FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA1 – United States House of Representatives – Tom Reed

Fede

S-30
The commentor’s request to extend the co

The FERC staff reviewed, considered, ancomments received during the comment pcontinued to accept comments on the drafmaterials placed into the record past the eperiod and up to the point of publication otimeframes for review have been in accorregulations, NEPA, and CEQ guidance. While some information was still pending of the draft EIS, the lack of this final infordeprive the public of a meaningful opportsubstantial adverse environmental effect ofeasible way to mitigate or avoid such effsufficient detail to enable the reader to unthe issues raised by the proposed projects reasonable range of alternatives. The finawith new information where it is availableChairman LaFleur responded to Tom Ree2014. 

FEDERAL AGENCIESFA1 – United States House of Representatives – Tom Reed (cont’d)

Fede

FA1-1

Section 3.4.3 of the EIS has been updated analyses regarding this parcel. Parcel NYincluded in condition 12 of the draft EIS rfurther assess minor route deviations or oto avoid, minimize, or mitigate landowner Constitution indicated that it could not pesince it did not have survey access. Consthat it could not locate structures on the pdepicts two structures on its alignment shcommitted to developing a site-specific replan if workspaces would be within 25 fe

FA1-2

S-31
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA1 – United States House of Representatives – Tom Reed (cont’d)

Fede

We reviewed the pipeline route on parcel overlaid on 2013 aerial imagery that we inWhile we could not confirm the location oparcel using the 2013 aerial imagery, we dstructures were identified on Constitution88 for the parcel. As described in section we are recommending, pending landowneconfirmation of technical feasibility, adopvariation that would place the work area afrom the structures and it would also bettethe northern property boundary. This wouthe property overall during both constructterm during operation. According to our data sources such as agency databases, aeliterature, and other available sources, the would not affect new waterbodies, wetlanwould cross favorable topography; and wnumber of points of inflection (PI) by onestill be required to develop a site-specific plan if any associated workspaces would bhouse.

FA1-2(cont’d)FA1-3 See the response to comment FA1-1.

S-32
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA1 – United States House of Representatives – Tom Reed (cont’d)

Fede

S-33
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA1 – United States House of Representatives – Tom Reed (cont’d)

Fede

S-34
See the response to comment FA1-1.

FEDERAL AGENCIESFA2 – United States Department of Interior

Fede

FA2-1

S-35
See the response to comment FA1-1.

FEDERAL AGENCIESFA3 – United States Environmental Protection Agency

Fede

FA3-1

S-36
See the response to comment FA1-1.

FEDERAL AGENCIESFA4 – United States Department of Interior

Fede

FA4-1

S-37
Constitution’s proposed action is for the t

Dth/day of natural gas. There are no knowdelivery volumes nor is that action reasonConstitution did propose to increase the dfuture, then addition environmental and reFERC and all other applicable agencies wHowever, Constitution indicated that this could be met with additional compression existing compressor station. Because thermeaningful air quality analysis cannot be however revised section 4.13 of the EIS to additional cumulative impacts associated this capacity. 

FEDERAL AGENCIESFA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

FA4-2

In areas where field survey access was dedata were obtained from “desktop” sourcesection 1.2 of the EIS. This information pbasis for an assessment of resources and ppipeline project is certificated by the Comright of eminent domain, including access Constitution must complete all remaining agency permitting prior to FERC considerconstruction. Typically, 100 percent comnot obtained prior to certification for lineamagnitude. 

FA4-3

Constitution indicated in its ECPs that it wwetland and associated buffer boundaries highly visible flagging until construction-disturbing activities are complete, and thanot use bulldozers to clear wetlands. Theprevent inadvertent damage to wetlands aconstruction zone. High value or high qudiscussed in section 4.4.1.9 of the draft EIwere identified in appendix L. Constitutiauthorization from the COE - Department Nationwide Permit Number 12, which hacooperating agency for the preparation of must comply with all applicable COE-issurequirements. 

FA4-4

Constitution stated that it does not intend or slash as enhancements for wildlife habrequested by the landowner or land managview stacked timber as construction debriConstitution’s proposal. As stated in sect“The transportation of any wood materialthe NYSDEC’s regulations intended to prinvasive species.” 

FA4-5

S-38
Constitution’s proposed action is for the t

Dth/day of natural gas. There are no knowdelivery volumes nor is that action reasonConstitution did propose to increase the dfuture, then addition environmental and reFERC and all other applicable agencies wHowever, Constitution indicated that this could be met with additional compression existing compressor station. Because thermeaningful air quality analysis cannot be however revised section 4.13 of the EIS to additional cumulative impacts associated this capacity. 

FEDERAL AGENCIESFA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

FA4-2

In areas where field survey access was dedata were obtained from “desktop” sourcesection 1.2 of the EIS. While this informadoes provide a basis for an assessment of impacts. If the pipeline project is certificaCommission, it conveys the right of eminaccess for field surveys. Constitution muremaining field surveys for agency permitconsideration of authorizing construction. complete survey access is not obtained prlinear projects of this magnitude. 

FA4-3

Constitution indicated in its ECPs that it wwetland and associated buffer boundaries highly visible flagging until construction-disturbing activities are complete, and thanot use bulldozers to clear wetlands. Theprevent inadvertent damage to wetlands aconstruction zone. High value or high qudiscussed in section 4.4.1.9 of the draft EIwere identified in appendix L. Constitutiauthorization from the COE - Department Nationwide Permit Number 12, which hacooperating agency for the preparation of must comply with all applicable COE-issurequirements. 

FA4-4

Constitution stated that it does not intend or slash as enhancements for wildlife habrequested by the landowner or land managview stacked timber as construction debriConstitution’s proposal. As stated in sect“The transportation of any wood materialthe NYSDEC’s regulations intended to prinvasive species.” 

FA4-5

S-39
Constitution proposes to use a dry crossin

on all waterbodies. This section was intenduring construction unusual circumstancein the change of a crossing method. Any circumstances where this could occur wouconstruction and cannot be predicted at ththat Constitution proposes to modify its cwould be required to seek the FERC’s (anagency’s) approval, including a site-speciexplanation regarding its proposed methoavoidance, minimization, or mitigation mof the EIS describes our post-approval va

FEDERAL AGENCIESFA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

FA4-6

S-40
Constitution would implement our Wetlan

Construction and Mitigation Procedures (require that equipment bridges be installe

that Constitution “design and maintain eawithstand and pass the highest flow expecbridge is in place.” Installation and maintbridges would be routinely inspected by thduring construction.

FEDERAL AGENCIESFA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

FA4-7

See the response to comment FA1-1 regardraft EIS while some information was stilwould perform geotechnical evaluations iproposed horizontal directional drill (HDDconstruction in order to confirm feasibilityContingency Plan has been available for pwas filed as part of its Application and cahttp://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.a0901. The USDOI’s support for HDD whand support for prohibition of clearing at 

FA4-8

Section 4.5.4 has been updated to provide Constitution’s state-specific Invasive SpeSpecifically, Constitution would inspect vmaterials before being brought to the righdifferent location where Constitution wouequipment with clean water without the uchemicals. Wash water would not be discof a waterbody, wetland, or stormwater coConstitution would use elevated wash racconstructing in any wetland identified as cspecies; this would be done prior to enteriinvasive species. Constitution would colland plant material collected at washing stoff-site facilities, in accordance with applsite conditions preclude the use of water abrushes or compressed air may be used. Tspecies management plan can be accessed record as part of Constitution’s Novembefiling at http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.a0901. 

FA4-9

S-41
The USDOI’s comments regarding the pr

noted. As part of their applications, Constoriginally proposed an in-service date of Mwe acknowledge this date is no longer feaproposed to start construction in February through the end of 2015. See the response pending data and permitting. 

FEDERAL AGENCIESFA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

FA4-10

It is not possible for surveys to be complesurvey access has been denied by individuthe Commission authorizes the project. S3 regarding pending data and permitting. 

FA4-11

As described in section 2.5.2 of the EIS, Cemploy at least one EI per spread to implepractices and other requirements. As descof the EIS, third-party compliance monitoof the FERC would conduct daily construthese actions. Full-time FERC staff woulinspections in addition to the third-party mand the third-party compliance monitors winspections on a daily basis and would ha

FA4-12

Our Plan requires the applicant to conducthe first two years or until restoration is coConstitution proposed that post-constructthe growing season in July, with herbicide mechanical removal occurring immediatewith follow-up control performed in Septconsistent with the USDOI’s recommenda

FA4-13

S-42
Constitution’s proposed project capacity i

demand. See the response to comment FA

FEDERAL AGENCIESFA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

FA4-14

Section 3.1 of the EIS stated that if the prnot built, then the end users would have to natural gas supply (including other naturaprojects), or other fuel sources to meet the curtail energy use. It also stated that the sterm environmental impacts would not ocprojects were not built.

FA4-15

A detailed evaluation of alternative M, infor M segments, is included in section 3.4also evaluated another major route alternaof the EIS, alternative K, that contained swith existing corridors. We evaluated and resource topics in addition to steep and siof numerous alternative routes. The alterdiscusses pipeline routing within the I-88 access area.

FA4-16

Permanent and long-term impacts on wetlvegetation are disclosed in sections 4.4 anrespectively. As noted in table 4.5.5-1, of that would be disturbed during constructiopercent would be permanently affected. Awetlands in relation to the COE permittinwe recommended in section 4.5.3 for uplawould require mitigation for unavoidable 

FA4-17

S-43
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

We evaluated both system alternatives analternatives in sections 3.2 and 3.3 of the Tennessee Gas Pipeline (TGP) 300, MilleLeidy, which proceed towards New York considered the possibility of transporting the systems mentioned above from New YEngland (e.g., via Algonquin); see section conclude these alternatives were not feasiconstraints and the high level of developmCity and surrounding area. We note that tYork pipeline involved a relatively short pNew York City, not crossing the entirety required to meet the objectives of this prowe are aware of a possible project being cthe South-to-North (SoNo) project which with the Commission. If Iroquois pursues it is approved, then the delivery of natural via the Iroquois pipeline system could be 

FA4-18

S-44
Possible collocation with the EmKey and 

systems is discussed in section 3.3.3 and 3discussed in those sections, these pipelinefunction as collection and gathering lines, them infeasible for collocation with interslines. Typically, interstate natural gas trannot meander in a manner similar to naturagathering lines. Although transmission piproceed in an entirely direct route due to cexisting utilities, avoidance of environmecities, and for other reasons, their overall natural gas from a supply point to a delivetransmission pipelines often require wider permanent rights-of-way than collection alikely resulting in issues with successful dof a collocated transmission pipeline. For practical for the Constitution pipeline to bthe EmKey or Bluestone systems at a levethat proposed. 

FEDERAL AGENCIESFA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

FA4-19

We considered the potential benefits and alternative K in section 3.4.1.1 of the EIScollocation of pipelines with existing utilirecognize the value of collocation in regarresources. Both the proposed route and acertain advantages environmentally. Altelength, thereby affecting less land. It is alexisting rights-of-way than the proposed rgreenfield construction. Consequently, it impacts on forest interiors, property owneand shallow bedrock. However, the proposed route crosses mucstreams designated as drinking water supppublic water supply watersheds, and impoforest blocks of importance for birds as deNational Audubon Society. In particular, cross an additional 19 miles of Audubon SImportant Bird Areas, and 48 miles of AuImportance. The proposed route also avoWater Supply Watershed (NYCWSW), wdrinking water to approximately one-half York. Alternative K would cross the NYCapproximately 33 miles. 

FA4-20

S-45
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

Our analysis of alternative M is provided including discussion of potential placemehighway median, within or along the contadjacent to the highway outside of the conWe have re-analyzed alternative M particroute sub-alternative proposed by the NYresponse to comments FA4-18 and FA4-2and collocated alternatives. 

FA4-21FA4-20(cont’d)

While we recognize that alternative K woforest habitat than the proposed route, we other environmental factors as well in our described above and we conclude that alteoffer a significant environmental advantagroute.

S-46
As discussed in section 4.6.1.4 of the EIS

its general blasting plan that “Blasting in sensitive areas, such as streams, wildlife aresource areas may include additional restincluded in the site-specific Blasting Specrecommended in section 4.6.2.3 of the EIbe required to develop site-specific blastinwith the state resource agencies to protect resources from the potential effects of blaBald eagles are discussed in section 4.7.3 Constitution has indicated that it is consulthe NYSDEC to determine if blasting witeagle nests would present a significant imaddition, Constitution is developing a mitpotential blasting in the vicinity of bald eaprovided to the FWS for review and concrecommended that prior to construction Cbald eagle mitigation plan, developed in cresource agencies including the FWS for approval. 

FEDERAL AGENCIESFA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

FA4-22

Waterbody crossing methods (section 2.3impacts, including impact discussions on specific basis (section 4.3.3), and descriptmethods on a waterbody-specific basis (apdiscussed in detail in the EIS. Based on Cto our recommendation in section 4.3.3.5 have updated the EIS in regard to waterboaffected by workspace but that would not the pipeline. Collectively, the information does allow the reader to understand the fuwould result from the proposed projects.Impacts on surface waters are discussed in EIS. As stated in section 4.3.4 of the EISon surface waters are anticipated as a resuprojects because Constitution would not pdesignated water uses, it would bury the pof all waterbodies, it would implement erwould restore the streambanks and streamas practical to pre-construction conditionsprojects would not cause impacts on any smaintenance activities involving pipe excnear streams are required in the future. Fmaintenance activities, Constitution and Iprotective measures similar to those propoconstruction. As a result, we conclude thfrom maintenance would be short term annot in scale) to those discussed for the iniconstruction. 

S-47

FA4-23
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

The EI would be primarily responsible fobaseflows are maintained in waterbodies psource. The FERC’s compliance monitorthat the proper procedures were used. As 4.3.3.5, Constitution would withdraw aboof test water from five local surface water2014 and March 2015 (consistent with the recommendations). Following testing, hywould be discharged into well vegetated uthe same watershed as the source water, thbasin transfers. Discharges would occur tenergy dissipating device to prevent sedimerosive forces.Constitution has adopted our Procedures wstate-designated exceptional value watersprovide habitat for federally listed threatespecies, or waterbodies designated as pubunless appropriate federal, state, and/or logrant written permission; maintain adequaaquatic life, provide for all waterbody usedownstream withdrawals of water by exisConstitution intends to submit water withApplications to the Susquehanna River BaDelaware River Basin Commission, and tagencies would decide whether Constitutifrom its proposed sources. Typically, givwater needed for hydrostatic testing of lonpipelines, water sources are crossed by thright-of-way in order to prevent the need from a more distant source by hose, pipe, Constitution’s pipeline, each of the propowould be crossed by the pipeline route.

FA4-24

See the responses to comments FA4-3 and has indicated that it will require full and cparcels to assess Constitution’s project unAct. 

FA4-25

S-48
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

We recommended that Constitution furthepermanent fill in waterbodies and wetlandsection 4.3.3.1 of the draft EIS, and Constadditional information. Sections 4.3 and been updated and now include a recommefill not be used in either waterbodies or waccess roads. The FERC is familiar with process, and the COE is a cooperating agedevelopment of this EIS. Section 4.4 of tthe important biological and societal funcConstitution would collocate with existing practicable and generally would be traverbeen previously disturbed in such areas. Creduce the construction and permanent rigthrough wetlands as an impact minimizatiWetland crossing methods (section 2.3.2.section 2), resources and impacts (section and proposed methods on a wetland-speciare discussed in detail in the EIS. The wefor each wetland are known and listed in apossible that a proposed wetland crossing potentially resulting in less impact, based time of crossing. For additional impacts tfrom what is discussed in the EIS, Constitrequest a variance during construction and for those additional impacts. 

FA4-26

Although Constitution’s invasive species section 4.5.4, it is referenced in section 4.the response to comment FA4-9. As stateEIS, wetland restoration would not be conunless invasive species and noxious weedare abundant in adjacent areas that were nconstruction. Herbicides would not be uswetlands unless they are approved by the herbicides can’t be used in wetlands, then methods could be used. Constitution wouinvasive species to the certificated construwould not be authorized to conduct activiwork areas without express approval from applicable permitting agencies. 

FA4-27

S-49
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

Information regarding mitigation for wetlrelates to the COE permitting process is pof the EIS. We have updated section 4.4 mitigation banks are operating within the that none are near the project area. 

FA4-28

The acreages noted reflect different impacfacility. The draft EIS accurately noted thhabitat would be directly affected by the cway and that a total of 1,024 acres of foredirectly affected by the construction rightaboveground facilities and access roads. Constitution’s Preliminary Migratory Bird Plan was filed on May 6, 2014 (http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.3683). The Plan was developed in coordiand state agencies. The EIS has been updassessment of this draft plan.We have updated section 4.5.3 of the EIS impacts that would occur to adjacent tractwould not be directly affected by clearingindirect effect caused by the creation of a extend about 300 feet into the remaining f

FA4-29

S-50
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

We recognize the indirect impacts of consforested areas within the EIS, including nwildlife activity. We recommended in seConstitution develop an upland forest mitcoordination with the FWS and state ageninclude mitigation for impacts on migratobeen updated with our assessment of this As stated in section 4.0 “A permanent impresult of any activity that modifies a resouwould not return to pre-construction condthe projects.” Therefore, we consider tha“over the life of the project” would be per

FA4-30

The EIS has been updated to include the ithe FWS regarding wildlife travel corridocontains information regarding interior foforest habitats (section 4.6.1), and lists spblocks that would be crossed (appendix Mblocks that would be affected by the pipelin appendix M of the draft EIS, including the milepost ranges listed in comment FA

FA4-31

S-51
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

Based on our request, Constitution evaluausing trenchless crossing methods for senwaterbodies. We concur with Constitutionot practicable to use trenchless crossing waterbodies were listed as ephemeral or ithese waterbodies are likely to be dry at thfor waterbodies less than 30 feet in width needed would offset potential benefits). Oselected for additional analysis, 14 would trenchless methods and 15 waterbodies wthe dry crossing method, which is consistconducted with the NYSDEC. Because dry crossing methods do not invostorage, or blockage of flow, and instead iflow around the work area, adequate flowdownstream. As stated in section 4.6.2.3 of the EIS; “Cattempt to capture aquatic organisms in ardewatered and would relocate them immeconstruction operations.”Stream bank protection and restoration msections 2.3.2.2, 4.3.3, and 4.6.2 of the EIand the FERC’s compliance monitors wouconstruction activities, including waterbo

FA4-34

Comment noted. Section 4.6.2 of the EIS recommendation regarding allowable in-s

FA4-33

Representative wildlife species, habitats, (including potential beneficial impacts for are discussed in section 4.6 of the EIS. Winformation to section 4.6 regarding mamamphibians. 

FA4-32

S-52
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

The hellbender is listed as a species of speYork. Given Constitution’s proposed use methods, commitment to remove fauna frand stream and stream bank protection anwe conclude that the proposed pipeline wadverse impact on the hellbender. Furthethe EIS that Constitution should file with any outstanding surveys for New York anlisted species and identify additional mitigdeveloped in consultation with the applicaSection 4.7.3 has been updated according

FA4-35

S-53
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

FA4-38 Comment noted regarding the bog turtle.

We acknowledge that surveys for the nortlocations have not been completed due to response to FA4-37 for a related scenario consultation. We included a species-specand stated in section 4.7.2 of the EIS that Constitution should file with the Secretarycompleted Northern monkshood surveys aconsultation with the FWS and the NYSDresults. Constitution should file the avoidmeasures it would use in the event that Nofound either prior to or during constructioof plant locations and associated habitat, a“necking-down” or reducing construction feasibility of boring or HDD; and the feasand seed banking (only after all other optiThese recommendations were the basis foadversely affect determination.

FA4-39

As indicated in section 4.7.2, we have recconstruction not begin until all surveys fo(including the dwarf wedgemussel) are coconcludes section 7 consultation with the notifies the applicants in writing that consmitigation may begin. Three waterbodies not yet been surveyed for dwarf wedgemupermission has not yet been obtained. Thincluded a species-specific recommendatiwedgemussel stating, “Prior to constructiodevelop impact avoidance or effective immitigation measures (e.g., utilization of trmethods or mussel relocation) in consultaPFBC, the PGC, the PADCNR, and the Nwedgemussels encountered during construrecommendations were the basis for our naffect determination. We understand that 

provide concurrence until the remaining scompleted and any follow-up effects discuFERC and the FWS are completed. This recommendation. See also the response t

FA4-37FA4-36 Comment noted regarding the Indiana bat

S-54
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

We have revised the EIS to include the FWedits concerning the northern myotis (also long-eared bat) and eastern small-footed bstatement that additional coordination betthe FWS regarding bat species is noted ancontinuing to consult with the FWS as ourepresentative. We included a bat-specifisection 4.7.3 of the draft EIS stating that, develop impact avoidance, minimization, in coordination with the FWS and the PGbetween April 1 and October 31 to minimsmall-footed bat, silver haired bat, and littConstitution should file any such measureSee also the response to comment FA4-37recommendations were the basis for our naffect determination. Construction would would not occur, until the FERC completconsultation with the FWS and the necesplace. We note that the FWS has delayed proposed listing status of the northern lonOctober 2014 until April 2015. Section 4.7.3 of the draft EIS discloses thmortality (included the northern myotis) rclearing.

FA4-41

See the responses to comments FA4-37 anrecommendation to utilize updated informFWS website is noted.

FA4-40

S-55
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

We acknowledge that Constitution’s survmitigation measures for bald eagles are noin section 4.7.3 of the draft EIS. There, w“Constitution should file with the Secretaapproval by the Director of OEP the final results, as well as the final bald eagle mitiin consultation with the FWS, the PGC, amitigation plan should include impact avoimpact minimization or mitigation measurencountered during the 2014 surveys. Spapproval from the applicable agencies, shpotential blasting within 0.5 mile of an acrecommendation has afforded the FWS threview the mitigation plan before its subm

FA4-42

The comment regarding temporal and geocumulative impacts analysis is noted. Thhas been in service since 2008. Our incluprojects included those as far back as 201

FA4-43

S-56
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

Comment noted. Available information wcumulative impacts analysis to the extent information was not always available to q

FA4-44

The future of natural gas development in volume hydraulic fracturing is speculative foreseeable action, nor are the proposed psuch development in New York in any wadevelopments, including wells and pipelincumulative impacts section (4.13.1), and tupdated with additional information for th

FA4-45

Detailed information regarding Leatherstoprovide new natural gas service along the Constitution pipeline was not available at EIS, as described in section 4.13.4, and wthe time of publication of this final EIS. Wsections 1.1 and 4.13 to the extent possiblinformation, but it is not possible to perfocumulative impacts analysis of any naturasystems being considered by Leatherstockdetailed information regarding the projectthe response to comment FA4-2. 

FA4-46FA4-47 See the response to comments FA1-1 and 

S-57
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

FA4-48 See the responses to comments FA4-17, -FA4-49 See the responses to comments FA4-37, -FA4-50 See the responses to comments FA4-43, -

S-58
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

As stated in section 2.3 of the EIS, ConstiConstruction Plans (ECPs), including the can be found at http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.a0901. The ECPs were filed with ConstituJune 2013 and re-filed in November 2013voluminous to append to the EIS. 

FA4-51

Information regarding soils used for backmeasures used to prevent rocks from damtrench is provided in section 2.3.1 of the Eground heaving is discussed in 4.2.2.9. Pmonitor the permanent right-of-way folloduring operation for potential issues such repairs would be made as necessary. As nConstitution would also use both caliper aidentify pipeline defects, corrosion, and orepair.

FA4-52

Trench breakers that are designed to mainwaterbodies and wetlands, as well as to prsubsurface flow along the buried pipelinenumerous places in sections 2 and 4 of the breakers). Slope breakers would protect wslowing and dispersing stormwater runoffgroundwater flow and recharge are discusthe EIS. A pipeline inspection schedule ithe EIS. See the response to comment FAterm internal (i.e., smart pig) inspections Constitution’s Karst Mitigation Plan, whimeasures to protect both groundwater and resources, is described in section 4.1.5 of recommended in section 4.1.3 of the EIS the mitigation measures and recommenda

FA4-53FA4-54 The suggested edits have been incorporat

S-59
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

The identification of potential landslide aravoidance (including reroutes), minimizatmeasures are discussed in detail in section stated in section 2.3 of the EIS, ConstitutiConstruction Plans (ECPs), including the (appendix J), and Geologic Hazard Mappas well as Resource Report 6 – Geology aattachments including the full Geology co(GeoEngineers) “Geologic Reconnaissanc“Seismic Hazards Comments Response” m“Geotechnical and Geology Report,” and Construction Erosion Control and Spring for Karst Areas,” can be found at http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.a0901. We recommended in section 4.1.3 Constitution adopt the mitigation measurein the Geological Reconnaissance Memor2013, which include additional field visits that would be performed by qualified geothereby decreasing the responsibility of Epersonnel to identify landslide hazards. 

FA4-55FA4-56 See the response to FA4-51.

S-60
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

FA4-57 The suggested edits have been incorporat

As discussed in section 2.3.2 of the EIS, gevaluations would be completed prior to upipe construction methods.

FA4-63

The pipeline would cross about 4 miles of Ballpark Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) in BrYork at two locations (MP 25.2 and MP 4Constitution’s correspondence with the BDepartment and Constitution’s review of GIS program. The FERC staff also reviewprogram and further coordinated with the source aquifer program. Based on that coconfirmed that the pipeline would cross thBallpark SSA as described in the EIS. ThBallpark SSA is in part in eastern Broome Further, the EPA confirmed that it did not additional impact avoidance, minimizatiomeasures for the SSA beyond those propo

FA4-58FA4-59 The suggested edits have been incorporatFA4-60 The comment regarding the monitoring wFA4-61 See the response to comment FA4-58.

See the response to FA4-34. Selected wacrossed with trenchless techniques, all othdry crossing methods, which would limit turbidity and sedimentation. There are no quality monitoring at these locations as thconducted under dry conditions and the stwould be restored prior to restoration of th

FA4-62

S-61
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA4 – United States Department of Interior (cont’d)

Fede

S-62
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA5 – United States Army Corps of Engineers

Fede

Updated information regarding the status has not been filed with the FERC. Typicaprojects such as the proposed Constitution percentage of overall tracts surveyed rougnumber of miles surveyed. That assumpttrue according to information provided by pre-filing process. Section 1.2 of the drafapproximately 94 miles of surveys had becompleted surveys at approximately 76 peproposed pipeline project would be 124.4 

FA5-1

See the response to comment FA4-4. Any requirements, such as the use of orange comark off limits wetland zones, could be repart of the COE permitting process. 

FA5-2

S-63
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA5 – United States Army Corps of Engineers (cont’d)

Fede

Section 3.4.1.2 of the EIS has been revisediscussion of alternative M. 

FA5-3

Section 4.4 of the EIS, appendix K (waterL (wetlands) of the EIS is reflective of the information filed by the Applicants with t

FA5-5

Alternative M, and sub-portions of alternasection 3.4.1.2 of the EIS.

FA5-4

We assume the commentor is referring to rather than appendix K (waterbodies). As of appendix L-1 and L-2, wetland IDs conidentified using NWI maps.

FA5-6

S-64
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA5 – United States Army Corps of Engineers (cont’d)

Fede

FA5-7 The final EIS has been edited as requestedFA5-8 See the response to comment FA5-5. 

See the response to comment FA5-5. The with the FERC was used in preparation of response to comment FA4-26 concerning wetlands in relation to proposed permanen

FA5-9

S-65
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA5 – United States Army Corps of Engineers (cont’d)

Fede

FA5-10 See the response to FA5-5.FA5-11 See the response to FA5-5.FA5-12 Section 4.4.4 of the EIS has been revised FA5-13 Section 4.4.5 of the EIS has been revised 

S-66
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA5 – United States Army Corps of Engineers (cont’d)

Fede

S-67
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA6 – United States Environmental Protection Agency

Fede

FA6-1 The commentor’s statement regarding the FA6-2 See the response to comment FA4-3.

S-68
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA6 – United States Environmental Protection Agency (cont’d)

Fede

S-69
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA6 – United States Environmental Protection Agency (cont’d)

Fede

Section 3.4.1.2 of the EIS regarding alternrevised. Figure 3.4.1-2 has been revised troadways. Where appropriate and possibadded to mapping within the EIS. 

FA6-3

The tables in section 3.4 of the EIS have bthe term “Environmental Hazards.” Envirefers to government regulated cleanup fahazardous waste sites (i.e., potentially con

FA6-4

As stated in section 3.4.3.3 of the EIS, a tminor route variations considered in the din appendix H (H-1, H-2, H-3, and H-4). 

FA6-5

As stated in section 2.3 of the EIS, ConstiConstruction Plans (including its Karst Mfound at http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.a0901. Any information submitted as requthe draft EIS comment period was incorpoEIS. See the response to comment FA1-1any information we requested on our e-Libe available to the public, prior to construinformation would be made available for response to comment FA4-55 regarding thSurvey comments and landslide susceptib

FA6-6

S-70
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA6 – United States Environmental Protection Agency (cont’d)

Fede

See the response to FA4-23 regarding penInformation was provided in the draft EIS that would not be crossed by the pipeline affected by workspaces, as discussed in selisted in appendix K. Further, we have upEIS to reflect new information regarding provided by Constitution in response to drrecommendation number 22. Table 4.3.1reflect updated information regarding watwater wells was within the boundary of thyard; however, Constitution has removed from its proposal. Water wells within the yard(s) would be protected with the same within the pipeline right-of-way. The comregarding seeps is noted. The draft EIS cinformation regarding springs, seeps, and from the Applicants. Typically, the locatiwould be confirmed as all of the field survfollowing issuance of a certificate (if grancase currently as discussed in the responsAt that time, following certificate issuancconstruction, possible relationships betwewetlands within the survey corridor would 

FA6-7

See the response to comment FA4-26 regwetlands. The commentor’s suggestion to mitigation is noted. The FERC Procedureplanting of saplings in scrub-shrub and fohowever, wetland restoration would be cowith the COE’s permit requirements. Adimpacted wetlands would not be considerare 80 percent revegetated with early succspecies representative of what was in the construction or in adjacent wetland areas. comment FA6-4 regarding pending informhas been revised with Constitution’s updafor contractor yard(s). 

FA6-8

S-71
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA6 – United States Environmental Protection Agency (cont’d)

Fede

See the response to comment FA4-3 regarinformation. See also the responses to co(endangered species status), FA4-30 (uplaplan), and FA4-35 (state-listed rare specieupland forest mitigation plan, which is beinput from the agencies including the FWconsideration of different types of forest hrelative value of different forested habitatforest (which provides habitats of particulspecies and which typically takes decades and forest edge (which is rather common which can be created rapidly by clearing)

FA6-9

See the response to comment FA6-9 regarof different forested habitats and the uplanplan. Section 4.5 of the EIS has been revadditional discussion of forest impacts, inand invasive species and our recommendaterm monitoring for invasive plant specieregarding the recommended planting of saworkspaces is noted. However, because tway would be maintained in an herbaceoumowing, the planting of saplings in adjaclimited or no effect on preventing the spreBased on our experience with restoration, replanting of trees in formerly disturbed asignificantly enhance or expedite the returTypically, in areas with adequate rainfall saplings readily colonize disturbed areas wseasons. 

FA6-10

See the response to comments FA1-1 and pending information. Section 4.5.1 of the to provide information regarding the acceproposed meter stations. 

FA6-11

S-72
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA6 – United States Environmental Protection Agency (cont’d)

Fede

As stated in section 4.8.4.3 of the EIS, baregulation Title 6 New York Codes, Rule199, Constitution does not believe that the programs discussed would be subject to feresult of the pipeline right-of-way or easeevent that fees or penalties were incurred, include compensation in its easement neglandowners. 

FA6-12

Climate change is discussed in section 4.1Approximately 54 percent of the upland fconstruction would be allowed to regrow during operation. In addition, Constitutiomitigation plan would result in the preservareas, which could be at risk, as compensupon forest lands. Collectively, these mepotential impacts on climate change resulcarbon sinks. 

FA6-13

Emissions levels and supporting calculatiConformity applicability analysis were pras part of its November 2013 supplementahttp://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.a0901 see “Vol.-I RR 09.” The estimates ainformation were updated in response to drecommendation No. 45 in Constitution’s 2014 and which can be found at: http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.a2518 Constitution proposed that construcsecond or third quarter of 2014 and be comwith a construction plus restoration period Therefore, emissions could occur in both 2015. Given the scheduling realities of thissuance of a certificate (if granted), obtaiparcels, and additional field survey and pethat any construction likely would not begstated in section 4.11.1.1.3 of the EIS, emdiesel- and gasoline-fueled construction eengines for both projects would be minimstandards required at the time of manufacand vehicles, and would comply with the road emission regulations found in 40 CF

S-73

FA6-14
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA6 – United States Environmental Protection Agency (cont’d)

Fede

All information publicly available at the tthe draft EIS regarding the Leatherstockinincluded. Subsequent to the issuance of tadditional information regarding the Leatbecame available. Sections 1.1 and 4.13 orevised to include this information. See thFA4-46. 

FA6-15

The commentor’s statement regarding extIt is common for construction crews to enenvironmental conditions or features duridiameter, major natural gas pipelines that extra workspaces for proper or safe instalEIS acknowledges that additional space mdiscloses the Commission’s process for evworkspace requests (variances). It is also shifts in alignment or other minor adjustmwould not require additional workspaces. 

FA6-16

S-74
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA6 – United States Environmental Protection Agency (cont’d)

Fede

Section 3.1 has been revised to include inNew York Power Authority’s offshore wi

FA6-17

The data presented in draft EIS table 4.2.3information where access roads overlappeworkspaces potentially resulting in apparebetween tables. For these reasons, the da4.2.3-1 may not match and we have added 4.2.3-1 providing clarification.

FA6-18

S-75
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA6 – United States Environmental Protection Agency (cont’d)

Fede

FA6-19 Please see the response to comment FA6-

S-76
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA7 – Congress of the United States House of Representatives – Chris Gibson

Fede

The Stanton property was the subject of a draft EIS requiring Constitution to evaluaavoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on thSafety of the proposed projects is discusseEIS. 

FA7-1

Property rights are discussed in section 4.to comment FA8-3 regarding eminent dom

FA7-2

Section 3.4.3 of the EIS has been revised regarding the Stanton property and our asimpact avoidance, minimization, and mitiChairman LaFleur responded to Congressletter on May 6, 2014.

FA7-3

S-77
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA7 – Congress of the United States House of Representatives – Chris Gibson (cont’d)

Fede

S-78
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA7 – Congress of the United States House of Representatives – Chris Gibson (cont’d)

Fede

S-79
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA7 – Congress of the United States House of Representatives – Chris Gibson (cont’d)

Fede

S-80
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA7 – Congress of the United States House of Representatives – Chris Gibson (cont’d)

Fede

S-81
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA7 – Congress of the United States House of Representatives – Chris Gibson (cont’d)

Fede

S-82
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA7 – Congress of the United States House of Representatives – Chris Gibson (cont’d)

Fede

S-83
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA7 – Congress of the United States House of Representatives – Chris Gibson (cont’d)

Fede

S-84
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA7 – Congress of the United States House of Representatives – Chris Gibson (cont’d)

Fede

S-85
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA7 – Congress of the United States House of Representatives – Chris Gibson (cont’d)

Fede

S-86
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA7 – Congress of the United States House of Representatives – Chris Gibson (cont’d)

Fede

S-87
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA7 – Congress of the United States House of Representatives – Chris Gibson (cont’d)

Fede

S-88
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA8 – Congress of the United States House of Representatives – Chris Gibson

Fede

Safety of the proposed projects is discusseEIS. 

FA8-1

Property rights are discussed in section 4.response to comment FA8-3 regarding em

FA8-2

Compensation for landowners that would project is discussed in section 4.8.2 of the involved in easement negotiations betweeand the landowner, nor would the FERC bdomain proceedings. A landowner is free of an easement agreement with the pipelinif such negotiations fail and the project is compensation would be determined by a cdomain proceedings. The Commission couse of eminent domain in its decision on n

FA8-3

S-89
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA8 – Congress of the United States House of Representatives – Chris Gibson (cont’d)

Fede

S-90
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA8 – Congress of the United States House of Representatives – Chris Gibson (cont’d)

Fede

S-91
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA9 – United States Environmental Protection Agency

Fede

The EPA’s sharing of comments on the drmitigation plan with the FWS and the NYConstitution Pipeline has been coordinatinFWS, the NYSDEC, other agencies and gpotential impacts on upland forests and minitiation of the pre-filing process. This ohas continued into the post-filing period aAlthough the draft upland forest mitigatioavailable for inclusion in the draft EIS, wthe draft EIS that it be developed in consuthe NYSDEC, the PADCNR, and the PGCdirect involvement by the agencies with thregulatory authority and expertise. See thFA4-29 and a link to the document public2014. Further, any agency, group, or indiprovide comments on the draft plan until final EIS, thereby allowing public involvehave reviewed and considered such commappendix includes our responses to commregarding the draft plan. 

FA9-1

S-92
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA10 – Congress of the United States House of Representatives – Chris Gibson

Fede

The FERC staff has received and consideCatapano (IND240, IND316, and IND317(CO55, IND251, and IND594). Section 3revised with new information regarding thand our assessment of potential reroutes aminimization, and mitigation measures.Safety of the proposed projects is discusseproperty rights are discussed in section 4.

FA10-1

S-93
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA11 – United States Senate – Kirsten Gillibrand

Fede

The commentor’s request for our review oinformation is noted. The attached lettersChris Gibson letter dated April 7, 2014 (Fdated April 7, 2014 (SA4), and the HudsoJune 19, 2014 (CO70) referenced in the cpreviously submitted and have responses Chairman LaFleur responded to Senator GAugust 1, 2014.

FA11-1

S-94
FEDERAL AGENCIES

FA11 – United States Senate – Kirsten Gillibrand (cont’d)

Fede

See the response to comment FA1-1 regarcomment period and adequacy of the drafto comment FA8-3 regarding easement neonly three of the referenced documents wSenator Gillibrand’s letter; see the responExtensive comment letters received from Kernan family members, and their agents responses at CO4, CO5, CO6, CO9, CO1CO50, CO54, CO70, and IND263. 

FA11-2

S-95
STATE AGENCIES

SA1 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation

S

SA1-1 See the response to comment FA1-1.

The commentor highlights many of the recontained in section 5.0 of the EIS. Each recommendations contained within the EIsubmittal of the information. Some informthat it could be used during preparation of other information was not to be delivered of construction. The measures that Constmitigate construction within karst terrain its November 2013 supplemental filing (http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.0901). All relevant information provided response to conditions included in the drainto the final EIS. Any additional informdesignated to be provided prior to construour e-Library system and will be available for any critical energy infrastructure inforand confidential information (such as repolocation of sensitive cultural resources). Tappropriate information will be made avaas filed on our eLibrary system.

SA1-2

S-96
STATE AGENCIES

SA1 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (cont’d)

S

See the response to comment FA4-46 regLeatherstocking proposal. 

S-97

SA1-3
STATE AGENCIES

SA1 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (cont’d)

S

SA1-4 See the response to comment FA1-1.

S-98
STATE AGENCIES

SA2 – NY Department of Public Service

S

The commentor’s background information information regarding the communication the FERC at the same time as it was provhave revised and updated the EIS to incluproposed towers based on information thaConstitution, including the list of items prYork Public Service Commission.

SA2-1

S-99
STATE AGENCIES

SA2 – NY Department of Public Service (cont’d)

S

S-100
STATE AGENCIES

SA2 – NY Department of Public Service (cont’d)

S

S-101
STATE AGENCIES

SA2 – NY Department of Public Service (cont’d)

S

S-102
STATE AGENCIES

SA2 – NY Department of Public Service (cont’d)

S

S-103
STATE AGENCIES

SA2 – NY Department of Public Service (cont’d)

S

The commentor’s statement regarding noiWright Interconnect project facilities is nosection 4.11.2.3 of the EIS that Iroquois’ pin significant noise impacts on the surrounbecause we expect noise levels to be belocriteria (which is based on the EPA guidanoise over ambient conditions would be lenearest NSAs (which is the threshold used Increases in noise levels up to 9.4 dB at ththe FERC threshold.

SA2-2

S-104
STATE AGENCIES

SA2 – NY Department of Public Service (cont’d)

S

Dehydrators, fluid separation facilities, anequipment (including moisture content), ainfrastructure at compressor station (propInterconnect Project) and meter station fastations proposed by Constitution), and aroverall footprint of the facilities Any emiproducts generated by natural gas treatmeprocesses would be characterized and dispwith all applicable federal and state regula

SA2-3

See the response to comment FA4-46. As 4.13.4 of the EIS, local distribution pipeliLeatherstocking Pipeline) are not regulatehave discussed them in general terms in ocumulative impacts. We are aware of preLeatherstocking to possibly supply naturaand Fraser, New York, in addition to othealthough Constitution and Leatherstockincooperation agreements, these plans are nupdated sections 1.1 and 4.13 of the EIS twith publicly available information, but it perform a detailed cumulative impacts andistribution systems being considered by absence of more definitive plans. Therefoassessment of the potential impacts from Pipeline at this time is not only impossiblinformation available, but could lead to comisstatement of project impacts. Any sucwould be subject to all local, state, and ferequirements, although as a natural gas diFERC would not have any regulatory authreduction in air emissions for the combusrelative to other fossil fuels is discussed in Because the quantity of gas that could be Leatherstocking is expected to be relativedisplace other energy sources such as fuel major source of greenhouse gas reduction

SA2-4

S-105
STATE AGENCIES

SA2 – NY Department of Public Service (cont’d)

S

S-106
STATE AGENCIES

SA2 – NY Department of Public Service (cont’d)

S

S-107
STATE AGENCIES

SA3 – NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets

S

Section 3.4.3.3 of the EIS has been reviseassociated with parcels NY-CH-015.000, NY-CH-016.000.

SA3-1

Section 3.4.3.3 of the EIS has been reviseassociated with parcel ALT-O-NY-SC-01

SA3-2

S-108
STATE AGENCIES

SA3 – NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets (cont’d)

S

Section 3.4.3.3 of the EIS has been reviseassociated with parcels NY-SC-156.000 a

SA3-3

S-109
STATE AGENCIES

SA4 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation

S

Alternative M is discussed in detail in secThe FERC staff also reviewed the commemodifications to alternative M, and sectiobeen revised to reflect additional informat

SA4-1

S-110
STATE AGENCIES

SA4 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (cont’d)

S

The limitations and constraints associated pipeline within the median or controlled adiscussed in section 3.4.1.2 of the EIS. Talternative M (routed adjacent to I-88 wheof the controlled access area of I-88) relatroute for multiple assessment parameters habitats. The EIS indicated that similar to findings, less (typically much less) forest be affected by the alternative M segments proposed route in every case except segmconsidered the importance of impacts on ialternatives analysis, including related imhabitats. However, the FERC also considered multenvironmental parameters (aside from intour analyses indicated that the proposed rwould have less impact on environmental waterbodies, forested wetlands, and steep to alternative M. Increased crossings of sparticular would result in greater engineerfor design and construction of the pipelinerisk of erosion during construction and inafter restoration. Although steep side slopcompletely avoided during pipeline routinlesser extent on the proposed route), typiccrossings are minimized during planning abovementioned concerns. Collectively, segments 3 and 5/6 would cross 9.2 miles compared to 1.0 mile for the correspondinsegments. The FERC staff also completereviews of the topographical constraints aalternative M on foot, by car along I-88, aAdditionally, the proposed route would afoverall, property owners, and nearby residalternative M comparison segments. The segments would also be shorter in length sometimes substantially shorter, a factor wfurther reduce environmental impacts and not consider the alternative M segments to proposed route segments for these reason

SA4-2

S-111
STATE AGENCIES

SA4 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (cont’d)

S

The FERC staff also evaluated the two altmodifications identified by the NYSDEC scenario.” Our evaluation of the proposed NYSDEC’s westernmost route modificatialternative M segment in this location wawith I-88 adjacent to the controlled accesevaluated the easternmost route modificatNYSDEC, which would deviate from neaalternative M segment 5, proceed north alof-way, then proceed northeast along I-88 alternative M segment 5. A route similar was considered by Constitution early in thbut was dismissed for the reasons discussroute modification would be west of and aRiddell State Park in the area east of the peither cross state park property south of I-property crosses over I-88 to the north) or sited within the controlled access area of Ithis area contains steep side slopes which pronounced as the modified route proceedrejoining the original alternative M segmeconsider the alternative M segments to be proposed route segments for these reason

SA4-2(cont’d)

S-112
STATE AGENCIES

SA4 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (cont’d)

S

The NYSDEC’s analyses of potential impnoted. The alternatives analysis presented indicated that similar to the NYSDEC’s fiimpacts for the proposed route segments wthan or similar to impacts that would occualternative M segments. The NYSDEC fuimpacts based on wetland quality with higdefined as being “undisturbed,” containinand being relatively far from developmenThe FERC staff also evaluated wetland qusomewhat different approach consistent wand our review of other pipeline proposalimpacts on palustrine forested (PFO) wetlindicator of impact on higher quality wetlwould be permanently affected within the right-of-way, resulting in wetland type coscrub-shrub (PSS) or palustrine emergent status, and taking long periods (20 years ocleared areas outside the permanent right-wetlands may re-grow within 1 to 3 years Additionally, impacts on PFO wetlands oto provide compensatory mitigation at higbe provided for impacts on PEM or PSS wpermitting. Our analysis indicated that suwetlands would be impacted by the propocompared to the corresponding alternative described in the response to comment SAimpacts on PFO wetlands was one of seveparameters supporting our conclusion thasegments were not preferable to the propo

SA4-3

S-113
STATE AGENCIES

SA4 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (cont’d)

S

The alternatives analyses presented in secdiscussed impacts on waterbodies. We coproposed route segments would generally waterbodies overall, the same or fewer mgreater than 100 feet in width), and the sawaterbodies designated as drinking water NYSDEC’s analyses evaluated relative wbased on water quality classification, gradadjacent to the stream and found that fewwould be impacted for alternative M comroute. The FERC’s analysis used waterbowater supply status as our criteria for sensabove. The statements in the draft EIS regarding that no feasible alternatives exist in order State Department of Transportation (the NFHWA would consider collocation came NYSDOT to Williams Gas Pipeline dated which stated: 

All exception requests must show thanot feasible or cannot be implemenproviding efficient utility services in safety, durability and economy operations. Additionally, the requesthe accommodation will not adversconstruction, operation, maintenanhighway and that it will not interfeexpansion of the highway

However, this statement did not form the conclusion regarding alternative M. We aFHWA was a cooperating agency for the EIS, during which the FERC staff participdiscussions regarding I-88, the control of permitting required/associated with placineasement. 

SA4-4

S-114
STATE AGENCIES

SA4 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (cont’d)

S

Constitution did develop a route alternativwith I-88 (alternative M) and has coordinand the FHWA, as has the FERC. Constienvironmental assessment of alternative M proposed route, but it has not developed ddesigns for alternative M for submittal to would that level of design be required for alternative found to be not preferable to ththe current analysis as described in sectioas further clarified in the response to comand in particular for the constraints associconstruction associated with rocky cliffs aconstruction along cliffs and bluffs may boften the technical constraints far outweigThe FERC supports Constitution’s continthe NYSDEC, the FERC, and other agencalternative M. 

SA4-4(cont’d)

S-115
STATE AGENCIES

SA4 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (cont’d)

S

SA4-5 The commentor’s agreement with the dra

The possibility that the Constitution pipeladditional volumes of natural gas beyond proposed was discussed in section 2.7 of twith an increase in pressure of 1,400 poungauge (psig), the Constitution pipeline’s mwould be 850,000 Dth/d, which is 200,00greater than the currently proposed level. allowance for increased capacity would lithe Constitution pipeline as a major condugas supplies, should they occur and if the certificated. See the response to commenLeatherstocking Pipeline proposal. We h4.13 of the EIS regarding development of 

SA4-6

See the response to comment SA2-1 sectiincludes updated information concerning towers.

SA4-7

S-116
STATE AGENCIES

SA4 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (cont’d)

S

See the response to comment FA1-1. Conspecific Environmental Construction Plan2013 as part of their FERC Application (8 issuance of the draft EIS). (http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.2376). The ECPs were then revised in resfrom stakeholders, agencies, and the FERadministrative record as part of Constitutisupplemental filing at http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.a0901.

SA4-8

As stated by Constitution in Resource Repwill obtain a sample from the water well aat a Pennsylvania or New York (as approplaboratory to test for concentrations...” Tsuggestion to include the analytes rather tNYSDOH 2006 is noted. Constitution wosamples using standard sampling proceduand state agencies as well as the laboratorchain of custody processes. Constitution Resource Report 2, “A Constitution reprelandowners after the sample analysis has bprovide the results of these pre-constructiconstruction sampling events. For any sigthe well water quantity between pre- and sampling events that cannot be attributed conditions, such as seasonal groundwater changes in water quality constituent levelPennsylvania or New York (as appropriatthresholds for potable water wells, Constithe landowner for the installation of a new arrange for provision of suitable water suqualifications of the staff performing well experts evaluating seeps and springs are nbut the work would be accomplished undeenvironmental inspector and ConstitutionFurther, the FERC’s field monitors and coobtain copies of the assessments. Constitwell testing reports could be requested by with regulatory agencies upon request. Tconducted within 150 feet of any approvekarst and blasting locations. 

SA4-9

S-117
STATE AGENCIES

SA4 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (cont’d)

S

As stated in section 4.3.2.1, Constitution wimpact on water yield or quality occurring project. If a landowner determines that thimpacted and they have not already been Constitution, they would first contact ConIf this direct contact fails, landowners maDispute Resolution Service (1-877-337-22Project Manager for assistance. The comregarding the timing of sampling, reportinresolution are noted. The EIS contains a that is within 30 days of the completion oschedule for completing additional remeddetermined by the FERC staff as applicabmonitoring reports and any complaints. Acomment SA4-9. 

SA4-10

See the responses to comments FA4-29 anthe upland forest mitigation plan. The disforest in section 4.5.3 of the EIS has been workspace requirements, geotechnical conand overall construction feasibility, we cofeasible to use trenchless methods (convedirect pipe) at the 129 interior forest block

SA4-11SA4-12 We have revised the reference as suggeste

S-118
STATE AGENCIES

SA4 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (cont’d)

S

The commentor’s agreement with the profor Schoharie Creek and the comment regpermit is noted. The EIS includes a recomsensitive or state-listed species that Constoutstanding surveys and identify any addimeasures developed in consultation with tto construction. 

SA4-13

Section 4.6.2.2 of the EIS has been reviseconstruction window.

SA4-14

Table 4.11.1-6 has been corrected where aaccordance with standard FERC procedurand decimal places.

SA4-15

S-119
STATE AGENCIES

SA4 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (cont’d)

S

SA4-16 Section 4.8.4.3 of the EIS has been revise

S-120
STATE AGENCIES

SA4 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (cont’d)

S

SA4-17 See the responses to comments SA4-1 thr

S-121
STATE AGENCIES

SA4 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (cont’d)

S

S-122
STATE AGENCIES

SA4 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (cont’d)

S

S-123
STATE AGENCIES

SA4 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (cont’d)

S

S-124
STATE AGENCIES

SA4 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (cont’d)

S

S-125
STATE AGENCIES

SA4 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (cont’d)

S

See the response to comment SA4-13. CoContingency Plan is discussed in section 4

SA4-18

S-126
STATE AGENCIES

SA4 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (cont’d)

S

S-127
STATE AGENCIES

SA4 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (cont’d)

S

The commentor’s statements regarding inwork windows are noted. See the respons

SA4-19

S-128
STATE AGENCIES

SA5 – Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources – Office of Policy and Planning

S

We revised Section 4.8.4.3 of the EIS to iregarding ownership of the trail. As stateD&H Rail-Trail would be crossed via conTherefore, trail users and the surface wouimpacted.

SA5-1

The commentor’s discussion of Constitutipending surveys, and consultation status irecommend in section 4.7.3 of the EIS thaConstitution should file with the Secretary outstanding surveys for New York and Pespecies and identify additional mitigation consultation with the applicable state agen

SA5-2

S-129
STATE AGENCIES

SA5 – Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources – Office of Policy and Planning (cont’d)

St

We recommend that the commentor coordConstitution regarding its request to obtaiprior to the start of construction as well as construction. These updates would facilitTopographic and Geologic Survey’s rapid unanticipated paleontological finds and to collection along the trench if applicable.

SA5-3

S-130
STATE AGENCIES

SA5 – Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources – Office of Policy and Planning (cont’d)

St

S-131
STATE AGENCIES

SA6 – State of New York Office of the Attorney General

S

The projects’ potential impacts, as well as minimization, and mitigation measures, releakage, greenhouse gases, and climate chsections 4.11 and 4.13 of the EIS. The Corequire Sabine Pass to use an alternative dreduce greenhouse gases; rather, Sabine Ptype of turbine, which, in that case resultegreenhouse gases at the expense of other pand Iroquois would be required to comply requirements, and ultimately would be restheir equipment and designs. 

SA6-1

S-132
STATE AGENCIES

SA6 – State of New York Office of the Attorney General (cont’d)

S

S-133
STATE AGENCIES

SA6 – State of New York Office of the Attorney General (cont’d)

S

S-134
STATE AGENCIES

SA6 – State of New York Office of the Attorney General (cont’d)

S

See the responses comments SA4-1 throu3.4.1.2 of the EIS regarding alternative M

SA6-2

The commentor’s discussion of NEPA annoted. FERC staff reviews Applications fpipeline projects in accordance with an apobjective(s) in order to disclose the impacinform the decisionmakers in accordance Natural Gas Act, and other governing regrequirements. The EIS was prepared in acguidelines and requirements. 

SA6-3

S-135
STATE AGENCIES

SA6 – State of New York Office of the Attorney General (cont’d)

S

S-136
STATE AGENCIES

SA6 – State of New York Office of the Attorney General (cont’d)

S

S-137
STATE AGENCIES

SA6 – State of New York Office of the Attorney General (cont’d)

S

Table 4.11.1-5 presents data for greenhouconstruction emissions for both the Constprojects. We have also updated section 4leakage and vented emissions (i.e., blowdduring operation of the pipeline and the exstation. 

SA6-4

S-138
STATE AGENCIES

SA6 – State of New York Office of the Attorney General (cont’d)

S

We do not include all of the base data or sfor construction emissions into an EIS as voluminous. The data and calculations arreview in the administrative record for the available on our website. The FERC staff emissions calculations as provided by ConThe calculation methodology for Constituemissions can be found in Resource Repo2013 at http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.a0901. Iroquois’ June 2013 resource reporin an electronic searchable format from e-http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/File_list.2599 with additional emission estimates pfiled on July 26, 2013 at http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.a5901.

SA6-5

S-139
STATE AGENCIES

SA6 – State of New York Office of the Attorney General (cont’d)

S

As stated in section 4.11.1.2 of the EIS, oturbines at Iroquois’ facility would result Compressor Station becoming a major soua Title V permit at start-up of the new comsuggested by the NYSDEC on January 18included the Title V permit information wPermit Application submitted to the NYSNYSDEC would determine any necessary measures during its permitting process. Scomment SA6-1 regarding the Sabine Pas

S-140

SA6-6
STATE AGENCIES

SA6 – State of New York Office of the Attorney General (cont’d)

S

The maximum pipeline capacity reported EIS was determined by Constitution in a tperformed at the request of the FERC (anNYSDEC) to evaluate whether the Constiserve as a collector line for future gas supdeveloped in New York. See the responsConstitution would need additional FERC would include an environmental review) tabove the proposed 650,000 Dth/d. Consany higher delivery capacity, which ultimadditional compressor units. Because theso, the emissions of any such units are unConstitution reported that if it proposed to natural gas to the theoretical maximum of would have to add approximately 10,000 incremental compression at its Central Stasystem upgrades to handle the increased pConstitution estimated that Southwestern to add approximately 2,000 horsepower to necessary higher receipt pressure at the SuStation. 

SA6-7

S-141
STATE AGENCIES

SA6 – State of New York Office of the Attorney General (cont’d)

S

Existing compressor stations in the projecundergone the relevant federal and state pmay be subject to pertinent mitigation reqfrom any recent or reasonably foreseeable are discussed in section 4.13.6.10 of the Esection 4.13.6.10 to indicate that emission

proposed compressor stations in the regio

1 may be similar to those as described in Wright Interconnect Project and that poteminimized or mitigated in accordance witNYSDEC permitting requirements. 

SA6-8

As stated in section 4.13.6.10, currently, t

methodology to determine how the propo

small incremental contribution to GHGs wphysical effects on the global environmenturbines results in the existing Wright Combecoming a major source of GHGs which permit, although the proposed turbines woand regulated as minor sources and minor regard to emission controls and other requBACT is not required for the proposed turemission concentrations and rates proposestrict as BACT requirements. Using low 

combustors, low emission levels would be engine maintenance and recommended opquality natural gas. Permitted emission limonitored through performance testing fo

SA6-9

S-142
STATE AGENCIES

SA6 – State of New York Office of the Attorney General (cont’d)

S

See the response to comment SA6-1 regarProject. We have updated sections 4.11.1 regarding methane leakage that may occuthe facilities. 

SA6-10

S-143
STATE AGENCIES

SA6 – State of New York Office of the Attorney General (cont’d)

S

See the responses comments SA4-1 throualternative M. 

SA6-11

S-144
STATE AGENCIES

SA6 – State of New York Office of the Attorney General (cont’d)

S

S-145
STATE AGENCIES

SA7 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation

S

Section 4.11.1 of the EIS has been revised the NYSDEC air permit Application filed 2013 which is available at http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.a5901.

SA7-1

This comment was withdrawn by the NYletter dated May 14, 2014.

SA7-2

S-146
STATE AGENCIES

SA7 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (cont’d)

S

The Wright Compressor Station is located and therefore is subject to more stringent thresholds for ozone precursors (NOx and stringent PSD thresholds for the remaininPM10, PM2.5, and SO2)

SA7-3

SA7-7 Table 4.11.1-6 has been revised as sugges

Table 4.11.1-3 is not a table showing currrather a table showing the various general As discussed in multiple places, the only nonattainment status is Schoharie County

SA7-6SA7-4 Section 4.11.1.2 of the EIS has been revisSA7-5 Section 4.11.1.2 of the EIS has been revis

S-147
STATE AGENCIES

SA8 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation

S

We have updated sections 4.11.1 and 4.13methane leakage that may occur during opand the expanded compressor station. ReGHGs (typically expressed as CO2e), of wcomponent, are discussed in section 4.11 

SA8-1

S-148
STATE AGENCIES

SA8 – NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (cont’d)

S

See the response to comment SA6-10. Cuare not implementing a Directed InspectioProgram.

SA8-2

S-149
As stated in section 4.9.4.1 of the EIS, Co

any roads damaged by the pipeline projec4.9.7 of the EIS, Constitution would be reincrease in valuation for property tax purpoperation of the pipeline project. The lanresponsibility for increased property taxes installation or operation of the pipeline. Adiscussed in section 4.11, and safety is dis

LOCAL AGENCIESLA1 – Town of Meredith

Lo

LA1-1LA1-2LA1-3 See the response to comment LA1-1.

The potential impacts and proposed mitigarea of the proposed projects are considerthe distance (more than 0.5 mile from the from the nearest contractor yard) between and the proposed pipeline project, direct iexpected. Impacts on the Town of Meredcommunities located near, but not directly projects, are considered in a broader sense section 4.13. 

S-150
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA1 – Town of Meredith (cont’d)

Lo

The status of hydraulic fracturing in both York is discussed in section 4.13. The FEgas well drilling, hydraulic fracturing, or of high-volume hydraulic fracturing in Neprohibited and would be dependent upon and local governments and their regulatorthat in June 2014 the New York Supreme governments such as towns can ban high fracturing through zoning ordinances. Thgas supplies that would be transported by pipeline is in Susquehanna County, Pennsconsidering natural gas infrastructure projdeveloped in the future and the potential fcumulative impacts, it is important to note in pressure of 1,400 pounds per square incConstitution pipeline’s maximum capacity Dth/d, which is 200,000 Dth/d (31 percencurrently proposed level. This relatively mincreased capacity would likely preclude Constitution pipeline as a major conduit fsupplies, should they occur and if the propcertificated. We note that several existing transmission lines in southern New York, Dominion, and Millennium, have not servof high volume hydraulic fracturing in NeShale developments, including wells and in the cumulative impacts section (4.13.1) updated with additional information for thThe FERC is an independent regulatory ajurisdiction defined by law that does not pto direct the development of interstate natregional or nationwide scale. The Commhowever, with reviewing individual interstransmission projects when an established a proposal. Given the parameters defininFERC, we have determined that it is neithagency resources, nor within our authority“programmatic EIS” discussing all naturatransmission, and consumption on a regiobasis. Furthermore due to the widely varynatural gas projects, we prepare focused efor specific proposals, not a generic analyprojects.

LA1-4

S-151
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA1 – Town of Meredith (cont’d)

Lo

See the response to comment SA2-4 regarlocal areas. 

LA1-7LA1-8 See the response to comment FA1-1.

As stated in section 4.12.1 of the EIS, Concoordinated with many emergency servicethe pipeline route, would develop emergewould coordinate with the departments anto review such plans. Additionally, Constand would continue to provide financial aemergency responders via its Community grants have already included emergency rDelaware County, New York. 

LA1-6

Section 4.3.2.1 of the EIS discusses potenresources from blasting. Given the distanMeredith and the proposed projects (apprthe proposed pipeline and about 3.8 miles 4a), as well as the measures that Constitutprevent or minimize potential effects (as fsections 2.3.1 and 4.1.3) impacts from blaConstitution’s contractor would have to opermits, the charges would be the minimuthe bedrock in the trench, and blasting maareas where there is potential for rocks to Watersheds and surface waters are discusthe EIS. Kortright Creek would be crosseMP 82 as listed in appendix K, but a dry cbe used to minimize impacts on water quaflooding, and related potential impacts resand also upon the pipeline itself following discussed in sections 4.1.3 and 4.3.3. Thiupdated for the final EIS. 

LA1-5

S-152
See the response to comment FA1-1.

LOCAL AGENCIESLA2 – Town of Roseboom

Lo

LA2-1

The pipeline route would not directly affeYork (it would be located approximately would it traverse Otsego County. One prowould be located in Otsego County in Onproposed contractor yard that would be loTown of Roseboom would be in RichmonCounty, New York, approximately 7 milegeographic separation between the proposRoseboom, it is unlikely that the Town wimpacted or that the projects would cause Comprehensive Plan. See the response to regarding damage and repair of roads.

LA2-2

S-153
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA2 – Town of Roseboom (cont’d)

Lo

LA2-3 See the response to comment FA1-1.

S-154
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA3 – Schoharie County Soil and Water Conservation

Lo

See the response to comment SA3-2 regarto avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on 

LA3-1

S-155
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA3 – Schoharie County Soil and Water Conservation (cont’d)

Lo

S-156
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA4 – Town of Schoharie

Lo

Karst terrain, including Constitution’s proPlan, is discussed in sections 4.1.3.6 and 4Sections 4.3.3.2 and 4.3.3.5 of the EIS proregarding the Barton Hill watershed. As sthe proposed pipeline would be more than nearest spring and protective measures wodrinking water sources. In addition, both Pipeline and Iroquois gas pipeline system the Barton Hill watershed for many years impact on water supply. 

LA4-1

Section 4.3.2.1 of the EIS discusses moniwater wells within 150 feet of the proposeas additional testing and expert assessmenin karst areas. See the response to commefor additional information on water qualitremediation of issues. Landowners, muniother affected parties should contact the pdirectly for any issues encountered during Section 5 of the EIS contains our recommApplicants file regular status reports repocomplaints and complaint resolution statuconcludes that their concerns have not beeby the company, they may contact the FEDispute Resolution Service at 1-877-337-

LA4-2LA4-3 The commentor’s statements regarding th

S-157
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA5 – Town of Davenport

Lo

Safety of the proposed projects is discusseEIS. 

LA5-1

Fragmentation of interior forests is discusthe EIS. The potential for trespassing and prevent unauthorized access to property ddiscussed in section 4.8.3 of the EIS. Herused to control invasive plant species wouto the manufacturer’s guidelines and in coapplicable agency recommendations. Typrights-of-way are maintained by mowing, application.

LA5-2

See the response to comment LA5-1 regaproposed projects. Insurance, property vadiscussed in sections 4.9.5 and 4.9.6 of thsections have been updated with new info

LA5-3

S-158
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA5 – Town of Davenport (cont’d)

Lo

See the response to comment SA2-4 regarlocal areas. 

LA5-4

The proposed projects would require modWright compressor station. No other comproposed as part of the Constitution PipelInterconnect Projects. Air and noise assoproposed Wright Interconnect facilities is 4.11 of the EIS. The Wright Interconnect located approximately 31 miles from Dav

LA5-5

The discussion of radon in section 4.11.1.revised. We concluded that due to decay, ventilation, and improved burner technoloradon associated with natural gas are smaregulatory authority over indoor air qualit

LA5-6

The commentor’s statement regarding revprimary features of the proposed pipeline Davenport, New York during operation wmaintained permanent right-of-way that walong with a proposed mainline valve neaway would not cause long-term social, eneconomic damage to the Town, nor would tourism (EIS section 4.9.2) or agriculture 4.8). The right-of-way would be restored manner to prevent long-term stormwater r2.3.1). Any damage to roads caused by Cconstruction would be repaired, and no looccur during operation. See the response regarding insurance. 

LA5-7

See the response to comment LA5-3 regaAs discussed in section 4.9.7 of the EIS, teconomic impacts from the pipeline woulannual property taxes of $4.9 million in DYork. This increase in property taxes pailocal governments and their budgets annuConstitution’s project. Constitution woulincrease in valuation for property tax purpoperation of the pipeline project. 

LA5-8

S-159
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA5 – Town of Davenport (cont’d)

Lo

The commentor’s statement regarding precharacter of the Town of Davenport is notcomment LA5-7.

LA5-9

See the response to comment SA2-4 regarlocal areas. Although no specific plans haLeatherstocking regarding local gas distriindicated in a press release that it was evain Delaware County, New York. 

LA5-10

LA5-11 See the response to comment LA5-3 rega

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

LA5-12

S-160
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA6 – Town of Maryland

Lo

Constitution has eliminated the contractor commentor, Spread 4b, from its project. Nyard(s) are proposed in the Town of Mary

LA6-1

S-161
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA7 – Town of Meredith NY Planning Board

Lo

See the response to comments FA1-1 regainformation and extension of the commen

LA7-1

The commentor’s statement regarding addnoted. As stated throughout the EIS, Connumerous measures designed to avoid, miimpacts. In addition, the FERC staff reco

mitigation measures as listed in section 5 

LA7-2LA7-3 See the responses to comments LA5-7 an

The use of existing rights-of-way was conthe pipeline route. Constitution’s route wexisting rights-of-way for approximately approximately 9 percent of its total lengthalternatives, alternatives K and M, were sucollocated with existing easements than thwere not considered preferable due to envconstructability reasons. Numerous other alternatives with increased levels of colloconsidered, but also were determined to nenvironmental, constructability, or project Alternatives to the proposed project and pdiscussed in section 3.0.

LA7-4

As described in section 1.1 of the EIS, the the projects in response to customers’ demApplications with the FERC for authorizaoperate the proposed facilities. The EIS ithe potential environmental impacts of the Although the EIS does consider whether ameet the customers’ demands, the EIS doa conclusion on whether there is a need foSection 1502.13 of the Council on Enviroregulations implementing the National En(NEPA) requires that an EIS “briefly specpurpose and need to which the agency is rthe alternatives including the proposed acthe EIS states the purpose of and need for order to define the range of alternative actcan legitimately consider. The determinaa “need” for the proposed facilities for the authorization under section 7 of the Naturbe made in the subsequent Commission Odenying the Applicants’ request for certifiis based on a balancing of the benefits of tadverse impacts.

LA7-5

S-162
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA7 – Town of Meredith NY Planning Board (cont’d)

Lo

The Commission makes the determination the public convenience and necessity. Thsubsequent decision is based on many facEIS and associated recommendations, majust and reasonable rates, and engineering Commission considers the regional benefiagainst any adverse impacts. This determConstitution and Iroquois projects has not See the response to comment SA2-4 regarof natural gas from the proposed ConstituThe potential for exportation of natural ga1.3 of the EIS. Constitution has stated thanatural gas to the existing Iroquois and TGultimately serve markets in New England aware of a possible project being considerSouth-to-North (SoNo) Project] which hathe Commission or entered into FERC staenvironmental review. This project involvof natural gas on parts of Iroquois’ systemthe SoNo project and it is approved, then to Iroquois could be displaced to other parHowever, it is nearly impossible, nor pracdestination of any one given molecule of ngas supplied by Constitution could be dispparts of Iroquois’ system, the capacity crewould still be realized. Constitution’s Apinclude provisions for the exportation of nexportation facilities downstream of Consproposed in the future, then any such propto a new and separate review process from Department of Energy (DOE), the FERC, permitting agencies. 

LA7-5(cont’d)

S-163
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA8 – Village of Schoharie

Lo

See the response to comment LA4-1. We 4.1.5 of the EIS to further clarify that Conpark construction equipment overnight, noservice equipment within 200 feet of any Additionally, Constitution would apply fepesticides, or other chemicals at least 200 sinkholes, waterbodies, springs, and cave these measures acceptable to minimize thpesticides and herbicides from impacting Further, the pipeline itself would be radioensure all welds are secure, thereby minimnatural gas liquids from coming into contagroundwater. 

LA8-1

S-164
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA8 – Village of Schoharie (cont’d)

Lo

As stated in section 4.1.3.8 of the EIS, Coblasting in areas of limestone and karst fe

LA8-2

As stated in section 4.3.3.5 of the EIS, Coimplement protective measures such as its Contingency Plan, Blasting Plan, and Karavoid impacts on drinking water sources. anticipate any impacts on public watershethe proposed projects. We do not anticipadelivery system would be impacted by the 

LA8-3

As stated in section 4.1.5 of the EIS, monconducted by Constitution before the start establish a baseline and would continue thrate of twice a day when construction is ofeet of the wells, springs, or groundwater Caverns and Joober Hole would be within proposed construction, and would be inclumonitoring. 

LA8-4

The FERC would use monitors to observe Village may consult directly with Constiturequest for Constitution to fund a construcreports to the Village.

LA8-5

Constitution would adhere to best manageoutlined in its ECPs. As stated in sectionEIS, construction and operation of the prolikely result in only short-term impacts on These impacts, such as increased turbiditybaseline levels over a period of days or wconstruction.

LA8-6

S-165
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA9 – Rosenthal for Ostego County

Lo

See the response to comment LA5-1 regaLA5-3 regarding property values, and comeminent domain. The projects’ potential impact avoidance, minimization, and mitiregarding wildlife (section 4.6.1), water qmethane gas leakage (section 4.12) are distated in section 4.9.1 of the EIS, given thproject area (totaling 437,421) and distribconstruction workforce, the addition of 2,be a significant change. 

LA9-1

See the response to comment FA4-46 regLeatherstocking’s plans for local delivery 

LA9-2

See the response to comment SA2-1 and uadded to section 2 of the EIS regarding thcommunication towers. Interference with systems is not expected, but would be resapplicable, with stakeholder assistance froResolution Service if necessary. 

LA9-3

Although it is difficult to accurately predproduction trends over the long-term, accnatural gas production from the Marcellusubstantially and consistently each year sproduction can be viewed at: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.

considering constructing any project, an acontracts from shippers that can supply ththe lifetime of the project. Project financconsider funding a project unless there is economically viable. 

LA9-4

S-166
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA10 – Delaware County Board of Supervisors

Lo

The commentor’s statement regarding FEincluding for steep slopes and karst areas, section 5.0 of the EIS, the FERC staff recmeasures contained in section 5.2 of the Econditions to any authorization issued by decision to include all or a portion of thesmade by the Commissioners.

S-167

LA10-1
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA10 – Delaware County Board of Supervisors (cont’d)

Lo

Constitution would be required to file copmonitoring with the FERC. These reports e-Library system at www.ferc.gov and wopublic. 

LA10-2

The commentor’s statement regarding wenoted.

LA10-4

The commentor’s statement regarding the for wells and springs is noted. However, applicants to identify drinking water suppwithin 150 feet of disturbed areas and has distance provides adequate protection of twater supplies that would be related to CoEnhancement Program lands. (FERC 200

LA10-3

As recommended in section 4.5 of the EIScoordinating with the FWS and state agenupland forest mitigation plan. This first dbeen filed in the public record and can be website at http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.a3683. Constitution would file any revisioeLibrary system.

LA10-5

Constitution committed to provide compefor costs associated with amending the lanmanagement plan, if applicable. As part olandowners could request compensation oprofessional forester for revisions to their plan. Constitution would compensate lanfor fees and penalties based on their commany issues with follow through on this comlandowners could contact the FERC’s Disfor assistance. If the project is certificated Constitution will be required to adhere to made in its Application and supplements.

LA10-6

S-168
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA10 – Delaware County Board of Supervisors (cont’d)

Lo

The Residential Access and Traffic Mitigaccessed in the administrative record as pNovember 2013 supplemental filing of Rehttp://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.a0901. The official weekly and quarterly squarterly reports would be filed on our e-Lwould be available to the public and the ais noted regarding property values and moupdated sections 4.9.5 and 4.9.6 of the EIThe Applicants would be required to inclucomplaints within their weekly reports.

LA10-7

The commentor’s suggestion to include thDepartment of Public Works and the locasuperintendents is noted, and the commenongoing direct coordination with the Appencouraged by the FERC. As stated in seConstitution representatives would meet wservices departments of the municipalities pipeline facilities on an ongoing basis as pprograms.

LA10-8

S-169
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA10 – Delaware County Board of Supervisors (cont’d)

Lo

The commentor’s statement in support of route variation recommendation is noted.

LA10-9

See the response to comment FA6-6. The would be available to the public and agensystem for review and comment.

LA10-10

The commentor’s statement in support of is noted.

LA10-11

The commentor’s request to include consuCounty Cornell Cooperative Extension reis noted.

LA10-12

The Draft Blasting Plan can be accessed irecord as part of Constitution’s Novembefiling at http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.a0901. Any site-specific blasting plans preand submitted as part of its Implementatioavailable on our e-Library system at www

LA10-13

S-170
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA10 – Delaware County Board of Supervisors (cont’d)

Lo

LA10-14 See the responses to comments FA4-28 an

The commentor’s request to include the CEmergency Services in the notification lisis noted, and the commentor may request coordination with the Applicants, which iFERC.

LA10-15

Any information provided by the Applicanot filed as privileged or critical energy inmust be filed on our eLibrary system and public and agencies for review and commreview and comment at any time. 

LA10-16

See the response to comments LA10-7 anApplicants would file weekly status reporsubsequently be posted to our public eLibcrops are discussed in section 4.8.4 of the 

LA10-18

The commentor’s statement in support of noted.

S-171

LA10-17
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA10 – Delaware County Board of Supervisors (cont’d)

Lo

LA10-19 See the response to comment LA10-7.

As stated in section 4.9.4.1 of the EIS, Coany roads damaged by pipeline constructithe response to comment LA10-8. The coregarding a road use agreement requiremeFERC encourages the applicant to secure county ordinances/permits.

LA10-20

S-172
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA10 – Delaware County Board of Supervisors (cont’d)

Lo

LA10-21 See the response to comment LA10-8.

S-173
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA10 – Delaware County Board of Supervisors (cont’d)

Lo

Construction crews would not be permitteoutside of the permitted construction righmay negotiate directly with Constitution rfor any impacts on farms, special notificaconstruction, and the ability to clear-cut thgeneral, we do not support landowners entimber, as only the applicant can be held awithin approved workspaces or avoiding The construction schedule is dependent upCommission decides to grant a certificateprojects’ schedule would likely involve wwhich is discussed in section 2.3.2.6 of thother infrastructure would be repaired or rand restoration as discussed in section 2.3Constitution would be required to restore location would not interfere with operatio

LA10-22

See the response to comment LA10-22. A4.8.4.2 of the EIS, Constitution has commindividual landowners regarding the approfencing to exclude work areas, establishmlocations for livestock, and relocation of lgrazing sites during the construction phasErosion Control, Revegetation, and MaintConstitution has adopted, includes requirefor applicants to develop grazing defermelandowners, grazing permittees, and land We find that the most appropriate way to commentor’s concerns is through continubetween the landowner and Constitution. roads during construction would be part otemporary use negotiations.

LA10-23

As discussed in section 2.3.2.8 of the EIScommitted to implement the three plans mcommentor to further prevent or minimizThese plans include: Special Crop ProduProcedures (provided by the NYSDAM aConstitution); Seeding, Fertilizing, and Lfor Gas Pipeline Right-of-way Restoratioprovided by the NYSDAM and adopted bOrganic Farm Protection Plan. In additioErosion Control, Revegetation, and Mainthe segregation, preservation, and restoratagricultural areas as described in section 2Implementation of these measures would inspectors.

LA10-24

S-174
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA10 – Delaware County Board of Supervisors (cont’d)

Lo

As stated in section 4.8.4.3 of the EIS, if a the 480/480a program as a result of the prstated that it would negotiate compensatiopenalties (such as roll-back taxes and incrpart of the easement agreement for each trthe response to comment LA10-24.

LA10-25

We do not require pipeline companies to pequipment crossings at regular intervals alandowners. However, if a landowner’s cproperty use includes the use of heavy equheavy farming equipment); easement negthe identification and construction of suitacrossings designed to facilitate existing uspipeline. In general, most farm equipmenthe pipeline right-of-way without the need crossing. Constitution would restore all for better condition if they have to be remoconstruction.

LA10-26

The commentor’s statements regarding renoted, and landowners may negotiate with contact the FERC staff for assistance, as sregarding landowner-specific resources oor mitigation measures to account for impincur.

LA10-24(cont’d)

S-175
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA10 – Delaware County Board of Supervisors (cont’d)

Lo

The SWCD’s support for the NYSDAM’s Constitution is noted. See the response to 

LA10-27

The commentor’s statements are noted. A4.3.2.1 of the EIS, Constitution would avoimpacts on wells or springs by using consdescribed in its site-specific ECPs, such apermanent trench plugs and interceptor diof the pipeline, Constitution would restore closely as practicable to original contours exposed soils to ensure restoration of pre-flow and recharge patterns. Seeps and sprthe proposed work areas would be assesseexperts, if requested by landowners, and imeasures would be developed as applicabadherence to Constitution’s proposed best would adequately protect the recharge zonsprings over 150 feet from the constructioevent that construction of the pipeline temprivate or public well or spring quality or would provide alternative water sources othe owner. If the project caused permanespring as a result of construction, then Coor replace the water source or provide an potable water. See the responses comments SA4-1 throu3.4.1.2 of the EIS regarding updated inforM.The commentor’s request to require additpotential impacts on water supply springs and the commentor may request ongoing the Applicants, which is encouraged by th

LA10-28

S-176
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA10 – Delaware County Board of Supervisors (cont’d)

Lo

S-177
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA10 – Delaware County Board of Supervisors (cont’d)

Lo

S-178
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA10 – Delaware County Board of Supervisors (cont’d)

Lo

S-179
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA11 – Town of Meredith

Lo

See the response to comment LA1-2. See comment SA2-1 regarding the proposed cSee the response to comment SA2-4 regarlocal areas. 

LA11-1LA11-2 See the response to comment FA1-1.LA11-3 See the response to comment LA1-1.

See the response to comment LA5-10 regnatural gas and comment LA7-5 regardinSee the response to comment FA8-3 regar

LA11-4

S-180
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA11 – Town of Meredith (cont’d)

Lo

See the response to comments FA4-16 analternative M.

LA11-5LA11-6 The commentor’s statements regarding th

See the responses to comment FA1-1 regaand the request to extend the draft EIS co

S-181
LOCAL AGENCIES

LA11 – Town of Meredith (cont’d)

Lo

S-182
The commentor’s statement regarding def

the Mohawk and New York Oneida Tribenoted.

NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBESNAT1 – Seneca Nation of Indians

Native Amer

NAT1-1

S-183
The commentor’s request for Phase II cul

noted. We will ensure that Constitution preports. As stated in section 4.10.1.4 of thConstitution has not filed any documentathas provided copies of the cultural resourfederally recognized tribes that requested making any determinations of eligibility aarchaeological sites until we have written tribes have had an opportunity to review areports. Further, we included a recommenof the EIS that several conditions be met tFERC to complete its responsibilities undNHPA, including the distribution of repormentioned above. The FERC staff will cowith the Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe and thprojects continue. 

NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBESNAT2 – Stockbridge-Munsee Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Native Amer

NAT2-1

S-184
The commentor’s request for cultural reso

We will ensure that Constitution provides See the response to comment NAT2-1.

NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBESNAT3 – Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation

Native Amer

NAT3-1

S-185
The commentor’s statements regarding th

resources, and ongoing coordination with Constitution are noted. See the response 

NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBESNAT4 – Oneida Indian Nation

Native Amer

NAT4-1

S-186
NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES

NAT4 – Oneida Indian Nation (cont’d)

Native Amer

S-187