’s statements of oppositioproposed projects are noted. Section 3.1.a discussion of renewable energy. 

IND383-2

S-1632
INDIVIDUALS

IND384 – Claudia H. Gorman

See the response to comment FA4-12 regmonitoring program. The FERC’s third-pmonitor would also monitor adherence to requirements.

IND384-1

IND384-2 See the response to comment FA8-3 rega

The commentor’s statements regarding thnoted. Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS providerenewable energy.

IND384-3

S-1633
INDIVIDUALS

IND385 – Bridget

The commentor’s statement in opposition projects is noted. See the response to comregarding safety. See the response to comIND169-1 regarding erosion. See the respCO1-5 and IND113-1 regarding flooding

IND385-1IND385-2 See the response to comment LA1-1 regaIND385-3 See the response to comment CO47-1 regIND385-4 See the response to comment LA1-1 regaIND385-5 Section 4.11.2 of the EIS discusses noise 

See the response to comment LA5-3 regamortgages, and insurance.

IND385-6

Section 2.2.2 of the EIS states Constitutioremotely controlled MLVs along the pipecontrolled MLVs would be continuously Constitution’s gas control center and in than electronic command to close the valve 

IND385-7IND385-8 See response to comment FA1-1.

IND385-9 See the response to comment FA8-3 rega

S-1634
INDIVIDUALS

IND385 – Bridget (cont’d)

S-1635
INDIVIDUALS

IND386 – Patrick Conway

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imfor interior forest and forest fragmentatioEIS (section 4.5.3).

IND386-1

Section 4.11.2 of the EIS provides a discuimpacts from blasting. See the response tregarding water quality and blasting.

IND386-2

See the response to comments LA8-3 and water quality.

IND386-3IND386-4 See the response to comments CO1-4 and 

See the response to comment SA6-1 regaSee the response to comments CO1-5 and flooding. See the response to comment Fhydraulic fracturing. 

IND386-5

The commentor’s request to deny the proSee the response to comment IND44-2 reCommission’s decision making process. a discussion of renewable energy.

IND386-6

S-1636
INDIVIDUALS

IND387 – Stacia Norman

The commentor’s statement against the pnoted. See the response to comment FA4fracturing. 

IND387-1

See the response to comment LA7-5 rega3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discussion oSee the response to comment SA6-1 regaand methane leakage. 

IND387-2

S-1637
INDIVIDUALS

IND388 – Michael Gorr

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comment IND13-3. 

IND388-1

See the response to comment IND21-17 remissions. See the response to comment climate change. 

IND388-2

Section 4.11.1 of the EIS provides a discuimpacts and proposed mitigation.

IND388-3

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for interior forest fragmentation (section 4.5.3).

IND388-4

See the response to comment IND110-6 rand blasting.

IND388-5

IND388-6 See the response to comment LA5-3 rega

S-1638
INDIVIDUALS

IND389 – Albert Crudo

See response to comment FA1-1 regardincomment period. See the response to comConstitution’s proposed communication t

IND389-1

As stated in section 2.7 of the EIS, Constor proposed any plans for future expansioabandonment of any of the projects’ facilto comment FA4-46 regarding LeatherstoLeatherstocking Project is not part of Conthe response to comment CO26-18 regardProject. See the response to comment SAtransport along the proposed pipeline.

IND389-2IND389-3 See response to comment FA1-1.

Section 4.13 of the EIS provides a discusimpacts.

IND389-4

See the response to comment LA1-4 regafracturing. Interior forest and forest fragmin section 4.5.3 of the EIS.

IND389-5

The commentor’s statements regarding ththe EIS is noted. See the response to com

IND389-6IND389-7 See the response to comment LA7-5 rega

S-1639
INDIVIDUALS

IND390 – Evan Ramos

Cumulative impacts, including a discussiofracturing, are discussed in section 4.13 o

IND390-1

Proposed crossing methods for waterbodidiscussed in sections 2.3, 4.3, and 4.4 of tcrossing methods, including trenchless mthis discussion. 

IND390-2

See the response to comment FA1-1 regawas pending at the time of issuance of the 

IND390-3

The commentor’s statement regarding opis noted.

IND390-4

S-1640
INDIVIDUALS

IND391 – Jeannette F. Westcott

See the response to comments CO1-5 and flooding. The proposed projects would nRoad. Taylor Road would be crossed via Section 4.2.2.9 of the EIS provides a discheaving due to frost. 

IND391-1IND391-2 See the response to comment IND150-1 r

As stated in section 2.3.29 of the EIS, perwould be installed in the trench surroundiof steep slopes with high erosion potentiavelocity channeling of water along the tre

IND391-3IND391-4 See response to comment LA7-5.IND391-5 See response to comment FA1-1.

See the response to comment FA8-3 reganegotiations. See the response to commesafety.

IND391-6

S-1641
INDIVIDUALS

IND392 – Jeannette F. Westcott

The commentor’s statements regarding eaproposed projects are noted. As stated in in accordance with the NEPA, the FERC alternatives to the proposed projects must response to comment FA8-3 regarding ea

IND392-1

See the response to comment CO50-108 rmeetings. The commentor’s statements rCommunity Grant program and conduct a

IND392-2IND392-3 The commentor’s statements in oppositio

S-1642
INDIVIDUALS

IND393 – Alan Gaydorus

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted.

IND393-1

See the response to comment FA8-3 regaand easement negotiations.

IND393-2

S-1643
INDIVIDUALS

IND394 – Jeannette F. Westcott

See the response to comment IND13-3 reresponse to comment LA5-3 regarding pr

IND394-1

See the response to comment LA1-4 and regarding hydraulic fracturing. Section 3provides a discussion of renewable energcomment SA6-1 regarding methane leaka

IND394-2IND394-3 The commentor’s request of the FERC is 

S-1644
INDIVIDUALS

IND395 – Gladys Paulsen

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted. Section 4.11.1 of the Ediscussion of potential impacts and propofor air quality.

IND395-1

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing. Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS prorenewable energy.

IND395-2IND395-3 See the response comment to CO57-4.IND395-4 The commentor’s request to deny the pro

S-1645
INDIVIDUALS

IND396 – Helen Ehman

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing.

IND396-1

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted. Section 4.11.1 of the Ediscussion of potential impacts and propofor air quality.

IND396-2

See the response to comment LA5-3 regainsurance, and mortgages. See the respon3 regarding safety. See the response to coregarding eminent domain. 

IND396-3

S-1646
INDIVIDUALS

IND397 – Ling Tsou

See the response to comment LA8-3 regaSee the response to comments FA4-23 anwaterbody crossings. Section 4.4.5 of the to provide updated information regarding 

IND397-1IND397-2 See the response to comment SA6-1 rega

See the response to comment IND13-3 reresponse to comment CO50-22 regarding easements Constitution has obtained.

IND397-3

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing. See the response to comment commentor’s statement regarding oppositnoted.

IND397-4

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND397-5

S-1647
INDIVIDUALS

IND398 – Joseph Falis

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted.

IND398-1

S-1648
INDIVIDUALS

IND399 – Joel and Julie Wexler

See the response to comment FA1-1. See comment CO37-10 regarding permits. Secomment FA4-3 regarding surveys.

IND399-1

The commentor’s statements in oppositioresponse to comment LA5-3 regarding pr

IND399-2IND399-3 See the responses to comments FA1-1 an

S-1649
INDIVIDUALS

IND400 – Vera Scroggins

IND400-1 See the response to comment LA7-5 regaIND400-2 See response to comment CO47-1.

S-1650
INDIVIDUALS

IND401 – Allegra Schecter

See response to comment CO47-1. See thIND13-3 regarding safety.

IND401-1

See the response to comment SA6-1 regaSee the response to comments CO1-5 and flooding. See the response to comments regarding erosion.

IND401-2

See the response to comment CO43-8 regSensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for interior forest waterbodies (section 4.3.3), steep slopes (

4.1.3; appendix G), and wetlands (section Blasting is discussed in section 4.1.3.8 of 

IND401-3

S-1651
INDIVIDUALS

IND402 – Dennis Gonseth

See the response to comment LA7-5 regacomment FA8-3 regarding eminent domathe EIS has been revised to reflect our assroutes related to the Stanton (where we reroute variation) and BOCES (where we reminimization measures) parcels. 

IND402-1

See the response to comment LA5-3 regainsurance, and mortgages. See the responSee the response to comment FA1-1 regacomment period.

IND402-2

S-1652
INDIVIDUALS

IND402 – Dennis Gonseth (cont’d)

S-1653
INDIVIDUALS

IND403 – Artineh Havan

Cumulative impacts, including a discussiofracturing, are discussed in section 4.13 o

IND403-1

Proposed crossing methods for waterbodidiscussed in sections 2.3, 4.3, and 4.4 of tcrossing methods, including trenchless mthis discussion. 

IND403-2

See the response to comment FA1-1 regawas pending at the time of issuance of the 

IND403-3

The commentor’s statement regarding opis noted.

IND403-4

S-1654
INDIVIDUALS

IND404 – Miriam Solloway

See the response to comment FA4-45. Secomment LA7-5 regarding export. See thLA1-4 regarding hydraulic fracturing.

IND404-1

If the proposed projects receive authorizaCommission, Constitution and Iroquois wto clear trees in areas approved by the Coin the EIS (see section 4.5 of the EIS) or apost-certificate variance request (see sectAs described in section 2.5.3, third-party under the direction of the FERC would coconstruction monitoring of Constitution aFull-time FERC staff would also completaddition to the third-party monitors. Both party compliance monitors would complebasis and would have stop-work authority

IND404-2

As discussed in section 4.8.1.5 of the EISaccess roads would require improvements of gravel or culverts and the removal or cto accommodate the movement of equipmconstruction right-of-way (appendix E). Aof trees beyond what is currently proposeIroquois would require additional review 

IND404-3

As discussed in section 4.3.3.5 of the EISIroquois would also use municipal water activities. The Applicants would obtain aand authorizations required prior to conduactivities. 

IND404-4

S-1655
INDIVIDUALS

IND404 – Miriam Solloway (cont’d)

IND404-6 See the response to comment LA1-1 rega

Constitution and Iroquois are proposing tWright Compressor Station rather than instation. See the response to comment COregarding air quality. See the response to regarding noise impacts.

IND404-7

See the response to comment SA2-1 regacommunication towers.

IND404-8IND404-9 See the response to comment LA7-5 rega

IND404-10 See the response to comment FA8-3 rega

As discussed in section 4.9.4.1 of the EISdeveloped a Residential Access and Traffplan contains details regarding:

• locations and types of temporameasures, including signage, chbarricades, and flagmen;• a communication plan for pub

location and duration of road closures;

• crossings of private driveways• emergency access response mincludes establishing temporary staging of steel plate bridges onopen trench in the event that emto use the roadway.

We determined that Constitution’s plan wimpacts on traffic flow. Based on the mitabove, we expect the impacts from constrwithin roadways to be minor and tempora

IND404-5

See the response to comment IND13-3 reresponse to comment SA6-1 regarding m

IND404-11

S-1656
INDIVIDUALS

IND404 – Miriam Solloway (cont’d)

Interior forest and forest fragmentation ar4.5.3 of the EIS.

IND404-13

See the response to comments CO1-5 and flooding.

IND404-14

See the response to comment CO1-2. Ththat the proposed projects be denied is no

IND404-15IND404-12 See the response to comment CO57-4.

S-1657
INDIVIDUALS

IND405 – Julie Solloway

See the response to comment SA2-1 regacommunication towers.

IND405-2

The commentor’s statements regarding thnoted. See the response to comment IND

IND405-3IND405-4 See the response to comment FA4-45.IND405-1 See the response to comment LA7-5 rega

IND405-5 See the response to comment FA8-3 regaIND405-6 See the responses to comments IND404-3 

We assume the commentor is referring to contractor yard. This contactor yard is no Constitution’s proposal (see section 2.2.3 

IND405-7IND405-8 The commentor’s opposition to the propo

S-1658
INDIVIDUALS

IND406 – Cathy McNulty

See the response to comment FA1-1 regathe comment period.

IND406-2

The commentor’s statements regarding tha request for public meeting in Delaware the response to comment CO50-108.

IND406-1

S-1659
INDIVIDUALS

IND407 – Michael Barnes

Section 3.4.3.2 of the EIS has been reviseWe support the collocation of pipelines wwhere practical and recognize the value oto environmental resources. However it ifeasible to collocate with an existing utilicomment LA5-3 regarding insurance, promortgages. The commentor’s request to dprojects is noted.

IND407-2

The commentors’ statements regarding ththe response to comment FA8-3 regarding the response to comment LA5-3 regardin

IND407-1

S-1660
INDIVIDUALS

IND407 – Michael Barnes (cont’d)

S-1661
INDIVIDUALS

IND408 – Kristina Fedorov

See the response to comments CO1-4 and erosion.

IND408-2

See the response to comment IND110-6 rand blasting. See the response to commespills of hazardous materials. 

IND408-3

See the response to comment CO41-23 reindustrialization of the project area. See tcomment IND404-5 regarding traffic. Nosection 4.11.1 of the EIS.

IND408-4

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted. Sensitive resources, aimpacts and mitigation, are discussed in t(section 4.5.3) and wildlife (section 4.6). 

IND408-1IND408-5 See the response to comment IND205-1.

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing. See the response to comment export. See the response to comment INDprices. Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS providerenewable energy. 

IND408-6

S-1662
INDIVIDUALS

IND409 – Cathy McNulty

IND409-1 See response to comment CO47-1.

S-1663
INDIVIDUALS

IND409 – Cathy McNulty (cont’d)

S-1664
INDIVIDUALS

IND409 – Cathy McNulty (cont’d)

S-1665
INDIVIDUALS

IND410 – Cathy McNulty 

IND410-1 The commentor’s link to a series of intern

S-1666
INDIVIDUALS

IND411 – Michael Fedorov 

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comment SA6-1 regaSee the response to comment LA1-4 regafracturing. Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS prorenewable energy. 

IND411-1

S-1667
INDIVIDUALS

IND412 – Cathy McNulty 

See the response to comment CO47-1 reginspections.

IND412-1

S-1668
INDIVIDUALS

IND412 – Cathy McNulty (cont’d) 

S-1669
INDIVIDUALS

IND413 – Katherine O’Donnell 

The commentor’s statements are noted. Scomments CO1-1 and CO1-2. 

IND413-1

S-1670
INDIVIDUALS

IND414 – Harold D. Wright

The commentor’s request to move the pipof-way is noted. See the response to comcollocation.

IND414-1

See the response to comment LA10-3. Sediscusses ground water resources. 

IND414-2

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for wetlands (secL). See the response to comments CO1-5 regarding flooding.

IND414-3

See the response to comment IND348-1 rreservoir.

IND414-4

S-1671

IND414-5 See the response to comments CO1-1 and 
INDIVIDUALS

IND415 – Michael Bosetti 

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND415-1

S-1672
INDIVIDUALS

IND416 – Dorothy Mackie

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND416-1

See the response to comment FA4-45. Secomment CO1-2. See the response to comregarding health impacts. See the responregarding road repairs. See the response regarding property values and mortgages.

IND416-2

See the response to comment CO41-23 reindustrialization. See the response to comeminent domain. 

IND416-3

See the response to comment IND10-5 rethe response to comment LA7-5 regardin

IND416-4

See the response to comment IND13-3 re4.12 provides a discussion of pipeline lea

IND416-5

See the response to comment FA1-1 regathe comment period. See the response to regarding the comment meetings.

IND416-6IND416-7 The commentor’s request to ban hydrauli

S-1673
INDIVIDUALS

IND417 – N

See response to comment FA1-1. The drinstructions on how to file comments with EIS also provided the contact information available to assist the public in submitting 

IND417-1IND417-2 See the response to comments FA4-45 anIND417-3 See the response to comment IND341-12 

Section 4.13 of the EIS provides a discusproject area which could result in cumula

IND417-4

See the response to comment LA7-5 regagas. 

IND417-5

IND417-6 See the response to comment FA8-3 rega

Proposed crossing methods for waterbodidiscussed in sections 2.3, 4.3, and 4.4 of tcrossing methods, including trenchless mthis discussion.

IND417-7IND417-8 See response to comment FA1-1.

The commentor’s request for a moratoriuresponse to comment LA1-4.

IND417-9

The commentor’s statement regarding opis noted.

IND417-10

See the response to comment LA1-1 regathe response to comment LA5-3 regardininsurance. Section 4.9.2 of the EIS discu

IND417-11

See the response to comment IND163-1 rtemperature changes.

IND417-12

S-1674
INDIVIDUALS

IND417 – N (cont’d)

S-1675
INDIVIDUALS

IND418 – Paul A. Thayer

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND418-1

See the response to comment LA5-3 regaSee the response to comment IND13-3 re

IND418-2

S-1676
INDIVIDUALS

IND419 – Ann Moschovakis

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND419-1

S-1677
INDIVIDUALS

IND420 – Margery Schab

The commentor’s request to deny the proSee the response to comment IND10-5 reproposed projects. See the response to coregarding the Applicants’ purported publiresponse to comment CO57-4 regarding h

IND420-1

See the response to section SA6-1 regardthe response to comment LA7-5 regardincomment to CO26-10 regarding induced 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discussion oThe commentor’s request to deny the pro

IND420-2

S-1678
INDIVIDUALS

IND420 – Margery Schab (cont’d)

S-1679
INDIVIDUALS

IND421 – Dennis Tomkins

IND421-1 See response to comment FA1-1.

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND421-2

See the response to comment FA8-3 regaSee the response to comment IND205-3 rgas.

IND421-3

The commentor’s statement regarding the of natural gas is noted.

IND421-4

See the response to comment IND205-1 rresponse to comment CO41-23 regarding project area. Section 4.9.2 of the EIS pro

IND421-5

See the response to comments CO41-21 aair quality. See the response to comment herbicides. See the response to comment 

IND421-6

See the response to comment SA6-1 regaSection 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy. The commentor’s statement regaalternative K is noted.

IND421-7

S-1680
INDIVIDUALS

IND422 – Jennifer Mosher

As stated in section 1.0 of the EIS, ConstCompany, LLC is jointly owned by WilliLLC; Cabot Pipeline Holdings, LLC; PiePipeline Company, LLC; and Capital EneCorporation. These corporations would moperation of the pipeline. See the responsregarding Cabot and Williams’ safety rec

IND422-1

Section 1.1 of the EIS has been revised to information regarding the purpose and nethe responses to comment FA4-46 and SALeatherstocking. As stated in section 1.1 shippers are Cabot Oil and Gas CorporatiEnergy Services Company.

IND422-2

S-1681
INDIVIDUALS

IND422 – Jennifer Mosher (cont’d)

See the response to comments CO43-17 aalternatives. 

IND422-3

S-1682
INDIVIDUALS

IND422 – Jennifer Mosher (cont’d)

See the response to comment IND166-1. commentor is referring to would be the prbe received at the M&R stations at either The pipeline in between these two station1,440 psig.

IND422-4

The commentor’s statements in oppositio3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discussion o

IND422-5

S-1683
INDIVIDUALS

IND423 – Barbara Kerr

The commentor’s statements regarding throute are noted. See the response to commthe response to comment LA5-3 regardin

IND423-1

Constitution has not proposed to fill wetlacommentor’s parcel (see appendix L).

IND423-2

See the response to LA5-3 regarding propinsurance. See the response to comment property taxes. See the response to commliability. See the response to comment CWilliams’ safety record.

IND423-3

S-1684
INDIVIDUALS

IND423 – Barbara Kerr (cont’d)

The commentor’s statements regarding CCommunity Grants is noted. See the respregarding an extension of the comment pe

IND423-4

See the response to comment CO1-2. See comment LA5-3 regarding property valuemortgages. See the response to comment hydraulic fracturing.

IND423-5

The commentor’s request to deny the proSee the response to comment IND13-3 re

IND423-6

S-1685
INDIVIDUALS

IND424 – Marilyn Sango-Jordan

See the response to comments CO1-5 and flooding. 

IND424-1

Between MP 105.81 and 106.66 the propcross 9 different unnamed waterbodies idCobleskill Creek.” The waterbody would workspace but not crossed by the pipe for this milepost range. Sensitive resources, impacts and mitigation, are discussed in t(section 4.3.3) and farmland/agriculture (4.8.4, and appendix J).

IND424-2

See the response to comments CO1-4 and erosion.

IND424-3

S-1686
INDIVIDUALS

IND425 – Jessica Farrell

Responses to the commentor’s previous lIND347. The commentor’s statements renoted. See the response to comment CO5comment meetings. See the response to ccommentor’s opposition of the proposed 

IND425-1

S-1687
INDIVIDUALS

IND425 – Jessica Farrell (cont’d)

S-1688
INDIVIDUALS

IND425 – Jessica Farrell (cont’d)

S-1689
INDIVIDUALS

IND426 – Lynn Fischer

Section 4.12 provides a discussion of safeof the commentor’s examples are for incioil, diesel, or other petroleum liquids, whrelevant to the proposed project. See the IND13-3 regarding safety. 

IND426-1

S-1690
INDIVIDUALS

IND426 – Lynn Fischer (cont’d)

S-1691
INDIVIDUALS

IND426 – Lynn Fischer (cont’d)

See the responses to comment LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing.

IND426-2

S-1692
INDIVIDUALS

IND426 – Lynn Fischer (cont’d)

See the response to comment LA5-3 regaThe commentor’s request to deny the pro

IND426-3

S-1693
INDIVIDUALS

IND427 – L. Reik

See the response to comment CO50-22 relandowners that have signed an easement 

response to comment LA7-5 regarding thfor the proposed projects. See the responregarding hydraulic fracturing. 

IND427-1

See the response to comment LA7-5 regaof the proposed projects.

IND427-2

IND427-3 See the response to comment FA8-3 rega

See the response to comment FA6-10 regmonitoring of invasive species. See the rCO1-4 regarding forest interior and fragm

IND427-4IND427-5 See the response to comment IND13-5.

As stated in section 4.10.4 of the EIS, Comay not begin construction (if approved) clearance from the FERC, the PHMC, an

IND427-6

S-1694
INDIVIDUALS

IND428 – Kenneth Jaffe

See the response to comment CO57-4 regThe commentor’s statements regarding bidrilling are noted. See the response to co

IND428-1

See the response to comments CO2-1 and collocation. See the responses to commenregarding hydraulic fracturing.

IND428-2

S-1695
INDIVIDUALS

IND428 – Kenneth Jaffe (cont’d)

S-1696
INDIVIDUALS

IND428 – Kenneth Jaffe (cont’d)

S-1697
INDIVIDUALS

IND429 – Suzanne Winkler

Section 4.11.1.3 of the EIS provides inforIroquois’ proposed modifications to the eCompressor Station. In order to reduce ohas proposed to modify its existing compConstitution construct a new one. While companies often expand their systems, trythis point is speculation. Any future expaproject, including a new compressor statinew, separate NEPA review by the FERC permitting by other local, state, and federresponse to comment CO41-29 regarding Station. 

IND429-1

S-1698
INDIVIDUALS

IND429 – Suzanne Winkler (cont’d)

S-1699
INDIVIDUALS

IND429 – Suzanne Winkler (cont’d)

See the response to comment LA7-5 regastated need for the projects.

IND429-2

S-1700
INDIVIDUALS

IND430 – Eugene Marner

See the response to comment CO41-29 reCompressor Station. 

IND430-1IND430-2 See the responses to comments LA1-4 an

See the response to comment CO26-18 reproject.

IND430-3

S-1701
INDIVIDUALS

IND430 – Eugene Marner (cont’d)

See the response to comment FA8-3 regaSee the response to comment CO50-55 reimpacts of the projects. 

IND430-4

See the response to comment IND13-3 recomment LA7-5 regarding export. See thCO47-1 regarding Williams’ safety recor

IND430-5

S-1702
INDIVIDUALS

IND430 – Eugene Marner (cont’d)

S-1703
INDIVIDUALS

IND430 – Eugene Marner (cont’d)

S-1704
INDIVIDUALS

IND431 – Kenneth Jaffe

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. Row crops may stilagricultural areas following installation odescribed in section 4.8.1 of the EIS. 

IND431-1

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. See the response to regarding collocation. 

IND431-2

S-1705
INDIVIDUALS

IND431 – Kenneth Jaffe (cont’d)

S-1706
INDIVIDUALS

IND431 – Kenneth Jaffe (cont’d)

S-1707
INDIVIDUALS

IND432 – Linda Jaffe

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imfor farmland/agriculture are discussed in 4.8.4, and appendix J of the EIS.

IND432-1

See the response to comment LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. 

IND432-2

S-1708
INDIVIDUALS

IND432 – Linda Jaffe (cont’d)

See the response to comments CO41-21 aair quality. See the responses to commenregarding hydraulic fracturing. 

IND432-3

S-1709
INDIVIDUALS

IND432 – Linda Jaffe (cont’d)

S-1710
INDIVIDUALS

IND433 – William and Christine Roche

See the response to comment FA8-3 regaThe commentor’s statement to not sign an See the response to comment CO1-2. See comment LA5-3 regarding property valuecomment IND13-3 regarding safety.

IND433-1

S-1711
INDIVIDUALS

IND433 – William and Christine Roche (cont’d)

S-1712
INDIVIDUALS

IND434 – Chelsea Laible

See the response to comment IND13-3 respecified in section 4.12 earth movement all incidents from 1993 through 2012. 

IND434-1

S-1713
INDIVIDUALS

IND434 – Chelsea Laible (cont’d)

See the response to comments CO1-5 and flooding. See the response to comments regarding erosion.

IND434-2

See the response to comment IND54-1 resegments. See the response to comment Ccomment meetings.

IND434-3

The commentor’s opposition and request projects is noted.

IND434-4

S-1714
INDIVIDUALS

IND435 – Janet L. Marsh

IND435-1 The commentor’s statements regarding fo

The commentor’s statements regarding Cnoted.

IND435-2

See response to comment CO47-1 regardrecord. See the response to comment FAdomain.

IND435-3

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for interior forest waterbodies (section 4.3.3), steep slopes (

4.1.3; appendix G), shallow bedrock (sectappendix I), wetlands (section 4.4 and app(section 4.11.1), and farmland/agriculture 4.8.4, and appendix J). 

IND435-4

The commentor’s statement regarding gaCommission does not have a standard proapplicants to avoid steep slopes. 

IND435-5

S-1715
INDIVIDUALS

IND435 – Janet L. Marsh (cont’d)

See the response to comment CO42-93 remaintenance of the right-of-way. Section discusses potential impacts on water resouSee the response to comments CO1-4 and erosion. 

IND435-6

See the response to comments CO1-5 and flooding. The commentor’s opposition to is noted.

IND435-7

S-1716
INDIVIDUALS

IND436 – Diane Sefcik

See response to comment CO47-1. See thFA4-12 regarding our third-party compliaprogram.

IND436-1

S-1717
INDIVIDUALS

IND436 – Diane Sefcik (cont’d)

S-1718
INDIVIDUALS

IND436 – Diane Sefcik (cont’d)

S-1719
INDIVIDUALS

IND436 – Diane Sefcik (cont’d)

S-1720
INDIVIDUALS

IND436 – Diane Sefcik (cont’d)

S-1721
INDIVIDUALS

IND436 – Diane Sefcik (cont’d)

S-1722
INDIVIDUALS

IND436 – Diane Sefcik (cont’d)

S-1723
INDIVIDUALS

IND436 – Diane Sefcik (cont’d)

S-1724
INDIVIDUALS

IND436 – Diane Sefcik (cont’d)

S-1725
INDIVIDUALS

IND437 – Thomas M. Gorman

The commentor’s statements regarding enare noted. Section 3.1.1 of the EIS providenergy conservation and energy efficienc

IND437-1

S-1726
INDIVIDUALS

IND437 – Thomas M. Gorman (cont’d)

See the response to comments CO26-19 a3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discussion oThe commentor’s request to reject the pro

IND437-2

S-1727
INDIVIDUALS

IND438 – Daniel J. Brignoli

See the response to comment CO50-108 rmeetings. See the response to comment Fextension of the comment period.

IND438-1

S-1728
INDIVIDUALS

IND438 – Daniel J. Brignoli (cont’d)

S-1729
INDIVIDUALS

IND439 – Robert Lidsky

As stated in section 1.3 of the EIS, table 1environmental issues that were identified indicates the section of the EIS in which eThis includes comments received at the pnearly 2,130 written comments and nearly intervene. Table 1.3-1 also lists commenafter the formal scoping period closed. Arelated to environmental issues received oaddressed in Volume I of the final EIS. Fstaff’s responses to each of these letters is of the EIS, including those that were receperiod had closed. We acknowledge that specific issues (i.e., not general impacts) easement negotiations, and we have atteminstances where we believe that is the casOur statement of “less than significant” wThe full sentence reads “We conclude thaprojects would have some adverse envirothese impacts would be reduced to less-thSee the response to comment CO50-22 reeasements. See the response to comment regarding areas not surveyed. See the res3 regarding eminent domain.

IND439-1

S-1730
INDIVIDUALS

IND439 – Robert Lidsky (cont’d)

S-1731
INDIVIDUALS

IND440 – Barbara Pete

IND440-1 The commentor’s opposition to the propo

S-1732
INDIVIDUALS

IND441 – Garrett Brignoli

The pipeline routes lies on a parcel adjaceproperty, on the opposing boundary line. would occur to the commentor’s parcel, abetween the commentor’s parcel and the ppreserving the commentor’s privacy. 

IND441-1

We assume the commentor is referring to hydraulic fracturing. See the response to FA4-45 regarding hydraulic fracturing. 

IND441-2

IND441-3 See the response to comment LA5-3 rega

See the response to comments CO1-5 and flooding.

IND441-4

See the response to comment LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. 

IND441-5

S-1733
INDIVIDUALS

IND441 – Garrett Brignoli (cont’d)

The commentor’s statements regarding thnoted.

IND441-6

S-1734
INDIVIDUALS

IND442 – Michael Stolzer

The websites provided by the commentor responses to comments CO26-19 and INDto comment SA6-1 regarding climate cha

IND442-1

S-1735
INDIVIDUALS

IND443 – I. Funk

IND443-1 See the responses to comments CO26-19 

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND443-2

See the response to comment LA7-5 reganatural gas. See the response to commengas prices.

IND443-3IND443-4 See the response to comment IND13-3 reIND443-5 Terrorism is discussed in section 4.12 of t

See the responses to comments LA1-4 anhydraulic fracturing. See the response to regarding climate change.

IND443-6

S-1736
INDIVIDUALS

IND444 – Robert Stack

Our assessment of this parcel can be founthe EIS. Based on our analysis, we could route crossing for this parcel that was preroute.

IND444-1

See the response to comment LA5-3 regainsurance, and mortgages.

IND444-2IND444-3 The commentor’s statements regarding tr

S-1737
INDIVIDUALS

IND444 – Robert Stack (cont’d)

See response to comment IND9-5 regardiof properties from the right-of-way.

IND444-4

See the response to comment LA5-3 regaSee the response to comment LA1-1 regaSee the response to comment LA1-1 regathe response to comments CO1-4 and INDerosion. See the responses to comments Lregarding hydraulic fracturing.

IND444-5

See the response to comment CO50-55 reprojects. See the response to comment INLeatherstocking. See the response to comexport of natural gas.

IND444-6

S-1738
INDIVIDUALS

IND444 – Robert Stack (cont’d)

IND444-7 The commentor’s statement regarding mi

See the response to comment FA4-12 regmonitoring program that would be used dthe response to comment SA4-10 regardin

IND444-8

S-1739
INDIVIDUALS

IND444 – Robert Stack (cont’d)

IND444-9 The commentor’s request to deny the pro

S-1740
INDIVIDUALS

IND445 – Mark Pezzati

The 50-foot-wide operational easement, Mtowers, and modifications to an existing cwould be the only aboveground visual refExisting pipelines in the area (such as Miresulted in an impact on tourism. In addi(nearly 20 miles) between the proposed pCooperstown, impacts are unlikely. See tcomments LA1-4 and FA4-45 regarding h

IND445-1

S-1741
INDIVIDUALS

IND445 – Mark Pezzati (cont’d)

S-1742
INDIVIDUALS

IND445 – Mark Pezzati (cont’d)

S-1743
INDIVIDUALS

IND446 – Wayne Stinson

See the response to comment SA6-1 regaThe commentor’s request to deny the proSection 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND446-1

S-1744
INDIVIDUALS

IND446 – Wayne Stinson (cont’d)

S-1745
INDIVIDUALS

IND446 – Wayne Stinson (cont’d)

S-1746
INDIVIDUALS

IND447 – Allegra Schecter

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing.

IND447-1

S-1747
INDIVIDUALS

IND447 – Allegra Schecter (cont’d)

S-1748
INDIVIDUALS

IND447 – Allegra Schecter (cont’d)

S-1749
INDIVIDUALS

IND447 – Allegra Schecter (cont’d)

S-1750
INDIVIDUALS

IND447 – Allegra Schecter (cont’d)

S-1751
INDIVIDUALS

IND447 – Allegra Schecter (cont’d)

S-1752
INDIVIDUALS

IND447 – Allegra Schecter (cont’d)

S-1753
INDIVIDUALS

IND447 – Allegra Schecter (cont’d)

S-1754
INDIVIDUALS

IND448 – Allegra Schecter 

IND448-1 See the response to comment LA5-6 rega

S-1755
INDIVIDUALS

IND448 – Allegra Schecter (cont’d) 

S-1756
INDIVIDUALS

IND449 – Thomas Gorman 

See the response to comment SA6-1 regaSection 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND449-1

S-1757
INDIVIDUALS

IND449 – Thomas Gorman (cont’d) 

S-1758
INDIVIDUALS

IND450 – Mary Colleen McKinney 

See the responses to comments LA1-4 anhydraulic fracturing.

IND450-1

S-1759
INDIVIDUALS

IND450 – Mary Colleen McKinney (cont’d)

See the response to comment IND434-1. comment IND13-3 regarding safety.

IND450-2

S-1760
INDIVIDUALS

IND450 – Mary Colleen McKinney (cont’d)

S-1761
INDIVIDUALS

IND450 – Mary Colleen McKinney (cont’d)

Field data were provided for any parcels fwas granted survey permission. See the rFA4-3 regarding unsurveyed parcels. As of the EIS, subsurface springs or seeps enexcavation activities would be directed dodrainage pipes or French drains.

IND450-3

S-1762
INDIVIDUALS

IND450 – Mary Colleen McKinney (cont’d)

S-1763
INDIVIDUALS

IND450 – Mary Colleen McKinney (cont’d)

S-1764
INDIVIDUALS

IND450 – Mary Colleen McKinney (cont’d)

The Executive Summary has been revised regarding regrowth of trees overtop of the since been removed from Constitution’s pinfeasibility.

IND450-4IND450-5 See response to comment FA1-1.

S-1765
INDIVIDUALS

IND451 – Kerry A. Lynch

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND451-1

IND451-2 See the response to comment FA8-3 rega

See the response to comment LA5-3 regainsurance, and mortgages. 

IND451-3

S-1766
INDIVIDUALS

IND452 – Reanne Stack

See the response to comment CO1-2. Noproposed mitigation are discussed in sectiSee the response to comment CO50-108 rmeetings. The commentor’s statements rprojects are noted.

IND452-1

See the response to comment CO1-1. See comment LA7-5 regarding the export of n

IND452-2IND452-3 See the response to comment CO1-2.

S-1767
INDIVIDUALS

IND452 – Reanne Stack (cont’d)

See the response to comment FA8-3 regaThe commentor’s request to deny the pro

IND452-4

S-1768
INDIVIDUALS

IND453 – Robert Stack

See the response to comment CO50-108 rmeetings. See the response to comment Ijobs.

IND453-1

S-1769
See the response to comment LA1-1 rega

FERC compliance monitors would also trarea and monitor their condition ConstituConstitution has removed the Spread 4b cproposal. 

INDIVIDUALSIND454 – Kerry A. Lynch

IND454-1

S-1770
INDIVIDUALS

IND454 – Kerry A. Lynch (cont’d)

S-1771
See the responses to comments FA4-22 a

addition, as stated in section 4.1.5 of the Econduct additional monitoring for wells aareas. Monitoring would be conducted by the start of construction to establish a bascontinue through construction at a rate of construction is occurring within 2,000 feeor groundwater flow path. As stated in seConstitution would test for water quality prior to and after construction, and providsource or a mutually agreeable solution in construction-related impacts. AdditionallConstitution’s Plan, it would remove any inches in diameter from the right-of-way.

INDIVIDUALSIND455 – Kerry A. Lynch

IND455-1

S-1772
See responses to comments CO47-1 and I

INDIVIDUALSIND456 – Kerry A. Lynch

IND456-1

See the response to comment CO50-108 rmeetings. See the response to comment Scommunication towers.

IND456-2IND456-3 See response to comment CO47-1. IND456-4 See response to comment FA1-1.

S-1773
See the response to comment IND429-1.

INDIVIDUALSIND457 – Kerry A. Lynch

IND457-1

See the response to comment SA2-1 regatowers.

IND457-2

Constitution and Iroquois’ proposals were reviewed by the FERC engineers.

IND457-3IND457-4 See response to comments FA1-1 and SA

S-1774
As stated in table 1.5-1 of the EIS, Consti

Application for a General Permit for Storfrom Construction Activities to the NYSDThe NYSDEC is the agency by law respoapproval of the stormwater permit. Inclustormwater permit Application within the redundant and constitute and administratiThe EIS provides a discussion of the prefand 4.0), alternative routes (section 3.0), (section 2.2.3), permanent and temporary 4.8.1.5), and compressor stations (section Measures to describe stormwater impacts mitigation are discussed in section 4.3 of 

INDIVIDUALSIND458 – George Meszaros Jr.

S-1775

IND458-1
INDIVIDUALS

IND458 – George Meszaros Jr. (cont’d)

S-1776
INDIVIDUALS

IND458 – George Meszaros Jr. (cont’d)

S-1777
Table 2.3.2-1 of the EIS provides propose

methods if the trenchless crossing method construction Constitution must file geotecstudies on our e-Library system which wopublic for review and comment.

INDIVIDUALSIND459 – George Meszaros Jr.

IND459-1

S-1778
INDIVIDUALS

IND459 – George Meszaros Jr. (cont’d)

S-1779
INDIVIDUALS

IND459 – George Meszaros Jr. (cont’d)

S-1780
INDIVIDUALS

IND459 – George Meszaros Jr. (cont’d)

S-1781
INDIVIDUALS

IND459 – George Meszaros Jr. (cont’d)

S-1782
See the response to comment IND459-1.

INDIVIDUALSIND460 – George Meszaros Jr.

IND460-1

S-1783
INDIVIDUALS

IND460 – George Meszaros Jr. (cont’d)

S-1784
INDIVIDUALS

IND460 – George Meszaros Jr. (cont’d)

S-1785
INDIVIDUALS

IND460 – George Meszaros Jr. (cont’d)

S-1786
Sensitive resources, as well as potential im

are discussed in the EIS for interior forest 

INDIVIDUALSIND461 – Raymond Lewis

IND461-1

S-1787
See the response to comment CO1-1.

INDIVIDUALSIND462 – Joyce Bitran

IND462-1

See the response to comment IND297-3 rlands.

IND462-2

See the response to comment IND106-1 rimpacts. See the response to comment LAvalues, insurance, and mortgages.

IND462-3

See the response to comments CO1-5 and flooding. See the response to comment INmelt.

IND462-4

See the response to comments CO1-4 and erosion and stormwater runoff. 

IND462-5

See the response to comment FA4-12 regmonitoring program.

IND462-6

See the response to comment IND13-3 reTerrorism is discussed in section 4.12.1 o

IND462-7

See the response to comments CO1-4 and erosion. See the response to comments Cregarding flooding. See the response to cregarding frost heaving. 

IND462-8

S-1788
INDIVIDUALS

IND462 – Joyce Bitran (cont’d)

See the responses to comments LA1-4 anhydraulic fracturing.

IND462-9

S-1789
INDIVIDUALS

IND463 – Raymond Lewis

See the response to comments IND242-1 regarding setback distances. See the respIND13-3 regarding safety.

IND463-1

S-1790
INDIVIDUALS

IND464 – Philip Hulbert

See the response to comment CO50-108 rmeetings.

IND464-1

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for waterbodies (aquatic resources (section 4.6.2.3).

IND464-2

See the response to comment FA4-12 regmonitoring program. 

IND464-3

S-1791
INDIVIDUALS

IND464 – Philip Hulbert (cont’d)

See the response to comments CO1-4 and erosion. 

IND464-4IND464-5 See the response to comment FA4-12.

S-1792
INDIVIDUALS

IND464 – Philip Hulbert (cont’d)

S-1793
INDIVIDUALS

IND464 – Philip Hulbert (cont’d)

S-1794
INDIVIDUALS

IND464 – Philip Hulbert (cont’d)

S-1795
INDIVIDUALS

IND464 – Philip Hulbert (cont’d)

S-1796
INDIVIDUALS

IND464 – Philip Hulbert (cont’d)

S-1797
INDIVIDUALS

IND465 – Raymond Lewis

See the response to comment LA7-5 regagas.

IND465-1

S-1798
INDIVIDUALS

IND466 – Jennifer Stinson

See the response to comment IND341-12 Also see the response to comment IND19

IND466-1

See the response to comment LA5-3 regamortgages, and insurance.

IND466-2

S-1799
INDIVIDUALS

IND466 – Jennifer Stinson (cont’d)

S-1800
INDIVIDUALS

IND466 – Jennifer Stinson (cont’d)

S-1801
INDIVIDUALS

IND467 – Janet Marsh

Section 4.3.3.2 of the EIS has been reviseTown of Sidney residents use the reservosupply (for which the intake would be crodescribed in section 2.3.2.2 of the EIS, thprocess a slurry of naturally occurring, nobentonite clay and water would be pressuthrough the drilling head to lubricate the dcuttings, and hold the hole open. This sludrilling mud or drilling fluid, has the potereleased to the surface. Constitution wouroute and the circulation of drilling mud toperation for indications of an inadvertenimmediately implement corrective actionor suspected. The corrective actions that implement, including the agencies it wouwould take to clean up and dispose of a reDraft HDD Contingency Plan, which is dof the EIS. Given that the intake would bproposed crossing, impacts on the reservo

IND467-1

S-1802
INDIVIDUALS

IND467 – Janet Marsh (cont’d)

S-1803
INDIVIDUALS

IND468 – Karen Detert

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND468-1

See the response to comment IND10-5 rethe response to comment IND13-3 regardresponse to comment CO1-1.

IND468-2

See the response to comment LA10-1. Secomment IND54-1 regarding delivery of 

IND468-3IND468-4 See the response to comment FA1-1.

S-1804
INDIVIDUALS

IND468 – Karen Detert (cont’d)

IND468-5 See the response to comment IND163-1.IND468-6 See the response to comment IND341-12 

The commentor’s statements regarding emnoted. See the response to comment FA8domain.

IND468-7

The commentor’s statements regarding thnoted. Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS providerenewable energy.

IND468-8

S-1805
INDIVIDUALS

IND469 – Raymond Lewis

As stated in section 4.4.5 of the EIS, Conimpacts on wetlands in New York by restenhancing the quality of existing wetlandwetlands, or preserving existing wetlandsconnection whatsoever between wetland mfor town emergency services. In Pennsylpreliminarily identified a wetland mitigatwould provide “in-kind” mitigation for uncaused by the pipeline project and resultinwetland function or area. We agree that cnew water holding body would be pretty environment.

IND469-1

S-1806
INDIVIDUALS

IND470 – Glen and Laura Bertrand

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND470-1IND470-2 See response to comment FA1-1.

See the response to comment FA4-29 regdraft upland forest mitigation plan.

IND470-3IND470-4 See the response to comments CO1-4 and 

See the response to comment IND9-5 regof the right-of-way.

IND470-5

S-1807
INDIVIDUALS

IND470 – Glen and Laura Bertrand (cont’d)

The stone walls are discussed in section 4extent possible, Constitution has routed itwalls.

IND470-6

See the response to comment FA8-3 regaAs discussed in section 4.9.5 of the EIS, lcompensated for any marketable timber ththeir property during construction. 

IND470-7IND470-8 The commentor’s request to deny the pro

S-1808
INDIVIDUALS

IND471 – Michael Stolzer

See the responses to comments LA1-4 anhydraulic fracturing. The New York Maiby the commentor would not fall under thThis project has been added to the cumula4.13 of the EIS.

IND471-1

S-1809
INDIVIDUALS

IND472 – Wayne Stinson

IND472-1 See the response to comment LA7-5 rega

See the response to comment LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing.

IND472-2

S-1810
INDIVIDUALS

IND472 – Wayne Stinson (cont’d)

The commentor’s statements regarding thof the EIS are noted.

IND472-3

S-1811
INDIVIDUALS

IND473 – Raymond Lewis

See the responses to comments LA1-4 anhydraulic fracturing.

IND473-1

S-1812
INDIVIDUALS

IND474 – Raymond Lewis

The commentor’s statement regarding wastated in section 4.3.4 of the EIS, no longsurface waters are anticipated as a result obecause Constitution would not permanendesignated water uses, it would bury the pof all waterbodies, it would implement erwould restore the streambanks and streamas practical to pre-construction conditionsnot introduce any sterilization agents into 

IND474-1

S-1813
INDIVIDUALS

IND475 – Joan Tubridy

See the response to comment IND205-1 rresponse to comment FA8-3 regarding emPotential impacts and mitigation on tourisEIS in section 4.9.2. See the response to FA4-45 regarding hydraulic fracturing.

IND475-1

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy. See the response to comment INDprices. See the response to comment LA7natural gas. See the response to commenproperty values. 

IND475-2

S-1814
INDIVIDUALS

IND475 – Joan Tubridy (cont’d)

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy. See the response to comment SAchange. 

IND475-3

S-1815
INDIVIDUALS

IND476 – Michael L. Stolzer

IND476-1 See response to comment FA1-1.

S-1816
INDIVIDUALS

IND477 – Raymond Lewis

IND477-1 See the response to comment IND341-12 

See the response to comment IND9-5 regaccess to properties from the right-of-way

IND477-2

S-1817
INDIVIDUALS

IND478 – Raymond Lewis

See the response to comment LA1-6 regaservices.

IND478-1

See the response to comments CO41-21 aair quality. See the response to comment unauthorized access. 

IND478-2

S-1818
INDIVIDUALS

IND479 – Raymond Lewis

See the response to comment LA7-5 regaresponse to comment FA8-3 regarding em

IND479-1

See the responses to comments CO50-55 our analysis of the projects’ benefits and need.

IND479-2

S-1819
INDIVIDUALS

IND480 – Raymond Lewis

See the response to comment LA5-3 regamortgages, and insurance.

IND480-1

S-1820
INDIVIDUALS

IND481 – Raymond Lewis

We are not sure what the commentor is rebacked media,” as industrial incidents of reported by newspapers, television news, vast majority of natural gas incidents involines that are not regulated by FERC. See comment IND13-3 regarding safety. See comments IND242-1 and IND292-8 regaSee response to comment CO47-1.

IND481-1

S-1821
INDIVIDUALS

IND482 – Brian Crabtree

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND482-1

As stated in section 1.2 of the EIS, the dawere obtained from several sources includsuch as scientific literature and regulatory as field data collected by Constitution and necessary access cannot be obtained throulandowners and the proposed projects are FERC, Constitution may use the right of to it under section 7(h) of the NGA to obtTherefore, if the projects are certificated bthen it is likely that a substantial number surveys for Constitution’s project (and aspermitting) would have to be completed acertificate. This is not unusual for projec

IND482-2IND482-3 See the response to comment CO1-2.

See the responses to comments LA1-4 anhydraulic fracturing.

IND482-4

See the responses to comments CO50-55 our analysis of the projects’ benefits and project need. The commentor’s oppositioprojects is noted.

IND482-5

S-1822
INDIVIDUALS

IND483 – James A. Sikora

See the response to comment CO50-55 anbenefit, need, and export. See the responregarding safety and comment IND135-3 in Harlem. See the response to commentregarding water quality. Local distributiovery low pressure, and odorization helps pressure transmission lines are completely would provide little to no benefit.

IND483-1

See the response to comment LA5-3 regainsurance, and mortgages.

IND483-2

The commentor’s statement regarding signoted. See the response to comment LA4testing.

IND483-3

See the responses to comments LA1-4 anhydraulic fracturing. The commentor’s reproposed projects is noted.

IND483-4

S-1823
INDIVIDUALS

IND484 – Maria Luisa Tasayco

The proposed project would transport natthe responses to comments LA1-4 and FAhydraulic fracturing. See the response to regarding safety and comment IND135-3 in Harlem. 

IND484-1

See the response to comment FA8-3 regaSee the response to comment CO1-2. See comments CO1-4 and IND169-1 regardincommentor’s statements regarding fossil 

IND484-2

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND484-3

S-1824
INDIVIDUALS

IND485 – Kelli Cain

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. Potential impacts anare discussed in the EIS in section 4.9.2. 

IND485-1

S-1825
INDIVIDUALS

IND486 – Dianne Sefcik

IND486-1 See the response to comments FA1-1 and 

S-1826
INDIVIDUALS

IND487 – Mark VanLaeys

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND487-1

See the response to comment LA5-3 regaSee the response to comment IND205-1 r

IND487-2

See the response to comment FA8-3 regalandowners. 

IND487-3IND487-4 See the response to comment IND13-3 reIND487-5 The commentor’s opposition of the propo

S-1827
INDIVIDUALS

IND488 – Dru Dempsey

The commentor’s statement regarding the commentor’s opposition to the proposed p

IND488-1

S-1828
INDIVIDUALS

IND489 – Dianne Sefcik

IND489-1 Section 1.2.5 has been revised as suggest

S-1829
INDIVIDUALS

IND490 – Timothy Camann

IND490-1 The commentor’s statement regarding an 

The commentor’s statements regarding thnoted. Constitution would be required to alignment sheets prior to construction if tapproved. 

IND490-2

Our assessment of this parcel can be founthe EIS where we recommended that Conroute variation. 

IND490-3

S-1830
INDIVIDUALS

IND490 – Timothy Camann (cont’d)

IND490-4 See the response to comment FA5-5.

See the response to comment SA6-1 regaSection 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND490-5

See the responses to comments LA1-4 anhydraulic fracturing. See the response to regarding export.

IND490-6

See the response to comment FA8-3 regaSee the response to comment SA6-1 rega

IND490-7

S-1831
INDIVIDUALS

IND490 – Timothy Camann (cont’d)

See the response to comment CO43-8 regregulations state that these areas should bpractical.” Complete avoidance of all of realistic or practical.

IND490-8

Constitution would seek approval to begias possible after receiving all necessary feIn-service would shortly follow completiorestoration is proceeding satisfactorily. Scomment CO50-47. Geotechnical feasibidetermine if the proposed trenchless crosssuccessful. A trenchless crossing would ogeotech report was favorable. As stated iproposed trenchless crossing were to fail, a dry crossing method for all waterbodiesConstitution’s desired in-service date of Munrealistic given the current schedule for 

IND490-9

S-1832
INDIVIDUALS

IND490 – Timothy Camann (cont’d)

See the response to comment FA4-12 regthird-party compliance monitor. Construspread are working together in an assembTherefore, the EI would be able to observavailable for consultations. Completed redisturbed areas would need to be approvestated in Constitution’s ECPs, EIs would and after clearing to aid with restoration. of the use of computer graphics for contoresponse to comment IND13-3 regarding 

IND490-10

S-1833
INDIVIDUALS

IND490 – Timothy Camann (cont’d)

S-1834
INDIVIDUALS

IND491 – Epifanio Bevilacqua

IND491-1 See response to comment FA1-1.IND491-2 See response to comment CO47-1.

See the response to comment CO41-29 reCompressor Station. The commentor’s stApplicants are noted.

IND491-3

S-1835
INDIVIDUALS

IND492 – Renee Nied

Constitution has agreed to work with locatraffic impacts on the public. 

IND492-1

Constitution has agreed to practice safe stused for blasting in accordance with all ap

IND492-2IND492-3 See the response to comment IND492-1.

S-1836
INDIVIDUALS

IND492 – Renee Nied (cont’d)

IND492-4 See the response to comment IND492-2.

See the response to comment IND492-1. Constitution’s proposed contractor yard(sproposed mitigation measures, we find th

IND492-5

S-1837
INDIVIDUALS

IND493 – Edith Kantrowitz

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND493-1

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for interior forest waterbodies (section 4.3.3), steep slopes (

4.1.3; appendix G), soil compaction (sectbedrock (sections 2.3.1 and 4.1.3; append4.4 and appendix L), air quality (section 4farmland/agriculture (sections 2.3.2, 4.2, 

IND493-2

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing.

IND493-3

See the response to comment SA6-1 regaSection 3.1.2.3 of the EIS discusses renew

IND493-4

S-1838
INDIVIDUALS

IND494 – Valerie Dudley

See response to comment FA1-1. See the SA2-1 regarding communication towers. comment CO50-108 regarding the comm

IND494-1

S-1839
INDIVIDUALS

IND495 – Marie Reinertsen

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. See the response to regarding safety. See the response to comregarding the incident in Harlem.

IND495-1

See the response to comment CO1-1. See comment FA4-3 regarding surveys. The regarding opposition to alternative K is n

IND495-2

See the response to comment IND44-2. Tstatement regarding hydraulic fracturing i

IND495-3

S-1840
INDIVIDUALS

IND496 – Kathleen Brown

The commentor’s statement regarding disis noted. Landowner notifications have owith FERC regulations.

IND496-1IND496-2 See the response to comment FA1-1.

The commentor’s statement regarding rurnoted. See the response to comment IND

IND496-3

S-1841
INDIVIDUALS

IND496 – Kathleen Brown (cont’d)

See the response to comment LA5-3 regaSee the response to comment CO43-8 reg

IND496-4

See the responses to comments LA1-4 anhydraulic fracturing. Constitution would concrete during construction of these prop

IND496-5

Constitution would select its pipe thicknethe DOT regulations in 49 CFR 192. See comment IND358-3 regarding pipeline co

IND496-6

As discussed in section 2.3.1 of the EIS, Cinstall cathodic protection equipment alonprevent the corrosion of metal surfaces ovand Iroquois would adhere to the inspectiPHMSA and outlined in table 2.6-1 of the measures would be performed as needed.

IND496-7

See the response to comment LA1-1 regathe response to comment IND492-1 regar

IND496-8

S-1842
INDIVIDUALS

IND496 – Kathleen Brown (cont’d)

As stated in section 4.1.3.8 it is expected the bedrock would be ripped using convetechniques and blasting would not be requto comment LA4-2 regarding water well t

IND496-9

See the response to comment IND297-3 rmay be replanted by the landowner within of-way. Trees may not be planted within right-of-way. Watersheds and surface wasection 4.3.3 of the EIS. 

IND496-10

See the response to comment LA7-5 regagas. See the response to comment IND20prices.

IND496-11

See the responses to comments LA1-4 anhydraulic fracturing. 

IND496-12

S-1843
INDIVIDUALS

IND496 – Kathleen Brown (cont’d)

The commentor’s statements regarding noLandowner notifications have occurred in FERC regulations.

IND496-13

See the response to comment FA8-3 regaand easement negotiations.

IND496-14

See the responses to comments FA4-12 (ecompliance), CO47-1 (William’s safety rand IND239-2 (regarding safety). By sigOffice of Pipeline Safety (within the USDinspects interstate gas and hazardous liquNew York. Also, through certification by inspects and enforces the pipeline safety rgas and hazardous liquid pipeline operatowork is performed by the New York Publhttp://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/FactShPL_Safety_Regulatory_Fact_Sheet.htm.

IND496-15

If there was an incident, the gas would veand would not contaminate the ground or response to comment IND496-7 regardinIn addition the proposed pipeline would bto reduce corrosion. See the response to cregarding safety.

IND496-16IND496-17 See the response to comment IND11-8 re

The information regarding the incident in noted. See the responses to comments LAresponders) and LA5-3 (insurance). ConGrant Program has already benefitted emSchoharie County, New York as describethe EIS.

IND496-18

S-1844
INDIVIDUALS

IND496 – Kathleen Brown (cont’d)

See the response to comment LA1-6 regaservices. Schoharie County has also recefunding.

IND496-19

See the response to comment LA5-3 regainsurance, and mortgages. See the responregarding liability for an accident. 

IND496-20IND496-21 See the response to comment CO43-8.

The commentor’s statements regarding runoted. See the response to comment INDareas.

IND496-22

Section 4.12 of the EIS provides a discusimpact radius.

IND496-23

S-1845
INDIVIDUALS

IND496 – Kathleen Brown (cont’d)

See the response to comment IND341-12 See the response to comment IND193-4 rdirectly impacted parcels. The commentopipeline is noted. 

IND496-24

S-1846
INDIVIDUALS

IND497 – Peter Hudiburg

See the response to comments CO1-5 and flooding. See the response to comments regarding erosion. 

IND497-1

See the response to comment LA5-3 regainsurance, and mortgages. See the responregarding hydraulic fracturing.

IND497-2

See the response to comment SA6-1 regaand GHGs. Cumulative impacts on air qusection 4.13.6.10 of the EIS. Additional g

stations, and LNG facilities would be spe

reasonably foreseeable and therefore not cumulative impacts analysis.

IND497-3

S-1847
INDIVIDUALS

IND497 – Peter Hudiburg (cont’d)

See the response to comment CO26-19 anthe use of natural gas. See the response tregarding need. See the response to commnatural gas reserves. Section 3.1.2.3 of thdiscussion of renewable energy.

IND497-4

S-1848
INDIVIDUALS

IND497 – Peter Hudiburg (cont’d)

S-1849
INDIVIDUALS

IND497 – Peter Hudiburg (cont’d)

S-1850
INDIVIDUALS

IND497 – Peter Hudiburg (cont’d)

S-1851
INDIVIDUALS

IND498 – Clark J. Rhoades

See the response to comment IND13-3 recommentor’s statement regarding the potnoted. The equation to calculate the poteprovided by regulations at 49 CFR 192.90

IND498-1

The commentor’s statements regarding thMexico incident are noted. The potential calculation is defined by the DOT and canCommission. The definition of a high coas defined by DOT is described in section summary of pipeline incidents can be fouthe EIS.

IND498-2

S-1852
INDIVIDUALS

IND498 – Clark J. Rhoades (cont’d)

S-1853
INDIVIDUALS

IND498 – Clark J. Rhoades (cont’d)

S-1854
INDIVIDUALS

IND498 – Clark J. Rhoades (cont’d)

S-1855
INDIVIDUALS

IND498 – Clark J. Rhoades (cont’d)

S-1856
INDIVIDUALS

IND498 – Clark J. Rhoades (cont’d)

See the response to comment LA5-3 regaSee the response to comment LA1-6 regaservices.

IND498-3

The commentor’s statements regarding Hcommentor’s opposition is noted.

IND498-4

S-1857
INDIVIDUALS

IND498 – Clark J. Rhoades (cont’d)

S-1858
INDIVIDUALS

IND498 – Clark J. Rhoades (cont’d)

S-1859
INDIVIDUALS

IND499 – Kerry A. Lynch

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND499-1

See the response to comments CO1-4 and erosion and stormwater runoff. See the reCO41-44 regarding landslides. See the reLA1-1 regarding road repairs. See the reLA1-4 and FA4-45 regarding hydraulic fr

IND499-2

See the response to comments IND106-1 benefits of the proposed projects. The coregarding Amphenol are noted.

IND499-3

See the response to comment IND297-3 rlands. See the response to comment LA5values. As stated in section 4.9.2 of the Etourism due to construction of the proposto be minimal.

IND499-4IND499-5 See the response to comment LA1-1 rega

See response to comment CO47-1 regardrecord. See the response to comment IND

IND499-6IND499-7 See the response to comment LA7-5 rega

S-1860
INDIVIDUALS

IND499 – Kerry A. Lynch (cont’d)

See the response to comment FA8-3 regaThe commentor’s request to deny the pro

IND499-8

S-1861
INDIVIDUALS

IND500 – John Hviid

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. Section 3.2 of the Eof the feasibility of using existing pipelinmodifying existing pipeline systems to mobjectives. See the response to comment collocation.

IND500-1

The commentor’s request for independenSee the response to comment IND13-3 reresponse to comment IND239-2. See the IND385-7 regarding monitoring and valv

IND500-2

Pipeline right-of-ways are not generally ftheir individual easement agreements with landowners may negotiate the use of fenccompensation.

IND500-3

S-1862
INDIVIDUALS

IND500 – John Hviid (cont’d)

See the response to comment FA8-3 regaThe commentor appears to be referencing United to Restrain Eminent Domain, Inc. Company, LLC. The Bluegrass Pipeline wgas liquids and these facilities do not fall Facilities certificated under the NGA can eminent domain to the applicant. 

IND500-4

S-1863
INDIVIDUALS

IND501 – Patrick Rider

See response to comment FA1-1 regardincomment period. See the response to comregarding agricultural lands.

IND501-1

S-1864
INDIVIDUALS

IND502 – William Huston

See response to comment FA1-1. See the SA2-1 regarding the communication towecomment CO50-108 regarding the comm

IND502-1

S-1865
INDIVIDUALS

IND503 – Dianne Sefcik

The commentor’s statement regarding emSee the response to comment FA8-3 rega

IND503-1

S-1866
INDIVIDUALS

IND503 – Dianne Sefcik (cont’d)

S-1867
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti

S-1868

IND504-1 The commentor’s introduction and creden
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

S-1869
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

S-1870
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

IND504-2 See the responses to comments LA7-5 an

S-1871
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

See the response to comment CO42-41. Scomment FA4-18 regarding system and cSee the responses to comments LA7-5 andestination markets.

IND504-3

S-1872
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

S-1873
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

IND504-4 See the responses to comments LA7-5 an

S-1874
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

S-1875
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

S-1876
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

S-1877
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

See the response to comment CO26-18. LFERC are subject to financial disclosures interest.

IND504-5

S-1878
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

S-1879
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

S-1880
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

S-1881
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

S-1882
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

S-1883
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

S-1884
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

S-1885
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

S-1886
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

See the response to comment LA7-5 regaConstitution has precedent agreements, thwith its customers for the delivery of natugas pipelines, costing hundreds of millionnot built based on uncertain or speculativ

IND504-6

S-1887
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

Natural gas delivery infrastructure is not current demand, barely meet current demexpected demand. Infrastructure is designcapacity to be able to accommodate both periods (such as extreme hot or extreme cand account for increasing demand over tresponse to comment LA7-5 regarding prrecognize and acknowledge the multitude that are and as proposed would serve marNew England. See the response to commregional development of pipelines. 

IND504-7

S-1888
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

S-1889
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

S-1890
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

The information regarding Leatherstockinamounts to local towns was not available publication of the draft EIS, so it was not information in the document at that time. updated with new information regarding LSee the responses to comments FA4-46 a

IND504-8

S-1891
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

S-1892
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

S-1893
INDIVIDUALS

IND504 – Anne Marie Garti (cont’d)

See the responses to comments LA7-5 anNortheast Direct Project, formerly known Expansion project, would according to pufrom Pennsylvania to Wright, New York, Massachusetts. Given this apparent confiDirect Project likely would not be suitablmost of Constitution’s capacity. We have the Northeast Direct Project in an updated Northeast Direct Project is pursued, then own environmental review. 

IND504-9

S-1894
INDIVIDUALS

IND505 – Heidi Nakashima

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND505-1

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. See the response to regarding property values. See the responPotential impacts and mitigation on tourisEIS in section 4.9.2. See the response to regarding organic farms.

IND505-2

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for forest and int4.5.3), waterbodies (section 4.3.3), endan4.7), steep slopes (sections 2.3.2, and 4.1.bedrock (sections 2.3.1 and 4.1.3; append4.4 and appendix L), air quality (section 4farmland/agriculture (sections 2.3.2, 4.2, See the response to comments CO1-4 and stormwater runoff.

IND505-3

See the response to comment FA4-24 regtesting.

IND505-4

Sensitive species and habitats are identifiand consultation with state and federal ag

IND505-5

See the response to comment SA6-1 regaSee the response to comments CO1-5 and flooding. Earthquakes are discussed in se

IND505-6IND505-7 See the response to comment IND11-8 re

See the response to comment IND496-7 rinspections. See also the response to com

IND505-8

Given the depth at which the pipeline wo2.3.1-1 in the EIS), a bullet used for huntipipeline. 

IND505-9

S-1895
INDIVIDUALS

IND505 – Heidi Nakashima (cont’d)

As stated in section 4.12 of the EIS, Conshave already met with emergency servicethe counties that would be affected by the they would continue to meet with the depcounties along the pipeline route annuallyprovide these departments with emergencemergency response plans. Affected pubemergency responders, public officials, anreceive annual updates about the pipeline

IND505-10

See the response to comment IND53-1 rethe pipeline. Some pipelines are abandonsometimes they are removed. 

IND505-11

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing.

IND505-12

S-1896
INDIVIDUALS

IND505 – Heidi Nakashima (cont’d)

The commentor’s request to deny the proSee the response to comment CO50-55 re

IND505-13

S-1897
INDIVIDUALS

IND506 – Robert Strother

IND506-1 See response to comment FA1-1.

S-1898
INDIVIDUALS

IND506 – Robert Strother (cont’d)

S-1899
INDIVIDUALS

IND507 – Clark J. Rhoades

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted. Remotely controlled Mcontinuously monitored at Constitution’s in the event of an incident, an electronic cclosure can be sent. As stated in section 2Constitution would use remotely controllpipeline route. Table 2.1.2-1 in the EIS peach of the 11 MLVs. As stated in section 4.12 of the EIS, Congautomatic or remote control shut-off valvresponse to comment IND13-3 regarding commentor’s request to deny the propose

IND507-1

S-1900
INDIVIDUALS

IND507 – Clark J. Rhoades (cont’d)

S-1901
INDIVIDUALS

IND507 – Clark J. Rhoades (cont’d)

S-1902
INDIVIDUALS

IND507 – Clark J. Rhoades (cont’d)

S-1903
INDIVIDUALS

IND507 – Clark J. Rhoades (cont’d)

S-1904
INDIVIDUALS

IND508 – Robert Strother

The commentor’s request to move the proThe proposed pipeline would be approximcommentor’s house. There are literally ththousands, of residences in the United Stafeet of a high-pressure natural gas transmresponse to comments IND13-3 and CO4The commentor’s request to deny the pro

IND508-1

S-1905
INDIVIDUALS

IND508 – Robert Strother (cont’d)

S-1906
INDIVIDUALS

IND508 – Robert Strother (cont’d)

S-1907
INDIVIDUALS

IND508 – Robert Strother (cont’d)

S-1908
INDIVIDUALS

IND508 – Robert Strother (cont’d)

S-1909
INDIVIDUALS

IND508 – Robert Strother (cont’d)

S-1910
INDIVIDUALS

IND508 – Robert Strother (cont’d)

S-1911
INDIVIDUALS

IND508 – Robert Strother (cont’d)

S-1912
INDIVIDUALS

IND509 – William Huston

See the response to comment CO50-108 rmeetings.

IND509-1

S-1913
INDIVIDUALS

IND509 – William Huston (cont’d)

S-1914
INDIVIDUALS

IND509 – William Huston (cont’d)

S-1915
INDIVIDUALS

IND509 – William Huston (cont’d)

S-1916
INDIVIDUALS

IND509 – William Huston (cont’d)

S-1917
INDIVIDUALS

IND510 – Jill A. Wiener

The commentor’s request to deny the proSee the response to comment LA7-5 rega

IND510-1

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND510-2IND510-3 See the response to comment CO1-1.IND510-4 See the response to comment FA4-2 rega

See the response to comment SA6-1 regaSee the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing.

IND510-5

See the response to comment LA5-3 regaSee the response to comment IND13-3 re

IND510-6IND510-7 See the response to comment LA7-5 rega

S-1918
INDIVIDUALS

IND510 – Jill A. Wiener (cont’d)

S-1919
INDIVIDUALS

IND511 – Robert Strother

IND511-1 See the response to comment IND13-3 reIND511-2 See the response to comment CO1-2.IND511-3 See the response to comment IND508-1.

S-1920
INDIVIDUALS

IND511 – Robert Strother (cont’d)

S-1921
INDIVIDUALS

IND512 – Laura Pierson

The commentor’s request to deny the proSee the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. 

IND512-1

See the response to comment LA5-3 regamortgages, and insurance.

IND512-2

See the response to comment CO50-55 reproposed projects.

IND512-3

S-1922
INDIVIDUALS

IND513 – Teresa Winchester

IND513-1 See the response to comment LA7-5 rega

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing.

IND513-2

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy. See the response to comment SAchange. 

IND513-3

See the response to comment LA5-3 regainsurance, and mortgages. The commentregarding the proposed projects are noted

IND513-4

S-1923
INDIVIDUALS

IND513 – Teresa Winchester (cont’d)

S-1924
INDIVIDUALS

IND514 – Allegra Schecter

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing.

IND514-1

See the response to comment LA5-3 regainsurance, and mortgages. We note that tarticle refers to property values as related hydraulic fracturing. The Constitution pi

IND514-2

S-1925
INDIVIDUALS

IND514 – Allegra Schecter (cont’d)

S-1926
INDIVIDUALS

IND514 – Allegra Schecter (cont’d)

S-1927
INDIVIDUALS

IND515 – Dianne Sefcik

See the response to comment CO50-108 rmeetings. The commentor’s request for ameetings is noted. 

IND515-1

S-1928
INDIVIDUALS

IND515 – Dianne Sefcik (cont’d)

The commentor’s statement regarding pronoted. See the response to comment INDdistances. 

IND515-2

The FERC staff conducts independent anprojects and discloses its findings through an EIS (for these projects). After the NEPcompleted, the Commissioners at the FERby the President, decide whether or not to 

IND515-3

S-1929
INDIVIDUALS

IND516 – Linda Bevilacqua

See the response to comment CO50-108 rmeetings.

IND516-1

S-1930
INDIVIDUALS

IND517 – Bob Rosen

See the response to comment CO43-17 reproject within New York City would resuthan the proposed project. The purpose ois not to compare the proposed projects to purposes and needs but to compare it to ameet the same goals.

IND517-1

S-1931
INDIVIDUALS

IND517 – Bob Rosen (cont’d)

S-1932
INDIVIDUALS

IND517 – Bob Rosen (cont’d)

S-1933
INDIVIDUALS

IND517 – Bob Rosen (cont’d)

S-1934
INDIVIDUALS

IND517 – Bob Rosen (cont’d)

S-1935
INDIVIDUALS

IND518 – Anthony Baroni

The commentor’s statements regarding buare noted. See the response to comment Feminent domain.

IND518-1IND518-2 See the response to comment CO39-3.

The commentor’s statements regarding thSee the response to comment CO50-22 reeasements.

IND518-3IND518-4 See the response to comment LA7-5 rega

See the response to comment FA8-3 reganegotiations. See the response to comme

IND518-5

S-1936
INDIVIDUALS

IND518 – Anthony Baroni (cont’d)

The commentor’s statements regarding mConstitution are noted. See the response 

IND518-6

See the response to comment LA7-5 regadiscussed in section 1.1 of the EIS, the shgas from Susquehanna County, PennsylvYork. The commentor’s request to deny noted.

IND518-7

S-1937
INDIVIDUALS

IND519 – Dave Elder

IND519-1 See the response to comment LA7-5 regaIND519-2 See the response to comment IND13-3 re

We assume the commentor is referring to See the response to comment LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing.

IND519-3

S-1938
INDIVIDUALS

IND520 – Thomas Gorman

Most private companies consider that maobjective. See the response to comment Schange. See the response to comment CO

IND520-1

Collocation may result in less land acquirdomain; however, environmental impacts Vegetation would still be cleared and watcrossed in order to collocate with an existuse of “we” throughout the EIS denotes th

IND520-2

S-1939
INDIVIDUALS

IND520 – Thomas Gorman (cont’d)

S-1940
INDIVIDUALS

IND521 – Andra Leimanis

IND521-1 See the response to comment IND13-3 re

See the response to comment IND297-3 rlands.

IND521-2

See the response to comments CO1-4 and erosion and stormwater runoff. See the reCO1-5 and IND113-1 regarding flooding

IND521-3

See the response to comment CO1-2. See comment IND496-7 regarding corrosion pof the EIS provides a discussion regardin

IND521-4IND521-5 See the response to comment IND13-3 re

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. The commentor’s oproposed projects is noted.

IND521-6

S-1941
INDIVIDUALS

IND521 – Andra Leimanis (cont’d)

S-1942
INDIVIDUALS

IND522 – Florence Carnahan

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. The commentor’s oproposed projects is noted.

IND522-1

S-1943