The commentor’s opposition to the propo

As stated in section 4.1.3.1 of the EIS, sethe proposed projects including the aboveconsidered low. Constitution would use tcharge needed for blasting and would use equipment to monitor velocities. If a landimpacted and they are not satisfied with Cthey may contact the FERC’s Dispute Re337-2237) and/or the FERC Project Mana

INDIVIDUALSIND292 – William and Nancy Turick

IND292-1

See the response to comments CO1-5 and flooding. See the response to comment INerosion. As stated in table 2.3.1-1 in the Eof cover would be 24 inches in consolidatin normal soil. Constitution’s proposed dmeet DOT requirements.

IND292-2

S-1477
See the response to comment LA5-3 rega

property values, and mortgages.

INDIVIDUALSIND292 – William and Nancy Turick (cont’d)

IND292-3

S-1478
Herbicides and pesticides that may be use

plant species would be applied according guidelines and in compliance with applicarecommendations. Also see the response 

INDIVIDUALSIND292 – William and Nancy Turick (cont’d)

IND292-4

As stated in section 4.9.4.1 of the EIS, Coany roads damaged by the pipeline projec

IND292-5

Hunting on the right-of-way would only bconstruction. Following restoration, landpermitted to hunt on a right-of-way crossilocal laws allow. As stated in section 4.8construction of the proposed projects couHowever, any impacts would be temporarlimited to the 9 month construction-windo

IND292-6

As stated in section 4.0 of the EIS, “we cobe significant if it would result in a substathe physical environment.”

IND292-7

S-1479
See the response to comment IND13-3 re

FERC does not determine setback distancdetermined by PHMSA.

INDIVIDUALSIND292 – William and Nancy Turick (cont’d)

IND292-8

See the response to comment FA4-12 regcompliance monitoring program.

IND292-9

S-1480
As stated in section 4.9.4.1 of the EIS, Co

any roads damaged by the pipeline projecin section 4.9.4 of the EIS. As stated in sMLVs are used to close the pipeline and smaintenance or safety purposes. They are purposes.

INDIVIDUALSIND293 – Patrice K. VanSlyke

IND293-1

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing and cumulative impacts. Sectiprovides a discussion of modifications to 

systems as an alternative to the proposed 

IND293-2

See the response to comment IN122-2 regand insurance.

IND293-3

S-1481
As stated in section 2.2.1.3 of the EIS, ap

where Constitution has requested extra wareas and resource crossings, including wthe acreage of impact, associated land usefor use. A detailed discussion of Constituworkspace is provided in section 2.3 and 4.4.4 of the EIS. Extra workspaces are alalignment sheets available at http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.a0901. Post certificate variance requests wConstitution to obtain landowner approvaConstitution required additional workspacthe landowner was unwilling to agree, thehave to provide the FERC with a detailed description of alternatives considered, and and impact avoidance, minimization, and This assessment would be outside of the rprocess. The FERC would then decide wauthorization for the use of eminent domato obtain additional workspaces based on determination of whether the proposed acthe applicant to properly construct, operatpreviously authorized facilities. Approviworkspaces that require the use of eminenrare.

INDIVIDUALSIND293 – Patrice K. VanSlyke (cont’d)

IND293-4IND293-5 See response to comment FA1-1.

The commentor’s statements to deny the noted.

IND293-6

S-1482
The commentor’s statement regarding the 

noted. Section 4.9.8 of the EIS provides environmental justice. As discussed in seearlier proposed routes crossed more of CForest which border the commentor’s parHowever, Constitution developed the ClaForest Minimization Route at the request 

INDIVIDUALSIND294 – Devin Kerr

IND294-1

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

IND294-2

See the response to comment IND288-1 rthe commentor’s parcel.

IND294-3

As stated in section 2.3.1 of the EIS, follofences, sidewalks, driveways, and other srestored or repaired as necessary. See the FA8-3 regarding easement negotiations.

IND294-4

S-1483
See the response to comment FA4-45 reg

fracturing.

INDIVIDUALSIND294 – Devin Kerr (cont’d)

IND294-5IND294-6 See the response to comment FA4-16 reg

S-1484
See the response to comment FA4-45 reg

fracturing. See the response to comment 

INDIVIDUALSIND295 – Maureen Mackie Dill

IND295-1

S-1485
INDIVIDUALS

IND295 – Maureen Mackie Dill (cont’d)

S-1486
See the response to comment CO41-23.

INDIVIDUALSIND295 – Maureen Mackie Dill (cont’d)

IND295-2

As stated in section 4.12.1 of the EIS, Corepresentatives have already met with emdepartments in four of the counties that wprojects and they would continue to meet all of the counties along the pipeline route would provide these departments with ememergency response plans. Affected pubemergency responders, public officials, anreceive annual updates about the pipelineConstitution has already provided and wofinancial assistance for selected emergencCommunity Grant Program. This program requests for noteworthy community projeprovided grants to six emergency respondand Schoharie Counties, New York, in D2013, six grants were awarded to emergenSusquehanna, Broome, Delaware, and Sc

IND295-3

See the response to comments CO1-5 and floods.

IND295-4

S-1487
See the response to comment CO50-108.

INDIVIDUALSIND295 – Maureen Mackie Dill (cont’d)

IND295-5

S-1488
The commentor’s statements in support o

are noted.

INDIVIDUALSIND296 – Lois L. Williams

IND296-1

S-1489
See the response to comment FA8-3 rega

INDIVIDUALSIND297 - Bruce A. Baxter Jr.

IND297-1

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

IND297-2

Row crops could still be grown in agriculinstallation of the pipeline, as described in addition, Constitution would employ agrimonitor each part of construction within aConstitution would monitor restoration of years following the initial in-service date 

IND297-3

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing. See the response to comment necessity.

IND297-4IND297-5 See the response to comment IND205-1 rIND297-6 The commentor’s statement is noted.

S-1490
The commentor’s statements in oppositio

projects are noted.

INDIVIDUALSIND298 – Michael Huarachi

IND298-1

S-1491
The commentor’s statements in oppositio

projects are noted.

INDIVIDUALSIND299 – Patricia Koenig

IND299-1

S-1492
The commentor’s opposition to the propo

See the response to comment CO1-1.

INDIVIDUALSIND300 – Jay Blotcher

IND300-1

S-1493
The commentor’s statement regarding the 

the response to comment FA4-45 regardinSection 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

INDIVIDUALSIND301 – Amy Harlib

IND301-1

S-1494
See the response to comment IND106-1.

INDIVIDUALSIND302 – Sandra Rourke

IND302-1

IND302-2 See the response to comment LA5-3 regaIND302-3 See the response to comment CO16-22.IND302-4 See the response to comment IND297-3.

S-1495
See the response to comment CO50-108. 

statements regarding Constitution’s Commare noted.

INDIVIDUALSIND303 – Stuart Anderson

IND303-1

S-1496
INDIVIDUALS

IND303 – Stuart Anderson (cont’d)

S-1497
INDIVIDUALS

IND304 – Robert Lidsky

IND304-1 See the response to comment CO50-108.

See the response to comment FA8-3 regaand compensation. The commentor’s statintervenor status are noted. The Commisdetermination on whether to grant a partySee the response to comment IND33-3 recommentor’s parcel. 

IND304-2

S-1498
INDIVIDUALS

IND304 – Robert Lidsky (cont’d)

S-1499
INDIVIDUALS

IND305 – Annjeanette Wright

IND305-1 See the response to comment LA5-3.

S-1500
INDIVIDUALS

IND305 – Annjeanette Wright (cont’d)

IND305-2 See the response to comment FA4-45.

The projects have not yet been certificatenot begun. Therefore, any changes to drito the proposed projects. 

IND305-3

See the response to comment FA4-45. Dvolume hydraulic fracturing would not be construction of the proposed projects.

IND305-4

As stated in section 4.9.4.1 of the EIS, Coany roads damaged by the pipeline projec

IND305-5

See the response to comment FA4-12 regconstruction. Constitution would conducaboveground and underground facilities wblasting both before and after blasting act

IND305-6

See the response to comment LA1-4 regafracturing. See the response to comment section 4.3.3.1 of the EIS, we are recommCommission deny Constitution’s proposacertain waterbodies and wetlands.

IND305-7

S-1501
INDIVIDUALS

IND306 – Jeanne Simonelli

See the responses to comment FA1-1 and “track changes” feature activated in the Rreferenced by the commentor was added bFERC’s request to assist us with our revie

IND306-1

S-1502
INDIVIDUALS

IND306 – Jeanne Simonelli (cont’d)

IND306-2 Contractor yards are discussed in section IND306-3 See response to comment FA1-1.

The commentor’s request is noted. Typicare used 6 to 7 days a week for 12 hours a 

IND306-4IND306-5 The commentor’s request is noted. See th

S-1503
INDIVIDUALS

IND307 – Marvin F. Jester

The commentor’s statements are noted. OFERC asked Constitution to evaluate sevesubmitted by the owners of parcel NY-DEcommentor’s parcel is along one of these discussed in section 3.4.3.2 of the EIS we adoption of these alternative routes. See tcomment LA5-3 regarding property valueresources can be found in section 4.3 of thresponse to comment IND13-3 regarding 

IND307-1

S-1504
INDIVIDUALS

IND308 – David J. Chiusano

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted.

IND308-1

S-1505
INDIVIDUALS

IND309 – Jacqueline F. Oliva

IND309-1 See the response to comment FA4-45.

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND309-2

S-1506
INDIVIDUALS

IND310 – Richard Friedberg

IND310-1 The commentor’s request for intervenor s

S-1507
INDIVIDUALS

IND311 – Kerry A. Lynch

IND311-1 See the response to comments FA4-46 an

See the response to comment IND311-1. to comment LA7-5 regarding public nece

IND311-2

S-1508
INDIVIDUALS

IND312 – Laurel A. Santomassino

See the response to comment IND307-1. intended as a guide for which parcels woudiscussed in section 3.4.3.2 of the EIS, we recommended adoption of the alternative parcel NY-DE-226.000.

IND312-1

S-1509
INDIVIDUALS

IND313 – Gary D. Peake

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted.

IND313-1

S-1510
INDIVIDUALS

IND314 – Gabriella Leach

IND314-1 See the response to comment IND312-1.

See the response to comment LA5-3 regaand insurance. Impacts and proposed mitwater resources are discussed in section 4commentor’s statements regarding the pronoted. See the response to comment INDSee the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing.

IND314-2

S-1511
INDIVIDUALS

IND315 – Gabriella Leach

See the response to comment LA5-3 regaand insurance.

IND315-1

See the response to comment IND13-3 rediscussed in section 3.4.3.2 of the EIS, we recommended adoption of the alternative parcel NY-DE-226.000. The commentor’denial of survey permission is noted.

IND315-2

S-1512
INDIVIDUALS

IND316 – Gaetano Catapano

The commentor’s statements regarding throutes and his dealings with the Stantons 2014, the FERC asked Constitution to evaan alternative route for parcels ALT-O-NYNY-SC-016, ALT-O-NY-SC-017.000, AN022.00. Our assessment of these alternatiin section 3.4.3.2 of the EIS where we recConstitution adopt a minor route variation

IND316-1

S-1513
INDIVIDUALS

IND316 – Gaetano Catapano (cont’d)

S-1514
INDIVIDUALS

IND316 – Gaetano Catapano (cont’d)

S-1515
INDIVIDUALS

IND316 – Gaetano Catapano (cont’d)

S-1516
INDIVIDUALS

IND316 – Gaetano Catapano (cont’d)

S-1517
INDIVIDUALS

IND316 – Gaetano Catapano (cont’d)

S-1518
INDIVIDUALS

IND316 – Gaetano Catapano (cont’d)

S-1519
INDIVIDUALS

IND316 – Gaetano Catapano (cont’d)

S-1520
INDIVIDUALS

IND316 – Gaetano Catapano (cont’d)

S-1521
INDIVIDUALS

IND316 – Gaetano Catapano (cont’d)

S-1522
INDIVIDUALS

IND316 – Gaetano Catapano (cont’d)

S-1523
INDIVIDUALS

IND316 – Gaetano Catapano (cont’d)

S-1524
INDIVIDUALS

IND316 – Gaetano Catapano (cont’d)

S-1525
INDIVIDUALS

IND316 – Gaetano Catapano (cont’d)

S-1526
INDIVIDUALS

IND316 – Gaetano Catapano (cont’d)

S-1527
INDIVIDUALS

IND316 – Gaetano Catapano (cont’d)

S-1528
INDIVIDUALS

IND317 – Gaetano Catapano

IND317-1 See the response to comment IND316-1.

S-1529
INDIVIDUALS

IND317 – Gaetano Catapano (cont’d)

S-1530
INDIVIDUALS

IND318 – Anne Marie Garti

IND318-1 See the response to comment FA4-45.

S-1531
INDIVIDUALS

IND319 – Loretta N. Shaw

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted.

IND319-1

S-1532
INDIVIDUALS

IND320 – Deanna Urrey

IND320-1 See the response to comment IND316-1.

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing. See the response to comment well testing. 

IND320-2

As stated in section 4.3.2.1 of the EIS, showater quantity or quality) of any water sufeet of construction be impacted during coConstitution would provide an alternative compensate the landowner for a new, comFERC is not responsible for landowner co

IND320-3

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND320-4

S-1533
INDIVIDUALS

IND321 – May Miller

Section 3.4.3.2 of the EIS has been revisecommentor’s re-route request.

IND321-1

S-1534
INDIVIDUALS

IND321 – May Miller (cont’d)

S-1535
INDIVIDUALS

IND322 – May Miller

Section 3.4.3.2 of the EIS has been revisecommentor’s re-route request.

IND322-1

S-1536
INDIVIDUALS

IND322 – May Miller (cont’d)

S-1537
INDIVIDUALS

IND322 – May Miller (cont’d)

S-1538
INDIVIDUALS

IND323 – Patty Woodbury

The commentor’s statements in oppositioExpansion Project are noted.

IND323-1

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted. See the response to coregarding the Northeast Expansion Projec

IND323-2

S-1539
INDIVIDUALS

IND324 – Steve Hopkins

As stated in section 2.3.1 of the EIS, the tslightly crowned to compensate for settlincomments CO1-5 and IND113-1 regardin4.1.3.1 of the EIS discusses seismicity.

IND324-1

See the response to comment FA4-45. Secomment LA5-3 regarding property valueinsurance.

IND324-2IND324-3 See the response to comment FA4-45.

See the response to comment FA4-45. Secomment IND110-4 regarding hydrostatic 

IND324-4

Section 4.9.4 provides a discussion of trafsection 4.9.4.1 of the EIS, Constitution wdamaged by the pipeline project. The comdeny the proposed projects is noted.

IND324-5

S-1540
INDIVIDUALS

IND325 – Joshua C. Sparkes

The commentor’s opposition to the propoOur assessment of this parcel can be founthe EIS where we recommended that Conminimization measures. See the response regarding wildlife. 

IND325-1

S-1541
INDIVIDUALS

IND325 – Joshua C. Sparkes (cont’d)

See the response to comment IND13-3 reproposed projects. The commentor’s requproposed projects is noted.

IND325-2

S-1542
INDIVIDUALS

IND326 – Wyldon King Fishman

IND326-1 See the response to comment FA4-45. 

As stated in section 4.11.2.3 of the EIS, bconducted, the mitigation measures proporecommendation we conclude that Iroquoresult in significant noise related impacts surrounding communities during operatioattributable to the proposed modification below our 55 dBA Ldn criteria at the neare

response to comment SA6-1 regarding me

IND326-2

See the response to comment IND13-3. Fgas transmission lines are discussed in tab

IND326-3

IND326-4 Section 3.1.2.3 provides a discussion of re

S-1543
INDIVIDUALS

IND327 – Linda Buman

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

IND327-1

IND327-2 See the response to comment FA8-3 regar

S-1544
INDIVIDUALS

IND328 – Tom Donohue

The commentor’s opposition to the propoThe project is not located in New Jersey. 

IND328-1

S-1545
INDIVIDUALS

IND329 – Susan Spieler

The commentor’s opposition to the propoClimate change is discussed in section 4.1

IND329-1IND329-2 See the response to comments FA4-45 an

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND329-3

Greenhouse gases are discussed in a revisEIS. The commentor’s request to deny thnoted.

IND329-4

S-1546
INDIVIDUALS

IND330 – Gary Donelian

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND330-1

S-1547
INDIVIDUALS

IND331 – Allegra Schecter

See the response to comments CO1-4 and erosion.

IND331-1

S-1548
INDIVIDUALS

IND331 – Allegra Schecter (cont’d)

See the response to comments CO1-5 and flooding. As stated in section 1.5 of the EIroquois would be responsible for obtaininapprovals required to implement the propconstruction.

IND331-2

Watersheds are discussed in section 4.3.3 4.3.3-1 of the EIS.

IND331-3

All of the waterbodies that would be crosdiscussed in section 4.3 and appendix K oincludes waterbodies that have flow year only flow during rain events.

IND331-4IND331-5 See the response to comment FA4-35.IND331-6 See the response to comment FA4-45. 

S-1549
INDIVIDUALS

IND332 – Troy Hill

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

IND332-1

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

IND332-2

See the response to comment FA1-1regarstill pending.

IND332-3

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND332-4

S-1550
INDIVIDUALS

IND333 – Susan Pixley

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND333-1IND333-2 See the response to comment FA4-45.

IND333-3 See the response to comment LA7-5 regaIND333-4 See response to comment FA1-1.

S-1551

IND333-5 See the response to comment CO1-1.
INDIVIDUALS

IND334 – Anne Kiley-Pellechia

The commentor’s request to deny the propSee the response to comment LA8-3 regaSee the response to comments FA4-23 anwaterbody crossings. Section 4.4.5 of the to provide updated information regarding 

IND334-1IND334-2 See the response to comment FA4-45.IND334-3 The commentor’s request to deny the prop

S-1552
INDIVIDUALS

IND335 – Jason Starr

IND335-1 See response to comment FA1-1.

S-1553
INDIVIDUALS

IND336 – George Meszaros

As stated in section 4.8.3.1 of the EIS, twparcels that have not yet been surveyed, in were deemed unlikely to be residential baaerial photography. These parcels were nof survey permission by the landowner. Isection 4.8.3.1 of the EIS, Constitution is classifications prior to the start of constru

IND336-1IND336-2 See the response to comment IND292-6 r

S-1554
INDIVIDUALS

IND336 – George Meszaros (cont’d)

Section 3.4.1.2 of the draft EIS stated that and the proposed route are one and the sainformation was omitted. 

IND336-3

The commentor’s request for a state certifHowever, Constitution has not proposed tpipeline route. See section 4.5.3 of the EIConstitution’s proposed upland forest mitindividual easement agreements with Conmay request that Constitution replant tree

IND336-7

The filing provided on March 14, 2014 cominor re-routes developed since Constitutfiling. Areas not depicted did not have a 

IND336-4

See the response to comment LA10-13 reConstitution’s Blasting Plan. As stated in EIS, Constitution would inspect abovegrofacilities within 150 feet of blasting activi

IND336-5

The commentor’s request for trenchless csooner than prior to construction is noted. comment FA6-6.

IND336-6

S-1555
INDIVIDUALS

IND336 – George Meszaros (cont’d)

The commentor’s statements regarding thprogram are noted. Constitution may stop program whenever it wishes.

IND336-9

See the response to comment CO50-108 rmeetings. The transportation of meeting scope of this EIS.

IND336-10

Any information provided by Constitution e-Library system and is available to the puexception of certain information that is coconfidential, or critical energy infrastructuinformation (which is the vast majority) is 

IND336-11

The commentor’s statements regarding eathe response to comment FA8-3 regarding the response to comment LA1-1 regarding 

IND336-8

S-1556
INDIVIDUALS

IND337 – Fred Breglia

See the response to comment FA4-45. As of the EIS, the impacts on tourism due to pipeline are expected to be minimal.

IND337-2

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

IND337-1

S-1557
INDIVIDUALS

IND338 – Rochelle Thomas

See the response to comment IND13-3 reresponse to comment CO43-41 regarding response to comment FA4-45 regarding h

IND338-1

S-1558
INDIVIDUALS

IND339 – Sharon Harvey

IND339-1 The commentor’s opposition to the propo

S-1559
INDIVIDUALS

IND340 – Apollo

The commentor’s statements regarding thhydraulic fracturing. See the response to comment LA1-4.

IND340-1

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND340-2IND340-3 See the response to comments FA4-45 an

S-1560
INDIVIDUALS

IND341 – Diane MacInnes

See response to comment FA1-1. The coregarding comment letters and Constitutioprogram are noted. See the response to coregarding the communication towers. See comment IND205-1 regarding jobs.

IND341-1

See the response to comment FA4-2 regaradditional compressor stations.

IND341-2

S-1561
INDIVIDUALS

IND341 – Diane MacInnes (cont’d)

While it is possible that any public road in proposed projects could be used by Constreview of major roads, highways, contracright-of-way it does not appear that Oquaa major conduit for construction traffic. 

IND341-3

As stated in table 1.5-1, Constitution wouallocation/withdrawal permits from the SuCommission and the Delaware River Basi

IND341-4

S-1562
INDIVIDUALS

IND341 – Diane MacInnes (cont’d)

It is unclear which map the commentor is Lake is approximately 5 miles from the prNeither Oquaga Lake nor Starboard Creek crossed by the proposed projects. 

IND341-5IND341-13 Cumulative impacts are discussed in secti

See the response to comment FA4-45. Sediscusses traffic. 

IND341-6

See the response to comment LA5-3 regaSee the response to comment LA5-8 rega

IND341-7

The commentor’s statements regarding OConstitution proposes to cross Oquaga Crmethod and to use water from this creek fWater used for hydrostatic testing would upland location so it would be returned to 

IND341-8

Constitution and Iroquois would incorportheir existing gas monitoring and control maintains a monitoring system that includthat monitors system pressures, flows, and its entire system. The center is staffed 24 week, and 365 days a year from Houston, response to IND13-3. In addition, in June awarded to emergency responder groups iBroome, Delaware, and Schoharie countie

IND341-9IND341-10 See response to comment FA1-1.IND341-11 See the response to comment FA4-45.

Herbicides would generally be used to coHerbicides that may be used to control invwould be applied according to the manufain compliance with applicable agency recdiscussed in section 2.3.1 of the EIS, Conmechanical means to clear vegetation.

IND341-12

S-1563
INDIVIDUALS

IND341 – Diane MacInnes (cont’d)

IND341-14 See the response to comment LA7-5 regaIND341-15 See the response to comment IND183-2.IND341-16 See the response to comment FA1-1. IND341-17 See the response to comment LA1-4.IND341-18 The commentor’s request to reject alternaIND341-19 See the response to comment LA1-1.IND341-20 See the response to comment IND163-1.

See the response to comment FA8-3 regarSee the response to comment LA7-5 rega

IND341-21

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy. See the response to comments CO

IND341-22

IND341-23 See the response to comment LA5-3 rega

S-1564
INDIVIDUALS

IND341 – Diane MacInnes (cont’d)

The commentor’s statement regarding the commentor’s request to deny the propose

IND341-24

S-1565
INDIVIDUALS

IND342 – Julie Edgar

IND342-1 See response to comment FA1-1.IND342-2 See the response to comment FA4-29.

See the response to comment CO50-22 reeasements. See the response to comment and export.

IND342-3

S-1566
INDIVIDUALS

IND343 – Janet and Jennifer Windus

Section 3.4.3.1 of the EIS has been updateassessment of this parcel. Based on our anidentify a viable route crossing for this pato the proposed route.

IND343-1

S-1567
INDIVIDUALS

IND343 – Janet and Jennifer Windus (cont’d)

IND343-2 See the response to comment IND13-3.

S-1568
INDIVIDUALS

IND343 – Janet and Jennifer Windus (cont’d)

IND343-3 See the response to comments LA8-3 and 

Extra workspaces are depicted in appendiConstitution’s alignment sheets available http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.a0901. Any impacts on forested wetlands in in appendix L.

IND343-4

S-1569
INDIVIDUALS

IND343 – Janet and Jennifer Windus (cont’d)

As stated in the response to comment INDworkspaces needed for road, waterbody, owould be depicted on Constitution’s align

IND343-5

The proposed route for a pipeline typicalland sometimes years for long and/or compevolution can include major or minor routsmaller-scale minor route variations. In thbeing as concise as possible within an EISpossible or preferable to include highly deall of the route alternatives or variations thproposed route over time. Basic informatminor route alternatives adopted into the psummarized in section 3.4.2.1 of the EIS, We have updated table 3.4.2-1 with additiregarding alternatives A1, B2, and the MeAvoidance Route as requested by the cominformation for these alternatives, includicomparison tables, can be found in Const2013 filing (resource report 10) which can http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.a0901. Constitution reported that through Chenango County Department of Public Hwas adjusted to avoid potable water supplCounty, New York, that feed the Town of in Chenango County, New York. While aconstruction measures to prevent or limit such as springs, avoidance of such resourpossible. Pipeline routers also must balanpotential impacts for certain resources rel

IND343-6

S-1570
INDIVIDUALS

IND343 – Janet and Jennifer Windus (cont’d)

See the response to comment IND343-6 rinformation for alternatives A1, B2, and tForest Avoidance Route. Alternative A1 3.4.2-1 of the draft EIS.

IND343-7

The commentor’s parcels are located withBallpark sole source aquifer.

IND343-8

Water wells included in table 4.3.1-2 wersurvey data. Constitution was not granted the commentor’s parcel. See the response regarding unsurveyed areas. 

IND343-9

The precise depth to bedrock has not been commentor’s parcel. See the response to regarding blasting and water wells.

IND343-10

S-1571
INDIVIDUALS

IND343 – Janet and Jennifer Windus (cont’d)

The wetland compensatory mitigation secthe EIS) has been revised. 

IND343-11

The acreages of impacts for unsurveyed pbased on desktop data sources. Constituti2014 (following issuance of the draft EISobtained survey permission for this parceverify land use types during their surveys

IND343-12IND343-13 See the response to comment FA4-41 reg

S-1572
INDIVIDUALS

IND343 – Janet and Jennifer Windus (cont’d)

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

IND343-14

As stated in section 4.0 of the EIS, “we cobe significant if it would result in a substathe physical environment.” See the resporegarding extension of the comment perio

IND343-15

S-1573
INDIVIDUALS

IND343 – Janet and Jennifer Windus (cont’d)

The commentor’s statements regarding thproposed projects are noted. See the respregarding need. 

IND343-16

S-1574
INDIVIDUALS

IND344 – Stacie Edick

The commentor’s request to deny the propSee the response to comment CO1-2.

IND344-1IND344-2 See the response to comment FA4-42.IND344-3 See the responses to comments LA1-4 an

See the response to comments CO1-5 and flooding.

IND344-4

See the response to comment FA8-3 regarSee the response to comment LA7-5 regaproposed projects.

IND344-5

S-1575
INDIVIDUALS

IND345 – Jeffery Pendorf

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted.

IND345-1

S-1576
INDIVIDUALS

IND346 – L.E. Mills

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND346-1

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND346-2

S-1577
INDIVIDUALS

IND347 – Jessica Farrell

IND347-1 The commentor’s statements in oppositio

See the response to comments CO1-5 and flooding. See the response to comments Cregarding erosion. See the response to coregarding herbicides/pesticides.

IND347-2

See the response to comment FA4-45. Secomment CO41-23 regarding industrializarea.

IND347-3

S-1578
INDIVIDUALS

IND347 – Jessica Farrell (cont’d)

IND347-4 The commentor’s request to deny the prop

S-1579
INDIVIDUALS

IND348 – Gene Pigford

As discussed in section 4.3.3.5 of the EIScross portions of three surface water reserHill Reservoir, Carr’s Creek Watershed, aReservoirs) and one watershed overlay (BResource Protection Overlay) within the pYork (table 4.3.3-2). The pipeline would from each resource, and Constitution woumeasures such as its Procedures, HDD CoBlasting Plan to avoid impacts on drinkinaddition, the existing TGP and Iroquois pbeen in operation within the same general years with no impacts on the Barton Hill NProtection Overlay. Therefore, we do not on public watersheds and reservoirs due t

IND348-1

S-1580
INDIVIDUALS

IND349 – John Alfano

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted.

IND349-1

S-1581
INDIVIDUALS

IND350 – Michael Suchorsky

IND350-1 See the response to comment CO1-4.IND350-2 See the response to comment CO1-2.IND350-3 See the response to comment FA4-16 reg

S-1582
INDIVIDUALS

IND350 – Michael Suchorsky (cont’d)

See the response to comment FA8-3 regarnegotiations.

IND350-4

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

IND350-5IND350-6 The commentor’s statements regarding th

S-1583
INDIVIDUALS

IND351 – Linda Bryant

The commentor’s intent not to sign an easresponse to comment IND13-3 regarding response to comment CO45-1 regarding lto an incident. 

IND351-1IND351-2 See response to comment CO47-1.

See the response to comment LA4-2 regatesting.

IND351-3

As stated in section 4.3.2.1 of the EIS, soiresulting from spills or leaks from equipmcould continue to add pollutants to the grospill occurs. We have reviewed Constitutand Spill Plan as well as Iroquois’ SPCC adopted our Plan and Procedures) and finadequately address the storage and transfematerials and the response to be implemespill. Pipeline operation generally does ncontaminate soils. 

IND351-4

S-1584
INDIVIDUALS

IND352 – Caroline Martin

Data provided in table 4.9.1-1 of the EIS Census.

IND352-1

The landslide data used during preparatiomost current information available.

IND352-2

The commentor’s statements regarding mthe response to comments CO1-4 and INDactions Constitution would use to minimizconstruction.

IND352-3

As stated in table 4.9.7-1 of the EIS, the sestimated property taxes during constructproposed projects was the Center for Gov

IND352-4

IND352-5 See the response to comment LA5-3 rega

S-1585
INDIVIDUALS

IND353 – Judith Salzmann

The commentor’s statements regarding thnoted. See the response to comment CO5

IND353-1

The commentor’s statements regarding CCommunity Grant program are noted. Secomment FA4-45.

IND353-2IND353-3 See the response to comment IND54-1.IND353-4 See the response to comments FA8-3 and 

The commentor’s statement regarding induse of their funds is noted.

IND353-5IND353-6 The commentor’s request to deny the prop

S-1586
INDIVIDUALS

IND354 – Rachel Polens

IND354-1 See the response to comment LA1-1.

S-1587
INDIVIDUALS

IND355 – Darlene Bordwell

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

IND355-1

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

IND355-2

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

IND355-3IND355-4 See the response to comments LA8-3 and 

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

S-1588

IND355-5
INDIVIDUALS

IND356 – Susan Dey

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects and the draft EIS are noted.

IND356-1IND356-2 See the response to comment IND13-3 re

See the response to comment IND21-17 remissions.

IND356-3

Impacts and proposed mitigation for air qsection 4.11.1 of the EIS.

IND356-4

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for interior forest waterbodies (section 4.3.3), soil compactislopes (sections 2.3.2, and 4.1.3; appendix (sections 2.3.1 and 4.1.3; appendix I), wetappendix L), air quality (section 4.11.1), nand farmland/agriculture (sections 2.3.2, 4

J). See the response to comment LA5-3 rvalues. See the response to comments anregarding erosion and the response to comregarding water quality.

IND356-5IND356-6 See the response to comments LA1-4 and 

S-1589
INDIVIDUALS

IND356 – Susan Dey (cont’d)

S-1590
INDIVIDUALS

IND357 – Walter Ditman

The commentor’s statement regarding adeand opposition to the project is noted.

IND357-1

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND357-2

S-1591
INDIVIDUALS

IND358 – Sondra Wolferman

The commentor’s statements regarding wfracturing are noted. See the response to IND116-1 regarding water quality.

IND358-1

See the response to comment CO42-64 reSee the response to comment CO16-3 regresponse to comment IND13-3 regarding 

IND358-2

The proposed projects do not involve apphydraulic fracturing. Based on our researthat the fusion-bonded epoxy coating that steel pipeline would pose a threat to the p

IND358-3

S-1592
INDIVIDUALS

IND359 – Heidi Rogers

The commentor’s statement in opposition response to comments LA1-4 and FA4-45EIS provides a discussion of renewable enis discussed in section 4.13.6.10 of the EIproposed mitigation for water resources adiscussed in sections 4.3 and 4.11.1 of the 

IND359-1IND359-2 See the response to comment CO47-1.

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing. See the response to comment methane leakage. See the response to INDSee the response to comment CO1-2 regawetlands and agricultural lands.

IND359-3

See the response to comment SA6-6 regarpermitting.

IND359-4

The commentor’s statements regarding Wconduct are noted.

IND359-5

See the response to comment LA7-5 regacommentor’s request to deny the propose

IND359-6

S-1593
INDIVIDUALS

IND360 – Natalie Cronin

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing.

IND360-1

IND360-2 See the response to comment SA6-1 regar

The commentor’s statement regarding bulresponse to comment FA8-3 regarding em

IND360-3

See the response to comment IND13-3 repotential for pipeline leakage is discussed the response to comment CO16-3 regardin

IND360-4IND360-5 See the response to comment LA5-6 rega

Section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS provides a discenergy.

IND360-6

S-1594
INDIVIDUALS

IND361 – Marta Szwedek

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

IND361-1

The proposed pipeline would transport naas suggested by the commentor. See the rLA8-3 and IND116-1 regarding water qu

IND361-2IND361-3 The commentor’s request to deny the prop

S-1595
INDIVIDUALS

IND362 – John Miglietta

The commentor’s request for additional cnoted. See the response to comment CO5comment meetings.

IND362-1IND362-2 See response to comment FA1-1.

S-1596
INDIVIDUALS

IND363 – Allegra Schecter

See response to comment FA1-1. See alsTown of Roseboom letter (LA2).

IND363-1

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing.

IND363-2

See the response to comment CO1-2. See comment CO42-93 regarding herbicide uscomment FA4-28 regarding wetland mitigimpacts and mitigation on tourism are dissection 4.9.2. 

IND363-3

S-1597
INDIVIDUALS

IND363 – Allegra Schecter (cont’d)

See the response to comment CO43-8 regutility corridors. The commentor’s statemEIS is noted.

IND363-4

The commentor’s statement regarding the Rivers is noted. Neither of these rivers wproposed projects.

IND363-5

The commentor’s statement regarding the Conservancy is noted.

IND363-6

See the response to comments FA4-45, LAregarding hydraulic fracturing. See the reLA1-1 regarding road repairs. The commregarding the Comprehensive Plan are no

IND363-7

S-1598
INDIVIDUALS

IND363 – Allegra Schecter (cont’d)

See the response to comment IND13-3 reresponse to comments LA8-3 and IND11quality. See the response to comment LAvalues, insurance, and mortgages. The coopposition to the proposed projects is note

IND363-8

S-1599
INDIVIDUALS

IND364 – Brad Ross

The commentor’s statement regarding the commentor’s statements in opposition of are noted.

IND364-1

S-1600
INDIVIDUALS

IND365 – Mary Colleen McKinney

See the response to comments CO1-5 and flooding. See the response to comments Cregarding erosion and stormwater runoff. comment CO41-42 regarding monitoring. section 2.3.1 of the EIS, the pipeline wouunder waterbodies and roadways.

IND365-1

S-1601
INDIVIDUALS

IND365 – Mary Colleen McKinney (cont’d)

S-1602
INDIVIDUALS

IND365 – Mary Colleen McKinney (cont’d)

S-1603
INDIVIDUALS

IND365 – Mary Colleen McKinney (cont’d)

Constitution would be required to repair aPoplar Hill Road bridge due to constructioprojects.

IND365-2

Section 4.3.3.6 of the EIS provides propofor floodplains. 

IND365-3

IND365-4 Table 4.3.3-2 has been revised as suggest

See the response to comments CO1-4 and erosion. 

IND365-5

The commentor’s statements regarding wnoted. See the response to comments FAregarding waterbody crossings.

IND365-6IND365-7 See the response to comment LA10-1.

S-1604
INDIVIDUALS

IND366 – Jo Ann C. Hurley

See the response to comment CO1-1. See comment FA4-3 regarding areas that have 

IND366-1

IND366-2 See the response to comment LA5-3 regaIND366-3 See the response to comment IND44-2.

S-1605
INDIVIDUALS

IND367 – Jo Ann C. Hurley

IND367-1 See response to comment CO47-1.

S-1606
INDIVIDUALS

IND368 – Jo Ann C. Hurley

As stated in section 1.4 of the EIS, under the FERC is required to consider, as part whether to authorize interstate natural gas bearing on the public convenience and neresponse to comment FA4-16 regarding a

IND368-1

S-1607
INDIVIDUALS

IND369 – Lucy J. Richards

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted.

IND369-1

S-1608
INDIVIDUALS

IND370 – Joan Roche

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

IND370-1

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

IND370-2

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

IND370-3

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND370-4

S-1609
INDIVIDUALS

IND371 – Chris H. Burgher

IND371-1 See the response to comment CO50-108.IND371-2 See the response to comment CO1-2.

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

IND371-3IND371-4 See the response to comment IND208-4.

S-1610
INDIVIDUALS

IND371 – Chris H. Burgher (cont’d)

See the response to comment CO50-55 rebenefits of the proposed projects. See the IND53-1 regarding abandonment of the pcommentor’s opposition to the proposed p

IND371-5

S-1611
INDIVIDUALS

IND372 – Patricia Whelan

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

IND372-1

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

IND372-2

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

IND372-3

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND372-4

S-1612
INDIVIDUALS

IND373 – Sandra K. Shaver

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted.

IND373-1

S-1613
INDIVIDUALS

IND374 – Margaret M. Feinberg

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted. See the response to co

IND374-1

See the responses to comments FA4-45 anhydraulic fracturing.

IND374-2

The commentor’s statements regarding pocontamination from hydraulic fracturing aresponse to comment FA4-12 regarding omonitoring program. However, the propoused to transport natural gas, not chemica

IND374-3

See response to comment FA1-1. See the SA2-1 regarding the proposed communic

IND374-4

The commentor’s statements regarding elConstitution’s Community Grant program 

IND374-5

See the response to comment IND54-1 repipe.

IND374-6

S-1614
INDIVIDUALS

IND374 – Margaret M. Feinberg (cont’d)

See the response to comment CO50-108 rmeetings. See the response to comment Lproperty values, insurance, and mortgages

IND374-7

See the response to comment LA7-5. The to deny the proposed projects is noted.

IND374-8

S-1615