Contents & Dominion requests LESS ENV. REPORTING

FERC and DOMINION

Appalachian Gateway Project - Dominon 2012

DOMINION REQUESTS LESS

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING

FERC: “We disagree.”

FERC: Appalachian Gateway Project 135 FERC 61,239

m

June 16, 2011 - Dominion Transmission, Inc - Docket No. CP10-448-000

Edited by Lauren Ragland

55. 
Dominion requests that Environmental Condition No. 7 be changed from requiring weekly status reports to requiring bi-weekly reports during construction. 
Dominion contends that because it is participating in the Third-Party Environmental Compliance Monitoring Program and will employ its own Environmental Inspectors with reporting requirements, weekly reports are not necessary. 

We disagree. 

Given the concurrent construction of multiple pipeline construction spreads and compressor stations, weekly reports are necessary to track and resolve compliance issues in a timely manner.

RIGHT OF WAY PROBLEMS - The Steven Garth Smith Story

RIGHT OF WAY PROBLEMS

The Steven Garth Smith Story

“Mr. Smith is concerned that repeated attempts to engage Dominion 

in discussions have been dismissed by Dominion.” (67)

“Dominion may not rely on the eminent domain authority 

to enlarge the width of its right-of-way beyond this limit.” (68)

“The proposed route would require removing all the trees from his property line”. (69)

“Dominion has informed him that he cannot 

replant the trees after construction is complete.” (69)

“We will require, in Environmental Condition No. 26, 

that Dominion incorporate Smith Variation 2 into its project route 

and include updated alignment sheets, or provide sufficient justification 

for retaining its original route.” (74)

FERC: Appalachian Gateway Project 135 FERC 61,239

m

June 16, 2011 - Dominion Transmission, Inc - Docket No. CP10-448-000

m

Edited by Lauren Ragland

67. 
Mr. Stephen Garth Smith states that while he is not opposed to the project, he is 
concerned that repeated attempts to engage Dominion in discussions have been dismissed by Dominion. 

We reiterate our expectation that all applicants will engage in meaningful 
negotiations with all affected landowners. 

Mr. Smith is concerned primarily with the width and location of Dominion’s proposed right-of-way.

68. 
Steven Garth Smith believes that Dominion is seeking to obtain a 65-foot-wide operational right-of-way across his property, which would be inconsistent with the 50-foot-wide operational right-of-way described in Dominion’s application and in the EA. 

Mr. Smith states that a 65-foot-wide right-of-way has already been flagged on his property, which extends the right-of-way to his water well. 

We stress that this order grants Dominion only a 50-foot-wide operational right-of-way for the portion of its proposed right-of-way route across the Smith property. 
Consequently, Dominion may not rely on the eminent domain authority conferred by NGA section 7(h) to enlarge the width of its right-of-way beyond this limit.(51)

69.
Mr. Smith asserts the proposed route would require removing all the trees from the south and southwest side of his home, including a large row of trees that have historically marked his property line. 

Mr. Smith explains these trees are of particular importance, as his home was deliberately sited to utilize the shade of the tree line to provide natural cooling for the house. 

He also relies on these trees to provide a break from the wind and weather, to dampen traffic noise from Pisgah Road (located approximately 200 feet from his house), and to sever off-road vehicles’ access to his property. 

Because the proposed Dominion pipeline is adjacent to and parallel with a Texas Eastern right-of-way used by off-road vehicles, Mr. Smith is concerned that if the tree line is removed, these vehicles’ access will be no longer be blocked. 

Mr. Smith states that Dominion has informed him that he cannot replant the trees after construction is complete. We clarify that while trees cannot be planted within the operational pipeline right-of-way, trees could be replanted within the construction right-of-way and any adjacent extra work areas after construction is complete.

70.
To avoid losing his trees, Mr. Smith has presented Dominion with variations to the 
proposed route that he believes would lessen the environmental impacts on his property. He suggests three variations.

71. 
The first variation would relocate Dominion’s pipeline from its currently proposed
weather, to dampen traffic noise from Pisgah Road (located approximately 200 feet from his house), and to sever off-road vehicles’ access to his property. Because the proposed Dominion pipeline is adjacent to and parallel with a Texas Eastern right-of-way used by off-road vehicles.

72. 
The second variation would move the proposed route approximately 190 feet to 
the southeast so it would parallel three existing and active Texas Eastern rights-of-way located on an adjacent property. 

As currently proposed, this pipeline route would skirt the property line between these two properties, with the majority of the construction right-of-way on the commentor's property. 

We note that this variation would reroute the proposed pipeline from approximately MP37.5 to MP38.3 near the Water Dam Road crossing. Mr. Smith declares that the landowner of the adjacent property approves of this variation.

73. 
The third variation would move the proposed route to the north of Mr. Smith’s
house, avoiding the trees on the south/southwestern side of his house. 

Similar to the second variation, this revision would require that the proposed location of the route through Mr. Grooms' property be shifted northward at approximately MP3
north of Mr. Smith's house across his property, and rejoin the proposed route before 
Water Dam Road (~MP38.3) on the Southwestern Pennsylvania Water Authority 
property. 

This variation would remove substantially more forested lands than either the 
current proposed route or the second variation. In addition, this variation would establish a new right-of-way that does not parallel an existing right-of-way, which is contrary to  the Commission’s preference for routing along an established right-of-way where  possible, as this generally reduces the impacts of a new right-of-way.

74. 
Based on our review of the variations provided by Mr. Smith, only the second 
alternative appears to be viable, as it appears it would not add additional environmental impacts. 

Therefore, we will require, in Environmental Condition No. 26, that Dominion 
incorporate Smith Variation 2 into its project route and include updated alignment sheets, or provide sufficient justification for retaining its original route.

Source: Appalachian Gateway Project 135 FERC 61,239

mDominion Transmission, Inc - Docket No. CP10-448-000

June 16, 2011

m

ENVIRONMENT - Beckets Run WOODLAND

ENVIRONMENT - BECKETS RUN WOODLAND

“It must follow its Forest Stewardship Plan and its Conservation Plan” 

“The requirements of Executive Order No. 13,286, which recognizes 

the need for actions to prevent the introduction of, detect, 

rapidly response to, and control, populations of invasive species.”

“Beckets Run states that it has met with Dominion representatives 

to demonstrate and discuss problems resulting from off-road traffic 

on and adjacent to existing and proposed rights-of-way, 

but that Dominion has halted negotiations, 

indicating it finds Beckets Run’s requested measures 

unreasonable and unduly costly. “

FERC: Appalachian Gateway Project 135 FERC 61,239

m

June 16, 2011 - Dominion Transmission, Inc - Docket No. CP10-448-000

m

Edited by Lauren Ragland

59. 
Beckets Run Woodlands (Beckets Run), located within the Beckets Run 
Biological Diversity Area46 in Forward Township, Pennsylvania, does not oppose the proposed project, but seeks to ensure project impacts will not affect its status as a certified sustainable forestry business.

In comments filed in response to the EA, Beckets Run explains that to retain this status, it must follow its Forest Stewardship Plan and its Conservation Plan (Forest and Conservation Plans). 

The Forest and Conservation Plans require Beckets Run to adhere to specific forest conservation practices, e.g., to limit the spread of invasive species and limit the access of off-road vehicles. Beckets Run is concerned that if the Commission does not require Dominion to adhere to similar conservation practices along its proposed right-of-way through the Beckets Run Woodlands, the state and federal agencies that oversee Beckets Run may find that it has failed to fulfill the mandates of its Forest and Conservation Plans.

60. 
Regarding invasive species, Beckets Run observes that while Dominion has committed to use certified weed-free mulches, seed mixes, and desirable native vegetation following construction in accordance with recommendations by Natural Resources Conservation Services or in accord with landowners’ requests, it believes these measures are insufficient to prevent and control invasive species that are already on the property.

Whereas weed-free post-construction restoration measures are important, Beckets Run insists they do not deter the spread of invasive species that already exist in current and proposed pipeline rights-of-way. 

Thus, Beckets Run proposes monitoring vegetation restoration for invasive species for at least three growing seasons, rather than the two seasons specified in Dominion's ESCP and the Commission's Plan. 

Beckets Run asks the Commission to require Dominion to comply with a comprehensive site and species specific invasive species management plan containing provisions similar to its species specific invasive species management plan containing provisions similar to its Forest and Conservation Plans.

61. 
Beckets Run is also concerned about off-road vehicles trespassing on pipeline rights-of-way, as this can lead to the degradation of soil, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. 
Beckets Run contends that while page 1-27 of the EA lists several measures to control off-road vehicles (i.e., posting signs, installing fences with locking gates, and placing slash, shrubs, timber, boulders, and pipe barriers across the right-of-way), the EA states that it is contingent on the landowner to request such measures through easement negotiations. 

Beckets Run states that it has met with Dominion representatives to demonstrate and discuss problems resulting from off-road traffic on and adjacent to existing and proposed rights-of-way, but that Dominion has halted negotiations, indicating it finds Beckets Run’s requested measures unreasonable and unduly costly. 

Beckets Run proposes that if Dominion will not negotiate the terms of an easement, then the Commission should require Dominion to develop, disclose, and implement comprehensive plans that address invasive species, off-road vehicles, and reforestation for all phases of the proposed project. 

Beckets Run is concerned that Dominion will exercise eminent domain to secure easement without negotiating with landowners and without implementing any measures beyond those required by the Commission certificate conditions.

62
We expect Dominion will make good faith efforts to reach rights-of-way agreements with affected landowners.

Beckets Run’s concerns regarding the restoration and continued protection of the rights-of-way across its property, as outlines in its May 5, 2011 letter, appear reasonable. We direct the parties to continue discussions in Environmental Condition No. 24.

Beckets Run cites the requirements of Executive Order No. 13112 (64 FR 6,183 (Feb. 8, 1999), amended by Executive Order No. 13,286 (Feb. 28, 2003)), which recognizes the need for actions to prevent the introduction of, detect, rapidly response to, and control, populations of invasive species.

Source: Appalachian Gateway Project 135 FERC 61,239

mDominion Transmission, Inc - Docket No. CP10-448-000

June 16, 2011

IMPACT on WATER QUALITY

IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY

Photo Ed Wade Jr. c

FERC: Appalachian Gateway Project 135 FERC 61,239

m

June 16, 2011 - Dominion Transmission, Inc - Docket No. CP10-448-000

m

Edited by Lauren Ragland

77. 
One comment claims the EA is insufficient and imprecise in general, and in particular faults the EA for failing to give adequate consideration to the impact of drilling operations on water supplies. 

Section 2.2 of the EA provides a detailed assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed project on water resources, fisheries, and wetlands. 

The EA identifies the potential for pipeline construction activities such as blasting, equipment fueling, and accidental spills of hazardous substances to impact water quality and nearby water supply wells. 

In response, we require Dominion to adhere to the mitigation measures described in its Blasting Plan, Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan, and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. 

These measures specify that Dominion: 

(1) not conduct fueling within 200 feet of a private well and 400 feet of a public well; 

(2) offer pre- and post-construction well testing to the owner of any well within 150 feet of construction work areas; 

(3) provide an alternative water source or other compensation to landowners whose wells are temporarily affected by construction; and 

(4) repair or replace any wells that are permanently damaged. 

We believe these mandatory construction conditions ensure the proposed project will have no significant Adverse impacts on water supplies.

NOISE LAWS

NOISE LAWS

PHOTO: INGAA

FERC: Appalachian Gateway Project 135 FERC 61,239

m

June 16, 2011 - Dominion Transmission, Inc - Docket No. CP10-448-000

Edited by Lauren Ragland

80. 
Don Tappan requests clarification of the federal noise requirements applicable to the proposed Morrison Junction Station and an existing Payne compressor facility. 

We are not aware of West Virginia state or local regulations that apply specifically to noise from natural gas compressor stations.

81. 
The proposed Morrison Junction Station is expected to result in a small increase in noise at noise sensitive areas (NSAs). Page 2-122, Table 2.8.2-3 of the EA shows that he predicted noise increase due to this compressor station will be between 0.1 and 3.9 decibels. 

We impose a strict 55 day-night averaged A-weighted decibels (55 dBA Ldn) criterion on new facilities and modifications to existing facilities. 

We impose Environmental Condition No. 21, which states that the Morrison Station shall not result in noise impacts at the NSAs that exceed our criterion.

82. 
The ambient noise survey prepared by Dominion for the Morrison Junction Station was filed by Dominion on June 1, 2010, and is located in Appendix 9-I of Resource Report 9 in the Environmental Report Exhibit F-1. 

Within this report are the locations where Dominion measured ambient noise levels. We do not specify the exact locations hat the acoustical survey must take measurements, however it is typical to measure at the nearest point to the NSA that is practicable. 

We will review the post-construction noise survey and determine if it is acceptable. If we deem it insufficient, we will require additional information from Dominion. This will ensure that the new station will not exceed the specified noise levels.

LAND OWNERS and the LAND MEN

LAND OWNERS and the LAND MEN

“Alleged misstatements and unwarranted incursions” (11)

“State or local trespass laws govern 

a company’s access to your land.” (11)

Photo: Doddridge County Watershed Association

FERC: Appalachian Gateway Project 135 FERC 61,239

m

June 16, 2011 - Dominion Transmission, Inc - Docket No. CP10-448-000

m

Edited by Lauren Ragland

19. Dominion states it intends to work cooperatively with all affected landowners to address concerns as it acquires the necessary property for the proposed facilities. (11*)

*11 
Several landowners, however, allege misstatements and unwarranted incursions by Dominion’s representatives. 

As we observe in our brochure,
 "Blanket Certificate Program: Notice to Landowners" at
 (http://www.ferc.gov/for-citizens/citizen-guides.asp)
which pipeline companies are required to provide to affected landowners
 (see 18 C.F.R. § 157.6(d)(3)(ii) (2011)),
 “state or local trespass laws govern a company’s access to your land.” 

Consequently, allegations of improprieties concerning access to land 
are appropriately addressed to state or local law enforcement authorities, 
rather than the Commission. 

Laws for NEW PIPELINES

LAWS  FOR  NEW  PIPELINES 

Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities

FERC: Appalachian Gateway Project 135 FERC 61,239

m

June 16, 2011 - Dominion Transmission, Inc - Docket No. CP10-448-000

m

Edited by Lauren Raglandwv.wilderness.vs.prop.pipeline@gmail.com

Photo: Appalachian Gateway by Dom.com

FERC balances the public benefits 

against the potential adverse consequences. (14)

“Determine whether the applicant has made efforts to eliminate or minimize 

any adverse effects the project might have on landowners and communities 

affected by the route of the new pipeline”. (15)

FERC will evaluate the project by balancing the evidence of public benefits

 to be achieved against the residual adverse effects. (15)

Only when the benefits outweigh the adverse effects on economic interests 

will the Commission proceed (15)

14. 

The Statement of Policy on the Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas 

Pipeline Facilities (Certificate Policy Statement) provides guidance as to how the Commission will evaluate proposals for certificating new construction. 

The Certificate Policy Statement established criteria for determining whether there is a need for a proposed project and whether the proposed project will serve the public interest. 

The Certificate Policy Statement explains that in deciding whether to authorize the construction of major new pipeline facilities, the Commission balances the public benefits against the potential adverse consequences. 

The Commission's goal is to give appropriate consideration to the enhancement of competitive transportation alternatives, the possibility of overbuilding, subsidization by existing customers, the applicant's responsibility for unsubscribed capacity, and the avoidance of the unnecessary exercise of eminent domain or other disruptions of the environment.

15. 

Under this policy, the threshold requirement for companies proposing new projects is that the applicant must be prepared to support the project financially without relying on subsidization from its existing customers. 

The next step is to determine whether the applicant has made efforts to eliminate or minimize any adverse effects the project might have on the applicant's existing customers, existing pipelines in the market and their captive customers, or landowners and communities affected by the route of the new pipeline. 

If residual adverse effects on these interest groups are identified after efforts have been made to minimize them, the Commission will evaluate the project by balancing the evidence of public benefits to be achieved against the residual adverse effects. 

This is essentially an economic test. Only when the benefits outweigh the adverse effects on economic interests will the Commission proceed to complete the environmental analysis where other interests are considered