Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20140957 Ver 1_USACE 02052015 Pre-App Notes_20150205Burdette, Jennifer a From: Gibby, Jean B SAW <Jean.B.Gibby @usace.army.mil> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 3:42 PM To: Sandra.H.Williams @dom.com; Spencer Trichell; Brown, Craig J SAW; john_ellis @fws.gov; Burdette, Jennifer a; Graham, James; Greer, Emily C SAW; Beter, Dale E SAW Subject: Notes from Today's Meeting with Dominion (UNCLASSIFIED) Attachments: 5 February 2014.docx Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Here are the meeting minutes, so please take a look and if you have any questions, I will be more than happy to clarify. Enjoy, Jean Jean B. Gibby Chief, Raleigh Field Office U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Wake Forest, NC 27587 (919) 554 -4884, Ext. 24 The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at http : / /regulatory.usacesurvey.com /. Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE 1 5 February 2014 Team members present: John Ellis- USFWS, Spencer Trichell - Natural Resource Group, Sandy - Dominion, Jennifer Burdette and James Graham -DWR, Jean Gibby, Craig Brown, Kyle Dahl and Emily Greer -Corps Handouts - survey progress of NC- approximately 80% of NC delineations completed - wetlands and stream along the Meherrin River -20" lateral that goes out to Chesapeake and requires siting of compressor station in NC at tie -in; moved line due to the Nature Conservancy's concerns pertaining to ecological significance, line is co- located with another line to reduce forest fragmentation; 12 miles of line is now in NC; crosses the river close to another transmission line Project description was done last meeting; Resource 1 (project overview - states Purpose and Need for the project) and Resource Report 10 -draft submitted to FERC (alternatives analysis- systems and some fine alternative issue) FERC open houses occurred in January; currently working on Notice of Intent for around March - Scoping Meetings to occur in March; Craig talked with Steve Gibson and he wants them to mention the extent of jurisdictional impacts; We are past the pre - filing; Steve wants these included -Sandy will look at these; haven't done this issue since the route is not finalized. FERC will do an EIS and maybe we will not have to do one if FERC's document covers our We (Corps) are in the beginning process of working ST -300' survey corridor for; crossing is 75' within the 300' corridor; FERC has a requirement to neck it down at streams to 75'; how much acreage if line was to go right into the center; might be able to allow line to move; these are just the crossings, but wetlands have been delineated within the 300' corridor. On the wetland table, if it states NWI, then they have interpolated and used NHD data to determine the streams (page 7 about 4 -5 from the bottom as an example); two different tables - wetland and waterbodies; if it shows as NWI, likely have not been there yet. NAO is taking the lead on the project and Sandy indicated that he has not spoken to him. ST -what does it mean when he is taking the lead; CB -not clarified to him as to what is Steve's role is in the process; Tom called Huntington, Pittsburgh and Wilmington DUE OUT -we need to establish a coordination meeting with all parties Project schedule -field surveys -80% complete -green represents where it is complete and gray is not complete - Cumberland due to Fayetteville -it is an area where there is heavy residential versus the rural areas -one person doesn't want the project and it spreads), Johnston, etc. because of re- route; were over 90 %; around milepost 342 - undocumented landfill and lost survey progress in this area as well. CB -when are you ready for us to go out in the field; a week heads up, end of February is when we can begin looking; JE- appears that you are further along than presented in yesterday's meeting; ST -still looking at moving routes within the 300' study area, but cultural resources result in relocation to 0.25 mile; Sandy -if you have a ME polygon and they need to go outside the 300' corridor; ST -don't know if David has done much with on -site' CB -it is on our mapping program, but other resource agencies can't tap into our data; ST -he has the wetland boundary -on a ARC GIS program; is there something that USFWS can access -ST we have shared shape files with USFWS. Sandy hasn't gotten to on -site relocations within the corridor. CB -James will be making stream calls for project for DWR ROW typical construction drawings handed out to team; 42" non - agricultural vs. agricultural areas; not much 42" in NC, primarily 36" through NC; 75' back of the third sheet shows 36" ROW configuration; FERC has their plans and procedures, can sidecast material in wetlands provided material would not be dispersed; excavate and then put it back in sequence. ST- Typical wetland crossing -neck it down to 75' from 100'; setback of 50' from the wetland or waterbody; CB -What is typical work zone -75' + 50'; if closer than 50'- Dominion has to get a variance and Sandy mentioned that has not historically happened -ST -if you turn a couple of more pages -get to stream crossing techniques; small tributaries- -Have 5 crews working NC since July -5 crew leaders that they can put with each of our folks; CB -would like whoever delineated the site; ST -could do 2 miles; that crew moved on and then somebody else moved on; Jake Duncan out of SC worked with the Brames; -how would Emily like to do delineation review -a couple of days; CB -not 5 days; maybe 2 -3 days a week; -is it going to be IP or NW -CB -looks like we are involved in the FERC process; all issues are -is the Corps a cooperating agency yet? Don't know if -FERC is in the NOI -Kevin Bowman is the lead for FERC; -SW- haven't gotten to Pittsburgh and Huntington yet - presently working from the middle out; SW- verifications can be done in the south; hard to do in Huntington and Pittsburgh and Steve will be ok until they get to the Blue Ridge JE -site visits - getting to look at stream sites for ME species issues; that is the bigger major crossings -key creeks that have sensitive species DWR will likely look with Corps for delineation purposes - Jennifer will handle permit SW -will proceed as if the project is going to be an IP and if it can proceed under a NW, then they will be good to go; -James doesn't need to see the wetlands, just the streams -so that will alter how we proceed with delineation review -first 8 pages show ROW configuration -the bigger the pipe, the bigger the corridor; special areas where you need extra space for stockpiling of topsoil; wetland crossing -spoil and topsoil would only occur when it is dry -if wet, have to stockpile outside of the wetland; page 9 -plan view of wetland crossing - FERC will not allow a crossing without a variance 75' in a wetland and has an offset of 50'; if there is a condition to minimize that would require a variance; next page- stream and road crossing; when you get over to page 15, get to the stream crossing techniques -open cut method - method is used the least because as you are trenching the water is there and hard to control erosion and sedimentation; flume pipe method; sand bag cofferdam with culvert and a mobile bridge (timber mats), dry up the stream bed and excavate the trench under the flume pipe -dig the trench and install in one motion typically within 48 hours and pipe and bags would be removed; pg. 17 — pump around -dam it off and pump the water around workspace; HDD- horizontal directional drill -can't be used on the smaller crossing as pipe can't bend but so much and has to be pulled through in one motion; have to be away from stream 400' crossings requires 4000' of pipe welded together -can be problematic; great cost with HDD; generally the geology is a limitation on that; frack outs are problematic with this technique; jack and bore -two pits dug deeper than pipe- maximum is 300'; it is something that could be used where mussels might be an issue -steep slopes can prevent the hole from being dug deep enough; engineering folks will determine which works best in light of resource concerns as well; CB -what about some of the larger wetlands -will you drilled; ST -some will be drilled as it is difficult to work in the wetlands on the larger stream /river systems; SW- challenge with HDD- staging is the issue with enough uplands on either side; if you get the space, might have wetlands in the area where staging would need to occur; cost can be an issue, but logistics are a big issue; JE- HDD ? -ST -they will do geotech -the hydraulic head will force up mud in an uncontrolled manner and could show up 0.25 -0.5 mile away; while trenching is more intrusive, one can see any issues with installation SW- experienced contractors will be installing JG -how do you detect the uncontrolled releases - circulating the mud (clay - bentonite) and they monitor the pressure; ST -if geotechnical doesn't determine it is feasible; EG -when the JD information is sent in, please go ahead and sign the PJD form and fill out the table associated where you put each individual feature -CB -sent to ST; Emily needs it for her counties; one PJD form and it has a table on it where for her three counties with coordinates and then one for Craig's area of responsibility -PJD Review -will begin scheduling those and getting the contractors out; SW -who will be contacting who; ST -will coordinate and copy Sandra on the site reviews; let the consultants know that Emily would like the information sent via email -JD request -will get information from Spencer; EG is two months out and CB is three weeks out; CB will coordinate the streams and will work with JG on that; the southern counties -Chad Turlington out of Fayetteville -most likely the April timeframe for southern counties; stay away from Monday and Friday if possible; -ST -FERC Pre - filing status - resource reports as drafts -2 -9 go in April 2015; report with water resources; application submittal around August 2015 (likely the end of August); CB -don't know Sandra - supply header -there are two projects integrally tied together here; Dominion, Duke, AGL, and PNG takes gas from WV; to get volume of gas; another project will be bringing gas from PN -new compressor stations, some looping to get volume; must all be built as a single and complete project; Duke and Dominion have the larger components of the project; lateral is for AGL; two different applicants and FERC will combine the information together with Atlantic and then Supply Header; applications will be separate, but one document at the end of the day due to the fact that they integrally tied together; there has not been a decision as to whether - meetings in Charlottesville -Tom wanted Kevin Bowman there; Jean will send an email to Tom requesting when the meeting of all interested parties could occur -CB- applicability of NW permit -ST- talked the last time, loss of waters of the US, conversion isn't calculate towards loss, CB -not a loss, but it is an impact; CB- access roads that are permanent -FERC would require a good reason to put the compressor station in a wetland; for construction -big temporary access; valve sites above ground and need permanent access and are generally outside of the 300' corridor; roads through the woods (50' corridor), farm roads, ST -look to give them enough room; pretty easy because they can walk the roads and will be done concurrently with the field verifications; ST -have potential access roads delineated and which they decide to use and some will be omitted. Three compressor stations -one in WV at beginning -one in VA and the one in Northhampton County; valves can be spaced to get out of wetlands; SW -looks at the layout of the compressor station; ST- general rule is an access road every mile for temporary access - usually a farm road can get you; SW -very few roads are kept as permanent roads Conversion impacts- forested to emergent -10' centered on the pipe; 75' construction footprint; FERC requires 10' centered on the pipe -30' corridor minus 10 herbaceous; outside of that 30' the trees can regrow; herbaceous maintenance and it is mechanized or handclearing -no chemicals; wetland and riparian areas; would maintain the full width of the corridor- 50 -75'; agricultural areas will continue their practices over the pipeline; no structures allowed within ROW ST- continuing conversion -30' would be the compensatory mitigation; PA does it differently and it is likely to be decided at the summit. SW -how is each state going to address compensatory mitigation; ST- would likely be determined by each district; 401 connection is different in each state; those things need to get discussed; the permanent impacts would elevate and it is an incentive to continue to keep under the threshold. -ST- expiring NWPs, theoretically if they get the 1 year extension -April 2018 -Dec 2018; can't extend, but have about 1 year to 18 months; there have been legal challenges; Keystone South -was not a FERC regulated project and Sierra Club stated that they didn't advise the public. SW- likely to be evaluated long and hard and can see how it develops and how they approach it; worst case scenario would be IP at the end of NWs, if necessary. ST- Independent utility - Supply Header -ACP discussion; FERC is lead federal agency; if Corps; can we adopt the FERC EA -yes, provided we are a cooperating agency and the only problem would be if we had a concern about the alternatives analysis and we mentioned our concerns and that information was not addressed, then we might have to do a supplement. ST- discussed alternatives analysis -once engineering decides where they wish to put it then they ST will coordinate shifting of the corridor; discussed public notice, and review schedule EG -we want to comment on review document when finalized. 401 and buffers -JB- perpendicular crossings; James may pass off some of the workload to Cherri Smith (Wilson County) and Autumn Romanski for Halifax and Northampton. ST- streams are broken down by HUC 8- EG -are there no buffers on the Cape -JB -no buffer rules for Cape Fear JB- rather preliminary to decide whether there JE -will talk with FWS about coordination with other district folks and if anybody wished to join to find out about ME surveys, then Corps and DWR are welcome to join. EG -when will the big meeting occur ? -JG will send an email to Tom Walker tomorrow requesting when the meeting will occur.