The potential impacts of the proposed pro

and surface water, including impact avoidand mitigation measures, are addressed in 4.3.3 of the EIS, respectively. A discussiincluded in section 4.12. A revised discuimpacts of the projects upon property valusection 4.9.5. Property rights are discusse

INDIVIDUALSIND1 – Michele Barnes

IND1-1

The commentor’s statement regarding an agreements for surveys or easements is no

IND1-2

S-1024
The commentor’s statements in support o

are noted.

INDIVIDUALSIND2 – John H. Hill

IND2-1

S-1025
Our February 20, 2014 letter to the United 

Wildlife Service (FWS) is merely a letter the FWS review the EIS for impacts on thendangered species (pursuant to section 7 in our letter we stated “please consider thEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) foPipeline Project as our Biological Assessmincludes a full discussion of the projects’ species in section 4.7. As stated in our Feour conclusion was based upon “the inforConstitution’s biological survey reports, sreceived from Constitution, our analysis oof the proposed action as reported in the Ecoordination with the FWS, we have deteis not likely to adversely affect the Indiana wedgemussel, and northern monkshood.” responsible for determining the adequacy 

INDIVIDUALSIND3 – Irwin Waldman

IND3-1

Our assessment of the projects’ impact upincluding citations, is discussed in section citations included Diskin et al. 2011, PGP Hansen et al. 2006. Issues related to insusection 4.9.6 of the EIS, and this section hfinal EIS. 

IND3-2

We addressed all substantive comments rdraft EIS within the text of the draft EIS. addressed all substantive comments concethe final EIS. Section 1.3 of the draft EIS overview of stakeholder comments and ware addressed in the document. 

IND3-3

The draft EIS contained our current assesissues associated with the proposed projecsubsequently prepared a final EIS based icomments of stakeholders. The draft and decision-making documents. The final EIenvironmental information (see section 1.used by the Commission in its decision-m

IND3-4

The commentor’s statement regarding taxFERC and transparency is noted. The FEefforts are reflected primarily in the EIS. FERC staff’s analysis of the projects’ impassessment and reasoning for our conclus

IND3-5

S-1026
We use third-party contractors, where app

the National Environmental Policy Act (Ndevelopment of NEPA documents. Thirdunder the sole direction and control of the applicant. All prospective contractors muOrganizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) 

INDIVIDUALSIND4 – Kerry Lynch

IND4-1

We make the selection of the third-party capplicant. In regard to the Keystone XL pStates Department of State (DOS) Office (OIG) found in February 2012 that there wapplicant improperly influenced the DOS ENTRIX as the third-party contractor and contractual or financial relationships betwand the applicant that would result in a cowould impair the ability of Cardno ENTIX performing the work assigned (DOS 2012United States Department of State, Office General. 2012. Special Review of the KePermit Process. Report Number AUD/SI

IND4-2

We use a standard process for assessing aparty contractors including a review for pinterest. We make the selection of the thibased upon the experience, résumés, and contractor personnel, not the applicant. Twork under the sole direction and control the applicant. 

IND4-3

It is true that the third-party contracting sythat the applicant is financially responsiblprogram. However, third-party contractodirection and control of the FERC staff, n

IND4-4IND4-5 See the responses to IND4-3 and IND4-4

Cardno ENTRIX has not “given the green The FERC staff conducts the NEPA proceresponsible for the content of the NEPA dcontractors assist us with specific tasks andirection and control of the FERC staff.

IND4-6

S-1027
INDIVIDUALS

IND4 – Kerry Lynch

The commentor’s statements regarding horequests for proposals from applicants and third-party contractors are factual. Howeassumptions are not. See the responses to If the FERC is not satisfied with any of thproposals forwarded by the applicant, FERprior cases, requested additional proposal

IND4-7

We assess the proposals and conflict of inthird-party contractors. This assessment iQuestionnaire and an OCI Representation Questionnaire covers 13 topics, and additinformation is provided regarding the potaffiliated companies, work history, and finpreceding 3 years. The OCI Representatithat the potential contractor is able to rendto the FERC staff. The FERC staff reviewall of the proposals and eliminated any pra conflict of interest. We then selected frproposals the third-party contractor that wthe staff with the project-specific NEPA pthat was Cardno ENTRIX. 

IND4-8

The commentor’s statements regarding thregarding third-party contractors are noted

IND4-9

S-1028
The commentor’s statement regarding the 

EIS is noted.

INDIVIDUALSIND5 – John Hotaling

IND5-1

The commentor’s statement regarding pipoversight is noted.

IND5-2

IND5-3 The commentor’s statement in support of 

S-1029
The commentor’s statement regarding the 

EIS is noted.

INDIVIDUALSIND6 – John Hotaling

IND6-1

The commentor’s statement regarding pipoversight is noted.

IND6-2

IND6-3 The commentor’s statement in support of 

S-1030
The commentor’s statements regarding op

as well as the loss of use of land and drivedraft EIS discusses impacts on land use anconstruction in section 4.8. 

INDIVIDUALSIND7 – Robert Decker

IND7-1

The commentor’s statement regarding comstakeholders containing the draft EIS is nointerested parties identify whether they wcompact disc or paper copy to review the that specifically requested a paper version mailed a paper copy. A paper copy of the mailed to this party. The draft EIS also lilibraries) where paper copies of the EIS w

IND7-2

S-1031
The projects’ potential impacts, as well as 

minimization, and mitigation measures, re(section 4.6.1), water quality (section 4.3)(sections 2.3.2 and 4.9.4), property devalumethane gas leakage (section 4.12), and h(section 4.13.1) are discussed in the EIS. 

INDIVIDUALSIND8 – Judith Salzmann

IND8-1

IND8-2 See the response to comment LA7-5 rega

As discussed in section 1.1, the proposed delivery of natural gas to communities sitPennsylvania and New York in addition tEngland and New York City). See the resCO26-18 regarding other, recently propospotentially alter service area and end user communities may also receive new naturasufficient demand. According to the UnitInformation Administration (DOE/EIA 20($11.05 per million Btu) is much less expenergy than either propane ($29.35 per m($28.31 per million Btu). Given these relservice may provide financial benefits for commercial heating. Whether the increasregionally, thereby displacing fuel oil and in increased prices for fuel oil and propanTypically, decreasing demand or increasinmay result in decreasing prices. 

IND8-3

As discussed in section 1.1, some commupipeline route may receive new natural gathe proposed projects. Local natural gas dwould determine if there is sufficient demnatural gas service and evaluate the feasibinfrastructure. 

IND8-4

S-1032
The commentor’s statement regarding the 

minor route variations for tracts NY-CH-0031.000 is noted and has been addressed i(appendix H-1). Based on information prcommentor, it appears that the affected laConstitution are in mutual preliminary agissues.

INDIVIDUALSIND9 – Bert W. Finch

IND9-1

In Resource Report 1, Constitution commindividual landowners wish to utilize the right-of-way; the timber will be cut to maorderly stacked at the edge of the right-ofby the EI prior to the commencement of cdirectly accessible to the landowner, in acindividual landowner agreements. Timbethe right-of-way only at the specific requeunder the condition that it is in an already that will be accessible to the landowner wrestored right-of-way.” This commitment to place the timber in areas directly accesand affords landowners the opportunity to stacking locations according to their indivConstitution. The final EIS has been updopportunity for landowner input for timbe

IND9-2

We do not require pipeline companies to rrootstock from the entire construction righHowever, landowners may negotiate direcregarding the removal of stumps and rootconstruction right-of-way in uplands as paeasement agreements.

IND9-3IND9-4 See the response to comment LA10-26.

The potential for trespassing and measureunauthorized access to property during opin section 4.8.3 of the EIS. Mitigation meposted signs, installation of gates or fenciplacement of other barriers such as timber their individual easement agreements with landowners may request installation of spprevent unauthorized access. These mitigmay be installed anytime during the life oas needed per Constitution’s Plan as state

IND9-5

S-1033
INDIVIDUALS

IND9 – Bert W. Finch (cont’d)

In accordance with Constitution’s Plan, wPlan, fertilizer and lime would be used duefforts in accordance with “written recomfrom the local soil conservation authorityagencies, or landowner.” Constitution’s PPlan) do not require topsoil segregation in require topsoil segregation of at least 12 i12 inches is present) or the entire topsoil l12 inches is present) in “other areas at the managing agency’s request.” LandownerConstitution segregate topsoil in forested individual easement agreements. In areas topsoil supplementation would only be renecessary by the FERC staff to restore the construction conditions or if large amountare lost during construction. 

IND9-6

As stated in section 4.5.5 of the EIS “FollConstitution would seed all of the previouworkspaces disturbed by construction in aECPs, Plan, and Procedures. Constitution proposed seed mixes using the PADEP, thNYDEC guidance (PADEP 2012, NYSDANYSDEC 2005). Constitution’s Plan indof disturbed areas would occur in accordarequests (e.g., wildlife food plots), as appConstitution is coordinating with the NatiFederation to determine areas along the riFederation-recommended seed mixes woubenefit wildlife.” 

IND9-7

S-1034
INDIVIDUALS

IND10 – Edward Rubio, Jr.

The commentor’s statements regarding opas well as impacts on forests and wildlife, forests (section 4.5.3) and wildlife (sectiothe EIS.

IND10-1

A minor route variation (including parcel resolved landowner concerns (according tby Constitution) was adopted into the promilepost 63 as listed in appendix H. Baserevised route on this parcel, the pipeline wback one-third of the property avoiding sifurther north (i.e., farther back on the parctops, and well away from parcel access vithe south. Extra workspace would be locaparcel, to facilitate crossing of a palustrinlocated on the adjacent parcel to the east. the revised proposed route is preferable to route variations in this area. 

IND10-2

The commentor’s statements regarding imnoted. Wetlands are discussed in section 

IND10-3

Our assessment of the projects’ impact updiscussed in section 4.9.5 of the EIS. Issuare discussed in section 4.9.6 of the EIS. 

IND10-4

Compensation for landowners that would pipeline project is discussed in section 4.8Customers of natural gas, both in the end City and New England, as well as commupipeline route as described in section 1.1, potential access to relatively lower priced the response to comment IND8-3). See thCO26-18 regarding other, recently propospotentially alter service area and end user commentor’s statement regarding an intenagreements for surveys or easements is no

IND10-5

S-1035
INDIVIDUALS

IND11 – Marc Wishengrad

As discussed in section 4.8.4.2, Constitutipotential impacts on organic farms througOrganic Farm Protection Plan. In accordaFarm Protection Plan, Constitution would substances to certified organic properties. Constitution would maintain appropriate bprevent unintended drift or runoff of prohdownwind or down-gradient certified orgwhere treatment may be needed and contaorganic certified farms may be unavoidabMaterials Review Institute-approved prodgeneral, herbicides would be used only to populations of invasive plants. Herbicideapplied to leaves of the subject plants by h“cannon” sprayers pulled behind all-terraitrucks. Herbicides would be applied accomanufacturer’s guidelines and in compliaagency recommendations. Constitution wcontractor to determine the appropriate mapplication of the herbicides. A discussion of waterbodies that would bprojects can be found in section 4.3 of the mitigation from construction on steep slopsection 4.1 of the EIS. The potential for pdiscussed in section 4.12. 

IND11-1

See the response to LA7-4. The potential upon property values are discussed in sec

IND11-2

The commentor’s statements regarding pragreements are noted. The economic effediscussed in section 4.9 of the EIS. As noConstitution has established a community benefitting local organizations, including 

IND11-3

The commentor’s statements regarding thprofit organization in relation to the propo

IND11-4

S-1036
INDIVIDUALS

IND11 – Marc Wishengrad (cont’d)

The commentor appears to believe that thdraft EIS. On the contrary, the analysis aregarding project impacts are those of the clearly states the project would be negativbe avoided with construction of infrastrucof the FERC’s goal is to minimize such imthe commentor noticed a great deal of ope“masked”) on that subject. See the responregarding minimizing impacts. High voluis currently prohibited in the State of New will be determined by local and State of Ndiscussed in section 4.13.1 of the EIS. Thapprove or regulate natural gas production 

IND11-5IND11-6 The commentor’s statement regarding res

See the response to comment LA7-5 regaof the proposed projects.As stated in sections 2.5.3 and 2.5.5, Confund a FERC third-party compliance monthe construction phase of the pipeline projmonitor would provide daily reports on thto the FERC. In addition, the FERC staff periodic compliance inspections. FERC sthousands, if not tens of thousands, of milconstruction. After construction, Constituwould conduct follow-up inspections of aareas after the first and second growing sesuccess of restoration. The FERC would amonitoring inspections of the projects folConstitution would be required to continubeyond the second growing season if the been properly restored. The potential for pdiscussed in section 4.12. 

IND11-7

The potential for ground heaving associattemperatures that could damage the pipelidiscussed in section 4.2.2. 

IND11-8

S-1037
INDIVIDUALS

IND11 – Marc Wishengrad (cont’d)

The commentor’s statement regarding the been noted.

IND11-10

Groundwater, watersheds, and water qualsection 4.3. As discussed in section 1.5, C

Iroquois would be required to obtain projeFERC as well as other federal, state, and lthe project could proceed. The EIS is prestaff, not the Applicants, and is associated many permits that would be required for tunaware of what “highly toxic” chemicals believes are involved in pipeline construc

IND11-9

S-1038
INDIVIDUALS

IND12 – Dr. Lisa J. Barr

Updated maps containing nearby road labappendix B of the EIS. In addition, Consalignment sheets depicting roadway crossJuly of 2013 and updated in November 20found at http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.a0901. . Sensitive resources, as well as pomitigation, are discussed in the EIS for floerosion (section 4.2.2), steep slopes (secti

appendix G), and social impacts (section 4

IND12-1

S-1039
INDIVIDUALS

IND13 – Karen O’Neill

IND13-1 See the response to comment CO41-23.IND13-2 See the response to comment LA7-5 rega

See the response to comment FA8-3 regarAs discussed in section 4.9 of the EIS, Coannual property taxes ranging from $250,Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania to $4County, New York. Operation of Iroquoiin $1.5 million in annual property taxes to New York. As discussed in section 4.12 Applicants would design, construct, operaproposed facilities in accordance with the Federal Safety Standards in Title 49 CFR project involving the transportation of natinvolved. As detailed in the aforementionsome risk associated with pipelines, but it than the risks due to many typical activitidisasters such as extreme weather events. 

IND13-3

See response to CO41-23 regarding indusdiscussed in section 4.11 of the EIS, air qassociated with construction of the projecemissions from fossil-fueled construction dust. Such air quality impacts would genlocalized, and are not expected to cause oviolation of applicable air quality standardair quality resulting from operation of the including the expanded compressor statiosection 4.11.1. The EIS concluded that opexpanded compressor facility would not hon local or regional air quality. See resporegarding herbicides.

IND13-4

As discussed in section 2.7 of the EIS, Cohave not identified or proposed any plans their systems or abandonment of any of thAny future expansion of Constitution’s pradditional and newly developed supplies require a new, separate NEPA review by additional permitting by other local, stateWe are not aware of any gas company exestaff living with the proposed route of the 

IND13-5

S-1040
INDIVIDUALS

IND13 – Karen O’Neill (cont’d)

Issues related to insurance are discussed iEIS. The potential impacts of the projects and loans are discussed in section 4.9.5. Pdiscussed in section 4.8.2.

IND13-6

S-1041
INDIVIDUALS

IND14 – Rachel Polens

See the response to FA1-1 regarding the csee the responses to LA1-1 through LA1-Town of Meredith’s letter.

IND14-1

S-1042
INDIVIDUALS

IND15 – Kim Rasmussen

See the response to CO1-4 regarding foredeforestation, and the response to LA5-3 insurance and property values.

IND15-1

The commentor’s opposition is noted. This to regulate and oversee the energy induthe American public. In so doing, the FEcompeting economic, environmental, and maintain a reliable and affordable energy sustained, competitive markets. The FERlocal issues, and the FERC staff works wilandowners, and other stakeholders during to address concerns prior to an ApplicatioApplication is filed, the FERC staff continapplicants to resolve outstanding concernEnvironmental Information Requests for aadding recommendations to the EIS. Whdesign may not satisfy all of the stakeholdCommission must determine if the projecEIS, meet the criteria for public convenienmaking a decision.

IND15-2

The commentor’s statement requesting dePipeline Project is noted.

IND15-3

S-1043
INDIVIDUALS

IND16 – Janet Terchek

See response to IND9-5 regarding unauthright-of-way.

IND16-1

Forest fragmentation could result in the inheaded cowbirds, which, as the commentoHowever, as discussed in section 4.5.3 of included a recommendation that Constitutforest mitigation plan which would also bmeasures protective of migratory birds. 

IND16-2

See response to comment IND11-1 regardapplication. Section 4.5.4 of the EIS discby Constitution to minimize the spread of construction. In addition, as stated in sectherbicides would be applied at least 200 fwetlands, and karst features so as to not imwaterbodies or groundwater. 

IND16-3

As discussed in section 4.3.3.5 of the EIShave to obtain permits from the SusquehaCommission, Delaware River Basin ComNYSDEC to withdraw water from Starruchydrostatic testing. Water usage for hydrconsumptive because the test water would nearby upland locations. In addition, Conbase stream flows are maintained during w2.3.2.2 of the EIS describes the equipmenassociated with the crossing of Starrucca zones associated with the stream crossingconstruction of the projects. 

IND16-4

As stated in section 4.6.1.3 of the EIS, miwithin the project area spans from mid-Apand peaks between mid-May and early AuConstitution proposes to conduct the majobetween September 1 and March 31 in oron breeding birds and comply with state arecommendations. Also see the response 

IND16-5

The consideration and development of rouprocess that often continues during the coresponse to environmental concerns and ldescribed in section 3.4.2, alternative S wthe process based upon the results of geotfield surveys to avoid potential landslide anorth of Starrucca Creek. The decision waccess is decided by individual landownerenvironmental constraints, which sometimthrough field survey, can make constructiparcel not advantageous. Wetlands genercategory.

IND16-6

S-1044
INDIVIDUALS

IND16 – Janet Terchek (cont’d)

Unauthorized use of the right-of-way is dto comment IND9-5. The commentor’s sdesire to sell the parcel is noted. Loss of discussed in the response to comment INDPAR-15a appears to be located on parcel commentor and would not impact the com

IND16-7

As stated in section 4.9.4.1 of the EIS, Coany roads damaged by the project. See reregarding stormwater erosion.

IND16-8

As stated in section 2.3.2.5 of the EIS, Coresidential structures (such as a decorative construction of the pipeline. Constitution route for potential timber rattlesnake (the believed to be in this area) habitat and did habitat on this parcel.

IND16-9IND16-10 See responses to comments FA8-3 and IN

The commentor’s statement in opposition request for intervention are noted. 

IND16-11

S-1045
INDIVIDUALS

IND17 – John Miglietta

IND17-1 See response to FA1-1. 

S-1046
INDIVIDUALS

IND17 – John Miglietta (cont’d)

S-1047
INDIVIDUALS

IND18 – Kerry A. Lynch

See response to FA1-1 regarding the comresponse to IND12-1 regarding maps. Sewell as potential impacts and mitigation, afor land (section 4.8), water (section 4.3), homes (section 4.8.3), erosion (section 4.24.1.3), and emergency response (section 4

IND18-1IND18-2 See the response to comment IND7-2.IND18-3 See the response to comment FA1-1.

S-1048
INDIVIDUALS

IND19 – Janet Terchek

This is a nearly identical letter previously See the responses to comment IND16.

IND19-1

S-1049
INDIVIDUALS

IND19 – Janet Terchek (cont’d)

S-1050
INDIVIDUALS

IND19 – Janet Terchek (cont’d)

S-1051
INDIVIDUALS

IND20 – Mark Pezzati

IND20-1 See the response to comment IND14-1.IND20-2 See the response to comment IND7-2.

IND20-3 See the response to comment FA1-1.

S-1052
INDIVIDUALS

IND20 – Mark Pezzati (cont’d)

S-1053
INDIVIDUALS

IND21 – Stuart Anderson

IND21-1 The commentor’s statement regarding the 

See the response to comment LA7-5 . 

IND21-2

S-1054
INDIVIDUALS

IND21 – Stuart Anderson (cont’d)

As discussed in section 2.7 of the EIS, the current plans or schedule for possible futuproposed facilities. If at some point in the facilities were proposed to be abandoned, would have to seek specific abandonment FERC for that action. 

IND21-3IND21-4 See the response to comments FA4-45 an

While there are many natural gas pipelineStates, not all pipelines are connected. In pipelines are at or near capacity and cannsubstantial additional supplies of gas. Anreversals in existing or proposed pipeline a new and separate review process. See thregarding the potential for export of natur

IND21-5

The commentor’s statement regarding denreduce dependency on fossil fuels is notedsources are discussed in section 3.1. Climin section 4.13.6.10.

IND21-6

S-1055
INDIVIDUALS

IND21 – Stuart Anderson (cont’d)

The commentor’s statements regarding reproduction to end-use of fossil fuels and tenergy are noted. See the response to comAlternate energy sources, including renewdiscussed in section 3.1. 

IND21-7

The Applicants’ environmental inspectors authority, indeed, the obligation, to stop aconditions of the FERC’s Orders, other enand landowner easement agreements. Thstop work for broader issues or in larger anecessary to ensure compliance. Based omonitoring construction, both actions havby applicants. Failure to report and resolvaffecting environmental resources could rorder from FERC to stop all construction Commission’s third-party compliance moto document the level of environmental cowould have stop-work authority. As discuthe EIS, Constitution and Iroquois would environmental training program tailored trequirements. This training program wouregarding invasive and noxious plants.

IND21-8

The number of FERC third-party compliabeen determined at this time. The numbeadequate (as determined by the FERC stawith any permit requirements and conditi(if approved). These monitors would havinspection of pipeline construction and wthe FERC requirements. The Applicants adhere to a stop work order issued by the monitors. If an applicant were to fail to aorder, the problem would be referred to thof Enforcement, and financial penalties anentire project could be levied. 

IND21-9

See response to IND13-3. It is extremely the exercise of eminent domain may be repost-approval variance process. In practiclandowner concurrence/approval for varia

IND21-10

S-1056
INDIVIDUALS

IND21 – Stuart Anderson (cont’d)

IND21-11 See the response to comments LA7-5 and 

See the response to comment CO42-41. Greenhouse gases (section 4.11.1), alterna(section 3.1), climate change (section 4.13(section 4.3.1), agriculture (sections 4.2, 4(section 4.5) are discussed in the EIS.

IND21-12

S-1057
INDIVIDUALS

IND21 – Stuart Anderson (cont’d)

Extraction of natural gas, oil, or coal is ouour analysis in the EIS. See the responses and CO26-19.

IND21-13IND21-14 See the responses to comments IND21-7 

The commentor’s statement regarding traenergy is noted. We believe the reference lines is relevant since their impacts from a way would be similar to the natural gas tris being assessed in the EIS to transport thpoint to the market.

IND21-15IND21-16 See the response to comment FA4-45. 

See the responses to comments CO26-19 emissions associated with releases of natuleaks cannot be accurately determined but proposed interstate pipeline would be desoperated in accordance with federal regulevery weld would be inspected and the aboperate at the proposed pressure would be pipeline is placed into service. During opand flows within the pipeline would be mongoing integrity of the pipeline would be evaluated. These measures would minimnatural gas leak once the pipeline is in opnot believe fugitive emissions from leaks proposed facilities would result in a signifregional air quality and the surrounding e

IND21-17

S-1058
INDIVIDUALS

IND21 – Stuart Anderson (cont’d)

See the responses to comments CO26-19 commentor’s statement regarding fossil fu

IND21-18IND21-19 See the responses to comments LA1-4 anIND21-20 Appendix A has been revised.IND21-21 The commentor’s statement in opposition 

S-1059
INDIVIDUALS

IND22 – Joy Barteski

IND22-1 The commentor’s opposition to the projec

See the response to comment LA1-1 regaEminent domain is discussed in the respoA discussion regarding landownership anfound in section 4.8.2 of the EIS. A discuvalues and property sales can be found in EIS.

IND22-2

As stated throughout the draft EIS, if the pand built, there would be both long-term asuch as some loss or conversion of upland forested wetlands. See the response to coLA1-4 regarding hydraulic fracturing. 

IND22-3

S-1060
INDIVIDUALS

IND22 – Joy Barteski (cont’d)

A discussion of the use of renewable enerthe proposed projects is included in sectio

IND22-4

The commentor’s statement not wanting tproperty is noted.

IND22-5

S-1061
INDIVIDUALS

IND23 – Carole Marner

A discussion of alternative energy sourcesections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 of the EIS. See thIND15-2.

IND23-1IND23-2 See the response to comment IND15-2.

The commentor’s statement regarding redfossil fuels is noted.

IND23-3

A discussion of solar energy alternatives c3.1 of the EIS. The commentor’s statemeneutral energy sources is noted. 

IND23-5

The commentor’s statement regarding ratnoted. Section 3.1.1 of the EIS discusses the market areas of the project. The EIS iconservation is not sufficient to meet the in the market area.

IND23-4

S-1062
INDIVIDUALS

IND23 – Carole Marner (cont’d)

S-1063
INDIVIDUALS

IND24 – Janet Marsh

IND24-1 See the responses to comments IND12-1 

Constitution’s resource reports can also belectronic searchable format from e-Librahttp://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.a0901. Iroquois’ resource reports can be delectronic searchable format from e-Librahttp://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/File_list.2599. The EIS contains a table of contentdiscussed in the document, and the electroenvironmental mailing list (CD) and availwww.ferc.gov) are searchable by keyword

IND24-2

As discussed in section 4.2.4 of the EIS, aby the pipeline could continue to be used impacts of the projects on visual resourcesection 4.8.6.6; such impacts would be extemporary except in areas of forested landimpacts are subjective and based on indiv

IND24-3IND24-4 See the response to comment FA1-1.

S-1064
INDIVIDUALS

IND25 – Tammy Reiss

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for property valuquality (section 4.11), water resources (seresources (section 4.2).

IND25-1

S-1065
INDIVIDUALS

IND25 – Tammy Reiss (cont’d)

See the response to comment IND21-17 rleaks of natural gas from pipelines. Greenconstruction and operation of the projects 4.11.1. 

IND25-2

The commentor’s statement regarding natnoted.

IND25-3

The commentor’s statement regarding elecars is noted. The commentor’s statemenaccess to natural gas is noted. See the resFA8-3 and IND13-3 for a discussion of e

IND25-4

S-1066
INDIVIDUALS

IND25 – Tammy Reiss (cont’d)

The commentor’s statement that natural gsustainable energy source is noted.

IND25-5

The commentor’s statement that lower nacompete with renewable energy is noted. sources are discussed in section 3.1.2.3 of 

IND25-6

The commentor’s statement that New Yornatural gas as a fuel source is noted.

IND25-7

S-1067
INDIVIDUALS

IND25 – Tammy Reiss (cont’d)

See the response to comment IND21-17 rpipelines. The commentor’s statement re

IND25-8IND25-9 The commentor’s statement regarding ele

See response to IND21-17 regarding leakproposed expansion of compressor facilitithroughout the draft EIS, particularly in sdiscussed in section 4.12.

IND25-10

S-1068
INDIVIDUALS

IND25 – Tammy Reiss (cont’d)

Safety is discussed in section 4.12. Reneware discussed in section 3.1.2.3. 

IND25-11IND25-12 Solar power is discussed in section 3.1.2.3

The commentor’s statement regarding finnoted.

IND25-13

The commentor’s statement regarding the of health impacts due to hydraulic fracturfracturing and an assessment of any health the scope of this EIS. See the response to FA4-45.

IND25-14

S-1069
INDIVIDUALS

IND25 – Tammy Reiss (cont’d)

The commentor’s statement regarding the Energy Planning Board to extend or issue period for the 2014 New York State Enerprovide additional details, is noted.

IND25-15

S-1070
INDIVIDUALS

IND25 – Tammy Reiss (cont’d)

S-1071
INDIVIDUALS

IND26 – Daniel Brignoli

IND26-1 See the response to comment FA1-1.

See the responses to IND7-2 regarding thcontaining the draft EIS and FA1-1 regardcomment period.

IND26-2

The United States Army Corps of Engineoperating agency in the review of these prsubject to the COE’s permitting authority are discussed in the EIS. While the COE any permit that it may or may not issue puthe Clean Water Act, the COE may opt to satisfying its obligations under NEPA. Ato the FERC on the draft EIS or to the COwould be complementary as both agencieauthority over the resources in question. concurrent comment period results in a buany given comment can be used by both aare complimentary. In fact, the commentcomment to both the FERC and the COE. comments FA1-1 and IND14-1.

IND26-3

S-1072
INDIVIDUALS

IND27 – Lisa Zaccaglini

See the response to comment FA4-45 regfracturing.

IND27-1

As discussed in section 4.9.8 of the EIS, trelated to the proposed projects would be risk associated with an unanticipated pipeassociated with pipeline failure are discusthe EIS. As stated in section 4.11.1.3 of thcompressor station would not be expected impacts on local or regional air quality. Pproposed mitigation to water resources ca4.3 of the EIS. A discussion of renewable power, as an alternative to the proposed psection 3.1.2.3 of the EIS.

IND27-2IND27-3 The commentor’s statement in opposition 

S-1073
INDIVIDUALS

IND28 – Carolyn F. Melszer

IND28-1 See the response to comment FA1-1.IND28-2 See the response to comment FA1-1.

IND28-3 Safety concerns are addressed in section 4

As stated in section 4.6.1.4 of the EIS, disbe expected seek refuge in adjacent, undisreturn after completion of construction as progresses. Constitution would monitor rrevegetation of disturbed areas to ensure tVisual resources are discussed in section 

IND28-4IND28-5 See the response to comment FA1-1.

S-1074
INDIVIDUALS

IND29 – Lennard Davis

The commentor’s opposition to the projecimpacts and mitigation are discussed in thfarmland/agriculture (sections 2.3.2, 4.2, 4shallow bedrock (sections 2.3.1 and 4.1.3(sections 2.3.1 and 4.1.3), and spills (sect4.3.2). See the response to comment INDherbicides.

IND29-1

S-1075
INDIVIDUALS

IND30 – Bob Rosen

As described in section 1.1 of the EIS, LeCompany, LLC (Leatherstocking) has entMemorandum of Understanding with Conallow Leatherstocking to interconnect witpipeline at several delivery points. We cawhether or not Leatherstocking’s proposeultimately be constructed. Some of the fadetermine viability of Leatherstocking’s ienvironmental and engineering feasibility Although we have noted the possibility animpacts from the proposal in our cumulat(4.13), the Commission does not regulate distribution companies. We also note that on March 18, 2014, ConLeatherstocking issued a joint press releasinstall four delivery taps along Constitutioroute. The press release can be viewed athttp://constitutionpipeline.files.wordpresson-pipeline-leatherstocking-gas-facilitatepa_news-release.pdf. The four taps woulfacilitate local distribution of natural gas tPennsylvania, and Delaware (including thPlant in Sidney, New York) and Otsego CThe Commission does take into account tand the status of current energy markets won interstate natural gas pipeline projects.

IND30-1

S-1076
INDIVIDUALS

IND30 – Bob Rosen (cont’d)

S-1077
INDIVIDUALS

IND30 – Bob Rosen (cont’d)

S-1078
INDIVIDUALS

IND30 – Bob Rosen (cont’d)

S-1079
INDIVIDUALS

IND30 – Bob Rosen (cont’d)

S-1080
INDIVIDUALS

IND30 – Bob Rosen (cont’d)

S-1081
INDIVIDUALS

IND31 – Murray Bell

The commentor’s opposition to the projecassessment and discussion of existing pipsystem alternatives can be found in sectio

IND31-1

A discussion of the use of renewable enerthe proposed projects is included in sectio

IND31-2

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

IND31-3

Pipeline safety incidents are discussed in draft EIS.

IND31-4IND31-5 See the response to comment FA8-3.

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for interior forest resources (section 4.3), and farmland/agri4.2, 4.8.4, and appendix J).

IND31-6

See the response to comment LA7-5 regaprojects.

IND31-7

See the response to comment LA9-4. Me(section 4.12) and climate change (section discussed in the draft EIS. 

IND31-8IND31-9 The commentor’s statement in opposition 

S-1082
INDIVIDUALS

IND32 – Kerry A. Lynch

The photos on the cover of the EIS were tduring field visits and are representative oAppendix C of the draft EIS includes scheconstruction scenarios, and stages of consheavy equipment, pipe staging, trenchingPipeline safety incidents are discussed in draft EIS. See the response to comment Isafety of the proposed projects and the resregarding the restoration of vegetation.

IND32-1

S-1083
INDIVIDUALS

IND32 – Kerry A. Lynch (cont’d)

S-1084
INDIVIDUALS

IND33 – Robert Lidsky

The easement acquisition process, includidomain, is described in section 4.8.2 of th

IND33-1

The potential impacts of the projects upon (section 4.9.5), insurance, including our rensure that any impacts are mitigated (sec(section 4.9.5), easement negotiations (seproperty taxes (section 4.9.7) are discusseresponse to comment IND11-1 regarding Safety is discussed in section 4.12 of the E

IND33-2

Constitution indicted that an adopted re-rolandowner concerns for an area including DE-165.006. This is reported in appendix the landowner’s continued concerns abouthe property, we evaluated minor route varecommended that Constitution adopt a mthis parcel that moved the route further baproperty line. 

IND33-3

S-1085
INDIVIDUALS

IND33 – Robert Lidsky (cont’d)

The FERC staff reviews the entire proposHowever, particular attention is focused olandowners identified specific impacts or modifications that might avoid a sensitive property or that simply might decrease imparcel itself. The FERC staff met with nuduring the pre-filing phase both in open hmeetings, as well as conducting site visits the request of landowners. These efforts facilitate landowner coordination with Coresolution of issues where possible. Our rconsideration of parcel-specific issues conConstitution filed its Application as evidein section 3.4.3 (including three parcel-spin the draft EIS) and appendix H of the EI

IND33-4

The easement negotiation process is discuthe EIS. See the response to comment INeminent domain.

IND33-5

IND33-6 See the response to comment FA8-3 regar

S-1086
INDIVIDUALS

IND33 – Robert Lidsky (cont’d)

See the response to comment IND33-4 relandowners’ issues.

IND33-7

S-1087
INDIVIDUALS

IND34 – Chris Rosenthal

The commentor’s opposition to the projecresponse to comment LA7-5 regarding prexportation.

IND34-1

See the response to comments LA7-5 regaassessment and discussion of existing pipsystem alternatives can be found in sectio

IND34-2IND34-3 The commentor’s opposition to the projec

S-1088
INDIVIDUALS

IND35 – Howard L. Hannum

IND35-1 See the response to comment FA1-1.IND35-2 See the response to comment FA1-1.

See the responses to comments IND35-1 has been updated with any new informatioApplicants.

IND35-3

S-1089
INDIVIDUALS

IND36 – Jeanne Simonelli

Section 4.1.3.5 of the EIS has been reviseinformation regarding flash flooding. As 4.3.3.6 of the EIS, the pipeline would be iminimum cover of 5 feet at waterbody crorisk of scouring, and the pipeline would hcoating or concrete weights to prevent popipe. In addition, Schoharie Creek would trenchless crossing method (i.e., Direct Piin a much deeper pipeline installation deppipeline beneath well zones susceptible to 

IND36-1

The commentor’s statement regarding snois noted. We have updated section 4.1.5 tdue to rainfall may be exacerbated due to winter or spring. 

IND36-2IND36-3 See the response to comment IND36-1.

S-1090
INDIVIDUALS

IND37 – Leona Briggs

See the response to comment IND13-3 redomain. The centerline of the proposed rapproximately 190 feet from the commenresources (section 4.3) and wildlife (sectioin the EIS. The commentor’s opposition 

IND37-1

S-1091
INDIVIDUALS

IND38 – Barbara Loeffler

Potential impacts on roads and traffic issusections 2.3.2 and 4.9.4 of the EIS. Constany roads damaged by the pipeline projeccomment IND13-3 regarding eminent domopposition to the projects is noted. 

IND38-1

S-1092
INDIVIDUALS

IND39 – James F. Lange

The commentor’s opposition to the projecdiscussed in section 4.12. Wetlands are dof the EIS. See the response to comment FERC’s review process. 

IND39-1

S-1093
INDIVIDUALS

IND40 – Leanne Harrison

Farmland and agriculture are discussed in 4.8.4, and appendix J of the EIS. See the LA1-4 and FA4-45 regarding hydraulic frconstruction and operation does not introdsurrounding land.

IND40-1IND40-3 Water resources are discussed in section 4

See the response to comment IND13-3 rethat would accrue to local governments. comment IND30-1 regarding plans to proalong the pipeline with natural gas serviceInterconnect project is discussed throughoin section 4.11 regarding air quality and nenergy alternatives are discussed in sectio

IND40-4IND40-5 The commentor’s opposition to the projec

See the response to comment LA1-1 regaSee the response to comment IND13-3 rethat would accrue to local governments. 

IND40-2

S-1094
INDIVIDUALS

IND41 – Eleanor M. Moriarty

The proposed pipeline project’s three crosCannonsville/Steam Mill Important Bird Adiscussed in section 4.6.1.2 of the EIS. Tthis sensitive wildlife habitat and reduce fcontiguous forested tracts, Constitution sicrossings along or near the edges of the IBwould fragment a currently contiguous foforested tracts of 300 acres and 125 acresreduce the construction right-of-way from through the IBA, where practicable, and rwith a specialty seed mix determined in cregulatory agencies and appropriate non-gorganizations. Although Constitution has measures to reduce impacts within the IBwildlife, and specifically migratory birds, interior forest is still a potentially significwe recommended in section 4.5 that Consupland forest mitigation plan with the appwould include additional mitigation for m

IND41-1

Section 4.7 of the EIS has been revised to the golden eagle.

IND41-2

Constitution has developed a draft upland in coordination with the FWS, the NYSDthe Pennsylvania Game Commission, whiFERC. We have recommended that ConsMigratory Bird and Upland Forest Plan pr

IND41-3

S-1095
INDIVIDUALS

IND42 – Wes Ernsberger

Climate change is discussed in section 4.1discussion of the use of renewable energy proposed projects is included in section 3

IND42-1

The commentor’s statements regarding reproduction to end-use of fossil fuels and tenergy are noted. Methane gas leakage is 4.12. Also see the response to comment S

IND42-2IND42-3 The commentor’s opposition to the projec

S-1096
INDIVIDUALS

IND43 – LauraJean Oliva-Brignoli

The commentor’s opposition to the projecour evaluation of the proposed route and tconclude that the route minimizes impactparcel to the extent possible as it runs adjaboundary and leaves a forested buffer betproposed right-of-way. 

IND43-1

S-1097
INDIVIDUALS

IND43 – LauraJean Oliva-Brignoli (cont’d)

Property insurance, including our recommany impacts are mitigated, is discussed in EIS.

IND43-2IND43-3 Safety is discussed in section 4.12 of the E

See the response to comment IND11-1 reHerbicides would be limited and applied amanufacturer’s guidelines and in compliaagency recommendations. Typically, perare maintained by mowing, not herbicide 

IND43-4

See the response to comment LA5-3 regarpotential impacts of the projects upon prodiscussed in section 4.9.5.

IND43-5

IND43-6 The commentor’s opposition to the projec

S-1098
INDIVIDUALS

IND44 – Kerry A. Lynch

The commentor’s statement regarding the affected landowners that have not signed noted. The process of negotiating and obagreements typically continues throughoureview process and up until the start of cois certificated. Pipeline companies that siagreements and compensate landowners p(and finalization of the route) do so at theresponse to comment IND3-4 regarding thprocess. The easement negotiation processection 4.8.2 of the EIS. See the response regarding eminent domain. 

IND44-1

The project would be authorized if the Cothat the project is in the public interest anacceptable action. If not, it would be denworks with applicants, agencies, and othereview to refine the route, develop acceptidentify whether a project is an environmeproposal. If that is not possible, companitheir Applications before the FERC makethe projects that have been proposed to thbuilt. The reasons are varied but include and regulatory causes, which are sometimthe Commission. Impacts associated with 2.3.2, and 4.1.3; appendix G), water resouforests (section 4.5), homes (section 4.8), (section 4.12.1), and property values (sectin the EIS. 

IND44-2

S-1099
INDIVIDUALS

IND44 – Kerry A. Lynch (cont’d)

Comments merely stating an opinion (whprojects) are simply noted and have no beenvironmental analysis. The Commission staff) makes the determination for whethepublic convenience and necessity. This esubsequent decision is based on many facEIS and associated recommendations, majust and reasonable rates, engineering ana

IND44-3

S-1100
INDIVIDUALS

IND45 – Philip James and Rachel Diana Hulbert

According to our assessment of parcel NYproposed route would impact a small cornof the parcel. An approximate 125-foot-wbuffer would remain after clearing for the work space at Brick House Hill Road durthe long term, this buffer would increase iwithin the former extra work space and ouright-of-way. We conclude that the propoto other minor route alternatives. The comalleging an attempt at unauthorized accessurveyors is noted. 

IND45-1

S-1101
INDIVIDUALS

IND45 – Philip James and Rachel Diana Hulbert (cont’d)

The commentor’s statement alleging an ataccess by Constitution’s surveyors is notestatement regarding the number of landowsurvey permission is noted.

IND45-2

S-1102
INDIVIDUALS

IND46 – Deborah Krol

The commentor’s opposition to the projecresponse to comment FA8-3 regarding emresponse to comment LA7-5 regarding thSee the responses to comment SA6-1 regachange, and methane. Alternate energy sorenewable sources, are discussed in sectio

IND46-1

S-1103
INDIVIDUALS

IND47 – Rachel Diana Hulbert

The commentor’s statements regarding supermission are noted.

IND47-1

S-1104
INDIVIDUALS

IND48 – Mark E. Archambault

We have conducted additional research reand procurement of mortgages based on tpipeline and have updated section 4.9.5 o

IND48-1

See the responses to comment LA1-1 regaSee section 4.9.5 of the EIS regarding pro

IND48-2

IND48-3 Safety is discussed in section 4.12 of the E

See section 4.9.5 of the EIS regarding proevaluated parcel NY-DE-006.000. We nowould remain between the proposed consand the home. Constitution proposed that located on the southern side of the pipelinhome which would preserve more of the fwere to be located on the northern side. WHighway 8 and County Highway 4 would side of the parcel by road bore. We conclroute is preferable to other minor route al

IND48-4

S-1105
INDIVIDUALS

IND49 – Rebecca S. Casstevens

IND49-1 See the response to comments CO1-2 thro

S-1106
INDIVIDUALS

IND50 – Kerry A. Lynch

IND50-1 Safety is discussed in section 4.12 of the E

S-1107
INDIVIDUALS

IND50 – Kerry A. Lynch (cont’d)

S-1108
INDIVIDUALS

IND51 – Kerry A. Lynch

IND51-1 See the response to comment IND41-2.

S-1109
INDIVIDUALS

IND51 – Kerry A. Lynch (cont’d)

S-1110
INDIVIDUALS

IND52 – Richard Levine

See the response to comment LA5-6 regafracturing and well development is discuscomment LA1-4, and the development of discussed in the response to comment CO

IND52-1

S-1111
INDIVIDUALS

IND52 – Richard Levine (cont’d)

S-1112
INDIVIDUALS

IND53 – Ed Wagner

As discussed in section 2.7 of the EIS, Cohave not identified or proposed any plans their systems or abandonment of any of thAs stated in the FERC’s brochure titled “WKnow?” the ultimate fate of an easement future abandonment is typically dependenterms of the easement agreement unless thor other utility line associated with the eacan be found at https://www.ferc.gov/for-guides/citz-guide-gas.pdf. The FERC revConstitution Pipeline Project pertains only the interstate transportation of natural gas Constitution’s Application and associated Constitution Pipeline, if certificated by thnot be authorized for the transportation of products, or any other gases, liquids, or sutransported through pipelines.” If such a in the future, then the FERC, as well as otstate, and federal agencies would also havproposed modification and make a determgrant approval. If a pipeline company winatural gas pipeline under Commission juadjacent easement, it must seek and obtain from the Commission. Other utilities may adjacent or overlapping easement, but theapproval from the individual landowner.

IND53-1

S-1113
INDIVIDUALS

IND53 – Ed Wagner (cont’d)

S-1114
INDIVIDUALS

IND54 – Bob Rosen

Pipeline companies sometimes order segmother materials prior to the Commission’s grant a certificate. Due to availability of process, orders for pipe have to be placed in advance. At some point, the pipe has tHowever, we acknowledge that a pipeline its own financial risk. There is no guarancertificated by the Commission, or that it according to the specifications as propose

IND54-1

S-1115
INDIVIDUALS

IND55 – Christine Lange

There are PSS and PEM wetlands located Washburn Road at the proposed pipeline forested area generally representative of pwell as homes present on both sides of the adopted a reroute in this area to minimize 

IND55-1

S-1116
INDIVIDUALS

IND55 – Christine Lange (cont’d)

S-1117
INDIVIDUALS

IND55 – Christine Lange (cont’d)

S-1118
INDIVIDUALS

IND56 – Florence Carnahan

See the response to comment LA1-4 regafracturing.

IND56-1

A discussion of the use of renewable enerthe proposed projects is included in sectioThe FERC is not involved with subsidies fossil fuels. 

IND56-2

IND56-3 Safety is discussed in section 4.12 of the E

See the response to comment LA1-4 regafracturing. See the response to comment export of natural gas. 

IND56-4IND56-5 The commentor’s opposition to the projec

S-1119
INDIVIDUALS

IND57 – Kerry A. Lynch

Based on our assessment of tracts ALT-QALT-Q-NY-SC-026.000, the parcels are are in a non-forested area, and the subject two existing natural gas pipelines. Given conclude that the parcels have already beedisturbance described in the attached letteroute is preferable to other minor route va

IND57-1

S-1120
INDIVIDUALS

IND57 – Kerry A. Lynch (cont’d)

IND57-2 The commentor’s statement in opposition IND57-3 See section 4.9.5 of the EIS regarding pro

S-1121
INDIVIDUALS

IND57 – Kerry A. Lynch (cont’d)

Constitution developed a site-specific resplan for the subject home as included in ameasures designed to avoid, minimize, or impacts of construction near homes are de4.8.3.1 of the EIS.

IND57-4

IND57-5 Safety is discussed in section 4.12 of the E

The FERC has not certificated or approveroute. See the response to comment IND3

IND57-6

IND57-7 See the response to comment FA8-3 regar

S-1122
INDIVIDUALS

IND58 – Michele Lechanteur

See the response to comment FA1-1 regacomment period.

IND58-1

IND58-2 See the response to comment CO26-19.

See the response to comment LA1-4 regafracturing. 

IND58-3

A discussion of the use of renewable enerthe proposed projects is included in sectioSee the response to comments CO42-41 aobjectives of the projects.

IND58-4

See the response to comment IND53-1 rethe pipeline. The pipeline company woulresponsible for any maintenance, spills, anrestoration associated with any future rep

IND58-5

S-1123
INDIVIDUALS

IND58 – Michele Lechanteur (cont’d)

Inspections would be performed by Constworking under the sole direction of the FEstaff directly. As stated in section 2.5.2 oproject would consist of 5 spreads and theEI per spread. We would likely require thmonitors for the project. The qualificatiomonitors typically include suitable educatexperience with pipeline construction and protection. The authority and duties of instop-work authority, is discussed in sectioInspectors and monitors typically prepare daily basis. See also the response to com

IND58-6

See the response to comment IND3-4 regprocess. The commentor’s statement in oprojects is noted. 

IND58-7

S-1124
INDIVIDUALS

IND59 – Jean Hricik

Methane gas leakage (section 4.12) and c4.13.6.10) are discussed in the EIS. See tSA6-1 regarding climate change and meth

IND59-1

Safety is discussed in section 4.12 of the Ethe use of renewable energy as an alternatprojects is included in section 3.1.2.3 of th

IND59-2

The commentor’s statement in opposition See the response to comment LA1-4 regafracturing. 

IND59-3

S-1125
INDIVIDUALS

IND60 – Robert Lidsky

The subject parcel was not ignored in the 165.006 near MP 80.8) was listed in appeindicated that it had adopted a reroute and landowner’s issues. The revised route woback third of the property away from acceOur assessment of this parcel can be founEIS where we recommended that Constituroute variation. 

IND60-1

S-1126
INDIVIDUALS

IND60 – Robert Lidsky (cont’d)

The FERC’s project update brochure contdepiction of a restored right-of-way of a Fproject in Pennsylvania. The photograph persuade landowners to sign an easement 

IND60-2

S-1127
INDIVIDUALS

IND60 – Robert Lidsky (cont’d)

The commentor’s alternate photograph of noted. As stated in section 4.2.4 of the EIinches in size would be removed from botopsoil, and topographic contours would b

IND60-3

IND60-4 The commentor’s statement in opposition 

S-1128
INDIVIDUALS

IND60 – Robert Lidsky (cont’d)

The commentor’s alternate photograph of right-of-way is noted. Safety is discussed EIS. See section 4.9.5 of the EIS regardinthe response to comment LA5-3 regardinresponse to comment IND3-2 regarding in

IND60-5

IND60-6 Easement negotiations are discussed in seIND60-7 The commentor’s statement in opposition 

S-1129
INDIVIDUALS

IND61 – Matt Malina

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

IND61-1

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

IND61-2

See the response to comment FA1-1 regarstill pending.

IND61-3

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND61-4

S-1130
INDIVIDUALS

IND62 – John L. Keiser

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

IND62-1

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

IND62-2

See the response to comment FA1-1regarstill pending.

IND62-3

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND62-4

S-1131
INDIVIDUALS

IND63 – Asher Pacht

Impacts on groundwater and surface watediscussed in section 4.3 and wetlands in s

IND63-1

Cumulative impacts, including a discussiofracturing, are discussed in section 4.13 othe response to comment LA1-4. 

IND63-2

The commentor’s statement regarding the EIS is noted. See the response to commenthe staging of pipe and equipment prior to 

IND63-3

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

IND63-4

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

IND63-5

See the response to comment FA1-1regarstill pending.

IND63-6

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND63-7

S-1132
INDIVIDUALS

IND64 – Peter B. Sweeny

The commentor’s statement regarding the EIS is noted.

IND64-1

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

IND64-2

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

IND64-3

See the response to comment FA1-1regarstill pending.

IND64-4

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND64-5

S-1133
INDIVIDUALS

IND65 – Amy Irene Anderson

The commentor’s statements regarding opproposed projects and the adequacy of the 

IND65-1

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

IND65-2

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

IND65-3

See the response to comment FA1-1regarstill pending.

IND65-4

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND65-5

S-1134
INDIVIDUALS

IND66 – Julie Hagan Bloch

Impacts on groundwater and surface watediscussed in section 4.3 and wetlands in sCumulative impacts, including a discussiofracturing, are discussed in section 4.13 othe response to comment LA1-4. 

IND66-1

S-1135
INDIVIDUALS

IND67 – Patricia Goldsmith

The commentor’s statement in opposition See the response to comment FA1-1 regastill pending.

IND67-1

Proposed crossing methods for waterbodidiscussed in sections 2.3, 4.3, and 4.4 of tcrossing methods, including trenchless mthis discussion. The commentor’s statemto alternative K is noted.

IND67-2

Cumulative impacts are discussed in sectithe response to comment IND3-4 regardin

IND67-3

S-1136
INDIVIDUALS

IND68 – Danielle Simon

The commentor’s statement regarding the EIS is noted. Cumulative impacts, includhydraulic fracturing, are discussed in sect

IND68-1

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

IND68-2

See the response to comment FA1-1regarstill pending.

IND68-3

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND68-4

S-1137
INDIVIDUALS

IND69 – Daniel J. Brignoli

IND69-1 The commentor’s statement in opposition 

See section 4.9.5 of the EIS regarding proresponse to comment LA5-3 regarding mto insurance are discussed in section 4.9.6 

IND69-2

S-1138
INDIVIDUALS

IND69 – Daniel J. Brignoli (cont’d)

Easement negotiations and eminent domasection 4.8.2 and in the response to commin section 4.9.3 and in the response to comConstitution has established a community benefitting local organizations. See the reIND4-1, IND4-4, and IND4-6 regarding pThe commentor’s statement in opposition 

IND69-3

See the response to comment IND3-4 regprocess. The commentor’s statement in oprojects is noted. 

S-1139

IND69-4
INDIVIDUALS

IND70 – Mary Donch

The commentor’s statement regarding the EIS is noted. Cumulative impacts, includhydraulic fracturing, are discussed in sect

IND70-1

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

IND70-2

See the response to comment FA1-1regarstill pending.

IND70-3

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND70-4

S-1140
INDIVIDUALS

IND71 – Kenneth Klein

The commentor’s statement regarding the EIS is noted. Cumulative impacts, includhydraulic fracturing, are discussed in sect

IND71-1

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

IND71-2

See the response to comment FA1-1 regarstill pending.

IND71-3

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND71-4

S-1141
INDIVIDUALS

IND72 – Artineh Havan

The commentor’s statement in opposition The commentor’s statement regarding the EIS is noted. 

IND72-1

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

IND72-2

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

IND72-3

See the response to comment FA1-1regarstill pending.

IND72-4

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND72-5

S-1142
INDIVIDUALS

IND73 – Joseph Lawson

Potential impacts on water quality are disthe EIS.

IND73-1

Cumulative impacts, including a discussiofracturing, are discussed in section 4.13 othe response to comment LA1-4. 

IND73-2

Potential impacts on ground water quality section 4.3.1 of the EIS. The commentoropposition of the projects is noted. 

IND73-3

S-1143
INDIVIDUALS

IND74 – Mary Tuthill

Our assessment of this parcel can be founthe EIS. Based on our analysis, we could route crossing for this parcel that was preroute.See response to comment IND11-1 regardapplication. 

IND74-1

General impacts on woodlands (section 44.6.1), waterbodies (section 4.3.3), and wdiscussed in the EIS. Avoidance of parcethrough a minor route variation is discusscomment IND77-1. The commentor’s stathe projects is noted. 

IND74-2

S-1144
INDIVIDUALS

IND75 – Robert Minotti

The proposed pipeline route is collocated way for approximately 11 miles or 9 percthe response to comment LA1-4 regardinThe commentor’s statement in opposition 

IND75-1

See the response to comments LA7-5 regThe commentor’s statement in opposition 

IND75-2

S-1145
INDIVIDUALS

IND76 – Alaina Johnson

The commentor’s statement in opposition Safety is discussed in section 4.12 of the on water quality are discussed in section 4

IND76-1

S-1146
INDIVIDUALS

IND77 – Mary L. Tuthill

Our assessment of this parcel can be founthe EIS. Based on our analysis, we could route crossing for this parcel that was preroute.General impacts on waterbodies (section (section 4.4) are discussed in the EIS.

IND77-1

General impacts on woodlands (section 44.6.1), waterbodies (section 4.3.3) and wediscussed in the EIS. Avoidance of parcethrough a minor route variation is discussresponse to comment IND77-1. See respIND11-1 regarding herbicide applicationfarms. The commentor’s statement in opis noted. 

IND77-2

S-1147
INDIVIDUALS

IND78 – Steven Kostis

Cumulative impacts, including a discussiofracturing, are discussed in section 4.13 othe response to comment LA1-4. 

IND78-1

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

IND78-2

See the response to comment FA1-1 regarstill pending.

IND78-3

S-1148
INDIVIDUALS

IND79 – Anna Berg

Groundwater, watersheds, and water qualsection 4.3 of the EIS. Wetlands are discuthe EIS.

IND79-1

S-1149
INDIVIDUALS

IND80 – Gerald W. Shaftan, M.D.

Cumulative impacts, including a discussiofracturing, are discussed in section 4.13 oresponse to comment LA1-4. 

IND80-1

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

IND80-2

See the response to comment FA1-1 regarstill pending.

IND80-3

S-1150
INDIVIDUALS

IND81 – Fern Stearney

Cumulative impacts, including a discussiofracturing, are discussed in section 4.13 oresponse to comment LA1-4. 

IND81-1

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

IND81-2

See the response to comment FA1-1 regarstill pending.

IND81-3

S-1151
INDIVIDUALS

IND82 – Brian Fink

The commentor’s statement in opposition The commentor’s statement regarding the EIS is noted. Cumulative impacts, includhydraulic fracturing, are discussed in sectalso see the response to comment LA1-4. 

IND82-1

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

IND82-2

See the response to comment FA1-1 regarstill pending.

IND82-3

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND82-4

S-1152
INDIVIDUALS

IND83 – Christopher H. Hachmann

The commentor’s statement in opposition Groundwater, watersheds, and water qualsection 4.3 of the EIS. 

IND83-1

Hydraulic fracturing is discussed in sectioaddition, see the response to comment LAthe use of renewable energy as an alternatprojects is included in section 3.1.2.3 of th

IND83-2

S-1153
INDIVIDUALS

IND84 – Amy Berhardt-Moore

Groundwater, watersheds, and water qualsection 4.3 of the EIS. Proposed crossing waterbodies and wetlands are discussed in 4.4 of the EIS. Alternative crossing methtrenchless methods, are included in this dcommentor’s statement regarding oppositnoted.

IND84-1

S-1154
INDIVIDUALS

IND85 – Alex Stavis

IND85-1 The commentor’s statement in opposition 

Cumulative impacts, including a discussiofracturing, are discussed in section 4.13 othe response to comment LA1-4. 

IND85-2

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

IND85-3

See the response to comment FA1-1 regarstill pending.

IND85-4

S-1155
INDIVIDUALS

IND86 – Stirling Davenport

The commentor’s statement regarding opis noted.

IND86-1

S-1156
INDIVIDUALS

IND87 – Christine R. Eckerson

Alternate Route M is currently not the propipeline project. The commentor’s parcemore than 800 feet from the proposed cenreview of this area, we did not observe a sthe home and we would expect that any stowards the street would likely be interceside of the street. Accordingly, there shouthe subject parcel.

IND87-1

S-1157
INDIVIDUALS

IND88 – Mark Pezzati

Cumulative impacts, including a discussiofracturing and air quality, are discussed in EIS. Also see the response to com

IND88-1

See the response to comment LA5-6 regaresponse to comment FA1-1 regarding infpending.

IND88-2

S-1158
INDIVIDUALS

IND88 – Mark Pezzati (cont’d)

S-1159
INDIVIDUALS

IND89 – Ruth Carr

The commentor’s statement in opposition Safety of the proposed projects is discussEIS. As stated in section 4.9.4.1 of the EIrepair any roads damaged by the project. section 4.9.4 of the EIS. The commentorthe temporary nature of most project-relat

IND89-1

S-1160
INDIVIDUALS

IND90 – Henrietta Statham

The commentor’s statement regarding the of social and mental health impacts due to noted. An assessment of the mental healthydraulic fracturing would be outside the the response to comment LA1-4. The proon infrastructure and public services are d

IND90-1

S-1161
INDIVIDUALS

IND91 – Michael Meadows

The scale of the maps in appendix B may identify smaller resources in some cases; alignment sheets, submitted as part of its identified resources. The pond (not crossroute) and its associated stream located nedepicted on these alignment sheets. The slisted in appendix K-2 of the EIS. 

IND91-1

A discussion of the Barton Hill Natural ROverlay is included in section 4.3.3 of the blasting can be found in sections 2.3.1 an

IND91-2

S-1162
INDIVIDUALS

IND91 – Michael Meadows (cont’d)

Based on our review of aerial mapping, wapparent pond located approximately 1,00122.5 which likely is the “sinkhole” mentWe do not anticipate that the project wousinkholes on properties not crossed. ConKarst Mitigation Plan for this area to addrdiscussed in section 4.1.5 of the EIS.

IND91-3

S-1163
INDIVIDUALS

IND92 – Brian Kelly

IND92-1 The commentor’s statement in support of 

S-1164
INDIVIDUALS

IND93 – Kathi Chipman

See the response to comment FA8-3 regaThe commentor’s statement in opposition 

IND93-1

The FERC staff has conducted and continthorough, independent analysis of the proreport its findings to the Commission, whenvironmental and non-environmental facdecision on whether to grant a certificate.

IND93-2

The FERC staff conducted independent revalues in the months prior to issuing the dstudies referenced (PGP 2008 and Hansen 4.9.5 of the EIS were located by the FERC and are the most current information avai

IND93-3

See the response to comment IND15-2. Othe Commission issued an Order for the Ndiscussed funding of the Commission. Thself-funding in the sense of keeping what each year Congress appropriates funds for operations, with the stipulation that the Cthe Treasury the same amount by collectinfrom the entities it regulates. For jurisdiccompanies, the Commission annually comgas each company transports to the total aall jurisdictional gas companies, then calcproportional volumetric charge on each coreceived” by the Commission from fees ato the general fund of the Treasury.” At tCommission trues up its collection by main the assessments for such fiscal year as eliminate any overrecovery or underrecovand any overcharging or undercharging o2012b). Hydraulic fracturing is discussed EIS and also see the response to comment 

IND93-4

Property values (section 4.9.5) and properand see the responses to comment IND13EIS. Hydraulic fracturing is discussed in also see the response to comment LA1-4. statement in opposition of the projects is n

IND93-5

S-1165
INDIVIDUALS

IND94 – Eugene Marner

As indicated in section 5 (see recommend1, 2, 4, 7, and 10), the Director of the FERprojects and staff are ultimately responsibmitigation measures are enforced. Envirowould be employed by Constitution. The perform periodic site inspections during cbe assisted on a full-time basis by third-pmonitors. Third-party compliance monitoConstitution, but would be selected by andirection of the FERC staff. If the work ocompliance monitors does not meet the ststaff, we reserve the right to terminate the alternate compliance team. Typically, the agencies would also perform site inspectiSee also the response to comment FA4-12statement in opposition of the projects is n

IND94-1

S-1166
INDIVIDUALS

IND95 – Eugene Marner

See the response to comment FA1-1 regaextend the comment period. See the respIND26-3 regarding the concurrent comme

IND95-1

S-1167
INDIVIDUALS

IND96 – Don Statham

Hydraulic fracturing is discussed in sectiosee the response to comment LA1-4. EarOklahoma, and activity that may be relatefracturing is beyond the scope of this EISinsurance are discussed in section 4.9.6 o

IND96-1

S-1168
INDIVIDUALS

IND97 – William Sharfman

Cumulative impacts, including a discussiofracturing, are discussed in section 4.13 othe response to comment LA1-4. 

IND97-1

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

IND97-2

See the response to comment FA1-1 regarstill pending.

IND97-3

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND97-4IND97-5 The commentor’s statement in opposition 

S-1169
INDIVIDUALS

IND98 – Paul Hetzler

Cumulative impacts, including a discussiofracturing, are discussed in section 4.13 oresponse to comment LA1-4. 

IND98-1

S-1170
INDIVIDUALS

IND98 – Paul Hetzler (cont’d)

S-1171
INDIVIDUALS

IND98 – Paul Hetzler (cont’d)

S-1172
INDIVIDUALS

IND99 – Cindy and Henry Greenblatt

Constitution would be required to compenany losses or damages associated with opincluding for any future repairs of the pipbeing accomplished through direct negotilandowner and the company. If this negomay contact the FERC’s Dispute Resolut337-2237 for assistance. See the responsregarding eminent domain. 

IND99-1

S-1173
INDIVIDUALS

IND100 – Christine M. Lange

See the response to comment IND55-1 reproposed pipeline routing near Washburn adopted a reroute in this area to reduce imcommentor’s statement in opposition of th

IND100-1

S-1174
INDIVIDUALS

IND101 – Jeff and Maggie Pangman

The commentor’s statement in opposition Hydraulic fracturing is discussed in sectioalso see the response to comment LA1-4. 

IND101-1

The potential impacts of the projects upon discussed in section 4.9.5. Property rightsection 4.8.2. Issues related to insurance 4.9.6 of the EIS. 

IND101-2

The potential impacts of the projects upon discussed in section 4.9.5. Hydraulic fracsection 4.13 of the EIS and also see the reLA1-4. 

IND101-3IND101-4 The commentor’s statement in opposition 

S-1175
INDIVIDUALS

IND102 – Edward Butler

Section 5.1 indicated that adverse impacts both construction and operation of the proimpacts would be reduced to less than sigapplicable laws and regulations, the mitigdiscussed in the EIS, and our recommendimpacts, including a discussion of hydraudiscussed in section 4.13 of the EIS and acomment LA1-4. 

IND102-1

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

IND102-2

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

IND102-3

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND102-4

S-1176
INDIVIDUALS

IND103 – Eleanor Moriarty

See the response to comments CO41-16 ainspections and erosion control. As stated the EIS, Constitution would repair any ropipeline project. This also includes tempaccess roads.

IND103-1

As stated in section 2.3.2.2 of the EIS, Cotemporary equipment bridges over waterbfill over culverts, equipment pads supportflatbeds, flexi-float apparatus, and other ty

IND103-2

Section 4.5.4 has been updated to provide Constitution’s state-specific Invasive SpeThe EIS has been updated to indicate that weed washing stations would include inspequipment, and materials before being broway or moved to a different location and pequipment with clean water without the uchemicals. Wash water would not be discof a waterbody, wetland, or stormwater cowash rack stations would be used on equiwould be occurring in a wetland identified species and the equipment is scheduled to invasive species. Soil and plant material stations would be disposed of off-site in aapplicable regulations. If site conditions pwater at washing stations, then brushes or used. 

IND103-3

Typically, pipeline contractors ensure thavandalized or used by unauthorized persofencing, locking, temporary mechanical din well-lit areas. These measures may alson-site security personnel. See the responregarding unauthorized access to the right

IND103-4

Temporary access roads not needed on a pbe restored, revegetated, and allowed to reuse. The operational inspection schedule maintenance techniques are described in s

IND103-5

S-1177
INDIVIDUALS

IND103 – Eleanor Moriarty (cont’d)

Based on our review of desktop data sourPAR-47 would not affect waterbodies or to facilitate access between Grange Hall RRoad. It is assumed that the commentor iDelaware-Otsego Audubon Society SanctOneonta, New York, also known as the FSanctuary. This sanctuary area is approxof the proposed pipeline project, and wouaffected by the pipeline route or PAR-47.

IND103-6

Compensatory mitigation for wetland impsection 4.4.5 of the EIS. The commentoropposition of the projects is noted. 

IND103-7

S-1178
INDIVIDUALS

IND104 – Julie Wawrzynek

Based on our desktop review of the propoNY-SC-061.000 at MP 101.75, the route wrear corner of the parcel along Creamery Rresidence is from the opposite end of the pRoad, and the proposed pipeline centerlinfeet from the home located on the parcel. forested buffer (approximately 650 feet) wthe home and the construction right-of-wacrosses perennial waterbody SC-1E-S102 1E-W103 (crossing length of 8 feet). Basarea, we conclude that the proposed route minor route variations, and that we have aappropriate acreage of wetland impacts. 

IND104-1

Waterbody crossings (section 4.3.3) and pfisheries (section 4.6.2.3) are discussed in measures that would limit both constructiimpacts include the use of dry crossing mrestrictions, sediment and erosion controlallowance for a riparian strip to revegetate provide shading and cover for fisheries, estrip that would be maintained to facilitat

IND104-2IND104-3 See the response to comment CO50-13.

S-1179
INDIVIDUALS

IND104 – Julie Wawrzynek (cont’d)

See the response to comment IND104-1 rcrossing of the property. See the responsregarding easement negotiations.

IND104-4

An assessment and discussion of existing system alternatives can be found in sectio

IND104-5IND104-6 See the response to comment FA1-1

The commentor’s statements regarding ththeir property are noted. See the response regarding vegetation screening. A revised potential impacts of the projects upon prodiscussed in section 4.9.5 of the EIS. Secdiscusses potential impacts on water resouprojects. 

IND104-7

S-1180
INDIVIDUALS

IND104 – Julie Wawrzynek (cont’d)

The commentor’s statements regarding thcommunity grant program are noted.

IND104-8

S-1181
INDIVIDUALS

IND105 – Mark and Carmen D’Amico

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted. Section 3.0 of the EIS of alternative routes including those that cutility easements.

IND105-1

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

IND105-2

S-1182
INDIVIDUALS

IND105 – Mark and Carmen D’Amico (cont’d)

IND105-3 The commentor’s concerns are noted.

S-1183
INDIVIDUALS

IND106 – Kerry A. Lynch

Section 4.9.7 of the EIS states that construpipeline project would have a short-term, terms of increased payroll and local mateHowever, creation of jobs would not be theconomic impact. As stated in section 4.9result in an increase in annual property tathousand per year in Susquehanna Countymillion in Delaware County, New York. project would result in $1.5 million in annthe Town of Wright.

IND106-1

IND106-2 See the response to comment CO50-106.

A revised discussion on the potential impproperty values are discussed in section 4request for the FERC to fund a study on ppipelines is noted. 

IND106-3

S-1184
INDIVIDUALS

IND106 – Kerry A. Lynch (cont’d)

S-1185
INDIVIDUALS

IND107 – Bill Livingston

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

IND107-1

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

IND107-2

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

IND107-3

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND107-4

S-1186
INDIVIDUALS

IND108 – Patricia Wheelhouse

Alignment sheets can be found at http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.a0901. The commentor’s property would nproposed pipeline. The route is approximcommentor’s property line.

IND108-1

The commentor’s statement in opposition projects is noted. 

IND108-2

A revised discussion on the potential impproperty values are discussed in section 4impacts of the projects upon property insurecommendation to ensure that any impacmortgages are discussed in sections 4.9.6. updated for the final EIS.

IND108-3

S-1187
INDIVIDUALS

IND109 – John Miglietta

IND109-1 See the response to the comment FA1-1.

See the response to comment FA4-2. Latcompression would require additional FE4.11.1 (air quality) and section 4.11.2 (noimpacts on air quality and noise due to the modifications to the existing Wright Com

IND109-2

S-1188
INDIVIDUALS

IND109 – John Miglietta (cont’d)

S-1189
INDIVIDUALS

IND110 – Susan Jacques

IND110-1 See the response to comment FA4-45.

The commentor’s comments in opposition projects are noted. See response to comm

IND110-2

S-1190
INDIVIDUALS

IND110 – Susan Jacques (cont’d)

Safety of the proposed projects, including in section 4.12 of the EIS. 

IND110-3

As discussed in section 4.3.3.5 of the EIStesting, the test water would be dischargeupland locations within the same watershthereby preventing inter-basin transfers. Tfor hydrostatic testing would not be remo

IND110-4IND110-5 See response to FA4-23 regarding impact

S-1191
INDIVIDUALS

IND110 – Susan Jacques (cont’d)

As discussed in section 4.1.3.8 of the EISoffer both pre-construction and post-consquality and quantity in wells, and to mitigby construction. In addition, Constitution aboveground and underground facilities wblasting activities. 

IND110-6

As stated in section 4.9.7 of the EIS, the pinclude an increase in annual property taxthousand per year in Susquehanna Countymillion in Delaware County, New York. project would result in $1.5 million in annthe Town of Wright. See the response to regarding compensation due to an inciden

IND110-7

The commentor’s statement regarding the Program is noted. See the response to com

IND110-8

S-1192
INDIVIDUALS

IND110 – Susan Jacques (cont’d)

See the response to comment FA4-23 regresources. Earthquakes are discussed in sEIS.

IND110-9

The potential for flooding, and related potfrom the projects and also upon the pipeliconstruction, are discussed in sections 4.1discussion has been updated for the final Eto comments CO30-1 and IND110-6 regaLandslides are discussed in section 4.1.3.4 

IND110-10

Safety of the proposed projects is discusseEIS. See the response to comment IND1discussed in section 2.3.1 of the EIS, the pleast the minimum cover as required by 4inches (except in consolidated rock where 

IND110-11

S-1193
INDIVIDUALS

IND110 – Susan Jacques (cont’d)

The commentor’s statements regarding piwall thickness requirements are discussed EIS.

IND110-12

See the response to comment SA2-3. Safprojects can be found in section 4.12 of th

IND110-13

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

IND110-14IND110-15 See the response to comment LA1-4.

S-1194
INDIVIDUALS

IND110 – Susan Jacques (cont’d)

As stated in section 4.8.2 of the EIS, Conrequired to compensate the landowner for damages incurred during construction. A4.12.1 of the EIS, Constitution has stated the landowner for any loss or damage to tof an incident with the operation of the prthe response to comment IND110-6. 

IND110-16

See the response to comment FA1-1. Seccontains a discussion of renewable energy

IND110-17

S-1195
INDIVIDUALS

IND110 – Susan Jacques (cont’d)

S-1196
INDIVIDUALS

IND110 – Susan Jacques (cont’d)

S-1197
INDIVIDUALS

IND110 – Susan Jacques (cont’d)

S-1198
INDIVIDUALS

IND110 – Susan Jacques (cont’d)

S-1199
INDIVIDUALS

IND111 – Robert Lidsky

The commentor’s statements are focused rather than natural gas transmission lines. of the projects upon property insurance, inrecommendation to ensure that any impacmortgages are discussed in sections 4.9.6 respectively. These sections have been up

IND111-1

See the response to comments LA5-3 and in section 4.12.1 of the EIS, Constitution would reimburse the landowner for any loproperty as a result of an incident with the proposed pipeline.

IND111-2

S-1200
INDIVIDUALS

IND111 – Robert Lidsky (cont’d)

S-1201
INDIVIDUALS

IND112 – Robert Lidsky

See the response to comments LA5-3 and potential impacts of the projects upon title discussed in section 4.9.6 of the EIS. Thiupdated for the final EIS.

IND112-1

S-1202
INDIVIDUALS

IND112 – Robert Lidsky (cont’d)

S-1203
INDIVIDUALS

IND113 – Daniel J. Brignoli

Section 4.1.3 of the EIS has been revised information regarding flooding. We assureferring to the proposed crossing of Prosroad would be crossed via a conventional method is associated with a deeper roadwdepth of cover than an open-cut road cros2.3.1-1 of the EIS, the minimum cover foinches in normal soil and 24 inches in con

IND113-1

S-1204
INDIVIDUALS

IND113 – Daniel J. Brignoli (cont’d)

S-1205
INDIVIDUALS

IND113 – Daniel J. Brignoli (cont’d)

S-1206
INDIVIDUALS

IND113 – Daniel J. Brignoli (cont’d)

S-1207
INDIVIDUALS

IND113 – Daniel J. Brignoli (cont’d)

S-1208
INDIVIDUALS

IND113 – Daniel J. Brignoli (cont’d)

S-1209
INDIVIDUALS

IND114 – Kerry A. Lynch

IND114-1 See the response to comment FA1-1.

S-1210
INDIVIDUALS

IND115 – Anthony Macaluso

Section 4.1.3 of the EIS has been revised information regarding flooding. As discuthe EIS, the proposed pipeline would havfeet in normal soil and 2 feet in consolidaroadways. In addition, many roadways wtrenchless crossing methods which would depth than those listed in table 2.3.1-1.

IND115-1

The commentor’s statement regarding the Program and is noted. The commentor’s intention to not sign agreements for survenoted.

IND115-2

S-1211
INDIVIDUALS

IND116 – Victoria Furio

As stated in section 4.3.2.1 of the EIS, no groundwater are anticipated from construprojects because disturbances would be tecontrols would be implemented, natural gbe restored, and the right-of-way revegetaConstitution’s ECPs and Iroquois’ Plan anlimit impacts from construction on groundcommentor’s statement to deny the propo

IND116-1

S-1212
INDIVIDUALS

IND117 – Walter and Judith Denton

A revised discussion on the potential impproperty values is provided in section 4.9

IND117-1

See the response to comment FA8-3 regarThe commentor’s statement in opposition projects is noted.

IND117-2IND117-3 The commentor’s request to deny the prop

S-1213
INDIVIDUALS

IND118 – Jason Siemion

The commentor’s statements regarding CConstruction of the proposed pipeline wowide right-of-way and additional temporathe adjacent roadway and waterbody and property. Fifty feet of the construction rigretained for operation of the pipeline.Constitution would be required to restore following construction. During operationmow up to a 50-foot-wide permanent righonce every three years; however, a 10-foomowed more frequently to facilitate routinemergency access. Within wetlands, Conpermanently maintain only a 10-foot-widremove trees within 15 feet of the pipelin

IND118-1

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted. Forest clearing for pipconsists of clearing in a linear fashion in a Clear cutting of forest in broad areas typicpipeline projects except for clearing at abThere are no aboveground facilities near trequire clear cutting of a large tract. 

IND118-2

S-1214
INDIVIDUALS

IND118 – Jason Siemion (cont’d)

IND118-3 See the response to comment FA1-1.

We have updated section 4.5.3 of the EIS impacts that would occur to adjacent tractwould not be directly affected by clearingwould not be permitted to disturb any arepermitted construction right-of-way. 

IND118-4IND118-5 See the response to comments FA1-1 and IND118-6 See the response to comments FA1-1 and IND118-7 See the response to comment FA1-1.

The wetland impact acreages present in thportion of the wetland that would be crossImpacts on wetlands outside of the approvof-way are not expected. See the respons

IND118-8

S-1215
INDIVIDUALS

IND118 – Jason Siemion (cont’d)

See the response to comment FA1-1. Sechas been revised to include additional detpermanent fill and permanent access road 

IND118-9IND118-10 See the response to comment IND16-5.IND118-11 See the response to comment CO9-1.

As stated in the Executive Summary of throuted the pipeline to minimize impacts owildlife areas where possible and would iProcedures, and ECPs to minimize the effwildlife and their habitats.

IND118-12

Constitution would be required to adhere windows for trout streams (see the respon15) to minimize impacts on fishery resour

IND118-13

S-1216
INDIVIDUALS

IND118 – Jason Siemion (cont’d)

See the response to comment CO37-10 reSee the response to comment CO50-68 reendangered species surveys.

IND118-14

As stated in the EIS, following constructipermanent right-of-way, extra workspace and temporary access roads would be allooriginal land use type. Lands outside of tconstruction right-of-way would not be disection 4.5.5 of the EIS, forested lands wiright-of-way would be permanently convecover type. The regrowth of shrubs and trtemporary workspaces may take decades resemble the forest vegetation that was prconstruction.

IND118-15

The commentor’s statement regarding pronoted.

IND118-16IND118-17 See the response to comment CO50-13.

Landowners may negotiate directly with Cthe use of organic straw/hay.

IND118-18

Section 3.3 of the EIS discusses the feasibexisting pipeline systems.

IND118-19

S-1217
INDIVIDUALS

IND118 – Jason Siemion (cont’d)

A revised discussion on the potential impproperty values is provided in section 4.9comment FA8-3 regarding eminent doma

IND118-20

The commentor’s statement regarding streresponse to comment IND13-3.

IND118-21

S-1218
INDIVIDUALS

IND119 – Suzanne Winkler

IND119-1 See response to comment FA1-1.IND119-3 See response to comment FA1-1.IND119-2 The commentor’s statements regarding th

S-1219
INDIVIDUALS

IND120 – Dianne Sefcik

IND120-1 See the response to comment LA7-5 rega

S-1220
INDIVIDUALS

IND120 – Dianne Sefcik (cont’d)

See the response to comment CO26-18 reExpansion Project and the SoNo Project. 

IND120-2

S-1221
INDIVIDUALS

IND120 – Dianne Sefcik (cont’d)

S-1222
INDIVIDUALS

IND120 – Dianne Sefcik (cont’d)

S-1223
INDIVIDUALS

IND120 – Dianne Sefcik (cont’d)

S-1224
INDIVIDUALS

IND120 – Dianne Sefcik (cont’d)

See the response to comment FA8-3 regarA revised discussion on the potential impproperty values is provided in section 4.9as well as potential impacts and mitigatioEIS for safety (section 4.2), interior forest waterbodies (section 4.3.3), steep slopes (

4.1.3; appendix G), shallow bedrock (sectappendix I), wetlands (section 4.4 and appaquatic resources (section 4.6), land use a(section 4.8), cultural resources (section 44.11.1), noise (section 4.11.2), and farmla2.3.2, 4.2, 4.8.4, and appendix J). 

IND120-3

See the response to comments FA4-45 aninduced development. 

IND120-4

S-1225
INDIVIDUALS

IND121 – James Bixby Sr.

The commentor’s statements in oppositionoted. A revised discussion on the potentprojects upon property values is provided 

IND121-1

S-1226
INDIVIDUALS

IND122 – Margaret G. Bixby

The commentor’s statement regarding an easement is noted.

IND122-1

See the response to comment LA5-3 regamortgages, and insurance. A discussion oproposed projects can be found in section the response to comments FA4-45 and COvolume hydraulic fracturing.

IND122-2

See the response to comment LA7-5 rega3.0 of the EIS discusses renewable energy

IND122-3IND122-4 The commentor’s request to deny the prop

S-1227
INDIVIDUALS

IND123 – Kurt Seitz

See the response to comment LA7-5 regaproposed projects.

IND123-1

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for safety (section (section 4.5.3), wildlife and aquatic resoufarmland/agriculture (sections 2.3.2, 4.2, 4

IND123-2IND123-3 See the response to comment CO41-30.

As stated in section 3.1.2.3 of the EIS, the projects planned or proposed in both New England would help to diversify the electrregions, thus helping to protect consumerfuel prices and assisting both regions with respective RPS goals. See the response to regarding other, recently proposed projectalter service area and end user markets. Arenewable energy projects would benefit tdiversifying the array of fuels used to genare not expected to meet consumers’ overMoreover, renewable energy is not complwith natural gas. Most renewable energy generate electricity. While natural gas is is also used for space heating and cookingcould be served by electricity instead of nnatural gas-based heating and cooking sysconverted to electric-based systems, whicexpensive for many individual and residenFinally, moving electricity from the point consumers may require major investment lines as well as other additional infrastrucAdditionally, the development of the tranassociated with renewable projects would adverse effects on air, water, ecological vresources. Therefore, renewable energy aeliminated from further consideration.

IND123-4IND123-5 The commentor’s request to deny the prop

S-1228
INDIVIDUALS

IND124 – Ann S. Horan

The commentor’s statement in opposition projects is noted. Section 3.0 of the EIS denergy. See the response to comments FAregarding induced development.

IND124-1

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for safety (section (section 4.5.3), wildlife and aquatic resoufarmland/agriculture (sections 2.3.2, 4.2, 4

IND124-2

See the response to comments FA4-45 aninduced development.

IND124-3IND124-4 The commentor’s request to deny the prop

S-1229
INDIVIDUALS

IND125 – Robert Lidsky

The commentor’s statements are focused rather than natural gas transmission lines. on the potential impacts of the projects updiscussed in sections 4.9.6 of the EIS. 

IND125-1

S-1230
INDIVIDUALS

IND125 – Robert Lidsky (cont’d)

S-1231
INDIVIDUALS

IND125 – Robert Lidsky (cont’d)

Responses to Mr. Archambault’s letter caIND48.

IND125-2

A revised discussion on the potential impproperty values is provided in section 4.9impacts of the projects upon property insurecommendation to ensure that any impacmortgages are discussed in sections 4.9.6. updated for the final EIS. 

IND125-3

S-1232
INDIVIDUALS

IND126 – Sharon Goldstein

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

IND126-1

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

IND126-2

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

IND126-3

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND126-4

S-1233
INDIVIDUALS

IND127 – Richard L. Walworth

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

IND127-1

S-1234
INDIVIDUALS

IND127 – Richard L. Walworth (cont’d)

S-1235
INDIVIDUALS

IND128 – Eugene Marner

Constitution has a firm contract with Cab500,000 dekatherms per day in the proposin the commentor’s letter, Cabot’s has prosolutions to meet their need to ship their sThe proposed Constitution Pipeline Projeshipping 1/8th of Cabot’s supply of natura

IND128-1

S-1236
INDIVIDUALS

IND129 – John Miglietta

A revised discussion on the potential impproperty values and mortgages is provide

IND129-1

S-1237
INDIVIDUALS

IND129 – John Miglietta (cont’d)

S-1238
INDIVIDUALS

IND129 – John Miglietta (cont’d)

S-1239
INDIVIDUALS

IND130 – Robert Lidsky

A revised discussion on the potential impproperty values is provided in section 4.9

IND130-1

S-1240
INDIVIDUALS

IND130 – Robert Lidsky (cont’d)

S-1241
INDIVIDUALS

IND131 – Jeanne Simonelli

As stated in section 1.2 of the EIS, Constisurveyed 76 percent of the proposed pipelsection 4.10.1 of the EIS, Constitution haresource surveys in New York for all parccultural resource survey protocols propostheir subcontractor were reviewed and appPennsylvania Historical and Museum Comthe New York Office of Parks, Recreation Preservation (OPRHP). In addition, Comand staff with the PHMC and the OPRHP Constitution’s cultural resource survey resection 4.10.3 of the EIS, we have reviewspecific plans for unanticipated discoverieplans to be acceptable. Further, we includsection 4.10.4 of the EIS that all cultural rresulting consultation must be completed is authorized. 

IND131-1

S-1242
INDIVIDUALS

IND131 – Jeanne Simonelli (cont’d)

S-1243
INDIVIDUALS

IND132 – Suzanne Winkler

The commentor’s statement regarding the the response to comment SA2-1. 

IND132-1

S-1244
INDIVIDUALS

IND132 – Suzanne Winkler (cont’d)

S-1245
INDIVIDUALS

IND133 – Allegra Schecter

IND133-1 See the response to comment LA1-4.

S-1246
INDIVIDUALS

IND133 – Allegra Schecter (cont’d)

S-1247
INDIVIDUALS

IND134 – Bob Rosen

The commentor’s statement regarding the energy is noted. See the responses to comIND21-7. 

IND134-1

S-1248
INDIVIDUALS

IND135 – Kate Ryan

IND135-1 See the responses to comments CO26-19 IND135-2 See the response to comment IND31-3.

Preliminary reports on the Harlem, New Ythat natural gas service to the area was pro8-inch cast iron/plastic main which failed 2014). The gas service to this area is distPreliminary media reports have indicated approximately 127 years old (CNN 2014)4.12.1 of the EIS, the majority of fatalitielocal distribution pipelines. These are natare not regulated by the FERC and that dihomes and businesses after transportation natural gas transmission pipelines. As disof the EIS, these distribution lines typicalpipes, often made of plastic or cast iron raand tend to be older pipelines that are modamage. Also as discussed in section 4.1aboveground facilities associated with the Iroquois projects would be designed, consmaintained in accordance with or to exceeFederal Safety Standards in 49 CFR 192 Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job CreaThese regulations, which are intended to pprevent natural gas facility accidents and specifications for material selection and qdesign requirements; and protection of the external, and atmospheric corrosion. 

IND135-3IND135-4 See the response to comment IND13-3.

S-1249
INDIVIDUALS

IND135 – Kate Ryan (cont’d)

As stated in the executive summary of the comments received prior to issuance of thconsidered and addressed in the draft EISreceived on the draft EIS related to enviroaddressed in this EIS.

IND135-5

The commentor’s statement to deny the presponse to comment IND21-7 regarding 

IND135-6

S-1250
INDIVIDUALS

IND136 – Patricia Wheelhouse

IND136-1 See the response to comment IND108-1.

See the response to comment LA1-1 regaassessment of the projects’ impact upon pdiscussed in section 4.9.5 of the EIS. Issuare discussed in section 4.9.6 of the EIS. comment LA5-3 regarding mortgages. 

IND136-2

The projects’ potential impacts, as well as minimization, and mitigation measures, reand wells can be found in section 4.3 of th

IND136-3IND136-4 See the response to comment IND54-1.IND136-5 See the response to comment IND135-5.

S-1251
INDIVIDUALS

IND136 – Patricia Wheelhouse (cont’d)

S-1252
INDIVIDUALS

IND137 – Shyama Orum

The projects’ potential impacts, as well as minimization, and mitigation measures, recan be found in section 4.3 of the EIS. Secomment FA1-1 regarding pending informsection 4.13.1 of the EIS, the general deveMarcellus Shale in proximity to the projeccumulative impacts was considered.

IND137-1

S-1253
INDIVIDUALS

IND138 – Cathy McNulty

The commentor’s statement regarding forthe Applicants is noted. See the response regarding eminent domain.

IND138-1

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

IND138-2

S-1254
INDIVIDUALS

IND139 – Thomas Gorman

IND139-1 See the response to comment IND36-1 re

Section 4.1.3.5 of the EIS has been revisediscussion of vegetation removal on steep impacts from flooding. 

IND139-2

S-1255
INDIVIDUALS

IND139 – Thomas Gorman (cont’d)

S-1256
INDIVIDUALS

IND140 – Bobbie Dee Flowers

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

IND140-1

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

IND140-2

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

IND140-3

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND140-4

S-1257
INDIVIDUALS

IND141 – Thomas Gorman

See the response to comment IND13-5 reexpansion of the proposed projects.

IND141-1

S-1258
INDIVIDUALS

IND141 – Thomas Gorman (cont’d)

S-1259
INDIVIDUALS

IND142 – John

Impacts on groundwater and surface watediscussed in section 4.3 and wetlands in s

IND142-1

Cumulative impacts, including a discussiofracturing, are discussed in section 4.13 othe response to comment LA1-4. 

IND142-2

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND142-3

S-1260
INDIVIDUALS

IND143 – Liz Wassell

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

IND143-1

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

IND143-2

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

IND143-3

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND143-4

S-1261
INDIVIDUALS

IND144 – Jeanne Simonelli

The Pennsylvania State University documcommentor primarily discusses drilling of construction of natural gas pipelines. The on housing (section 4.9.2), property valuerecreation (4.8.4), and social services (secstates that a peak total workforce of 520 wwithin a single county during periods of cspreads. However, it would be speculativwould all be located within the city of Onhousing desires of individual construction nature of pipeline construction influencinneeded.

IND144-1

S-1262
INDIVIDUALS

IND144 – Jeanne Simonelli (cont’d)

As stated in section 4.9.2 of the EIS, at a mworkforce would utilize about 2.5 percent units. A discussion of impacts on social ssection 4.9.3 of the EIS.

IND144-2

Pipeline construction contractors would cwith all drug testing procedures as requireregulation. 

IND144-3

The potential impacts of the projects upon discussed in section 4.9.5. 

IND144-4IND144-5 See the response to comment LA7-5 rega

S-1263
INDIVIDUALS

IND144 – Jeanne Simonelli (cont’d)

The commentor’s comment regarding the with local health and mental health provid

IND144-6IND144-7 See the response to comment IND144-3 r

The environmental justice section of the Ediscusses potential impacts on low-incomof race. 

IND144-8

See the response to comment FA4-45 regShale.

IND144-9

S-1264
INDIVIDUALS

IND144 – Jeanne Simonelli (cont’d)

S-1265
INDIVIDUALS

IND145 – Steven Kostis

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

IND145-1

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

IND145-2

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

IND145-3

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND145-4

S-1266
INDIVIDUALS

IND146 – Jared Cornelia

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

IND146-1

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

IND146-2

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

IND146-3

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND146-4

S-1267
INDIVIDUALS

IND147 – Jack DiGirolamo

The commentor’s statement regarding payeasement is noted. See section 4.8.2 of thinformation regarding easement requiremthe projects’ impact upon property values 4.9.5 of the EIS. 

IND147-1

The commentor’s support of natural gas eis noted.

S-1268

IND147-2
INDIVIDUALS

IND148 – Thomas M. Alba

The commentor’s statements regarding nathe proposed projects are noted.

IND148-1

S-1269
INDIVIDUALS

IND149 – Mary Rojeski

The commentor’s statement regarding oppfracturing and the proposed projects is no

IND149-1

S-1270
INDIVIDUALS

IND150 – Eugene Marner

Constitution’s Agricultural Inspector (AI) party compliance monitor would ensure thto the 4 inch maximum allowable rutting discussion of the AI and the FERC’s thirdfound in section 2.5 of the EIS. Construcrutting deeper than 4 inches is observed, aresume when soils were less saturated. Aof the EIS, the recommendation for a maxdepth of 4 inches was based on our discusYork State Department of Agriculture and 

IND150-1

S-1271
INDIVIDUALS

IND150 – Eugene Marner (cont’d)

As stated in table 4.2.2-1 of the EIS, the swere compiled by the FERC staff from NConservation Service, United States Depadata. As stated in section 4.2.2 of the EISreplacement, topsoil would be screened fogreater than 4 inches in diameter. As statthe EIS, Constitution would conduct comcompacted subsurface soils in agriculturathrough the use of paratills or similar equ

IND150-2

S-1272
INDIVIDUALS

IND151 – Irwin Waldman

IND151-1 See the responses to comments FA1-1 and 

The commentor’s statements regarding Cnoted.

IND151-2IND151-3 See the response to comment FA1-1.

S-1273
INDIVIDUALS

IND152 – Francoise Lagasse

The EIS evaluated impacts safety (section 4.3), and air (section 4.11).

IND152-1

S-1274
INDIVIDUALS

IND153 – Lisa Lerner

The commentor’s opposition to the projecresponse to LA1-4 regarding high volume Whether or not high volume hydraulic frathe Catskills will be up to the State of New 

IND153-1

S-1275
INDIVIDUALS

IND154 – Gina Dahlstrom-Osburn

See the response to LA1-4 regarding high fracturing. 

IND154-1

S-1276
INDIVIDUALS

IND155 – Charlotte Jones

See the response to LA1-4 regarding hydrEIS evaluated the projects’ impacts on the 4.0) and affected landowners (section 4.1

IND155-1

S-1277
INDIVIDUALS

IND156 – Amy Irene Anderson

See the response to LA1-4 regarding high fracturing. 

IND156-1

The EIS evaluated the projects’ impacts o(section 4.0) and safety (section 4.12).

IND156-2

See the response to comments FA4-45 anhydraulic fracturing.

IND156-3

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

IND156-4

Safety of the proposed projects is discusseEIS. See the response to comment LA7-5 exportation.

IND156-5

The commentor’s statements regarding thnatural gas and to encourage renewable enAlternate energy sources, including renewdiscussed in section 3.1 of the EIS. 

IND156-6

S-1278
INDIVIDUALS

IND157 – Janice Cragnolin

Issues related to homeowner’s insurance aupdated section 4.9.6 of the EIS. 

IND157-1

As stated in section 4.12.1 of the EIS, we regarding who would be financially respopipeline incident. Constitution has stated the landowner for any loss or damage to tof an incident related to the operation of tto Constitution, compensation would inclureplacement, repair, rental, or financial codamage.

IND157-2

See the response to comments FA4-45 aninduced development. 

S-1279

IND157-3
INDIVIDUALS

IND157 – Janice Cragnolin (cont’d)

A revised discussion on the potential impproperty values is provided in section 4.9impacts of the projects upon property insurecommendation to ensure that any impacmortgages are discussed in sections 4.9.6. updated for the final EIS. 

IND157-4IND157-5 See section 4.9.4 of the EIS for a discussi

See the response to comment CO1-4 regaerosion. A revised discussion on the poteprojects upon property values is provided 

IND157-6IND157-7 See the response to comments LA5-3 and IND157-8 See the response to comment FA8-3.

IND157-9 The commentor’s request to deny the prop

S-1280
INDIVIDUALS

IND158 – Mav Moorhead

IND158-1 See the response to LA1-4 regarding hydr

S-1281
INDIVIDUALS

IND158 – Mav Moorhead (cont’d)

S-1282
INDIVIDUALS

IND159 – John Hill

IND159-1 The commentor’s statements in support o

S-1283
INDIVIDUALS

IND160 – Bill Blanchetto

IND160-1 The commentor’s statements in support o

S-1284
INDIVIDUALS

IND161 – Barry Harris

IND161-1 The commentor’s statements in support o

S-1285
INDIVIDUALS

IND162 – Mary Colleen McKinney

The commentor’s statement that the proporesult in degradation of the environment ithe Executive Summary of the EIS, we haconstruction and operation of the projects adverse environmental impacts.

IND162-1

Our assessment of the projects’ impact updiscussed in section 4.9.5 of the EIS. 

IND162-2

Impacts at any one location along the propwould be temporary and intermittent, as ptypically occurs in a manner similar to a m

IND162-3

See the response to comment CO1-4 regalands.

IND162-4

Safety of the proposed projects is discusseEIS.

IND162-5IND162-6 See the response to LA1-4 regarding hydr

S-1286
INDIVIDUALS

IND162 – Mary Colleen McKinney (cont’d)

Our assessment of the projects’ impact updiscussed in section 4.3 of the EIS, and prdiscussed in section 4.9.5 of the EIS. See comment LA7-5 regarding exportation. Tstatement requesting denial of the project

IND162-7

S-1287
INDIVIDUALS

IND163 – Mary Colleen McKinney

As stated in table 2.3.1-1 in the EIS, the mwould be 24 inches in consolidated rock asoil. Slight warming of the ground near thbe expected to significantly change the susoil. In fact, snow will accumulate along 

IND163-1

See the response to IND163-1. The pipelgreater depths at waterbody crossings, furtemperature-related impacts.

IND163-2

S-1288
INDIVIDUALS

IND164 – David Wright

IND164-1 The commentor’s statements in support o

S-1289
INDIVIDUALS

IND165 – Dr. Nancy Rourke

The commentor’s statement regarding the the response to comment IND10-5 regardlandowners from the proposed projects.

IND165-1

The commentor’s statements regarding ecproposed projects are noted. 

IND165-3

The Center for Government Research docwas completed in June 2013. The Februawas revised and provided to the FERC in document also states that the proposed pip12 permanent jobs. 

IND165-2

S-1290
INDIVIDUALS

IND166 – Mary Colleen McKinney

Safety of the proposed projects is discusseEIS. As stated by Constitution in Resourcmaximum allowable operating pressure owould be 1,480 psig. However, in order tAmerican National Standards Institute (Athe pipeline would have a maximum operpsig.

IND166-1

The data in the “outside forces” category 4.12.1-2 is further broken down in table 4identifies that eight incidents were attribuSafety of the proposed projects is discusseEIS. 

IND166-3

As stated by the commentor, a description impact radius is calculated was included i4.12.1 of the EIS. The potential impact fopipeline is 796 feet. The equation to calcuimpact radius is provided by regulations aas established by the United States DOT’s 

IND166-2

S-1291
INDIVIDUALS

IND166 – Mary Colleen McKinney (cont’d)

S-1292
INDIVIDUALS

IND166 – Mary Colleen McKinney (cont’d)

As discussed in section 4.12.1 of the EIS, design, construct, operate, and maintain thaccordance with the DOT’s Minimum Fein Title 49 CFR Part 192. As described in Constitution committed to a number of admeasures including a commitment to instain all Class 1 locations. See the response regarding emergency response funding. 

IND166-4

S-1293
INDIVIDUALS

IND166 – Mary Colleen McKinney (cont’d)

S-1294
INDIVIDUALS

IND167 – Donald Sykes

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted.

IND167-1

S-1295
INDIVIDUALS

IND168 – Caroline Martin

A discussion regarding potential impacts in section 4.9.2 of the EIS.

IND168-1

A revised discussion of the projects’ poteproperty values is provided in section 4.9

IND168-2

S-1296
INDIVIDUALS

IND169 – Caroline Martin

As stated in section 2.3.1 of the EIS, all wfinal graded and restored to pre-constructdrainage patterns as closely as possible, wright-of-way would be seeded within six wfinal grading, weather and soil conditions Constitution’s Plan requires the inspection temporary erosion control measures at leaareas of active construction or equipment basis in areas with no construction or equwithin 24 hours of each 0.5 inch rainfall eof backfilling the trench, all work areas wand restored to preconstruction contours apatterns as closely as possible, weather peslope breakers or diversion berms would bmaintained in accordance with the ECPs aConstitution would remove a small portiothe slope. Remaining vegetation and instcontrol measures would assist in minimizvegetation grows back. As discussed in section 4.1.3.4, Constituticonsulting firm to analyze steep slope and be crossed by the proposed project. In adrecommended in section 4.1.3 of the EIS the mitigation measures and recommendaReconnaissance Memorandum dated Octoinclude additional field visits and reconnaperformed by qualified geologists and engSee the response to comment FA4-3 regar

IND169-1

S-1297
INDIVIDUALS

IND170 – Ann Roberti

IND170-1 See the response to comments LA1-4 and 

S-1298
INDIVIDUALS

IND171 – Sue Bailey

IND171-1 See the response to comment IND54-1.

S-1299
INDIVIDUALS

IND172 – Ronald Bailey

IND172-1 See the response to comment LA1-1.IND172-2 See the response to comment LA1-5.

See the response to comment FA1-1. The to revise the draft EIS is noted.

IND172-3

S-1300
INDIVIDUALS

IND173 – Pamela Bohsung

The commentor’s parcel is not crossed by See the response to comment IND11-1.

IND173-1

As stated in section 4.12 of the EIS, the avnatural gas transmission pipelines continumeans of energy transportation. The numincidents over the more than 300,000 miletransmission lines indicates the risk is low given location. The operation of the projeslight increase in risk to the nearby public

IND173-2

A revised discussion of the projects’ poteproperty values is provided in section 4.9

IND173-3IND173-4 See the response to comment IND106-1.

See the response to comment LA1-4 regafracturing. The commentor’s statements rare noted.

IND173-5

S-1301
INDIVIDUALS

IND174 – David and Rebecca Colby

The commentor’s statement regarding the noted. A small portion of the commentornorthern property line would be used for epipeline it’s self would be installed on the the commentor’s parcel. As discussed in Constitution would compensate landownevalue for any crop damage or measureablconstruction of the project. In addition, lacompensated for any marketable timber ththeir property during construction. 

IND174-1

A revised discussion of the projects’ poteproperty values is provided in section 4.9impacts of the projects upon property insurecommendation to ensure that any impacmortgages are discussed in sections 4.9.6 respectively. These sections have been upSee the response to comment FA8-3 regarThe commentor’s statement to deny the pnoted.

IND174-2

S-1302
INDIVIDUALS

IND174 – David and Rebecca Colby (cont’d)

S-1303
INDIVIDUALS

IND175 – Nick Nazzaro

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted.

IND175-1

S-1304
INDIVIDUALS

IND176 – Mary Pelligrino

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted.

IND176-1

S-1305
INDIVIDUALS

IND176 – Mary Pelligrino (cont’d)

S-1306
INDIVIDUALS

IND177 – Mary Colleen McKinney

If approved, the alignment discussed in ththe approved alignment. Minor changes tin accordance with our post-approval varirequire additional approval by the FERC, concurrence. The commentor’s statement pipeline should not cross private property response to comment CO50-35.

IND177-1

A revised discussion of the projects’ poteproperty values is provided in section 4.9impacts of the projects upon property insurecommendation to ensure that any impacmortgages are discussed in sections 4.9.6 respectively. These sections have been upThe commentor’s suggestion to conduct anoted.

IND177-2

See the response to comment FA8-3 regarnegotiations. We are not aware of any intto purchase property.

IND177-3

S-1307
INDIVIDUALS

IND177 – Mary Colleen McKinney (cont’d)

Our discussion of the potential impacts of property insurance in section 4.9.6 of the including our recommendation to ensure tmitigated). In addition, as stated in sectioreceived comments regarding who would responsible should there be a pipeline incstated that it would reimburse the landowdamage to their property as a result of an operation of the proposed pipeline. Accocompensation would include but is not limrepair, rental, or financial compensation o

IND177-4

The proximity of FERC or other agency sinfrastructure and personal home buying oscope of this EIS.

IND177-5

A revised discussion of the projects’ poteproperty values is provided in section 4.9

IND177-6

S-1308
INDIVIDUALS

IND178 – William H. Owen

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted.

IND178-1

S-1309
INDIVIDUALS

IND179 – Carmela Marner

IND179-1 See the response to comment IND13-3.

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for soil compactiinterior forest and fragmentation (section 4.11.2), and farmland/agriculture (sectionappendix J). See the response to commenblasting.

IND179-2IND179-3 See the response to comment LA8-3 rega

Section 4.1.3 of the EIS has been revised information regarding flooding. See the rLA1-4 regarding hydraulic fracturing. 

IND179-4

See the response to comment CO47-1. Sediscussion of renewable energy.

IND179-5

See the response to comment LA1-4 regafracturing. 

IND179-6

S-1310
INDIVIDUALS

IND179 – Carmela Marner (cont’d)

A revised discussion of the projects’ poteproperty values is provided in section 4.9impacts of the projects upon property insurecommendation to ensure that any impacmortgages are discussed in sections 4.9.6 respectively. These sections have been up

IND179-7

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for air quality (se(section 4.11.2), and traffic (section 4.9.4

IND179-8

S-1311
INDIVIDUALS

IND180 – Cristina Toro

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND180-1

S-1312
INDIVIDUALS

IND181 – Sharon Meyer

The proposed pipeline would transport naThe potential for an oil spill would be limduring construction of the projects. As diof the EIS, Constitution and Iroquois wourespective spill plans during construction prevent, contain, and clean-up accidental 

IND181-1

S-1313
INDIVIDUALS

IND182 – Patricia Bower

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND182-1

Section 4.1.3 of the EIS has been revised information regarding flooding. Also see comments IND36-1 and IND169-1.

IND182-2

The commentor’s statements regarding thnoted. Section 3.0 provides a discussion 

IND182-3

S-1314
INDIVIDUALS

IND183 – Neil Bleifeld

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

IND183-1

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

IND183-2

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

IND183-3

The commentor’s statement regarding oppis noted.

IND183-4

S-1315
INDIVIDUALS

IND184 – Thomas Burford

The commentor’s statements in support oare noted..

IND184-1

S-1316
INDIVIDUALS

IND185 – Gretchen Herrmann

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for interior forest (section 4.5.3) and land use (section 4.8). comment IND110-6 regarding blasting. S

comment FA6-10 regarding long-term proposed pipeline right-of-way for in

IND185-1

A revised discussion of the projects’ poteproperty values is provided in section 4.9

IND185-2

See the response to comment LA1-4 regafracturing. The commentor’s opposition ois noted.

IND185-3

S-1317
INDIVIDUALS

IND186 – Alanna Rose

See the response to comment CO41-23 reinduced development of heavy industry. well as potential impacts and mitigation, afor air quality (section 4.11.1) and noise (response to comment LA8-3 regarding dr

IND186-1IND186-2 See the response to comment FA8-3.IND186-3 Section 3.0 of the EIS provides a discussi

S-1318
INDIVIDUALS

IND187 – Mark Davies

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for wetlands (secand fragmentation (section 4.5.3), noise (farmland/agriculture (sections 2.3.2, 4.2, 4

IND187-1IND187-2 See the response to comments LA1-4 and 

Section 3.0 of the EIS provides a discussiThe commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND187-3

S-1319
INDIVIDUALS

IND188 – Charles Filipski

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted. See the response to coregarding safety. Air quality impacts are 4.11.1 of the EIS. See the response to comCO23-1 regarding fugitive emissions.

IND188-1

Our discussion of forest interior and foressection 4.5.3 of the EIS has been revised. on the potential impacts of the projects updiscussed in section 4.9.5 of the EIS. Senas potential impacts and mitigation, are disoil compaction (section 4.2.2.3) and noisSection 4.3.2.1 of the EIS discusses potenresources from blasting. See the response regarding erosion and stormwater runoff.

IND188-2

S-1320
INDIVIDUALS

IND189 – Kathryn Davino

The commentor’s statements regarding hynoted. See the response to comment LA1

IND189-1IND189-2 The commentor’s statements regarding thIND189-3 See response to comment FAl-1.

Our discussion of forest interior and foressection 4.5.3 of the EIS has been revised. the projects’ potential impacts on property section 4.9.5. 

IND189-4

As discussed in section 4.2.4 of the EIS, aby the pipeline could continue to be used 

IND189-5

Section 4.3.2.1 of the EIS discusses potenresources including water quality and blassection 2.3 of the EIS, Constitution and Irimplement their respective spill plans duroperation to prevent, contain, and clean-u

IND189-6

Section 4.1.3 of the EIS has been revised information regarding flooding. See the rIND169-1 regarding erosion and stormwa

IND189-7

Sensitive resources, as well as potential imare discussed in the EIS for wildlife in sec

IND189-8

S-1321
INDIVIDUALS

IND189 – Kathryn Davino (cont’d)

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted.

IND189-9

S-1322
INDIVIDUALS

IND190 – Maria Kaltenbach

IND190-1 Traffic is discussed in section 4.9.4 of the 

See the response to comment CO1-2. The statements in opposition of the proposed p

IND190-2

S-1323
INDIVIDUALS

IND191 – Eugene Marner

IND191-1 See the responses to comments FA4-45 an

S-1324
INDIVIDUALS

IND191 – Eugene Marner (cont’d)

S-1325
INDIVIDUALS

IND191 – Eugene Marner (cont’d)

S-1326
INDIVIDUALS

IND192 – Jeanne Simonelli

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

IND192-1

The following is from Constitution’s UnaDiscovery Plan, “Environmental inspectocontractors and subcontractors will receividentification and preliminary treatment odiscoveries and their responsibilities for pand initiating implementation of the planspart of the pre-construction on-site trainincompany inspectors, and construction supgiven by a qualified cultural resource specconstruction, the Environmental Inspectorresponsible for advising construction contprocedure to follow in the event that an unis made. The EI will advise all operators in grading, stripping, or trenching activitiimmediately if they observe any indicatiocultural materials, contact the EI as soon awith unanticipated discovery procedures (treat human remains with dignity and respacceptable.

IND192-2

S-1327
INDIVIDUALS

IND193 – Jeanne Simonelli

See the response to comment LA8-1 regaareas and comment IND11-1 regarding helands. See the response to comment FA8domain. We find Constitution’s proposal and pesticides within 200 feet of karst fea

IND193-1

S-1328
INDIVIDUALS

IND193 – Jeanne Simonelli (cont’d)

Constitution has identified all organic lansurvey permission. If the project is certifiidentify organic lands on parcels for whicaccess.

IND193-2

As part of their individual easement agreeConstitution, landowners may request Coherbicides or pesticides on the portion of crossing their property.

IND193-4

As stated in Constitution’s Organic Farm “Should any portion of certified organic adecertified as a result of construction activdamages will be based on the difference ifrom the land before decertification and aa minimum of three years (7 CFR Part 20of the decertification period, so long as a made by the landowner or tenant to regain 

IND193-3

S-1329
INDIVIDUALS

IND193 – Jeanne Simonelli (cont’d)

S-1330
INDIVIDUALS

IND194 – Michael Gogins

The commentor’s statement in opposition projects is noted. Section 3.1.2.3 of the Eof renewable energy. See the response to regarding climate change.

IND194-1

S-1331
INDIVIDUALS

IND194 – Michael Gogins (cont’d)

The commentor’s statements regarding poeconomy if the projects are certificated arin section 4.9.7 of the EIS, construction oproject would have a short-term, beneficiaincreased payroll and local material purch

IND194-2IND194-3 See the response to comment FA4-45.

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

IND194-4

As discussed in section 4.9.8 of the EIS, trelated to the proposed projects would be an unanticipated pipeline failure. An asseimpacts from hydraulic fracturing is beyoEIS.

IND194-5

The commentor’s statements in oppositioprojects are noted. Section 3.3 of the EIS of collocation with existing pipeline syste

IND194-6

S-1332
INDIVIDUALS

IND194 – Michael Gogins (cont’d)

S-1333
INDIVIDUALS

IND195 – J.L. Marsh

As stated in section 4.3.2.1 of the EIS, Cocomplete an expert field assessment of se150 feet of construction workspaces. The determine if construction activities could seeps and/or springs. The expert would threcommended construction alternatives to applicable. Should the integrity of any wimpacted during construction, either wateConstitution would provide an alternative compensate the landowner for a new, com

IND195-1

S-1334
INDIVIDUALS

IND195 – J.L. Marsh (cont’d)

S-1335
INDIVIDUALS

IND195 – J.L. Marsh (cont’d)

S-1336
INDIVIDUALS

IND196 – Sara Zimmerman

The commentor’s statements regarding thnoted. The pipeline would only transport 3.1.2.3 of the EIS contains a discussion of 

IND196-1

S-1337
INDIVIDUALS

IND197 – Dianne Sefcik

IND197-1 See the response to comment IND166-1.

S-1338
INDIVIDUALS

IND197 – Dianne Sefcik (cont’d)

S-1339
INDIVIDUALS

IND198 – Janet Terchek

The commentor’s statements regarding thwildlife in the area are noted. Section 3.4revised to provide further assessment of thanalysis, we could not identify a viable roparcel that was preferable to the proposed 

IND198-1

The FERC does not become involved in eland sale issues. However, the FERC’s DService is available at 1-877-337-2237 to mediation assistance. The landowner’s coof the proposed projects are noted. See thFA1-1 regarding the adequacy of the drafcomments. The Commissioners at the FEauthority to evaluate the merits of a projeapprove the proposal, with or without moto approve the project. 

IND198-2

S-1340
INDIVIDUALS

IND198 – Janet Terchek (cont’d)

S-1341
INDIVIDUALS

IND199 – Dianne Sefcik

The discussion of Marcellus Shale develoand pipelines, in section 4.13.1 of the EIS additional information for the final EIS. Acomment CO26-11.

IND199-1

S-1342
INDIVIDUALS

IND199 – Dianne Sefcik (cont’d)

S-1343
INDIVIDUALS

IND199 – Dianne Sefcik (cont’d)

S-1344
INDIVIDUALS

IND199 – Dianne Sefcik (cont’d)

S-1345
INDIVIDUALS

IND199 – Dianne Sefcik (cont’d)

IND199-2 See the response to IND120-3.

See the response to comments FA4-45 aninduced development. 

IND199-3

S-1346