See the response to comment CO50-108 r

meetings. The commentor’s statements rare noted. 

INDIVIDUALSIND523 – Epifanio Bevilacqua

IND523-1

S-1944
The commentor’s statements in support o

are noted.

INDIVIDUALSIND524 – Dave Parker 

IND524-1

S-1945
INDIVIDUALS

IND524 – Dave Parker (cont’d)

S-1946
INDIVIDUALS

IND524 – Dave Parker (cont’d)

S-1947
INDIVIDUALS

IND524 – Dave Parker (cont’d)

S-1948
INDIVIDUALS

IND524 – Dave Parker (cont’d)

S-1949
The commentor’s opposition to the propo

Our assessment of this parcel can be founthe EIS where we recommended that Conminimization measures. 

INDIVIDUALSIND525 – Eric V. Haight

IND525-1

S-1950
See the response to comments CO1-4 and 

erosion. See the response to comments Cregarding flooding. The commentor’s reqproposed projects is noted. See the respo

INDIVIDUALSIND525 – Eric V. Haight (cont’d)

IND525-2

S-1951
See the response to comment CO50-108 r

meetings. The commentor’s statements rmeetings are noted.

INDIVIDUALSIND526 – Linda Bevilacqua

IND526-1

S-1952
Sensitive resources, as well as potential im

are 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). See the response regarding safety. See the response to comregarding spills. See the response to comIND13-4 regarding air quality. .

INDIVIDUALSIND527 – Meredith Dillon

IND527-1

See the response to comment IND135-3 rHarlem.

IND527-2

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy. The commentor’s request to deny is noted. .

S-1953

IND527-3
See the response to comment IND173-1.

INDIVIDUALSIND528 – Pamela Bohsung

IND528-1

S-1954
The commentor’s opposition to the propo

land is noted. See the response to commethis parcel.

INDIVIDUALSIND529 – Maryann E. Zeffer

IND529-1

S-1955
See the response to comment IND273-9.

INDIVIDUALSIND529 – Maryann E. Zeffer (cont’d)

IND529-2

IND529-3 See the response to comment IND273-1 r

S-1956
The commentor’s statements regarding m

are noted. See the response to comment C

INDIVIDUALSIND529 – Maryann E. Zeffer (cont’d)

IND529-4

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

IND529-5

S-1957
The commentor’s statements regarding ea

INDIVIDUALSIND529 – Maryann E. Zeffer (cont’d)

IND529-6

IND529-7 See the response to comment LA7-5 rega

S-1958
See the response to comment IND273-9.

INDIVIDUALSIND529 – Maryann E. Zeffer (cont’d)

IND529-9

IND529-10 The commentor’s request to deny the pro

IND529-8 See the response to comment FA8-3 rega

S-1959
INDIVIDUALS

IND529 – Maryann E. Zeffer (cont’d)

S-1960
INDIVIDUALS

IND530 – Bridget Spann

See the response to comment IND11-1 reSee the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing.

IND530-1

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy. The commentor’s opposition to tnoted.

IND530-2

S-1961
INDIVIDUALS

IND531 – Bruce H. Madden

IND531-1 The commentor’s statement regarding Bi

S-1962
INDIVIDUALS

IND531 – Bruce H. Madden (cont’d)

S-1963
INDIVIDUALS

IND532 – Dianne Sefcik

IND532-1 The commentor’s email address is noted.

S-1964
INDIVIDUALS

IND533 – Victoria Quesada

The commentor’s opposition is noted. Secomments LA8-3 and IND116-1 regardinConstitution pipeline would transport natuNatural gas pipelines do not result in an agroundwater contamination.

IND533-1

IND533-2 See the response to comment SA6-1 rega

S-1965
INDIVIDUALS

IND534 – Kim Michels

The commentor’s request for intervenor sCommission will make a determination oparty’s intervention status. See the resporegarding radon. See the response to comclimate change. See the response to commsafety. See the response to comment FA1comment to LA1-6 regarding the commuemergency services. State parks are discuthe EIS. See the response to IND13-5 regand abandonment. See section 4.9 of the housing, taxes, and traffic.

IND534-1

S-1966
INDIVIDUALS

IND534 – Kim Michels (cont’d)

S-1967
INDIVIDUALS

IND534 – Kim Michels (cont’d)

S-1968
INDIVIDUALS

IND534 – Kim Michels (cont’d)

S-1969
INDIVIDUALS

IND534 – Kim Michels (cont’d)

S-1970
INDIVIDUALS

IND534 – Kim Michels (cont’d)

S-1971
INDIVIDUALS

IND534 – Kim Michels (cont’d)

S-1972
INDIVIDUALS

IND534 – Kim Michels (cont’d)

S-1973
INDIVIDUALS

IND534 – Kim Michels (cont’d)

S-1974
INDIVIDUALS

IND534 – Kim Michels (cont’d)

S-1975
INDIVIDUALS

IND534 – Kim Michels (cont’d)

S-1976
INDIVIDUALS

IND534 – Kim Michels (cont’d)

S-1977
INDIVIDUALS

IND534 – Kim Michels (cont’d)

S-1978
INDIVIDUALS

IND534 – Kim Michels (cont’d)

S-1979
INDIVIDUALS

IND535 –Margery Schab

See the response to comment CO1-1. Thto deny the proposed projects is noted. Swell as potential impacts and mitigation, for water resources (section 4.3.3) and tou

IND535-1

Section 4.12 of the EIs provides a discussNatural gas pipelines do not have “spills” the response to section CO16-3 regarding 

IND535-2

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

IND535-3

S-1980
INDIVIDUALS

IND536 –Delores Bennett

IND536-1 See the response to comment LA7-5 regaIND536-2 See the response to comment CO1-2. 

A description of the proposed projects can of the EIS. Any additional pipelines, tapswould require a new, separate NEPA reviadditional permitting by other local, state

IND536-3

See the response to comment CO50-108 rmeetings. 

IND536-4

See the response to comment IND44-2 restamping. See the response to comment Isafety. See the response to comment CONatural gas pipelines do not have “spills” 

IND536-5

S-1981
INDIVIDUALS

IND537 –Joyce Bitran

Alternative M was not chosen as the propthe commentor’s parcel would not be impto comment LA5-3 regarding property vato comment IND13-3 regarding safety. Topposition to the proposed projects is not

IND537-1

S-1982
INDIVIDUALS

IND538 –Jerry Pellegrino

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing.

IND538-1

S-1983
INDIVIDUALS

IND539 –Rachel Polens

See response to comment FA1-1. The Codetermination on whether to grant a partyThe commentor’s name has been added to 

IND539-1

S-1984
INDIVIDUALS

IND540 –Jack T. Tessier

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing.

IND540-1IND540-2 See the response to comment CO41-64 re

See the response to comment FA8-3 regaSee the response to comment CO50-55 reproposed projects. See the response to coFA4-45 regarding hydraulic fracturing. 

IND540-3

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND540-4

S-1985
INDIVIDUALS

IND541 – Jennifer Miller – Heath and Lois G. Miller

IND541-1 See the response to comment IND312-1. 

S-1986
INDIVIDUALS

IND542 – Glenn and Laura Bertrand

IND542-1 See the response to comment IND312-1. 

S-1987
INDIVIDUALS

IND543 – Rebekah Schecter

See the response to comments CO41-21 aair quality. See the response to comment organic farms. See the response to commregarding hydraulic fracturing. . 

IND543-1

Our assessment of the Stanton parcel can 3.4.3.2 of the EIS where we recommendeadopt a minor route variation. See the resLA1-4 and FA4-45 regarding hydraulic fr

IND543-2

S-1988
INDIVIDUALS

IND543 – Rebekah Schecter (cont’d)

IND543-3 See the response to comment CO57-4 reg

The commentor’s opposition is noted. Seprovides a discussion of renewable energ

IND543-4

S-1989
INDIVIDUALS

IND544 – Lisa J. Barr

IND544-1 See response to comment FA1-1.IND544-2 See the response to comment IND12-1 re

See the response to comment LA1-6 regaservices. See the response to comments Cregarding slopes and erosion.

IND544-3

Impacts on traffic are discussed in section the response to comment LA1-1 regardin

IND544-4

IND544-5 See response to comment FA1-1.

S-1990
INDIVIDUALS

IND545 – Kim Rasmussen

See the responses to comment FA4-29 (dimpacts, including fragmentation, and mi

IND545-1

See the response to comment LA5-3 regainsurance, and mortgages. The commentproposed projects is noted.

IND545-2

S-1991
INDIVIDUALS

IND546– William B. Morton

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing.

IND546-1

This right-of-way would not cause long-tenvironmental, or economic damage to thsignificantly impact tourism (section 4.9.comment IND429-1 regarding compressocommentor’s video submission is noted. 

IND546-2

S-1992
INDIVIDUALS

IND546– William B. Morton (cont’d)

S-1993
INDIVIDUALS

IND546– William B. Morton (cont’d)

S-1994
INDIVIDUALS

IND547– Ruby Mitchell

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

IND547-1

See the response to comment IND13-3 recommentor’s opposition is noted.

IND547-2

S-1995
INDIVIDUALS

IND548– Florence Carnahan

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. Section 3.1.2.3 of thdiscussion of renewable energy. See the IND13-3 regarding safety. The commentproposed projects is noted. 

IND548-1

S-1996
INDIVIDUALS

IND549– Catherine M. Holleran

Section 3.4.3.2 of the EIS has been reviseBased on our analysis, we could not identcrossing for this parcel that was preferabl

IND549-1

S-1997
INDIVIDUALS

IND550– Tom Driscoll

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing. The commentor’s opposition is noted.

IND550-1

S-1998
INDIVIDUALS

IND551– Robert Minotti

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing. The commentor’s opposition is noted.

IND551-1

S-1999
INDIVIDUALS

IND552– Sara Zimmerman

The proposed pipeline would transport on3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discussion oThe commentor’s opposition to the propo

IND552-1

S-2000
INDIVIDUALS

IND553– Ruth Carr

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comment CO1-2. 

IND553-1

A discussion of impacts on social service4.9.3 of the EIS.

IND553-2

See the response to comment LA1-1 regarImpacts on traffic are discussed in section the response to comment IND106-1 regar

S-2001

IND553-3
INDIVIDUALS

IND554– Sue Bailey

See the response to comment IND54-1 repipe.

IND554-1

S-2002
INDIVIDUALS

IND555– Vera Scroggins

See the response to comment LA7-5 regaresponse to comment SA6-1 regarding cli

IND555-1

S-2003
INDIVIDUALS

IND555– Vera Scroggins (cont’d)

S-2004
INDIVIDUALS

IND555– Vera Scroggins (cont’d)

S-2005
INDIVIDUALS

IND556– Annemarie Hosnedl

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted. See the response to coregarding impacts. See the response to coregarding export.

IND556-1

See the response to comment LA1-1 regaSection 4.3.3.5 of the EIS provides a discactivities.

IND556-2

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND556-3

S-2006
INDIVIDUALS

IND557– Karen Ellis

The commentor’s statement in opposition projects is noted.

IND557-1

S-2007
INDIVIDUALS

IND558– Wanda L. Crain

The commentor’s parcel would not be croThe commentor’s opposition is noted.

IND558-1

S-2008
INDIVIDUALS

IND559– Joanne Cipolla-Dennis

Natural gas pipelines are not unconstitutioto comment FA8-3 regarding eminent domthe EIS provides a discussion of renewabl

IND559-1

S-2009
INDIVIDUALS

IND560– Anna Janiszewski

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing. See the response to comment regarding environmental impacts. See the CO1-4 and IND169-1 regarding erosion. comment IND13-3 regarding safety. The opposition to the proposed projects is note

IND560-1

S-2010
INDIVIDUALS

IND561– Timothy Englert

The commentor’s statement in opposition projects is noted. IND561-1

S-2011
INDIVIDUALS

IND562– Karen Butler

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy. The commentor’s opposition to tnoted.

IND562-1

S-2012
INDIVIDUALS

IND563– Lynn Ellen Marsh and Douglas Delong

See the response to comment CO1-2 rega

IND563-1 impacts.

Section 4.13 of the EIS provides a discusimpacts. IND563-2See the response to comment CO43-8 regSection 3.3 of the EIS provides a discussiexisting pipeline systems. See the responregarding need.

IND563-3

S-2013
INDIVIDUALS

IND564– Randall Leavitt

See the response to comment FA4-16 regSee the response to comment CO1-2. The opposition is noted.

IND564-1

S-2014
INDIVIDUALS

IND565– Lennard J. Davis

The commentor’s request to deny the propAs stated in section 4.9.2 of the EIS, the ito construction of the pipeline are expecte

IND565-1

Blasting is discussed in sections 2.3.1 and Given Constitution’s proposed mitigation recommendations, we conclude that impabe effectively minimized. See the responand IND341-12 regarding herbicides. See comment CO16-3 regarding spills.

IND565-2

S-2015
INDIVIDUALS

IND566– Mick Bello

See the response to comment CO50-55 reproposed projects. See the response to coregarding jobs. See the response to commexport. 

IND566-1

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing. IND566-2The commentor’s statement regarding the noted. IND566-3

S-2016
INDIVIDUALS

IND567– Lisa Lombardi-Bello

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted. See the response to coregarding hydraulic fracturing.

IND567-1

S-2017
INDIVIDUALS

IND568– Roger and Ellen Jones

The commentors’ statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND568-1

S-2018
INDIVIDUALS

IND569– Kristina Fedorov

See the response to comment LA1-4 and Fhydraulic fracturing. See the response to regarding environmental impacts. Section discussion of pipeline leaks.

IND569-1

See the response to comment CO1-2 regafragmentation. See the response to commsafety. 

IND569-2

The proposed projects would consist of mexisting compressor station, rather than neas stated by the commenter. Air quality immitigation are discussed in section 4.11.1 4.11.2 of the EIS provides a discussion of 

IND569-3

IND569-4 See the response to comment IND205-1 r

See the response to comment LA7-5 regaresponse to comment IND205-3 regarding 

IND569-5

S-2019
INDIVIDUALS

IND570– Adrian Kuzminski

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comment SA6-1 regarand methane leakage. 

IND570-1

See the response to comment IND13-3 reg

IND570-2

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discuenergy. The commentor’s request to deny is noted.

IND570-3

S-2020
INDIVIDUALS

IND571– Murray W. Bell

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND571-1

Section 3.2 of the EIS provides a discussiusing existing pipeline systems to transpo3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discussion oSee the response to comment SA6-1 regarand methane leakage. 

IND571-2

See the response to comment IND13-3 regresponse to comment FA8-3 regarding em

IND571-3

See the response to comment CO1-1 and environmental impacts. See the response regarding natural gas reserves. The commthe proposed projects is noted.

IND571-4

S-2021
INDIVIDUALS

IND572– Patricia Coyle

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND572-1

S-2022
INDIVIDUALS

IND573– Ellen Cantarow

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted. See the response to coregarding hydraulic fracturing. 

IND573-1

See the response to comment LA5-3 regaSee the response to comment CO1-2 regaimpacts.

IND573-2IND573-3 See the response to comment IND13-3 re

IND573-4 See the response to comment SA6-1 regar

S-2023
INDIVIDUALS

IND574– Martha Bremer

The commentor’s opposition is noted. Secomment LA5-3 regarding property valuecomment CO1-1 and CO1-2 regarding en

IND574-1

S-2024
INDIVIDUALS

IND575– Peter Clark

The commentor’s opposition is noted. Secomment CO1-1 and CO1-2 regarding enThe commentor’s statement regarding precharacter of the area is noted..

IND575-1

See the response to comment CO41-23 reindustrialization. The commentor’s requeprojects is noted.

IND575-2

S-2025
INDIVIDUALS

IND576– Richard H. Kathmann

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND576-1

S-2026
INDIVIDUALS

IND577– Leona Briggs

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comment FA8-3 regar

IND577-1

See the response to comment CO1-1 regaimpacts. See the response to comment LAwell testing. The commentor’s request to projects is noted.

IND577-2

S-2027
INDIVIDUALS

IND578– Gale E. Reardon

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND578-1

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for waterbodies ((section 4.4 and appendix L), wildlife (sec(section 4.9.5), interior forests (section 4.(section 4.9.2). See the response to commproperty values. 

IND578-2

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing. 

IND578-3

IND578-4 See response to comment CO47-1.

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

IND578-5

S-2028
INDIVIDUALS

IND579– Shirley C. Rice

The commentor’s opposition to general inSee the response to comment CO1-1 and environmental impacts. See the response regarding hydraulic fracturing. See the reLA5-2 and IND341-12 regarding herbicidcomment CO16-3 regarding spills. See thCO41-23 regarding industrialization. 

IND579-1

S-2029
INDIVIDUALS

IND580– Rebecca Roter

As stated in section 4.11.2.3 of the EIS, oConstitution Transfer Compressor Station result in a perceptible increase in vibratioturbines, as opposed to reciprocating engihigh of levels of vibration as compared to Iroquois would install a vibration monitorturbines to shut down the turbines if unsafmeasured. 

IND580-1

See the response to comment LA1-4 regarfracturing and well pads. See the respons2 regarding safety regulations governed b

IND580-2 See the response to comments CO41-21 a

air quality. See the response to comment Central Compressor Station.

IND580-3

See the response to comment FA8-3 regarcommentor’s request to deny the propose

IND580-4

S-2030
INDIVIDUALS

IND581– Kate Sikelianos

See the response to comment CO1-1 and impacts. See the response to comment LASection 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy. See the response to comment IND

IND581-1

IND581-2 See the response to comment FA4-45 reg

fracturing. See the response to comment water use. See the responses to commentregarding methane leaks. 

S-2031
INDIVIDUALS

IND582– Maria Kaltenbach

The commentor’s opposition to the propoImpacts due to truck traffic are discussed EIS. 

IND582-1

IND582-2 See the response to comment CO1-1 and 

S-2032

potential impacts. 
INDIVIDUALS

IND583– Mary McDowell

The commentor’s opposition is noted. Secomment CO1-2 regarding environmentaresponse to comments LA1-4 and FA4-45 fracturing.

IND583-1

S-2033
INDIVIDUALS

IND584– Allegra Schecter

IND584-1 See the responses to comment IND596.

S-2034
INDIVIDUALS

IND585– Shirley P. Uhle

Alignment sheets can be found at http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.a0901. The commentor’s property would nproposed pipeline. The proposed pipeline 650 feet from the commentor’s property l

IND585-1

See the response to comment LA5-3 regaGiven the distance between the commentoproposed pipeline, impacts are not expect

IND585-2

Given the distance between the commentothe proposed pipeline, impacts on the swiexpected. The commentor’s opposition is 

IND585-3

S-2035
INDIVIDUALS

IND586– Allison Jones

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND586-1

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for interior forestvalues (section 4.9.5), pipeline safety (sec(section 4.9.4), and groundwater (section 

IND586-2

See the responses to comment CO21 regaschool.

IND586-3

See the response to comment CO50-45 reconstruction. Section 4.6.2.2 has been upadditional information regarding construc

IND586-4

See the response to comment SA6-1 regarand comments SA6-1 and SA6-4 regardincommentor’s request that the proposed prconstruction be prohibited is noted.

IND586-5

S-2036
INDIVIDUALS

IND586– Allison Jones (cont’d)

S-2037
INDIVIDUALS

IND587– Richard Friedberg

Our assessment of the alternative routes f226.00 can be found in section 3.4.3.2 of 

IND587-1

S-2038
INDIVIDUALS

IND587– Richard Friedberg (cont’d)

S-2039
INDIVIDUALS

IND587– Richard Friedberg (cont’d)

S-2040
INDIVIDUALS

IND587– Richard Friedberg (cont’d)

S-2041
INDIVIDUALS

IND587– Richard Friedberg (cont’d)

S-2042
INDIVIDUALS

IND587– Richard Friedberg (cont’d)

IND587-2 As stated in appendix H-2 of the EIS, Con

evaluated 5 potential re-routes associated 226-00. Representatives for parcel NY-Dpotential re-routes. Section 3.4.3.2 of the to state that we are not recommending the

S-2043
INDIVIDUALS

IND587– Richard Friedberg (cont’d)

S-2044
INDIVIDUALS

IND587– Richard Friedberg (cont’d)

The commentor’s opposition to these alteA full analysis of the proposed route as coM, including sub-alternatives for alternatiincluded in section 3.4.1.2 of the EIS. As 3.4.1.2 of the EIS we are not recommendiincluding sub-alternatives for alternative M 

IND587-3

S-2045
INDIVIDUALS

IND587– Richard Friedberg (cont’d)

S-2046
INDIVIDUALS

IND587– Richard Friedberg (cont’d)

S-2047
INDIVIDUALS

IND587– Richard Friedberg (cont’d)

S-2048
INDIVIDUALS

IND587– Richard Friedberg (cont’d)

S-2049
INDIVIDUALS

IND587– Richard Friedberg (cont’d)

S-2050
INDIVIDUALS

IND588–Justin Texeira 

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND588-1

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

IND588-2

IND588-3 See the response to comment SA6-1 regar

Natural gas would be transported through rather than by truck. 

IND588-4

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. Section 3.1.2.3 of thdiscussion of renewable energy.

IND588-5

S-2051
INDIVIDUALS

IND589–Mary Boyle

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted.

IND589-1

S-2052
INDIVIDUALS

IND590–Stuart Anderson

See response to comment FA1-1. All infoConstitution on April 7, 2014 has been mviewing on e-Library.

IND590-1

S-2053
INDIVIDUALS

IND591–Gregory Cempa

See the responses to comment IND615. IND591-1

S-2054
INDIVIDUALS

IND592–Jessica Roff

See the response to comment IND13-3 reresponse to comment LA5-6 regarding rato comment CO1-2.

IND592-1

Property rights are discussed in section 4.to comment FA8-3 regarding eminent domto comment LA5-3 regarding property vaimpacts are discussed in section 4.13 of thresponse to comment IND13-3 regarding 

IND592-2

S-2055
INDIVIDUALS

IND593–Bruce Rosen

See the response to comment CO16-34 rewater resources. See the response to comclimate change. Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIof renewable energy.

IND593-1

S-2056
INDIVIDUALS

IND594–Kenneth G. Stanton III

The commentor’s statements regarding lanoted. Appendix H1 has been updated.

IND594-1

Appendix H1 has been updated. IND594-2Appendix H3 has been updated. IND594-3

S-2057
INDIVIDUALS

IND594–Kenneth G. Stanton III (cont’d)

The commentor’s statements regarding Croutes are noted. Section 3.0 provides a dalternatives that were evaluated. As discuof the EIS, alternative M was not adoptedsection 3.4.2.1 of the EIS, alternatives L, into the proposed route. 

IND594-4

S-2058
INDIVIDUALS

IND594–Kenneth G. Stanton III (cont’d)

The commentor’s opposition is noted. Ouparcels owned by the commentor can be fof the EIS where we recommended that Cminor route variation. We believe impactCAFO and certified nutrient management or minimized due to our minor route varia

IND594-5

S-2059
INDIVIDUALS

IND594–Kenneth G. Stanton III (cont’d)

S-2060
INDIVIDUALS

IND594–Kenneth G. Stanton III (cont’d)

The commentor’s statements regarding Care noted.

IND594-6

S-2061
INDIVIDUALS

IND594–Kenneth G. Stanton III (cont’d)

S-2062
INDIVIDUALS

IND594–Kenneth G. Stanton III (cont’d)

Our assessment of the parcels owned by tfound in section 3.4.3.2 of the EIS where Constitution adopt a minor route variation

IND594-7

S-2063
INDIVIDUALS

IND594–Kenneth G. Stanton III (cont’d)

S-2064
INDIVIDUALS

IND594–Kenneth G. Stanton III (cont’d)

S-2065
INDIVIDUALS

IND594–Kenneth G. Stanton III (cont’d)

S-2066
INDIVIDUALS

IND594–Kenneth G. Stanton III (cont’d)

S-2067
INDIVIDUALS

IND594–Kenneth G. Stanton III (cont’d)

S-2068
INDIVIDUALS

IND595–Michael Stolzer

See the response to comment LA7-5 regacommentor’s opposition is noted.

IND595-1

S-2069
INDIVIDUALS

IND595–Michael Stolzer (cont’d)

S-2070
INDIVIDUALS

IND595–Michael Stolzer (cont’d)

S-2071
INDIVIDUALS

IND596–Allegra Schecter

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. Our assessment of tfound in section 3.4.3.2 of the EIS where Constitution adopt a minor route variationcomment FA4-27 regarding invasive spec

S-2072

IND596-1
INDIVIDUALS

IND596–Allegra Schecter (cont’d)

S-2073
INDIVIDUALS

IND597–Joel Murray

See the response to comment CO26-18. Scomments LA1-4 and FA4-45 regarding hSee the response to comment LA5-3 rega

IND597-1

See the response to comment FA8-3 regarand need.

IND597-2

See the response to comment CO57-4 regfrom the proposed projects. See the respo3 and IND116-1 regarding water quality. 

IND597-3

The commentor’s statements regarding afcounties crossed are noted. As stated in sthere is no evidence that such risks would borne by any racial, ethnic, or socioeconoenvironmental justice section reviewed incounties that would be crossed by the pro

IND597-4

S-2074
INDIVIDUALS

IND597–Joel Murray (cont’d)

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

IND597-5

See the response to comments FA4-23 anwaterbody crossings. See the response to regarding wetland crossings. See the respLA5-2 and IND341-12 regarding herbicidmaintenance of the right-of-way. 

IND597-6

See the response to comment IND110-6 rthe response to comment CO43-8 regardin

IND597-7

IND597-8 See the response to comment CO28-1.

S-2075
INDIVIDUALS

IND598–Alice Zinnes

See the response to comment IND13-3 re

IND598-1

Section 4.12 provides a discussion of piperesponse to comment SA6-1 regarding cliresponse to comment 

IND598-2

Livestock would be permitted to graze alofollowing completion of construction.

IND598-3

See the response to comment FA8-3 regarNo landowner would be required to vacatuse of eminent domain under the NGA is 

IND598-4

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. See the responses to CO1-2 regarding impacts.

IND598-5

S-2076
INDIVIDUALS

IND599–Keith W. Schue

See the response to comment CO50-45 reconstruction. 

IND599-1

S-2077
INDIVIDUALS

IND599–Keith W. Schue (cont’d)

The potential for ground heaving associattemperatures that could damage the pipelidiscussed in section 4.2.2 of the EIS. As of the EIS, typically the trench would be sfeet deep to 7.5 feet deep for the 30-inch-provide for a minimum of 3 feet of cover areas with consolidated rock, the minimum would be 24 inches. In certain areas such foreign pipelines and utilities, deeper buriresulting in an increased trench depth. Cominimum specifications for depth of covelisted in table 2.3.1-1 of the EIS. In additinstall Class 2 design pipe in all Class 1 lo

IND599-2

See the response to comment FA4-34 regcrossing evaluation. See also the responsregarding concrete coating for waterbody 

IND599-3

S-2078
INDIVIDUALS

IND599–Keith W. Schue (cont’d)

See the response to comment CO50-13 reto grow back over portions of the pipeline

IND599-4

S-2079
INDIVIDUALS

IND599–Keith W. Schue (cont’d)

The use of the term “may” was used to himay use some or all of the BMPs (as apprkarst terrain. See the response to commenConstitution’s Plans.

IND599-5

S-2080
INDIVIDUALS

IND600–Rebecca Roter

See the response to comment CO41-29 reCentral Compressor Station.

IND600-1IND600-2 The commentor’s request for a formal hea

S-2081
INDIVIDUALS

IND601–Mark Pezzati

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

IND601-1

S-2082
INDIVIDUALS

IND601–Mark Pezzati (cont’d)

S-2083
INDIVIDUALS

IND602–Peter T. Fauth

See the responses to comments FA4-29 animpacts on interior forests, migratory birdproposed plan to address these issues. Thfor a 5-km radius forest cover study is not

IND602-1

S-2084
INDIVIDUALS

IND602–Peter T. Fauth (cont’d)

See the response to comment CO13-1 reg52 acres of forest land. See the response and IND41-1 regarding the IBA.

IND602-2IND602-3 See the response to comment CO41-59.

The commentor’s request to not begin tre1 rather than September 1 is noted. Constclearing window has been determined in cFWS. 

IND602-4

See the response to comment FA4-29 regPreliminary Migratory Bird and Upland F

IND602-5

S-2085
INDIVIDUALS

IND602–Peter T. Fauth (cont’d)

As stated in section 4.5.4 of the EIS, invahave not been completed for parcels for wnot received survey permission. If certifiwould be conducted prior to construction. to comment FA6-10 regarding long-term monitoring.

IND602-6

See the response to comment FA4-26 regpermanent fill.

IND602-7

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

IND602-8

S-2086
INDIVIDUALS

IND602–Peter T. Fauth (cont’d)

S-2087
INDIVIDUALS

IND603–Steven Connors

See the response to comments CO1-4 and erosion and stormwater. See the response IND113-1, and IND36-1 regarding floods

IND603-1

See the response to comment LA4-2 regaSee the response to comments LA5-2 and herbicide use along the right-of-way.

IND603-2

S-2088
INDIVIDUALS

IND603–Steven Connors (cont’d)

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

IND603-3IND603-4 See the response to comment IND13-3 re

See the response to comment LA7-5 regacomment FA8-3 regarding eminent domarequest to deny the proposed projects is n

IND603-5

S-2089
INDIVIDUALS

IND604–Marilyn Sango-Jordan

The commentor’s suggestion regarding mincluded as part of the EIS reflect the routConstitution at the time of issuance. Roubetween landowners and Constitution just after issuance of the EIS may not be reflewould be required to file final alignment sconstruction if the proposed projects are a

IND604-1

S-2090
INDIVIDUALS

IND605–Bret A. Jennings

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing. See the response to comment William’s Central Compressor Station.

IND605-1

S-2091
INDIVIDUALS

IND605–Bret A. Jennings (cont’d)

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

IND605-2

The commentor’s statements regarding reemployees are noted. See the response to regarding pending information. 

IND605-3

S-2092
INDIVIDUALS

IND605–Bret A. Jennings (cont’d)

IND605-4 See response to comment FA1-1.

S-2093
INDIVIDUALS

IND606–Kathy Shimberg

IND606-1 See response to comment FA1-1.

The commentor’s statements regarding saresponse to comment IND13-3 regarding 

IND606-2

S-2094
INDIVIDUALS

IND606–Kathy Shimberg (cont’d)

See the response to comment CO47-1 regCabot’s safety records.

IND606-3

S-2095
INDIVIDUALS

IND606–Kathy Shimberg (cont’d)

The commentor’s request to reconsider this noted. See the response to comment LAgas reserves. See the response to commenenvironmental impacts. Section 3.1.2.3 odiscussion of renewable energy. 

IND606-4

S-2096
INDIVIDUALS

IND606–Kathy Shimberg (cont’d)

S-2097
INDIVIDUALS

IND607–George Meszaros Jr.

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

IND607-1

S-2098
INDIVIDUALS

IND607–George Meszaros Jr. (cont’d)

See the response to comment CO1-2 regaimpacts. See the response to comment IN

IND607-2

S-2099
INDIVIDUALS

IND608–Mark Pezzati

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

IND608-1

S-2100
See the response to comment CO38-9. T

estimate of the Wright Compressor Statiomiles from the actual location of the comlink to the USGS site provided by the comWe were unable to replicate the data provcommentor’s letter.

INDIVIDUALSIND609–Clark J. Rhoades

S-2101

IND609-1
INDIVIDUALS

IND609–Clark J. Rhoades (cont’d)

S-2102
INDIVIDUALS

IND609–Clark J. Rhoades (cont’d)

S-2103
INDIVIDUALS

IND609–Clark J. Rhoades (cont’d)

IND609-2 See the response to comment CO38-9.

The commentor’s statements regarding thCompressor Station are noted. See the reIND13-3 and section 4.12 of the EIS regapotential for terrorism. 

IND609-3

S-2104
INDIVIDUALS

IND610–Diana Modica

The commentor’s statements regarding ththe property are noted. Safety is discusseEIS. See the response to comments IND1

IND610-1

S-2105
INDIVIDUALS

IND610–Diana Modica (cont’d)

A pipeline inspection schedule and other inspection are provided in section 2.6 of tresponse to comment FA4-52 regarding lsmart pig) inspections of the pipeline. Sadiscussed in section 4.12.1 of the EIS; Couse both caliper and smart pigs (which do of the pipeline) to identify pipeline defectareas in need of repair. As stated in section 4.12.1 of the EIS “Thpeople and the environment are protected pipeline incidents. This work is shared wand others at the federal, state, and local lprovides for a state agency to assume all program for intrastate facilities by adoptinfederal standards. A state may also act as inspect interstate facilities within its bounDOT is responsible for enforcement actioprojects, Pennsylvania and New York havinspect interstate pipeline facilities.” Pipcoordinate with landowners regarding proavoid potential conflicts, such as hunting 

IND610-2

S-2106
INDIVIDUALS

IND610–Diana Modica (cont’d)

See the response to comment LA1-6 regaresponders. Grants have also been providresponders in Broome County, New York

IND610-3

Farming, including passage of tractors anpipelines is a common practice and would installation of the pipeline. See the respo26 regarding logging.

IND610-4

See section 4.3.1 of the EIS and the resporegarding springs. See section 4.3.3 of thwaterbody crossings. The accumulation ostream would not endanger the buried pipwithin a waterbody occurred for any reasoidentified and repaired as part of the reguHunting with firearms in accordance with poses no threat to a buried pipeline. 

IND610-5

S-2107
INDIVIDUALS

IND610–Diana Modica (cont’d)

Air quality and potential effects to receptoconstruction and operation of the projects 4.11 of the EIS; methane is discussed in sNew York is located approximately 74 mYork, the location of the proposed Wrighthat involves compressor station modificaproperty would also be approximately 4 mMLV, minimizing potential impacts from 

IND610-6

See the response to comments SA6-1 and leakage. See the response to comment IN

IND610-7

S-2108
INDIVIDUALS

IND610–Diana Modica (cont’d)

Based on our review of aerial photographquarry near (within 0.5 mile) of the subjeanticipated that blasting at a quarry would the landowner plans to develop a quarry owould be impacted by installation of the pimpacts could be discussed as part of the process. 

IND610-8

See the response to comment LA5-3 regainsurance.

IND610-10

See the response to comment LA1-4 regarWell drilling can occur within proximity o

IND610-9

See the response to comment LA5-3 regarSafety is discussed in section 4.12 of the E

IND610-11

S-2109
INDIVIDUALS

IND610–Diana Modica (cont’d)

If the companies became bankrupt and no company acquired and began to operate thpipeline would likely be abandoned in pla

IND610-12

See the response to comment LA10-7 regresponse to comment IND610-6 regardinon wildlife, including bald eagles, are disand 3.7 of the EIS.

IND610-14

The discontinued use of a pipeline could rabandonment in place. Either would requreview and environmental analysis.

IND610-13

See the response to comment CO1-4 regarunoff.

IND610-15

S-2110
INDIVIDUALS

IND610–Diana Modica (cont’d)

Tornadoes would not pose a risk to a buriaboveground facilities. See the response regarding the proximity of the subject proaboveground facilities. See the response regarding earthquakes. See the response regarding climate change. 

IND610-16

The commentor’s opposition to the projecassessment of the crossing location at this section 3.4.3.2 of the EIS where we recomConstitution adopt a minor route variationcomment IND54-1 regarding delivery of p

S-2111

IND610-17
INDIVIDUALS

IND611–William A. Huston

See response to comment CO47-1. We aevidence indicating that the Applicants arterrorism or otherwise in violation of the Department of Homeland Security believbe up to that agency to pursue charges. Lallegations concerning the Securities and the Federal Communications Commission

IND611-1

S-2112
INDIVIDUALS

IND611–William A. Huston (cont’d)

S-2113
INDIVIDUALS

IND611–William A. Huston (cont’d)

S-2114
INDIVIDUALS

IND611–William A. Huston (cont’d)

S-2115
INDIVIDUALS

IND611–William A. Huston (cont’d)

IND611-2 See the response to comment LA7-5 rega

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

IND611-3

See the response to comment CO41-29 reCompressor Station. Our engineers have application and are confident that the propdefy the laws of physics. 

IND611-4

S-2116
INDIVIDUALS

IND611–William A. Huston (cont’d)

The commentor’s statements regarding thnoted. See the response to comment FA4fracturing. See the response to comment delivery of pipe.

IND611-6

The commentor’s statements regarding CCommunity Grant program are noted. Wcommunity grants meet a legal definition 

IND611-5

S-2117
INDIVIDUALS

IND611–William A. Huston (cont’d)

S-2118
INDIVIDUALS

IND612–Joan Tubridy

See the response to comment FA6-10 reginvasive species monitoring.

IND612-1

S-2119
INDIVIDUALS

IND612–Joan Tubridy (cont’d)

S-2120
INDIVIDUALS

IND612–Joan Tubridy (cont’d)

S-2121
INDIVIDUALS

IND612–Joan Tubridy (cont’d)

S-2122
INDIVIDUALS

IND612–Joan Tubridy (cont’d)

S-2123
INDIVIDUALS

IND613–Suzanne Winkler

See the response to comments CO41-21 aair quality. The commentor’s statements noted.

IND613-1

S-2124
INDIVIDUALS

IND613–Suzanne Winkler (cont’d)

S-2125
INDIVIDUALS

IND613–Suzanne Winkler (cont’d)

S-2126
INDIVIDUALS

IND614–Rachel Soper

The FERC staff recommends the mitigatiin section 5.2 of the EIS be attached as coauthorization issued by the Commission. all or a portion of these recommendations Commissioners. For this reason the term staff can not presume what the Commissiregarding project approval. Hence the “cthroughout the EIS. See response to comWilliam’s safety record. See the response regarding our third-party monitoring prog

IND614-1

S-2127
INDIVIDUALS

IND614–Rachel Soper (cont’d)

S-2128
INDIVIDUALS

IND614–Rachel Soper (cont’d)

S-2129
INDIVIDUALS

IND614–Rachel Soper (cont’d)

S-2130
INDIVIDUALS

IND614–Rachel Soper (cont’d)

S-2131
INDIVIDUALS

IND614–Rachel Soper (cont’d)

S-2132
INDIVIDUALS

IND614–Rachel Soper (cont’d)

S-2133
INDIVIDUALS

IND614–Rachel Soper (cont’d)

S-2134
INDIVIDUALS

IND614–Rachel Soper (cont’d)

S-2135
INDIVIDUALS

IND614–Rachel Soper (cont’d)

S-2136
INDIVIDUALS

IND614–Rachel Soper (cont’d)

S-2137
INDIVIDUALS

IND614–Rachel Soper (cont’d)

S-2138
INDIVIDUALS

IND614–Rachel Soper (cont’d)

S-2139
INDIVIDUALS

IND614–Rachel Soper (cont’d)

S-2140
INDIVIDUALS

IND614–Rachel Soper (cont’d)

S-2141
INDIVIDUALS

IND614–Rachel Soper (cont’d)

S-2142
INDIVIDUALS

IND615–George Cempa

See the response to comment FA4-3 regasurvey permission.

IND615-2IND615-1 Appendix K has been revised as requeste

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

IND615-4

The commentor’s statements regarding trAccording to the field data sheets providecultural resources material was found on therefore there were no cultural resource the EIS.

IND615-3

S-2143
INDIVIDUALS

IND615–George Cempa (cont’d)

S-2144
INDIVIDUALS

IND615–George Cempa (cont’d)

S-2145
INDIVIDUALS

IND615–George Cempa (cont’d)

S-2146
INDIVIDUALS

IND615–George Cempa (cont’d)

S-2147
INDIVIDUALS

IND615–George Cempa (cont’d)

S-2148
INDIVIDUALS

IND615–George Cempa (cont’d)

S-2149
INDIVIDUALS

IND615–George Cempa (cont’d)

S-2150
INDIVIDUALS

IND615–George Cempa (cont’d)

S-2151
INDIVIDUALS

IND615–George Cempa (cont’d)

S-2152
INDIVIDUALS

IND615–George Cempa (cont’d)

S-2153
INDIVIDUALS

IND615–George Cempa (cont’d)

S-2154
INDIVIDUALS

IND616–Marc Wishengrad

IND616-2 See the response to comment LA7-5 regaIND616-1 See the response to comment IND13-3 re

See the response to comment CO50-108 rmeetings. See the response to comment Cregarding environmental impacts.

IND616-4

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

IND616-3

See the response to comments LA5-2 and herbicide application. 

IND616-5

S-2155
INDIVIDUALS

IND616–Marc Wishengrad (cont’d)

See the response to comment SA6-1 regaand greenhouse gases. See the response tand IND13-4 regarding air quality.

IND616-6

See the response to comment IND496-7 rprotection and corrosion.

IND616-8IND616-7 See the response to comment IND21-17 r

The commentor’s statements regarding thThe FERC staff strive to utilize the most sound information possible.

IND616-9

S-2156
INDIVIDUALS

IND616–Marc Wishengrad (cont’d)

See the response to comment IND11-8 reEarthquakes are discussed in section 4.1.3

IND616-10

See the response to comment LA5-3 regaSee the response to comment FA8-3 regaThe commentor’s opposition to the propo

IND616-11

S-2157
INDIVIDUALS

IND617–Rachel Polens

The commentor’s request for a compreheplants along the pipeline route is noted. Scomments LA1-4 and FA4-45 regarding h

IND617-1

S-2158
INDIVIDUALS

IND618–Ronald Bailey

The commentor’s statement regarding the noted.

IND618-1

IND618-2 See the response to comment LA1-1 regar

IND618-3 See the response to comment LA1-5.

S-2159
INDIVIDUALS

IND619–Thomas Foster

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted.

IND619-1

S-2160
INDIVIDUALS

IND620–Thomas M. Keane

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

IND620-1

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

IND620-2

S-2161
INDIVIDUALS

IND621–Trevor Wilson

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted. Section 3.1.2.3 of the discussion of renewable energy.

IND621-1

S-2162
INDIVIDUALS

IND622–Mary T. Finneran

Iroquois has successfully used a mixture for hydrostatic testing on their Market Ac002) and 08/09 Expansion project (CP07-a possible project being considered by IroNorth (SoNo) project which has not yet bCommission. If filed this project would gNEPA FERC process as the Constitution Wright Interconnect Projects.

IND622-1

S-2163
INDIVIDUALS

IND623–Lee Ziesche

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy. See the response to comment INDmethane leaks. See the response to commclimate change and greenhouse gases.

IND623-1

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

IND623-2

S-2164
INDIVIDUALS

IND624–Debra A. Cubbedge

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted. See the response to coregarding benefits. See the response to coregarding property values.

IND624-1

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

IND624-2

S-2165
INDIVIDUALS

IND625–Brian Dobbs

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

IND625-1

S-2166
INDIVIDUALS

IND626–Charles Nunzio

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted. See the response to coCO1-2 regarding environmental impacts.

IND626-1

S-2167
INDIVIDUALS

IND627–Karl Zarling

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. The commentor’s stto the proposed projects are noted. 

IND627-1

S-2168
INDIVIDUALS

IND628–Melanie A. Katz

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted. See the response to coFA4-45 regarding hydraulic fracturing. 

IND628-1

See the response to comment IND297-3 rlands.

IND628-2

S-2169
INDIVIDUALS

IND629–Chris Casper

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. The proposed projenatural gas not oil as suggested by the com3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discussion oThe commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted. 

IND629-1

S-2170
INDIVIDUALS

IND630–Sarah Proechel

IND630-1 See the response to comment CO1-2.

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

IND630-2

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy. 

IND630-3

S-2171
INDIVIDUALS

IND631–Michele Abbott

The commentor’s statements in oppositioare noted. See the response to comments regarding hydraulic fracturing. 

IND631-1

S-2172
INDIVIDUALS

IND632–Alicia M. Pettys

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comments CO1-1 and environmental impacts. See the response regarding agricultural lands. 

IND632-1

See the response to comment IND239-3 rcontamination.

IND632-2

See the response to comment IND13-3 recommentor’s request to deny the propose

IND632-3

S-2173
INDIVIDUALS

IND633–Steven Sachs

IND633-1 The commentor’s opposition to the propo

S-2174
INDIVIDUALS

IND634–James Moore

This comment appears to be referring to a altogether, and outside the scope of our anand development in Illinois is outside the the FERC.

IND634-1

S-2175
INDIVIDUALS

IND635–Greta Schiller

The commentor’s opposition is noted. Seprovides a discussion of renewable energ

IND635-1

S-2176
INDIVIDUALS

IND636–Rita Casasse

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

IND636-1

S-2177
INDIVIDUALS

IND637–Adam Eilenberg

The commentor’s statements regarding thnoted. The commentor’s statements regaForest are noted.

IND637-1

See the responses comments SA4-1 throualternative M.

IND637-2

S-2178
INDIVIDUALS

IND638–David O. Brown

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy. See the response to comments LAregarding hydraulic fracturing. 

IND638-1

S-2179
INDIVIDUALS

IND639–Jeanie Piecara

See the response to comment IND13-3 recomment IND135-3 regarding the inciden

IND639-1

S-2180
INDIVIDUALS

IND640–Teresa Iovino

See the response to comment CO1-2. See comment IND239-3 regarding water cont

IND640-1

S-2181
INDIVIDUALS

IND641–Michael Frys

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comments CO41-21 aair quality. See the response to comment water contamination.

IND641-1

IND641-2 See the response to comment SA6-1 rega

S-2182
INDIVIDUALS

IND642–Moira Mosley-Duffy

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comment CO1-2. 

IND642-1IND642-2 See the response to comment IND13-3 re

S-2183
INDIVIDUALS

IND643–Eileen McInerney

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. See the response to regarding export. See the response to comclimate change. See the response to commregarding safety. 

IND643-1

S-2184
INDIVIDUALS

IND644–Lisa Zaccaglini

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

IND644-1

See the response to comment LA5-3 regarSee the response to comments CO41-21 aair quality. See the response to comment water contamination. See the response to regarding agricultural lands.

IND644-2

IND644-3 See the response to comment CO57-4.

Section 3.12.3 of the EIS provides a discuenergy. The commentor’s opposition to tnoted. 

IND644-4

S-2185
INDIVIDUALS

IND645–Maria Moscatelli

IND645-1 See the response to comment IND312-1.

These re-routes were not evaluated in the 3.4.3.2 of the EIS has been revised regardcrossing of parcel NY-DE-226.000.

IND645-2

S-2186
INDIVIDUALS

IND645–Maria Moscatelli (cont’d)

IND645-3 The commentor’s opposition is noted.

S-2187
INDIVIDUALS

IND646–Holly Anne McKinney

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. See the response to CO1-2 regarding environmental impacts.

IND646-1

S-2188
INDIVIDUALS

IND647–Penelope R. King

IND647-1 See the response to comment IND205-1 r

See the response to comment CO50-108 rmeetings.

IND647-2

S-2189
INDIVIDUALS

IND647–Penelope R. King (cont’d)

IND647-3 See the response to comment LA7-5 rega

The commentor’s opposition is noted. Secomments LA1-4 and FA4-45 regarding h

IND647-4

S-2190
INDIVIDUALS

IND648–Edward Michael Barnes

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comment CO1-1. As of the EIS, the impacts on tourism due to proposed pipeline are expected to be min

IND648-1

IND648-2 The proposed pipeline would transport na

S-2191
INDIVIDUALS

IND649–Alexandra Hart

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

IND649-1

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND649-2

S-2192
INDIVIDUALS

IND650–Lena Rerazzo

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSection 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND650-1

S-2193
INDIVIDUALS

IND651–Dorothy Patashnick

See the response to comment FA4-16 regOur assessment of this parcel can be founthe EIS where we recommended that Conroute variation. 

IND651-1

S-2194
INDIVIDUALS

IND651–Dorothy Patashnick (cont’d)

S-2195
INDIVIDUALS

IND651–Dorothy Patashnick (cont’d)

S-2196
INDIVIDUALS

IND652–Jeffrey S. Arey

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing.

IND652-1

S-2197
INDIVIDUALS

IND653–Robert Chapman

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy. See the response to comments Lregarding hydraulic fracturing.

IND653-1

S-2198
INDIVIDUALS

IND654–Jennifer Classon

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSection 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND654-1

S-2199
INDIVIDUALS

IND655–Andrea Simitch

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND655-1

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND655-2

S-2200
INDIVIDUALS

IND656–Mercedes Verdejo

IND656-1 See the responses to comments CO1-1 an

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy. See the response to comments LAregarding hydraulic fracturing. The commthe proposed projects is noted.

IND656-2

S-2201
INDIVIDUALS

IND657–Nancy Pfau

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

IND657-1

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND657-2

S-2202
INDIVIDUALS

IND658–Elizabeth Nields

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. See the response to regarding export. Section 3.1.2.3 of the Ediscussion of renewable energy.

IND658-1

S-2203
INDIVIDUALS

IND658–Elizabeth Nields (cont’d)

IND658-2 See the responses to letter CO16. 

S-2204
INDIVIDUALS

IND659–Kari Buchanan

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. 

IND659-1

S-2205
INDIVIDUALS

IND660–Amy Curry

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. 

IND660-1

S-2206
INDIVIDUALS

IND661–Mitro Hood

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. Section 3.1.2.3 provrenewable energy.

IND661-1

S-2207
INDIVIDUALS

IND662–June Edelstein

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. 

IND662-1

See the response to comment FA8-3 regaSee the response to comments CO1-1 and environmental impacts.

IND662-2

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

IND662-3

S-2208
INDIVIDUALS

IND663–Phil Konigsberg

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. 

IND663-1

S-2209
INDIVIDUALS

IND664–Deborah M. Wetlsch

IND664-1 See the response to comment FA6-6.

IND664-2 See response to comment FA1-1.

See the response to comment CO50-5 regSee the response to comment LA7-5 regaSection 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND664-3

S-2210
INDIVIDUALS

IND665–Melody Safken

IND665-1 The commentor’s statement in opposition 

S-2211
INDIVIDUALS

IND666–Colleen M. Clarke Rizzo

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSection 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND666-1

S-2212
INDIVIDUALS

IND667–H. Claire

The commentor’s opposition is noted. Secomments LA1-4 and FA4-45 regarding 

IND667-1

S-2213
INDIVIDUALS

IND668–Allison Gentile

See the response to comment CO50-55 reproposed projects. Section 4.12 provides and pipeline leaks. 

IND668-1

See the response to comment LA7-5 regaresponse to comment CO50-5 regarding t

IND668-2IND668-3 See response to comment FA1-1.

S-2214
INDIVIDUALS

IND669–Catherine Shrady

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comments CO1-1 and environmental impacts. 

IND669-1

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND669-2

S-2215
INDIVIDUALS

IND670–Lawrence J. Mazza

The commentor’s opposition is noted. Secomments LA1-4 and FA4-45 regarding 

IND670-1

S-2216
INDIVIDUALS

IND671–Robin D. Wright

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

IND671-1

See the response to comment LA5-3 regaand insurance. 

IND671-2

See the response to comment IND13-3 reresponse to comment IND297-3 regardin

S-2217

IND671-3
INDIVIDUALS

IND672–Timothy Beach

The commentor’s opposition is noted. Secomment LA7-5 regarding export. 

IND672-1

S-2218
INDIVIDUALS

IND673–Philip S. Gloviak

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. See the response to regarding jobs. The commentor’s opposiprojects is noted.

IND673-1

S-2219
INDIVIDUALS

IND674–David Luxem

The commentor’s opposition is noted. Secomments LA1-4 and FA4-45 regarding 

IND674-1

S-2220
INDIVIDUALS

IND675–Karl Guse

IND675-1 See the response to comment IND312-1.

IND675-2 See the response to comment IND13-3 reIND675-3 The commentor’s opposition to alternativ

S-2221
INDIVIDUALS

IND676–Sarah K. Meredith

The commentor’s opposition is noted. Secomments LA1-4 and FA4-45 regarding 

IND676-1

S-2222
INDIVIDUALS

IND677–Leona I. Briggs

The commentor’s opposition to the propoproject is noted. See the response to comeminent domain. See the response to comCO1-2 regarding environmental impacts.

IND677-1

IND677-2 See comment to IND37.

S-2223
INDIVIDUALS

IND678–Robert Bruckman

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

IND678-1

S-2224
INDIVIDUALS

IND679–Patricia Hughes

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comment CO16-3 regresponse to comments LA1-4 and FA4-4fracturing. 

IND679-1

S-2225
INDIVIDUALS

IND680–C. Roth

IND680-1 The commentor’s opposition to the propo

S-2226
INDIVIDUALS

IND681–Barbara O’Neil

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

IND681-1

S-2227
INDIVIDUALS

IND682–Caroline Wilson

IND682-1 See the response to comment IND13-3 re

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

IND682-2

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy. 

IND682-3

S-2228
INDIVIDUALS

IND683–Murray W. Bell

See the response to comments CO1-1 and impacts. See the response to comment FAsurveyed areas. 

IND683-1

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

IND683-2

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comment FA8-3 rega

IND683-3

S-2229
INDIVIDUALS

IND684–Carol Gunlock

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND684-1

S-2230
INDIVIDUALS

IND685–Katherine C. Hawkins

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy. 

IND685-1

See the response to comment LA5-3 regainsurance, and mortgages. See the responand FA4-45 regarding hydraulic fracturin

IND685-2

See the response to comment FA8-3 rega3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discussion o

IND685-3

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for waterbodies (wetlands (section 4.4 and appendix L). Topposition to the proposed projects is not

IND685-4

S-2231
INDIVIDUALS

IND685–Katherine C. Hawkins (cont’d)

S-2232
INDIVIDUALS

IND686–Joan McCarthy

The commentor’s statements regarding thare noted. See the response to comment Iresponse to comment CO43-3 regarding cThe commentor’s request to include SchoCounty, the Town of Harpersfield, and thKeeper as interested agencies is noted. Scomments CO1-1 and CO1-2 regarding e

IND686-1

S-2233
INDIVIDUALS

IND687–David Green

IND687-1 The commentor’s opposition to the propo

S-2234
INDIVIDUALS

IND688–Walter Wouk

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. 

IND688-1

S-2235
INDIVIDUALS

IND689–Dennis Patterson

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

IND689-1

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND689-2

S-2236
INDIVIDUALS

IND690–Sandra Haigh

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

IND690-1

S-2237
INDIVIDUALS

IND691–Karen Jarobe

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. Section 3.1.2.3 of thdiscussion of renewable energy. See the CO1-1 and CO1-2 regarding impacts. Thopposition to the proposed projects is not

IND691-1

S-2238
INDIVIDUALS

IND692–Angelina Martinez

See the response to comments IND13-3 asafety.

IND692-1

S-2239
INDIVIDUALS

IND693–Michele Fox

See the response to comment SA6-1 regaSee the response to comment IND44-2.

IND693-1

S-2240
INDIVIDUALS

IND694–Ethel Little

The commentor’s opposition is noted. Secomments CO101 and CO1-2 regarding i

IND694-1

S-2241
INDIVIDUALS

IND695–Mark J. Major

The commentor’s opposition is noted. Secomments LA1-4 and FA4-45 regarding 

IND695-1

S-2242
INDIVIDUALS

IND696–Michael K. Carter

IND696-1 The commentor’s opposition to the propo

See the response to comment IND505-9 rfor hunting. See response to IND9-5 regaaccess from rights-of-way. It is not possiarrival time of emergency responders durwould depend on many factors such as diof the responders. See the response to coregarding valves.

IND696-2

Emergency personnel could use access roedges of the right-of-way in wooded area

IND696-3

Iroquois indicted in its application that the Project would cost $75 million. Constitutproposed pipeline will cost $683 million fconstruction. Iroquois estimates its annuaapproximately $3.5 million. Constitution income will be approximately $34 millioncomment LA9-4 regarding natural gas res

IND696-4

See the response to comment IND53-1 rethe pipeline. 

IND696-5

See the response to comment LA9-4 regareserves. 

IND696-6

The commentor’s statements regarding thnoted.

IND696-7

S-2243
INDIVIDUALS

IND697–Ann B. Rennacker

See the response to comment SA6-1 regaThe proposed pipeline would transport na

IND697-1

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND697-2

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

IND697-3

S-2244
INDIVIDUALS

IND698–Mark M. Geise

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSee the response to comments CO1-1 and impacts.

IND698-1

S-2245
INDIVIDUALS

IND699–Bruce L. MacDuffie

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND699-1

S-2246
INDIVIDUALS

IND700–David J. Davis

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted. See the response to coFA4-45 regarding hydraulic fracturing. SEIS provides a discussion of renewable eto comment SA6-1 regarding climate chato comment IND205-1 regarding jobs. Scomment LA7-5 regarding export. 

IND700-1

S-2247
INDIVIDUALS

IND700–David J. Davis (cont’d)

S-2248
INDIVIDUALS

IND701–Rosemary D. McCarthy

Constitution has removed the Spread 4b cproposal. 

IND701-1

S-2249
INDIVIDUALS

IND701–Rosemary D. McCarthy (cont’d)

S-2250
INDIVIDUALS

IND701–Rosemary D. McCarthy (cont’d)

S-2251
INDIVIDUALS

IND701–Rosemary D. McCarthy (cont’d)

S-2252
INDIVIDUALS

IND701–Rosemary D. McCarthy (cont’d)

S-2253
INDIVIDUALS

IND701–Rosemary D. McCarthy (cont’d)

S-2254
INDIVIDUALS

IND701–Rosemary D. McCarthy (cont’d)

S-2255
INDIVIDUALS

IND701–Rosemary D. McCarthy (cont’d)

S-2256
INDIVIDUALS

IND702–Janet M. Windus

The commentor’s opposition to the propoSection 3.4.3.1 of the EIS has been updatassessment of this parcel. Based on our aidentify a viable route crossing for this pato the proposed route.

IND702-1

S-2257
INDIVIDUALS

IND703–Roger Gural

See the response to comment LA1-4 regafracturing. The use of high-volume hydrYork is currently prohibited and would bactions taken by state and local governmeagencies. Hydraulic fracturing in Pennsythe Pennsylvania Department of Environm

IND703-1

S-2258
INDIVIDUALS

IND704–Rodney Gould

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted.

IND704-1

S-2259
INDIVIDUALS

IND705–Elizabeth M. Van DeValk

IND705-1 See the response to comment CO1-2 rega

S-2260
INDIVIDUALS

IND705–Elizabeth M. VanDeValk (cont’d)

IND705-2 See the response to comment CO50-98 re

IND705-3 See the response to comment LA5-3 rega

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

IND705-4

S-2261
INDIVIDUALS

IND706–Christopher Eastman

See the response to comment CO50-55 rethe response to comment IND205-1 regarresponse to comment LA1-1 regarding prresponse to comment CO1-2 regarding im

IND706-1

IND706-2 See the response to comment FA4-53 reg

See the response to comment IND13-3 releaks are discussed in section 4.12 of the 

IND706-3

In order to directly compare the proposed energy alternatives, they must deliver the Small scale Applications of renewable enbe unable to meet this requirement.

IND706-4

In order for each of the alternatives to beglocation as the proposed projects, they wopipeline routes than the proposed projectspipelines would be collocated, they would (collocation usually results in the overlap of each right-of-way). Therefore, the impthan the proposed projects. See the respo23 regarding industrialization.

IND706-5

S-2262
INDIVIDUALS

IND706–Christopher Eastman (cont’d)

IND706-6 The commentor’s statements regarding al

S-2263