INDIVIDUALS

IND200 – Anthony Yacopino

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted.

IND200-1

S-1347
INDIVIDUALS

IND201 – Steve Whitesell

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing. See the response to comment Northeast Expansion Project.

IND201-1

See the response to comment IND13-3 reproposed projects. See the response to coregarding fugitive emissions. Potential immitigation for air quality is discussed in s

IND201-2IND201-3 See the response to comment SA6-1.

The commentor’s statements regarding thnoted.

IND201-4

S-1348
INDIVIDUALS

IND202 – Jeanne Simonelli

Section 4.9.1 of the EIS states that the proresult in more than 325 local jobs and 281 construction.

IND202-1

S-1349
INDIVIDUALS

IND202 – Jeanne Simonelli (cont’d)

See the response to comment FA4-3 regarbeen surveyed. 

IND202-2

See the response to comment LA5-3 regaSensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for interior forest waterbodies (section 4.3.3), wetlands (secL), wildlife (section 4.6) farmland/agricul4.8.4 and appendix J), socioeconomics (sevalues/mortgages/insurance (section 4.9.5 

IND202-3

S-1350
INDIVIDUALS

IND202 – Jeanne Simonelli (cont’d)

S-1351
INDIVIDUALS

IND203 – Jessica Galasso

The commentor’s statements regarding thnoted. Sensitive resources, as well as potmitigation, are discussed in the EIS for wrecreation and special interest areas (secti

IND203-1IND203-2 See the response to comment LA4-2.IND203-3 See the response to comment LA5-3.

As discussed in section 4.8.4.2 of the EISlimit potential impacts on organic farms tof its Organic Farm Protection Plan. Potemitigation on tourism are discussed in the 

IND203-4

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

IND203-5

S-1352
INDIVIDUALS

IND204 – Marone S. Acee

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted.

IND204-1

S-1353
INDIVIDUALS

IND205 – Mary Colleen McKinney

As stated in section 4.9.1 of the EIS the presult in more than 325 local jobs and 281 construction. These are temporary jobs threquired following construction. Howeveexpected to last 8 months. The proposed result in 7 permanent jobs.

IND205-1

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing. As stated in section 4.9.7 of thconstruction it is expected that crews and spend a portion of their payroll with local businesses. We do not expect the project negative economic impact. The pipeline wunderground, and any surface impacts, suwould be repaired. Once installed, the pipimpede normal surface traffic or access to pre-construction property uses would be a

IND205-2

S-1354
INDIVIDUALS

IND205 – Mary Colleen McKinney (cont’d)

See the response to comment LA7-5 regaof fuel oil and natural gas are dependent oprediction of future prices is neither feasibof this EIS. However, natural gas has histhan fuel oil. Natural gas has been more ein approximately 5 of the last 20 years (NNew York Times. 2011. Two Directions Natural Gas and Oil. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/busiml?_r=0. 

IND205-3

S-1355
INDIVIDUALS

IND205 – Mary Colleen McKinney (cont’d)

S-1356
INDIVIDUALS

IND206 – Richard D. Hill

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted.

IND206-1

S-1357
INDIVIDUALS

IND207 – Florence Carnahan

As stated in section 4.9.1 of the EIS, Conhiring local construction workers with the for the installation of natural gas facilitieswould include paving, landscape, fencingappraisers, and industrial suppliers in PenYork. The EIS did not evaluate the jobs rfracturing or extraction industries as this phydraulic fracturing or natural gas extract

IND207-1

The commentor’s statement regarding rentraining is noted. Section 3.1.2.3 of the Eon renewable energy.

IND207-2

S-1358
INDIVIDUALS

IND208 – Robert Cusick

See the response to comment FA1-1 regarperiod. See the response to comment INDof the proposed projects.

IND208-1

A revised discussion of the projects’ poteproperty values are discussed in section 4

IND208-2IND208-3 See the response to comments FA4-45 an

As stated in section 4.9.1 of the EIS, the presult in 325 local jobs and 281 indirect joAs stated in section 4.9.7 of the EIS, the pinclude an increase in annual property taxthousand per year in Susquehanna Countymillion in Delaware County, New York. project would result in $1.5 million in annthe Town of Wright.

IND208-4

See the response to comment CO1-2. The opposition to the proposed projects is note

IND208-5

S-1359
INDIVIDUALS

IND209 – Florence Carnahan

The commentor’s statements regarding thhydraulic fracturing are noted. An assessimpacts from hydraulic fracturing is beyoEIS. See the response to comment CO57

IND209-1

S-1360
INDIVIDUALS

IND210 – Lisa Hoffman

The commentor’s statements regarding reeasement agreement and desire for emineis noted. See the response to comment INherbicides and organic lands. See the respIND193-4 regarding herbicide use on the Easement requirements are discussed in s

IND210-1

See the response to comment LA5-3 regaand insurance.

IND210-2

The commentor’s statements regarding thnoted. See the response to comment LA7the proposed projects.

IND210-3

See the response to comment SA2-1 regarcommunication towers. The commentor’opposition of the projects is noted.

IND210-4

S-1361
INDIVIDUALS

IND211 – Florence Carnahan

The commentor’s statements regarding cofracturing on communities is noted. See tcomment LA5-8 regarding economic benprojects.

IND211-1

See the response to comment LA7-5 regagas and the need of the proposed projects

IND211-2

S-1362
INDIVIDUALS

IND212 – Zoya Kocur

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

response to comment LA7-5 regarding neprojects. See the response to comment FAhydraulic fracturing. 

IND212-1

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

IND212-2

S-1363
INDIVIDUALS

IND213 – Linda Bevilacqua

The commentor’s statements regarding thcommunity grant program, as well as thosare noted. See the response to comment Idelivery of pipe segments. See the responregarding public necessity and export. Sediscusses the use of existing pipeline syst

IND213-1

S-1364
INDIVIDUALS

IND214 – Wayne Hoffman

IND214-1 See the response to comment LA5-3.

See the response to comment CO1-2 regaenvironment and wildlife. See the respon3 regarding safety of the proposed pipelin

IND214-2

The commentor’s statements regarding emopposition of the proposed projects are no

IND214-3

See the response to comment SA2-1 regarcommunication towers. See the response regarding the comment period.

IND214-4

S-1365
INDIVIDUALS

IND215 – Bruce E. Blanchard

The commentor’s statements regarding hiConstitution are noted.

IND215-1

S-1366
INDIVIDUALS

IND216 – Epifanio Bevilacqua

The commentor’s statements regarding Ceminent domain are noted.

IND216-1

S-1367
INDIVIDUALS

IND217 – Anne Hemenway

IND217-1 See response to comment FA1-1.

See the response to comment FA1-1 regarwas still pending at the time of issuance oresponse to comment FA4-29 regarding CPreliminary Migratory Bird and Upland Fresponse to comment CO50-22 regarding easements.

IND217-2

See the response to comment LA7-5 reganeed of the proposed projects. See the resFA4-45 regarding hydraulic fracturing. Scomment CO1-2 regarding potential impaprojects. Sensitive resources, as well as pmitigation, are discussed in the EIS for drwaterbodies (section 4.3.3), air quality (sefarmland/agriculture (sections 2.3.2, 4.2, 4safety (section 4.12), tourism (section 4.8

IND217-3

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing. See the response to comment comment period. Section 3.1.2.3 of the Ediscussion of renewable energy.

IND217-4

S-1368
INDIVIDUALS

IND217 – Anne Hemenway (cont’d)

S-1369
INDIVIDUALS

IND218 – Tim Taggart

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted.

IND218-1

S-1370
INDIVIDUALS

IND219 – Richard Cooper

The commentor’s statements regarding Cstandards and communication efforts, as wproposed project are noted.

IND219-1

S-1371
INDIVIDUALS

IND220 – John Dennis McGreen

See the response to comment LA1-4 regafracturing. Climate change is discussed in the EIS. 

IND220-1

See the response to comment FA1-1 regarcomment period. Our responses to the coNYSDEC in its March 24, 2014 letter can SA1.

IND220-2

See the response to comments FA4-46 anLeatherstocking.

IND220-3

The commentor’s statement in opposition projects is noted.

IND220-4

S-1372
INDIVIDUALS

IND221 – Keith Hoffman

The commentor’s statement in opposition projects is noted. Safety of the proposed section 4.12 of the EIS. See the response regarding eminent domain. See the resporegarding Leatherstocking’s proposal.. 

IND221-1

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing in New York. 

IND221-2

S-1373
INDIVIDUALS

IND222 – Patti Packer

IND222-1 See the responses to comments LA4-2 anIND222-2 See the response to comment IND54-1.

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing in New York. See the response regarding alternative trenching methods.

IND222-3

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND222-4

S-1374
INDIVIDUALS

IND223 – David LaVerne

See the response to comment CO1-2. See 45 regarding hydraulic fracturing. The coopposition of the proposed projects is not

IND223-1

S-1375
INDIVIDUALS

IND224 – Irwin Waldman

The commentor’s statements regarding CCommunity Grant Program are noted.

IND224-1

S-1376
INDIVIDUALS

IND225 – Jason Dunham

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing in New York.

IND225-1

See the response to comment IND13-3 reproposed projects.

IND225-2

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted .

IND225-3

S-1377
INDIVIDUALS

IND226 – Constance Brace

IND226-1 See response to comment FA1-1.

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy. Climate change is discussed in seEIS.

IND226-2

The commentor’s statement to reject the pnoted. Safety of the proposed projects is 4.12 of the EIS. See also the response to regarding safety.

IND226-3

S-1378
INDIVIDUALS

IND227 – Suzanne Geoghegan

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for soil compactiinterior forests (section 4.5.3), waterbodieslopes (sections 2.3.2, and 4.1.3; appendix (sections 2.3.1 and 4.1.3; appendix I), vegwetlands (section 4.4 and appendix L), air 4.11.1), and farmland/agriculture (sectionappendix J).

IND227-1

Climate change is discussed in section 4.1commentor’s statements in opposition of are noted.

IND227-2

S-1379
INDIVIDUALS

IND228 – Richard and Sudjai Bentley

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy. 

IND228-1

S-1380
INDIVIDUALS

IND229 – Kim N. Felter-Canarelli

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy. See the response to comment LAand necessity of the proposed projects. Tstatements in opposition of the proposed p

IND229-1

S-1381
INDIVIDUALS

IND229 – Kim N. Felter-Canarelli (cont’d)

S-1382
INDIVIDUALS

IND230 – Suzanne Winkler

See the responses to comments FA4-45 anhydraulic fracturing.

IND230-1

S-1383
INDIVIDUALS

IND230 – Suzanne Winkler (cont’d)

S-1384
INDIVIDUALS

IND231 – Esther Lerman

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing. See the response to comment industrialization of the project area. Sectiincludes a discussion of using existing piptransport. See the response to comment LSee the response to comment IND13-3 re

IND231-1

See the response to comments CO1-5 and flooding. Cumulative impacts are discussthe EIS.

IND231-2

S-1385
INDIVIDUALS

IND232 – Joseph Maloney

The commentor’s statement regarding emSee the response to comment FA8-3 for a domain. See the response to comment LASee the response to comment IND54-1 repipe segments.

IND232-1

S-1386
INDIVIDUALS

IND233 – Mary Colleen McKinney

IND233-1 See response to comment FA1-1.

S-1387
INDIVIDUALS

IND234 – Geoffrey Schaffner

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted. See the response to coregarding property values. See the respon26 regarding logging equipment. See the LA7-5 regarding need of the proposed pro

IND234-1

S-1388
INDIVIDUALS

IND235 – Kaima Nelson-Bowne

IND235-1 See the response to comment LA5-3 rega

See the response to comment FA4-45 and regarding hydraulic fracturing. The commdeny the proposed projects is noted.

IND235-2

S-1389
INDIVIDUALS

IND236 – E. Driesen

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing. The commentor’s statements iproposed projects are noted.

IND236-1

S-1390
INDIVIDUALS

IND237 – Bob Moss

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted.

IND237-1

S-1391
INDIVIDUALS

IND238 – Joyce Moss

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted.

IND238-1

S-1392
INDIVIDUALS

IND239 – Pat Roberts

The commentor’s statements regarding thare noted. See the response to comment L150 feet distance for water wells. The comregarding the relation of water wells to thTypically the FERC only evaluates the imto people and inhabited facilities. See the SA4-10 regarding mitigation to water wel

IND239-1

Section 2.6 of the EIS provides a discussimaintenance activities for the projects. Sthe pipeline safety requirements mandated PHMSA, Office of Pipeline Safety adminregulatory program to ensure the safe trangas and other hazardous materials by pipemandatory safety regulations and other apmanagement that ensure safety in the desitesting, operation, maintenance, and emerpipeline facilities. 

IND239-2

The commentor’s statement regarding consupplies is noted. See the response to comstated in section 4.3.2.1 of the EIS, should water supply well be impacted during conquantity or quality, Constitution would prwater source or compensate the landownewell.

IND239-3

See the response to comment CO26-19 renatural gas. Climate change is discussed the EIS. See the response to comment LASee the response to comment LA9-4 regareserves.

IND239-4

S-1393
INDIVIDUALS

IND240 – Gaetano Catapano

The commentor’s statement requesting inThe Commission will make a determinatiparty’s intervention status in any order it m

IND240-1

S-1394
INDIVIDUALS

IND241 – Dianne Sefcik

As stated in section 4.9.8 of the EIS, there risks associated with the projects’ would bborne by any racial, ethnic, or socioeconosection 4.12.1 of the EIS, the DOT, not thclassifications, based on population densipipeline, and specifies the safety requiremConstitution has committed to several meexceed the specified DOT requirements suClass 2 design pipe in all Class 1 locationreferenced by the commentor), inspection welds, hydrostatic testing of the entire pipsuitable for Class 3 locations, and spacing Class 2 requirements. The commentor’s sproposed projects are noted.

IND241-1

S-1395
INDIVIDUALS

IND241 – Dianne Sefcik (cont’d)

S-1396
INDIVIDUALS

IND241 – Dianne Sefcik (cont’d)

S-1397
INDIVIDUALS

IND242 – Lynn Hartz

The commentor’s statement regarding pronoted. It is not unusual for interstate natupipelines to be constructed through residemuch closer than 100 feet to residences. comment LA5-3 regarding property valuecomment LA7-5 regarding export. 

IND242-1

S-1398
INDIVIDUALS

IND242 – Lynn Hartz (cont’d)

S-1399
INDIVIDUALS

IND243 – Delissa Reynolds-Lyssy

The commentor’s statement in opposition projects is noted. See the response to comregarding hydraulic fracturing. Sensitive potential impacts and mitigation, are discuinterior forest (section 4.5.3), water resouquality (section 4.11.1), land use (section 4.11.2), farmland/agriculture (sections 2.3appendix J), interior forest (section 4.5.3)(section 4.9), and earthquakes (section 4.1to comment FA8-3 regarding eminent domto comments CO1-5 and IND113-1 regardresponse to comment LA5-3 regarding pr

IND243-1

S-1400
INDIVIDUALS

IND243 – Delissa Reynolds-Lyssy (cont’d)

S-1401
INDIVIDUALS

IND244 – Suzanne Winkler

The commentor’s statements regarding thproposed projects are noted. See the resp45 regarding hydraulic fracturing

IND244-1

S-1402
INDIVIDUALS

IND244 – Suzanne Winkler (cont’d)

See response to CO41-23 regarding indusproject area. 

IND244-2IND244-3 See the response to LA5-3 regarding propIND244-4 See the response to comment IND205-1.IND244-5 The commentor’s statements regarding th

S-1403
INDIVIDUALS

IND245 – Kerry Hanley

IND245-1 See the response to comment IND13-3 re

The commentor’s statements regarding hynoted.

IND245-2

See the response to comments CO1-5 and flooding. The commentor’s statements reHarlem incident are noted. Section 4.12 osafety of the proposed projects. Section 3alternatives to the proposed projects. 

IND245-3

S-1404
INDIVIDUALS

IND246 – Christine Alexander

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for water resourcquality (section 4.11.1), land use (section 4.9.4).

IND246-1

See the response to comment LA7-5 regagas.

IND246-2

The commentor’s statements regarding thnoted.

IND246-3

S-1405
INDIVIDUALS

IND247 – Aaron Fumarola

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing.

IND247-1IND247-2 See the response to comment IND188-2.IND247-3 The commentor’s request to reject the pip

S-1406
INDIVIDUALS

IND248 – Douglas Vitarius

Prior to construction, Constitution’s contrthe “Call Before You Dig” or “One Call” utility operators, to verify and mark all un(e.g., cables, conduits, and pipelines) alonminimize the potential for accidental damconstruction. Where the route would crostrenching beneath the existing line would hand. 

IND248-1IND248-2 See the response to comment CO1-4.

Wetland impacts and proposed mitigation section 4.4 of the EIS.

IND248-3

IND248-4 See the response to comment LA5-3 regaIND248-5 See the response to comment IND13-3 reIND248-6 See the response to comment IND239-2. 

S-1407
INDIVIDUALS

IND248 – Douglas Vitarius (cont’d)

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing. See response to CO41-23 regaof the projects’ area.

IND248-7

Renewable energy sources are discussed iEIS. Climate change is discussed in secti

IND248-8

See the response to comment LA7-5 regagas.

IND248-9

See response to CO41-23 regarding indusprojects’ area.

IND248-10IND248-11 See the response to comment LA5-3.IND248-12 See the response to comment IND27-2.IND248-13 See the response to CO1-2.

Renewable energy sources are discussed iEIS. 

IND248-14

S-1408
INDIVIDUALS

IND248 – Douglas Vitarius (cont’d)

S-1409
INDIVIDUALS

IND249 – 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

IND249-1

S-1410
INDIVIDUALS

IND249 – Catherine M. Holleran (cont’d)

S-1411
INDIVIDUALS

IND250 – Dee Singer and Len Teper

IND250-1 The commentor’s opposition to the propo

See the response to comment CO1-2. See comment IND13-3 regarding safety. Sectprovides a discussion of renewable energy

IND250-2IND250-3 See the response to comment IND10-5.

S-1412
INDIVIDUALS

IND251 – Keith G. Stanton III, Stanton Family Farms, LLC

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

IND251-1

S-1413
INDIVIDUALS

IND251 – Keith G. Stanton III, Stanton Family Farms, LLC (cont’d)

S-1414
INDIVIDUALS

IND252 – Jean Manley

Impacts and proposed mitigation to farmldiscussed sections 2.3.2, 4.2, 4.8.4, and apNo homes would be lost due the proposed 

IND252-1IND252-2 See the response to comment LA5-3 rega

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for wildlife (secticonservation and other special use lands (

IND252-3

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND252-4

S-1415
INDIVIDUALS

IND253 – T. Gorman

See response to CO41-23 regarding indusproject area. See the response to commenhydraulic fracturing. Section 3.1.2.3 of thdiscussion of renewable energy. Section a discussion of socioeconomics impacts a

IND253-1

S-1416
INDIVIDUALS

IND254 – Claudia H. Gorman

Constitution’s Organic Farm Protection Phttp://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.a0901. 

IND254-1

See the response to comment IND10-5 rethe proposed projects. See the response to regarding public necessity.

IND254-2

Sensitive resources, as well as potential im

are discussed in the EIS for water resourc(section 4.11.2), wildlife (section 4.5), an(sections 2.3.2, 4.2, 4.8.4, and appendix Jcomment IND193-4 regarding non-certifi

IND254-3

S-1417
INDIVIDUALS

IND254 – Claudia H. Gorman (cont’d)

S-1418
INDIVIDUALS

IND255 – Anne Lazarus

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for water resourcquality (section 4.11.1), noise (section 4.14.5), land use (section 4.8), and farmland/2.3.2, 4.2, 4.8.4, and appendix J). 

IND255-1

See the response to comment CO57-4 regresponse to comment IND13-3 regarding 

IND255-2

Air quality impacts are discussed in sectioClimate change is discussed in section 4.1discussion of radon in section 4.11.1.4 of revised. 

S-1419

IND255-3
INDIVIDUALS

IND256 – Jeffrey Ellenberger

The commentor’s statements regarding hynoted.

IND256-1

Section 3.1.2.3 provides a discussion of recommentor’s statement regarding fossil fu

IND256-2

S-1420
INDIVIDUALS

IND257 – Jonathan Chasan

The commentor’s statement regarding proresidences is noted. Because the commenone mile from the route, we do not expect commentor. 

IND257-1

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for water resourcwetlands (section 3.4), air quality (section 4.11.2), wildlife (section 4.5), land use (sefarmland/agriculture (sections 2.3.2, 4.2, 

IND257-2

The commentor’s statement regarding the neighboring homes is noted.

IND257-3

See the response to comment IND13-3 anEIS regarding safety. See the response to regarding property values.

IND257-4

The commentor’s statement regarding the noted.

IND257-5

S-1421
INDIVIDUALS

IND257 – Jonathan Chasan (cont’d)

S-1422
INDIVIDUALS

IND258 – Werner and Doris Moennich

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted.

IND258-1

S-1423
INDIVIDUALS

IND259 – Murray Bell

IND259-1 See the response to comment CO1-2.IND259-2 See the response to comment FA4-45. 

See the response to comment FA8-3 regarThe commentor’s statement to reject the pnoted. 

IND259-3

S-1424
INDIVIDUALS

IND260 – Leona Briggs

See the response to comment FA8-3 regarThe commentor’s statement to reject the pnoted. 

IND260-1

S-1425
INDIVIDUALS

IND261 – Allegra Schecter

The commentor’s statements regarding thand Constitution’s land agents are noted. to comment CO50-108 regarding the com

IND261-1

S-1426
INDIVIDUALS

IND261 – Allegra Schecter (cont’d)

IND261-2 See response to comment FA1-1. 

S-1427
INDIVIDUALS

IND262 – Kerry A. Lynch

See response to comment FA1-1. See the SA2-1 regarding the communication towe

IND262-1

S-1428
INDIVIDUALS

IND263 – Bruce S. Kernan

See the response to comment CO50-108 rmeetings.

IND263-1

S-1429
INDIVIDUALS

IND264 – Barbara A. Loeffler

See the response to comment CO50-108 rmeetings.

IND264-1

S-1430
INDIVIDUALS

IND265 – Skyla Graig-Murray

See the response to comment CO1-2. See comment FA4-12 regarding monitoring d

IND265-1IND265-2 The commentor’s comments regarding cu

The proposed pipeline would transport naSection 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy. See the response to comment FAApplicants’ purported need for their projestatement in opposition is noted.

IND265-3

S-1431
INDIVIDUALS

IND266 – Jayne

The pipeline route would not traverse Otsproposed contractor yard would be locateOneonta, New York. We acknowledge thindirect impacts in Otsego County such aincreased traffic, and socioeconomic effec

IND266-1IND266-2 See response to comment FA1-1.

Access roads are discussed in section 4.8.FERC would monitor construction of the discussed in section 2.5.3 of the EIS. See comment LA10-1 regarding the FERC staSee the response to comment CO42-33 rewith the FERC’s requirements. Section 2of proposed construction techniques. Housection 4.9.2 of the EIS. Section 2.2.3 of discussion of contractor yards. See the reCO1-4 and IND169-1 regarding erosion.

IND266-3IND266-4 Traffic is discussed in section 4.9.4 of the 

Potential impacts on public services are dof the EIS. 

IND266-5IND266-6 See the response to comment LA5-3 rega

See the response to comment IND13-3 restated in section 4.12.1 of the EIS, Constiwelds along the proposed pipeline. In addpipeline would be a fixed belowground staccordance with the DOT standards, and hprior to the commencement of operation ileaks. Constitution and Iroquois would coaccordance with the DOT requirements duminimize potential impacts of corrosion a

IND266-7

IND266-8 See the response to comment FA8-3.

S-1432
INDIVIDUALS

IND266 – Jayne (cont’d)

S-1433
INDIVIDUALS

IND267 – Reverend Ellen Sokolow

The commentor’s opposition to the propohydraulic fracturing is noted, as is her calbiographies of the FERC Commissioners, FERC’s website, are noted. 

IND267-1

S-1434
INDIVIDUALS

IND267 – Reverend Ellen Sokolow (cont’d)

S-1435
INDIVIDUALS

IND268 – Bob Rosen

See the response to comment CO50-108 rmeetings.

IND268-1

S-1436
INDIVIDUALS

IND268 – Bob Rosen (cont’d)

The commentor’s statements regarding lemembers are noted. All comments are coCommission staff with equal weight regartimes it is submitted or the entity of the sucommentor points out, the purpose of solidraft EIS is to help FERC staff revise the Comments merely stating an opinion (whprojects) are simply noted and have no beenvironmental analysis. The Commission identity of individual submitters or discarsubmitter uses a false name. The FERC sassess these comments based on their valihow it relates to the project subject to rev(not environmental staff) makes the deterproject is in the public convenience and nevaluation and subsequent decision is basincluding the final EIS and associated recanalysis, ensuring just and reasonable rateand public input. 

IND268-2

S-1437
INDIVIDUALS

IND268 – Bob Rosen (cont’d)

S-1438
INDIVIDUALS

IND268 – Bob Rosen (cont’d)

S-1439
INDIVIDUALS

IND269 – Allegra Schecter

The commentor appears to be referring to contractor yard. Constitution has removefrom its proposal. 

IND269-1

S-1440
INDIVIDUALS

IND269 – Allegra Schecter (cont’d)

S-1441
INDIVIDUALS

IND270 – Mark Pezzati

See the response to comment CO50-108 rmeetings.

IND270-1

S-1442
INDIVIDUALS

IND270 – Mark Pezzati (cont’d)

S-1443
INDIVIDUALS

IND271 – Eugene Marner

See the response to comment CO50-108 rmeetings. The commentor’s statement renoted. We follow a three step approach to minimization, and mitigation. If feasible, areas that would result in adverse impacts re-route around the potential landslide areavoidance is not feasible, minimization mReducing the right-of-way from 110 feet forested areas is an example of minimizatminimization are not feasible or do not adimpacts, mitigation measures would be uscompensatory wetland mitigation is discuthe EIS. We have concluded that adherenavoidance, minimization, and mitigation mimpacts to less than significant levels. 

IND271-1

The commentor’s statement regarding wenoted. See the response to comment FA4mitigation. See the response to comment applicants’’ purported need for the projec

IND271-2

The commentor’s statements regarding thhydraulic fracturing are noted. An assessimpacts from hydraulic fracturing is beyoEIS. See the response to comment FA4-4fracturing. 

IND271-3

S-1444
INDIVIDUALS

IND271 – Eugene Marner (cont’d)

See the response to comment CO41-23 reindustrialization of the project area.

IND271-4

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

IND271-5

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

IND271-6

Climate change is discussed in section 4.1Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy. The commentor’s statements in oproposed projects are noted.

IND271-7

S-1445
INDIVIDUALS

IND271 – Eugene Marner (cont’d)

S-1446
INDIVIDUALS

IND271 – Eugene Marner (cont’d)

S-1447
INDIVIDUALS

IND271 – Eugene Marner (cont’d)

S-1448
INDIVIDUALS

IND272 – Hazen B. Reed

See the response to comment CO50-108 rmeetings. See the response to comment Fhydraulic fracturing. See the response to regarding industrialization of the projects

IND272-1IND272-2 See the response to comment IND205-1 r

S-1449
INDIVIDUALS

IND272 – Hazen B. Reed (cont’d)

Traffic is discussed in section 4.9.4 of the facilities were not proposed as part of Conprojects. See the response to comment INsafety. Section 4.13 provides a discussion 

IND272-3

See the response to comment IND272-2. section 4.9.1 of the EIS, according to the conducted by the Center for Government changes in the unemployment rate would percent (Broome County, New York) to 0County, New York). This would result in positive impact on employment for countarea.

IND272-4

S-1450
INDIVIDUALS

IND273 – Megan 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

IND273-1

See the response to comment LA7-5 regaSee the response to comment FA8-3 regar

IND273-2

As stated in section 3.4.3.2 of the EIS, the would follow the western property line wThe house sits along the eastern property construction more than 150 feet of trees wthe house and the quarry.

IND273-3

S-1451
INDIVIDUALS

IND273 – Megan Holleran (cont’d)

IND273-4 See the response to comment CO50-100.

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

IND273-5

We assume the commentor is referring to S136. This waterbody, and adjacent roadvia a conventional bore which would resuwith no impacts on the actual waterbody (appendix K). See the response to comme3 regarding impacts on drinking water.

IND273-6

Wetland impacts and proposed mitigationConstitution’s proposed compensatory misection 4.4 of the EIS. See the response tregarding erosion.

IND273-7IND273-8 See the response to comment IND13-3 re

Section 4.10.1.2 of the EIS, provides a disin Pennsylvania. Survey permission of thso cultural resource surveys may or may nconducted. At this time, no stone piles hathe FERC (this may be because the parcel surveyed). See the response to comment pending surveys. We have included a rec4.10.4 of the EIS that Constitution not begapproved) prior to completion of all sectio

IND273-9

S-1452
INDIVIDUALS

IND273 – Megan Holleran (cont’d)

The commentor’s statement regarding the noted. Section 3.4.3.2 of the EIS has been parcel. Section 3.3.4 of the EIS provides collocating the proposed pipeline with the 

IND273-10IND273-11 See the response to comment CO1-2.IND273-12 See the response to comment IND131-1.

S-1453
INDIVIDUALS

IND273 – Megan Holleran (cont’d)

The commentor’s statement stating they weasement agreement is noted. See the res3 regarding eminent domain. See the resp5 regarding public need. The commentorthe proposed projects are noted. 

IND273-14IND273-13 See the response to comment LA7-4.

S-1454
INDIVIDUALS

IND274 – Chancey B. Beneski

The commentor’s statements in oppositioare noted. See the response to comment F

IND274-1

S-1455
INDIVIDUALS

IND275 – E.S.S. Activity

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted. Greenhouse gases are 4.11.1 of the EIS. See the response to com

IND275-1

S-1456
INDIVIDUALS

IND276 – Summer Oxazanna Steenolsen

IND276-1 See the response to comment LA7-5 regaIND276-2 See the response to comment IND110-4 rIND276-3 Greenhouse gases are discussed in section 

Earthquakes are discussed in section 4.1.3in section 4.12.1 of the EIS, there are mornatural gas transmission lines in the Unite

IND276-4

IND276-5 See the response to comment IND110-4 r

S-1457
INDIVIDUALS

IND277 – Kiana Lum

See the response to comment LA1-4 regafracturing.

IND277-1

S-1458
INDIVIDUALS

IND278 – Leihau Deante Kaipolani Lauronal

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted. The proposed pipeline would toil.

IND278-1

See the response to comment LA1-4 regafracturing.

IND278-2

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted.

IND278-3

S-1459
INDIVIDUALS

IND279 – Cassie Acoba-Lee

The commentor’s statement regarding the noted. 

IND279-1IND279-2 Climate change is discussed in section 4.1

Potential impacts and proposed mitigation can be found in section 4.3 of the EIS. 

IND279-3

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for land use (sect(section 4.5), waterbodies (section 4.3.3), and appendix L), and farmland/agricultur4.8.4 and appendix J).

IND279-4

S-1460
INDIVIDUALS

IND280 – Chloe Smith

The commentor’s statement regarding the noted. Truck traffic is discussed in sectioenergy used to move natural gas through generated at the Wright Interconnect Projthe EIS for a discussion of the Wright Intsection 4.11.1 of the EIS for a discussion mitigation measures for the Wright Interc

IND280-1

Potential impacts and proposed mitigation be found in section 4.3 of the EIS. Sectiodiscusses seismicity. We assume the comchemicals used during hydraulic fracturincomment LA1-4 regarding hydraulic frac

IND280-2

The commentor’s statement regarding ethchange is discussed in section 4.13.6.10 ocommentor’s statement regarding the prop

IND280-3

S-1461
INDIVIDUALS

IND281 – Warren

The commentor’s request to deny the propSafety of the proposed projects is discussresponse to comment IND13-3. Sensitive potential impacts and mitigation, are discuwater resources (section 4.3.3) and air qu

IND281-1

S-1462
INDIVIDUALS

IND282 – Valerie Dudley

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

IND282-1

S-1463
INDIVIDUALS

IND282 – Valerie Dudley (cont’d)

S-1464
INDIVIDUALS

IND283 – Kathleen Acoba

Row crops may still be grown in agricultuinstallation of the pipeline as described in EIS, but trees would not be allowed to re-foot-wide permanent right-of-way in upla

IND283-1

Climate change is discussed in section 4.1Potential impacts and proposed mitigation be found in section 4.3 of the EIS. 

IND283-2IND283-3 See the response to comment IND280-1.

S-1465
INDIVIDUALS

IND284 – Keahi- Malia Banagan- Cecchetto

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. Potential impacts anfor water resources can be found in sectio

IND284-1IND284-2 Climate change is discussed in section 4.1

S-1466
INDIVIDUALS

IND284 – Keahi- Malia Banagan- Cecchetto

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. Potential impacts anfor water resources can be found in sectio

IND284-1IND284-2 Climate change is discussed in section 4.1

S-1467
INDIVIDUALS

IND285 – Kandice Grow

The proposed pipeline would transport naas stated by the commentor. See the respregarding hydraulic fracturing. Potential mitigation for water resources can be founEIS. 

IND285-1

Chemicals, other than herbicides, are not construction and operation of a natural ga4.1.3.1 of the EIS discusses seismicity. 

IND285-2

S-1468
INDIVIDUALS

IND286 – Christine R. Eckerson

Climate change is discussed in section 4.1the response to comment CO26-19.

IND286-1

S-1469
INDIVIDUALS

IND287 – Naia

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

IND287-1

S-1470
INDIVIDUALS

IND288 – Douglas Kerr

The proposed pipeline would be near the commentor’s parcel. The home is approxof the proposed pipeline. Constitution wapermission in order to delineate wetlands parcel. Potential impacts and proposed mdiscussed in section 4.4 of the EIS. As stthe EIS, with adherence to Constitution’s the NYSDEC and the COE permit requirerecommendations, impacts on wetlands wgreatest extent practicable. While adverson wetlands would occur, with Constitutiits mitigation we conclude the impacts wothan significant levels. Impacts on a beavfrom the proposed pipeline are not expect

IND288-1IND288-2 See the response to comments CO1-5 and 

S-1471
INDIVIDUALS

IND288 – Douglas Kerr (cont’d)

IND288-3 See the response to comment IND13-3 re

The commentor’s statement regarding the noted. See the responses to comment COtechnical school.

IND288-4

S-1472
INDIVIDUALS

IND289 – Ally Nisenoff

See the response to comments LA1-4 and hydraulic fracturing. Potential impacts on mitigation for water resources can be founEIS. Chemicals are not generally used duoperation of a natural gas pipeline. Climain section 4.13.6.10 of the EIS. 

IND289-1

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

IND289-2

S-1473
INDIVIDUALS

IND290 – Elizabeth Poreba

The commentor’s statements regarding thalternative K are noted.

IND290-1

S-1474
INDIVIDUALS

IND291 – Shary Skoloff

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing. 

IND291-1

The proposed pipeline would be almost a commentor’s parcel. See the response to regarding safety of the proposed projects. discussed in section 4.11.1 of the EIS. As 4.11.1.3 of the EIS, the proposed projects have significant impacts on local or regio

IND291-2

Since the commentor’s parcel would not bproposed projects, impacts on the conservnot occur. Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provrenewable energy. Climate change is disc4.13.6.10 of the EIS. See the response to IND21-7.

IND291-3

S-1475
INDIVIDUALS

IND291 – Shary Skoloff (cont’d)

IND291-4 See the responses to comments CO1-1 an

See the response to comments CO1-5 and flooding.

IND291-5

See the response to comments CO1-4 and erosion. As stated in section 4.2.4 of the conduct compaction tests and till compacagricultural and residential areas through similar equipment as identified in the ECP

IND291-6

Section 4.12.2 of the EIS provides a discuand proposed mitigation measures. As staof the EIS, we conclude that proposed proin significant noise impacts on residents acommunities.

IND291-7

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for water resourcvegetation (section 4.5), wetlands (section air quality (section 4.11.1), and farmland/2.3.2, 4.2, 4.8.4, and appendix J).

IND291-8

As stated in section 4.5.5 of the EIS, folloConstitution’s operational site monitoring revegetation or potential invasive species conduct additional vegetation managemenapplication, manual removal of non-nativconsultation with qualified botanists. If dConstitution would use foliar herbicides aaccordance with agency regulations and mrecommendations to control potential invConstitution would not apply herbicides, 100 feet of a wetland.

IND291-9

S-1476
INDIVIDUALS

IND291 – Shary Skoloff (cont’d)

See the response to comment CO1-1 regacommentor’s statement regarding peace othe response to comment IND13-3 regard

IND291-10

See the response to comment CO50-108 rmeetings. The commentor’s statement to noted.

IND291-11

S-1477