Você está na página 1de 8

UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA

BEFORETHE
FEDERALENERGYREGULATORYCOMMISSION
OEP/DG2E/GAS2
(MillenniumPipelineCompanyDocketNo.CP16-486-000
EasternSystemUpgradeProject)

May22,2017

HonorableKimberlyD.Bose
Secretary
FederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission
888FirstStreetNE,Room1A
Washington,DC20426

RE:ResponseLettertoTRCommentsMay2017filedbytheapplicantMillenniumPipeline
Company,LLC,efiled&servedatFERC,5/19/2017

DearSecretaryBose,

As noted in your March 31st 2017 public notice, the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the Eastern System
Upgrade Project (Project) proposed by Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC (Millennium) in the
above referenced docket. Millennium requests authorization to construct, operate, and
maintainnewnaturalgasfacilitiesinNewYorkconsistingof:

(i)approximately7.8milesof30-and36-inch-diameterpipelineloopinOrangeCounty;
(ii)anew22,400horsepower(hp)compressorstationinSullivanCounty;
(iii)additional22,400hpattheexistingHancockCompressorStationinDelawareCounty;
(iv)modificationstotheexistingRamapoMeterStationinRocklandCounty;
(v)modificationstotheWagonerInterconnectinOrangeCounty;
(vi) additional pipeline appurtenant facilities at the Huguenot and Westtown Meter Stations in
OrangeCounty;and
(vii) an alternate interconnect to the 16-inch-diameter Valley Lateral at milepost 7.6 of the
Project.

In response to Public Comment Regarding Timber Rattlesnakes Eastern System Upgrade -


FERC Environmental Assessment Millennium Pipeline Company LLC FERC Docket No.
CP16-486-0001, a letter outlining public disclosure of local, historical geographic knowledge
pertaining to the existence of Timber Rattlesnakes in the general vicinity of the Project within
Town of Highland, NY; as well GIS mapping of area terrain including contours, aspects and

1
https://www.scribd.com/document/346807765/Timber-Rattlesnake-Disclosure-Proposed-Highland-CS
slopes, the applicant chose to offer a response authored by its own consulting hepatologist
addressed to Lisa Masi, Wildlife Biologist, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC)2. In this response letter, the consultant took the opportunity to
disparage the previous public disclosures as mere hearsay and inaccurate; offered new
information unknown to the public, as well as characterize the Project as a net conservation
benefit for Timber RattlesnakesresidinginnearproximitytotheProject.Anotableomissionof
the letter was any direct discussion of Delaware Riverkeeper Network (DRN) comments
pertaining to Timber Rattlesnakes within their project comment letter dated May 1st, 2017. In
the DRN letter, pp. 44-45, the FERCs finding that the Project May affect, not likely to
adverselyaffectTimberRattlesnakesisdiscussedasfollows:

The EA recognized that there may be foraging area near the Highland Compressor
Station yet there is no mention of the Delaware Riverkeeeper Network letter submitted
on October 18, 2016 where a potential den and a juvenile timber rattlesnake was
observed by a memberofthepublicintheareaofthecompressorinAugust,2016.The
distance between the potential den andtheclosestareaofpermanentdisturbancewas
measured to be approximately 266 feet. The distance between the potential den and
the closest Temporary Work Space (TWS) wasmeasuredtobeapproximately142feet.
Timber rattlesnakes are especially sensitive to vibrations so the notion that the
compressors continual operations of a station in the vicinity of this currently
undisturbed parcel is absurd. Rattlesnakes were also observed 900 feet from the
Ramapo Meter station. Furthermore, in FERCs Final Supplemental EIS
(FERCEIS0-195F) (Dockets CP98-150-006, CP98-150-007,CP98-150-00, et. al) for the
Millennium pipeline indicated atleast14rattlesnakedenswerelikelytobedisturbedfor
that pipeline project. These cumulative impacts from repeated cuts and harms over
time need be considered fully and not segmented out. Each population and den
destroyed or habitat now having a potential compressor site within 142 feet of TWS,
with its continued noise and impacts,clearly leads to more decimation to populations
that deserve protection a prematuredeterminationbyFERCofMayaffect,notlikely
toadverselyaffectisnotappropriate.3

Beyond omitting discussion of larger adverse ramifications of the Project on Timber


RattlesnakepopulationsincloseproximitytotheProject,theconsultantchoseinsteadtofocus
on a series of alleged inaccuracies found the public comment letter while disparaging the
publicsinterestandknowledgeinthematterasfollows:

1. AllegationofHearsayrelativetotwodenslocatedneartheHuguenotLoopandthe
RamapoM&RStation.
2. Misconstruethepurposeofphotographicdocumentationprofferedintheoriginalpublic
commentletter.
3. Misdeemlocalpublicgeographicknowledgeasrumors.

2
https://www.scribd.com/document/349012815/PUBLIC-ESU-Response-to-TR-Comments-MAY-2017
3
https://www.scribd.com/document/347072454/DRN-FERC-comment-letter-5-1-17
4. Discreditverifiable,first-handaccountsashearsayanddeemthemtobeconsidered
totallyirrelevant.

On p. 2 oftheconsultantsresponseletter,itisassertedthatthepubliccommentletterclaims
that two dens were located within 900 feet of a segment of the Huguenot Loop and the
Ramapo M&R Station, apparently hearsay information since that was not in the report. This
particular detail was obtained from theoriginalapplicantEAsurveyworkcompletedforTimber
Rattlesnakes as outlined in Resource Report # 3, pp.3-32,andrestatedexactlyastheoriginal
statement.Itisnothearsay-itisthesimplereplicationofinformationprovidedbytheapplicant.

Further along in the consultants response letter, p. 3, there is a substantial discussion of the
purpose, content and location of a photograph offered in the original public letter. A second
photograph approximately 20 feet eastward of the original photograph is now attached with
EXIF metadata as Exhibit #1. There isconcurrenceregardingthelocationanddirectionofthe
photograph(s) and exactly where the photograph(s) were derived - outside the applicants
property. That is not an issueofdisagreement. However,thereasoningfortheinclusionofthe
photograph(s) needs to be clarified. It was and is foremost to give contextual information
regarding the area known locally as Montezumas Ridge and which has multiple public
accounts as bothadenlocationandlocationofhighTimberRattlesnakeactivity. Secondly,as
stated in the original discussion of the first photograph, to demonstrate that criteria forbotha
denlocationandTimberRattlesnakeactivityisindeedevident.

While the consultant is indeed correct to state the majority of the area photographed and
originally mapped potential den location is not oriented southeast to southwest as shown in
Map 1 - Suitable Aspect, there is significant suitable aspect coverage immediately adjacent
east and southeast, nearandalongthehighledge. Withinthepolygondrawnaspotentialden
location there does indeed exist 120 square meters of suitable aspect. Further, as seen in
Map 2 - Suitable Aspect, significant southeast to southwest aspect exists throughout the
Project parcel as well as immediately outside the Project parcel. In fact, 30% of the Project
parcel(24acres)fitsanaspectsuitabilitycriteriaofSEtoSW(112.5-247.5 degrees).

Regarding the mapped potential den location, this polygon straddles both the applicants
property as well as adjacent property belonging totheExcelsiorHuntingClub. Theconsultant
raises this issue, and concludes that certain portions of this areawereindeedsurveyed-25%
surveyed - Leaving assumingly75%NOTsurveyed.ItsunclearhowanareaNOTsurveyedcan
be typified fully and confidently. Further, exactly whose propertythesubjectareacrossesisof
no consequence - assumingly Timber Rattlesnakes dont adhere to property boundaries in
basking, foraging and denning activities. The critical test is not related to propertyboundaries
but rather to proximity of Project temporary work spaces (TWS) and permanent disturbances
asaresultofimpervioussurfaces,roadsandcompressorstationinfrastructure.

Further along on p. 5, discussion ensues regarding the inclusion of a first-hand account


pertaining to Timber Rattlesnakes in the area locally known as Montezumas Ridge or
Montezumas Mountain. The consultant typifies this local knowledge as hearsay without
associated referencesdeemingittotallyirrelevant. However,thisisthedirectconveyanceof
a conversation that happened between two long-standing local residents via email who are
known to the community at large. Little is gained by casting aspersions on first-hand local
knowledge, and it does not negate the contextual information contained therein. This
disregard runs counter to a much more neutral acknowledgement by the consultant of the
contextual publicinformationasstatedina2014emergencesurveyreportforNewYorkPower
Authority (NYPA)4. In discussion of the site background, historical sightings are indeed
acknowledged, both confirmed and unconfirmed stating There had been some historic
unconfirmed reports of rattlesnakes denning at this location. These reports are assumingly
NOTdeemedtotallyirrelevant.

This dismissive stance continuesapaceinthediscussionofahand-drawnmapprovidedinthe


public comment letter. It should be noted along with this map,thefollowingwasstatedbythe
mapauthorwithoutanypromptwhatsoever:

That[mappedorangearea]isthemajorityofMontezumaMnt.Thedensarethesmall
circlesalongtheridgefacingsouth.

While the consultant is correct to state that this hand drawn map is indeed not to scale, the
purposeofthemapisutterlymisconstrued.Asstatedbytheconsultant:

a hand drawnmapofadenwhich,whenplacedonanaerialmaptoscale,coversan
area of approximately 1.5 miles by 0.5 miles. This massive polygon extends far to the
north and south of the proposed project and may well encompass an unknown den
sincetheareasareprivatepropertyandnotaccessible.

In fact the purpose of the map was to convey through non-technical means local geographic
knowledge held by a member of the local community currently residing at a distance, outside
New York. With a pen and a relatively small scale map, this individual was indeed able to
successfully convey local geographic knowledge- knowledge of den(s) in an area known as
Montezuma Mnt. Further, this conveyance of local geographic knowledge concursgenerally
with the other first-person accounts pertaining to the geography known as Montezumas
Ridge. To expect this cartographic representation to adhere to a level of precision found in
technical reference mapping is thoroughlyinappropriate. Localgeographicknowledgeisoften
conveyed through non-technical means and is referred to academically as Neogeography,
brieflydefinedasfollows:

4
http://www.bg.nypa.gov/Lists/RelicensingDocuments/Attachments/69/3563.pdf
Neogeography is the use of geographical techniques and tools for personal and
community activities or by a non-expert group of users. Application domains of
neogeography are typically not formal or analytical.5

While the FERC and the applicant continue to assert that the project May affect, not likelyto
adversely affect particularly Timber Rattlesnake populations and habitat known and
documented at the Project site, the public views this findingasthoroughlyinappropriategiven
current evidence and information. Further, that the installation of a 22,400 horsepower
compressor station replete with low frequency noise, industrialized impervious surfaces and
new access roadsinplaceof-accordingtotheapplicantsownconsultant-mixed deciduous
forest [which is] excellent foraging is somehow a net conservation benefit for Timber
Rattlesnakes is indeed absurd. In spite of the FERCs current May affect, not likely to
adversely affect finding, the public does look forward toengagingproactivelyandspecifically
with NYSDEC in fully detailing and understanding the ramificationsoftheproposedProjecton
local Timber Rattlesnake habitat and populations before any granting of necessary state
permits.

Respectfully submitted,

Stephen Metts
Sullivan County, NY

OEP/DG2E/Gas2
MillenniumPipeline
Company,LLC
EasternSystemUpgrade
Project
DocketNo.CP16-486-000

5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neogeography
Map I - 1:1,500 Scale
Suitable Aspect
Proposed Project Parcel
Inside - Suitable Aspect
Outside - Suitable Aspect
F
G Photo Location
Potential Den Location

0 200
Feet
400
Map II - 1:5,500 Scale
Suitable Aspect
Inside - Suitable Aspect
Outside - Suitable Aspect
F
G Photo Location
Proposed Project Parcel
Potential Den Location

0 700
Feet
1,400

Você também pode gostar