What follows is the first of a couple of comments we’ll be submitting to FERC expressing our concerns about and opposition to the ET Rover pipeline. In addition to all of the other serious and compelling issues raised by Michiganders, we think it’s important that FERC recognize the failures of its own processes.
—
October 28, 2014
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20426
Re: Docket PF14-14-000
Dear Ms. Bose
I am writing with regard to the Rover Pipeline project (Docket #PF14-14), which is currently at the pre-filing stage. While I share many of the concerns expressed by my fellow southeast Michigan citizens (a very large number of whom have submitted their own comments to this docket) about the lack of necessity of this project, its limited benefits to our state, the disruptions it will cause to private property, and the threats the proposed route poses to sensitive environmental areas, here I will limit my comments to a very important procedural matter: public engagement.
Rover Pipeline, LLC has failed to comply adequately with basic conditions of the FERC pre-filing process and for that reason its application for a Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience ought not to be accepted by FERC, much less approved.
In its order no. 665 (issued Oct. 7, 2005) mandating participation in the pre-filing process, FERC stressed that “it is desirable to maximize early public involvement to promote the wide-spread dissemination of information about proposed projects”and encouraged applicants “to cooperate with state and local officials, as required by EPAct 2005.” While Rover Pipelines, LLC has held a series of Open Houses along its pipeline route, those meetings, as clearly illustrated by the numerous and uniform comments of local officials listed below (it would be easy to produce dozens more similar comments from landowners), have in no way fulfilled Rover’s obligations as described by FERC. To wit:
Mundy Township Supervisor Dave Guigear said during the meeting he believes more people are concerned about the lack of transparency from Energy Transfer, parent company of ET Rover, rather than [sic] pipeline.
“Nobody I’ve encountered seems to be in favor of this project,” [Mundy Township attorney F. Jack] Belzer said. “There’s not a lot of information forthcoming from them that’s consistent.”
“I think it was an orchestrated disaster in terms of a meeting,” [Atlas Township Supervisor Shirley] Kautman-Jones said. “There was limited parking, the facility was way too small and they only had one set of maps for each county.”
Grand Blanc Township Supervisor Marilyn “Micki” Hoffman said ET Rover’s lack of transparency has raised questions among community leaders and residents. Grand Blanc Township has postponed voting on the issue in hopes of getting more clarity on the project “This hit us so fast and we had so many bad relationships established with ET Rover for how arrogant they were when surveying properties,” she said. “And the lack of transparency has also been an issue. We don’t want to rule it out, but at the same time we have a lot of unanswered questions.”
Instead of a podium with a few speakers, [attendees] walked into a packed hub of information boards and scattered Energy Transfer representatives. While there was a “Welcome” board, there was no rhyme or reason to the open house that Linden Mayor David Lossing referred to as a “debacle.”
Genesee County Commissioner Tony Brown (District 6) said, “When they don’t include local government in the discussion, my knee jerk reaction is to say it’s shady.” He pointed out that he had no side, for or against it, yet, but that at face value the secretiveness says something underhanded is going on.
“It was a well-orchestrated disaster,” said Kautman-Jones of the Rover meeting. “It was overcrowded and another thing I found really ridiculous is they had one table with a set of maps for each county. Of course, everyone wants to look at the Genesee County map, and you had to stand in line… They met the pre-filing application requirement of having a public meeting, but it definitely was not for the benefit of the public. They were just doing what was required.” “It’s hard to trust a company that is not being as forthcoming with information as you wish they would be,” [Kautman-Jones] said.
“I’m really frustrated because if this is how they treat elected officials, how are they treating property owners?” [Kautman-Jones] asked. “They aren’t even telling us what they are proposing to do. I feel (Rover) not giving information is a way to get to the filing process with as little opposition as possible. It takes people awhile to think about things and if your window of time keeps getting smaller and smaller, your response time is, too.”
[Ernest] Monroe agrees. The Hadley supervisor said he began receiving calls from concerned residents at the end of August. Rover never contacted the township, nor Lapeer County officials, he said, they just started showing up and surveying property.
“I can’t get good answers from Rover, they’ve just done a deplorable job,” said [Groveland Township Supervisor Robert] DePalma. “Now they’ve hired PR people that are going to come out. I’ve been in marketing for more than 30 years and this is the worst managed project I’ve ever seen… Facts have been extremely difficult to get from Rover.”
ET Rover has not endeared itself to [Oxford Township Supervisor Bill Dunn]. “To be quite frank, they jerked me around,” Dunn told the audience. “I’m not real happy with them.” “I don’t like being jerked around,” Dunn said. “They did lie to me . . . They were not forthright.”
[Fenton] Township Clerk Robert Krug said that when he attended the recent ET open house hosted at Spring Meadows in Linden, ET’s public relations representatives continually said they would find someone to answer questions they couldn’t, and never did. “Everybody had smiles, but nobody had answers,” said Krug.
[Fenton] Township Supervisor Bonnie Mathis said, “ET Rover says that they notified township supervisors, but they didn’t.”
State Representative Joseph Graves added, “They could have done it better and because they didn’t, now there are suspicions.”
Such comments convey the overwhelming sentiments of stakeholders along the proposed route in Michigan. Given such widespread dissatisfaction, how can FERC possibly believe that its procedures and processes are working as intended? For instance, in the FAQ for Gas Pre-Filing at the FERC website (under “What happens at open houses?”), it states:
The goal of the Commission’s pre-filing process is to notify all project stakeholders, including potentially affected property owners, so that Company and the Commission Staff can provide a forum to hear the issues relevant to those stakeholders. The Company may then incorporate proposed mitigation measures into the project design from comments received from stakeholders.
As the comments above make clear, stakeholders along the proposed route have NOT received adequate information nor do they believe that “issues relevant” to them have been heard. Rover’s mode of communication with stakeholders has precluded such productive exchanges. As a result, Rover has, at best, only complied with the letter of the pre-filing rule, merely going through the motions in the most perfunctory manner. Rover has certainly not adhered to the spirit of the rules. This makes a mockery of the process and suggests that Rover does not appear to take its obligations to FERC or to the public seriously. What is the point of requiring public engagement on the part of applicants if that engagement is only going to take place in the most superficial and ineffective way?
In its letter approving Rover’s pre-filing request, FERC states “that when ET Rover files its application with the Commission, we will evaluate the progress made during the pre- filing process.” From the point of view of the public, as represented by numerous local elected officials (not to mention dozens of landowners), Rover has made very little progress. I urge FERC to reject Rover’s application for its failure to fulfill even the most basic requirements of pre-filing as well as to protect the integrity of FERC’s own rules and procedures.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Insko
Groveland Township, MI
So I wonder what these officials will do to follow up on their concerns. I know some of them are trying to get information out there for the public but It would be nice for them to form a coalition and pursue FERC and higher officials on this. The whole idea that Rover refuses to use ITC ROW when it is available is something FERC needs to consider as well.
I just received your comment to FERC in my mailbox Jeff. Fantastic job! Thank you very much for your efforts.
Thank you!
You are doing such an amazing job Jeff,
Thank you…
Excellent letter Jeff.
Did anyone else go to the meeting in Goodrich last night? I spoke to Jake Bennett Deputy District Director for Dan Kildee and he said Mr. Kildee is taking residents complaints seriously and has already had meetings with Energy Transfer and FERC regarding the way surveyors have been conducting themselves. Great for Genesee County.
I wonder if Ms. Miller is doing anything for us in Lapeer in that regard, anyone know? If not, we all need to start writing or calling her more frequently…
How did the meeting go, Aura?
Good news, a note from Ms. Miller posted to the FERC website this morning. While we truly applaud her for this (beginning?) correspondence, we hope to see a official hard copy to ET as well as FERC following it up.
Shirley did a good job in organizing things and the meeting was run in a very professional manner. The main topics were Condemnation and ROW contracts.
FERC has announced its environmental review open house:
DECEMBER 10 – 5pm (Rover REP) 6pm FERC REPS
HOLIDAY INN
5353 GATEWAY CENTER (by Redwood brewery)
FLINT MI, 48507
I’ve included the FERC LETTER please pay close attention to PG 2 FOR TIME AND ADDRESS,
PG 6 (THEY ARE LISTENING)
Currently Identified Environmental Issues
Based on our preliminary review of the Project; information provided by Rover;
and public comments filed in the Commission’s administrative record and submitted to
staff at the applicant-sponsored open houses; we have identified numerous issues that we
think deserve attention. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your
comments and our ongoing environmental analysis. These issues are:
• purpose and need for the Project;
• impacts of clearing forested areas and other vegetation;
• impacts on water resources including sensitive springs, groundwater, and
wetlands;
• impacts on land use including agricultural lands and associated drainage
systems;
• the use of eminent domain to obtain Project easements;
• impacts on property values and recreational resources;
• impacts from construction noise;
• pipeline integrity and public safety;
• alternatives; and
• cumulative impacts
PG 7 (COMMENT GUIDELINES AND DEADLINE DEC 18,2014)
READ THIS THEY ARE TELLING US EXACTLY WHAT THEY NEED.
We need to get more and RELEVANT letters in to FERC as well as have a STRONG showing at this (FLINT) open house (though all areas should do the same). Consider carpooling or offering rides to others. Also, we need to write into the EPA (maybe send copies of resolutions to them also) and the WHITE HOUSE. No matter what your political affiliation, we need to use EVERY avenue available.
More to come.
A.
FULL TRANSCRIPT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Rover Pipeline LLC Docket No. PF14-14-000
NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PLANNED
ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT,
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES,
AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS
(November 4, 2014)
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission)
will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will discuss the environmental
impacts of the planned Rover Pipeline Project (Project) involving construction and
operation of facilities by Rover Pipeline LLC (Rover) in multiple counties in Michigan,
Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The Commission will use this EIS in its
decision-making process to determine whether the Project is in the public convenience
and necessity.
This notice, which is being sent to the Commission’s current environmental
mailing list for the Project, announces the opening of the scoping process that will be
used to gather input about the Project from the public and other interested stakeholders.
State and local government representatives should notify their constituents about this
process and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern. Scoping comments
will help the Commission staff determine what issues will need to be evaluated in the
EIS. Please note that the scoping period will close on December 18, 2014.
Comments about the Project may be submitted in written form or verbally. The
Public Participation section of this notice describes how to submit written comments.
Verbal comments can be given at the public scoping meetings to be held in the Project
area as scheduled below.
Date and Time Meeting Location
Monday
November 17, 2014
6:00 pm EST
Toronto High School Cafetorium
1305 Dennis Way
Toronto, OH 43964
Tuesday
November 18, 2014
6:00 pm EST
Matt Barker Building
217 North 4th Avenue
Paden City, WV 26159
20141104-3006 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/04/2014
Docket No. PF14-14-000 -PAGE 2 –
Date and Time Meeting Location
Wednesday
November 19, 2014
6:00 pm EST
Harrison Central High School Auditorium
440 East Market Street
Cadiz, OH 43907
Thursday
November 20, 2014
6:00 pm EST
George Prinzing Auditorium
500 Washington Street
Chelsea, MI 48118
Monday
December 1, 2014
6:00 pm EST
Adrian High School Auditorium
785 Riverside Ave
Adrian, MI 49221
Tuesday
December 2, 2014
6:00 pm EST
Defiance College – Schomburg Auditorium
701 North Clinton Street
Defiance, OH 43512
Wednesday
December 3, 2014
6:00 pm EST
Buckeye Central High School Auditorium
938 South Kibler Street
New Washington, OH 44854
Thursday
December 4, 2014
6:00 pm EST
Fairless High School Auditorium
11885 Navarre Road SW
Navarre, OH 44662
Wednesday
December 10, 2014
6:00 pm EST
Holiday Inn Gateway Center
5353 Gateway Centre
Flint, MI 48507
Thursday
December 11, 2014
6:00 pm EST
Maniaci Banquet
69227 North Main Street
Richmond, MI 48062
The purpose of these scoping meetings is to provide the public an opportunity to
learn more about the Commission’s environmental review process, and to verbally
comment on the Project. Each scoping meeting will start at 6:00 pm and representatives
from Rover will be present one hour prior to each scoping meeting to answer questions
about the Project. Affected landowners and other interested parties are encouraged to
attend the scoping meetings and to give their comments on the issues they believe should
be addressed in the EIS. A transcript of each meeting will be added to the Commission’s
administrative record to ensure that your comments are accurately recorded.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative
may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain
the planned pipeline facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually
acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the Project, that approval
conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, a condemnation proceeding could be initiated where
compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
The “For Citizens” section of the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) provides more
information about the FERC and the environmental review process. This section also
20141104-3006 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/04/2014
Docket No. PF14-14-000 – PAGE 3 –
includes information about getting involved in FERC jurisdictional projects, and a
citizens’ guide entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need to Know?” This guide addresses a number of frequently asked questions, including
the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission’s proceedings.
Summary of the Planned Project
Rover plans to use about 621 miles of operational right-of-way to construct and
operate about 820 miles of interstate natural gas transmission pipeline and associated
facilities in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. The Project would
originate near Cadiz in Harrison County, Ohio; would extend about 210 miles west to an
interconnection with the Mid-west Hub; and then head northeast for about 209 miles to
the Canadian/United States Border. The remaining 199 miles would be associated with
eight supply laterals to service areas in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
Specifically, the Project would consist of the following components:
eight 24-, 30-, 36-, and 42-inch-diameter pipeline supply laterals (199.3
miles), in Washington County, Pennsylvania; Doddridge, Hancock, Tyler,
and Wetzel Counties, West Virginia; and Belmont, Carroll, Harrison,
Jefferson, Marshall, Monroe, and Noble Counties, Ohio;
two collocated 42-inch-diameter pipelines, Mainline A (209.5 miles) and
Mainline B (202.1 miles), in Ashland, Carroll, Crawford, Defiance,
Hancock, Harrison, Henry, Richland, Seneca, Stark, Tuscarawas, Wayne,
and Wood Counties, Ohio;
one 42-inch-diameter pipeline, Market Segment (209.4 miles), in Defiance,
Fulton, and Henry Counties, Ohio; and Genesee, Lapeer, Lenawee,
Livingston, Macomb, Oakland, Shiawassee, St. Clair, and Washtenaw
Counties, Michigan;
ten new compressor stations (CS):
o Cadiz CS in Harrison County, Ohio;
o Clarington CS in Monroe County, Ohio;
o Seneca CS in Noble County, Ohio;
o Burgettstown CS in Washington County, Pennsylvania;
o Majorsville CS in Marshall County, West Virginia;
o Sherwood CS in Doddridge County, West Virginia;
o Defiance CS in Defiance County, Ohio;
o Mainline CS 1 in Carroll County, Ohio;
o Mainline CS 2 in Wayne County, Ohio;
o Mainline CS 3 in Crawford County, Ohio; and
20141104-3006 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/04/2014
Docket No. PF14-14-000 -PAGE 4 –
four new metering and regulating stations in Doddridge County, West
Virginia; Monroe County, Ohio; and Washtenaw and Shiawassee Counties,
Michigan.
The general location of the Project facilities is shown in appendix 1.1
Land Requirements for Construction
Construction of the planned Project facilities would disturb about 12,147 acres of
land. The typical construction right-of-way for pipeline facilities would vary between
125- and 150-feet-wide in uplands and 75- and 95-feet-wide in wetlands, with additional
workspace needed in some locations due to site-specific conditions and activities.
Following construction, approximately 4,567 acres of land would be retained for
permanent operation of the facilities. Land affected by construction but not required for
operation would generally be allowed to revert to former uses.
The EIS Process
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take
into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it
considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity under
Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act. NEPA also requires us2 to discover and address
concerns the public may have about proposals. This discovery process is commonly
referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in
the EIS on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests
public comments on the scope of the issues to be addressed in the EIS. All comments
received will be considered during the preparation of the EIS, and addressed as
appropriate.
In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction
and operation of the planned Project under these general headings:
geology and soils;
water resources, including surface waters and groundwater;
wetlands;
1 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register.
Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail and are
available at http://www.ferc.gov using the link called “eLibrary” or from the Commission’s
Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502-
8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the Additional Information
section at the end of this notice.
2 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Commission’s
Office of Energy Projects.
20141104-3006 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/04/2014
Docket No. PF14-14-000 – PAGE 5 –
vegetation, fisheries, and wildlife;
threatened and endangered species;
land use;
socioeconomics;
cultural resources;
air quality and noise;
public safety and reliability; and
cumulative impacts.
We will also evaluate alternatives to the Project, Project components, pipeline
routes, and aboveground facility locations; and make recommendations on how to avoid
or minimize impacts on the various resource areas.
Although no formal application has been filed, we have already initiated our
NEPA review under the Commission’s pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing
process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and
resolve issues before the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review,
we have begun to contact federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the
scoping process and the preparation of the EIS.
The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We will publish and
distribute a draft EIS for public comment. After the comment period, we will consider all
timely comments and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To
ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully
follow the instructions in the Public Participation section below.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special
expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to the Project to formally
cooperate with us in the preparation of the EIS.3 Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided
under the Public Participation section of this notice. Currently, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and Ohio EPA have
expressed their intent to participate as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS
to satisfy their NEPA responsibilities related to this Project. The COE has jurisdictional
authority pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which governs the discharge of
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act, which regulates any work or structures that potentially affect the
navigability of a waterway.
3 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating
agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6.
20141104-3006 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/04/2014
Docket No. PF14-14-000 – PAGE 6 –
Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s implementing
regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this
notice to initiate consultation with the Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia
State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), and to solicit their views and those of other
government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the Project’s potential
effects on historic properties.4 We will define the Project-specific Area of Potential
Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPOs as the Project develops. On natural gas
facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground
disturbance (examples include the construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage
yards, compressor stations, meter stations, and access roads). Our EIS for the Project will
document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of
consultations under Section 106.
Currently Identified Environmental Issues
Based on our preliminary review of the Project; information provided by Rover;
and public comments filed in the Commission’s administrative record and submitted to
staff at the applicant-sponsored open houses; we have identified numerous issues that we
think deserve attention. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your
comments and our ongoing environmental analysis. These issues are:
purpose and need for the Project;
impacts of clearing forested areas and other vegetation;
impacts on water resources including sensitive springs, groundwater, and
wetlands;
impacts on land use including agricultural lands and associated drainage
systems;
the use of eminent domain to obtain Project easements;
impacts on property values and recreational resources;
impacts from construction noise;
pipeline integrity and public safety;
alternatives; and
cumulative impacts.
4 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations are at Title 36, Code
of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those regulations define historic properties as any
prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
20141104-3006 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/04/2014
Docket No. PF14-14-000 – PAGE 7 –
Public Participation
You can make a difference by providing us with your comments about the Project.
Your comments should focus on the potential environmental impacts of the Project,
reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen these environmental impacts.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are considered in a timely manner and properly recorded, please send your
comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before
December 18, 2014.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your
comments to the Commission. In all instances, please refer to the Project docket number
(PF14-14-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of
comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
efiling@ferc.gov.
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature
located on the Commission’s website (www.ferc.gov) under the Documents
and Filings heading. This is an easy method for interested persons to
submit brief, text-only comments on a Project;
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature
located on the Commission’s website (www.ferc.gov) under the Documents
and Filings heading. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety
of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling
users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” You must
select the type of filing you are making. If you are filing a comment on a
particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing;” or
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the
following address:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street NE, Room 1A
Washington, DC 20426
Environmental Mailing List
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government
representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups;
Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This
list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission’s regulations)
who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for
20141104-3006 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/04/2014
Docket No. PF14-14-000 – PAGE 8 –
Project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities,
and anyone who has submitted comments on the Project in the Commission’s
administrative record. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis
proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to
all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the planned Project.
Copies of the draft EIS will be sent to the environmental mailing list for review
and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the EIS instead of the
compact disc version or if you would like to remove your name from the mailing list,
please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
Becoming an Intervenor
Once Rover files an application with the Commission, you may want to become an
“intervenor,” which is an official party to the Commission’s proceeding. Intervenors play
a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be
heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission’s final ruling. An intervenor
formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for
becoming an intervenor can be found under the “Getting Involved” heading of the “For
Citizens” section on the FERC website. Please note that the Commission will not
accept requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the
Commission receives a formal application for the Project.
Additional Information
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission’s
Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov)
using the eLibrary link (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp). Click on the
eLibrary link, click on “General Search,” and enter the docket number, excluding the last
three digits (PF14-14). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FercOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll
free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as
orders, notices, and rulemakings.
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows
you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing
you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the
documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
20141104-3006 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/04/2014
Docket No. PF14-14-000 – 9 –
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission’s calendar
located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related
information.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
20141104-3006 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/04/2014
Docket No. PF14-14-000 Appendix 1
20141104-3006 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/04/2014
Docket No. PF14-14-000 Appendix 2
INFORMATION REQUEST
Rover Pipeline Project
Name
Agency
Address
City State Zip Code
□ Please send me a paper copy of the EIS
□ Please remove my name from the mailing list
20141104-3006 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/04/2014
FROM
ATTN: OEP – Gas Branch 3, PJ – 11.3
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20426
(Docket No. PF14-14-000, Rover Pipeline Project)
Staple or Tape Here
20141104-3006 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 11/04/2014
Document Content(s)
PF14-14-000 NOV 4 2014.DOC……………………………………..1-12
Does anyone have feedback on the FERC scoping meetings that have been held?